Seventh-day Adventist Bible CommentaryDaniel 1

The Book of DANIEL INTRODUCTION 1. Title. The book is named after its principal character, Daniel. The practice of naming OT books for their main hero is demonstrated by other books such as Joshua, Samuel, Esther, Job, etc. Such a title does not necessarily indicate authorship, although that may be included as well, as is the case with the book of Daniel. 2. Authorship. The traditional view of both Jews and Christians is that the book was written in the 6th century B.C., and that Daniel was its author. In favor of the correctness of this traditional view are the following points of evidence: a. The claims of the book. The prophet Daniel speaks in the first person in many passages (chs. 8:1–7, 13–19, 27; 9:2–22; 10:2–5; etc.). He states that he personally received the divine order to preserve the book (ch. 12:4). The fact that there are sections in which the author refers to himself in the third person (chs. 1:6–11, 17, 19, 21; 2:14–20; etc.) is not strange, for in works of antiquity such a usage is frequently observed (see on Ezra 7:28). b. The author well acquainted with history. Only a man of the 6th century (B.C.), well versed in Babylonian affairs, could have provided some of the historical facts found in the book. The knowledge of these facts was lost after the 6th century B.C., not being recorded in other ancient literature after that time (see p. 748). Relatively recent archeological finds have once more brought these facts to light. c. The testimony of Jesus Christ. Quoting a passage from the book, Jesus Christ mentions Daniel as author (Matt. 24:15). For every Christian believer this testimony should be convincing evidence. The book falls into two clearly distinguishable parts, the first (chs. 1–6) mainly historical, and the second (chs. 7–12) mainly prophetic; yet the book is a literary unit. In support of such unity the following arguments can be listed: 1. The various parts of the book are mutually related, one to the other. The use of the Temple vessels at Belshazzar’s feast can be understood in the light of the record of how they came to Babylon (ch. 5:3; cf. ch. 1:1, 2). Chapter 3:12 refers back to the political action of Nebuchadnezzar described first in ch. 2:49. In ch. 9:21 reference is made to an earlier vision (see ch. 8:15, 16). 2. The historical part contains a prophecy (ch. 2) closely related in theme to the prophecies found in chs. 7–12. Chapter 7 develops further the theme of ch. 2. Also the historical and prophetic elements are related. The historical section (chs. 1–6) narrates God’s dealings with one nation, Babylon, and its role in the divine plan. This illustrates God’s dealings with all nations (see Ed 175–177). Like Babylon, each successive world power portrayed in the prophetic portion had an opportunity to know the divine will and cooperate with it, and each was measured by its fulfillment of the divine purpose. Thus each nation’s rise and fall in chs. 7–12 is to be understood in terms of the principles set forth in the historical portion as they related to Babylon. This unifies the book and illuminates the role played by each empire. The literary unity of the book, demonstrated in the composition, general channel of thought, and expressions used in the two languages (see p. 748), is generally recognized. The arguments adduced for two authors for the book appear pointless. In Qumrân Cave 1 (see pp. 86–88) were three fragments from the book of Daniel. They were published by D. Barthélemy and J. T. Milik, in Discoveries in the Judaean

Desert I: Qumran Cave I (Oxford, 1955), pp. 150–152. The fragments came either from two scrolls or from one scroll in which chs. 1 and 2 were written by one scribe and ch. 3 by another, containing parts of chs. 1:10–17; 2:2–6; 3:22–30. A comparison of this text with the Masoretic text shows 16 variants, none of which affects the meaning of the passage. Nine of these 16 variations are spelling variants, each affecting only one letter; two of these seem to be spelling errors; the other seven are variously spelled also in the Masoretic text. Four additions are found: one of the conjunction “and,” and one of the particle “that” before an “if”; two words have a vowel letter added. Once, a vowel letter occurring in the Masoretic text is not found in the fragments. Two verbal endings seem to be scribal errors. The list shows that the differences are so insignificant that they would not be noticeable in a translation. This is a strong proof that the Masoretic text of Daniel is now in substantially the same form as it was at least in the time of Christ. It is of further interest that the fragment of ch. 2 covers the passage in which the transition occurs from Hebrew to Aramaic (see on ch. 2:4). At that point a space is left between the last Hebrew word and the first Aramaic word, thus making a distinct break between the language sections. It is also noteworthy that, in agreement with the Masoretic text, these fragments do not contain the apocryphal Song of the Three Children (see on ch. 3:23). Qumrân Cave 4 has produced leather fragments from three Daniel MSS (not yet published in 1976) reported to be well preserved and representing sizable portions of the book. F. M. Cross, in Biblical Archaeologist, 19 (1956), 85, 86; Cross, in Revue Biblique, 63 (1956), 58. From Qumrân Cave 6 come several papyrus fragments of Daniel, representing chs. 8:20, 21; 10:8–16; and 11:33–38 (containing nine minor spelling variants), published by M. Baillet in Discoveries in the Judaean Desert III: Les “Petites Grottes” de Qumrân (Oxford, 1962), pp. 114–116. 3. Historical Setting. The book of Daniel contains (1) a record of certain historical incidents from the life of Daniel and his three friends, who were Jewish exiles in Babylonian government service, and (2) a record of a prophetic dream of King Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted by Daniel, together with records of visions the prophet himself had received. Although the book was written in Babylonia during the Exile and shortly thereafter, its purpose was not to provide either a history of the Jewish exile or a biography of Daniel. The book relates high-light experiences of the statesman-prophet and his associates and was compiled with specific objectives in mind. First of all Daniel presents brief information concerning the reason for his being found in the public service of the Babylonian king (ch. 1). Having been taken to Babylon in the first captivity in 605 B.C., during the course of Nebuchadnezzar’s first Syrian campaign, Daniel and other princes of royal blood were chosen to be trained for government service. The initial 19 years of Daniel’s stay in Babylonia were the last years of Judah’s existence as a kingdom, albeit subject to Babylon. The futile anti-Babylonian policies of Judah’s last kings brought one catastrophe after another upon the Jewish nation. King Jehoiakim, during whose reign Daniel had gone into captivity, remained loyal to Babylon for a few years. Eventually, however, he acceded to the policy of the pro- Egyptian party in Judah, and rebelled. As a result the country suffered military invasions,

