Sermon Tone Analysis

1.

There are several possible explanations as to how Daniel underwent three years of training yet interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the second year of the king’s reign.

A. 3.2.1.1.1 - Accession Year Reckoning?

Many commentators understand Daniel to have interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream after graduation from his three years of training.

This would preserve the natural order of the two chapters so the events described in chapter 2 immediately following those at the end of chapter 1.

In Babylon the accession year of a king was not counted as the first year of his reign.

So Nebuchadnezzar became king, year 1 of Daniel’s training; his first year as king was Daniel’s second year of training; his second year of kingship was Daniel’s third year of training.

Therefore, Daniel finished his three years of training in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year, precisely the year that begins the episode of chapter

Numerous commentators understand accession-year reckoning as a possible explanation of this apparent discrepancy

16 including: Archer,17 Benware,18 Clough,19 Dean,20 Leupold,21 Miller,22 Steinmann,23 and Walvoord.24

For additional information on accession-year reckoning, see When Does a Year Begin?

B. 3.2.1.1.2

- Before Daniel’s Graduation?

It is also possible Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar’s dream before he graduated.

This would place the events of

‣ chronologically before the end of

‣.

It is entirely possible that the vision of

‣ and the interpretation of the dream occurred during the third year of Daniel’s training, before the formal presentation of the four youths to the king.

This would take away all objections concerning the statement of

‣, as it would make Daniel’s graduation after the events of

‣.

That the book of Daniel is not written in strict chronological order is evident from the placing of chapters 5‣ and 6‣ before chapters 7‣ and 8‣, out of chronological order.25

Advocates of this view note Daniel and his companions were not included in those called before the king to interpret the dream (

‣).

They may not have completed their training yet and therefore were not yet considered to be fully qualified as wise men.26

On the other hand, critics of this view respond by pointing out Daniel and his companions were included in the resulting order to kill all the wise men.

This would seem to indicate they were considered to be qualified to serve in such positions.27

Interpreters who suggest Daniel interpreted the dream prior to graduation include: Combs,28 MacArthur,29 McGee,30 Mills,31 Pentecost,32 and Walvoord.33

C. 3.2.1.1.3

- Partial (Inclusive) Years?

Another possible solution is found in taking the years of training as inclusive years.

In other words, the Hebrew youths did not train for a full three years, but merely one year and parts of two others.

Driver also points out that Daniel did not have to train three complete years, but according to Hebrew usage, a part of a year was reckoned as a whole.

This would mean that the program could have lasted less than two years if it consisted of a full year and parts of two others.

Any of these suggestions (or a combination of them) could explain how the three-year training program was completed in Nebuchadnezzar’s second year.34

Interpreters who see inclusive year counting as a possible explanation35 include: Miller,36 Whitcomb,37 and Young.38

Against this view, Wood cites “evidence that a parallel training period of the later Persians did cover three full years.”39

D. 3.2.1.1.4

- Different Points of Reference?

Another group of commentators suggest the years of Daniel’s training are reckoned from an earlier period when Nebuchadnezzar co-reigned with his father, Nabopolassar.

Thus, the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s sole reign could fall after the three years of training completed.

The solution of this difficulty is: Nebuchadnezzar first ruled as subordinate to his father Nabopolassar, to which time the first chapter refers (

‣); whereas “the second year” in the second chapter is dated from his sole sovereignty.40

Among commentators with this view, we find Anstey,41 Barnes,42 Calvin,43 Clarke,44 Fausset,45 and Zöckler.46

Other commentators agree that the three years of

‣ and the second year mentioned in

‣ have different points of reference, but they suggest solutions other than the difference between the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s co-reign and sole-reign.

Jerome relates an early Jewish suggestion: the second year in this verse is counted from a point in time when Nebuchadnezzar achieved a wider dominion.47

Sedar Olam adopts the view that the second year is in relation to the destruction of the temple.48

Gill suggests the second year is in relation to the beginning of Daniel’s ministry standing before Nebuchadnezzar after graduation (

‣).49

E. 3.2.1.1.5 - Daniel Taken Before the Year Nebuchadnezzar Ascended the Throne

Another possible solution, having the advantage of great simplicity, is that Daniel was taken in 606 B.C., prior to the Battle of Carchemish (605 B.C.) so his third year of training was complete by the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s second year as king.

As Nebuchadnezzar did not become king until after the death of his father, Nabopolassar, in B. C. 605, the second year of his reign would be B. C. 603, and as Daniel and his companions were carried captive in B. C. 606, and were in training for three years, the dream of Nebuchadnezzar did not occur until sometime after they had graduated from the “Palace School,” or “National University.”

This accounts for why they were included among those who were to be slain ( ,

), though for some reason they do not appear to have been informed as to the demand of the King (

‣).50

This interpretation has several related benefits:

(1) It explains how the events of

‣ could take place during Jehoiakim’s third year while the battle of Carchemish () is associated by Jeremiah with Jehoiakim’s fourth year ();

(2) It results in a 70 year period from the beginning of Israel’s captivity to the decree of Cyrus allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem (606 - 536 B.C.).

See commentary on

.

Interpreters who favor this explanation include Anderson,51 Jones,52 Keil,53 and Larkin.54

I. Nebuchadnezzar’s Vision of the Image.

A. Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream and Command.

1.

2. Nebuchadnezzar’s second year of reign.

Evidently, he had forgotten the dream (2:3) or he was testing the credibility of its interpretation.

a. Hailey brought up a chronology problem.

b.

If this is the second year of the king’s reign (; ), how can the three-year period (, ) be up for Daniel and his friends to stand in the court ()?

i. , In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.

ii.

, And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzardreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.

iii.

, , 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.

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.

iv.

, And Daniel continued even until unto the first year of Cyrus.

c. Coffman suggested that the youth were in Babylon a year earlier than when Nebuchadnezzar actually assumed the throne.

He was first “co-regent” with his father (Turner, p. 28).

d.

Hailey said it has more to do with whether the numbering of the years is according to the Babylonian or Palestinian method.

3. Nebuchadnezzar called for the wise men so they could tell him his dream and give the interpretation.

a.

The Chaldeans (others) appealed to the king to relay the dream.

“Such men were highly honored in ancient society and were important members of the priesthood.

They exercised great influence in a kingdom, because their advice was regularly sought before major decisions were made or actions taken” (Wood, p. 31).

b.

The king said for the Chaldeans to tell the dream, then he would know they could give a reliable interpretation.

c.

The king grew tired of their “buying time” and threatened them with utter destruction.

This “conversation” went back and forth three times before the king gave the execution order.

d.

The Chaldeans rebuked the king on their third response.

4. Nebuchadnezzar sent out the order for all the wise men of Babylon to be killed.

a. Verse 11 is the point: If the gods can give an answer and you (the Chaldeans) represent the gods, then why can’t you give an answer?

b.

The fact that they could not indicated to Nebuchadnezzar that they were liars and fakes.

B. Daniel appealed for time.

1. ,

2. Perhaps the king’s execution command was already underway () but leaves open the possibility that it was not.

a. , And the decree went forth that the wise men should be slain; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain

b. , Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard which was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon

3. Arioch was the captain of the king’s guard.

a.

This would have been a “rugged” man.