Daniel 1 commentary

DANIEL 1 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
[Note.—"The Book of Daniel is the earliest example of apocalyptic literature, and in
a great degree the model according to which all later apocalypses were constructed.
In this aspect it stands at the head of a series of writings in which the deepest
thoughts of the Jewish people found expression after the close of the prophetic era....
Whatever judgment be formed as to the composition of the book, there can be no
doubt that it exercised a greater influence upon the early Christian Church than
any other writing of the Old Testament, while in the Gospels it is specially
distinguished by the emphatic quotation of the Lord ( Matthew 24:15, ῥηθὲν δια
Δανιὴλ τοῦ προφήτου... ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω....). In studying the Book of Daniel it
is of the utmost importance to recognise its apocalyptic character. It is at once an
end and a beginning, the last form of prophecy and the first "philosophy of
history." The nation is widened into the world: the restored kingdom of Judah into
a universal kingdom of God. To the old prophets Daniel stands, in some sense, as a
commentator ( Daniel 9:2-19): to succeeding generations, as the herald of immediate
deliverance. The form, the style, and the point of sight of prophecy are relinquished
upon the verge of a new period in the existence of God"s people, and fresh
instruction is given to them suited to their new fortunes. The change is not abrupt
and absolute, but yet it is distinctly felt. The eye and not the ear is the organ of the
Seer: visions and not words are revealed to him. His utterance is clothed in a
complete and artificial shape, illustrated by symbolic imagery and pointed by a
specific purpose. The divine counsels are made known to him by the ministry of
angels ( Daniel 7:16; Daniel 8:16; Daniel 9:21), and not by "the Word of the Lord."
The seer takes his stand in the future rather than in the present, while the prophet
seized on the elements of good and evil which he saw working around him and
traced them to their final issue. The one looked forward from the present to the
great "age to come"; the other looked backward from "the last days" to the trials in
which he is still placed. In prophecy the form and the essence, the human and
divine, were inseparably interwoven; in revelation the two elements can be
contemplated apart, each in its greatest vigour,—the most consummate art, and the
most striking predictions, The Babylonian exile supplied the outward training and
the inward necessity for this last form of divine teaching; and the prophetic visions
of Ezekiel form the connecting link between the characteristic types of revelation
and prophecy."—Smith"s Dictionary of the Bible.]
Commentary On The Book of Daniel
1

By Dr Peter Pett BA BD (Hons-London) DD.
Introduction.
In 609 BC Josiah, king of Judah, after a long and godly reign, during the latter part
of which he was relatively independent, was killed seeking to prevent the Egyptians
from going to the aid of their ancient enemies Assyria, against a rising force, the
power of Babylon. He was replaced by his son Jehoahaz, who lasted three months
before being hauled off to Egypt by Pharaoh Neco, who replaced him with
Jehoiakim.
In that year Prince Nebuchadnezzar finally led the Babylonian army of his father
Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt, and defeated them at
Carchemish. A further defeat of the Egyptians, again at Carchemish, in 605 BC,
gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East.
As a result of Babylon's victory, Egypt's vassals, including Judah, passed under
Babylonian control, and within a short time Nebuchadnezzar was besieging
Jerusalem, only to be thwarted by the news of the death of his father, Nabopolassar,
which entailed his return to Babylon to secure the throne. He did, however, achieve
the submission of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1), no doubt by offering milder terms than
he had previously done, because of the crisis, and took with him a group of young
men as hostages as well as part of the temple treasures. One of those young men was
Daniel. This was the first of three deportations in which the Babylonians took the
cream of society in Judah back to Babylon. The second was that of Jehoiachin, when
Ezekiel was one of them, and the third that of Zedekiah, with his eyes put out.
In the full sense of the word Daniel was not a prophet. He was not raised up in
Israel/Judah to proclaim the word of Yahweh to the people or to bring them back to
God, which was why his book hovered between being accepted among the prophets
or among the other sacred writings. He was rather a master statesmen who became
God’s channel for preparing Israel for the future, and did so by receiving words
from God. In that sense he was thus a prophet.
A word might be said here about the use of numbers in the book of Daniel. The
majority of people were not numerate. Apart from in business and architecture they
would have little use for numeracy and probably most could not count beyond ten at
the most. (Compare the woman who gathered ‘two’ sticks, meaning ‘a few’ - 1 Kings
17:12). The shepherd did not count his sheep, he knew them all by name. The same
situation applies in primitive tribes around the world today. Thus numbers tended
to be seen as having a meaning, as descriptive adjectives. This especially applied to
‘three’ meaning complete, ‘seven’ indicating divine perfection and ‘ten’ meaning ‘a
number of’. A ‘hundred’ would mean ‘a lot of’ and a ‘thousand’ even more. ‘Five’
was the number indicating the covenant. Of course well educated people like Daniel
could use and think in numbers, but they were in the minority. When the majority
heard a number they asked ‘what does it signify’ and not ‘how many’.
2

Daniel’s Training in Babylon
1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king
of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came
to Jerusalem and besieged it.
BARNES, "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem - This event occurred,
according to Jahn (“History of the Hebrew Commonwealth”), in the year 607 b.c., and in
the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th
year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received,
but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis,
Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was
distinguished for his piety, 2Ki_22:2; 2Ch_35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people
raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he
appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, 2Ki_23:30; 2Ch_36:1. He was
a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by
Pharaoh-nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of
Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of
Jehoiakim, on the throne, 2Ki_23:34; 2Ch_36:4.
Jehoahaz was first imprisoned in Riblah, 2Ki_23:33, and was afterward removed to
Egypt, 2Ch_36:4. Jehoiakim, an unworthy son of Josiah, was, in reality, as he is
represented by Jeremiah, one of the worst kings who reigned over Judah. His reign
continued eleven years, and as he came to the throne 611 b.c., his reign continued to the
year 600 b.c. In the third year of his reign, after the battle of Megiddo, Pharaoh-nechoh
undertook a second expedition against Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, with a numerous
army, drawn in part from Western Africa, Lybia and Ethiopia. - Jahn’s Hist. Heb.
“Commonwealth,” p. 134. This Nabopolassar, who is also called Nebuchadnezzar I, was
at this time, as Berosus relates, aged and infirm. He therefore gave up a part of his army
to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium)
on the Euphrates, and drove Nechoh out of Asia. The victorious prince marched directly
to Jerusalem, which was then under the sovereignty of Egypt. After a short siege
Jehoiakim surrendered, and was again placed on the throne by the Babylonian prince.
Nebuchadnezzar took part of the furniture of the temple as booty, and carried back
with him to Babylon several young men, the sons of the principal Hebrew nobles, among
whom were Daniel and his three friends referred to in this chapter. It is not improbable
that one object in conveying them to Babylon was that they might be hostages for the
submission and good order of the Hebrews in their own land. It is at this time that the
Babylonian sovereignty over Judah commences, commonly called the Babylonian
3

captivity, which, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jer_25:1-14; Jer_29:10, was to
continue seventy years. In Jer_25:1; Jer_46:2, it is said that this was in the fourth year
of Jehoiakim; in the passage before us it is said that it was the third year. This difference,
says Jahn, arises from a different mode of computation: “Jehoiakim came to the throne
at the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the first (and such a mode of
reckoning is not uncommon), but Daniel, neglecting the incomplete year, numbers one
less:” For a more full and complete examination of the objection to the genuineness of
Daniel from this passage, I would refer to Prof. Stuart on Daniel, “Excursus” I. (See App.
I. to this Vol.)
And besieged it - Jerusalem was a strongly-fortified place, and it was not easy to
take it, except as the result of a siege. It was, perhaps, never carried by direct and
immediate assault. Compare 2Ki_25:1-3, for an account of a siege of Jerusalem a second
time by Nebuchadnezzar. At that time the city was besieged about a year and a half. How
long the siege here referred to continued is not specified.
CLARKE, "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim - This king was raised
to the throne of Judea in the place of his brother Jehoahaz, by Pharaoh-necho, king of
Egypt, 2Ki_23:34-36, and continued tributary to him during the first three years of his
reign; but in the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jer_25:1,
Nebuchadnezzar completely defeated the Egyptian army near the Euphrates, Jer_46:2;
and this victory put the neighboring countries of Syria, among which Judea was the
chief, under the Chaldean government. Thus Jehoiakim, who had first been tributary to
Egypt, became now the vassal of the king of Babylon, 2Ki_24:1.
At the end of three years Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who, then
occupied with other wars, did not proceed against Jerusalem till three years after, which
was the eleventh and last of Jehoiakim, 2Ki_23:36.
There are some difficulties in the chronology of this place. Calmet takes rather a
different view of these transactions. He connects the history thus: Nabopolassar, king of
Babylon, finding that one of his lords whom he had made governor of Coelesyria and
Phoenicia had revolted from him, and formed an alliance with the king of Egypt, sent
Neubuchadnezzar his son, whom he invested with the authority of king, to reduce those
provinces, as was customary among the easterns when the heir presumptive was sent on
any important expedition or embassy. This young prince, having quelled the
insurrection in those parts, marched against Jerusalem about the end of the third or
beginning of the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. He soon took the
city, and put Jehoiakim in chains with the design of carrying him to Babylon; but,
changing his mind, he permitted him to resume the reins of government under certain
oppressive conditions. At this year, which was A.M. 3398, the seventy years of the
Babylonish captivity commence. Nabopolassar dying in the interim, Nebuchadnezzar
was obliged to return speedily to Babylon, leaving his generals to conduct the Jewish
captives to Babylon, among whom were Daniel and his companions.
GILL, "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,.... At the
close of it, and at the beginning of the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar,
Jer_25:1. Jerusalem seems to have been taken twice in his time, and two captivities in it:
4

the first was in the third or fourth year of his reign; when humbling himself, he was
restored to his kingdom, though he became a tributary to the king of Babylon; Daniel
and his companions, who were carried captive with him, were retained as hostages; but
after three years he rebelled, but it was not until his eleventh year that Nebuchadnezzar
came against him again, took him, and bound him, in order to carry him to Babylon, but
he died by the way; see 2Ki_24:1, some, as Jarchi and Saadiah Gaon, make this to be the
third year of his rebellion, and the last of his reign; they suppose that he was conquered
by the king of Babylon, and became subject to him in the fifth year of his reign; that he
served him three years, and rebelled against him three years: at the end of which
came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it; with
his army, and took it; and the same way it is accounted for in the Jewish chronicle (p)
according to Bishop Usher (q), this was in the year of the world 3398 A.M., and before
Christ 607 or 859; according to Mr. Bedford (r), 605.
HENRY, "We have in these verses an account,
I. Of the first descent which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the first year of his
reign, made upon Judah and Jerusalem, in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and
his success in that expedition (Dan_1:1, Dan_1:2.): He besieged Jerusalem, soon made
himself master of it, seized the king, took whom he pleased and what he pleased away
with him, and then left Jehoiakim to reign as tributary to him, which he did about eight
years longer, but then rebelled, and it was his ruin. Now from this first captivity most
interpreters think the seventy years are to be dated, though Jerusalem was not
destroyed, nor the captivity completed, till about nineteen years after, In that first year
Daniel was carried to Babylon, and there continued the whole seventy years (see Dan_
1:21), during which time all nations shall serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his
son's son, Jer_25:11. This one prophet therefore saw within the compass of his own time
the rise, reign, and ruin of that monarchy; so that it was res unius aetatis - the affair of a
single age, such short-lived things are the kingdoms of the earth; but the kingdom of
heaven is everlasting. The righteous, that see them taking root, shall see their fall, Job_
5:3; Pro_29:16. Mr. Broughton observes the proportion of times in God's government
since the coming out of Egypt: thence to their entering Canaan forty years, thence seven
years to the dividing of the land, thence seven Jubilees to the first year of Samuel, in
whom prophecy began, thence to this first year of the captivity seven seventies of years,
490 (ten Jubilees), thence to the return one seventy, thence to the death of Christ seven
seventies more, thence to the destruction of Jerusalem forty years.
JAMISON, "Dan_1:1-21. The Babylonian captivity begins; Daniel’s education at
Babylon, etc.
third year — compare Jer_25:1, “the fourth year; Jehoiakim came to the throne at
the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the first year, but which Daniel leaves out
of count, being an incomplete year: thus, in Jeremiah, it is “the fourth year”; in Daniel,
“the third” [Jahn]. However, Jeremiah (Jer_25:1; Jer_46:2) merely says, the fourth year
of Jehoiakim coincided with the first of Nebuchadnezzar, when the latter conquered the
Egyptians at Carchemish; not that the deportation of captives from Jerusalem was in
the fourth year of Jehoiakim: this probably took place in the end of the third year of
Jehoiakim, shortly before the battle of Carchemish [Fairbairn]. Nebuchadnezzar took
5

away the captives as hostages for the submission of the Hebrews. Historical Scripture
gives no positive account of this first deportation, with which the Babylonian captivity,
that is, Judah’s subjection to Babylon for seventy years (Jer_29:10), begins. But 2Ch_
36:6, 2Ch_36:7, states that Nebuchadnezzar had intended “to carry Jehoiakim to
Babylon,” and that he “carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord” thither. But
Jehoiakim died at Jerusalem, before the conqueror’s intention as to him was carried into
effect (Jer_22:18, Jer_22:19; Jer_36:30), and his dead body, as was foretold, was
dragged out of the gates by the Chaldean besiegers, and left unburied. The second
deportation under Jehoiachin was eight years later.
K&D, "Of this expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem it is related in the
second book of Kings (2Ki_24:1): “In his days Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up,
and Jehoiakim became his servant three years; then he turned and rebelled against
him;” and in the second book of Chronicles (2Ch_36:6): “Against him came up
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to carry him to Babylon.
Nebuchadnezzar also carried off the vessels of the house of the Lord to Babylon, and put
them in his temple at Babylon.” That both of these statements refer to the same
expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim mentioned here, appears not only
from the statement of the book of Chronicles agreeing with Dan_1:2 of this chapter,
namely, that Nebuchadnezzar took away a part of the sacred vessels of the temple to
Babylon, and there put them in the temple of his god, but also from the circumstance
that, beyond all doubt, during the reign of Jehoiakim where was not a second siege of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. It is true, indeed, that when Jehoiakim threw off the
yoke at the end of three years' subjection, Nebuchadnezzar sent Chaldean, Aramaean,
Moabitish, and Ammonitish hosts against him for the purpose of bringing him into
subjection, but Jerusalem was not again laid siege to by these hosts till the death of
Jehoiakim. Not till his son Jehoiachin ascended the throne did the servants of
Nebuchadnezzar again come up against Jerusalem and besiege it. When, during the
siege, Nebuchadnezzar himself came up, Jehoiachin surrendered to him after three
months, and was, along with the chief men of his kingdom, and the strength of the
population of Jerusalem and Judah, and the treasures of the royal palace and of the
temple, carried down to Babylon (2Ki_24:2-16). The year, however, in which
Nebuchadnezzar, in the reign of Jehoiakim, first took Jerusalem and carried away a part
of the treasures of the temple to Babylon, is stated neither in the second book of Kings
nor in Chronicles, but may be pretty certainly determined by the statements of Jeremiah
(Jer_46:2; Jer_25:1., Jer_36:1.). According to Jer_46:2, Nebuchadnezzar smote the
Egyptian king Pharaoh-Necho with his army at Carchemish in the fourth year of the
reign of Jehoiakim. That same year is spoken of (Jer_25:1) as the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and is represented by Jeremiah not only as a
critical period for the kingdom of Judah; but also, by the prediction that the Lord would
bring His servant Nebuchadnezzar against Judah and against its inhabitants, and
against all the nations round about, that He would make Judah a desolation, and that
these nations would serve the king of Babylon seventy years (Jer_25:2-11), he without
doubt represents it as the beginning of the seventy years of Babylonish exile: In this the
fourth year of Jehoiakim, the prophet was also commanded (Jer_36:1.) to write in a
book all the words which the Lord had spoken unto him against Israel, and against
Judah, and against all the nations, from the day in which He had spoken to him in the
time of Josiah even till then, that the house of Judah might hear all the evil which He
6

purposed to do unto them, and might return every man from his evil way. Jeremiah
obeyed this command, and caused these predictions, written in the roll of a book, to be
read by Baruch to the people in the temple; for he himself was a prisoner, and therefore
could not go to the temple.
The first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar cannot therefore have taken place
in the third, but must have been in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., in the year 606 b.c.
This, however, appears to stand in opposition to the statement of the first verse of this
chapter: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim ‫א‬ ָ‫בּ‬ Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem.”
The modern critics accordingly number this statement among the errors which must
disprove the genuineness of this book (see above, p. 508f.). The apparent opposition
between the language of Daniel (Dan_1:1) that Nebuchadnezzar undertook his first
expedition against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, and the affirmation of
Jeremiah, according to which not only was Pharaoh-Necho slain by Nebuchadnezzar at
the Euphrates in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, but also in this same year
Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judea is for the first time announced, cannot be resolved
either by the hypothesis of a different mode of reckoning the years of the reign of
Jehoiakim and of Nebuchadnezzar, nor by the supposition that Jerusalem had been
already taken by Nebuchadnezzar before the battle of Carchemish, in the third year of
Jehoiakim. The first supposition is set aside by the circumstance that there is no certain
analogy for it.
(Note: The old attempt to reconcile the difference in this way has already been
shown by Hengstenberg (Beit. z. Einl. in d. A. T. p. 53) to be untenable; and the
supposition of Klief. (p. 65f.), that Jehoiakim entered on his reign near the end of a
year, and that Jeremiah reckons the year of his reign according to the calendar year,
but that Daniel reckons it from the day of his ascending the throne, by which it is
made out that there is no actual difference, is wholly overthrown by the circumstance
that in the sacred Scriptures there is no analogy for the reckoning of the year of a
king's reign according to the day of the month on which he began to reign. On this
supposition we might reconcile the apparent difference only if no other plan of
reconciliation were possible. But such is not the actual state of the case.)
The latter supposition is irreconcilable with Jer. 25 and 36.
(Note: Following the example of Hofmann (die 70 Jahre Jer. p. 13ff.), Hävernick
(Neue Krit. Unterss. über d. B. Daniel, p. 52ff.), Zündel (Krit. Unterss. p. 20ff.), and
others have decided in favour of it.)
If Jeremiah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim announced that because Judah did not
hearken unto his warnings addressed to them “from the thirteenth year of Josiah even
unto this day,” that is, for the space of three and twenty years, nor yet to the admonitions
of all the other prophets (Jer_25:3-7) whom the Lord had sent unto them, therefore the
Lord would now send His servant Nebuchadnezzar with all the people of the north
against the land and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round
about, utterly to destroy the land and make it desolate, etc. - then it must be affirmed
that he publicly made known the invasion of Judah by the Chaldeans as an event which
had not yet taken place, and therefore that the supposition that Jerusalem had already in
the preceding year been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, and that Jehoiakim had been
brought under his subjection, is entirely excluded. It is true that in Daniel 25 Jeremiah
prophesies a judgment of “perpetual desolations against Jerusalem and against all the
nations,” but it is as unwarrantable to apply, as Klief. does, this prophecy only “to the
total destruction of Jerusalem and of Judah, which took place in the eleventh year of
7

Zedekiah,” as with older interpreters only to the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar
against Jehoiakim, 2Ki_24:1 and 2Ch_36:6. In the words of threatening uttered by the
prophet there are included all the expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem and
Judah, from his first against Jehoiakim to the final destruction of Jerusalem under
Zedekiah; so that we cannot say that it is not applicable to the first siege of Jerusalem
under Jehoiakim, but to the final destruction of Judah and Jerusalem, as this whole
prophecy is only a comprehensive intensified summary of all the words of God hitherto
spoken by the mouth of the prophet. To strengthen the impression produced by this
comprehensive word of God, he was commanded in that same year (Jer_36:1.), as
already mentioned, to write out in the roll of a book all the words hitherto spoken by
him, that it might be seen whether or not the several words gathered together into a
whole might not exert an influence over the people which the separate words had failed
to do.
Moreover a destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans before the overthrow of the
Egyptian power on the Euphrates, which took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,
cannot at all be thought of. King Jehoiakim was “put into bands” by Pharaoh-Necho and
made a tributary vassal to him (2Ki_23:33.), and all the land from the river of Egypt
even unto the Euphrates was brought under his sway; therefore Nebuchadnezzar could
not desolate Judah and Jerusalem before Pharaoh-Necho was slain. Neither could
Nebuchadnezzar pass in the presence of the Egyptian host stationed in the stronghold of
Carchemish, on the Euphrates, and advance toward Judah, leaving behind him the city
of Babylon as a prize to so powerful an enemy, nor would Necho, supposing that
Nebuchadnezzar had done this, have quietly allowed his enemy to carry on his
operations, and march against his vassal Jehoiakim, without following in the rear of
Egypt's powerful foe.
(Note: With the above compare my Lehrb. der Einl. §131, and my Commentary on
2Ki_24:1. With this Kran. agrees (p. 17f.), and in addition remarks: “In any case
Necho would at once have regarded with jealousy every invasion of the Chaldean into
the region beyond the Euphrates, and would least of all have suffered him to make an
extensive western expedition for the purpose of conquering Judea, which was under
the sway of Egypt.”)
The statement in the first verse may indeed, literally taken, be interpreted as meaning
that Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem and took in in the third year of the
reign of Jehoiakim, because ‫א‬ ‫בּ‬ frequently means to come to a place. But it is not
necessary always so to interpret the word, because ‫א‬ ‫בּ‬ means not only to come, but also
to go, to march to a place. The assertion, that in this verse ‫א‬ ‫בּ‬ is to be interpreted (Häv.
N. Kr. U. p. 61, Ew., and others) as meaning to come to a place, and not to march to it, is
as incorrect as the assertion that the translation of ‫א‬ ָ‫בּ‬ by he marched is inadmissible or
quite impossible, because ‫ה‬ָ‫ל‬ָ‫ע‬ is generally used of the march of an army (Staeh., Zünd.).
The word ‫א‬ ‫,בּ‬ from the first book of the Canon (cf. Gen_14:5) to the last, the book of
Daniel not excepted (cf. e.g., Dan_11:13, Dan_11:17, Dan_11:29, etc.), is used of military
expeditions; and regarding the very general opinion, that ‫א‬ ‫,בּ‬ in the sense of to march,
to go to a place, occurs less frequently, Kran. (p. 21) has rightly remarked, that “it stands
always and naturally in this sense whenever the movement has its point of departure
from the place of him who observes it, thinks of it, or makes a communication regarding
it.” Therefore, e.g., it is used “always in a personal verbal command with reference to the
movement, not yet undertaken, where naturally the thought as to the beginning or point
8

of departure passes into the foreground; as e.g., in Gen_45:17; Exo_6:11; 7:26; Exo_9:1;
Exo_10:1; Num_32:6; 1Sa_20:19; 2Ki_5:5. In Jon_1:3 it is used of the ship that was
about to go to Tarshish; and again, in the words ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ ִ‫ע‬ ‫א‬ ‫ב‬ָ‫,ל‬ ibid., it is used when
speaking of the conclusion of the journey.” “On the contrary, if the speaker or narrator is
at the terminus ad quem of the movement spoken of, then of course the word ‫א‬ ‫בּ‬ is used
in the other sense of to come, to approach, and the like.” Accordingly these words of
Daniel, “Nebuchadnezzar ‫א‬ ‫בּ‬ to Jerusalem,” considered in themselves, may be
interpreted without any regard to the point of departure or the termination of the
movement. They may mean “Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem,” or that “he marched
to Jerusalem,” according as the writer is regarded as writing in Judah or Jerusalem, or
in Babylon at the point of departure of Nebuchadnezzar's journey. If the book was
composed by a Maccabean Jew in Palestine, then the translation, “he came to
Jerusalem,” would be the more correct, because such a writer would hardly have spoken
of a military movement from its eastern point of departure. The case is altogether
different if Daniel, who lived as a courtier in Babylon from his youth up to old age, wrote
this account. “For him, a Jew advanced in years, naturally the first movement of the
expedition threatening and bringing destruction to his fatherland, whether it moved
directly or by a circuitous route upon the capital, would be a significant fact, which he
had in every respect a better opportunity of comprehending than his fellow-countrymen
living in the remote west, since this expedition was an event which led to the catastrophe
of the exile. For the Jew writing in Babylon about the expedition, the fatal
commencement of the march of the Chaldean host would have a mournful significance,
which it could not have for a writer living in Jerusalem.”
In this way Kran. has thoroughly vindicated the rendering of ‫א‬ ָ‫,בּ‬ “he marched” to
Jerusalem, and also the explanation of the word as referring to the setting out of the
Chaldean army which Hitz., Hofm., Staeh., Zünd., and others have declared to be
opposed to the meaning of the word and “impossible,” and at the same time he has set
aside as groundless the further remark of Hitzig, that the designation of the time also
applies to ‫ר‬ַ‫ָצ‬‫יּ‬ַ‫ו‬. If ‫א‬ ָ‫בּ‬ is to be understood of an expedition with reference to its point of
departure, then the fixing of its time cannot of course refer also to the time of the arrival
of the expedition at its termination and the siege then ensuing. The time of its arrival
before Jerusalem, as well as the beginning, duration, and end of the siege, is not defined,
and only its result, the taking of Jerusalem, is, according to the object of the author, of
sufficient importance to be briefly announced. The period of the taking of the city can
only be determined from dates elsewhere given. Thus from the passages in Jeremiah
already referred to, it appears that this happened in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, in
which year Nebuchadnezzar overcame the army of Necho king of Egypt at the Euphrates
(Jer_46:2), and took all the land which the king of Egypt had subdued, from the river of
Egypt to the Euphrates, so that Pharaoh-Necho came no more out of his land (2Ki_
24:7). With this agrees Berosus in the fragments of his Chaldean history preserved by
Josephus (Ant. x. 11. 1, and c. Ap. i. 19). His words, as found in the latter passage, are
these: “When his (Nebuc.) father Nabopolassar heard that the satrap whom he had set
over Egypt and over the parts of Coelesyria and Phoenicia had revolted from him, he was
unable to bear the annoyance any longer, but committing a part of his army to his son
Nabuchodonosor, who was then a youth, he sent him against the rebel. Nabuchodonosor
encountered him in battle and overcame him, and brought the land again under his
dominion. It happened that his father Nabopolassar at this time fell sick and died at the
city of Babylon, after he had reigned twenty-one years (Berosus says twenty-nine years).
9

But when Nabuchodonosor not long after heard of the death of his father, he set the
affairs of Egypt and of the other countries in order, and committed the prisoners he had
taken from the Jews, the Phoenicians, and Syrians, and from the nations belonging to
Egypt, to some of his friends, that they might conduct the heavy armed troops with the
rest of the baggage to Babylonia, while he himself hastened with a small escort through
the desert to Babylon. When he came hither, he found that the public affairs had been
managed by the Chaldeans, and that the principal persons among them had preserved
the kingdom for him. He now obtained possession of all his father's dominions, and gave
directions that the captives should be placed as colonies in the most favourably situated
districts of Babylonia,” etc. This fragment illustrates in an excellent manner the
statements made in the Bible, in case one be disposed to estimate the account of the
revolt of the satrap placed over Egypt and the countries lying round Coelesyria and
Phoenicia as only the expression of boastfulness on the part of the Babylonish historian,
claiming that all the countries of the earth of right belonged to the monarch of Babylon;
and it also shows that the rebel satrap could be none other than Pharaoh-Necho. For
Berosus confirms not only the fact, as declared in 2Ki_24:7, that Pharaoh-Necho in the
last year of Nabopolassar, after the battle at Megiddo, had subdued Judah, Phoenicia,
and Coelesyria, i.e., “all the land from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates,” but
he also bears witness to the fact that Nebuchadnezzar, after he had slain Pharaoh-Necho
(Jer_46:2) “by the river Euphrates in Carchemish,” made Coelesyria, Phoenicia, and
Judah tributary to the Chaldean empire, and consequently that he took Jerusalem not
before but after the battle at Carchemish, in prosecution of the victory he had obtained
over the Egyptians.
This does not, however, it must be confessed, prove that Jerusalem had already in the
fourth year of Jehoiakim come under the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore Hitz.
and others conclude from Jer_36:9 that Nebuchadnezzar's assault upon Jerusalem was
in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim as yet only in prospect, because in that
month Jeremiah prophesied of the Chaldean invasion, and the extraordinary fast then
appointed had as its object the manifestation of repentance, so that thereby the wrath of
God might be averted. This Kran. endeavours to prove from 2Ki_25:27, cf. Jer_52:31.
But in the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah caused to be rehearsed
to the people in the court of the temple his former prophecies, written by Baruch in a
book according to the commandment of the Lord, and pronounced the threatening
against Jehoiakim because he had cut to pieces this book and had cast it into the fire,
Jer_36:29. This threatening, that God would bring upon the seed and upon the servants
of Jehoiakim, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, all the evil which He had
pronounced against them (Jer_36:31), does not exclude the previous capture of
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but announces only the carrying out of the threatened
judgment in the destruction of Jerusalem and of the kingdom of Judah to be as yet
imminent.
The extraordinary fast of the people also, which was appointed for the ninth month,
was not ordained with the view of averting the destruction of Judah and Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar, which was then expected, after the battle at Carchemish; for although
fasts were sometimes appointed or kept for the purpose of turning away threatened
judgment or punishment (e.g., 2Sa_12:15.; 1Ki_21:27; Est_4:1; Est_3:1-15 :16), yet, in
general, fasts were more frequently appointed to preserve the penitential remembrance
of punishments and chastisements which had been already endured: cf. e.g., Zec_7:5;
Ezr_10:6.; Neh_1:4; 1Sa_31:13; 2Sa_1:12, etc. To ascertain, therefore, what was the
object of this fast which was appointed, we must keep in view the character of Jehoiakim
10

and his relation to this fast. The godless Jehoiakim, as he is represented in 2Ki_23:37;
2Ch_36:5, and Jer_22:13., was not the man who would have ordained a fast (or allowed
it if the priests had wished to appoint it) to humble himself and his people before God,
and by repentance and prayer to turn away the threatened judgment. Before he could
ordain a fast for such a purpose, Jehoiakim must hear and observe the word of the
prophet, and in that case he would not have been so enraged at the reading of the
prophecies of Jeremiah as to have cut the book to pieces and cast it into the fire. If the
fast took place previous to the arrival of the Chaldeans before Jerusalem, then neither
the intention of the king nor his conduct in regard to it can be comprehended. On the
other hand, as Zünd. p. 21, and Klief. p. 57, have shown, both the ordaining of a general
fast, and the anger of the king at the reading of the prophecies of Jeremiah in the
presence of the people in the temple, are well explained, if the fast is regarded as
designed to keep in remembrance the day of the year on which Nebuchadnezzar took
Jerusalem. As Jehoiakim bore with difficulty the yoke of the Chaldean oppression, and
from the first meditated on a revolt, for after three years he did actually revolt, he
instituted the fast “to stir up the feelings of the people against the state of vassalage into
which they had been brought” (Klief.), “and to call forth a religious enthusiasm among
them to resist the oppressor” (Zünd.). This opposition could only, however, result in the
destruction of the people and the kingdom. Jeremiah therefore had his prophecies read
to the people in the temple on that day by Baruch “as a counterbalance to the desire of
the king,” and announced to them that Nebuchadnezzar would come again to subdue the
land and to destroy from out of it both man and beast. “Therefore the king was angry,
and destroyed the book, because he would not have the excitement of the people to be so
hindered; and therefore also the princes were afraid (Jer_36:16) when they heard that
the book of these prophecies was publicly read” (Klief.).
The words of 2Ki_25:27, cf. Jer_52:31, do not contradict this conclusion from Jer_
36:9, even though that drawn by Kran., p. 18, from this passage were adopted, viz., that
since almost thirty-seven whole years had passed from the carrying away of Jehoiachin
to the end of the forty-three years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, but Jehoiachin had
reigned only for a few months, the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar must be
dated in the sixth of the eleven years' reign of Jehoiakim, the predecessor of Jehoiachin.
For since, according to the testimony of Berosus, Nebuchadnezzar conducted the war
against Hither Asia, in which he slew king Necho at Carchemish, and as a further
consequence of this victory took Jerusalem, before the death of his father, in the capacity
of a commander-in-chief clothed with royal power, and when in Hither Asia, as it seems,
and on the confines of Egypt, he then for the first time heard tidings of his father's death,
and therefore hastened by the shortest road to Babylon to assume the crown and lay
claim to all his father's dominions, - then it follows that his forty-three years' reign
begins after the battle of Carchemish and the capture of Jerusalem under Jehoiakim,
and might possibly have begun in the sixth year of Jehoiakim, some five months after
the ninth month of the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer_36:9). Against this supposition the
circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar, as stated in Jer_46:2; Jer_25:1, and also Dan_1:1,
was called king of Babylon before he had actually ascended the throne is no valid
objection, inasmuch as this title is explained as a prolepsis which would be easily
understood by the Jews in Palestine. Nabopolassar came into no contact at all with
Judah; the Jews therefore knew scarcely anything of his reign and his death; and the
year of Nebuchadnezzar's approach to Jerusalem would be regarded in a general way
both by Jeremiah and his contemporaries as the first year of his reign, and the
commander of the Chaldean army as the king of Babylon, no matter whether on account
11

of his being actual co-regent with his aged and infirm father, or merely because he was
clothed with royal power as the chief commander of the army.
(Note: Thus not only Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 63, Häv., Klief., Kran., etc., but also v.
Lengerke, Daniel. p. 3, and Hitz. Daniel. p. 3. The latter, e.g., remarks: “The
designation as king does not furnish any obvious objection, for Nebuchadnezzar, the
commander-in-chief of the army, is to the Jewish writers (thus Jer_25:1) a king
when he first comes under their notice. They appear to have had no knowledge
whatever of his father.”)
In this sense Daniel (Dan_1:1) names him who was afterwards king, at a time when he
was not yet the possessor of the throne, the king of Babylon; for he was in effect the king,
so far as the kingdom of Judah was concerned, when he undertook the first expedition
against it.
But the reckoning of Kran. is also not exact. Nebuchadnezzar's ascending the throne
and the beginning of his reign would only happen in the sixth year of Jehoiakim if either
the three months of Jehoiachin (37 years' imprisonment of Jehoiachin + 1 year's reign +
5 years of Jehoiakim = 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar) are to be reckoned as 1 year, or at
least the 11 years of Jehoiakim as 11 full years, so that 5 3/4 years of Jehoiakim's reign
must be added to the 37 years of Jehoiachin's imprisonment and the 3 months of his
reign so as to make up the 43 years of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Jehoiakim
must have reigned 5 1/4 years at the time when Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne.
Whereas if Jehoiakim's reign extended only to 10 1/2 years, which were reckoned as 11
years in the books of the Kings, according to the general method of recording the length
of the reign of kings, then Nebuchadnezzar's ascending the throne took place in the fifth
years of Jehoiakim's reign, or, at the furthest, after he had reigned 4 3/4 years. This
latter reckoning, whereby the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is made to coincide
with the fifth year of Jehoiakim's, is demanded by those passages in which the years of
the reign of the kings of Judah are made parallel with the years of Nebuchadnezzar's
reign; viz., 2Ki_24:12, where it is stated that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and carried
away captive in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar; also Jer_32:1, where the tenth years
of Zedekiah corresponds with the eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar; and finally, Jer_52:5,
Jer_52:12, and 2Ki_25:2, 2Ki_25:8, where the eleventh year of Zedekiah corresponds
with the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. According to all these passages, the death
of Jehoiakim, or the end of his reign, happened either in the eighth year, or at all events
in the end of the seventh year, of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, for Jehoiachin reigned
only three months; so that Nebuchadnezzar reigned six full years, and perhaps a few
months longer, as contemporary with Jehoiakim, and consequently he must have
mounted the throne in the fifth of the eleven years of Jehoiakim's reign.
(Note: The synchronistic statements in the passages, 2Ki_24:12; 2Ki_25:2, 2Ki_
25:8; Jer_32:1 and Jer_52:5, Jer_52:12, might indeed be interpreted as meaning,
that in them the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign are reckoned from the time when
his father entrusted to him the chief command of the army at the breaking out of the
war with Necho (see my Commentary on 2Ki_24:12); but in that case the years of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign would amount to 44 1/4 years, viz., 37 years of Jehoiachin's
imprisonment, 3 months of his reign, and 7 years of Jehoiakim's reign. And
according to this reckoning, it would also result from the passages referred to, that
the beginning of his 43 years' reign happened in the fifth year of Jehoiakim.)
The above discussion has at the same time also furnished us with the means of
explaining the apparent contradiction which has been found between Dan_1:1. and
12

Dan_2:1., and which has been brought forward as an historical error in argument
against the genuineness of the book. According to Dan_1:3., Nebuchadnezzar after the
capture of Jerusalem commanded that young Israelites of noble birth should be carried
away to Babylon, and there educated for the space of three years in the literature and
wisdom of the Chaldeans; and, according to Dan_1:18, after the expiry of the appointed
time, they were brought in before the king that they might be employed in his service.
But these three years of instruction, according to Dan_2:1., expired in the second year of
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel and his companions were ranked among the
wise men of Babylon, and Daniel interpreted to the king his dream, which his Chaldean
magi were unable to do (Dan_2:13., 19ff.). If we observe that Nebuchadnezzar dreamed
his dream “in the second year of his reign,” and that he entered on his reign some time
after the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of Jehoiakim, them we can
understand how the three years appointed for the education of Daniel and his
companions came to an end in the second year of his reign; for if Nebuchadnezzar began
to reign in the fifth year of Jehoiakim, then in the seventh year of Jehoiakim three years
had passed since the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year of this
king. For the carrying away of the Israelitish youths followed, without doubt,
immediately after the subjugation of Jehoiakim, so that a whole year or more of their
period of education had passed before Nebuchadnezzar mounted the throne. This
conclusion is not set aside by what Berosus affirms, that Nebuchadnezzar, after he heard
of the death of his father, committed the captives he had taken from the Jews to the care
of some of his friends that they might be brought after him, while he himself hastened
over the desert to Babylon; for that statement refers to the great transport of prisoners
who were carried away for the colonization of Central Asia. As little does the
consideration that a twofold method of reckoning the year of Nebuchadnezzar's
government by Daniel is improbable militate against this reconciliation of the
discrepancy, for no such twofold method of reckoning exists. In Daniel 1 the year of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign is not given, but Nebuchadnezzar is only named as being king;
(Note: If, on the contrary, Bleek understands from Dan_1:1 that Nebuchadnezzar
had become king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim at Jerusalem, whilst,
“perhaps only with the design of making the pretended opposition between Dan_1:1
and Dan_2:1 truly evident, he understands the appositional designation ‫ל‬ ֶ‫ב‬ ָ‫ב‬ ֶ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מ‬ as
a more definite determination of the meaning of the verb ‫א‬ ָ‫,בּ‬ this idea finds
recommendation neither in the position of the words, nor in the expression, Dan_
1:3, nor in the accents.” Kranichfeld, p. 19.)
while in Dan_2:1 mention is made not merely of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, but
of the second year of his reign, from which it appears that the historian here reckons
from the actual commencement of his reign. Also, as Klief., p. 67, has well remarked, one
may “easily discover the ground on which Daniel in Dan_1:1 followed a different mode of
reckoning from that adopted in Dan_2:1. In Daniel 1 Daniel had to do with Israelitish
circumstances and persons, and therefore followed, in making reference to
Nebuchadnezzar, the general Israelitish mode of contemplation. He reckons his years
according to the years of the Israelitish kings, and sees in him already the king; on the
contrary, in Daniel 2 Daniel treats of the relations of the world-power, and he reckons
here accurately the year of Nebuchadnezzar, the bearer of the world-power, from the day
in which, having actually obtained the possession of the world-power, he became king of
Babylon.”
If we now, in conclusion, briefly review the results of the preceding discussions, it will
13

be manifest that the following is the course of events: - Necho the king of Egypt, after he
had made Jehoiakim his vassal king, went forth on an expedition against the Assyrian
kingdom as far as the Euphrates. Meanwhile, however, with the dissolution of the
Assyrian kingdom by the fall of Nineveh, the part of that kingdom lying on this side of
the Tigris had come under the dominion of the Chaldeans, and the old and enfeebled
king Nabopolassar gave to his son Nebuchadnezzar the chief command of the army, with
the commission to check the advance of the Egyptians, and to rescue from them the
countries they had occupied and bring them again under the Chaldean rule. In
consequence of this, Nebuchadnezzar took the field against Hither Asia in the third year
of the reign of Jehioakim, and in the first month of the fourth year of Jehoiakim slew
Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish and pursued his army to the confines of Egypt, and in the
ninth month of the same year took Jerusalem and made king Jehoiakim his subject.
While Nebuchadnezzar was busied in Hither Asia with the subjugation of the countries
that had been conquered by Pharaoh-Necho, he received the tidings of the death of his
father Nabopolassar in Babylon, and hastened forward with a small guard by the nearest
way through the desert to Babylon in order to assume the government, giving directions
that the army, along with the whole band of prisoners, should follow him by slow
marches. But as soon as the Chaldean army had left Judea and returned to Babylon,
Jehoiakim sought how he might throw off the Chaldean yoke, and three years after his
subjugation he revolted, probably at a time when Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in
establishing his dominion in the East, so that he could not immediately punish this
revolt, but contented himself meanwhile with sending against Jehoiakim the armies of
Chaldeans, Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites, whom he had left behind on the confines
of Judah. They were unable, however, to vanquish him as long as he lived. It was only
after his son Jehoiachin had ascended the throne that Nebuchadnezzar, as commander
of the army, returned with a powerful host to Jerusalem and besieged the city. While the
city was being besieged, Nebuchadnezzar came in person to superintend the war.
Jehoiachin with his mother, and his chief officers from the city, went out to surrender
themselves to the king of Babylon. But Nebuchadnezzar took him as a prisoner, and
commanded that the golden vessels of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace
should be taken away, and he carried the king with the great men of the kingdom, the
men of war, the smiths and craftsmen, as prisoners to Babylon, and made his vassal
Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in Jerusalem, under the name of Zedekiah (2 Kings
28:8-17). This happened in the eighth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_24:12),
and thus about six years after Daniel had interpreted his dream (Daniel 2), and had been
promoted by him to the rank of president of the wise men in Babylon.
The name ‫ר‬ַ‫ֶאצּ‬‫נ‬ ְ‫ד‬ַ‫בוּכ‬ְ‫נ‬ is written in Dan_1:1 with ,‫א‬ as it is uniformly in Jeremiah, e.g.,
Jer_27:6, Jer_27:8,Jer_27:20; Jer_28:3, Jer_28:11, Jer_28:12; Jer_29:1, Jer_29:3,
and in the books of the Kings and Chronicles, as 2Ki_24:1, 2Ki_24:10-11; 2Ki_25:1;
2Ch_36:6, 2Ch_36:10,2Ch_36:13; whereas in Dan_1:18 it is written without the ', as it is
also in Dan_2:1, Dan_2:28, Dan_2:46; Dan_3:1-3, Dan_3:5., and Ezr_1:7; Ezr_5:12,
Ezr_5:14; Est_2:6. From this circumstance Hitzig concludes that the statement in
Daniel is derived from 2Ki_24:1, because the manner of writing the name with the is not
peculiar to this book (and is not the latest form), but is that of 2Ki_24:1. Both
statements are incorrect. The writings without the ‫א‬cannot on this account be taken as
the latest form, because it is not found in the Chronicles, and that with the ‫א‬is not
peculiar to the second book of Kings, but is the standing form, along with the more
national Babylonian form ‫ר‬ַ‫אצּ‬ ֶ‫ר‬ ְ‫ד‬ַ‫בוּכ‬ְ‫נ‬ (with r), in Jer_21:2, Jer_21:7; Jer_32:1; Jer_
14

35:11; Jer_39:11; Eze_26:7; Eze_29:18; Eze_30:10, which, according to Ménant
(Grammaire Assyrienne, 1868, p. 327), is written in Babylonian inscriptions
Nabukudurriusur (‫אצר‬ ‫כדר‬ ‫,נבו‬ i.e., Nebo coronam servat), the inscription of Behistan
having the form Nabukudratschara. Megastehenes and Berosus, in Polyhistor, write the
name Ναβουκοδρόσορος. The writing Nebuchadnezar, with n and without the ,‫א‬
appears to be the Aramean form, since it prevails in the Chaldean portions of Daniel and
Ezra, and accounts for the Masoretic pronunciation of the word (the ‫צּ‬ with Dagesch
forte). On other forms of the name, cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 41f.
CALVIN, "These are not two different things, but the Prophet explains and
confirms the same sentiments by a change of phrase, and says that the vessels which
Nebuchadnezzar had brought into the land of Shinar were laid up in the house of
the treasury. The Hebrews, as we know, generally use the word “house” for any
place, as they call the temple God’s “house ” Of the land of Shinar, it must be
remarked, that it was a plain adjacent to Babylon; and the famous temple of Belus,
to which the Prophet very probably refers, was erected there.
Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his
companions, namely, in the third year of Jehoiakim A difficult question arises here,
since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then
could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third year, and then led away the people
captives according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this difficulty by what
appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that the four years ought to refer to the
beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third year. But in
the second chapter we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second year of
his reign. They explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say — the years
are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and, — this was the second year
from the Conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh
and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, that the Prophet is speaking
of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least uses the reign of the second, while his
father was yet alive. We know there were two kings of the same name, father and
son; and as the son did many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname
of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concerning
Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the second, who is the son. But
Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews and
this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change
of affairs, and enticed them to throw off the yoke Nebuchadnezzar the younger was
carrying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and speedily returned home,
lest any one should supersede him. When, however, he found all things as he wished,
Josephus thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing
strange, nay, it is very customary to call him King who shares the command with his
father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it. In the third year or the reign of Jehoiakim,
Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if any one
prefers it, the father himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether we
15

refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to
Jerusalem, that is, by the hand of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different
explanation is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on the war in
person, that view not be taken still, the events happened in the third year of
Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus,
indeed, says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never read the Book of
Daniel. (68) He was an unlearned man, and by no means familiar with the
Scriptures; nay, I think he had never read three verses of Daniel. It was a dreadful
judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another
passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and
others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this
seems to suit well enough, since in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city
was once taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led away in triumph,
among whom were Daniel and his companions. When Jehoiakim afterwards
rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while
Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel
was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled — the condition of
the figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were led into exile last
thought themselves better off than the rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their
vain boast, and shows the former captives to have been better treated than the
remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at. home. (Jeremiah 24:2.) I assume,
then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance
of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For had there been any
integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it for
Ezekiel includes him among the three just men by whom most probably God would
be appeased. (Ezekiel 14:14.) Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that
he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile, and lived
as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath
in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests the Lord did not deprive them of
their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption.
(69)
Should any wish here to determine why Daniel was among the first to be led into
captivity, will he not betray his folly? Hence, let us learn to admire God’s
judgments, which surpass all our perceptions; and let us also remember the words
of Christ,
“If these things are done in the green tree,
what will be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:31.)
As I have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, although so
ignominiously exiled and brought up among the kings eunuchs. Then this happened
to so holy a man, who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how great is
God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we deserved? Which of us will dare to
compare himself with Daniel? Nay, we are unworthy, according to the ancient
proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slightest doubt Daniel, through
16

the circumstances of the time, wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift
of God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could not turn him aside from
the right course of piety. When, therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an
example of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of God. As to his
assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by
God’s command, this form of speech takes away any stumbling block which might
occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God
himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been
depressed. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess
Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or
fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Therefore,
Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, that we may not
think Jerusalem to have been taken in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and
his posterity. He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. Now, this might
seem altogether out of place, and would shock the minds of the faithful. For what
does it mean? That God’s temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had
not God borne witness that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here
will I dwell because I have chosen it. (Psalms 132:14.) If any place in the world were
impregnable, here truly honor ought to remain entire and untainted in the temple of
God. When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an
impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been
dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this cast down
the minds of the holy? No one was surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected
trial would not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple?
Although he does not dwell in this world, and is not enclosed in walls of either wood
or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Psalms 80:1, and Psalms 99:1,
and Isaiah 37:16,)and often by means of his Prophets asserted his seat to between
the Cherubim. What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel
recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word assures us that we ought not
to be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked
apostates. For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis; as the Lord did
not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God,
therefore, exposed him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his
impious people. It now follows —
These are not two different things, but the Prophet explains and confirms the same
sentiments by a change of phrase, and says that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar
had brought into the land of Shinar were laid up in the house of the treasury. The
Hebrews, as we know, generally use the word “house” for any place, as they call the
temple God’s “house ” Of the land of Shinar, it must be remarked, that it was a
plain adjacent to Babylon; and the famous temple of Belus, to which the Prophet
very probably refers, was erected there.
Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his
companions, namely, in the third year of Jehoiakim A difficult question arises here,
since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then
could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third year, and then led away the people
17

captives according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this difficulty by what
appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that the four years ought to refer to the
beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third year. But in
the second chapter we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second year of
his reign. They explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say — the years
are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and, — this was the second year
from the Conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh
and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, that the Prophet is speaking
of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least uses the reign of the second, while his
father was yet alive. We know there were two kings of the same name, father and
son; and as the son did many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname
of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concerning
Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the second, who is the son. But
Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews and
this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change
of affairs, and enticed them to throw off the yoke Nebuchadnezzar the younger was
carrying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and speedily returned home,
lest any one should supersede him. When, however, he found all things as he wished,
Josephus thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing
strange, nay, it is very customary to call him King who shares the command with his
father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it. In the third year or the reign of Jehoiakim,
Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if any one
prefers it, the father himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether we
refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to
Jerusalem, that is, by the hand of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different
explanation is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on the war in
person, that view not be taken still, the events happened in the third year of
Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus,
indeed, says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never read the Book of
Daniel. (68) He was an unlearned man, and by no means familiar with the
Scriptures; nay, I think he had never read three verses of Daniel. It was a dreadful
judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another
passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and
others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this
seems to suit well enough, since in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city
was once taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led away in triumph,
among whom were Daniel and his companions. When Jehoiakim afterwards
rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while
Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel
was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled — the condition of
the figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were led into exile last
thought themselves better off than the rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their
vain boast, and shows the former captives to have been better treated than the
remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at. home. (Jeremiah 24:2.) I assume,
then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance
of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For had there been any
18

integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it for
Ezekiel includes him among the three just men by whom most probably God would
be appeased. (Ezekiel 14:14.) Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that
he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile, and lived
as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath
in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests the Lord did not deprive them of
their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption.
(69)
Should any wish here to determine why Daniel was among the first to be led into
captivity, will he not betray his folly? Hence, let us learn to admire God’s
judgments, which surpass all our perceptions; and let us also remember the words
of Christ,
“If these things are done in the green tree,
what will be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:31.)
As I have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, although so
ignominiously exiled and brought up among the kings eunuchs. Then this happened
to so holy a man, who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how great is
God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we deserved? Which of us will dare to
compare himself with Daniel? Nay, we are unworthy, according to the ancient
proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slightest doubt Daniel, through
the circumstances of the time, wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift
of God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could not turn him aside from
the right course of piety. When, therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an
example of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of God. As to his
assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by
God’s command, this form of speech takes away any stumbling block which might
occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God
himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been
depressed. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess
Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or
fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Therefore,
Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, that we may not
think Jerusalem to have been taken in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and
his posterity. He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. Now, this might
seem altogether out of place, and would shock the minds of the faithful. For what
does it mean? That God’s temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had
not God borne witness that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here
will I dwell because I have chosen it. (Psalms 132:14.) If any place in the world were
impregnable, here truly honor ought to remain entire and untainted in the temple of
God. When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an
impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been
dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this cast down
the minds of the holy? No one was surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected
19

trial would not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple?
Although he does not dwell in this world, and is not enclosed in walls of either wood
or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Psalms 80:1, and Psalms 99:1,
and Isaiah 37:16,)and often by means of his Prophets asserted his seat to between
the Cherubim. What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel
recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word assures us that we ought not
to be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked
apostates. For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis; as the Lord did
not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God,
therefore, exposed him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his
impious people. It now follows —
COFFMAN, "This chapter gives the historical setting (Daniel 1:1,2), introduces the
four Hebrew young men whose deeds are featured in Daniel (Daniel 1:3-7), tells how
these "four" did not wish to violate God's dietary rules and requested that they may
eat only those things which God allowed (Daniel 1:9-13), reports how after an
experimental period often days, the steward complied with their request (Daniel
1:14-16), and relates that as a result of their loyalty to God, they were blessed
exceedingly and were granted the right to "stand before the king" (Daniel 1:17-21).
Daniel 1:1-2
"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar
king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king
of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried
them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into
the treasure-house of his god."
It is easily observed that the volume of comments against a given passage of God's
Word on the part of Bible critics often exhibits an inverse ratio to the
reasonableness of their arguments. The more unbelievable their arguments are, the
greater is the volume of them. Nothing could be any more certain than the historical
accuracy of the passage before us, but reminding us of that "river" out of the
serpent's mouth (Revelation 12:15), Biblical enemies have literally tried to wash this
passage away with their denials.
The first attack is based on the fact that Jeremiah placed this event in "the fourth
year of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 25:1). "Daniel, however, evidently employed the
Babylonian method of reckoning, in which the first year is regarded as following the
year of the king's accession to the throne."[1] "Jehoiakim came to the throne at the
end of a year, which Jeremiah reckoned as a year; but Daniel did not count it as it
was an incomplete year."[2] Dummelow allowed that both statements were
"correct" because the first year of Nebuchadnezzar lay partially in both the third
and fourth years of Jehoiakim.[3] Of course, this variation of a single year in the
sacred records, however it can be explained, is of no consequence. As Barnes put it,
"It is not material."[4]
20

Another objection raised against this first verse is that the first expedition against
Jerusalem by Nebudchadnezzar took place about the time of the battle of
Carchemish (May or June, 605 B.C.);[5] and the fact of Nebuchadnezzar's being
here called "king of Babylon" is labeled as an "error," because Nebuchadnezzar
did not actually become king of Babylon until 604 B.C.[6] As anyone should know,
"This is a prolepsis."[7] Here is another example: President Eisenhower was born in
Dennison. President Eisenhower led the invasion of Europe, etc. Critics are hard
pressed for an error to focus upon something like this.
We appreciate the words of Owens who said: "All the bits of information given here
are individually true; but they are put together in a general sense."[8]
All such quibbles about the alleged "errors" are pointless. The big point of the
passage is that because of the repeated and continuing rebellions of Israel and her
kings against the will of God, God at last sent the whole nation into captivity exactly
as the prophet Jeremiah had foretold (Jeremiah 4-6). There were in fact no less than
three expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, in all three of which
captives were carried away; and the passage before us refer to the first of these
occasions, which was not documented on pagan records. On this pretext, up until
very recently, as late as 1956, critics were boldly claiming the account here was "a
historical blunder."[9] That slander, however, has been laid to rest; because, "As
recently as February, 1956, the ancient documents were first published which now
proved full historical support for Nebuchadnezzar's presence in Judah at exactly
this time."[10]
We have explored this far enough to see that the arrogant charge which denies any
historical accuracy to verses like this is a gross and irresponsible error. Arthur
Jeffery stated that, "Daniel 1:1 is only a literary device; strict historical accuracy is
not important. It is here to prove a setting for the story, not to provide historical
information!"[11] We reject such views.
It is of interest that Nebuchadnezzar's name, as found here and occasionally in other
parts of the Old Testament, is alleged to be misspelled, the true spelling being
Nebuchadnezzar. Our usage will conform to the spelling in Daniel. Owens stated
that, "There are various spellings of this name in the Old Testament."[12] In light
of this, therefore, how weak is the allegation of the same author that, "the Daniel of
Ezekiel 14:14,20 cannot be the youth of the Book of Daniel," evidently basing his
argument upon the fact that "the names are spelled differently."[13] If the
misspelling of a name in the Old Testament is grounds for such conclusions, then we
may have half a dozen Nebuchadnezzar's!
"Shinar ..." (Daniel 1:2) is a very ancient name for Babylon (Genesis 10:10; 11:2);
and the appearance of that name here makes it certain that no forger of the times of
the Maccabees wrote this book. People in that age did not use this name for
Babylon.
21

ELLICOTT, "(1) In the third year.—Two questions are involved in this verse. (1) Is
it historically true that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of
Jehoiakim’s reign? (2) Does the language of the verse imply that he did so? The
second question is rightly answered in the negative. The word came means went, as
Genesis 45:17; 2 Kings 5:5, and it is the natural word for a Hebrew to use who
wrote from Babylon, and may be translated marched. It is therefore implied in this
verse that Nebuchadnezzar started from Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim.
The rest of the history is easily supplied from other portions of Scripture. In the
fourth year of Jehoiakim he conquered Pharaoh at Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2),
and then advanced upon Jerusalem. (See marginal reference.) The name
Nebuchadnezzar is sometimes more correctly spelt Nebuchadrezzar, but no
argument can be based upon the different modes of spelling the name, as the
difficulties of transliteration of Babylonian names into Hebrew characters are
considerable.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
The Book of Daniel
Written by himself (not by another of his name, in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes,
as wicked Porphyry, (a) that professed enemy of Christianity, blaterateth), like as
Xenophon and Julius Caesar wrote their own acts so wisely and impartially, as none
have been so upright in writing the histories of others. This divine book is, for the
matter of it, partly historic and partly prophetic. The historical part we have in the
first six chapters, sc., a continuation of the history of the book of Kings during the
whole time of the captivity and after it. Hence Jerome (b) calleth Daniel multiscum
et totius mundi polyhistorem, a general historian. The prophetic part, beginning at
the seventh chapter, foretelleth future things in the several monarchies but very
obscurely, according to that of the angel, [Daniel 12:9-10] "Go thy way, Daniel; for
the words are closed up, and sealed till the end of the time," &c; and according to
that hieroglyphic of prophecy, which hangs, they say, among other pictures, in the
Vatican Library at Rome, like a matron with the eyes covered, for the difficulty.
Whence it was that Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, though able, would never be drawn to
write commentaries; Cajetan and Calvin would set no notes upon the Revelation;
and Piscator, (c) after he had commented upon the other prophets, when he came to
Daniel, met with so many dark and difficult passages, ut parum obfuerit, saith he,
quin in medio commentandi cursu subsisterem, et calamum e manu deponerem, that
he was even ready to lay down his pen, and to lay aside the business. But this he did
not, as considering that the best, while here, "know but in part, prophesy but in
part," &c.; and that the promise is, though none of the wicked understand this
prophecy, yet the wise shall. [Daniel 12:10] Jerome (d) well saith, that a prophecy is
therefore obscure, because it is said at one time and seen at another. And one thing
that causeth a cloud in Daniel is the transposing of the history here often used; as
the prophecies contained in the seventh and eighth chapters, which were shown
22

unto Daniel under the reign of Belshazzar, in order should be set before the sixth
chapter, &c. He seemeth indeed to have been laid aside in the days of Belshazzar,
that drunken sot, till the handwriting on the wall brought him more in request
again. [Daniel 5:11-12] That cock on the dunghill knew not the worth of this
peerless pearl, highly prized both by his predecessor and successor, to whom he was
a secretis of their privy council. Famous he was grown, and worthily, for his
extraordinary wisdom [Ezekiel 28:3] and holiness, [Ezekiel 14:14] so that the angel
Gabriel styleth him "a man of desires," or a desirable man. [Daniel 9:23] Seneca
calleth Cato virtutum vivam imaginem, a lively picture of virtues. Pliny (e) saith that
the same Cato Censorius was an excellent orator, an excellent senator, an excellent
commander, and a master of all good arts. Paterculus (f) saith, that he was a man as
like virtue as ever he could look, et per omnia virtute diis quam hominibus propior.
Livy saith, he was a man of rigid innocence and invincible integrity. Cornelius
Nepos, (g) that being assayed and assaulted by many, he not only never lost any part
of his reputation, but as long as he lived grew still in the praise of his virtues, as
being in all things of singular prudence and industry. Lastly, Cicero saith of Cato
Major, that whereas he underwent the enmities of many potent persons, and
suffered no little hardship all his time, yet was he one of those few who lived and
died with glory. How much more truly might all this be affirmed of Daniel the
prophet than of Cato the censor! all whose virtues were but glistering sins, (h) and
all whose praise worthy parts and practices were but "tinkling cymbals" in
comparison. Daniel’s whole life was a kind of heaven, adorned with most radiant
stars of divine virtues. And although we cannot say of him as Alexander of Hales did
of his scholar Bonaventure in a hyperbolic strain, that Adam seemed to him not to
have sinned in Bonaventure, such was his sanctity and knowledge, (i) yet, with more
colour of truth, might the like be said of Daniel, the Jews’ jewel and the world’s
darling. He wrote this book, part of it in Hebrew and part in Chaldee, all in a short
but grave style, evident and elegant, being a divine polychronicon (j) to the world’s
end, or, as one (k) calleth it, the Apocalypse of the Old Testament.
Ver. 1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim.] That wicked king, who killed the
prophet Uriah; [Jeremiah 26:23] cut Jeremiah’s prophecy with a knife, and cast it
into the fire; [Jeremiah 36:23] was a gross idolater, [2 Chronicles 36:8] and
therefore justly suffered.
Came Nebuchadnezzar.] Surnamed Magnus son to Nebuchadnezzar, surnamed
Priscus. See 2 Kings 24:1-2, 2 Chronicles 36:8. {See Trapp on "2 Kings 24:1"} {See
Trapp on "2 Kings 24:2"} {See Trapp on "2 Chronicles 36:8"}
POOLE, "Jehoiakim's captivity, Daniel 1:1,2. By the king of Babylon's order the
master of the eunuchs taketh Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, to instruct
them, and changeth their names, Daniel 1:3-7. They refusing to eat of the king' s
meat thrive upon pulse and water, Daniel 1:8-16. Their proficiency in wisdom,
Daniel 1:17-21.
Comparing this with 2 Kings 24:1, and with 2 Chronicles 36:6, the meaning is, after
23

the Lord had taken away that good king Josiah for the sins of Judah and Manasseh,
which were very great, by Pharaoh-necho king of Egypt, the people of the land took
Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king; he reigned but three months,
wherein he did so much evil in the sight of the Lord, that the said Pharaoh-necho
put him in bands at Riblah, and afterwards carried him to Egypt, where he died,
and made Eliakim his brother king in his stead, and turned his name to Jehoiakim;
he became Nebuchadnezzar's servant three years, for that king of Babylon had
overthrown Pharaoh's army at Carchemish by the river Euphrates. Jehoiakim
rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar, made him come up from Babylon and take
Jehoiakim, and bind him in fetters to carry him to Babylon; of whom, and his death
and burial, you have a sad account, Jeremiah 22:17-19.
WHEDON, " Introductory — Daniel Prepared for His Work.
1. De Wette, Kuenen, etc., have called the date given in this verse “obviously false,”
“a striking and characteristic misstatement,” because it makes the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar coincide with the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (608-597
B.C.), while Jeremiah (Jeremiah 35:1; Jeremiah 46:2; compare 2 Chronicles 36)
makes it coincide with Jehoiakim’s fourth year. But Jeremiah almost certainly calls
Nebuchadnezzar, who was only crown prince at the time of the Palestinian
campaign (605 B.C.), “king” proleptically, which is a very permissible usage
(Behrmann). Moreover, Jeremiah may be conceived as reckoning the accession year
of this king as his first year, according to Jewish custom, while the author of Daniel,
according to ordinary Babylonian usage, may have counted his first year as not
beginning until the following New Year’s Day. (See our Introduction, III, 5; Society
Biblical Archaeology, January, 1900.) On this supposition all contradictions vanish,
the third year of Jehoiakim being the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar and his
fourth year synchronizing with Nebuchadnezzar’s official “first year.” For
Nebuchadnezzar see our Introduction, III, 3, (1); for Babylon see Introduction, III,
4. The cuneiform meaning of this name is “Gate of God,” but the discoveries at Kom
Ombo, 1894, show Babylon spelt “Balbal,” with an evident play on the Semitic ‫,בלבל‬
“confound.” (Compare Genesis 11:9 .)
BENSON, "Daniel 1:1-2. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim came
Nebuchadnezzar, &c. — See notes on 2 Kings 24:1-4. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim
into his hand — He took Jehoiakim prisoner, and put him in chains, with a design to
carry him to Babylon; but he having humbled himself, and submitted to become
tributary, he was restored to his kingdom. “At this time,” says Lowth, “Jehoiakim
having become tributary to the king of Babylon, consequently the seventy years of
the Jewish captivity and vassalage to Babylon began.” With part of the vessels of the
house of God — Some of the vessels were still left, which Nebuchadnezzar seized
when he carried Jeconiah captive: see the margin; which he carried into the land of
Shinar — That is, he carried the vessels, and not, as some would understand it, the
captives also; for Jehoiakim only is mentioned, who died, as we have seen, in the
land of Judah. Shinar was the original name of the country about Babylon, (Genesis
24

11:2,) and it was still sometimes called by this name by some of the prophets: see the
margin. And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god — Of his idol
Bel, (see note on Jeremiah 50:2,) from whence they were taken by Cyrus, and
delivered to Zerubbabel, Ezra 1:7-8. To this agrees the testimony of Berosus, who
tells us that Nebuchadnezzar adorned the temple of Bel
COKE, "Daniel 1:1. In the third year— It was in the eighth year of Jehoiakim that
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against him, and bound him in fetters to
carry him to Babylon: 2 Chronicles 36:6. But promising fidelity, the king of Babylon
restored him to his kingdom, and Jehoiakim became his servant three years: 2 Kings
24:1. Daniel numbers the third year of Jehoiakim from this beginning of his
renewed kingdom. In Jeremiah 25 it is said to be the fourth year; which fourth year
is called the first of king Nebuchadnezzar. These are easily reconciled, if in this
place the word came be understood of the beginning and setting out upon this
expedition; so that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem in the fourth year only.
EBC, "THE PRELUDE
"His loyalty he kept, his faith, his love."-MILTON
THE first chapter of the Book of Daniel serves as a beautiful introduction to the
whole, and strikes the keynote of faithfulness to the institutions of Judaism which of
all others seemed most important to the mind of a pious Hebrew in the days of
Antiochus Epiphanes. At a time when many were wavering, and many had lapsed
into open apostasy, the writer wished to set before his countrymen in the most
winning and vivid manner the nobleness and the reward of obeying God rather than
man.
He had read in 2 Kings 24:1-2, that Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar
for three years, which were not, however, the first three years of his reign, and then
had rebelled, and been subdued by "bands of the Chaldeans" and their allies. In 2
Chronicles 36:6 he read that Nebuchadrezzar had "bound Jehoiakim in fetters to
carry him to Babylon." [Jeremiah 22:18-19; Jeremiah 36:30] Combining these two
passages, he seems to. have inferred, in the absence of more accurate historical
indications, that the Chaldeans had besieged and captured Jerusalem in the third
year of Jehoiakim. That the date is erroneous there can hardly be a question, for, as
already stated, neither Jeremiah, the contemporary of Jehoiakim, nor the Book of
Kings, nor any other authority, knows anything of any siege of Jerusalem by the
Babylonian King in the third year of Jehoiakim. The Chronicler, a very late writer,
seems to have heard some tradition that Jehoiakim had been taken captive, but he
does not date this capture; and in Jehoiakim’s third year the king was a vassal, not
of Babylon, but of Egypt. Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadrezzar, was then King of
Babylon. It was not till the following year (B.C. 605), when Nebuchadrezzar, acting
as his father’s general, had defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish, that any
siege of Jerusalem would have been possible. Nor did Nebuchadrezzar advance
against the Holy City even after the Battle of Carchemish, but dashed home across
25

the desert to secure the crown of Babylon on hearing the news of his father’s death.
The only two considerable Babylonian deportations of which we know were
apparently in the eighth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadrezzars reign. In the
former Jehoiachin was carried captive with ten thousand citizens; [Jeremiah 27:20]
in the latter Zedekiah was slain, and eight hundred and thirty-two persons carried
to Babylon. [Jeremiah 52:29, 2 Kings 25:11]
There seems then to be, on the very threshold, every indication of a historic
inaccuracy such as could not have been committed if the historic Daniel had been
the true author of this Book; and we are able, with perfect clearness, to point to the
passages by which the Maccabean writer was misled into a mistaken inference. To
him, however, as to all Jewish writers, a mere variation in a date would have been
regarded, as a matter of the utmost insignificance. It in no way concerned the high
purpose which he had in view, or weakened the force of his moral fiction. Nor does
it in the smallest degree diminish from the instructiveness of the lessons which he
has to teach to all men for all time. A fiction which is true to human experience may
be as rich in spiritual meaning as a literal history. Do we degrade the majesty of the
Book of Daniel if we regard it as a Haggada any more than we degrade the story of
the Prodigal Son when we describe it as a Parable?
The writer proceeds to tell us that, after the siege, Nebuchadrezzar-whom the
historic Daniel could never have called by the erroneous name Nebuchadnezzar-
took Jehoiakim (for this seems to be implied), with some of the sacred vessels of the
Temple, {comp. Daniel 5:2-3} "into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god." This
god, as we learn from Babylonian inscription, was Bel or Belmerodach, in whose
temple, built by Nebuchadrezzar, was also "the treasure-house of his kingdom."
Among the captives were certain "of the king’s seed, and of the princes"
("Parthemim"). They were chosen from among such boys as were preeminent for
their beauty and intelligence, and the intention was to train them as pages in the
royal service, and also in such a knowledge of the Chaldean language and literature
as should enable them to take their places in the learned caste of priestly diviners.
Their home was in the vast palace of the Babylonian King, of which the ruins are
now called Kasr. Here they may have seen the hapless Jehoiachin still languishing in
his long captivity.
They are called "children," and the word, together with the context, seems to imply
that they were boys of the age of from twelve to fourteen. The king personally
handed them over to the care of Ashpenaz, the Rabsaris, or "master of the
eunuchs," who held the position of lord high chamberlain. It is probably implied
that the boys were themselves made eunuchs, for the incident seems to be based on
the rebuke given by Isaiah to the vain ostentation of Hezekiah in showing the
treasures of his temple and palace to Merodach-baladan: "Behold the days come,
that all that is in thine house shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith
the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall
they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon.".
26

[Isaiah 39:6-7]
They were to be trained in the learning (lit. "the book") and language of Chaldea
for three years; at the end of which period they were to be admitted into the king’s
presence, that he might see how they looked and what progress they had made.
During those three years he provided them with a daily maintenance of food and
wine from his table. Those who were thus maintained in Eastern courts were to be
counted by hundreds, and even by thousands, and their position was often
supremely wretched and degraded, as it still is in such Eastern courts. The wine was
probably imported. The food consisted of meat, game, fish, joints, and wheaten
bread. The word used for "provision" is interesting. It is "path-bag," and seems to
be a transliteration, or echo of a Persian word, "pati-baga," a name applied by the
historian Deinon (B.C. 340) to barley bread and "mixed wine in a golden egg from
which the king drinks."
But among these captives were four young Jews named Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah.
Their very names were a witness not only to their nationality, but to their religion.
Daniel means "God is my judge"; Hananiah, "Jehovah is gracious"; Mishael
(perhaps), "who is equal to God?" Azariah, "God is a helper."
It is hardly likely that the Chaldeans would have tolerated the use of such names
among their young pupils, since every repetition of them would have sounded like a
challenge to the supremacy of Bel, Merodach, and Nebo. It was a common thing to
change names in heathen courts, as the name of Joseph had been changed by the
Egyptians to Zaphnath-paaneah, [Genesis 41:45] and the Assyrians changed the
name of Psammetichus II into "Nebo-serib-ani," "Nebo save me." They therefore
made the names of the boys echo the names of the Babylonian deities. Instead of
"God is my judge," Daniel was called Belteshazzar, "protect Thou his life." Perhaps
the prayer shows the tender regard in which he was held by Ashpenaz. Hananiah
was called Shadrach, perhaps Shudur-aku, "command of Aku," the moon-deity:
Mishael was called Meshach, a name which we cannot interpret; and Azariah,
instead of "God is a help," was called Abednego, a mistaken form for Abed-nebo, or
"servant of Nebo." Even in this slight incident there may be an allusion to
Maccabean days. It appears that in that epoch the apostate Hellenising Jews were
fond of changing their names into Gentile names, which had a somewhat similar
sound. Thus Joshua was called "Jason," and Onias "Menelaus." This was done as
part of the plan of Antiochus to force upon Palestine the Greek language. So far the
writer may have thought the practice a harmless one, even though imposed by
heathen potentates. Such certainly was the view of the later Jews, even of the
strictest sect of the Pharisees. Not only did Saul freely adopt the name of Paul, but
Silas felt no scruple in being called by the name Sylvanus, though that was the name
of a heathen deity.
It was far otherwise with acquiescence in the eating of heathen meats, which, in the
27

days of the Maccabees, was forced upon many of the Jews, and which, since the
institution or reinstitution of Levitism after the return from the Exile, had come to
be regarded as a deadly sin. It was during the Exile that such feelings had acquired
fresh intensity. At first they do not seem to have prevailed. Jehoiachin was a hero
among the Jews. They remembered him with intense love and pity, and it does not
seem to have been regarded as any stain upon his memory that, for years together,
he had, almost in the words of Daniel 1:5, received a daily allowance from the table
of the King of Babylon.
In the days of. Antiochus Epiphanes the ordinary feeling on this subject was very
different, for the religion and nationality of the Jews were at stake. Hence we read:
"Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat
any unclean thing. Wherefore they chose rather to die, that they might not be
defiled with meats, that they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they
died." (Macc. 1:62, 63).
And in the Second Book of Maccabees we are told that on the king’s birthday Jews
"were constrained by bitter constraint to eat of the sacrifices," and that Eleazar,
one of the principal scribes, an aged and noble-looking man, preferred rather to be
tortured to death, "leaving his death for an example of noble courage, and a
memorial of value, not only unto young men, but unto all his nation." In the
following chapter is the celebrated story of the constancy and cruel death of seven
brethren and their mother, when they preferred martyrdom to tasting swine’s flesh.
The brave Judas Maccabaeus, with some nine companions, withdrew himself into
the wilderness, and "lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts with his
company, who fed on herbs continually, lest they should be partakers of the
pollution." The tone and object of these narratives are precisely the same as the tone
and object of the stories in the Book of Daniel: and we can well imagine how the
heroism of resistance would be encouraged in every Jew who read those narratives
or traditions of former days of persecution and difficulty. "This Book," says Ewald,
"fell like a glowing spark from a clear heaven upon a surface which was already
intensely heated far and wide, and waiting to burst into flames."
It may be doubtful whether such views as to ceremonial defilement were already
developed at the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity. The Maccabean persecution
left them ingrained in the habits of the people, and Josephus tells us a contemporary
story which reminds us of that of Daniel and his companions. He says that certain
priests, who were friends of his own, had been imprisoned in Rome, and that he
endeavoured to procure their release, "especially because I was informed that they
were not unmindful of piety towards God, but supported themselves with figs and
nuts," because in such eating of dry food (as it was called) there was no chance of
heathen defilement. {Josea "Vit." Comp. Isaiah 52:11} It need hardly be added that
when the time came to break down the partition-wall which separated Jewish
particularism from the universal brotherhood of mankind redeemed in Christ, the
Apostles-especially St. Paul-had to show the meaningless nature of many
distinctions to which the Jews attached consummate importance. The Talmud
28

abounds in stories intended to glorify the resoluteness with which the Jews
maintained their stereotyped Levitism; but Christ taught, to the astonishment of the
Pharisees and even of the disciples, that it is not what entereth into a man which
makes him unclean, but the unclean thoughts which come from within, from the
heart. And this He said , i.e. , abolishing thereby the Levitic Law, and "making all
meats clean." Yet, even after this, it required nothing less than that Divine vision on
the tanner’s roof at Joppa to convince Peter that he was not to call "common" what
God had cleansed, [Acts 10:14] and it required all the keen insight and fearless
energy of St. Paul to prevent the Jews from keeping an intolerable yoke upon their
own necks, and also laying it upon the necks of the Gentiles.
The four princely boys-they may have been from twelve to fourteen years old-
determined not to share in the royal dainties, and begged the Sar-hassarisim to
allow them to live on pulse and water, rather than on the luxuries in which-for
them-lurked a heathen pollution. The eunuch not unnaturally demurred. The daily
rations were provided from the royal table. He was responsible to the king for the
beauty and health, as well as for the training, of his young scholars; and if
Nebuchadrezzar saw them looking more meagre or haggard than the rest of the
captives and other pages, the chamberlain’s head might pay the forfeit. But Daniel,
like Joseph in Egypt, had inspired affection among his captors; and since the prince
of the eunuchs regarded him "with favour and tender love," he was the more willing
to grant, or at least to connive at, the fulfilment of the boy’s wish. So Daniel gained
over the Melzar (or steward?), who was in immediate charge of the boys, and
begged him to try the experiment for ten days. If at the end of that time their health
or beauty had suffered, the question might be reconsidered.
So for ten days the four faithful children were fed on water, and on the "seeds"-
i.e. , vegetables, dates, raisins, and other fruits, which are here generally called
"pulse." At the end of the ten days-a sort of mystic Persian week-they were found to
be fairer and fresher than all the other captives of the palace. Thenceforth they were
allowed without hindrance to keep the customs of their country.
Nor was this all. During the three probationary years they continued to flourish
intellectually as well as physically. They attained to conspicuous excellence "in all
kinds of books and wisdom," and Daniel also had understanding in all kinds of
dreams and visions, to which the Chaldeans attached supreme importance. The
Jews exulted in these pictures of four youths of their own race who, though they
were strangers in a strange land, excelled all their alien compeers in their own
chosen fields of learning. There were already two such pictures in Jewish history, -
that of the youthful Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and a great
man and a prince among the magicians of Pharaoh; and that of Joseph, who, though
there were so many Egyptian diviners, alone could interpret dreams, whether in the
dungeon or at the foot of the throne. A third picture, that of Daniel at the court of
Babylon, is now added to them, and in all three cases the glory is given directly, not
to them, but to the God of heaven, the God of their fathers.
29

At the close of the three years the prince of the eunuchs brought all his young pages
into the presence of the King Nebuehadrezzar. He tested them by familiar
conversation, and found the four Jewish lads superior to all the rest. They were
therefore chosen "to stand before the king"-in other words, to become his personal
attendants. As this gave free access to his presence, it involved a position not only of
high honour, but of great influence. And their superiority stood the test of time.
Whenever the king consulted them on matters which required "wisdom of
understanding," he found them not only better, but "ten times better," than all the
"magicians," and "astrologers" that were in all his realm.
The last verse of the chapter, "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of
King Cyrus," is perhaps a later gloss, for it appears from Daniel 10:1 that Daniel
lived, at any rate, till the third year of Cyrus. Abn Ezra adds the words "continued
in Babylon ," and Ewald "at the king’s court." Some interpret "continued" to mean
"remained alive." The reason for mentioning "the first year of Cyrus" may be to
show that Daniel survived the return from the Exile, and also to mark the fact that
he attained a great age. For if he were about fourteen at the beginning of the
narrative, he would be eighty-five in the first year of Cyrus. Dr. Pusey remarks:
"Simple words, but what a volume of tried faithfulness is unrolled by them! Amid
all the intrigues indigenous at all times in dynasties of Oriental despotism, amid all
the envy towards a foreign captive in high office as a king’s councillor, amid all the
trouble incidental to the insanity of the king and the murder of two of his
successors, in that whole critical period for his people, Daniel continued. "
("Daniel" pp. 20, 21).
The domestic anecdote of this chapter, like the other more splendid narratives
which succeed it, has a value far beyond the circumstances in which it may have
originated. It is a beautiful moral illustration of the blessings which attend on
faithfulness and on temperance, and whether it be a Haggada or a historic tradition,
it equally enshrines the same noble lesson as that which was taught to all time by the
early stories of the Books of Genesis and Exodus. {Comp. Genesis 39:21, 1 Kings
8:50, Nehemiah 1:1, Psalms 106:46}
It teaches the crown and blessing of faithfulness. It was the highest glory of Israel
"to uplift among the nations the banner of righteousness." It matters not that, in
this particular instance, the Jewish boys were contending for a mere ceremonial rule
which in itself was immaterial, or at any rate of no eternal significance. Suffice it
that this rule presented itself to them in the guise of a principle and of a sacred duty,
exactly as it did to Eleazar the Scribe, and Judas the Maccabee, and the Mother and
her seven strong sons in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. They regarded it as a
duty to their laws, to their country, to their God; and therefore upon them it was
sacredly incumbent. And they were faithful to it. Among the pampered minions and
menials of the vast Babylonian palace-undazzled by the glitter of earthly
magnificence, untempted by the allurements of pomp, pleasure. and sensuous
indulgence-
30