its citizens lost their liberty and were taken into captivity, and the king lost his life. His son and successor, Jehoiachin, after a brief reign of only three months, saw the armies of Babylon return to mete out punishment for disloyalty. He, together with thousands of the upper-class citizens of Judah, went into captivity in 597 B.C. His successor, Zedekiah, apparently attempted to remain loyal to Babylon. However, being weak and vacillating, he could not long withstand the overtures of Egypt and the anti-Babylonian sentiment of his chief advisers. As a result Nebuchadnezzar, weary of the repeated revolts in Palestine, decided to put an end to the kingdom of Judah. For two and a half years the Babylonian armies ravaged Judah, took and destroyed the cities, including Jerusalem, with its Temple and its palaces, and led the majority of the inhabitants of Judah into captivity in 586 B.C. Daniel was in Babylon during these eventful days. He must have seen the Babylonian armies depart for their several campaigns against his homeland, and witnessed their victorious returns and the arrival of captured Jews. Among the captives were the young king Jehoiachin with his family (2 Kings 24:10–16), and later the blinded king Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:7). During these years Daniel must also have been aware of the political agitation that was going on among the exiled Jews, which resulted in Nebuchadnezzar’s burning to death some of the chief instigators. It was this agitation that caused Jeremiah to send a letter to his captured compatriots urging them to lead a quiet and peaceful life in Babylonia (Jer. 29). During all these years Daniel and his three friends quietly and loyally performed their duties as royal officers and subjects of the realm. After their scholarly training they became members of the elite group called wise men, who served the king as advisers. It was then that Daniel had the unique opportunity of explaining to Nebuchadnezzar the dream of future empires (Dan. 2). As a result Daniel was appointed to a position of exceptionally high rank, which he seems to have held for many years. This office gave him the opportunity of acquainting the king with the power of the God of heaven and earth, whom Daniel and his friends served. How long Daniel retained this position is not known. He seems to have lost it before 570 B.C., since his name is not found in a contemporary “Court and State Almanac,” written in cuneiform, which lists the chief officers of Nebuchadnezzar’s government holding office at that time. No other court and state almanacs for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar are extant. In fact, Daniel is not mentioned in any contemporary non-Biblical source. The absence of Daniel’s name in this document is not strange, since we do not know how long Daniel remained in public office. Only four principal events during Nebuchadnezzar’s reign are recorded in the book of Daniel, and Daniel played a role in three of them: (1) the education of the Jewish princes during the king’s first three years of reign, including his accession year (ch. 1), (2) the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in the king’s second regnal year (ch. 2), (3) the dedication of the image in the plain of Dura, with the resulting experience of Daniel’s friends in an unspecified year (ch. 3), and (4) Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, announcing that the king would suffer madness for a period of seven years, which probably occurred during the king’s last years (ch. 4). Nothing is known of Daniel’s activities during the years of Nebuchadnezzar’s incapacity. We likewise do not know what Daniel did after the king regained his faculties and throne, or whether his services were demanded during the reigns of the succeeding kings, Amel-Marduk (the Biblical Evil-Merodach), Nergal-shar-usur, Labashi-Marduk,

and Nabonidus. However, he was permitted to observe the mighty empire of Nebuchadnezzar become morally weak and corrupt under kings who were assassins of their predecessors. He also must have watched with more than ordinary interest the cometlike rise of King Cyrus in Persia to the east, since a man by that name had been mentioned in prophecy as Israel’s liberator (Isa. 44:28; 45:1). In 553 B.C. (the year in which Cyrus probably became master over the Median Empire) it is also possible that Daniel saw Nabonidus appoint his son Belshazzar to rule over Babylonia, while Nabonidus himself set out to conquer Tema in Arabia. It was during the first three years of Belshazzar that great visions were given to Daniel (chs. 7; 8), and the man who so far had been known only as an interpreter of dreams and visions became one of the great prophets of all time. The Babylonians demanded Daniel’s services once more, during the night of Babylon’s fall, in 539 B.C., to read and interpret the handwriting of doom on the wall of Belshazzar’s festal hall. After the Persians became masters over Babylon and its empire, the new rulers made use of the talents and experience of the old statesman of a past generation. Daniel again became a chief counselor of the crown. It was presumably he who brought the prophecies of Isaiah to the notice of the king (see PK 557), which prophecies influenced the Persian ruler to issue the decree that ended exile for the Jews and restored to them a homeland and a Temple. During this later term of Daniel’s public office there was an attempt on his life by his envious colleagues, but the Lord marvelously intervened and delivered His servant (ch. 6). Additional important visions were received during these last years of Daniel’s life, first under Darius the Mede (ch. 9; see Additional Note on Chapter 6), and then under Cyrus (chs. 10–12). In any study of the book of Daniel two points call for special examination: a. The historicity of Daniel. Since the first major attacks on the historicity of Daniel were made by the Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry (A.D. 233–c. 304), the book has been under the fire of critics, at first only sporadically, but during the past two centuries, constantly. As a result the majority of Christian scholars today consider the book of Daniel the product of an anonymous author who lived about the time of the Maccabean revolt, in the 2d century B.C. These scholars set forth two main reasons for ascribing so late a date to the book of Daniel: (1) Since, as they assert, certain prophecies point to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–c. 163 B.C.), and since, according to their concept, most prophecies—at least those that have been demonstrated to have had an accurate fulfillment—were written after the events described had occurred, Daniel’s prophecies, according to their claims, must be dated in the time following the reign of Antiochus IV; and (2) since, according to their contentions, the historical sections of Daniel record certain events that disagree with historical facts known from available sources, these disagreements can best be explained by assuming that the author was removed from the actual events so much in space and time that he possessed but a limited knowledge of what had actually happened in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C., 400 years earlier. The first of the two arguments has no validity for one who believes that the inspired prophets of old actually made accurate predictions concerning the course of history. The second argument deserves more detailed attention because of the seriousness of the claim that Daniel contains historical inaccuracies, anachronisms, and misconceptions. For this reason a brief discussion of the historical trustworthiness of Daniel is here presented.

It is true that Daniel describes some events that even today cannot be verified by means of available ancient source material. One such event is the madness of Nebuchadnezzar, which is not mentioned in any extant ancient records. The absence of verification for a temporary incapacity of the greatest king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire is not a strange phenomenon in a time when royal records contain only praiseworthy narratives (see on Dan. 4:36). Also enigmatic is Darius the Mede, whose real place in history has not been established by reliable non-Biblical source material. Hints as to his identity are found in the writings of Greek authors and fragmentary information from cuneiform sources (see Additional Note on Chapter 6). The other so-called historical difficulties that puzzled conservative commentators of Daniel a hundred years ago have been solved by the increase of historical knowledge provided by archeology. Some of the more important of these now-solved problems are here listed: 1. The supposed chronological discrepancy between Dan. 1:1 and Jer. 25:1. Jeremiah, who, scholars generally agree, is a trustworthy historical source, synchronizes the 4th year of Jehoiakim of Judah with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. However, Daniel speaks of King Nebuchadnezzar’s first conquest of Jerusalem as taking place in Jehoiakim’s 3d year, apparently implying that Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year coincided with the 3d year of Jehoiakim. Before the discovery of contemporary records revealing various systems of reckoning the regnal years of ancient kings, commentators found it difficult to explain this seeming discrepancy. They tried to solve the difficulty either by supposing a coregency of Nebuchadnezzar with his father Nabopolassar (see Vol. III, p. 91), or by assuming that Jeremiah and Daniel dated events according to different systems of reckoning, Jeremiah using a Jewish and Daniel the Babylonian system. Both explanations are today out of date. The whole difficulty has been solved by the discovery that Babylonian kings, like those of Judah at the time, counted their regnal years according to the “accession-year” method (see Vol. II, p. 138). The year in which a Babylonian king came to the throne was not reckoned as his official 1st year, but merely the year of his accession, and his 1st year, meaning his 1st full calendar year, did not begin until the next New Year’s Day, when, in a religious ceremony, he took the hands of the Babylonian god Bel. We also know from Josephus (citing Berosus) and a Babylonian chronicle that Nebuchadnezzar was on a military campaign in Palestine against Egypt when his father died and he succeeded to the throne (see p. 756; also Vol. II, pp. 95, 96, 161; Vol. III, p. 91). Hence Daniel and Jeremiah completely agree with each other. Jeremiah synchronized Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st regnal year with Jehoiakim’s 4th year, whereas Daniel was taken captive in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, which he identifies with Jehoiakim’s 3d year. 2. Nebuchadnezzar the great builder of Babylon. According to the Greek historians, Nebuchadnezzar played an insignificant role in the affairs of ancient history. He is never referred to as a great builder or as the creator of a new and greater Babylon. That this honor is usually ascribed to Queen Semiramis, who is given a prominent place in the history of Babylonia, is evident to every reader of classical Greek histories. Yet the contemporary cuneiform records, unearthed by the archeologist during the last hundred years, have entirely changed the picture derived from classical writers, and have corroborated the account of the book of Daniel, which credits Nebuchadnezzar with

