In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.
Parallel Translations
-
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.
-
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
-
IN THE third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Science (1)
Historical claims about the natural world, weighed against the scientific record.
Cross-references (3)
Passages linked to Daniel 1:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 2 Chronicles 36:5-7 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. He did that which was evil in Yahweh his God’s sight. Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against him, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar also carried some of the vessels of Yahweh’s house to Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon.
- 2 Kings 24:1-2 In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years. Then he turned and rebelled against him. Yahweh 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 Yahweh’s word, which he spoke by his servants the prophets.
- 2 Kings 24:13 He carried out from there all the treasures of Yahweh’s house, 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 Yahweh’s temple, as Yahweh had said.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (25 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain The Book of The Prophet Daniel follows these Remarks,…
The Book of The Prophet Daniel follows these Remarks, and its utility will be better understood as we proceed; since it cannot be conveniently explained all at once. I will, however, just present the Leader with a foretaste to prepare his mind, and render him attentive. But before I do so, I must make a brief Summary Of The Book. We may divide the Book into two part, and this partition will materially help us. For Daniel relates how he acquired influence over the unbelieving. It was necessary for him to be elevated to the prophetic office in some singular and unusual manner. The condition of the Jews, as is well known, was so confused, that it was difficult for any one to determine whether any Prophet existed. At first Jeremiah was alive, and after him Ezekiel. After their return, the Jews had their own Prophets but Jeremiah and Ezekiel had almost fulfilled their office, when Daniel succeeded them. Others too, as we have already seen, as Haggai, Malachi, and Zechariah, were created Prophets for the purpose of exhorting the people, and hence their duties were partially restricted. But Daniel would scarcely have been considered a Prophet, had not God, as we have said, appointed him in a remarkable way. We shall perceive at the close of the sixth chapter, that he was divinely endued with remarkable signs, so that the Jews might surely ascertain that he had the gift of prophecy, unless they were basely ungrateful to God. His name was known and respected by the inhabitants of Babylon. If the Jews had despised what even the profane Gentiles admired, was not this purposely to suffocate and trample on the grace of God? Daniel, then, had sure and striking marks by which he could by recognized as God’s Prophet, and his calling be rendered unquestionable.
A Second Part is afterwards added, in which God predicts by his agency the events which were to occur to his elect people. The Visions, then, from the seventh chapter to the end of the Book, relate peculiarly to the Church of God. There God predicts what should happen hereafter. And that admonition is the more necessary, since the trial was severe, when the Jews had to bear an exile of seventy years; but after their return to their country, instead of seventy years, God protracted their full deliverance till seventy weeks of years. So the delay was increased sevenfold. Their spirits might be broken a thousand times, or even utterly fail; for the Prophets speak so magnificently about their redemption, that the Jews expected their state to be especially happy and prosperous, as soon as they were snatched from the Babylonian Captivity. But since they were oppressed with so many afflictions, and that, too, not for a short period, but for more than four hundred years, their redemption might seem illusory since they were but seventy years in exile. there is no doubt, then, that Satan seduced the minds of many to revolt, as if God were mocking them by bringing them out of Chaldea back again to their own country. For these reasons God shews his servant in a Vision what numerous and severe afflictions awaited his elect people. Besides, Daniel, He prophesies that he describes almost historically events previously hidden. And this was necessary, since in such turbulent convulsions the people would never have tasted that these had been divinely revealed to Daniel, unless the heavenly testimony had been proved by the event. This holy man ought so to speak and to prophesy concerning futurity, as if he were relating what had already happened. But we shall see all these things in their own order.
Read full note →
I return, then, to what I commenced with, that we may see in few words how useful this Book is to the Church of Christ. First of all, the matter itself shews how Daniel did not speak from his own discretion, but whatever he uttered was dictated by the Holy Spirit for whence could he conceive the things which we shall afterwards behold, if he were only endued with human prudence? for instance, that other Monarchies should arise to blot out that Babylonian Empire which then had the greatest authority in all the world? Then, again, how could he divine concerning Alexander the Great and his Successors? for long before Alexander was born, Daniel predicted what he should accomplish. Then he shows that his kingdom should not last, since it is directly divided into four horns. Other events also clearly demonstrate that he spoke by the dictation of the Holy Spirit. But our confidence in this is strengthened by other narratives, where he represents the various miseries to which the Church should be subject between two most cruel enemies, the kings of Syria and Egypt. He first recites their treaties, and then their hostile incursions on both sides, and afterwards so many changes, as if he pointed at the things themselves with his finger; and he so follows through their whole progress, that God appears to speak by his mouth. This, then, is a great step, and we shall not repent of taking it, when we acknowledge Daniel to have been only the organ of the Holy Spirit, and never to have brought anything forward by his own private inclination. The authority, too, which he obtained, and which inspired the Jews with perfect confidence in his teaching, extends to us also. Shameful, indeed, and base would be our ingratitude, if we did not embrace him as God’s Prophet, whom the Chaldeans were compelled to honor — a people whom we know to have been superstitious and full of pride. These two nations, the Egyptians and Chaldeans, placed themselves before all others; for the Chaldeans thought wisdom’s only dwelling-place was with themselves hence they would never have been inclined to receive Daniel’s, unless the reality had compelled them, and the confession of his being a true prophet of God had been extorted from them.
Since Daniel’s authority is thus established, we must now say a few words about the subjects which he treats. Respecting The Interpretation Of The Dreams, the first of; those of Nebuchadnezzar embraces a matter of great importance, as we shall see, namely, how all the splendor and power of the world vanish away, Christ’s kingdom alone remaining stable, and that nothing else is self-enduring. In the Second Dream of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel’s admirable constancy is displayed. Very invidious, indeed, was the office of throwing down the mightiest Monarch of the whole world as he did “Thou excepts thyself from the number of men, and art worshipped like a god; thou shalt hereafter become a beast!” No man of these days would dare thus to address Monarchs; nay, who dares to admonish them even mildly, if they have sinned at all? When, therefore, Daniel intrepidly predicted to King Nebuchadnezzar the disgrace which awaited him, he thus gave a rare and memorable proof of his constancy. And in this way, again, his calling was sealed, since this fortitude sprang from God’s Spirit.
