Daniel 1

Exiled to Babylon in 605 B.C., Daniel was one of several young men chosen to serve in Nebuchadnezzar’s court. When Persia conquered Babylon in 539, Daniel was again given a position of power. He remained faithful to God in both of these hostile environments. From the interpretation of dreams, to the familiar stories of the fiery furnace, the lions’ den, and the handwriting on the wall, to the prophetic visions, the recurrent theme is God’s sovereignty over human affairs. In the historical sections (chs. 1–6) God supernaturally rescued Daniel and his friends. The rest of the book consists of visions of future judgment and deliverance by the Messiah. Some of Daniel’s prophetic themes are echoed in the New Testament, especially in Revelation.

In the first chapter of Daniel, the young boys are taken into captivity and are put to the test - would they be obedient to commands of God, or would they compromise and become like the Babylonians?

Outline:

1:1 Historical Background

1:2 Invasion, and God’s Protection

1:3 Isolation

1:4 Indoctrination

1:5 Assimilation

1:6-7 Renaming

Taken to Babylon

Daniel 1:1–7 ESV

1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

Historical Setting (1-2)

1:1 Daniel records the Babylonians invaded Judah “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim (609-598 B.C.), Three years into the reign would mean the invasion took place in 605 B.C. (Years ran from Sept - Sept)

When was the Babylonian invasion of Judah?

Babylonian historical texts (discussed later) indicate that it was in the late spring or summer of 605 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar swept down into the region after the battle of Carchemish and attacked Palestine. “Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon,” was one of the greatest monarchs of ancient times. The text succinctly declares that Nebuchadnezzar “came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” Although it is not specifically stated that Jerusalem was captured, this is implied in the next verse, which declares that Jehoiakim was “delivered” into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand, and in vv. 3–7, which describe Daniel and his friends as being captives in Babylon.

Who was the Babylonian king during this time?

At some point between the defeat of the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in May–June 605 B.C. and the death of his father Nabopolassar in August of that year, Nebuchadnezzar subdued Jerusalem and took captives, including Daniel and his three friends.

1:2 That Daniel’s God was not asleep but in full command of the situation is indicated by the name for deity selected by the author. In v. 2 the word translated “Lord” is not Yahweh (represented in the NIV by “LORD”) but ʾădōnay, and this fact is significant. “Owner, ruler, or sovereign” is the meaning of ʾădōnay, the equivalent of kyrios in the New Testament and in the LXX and Theodotion. By the use of this expression, Daniel was emphasizing the sovereignty of Yahweh, which is the dominant theme of the book.

“Delivered” is literally the Hebrew word nātan, “gave.” It was not Nebuchadnezzar’s military might or brilliance that brought about the downfall of Jerusalem, but it was the sovereign will of God. “Kings like to think themselves sufficient as ruler, but they are as much under the supreme control of God as any person.” God in his sovereignty had permitted Nebuchadnezzar to come against Judah in order to judge Jehoiakim and the sinful nation (cf. 2 Chr 36:5; Hab 1–2). For hundreds of years the Lord had warned his wayward people to repent or face judgment, but they had not listened to his servants the prophets (cf. 9:6). Moses had even predicted Israel’s captivity as a consequence of forsaking the Lord (cf. Deut 28:36–37, 49–68). God had been patient, but Israel’s sin had now reached its limits, and judgment fell.

“Some of the articles from the temple of God” included the gold and silver cups and utensils used in the temple ceremonies in Jerusalem. Hezekiah had shown the Babylonians these treasures one hundred years before (cf. Isa 39:2, 4), and Isaiah had predicted that someday they would be taken to Babylon (Isa 39:6). Nebuchadnezzar appropriated only part (“some”) of the treasures of the temple at this time; the rest would be taken in subsequent invasions. About sixty-six years later Belshazzar would bring these vessels into his feast and desecrate them (cf. 5:2–4). These objects were seized because of their value (gold and silver) and as trophies of war (cf. 1 Sam 5:2; 21:9).