the building (rebuilding) of “this great Babylon” (ch. 4:30). Semiramis, called Sammu– ramat in cuneiform inscriptions, it has now been discovered, was a queen mother of Assyria, regent for her infant son Adad-nirari III, and not a queen over Babylonia as the classical sources claimed. The inscriptions have shown that she had nothing to do with any building activity in Babylon. On the other hand, numerous building inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar prove that he became, in a sense, the creator of a new Babylon by rebuilding the palaces, temples, and temple tower of the city, and by adding new buildings and fortifications (see Additional Note on Chapter 4). Such information none but a writer of the Neo-Babylonian age could have, for it had been completely lost by the time of the Hellenistic era. The presence of such information in the book of Daniel greatly puzzles critical scholars who do not believe that Daniel was written in the 6th century, but rather in the 2d. A typical example of their dilemma is the following statement of R. H. Pfeiffer, of Harvard University: “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar …, as the excavations have proved” (Introduction to the Old Testament [New York, 1941], pp. 758, 759). 3. Belshazzar, king of Babylon. On the amazing story of the discovery by modern orientalists of the identity of Belshazzar, see Additional Note on Chapter 5. The fact that the name of this king had not been found in any non-Biblical writings of antiquity, while Nabonidus always appeared as the last Babylonian king prior to the Persian conquest, was regularly used as one of the strongest arguments against the historicity of the book of Daniel. But discoveries since the mid-nineteenth century have refuted all critics of Daniel in this respect and vindicated the trustworthiness of the prophet’s historical narrative with regard to Belshazzar in a most impressive way. b. The languages of the book. Like Ezra (see Vol. III, p. 320), Daniel was written partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic. Some have accounted for the use of two languages in the case of Ezra by assuming that the author took over Aramaic documents with their accompanying historical descriptions, and incorporated them into his books, otherwise written in Hebrew, the national tongue of his people. Such an interpretation does not fit the book of Daniel, where the Aramaic section begins with ch. 2:4 and ends with the last verse of ch. 7. Following is a partial list of the many explanations of this problem offered by scholars, together with some observations in parentheses that seem to speak against the reasonableness of these explanations: 1. That the author wrote the historical stories for the Aramaic-speaking people and the prophecies for the Hebrew-speaking scholars. (Yet the Aramaic in chs. 2 and 7, both great prophecies, speaks against the correctness of this view.) 2. That the two languages point to two sources. (This view cannot be correct, because the book bears a strong stamp of unity, as even many radical critics have acknowledged; see p. 743.) 3. That the book was written originally in one language, either Aramaic or Hebrew, and parts of it were later translated. (This view leaves unanswered the question as to why only sections were translated into the other language and not the whole book.) 4. That the author issued the book in two editions, one in Hebrew and another one in Aramaic, so that all classes of people could read it; that in the time of the Maccabean persecution parts of the book were lost, and those parts that were salvaged from both

editions were put together without any changes. (This view suffers from the fact that it cannot be proved to be correct, and that it deals with too many uncertainties.) 5. That the author began to write in Aramaic at the point where the Chaldeans addressed “the king in Syriack [literally, Aramaic]” (ch. 2:4), and continued in this language as long as he was writing at that time, but that when he resumed writing (with ch. 8:1) he used Hebrew. The last view appears to lead in the right direction, for the various sections of the book seem to have been written at different times. As a trained government official Daniel spoke and wrote in several languages. He probably wrote some of the historical narratives and visions in Hebrew and others in Aramaic. On the basis of this assumption, ch. 1 was written in Hebrew, probably in the 1st year of Cyrus, and the narratives of chs. 3–6 in Aramaic at various times. The prophetic visions were recorded mostly in Hebrew (chs. 8–12), although the vision of ch. 7 was written in Aramaic. The account of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the future monarchies (ch. 2), on the other hand, was written in Hebrew up to the point where the Chaldeans’ speech was quoted (ch. 2:4), and then continued in Aramaic from this point to the end of the narrative. When, at the end of his life, Daniel collected all his writings into one book, he may not have deemed it necessary to translate certain parts in order to unify the book linguistically, knowing that most of his readers were bilingual—a fact evident from other sources. It may further be noted that the existence of two languages in Daniel cannot be used as an argument for a late date of the origin of the book. Those who date the origin of Daniel in the 2d century B.C. also have the problem of explaining why a Hebrew author of the Maccabean period wrote part of the book in Hebrew and part of it in Aramaic. It is true that the orthographic (spelling) peculiarities of the Aramaic sections of Daniel are related most closely to those of the 4th–3d century Aramaic of Western Asia. This would seem to be due to a modernization of the language, a characteristic noticeable also in most of the Hebrew books of the Bible. Orthography cannot reveal the date of writing any more than the latest revision of the English Bible can be taken as proof that the Bible was originally written or translated in the 20th century A.D. The orthographic peculiarities can at most indicate at what time the latest revisions in spelling took place. Among the Dead Sea scrolls (see Vol. I, pp. 31–34) there are several fragments of Daniel dating from the 2d century B.C. At least two of these preserve that section of ch. 2 where the change is made from Hebrew to Aramaic, and show clearly the bilingual character of the book at that time (see p. 744). 4. Theme. The book of Daniel might appropriately be called a handbook on history and prophecy. Predictive prophecy is a preview of history; history is predictive prophecy passing in review. The element of prediction enables God’s people to see the things of time in the light of eternity, alerts them for effective action at appropriate times, facilitates personal preparation for the final crisis, and provides a firm basis for faith upon fulfillment of the prediction. The four major lines of prophecy in the book of Daniel set forth in brief outline, against the background of world history, the experiences of God’s people from the days of Daniel down to the close of time. “The curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, above, behind, and through all the play and counterplay of human interest and power and passions, the agencies of the All-merciful, One, silently, patiently working out the

