Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
1. In the third year &c.] Whether this is historically correct is doubtful. Jehoiakim’s reign lasted eleven years (b.c. 608 597); and the Book of Jeremiah (Jer 25:1) equates his fourth year with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Early in the same year (if the date in Jer 46:2 is correct [171] ) there had taken place the great defeat of the Egyptians by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish on the Upper Euphrates, the effect of which was to transfer the whole (virtually) of Western Asia from the power of Egypt to that of Babylon (cf. Jer 25:9-11; Jer 25:18-26; Jer 46:25 f.; 2Ki 24:7). We learn, now, from Berosus ( ap. Josephus, Ant. x. xi. 1) that in this campaign Nebuchadnezzar was acting on behalf of his father, Nabopolassar, who was too infirm to conduct the war himself: ‘hearing soon afterwards of his father’s death, and having arranged the affairs of Egypt and the remaining country (i.e. Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, mentioned just before), and committed the Judaean, Phoenician, and Syrian prisoners, as well as those of the nations in Egypt, to some of his friends to convoy to Babylon with the heavy part of his army, he himself hastened home across the desert accompanied only by a few attendants.’ Although Judahite captives are here mentioned, nothing is said of any siege of Jersalem; and the terms in which Jeremiah speaks, not only in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 25:9 ff.), but also in his fifth year (Jer 36:29, see Dan 1:9), seem to imply that a Chaldaean invasion of Judah was still in the future (Ewald, Hist., iv. 257, n. 5, Keil), and that Jehoiakim had not already, in his third year, fallen into Neb.’s hands [172] .
[171] See the Introduction, p. xlix.
[172] The invasion of Judah by Neb., and the three years’ submission of Jehoiakim, mentioned in 2Ki 24:1-2, are also certainly to be placed after Jehoiakim’s fourth year most probably, indeed, towards the close of his reign (cf. Ewald, l. c.).
According to Josephus ( Ant. x. vi. 1) Neb., after the battle of Carchemish, ‘acquired possession of the whole of Syria, as far as Pelusium, except Judah ’; and only made Jehoiakim tributary four years afterwards (2Ki 24:1).
On the other hand, in the summary of Jehoiakim’s reign which, in 2Ch 36:6-7, takes the place of 2Ki 24:1-4, we read, ‘Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. And some of the vessels of the house of Jehovah brought Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon; and he put them in his palace in Babylon’: but the year in which this invasion took place is not specified; and a statement which rests on the authority of the Chronicler alone, and is not supported by contemporary testimony, is of slight value. It bears witness, however, to the existence, at about 300 b.c., of a tradition respecting an attack upon Jerusalem, and the carrying away of a part of the sacred vessels of the Temple, during Jehoiakim’s reign, which is also no doubt the basis of Dan 1:1-2. The tradition, it must be owned, wears the appearance of being a Haggadic development of 2Ki 24:1. Those who defend the accuracy of the statement of Daniel sometimes (Hengst., Keil, Zckler) understand (‘came’), with reference to the starting-point, virtually as equivalent to set out, sometimes suppose that Nebuchadnezzar made an attack upon Jerusalem either (Hvernick, Pusey, p. 401) the year before the battle of Carchemish, or (Behrmann, p. xvii) after it, but that more serious consequences were for the time averted by Jehoiakim’s timely submission, and the surrender of some of the valuable vessels of the Temple. The first of these explanations is opposed to Heb. usage; the second, though possible in the abstract, is not strategically probable; the third, though it cannot be categorically rejected, seems scarcely consistent with what appears, from other indications, to have been the historical situation at the time. Cf. Ewald, iv. 264, n. 2.
Nebuchadnezzar ] So Dan 1:18, and uniformly in this book. The more correct form of the name is Nebuchad r ezzar (properly Nab-kudurriuur, i.e. (probably) ‘Nebo, protect [Heb. ] the boundary!’), which is the one usually found in contemporary writers, as Jer 21:2; Jer 21:7 (and generally in Jer.); Jer 26:7; Jer 29:18-19; Jer 29:30 [173] .
[173] The incorrect form with n is found in Jeremiah 27-29 (except Jer 29:21: see Baer’s note on Jer 21:2); in 2 Kings 24-25; and in Chr., Ezr., Neb., Est.
king of Babylon ] Nebuchadnezzar did not become ‘king of Babylon’ until after the battle of Carchemish, in Jehoiakim’s fourth year (Jer 25:1; Jer 46:2), so that the title must be used here (as in Jer 46:2) proleptically. There is no authority in either Berosus or the Inscriptions for the supposition sometimes made that Nebuchadnezzar was associated on the throne by his father, Nabopolassar.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem – This event occurred, according to Jahn (History of the Hebrew Commonwealth), in the year 607 b.c., and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, 2Ki 22:2; 2Ch 35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, 2Ki 23:30; 2Ch 36:1. He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, 2Ki 23:34; 2Ch 36:4.
Jehoahaz was first imprisoned in Riblah, 2Ki 23:33, and was afterward removed to Egypt, 2Ch 36:4. Jehoiakim, an unworthy son of Josiah, was, in reality, as he is represented by Jeremiah, one of the worst kings who reigned over Judah. His reign continued eleven years, and as he came to the throne 611 b.c., his reign continued to the year 600 b.c. In the third year of his reign, after the battle of Megiddo, Pharaoh-nechoh undertook a second expedition against Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, with a numerous army, drawn in part from Western Africa, Lybia and Ethiopia. – Jahns Hist. Heb. Commonwealth, p. 134. This Nabopolassar, who is also called Nebuchadnezzar I, was at this time, as Berosus relates, aged and infirm. He therefore gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Nechoh out of Asia. The victorious prince marched directly to Jerusalem, which was then under the sovereignty of Egypt. After a short siege Jehoiakim surrendered, and was again placed on the throne by the Babylonian prince.
Nebuchadnezzar took part of the furniture of the temple as booty, and carried back with him to Babylon several young men, the sons of the principal Hebrew nobles, among whom were Daniel and his three friends referred to in this chapter. It is not improbable that one object in conveying them to Babylon was that they might be hostages for the submission and good order of the Hebrews in their own land. It is at this time that the Babylonian sovereignty over Judah commences, commonly called the Babylonian captivity, which, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer 25:1-14; Jer 29:10, was to continue seventy years. In Jer 25:1; Jer 46:2, it is said that this was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim; in the passage before us it is said that it was the third year. This difference, says Jahn, arises from a different mode of computation: Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the first (and such a mode of reckoning is not uncommon), but Daniel, neglecting the incomplete year, numbers one less: For a more full and complete examination of the objection to the genuineness of Daniel from this passage, I would refer to Prof. Stuart on Daniel, Excursus I. (See App. I. to this Vol.)
And besieged it – Jerusalem was a strongly-fortified place, and it was not easy to take it, except as the result of a siege. It was, perhaps, never carried by direct and immediate assault. Compare 2Ki 25:1-3, for an account of a siege of Jerusalem a second time by Nebuchadnezzar. At that time the city was besieged about a year and a half. How long the siege here referred to continued is not specified.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 1:1-3
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah.
The Captivity
Jehoiakim was the son of one of the best kings that ever sat upon the throne of David. His father, Josiah, was a fearer of the Lord from his youth. In a period of great degeneracy, he was enabled to live a holy and consistent life. Convinced that religion is the true source of national prosperity, and that sin is the procuring cause of national calamity, Josiah exerted his royal influence to promote the revival of godliness among his subjects. The land, however, was ripe for vengeance, and in wrath against it the days of this excellent prince were shortened. He was taken away from the evil to come. In the flower of his days, he was slain in the battle of Megiddo, while fighting against Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt. After the death of Josiah, his son Jehoahaz was raised to the throne. This appointment being offensive to the king of Egypt, he deposed Jehoahaz, after a reign of three months, and selected, as his successor on the throne of Judah, Eliakim, another son of Josiah, who, on that occasion, had his name changed into Jehoiakim. The exaltation of such a prince to the throne, in so corrupt a state of society, was a token that judgment was nigh. So early as the third year of his reign, the land was overtaken by the first stroke of calamity. The minister of Divine indignation was Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. From the days of Manasseh, the land of Judea was tributary to Babylon. But when Pharaoh-Necho conquered Josiah, he obtained the superiority of Judea. Babylon and Egypt were then rival monarchies, struggling with one another for the ascendancy of the world. When, therefore, Nabopolassar king of Babylon heard that Pharaoh had taken Jerusalem and other towns in Palestine, he resolved to make an effort for their recovery. Through age and infirmity, being unable to head such an enterprise in person, he assumed Nebuchadnezzar his son into partnership with him in the empire, and sent him into Syria. Having conquered the Egyptians on the Euphrates, he marched into Judea and took Jerusalem. Secular history is generally written, just as it would have been, if no agent had the least influence on the affairs of the world, besides those who are visible to our senses. It traces the actions of man, as if man was all. It takes no notice, or but little notice, of God. But Scripture history is written on a different plan. It begins with God, as the creator of the world, and throughout, it exhibits him as its governor, everywhere present, and always operating. In an especial manner, it traces all the revolutions that take place in kingdoms–their origin–their progress–their decline and fall–to his sovereign and holy will, as the ultimate cause. And the Lord gave into his hand Jehoiakim king of Judah,–a mode of expression which signifies that Divine displeasure was the true and proper cause of this calamity. In a period of defection from God, superstition often usurps the place of religion. When men have ceased to confide in God himself, they often place their confidence in something pertaining to him, and trust in it for protection from danger. To reprove such a spirit, God usually permits that in which they confide to fall into the enemys hand. But while they had no confidence in God, they placed the most overweening confidence in the temple. They thought, that so long as it remained among them, they was safe. In one of the earlier messages of Jeremiah, God warned them against this delusion (Jer 4:4; Jer 4:12-14). This threatening God now began to execute. Literally, judgment began at the house of God. Having entered the temple, Nebuchadnezzar carried away part of the vessels of the Lords house. These he took into the land of Shinar, the ancient name of the region in which Babylon was situated, and placed them in the treasure-house of his god. Considering the place from which these vessels had been taken, and to whose service they had been consecrated for ages, they may certainly be regarded as one of the most remarkable trophies that ever a conqueror presented at the shrine of his deity. But victories obtained over Gods people, when they are also triumphs over God himself, will in the end be found pregnant with disaster. Thus, when the Philistines took the ark captive, God glorified himself in a very remarkable manner. And, when he summons the nations to the overthrow of Babylon, one reason mentioned is, to take vengeance on her for what she had done to his temple. Make bright the arrows; gather the shields; the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes; for his device is against Babylon to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple. In a subsequent chapter of the Book of Daniel, we shall meet again with these vessels, and see them prostituted, by an impious monarch, to bacchanalian purposes. Jerusalem was taken in the third year of Jehoiakim. We are not, however, to suppose that this was the end of his reign. Having humbled himself, and promised to pay tribute to the king of Babylon, he was restored to his throne, and reigned seven years. Having then rebelled a second time, Jerusalem was again taken, and he bound in chains, to be carried to Babylon, but died by the way. The final overthrow of Jerusalem did not take place till the eleventh year of Zedekiahs reign, about eighteen years after this period. When we consider that the sins of the Jewish people were so numerous, varied, and aggravated, and that they had been accumulating for ages, it might have been expected, that they would have suffered the seventy years of threatened captivity, from the time when the final stroke of vengeance came upon them, in the reign of Zedekiah. But, for the sake of the elect, the days were shortened. The seventy years of the Babylonian captivity did not begin when the temple was destroyed, but when the vessels of the temple were taken away–not when the nation was removed, but when Daniel and a few others of noble birth were carried into Babylon.
I. Nebuchadnezzar invested Jerusalem, and took it, by the union of his own skill, and the courage of his army, and yet it is here said, the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand. From this, we may learn, that there is a twofold agency concerned in all the events that take place in this world,–the agency of man on the earth, and the agency of God in the heavens. This twofold agency, however, is not co-ordinate. God and man are not possessed of equal efficiency in the production of events, Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, but it is the Lord who gives Jehoiakim into his hand. Jehovah is the God of gods, and the King of kings, the First Cause of all events, as well as the First Cause of all beings. Men may form their plans, and gratify their passions, with the most entire freedom from all control, and yet they will only do what God determined before to be done. This is the fundamental truth of religion, whether natural or revealed; the denial of which shows as great a lack of philosophy, as of piety. If the material, or intelligent, creation, was in any respect independent of God, this would sap every rational ground of confidence and composure. I know few duties more necessary to be inculcated, than this, of connecting outward events with the Divine government. Jehovah is, to a great extent, practically deposed from his throne of providence. Even many who profess to believe in his supremacy, put a reed into his hand for a sceptre. Speculations on the state of the world too generally overlook the influence of God in the affairs that are occurring. In contemplating the world and its affairs, we should beware of looking only to the hand of man. Let us look beyond the creature, to the Creator.
II. The political causes, that led to the overthrow of Jerusalem, are apparent to all. These causes are not stated in the Book of Daniel. They are, however, fully developed in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. In mentioning irreligion, as the radical cause of Gods controversy with Judea, it is unnecessary to produce proofs of the assertion from Scripture. While the outward forms remained, there was such a want of true godliness, that Jehovah loathed and abhorred his own ordinances. And, when a people cease to fear God, or decline in this, their national character will begin to lower. They will cease to be distinguished for those loftier sentiments, which have their origin in the more strictly spiritual department of human nature, and which, more than anything else, tend to cherish wisdom, courage, genius, and patriotism. When the religious feeling of a country begins to decline, it will be marked by a growing disregard for Gods holy day. Sabbath desecration is placed prominently among the causes of Gods wrath against Judah. Religion is the parent and the nurse of all genuine morality. As might have been expected, from the low state of religion, we find the prevalence of immorality stated as one cause of this calamity that came upon Judea. Run ye, said God to Jeremiah, to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it (Jer 5:1-6). Zephaniah in like manner representsthe corruption of manners as extending to all classes. Her princes within her, says he, are roaring lions, her judges are ravening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons; her priests have polluted the sanctuary and done violence to the law. There are some sins particularized by all the prophets. Among these none is mentioned more frequently than deceit. With the prevalence of this the prophet Jeremiah was so affected, that at the beginning of the ninth chapter of his book, he breaks forth in these heart-rending strains, O that mine head were waters, etc. (Jer 9:1-8). Covetousness is specified as another sin (Jer 6:12-13). Covetousness is represented as producing fraudulent dealing, and corrupting the sources of justice, because of which the Lord was displeased (Mic 6:10-11). Pride and luxury are also mentioned (Isa 3:16-24). The prevalence of immorality, and particularly, the prevalence of deceit, covetousness, and luxury, may, generally, be considered as symptomatic of the last stage of nations. These operate disastrously in two ways. First, They expose to danger, because they are offensive to God. Secondly, They operate, naturally, to produce a dissolution of the social body. Luxury has the same influence on the social health, that an Asiatic climate has upon an European frame; it enervates and debilitates, and causes premature decay, and death.
And deceit is like a secret poison, pent up within the bowels of the empire, and gliding fatally, yet imperceptibly, through its veins. And covetousness is like a vulture preying on a diseased and disabled victim, while its blood is still warm, and its breath has not gone forth. And general immorality is like begun mortification, a disease that has no successor in the list of maladies. Irreligion and immorality, when combined, never fail to produce a bitter and malignant aversion to the cause of holiness and truth, and to their adherents. Before the overthrow of Jerusalem, the spirit of irreligion did not exist in a state of apathy. It was roused to great fierceness; it stood forth in the form of malignant contumacy, and defiance against the Lord. His warnings were rejected, his denunciations were scorned, his prophets were persecuted.
III. We shall only mention two things illustrative of the circumstances in which the captivity came.
1. The overthrow of the Jewish state came gradually. Manasseh was first carried captive, then Josiah was slain in battle, Jerusalem was then taken four times by the enemy, twice in the days of Jehoiakim, again in the days of his son, and finally in the reign of Zedekiah. From this we may learn, that national destruction is sometimes a gradual thing. It comes in successive shocks, some at a greater interval, and others at a lesser interval. We are not to suppose, because the sins mentioned prevail in any land, that it shall be instantly overthrown. It is with nations as with individuals,–the impenitent person shall perish, but God may spare him to a good old age. Caution is, therefore, necessary, lest we should commit the honour of Christianity, as good men have often done, by denouncing judgment as certainly at hand. Sin will assuredly Bring it; but the times and the seasons are in the Fathers hands.
2. A second thing very observable is, that before each of these successive shocks of national disaster, God made use of means to promote the reformation of the country. Before the calamities that came upon the land, in the days of Manasseh, godly Hezekiah, had endeavoured, during a lifetime, to promote a revival of true religion. The reign of Josiah immediately preceded this disaster in the days of Jehoiakim. In the interval between the death of Josiah and the destruction of the temple, they were warned by divinely-commissioned prophets. Among others, God employed Jeremiah, a man in whose character, zeal for God was finely united with tenderness to man. And it has been Gods ordinary way, to use means for reforming nations, before their overthrow. The flood came and swept away the ungodly world, but did not God give them warning? Nineveh was not overthrown till she was called to repentance by the ministry of Jonah. If Gods government be a moral government, then moral evil must be the cause of all physical sufferings, and of all political difficulties. Moral evil is the crime, the political evil is the punishment. Moral evil is the disease, political evil is but the symptom. (William White.)
The Judean Captives
I. INTRODUCTORY. Nebuchadnezzar is called king, but he was not yet the reigning sovereign of Babylon. He shared the throne in conjunction with his father Nabopolassar. His accession to the sole sovereignty was some two or three years later (compare chapter 1, Dan 1:5, with Dan 1:18, and chapter 2, Dan 2:1). This captivity is here said to have taken place during the third year of Jehoiakim, while Jeremiah (Jer 25:1) places it in the fourth. Both statements are true. Daniel reckons the three completed years. Jeremiah the fourth upon which Jehoiakim had just entered. There were three deportations of the Jews in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; this–the first–in 606 B.C., a second in 598 B.C., and the third when Jerusalem was destroyed in 588 B.C. This captivity appears to consist of nothing more than a number of hostages carried to Babylon, among whom was Daniel and his three friends, whose history, more particularly of the first, is given in this book.
II. THE CAPTIVES.
1. They were of noble birth. They were selected of the kings seed and of the princes. Daniel himself was probably of the blood-royal, as we learn in 1Ch 3:1, that David had a son of that name. Josephus says he was the son of Zedekiah. It was a sad day at Jerusalem when the most promising of the young nobility, in whom the hopes of the nation were centred, were carried away captive to Babylon.
2. They were distinguished by personal beauty. The orientals connected a handsome form with mental power. This, alas! is not always true. Neither spirituality nor intellect appears to be partial to beautiful tenements; but sometimes the purest gem is found in the commonest setting. When Socrates, now an elderly man, becomes acquainted with Charmides, the loveliest youth in Athens, he is so deeply touched by the charms of this paragon that at first he knows not what to say. Recovering his self-possession, however, the sage speaks worthily of himself, telling Charmides that the fairest form needs one addition to make the man perfect–a noble soul. History makes it more than doubtful whether the, Grecian did not fail here; but about the Jewish youth there is no doubt whatever. (John Taylor.)
The Jewish traditions represent Daniel as a tall, spare man, with a beautiful expression.
3. They were intelligent and well instructed. They are represented as skilful in wisdom, cunning in knowledge, and understanding science: by which is probably meant that they had been well taught in the knowledge of their day and had discovered an aptitude for deep studies. The Babylonian king designed to induct them into all the lore of the Chaldeans, in order to wean them away from the worship of God and make them subverters of Israels national faith. If, therefore, they should be the future prophets of heathenism to their own people, it was necessary that they should be skilful and wise; and if he, indeed, had any such ulterior designs, it must be confessed he chose his instruments well. But there was an element in their previous training which he either overlooked or held too cheaply. If a Jewish youth was taught in science and earthly knowledge, he was yet far better instructed in the truths of his religion. Nebuchadnezzar will find it difficult to eradicate this deeply-planted faith; and the issue will show that, with four of them at least, he makes lamentable failure.
4. They were very young. But God can strengthen the hearts of the young and make the mouths of babes and sucklings to render him praise. Doubtless many a mother, parting with her offspring and sending them forth into life, or to the temptations of collegiate halls, can find comfort in this reflection.
III. THE PROSPECTS OF THESE CAPTIVES. Considered from a world-standpoint there were two sides to their future. There were elements of deep sorrow, and elements which might be regarded by some as mitigations of their lot.
1. They were exiles. This word is enough to excite our sympathies. So long as the sentiment of patriots remains, exile will be among the saddest of words. But chiefly to the Jew was exile a bitter misfortune. Not only patriotic sentiments, but religious, contributed to darken the life of one who was borne away from his loved Jerusalem, where stood that Holy Temple in its glorious beauty, the visible centre of the worship of Jehovah. Some of the psalms of the captivity reveal the depth of this great sorrow to a Jew, particularly that beautiful song: By the rivers of Babylon (Psa 137:1-9).
2. They were cut off from hope of posterity. They were significantly given into the care of the prince of the eunuchs, and the ordinary practice of oriental courts leaves us little doubt of their fate. This, moreover, had been prophesied (2Ki 20:18).
3. They were to be taught all the wisdom of the Chaldeans. No doubt much of the Chaldaic learning was valueless, but it is undeniable that they cultivated many useful arts and sciences. Daniel and his friends would learn new languages unfolding to them new literature. They would be trained in arts of divination by which they could obtain power over kings, and princes, and the common people. They would be taught the science of astronomy, which at that day the Chaldeans had carried beyond any people. They would be educated in the science of politics, rendering them necessary to rulers as advisers. All this knowledge would of itself give them caste among this new people, would elevate them to position and power.
4. They were to occupy honourable positions in the court of the king. This opens up many prospects which might fire the ambitions of youth. We can well imagine, then, that if these had been godless youths this prospect of power, stimulating their ambitions, might have suited to offset the horrors of exile; yet we may be sure that there was not one of them who would not have given all the wealth and splendour of Nebuchadnezzars court for one brief day on the hills of Judea, among the comrades of their childhood.
IV. A LESSON. The prince, their keeper, shall endeavour to make of these Jewish captives, Chaldean sages, and he begins this endeavour by changing their names. These four are named for the four chief deities of Babylon. Bel–the Chief-god, the Sun-god, the Earth-god, and the Fire-god. To renderthis change of character and religion complete all their external relations are correspondingly changed, and a whole new set of influences are brought to bear upon them. And yet, change what they would, they could not reach the heart. It is beyond mans power to do that. How powerless man stands before the spirit of his fellows! (The Southern Pulpit.)
Affairs in Judea
From 2Ki 23:34-36, we learn that Jehoiakim was raised to the throne of Judah by Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt. He continued tributary to Egypt three years, but in his fourth year, which was the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, a great battle was fought near the Euphrates between the Egyptian and Babylonian kings, and the Egyptian army was defeated. This victory placed all Syria under the Chaldean government; and thus Jehoiakim, who had been tributary to Egypt, now became a vassal of the King of Babylon. (Jer 25:1; Jer 46:2; 2Ki 24:1). After three years, the King of Judah rebelled against the King of Babylon, who came against Jerusalem, and besieged and took it, as soon as his engagements with other wars allowed him to direct his attention to Jewish affairs. The land of Shinar was the ancient name of Babylon. (W A. Scott, D.D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL
Chronological Notes relative to the commencement of Daniel’s prophesying
-Year from the Creation, according to Archbishop Usher, 3397.
-Year of the Jewish era of the world, 3154.
-Year from the Deluge, 1741.
-Second year of the forty-third Olympiad.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to the Varronian or generally received account, 147.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Cato and the Fasti Consulares, 146.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Polybius the historian, 145.
-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 411.
-Year of the Julian Period, 4107.
-Year of the era of Nabonassar, 141.
-Year from the foundation of Solomon’s temple, 397.
-Year since the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, 114.
-Fourth year after the first Sabbatic year after the seventeenth Jewish jubilee, according to Helvicus.
-Year before the birth of Christ, 603.
-Year before the vulgar era of Christ’s nativity, 607.
-Cycle of the Sun, 19.
-Cycle of the Moon, 3.
-Tenth year of Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of the Romans.
-Nineteenth year of Cyaxares or Cyaraxes, the fourth king of Media.
-Forty-fourth year of Archidamus, king of Lacedaemon, of the family of the Proclidae.
-First year of Leon, king of Lacedaemon, of the family of Eurysthenidae.
-Thirteenth year of Alyattes II., king of Lydia, and father of the celebrated Croesus.
-Thirty-fourth year of Philip, the sixth king of Macedon.
-Eleventh year of Pharaoh-necho, called Necus by Herodotus. This king was the immediate predecessor of Psammis; and Psammis was succeeded by the celebrated Pharaoh-hophra, called also Apries.
-Eighth year of Ithobalus, king of the Tyrains, according to Helvicus.
-Third year (ending) of Jehoiakim, king of Judah; for the principal part of A.M. 3397 corresponded to the fourth year of this prince.
CHAPTER I
This chapter begins with giving a short account of
Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Judea, when Jehoiakim became
tributary to him; and consequently the seventy years’ captivity
and vassalage began, 1, 2.
On this expedition (taking Egypt in his way) the king of Babylon
set out towards the end of the third year of Jehoiakim, but did
not take Jerusalem before the ninth month of the year following.
Hence the seeming discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah,
(Jer 25:1,)
the one computing from the time of his setting out on the
expedition, and the other from the time in which the purpose of
it was accomplished. We have next an account of the manner in
which Daniel and his companions were brought up at the king’s
court, 3-7.
They reject the daily provision of meat granted by the king,
lest they should be defiled, and are allowed to live on pulse,
8-16.
Their great proficiency in the wisdom of that time, 17-20.
Daniel flourishes till the reign of Cyrus the Persian, 21.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Verse 1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim] This king was raised to the throne of Judea in the place of his brother Jehoahaz, by Pharaoh-necho, king of Egypt, 2Kg 23:34-36, and continued tributary to him during the first three years of his reign; but in the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 25:1, Nebuchadnezzar completely defeated the Egyptian army near the Euphrates, Jer 46:2; and this victory put the neighbouring countries of Syria, among which Judea was the chief, under the Chaldean government. Thus Jehoiakim, who had first been tributary to Egypt, became now the vassal of the king of Babylon, 2Kg 24:1.
At the end of three years Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who, then occupied with other wars, did not proceed against Jerusalem till three years after, which was the eleventh and last of Jehoiakim, 2Kg 23:36.
There are some difficulties in the chronology of this place. Calmet takes rather a different view of these transactions. He connects the history thus: Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, finding that one of his lords whom he had made governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia had revolted from him, and formed an alliance with the king of Egypt, sent Nebuchadnezzar his son, whom he invested with the authority of king, to reduce those provinces, as was customary among the easterns when the heir presumptive was sent on any important expedition or embassy. This young prince, having quelled the insurrection in those parts, marched against Jerusalem about the end of the third or beginning of the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. He soon took the city, and put Jehoiakim in chains with the design of carrying him to Babylon; but, changing his mind, he permitted him to resume the reins of government under certain oppressive conditions. At this year, which was A.M. 3398, the seventy years of the Babylonish captivity commence. Nabopolassar dying in the interim, Nebuchadnezzar was obliged to return speedily to Babylon, leaving his generals to conduct the Jewish captives to Babylon, among whom were Daniel and his companions.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Comparing this with 2Ki 24:1, and with 2Ch 36:6, the meaning is, after the Lord had taken away that good king Josiah for the sins of Judah and Manasseh, which were very great, by Pharaoh-necho king of Egypt, the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king; he reigned but three months, wherein he did so much evil in the sight of the Lord, that the said Pharaoh-necho put him in bands at Riblah, and afterwards carried him to Egypt, where he died, and made Eliakim his brother king in his stead, and turned his name to Jehoiakim; he became Nebuchadnezzar’s servant three years, for that king of Babylon had overthrown Pharaoh’s army at Carchemish by the river Euphrates. Jehoiakim rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar, made him come up from Babylon and take Jehoiakim, and bind him in fetters to carry him to Babylon; of whom, and his death and burial, you have a sad account, Jer 22:17-19.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. third yearcompare Jer25:1, “the fourth year; Jehoiakim came to the throneat the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the firstyear, but which Daniel leaves out of count, being an incomplete year:thus, in Jeremiah, it is “the fourth year”; inDaniel, “the third” [JAHN].However, Jeremiah (Jer 25:1;Jer 46:2) merely says, the fourthyear of Jehoiakim coincided with the first of Nebuchadnezzar, whenthe latter conquered the Egyptians at Carchemish; not that thedeportation of captives from Jerusalem was in the fourth yearof Jehoiakim: this probably took place in the end of the third yearof Jehoiakim, shortly before the battle of Carchemish[FAIRBAIRN].Nebuchadnezzar took away the captives as hostages for the submissionof the Hebrews. Historical Scripture gives no positive accountof this first deportation, with which the Babylonian captivity, thatis, Judah’s subjection to Babylon for seventy years (Jer29:10), begins. But 2Ch 36:6;2Ch 36:7, states thatNebuchadnezzar had intended “to carry Jehoiakim to Babylon,”and that he “carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord”thither. But Jehoiakim died at Jerusalem, before the conqueror’sintention as to him was carried into effect (Jer 22:18;Jer 22:19; Jer 36:30),and his dead body, as was foretold, was dragged out of the gates bythe Chaldean besiegers, and left unburied. The second deportationunder Jehoiachin was eight years later.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,…. At the close of it, and at the beginning of the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer 25:1. Jerusalem seems to have been taken twice in his time, and two captivities in it: the first was in the third or fourth year of his reign; when humbling himself, he was restored to his kingdom, though he became a tributary to the king of Babylon; Daniel and his companions, who were carried captive with him, were retained as hostages; but after three years he rebelled, but it was not until his eleventh year that Nebuchadnezzar came against him again, took him, and bound him, in order to carry him to Babylon, but he died by the way; see
2Ki 24:1, some, as Jarchi and Saadiah Gaon, make this to be the third year of his rebellion, and the last of his reign; they suppose that he was conquered by the king of Babylon, and became subject to him in the fifth year of his reign; that he served him three years, and rebelled against him three years: at the end of which
came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it; with his army, and took it; and the same way it is accounted for in the Jewish chronicle p according to Bishop Usher q, this was in the year of the world 3398 A.M., and before Christ 607 or 859; according to Mr. Bedford r, 605.
p Seder Olam Rabba, c. 25. in principio. q Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3398. r Scripture Chronology, p. 676.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Of this expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem it is related in the second book of Kings (2Ki 24:1): “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against him;” and in the second book of Chronicles (2Ch 36:6): “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.” That both of these statements refer to the same expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim mentioned here, appears not only from the statement of the book of Chronicles agreeing with Dan 1:2 of this chapter, namely, that Nebuchadnezzar took away a part of the sacred vessels of the temple to Babylon, and there put them in the temple of his god, but also from the circumstance that, beyond all doubt, during the reign of Jehoiakim where was not a second siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It is true, indeed, that when Jehoiakim threw off the yoke at the end of three years’ subjection, Nebuchadnezzar sent Chaldean, Aramaean, Moabitish, and Ammonitish hosts against him for the purpose of bringing him into subjection, but Jerusalem was not again laid siege to by these hosts till the death of Jehoiakim. Not till his son Jehoiachin ascended the throne did the servants of Nebuchadnezzar again come up against Jerusalem and besiege it. When, during the siege, Nebuchadnezzar himself came up, Jehoiachin surrendered to him after three months, and was, along with the chief men of his kingdom, and the strength of the population of Jerusalem and Judah, and the treasures of the royal palace and of the temple, carried down to Babylon (2Ki 24:2-16). The year, however, in which Nebuchadnezzar, in the reign of Jehoiakim, first took Jerusalem and carried away a part of the treasures of the temple to Babylon, is stated neither in the second book of Kings nor in Chronicles, but may be pretty certainly determined by the statements of Jeremiah (Jer 46:2; Jer 25:1., Jer 36:1.). According to Jer 46:2, Nebuchadnezzar smote the Egyptian king Pharaoh-Necho with his army at Carchemish in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim. That same year is spoken of (Jer 25:1) as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and is represented by Jeremiah not only as a critical period for the kingdom of Judah; but also, by the prediction that the Lord would bring His servant Nebuchadnezzar against Judah and against its inhabitants, and against all the nations round about, that He would make Judah a desolation, and that these nations would serve the king of Babylon seventy years (Jer 25:2-11), he without doubt represents it as the beginning of the seventy years of Babylonish exile: In this the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the prophet was also commanded (Jer 36:1.) to write in a book all the words which the Lord had spoken unto him against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day in which He had spoken to him in the time of Josiah even till then, that the house of Judah might hear all the evil which He purposed to do unto them, and might return every man from his evil way. Jeremiah obeyed this command, and caused these predictions, written in the roll of a book, to be read by Baruch to the people in the temple; for he himself was a prisoner, and therefore could not go to the temple.
The first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot therefore have taken place in the third, but must have been in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c. This, however, appears to stand in opposition to the statement of the first verse of this chapter: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem.” The modern critics accordingly number this statement among the errors which must disprove the genuineness of this book (see above, p. 508f.). The apparent opposition between the language of Daniel (Dan 1:1) that Nebuchadnezzar undertook his first expedition against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and the affirmation of Jeremiah, according to which not only was Pharaoh-Necho slain by Nebuchadnezzar at the Euphrates in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, but also in this same year Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judea is for the first time announced, cannot be resolved either by the hypothesis of a different mode of reckoning the years of the reign of Jehoiakim and of Nebuchadnezzar, nor by the supposition that Jerusalem had been already taken by Nebuchadnezzar before the battle of Carchemish, in the third year of Jehoiakim. The first supposition is set aside by the circumstance that there is no certain analogy for it.
(Note: The old attempt to reconcile the difference in this way has already been shown by Hengstenberg ( Beit. z. Einl. in d. A. T. p. 53) to be untenable; and the supposition of Klief. (p. 65f.), that Jehoiakim entered on his reign near the end of a year, and that Jeremiah reckons the year of his reign according to the calendar year, but that Daniel reckons it from the day of his ascending the throne, by which it is made out that there is no actual difference, is wholly overthrown by the circumstance that in the sacred Scriptures there is no analogy for the reckoning of the year of a king’s reign according to the day of the month on which he began to reign. On this supposition we might reconcile the apparent difference only if no other plan of reconciliation were possible. But such is not the actual state of the case.)
The latter supposition is irreconcilable with Jer. 25 and 36.
(Note: Following the example of Hofmann ( die 70 Jahre Jer. p. 13ff.), Hvernick ( Neue Krit. Unterss. ber d. B. Daniel, p. 52ff.), Zndel ( Krit. Unterss. p. 20ff.), and others have decided in favour of it.)
If Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim announced that because Judah did not hearken unto his warnings addressed to them “from the thirteenth year of Josiah even unto this day,” that is, for the space of three and twenty years, nor yet to the admonitions of all the other prophets (Jer 25:3-7) whom the Lord had sent unto them, therefore the Lord would now send His servant Nebuchadnezzar with all the people of the north against the land and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, utterly to destroy the land and make it desolate, etc. – then it must be affirmed that he publicly made known the invasion of Judah by the Chaldeans as an event which had not yet taken place, and therefore that the supposition that Jerusalem had already in the preceding year been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Jehoiakim had been brought under his subjection, is entirely excluded. It is true that in Daniel 25 Jeremiah prophesies a judgment of “perpetual desolations against Jerusalem and against all the nations,” but it is as unwarrantable to apply, as Klief. does, this prophecy only “to the total destruction of Jerusalem and of Judah, which took place in the eleventh year of Zedekiah,” as with older interpreters only to the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim, 2Ki 24:1 and 2Ch 36:6. In the words of threatening uttered by the prophet there are included all the expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem and Judah, from his first against Jehoiakim to the final destruction of Jerusalem under Zedekiah; so that we cannot say that it is not applicable to the first siege of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, but to the final destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, as this whole prophecy is only a comprehensive intensified summary of all the words of God hitherto spoken by the mouth of the prophet. To strengthen the impression produced by this comprehensive word of God, he was commanded in that same year (Jer 36:1.), as already mentioned, to write out in the roll of a book all the words hitherto spoken by him, that it might be seen whether or not the several words gathered together into a whole might not exert an influence over the people which the separate words had failed to do.
Moreover a destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans before the overthrow of the Egyptian power on the Euphrates, which took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, cannot at all be thought of. King Jehoiakim was “put into bands” by Pharaoh-Necho and made a tributary vassal to him (2Ki 23:33.), and all the land from the river of Egypt even unto the Euphrates was brought under his sway; therefore Nebuchadnezzar could not desolate Judah and Jerusalem before Pharaoh-Necho was slain. Neither could Nebuchadnezzar pass in the presence of the Egyptian host stationed in the stronghold of Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and advance toward Judah, leaving behind him the city of Babylon as a prize to so powerful an enemy, nor would Necho, supposing that Nebuchadnezzar had done this, have quietly allowed his enemy to carry on his operations, and march against his vassal Jehoiakim, without following in the rear of Egypt’s powerful foe.
(Note: With the above compare my Lehrb. der Einl. 131, and my Commentary on 2Ki 24:1. With this Kran. agrees (p. 17f.), and in addition remarks: “In any case Necho would at once have regarded with jealousy every invasion of the Chaldean into the region beyond the Euphrates, and would least of all have suffered him to make an extensive western expedition for the purpose of conquering Judea, which was under the sway of Egypt.”)
The statement in the first verse may indeed, literally taken, be interpreted as meaning that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and took in in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, because frequently means to come to a place. But it is not necessary always so to interpret the word, because means not only to come, but also to go, to march to a place. The assertion, that in this verse is to be interpreted (Hv. N. Kr. U. p. 61, Ew., and others) as meaning to come to a place, and not to march to it, is as incorrect as the assertion that the translation of by he marched is inadmissible or quite impossible, because is generally used of the march of an army (Staeh., Znd.). The word , from the first book of the Canon (cf. Gen 14:5) to the last, the book of Daniel not excepted (cf. e.g., Dan 11:13, Dan 11:17, Dan 11:29, etc.), is used of military expeditions; and regarding the very general opinion, that , in the sense of to march, to go to a place, occurs less frequently, Kran. (p. 21) has rightly remarked, that “it stands always and naturally in this sense whenever the movement has its point of departure from the place of him who observes it, thinks of it, or makes a communication regarding it.” Therefore, e.g., it is used “always in a personal verbal command with reference to the movement, not yet undertaken, where naturally the thought as to the beginning or point of departure passes into the foreground; as e.g., in Gen 45:17; Exo 6:11; 7:26; Exo 9:1; Exo 10:1; Num 32:6; 1Sa 20:19; 2Ki 5:5. In Jon 1:3 it is used of the ship that was about to go to Tarshish; and again, in the words , ibid., it is used when speaking of the conclusion of the journey.” “On the contrary, if the speaker or narrator is at the terminus ad quem of the movement spoken of, then of course the word is used in the other sense of to come, to approach, and the like.” Accordingly these words of Daniel, “Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem,” considered in themselves, may be interpreted without any regard to the point of departure or the termination of the movement. They may mean “Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem,” or that “he marched to Jerusalem,” according as the writer is regarded as writing in Judah or Jerusalem, or in Babylon at the point of departure of Nebuchadnezzar’s journey. If the book was composed by a Maccabean Jew in Palestine, then the translation, “he came to Jerusalem,” would be the more correct, because such a writer would hardly have spoken of a military movement from its eastern point of departure. The case is altogether different if Daniel, who lived as a courtier in Babylon from his youth up to old age, wrote this account. “For him, a Jew advanced in years, naturally the first movement of the expedition threatening and bringing destruction to his fatherland, whether it moved directly or by a circuitous route upon the capital, would be a significant fact, which he had in every respect a better opportunity of comprehending than his fellow-countrymen living in the remote west, since this expedition was an event which led to the catastrophe of the exile. For the Jew writing in Babylon about the expedition, the fatal commencement of the march of the Chaldean host would have a mournful significance, which it could not have for a writer living in Jerusalem.”
In this way Kran. has thoroughly vindicated the rendering of , “he marched” to Jerusalem, and also the explanation of the word as referring to the setting out of the Chaldean army which Hitz., Hofm., Staeh., Znd., and others have declared to be opposed to the meaning of the word and “impossible,” and at the same time he has set aside as groundless the further remark of Hitzig, that the designation of the time also applies to . If is to be understood of an expedition with reference to its point of departure, then the fixing of its time cannot of course refer also to the time of the arrival of the expedition at its termination and the siege then ensuing. The time of its arrival before Jerusalem, as well as the beginning, duration, and end of the siege, is not defined, and only its result, the taking of Jerusalem, is, according to the object of the author, of sufficient importance to be briefly announced. The period of the taking of the city can only be determined from dates elsewhere given. Thus from the passages in Jeremiah already referred to, it appears that this happened in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, in which year Nebuchadnezzar overcame the army of Necho king of Egypt at the Euphrates (Jer 46:2), and took all the land which the king of Egypt had subdued, from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates, so that Pharaoh-Necho came no more out of his land (2Ki 24:7). With this agrees Berosus in the fragments of his Chaldean history preserved by Josephus ( Ant. x. 11. 1, and c. Ap. i. 19). His words, as found in the latter passage, are these: “When his (Nebuc.) father Nabopolassar heard that the satrap whom he had set over Egypt and over the parts of Coelesyria and Phoenicia had revolted from him, he was unable to bear the annoyance any longer, but committing a part of his army to his son Nabuchodonosor, who was then a youth, he sent him against the rebel. Nabuchodonosor encountered him in battle and overcame him, and brought the land again under his dominion. It happened that his father Nabopolassar at this time fell sick and died at the city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-one years (Berosus says twenty-nine years). But when Nabuchodonosor not long after heard of the death of his father, he set the affairs of Egypt and of the other countries in order, and committed the prisoners he had taken from the Jews, the Phoenicians, and Syrians, and from the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct the heavy armed troops with the rest of the baggage to Babylonia, while he himself hastened with a small escort through the desert to Babylon. When he came hither, he found that the public affairs had been managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal persons among them had preserved the kingdom for him. He now obtained possession of all his father’s dominions, and gave directions that the captives should be placed as colonies in the most favourably situated districts of Babylonia,” etc. This fragment illustrates in an excellent manner the statements made in the Bible, in case one be disposed to estimate the account of the revolt of the satrap placed over Egypt and the countries lying round Coelesyria and Phoenicia as only the expression of boastfulness on the part of the Babylonish historian, claiming that all the countries of the earth of right belonged to the monarch of Babylon; and it also shows that the rebel satrap could be none other than Pharaoh-Necho. For Berosus confirms not only the fact, as declared in 2Ki 24:7, that Pharaoh-Necho in the last year of Nabopolassar, after the battle at Megiddo, had subdued Judah, Phoenicia, and Coelesyria, i.e., “all the land from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates,” but he also bears witness to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had slain Pharaoh-Necho (Jer 46:2) “by the river Euphrates in Carchemish,” made Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and Judah tributary to the Chaldean empire, and consequently that he took Jerusalem not before but after the battle at Carchemish, in prosecution of the victory he had obtained over the Egyptians.
This does not, however, it must be confessed, prove that Jerusalem had already in the fourth year of Jehoiakim come under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore Hitz. and others conclude from Jer 36:9 that Nebuchadnezzar’s assault upon Jerusalem was in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim as yet only in prospect, because in that month Jeremiah prophesied of the Chaldean invasion, and the extraordinary fast then appointed had as its object the manifestation of repentance, so that thereby the wrath of God might be averted. This Kran. endeavours to prove from 2Ki 25:27, cf. Jer 52:31. But in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be rehearsed to the people in the court of the temple his former prophecies, written by Baruch in a book according to the commandment of the Lord, and pronounced the threatening against Jehoiakim because he had cut to pieces this book and had cast it into the fire, Jer 36:29. This threatening, that God would bring upon the seed and upon the servants of Jehoiakim, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all the evil which He had pronounced against them (Jer 36:31), does not exclude the previous capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but announces only the carrying out of the threatened judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah to be as yet imminent.
The extraordinary fast of the people also, which was appointed for the ninth month, was not ordained with the view of averting the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which was then expected, after the battle at Carchemish; for although fasts were sometimes appointed or kept for the purpose of turning away threatened judgment or punishment (e.g., 2Sa 12:15.; 1Ki 21:27; Est 4:1; Est 3:1-15:16), yet, in general, fasts were more frequently appointed to preserve the penitential remembrance of punishments and chastisements which had been already endured: cf. e.g., Zec 7:5; Ezr 10:6.; Neh 1:4; 1Sa 31:13; 2Sa 1:12, etc. To ascertain, therefore, what was the object of this fast which was appointed, we must keep in view the character of Jehoiakim and his relation to this fast. The godless Jehoiakim, as he is represented in 2Ki 23:37; 2Ch 36:5, and Jer 22:13., was not the man who would have ordained a fast (or allowed it if the priests had wished to appoint it) to humble himself and his people before God, and by repentance and prayer to turn away the threatened judgment. Before he could ordain a fast for such a purpose, Jehoiakim must hear and observe the word of the prophet, and in that case he would not have been so enraged at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah as to have cut the book to pieces and cast it into the fire. If the fast took place previous to the arrival of the Chaldeans before Jerusalem, then neither the intention of the king nor his conduct in regard to it can be comprehended. On the other hand, as Znd. p. 21, and Klief. p. 57, have shown, both the ordaining of a general fast, and the anger of the king at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah in the presence of the people in the temple, are well explained, if the fast is regarded as designed to keep in remembrance the day of the year on which Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem. As Jehoiakim bore with difficulty the yoke of the Chaldean oppression, and from the first meditated on a revolt, for after three years he did actually revolt, he instituted the fast “to stir up the feelings of the people against the state of vassalage into which they had been brought” (Klief.), “and to call forth a religious enthusiasm among them to resist the oppressor” (Znd.). This opposition could only, however, result in the destruction of the people and the kingdom. Jeremiah therefore had his prophecies read to the people in the temple on that day by Baruch “as a counterbalance to the desire of the king,” and announced to them that Nebuchadnezzar would come again to subdue the land and to destroy from out of it both man and beast. “Therefore the king was angry, and destroyed the book, because he would not have the excitement of the people to be so hindered; and therefore also the princes were afraid (Jer 36:16) when they heard that the book of these prophecies was publicly read” (Klief.).
The words of 2Ki 25:27, cf. Jer 52:31, do not contradict this conclusion from Jer 36:9, even though that drawn by Kran., p. 18, from this passage were adopted, viz., that since almost thirty-seven whole years had passed from the carrying away of Jehoiachin to the end of the forty-three years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but Jehoiachin had reigned only for a few months, the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar must be dated in the sixth of the eleven years’ reign of Jehoiakim, the predecessor of Jehoiachin. For since, according to the testimony of Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar conducted the war against Hither Asia, in which he slew king Necho at Carchemish, and as a further consequence of this victory took Jerusalem, before the death of his father, in the capacity of a commander-in-chief clothed with royal power, and when in Hither Asia, as it seems, and on the confines of Egypt, he then for the first time heard tidings of his father’s death, and therefore hastened by the shortest road to Babylon to assume the crown and lay claim to all his father’s dominions, – then it follows that his forty-three years’ reign begins after the battle of Carchemish and the capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim, and might possibly have begun in the sixth year of Jehoiakim, some five months after the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 36:9). Against this supposition the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar, as stated in Jer 46:2; Jer 25:1, and also Dan 1:1, was called king of Babylon before he had actually ascended the throne is no valid objection, inasmuch as this title is explained as a prolepsis which would be easily understood by the Jews in Palestine. Nabopolassar came into no contact at all with Judah; the Jews therefore knew scarcely anything of his reign and his death; and the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s approach to Jerusalem would be regarded in a general way both by Jeremiah and his contemporaries as the first year of his reign, and the commander of the Chaldean army as the king of Babylon, no matter whether on account of his being actual co-regent with his aged and infirm father, or merely because he was clothed with royal power as the chief commander of the army.
(Note: Thus not only Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 63, Hv., Klief., Kran., etc., but also v. Lengerke, Daniel. p. 3, and Hitz. Daniel. p. 3. The latter, e.g., remarks: “The designation as king does not furnish any obvious objection, for Nebuchadnezzar, the commander-in-chief of the army, is to the Jewish writers (thus Jer 25:1) a king when he first comes under their notice. They appear to have had no knowledge whatever of his father.”)
In this sense Daniel (Dan 1:1) names him who was afterwards king, at a time when he was not yet the possessor of the throne, the king of Babylon; for he was in effect the king, so far as the kingdom of Judah was concerned, when he undertook the first expedition against it.
But the reckoning of Kran. is also not exact. Nebuchadnezzar’s ascending the throne and the beginning of his reign would only happen in the sixth year of Jehoiakim if either the three months of Jehoiachin (37 years’ imprisonment of Jehoiachin + 1 year’s reign + 5 years of Jehoiakim = 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar) are to be reckoned as 1 year, or at least the 11 years of Jehoiakim as 11 full years, so that 5 3/4 years of Jehoiakim’s reign must be added to the 37 years of Jehoiachin’s imprisonment and the 3 months of his reign so as to make up the 43 years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Jehoiakim must have reigned 5 1/4 years at the time when Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. Whereas if Jehoiakim’s reign extended only to 10 1/2 years, which were reckoned as 11 years in the books of the Kings, according to the general method of recording the length of the reign of kings, then Nebuchadnezzar’s ascending the throne took place in the fifth years of Jehoiakim’s reign, or, at the furthest, after he had reigned 4 3/4 years. This latter reckoning, whereby the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is made to coincide with the fifth year of Jehoiakim’s, is demanded by those passages in which the years of the reign of the kings of Judah are made parallel with the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; viz., 2Ki 24:12, where it is stated that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and carried away captive in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar; also Jer 32:1, where the tenth years of Zedekiah corresponds with the eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar; and finally, Jer 52:5, Jer 52:12, and 2Ki 25:2, 2Ki 25:8, where the eleventh year of Zedekiah corresponds with the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to all these passages, the death of Jehoiakim, or the end of his reign, happened either in the eighth year, or at all events in the end of the seventh year, of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for Jehoiachin reigned only three months; so that Nebuchadnezzar reigned six full years, and perhaps a few months longer, as contemporary with Jehoiakim, and consequently he must have mounted the throne in the fifth of the eleven years of Jehoiakim’s reign.
(Note: The synchronistic statements in the passages, 2Ki 24:12; 2Ki 25:2, 2Ki 25:8; Jer 32:1 and Jer 52:5, Jer 52:12, might indeed be interpreted as meaning, that in them the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign are reckoned from the time when his father entrusted to him the chief command of the army at the breaking out of the war with Necho (see my Commentary on 2Ki 24:12); but in that case the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign would amount to 44 1/4 years, viz., 37 years of Jehoiachin’s imprisonment, 3 months of his reign, and 7 years of Jehoiakim’s reign. And according to this reckoning, it would also result from the passages referred to, that the beginning of his 43 years’ reign happened in the fifth year of Jehoiakim.)
The above discussion has at the same time also furnished us with the means of explaining the apparent contradiction which has been found between Dan 1:1. and Dan 2:1., and which has been brought forward as an historical error in argument against the genuineness of the book. According to Dan 1:3., Nebuchadnezzar after the capture of Jerusalem commanded that young Israelites of noble birth should be carried away to Babylon, and there educated for the space of three years in the literature and wisdom of the Chaldeans; and, according to Dan 1:18, after the expiry of the appointed time, they were brought in before the king that they might be employed in his service. But these three years of instruction, according to Dan 2:1., expired in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and his companions were ranked among the wise men of Babylon, and Daniel interpreted to the king his dream, which his Chaldean magi were unable to do (Dan 2:13., 19ff.). If we observe that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed his dream “in the second year of his reign,” and that he entered on his reign some time after the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Jehoiakim, them we can understand how the three years appointed for the education of Daniel and his companions came to an end in the second year of his reign; for if Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, then in the seventh year of Jehoiakim three years had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year of this king. For the carrying away of the Israelitish youths followed, without doubt, immediately after the subjugation of Jehoiakim, so that a whole year or more of their period of education had passed before Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne. This conclusion is not set aside by what Berosus affirms, that Nebuchadnezzar, after he heard of the death of his father, committed the captives he had taken from the Jews to the care of some of his friends that they might be brought after him, while he himself hastened over the desert to Babylon; for that statement refers to the great transport of prisoners who were carried away for the colonization of Central Asia. As little does the consideration that a twofold method of reckoning the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s government by Daniel is improbable militate against this reconciliation of the discrepancy, for no such twofold method of reckoning exists. In Daniel 1 the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is not given, but Nebuchadnezzar is only named as being king;
(Note: If, on the contrary, Bleek understands from Dan 1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar had become king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim at Jerusalem, whilst, “perhaps only with the design of making the pretended opposition between Dan 1:1 and Dan 2:1 truly evident, he understands the appositional designation as a more definite determination of the meaning of the verb , this idea finds recommendation neither in the position of the words, nor in the expression, Dan 1:3, nor in the accents.” Kranichfeld, p. 19.)
while in Dan 2:1 mention is made not merely of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, but of the second year of his reign, from which it appears that the historian here reckons from the actual commencement of his reign. Also, as Klief., p. 67, has well remarked, one may “easily discover the ground on which Daniel in Dan 1:1 followed a different mode of reckoning from that adopted in Dan 2:1. In Daniel 1 Daniel had to do with Israelitish circumstances and persons, and therefore followed, in making reference to Nebuchadnezzar, the general Israelitish mode of contemplation. He reckons his years according to the years of the Israelitish kings, and sees in him already the king; on the contrary, in Daniel 2 Daniel treats of the relations of the world-power, and he reckons here accurately the year of Nebuchadnezzar, the bearer of the world-power, from the day in which, having actually obtained the possession of the world-power, he became king of Babylon.”
If we now, in conclusion, briefly review the results of the preceding discussions, it will be manifest that the following is the course of events: – Necho the king of Egypt, after he had made Jehoiakim his vassal king, went forth on an expedition against the Assyrian kingdom as far as the Euphrates. Meanwhile, however, with the dissolution of the Assyrian kingdom by the fall of Nineveh, the part of that kingdom lying on this side of the Tigris had come under the dominion of the Chaldeans, and the old and enfeebled king Nabopolassar gave to his son Nebuchadnezzar the chief command of the army, with the commission to check the advance of the Egyptians, and to rescue from them the countries they had occupied and bring them again under the Chaldean rule. In consequence of this, Nebuchadnezzar took the field against Hither Asia in the third year of the reign of Jehioakim, and in the first month of the fourth year of Jehoiakim slew Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish and pursued his army to the confines of Egypt, and in the ninth month of the same year took Jerusalem and made king Jehoiakim his subject. While Nebuchadnezzar was busied in Hither Asia with the subjugation of the countries that had been conquered by Pharaoh-Necho, he received the tidings of the death of his father Nabopolassar in Babylon, and hastened forward with a small guard by the nearest way through the desert to Babylon in order to assume the government, giving directions that the army, along with the whole band of prisoners, should follow him by slow marches. But as soon as the Chaldean army had left Judea and returned to Babylon, Jehoiakim sought how he might throw off the Chaldean yoke, and three years after his subjugation he revolted, probably at a time when Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in establishing his dominion in the East, so that he could not immediately punish this revolt, but contented himself meanwhile with sending against Jehoiakim the armies of Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, whom he had left behind on the confines of Judah. They were unable, however, to vanquish him as long as he lived. It was only after his son Jehoiachin had ascended the throne that Nebuchadnezzar, as commander of the army, returned with a powerful host to Jerusalem and besieged the city. While the city was being besieged, Nebuchadnezzar came in person to superintend the war. Jehoiachin with his mother, and his chief officers from the city, went out to surrender themselves to the king of Babylon. But Nebuchadnezzar took him as a prisoner, and commanded that the golden vessels of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace should be taken away, and he carried the king with the great men of the kingdom, the men of war, the smiths and craftsmen, as prisoners to Babylon, and made his vassal Mattaniah, Jehoiachin’s uncle, king in Jerusalem, under the name of Zedekiah (2 Kings 28:8-17). This happened in the eighth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki 24:12), and thus about six years after Daniel had interpreted his dream (Daniel 2), and had been promoted by him to the rank of president of the wise men in Babylon.
The name is written in Dan 1:1 with , as it is uniformly in Jeremiah, e.g., Jer 27:6, Jer 27:8, Jer 27:20; Jer 28:3, Jer 28:11, Jer 28:12; Jer 29:1, Jer 29:3, and in the books of the Kings and Chronicles, as 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:10-11; 2Ki 25:1; 2Ch 36:6, 2Ch 36:10, 2Ch 36:13; whereas in Dan 1:18 it is written without the ‘, as it is also in Dan 2:1, Dan 2:28, Dan 2:46; Dan 3:1-3, Dan 3:5., and Ezr 1:7; Ezr 5:12, Ezr 5:14; Est 2:6. From this circumstance Hitzig concludes that the statement in Daniel is derived from 2Ki 24:1, because the manner of writing the name with the is not peculiar to this book (and is not the latest form), but is that of 2Ki 24:1. Both statements are incorrect. The writings without the cannot on this account be taken as the latest form, because it is not found in the Chronicles, and that with the is not peculiar to the second book of Kings, but is the standing form, along with the more national Babylonian form (with r), in Jer 21:2, Jer 21:7; Jer 32:1; Jer 35:11; Jer 39:11; Eze 26:7; Eze 29:18; Eze 30:10, which, according to Mnant ( Grammaire Assyrienne, 1868, p. 327), is written in Babylonian inscriptions Nabukudurriusur ( , i.e., Nebo coronam servat ), the inscription of Behistan having the form Nabukudratschara. Megastehenes and Berosus, in Polyhistor, write the name . The writing Nebuchadnezar, with n and without the , appears to be the Aramean form, since it prevails in the Chaldean portions of Daniel and Ezra, and accounts for the Masoretic pronunciation of the word (the with Dagesch forte). On other forms of the name, cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 41f.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| The Siege of Jerusalem. | B. C. 606. |
1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. 3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. 5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. 6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.
We have in these verses an account,
I. Of the first descent which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, made upon Judah and Jerusalem, in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and his success in that expedition (Dan 1:1; Dan 1:2): He besieged Jerusalem, soon made himself master of it, seized the king, took whom he pleased and what he pleased away with him, and then left Jehoiakim to reign as tributary to him, which he did about eight years longer, but then rebelled, and it was his ruin. Now from this first captivity most interpreters think the seventy years are to be dated, though Jerusalem was not destroyed, nor the captivity completed, till about nineteen years after, In that first year Daniel was carried to Babylon, and there continued the whole seventy years (see v. 21), during which time all nations shall serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his son’s son, Jer. xxv. 11. This one prophet therefore saw within the compass of his own time the rise, reign, and ruin of that monarchy; so that it was res unius tatis–the affair of a single age, such short-lived things are the kingdoms of the earth; but the kingdom of heaven is everlasting. The righteous, that see them taking root, shall see their fall,Job 5:3; Pro 29:16. Mr. Broughton observes the proportion of times in God’s government since the coming out of Egypt: thence to their entering Canaan forty years, thence seven years to the dividing of the land, thence seven Jubilees to the first year of Samuel, in whom prophecy began, thence to this first year of the captivity seven seventies of years, 490 (ten Jubilees), thence to the return one seventy, thence to the death of Christ seven seventies more, thence to the destruction of Jerusalem forty years.