But the Second Part is peculiarly worthy of notice, since we there perceive how God cares for his Church. God’s providence is, indeed, extended to the whole world. For if a sparrow does not fall to the ground without his permission, he, doubtness, is mindful of the human race! (Matthew 10, and Luke 12.) Nothing, therefore, happens to us by chance, but God in this Book affords us light, while we know His Church to be so governed by him, as to be the object. of His peculiar care. If matters ever were so disturbed in the world, that one could suppose God to be asleep in heaven, and to be forgetful of the human race, surely such were the changes of those times, nay, so multiform, so extensive, and so various were they, that even the most daring must be confounded, since there was no end to the wars. Egypt prevailed at one time, while at another there were commotion’s in Syria. Seeing, then, all things turned up-side (down, what judgment could be passed, except that God neglected the world, and the Jews were miserably deceived in their hope? They thought that as God had been their deliverer, so would he have been the perpetual guardian of their safety. Although all nations were then subject in common to various slaughters, yet if the Syrians were victorious over the Egyptians, they abused their power against the Jews, and Jerusalem lay exposed as their prey, and the reward of their victory if, again, the opposite side were the conquerors, they revenged the injury, or sought compensation against rite Jews. Thus on every side those miserable people were fleeced, and their condition was much worse after their return to their country, than if they had always been exiles or strangers in other regions. When, therefore, they were admonished concerning the future, this was the best prop on which they could repose. But the use of the same doctrine is at this day applicable to us. We perceive, as in a glass or picture, how God was anxious about his Church, even when he seemed to cast away all regard for it, hence when the Jews were exposed to the injuries of their enemies, it was but, the accomplishment of his designs.
From the Second Part we recognize their wonderful preservation, and that too, by a. greater and more surprising exercise of God’s power, than if they had lived in peace, and no one had molested them. We learn this from the seventh to the ninth chapters. Now, when Daniel numbers the years till The Advent Of Christ, how clear and distinct is the testimony which we may oppose against. Satan, and all the taunts of the impious! and how certain it is that the Book of Daniel, was familiarly used by men before this event. But when he enumerates The Seventy Weeks, and says, that Christ should then come, all profane men may come, and boast, and swell with increased swaggering, yet they shall fall down convicted, since Christ is that true Redeemer whom God had promised from the beginning of the world. For He was unwilling to make him known without the most certain demonstration, such as all the mathematicians can never equal. First of all, it is worthy of observation, that Daniel afterwards discoursed on the various calamities of the Church, and prophesied the time at which God pleased to hew his only-begotten Son to the world. His dissertation on the office of Christ is one of the principal supports of our faith. For he not only describes his Advent, but announces the abolition of the shadows of the Law, since the Messiah would bring with him its complete fulfillment. And when he predicts the Death of Christ, he shows for what purpose he should undergo death, namely, to abolish Sin by his sacrifice, and to bring in Eternal Righteousness. Lastly, this also must be noticed, — as he had instructed the people to bear their cross, so also he warns them that the Church’s state would not be tranquil even when the Messiah came. The sons of God should be militant until the end, and not hope for any fruit of their victory until the dead should rise again, and Christ himself should collect us into his own Celestial Kingdom. Now, we comprehend in few words, or rather only taste how useful and fruitful this Book is to us.
I now come to the words themselves, I wished, as I said, just to catch a foretaste of a few things, and the reading of the Book will show us better what advantage we may derive from each of its chapters.
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. 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. (Jeremiah 24:2, 8.) 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. (Ezekiel 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.
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?” (Luke 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. (Psalm 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, (Psalm 80:1, and Psalm 99:1, and Isaiah 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 —
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Read 2 Kings 24:1 and Jer. 25:1.
Read 2 Kings 24:1 and Jer. 25:1.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Dan 1:1 In the third year of the reign…
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
Read full note →
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.] Surnamed Magnus son to Nebuchadnezzar, surnamed Priscus. See 2Ki 24:1-2 2Ch 36:8. {See Trapp on "2Ki 24:1"} {See Trapp on "2Ki 24:2"} {See Trapp on "2Ch 36:8"}
{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. ŒD
{k} Torshel.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Comparing this with 2Ki 24:1, and with 2Ch 36:6,…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain We have in these verses an account,
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 Dan 1:21), during which time all nations shall serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his son's son, Jer 25:11. 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 aetatis - 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.
Read full note →
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, Dan 1:2. 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, Dan 5:3. 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 27:18. 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, Dan 1:4. 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, Dan 1:5. 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim…
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 Kg2 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.
Read full note →
(p) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 25. in principio. (q) Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3398. ((r)) Scripture Chronology, p. 676.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Jehoiakim's first captivity, ver. 1, 2. The choice made…
Jehoiakim's first captivity, ver. 1, 2. The choice made of Daniel and some other young men, to be brought up for Nebuchadnezzar's service, ver. 3-7. Their preferring pulse before the king's meat, ver. 8-16. Their wonderful improvement, ver. 17- 21.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Chronological Notes relative to the commencement of Daniel's prophesying
THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL
Chronological Notes relative to the commencement of Daniel's prophesying
Read full note →
-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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Dan 1:1-2. In the third year of the reign…
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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim…
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. - Jahn’s 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.
Read full note →
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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Third, at the conclusion, so that it is called…
Third, at the conclusion, so that it is called the fourth. (Jeremias xxv. 1.) (Cornelius a Lapide; Menochius) --- Nabuchodonosor began his expedition into Syria a year before he was king; (Salien, A. 3428 [in the year of the world 3428 or 624 B.C.]. Josephus, &c.) or he had the title before his father Nabopolassar’s death. (Usher, A. 3397 [in the year of the world 3397 or 607 B.C.].) --- The following year he took Joakim, with a design to convey him to Babylon; but left him on hard terms, and seized many of the sacred vessels, Daniel, &c. (Calmet) --- Joakim reigned other eight years. (2 Paralipomenon xxxvi. 5.) (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Chapters 1–6
FIRST (HISTORICAL) PART
Chapters 1–6
Read full note →
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 king’s 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 king’s palace, and whom they might teach14 the learning15 and the tongue of the Chaldæans.