"Amid innumerable false, unmoved, unshaken, unseduced, unterrified, Their
loyalty they kept their faith, their love."
And because God loves them for their constancy, because they remain pure and
true, all the Babylonian varletry around them learns the lesson of simplicity, the
beauty of holiness. Amid the outpourings of the Divine favour they flourish, and are
advanced to the highest honours. This is one great lesson which dominates the
historic section of this Book: "Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that
despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." It is the lesson of Joseph’s superiority to the
glamour of temptation in the house of Potiphar; of the choice of Moses, preferring to
suffer affliction with the people of God rather than all the treasures of Egypt and
"to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter"; of Samuel’s stainless innocence beside
the corrupting example of Eli’s sons; of David’s strong, pure, ruddy boyhood as a
shepherd-lad on Bethlehem’s hills. It is the anticipated story of that yet holier
childhood of Him who-subject to His parents in the sweet vale of Nazareth-
blossomed "like the flower of roses in the spring of the year, and as lilies by the
water-courses." The young human being who grows up in innocence and self-
control grows up also in grace and beauty, in wisdom and "in favour with God and
man." The Jews specially delighted in these pictures of boyish continence and piety,
and they lay at the basis of all that was greatest in their national character.
But there also lay incidentally in the story a warning against corrupting luxury, the
lesson of the need for, and the healthfulness of,
"The rule of not too much by temperance taught."
"The love of sumptuous food and delicious drinks is never good," says Ewald, "and
with the use of the most temperate diet body and soul can flourish most admirably,
as experience had at that time sufficiently taught."
To the value of this lesson the Nazarites among the Jews were a perpetual witness.
Jeremiah seems to single them out for the special beauty which resulted from their
youthful abstinence when he writes of Jerusalem, "Her Nazarites were purer than
snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their
polishing was of sapphires." [Lamentations 4:7]
It is the lesson which Milton reads in the story of Samson, -
"O madness! to think use of strongest wines And strongest drinks our chief support
of health, When God, with these forbidden, made choice to rear His mighty
champion, strong above compare, Whose drink was only from the liquid brook!"
It is the lesson which Shakespeare inculcates when he makes the old man say in "As
You Like It,"-
"When I was young I never did apply Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood, Nor
31

did not with unblushful forehead woo The means of weakness and debility;
Therefore mine age is as a lusty winter, Frosty, yet kindly."
The writer of this Book connects intellectual advance as well as physical strength
with this abstinence, and here he is supported even by ancient and pagan
experience. Something of this kind may perhaps lurk in Pindar; and certainly
Horace saw that gluttony and repletion are foes to insight when he wrote, -
"Nam corpus onustum Hesternis vitiis animum quoque praegravat una, Atque
afligit humo divinae particulam aurae."
Pythagoras was not the only ancient philosopher who recommended and practised a
vegetable diet, and even Epicurus, whom so many regard as
"The soft garden’s rose-encircled child."
placed over his garden door the inscription that those who came would only be
regaled on barley-cakes and fresh water, to satisfy, but not to allure, the appetite.
But the grand lesson of the picture is meant to be that the fair Jewish boys were
kept safe in the midst of every temptation to self-indulgence, because they lived as in
God’s sight: and "he that holds himself in reverence and due esteem for the dignity
of God’s image upon him, accounts himself both a fit person to do the noblest and
godliest deeds, and much better worth than to deject and defile, with such
debasement and pollution as sin is, himself so highly ransomed and ennobled to a
new friendship and filial relation with God."
PETT, " Chapter 1 Daniel Is Established At The Court of Babylon.
‘In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, to Jerusalem and besieged it.’
Here the dating is based on the Babylonian system of dating by which the opening
part-year after a king’s accession was thought of as ‘the year of accession’ (compare
2 Kings 25:27), and the first full year of the reign (and therefore the second year of
his reign in Israelite eyes ) was called the first year. To someone established at the
court of Babylon this would be natural after a comparatively short time. Thus
elsewhere in Scripture reference is made to this same year as the fourth year of the
reign of Jehoiakim, using the Israelite system of reckoning Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah
25:8-14; Jeremiah 46:2). The date was 605 BC.
‘Came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, to Jerusalem and besieged it.’ Strictly
Nebuchadnezzar was not king at the time of his besieging of Jerusalem. He became
king later in the year when his father Nabopolassar died. But the description is read
back so as to identify clearly who was being spoken about. Note also that it is said
that ‘he besieged it’ not that he took it. A long siege would have been necessary to
32

take this strong city and Nebuchadnezzar was interrupted by news of his father’s
death, which necessitated his return to Babylon to establish his position. The city
was never taken at the time, although terms were agreed.
Ezekiel calls him Nebuchadrezzar, which is in fact closer to the Babylonian name
Nabu-kudurri-usur, while Nebuchadnezzar is closer to the Greek form
Nabochodonosor and is a variant form. His early career is described in the
Babylonian records known as ‘the Babylonian Chronicle’ which give us valuable
information for dating various events.
PULPIT, "OCCASION OF DANIEL BEING IN BABYLON.
Daniel 1:1
In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah. After the defeat and
death of Josiah, the people of the land put on the throne Jehoahaz, or Shallum
(Jeremiah 22:11), one of the sons of their late monarch (2 Kings 23:30). We see, by
comparing 2 Kings 23:31 with 2 Kings 23:36, that in taking Jehoahaz to be their
king they had passed over the law of primogeniture. The reason of this would not
unlikely be that he represented the policy of his father Josiah, which may have
meant the preference of a Babylonian to an Egyptian alliance. Dean Farrar thinks
his warlike prowess might be the reason of the popular preference (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 Egypt. Necho placed on the throne in his stead, Eliakim, whom
he named Jehoiakim. The change of name is not very significant: in the first case, it
is "God raises up;" in the second, the adopted name, it is "Jehovah raises up." The
assumption was that he claimed specially to be raised up by the covenant God of
Israel. It might have been expected that he would be very zealous for the Lord of
hosts, instead of which we find that "he did that which was evil in the sight of the
Lord, according to all that his fathers had done." As he is presented to us in the
prophecies of Jeremiah, he appears a cruel, regardless man. Necho did not mean the
subjection of Jerusalem to be merely nominal, so he laid a heavy tribute on the new-
made king. With all his defects, Jehoiakim seems to have been faithful to Egypt, to
whose power he owed his crown. It should be noted, as one of the differences
between the Septuagint Version and the text of the Massoretes, which is followed in
our Authorized Version, that there is no word representing reign in the Septuagint.
Came Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Nebuchadnezzar is one of the greatest names in all history. Only here in Daniel is
Nebuchadnezzar spelled in the Hebrew with a in the penultimate syllable. In
Jeremiah and Ezekiel the name is generally transliterated differently and more
accurately Nebuchad-rezzar. This more accurately represents Nabu-kudurri-utzur
of the monuments, but alike in Kings and Chronicles the ‫ר‬ is changed into a . ‫נ‬
When it passed into Greek it became ναβυχοδονόσορ, even in Jeremiah. This is the
form it assumed in Berosus. Abydenusis more accurate. The name, which means
33

"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 kingdom of Babylon, in the year b.c.
606. Few historical inscriptions of any length have come to hand dating from the
reign of either father or son. We have the fragments of Berosus, and epitomes of
portions of his worlds; and further, fragments of Megasthenes and Abydenus
preserved chiefly in the Fathers. It may be observed that Herodotus does not so
much as mention Nebuchadrezzar. Nabopolassar ascended the throne of Babylon in
the year b.c. 625, so far as can be made out at present, on the overthrow of the
Assyrians of Nineveh. Taking occasion of this event, Egypt, which had been
conquered by Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal, reasserted itself. The Assyrians had
broken up Egypt into several principalities, over each of which they had set vassal
kings. Psammetik, one of these vassal kings, rebelled, and united all Egypt under his
rule. About sixteen years after the fall of Nineveh, his sou Pharaoh-Necho—
determined to rival his predecessors, Thothmes and Rameses—invaded the territory
of Babylon. He maintained his conquest only a little while, for Nebuchadnezzar, the
young heroic son of the peaceful Nabopolassar, marched against the Egyptians. A
great battle was fought at Carchemish, and the Egyptians were totally defeated.
After this victory Nebuchadnezzar pursued his flying enemy toward Egypt, and
probably visited Jerusalem and laid siege to it. He was not yet king, hut it is not to
be reckoned an anachronism that the writer here calls him king. We speak of the
Duke of Wellington gaining his first victory at Assaye, although his ducal title was
not attained till long after. If we follow Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, while
Nebuchadnezzar was engaged on the campaign of Palestine and Syria, he was
summoned back to Babylon by the death of his father Nabopolassar. "Leaving the
heavy-armed troops and baggage, he hurried, accompanied by a few troops, across
the desert to Babylon." Josephus professes to be quoting the very words of Berosus,
and no doubts have been thrown on his accuracy or good faith in such cases.
Berosus was in a position to be well informed, and had no motive to speak other
than the truth. The evidence of Berosus establishes that before his accession to the
throne, [Nebuchadnezzar had made an expedition into Syria. If we take the
statement in the verse before us along with that of Jeremiah 26:1 (where the text is,
however, doubtful, as the clause is omitted in the LXX.), that the fourth year of
Jehoiakim was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and look at them in the light of the
account given by Berosus of the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, we come to the
conclusion that he ascended the throne the year after he visited Jerusalem.
Moreover, we must remember that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar was not the
year of his accession, but was the year following the next new year alter that event.
If a monarch ascended the throne actually in the month Iyyar of one year, that year
would be reckoned as "the beginning of his reign;" not till the first of the mouth
Nisau in the following year did his first year begin. In Jerusalem the calculation of
the years of a monarch began from his accession, and v/as independent of the
34

calendar. Hence, if the Babylonian method of reckoning w,s applied to Jehoiakim's
reign, what was reckoned his fourth year in Jerusalem would be only his third.
Against both these texts and 2 Kings 25:8, and, moreover, against Berosus, is the
statement in Jeremiah 46:2, which asserts the battle of Carchemish to have been
fought in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. This contradicts the other statement, unless
the battle were fought in the very beginning of the fourth year of Jehoiakim, of
which we have no evidence. It has been noted by Dr. Sayce, as a characteristic
instance of the carefulness with which the materials have been treated in Kings, that
while Shalmaneser is said to have besieged Samaria, it is not said that he
(Shalmaneser) took it. It is to be noted that there is an equal carefulness in the verse
before us Nebuchadnezzar, we are told, came unto Jerusalem, and "besieged it."
The usual and natural conclusion to such a statement would be "and took it;" the
fact that this phrase is not added proves that the writer does not wish to assert that
Nebuchadnezzar required to push the siege to extremities.
Exursus on the alleged anachronism of Jeremiah 46:1 and Jeremiah 46:2.
Many strong statements have been made in regard to the alleged conflict between
the chronology of the verse before us and that of Jeremiah and, it is said, other parts
of Scripture. Even Lenormant declares the Book of Daniel to begin with a gross
error, "L'erreur grossiere du premier verset du chapitre 1. mettant en l'an 3 de
Joiakim la premiere prise de Jerusalem par Nebuchodorossor." A great deal is
made of this by all assailants of the authenticity of Daniel. Thus Hitzig says, "The
opening of the book is encumbered by an absurd date and a statement of fact which
is prima facie doubtful."
What is the extent of this error, or rather of these errors? They are:
Against the second of these statements is placed Jeremiah 25:1, "In the fourth year
of Jehoiakim son of Josiah King of Judah, that was the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon." Further, it is proclaimed that in this prophecy
thus dated, the coming of the Babylonian king is threatened, and therefore it is
concluded that he had not yet invaded Palestine. This is again set over against the
third statement, and is supposed to prove it untrue. These two passages together are
alleged to prove the first statement to be untrue. To take the second statement first,
as really the less important, If there is truth in Berosus's statement that
Nebuchadnezzar made his expedition into Syria while his father was yet living, he
probably was not yet king; but as he became so immediately after, only a pedant in
accuracy would find fault with the words as they stand. If we found it stated that the
Duke of Wellington was at Eton in 1782, it would be the height of absurdity to
declare this prolepsis an error. Little stress has been laid on this in the assault on
Daniel; as little need be laid on it in the defence.
The other two statements are supposed to be erroneous in a more serious way. Even
if we get over the above difficulty, Professor Beven says, "The difficulty remains—a
siege of Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year, of which Jeremiah, a contemporary,
35

says nothing." Confirmatory of this is supposed to be Jeremiah 46:2, "Against
Egypt, against the army of Pharaoh-Necho King of Egypt, which was by the river
Euphrates … which Nebuchadrezzar King of Babylon smote in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim son of Josiah King of Judah." If he fought and won the battle of
Carchendsh in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he could not in the third year of that
monarch be in Palestine. Hitzig refers rather to Jeremiah 36:1-32 1-3, "It came to
pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim … this word came unto Jeremiah from the
Lord, saying, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have
spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from
the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that
the house of Judah hill hear all the evil that I purpose to do unto them;" compared
with verse 29, "The King of Babylon shall certainly come and destroy this land, and
shall cause to cease from thence man and beast." He refers also to verse 9, "And it
came to pass in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah King of Judah, in the
fifth month, that they proclaimed a fast before the Lord," in consequence of the
reading of the contents of the roll.
As it is clear that the whole case against the chronology of the verse rests on these
statements m Jeremiah, it will be advantageous to examine them. As it is the
weakest, we will consider Professor Hitzig's ground of objection first. Any one
reading the thirty-sixth chapter of Jeremiah without allowing himself to be run
away with by a prejudice, will see that there is nothing in the chapter which
prevents such an expedition as that mentioned in this verse having taken place. The
circumstances are, as it seems to us, the following: Jehoiakim had submitted to the
Babylonian conqueror, but had begun to plot against his new suzerain, and to
hanker after Egypt. The Egyptian alliance would, he hoped, deliver him from the
oppression of Nebuchadnezzar, hence his rage at Jeremiah's prophecies of disaster,
and hence his burning of the roll. There is nothing in the twenty-ninth verse that
implies that Nebuchadnezzar had not been before in Palestine. The prophecy now is
"that he shall come and cause to cease" from Judah "man and beast"—a thing that
was not even approximately fulfilled till the loll of Jerusalem in the reign of
Zedekiah. Yet Nebuchadnezzar had been m Palestine, and had carried away
Jehoiachin. This chapter of Jeremiah, therefore, gives no evidence on the question at
issue. Professor Bevan has 'been well advised not to drag it in as part of his proof.
The passages Professor Bevan has brought forward are relatively stronger. If we
have in them the veritable words of Jeremiah, and if their evidence is confirmed by
other parts of Scripture, they have some cogency If we now turn to Jeremiah 25:1,
and compare the Massoretic text with the Septuagint, we find very considerable
omissions, and omissions of great importance. In order that Professor Bevan may
not politely impugn our honesty, as he does that of Hengstenberg, we shall translate
the whale thirteen verses as they stand in the Greek text:
(10) And I will destroy from them voice of joy, and voice of gladness, voice of
bridegroom, and voice of bride, scent of myrrh, and light of lamp.
36

(11) And all the land shall be for astonishment ( ἀφανισμὸν); and they shall be slaves
among the nations seventy years.
(13) And I will bring upon that land all the words which I spake concerning it, all
the things written in this book."
The reader will observe that the clause declaring the synchronism between the first
year of Nebuchadnezzar and the fourth of Jehoiakim, is not given. Had the clause in
question been in any way one that supported the authenticity of Daniel, we are sure
such a diligent student as Professor Bevan would not have failed to observe the fact
that it was not in the Septuagint, and declare that it made it of doubtful authenticity.
He, no doubt, recalls that this is the argument by which the last clause of 1 Samuel
2:22 is ruled out of court, when any one would bring it forward to prove the
existence of the tabernacle during the youth of Samuel and the pontificate of Eli. We
will not impeach his honesty, nor say that he fails to notify his readers of the fact of
the non-occurrence of the clause in the Septuagint "to conceal its
untrustworthiness." If there were not a suspicion that the omission of the words
within square brackets is due to homoioteleuton, which somewhat invalidates the
testimony of the Frederico-Augustan Codex, we might be inclined to maintain that
not even was the year of Jehoiakim given in this prophecy. The reader will further
observe that in the whole section there is not a word of Babylonians, or Chaldeans,
or Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover, the passage purports to give a summary of the
messages of all the prophets that for twenty-three years had been warning Judah
and Jerusalem. That being the case, it is not wonderful that there is no reference to
the appearance of the Babylonians and Nebuchadnezzar the previous year. So far
from the publication of this summary implying that the Babylonians had not yet
appeared in Syria and Palestine, the last verso we have quoted rather implies that
they had. The argument is this: The prophets foretold this desolation of Judah
which had just occurred, and now Jeremiah foretells that seventy years from this
. The capture of Jerusalem took plaice, according to M Oppert, in the year b.c. 587.
The same authority places the capture of Babylon b.c.. 539, that is to say, forty-eight
years after. This difference between seventy years and forty-eight years is too great
to be put down merely to the use of round numbers, and it certainly would have
been liable to be modified had there not been an earlier date from which to start.
Professor Bevan takes the captivity of Jehoiachin, placed by Oppert at b.c. 598, and
by himself at b.c. 599, as the starting-point, without assigning any reason. According
to the one date it was only sixty, according to the other only fifty-nine, not seventy
years after, that Babylon was taken. The difference is still too great. If we take the
he conquered Syria, in b.c. 605 or 606, he would receive the submission of
Jehoiakim. We have thus 'm interval of sixty-six or sixty-seven years between this
date and the entrance of Cyrus into Babylon, and sixty-seven or sixty-eight years to
the issue of the decree of Cyrus in Be. 538, which is a much closer approximation to
seventy years than any other starting-point gives.
We have another synchronism of the kings of Judah and the reign of
37

Nebuchadnezzar. We are told (2 Kings 25:2) that Jerusalem "was besieged unto the
eleventh year of King Zedekiah" In verse 8 we are told that "in the fifth month, on
the seventh day of the month, which is the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar
… . he entered Jerusalem." In Jeremiah 39:2 we are told, "In the eleventh year of
Zedekiah, in the fourth month, and the ninth day of the mouth, the city was broken
up." We see, then, that the seventh of the fifth month of the nineteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar coincided with the ninth day of the fourth month of the eleventh
year of Zedekiah. We see further that, notwithstanding that Zedekiah is said to have
reigned eleven years (2 Kings 24:18), he only reigned ten years and little more than
three mouths. His nephew reigned three months (2 Kings 24:8), for three months
and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9). We cannot assume that Jehoiakim reigned eleven
complete years; the probability is that it was only ten years and some months. If we
take—pace the critics—2 Chronicles 36:10 as relating a fact, then we may regard
the reign of Jehoiachin as completing the eleventh year, reckoning from his father's
accession. In that case the length of time from the accession of Jehoiakim to the
capture of Jerusalem was twenty-one years and three months; from that subtract
the eighteen years and four months of Nebuchadnezzar, and we have two years and
eleven months.£
If this was the Babylonian reckoning of his reign, then Nebuchadnezzar had really
ascended the throne during the previous year. Professor Bevan asserts the passage
from Berosus, which is twice quoted in extenso by Josephus, once avowedly
verbatim, to be "altogether untrustworthy" Dr. Hugo Winekler, to whom tie refers
with respect (Critical Review 4:126), follows this incriminated passage in making
Nebuchadnezzar command at Carchemish while his father yet lived. Indeed, when
he has not to assail Daniel, Professor Bevan follows Berosus as quoted by Josephus.
If Nebuchadnezzar defeated Necho before his accession to the throne, then Jeremiah
46:2 is further at variance with Kings and Chronicles than we have made it out to
be.
Another synchronism is pointed out by Kranichfeld. In 2 Kings 25:27 (Jeremiah
3:1-25 :31) it is said, "In the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin
King of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month,
Evil-Merodach … in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of
Jehoiachin King of Judah out of prison." Berosus informs us that Nebuchadnezzar
reigned forty-three years. If we may count the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign
according to the Babylonian mode of reckoning, we may neglect the fragments on
either side, and reckon his reign forty-three years complete. We may subtract the
thirty-seven years from the forty-three, and find that it was in the sixth year of
Nebuchadnezzar that Jehoiachin was carried away captive, contradicting 2 Kings
24:12, and making it clear that, if this is the case, it was not the fourth but the fifth
year of Jehoiakim that synchronized with the first of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not
an insuperable difficulty to a student of Daniel, as Nebuchadnezzar would merely be
called king by prolepsis in the verse before us. It is significant that Professor Bevan
does not refer to any other possible basis of chronology. When any other is guilty of
such an omission, he is severe in his criticism. It certainly would be interesting to see
38

Professor Bevan attempting to harmonize Jeremiah 3:1-25 :31 with Jeremiah 25:1.
When we turn to 2 Kings 24:1-7, we find nothing at variance with what we find in
Daniel, or in what we have deduced of the progress of events. Professor Bevan says,
"That Jehoiakim was the vassal of Babylon during the latter part of his reign is
certain." We should very much like to know the ground of his certainty that the
latter part of Jehoiakim's reign was passed in a state of vassalage to Babylon. The
Book of Kings in the passage before us distinctly says that after three years he
rebelled. We do not know when the three years began, nor when they ended. We
should like much to know what ground of certainty Professor Bevan has. If we take
his words as they stand, they ought to mean that these three years ended with
Jehoiakim's life, and that he never rebelled against the King of Babylon. Dr. Hugo
Winckler, 'Geschichte Bob, und Assyr.,' 310, speaking of the struggle between
Necho and Nebuchadnezzar, says, "The conflict took place at Carchemish, where
Necho apparently intended to cross the Euphrates. Nebuchadnezzar was victorious,
and compelled the Egyptians to evacuate Syria and Palestine. He himself pursued
them and took possession of the provinces that were formerly Assyian, and made the
vassal princes, one of whom was Jehoiakim of Judah, to do homage to himself." Dr.
H. Winckler is under no such misapprehension as that which led Professor Bevan to
assert that it was in the latter part only of Jehoiakim's reign that he submitted to
Nebuchadnezzar. It was either the same year as the battle of Carehemish, or at most
the year following, that Nebuchadnezzar reached Syria and Palestine. Even on the
date in Jeremiah, that could not be later than the fifth year of Jehoiakim. We have
seen that there is probably no date given in Jeremiah for the battle of Carehemish;
it may as likely have been the second or third year of Jehoiakim as the fourth.
If we may take the passage from Berosus as authoritative, and compare it with the
passages in Kings, we reach the probability that it was in the second year of
Jehoiakim that the battle of Carchemish took place. We know that Professor Bevan
has declared this passage from Berosus "altogether untrustworthy." Had there not
been some support for the authenticity of Daniel in this passage, it never could have
been distrusted. When an author, writing seriously, refers to an authority, gives
references, and writes down a long passage which he alleges to be quoted verbatim,
we generally credit him with fair accuracy. If the passage in question is twice
transcribed by him, we are yet more confirmed in our view. If other authors,
acquainted alike with the author quoting and the author quoted, refer to this
quotation without any sign that there was any bad faith, we have a chain of evidence
of which only one recklessly prejudiced could venture to deny the cogency. Such is
the case with the passage before us. Josephus quotes the passage twice ('Antiquities,
' 10.11. 2, and 'Contra Apionem,' 1.19); he gives the reference to the second book of
Berosus's 'Chaldean History;' in the second of these cases he professes to be
carefully quoting cerbatim, in the former he practically does so, the differences are
such as might easily be due to copyists. Eusebius also quotes Berosus, and knows
Josephus. and refers to this quotation, and makes no note that he found it incorrect.
The words of Professor Bevan may indicate that it is Berosus he suspects. It seems
hazardous for any one to do so in the face of the numerous confirmations that
39

Berosus is receiving as to the succession of the monarchs within the historic period.
We shall quote from Professor Bevan the beginning of the passage: "When
Nebuchadnezzar's father heard that the satrap who had been set over Egypt and the
regions of Coele-Syria and Phoencia had rebelled against him, he sent forth his son
Nebnchadnezzar,"etc. Professor Bevan comments on the passage thus: "Berosus
here assumes that Egypt as well as Coele-Syria had already been conquered by the
Chaldeans before the death of Nabopolassar and the battle of Carchemish—a notion
contrary to all evidene." Is this conclusion warranted? Is the interpretation
Professor Bevan puts on the passage correct? The interpretation we put on it is a
different one. Berosus regarded Necho as a satrap of the Babylonian monarch. This
is advanced by Keil, and, there[ore, Professor Bevan must have known this answer
as possible; why did he not endeavour to show it insufficient? There seems every
probability that Necho himself or his immediate predecessors were the vassals of
Asshurbanipal. Nabopolassar,who succeeded Asshurbanipal as King of Babylon,
may well have claimed the submission of Pharaoh-Necho as the vassal of his
predecessor, as Sargon did the submission of the vassals of Shalmaneser. It is quite
after the manner of Babylonian and Assyrian monarchs to call resistance against
their authority rebellion whenever there was any plausible historical excuse for
doing so. We have really, then, in this passage from Berosus, a compendious account
of the campaign which began with the victory of Carchemish. It is easy to impose a
false interpretation on a passage and then, on the ground of that interpretation,
reject it. On the interpretation we have given above, the account given by Berosus
exactly fits in with the statements of Scripture.
Berosus, however, goes on to tell how Nebuchadnezzar was stopped in his career of
conquest by the news of his father's death, and how he proceeded with only his
light-armed troops across the desert,' and arrived in Babylon to assume the reins of
government. All this suits very well the statements of Scripture, Daniel included.
Professor Bevan does not end here; he further denies the possibility of a siege of
Jerusalem trod of a plundering of the temple in the reign of Jehoiakim, on the
ground of the silence of Jeremiah and Kings. But in 2 Kings 24:11 we are told that
Nebuchadnezzar besieged the city in the reign of Jehoiachin; but in 2 Chronicles
36:1-23, there is no reference to a siege. As the critical decision is that Chronicles is
derived from Kings, this silence is a thing to be noted; and we might thus deduce
that the notice of such a siege was no part of the genuine text of Kings. We might,
indeed, proceed to say, "In such a case the argument from silence is very strong, if
not absolutely conclusive," as does Professor Bevan in another connection. In
Jeremiah 36:30 we have the death of Jehoiakim prophesied. If the prophecy had
been falsified by the result, the temptation would have been immense to omit or
modify the prophecy; yet there is no account of his death, either in Kings or
Chronicles, that fits the prophecy. The account josephus gives of the event suits the
prophecy, and is not incredible in itself. The argument from silence is always
hazardous, and doubly so in the present case.
Professor Bevan asserts that, according to Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar "plundered the
temple." This is the third of the alleged contradictions of fact and Scripture which
40

critics have found in Daniel 1:1. There is nothing about" plundering" in the
passage; it is not even said that he took the city. It is said that Jehoiakim was taken,
which might be without the city being captured, as was the case with Hoshea and
Samaria. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar took "a portion of the vessels of the house
of God" is decisive against there being any plundering. If the temple had been
plundered after a successful siege, the portion of the vessels which escaped the
hands of the Babylonians would have been inconsiderable. If the city had been
taken, a fact of such importance would have been mentioned. In this case certainly
"the argument from silence is very strong." The capture of the city was the natural
termination of the process begun, and when that termination is not mentioned, the
conclusion is inevitable that it was never reached.
Let us look at the probabilities of the case. Nebuchadnezzar pursues the broken
Egyptian army, demanding the homage of all the recent vassals of Egypt, formerly,
of course, vassals of Assyria. Jehoiakim had been placed on the throne by Egyptian
power, superseding his younger brother, who had been crowned by the Babylonian
party, anti, probably, passing over also his elder brother Johanan. All his interests
were bound up in Egypt; he would not believe the defeat of Egypt was so utter and
irretrievable; he was always hoping that the King of Egypt would venture again
beyond the river of Egypt, and hence, even after his submission to Nebuchadnezzar,
he rebelled against him. He would certainly shut his gates against the conquerors.
That he should be made prisoner without the city being captured or plundered,
might, we have said, easily happen. That its surrender should follow was also
natural; that the conqueror should demand numerous hostages and a huge ransom,
and that this ransom should have been supplied from the vessels of the house of the
Lind, wits simply what had happened time and again before. Fairly interpreted, the
words before us mean no more.
We see, then, that not later than the fifth year of Jehoiakim—even on the
supposition that the date in Jeremiah 46:2 applies to the battle of Carchemish—
Nebuchadnezzar must have received the submission of Jehoiakim. In the verses
before us this is said to have taken place in the third year of Jehoiakim; the
difference, then, is simply the mutter of one year, or at most two. No student of
Scripture can be ignorant of the hopeless confusion of the chronology of the Books
of Kings, and how completely they are at variance with the Assyrian Canon. Much
can be done to get over these difficulties by showing that there were different modes
of reckoning. Sometimes a king associated his son with him, and the son's reign
might be reckoned from his father's death or his association with his father. Even in
matters much more recent there may be statements as to dates differing by as much
as the date given in Daniel differs from that deduced from Jeremiah. Professor
Rawson Gardiner, in his 'History of the Great Civil War,' under date January 30,
1649, tells us of the execution of Charles I. In the appendix he gives the text of the
warrant, and it is dated January 29, 1648, and commands the execution to take
place "on the morrowe." When we turn to Clarendon's 'History of the Great
Rebellion,' bk. 11; we find him saying, "This unparalleled murder and parricide
was committed upon the thirtieth January in the year, according to the account used
41

in England, 16t87 Critics of the type of Professor Bevan ought necessarily to declare
Professor Gardener's history altogether unworthy of credit, because of this
difference. The only thing that might hinder them would be the fact that they, as do
all intelligent people, know that, according to "the account used in England," at that
time the year began, not with January l, but with March 25. Did they not feel that
they held a brief against the authenticity of Daniel, they would realize how weak the
argument was which depended merely on the difference of one year. There was,
according to some, a difference of nearly six months between the Jewish calendar
and the Babylonian. We know, further, that there were two ways of reckoning the
years of a king's reign—the Babylonian and Assyrian, which did not begin to
reckon till the new year after the king's accession; and the Jewish, which dated the
king's years from his accession. It might easily be that Daniel used the one mode of
reckoning, and Jeremiah the other. We will not press the fact that the whole critical
argument assumes the statements in Jeremiah to be accurate, although it is
notorious that the text of that book is in a woeful condition. The assertions of critics
who ground so much on so little ought to be received with the same reserve as we
receive the statements of the counsel for one side or the other in a case before a
court of law, The critics, however, wish to be regarded as judges summing up
evidence.
We must, however, notice the method by which Hengstenberg gets over this alleged
chronological difficulty, in which he is followed by Kranichfeld and Keil. He says
that ‫בוֹא‬ means "to set out for," as well as "to come," and brings an instance, Jonah
1:3, "a ship going ( ‫ה‬ ָ‫א‬ָ‫ב‬ ) to Tarshish." Keil alleges numerous other instances which,
however, must be considered of doubtful validity. Although we do not agree with
this interpretation, the instance from Jonah prevents us endorsing the reckless
statement of Professor Bevan, that Hengstenberg's interpretation is "no less
contrary to Hebrew than English usage." A person standing on the landing-stage at
Liverpool, seeing a Cunarder getting up steam to depart, would not say, "That is a
ship coming to New York;" but a Jew could use ‫בוא‬ in such a case. Professor Bevan,
as we have already said, holds a brief against the authenticity of Daniel, and he will
spare no device to gain his case. We admit that the meaning which Hengstenberg
and those who follow him attach to the word is not the common or natural one in
the connection. If a person asked permission of a landowner to visit his demesne,
and was answered, "If you wish to enter my grounds, I will let you," he would be
surprised were his entrance opposed, and would think he was mocked if it were
pointed out to him that "let' meant at times "to hinder."
Another attempt at getting over the difficulty here is that of Michaelis, Rashi, and
other older commentators, Jewish and Christian. It is that the third year of
Jehoiakim is, in the verse before us, reckoned from the time when he became vassal
to the King of Babylon. This is the view which, in some sort, Professor Bevan
adopts, not with the intention of getting over the difficulty, but, as Bertholdt, of
explaining how the alleged blunder came to be committed. Although such a mode of
reckoning the reign of a vassal king may have been used in Babylon, we know
nothing of it; certainly there is no instance in Scripture of anything parallel.
42

Moreover, it implies that for three or four years Nebuchadnezzar allowed Pharaoh-
Necho to preserve, in the hands of his vassal Jehoiakim, a frontier fortress in
Jerusalem Yet again the state of matters, as implied in the narrative of 2Ki 29; is
that time elapsed during which bands of Chaldeans and Moabites ravaged Judaea.
We feel this explanation is to be abandoned, as giving a non-natural sense to the
words.
We would wish a further word with Professor Bevan and other critics of his school.
Professor Bevan recognizes that it is not only necessary to point out a blunder, but
also to show how it arose. As we have already said, Professor Bevan would explain
this alleged blunder by a confusion of the three years of submission to
Nebuchadnezzar with the years of Jehoiakim's reign. "The author of Daniel follows
the account in Chronicles, at the same time assuming that 'the three years' in Kings
date from the beginning of Jehoiakim's reign, and that the bands of the Chaldeans
were a regular army commanded by Nebuchadnezzar." By the above hypothesis the
author of Daniel was well acquainted with Kings and Chronicles; elsewhere
Professor Bevan assumes that he was intimately acquainted with the prophecies of
Jeremiah. Let us look at this alleged blunder in the light of this knowledge.
The natural conclusion from 2 Chronicles 36:7, 2 Chronicles 36:8, compared with
Jeremiah 36:30, is that Jehoiakim was bound in order to be carried to Babylon, but
was put to death by Nebuchadnezzar instead. This is very much the idea of what
happened according to Josephus. How was it that the author of Daniel started with
the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim? In the light of Chronicles this made his
reign really only three years, but Chronicles and Kings make his reign eleven years.
He knew the Book of Jeremiah intimately: how did he not know that the fourth year
of Jehoiakim coincided with the first of Nebuchadnezzar? He knew the Book of
Kings, he knew the various chronological notes in it; how could he conceivably be
ignorant, to the extent Professor Bevan imagines him to be, of what naturally
follows from these notes? There are only two suppositions—that he knew a solution
of the apparent contradiction, and took it for granted that everybody else knew it
also—a mood of mind more natural to a contemporary of the events he is narrating,
than to a fatsarius writing centuries after; or these chronological notes were not in
the text of these books when he wrote, in which case they are late interpolations, and
therefore valueless. Professor Bevan cannot be permitted to invalidate proofs of the
authenticity of Daniel drawn from the accuracy of the statements concerning
Babylonian habits, by asserting that these statements might have been deduced from
Jeremiah and Kings, and then assail the authenticity of Daniel, because some of its
statements differ from Jeremiah. If he had shown Daniel ignorant of one or other of
these documents, and, from this, convicted him of incorrectness, the argument
would have had weight, but, as it is, his arguments are mutually destructive.
We have thus endeavoured to show that there is no chronological blunder in the
verses before us, that the basis on which the assertion is made is in the highest
degree doubtful, and that the arguments depend on such minute points, that to lay
stress on them proves such an animus as deprives the decision of all the weight that
43

otherwise would be due to the learning of the writer.
BI 1-3, "In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah.
The Captivity
Jehoiakim was the son of one of the best kings that ever sat upon the throne of David.
His father, Josiah, was a fearer of the Lord from his youth. In a period of great
degeneracy, he was enabled to live a holy and consistent life. Convinced that religion is
the true source of national prosperity, and that sin is the procuring cause of national
calamity, Josiah exerted his royal influence to promote the revival of godliness among
his subjects. The land, however, was ripe for vengeance, and in wrath against it the days
of this excellent prince were shortened. He was “taken away from the evil to come.” In
the flower of his days, he was slain in the battle of Megiddo, while fighting against
Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt. After the death of Josiah, his son Jehoahaz was raised to
the throne. This appointment being offensive to the king of Egypt, he deposed Jehoahaz,
after a reign of three months, and selected, as his successor on the throne of Judah,
Eliakim, another son of Josiah, who, on that occasion, had his name changed into
Jehoiakim. The exaltation of such a prince to the throne, in so corrupt a state of society,
was a token that judgment was nigh. So early as the third year of his reign, the land was
overtaken by the first stroke of calamity. The minister of Divine indignation was
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. From the days of Manasseh, the land of Judea was
tributary to Babylon. But when Pharaoh-Necho conquered Josiah, he obtained the
superiority of Judea. Babylon and Egypt were then rival monarchies, struggling with one
another for the ascendancy of the world. When, therefore, Nabopolassar king of Babylon
heard that Pharaoh had taken Jerusalem and other towns in Palestine, he resolved to
make an effort for their recovery. Through age and infirmity, being unable to head such
an enterprise in person, he assumed Nebuchadnezzar his son into partnership with him
in the empire, and sent him into Syria. Having conquered the Egyptians on the
Euphrates, he marched into Judea and took Jerusalem. Secular history is generally
written, just as it would have been, if no agent had the least influence on the affairs of
the world, besides those who are visible to our senses. It traces the actions of man, as if
man was all. It takes no notice, or but little notice, of God. But Scripture history is
written on a different plan. It begins with God, as the creator of the world, and
throughout, it exhibits him as its governor, everywhere present, and always operating. In
an especial manner, it traces all the revolutions that take place in kingdoms—their
origin—their progress—their decline and fall—to his sovereign and holy will, as the
ultimate cause. “And the Lord gave into his hand Jehoiakim king of Judah,—a mode of
expression which signifies that Divine displeasure was the true and proper cause of this
calamity. In a period of defection from God, superstition often usurps the place of
religion. When men have ceased to confide in God himself, they often place their
confidence in something pertaining to him, and trust in it for protection from danger. To
reprove such a spirit, God usually permits that in which they confide to fall into the
enemy’s hand. But while they had no confidence in God, they placed the most
overweening confidence in the temple. They thought, that so long as it remained among
them, they was safe. In one of the earlier messages of Jeremiah, God warned them
against this delusion (Jer_4:4; Jer_4:12-14). This threatening God now began to
execute. Literally, “judgment began at the house of God.” Having entered the temple,
Nebuchadnezzar carried away part of the vessels of the Lord’s house. These he took into
the land of Shinar, the ancient name of the region in which Babylon was situated, and
44

placed them in the treasure-house of his god. Considering the place from which these
vessels had been taken, and to whose service they had been consecrated for ages, they
may certainly be regarded as one of the most remarkable trophies that ever a conqueror
presented at the shrine of his deity. But victories obtained over God’s people, when they
are also triumphs over God himself, will in the end be found pregnant with disaster.
Thus, when the Philistines took the ark captive, God glorified himself in a very
remarkable manner. And, when he summons the nations to the overthrow of Babylon,
one reason mentioned is, to take vengeance on her for what she had done to his temple.
“Make bright the arrows; gather the shields; the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the
kings of the Medes; for his device is against Babylon to destroy it; because it is the
vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple.” In a subsequent chapter of the
Book of Daniel, we shall meet again with these vessels, and see them prostituted, by an
impious monarch, to bacchanalian purposes. Jerusalem was taken in the third year of
Jehoiakim. We are not, however, to suppose that this was the end of his reign. Having
humbled himself, and promised to pay tribute to the king of Babylon, he was restored to
his throne, and reigned seven years. Having then rebelled a second time, Jerusalem was
again taken, and he bound in chains, to be carried to Babylon, but died by the way. The
final overthrow of Jerusalem did not take place till the eleventh year of Zedekiah’s reign,
about eighteen years after this period. When we consider that the sins of the Jewish
people were so numerous, varied, and aggravated, and that they had been accumulating
for ages, it might have been expected, that they would have suffered the seventy years of
threatened captivity, from the time when the final stroke of vengeance came upon them,
in the reign of Zedekiah. But, “for the sake of the elect, the days were shortened.” The
seventy years of the Babylonian captivity did not begin when the temple was destroyed,
but when the vessels of the temple were taken away—not when the nation was removed,
but when Daniel and a few others of noble birth were carried into Babylon.
I. Nebuchadnezzar invested Jerusalem, and took it, by the union of his own skill, and the
courage of his army, and yet it is here said, “the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand.”
From this, we may learn, that there is a twofold agency concerned in all the events that
take place in this world,—the agency of man on the earth, and the agency of God in the
heavens. This twofold agency, however, is not co-ordinate. God and man are not
possessed of equal efficiency in the production of events, Nebuchadnezzar besieges
Jerusalem, but it is the Lord who gives Jehoiakim into his hand. Jehovah is the God of
gods, and the King of kings, the First Cause of all events, as well as the First Cause of all
beings. Men may form their plans, and gratify their passions, with the most entire
freedom from all control, and yet they will only do “what God determined before to be
done.” This is the fundamental truth of religion, whether natural or revealed; the denial
of which shows as great a lack of philosophy, as of piety. If the material, or intelligent,
creation, was in any respect independent of God, this would sap every rational ground of
confidence and composure. I know few duties more necessary to be inculcated, than this,
of connecting outward events with the Divine government. Jehovah is, to a great extent,
practically deposed from his throne of providence. Even many who profess to believe in
his supremacy, “put a reed into his hand for a sceptre.” Speculations on the state of the
world too generally overlook the influence of God in the affairs that are occurring. In
contemplating the world and its affairs, we should beware of looking only to the hand of
man. Let us look beyond the creature, to the Creator.
II. The political causes, that led to the overthrow of Jerusalem, are apparent to all. These
causes are not stated in the Book of Daniel. They are, however, fully developed in the
prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. In mentioning irreligion, as
45

the radical cause of God’s controversy with Judea, it is unnecessary to produce proofs of
the assertion from Scripture. While the outward forms remained, there was such a want
of true godliness, that Jehovah loathed and abhorred his own ordinances. And, when a
people cease to fear God, or decline in this, their national character will begin to lower.
They will cease to be distinguished for those loftier sentiments, which have their origin
in the more strictly spiritual department of human nature, and which, more than
anything else, tend to cherish wisdom, courage, genius, and patriotism. When the
religious feeling of a country begins to decline, it will be marked by a growing disregard
for God’s holy day. Sabbath desecration is placed prominently among the causes of
God’s wrath against Judah. Religion is the parent and the nurse of all genuine morality.
As might have been expected, from the low state of religion, we find the prevalence of
immorality stated as one cause of this calamity that came upon Judea. “Run ye,” said
God to Jeremiah, “to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know,
and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth
judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it “(Jer_5:1-6). Zephaniah in like
manner representsthe corruption of manners as extending to all classes. “Her princes
within her,” says he, “are roaring lions, her judges are ravening wolves; they gnaw not
the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons; her priests
have polluted the sanctuary and done violence to the law.” There are some sins
particularized by all the prophets. Among these none is mentioned more frequently than
deceit. With the prevalence of this the prophet Jeremiah was so affected, that at the
beginning of the ninth chapter of his book, he breaks forth in these heart-rending
strains, “O that mine head were waters,” etc. (Jer_9:1-8). Covetousness is specified as
another sin (Jer_6:12-13). Covetousness is represented as producing fraudulent dealing,
and corrupting the sources of justice, because of which the Lord was displeased (Mic_
6:10-11). Pride and luxury are also mentioned (Isa_3:16-24). The prevalence of
immorality, and particularly, the prevalence of deceit, covetousness, and luxury, may,
generally, be considered as symptomatic of the last stage of nations. These operate
disastrously in two ways. First, They expose to danger, because they are offensive to
God. Secondly, They operate, naturally, to produce a dissolution of the social body.
Luxury has the same influence on the social health, that an Asiatic climate has upon an
European frame; it enervates and debilitates, and causes premature decay, and death.
And deceit is like a secret poison, pent up within the bowels of the empire, and gliding
fatally, yet imperceptibly, through its veins. And covetousness is like a vulture preying
on a diseased and disabled victim, while its blood is still warm, and its breath has not
gone forth. And general immorality is like begun mortification, a disease that has no
successor in the list of maladies. Irreligion and immorality, when combined, never fail to
produce a bitter and malignant aversion to the cause of holiness and truth, and to their
adherents. Before the overthrow of Jerusalem, the spirit of irreligion did not exist in a
state of apathy. It was roused to great fierceness; it stood forth in the form of malignant
contumacy, and defiance against the Lord. His warnings were rejected, his
denunciations were scorned, his prophets were persecuted.
III. We shall only mention two things illustrative of the circumstances in which the
captivity came.
1. The overthrow of the Jewish state came gradually. Manasseh was first carried
captive, then Josiah was slain in battle, Jerusalem was then taken four times by the
enemy, twice in the days of Jehoiakim, again in the days of his son, and finally in the
reign of Zedekiah. From this we may learn, that national destruction is sometimes a
46

gradual thing. It comes in successive shocks, some at a greater interval, and others at
a lesser interval. We are not to suppose, because the sins mentioned prevail in any
land, that it shall be instantly overthrown. It is with nations as with individuals,—the
impenitent person shall perish, but God may spare him to a good old age. Caution is,
therefore, necessary, lest we should commit the honour of Christianity, as good men
have often done, by denouncing judgment as certainly at hand. Sin will assuredly
Bring it; but the times and the seasons are in the Father’s hands.
2. A second thing very observable is, that before each of these successive shocks of
national disaster, God made use of means to promote the reformation of the country.
Before the calamities that came upon the land, in the days of Manasseh, godly
Hezekiah, had endeavoured, during a lifetime, to promote a revival of true religion.
The reign of Josiah immediately preceded this disaster in the days of Jehoiakim. In
the interval between the death of Josiah and the destruction of the temple, they were
warned by divinely-commissioned prophets. Among others, God employed
Jeremiah, a man in whose character, zeal for God was finely united with tenderness
to man. And it has been God’s ordinary way, to use means for reforming nations,
before their overthrow. The flood came and swept away the ungodly world, but did
not God give them warning? Nineveh was not overthrown till she was called to
repentance by the ministry of Jonah. If God’s government be a moral government,
then moral evil must be the cause of all physical sufferings, and of all political
difficulties. Moral evil is the crime, the political evil is the punishment. Moral evil is
the disease, political evil is but the symptom. (William White.)
The Judean Captives
I. INTRODUCTORY. Nebuchadnezzar is called king, but he was not yet the reigning
sovereign of Babylon. He shared the throne in conjunction with his father Nabopolassar.
His accession to the sole sovereignty was some two or three years later (compare chapter
1, Dan_1:5, with Dan_1:18, and chapter 2, Dan_2:1). This captivity is here said to have
taken place during the third year of Jehoiakim, while Jeremiah (Jer_25:1) places it in
the fourth. Both statements are true. Daniel reckons the three completed years.
Jeremiah the fourth upon which Jehoiakim had just entered. There were three
deportations of the Jews in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; this—the first—in 606 B.C., a
second in 598 B.C., and the third when Jerusalem was destroyed in 588 B.C. This
captivity appears to consist of nothing more than a number of hostages carried to
Babylon, among whom was Daniel and his three friends, whose history, more
particularly of the first, is given in this book.
II. THE CAPTIVES.
1. They were of noble birth. They were selected of the king’s seed and of the princes.
Daniel himself was probably of the blood-royal, as we learn in 1Ch_3:1, that David
had a son of that name. Josephus says he was the son of Zedekiah. It was a sad day at
Jerusalem when the most promising of the young nobility, in whom the hopes of the
nation were centred, were carried away captive to Babylon.
2. They were distinguished by personal beauty. The orientals connected a handsome
form with mental power. This, alas! is not always true. Neither spirituality nor
intellect appears to be partial to beautiful tenements; but sometimes the purest gem
is found in the commonest setting. When Socrates, now an elderly man, becomes
47

acquainted with Charmides, the loveliest youth in Athens, he is so deeply touched by
the charms of this paragon that at first he knows not what to say. Recovering his self-
possession, however, the sage speaks worthily of himself, telling Charmides that the
fairest form needs one addition to make the man perfect—a noble soul. History
makes it more than doubtful whether the, Grecian did not fail here; but about the
Jewish youth there is no doubt whatever. (John Taylor.)
The Jewish traditions represent Daniel as a tall, spare man, with a beautiful expression.
3. They were intelligent and well instructed. They are represented as “skilful in
wisdom,” “cunning in knowledge,” and “understanding science”: by which is
probably meant that they had been well taught in the knowledge of their day and had
discovered an aptitude for deep studies. The Babylonian king designed to induct
them into all the lore of the Chaldeans, in order to wean them away from the worship
of God and make them subverters of Israel’s national faith. If, therefore, they should
be the future prophets of heathenism to their own people, it was necessary that they
should be skilful and wise; and if he, indeed, had any such ulterior designs, it must
be confessed he chose his instruments well. But there was an element in their
previous training which he either overlooked or held too cheaply. If a Jewish youth
was taught in science and earthly knowledge, he was yet far better instructed in the
truths of his religion. Nebuchadnezzar will find it difficult to eradicate this deeply-
planted faith; and the issue will show that, with four of them at least, he makes
lamentable failure.
4. They were very young. But God can strengthen the hearts of the young and make
the mouths of babes and sucklings to render him praise. Doubtless many a mother,
parting with her offspring and sending them forth into life, or to the temptations of
collegiate halls, can find comfort in this reflection.
III. THE PROSPECTS OF THESE CAPTIVES. Considered from a world-standpoint
there were two sides to their future. There were elements of deep sorrow, and elements
which might be regarded by some as mitigations of their lot.
1. They were exiles. This word is enough to excite our sympathies. So long as the
sentiment of patriots remains, exile will be among the saddest of words. But chiefly
to the Jew was exile a bitter misfortune. Not only patriotic sentiments, but religious,
contributed to darken the life of one who was borne away from his loved Jerusalem,
where stood that Holy Temple in its glorious beauty, the visible centre of the worship
of Jehovah. Some of the psalms of the captivity reveal the depth of this great sorrow
to a Jew, particularly that beautiful song: “By the rivers of Babylon” (Psa_137:1-9).
2. They were cut off from hope of posterity. They were significantly given into the
care of the “prince of the eunuchs,” and the ordinary practice of oriental courts
leaves us little doubt of their fate. This, moreover, had been prophesied (2Ki_20:18).
3. They were to be taught all the wisdom of the Chaldeans. No doubt much of the
Chaldaic learning was valueless, but it is undeniable that they cultivated many useful
arts and sciences. Daniel and his friends would learn new languages unfolding to
them new literature. They would be trained in arts of divination by which they could
obtain power over kings, and princes, and the common people. They would be taught
the science of astronomy, which at that day the Chaldeans had carried beyond any
48

people. They would be educated in the science of politics, rendering them necessary
to rulers as advisers. All this knowledge would of itself give them caste among this
new people, would elevate them to position and power.
4. They were to occupy honourable positions in the court of the king. This opens up
many prospects which might fire the ambitions of youth. We can well imagine, then,
that if these had been godless youths this prospect of power, stimulating their
ambitions, might have suited to offset the horrors of exile; yet we may be sure that
there was not one of them who would not have given all the wealth and splendour of
Nebuchadnezzar’s court for one brief day on the hills of Judea, among the comrades
of their childhood.
IV. A LESSON. The prince, their keeper, shall endeavour to make of these Jewish
captives, Chaldean sages, and he begins this endeavour by changing their names. These
four are named for the four chief deities of Babylon. Bel—the Chief-god, the Sun-god, the
Earth-god, and the Fire-god. To renderthis change of character and religion complete all
their external relations are correspondingly changed, and a whole new set of influences
are brought to bear upon them. And yet, change what they would, they could not reach
the heart. It is beyond man’s power to do that. How powerless man stands before the
spirit of his fellows! (The Southern Pulpit.)
Affairs in Judea
From 2Ki_23:34-36, we learn that Jehoiakim was raised to the throne of Judah by
Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt. He continued tributary to Egypt three years, but in his
fourth year, which was the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, a great battle was
fought near the Euphrates between the Egyptian and Babylonian kings, and the Egyptian
army was defeated. This victory placed all Syria under the Chaldean government; and
thus Jehoiakim, who had been tributary to Egypt, now became a vassal of the King of
Babylon. (Jer_25:1; Jer_46:2; 2Ki_24:1). After three years, the King of Judah rebelled
against the King of Babylon, who came against Jerusalem, and besieged and took it, as
soon as his engagements with other wars allowed him to direct his attention to Jewish
affairs. The land of Shinar was the ancient name of Babylon. (W A. Scott, D.D.)
2 And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of
Judah into his hand, along with some of the
articles from the temple of God. These he carried
49

off to the temple of his god in Babylonia[a] and
put in the treasure house of his god.
BARNES, "And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand -
Jehoiakim was taken captive, and it would seem that there was an intention to convey
him to Babylon 2Ch_36:6, but that for some cause he was not removed there, but died at
Jerusalem 2Ki_24:5-6, though he was not honorably buried there, Jer_22:19; Jer_
36:30. In the second book of Chronicles 2Ch_36:6, it is said that “Nebuchadnezzar king
of Babylon came up, and bound Jehoiakim in fetters, to take him to Babylon.” Jahn
supposes that an error has crept into the text in the book of Chronicles, as there is no
evidence that Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, but it appears from 2Ki_24:1-2, that
Jehoiakim was continued in authority at Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar three years,
and then rebelled against him, and that then Nebuchadnezzar sent against him “bands of
the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the
children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it.” There is no necessity of
supposing an error in the text in the account in the book of Chronicles. It is probable
that Jehoiakim was taken, and that the “intention” was to take him to Babylon,
according to the account in Chronicles, but that, from some cause not mentioned, the
purpose of the Chaldean monarch was changed, and that he was placed again over
Judah, under Nebuchadnezzar, according to the account in the book of Kings, and that
he remained in this condition for three years until he rebelled, and that then the bands
of Chaldeans, etc., were sent against him. It is probable that at this time, perhaps while
the siege was going on, he died, and that the Chaldeans dragged his dead body out of the
gates of the city, and left it unburied, as Jeremiah had predicted, Jer_22:19; Jer_36:30.
With part of the vessels of the house of God - 2Ch_36:7. Another portion of the
vessels of the temple at Jerusalem was taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, in the time of
Jehoiachin, the successor of Jehoiakim, 2Ch_36:10. On the third invasion of Palestine,
the same thing was repeated on a more extensive scale, 2Ki_24:13. At the fourth and
final invasion, under Zedekiah, when the temple was destroyed, all its treasures were
carried away, 2Ki_25:6-20. A part of these treasures were brought back under Cyrus,
Ezr_1:7; the rest under Darius, Ezr_6:5. Why they were not “all” taken away at first does
not appear, but perhaps Nebuchadnezzar did not then intend wholly to overthrow the
Hebrew nation, but meant to keep them tributary to him as a people. The temple was not
at that time destroyed, but probably he allowed the worship of Jehovah to be celebrated
there still, and he would naturally leave such vessels as were absolutely necessary to keep
up the services of public worship.
Which he carried into the land of Shinar - The region around Babylon. The
exact limits of this country are unknown, but it probably embraced the region known as
Mesopotamia - the country between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The derivation of
the name “Shinar” is unknown. It occurs only in Gen_10:10; Gen_11:2; Gen_14:1, Gen_
14:9; Jos_7:21; Isa_11:11; Dan_1:2; Zec_5:11.
50

To the house of his god - To the temple of Bel, at Babylon. This was a temple of
great magnificence, and the worship of Bel was celebrated there with great splendor. For
a description of this temple, and of the god which was worshipped there, see the notes at
Isa_46:1. These vessels were subsequently brought out at the command of Belshazzar, at
his celebrated feast, and employed in the conviviality and revelry of that occasion. See
Dan_5:3.
And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god - It would
seem rom this that the vessels had been taken to the temple of Bel, or Belus, in Babylon,
not to be used in the worship of the idol, but to be laid up among the valuable treasures
there. As the temples of the gods were sacred, and were regarded as inviolable, it would
be natural to make them the repository of valuable spoils and treasures. Many of the
spoils of the Romans were suspended around the walls of the temples of their gods,
particularly in the temple of Victory. Compare Eschenberg, “Manual of Class.” Literally,
pt. iii. Sections 149, 150.
CLARKE, "Part of the vessels of the house of God - He took the richest and
finest of them for the service of his god Bel, and left what were necessary for carrying on
the public worship of Jehovah, (for he did not attempt to alter the civil or religious
constitution of Judea); for leaving Jehoiakim on the throne, he only laid the land under
tribute. The Chaldeans carried these sacred vessels away at three different times.
1. In the war spoken of in this place.
2. In the taking of Jerusalem and Jeconiah a few months after, 2Ki_24:13.
3. Eleven fears after, under the reign of Zedekiah, when the city and temple were
totally destroyed, and the land ruined, 2Ki_25:8-16.
The land of Shinar - This was the ancient name of Babylon. See Gen_11:2.
The treasure house of his god - This was Bel, who had a splendid temple in
Babylon, and was the tutelar god of the city and empire.
GILL, "The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand,.... And the city of
Jerusalem too, or he could not have took the king, and so the Syriac version renders it,
and the Lord delivered it into his hands, and Jehoiakim, &c.: this was from the
Lord, because of his sins, and the sins of his ancestors, and of his people; or otherwise
the king of Babylon could not have taken the city, nor him, because of the great power of
the Jews, as Jacchiades observes:
with part of the vessels of the house of God; not all of them; for some, as Saadliah
says, were hid by Josiah and Jeremiah, which is not to be depended on; however, certain
it is that all were not carried away, because we read of some of the vessels of the temple
being carried away afterwards, in Jeconiah's time, 2Ki_24:13, and still there were some
left, as the pillars, sea, bases, and other vessels, which were to be carried away, and were
carried away by the king of Babylon, in Zedekiah's time, Jer_27:19,
51

which he carried into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god; which Jarchi
understands both of the men that were carried captive, and the vessels that were taken
out of the temple; but the latter seem only to be intended, since of men Jehoiakim is only
spoken of before; and it does not appear he was ever carried into Babylon; but it is
certain the vessels of the temple were carried thither; which is meant by the land of
Shinar, where Babylon stood, and where the tower of Babel was built, Gen_10:2, the
same, as Grotius thinks, with the Singara of Pliny (s) and Ptolemy (t). So the Targum of
Onkelos, on Gen_10:10, interprets the land of Shinar the land of Babylon; likewise the
Jerusalem Targum on Gen_10:10, and the Targum of Jonathan on Gen_11:2, Zec_5:11,
only on Gen_10:10, he paraphrases it the land of Pontus. So Hestiaeus (u) an ancient
Phoenician writer, calls Shinar Sennaar of Babylonia. It seems to have its name from
‫,נער‬ which signifies to "shake out"; because from hence the men of the flood, as Saadiah
says, or the builders of Babel, were shook out by the Lord, and were scattered over the
face of the earth. And as the tower of Babel itself, very probably, was built for idolatrous
worship, for which reason the Lord was so displeased with the builders of it; so in this
same place, or near it, now stood an idol's temple, where the king of Babylon, and the
inhabitants thereof, worshipped, here called "the house of his gods" (w), as it may be
rendered; for the Babylonians worshipped more gods than one; there were Rach, Shach
and Nego, from whom Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, are supposed to have their
names given them by the Chaldeans, Dan_1:7. Rach is thought to be the sun, whose
priests were called Rachiophantae, observers of the sun; Shach, to which Sheshach is
referred by some, Jer_51:41, for which a feast was kept once a year for five days, when
servants had the rule and government of their masters; and Nego either was worshipped
for the sun, or some star, so called from its brightness. Venus was also had in veneration
with the Babylonians, whom they called Mylitta; in whose temple many acts of
uncleanness and filthiness were committed, as Herodotus (x) relates. And, besides these,
there were Merodach, Nebo, and Bel; of which see Isa_46:1, the latter seems to have
been their chief deity, and who was called Jupiter Belus; and with whom were the
goddesses Juno and Rhea. And in the city of Babylon stood the temple of Bel, or Jupiter
Belus, which was extant in the times of Herodotus, and of which he gives an account (y),
and is this:
"the temple of Jupiter Belus had gates of brass; it was four hundred and forty yards on
every side, and was foursquare. In the midst of the temple was a solid tower, two
hundred and twenty yards in length and breadth; upon which another temple was
placed, and so on to eight. The going up them was without, in a winding about each
tower; as you went up, in the middle, there was a room, and seats to rest on. In the last
tower was a large temple, in which was a large bed splendidly furnished, and a table of
gold set by it; but there was no statue there; nor did any man lie there in the night; only
one woman, a native of the place, whom the god chose from among them all, as the
Chaldean priests of this deity say.''
Diodorus Siculus says (z) it was of an extraordinary height, where the Chaldeans made
observations on the stars, and could take an exact view of the rise and setting of them; it
was all made of brick and bitumen, at great cost and expense. Here the vessels of the
sanctuary were brought by Nebuchadnezzar, to the praise and glory of his idols, as
Jarchi and Jacchiades observe; to whom he imputed the victory he had obtained over
the Jews. Even these
52

he brought into the treasure house of his god; very probably this was the chapel
Herodotus (a) speaks of, where was a large golden statue of Jupiter sitting, and a large
golden table by it, and a golden throne and steps, reckoned by the Chaldeans at eight
hundred talents of gold. And Diodorus Siculus (b) relates that there were three golden
statues, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. That of Jupiter was as one standing on his feet, and,
as it were, walking, was forty feet in length, and weighed a thousand Babylonian talents
(computed three millions and a half of our money). That of Rhea was of the same weight,
sitting upon a throne of gold, and two lions standing at her knees; and near to them
serpents of a prodigious size, made of silver, which weighed thirty talents. That of Juno
was a standing statue, weighing eight hundred talents; in her right hand she held the
head of a serpent, and in her left a sceptre set with precious stones; and there was a
golden table, common to them all, forty feet long, fifteen broad, and of the weight of fifty
talents. Moreover, there were two bowls of thirty talents, and as many censers of three
hundred talents, and three cups of gold; that which was dedicated to Jupiter weighed a
thousand two hundred Babylonian talents, and the other six hundred. Here all the rich
things dedicated to their god were laid up, and here the king of Babylon brought the
treasures and rich vessels he took out of the temple of Jerusalem; and to this agrees the
testimony of Berosus (c), who says, that with the spoils of war Nebuchadnezzar took
from the Jews and neighbouring nations, he adorned the temple of Belus. The riches of
this temple, according to historians, are supposed to be above one and twenty millions
sterling (d), even of those only which Diodorus Siculus gives an account of, as above.
HENRY 2-7, "II. The improvement he made of this success. He did not destroy the
city or kingdom, but did that which just accomplished the first threatening of mischief
by Babylon. It was denounced against Hezekiah, for showing his treasures to the king of
Babylon's ambassadors (Isa_39:6, Isa_39:7), that the treasures and the children should
be carried away, and, if they had been humbled and reformed by this, hitherto the king
of Babylon's power and success should have gone, but no further. If less judgments do
the work, God will not send greater; but, if not, he will heat the furnace seven times
hotter. Let us see what was now done. 1. The vessels of the sanctuary were carried away,
part of them, Dan_1:2. They fondly trusted to the temple to defend them, though they
went on in their iniquity. And now, to show them the vanity of that confidence, the
temple is first plundered. Many of the holy vessels which used to be employed in the
service of God were taken away by the king of Babylon, those of them, it is likely, which
were most valuable, and he brought them as trophies of victory to the house of his god,
to whom, with a blind devotion, he gave praise of his success; and having appropriated
these vessels, in token of gratitude, to his god, he put them in the treasury of his temple.
See the righteousness of God; his people had brought the images of other gods into his
temple, and now he suffers the vessels of the temple to be carried into the treasuries of
those other gods. Note, When men profane the vessels of the sanctuary with their sins it
is just with God to profane them by his judgments. It is probable that the treasures of
the king's house were rifled, as was foretold, but particular mention is made of the taking
away of the vessels of the sanctuary because we shall find afterwards that the
profanation of them was that which filled up the measure of the Chaldeans' iniquity,
Dan_5:3. But observe, It was only part of them that went now; some were left them yet
upon trial, to see if they would take the right course to prevent the carrying away of the
remainder. See Jer_27:18. 2. The children and young men, especially such as were of
noble or royal extraction, that were sightly and promising, and of good natural parts,
were carried away. Thus was the iniquity of the fathers visited upon the children. These
53

were taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, (1.) As trophies, to be made a show of for the
evidencing and magnifying of his success. (2.) As hostages for the fidelity of their parents
in their own land, who would be concerned to conduct themselves well that their
children might have the better treatment. (3.) As a seed to serve him. He took them away
to train them up for employments and preferments under him, either out of an
unaccountable affectation, which great men often have, to be attended by foreigners,
though they be blacks, rather than by those of their own nation, or because he knew that
there were no such witty, sprightly, ingenious young men to be found among his
Chaldeans as abounded among the youth of Israel; and, if that were so, it was much for
the honour of the Jewish nation, as of an uncommon genius above other people, and a
fruit of the blessing. But it was a shame that a people who had so much wit should have
so little wisdom and grace. Now observe, [1.] The directions which the king of Babylon
gave for the choice of these youths, Dan_1:4. They must not choose such as were
deformed in body, but comely and well-favoured, whose countenances were indexes of
ingenuity and good humour. But that is not enough; they must be skilful in all wisdom,
and cunning, or well-seen in knowledge, and understanding science, such as were quick
and sharp, and could give a ready and intelligent account of their own country and of the
learning they had hitherto been brought up in. He chose such as were young, because
they would be pliable and tractable, would forget their own people and incorporate with
the Chaldeans. He had an eye to what he designed them for; they must be such as had
ability in them to stand in the king's palace, not only to attend his royal person, but to
preside in his affairs. This is an instance of the policy of this rising monarch, now in the
beginning of his reign, and was a good omen of his prosperity, that he was in care to
raise up a succession of persons fit for public business. He did not, like Ahasuerus,
appoint them to choose him out young women for the service of his government. It is the
interest of princes to have wise men employed under them; it is therefore their wisdom
to take care for the finding out and training up of such. It is the misery of this world that
so many who are fit for public stations are buried in obscurity, and so many who are
unfit for them are preferred to them. [2.] The care which he took concerning them. First,
For their education. He ordered that they should be taught the learning and tongue of
the Chaldeans. They are supposed to be wise and knowing young men, and yet they must
be further taught. Give instructions to a wise man and he will increase in learning.
Note, Those that would do good in the world when they grow up must learn when they
are young. That is the learning age; if that time be lost, it will hardly be redeemed. It
does not appear that Nebuchadnezzar designed they should learn the unlawful arts that
were used among the Chaldeans, magic and divination; if he did, Daniel and his fellows
would not defile themselves with them. Nay, we do not find that he ordered them to be
taught the religion of the Chaldeans, by which it appears That he was at this time no
bigot; if men were skilful and faithful, and fit for his business, it was not material to him
what religion they were of, provided they had but some religion. They must be trained
up in the language and laws of the country, in history, philosophy, and mathematics, in
the arts of husbandry, war, and navigation, in such learning as might qualify them to
serve their generation. Note, It is real service to the public to provide for the good
education of the youth. Secondly, For their maintenance. He provided for them three
years, not only necessaries, but dainties for their encouragement in their studies. They
had daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank, Dan_1:5. This
was an instance of his generosity and humanity; though they were captives, he
considered their birth and quality, their spirit and genius, and treated them honourably,
and studied to make their captivity easy to them. There is a respect due to those who are
54

well-born and bred when they have fallen into distress. With a liberal education there
should be a liberal maintenance.
III. A particular account of Daniel and his fellows. They were of the children of Judah,
the royal tribe, and probably of the house of David, which had grown a numerous family;
and God told Hezekiah that of the children that should issue from him some should be
taken and made eunuchs, or chamberlains, in the palace of the king of Babylon. The
prince of the eunuchs changed the names of Daniel and his fellows, partly to show his
authority over them and their subjection to him, and partly in token of their being
naturalized and made Chaldeans. Their Hebrew names, which they received at their
circumcision, had something of God, or Jah, in them: Daniel - God is my Judge;
Hananiah - The grace of the Lord; Mishael - He that is the strong God; Azariah - The
Lord is a help. To make them forget the God of their fathers, the guide of their youth,
they give them names that savour of the Chaldean idolatry. Belteshazzar signifies the
keeper of the hidden treasures of Bel; Shadrach - The inspiration of the sun, which the
Chaldeans worshipped; Meshach - Of the goddess Shach, under which name Venus was
worshipped; Abed-nego, The servant of the shining fire, which they worshipped also.
Thus, though they would not force them from the religion of their fathers to that of their
conquerors, yet they did what they could by fair means insensibly to wean them from the
former and instil the latter into them. Yet see how comfortably they were provided for;
though they suffered for their fathers' sins they were preferred for their own merits, and
the land of their captivity was made more comfortable to them than the land of their
nativity at this time would have been.
JAMISON, "Shinar — the old name of Babylonia (Gen_11:2; Gen_14:1; Isa_11:11;
Zec_5:11). Nebuchadnezzar took only “part of the vessels,” as he did not intend wholly to
overthrow the state, but to make it tributary, and to leave such vessels as were absolutely
needed for the public worship of Jehovah. Subsequently all were taken away and were
restored under Cyrus (Ezr_1:7).
his god — Bel. His temple, as was often the case among the heathen, was made
“treasure house” of the king.
K&D, "“The Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hands” corresponds with the words in
2Ki_24:1, “he became his servant,” and with 2Ch_36:6, “and he bound him in fetters.”
“And part of the vessels of the house of God.” ‫ת‬ ַ‫צ‬ ְ‫ק‬ ִ‫מ‬ without the Dag. forte, meaning
properly from the end of extremity, is abbreviated from ‫ה‬ֶ‫צ‬ ָ‫ק‬ ‫ד‬ַ‫ע‬ ‫ה‬ֶ‫צ‬ ָ‫קּ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ cf. Jer_25:33;
Gen_47:21; Exo_26:28, and shows that “that which was found from end to end
contributed its share; meaning that a great part of the whole was taken, although ‫ת‬ ָ‫צ‬ ְ‫ק‬ of
itself never means a part” (Kran.). As to the statement of the text, cf. 2Ch_36:7. These
vessels he brought (commanded to be brought) into the land of Shinar, i.e., Babylonia
(Gen_10:10), into the temple of his god, i.e., Bel, and indeed into the treasure-house of
this temple. Thus we understand the meaning of the two latter clauses of Dan_1:2, while
Hitz. and Kran., with many older interpreters, refer the suffix in ‫ם‬ ֵ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ְ‫י‬ to Jehoiakim, and
also to the vessels, on account of the express contrast in the following words, ‫ים‬ ִ‫ל‬ֵ‫כּ‬ ַ‫ת־ה‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫ו‬
(Kran.), and because, if it is not stated here, it is nowhere else mentioned that
Nebuchadnezzar carried away men also (Hitz.). But the latter fact is expressly affirmed
55

in Dan_1:3, and not only supposed, as Hitz. alleges, and it was not necessary that it
should be expressed in Dan_1:2. The application of the suffix to Jehoiakim or the Jewish
youths who were carried captive is excluded by the connection of ‫ם‬ ֵ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ְ‫י‬ with ‫יו‬ ָ‫ה‬ ֱ‫א‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ‫,בּ‬
into the house of his god. But the assertion that ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫,בּ‬ house, here means country, is not
proved from Hos_8:1; Hos_9:15, nor is warranted by such passages as Exo_29:45;
Num_35:34; Eze_37:27, etc., where mention is made of God's dwelling in the land. For
God's dwelling in the land is founded on the fact of His gracious presence in the temple
of the land, and even in these passages the word land does not stand for the word house.
Equally unfounded is the further remark, that if by the expression ‫יו‬ ָ‫ה‬ ֱ‫א‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ‫בּ‬ the temple
is to be understood, the preposition ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ would stand before it, for which Zec_11:13; Isa_
37:23; Gen_45:25 are appealed to. But such passages have been referred to without
observing that in them the preposition ‫ל‬ ֶ‫א‬ stands only before living objects, where it is
necessary, but not before inanimate objects, such as ‫ת‬ִ‫י‬ ַ‫,בּ‬ where the special object of the
motion is with sufficient distinctness denoted by the accusative. The words following,
‫ים‬ ִ‫ל‬ֵ‫כּ‬ ַ‫ת־ה‬ ֶ‫א‬ ְ‫,ו‬ fall in not as adversative, but explicative: and indeed (or, namely) the
vessels brought he into the treasure-house of his god - as booty. The carrying away of a
part of the vessels of the temple and a number of the distinguished Jewish youth to
Babylon, that they might be there trained for service at the royal court, was a sign and
pledge of the subjugation of Judah and its God under the dominion of the kings and the
gods of Babylon. Both are here, however, mentioned with this design, that it might be
known that Daniel and his three friends, of whom this book gives further account, were
among these youths, and that the holy vessels were afterwards fatal (Daniel 5) to the
house of the Babylonian king.
ELLICOTT, " (2) Part of the vessels.—Literally, from one point to another. He did
not take them all at once, but on different occasions. (On Shinar, see Note, Genesis
10:10.)
His god—i.e., Bel-Merodach, who was originally an Accadian deity, the signification
of the second part of the name being “he that measures the path of the sun.” The
planet Jupiter was worshipped under this name. He was the tutelary god of
Babylon, and to his honour Nebuchadnezzar dedicated a temple. For a further
description of this deity see Baruch 6:14-15.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand,
with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar
to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.
Ver. 2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim.] Because the affliction by Pharaoh (being but
a money matter) had not a kindly effect, [2 Kings 23:35] a heavier is now sent; for as
one cloud followeth at the heels of another, so doth one judgment of God upon
another, till repentance, as the sun, do interpose, and cause it to clear up.
With part of the vessels.] Not all as yet, by a sweet providence, and for an instance
56

of God’s patience.
Which he carried into the land of Shinar.] Or, Babylonia, [Genesis 11:2] a part of
the garden of Eden, as most geographers think, but now "the seat of Satan." {as
Revelation 2:13}
To the house of his god.] Jupiter Belus. See on Isaiah 46:1.
POOLE, "In this expedition Nebuchadnezzar carried away some of the vessels of
the temple, and some captives, among whom was Daniel and his friends. These
vessels he carried into the house of his god; which god was Baal or Bel, and Nebo,
Isaiah 46:1; which words they put into the names of their kings and favourites, of
which more afterward. These vessels as spoils he put in the house of his god, for his
honour, because he thought he had gotten his victory by the help of his idol god, 1
Samuel 31:9,10, as the Philistines did, Jude 16:23,24; whereas the text saith the Lord
gave all into his hand, Daniel 1:2. The executioners of God’s wrath upon God’s
sinful people have other thoughts than God hath about that, Isaiah 10:5-16.
WHEDON, " 2. Compare 2 Kings 23:35; 2 Kings 24:4; 2 Chronicles 36:5-8;
Jeremiah 27:19-20.
Shinar — Probably the Hebrew form of the archaic name for Babylon (Konig).
Treasure house — Nebuchadnezzar and other Babylonian kings in many
inscriptions speak of storing up in the temple silver, gold, precious stones, and rare
treasures, as well as captives. (See Introduction, III, 4.)
PETT, "Verse 2
‘And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand, with part of the vessels
of the house of God. And he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his
god, and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.’
The siege was sufficiently fierce to enable him to persuade Jehoiakim to make
submission, possibly by offering milder terms. He was bought off with part of the
temple treasures, taking with him selected young men, possibly as hostages for good
behaviour.
Note that it was ‘the Lord’ (adonai) who caused the submission of Jehoiakim. He it
was Who was in charge of overall events. It was not that Yahweh was defeated,
Nebuchadnezzar was as much subject to His will as Jehoiakim.
The vessels taken were carried off to the ‘land of Shinar’, an ancient name for
Babylonia (Genesis 10:8-10; Genesis 11:1-9), reflecting its belligerence and idolatry.
There they were put in the house of his favourite god, probably Marduk, in the
treasure house. Treasure houses were regularly connected with temples. The
57

treasures would be placed there as a thankoffering to the god for giving victory, but
would still be available to the king.
PULPIT, "And the Lord gave Jehoiakim King of Judah into his hand, with part of
the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house
of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god. The Greek
versions of this verse agree with each other and with the Msssoretic text, save that
the Septuagint has κυρίου instead of θεοῦ in the end of the first clause, and omits
οἴκου. The Syriac Version omits the statement that it was "part" of the vessels of the
house of God that was taken. It is to be observed that our translators have not
printed the word "Lord" in capitals, but in ordinary type, to indicate that the word
in the original is not the sacred covenant name usually written in English
"Jehovah," but Adonai. That the Lord gave Jehoiakim into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar does not prove that Jerusalem was captured by him. Far from it,
the natural deduction is rather that he did not capture the city, although he
captured the king. Thus in 2 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 Samaria three years." That is to say, after Shalmaneser
had captured Hoshea the king, he had still to besiege the city. A similar event
occurred earlier in the history of Judah and Israel. When Joash of Israel defeated
Amaziah and took him prisoner, he proceeded then to Jerusalem. The city opened
its gates to the conqueror, and he carried off all the treasures of the house of the
Lord, and of the king's house, and all the vessels of the house of the Lord, and a
large number of hostages, and then returned north. Something like this seems to
have occurred now. The king was taken by the Babylonians, and the city submitted
and ransomed the king by handing over a portion of the vessels of the house of the
Lord. The city, however, was not taken by assault. Miqtzath, "part of," occurs also
in Nehemiah 7:70 in this sense: we have it three times later in this chapter—
Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah 7:15, and Nehemiah 7:18; but in .these cases it means
"end." A word consonantally the same occurs in the sense before us in 18:2,
translated "coasts." Gesenius would write the word miqq tzath, and regard mi as
representing the partitive preposition min. He would therefore translate, "He took
some from the numbtr of the vessels." Kranichfeld objects to Hitzig's assertion that
‫קאת‬ means "a part," and is followed by Keil and Zöckler 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 (1 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 Jerusalem was captured (2
Chronicles 12:7); certainly the name of Jerusalem has not been identified in the list
of captured towns on the wall of the temple at Karnak. We have referred to the case
58

of Joash and Amaziah. The succession of the phrases," Jehoiakim King of Judah,"
and "part of the vessels of the house of God," is remarked by Ewald as being
abrupt, and he would insert," together with the noblest of the land." There is,
however, no trace of any such omission to be found in the versions. It is possible that
this chapter may be the work of the early collector and editor, and that he
condensed this portion as well as, not unlikely, translated it from Aramaic into
Hebrew. Captives certainly were taken as well as booty, as is implied by the rest of
the narrative. Which he carried into the land of Shinar to, the house of his god.
There is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to" which." The literal rendering is,
"And he carried them," etc. It has been the subject of discussion whether we are to
maintain that it is asserted here that Jeboiakim, along with the vessels and
unmentioned captives, were carried to Babylon. Professor Bevan admits that it is
doubtful. Were we dependent merely on grammar, certainly the probability, though
not the certainty, would be that the plural suffix was intended to cover Jehoi-skim,
but the conclusion forced on us by logic is different. He "carried them ( ‫ם‬ ֵ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ְ‫י‬ ) to the
house of his god." This seems to imply that only the vessels are spoken of. So
strongly is this felt by Hitzig ('Das Buch Daniel,' 5) that he would regard the phrase,
"the house of his god," as in apposition to "the land of Shinar,' and refers to two
passages in Hosea (Hosea 8:1; Hosea 9:15) in which "house" is, he alleges, used for
"land." Irrespective of the fact that these two instances occur in highly wrought
poetical passages, and that to argue from the sense of a word in poetry to its sense in
plain prose is unsafe, there is no great plausibility in his interpretation of these
passages. He regards the last clause as contrasted with the earlier: while the captives
were brought "into the land of Shinar," the vessels were brought into "the treasure-
house of his god"—an argument in which there is plausibility were there not the
extreme awkwardness of using ‫,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 Babylonia four
times in the Book of Genesis, twice in the portion set apart as Jehovist by Canon
Driver; the remaining instances are in Genesis 24-14:1 ; both as the kingdom of
Amraphel, which Canon Driver relegates to a special source. In the first instance
(Genesis 10:10) it is the laud in which Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh were. In the
next instance (Genesis 32-11:1 .) it is the place in which the Tower of Babel is built.
The name is applied to Babylonia in Isaiah 16-11:1 . and Zechariah 5:11. One of the
titles which the kings of Babylon assumed regularly was "King of Sumir and
Accad." From the connection of Shinar and Accad in Genesis 10:20 we may deduce
that "Shinar" is the Hebrew equivalent for "Sumir." It is not further removed from
its original than is "Florence" from "Firenze," or "Leghorn" from "Livorno," or,
to take a French instance, "Londres" from "London." The ingenious derivation of
"Shiner" from ‫,שני‬ "two," and ‫,אר‬ "a river," which, however, implies the
identification of and , ‫א‬ may have occasioned the modification, the more so as it was
descriptive of Babylonia; hence the name "Aram-Naharaim," and its translation
"Mesopotamia," applied to the tract between the Euphrates and the Tigris, north of
Babylonia. In the Greek versions it becomes σεναάρ. 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
59

translated as "gods" To quote a few from many instances, Jephtha uses the word in
the plural form of Chemosh ( 11:24), Elijah applies it to Baal (1 Kings 18:27), it is
used of Nisroch (2 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 LXX. εἰδωλείῳ. Paulus Tellensis
renders it in the plural, "idols." The god in whose treasure-house the vessels of the
house of God in Jerusalem were placed would necessarily be Merodach, whom
Nebuchadnezzar worshipped, almost to the exclusion of any other. The treasure-
house of his god. Temples had not many precious gifts bestowed upon them by their
worshippers which were not taken by needy monarchs; nevertheless, the treasures
of kingdoms were often deposited in a temple, to be under the protection of its god.
The temple of Bel-Merodach in Babylon was a structure of great magnificence.
Herodotus (1:181) gives a description, which is in the main confirmed by Strabe
(16:5): "In the midst of the sacred area is a strong tower built a stadium in length
and breadth; upon this tower is another raised, and another upon it, till there are
eight towers. There is a winding ascent made about all the towers. In the middle of
the ascent there is a resting-place, where are seats on which those ascending may sit
and rest. In the last tower is a spacious shrine, and in it a huge couch beautifully
bespread, and by its side is placed a table of gold. No statue has been set up here,
nor does any mortal pass the night here." There are still remains of a structure
which suits to some extent the description here given, but investigators are divided
whether to regard Birs Nimroud or Babil as most properly representing this famous
temple of Bel-Merodach. In the "Standard Inscription" Nebuchadnezzar appears to
refer to this temple, which he calls E-temen-ana-ki," the house of heaven and
earth." He says, among other matters concerning it, that he "stored up inside it
silver and gold and precious stones, and placed there the treasure-house of his
kingdom." This amply explains why the vessels of the house of God were taken to
the temple of Bel-Merodach. The fact is mentioned that the vessels of the house of
God were carried to Babylon, and, as a climax, "and he placed them in the treasure-
house of his god." We know what befell the statue of Dagon when the ark of God
was placed in its presence, and the Jew, remembering this, relates awestruck the
fact that these sacred vessels were placed in the temple of Bel. If no such disaster
befell Bel-Merodach as befell Dagon, yet still the handwriting on the wall which
appeared when these vessels were used to add to the splendour of the royal banquet,
and which told the doom of the Chaldean monarchy, may be looked upon as the
sequel to this act of what would necessarily appear to a Jew supreme sacrilege.
3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his
60

court officials, to bring into the king’s service
some of the Israelites from the royal family and
the nobility—
BARNES, "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs -
On the general reasons which may have influenced the king to make the selection of the
youths here mentioned, see the analysis of the chapter. Of Ashpenaz, nothing more is
known than is stated here. Eunuchs were then, as they are now, in constant employ in
the harems of the East, and they often rose to great influence and power. A large portion
of the slaves employed at the courts in the East, and in the houses of the wealthy, are
eunuchs. Compare Burckhardt’s “Travels in Nubia,” pp. 294, 295. They are regarded as
the guardians of the female virtue of the harem, but their situation gives them great
influence, and they often rise high in the favor of their employers, and often become the
principal officers of the court. “The chief of the black eunuchs is yet, at the court of the
Sultan, which is arranged much in accordance with the ancient court of Persia, an officer
of the highest dignity. He is called Kislar-Aga, the overseer of the women, and is the
chief of the black eunuchs, who guard the harem, or the apartments of the females. The
Kislar-Aga enjoys, through his situation, a vast influence, especially in regard to the
offices of the court, the principal Agas deriving their situations through him.” See Jos.
von Hammers “des Osmanischen Reichs Staatsverwalt,” Thes i. s. 71, as quoted in
Rosenmuller’s “Alte und neue Morgenland,” ii. 357, 358.
That it is common in the East to desire that those employed in public service should
have vigorous bodies, and beauty of form, and to train them for this, will be apparent
from the following extract: “Curtius says, that in all barbarous or uncivilized countries,
the stateliness of the body is held in great veneration; nor do they think him capable of
great services or action to whom nature has not vouchsafed to give a beautiful form and
aspect. It has always been the custom of eastern nations to choose such for their
principal officers, or to wait on princes and great personages. Sir Paul Ricaut observes,
‘That the youths that are designed for the great offices of the Turkish empire must be of
admirable features and looks, well shaped in their bodies, and without any defect of
nature; for it is conceived that a corrupt and sordid soul can scarcely inhabit in a serene
and ingenuous aspect; and I have observed, not only in the seraglio, but also in the
courts of great men, their personal attendants have been of comely lusty youths, well
habited, deporting themselves with singular modesty and respect in the presence of their
masters; so that when a Pascha Aga Spahi travels, he is always attended with a comely
equipage, followed by flourishing youths, well clothed, and mounted, in great numbers.
‘“ - Burder. This may serve to explain the reason of the arrangement made in respect to
these Hebrew youths.
That he should bring certain of the children of Israel - Hebrew, “of the sons of
Israel.” Nothing can with certainty be determined respecting their “age” by the use of
this expression, for the phrase means merely the descendants of Jacob, or Israel, that is,
“Jews,” and it would be applied to them at any time of life. It would seem, however, from
61

subsequent statements, that those who were selected were young men. It is evident that
young men would be better qualified for the object contemplated - to be “trained” in the
language and the sciences of the Chaldeans Dan_1:4 - than those who were at a more
advanced period of life.
And of the king’s seed, and of the princes - That the most illustrious, and the
most promising of them were to be selected; those who would be most adapted to
accomplish the object which he had in view. Compare the analysis of the chapter. It is
probable that the king presumed that among the royal youths who had been made
captive there would be found those of most talent, and of course those best qualified to
impart dignity and honor to his government, as well as those who would be most likely
to be qualified to make known future events by the interpretation of dreams, and by the
prophetic intimations of the Divine will.
CLARKE, "Master of his eunuchs - This word eunuchs signifies officers about or
in the palace whether literally eunuchs or not.
GILL, "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs,.... That
is, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon spake to this officer of his, whose name was
Ashpenaz; which, according to Saadiah, signifies a man of an angry countenance; but
Hillerus (e) derives it from the Arabic word "schaphan", as designing one that excels in
wit and understanding; for which reason he might have the command of the eunuchs,
many of which the eastern princes had about them, particularly to wait upon their
women, or to educate youth, as the Turks have now; though, as R. Jeshuah in Aben Ezra
observes, the word signifies ministers, and may intend the king's nobles and courtiers,
his ministers of state; and so this Ashpenaz may be considered as his prime minister, to
whom he gave orders,
that he should bring certain of the children of Israel; whom he had taken and
brought captive to Babylon, and were disposed of in some part or another of the city and
country; and out of these it was his will that some should be selected and brought to his
court:
and of the king's seed, and of the princes: or, "even (f) of the king's seed, and of
the princes"; not any of the children of Israel, but such as were of the blood royal, or of
the king of Judah's family, or some way related to it; or, however, that were of princely
birth, the children of persons of the first rank, as the word (g) may signify; or of nobles
and dukes, as Jarchi interprets it.
JAMISON, "master of ... eunuchs — called in Turkey the kislar aga.
of the king’s seed — compare the prophecy, 2Ki_20:17, 2Ki_20:18.
K&D 3-7, "The name ‫ַז‬‫נ‬ ְ‫פּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ַ‫,א‬ sounding like the Old Persian Açp, a horse, has not yet
received any satisfactory or generally adopted explanation. The man so named was the
62

chief marshal of the court of Nebuchadnezzar. ‫ים‬ ִ‫יס‬ ִ‫ר‬ ָ‫ס‬ ‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ (the word ‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ used for ‫ר‬ַ‫,שׂ‬
Dan_1:7, Dan_1:9, belongs to the later usage of the language, cf. Jer_39:3) means chief
commander of the eunuchs, i.e., overseer of the sérail, the Kislar Aga, and then in a
wider sense minister of the royal palace, chief of all the officers; since ‫יס‬ ִ‫ר‬ ַ‫ס‬ frequently,
with a departure from its fundamental meaning, designates only a courtier, chamberlain,
attendant on the king, as in Gen_37:36. The meaning of ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫,ל‬ more definitely
determined by the context, is to lead, i.e., into the land of Shinar, to Babylon. In ‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ר‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ִ‫י‬
‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ Israel is the theocratic name of the chosen people, and is not to be explained, as
Hitz. does, as meaning that Benjamin and Levi, and many belonging to other tribes, yet
formed part of the kingdom of Judah. ‫ן‬ ִ‫וּמ‬ ... ‫ע‬ ַ‫ֶר‬‫זּ‬ ִ‫,וּמ‬ as well of the seed ... as also.
‫ים‬ ִ‫מ‬ ְ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫פּ‬ is the Zend. frathema, Sanscr. prathama, i.e., persons of distinction, magnates.
‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ָ‫ל‬ְ‫,י‬ the object to ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫,ל‬ designates youths of from fifteen to twenty years of age.
Among the Persians the education of boys by the παιδάγωγαι βασίλειοι began, according
to Plato (Alcib. i. 37), in their fourteenth year, and according to Xenophon (Cyrop. i. 2),
the ἔφηβοι were in their seventeenth year capable of entering into the service of the king.
In choosing the young men, the master of the eunuchs was commanded to have regard
to bodily perfection and beauty as well as to mental endowments. Freedom from blemish
and personal beauty were looked upon as a characteristic of moral and intellectual
nobility; cf. Curtius, xvii. 5, 29. ‫,מאוּם‬ blemish, is written with an , as in Job_31:7.
Dan_1:4-5
‫יל‬ ִ‫כּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ ַ‫,מ‬ skilful, intelligent in all wisdom, i.e., in the subjects of Chaldean wisdom (cf.
Dan_1:17), is to be understood of the ability to apply themselves to the study of wisdom.
In like manner the other mental requisites here mentioned are to be understood. ‫ת‬ַ‫ע‬ ַ‫ד‬
‫י‬ֵ‫ע‬ ְ‫ֹד‬‫י‬, having knowledge, showing understanding; ‫ע‬ ָ‫דּ‬ ַ‫מ‬ ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬‫י‬ ִ‫ב‬ ְ‫,מ‬ possessing a faculty for
knowledge, a strength of judgment. ‫ם‬ ֶ‫ה‬ ָ‫בּ‬ ַ‫ח‬ ‫כּ‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ַ‫ו‬, in whom was strength, i.e., who
had the fitness in bodily and mental endowments appropriately to stand in the palace of
the king, and as servants to attend to his commands. ‫ם‬ ָ‫ד‬ ְ‫מּ‬ַ‫ל‬ ְ‫וּל‬ (to teach them) is co-
ordinate with ‫יא‬ ִ‫ב‬ ָ‫ה‬ ְ‫ל‬ (to bring) in Dan_1:3, and depends on ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ַיּאמ‬ (and he spake). For
this service they must be instructed and trained in the learning and language of the
Chaldeans. ‫ר‬ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ‫ס‬ refers to the Chaldee literature, and in Dan_1:17 ‫ר‬ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ‫ל־ס‬ָ‫,כּ‬ and ‫ן‬ ‫שׁ‬ָ‫ל‬ to
conversation or the power of speaking in that language. ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫,כּ‬ Chaldeans, is the name
usually given (1) to the inhabitants of the Babylonian kingdom founded by Nabopolassar
and Nebuchadnezzar, and (2) in a more restricted sense to the first class of the
Babylonish priests and learned men or magi, and then frequently to the whole body of
the wise men of Babylon; cf. at Dan_2:2. In this second meaning the word is here used.
The language of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כּ‬ is not, as Ros., Hitz., and Kran. suppose, the Eastern
Aramaic branch of the Semitic language, which is usually called the Chaldean language;
for this tongue, in which the Chaldean wise men answered Nebuchadnezzar (Dan_2:4.),
is called in Dan_2:4, as well as in Ezr_4:7 and Isa_36:11, the ‫ית‬ ִ‫מ‬ ָ‫ֲר‬‫א‬, Aramaic (Syriac),
and is therefore different from the language of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ַ‫.כּ‬
But the question as to what this language used by the Chaldeans was, depends on the
view that may be taken of the much controverted question as to the origin of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫,כּ‬
63

