Daniel 1
OCCASION OF DANIEL BEING IN
1 “In the
third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of
Nebuchadnezzar king of
After the defeat and death of Josiah, the people of the
land put on the
throne Jehoahaz, or Shallum (Jeremiah 22:11), one of the
sons of their
late monarch (II Kings 23:30). We see, by comparing Ibid.
v.31 with
v. 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 (Ezekiel
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
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
he laid a heavy tribute on the new-made king. With all his
defects,
Jehoiakim seems to have been faithful to
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
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 Nabucodono>sor – Nabuchodonosor -
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 (Jeremiah
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
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 works; 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
out at present, on the overthrow of the Assyrians of
Nineveh. Taking
occasion of this event,
and Asshurbanipal, reasserted itself. The Assyrians had
broken up
into several principalities, over each of which they had
set vassal kings.
Psammetik, one of these vassal kings, rebelled, and united
all
his rule. About sixteen years after the fall of
Necho — determined to rival his predecessors, Thothmes and
Rameses —
invaded the
while, for Nebuchadnezzar, the young heroic son of the
peaceful
Nabopolassar, marched against the Egyptians. A great battle
was fought at
Nebuchadnezzar pursued his flying enemy toward
visited
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
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
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
Jeremiah 26:1 (where the text is, however, doubtful, as the
clause is
omitted in the Septuagint), 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
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
accession, and was independent of the calendar. Hence, if
the Babylonian
method of reckoning was applied to Jehoiakim’s reign, what
was reckoned
his fourth year in
texts and II Kings 25:8, and, moreover, against Berosus, is
the
statement in Jeremiah 46:2, which asserts the battle of
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
(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
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.
2 “And the
Lord gave Jehoiakim king of
part of the vessels of the house of God:
which he carried into the
land of
into the treasure house of his God.” The Greek
versions of this verse agree
with each other and with the Msssoretic text, save that the
Septuagint has
Κυρίου – Kuriou –
Lord - instead of Θεοῦ – Theou – God
- in the end of
the
first clause, and omits οἴκου.– oikou – house. The Syriac
Version omits the
statement that it was “part” of the vessels of the house of God that was taken.
It is to be observed that our translators have not
printed the word “Lord” in capitals,
but in ordinary type, to indicate that the word in the original
is not the sacred
covenant name usually written in English “Jehovah,” but Adonai. That the Lord
gave Jehoiakim into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar does not prove
that
was captured by him. Far from it, the natural deduction is
rather that he did
not capture the city, although he captured the king. Thus
in II Kings 17:4
we
are told that Shalmaneser shut up Hoshea “and
bound him in
prison;” in the following verse we are informed that the King of
Assyria
“besieged
captured Hoshea the king, he had still to besiege the city.
A similar event
occurred earlier in the history of
defeated Amaziah and took him prisoner, he proceeded then
to
The city opened its gates to the conqueror, and he carried
off all the
treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king’s
house, and all the
vessels of the house of the Lord, and a large number of
hostages, and then
returned north. Something like this seems to have occurred
now. The king
was taken by the Babylonians, and the city submitted and
ransomed the
king by handing over a portion of the vessels of the house
of the Lord. The
city, however, was not taken by assault. Miqtzath, “part
of,” occurs also in
Nehemiah 7:70 in this sense: we have it three times later
in this chapter –
vs. 5, 15, and 18; but in .these cases it means “end.” A word
consonantally the same occurs in the sense before us in
Judges 18:2,
translated “coasts.” Gesenius would write the word miqq
tzath, and regardv
mi as representing the
partitive preposition min. He would therefore
translate, “He took some from the number of the vessels.” Kranichfeld
objects to Hitzig’s assertion that קאת means
“a part,” and is followed by
Keil and Zockler in regarding it, as a short form of the
phrase, “from end to
end,” equivalent to the whole, thus making miqtzath mean
“a portion from
the whole.” The omission from the Syriac of the words which
indicate that
the vessels taken were only a portion of those in the house
of the Lord,
shows how natural it was to imagine that the deportation
was total, and
therefore we may lay the more emphasis on its presence as
proving that the
temple was not plundered, but these vessels were the ransom
paid for the
freedom of the king. Several times had the treasures of the
house of God
been taken away. In the days of Rehoboam (I Kings 14:26)
Shishak,
acting probably as the ally of Jeroboam, took away all the
treasures of the
house of the Lord, and of the king’s house, “he
even took away all.” It may
be doubted whether
certainly the name of
captured towns on the wall of the temple at
the case of Joash and Amaziah. The succession of the
phrases, “Jehoiakim
King of Judah,” and “part of the
vessels of the house of God,” is remarked
by Ewald as being abrupt, and he would insert,” together
with the noblest
of the land.” There is, however, no trace of any such
omission to be found
in the versions. It is possible that this chapter may be
the work of the early
collector and editor, and that he condensed this portion as
well as, not
unlikely, translated it from Aramaic into Hebrew. Captives
certainly were
taken as well as booty, as is implied by the rest of the
narrative. Which he
carried into
the land of Shinar to, the house of his
god. There is no word
in the Hebrew corresponding to” which.” The literal
rendering is, “And he
carried them,” etc. It has been the subject of discussion
whether we are to
maintain that it is asserted here that Jehoiakim, along
with the vessels and
unmentioned captives, were carried to
that it is doubtful. Were we dependent merely on grammar,
certainly the
probability, though not the certainty, would be that the
plural suffix was
intended to cover Jehoiakim, but the conclusion forced on
us by logic is
different. He “carried them (יְבִיאֵם) to the house of his god.” This seems
to
imply that only the vessels are spoken of. So strongly is this felt by
Hitzig (‘Das Buch Daniel,’ 5) that he would regard the
phrase, “the house
of his god,” as in apposition to “the
passages in Hosea (Hosea 8:1; 9:15) in which “house” is, he
alleges,
used for “land.” Irrespective of the fact that these two
instances occur in
highly wrought poetical passages, and that to argue from
the sense of a
word in poetry to its sense in plain prose is unsafe, there
is no great
plausibility in his interpretation of these passages. He
regards the last
clause as contrasted with the earlier: while the captives
were brought “into
the
his god” — an argument in which there is plausibility were
there not the
extreme awkwardness of using בית, “house,” first in the extended sense of
“country,” and then in the
restricted sense of “temple.” The last clause is
rather to be looked upon as rhetorical climax. The land
of Shinar is used
for
apart as Jehovist by Canon Driver; the remaining instances
are in ch. 14.,
both as the
special source. In the first instance (Genesis 10:10) it is
the land in
which
it is the place in which the
kings of
the connection of
that “
removed from its original than is “
from “Livorno,” or, to take a French instance, “Londres”
from “
The ingenious derivation of “Shiner” from שני, “two,” and אר “a river,”
which, however, implies the identification of ע and א, may have
occasioned the modification, the more so as it was
descriptive of
“Mesopotamia,” applied to the tract between the Euphrates
and the
north of
It is omitted by Paulus Tellensis. The treasure-house of his god. The word
Rendered “god” here is the
plural form, which is usually restricted to the
true God, otherwise it is
usually translated as “gods” To quote a few from
many instances, Jephtha
uses the word in the plural form of Chemosh (Judges
11:24), Elijah applies it to Baal (I Kings 18:27), it is
used of Nisroch
(II Kings 19:37) In Ezra 1:7 we have this same word
translated
plural in regard to the place in which Nebuchadnezzar had
deposited the
vessels of the house of God. In translating the verse
before us, the Peshitta
renders path-coroh, “his idol” This suits the translation of the Septuagint
εἰδωλείῳ - eidoleio. Paulus Tellensis renders it in the plural, “idols.” The
god in whose treasure-house the vessels of the house of God in
were placed would
necessarily be Merodach, whom Nebuchadnezzar
worshipped, almost to the exclusion of any other. The
treasure-house of
his god.
worshippers which were not taken by needy monarchs;
nevertheless, the
treasures of kingdoms were often deposited in a temple, to
be under the
protection of its god. The
structure of great magnificence. Herodotus (1:181) gives a
description,
which is in the main confirmed by Strabe (16:5): “In the
midst of the sacred
area is a strong tower built a stadium in length and
breadth; upon this
tower is another raised, and another upon it, till there
are eight towers.
There is a winding ascent made about all the towers. In the
middle of the
ascent there is a resting-place, where are seats on which
those ascending
may sit and rest. In the last tower is a spacious shrine,
and in it a huge
couch beautifully bespread, and by its side is placed a
table of gold. No
statue has been set up here, nor does any mortal pass the
night here.”
There are still remains of a structure which suits to some
extent the
description here given, but investigators are divided
whether to regard Birs
Nimroud or Babil as most properly representing this famous
Merodach. In the “Standard Inscription” Nebuchadnezzar
appears to refer
to this temple, which he calls E-temen-ana-ki,” the house
of heaven and
earth.” He says, among other matters concerning it, that he
“stored up
inside it silver and gold and precious stones, and placed
there the treasure-
house of his kingdom.” This amply explains why the vessels
of the house of
God were taken to the
the vessels of the house of God were carried to
“and he placed
them in the treasure-house of his god.” We
know what
befell the statue of Dagon when the ark of God was placed
in its presence,
and the Jew, remembering this, relates awestruck the fact
that these sacred
vessels were placed in the
Merodach as befell Dagon, yet still the handwriting on the
wall which
appeared when these vessels were used to add to the
splendor of the royal
banquet, and which told the doom of the Chaldean monarchy, may be
looked upon as the sequel to this act of what would necessarily appear to a
Jew supreme sacrilege.
Decadence of
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.
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 counselors 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
God’s alternations
of kindness and severity leave Jehoiakim unmoved. He
preferred the
patronage of Pharaoh to the favor of the
OMNIPOTENT
GOD!
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” (Psalm 20:7); but “God is our Refuge and Strength;” (Ibid. ch.
46:1); “In the Name of our God we will set up our banners.” (Ibid. ch. 20:5).
Hezekiah’s fervent prayer had
proved, in former
years, a better protection
for the royal city than all its
walls and towers.
If God is on our side, weakness
itself becomes for us a very “munition of rocks” (Isaiah
33:16). But all the
mountains and natural bastions
round about
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
Lord gave Jehoiakim King of
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”
(Matthew 3:10), a visible
premonition that doom awaits
unfruitfulness.
One defeat in battle was not final
overthrow. Honour, virtue, dignity, power,
might still be saved. The favor
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.
National Retribution (vs. 1-2)
·
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.
Ø
The motives which
prompt a bad man to an action may be different
from the motives which
incline God to permit it. God may permit the
action of selfish cruelty
because He sees it will issue in righteous
chastisement.
Ø
A man who ignores the
Divine guidance can still go no farther than
God permits him.
Nebuchadnezzar, and only
because this was the case was the King of
Ø
There is a twofold
Divine permission:
o
the moral permission,
which and sanctions conduct; and
o
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 (Psalm 76:10).
·
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.
·
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
into the quarrel of
Jehoahaz, 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
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.
·
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 (I Samuel 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:
Ø
to save us from the
additional sin of hypocrisy; and
Ø
to open our eyes to
our loss of the greater spiritual treasures, and thus
to prepare the way for
genuine repentance.
3 “And the king spoke unto
Ash-penaz the master of his
eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of
the king’s seed, and of the princes; 4 Children in whom was no blemish,
but well favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in
knowledge,
and understanding science, and such as had ability in them
to stand
in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the
learning and the
tongue of the Chaldeans.”
The version of the Septuagint here
becomes important: “And the king spoke to Abiesdri, his own
chief eunuch
(τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἀρχιευνούχῳ – to heautou
archieunoucho), to lead to
him from the sons of the nobles of
the choice ones, four young men, without
blemish, of goodly appearance, and
understanding in all wisdom, and
educated, and prudent, and wise, and strong,
so that they may be in the house
of the king, and may be taught the letters and
tongue of the Chaldees.” The
version of Theodotion is in closer accordance with
the Massoretic text,
only it inserts “captivity” where the Septuagint had “nobles,”
and reads, “from the sons of the captivity of
the chief of the eunuchs is the same as the Massoretic; the
word rendered
“princes” in the Authorized
Version is transliterated φορθομμίν – phorthommin –
nobles. The rendering, “the seed of the kingdom,” is more literal
than
that of the Authorized, “the king’s seed” The Peshitta is in
close agreement with
the Massoretic text,
save that, instead of “Ashpenaz,” the name of the chief of
the eunuchs is written “Aspaz,” and the word translated
“princes” (partemira)
is transliterated Parthouia, which means literally
“Parthians.” Symmachus reads
Παρθῶν.- Parthon. The king spake unto Ashpenaz. There
is assumed here that
there were a large number of Israelitish hostages who would
be reckoned captives
whenever the conquered state gave cause of suspicion to the
regnant power in
whose hands the hostages were, and they were possibly
eunuchized. It is possible
that Nebuchadnezzar wished to use these hostages about the court, in order
that,
having tasted the pleasure and dignities of the magnificent
court of Babylon,
their influence would be exercised on their relatives to
maintain them in fidelity.
The phrase, “spake
unto,” has, in later Hebrew, the force of “command,”
especially when followed
by an infinitive, as Esther 1:17. As translated in the
Authorized Version. the impression conveyed is that of
consultation. The
name “Ash-penaz”
has caused much discussion. As it stands, it is not
Assyrian or Babylonian. The form it has suggests a Persian etymology,
and
on this fact, along with other similar alleged facts, an
argument against the
authenticity of Daniel has been based. One derivation would
make it ashpa,
“a horse;” nasa, “a nose,” “horse nose” — by no
means an impossible
personal name for a Persian or Median. In one or two
cuneiform
inscriptions of the Persian period the name occurs. Nothing
can be built on
this, as in the Septuagint the name is given as Ἀβιεσδρὶ - Abiesdri - Abiesdri –
in the Peshitta it becomes “Ash-paz,” as we have mentioned above. It
would be
easily possible to derive”
Ashpaz” from “Ashpenaz,” or vice versa; but there
seems no relation between Abiesdri and either. By
some, as Hitzig, the
name has been identified with “Ashkenaz” (Genesis 10:3),
and that
again derived from אֶשֶׁד, “the cord of the testicle,” and has, a Sanskrit
root, “to destroy,” and therefore the name would simply be “eunuch.” Over
and above the general improbability that is always present
in regard to
etymologies which imply the word in question to be a hybrid
word, there is
the improbability that one eunuch would receive a name
applicable to the
whole class of which he was a member. The name, as it
appears in the
Septuagint, is, as we have said, totally unconnected with
that in the
Massoretic text, but both may have sprung from some common
source.