5And the king appointed them a daily provision16 of the king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 king’s 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 בּוֹא is here to be taken in the sense of “departing,” see the Introd., § 8, 2, a—Instead of הֵצַר עַל, to straiten, besiege, we generally find elsewhere הֵצַר with the dative, e. g., Deu_28:52; 1Ki_8:37.—The form of the name נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר 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 נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר, 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 Nabukhadraçara, which occurs at Behistun (see Oppert, Journ. Asiat., 1851, p. 416; Expédit. en Mésopoamie, 2:257 ss). The name certainly comprehends, as its first element, the name of the Chaldæan god Nebo,=Mercury (נְבוֹ, Isa_46:1), and it seems also to include the terms kadr, “might,” and zar=שַׂר, “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 Ναβοκοδρόσορος, Berosus (in Josephus contr. Ap., 1:20,21) has Ναβουχοδορόσορος, and the Sept. Ναβουχοδονόσορ. Instead of גְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר, however, our book elsewhere has uniformly ־נֶצּר, omitting the euphonic א; cf. נּוֹ, Dan_3:25; Dan_7:15, instead of נּוֹא, Dan_3:6; Dan_3:11, etc.; Dan_4:7.
[According to Ptolemy’s 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 Jehoiakim’s 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” (אֲדֹנָי) 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—מִקְצָת, instead of which several manuscripts have מִקְּצָת (cf. Theodotion’s ἀπὸ μέρους), is compounded of קְּצָת “end,” and the preposition מִן, 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 מִן קְצָת in Dan_2:42, and like מִקְצָת in Neh_7:70. In explaining this meaning it is not necessary to assume (with Hitzig) that קְצָת 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. קצת, [Fürst, however (Heb. Lex. s. v.), adopts the simple explanation that מִקְצָת is merely an alternative form of קְצָת, and this is certainly corroborated by the form וּלְמִקְצָת, Dan_1:18, where two prepositions cannot be tolerated.] This view is also essentially established by 2Ch_36:7 : וּמִכְּלֵי בֵית יְהוָֹה הֵבִיא נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר לְבָבֶל.—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 וַיְבִיאֵם “and he caused them to be taken away,” can hardly be taken (as do Hävern. 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 הברא.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. (καὶ ἔὀησεν αὐτὸν ἐν χαλκαις πέδαις καὶ ἁνήγαγεν αὐτὸν εἰς Βαβυλῶνα) 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 period—an 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 ויביאם; 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. belonged—hence those יְהוּדִים, whose presence may be gathered from the collective singular יְהוּדָה, 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 god—rather “to the dwelling-place of his gods.” בֵּית־אֱלֹחָיו is probably to be regarded as in opposition with אֶרֶץ שִׁנְצָר; for the sacred vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, as has been shown, formed only a part of the object in וַיְבִיאֵם; and, besides, if בֵּית־אֱלֹחָיו in this place were intended to designate the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s god (or gods), usage would require the particle אֶל 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 בית 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 Jehovah’s. 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 אֱלֹחָיו 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 בֵּית אוֹצָר, treasure-house γαζοφυλάκιον, 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” (בְּחֵיכָלוֹ; A. V. “temple”), is merely less exact than the one before us; [or rather, perhaps, הֵיכָל 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. אַשְׁפְּנַז, a name, whose formation is very similar to that of אַשְׁכְּנַז, 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 Rödiger, is compounded of the Sanscrit açva, “horse,” and nasa, “nose.” It is, therefore, equivalent to “horse-nose.”—רַב סָרִיסִים, the chief of the eunuchs (Sept. ἀρχιεύνουχος; Vulgate, prœpositus 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 Kämmerer”). Compare Gen_37:36; Gen_39:1; Gen_39:7, where Joseph’s master at the court of Pharaoh is called סָרִיס, although he was married; also 1Sa_8:15; 1Ki_22:9; 1 Kings 25:19, etc., in all of which the rendering of סָרִיס 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 Isaiah’s prophecy, Isa_39:7 (where סריס 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 Israel—i.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 king’s seed, and of the princes—rather, “of the royal seed, as well as of the number of nobles.” Instead of this correlative view of the two וְ’s—the only correct view—which is found in Von Lengerke, and in Hitzig, and others, Bertholdt, without reason, adopts the designative (either—or), while a majority, including Hävernick, take the first וְ (before זֶרע, which, however, is wanting in several of Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s 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 הַפַּרְתְּמִים, “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 πρω̆τος. Its derivation from the Greek πρότιμοι, essayed by Bertholdt, as well as the opinion which prevailed among older expositors, that the word is of Hebrew origin, and perhaps related to פרת, invaluit, are to be decisively rejected. The corresponding term in Hebrew is אֵילִים, 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 מאוּם 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 Gegenwärt. Zustand des türk. Reiches, i. 13.