counsels of His own will” (PK 500). Each of the four lines of prophecy reaches a climax when “the God of heaven” sets “up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed” (ch. 2:44), when the “Son of man” receives “everlasting dominion” (ch. 7:13, 14), when opposition to the “Prince of princes” is “broken without hand” (ch. 8:25), and when God’s people are delivered forever from their oppressors (ch. 12:1). The prophecies of Daniel thus provide a divinely constructed bridge from the precipice of time to the boundless shores of eternity, a bridge over which those who, like Daniel, purpose in their hearts to love and serve God, may pass by faith from the uncertainty and distress of the present life to the peace and security of life everlasting. The historical section of the book of Daniel reveals, in most striking manner, the true philosophy of history (see Ed 173–184). This section stands as a preface to the prophetic section. By providing a detailed account of God’s dealings with one nation, Babylon, the book enables us to understand the meaning of the rise and fall of other nations outlined in the prophetic portion of the book. Without a clear understanding of the philosophy of history as revealed in the narrative of the role of Babylon in the divine plan, the role of the other nations that succeeded Babylon on the screen of prophetic vision cannot be fully understood or appreciated. For a summary of the divine philosophy of history as set forth by inspiration, see on ch. 4:17. In the historical section of the book we find Daniel, God’s man of the hour, brought face to face with Nebuchadnezzar, the genius of the Gentile world, that the king might have opportunity to know Daniel’s God, the Arbiter of history, and to cooperate with Him. Nebuchadnezzar not only was monarch of the greatest nation of the time but was also eminently wise, and had an innate sense of justice and right. He was, in fact, the leading personality of the Gentile world, “the mighty one of the heathen” (Eze. 31:11), raised to power for a specific role in the divine plan. Of him God said, “Now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant” (Jer. 27:6). As the Jews went captive to Babylon it was desirable that they be held under a hand that was firm without being cruel (according to the standards of that day). Daniel’s mission at the court of Nebuchadnezzar was to secure the submission of the king’s will to the will of God in order that the divine purpose might be realized. In one of the dramatic moments of history God brought together these two great personalities. See p. 569. The first four chapters of Daniel narrate the means by which God secured the allegiance of Nebuchadnezzar. First of all, God needed a man who would be a fit representative of the principles and policies of heaven at the court of Babylon, so He chose Daniel to be His personal ambassador to Nebuchadnezzar. The means God employed to bring Daniel, a captive, to the favorable attention of Nebuchadnezzar, and the means by which Nebuchadnezzar came to have confidence, first in Daniel and then in Daniel’s God, illustrate the manner in which God uses men today to accomplish His will on earth. God could use Daniel because Daniel was a man of principle, a man of sterling character, a man whose chief business in life was to live for God. Daniel “purposed in his heart” (ch. 1:8) to live in harmony with all the revealed will of God. First, God brought him “into favour and tender love” with the officials of Babylon (v. 9). This prepared the way for the second step, the demonstration of the physical superiority of Daniel and his companions (vs. 12–15). Then followed a demonstration of intellectual superiority. “God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom” (v. 17), with the result that they were considered “ten times better”

than their closest competitors (v. 20). Thus in personality, physique, and intellect Daniel proved to be markedly superior to his fellow men, and thereby won the confidence and respect of Nebuchadnezzar. These events prepared Nebuchadnezzar to meet Daniel’s God. A series of dramatic experiences—the dream of ch. 2, the striking deliverance from the fiery furnace (ch. 3), and the dream of ch. 4—demonstrated to the king’s satisfaction the knowledge, power, and authority of Daniel’s God. The inferiority of human knowledge, exhibited in the experience of ch. 2, led Nebuchadnezzar to admit to Daniel, “Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets” (ch. 2:47). He freely acknowledged that the wisdom of God was superior, not only to human wisdom, but even to the supposed wisdom of his own gods. The incident of the golden image and the fiery furnace led Nebuchadnezzar to admit that the God of heaven “delivered his servants” (ch. 3:28). His conclusion was that no one in all his realm, should “speak any thing amiss against the God” of the Hebrews, in view of the fact that “no other God” can “deliver after this sort” (v. 29). Nebuchadnezzar now recognized that the God of heaven was not only wise but powerful, that He was not only omniscient but omnipotent. The third experience—the seven years during which his own vaunted wisdom and power were temporarily removed—taught the king not only that “the most High” is wise and powerful but that He exercises that wisdom and power to rule in human affairs (ch. 4:32). He has wisdom, power, and authority. It is significant that the first act Nebuchadnezzar performed after his reason returned to him was to “praise and extol and honour the King of heaven” and to acknowledge that “those that walk in pride” as he had done for so many years, God “is able to abase” (v. 37). But the lessons Nebuchadnezzar personally learned over a period of many years largely failed to benefit those who succeeded him upon the throne of Babylon. The last ruler of Babylon, Belshazzar, openly defied the God of heaven (ch. 5:23) in spite of the fact that he was acquainted with the experience of Nebuchadnezzar (v. 22). Instead of working in harmony with the divine plan, “Babylon became a proud and cruel oppressor” (Ed 176), and in the rejection of the principles of heaven wrought its own ruin (Ed 177). The nation was weighed and found wanting (ch. 5:25–28), and world dominion passed to the Persians. In delivering Daniel from the lions’ den, God demonstrated His power and authority before the rulers of the Persian Empire (see ch. 6:20–23; PK 557) as He had previously before those of Babylon. An edict of Darius the Mede acknowledged “the living God” and admitted that He is “stedfast for ever” (v. 26). Even “the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not” (v. 8), was obliged to yield before the decrees of “the most High,” who “ruleth in the kingdom of men” (ch. 4:32). Cyrus was favorably impressed by the miraculous evidence of divine power exhibited in the deliverance of Daniel from the lions’ den (PK 557). The prophecies outlining his role in the restoration of Jerusalem and the Temple (Isa. 44:26 to 45:13) also made a deep impression upon him. “His heart was profoundly moved, and he determined to fulfill his divinely appointed mission” (PK 557). Thus the book of Daniel gives a demonstration of the principles according to which God’s wisdom, power, and authority operate through the history of nations for the eventual accomplishment of the divine purpose. “God exalted Babylon that it might fulfil” His “purpose” (Ed 175). It had its period of test; it “failed, its glory faded, its power departed, and its place was occupied by another” (Ed 177; see on ch. 4:17).

All four visions of the book of Daniel are concerned with the struggle between the forces of good and evil on this earth from the time of Daniel to the establishment of the eternal kingdom of Christ. Inasmuch as Satan uses the powers of earth in his effort to thwart God’s plan and to destroy God’s people, these visions introduce those powers through which he has been most active. The first vision (ch. 2) deals primarily with political changes. Its primary objective was to reveal to Nebuchadnezzar his role as ruler of Babylon, to make known to him “what should come to pass hereafter” (v. 29). As if to supplement the first vision, the second (ch. 7) emphasizes the experiences of God’s people during the sovereignty of the powers mentioned in the first vision, and forecasts the ultimate victory of the saints and God’s judgment upon their enemies (see vs. 14, 18, 26, 27). The third vision (chs. 8; 9), supplementing the second, emphasizes Satan’s attempts to do away with the religion and people of Christ. The fourth vision (chs. 10–12) summarizes the preceding visions and covers the ground with more detail than any of the others. It amplifies the subject of the second vision and that of the third vision. The focus of its emphasis is on “what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days” (ch. 10:14), and “the time appointed was long” (v. 1). The narrative outline of history covered in ch. 11:2–39 leads up to “the latter days” (ch. 10:14) and the events of “the time of the end” (ch. 11:40). The prophecies of Daniel are closely related to those of the book of Revelation. In large measure Revelation covers the same ground but gives particular emphasis to the role of the Christian church as God’s chosen people. Thus details that may be obscure in the book of Daniel are often clarified by comparison with the book of Revelation. That part of his “prophecy which related to the last days, Daniel was bidden to close up and seal ‘to the time of the end’” (GC 356), when, through a diligent study of the book, “knowledge” of its import would be “increased” (ch. 12:4). Though “that portion of the prophecy of Daniel relating to the last days” was sealed (ch. 12:4; AA 585), John was specifically instructed to “seal not the sayings of the prophecy” of his book, “for the time is at hand” (Rev. 22:10). Thus, for a clearer interpretation of any portions of the book of Daniel that tend to be obscure, we should search carefully the book of Revelation for light to dispel the darkness. 5. Outline. 1. Historical Section, 1:1 to 6:28. A. The education of Daniel and his companions, 1:1–21. 1. The first transportation of captives from Judah to Babylon, 1:1, 2. 2. Daniel and his friends selected to be trained for royal service, 1:3–7. 3. Daniel procures permission to live according to his law, 1:8–16. 4. Successful education and acceptance into the royal service, 1:17–21. B. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great image, 2:1–49. 1. Nebuchadnezzar disturbed by a dream, 2:1–11. 2. Execution of wise men commanded and countermanded, 2:12–16. 3. Daniel receives knowledge and expresses gratitude, 2:17–23. 4. Daniel communicates the dream to the king, 2:24–35. 5. Daniel interprets the dream, 2:36–45. 6. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges God’s greatness, 2:46–49.