Χαλδαίοι. The oldest historical trace of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כּ‬ lies in the name ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כּ‬ ‫אוּר‬ (Ur of the
Chaldees, lxx χώρα τῶν Χαλδαίων), the place from which Terah the father of Abraham
went forth with his family to Charran in the north of Mesopotamia. The origin of
Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees, when taken in connection with the fact (Gen_22:22)
that one of the sons of Nahor, Abraham's brother, was called ‫ד‬ֶ‫שׂ‬ֶ‫כּ‬ (Chesed), whose
descendants would be called ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫,כּ‬ appears to speak for the origin of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כּ‬ from
Shem. In addition to this also, and in support of the same opinion, it has been noticed
that one of Shem's sons was called ‫ד‬ַ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫כ‬ַ‫פּ‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫א‬ (Arphaxad). But the connection of ‫ארפכשׁד‬
with ‫ד‬ֶ‫שׂ‬ֶ‫כּ‬ is unwarrantable; and that Nahor's son ‫ד‬ֶ‫שׂ‬ֶ‫כּ‬ was the father of a race called
‫,כשׂדים‬ is a supposition which cannot be established. But if a race actually descended
from this ‫,כשׂד‬ then they could be no other than the Bedouin tribe the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫,כּ‬ which fell
upon Job's camels (Job_1:17), but not the people of the Chaldees after whom, in Terah's
time, Ur was already named. The sojourn of the patriarch Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees
finally by no means proves that Terah himself was a Chaldean. He may have been
induced also by the advance of the Chaldeans into Northern Mesopotamia to go forth on
his wanderings.
This much is at all events unquestionable, and is now acknowledged, that the original
inhabitants of Babylonia were of Semitic origin, as the account of the origin of the
nations in Gen 10 shows. According to Gen_10:22, Shem had five sons, Elam, Asshur,
Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, whose descendants peopled and gave name to the following
countries: - The descendants of Elam occupied the country called Elymais, between the
Lower Tigris and the mountains of Iran; of Asshur, Assyria, lying to the north-the hilly
country between the Tigris and the mountain range of Iran; or Arphaxad, the country of
Arrapachitis on the Upper Tigris, on the eastern banks of that river, where the highlands
of Armenia begin to descend. Lud, the father of the Lydians, is the representative of the
Semites who went westward to Asia Minor; and Aram of the Semites who spread along
the middle course of the Euphrates to the Tigris in the east, and to Syria in the west.
From this M. Duncker (Gesch. des Alterth.) has concluded: “According to this catalogue
of the nations, which shows the extension of the Semitic race from the mountains of
Armenia southward to the Persian Gulf, eastward to the mountains of Iran, westward
into Asia Minor, we follow the Semites along the course of the two great rivers, the
Euphrates and the Tigris, to the south. Northwards from Arphaxad lie the mountains of
the Chasdim, whom the Greeks call Chaldaei, Carduchi, Gordiaei, whose boundary
toward Armenia was the river Centrites.”
“If we find the name of the Chaldeans also on the Lower Euphrates, if in particular
that name designates a region on the western bank of the Euphrates to its mouth, the
extreme limit of the fruitful land watered by the Euphrates towards the Arabian desert,
then we need not doubt that this name was brought from the Armenian mountains to
the Lower Euphrates, and that it owes its origin to the migration of these Chaldeans
from the mountains. - Berosus uses as interchangeable the names Chaldea and
Babylonia for the whole region between the Lower Euphrates and the Tigris down to the
sea. But it is remarkable that the original Semitic name of this region, Shinar, is distinct
from that of the Chaldeans; remarkable that the priests in Shinar were specially called
Chaldeans, that in the fragments of Berosus the patriarchs were already designated
Chaldeans of this or that city, and finally that the native rulers were particularly known
by this name. We must from all this conclude, that there was a double migration fro the
north to the regions on the Lower Euphrates and Tigris; that they were first occupied by
64

the Elamites, who came down along the Tigris; and that afterwards a band came down
from the mountains of the Chaldeans along the western bank of the Tigris, that they kept
their flocks for a long time in the region of Nisibis, and faintly that they followed the
Euphrates and obtained superiority over the earlier settlers, who had sprung from the
same stem (?), and spread themselves westward from the mouth of the Euphrates. The
supremacy which was thus established was exercised by the chiefs of the Chaldeans; they
were the ruling family in the kingdom which they founded by their authority, and whose
older form of civilisation they adopted.”
If, according to this, the Chaldeans are certainly not Semites, then it is not yet decided
whether they belonged to the Japhetic race of Aryans, or, as C. Sax
(Note: In the Abhdl. “on the ancient history of Babylon and the nationality of the
Cushites and the Chaldeans,” in the Deutsch. morg. Ztschr. xxii. pp. 1-68. Here Sac
seeks to prove “that the Chaldeans, identical with the biblical Chasdim, were a tribe
ruling from ancient times from the Persian Gulf to the Black Sea, and particularly in
Babylonia, which at length occupied the southern region from the mouth of the
Euphrates to the Armeneo-Pontine range of mountains, but was in Babylonia
especially represented by the priest caste and the learned.” This idea the author
grounds on the identification of the Bible Cushites with the Scythians of the Greeks
and Romans, the evidence for which is for the most part extremely weak, and
consists of arbitrary and violent combinations, the inconsistency of which is at once
manifest, as e.g., the identification of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כּ‬ with the ‫ים‬ ִ‫ח‬ֻ‫ל‬ ְ‫ס‬ַ‫,כּ‬ Gen_10:14, the
conclusions drawn from Eze_29:10 and Eze_38:5. of the spread of the Cushites into
Arabia and their reception into the Scythian army of the northern Gog, etc. In
general, as Sax presents it, this supposition is untenable, yet it contains elements of
truth which are not to be overlooked.)
has recently endeavoured to make probable, to the Hamitic race of Cushites, a nation
belonging to the Tartaric (Turamic) family of nations. As to the Aryan origin, besides the
relation of the Chaldeans, the Gordiaei, and the Carduchi to the modern Kurds, whose
language belongs to the Indo-Germanic, and indeed to the Aryan family of languages,
the further circumstance may be referred to: that in Assyria and Babylonia the elements
of the Aryan language are found in very ancient times. Yet these two facts do not furnish
any conclusive evidence on the point. From the language of the modern Kurds being
related to the Aryan language no certain conclusion can be drawn as to the language of
the ancient Chaldees, Gordiaei, and Carduchi; and the introduction of Aryan words and
appellations into the language of the Semitic Assyrians and Babylonians is fully
explained, partly from the intercourse which both could not but maintain with Iranians,
the Medes and Persians, who were bordering nations, partly from the dominion
exercised for some time over Babylonia by the Iranian race, which is affirmed in the
fragments of Berosus, according to which the second dynasty in Babylon after the Flood
was the Median. Notwithstanding we would decide in favour of the Aryan origin of the
Chaldeans, did not on the one side the biblical account of the kingdom which Nimrod
the Cushite founded in Babel and extended over Assyria (Gen_10:8-12), and on the other
the result to which the researches of the learned into the antiquities of Assyria regarding
the development of culture and of writing in Babylonia,
(Note: The biblical tradition regarding the kingdom founded by Nimrod in Babel,
Duncker (p. 204) has with arbitrary authority set aside, because it is irreconcilable
with his idea of the development of Babylonian culture. It appears, however, to
receive confirmation from recent researches into the ancient monuments of
65

Babylonia and Assyria, which have led to the conclusion, that of the three kinds of
cuneiform letters that of the Babylonian bricks is older than the Assyrian, and that
the oldest form originated in an older hieroglyphic writing, of which isolated
examples are found in the valley of the Tigris and in Susiana; whence it must be
concluded that the invention of cuneiform letters did not take place among the
Semites, but among a people of the Tauranian race which probably had in former
times their seat in Susiana, or at the mouth of the Euphrates and the Tigris on the
Persian Gulf. Cf. Spiegel in Herz.'s Realencyclop., who, after stating this result,
remarks: “Thus the fact is remarkable that a people of the Turko-Tartaric race
appear as the possessors of a high culture, while people of this tribe appear in the
world's history almost always as only destitute of culture, and in many ways
hindering civilisation; so that it cannot but be confessed that, so far as matters now
are, one is almost constrained to imagine that the state of the case is as follows,” and
thus he concludes his history of cuneiform writing: - ”Cuneiform writing arose in
ancient times, several thousand years before the birth of Christ, very probably from
an ancient hieroglyphic system of writing, in the region about the mouths of the
Euphrates and the Tigris on the Persian Gulf. It was found existing by a people of a
strange race, belonging neither to the Semites nor to the Indo-Germans. It was very
soon, however, adopted by the Semites. The oldest monuments of cuneiform writing
belong to the extreme south of the Mesopotamian plain. In the course of time it
pressed northward first to Babylon, where it assumed a more regular form than
among the Assyrians. From Assyria it may have come among the Indo-Germans first
to Armenia; for the specimens of cuneiform writing found in Armenia are indeed in
syllabic writing, but in a decidedly Indo-Germanic language. How the syllabic writing
was changed into letter-(of the alphabet) writing is as yet obscure. The most recent
kind of cuneiform writing which we know, the Old Persian, is decidedly letter-
writing.” Should this view of the development of the cuneiform style of writing be
confirmed by further investigations, then it may be probable that the Chaldeans were
the possessors and cultivators of this science of writing, and that their language and
literature belonged neither to the Semitic nor yet to the Indo-Germanic or Aryan
family of languages.)
make this view very doubtful.
If, then, for the present no certain answer can be given to the question as to the origin
of the Chaldeans and the nature of their language and writing, yet this much may be
accepted as certain, that the language and writing of the ‫ים‬ ִ‫דּ‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כּ‬ was not Semitic or
Aramaic, but that the Chaldeans had in remote times migrated into Babylonia, and there
had obtained dominion over the Semitic inhabitants of the land, and that from among
this dominant race the Chaldees, the priestly and the learned cast of the Chaldeans,
arose. This caste in Babylon is much older than the Chaldean monarchy founded by
Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniel and his companions were to be educated in the wisdom of the Chaldean priests
and learned men, which was taught in the schools of Babylon, at Borsippa in Babylonia,
and Hipparene in Mesopotamia (Strab. xvi. 1, and Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 26). Dan_1:5. To
this end Nebuchadnezzar assigned to them for their support provision from the king's
household, following Oriental custom, according to which all officers of the court were
fed from the king's table, as Athen. iv. 10, p. 69, and Plut. probl. vii. 4, testify regarding
the Persians. This appears also (1Ki_5:2-3) to have been the custom in Israel. ‫מ‬ ‫י‬ ְ‫בּ‬ ‫ם‬ ‫י‬
‫ר‬ ַ‫ב‬ ְ‫,דּ‬ the daily portion, cf. Exo_5:13, Exo_5:19; Jer_52:34, etc. ‫ג‬ ַ‫בּ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ַ‫פּ‬ comes from path,
66

in Zend. paiti, Sanscr. prati = προτί, πρός, and bag, in Sanscr. bhâga, portion, provision,
cf. Eze_25:7. With regard to the composition, cf. The Sanscr. pratibhâgha, a portion of
fruits, flowers, etc., which the Rajah daily requires for his household; cf. Gildemeister in
Lassen's Zeits.f. d. Kunde des Morg. iv. 1, p. 214. ‫ג‬ ַ‫בּ‬ ְ‫ת‬ ַ‫פּ‬ therefore means neither
ambrosia, nor dainties, but generally food, victuals, food of flesh and meal in opposition
to wine, drink (‫יו‬ ָ‫תּ‬ ְ‫שׁ‬ ִ‫מ‬ is singular), and vegetables (Dan_1:12).
The king also limits the period of their education to three years, according to the
Persian as well as the Chaldean custom. ‫ם‬ ָ‫ל‬ ְ‫ַדּ‬‫ג‬ ְ‫וּל‬ does not depend on ‫ר‬ ֶ‫ַיּאמ‬ (Dan_1:3),
but is joined with ‫ן‬ ַ‫מ‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬, and is the final infinitive with ‫ו‬explicative, meaning, and that he
may nourish them. The infinitive is expressed by the fin. verb ‫דוּ‬ ָ‫מ‬ַ‫ַע‬‫י‬, to stand before (the
king). The carrying out of the king's command is passed over as a matter of course, yet it
is spoken of as obeyed (cf. Dan_1:6.).
Dan_1:6-7
Daniel and his three friends were among the young men who were carried to Babylon.
They were of the sons of Judah, i.e., of the tribe of Judah. From this it follows that the
other youths of noble descent who had been carried away along with them belonged to
other tribes. The name of none of these is recorded. The names only of Daniel and his
three companions belonging to the same tribe are mentioned, because the history
recorded in this book specially brings them under our notice. As the future servants of
the Chaldean king, they received as a sign of their relation to him other names, as the
kings Eliakim and Mattaniah had their names changed (2Ki_23:34; 2Ki_24:17) by
Necho and Nebuchadnezzar when they made them their vassals. But while these kings
had only their paternal names changed for other Israelitish names which were given to
them by their conquerors, Daniel and his friends received genuine heathen names in
exchange for their own significant names, which were associated with that of the true
God. The names given to them were formed partly from the names of Babylonish idols,
in order that thereby they might become wholly naturalized, and become estranged at
once from the religion and the country of their fathers.
(Note: “The design of the king was to lead these youths to adopt the customs of the
Chaldeans, that they might have nothing in common with the chosen people.” -
Calvin.)
Daniel, i.e., God will judge, received the name Belteshazzar, formed from Bel, the name
of the chief god of the Babylonians. Its meaning has not yet been determined. Hananiah,
i.e., the Lord is gracious, received the name Shadrach, the origin of which is wholly
unknown; Mishael, i.e., who is what the Lord is, was called Meshach, a name yet
undeciphered; and Azariah, i.e., the Lord helps, had his name changed into Abednego,
i.e., slave, servant of Nego or Nebo, the name of the second god of the Babylonians (Isa_
46:1), the ‫ב‬being changed by the influence of ‫ב‬in ‫עבד‬ into ‫ג‬ (i.e., Nego instead of
Nebo).
CALVIN, "Here Daniel pursues his narrative, and shows the manner in which he
was led away together with his companions. The king had demanded young men to
be brought, not from the ordinary multitude, but from the principal nobility, who
stood before him, that is, ministered to him. Hence, we ascertain why Daniel and his
67

companions were chosen, because they were noble young men and of the royal seed,
or at least of parents who surpassed others in rank. The king did this purposely to
show himself a conqueror; he may also have taken this plan designedly, to retain
hostages in his power; for he hoped, as we shall see, that those who were nourished
in his palace would be degenerate and hostile to the Jews, and he thought their
assistance would prove useful to himself. He also hoped, since they were born of a
noble stock, that the Jews would be the more peaceable, and thus avoid all danger to
those wretched exiles who were relations of the kings and the nobles. With regard to
the words, he calls this Aspenaz the prince of eunuchs, under which name he means
the boys who were nourished in the king’s palace to become a seminary of nobles;
for it is scarcely possible that this Aspenaz was set over other leaders. But we gather
from this place, that the boys whom the king held in honor and regard were under
his custody. The Hebrews calls eunuchs ‫,סריסים‬ serisim, a name which belongs to
certain prefects; for Potiphar is called by this name though he had a wife. So this
name is everywhere used in Scripture for the satraps of a king; (Genesis 37:36;
Genesis 40:2;) but since satraps also were chosen from noble boys, they were
probably called eunuchs, though they were not made so, yet Josephus ignorantly
declares these Jewish children to have been made eunuchs. But when eunuchs
existed among the luxuries of Oriental kings, as I have already said, those youths
were commonly called by this name whom the king brought up as a kind of school
of nobles, whom he might afterwards place over various province.
The king, therefore, commanded some of the children of Israel of the royal seed and
of the nobles to be brought to him. So the sentence ought to be resolved; he did not
command any of the common people to be brought to him, but some of the royal
race, the more plainly to show himself their conqueror by doing all things according
to his will. He means those “elders” who yet were in chief authority under the king
of Judah. And Daniel also was of that tribe, as we shall afterwards see. The word
‫,פרתמים‬ pharthmim, “princes,” is thought to be derived from Perah, which is the
Euphrates, and the interpreters understand prefects, to whom the provinces on the
banks of the Euphrates were committed; but this does not suit the present passage
where Jews are treated of. We now see the general signification of this name, and
that all the elders ought to be comprehended under it. (73) — The rest tomorrow.
COFFMAN, ""And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that
he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal, and of the
nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skilled in all wisdom,
and endued with knowledge and, understanding science, and such as had ability to
stand in the king's palace; and that he should teach them the learning and the
tongue of the Chaldeans. And the King appointed for them a daily portion of the
king's dainties, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be nourished
three years; that at the end thereof they should stand before the king. Now among
these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And
the prince of the eunuchs gave names unto them: unto Daniel he gave the name of
Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and of
Azariah, of Abed-nego."
68

It is strangely pathetic to find the names of these precocious young princes of Israel
among the eunuchs of the king of Babylon. Now eunuchs were usually persons who
had been emasculated; and, although it is true that there were sometimes eunuchs
merely in the sense of "officers" of the king, the situation here does not lend itself to
such an explanation. These young men were not officers: at all but captives; and we
agree with Culver that, "Them is great possibility that Daniel and his friends may
have been emasculated."[14] We favor this view because of Isaiah's prophecy:
And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah. Behold the clays come,
that all that is in thy house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto
this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith Jehovah. And of thy
sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and
they shall become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon (2 Kings 20:16-18).
As for the reasons why the names of these men were changed by their Babylonian
masters, several motives could have caused it: (1) Hebrew names being unfamiliar to
the Babylonians, they replaced them with names they could more easily remember
and pronounce. (2) A definite hostility to the religion of the Hebrews is also evident.
They replaced names which were derived from the true God through the use of
syllables meaning Yahweh, or Jehovah, with Babylonian names which either
honored Babylonian pagan gods, or in some way might have been derogatory. Note
the following:
Daniel means "God is my judge."[15]
Hananiah means "Yahweh hath been gracious."[16]
Mishael means "Who is what E1 is?"[17]
Azariah means "Yahweh has helped."[18]
The names given in Babylon to these men had the following meanings:
Belteshazzar means "Bel (a pagan god) protects his life."[19]
Shadrach means "The command of Aku (the moon god)."[20]
Meshach means "Who is this?"[21]
Abednego means "Servant of the god Nabu."[22]
From this it is easy to see that the purpose of the names included the desire to
eradicate all traces of the Hebrew religion and replace them with names honoring
Babylonian pagan gods.
69

The development of this paragraph shows that these particular Hebrew young men,
along with an undetermined number of others, were enrolled in a three-year course
of study to master the wisdom, the learning, and the language of the Chaldeans.
They were honored by such an opportunity. Among other privileges, they enjoyed
being fed from the king's kitchen.
ELLICOTT, " (3) Ashpenaz . . . his eunuchs—i.e., the courtiers or attendants upon
the king. (See marginal translation of Genesis 37:36; and compare Jeremiah 39:3,
where a Rab-saris, or chief of the courtiers, is mentioned. See also Isaiah 39:7.)
The king’s seed.—According to the story of Josephus (Ant. x. 10, 1), Daniel and the
three holy children were all connected with Zedekiah. The context makes this
opinion perfectly admissible.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs,
that he should bring [certain] of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of
the princes;
Ver. 3. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz.] Which signifieth in the Chaldee tongue
the chief chider, or controller of the king’s house, as Ctesias useth Ashpamithres for
chief priests. To this great officer the king commendeth the care of his school.
And of the king’s seed, and of the princes.] As having been better bred, and so more
hopeful. Here Nebuchadnezzar, minding nothing but the glory of his court by these
noble waiters, unwittingly maketh way for the Church’s comfort.
POOLE, " These here called eunuchs were chief among the king’s servants, and
they are called
eunuchs because many of them were such of old among all the princes of the East,
and at this day, but they were not all such, Jeremiah 52:25. The word translated
eunuch signifies also
chamberlain; such was
Hatach, Esther 4:5; such were
Bigthana and
Teresh, Esther 6:2, and
Harbonah, Esther 7:9, and
Ashpenaz in the text, the master of the king’s eunuchs, who had set
70

Melzar over Daniel and his companions, Daniel 1:11.
Here was fulfilled what the prophet Isaiah had foretold king Hezekiah, Isaiah 39:7.
Some think Daniel and his companions were made eunuchs in a strict sense, which
doth not appear to be probable; but rather to be bred up in the court for officers,
and thereby to alienate their minds from the religion of their country, and from
seeking the welfare and return of their people; but God had otherwise appointed by
this education of them, as appears in many signal testimonies of the presence and
power of God with them, for the conviction of idolaters that God was above all gods.
WHEDON, " 3. Ashpenaz — Compare Genesis 10:3. This name as it stands is not
Babylonian, but resembles Persian. It is found in several inscriptions of the Persian
period. However, one recension and various early quotations, made probably from
the original LXX., give a very different name here, Abiesdri, or Abriesdri, which
Lenormant partially unites to the Hebrew, making the name Assa-ibn-zir, “the
goddess has molded the germ.”
Master of his eunuchs — That is, courtiers. This title even Hugo Winckler, as late as
1890, supposed to be a mere Hebrew fiction, being, as he thought, absolutely
unknown at the Assyrian or Babylonian court; but Mr. Pinches, in 1889, found on a
brick in the British Museum this very name as a title of one of the highest
Babylonian officials, the Hebrew Rab-sarisim (or Sar-sarisim, Daniel 1:7; Daniel
1:10), corresponding almost exactly with the Babylonian Rabu-saresu, “chief of the
chiefs.” Noldeke has also found this as an hereditary title on a recently discovered
Phoenician inscription (Revue des Etudes Juives, 1895, p. 119).
Of the king’s seed, and of the princes — This may refer to the children of the
Babylonian king and his nobles. The word for “princes” is generally regarded as
Persian.
BENSON, "Verse 3-4
Daniel 1:3-4. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, master of the eunuchs — One of
the chief officers of his palace; the officers that attended about the persons of the
eastern kings being commonly eunuchs, (a custom still practised in the Ottoman
court,) such being employed as guardians over the women which the kings kept for
their pleasure. That he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and, or rather,
even, of the king’s seed — The conjunction copulative being often used by way of
explication. And thus Isaiah’s prophecy was punctually fulfilled, Isaiah 39:7.
Children in whom was no blemish — He was directed to make choice of such as
were comely, and had no defect or deformity of body, to which the Hebrew word
‫,מאום‬ here used, is chiefly applied, answerable to the Greek μωμος . But by the
subsequent characters in the verse, it should seem that the young men were to be as
complete in every respect as was possible, perfect in their mental as well as corporal
powers. The greatest care seems to have been required as to the accomplishments of
their minds, and on this account three several expressions are made use of, the
71

particular force of each of which it may not be easy to ascertain. “Perhaps,” says
Mr. Wintle, “the first relates to the best and most excellent natural abilities; the
second, to the acquisition of the greatest improvements from cultivation; and the
third, to the communication of their perceptions in the happiest manner to others.”
He translates the clause as follows: Ready of understanding in all wisdom, and of
skill in science, and expert in prudence. Or, more generally, the expressions may
only signify that they were to be such as had been instructed, and had made
proficiency, in every thing that was taught in the land of Judea. And such as had
ability in them to stand in the king’s palace — Not only being of a strong
constitution to endure the fatigue of long waitings, in or near the royal presence,
during which they were not permitted to sit down; “but qualified for every business
in which they might be employed, and to do credit to the situation in which they
were to stand.” And whom they might teach the learning and tongue of the
Chaldeans — As Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, so we are
not to wonder that Daniel was taught the learning of the Chaldeans; and that he so
far excelled in it, as to be placed at the head of the magi: see Daniel 4:9. It must be
observed that the word ‫,ילדים‬ rendered children in the beginning of this verse, does
not signify persons in a state of childhood, but refers to those of more advanced
years. The expression is applied to Rehoboam’s counsellors, 1 Kings 12:8, who
cannot be thought to have been mere children. Nor can we suppose Daniel and his
companions to have been less than eighteen or twenty years of age at this time, as
may be concluded from Daniel’s being put into considerable posts in the
government soon after.
COLE, "Verse 3-4
Daniel 1:3-4. The master—the king's seed— The prince—the royal seed: the
Hebrew word for princes ‫פרתמים‬ partemim. Aquila and the LXX, as cited in
Montfaucon's Hexapla, render it επιλεκτων, choice persons, and another Greek
version ευγενων, noble, well-born; it seems a compound of the Persic ‫פר‬ per, from
the Hebrew ‫פאר‬ peer, to be glorious, honourable; and ‫תם‬ tam, perfect; and so
expresses the most honourable, or noble. Bishop Chandler observes, that the word
‫פר‬ or ‫פאר‬ enters into the composition of several names of the princes and nobles
among the Medes and Persians, as Pharnaces, Pharnaspes, Pharnuchus, Phraortes,
Phraates, Phradates, &c. See his Vindication, book 1: p. 58 and Parkhurst on the
word ‫פרתם‬ . The prince of the eunuchs was directed to make choice of such persons
as had the best accomplishments both of body and mind; as being the more fit to
attend at court. The word ‫ילדים‬ ieladim, rendered children, does not extend to
childhood, but refers to more advanced years; (comp. 2 Kings 24-2:23 .) nor can we
suppose Daniel or his companions to have been less than eighteen or twenty years of
age at this time; as may be concluded from Daniel's being put into a considerable
post and employment in the government soon after. Houbigant renders it, youths;
and so it should be rendered throughout the chapter. Instead of, Skilful in all
wisdom, Houbigant has it, apt, or fit to understand wisdom, to learn knowledge, and
to attain science; for, says he, a knowledge and skill in all the sciences was not
required in these young men, but only a facility to learn them; and it appears from
72

the 17th verse, that they did learn letters and wisdom while they were educated
under the prince of the eunuchs. Instead of, And whom they might teach, we may
read, And that he should have them taught.
PETT, "Verse 3-4
‘And the king spoke to Ashpenaz, the master of his palace servants (officers, nobles,
eunuchs), that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed
royal and of the nobles, youths in whom was no blemish, but well favoured and
skilful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, and understanding learning, with
the ability to serve in the king’s palace and to teach them the letters and tongue of
the Chaldeans.’
The selected captives taken back to Babylon were looked on fairly favourably
because they were treaty hostages rather than defeated foe. Jerusalem had not been
captured, it had compromised and yielded. They were all young men from the
nobility, young men of education, who it was considered would fit in in court circles.
The rather exaggerated description, the kind often used of promising young men,
has in mind not only how things were but also how things would turn out. They
were promising graduates. They were ‘skilful in all wisdom, endowed with
knowledge, and understanding learning’. They had had the best education of the
day, and certainly this was how Daniel would turn out to be. The words may well
have been quoted from a court memorandum. By incorporating these young men
into the court Nebuchadnezzar hoped to seal the treaty. This whole event was
prophesied by Isaiah 39:7, where the prophet foresaw the rise of Babylon and the
consequences for Judah.
Ashpenaz - the meaning of the name is uncertain, but it has been found in non-
Biblical texts. The word that is sometimes translated ‘eunuchs’ actually has a wider
meaning (it was used of the married Potiphar - Genesis 37:36) indicating palace
servants, chief men, nobles, officers, although they would include eunuchs among
them who had charge of the harems. The fact that these young men were ‘without
blemish’ is against any idea that they were made eunuchs. The king liked to be
surrounded by ‘perfect’ young men, not sing-song voices. ‘The master’ - or Rab -
was a title regularly applied to Babylonian high officials (e.g. 2 Kings 18:17;
Jeremiah 39:3).
‘Children of Israel’, the ancient name for all Israel. By the time that this was written
any strict distinction between Judah and Israel had ceased to be. Ezekiel also spoke
of the people of Jerusalem and Judah as the children of Israel.
‘Youths.’ Probably of about fourteen or fifteen. Thus in the eyes of the day
recognised adults.
‘Of the children of Israel, (even) of the seed royal and of the nobles.’ Some would see
this as signifying different groups, the captive children of Israel, royal offspring
73

(‘the seed of kingship’) and nobles from various countries. But the Israelite hostages
would certainly include royal seed and the sons of nobles. However they were
certainly introduced into a group which included other royal seed and nobility.
‘And to teach them the letters and tongue of the Chaldeans.’ They were to learn the
ancient Babylonian wisdom, the ancient cuneiform scripts, the ancient Akkadian
language, and the lore of the magicians and astrologers; what passed for great
wisdom in the ancient Near East, a well rounded education.
PULPIT, "Daniel 1:3, Daniel 1:4
And the king spoke unto Ash-penaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring
certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; children
in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning
in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand
in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the
Chaldeans. The version of the LXX. here becomes important: "And the king spoke
to Abiesdri, his own chief eunuch ( τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἀρχιευνούχῳ), to lead to him from the
sons of the nobles of Israel, and from the seed royal, and from the choice ones, four
young men, without blemish, of goodly appearance, and understanding in all
wisdom, and educated, and prudent, and wise, and strong, so that they may be in
the house of the king, and may be taught the letters and tongue of the Chaldees."
The version of Theodotion is in closer accordance with the Massoretic text, only it
inserts "captivity" where the LXX. had "nobles," and reads, "from the sons of the
captivity of Israel." In this version the name of the chief of the eunuchs is the same
as the Massoretic; the word rendered "princes" in the Authorized Version is
transliterated φορθομμίν. The rendering, "the seed of the kingdom," is more literal
than that of the Authorized, "the king's seed" The Peshitta is in close agreement
with the Massoretic text, save that, instead of "Ashpenaz," the name of the chief of
the eunuchs is written "Aspaz," and the word translated "princes" (parte-mira) is
transliterated Parthouia, which means literally "Parthians." Symmachus reads
παρθῶν. 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
74

inscriptions of the Persian period the name occurs. Nothing can be built on this, as
in the Septuagint the name is given as ἀβιεσδρὶ: 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 ‫ד‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫,א‬ "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 . The changes
that a name might undergo in passing from any language, even a cognate one, into
Hebrew wine very great; thus Assur-bani-pal became "Asnapper." Lenormant has
endeavoured to recover the name in the present case. The process he has followed is
the somewhat mechanical one of combining the two names, as if we were to strive to
reach Asshur-bani-pal item a combination of "Asnapper" and "Sar-danapalus." He
arrives at the name Ash-ben-azur, which is a possible Babylonian name. Professor
Fuller has suggested Aba-(i)-istar, "the astronomer of the goddess Ishtar." The
main objection to this is that it is drawn solely from the Septuagint Version. If we
look at the tendency exhibited by the Hebrew equivalents of Babylonian names, we
find that shortening was one that was nearly invariably present, as Asshur-akhi-
iddin na became Esarhaddon, and Sin-akhi-irba became Sanherib. The only
exception to this shortening process which occurs to us is Brodach for Marduk, and
even it is scarcely an exception. Next there is a tendency, which Hebrew shares with
other languages, of suiting a foreign word to the genius of the language. Hence we
find "Ashpenaz" has such a close resemblance to "Ashkenaz" of 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 Babylon. The first
element in the word might not impossibly be ablu, "son." The final element seems
certainly to have been ezer or utzur. As to the office he tided in the court of
Nebuchadnezzar, "the master of eunuchs," the name of the office in the text is Rab-
Sarisim, which occurs in a slightly different form in 2 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
Petiphar is called saris, or "eunuch;" yet he had a wife. It therefore may be doubted
whether Daniel and his companions are to be understood as placed in that
condition. The title here given—Rab-Sarisim—becomes Sar-Sarisim in verses 7 and
10, Sat being the Hebrew equivalent of the more Babylonian Rab. It is also Aramaic.
That he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of
the princes. It may be doubted at first sight whether these may not be separate
classes—a view that seems to have been taken by most of the old translators, or
75

whether the first class, "the children of Israel," does not include the two classes that
follow. The rendering partemim, as "Parthians," adopted by Symmachus and the
Peshitta, would make a contrast between "the children of Israel" and "the
Parthians." That, however, is utterly unlikely. Were that translation the true one, a
strong argument could be advanced for the late origin of Daniel. The fact that the
text before Symmachus and the Peshitta translator admitted of that translation
shows how far the tendency to modify the text into suitability with the knowledge of
the scribe had gone, and therefore how little weight ought to be given to lateness of
individual words. According to the LXX. and Theodotion, there is a word awanting
in the first clause; the Septuagint translator would supply "nobles" ( μεγιστάνων)
"from the nobles of Israel." Theodotion renders, "from the sons of the Captivity of
Israel." If the sentence ran ‫ישראל‬ ‫שרי‬ ‫,בני‬ one might understand how it could be read
‫ישראל‬ ‫שבי‬ ‫;בני‬ the natural phrase for this is ‫ישראל‬ ‫גלותי‬ ‫,בני‬ but that would not
explain the LXX. rendering. The name "Israel" is the covenant name of the whole
nation, equally applicable to the southern and to the northern kingdoms. All the
more so that the captivity of Judah contained members of three other tribes besides
that of Judah, namely, those of Benjamin and Simeon an l Levi. Further, Josiah
seems to have extended the bounds of the Davidic kingdom to embrace the remnant
of the ten tribes (2 Chronicles 34:6, 2 Chronicles 34:9), therefore his sons would
claim the same boundaries, and therefore hostages might be taken by
Nebuchadnezzar from them to Babylon. And of the king's seed and of the princes.
The two "ands" might be rendered "both … and," or "alike … and." The king's
seed means, literally, "the seed of the kingdom," as it is translated by Theodotion.
The phrase, "children of the kingdom," is applied by our Lord (Matthew 8:12) to all
the Jews, and in Matthew 13:38 to the members of the true Israel—perhaps with a
latent reference to the children of the true King thus in captivity to the beggarly
elements of this world, compelled to stand as servants in the court of Mammon, of
which Nebuchadnezzar may well be the type. The word partemim is one which has
caused difficulty; it only occurs here, and twice in Esther (Esther 1:3; Esther 6:9). In
these passages it is rendered by the Peshitta as here, Parthouia, "Parthians." It
would seem that the Septuagint translator had before him, not partemin, but
bahureem, connecting it with yeladeem," children" (youths), the opening word of
the succeeding verse. In Esther the word partemim is applied to a special class of
nobles among the Persians, and certainly was not applied to the princes of Judah.
Theodotion does not understand what it means, and so transliterates it φορθομμίν.
Symmachus and the Peshitta make it "Parthians;" the Targum on Esther makes the
same blunder. The LXX. Version of Esther renders it ἔνδοξοι, as if it were
connected with ‫ר‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫פ‬ and ‫.תוֹם‬ 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
76

would, at the end of the verse. In Egypt this derangement did not take place, and
hence bahureem was retained. Children in whom was no blemish. There is no limit
to the age implied in yeled, the word the plural of which is translated "children;"
thus to young counsellors who had been brought up with Rehoboam are called
yeladeem. As they had been brought up with Rehoboam, they were of the same age
with him, yet he was forty-one years old when he ascended the throne. Joseph is
called yeled when he was at least seventeen, and Ishmael when he was probably
sixteen. Benjamin is called yeled when he was nearly, if not quite, thirty years old; it
is said of him immediately before he went down to Egypt, and then he was the father
of ten sons. It is used also of new-born infants (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 Babylon; that, however, even when all allowance is made for the precocity of
warm climates, seems too low. On the whole, we may say that Daniel, when he was
taken to Babylon, was the same age as Joseph when he went down into Egypt. The
Septuagint rendering ( νεανίσκους) supports our view. We may note that this
command to Ashpenaz was in all likelihood given at Jerusalem. In whom was no
blemish, but well-secured. If we may judge of the taste of the Babylonians and
Assyrians from the sculptures that have come down to us, they had a high standard
of personal 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 (Le 21:17). It is used of Absalom (2 Samuel
14:25); it is equivalent in meaning to μῶμος, which not impossibly was derived from
stone early form of this word; tovay mar'eh," goodly in appearance," almost
identical with our colloquial "good-looking." Skilful in all wisdom. The word
"wisdom" has, in general, a somewhat technical meaning in Hebrew, "skill in
interpreting riddles and framing proverbs." It became widened in meaning in
certain cases, as we see in the description of wisdom in the beginning of Proverbs
and Job 28:1-28. Yet wider is the sphere given to it in Ecclesiasticus and the Book of
Wisdom. The word translated "skilful," maskileem, means, in the first instance,
"attending to;" then, the result of this attention, especially when followed by the
preposition ְ‫,ב‬ "in," The LXX . suits this, "skilled in all wisdom." Theodotion
renders, "understanding ( συνιέντας) in all wisdom." Professor Bevan would render
maskil, "intelligent;" Hitzig adopts Luther's einsichtig in allerlei Wissenschaft,
"intelligent in every kind of science," adding, "that is, they would be were they
placed in suitable circumstances." He objects to De Wette rendering "experienced,"
as unsuitable to boys. Cunning in knowledge; literally, knowing knowledge. The
distinction is here between the faculty of intelligence and the actual acquirements. It
might be rendered "intelligent and well-educated"—a view that is supported by the
Septuagint rendering ( γραμματικοὺς). 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
77

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 ( 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, and unites the two following
clauses under it. And whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the
Chaldeans. The LXX. renders, "to teach them letters and the Chaldean dialect."
There were three tongues used in Babylon. There was the Aramaic of ordinary
business and diplomacy, called in 2 Kings 18:26 "the Syrian language," and in this
book (Daniel 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 Babylon and Nineveh were written. In the huge library of
Asshur-bani-pal, now in the British Museum, a large portion is composed of
translations of those Accadian texts. A number of syllabaries have also been found,
which enable scholars to investigate this antique tongue. It seems not impossible that
Accadian was meant by the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. Their learning
involved some astronomy, a great deal of astrology, and not a little magic,
incantations, interpretations of dreams and omens. We ourselves, though so far
removed both geographically and chronologically from them, feel the effects of their
ideas, and enjoy some of the results of their knowledge. We cannot tell whether the
Babylonians were the earliest to fix the course of the sun, moon, and planets. At all
events, they made observations on the basis of these discoveries; and our week, with
its Sunday and Monday, conveys to us still the fact that the Babylonians believed the
planets to be seven; the planets strictly so called were associated with deities similar
in attributes to those associated with them by the Latin and Teutonic peoples, and
the same days were sacred to them in Babylonia and Germany. The Chaldeans,
‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ ְ‫שׂ‬ַ‫כ‬, Kasdeem, of the Bible, do not seem to have been originally inhabitants of
Babylon. They formed a cluster of clans to the south-west of Babylon, who invaded
Babylonia, and occasionally secured the supremacy in the city. The Assyrians had
frequent encounters with them, and carried on against them many prolonged wars.
78

The name in the Assyrian monuments is most frequently Kaldu, from which the
Greek χαλδαῖοι comes. It is doubtful whether there is a form Kassatu to explain the
Hebrew term. In the days of Nabo-polassar, the Chaldeans being supreme in
Babylonia, all the inhabitants of that province may have been called Chaldeans.
Latterly there was a restricted use of the term, due to the great attention paid in
Babylonia to astrology. It is doubtful whether this restricted use of the word
occurred in the genuine Daniel, from which our canonical Daniel has sprung.
Certainly Daniel, and those hostages selected with him, were to be educated so as to
become member's of this sacred college of augurs and astrologers.
4 young men without any physical defect,
handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of
learning, well informed, quick to understand, and
qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to
teach them the language and literature of the
Babylonians.[b]
BARNES, "Children in whom was no blemish - The word rendered “children”
in this place (‫ילדים‬ ye
lâdı̂ym) is different from that which is rendered “children” in Job_
1:3 - ‫בנים‬ bânnı̂ym). That word denotes merely that they were “sons,” or “descendants,”
of Israel, without implying anything in regard to their age; the word here used would be
appropriate only to those who were at an early period of life, and makes it certain that
the king meant that those who were selected should be youths. Compare Gen_4:23,
where the word is rendered “a young man.” It is sometimes, indeed, used to denote a
son, without reference to age, and is then synonymous with ‫בן‬ bên, a “son.” But it
properly means “one born;” that is, “recently born;” a child, Gen_21:8; Exo_1:17; Exo_
2:3; and then one in early life. There can be no doubt that the monarch meant to
designate youths. So the Vulgate, pueros, and the Greek, νεανισκους neaniskous, and so
the Syriac. All these words would be applicable to those who were in early life, or to
young men. Compare Introduction to Daniel, Section I. The word “blemish” refers to
bodily defect or imperfection. The object was to select those who were most perfect in
79

form, perhaps partly because it was supposed that beautiful youths would most grace the
court, and partly because it was supposed that such would be likely to have the brightest
intellectual endowments. It was regarded as essential to personal beauty to be without
blemish, 2Sa_14:25 : “But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom
for beauty; from the sole of Iris foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish
in him.” Son_4:7 : “thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.” The word is
sometimes used in a moral sense, to denote corruption of heart or life Deu_32:5; Job_
11:15; Job_31:7, but that is not the meaning here.
But well-favored - Hebrew, “good of appearance;” that is, beautiful.
And skillful in all wisdom - Intelligent, wise - that is, in all that was esteemed wise
in their own country. The object was to bring forward the most talented and intelligent,
as well as the most beautiful, among the Hebrew captives.
And cunning in knowledge - In all that could be known. The distinction between
the word here rendered “knowledge” (‫דעת‬ da‛ath) and the word rendered “science”
(‫מדע‬ maddâ‛) is not apparent. Both come from the word ‫ידע‬ yâda‛ to “know,” and
would be applicable to any kind of knowledge. The word rendered “cunning” is also
derived from the same root, and means “knowing,” or “skilled in.” We more commonly
apply the word to a particular kind of knowledge, meaning artful, shrewd, astute, sly,
crafty, designing. But this was not the meaning of the word when the translation of the
Bible was made, and it is not employed in that sense in the Scriptures. It is always used
in a good sense, meaning intelligent, skillful, experienced, well-instructed. Compare
Gen_25:27; Exo_26:1; Exo_28:15; Exo_38:23; 1Sa_16:16; 1Ch_25:7; Psa_137:5; Isa_
3:3.
And understanding science - That is, the sciences which prevailed among the
Hebrews. They were not a nation distinguished for “science,” in the sense in which that
term is now commonly understood - embracing astronomy, chemistry, geology,
mathematics, electricity, etc.; but their science extended chiefly to music, architecture,
natural history, agriculture, morals, theology, war, and the knowledge of future events;
in all which they occupied an honorable distinction among the nations. In many of these
respects they were, doubtless, far in advance of the Chaldeans; and it was probably the
purpose of the Chaldean monarch to avail himself of what they knew.
And such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace - Hebrew, “had
strength” - ‫כח‬ kôach. Properly meaning, who had strength of body for the service which
would be required of them in attending on the court. “A firm constitution of body is
required for those protracted services of standing in the hall of the royal presence.” -
Grotius. The word “palace” here (‫היכל‬ hêykâl) is commonly used to denote the temple
(2Ki_24:13; 2Ch_3:17; Jer_50:28; Hag_2:15. Its proper and primitive signification,
however, is a large and magnificent building - a palace - and it was given to the temple as
the “palace” of Jehovah, the abode where he dwelt as king of his people.
And whom they might teach - That they might be better qualified for the duties to
which they might be called. The purpose was, doubtless (see analysis), to bring forward
their talent, that it might contribute to the splendor of the Chaldean court; but as they
were, doubtless, ignorant to a great extent of the language of the Chaldeans, and as there
were sciences in which the Chaldeans were supposed to excel, it seemed desirable that
they should have all the advantage which could be delayed from a careful training under
the best masters.
80

The learning - - ‫ספר‬ sêpher. literally, “writing” Isa_29:11-12. Gesenius supposes
that this means the “writing” of the Chaldeans; or that they might be able to read the
language of the Chaldeans. But it, doubtless, included “the knowledge” of what was
written, as well as the ability “to read” what was written; that is, the purpose was to
instruct them in the sciences which were understood among the Chaldeans. They were
distinguished chiefly for such sciences as these:
(1) Astronomy. This science is commonly supposed to have had its orion on the plains
of Babylon, and it was early carried there to as high a degree of perfection as it attained
in any of the ancient nations. Their mild climate, and their employment as shepherds,
leading them to pass much of their time at night under the open heavens, gave them the
opportunity of observing the stars, and they amused themselves in marking their
positions and their changes, and in mapping out the heavens in a variety of fanciful
figures, now called constellations.
(2) Astrology. This was at first a branch of astronomy, or was almost identical with it,
for the stars were studied principally to endeavor to ascertain what influence they
exerted over the fates of men, and especially what might be predicted from their
position, on the birth of an individual, as to his future life. Astrology was then deemed a
science whose laws were to be ascertained in the same way as the laws of any other
science; and the world has been slow to disabuse itself of the notion that the stars exert
an influence over the fates of men. Even Lord Bacon held that it was a science to be
“reformed,” not wholly rejected.
(3) Magic; soothsaying; divination; or whatever would contribute to lay open the
future, or disclose the secrets of the invisible world. Hence, they applied themselves to
the interpretation of dreams; they made use of magical arts, probably employing, as
magicians do, some of the ascertained results of science in producing optical illusions,
impressing the common with the belief that they were familiar with the secrets of the
invisible world; and hence, the name “Chaldean” and “magician” became almost
synonymous terms Dan_2:2; Dan_4:7; Dan_5:7.
(4) It is not improbable that they had made advances in other sciences, but of this we
have little knowledge. They knew little of the true laws of astronomy, geology,
cheministry, electricity, mathematics; and in these, and in kindred departments of
science, they may be supposed to have been almost wholly ignorant.
And the tongue of the Chaldeans - In regard to the “Chaldeans,” see the notes at
Job_1:17; and the notes at Isa_23:13. The kingdom of Babylon was composed mainly of
Chaldeans, and that kingdom was called “the realm of the Chaldeans” Dan_9:1. Of that
realm, or kingdom, Babylon was the capital. The origin of the Chaldeans has been a
subject of great perplexity, on which there is still a considerable variety of opinions.
According to Heeren, they came from the North; by Gesenius they are supposed to have
come from the mountains of Kurdistan; and by Michaelis, from the steppes of Scythia.
They seem to have been an extended race, and probably occupied the whole of the region
adjacent to what became Babylonia. Heeren expresses his opinion as to their origin in
the following language: “It cannot be doubted that, at some remote period, antecedent to
the commencement of historical records. “one mighty race” possessed these vast plains,
varying in character according to the country which they inhabited; in the deserts of
Arabia, pursuing a nomad life; in Syria, applying themselves to agriculture, and taking
up settled abodes; in Babylonia, erecting the most magnificent cities of ancient times;
and in Phoenicia, opening the earliest ports, and constructing fleets, which secured to
them the commerce of the known world.”
81

There exists at the present time, in the vicinity of the Bahrein Islands, and along the
Persian Gulf, in the neighborhood of the Astan River, an Arab tribe, of the name of the
“Beni Khaled,” who are probably the same people as the “Gens Chaldei” of Pliny, and
doubtless the descendants of the ancient race of the Chaldeans. On the question when
they became a kingdom, or realm, making Babylon their capital, see the notes at Isa_
23:13. Compare, for an interesting discussion of the subject, “Forster’s Historical
Geography of Arabia,” vol. i. pp. 49-56. The language of the Chaldeans, in which a
considerable part of the book of Daniel is written (see the Introduction Section IV., III.),
differed from the Hebrew, though it was a branch of the same Aramean family of
languages. It was, indeed, very closely allied to the Hebrew, but was so different that
those who were acquainted with only one of the two languages could not understand the
other. Compare Neh_8:8. Both were the offspring of the original Shemitish language.
This original language may be properly reduced to three great branches:
(1) The Aramean, which prevailed in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia; and which
may, therefore, be divided into the Syriac or West-Aramean, and the Chaldee or East-
Aramean, called after the Babylonian Aramean.
(2) The Hebrew, with which the fragments of the Phoenician coincide.
(3) The Arabic, under which belongs the Ethiopic as a dialect. The Aramean, which,
after the return from the Babylonian captivity, was introduced into Palestine, and which
prevailed in the time of the Saviour, is commonly called the Syro-Chaldaic, because it
was a mixture of the Eastern and Western dialects. The Chaldee, or East Aramean, and
the Hebrew, had in general the same stock of original words, but they differed in several
respects, such as the following:
(a) Many words of the old primitive language which had remained in one dialect had
been lost in the other.
(b) The same word was current in both dialects, but in different significations, because
in the one it retained the primitive signification, while in the other it had acquired
different meaning.
(c) The Babylonian dialect had borrowed expressions from the Northern Chaldeans,
who had made various irruptions into the country. These expressions were foreign to the
Shemitish dialects, and belonged to the Japhetian language, which prevailed among the
Armenians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Chaldeans, who were probaby related to
these. Traces of these foreign words are found in the names of the officers of state, and
in expressions having reference to the government.
(d) The Babylonian pronunciation was more easy and more sonorous than the
Hebrew. It exchanged the frequent sibilants of the Hebrew, and the other consonants
which were hard to pronounce, for others which were less difficult: it dropped the long
vowels which were not essential to the forms of words; it preferred the more sonorous
“a” to the long “o,” and assumed at the end of nouns, in order to lighten the
pronunciation, a prolonged auxiliary vowel (the so-called emphatic ‫א‬ ('); it admitted
contractions in pronouncing many words) and must have been, as the language of
common life, far better adapted to the sluggish Orientals than the harsher Hebrew. See
an article “On the Prevalence of the Aramean Language in Palestine in the age of Christ
and the Apostles,” by Henry F. Pfannkuche, in the “Biblical Repository,” vol. i. pp. 318,
319. On this verse also, compare the notes at Isa_39:7.
82

CLARKE, "Children - ‫ילדים‬ yeladim, youths, young men; and so the word should
be rendered throughout this book.
Skilled in all wisdom - Rather, persons capable of every kind of literary
accomplishment, that they might be put under proper instruction. And as children of the
blood and of the nobles mere most likely, from the care usually taken of their initiatory
education, to profit most by the elaborate instruction here designed, the master of the
eunuchs, the king’s chamberlain, was commanded to choose the youths in question out
of such.
GILL, "Children in whom was no blemish,.... Not mere children, but young men
of fifteen or twenty years of age; about which age Daniel is by Aben Ezra supposed to be
when he was carried captive; and less than this be cannot well be thought to be, since, in
a few years after, he was put into posts of the greatest eminence and importance: such
were ordered to be selected that had no deformity or defect in any parts of their body, or
wanted any, as an eye, or a hand, &c.; or, "in whom was not anything" (h); vicious or
immoral, or scandalous in their character:
but well favoured; of a good complexion, a ruddy countenance, and a healthful look.
So Curtius (i) says, that, in all barbarous or uncivilized countries, the stateliness and size
of the body is had in great veneration; nor do they think any capable of great services or
actions, to whom nature has not vouchsafed to give a beautiful form and aspect. And
Aristotle (k) says it was reported, that, in Ethiopia, civil offices of government or
magistracy were distributed according to the bulk or beauty of men, the largeness and
tallness of their bodies, or the comeliness of them; and not only among them, but this
has always been the custom of the eastern nations, to choose such for their principal
officers, or to wait on princes and great personages, and continues to this day. Sir Paul
Ricaut (l) observes,
"that the youths that are designed for the great offices of the Turkish empire must be of
admirable features and pleasing looks, well shaped in their bodies, and without any
defects of nature; for it is conceived that a corrupt and sordid soul can scarce inhabit in a
serene and ingenious aspect; and (says he) I have observed not only in the seraglio, but
also in the courts of great men, their personal attendants have been of comely lusty
youths well habited, deporting themselves with singular modesty and respect in the
presence of their masters: so that when a pascha, aga, spahee, travels, he is always
attended with a comely equipage, followed by flourishing youths, well clothed, and
mounted in great numbers; that one may guess at the greatness of this empire by the
retinue, pomp, and number of servants, which accompany persons of quality in their
journeys.''
And no doubt Nebuchadnezzar had some of these ends in view, in ordering such persons
to be selected and brought up at his expense; that they might be both for service and
usefulness, and for his grandeur and glory.
And skilful in all wisdom: in the wisdom of the Jews, or had a liberal education
according to the custom of their country; or were young men of good capacities, capable
of being instructed, and of improving themselves in all kind of wisdom:
83

and cunning in knowledge; or "knowing knowledge" (m); having a large share of the
knowledge of their own country, customs, and laws, civil and religious: and
understanding science; the liberal arts and sciences; or however were persons of a good
genius, and of retentive memories; young men of capacity, diligence, industry, and
application, and of great docility, and so very promising to make great and useful men:
and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace; not only strength
of body, which was requisite to a long waiting there, as sometimes they were obliged to
do; but strength of mind, courage, and undauntedness, to stand before the king and his
nobles, without showing a rustic fear, and timidity of mind:
and whom they might teach the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans; or,
"the book and language of the Chaldeans" (n); book for books; such as contained their
literature, history, and philosophy, mathematics, the knowledge of the stars, in which
they excelled, as well as architecture and military skill; and it was necessary they should
learn the Chaldean language, which differed from the Hebrew chiefly in dialect and
pronunciation, that they might be able to read those books of science, and to speak with
a good accent, and readily, before the king and his nobles; or rather the sense is, that
they might understand the Chaldean language, the manner of reading, writing, and
pronouncing it ‫,ספר‬ translated "learning", may signify the letters of the language, the
Scripture or manner of writing, as Saadiah and Aben Ezra interpret it; which must be
first learned in any language, in order to attain the knowledge of it; so it seems to be
used in Isa_19:12. "I am not learned, or know not a book or letters" see Joh_7:15 and
‫,לשון‬ translated "tongue", may signify the rules, idioms, and properties of the language;
the nature, genius, and dialect of it, and signification of the words and phrases used in it
to be learned, so as to be thorough masters of it, understand it, speak it, and pronounce
it well. But here a difficulty arises, since the form and character of the letters of the
Chaldee and Hebrew languages now in use are the same; it may seem unnecessary that
Hebrew youths should be put to school to learn the Chaldean letters and language,
though the dialect and idioms of the two languages might in some things differ; but let it
be observed, that it might be, and it is not improbable, that the letters of the Chaldean
language were not the same then as they are now; and Hottinger (o) expressly says, that
the ancient Chaldee character is not known; not to say anything of the difference of the
Hebrew letters then from what they are now, which some have surmised: besides, it is a
clear case that the Chaldee and Syriac languages are the same, as appears from Dan_2:4,
where the Chaldeans are said to speak to the king in Syriac; and yet, what follows is no
other than Chaldee, their mother tongue, in which it was most proper and agreeable to
speak to the king: and as it is the opinion of many learned men now that these languages
are the same, so it was the sense of the ancient Jews. Says R. Samuel Bar Nachman (p),
let not the Syriac language be mean in thine eyes, or lightly esteemed by thee; for in the
law, in the prophets, and in the Hagiographa, the holy blessed God has imparted honour
to it; in the law, Gen_31:47, in the prophets, Jer_10:11, in the Hagiographa, Dan_2:4 in
all which places it is the Chaldee language that is used; and that which was spoken in
Babylon, the head of the Chaldean empire, is called the Syriac; for Cyrus, when he took
that city, ordered a proclamation to be made, by men skilled, συριστι, in the Syriac
language, that the inhabitants should keep within doors, and that those that were found
without should be slain (q); which orders were published in that language, that they
might be universally understood, being the language of the common people. So
84

Herodotus, speaking of the Assyrians, says (r), these by the Greeks are called Syrians,
and by the barbarians Assyrians, among whom were the Chaldeans: and, as Strabo
observes (s), the same language or dialect was used by those without Euphrates, and by
those within; that is, by the Syrians, strictly so called, and by the Babylonians or
Chaldeans: and elsewhere (t), the name of Syrians reached from Babylon to Sinus
Issicus; and, formerly, from thence to the Euxine sea. Now it is certain that the form and
character of the letters in the Syriac language are very different from the Hebrew, and
difficult to be learned, and might be those which these Hebrew youths were to be taught
at school, as well as the rudiments of it; and it is as evident that the language of the Jews,
and that of the Syrians, Chaldeans, and Babylonians, were so different, that the common
people of the former did not understand the language of the latter when spoke, as
appears from 2Ki_18:26 so that there was an apparent necessity for the one to be taught
the language of the other, in order to understand it.
JAMISON, "no blemish — A handsome form was connected, in Oriental ideas, with
mental power. “Children” means youths of twelve or fourteen years old.
teach ... tongue of ... Chaldeans — their language and literature, the Aramaic-
Babylonian. That the heathen lore was not altogether valueless appears from the
Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses; the Eastern Magi who sought Jesus, and who
may have drawn the tradition as to the “King of the Jews” from Dan_9:24, etc., written
in the East. As Moses was trained in the learning of the Egyptian sages, so Daniel in that
of the Chaldeans, to familiarize his mind with mysterious lore, and so develop his
heaven-bestowed gift of understanding in visions (Dan_1:4, Dan_1:5, Dan_1:17).
CALVIN, "In yesterday’s Lecture we saw how the prefect or master of the eunuchs
was commanded to bring up some noble youths, the offspring of the king and the
elders; and Daniel now describes their qualities, according to Nebuchadnezzar’s
order. They were youths, not so young as seven or eight years, but growing up, in
whom there was no spot; that is, in whom there was no defect or unsoundness of
body. They were also of beautiful aspect, meaning of ingenuous and open
countenance, he adds also, skilled in all prudence, and understanding knowledge;
and then, expressing their thoughts I think those interpreters right who take this
participle actively, otherwise the repetition would be cold and valueless. Their
eloquence seems to me pointed out here; because there are some who inwardly
understand subjects presented to them, but cannot express to others what they
retain in their minds; for all have not the same dexterity in expressing exactly what
they think Daniel, therefore, notices both qualifications here — the acquisition of
knowledge, and the power of communicating it.
And in whom was vigor for ‫,כח‬ cach, usually signifies fortitude, as in Isaiah. (Isaiah
40:9.) Those who fear God shall change their fortitude, or renew their rigor. Then in
Psalms 22:0, (Psalms 22:15,) my strength or rigor has failed.” He adds, the fortitude
or vigor of intelligence, knowledge, and eloquence; or a healthy habit of body, which
is the same thing. (77) That they might stand in the king ’s palace, and be taught
literature, (I cannot translate the particle ‫,ספר‬ sepher, otherwise, verbally it is a
“letter, ” but it means learning or discipline,) and the language of the Chaldees We
85

now see how the king regarded not only their rank, when he ordered the most
excellent of the royal and noble children to be brought to him; but he exercised his
choice that those who were to be his servants should be clever; they were of high
birth, as the phrase is; so they ought to prevail in eloquence and give hopeful
promise of general excellence in both body and mind. Without doubt he wished
them to be held in great estimation, that he might win over other Jews also. Thus, if
they afterwards obtained authority, should circumstances allow of it, they might
become rulers in Judea, bearing sway over their own people, and yet remain
attached to the Babylonian empire. This was the king’s design; it affords no reason
why we should praise his liberality, since it is sufficiently apparent that he consulted
nothing but his own advantage.
Meanwhile, we observe, that learning and the liberal arts were not then so despised
as they are in this age, and in those immediately preceding it. So strongly has
barbarism prevailed in the world, that it is almost disgraceful for nobles to be
reckoned among the men of education and of letters! The chief boast. of the nobility
was to be destitute of scholarship — nay, they gloried in the assertion, that they
were “no scholars,” in the language of the day; and if any of their rank were versed
in literature, they acquired their attainments for no other purpose than to be made
bishops and abbots’ still, as I have said, they generally despised all literature. We
perceive the age in which Daniel lived was not so barbarous, for the king wished to
have these boys whom he caused to be so instructed, among his own princes, as we
have said, to promote his own advantage; still we must remark upon the habit of
that age. As to his requiring so much knowledge and skill, it may seem out of place,
and more than their tender age admitted, that they should be so accomplished in
prudence, knowledge, and experience. But we know that kings require nothing in
moderation when they order anything to be prepared, they often ascend beyond the
clouds. So Nebuchadnezzar speaks here; and Daniel, who relates his commands,
does so in a royal manner. Since the king commanded all the most accomplished to
be brought before him, if they really manifested any remarkable qualities, we need
not be surprised at their knowledge, skill, and prudence. The king simply wished
those boys and youths to be brought to him who were ingenious and dangerous, and
adapted to learn with rapidly; and then those who were naturally eloquent and of a
healthy constitution of body. For it follows directly, that they might learn, or be
taught the literature and language of the Chaldees We perceive that King
Nebuchadnezzar did not demand teachers, but boys of high birth, and good talents,
and of promising abilities; he wished them to be liberally instructed in the doctrine
of the Chaldees he was unwilling to have youths of merely polished and cultivated
minds without natural abilities. His desire to have them acquainted with the
language of Chaldea arose from his wish to separate them by degrees from their
own nation, to introduce them to forget their Jewish birth, and to acquire the
Chaldean manners, since language is a singular bond of communication. Respecting
their learning, we may ask, whether Daniel and his companions were permitted to
learn arts full of imposition, which we know to be the nature of the Chaldean
learning. For they professed to know every one’s fate, as in these days there are
many impostors in the world, who are called fortune-tellers. They abused an
86

honorable name when they called themselves mathematicians, as if there were no
scientific learning separate from those arts and diabolic illusions. And as to the use
of the word, the Caesars, in their laws, unite Chaldeans and mathematicians,
treating them as synonymous. But the explanation is easy, — the Chaldeans not only
pursued that astrology which is called “Judicial,” but were also skilled in the true
and genuine knowledge of the stars. The ancients say, that the course of the stars
was observed by the Chaldeans, as there was no region of the world so full of them,
and none possessed so extensive an horizon on all sides. As the Chaldeans enjoyed
this advantage of having the heavens so fully exposed to the contemplation of man,
this may have led to their study, and have conduced to the more earnest pursuit of
astrology. But as the minds of men are inclined to vain and foolish curiosity, they
were not content with legitimate science, but fell into foolish and perverse
imaginations. For what fortune-tellers predict of any one’s destiny is merely foolish
fanaticism. Daniel, therefore, might have learned these arts; that is, astrology and
other liberal sciences, just as Moses is said to have been instructed in all the sciences
of Egypt. We know how the Egyptians were infected with similar corruption’s; but
it is said both of Moses and of our Prophet, that they were imbued with a knowledge
of the stars and of the other liberal sciences. Although it is uncertain whether the
king commanded them to proceed far in these studies, yet we must hold that Daniel
abstained, as we shall see directly, from the royal food and drink, and was not
drawn aside nor involved in these Satanic impostures. Whatever the king’s
commandment was, I suppose Daniel to have been content with the pure and
genuine knowledge of natural things. As far as the king is concerned, as we have
already said, he consulted simply his own interests; wishing Daniel and his
companions to pass over into a foreign tribe, and to be drawn away from their own
people, as if they had been natives of Chaldea. It now follows —
ELLLICOTT, " (4) Children.—If the Babylonian customs were similar to the
Persian, it is probable that the course of education would commence at an early age.
So elaborate a system of science as the Babylonian, whether theological,
astronomical, or magical, would naturally require an early training. It is reasonable
to suppose that these “children” were quite young. So much may be inferred from
Nebuchadnezzar’s amazement at what he considered to be Daniel’s precocious
genius (Daniel 2:26).
To stand, i.e., to act as courtiers or servants. (Comp. 2 Kings 5:25, and below, Daniel
1:19.)
Learning . . . Chaldeans.—Many interesting specimens of this may be seen in the
volumes of the Records of the Past, which are devoted to Assyrian and Babylonian
subjects. Many more examples may be seen in the British Museum, and among them
the large treatise on magic, which originally consisted of no less than two hundred
tablets. It appears, from comparing this with Daniel 1:19, that some form of
examination was held by the king, before he admitted the courtiers into his
immediate service. The language of Chaldæa at this time was Semitic; but there was
a sacred language in use besides, which probably belonged to the Turanian family.
87