—The indefinite יְלָדִים 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 παιδαγωγοἰ βασιλεῐοι 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 ἔφηβοι 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. Hävernick, Hitzig, and others, are correct in taking מַשְׂכִּילִים in the sense of “discerning, understanding,” rather than “versed, or experienced,”—as denoting aptitudo rather than habitus. “חכמה , as כל 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” (יֹדְיַ דַעַת and “understanding thought” (וְבִינֵי מַדָּע). On מַדָּע “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 king’s palace, literally “who had power (כּחַ, here [perhaps] ability, talent; compare Dan_8:7; Dan_11:15) to stand in the king’s palace” (לַעֲמֹד בְּהֵיכַל הַמֶּלֶךְ,—for which בה׳ לַעֲבֹד is not to be substituted). “To stand in the king’s 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 הָעֹמְדִים, the servants, in Zec_3:7; also Est_5:2.—And whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldæans; literally, “and to teach them the learning,” etc. וּלְלַמְּדָם depends on the verb וַיֹּאמֶר Dan_1:3, and is co-ordinate with לְהָבִיא in the same verse, as the preceding athnâch indicates.—ספר, “writing,” does not in this place denote the art of writing, but the learning of the Chaldæans; compare כָּל־סֵפֶר Dan_1:17, which can only be equivalent to all learning, “all literary knowledge.” Further, לְשׁוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים can hardly signify the Aramæan idiom which begins with Dan_2:4, but designates the original Chaldee, which was of Japhetic origin, or tinctured with Japhetic elements—as Michaelis, Bertholdt, Winer, Hävernck, Lengerke, Hengstenberg, and others, hold.35 That the noble Jewish youths should be compelled to learn the Aramæan 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 Chaldæans” with the official Aramæan of the court, is untenable because of the circumstance that the latter is introduced in Dan_2:4 by the term אֲרָמִית (cf. Isa_36:11; Ezr_4:7), and is thus clearly distinguished from the ordinary language of the כַּשְׂדִּים. (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. מִנָּה, to ordain, appoint, assignare, compare Dan_1:10.—דְּבַר יוֹם בִּיוֹמוֹ, 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 king’s 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 Athenæus, Dan_4:10, p. 69; Plutarch, Probl. vii. 4.—פַּתְבָּג “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 προτί, πρός)—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 für Kunde den Morgenlandes, iv. 214.—And of the wine which he drank, properly “of the wine of his drinking,” his banquet. מִשְׁתָּיו 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 וּלְגַדְּלָם with a copulative ו certainly does not depend on וַיֹּאמֶר in Dan_1:3; but rather is to be regarded as governed by וַיְמן, from whose signification the idea of commanding, ordaining, is zeugmatically derived. Compare מִנָּח 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 master’s 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 פַּרְתָּמִים (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 (מִזֶרַע הַמְּלוּכָה. 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 בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר (cf. Dan_4:5),—with which the royal name בֵּלְֹשַאצַּר is probably identical—whether, as a majority hold, we find the name of the god בֵּל 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 Hitzig’s more artificial interpretation = Pâld tschâçara, “nourisher and devourer.” עֲבֵד נְגוֹ likewise (for which the scriptio plena, Dan_3:29, is ע׳ נְגוֹא) 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 Dragon—since the comparison of the Sanscrit nâga, serpent, with this name, which was first essayed by Rödiger, affords a more likely conception than the transmutation of ב into ג. But שַׁדְרַךְ, which may be identical with חַדְרַךְ, Zec_9:1 (cf. Köhler, Sacharia, 2d pt., p. 18) also seems to designate a divinity, and possibly, in case it is based on the root חדר or הזר, “to move in a circle,” the sun-god. מֵישַׁךְ may be the same as the Sanscrit mêschach, “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. Daniel’s 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 וַיָּשֶׂם עַל לִבּוֹ than “he was concerned,” as Bertholdt properly renders it. That he would (better “should”) not defile himself with the king’s meat. The Sept. renders אשר לא יתגאל by ὄπως μὴ ἀλισγήη; cf. ἀλισγήματα, Act_15:20. The reason for the refusal of the פתבג, 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 Hävernick and Hitzig on this passage, and against Von Lengerke especially, who thought to find here the χορτώδης τροφή, 2Ma_5:27; and, therefore, a proof of the composition of the book in the time of the Maccabees; see Hävernick, Neue krit. Unters., p. 47. [“Daniel’s 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. נתן לִהסד is exactly the Greek ἔδωκεν εἰς ἔλεος καὶ οἰκτιρμόν (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 שַׁלָּמָה stands for אֲשֶׁרלָמָה, and where, similarly, the question expresses the sense of an emphatic negation (cf. 2Ch_32:4; Ezr_7:23).—Your faces worse liking, etc. זֹעֲפִים, properly “sad, lowering, of a peevish appearance” (Gen_40:6; cf. רָעִים, Gen_40:7), here implying a meager and decayed appearance, exactly like the Greek σκυθρωπός, Mat_6:16. [ “פְּנֵי is to be understood before הַיְלָדִים, 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.” וְהִיַּבְתֶּם [and ye cause to forfeit, a Chaldaizing Piel from חוּב], is coordinated with יִרְאֶה, and like it depends on אֲשֶׁר לָמָה; therefore: “for why should he see … and ye endanger my head,” etc. On the phrase “to endanger the head,” compare I liad, 4:162, ἀποτῐσαι σὺ̀ν κεφαλῆ, and the German, “den Kopf verwirken.”
