Untitled Sermon

Daniel, Volume 1 § I.—Authenticity of the Chapter

Thus in Ezek. 14:14, “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.” So again, ver. 20, “Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter, they shall deliver but their own souls by their righteousness.” And again, ch. 28:3, speaking of the prince of Tyre, “Behold thou art wiser than Daniel.” The objection urged in respect to the mention of Daniel in these passages is substantially this—that if the account in the book of Daniel is true, he must have been a cotemporary with Ezekiel, and must have been, when Ezekiel prophesied, a young man; that it is incredible that he should have gained a degree of reputation which would entitle him to be ranked with Noah and Job; that he could not have been so well known as to make it natural or proper to refer to him in the same connection with those eminent men; and especially that he could not have been thus known to the prince of Tyre, as is supposed of those mentioned by Ezekiel in the passages referred to, for it cannot be presumed that a man so young had acquired such a fame abroad as to make it proper to refer to him in this manner in an address to a heathen prince. This objection was urged by Bernstein (über das Buch Hiob, in den Analekten von Keil und Tzschirner, i. 3, p. 10), and it is found also in Bleek, p. 284, and De Wette, Einl. p. 380. De

Daniel, Volume 1 (§ I.—Authenticity of the Chapter)

Now, in regard to this objection, it may be remarked (a) that, according to all the accounts which we have in the Bible, Ezekiel and Daniel were cotemporary, and were in Babylon at the same time. As Daniel, however, lived a long time in Babylon after this, it is to be admitted, also, that at the period referred to by Ezekiel, he must have been comparatively a young man. But it does not follow that he might not then have had a well-known character for piety and integrity, which would make it proper to mention his name in connection with the most eminent saints of ancient times. If the account in the book of Daniel itself is a correct account of him, this will not be doubted, for he soon attracted attention in Babylon; he soon evinced that extraordinary piety which made him so eminent as a man of God, and that extraordinary wisdom which raised him to the highest rank as an officer of state in Babylon. It was very soon after he was taken to Babylon that the purpose was formed to train him, and the three other selected youths, in the learning of the Chaldeans (ch. 1:1–4), and that Daniel showed that he was qualified to pass the examination, preparatory to his occupying an honourable place in the court (ch. 1:18–21); and it was only in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that the remarkable dream occurred, the interpretation of which gave to Daniel so much celebrity (ch. 2). According to a computation of Hengstenberg (Authentie des Daniel, p. 71), Daniel was taken to Babylon full ten years before the prophecy of Ezekiel, in which the first mention of him was made; and if so, there can be no real ground for the objection referred to. In that time, if the account of his extraordinary wisdom is true; if he evinced the character which it is said that he did evince—and against this there is no intrinsic improbability; and if he was exalted to office and rank, as it is stated that he was, there can be no improbability in what Ezekiel says of him, that he had a character which made it proper that he should be classed with the most eminent men of the Jewish nation. (b) As to the objection that the name of Daniel could not have been known to the king of Tyre, as would seem to be implied in Ezek. 28:3, it may be remarked, that it is not necessary to suppose that these prophecies were ever known to the king of Tyre, or that they were ever designed to influence him. The prophecies which were directed against the ancient heathen Kings were uttered and published among the Hebrew people, primarily for their guidance, and were designed to furnish to them, and to others in future times, arguments for the truth of religion, though they assumed the form of direct addresses to the kings themselves. Such an imaginary appeal may have been made in this case by Ezekiel to the king of Tyre; and, in speaking of him, and of his boasted wisdom, Ezekiel may have made the comparison which would then naturally occur to him, by mentioning him in connection with the most eminent man for wisdom of that age. But it should be said, also, that there can be no certain evidence that the name of Daniel was not known to the king of Tyre, and no intrinsic improbability in, the supposition that it was. If Daniel had at that time evinced the remarkable wisdom at the court of Babylon which it is said in this book that he had; if he had been raised to that high rank which it is affirmed he had reached, there is no improbability in supposing that so remarkable a circumstance should have been made known to the king of Tyre. Tyre was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 572, after a siege of thirteen years, and it is in no way improbable that the king of Tyre would be made acquainted with what occurred at the court of the Chaldeans. The prophecy in Ezekiel, where Daniel is mentioned (ch. 28:3), could not have been uttered long before Tyre was taken, and, in referring to what was to occur, it was not unnatural to mention the man most distinguished for wisdom at the court of Babylon, and in the councils of Nebuchadnezzar, with the presumption that his name and celebrity would not be unknown to the king of Tyre, (c) As to the objection of Bernstein, that it would be improbable, if Daniel lived there, and if he was comparatively a young man, that his name would be placed between that of Noah and Job (Ezek. 14:14), as if he had lived before Job, it may be remarked, that there might be a greater similarity between the circumstances of Noah and Daniel than between Noah and Job, and that it was proper to refer to them in this