II. The improvement he made of this success. He did not destroy the city or kingdom, but did that which just accomplished the first threatening of mischief by Babylon. It was denounced against Hezekiah, for showing his treasures to the king of Babylon’s ambassadors (Isa 39:6; Isa 39:7), that the treasures and the children should be carried away, and, if they had been humbled and reformed by this, hitherto the king of Babylon’s power and success should have gone, but no further. If less judgments do the work, God will not send greater; but, if not, he will heat the furnace seven times hotter. Let us see what was now done. 1. The vessels of the sanctuary were carried away, part of them, v. 2. They fondly trusted to the temple to defend them, though they went on in their iniquity. And now, to show them the vanity of that confidence, the temple is first plundered. Many of the holy vessels which used to be employed in the service of God were taken away by the king of Babylon, those of them, it is likely, which were most valuable, and he brought them as trophies of victory to the house of his god, to whom, with a blind devotion, he gave praise of his success; and having appropriated these vessels, in token of gratitude, to his god, he put them in the treasury of his temple. See the righteousness of God; his people had brought the images of other gods into his temple, and now he suffers the vessels of the temple to be carried into the treasuries of those other gods. Note, When men profane the vessels of the sanctuary with their sins it is just with God to profane them by his judgments. It is probable that the treasures of the king’s house were rifled, as was foretold, but particular mention is made of the taking away of the vessels of the sanctuary because we shall find afterwards that the profanation of them was that which filled up the measure of the Chaldeans’ iniquity, ch. v. 3. But observe, It was only part of them that went now; some were left them yet upon trial, to see if they would take the right course to prevent the carrying away of the remainder. See Jer. xxvii. 18. 2. The children and young men, especially such as were of noble or royal extraction, that were sightly and promising, and of good natural parts, were carried away. Thus was the iniquity of the fathers visited upon the children. These were taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, (1.) As trophies, to be made a show of for the evidencing and magnifying of his success. (2.) As hostages for the fidelity of their parents in their own land, who would be concerned to conduct themselves well that their children might have the better treatment. (3.) As a seed to serve him. He took them away to train them up for employments and preferments under him, either out of an unaccountable affectation, which great men often have, to be attended by foreigners, though they be blacks, rather than by those of their own nation, or because he knew that there were no such witty, sprightly, ingenious young men to be found among his Chaldeans as abounded among the youth of Israel; and, if that were so, it was much for the honour of the Jewish nation, as of an uncommon genius above other people, and a fruit of the blessing. But it was a shame that a people who had so much wit should have so little wisdom and grace. Now observe, [1.] The directions which the king of Babylon gave for the choice of these youths, v. 4. They must not choose such as were deformed in body, but comely and well-favoured, whose countenances were indexes of ingenuity and good humour. But that is not enough; they must be skilful in all wisdom, and cunning, or well-seen in knowledge, and understanding science, such as were quick and sharp, and could give a ready and intelligent account of their own country and of the learning they had hitherto been brought up in. He chose such as were young, because they would be pliable and tractable, would forget their own people and incorporate with the Chaldeans. He had an eye to what he designed them for; they must be such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, not only to attend his royal person, but to preside in his affairs. This is an instance of the policy of this rising monarch, now in the beginning of his reign, and was a good omen of his prosperity, that he was in care to raise up a succession of persons fit for public business. He did not, like Ahasuerus, appoint them to choose him out young women for the service of his government. It is the interest of princes to have wise men employed under them; it is therefore their wisdom to take care for the finding out and training up of such. It is the misery of this world that so many who are fit for public stations are buried in obscurity, and so many who are unfit for them are preferred to them. [2.] The care which he took concerning them. First, For their education. He ordered that they should be taught the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. They are supposed to be wise and knowing young men, and yet they must be further taught. Give instructions to a wise man and he will increase in learning. Note, Those that would do good in the world when they grow up must learn when they are young. That is the learning age; if that time be lost, it will hardly be redeemed. It does not appear that Nebuchadnezzar designed they should learn the unlawful arts that were used among the Chaldeans, magic and divination; if he did, Daniel and his fellows would not defile themselves with them. Nay, we do not find that he ordered them to be taught the religion of the Chaldeans, by which it appears That he was at this time no bigot; if men were skilful and faithful, and fit for his business, it was not material to him what religion they were of, provided they had but some religion. They must be trained up in the language and laws of the country, in history, philosophy, and mathematics, in the arts of husbandry, war, and navigation, in such learning as might qualify them to serve their generation. Note, It is real service to the public to provide for the good education of the youth. Secondly, For their maintenance. He provided for them three years, not only necessaries, but dainties for their encouragement in their studies. They had daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank, v. 5. This was an instance of his generosity and humanity; though they were captives, he considered their birth and quality, their spirit and genius, and treated them honourably, and studied to make their captivity easy to them. There is a respect due to those who are well-born and bred when they have fallen into distress. With a liberal education there should be a liberal maintenance.
III. A particular account of Daniel and his fellows. They were of the children of Judah, the royal tribe, and probably of the house of David, which had grown a numerous family; and God told Hezekiah that of the children that should issue from him some should be taken and made eunuchs, or chamberlains, in the palace of the king of Babylon. The prince of the eunuchs changed the names of Daniel and his fellows, partly to show his authority over them and their subjection to him, and partly in token of their being naturalized and made Chaldeans. Their Hebrew names, which they received at their circumcision, had something of God, or Jah, in them: Daniel–God is my Judge; Hananiah–The grace of the Lord; Mishael–He that is the strong God; Azariah–The Lord is a help. To make them forget the God of their fathers, the guide of their youth, they give them names that savour of the Chaldean idolatry. Belteshazzar signifies the keeper of the hidden treasures of Bel; Shadrach–The inspiration of the sun, which the Chaldeans worshipped; Meshach—Of the goddess Shach, under which name Venus was worshipped; Abed-nego, The servant of the shining fire, which they worshipped also. Thus, though they would not force them from the religion of their fathers to that of their conquerors, yet they did what they could by fair means insensibly to wean them from the former and instil the latter into them. Yet see how comfortably they were provided for; though they suffered for their fathers’ sins they were preferred for their own merits, and the land of their captivity was made more comfortable to them than the land of their nativity at this time would have been.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL
Daniel, the writer of this book, is known exclusively as “The prophet of Gentile Times.” He wrote and spoke to the Gentiles only, not to his nation Israel, though he prophesied concerning, them. He served most of his life as Statesman-Prophet in official capacity of court service; both to kings of Babylon and MedoPersia. His prophecies concerned Gentile nations, from their beginning 606 B.C., until their end, at the second coming of Christ in glory, Luk 21:24.
He was of noble birth, carried with three other boys of noble birth, from Jerusalem to Babylon, as possible descendants of king Hezekiah, 2Ki 20:17-18; Isa 39:7; Dan 1:3-4. King Nebuchadnezzar chose these four young men to be trained for his personal services; He changed their residences, names, occupations, food, and language. But he could not change or defile their character, as recounted Daniel Ch. 1.
Like John, “the beloved” to our Lord, Daniel is three times said to be “greatly beloved,” a strong character trait, Dan 9:23; Dan 10:11; Dan 10:19.
He had a long and useful life as a contemporary of both Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Eze 14:20 as well as of Joshua, the restoration High priest, Ezra, and Zerubbabel.
In character he was:
1) strong in purpose, Dan 1:8;
2) Wise, tactful, and courteous under pressure, Dan 1:11-13;
3) Loveable, Dan 1:9; Daniel
4) Intelligent and spiritual, Dan 1:17; Dan 1:20; Dan 9:11-13;
5) Brave, Dan 4:19-26; ch. 5, 6;
6) Modest and humble, Dan 2:28-30.
7) Given to Faith and Prayer, Dan 2:13-28; Dan 6:10.
DANIEL — The Book
The Book of Daniel has two major parts:
1. Chapters 1-6 are historical in nature, predominantly dealing with facts.
2. Chapters 7-12 are primarily prophetic accounts and interpretations of visions Daniel saw of Gentile nations and their relation to Israel, the chosen of God, who would ultimately triumph over all Gentile powers.
Let it be further understood that the book of Daniel is a companion to the book of Revelation, as it concerns the future triumph of the Kingdom of God over Gentile powers. This triumph is effected through two “glory bodies”, chosen as witnesses of God in the Old Covenant and New Covenant eras. They are: 1) Israel restored, and 2) The Church, the Bride of our Lord, each triumphantly coming either out of or through the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy, Dan 9:26-27; ch. 12; Rev 19:5-10; 2Th 1:10.
DANIEL — The Book
(two major divisions)
Historical
1. The man Daniel.
2. The forgotten dream interpreted.
3. The three of the fiery furnace.
4. Nebuchadnezzar’s derangement and recovery.
5. Belshazzar’s feast–Handwriting on the wall.
6. Daniel in the den of lions.
Prophetic
7. The four beast Empires.
8. The ram and the he-goat,
9. The seventy weeks.
10. Angels of nations in conflict.
11. Kings of the North and South.
12 The times of the and-
DANIEL — CONTENTS
Chapter 1
Daniel’s captivity in Babylon, v. 1-8
His history and training, v. 9-21
His redress of grievance, v. 9-21
Chapter 2
The dream of Nebuchadnezzar, v. 1-3
Daniel’s prayer for wisdom, v. 14-18
Secret dream of Nebuchadnezzar revealed, v. 19-30
The Dream told to the king, v. 31-35
Interpretation of the four part image, v. 36-43
Beginning and end of final world Empire, v. 44, 45
Daniel promoted, v. 46-49
Chapter 3
Pride and folly of Nebuchadnezzar, v. 1-7
Three Jewish colleagues refuse to worship the image,v.8-18
Their preservation, no harm in furnace, v. 19-25
The convinced king–Two decrees, v. 26-30
Chapter 4
The king’s proclamation, v. 1-3
Nebuchadnezzar’s tree vision, v. 4-18
Daniel interprets tree vision, v. 19-27
Tree vision restoration of Nebuchadnezzar, v. 28-37
Chapter 5
Belshazzar’s drunken feast, v. 1-4
Handwriting on the wall, v. 5-16
The handwriting interpreted, v. 17-31
Chapter 6
Daniel’s history to rise of Cyrus, v. 1-3
Foolish decree of Darius, v. 4-9
Daniel steadfast under stress, v. 10-15
Daniel cast into the den of lions, v. 16, 17
The delivering God, v. 18-24
Darius’ decree concerning Daniel’s God, v. 25-28
Chapter 7
Daniel’s beast vision, v. 1-3
The four beast Empires:
a) Babylon, v.4
b) Medo-Persia, v. 5
c) Greece, v.6
d) Roman, v. 7
Ten kings and the (Little Horn), v. 8
Daniel’s vision of the Son of Man, v. 9
Scene in Heaven before the coming of the Lord, v. 9-12
Definitive meaning of the beast vision, v. 15-28
Chapter 8
Vision of the Ram and He-goat, v. 1-14
The Ram and He-goat explained, v. 15-27
Chapter 9
Daniel and Ezekiel’s vision of the 70 weeks, v. 1, 2
Daniel’s prayer and confession, v. 3-19
Gabriel’s explanation of the 70 weeks, v. 20-27
Chapter 10
The glory of the Lord and angelic conflict over the nations, v. 1-21
Chapter 11
From Darius to the man of sin, v. 1-20
Antiochus Epiphanies and the “Little Horn” of
Daniel ch. 8, vs. 21-35
The “Little Horn” and the end time, v. 36-45
Chapter 12
Time of “The Tribulation The Great”, v. 1
The two resurrections, v. 2, 3
God’s final message to Daniel, v. 4-13
DANIEL – CHAPTER 1
DANIEL’S CAPTIVITY IN BABYLON
Verses 1-8:
Verse 1 relates that in the third year (full year) of the reign of king Jehoiakim of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it; Jer 25:1 lists it as the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign, using a part of a fourth year as a basis, whereas Daniel used only the full year, (third). Daniel was in the first deportation of the people of Judah, eight years before Ezekiel, his later contemporary prophet in Babylon. See 2Ki 24:1-2; 2Ch 36:5-7; Jer 25:1; Jer 52:12-30.
Verse 2 adds that the Lord gave or delivered Jehoiakim (king of Judah) into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand, along with a part of the sacred vessels of the house of God; Which he carried to the treasurehouse of his god in Shinar, ancient name for Babylon, Gen 11:2; Gen 14:1; Isa 11:11; Zec 5:11. It was an ancient custom for conquering kings to carry expensive vessels of worship, and statutes of gods of conquered nations, and hold them in their own treasure-houses. Note, only a “part” of the vessels were first taken, because it appears that Nebuchadnezzar meant to leave enough in Jerusalem for their bare public worship, while serving as a tribute-paying people to him. Later the remaining vessels were also taken and put in the house of Nebuchadnezzar’s gods, then restored under Cyrus, to the house of his god “Bel”, Ezr 1:7. See also Jer 27:19; Gen 10:10; Gen 11:9.
Verse 3 relates that king Nebuchadnezzar directed Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuch-servants (chamberlains) to bring certain of the children of Israel, of the king’s seed, and of the princes of those of royal lineage of David in Israel, alive into Babylon to serve him in ruling over their captive people; Such eunuch servitude had been foretold by Isaiah, 2Ki 20:17-18; Isa 39:7.
Verse 4 further describes the astute qualities of those Hebrews selected for training for service in the palace of the king in Babylon as follows:
They were to be:
1) young men without blemish, any deformity or injury from having been crippled, Lev 24:19; Jdg 8:18; Act 7:10.
2) well favored, handsome, suggesting to the orientals an high level of mental powers,
3) and skillful in all wisdom, capable of making decisions,
4) cunning in knowledge, holding capacities of reasoning, not mere parrots or puppets;
5) and understanding science, comprehending matters of mathematics, astronomy, and the sciences of the day;
6) even such as had ability (physical and mental) to stand up credibly in the king’s palace; and
7) such as might be taught and learn, in a relatively short time, the learning or (customs and culture), as well as the tongue or language and literature of the Chaldeans.
As Moses was trained in the lore (literature and language) of the Egyptians to his profit, Act 7:22, so Daniel trained in that of the Chaldeans, so that he was familiar with the minds of their mysterious lore, to the effect that he was given an heaven bestowed understanding of dreams and visions, and was able to clothe the interpretations in the understandable language of the Chaldeans, v. 4, 5, 17. From this background the magi, wise men of the east, also seemed to understand, Dan 9:24; Mat 2:1-5.
Verse 5 relates that king Nebuchadnezzar directed that these young Hebrews in training, while pursuing the literature, language, and science of the Chaldeans, should receive a portion of the king’s meat or food. The Hebrew language suggests that it was “the delicacies and dainties,” very special food that the king ate, not that furnished to his eunuchs! For these young men were being prepared to stand as courtiers, royal princes in captivity, not as eunuchs.
It was an Eastern custom for a king to entertain, with the food of his table, many royal captives, as evil Merodach, king of Babylon entertained Jehoiachim, king of Judah, Jer 52:33-34. Not only was the best of food but also the best of the kind of wine that the king drank provided for them. This was to continue for a period of three years of their training, at which time they were to be graduated for royal palace service in Babylon. Gold is tried in the fire, as these were, 1Pe 1:7; 1Pe 4:12.
Verse 6 names four of those young men, who were chosen for training for royal service, from the tribe (royal lineage) of Judah, the most noble tribe of Israel, as Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. As Moses was trained in the schools of Pharaoh, at Pharaoh’s expense, to become a servant of God, in a foreign, heathen land, so were these, Exo 2:10; Act 7:22.
Verse 7 explains that to each of these, the prince, or master over the eunuchs, gave Chaldean names, as follows: 1) to Daniel (God my judge) was given the name Belteshazzar which means “the king’s leader or attendant” or “Bel’s prince;” 2) To Hananiah, whom Jehovah has favored, was given the name Shadrach; 3) To Mishael was given the name Meshach, the goddess of Babylon, Jer 25:26; Jer 51:41; Jeremiah , 4) To Azariah, whom God has helped, was given the name Abed-nego, meaning “Servant of Lucifer,” god of the shining fire, Isa 14:12. Thus these four young men were dedicated to idol gods of Babylon, whom they later refused to worship, Dan 3:16-18.
Verse 8 concludes that Daniel (apparently from the beginning) purposed, or resolved by choice of heart, that he would neither defile nor profane himself, either with the king’s meat, (delicacies and dainties), or with the wine which he drank, Num 6:1-4; 1Co 10:21. Therefore he requested (made redress of grievance, based on conscience, and the word of his God) that the prince of the eunuchs not require that he defile himself with the wine and food of the Chaldean king, to endorse idolatry. Such was the conviction of the Divine and holy standard of morals and ethics held by Daniel, in a far away land, as a captive, whose life or death was, except for the living God, in the hands of an heathen king, Lev 11:45; Deu 32:38; Psa 106:28; Psa 141:4; Eze 4:13; Hos 9:3-4; 1Th 5:22. See also 1Co 10:31; Heb 11:24-26; Act 5:29.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
These are not two different things, but the Prophet explains and confirms the same sentiments by a change of phrase, and says that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had brought into the land of Shinar were laid up in the house of the treasury. The Hebrews, as we know, generally use the word “house” for any place, as they call the temple God’s “house ” Of the land of Shinar, it must be remarked, that it was a plain adjacent to Babylon; and the famous temple of Belus, to which the Prophet very probably refers, was erected there.
Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his companions, namely, in the third year of Jehoiakim A difficult question arises here, since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third year, and then led away the people captives according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this difficulty by what appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that the four years ought to refer to the beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third year. But in the second chapter we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second year of his reign. They explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say — the years are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and, — this was the second year from the Conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, that the Prophet is speaking of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least uses the reign of the second, while his father was yet alive. We know there were two kings of the same name, father and son; and as the son did many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concerning Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the second, who is the son. But Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews and this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change of affairs, and enticed them to throw off the yoke Nebuchadnezzar the younger was carrying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and speedily returned home, lest any one should supersede him. When, however, he found all things as he wished, Josephus thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing strange, nay, it is very customary to call him King who shares the command with his father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it. In the third year or the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if any one prefers it, the father himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether we refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem, that is, by the hand of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different explanation is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on the war in person, that view not be taken still, the events happened in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus, indeed, says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never read the Book of Daniel. (68) He was an unlearned man, and by no means familiar with the Scriptures; nay, I think he had never read three verses of Daniel. It was a dreadful judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this seems to suit well enough, since in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city was once taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led away in triumph, among whom were Daniel and his companions. When Jehoiakim afterwards rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled — the condition of the figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were led into exile last thought themselves better off than the rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their vain boast, and shows the former captives to have been better treated than the remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at. home. (Jer 24:2.) I assume, then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For had there been any integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it for Ezekiel includes him among the three just men by whom most probably God would be appeased. (Eze 14:14.) Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile, and lived as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests the Lord did not deprive them of their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption. (69)
Should any wish here to determine why Daniel was among the first to be led into captivity, will he not betray his folly? Hence, let us learn to admire God’s judgments, which surpass all our perceptions; and let us also remember the words of Christ,
“
If these things are done in the green tree, what will be done in the dry?” (Luk 23:31.)
As I have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, although so ignominiously exiled and brought up among the kings eunuchs. Then this happened to so holy a man, who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how great is God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we deserved? Which of us will dare to compare himself with Daniel? Nay, we are unworthy, according to the ancient proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slightest doubt Daniel, through the circumstances of the time, wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift of God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could not turn him aside from the right course of piety. When, therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an example of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of God. As to his assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by God’s command, this form of speech takes away any stumbling block which might occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been depressed. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Therefore, Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, that we may not think Jerusalem to have been taken in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and his posterity. He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. Now, this might seem altogether out of place, and would shock the minds of the faithful. For what does it mean? That God’s temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had not God borne witness that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here will I dwell because I have chosen it. (Psa 132:14.) If any place in the world were impregnable, here truly honor ought to remain entire and untainted in the temple of God. When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this cast down the minds of the holy? No one was surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected trial would not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple? Although he does not dwell in this world, and is not enclosed in walls of either wood or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Psa 80:1, and Psa 99:1, and Isa 37:16,)and often by means of his Prophets asserted his seat to between the Cherubim. What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word assures us that we ought not to be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked apostates. For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis; as the Lord did not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God, therefore, exposed him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his impious people. It now follows —
(68) Calvin’s expression is tam brutus homo in Latin, and si stupide et brutal in French; but he is evidently too severe on so valuable an analyst, who, in so many passages, confirms and elucidates the scriptural narrative. Besides, Calvin seems to have overlooked the passage in his Antiq., lib. 11. cap. 8, section 5, where this Book is mentioned, and its contents alluded to at length.
(69) Much light has been. thrown upon the chronology of these times since the age of Calvin: later Commentators have dated from the third year of Jehoiakim’s restoration to his kingdom after his rebellion. See 2Kg 24:2. The subject is discussed with clearness by Bleek in his Theology. Zeitschrist. Pt. in. p. 28O, etc.; and R. Sal. Jarchi on this passage may be consulted, p. 735, edit. Gotham, 1713. See Dissertation at the end of this Volume.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
DANIEL-A DREAM OF A LAD
Dan 1:1-21
THE predictive element, like the Gulf Stream, makes its way from shore to shore of the Sacred Word; but, in three Books of the Bible, this stream, like the Jordan River, widens and deepens into very seas of prophetic import. I speak, of course, of Daniel, Zechariah and Revelation.
We have just completed a somewhat diligent and exhaustive study of Revelation; Daniel and Zechariah await our consideration.
Dr. C. I. Scofield is wholly justified in his remark, Daniel is the indispensable introduction to New Testament prophecy, and he is distinctly the Prophet of the times of the Gentiles (Luk 21:24). His vision sweeps the whole course of the Gentile world-rule to its end in catastrophe, and to the setting up of the Messianic Kingdom.
But, in order to a proper understanding of the Book itself, one must become acquainted with its author; and this first chapter is a fine and somewhat full portrait of the Prophet in the days of his youth; and a corresponding promise of the wisdom he will exercise, the visions he will experience or interpret, and the ages, he, by the help of the Holy Ghost, will unfold to the good student of sacred Scripture.
Remembering, therefore, the setting of this first chapter, we address ourselves to the subject of Daniel, The Ideal Young Prophet!
Three phrases may suffice for our study: The Captive Lad, The Conscientious Lad, and The Competent Lad.
THE CAPTIVE LAD
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the House of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.
And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the Children of Israel, and of the kings seed, and of the princes;
Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
And the king appointed them a daily provision of the kings meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.
Now among these were of the Children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Dan 1:1-6).
These six verses invite three remarks:
He was the subject of a captivity for which he was in no wise responsible. For a long time the threat of judgment had hung over Judah; her true Prophets had repeated it again and again to be largely disregarded. This very captivity had been foretold and the desolation, and even destruction of Jerusalem, had been prophesied. Ezekiel, our last study, made judgment his refrain.
But, alas, for the little interest men take in prewritten history! Even the professed people of God have slight confidence in the fulfilment of inspired predictions. The reason is not far to seek! They poorly comprehend, and still more poorly believe in inspired truth. The warnings of Noah were as lucid as language could make them, and yet in the days that were before the flood, men went on eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away. When the Prophetic Conference was held in Los Angeles, February, 1914, and attention was called to the predictive Scriptures concerning the certainty of wars and rumors of wars, nation rising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom and all to be followed by famine, and pestilence, and earthquake the Editor of the Christian Advocatemark the namespoke of such teaching as Pathetic and declared that the Conference ought to be called A Pathetic Conference instead of a Prophetic One.
In less than four months therefrom the great world powers had loosed the dogs of war, unlimbered their cannons and commenced the literal fulfilment of the prophetic Word.
As, in that judgment against wicked Judah, the innocent were compelled to suffer with the guilty, so in this visitation of wrath upon those potentates who have provoked battle, blood and death, the peace-loving children shall endure the hardships, privation, captivity, and even crucifixion of the world-condition for which they are in no wise responsible. Truly, the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children, and the most pathetic thing about it all is their personal suffering and plaintive cry. The significant words of Mrs. Browning, written as a protest against the sweatshops and factory-slavery of Englands children, find a fulfilment in the face of this judgment upon the nations
Do you hear the children weeping, O my brothers;Ere the sorrow comes with years?They are leaning their young heads against their mothers. And that cannot stop their tears.The young lambs are bleating in the meadows;The young birds are chirping in the nest;The young fawns are playing with the shadows,The young flowers are bending toward the west,But the young, young children, O my brothers!They are weeping bitterly, in the playtime of the others,In the country of the free.
The captivity of Daniel was the direct consequence of the sins of his seniors and sire.
His very nobility increased the ignominy of his experience. He was of the kings seed (Dan 1:3). He was born to rule; not to serve. He was bred in the expectation of a scepter, and never dreamed of slavery to heathen masters.
It had been spoken by the Prophet Isaiah unto Hezekiah, Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.
But his seniors had so far forgotten it, or else so perfectly despised the prophetic Scriptures, that the lad grew in ignorance of his coming fate.
When, therefore, about 606 B. C., the hosts of Nebuchadnezzar came upon Jerusalem, he took not alone the king Jehoiakim, but of the kings seed, and of the princes, among whom was Daniel.
Our hearts bleed when men of high birth and breeding are sent to prison by the lowbrowed. The slavery of the African, while transgressing the inalienable rights of man, was to him more blessing than hardship; and the greatest favor that has ever fallen out to the Ethiopian himself occurred when he was carried captive to America, and made a hewer of wood and a drawer of water for his white brethren. It brought him into a new civilization; it opened up to him the privileges of education and Christianity; and that slavery was the first step toward his real emancipation.
How different when the heathen hand was laid upon Judson, and that splendid, cultured, justly proud man, was thrust into the damp, filthy prison at Oung-Pen-la to languish for months, and to be treated with every indignity by men who were unfit to loose the latchet of his shoes; and when John Bunyanthat winged intellectwas subjected to the foulness of Bedfords jail.
I have seen a thousand canaries caged. My heart has not been touched with special pity at the sight. The little bird scarcely knows that he is an imprisoned thing; he can fly from perch to perch and feel at freedom still. But I never look upon a great eagle, chained at the feet, without resenting it. He was hatched in a higher altitude. His wing was intended to carry him to the heights; the deep dome of heaven is his homelike atmosphere; and it is both an indignity and an outrage for him to be brought down to the earth and tethered to the same, and looked upon with scorn and contumely by every passer-by.
So with this proud lad! The experience of the deepest ignominy can never be known to the debased; its refinement of cruelties is retained for the proud, the clean, the cultured. How are the mighty fallen! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph!
His Judean loyalty did not oppose the Chaldean learning. There was a time when the average American imagined that the heathen of the world knew nothing. The fact that they knew nothing of our religion, led us to conclude that their ignorance of natural science was as deep as their heathen superstition! That impression has been corrected, and we know now that even static Africa, as well as modern China and Japan, in spite of all their heathenism, amass much natural information.
Daniel no more protested against the learning of the Chaldeans than Moses did against that of the Egyptians. Knowledge, gained from whatever source, may be turned to good! It is worth ones while to make himself familiar even with the premises which he cannot believe, and conclusions to which he cannot consent. Sometime ago a man asked the question as to whether I would at all read a book on Higher Criticism, and seemed somewhat surprised when I told him that my library had almost as many volumes, published from the standpoint of the Critics, as from that of the Conservatives. Chaldean learning it is! Poor premises and false conclusions characterize it. Those facts, instead of being the reason for refusing to touch it, have always seemed to me an appeal for its study.
To deny the devil is to put ones self in more danger from him; and to ignore errors is to imperil ones self the more by their realities. Solomon, wise above his fellows, was doubtless made so by his fathers injunction, who taught him, saying,
Get wisdom, get understanding: * *
Forsake her not, and she * * shall keep thee.
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.
She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee (Pro 4:5-9).
Truly did Swett Marden write:
The ignoramus does not utter laws on science; the dolt never writes an Oddessy, an neid, a Paradise Lost, or a Hamlet.
Moses was a bigger man because he was schooled in the Egyptian university; and Daniel a greater one because he added Chaldean to Judean learning; and the greatness of both of them was proven by the fact that they could thread their way through these labyrinths of false teaching and remain alike faithful to God and to His Word.
This is perfectly illustrated by our second phrase.
THE CONSCIENTIOUS LAD
And the king appointed them a daily provision of the kings meat, and of the wine which he drank.
But Daniel purposed m his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the kings meat, nor with the wine which he drank (Dan 1:5; Dan 1:8).
He had a conscience and was not ashamed of it. Paul, writing to the Corinthians (1Co 8:7) declares
There is not in every man that knowledge, namely, that God is one, and beside Him there is none other, For, says he, some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
Daniel knew the law of the Lord against eating meat offered to idols. His conscience was more than a natural one; it was a Scripturally instructed one and was keen accordingly.
To me the greatest change that has come, in modern times, is at this particular point. I am perfectly confident that the whole educational system is now set to the tone of might, so boisterous, so physical, so brutal as to almost obliterate the quiet voice of conscience! From the day the lad enters the public schools, and appears upon the football grounds to the time when he comes away from the University an accomplished athlete, he is made to feel that nothing so effeminate as a parley over the fine points of right and wrong, is to be given even serious consideration.
The story that Theodore Parker tells of his tender youth, related on the campus of the modern school, would set the children to derisive laughter. He says, When I was a little boy my father led me to a distant part of the farm one day, but soon sent me home again. On the way I had to pass a little pond; a rhodora in full bloom, a rare flower, attracted my attention, and drew me to the spot. I saw a little tortoise sunning himself in the shallow waters at the roots of the flaming shrub! I lifted the stick I had in my hand to strike the harmless reptile; for though I had never killed any creature, yet I had seen other boys do so. But all at once something checked my arm and a voice within me said, clear and loud, Dont do it. It is wrong. I held my uplifted stick in wonder at the new emotion, and hastened home and told my mother, and asked what it was within that told me it was wrong. She wiped a tear from her eye, and taking me in her arms, said, Some men call it conscience; but I prefer to call it the voice of God. If you listen to and obey it, it will speak clearer and clearer, and always guide you right; but if you turn a deaf ear and disobey, then it will fade out, and leave you in the dark and without a guide. Your life depends on heeding that little voice.
It might be well to remind the Center-Rush that the day a man parts company with the effeminate thing known as conscience, he loses the first essential to success in life, and the greatest essential to life itself.
Daniel determined to conform his conduct to its dictates. On the one side was custom, and the important people with whom he was associated, and re-enforcing the demand that he eat the kings meat and drink the kings wine, was the fact that the king himself had appointed it.
What an appeal! There are many men who would refuse wine at the hand of an inferior; men who would disdain to drink it over the bar, passed out by some beefy, dull bartender; but when offered by the hand of the politician, or proffered by the man of large means; above all, when presented by the dimpled, jewelled hand of the social queen, who can withstand? But conscience, if it is to be followed at all, will take no account of such circumstances! Compromise with it is inconceivable!
The man, therefore, who proposes to be politic, and when in Rome, do as the Romans do, should know that such conduct is death to conscience. And he who silences that small voice has impoverished his soul and sustained a loss from which he can never recover. No wonder George Washington wrote:
Endeavor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of fire called conscience.
No wonder Byron declared:
Whatever creed be taught,Or land be trod,Mans conscience is the oracle of God.
No man has ever once regretted that he regarded and no man has ever once departed from its voice, but lived to regret the hour.
He was thereby compelled to appear peculiar. In his refusal to eat this meat and drink this wine he was not behaving like the elite about him. Remember Daniel did not live in the day when they were teaching the evil effect of alcohol in the public schoolsDaniel did not belong to a time when the Union had gone into Prohibition lines; Daniel had not heard of the temporary banishment of Vodka from Russia and of Absinthe from France, nor had he listened to Lloyd George pleading with England to dispose of intoxicating drink that she might enhance her chance of winning the war. King George had not then spoken in favor of temperance; nor had the United States abolished legalized liquor saloons from the land.
But God had spoken, and in the judgment of Daniel the Word of the Lord involved more of wisdom than the will of the Czar, the action of the French Republic, or the opinion of King, or Congress!
It would have been unnecessary for Daniels father to tell him that the cigarette was deleterious, and for Daniels teacher to present a scientific statement of its component parts to prove the same. Daniel went to a higher source of authority and believed, as the Bible teaches, that his body was the temple of God, and he refused to defile it.
Such radicalism in opinion and conduct was the solitary hope of Daniels day, and the sole hope of prosperity for Daniels people; and such refusal to conform ourselves to the age of which we are a part, is now the only hope of the individual Christian or of the Church of God.
But I may speak to those who are not Christian men, who do not know, and therefore do not concern yourselves with what God has to say upon such subjects. Then see what science has to speak, for possibly you are a devotee of that. When the great Dr. Lorenz was in this country and sat down to a table where the guests indulged in drink, his own wine cup was pushed aside, untasted. His companion at his side, asked, Are you a teetotaler?
Yes, said Dr. Lorenz, I am; but not a temperance agitator. I am a surgeon. My success depends upon my brain being clear, my muscles firm and my nerves steady. No one can take alcoholic liquor without blunting these physical powers which must be kept on edge. As a physician I must not drink.
I can perfectly understand how a man who is a physical and nervous wreck, may be tempted to try temporarily the use of a stimulant; but does it not seem little short of cowardice for a man in youth, or in all the fullness of middle life, to resort to stimulants when his brain reminds him of the fact that every time he takes the same there is a reaction that reduces his powers and renders him less capable of resistance?
Coffee may be a delight; but when I found it injurious, I should have counted myself a coward had I not given it up at once. Tea is, to me, a decided stimulus and the taste of it is attractive. Just on that account I dare not drink it daily lest it lose its wonted effect and in the hour when I am jaded, this overworked servant be unable to come to my relief.
The problem of how to live at ones best and accomplish ones work most efficiently is one of the biggest of life. Strong meats and drinks have never helped to conserve it; but, ten thousand times they have defeated men who, had they resisted them, might have been Daniels indeed. If I could have the ear of the youth of the land, I know of no cause I could plead with greater import than that of conscience in clean, careful, abstemious, scientific living. Daniel will forever stand out as an example in that line.
THE ACCOMPLISHED LAD
One is quite prepared by his previous study to receive the inspired remark concerning Daniel and his brethren, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom; and in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm (Dan 1:17; Dan 1:20).
And yet, the lads accomplishment was not mental only.
In physical form he was a fine model. A child in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the kings meat (Dan 1:15). Here is a fair plea, and perhaps even a forceful argument, for the vegetarian. There can be little doubt that meat has as often weakened muscles as made them; and there is no dispute that wines are physically deleterious. False stimulants whether in the form of highly seasoned meats or intoxicating drinks have never meant physical reinforcement.
Forty years ago I knew a man, well formed in body, well developed in brain, but in his social hours he felt that stimulants were essential to physical endurance and intellectual scintillation. For full twenty-five years he has been the weakened victim of this false philosophy. His body and brain have alike been involved and the competent physician to whom he has made appeal held out no promise of permanent recovery. Undoubtedly the adoption of Daniels course would have kept his body under blessing.
In mental acumen he was unmatched! The text tells us that God gave them knowledge and skill in all * * wisdom, and declares again In all matters * * that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
The amount of gray matter one develops is never determined by the amount of meat and wine he eats and drinks.
Sometimes we have come upon the early history of some man who has become great and noble, and our tears are started by the circumstances, that in youth, or in the college days, he often endured the pangs of hunger; but when we come to know that an empty stomach makes an active brain, and the very circumstance often produces mental clearness, we must realize that far greater misfortune might be fallen upon than to be denied wine and even for intervals meat and bread.
This child of poverty, this victim of hardships, was, after all, the favored lad. We are told that a patrician once said to Cicero, You are a plebeian.
To this the great Roman orator replied, I am a plebeian; the nobility of my family begins with me; that of yours will end with you.
In spiritual discernment he was a child of the king.
Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams (Dan 1:17).
That was no natural talent: that was the enduement of the Spirit, the experience of Gods power.
One never reads the story of Daniel without being reminded of that of Joseph. In the interpretation of dreams he had presented a like claim, Not of us, but from God.
But to be in touch with Him one must be His own. The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When one reflects upon this fact he is fitted to join with Isaac Watts in the petitions of the great hymn:
Come, Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove,
With all Thy quickening powers,
Kindle a flame of sacred love
In these cold hearts of ours.
Look! How we grovel here below,
Fond of these earthly toys;
Our souls can neither fly nor go
To reach eternal joys.
In vain we tune our formal songs;
In vain we strive to rise;
Hosannas languish on our tongues,
And our devotion dies.
Dear Lord, and shall we ever live
At this poor dying rate,
Our love so faint, so cold to Thee,
And Thine to us so great?
Come, Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove,
With all Thy quickening powers;
Come shed abroad a Saviours love,
And that shall kindle ours.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
HOMILETICS
SECT. I.THE CAPTIVITY (Dan. 1:1-2)
This remarkable book opens with the scene or Israels deepest degradation and misery. Threatened judgments had at length come. Warnings had been addressed in vain. Divine expostulations had been unheeded. The kingdom of Judah, like that of Israel, had forsaken its God and King, and must now, like it, be forsaken by Him. Idolatry and wickedness can no longer be tolerated in the chosen people. Manassehs sin in filling Jerusalem with innocent blood had, on his repentance, been mercifully forgiven as regarded himself, but not as regarded his children and subjects, who still continued impenitent. The blow began to fall on Jehoiakim and the people of his reign (2Ki. 24:1-4). It was, as the text states, in the third year of his reign [1], after he had been some time tributary to Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, that Nebuchadnezzar [2], king of Babylon, came up, or rather set out, as in Jon. 1:3, on his expedition against Jerusalem, as the chosen instrument of Jehovahs vengeance. The blow, however, even then did not immediately descend. It was the next or fourth year of Jehoiakims reign before Nebuchadnezzar, who first encountered the king of Egypt at Carchemish on the Euphrates, arrived at Jerusalem (Jer. 46:2). Divine forbearance was still exercised. Jerusalem was taken, and Jehoiakim was bound in fetters to be carried away to Babylon, but was again released and allowed still to reign as a tributary prince. Many captives [3], some of them of noble and even of royal birth, were taken to Babylon, here called by its ancient name, Shinar [4], as well as a portion of the sacred vessels of the Temple, which Nebuchadnezzar placed in the house of his god [5] as the trophies of his conquests and the expression of his gratitude to Bel. The king, however, still remained impenitent. To all his other sins he added that which apparently sealed his doom. The book or roll, containing a divine message, which Jeremiah shortly afterwards sent by Baruch to be read in the Temple-court to the people (Jer. 36:1-25), he defiantly cut in pieces with a penknife, and threw the fragments in the fire. Some six years afterwards, after vain attempts to free himself from the yoke of Babylon, bands of Chaldeans and others were sent against him by Nebuchadnezzar. The threatened punishment then fell on the infatuated monarch. He was put to death in his capital, and, according to the word of the prophet, his dead body was ignominiously cast outside the gates of the city, and buried with the burial of an ass (2Ki. 24:7; Jer. 22:18-19) [6]. Observe
[1] In the third year, &c. No contradiction between this and Jer. 46:2, which says that Nebuchadnezzar smote the army of Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Hengstenberg and Keil both prefer to render the word (ba), not came, but set out or marched, the word, as the latter observes, being frequently used of military expeditions. Objectors to the genuineness of the book have put this down among Daniels alleged historical errors. According to Jer. 25:1, say they, Nebuchadnezzar did not mount the throne of Babylon till the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim; and according to Jer. 46:1, the conquest of the Egyptians at Carchemish did not occur till the same year; and the subjugation of Jerusalem could only take place as a consequence of that conquest. Hence, it is said, the deportation here spoken of, if it really took place, could only do so in Nebuchadnezzars expedition to Lower Asia in the seventh year of his reign, and the eleventh of Jehoiakims. Hengstenberg and others have met this objection by stating that Berosus, in his Chaldean history, informs us that Nebuchadnezzar the father, also called Nabopolassar, on hearing that the governor whom he had appointed in Syria and Phnicia had revolted to the Egyptians, being too weak to go himself, sent his son Nebuchadnezzar with an army, who defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish, and brought Syria and Phnicia again under the Babylonian dominion, the campaign being brought to a close by the tidings of Nabopolassars death. The beginning of this expedition must fall, at least, in the end of the third year of Jehoiakim. Nebuchadnezzar soon succeeded in taking Carchemish, and marched into Juda, whose king, Jehoiakim, was an ally and tributary of the king of Egypt, towards the close of his fourth year. It is thus historically certain that before the invasion in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim, Juda was once conquered by the Babylonians. Indeed history tells of no other expedition of Nebuchadnezzar than that before us, the rest of his life, according to Berosus, being taken up with fortifying and embellishing the city, and in other internal arrangements. As to the title of king here given to Nebuchadnezzar, the same historian relates that Nabopolassar, being aged and infirm, conferred on his son, Nebuchadnezzar, who had attained the age of manhood, some share of the government. In reference to Jer. 25:1, Hengstenberg thinks that it is the first year of Nebuchadnezzars coregency, and not that of his sole reign, that is likely to be intended; while in Dan. 2:1, on the contrary, it is the second year of his sole monarchy, this reckoning being as natural to an author living in Babylon as the other would be to one living in Juda.
[2] Nebuchadnezzar. According to the canon of Ptolemy, the son of Nabopolassar, whom some call the elder Nebuchadnezzar. According to Josephus, the father reigned twenty-three years, and the son forty-three. Ptolemy states that it was in the nineteenth year of Nabopolassars reign that the Babylonish captivity began. His son, to distinguish him from the father, is sometimes called Nebuchadnezzar the Great. Keil observes that as Nabopolassar came into no contact at all with Juda, the Jews knew scarcely anything of his reign and death; and the year of Nebuchadnezzars appearance at Jerusalem would be regarded in a general way, both by Jeremiah and his contemporaries, as the first year of his reign; and the commander of the Chaldean army would be viewed as the king of Babylon, no matter whether on account of his being co-regent with his aged and infirm father, or merely as he was clothed with royal power as the chief commander of the army. In this sense Keil thinks Daniel now names him king, who was only afterwards such, and not yet in actual possession of the throne.
[3] Berosus relates that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his father, he set in order the affairs of Egypt and the neighbouring countries, and having commissioned some of his friends to transport to Babylon the prisoners of the Jews, Syrians, Phnicians, and the nations in Egypt, together with the heaviest part of the army, himself with a few attendants went across the desert to Babylon. Mr. Bosanquet thinks that the year in the text could not be the third of Jehoiakims reign, as, among other reasons, the author of the last chapter of Jeremiah, when enumerating the several occasions when captives were carried off in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, makes no mention of this in the third year of Jehoiakim, nor of any before the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Jehoiakim fell into this kings hands and ceased to reign (Jer. 36:28-30); also, as the author of Second Chronicles, writing after the seventy years of captivity were ended, makes no reference either to this supposed important siege, or to this commencement of the captivity, simply relating that Jehoiakim reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and that against him came up Nebuchadnezzar, &c. (2Ch. 36:6-7); finally, as Ezekiel appears to know of no other commencement of the captivity at Babylon than that which began in that eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. He quotes the Rabbinical book Seder Olam Rabba as stating that Daniel is to be understood as speaking of the third year after the rebellion of Jehoiakim, and, speaking in reference to the year of Nebuchadnezzars dream, says that Scripture reckons the years from the destruction of the Temple. He refers also to Josephus, who reckons that Daniel was carried to Babylon as late as the time of Zedekiah, and to Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and others, who considered that it took place at the time when Jehoiachin or Jechoniah was taken prisoner to Babylon. He thinks the desolations of Jerusalem (Dan. 9:2) are clearly marked in 2Ch. 36:19-21 as beginning with the burning of Jerusalem.
[4] Shinar. The name of the country indigenous to Babylonia itself, of which we find traces not only in classical writers, but in modern travellers. Bertholdt is led by it, according to his hypothesis of a plurality of authors, to maintain the composition of this first chapter in an earlier age and in Babylonia. The name found in historical prose only in the Book of Genesis. In later times it became quite antiquated among the Hebrews. Occurs again only in prophetic poetry,twice in Isaiah and Zechariah. Here, however, it is found in simple prose, as the common geographical appellation of Babylonia. Assuming Daniel to be the author of the book, this is easily explained.Hengstenberg. Dr. Rule observes that Babylonia is named Shinar in the cuneiform inscriptions.
[5] His god. This was Bel, the tutelar god of the city of Babylon. According to Gesenius, the planet Jupiter intended by the idol. The name identical with Baal or Beel, denoting lord, possessor, or husband, corresponding to the sun or generative power in nature. Baal or Bel worshipped by the Carthaginians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and others. Supposed by some to be the same with Moloch, to whom the Ammonites made their cruel and bloody sacrifices, and to whom Israel was seduced to offer their children, causing them to pass through the fire. Bels worship prevailed through all ancient Scandinavia, and is supposed to have been general throughout the British Islands. To this day there are various superstitious observances in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales very closely resembling the ancient worship of Bel. A town in Perthshire is called Tilliebeltane, that is, the Hill of the Fire of Bel. In Ireland, Beltein, denoting the Fire of Bel, is one of the festival days, on which fires are made early on the tops of the hills, and all the cattle are made to pass through them, in order, it is said, to be freed from contagion and disease for that year.Dr. Eadie. Dr. Rule observes that the cuneiform inscriptions show the name of Nebuchadnezzars deity to have been Merodach or Bel-Merodach. Berosus says Bel was Jupiter Belus, the son of Saturn, who had a temple there, with the stupendous tower in the midst of it, which, according to Pliny, continued till the reign of Vespasian. Dr. Cox remarks that this treasure-house was probably the edifice to which Herodotus refers, where a large golden statue of Jupiter was erected, and that historians compute the riches of this temple at upwards of twenty millions sterling. It is remarkable, says Hengstenberg, that Berosus, a Chaldean historian, states that with the spoils of this very war he magnificently adorned the temple of Belus and other sacred edifices. Dr. Rule quotes from the Standard Inscription Nebuchadnezzars boast of having repaired the temple, which he made his treasury. I set up long beams to support it: with pillars and beams plated with copper and strengthened with iron: I built up its gates: I stored up inside silver and gold, and precious stones whose names were almost unknown: and placed there the treasure-house of my kingdom.
[6] Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Juda. The first, in the time of Jehoiakin (606 b.c.), reduced the Theocracy to a tributary of the Babylonian world-power. Daniel was among the captives brought at that very time to Babylon. At the second inroad (598 b.c.), King Jehoiachin and the prophet Ezekiel were led into captivity. In the third (588 b.c.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed at last the Holy City, brought the last Jewish king in fetters to Babylon; and thus the kingdom came to its end. Thus a new stage in the history of the development of the Theocracy begins with the Babylonish captivity, which may be reckoned from the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar; for the independent existence of the Theocracy then terminateda stage which may be designated as the rule of the powers of the world. This captivity, as well as its termination, was itself a fulfilment of prophecy. Micah (Mic. 3:12; Mic. 4:10) foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple, as also the return from Babylon. Isaiah (ch. 4066) announced the deliverance of Israel out of Babylon, and the building up of the ruins of Jerusalem and Judah, with the final glory of Zion, through the creation of new heavens and a new earth; giving the very name of the Persian monarch through whom the return should be effected. Jeremiah (ch. Jer. 25:29-31) proclaimed the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar, but predicted the very period of its continuance (seventy years), after which Judah and Israel should return to the land of their fathers. The captivity of Babylon, however, was to succeeded in the space of 600 years by another and a much longer onea captivity which still continues, called by the Jews the Great Captivity, commencing with the destruction of their city and Temple by the Romans. The reason of this second one acknowledged by the Jews themselves to be their national guilt. This time, however, that guilt consisted not in idolatry according to the ordinary meaning of the wordidolatry in its gross form, but the rejection of their promised King and Saviour, which was also rejection of their God who sent Him. Not this man, they cried out, but Barabbas: We have no king but Csar; as before they said, Not Jehovah, but the gods of the heathen (Jer. 44:17-19). Even still, however, the Lord has not cast off His people whom He foreknew. Israel shall yet look on Him whom they pierced, and mourn because of Him. All Israel shall yet be saved, and the receiving of them be life from the dead to the world, at large.Auberlen.
1. The certain fulfilment of divine threatenings. Gods word, whether of mercy or judgment, will not return to Him void. Hath He spoken it, and will He not do it? The promise and the threatening sure, sooner or later, to be fulfilled, unless prevented in the one case by unbelief, or in the other by repentance. Jehoiakim may cut the hated roll in pieces and cast it into the fire, but the threatened judgment is only brought so much nearer its fulfilment. The burned Bible only adds fuel to the fire.
2. The consequence of unrepented sin. Divine wrath against impenitence slow but sure. Justice travels with leaden feet, leaving time for repentance. Mercy rejoices over judgment; but, mercy despised, judgment strikes the blow. Though sentence against an evil work be not executed speedily, yet the judgment of the impenitent lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. The sun rose on Sodom gladsome and joyous as usual, but set on it a heap of ashes. The path of disobedience, whatever it may promise of pleasure or of profit, is found, sooner or later, to be planted with thorns. In continuing to do what is forbidden or to neglect what is commanded, whether to avoid a difficulty or to gain an end, we one day discover that we have but sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.
3. The terrible effects of the divine displeasure. The desolated land, the sacked city, and the burned Temple of the Jews only additional illustrations. The wrath of a king is as the roaring of a lion. What then the wrath of a God who is holy, righteous, and omnipotent? Slow in coming, fearful when it falls. Who can stand when once Thou art angry? A fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. To hide one from the wrath of the rejected Lamb, rocks and mountains will be appealed to in vain. Mens highest wisdom and interest to prepare for the Diet Ir, the great day of His wrath, before it come. If once His anger be kindled but a little, blessed are all they that put their trust in Him. The blood shed for the remission of sins the only refuge in that day; the only refuge now.
4. The awful evil of sin. It was sin that brought destruction upon Jerusalem and its king. An evil thing and a bitter to forsake the living God and to trample upon His laws. Only fools make a mock at sin. Sin the abominable thing that God hates. Kindles a fire in His anger that burns to the lowest hell (Deu. 32:22). Brought death into the world and all our woe. Banished man from Paradise and buried the world in a deluge of water. Covers the earth at present with every form of sorrow and suffering, and will one day overwhelm it in a deluge of fire. Makes men and women partakers of the devils character now, and of his condemnation hereafter.
5. The reality of Gods government of the world. Nations and kings raised up or overthrown at His will. His to plant and to pluck up, to build and to throw down. The hearts of rulers in His hand to turn them whithersoever He will. The Lord gave Jehoiakim into Nebuchadnezzars hand. The king of Babylon but Jehovahs executioner, the axe in the hand of him that heweth therewith. Against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge: howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so (Isa. 10:6-7; Isa. 10:15). Attila, taught by the light of nature, called himself the Scourge of God. Who did not recognise the same in the first Napoleon? God Himself the author of the calamities that befall a sinful people, whoever or whatever the instrument. Is there evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it? I make peace and create evil (Amo. 3:6; Isa. 45:7). An all-controlling and superintending agency where man sees only the operation of human passions. A great truth uttered by Englands favourite author, Theres a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them as we will.
6. Desecration of sacred things often a divine chastisement. The only calamity here recorded in connection with Nebuchadnezzars siege of Jerusalem, the removal of the sacred vessels of the Temple to Babylon, to be placed among the treasures of Bel, the abomination of Chaldean idolatry. The acme of Israels distress in the days of Eli that the Ark was seized and carried off by the Philistines. Fallen Churches in the East chastised when their sanctuaries were seized by the Saracens, and appropriated to a religion that robbed the Saviour of His divinity and placed Mahomet above Him as a prophet. The Church that shed the blood of the Huguenots like water saw its communion vessels seized and melted down to be coined into money for the payment of revolutionary armies, its bells converted into cannon, and the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris desecrated by the worship of the Goddess of Reason in the person of a prostitute. Such desecration often the chastisement of abused privileges and rejected truth. The warning addressed to Oriental Churches still applicable to those of the West, Repent, or else I will come to thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent (Rev. 2:5). Matthew Henry remarks: See the righteousness of God; His people had brought the images of other gods into His Temple, and now He suffers the vessels of the Temple to be carried into the treasuries of those other gods. When men profane the vessels of the sanctuary with their sins, it is just with God to profane them by His judgments.
7. The externals of religion no defence to a sinful, hypocritical nation. The Ark of God carried into the battle unable to save backslidden Israel from the hands of the Philistines. Christian sanctuaries unable to protect those who had already perverted the religion of Christ to one of formality, worldliness, and superstition. Hypocrisy and sin only make a Church or people a carcase where the eagles of divine vengeance will be gathered together. Take away her battlements, for they are not the Lords. Israel fondly trusted to the Temple to defend them, though they went on in their iniquity; and now, to show them the vanity of that confidence, the Temple is first plundered.Henry.
8. Nebuchadnezzar, even in his profanity, an example of the recognition of, and gratitude to, a Supreme Being for favours received and success obtained. The vessels of the Temple placed in the house of his god rather than in his own, in recognition of the aid by which, as he supposed, those trophies were won. Belief in and recognition of a Supreme Being, among the first and plainest teachings of nature. The heathen, who knew not the true God, accustomed to impute their success to the favour of the deities they acknowledged (Hab. 1:11). After the plague in Athens, B.C. 434, the Athenians dedicated a statue to Apollo as the Averter of evil. After the battle of Salamis, the Greeks dedicated the throne of Xerxes as a thankoffering to Minerva. The Parthenon itself, where it was kept, was built in gratitude to the same imaginary deity, by whose assistance they believed their heroes had fought and conquered. The small community of the village of Phigaleia in Arcadia erected the beautiful Temple of Bass in gratitude to Apollo for deliverance from a pestilence. Pythagoras sacrificed an ox to the Muses on a new discovery made in geometry. The sin was, that in the blindness and depravity of the natural heart, the heathen substituted false gods for the true one. But may not the gratitude of the heathen to their false deities condemn many a professed worshipper of the true God?
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Part OneDaniels FaithChapter 1
CHAPTER ONE
I. DANIELS FAITHDan. 1:1-21
I. PAGANIZATION ATTEMPTED
TEXT: Dan. 1:1-7
1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
2
And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.
3.
And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles;
4
youths in whom was no blemish, but well-favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the kings palace; and that he should teach them the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
5
And the king appointed for them a daily portion of the kings dainties, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be nourished three years; that at the end thereof they should stand before the king.
6
Now among these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
7
And the prince of the eunuchs gave names unto them: unto Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.
QUERIES
a.
When did this siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occur?
b.
Why attempt to nourish the Hebrew lads on Babylonian dainties?
c.
Why were the Hebrew lads given Babylonian names?
PARAPHRASE
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and encircled the city with his army and beseiged it. And the Lord permitted Nebuchadnezzar to capture Jehoiakim along with some of the sacred vessels of worship from the temple of God. Nebuchadnezzar took all his plunder along with his prisoners back to his own land of Babylon and he put the sacred vessels on display in the treasury of his own pagan temple. Then Nebuchadnezzar ordered Ashpenaz, the chief of his servants, to select some of the young Jewish nobles and to train them in Babylonian language, sciences and culture. Ashpenaz was instructed to select young, strong, healthy, good-looking men who were well informed, widely read in many fields, alert and sensible and possessed of poise and self-confidence sufficiently to make a good appearance in the court of the king. And the king took special occasion to command that they should receive a daily serving of the richest and most desirable food and wine from his own table for a three-year training period. He planned to develop these young men physically, mentally and socially in order that they might become his advisors. Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were four of the young men chosen, all from the tribe of Judah. And as a part of their naturalization into Babylonian life, the kings chief servant gave them Babylonian names. Daniel was called Belteshazzar; Hananiah was called Shadrach; Mishael was called Meshach; Azariah was called Abed-nego.
COMMENT
Dan. 1:1 IN THE THIRD YEAR . . . OF JEHOIAKIM . . . Immediately the problem of an apparent discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah confronts us. (1) Jer. 25:1 says that the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar were the same; (2) Jer. 46:2 has Nebuchadnezzar defeating the army of Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim; (3) and, finally, Jer. 25:8-14 seems to imply that Nebuchadnezzar had not yet come against Jerusalem (at all?) in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Yet, Daniel says not only that Nebuchadnezzar did come against Jehoiakim in Jehoiakims third year, but that Nebuchadnezzar was king when he came in this third year, while Jeremiah specifically states that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was not until the fourth year of Jehoiakim.
Historical research offers two possible solutions one of which is undoubtedly the correct answer: (1) According to the Babylonian way of designating time of regnal activity, only the first full year of reign was called the first year of a kings reign. The year in which the king ascended the throne, whether at the first of the year or later, was not designated his first year, but the year of accession to the kingdom. Daniel, writing in Babylon, many years after the event, would undoubtedly use Babylonian terminology, especially in such a technical matter, speaks of Jehoiakims third year but means the same year as does Jeremiah in mentioning the fourth year (Jeremiah writing in Judah, using Jewish terminology). Edward J. Young points to a biblical example of such a difference between Babylonian and Jewish methods of reckoning regnal activity. There is a passage in 2Ki. 24:12 through 2Ki. 25:30 where the eighth and nineteenth years of a reign are spoken of; the parallel passage to this in Jer. 52:28-30 speaks of the same reign as in the seventh and eighteenth years. The following table will help to clarify this point:
Babylonian
Jewish
Accession
First Year
First Year
Second Year
Second Year
Third Year
Third Year (Dan. 1:1)
Fourth Year (Jer. 25:1)
(2) There is a passage in Josephus (cf. Antiquities X:II:I and Contra Apion Dan. 1:19) which he copied from Berossus, the Chaldean historian, which relates that Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzars father, had heard that a governor whom he had not set over Egypt had revolted. Being himself old, Nabopolassar dispatched his son leading the massive Babylonian army to take the rebel in hand. This Nebuchadnezzar set out to do; but while engaged in the task, his father took sick and died. Whereupon Nebuchadnezzar turned over his captives to his subordinates, selected a small band of the most courageous of his soldiers set out immediately for the capitol city of Babylon to take over the reigns of government. Among the captives Nebuchadnezzar left with his subordinates were Jews, Phoenicians and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt. This would imply that Nebuenadnezzar had been engaged in an expedition against Jerusalem prior to the battle at Carchemish. Notice that Dan. 1:1 does not state that Nebuchadnezzar conquered and destroyed the city of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim! only that he came and besieged it. But, if Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem before he went home at the death of his father to take the reins of government, why does Daniel say king Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city? Daniel, writing long after the event, is using the proleptic form in applying the title king. We sometimes say, In the childhood of President Lincoln, or when President Teddy Roosevelt charged up San Juan hill.
The two foregoing positions are outlined here for sake of clarity. It would seem that either position is entirely credible. Which of the two is most probable, the reader must decide for himself:
(1)
(2)
1.
Early 606 B.C. Jer. delivers the address recorded in Jeremiah 25
Early in 605 B.C. Jer. delivers the address recorded in Jeremiah 25
2.
606 B.C. Neb. besieges Jerusalem; carries off Jehoiakim, temple vessels, Daniel, and friends
Early, in 605 Neb. defeats the Egyptians at Carchemish (Jer. 46:2)
3.
Nebuchadnezzar hastens home at death of his father
Nebuchadnezzar then appears in Palestine
4.
Early 605 B.C. Neb. defeats Egyptians at Carchemish
Then occurs the siege of Dan. 1:1; also recorded in 2Ki. 24:1; 2Ch. 36:6-7
5.
Nebuchadnezzar comes against Jerusalem twice more, 597 B.C. and 586 B.C.
Neb. hastens to Babylon at death of his father
Dan. 1:2 AND THE LORD GAVE . . . INTO HIS HAND . . . AND HE CARRIED THEM . . . TO THE HOUSE OF HIS GOD . . . Although Nebuchadnezzar was unaware of it, and probably would not have admitted it at the time (however, he was later to change his mind), he became an instrument of the Divine will. God permitted Nebuchadnezzar to exercise his fury against Jerusalem and to take the covenant people into captivity for the good of Gods people (cf. Jer. 25:1 ff; Jer. 27:5-7, etc.). Please refer also to Minor Prophets, by Paul T. Butler, published College Press, Special Studies on Philosophy of History.
Nebuchadnezzar is spelled Nebuchadrezzar in Babylonian and means Nebo protect the boundary, or Nebo protect the crown. Jehoiakim was not deported, (cf. 2Ch. 36:5) therefore all that Nebuchadnezzar brought to the treasure house of his god were some of the sacred vessels from the temple in Jerusalem. The suffix them can only refer gramatically to the vessels. Some of these vessels Belshazzar (Nebuchadnezzars grandson) desecrated by using them in a drunken, riotous feast (Dan. 5:2-4). It was customary in those days for conquerors to commandeer and plunder thoroughly the treasuries of the vanquished. The rapine of defeated foes is still practiced by ungodly nations todayRussia robbed Europe of some of its most priceless treasures during World War II. The Babylonian prince took his booty home and put it in safe deposit in the treasure-house of the temple to his pagan gods.
Dan. 1:3 . . . THE KING SPAKE UNTO ASHPENAZ . . . THAT HE SHOULD BRING: CERTAIN OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL . . . Lange points out that it is possible that Ashpenaz himself might not have been a literal eunuch since Josephs master at the court of Pharaoh is called by the same Hebrew word and yet was married (cf. Gen. 37:36; Gen. 38:1-7). It is highly probable though that Ashpenaz and all his subordinates were eunuchs in the literal sense. However, it is not necessary to assume that Daniel and his Hebrew friends were made to become literal eunuchs. In fact, Eze. 14:20 seems to imply that Daniel had sons and daughters. It may also be assumed that Daniel would resist being made a eunuch with as much forcefulness as he did the kings dainties since the law of Moses prohibited a eunuch to enter the congregation of Israel, (Deu. 23:1).
Ashpenaz, major-domo, was commanded by the king to select only the most eminent of the captivesthose of royal stock. By this means he could gather, from every subjugated nation, a select body of talented young diplomats. The value of such a heterogeneous group to a pagan court, representing an amalgamation of many different political, cultural and intellectual ideas and secrets, is at once evident. Daniel was from the tribe of Judah, the royal tribe of Israel.