Dan_1:11-16. Daniel’s abstemiousness, and its consequences. Then said Daniel to Melzar. הַמֶּלְצַי, 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 =μέθυ, “drink,” and çara =κάρα, “head”); compare ἀρχιτοͅίκλινος, Joh_2:8-9),—[and רַבְשָׁקֵה, 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 זֵרֹעִים, 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 תִּרְאֵה with tsêrê, 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 מַרְאֵיהֶםnor מַרְאֵינוּ can be regarded as plurals. The plural מַרְאִים can nowhere be pointed out, and finds no support in Ecc_11:9 (cf. the exegetical notes on that passage, and also Hävernick 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.” וַיְהִי 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. Luther’s 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 לָהֶם), compare the examples adduced by Ewald, § 309, a, b.—In all learning and wisdom.—סֵפֶר, as in Dan_1:4, “literary knowledge, acquaintance with literature, erudition” (Theodotion, γραμματική).—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 χάρισμα προφητικόν, 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.).—הֵבִין בְּכָל־חָזוֹן is the same construction as in Dan_1:4 : מַשְׂכִּלִים בְּכָל־חָכְמָה, compare Ewald, § 217, 2. כל, however, does not belong only to הָזוֹן, but also to וַחֲלֹמוֹת 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 Lengerke’s rendering, “and toward the end of the time,” is incorrect.—לַהֲבִיאָם, “to bring them,” viz.: into the presence of the king. Hence not the same as הָבִיא in verses.—The prince … brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. Them—not 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. “עָמַד 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” (חָכְמַת בִּינָה, something like חֻקַּת מִשְׁפָּט, Num_27:11; cf. Ps. 55:24). חָכְמָה, however, is here, as in Dan_1:4, employed exclusively in the sense of objective wisdom, which is essentially the same as science; while בִּינָה is “the subjective interior of this wisdom, the mind which shines through it.” דָּבָר 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. בִּקֵּשׁ, not יֶבַקֵּשׁ. 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. חַרְטֻמִּים, by reason of the probable derivation of the word from חָרֵט, 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 קוּרְטְמָן). 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 ἱερογραμματεῐς, and the Sept. sometimes terms them ἐξηγηταί (Gen_41:8; Gen_41:24), and again σοφισταί (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. אַשָּׁפִים, the more special term, designates (in virtue of the undeniable sameness in sense of its root שף with שׁאף and נשׁף) “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 ἀσπίς 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. חָיָה, which is neither to be identified with, nor exchanged for חָיָה (the latter is advocated by Kirmss and Hitzig among others, who substitute וַיְחִי for וַיְהִי), expresses, in connection with עַד, 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 עד in this place does not refer to the close of the prophet’s 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” (Hävernick). Compare Hengstenberg (Beitr., p. 65, 314 et seq.), and Maurer on this passage, who regards וַיְהִי עַד, etc., correctly, as simply showing that Daniel lived through the whole period of the exile as a highly esteemed wise man at the Chaldæan court.38 We need not, however, adopt Ewald’s view, who assumes that the words בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּכֶֹךְ have been lost after דניאל; “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 כּוֹרֶשׁ evidently corresponds better with the ancient Persian in the cuneiform inscriptions (Qurus, Qurus), than the Greek κῠρος. Its interpretation by “sun,” which is found as early as Ctesias (Plut. Artax. 1. p. 1012) and in the Etymol. M. (cf. the Sanscrit sûra, sûrja; Zend hvare; modern Persian khur), is not entirely certain. Se the Zeitschrift für 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 God’s 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: Οὐδὲν τη̆ς εἰς θεὸν πίστεως ισχυρότερον, καὶ δὴ τοῠτο πολλαχόθεν καὶ ἀλλαχόθεν ἐστὶ μαθεῐν, οὐχ ἥκιστα δὲ καὶ ἐκ τω̆ν τοῠ θεσπεσίου Δανιὴλ ῥημάτων· τὸ γὰρ πιστεῠσαι τε καὶ θαῤῥη̆σαι, ὡς τη̆ς θείας ῥοπη̆ς ἀπολαύσεται, καὶ μὴ ἐσθίων— —εὐπρεπέστερς καὶ περικαλλέστερος φανήσεται καὶ μείζων· ποίην εὐσεβείας ὑπερβολὴν καταλείπει.—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 hœc 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 temperentiœ, si piossimus esurire, ubi Deus nos ad inopiam et egestatem cogit, immo etiam si sponte possumus abjicere delicias, quœ 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 Judœi 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 Rosenmüller’s 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 (Lüdecke, Beschreibung des türk. Reichs, i. 52 et seq.; Hävernck, 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. Hävernick, “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 Chaldæan king, by Daniel and his associates, is but poorly adapted to stamp the narrative as a fiction of Asmonæan 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 Maccabæan 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 Chaldæans, 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 μαθήματος, risui pateat, et adversum philosophos disputans, si ignoret dogmata philosophorum. Discunt ergo ea mente doctrinam Chaldœorum, qua et Moyses omnem sapientiam Ægyptiorum 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. Tübing.). —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 potentiœ victus est, ut deficeret a vero cultu. Hanc constantiam pauci imitantur, sed qui imitantur habebunt ingentia prœmia corporalia et spiritualia, sicut inquit textas: Glorificantes me glorificabo, etc. (2Sa_2:20).”
Footnotes:
[1]וַיָּצַר עָלֶיהָ, and pressed upon it, namely, with the usual military appliances.
[2]אֱלֹהָין, his gods, probably referring to the Babylonian polytheism, in contrast with the true God above, הָאֱלֹהִים.
[3]בֵּית אוֹצַר, store-house, some room connected with the temple of Belus.
[4]וַיֹּאמֶר, and said, in the Chaldaïzing sense of commanded.
[5]רַב chief, principal or head man.
[6]זֶרַע הַמְּלוּכָה seed of the kingdom, namely, of Judah.
[7]הַפַּרְתְּמִים the nobles, a Persic word denoting the aristocracy.
[8]יְלָדִים, youths, or lads, between infancy and adolescence.
[9]טוֹבֵי מַרְאֶה good of appearance, i.e., handsome.
[10]מַשְׂכִּלִים intelligent, i.e., of quick natural parts.
[11]יּדְעֵי knowing, i.e., by acquired information.
[12]מְבִינֵי considerate, i.e., of attentive habits.
[13]כֹּחַ vigor, i.e., physical strength, and perhaps including mental energy.
[14]וּלְלַמְּדָם; and to teach them, i.e., cause them to be instructed. This clause is to be connected in construction with the preceding לְהָבִיא Dan_1:3.
[15]סֵפֶר book, i.e., the formularies or written mysteries.
[16]דְּבָב יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ a word (or matter) of a day in its day, a regular ration from day to day.
[17]פַּתְבָּג delicacy, a Persian word denoting luxurious viands.
[18]וַיָּשֶׂם עַל assigned upon, i.e., imposed this as a conscientious duty.
[19]רַחְמִים mercies, i.e., kind consideration of his scruples.
[20]מַשְׁתֵּיכֶם is regarded by the Grammarians as an instance of an epenthetic י in the sing., or perhaps an older form of the construction in which the final ח has given place to a cognate letter.
[21]כְּגִילְכֶם 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]מִך־חַזֵּרעִים וְנאֹכְלָח of the seed-fruits, and we will surely eat, i.e., exclusively vegetable diet
[23]פַּתְבָּג delicacy, a Persian word denoting luxurious viands.
[24]מִך־חַזֵּרעִים וְנאֹכְלָח of the seed-fruits, and we will surely eat, i.e., exclusively vegetable diet
[25]יְלָדִים, youths, or lads, between infancy and adolescence.