In both these languages was Daniel educated.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and
skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and
such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might
teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.
Ver. 4. Children in whom was no blemish.] Such as were Joseph, David, Artaxerxes
Longimus, Germanicus, and others, in whom beauty proved to be the "flower of
virtue," as Chrysippus called it. Of Galba the emperor one said, that his good wit
dwelt in an ill house, like an excellent instrument in a bad case; whereas Vatinius
the Roman was not more misshapen in body than in mind. (a) The heathens also
advise us to beware of those whom nature hath set a mark upon.
And skilful in all wisdom,] i.e., Ingenious and industrious, apt and able to receive
and improve instruction. Tacitus (b) telleth us that in the times of Vespasian and
Domitian, the children of the British nobles were so witty and well bred that the
Romans infinitely admired them for the debonnaireness of their natures, preferring
the wits of the Britons before the study of the Gauls. And they are called Angli quasi
Angeli, the English just as Angels, said Gregory the Great, concerning the English
boys presented to him.
And such as had ability in them.] Daniel and his three friends are thought by some
to have been bred under the prophet Jeremiah, and to have begun to prophesy some
years before Ezekiel.
To stand in the king’s palace,] i.e., To do him service. This is that which learned
men should aim at in these studies, viz., to lay forth themselves for the public good.
Paulum sepultae distat inertiae Celata virtus, (c)
And whom they might teach the learning.] Heb., The book - that is, the art of
grammar, say some. But why not other arts also learned by books, those mute
masters? Yet not so well, the mathematics especially, without a teacher. Joseph
Scaliger, who was αυτοδιδακτος, self-taught, and yet proved so great a scholar, is by
one called daemonium hominis, et miraculum naturae, more than a man, even a
very miracle.
And the tongue of the Chaldee.] Which was not therefore the same with the Hebrew,
but a different dialect, or daughter of it. The most ancient tongue was the Hebrew,
preserved in Heber’s family. The Hebrews and Chaldees had one common ancestor,
viz., Arphaxad; and Abraham, being born in Chaldea, could speak both languages;
but so could not Daniel and his fellows till they were taught. Good letters and
languages are to be taught in schools and universities, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin,
especially, the dignity and study whereof Christ would have to be ever kept a-foot in
his Church, as appeareth by that inscription, not without a providence, set upon his
88

cross in those three tongues. [John 19:19-20]
POOLE, " If the princes are so curious in their choice, no marvel that God was
cautious in his, Leviticus 21:17-21 22:20-25. The reason why they were so delicately
trained up was, that they being in the flower of their age should be allured with the
delights of the court, and should: thereby be brought to forget their fathers’ house
and their religion; this hath been the artifice of the Turk in taking Christians’
children, and making them Mamelukes and Janizaries, that thereby they may
become, as renegades, the greatest champions for Mahomet, and enemies to the
Christians.
To stand in the king’s palace: this notes men fit by their parts to give advice in
arduous matters, 2 Chronicles 10:6: which shows that men only of promising
abilities, and not incompetent, should be admitted to the presence of kings.
The learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans: for this cause Moses was learned in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians, Acts 7:22; yet it must be supposed that neither
Moses nor Daniel learned any thing that was ungodly, but only to search nature,
and that which was only moral; wherein both the Chaldeans and Egyptians were
skilled above any other nations of the heathens. And although their magi or wise
men did at last degenerate into curious and vain arts, yet Daniel had no further
design to know their wisdom than to choose the good of it, and to shun and reject
that which was unlawful. The Chaldean tongue differed from the Hebrew in dialect
and in pronunciation, which they learned in the right tone and accent, that they
might be the more acceptable to the king and court, by their conformity in garb,
language, and manners; for which they had the space of three years allotted them.
WHEDON, "4. These youths, who were selected to be schooled in “the learning and
the tongue of the Chaldeans” in the royal palace, were perfect physically, and with a
pleasing presence — a quality which was especially appreciated at the Babylonian
court — having good intellectual faculties, being quick to learn with able powers of
discrimination, possessed of easy manners and the polite accomplishments essential
to courtiers. Jephet Ibu Ali, the Kararite, in his comments, says that they had
ability, that is, “force of patience, to stand before the king and abstain from
expectorating!” The ordinary “tongue” of the Chaldeans was, of course, the
Babylonian, which comes to us in the cuneiform inscriptions, although several
languages, including Aramaic and Assyrian, must have been studied in the schools
of this period, as is shown by the contract tables and magic formulas. The
Babylonian literature was very extensive, as also the trade and political relations of
the court with far distant nations. (See Introduction, III, 2.) Assurbanipal’s library,
which he says was “for the instruction of my subjects,” was that of the palace school,
and the students were instructed in mathematics, botany, zoology, astronomy,
astrology, and the literary use of their own and various other languages, being
especially drilled in the study of the ancient religious texts, which were written in a
dead language (Sum-Akk.). It may be that the Sumerian, or ancient Babylonian, is
89

meant as the particular tongue of the Chaldeans or “wise men.” These “Chaldeans”
were the dominant race who in the sixth century B.C. and for centuries afterward
monopolized the highest priestly and learned offices. It is not strange that the words
“Chaldean” and “sorcerer” became almost synonymous terms, “for the magic art
formed so large a part of the Babylonian religion that it can almost be considered its
characteristic feature” (Zimmern). In later times the Chaldeans practiced
necromancy of the grossest kind, and most abominable to pious Jews. The word
may be used here, however, in the earlier sense, “learned men.” (See Introduction,
II, 8.)
5 The king assigned them a daily amount of food
and wine from the king’s table. They were to be
trained for three years, and after that they were to
enter the king’s service.
BARNES, "And the king appointed them - Calvin supposes that this
arrangement was resorted to in order to render them effeminate, and, by a course of
luxurious living, to induce them gradually to forget their own country, and that with the
same view their names were changed. But there is no evidence that this was the object.
The purpose was manifestly to train them in the manner in which it was supposed they
would be best fitted, in bodily health, in personal beauty, and in intellectual attainments,
to appear at court; and it was presumed that the best style of living which the realm
furnished would conduce to this end. That the design was not to make them effeminate,
is apparent from Dan_1:15.
A daily provision - Hebrew, “The thing of a day in his day;” that is, he assigned to
them each day a portion of what had been prepared for the royal meal. It was not a
permanent provision, but one which was made each day. The word rendered
“provision” - ‫פת‬ path - means a bit, “crumb,” “morsel,” Gen_18:5; Jdg_19:5; Psa_147:17.
Of the king’s meat - The word “meat” here means “food,” as it does uniformly in the
Bible, the Old English word having this signification when the translation was made, and
not being limited then, as it is now, to animal food. The word in the original - ‫בג‬ bag - is
of Persian origin, meaning “food.” The two words are frequently compounded - ‫פתבג‬
pathe
bag Dan_1:5, Dan_1:8, Dan_1:13, Dan_1:15-16; Dan_11:26; and the compound
means delicate food, dainties; literally, food of the father, i. e., the king; or, according to
Lorsbach, in Archiv. f. “Morgenl.” Litt. II., 313, food for idols, or the gods; - in either case
90

denoting delicate food; luxurious living. - Gesenius, “Lex.”
And of the wine which he drank - Margin, “of his drink.” Such wine as the king
was accustomed to drink. It may be presumed that this was the best kind of wine. From
anything that appears, this was furnished to them in abundance; and with the leisure
which they had, they could hardly be thrown into stronger temptation to excessive
indulgence.
So nourishing them three years - As long as was supposed to be necessary in
order to develop their physical beauty and strength, and to make them well acquainted
with the language and learning of the Chaldeans. The object was to prepare them to give
as much dignity and ornament to the court as possible.
That at the end thereof they might stand before the king - Notes, Dan_1:4.
On the arrangements made to bring forward these youths, the editor of the “Pictorial
Bible” makes the following remarks, showing the correspondence between these
arrangements and what usually occurs in the East: “There is not a single intimation
which may not be illustrated from the customs of the Turkish seraglio until some
alterations were made in this, as in other matters, by the present sultan (Mahmoud). The
pages of the seraglio, and officers of the court, as well as the greater part of the public
functionaries and governors of provinces, were originally Christian boys, taken captive
in war, or bought or stolen in time of peace. The finest and most capable of these were
sent to the palace, and, if accepted, were placed under the charge of the chief of the white
eunuchs. The lads did not themselves become eunuchs; which we notice, because it has
been erroneously inferred, that Daniel and the other Hebrew youths “must” have been
made eunuchs, “because” they were committed to the care of the chief eunuch.
The accepted lads were brought up in the religion of their masters; and there were
schools in the palace where they received such complete instruction in Turkish learning
and science as it was the lot of few others to obtain. Among their accomplishments we
find it mentioned, that the greatest pains were taken to teach them to speak the Turkish
language (a foreign one to them) with the greatest purity, as spoken at court. Compare
this with “Teach them the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans.” The lads were clothed
very neatly, and well, but temperately dieted. They slept in large chambers, where there
were rows of beds. Every one slept separately; and between every third or fourth bed lay
a white eunuch, who served as a sort of guard, and was bound to keep a careful eye upon
the lads near him, and report his observations to his superior. When any of them arrived
at a proper age, they were instructed in military exercises, and pains taken to make them
active, robust, and brave.
Every one, also, according to the custom of the country, was taught some mechanical
or liberal art, to serve him as a resource in adversity. When their education was
completed in all its branches, those who had displayed the most capacity and valor were
employed about the person of the king, and the rest given to the service of the treasury,
and the other offices of the extensive establishment to which they belonged. In due time
the more talented or successful young men got promoted to the various high court
offices which gave them access to the private apartments of the seraglio, so that they at
almost any time could see and speak to their great master. This advantage soon paved
the way for their promotion to the government of provinces, and to military commands;
and it has often happened that favorite court officers have stepped at once into the post
of grand vizier, or chief minister, and other high offices of state, without having
previously been abroad in the world as pashas and military commanders. How well this
agrees to, and illustrates the usage of the Babylonian court, will clearly appear to the
91

reader without particular indication. See Habesci’s “Ottoman Empire;” Tavernier’s
“Relation de l’Interieur du Sérail du Grand Seigneur.”
CLARKE, "A daily provision - Athenaeus, lib. iv., c. 10, says: The kings of Persia,
(who succeeded the kings of Babylon, on whose empire they had seized), were
accustomed to order the food left at their own tables to be delivered to their courtiers.
So nourishing them three years - This was deemed a sufficient time to acquire
the Chaldee language, and the sciences peculiar to that people. I suppose they had good
introductory books, able teachers, and a proper method; else they would have been
obliged, like us, to send their children seven years to school, and as many to the
university, to teach them any tolerable measure of useful and ornamental literature! O
how reproachful to the nations of Europe, and particularly to our own, is this backward
mode of instruction. And what is generally learned after this vast expense of time and
money? A little Latin, Greek, and mathematics; perhaps a little moral philosophy; and by
this they are entitled, not qualified, to teach others, and especially to teach the people the
important science of salvation! To such shepherds, (and there are many such), the
hungry sheep look up, and are not fed; and if all are not such, no thanks to our plan of
national education.
GILL, "And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat,....
Every day a portion was ordered them, from the king's table, of the richest dainties he
himself ate of; which was done not only as an act of royal munificence and generosity,
and in respect of their birth and breeding; but also as a bait and snare to allure and
entice them, to make them in love with the country and condition in which they were,
and to forget their own; as well also in order to preserve their well favoured look and
good complexion, and fit them for their study of language and literature; which might be
hindered for want of the necessaries of life, or by living on gross and coarse food:
and of the wine which he drank; which, as it was of various sorts, so of the best and
most excellent; and which, moderately drank, conduces to the health of the body, and
cheerfulness of the mind; and which are both useful to forward learned studies:
so nourishing them three years; this was the time fixed for their acquiring the
learning and language of the Chaldeans; during which they were to be provided for from
the king's table, and at his expense, as above; which term of time was judged sufficient
for their learning everything necessary to qualify them for the king's service; and in
which time it might be thought they would forget their own country, customs, religion,
and language, and be inured to the place and persons where they were, and be satisfied
and easy with their condition and circumstances:
that at the end thereof they might stand before the king; that is, at the end of
three years they might be presented to the king for his examination and approbation,
and be appointed to what service he should think fit; and particularly that they might be
in his court, and minister to him in what post it should be his pleasure to place them.
Some in Aben Ezra, and which he himself inclines to, read and interpret it, "that some of
them might stand before the king"; such as he should choose out of them, that were
92

most accomplished and most fit for his service; so Jacchiades.
JAMISON, "king’s meat — It is usual for an Eastern king to entertain, from the
food of his table, many retainers and royal captives (Jer_52:33, Jer_52:34). The Hebrew
for “meat” implies delicacies.
stand before the king — as attendant courtiers; not as eunuchs.
CALVIN, "In this verse, Daniel shews that the king had ordered some youths to be
brought to him from Judea, and to be so nourished as to be intoxicated with
delicacies, and thus rendered forgetful of their own nation. For we know that
wherever there is any cunning in the world, it reigns especially in kings palaces! So
Nebuchadnezzar, when he perceived he was dealing with an obstinate people, (and
we know the Jews to have been of a hard and unsubdued spirit,) wished to acquire
servants spontaneously obedient, aid thus endeavored to soften them with luxuries.
This was the reason why he provided for them an allotment of his own meat and
drink; as at present it is the greatest honor at princes’ tables to be served with a
bon-bouche, as they say. Nebuchadnezzar wished this Daniel and his companions,
though but captives and exiles, to be brought up not only splendidly but royally, if
of the royal race. Through his right of conquest he, had drawn them away violently
from their country, as we said yesterday. Hence he does not act thus from any
feeling of liberality, and his feeding those miserable exiles from his own table should
not be esteemed a virtuous action; but, as we have said, he cleverly reconciles the
minds of the boys to be reckoned Chaldeans rather than Jews, and thus to deny
their own race. This, then, was the king’s intention; but we shall see how God
governed Daniel and his companions by His Spirit, and how they became aware of
these snares of the devil, and abstained from the royal diet, lest they should become
polluted by it. This point will hereafter be treated in its place — we are now only
commenting on the craftiness of the king. He, commanded a daily portion of diet to
be distributed to them, not that the spirit of parsimony dictated this daily portion,
but the king wished their food should be exactly the same as his own and that of the
chiefs.
He adds, that they should be educated for three years; meaning, until they were
thoroughly skilled in both the language and knowledge of the Chaldeans. Three
years were sufficient for both these objects, since he had selected youths of sufficient
talent to learn with ease both languages and sciences. As they were endued with
such capacity, it is not surprising that the space of three years had been prescribed
by the king. At length, he says, at the end of them, meaning of the three years. We
have shown how this ought not to be referred to the boys, as if the king afterwards
selected some of them, for we shall see in its own place that a distinct time was fixed
beforehand; hence no long refutation is needed. It is certain, then, that the Prophet
speaks of the close of the three years. It had been said just before, that they with
93

stand in the palace; but this ought also to be understood of the time of which
mention has been made. They did not stand before the king immediately, but were
reserved for this purpose. Since the king commanded them to be brought up for the
purpose of using their services afterwards Daniel twice repeats — they were
splendidly educated — seeing the king wished them to become his servants at table
and in other duties.
ELLICOTT, " (5) A daily portion.—(Comp. Jeremiah 52:34.) The meat was solid
food, as opposed to the wine and vegetables which formed so important a part of
Babylonian diet. The food appears to have been sent from the king’s table.
Three years.—The king appears to have had sufficient insight into the
extraordinary character of these youths, to enable him to prescribe not only the
subjects of their studies, but also the length of their course of instruction. It appears
that Nebuchadnezzar was a man of far higher character than many Assyrian and
Babylonian kings. We shall see, in the course of the boot, that his heart was fitted
for the reception of Divine truth, and that in the end he was brought to know the
true God.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s
meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the
end thereof they might stand before the king.
Ver. 5. And the king appointed them a daily provision.] A competent and
comfortable subsistence and maintenance, such as whereof, in time past, those
abbey lubbers had too much, and now universities and schools of learning have too
little, but far less should have, might some brain-sick sectaries be heard, such as was
that Weigelius, who said that in no university in the world was Christ to be found,
and that Christ would not have his gospel to be preached by devils, and therefore
not by academics, with a great deal more of such paltry stuff, vented by that
illiterate widgeon. (a)
So nourishing them three years.] Those that stay overly long in the universities,
standing there till they are sour again, and preaching only now and then, to air their
great learning, shall have the rust and canker of their abilities to be a swift witness
against them at that great day.
POOLE, "Of the king’s meat; such as he had at his own table, wherein his bounty
and humanity appeared towards them the more conspicuous, they being captives.
By this preparation they were judged fit to stand before the king. Men of ingenuity
and proficiency are fit to stand before kings, Proverbs 22:29.
BENSON, "Daniel 1:5. The king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s
meat — Such as he had at his own table; wherein his humanity and bounty
appeared toward them the more conspicuous, they being captives. So nourishing
them, &c. — The Vulgate renders it, Ut enutriti, &c.; that, being nourished three
94

years, they might afterward stand in the presence of the king. It seems from what is
here said, that the Chaldeans entertained a notion that a diet of the best sort
contributed both to the beauty of the body and the improvement of the mind.
PETT, "Verse 5
‘And the king appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s food, and of the wine
that he drank, and that they should be nourished for three years, that at the end of
that period they might stand before the king.’
The young men were put in the care of Ashpenaz so that they could be developed
into strapping young men. Every luxury in food and drink was to be theirs. This
was in a sense a period of probation and no doubt some might drop out. ‘Three
years’ could signify any period from about one and a half years (part of a year, a
year, and part of a year) to the full three. Basically they had to go though a complete
course of training. The final purpose was that they might become trusted and well
favoured courtiers. Both appearance and learning was considered important for a
young, budding court official.
‘A daily portion of the king’s ‘food’ (an old Persian word meaning ‘assignment’, the
food allocated by the king through his high officials), and of the wine that he drank.’
It was the ancient custom that such favoured people should eat and drink what the
king ate and drank. It was a sign of high favour.
PULPIT, "Daniel 1:5
And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine
which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might
stand before the king. The only thing to be noticed in the LXX. Version of this verse
is the fact that ‫ָה‬‫נ‬ ָ‫מ‬ is taken to mean "give a portion"—a meaning which seems to be
implied in ‫נוֹת‬ ָ‫מ‬ (Nehemiah 8:10), hence the translation δίδοσθαι … ἐκθέσιν. Further,
the translator must have had ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ ֵ‫מ‬ ּ‫ם‬ַ‫ח‬ as in 2 Kings 25:29. The mysterious ‫ג‬ַ‫ת־ב‬ַ‫פּ‬
(path-bag), translated "meat," has caused differences of rendering. The Syriac
Peshitta transfers it. Professor Bevan speaks as if it were common in Syriac, but
Castell gives no reference beyond Daniel. (Brockei-mann adds, Ephrem Syrus, Isaac
Antiochenus, Bar Hebraeus). It is to be observed that the Syriac form of the word
has teth, not tan, for the second radical. This is a change that would not likely take
place had the Hebrew form been the original, whereas from the fact that path means
in Hebrew "a portion," if the Hebrew were derived from the Syriac the change
would be intelligible. It is confounded in Daniel 11:26 with ‫א‬ ָ‫תוּר‬ָ‫פ‬ (pathura), "a
table." It seems not improbable that both the LXX. and Theodotion read pathura.
The word path-bag does not seem to have been known in Palestine; it does not occur
in Chaldee, but does in Syriac. This is intelligible if the chapter before us is
condensation from a Syriac original rendered into Hebrew: the word path-bag,
being unintelligible, is transferred. The etymology of the word is alleged to be
Persian, hut on this assumption it is a matter of dispute what that etymology is. One
95

derivation is from pad or fad, "father" or "prince," or pat or fat, idol,' and bag
( φαγῶ), 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 ‫ג‬ַ‫ב‬ (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 Rome. Sennacherib speaks of
Belibus, whom he made deputy-king in Babylon, as brought up "as a little dog at his
table". So nourishing them three years. This was the period during which the
education of a Persian youth was continued. It is probable, as we have seen, that
these youths were about sixteen or seventeen. At the end of three years they would
still be very young. The grammatical connection of the word legaddelam is
somewhat singular. The Septuagint reading probably had the first word in this
verse in the infinitive also. This is more grammatical, as it brings the whole under
the regimen of the opening clause of verse 3. The force of the word before us is
represented in "bringing up." The verb in its simple form means "to be strong," "to
be great," hence in the intensive form before us, "to make great," "to bring up."
That at the end thereof they might stand before the king. "Standing before the
king" means usually becoming members of the council of the monarch, but in the
present instance this does not seem to be the meaning. They were to be presented
before the king, and in his presence they were to be examined. They were, then,
possibly to be admitted into the college of astrologers and soothsayers, but only in
lowly grade. Irrespective of the fact that they would at the latest be twenty or
twenty-one when this season of education was over, and, even making all allowance
for Eastern precocity, this is too young an age for being a member of a royal privy
council. But the next chapter relates an event which appears to be the occasion when
they stood before the king, for they were not summoned with the wise men to the
king's presence to interpret his dream.
BI, "A daily provision of the King’s meat.
The Unnamed Captive Royal Children
1. That we should abstain from the least appearance of evil. Daniel and his three
companions, alone of the royal children, refrained from partaking of the meat that
probably had been offered to idols. They would avoid the least appearance of evil.
They would model their conduct so that, placed as they were in a conspicuous
position, their public profession and public acts should be such as were calculated to
96

incite in the hearts of their humbler captive fellow countrymen, a spirit of patriotism
and a spirit of reverence. They determined to take their stand at the very outset on
the side of the right, instead of on the side of the expedient, and to resist the very
first appearance of evil, however plausible and outwardly harmless these
appearances may be. The first step in the path of sin or crime, the first wandering
from the path of righteousness, must be carefully guarded against, lest, inadvertently
and heedlessly, if not wilfully—we do violence to the dictates of our own conscience,
or cause in any way a weak brother to offend.
2. That the road to eminence is through the gate of self-denial. Their countenance
appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of
the King s meat.” So in religious matters as well as secular, it is eternally true.
3. That it is not what we receive, but what we assimilate, that enriches us. It is not
what we eat, but what we digest, that nourishes the body. It is not what we read, but
what we apprehend, that strengthens the mind. It is not what we profess but what we
believe, that edifies the soul. Spirituality is not composed of doctrinal accuracy, or of
ceremonial observances, but of practical Christian morality, and of unsullied
Christian faith.
4. That the issues of events are in the hands of God. Through God’s blessing the
pulse and water were rendered more powerfully nutritious than the diet provided by
the king. God’s ways are not as man’s ways.
5. That the education of these royal captives is typical of the course of human life.
We are sent into this world as into a training school, by the King of kings, that we
may be fitly taught the heavenly knowledge, and the celestial language we need to
make us able duly to appreciate the beauties and to join in the hallelujahs of the
strange land wherein hereafter we are destined to abide. Our great King, too, of His
bounty, gives us each our daily bread for body, mind, and soul, and pours out for us
freely the wine from the true vine. This heavenly food some grossly abuse, some
foolishly neglect, some ascetically reject, simply from human ignorance or conceit.
Asceticism in itself, any more than worldly-mindedness in itself, or sensualism in
itself, cannot render anyone fit for the presence of the heavenly King. A proud, a
vain, an envious, a jealous, an uncharitable heart may beat as well under the hair
shirt of the self-torturing flagellist as under the purple robe of the monarch; and
Antony in his dreary cell, and Simon Stylites on his lonely pillar may have been as far
from the kingdom of heaven as the sensual Belshazzar at his luxurious banquet, or
the worldly-minded Pilate in his tesselated hall. (R. Young.)
Wine wisely avoided
Charles Lamb, who made all the world laugh at his humour, and then afterward made all
the world weep at his fate, who outwitted everybody, and was at last outwitted of his own
appetites, wrote thus: “The waters have gone over me; but out of the depths, could I be
heard, I would cry out to all those who have set a foot in the perilous flood. Could the
youth to whom the flavour of the first wine is delicious as the opening scenes of his life,
or the entering upon some newly-discovered paradise—could he look into my desolation,
and be made to understand what a dreary thing it is when a man shall feel himself going
down a precipice with open eyes and a passive will; to see his destruction and have no
power to stop it, yet feel it all the way emanating from himself; to see all godliness empty
97

out of him, and yet not able to forget the time when it was otherwise; to bear about the
piteous spectacle of his own ruin—could he see my feverish eye, feverish with last night’s
drinking, and feverishly looking for to-night’s repetition of that folly—could he but feel
the body of the death out of which I cry hourly with feeble outcry to be delivered, it were
enough to make him dash the sparkling beverage to the earth in all the pride of its
mantling temptation.” (T. De Witt Talmage.)
The Early Life of Daniel
In the first instance there was a religious difficulty. Daniel had been brought up in the
Mosaic institutions, and therefore he had been trained to abjure all meat that had been
offered to idols, and all drink that had been laid on the altar of forbidden gods. He was a
religious man from home! He was a man who took the commandments into captivity
with him! Alas! there are some of us who can throw off our old selves, and do in Rome as
the Romans do with a vengeance. Daniel, driven into captivity, took his religion with
him. When we are thrown into difficult circumstances, do we take our religious faith
with us? When we go to other countries, do we take the old home training? Do we repeat
the commandments as they were thundered from Sinai, and do we re-pronounce the
oath we took when we gave ourselves to the Saviour, as He hung upon the cross, and
welcomed us to His love, and kingdom, and service? That is a poor religion which can be
put off like a garment we are tired of for the time being, and can be put on again to serve
occasion. How independent man is who has risen above the point of the merely animal
life! Temperance all the world over is independence. Moderation means mastery. There
are some men in the world who will not be pampered; Daniel was one of them; his
compeers belonged to the same class. In order to hold yourselves masters of your
appetites, begin early. It is no use a man of fort-five years of age beginning to say he is
going to turn over a new leaf; the leaves won’t be turned then. You cannot go anywhere
where discipline will be a disadvantage to you, and where the the power of saying “no” to
appetites and tastes will go against you. To the young I am a severe disciplinarian. See
how right doing is always willing to be proved. Daniel was willing to take a space of ten
days for the proof of the proposition which he submitted to the men who had charge of
him and his companions. (J. Parker, D.D.)
Life in Babylon
The opening chapter of the Book of the Prophet Daniel contains the key and clue to all
that follows, for it tells us of what stuff that man was made who gives his name to the
book. The policy of Nebuchadnezzar must be admitted to have been admirable. He
clearly wished to avail himself in the interest of his own kingdom, of the best talent and
capability of the kingdom he had conquered. He first of all chose out the best material
wad then proceeded (as he hoped) to subject it to the habits and discipline which should
naturalise it in its new country. As he had poured the treasure taken from the Temple of
the God of Israel into the Temple of his own god, so he hoped to adapt the human
treasure he had acquired to the purposes of his religion and its institutions. He thought
they might be cured, not only of all homesickness, as ordinarily understood—the wasting
regret and longing for Zion, and the God of Zion, but ofthose home ideas and affections
which are at the root of all patriotism worthy of the name. And among other means
which the sagacity of their royal master devised for the accomplishment of this purpose,
98

was that they should be fed, as well as taught, after a fashion to which they were not
born. Nominally, the motive assigned for this special treatment of his prisoners was that
they should grow physically strong and well-liking: that they should be well-nourished
as befitted the attendants of a court. But can we doubt that the wily king was not
regarding only the bodily condition of his pupils, but knew well enough that if he could
but once acclimatise them in this respect also—if he could once foster a liking, an
appetite for these flesh-pots of Babylon, and make these things, at first luxuries, to
become in time necessaries, he would have gained a still closer hold upon the future
services of his young counsellors and administrators? And he had no suspicion that the
body and the mind, or whatever he held to be the seat and origin of wisdom, needed any
separate treatment and regimen. Doubtless he honestly believed that body, soul and
spirit would thrive alike, and together, upon this more generous diet. But he little knew
the man with whom he was dealing. The young student in the wisdom and learning of
the Chaldeans may well have felt the temptations of his novel position, for the brain is
not independent of the rest of the animal economy, and the stimulant and support of the
“King’s meat” might have seemed even necessary and allowable to sustain him in the
ardent pursuit of this new learning. But he had a past experience to which he could
appeal. He had laboured and striven thus far upon simpler fare, and he would make no
change. Daniel, the young and wise and spiritual, was in training to be a Prophet of the
Most High; and his story shows, only with more detail and circumstance, what we had
already gathered from the whole prophetic class before him, that to be a prophet—in
that wide sense in which the prophet is a model to the least able and cultivated, the most
common-place person among us—the man must be trained upon a food, and in
surroundings, which are not those of the reigning influences of the land on which he is to
leave his mark The Prophets of Israel and Judah were no doubt exceptional persons—
exceptional in the greatness of their intellectual gifts, as well as moral excellencies. The
very mention of a prophet suggests to us one set apart from his brethren because of his
superior endowments to teach and guide his fellows. But is not the truer representation
of the prophet one who, because he has lived and walked with God, and has not lived the
life of the world, has grown up in that wisdom and insight which form three parts of the
prophetic faculty? Not chosen to be a prophet because of his eloquence and intellectual
force, but because the training of his heart and conscience had fitted him to teach, and to
influence by example, the men of his day and habitation. It is the prophet, nourished and
growing daily in wisdom and in moral power on his homely porridge, that is the precious
image and model of the life that is in a fit state and position for hearing the voice and
doing the will of God. Not in the occasional pang and spur of total abstinence, but in the
daily moderation; not in the excitement of a ceremonial observance, but in the habitual
self-discipline, is the condition of daily growth. But I have said that this history is for us
an allegory. The “king’s house” and the “king’s meat” have a wide-reaching moral and
meaning. The very name of Babylon itself has already, in the vivid imagination of men,
been seized upon to express certain modern parallels. The great metropolis was long ago
nicknamed the “modern Babylon,” and in its wealth and splendour, in the height to
which the arts and resources of human capacity have been cultivated, the parallel is
ingenious and happy. But the parallel has another side to it than that of wealth and the
cultivation of the “liberal arts.” We shall miss altogether the deeper lessons of the story
of Daniel, unless we recognise strongly that Babylon, for us, is not a city, or a place at all,
but a Spirit, the Spirit of our habitual surroundings. The ideals, the habits, the
standards, the hopes and fears, among which we are content to live; the atmosphere of
which we are content to breathe; these constitute for us, whether we are young men, just
99

arrived like Daniel from purer, wholesomer surroundings, into the glare and glitter, the
luxury and beauty, the stimulating food, and the stimulating culture and ideas, of some
new centre of life and action; or whether we are living and travelling elsewhere (for we
change our climate but not ourselves, for all the seas we cross), these constitute for us
our Babylon. There may be no defined and concrete head and king of this country, no
one building that can be called the king’s house; no one diet that can be called the “king’s
meat.” Yet there is a governing power which we may be living in subjection to, though we
do not see anywhere set down its rules and codes. To live in Babylon, and yet to be the
true citizen of a far different country; to be “in the world,” yet not “of it”; this is for us the
translation of Daniel’s action with regard to the king’s meat. The very object and design
of supporting him from the king’s table was to wean him from the food of his native
land. He would live apart, with the nourishment and the associations that were bound
up with the service of a very different master; lest in this now world of his exile he should
forget the “imperial palace whence he came.” The resolve of Daniel and his companions
was just this: “Though we are in the country and the policy and the religion of
Nebuchadnezzar, we will not have this man to reign over us.” And in order that they
might preserve their faith in their own God, they would not live a life that was
organically bound up with the god of Nebuchadnezzar. So subtle, so intangible, is this
hold over us, this Babylonian sovereignty, that many a man is first awakened to a
suspicion that he is in slavery to it, by discovering that his allegiance to another master
once prayed to and believed in, is slipping from him. How many a young man coming
from afar to live in the Babylon of London, or the Babylon of a University, has come after
longer or shorter time to be aware that convictions which he had once hoped never to
part with are becoming weaker, without obvious and apparent reason. Before the glitter
and the enchantment of Babylon, before the interest and fascination of the new learning
of the Chaldeans, the old duties and worships of the faith of his fathers seem to pale
their ineffectual fires. Without apparent cause, the arguments for the truth of the old
Gospel of Jesus Christ seem less valid than before. Why is this? Why is it so difficult to
preserve the faiths and standards of Zion in the streets of Babylon? The answer surely is
because it is so difficult for a strength that is merely human, to live in the streets of
Babylon and not to imbibe the spirit of Babylon, even though the avowed philosophies
and worships of Babylon are not yet by name accepted. So difficult to resist the
contagion of its example, its habits, its easy toleration of things evil and debased; so
difficult not to ascribe our changed relations to the faith of Christ to the cogent power of
anti-religious argument, rather than to the corroding influences of the world, which do
their work silently but surely, even as the noble stonework of some city cathedral
crumbles beneath the acids of the mere city’s breath. There are many Babylons in which
it may fall to our lot to take up our abode, and make choice of our life’s gods. There are
the Babylons of great cities where boundless wealth and luxury are found, and boundless
pleasure for eye and ear and fancy. There are the Babylons of great centres of education,
where the god of the country takes a fairer and loftier shape—the god of knowledge:—the
Nebo—the “god of the learning of the Chaldeans.” It is not the grosser idolatries—the
rites of Baal and Ashtaroth—that the nobler and better spirits among us have to guard
against, but the more specious idolatry of things in themselves justly beautiful and
engaging—the ever developing knowledge and culture of a still growing civilisation.
Difficult it is—we know it—in any strength of our own to live in Babylon, and not to be of
Babylon. So difficult, unless we set ourselves, with the ever-shadowing might of a power
not our own, to walk with God. To traverse the common ways of men, and eat
temperately of their common meat, and to do the duties and pursue the studies that are
100

the immediate purpose of our being here, and yet to be strengthened by another food
that the world knows not of—this is to live as Daniel lived. (Canon Ainger.)
The Saintly Captive
Realising Daniel’s captivity, we gather three familiar elemental and important lessons:
I. THAT SEVERE TROUBLES BEFALL THE GOOD. All that Daniel had to endure
was in strange reversal of what we might have thought the blameless, noble, devout
character of a man so “well-beloved,” deserved or needed. This fact may well be a voice
to all of us.
1. Teaching us not to regard the present state of things as final. The social wrongs of
this life involve the need of a future life as a justification of a Righteous Governor of
the Universe. Daniel was a captive. His coronation is to come.
2. Teaching us not to judge men’s character by their circumstances. We may never
conclude, because a man is healthy, affluent, famous, that he is, as a cause of all this,
unselfish, humble, devout. Nor must we conclude, because a man is wasting with
disease, sunk in poverty, obscure amongst even the meanest, that he is therefore
false, ungenerous, Christless. You find Daniels among the captives.
3. Teaching us not to be surprised when, notwithstanding our conscious integrity,
adversity befalls us. “Think it not strange,” etc.
II. THAT STRENGTH OF CHARACTER CAN OVERCOME THE EVIL OF
CIRCUMSTANCE. He, though a youth in a pagan and profligate court, was not
overborne by its evil influences. There seem in him to have been four sources of
strength.
1. His incorruptible conscience. This manifested its present vigour, and prophesied
its victorious manhood, when, in his youth, it led him to refuse the king’s meats. He
who has and obeys a robust conscience, is before a contending world as David was
before Goliath.
2. His chosen companions. The three Hebrew youths, fellows in misfortune, were
evidently also his companions for counsel and prayer. Men are energized for battle
with half a world by the true words, the hallowing influence of but two or three
choice souls. The friends of the true heroes of history are amongst the most beautiful
clusters of human lives.
3. His direct communications from heaven. “A dream is from God.” Daniel’s dreams
opened another world above him, around him, before him, and under its power he
became mighty to do, or to dare, or to bear.
4. His habitual prayers. Some are recorded. It is implied that it was his lifelong
custom to pray three times a day. Such devotion clothed him as in asbestos garments
that, no temptation could burn.
III. THE ADVERSE EXPERIENCES OF ONE PERIOD OF LIFE QUALIFY FOR
RIGHT USE OF A SUCCEEDING PERIOD. The ways in which Daniel was, in his
youthful captivity, being prepared for successive stages of his life, were very like the ways
in which all may be prepared by any adverse days or years for some usefuller, and it may
be happier lot in coming times. Such a life as that of Daniel’s youth was an
101

apprenticeship for the work of the Statesman, the Dreamer, the man he afterward
became. To us this ought to be clearer than to the men of the prophetic age: for have we
not read of Jesus, that he was made “perfect through suffering.” (Homilist)
6 Among those who were chosen were some from
Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.
BARNES, "Now among these were of the children of Judah - That is, these
were a part of those who were selected. They are mentioned because they became so
prominent in the transactions which are subsequently recorded in this book, and
because they evinced such extraordinary virtue in the development of the principles in
which they had been trained, and in the remarkable trials through which they were
called to pass. It does not appear that they are mentioned here particularly on account of
any distinction of birth or rank, for though they were among the noble and promising
youth of the land, yet it is clear that others of the same rank and promise also were
selected, Dan_1:3. The phrase “the children of Judah” is only another term to denote
that they were Hebrews. They belonged to the tribe, or the kingdom of Judah.
Daniel - This name (‫דניאל‬ dânı̂yê'l) means properly “judge of God;” that is, one who
acts as judge in the name of God. Why this name was given to him is not known. We
cannot, however, fail to be struck with its appropriateness, as the events of his life
showed. Nor is it known whether he belonged to the royal family, or to the nobles of the
land, but as the selection was made from that class it is probable. Those who were at first
carried into captivity were selected exclusively from the more elevated classes of society,
and there is every reason to believe that Daniel belonged to a family of rank and
consequence. The Jews say that he was of the royal family, and was descended from
Hezekiah, and cite his history in confirmation of the prophecy addressed by Isaiah to
that monarch, “Of thy sons which shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall
they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon,” Isa_
39:7. Compare Introduction Section I.
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah - Of the rank and early history of these young
men nothing is known. They became celebrated for their refusal to worship the golden
image set up by Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_3:12, following.
CLARKE, "Now among these - There were no doubt several noble youths from
other provinces: but the four mentioned here were Jews, and are supposed to have all
been of royal extraction.
102

GILL, "Now among these were of the children of Judea, Among those youths
that were selected from the rest, and brought up in the above manner, and for the above
purposes, who were of the tribe of Judah, and very likely of the house of David, and of
royal descent, were the four following persons:
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; who are particularly mentioned, because
they were the most famous and renowned of them, and are concerned in the subsequent
history and account of facts: their names are expressive and significant: Daniel signifies
"God is my Judge"; Hananiah may be interpreted "God is gracious to me"; Mishael is by
some thought to be the same as Michael, "he who is God", or "as God"; and by others,
"asked of God", by his mother, as Samuel was by Hannah, so Saadiah interprets it; and
Azariah may be explained, "God is my help", or "helps me".
JAMISON, "children of Judah — the most noble tribe, being that to which the
“king’s seed” belonged (compare Dan_1:3).
CALVIN, "The Prophet now comes to what properly belongs to his purpose. He did
not propose to write a full narrative, but he touched shortly on what was necessary,
to inform us how God prepared him for the subsequent discharge of the prophetic
office. After he had stated their selection from the royal and noble seed, as excelling
in talent, dexterity, and eloquence, as well as in rigor of body, he now adds, that he
would his companions were among them. He leaves out the rest, because he had
nothing to record of them worthy of mention; and, as I have said, the narrative
hitherto is only subsidiary. The Prophet’s object, then, must be noticed, since he was
exiled, and educated royally and sumptuously in the palace of King
Nebuchadnezzar, that he might afterwards be one of the prefects, and his
companions be elevated to the same rank. He does not say that he was of the royal
house, but only of the tribe of Judah; but he was probably born of a noble rather
than of a plebeian family, since kings more commonly selected their prefects from
their own relations than from others. Moreover, since the kingdom of Israel was cut
off, perhaps through a feeling of modesty, Daniel did not record his family, nor
openly assert his origin from a noble and celebrated stock. He was content with a
single word, — he and his companion were of the tribe of Judah, and brought up
among the children of the nobility. He says — their names were changed; so that by
all means the king might blot out of their hearts the remembrance of their own race,
and they might forget their own origin. As far as interpretations are concerned, I
think I have said enough to satisfy you, as I am not willingly curious in names where
there is any obscurity, and especially in these Chaldee words. As to the Hebrew
names, we know Daniel’s name to mean the judge, or judgment of God. Therefore,
whether by the secret instinct of God, his parents had imposed this name, or
whether by common custom, Daniel was called by this name, as God’s judge. So also
of the rest; for Hananiah has a fixed meaning, namely, one who has obtained mercy
from God; so Misael means required or demanded by God; and so Azariah, the help
of God, or one whom God helps. But all these flyings have already been better
103

explained to you, so I have only just touched on these points, as the change has no
adequate reason for it. It is enough for us that the names were changed to abolish
the remembrance of the kingdom of Judah from their hearts. Some Hebrews also
assert these to have been the names of wise men. Whether it was so or not, if, was
the kings plan to draw away those boys that they should have nothing in common
with the elect people, but degenerate to the manners of the Chaldeans. Daniel could
not help the prince or master of the eunuchs changing his name, for it was not in. his
power to hinder it; the same must be said of his companions. But they had enough to
retain the remembrance of their race, which Satan, by this artifice, wished utterly to
blot out. And yet this was a great trial, because they suffered from their badge of
slavery. Since their names were changed, either the king or his prefect Aspenaz
wished to force them under the yoke, as if he would put before their eyes the,
judgment of their own slavery as often as they heard their” names. We see, then, the
intention of the change of name, namely, to cause these miserable exiles to feel
themselves; in captivity, and cut off from the race of Israel; and by this mark or
symbol they were reduced to slavery, to the, king of Babylon and his palace. This
was, indeed, a hard trial, but it mattered not to the servants of God to be
contemptuously treated before men, so long as they were not infected with any
corruption; hence we conclude them to have been divinely governed, as they stood
pure and spotless. For Daniel afterwards says —
ELLICOTT, "(6) Now among these . . .—Four persons only are mentioned here,
because the narrative of the book is only concerned with four. Daniel calls our
attention to the fact that the very four whom Providence had endowed with the
greatest natural gifts were those by whose constancy and example the king was
converted. The names of these four were subsequently changed, with the view of
showing that they had become nationalised Chaldee subjects. (Comp. 2 Kings 23:34;
2 Kings 24:17.) The name Belteshazzar must be carefully distinguished from
Belshazzar. It is said to mean, protect his life (balatsu-usur). Daniel appears, if this
be the true meaning of the name, to have endeared himself at a very early period to
Ashpenaz. (See Daniel 4:18.) Abed-nego is apparently Servant of Nebo, the b and g
having been designedly interchanged, on account of Azariah’s unwillingness to bear
a heathen name. Shadrach and Meshach have not as yet been explained, but
probably the clue to their interpretation is to be found in the last syllable, ach,
which occurs also in Merodach and Arioch.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
Ver. 6. Now among these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel.] Who had not his
name for nought, as we say, but by a providence. It signifieth, God is my judge; and
so, indeed, he was throughout his whole life, but especially when they cast him into
the lions’ den. [Daniel 6:16] David had also a son of the same name, and that by
Abigail, [2 Samuel 3:3 1 Chronicles 3:1] in remembrance haply of the right that God
had done him upon the churl Nabal. [1 Samuel 25:39]
104

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.] Good names all, and good men all, yet wrapt up
with the rest in a common calamity, but for excellent ends, as it afterwards
appeared. Meanwhile, God much sweetened the affliction to these four by their
mutual society.
WHEDON, "Verse 6-7
6, 7. It was quite the common thing for Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian kings to
take new names themselves on special occasions, or give new names to members of
the royal family. (Compare Genesis 41:45; 2 Kings 23:34; 2 Kings 24:17.) So
Tiglath-pileser was also known as Pulu (compare 2 Kings 15:19); Shalmaneser, as
Ulula’a; and Assurbanipal, when he placed the Egyptian prince Psammetichus at
the head of a province, changed his name to Nebo-sezibani. Daniel (Hebrews, “God
is my judge”) receives the name of Belteshazzar, probably a contraction of Bel-
balatsu-usur, “Bel, protect his life” (Fr. Delitzsch). Most Assyriologists consider as
hypercritical the remark of Professor Sayce that there is one letter wrong in the
spelling of the Babylonian word corresponding to Belteshazzar, and that therefore
we have here “a compound which has no sense and would be impossible in the
Babylonian language.” It is now known that the Babylonian scribes even spelled the
names of their own kings differently at different times, just as the Hebrew scribes
spelled David one way in Kings and another in Chronicles. (See also note Daniel
4:8.) The companions of Daniel — who bear names meaning, respectively, “The
Lord Jehovah is gracious,” “Who is like God” (or, “Who is what God is”), and
“Jehovah is helper” — receive as new names Shadrach, Shudur-Aku (“Command of
Aku” — Aku being the Babylonian moon-god); Meshach, a probable Babylonian
original for which cannot be suggested; and Abednego, or rather Abed-Nebo
(“Servant of Nebo”), a name which Sayce has himself found in an inscription of the
fifth or sixth century B.C. The objection of Jewish copyists to writing the names of
heathen deities may account for the change of consonants here. There are numbers
of instances of Jews settled at Babylon taking Babylonian names. (See, for example,
Records of the Past, 4:107; Zeits. fur Assy., 13:329, etc.)
BENSON, "Verse 6-7
Daniel 1:6-7. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, &c. — All their names had some
affinity with the name of Jehovah, the God whom they worshipped. Daniel signifies,
God is my judge, or the judgment of God; Hananiah, God has been gracious to me,
or, one favoured of Jehovah; Mishael, the powerful one of God; Azariah, the help of
Jehovah, or, Jehovah is my succour. In like manner, the prince of the eunuchs, in
changing their names, as a mark of dominion and authority over them, gave them
such as had an affinity with the names of the gods of the Chaldees; Belteshazzar, the
name given to Daniel, being derived from Bel, or Baal, the chief idol of Babylon, and
signifying the treasurer of Baal, or, the depositary of the secrets, or treasure, of
Baal. Shadrach, according to some, means the inspiration of the sun; being derived
from shada, to pour out, and rach, a king, a name given to the sun by the
Babylonians. Meshach, derived from a Babylonian deity called Shach, or from a
105

goddess called Sheshach, is thought to signify, He who belongs to Shach, or
Sheshach. Abed-nego imports the servant of the shining light, or, as Calmet thinks,
of the sun, or the morning star, unless the word should be written Abed-nebo,
referring to the idol so called, which gave name to several distinguished personages
among the Babylonians: see Isaiah 46:2. It is certain from Herodotus, lib. 1., that the
Chaldeans worshipped Jupiter Belus, Venus, and other idols, or the same under
other names; and from these it is probable that the names were given, according to
Chaldee usage, to these young men.
PULPIT, "Daniel 1:6
Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah. The versions present no difficulty here, only the Septuagint adds a clause
to bring this verse into harm. The name means "The Lord Jehovah is gracious."
This name is one of the most common in the Bible. Sometimes it is reversed, and
becomes Jehohanan or Johanan, and hence "John." The earliest is the head of the
sixteenth of the twenty-four courses into which David divided the Hemanites (2
Chronicles 25:4). In the reign of Uzziah there appears one as a chief captain (2
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 Rhess, grandson of Zerubbabel,
is called in 1 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; Le Exodus 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 ‫,ימים‬ from ‫,יום‬ 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 2 Kings 14:21 : 2 Kings 15:1, 2
Kings 15:7, 2 Kings 15:8, 2 Kings 15:17 (called Uzziah in 2 Kings 15:13, 2 Kings
15:30, as also in 2 Chronicles 9-27:1 .) It is the name of four high priests:
There is also a prophet of this name (2 Chronicles 15:1) in the days of Asa King of
Judah. While this name is so common before the Captivity, it is not so common after
it, though there is a captain of the army of Judas Maccabteus called "Azarias."
While all the names contain the name of God, either in the covenant form
106

"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 councillors or warriors. That was left for the days of the
Byzantine Empire, when the eunuch Narses retained Italy for the empire.
BI 6-7, "The Prince of the Eunuchs gave names.
Names
The highest import of names arises from their association with the highest of all beings.
Among Jews and Christians a name gathers round it a halo of beauty, strength, and
sanctity, by reason of its relations with the divine. In pagan climes a name becomes
significant and revered in proportion to its connection with some idol deity. Daniel and
his three companions had received from their fathers names divinely significant. In
Babylon they are called upon to assume the names of the idol-gods belonging to the land
of their captivity. They were dedicated to the four leading gods Bel, the chief god; the
Sun-god; the Earth-god; and the Fire-god. What the “prince of the Eunuchs” did with
these young and heroic Hebrews, the “prince of the power of the air” seeks to effect with
the children of faith everywhere. His great effort is to merge the divine in the human; the
spiritual in the material; and to convert the Church to the world.
1. Daniel. His name may be rendered “God my judge.” Instead, he was called
Belshazzar, derived from Bel. Daniel’s estimate of this change may be inferred from
the small use he made of it. He appears to have regarded it as no compliment. Thrice
happy are they who, like Daniel, have God for their judge. Whenever they are falsely
judged, the just Judge can “bring forth their righteousness as the light, and their
judgment as the noon-day.”
2. Hananiah. This names signifies, “the grace and favour of God.” Shadrach, for
which it was changed, denotes the same thing in an idolatrous sense—“the favour, or
illumination, or inspiration, of the Sun-god.” A contrast is thus illustrated between
the divine complacency, and the favour and applause of the world. “The God of this
world” is worshipped with as much devotion as the Babylonians coveted the shining
rays of their great Sun-god. The world’s smiles, her caresses, honours, wealth, and
pleasures, are the inspirations of the eager devotion of the multitude. In these things
consist their sunshine. Contrasted with this is the true light, revealing by its clear
and steady rays all dangerous passes, pitfalls, and precipices, whereby so many
perish through the glare of sin. And this favour is a light that shines always.
3. Mishael. This name is composed of two Hebrew words which may be rendered
“comparable to God,” or resemblance to God.” The substituted name retains a part of
the word, displacing the last syllable, which is the name of Jehovah, by the name
“Shak,” the chief goddess of Babylon, the goddess of beauty and pleasure. Meshach,
therefore, signifies a votary to the chief goddess of beauty and pleasure, who smiles
upon all who bear her name. Babylon’s goddess still rules with successful sway. Men
107

are “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.” Too often is the temptation yeilded
to by God’s spiritual Israel.
4. Azariah. This name may be rendered “God my help.” “Abednego” means “servant
of the shining light,” or “servant of Lucifer.” The two names furnish illustrations of
the contrasted characters of the servants of righteousness and those of sin. The
service of sin is the service of grief. In a course of evil pleasure and pain are twin
companions. Light is attractive, sad so is sin; but the light is the effect of fire, and fire
burns; so does sin—like the glaring taper alluring to slay the bewildered moth.
(Anon.)
Names changed for reasons of religion
Their very names were a witness, not only to their nationality, but to their religion.
Daniel means “God is my judge, Hananiah “ Jehovah is gracious,” Mishael (perhaps)
Who is equal to God? Azariah God is a helper. It is hardly likely that the Chaldeans
would have tolerated the use of such names among the young pupils, since every
repitition of them would have sounded like a challenge to the supremacy of Bel-
Merodach and Nebo. It was a common thing to change names in heathen courts, as the
name of Joseph had been changed by the Egyptains to Zaphnathpaaneah (Gen_41:45),
and the Assyrians changed the name of Psammetichus II into Nebo-serib-ani, “Nebo
Save mo.” They therefore made the names of the boys into the names of the Babylonian
deities. (F. W. Farrar.)
7 The chief official gave them new names: to
Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah,
Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah,
Abednego.
BARNES, "Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names - This practice
is common in Oriental courts. “The captive youths referred to in the notes on Dan_1:5,
in the Turkish court also receive new names, that is, Mahometan names, their former
names being Christian.” - “Pict. Bible.” It is “possible” that this changing of their names
may have been designed to make them forget their country, and their religion, and to
lead them more entirely to identify themselves with the people in whose service they
were now to be employed, though nothing of this is intimated in the history. Such a
108

change, it is easy to conceive, might do much to make them feel that they were identified
with the people among whom they were adopted, and to make them forget the customs
and opinions of their own country. It is a circumstance which may give some additional
probability to this supposition, that it is quite a common thing now at missionary
stations to give new names to the children who are taken into the boarding-schools, and
especially the names of the Christian benefactors at whose expense they are supported.
Compare the same general character, for this change of names may have been, that the
name of the true God constituted a part of their own names, and that thus they were
constantly reminded of him and his worship. In the new names given them, the
appellation of some of the idols worshipped in Babylon was incorporated, and this might
serve as remembrancers of the divinities to whose service it was doubtless the intention
to win them.
For he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar - The name Belteshazzar
(‫בלטשׁאצר‬ bêlṭe
sha'tstsar) is compounded of two words, and means according to
Gesenius, “Bel’s prince;” that is, he whom Bel favors. “Bel” was the principal divinity
worshipped at Babylon (notes, Isa_46:1), and this name would, therefore, be likely to
impress the youthful Daniel with the idea that he was a favorite of this divinity, and to
attract him to his service. It was a flattering distinction that he was one of the favorites
of the principal god worshipped in Babylon, and this was not improbably designed to
turn his attention from the God whose name had been incorporated in his own. The
giving of this name seemed to imply, in the apprehension of Nebuchadnezzar, that the
spirit of the gods was in him on whom it was conferred. See Dan_4:8-9.
And to Hananiah, of Shadrach - The name “Hananiah” (‫חנניה‬ chănanyâh) means,
“whom Jehovah has graciously given,” and is the same with Ananias (Greek, Ανανίας
Ananias), and would serve to remind its possessor of the name of “Jehovah,” and of his
mercy. The name Shadrach (‫שׁדרך‬ shadrak), according to Lorsbach, means “young
friend of the king;” according to Bohlen, it means “rejoicing in the way,” and this last
signification is the one which Gesenius prefers. In either signification it would
contribute to a forgetfulness of the interesting significancy of the former name, and tend
to obliterate the remembrance of the early training in the service of Jehovah.
And to Mishael, of Meshach - The name “Mishael” (‫מישׁאל‬ mı̂yshâ'êl) means, “who
is what God is?” - from ‫מי‬ mı̂y “who,” ‫שׁ‬ sha “what,” and ‫אל‬ ēl “God.” It would thus be a
remembrancer of the greatness of God; of his supremacy over all his creatures, and of
his “incomparable” exaltation over the universe. The signification of the name
“Meshach” (‫מישׁך‬ mêyshak) is less known. The Persian word ovicula means a little sheep
(Gesenius), but why this name was given we are not informed. Might it have been on
account of his beauty, his gentleness, his lamb-like disposition? If so, nothing perhaps
would be better fitted to turn away the thoughts from the great God and his service to
himself.
And to Azariah, of Abednego - The name “Azaziah” (‫עזריה‬ ‛ăzaryâh) means,
“whom Jehovah helps,” from ‫עזר‬ ‛âzar “to help,” and ‫יה‬ yâh, the same as “Jah” (a
shortened form of Jehovah, ‫יהוה‬ ye
hovâh), This name, therefore, had a striking
significancy, and would be a constant remembrancer of the true God, and of the value of
his favor and protection. The name Abed-nego (‫נגו‬ ‫עבד‬ ‛ăbêd negô) means, “a servant of
109

Nego,” or perhaps of “Nebo” - ‫נבו‬ ne
bô. This word “Nebo,” among the Chaldeans,
probably denoted the planet Mercury. This planet was worshipped by them, and by the
Arabs, as the celestial scribe or writer. See the notes at Isa_46:1. The Divine worship
paid to this planet by the Chaldeans is attested, says Gesenius, by the many compound
proper names of which this name forms a part; as Nebuchadnezzar, Nebushasban, and
others mentioned in classic writers; as Nabonedus, Nabonassar, Nabonabus, etc. This
change of name, therefore, was designed to denote a consecration to the service of this
idol-god, and the change was eminently adapted to make him to whom it was given
forget the true God, to whom, in earlier days, he had been devoted. It was only
extraordinary grace which could have kept these youths in the paths of their early
training, and in the faithful service of that God to whom they had been early
consecrated, amidst the temptations by which they were now surrounded in a foreign
land, and the influences which were employed to alienate them from the God of their
fathers.
CLARKE, "Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names - This change
of names, Calmet properly remarks, was a mark of dominion and authority. It was
customary for masters to impose new names upon their slaves; and rulers often, on their
ascending the throne, assumed a name different from that which they had before.
‫דניאל‬ Daniel signifies “God is my Judge.” This name they changed into ‫בלטשאצר‬
Belteshatstsar; in Chaldee, “The treasure of Bel,” or “The despository of the secrets (or
treasure) of Bel.”
‫הנניה‬ Hananiah signifies, “The Lord has been gracious to me,” or “He to whom the
Lord is gracious.” This name was changed into ‫שדרך‬ Shadrach, Chaldee, which has been
variously translated: “The inspiration of the sun;” “God the author of evil, be propitious
to us;” “Let God preserve us from evil.”
‫מישאל‬ Mishael signifies “He who comes from God.” Him they called ‫מישך‬ Meshach,
which in Chaldee signifies, “He who belongs to the goddess Sheshach,” a celebrated deity
of the Babylonians, mentioned by Jeremiah, Jer_25:26.
‫עזריה‬ Azariah, which signifies “The Lord is my Helper,” they changed into ‫נגו‬ ‫אבד‬
Abed-Nego, which in Chaldee is “the servant of Nego,” who was one of their divinities; by
which they meant either the sun, or the morning star; whether Jupiter or Venus.
The vicious pronunciation of this name should be carefully avoided; I mean that which
lays the accent on the first syllable, and hurries so the end, without attending to the
natural division of the word Abed-Nego.
GILL, "Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names,.... Other names,
Chaldee names, according to the names of the gods of that country, for honour and
glory, as Saadiah observes; which was done either to make them more acceptable to the
court and courtiers of the king of Babylon; and to show that they were his servants, and
naturalized subjects; and chiefly to cause them to forget the names their fathers gave
them, and out of hatred to them, having all of them in them the names of the true God,
110

El or Jah; and, most of all, that they might forget the God of their fathers, whose names
they bore. This prince of the eunuchs seems to be the same with the master of the
eunuchs, Ashpenaz, before mentioned, so Jacchiades; but some take him to be another
person: what he did in changing the names of these four Hebrew youths was not his own
idea and by his own authority, but by the order of the king; Dan_5:12,
for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; which signifies "Bel hath hid
and treasured"; or Bel's treasurer, or the keeper of his treasures; see Dan_1:2. Bel was
the chief idol of the Chaldeans, Isa_46:1, and Daniel was named according to him, as
Nebuchadnezzar himself says, Dan_4:8 and differs but in one letter from the name of a
successor of his, Belshazzar, Dan_5:1, hence Daniel is thought by Broughton, and others,
to be the Belesis of Diolorus Siculus: or it may be he had this name given him from
"beltis" or "baaltis" (u), a queen and goddess of the Babylonians, and may be
compounded of that and "azer":
and to Hananiah of Shadrach; which some interpret a "tender pap", or "breast":
others, the "king's messenger", or "the messenger the sun". The word "rach" signifies a
"king" with the Chaldeans, as it did with the Egyptians, as may be observed in the word
"abrec", the king's father, in Gen_41:43 and is used by them of the sun, the prince of
planets, whom they worshipped: others, "the inspiration of the sun", their idol. Hillerus
(w) explains it of fire, the object of their adoration:
and to Mishael of Meshach; or; "of Shach", which was a name of a god or goddess of
the Chaldeans, they worshipped; at the celebration of whose feast they were when
Babylon was taken by Cyrus:
and to Azariah of Abednego; or "a servant, or worshipper of Nego". The word
signifies "shining brightness": which some understand of fire worshipped by them;
others of the bright planet Venus; and others of Lucifer, or the morning star. Saadiah
takes it to be the same with Nebo, by a change of a letter, which was a god of the
Chaldeans; see Isa_46:1.
JAMISON, "gave names — designed to mark their new relation, that so they might
forget their former religion and country (Gen_41:45). But as in Joseph’s case (whom
Pharaoh called Zaphnath-paaneah), so in Daniel’s, the name indicative of his relation to
a heathen court (“Belteshazzar,” that is, “Bel’s prince”), however flattering to him, is not
the one retained by Scripture, but the name marking his relation to God (“Daniel,” God
my Judge, the theme of his prophecies being God’s judgment on the heathen world
powers).
Hananiah — that is, “whom Jehovah hath favored.”
Shadrach — from Rak, in Babylonian, “the King,” that is, “the Sun”; the same root as
in Abrech (Gen_41:43, Margin), “Inspired or illumined by the Sun-god.”
Mishael — that is, “who is what God is?” Who is comparable to God?
Meshach — The Babylonians retained the first syllable of Mishael, the Hebrew name;
but for El, that is, GOD, substituted Shak, the Babylonian goddess, called Sheshach
(Jer_25:26; Jer_51:41), answering to the Earth, or else Venus, the goddess of love and
111

mirth; it was during her feast that Cyrus took Babylon.
Azariah — that is, “whom Jehovah helps.”
Abed-nego — that is, “servant of the shining fire.” Thus, instead of to Jehovah, these
His servants were dedicated by the heathen to their four leading gods [Herodotus, Clio];
Bel, the Chief-god, the Sun-god, Earth-god, and Fire-god. To the last the three youths
were consigned when refusing to worship the golden image (Dan_3:12). The Chaldee
version translates “Lucifer,” in Isa_14:12, Nogea, the same as Nego. The names thus at
the outset are significant of the seeming triumph, but sure downfall, of the heathen
powers before Jehovah and His people.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave
unto Daniel [the name] of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to
Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.
Ver. 7. Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names.] Not without the
command of the king, [Daniel 5:12] as desirous to naturalise them, and by changing
their right names, which had the names of God in them, El and Jah, to make them
forget their religion; but that was better rooted than to be so easily razed out,
though these new names were shrewd temptations to apostasy and idolatry, as being
compounded by the names of the Babylonish gods, and means to make them
honourable among the Chaldeans.
POOLE, " Names; that is, other names: this was done by the subtle instigation of
Satan, that they might renounce their names received in circumcision, by assuming
names imposed relating to the idol gods, being a profanation and a further degree of
their apostacy; for Daniel had
the name of Belteshazzar, or Baltasar, from the great Babylonian idol Baal or Bel,
&c. This was by the king’s command, and herein he put forth an act of his
sovereignty. Thus Adam, Genesis 2:19,20. Thus Pharaoh did, Genesis 41:45; he gave
Joseph the name of Zaphnath-paaneah. And Pharaohnechoh changed the name of
Eliakim, Josiah’s son, to Jehoiakim, 2 Kings 23:34. And the king of Babylon turned
the name of
Mattaniah to Zedekiah, 2 Kings 24:17. The Lord changed the name of
Sarai to Sarah, of
Abram to Abraham, of
Jacob to Israel. Thus the Lord changed
Simon’s name to Cephas or Peter, Mark 3:16.
112

COKE, "Daniel 1:7. Unto whom, &c.— This change of names was a mark of
dominion and authority: masters imposed new names upon their slaves. Daniel
signifies, God is my judge, or the judgment of God; Belteshazzar—the treasurer of
Baal, or, "The depositary of the secrets, or treasure of Baal." Hananiah signifies,
God has been gracious to me; or, "That which is gracious and acceptable to the
Lord:" Shadrach signifies, according to some, The inspiration of the sun: or,
according to others, God guard us from evil. Mishael,—He who comes from, or is of
Meshach, "He who belongs to the goddess Sheshach:" A celebrated divinity of the
Babylonians, whereof Jeremiah speaks, Jeremiah 25:26. Azariah signifies, God is
my succour;—Abed-nego, the servant of the god Nego, which was the sun, or the
morning-star. See Calmet.
PETT, "Verse 6-7
‘Now among these men were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael
and Azariah. And the prince of the palace servaants, (nobles, chief officers,
eunuchs) gave them names, to Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar, and to
Hananiah of Shadrach, and to Mishael of Meshach, and to Azariah of Abednego.’
The new name was given to them to bring home to them that they were now
Babylonians and to give them a new status, and were now servants of the gods of
Babylon. They had been ‘adopted’ by the court and their future lay with the king.
Giving them names connected with the gods of Babylon was intended to be a
compliment. The original names meant something like, - Daniel (‘El (God) has
judged’), Hananiah (‘Yahweh has been gracious’), Mishael (‘who is as El (God)’),
Azariah (‘Yahweh has helped’) - although we must not be over-dogmatic about the
meaning of names. All were connected with the God of Israel.
The new names were connected with Babylonian thought. Daniel’s with Bel. See
Daniel 4:8. Some think his name was Belti - sar - usur - ‘may the lady (wife of Bel)
protect the king’. Others that it was possibly only so by sound, for they see the name
as signifying ‘protect his life’ - balatusu-usur - but that is how names were used. It
was probably intended to signify ‘Bel protect his life’). Hananiah’s with Marduk (of
which Shadrach was a deliberate corruption) and Azariah’s with Nebo (Nego being
a deliberate corruption. The name was probably intended to suggest ‘servant of
Nebo’). Meshach is unidentified, it may be a deliberate corruption of Sheshach, a
cypher for Babylon. Playing with names was popular amongst all cultures. Compare
the sons of Jacob whose names were all given as suggestive of some idea by a play on
words (Genesis 29:31 to Genesis 30:24)
Theoretically these men had now been taken from Yahweh and given to the gods of
Babylon. The Babylonians were soon to be disillusioned.
PULPIT, "Daniel 1:7
Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names; for he gave unto Daniel the name
113

of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to
Azariah, of Abed-nego. The only thing to be noted in regard to the versions is that,
with the exception of the Peshitta, all of them identify the name of Daniel with that
of the last King of Babylon. Both are called Baltasar or Baltassar in the Vulgate, the
LXX; and Theodotion. The difference made in the Peshitta is not the same as that in
the Hebrew; the prophet is called Beletshazzar, and the king Belit-shazzar.£ This
would indicate something wrong. The Greek versions render Abed-nego ἀβδεναγώ,
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 Pal in Babylon is Tiglath-pileser in Nineveh. Still
in modern times this is continued in the head of Roman Catholic Christendom, who
has for the last twelve centuries always assumed another than his original name on
ascending the papalthrone. With members of a monarch's court this is easily
intelligible. The desire was to have names of good omen; a foreign name might
either be meaningless or suggest anything but thoughts full of good omen. In
considering these names, there are certain preliminary facts we must bear in mind.
In the first place, there is a great probability that all the names had a Divine element
in them, that is, contained as an element the name of a Babylonian god. The great
mass of the names of Baby-Ionian and Assyrian officials had this. Next, it is by no
means improbable that, at the hands of the Jewish scribes, the names have sustained
some considerable change, more especially as regards the Divine element. The
Jewish scribe had few scruples as to altering a name when there was anything in it
to hurt his sensibilities. It is horrible to him that Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the
son of Moses the great lawgiver, should be the originator of the false temple at Dan,
and so he inserts a nun, and changes Moshe, "Moses," into "Manasseh." The scribe
that copied out 2 Samuel, coming to the name of Jerubbaal, cannot endure to
chronicle the fact that a judge in Israel ever bore the name of the abomination of the
Zidonians as part of his name, and altered it to Jerubesheth. So we have in the same
book Ishbosheth for Ethbaal, and Mephibosheth for Meribbaal. With a foreign
potentate it is different; but in the case of a Jew there always was a tendency to
blink such an awkward fact as bearing a name with heathen elements, by a slight
change. The name given to Daniel is, in the Massoretic text, Belteshazzar. From the
fact that in the Septuagint, Theodotion, and the Vulgate, we have the king
Belshazzar and Daniel, as Babylonian magician, called by the same name,"
Baltasar," and when in the Peshitta, the difference is very slight, and not always
maintained, we, for our part, are strongly inclined to believe both names to have
been the same. Professor Bevan ('The Book of Daniel,' 40) is quite sure that the
author did not understand the meaning of the name given to Daniel. He (Professor
Bevan) derives the name from Balat-zu-utzur, "Protect thou his life." Professor
Fuller, with as great plausibility, makes it Bilat-sarra-utzur, "Beltis protects the
crown." If that be the true derivation, then Nebuchadnezzar could quite correctly
114

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," 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 ֶ‫שׁ‬ ֶ‫,מ‬ "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
115

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. which would render it Misa-Mero-dash, "Who is as Merodach"—a
suggestion certainly open to Schrader's first objection. And to Azariah of Abed-
nego. It has long been recognized that this name is a modification of Abed-Nebo.
This identification is rendered all the more probable, that in New Hebrew and
Aramaic Naga meant the planet "Venus," that is, "Nebo" The consonants are
correct for this, but the vocalization is purposely wrong, in order to avoid the
heathen name. If the author of Daniel was an obscure Jew, living in Palestine during
the days of Epiphanes, whoa the influence of Babylon had disappeared, and its
language had ceased to be studied, is it not strange that he should devise names
which so accurately represent those that were in Babylon? One has only to read the
Book of Judith, in all likelihood the product of the Epiphanes period, to see the wild
work that Palestinian Jews of that time made of Babylonian names.
8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the
royal food and wine, and he asked the chief
official for permission not to defile himself this
way.
BARNES, "But Daniel purposed in his heart - Evidently in concurrence with the
youths who had been selected with him. See Dan_1:11-13. Daniel, it seems, formed this
as a “decided” purpose, and “meant” to carry it into effect, as a matter of principle,
though he designed to secure his object, if possible, by making a request that he might be
“allowed” to pursue that course Dan_1:12, and wished not to give offence, or to provoke
opposition. What would have been the result if he had not obtained permission we know
not; but the probability is, that he would have thrown himself upon the protection of
God, as he afterward did Dan. 6, and would have done what he considered to be duty,
regardless of consequences. The course which he took saved him from the trial, for the
prince of the eunuchs was willing to allow him to make the experiment, Dan_1:14. It is
always better, even where there is decided principle, and a settled purpose in a matter, to
obtain an object by a peaceful request, than to attempt to secure it by violence.
That he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat -
Notes, Dan_1:5. The word which is rendered “defile himself” - ‫יתגאל‬ yı̂the
gâ'al from ‫גאל‬
116

gā'al - is commonly used in connection with “redemption,” its first and usual meaning
being to redeem, to ransom. In later Hebrew, however, it means, to be defiled; to be
polluted, to be unclean. The “connection” between these significations of the word is not
apparent, unless, as redemption was accomplished with the shedding of blood,
rendering the place where it was shed defiled, the idea came to be permanently attached
to the word. The defilement here referred to in the case of Daniel probably was, that by
partaking of this food he might, in some way, be regarded as countenancing idolatry, or
as lending his sanction to a mode of living which was inconsistent with his principles,
and which was perilous to his health and morals. The Syriac renders this simply, “that he
would not eat,” without implying that there would be defilement.
Nor with the wine which he drank - As being contrary to his principles, and
perilous to his morals and happiness.
Therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not
defile himself - That he might be permitted to abstain from the luxuries set before
him. It would seem from this, that he represented to the prince of the eunuchs the real
danger which he apprehended, or the real cause why he wished to abstain - that he
would regard the use of these viands as contrary to the habits which he had formed, as a
violation of the principles of his religion; and as, in his circumstances, wrong as well as
perilous. This he presented as a “request.” He asked it, therefore, as a favor, preferring to
use mild and gentle means for securing the object, rather than to put himself in the
attitude of open resistance to the wishes of the monarch. What “reasons” influenced him
to choose this course, and to ask to be permitted to live on a more temperate and
abstemious diet, we are not informed. Assuming, however, what is apparent from the
whole narrative, that he had been educated in the doctrines of the true religion, and in
the principles of temperance, it is not difficult to conceive what reasons “would”
influence a virtuous youth in such circumstances, and we cannot be in much danger of
error in suggesting the following:
(1) It is not improbable that the food which was offered him had been, in some way,
connected with idolatry, and that his participation in it would be construed as
countenancing the worship of idols. - Calvin. It is known that a part of the animals
offered in sacrifice was sold in the market; and known, also, that splendid
entertainments were often made in honor of particular idols, and on the sacrifices which
had been offered to them. Compare 1Co_8:1-13. Doubtless, also, a considerable part of
the food which was served up at the royal table consisted of articles which, by the Jewish
law, were prohibited as unclean. It was represented by the prophets, as one part of the
evils of a captivity in a foreign land, that the people would be under a necessity of eating
what was regarded as unclean. Thus, in Eze_4:13 : “And the Lord said, Even thus shall
the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive
them.” Hos_9:3 : “they shall not dwell in the Lord’s land, but Ephraim shall return to
Egypt; and shall eat unclean things in Assyria.” Rosenmuller remarks on this passage
(“Alte u. neue Morgenland,” 1076), “It was customary among the ancients to bring a
portion of what was eaten and drank as an offering to the gods, as a sign of thankful
recognition that all which men enjoy is their gift. Among the Romans these gifts were
called “libamina,” so that with each meal there was connected an act of offering. Hence
Daniel and his friends regarded what was brought from the royal table as food which had
been offered to the gods, and therefore as impure.”
(2) Daniel and his friends were, doubtless, restrained from partaking of the food and
drink offered to them by a regard to the principles of temperance in which they had been
117

educated, and by a fear of the consequences which would follow from indulgence. They
had evidently been trained in the ways of strict temperance. But now new scenes opened
to them, and new temptations were before them. They were among strangers. They were
noticed and flattered. They had an opportunity of indulging in the pleasures of the table,
such as captive youth rarely enjoyed. This opportunity, there can be no doubt, they
regarded as a temptation to their virtue, and as in the highest degree perilous to their
principles, and they, therefore, sought to resist the temptation. They were captives -
exiles from their country - in circumstances of great depression and humiliation, and
they did not wish to forget that circumstance. - Calvin. Their land was in ruins; the
temple where they and their fathers had worshipped had been desecrated and
plundered; their kindred and countrymen were pining in exile; everything called them to
a mode of life which would be in accordance with these melancholy facts, and they,
doubtless, felt that it would be in every way inappropriate for them to indulge in
luxurious living, and revel in the pleasures of a banquet.
But they were also, doubtless, restrained from these indulgences by a reference to the
dangers which would follow. It required not great penetration or experience, indeed, to
perceive, that in their circumstances - young men as they were, suddenly noticed and
honored - compliance would be perilous to their virtue; but it did require uncommon
strength of principle to meet the temptation. Rare has been the stern virtue among
young men which could resist so strong allurements; seldom, comparatively, have those
who have been unexpectedly thrown, in the course of events, into the temptations of a
great city in a foreign land, and flattered by the attention of those in the higher walks of
life, been sufficiently firm in principle to assert the early principles of temperance and
virtue in which they may have been trained. Rare has it been that a youth in such
circumstances would form the steady purpose not to “defile himself” by the tempting
allurements set before him, and that, at all hazards, he would adhere to the principles in
which he had been educated.
CLARKE, "But Daniel - would not defile himself - I have spoken of this
resolution in the introduction. The chief reasons why Daniel would not eat meat from
the royal table were probably these three: -
1. Because they ate unclean beasts, which were forbidden by the Jewish law.
2. Because they ate, as did the heathens in general, beasts which had been strangled,
or not properly blooded.
3. Because the animals that were eaten were first offered as victims to their gods. It is
on this account that Athenaeus calls the beasts which here served up at the tables
of the Persian kings, ἱερια, victims, lib. 4 c. 10, p. 145.
GILL, "But Daniel purposed in his heart,.... It being proposed to him to be
brought up in the manner before described, he revolved it in his mind; he well weighed
it, and considered it with himself, and came to a resolution about it. This is to be
understood of him, not to the exclusion of his three companions, who were of the same
mind with him, as appears by what follows; but perhaps it was first thought of by him; at
118

least he first moved it to them, to which they consented; and because he was the
principal in this affair, it is ascribed to him as his purpose and resolution:
that he would not defile himself with the portion the king's meat; by eating of
it; partly because it might consist of what was forbidden by the law of Moses, as the flesh
of unclean creatures, particularly swine, and fat and blood, and so defile himself in a
ceremonial sense; and partly because, though it might be food in itself lawful to be eaten,
yet part of it being first offered to their idol "Bel", as was usual, and the whole blessed in
his name, it would have been against his conscience, and a defiling of that, to eat of
things offered to, or blessed in the name of, an idol:
nor with the wine which he drank; which was as unlawful as his food; being a
libation to his gods, as Aben Ezra observes; otherwise wine was not forbidden; nor was it
disused by Daniel, when he could partake of it in his own way, Dan_10:3,
therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile
himself; he did not, in a surly, still, and obstinate manner, refuse the meat and drink
brought; but prudently made it a request, and modestly proposed it to the prince of the
eunuchs, that had the care and charge of him and his companions; and who also joined
with him in this humble suit, as appears by what follows.
HENRY 8-9, "We observe here, very much to our satisfaction,
I. That Daniel was a favourite with the prince of the eunuchs (Dan_1:9), as Joseph was
with the keeper of the prison; he had a tender love for him. No doubt Daniel deserved it,
and recommended himself by his ingenuity and sweetness of temper (he was greatly
beloved, Dan_9:23); and yet it is said here that it was God that brought him into favour
with the prince of the eunuchs, for every one does not meet with acceptance according to
his merits. Note, The interest which we think we make for ourselves we must
acknowledge to be God's gift, and must ascribe to him the glory of it. Whoever are in
favour, it is God that has brought them into favour; and it is by him that they find good
understanding. Herein was again verified That work (Psa_106:46), He made them to be
pitied of all those that carried them captives. Let young ones know that the way to be
acceptable is to be tractable and dutiful.
II. That Daniel was still firm to his religion. They had changed his name, but they
could not change his nature. Whatever they pleased to call him, he still retained the
spirit of an Israelite indeed. He would apply his mind as closely as any of them to his
books, and took pains to make himself master of the learning and tongue of the
Chaldeans, but he was resolved that he would not defile himself with the portion of the
king's meat, he would not meddle with it, nor with the wine which he drank, Dan_1:8.
And having communicated his purpose, with the reasons of it, to his fellows, they
concurred in the same resolution, as appears, Dan_1:11. This was not out of sullenness,
or peevishness, or a spirit of contradiction, but from a principle of conscience. Perhaps it
was not in itself unlawful for them to eat of the king's meat or to drink of his wine. But,
1. They were scrupulous concerning the meat, lest it should be sinful. Sometimes such
meat would be set before them as was expressly forbidden by their law, as swine's flesh;
or they were afraid lest it should have been offered in sacrifice to an idol, or blessed in
the name of an idol. The Jews were distinguished from other nations very much by their
meats (Lev_11:45, Lev_11:46), and these pious young men, being in a strange country,
thought themselves obliged to keep up the honour of their being a peculiar people.
119

Though they could not keep up their dignity as princes, they would not lose it as
Israelites; for on that they most valued themselves. Note, When God's people are in
Babylon they have need to take special care that they partake not in her sins. Providence
seemed to lay this meat before them; being captives they must eat what they could get
and must not disoblige their masters; yet, if the command be against it, they must abide
by that. Though Providence says, Kill and eat, conscience says, Not so, Lord, for nothing
common or unclean has come into my mouth. 2. They were jealous over themselves,
lest, though it should not be sinful in itself, it should be an occasion of sin to them, lest,
by indulging their appetites with these dainties, they should grow sinful, voluptuous,
and in love with the pleasures of Babylon. They had learned David's prayer, Let me not
eat of their dainties (Psa_141:4), and Solomon's precept, Be not desirous of dainties, for
they are deceitful meat (Pro_23:3), and accordingly they form their resolution. Note, It
is very much the praise of all, and especially of young people, to be dead to the delights
of sense, not to covet them, not to relish them, but to look upon them with indifference.
Those that would excel in wisdom and piety must learn betimes to keep under the body
and bring it into subjection. 3. However, they thought it unseasonable now, when
Jerusalem was in distress, and they themselves were in captivity. They had no heart to
drink wine in bowls, so much were they grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Though they
had royal blood in their veins, yet they did not think it proper to have royal dainties in
their mouths when they were thus brought low. Note, It becomes us to be humble under
humbling providences. Call me not Naomi; call me Marah. See the benefit of affliction;
by the account Jeremiah gives of the princes and great men now at Jerusalem it appears
that they were very corrupt and wicked, and defiled themselves with things offered to
idols, while these young gentlemen that were in captivity would not defile themselves,
no, not with their portion of the king's meat. How much better is it with those that
retain their integrity in the depths of affliction than with those that retain their iniquity
in the heights of prosperity! Observe, The great thing that Daniel avoided was defiling
himself with the pollutions of sin; that is the thing we should be more afraid of than of
any outward trouble. Daniel, having taken up this resolution, requested of the prince of
the eunuchs that he might not defile himself, not only that he might not be compelled to
do it, but that he might not be tempted to do it, that the bait might not be laid before
him, that he might not see the portion appointed him of the king's meat, nor look upon
the wine when it was red. It will be easier to keep the temptation at a distance than to
suffer it to come near and then be forced to put a knife to our throat. Note, We cannot
better improve our interest in any with whom we have found favour than by making use
of them to keep us from sin.
JAMISON, "Daniel ... would not defile himself with ... king’s meat — Daniel
is specified as being the leader in the “purpose” (the word implies a decided resolution)
to abstain from defilement, thus manifesting a character already formed for prophetical
functions. The other three youths, no doubt, shared in his purpose. It was the custom to
throw a small part of the viands and wine upon the earth, as an initiatory offering to the
gods, so as to consecrate to them the whole entertainment (compare Deu_32:38). To
have partaken of such a feast would have been to sanction idolatry, and was forbidden
even after the legal distinction of clean and unclean meats was done away (1Co_8:7,
1Co_8:10; 1Co_10:27, 1Co_10:28). Thus the faith of these youths was made
instrumental in overruling the evil foretold against the Jews (Eze_4:13; Hos_9:3), to the
glory of God. Daniel and his three friends, says Auberlen, stand out like an oasis in the
desert. Like Moses, Daniel “chose rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than
120

to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season” (Heb_11:25; see Dan_9:3-19). He who is to
interpret divine revelations must not feed on the dainties, nor drink from the
intoxicating cup, of this world. This made him as dear a name to his countrymen as
Noah and Job, who also stood alone in their piety among a perverse generation (Eze_
14:14; Eze_28:3).
requested — While decided in principle, we ought to seek our object by gentleness,
rather than by an ostentatious testimony, which, under the plea of faithfulness, courts
opposition.
K&D 8-16, "The command of the king, that the young men should be fed with the
food and wine from the king's table, was to Daniel and his friends a test of their fidelity
to the Lord and to His law, like that to which Joseph was subjected in Egypt,
corresponding to the circumstances in which he was placed, of his fidelity to God (Gen_
39:7.). The partaking of the food brought to them from the king's table was to them
contaminating, because forbidden by law; not so much because the food was not
prepared according to the Levitical ordinance, or perhaps consisted of the flesh of
animals which to the Israelites were unclean, for in this case the youths were not under
the necessity of refraining from the wine, but the reason of their rejection of it was, that
the heathen at their feasts offered up in sacrifice to their gods a part of the food and the
drink, and thus consecrated their meals by a religious rite; whereby not only he who
participated in such a meal participated in the worship of idols, but the meat and the
wine as a whole were the meat and the wine of an idol sacrifice, partaking of which,
according to the saying of the apostle (1Co_10:20.), is the same as sacrificing to devils.
Their abstaining from such food and drink betrayed no rigorism going beyond the
Mosaic law, a tendency which first showed itself in the time of the Maccabees. What, in
this respect, the pious Jews did in those times, however (1 Macc. 1:62f.; 2 Macc. 5:27),
stands on the ground of the law; and the aversion to eat anything that was unclean, or to
defile themselves at all in heathen lands, did not for the first time spring up in the time
of the Maccabees, nor yet in the time of the exile, but is found already existing in these
threatenings in Hos_9:3., Amo_7:17. Daniel's resolution to refrain from such unclean
food flowed therefore from fidelity to the law, and from stedfastness to the faith that
“man lives not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the
Lord” (Deu_8:3), and from the assurance that God would bless the humbler provision
which he asks for himself, and would by means of it make him and his friends as strong
and vigorous as the other youths who did eat the costly provision from the king's table.
Firm in this conviction, he requested the chief chamberlain to free him and his three
friends from the use of the food and drink brought from the royal table. And the Lord
was favourable to him, so that his request was granted.
Dan_1:9
‫ד‬ ֶ‫ס‬ ֶ‫ח‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫ן‬ ַ‫ָת‬‫נ‬, to procure favour for any one, cf. 1Ki_8:30; Psa_106:46; Neh_1:11. The
statement that God gave Daniel favour with the chief chamberlain, refers to the fact that
he did not reject the request at once, as one not to be complied with, or as punishable,
but, esteeming the religious conviction out of which it sprang, pointed only to the danger
into which a disregard of the king's command would bring him, thus revealing the
inclination of his heart to grant the request. This willingness of the prince of the eunuchs
was the effect of divine grace.
121

Dan_1:10
The words ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ָ‫ל‬ ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ = ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ָ‫לּ‬ַ‫שׂ‬ (Son_1:7), for why should he see? have the force of an
emphatic denial, as ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ָ‫ל‬ in Gen_47:15, Gen_47:19; 2Ch_32:4, and as ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ‫י‬ ִ‫דּ‬ in Ezr_
7:23, and are equivalent to “he must not indeed see.” ‫ים‬ ִ‫ֲפ‬‫ע‬ֹ‫,ז‬ morose, disagreeable,
looking sad, here, a pitiful look in consequence of inferior food, corresponding to
σκυθρωπός in Mat_6:16. ‫ֵי‬‫נ‬ ְ‫פּ‬ is to be understood before ‫ים‬ ִ‫ד‬ָ‫ל‬ְ‫י‬ֲ‫,ה‬ according to the
comparatio decurtata frequently found in Hebrew; cf. Psa_4:8; Psa_18:34, etc. ‫ם‬ ֶ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ַב‬‫יּ‬ ִ‫ח‬ ְ‫ו‬
with ‫ו‬relat. depends on ‫ה‬ ָ‫מּ‬ָ‫:ל‬ and ye shall bring into danger, so that ye bring into
danger. ‫ֹאשׁ‬ ‫ת־ר‬ ֶ‫א‬ ‫ֵב‬‫יּ‬ ִ‫,ח‬ make the head guilty, i.e., make it that one forfeits his head, his
life.
Dan_1:11-16
When Daniel knew from the answer of the chief that he would grant the request if he
were only free from personal responsibility in the matter, he turned himself to the officer
who was under the chief chamberlain, whom they were immediately subject to, and
entreated him to make trial for ten days, permitting them to use vegetables and water
instead of the costly provision and the wine furnished by the king, and to deal further
with them according as the result would be. ‫ר‬ַ‫צ‬ ְ‫ל‬ ֶ‫מּ‬ ַ‫,ה‬ having the article, is to be regarded
as an appellative, expressing the business of the calling of the man. The translation,
steward or chief cook, is founded on the explanation of the word as given by Haug
(Ewald's bibl. Jahrbb. v. p. 159f.) from the New Persian word mel, spirituous liquors,
wine, corresponding to the Zendh. madhu (μεθυ), intoxicating drink, and = ‫ר‬ַ‫צ‬çara,
Sanscr. çiras, the head; hence overseer over the drink, synonymous with ‫ה‬ ֵ‫ק‬ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ‫ב‬ ַ‫,ר‬ Isa_
36:2. - ‫ַס‬‫נ‬ ‫ָא‬‫נ‬, try, I beseech thee, thy servants, i.e., try it with us, ten days. Ten, in the
decimal system the number of completeness or conclusion, may, according to
circumstances, mean a long time or only a proportionally short time. Here it is used in
the latter sense, because ten days are sufficient to show the effect of the kind of food on
the appearance. ‫ים‬ ִ‫ֹע‬‫ר‬ֵ‫ז‬, food from the vegetable kingdom, vegetables, leguminous fruit.
Dan_1:13. ‫ינוּ‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ is singular, and is used with ‫אוּ‬ ָ‫ֵר‬‫י‬ in the plural because two subjects
follow. ‫ר‬ֶ‫ֲשׁ‬‫א‬ַ‫כּ‬ ‫ה‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ִ‫,תּ‬ as thou shalt see, viz., our appearance, i.e., as thou shalt then find
it, act accordingly. In this proposal Daniel trusted in the help of God, and God did not
put his confidence to shame.
(Note: The request is perfectly intelligible from the nature of living faith, without
our having recourse to Calvin's supposition, that Daniel had received by secret
revelation the assurance that such would be the result if he and his companions were
permitted to live on vegetables. The confidence of living faith which hopes in the
presence and help of God is fundamentally different from the eager expectation of
miraculous interference of a Maccabean Jew, which C. v. Lengerke and other deists
and atheists wish to find here in Daniel.)
The youths throve so visibly on the vegetables and water, that the steward relieved them
wholly from the necessity of eating from the royal table. Dan_1:15. ‫ר‬ָ‫שׂ‬ ָ‫בּ‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫יא‬ ִ‫ר‬ ְ‫,בּ‬ fat, well
nourished in flesh, is grammatically united to the suffix of ‫ם‬ ֶ‫יה‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫,מ‬ from which the
pronoun is easily supplied in thought. Dan_1:16. ‫א‬ָ‫ָשׂ‬‫נ‬, took away = no more gave.
122

CALVIN, "Here Daniel shows his endurance of what he could neither cast off nor
escape; but meanwhile he took care that he did not depart from the fear of God, nor
become a stranger to his race, but he always retains the remembrance of his origin,
and remains a pure, and unspotted, and sincere worshipper of God. He says,
therefore, —he determined in his heart not to pollute himself with the kings food
and drink, and that he asked the prefect, under whose charge he was, that he should
not be driven to this necessity. It may be asked here, what there was of such
importance in the diet to cause Daniel to avoid it? This seems to be a kind of
superstition, or at least Daniel may have been too morose in rejecting the king’s diet.
We know that to the pure all things are pure, and this rule applies to all ages. We
read nothing of this kind concerning Joseph, and very likely Daniel used all food
promiscuously, since he was treated by the king with great honor. This, then, was
not perpetual with Daniel; for he might seem an inconsiderate zealot, or this might
be ascribed, as we have said, to too much moresoness. If Daniel only for a time
rejected the royal food, it was a mark of levity and inconsistency afterwards to allow
himself that liberty from which he had for the time abstained. But if he did this with
judgment and reason, why did he not persist in his purpose? I answer, — Daniel
abstained at first from the luxuries of the court to escape being tampered with. It
was lawful for him and his companions to feed on any kind of diet, but he perceived
the king’s intention. We know how far enticements prevail to deceive us; especially
when we are treated daintily; and experience shows us how difficult it is to be
moderate when all is affluence around us, for luxury follows immediately on plenty.
Such conduct is, indeed, too common, and the virtue of abstinence is rarely
exercised when there is an abundance of provisions.
But this is not the whole reason which weighed with Daniel. Sobriety and abstinence
are not simply praised here, since many twist this passage to the praise of fasting,
and say Daniel’s chief virtue consisted in preferring pulse to the delicacies of a
palace. For Daniel not only wished to guard himself against the delicacies of the
table, since he perceived a positive danger of being eaten up by such enticements;
hence he simply determined in his hem not to taste the diet of the court, desiring by
his very food perpetually to recall the remembrance of his country. He wished so to
live in Chaldea, as to consider himself an exile and a captive, sprung from the sacred
family of Abraham. We see, then, the intention of Daniel. He desired to refrain from
too great an abundance and delicacy of diet, simply to escape those snares of Satan,
by which he saw himself surrounded. He was, doubtless, conscious of his own
infirmity, and this also is to be reckoned to his praise, since; through distrust of
himself he desired to escape from all allurements and temptations. As far as
concerned the king intention, this was really a snare of the devil, as I have said.
Daniel rejected it, and there is no doubt that God enlightened his mind by his Spirit
as soon as he prayed to him. Hence he was unwilling to cast himself into the snares
of the devil, while he voluntarily abstained from the royal diet. This is; the full
meaning; of the passage.
123