Dan. 1:4 . . . NO BLEMISH . . . WELL-FAVORED . . . SKILFUL IN ALL WISDOM . . . ENDUED WITH KNOWLEDGE . . . UNDERSTANDING . . . SCIENCE . . . AS HAD ABILITY TO STAND IN THE KINGS PALACE . . . TEACH THEM . . . LEARNING AND . . . TONGUE OF THE CHALDEANS . . . These are the kings own specifications. He is first of all interested that these young men who will grace his court have no physical infirmity or blemish. They must be physically handsome. Beauty was regarded almost as a virtue among the ancients. The king would not permit an ugly, misshapen, stooped, or scarred courtier. But more important, they were to be mentally alert and capable of analytical understanding. They were to be more than mere philosophers and theoriststhey were to be apt at making practical application of what was learned and known. As the Hebrew puts itthey were to have a knowing knowledge. They were to be possessed already of a great amount of contemporary science and knowledge. Nebuchadnezzer had in mind the extra-ordinary young man. He desired only the brilliant, the scholarly.
His purpose in being so selective was to gather a group of young men eager to learn and easy to teach the sciences and culture of the Babylonians. The kings theory was that if he could provide himself with a retinue of widely diversified sources of knowledge and wisdom and at the same time Babylonianize them or bind them to loyalty to Babylon, he would be that much more able to conquer and rule.
Daniel and the other three lads were enrolled in a crash course in Babylonian culture and for three years were given the ancient equivalent of a liberal education. We gain some idea of the literary resources of the seventh century before Christ when we are introduced through archaeology to the vast library of Ashurbanipal (704681 B.C. just prior to Daniels day) which contained 22,0000 volumes of cuneiform (i.e. wedge-shaped writing) clay tablets. These tablets contain religious, literary, and scientific works among which were the Babylonian creation and flood tablets. These tablets came from a variety of sources. Many were copied from originals by his own scribes. He dispatched officials to the cities of his Empire with orders to gather all texts of importance. One of his extant discoveries ends with the words, If you hear of any tablet or ritualistic text that is suitable for the palace, seek it out, secure it, and send it here.
The Babylonians inherited the sexagesimal system from the ancient Sumerians. This system of numbering by sixties is still in use. We reckon sixty seconds to the minute, and sixty minutes to the hour. The system is also used in the division of the circle into three hundred and sixty degrees. Clay tablets have been found showing common familiarity with measurement of the area of rectangles and of right and isosceles triangles. An amazing knowledge of algebra is also shown in the Babylonian literaturetablets of squares, square roots, cubes, and cube roots. The Pythagorean theorem was known by the Babylonians more than a thousand years before Pythagoras!
Closely related to their knowledge of mathematics was their science of astronomy. By 800 B.C. Babylonian astronomers had attained sufficient accuracy to assign positions to the stars and note their heliacal settings. An attempt was made to determine cause and effect relationships between the motions of the heavenly bodies and purely human events and this is known as astrology and is definitely not scientific. A cuneiform tablet from about 700 B.C. classifies the fixed stars. Lengths of daylight and darkness at a given time could be predicted by the Babylonians.
In the field of medicine certain scientific advances were made. Their attempt to learn the will of the gods by an examination of animal entrails furnished, by way of analogy, some idea of human anatomy. As early as the Code of Hammurabi (1700 B.C.) physicians performed delicate operations on the human eye.
Babylonian science was the result of observation and classification and they used it to serve many practical purposes. Taxonomy in plant, animal and mineral kingdoms was practiced. Chemistry and metallurgy were everyday sciences in Daniels day.
And, of course, there was an extremely complicated theology or philosophy of Babylonian religion. We will deal with this aspect of Daniels education in a later section of the text.
Dan. 1:5 . . . A DAILY PORTION OF THE KINGS DAINTIES, AND OF THE WINE WHICH HE DRANK . . . The king commanded that these young men enrolled in instruction in Babylonian culture should also learn to live (especially to eat indulgently) like Babylonian men of eminence. He ordered that they learn the social graces of the Babylonian royal table by eating from the kings kitchen. Dainties probably refer to foods in which only the king could afford to indulgeluxurious, costly, rare, delicatefood that is associated with the lives of those who are lovers of pleasure and luxury. By association with this type of food they would be exposed to a subtle moral softening and weakening process. Godly people are warned to abstain from indulging in such eating of the flesh (cf. Psa. 141:4; Pro. 23:1-3; Rev. 18:14).
The kings purpose in this was certainly pragmatic and perhaps psychological. It is clear from the phrase, that at the end thereof they should stand before the king, the practical end the king sought was training in social graces befitting men of the court. And, it may be, Nebuchadnezzar was attempting a psychological brainwashing through such a thorough introduction into Babylonian table manners. The next verses suggest this.
Dan. 1:6-7 . . . THE PRINCE OF THE EUNUCHS GAVE NAMES UNTO THEM . . . In olden days most names were theophoric. That is, they had the name of the deity incorporated, Daniel means my judge is God; Hananiah means gracious is Jehovah; Mishael means who is He that is God? and Azariah means Jehovah hath helped, When the Babylonians changed their names it meant they intended to honor their gods for victory over the Hebrews whose God the Babylonians believed they had vanquished. A parallel for such action is found in 2Ki. 23:34; 2Ki. 24:17; Est. 2:7.
Beltheshazzar means protect his life; Shadrach means command of Aku (the moon god); Mesach means who is what Aku (the moon god) is? and Abednego means servant of Nebo. No doubt the purpose of the Babylonian king was to so assimilate these young men into the Babylonian culture they would become, for all practical purposes, Babylonians and dissociate themselves completely from the Hebrew ways; even from their God. Although these lads did accommodate themselves readily to new knowledge and new culture, they remained true to their knowledge of and daily walk with the Living God. The rest of their story is yet to be learned.
QUIZ
1.
What evidence is there that Daniel (606536 B.C.) wrote this book and not some pseudo-Daniel of 2001000 B.C.?
2.
What is the purpose of the book of Daniel?
3.
What is apocalyptic literature?
4.
Describe the city of Babylon in Daniels daygive its location, etc.
5.
Show how the apparent discrepancy between Jeremiahs account of Jehoiakim and Nebuchadnezzar and Daniels account do not contradict.
6.
How extensive was the knowledge and wisdom of the Babylonians at this time?
7.
Why did the king insist on these young men eating food from his table?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) In the third year.Two questions are involved in this verse. (1) Is it historically true that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakims reign? (2) Does the language of the verse imply that he did so? The second question is rightly answered in the negative. The word came means went, as Gen. 45:17; 2Ki. 5:5, and it is the natural word for a Hebrew to use who wrote from Babylon, and may be translated marched. It is therefore implied in this verse that Nebuchadnezzar started from Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim. The rest of the history is easily supplied from other portions of Scripture. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim he conquered Pharaoh at Carchemish (Jer. 46:2), and then advanced upon Jerusalem. (See marginal reference.) The name Nebuchadnezzar is sometimes more correctly spelt Nebuchadrezzar, but no argument can be based upon the different modes of spelling the name, as the difficulties of transliteration of Babylonian names into Hebrew characters are considerable.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Introductory Daniel Prepared for His Work.
1. De Wette, Kuenen, etc., have called the date given in this verse “obviously false,” “a striking and characteristic misstatement,” because it makes the first year of Nebuchadnezzar coincide with the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597 B.C.), while Jeremiah (Jer 35:1; Jer 46:2; compare 2 Chronicles 36) makes it coincide with Jehoiakim’s fourth year. But Jeremiah almost certainly calls Nebuchadnezzar, who was only crown prince at the time of the Palestinian campaign (605 B.C.), “king” proleptically, which is a very permissible usage (Behrmann). Moreover, Jeremiah may be conceived as reckoning the accession year of this king as his first year, according to Jewish custom, while the author of Daniel, according to ordinary Babylonian usage, may have counted his first year as not beginning until the following New Year’s Day. (See our Introduction, III, 5; Society Biblical Archaeology, January, 1900.) On this supposition all contradictions vanish, the third year of Jehoiakim being the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar and his fourth year synchronizing with Nebuchadnezzar’s official “first year.” For Nebuchadnezzar see our Introduction, III, 3, (1); for Babylon see Introduction, III, 4. The cuneiform meaning of this name is “Gate of God,” but the discoveries at Kom Ombo, 1894, show Babylon spelt “Balbal,” with an evident play on the Semitic , “confound.” (Compare Gen 11:9.)
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Chapter 1 Daniel Is Established At The Court of Babylon.
‘In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to Jerusalem and besieged it.’
Here the dating is based on the Babylonian system of dating by which the opening part-year after a king’s accession was thought of as ‘the year of accession’ (compare 2Ki 25:27), and the first full year of the reign (and therefore the second year of his reign in Israelite eyes ) was called the first year. To someone established at the court of Babylon this would be natural after a comparatively short time. Thus elsewhere in Scripture reference is made to this same year as the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, using the Israelite system of reckoning Jer 25:1; Jer 25:8-14; Jer 46:2). The date was 605 BC.
‘Came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to Jerusalem and besieged it.’ Strictly Nebuchadnezzar was not king at the time of his besieging of Jerusalem. He became king later in the year when his father Nabopolassar died. But the description is read back so as to identify clearly who was being spoken about. Note also that it is said that ‘he besieged it’ not that he took it. A long siege would have been necessary to take this strong city and Nebuchadnezzar was interrupted by news of his father’s death, which necessitated his return to Babylon to establish his position. The city was never taken at the time, although terms were agreed.
Ezekiel calls him Nebuchadrezzar, which is in fact closer to the Babylonian name Nabu-kudurri-usur, while Nebuchadnezzar is closer to the Greek form Nabochodonosor and is a variant form. His early career is described in the Babylonian records known as ‘the Babylonian Chronicle’ which give us valuable information for dating various events.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Dan 1:1
[44] Josephus says, “Now in the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar took the government over the Babylonians, who at the same time went up with a great army to the city Carchemish, which was at Euphrates, upon a resolution he had taken to fight with Neco, king of Egypt, under whom all Syria then was. ( Antiquities 10.6.1)
2Ki 23:34, “And Pharaohnechoh made Eliakim the son of Josiah king in the room of Josiah his father, and turned his name to Jehoiakim, and took Jehoahaz away: and he came to Egypt, and died there.”
Jer 22:18-19, “Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah; They shall not lament for him, saying, Ah my brother! or, Ah sister! they shall not lament for him, saying, Ah lord! or, Ah his glory! He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.”
T. R. Hobbs tells us that the Babylonian Chronicle supports the possibility of multiple invasions by Nebuchadnezzar into Palestine during Jehoiakim’s reign. Therefore, he does not take 2Ch 36:6-7 as a “complete parallel” passage. He dates Jehoiakim’s initial subjection to Babylon in 604/603 B.C., and rebellion about three years later (601 to 598 B.C.). This is earlier than Josephus’ date of subjection in the eighth year of his reign (601/600 B.C.), and rebellion in his eleventh year. [45]
[45] Hobbs refers to Wiseman, Chronicles, 43 77, and Grayson, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5:99 102. See T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 13, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 348.
However, many scholars believe the siege described in 2Ki 24:1 and 2Ch 36:6 refers to the same event, arguing that the sacred and royal vessels could only have been taken away one time, and that there was only one siege on Jerusalem during Jehoiakim’s reign. Those who take this view date Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Judah in 605 B.C., during the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Dan 1:1-2). However, a contradiction must now be addressed; for Jeremiah dates the year of the Babylonian king’s invasion into this region and his battle against Egypt as the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Jer 25:1; Jer 25:9; Jer 46:2). A number of resolutions have been proposed. (1) Some scholars attempt to resolve these conflicting dates by saying the Babylonians followed a different dating system from Judah for the reign of kings, which called the first year of reign the accession year and the following year as the first year of reign. However, in Judah the first year of a king’s reign was counted as his first year. Thus, Jeremiah’s date of the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign would be equivalent to Daniel’s description of the event taking place during his third year of reign, since Daniel would be following the Babylonian method of counting, and Jeremiah the Jewish method. (2) A second resolution is to suggest that Nebuchadrezzar first seized Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s third year, and fought with the Egyptians during his fourth year of rule. (3) Keil and Delizsch disagree with both suggestions, saying that in the first option no such reckoning system is recorded in Scripture, and in the second option that Nebuchadrezzar could not have passed to Jerusalem without luring Egypt out in a battle to protect Judah as their vassal. They suggest a third alternative by interpreting Dan 1:1 to say that Nebuchadrezzar began to “march towards Jerusalem” in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. This allows the battle of Carchemish to take place first as a part of this march towards Judah. [46]
[46] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Book of Daniel, in Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament: New Updated Edition, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1996), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM]. Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000, notes on Daniel 1:1-2.
Jer 25:1, “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon;”
Jer 25:9, “Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.”
Jer 46:2, “Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaohnecho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.”
“Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon” Zckler says the name Nebuchadnezzar ( ) (H5019) is derived from “Nebo” (Isa 46:1), a chief Chaldean god, equivalent to the god “Mercury,” and “kadr” (might), and “zar” (prince). [47] Gesenius suggests the meaning of “the prince of the god Mercury; or Nebo is the prince of gods.” Strong says it means, “may Nebo protect the crown” ( Strong). T. R. Hobbs says it means, “may Nebo protect my boundary stone” [from the Akkadian name “Nabu-kudduriusur”], [48] and “may [the god] Nabu guard my boundary stones” ( PTW). This Babylonian name has at least four other alternate spellings in the Old Testament Scriptures ( , , , ) [49] These five spellings are translated into English in the KJV as “Nebuchadrezzar” 31 times, and “Nebuchadnezzar” 29 times. [50] Hobbs prefers “Nebuchadrezzar,” which is used in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. [51] Zckler also tells us that “Nebuchadrezzar” more exactly matches the “rendering Nabukudurr-usur, as found in the Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, and also to the nearly identical Persian form Nabukhadraqara, which occurs at Behistun.”
[47] Zckler refers us to Jules Oppert in Journal Asiatique, 1851, p. 416; Expedit. en Mesopotamie, ii. 257 ss. See Otto Zckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. James Strong (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1876), 56.
[48] T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 13, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 349.
[49] James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), S. H5019.
[50] James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order. electronic ed. (Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship., 1996), S. H5019
[51] T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 13, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 349.
Isa 46:1, “Bel boweth down, Nebo stoopeth, their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle: your carriages were heavy loaden; they are a burden to the weary beast.”
“and besieged it” Word Study on “besiege” – Strong says the Hebrew word ( ) (H6696) is a primitive root word literally meaning, “ to cramp, i.e. confine.” He notes how the Scriptures use this word “in many applications, literally and figuratively, formative or hostile: adversary, assault, beset, besiege, bind (up), cast, distress, fashion, fortify, inclose, lay siege, put up in bags.” The Enhanced Strong says this word is used 38 times in the Old Testament, being translated, “ besiege 21, lay siege 3, distress 3, bind 2, adversaries 1, assault 1, bags 1, beset 1, cast 1, fashioned 1, fortify 1, inclose 1, bind up 1.”
Dan 1:1 Comments The times of the Gentiles (Luk 21:24) was ushered into world history through the prophecies of Jeremiah, when he prophesied of the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon and the seventy-year captivity in Jer 25:8-14; Jer 29:8-10. The fall of Jerusalem ushered in a time when Israel’s dominance subsided and the Gentile nations of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek, and Roman empires would rise. This time began with the fall of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Dan 1:1 is the last biblical event in redemption history that is dated by the calendars of the kings of the nation of Israel. At this point forward, all redemptive events recorded in the Holy Scriptures will be dated around Gentile rules (Dan 2:1; Dan 7:1; Dan 8:1; Dan 9:1; Dan 10:1; Dan 11:1, Ezr 1:1; Ezr 6:3; Ezr 7:1, Neh 2:1, Est 1:1-3, Luk 2:1-2; Luk 3:1-2). Even the book of Ezekiel seems to blend the Jewish calendar with the fall of Israel by the Babylonians in his collection of prophecies.
Luk 21:24, “And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”
Dan 1:2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.
Dan 1:2
[52] Otto Zckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. James Strong (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1876), 57.
“with part of the vessels of the house of God” Comments Albert Barnes suggests that part of the vessels were removed at the time of this first siege (604-605 B.C.), rather than all of them, with the intent of making Jerusalem a vassal. Had the Babylonians intended on destroying the city, they would have taken them all. [53] Additional vessels were taken away during the second siege under King Jehoiachin (2Ki 24:8-16) in 597 B.C. Jeremiah prophesied that the remaining royal and sacred vessels would be taken in the third and final siege of 586 B.C. (Jer 27:19-22), in which the Temple and city of Jerusalem were destroyed.
[53] Albert Barnes, Notes, Critical, Illustrative, and Practical, on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1853), 87.
“which he carried” – Comments – Zckler discusses the arguments on the particular antecedents of the phrase “which he carried,” whether it refers to the temple vessels only, or to King Jehoiakim and/or other captives? He notes that the Hebrew text literally reads “and he caused them to be brought away,” ( ). [54] The Hebrew verb ( ) (H935) used in this verse is the hiphil (causal active), meaning Nebuchadnezzar “caused them to be carried back” to Babylon. The immediate antecedent in this sentence is the temple vessels; however, some scholars wish to include the king and/or other captives. The grammatical structure supports both antecedents; but the immediate context best supports the vessels only; for the rest of this verse states that “they” were placed in the house of his god. In addition, 2Ch 36:5 tells us Jehoiakim reigned in Jerusalem for eleven years, so that he could not have been carried off to Babylon during his third year of reign over Jerusalem. Also, history does not support the view that King Jehoiakim was actually deported to Babylon, but rather killed and his body thrown outside the city gates.
[54] Otto Zckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. James Strong (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1876), 57.
“ into the land of Shinar” Comments – The Hebrew word “ Shin`ar ” ( ) (H8152) is used 8 times in the Old Testament, referring to “the land of Shinar” five times (Gen 10:10; Gen 11:2, Isa 11:11, Dan 1:2, Zec 5:11), “the king of Shinar” two times (Gen 14:1; Gen 14:9), and it is used as “Babylonish” garment one time (Jos 7:21). The land of Shinar included the cities of “Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh” (Gen 10:10), which made up the ancient kingdom of Nimrod. Zckler notes that the word Shinar is used outside the book of Genesis only in the “elevated language of the prophets.” (i.e., Isaiah, Daniel, Zechariah) [55] This statement suggests to me that the prophets were fond of building their prophecies upon the ancient names given in the Table of Nations, as recorded in Gen 10:1-32. John Goldingay suggests the use of the name Shinar in Dan 1:2 reflects “a place of false religion, self-will, and self-aggrandizement.” [56]
[55] Otto Zckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. James Strong (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1876), 57.
[56] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 30, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Daniel 1:1-2.
“to the house of his god” Comments – While the English renders this phrase “to the house of his god,” the Hebrew text can be rendered, “to the house of his gods” ( ), thus referring to the numerous Babylonian gods, since the ancient world was largely polytheistic. [57] However, this plural reading is followed by only a few modern English translations, such as Rotherham, while the majority of translations maintain the singular “god.”
[57] Otto Zckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, trans. James Strong (New York: Charles Scriber’s Sons, 1876), 56.
Rotherham, “and the Lord gave into his hand Jehoiakim king of Judah, and a part of the vessels of the house of God, and he brought them into the land of Shinar, into the house of his gods, and, the vessels, brought he into the treasure-house of his gods.”
“and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god” Comments Apparently, it was an ancient custom for kings to store their spoils in the temples of their gods, thus gathering a royal treasure in these buildings (2Sa 8:11, 1Ki 15:15 , 2Ki 12:4; 2Ki 12:18). Since these sacred temples were often located in the most fortified areas of major cities, they made an ideal place to store valuable treasures. For example, the Greek historian Herodotus (5 th century B.C.) describes a great pagan temple located within the heart of the ancient city of Babylon, in which were shrines dedicated to the gods Jupiter Belus (which scholars equate with Bel or Baal) and Zeus. [58] Goldingay believes that Nebuchadnezzar would have most likely dedicated these spoils to either Marduk, or Bel, since most of his ancient inscriptions refer to these two gods, with Nabu being the god his father served. [59] The confiscation of these sacred vessels of Israel and their dedication to a pagan god is an act of declaring one god’s victory over the other. [60]
[58] Herodotus I, Books I-II, trans. A. D. Godley, in The Loeb Classical Library, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1975), 225-229 (chpts 181-83).
[59] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 30, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 5.
[60] John E. Goldingay, Daniel, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 30, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), comments on Daniel 1:1-2.
2Sa 8:11, “Which also king David did dedicate unto the LORD, with the silver and gold that he had dedicated of all nations which he subdued;”
1Ki 15:15, “And he brought in the things which his father had dedicated, and the things which himself had dedicated, into the house of the LORD, silver, and gold, and vessels.”
2Ki 12:4, “And Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the LORD, even the money of every one that passeth the account, the money that every man is set at, and all the money that cometh into any man’s heart to bring into the house of the LORD,”
2Ki 12:18, “And Jehoash king of Judah took all the hallowed things that Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram, and Ahaziah, his fathers, kings of Judah, had dedicated, and his own hallowed things, and all the gold that was found in the treasures of the house of the LORD, and in the king’s house, and sent it to Hazael king of Syria: and he went away from Jerusalem.”
Dan 1:2 Comments The Vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem – The vessels from the Temple in Jerusalem were made during the construction of Solomon’s temple in the tenth century B.C. These vessels remained in the Temple until they were removed by the Babylonians in 605-604 B.C. King Nebuchadnezzar put the vessels of the Jewish Temple into his pagan temple (Dan 1:2). His grandson Belshazzar later took them out and used these holy vessels for pagan celebrations (Dan 5:2-4), at which time he was judged by God and killed during the overthrow of Babylon by Darius the Mede (Dan 5:30-31). King Cyrus of Persia would later restore these sacred vessels to the Jews during their return from Babylonian Captivity (Ezr 1:7-8). Thus, the vessels of the Temple in Jerusalem were kept in Babylon during the seventy years of Babylonian Captivity.
Dan 5:2-4, “Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.”
Ezr 1:7-8, “Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods; Even those did Cyrus king of Persia bring forth by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and numbered them unto Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah.”
Ezr 1:9-11 gives an itemized list of the vessels taken and later restored to the Temple in Jerusalem.
Ezr 1:9-11, “And this is the number of them: thirty chargers of gold, a thousand chargers of silver, nine and twenty knives, Thirty basons of gold, silver basons of a second sort four hundred and ten, and other vessels a thousand. All the vessels of gold and of silver were five thousand and four hundred. All these did Sheshbazzar bring up with them of the captivity that were brought up from Babylon unto Jerusalem.”
Comments The Temple of Bel-Marduk in Babylon The pagan temple dedicated to Bel-Marduk [61] in the ancient city of Babylon was one of the most magnificent structures in the Babylonian Empire. Citing the ancient Babylonian historian Berosus, Josephus tells us that Nebuchadnezzar decorated this sacred temple with the riches he gathered from the nations that the Empire subdued, saying, “but then he adorned the temple of Belus, and the rest of the temples, in a magnificent manner, with the spoils he had taken in the war.” ( Antiquities 10.11.1)
[61] The Babylonian deity Bel-Marduk is mentioned in Jeremiah 50:2 as Bel and Merdoach. See Jeremiah 50:2, “Declare ye among the nations, and publish, and set up a standard; publish, and conceal not: say, Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces.”
Dan 1:1-2 Comments – Parallel Passages – We read a parallel accounts to Dan 1:1-2 in 2Ch 36:6-7 and Jer 46:1-2 where Nebuchadnezzar assaulted Jerusalem and carried King Jehoiakim and the vessels of the temple to Babylon.
2Ch 36:5-7, “Jehoiakim was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD his God. Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the vessels of the house of the LORD to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.”
Jer 46:1-2, “The word of the LORD which came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Gentiles; Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaohnecho king of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates in Carchemish, which Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah.”
The fall of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the Jewish people as well as the Temple articles was prophesied by Jeremiah.
Jer 20:4-5, “For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword. Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Introduction: Daniel and the Babylonian Captivity (605-604 B.C) The opening chapter of the book of Daniel introduces the reader to Daniel’s public ministry that will extend throughout the Jewish seventy-year Babylonian Captivity. Dan 1:1-21 clearly serves as an introduction to the rest of the book. Barnes tells us the purpose of this historical passage in the book is to explain how Daniel was raised up to a place of distinction among the Babylonians. [43] From a redemptive perspective, this opening chapter reveals to the original Jewish readers that Daniel’s ministry begins and ends with the Babylonian Captivity, which began at Daniel’s captivity and lasted until the first year of King Cyrus the Great, covering a span of approximately seventy years as prophesied by Jeremiah. Thus, the prophet Daniel was raised up by God to minister to the Jews as well as the Gentiles for this chosen period of time. The fact that this first chapter is written in Hebrew, while the following five chapters of narrative material are written in the Aramaic language, suggests that it is addressed directly to the Jews to tell them that the God of Israel was watching over His people throughout their entire captivity. This opening Hebrew text has also let scholars to suggest that the first chapter was probably added by the Jews as a later addition to the historical section of chapters 2-6 during the compilation of the book of Daniel. The redemptive message to Israel in this passage of Scripture is that God was bringing about Israel’s redemption despite the tragic circumstances they were experiencing. The book of Daniel reveals that God would restore Israel to their land after seventy years, but also that their full redemption would not take place until “seventy weeks” of years. The Lord would use this period designated at the Times of the Gentiles to bring in the Church age and graft the Gentiles into the vine of Israel.
[43] Albert Barnes, Notes, Critical, Illustrative, and Practical, on the Book of Daniel (New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1853), 85.
Historical Setting – The opening chapter of the book of Daniel gives us the historical setting for the life and ministry of the Jewish prophet Daniel. In 605 B.C. King Nebuchadnezzar made his first of three major campaigns into Palestine and besieged the city of Jerusalem under King Jehoiakim, the last stronghold of the nation of Judah. Many scholars believe 2Ki 24:1 is a brief reference to this same event in the opening verses of Daniel. At that time this Babylonian king took captive many of the children of the Jewish nobles as well as the sacred articles of the Temple. In this group of captives was a young man named Daniel and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. We read about the second captivity of the Jews in 597 B.C. under King Jehoiachin, the son of Jehoiakim, in 2Ki 24:10-14. The third campaign of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem in 587 B.C. ended in its total destruction.
2Ki 24:1, “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him.”
2Ki 24:10-14, “At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it. And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign. And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king’s house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the LORD, as the LORD had said. And he carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, even ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths: none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land.”
In Babylon Daniel and his three friends were subjected to a three-year training period in which they forced to change their names, their language, and their food. Daniel ministered to the kings of the Babylonian Empire until its fall in 539 B.C. when Belshazzar was slain and Darius the Median took control as viceroy over Babylon under Cyrus, who was then king over Persia and Media. Daniel ministered until the first year of King Cyrus’ reign over all the nations, dated 536 B.C. Thus, Daniel’s ministry spanned the seventy-year period of the Jew’s Babylon Captivity as prophesied by Jeremiah the prophet.
Jer 29:10, “For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
Babylon’s Efforts to Consolidate His Kingdom – Why would the king of Babylon want to bring Hebrews to his court and train them? Perhaps he felt that it would be advantageous for some bright young Hebrew men, some that were young enough to be submissive and teachable, and incorporate them into the Babylonian government. They would serve to advise the king on matter concerning the Jewish people, who would have the tendency to be rebellious and subversive. The fact that King Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy the city of Jerusalem in his first two sieges against it reveals his original intent to bring this nation into submission and use its resources for financial gain. Finally, he had to severely punish them by destroying their capital and central place of worship. These Hebrews in the king’s court would hear the needs of their people and be able to advise the king accordingly, as we read in the first chapter of the book of Nehemiah. For certain Hebrews came from Jerusalem to visit Nehemiah and told him of their sad state of affairs. Nehemiah’s appeal to the king brought him an opportunity to do something to help his people. Thus, the Babylonian king appears to be making every effort to consolidate his kingdom and bring stability in the opening chapter of Daniel.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Daniel and his Friends Brought to Babylon
v. 1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, v. 2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God, v. 3. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, v. 4. children, v. 5. And the king appointed them, v. 6. Now, among these, v. 7. unto whom the prince of the eunuchs,
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
Dan 1:1-7
OCCASION OF DANIEL BEING IN BABYLON.
Dan 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah. After the defeat and death of Josiah, the people of the land put on the throne Jehoahaz, or Shallum (Jer 22:11), one of the sons of their late monarch (2Ki 23:30). We see, by comparing 2Ki 23:31 with 2Ki 23:36, that in taking Jehoahaz to be their king they had passed over the law of primogeniture. The reason of this would not unlikely be that he represented the policy of his father Josiah, which may have meant the preference of a Babylonian to an Egyptian alliance. Dean Farrar thinks his warlike prowess might be the reason of the popular preference (Eze 19:3). Whatever was the reason of popular preference, Pharaoh-Necho, on his return from his victorious campaign against the Hittites and the Babylonians, deposed him, and carried him down to Egypt. Necho placed on the throne in his stead, Eliakim, whom he named Jehoiakim. The change of name is not very significant: in the first case, it is “God raises up;” in the second, the adopted name, it is “Jehovah raises up.” The assumption was that he claimed specially to be raised up by the covenant God of Israel. It might have been expected that he would be very zealous for the Lord of hosts, instead of which we find that “he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, according to all that his fathers had done.” As he is presented to us in the prophecies of Jeremiah, he appears a cruel, regardless man. Necho did not mean the subjection of Jerusalem to be merely nominal, so he laid a heavy tribute on the new-made king. With all his defects, Jehoiakim seems to have been faithful to Egypt, to whose power he owed his crown. It should be noted, as one of the differences between the Septuagint Version and the text of the Massoretes, which is followed in our Authorized Version, that there is no word representing reign in the Septuagint. Came Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. Nebuchadnezzar is one of the greatest names in all history. Only here in Daniel is Nebuchadnezzar spelled in the Hebrew with a in the penultimate syllable. In Jeremiah and Ezekiel the name is generally transliterated differently and more accurately Nebuchad-rezzar. This more accurately represents Nabu-kudurri-utzur of the monuments, but alike in Kings and Chronicles the is changed into a . When it passed into Greek it became , even in Jeremiah. This is the form it assumed in Berosus. Abydenusis more accurate. The name, which means “Nebe protects the crown,” had been borne by a predecessor, who reigned some five centuries earlier. The two forms of the name represent two processes that take place in regard to foreign names. Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 21:2) is a transliteration of the Babylonian name Nebu-kudduri-utzur. Nebuchadnezzar, as here, is the name modified into elements, each of which is intelligible. Nebu was the god Nebo, chad meant “a vessel,” and nezzar, “one who watches.” He succeeded his father Nabopolassar, the founder of the more recent kingdom of Babylon, in the year b.c. 606. Few historical inscriptions of any length have come to hand dating from the reign of either father or son. We have the fragments of Berosus, and epitomes of portions of his worlds; and further, fragments of Megasthenes and Abydenus preserved chiefly in the Fathers. It may be observed that Herodotus does not so much as mention Nebuchadrezzar. Nabopolassar ascended the throne of Babylon in the year b.c. 625, so far as can be made out at present, on the overthrow of the Assyrians of Nineveh. Taking occasion of this event, Egypt, which had been conquered by Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal, reasserted itself. The Assyrians had broken up Egypt into several principalities, over each of which they had set vassal kings. Psammetik, one of these vassal kings, rebelled, and united all Egypt under his rule. About sixteen years after the fall of Nineveh, his sou Pharaoh-Nechodetermined to rival his predecessors, Thothmes and Ramesesinvaded the territory of Babylon. He maintained his conquest only a little while, for Nebuchadnezzar, the young heroic son of the peaceful Nabopolassar, marched against the Egyptians. A great battle was fought at Carchemish, and the Egyptians were totally defeated. After this victory Nebuchadnezzar pursued his flying enemy toward Egypt, and probably visited Jerusalem and laid siege to it. He was not yet king, hut it is not to be reckoned an anachronism that the writer here calls him king. We speak of the Duke of Wellington gaining his first victory at Assaye, although his ducal title was not attained till long after. If we follow Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, while Nebuchadnezzar was engaged on the campaign of Palestine and Syria, he was summoned back to Babylon by the death of his father Nabopolassar. “Leaving the heavy-armed troops and baggage, he hurried, accompanied by a few troops, across the desert to Babylon.” Josephus professes to be quoting the very words of Berosus, and no doubts have been thrown on his accuracy or good faith in such cases. Berosus was in a position to be well informed, and had no motive to speak other than the truth. The evidence of Berosus establishes that before his accession to the throne, [Nebuchadnezzar had made an expedition into Syria. If we take the statement in the verse before us along with that of Jer 26:1 (where the text is, however, doubtful, as the clause is omitted in the LXX.), that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and look at them in the light of the account given by Berosus of the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, we come to the conclusion that he ascended the throne the year after he visited Jerusalem. Moreover, we must remember that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was not the year of his accession, but was the year following the next new year alter that event. If a monarch ascended the throne actually in the month Iyyar of one year, that year would be reckoned as “the beginning of his reign;” not till the first of the mouth Nisau in the following year did his first year begin. In Jerusalem the calculation of the years of a monarch began from his accession, and v/as independent of the calendar. Hence, if the Babylonian method of reckoning w,s applied to Jehoiakim’s reign, what was reckoned his fourth year in Jerusalem would be only his third. Against both these texts and 2Ki 25:8, and, moreover, against Berosus, is the statement in Jer 46:2, which asserts the battle of Carchemish to have been fought in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This contradicts the other statement, unless the battle were fought in the very beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, of which we have no evidence. It has been noted by Dr. Sayce, as a characteristic instance of the carefulness with which the materials have been treated in Kings, that while Shalmaneser is said to have besieged Samaria, it is not said that he (Shalmaneser) took it. It is to be noted that there is an equal carefulness in the verse before us Nebuchadnezzar, we are told, came unto Jerusalem, and “besieged it.” The usual and natural conclusion to such a statement would be “and took it;” the fact that this phrase is not added proves that the writer does not wish to assert that Nebuchadnezzar required to push the siege to extremities.
Exursus on the alleged anachronism of Jer 46:1 and Jer 46:2.
Many strong statements have been made in regard to the alleged conflict between the chronology of the verse before us and that of Jeremiah and, it is said, other parts of Scripture. Even Lenormant declares the Book of Daniel to begin with a gross error, “L’erreur grossiere du premier verset du chapitre 1. mettant en l’an 3 de Joiakim la premiere prise de Jerusalem par Nebuchodorossor.” A great deal is made of this by all assailants of the authenticity of Daniel. Thus Hitzig says, “The opening of the book is encumbered by an absurd date and a statement of fact which is prima facie doubtful.”
What is the extent of this error, or rather of these errors? They are:
(1) The statement that Nebuchadnezzar visited Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim King of Judah.
(2) The further statement that Nebuchadnezzar was king at that date.
(3) The statement that he besieged the city and plundered the temple. All which, it is alleged, contradict other parts of Scripture, mainly various passages in Jeremiah.
Against the second of these statements is placed Jer 25:1, “In the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah King of Judah, that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon.” Further, it is proclaimed that in this prophecy thus dated, the coming of the Babylonian king is threatened, and therefore it is concluded that he had not yet invaded Palestine. This is again set over against the third statement, and is supposed to prove it untrue. These two passages together are alleged to prove the first statement to be untrue. To take the second statement first, as really the less important, If there is truth in Berosus’s statement that Nebuchadnezzar made his expedition into Syria while his father was yet living, he probably was not yet king; but as he became so immediately after, only a pedant in accuracy would find fault with the words as they stand. If we found it stated that the Duke of Wellington was at Eton in 1782, it would be the height of absurdity to declare this prolepsis an error. Little stress has been laid on this in the assault on Daniel; as little need be laid on it in the defence.
The other two statements are supposed to be erroneous in a more serious way. Even if we get over the above difficulty, Professor Beven says, “The difficulty remainsa siege of Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s third year, of which Jeremiah, a contemporary, says nothing.” Confirmatory of this is supposed to be Jer 46:2, “Against Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh-Necho King of Egypt, which was by the river Euphrates which Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon smote in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah King of Judah.” If he fought and won the battle of Carchendsh in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he could not in the third year of that monarch be in Palestine. Hitzig refers rather to Jer 36:1-32 1-3, “It came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim this word came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, saying, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah hill hear all the evil that I purpose to do unto them;” compared with verse 29, “The King of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and shall cause to cease from thence man and beast.” He refers also to verse 9, “And it came to pass in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah King of Judah, in the fifth month, that they proclaimed a fast before the Lord,” in consequence of the reading of the contents of the roll.
As it is clear that the whole case against the chronology of the verse rests on these statements m Jeremiah, it will be advantageous to examine them. As it is the weakest, we will consider Professor Hitzig’s ground of objection first. Any one reading the thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah without allowing himself to be run away with by a prejudice, will see that there is nothing in the chapter which prevents such an expedition as that mentioned in this verse having taken place. The circumstances are, as it seems to us, the following: Jehoiakim had submitted to the Babylonian conqueror, but had begun to plot against his new suzerain, and to hanker after Egypt. The Egyptian alliance would, he hoped, deliver him from the oppression of Nebuchadnezzar, hence his rage at Jeremiah’s prophecies of disaster, and hence his burning of the roll. There is nothing in the twenty-ninth verse that implies that Nebuchadnezzar had not been before in Palestine. The prophecy now is “that he shall come and cause to cease” from Judah “man and beast”a thing that was not even approximately fulfilled till the loll of Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah. Yet Nebuchadnezzar had been m Palestine, and had carried away Jehoiachin. This chapter of Jeremiah, therefore, gives no evidence on the question at issue. Professor Bevan has ‘been well advised not to drag it in as part of his proof.
The passages Professor Bevan has brought forward are relatively stronger. If we have in them the veritable words of Jeremiah, and if their evidence is confirmed by other parts of Scripture, they have some cogency If we now turn to Jer 25:1, and compare the Massoretic text with the Septuagint, we find very considerable omissions, and omissions of great importance. In order that Professor Bevan may not politely impugn our honesty, as he does that of Hengstenberg, we shall translate the whale thirteen verses as they stand in the Greek text:
“(1) The word which was to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah [in the fourth year of Jehoiakim son of Josiah King of Judah,
(2) which he spoke to all the people of Judah] and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying,
(3) In the thirteenth year of Josiah son of Amon () King of Judah, even until this day, twenty and three years I have even spoken to yon, rising early and saying,
(4) I was even sending to you my servants the prophets, sending early, and ye heard not and inclined not your ears,
(5) saying, Turn each one of you from his evil way, and from your evil works, and dwell in the land which I gave to you and to your fathers for ever and ever:
(6) Go not after other gods, to serve them and to worship them, in order that ye provoke me not to anger with the work of your hands to your own hurt.
(7) And ye did not hearken unto me.
(8) Therefore thus saith the Lord, because ye have not believed my words,
(9) behold, I am sending, and I will take a race () from the north, and I will bring them against this land, and against the inhabit-nuts thereof, and against all the nations round about it, and I will make them desolate, and I will give them for an astonishment (a vanishing away, ), and an hissing, and for perpetual reproach.
(10) And I will destroy from them voice of joy, and voice of gladness, voice of bridegroom, and voice of bride, scent of myrrh, and light of lamp.
(11) And all the land shall be for astonishment (); and they shall be slaves among the nations seventy years.
(12) And when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will judge that nation, and set them for an everlasting astonishment ().
(13) And I will bring upon that land all the words which I spake concerning it, all the things written in this book.”
The reader will observe that the clause declaring the synchronism between the first year of Nebuchadnezzar and the fourth of Jehoiakim, is not given. Had the clause in question been in any way one that supported the authenticity of Daniel, we are sure such a diligent student as Professor Bevan would not have failed to observe the fact that it was not in the Septuagint, and declare that it made it of doubtful authenticity. He, no doubt, recalls that this is the argument by which the last clause of 1Sa 2:22 is ruled out of court, when any one would bring it forward to prove the existence of the tabernacle during the youth of Samuel and the pontificate of Eli. We will not impeach his honesty, nor say that he fails to notify his readers of the fact of the non-occurrence of the clause in the Septuagint “to conceal its untrustworthiness.” If there were not a suspicion that the omission of the words within square brackets is due to homoioteleuton, which somewhat invalidates the testimony of the Frederico-Augustan Codex, we might be inclined to maintain that not even was the year of Jehoiakim given in this prophecy. The reader will further observe that in the whole section there is not a word of Babylonians, or Chaldeans, or Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, the passage purports to give a summary of the messages of all the prophets that for twenty-three years had been warning Judah and Jerusalem. That being the case, it is not wonderful that there is no reference to the appearance of the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar the previous year. So far from the publication of this summary implying that the Babylonians had not yet appeared in Syria and Palestine, the last verso we have quoted rather implies that they had. The argument is this: The prophets foretold this desolation of Judah which had just occurred, and now Jeremiah foretells that seventy years from this
. The capture of Jerusalem took plaice, according to M Oppert, in the year b.c. 587. The same authority places the capture of Babylon b.c.. 539, that is to say, forty-eight years after. This difference between seventy years and forty-eight years is too great to be put down merely to the use of round numbers, and it certainly would have been liable to be modified had there not been an earlier date from which to start. Professor Bevan takes the captivity of Jehoiachin, placed by Oppert at b.c. 598, and by himself at b.c. 599, as the starting-point, without assigning any reason. According to the one date it was only sixty, according to the other only fifty-nine, not seventy years after, that Babylon was taken. The difference is still too great. If we take the he conquered Syria, in b.c. 605 or 606, he would receive the submission of Jehoiakim. We have thus ‘m interval of sixty-six or sixty-seven years between this date and the entrance of Cyrus into Babylon, and sixty-seven or sixty-eight years to the issue of the decree of Cyrus in Be. 538, which is a much closer approximation to seventy years than any other starting-point gives.
We have another synchronism of the kings of Judah and the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. We are told (2Ki 25:2) that Jerusalem “was besieged unto the eleventh year of King Zedekiah” In verse 8 we are told that “in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar . he entered Jerusalem.” In Jer 39:2 we are told, “In the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, and the ninth day of the mouth, the city was broken up.” We see, then, that the seventh of the fifth month of the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar coincided with the ninth day of the fourth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah. We see further that, notwithstanding that Zedekiah is said to have reigned eleven years (2Ki 24:18), he only reigned ten years and little more than three mouths. His nephew reigned three months (2Ki 24:8), for three months and ten days (2Ch 36:9). We cannot assume that Jehoiakim reigned eleven complete years; the probability is that it was only ten years and some months. If we takepace the critics2Ch 36:10 as relating a fact, then we may regard the reign of Jehoiachin as completing the eleventh year, reckoning from his father’s accession. In that case the length of time from the accession of Jehoiakim to the capture of Jerusalem was twenty-one years and three months; from that subtract the eighteen years and four months of Nebuchadnezzar, and we have two years and eleven months.
If this was the Babylonian reckoning of his reign, then Nebuchadnezzar had really ascended the throne during the previous year. Professor Bevan asserts the passage from Berosus, which is twice quoted in extenso by Josephus, once avowedly verbatim, to be “altogether untrustworthy” Dr. Hugo Winekler, to whom tie refers with respect (Critical Review 4:126), follows this incriminated passage in making Nebuchadnezzar command at Carchemish while his father yet lived. Indeed, when he has not to assail Daniel, Professor Bevan follows Berosus as quoted by Josephus. If Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho before his accession to the throne, then Jer 46:2 is further at variance with Kings and Chronicles than we have made it out to be.
Another synchronism is pointed out by Kranichfeld. In 2Ki 25:27 (Jer 3:1-25 :31) it is said, “In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin King of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, Evil-Merodach in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin King of Judah out of prison.” Berosus informs us that Nebuchadnezzar reigned forty-three years. If we may count the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign according to the Babylonian mode of reckoning, we may neglect the fragments on either side, and reckon his reign forty-three years complete. We may subtract the thirty-seven years from the forty-three, and find that it was in the sixth year of Nebuchadnezzar that Jehoiachin was carried away captive, contradicting 2Ki 24:12, and making it clear that, if this is the case, it was not the fourth but the fifth year of Jehoiakim that synchronized with the first of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not an insuperable difficulty to a student of Daniel, as Nebuchadnezzar would merely be called king by prolepsis in the verse before us. It is significant that Professor Bevan does not refer to any other possible basis of chronology. When any other is guilty of such an omission, he is severe in his criticism. It certainly would be interesting to see Professor Bevan attempting to harmonize Jer 3:1-25 :31 with Jer 25:1.
When we turn to 2Ki 24:1-7, we find nothing at variance with what we find in Daniel, or in what we have deduced of the progress of events. Professor Bevan says, “That Jehoiakim was the vassal of Babylon during the latter part of his reign is certain.” We should very much like to know the ground of his certainty that the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign was passed in a state of vassalage to Babylon. The Book of Kings in the passage before us distinctly says that after three years he rebelled. We do not know when the three years began, nor when they ended. We should like much to know what ground of certainty Professor Bevan has. If we take his words as they stand, they ought to mean that these three years ended with Jehoiakim’s life, and that he never rebelled against the King of Babylon. Dr. Hugo Winckler, ‘Geschichte Bob, und Assyr.,’ 310, speaking of the struggle between Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, says, “The conflict took place at Carchemish, where Necho apparently intended to cross the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar was victorious, and compelled the Egyptians to evacuate Syria and Palestine. He himself pursued them and took possession of the provinces that were formerly Assyian, and made the vassal princes, one of whom was Jehoiakim of Judah, to do homage to himself.” Dr. H. Winckler is under no such misapprehension as that which led Professor Bevan to assert that it was in the latter part only of Jehoiakim’s reign that he submitted to Nebuchadnezzar. It was either the same year as the battle of Carehemish, or at most the year following, that Nebuchadnezzar reached Syria and Palestine. Even on the date in Jeremiah, that could not be later than the fifth year of Jehoiakim. We have seen that there is probably no date given in Jeremiah for the battle of Carehemish; it may as likely have been the second or third year of Jehoiakim as the fourth.
If we may take the passage from Berosus as authoritative, and compare it with the passages in Kings, we reach the probability that it was in the second year of Jehoiakim that the battle of Carchemish took place. We know that Professor Bevan has declared this passage from Berosus “altogether untrustworthy.” Had there not been some support for the authenticity of Daniel in this passage, it never could have been distrusted. When an author, writing seriously, refers to an authority, gives references, and writes down a long passage which he alleges to be quoted verbatim, we generally credit him with fair accuracy. If the passage in question is twice transcribed by him, we are yet more confirmed in our view. If other authors, acquainted alike with the author quoting and the author quoted, refer to this quotation without any sign that there was any bad faith, we have a chain of evidence of which only one recklessly prejudiced could venture to deny the cogency. Such is the case with the passage before us. Josephus quotes the passage twice (‘Antiquities, ‘ 10.11. 2, and ‘Contra Apionem,’ 1.19); he gives the reference to the second book of Berosus’s ‘Chaldean History;’ in the second of these cases he professes to be carefully quoting cerbatim, in the former he practically does so, the differences are such as might easily be due to copyists. Eusebius also quotes Berosus, and knows Josephus. and refers to this quotation, and makes no note that he found it incorrect. The words of Professor Bevan may indicate that it is Berosus he suspects. It seems hazardous for any one to do so in the face of the numerous confirmations that Berosus is receiving as to the succession of the monarchs within the historic period. We shall quote from Professor Bevan the beginning of the passage: “When Nebuchadnezzar’s father heard that the satrap who had been set over Egypt and the regions of Coele-Syria and Phoencia had rebelled against him, he sent forth his son Nebnchadnezzar,”etc. Professor Bevan comments on the passage thus: “Berosus here assumes that Egypt as well as Coele-Syria had already been conquered by the Chaldeans before the death of Nabopolassar and the battle of Carchemisha notion contrary to all evidene.” Is this conclusion warranted? Is the interpretation Professor Bevan puts on the passage correct? The interpretation we put on it is a different one. Berosus regarded Necho as a satrap of the Babylonian monarch. This is advanced by Keil, and, there[ore, Professor Bevan must have known this answer as possible; why did he not endeavour to show it insufficient? There seems every probability that Necho himself or his immediate predecessors were the vassals of Asshurbanipal. Nabopolassar,who succeeded Asshurbanipal as King of Babylon, may well have claimed the submission of Pharaoh-Necho as the vassal of his predecessor, as Sargon did the submission of the vassals of Shalmaneser. It is quite after the manner of Babylonian and Assyrian monarchs to call resistance against their authority rebellion whenever there was any plausible historical excuse for doing so. We have really, then, in this passage from Berosus, a compendious account of the campaign which began with the victory of Carchemish. It is easy to impose a false interpretation on a passage and then, on the ground of that interpretation, reject it. On the interpretation we have given above, the account given by Berosus exactly fits in with the statements of Scripture.
Berosus, however, goes on to tell how Nebuchadnezzar was stopped in his career of conquest by the news of his father’s death, and how he proceeded with only his light-armed troops across the desert,’ and arrived in Babylon to assume the reins of government. All this suits very well the statements of Scripture, Daniel included. Professor Bevan does not end here; he further denies the possibility of a siege of Jerusalem trod of a plundering of the temple in the reign of Jehoiakim, on the ground of the silence of Jeremiah and Kings. But in 2Ki 24:11 we are told that Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city in the reign of Jehoiachin; but in 2Ch 36:1-23, there is no reference to a siege. As the critical decision is that Chronicles is derived from Kings, this silence is a thing to be noted; and we might thus deduce that the notice of such a siege was no part of the genuine text of Kings. We might, indeed, proceed to say, “In such a case the argument from silence is very strong, if not absolutely conclusive,” as does Professor Bevan in another connection. In Jer 36:30 we have the death of Jehoiakim prophesied. If the prophecy had been falsified by the result, the temptation would have been immense to omit or modify the prophecy; yet there is no account of his death, either in Kings or Chronicles, that fits the prophecy. The account josephus gives of the event suits the prophecy, and is not incredible in itself. The argument from silence is always hazardous, and doubly so in the present case.
Professor Bevan asserts that, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar “plundered the temple.” This is the third of the alleged contradictions of fact and Scripture which critics have found in Dan 1:1. There is nothing about” plundering” in the passage; it is not even said that he took the city. It is said that Jehoiakim was taken, which might be without the city being captured, as was the case with Hoshea and Samaria. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar took “a portion of the vessels of the house of God” is decisive against there being any plundering. If the temple had been plundered after a successful siege, the portion of the vessels which escaped the hands of the Babylonians would have been inconsiderable. If the city had been taken, a fact of such importance would have been mentioned. In this case certainly “the argument from silence is very strong.” The capture of the city was the natural termination of the process begun, and when that termination is not mentioned, the conclusion is inevitable that it was never reached.
Let us look at the probabilities of the case. Nebuchadnezzar pursues the broken Egyptian army, demanding the homage of all the recent vassals of Egypt, formerly, of course, vassals of Assyria. Jehoiakim had been placed on the throne by Egyptian power, superseding his younger brother, who had been crowned by the Babylonian party, anti, probably, passing over also his elder brother Johanan. All his interests were bound up in Egypt; he would not believe the defeat of Egypt was so utter and irretrievable; he was always hoping that the King of Egypt would venture again beyond the river of Egypt, and hence, even after his submission to Nebuchadnezzar, he rebelled against him. He would certainly shut his gates against the conquerors. That he should be made prisoner without the city being captured or plundered, might, we have said, easily happen. That its surrender should follow was also natural; that the conqueror should demand numerous hostages and a huge ransom, and that this ransom should have been supplied from the vessels of the house of the Lind, wits simply what had happened time and again before. Fairly interpreted, the words before us mean no more.
We see, then, that not later than the fifth year of Jehoiakimeven on the supposition that the date in Jer 46:2 applies to the battle of CarchemishNebuchadnezzar must have received the submission of Jehoiakim. In the verses before us this is said to have taken place in the third year of Jehoiakim; the difference, then, is simply the mutter of one year, or at most two. No student of Scripture can be ignorant of the hopeless confusion of the chronology of the Books of Kings, and how completely they are at variance with the Assyrian Canon. Much can be done to get over these difficulties by showing that there were different modes of reckoning. Sometimes a king associated his son with him, and the son‘s reign might be reckoned from his father’s death or his association with his father. Even in matters much more recent there may be statements as to dates differing by as much as the date given in Daniel differs from that deduced from Jeremiah. Professor Rawson Gardiner, in his ‘History of the Great Civil War,’ under date January 30, 1649, tells us of the execution of Charles I. In the appendix he gives the text of the warrant, and it is dated January 29, 1648, and commands the execution to take place “on the morrowe.” When we turn to Clarendon’s ‘History of the Great Rebellion,’ bk. 11; we find him saying, “This unparalleled murder and parricide was committed upon the thirtieth January in the year, according to the account used in England, 16t87 Critics of the type of Professor Bevan ought necessarily to declare Professor Gardener’s history altogether unworthy of credit, because of this difference. The only thing that might hinder them would be the fact that they, as do all intelligent people, know that, according to “the account used in England,” at that time the year began, not with January l, but with March 25. Did they not feel that they held a brief against the authenticity of Daniel, they would realize how weak the argument was which depended merely on the difference of one year. There was, according to some, a difference of nearly six months between the Jewish calendar and the Babylonian. We know, further, that there were two ways of reckoning the years of a king’s reignthe Babylonian and Assyrian, which did not begin to reckon till the new year after the king’s accession; and the Jewish, which dated the king’s years from his accession. It might easily be that Daniel used the one mode of reckoning, and Jeremiah the other. We will not press the fact that the whole critical argument assumes the statements in Jeremiah to be accurate, although it is notorious that the text of that book is in a woeful condition. The assertions of critics who ground so much on so little ought to be received with the same reserve as we receive the statements of the counsel for one side or the other in a case before a court of law, The critics, however, wish to be regarded as judges summing up evidence.
We must, however, notice the method by which Hengstenberg gets over this alleged chronological difficulty, in which he is followed by Kranichfeld and Keil. He says that means “to set out for,” as well as “to come,” and brings an instance, Jon 1:3, “a ship going () to Tarshish.” Keil alleges numerous other instances which, however, must be considered of doubtful validity. Although we do not agree with this interpretation, the instance from Jonah prevents us endorsing the reckless statement of Professor Bevan, that Hengstenberg’s interpretation is “no less contrary to Hebrew than English usage.” A person standing on the landing-stage at Liverpool, seeing a Cunarder getting up steam to depart, would not say, “That is a ship coming to New York;” but a Jew could use in such a case. Professor Bevan, as we have already said, holds a brief against the authenticity of Daniel, and he will spare no device to gain his case. We admit that the meaning which Hengstenberg and those who follow him attach to the word is not the common or natural one in the connection. If a person asked permission of a landowner to visit his demesne, and was answered, “If you wish to enter my grounds, I will let you,” he would be surprised were his entrance opposed, and would think he was mocked if it were pointed out to him that “let’ meant at times “to hinder.”
Another attempt at getting over the difficulty here is that of Michaelis, Rashi, and other older commentators, Jewish and Christian. It is that the third year of Jehoiakim is, in the verse before us, reckoned from the time when he became vassal to the King of Babylon. This is the view which, in some sort, Professor Bevan adopts, not with the intention of getting over the difficulty, but, as Bertholdt, of explaining how the alleged blunder came to be committed. Although such a mode of reckoning the reign of a vassal king may have been used in Babylon, we know nothing of it; certainly there is no instance in Scripture of anything parallel. Moreover, it implies that for three or four years Nebuchadnezzar allowed Pharaoh-Necho to preserve, in the hands of his vassal Jehoiakim, a frontier fortress in Jerusalem Yet again the state of matters, as implied in the narrative of 2Ki 29; is that time elapsed during which bands of Chaldeans and Moabites ravaged Judaea. We feel this explanation is to be abandoned, as giving a non-natural sense to the words.
We would wish a further word with Professor Bevan and other critics of his school. Professor Bevan recognizes that it is not only necessary to point out a blunder, but also to show how it arose. As we have already said, Professor Bevan would explain this alleged blunder by a confusion of the three years of submission to Nebuchadnezzar with the years of Jehoiakim’s reign. “The author of Daniel follows the account in Chronicles, at the same time assuming that ‘the three years’ in Kings date from the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign, and that the bands of the Chaldeans were a regular army commanded by Nebuchadnezzar.” By the above hypothesis the author of Daniel was well acquainted with Kings and Chronicles; elsewhere Professor Bevan assumes that he was intimately acquainted with the prophecies of Jeremiah. Let us look at this alleged blunder in the light of this knowledge.
The natural conclusion from 2Ch 36:7, 2Ch 36:8, compared with Jer 36:30, is that Jehoiakim was bound in order to be carried to Babylon, but was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar instead. This is very much the idea of what happened according to Josephus. How was it that the author of Daniel started with the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim? In the light of Chronicles this made his reign really only three years, but Chronicles and Kings make his reign eleven years. He knew the Book of Jeremiah intimately: how did he not know that the fourth year of Jehoiakim coincided with the first of Nebuchadnezzar? He knew the Book of Kings, he knew the various chronological notes in it; how could he conceivably be ignorant, to the extent Professor Bevan imagines him to be, of what naturally follows from these notes? There are only two suppositionsthat he knew a solution of the apparent contradiction, and took it for granted that everybody else knew it alsoa mood of mind more natural to a contemporary of the events he is narrating, than to a fatsarius writing centuries after; or these chronological notes were not in the text of these books when he wrote, in which case they are late interpolations, and therefore valueless. Professor Bevan cannot be permitted to invalidate proofs of the authenticity of Daniel drawn from the accuracy of the statements concerning Babylonian habits, by asserting that these statements might have been deduced from Jeremiah and Kings, and then assail the authenticity of Daniel, because some of its statements differ from Jeremiah. If he had shown Daniel ignorant of one or other of these documents, and, from this, convicted him of incorrectness, the argument would have had weight, but, as it is, his arguments are mutually destructive.
We have thus endeavoured to show that there is no chronological blunder in the verses before us, that the basis on which the assertion is made is in the highest degree doubtful, and that the arguments depend on such minute points, that to lay stress on them proves such an animus as deprives the decision of all the weight that otherwise would be due to the learning of the writer.