[26]סֵפֶר book, i.e., the formularies or written mysteries.
[27]וַיֹּאמֶר, and said, in the Chaldaizing sense of commanded.
[28]עֶשֶׂר יָדוֹת עַל ten hands (parts) above, ten-fold superior to.
[29]חַרְטֻמִּים is generally explained by the lexicographers as derived from חֶרֶט a style, hence scribes, the Magian ἱερογραμματεῖς. Perhaps it signifies horoscopists.
[30]אַשָּׁפִים, from אָשַׁף to whisper incantation, hence are magicians in the bread sence.
[31]וַיְחִי 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 חכיּא in both cases; but he overstrains the particle אֵת 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 Joseph’s 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 wife’s solicitation of Joseph.]
[35][Others, however, maintain that it was of Hamitic affinity. The subject of the origin of the כַּשְׂדִּים 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.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain Introductory — Daniel Prepared for His Work.
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 בלבל, “confound.” (Compare Gen_11:9.)
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 1. In the third year &c.] Whether this is…
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.
Read full note →
[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, Zöckler) understand בא (‘came’), with reference to the starting-point, virtually as equivalent to set out, sometimes suppose that Nebuchadnezzar made an attack upon Jerusalem either (Hävernick, 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 Nebuchadrezzar (properly Nabû-kudurriuṣur, i.e. (probably) ‘Nebo, protect [Heb.נָצַר] 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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) In the third year.—Two questions are involved in…
(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 Jehoiakim’s 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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Vers. 1-7. OCCASION OF DANIEL BEING IN BABYLON.
Vers. 1-7. OCCASION OF DANIEL BEING IN BABYLON.
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 theirlate monarch. (2Ki_23:30) We see, by comparing 2Ki_23:31 with ver. 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 r is changed into a n. When it passed into Greek it became Nabucodonosor, 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-Necho determined to rival his predecessors, Thothmes and Rameses invaded 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 ("Contra Apionem," 119), 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 ("Higher Criticism," 419) 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.
Read full note →
Exursus on the alleged anachronism of vers. 1 and 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 ("La Divination," 179) 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 remains a 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_36:1-3, "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 ver. 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 ver. 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 (jAmwv) 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 (patrian) 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, ajfanismon, and a 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 (ajfanismon); 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 (ajfanismon).
(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 late would be the overthrow of Babylon. As the former had proved true, so they might be confident this new prophecy would prove true also.
There remains now Jer_46:2. There is nothing in the Septuagintcorresponding to Jer_46:1. The opening verse of the twenty-sixth chapter, which corresponds to the forty-sixth of the Massoretic, really belongs to the end of the previous chapter. The prophecy here begins abruptly, as that in the forty-eighth chapter, "against Egypt," and the date at the end of the verse does not apply to the battle, but to the time when the prophecy was given. It is not necessarily a prophecy in the sense of foretelling what was yet to take place. Jeremiah was against the Egyptian alliance, and this shout of exultation over the overthrow of Pharaoh-Necho, who had slain Josiah, the darling of the prophets, was recorded to prevent any further coquetting with Egypt. We would observe, too, that the clause containing the date might be omitted without spoiling the sense of the passage, and as all critics know this is a canon applied to such passages in Amos and Hosea as imply a recognition that worship in the Israelitish high places was not considered true worship, we will not press this canon, but we will rather investigate the chronology from other authorities
First let us look at the prophecy of Jeremiah, that seventy years after the Captivity the Lord would judge Babylon. (Jer_25:12) The capture of Jerusalem took plaice, according to M Oppert ("Solomon et sea Success.," p. 98), in the year B.C. 587. The same authority (Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, Mai, 1893) 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 (late given by Daniel to be correct, that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem nun year before his accession the third year of Jehoiakim and then received the submission of Jehoiakim, and that the seventy years of Jeremiah reckon from then, we have a closer approximation. Nebuchadnezzar"s first year was B.C. 604, the year of iris accession was B.c. 605 If either in this year or the year before (Berosus, in Josephus, "Contra Apionem") 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 ver. 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 take pace the critics 2Ch_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_3:3 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_3:3 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 Carchemish a 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, thereore, 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, 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 Jehoiakim even on the supposition that the date in Jer_46:2 applies to the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar 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 sons 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, 1687 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 reign the 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 awOb means "to set out for," as well as "to come," and brings an instance, Jon_1:3, "a ship going (hab) 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 awb 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 1Ki 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 nonnatural 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 suppositions that he knew a solution of the apparent contradiction, and took it for granted that everybody else knew it also a 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.
HOMILETICS.
Vers. 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 fromthe 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 Godpermits 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 permission the moral permission, whichsanctions 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 Vers. 1-4.
Administration serving and served.
the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs," etc. The introduction should perhaps clear up the chronology of ver. 1; give succinctly the history of the deportation to Babylon (this is given concisely by Keil, p. 70, references always to English edition); 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 Christian a believer in the Lord Jesus and 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 ver. 4).
(3) Docility.
1. 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.
2. 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.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 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 choice an 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim…
Dan_1:1-3
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain SECT. I.—THE CAPTIVITY (Dan_1:1-2)
HOMILETICS
SECT. I.—THE CAPTIVITY (Dan_1:1-2)
Read full note →
This remarkable book opens with the scene or Israel’s 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. Manasseh’s 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 Jehovah’s vengeance. The blow, however, even then did not immediately descend. It was the next or fourth year of Jehoiakim’s 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 בָּא (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 Daniel’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition to Lower Asia in the seventh year of his reign, and the eleventh of Jehoiakim’s. 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 Phœnicia 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 Phœnicia again under the Babylonian dominion, the campaign being brought to a close by the tidings of Nabopolassar’s 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 Judæa, 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, Judæa 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Judæa.
[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 Nabopolassar’s 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 Judæa, the Jews knew scarcely anything of his reign and death; and the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s 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, Phœnicians, 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 Jehoiakim’s 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 king’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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.” Bel’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Judæa. 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 terminated—a 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. 40–66) 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 one—a 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 word—idolatry 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 Cæsar;” 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. God’s 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. Men’s highest wisdom and interest to prepare for the Diet Iræ, “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 devil’s character now, and of his condemnation hereafter.