C. Deliverance of Daniel’s friends from the fiery furnace, 3:1–30. 1. Nebuchadnezzar erects an image and demands its worship, 3:1–7. 2. The three faithful Hebrews refuse to worship, 3:8–18. 3. The deliverance from the furnace by divine intervention, 3:19–25. 4. Nebuchadnezzar’s confession and decree; the Hebrews promoted, 3:26–30. D. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream, humiliation, and restoration, 4:1–37. 1. Nebuchadnezzar’s confession of God’s knowledge and power, 4:1–9. 2. Description of the dream, 4:10–18. 3. Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, 4:19–27. 4. Nebuchadnezzar’s fall and restoration, 4:28–36. 5. Nebuchadnezzar praises the God of heaven, 4:37. E. Belshazzar’s banquet and the loss of the monarchy, 5:1–31. 1. Belshazzar’s desecration of Temple vessels, 5:1–4. 2. The mysterious handwriting on the wall, 5:5–12. 3. Daniel’s interpretation, 5:13–28. 4. Daniel receives honor, Babylon falls, 5:29–31. F. Daniel’s deliverance from the lions’ den, 6:1–28. 1. Daniel’s elevation and the jealousy of his colleagues, 6:1–5. 2. Darius’ decree restricting prayers, 6:6–9. 3. Daniel’s transgression of the decree and his condemnation, 6:10–17. 4. Daniel’s deliverance and the punishment of the accusers, 6:18–24. 5. Public recognition of the greatness of Daniel’s God, 6:25–28. II. Prophetic Section, 7:1 to 12:13. A. Daniel’s second prophetic message, 7:1–28. 1. The four beasts and little horn, 7:1–8. 2. Judgment and eternal reign of the Son of man, 7:9–14. 3. Interpretation of the vision by an angel, 7:15–27. 4. Impression on Daniel, 7:28. B. Daniel’s third prophetic message, 8:1 to 9:27. 1. The ram, he-goat, and horns, 8:1–8. 2. The little horn and its wickedness, 8:9–12. 3. The time prophecy concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary, 8:13, 14. 4. Gabriel interprets the first portion of the vision, 8:15–26. 5. Daniel’s sickness as the result of the vision, 8:27. 6. Daniel prays for restoration and confesses his people’s sin, 9:1–19. 7. Gabriel interprets the remaining portion of the vision, 9:20–27. C. Daniel’s fourth prophetic message, 10:1 to 12:13. 1. Daniel’s fast, 10:1–3. 2. The appearance of “a certain man” and the effect on Daniel, 10:4–10. 3. The “man’s” preliminary talk with Daniel, 10:11 to 11:1. 4. A vision concerning future historical events, 11:2 to 12:3. 5. The duration of the “wonders”; personal promises to Daniel, 12:4–13.

The third year. On the basis of Biblical synchronisms that correlate the reigns of several kings of Judah with that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose Babylonian regnal years have been astronomically established, Jehoiakim’s 3d regnal year lasted, by the Jewish calendar, from the autumn of 606 to the autumn of 605 B.C. (see Vol. II, p. 160; Vol. III, p. 91). Hence the events recorded in this and the following verse must have taken place sometime during the Jewish civil year that began in the fall of 606 and ended in the fall of 605 B.C. Before the ancient systems of regnal reckonings were understood, this verse presented commentators with a seemingly insuperable problem because of the apparent contradiction with Jer. 25:1. As a result of modern archeological discoveries all historical and chronological difficulties on this point have vanished, and the evidence provides a completely harmonious pattern (see p. 747). The integrity of the Sacred Record has once more been vindicated (see p. 746). Jehoiakim was the second son of Josiah. When Josiah lost his life at Megiddo the people made Jehoahaz, fourth son of Josiah (see on 1 Chron. 3:15), king in his father’s stead. After Jehoahaz had reigned for a period of three months Necho of Egypt, during that summer’s Mesopotamian campaign, deposed him and placed Jehoiakim on the throne (2 Kings 23:29–34). The new ruler of Judah, whose name was changed by the Egyptian king from Eliakim, “My God raises up,” to Jehoiakim, “Jehovah raises up,” was forced to pay a heavy tribute to Egypt (2 Kings 23:34, 35), but seems to have been content to be loyal to his Egyptian overlord. Nebuchadnezzar. Heb. Nebukadne’ṣṣar, the common Hebrew transliteration of the Babylonian Nabû–kudurri–uṣur, meaning “May [the god] Nabû protect the son,” or “May Nabû protect my borderstone.” The form Nebukadne’ṣṣar (Nebuchadnezzar) occurs more frequently in the Hebrew Bible than the more correct spelling Nebukadre’ṣṣar (Nebuchadrezzar) (see Jer. 21:2; Eze. 26:7; etc.). The Greek sources show the same interchange of n and r. The LXX spells the name Nabouchodonosor; but it is spelled Nabokodrosoros in Strabo’s works and as a variant in Josephus. Nebuchadnezzar’s presence in Palestine in the early summer of 605 B.C., as Dan. 1:1 indicates, is confirmed by two Babylonian accounts: (1) a narrative by the historian Berosus, whose lost work has been quoted on this event by Josephus in his Against Apion (1.19); and (2) a portion of a hitherto unknown Babylonian chronicle (D. J. Wiseman, editor, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, 1956), which covers the entire reign of Nabopolassar and the first eleven years of his son Nebuchadnezzar. Berosus, as Josephus quotes him, relates that Nebuchadnezzar was ordered by his father Nabopolassar to quench a rebellion in Egypt, Phoenicia, and Coele-Syria. Having completed his mission but still being in the west, he received word of his father’s death. Leaving the captives—among whom Jews are mentioned—in the hands of his generals, he hurried back to Babylon by the short desert route as quickly as possible. This haste was doubtless due to a desire to prevent any usurper from taking the throne. Berosus says that Nebuchadnezzar left Jewish captives with his generals when he hurriedly returned to Babylon. Daniel and his friends must have been among these captives. The statement of Dan. 1:1, 2 and that of Berosus were the only known ancient records that spoke of this campaign of Nebuchadnezzar until the discovery of this chronicle, a year-by-year account yielding for the first time exact dates for the accession and death of Nabopolassar, the

accession of Nebuchadnezzar, and the capture of a king of Judah, obviously Jehoiachin, eight years later (it also places the death of Josiah in 609 and the battle of Carchemish in 605). Previously the accession of Nebuchadnezzar had been dated approximately to August, 605, by the date lines of clay-tablet business documents from Babylonia (see Vol. III, pp. 86, 87), since the last from Nabopolassar’s year 21 bore a date corresponding to August 8, and the first from the new reign (not counting one assigned formerly to July–August but now to October) was written in September. But the chronicle gives the very day. It tells how, in his father’s 21st year, Nebuchadnezzar decisively defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish and subdued Hattiland (Syria-Palestine); then, on hearing of his father’s death on Ab 8 (approximately August 15) he hurried to Babylon and ascended the throne on Elul 1 (approximately September 7). Later in his accession year and again in his year 1 (which began in spring, 604) he returned to the west and received tribute from the subject kings. This explains how Daniel could be taken captive in the 3d year of Jehoiakim, the year preceding the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar (see p. 747). King of Babylon. When Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s 3d year, a few weeks or, at the most, a few months before his father’s death, he was not yet king. But Daniel, recording these events, probably in the 1st year of Cyrus (v. 21), some 70 years after the events described had taken place, calls Nebuchadnezzar “king of Babylon.” When Daniel arrived at Babylon as a young captive, Nebuchadnezzar was already king. From then on he saw Nebuchadnezzar reigning for 43 years. Hence, it seems quite natural that Daniel would call him “king.” It is also possible, but hardly likely, that Daniel was taken during the short interval between Nabopolassar’s death and Nebuchadnezzar’s return to Babylon.