order. But the mere circumstance of the order in which the names are mentioned cannot be adduced as a proof that one of the persons named did not exist at that time. They may have occurred in this order to Ezekiel, because in his apprehension, that was the order in which the degree of their piety was to be estimated.To this objection thus considered, that the mention of Daniel in connection with Noah and Job, proves that Ezekiel referred to some one of ancient times, it may be further replied, that, if this were so, it is impossible to account for the fact that no such person is mentioned by any of the earlier prophets and writers. How came his name to be known to Ezekiel? And if there had been a patriarch so eminent as to be ranked with Noah and Job, how is it to be accounted for that all the sacred writers, up to the time of Ezekiel, are wholly silent in regard to him? And why is it that, when he mentions him, he does it as of one who was well known? The mere mention of his name in this manner by Ezekiel, proves that his character was well known to those for whom he wrote. Noah and Job were thus known by the ancient records; but how was Daniel thus known? He is nowhere mentioned in the ancient writings of the Hebrews; and if he was so well known that he could be referred to in the same way as Noah and Job, it must be either because there was some tradition in regard to him, or because he was then living, and his character was well understood by those for whom Ezekiel wrote. But there is no evidence that there was any such tradition, and no probability that there was; and the conclusion, then, is inevitable, that he was then so well known to the Hebrews in exile, that it was proper for Ezekiel to mention him just as he did Noah and Job. If so, this furnishes the highest evidence that he actually lived in the time of Ezekiel; that is, in the time when this book purports to have been written.§ II.—ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTERThis chapter is entirely historical, the prophetic portions of the book commencing with the second chapter. The object of this chapter seems to be to state the way in which Daniel, who subsequently acted so important a part in Babylon, was raised to so distinguished favour with the king and court. It was remarkable that a Jewish captive, and a young man, should be so honoured; that he should be admitted as one of the principal counsellors of the king, and that he should ultimately become the prime-minister of the realm; and there was a propriety that there should be a preliminary statement of the steps of this extraordinary promotion. This chapter contains a record of the way in which the future premier and prophet was introduced to the notice of the reigning monarch, and by which his wonderful genius and sagacity were discovered. It is a chapter, therefore, that may be full of interest and instruction to all, and especially to young men. The chapter contains the record of the following points, or steps, which led to the promotion of Daniel:—I. The history of the Jewish captivity, as explanatory of the reason why those who are subsequently referred to were in Babylon. They were exiles, having been conveyed as captives to a foreign land, vers. 1, 2.II. The purpose of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, to bring forward the principal talent to be found among the Jewish captives, and to put it under a process of training, that it might be employed at the court, vers. 3, 4. In carrying out this purpose, a confidential officer of the court, Ashpenaz, was directed to search out among the captives the most promising youths, whether by birth or talent, and to put them under a process of training, that they might become fully instructed in the science of the Chaldeans. What were the reasons which led to this cannot be known with certainty. They may have been such as these: (1.) The Chaldeans had devoted themselves to science, especially to those sciences which promised any information respecting future events, the secrets of the unseen world, &c. Hence they either originated or adopted the science of astrology; they practised the arts of magic; they studied to interpret dreams; and, in general, they made use of all the means which it was then supposed could be employed to unlock the secrets of the invisible world, and to disclose the future. (2.) They could not have been ignorant of the fact, that the Hebrews claimed to have communications with God. They had doubtless heard of their prophets, and of their being able to foretell what was to occur. This kind of knowledge would fall in with the objects at which the Chaldeans aimed, and if they could avail themselves of it, it would enable them to secure what they so ardently sought. It is probable that they considered this as a sort of permanent power which the Hebrew prophets had, and supposed that at all times, and on all subjects, they could interpret dreams, and solve the various questions about which their own magicians were so much engaged. It is not to be presumed that they had any very accurate knowledge of the exact character of the Hebrew prophecies, or the nature of the communication which the prophets had with God; but it was not unnatural for them to suppose that this spirit of prophecy or divination would be possessed by the most noble and the most talented of the land. Hence Ashpenaz was instructed to select those of the royal family, and those in whom there was no blemish, and who were handsome, and who were distinguished for knowledge, and to prepare them, by a suitable course, for being presented to the king. (3.) It may have been the purpose of the Chaldean monarch to bring forward all the talent of the realm, whether native or foreign, to be employed in the service of the government. There is no reason to suppose that there was any jealousy of foreign talent, or any reluctance to employ it in any proper way, in promoting the interests of the kingdom. As the Chaldean monarch had now in his possession