Dan 1:2
And the Lord gave Jehoiakim King of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god. The Greek versions of this verse agree with each other and with the Msssoretic text, save that the Septuagint has instead of in the end of the first clause, and omits . The Syriac Version omits the statement that it was “part” of the vessels of the house of God that was taken. It is to be observed that our translators have not printed the word “Lord” in capitals, but in ordinary type, to indicate that the word in the original is not the sacred covenant name usually written in English “Jehovah,” but Adonai. That the Lord gave Jehoiakim into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar does not prove that Jerusalem was captured by him. Far from it, the natural deduction is rather that he did not capture the city, although he captured the king. Thus in 2Ki 17:4 we are told that Shalmaneser shut up Hoshea “and bound him in prison;” in the following verse we are informed that the King of Assyria “besieged Samaria three years.” That is to say, after Shalmaneser had captured Hoshea the king, he had still to besiege the city. A similar event occurred earlier in the history of Judah and Israel. When Joash of Israel defeated Amaziah and took him prisoner, he proceeded then to Jerusalem. The city opened its gates to the conqueror, and he carried off all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king’s house, and all the vessels of the house of the Lord, and a large number of hostages, and then returned north. Something like this seems to have occurred now. The king was taken by the Babylonians, and the city submitted and ransomed the king by handing over a portion of the vessels of the house of the Lord. The city, however, was not taken by assault. Miqtzath, “part of,” occurs also in Neh 7:70 in this sense: we have it three times later in this chapterNeh 7:5, Neh 7:15, and Neh 7:18; but in .these cases it means “end.” A word consonantally the same occurs in the sense before us in Jdg 18:2, translated “coasts.“ Gesenius would write the word miqq tzath, and regard mi as representing the partitive preposition min. He would therefore translate, “He took some from the numbtr of the vessels.“ Kranichfeld objects to Hitzig’s assertion that means “a part,” and is followed by Keil and Zckler in regarding it, as a short form of the phrase, “from end to end,” equivalent to the whole, thus making miqtzath mean “a portion from the whole.” The omission from the Syriac of the words which indicate that the vessels taken were only a portion of those in the house of the Lord, shows how natural it was to imagine that the deportation was total, and therefore we may lay the more emphasis on its presence as proving that the temple was not plundered, but these vessels were the ransom paid for the freedom of the king. Several times had the treasures of the house of God been taken away. In the days of Rehoboam (1Ki 14:26) Shishak, acting probably as the ally of Jeroboam, took away all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king’s house, “he even took away all.” It may be doubted whether Jerusalem was captured (2Ch 12:7); certainly the name of Jerusalem has not been identified in the list of captured towns on the wall of the temple at Karnak. We have referred to the case of Joash and Amaziah. The succession of the phrases,” Jehoiakim King of Judah,” and “part of the vessels of the house of God,” is remarked by Ewald as being abrupt, and he would insert,” together with the noblest of the land.” There is, however, no trace of any such omission to be found in the versions. It is possible that this chapter may be the work of the early collector and editor, and that he condensed this portion as well as, not unlikely, translated it from Aramaic into Hebrew. Captives certainly were taken as well as booty, as is implied by the rest of the narrative. Which he carried into the land of Shinar to, the house of his god. There is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to” which.” The literal rendering is, “And he carried them,” etc. It has been the subject of discussion whether we are to maintain that it is asserted here that Jeboiakim, along with the vessels and unmentioned captives, were carried to Babylon. Professor Bevan admits that it is doubtful. Were we dependent merely on grammar, certainly the probability, though not the certainty, would be that the plural suffix was intended to cover Jehoi-skim, but the conclusion forced on us by logic is different. He “carried them () to the house of his god.” This seems to imply that only the vessels are spoken of. So strongly is this felt by Hitzig (‘Das Buch Daniel,’ 5) that he would regard the phrase, “the house of his god,” as in apposition to “the land of Shinar,’ and refers to two passages in Hosea (Hos 8:1; Hos 9:15) in which “house” is, he alleges, used for “land.” Irrespective of the fact that these two instances occur in highly wrought poetical passages, and that to argue from the sense of a word in poetry to its sense in plain prose is unsafe, there is no great plausibility in his interpretation of these passages. He regards the last clause as contrasted with the earlier: while the captives were brought “into the land of Shinar,” the vessels were brought into “the treasure-house of his god”an argument in which there is plausibility were there not the extreme awkwardness of using , “house,” first in the extended sense of “country,” and then in the restricted sense of “temple.” The last clause is rather to be looked upon as rhetorical climax. The land of Shinar is used for Babylonia four times in the Book of Genesis, twice in the portion set apart as Jehovist by Canon Driver; the remaining instances are in Gen 14:1-24; both as the kingdom of Amraphel, which Canon Driver relegates to a special source. In the first instance (Gen 10:10) it is the laud in which Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh were. In the next instance (Gen 11:1-32.) it is the place in which the Tower of Babel is built. The name is applied to Babylonia in Isa 11:1-16. and Zec 5:11. One of the titles which the kings of Babylon assumed regularly was “King of Sumir and Accad.” From the connection of Shinar and Accad in Gen 10:20 we may deduce that “Shinar” is the Hebrew equivalent for “Sumir.” It is not further removed from its original than is “Florence” from “Firenze,” or “Leghorn” from “Livorno,” or, to take a French instance, “Londres” from “London.” The ingenious derivation of “Shiner” from , “two,” and , “a river,” which, however, implies the identification of and , may have occasioned the modification, the more so as it was descriptive of Babylonia; hence the name “Aram-Naharaim,” and its translation “Mesopotamia,” applied to the tract between the Euphrates and the Tigris, north of Babylonia. In the Greek versions it becomes . It is omitted by Paulus Tellensis. The treasure-house of his god. The word rendered “god” here is the plural form, which is usually restricted to the true God, otherwise it is usually translated as “gods” To quote a few from many instances, Jephtha uses the word in the plural form of Chemosh (Jdg 11:24), Elijah applies it to Baal (1Ki 18:27), it is used of Nisroch (2Ki 19:37) In Ezr 1:7 we have this same word translated plural in regard to the place in which Nebuchadnezzar had deposited the vessels of the house of God. In translating the verse before us, the Peshitta renders path-coroh, “his idol” This suits the translation of the LXX. . Paulus Tellensis renders it in the plural, “idols.” The god in whose treasure-house the vessels of the house of God in Jerusalem were placed would necessarily be Merodach, whom Nebuchadnezzar worshipped, almost to the exclusion of any other. The treasure-house of his god. Temples had not many precious gifts bestowed upon them by their worshippers which were not taken by needy monarchs; nevertheless, the treasures of kingdoms were often deposited in a temple, to be under the protection of its god. The temple of Bel-Merodach in Babylon was a structure of great magnificence. Herodotus (1:181) gives a description, which is in the main confirmed by Strabe (16:5): “In the midst of the sacred area is a strong tower built a stadium in length and breadth; upon this tower is another raised, and another upon it, till there are eight towers. There is a winding ascent made about all the towers. In the middle of the ascent there is a resting-place, where are seats on which those ascending may sit and rest. In the last tower is a spacious shrine, and in it a huge couch beautifully bespread, and by its side is placed a table of gold. No statue has been set up here, nor does any mortal pass the night here.” There are still remains of a structure which suits to some extent the description here given, but investigators are divided whether to regard Birs Nimroud or Babil as most properly representing this famous temple of Bel-Merodach. In the “Standard Inscription” Nebuchadnezzar appears to refer to this temple, which he calls E-temen-ana-ki,” the house of heaven and earth.” He says, among other matters concerning it, that he “stored up inside it silver and gold and precious stones, and placed there the treasure-house of his kingdom.” This amply explains why the vessels of the house of God were taken to the temple of Bel-Merodach. The fact is mentioned that the vessels of the house of God were carried to Babylon, and, as a climax, “and he placed them in the treasure-house of his god.” We know what befell the statue of Dagon when the ark of God was placed in its presence, and the Jew, remembering this, relates awestruck the fact that these sacred vessels were placed in the temple of Bel. If no such disaster befell Bel-Merodach as befell Dagon, yet still the handwriting on the wall which appeared when these vessels were used to add to the splendour of the royal banquet, and which told the doom of the Chaldean monarchy, may be looked upon as the sequel to this act of what would necessarily appear to a Jew supreme sacrilege.
Dan 1:3, Dan 1:4
And the king spoke unto Ash-penaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. The version of the LXX. here becomes important: “And the king spoke to Abiesdri, his own chief eunuch ( ), to lead to him from the sons of the nobles of Israel, and from the seed royal, and from the choice ones, four young men, without blemish, of goodly appearance, and understanding in all wisdom, and educated, and prudent, and wise, and strong, so that they may be in the house of the king, and may be taught the letters and tongue of the Chaldees.” The version of Theodotion is in closer accordance with the Massoretic text, only it inserts “captivity” where the LXX. had “nobles,” and reads, “from the sons of the captivity of Israel.” In this version the name of the chief of the eunuchs is the same as the Massoretic; the word rendered “princes” in the Authorized Version is transliterated . The rendering, “the seed of the kingdom,” is more literal than that of the Authorized, “the king’s seed” The Peshitta is in close agreement with the Massoretic text, save that, instead of “Ashpenaz,” the name of the chief of the eunuchs is written “Aspaz,” and the word translated “princes” (parte-mira) is transliterated Parthouia, which means literally “Parthians.” Symmachus reads . The king spake unto Ashpenaz. There is assumed here that there were a large number of Israelitish hostages who would be reckoned captives whenever the conquered state gave cause of suspicion to the regnant power in whose hands the hostages were, and they were possibly eunuchized. It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar wished to use these hostages about the court, in order that, having tasted the pleasure and dignities of the magnificent court of Babylon, their influence would be exercised on their relatives to maintain them in fidelity. The phrase, “spake unto,” has. in later Hebrew, the force of “command,” especially when followed by an infinitive, as Est 1:17. As translated in the Authorized Version. the impression conveyed is that of consultation. The name “Ash-penaz” has caused much discussion. As it stands, it is not Assyrian or Babylonian. The form it has suggests a Persian etymology, and on this fact, along with other similar alleged facts, an argument against the authenticity of Daniel has been based. One derivation would make it ashpa, “a horse;” nasa, “a nose,” “horse nose”by no means an impossible personal name for a Persian or Median. In one or two cuneiform inscriptions of the Persian period the name occurs. Nothing can be built on this, as in the Septuagint the name is given as : in the Peshitta it becomes “Ash-paz,” as we have mentioned above. It would be easily possible to derive” Ashpaz” from “Ashpenaz,” or vice versa; but there seems no relation between Abiesdri and either. By some, as Hitzig, the name has been identified with “Ashkenaz” (Gen 10:3), and that again derived from , “the cord of the testicle,” and has, a Sanskrit root, “to destroy,” and therefore the name would simply be “eunuch.” Over and above the general improbability that is always present in regard to etymologies which imply the word in question to be a hybrid word, there is the improbability that one eunuch would receive a name applicable to the whole class of which he was a member. The name, as it appears in the Septuagint, is, as we have said, totally unconnected with that in the Massoretic text, but both may have sprung from some common source. Thus the French word eveque has not a single letter in common with “bishop,” yet both words are derived from . The changes that a name might undergo in passing from any language, even a cognate one, into Hebrew wine very great; thus Assur-bani-pal became “Asnapper.“ Lenormant has endeavoured to recover the name in the present case. The process he has followed is the somewhat mechanical one of combining the two names, as if we were to strive to reach Asshur-bani-pal item a combination of “Asnapper” and “Sar-danapalus.” He arrives at the name Ash-ben-azur, which is a possible Babylonian name. Professor Fuller has suggested Aba-(i)-istar, “the astronomer of the goddess Ishtar.” The main objection to this is that it is drawn solely from the Septuagint Version. If we look at the tendency exhibited by the Hebrew equivalents of Babylonian names, we find that shortening was one that was nearly invariably present, as Asshur-akhi-iddin na became Esarhaddon, and Sin-akhi-irba became Sanherib. The only exception to this shortening process which occurs to us is Brodach for Marduk, and even it is scarcely an exception. Next there is a tendency, which Hebrew shares with other languages, of suiting a foreign word to the genius of the language. Hence we find “Ashpenaz” has such a close resemblance to “Ashkenaz” of Gen 10:3, and that “Abiesdri” is identical with the form “Abiezer”the name of the father of Gideonassumes in the Septuagint. Judging from “Asnapper,” the name might even begin with Asshur, only that, as Asshur was the national god of the Ninevites, names which contained the name of that divinity are rare in Babylon. The first element in the word might not impossibly be ablu, “son.” The final element seems certainly to have been ezer or utzur. As to the office he tided in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, “the master of eunuchs,” the name of the office in the text is Rab-Sarisim, which occurs in a slightly different form in 2Ki 18:17, along with Rab-Shakeh, as if it were a proper name. From the fact that persons thus mutilated were employed in Eastern courts, the word became equivalent to “officer;” hence we find Petiphar is called saris, or “eunuch;” yet he had a wife. It therefore may be doubted whether Daniel and his companions are to be understood as placed in that condition. The title here givenRab-Sarisimbecomes Sar-Sarisim in verses 7 and 10, Sat being the Hebrew equivalent of the more Babylonian Rab. It is also Aramaic. That he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king‘s seed, and of the princes. It may be doubted at first sight whether these may not be separate classesa view that seems to have been taken by most of the old translators, or whether the first class, “the children of Israel,” does not include the two classes that follow. The rendering partemim, as “Parthians,” adopted by Symmachus and the Peshitta, would make a contrast between “the children of Israel” and “the Parthians.” That, however, is utterly unlikely. Were that translation the true one, a strong argument could be advanced for the late origin of Daniel. The fact that the text before Symmachus and the Peshitta translator admitted of that translation shows how far the tendency to modify the text into suitability with the knowledge of the scribe had gone, and therefore how little weight ought to be given to lateness of individual words. According to the LXX. and Theodotion, there is a word awanting in the first clause; the Septuagint translator would supply “nobles” () “from the nobles of Israel.” Theodotion renders, “from the sons of the Captivity of Israel.” If the sentence ran , one might understand how it could be read ; the natural phrase for this is , but that would not explain the LXX. rendering. The name “Israel” is the covenant name of the whole nation, equally applicable to the southern and to the northern kingdoms. All the more so that the captivity of Judah contained members of three other tribes besides that of Judah, namely, those of Benjamin and Simeon an l Levi. Further, Josiah seems to have extended the bounds of the Davidic kingdom to embrace the remnant of the ten tribes (2Ch 34:6, 2Ch 34:9), therefore his sons would claim the same boundaries, and therefore hostages might be taken by Nebuchadnezzar from them to Babylon. And of the king‘s seed and of the princes. The two “ands” might be rendered “both and,” or “alike and.” The king’s seed means, literally, “the seed of the kingdom,” as it is translated by Theodotion. The phrase, “children of the kingdom,” is applied by our Lord (Mat 8:12) to all the Jews, and in Mat 13:38 to the members of the true Israelperhaps with a latent reference to the children of the true King thus in captivity to the beggarly elements of this world, compelled to stand as servants in the court of Mammon, of which Nebuchadnezzar may well be the type. The word partemim is one which has caused difficulty; it only occurs here, and twice in Esther (Est 1:3; Est 6:9). In these passages it is rendered by the Peshitta as here, Parthouia, “Parthians.” It would seem that the Septuagint translator had before him, not partemin, but bahureem, connecting it with yeladeem,” children” (youths), the opening word of the succeeding verse. In Esther the word partemim is applied to a special class of nobles among the Persians, and certainly was not applied to the princes of Judah. Theodotion does not understand what it means, and so transliterates it . Symmachus and the Peshitta make it “Parthians;” the Targum on Esther makes the same blunder. The LXX. Version of Esther renders it , as if it were connected with and . It certainly has Zend (frathema) and Pehlevi (pardun) congeners, so it may have come over from Aryan sources into the Babylonian. Equally certainly it has disappeared from Aramaic Eastern and Western. If partemim is to be held as part of the original text, it must belong to a period before the Greek domination, as the meaning of the word had disappeared by that time. It might, on the other hand, have been a word in the Babylonian court, or, again, a copyist might have inserted it as a more known word than that originally in the text. This latter, we think, is the probable solution. If the division of the verses had in the Massoretic become deranged, then bahureem would be unintelligible, standing, as it would, at the end of the verse. In Egypt this derangement did not take place, and hence bahureem was retained. Children in whom was no blemish. There is no limit to the age implied in yeled, the word the plural of which is translated “children;” thus to young counsellors who had been brought up with Rehoboam are called yeladeem. As they had been brought up with Rehoboam, they were of the same age with him, yet he was forty-one years old when he ascended the throne. Joseph is called yeled when he was at least seventeen, and Ishmael when he was probably sixteen. Benjamin is called yeled when he was nearly, if not quite, thirty years old; it is said of him immediately before he went down to Egypt, and then he was the father of ten sons. It is used also of new-born infants (Exo 1:17). When we look at the various qualifications they were to possessskilful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge, understanding sciencesixteen to eighteen seems the lowest limit we can set. Aben Ezra comes to the conclusion that they were fourteen when they came to Babylon; that, however, even when all allowance is made for the precocity of warm climates, seems too low. On the whole, we may say that Daniel, when he was taken to Babylon, was the same age as Joseph when he went down into Egypt. The Septuagint rendering () supports our view. We may note that this command to Ashpenaz was in all likelihood given at Jerusalem. In whom was no blemish, but well-secured. If we may judge of the taste of the Babylonians and Assyrians from the sculptures that have come down to us, they had a high standard of personal appearanceespecially fine in appearance are the eunuchs that stand before the king. The word moom, “blemish,” is used of the priesthood; presence of a “blemish” excluded from the priesthood (Le 21:17). It is used of Absalom (2Sa 14:25); it is equivalent in meaning to , which not impossibly was derived from stone early form of this word; tovay mar’eh,” goodly in appearance,” almost identical with our colloquial “good-looking.” Skilful in all wisdom. The word “wisdom” has, in general, a somewhat technical meaning in Hebrew, “skill in interpreting riddles and framing proverbs.” It became widened in meaning in certain cases, as we see in the description of wisdom in the beginning of Proverbs and Job 28:1-28. Yet wider is the sphere given to it in Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom. The word translated “skilful,” maskileem, means, in the first instance, “attending to;” then, the result of this attention, especially when followed by the preposition , “in,” The LXX. suits this, “skilled in all wisdom.” Theodotion renders, “understanding () in all wisdom.” Professor Bevan would render maskil, “intelligent;” Hitzig adopts Luther’s einsichtig in allerlei Wissenschaft, “intelligent in every kind of science,” adding, “that is, they would be were they placed in suitable circumstances.” He objects to De Wette rendering “experienced,” as unsuitable to boys. Cunning in knowledge; literally, knowing knowledge. The distinction is here between the faculty of intelligence and the actual acquirements. It might be rendered “intelligent and well-educated”a view that is supported by the Septuagint rendering (). Understanding science; “discriminating knowledge,” as it is rendered in Theodotion. The Septuagint translator had another text before him; instead of reading mebine madda, he had before him mebinim yodeem, that is to say, he divided the letters differently, so that he read it along with mebine, and had a yod inserted after it, not as connected, but as separate. The word madda is late, found in Chronicles and Ecclesiastes, and as Aramaic well known; the change in the Septuagint must have been due to a different reading. The fact that madda is late, and was not in the Septuagint text, throws a suspicion on all the late words in Daniel, as all of them may be due to the same modernizing tendency. The phrase, according to the Septuagint reading, may be rendered, “having good powers of discrimination and acquisition.” And such as had ability in them to stand in the king‘s palace. The word used for “ability” (koh) usually means “physical strength,” as of Samson (Jdg 16:6), applied to animals as of the unicorn (wild ox) (Job 39:11). Here, however, it refers rather to mental capacity. The idea is that those should be chosen who showed signs of future ability, and therefore afforded a probability that they would be of use in the royal council-chamber. The translator of the Septuagint Version puts a point after , and unites the two following clauses under it. And whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. The LXX. renders, “to teach them letters and the Chaldean dialect.” There were three tongues used in Babylon. There was the Aramaic of ordinary business and diplomacy, called in 2Ki 18:26 “the Syrian language,” and in this book (Dan 2:4) “Syriack.” This was commonly understood, as is shown by the fact that tablets have been found inscribed in Assyrian, but having a docquet behind in Aramaic, telling the contents. Next there was the Assyrian, a Shemitic tongue, cognate with Hebrew, though further removed from it than Aramaic is. This is the language of historic and legal documents, much as Norman French was for long the language of our Acts of Parliament, while the people spoke a tongue not far removed from our modern English. The system of writing used was cumbrous in the highest degree, the same sign standing for several different words, and the same word represented by several different signs. As a spoken languageif it ever were a spoken tongueit was cumbrous also. It was eminently a monumental tongue. Lastly, there was Accadian, the sacred tongue, a language belonging to a different class from the Aramaic and Assyrian. In it the great bulk of the magical formulae and ritual directions of Babylon and Nineveh were written. In the huge library of Asshur-bani-pal, now in the British Museum, a large portion is composed of translations of those Accadian texts. A number of syllabaries have also been found, which enable scholars to investigate this antique tongue. It seems not impossible that Accadian was meant by the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. Their learning involved some astronomy, a great deal of astrology, and not a little magic, incantations, interpretations of dreams and omens. We ourselves, though so far removed both geographically and chronologically from them, feel the effects of their ideas, and enjoy some of the results of their knowledge. We cannot tell whether the Babylonians were the earliest to fix the course of the sun, moon, and planets. At all events, they made observations on the basis of these discoveries; and our week, with its Sunday and Monday, conveys to us still the fact that the Babylonians believed the planets to be seven; the planets strictly so called were associated with deities similar in attributes to those associated with them by the Latin and Teutonic peoples, and the same days were sacred to them in Babylonia and Germany. The Chaldeans, , Kasdeem, of the Bible, do not seem to have been originally inhabitants of Babylon. They formed a cluster of clans to the south-west of Babylon, who invaded Babylonia, and occasionally secured the supremacy in the city. The Assyrians had frequent encounters with them, and carried on against them many prolonged wars. The name in the Assyrian monuments is most frequently Kaldu, from which the Greek comes. It is doubtful whether there is a form Kassatu to explain the Hebrew term. In the days of Nabo-polassar, the Chaldeans being supreme in Babylonia, all the inhabitants of that province may have been called Chaldeans. Latterly there was a restricted use of the term, due to the great attention paid in Babylonia to astrology. It is doubtful whether this restricted use of the word occurred in the genuine Daniel, from which our canonical Daniel has sprung. Certainly Daniel, and those hostages selected with him, were to be educated so as to become member’s of this sacred college of augurs and astrologers.
Dan 1:5
And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. The only thing to be noticed in the LXX. Version of this verse is the fact that is taken to mean “give a portion”a meaning which seems to be implied in (Neh 8:10), hence the translation . Further, the translator must have had as in 2Ki 25:29. The mysterious (path-bag), translated “meat,” has caused differences of rendering. The Syriac Peshitta transfers it. Professor Bevan speaks as if it were common in Syriac, but Castell gives no reference beyond Daniel. (Brockei-mann adds, Ephrem Syrus, Isaac Antiochenus, Bar Hebraeus). It is to be observed that the Syriac form of the word has teth, not tan, for the second radical. This is a change that would not likely take place had the Hebrew form been the original, whereas from the fact that path means in Hebrew “a portion,” if the Hebrew were derived from the Syriac the change would be intelligible. It is confounded in Dan 11:26 with (pathura), “a table.” It seems not improbable that both the LXX. and Theodotion read pathura. The word path-bag does not seem to have been known in Palestine; it does not occur in Chaldee, but does in Syriac. This is intelligible if the chapter before us is condensation from a Syriac original rendered into Hebrew: the word path-bag, being unintelligible, is transferred. The etymology of the word is alleged to be Persian, hut on this assumption it is a matter of dispute what that etymology is. One derivation is from pad or fad, “father” or “prince,” or pat or fat, idol,’ and bag (), food; another is from pati-bhagu, “a portion.” The question is complicated by the fact that in Eze 25:7 we have in the K’tbib (bag), meaning “food.” In that case path-bag would mean “a portion of food.” The reading of the K’thib is not supported by the versions. In Daniel the word simply means “food,” such as was supplied to the king’s table. We see in the slabs from the palace of Kou-youn-jik the nature of a royal feast. Animal food predominated. We cannot avoid referring to a singular argumentative axiom implied in all the discussions on Daniel. Critics seem to think that when they prove that certain words in Daniel are Persian, they thus prove Daniel was written nearly a couple of centuries after the Persian domination had disappeared. Of the wine which he drank. It is to be noted that there is a restriction. The wine supplied was the wine which the king drankwine of which an oblation had been offered to idols. In thus bringing up hostages at his own table, Nebuchadnezzar was following a practice which has continued down to our own day. The son of Theodore of Magdala was brought up at the court of our queen. It was the regular practice, as we know, in Imperial Rome. Sennacherib speaks of Belibus, whom he made deputy-king in Babylon, as brought up “as a little dog at his table”. So nourishing them three years. This was the period during which the education of a Persian youth was continued. It is probable, as we have seen, that these youths were about sixteen or seventeen. At the end of three years they would still be very young. The grammatical connection of the word legaddelam is somewhat singular. The Septuagint reading probably had the first word in this verse in the infinitive also. This is more grammatical, as it brings the whole under the regimen of the opening clause of verse 3. The force of the word before us is represented in “bringing up.” The verb in its simple form means “to be strong,” “to be great,” hence in the intensive form before us, “to make great,” “to bring up.” That at the end thereof they might stand before the king. “Standing before the king” means usually becoming members of the council of the monarch, but in the present instance this does not seem to be the meaning. They were to be presented before the king, and in his presence they were to be examined. They were, then, possibly to be admitted into the college of astrologers and soothsayers, but only in lowly grade. Irrespective of the fact that they would at the latest be twenty or twenty-one when this season of education was over, and, even making all allowance for Eastern precocity, this is too young an age for being a member of a royal privy council. But the next chapter relates an event which appears to be the occasion when they stood before the king, for they were not summoned with the wise men to the king’s presence to interpret his dream.
Dan 1:6
Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The versions present no difficulty here, only the Septuagint adds a clause to bring this verse into harm. The name means “The Lord Jehovah is gracious.” This name is one of the most common in the Bible. Sometimes it is reversed, and becomes Jehohanan or Johanan, and hence “John.” The earliest is the head of the sixteenth of the twenty-four courses into which David divided the Hemanites (2Ch 25:4). In the reign of Uzziah there appears one as a chief captain (2Ch 26:11). In Jeremiah there are three; most prominent, however, is the false prophet who declared that Jeconiah and all his fellow-captives would be brought back in the space of two years (Jer 28:15). One of the ancestors of our Lord, called in Luke (Luk 3:27) Joanna, the son of Rhess, grandson of Zerubbabel, is called in 1Ch 3:19 Hananiah, and reckoned a son of Zerubbabel. In the Book of Nehemiah there are several persons spoken of as bearing this name, not impossibly as many as six. In New Testament times it was still common: Ananias the husband of Sapphira (Act 5:1); the devout Jew of Damascus, sent to Paul (Act 9:10); the high priest in the time of Paul (Act 23:2). Unlike Hananiah, Mishael is one of the rarer names It occurs as the name of one of the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Moses and Aaron (Exo 6:22; Le Exo 10:4), and again as one who stood at Ezra’s left hand when he read the Law (Neh 8:4). There is some question as to the meaning of the name. Two interpretations have been suggested; the simplest and most direct is, “Who is what God is;” the other is, “Who is like God.” The objection to the first is that the contracted relative is employed, which does not elsewhere appear in this book. This, however, is not insuperable, as the contracted form of the relative was in common use in the northern kingdom, and might, therefore, appear in a name; the objection to the second is that a letter is omitted, but such omissions continually occur. Hitzig refers to , from , as a case in point. Azariah, “Jehovah is Helper,” is, like Hananiah, a very common name throughout Jewish history It is the name by which Uzziah is called in 2Ki 14:21 : 2Ki 15:1, 2Ki 15:7, 2Ki 15:8, 2Ki 15:17 (called Uzziah in 2Ki 15:13, 2Ki 15:30, as also in 2Ch 27:1-9.) It is the name of four high priests:
(1) one (1Ch 6:10)during the reign of Solomon, the grandson of Zadok;
(2) the high priest during the reign of Jehoshaphat (1Ch 6:11);
(3) high priest during the reign of his namesake Azariah or Uzziah King of Judah (2Ch 26:17-20);
(4) high priest in the reign of Hezekiah (2Ch 31:10-14).
There is also a prophet of this name (2Ch 15:1) in the days of Asa King of Judah. While this name is so common before the Captivity, it is not so common after it, though there is a captain of the army of Judas Maccabteus called “Azarias.” While all the names contain the name of God, either in the covenant form “Jehovah” or the common form “el,” yet there is nothing in the names to suggest the history before us. Jewish tradition made them out to be of the royal family; of this there is no certainty. In the time of Jerome it was held they were eunuchs, and thus the prophecy in Isaiah (Isa 39:7) was fulfilled. Others have held that Isa 56:3, “Let not the eunuch say, I am a dry tree,” had a reference to those captives. So far, however, as we know, eunuchs might be attendants of Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs might bear the state umbrella over their heads, might give the cup to them, might arrange their couch for them, or announce their approach to the harem, but were not their councillors or warriors. That was left for the days of the Byzantine Empire, when the eunuch Narses retained Italy for the empire.
Dan 1:7
Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names; for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego. The only thing to be noted in regard to the versions is that, with the exception of the Peshitta, all of them identify the name of Daniel with that of the last King of Babylon. Both are called Baltasar or Baltassar in the Vulgate, the LXX; and Theodotion. The difference made in the Peshitta is not the same as that in the Hebrew; the prophet is called Beletshazzar, and the king Belit-shazzar. This would indicate something wrong. The Greek versions render Abed-nego , which also the Vulgate has. This habit of changing the names of those who entered their service prevailed among Eastern potentates. Joseph became Zaph-nath-paaneah (Gen 41:45). Not only did those about the court receive new names, but, not infrequently, subject monarchs, as token of subjection, were newly named, as Jehoiakim, who had formerly been Eliakim. Professor Fuller mentions the case of the Egyptian monarch Psammetik II; whose name as subject of Asshur-bani-pal was Nabo-sezib-ani. Not only so, but monarchs of their own will changed their names with changed circumstances; thus Pal in Babylon is Tiglath-pileser in Nineveh. Still in modern times this is continued in the head of Roman Catholic Christendom, who has for the last twelve centuries always assumed another than his original name on ascending the papalthrone. With members of a monarch’s court this is easily intelligible. The desire was to have names of good omen; a foreign name might either be meaningless or suggest anything but thoughts full of good omen. In considering these names, there are certain preliminary facts we must bear in mind. In the first place, there is a great probability that all the names had a Divine element in them, that is, contained as an element the name of a Babylonian god. The great mass of the names of Baby-Ionian and Assyrian officials had this. Next, it is by no means improbable that, at the hands of the Jewish scribes, the names have sustained some considerable change, more especially as regards the Divine element. The Jewish scribe had few scruples as to altering a name when there was anything in it to hurt his sensibilities. It is horrible to him that Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses the great lawgiver, should be the originator of the false temple at Dan, and so he inserts a nun, and changes Moshe, “Moses,” into “Manasseh.” The scribe that copied out 2 Samuel, coming to the name of Jerubbaal, cannot endure to chronicle the fact that a judge in Israel ever bore the name of the abomination of the Zidonians as part of his name, and altered it to Jerubesheth. So we have in the same book Ishbosheth for Ethbaal, and Mephibosheth for Meribbaal. With a foreign potentate it is different; but in the case of a Jew there always was a tendency to blink such an awkward fact as bearing a name with heathen elements, by a slight change. The name given to Daniel is, in the Massoretic text, Belteshazzar. From the fact that in the Septuagint, Theodotion, and the Vulgate, we have the king Belshazzar and Daniel, as Babylonian magician, called by the same name,” Baltasar,” and when in the Peshitta, the difference is very slight, and not always maintained, we, for our part, are strongly inclined to believe both names to have been the same. Professor Bevan (‘The Book of Daniel,’ 40) is quite sure that the author did not understand the meaning of the name given to Daniel. He (Professor Bevan) derives the name from Balat-zu-utzur, “Protect thou his life.” Professor Fuller, with as great plausibility, makes it Bilat-sarra-utzur, “Beltis protects the crown.” If that be the true derivation, then Nebuchadnezzar could quite correctly say that he was called after the name of his god. Still more accurate would this statement be if the name were Belshazzar. But an uneasy suspicion crosses our mind.
Does the author of Daniel ever attribute to Nebuchadnezzar the words on which Professor Bevan grounds his charge? The words are not in the Septuagint. Thus Professor Bevannever admitting the possibility of the name Belteshazzar having been modified from something else, although the evidence of the versions points most distinctly to that, and although he candidly admits it to have taken place in regard to Abed-negoassumes an etymology for it, as if it were the only possible one, which it is not; and on the ground of this etymology, and on the assumption that certain words were in the original text of Daniel, which are yet not in the Septuagint, he concludes that the author of Daniel did not know the meaning of the name he had given to his hero. Surely this is special pleading. If there has been any tampering with the name or modification of it, then Professor Bevan’s assumption falls to the ground, and his argument with it; but there seems every probability that there has been such modification, and the effect of such modification would be to deface the name of the heathen divinity in the name if there were such. Further, if Professor Fuller’s etymology may be maintained, again Professor Bevan’s assumption falls to the ground. These two arguments do not conflict. A Jewish scribe, ignorant of ancient Assyrian, might easily introduce a modification which, despite his intention, did not remove all heathen divinity from the name, only changed the divinity. If the original text of Daniel did not contain the phrase in the fourth chapter, “according to the name of my god,” then again Professor Bevan’s assumption is proved groundless, and his argument without value. The phrase in question is not in the Septuagint, and therefore it is, to say the least, suspicious. It has no such intimate connection with the context as to show it part of the text; it is just such a phrase as would be put on the margin as a gloss, and get into the text by blunder of a copyist. It may be observed that Professor Bevan merely follows Schrader, alike in his derivation and deduction; but he, not Schrader, had before him continually the Septuagint version of Daniel, and he, not Schrader, is commentator on Daniel. And to Hananiah of Shadrach. This name is explained by Dr. Delitzsch as being a modified transliteration of Shudur-aku, “the command of Aku” (the moon-deity). With this Schrader agrees. There is always the possibility of the name having undergone a change. On the other hand, as the name of the deity, Aku, does not appear in Scripture, the Puritanic scribe might be unaware of its presence here. And to Mishael of Meshach. This name has caused great difficulty; it is consonantally identical with , “Hesheeh,” the name of one of the sons of Japhet. Dr. Delitzsch would render it Me-sa-aku, “Who is as Aku.” Schrader’s objections to this are, that in the first place the Babylonian form would be Mamm-ki-Aku. And next, that there would not likely be a simple translation of the Hebrew name into Assyrian, but rather the giving a new name altogether. This second objection is valueless, for Pharaoh-Necho did not wholly change the name of Eliakim when he set him on the throne; since Jehovah may be regarded as the equivalent of El. The fact that “Meshach” is so like “Mcshech” points to intentional modification, and, therefore, to the presence in the name of the designation of a Babylonian god likely to be known to the Jews, such as Merodach, whose name was known to the Jews by its occurrence in the names Evil-Merodach and Merodach-Baladan, and actually as a divinity in Jer 50:2. Such is Lenormant’s hypothesis. which would render it Misa-Mero-dash, “Who is as Merodach”a suggestion certainly open to Schrader’s first objection. And to Azariah of Abed-nego. It has long been recognized that this name is a modification of Abed-Nebo. This identification is rendered all the more probable, that in New Hebrew and Aramaic Naga meant the planet “Venus,” that is, “Nebo” The consonants are correct for this, but the vocalization is purposely wrong, in order to avoid the heathen name. If the author of Daniel was an obscure Jew, living in Palestine during the days of Epiphanes, whoa the influence of Babylon had disappeared, and its language had ceased to be studied, is it not strange that he should devise names which so accurately represent those that were in Babylon? One has only to read the Book of Judith, in all likelihood the product of the Epiphanes period, to see the wild work that Palestinian Jews of that time made of Babylonian names.
Dan 1:8
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wins which he drank, therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. The Septuagint renders the first clause somewhat paraphrastically, “Daniel desired in his heart,” led possibly to this by the more limited meaning assigned to “heart” in the psychology of ordinary Greek speech. Theodotion is, as usual, in close harmony with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta, instead of “heart,” has rina, “mind.” As before noticed, the G reek versions here render by . Jerome renders it mensa. In the Syriac the word is present, as we before said. We have above indicated that it is possible that the original word was not path-bag, but pathura. In regard to the Massoretic text as compared with the Greek and Latin versions, it seems certain that path-bag, if belonging to the text, was only understood in the Easta phenomenon that would be intelligible if this chapter be a condensation and translation of an original Aramaic text, especially if the Aramaic were Eastern, not Western. An ancient feast had always the nature of a sacrifice. It was the case with the Jews: thus in Deu 12:11, Deu 12:12, directions are given for sacrificing in the place which the Lord should choose, and they and all their household rejoicing. But if the place chosen were too far, then permission was given them to eat flesh, only they were to be careful not to eat with the blood. It was the characteristic of the classic nations all through their whole history, that the feast should be consecrated by the offering of something of it to the Deity. The immense probability was that this was the case also among the Babylonians. It may be that this consecration of the feast arose from the same justifiable religious feeling which leads us to ask a blessing on our meals. The habit of the African Church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at every supper, was probably connected with this offering to God of what the guests were about to partake. This fact, that every feast had the character of a sacrifice, might easily make these Hebrew youths refuse the royal dainties. So far as animal food was concerned, the careful directions as to not eating with blood made partaking of the feasts of the Babylonian monarch peculiarly liable to bring on them defilement. The fact that Evil-Merodach provided Jeconiah with a portion from his table, and that Jeconiah did not refuse it, does not necessarily militate against the early date of Daniel. Jeconiah probably was not as conscientious as those youths, and, on the other hand, Daniel’s influence by this time may have arranged some consideration for Jewish scruples. It is certain that in 2 Maccabees 5:27 Judas and his brethren are represented as living in the mountains on herbs, after the manner of beasts, that they might not be defiled; but as there is nothing parallel to this in 1 Maccabees, we may dismiss the statement as probably untrue. So the whole idea of this action on the part of Judas and his nine companions may have arisen from the case recorded before us. It has all the look of a rhetorical addition to the narrative, and the differences of the circumstances were not such as would strike a rhetorical scribe; but as this abstinence appeared to add to the sanctity of these four Hebrew youths, would it not add to the sanctity of Judas also? ‘In the Assyrian feasts the guests do not seem to have sat at one long table or several long tables, as is usual with us. The guests were divided into sets of four, and had provisions served to them, and it is to be observed that the youths before us would have exactly occupied one of those tables. The word used for “defile” (ga‘al) occurs in Isaiah, Lamentations, Zephaniah, Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It is an Exilic and post-Exilic word mainly; the old priestly word lama had not disappearedit is used in Haggai. It is to be observed that there is nothing about defilement in the Peshitta; it is not impossible that the word is a later addition, only its presence both in Theodotion and the Septuagint renders the omission improbable. There is nothing in the passage here which makes it necessary for us to maintain that the principle of action followed by those youths was one which was generally acknowledged to be incumbent on all Jews. It may simply have been that, feeling the critical condition in which they were placed, it was well for them to erect a hedge about the Law. There may even have been an excess of scrupulosity which is in perfect dramatic suitability to the age of the youths. Such abstinence may well have occasioned the regular abstinence of the Essenes, but this state-merit concerning Daniel and his friends can scarcely have originated from the Essene dietary. It has been noted, as a proof of Daniel’s courtesy and docility, that he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. But to have refused the food provided by the king might have been construed as an insult to the king, and anything of that sort had swift and severe punishment meted out to it. Daniel’s request was simply due to the necessities of the situation.
Dan 1:9
Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. The word here translated “tender love” really means “bowels,” and then “mercy” or “compassion.” Hence the Apostle Paul (Php 2:1) combines the two meanings, “If there be any bowels and mercies.” The Revised Version is here to be preferred, “favour and compassion,’ as the Authorized exaggerates the affection the prince of the eunuchs had for Daniel. The versions in this verse do not afford any marked variations. The Septuagint has , “Lord,” usually employed to translate , Jehovah, instead of (). It is not impossible that the original reading may have been , though it is to be admitted not likely. Rahameem is translated ,” favour,” in the Septuagint, which is a weak rendering; Theodotion renders , which may be regarded as practically equivalent to our Revised Version. While the third verse speaks of the “chief” () of the eunuchs, a Babylonian and Assyrian title, the more usual Hebrew replaces it in this verse and in that which precedes it. From this root the Assyrian and Babylonian word for “king,” sat or sarru, was derived, while tab fell on evil days. Among the later Jews it became equivalent to ,mr doctors of divinity. Before the word for “God” (Elohim) there is the article. So far as the form stands, it might be plural, and therefore be capable of being translated “the gods,” but the verb being singular renders that translation impossible. The affection with which the chief of the eunuchs regarded Daniel is notified to us as the result of God’s goodness, who had thus given him favour in the eyes of him set over him. The Hebrew never failed to recognize, in his devouter moments, that the hearts of all men are in the hands of God; that by him kings reign and princes decree wisdom.
Dan 1:10
And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. In the Hebrew of this verse there are traces that it has been translated from an Aramaic original. We shall consider the differences of the versions from the Massoretic below. The word (sar) for “prince” is continued from the preceding verse, I fear. In the Massoretic text, the word is not a verb, but an adjective. If the phrase were rendered “I am afraid,” this would represent the construction, it is one that is specially frequent with this adjective; it resembles the construction so common in Aramaic of participle with pronoun where an ordinary preterite or imperfect would be used in Hebrew. Your meat and your drink. In this phrase the enigmatic word path-bag has disappeared; (maachal), the ordinary word for “food,” has replaced it. For why should he see your face. The construction here is decidedly Aramaic, and resembles a word-for-word rendering from an Aramaic original. The Targumic phrase here is (deelma) (Onkelos, Gen 3:3). The Peshitta rendering here is dalma. The construction occurs in So Dan 1:7, shallama, only with the northern shortened relative. In worse liking. The word zoapheem means “sad,” “troubled” (Gen 40:6); the verb from which it comes means “to be angry” (2Ch 26:19). It is to be noted that the Septuagint here has two renderings, probably a case of “doublet.” The first may refer to the mental confusion or sadness that they might be in if on account of their poor nourishment they were unable to answer the king’s questions; the second, , “weak,” may refer to the body: is Theodotion’s rendering, which may be rendered “scowling” (it is used along with , Plato, ‘Syrup.’). The Peshitta has m’karan, “ashamed;” that they would feel shame were they much inferior in looks or acquirements to their neighbours would be natural. The intimate connection between food and good looks and good mental qualities is well known as one much held, especially in ancient days. Than the children of your sort. Kegilkem; this word, or , is maintained by Professor Bevan to be unused in early Hebrew in the sense of “generation” or “age” Furst would regard the name Abigail as exhibiting the word as existing in early times. The only difficulty in this is that the name may have another derivation. The real meaning of the word in this connection is “a circle;” hence then a revolution of the heavens. It is explained by Buxtorf as meaning “constellation, planet;” , “son of his star”born under the same constellation, contemporary. The Syriac paraphrases the word, and renders “of your year.” Theodotion renders , “of like age.” When we turn to the Septuagint, we find evidence either that the word was not there at all, or that it was misunderstood; the Septuagint rendering is “than the stranger () youths brought up with you ().“ This is an evident case of doublet. The first that stands in the Greek is : this represents a various reading, (gad’lu itkem), by no means an impossible reading. The other, , represents (geereem): this is still more like the Massoretic reading (geelkem). The Massoretic is possibly the reading from which the other two have sprung; if so, it is clear that the word has not in this sense been known to either of the two Egyptian translators. It is not Targumic, for Levy has it not in his Lexicon. Professor Bevan says it is Aramaic and Arabic. This, then, is a case where the Aramaic original shines through; the chief of the eunuchs would naturally speak in Aramaic. Then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Here again is a word which Professor Bevan declares is late, the word here translated “make me endanger (yehigyabetem).“ There is no difficulty as to the reading in the versions, save that the Septuagint reads the first person singular instead of the second person plural, in other words, vehiyyabti, “and I shall endanger,” and “my neck,” reading, instead of “my head,” possibly (tzavvari) or (maphraqti), the latter reading due to the mere, the sign of the second person plural being transferred to the following word. It may certainly have been a paraphrase, but the phrase as it stands in the Massoretic seems awkward. Professor Bevan brings forward this word as Aramaic, and a proof of the lateness of Daniel. If we are correct, it is a case where the Aramaic of the original shines through. The word indubitably occurs in Eze 18:7. As counsel for the prosecution, Professor Bevan must get rid of this awkward fact. Cornill, one of his colleagues in the case against Daniel, suggests that another word should be read in Ezekiel, and Professor Bevan agrees, but differs as to the word. There is no indication in any of the versions that there is any uncertainty as to the reading in Ezekiel. It is a most convenient method of getting rid of an awkward fact; little extension of it might make any word one pleased a hapax legomenon. The critics might have tried the method more reasonably on Daniel than on Ezekiel; but as their brief was against Daniel, that did not occur to them. The picture presented to us in this verse is one that in the circumstances is full of naturalness. We have, on the one hand, the eager entreaty of the Hebrew youth; the kindly look of the prince, willing to grant anything he possibly can to his favourite, yet hindered by fear for himself, and at the same time a desire that Daniel, his favourite, should stand well with the king. The chief of the eunuchs knew that personal good looks were an important matter with Nebuchadnezzar. If they were badly nourished, these Hebrew youths would be handicapped in their examination before the king. But more, shame at their own appearance would disturb them mentally, even if they were able to study as well on this plain food they desired. If the failure were egregious, then investigation might be demanded, and then the fact that he had transgressed the orders of the king would be a serious offencethe king knew no mercy when enraged. It is to be observed that the chief of the eunuchs first appeals to the self-interest of the youths before him, that they would endanger their own prospects; but as that does not move them, he next tells them that his own life would be endangered. In this case we must remember we have merely a summary, and a very condensed summary, of what was probably a prolonged argument. We have only the heads, and probably the succession of the arguments. It may, perhaps, be regarded as a proof of the authenticity of this speech that two Aramaic words are preserved in it. The Rabsaris most certainly would speak in Aramaic, and technical words such as geel and heyyabtem might be retained even in a translation, if there were no word which was quite an exact equivalent. Thus in translations from French or German into English, how frequently are words transferred from the original tongue[ “One-sided” is a case in point.
Dan 1:11
Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The reading of the Septuagint differs from the Massoretic in two particularsinstead of “Melzar,” the name given is “Abiesdri,” as in the third verse; and the verb minnah () is read (munnah), “set overse” The Peshitta reads instead of “Melzar,’ in this verse, “Mashitzar” (but see verse 16). This confirms the idea that this is a proper name, not an official title. If the assumption of the Septuagint is correct, then the name in the Massoretic text ought to be Hammelzar. This might indicate the name to be Amil-Assur, corresponding to Amil-Merodach. Theodotion renders the name . While a good deal can be said for making “Melzar” or “Ham-melzar” a proper name, something may also be said for the idea which has gained ground that “Melzar,” since it has the article before it, is the name of an official. Lenormant makes the name Amil-Ussur. Such, at any rate, is the name of an official in the court of a Ninevite king; it is supposed to mean “steward,” but it may be doubted if this is the exact equivalent of such an official as the one here referred to. Hitzig suggests , and for this rendering there is much to be said. It is an indirect proof of the antiquity of the book, that an official is referred to by a title the exact force of which had been forgotten when the Septuagint translation was produced, not later certainly than the first century b.c. Theodotion and Jerome are as far at sea as is also the Peshitta. The critical hypothesis is that this Assyrian name for “steward” remained known among the Palestinian Jews from the fall of the Babyloniau Empire in b.c. 532 to b.c. 168, and then in less than a couple of centuries utterly disappeared. The reading of the Septuagint,” Abiesdri,” may be laid aside; it is a reading that would suggest itself to any one who appreciated the difficulty of the passage. In the previous verse we were made auditors to a conversation between Daniel and Ashpenaz, in which he does not consent to Daniel’s request. In the verse before us Daniel addresses another request to a new but subordinate official. As the request is one that might naturally follow the refusal, mild but to all appearance firm, of the prince of the eunuchs, what could be more natural than to imagine that Amelzar was a misreading for Abiesdri? The story has been condensed. Had we the full narrative, we most likely would have seen that Daniel had to go over the argument with the subordinate that he had already had with the superior. It is not unlikely that the prince of the eunuchs was not expressly informed of the experiment being tried,of which the verse which follows informs us. This would help to save him from the responsibility of the thing; it is not inconceivable that he intentionally kept himself uninformed. Not only has Daniel secured a personal influence over the prince of the eunuchs, but also over this Melzar, or steward. There are people in the world who have this magnetic power over their fellows which compels their liking. When with this are united abilities of a man to do exploits and leave his mark on the world, we have a national hero. Napoleon the Great was eminently a man of this kind.
Dan 1:12
Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. The Septuagint seems to have read yutan, “let there be given,” instead of yitnu, “let them give.” Zeroim, “seeds” (, Theodotion), “pulse”. This word occurs only here; it differs, however, only by the second vowel from zeruim in Isa 61:11, and there it is rendered as by Theodotion here, . As the vowels were not written for centuries after the latest critical date of Daniel, it is in the highest degree absurd to ground any argument on the pronunciation affixed to the word by these late scribes, probably with as great caprice as made them maintain to all time “suspended letters” here and there in the text, or sometimes begin a word with a final mem. Professor Bevan regards this word a s possibly a scribe’s mistake for zeronim, a word with the same meaning, which occurs in verse 16, and is found in the Talmud. He might more naturally regard zeronim as a scribe’s mistake for zeroim. As, however, the word is Aramaic, occurring both in the Eastern and Western dialects, it may be a case where the original word shines through. Prove thy servants ten days. The word used for “prove’ is that frequently used of God in relation to men, as in Gen 22:1,” God did prove Abraham.” Calvin thinks that Daniel made this request because he had been directed by the Divine Spirit. We would not for one moment deny that all wisdom comes down from above, and that it is the Spirit of the Almighty that giveth understanding, yet the suggestion was a reasonable one, the period was long enough to have given signs that it affected them injuriously, and yet not so long but the evil effects might easily be removed. Ten days. It may be that this is merely a round numberan easily marked periodbut an experiment would have a definite period. It is approximately the third of a revolution of the moon, and as the Babylonians were attentive observers of the movements of the heavenly bodies, especially of the moon, “ten days” is likely enough to be a period with them, as certainly a week was. Moreover, among all the nations of antiquity numbers were credited with special powers, as all who have studied Greek philosophy know. Pythagoras rested the whole universe on number. This theory, in which to some extent he was followed by Plato, seems to have been derived from Assyrian, if not Babylonian sources. Thus Lenormant, in ‘La Magic,’ gives a dialogue between Hea and his son Hilgq-mulu-qi. Everything depends on knowing “the number.” It may be noted, as bearing on this, that in the bas-reliefs portraying a feast from the palace of Asshurbanipal, the guests are seated in messes of four round small tables. If, then, as is probable, all these young cadets at the Babylonian court sat in the royal presence, they would have a table to themselves, and thus the peculiarity of their meal would not be patent to the whole company. Had the number of friends been more, they would have been conspicuous: had they been fewer, they would have been observed by those added to make up the number. Their request to be allotted to eat only pulse and to drink only water, had not, as we have already said, anything necessarily of the asceticism of the Essenes. They, the Essenes, rather started from Daniel and his friends. Maimonides tells us that there were three kinds of zeronimtbu’ah, “crops,” wheat, barley, millet, etc.; gatonith, “small crops,” peas, beans, lentils; geenah, “garden seeds,” such as mint, anise, and cummin. The English versions and the Septuagint agree in regarding the second of these classes as here intended. There is this to be said, that seeds are the most nourishing form of vegetable diet. Aben Ezra suggests “rice” as the seeds used for this purpose; but as, just as in all hot climates, vegetables and fruits of all sorts were largely consumed in Babylon, definition is unnecessary. To the present day among the inhabitants of the district around ancient Babylon, indeed, over the Levant generally, dates and raisins, with grain, and in the season fresh fruit, form the staple food. Daniel really prayed to live as the common people.
Dan 1:13
Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. The Septuagint Version here differs considerably from the Massoretic text; it is as follows: “And should our countenance appear more downcast than ( ) those other youths who eat of the royal feast, according as thou seest good (), so deal with thy servants.” In the text before the Septuagint translator (l’phaneka), “before thee,” is omitted, and instead of (mareh),” appearance,” is read hsilgnE:egaugnaL} (zoaphim), and after is inserted (min), “from,” the sign of the comparative, equivalent to “than.“ Theodotion, Jerome, and the Peshitta represent accurately the Massoretic text. Against the Septuagint reading is the fact that in the Massoretic, marayeeaen is construed a singular, but in Eze 15:1-8 :10 it is plural. The vocalization of tirayh, “thou shalt see,” is Aramaean, and therefore confirms the idea that this chapter is a translation in which the original shines through. The reading of the Septuagint implies that a different meaning must be put on the last clause from that in the English Version. It means that, should the experiment prove a failure, they were willing to suffer any punishment that the official in question saw good. Such an interference with the arrangements of.the king would be a crime to be punished with stripes. Although a perfectly consistent sense can be brought from the text behind the Septuagint, yet, from the fact that the phrase, (zoapheem min-hay’ladeem), occurs in the tenth verse, and therefore may be repeated here by accident, we would not definitely prefer it. Further, the Massoretic text follows more naturally from the context. Let the steward see the result of the experiment after ten days, and, as he sees, so let him judge and act. Daniel and his companions leave the matter thus really in the hands of Providence.
Dan 1:14
So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. The literal rendering is, And he hearkened unto them as to this matter, proved them ten days. The Septuagint reading is again peculiar, “And he dealt with them after this manner, and proved them ten days.” is not very unlike , nor very unlike , and this is all the change implied. The Massoretic reading seems the more natural, but it might be argued that this very naturalness is the result of an effort to make the Hebrew more flowing. But further, from the fact that . (asayh), imperative of the same verb, precedes almost immediately, the word might come in by accident, or another word somewhat like it might be misread into it. The consent of the subordinate official implies, if not the consent, at least the connivance, of the superior. As we have already explained from the arrangements of a Babylonian feast, the plan of the Hebrew youths could the more easily be carried out.
Dan 1:15
At the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat. The Septuagint is a little paraphrastic, and renders, “After ten days their countenance appeared beautiful and their habit of body better than that of the other young men who ate of the king’s meat.” Theodotion is painfully faithful to the Massoretic text. The Peshitta translates (tob), “good,” “fair,” by sha-peera, “beautiful.” We have here the result of the experiment. At the end of the ten days these youths who had lived plainly are fairer and fatter than those who partook of the royal daintiesa result that implies nothing miraculous; it was simply the natural result of living on food suited to the climate. The grammar of the passage is peculiar; mareehem, which so far as form goes might be plural, is construed with a singular verb and adjective, but bereeem, “fatter,” is plural. The explanation is that while “countenance,” the substantive, is in the singular, it is not the substantive to the adjective “fat,” but “they” understood. The sentence is not intended to assert that their faces merely were fatter than those of the other youths of their rank and circumstances, but that their whole body was so. This contrast of reference is brought out in the Septuagint paraphrase. Any one looking on the Assyrian and Babylonian sculptures, and comparing them with the sculptures and paintings of Egypt, will observe the relatively greater stoutness of the Assyrians. In the eunuchs especially, one cannot fail to notice the full round faces and the double chins of those in immediate attendance on the king. Among savage nations and semi-civilized ones, corpulence is regarded as a sign of nobility. The frequent long fasts, due to failure of their scanty crops or the difficulty of catching game, would keep the ordinary savage spare; only one who could employ the sinews and possessions of others would be sure of being always well fed, consequently the corpulent man was incontestably the wealthy nobleman. In semi-civilized countries, as Babylon, this was probably a survival. On the sculptures the kings are not unwieldy with corpulence, but the eunuchs have an evident tendency to this. A king, abstemious himself, might feel his consequence increased by having as his attendants those who bore about in their persons the evidence of how well those were nourished who fed at his table. There is no reason to imagine that Nebuchadnezzar was superior to his contemporaries in regard to this. The melzar, having thus seen the result of the experiment, must see that, so far as externals were concerned, the Hebrews who fed on pulse were better than their companions. The period of ten days was a short one, but not too short for effects such as those mentioned to be manifested. Jephet-ibn-Ali thinks that special leanness was inflicted on those who were unfaithful or had failed in courage. That, however, is an unnecessary supposition.
Dan 1:16
Thus Melzar took away the portion of their moat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. The Massoretic has the article here before “Melzar”a fact that the Authorized does not indicate; the Revised renders more correctly, “the steward.” The version of the Septuagint does not differ much from the Massoretic, only the word translated “that they should drink” is omitted; on the other hand, we have the verb () put in composition with (), “gave them instead,” as if, in the text before the translator, the mem, which begins mishtayhem, had been put to the end of yayin, “wine,” making it “their wine”a construction which would be more symmetrical than the present. Only it is difficult to see how either tahath asher could be changed into shtayhem, or vice versa. The Septuagint translation suggests a simpler and more natural textnot a simplified onetherefore it is, on the whole, to be preferred. The careful word-for-word translation of the beginning of the verse renders it little likely that the translator would paraphrase at the end; c g. the word translated in our version “thus” is really veeay’he, “it was,” and in the LXX. this is rendered , “it was.” Theodotion is in absolute agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta calls the steward ma–nitzor, and renders the last clause, “and he gave to them seeds to eat, and water to drink,” evidently borrowed from the twelfth verse. The result of the success of the experiment is that the youths are no more importuned to partake of the king’s dainties. The steward, or the attendant who looked after their mess, supplied them with pulse. It has occurred to two commentators, widely separated from each other in point of time, that the consent of the “Melzar” was all the more easily gained, that he could utilize the abstemiousness of these Hebrew youths to his own private advantage. Both Jephet-ibn-Ali in the beginning of the eleventh century, and Ewald in the middle of the nineteenth, maintain that the “Melzar” used to his own purposes, possibly sold, the portion of food and wine that the Hebrew youths abjured. Certainly the verb nasa means the lifting and carrying away, and suggests that every day the portions of food and wine were first carried to the table of these Hebrews, and then, after having been placed before them, were removed and pulse brought instead. When we think of it, some such process would have to take place. If it had been observed that one table was never supplied with a portion from the king’s table, there might have been remarks made, and the “Melzar“ would have fallen into disgrace with his sovereign, and the Hebrew youths would possibly have shared his disgrace. As to how the portions thus retained were disposed of, we need not be curious; there would, no doubt, be plenty of claimants for the broken victuals from the King of Babylon’s table, without accusing the “Melzar” of dishonest motives. The fact that the verbs are in participle implies that henceforth it was the regular habit of the “Melzar“ to remove from before the tour friends the royal dainties, and supply them instead with pulse. We have already referred to the word used for “pulse; ‘ it is here zayroneem, whereas in the twelfth verse it is zayroeem. Not impossibly in the verse before us we have another case of the original Aramaic shining through the translation; in the Peshitta the word is zer’oona, see Aramaic word. Whatever the word was, it seems certain that originally it was the same in both places, as in none of the versions is there any variation. It is not so impossible that originally the vocalization was different, and that the word was the ordinary word zeraim, “seeds.“ This certainly is the translation of Theodotion.
Dan 1:17
As for these four children, God gave them knewledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Or, as the words might be more accurately rendered, “these lads, the four of them” (Eze 1:8-10). This indicates that somehow they were separated off into a quaternion. In Ezekiel, where a similar phrase occurs, the four cherubim form a quaternion in a very special way. As we have already seen, the Assyrians in a feast arranged the guests in messes of four. Those thus seated together would most likely be associated in some other way. In the case of these youths, who were permanent guests at the table of the King of Babylon, they would most likely be associated in their studies from the first. The Septuagint Version omits the numeral, but is pleonastic in a way that suggests a coalescing of different readings. The rendering is, “And to the youths the Lord gave understanding and knowledge and wisdom in the art of learning (the grammatic artgrammar), and to Daniel he gave understanding of every kind (in every word), and in visions, and in dreams, and in every kind of wisdom.” The omission of the word “four,” and the insertion of two words, “understanding” and “knowledge,” suggest that the one has somehow taken the place of the other; it may be that the word was read instead of . The Massoretic original of the phrase, “skill in all learning,” may be rendered literally, “skill in every kind of books.” This has a special meaning in regard to the Babylonian and Assyrian books, which were clay tablets incised when wet, and burnt into permanence. Rolls of parchment were, as we see from Jeremiah, the common material for books among the Jews. Among the Egyptians, papyrus largely took the place of parchment, so the knowledge “of every kind of books” meant “every language.” It is certain that three languages were to a certain extent in use in BabylonAramaic, the ordinary language of business and diplomacy; Assyrian, the court language, the language in which histories and dedications were written; Accadian, the old sacred tongue, in which all the formulae of worship and the forms of incantation had been originally written. From the fact that Rabshakeh could talk Hebrew when conversing with Eliakim and Shebna, it would seem that the accomplish-merit required from a diplomat implied the knowledge of the languages of the various nations subject to the Babylonian Empire or eonterminous with it. “Knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom” would seem to mean the complete eurriculum fitted to make these youths able diplomatists and wise councillors. And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. All the nations of antiquity laid stress on dreams as means by which the future was revealed to men; but in no nation was there so elaborate a system of interpretation as among the Babyhmians. Lenormant (‘La Divination’) gives a long account, with many passages translated from their books, of their mode of interpreting dreams. “Visions” may be regarded as appearances of the nature of the alleged second sight among the Scottish Highlanders. It may, however, refer to appearances which are regarded as omens of good or evil fortune. We see in all the elaborate distinctions of omens preserved to us in Lenormant only the folly of superstition; but we may not assume that Daniel and his friends did not believe in them. It has been objected that if Daniel and his friends were so scrupulous in regard to the dainties and. the wines of the Babylonian monarch, because these were connected with idol-worship, they ought logically to have refused to learn these superstitious formulae. But men are never completely logical; life is wider than logic, and hence there are always elements that are left out in our calculations. The possession even of Divine inspiration would not suffer men to annul the two millennia and a half that separate us from the days of Daniel. TheyDaniel and his friendsdid not see in this so-called science of oneiromancy mere superstition. Still less did they recognize it as having a necessary connection with the idolatries of Babylon. In the following chapter we see the theory Daniel himself had of the matter, namely, that God used dreams as means to make known the future to men. No one can say he was mistaken in this. When Luther described heaven to his child, he filled it with what would be most happy for the little boy; he takes the child at the stage at which he is, and tells him the truth, but in limitations suited to his knowledge. May we not reasonably argue that the great Father deals so with his children? When they are in the state of knowledge that makes them expect to have his will revealed to them in dreams and omens, then he will make known his will by dreams. Daniel knew all that Chaldean science could tell him, but he saw that it was limited, that behind all the canons of interpretation there was the Eternal Mind, the Great Thinker, whose thoughts are things. In other words, he did not recognize the so-called science of Babylon, its astrology, its incantations, its omens, its interpretations of dreams as false so much as limited. It has been placed by Jerome as a parallel, that Moses was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians. Jerome assumes “they learned not that they might follow, but that they might judge and convict (convincant).“ We do not see the need of any such supposition. In their own land they in all likelihood believed in the interpretation of dreams, not unlikely in omens too in some degree. When they came to Babylon they came among a people who halt reduced all this to a form that had a delusive appearance of scientific accuracy. They could not fail to believe in all these things. Long after the latest critical date of Daniel, the Jews believed in omens and dreams. Josephus tells us of his own skill in these matters, and is still more explicit in respect to the wisdom of the Essenes in regard to the future. Students of the Talmud will not require to be told of the bath-qol and other means by which a knowledge of the future was derived. We must, we fear, assume that Daniel was not so far ahead of his contemporaries as not to believe in the science of Babylon, and therefore to expect him to protest against it and refuge to acquire it is absurd in the last degree. This fact of these four Hebrew youths not objecting to heathen learning is ,n indirect proof of the early date of Daniel. If this book had been written in the days of the Maccabees, then the learning of the Chaldeans would be a synonym for the learning of the Greeks. We know that, so far from the Hasideemthe party from whom, by hypothesis, “Daniel” emanatedlooking favourably on Greek learning, they hated and abhorred it. We see in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:14) the feelings with which they regarded those who favoured Greek manners; how even the innocent game of discus was full of horror for them, because it was Greek (2 Macc 1:14); and in the first book with what horror the pious looked on the erection of a gymnasium in Jerusalem. This hatred of everything Greek was very natural, and certainly was very much in evidence in their history. For business purposes they had to know the Greek language; but the learning, the philosophy, and literature of Greece would have been to those engaged in the Maccabean struggle abomination. Is it, then, to be imagined that a writer of the Maccabean period, describing an ancient hero from whose example his contemporaries were to draw encouragement and guidance, would represent him as zealously addicting himself to the pursuit of Gentile learning, and making such progress in it that he excelled all competitors? The attitude ascribed to him would have been more like that of the Rabbi Akiba, who declared that “Greek learning could be studied in an hour that was neither day nor night;” or like that other rabbi, who declared that “the translation of the Scripture into Greek was a disaster to Judaism equal in horror to the fall of Jerusalem.” We hear a great deal of the historic imagination and the necessity of applying it to questions of Biblical criticism. Surely the minds must be strangely deficient in the power of imaginative reconstruction who cannot feel the thrill of abhorrence of everything foreign that must have filled the Jews during the Maccabean struggle. If the critics had only realized this, they would have seen how utterly impossible it is to conceive that a religious novel, written at that time, intended to nerve the Jews for fiercer resistance to their oppressors, should represent the hero complacently acquiring Gentile learning, and acting the submissive courtier in the tyrant’s palace.