It may also be asked, Why does Daniel claim this praise, as His own, which was
shared equally with his companions? for he was not the only one who rejected the
royal diet. It is necessary to take notice, how from his childhood he was, governed
by the Spirit of God, that the confidence and influence of his teaching might be the
greater; hence he speaks peculiarly of himself, not for the sake of boasting, but to
obtain confidence in his teaching, and to show himself to have been for a long period
formed and polished by God for the prophetic office. We must also remember that
he was the adviser of his companions; for this course might never have come into
their minds, and they might have been corrupted, unless they had been admonished
by Daniel. God, therefore, wished Daniel to be a leader and master to his
companions, to induce them to adopt the same abstinence. Hence also we gather,
that as each of us is endued more fruitfully with the grace of the Spirit, so should we
feel bound to instruct others. It will not be sufficient for any one to restrain himself
and thus to discharge his own duty, under the teaching of God’s Spirit, unless he
also extend his hand to others, and endeavor to unite in an alliance of piety, and of
the fear and worship of God. Such an example is here proposed to us in Daniel, who
not only rejected the delicacies of the palace, by which he might be intoxicated and
even poisoned; but he also advised and persuaded his companions to adopt the same
course. This is the reason why he calls tasting the king’s food pollution or
abomination, though, as I have said, there was nothing abominable in it of itself.
Daniel was at liberty to eat and drink at the loyal table, but the abomination arose
from the consequences. Before the time of these four persons living in Chaldea., they
doubtless partook of ordinary food after the usual manner, and were permitted to
eat whatever was offered to them. They did not ask for pulse when at an inn, or on
their journey; but they began to desire it when the king wished to infect them with
his delicacies, and to induce them if possible to prefer that condition to returning to
their own friends. When they perceived the object of his snares, then it became both
a pollution and abomination to feed on those dainties, and to eat, at the king’s table.
Thus we may ascertain the reason why Daniel thought himself polluted if he fared
sumptuously and partook of the royal diet; he was conscious, as we have already
observed, of his own infirmities, and wished to take timely precautions, lest he
should be enticed by such snares, and fall away from piety and the worship of God,
and degenerate into the manners of the Chaldeans, as if he were one of their nation,
and of their native princes. I must leave the rest till tomorrow.
COFFMAN, "Verse 8
"But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king's
dainties, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore, he requested of the prince of
the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God made Daniel to find kindness
and compassion in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the
eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your food
and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse looking than the youths that
are of your own age? So would ye endanger my head with the king. Then said
Daniel to the steward whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel,
124

Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and
let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be
looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the youths that eat the king's
dainties; and as thou seest, deal with thy servants."
It should be remembered that there were other children of Israel besides these
particular four who were also given the same opportunities; but the record reveals
that only these decided to abide by the rules of the law of Moses regarding the
eating of unclean things. "God's people were here facing a situation where it had to
be absolute loyalty to God or they were lost. It is the same situation which
Christians face today."[23] Of all those who were given the opportunity, only these
four remained faithful to God.
Defilement through eating the king's dainties was "ceremonial defilement" as
outlined in the Mosaic law. The meats which formed, no doubt, a major part of the
king's food would have been dedicated to idols after the pagan customs that
continued even until the days of the apostles. All of the wonderful things which
happened in the Book of Daniel were the result of the blessing of God upon these
faithful young men who would not permit themselves to be led into violation of the
Holy Scriptures.
It is interesting to note that Daniel received favor from the authorities whom he
petitioned to allow a diet which did not violate their consciences. It would appear
that God Himself intervened to give Daniel the necessary preference to make the
granting of his wish possible.
"Pulse ... (Daniel 1:12). This word does not mean simply "peas, or legumes," but "It
would refer to all plants that bear seeds."[24]
It has often been pointed out that there is no mandate here for vegetarianism. There
would in all probability have been no scruples whatever on the part of the four
young men against eating meat, except for the great likelihood of any meats which
the king would have provided for them having been sacrificed to idols, or, at any
rate, not kosher.
Others have been equally diligent to affirm that the refusal of the wine did not
indicate a denial that wine was an acceptable part of the diet for Jews generally. On
the other hand, these young Hebrew students might very well have refused the wine
on the grounds of its being detrimental and harmful. There are many today who
refused to drink alcohol for the same excellent reason. We know of no way that
Nebuchadnezzar's wine would not have been kosher.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:8 But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile
himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank:
therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
125

Ver. 8. But Daniel purposed in his heart.] The change of his name, though he utterly
disliked, yet he could not help; but to show that he was still of the same religion,
though he were but a child of twelve years old, or thereabouts, yet he purposeth
first, and then performeth it, to keep himself pure and free from heathenish
defilements. What if the vessels of the temple - by being brought into the treasure
house of Nebuchadnezzar’s god [Daniel 1:2] - were defiled, yet these elect vessels
would not. So the primitive Christians chose rather to be thrown to lions without
than left to lusts within. (a) Yea, I had rather be cast pure and innocent into hell,
saith an ancient, (b) than go to heaven being polluted with the filth of sin. Daniel’s
greatest care is, ne contra legem Dei et conscientiam impuretur, he may not polute
his conscience nor violate law of God, the lest he should be defiled in the least. Fall
back, fall edge, as they say; he is fully resolved against that. So the Prince of Condi
when, at the Parisian massacre, he was put to his choice by the French king,
whether to go to mass, to suffer death, or to endure perpetual imprisonment,
answered, As for the first, by the grace of God, I will never do it; and for the two
last, I humbly submit to his majesty. Let him do with me what he pleaseth.
That he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat.] That which
Scaliger saith of Matthew Beroaldus, Vir doctus, et, quod familiam ducit, pius, that
he was a learned man; but that which was his chief commendation, he was also a
godly man, may be better said of the prophet Daniel. Godly he was early, and as a
child, so was also his master Jeremiah, in whose works he was well read; [Daniel
9:2] Samuel; Timothy; Athanasius; Beza, who, among many other things, blessed
God chiefly for this in his last will and testament, that at the age of sixteen years he
had called him to the knowledge of the truth. Daniel had this happiness at twelve or
thirteen. Neither was he like early fruit, that are soon rotten - Hermogenes was old
in his childhood, and a child in his old age - but although he lived one hundred and
ten years, as Isidor (c) reckoneth, some say one hundred and thirty, yet he was best
at last, and may very well pass for a martyr, though he came again safe out of the
lions’ den, like as John the evangelist also did out of the cauldron of scalding oil,
wherein he was cast by the command of Domitian, in contempt of Christianity.
Daniel’s piety appeareth in this, that he maketh conscience of smaller evils also,
such as most men in his case would never have boggled at. He would not "defile
himself with the portion of the king’s meat." He scrupled the eating of it; and why?
(1.) Because it was often such as was forbidden by the law of God. [Leviticus 11:13;
Leviticus 11:29 Deuteronomy 14:3-8] (2.) Because it was so used as would defile him
and his fellows against the word of God; for the heathens, to the shame of many
Christians, had their grace before a meal, as it were, consecrating their dishes to
their idols before they tasted of them (d) [Daniel 5:4 1 Corinthians 8:10] (3.) They
could not do it without offence to their weaker brethren, with whom they chose
rather to sympathise in their adversity than to live in excess and fulness. [Amos 6:6]
(4.) They well perceived that the king’s love and provisions were not single and
sincere, but that he meant his own profit, to assure himself the better of the land of
Judah, and that they might forget their religion. Lastly, They knew that
intemperance was the mother of many mischiefs, as in Adam, Esau, the rich glutton,
&c. That is a memorable story that is recorded by William Schiekard (e) concerning
126

eleven Jewish doctors, whom the heathen king of Pirgandy having in his power, put
them to this hard choice, either to eat swines’ flesh, or to drink wine that had been
consecrated to idols, or to lie with certain harlots. They chose rather to drink the
wine than to do either of the other two. But when they had drunk wine liberally,
they were easily drawn to do the other two things also. Any one of these five reasons
had been of force enough to prevail with Daniel, and the other three to forbear.
They knew well that the least hair casteth its shadow. A barley corn laid on the sight
of the eye will keep out the light of the sun, as well as a mountain. The eye of the
soul that will "see God" must be kept very clear. [Matthew 5:8-12]
Therefore he requested.] Modestly and prudently be propounded it, non
convitiando, sed supplicando, and petitioneth for liberty of conscience, confessing
his religion.
POOLE, "Ver. 8. There may be several weighty reasons assigned why Daniel did
this.
1. Because many of those meats provided for the king’s table were such as were
forbidden by the Jews’ law, whereof Daniel made conscience,
2. Daniel knew these delicacies would too much gratify and pamper the flesh, and
therefore he would prevent the defilements which too often do arise from delicious
fare, Deuteronomy 32:14,15 Eze 16:49 Hosea 13:6 Romans 13:13; so that those who
fare deliciously would practise this.
3. Daniel knew he should by this bait be taken with the hook which lay hid under it,
and insensibly be drawn from the true to a false religion, by eating and drinking
things consecrated to idols.
4. Daniel saw his people lie under God’s displeasure by their captivity, and therefore
could not but be sensible how unsuitable a courtly life would be in him to the
afflicted state of God’s people, Hebrews 11:24-26. Therefore Daniel was herein a
rare pattern of avoiding all the occasions of evil, which he did with purpose of heart,
Acts 11:23; saith the text, he
purposed in his heart to abstain.
WHEDON, " 8. Wesley suggests as reasons for Daniel’s action that many meats
were forbidden by Jewish law: the meats of the royal table had been probably
consecrated to idols; at any rate they would too greatly gratify the flesh and were
unsuitable to the afflicted state of God’s people. The Talmud declares that after the
destruction of the second temple many Israelites would not eat meat, since it could
no longer be offered on the altar according to the law; but in Daniel 9:3, and Daniel
10:3, the “fasting” is a preparation for expected revelations (as Exodus 34:28).
Jephet Ibu (eleventh century) represents the spirit of the second century B.C., and
perhaps earlier, when he explains, “They would not defile themselves with food
127

prepared by Gentiles.” Behrmann points out, however, that there is no indication
that the vegetable food they did eat was prepared by their own hands.
BENSON, "Daniel 1:8. But Daniel purposed that he would not defile himself — The
defilement here alluded to might arise either from the food being such as was
prohibited in the law of Moses, or else what was offered to the idols of the Chaldees,
or entreated to be blessed in their names: see 2 Corinthians 8:10; 2 Corinthians
8:20. With the portion of the king’s meat — It was the custom of most nations,
before their meals, to make an oblation of some part of what they ate and drank to
their gods, as a thankful acknowledgment that every thing which they enjoyed was
their gift; so that every entertainment had something in it of the nature of a
sacrifice. This practice, generally prevailing, might make Daniel and his friends look
upon the provisions coming from the king’s table as no better than meats offered to
idols, and therefore to be accounted unclean, or polluted: see the margin. Nor with
the wine which he drank — Though wine was not prohibited in the Levitical law,
yet Daniel might wish to abstain from it, chiefly from motives of temperance; or
because it came from an entertainment wherein a libation was made of it to idols, he
might think himself obliged to abstain from motives of conscience: see Wintle and
Lowth.
COKE, "Daniel 1:8. Daniel purposed in his heart— Daniel had two reasons for
refusing the meat from the king's table: first, because the heathens ate
indiscriminately all sorts of food, and consequently such as was forbidden by the
law of Moses: the second, because it was the custom of most nations before their
meals, to make an offering of some part of what they were to eat or drink to their
gods: so that every entertainment had something in it of the nature of a sacrifice.
This practice generally prevailing, made Daniel and his friends look upon the
provisions coming from the king's table as no better than meats offered to idols, and
consequently polluted and unclean. See Calmet.
PETT, "Verse 8
‘But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s
meat, nor with the wine that he drank, therefore he requested of the prince of the
chief officers that he might not defile himself.’
What was happening to him clearly came as a shock to Daniel. There was no
knowing how the meat was slaughtered nor what much of the food consisted of.
With the strict Israelite dietary laws much of it would be ‘unclean’, and this would
therefore be shocking to a well brought up Israelite. This was no doubt a major part
of Daniel’s case with the prince. But the matter went further than that, for this
objection would not have included the wine. He was perhaps concerned not to live in
luxury when his own people were, as far as he knew, going through a hard time
(compare 2 Samuel 11:11) But a main concern would have been in the thought that
the king’s food was openly dedicated to the gods, and thus that to partake of it
without question was to be seen as submitting to those gods. However, he could
128

hardly put that case to the prince! But we can imagine the mental struggle that he
found himself facing. He wanted to be faithful to his God, and he did not want to
seem to be acknowledging idols. To a devout and faithful Yahwist both facts were
important.
There is a lesson here for us too. He who is faithful in that which is least, is faithful
also in that which is much.
PULPIT, "But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with
the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wins which he drank, therefore he
requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. The
Septuagint renders the first clause somewhat paraphrastically, "Daniel desired in
his heart," led possibly to this by the more limited meaning assigned to "heart" in
the psychology of ordinary Greek speech. Theodotion is, as usual, in close harmony
with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta, instead of "heart," has r‛ina, "mind." As
before noticed, the G reek versions here render ‫פּת־בג‬ by δεῖπνον. 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, Deuteronomy 12:12, directions are given for
sacrificing in the place which the Lord should choose, and they and all their
household rejoicing. But if the place chosen were too far, then permission was given
them to eat flesh, only they were to be careful not to eat with the blood. It was the
characteristic of the classic nations all through their whole history, that the feast
should be consecrated by the offering of something of it to the Deity. The immense
probability was that this was the case also among the Babylonians. It may be that
this consecration of the feast arose from the same justifiable religious feeling which
leads us to ask a blessing on our meals. The habit of the African Church to celebrate
the Lord's Supper at every supper, was probably connected with this offering to
God of what the guests were about to partake. This fact, that every feast had the
character of a sacrifice, might easily make these Hebrew youths refuse the royal
dainties. So far as animal food was concerned, the careful directions as to not eating
with blood made partaking of the feasts of the Babylonian monarch peculiarly liable
to bring on them defilement. The fact that Evil-Merodach provided Jeconiah with a
portion from his table, and that Jeconiah did not refuse it, does not necessarily
militate against the early date of Daniel. Jeconiah probably was not as conscientious
as those youths, and, on the other hand, Daniel's influence by this time may have
arranged some consideration for Jewish scruples. It is certain that in 2 Maccabees
5:27 Judas and his brethren are represented as living in the mountains on herbs,
after the manner of beasts, that they might not be defiled; but as there is nothing
parallel to this in 1 Maccabees, we may dismiss the statement as probably untrue. So
the whole idea of this action on the part of Judas and his nine companions may have
129

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.
BI 8, "But Daniel purposed in his heart.
A Sermon to Young Men
The scene of this heroic resolution was Babylon. The circumstances add lustre to the
moral grandeur of the brave purpose. To appreciate the splendid courage of this
purpose, you must imagine yourself placed in Daniel’s position. A captive boy, selected
by command of the King, for special supervision in mental, physical, and social
discipline, he suddenly found himself in the line of such promotion as might well fire the
ambition and dazzle the imagination of a less ardent nature. But an inconvenient
difficulty looms up at the very threshold of this brilliant career. The thing we call
conscience whispered, “You cannot, you must not!” and the hero within answered “I will
not!” Can you find a grander, exhibition of moral courage in all history? Shall he do it?
that is the question. “And he purposed in his heart that he would not.” They tell us that
Babylon, with walls, palaces, temples, hanging gardens, wonderful commerce, mighty
Euphrates, marvellous culture, and boundless wealth—that Babylon was great; they tell
us that the genius of “the mighty king” was greater still; but I tell you that greater than
Nebuchadnezzar, greater than Babylon, or aught that Babylon afforded, was that young,
heroic nature, when, planted upon the eternal adamant of moral integrity, and breasting
appalling odds, he calmly resolved, “I will not!” Such s purpose, under such
circumstances, would deserve to be pronounced the rashness of a madman, were it not
130

for one fact. A fact which, alas! does not always enter into our disposition of life’s great
emergencies—a fact in comparison with which all other facts are trivial—the central sun
in the system of facts! I mean that stupendous, supreme fact there is a God! Better be on
God’s side than on the side of Babylon and the king. Believe me, it is the highest wisdom,
the noblest policy. The sequel shows that young Daniel did the best thing for himself
when he purposed in his heart that he would not. “And 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.” “Natural law,” somebody whispers. Yes, but read further in
the record: “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel
had understanding in all visions and dreams.” Daniel and the magicians! He was master
of the situation, because the present lays hold upon the past. The life, whose foundation
was laid in the heroic resolution of the boy, grew up into secret sympathy with God, and
in the help of the Divine found the hidings of its power. I repeat, better be on God’s side!
But God is immaterial, impalpable—who ever saw God?—and Babylon is so splendidly
present to the senses! God is abstract, and Babylon so gloriously concrete. But the
spiritual is greater than the material, and the abstract imparts beauty and value to the
concrete. (H. W. Battle D.D.)
Dare to be a Daniel
Very much of our future life will depend upon our earliest days. I like a remark of Mr.
Ruskin’s. He says, “People often say, ‘We excuse the thoughtlessness of youth,’” but he
says “No it never ought to be excused,! had far rather hear of thoughtless old age, when a
man has done his work but what excuse can be found for a thoughtless youth? The time
for thought is at the beginning of life, and there is no period which so much demands, or
so much necessitate, thoughtfulness as our early days.” I would that all young men
would think so. If there is any time when the farmer should think, it is surely in the early
stages of the ploughing and the sowing. If he does not think then, it will be of small avail
for him to think afterwards. Daniel was a young man, and he did think. It was his glory
that he so thought that he came to a purpose, and he purposed, not with a kind of
superficial “I will,” but he “purposed in his heart,” and gave his whole self to a certain
definite purpose which he deliberately formed. But, though they might change Daniel’s
name, they could not change his nature, nor would he give up anything that he believed
to be right. Captive as he was, he had a right royal soul; and he was as free in Babylon as
he had been at Jerusalem, and he determined to keep himself so, for he “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.” Now, it was because Daniel, while yet a youth, a captive, a
student, was so decided in what he did, that his afterlife became so bright. God help you,
who are beginning life; for, if God begins with you, and you begin with God, your life will
be one of happy usefulness, which will have a truly blessed end!
I. THERE ARE TEMPTATIONS TO BE RESISTED.
There never was a man yet who had faith, and who had not trials. Wherever there is faith
in God, it will be tested at some time or other; it must be so. It cannot be that the house
shall be builded, even on the rock, without the rains descending, and the floods coming,
and the winds beating upon that house. Now, first, look at Daniel’s temptations.
(1) In his case, the temptation was very specious. He was bidden to eat the
portion of food that, every day, came from the king’s table. Could he want any
131

better? He might have fared like a prince. Could he have any objection to that?
He had no objection except this, that it would defile him. There were certain
foods used by the Babylonians, such as the flesh of swine, the flesh of the hare,
and of certain fish, that were unclean, and when these came from the king’s table,
if Daniel ate them, he would be breaking the law of Moses given in the Book of
Leviticus, and thus he would be defiled. Remember that the food which was
allowed to Israel was to be killed in a certain way. The blood must be effectually
drained from the flesh, for he that ate the blood defiled himself thereby. Now, the
Babylonians did not kill their beasts in that way, and the eating of flesh which
had not been killed according to the law would have defiled Daniel. More than
that, usually such a king as Nebuchadnezzar, before he ate food, dedicated it to
his god. Bel-Merodach was greatly venerated by Nebuchadnezzar as god, so that
a libation of wine was poured out to Merodach, and a certain portion of food was
put aside, so that, in fact, it was offered to idols; and Daniel felt that he would be
defiled if he ate of meat which might be unclean, and which was certain to be
offered to idols; it would be breaking the law of God, so Daniel would not eat it.
But the temptation to do so must have been very strong, for somebody would say,
“Why, what difference can it make what you eat, or what you drink?” Others
would say, “Why is Daniel so particular? There have been other Jews here who
have unhesitatingly eaten the king’s meat.”
(2) Then, the temptation seemed the road to honour. They would say to Daniel,
“Surely, if you begin by objecting to what the monarch sends you from his table,
you will never get on at Court. People with a conscience should not go to Court.”
Somebody would whisper in Daniel’s ear, “It is the law of the land.” Yes, but
whatever the law may be, and whatever custom may be, the servants of God serve
a higher King, and they have but one rule, and one custom, “We ought to obey
God rather than man.” In Daniel’s case, if he had done what it was proposed to
him to do, it would have been giving up the separated life. This is the temptation
of the present day. Profess to be a Christian, but float along the common current
of the world. Take the name of a Christian, and go to your place of worship, and
go through your ceremonies; but do not bring your religion into your business.
Act as other people do. This is the temptation of the time. Now, in our own case,
what are the particular temptations to which we, as believing men and believing
women, are exposed? I cannot go into the question of individuals; but I can
imagine some one here who is in a position where he is asked to do what it is not
right for him to do. But he says, “I shall be discharged if I refuse to do it. I know
others do it, and I must do it.” My dear young fellow, allow me to put before you
Daniel, who purposed in his heart that he would not eat the king’s meat.
Sometimes you will find that to be out and out for the right will be the making of
you. Any man who speaks the truth will find it the best thing in the long run. So
to-day, again, there is the temptation of love for intellectual novelty. And, besides
this, we have, nowadays, the temptation to general laxity. People do, even
Christian people do, what Christian people should not do; and they excuse
themselves by quoting the example of other Christians, or by saying, “We are not
so precise as our fathers were.” Has God changed? Christians have meat to eat of
which the world knoweth not.
II. THERE ARE RIGHT METHODS OF RESISTING TEMPTATION.
1. And the first is that the heart must be set. “Daniel purposed in his heart.” He
132

looked the matter up and down, and he settled it in his heart. Before he asked
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego anything about it, he had made up his own mind.
Oh, for a made-up mind! Oh, for the man who knows how to look at his compass,
and to steer his vessel whither he ought to go! The grace of God is a great heart-
settler.
2. The next thing is, that the life must be winning. Daniel was helped in carrying out
his resolution by his own permortal character. God had brought Daniel into favour
and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. Whenever a man is brought into
favour and tender love, and is a good man, there is something about him that has
commended itself. There are some who have carried firmness into obstinacy, and
determination into bigotry, which is a thing to be shunned. Yield everything that may
be yielded; give up mere personal whims and oddities; but as for the things of God,
stand as firm as a rock about them.
3. Then observe that the protest must be courteously borne. While Daniel was very
decided, he was very courteous in his protests. Firmness of purpose should be
adorned with gentleness of manner in carrying it out.
4. Next to that, self-denial must be sought. If you will be out and out for God, you
must expect self-denial, and you will have to habituate yourself to it. Be ready for a
bad name; be willing to be called a bigot; be prepared for loss of friendships.
5. And then the test must be boldly put. Daniel showed his faith when he said to
Melzar, “Feed me and my three companions on this common fare; give us nothing
else.” I think that a Christian man should be willing to be tried; he should be pleased
to let his religion be put to the test.
III. THERE ARE CERTAIN POINTS WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE PROVED BY
EXPERIENCE. I speak now to you Christian people who hold fast by the old doctrines
of the gospel, and will not be, led astray by modern temptations. Now what have you to
prove?
1. Well, I think that you have to prove that the old faith gives you a bright and
cheerful spirit.
2. Another point that we shall have to prove, is that the old faith promotes holiness
of life. There are some who say, “Those people cry down good works.” Do we? If you
bring them as a price to purchase salvation, we do cry them down. God help us to
prove that we are more truthful and more godly than those who have not like
precious faith!
3. The next thing is that we must prove that the old faith produces much love of our
fellow-men.
4. And then let us prove that the old faith enables us to have great patience in trial.
He who believes the doctrines of grace is the man who can suffer.
5. What is wanted is that we who hold the old faith should be in a better state of
spiritual health. May every grace be developed. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Daniel and his Companions
Daniel, even though he was in Babylon during the captivity of his people, was not a part
133

of them, but was a great and high officer in the government of the king of Babylon. In
this respect he differed in position from Ezekiel, who was the resident prophet of Israel
while in captivity, a captive with them. Ezekiel was much older than Daniel, and,
humanly speaking, might have been jealous of Daniel’s position as a high and favourite
official with the king, whose captives were the older prophet and all his people. Besides,
he might have accused Daniel of fawning on the enemies of his people and being undue
to them, in that he took place and emoluments from their enemies while his brethren
were suffering a bondage little better than that of Egypt. Yet he never did so reproach
Daniel. On the other hand, he twice distinguishes Daniel as one of the greatest of men,
classifying him with Noah and Job. (Eze_14:14; Eze_14:20.) This should teach us a
lesson to the effect that we cannot always judge of one man’s actions by that of another.
Nor, on the contrary, with the examples of Joseph and Daniel, occupying similar
positions in Egypt and Babylon, must we be hasty in judging the possible rightness of
taking and continuing in the employment of the enemies of God. The question really is
not in whose employ we are engaged, but whether in that employment we are keeping a
conscience void of offence, and are using our place, while faithful to our employer, for
the glory of God. This certainly did both Daniel and Joseph. There is a striking
comparison between the history of Daniel and Joseph. Joseph was the first
distinguished man of his house, and we may say that Daniel was the last man of great
eminence. In their youth they were both captives, and both true to God and their
consciences in circumstances that were very trying. Both obtained favour with their
kings, and reached places of great honour and power in the kingdom whither in the
providence of God they had been sent as prisoners. It is surprising to note how often
young men have played great parts in the world’s history; and this is especially true of
the history of God’s kingdom on the earth. Moses and Joshua were comparatively young
men for the age in which they lived; David and Solomon were young men when they
were called to assume the greatest responsibilities. John the Baptist and Jesus were
young men when they began their ministry, Jesus himself being a mere child of twelve
years when he first undertook his Father’s business. Saul of Tarsus was a young man
when Jesus met, converted, and commissioned him to be the great apostle to the
Gentries. Timothy was a mere lad when Paul chose him for his companion, and adopted
him as his son. What encouragement is here for young men, and even lads, to enter at
once on the work and into the personal service of God!
I. DANIEL UNDER TEMPTATION.—Whether it was a part of the deliberate policy of
the king of Babylon to corrupt these young men by feeding them from his own table with
the meat and drink which had been offered to idols, and so to wean them away from the
religion of their fathers, or whether this circumstance was the providential occasion of
developing the faith and character of Daniel and his friends is not a question of great
moment. Daniel was, from the very beginning of his career, a true witness for the truth.
His temptation was all the more severe from the following circumstances;
1. Because of his youth.—It would not have been so remarkable that he declined to
compromise his conscience, had he been a full-grown man, with religious principles
and character strong by reason of maturity and long habit of righteousness. Youth is,
indeed, purer than manhood, but then, as a rule, it is weaker and more easily led by
those under whose power and influence it was brought. Had Daniel yielded here to
the first temptation, he would hardly have recovered his faith at a later time. If we
win in the first fight with the tempter, we may assure ourselves of victory all through
life.
134

2. Because he was away from home.—One of the worst situations for a young man to
find himself in, is to be away from home and home influences, in a strange city,
especially when surrounded by those who have no sympathy with the religious
training and principles of his home life. In this situation Daniel was placed. What
had become of his father and mother, his brethren and kindred, we are not told.
Possibly they had been killed in the siege or carried away captive to some other
province.
3. Because of his helplessness.—He was not only in a strange land and among
strangers, but he was a captive, and wholly at the mercy of the king and his servants.
He might have said to himself, and not without some show of reason: “I am not
responsible for the things which I do under the command of the king, whose
prisoner I am.” We have heard young men, who justified themselves for wrong-doing
because they were only carrying out the orders of their employers.
4. Because of the subtlety of the temptation—It was a matter of great self-gratulation
to Daniel that he has been selected to fill a high place in the service of the king, and
that the king had complimented him by directing that he should be fed with meat
and drink from his own table. This high distinction would be recognised both by the
other prisoners and by the king’s officers themselves. To refuse this peculiar mark of
the king’s favour would have been both ungracious and impertinent on Daniel’s part.
There is no surer approach to the citadel of man’s moral nature than by the gateway of
vanity and with the instruments of flattery, especially of the agents be the rich and great.
What we might refuse from our inferiors, or even our equals, is not so easily declined if it
is offered by our betters.
5. Because of the peril of his position.—Sometimes we can brave the sneer of the
ungodly and the arched eyebrows of the less conscientious, where we should not be
willing to stand up under peril of life itself. Yet this was Daniel’s danger. The favour
of God was more to him than life. We do not wonder after this, that, at a later period
of his life, he calmly went on-praying with his face towards Jerusalem, even though
the den of lions was to be his portion for so doing.
II. STANDING BY A PURPOSE TRUE.
1. He was true to a godly education.—Perhaps the low state of religion in his own
land had served to increase in him the sense of responsibility for an absolutely true
course in the matter now before him. No lad would have stood this test if he had not
been thoroughly well taught; not in the external virtues of religion, but in its very
essence and power. If we parents wish to be absolutely sure of the course our sons
will take, when the time comes to send them forth into the world to fight life’s battle
for themselves, let us be sure that they go out from us rooted and grounded in the
truth, and established in the faith of God and his Christ.
2. He was true to his conscience.—It was not only loyalty to home-training, but
loyalty to conscience, that stood Daniel in good stead in the hour of trial. In leaving
home we leave home influences, but if we have a conscience that has been trained in
the fear of God, we shall always take that with us. Home-training will keep us a little
while, but a sensitive conscience is a never-failing guide. He is a happy boy or man,
whether rich or poor, prince or peasant, who has a conscience like Daniel’s. It will
stand by and strengthen him in many an hour of trial.
3. He was true to the word of God.—By taking heed to the word of God, a young man
135

will not only cleanse himself from evil ways, but will be able to do something better:
even to keep himself safe from being defiled.
4. He was true to his brethren.—Daniel seems to have been the spokesman for the
other three young princes, as he was undoubtedly by nature, and perhaps by rank,
their leader. Should he give way, his brethren would hardly stand, and so they would
be defiled. If he stood fast, they, encouraged by his example, would stand by his side.
Daniel was therefore jealous of his influence as of his own soul’s peace. He must be a
true witness for the sake of others.
5. He was true to God.—A true Christian may always appeal to the results of a
Christian walk for its justification. Daniel only asked a trial of ten days. He believed
“that God would vindicate his course, and show to the eunuch that in every way it
was better to serve God than worship or be compromised with the worship of idols,
We may always be sure that God will in the end honour those who honour him.
III. DANIEL VINDICATED AND REWARDED.—God stood by Daniel, his young
servant, in this matter, as he had stood by Joseph in Egypt, and even more promptly
vindicated his faith. God’s favour was shown in three things.
1. In the favour be gave Daniel with the eunuch.—He had already brought him “into
favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.” God does not wait till the end
of our faith to come to our help, but even if there be a purpose in our hearts to be
true to him, he gives us preliminary vindication. The early Christians being true to
God, won for themselves favour with the people.
2. By giving them greater physical beauty.—At the end of the ten days’ trial, “their
countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat
the portion of the king’s meat.” In the long run, the man who lives on simple fare will
show more physical beauty that he who fares sumptuously every day on dainty food.
Chrysostom says of these four young men who stood to their purpose, that “they had
better health for their spare diet; and their good conscience and merry heart was a
continual feast unto them. They had also God’s blessing on their coarser fare, which
was the main matter that made the difference.”
3. By their superior intellectual ability.—At the end of the three years which had been
assigned for their special education, they were brought before the king, and he found
them “ten times better in all matters of wisdom and understanding than all the
magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.” There is hardly a doubt that, if the
facts were known.and could be tabulated, it would appear that the intellectual life of
Christian people is far in advance of those men of the world who reject God and his
counsels, both as to the spiritual life and the general state of the body, promoted by a
temperate use of the good things of life. Certainly a wide generalization shows marked
superiority in favour of those nations commonly known as Christian, over those which
are guided by the superstitions and excesses of heathenism. The general and well-known
superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race is due most of all, and first of all, to the influence of
the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has trained that race for the civilization and the
evangelization of the whole world. (G. F. Pentecost.)
A stand for temperance
We have here a picture of a youth of fourteen making a stand for temperance and piety
136

against temptations and inducements which might well shake the purpose of strong
men. The lad did not parley with his resolution, making it contingent upon the success
or failure of a first trial. There was no contingency about it; he purposed in his heart that
he would not defile himself with the King’s meat or drink. It might cost him, not only
serious inconvenience and additional reproach, but even his life, He considered these
possibilities, and resolved at all hazards to obey first his conscience and his God, and
then to regard that only as his duty which happened to agree with this obedience But
Daniel was not only a captive accessible to motives of fear, but he was a youth accessible
to the invitations of sin. The obscurity that invests his childhood prevents us from
learning how his first years were passed. Although it was at a time when the morals of
the Jews were depressed to the brink of national apostasy, when Jerusalem was as
ungodly and impure as Babylon herself, Daniel was probably educated with a careful
discipline, and his heart had been the early possession of the Great Spirit, who enters the
tiny soul of a child, and, as it were, makes Himself another child to accommodate His
presence to the undeveloped faculties and free fancies of childhood. Yet he was not
insensible to the temptations incident to boyish life. He was born a prince and had tasted
the luxuries of rank before his captivity; and in the presence of the dainty viands of the
king’s table, to school his inclinations into submission, to make the flesh bend to the
authority of the spirit, discovered singular ripeness of virtue in one whose years had
scarcely surpassed boyhood.
1. Daniel’s act was an indirect avowal of his Hebrew faith. That faith forbade him to
eat the food of the Gentiles. But this law was not mainly on account of the food itself.
If the bread and wine of Babylon had been as simple in their preparation as the
temperate provisions of a pious Jewish home, the Jew might not teach them. It was
idolatry that brought a taint upon Gentile food. The blessing of wicked deities, lying
vanities, was invoked upon the grain and the grape which the bounty of God had
ripened; and to partake of food so contaminated was to the Jew like eating and
drinking a lie and a curse. In primitive times eating and drinking represented a
man’s religion. He ate and drank to the praise of the deity whose providence was
supposed to have furnished his table; and all who ate with him were partakers alike
of his food and his faith. In refusing the king’s meat, Daniel proclaimed himself the
follower of another religion. Nebuchadnezzar imagined that a slave had no mind of
his own; that his will, his conscience, his person, belonging to his Master and Owner,
he must follow whatever religion that Master chose to impose. The poor lad could
not resist his exile; he had no power over his own person; but young as he was, no
one could touch his will, and no one should force him to violate his conscience. Such
is the inalienable prerogative of the mind even of a child. But this law of the Hebrews
which forbade them the hospitality of other nations was not a matter of faith only,
but of morality. Although many Gentiles were distinguished for the severity of their
virtues, yet as nations they were profoundly corrupt. They conceived that the gods
who gave them food were exalted by the licence of appetite. The worship of some of
these idols consisted in gluttony and drunkenness, of others in the gratification of
more shameful lusts. Idolatry is, in its effects, the elevation of the animal in man, and
the depression of the intellectual. In avowing his faith to the God of Israel, Daniel
upheld in his own conduct the morality of that faith. Not in abstinence only, but in
all his conduct he was pure; and the effect of his behaviour upon the distinguished
men who were placed over him was a beautiful illustration of our Lord’s lesson, “Let
your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your
Father which is in Heaven.” (Mat_5:16). Ashpenaz was a man of high rank in
137

Babylon; his position implied culture, wealth, and authority; his eye fell upon the
young captive; his shrewd penetration discerned at once a mind and character of
singular originality; and, judging by one expression in the history, he must have been
charmed even to fascination by the endowments, the grace, and the beauty of
Daniel’s spirit. Here was a godly youth in the presence of an eminent statesman—a
man whose opportunities commanded a wide field in the study of character, who had
been mixed up with the splendid licentiousness of a court, with the intrigues of a
State, and with the subtle involutions of priestly sorcery, and this veteran of the
world was awed by the purity and courage of a youth and a foreigner. The Scriptures
attribute this impression to the grace of God: “God brought Daniel into tender love
with the prince of the eunuchs.” The same is affirmed of the influence of Joseph over
Potiphar and Pharaoh. “And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous
man, and his Master saw that the Lord was with him; and the Lord blessed the
Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake;” and again, Pharaoh said unto his courtiers, “Can
we find such an one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?” Both Joseph and
Daniel were beautiful in person and character, and gifted in mind; but these in
themselves do not necessarily conciliate and charm observers. I have known persons
who possessed them and yet were unable to gain the love and confidence of others;
not because they wanted piety and integrity, but for the lack of graciousness,
courtesy, gentleness; in one word, sympathy with those with whom they had
intercourse. It is not enough to be good in principle if we are harsh, uncouth, and
unlovely in the expression of it, Some people seem proud of the tartness of their
manners; they will never be proud of the number or quality of their friends. We must
have our medium from God as well as our light; and the medium of a kindly and
sympathetic manner is the best reflector for giving a mild and grateful lustre to the
light of truth. “Even so lot your light shine before men.”
2. Daniel’s act was a practical affirmation of the benefits and blessings of
Temperance. Some of Daniel’s fellow captives, students in the Eunuch's College, ate
of the king’s meat and drank of the king’s wine. It was, and is still, the custom of
Oriental courts to pamper young men of this class, to provide their mess with such
food as is supposed likely to bring out the ruddiness and beauty of their complexions
and to sharpen their minds. There are two things which all monarchs like in their
immediate attendants—beauty and intelligence. The education intended to draw out
the formeris curiously elaborate in Asiatic courts. You will see that this kind of
preparation may make a court exquisite, but can never make a man. It is true that the
understanding is not neglected: sumptuous dining is considered to be compatible
with the most strenuous intellectual exertions. But in the end, when the boys become
men and the motives of competition cease to be the spur of study, indolent and
luxurious habits generally take possession of the character, and like the thorns of the
parable, they strangle the natural growth of the man. But more than this: the youths
trained for the service of Nebuchadnezzar were not intended to be mere court
favourites, but wise men; in other words, Magi, a comprehensive appellation
including statesmen, councillors, astrologers, and soothsayers: men appointed at the
monarch’s call to interpret a dream, to construe an omen, to read a sign, to register
events and observations, to negotiate treaties, to plan festivals, and to direct
enchantments. Let me say that stimulants are the snare and not the friends of the
intellect. Our greatest works were written by temperate men, or by men in their
temperate days. Some of the brightest lights of genius and learning were quenched in
intemperance that covered them like the shadows of death. I lift up before you,
138

young people, the example of Daniel; for the hope of the country rests upon you. (E.
E. Jenkins, M.A.)
The Young Hebrews an Example
What, then, did they do which you may imitate?
1. They scrupulously maintained the moral and religious principles that had been
imparted to them in their earlier education. They made a supreme regard for the will
of God their rule of conduct, even in little things. But when tried, they were found to
be pure gold; and their triumph proves that a pious education is one of the greatest
blessings that can be bestowed upon youth. If you, young men, have received such an
education, be profoundly thankful for it. Nor were they over righteous in this firm
but courteous refusal. Nor were they narrow and bigoted sectarians. They were
liberal Christians, but not latitudinarians. The Bible and the very nature of the
human mind command us to be liberal, but forbid us to be latitudinarian. True
liberality of sentiment and largeness of soul are the attributes of strength and
conviction of one’s own mind. But latitudinarianism gives up essential foundation
principles, and says there is no difference between right and wrong—that it is equally
a matter of indifference what a man believes, or whether he believes anything at all.
Duty is not a thing of latitude and longitude. It is the same thing everywhere.
Conscience and God are the same in Paris or Constantinople, as in your New
England or Scottish homes. Polar snows or tropical flowers cannot change the
eternal principles of rectitude. God’s laws, the will of the Supreme Creator, is the
only standard of duty. It was not the mere concession of a prejudice, not the mere
giving up of some little matters of denominational detail, but the surrender of
principle, compromise of truth, apostacy from the true religion, that they were
required to submit to. And the lesson taught us is of vast importance. It is that we
must not sacrifice conscience, with its awful requirements, to any temporary or
worldly convenience. It is better to die of starvation than gain a valuable living by the
sacrifice of the soul. Without stern integrity in little things, there is a want of
confidence which is fatal to success. A most pernicious delusion prevails with many
good people. They are waiting until they can do some great thing, and think that if a
great crisis were to come, they would then have nerve to meet it, and do something
triumphant. They cannot find, at present, a place large enough for the discharge of
their duties. Instead of quietly laying one brick upon the earth, they are constantly
building castles in the air; instead of discharging the plain everyday duty which they
owe to God and their fellow men, they pass life in looking for some grand occasion
for the display of their virtues. The little things that are usually the turning-points of
character, they have not apprehended. They have not learned that events which seem
at first frivolous and unimportant, may become the “Thermopylae of a Christian’s
conflict, the Marathon of a nation’s being, or the turning-point of everlasting life or
of everlasting death.” The point with Daniel was to follow his conscience or his
appetite; to cease to be an Israelite, or cease to be a favourite of the great King of
Babylon. And his determination was soon made to make everything give way to his
religion. He would not let his religion bow to the world, but made the world bow to
his religion.
2. The next lesson which the Euphrates sends to the Mississippi, and reads to us
from the early life of Babylon’s vizier or prime minister and his friends is, that a man
139

is no loser for maintaining right principles. The examination of the four Hebrews
presents a noble example of the success of prudence, temperance, and a steady
regard to religion. These young men did not think, because they were well born and
liberally educated, that they might therefore indulge their appetites without control.
On the contrary, with heroic steadfastness they made the will of God, even in little
things, their rule of conduct. And what was the result? Did Daniel lose any good
thing by his firm adherence to principle? Not at all. The very reverse was the result.
Daniel’s faithfulness to his conscience, his allegiance to his God, his courteous but
firm refusal to do what was sinful, was turned to his advantage, even in this world.
Them that honour God, He honours. The result of their faithfulness to God was their
promotion in the palace, and the favour of the king. What, then, is the true principle
of expediency for young men? We answer, True principle is true expediency. Duty is
the way of peace and promotion. Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his
righteousness, and all other things will be added unto you. It is reasonable for young
men to ask God for help in mental as well as in spiritual efforts. He is the father of
the spirit as well as the maker of the body. In the toil and business of life, and amid
all its perplexing difficulties, cast yourself, therefore, upon the Lord’s protection, and
look to Him for counsel and guidance. It is easy for Him to “illumine what in yon is
dark.” It is an old saying, that to pray earnestly is to study well. (W. A. Scott, D.D.)
Daniel
There are some names, let us thank God not a few, that the world will not willingly let
die, and that live on for ever in the charmed memory of mankind—names that have been
identified with some noble thought, with some lofty purpose, or with some great and
glorious deed; names of men who have struck a blow for freedom or who have helped
forward the great chariot of human progress, or of men who in their own person have
stemmed the inrushing tide of falsehood and of error. The name of freedom, the struggle
for liberty, stands in this land for ever identified with our great national heroes, the
heroes of our history of independence; and the names of William Wallace and Robert
Bruce live on. And with them, in the minds of the world, are associated such names as
William Tell, of Switzerland, and George Washington, of America. Martin Luther and
John Knox are names which stand for ever identified with glorious struggles for the
right. And just one more illustration; wherever the thought of self-sacrificing labour and
toil for the sake of ethers, for the sick and the dying and the wounded—wherever that
idea is felt to be a power to quicken the pulses and stir the generous emotions of
mankind, there the name of Florence Nightingale will be tenderly enshrined. Now I wish
to speak for a little on one of those imperishable names, the name of one who is still
remembered and still spoken of when children, older and younger, are inspired to deeds
of noble daring.
I. The first thing I wish you to notice—is THE ASPECT IN WHICH DANIEL
THINKS AND SPEAKS OF WRONG-DOING, OF WHAT TO HIM AND HIS
CONSCIENCE WOULD BE SIN. He does not speak of it as disobedience to God,
though he felt it to be that. He does not speak of it as disobedience to his parents, as
breaking away from the traditions of his fathers and going over to the customs and
religion of another country and people; but he speaks of it as defiling himself. He would
not defile himself. And I would like to ask you this: do you realise that every wrong
thought, every wrong feeling, every wrong word, every wrong deed is not only wrong
140

because it displeases God, but it is a wrong against your own nature, it is inflicting a
mischief upon yourself, upon your own being? A stain we plant there which no human
alchemy can remove. I have seen in our police-courts, and I have seen on the streets of
the city, the forms and features of men so bruised and blackened and bloated that their
very personality seemed to be obscured. One almost imagines that their every feature
tells a tale of sin and suffering, and the hardship which sin inevitably brings. Slowly,
slowly through the long years have those features been changing from the sweet, pure,
clean, healthy flesh of a little child; but the strong years have done it, the “strong years
passed in the practice of sin, in the act and life and thought and feeling. And what is
written on the outward features of men and women who have thus indulged in sin is
written as indelibly, though you cannot see it, on the inner nature, the soul and spirit.
The German poet Goethe sings of “spirit ears,” and he speaks of these ears hearing the
thunder of the sunrise, as if the sun rose with a great crash, which the ears of the spirit
could hear; but if we had spirit eyes which could see what is going on in the spirit world,
and see our own veritable being as God sees it, then we would recognise how all those
unhallowed indulgences in thought and feeling and desire, not to speak even of word and
act, how all this illicit thought and feeling has written upon our inner nature its own
dread and direful mark, and put a stain there which can only be washed out in the
“Fountain filled with blood, drawn from Emmanuel’s veins,” and we thank God that
“Sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.” Sin indulged in, even
though it be in secret, even though it be only in thought and feeling, sin thus works its
inevitable and irretrievable work, and brings about that frightful change which produces
such repulsiveness.
II. HOW WAS IT THAT DANIEL ACCOMPLISHED HIS SUCCESS,
OVERCAME HIS TEMPTATION, mastered it and trampled it under foot? Daniel
purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself, that he would not weave across
his vision that web which would hide from himself the joy, the peace, the holiness, the
triumph, and success which come from communion with the unseen, but really present
Jehovah. Daniel purposed in his heart. The greatest danger to which, in my mind, the
young men of to-day are exposed, is not that they deliberately walk into temptation or
into sin; but because they do not deliberately determine not to do it. It is because they
begin their life without any purpose at all, but drift, drift, drift without rudder or
compass, without any strong, resolute determination which they have made as in the
sight of God, and which they have resolved by God’s help to keep, that whatever others
do, for them they will not defile themselves. There is no sadder sight to be seen than the
number of young men and women who, without any intention or idea that they are going
wrong, in their simplicity, which, however, is not guileless simplicity, for they might and
ought to know better, but who in their criminal simplicity permit themselves to be
ensnared and led into company where they know their ears and eyes and their whole
nature will be assailed with that which will defile. It is too late to purpose in your heart
not to do it after it is done. It is too late to make a good resolution not to fall after you
have fallen, The time to purpose in one’s heart not to defile oneself is before the
defilement has been produced; when you are sitting at your own fireside in your own
room, or on your knees, there and then is the time. It is too late to deliberate when you
are face to face with temptation: the excitement is too strong, the power of
companionship is too great. One word more: there is no use making a resolution unless
it is to be kept. The greatest loss that I can think of in this city, is not the less of money
which men spend on that which is not bread, not the loss of labour spent on that which
satisfieth not; it is not the loss of life, even, that might be saved if only men and women
141

would act aright—the greatest loss in this city is the loss of mental and spiritual force
which is allowed to degenerate into mere drivel, by yielding to the temptations which sap
all the mental, intellectual and moral stamina out of the character of our youth. Oh, to
see the bright young fellows, the pride of their father, the joy and hope of their mother,
who go and throw away the talents God has given them, throw away the noble
aspirations of youth, by entangling themselves in scenes and circumstances and
aspirations which drag them down; and they become altogether incapable of realising
their own aspirations, their own possibilities, because they have allowed themselves to
be defiled. This resolution of which I speak must be followed out to be of any service. It
is not in resolutions repeated, repeated only to be broken, that you build up a character
of force, and strength and power; but it is in solemnly looking at the problems of life,
solemnly looking at the circumstances and situations in which you are placed, solemnly
confronting the possibilities and temptations that lie before you, and deliberately
retaking up your mind, as in God’s sight, as to what your duty is, and then purposing,
determining, resolving in your heart that you will not be defiled. You will find in that
resolution a strength, a help in the hour of temptation. (Sir Samuel Chisholm.)
The Power of Purpose
It may help us to appreciate Daniel’s purpose and the power it exercised over him if we
remember first that he was living in bad times. He and his fellow countrymen were in
captivity; they were the slaves of a heathen king. Their country had been laid waste, their
holy city and the sacred temple in it reduced to a heap of blackened ruins. I mention this
because such experiences often have the effect of breaking down a man’s purpose and
spirit. When blow after blow comes, when disappointment follows disappointment,
when defeat succeeds defeat, hope is apt to be lost and purpose to give way. And, as a
matter of fact, we know that captivity had this effect on many of the Jews; they lost their
faith in Jehovah; they gave themselves up to sheer worldliness. But that was not the way
with them all. Daniel was a brilliant exception. No longer able to worship Jehovah
through the medium of the temple ordinances, nevertheless he did not abandon all
worship as many of his countrymen did, but he rose instead to truer conceptions of what
real worship meant. Though in Babylon he remained a good Jew, a diligent worshipper
of the Lord God of his fathers, and observed all the forms he was able to observe in the
circumstances. The bad times in which he lived only brought out more clearly the
purpose in his heart not to forget his God. Evil days did not break his purpose; they only
strengthened it. Another thing that may help us to appreciate his purpose is that he was
living not only in bad times but in a bad place, Babylon was a city and centre of
wickedness. It was the home of luxury and profligacy; it was the capital of one of those
ancient empires that ate their hearts out by the wanton dissoluteness of their people.
This, too, shows the power of Daniel’s purpose—that in the midst of evil he would not
defile himself. It is easier for some than for others not to go astray. Some are better
looked after than others; their lives are surrounded by good influences; they have every
advantage on the side of good. But often bad surroundings ruin good men. What is the
explanation? It is this: some are animated by a purpose in their hearts that they will not
defile themselves, and some are not. It is not that these last are evilly inclined more than
the others; it is not that they are worse or more tempted; but it is this—they have never
put before themselves a solemn purpose; they have never thought out the question of
what their aim and object in life should be; they have never made up their minds what
thing it is in life which is worth living for and worth dying for; they have never said with
142

Paul, “One thing I do.” There is another explanation which is sometimes given of how
men go wrong, as we say, an explanation with which, I confess, I have little sympathy
and which is, to my mind, as false as it is dangerous. It is said weakly that we are “the
creatures of circumstance,” and that if a man’s surroundings bring him daily, hourly,
into contact with evil, the man himself is not so much to blame as his circumstances. The
strength of his passions overcomes his will and so frees him from moral responsibility, it
is urged. That is an excuse which Robert Burns gave, you remember, when he wrote the
lines addressed to God:
Thou knowest that Thou hast formed me
With passions wild and strong;
And list’ning to their witching voice
Has often led me wrong.
That still expresses the mind of many, and one hears it frequently just now, all sorts of
excuses being pleaded for sin. The scientist has no doubt truth on his side, but he has
not all the truth. Heredity is not fate. What we have received from our parents does not
weave around us a web from which we can never escape, through which we can never
break. If it be true that we belong to God as well as to them, the sins of our fathers are
only ours when we make them our own by our own will. The mistake of Burns and all
who, like him, listen to the “witching voice” is in listening. He should have put his
fingers in his ears. Some of you young men here to-night are, perhaps, in places of
employment or in circumstances otherwise far from favourable to your leading godly
lives. You are brought into contact with roughness, with profanity, with those who make
light of God’s name and Christ’s religion. And I grant you at once that it is not easy to
keep straight and do the right thing and bear the right testimony always in the right way.
It needs Daniel’s purpose in your heart; it needs a heart set on the doing of God’s will; it
needs the new heart and the right spirit; it needs the power of the grace of God that
cometh down from above. We have seen, then, that Daniel’s purpose asserted itself over
the crushing effects of misfortune and calamity, and over the subtle ensnaring power of
evil surroundings. Let us now see, thirdly, how—and this was the greatest test of it—how
it made itself felt in the very smallest details of his life. Now most men would have
yielded, as most men in similar circumstances do yield, to the influences thus brought to
bear on these four youths; they would have been so enamoured of the king’s favour and
the luxury of their new position that they would have been only too glad to have accepted
it and thought themselves exceedingly well off. But now and again there would be found
one of sterner stuff who would not be as mere wax in the conqueror’s hands. And such
were found in Daniel and his three companions. “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.” Daniel had religious scruples about his eating and drinking. And the meaning for
us of the stand he made is this—that religious principle should regulate the smallest
details of our life. It is not narrowness; it is not faddism; it is not over scrupulousness;
but it is fidelity to the highest duty, it is fidelity to God, when you set down your foot
about a small matter, as it may seem to others, and say, No, I dare not do it, little as it is
and pleasant as it might be, because thereby I should be mixed up in a practical denial of
God. “So did not I because of the fear of God,” is a motto which will require from many
of you here abstinence from many things which it might be much easier to accept. It is
the worst kind of weakness to sink below the level of what we know we ought to be. It
invariably brings that loss which is the worst of all losses, the loss of respect for self.
143

President Garfield once said, “I do not think of what others may say or think about me;
but there is one man’s opinion about me which I very much value, and that is the
opinion of James Garfield. Others I need not think about; I can get away from them; but
I have to be with him all the time. Ha is with me when I rise up and when I lie down,
when 1 go out and when I come in. It makes a great difference to me whether he thinks
well of me or not.” Some would have said Daniel should have been thankful for his
mercies. But Daniel saw it in another light. He had to preserve his good opinion of
himself, his self-respect, his fidelity to God, which he saw he would have destroyed had
he used the food and wine. You see, then, what religious principle can do for a man. You
see how it can preserve him, how it can make him bold as a lion, how it can steady his
life and make it consistent all through, one great harmony. My brother, you are not right
till you can reduce the whole of your life to this one principle of the fear of God, till you
are able to bring every action to this great touchstone. Then your path becomes straight
as an arrow, no longer wavering, crooked, trembling, zigzag, now this way now that, but
straight. It is the man without purpose that goes on a different tack according as the
wind blows from one quarter or another. He is a boat without a rudder, tossed about by
the storm, buffeted, driven helplessly on to the rocks. He is a horseman without a bridle,
carried by the animal in him whither it will. He is a wanderer over a tangled moorland,
without a guide, where path crosses path and roads diverge in endless confusion, and
yawning deep black ditches come at every step. One of the greatest discoveries of
modern times is the reign of law. It has been found that in the world of Nature nothing
happens by chance; everything obeys fixed laws, moves on under definite calculable
arrangement. That is a great discovery. It enables us to reckon with Nature when we can
place this thing and the next in their right places, and attribute each to its uniform cause.
When everything is thus fixed by law it cannot be moved, nothing can go wrong,
everything moves on towards its accomplishment, doing its work, filling its place, never
losing its way. It is like a river bound for the ocean. That is a great discovery, and it is a
parable of what every life should be. But what a contrast is presented when you think of
the world of outside Nature and the world of human nature! On the one hand you have
everything moving on, working in perfect harmony and in eloquent silence—never a
jarring note heard, never a momentary pause in the ceaselessmovement: one great vast
harmony in praise of the Creator. On the other hand, when you turn to human nature,
what a contrast! What a jumbled, jarring, discordant, disjointed world God looks down
upon in His human creatures! And yet we were made to be a harmony too, only giving
back sweeter music to the Creator. My brother, if your life is to be a true harmony and no
longer false, if it is to be conformed not to the law of sin and death but to the law of God,
you must have such purpose in your heart as Daniel’s, and let it rule you. That is the
greatest thing in the world—a heart that purposes always to serve God. That is the one
thing needful. There is no other principle that takes account of all the facts. Some of
them may be good enough for this world, but they are no use for that which is to come.
The grand thing about Daniel’s principle is that it is profitable for the present and it is
life eternal for the future. That it is profitable in the present is strikingly seen in the
course of this history. Do not any of you be afraid of the consequences of being faithful
to God. The last thing I shall ask you to notice in connection with this incident is the
great influence which Daniel exerted. That is seen, first of all, in the influence which he
exerted upon his superior officers. In accordance with the Old Testament way of putting
things, that good influence is said to have been brought about in this way, that God gave
Daniel great favour in the sight of the officers. That is only the Old Testament way of
saying that Daniel’s consistent, godly, upright life proved a great power on those who
144

were over him. But more than his influence on his officers was the influence on his
companions. That is seen in the spell which his strong character cast over them so that
they were ready to stand by him and to strengthen him. (D. Fairweather, M.A.)
The Judean Captives in the Court of the Babylonian King
We must now follow the fortunes of these noble youths, as in the retinue of the
victorious monarch they are carried away captive to Babylon. Their young eyes look on
new scenes. They pass through countries where the ruins of antiquity contrast strangely
with present magnificence and splendour. They pass through Syria, the old hereditary
enemy of Israel, but whose power is now broken as it had broken before the power of
Israel. They pass through the fertile plains of the Euphrates, and doubtless, here and
there, on their melancholy journey, they meet remnants of the lest tribes, scattered by
former captivities. They pass on into the dread East, to the Jew almost a terra incognita,
a land of which but little was known, save that out of it came forth the grim-visaged men
of war whose coming brought terror and desolation to Judea. They pass on to Babylon,
at that time the most splendid city of the world, with its palaces, and defences, and
gardens, its luxuriance, and magnificence, and wealth. We may imagine these youths
duly installed in the palace of the Chaldean priests, and engaged in that curriculum of
study which was to result in making them wise and learned in all the arts and sciences
then known and cultivated. How much to dazzle the imagination! What new
philosophies! What wisdom! What new customs and habits of life! And we can well
understand that they could not long remain in this altered condition of things before
something would arise which would put their principles to the proof. Certainly we may
expect that Babylonian customs will not long run smoothly with Jewish principles. He
who has principles in this life has not long to wait before those principles will run
counter to something, and put the man to the test, whether he will cleave to his
principles or not.
I. THE FACTS GIVEN IN THE HISTORY.
II. THE TEMPTATION TO WHICH THEY WERE SUBJECTED. This temptation
was manifold in its character.
1. There was the temptation of fear. We must suppose them courageous youths,
indeed, if they were not accessible to the sentiment of fear. Their master was a tyrant
and a despot, accustomed to have his slightest whim obeyed as law. He could ill
brook conscientious scruples he could scarcely understand; and the slightest
provocation would suffice to awaken in his bosom a wrath that knew no pity, and
that delighted, when aroused, to trample upon human life. The prince of the
eunuchs, although he was high in favour and authority, knew how to tremble before
the wrath of his monarch, and expresses a just estimation of it when he answers
Daniel, “Ye make me endanger my head to the king.”
2. There was the temptation of isolation. Hitherto they had been surrounded by
restraints, which made it comparatively easy to be true to the law. Then all the
external circumstances of their life fortified them in their religious observances. But
now how changed is all this. Suddenly they find themselves standing alone. All the
props upon which they had hitherto leaned are taken away. The assistances of virtue
are removed. They have none to depend upon but themselves and their God. They
have no trusted adviser, no learned and astute rabbi to whom they may apply for a
145

solution of this ethical problem. They must take counsel of their own heart.
“Everybody else does it,” is a formula of vindication sufficiently familiar.
3. There was the temptation of gratitude. It is true they were captives, but, barring
this, a son could hardly have been more generously treated than were they. Food
from the king’s table was a distinguished mark of honour. No doubt everything was
done that could mitigate the evils of captivity. Future distinction was to be conferred
upon them. Present advantages were liberally bestowed. No prince of the realm
could have had better opportunities for improvement and prospective advancement.
It is a property of noble minds to yield to the suggestions of gratitude. When the
world makes onslaught on our virtue there is an instinct of opposition in us that
arouses us to fight; but when the world comes coaxing, and overwhelming us with
kindness, we are cheated into thinking it base ingratitude not to yield to its
suggestions.
4. There was the temptation that comes from conscious inferiority. We have the
force of this temptation exemplified in the conduct of Cranmer. When we behold that
good and great man (as he truly was, notwithstanding his sad fall) hesitating to
commit that act of recantation, which is so dark a stain upon his character, the poet
makes him exclaim: “What am I, Cranmer, against whole ages?” He is plied with
countless authorities; his tempters make it appear that all the world is against him.
“Who am I, then, that I should oppose the world?” marks the submission of an
independent soul. Better had he learned with Luther, “One with God is a majority.”
This temptation was also doubtless felt by Daniel. The wisdom, vast learning, and
intellectual greatness of the sages of Chaldea must have made a deep impression on
his young mind, and we can readily imagine him, “Who am I, a beardless child, to
oppose my convictions to the wisdom of all these?” And how often in life do we find
young men forsaking their religion and giving themselves to scepticism, because an
honoured professor in their college is an unbeliever, or because some man whom
they highly esteem for learning, or wisdom, or intellect, flouts the Bible!
5. There was the temptation of self-interest. Holy easy is it to stifle conscience with
the sophistries of Satan! Assuredly, then, we can measure the dynamic force of this
temptation to which Daniel was subjected by our observation of the conduct of men.
III. THEIR INCORRUPTIBILITY. It is a grand sight to see a man cleaving to
principle, abiding by what he believes right, even though he should stand alone, when
influences seductive and influences coercive bear strongly upon him. Fear strives to
overmaster him, but he scorns fear and answers: “I fear none but God.” Temptation then
comes in new guise, puts on softer attire, poses in the character of virtue, and urges the
claims of gratitude; but his just spirit detects the false under the true, and replies: “My
God is first,” Then the cloak of modesty is borrowed, and self-depreciation is lauded up,
and the man is asked if he thinks himself greater than the great, wiser than the wise,
more learned than the sages; but his answer is prompt, “I am nothing: these principles
are God’s, not mine.” Then temptation identifies itself with self, and pleads the man’s
cause against himself, until the man begins to think he is arrayed not only against all
others, but also against himself, his own being divided; but I say it is glorious when he
can declare, “I sacrifice myself; dearer to me are the laws of God than my own worldly
interests.” Such a spectacle of moral heroism does Daniel afford. Our admiration of his
conduct is heightened by two considerations:
1. His youth. To find these qualities in a beardless boy is astonishing, and lends a
146

heightened charm to the spectacle.
2. His moderation and temperate conduct. We hardly know which to admire most in
his conduct, the fortiter in re, or the suaviter in modo. He “purposed in his heart,”
but sought by winning persuasion to effect his purpose.
IV. SOME LESSONS. Among other things we may learn here:
1. The advantages of early training. We sometimes doubt its efficacy; but we see here
that under God’s blessing a child may exhibit steadfast and notable piety.
2. The power of influence. Observe the effect of Daniel’s influence upon his three
friends. It is a blessed thing when the influence of a youth among his comrades is
thrown on the side of virtue.
3. That God blesses the faithful. (verse 17.) Fidelity to principle, or, what is the same
thing, fidelity to the laws of God, may bring even temporal rewards.
4. The advantages of temperance. (verse 15.) Observe that the steward feared, lest a
temperate diet would result in unhealthiness. How completely was he mistaken!
Daniel and his friends thrive all the better for pulse and water. (The Southern
Pulpit.)
Purpose
A magnificent man was Daniel. Among all the Old-Testament saints he towers colossal.
Many of the foremost of them were guilty of sins which the Bible holds up to severest
reprobation, but no such stain is on Daniel’s escutcheon. No doubt he had his faults, for
he was only human, but in so far as the record goes he stands forth as one of the most
superb specimens of manhood that the world has ever seen. Some men escape reproach
because of the obscurity that envelops their lives. Daniel walked in the fierce white light
that beats popular impression that a crop of wild oats is a proper preparation for a crop
of wheat, upon a throne. Others continue comparatively pure because so situated that
they are never specially exposed to the fiery ordeal of temptation. Daniel, however,
walked upon the high places of the earth where the going is always perilous, and spent
his life in the encompassment of the soft seductions and perilous intrigues of an Oriental
court. He was a man of broadest culture, versed in all the learning of his times, and there
was no small learning in his times, and yet he never lost his head nor allowed himself to
be lured away from the simple faith of his pious fathers. He lived a hundred years,
during seventy of which he overtopped all the men of his time. Such a record as was
made by this man is perhaps without a parallel in all the history of the human race. His
is “one of the few, the immortal names, that were not born to die” And how came it to
pass that he distanced all competitors and forged to the front, and in spite of all the
machinations of men and devils stayed there so long, governing governors and swaying a
royal sceptre over mighty empires? One word tells the story, and that one word is:
Purpose. It distinguished him in early youth, for at the time to which my text refers he
was still so young as to be called a child. I would discourage no greybeard who, having
long played the fool, resolves to lead a nobler life, but the time to begin is at the
beginning. The idea that one can afford to give to inanities and frivolities and vices all
one’s earlier years before beginning to gird one’s loins for life’s proper work, is a
mischievous delusion of the devil. Far be it from me to inveigh against such innocent
diversions as furnish recreation for both mind and body. God hath given us all things
147

richly to enjoy, and amusement has its place and use. But amusement etymologically
means “turning away from the Muses,” who were supposed to preside over life’s noblest
intellectual pursuits; but what becomes of the Muses when a man’s whole life is a
turning away from them? Ay, and what becomes of the life itself? There may be generous
aspirations, but they never eventuate in heroic action, for the lack of determined will and
persistent purpose. Brains count for something, but most men fail, not for the want of
brains, but for want of purpose. Opportunity counts for something, but it is the man
with a purpose that sees and seizes the opportunity, and is the creator rather than the
creation of his circumstances. Education counts for something, and any young man is a
fool who in such an age as ours neglects to avail himself of the splendid equipment
which may so easily be his. But education is not everything. How many college graduates
are only genteel loafers—too genteel to soil their dainty hands with any sort of honest
work. Patience, pluck, persistence, those are the things that win. A foolish thing it is for a
man to curse his fate and blame his “unlucky stars,” or gnash his teeth and shake his fist
behind the back or in the face of the hated plutocrat; to arraign the laws of the land, and,
like Samson, in his blind fury, seek to tear down the pillars on which rests the whole
fabric of society. Possibly there may be something the matter with society, but in all
probability there is very much more the matter with him. Doubtless there are
degenerates and incompetents who are lacking in ability to bring things to pass, but
most men have facilities enough to win victories if only their faculties were brought into
the field under the marshalship of a single, central, and imperial purpose. Hitherto I
have spoken only of the material and intellectual achievements that relate to life upon
this little planet. Yet this is not the whole of life, but only its beginning. How brief the
glory of mere earthly triumphs! A mighty purpose nerved the arm and guided the
destiny of the masterful man who wrote: “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Here’s the
splendid mansion of a multi-millionaire. He was born in the manger poverty, but he
purposed to be rich. He girded his loins and set his teeth, and dug and delved and denied
himself, and sacrificed everything, including, it may be, honour and life’s sweetest
charities. It was gold that he was after, and he got it—heaps of it—and he died with his
hands full of it, but death broke his grip, and he left it to his hungry heirs. A great thing
is it to have an aim in life, but “he aims too low who aims below the stars.” But what a
thing it is to have an aim above the stars! Such was Daniel’s. His eye was fixed upon the
highest goal of being, and so beginning with his earliest youth and persevering to his
latest breath he “purposed that he would not defile himself.” And no man can be a
Christian without entering into sympathy with that heroic spirit. For, mark you,
Christianity is not something just let down from Heaven, like the sheet which Peter saw
in a vision. It is not a something with which the inert soul is mysteriously dowered. I
grant that the grace of salvation is the gift of God, but no man ever yet was saved against
his will or without his will being roused to supreme activity. The crisis of destiny was
reached and passed by the prodigal son when he said, “I will arise and go to my father.”
If there is anything on earth that requires heroic purpose it is to humiliate oneself by the
acknowledgment of wrong-doing. To bow the knee and humbly cry “Peccavi” is the
hardest thing that ever mortal undertook, and it requires the courage of a Daniel to do it.
And to right about face in all life’s plans and pleasures and pursuits is not by any means
an easy task. To become a Christian means something more than the acceptance of
salvation at the hand of mercy—that is a cheap sort of salvation, that costs nothing, and
is actually worth no more than it costs. To be a real Christian means the loyal and loving
surrender of one’s whole being for time and eternity into the hands of a gracious and
Almighty Sovereign, not only for salvation, but for service. We have dwelt ordinarily
148

quite too much upon the rest and too lithe on the yoke, and so we have belittled and
belied religion and brought it into contempt by eliminating from it all that appeals to the
heroic element in human nature. Let the truth be frankly and fearlessly told, and let all
men know that while it is easy enough to be a mere professor of religion, yet to be a real
Christian, to follow hard after the Captain of Salvation in the fight for the truth and the
right, against the world, the flesh, and the devil, requires as sternly heroic a purpose as
that which girded Paul and Daniel when they had to confront the lions. Think you that
the lions are all dead, or that they have lost their teeth and claws? The devil’s minions
are everywhere abroad, and he that would be a Christian must be willing to endure
hardship as a good soldier, for from start to finish it is a fight with principalities and
powers, and the rulers of this world’s darkness; and he who would wire the victory and
be crowned with glory will need all that the grace of God can do for him and the girding
of a high and holy religious purpose. Let all heroic souls who are willing to enlist upon
such conditions fall into line beneath the banner of the cross. (P. S. Henson.)
Daniel in Babylon
The first chapter of Daniel is one of the very best sermons possible on the subject of
temperance. It goes not merely to the question of the use of intoxicating drinks, but to
the further question of unhealthy food. It covers not merely the matter of wine and beer
and brandy, but also pastry and pound-cake and confections. In olden times victorious
nations had three ways of dealing with those nations they had conquered. One was to
carry the inhabitants out of the land, as the Jews were finally carried into Babylon. This
was the severest mode, and was only adopted after repeated rebellions. Another was to
take away all the leaders and skilled workmen, This crippled them in case they tried to
throw off the yoke. This was also tried by Nebuchadnezzar in the second deportation, as
will be seen in 2Ki_10:16. The other or mildest form had first been tried by the
Babylonian king. This consisted in levying tribute. Very often certain choice young
persons were selected and taken back by the victorious general as specimens of the
people he had overthrown. Daniel and his three companions, who are mentioned in this
and the third chapter, were on this principle taken back to Babylon. People often
foolishly say in contempt of education that God does not need man’s learning. But the
intimation of the divine record confirms the famous reply, that “Even if God does not
need man’s learning, still less does he need man’s ignorance.” When God was about to
lead his enslaved people out of Egypt, by his providence he sent Moses into Pharaoh’s
household to learn everything that Egypt knew. When the New-Testament Church was
to be organized and spread all over the great empire, he sent Saul, a free-born Roman
citizen, out of intelligent Tarsus up to Jerusalem, that at the feet of Gamaliel he might
learn what he would need to know when he should be transformed into the apostle Paul.
So here are these four taken to the Babylonian capital that they might have the best
instruction the nation could afford. The Babylonian king compares wonderfully well with
a vast number of modern parents and government officers. To him two things were
needful to make up an acceptable civil officer—namely, a healthy body and an educated
mind. He would furnish his own provisions and his own teachers, and then no boy could
complain of bad food or poor opportunities. This was genuine civil-service reform. Was
the ambition of these boys stirred by the chance thus given them? Where are the boys of
fifteen whose hopes would not quicken them to do their very best in these
circumstances? It must have been with some such thoughts as these that Daniel and his
boyish companions first confronted the question of eating the king’s meat and drinking
149

the king’s wine. The average boy would have gone ahead and never cared. The average
man or woman would have said, “What difference does it make?” The average politician
would have said, “It will never do to offend the king’s officer.” But thoughtlessness is a
sin. Boys and girls, as well as young gentlemen and ladies, are bound to think. As we
shall see, success came of thinking. When a boy first tries to shoot birds on the wing he
usually fires too quickly. He must learn to stop an instant and steady himself before he
fires. So it is in all life, It may be but a moment for thought, but that moment of self-
possessing, reassuring thought may be of infinite value. As for these four young men,
they foresaw what was coming and made up their minds about it. Our hero seems to
have been a born leader, and he led here. With him it was not an open question. He
“purposed in his heart”—not with the stubbornness of self-will, but with the resolution
of deep conviction. His three companions stood by him. Whether with God or not,
certain it is that with man politeness pays. It gave this open-hearted boy the “favour and
tender love” of Melzar, his present master. That same trait of character, coupled with his
integrity and ability, held for him the confidence of King Nebuchadnezzar in after years
when God made Daniel his mouthpiece to reprove the king’s iniquities and pride.
Iniquity and insolence may seem to prosper for a time, and the lions’ den open for
Daniel’s feet; but at last the hungry lions make a meal of the good man’s foes. When
Daniel made up his mind not to defile himself with the king’s meat, it was purely a
question of principle. He did net then know that his course was wise. It seemed utterly
foolish. King Nebuchadnezzar and Melzar both believed that the popular opinion of the
day was all right in saying that wine and fat meat were necessary for a clear complexion
and a quick brain. The same false notion is widely held now about lager beer and tonics.
Is it true? Ask the health records. You will find cholera, yellow fever, diphtheria and the
rest give explicit answer that they can much more easily carry off the tipplers and topers
than those who have not burnt out their constitutions with these slow fires. The poor
envy the rich the food on their table, and the rich envy the poor the food that is digested.
Boys think it is big to smoke cigarettes, but the doctors say it stunts their growth and
poisons their blood. You may not wish to obey Nature’s hearth laws, but you cannot defy
them and escape. The health and brain-power of the Jews would teach the Gentiles a
lesson if the Gentiles were not so heedless. Many will doubt this statement and
stubbornly stick to Melzar’s notion, that if they restrict themselves to Daniel’s diet they
will soon become worse-looking than others which are “of their set.” Well, why not take
Daniel’s way of settling it? Just try it. But be sure and have Melzar’s honesty, and when
the experiment proves you are mistaken give it up. I have a most profound respect for
honest old Melzar. It is net an easy thing to give up to a boy when the boy is right and
you are wrong. It was specially risky with Melzar, for if he blundered his head was the
forfeit. No pride of his own opinion controlled him. We must not forget, however, in our
enthusiasm over Daniel’s triumph in physical beauty and his splendid victory in
intellectual learning, that he knew nothing of all this when he made his decision. With
our knowledge of the outcome any of us could have the courage to insist on vegetables
instead of the king’s idol-polluted meat and wine. We must remember, however, that
with this youth, of twelve to twenty at the outside, it was wholly a matter of duty. As no
shame or pain is so deep as a mother’s humiliation over wayward, wicked children, so no
joy is sweeter than that which mothers feel when their children, on their own
responsibility and out of their own force of character, choose the right and do it. Boys
and girls, suppose your mothers knew you as well as you know yourselves, would they
weep for joy, or shame? At last the day of decision came. It always does—a day of final
judicial inspection, when the uses to which opportunities have been put are revealed,
150

and the estimate is to be made up of all past conduct. Daniel was to stand before the
king, and be not only inspected but examined by the king. These Hebrew young men, of
now sixteen or twenty, mere found ten times better than their best. Here was the
foreshadowing of what Daniel was hereafter to do. They had boasted of their soothsaying
insight into dreams until “Chaldean” had become synonymous with “wise man.” When,
then, the king, as is related in the next chapter and ninth verse, put to them a crucial test
of their powers by which he could certainly know the value of their interpretation, they
were all at fault. Their gods were proven utterly ignorant. Daniel’s humility is as
beautiful as his faith and greatness. (G. P. Hays, D.D.)
Daniel an Example to Young Men
I. DANIEL’S PRINCIPLE. “I am a child of God, and as such I belong to God in my
entire being.” (2Ti_2:21.) Such was Daniel’s principle—it was faith in the testimony of
God; the certainty of being one of His children; and it was thereby he triumphed. And it
is here, at the very commencement, that the religion of Daniel, of a soul sealed by the
Holy Spirit, differs essentially from that of those fearful and double-minded disciples
who, believing only part of the testimony of God, dare scarcely hope for salvation, and
place the certainty of it only after a long course of labours and of sacrifices. How am I to
believe, cries out such a disciple, that I am already in grace and that God has made me
His child! Let me be purer, more cut off from the world, and then shall I be able to
presume that I belong to Him, and believe in His grace. But that disciple, so far as he
shall continue to hold to that course of human righteousness, will never be anything
more than a slave of the law. Will you render to God those filial acts of obedience of
which you speak if you are not first sealed with the Spirit of adoption which produces
them? Must not the sap of the tree be celestial before the fruits of Heaven can be
gathered on it? “So also,” St. John says, “you will never render to God what love alone
can render Him, so long as fear and its torments are found in you.” (1Jn_4:18.) Raise
them, to employ that figure still, raise the pyramid of your obedience on the broad and
solid base of your adoption of Jesus. Such was the assurance of Daniel such was the
principle of his obedience. Happy and holy liberty of grace, glorious privilege with which
the Spirit of adoption enriches the believer, through communion with his Saviour! (Psa_
119:32.) He will be called, perhaps, presumptuous; it will be said that he is wanting in
sobriety, prudence, and the humble trust which every sinner ought to have, and he will
be told again and again that he exposes himself to serious falls. Daniel and the other
children of God will answer together and without fear: “Ye err, not knowing what the
grace of God is.” (1Co_6:20.)
II. DANIEL’S COURAGE. There was fidelity, and there was the courage which it
demanded of him. For let us not think that it was very easy for Daniel and his
companions to make up their minds to what they resolved on. It may have been a
comparatively trifling matter to renounce exquisite dishes and to choose the most simple
ones; but it was not a trifling matter to them to free themselves from the order of a
jealous king, whose slaves they were, seeing that by this course they endangered their
lives. Of this they were not ignorant, for the chief of the eunuchs had made them aware
of it (1:10). What the tower was to cost was therefore well calculated by them before they
commenced to build; and they did not put their hands to the plough till they had well
seen and well measured the length of the furrows in the field. (Luk_14:28; Luk_9:62.)
How many times must they have spoken among themselves of their duty and of its
151

consequences? How many times did not the excuses and the pretexts of the flesh, the
weaknesses of their heart, the promises and the threatenings of the world, and the love
of life come, either to obscure their minds or shake their constancy? How many times
were they not wont mutually to exhort one another to be faithful. No, it was not
inconsiderately that Daniel advanced to the combat, and it was no longer in his own
strength. It was in his heart that he resolved on it, it was from the Word and Spirit of the
Lord that he drew his courage and his perseverance. “My son, give me thy heart,” says
eternal wisdom to him whom it teaches. (Pro_23:26.) “Thou shalt serve the Lord thy
God with all thy heart,” the Lord repeats to His children. (Deu_10:12.) (Psa_119:69.)
(Deu_5:29.) (Psa_86:11.) Weigh then all your anchors, O disciples who wish to set sail!
Detach your hearts from the impure shores of earth, and, if it is necessary, pluck them
away, and that without delay and without pity; if it is true, at least, that you have
resolved to surrender yourselves to the heavenly breezes, to the always equable and
always favourable breath of the Holy Spirit. What do you fear? Is it not the wind of the
grace of God which will never separate you from this world except to bring you near
Heaven? Daniel resolved in his heart not to defile himself, and Daniel succeeded therein,
because, having first given his heart to his God, it was also from his God that he drew his
strength and his courage. With what? you perhaps ask. What are those dishes and that
forbidden wine to us; or when indeed are we seen to take them? Ah, shall I answer you;
it is not that the table of the prince of this world is unknown or poorly furnished! It is
erected, it is uncovered before the eyes of the world and of all peoples, for all desires and
for all lusts and hungerings, even the most irregular: meat and beverages are lavished
there, to draw to it, to nourish and satiate at it, all passions and all inclinations. It is
there that sensuality, voluptuousness, and luxury; it is there that drunkenness, gluttony,
and dissoluteness; it is there that cupidity, avarice, and egotism; it is there that
ambition, ostentation, pride, and arrogance; it is there that vanity, with its falsehoods,
its ruses, and its hypocrisy; it is there, in a word, that the lust of the flesh, the lust of the
eyes, and the pride of life are invited, in the name of pleasure and of glory, be gratify all
their appetites, all their inclinations, all their folly!
III. ISSUE OF DANIEL’S FIDELITY. It did not result in shame, but in the favour and
good pleasure of God—in the most confirmed prosperity. Oh! what perfect peace, what
profound rest, what sweet and serene assurance, is shed abroad in the soul of the
faithful, since he honours his God, by trusting in Him! There is the goodwill of the Lord
to calm every trouble, to drive away and scatter every disquietude. There is the
testimony and the seal of Thy Spirit, O mighty Saviour! who says to Thy child that Thou
art with him and that Thou dost guard him! Such were the sentiments and such was the
joy of Daniel and his brethren. They saw all their prayers heard, all their desires
accomplished; but, above all, they saw the name of their God honoured and magnified in
presence of His enemies. What, indeed, did these servants of the Most High seek?
Certainly, it was not to gain their cause before unbelievers. What value could they have
set on the esteem or admiration of those who did not fear the Lord! Neither was it of
being virtuous before the world, and hence taking so much the more delight in
themselves. Never did that impure thought enter hearts which the Holy Spirit ruled. But
what concerned them was that their God, that good Father, was feared, was obeyed, was
loved; it was that the homage of their faith should be ascribed to Him without reserve; it
was that in the light of His truth, their filial love should render to Him the reverence due
to His majesty, and the sacrifice of their entire being. Such an offering was pleasing to
the Lord. “Go then;” shall I say to you, “in the name of our Lord, go and do as Daniel
did.” Like him, you are hers below in a noviciate, in a time of probation, preparing to
152