“From the temple of God” is literally “from the house of the God.” Young observes that Daniel “always prefixes the definite article, the God, an incidental evidence of the unity of the book.” The opposition in this verse between “the God” and “his god” may reflect the author’s belief that Yahweh was not just one God among the many in the Babylonian pantheon, but he was the God. Yahweh is the real God; all other gods are illusions.

The victorious king carried these treasures to Babylon (located in Modern Iraq) and placed them in “the temple of his god.” Nebuchadnezzar’s name contains the designation of the god Nabu/Nebo, but “his god” probably refers to Marduk (Bel), the chief god of Babylon who of course was worshiped by the king. Goldingay notes that “Nebuchadnezzar’s inscriptions refer most to Marduk, Nabu being his father’s god.” Nebuchadnezzar also named his son Amel-Marduk (called Evil-Merodach in Jer 52:31–34 and 2 Kgs 25:27–30), which means “man of Marduk,” suggesting that his principal god was Marduk.

“In Babylonia” is literally “to the land of Shinar.” Shinar is used elsewhere in the Old Testament as a designation for Babylon (Isa 11:11; Zech 5:11). Baldwin remarks: “The land of Shinar is a deliberate archaism.… Shinar, site of the tower of Babel (Gn 11:1–9; cf. 10:10), was synonymous with opposition to God; it was the place where wickedness was at home (Zc 5:11) and uprightness could expect opposition.”

Social Status (1:3)

1:3 “Court officials” is a translation of the Hebrew sārîs. A sārîs could refer to a literal eunuch (cf. Isa 56:3), but the term also was employed in a general sense to designate any official. For example, this same expression describes the Egyptian official Potiphar, who was married (Gen 37:36). Archer points out that sārîs is derived from the Akkadian ša rēši šarri (“he who is of the king’s head”) and “had no original connotation of sexual impotence.”16 Therefore it is not necessary to assume that Ashpenaz or Daniel and his three friends (as Josephus hinted17) were made literal eunuchs. Since the king wanted young men who were “without any physical defect” (v. 4), we may assume they were not mutilated in this manner. Likely it was only those in charge of the king’s harems who were made eunuchs.

Nebuchadnezzar took Israelite (a general designation for the chosen people here) captives18 only “from the royal family” (lit., “from the seed of the kingship”) and from “the nobility.” Daniel and his friends fit into at least one of the two named categories, most likely both. Slotki may be correct in seeing p 60 only one category of Israelite captive here.19 He understands the Hebrew conjunction to be used in an explanatory sense that would result in the meaning “from the royal family, even from the nobility (or foremost leaders).”20 All four young men were from the tribe of Judah and, if Slotki is correct, from the line of the kings. Even if there are two classes, the likelihood is that Daniel was of royal birth. Josephus declared that Daniel and his three friends were members of Zedekiah’s family.21 At any rate, these teenage boys were from families of high social standing. Concerning the purpose of taking these captives, Baldwin comments, “A few choice hostages from the Judean court would weaken resources there, prove useful to the conqueror and reinforce Judah’s vassal status.”22 This passage demonstrates at least a partial fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy that descendants of Hezekiah would be taken as officials to Babylon (cf. Isa 39:7).

Qualifications (1:4a)

1:4a A number of qualifications were necessary before young men were eligible for training in Babylon. The trainees had to be a certain age. “Young men” is the translation of the Hebrew word yĕlādîm (singular, yeled), which may refer to children, boys, or young men. Young points out that according to Plato (Alcibiades 1.121), “the education of Persian youths began in their 14th year,”23 and it is reasonable to assume that the Babylonians commenced the training of young people at about the same age as the Persians. Daniel then would likely have been about fourteen or fifteen years of age when he was taken into captivity and began his training. Nebuchadnezzar wanted boys at a “teachable age”24 so they would be able and willing to learn new things.

Daniel and his friends also were required to be in good physical health (“without any physical defect”) so that their performance in the king’s service might not be inhibited. That the defect in question was of a physical p 61 nature is made clear from an examination of Lev 21:17–21. In Lev 21:17–18, 21 the equivalent Hebrew term mûm25 is used to forbid a priest from serving in the sanctuary if he has any physical “defect.”26 The same Hebrew term also delineated physically defective animals that were excluded from sacrifice (Lev 22:20). A pleasing appearance (“handsome”; lit., “good of appearance”) was also a consideration for service in the court at Babylon.