Thus the French word eveque has not a single letter
in common with
“bishop,” yet both words are
derived from ἐπίσκοπος – epikopos –
bishop. The changes that a name might undergo in passing from any language,
even a cognate one, into
Hebrew were very great; thus Assur-bani-pal became
“Asnapper.” Lenormant has endeavored to recover the name in the present
case.
The process he has
followed is the somewhat mechanical one of combining the
two names, as if we were to strive to reach Asshur-bani-pal
from a
combination of “Asnapper” and “Sar-danapalus.” He arrives
at the name
Ash-ben-azur, which is
a possible Babylonian name. Professor Fuller has
suggested
objection to this is that it is drawn solely from the
Septuagint Version. If
we look at the tendency exhibited by the Hebrew equivalents
of Babylonian
names, we find that shortening was one that was nearly
invariably present,
as Asshur-akhi-iddin na became Esarhaddon,
and Sin-akhi-irba became
Sanherib. The only
exception to this shortening process which occurs to us
is Brodach for Marduk, and even it is
scarcely an exception. Next there is a
tendency, which Hebrew shares with other languages, of
suiting a foreign
word to the genius of the language. Hence we find
“Ashpenaz” has such a
close resemblance to “Ashkenaz” of Genesis 10:3, and that
“Abiesdri”
is identical with the form “Abiezer” — the name of the
father of Gideon —
assumes in the Septuagint. Judging from “Asnapper,” the
name might even
begin with Asshur, only that, as Asshur was
the national god of the
Ninevites, names which contained the name of that divinity
are rare in
“son.” The final element seems certainly to have been ezer
or utzur. As to
the office he filled in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, “the
master of
eunuchs,” the name of the office in the text is Rab-Sarisim,
which occurs in
a slightly different form in II Kings 18:17, along with Rab-Shakeh,
as if
it were a proper name. From the fact that persons thus
mutilated were
employed in Eastern courts, the word became equivalent to
“officer;”
hence we find Potiphar is called saris, or “eunuch;”
yet he had a wife. It
therefore may be doubted whether Daniel and his companions
are to be
understood as placed in that condition. The title here
given — Rab-Sarisim
— becomes Sar-Sarisim in
vs. 7 and 10, Sar being the Hebrew equivalent
of the more Babylonian Rab. It is also Aramaic. That he should bring
certain of the
children of
It may be doubted at first sight whether these may not be
separate classes
— a view that seems to have been taken by most of the old
translators, or
whether the first class, “the children of
classes that follow. The rendering part’mim,
as “Parthians,” adopted by
Symmachus and the Peshitta, would make a contrast between
“the children
of
translation the true one, a strong argument could be
advanced for the late
origin of Daniel. The fact that the text before Symmachus
and the Peshitta
translator admitted of that translation shows how far the
tendency to
modify the text into suitability with the knowledge of the
scribe had gone,
and therefore how little weight ought to be given to
lateness of individual
words. According to the Septuagint and Theodotion, there is
a word lacking
in the first clause; the Septuagint translator would supply
“nobles”
(μεγιστάνων – megistanon ) “from the nobles of
“from the sons of the Captivity of Israel.” If the sentence ran בני
שרי ישראל, one
might understand how it could be read בני
שבי ישראל; the natural
phrase for this is בני
גלותי ישראל but that would not explain the Septuagint
rendering. The name “
equally applicable
to the southern and to the northern kingdoms. All the
more so that the captivity of
besides that of Judah, namely, those of Benjamin and Simeon
and Levi.
Further, Josiah seems to have extended the bounds of the
Davidic kingdom
to embrace the remnant of the ten tribes (II Chronicles 34:6,
9),
therefore his sons would claim the same boundaries, and
therefore hostages
might be taken by Nebuchadnezzar from them to
king’s seed and of
the princes. The two “ands” might
be rendered “both…
and,” or “alike ... and.” The king’s seed means, literally,
“the seed of the
kingdom,” as it is translated by Theodotion. The phrase,
“children of the
kingdom,” is applied by our Lord (Matthew 8:12) to all the
Jews, and
in Ibid. ch. 13:38 to the members of the true
latent reference to the children of the true King thus in
captivity to the
beggarly elements of this world, compelled to stand as
servants in the court
of Mammon, of which Nebuchadnezzar may well be the type.
The word
partemim is one which
has caused difficulty; it only occurs here, and twice
in Esther (Esther 1:3; 6:9). In these passages it is
rendered by the
Peshitta as here, Parthouia, “Parthians.” It would seem that the Septuagint
translator had before him, not partemin, but bahureem,
connecting it with
yeladeem,” children”
(youths), the opening word of the succeeding verses.
In Esther the word partemim is applied to a special
class of nobles among
the Persians, and certainly was not applied to the princes
of
Theodotion does not understand what it means, and so
transliterates it
φορθομμίν. (nobles). Symmachus and
the Peshitta make it “Parthians;” the
Targum on Esther makes the same blunder. The Sepotuagint
Version of Esther
renders it ἔνδοξοι – endoxoi – noble;
glorious; renowned, as if it were
connected with פְאֵר and תום. It certainly has
Zend (frathema) and Pehlevi
(pardun) congeners, so it may have come over from
Aryan sources into the
Babylonian. Equally certainly it has disappeared from
Aramaic Eastern and
Western. If partemim is to be held as part of the
original text, it must belong
to
a period before the Greek domination, as the meaning of the word had
disappeared by that time. It might, on the other hand, have
been a word in
the Babylonian court, or, again, a copyist might have
inserted it as a more known
word than that originally in the text. This latter, we
think, is the probable solution.
If the division of the verses had in the Massoretic become
deranged, then
bahureem would be
unintelligible, standing, as it would, at the end of the
verse. In
was retained. Children
in whom was no blemish. There is no limit to the
age implied in yeled, the word the plural of which
is translated “children;”
thus to young counselors who had been brought up with
Rehoboam are
called yeladeem. As they had been brought up with
Rehoboam, they were
of the same age with him, yet he was forty-one years old
when he ascended
the throne. Joseph is called yeled when he was at
least seventeen, and
Ishmael when he was probably sixteen. Benjamin is called yeled
when he
was nearly, if not quite, thirty years old; it is said of
him immediately before
he went down to
also of new-born infants (Exodus 1:17). When we look at the
various
qualifications they were to possess — skilful
in all wisdom, cunning in
knowledge, understanding science — sixteen to eighteen seems the lowest
limit we can set. Aben Ezra comes to the conclusion that
they were
fourteen when they came to
allowance is made for the precocity of warm climates, seems
too low. On
the whole, we may say that Daniel, when he was taken to
same age as Joseph when he went down into
rendering (νεανίσκους – neaniskous - youths) supports our view. We may
note that this command to Ashpenaz was in all likelihood given at
In whom was
no blemish, but well-secured. If we
may judge of the taste of the
Babylonians and Assyrians from the sculptures that have
come down to us,
they had a high standard of personal appearance —
especially fine in
appearance are the eunuchs that stand before the king. The
word moom,
“blemish,” is used of the priesthood; presence of a
“blemish” excluded
from the priesthood (Leviticus 21:17). It is used of
Absalom (II Samuel 14:25);
it
is equivalent in meaning to μῶμος – momos -
blemish, which not impossibly
was
derived from some early form of this word; tovay mar’eh,” goodly
in
appearance,” almost identical with our colloquial “good-looking.” Skilful
in all wisdom. The
word “wisdom” has, in general, a somewhat technical
meaning in Hebrew, “skill in interpreting riddles and
framing proverbs.” It
became widened in meaning in certain cases, as we see in
the description of
wisdom in the beginning of Proverbs and Job 28. Yet wider
is the sphere
given to it in Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom. The
word translated
“skilful,” maskileem, means, in the first instance,
“attending to;” then, the
result of this attention, especially when followed by the
preposition בְ “in,”
The Septuagint has “skilled in all wisdom.” Theodotion
renders,
“understanding (συνιέντας – sunientas) in all wisdom.” Professor Bevan
would render maskil, “intelligent;” Hitzig adopts
Luther’s einsichtig in allerlei
Wissenschaft,
“intelligent in every kind of science,” adding, “that is, they
would be were they placed in suitable circumstances.” Cunning
in
knowledge; literally, knowing
knowledge. The distinction is here between
the faculty of intelligence and the actual acquirements. It
might be rendered
“intelligent and well-educated” — a view that is supported by the
Septuagint rendering (γραμματικοὺς -
grammatikous
– endowed with
knowledge). Understanding science; “discriminating
knowledge,” as it is
rendered in Theodotion. The Septuagint
translator had another text before him;
instead of reading mebine madda’, he had before him mebinim
yod’eem, that is
to say, he divided the letters
differently, so that he read it along with mebine, and
had a
yod inserted after it, not as connected,
but as separate. The word madda’
is late, found in
Chronicles and Ecclesiastes, and as Aramaic well known;
the change in the Septuagint must have been due to a
different reading.
The fact that madda’ is late, and was not in
the Septuagint text, throws a
suspicion on all the late words in Daniel, as all of them
may be due to the
same modernizing tendency. The phrase, according to the
Septuagint
reading, may be rendered, “having good powers of
discrimination and
acquisition.” And
such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace.
The word used for “ability” (koh) usually means
“physical strength,” as of
Samson (Judges 16:6), applied to animals as of the unicorn
(wild ox)
(Job 39:11). Here, however, it refers rather to mental capacity.
The
idea is that those should be chosen who showed signs of
future ability, and
therefore afforded a probability that they would be of use
in the royal
council-chamber. The translator of the Septuagint Version
puts a point
after ἰσχύοντας – ischuontas – ability to stand -, and unites the two
following clauses under it. And
whom they might teach the learning and the
tongue of the
Chaldeans. The Septuagint renders, “to teach them letters and the
Chaldean dialect.” There were three tongues used in
Aramaic of ordinary business and diplomacy, called in
II Kings 18:26 “the
Syrian language,” and in this book (ch. 2:4) “Syriack.” This was
commonly
understood, as is shown by the fact that tablets have been found inscribed
in Assyrian, but having a docquet behind in Aramaic, telling the contents.
Next there was the Assyrian, a Shemitic tongue, cognate with Hebrew,
though further removed from it than Aramaic is. This is the language of
historic and legal documents, much as Norman French was for long the
language of our Acts of Parliament, while the people spoke a tongue not far
removed from our modern English. The system of writing used was cumbrous
in the highest degree, the same sign standing for several different words,
and
the same word represented by several different signs. As a spoken
language —
if it ever were a spoken tongue — it was cumbrous also. It was
eminently a
monumental tongue. Lastly, there was Accadian, the sacred
tongue, a
language belonging to a different class from the Aramaic
and Assyrian. In it
the great bulk of the magical formulae and ritual
directions of
Accadian texts. A number of syllabaries have also been
found, which
enable scholars to investigate this antique tongue. It
seems not impossible
that Accadian was meant by the learning (סֶפֶר,
sepher, “book”) and
tongue of the Chaldeans. Their learning involved some astronomy,
a great
deal of astrology, and not a little magic, incantations,
interpretations of
dreams and omens. We ourselves, though so far removed both
geographically and chronologically from them, feel the
effects of their
ideas, and enjoy some of the results of their knowledge. We
cannot tell
whether the Babylonians were the earliest to fix the course
of the sun,
moon, and planets. At all events, they made observations on
the basis of
these discoveries; and our week, with its Sunday and
Monday, conveys to
us still the fact that the Babylonians believed the planets
to be seven; the
planets strictly so called were associated with deities
similar in attributes to
those associated with them by the Latin and Teutonic
peoples, and the
same days were sacred to them in Babylonia and
כַשְׂדִים ",
Kasdeem, of the Bible, do not seem to have been originally
inhabitants of
in the city. The Assyrians had frequent encounters with
them, and carried
on against them many prolonged wars. The name in the
Assyrian
monuments is most frequently Kaldu, from which the Greek Ξαλδαῖοι –
Chaldaoi comes. It is doubtful whether there is a form Kassatu to
explain the
Hebrew term. In the days of Nabo-polassar, the Chaldeans
being supreme
in
Chaldeans. Latterly there was a restricted use of the term,
due to the great
attention paid in
restricted use of the word occurred in the genuine Daniel,
from which our
canonical Daniel has sprung. Certainly Daniel, and those hostages selected
with him, were to be educated so as to become member’s of
this sacred
college of augurs and astrologers.
Administration Serving
and Served (vs. 1-4)
“And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master
of his eunuchs,” etc. The
introduction should perhaps clear up the chronology of v. 1; give
succinctly the history of the deportation to
by
Keil, p. 70, references always to English edition); and describe the
‘Anc. Mon.,’ 3:343). After this, two topics demand
attention.
·
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
prophecy were permanent endowments of this favored 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.
·
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
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.
Ø Conditions
intellectual.
o
Ability. “Such as had ability,” etc.
o Knowledge.
§
Some knowledge to
begin with. “Cunning in knowledge.”
§
Capacity generally. “Understanding
science.”
§
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 v. 4).
o Docility.
Ø
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.
Ø
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.
5 “And the king appointed
them a daily provision of the king’s
meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them
three
years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the
king.” The
only thing to be noticed in the Septuagint Version of this
verse is the fact that
מָנָה
is taken to mean “give a
portion” — a meaning which seems to be
implied in מָנות; (Nehemiah
8:10), hence the translation δίδοσθαι... ἐκθέσιν
– didosthai…..ekthesin. Further, the
translator must have had
חַמּ
מֵ אֵת " as in II Kings 25:29. The mysterious פַּת־בַג path-bag), translated
“meat,” has caused differences
of rendering. The Syriac Peshitta transfers it.
Professor Bevan speaks as if it were
common in Syriac, but Castell gives no
Reference beyond Daniel.