Dan 1:18
Now at the end of the clays that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. The Septuagint Version here is shorter and simpler: “After these days the king commanded to bring them in, and they were brought in by the prince of the eunuchs.” The only difference is that (haayleh) is read instead of (‘asher), and the maqqeph dropped. Theodotion is in close accordance with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is also simpler than the Massoretic text, though founded on it: “And after the completion of the days which the king had arranged, the chief of the eunuchs brought them before Nebuchadnezzar the king.” Both the Massoretic and Peshitta texts represent the prince of the eunuchs bringing the youths before King Nebuchadnezzar when the time had elapsed, without any orders from the king himself. According to the Septuagint, it was the king himself that required them to be presented before him. It seems more like the active-minded king, that he should recall his purpose of examining these youths, and command them to be brought in, than that the prince of the eunuchs should bring them trooping in without warning into the royal presence. Such an examination, whether conducted by the king personally, or in his presence, or under his superintendence, would need to be prepared fur; something equivalent to examination papers, test questions, would have to be arranged, or the presentation before the king would be a farce. All this implies that Nebuchadnezzar himself arranged the time of the appearance of those youths before him. We can scarcely imagine the awe with which those young captives must have looked forward to standing before the terrible conqeueror who had swept the army of Egypt before him, and had overthrown all who ventured to oppose him, who had sent home hosts of captives to throng the slave-markets of Babylon. We are not told whether each separately was brought before Nebuchadnezzar, or whether the whole number of the cadets were presented at once. It is the earliest instance of promotion by competitive examination. The clear, sharp eye of the young conqueror was probably worth more than all the questions prepared. While certainly the words used seem to imply that the hostages were called merely to be examined, the occasion may have been the “dream” narrated in the next chapter.
Dan 1:19
And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azarish: therefore stood they before the king. The word translated “communed” really means “spake,” and is the common word for this. The Septuagint translates here , which does mean “commune.” Theodotion renders . Jerome has locutus; the Peshitta has malel; all these may be rendered “talked.” From Nebuchadnezzar’s great reverence for the national religion and for the national magic, we may be certain that much of the conversation would turn on those magical formulae which have been to such a large extent preserved to us. Even if, as we think, the immediate occasion of Daniel and his companions appearing before the king was his “dream,” still he would not unnaturally examine them further. It is not unlikely that this conversational examination would involve naturally the languages they would have to be proficient in were they to be of the royal council. They would have to be acquainted with Accadian, the original tongue of all the most sacred magical formulae; with Assyrian, the language in which the royal annals were recorded; and with Aramaic, which was, as we have already said, the language of commerce and diplomacy. Hebrew, the language of the four in whom we are more especially interested, was spoken, not merely by the holy people, but also by the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and the Phoenicians. Further, Egypt was a factor that had to be taken into account, and so, not unlikely, the tongue of Egypt would be known by some, at any rate, of the court officials in Babylon. The empire of the Hittites had certainly passed away, but, probably, their language was still known and spoken by a large number of the inhabitants of Nebuchadnezzar’s extensive empire. Not only were the languages of peoples west of Babylon to be considered, but also those to the east; there were the Aryan tongues too. If the tradition is correct that Nebuchadnezzar married a Median wife, the Median tongue, which seems to have been the same with that of Persia, would be, above all, important, Not unlikely questions of policy and statecraft would be submitted to these candidates, to see what they would say. Above all, in personal intercourse the King of Babylon would be able to form some estimate of the real worth of these youths, There probably would enter in a large measure of caprice, or even superstition, into his choice, yet not unlikely his strong practical sense would limit his superstition. The result of this examination is eminently satisfactory to the young Hebrews. They were found superior to all their competitors. Therefore stood they before the king. Professor Bevan would render this “became his personal attendants”a very natural translation. We know, from the Ninevite marbles, that the king is always, alike on the field of battle, the hunting-field, and the council-chamber, attended by eunuchs. It may, however, be regarded as referring to the special subjects of their study. As they had been admitted to the class of magicians and astrologers, it would mean they were admitted to the number of those who were royal magicians and astrologersthose whom the king consulted. It is not to be understood that, even though they were admitted to this number, they were therefore necessarily admitted before the king in this capacity on ordinary occasions. They would occupy but a subordinate position in the huge Babylonian hierarchy. We must note here a variation in the Septuagint, , “they were.” We, for our part, agree with Professor Bevan, in regarding this as a scribal blunder in the Greek, and that the original text was probably . The only difficulty is that the blunder is also in Paulus Tellensis.
Dan 1:20
And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. The Septuagint rendering here has a considerable addition, which really means, as it seems to us, the coalescence of two readings. It reads thus: “And in all learning (, a literal rendering of , dabhar, ‘a word’ or ‘thing’), and knowledge and education () whatsoever the king asked of them, he found them ten times wiser than all the wise and learned men in all his kingdom.” Thus far the verse is a rendering, almost slavishly close, of the Massoretic text; while the translator has recognized that the sentence is incomplete as it stands, and has inserted , and translated (al) by . But the translation proceeds, “And the king honoured them, and appointed them rulers.” This seems to have been due to a various reading. The sentence here translated was probably, in an old recension of the text, all that stood here, and some scribe, finding it, inserted it here to complete the sentence. The translation, however, proceeds yet further, “And constituted () them wiser than all those of his in affairs in all his land and in his kingdom.” This sentence has all the appearance of an attempt to render into Greek a piece of Hebrew that the translator imperfectly understood. As we find that , represents occasionally , and as the Syriac vav and the old Hebrew were almost identical in shape, (yoda) might be read as evidently the translator has read (hacmeem) instead of (hartummeem), and has transferred the al col from before hartummeem to before the next word, which seems to have read, not ashshapheem, but hartzo, the relative seems to have been omitted, and the second col, “all.” This great variety of reading suggests suspicions of the verse altogether, which the content of the verse rather strengthens. Theodotion is in strict agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta also is at one with it in this, but these are late compared with the Septuagint. It has been tea,sued that the Book of Daniel is a story modelled on the history of Joseph, and the presence of hartummeem here is regarded as a proof of this quasi Egyptian origin (see Gen 41:8; Exo 7:11, etc.). One thing is clear, that the wordwhatever it waswas unknown in Alexandria, where this translation was made; hartummeern, as occurring in the Pentateuch, the earliest part of the Old Testament translated, was certain to be known: how did the word here happen not to be known? We can understand the phenomenon if some word, probably of Babylonian origin, and unknown in Egypt and Palestine, occupied the place and was modified into a more intelligible shape by being turned into hartummeem. As the verse stands, hartummeem is grammatically placed in apposition to the following word, ashshapheem, as there is no conjunction to unite the two words. It is acknowledged by Professor Bevan that the latter word has an Assyrian origin; it is not inconceivable that h[artummeem is really the explanatory word, though the arrangement of the words is decidedly against this view. It is to be observed here that ashshapheem has been naturalized in Eastern Aramaic, but has not found a lodgment in Western, save in Daniel. We cannot help feeling a little suspicion of the authenticity of this verse. This phrase, “ten times better,” has all the look of that exaggeration which became the prevailing vice of later Judaism. As we have indicated, the variations in regard to the precise reading deepen this suspicion. If, however, the reference here is really to Daniel’s revelation to the king of his dream, then the statement in the text is less objectionable. This was such a marvellous feat, and one that so put Daniel ,boys all the wise men of Babylon, that the language of the verse before us is rather rhetorical than exaggerated.
Dan 1:21
And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus. The Septuagint supplies . Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic. It has been objected by Canon Driver that the natural classical order of the latter two words should have been hammelek Koresh, not, as it is in the Massoretic, Koresh hammelek. The Septuagint text seems to have had parseem, which would make the order perfectly classical. A greater difficulty is to explain how it is said that Daniel “continued,” or, if we take the Hebrew literally “was,” until the first year of “Cyrus the king,” when in the tenth chapter the third year of Cyrus is referred to. There are several ways of getting over this difficulty. The first way is to suppose that some words have dropped out of the text. There are, however, different ideas as to the words so lost. Thus Bleak would supply “in high respect in Babylon.” Earlier commentators would supply “in Babylon,” thinking that not impossibly he returned to Palestine. Jeromeone of thesedoes not, however, intrude his suggestion into the text, as does Ewald. His suggestion is that the omitted words are “in the king’s court,” which is much the same as Delitzsch’s “at the court.” Hitzig is credited by Kranichfeld with asserting that the author did not intend to make his hero live beyond the year he refers tothe first year of Cyrus. In his commentary, however, Hitzig suggests that be’shaar hammelek, “in the gate of the king,” has dropped out. He does certainly hint that the sentence, to be complete, would need hayah (), not hayah (). Zckler would supply the same word. There is certainly this to be said for the above theorythat the sentence as it stands is incomplete. The verb hayah is never used instead of hayah. At the same time, there is no trace in any of the versions of any difficulty in regard to the text. Another method of meeting the difficulty is that adopted by Hengstenberg, followed by Havernick, but suggested in the eleventh century by Jephet-ibn-Ali. It is thisthat as the first year of Cyrus was the year when he allowed the Jews to return to their own laud, that the attainment of this annus mirabilis was an element in his wonderful prosperity, that he who had mourned for the sins of his people, who had been one of the earliest to feel the woes of captivity, should live to see the curse removed, and Judah permitted to return to their city and temple. The objection to this view, urged by Professor Bevan, is that the author elsewhere “never alludes to the event save indirectly (Dan 9:25).” To this it may be answered that the whole ninth chapter goes on the assumption that the seventy years are now all but over, and therefore that the return cannot be long delayed. We regard this silence of Daniel in respect to the return from Babylon as one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book. Everybody knows how largely it bulks in preceding prophecy, and how important it is in after-days. No one writing a religious romance could have failed to have laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel as inducing Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not even mention it. Tide is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a contemporary at the present time. In religious biographies of the past generation that involve the year 1832, when the Reform Act was passedthe greatest political change of this centurywe find that most of them never once refer to it. If any one should take Cowper’s ‘Letters,’ written during the American War, he will find comparatively few references to the whole matter, although from, at all events, 1780 to 1783, we have letters for nearly every week, and they occupy nearly three hundred pages. Now, if a person were condensing these and selecting passages from them, he might easily make such a selection as would contain not a single reference to that war or to any political event whatever. Yet Cowper was interested in the struggle that was going on. The main objection to Hengstenberg’s view is the grammatical one that it implies that we should read instead of , and there is no trace in the versions of this various reading The LXX. has ; Theodotion has ; the Peshitta has (see word) (hu); Jerome has fuit. It is somewhat difficult to come to any conclusion, but there are certain things we must bear in mind. In the first place, an author does not usually contradict his statements elsewhere directly. He may implicitly do so, but not when direct dates are given. If he should fail to put the matter right, some other will be sure to do so, if his work attains sufficient popularity to be commented upon. We may thus be sure that there is some solution of the apparent contradiction between the verse before us and Dan 10:1-21. In the next place, we must note that this verse is the work of the editor, probably also the translator and condenser, of this earlier part of Daniel. Therefore the difference may be found quite explicable could we go back to the Aramaic original. If ad represented ad di (Dan 6:24) in the Aramaic, and the two latter clauses were transposed, we should translate, “And Daniel was for Cyrus the king even before his first year.” The connection is somewhat violent; but if we regard the redactor as thinking of the success of Daniel, this might be a thought which suggested itself to his mindhe was with Nebuchadnezzar, and he was with Cyrus. The difficulty of the date is not of importance. That might be got over in several ways. Either by adopting in Dan 10:1 the reading of the Septuagint, which is , instead of the only objection to this is that it is a correction that might easily be made by a would-be harmonist; but, on the other hand, the “third” year of Belshazzar being mentioned in the eighth chapter may have occasioned the insertion of “third” in the tenth. Or, since we know that, though in his proclamation Cyrus styles himself “King of Babil,” yet in some of the contract tables of the flint two years of his reign he is not called “King of Babil,” but only “king of nations,” and there are contract tables of those years that are even dated by the years of Nabunahid, is it not, then, possible that the third year of Cyrus as “king of nations” might coincide with the first year of his reign as “King of Babil”? Yet further, we must remember that the reign of Cyrus could be reckoned from several different starting-points. He first appears as King of Ansan, then he becomes King of the Persians, and as such he conquers Babylon. His first year as King of Babylon may have been his third year as King of Persia. Thus it would be equally true to say that the Emperor William I. of Germany died in the seventeenth and in the twenty-eighth year of his reignthe one statement reckoning his reign as emperor, the other as king. No solution seems absolutely satisfactory. The difficulty presses equally on the critics and those who maintain the traditional opinion.
HOMILETICS.
Dan 1:1, Dan 1:2
National retribution.
I. HE WHO KNOWS NOTHING OF GOD MAY BE THE UNCONSCIOUS INSTRUMENT OF THE DIVINE WILL. Nebuchadnezzar, who has never heard of the Hebrew prophecies, fulfils their solemn predictions. This throws some light on God’s providential relations to evil.
1. The motives which prompt a bad man to an action may be different from the motives which incline God to permit it. God may permit the action of selfish cruelty because he sees it will issue in righteous chastisement.
2. A man who ignores the Divine guidance can still go no farther than God permits him. Jerusalem was delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, and only because this was the case was the King of Babylon able to take it.
3. There is a twofold Divine permissionthe moral permission, which sanctions conduct; the material permission, which does not visibly restrain it. We see here that when the latter is accorded, though it does not justify the morality of the agent, it indicates the ultimate working of all things together for God’s will (Psa 76:10).
II. NATIONAL SIN INCURS NATIONAL RETRIBUTION. Though guilt is personal, and though national actions can only be the outcome of individual actions, it often happens that men do in their public capacity what they would shrink from doing in private life. The resultant, too, of the individual actions of all the members of the community may not be a mere multiplication of those actions, but, owing to their mutual interaction, it may be something quite different, and thus characteristic of the nation rather than of the individual. Now, these national actions, when wrong, become distinctly national sins, and incur national retribution, one great characteristic of which is that it happens in this world The retribution for individuals is largely postponed to the next life, perhaps because earthly life is too short for conduct to ripen all its fruits. But we have no reason to believe that the national entity is perpetuated in the next life. On the other hand, the nation survives its individual members on the earth, and lives on from age to age, and thus gives time for the harvest of its conduct to come in. It is one special design of the histories in the Bible to trace this process out. The fate of the Jews is just an instance of it. The same principles apply to all nations.
III. THE EARTHLY GROUND OF CONFIDENCE WHICH TAKES THE PLACE OF GOD IN OUR FAITH MAY BECOME THE VERY SOURCE OF OUR RUIN. Against the advice of their prophets, the Jews had weakly entered into an alliance with Babylon. Thus they were drawn into the quarrel of Babylon with Egypt. Pharaoh-Necho had deposed Jehcahaz, the son of Josiah, for his Babylonian alliance, and set up Jehoiakim in his place. It was natural that Nebuchadnezzar should aim a blow at Pharaoh through his weak vassal, and at the same time reduce to a state of harmless helplessness the people who had been transferred from the protection of Babylon to that of Egypt. If The Jews had been true to their destiny of isolation and simple trust in God, the political cause of their overthrow might never have existed. No foe is more dangerous than the friend who has taken the place of God in our trust.
IV. WHEN THE SPIRITUAL TREASURE OF TRUE RELIGION IS LOST, THE LOSS OF ITS MATERIAL TREASURES MAY FOLLOW AS A WHOLESOME CHASTISEMENT. Nebuchadnezzar carried away part of the sacred vessels of the temple and offered them as booty to his god. No miracle rebuked him as when, in an earlier age, the image of Dagon was found fallen and broken before the ark (1Sa 5:4). [Now there was little spirituality left among the Jews to render their sacred vessels of any real use. They had been already desecrated by the wickedness of the nation. True sacrilege is not pagan pillage, but the association of an immoral character with the observance of religious rites. When the soul has gone out of our religion, it may be well if the external ordinances are disturbed,
(1) to save us from the additional sin of hypocrisy; and
(2) to open our eyes to our loss of the greater spiritual treasures, and thus to prepare the way for genuine repentance.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS
Dan 1:1-4
Administration serving and served.
“And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs,” etc. The introduction should perhaps clear up the chronology of Dan 1:1; give succinctly the history of the deportation to Babylon; and describe the temple of Bel, in which the treasures were deposited (see Rawlinson’s ‘Anc. Mon.,’ 3:343). After this, two topics demand attention.
I. THE AIM OF GOVERNMENT. Nebuchadnezzar had an eye for intellectual wealth as well as material. There might be stores of capacity, in his train of captives. These were to be brought out, developed for the public service. Herein a lesson as to the aim of government, not merely political, but of administration in general, whether in the family, the Church, or the nation.
1. To utilize all talents; e.g. those of the four.
2. To develop spiritual gifts. “Whatever would help to lay open the future or to disclose the secrets of the invisible would have become precious in Babylonian esteem. It became known far and wide that Divine communications, in the form of prophecy, had been vouchsafed to the Hebrew nation. Dwellers in Babylon might imagine that inspiration and prophecy were permanent endowments of this favoured people. To utilize these endowments might have been one object with the king.”
3. To conciliate subjects. Government of any sort is of little value without the moral element, which consists mainly of love. An administration that is only feared is of little power and less use. The elevation of the few would conciliate the Hebrew many.
4. To maintain intercourse; e.g. through the few with the many.
II. THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE. Nebuchadnezzar pointed out what would be requisite in these candidates for court service. They are for the most part the conditions of all ministration to the public weal, of effective ministry (not using the word in an official sense) in the Church of God. Here it may be desirable to distinguish between a man’s being simply a Christiana believer in the Lord Jesusand being consecrated as one of the Lord’s servants.
1. Conditions intellectual.
(1) Ability. “Such as had ability,” etc.
(2) Knowledge.
(a) Some knowledge to begin with. “Cunning in knowledge.”
(b) Capacity generally. “Understanding science.”
(c) Special aptitude, i.e; for Chaldee science; i.e. the science of the magi. “Skilful in all wisdom” (see the original of first part of Dan 1:4).
(3) Docility.
2. Conditions physical. “No blemish, but well favoured.” The king, no doubt, desired comeliness of person. We have here to do with it only on its ethical side, as expressing character, and so being a passport to the confidence of men.
3. Moral and spiritual. Not named by the king; but must be mentioned; illustrated, and enforced here. For these, see the career of the four, but especially that of Daniel.R.
Dan 1:5-21
Moral heroism.
“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself” (verse 8).
I. THE VARYING CONDITIONS OF IMMORTALITY. The reference is to subjective immortality, i.e. in the memories of men. The principal stable condition seems to be the possession of soul-power (see Luk 1:80; Luk 2:40). But this may develop itself:
1. Evilly. The immortality then is one of infamy.
2. Continuously; e.g. Daniel, through a long life.
3. Specially at a crisis. These thoughts are suggested by the little we know of the three Hebrew children. One heroic resolve made them immortal. But how much in their antecedents did that heroism imply? Picture the parental culture of the Jerusalem home, etc. The lesson, Live not for fame; but to do that which God may think worthy of being held in everlasting remembrance.
II. THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL HEROISM Describe the offence in the king’s portion.
(1) Food forbidden by the Mosaic Law.
(2) Food consecrated by presentation to idols. In moral heroism there will be one, or some, or all of these constituent elements.
1. Resistance; he. to strong and overwhelming temptation. In this case:
(1) The tempted were away from home.
(2) Early religious associations had been broken down. Note the change of names (verse 7), and the significance of it.
(3) There was temptation to regard the matter as a trifle, of no account; but great principles are often involved in the trivialities of life.
(4) To regard the circumstances as peculiar.
(5) To be afraid of undue self-assertion. It might have seemed to Daniel that he was about to be righteous over-much.
(6) The heroic act was against their own interests.
(7) And imperilled the lives of others.
2. A certain obscurity of origin. “Purposed in his heart.“ The resolution took its rise in the depths of the soul, like a river in the hills far away.
3. Fortitude. Daniel thoroughly and irrevocably made up his mind.
4. Gentleness. No mock-heroics with him; but, having made up his mind, combined the suaviter in modo with the fortiter in re. “He requested,” etc. (verse 8).
5. Perseverance. Defeated temporarily with Ashpenaz, Daniel tried Melzar.
6. Wisdom. Proposed only an experiment for ten days.
7. Inspiration. Daniel’s resolve seems to have stirred up the others.
III. THE PREVENTIONS OF GOD. (Verse 9.) When men resolve on the right, they soon find that God has gone before them to prepare the way (Psa 21:3).
IV. THE SEQUENCES OF GOD. Very encouraging is it to know that God is alike our vanguard and our rearguard on our moral way. In this case (and always is it so more or less) the sequences were:
1. Physical health and vigour. Not miraculous.
2. Intellectual attainment and strength.
3. Moral and spiritual power. For proof, see after-history.
4. Continued prosperity and influence. (Verse 21; Job 17:9.)R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Dan 1:1, Dan 1:2
Decadence of Israel.
I. THE TREMENDOUS RESPONSIBILITY LODGED IN KINGS. We sometimes speak of Oriental monarchs as holding an irresponsible sceptre, by which we simply mean that there is no earthly tribunal before which they can be cited; yet, in reality, they are the appointed guardians of a nation’s well-being, and are responsible to the supreme Sovereign of heaven. The morals, the religion, the temper, the habits of a monarch have always been eminently contagious. Evil results of vice in a private individual are restricted within a circle comparatively narrow. But the influence of a king radiates in a thousand directions, as from the apex of a pyramid. Peace or war, order or anarchy, liberty or thraldom, godliness or impiety, abundance or famine, in the empire depend largely on the personal character of the sovereign. Without a copious supply of Divine wisdom, this elevated position is not to be envied. A true king should aspire to be eminently holy.
II. AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR AMENDMENT. Jehoiakim had inherited by nature qualities both bad and good. To him had been entailed the evil example of his ancestor Manasseh, and the noble pattern of his father Josiah. Here was a grand opportunity for making a wise choicean opportunity for stemming the ebbing tide of prosperity, and averting the anger of Jehovah. His father’s excellent counsellors had advised, admonished, warned. Special prophets had brought counsel and remonstrance from the source of heavenly wisdom. Sufficient time was allotted for reflection, decision, amendment. For three years in succession the great Husbandman visited his vineyard, and tested the fruitfulness of this royal tree. The patience of God was richly displayed. But as sunshine and rain and dew fall in vain upon the sandy deserts of Arabia, so did God’s alternations of kindness and severity leave Jehoiakim unmoved. He preferred the patronage of Pharaoh to the favour of the omnipotent God.
III. THE IMPOTENCE OF MATERIAL DEFENCES. Material fortifications and material weapons have their use. Even David, notwithstanding his stalwart faith in God, did not confront the Philistine without his sling. Bars and ramparts, shield arid sword, may be regarded as instruments by means of which faith exercises an active obedience; they are not to become objects to detain our faith or to supplant our dependence on God, else they become fetishes and idols. As fishermen of old bowed down to their net and burned incense to a drag, so many a warrior nowadays worships his artillery and his ironclads. “Some trust in chariots, and some in horses;” but “God is our Refuge and Strength;” “In the Name of our God we will set up our banners.” Hezekiah’s fervent prayer had proved, in former years, a better protection for the royal city than all its wails and towers. If God is on our side, weakness itself becomes for us a very “munition of rocks.” But all the mountains and natural bastions round about Jerusalem are no mightier than a spider’s web if God be arrayed against it. The crystal flakes of snow did more deadly work for Napoleon than all the thunders of Russia’s artillery. “The Lord gave Jehoiakim King of Judah into his hand.”
IV. PARTIAL DISASTER SHOULD BE A PRACTICAL WARNING. An old Roman legend affirms that “the gods have feet of wool.” They conjectured that, when their deities bestirred themselves to avenge injustice, they came silently and suddenly upon their victims. So does not our God deal with his subjects. When the interests of righteousness demand that the scourge of judgment shall be inflicted, the God of heaven gives timely and repeated warning. “The axe is laid at the root of the tree “a visible premonition that doom awaits unfruitfulness. One defeat in battle was not final overthrow. Honour, virtue, dignity, power, might still be saved. The favour of Jehovah might yet be repaired. Repentance and reformation might even then have stayed the setting sun. What though some of the vessels of Jehovah’s temple have become the spoil of the foe? Their loss can easily be repaired, if only the Lord of the temple be there in Person. But if the real presence of the living God has been withdrawn, the symbols of heavenly things may as well follow his departure. The truths symbolized in this temple-furniture shall now proclaim, in silent eloquence, their pregnant message in heathen lands. The God of Israel, who aforetime gave the ark of the covenant into the hands of the Philistines, now gave the vessels of the sanctuary into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar.D.
Dan 1:3-21
Training for imperial office and work.
The name and the nature of a king are not always yoked together. Jehoiakim had been professedly a king, but was, in truth, a slave. Daniel and his companions, though led into exile as captives, had within them kingly qualities, which could not be degraded by strangers. As living water from the flinty rock will rise through every kind of strata, and find its way to the surface, so, through all adversities, innate nobleness will assert its imperial power. If a counterfeit king has become a captive, one from among the Jewish captives shall become a real kinga true man, whom all ages shall admire and follow. There is set before us in this passage
I. A POLICY REALLY ROYAL. This King of Babylon, unlike the majority of Eastern monarchs, did not abandon himself to voluptuous ease. It must have required some force of character to withstand the customs, precedents, and temptations of the luxurious palace. Yet, however stupendous the difficulty, Nebuchadnezzar rose above it. We can easily imagine the formidable array of prejudices which the Chaldean nobles would present to this new policy of the king. Was not such a plan unheard of in the entire history of the empire? Was it not a departure from the path of cautious prudence to introduce foreigners, and foreign captives, into the councils of the court?
1. It was a policy characterized by far-seeing wisdom. Already the Chaldeans had risen out of a state of barbarism, and had begun to appreciate knowledge and intellectual skill. They had learnt to observe with accuracy the motions of the stars. They had attained to considerable skill in architecture and sculpture. They knew something of the science of government. The king was a foremost man in the march of intellect. He knew that, in many respects, the Hebrews excelled his own countrymen. In agriculture, in instrumental music, in historical composition, especially in possessing the gift of prophecy, the Hebrews held the palm. Conscious that the triumphs of peaceful science were nobler and more enduring than martial victories, Nebuchadnezzar sought to strengthen and embellish his reign with all the learning and talent which he could secure, it was the Elizabethan period in Chaldean history. Although the idea had not yet been embodied in aphoristic words, the monarch had a vague feeling that knowledge was power.
2. It was a policy inspired by public spirit. In an age when Oriental sovereigns sought to use the machinery of government for their own personal advantage, Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been primarily concerned for the well-being of his people. When jealous mainly for their high prerogatives, kings have judged it safer to keep their subjects in a condition of ignorance, to the end they might render mechanical and servile obedience. This Chaldean king was a man of broader mind. He identified himself with the nation. His interest and its interest were one. He found his joy, not in personal indulgence and obsequious flattery, but in the advancement of the common weal. While he forgot himself, in his desire to elevate the nation, he was unconsciously sowing the seed of future fame.
3. It was a policy marked by catholic generosity. It was a part of his plan to obliterate the distinctions of nationality among his subjectsto merge all into one. This badge of servitude it was his wish to obliterate. Were net these Hebrews as richly endowed with intellectual capacity as the Chaldeans? Had they not special aptitude for some of the sciences? Would not their gilts and services benefit the state-politic? And would not the entire body of exiles be more content in their lot if their own nobles were honoured with a place at court? This generous policy of Nebuchadnezzar may yet serve as a pattern to our modern rulers. It is paltry meanness and contemptible pride which seek to repress the intellectual energies of men who happen to have been born under other skies.
II. AN IMPERFECT METHOD. The method which the king adopted was partly wise and partly unwise. There was wisdom in the arrangement that a maintenance should be supplied for these young nobles. The sustenance of life must always be the first care of men; and, until the necessities of hunger are met, no time nor energy can be spared for the researches of science or the acquisition of learning. But it was very unwise that the appetites of these young men should be pampered with royal dainties. It was perilous to the morals of these young men that their passions should be excited with royal wine. Very likely this king was a materialist in philosophy, and imagined that artificial excitements of the brain provoked the mind to loftier efforts. This was a perilous error. Frugal fare, simple habits of life, abstemiousness at the table, are most conducive to vigour of intellect and tranquillity of feeling. Long before the stage of intoxication is reached, imperceptible injury is done by stimulants to brain and nerve. More mischief is wrought by want of thought than want of will. Further, these young men were designated by new names. We might have supposed that this was done to obliterate national distinctions, or to allay the prejudice of the Chaldean nobles. But, inasmuch as the former names (at least of those mentioned) had incorporated in them the name of Israel’s God, and inasmuch as the new names bore some allusion to Chaldea’s idols, it is more likely that religious pride had prescribed these appellations. By conferring on these young men names which honoured their own deities, the Chaldeans supposed that their deities would reciprocate the honour by conferring on the bearers of their names some portion of their spirit, Yet to be labelled “saint’ has never served to secure a saintly nature.
III. THE KING‘S METHOD SECRETLY MODIFIED. The sum-total of earthly wisdom never resides in one mannot even in a king. No mortal has a monopoly of goodness. Daniel and his companions, though young, had already learnt that self-restraint is the surest path to health and usefulness and joy. One part of our nature is to be cultivated; one part of our nature is to be crucified. Every inclination and tendency which has its terminus in selfin self-pleasing or self-elevationis to be repressed and curbed. Every disposition and energy which has its terminus in othersespecially in Godshould be fostered. Besides, it is very likely that the food furnished by the king had, in some way, been associated with idol-worship. On this account, it may be, the royal viands were supposed to possess some special virtue. These loyal servants of ,Jehovah would not consent to sanction this idolatrous belief. They declined to be partakers in other men’s sins. Moreover. God had taken the pains to give to Israel minute directions what animals they might eat, and what flesh they might not eat. The use of blood in food was prohibited. They were not to eat such animals as had been strangled. Hence Daniel and the others were bound by an earlier and a higher allegiance, which they had resolved not to violate. They had not the power of choice left. In religions duty they were bound to the King of heaven. “They were willing to render unto Caesar those things which were Caesar’s, but they were determined also to render unto God the things which were God’s.” We may often obtain by a conciliatory request what we cannot obtain by an imperious demand. Modesty of deportment is a grace peculiarly befitting the young. It is a false estimate of dignity when men suppose they must be self-assertive, arrogant, and unyielding. Persuasive kindness wields the mightiest sceptre. “The meek shall inherit the earth.” Sweet amiability in Daniel was blended with firm principle, as luscious dates adorn the stately palm. Very likely Daniel had tacitly resolved not to violate his conscience, whatever the prince of the eunuchs might urge. But he would try gentler measures at first. He would not defeat his own ends by precipitate speech. Words, once uttered, are not easily recalled. The excellences of Daniel had already gained for him a place in the heart of this chamberlain, and the influence over this officer which Daniel had virtuously gained was used for his companions as much as for himself. The fruits of our goodness, others share in. We cannot live wholly for ourselves. The human race is an organic body, the several parts of which are united by ligaments of mutual service and reciprocal interest.
IV. THE OPERATION OF SELFISH FEAR. This palace official seems to us a man mild and placable, but a slave of formal routine. The maxim of his life was thisThat which has been from time immemorial must continue world without end. To presume to offer a suggestion to his royal master was an offence bordering on treason. It had never occurred to him to question the wisdom of previous kings and chamberlains. Of course viands coming from the royal larder, and consecrated to the gods, must feed and vitalize human brains. It would be rank impiety to doubt it. So men hand down beliefs and customs from age to age, without bringing them to the test of practical utility. Their business runs daily in some narrow groove, and they become so completely the creatures of habit that all the energies of mind are lulled into inglorious sleep. “Let well alone” is one of their easy-going adages; forgetting that there is a “better” and a “best.” This subordinate prince does not attempt to reason on the merits of the case. He is not willing to tolerate in these Hebrew youths the exercise of intelligence, judgment, or conscience. At once, he thinks exclusively of the injurious effect upon himself: “I fear my lord the king.” Had he argued that he had a duty to the king, which obligation required him to fulfil, there would have been an element of nobleness in his attitude. Or had he showed anxiety for the risk of loss these young men ran, it would have been commendable. But this fear for himself is mean and despicable. Indeed, the service he had engaged to perform was one beyond his power to carry into effect without the consent of these youths themselves. This chamberlain could have spread the students’ table with the prescribed food and wine, but no human power could have compelled these youths to partake. With the spreading of the periodic repast, the chamberlain’s duty would properly have terminated; but he was confronted with a difficulty be had not expected, and showed the weakness of his character by giving way at once to selfish fear. If he found that his royal master required of him unreasonable or impossible service, he could surely have requested his sovereign to relieve him from that post, and place him in some other position. A loss of official station is not necessarily a disgrace: it is often an honour. A good man need fear no one save God.
“Fear him, ye saints, and you will then
Have nothing else to fear.”
V. THE EXPERIMENT PROPOSED. Daniel readily proposed a plan which might quiet the chamberlain’s fears. He suggests that an experiment be made for ten days only, during which time he and his comrades should diet on vegetable food and water.
1. It was a reasonable suggestion. The question at issue was one that could be brought to the test of practical demonstration, and controversy would be saved by such an appeal. An hour of experiment is more fruitful than years of speculative reasoning. The eye is not always a safe arbitrator. No organ is so easily deceived. But in this case the eye was a competent judge. A competition was instituted between self-indulgence and self-restraint. The virtue of abstemiousness was placed upon its trial, and we do well to note the result.
2. Nor can we close our eyes to the fact that Daniel regarded this self-abstinence as a branch of religious duty. No department of our daily life is beyond the reach of conscience. As each ray of sunshine, and each flake of snow, contributes its quota to the autumnal harvest; so each act in a man’s life, even the most trivial, produces its effect upon his interior naturecontributes either to his nobleness or to his degradation. There are occasions when men use this plea of conscience dishonestly. They make conscience a mask wherewith to hide inclination and self-will. But Daniel was a true man. Transparency of motive was a jewel that glittered on his brow.
3. Daniel proposed this ordeal in the exercise of full confidence in God. He had, without doubt, already proved in himself the benefit, bodily and mentally, of simple diet. Never, until now, had he been brought rote the circle of such fascinating temptation; and now it was to be seen whether his faith in God would bear the trial. Yes! his faith was not only food-proof, but even fire-proof. Full sure was he that “man did not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” One wiser than himself, and kinder than any human friend, had, with blended authority and love, decreed what might and what might not be eaten, and Daniel knew that devout obedience would secure a certain blessing. “He that doubteth is condemned if he eat.”
VI. OBSERVE THE SUCCESSFUL RESULT. The experiment terminated favourably on their health. They were both “fairer and fatter in flesh” than their competitors. Physical beauty, as well as physical strength, is to be adequately valued. Both are gifts of God; their possession ought to awaken thankfulness. Both may lead to sin. We must distinguish between natural appetites and acquired depraved tastes. To satisfy natural appetite is to do the will of God; to pander to needless cravings is to violate Divine authority. There is a large amount of pleasure arising from robust health, although the quality of this pleasure is none of the highest. To make the development of the bodythe attainment of physical perfectiona study, during the growing years of youth, is a religious duty. The possession of perfect health, and the enjoyment arising therefrom, are within the reach of the poorest born. The dainties and effeminacies prevalent in marble palaces hinder, rather than help, the perfection of physical beauty. Daniel’s simple pulse had more worth than the king’s delicacies. Real hunger furnishes the best condiments.
1. The prizes of virtue are manifold and cumulative. Daniel’s frugal diet brought its own inward satisfaction. Ten days’ trial showed a perceptible advantage over the self-indulgent. That advantage increased during every succeeding day, until, at the end of three years, the results in health and strength and comeliness were incalculable. Meanwhile, the power of self-control over other inclinations and passions had largely increased, and this brought new delight. The consciousness that their God was right and kind in requiring this discipline of the appetites, increased their reverence and love, made them more resolute in their heavenly allegiance. They felt they were on the ascent to true nobleness and final honour, whatever temporary obscurity might arise. Their knowledge grew. Their wisdom ripened. Even foreigners and rivals rendered them real respect. Conquests over the difficulties of Chaldean learning were daily acquired, and they hailed, with glad anticipation, the approach of a royal test. They held their heads aloft, with a sense of manly greatness, when summoned into the presence of their king. “Better is he that ruleth his own spirit than he who taketh a city.”
2. Then over and above this natural success and joy there was a special reward conferred by the hand of God himself. He who constructed the human mind knows well the avenues by which to gain access to all its chambers, and is able to enrich, illumine, and beautify any part. To doubt this would be infidelity, To these four young men God gave “skill in all learning and wisdom;” to Daniel in particular he gave special inspiration, a royal imagination, power to unravel dreams. We are prone to think that in the shadowy, weird territory of dreamland the reign of law is not known. Yet we err. Every wild phantom of the human mind is a link in the chain of cause and effect. Only a poet can fully appreciate true poetry. Only a man o! imaginative genius can resolve the problems of dreams. This is a God-given powera species of inspiration.
3. The day of public manifestation at length arrived. As there is many a starting-point in human affairs, so there is many a goal. The first presupposes and determines the second. “The king came in to see his Hebrew guests.” It was only fitting that he should. Every pert of human life is probationtrial, which has respect to honour or to disgrace. Though the end may seem far distant, yet this is only seeming. The end is really near. Righteous judgment is ever proceeding. This Chaldean monarch was, in this matter, a model prince. In many aspects of this event we have a striking forecast of the final judgment. With marked condescension, the king “communed” with these captive Hebrews, and was so far impartial in his just estimate as to confess publicly their diligent industry and their superior attainments. “He found them ten times better than all the magicians in his realm.” Such knowledge as they professed was real. They made no pretensions to what was beyond their power. They did not boast of access to arcana of nature or of Divine providence really closed against them. They admitted the confines of real knowledge; they confessed the limitations of the human mind. Pretended skill is only contemptible. The truly great man is as ready to acknowledge his ignorance as his knowledge. Only a fool is unwilling to give this reply to many inquiries, “I do not know.”
4. The eminence which Daniel justly attained was permanent. Real greatness, like the granite rock, is enduring. Suns rose End set, years came and went; kings flourished and fell; changes swept over all the empires of Asia; but Daniel, throughout the allotted period of his life, maintained his power and pre-eminence. Nor did his regal influence disappear with his dying breath; ’twas not interred in his tomb. It lived on: it lives still. The noble qualities of Daniel have reappeared in others, age after age. The tyranny of monarchs, in the East and in the West, have been held in check by him. “Being dead, he yet speaks,” yet rules! His name stands on Heaven’s beadroll among, the most saintly of his racewith Samuel and with Job. In his own identical person he has lived a continuous and a progressive life in a higher sphere than this. There he occupies a throne; his hand holds a sceptre; his head is surmounted with a diadem. The voice of the Highest has said to him, “Be thou ruler over ten cities.” In his own glad consciousness, his prophetic words have been fulfilled, “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” Evanescence is a quality of what is worthless, Faith is the seed of which the full development is “life everlasting.”D.
Dan 1:8
A noble purpose the root of true renown.
All real dignity has its beginning, not in ancestral fortune, but in righteous purpose. The heart is the seed-plot of all noble deeds. “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.”
I. THE COMMONEST MEAL FURNISHES AN OCCASION ON WHICH TO DEFILE OR DIGNIFY THE MAN. Then character is discovered. Then we see, as in a mirror, whether the higher nature or the lower is dominant. Some men live only to eat; some eat only that they may live. Daniel desired to shun this sudden extreme of good fortune. “It is better to go to the house of mourning than into the house of feasting.” Moreover, this participation in royal dainties would be a connivance with idolatry. “Whether therefore ye eat or drink do all to the glory of God.”
II. SELF–PURIFICATION IS THE SETTLED PURPOSE OF A RENEWED HEART. What grimy dirt is to the fair countenance, what rust is on virgin gold, what soot is on crystal snow, such is sin on the human soul. Wickedness is defilement, disease, curse, rottenness. If self-preservation be a primary instinct of man as a member of the animal race, the maintenance of purity was originally an instinct of the soul. If we cannot wash out old stains, we can, by Divine help, avoid further contamination. To be pure is to be manlyGod-like.
III. HUMAN OPPOSITION MAY USUALLY BE DISARMED BY KINDLY SOLICITATION. Love wields a magic sceptre, and kindness is practical love. If the highest end we seek cannot be gained at a single stride, we may gain a step at a time. The Christian pilgrim does not walk in five-leagued boots. Daniel “requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” A request so reasonable, so innocent, commended itself to the judgment of the man.D
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Dan 1:1. In the third year It was in the eighth year of Jehoiakim that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against him, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon: 2Ch 36:6. But promising fidelity, the king of Babylon restored him to his kingdom, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: 2Ki 24:1. Daniel numbers the third year of Jehoiakim from this beginning of his renewed kingdom. In Jeremiah 25 it is said to be the fourth year; which fourth year is called the first of king Nebuchadnezzar. These are easily reconciled, if in this place the word came be understood of the beginning and setting out upon this expedition; so that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem in the fourth year only.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
FIRST (HISTORICAL) PART
Chapters 16
1. Introduciton. The Early History of Daniel and his Three Associates
Dan 1:1-21
1In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar 2king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.1 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with [and] part of the vessels of the house of God, which [and] he carried [them] into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god;2 and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house3 of his god.2
3And the king spake4 unto Ashpenaz the master5 of his eunuchs, that he should bring [to bring] certain of the children of Israel, and of the kings seed,6 and of the 4princes;7 children8 in whom was no blemish, but [and] well-favoured,9 and skilful10 in all wisdom, and cunning11 in knowledge, and understanding12 science, and such as had ability13 in them [in whom was ability] to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach14 the learning15 and the tongue of the Chaldans.
5And the king appointed them a daily provision16 of the kings meat,17 and of the wine which he drank; so nourishing [, and to make grow] them three years, that [; and] at the end thereof they might [should] stand before the king.
6Now [And] among these [them] were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah 7[Chananyah], Mishael, and Azariah; unto whom [and to them] the prince of the eunuchs gave [assigned] names: for he gave [and he assigned] unto Daniel, the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.
8But [And] Daniel purposed in18 his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the kings meat,17 nor [and] with the wine which he drank: therefore [and] he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile 9himself. Now [And] God had brought [gave] Daniel into favour and tender love19 with [before] the prince of the eunuchs. 10And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat [food] and your drink:20 for why should he see your faces worse liking [more gloomy] than the children8 which are of your sort?21 then shall [, and should] ye make me endanger my head to the king?
11Then [And] said Daniel to [the] Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 12Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat,22 and water to drink. 13Then [And] let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children8 that eat of the portion of the kings meat;17 and as thou seest [shalt see], deal [do] with thy servants. 14So he consented [And he hearkened] to them in [as to] this matter, and proved them ten days. 15And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared [countenance was seen to be good] fairer and [they were] fatter in [of] flesh than all the children8 which did 16 eat the portion of the kings meat.23 Thus [And the] Melzar took away the portion of their meat,17 and the wine that they should drink and gave them pulse.24
17[And] As for these four children,25 God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning26 and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions [every vision] and dreams.
18Now, [And] at the end of the days that the king had said27 he should [to] bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchad nezzar. 19And the king communed [spake] with them: and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore 20[and] stood they before the king. And in all matters [every matter] of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, [then] he found them ten times better than28 all the magicians29 and astrologers30 that were in all his realm.
21And Daniel continued31 even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan 1:1-2. The transportation to Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. We have already, shown, in the Introd, 8, note 2, that this does not conflict with Jer 25:1; Jer 25:9.Came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it, i.e., he departed for Jerusalem, in order to besiege it; he began his expedition against Jerusalem, which resulted in the siege of that city. For the view that is here to be taken in the sense of departing, see the Introd., 8, 2, aInstead of , to straiten, besiege, we generally find elsewhere with the dative, e. g., Deu 28:52; 1Ki 8:37.The form of the name is the one in general use among the later Hebrew writers (cf. 2Ki 24:1; 2Ki 25:1; Ezr 2:1; Ezr 5:12, etc.). Jeremiah (Jer 25:1; Jer 39:1; Jer 39:11; DanJer43:10) and Ezekiel (Eze 29:18) have , which corresponds more exactly to the older rendering Nabukudurr-usur, as found in the Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, and also to the nearly identical Persian form Nabukhadraara, which occurs at Behistun (see Oppert, Journ. Asiat., 1851, p. 416; Expdit. en Msopoamie, 2:257 ss). The name certainly comprehends, as its first element, the name of the Chaldan god Nebo,=Mercury (, Isa 46:1), and it seems also to include the terms kadr, might, and zar=, prince (compare Gesenius, Thesaur., p 890; Oppert, 1:100). The name is rendered with either n or r by Greek authors; for while Strabo (15, Dan 1:6) writers , Berosus (in Josephus contr. Ap., 1:20,21) has , and the Sept. . Instead of , however, our book elsewhere has uniformly , omitting the euphonic ; cf. , Dan 3:25; Dan 7:15, instead of , Dan 3:6; Dan 3:11, etc.; Dan 4:7.
[According to Ptolemys chronological canon of the reigns of the Babylonian kings, Nebuchadnezzar became king near the close of B.C. 605, whereas his expedition in question, falling in the third year of Jehoiakim, occurred late in B.C. 607, and the capture of the city, in Jehoiakims fourth year, fell about the middle of B.C. 606. It appears, however (Josephus Antiq. x. 11, 1), that his father, Nabopolassar, during his own lifetime, and near the close of his reign, had sent him to repel Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish, and on his way back, Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, as related by Daniel. While he was engaged in this campaign, his father died, and he hastened back to Babylon in order to assume the reins of government. By the Jews, therefore, his reign is naturally reckoned from the date of this conquering expedition, although he did not actually become full king at Babylon till a year or more later.]
Dan 1:2. And the Lord gave into his hand, i.e., into his power. Compare Gen 9:2; Gen 9:20; Exo 4:21; 2Sa 18:2; also Psa 95:7, etc. The designation of Jehovah simply as Lord () is not confined to later writers, e.g., Ezr 10:3; Neh 1:11, but occurs as early as Gen 18:27; Jdg 13:8; Psa 16:2; Psa 35:28, etc.Jehoiakim, king of Judah. Jehoiakim reigned eleven years, according to 2Ki 23:36; 2Ch 36:5, while the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar here referred to can hardly have taken place later than the fourth year of this reign (see Introd. 8, Note 2, and particularly what is there remarked in opposition to Kranichfeld). Hence it is impossible to consider the passage before us as describing a conquest which put an end to the rule of Jehoiakim, but rather an event which resulted in his becoming the vassal of Nebuchadnezzar; or, more correctly, of Nabopolassar, who was yet living. Similarly, what follows does not assert an actual banishment of Jehoiakim, but merely his temporary removal to Babylon, and perhaps not even this.And a part of the vessels of the house of God, i.e., of the sacred vessels of the temple, which are again mentioned in Dan 5:2 et seq.32, instead of which several manuscripts have (cf. Theodotions ), is compounded of end, and the preposition , and, therefore; its literal meaning is from the end, on expiration, in which sense it occurs in Dan 1:5; Dan 1:15; Dan 1:18 of this chapter. In this place, where it serves to designate a quantity instead of denoting time, it evidently expresses the idea of an integral part, a considerable part, like the Chaldee in Dan 2:42, and like in Neh 7:70. In explaining this meaning it is not necessary to assume (with Hitzig) that may here be equivalent to a part, for the word bears this sense in no other instance. The word, rather, indicates that the store in question, from end to end, has contributed a share, and throughout its extent some portion has been taken away. Hence from the end of the vessels of the temple signifies merely a portion of all its vessels. Cf. Kranichfeld on this passage; Gesen.-Dietrich s. v. , [Frst, however (Heb. Lex. s. v.), adopts the simple explanation that is merely an alternative form of , and this is certainly corroborated by the form , Dan 1:18, where two prepositions cannot be tolerated.] This view is also essentially established by 2Ch 36:7 : .Which he carried into the land of Shinar; rather, And he caused them to be brought to the land of Shinar,to Babylonia, which province is here called by the ancient name that occurs outside of Genesis (see Gen 10:10; Gen 11:2; Gen 14:1), only in the elevated language of the prophets, e.g., in Isa 11:11; Zec 5:11.The suffix in and he caused them to be taken away, can hardly be taken (as do Hvern. and others) as referring exclusively to the sacred vessels, the mention of which immediately precedes this sentence; for the following words refer to them again, and thus distinguish them as a particular of the collective object of the verb .33 We are not obliged, however, to include the king Jehoiakim among those who were carried away with the sacred utensils; for while the narrative in its progress postulates the presence in Babylon of Jewish youths belonging to the royal and to noble families, it never implies the presence of the king himself (cf. Dan 1:3; Dan 1:6; also Dan 1:13); and while it is related in 2Ch 36:6, that Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim in fetters, to carry him to Babylon, it is not expressly stated that he executed that purpose. The Sept. ( ) first imposed this sense on the passage, because they felt compelled to assume an actual deportation of Jehoiakim, followed by his return to Jerusalem at a later periodan opinion which was shared by the writer of the 3d Book of Esdras and the Vulgate, and by several rabbins of the Middle Ages, e.g., Ibn-Ezra. While the passage before us does not directly contradict this assumption, which represents the fate of Jehoiakim as very similar to that of Manasseh (2Ch 33:13), it does not necessarily compel its adoption. Jehoiakim may be included among the transported Jews who are designated by the plural suffix in ; but, on the other hand, the suffix may, in addition to the temple-vessels, simply designate a band of noble Jews, whom the conqueror carried away as hostages, and to which the youth referred to in Dan 1:3 et seq. belongedhence those , whose presence may be gathered from the collective singular , to which reference has already been made (Kranichfeld; cf. Ibn-Ezra, Maldonat, Geier, and others; also Bertheau in Kurzge fasstes exeg. Handbuch zur Chronil, p. 427).To the house of his godrather to the dwelling-place of his gods. is probably to be regarded as in opposition with ; for the sacred vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, as has been shown, formed only a part of the object in ; and, besides, if in this place were intended to designate the temple of Nebuchadnezzars god (or gods), usage would require the particle in order to manifest the object towards which the motion is directed (see Gen 31:4; Isa 37:23; Zec 11:13). The correct view is stated by Hitzig and Kranichfeld, who refer to Hos 8:1; Hos 9:15; Exo 29:45; Num 35:3, etc., in support of the tropical signification, which takes in the sense of land or dwelling-place. [Keil, however, shows the inaccuracy of this criticism, on grammatical grounds. Moreover, in this way the distinction evidently intended between the different classes of objects transported, is wholly taken away; the persons were merely removed to Babylon, but the utensils were lodged in a heathen temple, as they before had belonged to Jehovahs. The parallel history, 2Ch 36:6-7, states all this explicitly. Daniel here merely rehearses the facts in a general way, but is nevertheless careful to mention the disposal, both of the captives, of whom he was himself one (Dan 2:25), and the vessels, which afterwards became so important in his narrative (Dan 5:2; Dan 5:23).] Whether the genitive be translated of his gods (cf. Dan 2:47; Dan 3:29; Dan 4:6; Dan 4:15) or of his god, is unimportant. In the latter case, the reference is to Bel, the chief divinity of the Babylonians; cf. Isa 41:1; Jer 50:2; Jer 51:44.And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his gods (or his god, viz.: Bel). On , treasure-house , compare Mal 3:10; Neh 13:5; Neh 13:12-13, where the treasury of the second temple is the subject of remark. There is no contradiction between this passage and Dan 5:2 et seq. where the sacred vessels are profaned by Belshazzar, and thus appear to have been stored in his palace. Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar, and it is conceivable that the son could trample in the mire what his father and predecessor had valued and reserved (cf. Ephr. Syr. on this passage). Nor is there a contradiction of 2Ch 36:7; the statement in that passage: And he put them in his palace (; A. V. temple), is merely less exact than the one before us; [or rather, perhaps, is then used in its frequent signification of temple, as all the older versions render, and the suffix his designates it as that of his favorite deity].
Dan 1:3-4. The selection of youthful Jews of noble rank for service at the royal court. And the king spake unto (commanded) Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs. , a name, whose formation is very similar to that of , Gen 10:3, but not to be identified with it on that account (as Hitzig suggests) without further inquiry. It appears to be of Indo-Germanic origin, and, according to Rdiger, is compounded of the Sanscrit ava, horse, and nasa, nose. It is, therefore, equivalent to horse-nose. , the chief of the eunuchs (Sept. ; Vulgate, prpositus eunuchorum), an important and influential officer of the palace at Oriental courts, as may be shown from the position of the Kislar-Aga at the Turkish court in our day. However, neither he nor his subordinates are to be regarded as actual eunuchs, but rather as ordinary chamberlains (Luther: oberster Kmmerer). Compare Gen 37:36; Gen 39:1; Gen 39:7, where Josephs master at the court of Pharaoh is called , although he was married; also 1Sa 8:15; 1Ki 22:9; 1 Kings 25:19, etc., in all of which the rendering of by chamberlain or court-official is adequate. However, the subordinates of Ashpenaz, mentioned in the passage under consideration, may be regarded as actual eunuchs (as also those in Est 1:10; Est 1:12; Est 1:15; Est 2:3; Est 2:14; Est 4:5), without necessitating the conclusion that Daniel and his associates also became eunuchs, on their being placed under his supervision. Only a grossly carnal conception of the facts narrated in this chapter, and of Isaiahs prophecy, Isa 39:7 (where likewise means [or may mean] an official generally) could lead to this opinion, which is entertained by a number of Jewish and older Christian commentators, e.g., Josephus, Antiquit., Dan 10:11; the Targum, on Est 4:5; Rashi, on Dan 1:21; Origen Homil. 4 on Ezek.; Jerome, adv. Jovin. Dan 1:1; and Joh. Damascenus, De fide orthod. Dan 4:25.34 It is not even possible to argue from the relations of Daniel to the master of the eunuchs, as indicated in this passage, that the prophet always remained unmarried (as Pseudo-Epiphanius De vit. prophet., c. 10, Cornelius a Lapide, Huetius, and others, suggest). See the Introd., 2.That he should bring certain of the children of Israeli.e., to choose of the children of Israel, viz.: of the Jews, who had been carried to Babylon as hostages, cf. Dan 1:2. The more comprehensive. phrase, the children of Israel, is justified by the fact that the theocratic state under Jehoiakim included all of the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and at least fragments of several other tribes, especially of Simeon (2Ch 15:9), in addition to the leading tribe of Judah.And of the kings seed, and of the princesrather, of the royal seed, as well as of the number of nobles. Instead of this correlative view of the two sthe only correct viewwhich is found in Von Lengerke, and in Hitzig, and others, Bertholdt, without reason, adopts the designative (eitheror), while a majority, including Hvernick, take the first (before , which, however, is wanting in several of Kennicotts and De Rossis manuscripts,but the authenticity of which is not, on that account, to be questioned) in the sense of and indeed, namely,hence as marking the use of an emphatic apposition. Our view is supported by parallel passages, such as Dan 7:20; Dan 8:13, etc.The term , nobles, magnates, which occurs only here and in Est 1:3; Est 6:9, seems to be borrowed from the Persian, and to be equivalent to the Pehlevi pardom, the first, the noble; cf. the Sanscrit prathama, Zend frathema, Greek . Its derivation from the Greek , essayed by Bertholdt, as well as the opinion which prevailed among older expositors, that the word is of Hebrew origin, and perhaps related to , invaluit, are to be decisively rejected. The corresponding term in Hebrew is , the strong or powerful ones: Exo 15:15; Eze 17:13, 2Ki 24:15.
Dan 1:4. Children in whom was no blemish, i.e., no physical fault; hence, of faultless beauty; compare 2Sa 14:25. (Cf. the form in the Kethib in this place with Job 31:7.) Corporeal soundness and a handsome form were considered indispensible among the ancient Orientals (cf. Curtius, 6:5, 29), for those who were destined for court service,a view which is still shared by the Turks; see Rieaut Gegenwrt. Zustand des trk. Reiches, i. 13.The indefinite does not admit of a definite conclusion respecting the age of the youths, and particularly of Daniel. The remark in Plato, Alcib. 1. 37, however, according to which the training of the Persian youth by the began with the 14th year, has a certain importance for speculations on this question, which is enhanced by the statement of Xenophon, Cyrop. Dan 1:2, that none of the might enter the service of the king before they attained their 17th year. What is said in Dan 1:5 concerning a period of three years during which Daniel was in training, corresponds remarkably with these statements.Skilful in all wisdom. The intellectual qualifications are immediately connected with the physical. Hvernick, Hitzig, and others, are correct in taking in the sense of discerning, understanding, rather than versed, or experienced,as denoting aptitudo rather than habitus. , as indicates, is the objective wisdom, which is displayed in the various fields of knowledge, and, according to Dan 1:17, is contained in books (Hitzig)hence scientific, as distinguished from the purely practical wisdom, which elsewhere is generally referred to.Cunning in knowledge, and understanding; literally knowing knowledge ( and understanding thought ( ). On thought (elsewhere knowledge), compare Ecc 10:20, and on both phrases compare Dan 2:21; Neh 10:29.And such as had ability in them, to stand in the kings palace, literally who had power (, here [perhaps] ability, talent; compare Dan 8:7; Dan 11:15) to stand in the kings palace ( ,for which is not to be substituted). To stand in the kings palace is the same as to stand beford the king (cf. Gen 18:8; Gen 41:40; Deu 1:38, etc.), i.e., to await his commands, to serve him. See below, Dan 1:17, and compare the absolute , the servants, in Zec 3:7; also Est 5:2.And whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldans; literally, and to teach them the learning, etc. depends on the verb Dan 1:3, and is co-ordinate with in the same verse, as the preceding athnch indicates., writing, does not in this place denote the art of writing, but the learning of the Chaldans; compare Dan 1:17, which can only be equivalent to all learning, all literary knowledge. Further, can hardly signify the Araman idiom which begins with Dan 2:4, but designates the original Chaldee, which was of Japhetic origin, or tinctured with Japhetic elementsas Michaelis, Bertholdt, Winer, Hvernck, Lengerke, Hengstenberg, and others, hold.35 That the noble Jewish youths should be compelled to learn the Araman dialect, which, according to 2Ki 18:26 et seq. (Isa 36:11), was the official language both at the Assyrian and the Babylonian courts, admits, indeed, of an easy explanation; since the Jews of that time were but slightly acquainted with that dialect (cf. 2 Kings, in the above mentioned place), and since youth especially, of whatever rank, could not have been instructed in this language, which was indeed related to the Hebrew, but was nevertheless a foreign tongue. The view which identifies the tongue of the Chaldans with the official Araman of the court, is untenable because of the circumstance that the latter is introduced in Dan 2:4 by the term (cf. Isa 36:11; Ezr 4:7), and is thus clearly distinguished from the ordinary language of the . (See notes on that passage, and compare Introd. 1, note 3.)