5. The reality of God’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s hand. The king of Babylon but Jehovah’s 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 England’s favourite author, “There’s 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 Nebuchadnezzar’s 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 Israel’s 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 Lord’s.” “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 Bassæ 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?
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain Dan 1:1-21
Dan 1:1-21
I. We see here how national sins are ever followed by Divine retribution.
Read full note →
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.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain Introductory. The abstinence of Daniel and his Friends from…
Introductory. The abstinence of Daniel and his Friends from Unclean Food
Daniel is introduced as one of a band of Jews taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim (Dan_1:1-2). Along with three of his youthful countrymen he is chosen to be trained during three years for personal attendance on the king (Dan_1:3-7). As the food and drink provided for those in this position are ceremonially unclean Daniel resolves not to partake of them. After an unsuccessful appeal to the chief official in charge, he persuades a subordinate official to give himself and his friends vegetable food and water for ten days. The results of the experiment are favourable, and the four Jewish youths continue to live on this fare during the three years of their training (Dan_1:8-16). At the end of this time they are found superior to their fellow-students both physically and intellectually, and indeed wiser than all the learned men of Babylon, They are accordingly appointed to attend upon the king (Dan_1:17-20). Special emphasis is laid upon Daniel's understanding of visions and dreams, and the superiority of the Jewish youths is traced, not to their heathen training but to God (Dan_1:17). A biographical note about Daniel is added in Dan_1:21.
Read full note →
Teaching.This c, emphasises the duty of abstaining from food contaminated by idolatry, or otherwise unclean, and teaches that firmness in this respect will bring its own reward from God. These lessons bore very plainly on the position of the Jews in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1Ma_1:48, 1Ma_1:62-63; 2Ma_6:18-31; 2Ma_7:1-41), and were of practical importance also in the early days of Christianity: see Romans 14; 1Co_10:20, 1Co_10:27-29. The wider moral as to the grandeur of fidelity to principle is one for all time.
1. The third year.. of Jehoiakim] presents a historical difficulty at the outset. Nebuchadnezzar's supremacy over Palestine dated from the battle of Carchemish (605 b.c.). This battle took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer_46:2), which is also called, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer_25:1). The first question is how Nebuchadnezzar could be king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim, The monumental evidence, however, makes it probable that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar coincided partly with the third and partly with the fourth year of Jehoiakim, so that the statements of Dan_1:1 and Jer_25:1 may both be correct. The second and more serious difficulty is as to a siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in Jehoiakim's third year. The chastisement of Jehoiakim by 'bands of the Chaldeans' (2Ki_24:1-2) took place when he revolted after serving Nebuchadnezzar for three years, i.e, not earlier than his seventh year. It is said in 2Ch_36:5-6 that Nebuchadnezzar bound-Jehoiakim in fetters to carry him to Babylon, and also took away the vessels of the house of the Lord, but there is no indication of the date of these events, while it appears from Jer_25:9; Jer_36:9, Jer_36:29, that in the fourth, and even in the fifth year of Jehoiakim a siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar was still a thing of the future. It has been thought possible that Nebuchadnezzar may have followed up his victory at Carchemish by a rapid excursion southwards, during which Jehoiakim may have averted attack by a timely submission, and a gift of captives and sacred vessels, and that this may be referred to in the words 'Nebuchadnezzar came up' (2Ki_24:1). This, however, is very doubtful. It is much more probable that the writer of Daniel mistook the three years of Jehoiakim's submission to Babylon (2Ki_24:1) for the first three years of his reign, and placed the invasion of 2Ch_36:5-6 in the last of the three.
Nebuchadnezzar] For the spelling see Intro.
2. His god] The patron deity of Babylon was Marduk (Merodach, Jer_50:2). Shinar] the old name of Babylonia (Gen_10:10).
3. Master of his eunuchs] The Heb. is rab sarisim, the same title as 'Rabsaris' in 2Ki_18:17
The king's seed.. the princes] It is uncertain whether Israelites or Babylonians are meant.
4. Children] RV 'youths,' and so in Dan_1:10, Dan_1:13, Dan_1:15, Dan_1:17. Blemish] in a physical sense. Cunning] intelligent. Science] knowledge, so rendered in Dan_1:17. Learning] lit. 'book,' literature: so in Dan_1:17. Chaldeans] not the Babylonians in general, but a special class of learned men.
5. Meat] RM 'dainties.' A Persian word occurring nowhere in OT. save in Daniel. Stand before the king] as court attendants.
6. Children of Judah] Daniel and his friends belonged to the royal tribe. Daniel] The name means 'God is my judge.' Hananiah] 'Jehovah is gracious.' Mishael] 'Who is what God is?' Azariah] 'Jehovah has helped.' All these names are found elsewhere in OT.: see especially Neh_3:8, Neh_3:23, Neh_3:30; Neh_8:4.
7. The changes of name have a parallel in the case of Joseph (Gen_41:45). The new names had no reference to the God of Israel, and perhaps contained the names of Babylonian deities.
Belteshazzar]Balatsu-utzur, 'Protect his life.' Not to be confounded with Belshazzar.
Shadrach] Perhaps Shudur-Aku, 'the command of Aku,' the Moon-god. Meshach] of uncertain meaning. One suggestion is Mi-sha-Aku, 'Who is what Aku is?' Abed-nego] Probably a corruption of Ahed-Nebo,' Servant of Nebo.'
8. Defile himself] The king's food might consist of the flesh of unclean animals, or might not be freed from blood, or part of it might have been offered in sacrifice to idols. Part of the wine would have been poured out as a libation to the gods.
10. Your sort] RV 'your own age.'
11. Melzar] RV 'the steward': so in v.16.
12. Pulse] RM 'herbs': so in Dan_1:16.
17. Daniel had understanding, etc.] A special statement by way of introduction to what follows in the book.
20. Magicians] A word used only in Daniel, and of the Egyptian magicians in Gen_41:8, Gen_41:24; Exo_7:11, Exo_7:22; Exo_8:7; Exo_9:11.