(Brockeimann adds, Ephrem Syrus, Isaac Antiochenus,
Bar Hebraeus). It is to be observed that the Syriac form of
the word has
teth, not tan,
for the second radical. This is a change that would not likely
take place had the Hebrew form been the original, whereas
from the fact
that path means in Hebrew “a portion,” if the Hebrew were derived from
the Syriac the change would be intelligible. It is
confounded in ch.11:26
with ar;Wtp;
(pathura), “a table.” It seems not
improbable that both
the Septuagint and Theodotion read pathura. The word
path-bag does not seem
to have been known in
Syriac. This is intelligible if the chapter before us is
condensation from a
Syriac original rendered into Hebrew: the word path-bag,
being
unintelligible, is transferred. The etymology of the word
is alleged to be
Persian, but on this assumption it is a matter of dispute
what that
etymology is. One derivation is from pad or fad,
“father” or “prince,” or
pat or fat,
idol,’ and bag (φαγῶ)– phago - food); another is from
pati-bhagu,
“a portion.” The question is
complicated by the fact that in Ezekiel 25:7
we
have in the K’tbib פָתוּרָא (bag),
meaning “food.” In that case path-bag
would mean “a portion of food.” The reading of the K’thib
is not
supported by the versions. In Daniel the word simply means
“food,” such
as was supplied to the king’s table. We see in the slabs
from the palace of
Kou-youn-jik the nature of a royal feast. Animal food
predominated. We
cannot avoid referring to a singular argumentative axiom
implied in all the
discussions on Daniel.
Critics seem to think that when they prove that
certain words in Daniel are Persian, they thus prove Daniel
was written
nearly a couple of centuries after the Persian domination
had disappeared.
Of the wine
which he drank. It is to be noted that there is a restriction. The
wine supplied was the wine which the king drank — wine of
which an
oblation had been offered to idols. In thus bringing up
hostages at his own
table, Nebuchadnezzar was following a practice which has
continued down
to our own day. The son of Theodore of Magdala was brought
up at the
court of our queen. It was the regular practice, as we
know, in Imperial
Sehrader, vol. 2. p. 32, Engl, trans.). So nourishing them three years.
This
was the period during which the education of a Persian
youth was
continued. It is probable, as we have seen, that these
youths were about
sixteen or seventeen. At the end of three years they would
still be very
young. The grammatical connection of the word legaddelam
is somewhat
singular. The Septuagint reading probably had the first
word in this verse in
the infinitive also. This is more grammatical, as it brings
the whole under
the regimen of the opening clause of v. 3. The force of the
word before
us is represented in “bringing up.” The verb in its simple form means “to be
strong,” “to be great,” hence in the intensive form before
us, “to make
great,” “to bring up.” That
at the end thereof they might stand before the
king. “Standing before the
king” means usually becoming members of the
council of the monarch, but in the present instance this
does not seem to be
the meaning. They were to be presented before the king, and
in his
presence they were to be examined. They were, then,
possibly to be
admitted into the college of astrologers and soothsayers,
but only in lowly
grade. Irrespective of the fact that they would at the
latest be twenty or
twenty-one when this season of education was over, and,
even making
allowance for Eastern precocity, this is too young an age
for being a
member of a royal privy council. But the next chapter
relates an event
which appears to be the occasion when they stood before the
king, for they
were not summoned with the wise men to the king’s presence
to interpret
his dream.
6 “Now among these were of
the children of Judah, Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.” The versions present
no difficulty here,
only the Septuagint adds a clause to bring this verse into
harmomy with v. 3:
the Septuagint rendering is, “And there were of the race of the sons of
Israel that came
from Judaea, Daniel, Ananias, Mishael, and Azarias.” That
they were of “the children of
these four belonging to any other tribe, all the more that
the whole children
of
Septuagint leaves the matter free. At the same time, the
addition is one that
is so naturally suggested by the third verse, that we
cannot claim that the
reading of the Septuagint is the more probable. The names
of the four
companions all occur elsewhere, and, as is usual with
Hebrew names, all
are significant.
Daniel means
either “Judge
of God” or “God my Judge.”
As Hebrew grammar is now, the latter is the meaning; but
there was an
older form of the construct state, which appears in proper
names like
“Gabriel,” which makes it probable that “Judge of God” or
“Divine Judge”
is the meaning intended to be conveyed. This meaning is
implied in the
story of Susanna and the eiders. David’s son by Abigail the
Carmelitess is
called Daniel in I Chronicles 3:1. In the case of the son of David, the
name would probably indicate the confidence in God which
his father felt,
rather than any description of the son. In Ezra 8:2 a
Daniel is
mentioned who seems to be a son of Ithamar. We say “seems
to be,”
because it is evident that there is an omission somewhere
of a name; if the
omission has taken place before m’bne Phinhas,
then Daniel becomes the
representative of the sons of David, and Hattush the
representative of the
sons of Pabath. In
Nehemiah 10:6 in the number of the priests who
sealed the covenant, is a “Daniel” named, who may be the
same as the
preceding. In the Septuagint version of the apocryphal additions
to Daniel, the
prophet is identified with the priest. The first verse in
the story of Bel and
the Dragon is, “There was a certain man, a priest, whose
name was Daniel,
the son of Abal, the familiar friend of the King of
Babylon.” There is
nothing to make it certain, it we do not take the phrase
here in its absolute
sense, that Daniel did not belong to the family of Aaron;
if we take the
phrase in its restricted sense, then the balance of
probability is that he was a
member of the Davidic family.
Hananiah (Hananyah;
Greek, Ἀνανίας – Ananais: the Hebrew form,
as in the case of other names with the same termination, is sometimes
lengthened to Hananyahu). The name means “The Lord Jehovah
is gracious.”
This name is one of the most common in the Bible. Sometimes it is reve rsed, and
becomes Jehohanan or Johanan, and hence “John.” The earliest is
the head of the
sixteenth of the twenty-four courses into which David divided the Hemanites
(I Chronicles 25:4). In the reign
of Uzziah there appears one as a chief captain
(II Chronicles 26:11). In Jeremiah there are three; most prominent, however, is
the
false prophet who declared
that Jeconiah and all his fellow-captives would be
brought back in the space of two years (Jeremiah 28:15).
One of the
ancestors of our Lord, called in Luke (Luke 3:27) Joanna,
the son of
Rhesa, grandson of Zerubbabel, is called in I Chronicles
3:19
Hananiah, and reckoned a son of Zerubbabel. In the Book of
Nehemiah
there are several persons spoken of as bearing this name,
not impossibly as
many as six. In New Testament times it was still common:
Ananias the
husband of Sapphira (Acts 5:1); the devout Jew of Damascus,
sent to
Paul (Acts 9:10); the high priest in the time of Paul (Acts
23:2).
Unlike Hananiah, Mishael is one of the rarer names It
occurs as the name of
one of the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Moses and Aaron
(Exodus 6:22;
Leviticus 10:4), and again as one who stood at Ezra’s left
hand when
he read the Law (Nehemiah 8:4). There is some question as
to the
meaning of the name. Two interpretations have been
suggested; the
simplest and most direct is, “Who is what God is;” the other is, “Who is
like God.” The objection to the first is that the contracted relative
is
employed, which does not elsewhere appear in this book.
This, however, is
not insuperable, as the contracted form of the relative was
in common use
in the northern kingdom, and might, therefore, appear in a
name; the
objection to the second is that a letter is omitted, but
such omissions
continually occur. Hitzig refers to μymy, from μwy, as a case in point.
Azariah, “Jehovah is
Helper,” is, like Hananiah, a very common
name
throughout Jewish history It is the name by which Uzziah is
called in
II Kings 14:21: 15:1, 7-8, 17 (called Uzziah in vs. 13, 30,
as also in
II Chronicles 27.) It is the name of four high priests:
·
one (I Chronicles
6:10) during the reign of Solomon, the grandson
of Zadok;
·
the high priest during
the reign of Jehoshaphat (Ibid. v.11);
·
high priest during the
reign of his namesake Azariah or Uzziah King of
Judah (II Chronicles
26:17-20);
·
high priest in the
reign of Hezekiah (Ibid. ch.31:10-14).
There is also a prophet of this name (Ibid. ch.15:1) in the
days of Asa
King of
so common after it, though there is a captain of the army
of Judas
Maccabteus called “Azarias.” While all the names contain
the name of
God, either in the covenant form “Jehovah” or the common
form “el,” yet
there is nothing in the names to suggest the history before
us. Jewish
tradition made them out to be of the royal family; of this
there is no
certainty. In the time of Jerome it was held they were
eunuchs, and thus the
prophecy in Isaiah (Isaiah 39:7) was fulfilled. Others have
held that
Isaiah 56:3, “Let not the eunuch say, I am a dry tree,” had a reference
to those captives. So far, however, as we know, eunuchs
might be
attendants of Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs might bear
the state
umbrella over their heads, might give the cup to them,
might arrange their
couch for them, or announce their approach to the harem,
but were not
their councelors or warriors. That was left for the days of
the Byzantine
Empire, when the eunuch Narses retained
7 “Unto whom the prince of
the eunuchs gave names; for he
gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah,
of
Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of
Abednego.”
The only thing to be noted in regard to the versions is that,
with the
exception of the Peshitta, all of them identify the name of
Daniel with that
of the last King of Babylon. Both are called Baltasar or
Baltassar in the
Vulgate, the Septuagint, and Theodotion. The difference
made in the Peshitta is
not the same as that in the Hebrew; the prophet is called
Beletshazzar, and
the king Belit-shazzar. This would indicate something wrong. The Greek
versions render Abed-nego Ἀβδεναγώ – Abdenago, which also the Vulgate has.
This habit of changing the names of those who entered their
service prevailed
among Eastern potentates. Joseph became Zaph-nath-paaneah
(Genesis 41:45). Not only did those about the court receive
new
names, but, not infrequently, subject monarchs, as token of
subjection,
were newly named, as Jehoiakim, who had formerly been
Eliakim.
Professor Fuller mentions the case of the Egyptian monarch
Psammetik II.,
whose name as subject of Asshur-bani-pal was Nabo-sezib-ani.
Not only
so, but monarchs of their own will changed their names with
changed
circumstances; thus Pul in
modern times this is continued in the head of Roman
Catholic
Christendom, who has for the last twelve centuries always
assumed another
than his original name on ascending the papal throne. With
members of a
monarch’s court this is easily intelligible. The desire was
to have names of
good omen; a foreign name might either be meaningless or
suggest
anything but thoughts full of good omen. In considering
these names, there
are certain preliminary facts we must bear in mind. In the
first place, there
is a great probability that all the names had a Divine
element in them, that
is, contained as an element the name of a Babylonian god.
The great mass
of the names of Babylonian and Assyrian officials had this.
Next, it is by
no means improbable that, at the hands of the Jewish
scribes, the names
have sustained some considerable change, more especially as
regards the
Divine element. The Jewish scribe had few scruples as to
altering a name
when there was anything in it to hurt his sensibilities. It
is horrible to him
that Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses the
great lawgiver,
should be the originator of the false temple at Dan, and so
he inserts a nun,
and changes Moshe, “Moses,” into “Manasseh.” The
scribe that copied out
II Samuel, coming to the name of Jerubbaal, cannot endure
to chronicle the
fact that a judge in
Zidonians as part of his name, and altered it to
Jerubesheth. So we have in
the same book Ishbosheth for Ethbaal, and Mephibosheth for
Meribbaal.
With a foreign potentate it is different; but in the case
of a Jew there
always was a tendency to blink such an awkward fact as
bearing a name
with heathen elements, by a slight change. The name given
to Daniel is, in
the Massoretic text, Belteshazzar. From the fact that in
the Septuagint,
Theodotion, and the Vulgate, we have the king Belshazzar
and Daniel, as
Babylonian magician, called by the same name,” Baltasar,”
and when in the
Peshitta, the difference is very slight, and not always
maintained, we, for
our part, are strongly inclined to believe both names to
have been the same.
Professor Bevan (‘The Book of Daniel,’ 40) is quite sure
that the author
did not understand the meaning of the name given to Daniel.
He (Professor
Bevan) derives the name from Balat-zu-utzur,
“Protect thou his life.”
Professor Fuller, with as great plausibility, makes it Bilat-sarra-utzur,
“Beltis protects the crown.” If that be the true
derivation, then
Nebuchadnezzar could quite correctly say that he was called
after the name
of his god. Still more accurate would this statement be if
the name were
Belshazzar. But an uneasy suspicion crosses our mind. Does the author of Daniel
ever attribute to Nebuchadnezzar the words on which
Professor Bevan grounds his
charge? The words are not in the Septuagint. Thus Professor
Bevan — never
admitting the possibility of the name Belteshazzar having
been modified from
something else, although the evidence of the versions
points most distinctly to that,
and although he candidly admits it to have taken place in
regard to Abed-nego —
assumes an etymology for it, as if it were the only
possible one, which it is not;
and on the ground of this etymology, and on the assumption
that certain words
were in the original text of Daniel, which are yet not in
the Septuagint, he
concludes that the author of Daniel did not know the
meaning of the name
he had given to his hero. Surely this is special pleading.
If there has been
any tampering with the name or modification of it, then
Professor Bevan’s
assumption falls to the ground, and his argument with it;
but there seems
every probability that there has been such modification, and
the effect of
such modification would be to deface the name of the
heathen divinity in
the name if there were such. Further, if Professor Fuller’s
etymology may
be maintained, again Professor Bevan’s assumption falls to
the ground.
These two arguments do not conflict. A Jewish scribe,
ignorant of ancient
Assyrian, might easily introduce a modification which,
despite his intention,
did not remove all heathen divinity from the name, only
changed the
divinity. If the original text of Daniel did not contain the
phrase in the
fourth chapter, “according
to the name of my god” (ch. 4:8); then again
Professor Bevan’s assumption is proved groundless, and his
argument
without value. The
phrase in question is not in the Septuagint, and therefore
it is, to say the least, suspicious. It has no such
intimate connection with the
context as to show it part of the text; it is just such a
phrase as would be put
on the margin as a gloss, and get into the text by blunder
of a copyist. It may
be observed that Professor Bevan merely follows Schrader,
alike in his
derivation and deduction; but he, not Schrader, had before
him continually
the Septuagint version of Daniel, and he, not Schrader, is
commentator on
Daniel. And to
Hananiah of Shadrach. This name is explained by Dr.