Dan 1:5. The provision for the selected youth, and their training. And the king appointed them a daily, etc. Them, i.e., those who should be selected, but whom the king did not yet know. , to ordain, appoint, assignare, compare Dan 1:10. , literally, matter of the day in its day, i.e., a daily supply, or ration. Compare Jer 52:34, where the same expression is used with reference to the daily food of the captive Jehoiachin; also Exo 5:13; Exo 5:19; Lev 23:7, etc.Of the kings meat,of which, according to Oriental custom, not only noble guests (cf. Jer. as cited above), but also all the servants and officials were accustomed to partake, compare 1Ki 5:2-3; and concerning the custom in question at the Persian court, see Athenus, Dan 4:10, p. 69; Plutarch, Probl. vii. 4. meat, really delicacies, luxurious food, is of Persian origin,a composite word formed out of bag, tribute (cf. Sanscrit bhaga, allowance, ration), and the preposition paiti, towards, to, (=Sanscrit prati, Greek , )and hence is equivalent to apportioned food, which sense is also expressed by the Sanscrit pratibhaga, which designates the daily proportion of fruits, flowers, etc., required by the rajah in his household. Cf. Gildemeister in the Zeitschrift fr Kunde den Morgenlandes, iv. 214.And of the wine which he drank, properly of the wine of his drinking, his banquet. is to be taken in the singular in this place, as well as in Dan 1:8; Dan 1:10.So nourishing them three years, rather, and (commanded) to instruct them three years-properly educate, bring up [but literally, to make great perhaps referring primarily to their physical culture]. The infinitive with a copulative certainly does not depend on in Dan 1:3; but rather is to be regarded as governed by , from whose signification the idea of commanding, ordaining, is zeugmatically derived. Compare in Dan 1:11; also Jon 2:1.That at the end thereof they might stand before the king, i.e., after the three years had expired. To stand before the king is to serve him, cf. Dan 1:3. [Standing was the position of waiters in readiness to do their masters will.Stuart.]
Dan 1:6-7. The names of Daniel and his associates, and their changing.Now among these were of the children of Judah, hence, belonging to the most prominent tribe, after which the entire nation was usually called, even at that early period. The four youths are here shown to be Jewish (Dan 1:3); but it does not follow from this passage that all of them, and Daniel in particular, were, in addition, of royal family ( . Dan 1:3).36 The royal descent of Daniel can only be conjectured; that Zedekiah was his father, as is stated by Josephus, is a mere supposition. Compare Introd. 2, where the names Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah have been sufficiently considered (cf. also note 1 to that ). Dan 1:7. Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave (other) names, rather, and the prince gave them. The changing of names as a sign of entrance into the condition of subjection to a ruler, is a frequently attested custom of Oriental and classical antiquity. Compare Gen 41:45 (Joseph); 2Ki 23:34 (Eliakim); 2Ki 24:17 (Matthaniah=Zedekiah); the re-naming of pupils by their preceptors, e.g., 2Sa 12:25 (Solomon=Jedediah); Mar 3:16 (Simon=Peter); and respecting this custom among the Greeks and Romans, Theodoret, on our passage; Chrysostom, Opp. 5:286, etc. [But while the kings referred to only had their paternal names changed for other Israelitish names, which were given them by their conquerors, Daniel and his friends received genuine heathen names in exchange for their own significant names, which were associated with that of the true God.Keil.] For he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar, etc.; rather, and he called Daniel Belteshazzar. The four new names of the youths doubtless contain, without exception, a reference to the divinities of Babylon. This is apparent in the name (cf. Dan 4:5),with which the royal name is probably identicalwhether, as a majority hold, we find the name of the god in it, and explain its composition perhaps by Beli princeps (which the expression of Nebuchadnezzar himself in Dan 4:5 seems to endorse), or prefer Hitzigs more artificial interpretation = Pld tschara, nourisher and devourer. likewise (for which the scriptio plena, Dan 3:29, is ) is certainly equivalent to adorer of Nego, which divinity is probably not the same as Nebo (Saadia, Hitz., Kranichf., and others), but a reptile god, and perhaps the familiar dragon of the apocryphal book Bel and the Dragonsince the comparison of the Sanscrit nga, serpent, with this name, which was first essayed by Rdiger, affords a more likely conception than the transmutation of into . But , which may be identical with , Zec 9:1 (cf. Khler, Sacharia, 2d pt., p. 18) also seems to designate a divinity, and possibly, in case it is based on the root or , to move in a circle, the sun-god. may be the same as the Sanscrit mschach, stag, and therefore denote a god likewise belonging to the siderial domain; whether the sun-god be again intended, as Hitzig supposes, must remain doubtful (but see Hitzig on this place).
Dan 1:8-10. Daniels request, and the refusal of the master of the eunuchs to entertain it. But Daniel purposed in his heart. So the A. V. and Luther, literally, but less agreeable to the sense of than he was concerned, as Bertholdt properly renders it. That he would (better should) not defile himself with the kings meat. The Sept. renders by ; cf. , Act 15:20. The reason for the refusal of the , i.e., the ordinary food of the king, as well as of the wine from his table (cf. Dan 1:5), by Daniel and his associates, arose doubtless from the heathenish custom of consecrating each meal, by offering a portion to the gods.37 In order to prevent their being involved in idolatry by partaking of food which had been thus dedicated to the gods (cf. 1Co 10:18-20), they avoided especially those kinds of food which were commonly offered to the gods, hence those prepared from flesh, wine, or flour. The vegetables, such as pulse, cabbage, etc., of which alone they were willing to partake, were indeed also prepared by the heathen cooks of the king, and were even unclean in themselves, as having been grown on heathen soil (Amo 7:17; Hos 9:3-4); but, since offerings or libations were never taken from them, they were not specially sacred to the gods, and hence, might be used by pious Jews, without any essential defilement of conscience. Compare Hvernick and Hitzig on this passage, and against Von Lengerke especially, who thought to find here the , 2Ma 5:27; and, therefore, a proof of the composition of the book in the time of the Maccabees; see Hvernick, Neue krit. Unters., p. 47. [Daniels resolution to refrain from such unclean food flowed from fidelity to the law, and from steadfastness to the faith that man liveth not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord (Deu 8:3). Keil.] Dan 1:9. Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs; literally, and God gave into favor before the prince, etc. is exactly the Greek (Theodot.). On this subject compare Gen 39:21; also Neh 1:11; 1Ki 8:50.
Dan 1:10. I fear my lord, the king, etc. The prince of the eunuchs does not, in these words, positively refuse the favor which Daniel seeks, but intimates that in order to avoid the royal displeasure, he must render at least a formal and apparent obedience to the command he had received; aside from this, he shows his readiness to exercise every possible forbearance towards his wards. The remark in Dan 1:9 that God had brought Daniel into the favor of the prince is, therefore, by no means in conflict with the tenor of this reply.For why should he see, etc. The same turn as in Son 1:7, where the poetical stands for , and where, similarly, the question expresses the sense of an emphatic negation (cf. 2Ch 32:4; Ezr 7:23).Your faces worse liking, etc. , properly sad, lowering, of a peevish appearance (Gen 40:6; cf. , Gen 40:7), here implying a meager and decayed appearance, exactly like the Greek , Mat 6:16. [ is to be understood before , according to the comparatio decurtata frequently found in Hebrew; cf. Psa 6:8; Psa 18:34, etc.Keil.]Then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king; properly, and ye shall endanger. [and ye cause to forfeit, a Chaldaizing Piel from ], is coordinated with , and like it depends on ; therefore: for why should he see and ye endanger my head, etc. On the phrase to endanger the head, compare I liad, 4:162, , and the German, den Kopf verwirken.
Dan 1:11-16. Daniels abstemiousness, and its consequences. Then said Daniel to Melzar. , as the prefixed article shows, is not a proper name, but an appellative, and probably designates an official. It can, however, scarcely mean a pedagogue or president of alumni, as Hitzig suggests, but rather a butler or steward, as appears from the nearly identical Persian melsar, vini princeps (according to Haug a compound word from the Zend. madhu =, drink, and ara =, head); compare , Joh 2:8-9),[and , Isa 36:2]. Dan 1:12. Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days. The number ten, which was constantly employed as a round number (cf. Dan 1:20; Zec 8:23; 2Ki 20:8, et seq.; and generally my Theologia Naturalis, 1:713 et seq.), was the more suitable in this case, as it was sufficiently large to leave traces of the change of food in the appearance of the young men, yet not too great for a mere experiment (Hitzig).Give us (only) pulse to eat. Concerning , vegetables, pulse, see on Dan 1:8.
Dan 1:13. And as thou seest, deal with thy servants; i.e., according to the result of thy observations. On with tsr, see Ewald, Lehrbuch, 224, c.
Dan 1:15. Fatter in flesh. The youth themselves, and not merely their faces, are the subjects of this predicate; for neither nor can be regarded as plurals. The plural can nowhere be pointed out, and finds no support in Ecc 11:9 (cf. the exegetical notes on that passage, and also Hvernick on Daniel, p. 36).
Dan 1:16. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they drank; better, and the steward (henceforth) took away their appointed food and wine. is not introductory, but in connection with the participle expresses the duration (Hitzig). The continuation of their treatment on this wise by the steward is remarked in order that the improvement in the condition of the youth, already mentioned as apparent in Dan 1:15, may be more strikingly brought out.On the question whether the narrative aims to represent this fact as miraculous, as well as concerning its ethical importance, see the dogmatico-ethical considerations [below].
Dan 1:17. The great endowments of Daniel and his companions.As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill, etc.; properly, And God gave to these four, etc. Luthers rendering, And the God of these four gave them, is inexact. On the precedence of the remote object in the nominative, followed by a personal pronoun in the dative (here ), compare the examples adduced by Ewald, 309, a, b.In all learning and wisdom., as in Dan 1:4, literary knowledge, acquaintance with literature, erudition (Theodotion, ).And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. It was, therefore, his acquaintance with oneirocritics that distinguished him above his companions, who must also be regarded as wise and highly cultured. This was clearly a miraculous gift, which was intimately connected with his , but must not be confounded with it; for the skill to interpret the dreams and visions of others, is certainly different from the gift of seeing prophetical dreams and visions in person. Still, as the second half of the book shows, the possession of the latter faculty by our prophet presumed the existence of the former; just as in the New Testament the divinely-bestowed power to interpret tongues and prove spirits goes hand in hand with the power to speak in tongues and prophesy, in the case of the truly great bearers of the Divine Spirit, e.g., St. Paul (1Co 14:6 et seq.), St. Peter (Act 5:3; Act 8:20; Act 10:10, etc.). is the same construction as in Dan 1:4 : , compare Ewald, 217, 2. , however, does not belong only to , but also to following. All visions and dreams are all possible ones, of every imaginable kind.
Dan 1:18-20. Favorable issue of their examination before the king. Now at the end of the days. Von Lengerkes rendering, and toward the end of the time, is incorrect., to bring them, viz.: into the presence of the king. Hence not the same as in verses.The prince brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. Themnot merely the four (Dan 1:17,) but, as may be inferred from Dan 1:19, all those Israelitish youths, Dan 1:13.And among them all was none found like Daniel, etc., either in physical beauty, or in marked mental excellencies.Therefore stood they before the king, i.e., they became his servants. is inceptive; they entered the royal service, and continued in it afterwards (Hitzig).
Dan 1:20. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding; literally, the discernment of wisdom ( , something like , Num 27:11; cf. Ps. 55:24). , however, is here, as in Dan 1:4, employed exclusively in the sense of objective wisdom, which is essentially the same as science; while is the subjective interior of this wisdom, the mind which shines through it. is here equivalent to a special point, matter, object; cf. Psa 31:9; Jdg 19:24; Jer 44:4, etc.That the king inquired of them. , not . The perfect refers back to the examination instituted by the king, Dan 1:19, not forward to later questions, which he addressed to them.Found them ten times better. Compare Gen 31:7; Gen 31:41; Lev 26:26; Zec 8:23; Ecc 7:19.Than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm; rather, than all the learned (in literature) magicians that were, etc. , by reason of the probable derivation of the word from , stylus, represents those who are versed in writings, scribes (scarcely persons who are clever, discerning, as Hitzig prefers, because of its assumed derivation from the Zend khratumat, the Rabbinical ). The learned Egyptian priests were designated by this term (Gen 41:8; Gen 41:24; Exo 7:11; Exo 7:22, etc.), while Herodotus (Dan 2:36) calls them , and the Sept. sometimes terms them (Gen 41:8; Gen 41:24), and again (Exo 7:11). Unlike Dan 2:2; Dan 2:27; Dan 4:4, etc., where the Chartummim are mentioned as a special class beside the Ashaphim and other wise men, the word, though not connected with the following, serves in this place merely to enlarge the conception of the predicate. , the more special term, designates (in virtue of the undeniable sameness in sense of its root with and ) breathers, whisperers, i.e., conjurers, who murmured their magic formulas in an aspirated whisper. Whether they are to be specially regarded as snakecharmers must remain undecided, in view of the fact that the relation of this word to the term is not established, and is possibly no more than an accidental similarity in sound. Compare, on the other hand, the Arabic naphatha, to breathe mysteriously on coiled knots (Freytag, Lexic. Arab. s. v.).
Dan 1:21. Preliminary conclusion of the introduction. And Daniel continued (thus) even unto the first year of king Cyrus. , which is neither to be identified with, nor exchanged for (the latter is advocated by Kirmss and Hitzig among others, who substitute for ), expresses, in connection with , the sense of attaining to, or of existing until the inauguration of an event. But to live until the first year of the reign of Cyrus is by no means equivalent to dying in that year. In this case the passage would contradict the statement found in Dan 10:1, and, therefore, would be in evidence against the original unity of this book (compare Introd. 4). It is clear that the particle in this place does not refer to the close of the prophets life, but simply designates a highly important period of time, up to which he lived and approved himself as the possessor of the exalted gifts of wisdom, prophecy, and interpreting dreams (Dan 1:17). The special mention of the first year of Cyrus as such a period, has, on the one hand, the objective reason that a really new sera, for the Jews especially, and one to which the most remarkable prophecies (Isa 44:28; Isa 45:1) referred, began with him; and, on the other, the subjective reason, that this sharp separation into great historical periods is general in Daniel, and, in addition, that a longing for the deliverance of his people must be regarded as a controlling disposition of his nature (Hvernick). Compare Hengstenberg (Beitr., p. 65, 314 et seq.), and Maurer on this passage, who regards , etc., correctly, as simply showing that Daniel lived through the whole period of the exile as a highly esteemed wise man at the Chaldan court.38 We need not, however, adopt Ewalds view, who assumes that the words have been lost after ; Thus Daniel lived at the royal court until, etc., with which he connects the venturesome hypothesis that Daniel and his companions dwelt in a separate I building of the palace, which was specially intended to serve as the royal academy (!).The Hebrew form of the name evidently corresponds better with the ancient Persian in the cuneiform inscriptions (Qurus, Qurus), than the Greek . Its interpretation by sun, which is found as early as Ctesias (Plut. Artax. 1. p. 1012) and in the Etymol. M. (cf. the Sanscrit sra, srja; Zend hvare; modern Persian khur), is not entirely certain. Se the Zeitschrift fr Kunde des Morgenl. 6:153 et seq.; 350 et seq.
Ethical Deductions Connected With The Scheme Of Redemption, Apologetical Remarks, And Homiletical Hints
1. The dogmatic and ethical significance of the early history of Daniel and his companions consists chiefly, and it may even be said exclusively, in the proof of resolute faith and obedient devotion to God, which they displayed by abstaining from the royal provision at the Babylonian court. Our admiration is not enlisted in behalf of the abstinent diet, the fasting, the mortification of self, on the part of these youth, but finds something grand and morally important in the active trust in God, and the faithful obedience to God, that are displayed in those self-denials. They did not abstain from the use of the delicacies of the royal table, during the whole period of their training, from a spirit of desperate ascetic bravado, or because of a super-legal dread of Gods creatures, which, in themselves, are not objectionable (1Ti 4:4); nor yet because, like the Buddhists of India, they scrupled to destroy animal life in any form; but from the truly religious motive of remaining faithful and devoted to their covenant God Jehovah (see above, Dan 1:8), and to avoid their being implicated, to any degree whatever, in the idolatrous practices of their heathen masters. Their abstemiousness has, therefore, essentially the same ethical value as that of the Rechabites, who refused to drink wine, from motives of religious obedience to the vow of their ancestor (Jeremiah 35); or, as the conscientious abiding of the Nazarite by his sacred vow, which imposed similar denials on him, and which might cover the whole period of life (Samson, John the Baptist), or a definite time of longer or shorter duration (St. Paul, Act 21:24 et seq.; Aquila, Act 18:18). A further analogy to the course of these youth in Babylon will be found in the case of the Jews at Rome, whom Flavius Josephus mentions in chap. 3 of his autobiography. Our wonder and emulation are not excited in any of these instances by the avoiding of certain indulgences, but rather, by the disposition of faithful submission to the wholesome discipline of God. This it is, that marks their course as the effect of a strong, rather than weak faith, which thus becomes an example for the Christians of all ages. Several of the older expositors already recognized this, on the whole, although their extravagant estimate of the value of ascetic self-denial of any sort, prevented them from reaching a really unprejudiced and truly evangelical conclusion upon the subject. On the request of Daniel to Melzar, Dan 1:12, to prove him and his companions during ten days with pulse and water, Jerome remarks, that it was a striking evidence of his faith: Incredibilis fidei magnitudo non solum sibi corpulentiam polliceri esu uiliaris cibi, sed et tempus statuerev Non est ergo temeritatis, sed fidei, ob quam regias dapes contempserat. Similarly Theodoret on that passage: , , , , .Among later writers, see especially Melancthon, who remarks correctly: Danielis temperentiam fuisse opus confessionis, et quidem hanc abstinenliam prceceptam fuisse lege Dei, non humanis traditionibus. Ergo abstinebat Daniel, ut testaretur se non abjicere doctrinam, in qua sola exstabat verbum Dei, et abhorrere ab aliarum gentium traditionibus; also Calvin, who remarks on the words of Daniel, Dan 1:11 et seq.: Tenendum est etiam illud, nempe non temere, neque proprio motu hc dixisse, sed instinctu Spiritus Sancti. Fuisset enim non solertia, sed temeritas, si Daniel sibi fabricasset hoc consilium, et non fuisset certior factus a Domine devfelici event. Non est igitur dubium, quin hoc habuerit ex arcana revelatione, feliciter et ex voto cessurum, si permitteret minister ipsum et socios vesci leguminibus. And further: Sciamus, hoc esse verum experimentum frugalitatis et temperenti, si piossimus esurire, ubi Deus nos ad inopiam et egestatem cogit, immo etiam si sponte possumus abjicere delicias, qu nobis essent ad manum, sed nostro exitio. Nam hic subsistere in leguminibus et aqua esset valde frivolum, quia major interdum in emperentia se prodit in leguminibus, quam in optimis quibusque et lautissimis cibis. Note further, what Chr. B. Michaelis says concerning the contrast, indicated in Dan 1:13, between the majority of the youth designed to be pages to the king, who partook unhesitatingly of the prescribed fare, and the strict abstinence of Daniel and his three friends: Hi ergo, licet et ipsi Judi essent (Dan 1:3-4; Dan 1:6), tamen in observanda lege divina minus religiosi fuerunt. Tanto laudibilior fuit Danielis sociorumque ejus pietas et in patria religione constantia.
2. The course of the self-denying youth will also appear as an effect of faith, from what is said in Dan 1:15 respecting their surprisingly robust and handsome appearance. Whether this consequence of their vegetable diet is to be regarded as something miraculous, or as a purely natural result, may be questioned. The phenomenon can hardly pass for absolutely miraculous; for the traveler Chardin, in a manuscript remark on that verse, observes, I have noticed that the Kechichs (i.e., monks) have by far a fresher and more healthful color than others, and that the Armenians and Greeks, though they frequently fast, appear healthy, lively, and handsome (compare Burder, in Rosenmllers Alt-u. Neu-Mor-genland, iv. 340; also Harmer, Observations in the East, i. 357); and it is conceivable that an unrestrained indulgence in luxurious food might rather detract from the beauty of the remaining youths, than enhance it, especially if it were accompanied by the debaucheries and excesses which are so common among the pages at Oriental courts (Ldecke, Beschreibung des trk. Reichs, i. 52 et seq.; Hvernck, Komment., p. 37). Still, there is something extraordinary, indicative of Divinely supernatural co-operation, in the fact that at the end of three years the appearance of Daniel and his companions excelled that of all the other youths in fullness and beauty, and not less in the additional fact that they excelled these latter in point of intellectual qualities and scientific acquirements. cf. Hvernick, At the same time, it would be partial to ignore the Divine assistance; it was God who enabled his servants to find favor with their overseer, who gave them progress in Divine wisdom and understanding, and who did not forsake them in this instance. Only by this reference to God, which is certainly found in our narrative, can the believer comprehend its true bearing. Hence it is unwise, and the mark of a merely carnal exposition, to become involved in far-fetched and physiological explanations and calculations, such as are found in Aben-Ezra, no less than to ignore the Higher power, from which come all good and perfect gifts.
3. As an apologetical question of some importance, it must be remarked that what is related in this chapter concerning the abstinence and strict observance of the law at the heathen court of the Chaldan king, by Daniel and his associates, is but poorly adapted to stamp the narrative as a fiction of Asmonan times, in which the author seeks to beget trust in God on the part of his readers (Hitzig), or to warn them against partaking of unclean food (Bertholdt, Von Lengercke, etc.). The pious Jews of the Maccaban period not only scrupulously avoided the flesh which was sacrificed to idols by their heathen oppressors, but everything that emanated from them, even to their arts and sciences. Daniel, Hananiah, etc., are, on the contrary, represented as distinguished adepts in all the wisdom of the Chaldans, and at the same time, as filling official stations at the court of the Babylonian king, or even as members of the order of the magi (cf. Dan 2:13; Dan 2:48 et seq.). But while this latter feature shows a striking resemblance between the experience of the leading character and that of Joseph in Egypt; while especially the patronage of the youth Daniel by the prince of the eunuchs, as well as his high endowment as an interpreter of dreams, reminds us strongly of Joseph; we are yet compelled to reject the opinion that the whole is merely an artificial copy of the early history of that patriarch, because nothing is recorded, either of an ascetic refusal of food or drink on the part of Joseph, nor yet of his being trained with especial reference to service at the court of Pharaoh, or of a careful instruction in foreign wisdom and learning. With respect to the latter point, indeed, Moses, rather than Joseph, would serve as an example (see Act 7:22). Compare also Jerome (on Dan 1:8): Qui de mensa regis et de vino potus ejus non vult comedere, ne polluatur, utique si sciret ipsam sapientiam atque doctrinam Babyloniorum esse peccatum, nunquam acquiesceret discere, quod non licebat. Discunt autem non ut sequantur, sed ut judicent atque convincant. Quomodo si quispiam adversus mathematicos velit scribere imperitus , risui pateat, et adversum philosophos disputans, si ignoret dogmata philosophorum. Discunt ergo ea mente doctrinam Chaldorum, qua et Moyses omnem sapientiam gyptiorum didicerat.
4. The Homiletical treatment will, of course, seize on the chief and fundamental ethical principle of the section, as indicated above, under 1, without regard to subordinate details. Thus, perhaps: Not dainty food, but the blessing of God develops beauty and strength. All wisdom, even in worldly concerns, is a gift of God, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of this wisdom also (Starke, after the Bibl. Tbing.). Or: Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Deu 8:3; Mat 4:4).Or: It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats (Heb 13:9), etc. Compare Melancthon: Daniel in aula nec minis nec contemptu, nec illecebris voluptatem aut potenti victus est, ut deficeret a vero cultu. Hanc constantiam pauci imitantur, sed qui imitantur habebunt ingentia prmia corporalia et spiritualia, sicut inquit textas: Glorificantes me glorificabo, etc. (2Sa 2:20).
Footnotes:
[1] , and pressed upon it, namely, with the usual military appliances.
[2], his gods, probably referring to the Babylonian polytheism, in contrast with the true God above, .
[3] , store-house, some room connected with the temple of Belus.
[4], and said, in the Chaldazing sense of commanded.
[5] chief, principal or head man.
[6] seed of the kingdom, namely, of Judah.
[7] the nobles, a Persic word denoting the aristocracy.
[8], youths, or lads, between infancy and adolescence.
[9] good of appearance, i.e., handsome.
[10] intelligent, i.e., of quick natural parts.
[11] knowing, i.e., by acquired information.
[12] considerate, i.e., of attentive habits.
[13] vigor, i.e., physical strength, and perhaps including mental energy.
[14]; and to teach them, i.e., cause them to be instructed. This clause is to be connected in construction with the preceding Dan 1:3.
[15] book, i.e., the formularies or written mysteries.
[16] a word (or matter) of a day in its day, a regular ration from day to day.
[17] delicacy, a Persian word denoting luxurious viands.
[18] assigned upon, i.e., imposed this as a conscientious duty.
[19] mercies, i.e., kind consideration of his scruples.
[20] is regarded by the Grammarians as an instance of an epenthetic in the sing., or perhaps an older form of the construction in which the final has given place to a cognate letter.
[21] according to your circle, i.e., in point of age and rank. There is, however, possibly an allusion to their emasculated condition. Eunuchs are constantly represented on the Assyrian monuments as being of fuller habit than other men.
[22] of the seed-fruits, and we will surely eat, i.e., exclusively vegetable diet
[23] delicacy, a Persian word denoting luxurious viands.
[24] of the seed-fruits, and we will surely eat, i.e., exclusively vegetable diet
[25], youths, or lads, between infancy and adolescence.
[26] book, i.e., the formularies or written mysteries.
[27], and said, in the Chaldaizing sense of commanded.
[28] ten hands (parts) above, ten-fold superior to.
[29] is generally explained by the lexicographers as derived from a style, hence scribes, the Magian . Perhaps it signifies horoscopists.
[30], from to whisper incantation, hence are magicians in the bread sence.
[31] was alive and influential in that official capacity.]
[32][Daniel is careful to say (with historical accuracy) that at this time the king of Babylon took away only a part of the vessels of the temple. Many more were taken during the short reign of Jeconiah (see 2Ki 24:13), and yet some were left behind even then, to be taken at the final destruction of the city in the reign of Zedekiah (Jer 27:19-22).Cowles.]
[33][Stuart, on the contrary, insists that the following clause compels us to understand the same object of in both cases; but he overstrains the particle by the rendering the same. The English Auth. Version interprets in a similar manner. But the latter clause certainly implies a distinction between the objects carried away, some of which were deposited in a particular spot. The author is, therefore, correct in understanding the associates of the king to be included generally under the mention of his name, bat not himself particularly; he is inconsistent, however, a little farther on, as we shall see, in destroying the whole foundation of this distinction, in the interpretation of the last clause of the verse.]
[34][Rather, a strictly literal interpretation of Isa 39:7, as well as all the probabilities and analogies of the case, requires this view, which the majority of commentators have accordingly taken. The case of Josephs master affords no difficulty, for eunuchs of high rank are often married (cf. Sir 20:4; Sir 25:20); indeed the supposition of his impotence affords some explanation of his wifes solicitation of Joseph.]
[35][Others, however, maintain that it was of Hamitic affinity. The subject of the origin of the is very difficult. See the note in Keil ad loc.]
[36][Much less does it follow that the other youths of noble descent, who had been carried away along with them, belonged to other tribes (.Keil ad loc.), for (as the same commentator immediately adds), the names of Daniel and his three companions only are mentioned, because their history recorded in this book brings them specially under our notice.]
[37][That the special reason for their abstinence was not the Levitical distinction of clean and unclean animals, is evident from their rejection of the wine likewise, which the Mosaic law allowed. In addition to the reason assigned by our author, we suspect some sanitary cause, arising from an apprehension of the stimulating effect of the highly-seasoned food, especially if they were under surgical treatment.]
[38][Compare the analogous statement, Jer 1:2 et seq., that Jeremiah prophesied in the days of Josiah and Jehoiakim to the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, although his book contains prophecies also of a date subsequent to the taking of Jerusalem.Keil.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
The prophecy of Daniel opens with an account of the captivity of Israel. Daniel is among those who were carried to Babylon in the captivity. He finds favor in the sight of the keeper of the prisoners. Is permitted to abstain from the food of the Court. Is commended for his understanding.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
These verses are introductory to the main subject of the Prophet’s writings. He relates the circumstance of the captivity. We find a confirmation of the same, Isa 39 ; Jer 52 . I only detain the Reader at these verses to remark the awful event of the carrying away the sacred vessels of the temple, and putting them in the house of an idol. Alas! is it not so in every instance, when from the fall of man, what was designed for the Lord’s glory is abused to the service of sin?
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 1:2 ; Dan 1:6
I was taken captive when nearly sixteen years of age. I did not know the true God; and I was taken to Ireland in captivity with so many thousand men, in accordance with our deserts, because we departed from God and kept not His precepts.
St. Patrick’s Confessions.
Dan 1:8
The strangeness of foreign life threw me back into myself.
Newman, Apologia, I.
Daniel’s Self-denial
Dan 1:8
We are told about a great many good men in the pages of the Bible: some who were generally beloved by God, as the Prophet Daniel; some who found grace in the eyes of Jehovah, as Noah. It is instructive and interesting to investigate why these men found grace and why they were beloved.
I. The Life of Noah. If we examine the life of Noah, we find that he had at least four characteristics:
a. He was obedient to God.
b. He had faith in God.
c. He reverenced God.
d. He worshipped God.
We can thus see to some extent why he found grace in the eyes of Jehovah. The life of Noah, like every other life in the Old Testament, is meant to be an example to us, to show what our lives should be or what they ought not to be.
II. The Life of Daniel. Again, if we investigate the life of Daniel, we can see some reasons why ho was greatly beloved:
a. He obeyed.
b. He resisted temptation.
c. He held fast to that which was right.
d. He was tempted, yet he refused to partake of the king’s meat and imbibe of the king’s wine.
He had his reward from God, and also in the worldly sense; for we are told that at the end of ten days after his abstinence his countenance appeared fair, and he was fatter in the flesh than all the others who did eat of the king’s meat. Daniel lived at a court where there was much intemperance, much luxury, and much idolatry; and, therefore, thought it his duty in the circumstances to abstain from the king’s meat and drink, as from things offered to idols. We need not necessarily suppose that Daniel was a temperance advocate. We have no reason to think that he regarded wine as a pernicious, deadly thing; but he thought it his duty, because of the occasion and the surroundings, to do without it.
References. I. 8. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxix. No. 2291. I. 8-21. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Daniel, p. 40.
Dan 1:12
See Addison’s Spectator (No. 195), and Dante’s Purgatorio, xxii. 145.
Dan 1:21
Most failures lie in not going on long enough. I heard a man in a meeting in the country long ago say, that one of the most encouraging verses he knew was a verse of common metre to this effect:
Go on, go on, go on, etc.
James Smetham.
What is commonly admired as successful talent is far more a firm realizing grasp of some great principle, and that power of developing it in all directions, and that nerve to abide faithful to it, which is involved in such a true apprehension.
Newman.
Reference. II. J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 85.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
II
THE HISTORY IN THE FIRST CHAPTER
Dan 1:1-21
Having devoted chapter I to an introduction to the book of Daniel we now come to its exposition. We closed chapter I with an analysis which consists of two great divisions, namely:
1. The history of Daniel.
2. The grouped and correlated prophetic sections. Following this analysis we will dispose of the historical sections before attempting to expound the related visions and dreams. In chapter I some details belonging to introduction were left to be considered in the exposition. The historical character of this book depends, mainly, upon the accuracy of its references to Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. Of course, if there was no siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim, no carrying away of the sacred vessels of the Temple at that time, no deportation of captives to Babylon at that time, no Daniel of that period, no Belshazzar, and no Darius the Medo, and if the references to the fall of Babylon as connected with Cyrus are radically out of harmony with the true history of Cyrus, then we must abandon all ideas of the book as history or as inspired.
The most important of all these references as bearing upon the historical character of the book is contained in Daniel I, which is intended as an introduction to the whole book. It begins thus:
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god. And the king spake unto Asphenaz, the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal and of the nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well favoured and skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace; and that he should then teach them the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
This paragraph is fundamental, and decisive on the question of historicity. It certainly affirms:
1. A siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim) king of Judah.
2. The submission of the Jewish king.
3. The carrying away into Babylon of a part of the sacred vessels of the Temple.
4. The deportation of a select few of the youths of the royal seed and of the nobility (including Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, as named in Dan 1:6 ).
5. It affirms also by implication the approximate age of these youths by the requirement that they must already be “skilful in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace.”
6. Again by implication (Dan 1:4 ), connected with the strict adherence to these youths to the Mosaic law of meats and drinks (Dan 1:8-16 ) must affirm an environment at Jerusalem when they were born, and during their youth, to produce such education and character as they possess when introduced into this story. For example, such education of the royal seed and of the nobility, and such adherence to the Mosaic law would have been impossible in Manasseh’s reign.
7. Finally, the whole paragraph affirms a political situation calling for its alleged facts.
In determining the historical veracity of these seven affirmations we may look for confirmation or contradiction to the following sources of information:
1. The second book of Kings on the period.
2. The prophecies of Jeremiah, a contemporary.
3. The second book of Chronicles.
4. The book of Ezekiel, a later contemporary.
5. Any available Chaldean history of Nebuchadnezzar’s time.
In order of time we first consider affirmations Dan 1:5-6 ; that is, do we find in Kings and Chronicles a Jerusalem environment that could produce such education and character as these royal youths and nobles are said to possess in the third year of Jehoiakim? The answer is overwhelmingly in favor of the probability of the story in Daniel. Jehoiakim was a son of the good king Josiah. Josiah had been dead but a little over three years. It was in the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign that the lost book of Moses was found. The finding of this book brought about the great reformation, the great revival of education, and the purity of court life that distinguished his reign. Assuming from the attainments (Dan 1:4 ) that he possessed when led into exile, Daniel could not well have been less than twenty years old at that time, so that he was about four years old when the book of the law was found, and grew up and was educated in all the later glory of Josiah’s reign. This fact accounts for both his attainments and character. (See Kings and Chronicles on the reign of Josiah.)
We now seek for confirmation or contradiction of affirmations 1-3, i. e., the siege of Jerusalem, the submission of the Jewish king, the carrying away of part of the sacred vessels. In 2Ki 23:31-36 he tells how Pharaoh-Necho, after slaying Josiah, deposed his son Jehoahaz after a three months’ reign and set Eliakim, another son, on the throne, changing his name to Jehoiakim and making him a dependent of Egypt. Then the record thus continues:
In his days Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: then he turned and rebelled against him. And the Lord sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by his servants the prophets.
On the same point the Chronicler says, “Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his temple at Babylon.
These accounts corroborate Daniel thus far:
1. That Nebuchadnezzar did come up against Jerusalem in the days of Jehoiakim.
2. He did receive the subjection of Jehoiakim, who had been subject to Egypt.
3. He did carry away to Babylon a part of the sacred vessels.
4. Neither gives any other account of Nebuchadnezzar coming up against Jerusalem nor of the deportation of the sacred vessels in the days of Jehoiakim. While they do not date the coming, nor refer to a deportation of youths of the royal family and of the nobles, they say nothing against either. So far as they testify they corroborate Daniel. This corroboration is enhanced in value by the fact that Kings and Chronicles both testify that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem three times:
(1) In the reign of Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:1 ; 2Ch 36:5-7 ), which Daniel dates in his third year (Dan 1:1 ).
(2) In the reign of Jehoiakim’s son, Jehoiachim (2Ki 24:10-17 and 2Ch 36:10 ).
(3) In the reign of Zedekiah, brother of Jehoiakim (2Ki 25:1-12 and 2Ch 36:17-21 ).
And in every case there was a deportation of captives and of the sacred furniture of the Temple; the second time the deportation of both was larger than the first and the third time larger than the second. It was ever-increasing severity as the rebellions were repeated. The corroboration is clinched by this additional testimony: Jehoiakim, having in his third year submitted to Nebuchadnezzar, did not rebel against him until three years later (2Ki 24:1 ), and so there was no reason for a siege of Jerusalem in the campaign following the battle of Charchemish, which occurred in his fourth year (Jer 46:2 ). It was two years after the battle of Charchemish before Jehoiakim rebelled. As the power of Egypt was completely broken by the Charchemish campaign, this rebellion could not have been formidable. It continued, however, through the rest of his reign. In the latter part of his reign Nebuchadnezzar prepares to punish him. His armies arrive, however, after Jehoiakim’s death in the three months’ reign of his son, and before the siege is concluded Nebuchadnezzar himself arrives (2Ki 24:10-12 ), and one year after, the campaign following the battle was closed, for we find Nebuchadnezzar back in Babylon the next year (Dan 2:1 ).
We now turn to Jeremiah for confirmation or contradiction of affirmations 1, 2, and 3. The only prophecy in the book of Jeremiah directly against Jehoiakim is found in Jer 22:18-23 , which has no bearing on the matter in hand, unless (which is barely possible) this expression, “The wind shall feed all thy shepherds and thy lovers shall go into captivity,” refers to the deportation in his third year. There is a prophecy against the people: “in the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim” (Jer 26:1 ). There are prophecies also dated in the fourth and fifth years of his reign (Jer 36 ). The only passage clearly in point is found in Jer 35:11 . The chapter begins: “The word which came unto Jeremiah from Jehovah in the days of Jehoiakim.” The matter touches the Rechabites who thus account for their presence in Jerusalem: “But it came to pass, when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up into the land, that we said, come, and let us go to Jerusalem for fear of the army of the Chaldeans, and for fear of the army of the Syrians; so we dwell at Jerusalem.”
On this strong and pertinent testimony note:
(1) Its grouping. It is immediately followed by a prophecy of the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer 36:1 ), and that immediately by an account dated in his fifth year (Jer 36:9 ).
(2) These Rechabites were already dwelling in Jerusalem.
(3) They had left their homes to seek safety there, fleeing before an invasion led by Nebuchadnezzar with a combined army of Chaldeans and Syrians. Compare the statement of the Rechabites with 2Ki 24:1-2 , which refers first to Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Jehoiakim, and adds: “And the Lord sent against him (Jehoiakim) bands of the Chaldeans, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon,” from all which appears the quadruple composition of Nebuchadnezzar’s forces in his first invasion of Judah.
The only way in which the assailants of Daniel I: I seek to evade the decisive force of this testimony from Jeremiah is to arbitrarily detach it from its grouping and assign it to the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign, in which period no Bible authority puts an invasion of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover and especially, an invasion in the latter part of Jehoiakim’s reign would jam it up against the second invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, which occurred in the three months of Jehoiachin’s reign (2Ki 24:8-12 ; 2Ch 36:8-10 ). It is incredible that there should be two such invasions by Nebuchadnezzar within & few months. Armies could not have been twice mobilized and moved such distances and with such transporation in such short space of time. A military man with the maps before him showing how a Babylonian army must first be moved up the Euphrates to Charchemish, thence by Damascus to combine with the Syrians, thence down the left bank of the Jordan to combine with the Moabites and Ammonites, and thence to Jerusalem, and also having knowledge of the country to be passed over and the transport system of that day, would not believe it possible that two such expeditions could be conducted in the time limits arbitrarily assigned by civilian critics.
Dr. Farrar, in a paragraph bristling with other blunders, says, “It was only after the battle of Charchemish that any siege of Jerusalem would have been possible.” Truth reverses this statement. It was only after Nebuchadnezzar’s capture of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim that the battle of Charchemish became possible. This is the reasoning:
1. Pharaoh-Necho was lord suzerain of Jehoiakim (2Ki 23:34 ), having made him king.
2. In the third year of Jehoiakim Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, took Jerusalem, and Jehoiakim became his servant. But Nebuchadnezzar is called home by his father’s death, and himself becomes king of Babylon (Dan 1:1 ; Jer 25:1 ).
3. Nebuchadnezzar, being away and his armies withdrawn, Pharaoh-Necho, who had been mobilizing his armies during Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of his dependencies, marches rapidly against Babylon the following year.
4. Nebuchadnezzar, now king, has time only to meet him at Charchemish at the passage of the Euphrates, and there in the fourth year of Jehoiakim gains a decisive victory (Jer 25:1 ; Jer 46:2 ).
5. There could have been no siege of Jerusalem after the battle of Charchemish, and in that campaign, because Jehoiakim, after his submission in his third year, did not rebel until his sixth year (2Ki 24:1-2 ), and the campaign commencing with the battle of Charchemish in his fourth year (Jer 46:2 ) and in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 25:1 ), was ended that very year, for we find Nebuchadnezzar back at Babylon in his second year (Dan 2:1 ).
6. What the united and unbroken Bible testimony declares is confirmed in some of its details by the Chaldean historian Berosus, as preserved in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities X, 11:1, and Contra Apion 1:19. Berosus says –
(1) Nebuchadnezzar was but a young man at the time of his first westward campaign against Egypt and its dependencies, and only represented his aged and infirm father Nabopolassar.
(2) While prosecuting this campaign he learned of his father’s death and committing “the captives he had taken from the Jews, Phenicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt to some of his friends, that they might conduct that part of the forces that had on heavy armor to Babylonia by the usual circuitous route, while he himself went in haste, having but a few with him, over the desert to Babylon and became king.”
But Jeremiah (Jer 25:1 ) says that Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until the fourth year of Jehoiakim, hence the preceding campaign in which he had taken “captives of Jews” was in the third year of Jehoiakim and so harmonizes with Dan 1:1 . Only a desperate radical critic could put this rapid journey of Nebuchadnezzar’s “over the desert” after the battle of Charchemish because (1) the straight road from Charchemish to Babylon was down the Euphrates and outside of the desert; (2) there was no occasion to return to Babylon after that battle, as he was already king (Jer 25:1 ) ; (3) he could not in that battle have gained “captives of Jews” because they submitted the year before, and did not rebel until two years after the battle (Dan 1:1 and 2Ki 24:1 ).
I do not affirm that Berosus or Josephus gives clear accounts throughout. Both of them muddle and jumble matters as if they were radical critics, particularly Josephus in his own account of Daniel. But Daniel, Jeremiah, Kings, and Chronicles coincide throughout.
We have already said that Daniel I affirms by implication a political situation to justify its statements. That political situation we find in Kings, Jeremiah, and Chronicles. The kingdom of Judah in Josiah’s time was sandwiched between the two great powers, Egypt and Assyria. Judah was a dependence of Assyria. Pharaoh-Necho slew Josiah and broke the Assyrian power at the first battle of Charchemish and deposed one son of Josiah and set up another, Jehoiakim, tributary to himself. But in the meantime Nabopolassar had made Babylon a greater power than Assyria had been. He would not rest content while Egypt held all Syria and Palestine, blocking his way to the Mediterranean Sea. So, being himself old and infirm, he sends his young son, Nebuchadnezzar, to follow the old line of invasion adopted by Chedorlaomer in the days of Abraham (Gen 14 ) ; Syria, Ammon, Moab and Jerusalem fall before him (2Ki 24:1-2 , and 2Ch 36:6-7 ; Jer 35:11 ; Dan 1:1 ). This the third year of Jehoiakim. News of his father’s death stops his victorious campaign. His armies, with the prisoners, are sent back the long way they had come, and he himself rapidly returns the short way across the desert. Arriving he is made king. Pharaoh-Necho, aroused by this conquest of his dependencies and encouraged by the withdrawal of Nebuchadnezzar’s army, pushes his own army rapidly to Charohemish, the strategical passage of the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar, now king, meets him at Charchemish, fourth year of Jehoiakim and first year of his own reign (Jer 46:1-12 ). The campaign is concluded in the year, and the next year or second year of Nebuchadnezzar he is back in Babylon examining into the proficiency of the captives taken in his first invasion (Dan 2:1 ). This same year (second of Nebuchadnezzar’s and fifth of Jehoiakim’s), Jehoiakim prepares to rebel against the solemn warnings of Jeremiah (Jer 36:9-31 ), and the next year he does rebel (2Ki 24:1 ), and thus brings about the second invasion by Nebuchadnezzar in the three months’ reign of his son (2Ki 24:10-12 ).
We conclude the argument on this point with the testimony of Ezekiel, a fellow exile and contemporary of Daniel, given some years later, bearing upon the fact that Daniel was a well known historical personage, and bearing witness to his remarkable righteousness and wisdom. In the days of Abraham God promised to spare Sodom if ten righteous men could be found in it. But, speaking concerning the awful back-sliding of Israel both in Judea and in exile, God says twice to Ezekiel: “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness” (Eze 14:14 ; Eze 14:20 ). And to the king of Tyre he says, “Art thou wiser than Daniel?” It is not merely puerile to deny these references of Ezekiel to the Daniel of this book and ascribe them to some man unknown to history or tradition, but it suggests an incorrigible aversion from the belief of the truth akin to judicial blindness. Solomon’s fame for wisdom filled the world when he was but a young man. And to decry this testimony on account of Daniel’s youth ignores the fact that God gave to Daniel his wisdom as he had given it to Solomon, and that when Ezekiel wrote, Daniel was in his prime and occupied a position of worldwide importance.
We have thus corroborated every historical particular in the first chapter of Daniel. There was just the political situation to call forth its alleged facts. Ezekiel, a contemporary, certifies to the person, righteousness and wisdom of Daniel. There is no other Daniel known to history or tradition to whom his words can apply. The first book of Maccabees expressly refers to the Daniel of this book. Our Lord expressly certifies to his person and his prophecy. Zechariah borrows from the symbolism of his visions and Nehemiah imitates his prayer. Berosus, the Chaldean historian, corroborates the statement (Dan 1:1 ), that there was a deportation of Jewish captives in Nebuchadnezzar’s first invasion of Judea, and both Berosus and Jeremiah confirm his statement (Dan 1:5 ) “Three years” and Dan 2:1 ) that Nebuchadnezzar was only vice-regent in this first campaign, but became king at its close.
The current testimony of all the witnesses explains how this first campaign roused Egypt and led to the battle of Charchemish, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was king and had no occasion to return immediately thereafter to Babylon, but finished the campaign the same year, completely breaking the power of Egypt (2Ki 24:7 ), and was back in Babylon in his second year (Dan 2:1 ), which was consonant with Jehoiakim’s fifth year. That Jehoiakim, against the repeated warnings of Jeremiah, rebelled in his sixth year, though Egypt was not now in position to help him, which rebellion led to Nebuchadnezzar’s second siege of Jerusalem three months after his death. When, then, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Chronicles corroborate the minute particulars of this first chapter, and both inter-biblical records and traditions, and the whole weight of New Testament authority confirm it, we cannot explain Driver’s “doubt” of its accuracy, nor Farrar’s bold denial of its truth on any theory of fairness, friendliness, and reverence toward Old Testament books. If the reader will examine the first appendix to Sir Robert Anderson’s Daniel in the Critics’ Den, he will find the statement of Daniel I: I confirmed by the strictest test of chronology.
The statement in this first chapter that certain noble youths, remarkable for physical beauty, education, wisdom, and courtly bearing, were led captive and trained in the language and learning of their captors with a view to service in the palace, is in line with all Oriental history, ancient or modern. The attainments of Daniel in the learning of the Chaldeans finds a parallel in both Joseph and Moses in Egypt under somewhat similar conditions; so no allegation in this chapter has an air of improbability.
Having thus examined at length and critically the historical introduction to the book, we may advance more rapidly in dealing with the rest of the historical sections of Daniel’s life, which extended to the third year of Cyrus. Modern archeological research has brought to light so much information on the religion, laws, customs, learning, architecture, agriculture, commerce, business habits, and everyday life of the of the ancient Babylonians that we may construct a mind picture of the great city and its people as Daniel saw them six hundred years before Christ, that would be almost as faithful in detail as a mental impression gained by a visit to Paris, Berlin, or London. The reader will find just such a picture in the second chapter of Deane’s Daniel, His Life and Times . By all means read it and extend your reading when you can to all the authorities he cites. It does not lie within the purpose or compass of these discussions to go into such details.
QUESTIONS
1. Upon what does the historical character of this book mainly depend and, in general, what the argument?
2. What is the most important reference as bearing upon the historical character of the book and what relation does the first chapter of Daniel bear to the whole book?
3. What are the affirmations of Dan 1:1-4 ?
4. To what sources may we look for confirmation or contradiction of these affirmations?
5. What is the proof that there was an environment in Jerusalem conducive to the education and character of the royal youths such as Daniel and his comrades are here said to have had?
6. What is the proof of the siege of Jerusalem and the carrying away captives in 2 Kings and how confirmed by 2 Chronicles?
7. What is the proof from Jeremiah?
8. How do assailants of Dan 1:1 seek to evade the force of the testimony of Jeremiah and what is the reply?
9. What Dr. Farrar’s statement about the siege of Jerusalem, what is really the truth of the matter, and what the arguments?
10. What is the testimony of Berosus on this point and what its bearing?
11. What is the testimony of Jeremiah on this point and what the arguments here against the position of the radical critics?
12. What is the proof that the political situation at that time justifies the statements in Daniel I?
13. What is the testimony of Ezekiel and its argument?
14. What is the summary of the proof of a historical and personal Daniel?
15. Give a restatement of the facts related to the battle of Charchemish.
16. What the circumstantial proof of the accuracy of the history in Daniel I pertaining to the “youths” and what parallels in the Bible of this case?
17. How have we in modern times become acquainted with all the details of life in Babylon in the times of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Dan 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
The Book of Daniel
Written by himself (not by another of his name, in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, as wicked Porphyry, a that professed enemy of Christianity, blaterateth), like as Xenophon and Julius Caesar wrote their own acts so wisely and impartially, as none have been so upright in writing the histories of others. This divine book is, for the matter of it, partly historic and partly prophetic. The historical part we have in the first six chapters, sc., a continuation of the history of the book of Kings during the whole time of the captivity and after it. Hence Jerome b calleth Daniel multiscum et totius mundi polyhistorem, a general historian. The prophetic part, beginning at the seventh chapter, foretelleth future things in the several monarchies but very obscurely, according to that of the angel, Dan 12:9-10 “Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up, and sealed till the end of the time,” &c; and according to that hieroglyphic of prophecy, which hangs, they say, among other pictures, in the Vatican Library at Rome, like a matron with the eyes covered, for the difficulty. Whence it was that Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, though able, would never be drawn to write commentaries; Cajetan and Calvin would set no notes upon the Revelation; and Piscator, c after he had commented upon the other prophets, when he came to Daniel, met with so many dark and difficult passages, ut parum obfuerit, saith he, quin in medio commentandi cursu subsisterem, et calamum e manu deponerem, that he was even ready to lay down his pen, and to lay aside the business. But this he did not, as considering that the best, while here, “know but in part, prophesy but in part,” &c.; and that the promise is, though none of the wicked understand this prophecy, yet the wise shall. Dan 12:10 Jerome d well saith, that a prophecy is therefore obscure, because it is said at one time and seen at another. And one thing that causeth a cloud in Daniel is the transposing of the history here often used; as the prophecies contained in the seventh and eighth chapters, which were shown unto Daniel under the reign of Belshazzar, in order should be set before the sixth chapter, &c. He seemeth indeed to have been laid aside in the days of Belshazzar, that drunken sot, till the handwriting on the wall brought him more in request again. Dan 5:11-12 That cock on the dunghill knew not the worth of this peerless pearl, highly prized both by his predecessor and successor, to whom he was a secretis of their privy council. Famous he was grown, and worthily, for his extraordinary wisdom Eze 28:3 and holiness, Eze 14:14 so that the angel Gabriel styleth him “a man of desires,” or a desirable man. Dan 9:23 Seneca calleth Cato virtutum vivam imaginem, a lively picture of virtues. Pliny e saith that the same Cato Censorius was an excellent orator, an excellent senator, an excellent commander, and a master of all good arts. Paterculus f saith, that he was a man as like virtue as ever he could look, et per omnia virtute diis quam hominibus propior. Livy saith, he was a man of rigid innocence and invincible integrity. Cornelius Nepos, g that being assayed and assaulted by many, he not only never lost any part of his reputation, but as long as he lived grew still in the praise of his virtues, as being in all things of singular prudence and industry. Lastly, Cicero saith of Cato Major, that whereas he underwent the enmities of many potent persons, and suffered no little hardship all his time, yet was he one of those few who lived and died with glory. How much more truly might all this be affirmed of Daniel the prophet than of Cato the censor! all whose virtues were but glistering sins, h and all whose praise worthy parts and practices were but “tinkling cymbals” in comparison. Daniel’s whole life was a kind of heaven, adorned with most radiant stars of divine virtues. And although we cannot say of him as Alexander of Hales did of his scholar Bonaventure in a hyperbolic strain, that Adam seemed to him not to have sinned in Bonaventure, such was his sanctity and knowledge, i yet, with more colour of truth, might the like be said of Daniel, the Jews’ jewel and the world’s darling. He wrote this book, part of it in Hebrew and part in Chaldee, all in a short but grave style, evident and elegant, being a divine polychronicon j to the world’s end, or, as one k calleth it, the Apocalypse of the Old Testament.
Ver. 1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. ] That wicked king, who killed the prophet Uriah; Jer 26:23 cut Jeremiah’s prophecy with a knife, and cast it into the fire; Jer 36:23 was a gross idolater, 2Ch 36:8 and therefore justly suffered.
Came Nebuchadnezzar.
a Lib. xii., contra Christian.
b Jerome, Eph 103, ad Paulin.
c Piscat. Epist. Dedicat. Ante Com. in Dan.
d Quod alio tempore canitur, alio cernitur. – De Vir. Perfect.
e Lib. ii.
f Dec. 4, lib. ix.
g In Vita Catonis.
h Splendida peccata.
i Sixt. Senens. Bib. Sanct., lib. iv.
j A chronicle of many events or periods. D
k Torshel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Daniel Chapter 1
It must be evident to any attentive reader that this first chapter is purely a preface to the book. It introduces us into the scene to which the prophecies, of which Daniel was either the interpreter or the vessel, are the great after-piece, the subject-matter which the Spirit of God is about to convey to us. We may therefore take advantage of this, to inquire into the peculiar nature of the book on which we are about to enter.
The properly prophetic part of Daniel begins with the second chapter. Then follow certain historical incidents, which, as I conceive, have a most intimate connection with the prophecy – if not directly, in the way of types – which show out the moral principles or the issues of the powers of the world, with which the book is occupied.
In order to understand Daniel it is necessary to bear in mind that prophecy in the Old Testament divides itself into two great parts. There were prophecies that concerned the people of God, Israel, when they were still under His government; unfaithful often, but still subject to His discipline and owned of Him to a certain extent. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and indeed many of the lesser prophets, such as Hosea, Amos, and Micah, have this first character. Israel was still recognized as God’s people, if not the whole, at least that part of the people with which God still had certain dealings in the land: of course I refer to the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which clave to the house of David. After a while they too fell, and the heir of David became the leader in rebellious idolatry against the Lord. Then a change of the utmost importance ensued. The throne of the Lord, which was established in Jerusalem, ceased altogether upon the earth. God no longer owned Israel, nor even Judah, as His people. And I call your attention particularly to this, because there are often vague thoughts as to what is meant by “the people of God” in Scripture. As Christians we look at God’s people as those that really belong to Him – His children by faith of Christ. Now there is a danger of carrying the same thoughts back to the language of the Old Testament. But it will be found, if we examine Scripture with care, that in the ancient oracles by “people of God” is meant only the Jews or Israel. Nor is it merely a certain aggregate of the elect among them, but the entire nation, or that part which still clung in a measure, though very unfaithfully, to God’s king, and whatever they might be, owned as the people of God. Then came a time when God disowned His people. This was predicted by Hosea. It was accomplished when God gave up the last king of Judah to the Chaldean conqueror. God would have sacrificed His own holiness, truth, and majesty, if He had longer tolerated the Jews or their idolatrous king.
Now it is a remarkable thing in the history of the world, that although there were certain powers of growing importance and ambition in the east, none before had been allowed to step into positive superiority to all rivals. In the west there were only hordes of wanderers, or, if some were settled, they were uncivilized barbarians. In the east and south powers had rapidly risen; one of them, Egypt, is particularly well known in connection with Israel. Another too, Asshur, is quite as ancient in its origin: indeed, we read of its name, and of certain aspirations and efforts after power, before we read of Egypt at all. These were the great rivals of the early world, and they had a civilization of their own. It might have a rude character, but that it was barbaric grandeur none can deny who believes the Scriptures, nay, who sees the relics of Egypt and Assyria. Well, these powers were constantly struggling for the mastery. But however God might use the Egyptians and Assyrians, or others less considerable, as a rod of discipline for the good of Israel, yet to no nation on earth was supremacy allowed until it was perfectly plain that God’s people were proved to be unworthy of being His witness and the scene of His government on the earth. First, then, Ephraim (the ten tribes), having sunk into hopeless idolatry, was swept away. For a long time there had been monarch after monarch only following or exceeding each other in evil; and all through it had been a scene of rebellion and idolatry. Thus God had been compelled to root such a people, that only disgraced Him, out of the land where they had been planted. Still the two tribes that clung to the house of David were owned. But clouds hung over them, and snares were laid by the enemy of the most fatal kind. At this crisis prophecy shines out in all its fulness. For prophecy always, I think, supposes failure. It never comes in during a normal state. But when ruin is impending or begun, then the lamp of prophecy shines in the dark place.
This we find true from the first. Take the revelation in Gen. 3 – that the Seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. When was it given? Not when Adam walked sinlessly, but after he and his wife were fallen. Then God appears, and His word not only judged the serpent, but took the form of promise to be realized in the true Seed – certainly a blessed disclosure of the future, on which the hope of those who believed rested. It was the condemnation of their actual state. It did not allow the faithful who followed to sink into despair, but presented an object above the ruin on the part of God, to which their hearts became attached. Again, Enoch is the person in the antediluvian world who, above all others, is said to have “prophesied,” though we do not get the record of it till one of the latest books of the New Testament. “Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” Now that the evil, found in the germ in Adam, had broken out into all but universal corruption and violence, we have a well-defined prophecy of judgment coming on the world. It was the interference of God in testimony before He acted in power. Then Noah is seen, who, still more than Enoch, was publicly connected with this evil state. I believe that Enoch’s prophecy had a remarkable application to the deluge, though it looks onward, of course, to the grand catastrophe in the last days. When a prophecy is given there is often a partial accomplishment at the time or soon after. But we must never look back at the past pledge as if the whole thing were exhausted. That would be to make Scripture of “private interpretation.” And this is the true sense of 2Pe 1:20 : “No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation.” We must take it in the vast scope of the plans of God, and the unfolding of His purposes, which alone find their consummation at the close. It is to that point that all prophecy looks. Then only we have the grand fulfilment.
Again, let us take the patriarchs, who are expressly called prophets. “He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, He reproved kings for their sakes; saying, Touch not Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm.” (Psa 105:14 , Psa 105:15 ) Their claim to this title may be explained on the same principle. They were the then interpreters of the mind of God; “called out,” because there was a new and fearful evil come into the world, which we never read of before the days of Abraham – idolatry. Worship of idols, as far as Scripture reveals it to us, is only mentioned after the flood. This was spreading everywhere, and becoming paramount even in the descendants of Shem; and, therefore, God called out a witness in word and deed separate from so flagrant iniquity. Prophecy, or a prophet, always supposes the presence of new and increasing evil, because of which God is pleased to unfold His mind with regard to the future, and to make it of present practical value to those then on the earth.
In the case of Moses it was manifest; for, though he was the great lawgiver, the golden calf was set up almost immediately after, and thus the ruin of Israel, as a people under law, was complete. And so it remained for him, as the great prophet of Israel (Deu 34:10 ), to reveal the sure and growing corruption of the people, whatever might be the resources of God’s grace at the end; as, at an earlier epoch, he had predicted the inevitable judgment of God upon Egypt. Coming lower down in the history of Israel, we have one who begins the line of prophets emphatically so called; for he is mentioned thus: “Yea, all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after,” etc. His call was at a very critical period in Israel’s history; at a time when the children of Israel had fallen into such a frightfully low state, that they were willing to use even the ark of God as a charm to preserve them from the power of their enemies. Then it was that God put His people to shame. His own ark was taken, and Ichabod was the only name that godly feeling could dictate. The glory was departed. Just about that time we hear of Samuel the prophet. If this was the token of some new crisis, equally at least did it show that God, in vindication of His own name, brings in the light of prophecy as a comfort to the hearts of those who stand for Himself.
Descending still further, we find the full outburst of prophetic light in the time of the prophet Isaiah. The reason is apparent. Not merely had Israel committed itself to idolatry, but the king, David’s son, had actually taken the pattern of the heathen altar at Damascus, and must have another made for himself in the holy city! There was a sin heinous and most insulting to God. Isaiah is set apart with unusual solemnity to the prophetic office. The evil condition of the Jews is realized by him. He sees the glory of the Lord, which draws out from him the immediate confession of his own and the people’s uncleanness. “Then said I, Woe is me, for I am undone, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.” But one of the seraphim touches his lips with a live coal, assuring him that his iniquity was taken away, and his sin purged. And he is sent with a message of judicial darkness upon the people, which must last till the cities were wasted, and the land made utterly desolate. Thus we have prophecy so much the more brilliant because the evil was manifest and profound. The consequence of the prophetic warning, where received, was a genuine spirit of repentance and of intercession. And God subsequently raised up a royal witness for Himself, so that for a time the evil was suspended.