appear before the King of Zion. Let your principle also be faith, let your strength also be
the Word and the Spirit of your God, let your expectation also be the deliverance of the
Lord! Let your hand, therefore, go forth and overturn, as Daniel’s did, the cup which sin
presents. No delay, friends of the Saviour! No concealed compounding with evil, no
treachery, no duplicity of heart towards Him who loved you perfectly, who is perfectly
holy, and who will have no offering but that which the freest will presents Him. Is not
the thought of what He has done here below for your soul, and of all that He will yet do
in eternity, enough to bind your whole heart and all your desires in obedience to Him?
Will greater benefits be needed to gain for Him your affections, to make Him deserving
of all your gratitude, and thereby of all your self-devotion? Had Daniel a God more
beneficent, or a Saviour more worthy of being loved, than He whom you adore? I know
well that, in the judgment of the flesh, these vegetables, with which Daniel was content,
are a mean and contemptible food. What dishes were such herbs! What foolish
abstinence was such a sobriety! What health, what strength can he pretend to have who
condemns himself to them? So will the “pulse” of the Gospel ever be despised and
dishonoured—that nourishment which grows in the garden of the Lord, and which His
Spirit presents by His Word to the happy children of His house. But the result, O
mocking world! If you do not know, I am going to tell you, and it will be by facts. See
these faithful Hebrew youths, stronger and fresher than all the others. See also, now,
those sincere Christians, those disciples whom the Lord Jesus calls “His friends” (Joh_
15:14), because they do everything which He commandsthem, because they touch no
dishes of the world, because they are content with the “pulse” of wisdom and of holiness,
and judge of their state. Do they appear to you feeble, sad, unhappy? or rather, do they
not in some sort publish by their peace, their joy, their habitual sweetness; by the
equality of their character, the purity of their manners, and the sweetness of their
deportment; by their sustained piety; by their charity unfeigned; by their firm and
glorious hope; and their patience and their humility, that their souls are full of life, and
that their vigour is certainly that which comes from God; whilst those of their brethren
who eat at the table of the world, know neither the vigour of faith, nor the health of
peace, nor the serenity of hope? It will not be long that you will have to renounce the
dishes of the world and its beverages. Think, oh! think seriously, my brethren; think
with affection, what will be those years of renunciation of the world, and of attachment
to what the Holy Spirit points out and commands you, when you shall have no more
time, no more years, nor days—when you shall have ended this short voyage, and
eternity shall have conmenced to your soul? Yes, think of that, and see if it is not just to
God, and good to yourselves, in every way, even for this world but especially for eternity,
that, having to go before your Saviour and King, you should, while you are still here
below, purpose in your heart not to defile yourselves with the meats nor with the wine of
this world, and, like Daniel, honour your Lord, by being subject to him! (C. Malan.)
Daniel and his Companions
The scene is the city of Babylon, the most magnificent of all the cities of antiquity. “Far
as the horizon itself extended the circuit of the great capital of the then known world. It
stretched out over an area of two hundred square reties, and the whole territory was
enclosed within vast walls, one hundred feet higher than Bunker Hill Monument, and
along their summit ran a vast terrace which admitted of the turning of chariots with four
horses, and which may, therefore, well have been more than eighty feet broad.” As one
approached the city from a distance, these walls extended along the horizon like lines of
153

towering hills. The space within the walls was divided off by streets or roads running at
right angles. “Forests, parks, gardens were intermingled with the houses so as to present
the appearance of the suburbs of a great metropolis rather than the metropolis itself.”
The great palace of the kings was itself a city within a city—seven miles round, compared
to which the Temple of Solomon was insignificant. The houses of the city were made of
pale brown brick, and were set in gardens of luxuriant trees and flowering shrubs. A
carpet of variegated and brilliant flowers covered the unoccupied spaces between the
streets, producing an enchanting spectacle. Elegance and luxury characterized the habits
of the people. Gorgeous splendour of dress and dwelling and equipage met the eye at
every turn. Gold and silver and ivory adorned the houses, and everything was on a scale
of Oriental magnificence. The people were given to a voluptuous life, and worldliness in
its most attractive forms abounded on every side. Into these unusual surroundings four
young lads from Judea were carried captive, and confined within the palace of the king.
The contrast to their former manner of life was most marked, and it is easy to see that in
mingling in the worldliness they have arrived at a most critical point in their lives. Their
manner of meeting that test is very suggestive, and contains a striking lesson for the
youth of modern times.
I. Daniel and his three friends illustrate the POWER OF PRINCIPLE. It would be safe
to prophesy concerning these four lads that when they entered that heathen city they
would soon fall into the ways of the people and yield to the circumstances, and become
like their captors. For it was a kind of life that appealed to sensibilities of youth. Physical
enjoyments of every kind presented themselves before these inexperienced young men.
Moral restraints were absent. Public sentiment was against all such restraints, and they
could indulge in whatever they desired without fear of offending social customs. We are
agreeably disappointed, therefore, when Daniel and his friends take a decided stand on a
matter of conscience. They refused to eat the meat and wine set before them by the
eunuch having them in charge. They know that meat and wine were used in idol
worship, and they had been brought to abhor idolatry. They knew also that the food of
the king’s table was not the most wholesome. In view of these two facts they agreed to
refuse the king’s food. It was a daring thing for them to make their stand against the
rules of a king’s palace, but principle was at stake, and they dared all for principle. Many
may think it was a small matter upon which to raise an issue, but a great principle often
lies concealed within a trifle. It is a comparatively insignificant thing for any one of us to
stamp a piece of silver with the die of the United States, but it is an set involving the
whole question of treason to one’s government, and treason is no trifle. Daniel knew that
if he quieted his conscience on this small matter he would yield all the way through.
Principles are to be declared at once. It is sometimes half the battle. The young man just
beginning his mercantile career had best let his scruples be known at once to his fellow
clerks, and it will save him many temptations. They will not be likely to want him to
become a companion in evil. The commentator tells us that Daniel was only fourteen
years old when he was carried away to Babylon. If this is so, it only proves
conscientiousness is not a matter of years. Parents may trust their children amid the
most perilous influences, provided they have been thoroughly trained and are
acquainted with moral distinctions. We can give our children no more valuable gift than
correct principles. Money, education, social standing, are nothing in comparison with
them.
II. We remark next this experience of Daniel is A PLEA FOR SIMPLICITY OF LIFE.
Daniel was satisfied to eat the plain food to which he bad been accustomed at home.
Rich and delicate viands were partaken of by all within the royal palace; he was content
154

with a few plain vegetables. He was thus a constant rebuke to the gluttons and epicures
who made a god of their food, for he proved that health and physical comfort did not
depend on the variety and costliness of that which was eaten. We cannot estimate the
value of his example in that luxurious, extravagant court. How it must have opened the
eyes of the young courtiers whose lives were given over to the gratification of bodily
desires! Daniel speaks no less forcibly to the young people of to-day, for they are in
danger of spending too much thought and money on artificial wants. Too large a part of
the earnings of our young men and women is spent upon non-essentials. Neither utility
nor comfort demands them. It requires grit to live in an unostentatious manner, to cut
down expenses, to cast aside the yoke of unnecessary wants; but it is a great relief when
once the freedom has been gained.
III. This narrative also shows THAT YOUNG MEN CAN SERVE THEIR GOD BY
SERVING THE STATE. Daniel consecrated his skill and ability to the securing of good
laws and to the guidance of their administration. The making and administering of law is
noble work, and when so much depends on legislation as in our country there is need
that young men consecrate their powers to this important service. Politics must be
rescued from the unworthy and self-seeking, and lifted to the high place where they
belong. All of God’s early lawmakers and rulers were able and good men,—Moses,
Joshua, Samuel, Daniel,—men of breadth of view, integrity, and faith. The idea that the
conduct of government can best be served by selfish and cunning men is totally false.
Men are beginning to realise the wide opportunity for serving God afforded by a political
calling.
IV. This lesson also suggests the PRESERVING POWER OF RELIGION. Daniel
carried his religion into all the departments of his life. He glorified God in his daily life
and commended his religion to the heathen king by manliness and fidelity. He was a
faithful servant of the king because of his religious belief. His religion gave him self-
control and practical wisdom. Young men should not hesitate to subject their whole plan
of life to God’s scrutiny—to ask His blessing on their business, their professional duty,
and their social obligations. The professional, commercial, artistic, literary world needs
men who know how to pray in connection with their work. May Daniel teach us how to
do it! (E. S. Tead.)
Daniel in Babylon
A nation’s most splendid characters appear in its darkest hours. This is especially true of
the chosen people with whom God made a covenant, and it made it certain that he would
never leave them wholly in the power of their enemies. Hence we see, all along the Old
Testament history, great deliverers raised up when all seemed lost. They purified
religion. They broke the oppressor’s yoke. They told of the coming Saviour. A wonderful
group of great men was seen during the very night of the nation’s history when for
seventy years it was in captivity among a heathen people. During most of this time
Jerusalem was a heap of ruins, and there was no altar of sacrifice. One of the greatest
characters of human history arose like a star at this time in Daniel. Among the first
captives Nebuchadnezzar carried over to Babylon, there was a company of royal children
who were exceptionally attractive, educated and fit for public service. The conqueror
determined to use their abilities for his own profit. We should remember that Daniel
began life with high natural qualifications for his great work, and that he was attractive
and beautiful, and capable to wield great affairs. So God uses natural abilities for his
155

service. Great goodness requires great ability. At this time Daniel was about fourteen
years old. He and the company with him had rich food and wine furnished them from
the royal tables. How wonderful that a boy of that age, when one is usually so heedless
and self-indulgent, should put himself upon a course of simple diet and abstinence from
wine! Observe it was not a question with the boy Daniel whether meat itself was suitable
human food, but whether meat defiled in heathenish modes of preparation was fit for a
servant of God. It was a religious as well as a sanitary measure which he undertook when
he respectfully requested his master to allow him a plain vegetable diet. It was an act of
faith. But, besides this, he rejected wine, which was not forbidden by the law. Priests at
certain times, and those under Nazarite vows, drank no wine; but the mere drinking of
wine in itself was not looked upon in the law with favour or disfavour. It did not
ceremonially defile one to drink, as it did to eat meat that had been killed in the heathen
way, and served up with offerings to the false gods. The wine was unnecessary and
tempting. Both were rejected by one who had in him the stirrings of the prophetic
instinct, and who felt called of God to a spiritual service. Now, the greatness of Daniel,
shown at this early date, was the cause of his vows of abstinence. These vows were not
the cause of his greatness. Others, and tens of thousands of our youth, grow up strangers
to wine and to “king’s meat,” without becoming famous leaders of God’s people. High
spiritual aims, communion with God, capacity to understand mysteries and discern the
signs of the times, seem naturally to call for a plain and severe sort of living. We think of
the Nazarites, like Samuel, who never touched wine. Elijah lived roughly. John the
Baptist had locusts and wild honey for his food when he prepared the way of the Lord;
and, while Jesus came eating and drinking, we must remember that his ineffable purity
left him free to use what we easily abuse. If the pure in heart see God, surely the pure in
body are fitted to be the organs of the Spirit, are free to obey his voice, and more quick to
hear what he says. We should remember, too, that this course was adopted on religious
grounds. We must also believe that it was maintained through a long life by religious
faith. It was Christian temperance. Of course, it was all very singular in a king’s palace.
The higher one goes in the social world the more rigid the rules of etiquette and fashion
are; and in the palaces of kings one might say they amount to a law that cannot be
broken with safety. It snowed a great soul in Daniel to dare resist the mighty current
around him, and live simply. Many a weak young man falls into intemperance, taking his
first glass at a woman’s hands, because he is afraid to show ignorance of social customs,
or a scrupulousness that attracts notice. The regimen was used for three years with great
success. During this time the boys were learning the Chaldean language, quite unlike
their own Hebrew, so that they could speak with the king and the court. They also
studied whatever of science there was to be learned, as Moses was learned in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians. We read that God gave them knowledge and skill in all
learning and wisdom. What the four youths gained at their books was so clarified by
prayer, by dependence on God, by pure actions, and by plain living, that they rapidly
advanced. God helped them. Over the gate of one of the colleges at Oxford is the motto,
“The Lord is my Light.” Luther said, “To pray well is to study well.” The mind that is
unclogged by rich food and wine is strong to grapple with hard problems. The Great
Light sends down kind and quickening rays. When the three years were passed, all the
selected youths went up to the king for examination. He talked with each one of them,
with the result that Daniel, and his three friends who had joined him in his vows, were
selected to stand before the throne and give advice upon all matters of wisdom and
understanding. It was essential to the great part he was to play as prime minister and
God’s representative that he should meet the astrologers on their own ground, and
156

surpass them all, just as Moses had done in the Court of Pharaoh. This greatness of soul,
shown by the abstinence of the boy Daniel, was attested and exhibited through a long
and illustrious career. Some lessons may be emphasized in the study of this very early
part of Daniel’s life in Babylon.
1. Saints may be found in kings’ houses. If we had been looking through the world in
ancient days to find men of faith and prayer, we should never have dreamed of
finding any such in the luxurious pagan palace of the Pharaoh at Memphis. Yet
Joseph was there, praying and working for his God, surrounded by the pride of life,
but untouched by it. So one would have passed by the court of Babylon as the last
place where true piety could be nurtured, and yet there were men of God in highest
station. The monarchs they served worshipped idols. There was feasting and revelry.
There were sights from which the angels turned away. And yet in the heart of it all
there was faith in God, humble living in His sight, and abstinence from wine and
strong drink. So, I imagine, if we should search to-day for the brightest examples of
piety, we should feel that it was quite in vain to look in the houses of the millionaires
of our land, or of the titled rich of other lands, or in the courts of kings. God has His
hidden ones, and often they are hidden in the blaze of the world’s prosperity.
2. Godliness is profitable for all things. It carries power with it which nothing else
can give. Men instinctively reverence the self-denying spirit which young Daniel and
his companions showed at court. Those who live altogether under the powers of this
world feel reverence for those under the powers of the world to come. Those who
command themselves, command others.
3. But we see, above all other truths, how God exalts his servants. We may well draw
useful lessons in temperance, uprightness, courtesy, purity, and studiousness from
the boyhood of Daniel. But we see the mighty hand of God in guiding the king to
place him among the chosen youths, in permitting him to live unlike the rest, in
giving him favour with his master and skill in his studies, in causing him to be
selected for wisdom and exalted to the chief place in the gates. It is all of God. Even
the noble purpose not to be defiled by the king’s meat found its place in the boy’s
heart through grace from on high, and it was kept alive there by the same power.
And, therefore, we may well take up Daniel’s own words, and say, “Blessed be the
name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: and he changeth the
times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom
unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: he revealeth the
deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth
with him.” (Sermons by Monday Club.)
Conscientiousness
(with Chap. 6. Verse 16):—From the historical portion of the book which goes under the
name of Daniel, I choose the first and the last scenes, desiring to call your attention to
the close connection which subsists between them. In the first of these scenes we see the
holy character of the prophet presumed, and in the second we observe it bearing its ripe
fruit. It is not always, you know, that the early years of a man’s life give promise of what
the latter ones are. Daniel’s career was consistent throughout. We trace in the
commencement of it the principles which actuated and supported him to the end. He
had religious scruples with reference to the provision of the king’s meat and wine. But all
157

objections might have been escaped, and the food innocently partaken of. He was not
bound to inquire what the prescribed diet was, and how treated before it was placed on
the table. Daniel, however, not only acted on the law of God, but he loved it, and because
he loved it he was resolved to be on the safe side, and was desirous rather to leave a
margin beyond the legal restriction than risk the violation of it. Be it observed, in
forming a judgment of his conduct, that his main scruple in all probability turned upon a
point of conscience. St. Paul was required to settle the question for the primitive
Christians. He says the conscientious scruples of weak Christians, while they existed,
were bound to be respected; but at the same time he admits that the scruples were weak.
“An idol is nothing in the world;” it has no real existence, and that therefore none of
God’s good creatures can take any defilement from meat being offered to an idol. That
sufficiently proves that in the question itself there was no absolute right or wrong. I need
scarcely say that the light of the New Testament dispensation had not then shone, and
Daniel had not seen at that early period any relaxation of the Jewish ceremonial law.
Such is the first record of the life of Daniel. If it stood alone, if we knew no more of it
than this, though it might lead us to greatly respect him as a conscientious man, I don’t
know that that would necessarily prove him to be a saint of God, or even amount to a
high principle. Scrupulosity as to little points in externals is, strange to say, very often
found in some character who practically sets God at defiance and the moral law, The
Pharisees “strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel,” paying tithe of mint and anise and
cummin with great exactitude, but omitting the weightier matters of the law—judgment,
mercy, and faith. But Daniel’s scrupulosity was of a totally different order from theirs,
and sprang from motives to which they were strangers, which may be gathered from the
last recorded passage of his history. This passage contains the well-known account of his
being thrown into the lions’ den and miraculously preserved there. The crime which was
punished with this savage barbarity was offering prayer three times a day in defiance of
the law which the first princes had induced Darius to make. Now, we see Daniel, who
had begun by making a brave stand on a religious scruple, ending by making a still more
brave stand on one of the “weightier matters of the law”—a question of principle if ever
there was one. Command the servant of God to live without prayer for thirty days! You
might as reasonably command the body to live without air as a devout soul without
prayer. Communion with God is the element in which the soul of a righteous man “lives
and moves and has its being.” As the life of the body consists of respiration and
aspiration in repeated acts, taking in air and throwing it out, so the life of the soul
consists in repairing unto God by the thought of His presence, and in going out towards
Him in the fervent desire of prayer. This is the essential teaching of religion. Come what
might of his disobedience to the ungodly statute, Daniel must make his protest, even
though the dread lions must be faced. Now, when we read of the sufferings to which the
martyrs were subjected we are apt to ask ourselves whether we should have endured
under them, whether we should have resisted, as they did, unto blood, striving against
sin. Perhaps some light of a practical and edifying character may be thrown on the
question by observing in what the course which ends with martyrdom began. That was
consistent conscientiousness. Daniel, who set at defiance the ungodly statute, is the
same Daniel who, in his early youth, preferred death to risk the violation of the
ceremonial law of God. The stuff of which martyrs are made is consistent adherence to
principle, even when principle involves personal risk, pain, inconvenience, or
martyrdom. Let it be observed, it is quite possible for a man who is steadfast in his
attendance to duty to take a mistaken view of what his duty is. Show me the young
person who observes the restrictions of God’s law conscientiously, and I will show you
158

one who gives promise of that faith which endures unto death. From the principle upon
how we should act under circumstances of risk, or ridicule, or inconvenience, we may
form some judgment as to whether we should be found steadfast in the martyr’s hour if
God should call us to it. Only be thou faithful in that which is least, and then thou shalt
be faithful also in much; yea, thou shalt be faithful unto death, and Christ shall give thee
the crown of life. (Dean Goulbourn.)
The Power of a Temperate Life
Among the ancients much was made of temperance as a virtue. Moderation or self-
control in all things was insisted upon to an extent hardly understood in the present day.
No one reading the Ethics of Aristotle, for instance, can fail to be struck with the
thoroughness of the educational methods therein enjoined and set forth. It was thought,
above all things, necessary for true manhood that a person should have acquired the
habit of self-mastery in such a way that he should enjoy the good things of life without
becoming their slave. Their acquaintance with human nature taught Greeks and Romans
the value of this practice. Young people were trained to avoid excesses of any kind,
bodily or mental. No doubt much of this was due to the idea of the State. Everything was
sacrificed to the good of the community, as, for example, in Sparta, where the laws made
little of the suffering of the individual, and sought, above all things, the glory of the
State. When Christianity came into the world the same thought received a new
emphasis. Not merely a moral or material, but a spiritual value was put upon it. The
spiritual man was recognised as one who, while regarding the body as the temple of the
Holy Ghost, retained full control of his physical powers, believing that the desires of the
flesh, left to themselves, were dangerous. Excesses of every kind were forbidden on the
ground that spiritual life did not consist in the gratification of the senses, but in their
moderate and careful use. A new ideal replaced that of Greek or Roman citizenship,
namely, that man was meant to be a citizen of a heavenly rather than an earthly
kingdom. The virtue of temperance was seen to be a necessity for its development, but in
a grander and nobler sense than had been foreseen by Aristotle and Lycurgus. Before
long asceticism came in with its dangerous and exaggerated emphasis of the duty of
“keeping under the body, and bringing it into subjection.” Much harm was wrought by
such devotees as St. Simeon Stylites, who sank far below the idea of the old pagan world
in advocating self-torture in the place of self-control. In modern times Christianity has
righted itself. We are all familiar nowadays with exhortations to manly Christianity and
the worth of clean, wholesome, natural living, for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. We
cannot too earnestly insist upon the value of temperance in all departments of human
life. To be a Christian is to be master of oneself, to keep a rein upon the passions, to be
able to move securely in the midst of exercises and enjoyments, over-indulgence in
which would prove fatal both to nobleness and godliness. We use the word temperance
in a somewhat restricted sense because of one of the greatest of our national sins—
drunkenness; but I feel keenly that there are other kinds of intemperance than over-
indulgence in alcoholic liquors. Over-eating is as much a sin against God as
overdrinking. It is abuse of the creatures and abuse of the body we seek to pamper. In
the search for exhilaration and in the abounding delight of vigorous life many promising,
careers are ruined by the loss of self-control. And then let us be aware that only he who
has learned this lesson is fitted to guide or rescue others. There is no man but has his
battle with temptation, yet, if he prevails, his experience and his strength come to the
help of others. The power of a temperate life is a grand thing, not for its own sake
159

simply, but for the sake of others. (R. J. Campbell, M.A.)
Daniel in Babylon
Judah had fallen utterly before the power of Babylon. The holy city was burnt, its walls
broken down, the Temple destroyed, and its sacred vessels devoted to the service of the
heathen gods. Those that escaped the sword were carried captive to Babylon. Amongst
these was Daniel, evidently of princely birth and noble appearance. He, a youth probably
of some seventeen years, together with three of his companions, was reserved for the
highest service of the State. Far happier were they than most of their countrymen. The
king had seen his children slain, and then, his eyes put out, he was led, blinded and
bereaved, in chains to Babylon. Most of the captives would be made slaves. The
historians tell us that every Babylonian brick in the British Museum represents the
anguish of some slave. It is needful for us to remember that this was at best the fate that
awaited Daniel and his companions if they offended those who were set over them or if
they refused in any way to fulfil the purposes of the king. To him and his companions are
given new names indicating their consecration to the gods of Babylon. To the Hebrew a
name was much more than a convenient distinction. It was sacred; there was in it a
Divine meaning. And he was to be trained in all the learning and science of the
Chaldeans. This training was not only of the mind, but of the body too, and secured for
these students the luxury of daily supplies from the king’s own table. Let us stay, to look
at the captive, to look at the circumstances, and to look at the authority that was over
him. His action in the matter could be so easily misunderstood, was indeed so difficult to
explain. Object to food that came from the king’s own table! There is nothing that we are
more touchy about than a complaint of the food that we provide for others, especially if
we think it good enough for ourselves. Who is this youth, who cannot conscientiously
taste of the food that is good enough for Nebuchadnezzar himself? Very well, take him
where most of his countrymen are. Let him share their fare for awhile. They are not
troubled with costly meats and dainty drinks. See if that will suit him. And if Daniel
complained that his objection was a religious one, that made the matter worse. What,
refuse, reject, despise the meat that is sanctified to the gods of Babylon! Where, indeed,
was the God of Israel now? The Temple burned, the golden vessels adorning the service
of the gods that made Nineveh great! This were an insult past forgiveness. Such an
offence were enough to provoke the wrath of these outraged deities. Let the young man
pay the penalty that the gods themselves might well exact. Such were the perils that
threatened him. And there was Nebuchadnezzar, proud conqueror of the nations. All the
forces of that vast nation waited to fulfil his bidding, whose word was law. Daniel, a lad
of seventeen, 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. All within him, his devotion to irk
God, the influence of his house, the hopes and memories of his nation, became a great
resolution and refusal. He could not, would not, dared not—cost what it may. Daniel
purposed in his heart. How grand a thing is that majesty of the will, that knitting of the
man as master of his fate more than circumstances! You have seen the driftwood flung
along the coast, hither and thither,—swept by the changeful tides, chased by the waves.
But fronting the great seas has stood the rock, firm whilst thundering billows break on it
in thunder and dashed their spray to the heavens. So the man who is rooted and
grounded in right, as if he were become part of the solid earth, one with the round world
itself. The man who stands for goodness stands in God. He who sets himself for the right
has God at his back. Let the world laugh, or sneer, or smile, right is might. The purpose
160

of the heart is the beginning of life. There is the helm; nay, it is the hand of the helm.
Fools wish; men will. Wishing never got a man out of a difficulty, but a right will would
have kept him out. And do not think of this will as a matter of nature only. Do not begin
to be cast down because that is just what you lack. Do not turn away saying, “Alas! I am
foolish, fickle, cowardly; this is no example for me.” Honestly ask yourself, What is the
good of preaching, of the life and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, what is the good of God
Himself, unless somehow or other there can come into us a right will? Is not this the
promise ever set before us—a new heart? And what is a new heart but a new will, a new
purpose? Take hold of these words: It is God that worketh in us to will and to do. Think
of some old warrior who takes the lad and puts upon those slender fingers his own
sinewy hands. And thus they bend the bow together, and thus they hold the feathered
arrow on the string: And the man with keen sight and unerring aim lets fly the string,
whilst the lad with parted lips watches it strike the centre of the target. So is it that there
comes upon us the might of God with purpose resolute, and strength unfailing, to make
us more than conquerors, strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man. We
are apt to think about the will of God as something outside us to which we must be
conformed. God’s will is apt to be only that which He has spoken in His word. But the
will of God is that which Upholds the universe. God’s will is God’s might. It is a long way
from this youth in Babylon to the Apostle Paul, but this makes them one. He declares
himself an apostle by the will of God. He had opened his heart to the mighty force, had
let himself go under its constraint. I can do all things through Him which strengtheneth
me. Daniel himself gives us the secret of his power. The people that do know their God
shall be strong and do exploits. (Dan_11:32.) Turn to the story again for another lesson.
“Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the
eunuchs.” His way was greatly smoothed for him because his ways were so winsome. He
was so likeable, so loveable. A man who calls himself a Christian has no business to be us
prickly as a hedgehog or as ugly to touch as a stinging nettle. A man may be resolute
without being as stubborn as a mule or an ass. The ugliest thing in the world is an ugly
religion—that kind of assumption of superiority, that suspects everything, that carries its
head as if sniffing heresy, that looks its condemnation at everybody and everything. We
are to please men with edification. Strength is much, but it is not all. God’s graces go in
pairs, and strength is to be wedded to beauty. Strength and beauty are in his sanctuary.
Do not forget that the Bible teaches us to pray that God would make us beautiful. “Let
the beauty of the Lord our God be upon us.” Because Daniel could not go all the way that
those about him wanted him to he would go all the more gladly where he could. They
may not have liked his religion, but they could not help liking him. It is a poor religion
that acts like a thunderstorm, and turns the milk of human kindness sour wherever it
goes. As true as steel, yet out of steel sun do not fashion only swords, but things as
delicate as the hair-spring of a watch. Be gentle, be courteous, be ready to help, be quick
to do anybody anywhere a good turn, and make that as much part of your religion as it is
to be honest. Then turn for a moment from Daniel to think of his companions, I do not
mean in the least to reflect upon these brave youths when I say that it is certainly
possible that we might never have heard of them if it had not been for Daniel His bold
stand made it easy for them to follow where he led. We are responsible for our influence,
and that we can never measure, never know. If you will be true to your God and be true
to your better self there are many about you who will take a stand because you do. And
note the prudence of his proceeding. He requested the prince that he and his
companions might have simple fare, just pulse to eat and water to drink—porridge you
may call it if you will. It was a courteous request and courteously received. But the prince
161

of the eunuchs feared to grant it. “What will the king say when he sees your faces so
much more woe-begone than those about you?” “Well,” said Daniel, “let us put the
matter to the test. For ten days let us have this simple fare, and you shall see for yourself
as to our looks and see if we are sadder than those about us.” So it was settled. And at the
end of the time they were found fairer and fatter than those about them. One is
reminded of what Dr. Johnson said in Scotland. Said Boswell, “Men here eat what we
give horses in England.” “Yes,” replied Johnson, “and where will you find such men or
such horses?” “Nature,” says old Matthew Henry, “is content with little, grace with less,
but sin with nothing.” Nobody will believe in a religion that makes people sadder than
those who are without it. The sunshine of God’s favour must shine forth from the face if
men would bless the world. A cheery face preaches a sermon seven days long, and
nobody tires of it. As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all
learning and wisdom. So let us listen to the words of the grand old Book that here find a
living picture: “My son, forget not my law, but let thine heart keep my commandments.
For length of days and long life and peace shell they add to thee. So shalt thou find good
understanding and favour in the sight of God and man.” (M. G. Pearse.)
Readings in Daniel
At the first epoch of the captivity of Judah, when Jehoiakim was King in Jerusalem, a
goodly number of the scions, or younger branches, of the royal family, and of the Jewish
nobility, were carried away by Nebuchadnezzar. Of the handsomest and cleverest of
these, a selection was made by the conqueror’s orders to serve in his palace as
chamberlains or attendants. Thus was fulfilled the word of the Lord, spoken by Isaiah
fully a hundred years previously to Hezekiah, that the descendants of his own body
should be led away captive, and become eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon
(2Ki_20:18). Of the noble captives thus chosen to serve as attendants upon
Nebuchadnezzar, four are specially named—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.
Daniel was perhaps the handsomest, and certainly he had the greatest natural talents of
the whole, besides being their leader in all that was amiable and pious. The first
manifestation of their earnest desire to obey the laws of Jehovah was in regard to the
food appointed for them. Rather would they have poorer food by far, if thus they kept
the commandments of their Creator, than indulge in dainties without having the
blessing of heaven. Not only on the bodily condition of the young men did the blessing of
heaven descend, but Jehovah smiled upon their mental powers, and endowed them with
knowledge and ability beyond all their contemporaries. No doubt the simplicity of their
style of living would help rather than hinder their studies. Plain diet and abstinence from
wine would leave their perceptive faculties unclouded. They would know nothing of the
miseries of indigestion, or of the lassitude that follows indulgence in intoxicating
beverages. For more than seventy years afterwards Daniel lived in Chaldea, an honoured
servant of Jehovah. Let us consider some practical lessons deducible from the brief
portion already surveyed.
I. “MAN’S GOINGS ARE OF THE LORD;” AND HIS OVER-RULING IS
ALWAYS GOOD. Was it so in the case of Daniel and his three friends of royal and
noble blood? To be dragged far away from their dear native land, and held captive
amidst idolaters, surely such an experience could not be good? Without doubt it was for
the glory of God, and the eternal benefit of these pious young men, that their lot was cast
in Babylon. The lifework of a flower is to blossom and shed its perfume, wherever its
162

Maker may plant it, whether in a lovely garden or in a desolate wilderness. Its sweetness
is never wasted, though no eye but that of its Creator look upon it. And so with the
children of heaven. At home or abroad, in congenial company or amid the prejudiced
and the scoffing, in crowded city or in solitude, their eyes are turned to their Father’s
face, and they muss ever be about their Father’s business. Was the Divine over-ruling
good for that poor black boy whom the Lord permitted to be snatched from his wild but
free home on the Gold Coast of Africa, and sold as a slave in Jamaica? Oh! the bitter
tears he shed for many days, the curses he poured upon the head of his purchaser, and
invoked on the cruel task-master that drove him daily to work on the sugar plantation!
By-and-bye, however, he found his way to a chapel where negroes worshipped. There he
heard of One who, though God over all, was, nevertheless, in human form, scourged am
a slave, and crucified as a malefactor, that He might make our peace with offended Deity.
The love that sent the Saviour to ransom lost sinners, the love that led the Redeemer to
endure the wrath due to our transgressions, filled the poor black boy’s heart. Peace that
passeth understanding, from that hour, kept his mind night and day, and he “felt like
singing all the time.” It was easy for him then to work, for he had a rest remaining for
him above; and even in the midst of his toils he was as happy as man can be on earth. So
far from fretting thereafter against the Providence that had permitted his being sold into
slavery, he thanked God for it every day of his life; and continually did he pray that his
father and mother, too, might be brought as slaves to Jamaica, there to learn about the
love of Jesus. Let us delight ourselves in the Lord and in His will. Let us sweetly submit
ourselves to His disposal, and seek only how to walk worthy of Him in the path he
chooses for us.
II. WE SHOULD DARE TO BE SINGULAR WHEN GOD CALLS US TO BE SO.
For quiet and comfort most people have occasionally to conform to customs that do not
meet their own taste. Singularity is often the characteristic of a weak or erratic mind,
and sometimes the result of mere self-conceit. Where no moral principle is involved, and
where deviation from the fashion would only occasion gossip about us, it is generally
best in some measure to follow the crowd. But when the following of the customs of our
place and time leads to questionable doings, or to positive transgressions of God’s laws,
there comes into operation our Master’s general order, “If any man will come after Me,
let him deny himself and take up his cross daily, and follow Me.” Yes! it is a cross we are
called to carry, but we bear it in worthy company. Balaam prophesied of the children of
Israel that they should dwell as a people alone, and should not be reckoned among the
nations. To promote this separation from the idolaters who surrounded them was one
special object of the ceremonial law. Mingling with the heathen, they learned only evil.
“Israel shall dwell in safety alone,” said Moses, in his farewell words to the much-loved
tribes that sprang from Jacob. Daniel and his friends, even when placed by Providence in
the very midst of idolaters, forgot not where their safety lay. They therefore stood aloof
from everything which was in opposition to God’s law. Happy the man who faithfully
follows their example! (2Co_6:17-18).
III. MAN LIVETH NOT BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT
PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD. It is not the abundance of our
dainties that sustains life, but God’s blessing. If we would but taste and see that God is
good, if we would but accept His love freely offered in Jesus, and let Him make us
altogether His own, ah! then, plain food and humble circumstances would render us
happier far than the rich and great who know Him not. On ourselves, and on all we have,
His blessing would evermore abide; and “life in His favour lies.” (Original Secession
Magazine.)
163

Happiness Despite Circumstances
By way of pre-eminence modern science emphasises two laws—the law of heredity, and
the law of environment. With these laws as with keys, our scholars unlock the mysteries
of vegetable and animal life, and also the life of man. This first law, heredity, deals with
the fixed elements in the soul’s career. It unveils the man’s birth-gifts, and shows us
from what sources these gifts of mind and body came. But this ancestral element is fixed
and unchanging. No man, by tugging at his heartstrings, can change the sanguine
temperament of birth to the phlegmatic or the melancholic. The beginning of happiness
and usefulness is an instant and absolute acceptance of the task and temperament that
God and our fathers have appointed. But when heredity has given us the fixed element in
character, and the “source” from which the life moves forth, then comes in the second
great law of environment that deals with shifting and variable influences and makes life
flexible, makes the future uncertain, and clothes the to-morrows with wonder and
mystery. This, therefore, is the problem of the great biographer. Given the youth clothed
with certain ancestral qualities of strength and manliness, then, through environment,
wealth or poverty, ambition, jealousy, hatred, passion, self-sacrifice are introduced.
When the old birth-gifts and the new forces of environment unite, unexpected qualities
and unlooked-for crises appear. And it is this unknown element that lends fascination to
the great hours of life. For be it confessed that, if the acorn must remain an acorn to the
end, its environment will modify the oak that springs therefrom. Planted upon a
southern exposure, in deep, rich soil, it develops a giant structure, fitted for mast of ship
or beam of factory. Falling in scant and rocky soil, and on northern slope, the acorn will
develop but a poor and stunted life, fit for fagots and the winter’s fire. And if
circumstances cannot change the original birth-gift, they can develop the native capacity
into full manhood and usefulness, or they can repress these qualities and make life
stunted and misshapen. Having suffered much from many influences and many half-
truths, our generation has suffered grievously from the overemphasis of environment.
Multitudes are the slaves of their surroundings and the victims of events. Carrying
within themselves the powers that, if asserted, would make them the sons of happiness
and strength, they go forward with bowed heads, sad, weary and dispirited. But if we are
to understand the danger of an over-emphasis of circumstances, we must first consider
its real scope and law. This we can do best of all by tracing its workings in the realms of
vegetable and animal life. Ours is a world in which the rose is influenced by sunshine or
shade, and in which the lark is influenced by the cage or by freedom; in which the sweet
shrub is influenced by the early spring and the late frost. Carry the brilliant peacock to
the dull, foggy climate of Norway, and the gay plumage within a few years is dulled into
drab or a dirty grey. And if environment controls the colours of animals, sometimes it
modifies, and even destroys the senses of sight and hearing. The blind fish that live in
the underground rivers of the Mammoth Cave represent an optic nerve that has become
a mass of ruins through disuse. We need not be surprised, therefore, that this law of
environment is intellectual law and spiritual law. This law of environment as to evil
appears in the proverb, “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” It appears also in
the proverb regarding Christ, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” It reappears
in modern science, insisting that man is the sum total of his circumstances. It explains
the pessimism and the sadness and gloom in our garrets and palaces. If, now, we search
out the secret of the influence of circumstances, we shall find it in the simple statement
that the law of environment is the law of food, succour and nutrition. The root, for
164

example, is related to its environment in the soil. The blossom is related to its
environment in the sunshine and light and heat. The leaf drinks in the light and heat,
and absorbs the rich gases from the air. But if the blossom unfolds in the vicinity of a
cotton factory, the leaves soon fall, choked to death by the foul gases. And if the root
extends to the stream into which the same poisoned waters flow, then soon the tree and
its trunk die also. And the question whether the tree is to come to full bloom and power
depends upon the great facts of light and heat, and summer and winter that make up
that total called the environment of the tree. Not otherwise is it with man. He is
profoundly influenced by his circumstances and the atmosphere in which he lives, and
breathes, and works. Only the tree has one root towards the soil and others towards the
air, the man has many nerves that relate him to his environment. Physically his body is
small. But assemble the foods, and the various forms of water that he drinks, the air that
he breathes, throughout a single year, and how enormous the bulk that makes up his
environment. He hungers for food. Cut that nerve of relation, and he dies for want of
succour. Feverish, he thirsts for drink. Cut the nerve that runs toward the fountain, and
he perishes for lack of water. The intellect is a nerve toward the kingdom of truth. The
imagination is a nerve toward the kingdom of beauty, the face, the flower, the picture.
Affection is a nerve toward the kingdom of love, in friendship, and the fireside joys. The
conscience is a nerve toward the God of righteousness, as are faith, and hope, and love.
Physically, man must draw his succour from an environment called the granary and the
storehouse and the fountain. Spiritually, he draws his life from an invisible environment,
named God. Cut these nerves of relation, and death ensues. Feed and strengthen these
nerves until all the Divine tide comes in, and man has life more abundantly. Upon the
basis of the great scientific law, therefore, Christ said, “Without me ye can do nothing.”
And this spiritual law of environment appears when men exclaim, “In God we live and
move, and have all our being.” Having emphasised the truth as to the influence of
circumstances and environment, consider the untruth involved therein.
Misunderstanding, we have coined a proverb, “Among Romans do as Romans do.” If this
proverb asks a youth to be divinely good if he is with the angels, it bids him become a
demon if his companions happen to be devils. Over-emphasising the influence of
circumstances, some youth from the country will come into the city this coming autumn,
with his stainless purity and beauty. Chancing upon evil companions, he will be confused
by their profanity, he will blush at their salacity. But, accustoming himself to his
circumstances, he will at last pride himself in that he can listen to a vulgar story without
a blush, and roll off an oath without a single thought of revulsion. Yet it is given to the
soul to rise above these untoward events, for happiness is not in circumstances, but in
the will, and victory is not in events without, but in the trustful soul within. History
holds a thousand examples of this great law of victory over circumstances. For forty
years, until life had passed its maturity, Moses lived in the king’s palace, and was the
child of wealth and opportunity of leisure. Then the sceptre of power dropped from his
hand, and in old age he dwelt apart in a desert and tended sheep. Never were
circumstances so cruel, and yet, dwelling in the desert, Moses matured his great laws
and plans of reform, and we know that his life in the palace was the era when his soul
was poverty stricken, and that life never became deep, rich, and victorious until he wore
a coat of skins and slept in a desert. And there is no temptation so fiery, and no testing so
severe but that the soul can rise superior to these circumstances that try man’s souls. In
the palace Potiphar’s wife tempted Joseph, and promised the youth that he might
succeed to the great man’s name and position, but Joseph came out of the fierce flame
with no smell of fire upon his garments. Women, too, have defied circumstances. The
165

soldiers’ camp was once notorious for the grog shop, for gambling and licentiousness,
and yet even there Florence Nightingale and Augusta Stanley moved in and out, lifting
soldiers up from baseness to sobriety and integrity; cleansing the filth from others
without staining their garments of spotless purity. Does not the sunbeam cleanse the soil
and yet remain itself unstained? Our age has failed to realise the importance of the will.
God has made the soul king over its own territory. And circumstances cannot rob the
righteous man of his strength, nor spoil him of his happiness and his victory. Moreover,
man can rise above circumstances that involve temptation, and maintain spotless purity
amidst conditions vicious and surcharged with evil, for the sanctuary of the soul is
sacred. It is a castle that has one key, and that is controlled by the owner. Evil can stand
in the street, under the soul’s windows. Evil can display bribes, offer gifts, hold out a cup
brimming with sorcery and sing the siren’s song. But sin, with its cloven foot, can never
cross the threshold until the will draws back the bolts and bars. Sin has no hypnotic
power. And the soul stands above evil as the hero stands looking down upon the serpent,
knowing that even the heel can crush the serpent’s head. Away with the excuse that the
soul is the victim of circumstances. It is given to the disciple of Christ to walk through
the fire of temptation, and feel no harm. It is possible, also, to maintain happiness, midst
trouble, disquietude, and defeat itself. For happiness is not in events on the outside. It is
given to all to say with Paul, “I have learned in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be
content.” For know, all ye young hearts, that environment is not in dwellings or palace. It
is in the heavens above you. The apple tree is rooted in the soil, yet this orb of luscious
fruit is not of the earth. Ninety per cent of the crisp, dripping juices were absorbed from
the glowing sunbeams, from the forces of the great upper world, for the branches,
stretching toward the sky, are the true roots. And man’s body is a root that runs toward
the house and street in which he lives, but the great invisible world above is the true
world, toward which faith and hope, and prayer, and love, and aspiration, are branches
dissolving invisible food, and there is man’s true environment. There is your true life.
The imagination can create its own environment. Only let the chambers of imagery he
filled with lustrous scenes and noble imaginations. Doubtless the teachers of life are
trouble and temptation, as well as joy and success. But happiness and victory are the
ends thereof. It is possible to live victorious over all life’s troubles. God wishes his sons
and daughters to go singing through the years. Even in the tornado, it is said, there is a
central spot where there is perfect quiet, and the particles of air are undisturbed. And he
who trusts Christ his Saviour, and lives close to God’s heart, has a chamber of peace in
the very thick of life’s storm. Be original in yourself, and overcome the circumstances
that would degrade you. (N. D. Hillis, D.D.)
The Triumphant Life
I. THE ROOT OF THE TRIUMPHANT LIFE IS HOLY PURPOSE. “But Daniel
purposed in his heart,” etc. Those ancient monarchs were wise winners and compactors
of kingdoms after their sort. When they conquered some foreign country they even
violently welded it into homogeneity with the kingdom over which they already ruled.
They did this by deporting the inhabitants of the conquered country to their original
kingdom, and by importing into the conquered country great masses of their own
already loyal subjects. Also, from the families of the best blood and largest influence of
the conquered country they selected certain young men, carried them to their own court,
subjected them under their own eye to special courses of education, showered upon
them royal favours, fed them with such viands as graced even the royal table, attached
166

them to themselves in the strongest way, and when their course of education was
completed, weighted them with high official duty. Thus these rulers sought to rub out
the lines of cleavage of race and of religion which otherwise had split their peoples. Thus
Daniel, a young Hebrew of probably about seventeen years, had been treated—carried
from captured Jerusalem to triumphant Babylon (Dan_1:3-7); and there was appointed
Daniel and his captive companions a daily provision of the king’s meat and of the wine
which he drank.
1. This was an utmost honour. To eat with one or to eat what a lifted one partook of
meant much in that Oriental society. In no way could one more thoroughly express
his gracious favour to another than by sending him a portion of that which he
himself was eating; and to do it daily was the constant expression of continued
favour.
2. There were dietary reasons also underneath the royal grant. The king wanted
them fed with the best that they might become the best. But for the Hebrew youth
Daniel there was special trouble about the king’s meat and the king’s wine.
I. It was food selected without reference to the precise Mosaic ritual concerning meats
clean and unclean. Because meats which the Divine legislation declared unclean were to
be found even upon a king’s table, they were not beyond the jurisdiction of a Divine law
for a Hebrew.
II. It was customary among the pagans when they ate to throw a small part of the viands
and wine upon the hearth as an offering to the gods, thus consecrating the whole to
them. To partake of such food would be to a Hebrew the sanctioning of idolatry. And
that word “purposed” is, in the original, significant. It means purposed in the sense of
set, placed, as when you put down a thing, and leave it there and have done with it.
There was no debating about Daniel’s purpose. Think how many specious persuasions
might set themselves at uncompacting his purpose.
1. He was a young man. His refusal might easily be charged to youthful rashness.
How preposterous the thought that he, a boy, should fling himself against the mighty
King of Babylon!
2. He was away from home.
3. He was in very peculiar circumstances—a captive, and of the king a special
protege.
4. Such refusal would be dreadfully inconvenient. Every day the king’s viands were
coming—every day to have to refuse!
5. It would damage his prospects—here was the only line of advancement possible
for him.
6. It was plainly dangerous.
7. In itself it was only a little matter, etc. But notwithstanding Daniel “purposed in
his heart,” etc.; and the subsequent life of Daniel was according to the hand of this
purpose he then laid upon his life’s helm. He would not transgress. He would not do
wrong. You cannot got the bloom of a genuinely triumphant life out of any other
root.
II. Consider, as we gaze upon this Bible specimen of a triumphant life, THAT A
GENUINELY HOLY PURPOSE PROMPTS ALWAYS TO ACTION
167

CONFORMABLE WITH ITSELF, AND SO THE LIFE IS MADE
TRIUMPHANT. Turn again to our Scripture, “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he
would not defile himself,” etc., therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that
he might not defile himself; and when the prince of the eunuchs feared and objected, he
proposed a way in which the defiling might be missed. And such action, conformable
with purpose, makes purpose purpose, and rescues it from being but a poor and sickly
sentiment. Ah! the Apostle James was right, conduct is the test of faith (Jas_2:14-23);
and just here is a frequent trouble: what we call our religious purpose is too much
merely religious sentiment. It lacks the verve and vigour and granitic quality of a genuine
purpose, because we do not act out that “therefore;” because purposing does not bloom
into doing. When we are called to any special sacrifice that we may not defile ourselves
with the king’s meat, we have only a lavender sentiment with which to meet the sacrifice.
But not thus can we live the really triumphant life. Holy purpose and holy action—these
are always its essential elements. (Wayland Hoyt, D.D.)
The Heroic Prince
The captive princes were honourably treated, as became nobles and princes. They were
more than hostages. Daniel and his three companions were designated for a public
career. For three years they were to be taught the learning and the tongue of the
Chaldeans. They were provided with the best food for mind and body. But whatever
Daniel had left behind him in Jerusalem, he had not left his religion. On religious
grounds he shrank from the food and wine daily set before him. This was a crisis in
Daniel’s early life. The battlefield was a small one, but it was not little to him. He had
much to tempt him to forgetfulness of God. He lived in an idolatrous atmosphere. This
matter of his daily food was not a small matter. He must stand to conscience. He had
courage, and he needed it; for his resolution involved risk. Doubtless he had the
ambition as well as the great faculty of his race. He could make his way in this foreign
court. He could outstrip many, perhaps all, competitors. The greatest heroisms are
wrought in silence. The stand for principle may be taken on some small-seeming matter.
But if there be principle in it, it is not a small matter. In doing the thing that is right, we
must expect and be willing to run risks. There can be no true courage without it. Daniel
saw that no way could risk be avoided. Daniel’s courage was influential. The resolution
personal to himself became the resolution of others. He kindled his three friends” to
courage. Every man has some influence in this world. The hero multiplies heroes; the
one heroic act is the parent of many heroisms. That recorded example has quickened
many in all ages to an imitation of his fearless conscientiousness. His courage was
victorious. He was settled in his mind. Daniel gained his point, but mark his tact. He
prudently asked for liberty of conscience. He made no parade of his conscientiousness.
His heart is fixed. This is the spirit in which to do the right. Rudeness is no part of
religion. Daniel, by his early stand for conscience, was committed to a life of piety. (G. T.
Coster.)
Daniel’s Resolve
The food provided probably contained articles interdicted by the Divine law. Portions of
it were polluted with blood—forbidden to every Jew. And both meat and wine were
probably offered as a libation to other gods. A great principle was therefore at stake.
168

Daniel knew the worth of what some people call “a mere abstraction,” “an idea.” Is it
objected that this was a small matter? Perhaps it was, but the battle of great principles is
often fought on some small field, while the clang of swords and the trump of victory
resound against the vault of Heaven itself. We are sent into this world not to evade
contempt, not to “get on” (as the phrase goes), not even to avoid calamity, not even to
“account life dear” unto ourselves; but to finish our Divinely marked course, the
particular “ministry we have received,” to “testify the gospel of the grace of God.” We
have no hesitation in quoting such expressions as these when speaking of Daniel; for
that he had a course to run, a service to humanity and God to perform, a testimony to
bear, is at once evident the moment we think of his history, and his singularly elevated
position as an evangelical prophet, a harbinger to prepare the Saviour’s way. And so,
whatever might betide, come what may, alone, as it would seem, without concert at this
stage with his three associates, “Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile
himself with the portion of the king’s meat.” That resolution was one of God’s moral
inspirations. There was an ardour about it that fired the souls of the other three. It was
the germ of great results, the parent of other heroisms, the one event that gave form and
colour to all their lives. In executing the resolve, gentleness was wedded to fortitude. The
conduct of Daniel is a good illustration of the motto, “fortiter in re, suaviter in modo,”
strong as to the matter, gentle as to the manner. He was too wise openly to resist the
ordinances of the king. (H. T. Robjohns, B.A.)
Daniel’s Firmness and Prudence
Daniel’s example teaches that we should carry the principles of religion with us into all
situations, and through all the varying circumstances of life. There are some persons
who will suit themselves to all society and all places; appear to be pious in one company
and profane in another; attend the worship of God at home and neglect it when abroad,
or just conform to the custom of the place where they may be. Not so was it with Daniel.
Not so will it be with any of the consistent servants of God. It is this uniformity and
consistency of conduct that is the glory of the true servants of God, which brings honour
to the Divine name, and shows the power of real religion. “The double-minded man is
unstable in all his ways.” Another interesting trait of character presented to us here is
that while Daniel had formed this settled purpose in his heart, he adopted the most
prudent measures to accomplish the object he had in view. He was a youth, but he had
already learned “to be sober-minded,” to act with humility, caution, and prudence.
(Thomas Coleman.)
Conscience
The distinctive thing about Daniel was his conscience, along with that sense of Divine
authority with which, to Daniel, his conscience stood vested. The conscience is a solemn
thing; it is the power with which we appreciate the right in its Divine imperialism. All
the possibilities of the completest theism are involved in it. For Daniel to feel that to do
this was right and that to do that was wrong was for him to feel that the Divine voice was
speaking to him in terms of command or of prohibition. In that way behaviour became
to him a kind of worship, and was the continuous expression of a religious loyalty.
Conscience is an old-fashioned affair, but nothing has yet been discovered that will quite
take the place of it. Doing right is itself religion when the right is done with a distinct
169

appreciation of the infinitude of the obligation that we are under to do right. That is a
point to be guarded jealously. It is religion’s starting-point—conscience is, The right,
when felt as such, with all its unspeakable sanctions, all its transparent validity, all its
unargued authority, all its long and mystic reach into the realms of things unseen, is a
point at which thought takes easy hold upon that which is eternal, and at which it rises
up in quick response of reverent worship toward the Holy One in all the divineness of
His imperialism. It is a long reach toward God merely to feel the sanctity of the claim
which the right makes upon us, so that when alternative courses open themselves before
us, however we may feel ourselves enticed toward that which is evil, we experience a
counter-drawing that is too mystic to be explained, and that bears down upon us with
too authoritative a compulsion to be lightly ignored. It is through the sensitive
conscience considered as the soul’s open eye that we first come into range with Divine
things. Here, then, our first and most painstaking work must be done. The conscience is
religion’s front door; and yet it is not such a door that having passed through it you can
close it behind you. We better say, then, that conscience is religion’s bottom masonry
upon which the whole superstructure has to be posited, such superstructure towering up
in its permanence only so long as the substructure abides in its deep solidity. A man
cannot become religiously expanded beyond the point where he continues to be ethically
sound. Conscience conditions every step of our Christian expansion. You cannot plant
religion on the top of moral mud any more than you can put up a fifteen-story apartment
house on the top of the Jersey meadows. The stability of a house depends as much on the
solidity of its foundation when it has stood for a thousand years as it does the first year it
is erected. You admire the glisten of the diamond, but you cannot coax diamond-glisten
out of polished putty, with whatever appliances of attrition it may be treated withal. The
first thing to do is to do right; that is more than all creeds and more than all worship; for
to a man in his wrong-doing it makes no earthly difference what he does believe, and as
for worship, there is no such thing as worshipping God with one set of faculties at the
same moment that we are disobeying Him with another set.
Daniel faced the situation, saw his duty, and did it. Having seen it, and seen it distinctly,
he did not obfuscate the situation by mixing in a mass of foreign ingredients that had no
concern with the immediate case. He might have said that whatever might have been his
duty if he had remained in Jerusalem ceased to be such on moving into a country where
other customs obtained; and that a man, out of regard to the feelings of others, ought to
consult to a considerable degree the habits and usages that are in vogue in his present
environment. There is no known method by which we can trim our behaviour to others’
ideas, and still keep a live conscience. On that day of his temptation, what be knew to be
right stood out before him with lines as distinct as though they had been the lineaments
of a personal face, and lineaments, too, so full of majesty and kingliness that they were
apprehended by him as being the features of the face of God. So, instead of losing God by
fooling with his duty, God became nearer to him, and duty a more impressive and
superb reality by its discharge. The first thing to say about this is that a man is not safe
except when the contrast between right and wrong is as sharp to his conscience as the
contrast between black and white is sharp to his eye. That is not at all saying that there
will not be questions of right and wrong that will be difficult of decision. It is merely
saying that our only security lies in having so energetic a moral sense that right, when
once we have decided where it lies, is felt by us to be tremendously right, and wrong felt
by us to be devilishly wrong. No sliding scale between them; no fading off of the one into
the other. Adam could not have transgressed so long as the tones of Divine command
were distinctly ringing in his ears. That was the very genius of diabolic ingenuity. Adam’s
170

attention was diverted, his attention was twisted from the single point at issue, and
distinct considerations of personal gratification thrust before his regard instead. And sin
begins to-day exactly as it began then. It begins by dragging into the decision of moral
questions something beside moral considerations. Now that is the point where Daniel
beat Adam. If, instead of pinning his eye to the moral element of the case, he had
commenced to take into the account the advantages personal to himself that would have
been certain to issue if he had become partaker of the king’s meat and wine, it would
morally have been the instant death of him. Perdition comes in instalments, and the first
instalment is just as much perdition as the last one is; and the first instalment comes
when a man or a child fronts a question of right or wrong, and instead of facing it and
answering it on its own basis, wriggles off on to a side issue, and refers it to the
arbitrament of considerations that have nothing to do with the case. Now that is the way
that a considerable number of current Christians are settling current questions. If a man
attends the theatre, having settled the question for himself on grounds that are distinctly
and unmixedly moral, then it is no man’s business but his own. But I know that there are
a great many people who attend who have not settled the question for themselves, and
who go there borne upon the current of contemporary usage. For them there is no moral
ground involved; they have slipped in under the seal of example. In a word, although it is
a conscience question, their own conscience has not faced it and answered it. They have
not—if they have decided in the manner just described—they have not ruled out side
issues and collateral considerations, and met the one only point, viz., Is it right? If there
is anything that is calculated to stir moral indignation to its very bottom it is to see men
and women, grown up, with intelligence, congenitally endowed with a conscience,
professedly concerned for the weal of their times, and yet allowing practical questions
that are crammed full of moral elements to be decided by considerations of usage or
convenience or emolument that have no slightest relevancy to the distinct moral issue. A
pretty kind of Daniel those people would have made! Now that is what is the matter with
us. People are not planting their own feet down on distinct solid moral ground of their
own. A man cannot extemporise heroism. Daniel could not have stood up in the face of
the whole Babylonian empire and have dared the empire to do its worst upon him had he
not had in him the stuff that goes to compose daring. To do right meant to him so
infinitely and so divinely much that the pains of it and the dangers of it signified too
pitifully little for his arithmetic to be able to take hold of and numerate. I know that
people are lacking in moral vigour to-day because I know that they are lacking in
courage. People are afraid. There is a cowardice that is despicable. The crowd rules.
There are men and women that are more afraid of the despotism of public opinion than
Daniel was afraid of King Nebuchadnezzar and all his hired butchers. Men do not dare to
speak out. Hesitant virtue, cowardly integrity, is iniquity’s auxiliary. You can depend
upon it that vice will keep in good spirits till you brand it, but if you go into the branding
business you do it at your peril: well, what of it? And let me say only once more that this
same moral fibre is not only the material of heroism, but it is also, of course, the material
of indignation. Indignation is one of the moral trachea, and is the spark that solid virtue
has elicited from it when struck by villainy. A man’s power of indignation is measured
exactly by the vigour and intensity of his power of moral appreciation. To be patient is
sometimes the most eloquent symptom possible of ethical insipidity. Moreover,
meagreness of moral vigour is what accounts for indignation’s fitfulness. A man’s
conscience needs to have a pretty good constitution in order to be able to keep
indignation in stock—in order, that is, to be steadily in condition to resent vicious
encroachments. There occur what are popularly known as “spasms of virtue.” The
171

phrase expresses it well. The case is to be diagnosed in this way; it is virtue, but so
sparingly accumulated and loosely fibred as hardly to be more than aflame before it is
consumed—a sort of sky-rocket affair that makes momentary diversion, and that only
renders subsequent darkness but the more palpable and ponderable. The greatest thing
a man can do is to do right, for while that is not the completion of the entire edifice, it is
the plumb-line, dropped from Heaven, along which every stone requires to be laid that
aspires to be a permanent element in the edifice. (C. H. Parkhurst.)
Decision and Consistency
In the case of Daniel early piety, prepared for ripe excellence in old age. Daniel lived to
be eighty; was prime minister of Babylon; and died full of honours.
I. HIS EARLY DECISION. He purposed (resolved) not to defile himself with the
king’s meat. He put a restraint on his self-indulgence. It was the evident intention of
Babylonians to wean Daniel and his companions from their patriotic and religious
principles. The new names given to them suggest this. Great advantages attend early
decision. It is half the battle. It was not his learning that gave Daniel this wisdom or
decision. It was God’s grace.
II. ABIDING CONSISTENCY OF LIFE. This sprang from the early decision. What
firmness, fidelity, and piety! Note the testimony of his enemies. Incorruptible in duty,
blameless in life. This is the way to honour religion.
III. HELPS TOWARDS THIS CONSISTENCY. The source of it was Divine. There is
no other safe or abiding course. But gracious helps are provided.
1. The Word of God. Daniel a student of it (Dan_9:12). We need a chart for life’s
voyage, a lamp for life’s path.
2. Prayer. Daniel eminent for this. He prayed alone (Dan_9:3). He prayed with his
companions (Dan_2:17-18). It was his custom, and was not given up, nor concealed,
when a decree issued against it. How can We hope to walk wisely or safely without
asking Divine help and guidance?
3. Godly companionship. The four children of the captivity were helps to one
another. (W. Pakenham Walsh, D.D.)
Small Circumstances the Battlefield of Great Principles
The narrow mountain pass often becomes the scene of the deadliest struggles, because,
though worthless in itself, that barren spot is the bulwark of the country. (T. White.)
The Influences Daniel Exhibited
The whole tendency of the Chaldean education must have been to alienate the young
captives from their own people and religion. The intellectual training which they
received from the Chaldean sages was of necessity in the highest degree perilous to a
continued belief in the God of their fathers. A harsher treatment might have driven their
thoughts homeward, and made them cling with secret tenacity to their ancestral faith.
172

But the captives’ lot was made soft and pleasant to them; they experienced nothing save
kindness at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. At an early and susceptible age, they found
themselves removed from all the influences of pure religion, and surrounded by those of
idolatry. It was not only that the superstitions of Babylon were interwoven with the
secular instruction they received, though in that there was danger enough. But there was
a danger beyond this. The wisdom of the Chaldees was the most varied and profound
possessed by any nation then existing. Day by day new vistas of knowledge were opened
before the Hebrew neophytes, who, it must be remembered, were all youths of singular
mental capacity—had been chosen on that very account. Everyone knows what is the
effect of an elaborate secular training dissociated from religion. The young Hebrews
might well have been carried away by the pride of intellect, and have lost their grasp on
the old faith, even though they did not embrace the superstitious of their masters. It
happened thus, as may be inferred from the narrative, with the majority of those who
had been taken as hostages from Judea. The influences brought to bear on them
produced their natural result. Only one possessing more than ordinary strength of
character could have withstood the tendency of such an education, and continued at that
heathen court Jewish in thought, sympathy, and religion. Daniel continued, despite all
temptation, what he had ever been—pious, consistent, and pure; and from his example
his kinsmen gained the firmness of purpose to do as he did, and to face all risks in his
companionship. (P. H. Hunter.)
Adhere to the Right You Know
Such scruples as those of Daniel and his friends may seem trivial when viewed in the
light of Christianity. It may be thought a small matter, after all, on which those Hebrew
youths felt so keenly and insisted so earnestly—whether or not they should share in a
repast of which a portion had been laid on the altar of Bel or Nebo. But nothing can be
deemed a trifle where principle is at stake. What makes the conduct of Daniel and his
comrades so admirable is that, clearly perceiving what was right, they tenaciously clung
to the doing of it. And that determination of theirs to abstain from the royal food meant
more than lay on the surface. It meant a testimony to the one true and living God, in the
midst of a society given over to the worship of dead and false gods. It meant the rigorous
observance of the Mosaic law at a time when the Jewish system appeared to be falling
into fragments. It meant the steadfast clinging to the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and
Jacob, even when it seemed as though he had abandoned their descendants. So this
action of the Jewish boy, trifling in itself, was really great in its motive and spirit. It has
to be remembered also that Daniel’s adherence to principle was maintained in face of
two special difficulties, which seldom fail to confront men when seeking to do right. One
difficulty sprang from his own inclinations. He did not choose the pulse because he liked
it; no doubt it would have been more agreeable to him to share in those royal luxuries
which were his for the taking. Temperance is easy when the means of indulgence are out
of reach, but not so easy when they lie within sweep of the hand. It might have seemed
legitimate enough to soften the rigour of captivity by sensuous pleasure. Daniel and his
friends did not think so; they thought only of their duty to God. Another difficulty which
Daniel had to face was the force of opinion around him. He stood practically alone in his
conviction that to partake of this heathen food was to dishonour God. The Chaldeans
could not enter into the motives of such a refusal; to them the ways of the Jews must
have seemed as inexplicable as those of the Christians seemed to Roman governors in
the first and second centuries. It was an exclusively Jewish conception, that of a holy and
173

righteous God, requiring in those who served Him holiness and righteousness of life—a
consecration of self which must appear even in food and dress. But heathen religious
were quite different from this, and the royal chamberlain, though willing to humour his
favourite, made no pretence to understand him. Of the fellow-captives of Daniel only
three were found like-minded. It is not every man who will “dare to be in the right with
two or three.” It is to the credit of these young Hebrews that they chose the better part,
and braved the common voice, resisting the power which lies in those words, “Everybody
does it,” because to yield would have been dishonouring to God. (P. H. Hunter.)
The Persistence of Early Religion
Babylon began too late with these youths. Their names were changed, but their
principles did not yield to the enchantment. Early instructions are not so easily
obliterated. The impressions of childhood are always the most lasting. They engrave
themselves upon the whole formation of the man; they constitute the mould of one’s
being. They may be weakened and overlaid, but not extinguished. They are like words
spoken in a whispering gallery, which may not be heard near where they are uttered, but
are produced in far distant years and go echoing along the remotest paths of life. A
child’s heart is plastic, and the form to which it is once set is the hardest thing in the
world to change. These youths had been brought up in the knowledge and worship of the
true God, and had been taught His Word and law; and their early teaching abode with
them, and remained proof against all the subtle seductions and expedients of a heathen
court. They quietly took the new names assigned them, for they could not help
themselves. Those names were indeed lies as applied to them, but they were obliged to
submit, as the good and pious of every age have had to bear the ill names which the
world has put upon then. These Hebrew youths took the base cognomens dictated by
their heathen conquerors, but under those offensive names still lurked the holy
teachings of their childhood. Tyrants might change their names, but their hearts
remained loyal to the God of their fathers. It was not long before a test occurred to prove
how firmly rooted in their hearts were the sacred teachings which had been early
imprinted upon these youths. (Joseph A. Seiss, D.D.)
Purity Pays
As a rule, the undefiled man is the best looking man. It is redness of eyes, not dearness of
complexion, which marks the lover of wine. The bloat of the beer-drinker gives the lie to
every boast of the healthfulness of his favourite beverage. He who takes defiling food and
drinks as a cure for his ailments, will have an increase of ailments for which to take the
defiling portions. He who will keep himself pure will find himself in best bodily
condition through his purity. The truth of this fact has been tested over and ever again in
army life, and in life at sea, in expeditions to the frigid and the torrid zones, and in every
grade of society from the palace to the hovel. (Sunday School Times.)
Weighty Beacons for Abstinence
Daniel’s piety appeareth in this, that he maketh conscience of smaller evils also, such as
most men in his case would never have boggled at. He would not “defile himself with the
174

the portion of the king’s meat.” He scrupled the eating of it; and why?
1. Because it was often such as was forbidden by the law of God (Lev_11:1-47.; Deu_
14:1-29.).
2. Because it was so used as would defile him and his fellows against the word of
God; for the heathens, to the shame of many Christians, had their grace after meat,
as it were, consecrating their dishes to their Idols before they tasted of them (Dan_
5:4; 1Co_8:10).
3. They could not do it without offence to their weaker brethren, with whom (they
chose rather to sympathise in their adversity than to live in excess and fulness
(Amo_6:6).
4. They well perceived that the king’s love and provisions were not single and
sincere, but that he meant his own profit, to assure himself the better of the land of
Judah, and that they might forget their religion. Lastly, they knew that intemperance
was the mother of many mischiefs, as in Abram, Esau the rich glutton, etc. (J.
Trapp.)
An Abstemious Prince
It is said that when the German Crown Prince went to Bonn University he invoked the
displeasure of his colleagues because he would not participate in their drinking habits.
The Crown Prince saw his father, the Kaiser, on the subject, and, as a result, the
Emperor made it known that in his opinion the students were seriously injuring their
health by excessive beer drinking; and he denounced the practice in unmistakable terms.
In his temperance the Prince was using his influence aright, and he displayed a spirit
akin to that of the apostle, who declared if meat should make his brother to offend he
would eat no flesh. (Christian Herald.)
Youthful Temperance Secures Against Old Age Remorse
Once, when Socrates was asked what was the virtue of a young man, he said, “To avoid
excess in everything.” If this virtue were more common, how much happier the world
would be. Before he died Lord Northington, Chancellor in George III’s reign, paid the
penalty which port wine extracts from its fervent worshippers, and he suffered the
acutest pangs of gout. It is recorded that as he limped from the Woolsack to the Bar of
the House of Lords, he once muttered to a young peer who watched his distress with
evident sympathy, “Ah, my young friend, if I had known that these legs would one day
carry a Chancellor, I would have taken better care of them when I was at your age.” He
knew from bitter experience the pains and penalties of an ill-spent youth.
Divine Help in Character Making
(Dan_1:17):—Schools may make learned men, God alone can make wise men. And the
character of such men as Daniel and his companions, who are at once distinguished for
learning, wisdom, and uncompromising fidelity to religion, is, in a peculiar manner, the
work of God’s hands. Persons of such a character have been rare in the earth, and when
raised up in an age of degeneracy, it is always for important purposes, which neither
they, nor those who have the charge of their education, could have divined. In the
175

training of these young men, Nebuchadnezzar had one design, and God had another. (T.
White.)
Daniel’s Education
Two arguments may be drawn from this passage, to commend the cultivation of religious
character, to those who are engaged in the business of secular education.
1. They will find, as Daniel did, that religion is an aid to study. When she takes up
her habitation in the heart, she will keep the soul calm, the reason clear, the feelings
fresh, the taste pure, and secure the Divine blessing on diligence. The objects which
religion presents to the mind are the most sublime that can be contemplated, and
nourish the heart equally with the understanding.
2. The excellent character of these youths was the direct mean of their success in life.
(T. White.)
Intellectual Power Aided by Plain Living
We have the high thinking that follows “plain living.” No doubt the frugal fare helped to
keep the brains clear and the minds ready for work. The same Spartan discipline leads to
the same results in many a Scottish University and American farmhouse, where some
lad is half starving himself and enthusiastically grappling with study. Where do the great
scholars and thinkers come from? From “huts where poor men lie,” from humble homes
where profusion was unknown and poverty often looked in at the window. Pulse and
water are helps, not hindrances, to intellectual clearness and progress in knowledge.
When the examination day came, the youths who had had “a good time” with “the king’s
meat,” and, no doubt, had often laughed at the strait-laced four, were at the bottom of
the lists, if they passed at all, and the four were at the top, as such people generally are.
(A. Maclaren.)
Youthful Piety
I. YOUTHFUL PIETY POSSESSED. The piety of the Hebrew youths, the fact that
their minds had been brought under the government of vital personal godliness, is
distinctly implied and assumed. On this the whole of their history is specifically founded.
In what manner it was that they had received the inestimable boon we are not informed.
Belonging as they did to the royal house of Judah, or to noble families of that tribe, they
probably had enjoyed early advantages, in connection with some instructor who had
remained faithful to the Most High in that age of infatuated apostasy; and it may be that
the disastrous event of the captivity, which had drawn them from their native scenes to a
far distant and a far different land, had operated powerfully and grievously upon them.
Some cases indeed may exist in which the germs of pious thought and emotion were
implanted at a period so early and in a mode so gentle that the incipient processes of the
work have been very indistinct. But then, again, there are other cases, and these perhaps
numerous ones, in which the instrumentality, or a large proportion of it, is clear, is
defined, is not destined to be forgotten. But then the instrumentality is not so important
as the fact. What privileges, and at the same time what responsibilities are yours! My
176

young friends, whose estimate of piety has perhaps been imperfect, and whose habits, it
may be, have been utterly and entirely estranged from it, let me remind you solemnly
that without delay such piety is indeed requisite, absolutely requisite for you all.
Whatever else you may be without, you must not be destitute of religion. All possible
inducements, arising from all possible sources, implore you to become what others are,
and in entire and cordial dedication to give yourselves unto God.
II. From the notice of youthful piety possessed, we observe again that WE HAVE
YOUTHFUL PIETY TRIED. The religion of Daniel and his companions was
submitted to a very powerful and decisive test. You observe that their conspicuousness
in personal beauty and intellectual accomplishments obviously exposed them to a
powerful and a perilous snare. Moreover, their names, which were appellations
memorialising the true God, were to be exchanged for others, being the memorials of the
idol divinities of Babylon. To Daniel, signifying “God is my judge,” was assigned the
name of Belshazzar, meaning probably “the keeper of the treasures of Bel.” To Hananiah,
signifying “the grace of the Lord,” was assigned the name of Shadrach, meaning
probably “the inspiration of the sun.” To Mishael, signifying “he that is the powerful
God,” was assigned the name of Meshach, probably meaning “devoted to Shah,” the
Oriental Venus. And to Azariah, signifying “the Lord is a help,” was assigned ‘the name
of Abed-nego, meaning probably “the servant of the shining fire.” Thus it was that all
remembrance of their allegiance to the true God was to be obliterated; and they were to
be drawn into that great vortex of abomination which had well-nigh absorbed the world.
But amidst these artful and cruel appliances, appealing alike to their vanity, to their
sensuality, to their interests and to their fears, the piety of the heart stood firm; it
steadfastly resisted, and it triumphantly overcame. You must understand their
abstinence from the more dainty food not only as an act of self-control in regard to
appetite, and as a patriotic recognition of the affliction of Israel, they refusing to live in
indulgence while their brethren in captivity lived in privation and dishonour, but as a
solemn testimony against idolatry and against all compromise with it, and as a solemn
testimony on behalf of the true Jehovah, to whom they were dedicated, and by whom
they resolved unalterably to abide. Now, youthful piety is never without its difficulties;
and many instances occur to us in which it has been; as in the case before us, severely
and acutely tried. We may think of Joseph in the house of Potiphar, and of Moses in the
court of Pharoah, and of Samuel with the sons of Eli, and of Obadiah in the palace of
Ahab, and of Hezekiah under the tutelage of Ahaz. And, my young friends, to whom God
has given the inestimable boon of piety, you probably have already discovered the fact
indicated in your own history, or you will discover it soon. You may be tried by your own
indwelling passions, which, although subjugated by the grace which is in you, have not
yet done striving for the mystery: vanity, self-conceit, cupidity, anger, envy, deceit,
levity, animal passion and lust. You, may be tried by the hostility of others, on whom by
kindred or by civil position you are dependent—parents, guardians, masters, who hate
your religion, and who hate what they conceive to be the results of it; attempting,
therefore, in the ungenerous malice of domestic and social persecution, to rend you from
your faith and your hope. You may be tried by the fascinations of worldly amusement
and pleasure: the feast, the dance, the song. You may be tried by opportunities of secular
exaltation and honour—of rising high in the ranks of life, of attaining power, and of
associating on well-nigh equal terms with the magnates of the land. You may be tried by
strange and terrible combinations of evil influence, formed and applied by the great
adversary of souls, rushing in upon you mysteriously, impetuously, and suddenly, with
an agency almost overwhelming, that must utterly amaze and confound you. Oh! accept
177

the warning, and vigilantly and prayerfully prepare. Let us observe, in the next place,
that the trial of useful piety of which we now speak is pertained and arranged by God in
wisdom and in kindness. It might seem to some a harsh and an inopportune
dispensation; and questioning might be indulged, whether it would not be fair better to
wait and postpone the ordeal until he who has to endure it has become more matured in
character and more ample in red sources. The test never can be applied to one who has
what the Scriptures emphatically term “the root of the matter in him,” without the test
being found adapted to produce, and actually producing upon character results of the
most salutary and beneficial order. It is the discipline which fits the Christian labourer
for the field, the Christian pilgrim for the journey, the Christian mariner for the ocean,
the Christian combatant for the battle. It leads to acquaintance with self and all other
beings; it augments hatred of sin, it exercises patience, it strengthens faith, it quickens
action, it encourages prayer, it promotes dependence and reliance upon God. “Endure
hardness, as good soldiers of Jesus Christ.” “Fight the good fight of faith,” whereunto
you were called; and “lay hold upon eternal life”; and then but a little while, and He to
whom you have been loyal will crown you with the laurels of the conqueror.
III. Having illustrated youthful piety possessed, and youthful piety tried, we have to
observe YOUTHFUL PIETY HONOURED. You have heard how the experiment
proposed by Daniel in respect to the food for the prescribed period was blessed by God.
You are informed, further, how Daniel and his companions improved under the mental
tuition which was administered, though still retaining their religion, and so indicating to
us the fact that the pursuit of learning and science may be continued in perfect
subservience to the honour of religion, and positively for the advancement of its empire.
Additional instances of the honour which is attached to true piety have been preserved
to us in the sacred records. The cases which we have cited as instances of trial we can
also cite, and we aught to cite, as instances of honour. Remember the case of Joseph in
the house of Potiphar, resisting the temptation in the spirit of inquiry, “How shall I do
this great wickedness, and sin against God?” Then imprisoned by the revengeful lie of
the tempter, but emerging at length from his ignominy and his peril, and set on high to
be ruler over the land of Egypt. Remember the case of Moses. We can add to these
multitudes of cases more from the annals of the Christian church, and we have
memorials around us to this day, all proving that through piety is the pathway to
honour. “Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when
thou dost embrace her. She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of
glory shall she deliver to thee.” With regard to the honour which arises from youthful
piety, were we to classify it we might commend to you such arrangements as these.
There is honour from the world. It is a mistake to conclude, as it has been hastily
concluded, that genuine and decided piety is the parent of privation and disgrace in the
world. Humility, amiableness, diligence, integrity, purity, benevolence—these are to
men, under God, elements which; employed in the common affairs of life, constitute
them the architects of their own fortunes. And then again, there is honour from good
men. Those who are devoted to the high service of God in the Gospel of His Son are
welcomed cordially and gratefully by the churches of the living Jehovah. There is
honour, too, from God, in accordance with His ancient promise, “Them that honour Me
I will honour.” The honour that arises from the world and the honour that arises from
good men He ultimately communicates, and then He imparts further and most
delightful communications of His love.
IV. But then we have also to contemplate YOUTHFUL PIETY USEFUL. The decision
of the Hebrew brethren, besides being associated with their own personal exaltation,
178

was associated with many and momentous results of benefit and advantage to others.
We do not dwell upon what must have been the influence of their example in the sphere
in which they moved, but pass to the express and positive records. The immediate
recorded result of their decision was an impression made upon the mind of the potentate
they served with regard to the claims of the living and true God. We wish the young to
remember this one simple fact, that the piety of four young men produced an immense
effect upon the interests and destinies of the world. Now, we refer again to the instances
of piety which have been selected from the sacred volume as instances of usefulness.
They are all, as you must perceive, eminently so. We then proceed to affirm as a fact that
in the annals of the church youthful piety has generally been by far the most useful. Then
we may proceed further to state that God has given youthful piety for the express
purpose of being useful. Those who possess it possess it not as a privilege merely, but as
a responsibility—not as a blessing merely, but as an obligation. They possess it, that they
may work for Him whom they are called upon to serve, in the advancement of His
kingdom, and in the salvation of the souls of their fellow men. They are placed under the
government of principles, the legitimate operation of which invokes them constantly to
earnest and zealous effort, and which they must carry out into every department of
influence, in order that the law of their stewardship may be fulfilled. The opportunities
for usefulness on the part of the young are manifestly great. And then, again, the
prospects of usefulness are animating. No labour can be in vain; all work forms a part of
one grand system, impelling to a grand consummation, when the cause of God and truth
shall extend its dominion over the world. (James Parsons.)
The Character of Daniel
I. And what first presents itself to us is that HE WAS A MAN OF AN ABSTEMIOUS
LIFE, AND OF THE GREATEST TEMPERANCE. He knew that delicious
entertainments, however pleasant to the senses, often tend to hurt the stomach and
impair the constitution. When this is the case, why should the poor ever envy the rich, or
wish to change conditions? Is not health the first of temporal blessings, and what we had
better enjoy, than all the fine things at the tables of the great? Besides, luxury tends not
only to enfeeble the body but to enervate the mind. The more we indulge our sensual
appetites we weaken our intellectual powers. By pampering our taste it acquires new
strength and is apt to engage the whole soul. With what relish does an epicure talk of a
fine dish, or of rich wine, and with what pleasure does he partake of them! He enjoys
them more than the most rational, intellectual entertainment whatever. It deserves our
remark that some of the greatest prophets mentioned in Scripture were remarkable for
their humble and plain manner of life. It is recorded of John the Baptist, than whom
none greater was born of a woman, “that his daily food was locusts and wild honey”
(Mat_3:4). And it appears from the Gospel that our Lord and his disciples lived on the
simplest food. Barley loaves and small fishes were their common entertainment. And
why did the blessed Jesus prefer this manner of life when all the creatures were at his
command? Why, but to teach us temperance and sobriety, and to set our affections upon
things more substantial and valuable. Let us, therefore, be improving our minds in the
knowledge of Christ, and in getting them enriched with Divine grace. The greater
proficiency we make in the knowledge of Christ the more indifferent we will become
about sensual enjoyments.
II. In the second place, concerning the prophet Daniel, THAT HE WAS RENOWNED
179