Delitzsch as being a modified transliteration of Shudur-aku,
“the command
of Aku” (the moon-deity). With this Schrader agrees. There
is always the
possibility of the name having undergone a change. On the
other hand, as
the name of the deity, Aku, does not appear in
Scripture, the Puritanic
scribe might be unaware of its presence here. And to Mishael of Meshach.
This name has caused great difficulty; it is consonantally
identical with
Ëv,m,,
“Hesheeh,” the name of one of the sons of Japhet. Dr. Delitzsch
would render it Me-sa-aku, “Who is as Aku.”
Schrader’s objections to this
are, that in the first place the Babylonian form would be Mamm-ki-Aku.
And next, that there would not likely be a simple
translation of the Hebrew
name into Assyrian, but rather the giving a new name
altogether. This
second objection is valueless, for Pharaoh-Necho did not
wholly change
the name of Eliakim when he set him on the throne; since Jehovah
may be
regarded as the equivalent of El. The fact that
“Meshach” is so like
“Mcshech” points to intentional modification, and,
therefore, to the
presence in the name of the designation of a Babylonian god
likely to be
known to the Jews, such as Merodach, whose name was known
to the
Jews by its occurrence in the names Evil-Merodach and
Merodach-
Baladan, and actually as a divinity in Jeremiah 50:2. Such
is
Lenormant’s hypothesis (‘La Divination,’ p. 178). which
would render it
Misa-Mero-dash, “Who
is as Merodach” — a suggestion certainly open to
Schrader’s first objection. And to Azariah of Abed-nego. It has long been
recognized that this name is a modification of Abed-Nebo.
This
identification is rendered all the more probable, that in
New Hebrew and
Aramaic Naga meant the planet “Venus,” that is,
“Nebo” The consonants
are correct for this, but the vocalization is purposely
wrong, in order to
avoid the heathen name. If the author of Daniel was an
obscure Jew, living
in
had disappeared, and its language had ceased to be studied,
is it not strange
that he should devise names which so accurately represent
those that were
in
product of the Epiphanes period (Konig, ‘Einlcitung,’ 480),
to see the wild
work that Palestinian Jews of that time made of Babylonian
names.
8 “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile
himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the
wine which
he drank, therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs
that he
might not defile himself.”
The Septuagint renders the first clause
somewhat paraphrastically, “Daniel desired in his heart,”
led possibly to
this by the more limited meaning assigned to “heart” in the
psychology of
ordinary Greek speech. Theodotion is, as usual, in close
harmony with the
Massoretic text. The Peshitta, instead of “heart,” has r’ina,
“mind.” As
before noticed, the Greek versions here render פּת־בג by δεῖπνον – deipnon –
feast; supper. Jerome renders it mensa In
the Syriac the word is present, as we
before said.
We have above indicated that it is possible that the original word
was not path-bag, but pathura. In
regard to the Massoretic text as compared
with the Greek and Latin versions, it seems certain that path-bag,
if
belonging to the text, was only understood in the East — a
phenomenon
that would be intelligible if this chapter be a
condensation and translation
of an original Aramaic text, especially if the Aramaic were
Eastern, not
Western. An ancient feast had always the nature of a
sacrifice. It was the
case with the Jews: thus in Deuteronomy 12:11-12,
directions are
given for sacrificing in the place which the Lord should
choose, and they
and all their household rejoicing. But if the place chosen
were too far, then
permission was given them to eat flesh, only they were to
be careful not to
eat with the blood. It was the characteristic of the
classic nations all
through their whole history, that the feast should be
consecrated by the
offering of something of it to the Deity. The immense
probability was that
this was the case also among the Babylonians. It may be
that this
consecration of the feast arose from the same justifiable
religious feeling
which leads us to ask a blessing on our meals. The habit of
the African
Church to celebrate the Lord’s Supper at every supper, was
probably
connected with this offering to God of what the guests were
about to
partake. This fact, that every feast had the character of a
sacrifice, might
easily make these Hebrew youths refuse the royal dainties.
So far as animal
food was concerned, the careful directions as to not eating
with blood
made partaking of the feasts of the Babylonian monarch
peculiarly liable to
bring on them defilement. The fact that Evil-Merodach
provided Jeconiah
with a portion from his table, and that Jeconiah did not
refuse it, does not
necessarily militate against the early date of Daniel.
Jeconiah probably was
not as conscientious as those youths, and, on the other
hand, Daniel’s
influence by this time may have arranged some consideration
for Jewish
scruples. It is certain that in II Maccabees 5:27 Judas and
his brethren are
represented as living in the mountains on herbs, after the
manner of beasts,
that they might not be defiled; but as there is nothing
parallel to this in
I Maccabees, we may dismiss the statement as probably
untrue. So the
whole idea of this action on the part of Judas and his nine
companions may
have arisen from the case recorded before us. It has all the
look of a
rhetorical addition to the narrative, and the differences
of the circumstances
were not such as would strike a rhetorical scribe; but as
this abstinence
appeared to add to the sanctity of these four Hebrew
youths, would it not
add to the sanctity of Judas also? ‘In the Assyrian feasts
the guests do not
seem to have sat at one long table or several long tables,
as is usual with
us. The guests were divided into sets of four, and had
provisions served to
them, and it is to be observed that the youths before us
would have exactly
occupied one of those tables. The word used for “defile” (ga’al) occurs in
Isaiah, Lamentations, Zephaniah, Malachi, Ezra, and
Nehemiah. It is an
Exilic and post-Exilic word mainly; the old priestly word lama
had not
disappeared — it is used in Haggai. It is to be observed
that there is
nothing about defilement in the Peshitta; it is not
impossible that the word
is a later addition, only its presence both in Theodotion
and the Septuagint
renders the omission improbable. There is nothing in the
passage here
which makes it necessary for us to maintain that the
principle of action
followed by those youths was one which was generally
acknowledged to
be incumbent on all Jews. It may simply have been that,
feeling the critical
condition in which they were placed, it was well for them
to erect a hedge
about the Law. There may even have been an excess of
scrupulosity which
is in perfect dramatic suitability to the age of the
youths. Such abstinence
may well have occasioned the regular abstinence of the
Essenes, but this
state-merit concerning Daniel and his friends can scarcely
have originated
from the Essene dietary. It has been noted, as a proof of
Daniel’s courtesy
and docility, that he requested of the prince of the
eunuchs that he might
not defile himself. But to have refused the food provided
by the king might
have been construed as an insult to the king, and anything
of that sort had
swift and severe punishment meted out to it. Daniel’s
request was simply
due to the necessities of the situation.
A Noble Purpose the Root of True Renown (v.
8)
All real dignity has its beginning, not in ancestral
fortune, but in righteous
purpose. The
heart is the seed-plot of all noble deeds. “Keep thy heart with
all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” (Proverbs
4:23)
·
THE COMMONEST MEAL FURNISHES AN OCCASION ON
WHICH TO DEFILE OR DIGNIFY THE MAN. Then character is
discovered. Then we see, as in a
mirror, whether the higher nature or the
lower is dominant. Some
men live only to eat; some eat only that they may
live. Daniel desired to shun this sudden extreme of good
fortune. “It is
better to go to the house of mourning than into the house of
feasting”
(Ecclesiastes 7:2). Moreover, this participation in royal
dainties would
be a connivance with idolatry. “Whether therefore ye eat or drink…
do all to the glory of God.” (I Corinthians 10:31)
RENEWED HEART. What
grimy dirt is to the fair countenance, what
rust is on virgin gold, what
soot is on crystal snow, such is sin on the
human soul. Wickedness is defilement, disease, curse, rottenness. If
self-preservation be a primary
instinct of man as a member of the animal
race, the maintenance of purity was ORIGINALLY AN INSTINCT
OF THE SOUL! If
we cannot
wash out old stains, we can, by Divine
help, avoid further contamination. To be pure is to be manly — God-like.
KINDLY SOLICITATION. Love wields a magic sceptre, and kindness is
practical love. If the highest
end we seek cannot be gained at a single
stride, we may gain a step at a
time. The Christian pilgrim does not walk in
five-leagued boots. Daniel “requested
of the prince of the eunuchs that he
might not defile
himself.” A request so reasonable, so
innocent, commended
itself to the judgment of the man.
9 “Now God had brought
Daniel into favor and tender love
with the prince of the eunuchs.” The word here translated “tender love”
really means “bowels,” and then “mercy” or “compassion.”
Hence the
Apostle Paul (Philippians 2:1) combines the two meanings, “If there be
any bowels and
mercies.” The Revised Version is here to
be preferred,
“favor and compassion,’ as the Authorized exaggerates the
affection the
prince of the eunuchs had for Daniel. The versions in this verse do not
afford any marked variations. The Septuagint has Κύριος,, “Lord,”
usually
employed to translate יהוה, Jehovah, instead of Θεός
- God, (אלהים).
It is not impossible that the original reading may have
been יהוה,
though it is
to be admitted not likely. Rahameem is translated χάριν – charin - favor, in
the Septuagint, which
is a weak rendering; Theodotion renders οἰκτιρμόν –
oiktirmon – mercy;
pity - which may be regarded as practically
equivalent to
our Revised Version. While
the third verse speaks of the “chief”
(רַב) of the
eunuchs, a Babylonian and Assyrian title, the more usual Hebrew שַׂר replaces
it in this verse and in that which precedes it. From this root the
Assyrian and
Babylonian word for “king,” sat or sarru, was
derived, while tab fell on
evil days. Among the later Jews it became equivalent to our
doctors of
divinity. Before the word for “God” (Elohim) there is the article. So far as
the form stands, it might be plural, and therefore be
capable of being
translated “the gods,” but the verb being singular renders
that translation
impossible. The affection with which the chief of the
eunuchs regarded
Daniel is notified to us as the
result of God’s goodness, who had thus
given him favor in the eyes of him set over him. The Hebrew never failed
to recognize, in his more devout moments, that the hearts
of all men are in the
hands of God; that by Him
kings reign and princes decree wisdom.
(Proverbs 8:15)
10 “And the prince of the
eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my
lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink:
for why
should he see your faces worse liking than the children
which are of
your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the
king. In the
Hebrew of this verse there are traces that it has been
translated from an
Aramaic original. We shall consider the differences of the
versions from the
Massoretic below. The word (sar) for “prince” is
continued from the
preceding verse, I
fear. In the Massoretic text, the word is not a verb, but
an adjective. If the phrase were rendered “I am afraid,”
this would
represent the construction, it is one that is specially
frequent with this
adjective; it resembles the construction so common in
Aramaic of participle
with pronoun where an ordinary preterite or imperfect would
be used in
Hebrew. Your meat
and your drink. In this phrase the enigmatic word
path-bag has
disappeared; lk"a}m (ma’achal), the ordinary word for
“food,” has replaced it. For why should he see your face. The construction
here is decidedly Aramaic, and resembles a word-for-word
rendering from
an Aramaic original. The Targumic phrase here is am;l]ydi (deelma)
(Onkelos, Genesis 3:3). The Peshitta rendering here is dalton.
The
construction occurs in Song of Solomon 1:7, shallama,
only with the
northern shortened relative. In worse liking. The word zo’apheem means
“sad,” “troubled”
(Genesis 40:6); the verb from which it comes means
“to be angry” (II Chronicles 26:19). It is to be noted that
the Septuagint
here has two renderings, probably a case of “doublet.” The
first
διατετραμμένα – diatetrammena - may
refer to the mental confusion or
sadness that they might be in if on account of their poor
nourishment they
were unable to answer the king’s questions; the second, ἀσθενῆ – asthenae –
weak; sick - may refer to the
body: σκυθρωπὰ
– skuthropa – gloomy;
mournful; of a sad countenance - is Theodotion’s rendering, which may be
rendered “scowling” (it is used along with λυπούμενον – lupoumenon –
sad; sorrowfule - , Plato, ‘Syrup.’). The Peshitta has m’karan,
“ashamed;” that
they would feel shame were they much inferior in looks or
acquirements to their
neighbors would be natural. The intimate connection between
food and good
looks and good mental qualities is well known as one much
held, especially in
ancient days. Than the children of your sort.
Keqilkem; this word, גִל or גַּיִל, is
maintained by Professor Bevan to be unused in early Hebrew in the
sense
of “generation” or “age” Furst would regard the name
Abigail as exhibiting
the word as existing in early times. The only difficulty in
this is that the
name may have another derivation. The real meaning of the
word in this
connection is “a circle;” hence then a revolution of the
heavens. It is
explained by Buxtorf as meaning “constellation, planet;” בֶּן
נָילו, “son
of
his star” — born under the same constellation,
contemporary. The Syriac
paraphrases the word, and renders “of your year.”
Theodotion renders
συνήλικα – sunaelika - of like age.
When we turn to the Septuagint, we find
evidence either that the word was not there at all, or that
it was
misunderstood; the Septuagint rendering is “than the ἀλλογενῶν – allogenon –
stranger - youths (συντρεφομένους –
suntrephomenous – brought up with)
you.” This is an evident case of doublet. The first that stands in the Greek
is
συντρεφομένους: this represents a various reading, גָּדְלוּ
אִתְּכֶּם ;(gad’lu
itkem), by no means an
impossible reading. The other, ἀλλογενῶν,
represents גידים (geereem):
this is still more like the Massoretic reading
גילכם (geelkem). The Massoretic is
possibly the reading from which the
other two have sprung; if so, it is clear that the word גיל has
not in this
sense been known to either of the two Egyptian translators.