And all this while you have prophecy coming out with more and more distinctness, directing the hearts of the saints to Him whom the virgin should conceive and bear – the Son of David, Emmanuel, that was to be the only and sure foundation for the people laid in Zion. I need not now attempt to give even an outline of the distinctive features of the prophets that followed. But this far, I trust, the great principle is clear, that prophecy, as a whole, comes in when there is ruin among the people of God. As the ruin deepens, prophecy adds fresh light in the goodness of God.
Besides this universal character of prophecy, we have seen it, first, while God is still disciplining the people and owning them as His. But there is another form of which Daniel is the great example in the Old Testament. This is, when God, no longer able to address His people as such, makes an individual to be the object of His communications.
For this is the manifest feature of Daniel. It is no longer a direct address to the people, reasoning, pleading, warning, opening out bright hopes, as in Isaiah, etc. Nor is it, as in Jeremiah, a prophet “ordained to the nations,” with most affecting appeals to Israel and Judah, or at least a remnant there. In Daniel all is changed. There is no message to Israel at all; and the first and very comprehensive prophecy contained in the book, was not at first given to the prophet himself, but rather a dream of the heathen king, Nebuchadnezzar, though Daniel was the only one who could recall it, or furnish the interpretation. The other visions were seen by Daniel only, and to him all the interpretations were given. What is the great lesson to be drawn from this? God was acting on the momentous fact that His people had forfeited their place – at least for the present. They had lost their distinctive standing as a nation – God would no longer own them. The presence of elect persons among them did not, in the least degree, arrest the divine sentence. It was not a question of there being “ten righteous” in their midst. Of a corrupt Canaanitish city, like Sodom, that was said as a reason why it should be spared. But does God ever speak so about His people? He may liken them to Sodom for their iniquity, but there can be no such hindrance to judgment in their case. On the contrary, it is expressly said in Eze 14 , that “though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it [the land of Israel], they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness “; and again, “they shall deliver neither son nor daughter.” That is, in His own land, and in the midst of His guilty people, no matter who were there, nor what their righteousness, the righteous only should be delivered, and God’s four sore judgments must be sent. And so, at this very crisis of the captivity, there were righteous men, such as the prophets themselves, and others, kindred spirits in their measure. Whatever, then, be His willingness to spare the world, God does not refrain from judging the evil of His own people, because of a handful of righteous men in their midst. “Hear this word that the Lord hath spoken against you, O children of Israel, against the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt, saying, You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore, I will punish you for all your iniquities.” (Amo 3:1 , Amo 3:2 ) Otherwise, there never could have been a national judgment of Israel at all; for there was always a line of faithful ones in their midst. The entire principle is false. In a book I lately met with, such was the plea why England should come comparatively unscathed out of the terrible judgments about to fall on the nations of the earth. There are so many good men! – such changes for the better in high and low – such benevolent and Christian institutions – the Scriptures not only printed in abundance, but everywhere circulated, read, and expounded! But these are the very grounds which, to my mind, make divine judgment inevitable. For it is quite clear from Scripture, that, if there is to be any difference in the measure, those who know His will and do it not “shall be beaten with many stripes.” A more fearful illusion can scarcely be conceived, than that the possession of a greater amount of spiritual knowledge and privilege is to be an effectual shield when the earth comes into judgment.
The Lord recalled the memory of Tyre and Sidon (Mat 11 ), but it was only to show the far greater guilt of the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done. “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.” But there was another city still more favoured (elsewhere called His own city, Mat 9:1 ), because it was where He then usually dwelt; and, therefore, was its case so aggravated in guilt. “And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works which were done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee.” In other words, the measure of privilege is ever the measure of responsibility.
We have seen, then, the startling fact that the government which God had set up in Israel (accompanied by the visible sign of His presence, i.e. the Shekinah of glory), was now to subsist no more. God Himself stripped them of their name as His people. Henceforth they were “Lo-Ammi,” not My people. That was their doom now, as far as He was concerned, whatever the ultimate designs of His grace might be: for His “gifts and calling” are “without repentance.”
Along with this sad change, and dependent on it, the prophecy of Daniel begins. And in this respect there is a strong analogy between this book and the grand prophecy of the New Testament. No doubt, in the latter, special messages were sent to the seven churches through John. But the book, as a whole, was addressed and confided to him, however much it was intended that the things should be testified in the churches. Christ sent and signified the revelation, by His angel, unto His servant John, who stands in the same sort of relation to Christendom that Daniel did to Israel. The failure was so complete that God could no longer address the prophecy directly to His people in either case. Thus there is a very serious moral sentence of God upon the condition of Christendom. It was a ruin as regards practical testimony for God – Ephesus threatened with the removal of its candlestick, if it did not repent, and Laodicea with the certainty of being spued out of the Lord’s mouth. Not but what God continued to save souls: this He always did and does. But it has nothing to do with the witness which His people are responsible to render. More than two hundred years after Judah had become “Lo-Ammi” Malachi could tell of them that feared the Lord speaking often one to another: “And they shall be Mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up My jewels, and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.” All that might be true; yet the solemn sentence of God – “not My people” – remained on them. Circumstances could affect neither His judgment of the nation nor His grace to faithful souls within it. And what was true then remains equally true now. The salvation and blessing of souls go on. But before God, that which bears the name of Christ in the world is as far from satisfying the thoughts of God about us, as the people of Israel were from fulfilling His design in them.
Accordingly, we find that the character of the book perfectly accords with the time and circumstances in which Daniel was called to be a prophet. It was when the last vestiges of God’s people were being taken away. In Jer 25:1 , the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is reckoned from the first attack. And I would just observe, that there is a little difference from what is said in Dan 2 . In Babylon, where the latter wrote, the reckoning was naturally from the time when Nebuchadnezzar succeeded to the throne upon his father’s death; whereas, in Jerusalem, where Jeremiah prophesies, it was just as naturally from the time that Nebuchadnezzar, during his father’s life, wielded the power of the kingdom, to the ruin of Jerusalem and the Jews. The truth is, the case is not uncommon, both in sacred and profane history. Whatever may be the difficulties in the word of God, they really arise from want of light. Generally, the object of the particular portion where they occur is not understood. But speaking of dates, another little thing it is well to bear in mind, which the first verse of our chapter, as compared with Jer 25:1 , gives occasion to: years are sometimes reckoned from their beginning, sometimes from their end, that is, either inclusively or exclusively. So it is in the well-known instances of the days between our Lord’s death and resurrection, and of the six or eight days before the transfiguration. Thus in Daniel it was said, “in the third year of Jehoiakim”; but in Jeremiah, “in the fourth year.” The one was the complete, the other the current year.
Looking then at the moral character of Daniel’s prophecy, the key to the ways of God at the time it was given lies in this, that God no longer exercised a direct, immediate government upon the earth. He had owned David and his seed as the kings that He had set upon the throne of Jehovah at Jerusalem. (1Ch 29:23 ) No other kings were thus recognized of God. They were emphatically His anointed, before whom even the high priest had to walk.
And here was what God intended to set forth by them: a foreshadowing of what He is going to do by and in the Christ, the true Son of David. The same thing is found throughout Scripture. First, a position is committed to man’s responsibility, and failure is immediate; then, it is taken up by Christ, who establishes it on a foundation which cannot be moved. Thus, God makes man, and sets him sinlessly in paradise, with dominion over the lower creation. Man falls at once. But God never gives up His purpose of having a man in paradise. Where shall we find it now? In the first Adam it broke down utterly. He was turned out of Eden: his race became outcasts from that day to this; and all the efforts and the material progress that man makes in this world are only so many remedial measures to hide the fact that God has driven him out of paradise. But the last Adam is God’s glorious answer to that first trust which was confided to man’s keeping – the Second Man exalted in the paradise of God. Again, Noah, as it were, begins the world afresh after the flood, and has the power of life and death first committed to his hand. The sword of magistracy was introduced. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man.” This was the root of civil government, and man was thereby made responsible to restrain or punish the violent hand. This is never reversed. Christianity, wherever received, brings in other and heavenly principles. But the world remains bound by this irreversible statute of God for its guidance. Noah, however, failed in his trust as completely as Adam had in the garden. He did not govern himself nor his family to God’s glory. He becomes intoxicated, and his younger son insults him: and the issue is, that, instead of the universal blessing of righteous rule, a curse falls upon a portion of his descendants, So, in due time, the principle of a king, responsible to rule righteously over God’s people, was tried in the house of David. And what is found,, Even before David died, there was such dreadful sin that the sword was never to depart from that very family which ought to have secured blessing to Israel. Did God therefore abandon His designs? In no wise. The Lord Jesus takes up headship, government, and the throne of David’s Son. And so with all the other principles that broke down in man’s hands; all will be illustrated and established for ever in the person and glory of the Lord Jesus.
We saw that Jerusalem ceases to be Jehovah’s throne. And Jeremiah shows us the holy city counted as one among the other nations; and as most privileged, so the first to drink the cup of God’s fury. Babylon must drink it also, but Israel first. It is in the same chapter (Jer 25 ) that you have the distinct prediction of the seventy years’ captivity, during which Judah was to be carried away to Babylon; and then should come at the end the judgment of the power that led them captive. But while Jeremiah predicts the rising supremacy of Babylon, and its final judgment, and that, too, not as a matter of history alone, but as the type of the world’s overthrow in the day of the Lord, we have not there the details that intervene. So Ezekiel, among the captives at Chebar, brings us up in the first half of his prophecy to the time of the great struggle for the chief place among the powers of the world. Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, desired to have it; but, as the Assyrian before him, he is destroyed, and Babylon remains the ambitious claimant of universal dominion. There were these three powers, Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon; the latter comparatively young as a great kingdom, though founded probably upon the oldest associations of all, viz., Babel – “the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom.” They were like fierce animals, held in by an unseen leash till the experiment was fairly tried, whether the daughter of Zion would walk humbly and obediently with the Lord, or whether she would turn from her backsliding and repent at His call. But she did neither. This left room for what had never been seen before – the rise of universal empire.
After the flood, and the judgment of the Lord at Babel, the great dispersion of nations took place – families, kindreds, tongues, and lands, all separate. Israel was the centre of this system of independent nations. So it is written in Deu 32:8 : “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance; when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” All was arranged with reference to Israel, for “Jehovah’s portion is His people, Jacob is the lot of His inheritance.” They were the divine centre for the earth, and God will yet make good His purpose. Though completely frustrated through the wickedness of the people, Israel must yet be His centre of nations in this world, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. This, too, was first tried in the hands of man, and failed; then it is turned over into the hands of Christ, who will establish it in due time. Israel’s pride made it to depend at first upon their obedience to God. At Sinai they undertook the responsibility of the law. Whenever a sinner attempts to stand upon that ground with God, he is lost. The only safe and lowly ground is, not what Israel would be for God, but what God would be in faithfulness and love and pity toward Israel. And so it is with every soul at all times. Israel accepting that condition, the law became their scourge, and God was compelled to judge them. Death accordingly was certain, spite of God’s marvellous patience. People fail, priests fail, and kings at last became the leaders in all evil. God was compelled to give up His people. From that moment all that held in check the nations of the earth was taken away, and the vast rival dynasties struggled for the mastery. God no longer had a people that He owned as the theatre of His government. If their heart had only turned to Him, like the needle to the pole, spite of quivering to and fro, there would have been long-suffering (as indeed there was to the uttermost), and the intervention of divine power would have established them in blessing for evermore. But when not only the people, but the king anointed of Jehovah, blotted out His very name from the land; when His glory was given to another in His own temple, all was over for the present, and “Lo-Ammi” was the sentence of God. They had become now the most bitter in their idolatry, being apostates from the living God, and, if maintained, would have been the active champions of heathen abominations. By God’s judgment, therefore, the people and the king at length passed into captivity.
At this crisis Daniel appears at the court of the Babylonish monarch, according to the sure word of Isaiah to King Hezekiah. (Isa 39 ) “The times of the Gentiles” (for so runs the remarkable phrase in Luk 21 ) were begun, and of those times Daniel was the prophet. They are not always to run on; they have a limit assigned by God, when the present interruption of His direct earthly government shall cease, and Israel shall again be acknowledged as the people of God. During this interval, as we saw, their distinctive calling being lost, God allows in His providence a new system of government, the system of imperial unity, to rise up in the great successive Gentile powers It is no longer independent nations, each having its own ruler, but God Himself sanctioning, in His providence, the surrender of all nations of the earth to the absorbing authority of a single individual. This is what characterizes “the times of the Gentiles.” Such a thing was unexampled before, though there may have been strong kingdoms encroaching upon weaker ones. Even the infidel historian is compelled to recognize, as all history does, the four great empires of the ancient world. Israel was now merged in the mass of nations. Hence that expression comes in, “the God of heaven.” God had, as it were, retreated from the immediate control of the earth, in which character, at least in type, He had governed Israel. This had now wholly disappeared, and God, acting sovereignly, and at a distance, so to speak, from the scene – “the God of heaven” – gave certain defined powers of the Gentiles to succeed each other in a world-wide empire.
Before these preliminary remarks close, I add a little word on the great moral features of this chapter; for if they are brought out prominently in Daniel, they were not written for his sake only, but for ours, if we desire the same blessing.
The chapter opens with the scene of the complete prostration of the Jews before their conqueror. They were now besieged and overwhelmed in their last stronghold. “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God, which he carried into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.” Next we have the fulfilment of the remarkable prophecy of Isaiah, already alluded to. Hezekiah had been sick, nigh unto death. At his urgent desire to live, God had added to his days fifteen years, and this was sealed to him by a striking sign; the sun returned ten degrees by which it was gone down. But it had been better to have learnt well the lesson of death and resurrection, than to have life prolonged, fall into a snare, and hear of the sorrows that yet awaited his house and, with it, the eclipse of Israel’s hopes. Whether a sign so remarkable was what chiefly attracted the notice of a nation the most celebrated in the ancient world for its astronomical lore, I cannot say. Certain it is, that at that time the king of Babylon sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, and this, not merely because he was recovered of his sickness, but to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land. (2Ch 32:31 ) Instead of going softly all his years, Hezekiah displays his treasures to the ambassadors of Merodach-baladan. “There was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not.” “Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
Here we see this accomplished. “And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes (or nobles); children in whom was no blemish, but well-favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” Accordingly “the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat and of the wine which he drank; so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.” Along with this, the names of Daniel and of his three companions are changed. It would appear, that the desire was to efface the memory of the true God, by giving them names derived from the idols of Babylon. “The prince of the eunuchs gave to Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego”; in all probability names derived from Bel and the other false gods then worshipped in Chaldea.
And now let us mark what the Holy Ghost records, as peculiarly showing Daniel’s heart for God, that in his moral ways he might be a vessel to honour, and meet for the Master’s use. How remarkably is the power of God superior to all circumstances! Daniel and his companions say nothing to the change of names, painful as it must have been. They were slaves the property of another, who had the authority to call them as he pleased. “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank.” Naturally they would have received such fare with thankfulness; faith works, and it is refused. It was connected with the false gods of the country, being a part of the daily food of an idolatrous king. Even in their own land, and apart from idols, God insisted upon separating between things clean and unclean, and much that was prized among the Gentiles was an abomination to a Jew. The law was stringent as to these defilements, and Daniel, as a Jew, was under its obligations. Christianity comes in and delivers the conscience from anxiety as to such things. “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,” Paul says, “that eat, asking no question for conscience’ sake.” And so at a feast. If it were known, however, that certain food had been offered unto idols, the Christian was not to eat, both for the sake of those that named the fact and for conscience’ sake. But for the Jew, there was unqualified separation required. Daniel at once shows himself decided for the true God. It was not to him a question of doing at Babylon what was done there, but of the will of God as enjoined upon Israel. “Therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.” God had meanwhile wrought in His providence that Daniel should find special favour. But this did not lessen the trial of faith. And when difficulties and dangers were pleaded, still he has confidence in God. We are all apt to find good reasons for bad things; but Daniel’s eye was single, and his whole body full of light – the only means of understanding the mind of God. He did not consider what was pleasing to himself; he did not fear to risk the peril; he looked at the matter in connection with God. He only asks that they may be proved for ten days; “and let them give us pulse to eat and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon,” etc. Not “pleasant bread,” but that which spoke of humbling themselves before God, was what a true heart felt to be their suited food; such fare as the lowest in that proud and luxurious city might have disdained. What is the result of this trial? Daniel and his companions turn out “fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.” Thus they were spared further trouble on that score.
But that is not all. There was the positive blessing of God, in giving them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom. And of Daniel it is said, that he was made to understand “all visions and dreams.” They were prepared of God, each for what he had afterwards to fill. God was their teacher, and the trial of their faith was a needed, essential part of their training in His school. Then, when they stood before the king, none was found like them. When the king inquired of them, he found them, in all matters of wisdom and understanding, “ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.” (Verses 17-20)
If we, too, are to understand the Scriptures, I believe that we must travel the path of separation from the world. Nothing more destroys spiritual intelligence than merely floating with the stream of men’s opinions and ways. The prophetic word is that which shows us the end of all man’s projects and ambition. “And the world passeth away, and the lusts thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” Doubtless, “the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” But all the plans of men will come to nothing first, though “they shall labour in the very fire, and shall weary themselves for very vanity.” Himself shall do it. If there be one Scripture truth which stands out more prominently than another, or rather which underlies all truth, it is the total failure of man in everything that pertains to God, before His grace interferes and triumphs. And this is true, not of unconverted men only, but of His people of old, and of His Church since. Nor is there any advantage greater for the enemy, short of destroying the foundations, than the mixing up of the saints of God with the world, and the consequent darkening of all spiritual intelligence in those who ought to be its light. God would have us in practical communion with Himself: in His light we see light. If we see the end of all the plots of Satan to thwart the work of God, it separates us from what leads thereto, and joins us with all that is dear to Him. Then “the path of the just is as the shining light, which shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” So walking, we shall understand the word of God. It is not a question of intellectual capacity and learning. I am confident that human erudition in the things of God is only so much rubbish, wherever it is made to be anything more than a servant. Unless Christians can keep what they know under their feet, they are incapable of profiting fully by the word of God. Otherwise, whether a man know much or little, he becomes its slave, and it usurps the place of the Spirit of God.
Faith is the sole means and power of spiritual understanding; and faith puts and keeps us in subjection to the Lord, and in separation from this evil age. Daniel was separated from what, to a Jew, dishonoured God, and God blessed him with wisdom and understanding.
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 1:1-2
1In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god.
Dan 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim This is Babylonian dating (also used by the northern tribes, Israel) dating, while Jer 25:1; Jer 25:9; Jer 46:2 are Egyptian dating (also used by Judean scribes). Obviously Daniel was in Babylon and Jeremiah was back in Judah. Jehoiakim (609-598 B.C.) was one of Josiah’s sons who was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necco II after he exiled Jehoahaz, another son of Josiah, who reigned only three months. His name (BDB 220) means YHWH raises up or YHWH establishes, but he was an evil king (cf. 2Ki 23:37; 2Ch 36:5; Jeremiah 36).
Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon The name (BDB 613) in Babylonian has several possible meanings.
1. Nebo, protect (the) boundary (or frontier)
2. Nebo, protect (my) progeny
3. Nebo, protect (my) inheritance
4. Nebo, protect (the) crown
5. Nebo, protect (thy) servant
In Daniel, like Jeremiah, it is spelled two ways, Nebuchadrezzar (most accurate spelling) and Nebuchadnezzar (found in OT 27 times). The difference is due to the transliteration from Babylonian to Aramaic/Hebrew. But why both spellings are in one book is uncertain, possibly different scribes were used. The original name in Akkadian would have been Nabu-kudurri-usur.
He was not really king yet because his father Nabopolassar (626-605 B.C.) did not die until the summer of 605 B.C. He was the crown prince in charge of the military campaign. We have no other historical record of this raid. However, 2Ki 24:1-7 and 2Ch 36:1-7 surely imply a confrontation between Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim before 597 B.C. Jerusalem seems to have fallen into Babylonian hands in 605 B.C. (Daniel and his friends taken), 597 B.C. (Jehoiachim and nobles and artisans taken), 586 B.C. (general deportation) and 582 B.C. (all who could be found taken).
Dan 1:2 the Lord gave. . .God granted. . .God gave These phrases are found in Dan 2:2; Dan 2:9 (both Qal IMPERFECT), and 17 (Qal PERFECT). Each combine to show God’s control of history! This is a recurrent theme in Daniel. In the ancient world every army fought under the banner/name of their god. Success in battle showed the supremacy of one god over another. However, the Bible clearly asserts that it was because of Israel’s and Judah’s sins and rebellion against YHWH that YHWH allowed, yes even engineered, the invasion of the promised land.
the Lord This is the Hebrew term Adon (BDB 10), which was commonly used in the sense of husband, owner, master (cf. Dan 1:10 of Nebuchadnezzar). It is comparable to (1) Ba’al in the OT and (2) the NT term kurios. When used of YHWH it denotes His rule and reign.
In English Lord is used (1) to translate Adon and (2) because the Jews became nervous of pronouncing the covenant name for God – YHWH, all capitals LORD became the way to designate it. For pronunciation the Jews used the vowels for Adon with the consonants for YHWH. See Special Topic: NAMES FOR DEITY .
Judah The Jewish nation that developed from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was organized around thirteen tribes (Joseph’s two sons became tribes). These tribes were united under Saul, David, and Solomon (the united monarchy), but split because of Solomon’s sin (cf. 1 Kings 11) and Rehoboam’s arrogance (cf. 1 Kings 12) in 922 B.C. The northern tribes under Jeroboam I became Israel and the southern tribes (Simeon, Benjamin, Judah, and most Levites) became Judah.
vessels of the house of God This refers to the utensils and furniture of the temple (cf. Jer 27:19-20; 2Ch 36:7). These are mentioned again in Dan 5:2 and Ezr 1:5-11.
Shinar This is another name for Babylon (cf. Gen 10:10; Gen 11:2; Gen 14:1; Gen 14:9; Isa 11:11; Zec 5:11). The meaning of Shinar is uncertain (BDB 1042). It somehow relates to the Sumerian civilization of southern Iraq (cf. Gen 10:10), which is the earliest known civilization to use writing (cuneiform script on clay tablets). It is the site of the building of the tower of Babel (cf. Gen 11:1-9). It becomes an idiom for evil and rebellion (cf. Zec 5:11).
to the house of his god This is literally gods – Elohim (BDB 43). Marduk was the chief neo-Babylonian god. This god is also known as Bel (Lord, cf. Jer 51:44) and in Hebrew as Merodack (cf. Jer 50:2). He took over the functions of En-lil (storm god and creator, see Special Topic: ANE Creation and Flood Myths) about the time of Hammurabi in the second millennium B.C. Putting the vessels of YHWH in his temple was (1) a sign of respect, so as not to offend the gods, but mostly (2) a sign of YHWH’s defeat by Marduk.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
In the third year, &c. It was in the third year of Jehoiakim that Nebuchadnezzar set out from Babylon; and Daniel, writing there, speaks of the starting, not of the arrival at Jerusalem. See note on “came”, below. In the fourth year Jehovah says by Jeremiah (Dan 25:9), “I will send”. The date would be 497 B.C. and Daniel’s sixteenth year, he being born probably in 513 B.C. (Josiah’s eighteenth year).
came = went, set out, or proceeded. Hebrew. bo’, which means to go or come, according to the context and the point of view. It is rendered “went” in Gen 7:9, Gen 7:16; Gen 15:17. Exo 5:1. Num 8:22; Num 14:24. Jdg 6:19; Jdg 18:18. 1Sa 17:12. 2Sa 2:24; 2Sa 12:16; 2Sa 17:25; 2Sa 20:3, 2Sa 20:8. 1Ch 2:21. Psa 66:12. Eze 36:20, Eze 36:21, Eze 36:22; Eze 41:3. It is translated “go”, in the sense of proceed or set out, in Deu 4:1; Deu 6:18; Deu 8:1; Deu 11:8; Deu 12:26; Deu 22:13; Deu 26:3. Jos 23:12. Rth 3:4. 1Sa 25:5, &c. Jon 1:3, &c. It is rendered “entered ” (of setting out) in 2Ch 27:2. Job 38:16, Job 38:22. Jer 9:21; Jer 14:18; Jer 17:25; Jer 22:4; Jer 34:10; Jer 37:16. Lam 1:10. Eze 44:2; Eze 46:2. Eze 11:40, Eze 11:41. Amo 5:5. Oba 1:11. Zec 5:4. Nebuchadnezzar did set out in Jehoiakim’s third year, but was delayed by fighting the battle with Pharaoh-necho at Carchemish. In the next (the fourth) year (Jer 46:2), he carried out the object with which he set out. Compare 2Ki 24:1, and 2Ch 36:6, 2Ch 36:7.
Nebuchadnezzar. This name is so spelled (i.e. with “n” instead of “r”) by Berosus (who wrote his history from the monuments, Cent. 3, B. C). Both spellings were in vogue. Ezekiel uses the “r”; and Jeremiah uses “r” before en. 27; and then eight times the “n” (Dan 27:6 where Nebuchadnezzar is once specially called Jehovah’s appointed servant, 8, 20; Dan 28:3, Dan 28:11, Dan 28:14; Dan 29:1, Dan 29:3); and after that, always with “r” except twice (Dan 34:1; Dan 39:5). It is spelled with “n” in 2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:10, 2Ki 24:11; 2Ki 25:1, 2Ki 25:8, 2Ki 25:22; 1Ch 6:15. 2Ch 36:6, 2Ch 36:7, 2Ch 36:10, 2Ch 36:13. Ezr 1:7; Ezr 2:1. Neh 7:6. Est 2:6).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
There are men who spend their lifetimes seeking to prove that the Bible is not all that it purports to be. Their whole premise for their doctorates are trying to take some aspect of the Bible and show that it isn’t all that it claims to be. One of the favorite tactics of these men are to take the various books of the Bible and to try to prove that they are not written by those authors that they claim to be written by. And the book of Daniel has come under this cloak of what they call “higher criticism,” as there have been many who have tried to prove that the book of Daniel was not really written by Daniel. And one of the basic premises for their proof is that it would be impossible to describe with such accuracy events that had not yet taken place. Therefore, it was written by some man a couple of centuries later, after the fact, and that he put the name of Daniel to it.
And they, of course, take the fact that there are about three Greek words in the book of Daniel and there are some Persian words in the book of Daniel. And it is written partially in Hebrew and partially in the Aramaic, the ancient language of Syria, which is like the Chaldaic language. And they used this as their basis of proof that Daniel was not really the author. But to me, the fact that he uses some Greek words, Persian words, and both Hebrew and Aramaic only go to prove that Daniel indeed was the author and was all that the book purports him to be; that is a wise man, a counselor, and in the court of the king, where he would have met Greeks, he would have met Persians, he would have met people from all over the world in his capacity as an officer in the Babylonian kingdom.
And I think that these endeavors by these people to bring doubt upon the Word of God has no value at all. They have written their doctorates and many expositions on it, but it’s a waste of time and energy to consider their arguments, just to say that with each argument they present there is a very powerful argument to refute what they presented. And when you look at the whole thing, it turns out that indeed Daniel was the author, and they have not proved anything but their own foolishness. So I don’t like to get all involved in those areas of reproving that which is already true. Truth doesn’t need to be defended. And so we aren’t going to go into the arguments of the authorship of the book. We’ll just assume that it is all that is purports to be, that Daniel indeed was the author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we will leave the critics and those men who love to tamper and dabble in those things to their on follies.
One of the tragic things about a seminary education is that you learn all of these arguments. In fact, you’ll spend a whole semester in seeking to determine the authorship of Daniel, and you’ll study all of the papers that have been written by the various people and the arguments pro and con on the authorship of Daniel and you can use a whole semester the study of Daniel. And the whole semester would be involved in trying to determine authorship, and you’ll never really get into what it says. And that, to me, is a waste of time. What does God have to say to me? That’s what’s important.
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it ( Dan 1:1 ).
So this would be the year 607 B.C., the first siege of Jerusalem when it fell to Nebuchadnezzar.
And the Lord gave to Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with the part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar into the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes ( Dan 1:2-3 );
Now this in itself is a fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah, chapter 39, versus 6 and 7, where Isaiah was speaking about how that Judah was going to fall to Babylon. And he declares, “Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house,” he’s talking to the king, Hezekiah, “and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, they shall take away. And they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”
Now this was hundred years earlier, actually, 105 years, in 712 B.C. Hezekiah had been sick and he prayed to God and he recovered from his sickness. And there came certain emissaries from Babylon with messages with congratulations that you’re well again. And Hezekiah showed these men from Babylon all of the treasures there in the house of God. And so Isaiah came to Hezekiah and he said, “Who were these men that where here?” And he said, “They’re emissaries from a country that’s far away, place called Babylon.” And he said, “What did they want?” And he said, “Well, they just wanted to tell me that they were glad that I recovered from my illness.” And he said, “What did you show them?” And he said, “I showed them all of the treasures in the house of God.” And Isaiah became angry and he prophesied that these Babylons would come back and they would carry away all of that treasure to Babylon and they’ll take the young men and the princes and carry them away captives. A hundred and five years later it happened.
Nebuchadnezzar came and, as the scripture here records, he carried away the treasures from the house of God to put in the house of his god in Babylon. And then he ordered that they bring some of these fine young men and the princes and all from Israel in order that they might groom them to stand in the Babylonian court. And so they were, they had chosen,
Children in whom was no blemish, but well-favored [good looking], skillful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such has had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans ( Dan 1:4 ).
So they took the cream of the young men. They took those who were skillful in science and understanding, good looking, strong. And they carried them away to Babylon to teach them the Chaldean language in order that they might stand in the court of Nebuchadnezzar as an advisor and as a counselor to Nebuchadnezzar.
So the king appointed unto them the daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank: so he nourished them for three years, then at the end thereof he might bring them before the king ( Dan 1:5 ).
The idea was, of course, three years of training, learning the Chaldean language, learning the customs of the court and all in order that they might stand in the court of the king. Now, the king’s meat was meat that no doubt was sacrificed to his pagan gods. In those days a person, whenever they butchered a lamb or a cow or whatever, they would usually offer it as a sacrifice to their gods and then they would go ahead and eat it themselves. In other words, you sort of roast it and you roast… you take the fat and burn it unto the gods, but it was offered as an oblation or a sacrifice to the gods and then you ate it.
The butchering was sort of a religious ritual and this, of course, carried on far beyond the Babylonian period on into the New Testament. It was a common practice among the Greeks and all to have the same type of a religious ritual in the butchering of any animal. So you would butcher it and offer the blood and all as an oblation unto your god, and then they would take the meat and serve it in the restaurants or they would sell it in the butcher shops and all. And it was a real problem for a Christian who wanted to eat meat. You know, you wouldn’t want to eat meat that had been offered as a sacrifice to some pagan god. And so it was a real problem, because it was hard to buy meat that wasn’t killed in a ritualistic way.
So Paul the apostle, in order to help the Corinthians, said, “Hey look, when you go into the butcher shop to buy a steak, don’t ask the butcher, ‘Was this offered to a god?’ You should just buy it, don’t ask any questions, you know. And for your conscience’s sake, buy it and take it home and enjoy it. And if you go out to eat dinner at somebody’s house, don’t say, ‘Was this offered to a god as a sacrifice?'” He said, “Just eat what is set before you asking no questions.” And that’s where that comes from, it was… it’s when you are visiting someone and they offer you roast beef or something, just eat what is set before you asking no questions, for conscience’s sake. Because, he said, “We realize that it really doesn’t make any difference. You know we receive everything with thanksgiving and all, and all things are to be received.”
But Daniel did not want to have any part of eating meat that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, and so he requested that he be freed from this particular portion that the king offered in a few moments. But that’s to give you the reason why Daniel did not want to eat the king’s meat.
Now from the children of Judah there was Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah ( Dan 1:6 ):
In the Hebrew these are actually beautiful names. All of them relate to God. Daniel means God is Judge. Hananiah is beloved of the Lord. What a beautiful name, Hananiah. Some of you young parents wondering what you might name your next son. It’s really a beautiful name, beloved of the Lord. I love that name. Mishael, who is as God? And Azariah, the Lord is my help. And so they had beautiful names all relating in some way to the Lord.
But the prince of the eunuchs gave them [Babylonian] names [that all related to the Babylonian deities]: and so to Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar ( Dan 1:7 );
Which means Baal’s prince. Baal was one of the gods of the Babylonians.
to Hananiah [he gave the name] of Shadrach ( Dan 1:7 );
And Shadrach means illumined by the sun god.
to Mishael, [he gave the name] of Meshach ( Dan 1:7 );
Which means who is like Shak? Shak was another one of the Babylonian deities.
and to Azariah, [he gave the name] Abednego ( Dan 1:7 ).
Which means the servant of Nego, which was another one of the Babylonian deities. So Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego, Belteshazzar, these are all the profane names that were given to them by the eunuch in Babylon as they took away from them their Hebrew names which related to God.
But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself ( Dan 1:8 ).
Daniel did not want to defile himself with this meat offered to pagan deities with the wine. And so he requested that he not have to eat it.
Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto to Daniel, I fear the lord the king, who has appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall you make me endanger of my head before the king ( Dan 1:9-10 ).
Now look, Daniel, I am fearful of the king. I respect him. And he gave me the command to feed you this stuff, and if you don’t eat this and you guys get thin and skinny, and then my head is in danger because I’m the one in charge of making sure that you’re strong and healthy when you come to stand before him.
Then said Daniel to Melzar, who was [the chief or] the prince of the eunuchs ( Dan 1:11 )
And he said, “Let’s just have a testing period for ten days.”
let them give us pulse [which is a grain cereal] to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat the portion of the king’s meat: and as you see, deal with your servants. So he consented to this matter, and for ten days. And at the end of the ten days their countenances [that is, Daniel and his friends] appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all of the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat. So Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and they were able to eat the grains [the vegetables. Thus Melzar] and for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all of the learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days [that is, the three years that they were in this training period] the king had said that they should bring them in, and then the prince of the eunuchs brought them before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king communed with them; and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah: that stood before the king ( Dan 1:12-19 ).
And therefore they were brought to stand before him.
And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all of his magicians and astrologers that were in all of his realm. And Daniel continued [through the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson, Belshazzar] and even into the first year of king Cyrus ( Dan 1:20-21 ).
So on through the reign of Darius and King Cyrus.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Dan 1:1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Sin always brings its punishment. King Jehoiakim did evil in the sight of the Lord, so God used Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to be the rod in his hand to scourge his sinful people and their wicked king.
Dan 1:2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand,
It was not merely that Nebuchadnezzar was strong enough to overcome the Jews; but God handed over his people into Nebuchadnezzars hand. The enemy cannot touch the Church of God without the divine permission.
Dan 1:2. With part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.
See how holy things, once used for the noblest purposes, become of no further service when the Spirit of God is gone from the Church. You know that when the Philistines captured the ark of God, and put it in the temple of Dagon, the fish god fell down broken before the ark. Nothing of this kind happened in Babylon. The holy vessels were put into the heathen temple, and no miraculous result followed, for God cares nothing for golden vessels in and of themselves. When sin has polluted his people, their precious things are nothing to him. They may go where men please to carry them. All their value lies in God accepting the service rendered through them. So, brother, you may keep up your attendance at the Lords supper, and your preachings, and your gatherings for worship; but they will all be nothing without the Spirit of God. See how the Lords supper is turned into the sacrifice of the mass, and how baptism is represented as the channel or medium of regeneration, when once the Spirit of God has gone from the divinely-appointed ordinances. Besides these holy vessels, Nebuchadnezzar took the best of the people of the land, and carried them away captive. He singled out the rich and the noble, those who had education and other attainments, while he left the poorest of the land behind. Sometimes those who are the most exalted will have the most suffering.
Dan 1:3-4. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the kings seed, and of the princes; Children
Or, youths,
Dan 1:4. In whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the kings palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Nebuchadnezzar was, in many respects, an enlightened ruler. He looked upon this as one of the best things that he could do for his court and vast empire, that he should pick out the best of the young men of every nation, who should bring their national knowledge with them; and then, being sprightly in body and nimble in mind, should be trained to become counselors, or advisers of the court, or be prepared to fill important offices as they became vacant.
Dan 1:5. And the king appointed them a daily provision of the kings meat, and of the wine which he drank:
Treating them exceedingly well, thinking, perhaps, that the very food they ate might help to tone their minds for the work to which he had called them. He wished to make them into true Chaldeans, so be ordained that they must eat of the meat he ate, and drink of the wine he drank.
Dan 1:5. So nourishing them three years,
Putting them to college, as it were, for three years,
Dan 1:5-6. That at the end thereof they might stand before the king. Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
You know these mens names. You will recognize them when you hear them in their altered form.
Dan 1:7. Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names:
This was to Chaldeanize them, to take away from them everything Jewish.
Dan 1:7. For he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.
Now these young mens Jewish names had, each one of them, the name of God wrought into their texture. I need not stay to bring it out; but there is a signification about each name connecting it with God. You hear in two of them the sound of El, which is a name of God; and in the other two, the termination Iah, which brings out the name Jehovah. The new names that were given to them appear to have been connected with idols; at all events, it was so with Belteshazzar and Abed-nego, or Abednego. The intent was to make Babylonians of them.
Dan 1:8. But Daniel purposed in his heart
I always like to come across a but when there is any scheme of this kind on. When the plan is to seduce men from right, then it is a happy thing to have a but, but, but, But Daniel purposed in his heart, determined, settled, fixed it,
Dan 1:8. That he would not defile himself with the portion of the kings meat, nor with the wine which he drank:
Daniel here mentions only himself; but the three others were one with him in the resolve and the request. He was the leader. Sometimes there would be no Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, if there was not a Daniel. The other three might never have had the strength of mind, if it had not been for the Daniel, who dared to stand alone; but having such a brave leader, they dared to stand with him. We often owe much to spiritually-minded men, who are able to help others to take a right course.
Dan 1:8-9. Therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
It was like the case of Joseph and Potiphar. Daniels gentle disposition, his loving ways, his open and frank spirit, had won upon the prince of the eunuchs, so that he not only regarded him with favor, but even had a tender love for him. God has the hearts of all men under his control, and he may give his people favor where they least expect it.
Dan 1:10. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.
What a reign of terror there is in a despotic country, where kings can do as they will! For the smallest offense, a mans head may be in danger.
Dan 1:11-12. Then said Daniel to Melzar whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
I like it that the Holy Ghost uses their old names whenever it is proper that they should be used. May we never lose our old names! I mean, our new names, for they have grown old with some of us now. May we ever be known as the servants of God, and not as Chaldeans! The prince of the eunuchs gave Daniel a kind of hint, that, if the officer under him chose to take the responsibility of altering the food and drink, he might do so, and the prince would not interfere with the experiment. So Daniel turns to Melzar, and says to him, Prove thy servants for a suitable time. Let us have pulse to eat, and water to drink. He put his request in an extreme light, in order to be quite sure that nothing brought to him would come from the kings table.
Dan 1:13. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the kings meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
If we do fall off, and grow thin, and look pale and ill through this coarse food, as you think it, well then, alter it; and if, on the other hand, we should be as well as those who have eaten the kings meat, and drunk the kings wine, then let us keep to our pulse and water.
Dan 1:14. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
A round number, standing for a sufficient period to afford a fair test.
Dan 1:15. And at the end of days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the kings meat.
I doubt not that the satisfaction of heart which they had in keeping themselves undefiled tended to give them a good digestion, and thus they were more likely to be well than were the others.
Dan 1:16-17. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom:
God can help us in our study. We may pray as much over what we have to learn as over what we have to do. I believe that, often, a difficult problem can be best solved by prayer. All true knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom are the gifts of God.
Dan 1:17-19. And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king.
They were made to be his attendants, his advisers, these very men who had been so absurd as not to eat the food from the royal table, so obstinate as to consider that they would defile themselves if they did. It is these absurd and obstinate people who cannot be bent, but must be straight; the upright men, who shall stand before kings, for God is with them.
Dan 1:20. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
They communed with God, and that was better than being magicians or stargazers. Men of God are ten times better than all that lot put together.
Dan 1:21. And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Those two words summarize the whole of Daniels history: Daniel continued. May God give to each of us here grace to continue as Daniel did!
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Dan 1:1-3
Comments on Dan 1:1-3 by Mark Dunagan
The name Daniel means, God is Judge or a judge who pronounces judgment in the name of God. Little is known of Daniels family background. From the testimony of his contemporaries he was known for his righteousness (Eze 14:14; Eze 14:20) and his wisdom (Eze 28:3). He is mentioned in these passages with Noah and Job, and with them are considered real people of history. He is also alluded to in Hebrews chapter 11 as one who by faith shut the mouths of lions. Daniel was born into the royal family (Dan 1:3; Dan 1:6). He was physically attractive and mentally sharp (Dan 1:4). He lived at least until the third year of Cyrus, that is, until 536 B.C. (10:1). Therefore, he must have been a young man when Nebuchadnezzar took him captive in 605 B.C. (Dan 1:4). If he were 16 when captured, he was around 85 in Cyrus third year. Daniel is the writer of this book, for Daniel names himself (speaking in the first person) as one receiving the revelations (Dan 8:1; Dan 9:2), and he is ordered to preserve the book in which these words are found (Dan 12:4). Added to this, Jesus placed His stamp of approval on Daniels status as a prophet, which was spoken through Daniel the prophet (Mat 24:15), and quotes from the book of Daniel assigning Daniel as the author (Mat 24:15; Dan 9:27; Dan 11:31).
The book is very unified, for example the temple vessels are carried into Babylon in chapter 1 and they will become an issue in chapter 5. We are told that Daniel and his companions gain places of importance before the king and this helps explain the later animosity of their opponents. We are told that Daniel was there when the Medo-Persians arrived and this prepares us for his confrontation with the lions. The fact that manuscript fragments (of all 12 chapters) from the book of Daniel were found in Qumran, written perhaps in the second century B.C., preclude the notion that Daniel was written in 165 B.C., as many critics suggest. The reason that many reject Daniel being written shortly after 536 B.C. is that this would mean that Daniel accurately predicted the future world empires that would follow the Babylonian Empire (Dan 2:36 ff). And this would mean that God does exist and that He spoke through Daniel. The last thing that some scholars, even bible scholars want is an all-powerful God running around lose, telling them what to do – and judging them at the last day. The trouble with too many experts is that they want to tell the rest of us how to think and live, but they dont want an expert or authority over them.
Purposes of the Book
The book demonstrates Daniel and his friends personal devotion to God in very difficult circumstances. Basically four teenage boys are taken over 1000 miles into a distant empire and there the attempt is made to systematically brainwash them and destroy their faith, and instead of weakening, they refuse to compromise, even upon the pain of death (Daniel 3). And 70 years later, Daniel is still faithful (chapter 6). The book also emphasizes Gods complete control over even the most power nations. He establishes kings and removes them. It was this great truth that Nebuchadnezzar came to understand (Dan 4:35). The book demonstrates how God protected His people even when they were in captivity.
Languages
The book of Daniel is bilingual. From 2:4 to 7:28 it is written in Aramaic; the rest is Hebrew. The comments between Dan 2:4 and Dan 7:28 one primarily designed to teach the world powers of those days a lesson, and this may be the reason that it was written in the language which was the world language of the time.
There is a God in Babylon
In the year 605 B.C., the third year of the Judean king Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came and besieged Jerusalem. Nothing is said about him sacking or destroying the city, this will not be done until 586 B.C. (2Ch 36:17-19).
Dan 1:2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand: This phrase sets the tone for the book. Here we have a clear reference to the power of God and His sovereignty over all the nations. No one is victorious unless it is given to him. None is a ruler unless God gives to him the kingdom (Dan 2:37). It reminds Jewish readers that Jerusalem did not fall because God was weak, but because Gods people had sinned and He was punishing them. God allows His temple to be plundered and some vessels removed and taken to Babylon. Im reminded of much earlier days when the Philistines had victory over Israel (See 1 Samuel 4-6). They took captive the ark of God but discovered to their dismay that they had a tiger by the tail. Belshazzar will have a similar experience in chapter 5 (Daniel, McGuiggan, p. 29).
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
During the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Daniel came into favor and power. The king seems to have been impressed by the people he had conquered. He desired that some of the choicest of their young men be included among his own confidential servants.
Among those selected were four especially named, among whom was Daniel. They were set apart for training and preparation for their official duties. This training lasted three years. They had special physical attention, and their food and drink were supplied from the king’s table.
Daniel at once manifested his strength of character in purposing to abstain from the king’s meat and wine. He was courteous, but he asked Tor a ten days’ test. The test vindicated his purpose, and he and his friends were allowed to proceed with their training. At the end of that training they were presented to Nebuchadnezzar, were approved by him, and appointed to positions in the kingdom.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Moral Courage Rewarded
Dan 1:1-21
These young men of noble Jewish families were brought to Babylon to receive education for the civil service. Their names were altered to break, so far as possible, their connection with the past. The food provided probably contravened Lev 3:17. According to the usual custom it had been presented before an idol, 1Co 8:10. Note those words: Daniel purposed in his heart. It is all important to resolve in ones heart that certain things are not possible for us. Too many of us have a secret reserve. We barricade the front door but leave the back door on the latch. We ought to realize the extent to which Paul referred when he said, dead to sin. God always cooperates with His servants when they are true to Him. He brought Daniel into favor; He gave him skill; He caused his face and that of his three friends, to bear the hue of health. Let us trust Him to do His part! This is the secret of continuance, Dan 1:21.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Chapter One The Key To Spiritual Discernment
The first chapter of the book of Daniel, as noted on the chart, is introductory. It sets forth the appropriate moral condition of one who desires to be enlightened in the ways and counsels of God. In it we read of a little company of faithful men maintaining a state of separation to God from evil. They remained faithful in a day when everything seemed to be against them, and it appeared as though there was none on earth to whom they could turn for help. These four devoted young men-Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah-set themselves against all the evil of the kingdom of Babylon. They refused to defile themselves; these were the men to whom God could communicate His mind. I believe it is important to dwell on this because in our own day much prophetic study has been taken up by very unspiritual persons. If we are going to get the mind of God in studying the book of Daniel, we must remember that it consists of revelations, deliverances, and visions given to a spiritually-minded man who was separated from the iniquity of his day. If we are to understand it, we also need to be spiritually minded; we need to walk apart from all that is unholy, all that would hinder progress in divine things. We need to remember the words, Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward (2Jn 1:8).
The truth of God is learned through the conscience; this is why the most brilliant men can read the Bible through over and over and never hear the voice of God in it at all. It has been said that what is one mans meat is another mans poison. The very Word of God may become poison to an unspiritual man if he reads it without being in subjection to God-reads it to find difficulties-and arises from its perusal more confirmed in his unbelief than he was when he sat down to consider it. The results are different when the same book is put into the hands of a spiritually-minded person-one who has bowed in Gods presence, acknowledged his lost condition, trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as his Savior, and who is now seeking to live in obedience to God and His Word. That man sits down to the same book and finds it to be food for his soul, building him up in his faith.
If you want enlightenment in divine things, see to it that you walk in the power of an ungrieved Spirit; for the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him (Psa 25:14).
In Dan 1:1-2 we find the fulfillment of what God had previously declared (through Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets) would soon take place. For years Jehovah had been sending prophets to the backsliding kings of Judah, warning them that the day of His patience had almost run out. Even though Israel had been His chosen people, because of their sin He was going to give them over to the power of their enemies, and the land of Palestine was to lie desolate. Singularly enough, God connects this with their failure to keep the sabbatical year. He had told them when they came into the land that every seventh year must be His. For 490 years they had not kept one sabbatical year. They doubtless thought they would do better by tilling the land annually and that they would be richer as a result of following their own way. God had told them that if they gave every seventh year to Him they would have abundance in the sixth year to last them until harvest in the eighth year (Leviticus 25). They evidently did not believe Him and thought to better themselves by their own efforts. Thus, through covetousness-a sin that is eating away at many of Gods professed people today-the word of the Lord was ignored and His commandment broken.
For 490 years God seemed to be indifferent to this disobedience on their part. He appeared to wink at their sin, but He had taken account of it all. When they thought His law was dead, He sent Jeremiah to tell them that now they must go down to Babylon as captives for seventy years, while the land kept sabbath! They imagined they had cheated God out of seventy years, but He squared the account by giving them into the power of Nebuchadnezzar, king of the Chaldeans, who carried them away to the land of Shinar. They remained there until the seventy years had expired, while the lost sabbaths were being made up.
It is a very common thing for men to forget the claims of God and to suppose that He will never assert Himself. Even saints have been known to fail in this respect. But no one ever prospered who ignored the authority of Jehovah; none can prosper now who forget the obedience due as children to a Father and as redeemed ones to Him who is not only Savior, but Lord. In the world, and even in the church today, we hear a great deal about the rights of the people. But there is One whose rights we do not hear emphasized as often as we should: our Lord Jesus Christ. Men of the world are utterly indifferent to His rights, and saints are only too apt to fall in with the spirit of the times. But a day is fast approaching when God is going to square the account. Men may not be concerned now about what is due to Him, but the day is coming when He is going to awake from His seeming slumber, as He tells us in Psalm 50. Then their proud, haughty knees will have to bow, and their tongues confess that Jesus Christ is Lord of all, to the glory of God the Father, when the once-rejected Savior demonstrates His authority and power. Judah ignored Gods rights, and as a result they were sent down to Babylon.
But there was a second and greater reason why God chose to give His heritage over to the power of the Chaldeans. For centuries idolatry had been gaining ground among the Israelites. They had turned away from the living and true God to serve the false gods of the heathen. Babylon was the home of idolatry, so the Jews were sent there so they might learn to loathe the idols they had loved. And we find the lesson was well impressed. Ever since the captivity the Jewish nation, whatever its other sins, has been free from this great evil. Unhappily they are like an empty, swept house, from which the evil spirit of idolatry has been driven. But they refused Messiah when He came in lowly grace, so in the near future a host of wicked spirits will enter the empty house, and the Jews, except a preserved and delivered remnant, will own and worship the man of sin.
The four youths already mentioned were distinguished among the rest of their captive brethren. They were taken by the kings orders to be trained to administer in state affairs and fitted for positions of trust and confidence. Their names each contain some form of the name of God in Hebrew and indicate their pious ancestry; for in Scripture, names have meanings that often help greatly in elucidating the Holy Spirits mind on a given subject.
All these young men were devoted to Jehovah, as their names imply. But that did not suit the prince of the eunuchs, into whose charge they were given, so he gave them new names that indicated their subjection to the Chaldeans. He called Daniel, Belteshazzar and the others, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These names contain the titles of heathen deities, as though this would force them to be subjects of senseless idols. But these men, although labeled as servants to heathen gods, stood firmly for the God of Israel. They refused to dishonor Him by compliance with a demand that would have rendered them unclean before Him.
The test came. These young men were to eat of the kings meat, which was dedicated to idols and thus abhorrent and defiling to a godly Jew. But the king had given his orders, and it might have seemed as though these Hebrews had no choice in the matter. Many would have argued in this way and said there was no individual responsibility in such a case. Nebuchadnezzars authority was derived from God. They had only to obey since the Lord Himself had put them under Nebuchadnezzars power. But Daniel and his young companions did not view it this way. They looked on the kings command as a trial of their faith. Would they keep themselves from the unclean in the land of the idolater? Would they be just as particular about being true to God as if they were in their own land? Would they honor His Word and glorify Him by being subject to that Word, though captives in the country of the oppressor?
They stood the test in a most marked way, as did the apostles in a later day, who said, We ought to obey God rather than men (Act 5:29). Daniel asked Melzar, the master of the eunuchs, to give them pulse-vegetables-to eat. Fearing an adverse result on their physical conditions he objected, fearing the kings wrath. But the devoted young men pleaded for an opportunity to prove whether they would not thrive as well on pulse as the rest of the company did on the kings meat. Melzar consented, and the test showed that at the end of ten days Daniel and his three friends were fatter and fairer than any who were fed with the regulation diet. Therefore, permission was given to continue the same fare; thus they were able to maintain a position of separation from the unclean, even in the very home of idolatry.
All this might have seemed a very trivial matter to many of the Jews. Some who read the account in our day may also consider it all a mere quibble on the part of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. But it brings out a principle of great force and beauty that should appeal to every Christians heart and conscience. The only way to grow in the Lord is by being faithful in little things. He who honors the Lord by conscientious adherence to His Word in what some would call minor details is likely to be exercised about greater things.
I have heard Christians refer to certain precepts in the Scriptures as non-essentials. But we may rest assured there are no non-essentials in our Bibles. The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times (Psa 12:6). When people talk of non-essentials in regard to anything in Gods Word, it is well to ask, Essential or non-essential to what? Regarding the souls salvation, undoubtedly the one great essential is faith in His blessed Son; His finished work alone avails to put away sin and procure peace with God. But if it is a question of what is essential to the enjoyment of communion with God-essential to obtaining the Lords approval at the judgment seat of Christ-then it is well to remember that in everything the believer is sanctified to the obedience of Christ. We should seek to imitate Daniel, who had purposed in his heart (Dan 1:8) that he would not defile himself. Paul and Barnabas urged the early Christians that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord (Act 11:23). This is the only way to be kept from defilement. Anything that defiles the conscience breaks the link of communion with God and hinders our advance in spiritual things. There can be no true progress if this inward monitor is not preserved. Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck (1Ti 1:19) is a solemn word worthy of being carefully pondered.
These Hebrew young men were given spiritual enlightenment above all the men of their times because of their carefulness in maintaining a good conscience. They had an understanding in divine mysteries that others could not grasp because it remains true in all dispensations that spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1Co 2:14). God does not commonly impart His secrets to careless men, but to those who are devoted to His interests. He may, in His sovereignty, use even a Balaam or a Caiaphas to utter divine truth, but such cases are extraordinary. The rule is that the secret of the Lord is with them that fear him (Psa 25:14).
It is of serious importance that we bear this principle in mind in these lukewarm Laodicean times. We live in days when everything that once was deemed important is perceived as a matter of indifference. The truth for which many martyrs shed their blood is considered hardly worth being contended for. These are days when the claims of God as set forth in His faithful Word are openly set aside even by those who profess to owe everything to the cross on which the Lord Jesus died. Latitudinarianism is the prevailing order, and few ask with intention to obey, What saith the scripture? (Rom 4:3) Is it any wonder that a host of false teachings is coming in like a flood, and thousands on every hand are being swept away from their moorings?
Once good conscience-that is, a conscience controlled by the Word of God in all things-is put away, shipwreck of the faith is almost certain to follow. It is not a question of shipwreck of faith in Christ; but by putting away a good conscience people make shipwreck of the faith. The term the faith means the faith of Gods elect (Tit 1:1), the truth He has revealed. Concerning this Paul wrote, Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience (1Ti 3:9). It is the same as that spoken of by Jude, who wrote exhorting believers to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jud 1:3).
It is an axiom proven by experience and supported by Scripture that the only way we can advance in the truth is by maintaining a good conscience. Allow one unjudged thing-that which you know is contrary to the Word of God or is not in line with Gods will for you-to exist in your life and you will soon find your spiritual eyes become darkened; your spiritual susceptibilities will become deadened. No real progress will be made in your soul, but rather a steady decline. Instead there needs to be faithfulness in separation from that which is opposed to the mind of God. When His Word is allowed to sit in judgment on all your ways, you will learn that the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day (Pro 4:18). The Word will illumine each step before you as you take the one already pointed out.
It is written of these four young men that God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams (1:17). This reminds us of Joseph, who also entered into the secrets of the Lord and who was first characterized by fidelity to God; Gods smile, Gods approbation, meant more to him than the approval of any human being. Just as Daniel came into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs (9) so Joseph, exhibiting the godliness of his life and the transparency of his nature, came into favor with the keeper of the prison. To crown it all, we find God opening his understanding and giving him wisdom in the interpretation of dreams and visions, as here with Daniel.
What a lesson for us-that purity of heart and faithfulness to God come before enlightenment in divine mysteries! If you attempt to reverse these things, you need not be surprised if you fall into all kinds of error. If you try to put knowledge before heart-purity; if you try to put a grasp of scripture truth before conscientious living in the presence of God, you are almost certain to have a fearful fall awaiting you. The many who have failed in this area should be a warning to us.
Thus on the threshold of this book of types and prophecies we are given a serious reminder of the necessity of holiness. It reminds us that if we want to learn all that God has revealed in subsequent chapters of the book of Daniel we need first to stop and ask ourselves, Am I personally right with God? Am I seeking to live so as to honor Him in all my ways? I want to emphasize these solemn questions at the close of this chapter.
If you are out of Christ, I would affectionately remind you of the danger in which you stand. Later we will address the woes and sorrows that await this poor earth. Is it in this world that you have your all? You are building your hopes for happiness in a wasting scene! Many prophecies in this book of Daniel have now become history; many other portions will soon be fulfilled. Dear unsaved one, if you continue in your sins until the time of the end,-without God and without hope-your sorrows, your anguish, your bitter woes will be more than tongue can tell. Think of what it will mean for the unsaved to live in this world after the Holy Ghost has been withdrawn; when Christendom has become completely apostate; when the Word of God is no longer preached; when the saints of God have been called home to Heaven; when antichrists power will be supreme; and when there will be a famine, not for bread or for water, but for the hearing of the words of the Lord! All this awaits you, and you may soon experience it, if you do not get right with God.
What if the Lord should not come in your day, and His judgments on this guilty world are in His grace deferred for awhile? You must still pass from this life and stand before His righteous throne and your own evil record; then it will be forever too late to find a Savior. Flee now to Him who invites the sinful, the weary, the thirsty, and the lost to find cleansing, rest, refreshment and salvation in Himself. He appeared once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and He will soon appear the second time without sin unto salvation (Heb 9:26-28).
In view of all this, may we who are redeemed by His precious blood ever remember this word: I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service (Rom 12:1). Thus we will stand, like Daniel and his friends, apart from the worlds defiling ways.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Dan 1:1-21
I. We see here how national sins are ever followed by Divine retribution.
II. We see here most admirably illustrated the duty of adhering in all circumstances to that course of conduct which in our consciences we believe to be right.
III. We have in this history an illustration of the value of temperance in eating and drinking.
IV. We may see here how God’s hand is in all His people’s concerns.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 1.
References: Dan 1:1.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 378. Dan 1:3.-iii. 16-27.-J. Wells, Bible Children, p. 173. Dan 1:3-5.-Parker, Ark of God, p. 198. Dan 1:3-8.-J. R. Bailey, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 235. Dan 1:6.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 237. Dan 1:6, Dan 1:7.-Ibid., vol. vi., p. 229.
Dan 1:8
Observe:-
I. The respect which honest and open minds, even worldly or heathen minds, cannot help entertaining for spiritual principle or power. Nebuchadnezzar was a man of imperial capacity. We know but little of him, either through sacred or profane history; but what we do know leads to the conviction that he was one of those rare men who are born for imperial rule. He was a man not unmindful of the duties of a ruler as well as the enjoyments; a man reverent too, and pious towards the only gods he had ever heard of, or, before he came across the greater spirit of Daniel, had a chance of knowing. It was something beyond the ordinary habit of an Eastern monarch to train captive youths to occupy places about his person and court. His distinguished consideration for the Hebrew captive children, shows that he was a seeker of wisdom, of guidance, could any man show it him. The one great secret of power, of living and lasting power, is godliness.
II. Daniel’s way of getting and doing good was other and higher than the king’s. Nebuchadnezzar had no higher notion of the way to foster the growth of mind and character than to feed it daintily. Daniel knew that mind and character had to be fed; he fed them on the bread of God. His resolution was one of the wisest ever taken by a young man in this world. The grounds on which it rested were: (1) ceremonial; (2) physical; (3) moral. Every man must study, as Daniel did, the relation of things indifferent in themselves to his own life. One man may adopt a mode of life, allow himself certain pleasures, trust himself in certain places, where another, honestly desirous to live soberly and godly, would not be safe for an hour. Let every man mark what is helpful, what is hurtful in the thousand indifferent things which he handles, and scenes which he frequents, day by day. And then let him build his bulwarks; and remember that the keeping of that is in most cases the keeping of the soul.
J. Baldwin Brown, Aids to the Development of the Divine Life, No. 12.
I. What were Daniel’s temptations to abandon a life of abstinence from strong drink? (1) He was tempted by his youth. (2) He was tempted also by the usages of his social rank. (3) He was tempted by the courtesies of official station. (4) He was tempted by his professional prospects. (5) He was tempted by his absence from home and native land.
II. Observe what was the young nobleman’s conduct in the trial. (1) He was true to his faith in abstinence from the use of wine. He had a principle of his own on the subject, and adhered to it. (2) He was true to the education of his childhood. (3) He was true also to the principle of temperance as a religious virtue. (4) He calmly trusted the consequences of his procedure to God.
III. What were the results of Daniel’s fidelity in his own experience? (1) By his temperance he gained a healthy body. (2) In that brief trial of his youth he laid the foundation of a robust, religious manhood. In this early and brief fragment of his life, he settled the future of his professional career as a prophet of the living God.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 174.