FOR KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM ABOVE ALL THE WISE MEN OF
BABYLON. To have his mind enlightened in the knowledge of God, and his memory
stored with Divine truth, were the great objects which engaged his attention, Whilst
others were amusing themselves with empty speculations, and employed about trifles,
he was contemplating Divine things, and was chiefly conversant with the living oracles of
the living God. Was it the wisdom which is from above with which he was chiefly
conversant? Do we not approve his taste, and admire his choice? Human science is at
best extremely imperfect, and may be called a mixture of error and of folly; but the
knowledge of God and His blessed Son is truth itself, and the fruit of it eternal life.
III. Let me remark, in the third place, concerning Daniel, that HE WAS THE
ROOTED ENEMY OF IDOLATRY, AND A SINCERE WORSHIPPER OF THE
ONE TRUE AND LIVING GOD. Though he lived in the midst of the heathen, he kept
himself pure from their abominations and despised their idols. Let our closets bear
witness for us how regular we are in our devotions! God forbid that they should appear
against us in judgment!
IV. I would remark, in the fourth place, concerning Daniel, that HE WAS A
FAITHFUL SERVANT TO HIS PRINCE. Would to God that all in such elevated
stations were men of similar worth!
V. I remark, in the fifth place, concerning Daniel, THAT HE DARED TO DECLARE
THE TRUTH TO THOSE PRINCES TO WHOM HE DELIVERED IT,
HOWEVER MORTIFYING AND DISAGREEABLE TO THEM. Nebuchadnezzar
had incurred the displeasure of the Almighty by his pride and arrogance, and it was
revealed to him in a dream that he should be deprived of his kingdom, divested of his
reason, and reduced to the humbling situation of eating grass and straw like an ox. The
king, anxious to know the meaning of the vision, sent for Daniel to explain it, when the
prophet told him the awful judgments which awaited him, and pressed upon him the
duties of repentance and charity. It argued not a little fortitude to inform an arbitrary
prince of the mean and despicable situation to which he was to be reduced, and to be put
upon a level with the brutes. But Daniel dreaded not the king’s resentment, because he
trusted in God. Truth was too important to be concealed, even from a despotic monarch.
We, too, are sometimes obliged to preach disagreeable truths; but fidelity to our great
Master, and to the souls of men, requires it. We must declare the whole counsel of God,
in whatever manner it may be taken.
VI. I remark, in the first place, concerning Daniel, THAT PROVIDENCE
INTERPOSED IN A VERY REMARKABLE MANNER WHEN HIS LIFE WAS
IN IMMINENT DANGER.
1. From this subject I observe that those who fear God will be taken notice of and
respected in the world.
2. I observe that by faithfully serving God we shall most effectually recommend Him
to others. (D. Johnston, D.D.)
The Personality of Daniel
1. So the first characteristic of Daniel was his fidelity to religious convictions. Piety,
moral integrity, and the favour of God, he preferred to the pleasures and prizes of
180

life.
2. Another trait of Daniel’s was judgment, so extraordinary as to make his name
proverbial for that quality. His tact, his diplomatic skill, is admirable. Never once
does he forget himself. No matter what dilemmas surround him, he is always the
judicious, the well-balanced, the equipoised man.
3. But the most pleasing aspect of the personality of Daniel was his humility. (J. B.
Remensnyder.)
Religious Constancy
His conduct through life was all in beautiful accordance with his first recorded action.
Afar his example, let us cultivate constancy, as well as decision of religious character.
Dot not our religion be like a torrent filled by the falling of a water-spout, or by the
bursting of a thunder-cloud, whose waters for a time overflow, and carry all before them,
but anon its channel is dry, and the only memorial of its former fulness is the sediment it
has left behind. Let our religion be like a pure stream, fed from some living fountain,
whose waters flow daily to the sea, yet flow each succeeding day in undiminished
fulness. (J. White.)
Daniel’s Continuance a Remarkable Testimony to His Worth
Dr. Pusey remarks: “Simple words, but what a volume of tried faithfulness is unrolled by
them!” Amid all the intrigues indigenous at all times in dynasties of Oriental despotism,
amid all the envy towards a foreign captive in high office as a king’s councillor, amid all
the trouble incidental to the insanity of the King and the murder of two of his successors,
in that whole critical period for his people, Daniel continued. (F. W. Farrar, D.D.).
9 Now God had caused the official to show favor
and compassion to Daniel,
BARNES, "Now God had brought Daniel into favor - Compare Gen_39:21;
Pro_16:7. By what means this had been done is not mentioned. It may be presumed,
however, that it was by the attractiveness of his person and manners, and by the
evidence of promising talent which he had evinced. Whatever were the means, however,
two things are worthy of notice:
(1) The effect of this on the subsequent fortunes of Daniel. It was to him a great
181

advantage, that by the friendship of this man he was enabled to carry out the purposes of
temperance and religion which he had formed, without coming in conflict with those
who were in power.
(2) God was the author of the favor which was thus shown to Daniel. It was by a
controlling influence which he exerted, that this result had been secured, and Daniel
traced it directly to him. We may hence learn that the favor of others toward us is to be
traced to the hand of God, and if we are prospered in the world, and are permitted to
enjoy the friendship of those who have it in their power to benefit us, though it may be
on account of our personal qualifications, we should learn to attribute it all to God.
There would have been great reason to apprehend beforehand, that the refusal of Daniel
and his companions to partake of the food prepared for them would have been construed
as an affront offered to the king, especially if it was understood to be on the ground that
they regarded it as “defilement” or “pollution” to partake of it; but God overruled it all so
as to secure the favor of those in power.
GILL, "Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the
prince of the eunuchs. Even before this request was made; as he gave to Joseph
favour in the sight of Potiphar, and of the keeper of the prison; for whatever favour is
shown to good men by bad men is from the Lord; for though Daniel's ingenuity, the
goodness of his temper, and his modest behaviour, his excellent natural parts, and other
accomplishments, might be a means of ingratiating him into the favour of this officer;
yet all would have been insufficient to recommend him to him, or to overcome his
prejudices on account of religion, if the Lord had not wrought upon his heart to show
kindness and tenderness to him; which appeared not only by his past usage of him; but,
when he presented his supplication to him, he did not put on a stern countenance, and
answer him roughly, and threaten him if he did not comply with the king's orders; but in
a mild and gentle manner, as follows:
JAMISON, "God ... brought Daniel into favour — The favor of others towards
the godly is the doing of God. So in Joseph’s case (Gen_39:21). Especially towards Israel
(Psa_106:46; compare Pro_16:7).
ELLICOTT, " (9) Into favour.—The close correspondence between Daniel and
Joseph has been frequently remarked. Each finds favour with his master, and
afterwards with a foreign monarch. The grace of God enables each to overcome the
temptations into which his circumstances lead him. The acute natural faculties of
each are miraculously increased by God; and, lastly, each is sent into a foreign land
to comfort exiled Israel. (See Genesis 39:21; 1 Kings 8:50; Nehemiah 1:11; Psalms
106:46.) No less striking is the resemblance of Nebuchadnezzar to Pharaoh.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:9 Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with
the prince of the eunuchs.
Ver. 9. Now God had brought Daniel into favour.] God is never wanting to the truly
conscientious. Let them choose rather to offend all the world than to do things
sinful, and they shall be sure of good success. The prince of the eunuchs dared not
182

yield to Daniel’s request, but he connived at the steward’s yieldance.
POOLE, " This is a special act of God’s favour to his afflicted people, to give them
any favour in the eyes of them that do afflict them; Psalms 106:46,
He made them to be pitied of those that carried them captive. This is the effect of
sincere holiness and innocence, Proverbs 16:7. This is the effect of prayer, 1 Kings
8:50. This is the effect of the special presence of God, Genesis 39:3,4,21.
WHEDON, "Verses 9-16
9-16. The Rab-saris objected to the proposed change of diet — to pulse (vegetables)
and water — out of “favor and compassion” for Daniel (Daniel 1:9, R.V.), and for
fear of his own life if the boys should attract attention by their inferior appearance
and it should thus be discovered that the royal orders concerning food had been
disobeyed; but finally his assistant (Daniel 1:11) consented to a ten days’
experiment, which was so successful that all objections were removed. Melzar
(Hebrews, the Melzar) is probably not a proper name but an official title: “steward”
(R.V.) or “chief butler” (Haugh) or “pedagogue’’ (Hitzig). Lenormant thinks it
corresponds to the Amil-ussur, or “treasurer,” an official prominent at the Assyrian
court; but later Assyriologists have derived it from mazzar, “overseer” or
“guardian.”
BENSON, "Daniel 1:9. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love,
&c. — Hebrew, ‫,לרחמים‬ compassionate regard, or, bowels of compassion, which is
also the sense of the same word, Daniel 2:18 . It is a very strong expression, and
denotes a kind of parental compassion, like that of St. Paul in his epistle to
Philemon, Daniel 1:12, Receive him that is mine own bowels. We see a like instance
of God’s care over Joseph, (Genesis 39:21,) when he was a poor captive, a prisoner,
and destitute of all friends to support or comfort him: see Psalms 106:46, where, as
here, the favour of men toward God’s people is attributed to his overruling and
gracious providence over them. And, considering what important consequences
frequently follow upon it, we may, with great reason, acknowledge the hand of God
in it, whenever it takes place.
COKE, "Daniel 1:9. Tender love— ‫רחמים‬ rachamim, Bowels of compassion. It has a
like sense also at ch. Daniel 2:18. The word is of very strong import, and denotes a
kind of parental compassion. St. Paul has an expression somewhat like it, if not
stronger, in his epistle to Philemon, Daniel 1:12. "Receive him, that is mine own
bowels." And we read of bowels of mercies, &c.
PETT, "Verse 9
‘Now God made Daniel to be viewed with favour and compassion in the sight of the
prince over the palace servants.’
183

God was to be seen as present and active in what was happening. It was He Who
won Daniel favour with this great prince.
Notice the use of ‘God’ with the article, and not Yahweh (compare also ‘Lord’ in
Daniel 1:2 and see Daniel 2:47), because Daniel was in a foreign country, a typical
Pentateuchal usage. Here He was ‘the God of Heaven’, supreme over all. It was not
covenant country.
PULPIT, "Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince
of the eunuchs. The word here translated "tender love" really means "bowels," and
then "mercy" or "compassion." Hence the Apostle Paul (Philippians 2:1) combines
the two meanings, "If there be any bowels and mercies." The Revised Version is
here to be preferred, "favour and compassion,' as the Authorized exaggerates the
affection the prince of the eunuchs had for Daniel.£ The versions in this verse do not
afford any marked variations. The Septuagint has κύριος, "Lord," usually
employed to translate ‫,יהוה‬ Jehovah, instead of θεός ( ‫.)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," favour," in the Septuagint, which is a weak
rendering; Theodotion renders οἰκτιρμόν, which may be regarded as practically
equivalent to our Revised Version. While the third verse speaks of the "chief" ( ‫ב‬ ַ‫ר‬ )
of the eunuchs, a Babylonian and Assyrian title, the more usual Hebrew ‫ר‬ ַ‫שׂ‬ replaces
it in this verse and in that which precedes it. From this root the Assyrian and
Babylonian word for "king," sat or sarru, was derived, while tab fell on evil days.
Among the later Jews it became equivalent to ,mr doctors of divinity. Before the
word for "God" (Elohim) there is the article. So far as the form stands, it might be
plural, and therefore be capable of being translated "the gods," but the verb being
singular renders that translation impossible. The affection with which the chief of
the eunuchs regarded Daniel is notified to us as the result of God's goodness, who
had thus given him favour in the eyes of him set over him. The Hebrew never failed
to recognize, in his devouter moments, that the hearts of all men are in the hands of
God; that by him kings reign and princes decree wisdom.
10 but the official told Daniel, “I am afraid of my
lord the king, who has assigned your[c] food and
drink. Why should he see you looking worse than
the other young men your age? The king would
then have my head because of you.”
184

BARNES, "And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord
the king - He was apprehensive that if Daniel appeared less healthful, or cheerful, or
beautiful, than it was supposed he would under the prescribed mode of life, it would be
construed as disobedience of the commands of the king on his part, and that it would be
inferred that the wan and emaciated appearance of Daniel was caused by the fact that
the food which had been ordered had not been furnished, but had been embezzled by the
officer who had it in charge. We have only to remember the strict and arbitrary nature of
Oriental monarchies to see that there were just grounds for the apprehensions here
expressed.
For why should he see your faces worse liking - Margin, “sadder.” The Hebrew
word (‫זעפים‬ zo‛ăpı̂ym) means, properly, angry; and then morose, gloomy, sad. The
primary idea seems to be, that of “any” painful, or unpleasant emotion of the mind
which depicts itself on the countenance - whether anger, sorrow, envy, lowness of spirits,
etc. Greek, σκυθρωπὰ skuthrōpa - stern, gloomy, sad, Mat_6:16; Luk_24:17. Here the
reference is not to the expression of angry feelings in the countenance, but to the
countenance as fallen away by fasting, or poor living. “Than the children.” The youths, or
young men. The same word is here used which occurs in Dan_1:4. Compare the note at
that verse.
Which are of your sort - Margin, “term,” or “continuance.” The Hebrew word here
used (‫גיל‬ gı̂yl) means, properly, a circle, or circuit; hence an age, and then the men of an
age, a generation. - “Gesenius.” The word is not used, however, in the Scriptures
elsewhere in this sense. Elsewhere it is rendered “joy,” or “rejoicing,” Job_3:22; Psa_
43:4; Psa_45:15; Psa_65:12; Pro_23:24; Isa_16:10; Isa_35:2; Isa_65:18; Jer_48:33;
Hos_9:1; Joe_1:16. This meaning it has from the usual sense of the verb (‫גיל‬ gı̂yl) “to
exult,” or “rejoice.” The verb properly means, to move in a circle; then to “dance” in a
circle; and then to exult or rejoice. The word “circle,” as often used now to denote those
of a certain class, rank, or character, would accurately express the sense here. Thus we
speak of those in the “religious” circles, in the social circles, etc. The reference here is to
those of the same class with Daniel; to wit, in the arrangements made for presenting
them before the king. Greek, συνήλικα ὑμῶν sunēlika humōn, of your age.
Then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king - As if he had
disregarded the orders given him, or had embezzled what had been provided for these
youths, and had furnished them with inferior fare. In the arbitrary courts of the East,
nothing would be more natural than that such an apparent failure in the performance of
what was enjoined would peril his life. The word used here, and rendered “make me
endanger” - ‫חוב‬ chûb - occurs nowhere else in the Bible. It means, in Piel, to make
guilty; to cause to forfeit. Greek, καταδικάσητε katadikasēte - you will condemn, or cause
me to be condemned.
GILL, "And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the
185

king,.... This he said, not as refusing and denying the request of Daniel; but as hesitating
about it, divided in his own mind, between love and tenderness to Daniel, and fear of the
king: it is as if he should say, I could freely out of respect to you grant you your request;
were it not for duty to my lord the king, reverence of him, and especially fear of his wrath
and displeasure: who hath appointed your meat and your drink; has ordered it himself,
both the quality and quantity, both what and how much; whose will is his law, and
cannot be resisted, but must be obeyed; and though I should indulge you in this matter,
and it may be concealed for a while, yet it cannot be always a secret, your countenance
will betray it:
for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of
your sort? than the other Jewish youths that were selected at the same time, and
brought up in the same manner, and for the same ends. Some (x) render it, "than the
children of your captivity"; who were taken and brought captive to Babylon when they
were; but the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, render it, "than
those of the same age" (y); their contemporaries, that were born about the same time,
and brought up together in the same way: or, than those of your own nation? as some (z)
translate it: and now, when they should be presented together to the king, the difference
would be observable; Daniel and his companions would appear of a pale complexion, of
thin and meagre looks, and dark dismal countenances, like persons angry, fretful, and
troubled; as the word signifies (a); when their contemporaries would appear fat and
plump, cheerful and pleasant; which would naturally lead into an inquiry of the reason
of this difference:
then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king; I shall commit a trespass,
of which I shall be found guilty, and be condemned to die, and lose my head for it; and
now, as if he should say, I leave it with you; can you desire me to expose myself to so
much danger? I would willingly grant your favour, but my life is at stake.
HENRY 10-15, "III. That God wonderfully owned him herein. When Daniel
requested that he might have none of the king's meat or wine set before him the prince
of the eunuchs objected that, if he and his fellows were not found in as good case as any
of their companions, he should be in danger of having anger and of losing his head,
Dan_1:10. Daniel, to satisfy him that there would be no danger of any bad consequence,
desires the matter might be put to a trial. He applies himself further to the under-officer,
Melzar, or the steward: “Prove us for ten days; during that time let us have nothing but
pulse to eat, nothing but herbs and fruits, or parched peas or lentils, and nothing but
water to drink, and see how we can live upon that, and proceed accordingly,” Dan_1:13.
People will not believe the benefit of abstemiousness and a spare diet, nor how much it
contributes to the health of the body, unless they try it. Trial was accordingly made.
Daniel and his fellows lived for ten days upon pulse and water, hard fare for young men
of genteel extraction and education, and which one would rather expect they should have
indented against than petitioned for; but at the end of the ten days they were compared
with the other children, and were found fairer and fatter in flesh, of a more healthful
look and better complexion, than all those who did eat the portion of the king's meat,
Dan_1:15. This was in part a natural effect of their temperance, but it must be ascribed
to the special blessing of God, which will make a little to go a great way, a dinner of herbs
better than a stalled ox. By this it appears that man lives not by bread alone; pulse and
water shall be the most nourishing food if God speak the word. See what it is to keep
186

ourselves pure from the pollutions of sin; it is the way to have that comfort and
satisfaction which will be health to the navel and marrow to the bones, while the
pleasures of sin are rottenness to the bones.
JAMISON, "worse liking — looking less healthy.
your sort — of your age, or class; literally, “circle.”
endanger my head — An arbitrary Oriental despot could, in a fit of wrath at his
orders having been disobeyed, command the offender to be instantly decapitated.
CALVIN, "Daniel suffers a repulse from the prefect; and truly, as I have lately
remarked, his humanity is not praised through his listening to Daniel’s wish and
prayer; but through his burying in silence whatever might have brought him into
difficulties. And his friendship appears in this; for although he denies his request,
yet he does so mildly and civilly, as if he had said he would willingly grant it unless
he had feared the king’s anger. This, therefore, is the meaning, — the prefect,
though he did not dare to comply with Daniel’s request, yet treated both him and his
companions kindly by not endangering their lives. He says, — he was afraid of the
king who had ordered the food He is not to be blamed as if he feared man more than
the living God, for he could not have any knowledge of God. Although he may have
been persuaded that Daniel made his request in the earnest, pursuit of piety, yet he
did not think himself authorized to comply; for he thought the Jews had their
peculiar method of worship, but meanwhile he clung entirely to the religion of
Babylon. Just as many profane persons now think us quite right in casting away
superstitions, but yet they slumber in this error, — it is lawful for themselves to live
in the ancient manner, since they were so brought up and instructed by their
forefathers. Hence they use rites which they allow to be disapproved by us. So also
this prefect might feel rightly concerning Daniel and his associates; at the same time
he was not so touched by them as to desire to learn the difference between the two
religions. Therefore he simply excuses himself, as not being at liberty to grant
Daniel’s request, since this would endanger his own head with the king. It now
follows —
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:10 And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord
the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your
faces worse liking than the children which [are] of your sort? then shall ye make
[me] endanger my head to the king.
Ver. 10. I fear my lord the king.] This made him stand off as he did, in pretence at
least. Tertullian taxeth the heathens for this, quod maiore formidine Caesarem
observarent quam ipsum de Olympo Iovem, that they feared Caesar more than they
did their greatest god Jupiter. But he who truly feareth God, needeth not fear any
else. [Acts 4:19]
BENSON, "Daniel 1:10. The prince of the eunuchs said, I fear my lord the king —
187

He objects that he should incur the king’s displeasure, and bring his life into
danger, if he complied with Daniel’s request; the king having appointed what sort of
meat and drink Daniel and his young friends should use, and having given no one
authority to change it for any other, especially for a kind less calculated to preserve
their health, and increase the strength and vigour of their constitutions, and beauty
of their appearance. For why should he see your faces worse liking — Hebrew,
‫,זעפים‬ σκυθρωπα, as the LXX. render it, more sad and dejected, or meager and lean;
than the children which are of your sort — Or, which are of your age, as the
Hebrew word ‫גיל‬ signifies in the Arabic, and as the LXX. understand it. Probably,
however, the word may include the condition also.
PETT, "Verse 10
‘And the prince of the palace servants said to Daniel, “I am afraid of my lord, the
king, who has appointed your food and drink. For why should he see your faces as
worse likeable (more gloomy) than the youths who are of your own age. In that you
would put it on my head before the king.”
The prince was quite frank with him. It put him in a dilemma. Much as he might
wish to, he dared not do as Daniel asked, or else he himself would be punished and
even possibly his own head might be forfeit. To him ‘good eating and drinking’ were
the secret of health. It had worked before. Perhaps it was he in fact who referred
them to the steward who had immediate watch over the youths and was probably
highly experienced at dealing with such problems.
PULPIT, "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; ‫ל‬ַ‫כ‬ֲ‫מא‬ (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 ‫א‬ ָ‫מ‬ְ‫יל‬ ִ‫ד‬ (deelma) (Onkelos, Genesis
3:3). The Peshitta rendering here is dalma. The construction occurs in So Daniel 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" (2 Chronicles 26:19). It is to be noted that the Septuagint here
has two renderings, probably a case of "doublet." The first διατετραμμένα may
refer to the mental confusion or sadness that they might be in if on account of their
188

poor nourishment they were unable to answer the king's questions; the second,
ἀσθενῆ, "weak," may refer to the body: σκυθρωπὰ is Theodotion's rendering,
which may be rendered "scowling" (it is used along with λυπούμενον, Plato,
'Syrup.'). The Peshitta has m'karan, "ashamed;" that they would feel shame were
they much inferior in looks or acquirements to their neighbours would be natural.
The intimate connection between food and good looks and good mental qualities is
well known as one much held, especially in ancient days. Than the children of your
sort. Kegilkem; this word, ‫ל‬ ִ‫ג‬ or ‫ל‬ִ‫ַי‬‫גּ‬, 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;" ‫ָילו‬‫נ‬ ‫ן‬ֶ‫,בּ‬ "son of his star"—born under
the same constellation, contemporary. The Syriac paraphrases the word, and
renders "of your year." Theodotion renders συνήλικα, "of like age." When we turn
to the Septuagint, we find evidence either that the word was not there at all, or that
it was misunderstood; the Septuagint rendering is "than the stranger ( ἀλλογενῶν)
youths brought up with you ( συντρεφομένους)." This is an evident case of doublet.
The first that stands in the Greek is συντρεφομένους: this represents a various
reading, ‫ֶם‬‫כּ‬ ְ‫תּ‬ ִ‫א‬ ‫לוּ‬ ְ‫ָד‬‫גּ‬ (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 ‫ם‬ֶ‫ח‬ ְ‫ַב‬‫יּ‬ ִ‫ח‬ְ‫י‬ (yeḥigyabetem)." 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, veḥiyyabti, "and I shall endanger," and "my
neck," reading, instead of "my head," possibly ‫י‬ ִ‫ָאר‬‫וּ‬ַ‫צ‬ (tzavvari) or ‫י‬ ִ‫תּ‬ ְ‫ק‬ ַ‫ר‬ ְ‫פ‬ ַ‫מ‬
(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. 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
189

circumstances is full of naturalness. We have, on the one hand, the eager entreaty of
the Hebrew youth; the kindly look of the prince, willing to grant anything he
possibly can to his favourite, yet hindered by fear for himself, and at the same time a
desire that Daniel, his favourite, should stand well with the king. The chief of the
eunuchs knew that personal good looks were an important matter with
Nebuchadnezzar. If they were badly nourished, these Hebrew youths would be
handicapped in their examination before the king. But more, shame at their own
appearance would disturb them mentally, even if they were able to study as well on
this plain food they desired. If the failure were egregious, then investigation might
be demanded, and then the fact that he had transgressed the orders of the king
would be a serious 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 Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief
official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael and Azariah,
BARNES, "Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs
had set over Daniel ... - Margin, or, the “steward.” It is not easy to determine whether
the word here used (‫מלצר‬ meltsâr) is to be regarded as a proper name, or the name of
an office. It occurs nowhere else, except in Dan_1:16, applied to the same person.
Gesenius regards it as denoting the name of an office in the Babylonian court - master of
the wine, chief butler. Others regard it as meaning a treasurer. The word is still in use in
Persia. The Vulgate renders it as a proper name - Malasar; and so the Syriac - Meshitzar;
and so the Greek - Ἀμελσὰδ Amelsad. The use of the article in the word (‫המלצר‬
190

hameltsâr) would seem to imply that it denoted the name of an “office,” and nothing
would be more probable than that the actual furnishing of the daily portion of food
would be entrusted to a steward, or to some incumbent of an office inferior to that
sustained by Ashpenaz, Dan_1:3.
CLARKE, "Then said Daniel to Melzar - Melzar was an officer under Ashpenaz,
whose office it was to attend to the food, clothing, etc., of these royal captives. Others
think ‫מלצר‬ meltsar, master of the inn or hotel, the name of an office.
GILL, "Then said Daniel to Melzar,.... The prince of the eunuchs, having put off
Daniel with the above answer, seems to have left him; or, however, Daniel, finding he
could not obtain of him what he sought for, applies to Melzar, a subordinate officer,
whom he hoped to find more pliable; and it may be that Ashpenaz might suggest it to
him to apply to this person, and signify that if he could prevail upon him to give him
other food instead of the king's; who might be under a temptation from profit, being a
meaner officer; he for his part would wink at it, so be it he came not into any danger
himself; however, be it as it will, Daniel did apply to this man, whose name was Melzar,
for so most take it to be the proper name of a man; which, according to Hillerus (b),
signifies one "in full splendour". Josephus calls (c) him Aschanes; though some think it
is the name of an office, as a steward, or the like; but whether it is expressive of his
name, or his office, he is described as one
whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah; to give them their food at proper time.
JAMISON, "Melzar — rather, the steward, or chief butler, entrusted by Ashpenaz
with furnishing the daily portion to the youths [Gesenius]. The word is still in use in
Persia.
CALVIN, Since Daniel understood from the answer of the prefect that he could not
obtain his wish, he now addresses his servant. For the prefect had many servants
under him, according to the custom of important stewardships. Most probably the
steward’s duty was similar to that of the Chief Steward of the Household, (93) as it
exists at this time in France. Daniel and his companions were under the care of one
of these servants; Daniel descends to this remedy and obtains his wish, though, as
we shall see, not without some artifice. And here Daniel’s singular constancy is
observable, who after trying the matter once in vain, did not cease to pursue the
same object It is a clear and serious proof of our faith, when we are not fatigued
when anything adverse occurs, and never consider the way closed against us. Then
if we do not retrace our steps, but try all ways, we truly show the root of piety fixed
in our hearts. It might have seemed excusable in Daniel, after he had met with his
first repulse; for who would not have said he had discharged his duty, and that an
obstacle had prevailed over him! But; since he did not prevail with the chief prefect,
191

he goes to his servant. Thus voluntarily to incur risk was the result of no common
prudence. For this servant could not make the same objection, as we have just heard
the prefect did. Without doubt he had heard of Daniel’s request, and of his repulse
and denial; hence Daniel is beforehand with him, and shows how the servant may
comply without the slightest danger; as if he had said, — We, indeed, did not obtain
our wish from the prefect because he was afraid of his life, but I have now thought
of a new scheme by which you may both gratify us and yet not become chargeable
with any crime, as the whole matter will be unknown. Try thy servants, therefore,
for ten days, and prove them; let nothing but pulse be given us to eat and water to
drink If after that time our faces are fresh and plump, no suspicion will attach to
time, and no one will be persuaded that we are not treated delicately according to
the king’s commandment. Since, then, this proof will be sufficiently safe for thee,
and cautious enough for us both, there is no reason why you should reject our
prayers. Besides, without the slightest doubt, when Daniel brought this forward, he
was directed by God’s Spirit to this act of prudence, and was also impelled to make
this request. By the singular gift of the Holy Spirit Daniel invented this method of
bending the mind of the servant under whose care he was placed. We must hold,
then, that this was not spoken rashly or of his own will, but by the instinct of the
Holy Spirit. It would not have been duty but rashness, if Daniel had been the author
of this plan, and had not been assured by the Lord of its prosperous issue. Without
doubt he had some secret revelation on the subject; and if the servant allowed him
and His associates to feed on pulse, it was a happy answer to his prayers. Hence, I
say, he would not have spoken thus, except under the guidance and command of the
Spirit. And this is worthy of notice, since we often permit ourselves to do many
things which turn out badly, because we are carried away by the mere feelings of
the flesh, and do not consider what is pleasing to God. It is not surprising, then,
when men indulge in various expectations, if they feel themselves deceived at last,
since every one occasionally imposes upon himself by foolish hopes, and thus
frustrates his designs. Indeed, it is not our province to promise ourselves any
success. Hence let us notice how Daniel had not undertaken or approached the
present business with any foolish zeal; and did not speak without due consideration,
but was assured of the event by the Spirit of God.
But he says, let pulse be put before us to eat, and water to drink We see, then, that
the foul youths did not abstain from the royal food for fear of pollution; for there
was no law to prevent any one drinking wine, except the Nazarites, (Numbers 6:2,)
and they might eat of any kind of flesh, of which there was abundance at the royal
table. Whence then sprang this scrupulousness? because, as we said yesterday,
Daniel was unwilling to accustom himself to the delicacies of the palace, which
would cause him to become degenerate. He wished, therefore, to nourish his body
not only frugally, but abstemiously, and not to indulge in these tastes; for although
he was raised to the highest honors, he was always the same as if still among the
most wretched captives. There is no occasion for seeking other reasons for this
abstinence of Daniel’s. For he might have fed on ordinary bread and other less
delicate food; but he was content with pulse, and was continually lamenting and
nourishing in his mind the remembrance of his country, of which he would have
192

been directly forgetful if he had been plunged into those luxuries of the palace. It
follows —
ELLICOTT, " (11) Melzar.—(See Introduction, § VI.) Not a proper name
(Hamelsar), but a cellarman. The appeal of Daniel to the chief chamberlain having
proved insufficient, he applies to the man with whom he was on more familiar
terms.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:11 Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs
had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
Ver. 11. Then said Daniel to Melzar.] Or, To the steward, alimentator, the purveyor
for the pages of honour. The prince of the eunuchs might haply give him a hint to go
to this Melzar, who might do it with less danger.
BENSON, "Daniel 1:11-12. Then said Daniel, Prove thy servants, I beseech, thee —
To satisfy him that there would be no danger of any ill consequence, Daniel desires
the matter might be put to a trial for ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat —
The word ‫,הזרעים‬ here used, seems to signify fruits or vegetables; or rather,
according to the Greek interpreter, seeds in general. At the 16th verse the word is
‫,זרענים‬ seeds, and some MSS. read it so in this verse. The sense is doubtless the same
in both places, and perhaps may be well enough expressed by that kind of
nourishing seed called pulse. The LXX. render it, απο των σπερματων, of seeds.
“Pliny, in his Natural History, p. 380, mentions a kind of pulse, that is said to affect
the temper of those that feed upon it, and to produce equanimity and gentleness.
Various sorts of grain were dried and prepared for food by the people of the East, as
wheat, barley, rice, and pulse. Of some of these was the parched corn, mentioned in
Scripture, and the chief food of the labourers and poorer sort of people; and
perhaps something of this kind of preparation might have been the choice of
Daniel.” — Wintle.
PETT, "Verses 11-13
‘The Daniel said to the steward whom the prince of the chief officers had appointed
over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah “Put your servants to the test, I pray
you, for ten days, and let them give us vegetables (‘what is sown’) to eat and water
to drink, then let our faces be looked at before you, and the faces of the youths who
eat of the king’s food. And deal with your servants in accordance with what you
see.’
Having been discouraged by the prince Daniel proposed a test to the steward
(supervisor, guard) who had immediate charge over them. Let them for a period of a
few days (‘ten’ often means ‘a number of’) be given vegetables and grain (compare
Isaiah 61:11 - ‘things sown’) to eat, and water to drink, and then let them be
compared with the other youths. Then they would be happy to stand by any decision
193

made. This was not a question of a vegetarian diet, but of a diet which would not
include anything ritually ‘unclean’, and which would not be from the king’s table,
thus having been dedicated to the gods. The steward might well be willing for such a
short trial, which could be stopped at any time, because, unlike the more important
prince, he could keep his eye on things all the time, and it may be that he had some
sympathy with their position. It could do little harm. (Underlings are often willing to
be more flexible than those with direct responsibility. They can pass the buck).
PULPIT, "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 ( ‫ָה‬‫נּ‬ ִ‫מ‬ ) is read ‫ָה‬‫נּ‬ֻ‫מ‬ (munnah),
"set overse" The Peshitta reads instead of "Melzar,' in this verse, "Mashitzar" (but
see verse 16). This confirms the idea that this is a proper name, not an official title.
If the assumption of the Septuagint is correct, then the name in the Massoretic text
ought to be Hammelzar. This might indicate the name to be Amil-Assur,
corresponding to Amil-Merodach. Theodotion renders the name ἀμέλσαδ. While a
good deal can be said for making "Melzar" or "Ham-melzar" a proper name,
something may also be said for the idea which has gained ground that "Melzar,"
since it has the article before it, is the name of an official. Lenormant makes the
name Amil-Ussur. Such, at any rate, is the name of an official in the court of a
Ninevite king; it is supposed to mean "steward," but it may be doubted if this is the
exact equivalent of such an official as the one here referred to. Hitzig suggests
παιδαγωγός, 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
194

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 “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us
nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink.
BARNES, "Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days - A period which
would indicate the probable result of the entire experiment. If during that period there
were no indications of diminished health, beauty, or vigour, it would not be unfair to
presume that the experiment in behalf of temperance would be successful, and it would
not be improper then to ask that it might be continued longer.
And let them give us pulse to eat - Margin, “of pulse that we may eat.” Hebrew,
“Let them give us of pulse, and we will eat.” The word “pulse” with us means leguminous
plants with thin seeds; that is, plants with a pericarp, or seed-vessel, of two valves,
having the seeds fixed to one suture only. In popular language the “legume” is called a
“pod;” as a “pea-pod,” or “bean-pod,” and the word is commonly applied to peas or
beans. The Hebrew word (‫זרעים‬ zēro‛ı̂ym) would properly have reference to seeds of any
kind - from ‫זרע‬ zâra‛, to disperse, to scatter seed, to sow. Then it would refer to plants
that bear seed, of all kinds, and would be by no means limited to pulse - as pease or
beans. It is rendered by Gesenius, “seed-herbs, greens, vegetables; i. e., vegetable food,
such as was eaten in half-fast, opposed to meats and the more delicate kinds of food.”
The word occurs only here and in Dan_1:16. It is rendered in the Vulgate, “legumina;”
and in the Greek, ἀπὸ τῶν σπερμάτων apo tōn spermatōn - “from seeds.” It is not a proper
construction to limit this to “pulse,” or to suppose that Daniel desired to live solely on
pease or beans; but the fair interpretation is to apply it to what grows up from “seeds” -
such, probably, as would be sown in a garden, or, as we would now express it, “vegetable
diet.” It was designed as an experiment - and was a very interesting one - to show the
legitimate effect of such a diet in promoting beauty and health, and the result is worthy
of special notice as contrasted with a more luxurious mode of life.
And water to drink - This, also, was a most interesting and important experiment,
to show that wine was not necessary to produce healthfulness of appearance, or manly
strength and beauty. It was an experiment to illustrate the effect of “cold water” as a
beverage, made by an interesting group of young men, when surrounded by great
temptations, and is, therefore, worthy of particular attention.
195

CLARKE, "Give us pulse to eat - ‫הזרעים‬ hazzeraim, seeds or grain, such as barley,
wheat, rye, and peas, etc. Though a vegetable diet might have produced that healthiness
of the system in general, and of the countenance particularly, as mentioned here; yet we
are to understand that there was an especial blessing of God in this, because this spare
diet was taken on a religious account.
GILL, "Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days, Here Daniel manifestly
includes his companions, and makes his request for himself and them; desiring that they
might be tried ten days with different sort of food and drink, and see whether any
alteration would be made in them for the worse; which was a proper time for such a
trial; for in that time it might be reasonably supposed that their food, if it had any bad
effect on them, would appear. Saadiah makes these ten days to be the days between the
first day of the year and the day of atonement; but without any foundation:
and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink; instead of the king's meat,
pulse, beans, pease, vetches, lentiles, rice, millet, and the like. The word (d) used
signifies anything sown, all kinds of roots, herbs, and fruits; and, instead of wine, water;
meat and drink, it may be thought, that persons of such birth and education had not
been used to; and yet they preferred these to the king's dainties, by eating and drinking
of which their consciences would be in danger of being defiled.
JAMISON, "pulse — The Hebrew expresses any vegetable grown from seeds, that is,
vegetable food in general [Gesenius].
ELLICOTT, "(12) Ten days.—The number “ten” is treated as a round number
here, and in Daniel 1:20. (Comp. Genesis 31:41.) By adopting this mode of life,
Daniel resumes the simple diet commonly used by his ancestors previously to their
entering Canaan (Deuteronomy 12:15-16; Deuteronomy 26:5; Deuteronomy 26:9).
This simplicity of life prevailed till the early times of David (1 Samuel 17:17-18). At
the Persian court, in later times, Daniel changed his rule of life (Daniel 10:3), the
infirmities of age beginning to tell upon his constitution.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:12 Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give
us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
Ver. 12. Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days.] All good means must be used
for the keeping of a good conscience, and then God must be trusted for the issue.
But did not Daniel herein tempt God? No; for besides that he had a word, (1.) Of
precept; [Deuteronomy 14:3] and (2.) Of promise, [Exodus 23:25] ex arcana
revelatione certior factus est, it might be revealed unto him that no inconvenience
should follow upon this course.
And let them give pulse to eat, and water to drink.] Poor fare for noblemen’s sons,
but such as they were well paid for. Nature is contented with a little, grace with less.
The sobriety of Democritus and Demosthenes is much celebrated among the
196

heathen. But what saith Augustine? (a) Omnis vita infidelium peccatum est, et nihil
bonum sine summo bone. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, &c. Daniel’s sobriety was
of another nature, of a better alloy. Papists crack much of their abstinence from
certain meats and drinks at certain times; but Daniel’s and Papists’ fasts agree as
harp and harrow. See my "Common Place of Abstinence."
PULPIT. "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, "seeds" ( σπερμάτων,
Theodotion), "pulse". This word occurs only here; it differs, however, only by the
second vowel from zērūim in Isaiah 61:11, and there it is rendered as by Theodotion
here, σπέρματα. As the vowels were not written for centuries after the latest critical
date of Daniel, it is in the highest degree absurd to ground any argument on the
pronunciation affixed to the word by these late scribes, probably with as great
caprice as made them maintain to all time "suspended letters" here and there in the
text, or sometimes begin a word with a final mem. Professor Bevan regards this
word a s possibly a scribe's mistake for zērōnim, a word with the same meaning,
which occurs in verse 16, and is found in the Talmud. He might more naturally
regard zero‛nim 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 palace
of Asshurbanipal, the guests are seated in messes of four round small tables. If,
then, as is probable, all these young cadets at the Babylonian court sat in the royal
presence, they would have a table to themselves, and thus the peculiarity of their
meal would not be patent to the whole company. Had the number of friends been
more, they would have been conspicuous: had they been fewer, they would have
been observed by those added to make up the number. Their request to be allotted
to eat only pulse and to drink only water, had not, as we have already said, anything
197

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 zērōnim—
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
Babylon, definition is unnecessary. To the present day among the inhabitants of the
district around ancient Babylon, indeed, over the Levant generally, dates and
raisins, with grain, and in the season fresh fruit, form the staple food. Daniel really
prayed to live as the common people.
13 Then compare our appearance with that of the
young men who eat the royal food, and treat your
servants in accordance with what you see.”
BARNES, "Then let our countenances be looked upon - One of the “objects” to
be secured by this whole trial was to promote their personal beauty, and their healthful
appearance Dan_1:4-5, and Daniel was willing that the trial should be made with
reference to that, and that a judgment should be formed from the observed effect of their
temperate mode of life. The Hebrew word rendered countenance (‫מראה‬ mar'eh) is not
limited to the “face,” as the word countenance is with us. It refers to the whole
appearance, the form, the “looks;” and the expression here is equivalent to, “Then look
on us, and see what the result has been, and deal with us accordingly” The Greek is, αἱ
ἰδέαι ἡμῶν hai ideai hēmōn - our appearance.
Of the children - Youths; young men. Notes, Dan_1:4. The reference is, probably, to
the Chaldean youths who were trained up amidst the luxuries of the court. It is possible,
however, that the reference is to Hebrew youths who were less scrupulous than Daniel
and his companions.
And as thou seest, deal with thy servants - As the result shall be. That is, let us
be presented at court, and promoted or not, as the result of our mode of living shall be.
What the effect would have been if there had been a failure, we are not informed.
Whether it would have endangered their lives, or whether it would have been merely a
forfeiture of the proffered honors and advantages, we have no means of determining. It
is evident that Daniel had no apprehension as to the issue.
198

GILL, "Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee,.... And be
thoroughly examined, whether any alteration is made therein for the worse:
and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's
meat; who were either Chaldean youths brought up in this manner; or rather young
men of the Jews, who were not so scrupulous as Daniel and his companions, and made
no objection to eating the king's food; let their countenances and ours be compared
together:
and as thou seest deal with thy servants: if there is no difference, or we are not the
worse for abstaining from the king's meat, then grant us our request, and continue to
indulge us in this manner; but, if otherwise, do as thou wilt. Daniel, no doubt, in putting
the matter on this issue, as it should turn out at the end of ten days, had a revelation or
assurance from God how it would be, or he would never have ventured to put it to such a
trial.
JAMISON 13-15, "Illustrating Deu_8:3, “Man doth not live by bread only, but by
every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:13 Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and
the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat: and as
thou seest, deal with thy servants.
Ver. 13. Then let our countenances be looked upon.] {See Trapp on "Daniel 1:12"}
And as thou seest, deal with thy servants.] Thus humbly they bespeak the butler, or
purveyor, though themselves were nobly descended. God had made them captives,
and they now carry their sails accordingly.
POOLE, "By these words Daniel secures Melzar against fear and danger, only by
ten days’ trial; which was a fair and reasonable proffer. Thus the servants of God
must carefully do, when they have good offices done them by the servants of princes,
as Elijah was careful of good Obadiah, 1 Kings 18:11,12, to secure him from death.
PULPIT, "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) those other youths who eat of the royal feast,
according as thou seest good ( θέλῃς), so deal with thy servants." In the text before
the Septuagint translator ‫י‬ִ‫נ‬ָ‫פ‬ְ‫ל‬ (l'phaneka), "before thee," is omitted, and instead of
‫ה‬ ֵ‫א‬ ְ‫ר‬ ַ‫מ‬ (mareh)," appearance," is read hsilgnE:egaugnaL ‫ים‬ ִ‫פ‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ֹ‫ז‬ } (zo‛aphim), and after
is inserted ‫ן‬ ִ‫מ‬ (min), "from," the sign of the comparative, equivalent to "than."
Theodotion, Jerome, and the Peshitta represent accurately the Massoretic text.
199

Against the Septuagint reading is the fact that in the Massoretic, marayeeaen is
construed a singular, but in Ezekiel 8-15:1 :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, ‫ים‬ ִ‫ָד‬‫ל‬ְ‫י‬ַ‫ן־ח‬ ִ‫מ‬ ‫ים‬ ִ‫פ‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ֹ‫ז‬ (zo‛apheem
min-hay'ladeem), occurs in the tenth verse, and therefore may be repeated here by
accident, we would not definitely prefer it. Further, the Massoretic text follows more
naturally from the context. Let the steward see the result of the experiment after ten
days, and, as he sees, so let him judge and act. Daniel and his companions leave the
matter thus really in the hands of Providence.
14 So he agreed to this and tested them for ten
days.
BARNES, "So he consented to them in this matter - Hebrew, “he heard them in
this thing.” The experiment was such, since it was to be for so short a time, that he ran
little risk in the matter, as at the end of the ten days he supposed that it would be easy to
change their mode of diet if the trial was unsuccessful.
GILL, "So he consented to them in all this matter,.... Or, "hearkened to them"
(e); being convinced that it was a very reasonable request, and the matter was fairly put;
and especially as he saw, if it succeeded to their wish, it would be to his profit; since the
meat and drink of these four persons would be his perquisite, and fetch him money;
pulse and water being to be obtained at an easy rate:
and proved them ten days; tried the experiment, by giving them pulse and water
only during this time, in order to see how it would agree with them; and whether any
visible alteration could be discerned in their countenances, so as to bring him or his
master into suspicion and danger.
JAMISON, "Illustrating Deu_8:3, “Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word
200

that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord.”
COFFMAN, ""So he hearkened unto them in this matter, and proved them ten
days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and they were
fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king's dainties. So the steward
took away their dainties, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them
pulse."
The inadequacy of the Hebrew language, especially with regard to tenses of verbs, is
evident in the rendition in Daniel 1:16, where "the wine that they should drink"
actually means "the wine they would (or should) have drank."
The steward ran little or no risk at all in complying with Daniel's request; because,
if the experiment had not been successful, he could have altered the diet
accordingly. God blessed Daniel and his companions; and, basing his actions on the
appearance of the four, the steward promptly changed their diet according to
Daniel's request.
Millard noted that "fatness" is used here in a somewhat different sense from the
connotation of the word in our day. It does not mean obesity. "It indicates
sufficiency and prosperity through the Old Testament."[25] We do not know
whether Daniel was inspired to request this change of diet, or if he did it solely upon
his inner conviction of what was right or wrong. We believe that it sprang out of
Daniel's attitude of faith and devotion; but the results surely proved that God
indeed approved of his action.
Occasionally, the inquiry is raised as to how there could have been more danger of
pollution to these Hebrew youths in eating the king's food than there was in being
schooled in all the knowledge of the Babylonians, but, as Leupold said," such a view
comes form a failure to comprehend the issues."[26] In the first place, the "learning
of the Chaldeans" was a very extensive field, embracing studies in astronomy,
architecture, languages, and magic, but even the "magic" at that point in history
was not the "black art" that developed later. On the other hand, there was not
merely the possibility of defilement in eating meat sacrificed to idols; to have done
so would have violated the plain commandments of the law of Moses.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:14 So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten
days.
Ver. 14. So he consented to them in this matter.] This had been well done, if done for
God’s sake; but it was nothing less. He had a hawk’s eye herein to his own profit; he
favoured them because he meant to finger something from them. These four made a
mess.
PETT, "Verse 14-15
201

‘So he took notice of what they said and put them to the test for ten days. And at the
end of ten days their faces appeared fresher, and they were fatter in the flesh, than
all the youths who ate of the king’s food.’
So he did what they asked. The result of the test was that they gave a better overall
impression facially than those who ate the king’s food. They looked fresher and
more full-faced than the others. By observing God’s law given in the Torah they had
demonstrated its truth. Given the effects of overindulgence we can quite appreciate
how this might be, but it is possible that we are intended to see this whole affair as
being the result of a revelation from God to Daniel by means of a dream or vision
(Daniel 1:17).
PULPIT, "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 ‫ה‬ ֵ‫ֲשׂ‬‫ﬠ‬ .
(‛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 the ten days they looked healthier
and better nourished than any of the young men
who ate the royal food.
BARNES, "And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer -
Hebrew, “good;” that is, they appeared more beautiful and healthful. The experiment
was successful. There was no diminution of beauty, of vigour, or of the usual indications
of health. One of the results of a course of temperance appears in the countenance, and it
is among the wise appointments of God that it should be so. He has so made us, that
202

while the other parts of the body may be protected from the gaze of men, it is necessary
that the “face” should be exposed. Hence, he has made the countenance the principal
scat of expression, for the chief muscles which indicate expression have their location
there. See the valuable work of Sir Charles Bell on the “Anatomy of Expression,” London,
1844. Hence, there are certain marks of guilt and vice which always are indicated in the
countenance. God has so made us that the drunkard and the glutton must proclaim their
own guilt and shame.
The bloated face, the haggard aspect, the look of folly, the “heaviness of the eye, the
disposition to squint, and to see double, and a forcible elevation of the eyebrow to
counteract the dropping of the upper eyelid, and preserve the eyes from closing,” are all
marks which God has appointed to betray and expose the life of indulgence.
“Arrangements are made for these expressions in the very anatomy of the face, and no
art of man can prevent it.” - Bell on the “Anatomy of Expression,” p. 106. God meant that
if man “would” be intemperate he should himself proclaim it to the world, and that his
fellow-men should be apprised of his guilt. This was intended to be one of the safeguards
of virtue. The young man who will be intemperate “knows” what the result must be. He
is apprised of it in the loathsome aspect of every drunkard whom he meets. He knows
that if he yields himself to indulgence in intoxicating drink, he must soon proclaim it
himself to the wide world.
No matter how beautiful, or fresh, or blooming, or healthful, he may now be; no
matter how bright the eye, or ruddy the cheek, or eloquent the tongue; the eye, and the
cheek, and the tongue will soon become indices of his manner of life, and the
loathsomeness and offensiveness of the once beautiful and blooming countenance must
pay the penalty of his folly. And in like manner, and for the same reason, the
countenance is an indication of temperance and purity. The bright and steady eye, the
blooming cheek, the lips that eloquently or gracefully utter the sentiments of virtue,
proclaim the purity of the life, and are the natural indices to our fellow-men that we live
in accordance with the great and benevolent laws of our nature, and are among the
rewards of temperance and virtue.
GILL, "And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and
fatter in flesh,.... At the time fixed for the trial of them, when they came to be
examined, they appeared to be of a better complexion, and a more healthful look, and
even plumper and fatter, with good solid flesh, and not swelled up as persons in a
dropsy:
than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat: who
appeared at the same time, and were compared with them, being under the care of the
same persons: now this was owing to the blessing of divine Providence, as Jacchiades
observes; for, how healthful soever pulse may be, or the several things designed by it,
particularly rice, of which Aben Ezra on the place gives great encomiums, as very
salutary and nourishing, and a purifier of the blood; yet neither that, nor any of the
things before mentioned, tend to make persons fat in flesh, as these were.
CALVIN, "Now this surprising event took place, — Daniel contracted neither
leanness nor debility from that mean food, but his face was as shirting as if he had
continued to feed most delicately; hence we gather as I have already said, that he
203

was divinely impelled to persist firmly in his own design, and not to pollute himself
with the royal diet. God, therefore, testified by the result that he had advised Daniel
and his companions in this their prayer and proposal. It is clear enough that there is
no necessary virtue in bread to nourish us; for we are nourished by God’s secret
blessing, as Moses says, Man lives not by bread alone, (Deuteronomy 8:3,) implying
that the bread itself does not impart strength to men, for the bread has no life in it;
how then can it afford us life? As bread possesses no virtue by itself, we are
nourished by the word of God; and because God has determined that our life shall
be sustained by nourishment, he has breathed its virtue into the bread — but,
meanwhile, we ought to consider our life sustained neither by bread nor any other
food, but by the secret blessing of God. For Moses does not speak here of either
doctrine or spiritual life, but says our bodily life is cherished by God’s favor, who
has endued bread and other food with their peculiar properties. This, at least, is
certain, — whatever food we feed on, we are nourished and sustained by God’s
gratuitous power. But the example which Daniel here mentions was singular. Hence
God, as I have said, shews, by the event, how Daniel could not remain pure and
spotless with his companions, otherwise than by being content with pulse and water.
We must observe, for our improvement, in the first place, — we should be very
careful not to become slaves of the palate, and thus be drawn off from our duty and
from obedience and the fear of God, when we ought to live sparingly and be free
from all luxuries. We see a this day how many feel it a very great cross if they
cannot indulge at the tables of the rich, which are filled with abundance and variety
of food. Others are so hardened in the enjoyment of luxuries, that they cannot be
content with moderation; hence they are always wallowing in their own filth, being
quite unable to renounce the delights of the palate. But Daniel sufficiently shews us,
when God not only reduces us to want, but when, if necessary, all indulgences must
be spontaneously rejected. Daniel indeed, as we saw yesterday, does not attach any
virtue to abstinence from one kind of food or another; and all we have hitherto
learnt has no other object than to teach him to guard against imminent danger, to
avoid passing over to the morals of a strange nation, and so to conduct himself at
Babylon as not to forget himself as a son of Abraham. But still it was necessary to
renounce the luxuries of the court. Although delicate viands were provided, he
rejected them of his own accord; since, as we have seen, it would be deadly
pollution, not in itself but in its consequences. Thus Moses, when he fled from
Egypt, passed into a new life far different from his former one; for he had lived
luxuriously and honorably in the king’s palace, as if he had been the king’s
grandson. But he lived sparingly in the Desert afterwards, and obtained his support
by very toilsome labor. He preferred, says the Apostle, the cross of Christ to the
riches of Egypt. (Hebrews 11:26.) How so? Because he could not be esteemed an
Egyptian and retain the favor which had been promised to the sons of Abraham. It
was a kind of self-denial always to remain in the king’s palace.
We may take this test as a true proof of our frugality and temperance, if we are able
to satisfy the appetite when God compels us to endure poverty and want; nay, if we
can spurn the delicacies which are at hand but tend to our destruction. For it would
be very frivolous to subsist entirely on pulse and water; as greater intemperance
204

sometimes displays itself in pulse than in the best and most dainty dishes. If any one
in weak health desires pulse and other such food which is injurious, he will surely be
condemned for intemperance. But if he feeds on nourishing diet, as they say, and
thus sustains himself, frugality will have its praise. If any one through desire of
water, and being too voracious, rejects wine, this as we well know would not be
praiseworthy. Hence we ought not to subsist on this kind of food to discover the
greatness of Daniel’s virtue. But we ought always to direct our minds to the object of
his design, namely, what he wished and what was in his power — so to live under
the sway of the king of Babylon, that his whole condition should be distinct from
that of the nation at large, and never to forget himself as an Israelite — and unless
there had been this great difference, Daniel would have been unable to sharpen
himself and to shake off his torpor, or to rouse himself from it. Daniel necessarily
kept before his mind some manifest and remarkable difference which separated him
from the Chaldeans; he desired pulse and water, through the injurious effects of
good living.
Lastly, this passage teaches us, although we should meet with nothing but the roots
and leaves of trees, and even if the earth herself should deny us the least blade of
grass, yet God by his blessing can make us healthy and active no less than those who
abound in every comfort. God’s liberality, however, is never to be despised when he
nourishes us with bread and wine and other diet; for Paul enumerates, among
things worthy of praise, his knowing how to bear both abundance and penury.
(Philippians 4:12) When, therefore, God bountifully offers us both meat and drink,
we may soberly and frugally drink wine and cat savory food; but when he takes
away from us bread and water, so that we suffer from famine, we shall find his
blessing sufficient for us instead of all nutriment. For we see that Daniel and his
companions were ruddy and plump, and even remarkably robust by feeding on
nothing but pulse. How could this occur, unless the Lord, who nourished his people
in the Desert on manna alone, when other diet was deficient, even at this day turns
our food into manna, which would otherwise be injurious to us. (Exodus 16:4.) For
if any one asks the medical profession, whether pulse and other leguminous plants
are wholesome? they will tell us they are very injurious, since they know them to be
so. But at the same time, when we have no choice of viands and cannot obtain what
would conduce most to our health, if we are content with herbs and roots, the Lord,
as I have said, can nourish us no less than if he put before us a table well supplied
with every dainty. Temperance does not exist in the food itself, but in the palate —
since we are equally intemperate if pleasure entices us to gratify the appetite on
inferior food — so, again, we may remain perfectly temperate though feeding on the
best diet. We must form the same opinion of the properties of various viands, which
do not support us by their own inherent qualities, but by God’s blessing, as he sees
fit. We sometimes see the children of the rich very emaciated, although they may
receive the greatest attention. We see also the children of the country people most
beautiful in form, ruddy in countenance, and healthy in condition; and yet they feed
on any kind of food, and sometimes upon what is injurious. But although they are
deprived of tasty sauces, yet God gives them his blessing, and their unripe fruit,
pork, lard, and even herbs, which seem most unwholesome, become more
205

nourishing than if the people abounded in every delicacy. This, therefore, must be
remarked in the words of Daniel. It follows —
ELLICOTT, " (15) Appeared fairer.—Thus was God beginning to assert His power
among the Babylonians. This change in the appearance of Daniel was the effect of
his free grace, not of the meat that came from the king’s palace. May it not have
been that the young exiles thought of the words of Isaiah (Isaiah 52:11), “Depart ye,
depart ye, go ye out thence, touch no unclean thing”?
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:15 And 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.
Ver. 15. Their countenances appeared fairer.] They had both better health (for
Tenuis mensa sanitatis mater, saith Chrysostom, Spare diet is very healthful), (a)
and their good conscience or merry heart was a continual feast to them. They had
also God’s blessing upon their coarser fare, and this was the main matter that made
the difference.
POOLE, " There be three things here to be observed.
1. The hand of God, in persuading Melzar to incline to Daniel’s request.
2. The goodness of God, to make good Daniel’s words.
3. That the blessing of God upon homely fare affords oftentimes more healthful
nourishment and strength, than more costly fare to them that eat the fat and drink
the sweet.
BENSON, "Daniel 1:15. At the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer,
&c. — The poor pulse, seeds, and roots, nourished and strengthened Daniel and his
companions more than the rich food which the others ate from the king’s table
nourished them. Although this might, in part, be the natural effect of their
temperance, yet it must chiefly be ascribed to the special blessing of God, which will
make a little go a great way, and a dinner of herbs more nutritive and strengthening
than a stalled ox.
PULPIT, "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 ‫טוב‬ (ṭōb), "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;
206

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
Egypt, will observe the relatively greater stoutness of the Assyrians. In the eunuchs
especially, one cannot fail to notice the full round faces and the double chins of those
in immediate attendance on the king. Among savage nations and semi-civilized ones,
corpulence is regarded as a sign of nobility. The frequent long fasts, due to failure of
their scanty crops or the difficulty of catching game, would keep the ordinary
savage spare; only one who could employ the sinews and possessions of others would
be sure of being always well fed, consequently the corpulent man was incontestably
the wealthy nobleman. In semi-civilized countries, as Babylon, this was probably a
survival. On the sculptures the kings are not unwieldy with corpulence, but the
eunuchs have an evident tendency to this. A king, abstemious himself, might feel his
consequence increased by having as his attendants those who bore about in their
persons the evidence of how well those were nourished who fed at his table. There is
no reason to imagine that Nebuchadnezzar was superior to his contemporaries in
regard to this. The melzar, having thus seen the result of the experiment, must see
that, so far as externals were concerned, the Hebrews who fed on pulse were better
than their companions. The period of ten days was a short one, but not too short for
effects such as those mentioned to be manifested. Jephet-ibn-Ali thinks that special
leanness was inflicted on those who were unfaithful or had failed in courage. That,
however, is an unnecessary supposition.
16 So the guard took away their choice food and
the wine they were to drink and gave them
vegetables instead.
BARNES, "Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat ... - Doubtless
permanently. The experiment had been satisfactory, and it was inferred that if the course
of temperance could be practiced for ten days without unhappy results, there would be
207

safety in suffering it to be continued. We may remark on this:
I. That the experiment was a most important one, not only for the object then
immediately in view, but for furnishing lessons of permanent instruction adapted to
future times. It was worth one such trial, and it was desirable to have one such
illustration of the effect of temperance recorded. There are so strong propensities in our
nature to indulgence; there are so many temptations set before the young; there is so
much that allures in a luxurious mode of life, and so much of conviviality and happiness
is supposed to be connected with the social glass, that it was well to have a fair trial
made, and that the result should be recorded for the instruction of future times.
II. It was especially desirable that the experiment should be made of the effect of strict
abstinence from the use of “wine.” Distilled liquors were indeed then unknown; but
alcohol, the intoxicating principle in all ardent spirits, then existed, as it does now, in
wine, and was then, as it is now, of the same nature as when found in other substances.
It was in the use of wine that the principal danger of intemperance then lay; and it may
be added, that in reference to a very large class of persons of both sexes, it is in the use of
wine that the principal danger always lies. There are multitudes, especially of young
men, who are in little or no danger of becoming intemperate from the use of the stronger
kinds of intoxicating drinks. They would never “begin” with them. But the use of “wine”
is so respectable in the view of the upper classes of society; it is deemed so essential to
the banquet; it constitutes so much, apparently, a mark of distinction, from the fact that
ordinarily only the rich can afford to indulge in it; its use is regarded extensively as so
proper for even refined and delicate females, and is so often sanctioned by their
participating in it; it is so difficult to frame an argument against it that will be decisive;
there is so much that is plausible that may be said in favor or in justification of its use,
and it is so much sanctioned by the ministers of religion, and by those of influence in the
churches, that one of the principal dangers of the young arises from the temptation to
indulgence in wine, and it was well that there should be a fair trial of the comparative
benefit of total abstinence. A trial could scarcely have been made under better
circumstances than in the case before us. There was every inducement to indulgence
which is ever likely to occur; there was as much to make it a mere matter of “principle”
to abstain from it as can be found now in any circumstances, and the experiment was as
triumphant and satisfactory as could be desired.
III. The result of the experiment.
(a) It was complete and satisfactory. “More” was accomplished in the matter of the
trial by abstinence than by indulgence. Those who abstained were more healthful, more
beautiful, more vigorous than the others. And there was nothing miraculous - nothing
that occurred in that case which does not occur in similar cases. Sir John Chardin
remarks, respecting those whom he had seen in the East, “that the countenances of the
kechicks (monks) are in fact more rosy and smooth than those of others; and that those
who fast much, I mean the Armenians and the Greeks, are, notwithstanding, very
beautiful, sparkling with health, with a clear and lively countenance.” He also takes
notice of the very great abstemiousness of the Brahmins in the Indies, who lodge on the
ground, abstain from music, from all sorts of agreeable smells, who go very meanly
clothed, are almost always wet, either by going into water, or by rain; “yet,” says he, “I
have seen also many of them very handsome and healthful.” Harmer’s “Observa.” ii. pp.
112, 113.
(b) The experiment has often been made, and with equal success, in modern times,
and especially since the commencement of the temperance reformation, and an
208

opportunity has been given of furnishing the most decisive proofs of the effects of
temperance in contrast with indulgence in the use of wine and of other intoxicating
drinks. This experiment has been made on a wide scale, and with the same result. It is
demonstrated, as in the case of Daniel, that “more” will be secured of what men are so
anxious usually to obtain, and of what it is desirable to obtain, than can be by
indulgence.
(1) There will be “more” beauty of personal appearance. Indulgence in intoxicating
drinks leaves its traces on the countenance - the skin, the eye, the nose, the whole
expression - as God “meant” it should. See the notes at Dan_1:15. No one can hope to
retain beauty of complexion or countenance who indulges freely in the use of
intoxicating drinks.
(2) “More” clearness of mind and intellectual vigour can be secured by abstinence than
by indulgence. It is true that, as was often the case with Byron and Burns, stimulating
drinks may excite the mind to brilliant temporary efforts; but the effect soon ceases, and
the mind makes a compensation for its over-worked powers by sinking down below its
proper level as it had been excited above. It will demand a penalty in the exhausted
energies, and in the incapacity for even its usual efforts, and unless the exhausting
stimulus be again applied, it cannot rise even to its usual level, and when often applied
the mind is divested of “all” its elasticity and vigour; the physical frame loses its power to
endure the excitement; and the light of genius is put out, and the body sinks to the grave.
He who wishes to make the most of his mind “in the long run,” whatever genius he may
be endowed with, will be a temperate man. His powers will be retained uniformly at a
higher elevation, and they will maintain their balance and their vigour longer.
(3) The same is true in regard to everything which requires vigour of body. The Roman
soldier, who carried his eagle around the world, and who braved the dangers of every
clime - equally bold and vigorous, and hardy, and daring amidst polar snows, and the
burning sands of the equator - was a stranger to intoxicating drinks. He was allowed only
vinegar and water, and his extraordinary vigour was the result of the most abstemious
fare. The wrestlers in the Olympic and Isthmian games, who did as much to give
suppleness, vigour, and beauty to the body, as could be done by the most careful
training, abstained from the use of wine and all that would enervate. Since the
temperance reformation commenced in this land, the experiment has been made in
every way possible, and it has been “settled” that a man will do more work, and do it
better; that he can bear more fatigue, can travel farther, can better endure the severity of
cold in the winter, and of toil in the heat of summer, by strict temperance, than he can if
he indulges in the use of intoxicating drinks. Never was the result of an experiment more
uniform than this has been; never has there been a case where the testimony of those
who have had an opportunity of witnessing it was more decided and harmonious; never
was there a question in regard to the effect of a certain course on health in which the
testimony of physicians has been more uniform; and never has there been a question in
regard to the amount of labor which a man could do, on which the testimony of
respectable farmers, and master mechanics, and overseers of public works, could be
more decided.
(4) The full force of these remarks about temperance in general, applies to the use of
“wine.” It was in respect to “wine” that the experiment before us was made, and it is this
which gives it, in a great degree, its value and importance. Distilled spirits were then
unknown, but it was of importance that a fair experiment should be made of the effect of
abstinence from wine. The great danger of intemperance, taking the world at large, has
been, and is still, from the use of wine. This danger affects particularly the upper classes
209

in society and young men. It is by the use of wine, in a great majority of instances, that
the peril commences, and that the habit of drinking is formed. Let it be remembered,
also, that the intoxicating principle is the same in wine as in any other drink that
produces intemperance. It is “alcohol” - the same substance precisely, whether it be
driven off by heat from wine, beer, or cider, and condensed by distillation, or whether it
remain in these liquids without being distilled. It is neither more nor less intoxicating in
one form than it is in the other. It is only more condensed and concentrated in one case
than in the other, better capable of preservation, and more convenient for purposes of
commerce. Every “principle,” therefore, which applies to the temperance cause at all,
applies to the use of wine; and every consideration derived from health, beauty, vigour,
length of days, reputation, property, or salvation, which should induce a young man to
abstain from ardent spirits at all should induce him to abstain, as Daniel did, from the
use of wine.
GILL, "Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat,.... To himself, as the
Syriac version adds; he took and carried it to his own family, and made use of it himself;
and the portion of four such young gentlemen, maintained at the king's expense, and
who had their provision from his table, must be, especially in the course of three years,
of great advantage to this man and his family; for this was continued, as the word
signifies, and may be rendered, "and Melzar was taking away &c." (f); so he did from
time to time; and thus, by serving the Lord's people, he served himself:
and the wine that they should drink; which he also took for his own use:
and gave them pulse; to eat, and water to drink, as the Syriac version adds, and which
they desired; when he found this agreed so well with them, and he could safely do it
without exposing himself to danger, and being to his profit and advantage.
HENRY, "IV. That his master countenanced him. The steward did not force them to
eat against their consciences, but, as they desired, gave them pulse and water (Dan_
1:16), the pleasures of which they enjoyed, and we have reason to think were not envied
the enjoyment. Here is a great example of temperance and contentment with mean
things; and (as Epicurus said) “he that lives according to nature will never be poor, but
he that lives according to opinion will never be rich.” This wonderful abstemiousness of
these young men in the days of their youth contributed to the fitting of them, 1. For their
eminent services. Hereby they kept their minds clear and unclouded, and fit for
contemplation, and saved for the best employments a great deal both of time and
thought; and thus they prevented those diseases which indispose men for the business of
age that owe their rise to the intemperances of youth. 2. For their eminent sufferings.
Those that had thus inured themselves to hardship, and lived a life of self-denial and
mortification, could the more easily venture upon the fiery furnace and the den of lions,
rather than sin against God.
CALVIN, "After Melsar saw it possible to gratify Daniel and his companions
without danger and promote his own profit, he was humane and easily dealt with,
and had no need of long disputation. For an intervening obstacle often deters us
from the pursuit of gain, and we forbear to seek what we very much crave when it
210

requires oppressive labor; but when our profit is at hand, and we are freed from all
danger, then every one naturally pursues it. We see, then, what Daniel means in this
verse, namely, when Melsar saw the usefulness of this plan, and the possibility of his
gaining by the diet assigned by the king to the four youths, then he gave them pulse.
But we must notice also Daniel’s intention. He wishes to shew that we ought not to
ascribe it to the kindness of man, that he and his companions could preserve
themselves pure and unspotted. Why so? Because he never could have obtained
anything from this man Melsar, until he perceived it could be granted safely. Since,
therefore, Melsar consulted his own advantage and his private interest, and wished
to escape all risks and hazards, we easily gather that the benefit is not to be ascribed
entirely to him. Daniel and his companions obtained their wish, but God’s
providence rendered this man tractable, and governed the whole event. Meanwhile,
God openly shews how all the praise was due to himself, purposely to exercise the
gratitude of Daniel and his associates.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:16 Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the
wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
Ver. 16. Thus Melzar took away.] See on Daniel 1:14.
And gave them pulse.] This slender diet was some help to their studies; for leaden
bellies make leaden wits, (a) saith the Greek Senary; and pinguis venter macra
mens, saith Jerome, A fat belly maketh a lean mind. A body farced with delicious
meats and drinks unfitteth a man for divine contemplation.
POOLE, " Which he could not but take well, for hereby he gained the costly
provision of four men for the space of three years to his own use and profit. Hence
observe that courtiers are no losers by the favours they procure for God’s servants.
They are most willing to serve God’s servants when they can therein also serve
themselves by it.
PETT, "Verse 16
‘So the steward took away their food, and the wine that they should drink, and gave
them vegetables.’
Having seen the effects of the diet the steward was willing to continue it. From then
on he refrained from giving them the kings’ food and wine, and gave them grain and
vegetables with water. (This presumably only applied to the four).
PULPIT, "Thus Melzar took away the portion of their moat, and the wine that they
should drink; and gave them pulse. The Massoretic has the article here before
"Melzar"—a fact that the Authorized does not indicate; the Revised renders more
correctly, "the steward." The version of the Septuagint does not differ much from
the Massoretic, only the word translated "that they should drink" is omitted; on the
other hand, we have the verb δίδωμι ( ἐδίδου) put in composition with ἀντί
211

( ἀντεδίδου), "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 taḥath 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 LXX. this is rendered ἦν, "it was."
Theodotion is in absolute agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta calls the
steward ma-nitzor, and renders the last clause, "and he gave to them seeds to eat,
and water to drink," evidently borrowed from the twelfth verse. The result of the
success of the experiment is that the youths are no more importuned to partake of
the king's dainties. The steward, or the attendant who looked after their mess,
supplied them with pulse. It has occurred to two commentators, widely separated
from each other in point of time, that the consent of the "Melzar" was all the more
easily gained, that he could utilize the abstemiousness of these Hebrew youths to his
own private advantage. Both Jephet-ibn-Ali in the beginning of the eleventh
century, and Ewald in the middle of the nineteenth, maintain that the "Melzar"
used to his own purposes, possibly sold, the portion of food and wine that the
Hebrew youths abjured. Certainly the verb nasa means the lifting and carrying
away, and suggests that every day the portions of food and wine were first carried to
the table of these Hebrews, and then, after having been placed before them, were
removed and pulse brought instead. When we think of it, some such process would
have to take place. If it had been observed that one table was never supplied with a
portion from the king's table, there might have been remarks made, and the
"Melzar" would have fallen into disgrace with his sovereign, and the Hebrew
youths would possibly have shared his disgrace. As to how the portions thus
retained were disposed of, we need not be curious; there would, no doubt, be plenty
of claimants for the broken victuals from the King of Babylon's table, without
accusing the "Melzar" of dishonest motives. The fact that the verbs are in participle
implies that henceforth it was the regular habit of the "Melzar" to remove from
before the tour friends the royal dainties, and supply them instead with pulse. We
have already referred to the word used for "pulse; ' it is here zayroneem, whereas in
the twelfth verse it is zayroeem. Not impossibly in the verse before us we have
another case of the original Aramaic shining through the translation; in the Peshitta
the word is zer'oona, see Aramaic word. Whatever the word was, it seems certain
that originally it was the same in both places, as in none of the versions is there any
variation. It is not so impossible that originally the vocalization was different, and
that the word was the ordinary word zer‛āim, "seeds." This certainly is the
translation of Theodotion.
212

17 To these four young men God gave knowledge
and understanding of all kinds of literature and
learning. And Daniel could understand visions
and dreams of all kinds.
BARNES, "As for these four children - On the word “children,” see the notes at
Dan_1:4. Compare Dan_1:6.
God gave them knowledge and skill - See the notes at Dan_1:9. There is no
reason to suppose that in the “knowledge and skill” here referred to, it is meant to be
implied that there was anything miraculous, or that there was any direct inspiration.
Inspiration was evidently confined to Daniel, and pertained to what is spoken of under
the head of “visions and dreams.” The fact that “all” this was to be attributed to God as
his gift, is in accordance with the common method of speaking in the Scriptures; and it is
also in accordance with “fact,” that “all” knowledge is to be traced to God. See Exo_
31:2-3. God formed the intellect; he preserves the exercise of reason; he furnishes us
instructors; he gives us clearness of perception; he enables us to take advantage of bright
thoughts and happy suggestions which occur in our own minds, as much as he sends
rain, and dew, and sunshine on the fields of the farmer, and endows him with skill.
Compare Isa_28:26, “For his God doth instruct him.” The knowledge and skill which we
may acquire, therefore, should be as much attributed to God as the success of the farmer
should. Compare Job_32:8, “For there is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the
Almighty giveth them understanding.” In the case before us, there is no reason to doubt
that the natural powers of these young men had been diligently applied during the three
years of their trial Dan_1:5, and under the advantages of a strict course of temperance;
and that the knowledge here spoken of was the result of such an application to their
studies. On the meaning of the words “knowledge” and “skill” here, see the notes at
Dan_1:4.
In all learning and wisdom - See also the notes at Dan_1:4.
And Daniel had understanding - Showing that in that respect there was a special
endowment in his case; a kind of knowledge imparted which could be communicated
only by special inspiration. The margin is, “he made Daniel understand.” The margin is
in accordance with the Hebrew, but the sense is the same.
In all visions - On the word rendered “visions” - ‫חזון‬ châzôn - see the notes at Isa_
1:1, and the introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (4). It is a term frequently employed in
reference to prophecy, and designates the usual method by which future events were
made known. The prophet was permitted to see those events “as if” they were made to
pass before the eye, and to describe them “as if” they were objects of sight. Here the
213

word seems to be used to denote all supernatural appearances; all that God permitted
him to see that in any way shadowed forth the future. It would seem that men who were
not inspired were permitted occasionally to behold such supernatural appearances,
though they were not able to interpret them. Thus their attention would be particularly
called to them, and they would be prepared to admit the truth of what the interpreter
communicated to them. Compare Dan. 4; Dan_5:5-6; Gen_40:5; Gen_41:1-7. Daniel
was so endowed that he could interpret the meaning of these mysterious appearances,
and thus convey important messages to men. The same endowment had been conferred
on Joseph when in Egypt. See the passages referred to in Genesis.
And dreams - One of the ways by which the will of God was anciently communicated
to men. See Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. (2), and the notes at Job_33:14-18. Daniel,
like Joseph before him, was supernaturally endowed to explain these messages which
God sent to men, or to unfold these preintimations of coming events. This was a kind of
knowledge which the Chaldeans particularly sought, and on which they especially prided
themselves; and it was important, in order to “stain the pride of all human glory,” and to
make “the wisdom of the wise” in Babylon to be seen to be comparative “folly,” to endow
one man from the land of the prophets in the most ample manner with this knowledge,
as it was important to do the same thing at the court of Pharaoh by the superior
endowments of Joseph Gen_41:8.
CLARKE, "As for these four children - Young men or youths. Our translation
gives a false idea.
In all visions and dreams - That is, such as are Divine; for as to dreams in general,
they have as much signification as they have connection, being the effects of the state of
the body, of the mind, or of the circumstances of the dreamer. A dream may be
considered supernatural, if it have nothing preposterous, nothing monstrous, and
nothing irregular. If the whole order and consequences of the things be preserved in
them, from beginning to end, then we may presume they are supernatural. In such
dreams Daniel had understanding.
GILL, "As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all
learning and wisdom,.... As they prospered in their bodies, they succeeded in their
studies, and improved in their minds, and became great proficients in all kind of lawful
and useful knowledge; not owing so much to their own sagacity and diligence, and the
goodness and ability of their teachers, as to the blessing of God on their instructions and
studies; for, as all natural, so all acquired parts are to be ascribed to God; and which
these were favoured with by him in a very great manner, to answer some purposes of his.
This is to be understood, not of magic art, vain philosophy, judicial astrology, to which
the Chaldeans were addicted; but of learning and wisdom, laudable and useful, both in
things natural and political; for these men, who scrupled eating and drinking what came
from the king's table, would never indulge themselves in the study of vain, curious, and
unlawful knowledge; much less would God have blessed the study of such things, and
still less be said to give them knowledge and skill therein:
and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams; besides knowledge
and skill in all learning and wisdom, in languages and sciences, in common with the
214

other young men; he had the honour of seeing very remarkable visions of future things,
and of interpreting dreams; and this not by rules of art, such as the Oneirocritics use, but
by the gift of God; of which many singular instances follow in this book.
HENRY 17-21, "Concerning Daniel and his fellows we have here,
I. Their great attainments in learning, Dan_1:17. They were very sober and diligent,
and studied hard; and we may suppose their tutors, finding them of an uncommon
capacity, took a great deal of pains with them, but, after all, their achievements are
ascribed to God only. It was he that gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and
wisdom; for every good and perfect gift is from above, from the Father of the lights. It
is the Lord our God that gives men power to get this wealth; the mind is furnished only
by him that formed it. The great learning which God gave these four children was, 1. A
balance for their losses. They had, for the iniquity of their fathers, been deprived of the
honours and pleasures that would have attended their noble extraction; but, to make
them amends for that, God, in giving them learning, gave them better honours and
pleasures than those they had been deprived of. 2. A recompence for their integrity. They
kept to their religion, even in the minutest instances of it, and would not so much as
defile themselves with the king's meat or wine, but became, in effect, Nazarites; and now
God rewarded them for it with eminency in learning; for God gives to a man that is good
in his sight, wisdom, and knowledge, and joy with them, Ecc_2:26. To Daniel he gave a
double portion; he had understanding in visions and dreams; he knew how to interpret
dreams, as Joseph, not by rules of art, such as are pretended to be given by the
oneirocritics, but by a divine sagacity and wisdom which God gave him. Nay, he was
endued with a prophetic spirit, by which he was enabled to converse with God, and to
receive the notices of divine things in dreams and visions, Num_12:6. According to this
gift given to Daniel, we find him, in this book, all along employed about dreams and
visions, interpreting or entertaining them; for, as every one has received the gift, so
shall he have an opportunity, and so should he have a heart, to minister the same, 1Pe_
4:10.
II. Their great acceptance with the king. After three years spent in their education
(they being of some maturity, it is likely, when they came, perhaps about twenty years
old) they were presented to the king with the rest that were of their standing, Dan_1:18.
And the king examined them and communed with them himself, Dan_1:19. He could do
it, being a man of parts and learning himself, else he would not have come to be so great;
and he would do it, for it is the wisdom of princes, in the choice of the persons they
employ, to see with their own eyes, to exercise their own judgment, and not trust too
much to the representation of others. The king examined them not so much in the
languages, in the rules of oratory or poetry, as in all matters of wisdom and
understanding, the rules of prudence and true politics; he enquired into their judgment
about the due conduct of human life and public affairs; not “Were they wits?” but, “Were
they wise?” And he not only found them to excel the young candidates for preferment
that were of their own standing, but found that they had more understanding than the
ancients, than all their teachers, Psa_119:99, Psa_119:100. So far was the king from
being partial to his own countrymen, to seniors, to those of his own religion and of an
established reputation, that he freely owned that, upon trial, he found those poor young
captive Jews ten times wiser and better than all the magicians that were in all his
realm, Dan_1:20. He was soon aware of something extraordinary in these young men,
and, which gave him a surprising satisfaction, was soon aware that a little of their true
divinity was preferable to a great deal of the divination he had been used to. What is the
215

chaff to the wheat? what are the magicians' rods to Aaron's? There was no comparison
between them. These four young students were better, were ten times better, than all the
old practitioners, put them all together, that were in all his realm, and we may be sure
that they were not a few. This contempt did God pour upon the pride of the Chaldeans,
and this honour did he put upon the low estate of his own people; and thus did he make
not only these persons, but the rest of their nation for their sakes, the more respected in
the land of their captivity. Lastly, This judgment being given concerning them, they
stood before the king (Dan_1:19); they attended in the presence-chamber, nay, and in
the council-chamber, for to see the king's face is the periphrasis of a privy-counsellor,
Est_1:14. This confirms Solomon's observation, Seest thou a man diligent in his
business, sober and humble? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean
men. Industry is the way to preferment. How long the other three were about the court
we are not told; but Daniel, for his part, continued to the first year of Cyrus (Dan_1:21),
though not always alike in favour and reputation. He lived and prophesied after the first
year of Cyrus; but that is mentioned to intimate that he lived to see the deliverance of his
people out of their captivity and their return to their own land. Note, Sometimes God
favours his servants that mourn with Zion in her sorrows to let them live to see better
times with the church than they saw in the beginning of their days and to share with her
in her joys.
JAMISON, "God gave them knowledge — (Exo_31:2, Exo_31:3; 1Ki_3:12; Job_
32:8; Jam_1:5, Jam_1:17).
Daniel had understanding in ... dreams — God thus made one of the despised
covenant-people eclipse the Chaldean sages in the very science on which they most
prided themselves. So Joseph in the court of Pharaoh (Gen_40:5; Gen_41:1-8). Daniel,
in these praises of his own “understanding,” speaks not through vanity, but by the
direction of God, as one transported out of himself. See my Introduction, “Contents of
the Book.”
K&D 17-21, "The progress of the young men in the wisdom of the Chaldeans, and
their appointment to the service of the king.
As God blessed the resolution of Daniel and his three friends that they would not
defile themselves by the food, He also blessed the education which they received in the
literature (‫ר‬ֶ‫פ‬ ֵ‫,ס‬ Dan_1:17 as Dan_1:4) and wisdom of the Chaldeans, so that the whole
four made remarkable progress therein. But besides this, Daniel obtained an insight into
all kinds of visions and dreams, i.e., he attained great readiness in interpreting visions
and dreams. This is recorded regarding him because of what follows in this book, and is
but a simple statement of the fact, without any trace of vainglory. Instruction in the
wisdom of the Chaldeans was, besides, for Daniel and his three friends a test of their
faith, since the wisdom of the Chaldeans, from the nature of the case, was closely allied
to the Chaldean idolatry and heathen superstition, which the learners of this wisdom
might easily be led to adopt. But that Daniel and his friends learned only the Chaldean
wisdom without adopting the heathen element which was mingled with it, is evidenced
from the stedfastness in the faith with which at a later period, at the danger of their lives
(cf. Dan_3:6), they stood aloof from all participation in idolatry, and in regard to Daniel
216

in particular, from the deep glance into the mysteries of the kingdom of God which lies
before us in his prophecies, and bears witness of the clear separation between the sacred
and the profane. But he needed to be deeply versed in the Chaldean wisdom, as formerly
Moses was in the wisdom of Egypt (Act_7:22), so as to be able to put to shame the
wisdom of this world by the hidden wisdom of God.
Dan_1:18-20
After the expiry of the period of three years the youths were brought before the king.
They were examined by him, and these four were found more intelligent and
discriminating than all the others that had been educated along with them (‫ם‬ ָ‫לּ‬ֻ‫כּ‬ ִ‫,מ‬ “than
all,” refers to the other Israelitish youths, Dan_1:3, that had been brought to Babylon
along with Daniel and his friends), and were then appointed to his service. ‫דוּ‬ ָ‫מ‬ַ‫ַע‬‫י‬, as in
Dan_1:5, of standing as a servant before his master. The king found them indeed, in all
matters of wisdom about which he examined them, to excel all the wise men in the whole
of his kingdom. Of the two classes of the learned men of Chaldea, who are named instar
omnium in Dan_1:20, see at Dan_2:2.
Dan_1:21
In Dan_1:21 the introduction to the book is concluded with a general statement as to
the period of Daniel's continuance in the office appointed to him by God. The difficulty
which the explanation of ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬ offers is not removed by a change of the reading into ‫י‬ ִ‫ח‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬,
since Daniel, according to Dan_10:1, lived beyond the first year of Cyrus and received
divine revelations. ‫ד‬ַ‫ע‬ marks the terminus ad quem in a wide sense, i.e., it denotes a
termination without reference to that which came after it. The first year of king Cyrus is,
according to 2Ch_36:22; Ezr_1:1; Ezr_6:3, the end of the Babylonish exile, and the date,
“to the first year of king Cyrus,” stands in close relation to the date in Dan_1:1,
Nebuchadnezzar's advance against Jerusalem and the first taking of the city, which
forms the commencement of the exile; so that the statement, “Daniel continued unto the
first year of king Cyrus,” means only that he lived and acted during the whole period of
the exile in Babylon, without reference to the fact that his work continued after the
termination of the exile. Cf. The analogous statement, Jer_1:2., that Jeremiah
prophesied in the days of Josiah and Jehoiakim to the end of the eleventh year of
Zedekiah, although his book contains prophecies also of a date subsequent to the taking
of Jerusalem. ‫י‬ ִ‫ה‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬ stands neither for ‫י‬ ִ‫ח‬ְ‫ַי‬‫ו‬, he lived, nor absolutely in the sense of he
existed, was present; for though ‫ָה‬‫י‬ ָ‫ה‬ means existere, to be, yet it is never used absolutely
in this sense, as ‫ָה‬‫יּ‬ ָ‫,ח‬ to live, but always only so that the “how” or “where” of the being or
existence is either expressly stated, or at least is implied in the connection. Thus here
also the qualification of the “being” must be supplied from the context. The expression
will then mean, not that he lived at the court, or in Babylon, or in high esteem with the
king, but more generally, in the place to which God had raised him in Babylon by his
wonderful endowments.
CALVIN, "The Prophet here shows what we have already touched upon, how his
authority was acquired for exercising the prophetic office with greater advantage.
He ought to be distinguished by fixed marks, that the Jews first, and foreigners
afterwards, might acknowledge him to be endued with the prophetic spirit. But a
217

portion of this favor was shared with his three companions; yet he excelled them all,
because God fitted him specially for his office. Here the end is to be noticed, because
it would be incorrect to say that their reward was bestowed by God, because they
lived both frugally and heavenly, and spontaneously abstained from the delicacies of
the palace; for God had quite a different intention. For he wished, as I have already
said, to extol Daniel, to enable him to shew with advantage that Israel’s God is the
only God; and as he wished his companions to excel hereafter in political
government, he presented them also with some portion of his Spirit. But it is
worthwhile to set Daniel before our eyes; because, as I have said, before God
appointed him his Prophet, he wished to adorn him with his own insignia, to
procure confidence in his teaching. He says, therefore, to those four boys, or youths,
knowledge and science were given in all literature and wisdom Daniel was endued
with a very singular gift — he was to be an interpreter of dreams, and an explainer
of visions. Since Daniel here speaks of literature, without doubt he simply means the
liberal arts, and does not comprehend the magical arts which flourished then and
afterwards in Chaldea. We know that nothing was sincere among unbelievers; and,
on the other hand, I have previously admonished you, that Daniel was not imbued
with the superstitions in those days highly esteemed in that nation. Through
discontent with genuine science, they corrupted the study of the stars; but Daniel
and his associates were so brought up among the Chaldeans, that they were not
tinctured with those mixtures and corruptions which ought always to be separated
from true science. It would be absurd, then, to attribute to God the approval of
magical arts, which it is well known were severely prohibited and condemned by the
law itself. (Deuteronomy 18:10.) Although God abominates those magical
superstitions as the works of the devil, this does not prevent Daniel and his
companions from being divinely adorned with this gift, and being very well versed
in all the literature of the Chaldees. Hence this ought to be restricted to true and
natural science. As it respects Daniel, he says, he understood even, visions and
dreams and we know how by these two methods the Prophets were instructed in the
will of God. (Numbers 12:6.) For while God there blames Aaron and Miriam, he
affirms this to be his usual method; as often as he wishes to manifest his designs to
the Prophets, he addresses them by visions and dreams. But Moses is treated out of
the common order of men, because he is addressed face to face, and mouth to
mouth. God, therefore, whenever he wished to make use of his Prophets, by either
visions or dreams, made known to them what he wished to be proclaimed to the
people. When, therefore, it is here said, — Daniel understood dreams and visions, it
has the sense of being endued with the prophetic spirit. While his companions were
superior masters and teachers in all kinds of literature, he alone was a Prophet of
God.
We now understand the object of this distinction, when an acquaintance with
visions and dreams was ascribed peculiarly to Daniel. And here our previous
assertion is fully confirmed, namely, that Daniel was adorned with the fullest proofs
of his mission, to enable him afterwards to undertake the prophetic office with
greater confidence, and acquire greater attention to his teaching. God could, indeed,
prepare the in a single moment, and by striking terror and reverence into the minds
218

of all, induce them to embrace his teaching; but he wished to raise his servant by
degrees, and to bring him forth at the fitting time, and not too suddenly so that all
might know by marks impressed for many years how to distinguish him from the
common order of men. It afterwards follows:
COFFMAN, ""Now as for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and skill in
all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
And at the end of the days which the king had appointed for bringing them in, the
prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king
communed with them and among them all there was found none like Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore stood they before the king. And in every
matter of wisdom and understanding, concerning which the king inquired of them,
he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in
his realm. And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus."
The statement in Daniel 1:17 regarding Daniel's understanding of visions and
dreams is apparently introduced here as a foreshadowing of events about to be
related.
"And at the end of the days ..." (Daniel 1:18). This means at the end of the three-
year period of training. "The king communed with them ... (Daniel 1:19)." This
examination by the king corresponded to the "oral examination" which candidates
for certain higher degrees are required to pass today in many universities. From the
standpoint of Daniel and his companions, the occasion was a great success. They
passed the test with highest honors and was appointed to begin their service in the
palace of the king.
Thomson was impressed with the very fact of the hero of this book, Daniel, and his
associates diligently studying to excel in Chaldean learning, and then upon
completion of the course, willingly, and apparently joyfully accepting assignment in
the king's palace. He pointed out that it is utterly impossible to suppose that this
book was written to encourage the Jews and to provide examples of how Jews
should act in the days of their dealings with the vicious beast of a ruler, Antiochus
Epiphanes.[27] Also, "The mention of visions and dreams is an accurate reflection
of the Babylonian background of the Book of Daniel."[28]
"The magicians ..." (Daniel 1:20)." This word occurs only seven times in the Old
Testament: here, and in Genesis 41:8,24; Exodus 7:11,22; 8:7; 9:11.[29]
"And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus ..." (Daniel 1:21)."
This does not mean that Daniel died that year, for in Daniel 10:1, we find that
Daniel was still active and in high standing in the third year of king Cyrus. What is
meant is that, "Daniel's career spanned the entire period of the seventy years
captivity of Israel."[30] The chronology of this was cited by Owens. "The first year
of Cyrus as king over Babylon was 538 B.C. which was slightly less than 70 years
after Daniel was taken to Babylon."[31] Add the two more years indicated in Daniel
219