It is not
Targumic, for Levy has it not in his Lexicon. Professor
Bevan says it is
Aramaic and Arabic. This, then, is a case where the Aramaic
original shines
through; the chief of the eunuchs would naturally speak in
Aramaic. Then
shall ye make
me endanger my head to the king. Here again is a word
which Professor Bevan declares is late, the word here
translated “make me
endanger יְחִיַּבְחֶם (yehigyabetem).” There is no difficulty as
to the reading
in the versions, save that the Septuagint reads the first
person singular
instead of the second person plural, in other words, vehiyyabti,
“and I shall
endanger,” and “my neck,” reading, instead of “my head,” possibly צַוָּארִי
(tzavvari) or מַפְרַקְתִּי (maphraqti), the latter reading due to the mere,
the
sign of the second person plural being transferred to the
following word. It
may
certainly have been a paraphrase, but the phrase as it stands in the
Massoretic seems awkward. Professor Bevan brings
forward this word as
Aramaic, and a proof of the lateness of Daniel. If we are
correct, it is a
case where the Aramaic of the original shines through. The
word
indubitably occurs in Ezekiel 18:7. As counsel for the
prosecution,
Professor Bevan must get rid of this awkward fact. Cornill,
one of his
colleagues in the case against Daniel, suggests that
another word should be
read in Ezekiel, and Professor Bevan agrees, but
differs as to the word.
There is no indication in any of the versions that there is
any uncertainty as
to the reading in Ezekiel. It is a most convenient method
of getting rid of
an awkward fact; little extension of it might make any word
one pleased a
hapax legomenon (of one time use). The critics might have tried the method more
reasonably on Daniel than on Ezekiel; but as their brief
was against Daniel,
that did not occur to them. The picture presented to us in
this verse is one
that in the circumstances is full of naturalness. We
have, on the one hand,
the eager entreaty of the Hebrew youth; the kindly look of
the prince,
willing to grant anything he possibly can to his favorite,
yet hindered by
fear for himself, and at the same time a desire that
Daniel, his favorite,
should stand well with the king. The chief of the eunuchs
knew that
personal good looks were an important matter with
Nebuchadnezzar. If
they were badly nourished, these Hebrew youths would be
handicapped in
their examination before the king. But more, shame at their
own
appearance would disturb them mentally, even if they were
able to study as
well on this plain food they desired. If the failure were
egregious, then
investigation might be demanded, and then the fact that he
had
transgressed the orders of the king would be a serious
offence — the king
knew no mercy when enraged. It is to be observed that the
chief of the
eunuchs first appeals to the self-interest of the youths
before him, that they
would endanger their own prospects; but as that does not
move them, he
next tells them that his own life would be endangered. In
this case we must
remember we have merely a summary, and a very condensed
summary, of
what was probably a prolonged argument. We have only the
heads, and
probably the succession of the arguments. It may, perhaps,
be regarded as
a proof of the authenticity of this speech that two Aramaic
words are
preserved in it. The Rabsaris most certainly would speak in
Aramaic, and
technical words such as geel and heyyabtem might
be retained even in a
translation, if there were no word which was quite an exact
equivalent.
Thus in translations from French or German into English,
how frequently
are words transferred from the original tongue[ “One-sided”
is a case in
point.
11 “Then said Daniel to
Melzar, whom the prince of the
eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah.” The
reading of the Septuagint differs from the Massoretic in
two particulars —
instead of “Melzar,” the name given is
“Abiesdri,” as in the third verse; and
the
verb minnah מִנָּה)
is read מֻנָּה (munnoh), “set
over.” The Peshitta
reads instead of “Melzar,’ in this verse, “Mashitzar” (but
see v. 16). This
confirms the idea that this is a proper name, not an
official title. If the
assumption of the Septuagint is correct, then the name in the
Massoretic
text ought to be Hammelzar. This might indicate the name to
be Amil-
Assur, corresponding to Amil-Merodach. Theodotion
renders the name
Ἀμέλσαδ - Amelsad. While a good deal can be said for making
“Melzar”
or
“Hammelzar” a proper name, something may also be said for the idea
which has gained ground that
“Melzar,” since it has the article before it, is
the name of an official.
Lenormant (‘La Divination,’ p. 196) makes the name
Amil- Ussur.
Such, at any rate, is the name of an
official in the court of a
Ninevite king; it is supposed to mean “steward,” but it may be
doubted if
this is the exact equivalent of such an official as the one
here referred to.
Hitzig suggests παιδαγωγός – paidagogos – instructor;
schoolmaster;
and for this rendering there is much to be said. It
is an indirect proof of the
antiquity of the book, that an official is referred to by a title the exact force
of which had been forgotten when the Septuagint translation was produced,
not later certainly than the first century B.C. Theodotion and Jerome are as
far at sea as is also the Peshitta. The
critical hypothesis is that this Assyrian
name for “steward” remained known
among the Palestinian Jews from the
fall of the Babyloniau Empire in B.C. 532 to B.C. 168,
and then in less than a
couple of centuries utterly disappeared.
The reading of the Septuagint, “Abiesdri,”
may be laid aside; it is
a reading that would suggest itself to any one who
appreciated the difficulty of the passage.
In the previous verse we were made
auditors to a conversation between
Daniel and Ashpenaz, in which he does
not consent to Daniel’s request.
In the verse before us Daniel addresses
another request to a new but
subordinate official. As the request is one that
might naturally follow the refusal,
mild but to all appearance firm, of the
prince of the eunuchs, what could
be more natural than to imagine that
Amelzar was a misreading for Abiesdri? The story has been condensed. Had
we the full narrative, we most
likely would have seen that Daniel had to go
over the argument with the
subordinate that he had already had with the
superior. It is not unlikely that
the prince of the eunuchs was not expressly
informed of the experiment being
tried, of which the verse which follows
informs us. This would help to
save him from the responsibility of the thing;
it is not inconceivable that
he intentionally kept himself uninformed. Not only
has Daniel secured a
personal influence over the prince of the eunuchs, but also
over this Melzar, or steward. There are people in the world
who have this
magnetic power over their fellows which compels their
liking. When with this are
united abilities of a man to do exploits and leave his mark
on the world, we have a
national hero. Napoleon the Great was eminently a man of
this kind.
12 “Prove thy servants, I
beseech thee, ten days; and let them
give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.” The Septuagint seems to have
read yutan, “let there be given,” instead of yitnu,
“let them give.” Zero’im,
(σπερμάτων – spermaton - seeds - Theodotion), (ὀσπρίων – osprion –
pulse - Septuagint and Authorized and Revised Versions). This
word occurs
only here; it differs, however, only by the second vowel
from zeruim in
Isaiah 61:11, and there it is rendered as by Theodotion
here, σπέρματα –
spermata – seeds;
roots. As
the vowels were not written for centuries after
the latest critical date of Daniel, it is in the highest
degree absurd to ground any
argument on the pronunciation affixed to the word by these
late scribes, probably
with as great caprice as made them maintain to all time
“suspended letters” here
and there in the text, or sometimes begin a word with a
final mere. Professor
Bevan regards this word a s possibly a scribe’s mistake for
zeronim, a word with
the same meaning, which occurs in v. 16, and is found in
the Talmud. He might
more naturally regard zero’him as a scribe’s
mistake for zero’im. As,
however, the word is Aramaic, occurring both in the Eastern and
Western
dialects, it may be a case where the original word shines
through. Prove thy
servants ten
days. The word used for “prove’ is that frequently used of
God in relation to men, as in Genesis 22:1, “God did prove
Abraham.”
Calvin thinks that Daniel made this request because he had
been directed
by the Divine Spirit. We would not for one moment deny that
all wisdom
comes down from above, and that it is the Spirit of the
Almighty that
giveth understanding, yet the suggestion was a reasonable
one, the period
was long enough to have given signs that it affected them
injuriously, and
yet not so long but the evil effects might easily be
removed. Ten days. It
may be that this is merely a round number — an easily
marked period —
but an experiment would have a definite period. It is
approximately the
third of a revolution of the moon, and as the Babylonians
were attentive
observers of the movements of the heavenly bodies,
especially of the moon,
“ten days” is likely enough to be a period with them, as
certainly a week
was. Moreover, among all the nations of antiquity numbers
were credited
with special powers, as all who have studied Greek
philosophy know.
Pythagoras rested the whole universe on number. This
theory, in which to
some extent he was followed by Plato, seems to have been
derived from
Assyrian, if not Babylonian sources. Thus Lenormant, in ‘La
Magic,’ gives
a dialogue between Hea and his son Hilgq-mulu-qi.
Everything depends on
knowing “the number. It may be noted, as bearing on this, that in the
bas-reliefs portraying a feast from the
are seated in messes of four round small tables. If, then,
as is probable, all
these young cadets at the Babylonian court sat in the royal
presence, they
would have a table to themselves, and thus the peculiarity
of their meal
would not be patent to the whole company. Had the number of
friends
been more, they would have been conspicuous: had they been
fewer, they
would have been observed by those added to make up the
number. Their
request to be allotted to eat only pulse and to drink only
water, had not, as
we have already said, anything necessarily of the
asceticism of the Essenes.
They, the Essenes, rather started from Daniel and
his friends. Maimonides
tells us that there were three kinds of zeronim — tbu’ah,
“crops,” wheat,
barley, millet, etc.; gatonith, “small crops,” peas,
beans, lentils; geenah,
“garden seeds,” such as mint, anise, and cummin. The English
versions and
the Septuagint agree in regarding the second of these
classes as here
intended. There is this to be said, that seeds are the most nourishing form
of vegetable diet.
Aben Ezra suggests “rice” as the seeds used for this
purpose; but as, just as in all hot climates, vegetables
and fruits of all sorts
were largely consumed in
present day among the inhabitants of the district around
ancient
indeed, over the
season fresh fruit, form the staple food. Daniel really prayed to live as the
common people.
13 “Then let our
countenances be looked upon before thee,
and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion
of the
king’s meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.” The Septuagint
Version here differs considerably from the Massoretic text;
it is as follows:
“And should our
countenance appear more downcast than
(διατετραμμένη παρὰ -
diatetrammenae para) those other youths who
eat of the royal
feast, according as thou seest good (θέλῃς – thelaes – which
are otherwise),
so deal with thy servants.” In the text before the
Septuagint
translator לְפָנִיך (l’phaneka), “before thee,” is omitted, and
instead of מַרְאֵה
(mareh),” appearance,” is read זְלֺעַפִים
(zo’aphim), and after is inserted מִן (min),
“from,” the sign of the comparative, equivalent to “than.”
Theodotion, Jerome, and
the Peshitta represent accurately the Massoretic text.
Against the Septuagint reading
is the fact that in the Massoretic, marayeeaen is construed
a singular, but in
Ezekiel 10:10 it is plural. The vocalization of tirayh,
“thou shalt see,” is
Aramaean,
and therefore confirms the idea that this
chapter is a
translation in which the original shines through. The
reading of the
Septuagint implies that a different meaning must be put on
the last clause
from that in the English Version. It means that, should the experiment
prove a failure, they were willing to suffer any punishment
that the official
in question saw good. Such
an interference with the arrangements of.the
king would be a crime to be punished with stripes. Although
a perfectly
consistent sense can be brought from the text behind the
Septuagint, yet,
from the fact that the phrase, לֺזְעַפִים
מִן־חַיְלָדִים (zo’apheem
minhay’ladeem),
occurs in the tenth verse, and therefore may be repeated
here
by accident, we would not definitely prefer it. Further,
the Massoretic text
follows more naturally from the context. Let the steward see the result of
the experiment after ten days, and, as he sees, so let him
judge and act.
Daniel and his companions leave the matter thus really in
the hands of
14 “So he consented to
them in this matter, and proved them
ten days.” The literal rendering is, And he hearkened unto them
as to this
matter, proved them
ten days. The Septuagint reading is again peculiar,
“And he dealt with them after this manner, and proved them
ten days.”
ישמע is not very unlike יעשה,
nor לדבד very unlike כדבר, and this is
all the change implied. The Massoretic reading seems the
more natural, but
it might be argued that this very naturalness is the result
of an effort to
make the Hebrew more flowing. But further, from the fact
that עֲשֵׂה.
(‘asayh), imperative of the same verb, precedes
almost immediately, the
word might come in by accident, or another word somewhat
like it might
be misread into it. The consent of the subordinate official
implies, if not the
consent, at least the connivance, of the superior. As we
have already
explained from the arrangements of a Babylonian feast, the
plan of the
Hebrew youths could the more easily be carried out.
15 “At the end of ten days
their countenances appeared fairer
and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the
portion of
the king’s meat.” The Septuagint is a little paraphrastic, and
renders,
“After ten days their countenance appeared beautiful and
their habit of
body better than that of the other young men who ate of the
king’s meat.”
Theodotion is painfully faithful to the Massoretic text.
The Peshitta
translates bwf (tob), “good,”
“fair,” by sha-peera, “beautiful.” We have
here the result of the
experiment. At the end of the ten days these youths
who had lived plainly are fairer and fatter than those who
partook of the
royal dainties — a result that implies nothing miraculous;
it was simply the
natural result of living on food suited to the climate. The grammar of the
passage is peculiar; mareehem, which so far as form
goes might be plural,
is construed with a singular verb and adjective, but bere’eem,
“fatter,” is
plural. The explanation is that while “countenance,” the
substantive, is in
the singular, it is not the substantive to the adjective
“fat,” but “they”
understood. The sentence is not intended to assert that
their faces merely
were fatter than those of the other youths of their rank
and circumstances,
but that their whole body was so. This contrast of
reference is brought out
in the Septuagint paraphrase. Any one looking on the
Assyrian and
Babylonian sculptures, and comparing them with the
sculptures and
paintings of
Assyrians. In the eunuchs especially, one cannot fail to notice
the full
round faces and the
double chins of those in immediate attendance on the
king. Among savage nations and semi-civilized ones,
corpulence is
regarded as a sign of nobility. The frequent long fasts,
due to failure of
their scanty crops or the difficulty of catching game,
would keep the
ordinary savage spare; only one who could employ the sinews
and
possessions of others
would be sure of being always well fed, consequently
the portly man was incontestably the wealthy nobleman. In
semi-civilized
countries, as
sculptures the kings are not unwieldy with corpulence, but
the eunuchs
have an evident tendency to this. A king, abstemious
himself, might feel his
consequence increased by having as his attendants those who
bore about in
their persons the evidence of how well those were nourished
who fed at his
table. There is no reason to imagine that Nebuchadnezzar
was superior to
his contemporaries in regard to this. The melzar,
having thus seen the
result of the experiment, must see that, so far as
externals were concerned,
the Hebrews who fed on pulse were better than their
companions. The
period of ten days was a short one, but not too short for
effects such as
those mentioned to be manifested.