Astrologers] RV 'enchanters.' The Babylonians had an elaborate system of magic, the fame and practice of which survived long after the Babylonian empire had ceased to exist.
21. The first year of king Cyrus] 538 b.c., some 66 years after the third year of Jehoiakim.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain and the name
and the name
Heb. Jehovah-shammah. See Exo 17:15; Jdg 6:24.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
I. DANIEL IN BABYLON, NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S DREAM, AND HISTORICAL EVENTS
Read full note →
CHAPTER 1 Daniel and His Companions in Babylon
1. The introduction (Dan 1:1-2)
2. The king’s 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 king’s seed and of the princes (both of Judah) was in fulfillment of prophecy. They were to be added to the king’s court and to receive special royal favors, instructions in the wisdom and language of the Chaldeans and have the privileges of the king’s 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 (Bel’s 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.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain Daniel and his Friends Brought to Babylon
Daniel and his Friends Brought to Babylon
v. 1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, Cf 2Ki 24:1; 2Ch 36:6-7, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. This account, which has been declared to be untrue by unbelieving Bible critics, is abundantly supported and verified by secular accounts, as recent investigations have shown; for even if Nabopolassar was king of Babylon at the beginning of this year, his death took place while Nebuchadnezzar was in the midst of his expedition against Jerusalem, and so the latter was king in fact before the city was taken.
Read full note →
v. 2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God, the rest being taken in later expeditions, 2 Kings 25, which he carried into the land of Shinar, the ancient name for Babylonia, to the house of his god, the temple of Bel, one of the chief deities of Babylon; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god, the usual storage-place of vessels made of precious metals. The object of this expedition was merely to make Jerusalem and Judah tributary to the king of Babylon. Later expeditions increased the power of the world empire over Jerusalem, until it was finally subjugated and destroyed, some twenty years later.
v. 3. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs, the chief of all the officers of the court, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, of those who had been taken captive to Babylon, and of the king’s seed and of the princes, 2Ki 20:17-18,
v. 4. children, young men of the middle adolescent period, between the ages of sixteen and twenty, in whom was no blemish, that is, no physical defect, so that they would be faultlessly handsome, but well favored, this being considered essential among Oriental nations in the case of those destined for court service, and skilful in all wisdom, with the evident talent to acquire knowledge and ability rapidly, and cunning in knowledge and understanding science, that is, with good, sound judgment and common sense in applying the knowledge which they possessed and gained, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, to become accustomed to the ways and manners of a king’s court, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans, that of the learned classes of the Babylonian people. Their course of study would thus comprise all that was taught in the highest schools of the empire, and their training would be that of the noblest youths of the empire.
v. 5. And the king appointed them, namely, for those who were to be selected, a daily provision of the king’s meat, of the food which was served on his own tables, and of the wine which he drank, literally, "of the wine of his drinking," or "banqueting," so nourishing them three years, their education and their physical development going hand in hand, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king, fully equipped for his service as courtiers and advisers, or in whatever capacity he might choose to use them.
v. 6. Now, among these, among the youths selected in accordance with this royal order, were of the children of Judah, of the most prominent tribe of the Jewish people, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
v. 7. unto whom the prince of the eunuchs, as being in charge of this entire experiment, 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 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. " It is significant that all these names had definite meanings, a fact which it might be well for Christian parents to remember as they bring their children to Christ, their merciful King, in Holy Baptism. The giving of meaningless and heathen names ought certainly to be discouraged in all Christian congregations.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylonia ... gave Nebuchadnezzar
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylonia ... gave Nebuchadnezzar
This refers to Nebuchadnezzar and his soldiers, not only to Nebuchadnezzar. AT: "Nebuchadnezzar's soldiers ... them" or "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylonia and his soldiers ... them" (See: Synecdoche)
Read full note →
to cut off all supplies to it
"to stop the people from receiving any supplies"
Jehoiakim king of Judah
This refers to Jehoiakim and his soldiers, not only to Jehoiakim. AT: "the army of Jehoiakim king of Judah" (See: Synecdoche)
he gave him
Jehoiakim gave Nebuchadnezzar
He brought ... he placed
Although Nebuchadnezzar did not do these things alone, it may easier for the reader to retain the singular pronouns. AT: "They brought ... they placed" (See: Synecdoche)
He brought them
Here "them" probably refers to Jehoiakim and other prisoners, as well as the sacred objects.
in his god's treasury
This was an act of devotion to his god.
translationWords
reign
Jehoiakim
king
Judah
Nebuchadnezzar
Babylon
Jerusalem
cut off
lord
holy
house of God
false god
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 1:1–6:28 The first half of Daniel, in describing the…
1:1–6:28 The first half of Daniel, in describing the experiences and wisdom of Daniel and his three Hebrew friends, demonstrates that God is the ruler of the world and that God’s people need to be faithful and live and act wisely in every situation in which they find themselves.
1:1-21 God fulfilled his prophetic word by sending his rebellious people into exile (see Jer 25:11-12; 29:10). God also extended his grace to a remnant in exile, and he protected and prospered Daniel and three other young Hebrew captives. These young men received the best training of the time in the Babylonian king’s court and were thus well equipped to be God’s witnesses in Babylon. They made the God of Israel known even in exile.
Read full note →
1:1-2 These verses explain how it was that Daniel and his friends were in Babylon and succinctly give the setting in which Daniel lived during the years of exile.
1:1 Prior to this siege, Jehoiakim (609–598 BC) had been a vassal of Egypt; his reign in Judah was exceedingly wicked (2 Kgs 23:36–24:6; 2 Chr 36:5-8; Jer 25). The exile and captivity of Daniel and his friends in 605 BC prefigure the exile of the rest of the nation in 597 and 586 BC (see 2 Kgs 24:1–25:21). The Lord employed King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon as his unwitting servant to accomplish his ends (cp. Jer 25:9; 27:6).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.