References: Dan 1:8.-G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 70; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xi., p. 147; Homiletic Magazine, vol. v., p. 118; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 233. 1-J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 82.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Analysis and Annotations
I. DANIEL IN BABYLON, NEBUCHADNEZZARS DREAM, AND HISTORICAL EVENTS
CHAPTER 1 Daniel and His Companions in Babylon
1. The introduction (Dan 1:1-2)
2. The kings command (Dan 1:3-5)
3. Daniel and his companions (Dan 1:6-21)
Dan 1:1-2. Divine judgment, which had threatened so long, had finally fallen upon Jerusalem. It was executed by the divinely chosen instrument, Nebuchadnezzar. Three times he came against Jerusalem. In 606 B.C. he appeared the first time. This is the visitation mentioned here. In 598 he came again and carried away more captives, including Ezekiel. In 587 he burned the city and the temple.
Dan 1:3-5. As already stated in the introduction the young captives of the kings seed and of the princes (both of Judah) was in fulfillment of prophecy. They were to be added to the kings court and to receive special royal favors, instructions in the wisdom and language of the Chaldeans and have the privileges of the kings table.
Dan 1:6-21. Daniel means, God is my judge; Hananiah, Beloved of the Lord; Mishael, Who is as God; Azariah, The Lord is my help. These beautiful names were soon changed into names of heathen meaning, to blot out the very memory of Jehovah. Daniel becomes Belteshazzar (Bels prince); Hananiah is named Shadrach (illumined by the sun-god); Mishael is called Meshach (who is like Shach– Venus); and Azariah is changed to Abednego (the servant of Nego).
The purpose of the four expressed their loyalty to the God of their fathers and their obedience to His law. The Lord rewarded them for their loyalty and faithfulness, as He is still the rewarder of all who trust in Him and walk in separation.
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
and the name
Heb. Jehovah-shammah. See Exo 17:15; Jdg 6:24.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
2Ki 24:1, 2Ki 24:2, 2Ki 24:13, 2Ch 36:5-7
Reciprocal: 2Ki 24:10 – At that time 2Ch 36:6 – came up 2Ch 36:10 – goodly vessels Ezr 5:12 – into the hand Jer 25:1 – in the Jer 35:1 – in the Jer 35:11 – when Jer 52:28 – in the Eze 14:20 – Daniel Dan 2:1 – in
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THREE TIMES DID Nebuchadnezzar and his servants come up against Jerusalem, when the three kings, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, fell before him. On the first of these occasions, Daniel and his three friends were carried captive amongst a number of youths of royal or princely birth, who were considered to be of exceptional intellectual capacity – the pick of the nation in wisdom and understanding. The astute Babylonian king intended to fortify his position with the cleverest men of conquered nations, working them into the army of magicians – the men who trafficked with demon powers, and gave him guidance by their occult practices.
So Daniel and his friends were to go through a kind of college course that would make them to be ‘cunning in knowledge, and understanding science;’ the ‘science’ being doubtless connected with those ‘curious arts,’ mentioned in Act 19:19, as practised in Ephesus at a later date. If the great Babylonian monarch could increase the number of men, who could give him supernatural wisdom and guidance, his power would be further increased.
Hence their food and drink was to be of a special and prescribed course from the king’s table: the very best of the land, and doubtless of a kind that was connected with idolatrous rites. And further, by the prince of the eunuchs each had his original name discarded. They had come under new ownership, and this was signalized by new names of idolatrous origin and significance. Such was the position in which Daniel and his companions found themselves.
Reaching Dan 1:8, our thoughts are arrested by the words, ‘But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself.’ A great statement this! Had he not so purposed. no Book of Daniel would have found a place in our Bibles. Notice in the first place that the Spirit of God in the record disowns his heathen name, and uses his original one, which means, ‘God is Judge.’ The man evidently lived in the light of his name, and so we notice, in the second place, that he purposed, not in his head, the seat of intelligence, but rather in his heart, the seat of affection Godward, before whom he walked. This is the kind of purpose that stands firm and does not vary.
Then, in the third place, notice that it was defilement that he was determined to avoid. From a material stand-point the food was pure without a doubt. It was the spiritual defilement he had in view, since Babylon was the original hot-bed of idolatry. His three friends are not mentioned in verse Dan 1:8, but if we turn to Dan 3:18, we discover they were entirely of the same mind and purpose as he was.
Let us take very seriously to heart the lesson that confronts us here. The secret of Daniel’s remarkable power was his purposed separation from the evil world that surrounded him. He knew its defiling power and he refused it. Some five centuries after his day its true character was fully and finally exposed in the cross of Christ as He Himself said, ‘Now is the judgment of this world’ (Joh 12:31). We now live in the light of this fact, and we know that it is dominated by Satan, who is ‘the god of this world’ (2Co 4:4); hence a purposed separation from the world is more necessary for us than it was even for Daniel.
There was with him however not only great firmness of purpose but also a wise and humble spirit in making it known. God had acted on his behalf, bringing him into favour with the prince of the eunuchs and with Melzar his subordinate, yet he did not presume on this and speak haughtily. He rather stated his desire, and presented his prayer that he and his friends might be fed on the plainest of food for ten days as a test, and on the result of this the situation should be stabilized. God was with them and as a result they were delivered from the defilement that otherwise would have been theirs.
From this incident let us learn a lesson. Separation from defilement is ever God’s path for His saints, but much depends on the spirit they display as they take it. If taken in a harsh or haughty spirit, rather than a meek and lowly spirit, the testimony to others will be nullified. If our spirit in taking it is marked by, ‘Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou’ – the spirit that marked the Pharisees of our Lord’s day – we shall be helping on the evil from which we profess to be separating ourselves. Daniel and his friends sought their separation, and maintained it, in the right spirit.
Consequently God was with them in a truly remarkable way. Not only were they fairer and fatter in their bodies, but in knowledge, skill, learning, wisdom they excelled all the others who had their portion of the king’s meat; and as for Daniel, he was granted a supernatural understanding in visions and dreams, by which in those days God often made His mind known.
When tested before Nebuchadnezzar the verdict was clear. The magicians and astrologers were men who trafficked with the powers of darkness in order to possess knowledge beyond the powers of ordinary men, and compared with these the four men, taught of God, were ten times better. There is nothing surprising in this. Indeed the same thing meets us in more emphatic form in 1Co 2:1-16, where we read that the princes of this world knew nothing of God’s wisdom, so much so that they ‘crucified the Lord of glory.’ Whereas the simplest believer, indwelt and controlled by the Spirit of God, judges, or discerns, ‘all things.’
Before passing from chapter 1, we may remark that this question of food contaminated by idolatrous practices was acute among the early Christians at Corinth. They were instructed as to it in Paul’s first epistle to them, 1Co 8:1-13, and 1Co 10:25-31. Meat sold in the markets or supplied in a friend’s house they could eat without raising any question; but if they were definitely informed that it had been offered in sacrifice to idols, they were to have none of it. In this the Christian keeps clear of idolatrous associations just as Daniel and his friends did.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Daniel, the Seer
Dan 1:1-21
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
As we enter the study of Daniel, the Seer, it is well to note the conditions under which Daniel was found in the city of Babylon. The captivity of Israel had long since occurred. The captivity of Judah had now begun. King Nebuchadnezzar had besieged Jerusalem, had taken it, and had carried Jehoiakim its king unto Babylon. Among the captives were found Daniel and his three friends, who were picked out by Ashpenaz to be trained to stand in the king’s palace.
1. Daniel was a youth of royal blood. He was taken from the king’s seed, from among the princes. We do not know that the mere fact of his royalty added anything to his value, but it was so reckoned by King Nebuchadnezzar.
2. Daniel was trained in Israel. Verse four tells us that he was without blemish, well favored, and skillful in all wisdom; cunning in knowledge, and understanding science. This statement shows that even in the days of Israel’s departure from God, they still were a people of learning and of scientific ability.
3. Daniel’s spiritual and moral integrity. Had Daniel merely possessed royal blood, and had he been no more than skillful and cunning in knowledge and wisdom, he would never have been honored and owned of God as he was. The glory of Daniel’s character and spiritual integrity shines out in this first chapter in a wonderful way.
(1) He purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s meat, nor with the wine which the king drank. This presents Daniel in his moral aspect, as a youth unwilling to contaminate his body. It took no little courage for Daniel to keep himself clean from moral defilement. The easy path is to go with the crowd, and when you are in Babylon do as the Babylonians do. This was not at all Daniel’s method of life.
(2) He acted wisely. Daniel did not open a tirade against the king, and against his meat and drink, he quietly requested of Ashpenaz, the prince of the eunuchs, that he might not defile himself.
(3) He put God to the test. When Daniel spoke to Ashpenaz, the prince of the eunuchs was afraid to grant his request lest he should endanger his head to the king. Daniel wisely said, “Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days * *. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee.”
4. Daniel blessed of God. Here is the summing up of God’s dealings with Daniel and his friends. “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.” Thus it was that God brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
I. DANIEL AND NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM (Dan 2:26)
1. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar. It was in the second year of his reign that King Nebuchadnezzar dreamed a dream and then forgot it. The strange effect of the dream lay heavily upon him. He could not get away from it.
2. The demand made. The king called his wise men and magicians before him and commanded them to tell him his dream and the interpretation. This they could not do, insisting that no one dwelling in the flesh could show to any king both his dream and its interpretation. The king became angry and with great fury commanded the slaughter of all the wise men of Babylon.
3. Daniel’s plea. When it was made known to Daniel what the king was about to do, he answered wisely that he might be given time and he would make known unto the king both the king’s dream and the interpretation of it. Then did Daniel and his three friends seek God’s face. God heard and answered prayer and revealed to Daniel the secret in a night-vision. Then did Daniel bless God, proclaiming His wisdom and might.
4. Daniel delivers God’s message. When Daniel was brought before the king, he did not boast his own wisdom or power, but he said, “There is a God in Heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.” Daniel proceeded to tell the king his dream and the interpretation thereof. The king saw so plainly that Daniel was sincere and true that he rewarded him and made him a great man in the kingdom, giving him many great gifts, and making him ruler over the whole province of Babylon.
II. DANIEL AND NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S SECOND DREAM (Dan 4:8)
1. The dream stated. This time Nebuchadnezzar remembered his dream. He saw a tree in the midst of the earth of great height. The tree grew and was strong and reached unto Heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves were fair, the fruit was plenteous, the birds dwelt in its boughs and the beasts lay under its shadow. Nebuchadnezzar saw until the tree was cut down and the stump only remained.
2. The demand made. King Nebuchadnezzar, as in his first dream, commanded the magicians and astrologers and Chaldeans and soothsayers to interpret the dream, but they could not. How helpless do the wise of this world stand in the presence of the Divine revelations of God! Their minds seem utterly blinded to the most simple of prophetic truths. They know nothing of Christ’s glorious Return and Reign. What God tells them, they believe not; what they see, they know not. Woe unto him who makes the wisdom of man his stay!
3. The Divine warning. It was easy for Daniel to make known unto the king the interpretation of his first dream, but now Daniel was astonished for one hour and his thoughts troubled him. However, Daniel was faithful to his God and to his king. He told Nebuchadnezzar that he was the tree which had grown unto Heaven because he was great and had become strong, and that his kingdom and dominion had reached unto the end of the earth.
Daniel moreover told Nebuchadnezzar that he would be cut down even as the tree was cut down, that he would be driven from men, and be made to, dwell with the beasts of the field, and to eat grass like oxen. Then did Daniel plead with Nebuchadnezzar to repent and to humble himself before God, that the Lord might spare him this judgment. God give us men faithful to Him and faithful to their fellow men; men who will preach the whole truth and proclaim the whole counsel of God without fear or favor.
III. DANIEL AND BELSHAZZAR’S FEAST (Dan 5:17)
1. The madness of Belshazzar. It seems almost impossible that any king in his right mind could give so great a feast at such a crucial time as that which faced Belshazzar, when a thousand of his lords sat down to eat and to drink with him.
Outside the city of Babylon were encamped the great armies of Cyrus and Darius. Belshazzar ate and drank under the spell of a false security. He imagined that his walls were impregnable against the armies of the Medes and the Persians. There was much food stored away in the city and the river Euphrates coursed its way through under the walls so that there was no danger from thirst.
2. The handwriting on the wall. As the feast progressed with the madness of revelry, and as the king and his princes and wives and concubines drank wine, praising the gods of gold, of silver, and of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone, the same hour the fingers of a man’s hand wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall. As the king saw the hand moving, his countenance was changed and his thoughts were troubled. He quickly called for his wise men to come in and read the writing and make known the interpretation. Once more the wise men failed Belshazzar as they had of old failed Nebuchadnezzar. Then was Daniel brought in.
3. The charge of Daniel. It seems to us that in all the lore of the ancients, and that in all charges of the judges of our own day, there has never been just such a charge as this. Spurning the king’s gifts and proffers of reward, Daniel declared unto the king the writing. The declaration was preceded, however, with the charge. First of all, Daniel reminded Belshazzar of that which he well knew. How Nebuchadnezzar, his father, when his heart was lifted up, and his mind was hardened with pride, had been deposed, and his glory had been taken from him. Then Daniel said: “Thou * * O Belshazzar hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of Heaven; * * and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified.”
IV. THE FEARLESSNESS OF DANIEL (Dan 6:25)
1. The meaning of the word MENE. Daniel interpreted the word thus: “God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.” There was no opportunity for repentance given to Belshazzar. His days of grace were passed. God had come to make a full end.
2. The meaning of the word TEKEL. Thus Daniel interpreted it: “Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting.” Belshazzar stands before us as a type of all men who in the madness of their folly lift themselves up in pride against the God of Heaven and are weighed and found wanting.
3. The meaning of the word PERES. Here is the way Daniel put it: “Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.” Before Belshazzar there was nothing but night. As we hurriedly think of these three words, let us imagine Daniel the heroic Prophet as he faces an autocratic ruler and pronounces upon him his doom.
How startling is the verse that follows: “In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldeans slain.” History tells us that as the feast progressed, Darius the Median and Cyrus entered the city with their vast army. They had dug a new channel for the Euphrates River above the city, and upon the river bed they had marched in under the walls.
V. DANIEL IN TRIAL AND TRIUMPH (Dan 6:5)
Daniel is now under the third king who ruled in Babylon.
1. Daniel the mark of prejudice. It pleased Darius to set over his kingdom one hundred and twenty princes, over these there were three presidents, and among the presidents, Daniel was first. In this Daniel was preferred above all the mighty men of the Media Persian Empire.
2. Daniel’s impregnable honor. The words of these enemies to Daniel are most illuminating. They said, as they sought to find some occasion against him, that they could find no fault in him and no error inasmuch as he was faithful, excepting they found it against him concerning his fidelity to his God.
Thus it was that Daniel stood in the limelight as a man of impregnable honor. The presidents and princes knowing Daniel’s fidelity to his faith inveigled the king to establish a decree that no man should ask anything of any God or man for thirty days save of the king, upon the penalty of being cast into the den of lions. The unsuspecting king signed the edict which meant to all human purposes the downfall of Daniel and his death.
2. Daniel’s faithfulness to God. When Daniel knew that the decree was signed, he opened his window toward Jerusalem three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God as he did aforetime. Where is he who could prove a better fidelity? Daniel did not argue that he could pray under cover and behind the scenes. He was unwilling to sell out. He had of yore prayed with open window and still thus he prayed.
VI. DANIEL AND THE DEN OF LIONS (Dan 6:21-22)
When King Darius saw the trap into which his presidents and princes had led him, he sought diligently to deliver Daniel. He labored until the going down of the sun, but the law he had made was according to the law of the Medes and the Persians which altereth not.
1. The faith of King Darius. As Daniel was thrown into the den, the king said unto him, “Thy God whom thou servest continually, He will deliver thee.” This was a tremendous statement for a heathen king to make; but he had known of Daniel’s faithfulness during forty or more years of service under Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar and himself. He knew that Daniel had never failed either his people or his God. He believed somehow that God would deliver Daniel. All that night King Darius fasted and his sleep went from him.
2. The protected Prophet. As morning broke, Darius hastened unto the den of lions, fearful and yet hopeful. He cried with a lamentable voice, and said, “O Daniel, servant of the Living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?” Then it was that Daniel replied, “My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me.”
It pays to live in innocency and in all good conscience toward God and toward man. All of the wise men who had connived against Daniel with their wives and children were now cast into the den of lions and were destroyed by the lions or ever they came to the bottom of the den.
3. The far-reaching results of Daniel’s deliverance. King Darius made a decree which was sent unto all the world commanding that throughout his kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. When we are true to God, our lives will tell for Him to the ends of the earth.
VII. DANIEL, A MAN GREATLY BELOVED (Dan 9:22-23)
Daniel was owned and loved of God.
1. Unto him God delivered in visions and dreams the story of His people Israel down to the time of the end. He gave through Daniel an outline of the history of nations that almost startle us as we study them in the light of present-day events; a story of Christ’s Return in the clouds of Heaven, and of the investure of the Kingdom as He the Lord shall reign upon David’s throne; the story of end-time moral and spiritual conditions. He told Daniel how many would be purified and made white, and tried, and how the wicked would do wickedly. He told how in the end-time knowledge would increase and many would run to and fro.
2. Unto him God sent Gabriel to tell him how he was loved in Heaven. This is most illuminating. To think that a man moving among men and occupying a prominent place in the political realm of his day could so live through a long period of time that he would be not only loved but greatly beloved in the sky. No wonder that God delivered Daniel from every foe.
3. Unto him God gave promise of his own resurrection and service in the latter day. To Daniel God said, “Go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” Thus we are made to understand that Daniel shall awake, and that he will shine as the brightness in the firmament, and as the stars forever and ever. Not only that, but we are led to believe that Daniel will be given some place of honor and trust when he stands in his lot at the end of the days.
Since all are to stand before the judgment seat of Christ and receive according to the deeds done in their bodies, let all, therefore, endeavor to live a life of faithfulness to God and man, so that they too may stand in their lot, and reign with Christ.
AN ILLUSTRATION
“‘If a man set his house on fire, he is liable to the law; if it be fired by others, or by an ill accident, he is pitied and relieved.’ We are to take up our cross when laid upon our shoulders by God’s providence; but we are not to make trouble for ourselves. We are not to fill our own cup with gall and wormwood, but to drink it off when God puts a bitter draught into our hand. We are to meet temptation and overcome it; but we may not venture into temptation on our own account, or we may have to rue our foolhardiness.
“The figure of the burning house is a very apt one, and capable of many illustrations. A man who partakes of wine or strong liquors wilfully fires his own house, and, whatever may be the result of his intemperance, he can only blame himself. He who reads skeptical works, or frequents infidel society, cannot be pitied if he loses faith and comfort, for he runs a wanton and useless risk.
“To be taken at unawares by a fierce temptation, is to be like a building fired by a malicious hand, and this is a grievous calamity; but to go wilfully into temptation is another matter, and is comparable to the crime of arson, in which a man collects combustible materials and secretly kindles them, that his house may be burned down.
“Lord, evermore keep me from being my own destroyer. Let me not, like Absalom, grow my hair for my own hanging, ‘Let not any iniquity have dominion over me.'”
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Dan 1:1. Third year should be considered in connection with 2Ki 24:1, It seems that Jehoiakim had formed some kind of mutual agreement with Babylon but that he broke that relationship after three years. That brought Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem with an army and that was the beginning of the “first captivity” which means the first stage of the noted 70year exile. In Jer 25:1 this event is said to have occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which might be confusing at first thought. However, If a thing takes place at the end of a mans third year, it could be thought of as as happening in his fourth year since the term third and fourth are just that indefinite in their force.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
NEBUCHADNEZZARS DREAM
Daniel, like Ezekiel, was an Israelite in Babylonian captivity, but of a little earlier date (Dan 1:1-4, compared with Eze 1:1-2). Of royal blood, fine physique, strong intellectuality and deep knowledge, he became trained in the language, traditions and astrological science of his captors that, with the other eunuchs, he might serve their king in responsible relations in the palace (Dan 1:4-7). For religious reasons, and out of reverence to the true God, he sought the privilege of abstention from a certain part of the physical preparation (Dan 1:8), with the happy result indicated in the chapter. God was preparing Daniel better than Nebuchadnezzar was and for a greater purpose than he knew.
THE TESTING TIME (Dan 2:1-30)
In process of time the testing came (Dan 2:1-13). Daniel had won a victory, and his faith had been strengthened to essay another (Dan 2:14-16). We gather from these verses and the preceding that he had not been consulted with the heathen advisers above (Dan 2:20). Observe the character of his piety (Dan 2:17-18), and note the first young mens prayer-meeting on record, and its results (Dan 2:19-23). Belteshazzar (Dan 2:26) is the Babylonian name given Daniel. Note his unfaltering witness to the true God (Dan 2:27-30).
THE DREAM AND INTERPRETATION (Dan 2:31-45)
At this point the book of Daniel differs from the preceding prophets in that they deal chiefly with Israel or Judah, and only secondarily with the Gentile nations; while he deals chiefly with the Gentiles, and secondarily with Israel. He is giving us the outline history of these nations during the time Israel is scattered among them in punishment, and up until the period of her restoration to her land and deliverance from their oppression.
Nebuchadnezzars dream, which he interpreted, shows that this period of Gentile dominion in the earth, lasting from the time of that king, when Judah is taken from her land until the end of this age when she shall be restored there again, is divided among four world powers (Dan 2:31-35).
The metal image equals Gentile dominion in all this period. The head of gold, the Babylonian power, the breast and arms of silver, the Medo- Persian power succeeding; the belly and thighs of brass, the Grecian; the legs and feet of iron and clay, the Roman. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands represents the Kingdom of the Messiah, which shall be set up on the earth at the end of this age, and whose establishment shall involve the demolition of all the earthly powers (Dan 2:36-45).
An interpretation of some of the difficulties follows: Note the two words of Dan 2:31, excellent and terrible, as characterizing the history of the Gentile powers in all this period. They will have that to attract and that to repel to the very end. Note that the stone smites the image (Dan 2:34); in other words, the establishment of Gods Kingdom on the earth will be with destructive judgments, as all the prophets have shown. Note that some day after the present kingdoms as such, are destroyed, but not before, Gods Kingdom will be supreme in the earth (Dan 2:35). For the meaning of verses 37-38, see Jeremiah 27.
Note that all the world-powers following Babylon will be inferior to it in a descending scale (Dan 2:39-40). Inferior not in territorial extent or military prowess, but in the character of their government. Babylon was an absolute monarchy, Nebuchadnezzars word was law (Dan 2:12-13). The Medo-Persian power represented a limited monarchy Darius hearkened to his princes and his lords (Dan 6:4-16). The Grecian was weaker, in that after the death of Alexander the Great, the empire was divided into four parts. The Roman, the weakest of all, the clay mingled with iron, indicating the development of the democracy in the latter times; in other words, constitutional monarchies and republics.
Note particularly the fourth, or Roman, power (Dan 2:40-43). The two legs foreshadow the later division of that empire into the eastern and western halves. The ten toes speak of a time when five separate kingdoms shall represent each half. The iron and clay show the monarchial elements in more or less contention with the democratic, and vice versa. These governmental features are to characterize the end of this age (Dan 2:44), when God shall set up His Kingdom in the midst of heavy and destructive judgments.
QUESTIONS
1. In whose reign was Daniel taken captive?
2. State in your own words his history down to the time of the dream.
3. How does his book differ from the other prophets?
4. State the beginning and the ending of Gentile dominion.
5. Name its four great historical divisions.
6. Shall this age end in peace or disorder?
7. Have you compared Jeremiah 27?
8. In what sense do the world powers grow inferior to one another?
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Dan 1:1-2. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim came Nebuchadnezzar, &c. See notes on 2Ki 24:1-4. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand He took Jehoiakim prisoner, and put him in chains, with a design to carry him to Babylon; but he having humbled himself, and submitted to become tributary, he was restored to his kingdom. At this time, says Lowth, Jehoiakim having become tributary to the king of Babylon, consequently the seventy years of the Jewish captivity and vassalage to Babylon began. With part of the vessels of the house of God Some of the vessels were still left, which Nebuchadnezzar seized when he carried Jeconiah captive: see the margin; which he carried into the land of Shinar That is, he carried the vessels, and not, as some would understand it, the captives also; for Jehoiakim only is mentioned, who died, as we have seen, in the land of Judah. Shinar was the original name of the country about Babylon, (Gen 11:2,) and it was still sometimes called by this name by some of the prophets: see the margin. And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god Of his idol Bel, (see note on Jer 50:2,) from whence they were taken by Cyrus, and delivered to Zerubbabel, Ezr 1:7-8. To this agrees the testimony of Berosus, who tells us that Nebuchadnezzar adorned the temple of Bel with the spoils of war which he had taken in that expedition: see Joseph. Antiq., lib. 10. cap. 11.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Dan 1:1. In the third year of JehoiakimNebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem. Some think that Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiakim the third year, but that while on his way to Babylon he made submission, and was restored; for the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. Others solve this difficulty by supposing a year, or part of a year, to be lost in the expedition to Egypt, for Nebuchadnezzar was engaged against the Egyptians when informed of his fathers death, and with a few light troops he crossed the deserts to Babylon, received the crown, and returned to the war. Hence this slight variation from Jer 25:1, strengthens the truth of scripture history, by showing that the prophets had no correspondence with each other.
Dan 1:3. Ashpenaz the master or prince of the eunuchs. Daniel being placed under his care, has occasioned a belief that Daniel was emasculated, and so made a eunuch.
Dan 1:4. The tongue of the Chaldeans. Daniel, it is highly probable, understood the Syriac, as it seems to have been both the court and the current language of the east. 2Ki 17:26. But the literature of the Chaldeans abounded with astrology, and all the superstition of gentile science. True; and as Daniel refused to comply with the command to eat of the kings meat, we ought to suppose he equally refused to study the mysteries of error; for no man who scripturally believes in providence, can believe in astrology. All books of this kind the gentiles burnt on their conversion to christianity. Act 19:19.
Dan 1:7. Belteshazzar. The Hebrew names were difficult for the Chaldeans to pronounce. Besides, it was usual for men to receive new names on their accession to honour and office.
Dan 1:8. Danielwould not defile himself with meats ceremonially unclean, and which were often offered to idols. Act 10:14. Gal 2:12.
Dan 1:21. And Daniel continued to the first year of king Cyrus. He more or less enjoyed honours and office till that time: and what minister ever retained honours so long? He was about a hundred years of age when he died.
REFLECTIONS.
When the divine justice hewed down very many wicked and incorrigible families in Judea, it is a most pleasing consideration, that shoots afterwards sprung from the old roots, adorned with every excellence which could ennoble the human character. Calamities purify the church, and call forth her favourite characters to distinction and honour. Hence, we should never be terrified at the tempest, while omnipotence rides on the wings of the wind.
The men most honoured and distinguished in the church, never had any choice or influence in their own elevation. When in any age the Lord had a great work to do, he never failed to call from the treasuries of his providence men qualified to do his will. Thus Joseph, Moses, Gideon, David, and Mordecai were all elevated by singular circumstances; the holy prophets were all moved by a divine impulse; and when the Lord Christ was about to send his gospel into all the world, he called unto him whom he would. Good men, on this consideration, should never tempt providence to procure elevation. God has his eye on his people, and when he wants their peculiar services he can call them into action by the easy operations of his gracious care.
Though human learning may lead a man to national notice and honour, yet God must finish the education of a prophet, and of an elevated character. The language and literature of Chaldea, added to Daniels Hebrew store, could never have qualified him to be the prodigy of wisdom in all the east, had not God inspired him, like many others in the primitive church, 1Co 12:10, with a divine foresight into the import of certain dreams. Hence the pure and peaceable wisdom from above is to be sought and preferred to all that knowledge which shall vanish away.
These four Hebrew youths excelled, and in a short time, all the literary characters of Babylon, because they were taught of God, and because they had studied the Genesis of Moses, with whom no pagan poet or historian is to be compared: that book is the basis of all history and science. The creation and fall of man, the promise of redemption, the deluge, the genealogy of the patriarchs, the confusion of language, the dispersion of the tribes, with the call of Abraham, are so many chaste sources of knowledge which can be found nowhere else. Add to this, that the Lord influenced their temperance, and their application to study, by his counsel and grace. The long life, the high station, and happy termination of Daniels administration, corresponded with the glory of his early call. He continued a favourite at court all the forty five years of Nebuchadnezzars reign, as it would seem from the testimony of Belshazzars mother: Dan 5:11. Whatever were his stations during the succeeding reign, he lived recollected and in untarnished repute. He lived to show Cyrus the prophecies of Isaiah concerning the conquest of Babylon, and to procure the emancipation of his people. Isaiah 14:44, 45. He might then exclaim with the venerable Simeon, Now, Lord, lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation. Oh if rulers were as good as they are great, their glory would remain for ever, and their memory would be the pride of posterity.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Daniel 1. Daniel at the Court of Nebuchadnezzar.This introductory chapter describes the circumstances which brought Daniel to Babylon, introduced him into the Court, and gained him favour with the king. The writers purpose is to enforce the duty of loyalty to the Law and the principles of religion, and he illustrates his point by describing Daniels refusal to defile himself with the kings meat and wine (Dan 1:8). There can be little doubt that his object in this chapter is to appeal to the Jews of his own day to resist the s to compel them to eat forbidden food. Daniel is held up as an example to the Jews of the Maccabean age.
Nebuchadnezzar (the name is more correctly spelt Nebuchadrezzar) was king of Babylon from 604 to 561 B.C. (pp. 60f.). Under his rule Babylon reached the summit of its power. The picture of the splendour and prosperity of his empire which is drawn in Dan 2:37 f., Dan 4:10-12; Dan 5:18-20 is borne out by inscriptions and references in the historians. His decisive victory in 605 B.C. (a year before he ascended the throne) over the rival world-power of Egypt at the battle of Carchemish made the Babylonian Empire supreme. His reputation, however, rests not so much upon deeds of war, as upon his architectural achievements. The question in Dan 4:30, Is not this great Babylon which I have built? is no rhetorical expression, but represents sober fact. Nearly every cuneiform document now extant dating from his reign treats of the building and restoration of the walls, temples, and palaces of his beloved city of Babylon. The best account of his work is to be found in the celebrated India House Inscription (see Records of the Past, iii. 104123). Another well-authenticated fact is the keen interest which he took in religion. Some of the prayers in the India House Inscription breathe the true spirit of devotion. A good illustration is given by Driver (CB, p. 26).
1. In the third year: there is considerable difficulty with regard to this date. Jehoiakim reigned from 608 to 597 B.C. Accordingly, as is definitely stated in Jer. 251, Nebuchadnezzar did not come to the throne till the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It has been suggested that the invasion of Palestine was an incident in the campaign against Egypt, and took place just before or just after the battle of Carchemish in 605, when Nebuchadnezzar was commanding the Babylonian army for his father. But this theory seems definitely excluded by the fact that statements made by Jeremiah in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoiakims reign imply that the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem was still in the future (Jer 25:1; Jer 46:2; Jer 36:9). The error seems to be due to the writers mistaken opinion that 2Ki 24:1, Jehoiakim became his servant for three years, referred to the first three years of his reign.
Dan 1:2. the land of Shinar: Babylonia. The term occurs nine other times in the OT (Gen 10:10; Gen 11:2; Gen 14:9, Jos 7:21, Isa 11:11, Zec 5:11), and is probably an archaism, the origin of which is uncertain.the house of his god: omitted in the LXX and probably an interpolation. Translate He brought them (i.e. the captives) into the land of Shinar, and as for the vessels he brought them into the treasure-house of his god According to 2Ch 36:6 Jehoiakim himself was carried in fetters to Babylon, but 2 K. makes no reference to this, and our Book has no allusion to it.his god: Merodach or Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon. In the Inscription he is described as the great Lord, king of the heavens and the earth, supreme governor. The only reference to him in the OT is Jer 50:2.
Dan 1:3. even of the seed royal. This translation implies that the selected youths belonged to the royal or noble families of Israel. The rendering of AV, and of the seed royal, makes the sentence refer to Babylonian princes, etc.
Dan 1:4. well-favoured: good-looking.Chaldeans: the term is used in two senses in Daniel. (1) In the ethnic sense (Dan 5:30, Dan 11:1), to denote a powerful race who lived in the SE. of Babylonia, and subsequently became the dominant power in the country (pp. 5861). (2) To denote the wise men or religious leaders of Babylon. Babyon, as Driver says, was the land of magic, and the Chaldeans were the chief exponents of the magic art. An ancient writer describes them as a caste with a fixed tradition, and says that they devote their lives to philosophy enjoying a reputation for astrology. They were experts in the art of divination and the interpretation of dreams. For a good account of the Chaldeans see Driver, CB, p. 12.
Dan 1:6 f. Proper names in ancient times generally had a religious significance. The names of the four Hebrew youths indicated their connexion with the worship of the God of Israel. Daniel means God is my judge; Hananiah, Yahweh hath been gracious; Mishael, Who is what God is? Azariah, Whom Yahweh aids. At the court of Babylon other names were substituted having reference to the Babylonian religion. Belteshazzar probably means, Bel protect his life, Bel being one of the most important Babylonian deities (see Jer 50:2); Shadrach probably, The command of Aku, Aku being the name of the Semitic Moon god; Meshach, Who is what Aku is? Abed-nego, Servant of Nebo, Nebo being the Babylonian god of wisdom and literature.
Dan 1:8. defile himself: the Jews were always most scrupulous in keeping the law of clean and unclean meats (pp. 202 f.). To partake of the kings meat would have involved the risk of eating (a) what was forbidden by the Jewish Law; (b) what had not been slaughtered according to the provisions of the Law; (c) what had been offered to idols. The food question was always a problem to Jews in foreign lands. Josephus, for instance, tells us that when he went on an embassy to Rome, he and his fellow-deputies lived on fruit and nuts to avoid the risk of defilement.Steward: the translation of a technical term, Melzar, which is found only in this chapter. The exact functions of the Melzar are uncertain. The AV is wrong in regarding the word as a personal name.
Dan 1:12. pulse: the Heb. word denotes all kinds of vegetable food, and is not restricted to what is technically known as pulse.
Dan 1:17. learning and wisdom: literature and science would more nearly convey the sense of the original.
Dan 1:20. magicians and enchanters. The extent to which magic was practised in Babylon may be gathered from the fact that no less than six different words are employed in Daniel to describe the diviners: (a) wise men, (b) enchanters, (c) magicians, (d) Chaldeans, (e) determiners (of fate), (f) sorcerers (see Driver, CB, p. 15).
Dan 1:21. the first year of Cyrus: 538 B.C. Daniel is therefore said to have lived at the Babylonian court for about sixty-seven years, from 605 B.C. to 538 B.C. In 101, however, a vision is said to have come to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
THE FAITHFUL REMNANT
(Daniel 1)
In the opening chapter of Daniel we are permitted to see the character of the men to whom God foretells the course of the times of the Gentiles and to whom He gives understanding as to His mind for His people during the times of their distress and captivity.
(Vv. 1, 2). As an introduction to the Book, the first two verses briefly indicate the ruin of Israel and the consequent transference of the government of the earth – as represented by kingly power – from the king of Judah to the king of Babylon. This solemn act is definitely described as the Lord’s doing, for we read “The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah” into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.
Not only is the king of Judah given over to bondage, but God so completely abandons Jerusalem as the seat of His government and worship, that the very vessels used in His worship are given into the hand of this heathen king. At once we are permitted to see the character of this Gentile king, for we read, “He brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.” He has no true knowledge or fear of God, and no real sense of the sacred character of these vessels – a premonition of the godless character of the Gentile rulers during the times Of the Gentiles.
The people of Israel and the kings of Judah had been warned again and again that their evil and idolatrous ways would bring upon them the chastening hand of God. Unheeded warnings were followed by the definite pronouncement of the prophet Isaiah that judgment would fall. Thus runs the message to king Hezekiah, “Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon” (Isa 39:6). Despite this message, the evil increased and reached its climax in the reign of Hezekiah’s son, the wicked Manasseh, who seduced the people “to do more evil than did the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel (2Ki 21:9). At length, in the reign of Jehoiakim, God’s words by Isaiah were fulfilled. The government passed from the Jew to the Gentile, and henceforth the Jews will be in subjection to the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are closed by the introduction of the reign of Christ.
Nevertheless, we learn from this chapter that, though the nation of Israel is brought into subjection to the Gentiles, yet God preserves to Himself a godly remnant who are faithful to God and supported by God. The gracious ways of God with this remnant clearly prove that, however much God may have to chasten His people on account of their unfaithfulness, they are still the objects of His care, even though they have ceased to be the instruments of His direct government of the world.
Moreover, the understanding of the ways of God is found with this godly remnant; and God uses them as individual witnesses for Himself, though the nation as a whole has entirely failed as a witness for God. Furthermore, we see, on the part of this remnant, that obedience to the word of God and separation from the defiling influence of Babylon are the moral conditions necessary in order to receive and understand communications from the Lord, to enjoy the support of the Lord, and to be used in any measure as a witness for the Lord .
(Vv. 3-7). This godly remnant is brought to our notice by the efforts of the King of Babylon to use the people of God for his own ends. He would seek to adorn his court with the leaders of God’s people – the king’s seed, the princes, and those who were well-favoured and marked by wisdom, knowledge and science. But, while the religious world would seek to use the people of God for its own glory, it cannot tolerate their God, obedience to His word, or separation from its own evils. Hence the world would fain obliterate all evidence of their link with the true God. To this end the people of God, if they are to take their place at the court, must be instructed in the world’s wisdom, partake of the world’s dainties, and share in the world’s titles. Nor is it otherwise to-day. Those who are destined for a place as religious leaders in the Babylonish corruption of Christendom must be trained in the religious schools of this world, must, as it were, be taught – the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” They must benefit from the resources provided by the world – “a daily provision of the king’s meat;” and lastly, they must accept such titles and dignities as the world can give.
In connection with the king’s plan, four men of the children of Judah are specially mentioned. The names that are given to them are presumably connected with the gods of Babylon (See Dan 4:8). In order to conform to their world, the minds of these men are to be trained in the learning of the Chaldeans, their tongues are to speak the Chaldean language, their bodies fed with the king’s dainties, and their names changed to those of heathen gods.
In exchange for their loss of nationality, to these captives is held out a most alluring prospect in a foreign land. They shall have a free course of the best education in the land, their daily needs shall be met by the finest provision at the king’s cost, and in the end they shall have an exalted position in the king’s palace.
(Vv. 8-17). There are, however, in the king’s scheme, serious difficulties for godly men. To carry out the king’s plan, in the king’s way, would involve disobedience to the word of God. To partake of the king’s dainties would be to eat things forbidden by law to an Israelite. Hence the alluring prospect becomes a severe trial to their faith. The test is, will they disobey God’s direct instructions for the sake of worldly advancement, or will they remain true to the word of God whatever the consequences?
Many plausible arguments could have been advanced in favour of unconditionally submitting to the proposal of the king. Expediency would suggest that to raise an objection to the proposal would probably wreck all their prospects. It would not only end their career of usefulness to their brethren, but it might do positive harm to others and add to the difficulties of the captives. Reason would argue that, as they had been given into the hand of the king of Babylon by an act of the Lord, their only right course was to submit entirely to the king, otherwise they might be rebelling against what the Lord had allowed. Compromise would suggest that, as long as they did not give up the confession or their God, the instructions as to not eating certain foods might under the circumstances be waived. Such instructions surely applied to a free people in their own land; but now that they were in bondage in a foreign land, would it not be a mere scruple to insist upon the strict observance of the letter of the law?
Such arguments, if used, carried no weight with these godly men. The test only makes manifest their devoted character. They refuse to be directed by mere expediency, or the dictates of human reason, and will enter into no compromise. They do not forget that, in spite of the failure of Israel, and though suffering under the chastening of God, they are still the people of the true God to whom they owe whole-hearted allegiance. They are rightly prepared to submit to the Gentile king, but they will not disobey the word of their God.
The secret of Daniel’s strength was that his heart was right with God, as we read, “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat.” He acts, however, with great discretion, for he makes request to the prince that “he might not defile himself,” without irritating and antagonising the man by telling him that he had already purposed in his heart that “he would not defile himself.”
The prince explains the difficulty and danger in granting Daniel’s request. At once Daniel proposes a ten days’ test of a diet in accordance with their law. This suggestion is a striking proof of Daniel’s faith in the living God. The result proves that his faith is not in vain. Obeying the word of God, these godly men are found at the end of the test to be in better bodily condition than those who ate of the king’s meat. So Daniel’s request is granted.
Obedience to the word of God, faith in the living God, separation from the defilements of Babylon are the outstanding marks of these godly men. Such have the understanding of the mind of God, for we read, “As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams” (17). It is true the Lord had given them into the hands of the king of Babylon, but this did not hinder His giving understanding of His mind and purpose to those who were faithful to Himself.
(Vv. 18-21). In result, these faithful men became witnesses for God, for we read they stood “before the king.” God was true to His own word, “Them that honour Me I will honour” (1Sa 2:30). So it came to pass that in all matters of wisdom and understanding the king found these faithful men ten times better than all the men of the world.
These things are surely recorded for our instruction and encouragement. However much dispensations change and circumstances may alter, the great moral principles of God for the guidance of His people remain the same. Like Israel of old, the Church has entirely failed as a witness for God during the absence of Christ. In consequence of this failure, the professing Church has become captive in religious corruption which God likens to Babylon.
But again, the word clearly indicates that, however great the failure, God will have faithful individuals – overcomers – who again and again will find their faith severely tested. If, however, they purpose in their heart to obey the word of God to walk in faith in God, and in separation from the defilements of the corruptions around, they will have understanding of the mind of God, and will be honoured of God as witnesses for Himself.
What greater privilege than to have the mind of God and to be in any measure a witness for God in the midst of corrupt Christendom whose sky grows black with the signs of coming judgment.
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
1:1 In the {a} third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
(a) Read 2Ki 24:1, Jer 25:1 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
A. Historical background 1:1-2
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The book opens with a synopsis of the first Jewish deportation in 605 B.C. (cf. 2Ki 24:1-2; 2Ch 36:6). [Note: D. J. Wiseman, The Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings, pp. 25, 46-47, and 66-69, validated this date.] Daniel and his three friends were part of the nobles and royal families taken from Jerusalem as captives then. We know nothing more about Daniel’s family background. Apparently he lived apart from his family in Babylon (cf. Dan 1:11-13). Perhaps the Babylonians killed his parents, but this is only speculation.
The date of this deportation by Nebuchadnezzar (605 B.C.), as Daniel recorded it, was the third year of King Jehoiakim’s reign (Dan 1:1). However, Jeremiah wrote that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (605 B.C.) was the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Jer 25:1; cf. Jer 46:2). Many critics of Daniel have seized upon this apparent contradiction and have tried to discredit this prophecy. [Note: E.g., J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 113-16.]
Scholars have proposed several solutions to this problem. [Note: See Longman and Dillard, pp. 376-77.] The best one, from my viewpoint, is that Daniel wrote from the Babylonian perspective and Jeremiah from the Jewish. It would have been only natural for Daniel to do so since he spent virtually all of his life in Babylon. The Babylonians considered the first year of their kings’ reigns as the accession year, the year they acceded to the throne. That "year" sometimes lasted only a few months. The first regnal year, the first full year of their reign, began with the first day of the new civil year. For the Babylonians this was the first of Nisan (late March and early April). This is the accession-year system of dating. [Note: See Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 202.]
Jeremiah was writing from the Jewish perspective. During the reigns of Jehoash to Hoshea, the Jews also followed the accession-year system. However, the Jews began their civil years on the first of Tishri (late September and early October). This explanation harmonizes these references. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 31-32. Cf. Walvoord, pp. 30-31; and Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, p. 344.] Other conservative scholars have offered other ways of resolving this problem that they, too, regarded as only an apparent contradiction. [Note: E.g., Leupold, pp. 47-55; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 166; Culver, p. 772; and Pentecost, pp. 1328-29.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
THE PRELUDE
“His loyalty he kept, his faith, his love.”-MILTON
THE first chapter of the Book of Daniel serves as a beautiful introduction to the whole, and strikes the keynote of faithfulness to the institutions of Judaism which of all others seemed most important to the mind of a pious Hebrew in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. At a time when many were wavering, and many had lapsed into open apostasy, the writer wished to set before his countrymen in the most winning and vivid manner the nobleness and the reward of obeying God rather than man.
He had read in 2Ki 24:1-2, that Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for three years, which were not, however, the first three years of his reign, and then had rebelled, and been subdued by “bands of the Chaldeans” and their allies. In 2Ch 36:6 he read that Nebuchadrezzar had “bound Jehoiakim in fetters to carry him to Babylon.” {Jer 22:18-19; Jer 36:30} Combining these two passages, he seems to. have inferred, in the absence of more accurate historical indications, that the Chaldeans had besieged and captured Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim. That the date is erroneous there can hardly be a question, for, as already stated, neither Jeremiah, the contemporary of Jehoiakim, nor the Book of Kings, nor any other authority, knows anything of any siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King in the third year of Jehoiakim. The Chronicler, a very late writer, seems to have heard some tradition that Jehoiakim had been taken captive, but he does not date this capture; and in Jehoiakims third year the king was a vassal, not of Babylon, but of Egypt. Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadrezzar, was then King of Babylon. It was not till the following year (B.C. 605), when Nebuchadrezzar, acting as his fathers general, had defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish, that any siege of Jerusalem would have been possible. Nor did Nebuchadrezzar advance against the Holy City even after the Battle of Carchemish, but dashed home across the desert to secure the crown of Babylon on hearing the news of his fathers death. The only two considerable Babylonian deportations of which we know were apparently in the eighth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadrezzars reign. In the former Jehoiachin was carried captive with ten thousand citizens; {Jer 27:20} in the latter Zedekiah was slain, and eight hundred and thirty-two persons carried to Babylon. {Jer 52:29 2Ki 25:11}
There seems then to be, on the very threshold, every indication of a historic inaccuracy such as could not have been committed if the historic Daniel had been the true author of this Book; and we are able, with perfect clearness, to point to the passages by which the Maccabean writer was misled into a mistaken inference. To him, however, as to all Jewish writers, a mere variation in a date would have been regarded, as a matter of the utmost insignificance. It in no way concerned the high purpose which he had in view, or weakened the force of his moral fiction. Nor does it in the smallest degree diminish from the instructiveness of the lessons which he has to teach to all men for all time. A fiction which is true to human experience may be as rich in spiritual meaning as a literal history. Do we degrade the majesty of the Book of Daniel if we regard it as a Haggada any more than we degrade the story of the Prodigal Son when we describe it as a Parable?
The writer proceeds to tell us that, after the siege, Nebuchadrezzar-whom the historic Daniel could never have called by the erroneous name Nebuchadnezzar-took Jehoiakim (for this seems to be implied), with some of the sacred vessels of the Temple, {comp. Dan 5:2-3} “into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god.” This god, as we learn from Babylonian inscription, was Bel or Belmerodach, in whose temple, built by Nebuchadrezzar, was also “the treasure-house of his kingdom.”
Among the captives were certain “of the kings seed, and of the princes” (“Parthemim”). They were chosen from among such boys as were preeminent for their beauty and intelligence, and the intention was to train them as pages in the royal service, and also in such a knowledge of the Chaldean language and literature as should enable them to take their places in the learned caste of priestly diviners. Their home was in the vast palace of the Babylonian King, of which the ruins are now called Kasr. Here they may have seen the hapless Jehoiachin still languishing in his long captivity.
They are called “children,” and the word, together with the context, seems to imply that they were boys of the age of from twelve to fourteen. The king personally handed them over to the care of Ashpenaz, the Rabsaris, or “master of the eunuchs,” who held the position of lord high chamberlain. It is probably implied that the boys were themselves made eunuchs, for the incident seems to be based on the rebuke given by Isaiah to the vain ostentation of Hezekiah in showing the treasures of his temple and palace to Merodach-baladan: “Behold the days come, that all that is in thine house shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon.”. {Isa 39:6-7}
They were to be trained in the learning (lit. “the book”) and language of Chaldea for three years; at the end of which period they were to be admitted into the kings presence, that he might see how they looked and what progress they had made. During those three years he provided them with a daily maintenance of food and wine from his table. Those who were thus maintained in Eastern courts were to be counted by hundreds, and even by thousands, and their position was often supremely wretched and degraded, as it still is in such Eastern courts. The wine was probably imported. The food consisted of meat, game, fish, joints, and wheaten bread. The word used for “provision” is interesting. It is “path-bag,” and seems to be a transliteration, or echo of a Persian word, “pati-baga,” a name applied by the historian Deinon (B.C. 340) to barley bread and “mixed wine in a golden egg from which the king drinks.”
But among these captives were four young Jews named Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
Their very names were a witness not only to their nationality, but to their religion. Daniel means “God is my judge”; Hananiah, “Jehovah is gracious”; Mishael (perhaps), “who is equal to God?” Azariah, “God is a helper.”
It is hardly likely that the Chaldeans would have tolerated the use of such names among their young pupils, since every repetition of them would have sounded like a challenge to the supremacy of Bel, Merodach, and Nebo. It was a common thing to change names in heathen courts, as the name of Joseph had been changed by the Egyptians to Zaphnath-paaneah, {Gen 41:45} and the Assyrians changed the name of Psammetichus II into “Nebo-serib-ani,” “Nebo save me.” They therefore made the names of the boys echo the names of the Babylonian deities. Instead of “God is my judge,” Daniel was called Belteshazzar, “protect Thou his life.” Perhaps the prayer shows the tender regard in which he was held by Ashpenaz. Hananiah was called Shadrach, perhaps Shudur-aku, “command of Aku,” the moon-deity: Mishael was called Meshach, a name which we cannot interpret; and Azariah, instead of “God is a help,” was called Abednego, a mistaken form for Abed-nebo, or “servant of Nebo.” Even in this slight incident there may be an allusion to Maccabean days. It appears that in that epoch the apostate Hellenising Jews were fond of changing their names into Gentile names, which had a somewhat similar sound. Thus Joshua was called “Jason,” and Onias “Menelaus.” This was done as part of the plan of Antiochus to force upon Palestine the Greek language. So far the writer may have thought the practice a harmless one, even though imposed by heathen potentates. Such certainly was the view of the later Jews, even of the strictest sect of the Pharisees. Not only did Saul freely adopt the name of Paul, but Silas felt no scruple in being called by the name Sylvanus, though that was the name of a heathen deity.
It was far otherwise with acquiescence in the eating of heathen meats, which, in the days of the Maccabees, was forced upon many of the Jews, and which, since the institution or reinstitution of Levitism after the return from the Exile, had come to be regarded as a deadly sin. It was during the Exile that such feelings had acquired fresh intensity. At first they do not seem to have prevailed. Jehoiachin was a hero among the Jews. They remembered him with intense love and pity, and it does not seem to have been regarded as any stain upon his memory that, for years together, he had, almost in the words of Dan 1:5, received a daily allowance from the table of the King of Babylon.
In the days of. Antiochus Epiphanes the ordinary feeling on this subject was very different, for the religion and nationality of the Jews were at stake. Hence we read: “Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing. Wherefore they chose rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, that they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they died.” (Macc. 1:62, 63).
And in the Second Book of Maccabees we are told that on the kings birthday Jews “were constrained by bitter constraint to eat of the sacrifices,” and that Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged and noble-looking man, preferred rather to be tortured to death, “leaving his death for an example of noble courage, and a memorial of value, not only unto young men, but unto all his nation.” In the following chapter is the celebrated story of the constancy and cruel death of seven brethren and their mother, when they preferred martyrdom to tasting swines flesh. The brave Judas Maccabaeus, with some nine companions, withdrew himself into the wilderness, and “lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts with his company, who fed on herbs continually, lest they should be partakers of the pollution.” The tone and object of these narratives are precisely the same as the tone and object of the stories in the Book of Daniel: and we can well imagine how the heroism of resistance would be encouraged in every Jew who read those narratives or traditions of former days of persecution and difficulty. “This Book,” says Ewald, “fell like a glowing spark from a clear heaven upon a surface which was already intensely heated far and wide, and waiting to burst into flames.”
It may be doubtful whether such views as to ceremonial defilement were already developed at the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity. The Maccabean persecution left them ingrained in the habits of the people, and Josephus tells us a contemporary story which reminds us of that of Daniel and his companions. He says that certain priests, who were friends of his own, had been imprisoned in Rome, and that he endeavoured to procure their release, “especially because I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God, but supported themselves with figs and nuts,” because in such eating of dry food (as it was called) there was no chance of heathen defilement. {Josea “Vit.” Comp. Isa 52:11} It need hardly be added that when the time came to break down the partition-wall which separated Jewish particularism from the universal brotherhood of mankind redeemed in Christ, the Apostles-especially St. Paul-had to show the meaningless nature of many distinctions to which the Jews attached consummate importance. The Talmud abounds in stories intended to glorify the resoluteness with which the Jews maintained their stereotyped Levitism; but Christ taught, to the astonishment of the Pharisees and even of the disciples, that it is not what entereth into a man which makes him unclean, but the unclean thoughts which come from within, from the heart. And this He said , i.e. , abolishing thereby the Levitic Law, and “making all meats clean.” Yet, even after this, it required nothing less than that Divine vision on the tanners roof at Joppa to convince Peter that he was not to call “common” what God had cleansed, {Act 10:14} and it required all the keen insight and fearless energy of St. Paul to prevent the Jews from keeping an intolerable yoke upon their own necks, and also laying it upon the necks of the Gentiles.
The four princely boys-they may have been from twelve to fourteen years old-determined not to share in the royal dainties, and begged the Sar-hassarisim to allow them to live on pulse and water, rather than on the luxuries in which-for them-lurked a heathen pollution. The eunuch not unnaturally demurred. The daily rations were provided from the royal table. He was responsible to the king for the beauty and health, as well as for the training, of his young scholars; and if Nebuchadrezzar saw them looking more meagre or haggard than the rest of the captives and other pages, the chamberlains head might pay the forfeit. But Daniel, like Joseph in Egypt, had inspired affection among his captors; and since the prince of the eunuchs regarded him “with favour and tender love,” he was the more willing to grant, or at least to connive at, the fulfilment of the boys wish. So Daniel gained over the Melzar (or steward?), who was in immediate charge of the boys, and begged him to try the experiment for ten days. If at the end of that time their health or beauty had suffered, the question might be reconsidered.
So for ten days the four faithful children were fed on water, and on the “seeds”- i.e. , vegetables, dates, raisins, and other fruits, which are here generally called “pulse.” At the end of the ten days-a sort of mystic Persian week-they were found to be fairer and fresher than all the other captives of the palace. Thenceforth they were allowed without hindrance to keep the customs of their country.
Nor was this all. During the three probationary years they continued to flourish intellectually as well as physically. They attained to conspicuous excellence “in all kinds of books and wisdom,” and Daniel also had understanding in all kinds of dreams and visions, to which the Chaldeans attached supreme importance. The Jews exulted in these pictures of four youths of their own race who, though they were strangers in a strange land, excelled all their alien compeers in their own chosen fields of learning. There were already two such pictures in Jewish history, -that of the youthful Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and a great man and a prince among the magicians of Pharaoh; and that of Joseph, who, though there were so many Egyptian diviners, alone could interpret dreams, whether in the dungeon or at the foot of the throne. A third picture, that of Daniel at the court of Babylon, is now added to them, and in all three cases the glory is given directly, not to them, but to the God of heaven, the God of their fathers.
At the close of the three years the prince of the eunuchs brought all his young pages into the presence of the King Nebuehadrezzar. He tested them by familiar conversation, and found the four Jewish lads superior to all the rest. They were therefore chosen “to stand before the king”-in other words, to become his personal attendants. As this gave free access to his presence, it involved a position not only of high honour, but of great influence. And their superiority stood the test of time. Whenever the king consulted them on matters which required “wisdom of understanding,” he found them not only better, but “ten times better,” than all the “magicians,” and “astrologers” that were in all his realm.
The last verse of the chapter, “And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus,” is perhaps a later gloss, for it appears from Dan 10:1 that Daniel lived, at any rate, till the third year of Cyrus. Abn Ezra adds the words “continued in Babylon ,” and Ewald “at the kings court.” Some interpret “continued” to mean “remained alive.” The reason for mentioning “the first year of Cyrus” may be to show that Daniel survived the return from the Exile, and also to mark the fact that he attained a great age. For if he were about fourteen at the beginning of the narrative, he would be eighty-five in the first year of Cyrus. Dr. Pusey remarks: “Simple words, but what a volume of tried faithfulness is unrolled by them! Amid all the intrigues indigenous at all times in dynasties of Oriental despotism, amid all the envy towards a foreign captive in high office as a kings councillor, amid all the trouble incidental to the insanity of the king and the murder of two of his successors, in that whole critical period for his people, Daniel continued. ” (“Daniel” pp. 20, 21).
The domestic anecdote of this chapter, like the other more splendid narratives which succeed it, has a value far beyond the circumstances in which it may have originated. It is a beautiful moral illustration of the blessings which attend on faithfulness and on temperance, and whether it be a Haggada or a historic tradition, it equally enshrines the same noble lesson as that which was taught to all time by the early stories of the Books of Genesis and Exodus. {Comp. Gen 39:21 1Ki 8:50 Neh 1:1 Psa 106:46}
It teaches the crown and blessing of faithfulness. It was the highest glory of Israel “to uplift among the nations the banner of righteousness.” It matters not that, in this particular instance, the Jewish boys were contending for a mere ceremonial rule which in itself was immaterial, or at any rate of no eternal significance. Suffice it that this rule presented itself to them in the guise of a principle and of a sacred duty, exactly as it did to Eleazar the Scribe, and Judas the Maccabee, and the Mother and her seven strong sons in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. They regarded it as a duty to their laws, to their country, to their God; and therefore upon them it was sacredly incumbent. And they were faithful to it. Among the pampered minions and menials of the vast Babylonian palace-undazzled by the glitter of earthly magnificence, untempted by the allurements of pomp, pleasure. and sensuous indulgence-
“Amid innumerable false, unmoved, unshaken, unseduced, unterrified, Their loyalty they kept their faith, their love.”
And because God loves them for their constancy, because they remain pure and true, all the Babylonian varletry around them learns the lesson of simplicity, the beauty of holiness. Amid the outpourings of the Divine favour they flourish, and are advanced to the highest honours. This is one great lesson which dominates the historic section of this Book: “Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.” It is the lesson of Josephs superiority to the glamour of temptation in the house of Potiphar; of the choice of Moses, preferring to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than all the treasures of Egypt and “to be called the son of Pharaohs daughter”; of Samuels stainless innocence beside the corrupting example of Elis sons; of Davids strong, pure, ruddy boyhood as a shepherd-lad on Bethlehems hills. It is the anticipated story of that yet holier childhood of Him who-subject to His parents in the sweet vale of Nazareth-blossomed “like the flower of roses in the spring of the year, and as lilies by the water-courses.” The young human being who grows up in innocence and self-control grows up also in grace and beauty, in wisdom and “in favour with God and man.” The Jews specially delighted in these pictures of boyish continence and piety, and they lay at the basis of all that was greatest in their national character.
But there also lay incidentally in the story a warning against corrupting luxury, the lesson of the need for, and the healthfulness of,
“The rule of not too much by temperance taught.”
“The love of sumptuous food and delicious drinks is never good,” says Ewald, “and with the use of the most temperate diet body and soul can flourish most admirably, as experience had at that time sufficiently taught.”
To the value of this lesson the Nazarites among the Jews were a perpetual witness. Jeremiah seems to single them out for the special beauty which resulted from their youthful abstinence when he writes of Jerusalem, “Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphires.” {Lam 4:7}
It is the lesson which Milton reads in the story of Samson, –
“O madness! to think use of strongest wines And strongest drinks our chief support of health, When God, with these forbidden, made choice to rear His mighty champion, strong above compare, Whose drink was only from the liquid brook!”
It is the lesson which Shakespeare inculcates when he makes the old man say in “As You Like It,”-
“When I was young I never did apply Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood, Nor did not with unblushful forehead woo The means of weakness and debility; Therefore mine age is as a lusty winter, Frosty, yet kindly.”
The writer of this Book connects intellectual advance as well as physical strength with this abstinence, and here he is supported even by ancient and pagan experience. Something of this kind may perhaps lurk in Pindar; and certainly Horace saw that gluttony and repletion are foes to insight when he wrote, –
“Nam corpus onustum Hesternis vitiis animum quoque praegravat una, Atque afligit humo divinae particulam aurae.”
Pythagoras was not the only ancient philosopher who recommended and practised a vegetable diet, and even Epicurus, whom so many regard as
“The soft gardens rose-encircled child.”
placed over his garden door the inscription that those who came would only be regaled on barley-cakes and fresh water, to satisfy, but not to allure, the appetite.
But the grand lesson of the picture is meant to be that the fair Jewish boys were kept safe in the midst of every temptation to self-indulgence, because they lived as in Gods sight: and “he that holds himself in reverence and due esteem for the dignity of Gods image upon him, accounts himself both a fit person to do the noblest and godliest deeds, and much better worth than to deject and defile, with such debasement and pollution as sin is, himself so highly ransomed and ennobled to a new friendship and filial relation with God.”