16 “Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the
wine
that they should
drink; and gave them pulse.” The Massoretic has the article
here before “Melzar” — a fact that the Authorized Version
does not indicate; the
Revised Version renders more correctly, “the steward.” The
version of the
Septuagint does not differ much from the Massoretic, only
the word
translated “that they should drink” is omitted; on the
other hand, we have
the
verb δίδωμι - didomi – give
(ἐδίδου – edidou) put in composition with
ἀντί – anti (ἀντεδίδου), - antedidou - gave them instead - as if, in
the text
before the translator, the mem, which begins mishtayhem, had been put to the
end of yayin, “wine,” making it “their wine” — a construction which would be
more symmetrical than the present.
Only it is difficult to see how either tahath
asher could be changed into shtayhem, or vice versa. The Septuagint
translation
suggests a simpler and
more natural text — not a simplified one — therefore it
is, on the whole, to be
preferred. The careful word-for-word translation of the
beginning of the verse renders it little likely that the
translator would
paraphrase at the end; c g. the word translated in our
version “thus” is
really veeay’he, “it was,” and in the Septuagint
this is rendered η΅ν, – aen –
it was. Theodotion
is in absolute agreement with the Massoretic text. The
Peshitta calls the steward ma-nitzor,
and renders the last clause, “and he gave to
them seeds to eat, and water to drink,” evidently borrowed
from the
twelfth verse. The result
of the success of the experiment is that the youths
are no more importuned to partake of the king’s dainties.
The steward, or
the attendant who looked after their mess, supplied
them with pulse. It has
occurred to two commentators, widely separated from each
other in point
of time, that the consent of the “Melzar ‘ was all the more
easily gained,
that he could utilize the abstemiousness of these Hebrew
youths to his own
private advantage. Both Jephet-ibn-Ali in the beginning of
the eleventh
century, and Ewald in the middle of the nineteenth,
maintain that the
“Melzar’ used to his own purposes, possibly sold, the
portion of food and
wine that the Hebrew youths abjured. Certainly the verb nasa
means the
lifting and carrying away, and suggests that every day the
portions of food
and wine were first carried to the table of these Hebrews,
and then, after
having been placed before them, were removed and pulse
brought instead.
When we think of it, some such process would have to take
place. If it had
been observed that one table was never supplied with a
portion from the
king’s table, there might have been remarks made, and the “Melzar”
would
have fallen into disgrace with his sovereign, and the
Hebrew youths would
possibly have shared his disgrace. As to how the portions
thus retained
were disposed of, we need not be curious; there would, no
doubt, be plenty
of claimants for the broken victuals from the King of
Babylon’s table,
without accusing the “Melzar” of dishonest motives. The
fact that the
verbs are in participle implies that henceforth it was the
regular habit of the
“Melzar” to remove from before the four friends the
royal dainties, and
supply them instead with pulse. We have already referred to
the word used
for “pulse; ‘ it is here zayroneem, whereas
in the twelfth verse it is
zayroeem. Not
impossibly in the verse before us we have another case of
the original Aramaic shining through the translation; in
the Peshitta the
word is zer’oona, <ARAMAIC> Whatever
the word was, it seems certain
that originally it was the same in both places, as in none
of the versions is
there any variation. It is not so impossible that
originally the vocalization
was different, and that the word was the ordinary word zer’aim,
“seeds.”
This certainly is the translation of Theodotion.
17 “As for these four
children, God gave them knowledge and
skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had
understanding in all
visions and dreams.”
Or, as the words might be more accurately rendered,
“these lads, the four of them” (Ezekiel 1:8-10). This
indicates that
somehow they were separated off into a quaternion. In
Ezekiel, where a
similar phrase occurs, the four cherubim form a quaternion
in a very special
way. As we have already seen, the Assyrians in a feast
arranged the guests
in messes of four. Those thus seated together would most
likely be
associated in some other way. In the case of these youths,
who were
permanent guests at the table of the King of Babylon, they
would most
likely be associated in their studies from the first. The
Septuagint Version
omits the numeral, but is pleonastic in a way that suggests
a coalescing of
different readings. The rendering is, “And to the youths
the Lord gave
understanding and knowledge and wisdom in the art of
learning (the
grammatic art — grammar), and to Daniel he gave
understanding of every
kind (in every word), and in visions, and in dreams, and in
every kind of
wisdom.” The omission of the word “four,” and the insertion
of two
words, “understanding” and “knowledge,” suggest that the
one has
somehow taken the place of the other; it may be that the word עָרְמָה was
read instead of ארבעת. The Massoretic
original of the phrase, “skill in all
learning,” may be rendered literally, “skill in every kind of books.”
This has
a special meaning in regard to the Babylonian and Assyrian
books, which
were clay tablets incised when wet, and burnt into
permanence. Rolls of
parchment were, as we see from Jeremiah, the common
material for books
among the Jews. Among the Egyptians, papyrus largely took
the place of
parchment, so the knowledge “of every kind of books” meant
“every
language.” It is certain that three languages were to a
certain extent in use
in
Assyrian, the court language, the language in which
histories and
dedications were written; Accadian, the old sacred tongue,
in which all the
formulae of worship and the forms of incantation had been
originally
written. From the fact that Rabshakeh could talk Hebrew
when conversing
with Eliakim and Shebna, it would seem that the
accomplishment required
from a diplomat implied the knowledge of the languages of
the various
nations subject to the Babylonian Empire or conterminous with
it.
“Knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom” would seem
to mean the
complete curriculum fitted to make these youths able
diplomatists and wise
councilors. And
Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. All
the nations of antiquity laid stress on dreams as means by
which the future
was revealed to men; but in no nation was there so
elaborate a system of
interpretation as among the Babyhmians. Lenormant (‘La
Divination’)
gives a long account, with many passages translated from
their books, of
their mode of interpreting dreams. “Visions” may be
regarded as
appearances of the nature of the alleged second sight among
the Scottish
Highlanders. It may, however, refer to appearances which
are regarded as
omens of good or evil fortune. We see in all the elaborate
distinctions of
omens preserved to us in Lenormant only the folly of
superstition; but we
may not assume that Daniel and his friends did not believe
in them. It has
been objected that if Daniel and his friends were so
scrupulous in regard to
the dainties and the wines of the Babylonian monarch,
because these were
connected with idol-worship, they ought logically to have
refused to learn
these superstitious formulae. But men are never completely
logical; life is
wider than logic, and hence there are always elements that
are left out in
our calculations. The possession even of Divine inspiration
would not
suffer men to annul the two millennia and a half that
separate us from the
days of Daniel. They — Daniel and his friends — did not see
in this so-called
science of oneiromancy mere superstition. Still less did
they
recognize it as having a necessary connection with the
idolatries of
the matter, namely, that God used dreams as means to make
known the
future to men. No one can say he was mistaken in this. When
Luther
described heaven to his child, he filled it with what would
be most happy
for the little boy; he takes the child at the stage at
which he is, and tells him
the truth, but in limitations suited to his knowledge. May
we not
reasonably argue that the great Father deals so with His
children? When
they are in the state of knowledge that makes them expect
to have his will
revealed to them in dreams and omens, then he will make
known his will by
dreams. Daniel knew all that Chaldean science could tell
him, but he saw
that it was limited, that behind all the canons of
interpretation there was the
Eternal Mind, the Great Thinker, whose thoughts are things.
In other
words, he did not recognize the so-called science of
its incantations, its omens, its interpretations of dreams
as false so much as
limited. It has been placed by Jerome as a parallel, that
Moses was learned
in all the learning of the Egyptians. Jerome assumes “they
learned not that
they might follow, but that they might judge and convict (convincant).”
We do not see the need of any such supposition. In their
own land they in
all likelihood believed in the interpretation of dreams, not
unlikely in omens
too in some degree. When they came to
people who had reduced all this to a form that had a
delusive appearance
of scientific accuracy. They could not fail to believe in
all these things.
Long after the latest critical date of Daniel, the Jews
believed in omens and
dreams. Josephus tells us of his own skill in these
matters, and is still more
explicit in respect to the wisdom of the Essenes in regard
to the future.
Students of the Talmud will not require to be told of the bath-qol
and
other means by which a knowledge of the future was derived.
We must, we
fear, assume that Daniel was not so far ahead of his
contemporaries as not
to believe in the science of
against it and refuge to acquire it is absurd in the last
degree. This fact of
these four Hebrew youths not objecting to heathen learning
is an indirect
proof of the early date of Daniel. If this book had been written in the days
of the Maccabees, then the learning of the Chaldeans would
be a synonym
for the learning of the Greeks. We know that, so far from
the Hasideem —
the party from whom, by hypothesis, “Daniel” emanated —
looking
favorably on Greek learning, they hated and abhorred it. We
see in the
Second Book of Maccabees (4:14) the feelings with which
they regarded
those who favored Greek manners; how even the innocent game
of discus
was full of horror for them, because it was Greek (1:14);
and in the first
book with what horror the pious looked on the erection of a
gymnasium in
was very much in evidence in their history. For business
purposes they had
to know the Greek language; but the learning, the
philosophy, and
literature of
struggle abomination. Is it, then, to be imagined that a
writer of the
Maccabean period, describing an ancient hero from whose
example his
contemporaries were to draw encouragement and guidance,
would
represent him as zealously addicting himself to the pursuit
of Gentile
learning, and making such progress in it that he excelled
all competitors?
The attitude ascribed to him would have been more like that
of the Rabbi
Akiba, who declared that “Greek learning could be studied
in an hour that
was neither day nor night;” or like that other rabbi, who
declared that “the
translation of the Scripture into Greek was a disaster to
Judaism equal in
horror to the fall of
imagination and the necessity of applying it to questions
of Biblical
criticism. Surely the minds must be strangely deficient in
the power of
imaginative reconstruction who cannot feel the thrill of
abhorrence of
everything foreign that must have filled the Jews during
the Maccabean
struggle. If the critics had only realized this, they would
have seen how
utterly impossible it is to conceive that a religious
novel, written at that
time, intended to nerve the Jews for fiercer resistance to
their oppressors,
should represent the hero complacently acquiring Gentile
learning, and
acting the submissive courtier in the tyrant’s palace.
18 “Now at the end of the
days that the king had said he
should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs
brought them in
before Nebuchadnezzar.” The
Septuagint Version here is shorter and
simpler: “After these days the king commanded to bring them
in, and they
were brought in by the prince of the eunuchs.” The only
difference is that
הַאֵלֶה
(haayleh) is read instead of אֲשֶׁר (‘asher), and the maqqeph
dropped. Theodotion is in close accordance with the
Massoretic text. The
Peshitta is also simpler than the Massoretic text, though
founded on it:
“And after the completion of the days which the king had
arranged, the
chief of the eunuchs brought them before Nebuchadnezzar the
king.” Both
the Massoretic and Peshitta texts represent the prince of
the eunuchs
bringing the youths before King Nebuchadnezzar when the
time had
elapsed, without any orders from the king himself.
According to the
Septuagint, it was the king himself that required them to
be presented
before him. It seems more like the active-minded king, that
he should recall
his purpose of examining these youths, and command them to
be brought
in, than that the prince of the eunuchs should bring them
trooping in
without warning into the royal presence. Such an
examination, whether
conducted by the king personally, or in his presence, or
under his
superintendence, would need to be prepared for; something
equivalent to
examination papers, test questions, would have to be
arranged, or the
presentation before the king would be a farce. All this
implies that
Nebuchadnezzar himself arranged the time of the appearance
of those
youths before him. We can scarcely imagine the awe with
which those
young captives must have looked forward to standing before
the terrible
conqueror who had swept the army of
overthrown all who ventured to oppose him, who had sent
home hosts of
captives to throng the slave-markets of
each separately was brought before Nebuchadnezzar, or
whether the whole
number of the cadets were presented at once. It is the
earliest instance of
promotion by competitive examination. The clear, sharp eye
of the young
conqueror was probably worth more than all the questions
prepared. While
certainly the words used seem to imply that the hostages
were called
merely to be examined, the occasion may have been the “dream” narrated
in the next chapter.
19 “And the king communed
with them; and among them all
was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
therefore stood they before the king.” The word translated “communed”
really means “spake,” and is the common word for this. The
Septuagint
translates here ὥμίλησεν – homilaesen, which does mean “commune.”
Theodotion renders ἐλάλησε – elalaese - talked.
Jerome has loeutus; the
Peshitta has malel; all these may be rendered “talked.” From Nebuchadnezzar’s
great reverence for the national
religion and for the national magic, we may be
certain that much of the conversation
would turn on those magical formulae
which have been to such a large
extent preserved to us. Even if, as we think,
the immediate occasion of Daniel
and his companions appearing before the
king was his “dream,” still he would not unnaturally examine them further.
It is not unlikely that this
conversational examination would involve naturally
the languages they would
have to be proficient in were they to be of the royal
council. They would have to be acquainted with Accadian,
the original
tongue of all the most sacred magical formulae; with
Assyrian, the
language in which the royal annals were recorded; and with
Aramaic,
which was, as we have already said, the language of
commerce and
diplomacy. Hebrew, the language of the four in whom we are
more
especially interested, was spoken, not merely by the holy
people, but also
by the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and the Phoenicians.
Further,
the tongue of
officials in
but, probably, their language was still known and spoken by
a large number
of the inhabitants of Nebuchadnezzar’s extensive empire.
Not only were
the languages of peoples west of
to the east; there were the Aryan tongues too. If the
tradition is correct
that Nebuchadnezzar married a Median wife, the Median
tongue, which
seems to have been the same with that of
important, Not unlikely questions of policy and statecraft
would be
submitted to these candidates, to see what they would say.
Above all, in
personal intercourse the King of Babylon would be able to
form some
estimate of the real worth of these youths, There probably
would enter in a
large measure of caprice, or even superstition, into his
choice, yet not
unlikely his strong practical sense would limit his
superstition. The result of
this examination is eminently satisfactory to the young
Hebrews. They
were found superior to all their competitors. Therefore stood they before
the king. Professor Bevan would
render this “became his personal
attendants” — a very natural translation. We know, from the
Ninevite
marbles, that the king is always, alike on the field of
battle, the hunting-field,
and the council-chamber, attended by eunuchs. It may,
however, be
regarded as referring to the special subjects of their
study. As they had
been admitted to the class of magicians and astrologers, it
would mean they
were admitted to the number of those who were royal
magicians and
astrologers — those whom the king consulted. It is not to
be understood
that, even though they were admitted to this number, they
were therefore
necessarily admitted before the king in this capacity on
ordinary occasions.