10:1, where it is said that Daniel was active in the "third year" of Cyrus, and it is
clear that all throughout the 70 years captivity, God's representative in the person
of Daniel stood quite near to the throne of world authority. Thus, the providence of
God watched over the Chosen people even in their bitter punishment.
The fact just cited fails little short of being an unqualified miracle. Throughout
more than two thirds of a century, Daniel continued serenely above all of the
intrigues and treacheries always identified with the court of oriental kings,
prevailing over the inevitable jealousies that existed everywhere, and especially
against a despised foreigner in high office. He lived to see a whole dynasty of
Babylonian kings ascend the throne, continue awhile, and fade away. He even lived
to see the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus! Only the special providence and blessing
of the Father could have caused such a thing to happen.
We must not leave this chapter without remembering why Israel was sent into
captivity. Such a dreadful punishment was meted out to them because for 490 years
they had not observed the sabbatical years as commanded in the law of Moses.
Therefore God brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans who deported the
whole nation, "Until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths; for as long as it lay desolate
it kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years!" (2 Chronicles 36:21).
It seems nearly incredible that Bible critics would allege "a contradiction between
verse 21 and Daniel 10:1, assuming that verse 21 meant that Daniel died in the first
year of Cyrus. The word "until" never means arbitrarily that the person or action
under consideration did not continue after the time indicated. For example, when
Jacob told Pharaoh that, "Thy servants have been keepers of cattle until this day"
(Genesis 46:37), the last thing on earth that Jacob could have meant was that the
Jews on that day were going out of the cattle business! Culver noted that, since the
last year of the captivity coincided with the first year of Cyrus, that year was
mentioned here as indicated that Daniel continued in favor throughout the whole
period of the long captivity. He add that, "This is the most natural understanding of
the verse (21)."[32]
There is built into Daniel a very strong presumptive proof of its having been written
before the captivity of Israel ended. If that were not true how can it be explained
that no mention of the "return" is found in this book? "This is one of the strongest
evidences of the authenticity of Daniel."[33] It is a climax of the unreasonable to
suppose that if Daniel was written in the days of the Maccabean struggle as an
encouragement to the Jews in those bitter times, there would have been no mention
of the return of Israel from the Babylonian captivity, the features of which are so
prominent in Daniel.
ELLICOTT, " (17) Learning and wisdom.—These appear to be contrasted in this
verse. The former refers to literature, and implies the knowledge of secular subjects;
the latter implies philosophy and theology, and perhaps, also, an acquaintance with
the meaning of portents. Abundant instances of the latter may be found in the
220

Records of the Past (see vol. v., p. 167).
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:17 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.
Ver. 17. As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all
learning.] Both natural and supernatural. In the art of grammar, saith Symmachus;
in every book, saith the Latin interpreter. There was potus ex fonte, fletus in prece,
somnns in codice, as Ambrose speaketh: they drank Adam’s ale, prayed with tears,
slept with a book in their hands. Whether they read the curious books of the
magicians (fitter to be burnt, Acts 19:19) is another question. Osiander thinketh that
their Chaldean tutors would have obtruded upon them such kind of learning also;
but as they abstained from the king’s meat, so they did, likely, from such corrupt
and unlawful arts. Other commendable learning they looked into, as did also Moses,
Solomon, Paul, &c. But what meant Pope Paul II to condemn all learned artists for
heretics, and to tell his Romans that it was learning enough for a man to be able to
read and write? (a) Nebuchadnezzar was of another mind, and Daniel and his
fellows went further than so. Learning hath no enemy but ignorance.
In all visions and dreams,] i.e., In all kind of prophecy. See Numbers 12:6.
POOLE, " We must own
knowledge, and skill, and wisdom to come from God, James 1:5. These are beams of
light shining in us from the Father of lights, and a man can receive nothing of this
unless it be given him from above, John 3:27.
Object. But was not this magic, and was not this learning forbidden as abomination
to the Lord, Deuteronomy 18:9-14?
Answ. The Chaldeans used lawful arts and sciences, and unlawful; these four young
men, Daniel and his companions, used only those that were lawful; rejecting all that
wisdom which is sensual, carnal, and devilish, James 3:15. In all visions and
dreams; not in idle, vain, and lying, but in such as were sent of God, and predictions
of things to come, as Numbers 12:6, such as the prophets had. Such was that of
Nebuchadnezzar.
WHEDON, " 17. God gave these four Hebrew youths “knowledge and skill in every
kind of books” (Hebrews) The Hebrews wrote their books generally upon
parchment, the Egyptians upon papyrus, the Babylonians upon clay tablets. These
tablets were stored by hundreds of thousands in the palace library, and so arranged
as to be easily accessible to visitors and students. The princes who were to be fitted
for state offices would no doubt have a special post-graduate course differing from
that provided for those who were to be priests or “magicians,’’ but the preliminary
training might be the same in both cases. It seems strange to many that these boys
221

who were so scrupulous about touching heathen food (Daniel 1:8) would so eagerly
grasp the heathen learning; but they might not have seen that this was necessarily
connected with idolatry. They certainly are not represented as accepting the religion
of Babylon with its other wisdom.
Visions and dreams — Both the Babylonians and the Hebrews believed that the
divine will was often revealed to man through this agency. (See Daniel 2:1; Genesis
41:15; Numbers 12:6.) No doubt the study of omens and dreams was a prominent
part of the curriculum of the Babylonian schools, and there is no reason to suppose
that a Hebrew youth at this era would doubt its value, although in later ages
heathen learning of every kind became abominable in their eyes.
BENSON, "Verse 17
Daniel 1:17. As for these four children — The Hebrew is literally, As to these
children, or young men, each of them four: to them God gave knowledge and skill in
all learning and wisdom — That is, in all sorts of learning and knowledge. They
became particularly skilful in those parts of the Chaldean learning which were
really useful, and which might recommend them to the favour of the kings both of
Babylon and Persia, and qualify them for places of trust under them; as Moses’s
education in the Egyptian learning fitted him to be a ruler of God’s people. And
Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams — Daniel excelled the others in
the gift of prophecy, and in his extraordinary skill in interpreting all sorts of visions
and dreams, namely, such as were sent of God, and foreshowed future events, under
the cover of certain images and representations, which required an interpretation in
order to the understanding of their true signification. But we must not suppose that
Daniel attained this skill by any study or rules of art. It was God’s supernatural gift
unto him, as was the same kind of knowledge which Joseph possessed and
manifested when he interpreted the dreams of Pharaoh, and those of the chief butler
and baker.
COKE, "Daniel 1:17. Dreams— Namely, those sent from God to portend future
events; which were easily distinguished from fortuitous dreams; if, for instance, they
had nothing in them preposterous, nothing irregular, nothing monstrous; and if the
whole order and consequences of things were regularly preserved in them, from
beginning to end: for nothing of this kind happens in fortuitous dreams; which
generally exhibit irregular, unconnected appearances, and which greatly depend
upon the disposition of the body, as well as of the mind. The Chaldeans were very
much attached to the study of dreams; but the Scripture gives us to understand
here, that Daniel's attaining to any distinguished knowledge of these things, was by
the immediate gift of God. See Houbigant and Calmet.
PETT, "Verse 17
‘Now as for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning
and wisdom. And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.’
222

Not only were their complexions continually clear and full but their minds were
also, for the four grew in wisdom and knowledge. Their minds were alert and they
absorbed their lessons well. We are probably to see in this that they also grew in the
knowledge of God and His ways, for that is the true wisdom. But Daniel especially
was blessed. He had a special gift as regards visions and dreams. He had the
makings of a seer (compare Numbers 12:6; Isaiah 1:1), as he had already
demonstrated. Right from the beginning he was being prepared for his
extraordinary career.
This was an age of visions and dreams, especially in Babylon. Men attained high
position by their ability to interpret them, for great store was laid on those who were
seen as having this ability. But many of the interpretations were facile and men-
pleasing, and few could discern the false from the true, as Nebuchadnezzar was very
much aware. So in this highly charged environment God gave Daniel full
understanding of them. He was able to discern what was real and what was not. It
was a special gift from God so that he could bring God’s word to this idolatrous
court.
There is a lesson here in all this for all young people that they should make full use
of any opportunity that God gives them to advance their education. Had these young
men been too ‘spiritual’ to do so they would have missed out on the future that God
had for them.
PULPIT, "As for these four children, God gave them knewledge and skill in all
learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Or,
as the words might be more accurately rendered, "these lads, the four of them"
(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 ‫ה‬ ָ‫מ‬ ְ‫ר‬ָ‫ﬠ‬ 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
223

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
Babylon—Aramaic, the ordinary language of business and diplomacy; Assyrian, the
court language, the language in which histories and dedications were written;
Accadian, the old sacred tongue, in which all the formulae of worship and the forms
of incantation had been originally written. From the fact that Rabshakeh could talk
Hebrew when conversing with Eliakim and Shebna, it would seem that the
accomplish-merit required from a diplomat implied the knowledge of the languages
of the various nations subject to the Babylonian Empire or eonterminous with it.
"Knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom" would seem to mean the complete
eurriculum fitted to make these youths able diplomatists and wise councillors. And
Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. All the nations of antiquity laid
stress on dreams as means by which the future was revealed to men; but in no
nation was there so elaborate a system of interpretation as among the Babyhmians.
Lenormant ('La Divination') gives a long account, with many passages translated
from their books, of their mode of interpreting dreams. "Visions" may be regarded
as appearances of the nature of the alleged second sight among the Scottish
Highlanders. It may, however, refer to appearances which are regarded as omens of
good or evil fortune. We see in all the elaborate distinctions of omens preserved to
us in Lenormant only the folly of superstition; but we may not assume that Daniel
and his friends did not believe in them. It has been objected that if Daniel and his
friends were so scrupulous in regard to the dainties and. the wines of the
Babylonian monarch, because these were connected with idol-worship, they ought
logically to have refused to learn these superstitious formulae. But men are never
completely logical; life is wider than logic, and hence there are always elements that
are left out in our calculations. The possession even of Divine inspiration would not
suffer men to annul the two millennia and a half that separate us from the days of
Daniel. 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 Babylon. In the following chapter we see the theory
Daniel himself had of the matter, namely, that God used dreams as means to make
known the future to men. No one can say he was mistaken in this. When Luther
described heaven to his child, he filled it with what would be most happy for the
little boy; he takes the child at the stage at which he is, and tells him the truth, but in
limitations suited to his knowledge. May we not reasonably argue that the great
Father deals so with his children? When they are in the state of knowledge that
makes them expect to have his will revealed to them in dreams and omens, then he
will make known his will by dreams. Daniel knew all that Chaldean science could
tell him, but he saw that it was limited, that behind all the canons of interpretation
there was the Eternal Mind, the Great Thinker, whose thoughts are things. In other
words, he did not recognize the so-called science of Babylon, its astrology, its
incantations, its omens, its interpretations of dreams as false so much as limited. It
has been placed by Jerome as a parallel, that Moses was learned in all the learning
of the Egyptians. Jerome assumes "they learned not that they might follow, but that
they might judge and convict (convincant)." We do not see the need of any such
supposition. In their own land they in all likelihood believed in the interpretation of
224

dreams, not unlikely in omens too in some degree. When they came to Babylon they
came among a people who halt reduced all this to a form that had a delusive
appearance of scientific accuracy. They could not fail to believe in all these things.
Long after the latest critical date of Daniel, the Jews believed in omens and dreams.
Josephus tells us of his own skill in these matters, and is still more explicit in respect
to the wisdom of the Essenes in regard to the future. Students of the Talmud will not
require to be told of the bath-qol and other means by which a knowledge of the
future was derived. We must, we fear, assume that Daniel was not so far ahead of
his contemporaries as not to believe in the science of Babylon, and therefore to
expect him to protest against it and refuge to acquire it is absurd in the last degree.
This fact of these four Hebrew youths not objecting to heathen learning is ,n indirect
proof of the early date of Daniel. If this book had been written in the days of the
Maccabees, then the learning of the Chaldeans would be a synonym for the learning
of the Greeks. We know that, so far from the Hasideem—the party from whom, by
hypothesis, "Daniel" emanated—looking favourably on Greek learning, they hated
and abhorred it. We see in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:14) the feelings
with which they regarded those who favoured Greek manners; how even the
innocent game of discus was full of horror for them, because it was Greek (2 Macc
1:14); and in the first book with what horror the pious looked on the erection of a
gymnasium in Jerusalem. This hatred of everything Greek was very natural, and
certainly was very much in evidence in their history. For business purposes they had
to know the Greek language; but the learning, the philosophy, and literature of
Greece would have been to those engaged in the Maccabean struggle abomination.
Is it, then, to be imagined that a writer of the Maccabean period, describing an
ancient hero from whose example his contemporaries were to draw encouragement
and guidance, would represent him as zealously addicting himself to the pursuit of
Gentile learning, and making such progress in it that he excelled all competitors?
The attitude ascribed to him would have been more like that of the Rabbi Akiba,
who declared that "Greek learning could be studied in an hour that was neither day
nor night;" or like that other rabbi, who declared that "the translation of the
Scripture into Greek was a disaster to Judaism equal in horror to the fall of
Jerusalem." We hear a great deal of the historic imagination and the necessity of
applying it to questions of Biblical criticism. Surely the minds must be strangely
deficient in the power of imaginative reconstruction who cannot feel the thrill of
abhorrence of everything foreign that must have filled the Jews during the
Maccabean struggle. If the critics had only realized this, they would have seen how
utterly impossible it is to conceive that a religious novel, written at that time,
intended to nerve the Jews for fiercer resistance to their oppressors, should
represent the hero complacently acquiring Gentile learning, and acting the
submissive courtier in the tyrant's palace.
225

18 At the end of the time set by the king to bring
them into his service, the chief official presented
them to Nebuchadnezzar.
BARNES, "Now at the end of the days ... - After three years. See Dan_1:5.
The prince of the eunuchs brought them in - Daniel, his three friends, and the
others who had been selected and trained for the same purpose.
CLARKE, "Now at the end of the days - That is, at the end of three years, Dan_
1:5.
GILL, "Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring them in,....
That is, at the end of three years; which was the time appointed for their education, and
when they were to be brought before the king for his examination and approbation:
then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar;
even all the young men that were taken from among the children of Israel and Judah, as
well as the four children before and after mentioned, appears by what follows. This was
done by Asphenaz, and not Melzar.
JAMISON, "brought them in — that is, not only Daniel and his three friends, but
other youths (Dan_1:3, Dan_1:19, “among them all”).
CALVIN, "Now, Daniel relates how he and his companions were brought forward
at a fixed time, since three years was appointed by the king for their instruction in
all the science of the Chaldees and on that account the prefect of the eunuchs
produces them. He shews how he and his companions were approved by the king,
and were preferred to all the rest. By these words he confirms my remark, that the
Lord through a long interval had adorned them with much favor, by rendering
them conspicuous throughout the royal palace, while the king himself acknowledged
something uncommon in them. He, as well as the courtiers, ought all to entertain
such an opinion concerning these four youths, as should express his sincere
reverence for them. Then God wished to illustrate his own glory, since without
doubt the king was compelled to wonder how they could surpass all the Chaldeans.
This monarch had spared no expense on his own people, and had not neglected to
226

instruct them; but when he saw foreigners and captives so superior, a spirit of
rivalry would naturally spring up within him. But, as I have already said, God
wished to extol himself in the person of his servants, so that the king might be
compelled to acknowledge something divine in these young men. Whence, then, was
this superiority? for the Chaldeans boasted of their wisdom from their birth, and
esteemed other nations as barbarians. The Jews, they would argue, are eminent
beyond all others; verily the God whom they worship distributes at his will talent
and perception, since no one is naturally gifted unless he receives this grace from
heaven. God, therefore, must necessarily be glorified, because Daniel and his
comrades very far surpassed the Chaldeans. Thus God usually causes his enemies to
gaze with wonder on his power, even when they most completely shun the light. For
what did King Nebuchadnezzar propose, but to extinguish the very remembrance of
God? For he wished to have about him Jews of noble family, who should oppose the
very religion in which they were born. But God frustrated this plan of the tyrant’s,
and took care to make his own name more illustrious. It now follows.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:18 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.
Ver. 18. Now at the end of the days,] i.e., After three years’ time of studying. See on
Daniel 1:5. Account is to be exacted of time and profiting. Pliny (a) said to his
nephew, when he saw him walk out some hours without studying, Poteras has horas
non perdere, You might have spent these hours better. Ignatius, when he heard a
clock strike, would say, Here is one hour more now past that I have to answer for.
Archbishop Ussher, (b) on his death bed, begged hard of God to pardon his
omissions, who yet was never known to omit an hour, but ever employed in his
Master’s business, reading, writing, preaching, resolving doubts, &c.HEDON,
"Verses 18-20
18-20. At the end of a three years’ course of study (Daniel 1:5) the examination not
only showed the fitness of these youths to stand before the king (Daniel 1:19), that is,
as royal attendants (Bevan); but when questions were propounded on dark subjects
their answers showed more insight than those of the king’s most aged and learned
counselors. This statement probably has reference to the events related in chap. 2.
This verse is so changed in various translations that Thomson would drop it out
altogether as a later interpolation. Wyclif’s translation, though not of critical value,
is curious enough to quote: “And eche word of Wysdam and vndirstondyng, that the
Kyng axide of him, he fonde in him the tenthe folde ouer alle dyvynours and witch is
that everen in alle the rewme of hym.”
BENSON, "Verses 18-20
Daniel 1:18-20. Now at the end of the days that the king had said he should bring
them in — At the end of three years, see Daniel 1:5, the prince of the eunuchs
brought them in — According to the king’s command. And the king communed
227

with them — To try their proficiency. This shows the king’s ability and judgment,
without which he could not have discerned their fitness for his service, and their
excellence above others. He examined all candidates that applied, and preferred
those that outstripped the rest. Therefore stood they before the king — They were in
continual attendance in the king’s court. The same expression is used of Elijah and
Jeremiah, as God’s servants and messengers, 1 Kings 17:1; Jeremiah 15:19. And the
Levites are said to stand before the congregation to minister to them, Numbers 16:9.
And in all matters of wisdom and understanding — In a general knowledge of
things; that the king inquired of them — This is a further confirmation of the king’s
noble endowments, and of his great care to choose only proper persons to be in
offices of trust, namely, persons well qualified to serve him in the great affairs of the
kingdom. He found them ten times better, &c. — Hebrew, ‫ידית‬ ‫,עשׂר‬ ten hands
above, all the magicians and astrologers that were in his realm — The words may be
understood of those that employed themselves in the lawful search of natural causes
and effects, and of the regular motions of the heavenly bodies. For, inasmuch as
Daniel made intercession to the captain of the guard, that the wise men of Babylon
might not be slain, Daniel 2:24, we cannot suppose that all of them were such as
studied unlawful arts and sciences, especially as he himself was afterward made
master, or head, over them. These names are evidently to be taken in a good sense,
as the magi, Matthew 2:1 ; and the astrologers were then nearly, if not altogether,
the same as astronomers with us. In short, the words seem to comprehend those
persons in general, that were distinguished in the several kinds of learning
cultivated among the Chaldees. It cannot, therefore, be collected from these words,
that Daniel applied himself to the study of what are called magic arts, but to the
sciences of the Chaldees; in the same manner as Moses had, long before, applied
himself to the study of the wisdom of Egypt. And in giving Nebuchadnezzar proof
that Daniel excelled all the wise men in his realm in these branches of knowledge
and wisdom, God poured contempt on the pride of the Chaldeans, and put honour
on the low estate of his people.
PETT, "Verses 18-20
‘And at the completion of the days which the king had appointed for bringing them
before him, the prince of the chief officers brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar.
And the king had discussions with them and among them all was found none like
Daniel, Hananiah, Misahel and Azariah. And in every matter of wisdom and
understanding about which the king questioned them he found them ten times
better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his realm.’
The final test came when they were all brought in before the king. He was not so
concerned with how they looked but with what they had learned. And as he listened
to the four he was impressed by their knowledge and wisdom. ‘Ten times better’
must clearly not be taken too literally. It is a typical exaggeration.
The point is probably twofold. Firstly that their remarkable wisdom and
understanding shone through, so that as Nebuchadnezzar listened to them, their
228

breadth of knowledge, and their discernment and ability to seize on what was most
important, and interpret it, impressed him. He felt as he heard their answers that he
had never met the like, even among his own magicians and enchanters, those men
with their seeming knowledge of mysterious arts.
And secondly that in fact his opinion of his own enchanters and magicians was not
very high. He thought of them sceptically as men with limited vision and
understanding. There is here the very definite suggestion that they did not impress
him, as will come out in the next chapter.
PULPIT, "Now at the end of the clays that the king had said he should bring them
in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. The
Septuagint Version here is shorter and simpler: "After these days the king
commanded to bring them in, and they were brought in by the prince of the
eunuchs." The only difference is that ‫ֶה‬‫ל‬ ֵ‫א‬ַ‫ה‬ (haayleh) is read instead of ‫ר‬ ֶ‫שׁ‬ֲ‫א‬ ('asher),
and the maqqeph dropped. Theodotion is in close accordance with the Massoretic
text. The Peshitta is also simpler than the Massoretic text, though founded on it:
"And after the completion of the days which the king had arranged, the chief of the
eunuchs brought them before Nebuchadnezzar the king." Both the Massoretic and
Peshitta texts represent the prince of the eunuchs bringing the youths before King
Nebuchadnezzar when the time had elapsed, without any orders from the king
himself. According to the Septuagint, it was the king himself that required them to
be presented before him. It seems more like the active-minded king, that he should
recall his purpose of examining these youths, and command them to be brought in,
than that the prince of the eunuchs should bring them trooping in without warning
into the royal presence. Such an examination, whether conducted by the king
personally, or in his presence, or under his superintendence, would need to be
prepared fur; something equivalent to examination papers, test questions, would
have to be arranged, or the presentation before the king would be a farce. All this
implies that Nebuchadnezzar himself arranged the time of the appearance of those
youths before him. We can scarcely imagine the awe with which those young
captives must have looked forward to standing before the terrible conqeueror who
had swept the army of Egypt before him, and had overthrown all who ventured to
oppose him, who had sent home hosts of captives to throng the slave-markets of
Babylon. We are not told whether each separately was brought before
Nebuchadnezzar, or whether the whole number of the cadets were presented at
once. It is the earliest instance of promotion by competitive examination. The clear,
sharp eye of the young conqueror was probably worth more than all the questions
prepared. While certainly the words used seem to imply that the hostages were
called merely to be examined, the occasion may have been the "dream" narrated in
the next chapter.
229

19 The king talked with them, and he found none
equal to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah;
so they entered the king’s service.
BARNES, "And the king communed with them - Hebrew, “spake with them.”
Probably he conversed with them on the points which had constituted the principal
subjects of their studies; or he “examined” them. It is easy to imagine that this must have
been to these young men a severe ordeal.
And among them all was found none like Daniel ... - Daniel and his three
friends had pursued a course of strict temperance; they had come to their daily task with
clear heads and pure hearts - free from the oppression and lethargy of surfeit, and the
excitement of wine; they had prosecuted their studies in the enjoyment of fine health,
and with the buoyousness and elasticity of spirit produced by temperance, and they now
showed the result of such a course of training. Young men of temperance, other things
being equal, will greatly surpass others in their preparation for the duties of life in any
profession or calling.
Therefore stood they before the king - It is not said, indeed, that the others were
not permitted also to stand before the monarch, but the object of the historian is to trace
the means by which “these youths” rose to such eminence and virtue. It is clear,
however, that whatever may have been the result on the others, the historian means to
say that these young men rose to higher eminence than they did, and were permitted to
stand nearer the throne. The phrase “stood before the king,” is one which denotes
elevated rank. They were employed in honorable offices at the court, and received
peculiar marks of the royal favor.
CLARKE, "And among them all - All the young noble captives from different
nations.
Therefore stood they before the king - It appears that only four were wanting.
GILL, "And the king communed with them,.... He asked them several questions
upon the several articles of literature in which they had been educated, to try and see
what proficiency they had made; he discoursed with them on various topics of learning,
that he might be able to form a judgment of them, and of their capacities, and what
employments under him they would be most fit for, and capable of. This shows that the
king was a man of learning and good sense, as well as prudence, to be capable of taking
230

such a step as this:
and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and
Azariah; for their learning and knowledge: after the king had gone through the
examination of all the youths, these four appeared to be the greatest proficients, and
were accordingly taken notice of and distinguished:
therefore stood they before the king; ministered unto him, became his servants,
and even came to be of his privy council, especially Daniel; see Pro_22:29.
JAMISON, "stood ... before the king — that is, were advanced to a position of
favor near the throne
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:19 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.
Ver. 19. And the king communed with them.] It seems he was himself a learned
king, able to pose them, and put them to it. So was Alexander the Great, Ptolemy
Philadelph, Julius Caesar, Constantine the Great, Charles the Great, Alphonsus of
Arragon, our Henry I, surnamed Beauclerc, and King James, who was able to
confer learnedly with any man in his faculty. Alphonsus was wont to say that an
unlearned king was but a crowned ass, and that he would not be without that little
learning he had for all that he was worth besides.
And among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah.]
That which Patricius saith of the son of Juba, king of Numidia, taken captive by
Julius Caesar, may fitly be applied to these four noble captives: Quicquid nobilitatis
fortuna eripuerat, id longe accumulatius ei restituerat bonarum artium disciplina,
What lustre soever they had lost by their captivity, was abundantly made up and
restored by their excellent learning.
Therefore stood they before the king.] Who had no sooner proved them, but he
highly approved them. O Hortensi admodum adolescentis ingenium, ut Phidiae
signum simul aspectum et probatum est. (a) So Daniel’s and the rest: neither need
we wonder, since, beside all other helps, they were "taught of God."
POOLE, "Communed with them, i.e. to try their proficiency: this argues the king’s
ability and judgment, how else could he discern their fitness and their excellency
above others? He examined all candidates, he preferred those that outstripped
others.
PULPIT, "And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none
like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azarish: therefore stood they before the king.
The word translated "communed" really means "spake," and is the common word
for this. The Septuagint translates here ὥμίλησεν, which does mean "commune."
231

Theodotion renders ἐλάλησε. Jerome has locutus; the Peshitta has malel; all these
may be rendered "talked." From Nebuchadnezzar's great reverence for the national
religion and for the national magic, we may be certain that much of the conversation
would turn on those magical formulae which have been to such a large extent
preserved to us. Even if, as we think, the immediate occasion of Daniel and his
companions appearing before the king was his "dream," still he would not
unnaturally examine them further. It is not unlikely that this conversational
examination would involve naturally the languages they would have to be proficient
in were they to be of the royal council. They would have to be acquainted with
Accadian, the original tongue of all the most sacred magical formulae; with
Assyrian, the language in which the royal annals were recorded; and with Aramaic,
which was, as we have already said, the language of commerce and diplomacy.
Hebrew, the language of the four in whom we are more especially interested, was
spoken, not merely by the holy people, but also by the Edomites, Ammonites,
Moabites, and the Phoenicians. Further, Egypt was a factor that had to be taken
into account, and so, not unlikely, the tongue of Egypt would be known by some, at
any rate, of the court officials in Babylon. The empire of the Hittites had certainly
passed away, but, probably, their language was still known and spoken by a large
number of the inhabitants of Nebuchadnezzar's extensive empire. Not only were the
languages of peoples west of Babylon to be considered, but also those to the east;
there were the Aryan tongues too. If the tradition is correct that Nebuchadnezzar
married a Median wife, the Median tongue, which seems to have been the same with
that of Persia, would be, above all, important, Not unlikely questions of policy and
statecraft would be submitted to these candidates, to see what they would say.
Above all, in personal intercourse the King of Babylon would be able to form some
estimate of the real worth of these youths, There probably would enter in a large
measure of caprice, or even superstition, into his choice, yet not unlikely his strong
practical sense would limit his superstition. The result of this examination is
eminently satisfactory to the young Hebrews. They were found superior to all their
competitors. Therefore stood they before the king. Professor Bevan would render
this "became his personal attendants"—a very natural translation. We know, from
the Ninevite marbles, that the king is always, alike on the field of battle, the hunting-
field, and the council-chamber, attended by eunuchs. It may, however, be regarded
as referring to the special subjects of their study. As they had been admitted to the
class of magicians and astrologers, it would mean they were admitted to the number
of those who were royal magicians and 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, ἦσαν, "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. The only difficulty is
that the blunder is also in Paulus Tellensis.
232

20 In every matter of wisdom and understanding
about which the king questioned them, he found
them ten times better than all the magicians and
enchanters in his whole kingdom.
BARNES, "And in all matters of wisdom and understanding - Margin, “of.”
The Hebrew is, “Everything of wisdom of understanding.” The Greek, “In all things of
wisdom “and” knowledge.” The meaning is, in everything which required peculiar
wisdom to understand and explain it. The points submitted were such as would
appropriately come before the minds of the sages and magicians who were employed as
counselors at court.
He found them ten times better - Better counselors, better informed. Hebrew,
“ten “hands” above the magicians;” that is, ten “times,” or “many” times. In this sense
the word “ten” is used in Gen_31:7, Gen_31:41; Num_14:22; Neh_4:12; Job_19:3. They
greatly surpassed them.
Than all the magicians - Greek, τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς tous epaoidous. The Greek word
means, “those singing to;” then those who propose to heal the sick by singing; then those
who practice magical arts or incantations - particularly with the idea of charming with
songs; and then those who accomplish anything surpassing human power by mysterious
and supernatural means. - Passow. The Hebrew word (‫הרטמים‬ chare
ṭummı̂ym), occurs
only in the following places in the Scriptures, in all of which it is rendered “magicians:” -
Gen_41:8, Gen_41:24; Exo_7:11, Exo_7:22; Exo_8:7 (3), 18 (14), 19 (15); Exo_9:11;
Dan_1:20; Dan_2:2. From this it appears that it applied only to the magicians in Egypt
and in Babylon, and doubtless substantially the same class of persons is referred to. It is
found only in the plural number, “perhaps” implying that they formed companies, or
that they were always associated together, so that different persons performed different
parts in their incantations.
The word is defined by Gesenius to mean, “Sacred scribes, skilled in the sacred
writings or hieroglyphics - ἱερογραμματεῖς hierogrammateis - a class of Egyptian priests.”
It is, according to him (Lex.), of Hebrew origin, and is derived from ‫חרט‬ chereṭ,
“stylus” - an instrument of writing, and the formative ‫מ‬ (m). It is not improbable, he
suggests, that the Hebrews with these letters imitated a similar Egyptian word. Prof.
Stuart (in loc.) says that the word would be correctly translated “pen-men,” and
supposes that it originally referred to those who were “busied with books and writing,
and skilled in them.” It is evident that the word is not of Persian origin, since it was used
in Egypt long before it occurs in Daniel. A full and very interesting account of the
233

Magians and their religion may be found in Creuzer, “Mythologie und Symbolik,” i. pp.
187-234. Herodotus mentions the “Magi” as a distinct people, i. 101.
The word “Mag” or “Mog” (from the μάγοι magoi of the Greeks, and the “magi” of the
Romans) means, properly, a “priest;” and at a very early period the names “Chaldeans”
and “Magi” were interchangeable, and both were regarded as of the same class. -
Creuzer, i. 187, note. They were doubtless, at first, a class of priests among the Medes
and Persians, who were employed, among other things, in the search for wisdom; who
were connected with pagan oracles; who claimed acquaintance with the will of the gods,
and who professed to have the power, therefore, of making known future events, by
explaining dreams, visions, preternatural appearances, etc. The Magi formed one of the
six tribes into which the Medes were formerly divided (Herodotus, i. 101), but on the
downfall of the Median empire they continued to retain at the court of the conqueror a
great degree of power and authority. “The learning of the Magi was connected with
astrology and enchantment, in which they were so celebrated that their name was
applied to all orders of magicians and enchanters.” - Anthon, “Class. Dic.” These remarks
may explain the reason why the word “magician” comes to be applied to this class of
men, though we are not to suppose that the persons referred to in Genesis and Exodus,
under the appellation of the Hebrew name there given to them (‫הרטמים‬ chare
ṭummı̂ym),
or those found in Babylon, referred to in the passage before us, to whom the same name
is applied, were of that class of priests.
The name “magi,” or “magician,” was so extended as to embrace “all” who made
pretensions to the kind of knowledge for which the magi were distinguished, and hence,
came also to be synonymous with the “Chaldeans,” who were also celebrated for this.
Compare the notes at Dan_2:2. In the passage before us it cannot be determined with
certainty, that the persons were of “Magian” origin, though it is possible, as in Dan_2:2,
they are distinguished from the Chaldeans. All that is certainly meant is, that they were
persons who laid claim to the power of diving into future events; of explaining mysteries;
of interpreting dreams; of working by enchantments, etc.
And astrologers - - ‫האשׁפים‬ hâ'ashâpı̂ym. This word is rendered by the Septuagint,
μάγους magous, “magians.” So also in the Vulgate, “magos.” The English word
“astrologer” denotes “one who professes to foretell future events by the aspects and
situation of the stars.” - Webster. The Hebrew word - ‫אשׁפים‬ 'ashâpı̂ym - according to
Gesenius, means “enchanters, magicians.” It is derived, probably, from the obsolete root
‫אשׁף‬ 'âshap, “to cover,” “to conceal,” and refers to those who were devoted to the practice
of occult arts, and to the cultivation of recondite and cabalistic sciences. It is supposed
by some philologists to have given rise, by dropping the initial ‫א‬ to the Greek σοφος
sophos, “wise, wise man,” and the Persian sophi, an epithet of equivalent import. See
Gesenius on the word, and compare Bush on Dan_2:2. The word is found only in Daniel,
Dan_1:20; Dan_2:2, Dan_2:10, Dan_2:27; Dan_4:7 (4); Dan_5:7, Dan_5:11, Dan_5:15,
in every instance rendered “astrologer” and “astrologers.” There is no evidence, however,
that the science of astrology enters into the meaning of the word, or that the persons
referred to attempted to pracrise divination by the aid of the stars. It is to be regretted
that the term “astrologer” should have been employed in our translation, as it conveys an
intimation which is not found in the original. It is, indeed, in the highest degree
probable, that a part of their pretended wisdom consisted in their ability to cast the fates
of men by the conjunctions and opposition of the stars, but this is not necessarily
234

implied in the word. Prof. Stuart renders it “enchanters.”
In all his realm - Not only in the capital, but throughout the kingdom. These arts
were doubtless practiced extensively elsewhere, but it is probable that the most skillful
in them would be assembled at the capital.
CLARKE, "Magicians and astrologers - Probably the same as philosophers and
astronomers among us.
GILL, "And in all matters of wisdom and understanding that the king
inquired of them,.... At the time of their examination before him, when he put
questions to them, which they gave a ready, pertinent, and solid answer to: and
afterwards, when he had occasion to consult them on any affair,
he found them ten times, or ten hands (g) better than all the magicians and
astrologers that were in all his realm; than all the magi and sophies, the enchanters,
diviners, soothsayers, and such who pretended to judicial astrology, and to judge of and
foretell things by the position of the stars; these young men were able to give more
pertinent answers to questions put to them, and better advice and counsel when asked of
them, than all the persons before described, throughout the king's dominions.
JAMISON, "ten times — literally, “ten hands.”
magicians — properly, “sacred scribes, skilled in the sacred writings, a class of
Egyptian priests” [Gesenius]; from a Hebrew root, “a pen.” The word in our English
Version, “magicians,” comes from mag, that is, “a priest.” The Magi formed one of the
six divisions of the Medes.
astrologers — Hebrew, “enchanters,” from a root, “to conceal,” practicers of the
occult arts.
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom [and] understanding, that the
king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians [and]
astrologers that [were] in all his realm.
Ver. 20. And in all matters of wisdom.] God will honour them that honour him: his
gifts and graces he giveth to pure souls, and according to their study of purity, as to
Daniel chiefly.
He found them ten times better.] Masters of knowledge, skilled usque ad apices
literarum, right up to the very peak of learning, (a) and therefore highly favoured
by the king, who was himself a great philosopher. Daniel was a leviathan of
learning, both divine and human, as one saith of Archbishop Ussher; Unicum istius
cetatis miraculum et musarum delicium, as Erasmus saith of Alciat, the miracle of
235

his age, and the muse’s darling - one that better deserved, for his learning, to be
called Magnus Great than ever Albertus did. The perfection even of human arts is
to be found in the Church. See my Common Place of "Arts."
POOLE, "This is a further confirmation of the king’s noble endowments of mind,
and of his great care whom he chose to be in offices of trust; namely, persons
excellently qualified to serve him in the great affairs of the kingdom, not to serve his
lusts by them for base jobs, for which men of no abilities or honour are usually
chosen.
COKE, "Daniel 1:20. Magicians and astrologers— These names may perhaps be
taken in a good sense, as the wise men in St. Matthew; and the astrologers perhaps
were then in general the same as astronomers with us. However, it cannot be
collected from these words, that Daniel applied himself to the study of magic arts;
but to the sciences of the Chaldees; in the same manner as Moses, long before, had
applied himself to the study of the wisdom of Egypt. See Houbigant. The word
‫אשׁפים‬ ashaphim, rendered astrologers, possibly, says Parkhurst, might be derived
from ‫ףּ‬‫נשׁ‬ neshep, to breathe, on account of the divine inspirations that they
pretended to. Others have given a different account of the word: ‫צפא‬ tzapha, or
sapha, as the Assyrians and Babylonians commonly speak it, signifies to speculate,
look about, inquire nicely; which being part of the office of the prophets, they were
called zophim. For the same cause, such as spent their time in contemplating the
works of nature, the situation of the stars, and their influence on the earth, as the
magi (by which word, except in one place, the LXX render ‫אשׁפים‬ ashaphim,) and
astrologers did, were named assaphim at Babylon; as much as to say, contemplative
men. See Vindic. of Defence, chap. 1: sect. 2.
PULPIT, "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, a literal rendering of ‫ר‬ָ‫ב‬ ָ‫,ד‬ dabhar, 'a word' or 'thing'),
and knowledge and education ( παιδείᾳ ) 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, and translated ‫ל‬ַ‫ﬠ‬ (al) by ὑπὲρ. 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 ( ἀνεδείξεν) 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
ἀναδείκνυμι, represents occasionally ‫,הודע‬ and as the Syriac vav and the old Hebrew
‫ע‬ were almost identical in shape, ‫דע‬ֹ‫י‬ (yod‛a) might be read as ‫ידוֹה‬ evidently the
236

translator has read ‫חכמים‬ (ḥacmeem) instead of ‫ים‬ ִ‫ֻמ‬‫ט‬ ְ‫ר‬ַ‫ח‬ (ḥartummeem), and has
transferred the ‛al col from before ḥartummeem 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 ḥartummeem 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 Alexandria, where this translation was made; ḥartummeern,
as occurring in the Pentateuch, the earliest part of the Old Testament translated,
was certain to be known: how did the word here happen not to be known? We can
understand the phenomenon if some word, probably of Babylonian origin, and
unknown in Egypt and Palestine, occupied the place and was modified into a more
intelligible shape by being turned into ḥartummeem. As the verse stands,
ḥartummeem is grammatically placed in apposition to the following word,
‛ashshapheem, as there is no conjunction to unite the two words. It is acknowledged
by Professor Bevan that the latter word has an Assyrian origin; it is not
inconceivable that h[artummeem is really the explanatory word, though the
arrangement of the words is decidedly against this view. It is to be observed here
that ‛ashshapheem has been naturalized in Eastern Aramaic, but has not found a
lodgment in Western, save in Daniel. We cannot help feeling a little suspicion of the
authenticity of this verse. This phrase, "ten times better," has all the look of that
exaggeration which became the prevailing vice of later Judaism. As we have
indicated, the variations in regard to the precise reading deepen this suspicion. If,
however, the reference here is really to Daniel's revelation to the king of his dream,
then the statement in the text is less objectionable. This was such a marvellous feat,
and one that so put Daniel ,boys all the wise men of Babylon, that the language of
the verse before us is rather rhetorical than exaggerated.
21 And Daniel remained there until the first year
of King Cyrus.
BARNES, "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus -
When the proclamation was issued by him to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, Ezr_1:1.
237

That is, he continued in influence and authority at different times during that period,
and, of course, during the whole of the seventy years captivity. It is not necessarily
implied that he did not “live” longer, or even that he ceased then to have influence and
authority at court, but the object of the writer is to show that, during that long and
eventful period, he occupied a station of influence until the captivity was accomplished,
and the royal order was issued for rebuilding the temple. He was among the first of the
captives that were taken to Babylon, and he lived to see the end of the captivity - “the
joyful day of Jewish freedom.” - Prof. Stuart. It is commonly believed that, when the
captives returned, he remained in Chaldea, probably detained by his high employments
in the Persian empire, and that he died either at Babylon or at Shushan. Compare the
Introduction Section I.
Practical Remarks
In view of the exposition given of this chapter, the following remarks may be made:
(1) There is in every period of the world, and in every place, much obscure and buried
talent that might be cultivated and brought to light, as there are many gems in earth and
ocean that are yet undiscovered. See the notes at Dan_1:1-4. Among these captive
youths - prisoners of war - in a foreign land, and as yet unknown, there was most rich
and varied talent - talent that was destined yet to shine at the court of the most
magnificent monarchy of the ancient world, and to be honored as among the brightest
that the world has seen. And so in all places and at all times, there is much rich and
varied genius which might shine with great brilliancy, and perform important public
services, if it were cultivated and allowed to develope itself on the great theater of human
affairs. Thus, in obscure rural retreats there may be bright gems of intellect; in the low
haunts of vice there may be talent that would charm the world by the beauty of song or
the power of eloquence; among slaves there may be mind which, if emancipated, would
take its place in the brightest constellations of genius. The great endowments of Moses
as a lawgiver, a prophet, a profound statesman, sprang from an enslaved people, as those
of Daniel did; and it is not too much to say that the brightest talent of the earth has been
found in places of great obscurity, and where, but for some remarkable dispensation of
Providence, it might have remained forever unknown. This thought has been
immortalized by Gray:
“Full many a gem of purest ray serene,
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear;
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
“Some village Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood;
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest.
Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country’s blood.”
There is at any time on the earth talent enough created for all that there is to be done
in any generation; and there is always enough for talent to accomplish if it were
employed in the purposes for which it was originally adapted. There need be at no time
any wasted or unoccupied mind; and there need be no great and good plan that should
fail for the want of talent fitted to accomplish it, if what actually exists on the earth were
called into action.
238

(2) He does a great service to the world who seeks out such talent, and gives it an
opportunity to accomplish what it is fitted to, by furnishing it the means of an education,
Dan_1:3. Nebuchadnezzar, unconsciously, and doubtless undesignedly, did a great
service to mankind by his purpose to seek out the talent of the Hebrew captives, and
giving it an opportunity to expand and to ripen into usefulness. Daniel has taken his
place among the prophets and statesmen of the world as a man of rare endowments, and
of equally rare integrity of character. He has, under the leading of the Divine Spirit, done
more than most other prophets to lift the mysterious veil which shrouds the future;
more than “could” have been done by the penetrating sagacity of all the Burkes, the
Cannings, and the Metternichs of the world. So far as human appearances go, all this
might have remained in obscurity, if it had not been for the purpose of the Chaldean
monarch to bring forward into public notice the obscure talent which lay hid among the
Hebrew captives. He always does a good service to mankind who seeks out bright and
promising genius, and who gives it the opportunity of developing itself with advantage
on the great theater of human affairs.
(3) We cannot but admire the arrangements of Providence by which this was done. See
the notes at Dan_1:1-4. This occurred in connection with the remarkable purpose of a
pagan monarch - a man who, perhaps more than any other pagan ruler, has furnished an
illustration of the truth that “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.” “That purpose
was, to raise to eminence and influence the talent that might be found among the
Hebrew captives.” There can be no doubt that the hand of God was in this; that there
was a secret Divine influence on his mind, unknown to him, which secured this result;
and that, while he was aiming at one result, God was designing to secure another. There
was thus a double influence on his mind:
(a) what arose from the purpose of the monarch himself, originated by
considerations of policy, or contemplating the aggrandizement and increased
splendor of his court; and
(b) the secret and silent influence of God, shaping the plans of the monarch to the
ends which “He” had in view. Compare the notes at Isa_10:5 following.
(4) as it is reasonable to suppose that these young men had been trained up in the
strict principles of religion and temperance Dan_1:8-12, the case before us furnishes an
interesting illustration of the temptations to which those who are early trained in the
ways of piety are often exposed. Every effort seems to have been made to induce them to
abandon the principles in which they had been educated, and there was a strong
probability that those efforts would be successful.
(a) They were among strangers, far away from the homes of their youth, and
surrounded by the allurements of a great city.
(b) Everything was done which could be done to induce them to “forget” their own
land and the religion of their fathers.
(c) They were suddenly brought into distinguished notice; they attracted the
attention of the great, and had the prospect of associating with princes and
nobles in the most magnificent court on earth. They had been selected on
account of their personal beauty and their intellectual promise, and were
approached, therefore, in a form of temptation to which youths are commonly
most sensitive, and to which they are commonly most liable to yield.
(d) They were far away from the religious institutions of their country; from the
public services of the sanctuary; from the temple; and from all those influences
which had been made to bear upon them in early life. It was a rare virtue which
239

could, in these circumstances, withstand the power of such temptations.
(5) Young men, trained in the ways of religion and in the habits of temperance, are
often now exposed to similar temptations. They visit the cities of a foreign country, or
the cities in their own land. They are surrounded by strangers. They are far away from
the sanctuary to which in early life they were conducted by their parents, and in which
they were taught the truths of religion. The eye of that unslumbering vigilance which was
upon them in their own land, or in the country neighborhood where their conduct was
known to all, is now withdrawn. No one will know it if they visit the theater; no one will
see them who will make report if they are found in the gambling room, or the place of
dissipation. In those new scenes new temptations are around them. They may be
noticed, flattered, caressed. They may be invited to places by the refined and the
fashionable, from which, when at home, they would have recoiled. Or, it may be,
prospects of honor and affluence may open upon them, and in the whirl of business or
pleasure, they may be under the strongest temptations to forget the lessons of early
virtue, and to abandon the principles of the religion in which they were trained.
Thousands of young men are ruined in circumstances similar to those in which these
youths were placed in Babylon, and amidst temptations much less formidable titan those
which encompassed them; and it is a rare virtue which makes a young man safe amidst
the temptations to which he is exposed in a great city, or in a distant land.
(6) We have in this chapter an instructive instance of the value of early training in the
principles of religion and temperance. There can be no doubt that these young men
owed their safety and their future success wholly to this. Parents, therefore, should be
encouraged to train their sons in the strictest principles of religion and virtue. Seed thus
sown will not be lost. In a distant land, far away from home, from a parent’s eye, from
the sanctuary of God; in the midst of temptations, when surrounded by flatterers, by the
gay and by the irreligious, such principles will be a safeguard to them which nothing else
can secure, and will save them when otherwise they would be engulphed in the vortex of
irreligion and dissipation. The best service which a parent can render to a son, is to
imbue his mind thoroughly with the principles of temperance and religion.
(7) We may see the value of a purpose of entire abstinence from the use of “wine,”
Dan_1:8. Daniel resolved that he would not make use of it as a beverage. His purpose, it
would seem, was decided, though he meant to accomplish it by mild and persuasive
means if possible. There were good reasons for the formation of such a purpose then,
and those reasons are not less weighty now. He never had occasion to regret the
formation of such a purpose; nor has anyone who has formed a similar resolution ever
had occasion to regret it. Among the reasons for the formation of such a resolution, the
following may be suggested:
(a) A fixed resolution in regard to the course which one will pursue; to the kind of
life which he will live; to the principles on which he will act, is of inestimable
value in a young man. Our confidence in a man is just in proportion as we have
evidence that he has formed a steady purpose of virtue, and that he has
sufficient strength of resolution to keep it.
(b) The same reasons exist for adopting a resolution of abstinence in regard to the
use of wine, which exist for adopting it in relation to the use of ardent spirits,
for
(1) The intoxicating principle in wine or other fermented liquors is precisely the same
as in ardent spirits. It is the result of “fermentation,” not of “distillation,” and undergoes
no change by distillation. The only effect of that chemical process is to drive it off by
240

heat, condense, and collect it in a form better adapted to commerce or to preservation,
but the alcoholic principle is precisely the same in wine as in distilled liquors.
(2) Intoxication itself is the same thing, whether produced by fermented liquors or by
distilled spirits. It produces the same effect on the body, on the mind, on the affections.
A man who becomes intoxicated on wine - as he easily may - is in precisely the same
condition, so far as intoxication is produced, as he who becomes intoxicated on distilled
liquors.
(3) There is the same kind of “danger” of becoming intemperate in the use of the one
as of the other. The man who habitually uses wine is as certainly in danger of becoming a
drunkard as he who indulges in the use of distilled liquors. The danger, too, arises from
the same source. It arises from the fact that he who indulges once will feel induced to
indulge again; that a strong and peculiar craving is produced for stimulating liquors;
that the body is left in such a state that it demands a repetition of the stimulus; that it is
a law in regard to indulgence in this kind of drinks, that an increased “quantity” is
demanded to meet the exhausted state of the system; and that the demand goes on in
this increased ratio until there is no power of control, and the man becomes a confirmed
inebriate. All these laws operate in regard to the use of wine as really as to the use of any
other intoxicating drinks; and, therefore, there is the same reason for the adoption of a
resolution to abstain from all alike.
(4) The temptations are often “greater” in relation to wine than to any other kind of
intoxicating drinks. There is a large class of persons in the community who are in
comparatively little danger of becoming intemperate from any other cause than this.
This remark applies particularly to young men of wealth; to those who move in the more
elevated circles; to those who are in college, and to those who are preparing for the
learned professions. They are in peculiar danger from this quarter, because it is regarded
as genteel to drink a glass of wine; because they are allured by the example of professed
Christians, of ministers of the gospel, and of ladies; and because they axe often in
circumstances in which it would not be regarded as respectable or respectful to decline
it.
(c) Third reason for adopting such a resolution is, that it is the only security that
anyone can have that he will not become a drunkard. No one who indulges at all in the
use of intoxicating liquors can have any “certainty” that he will not yet become a
confirmed inebriate. Of the great multitudes who have been, and who are drunkards,
there are almost none who “meant” to sink themselves to that wretched condition. They
have become intemperate by indulging in the social glass when they thought themselves
safe, and they continued the indulgence until it was too late to recover themselves from
ruin. He who is in the habit of drinking at all can have no “security” that he may not yet
be all that the poor drunkard now is. But he “will” be certainly safe from this evil if he
adopts the purpose of total abstinence, and steadfastly adheres to it. Whatever other
dangers await him, he will be secure against this; whatever other calamities he may
experience, he is sure that he will escape all those that are caused by intemperance.
(8) We have in this chapter a most interesting illustration of the “value” of temperance
in “eating,” Dan_1:9-17. There are laws of our nature relating to the quantity and quality
of food which can no more be violated with impunity than any other of the laws of God;
and yet those laws are probably more frequently violated than any other. There are more
persons intemperate in the use of food than in the use of drink, and probably more
diseases engendered, and more lives cut short, by improper indulgence in eating than in
drinking. At the same time it is a more base, low, gross, and beastly passion. A drunkard
241

is very often the wreck of a generous and noble-minded nature. He was large-hearted,
open, free, liberal, and others took advantage of his generosity of disposition, and led
him on to habits of intoxication. But there is nothing noble or generous in the
gourmand. He approximates more nearly to the lowest forms of the brutal creation than
any other human being; and if there is any man who should be looked on with feelings of
unutterable loathing, it is he who wastes his vigour, and destroys his health, by gross
indulgence in eating. There is almost no sin that God speaks of in tones of more decided
abhorrence than the sin of “gluttony.” Compare Deu_21:20-21; Psa_141:4; Pro_23:1-3,
Pro_23:20-21; Luk_16:19; Luk_21:34.
(9) We have, in the close of the chapter before us, a most interesting illustration of the
effect of an early course of strict temperance on the future character and success in life,
Dan_1:17-21. The trial in the case of these young men was fairly made. It was continued
through three years; a period long enough for a “fair” trial; a period long enough to make
it an interesting example to young men who are pursuing a course of literary studies,
who are preparing to enter one of the learned professions, or who are qualifying
themselves for a life of mechanical or agricultural pursuits. In the case of these young
men, they were strictly on “probation,” and the result of their probation was seen in the
success which attended them when they passed the severe examination before the
monarch Dan_1:19, and in the honors which they reached at his court, Dan_1:19-21. To
make this case applicable to other young men, and useful to them, we may notice two
things: the fact that every young man is on probation; and the effect of an early course of
temperance in securing the object of that probation.
(a) Every young man is on probation; that is, his future character and success are to be
determined by what he is when a youth.
(1) all the great interests of the world are soon to pass into the hands of the young.
They who now possess the property, and fill the offices of the land, will pass away.
Whatever there is that is valuable in liberty, science, art, or religion, will pass into the
hands of those who are now young. They will preside in the seminaries of learning; will
sit down on the benches of justice; will take the vacated seats of senators; will occupy the
pulpits in the churches; will be entrusted with all the offices of honor and emolument;
will be ambassadors to foreign courts; and will dispense the charities of the land, and
carry out and complete the designs of Christian benevolence. There is not an interest of
liberty, religion, or law, which will not soon be committed to them.
(2) The world is favorably disposed toward young men, and they who are now
entrusted with these great interests, and who are soon to leave them, are ready calmly to
commit them to the guardianship of the rising generation, as soon as they have the
assurance that they are qualified to receive the trust. They, therefore, watch with intense
solicitude the conduct of those to whom so great interests are so soon to be committed
(3) Early virtue is indispensable to a favorable result of the probation of young men. A
merchant demands evidence of integrity and industry in a young man before he will
admit him to share his business, or will give him credit; and the same thing is true
respecting a farmer, mechanic, physician, lawyer, or clergyman. No young man can hope
to have the confidence of others, or to succeed in his calling, who does not give evidence
that he is qualified for success by a fair probation or trial.
(4) Of no young man is it “presumed” that he is qualified to be entrusted with these
great and momentous interests until he has had a fair trial. There is no such confidence
in the integrity of young men, or in their tendencies to virtue, or in their native
endowments, that the world is “willing” to commit great interests to them without an
242

appropriate probation. No advantage of birth or blood can secure this; and no young
man should presume that the world will be ready to confide in him until he has shown
that he is qualified for the station to which he aspires.
(5) Into this probation, through which every young man is passing, the question of
“temperance” enters perhaps more deeply than anything else respecting character. With
reference to his habits on this point, every young man is watched with aft eagle eye, and
his character is well understood, when perhaps he least suspects it. The public cannot be
deceived on this point, and every young man may be assured that there is an eye of
unslumbering vigilance upon him.
(b) The effect of an early course of temperance on the issue of this probation. This is
seen in the avoidance of a course of life which would certainly blast every hope; and in its
positive influence on the future destiny.
1. The avoidance of certain things which would blast every hope which a young man
could cherish. There are certain evils which a young man will certainly avoid by a course
of strict temperance, which would otherwise certainly come upon him. They are such as
these:
(a) Poverty, as arising from this source. He may, indeed, be poor if he is temperate. He
may lose his health, or may meet with losses, or may be unsuccessful in business; but he
is certain that he will never be made poor from intemperance. Nine-tenths of the poverty
in the community is caused by this vice; nine-tenths of all who are in almshouses are
sent there as the result of it; but from all this he will be certain that “he” will be saved.
There is a great difference, if a man is poor, between being such as the result of a loss of
health, or other Providential dispensations, and being such as the result of
intemperance.
(b) He will be saved from committing “crime” from this cause. About ninetenths of the
crimes that are committed are the results of intoxicating drinks, and by a course of
temperance a man is certain that he will be saved from the commission of all those
crimes. Yet if not temperate, no man has any security that he will not commit any one of
them. There is nothing in himself to save him from the very worst of them; and every
young man who indulges in the intoxicating cup should reflect that he has no security
that he will not be led on to commit the most horrid crimes which ever disgrace
humanity.
(c) He will certainly be saved from the drunkard’s death. He will indeed die. He may
die young, for, though temperate, he may be cut down in the vigour of his days. But
there is all the difference imaginable between dying as a drunkard, and dying in the
ordinary course of nature. It would be a sufficient inducement for anyone to sign a
temperance pledge, and to adhere to it, if there were no other, that he might avoid the
horrors of a death by “delirium tremens,” and be saved from the loathsomeness of a
drunkard’s grave. It is much for a young man to be able to say as he enters on life, and
looks out on the future with solicitude as to what is to come, “Whatever may await me in
the unknown future, of this one thing I am certain; I shall never be poor, and haggard,
and wretched, as the drunkard is. I shall never commit the crimes to which drunkenness
prompts. I shall never experience the unutterable horrors of “delirium tremens.” I shall
never die the death of unequalled wretchedness caused by a “mania a potu.” Come what
may, I see, on the threshold of life, that I am to be free from the “worst” evils to which
man is ever exposed. If I am poor, I will not be poor as the victim of intemperance is. If I
die early, the world will not feel it is benefited by my removal, and my friends will not go
forth to my grave with the unutterable anguish which a parent has who follows a
243

drunken son to the tomb.”
2. A course of temperance will have a direct and positive effect on the issue of such a
probation. So it had in the case of the young men in the chapter before us; and so it will
have in every case. Its effect will be seen in the beauty, and healthfulness, and vigour of
the bodily frame; in the clearness of the intellect, and the purity of the heart; in habits of
industry, in general integrity of life, and in rendering it more probable that the soul will
be saved. In no respect whatever will a steadfast adherence to the principles of
temperance injure any young man; in every respect, it may be the means of promoting
his interests in the present life, and of securing his final happiness in the world to come.
Why, then, should any young man hesitate about forming such a resolution as Daniel did
Job_1:8, and about expressing, in every proper way, in the most decided manner, his
determined purpose to adhere through life to the strictest principles of temperance?
CLARKE, "The first year of king Cyrus - That is, to the end of the Chaldean
empire. And we find Daniel alive in the third year of Cyrus, see Dan_10:1.
GILL, "And Daniel continued,.... In Babylon, and at court there, and in the favour of
Nebuchadnezzar and his successors:
even unto the first year of King Cyrus: by whom Babylon was taken, and when the
seventy years' captivity of the Jews were at an end; which time Daniel was there, for the
sake of observing which this is mentioned: not that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus;
or went from Babylon with the rest of the Jews to Jerusalem upon the proclamation of
Cyrus, as Jacchiades thinks; for we hear of him at the river Hiddekel, in the third year of
Cyrus, Dan_10:1, but he was till this time in the court of the kings of Babylon; and
afterwards in the courts of the kings of Media and Persia; for when it is said he was
there, it does not so much intend his being there as the state and condition in which he
was there; namely, as a favourite and prime minister; for he is said to prosper in the
reign of Darius and Cyrus, Dan_6:28. This is that Cyrus who was prophesied of by name,
near two hundred years before he was born, by the Prophet Isaiah, Isa_44:28, which
were sure prophecies, and to be depended upon; and had their exact accomplishment in
him. Heathen writers report many things, as presages and predictions of his future
greatness; they tell us some dreams, which his grandfather Astyages had concerning his
daughter Mandane, the mother of Cyrus; which the interpreters of dreams in those days
explained of a future son of hers, that was to be lord of all Asia (h): and Megasthenes (i)
relates a prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar, who before his death foretold to the Babylonians
that a calamity should befall them, which neither his progenitor Belus nor Queen Beltis
could avert; which was, that a Persian mule should bring them under subjection,
assisted by a Mede; which is understood of Cyrus, who was a Medo Persian; his father
was Cambyses king of Persia, and his mother Mandane was daughter of Astyages king of
Media; and he, with Darius the Mede, or however with his army, conquered Babylon:
and he is also supposed to be the mule in the Pythian oracle that should be king of the
Medes; by which Croesus was deceived, who concluded a mule would never be a king;
and therefore, as his kingdom was safe till there was such an one, it must be for ever so
(k). The birth, parentage, and education of this prince, together with his victories, and
particularly his taking of Babylon, are recorded by Xenophon in his history, in great
244

agreement with this book of Daniel. Plutarch says (l) that Cyrus, or Coresh, as his name
is in Hebrew, in the Persian tongue signifies the sun; and the name of the sun, Cheres, is
pretty near in sound to it in the Hebrew tongue; and of the same signification and
derivation with Cyrus, or Coresh, seems to be Carshena, one of the seven princes of
Persia. Cyrus is remarkably famous for the edict he published in favour of the Jews,
giving them liberty to go to their own land, and rebuild their temple, Ezr_1:1, according
to Cicero (m), out of Dionysius the Persian, he lived to be seventy years of age; and died
after a reign of seven years, according to Xenophon (n); and of nine years, according to
Ptolemy's canon; the one reckoning from the time he became sole monarch of the
empire; the other from his reigning in partnership with his uncle Cyaxares, or Darius the
Mede.
JAMISON, "Daniel continued ... unto ... first year of Cyrus — (2Ch_36:22;
Ezr_1:1). Not that he did not continue beyond that year, but the expression is designed
to mark the fact that he who was one of the first captives taken to Babylon, lived to see
the end of the captivity. See my Introduction, “Significance of the Babylonian Captivity.”
In Dan_10:1 he is mentioned as living “in the third year of Cyrus.” See Margin Note, on
the use of “till” (Psa_110:1, Psa_112:8).
CALVIN, "Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards
see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain
the word ‫,היה‬ haiah, by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with
the history. Their opinion is right who say that Daniel continued to the first year of
the reign of Cyrus in the discharge of the prophetic office, although expositors do
not openly say so; but I state openly what they say obscurely. For since he
afterwards set out into Media, they say this change is denoted here. But we may
understand the words better in the sense of Daniel’s flourishing among the
Chaldeans and Assyrians, and being acknowledged as a celebrated Prophet; because
he is known to have interpreted King Belshszzar’s vision, on the very night on which
he was slain. The word here is simple and complete — he was — but it depends on
the succeeding ones, since he always obtained the confidence and authority of a
Prophet with the kings of Babylon. This, then, is the true sense. (99)
ELLICOTT, "(21) Continued.—(See Introduction, § I.) The phrase does not mean
that “he prophesied,” but that he lived until the time specified; by no means
implying that he died in the first year of Cyrus. This year is specified on account of
its importance to the Jewish people as the year of their deliverance. We are led to
think of Daniel during this period holding high positions in the courts of
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius, yet so using the things of this world that
at the close of his life (Daniel 10:11) he became the man greatly beloved by God. (See
Pusey: Daniel the Prophet, pp. 21-23).
TRAPP, "Daniel 1:21 And Daniel continued [even] unto the first year of king Cyrus.
Ver. 21. And Daniel continued, &c.] And afterwards also, though shrewdly lifted at
under Darius; [Daniel 6:4] and in the third year of Cyrus he was overborne by the
245

counsellors hired to hinder the building of the temple, whom he could not
withstand, and therefore kept an extraordinary fast. [Ezra 4:5 Daniel 10:3-4]
POOLE, " i.e. In the court of Babylon until Cyrus, and then he was in the Persian
court, and he lived in honour and high employment all that time, yea, after Cyrus
began to reign; for, Daniel 10:1, he had visions and revelations in the third year of
Cyrus. He might live longer, for the word until doth not exclude things that follow
after, Psalms 110:1 112:8.
WHEDON, "21. For Cyrus see Introduction, III, 3, (6). If continued (Hebrews, was)
means in this connection “remained alive,” as many suppose, and as seems a very
natural sense, then this verse contradicts Daniel 10:1. Several explanations are
offered: certain words may have dropped out of the text (for example, “in the king’s
court”); or “first” is a copyist’s blunder for “third;” or, as it was some time after the
capture of Babylon before Cyrus took the title “King of Babylon” [Introduction, III,
3, (5); 4], this first year as king of Babylon might coincide with his third year as
“king of Persia” (see Introduction, II, 8). While no explanation relieves the matter of
difficulty, it is so incredible that a writer would have permitted a plain contradiction
to remain uncorrected in his original treatise that it seems likely either that the
author had a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy or else that this verse, as
Prince maintains, is a marginal note which has slipped by accident into the text.
BENSON, "Verse 21
Daniel 1:21. And Daniel continued — Hebrew, ‫,ויהי‬ he was, namely, in the court of
Babylon, known, employed, and held in reputation, under Nebuchadnezzar and his
successors; even unto the first year of Cyrus — Till the monarchy passed from the
Chaldeans to the Persians in the person of Cyrus, under whom also he maintained
his authority. For the expression, unto, or till, the first year, is not intended to
signify that he lived no longer; for it appears, from Daniel 10:1, that he lived at least
till the third year of that monarch, in which year he had visions and revelations. He
lived to see the promises of Isaiah and Jeremiah fulfilled, with respect to the
deliverance of the Jews from their state of captivity in Babylon, which began to be
accomplished in the first year of Cyrus, Ezra 1:1, and for the accomplishment of
which we find Daniel very solicitous, Daniel 9:1-2 . This being so remarkable a year,
the text takes notice that Daniel lived to that time, but does not say how much longer
he lived.
COKE, "Daniel 1:21. And Daniel continued— He was known, employed, and
continued under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, till the monarchy passed from
the Chaldeans to the Persians, in the person of Cyrus; under which prince also he
maintained his authority.
REFLECTIONS.—1st, God had threatened Hezekiah, to punish him for his pride,
that the treasures in which he gloried should be plundered by the king to whose
ambassadors he had vainly shewed them, and his children led into captivity. The
246

fulfilment of that prophesy is here recorded. In the third of Jehoiakim, which was
the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, that conqueror invaded Judaea, and besieged and
took Jerusalem; yet, not designing intirely to subvert the government, he left the
king in possession of his royal dignity, though a tributary, and contented himself
with the plunder of a part of the vessels of the sanctuary, as a trophy of his victory,
and to be placed in the temple of his god, as a tribute of thankfulness for his success.
So much more devotion and gratitude do idolaters often shew to their false gods,
than the professors of the Christian religion pay to the only living and true Jehovah.
He chose also the most promising and ingenious youths, that were of royal or noble
extraction, to be trained up in his court, and qualified for offices of trust and
government under him. Thus while he rendered them useful ministers of state, they
served also as hostages for the fidelity of their parents. We may observe,
1. The directions given for the choice of these youths, which shewed the consummate
wisdom and policy of the monarch. They must be without deformity, well-favoured,
the lovely countenance bespeaking often the sweet disposition of the mind. They
must be young, that they might more readily incorporate with the people among
whom they were captives, and learn their manners and language: and persons of
genius and learning, well skilled in all the knowledge that was proper for their years
and station, and likely to improve under the tuition of their Chaldean masters.
2. The care taken of their maintenance and education. Three years they were
liberally maintained at the king's expence, and under the most accomplished
masters, that they might become acquainted with the language, laws, arts, and
learning of the Chaldeans; and, at the expiration of this time, be qualified to appear
before the king, and fill that department most suited to their genius and capacity.
Note; (1.) The good education of youth is a public concern. (2.) They who wish to
serve their generation, must spend their earlier days not in idleness or pleasure, but
study: if that season be lost, it is afterwards scarcely to be redeemed.
3. Among these youths four are particularly mentioned, as rendering themselves
most remarkable in the succeeding history. Their names were, Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah. (See the annotations.) These the prince of the eunuchs
changed into other names; either to shew his authority over them; or to intimate
that they were now naturalized, and become Chaldeans; or in honour of the gods of
Babylon, instead of the God of Israel, whose name they bore; and hoping perhaps
the more easily to seduce them to the worship of the idols after whom they were now
called. But though their names were changed, their hearts were the same; and, far
from serving these idols, they approved themselves the servants of the true God.
2nd, We have,
1. Daniel a favourite with the prince of the eunuchs. His own amiable qualities, no
doubt, deserved regard; but the singular affection that he found in this heathen
master was from God, who hath in his hand the hearts of all men. If we find favour,
therefore, with those from whom perhaps we least expected it, let us acknowledge
247

this to be the gift of God.
2. He is scrupulously careful to maintain a conscience void of offence. The king had
allowed him and his companions a liberal maintenance; but they feared to defile
themselves with the meat and wine of the king; either as being such food as was
forbidden by their law, or as having been offered in sacrifice to idols, or blessed in
their name: they rather therefore chose to live upon the plainest and coarsest diet,
than on these delicacies; and Daniel, as their spokesman, intercedes for them with
the prince of the eunuchs, that they might be excused from using the king's
provision, and be permitted to live on pulse and water; hard fare for the sons of
princes! Note; (1.) They who would preserve their souls from sin, must keep a strict
guard over their sensual appetites. (2.) The poorest repast eaten with a good
conscience, is a more delicious morsel than all the dainties of the luxurious. (3.) They
who have a sense of the evil of sin, will think no suffering or self-denial hard, in
order to escape from it. (4.) Humble entreaty will prevail on those, whom obstinate
refusal would but have exasperated; as was the case here; for,
3. The prince of the eunuchs, after some objections, consents. He was fearful, lest
such spare diet should make these young princes look worse than their fellows; the
consequence of which would perhaps be the anger of the king, and might cost him
his head. But as Daniel and his companions desire only ten days trial by way of
experiment, he is satisfied to wait that time, and compare them with the others: or
else Melzar, the officer to whose care they were intrusted, and to whom Daniel
addressed anew his request, grants them this liberty, perhaps with the connivance of
his superior; and the event justified the experiment; for at the expiration of the ten
days, these were fairer and fatter than the others who had feasted on the king's
delicacies. Note; (1.) An abstemious diet is the best friend to health. (2.) Let the poor,
who are reduced to pulse and water, remember, that God's blessing can make these
preferable to a stalled ox. (3.) Whatever we deny ourselves for God's glory, shall, in
the issue, prove our greatest gain.
3rdly, We have,
1. The great progress in learning which these gracious youths made under the divine
blessing. They minded their business, and God eminently blessed them, giving them
singular skill and knowledge; and Daniel in particular was endued with
understanding in all visions and dreams, which he was enabled to interpret, not by
any pretended rules of art, but by divine inspiration; and in these also God was
pleased to make known unto him future events.
2. The king highly honoured them at the expiration of the three years. When he
came to examine into the proficiency of these students, he found none to be
compared with these four: he therefore took them into his service, and dignified
them with a seat at his council-board. And he had abundant reason to approve the
choice that he had made of them; for in all matters of wisdom and understanding,
respecting the conduct of affairs private or public, they were ten times better than
248

the wisest and most experienced of his counsellors, and the most celebrated of the
magicians. From this time till the first year of Cyrus, Daniel continued at court and
in favour, and lived to see that happy event, the restoration of his people to their
own land. Note; (1.) They who singly make God's glory their aim, most effectually
consult their own honour and happiness. (2.) Wisdom is not always confined to age:
when God teaches, he can give to youth more understanding than the ancients.
PETT, "Verse 21
‘And Daniel continued, even to the first year of Cyrus the Persian.’ The ‘first year of
Cyrus the Persian’ was an epochal day in the lives of the children of Israel, ranking
possibly with the day of the giving of the Law at Sinai, for it probably means the
year in which he became king over Babylon, and thus the year when the Babylonian
dynasty ceased, and Israel’s deliverance and ability to return from exile was
announced. It refers to that year in which Cyrus made his decree that announced
the end of the exile and that stated officially that the people could return home
(Ezra 1:1).
So this verse is declaring that from the day of his acceptance by Nebuchadnezzar
Daniel continued to have standing in the Babylonian court right up to its end in its
overthrow at the hands of Cyrus, sixty six years or so after his being taken from
Jerusalem. And for much of the time he was respected and admired by the kings of
Babylon. He had a worthwhile career. It is also telling us that he lived through the
whole of the exile until the decree that ended it. (Those events were considered far
more important than his death. It is saying nothing about what followed those
events, and in Daniel 10:1 we learn that Daniel was still alive in the third year of
Cyrus).
PULPIT, "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus. The
Septuagint supplies περσῶν. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic.
It has been objected by Canon Driver that the natural classical order of the latter
two words should have been hammelek Koresh, not, as it is in the Massoretic,
Koresh hammelek. The Septuagint text seems to have had parseem, which would
make the order perfectly classical. A greater difficulty is to explain how it is said
that Daniel "continued," or, if we take the Hebrew literally "was," until the first
year of "Cyrus the king," when in the tenth chapter the third year of Cyrus is
referred to. There are several ways of getting over this difficulty. The first way is to
suppose that some words have dropped out of the text. There are, however, different
ideas as to the words so lost. Thus Bleak would supply "in high respect in Babylon."
Earlier commentators would supply "in Babylon," thinking that not impossibly he
returned to Palestine. Jerome—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 be'sha‛ar hammelek, "in the gate of the king," has
249

dropped out. He does certainly hint that the sentence, to be complete, would need
ḥayah ( ‫ָה‬‫י‬ָ‫ח‬ ), not hayah ( ‫ָה‬‫י‬ָ‫ח‬ ). Zöckler 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 ḥayah. 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 Judah permitted to return to their city and temple. The objection to
this view, urged by Professor Bevan, is that the author elsewhere "never alludes to
the event save indirectly (Daniel 9:25)." To this it may be answered that the whole
ninth chapter goes on the assumption that the seventy years are now all but over,
and therefore that the return cannot be long delayed. We regard this silence of
Daniel in respect to the return from Babylon as one of the strongest evidences of the
authenticity of the book. Everybody knows how largely it bulks in preceding
prophecy, and how important it is in after-days. No one writing a religious romance
could have failed to have laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel
as inducing Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not even mention it.
Tide is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a contemporary at the
present time. In religious biographies of the past generation that involve the year
1832, when the Reform Act was 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 LXX. has ἦν; Theodotion has ἐγένετο; the Peshitta has (see
word) (hu); Jerome has fuit. It is somewhat difficult to come to any conclusion, but
there are certain things we must bear in mind. In the first place, an author does not
usually contradict his statements elsewhere directly. He may implicitly do so, but
not when direct dates are given. If he should fail to put the matter right, some other
will be sure to do so, if his work attains sufficient popularity to be commented upon.
We may thus be sure that there is some solution of the apparent contradiction
between the verse before us and Daniel 10:1-21. In the next place, we must note that
this verse is the work of the editor, probably also the translator and condenser, of
this earlier part of Daniel. Therefore the difference may be found quite explicable
could we go back to the Aramaic original. If ‛ad represented ‛ad di (Daniel 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
250

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 Daniel
10:1 the reading of the Septuagint, which is πρώτῳ, instead of τρίτῳ—the only
objection to this is that it is a correction that might easily be made by a would-be
harmonist; but, on the other hand, the "third" year of Belshazzar being mentioned
in the eighth chapter may have occasioned the insertion of "third" in the tenth. Or,
since we know that, though in his proclamation Cyrus styles himself "King of
Babil," yet in some of the contract tables of the flint two years of his reign he is not
called "King of Babil," but only "king of nations," and there are contract tables of
those years that are even dated by the years of Nabunahid, is it not, then, possible
that the third year of Cyrus as "king of nations" might coincide with the first year
of his reign as "King of Babil"? Yet further, we must remember that the reign of
Cyrus could be reckoned from several different starting-points. He first appears as
King of Ansan, then he becomes King of the Persians, and as such he conquers
Babylon. His first year as King of Babylon may have been his third year as King of
Persia. Thus it would be equally true to say that the Emperor William I. of
Germany died in the seventeenth and in the twenty-eighth year of his reign—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.
251

Daniel 1 commentary

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Daniel 1 commentary (15)

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Daniel 1 commentary