Ellen G. White

Part of the vessels. Nebuchadnezzar doubtless took the most valuable and finest Temple vessels for use in the service of his god Marduk. He naturally left no more than were absolutely necessary to carry on the daily ritual in the Temple at Jerusalem. There were three occasions on which the Chaldeans carried away sacred vessels to Babylon: (1) in the campaign recorded in this passage, (2) when Jerusalem was taken at the close of Jehoiachin’s reign in 597 B.C. (2 Kings 24:13), and (3) at the end of the reign of Zedekiah, when, in 586 B.C. after a long siege, Jerusalem was taken and destroyed (2 Kings 25:8–15). The spoiling of Jerusalem’s treasures by the Babylonian forces was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy pronounced almost a century earlier (Isa. 39:6). On the fate of the ark see on Jer. 37:10. Land of Shinar. Earlier commentators identified this term with mât Sumêri, “the land of Sumer,” or southern Babylonia, but this interpretation has now been generally discarded. In most of the OT references Shinar is simply a term for Babylonia. The origin of the word “Shinar” is still obscure (see on Gen. 10:10). However, in Gen. 14:1, 9, Shinar seems to be the name of an area in northern Mesopotamia called Sanḫar in cuneiform texts. As in Gen. 11:2, Isa. 11:11, and Zech. 5:11, the Shinar mentioned in Daniel is definitely Babylonia. His god. The chief god of the Babylonians was Marduk, who, since the time of the First Dynasty, more than a thousand years earlier, had popularly been called Bêl, “lord.” His main temple, called Esagila, in the court of which stood the great temple tower,

Etemenanki, was in the heart of Babylon (see Additional Note on Chapter 4; see also map p. 796). Treasure house. Babylonian cuneiform documents frequently mention the treasures of Esagila, the great temple of Marduk. Which of the many auxiliary buildings belonging to that temple complex might have housed these treasures is not known. However, a treasure house of a secular nature has been excavated within the palace compound. Excavators have called this building the Palace Museum because they found there many sculptures and inscriptions collected from conquered cities. As in a modern museum, objects from different parts of the empire were also exhibited. Though the building was open to the public, admission was prohibited to “evil people,” according to a contemporary inscription. It is not impossible that many treasures from Jerusalem, especially such as came from the royal treasury, were housed in this Palace Museum and were viewed by many visitors.

Ashpenaz. A name appearing in the cuneiform texts from Nippur of the 5th century in the slightly different form Ashpazanda, but in Aramaic incantation texts, also from Nippur, in the form Aspenaz. Though the meaning is still obscure the name has been thought to indicate Persian origin. It is possible that this high officer was a Persian. Many foreigners won rank and honor in the service of the Chaldeans. Master of his eunuchs. The Hebrew title rab–saris, “chief eunuch,” appears also in an Aramaic text written in 682 B.C. In Babylonian inscriptions we find as its equivalent the title rab sha rēshi, literally, “the chief of the one on the head [of the king].” The title was applied to the royal confidant. It has frequently been debated whether the term saris was used to designate only officers who were eunuchs in the literal, physical sense of the word, that is, castrated, or whether saris was used in a general way for any type of royal officer. A clear-cut answer to this question cannot be given. However, Assyrian pictorial representations of court life indicate clearly, by showing a distinction of facial features, such as the absence or presence of beards, that the king was surrounded by officers who were literal eunuchs as well as by those who were not. They indicate furthermore that the literal eunuchs seem to have been in the majority. Some of the greatest men in Assyrian history belonged to this class, as, for example, Daiân–Ashshur, the grand vizier of Shalmaneser III, along with many military commanders and other high officers. Isaiah prophesied that some of Hezekiah’s descendants would become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon (Isa. 39:7). Some commentators have held that Daniel and his three companions were included in this prophecy. Israel. After the destruction of Samaria in 723/722 B.C., when the ten northern tribes ceased to exist as a separate nation, the kingdom of Judah remained the sole representative of the descendants of Jacob or Israel. Hence, the name Israel is frequently employed during the Exile and in the postexilic period to designate the representatives of the southern kingdom (see Eze. 14:1; 17:2; etc.; Ezra 3:1, 11; etc.). King’s seed. When Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in 605 B.C. he took hostages from the royal house of Judah as well as from the first families of that unhappy country. It was an old custom of conquerors to carry away princely hostages to guarantee the

loyalty of the conquered foe. Such a practice is reported in the annals of Thutmose III of Egypt, who, after defeating an alliance of Syrian and Palestinian rulers at the battle of Megiddo in the 15th century B.C., allowed the defeated kings to retain their thrones, but carried to Egypt one prince from each of his defeated enemies. In Egypt they were educated in the Egyptian way of life, and when one of the satellite kings of Palestine or Syria died, one of the deceased’s sons, educated in Egypt and friendly to the Pharaoh, was put on the vacant throne. Princes. Heb. partemim, a loan word from Old Persian fratama, “nobles,” basically meaning “foremost.” Partemim occurs elsewhere in the Bible only in Esther (chs. 1:3; 6:9). The presence of this and other Persian loan words in Daniel can easily be accounted for on the reasonable assumption that the first chapter of Daniel was written in the 1st year of Cyrus, when Persian influence had become strong (see Dan. 1:21).

Children. Heb. yeladim, here designating a word covering a much wider range of age than the English word “children.” Here it designates “youth,” “young men.” The young counselors who had been brought up with King Rehoboam are called yeladim (1 Kings 12:8). The word is translated “young men” (KJV) because it is obvious that they were not children in the English sense of the word. The same term is applied to Benjamin at about the age of 30, shortly before he went down to Egypt, and when he was the father of 10 sons (Gen. 44:20; cf. ch. 46:21). Hence it is not strange to see the word for “children” applied to youth, of whom one at least, Daniel, had reached the age of 18 years (4T 570). It is worth noticing in this connection that Xenophon, speaking of a later time, says that no young men could enter the service of the Persian kings before they had attained their 17th year (Cyropaedia i. 2). No blemish. Physical soundness and a handsome form were considered indispensable to officers of high rank among the ancient Orientals, and are considered highly desirable qualities in the modern East. Chaldeans. This term (Akkadian, Kaldu) designates the members of an Aramaean tribe whose early settlement was in Lower Mesopotamia and who had taken over the rulership of Babylonia when Nabopolassar founded the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. The term applies also to a class of scholars at the Babylonian court who were the foremost astronomers of their day. These scholars were equally proficient in other exact sciences, such as mathematics, although they included magic and astrology in their activities. Commentators have been divided in their interpretation of the phrase “learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” The older view, found among the church Fathers, sees in the phrase a study of Aramaic language and literature, while many modern commentators are inclined to interpret it as meaning the combined scientific and linguistic knowledge of the Chaldeans. All known scientific writings of that time were inscribed on clay tablets in cuneiform script in the Babylonian language. It must therefore be concluded that “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” included a thorough training in the classical language and script of the country—that is, in the Babylonian language and in cuneiform writing—in addition to colloquial Aramaic. Since proficiency in the cuneiform script, with its hundreds of characters, was not easy to acquire, a good educational background, a natural ability to learn easily, and the gift of picking up a new language readily would

be deemed desirable prerequisites for acceptance into the royal school for future courtiers (see PK 480).