the Hebrew royal family, and all the principal men that had been distinguished in Judea, it was not unnatural to suppose that there might be valuable talent among them of which he might avail himself, and which would add to the splendour of his own court and cabinet. It might have been naturally supposed, also, that it would tend much to conciliate the captives themselves, and repress any existing impatience, or insubordination, to select the most noble and the most gifted of them, and to employ them in the service of the government; and in any questions that might arise between the government and the captive nation, it would be an advantage for the government to be able to employ native-born Hebrews in making known the wishes and purposes of the government. It was, moreover, in accordance with the proud spirit of Nebuchadnezzar (see ch. 4) to surround himself with all that would impart splendour to his own reign.III. The method by which this talent was to be brought forward, vers. 5–7. This was by a course of living in the manner of the royal household, with the presumption that at the end of three years, in personal appearance, and in the knowledge of the language of the Chaldeans (ver. 4), they would be prepared to appear at court, and to be employed in the service to which they might be appointed.IV. The resolution of Daniel not to corrupt himself with the viands which had been appointed for him and his brethren, ver. 8. He had heretofore been strictly temperate; he had avoided all luxurious living; he had abstained from wine; and, though now having all the means of luxurious indulgence at command, and being unexpectedly thrown into the temptations of a splendid Oriental court, he resolved to adhere stedfastly to his principles.V. The apprehension of the prince of the eunuchs that this would be a ground of offence with his master, the king, and that he would himself be held responsible, vers. 9, 10. This was a very natural apprehension, as the command seems to have been positive, and as an Oriental monarch was entirely despotic. It was not unreasonable for him to whom this office was intrusted to suppose that a failure on his part to accomplish what he had been directed to do would be followed by a loss of place or life.VI. The experiment, and the result, vers. 11–17. Daniel asked that a trial might be made of the effects of temperance in preparing him and his companions for presentation at court. He requested that they might be permitted, even for a brief time, yet long enough to make a fair experiment, to abstain from wine, and the other luxuries of the royal table, and that then it might be determined whether they should be allowed to continue the experiment. The result was as he had anticipated. At the end of ten days, on a fair comparison with those who had indulged in luxurious living, the benefit of their course was apparent, and they were permitted to continue this strict abstinence during the remainder of the time which was deemed necessary for their preparation to appear at court.VII. The presentation at court, vers. 18–21. At the end of the time appointed for preparation, Daniel and his selected companions were brought into the royal presence, and met with the most favourable reception which could have been hoped for. They were distinguished, it would seem, for beauty and manly vigour, and as much distinguished for wisdom as they were for the beauty and healthfulness of their bodily appearance. They at once took an honourable station, greatly surpassing in true wisdom and knowledge those at the court who were regarded as skilled in the arts of divination and astrology. These years of preparation we are not to suppose were spent in merely cultivating the beauty of their personal appearance, but they were doubtless employed, under all the advantages of instruction which could be afforded them, in the careful cultivation of their mental powers, and in the acquisition of all the knowledge which could be obtained under the best masters at the court of the Chaldeans. Comp. ver. 4.1. 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. Comp. Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kön. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, 2 Ki. 22:2; 2 Chron. 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, 2 Ki. 23:30; 2 Chron. 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 Phœnicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, 2 Ki. 23:34; 2 Chron. 36:4. Jehoahaz was first imprisoned in Riblah, 2 Ki. 23:33, and was afterwards removed to Egypt, 2 Chron. 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 B.C. 611, 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 captivity, which, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, (25:1–14; 29:10), was to continue seventy years. In Jer. 25:1, and 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. Comp. 2 Ki. 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.2. 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 (2 Chron. 36:6), but that for some cause he was not removed there, but died at Jerusalem (2 Ki. 24:5, 6), though he was not honourably buried there, Jer. 22:19; 36:30. In the second book of Chronicles (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 2 Ki. 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 till he rebelled, and that then the bands of Chaldeans, &c., 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; 36:30.With part of the vessels of the house of God. 2 Chron. 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, 2 Chron. 36:10. On the third invasion of Palestine, the same thing was repeated on a more extensive scale, 2 Ki. 24:13. At the fourth and final invasion, under Zedekiah, when the temple was destroyed, all its treasures were carried away, 2 Ki. 25:6–20. A part of these treasures were brought back under Cyrus, Ezra 1:7; the rest under Darius, Ezra 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; 11:2; 14:1, 9; Josh. 7:21; Isa. 11:11; Dan. 1:2; Zech. 5:11.