Intelligence was of the utmost importance to Nebuchadnezzar. “Showing aptitude” is a translation of the Hebrew word maśkîlîm (root=śākal, “to be prudent”), which means in this verbal form “having insight” or “comprehension.”27 Here it speaks of the ability to learn or comprehend information. “For every kind of learning” is literally “in all wisdom (bĕkol-ḥokmâ)” and would include secular as well as religious instruction. “Well informed” literally reads “knowers of [yōdĕʿê] knowledge [daʿat].” Rather than “well informed,” the idea probably is that these young men had the ability to acquire (“know”) knowledge because they were intelligent. “Quick to understand” is literally “understanders of (mĕbînê) knowledge (maddāʿ).”28

Wood and Leupold maintain that the above three expressions reflect different aspects of the boys’ intelligence, but in this context the phrases appear to be virtually synonymous. Montgomery seems correct in stating, “The three phrases used of the youths’ mental qualifications are simply accumulative and do not permit analysis into distinct mental functions.” All that seems intended by these expressions is that the Jewish boys were intelligent and learned quickly. The three phrases suggest Nebuchadnezzar’s stress on intellectual ability.

Young men inducted into the king’s service also had to be “qualified to serve in the king’s palace.” This phrase literally reads “who [had] power to stand in the palace of the king.” “To stand” before the king is an idiom for serving the king (cf. 1 Kgs 10:8; 12:8). “Power” (kōaḥ) here denotes “ability” and refers to “a proper manner, poise, confidence, and knowledge of social proprieties” expected at the royal court. Daniel and his friends were to be trained as counselors to Nebuchadnezzar (or at least as some kind of officials who would give an account to him). In that capacity they would literally “stand” in the king’s presence to respond to his bidding.

Privileged Status (1:4b–5)

1:4b A privileged education was provided for the young men. They learned to speak and write the language of Babylon, which was a form of Akkadian known as Neo-Babylonian. Akkadian was written in cuneiform, which was made up of wedge-shaped characters, commonly engraved on clay tablets. Archaeologists have uncovered thousands of these texts. Daniel and his friends would have known several other languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, and, later, Persian.

The Hebrews studied the extensive body of literature preserved in their new home. Babylon was the learning center of the day and had acquired the remarkable library left by the Assyrian ruler Ashurbanipal (669–626 B.C.). According to Wiseman, Babylonian texts indicate that the schools of the day copied sign lists, word lists, paradigms, legal materials, all kinds of religious documents, fables, omen texts including those about “devils and evil spirits,” astrological and mathematical texts, economic data, as well as historical materials. Obviously Babylon’s religious teachings (which Driver calls “a systematized superstition”) were part of the youths’ instruction, but this should occasion no difficulty. These teenagers had no choice in the matter, and as Young points out, “That the youths did not accept the superstitious and false elements in this wisdom is shown by the later examples of their steadfast faith in God.” Jerome claimed that the Hebrews studied the Babylonian religion not that they might “follow it themselves, but in order to pass judgment upon it and refute it.”

“Babylonians” is a translation of the Hebrew word kaśdîm, rendered by many translations as “Chaldeans” (or “Chaldaeans”; see 2:2 for a discussion). In Dan 2–5 kaśdîm (Aramaic kaśdāy, kaśdāʾîn) sometimes designates a special class of Babylonian wise men or priests, and a number of scholars believe that this is its meaning here. In that case “the language and literature” would either be the general knowledge of Babylon preserved by this learned class or the particular religious lore practiced by these priests. Most likely kaśdîm is used here (also 5:30; 9:1) to refer to Babylonians generally. Therefore “the language and literature of the Babylonians” would be the general body of knowledge known and studied in Babylon.

1:5 Daniel and his friends received a privileged diet as well. Their food came “from the king’s table” (“royal rations,” NRSV), that is, they ate the very food the king ate. Pat-bag (“food,” or perhaps better “rich food”) is a Persian loan word that occurs in the Bible only in Daniel (1:5, 8, 13, 15–16; 11:26). Young correctly notes that the term basically means “assignment,” but in this case the “assignment” would include food of the best quality. The NIV’s “food” is not incorrect in this context, but “rich food” would capture the idea even better.