Appointed. Being members of the royal school for courtiers, the youth were given rations from the royal household. The custom is attested in the later Persian period, for which time we have more contemporary records than for the Neo-Babylonian period. Provision of … meat. Heb. pathbag, a loan word from the Old Persian patibaga, “portion,” or “delicacies.” For the use of such loan words see on v. 3. Pathbag occurs 6 times in Daniel (chs. 1:5, 8, 13, 15, 16; 11:26). Three years. That is, by inclusive reckoning (see Vol. II, pp. 136, 137), from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel was taken captive (see on v. 1), to the 2d year of the king’s reign (see on v. 18).

Among these. This expression shows that other young men were selected for training in addition to the four mentioned by name. These four are doubtless mentioned because of the uniqueness of their experience. Their unwavering loyalty to God earned for them great rewards in worldly honor and spiritual blessing (see chs. 2:49; 3:30; 6:2; 10:11). Daniel. Meaning, “God is my judge.” In the OT the name appears first as that of one of David’s sons (1 Chron. 3:1), and then as the name of a priest in the 5th century (Ezra 8:2; Neh. 10:6). However, the name was already known in Ugarit (Ras Shamrah) in the middle of the second millennium B.C. as that of a legendary, righteous king, whom some scholars have erroneously identified with the Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel (see Eze. 14:14; 28:3). That the name Daniel was very common among Semitic people is evident from the fact that it is found among the Babylonians, the South Arabic Sabeans, as well as among the Nabataeans—the successors of the Edomites—and among the Palmyrenes of northern Arabia. Hananiah. Meaning, “Yahweh is gracious.” Hananiah was a common Hebrew name borne by at least 14 different individuals mentioned in the OT. The name is also found in the Akkadian transliteration, Hananiyama, as that of a Jew living in Nippur in the 5th century. On another cuneiform document from Nippur the name is scratched in clay in Aramaic characters. It is also found in later Jewish inscriptions, and in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine. Mishael. Meaning probably, “who belongs to God?” The name was borne by several Biblical characters before and after the Exile (see Ex. 6:22; Neh. 8:4). Azariah. Meaning, “Yahweh helps.” The name appears frequently in the Bible. Outside of the Bible it is found incised on jar handles excavated in Palestine, and is found also in cuneiform sources in the form Azriau.

Gave names. The new names given to the Hebrew youth signified their adoption into the Babylonian court, a custom that has several parallels in Biblical history. Joseph received an Egyptian name when entering court life in Egypt (Gen. 41:45), and Hadassah’s name was changed to Esther (Esther 2:7), probably when she became queen. This custom is also attested among the Babylonians from ancient sources. The Assyrian king Tiglathpileser III adopted the name Pulu (Biblical Pul) when he became king of Babylon (see on 1 Chron. 5:26; see Vol. II, pp. 156, 157), and Shalmaneser V seems to have borne the name Ululai in the same office.

Belteshazzar. The Hebrew and Aramaic transliteration, representing the later, Masoretic pronunciation of a Babylonian name. Though scholars have proposed various identifications with Babylonian forms, none is entirely satisfactory. In view of Nebuchadnezzar’s remark made many years later, that Daniel’s Babylonian name had been given “according to the name of my god” (ch. 4:8), it appears evident that the first syllable, “Bel,” refers to Bel, the popular name of Babylon’s chief god, Marduk. For this reason the identification with either Balâṭ–sharri–uṣur, “protect the life of the king,” or Balâṭsu–uṣur, “protect his life,” must be rejected, although both interpretations have found strong support among Assyriologists as the closest equivalent to the Hebrew form. R. D. Wilson’s suggestion, of identifying Belteshazzar with Bêl–liṭ–shar–uṣur, “Bel, protect the hostage of the king,” can hardly be correct, inasmuch as it is highly unlikely that the Babylonians would have given such a name to a captive, as we would judge from the thousands of Babylonian names found in cuneiform documents. The best identification seems still to be that given by Delitzsch, namely, that of seeing in this name an abbreviation of Bêl–balâṭsu–uṣur, “Bel protect his [the king’s] life.” Shadrach. The name is inexplicable in Babylonian. Some scholars have conjectured that the name is a corruption of Marduk, whereas others have tried to explain it with the help of Sumerian words. Jensen suggested it was the name of the Elamite god Shutruk, but it is difficult to explain why an Elamite name should have been given by the Babylonians. Meshach. A satisfactory explanation as to the origin of this name has not yet been found. Like Shadrach (see above), Meshach is not a Babylonian name. Abed-nego. It is generally agreed that this name stands for ‘Ebed–Nebo, “servant of [the god] Nabu,” a name that is attested by an Aramaic papyrus found in Egypt.

Not defile himself. There were several reasons why a pious Jew would avoid eating of the royal food: (1) the Babylonians, like other pagan nations, ate unclean meats (see CD 30); (2) the beasts had not been properly killed according to Levitical law (Lev. 17:14, 15); (3) a portion of the animals eaten was first offered as a sacrifice to pagan gods (see Acts 15:29); (4) the use of luxurious and unhealthful food and drink was contrary to strict principles of temperance; (5) for Daniel and his friends there was the added desire to avoid a flesh-food diet (see EGW, Supplementary Material on Dan. 1:8). The Hebrew youth determined to do nothing that would interfere with physical, mental, and spiritual development.

Ellen G. White

Into favour. Compare the experience of Joseph (Gen. 39:4, 21), of Ezra (Ezra 7:28), and of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:8). It was doubtless the gentleness, courtesy, and fidelity displayed by these men that won for them the favor of their superiors (see PP 217; CD 31). At the same time they attributed their success to the blessing of God. God works with those who cooperate with Him. See p. 750.

Ellen G. White

Endanger my head. The sentence reads literally, “Ye make my head punishable with the king.” The expression does not imply capital penalty, but, as James A. Montgomery has shown, simply means that the chief eunuch would be held responsible if those who had been committed to him deteriorated physically.

Melzar. Heb. melṣar, which, according to recently recovered Babylonian cuneiform records, was obviously derived from the Akkadian maṣṣaru, which means “guardian,” or “warden.” The presence of “the” in the Hebrew is further indication that a proper name was not intended. Hence, the name of the lower official who acted as immediate tutor of the Hebrew apprentices is not known. Although Ashpenaz had been friendly and sympathetic to Daniel’s request, he nevertheless hesitated to help the young captive. Hence, Daniel went to the official who was the immediate tutor and placed before him a specific request.