They would occupy but a subordinate position in the huge
Babylonian
hierarchy. We must note here a variation in the Septuagint,
η΅σαν – aesan –
they were. We, for our part, agree with Professor Bevan, in
regarding this as a
scribal blunder in the Greek, and that the original text
was probably
ἔστησαν - estaesan. The only difficulty is that the blunder is also in Paulus
Tellensis.
20 “And in all matters of
wisdom and understanding, that the
king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than
all the
magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.” The
Septuagint
rendering here has a considerable addition, which really
means, as it seems
to us, the coalescence of two readings. It reads thus: “And
in all learning
(λόγῳ - logo – word; thing - a literal rendering of דָבָר - dabhar, and
(παιδείᾳ – paideia - education)
whatsoever the king asked of them,
he found them ten times wiser than all the wise and learned
men in all his
kingdom.” Thus far the verse is a rendering, almost
slavishly close, of the
Massoretic text; while the translator has recognized that
the sentence is
incomplete as it stands, and has inserted σοφωτέρους – sophoterous –
and
translated עַל (al) by ὑπὲρ,– huper – over; above.
But the
translation proceeds, “And the king honoured them and
appointed them rulers.”
This seems to have been due to a various reading. The
sentence here translated
was
probably, in an old recension of the text, all that stood here, and some
scribe,
finding it, inserted it here to complete the sentence. The
translation, however,
proceeds yet further, “And constituted (ajnedei>xen
–
anedeixen) them wiser
than all those of his in affairs in all his land and in his
kingdom.” This sentence
has all the appearance of an attempt to render into Greek a
piece of Hebrew that
the translator imperfectly understood. As we find
that ἀνεδείξεν –
anadeiknumi - represents
occasionally הודע, and
as the Syriac vav and
the old Hebrew
ע were almost identical in shape, יֹדע (yod'a,) might be read as ידוה evidently the
translator has read חכמים (hacmeem) instead of חַרְטֻמִים (hartummeem), and has
transferred the ‘al col from before hartummeem to before
the next word, which
seems to have read, not ‘ashshapheem, but hartzo, the
relative seems to have been
omitted, and the second col, “all.” This great variety
of reading suggests suspicions
of
the verse altogether, which the content of the verse rather
strengthens. Theodotion
is
in strict agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta also is at one with
it in
this, but these are late compared with the Septuagint. It has been
tea,sued that the
Book of Daniel is a story modelled on the history of
Joseph, and the
presence of harlummeem here is regarded as a proof of
this quasi Egyptian
origin (see Genesis 41:8; Exodus 7:11, etc.). One thing is
clear, that
the word — whatever it was — was unknown in
translation was made; hartummeern, as occurring
in the Pentateuch, the
earliest part of the Old Testament translated, was certain
to be known: how
did the word here happen not to be known? We can understand
the
phenomenon if some word, probably of Babylonian origin, and
unknown in
intelligible shape by being turned into hartummeem. As
the verse stands,
hartummeem is grammatically
placed in apposition to the following word,
‘ashshapheem, as there is no conjunction to unite
the two words. It is
acknowledged by Professor Bevan that the latter word has an
Assyrian
origin; it is not inconceivable that hartummeem is
really the explanatory
word, though the arrangement of the words is decidedly
against this view.
It is to be observed here that ‘ashshapheem has been
naturalized in Eastern
Aramaic, but has not found a lodgment in Western, save in
Daniel. We
cannot help feeling a little suspicion of the authenticity
of this verse. This
phrase, “ten times better,” has all the look of that
exaggeration which
became the prevailing vice of later Judaism. As we have
indicated, the
variations in regard to the precise reading deepen this
suspicion. If,
however, the reference here is really to Daniel’s
revelation to the king of
his dream, then the statement in the text is less
objectionable. This was
such a marvelous feat, and one that so put Daniel above all the wise men of
exaggerated.
Training for Imperial
Office and Work (vs. 3-21)
The name and the nature of a king are not always yoked
together.
Jehoiakim had been professedly a king, but was, in
truth, a slave. Daniel
and his companions, though led into exile as captives, had within them
kingly qualities, which could not be degraded by strangers. As living water
from the flinty rock will rise through every kind of strata, and find its
way
to
the surface, so, through all adversities, innate nobleness will assert its
imperial power. If a counterfeit king has become a captive, one
from
among the Jewish captives shall become a real king — a true man,
whom
all
ages shall admire and follow. There is set before us in this passage —
·
A POLICY REALLY ROYAL.
This King of
majority of Eastern monarchs, did not abandon himself to voluptuous
ease.
It must have required some force
of character to withstand the customs,
precedents, and temptations of the luxurious palace. Yet, however
stupendous the difficulty, Nebuchadnezzar rose above it. We can
easily
imagine the formidable array of prejudices which the Chaldean
nobles
would present to this new policy of the king. Was not such a
plan unheard
of in the entire history of the empire? Was it not a
departure from the path
of cautious prudence to introduce foreigners, and foreign
captives, into the
councils of the court?
1. It was a policy characterized
by far-seeing wisdom. Already the
Chaldeans had risen out of a
state of barbarism, and had begun to
appreciate knowledge and intellectual skill. They had learned to
observe with
accuracy the motions of the stars. They had attained to
considerable skill in
architecture and sculpture. They knew something of the science of
government. The king was a foremost man in the march of intellect. He
knew that, in many respects, the Hebrews excelled his own
countrymen. In
agriculture, in instrumental music, in historical composition,
especially in
possessing the gift of prophecy, the Hebrews held the palm. Conscious
that
the triumphs of peaceful science were nobler and more enduring
than
martial victories, Nebuchadnezzar sought to strengthen and
embellish his
reign with all the learning and talent which he could secure, it
was the
Elizabethan
period in Chaldean history. Although
the idea had not yet been
embodied in aphoristic words, the monarch had a vague feeling that
knowledge was power.
2. It was a policy inspired
by public spirit. In an age when Oriental
sovereigns sought to use the machinery of government for their own
personal advantage, Nebuchadnezzar seems to have been primarily
concerned for the well-being of his people. When jealous mainly for
their
high prerogatives, kings have judged it safer to keep their
subjects in a
condition of ignorance, to the end they might render mechanical and
servile
obedience. This Chaldean king was a man of broader mind. He
identified
himself with the nation. His interest and its interest
were one. He found his
joy, not in personal indulgence and obsequious flattery, but
in the
advancement of the common weal. While he forgot himself, in his desire
to
elevate the nation, he was unconsciously sowing the seed of future
fame.
3. It was a policy marked
by universal generosity. It was a part of his plan
to obliterate the distinctions of nationality among his
subjects — to merge
all into one. This badge of servitude it was his wish to
obliterate. Were not
these Hebrews as richly endowed with intellectual capacity as
the
Chaldeans? Had they not special aptitude for some of the
sciences? Would
not their gilts and services benefit the state-politic? And
would not the
entire body of exiles be more content in their lot if their own
nobles were
honored with a place at court? This generous policy of
Nebuchadnezzar
may yet serve as a pattern to our modern rulers. It is paltry
meanness and
contemptible pride which seek to repress the intellectual energies of
men
who happen to have been born under other skies.
·
AN IMPERFECT METHOD.
The method which the king adopted was
partly wise and partly unwise. There was wisdom in the
arrangement that a
maintenance should be supplied for these young nobles. The sustenance
of
life must always be the first care of men; and, until the
necessities of hunger
are met, no time nor energy can be spared for the researches
of science or
the acquisition of learning. But it was very unwise that the
appetites of
these young men should be pampered with royal dainties. It was
perilous to
the morals of these young men that their passions should be
excited with
royal wine. Very likely this king was a materialist in
philosophy, and
imagined that artificial excitements of the brain provoked the mind
to
loftier efforts. This was a perilous error. Frugal fare, simple
habits of life,
abstemiousness at the table, are most conducive to vigor of intellect and
tranquility of feeling. Long before the stage of intoxication is
reached,
imperceptible injury is done by stimulants to brain and nerve. More
mischief is wrought by want of thought than want of will. Further,
these
young men were designated by new names. We might have supposed
that
this was done to obliterate national distinctions, or to allay
the prejudice of
the Chaldean nobles. But, inasmuch as the former names (at
least of those
mentioned) had incorporated in them the name of
inasmuch as the new names bore some allusion to
more likely that religious pride had prescribed these
appellations. By
conferring on these young men names which honored their own deities,
the Chaldeans supposed that their deities would reciprocate
the honor by
conferring on the bearers of their names some portion of their
spirit, Yet to
be labeled “saint’ has never served to secure a saintly
nature.
·
THE KING’S METHOD SECRETLY MODIFIED. The sum-total of
earthly wisdom never resides in one man — not even in a king. No
mortal
has a monopoly of goodness. Daniel and his companions, though
young,
had already learned that self-restraint is the surest path to
health and
usefulness and joy. One part
of our nature is to be cultivated; one part of
our nature is to be crucified. Every inclination and tendency which has its
terminus in self — in self-pleasing or self-elevation — is to be
repressed
and curbed. Every disposition and energy which has its
terminus in others
— especially
in God — should be fostered. Besides, it is very likely that
the food furnished by the king had, in some way, been
associated with idol
worship. On this account,
it may be, the royal viands were supposed to
possess some special virtue. These loyal servants of ,Jehovah would not
consent to sanction this idolatrous belief. They declined to
be partakers in
other men’s sins. Moreover. God had taken the pains
to give to
minute directions what animals they might eat, and what flesh
they might
not eat. The use of blood
in food was prohibited. They were not to eat
such animals as had been strangled. Hence Daniel and the others
were
bound by an earlier and a higher allegiance, which they had
resolved not to
violate. They had not the power of choice left. In religions duty
they were
bound to the King of heaven. “They were willing to render unto
Caesar
those things which were Caesar’s, but they were determined also
to render
unto God the things which were God’s.” We may often obtain by a
conciliatory request what we cannot obtain by an imperious demand.
Modesty of deportment is a grace peculiarly befitting the
young. It is a
false estimate of dignity when men suppose they must be
self-assertive,
arrogant, and unyielding. Persuasive kindness wields the mightiest
sceptre.
“The meek shall
inherit the earth.” Sweet amiability
in Daniel was blended
with firm principle, as luscious dates adorn the stately palm.
Very likely
Daniel had tacitly resolved not
to violate his conscience, whatever the
prince of the eunuchs might urge. But he would try gentler
measures at
first. He would not defeat his own ends by precipitate speech.
Words, once
uttered, are not easily recalled. The excellences of Daniel had
already
gained for him a place in the heart of this chamberlain, and the
influence
over this officer which Daniel had virtuously gained was used
for his
companions as much as for himself. The fruits of our goodness, others
share in. We cannot live wholly for ourselves. The human race is
an
organic body, the several parts of which are united by ligaments
of mutual
service and reciprocal interest.
·
THE OPERATION OF SELFISH FEAR. This palace official seems to
us a man mild and placable, but a slave of formal routine. The
maxim of his
life was this — That which has been from time immemorial must
continue
world without end. To presume to offer a suggestion to his royal
master
was an offence bordering on treason. It had never occurred to
him to
question the wisdom of previous kings and chamberlains. Of
course food
coming from the royal larder, and consecrated to the gods, must
feed and
vitalize human brains. It would be rank impiety to doubt it. So men
hand
down beliefs and customs from age to age, without bringing them
to the
test of practical utility. Their business runs daily in some
narrow groove,
and they become so completely the creatures of habit that all
the energies
of mind are lulled into inglorious sleep. “Let well alone” is
one of their
easy-going adages; forgetting that there is a “better” and a “best.”
This
subordinate prince does not attempt to reason on the merits of the
case. He
is not willing to tolerate in these Hebrew youths the
exercise of
intelligence, judgment, or conscience. At once, he thinks exclusively
of the
injurious effect upon himself: “I fear my lord the king.” Had he
argued that
he had a duty to the king, which obligation required him to
fulfill, there
would have been an element of nobleness in his attitude. Or had
he showed
anxiety for the risk of loss these young men ran, it would have
been
commendable. But this fear for himself
is mean and despicable. Indeed, the
service he had engaged to perform was one beyond his power to
carry into
effect without the consent of these youths themselves. This
chamberlain
could have spread the students’ table with the prescribed food
and wine,
but no human power could have compelled these youths to
partake. With
the spreading of the periodic repast, the chamberlain’s duty
would properly
have terminated; but he was confronted with a difficulty be had
not
expected, and showed the weakness of his character by giving way at
once
to selfish fear. If he found that his royal master required
of him
unreasonable or impossible service, he could surely have requested his
sovereign to relieve him from that post, and place him in some other
position. A loss of official station is not necessarily a disgrace:
it is often an
honor. A good man need fear no one save God.
“Fear Him,
ye saints, and you will then
Have
nothing else to fear.”
·
THE EXPERIMENT PROPOSED.
Daniel readily proposed a plan
which might quiet the chamberlain’s fears. He suggests that an
experiment
be made for ten days only, during which time he and his comrades
should
diet on vegetable food and water.
1. It was a reasonable suggestion. The question at issue was
one that could
be brought to the test of practical demonstration, and
controversy would
be saved by such an appeal. An hour of experiment is more
fruitful than
years of speculative reasoning. The eye is not always a safe
arbitrator. No
organ is so easily deceived. But in this case the eye was a
competent judge.
A competition was instituted
between self-indulgence and self-restraint.
The virtue of abstemiousness was
placed upon its trial, and we do well to
note the result.
2. Nor can we close our eyes to the fact that Daniel
regarded this self-abstinence
as a branch of religious duty. No department of our daily
life is
beyond the reach of conscience. As each ray of sunshine, and each
flake of
snow, contributes its quota to the autumnal harvest; so each
act in a man’s
life, even the most trivial, produces its effect upon his
interior nature —
contributes either to his nobleness or to his
degradation. There are
occasions when men use this plea of conscience dishonestly. They
make
conscience a mask wherewith to hide inclination and self-will. But
Daniel
was a true man. Transparency of motive was a jewel that
glittered on his
brow.