An opportunity to achieve a privileged position in the king’s court was also afforded to the young men. “They were to be trained” (“nourishing them,” KJV) is literally “to make them great [gādal].” The Hebrew word is used of raising children (cf. Isa 1:2).

This training period was to continue “for three years” and was intended to prepare the young men to serve the king in some capacity. Young comments: “Plato, Alcibiades 1:121, states that the education of Persian youths began in their 14th year, and Xenophon, Cy., 1, 2 mentions the 16th or 17th years as the close. The [Persian] Avesta says that a student for holy training should go to a master for three years.” Montgomery relates, “Much later in the old Pers. territory a three years’ course was the vogue in the famous Nestorian school at Nisibis.” It is reasonable to suppose that the Babylonian training period was similar to that of the Persians and other peoples.

After the successful completion of the three-year training period, the young men were to enter royal service. Evidently the level of governmental responsibility was determined by the king’s examination of the trainees at the end of the program.

Names (1:6–7)

1:6 The phrase “among these” indicates that more young men were taken to Babylon than the four from Judah. Nebuchadnezzar sought to gather the best minds in the empire to serve in his court, a practice similar to that of Alexander the Great of a later era.45 Berosus also relates that at this time the Babylonian king took captives from the Jews, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians.46 If other boys from Judah were taken to Babylon, we may suppose that at least initially they were not as faithful to Yahweh as these four.

Now the Hebrew names of the young men are presented. Daniel’s name signifies “God is my judge”; Hananiah, “Yahweh is gracious”; Mishael, “who is what God is?” (the idea being that there is no god like the God of Israel); and Azariah, “Yahweh has helped” or “will help.” These probably were common Hebrew names, and all four appear elsewhere in the Old Testament. In the Hebrew text the names are listed in alphabetical order. Slotki thinks that this arrangement is “fortuitous,” but it is more likely intentional on the part of the author.

1:7 According to v. 3, “the chief official” was Ashpenaz, who assigned the young captives Babylonian names in order to assimilate them more readily into their new culture. There probably was no intention on the Babylonians’ part to degrade or humiliate these captives by this name change. The Jews seemed to accept as a matter of course the fact that they were required to have foreign names in addition to those in Hebrew. For example, Joseph was given an Egyptian name by Pharaoh (Gen 41:45), and Hadassah is known by her foreign name, Esther (Esth 2:7). Lacocque rightly observes that the Hebrew youths had no choice in the matter. Many Jews in New Testament times had Greek as well as Hebrew (or Aramaic) names. An example is Peter (Greek), who was called Cephas in Aramaic (cf. John 1:42). Saul is also better known by his Roman name, Paul.

Daniel’s Babylonian appellation was “Belteshazzar,” which most consider to be the Hebrew transliteration of balaṭsu-uṣur, “protect his life!” The name contains a petition to some Babylonian god, either Marduk (also called Bel, meaning “lord”; cf. Isa 46:1) or Nebo (Nabu). Archer speculates that it was abbreviated from Nebo-belteshazzar, Nebo (Nabu) being the son of Marduk. But if a deity was included in Daniel’s original name, it probably was Bel-belteshazzar, “Bel, protect his life!”

Hananiah was called “Shadrach,” most likely signifying “command of Aku” (šudur-aku), the moon god. Mishael received the name “Meshach,” which seems to represent “who is what Aku is?” (mî-sha-aku), being the pagan equivalent to the Hebrew Mishael, “who is what God is?” Azariah’s name was changed to Abednego, “servant of Nebo.” Scholars generally understand Nego to be a corruption of the name of the god Nebo. Montgomery probably is correct in maintaining that the change of Nebo to Nego is “likely an intentional perversion to avoid an idolatrous name.” Nebo is the well-known deity Nabu, the second greatest god in the Babylonian pantheon.58

In each case the Hebrew appellation contains a reference to the true God, whereas its Babylonian counterpart involves an allusion to a pagan deity.