3. Daniel proposed this ordeal in the exercise of full
confidence in God. He
had, without doubt, already proved in himself the benefit,
bodily and
mentally, of simple diet. Never, until now, had he been brought
rote the
circle of such fascinating temptation; and now it was to be seen
whether his
faith in God would bear the trial. Yes! his
faith was not only food-proof,
but even fire-proof. Full sure was he that “man
did not live by bread alone,
but by every word of God.” One wiser than himself, and kinder than any
human friend, had, with blended authority and love, decreed what
might
and what might not be eaten, and Daniel knew that devout
obedience
would secure a certain blessing. “He that doubteth is condemned if
he eat.”
·
OBSERVE THE SUCCESSFUL
RESULT.
The experiment terminated favorably on their health. They
were both “fairer and
fatter in flesh”
than their competitors. Physical beauty, as well as physical strength,
is to be adequately valued. Both are gifts of God; their
possession ought to
awaken thankfulness. Both may lead to sin. We must distinguish between
natural appetites
and acquired depraved tastes. To satisfy natural appetite
is to do the will of God; to pander to needless cravings is
to violate Divine
authority. There is a large amount of pleasure
arising from robust health,
although the quality of this pleasure is none of the
highest. To make the
development of the body — the attainment of physical
perfection — a
study, during the growing years of youth, is a religious
duty. The
possession of perfect health, and the enjoyment arising
therefrom, are
within the reach of the poorest born. The dainties and effeminacies
prevalent in marble palaces hinder, rather than help, the perfection
of
physical beauty.
Daniel’s simple pulse had more worth than the king’s
delicacies. Real hunger furnishes the best condiments.
·
The prizes of virtue are manifold and cumulative. Daniel’s frugal diet
brought its own inward
satisfaction. Ten days’ trial showed a perceptible
advantage over the self-indulgent. That advantage increased during every
succeeding day, until, at the
end of three years, the results in health and
strength and comeliness were
incalculable. Meanwhile, the power of
self-
control over other inclinations and passions had largely increased,
and this
brought new delight. The
consciousness that their God was right and kind
in requiring this discipline of
the appetites, increased their reverence and
love, made them more resolute in
their heavenly allegiance. They felt they
were on the
ascent to true nobleness and final honor, whatever temporary
obscurity might arise. Their knowledge
grew. Their wisdom ripened. Even
foreigners and rivals rendered
them real respect. Conquests over the
difficulties of Chaldean
learning were daily acquired, and they hailed, with
glad anticipation, the approach
of a royal test. They held their heads aloft,
with a
sense of manly greatness, when
summoned into the presence of their
king. “Better is he that ruleth his own
spirit than he who taketh a city.”
(Proverbs 16:32)
·
Then over and above
this natural success and joy there was a
special
reward conferred by the
hand of God Himself. He who constructed the
human mind knows
well the avenues by which to gain access to all its
chambers, and is able to enrich, illumine, and beautify any part. To doubt
this would be infidelity, To
these four young men God gave “skill in all
learning and
wisdom;” to Daniel in particular He
gave special inspiration, a
royal imagination, power to
unravel dreams. We are prone to think that in
the shadowy, weird territory of
dreamland the reign of law is not known.
Yet we err. Every wild phantom
of the human mind is a link in the chain of
cause and effect. Only a poet
can fully appreciate true poetry. Only a man
of imaginative genius can
resolve the problems of dreams. This is a God-given
power — a species of inspiration.
·
The day of public manifestation at length arrived. As there is many a
starting-point in human affairs,
so there is many a goal. The first
presupposes and determines the
second. “The king came in to see his
Hebrew guests.” It was only fitting that he should. Every part of human
life
is probation — trial, which has
respect to honor or to disgrace. Though
the end may seem far
distant, yet this is only seeming. The end
is really
near. (“…now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” – Romans
13:11). Righteous judgment is ever proceeding. This Chaldean monarch
was, in this matter, a model
prince. In many aspects of this event we have
a striking forecast of the final
judgment. With marked condescension, the
king “communed” with these
captive Hebrews, and was so far impartial in
his just estimate as to confess
publicly their diligent industry and their
superior attainments. “He
found them ten times better than all the
magicians in his
realm.” Such knowledge as they
professed was real. They
made no pretensions to what was
beyond their power. They did not boast
of access to arcana of
nature or of Divine providence really closed against
them. They admitted the confines
of real knowledge; they confessed the
limitations of the human mind. Pretended
skill is only contemptible. The
truly great man is as ready to
acknowledge his ignorance as his knowledge.
Only a fool is unwilling to give
this reply to many inquiries, “I do not
know.”
·
The eminence which Daniel justly attained was permanent. Real
greatness, like the granite
rock, is enduring. Suns rose and set, years came
and went; kings flourished and
fell; changes swept over all the empires of
power and pre-eminence (Ezekiel
28:3). Nor did his regal influence disappear
with his dying breath; ‘twas not
interred in his tomb. It lived on: it lives still.
The noble qualities of Daniel
have reappeared in others, age after age. The
tyranny of monarchs, in the East
and in the West, have been held in check
by him. “Being dead, he yet
speaks,” yet rules! His name stands on
Heaven’s beadroll among, the
most saintly of his race — with Samuel and
with Job (Ibid. ch.14:14). In
his own identical person he has lived a continuous
and a progressive life in a
higher sphere than this. There he occupies a throne;
his hand holds a sceptre; his
head is surmounted with a diadem. The voice of
the Highest has said to him, “Be thou ruler over ten cities.” In his own glad
consciousness, his prophetic
words have been fulfilled, “They that be
wise
shall shine as
the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to
righteousness as
the stars for ever and ever” (ch.
12:3). Evanescence is a
quality of what is worthless, Faith is the seed of which the full development
is “life
everlasting.”
21 “And Daniel continued
even unto the first year of King Cyrus.”
The Septuagint supplies Περσῶν – Person - . Theodotion and the Peshitta
agree with the Massoretic. It has been objected by Canon
Driver that the
natural classical order of the latter two words should have
been hammelek
Koresh, not, as it is
in the Massoretic, Koresh hammelek. The Septuagint
text seems to have had parseem, which would make the
order perfectly
classical. A greater difficulty is to explain how it is
said that Daniel
“continued,” or, if we take the Hebrew literally “was,”
until the first year
of “Cyrus the king,” when in the tenth chapter the third
year of Cyrus is
referred to. There are several ways of getting over this
difficulty. The first
way is to suppose that some words have dropped out of the
text. There
are, however, different ideas as to the words so lost. Thus
Bleak would
supply “in high respect in
“in
— one of these — does not,
however, intrude his suggestion into the text,
as does Ewald. His suggestion is that the omitted words are
“in the king’s
court,” which is much the same as Delitzsch’s “at the
court.” Hitzig is
credited by Kranichfeld with asserting that the author did
not intend to
make his hero live beyond the year he refers to — the first
year of Cyrus.
In his commentary, however, Hitzig suggests that b”sha’ar
hammelek, “in
the gate of the king,” has dropped out. He does certainly
hint that the
sentence, to be complete, would need hayah (חָיָה), not hayah (חָיָה).
Zockler would supply the same word. There is certainly this
to be said for
the above theory — that the sentence as it stands is
incomplete. The verb
hayah is never used
instead of hayah. At the same time, there is no trace in
any of the versions of any difficulty in regard to the
text. Another method
of meeting the difficulty is that adopted by Hengstenberg,
followed by
Havernick, but suggested in the eleventh century by
Jephet-ibn-Ali. It is
this — that as the first year of Cyrus was the year when he
allowed the
Jews to return to their own laud, that the attainment of
this annus mirabilis
was an element in his wonderful prosperity, that he who had
mourned for
the sins of his people, who had been one of the earliest to
feel the woes of
captivity, should live to see the curse removed, and
return to their city and temple. The objection to this
view, urged by
Professor Bevan, is that the author elsewhere “never
alludes to the event
save indirectly (ch.9:25).” To this it may be answered that
the
whole ninth chapter goes on the assumption that the seventy
years are now
all but over, and therefore that the return cannot be long
delayed. We
regard this silence of Daniel in respect to the return from
the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book.
Everybody knows
how largely it bulks in preceding prophecy, and how
important it is in
after-days. No one writing a religious romance could have
failed to have
laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel
as inducing
Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not
even mention it.
This is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a
contemporary at
the present time. In religious biographies of the past
generation that
involve the year 1832, when the Reform Act was passed — the
greatest
political change of this century — we find that most of
them never once
refer to it. If any one should take Cowper’s ‘Letters,’
written during the
American War, he will find comparatively few references to
the whole
matter, although from, at all events, 1780 to 1783, we have
letters for
nearly every week, and they occupy nearly three hundred
pages. Now, if a
person were condensing these and selecting passages from
them, he might
easily make such a selection as would contain not a single
reference to that
war or to any political event whatever. Yet Cowper was
interested in the
struggle that was going on. The main objection to
Hengstenberg’s view is
the
grammatical one that it implies that we should read יחי instead
of יהי,
and there is no trace in the versions of this various
reading The Septuagint has
η΅ν – aen - ;
Theodotion has ἐγένετο – egeneto – continued
- the Peshitta
has <ARAMAIC>
(hu); Jerome has fuit. It is somewhat difficult to come to any
conclusion, but there are certain things we must bear in mind. In the
first place,
an author does not usually contradict his statements
elsewhere directly. He may
implicitly do so, but not when
direct dates are given. If he should fail to put the
matter right, some other will be sure to do so, if his work
attains sufficient
popularity to be commented upon. We may thus be sure that
there is some
solution of the apparent contradiction between the verse
before us and ch.
10. In the next place, we must note that this verse is the
work of the editor,
probably also the translator and condenser, of this earlier
part of Daniel.
Therefore the difference may be found quite explicable
could we go back
to the Aramaic original. If ‘ad represented ‘ad
di (ch.6:24) in the
Aramaic, and the two latter clauses were transposed, we
should translate,
“And Daniel was for Cyrus the king even before his first
year.” The
connection is somewhat violent; but if we regard the
redactor as thinking
of the success of Daniel, this might be a thought which
suggested itself to
his mind — he was with Nebuchadnezzar, and he was with
Cyrus. The
difficulty of the date is not of importance. That might be
got over in several
ways. Either by adopting in ch. 10:1 the reading of the
Septuagint,
which is πρώτῳ – proto – first
- instead of τρίτῳ – trito -
third — the only
objection to this is that it is a correction that might easily be
made by a would-be
harmonist; but, on the other hand, the “third” year of
Belshazzar being mentioned
in the eighth chapter may have occasioned the insertion of
“third” in the tenth.
Or, since we know that, though in his proclamation Cyrus
styles himself
“King of Babil,” yet in some of the contract tables of the
first two years of
his reign he is not called “King of Babil,” but only “king
of nations,” and
there are contract tables of those years that are even
dated by the years of
Nabunahid, is it not, then, possible that the third year of
Cyrus as “king of
nations” might coincide with the first year of his reign as
“King of Babil”?
Yet further, we must remember that the reign of Cyrus could
be reckoned
from several different starting-points. He first appears as
King of Ansan,
then he becomes King of the Persians, and as such he
conquers
His first year as King of Babylon may have been his third
year as King of
— the one statement reckoning his reign as emperor, the
other as king. No
solution seems absolutely satisfactory. The difficulty
presses equally on the
critics and those who maintain the traditional opinion.
Moral Heroism (vs. 5-21)
“But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile
himself” (v. 8).
·
THE VARYING CONDITIONS OF IMMORTALITY. The reference is
to subjective immortality, i.e.
in the memories of men. The principal stable
condition seems to be the
possession of soul-power (see Luke 1:80; 2:40).
But this may develop itself:
Ø
Evilly. The
immortality then is one of infamy.
Ø
Continuously; e.g. Daniel, through a long life.
Ø
Specially at a crisis. These
thoughts are suggested by the little we
know of the three Hebrew
children. One heroic resolve made them
immortal. But how much in
their antecedents did that heroism imply?
Picture the parental
culture of the
Live not for fame; but to
do that which God may think worthy of being
held in everlasting
remembrance.
·
THE ELEMENTS OF MORAL HEROISM Describe the offence in the
king’s portion.
Ø
Food forbidden by the
Mosaic Law.
Ø
Food consecrated by
presentation to idols. In moral heroism there
will be one, or some, or
all of these constituent elements.
o
Resistance; i.e. to strong and
overwhelming temptation. In this
case:
§
The tempted were away
from home.
§
Early religious
associations had been broken down. Note
the change of names (v. 7),
and the significance of it.
§
There was temptation
to regard the matter as a trifle, of no
account; but great
principles are often involved in the
trivialities of life.
§
To regard the
circumstances as peculiar.
§
To be afraid of undue
self-assertion. It might have seemed
to Daniel that he was about
to be righteous over-much.
§
The heroic act was
against their own interests.
§
And imperilled the lives
of others.
o
A certain
obscurity of origin. “Purposed in his heart.” The
resolution took its rise in
the depths of the soul, like a river in the
hills far away.
o
Fortitude. Daniel thoroughly and
irrevocably made up his mind.
o
Gentleness. No mock-heroics with
him; but, having made up his
mind, combined the suaviter
in modo (gently in manner) with
the
fortiter in re (firmness in action). “He requested,”
etc. (v. 8).
o
Perseverance. Defeated temporarily
with Ashpenaz,
Daniel tried Melzar.
o
Wisdom. Proposed only an
experiment for ten days.
o
Inspiration. Daniel’s resolve
seems to have stirred up the others.
·
THE PREVENTIONS OF GOD.
(v. 9.) When men resolve on the
right, they soon find that God has gone
before them to prepare the way
(Psalm 21:3).
God is alike our vanguard and
our rearguard on our moral way. In this
case (and always is it so more
or less) the sequences were:
Ø
Physical health and
vigor. Not
miraculous.
Ø Intellectual attainment and strength.
Ø
Moral and
spiritual power. For proof, see
after-history.
Ø
Continued
prosperity and influence. (v. 21; Job 17:9)
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.