Ten days. This seems a short period of time in which to produce any appreciable change in appearance and physical vigor. But habits of strict temperance had already provided Daniel and his companions with fundamentally sound constitutions (see PK 482) that responded to the benefits of a proper diet. Their recuperation from the rigors of the long march from Judea was, without doubt, more pronounced than that of other captives who had not already formed abstemious habits. Now, in the case of Daniel and his three companions, divine power was united with human effort, and the result was truly remarkable (cf. PP 214). The blessing of God attended the noble resolution of the youths not to defile themselves with the king’s dainties. They knew that indulgence in stimulating foods and drinks would prevent them from securing the highest physical and mental development. The Melzar felt certain that “an abstemious diet would render these youth pale and sickly in appearance …, while the luxurious food from the king’s table would make them ruddy and beautiful, and would impart superior physical activity” (CD 31), and he was surprised when the results were quite the opposite. God honored these young men because of their unswerving purpose to do what was right. The approbation of God was dearer to them than the favor of the most powerful earthly potentate, dearer even than life itself (see CD 31). Nor had the firm resolution been born under the pressure of immediate circumstances. From childhood these young men had been trained in strict habits of temperance. They knew of the degenerating effects of a stimulating diet, and had long ago determined not to enfeeble their physical and mental powers by indulgence in appetite. The end of the period found them superior in physical appearance, physical activity, and mental vigor. Daniel did not refuse the viands of the king in order to be singular. Many might reason that under the circumstances there was plausible excuse for departing from strict adherence to principle and that consequently Daniel was narrow, bigoted, and too particular. Daniel sought to live at peace with all and to cooperate to the fullest extent possible with his superiors as long as such cooperation did not require him to sacrifice principle. When fealty to Jehovah was involved, he was willing to sacrifice worldly honor, wealth, position, yea, even life itself. Pulse. Heb. zero‘im, “food derived from plants,” such as cereals and vegetables. According to Jewish tradition, berries and dates were also comprehended in the term. Since dates are a part of the staple food of Mesopotamia, they seem likely to have been included here. See on v. 8.

Ellen G. White

These four children. See on v. 4. Knowledge and skill. The instruction that Daniel and his three friends received was for them also a test of faith. The wisdom of the Chaldeans was allied with idolatry and pagan practices, and mixed sorcery with science, and learning with superstition. From

these things the Hebrew learners kept themselves aloof. How they avoided conflicts we are not told, but despite the corrupting influences they held fast to the faith of their fathers, as later tests of loyalty clearly show. The four young men learned the skills and sciences of the Chaldeans without adopting the heathen elements mingled with them. Among the reasons why these Hebrews preserved their faith unsullied may be noted the following: (1) Their firm resolution to remain true to God. They had more than a desire or a hope for goodness. They willed to do right and to shun evil. Victory is possible only by the right exercise of the will (see SC 48). (2) Their dependence on the power of God. Though they valued human capabilities and recognized the necessity of human effort, they knew that these things of themselves would not guarantee success. They recognized that in addition to this there must be humble dependence and full reliance on God’s power (see CD 154). (3) Their refusal to blunt their spiritual and moral natures by indulgence in appetite. They realized that a single departure from principle would have weakened their sense of right and wrong, which in turn would probably have led to other wrong acts, and in the end to complete apostasy (see CD 155). (4) Their consistent prayer life. Daniel and his youthful companions realized that prayer was a necessity, especially because of the atmosphere of evil that constantly surrounded them (see SL 20). Visions and dreams. While Daniel’s three friends were, like him, endowed with exceptional mental qualities, and equaled him in loyalty to their God, he was chosen as God’s special messenger. Some modern scholars who deny that there is a genuine gift of prophecy have advanced the notion that this verse indicates that Daniel had a special gift for learning the Chaldean way of interpreting dreams and visions, and that in school contests on this subject he excelled his fellow students. Daniel did not belong to this type of dream interpreters. His prophetic gift was not the product of a successful training in the school of the royal soothsayers, sorcerers, and magicians. He was called of God to do a special work, and became the recipient of some of the most important prophecies of all time (see chs. 7–12).

Ellen G. White

At the end of the days. Some expositors have thought that when the king required his wise men to interpret his dream in his 2d year (ch. 2:1), Daniel was not called to the meeting because his schooling was not yet completed, and that he and his friends were condemned to share the fate of the wise men because they belonged to the profession, although they were not yet full-fledged members of it. This view cannot be regarded as correct. The young apprentices were to be trained three years in order to “stand before the king” (ch. 1:5); and it was “at the end of the days” specified that they were brought before the king for examination. Then “stood they before the king” (see on v. 19). This statement indicates that the three-year training period ended before the king examined them and “found” that Daniel and his three friends were better than all the other candidates. This could hardly have taken place after one of them, Daniel, had already received high honors and had been promoted to the rule of the province and supervision over all the wise men, and after the other three had been given high office (ch. 2:46–49). The logical sequence, as well as the narrative order, requires that Daniel’s three-year course end before Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his 2d year. All this leads to the conclusion that this was not a period of 36 months; that these three years must be counted inclusively; they represent (1) Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (see on v. 2), in which the Hebrew captives arrived in Babylon and entered their

training; (2) Nebuchadnezzar’s year 1, which was the calendar year beginning at the next New Year’s Day after his accession; and (3) Nebuchadnezzar’s year 2, in which Daniel graduated and stood “before the king,” and the year in which he interpreted the dream (see ch. 2:1; also PK 491). By applying the commonly used ancient method of inclusive reckoning, which is attested in numerous cases as the usual way of counting time (see Vol. II, pp. 136, 137), there is no need to assert, as modern commentators have done, that ch. 1 stands chronologically in contradiction to ch. 2, or to take recourse in the fanciful or forced explanations that are found in many commentaries. For example, Jerome declared that the 2d year of ch. 2:1 refers to the 2d year after the conquest of Egypt; and the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra thought that it was the 2d year after the destruction of Jerusalem. Later some conjectured that Nebuchadnezzar reigned with his father two years (see Vol. III, p. 91).

Communed with them. When, at the end of the training period, the chief eunuch presented his graduates to the king, an examination conducted personally by Nebuchadnezzar proved the four young Hebrews to be superior to all the others. “In physical strength and beauty, in mental vigor and literary attainment, they stood unrivaled” (PK 485). The manner of examination is not indicated. From a later description of Daniel’s abilities given by Belshazzar’s mother, who was probably a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, we learn that Daniel was known to her as a man able to “explain riddles, and solve problems” (ch. 5:12, RSV). The questions asked may have required the explanation of riddles, which has always been a favored sport in the court life of Oriental countries. The examination also may have included the solving of mathematical and astronomical problems, in which the Babylonians were masters, as their documents reveal, or a demonstration of ability to read and write the difficult cuneiform script. The superior wisdom of Daniel and his youthful companions was not the result of chance or destiny, or even of a miracle, as that word is usually understood. The young men applied themselves diligently and conscientiously to their studies, and God blessed their endeavors. True success in any undertaking is assured when divine and human effort are combined. Human effort alone avails nothing; likewise divine power does not render human cooperation unnecessary (see PK 486, 487; cf. PP 214). Among them all. This may refer to the other Israelite youths (v. 3) brought to Babylon along with Daniel and his friends, but doubtless also to the young noble captives from other lands who had received the same training as the Hebrews. Stood they before the king. Compare v. 5 with ch. 2:2. That is, they entered the royal service. For similar usage of the words “stand before,” see Gen. 41:46; 1 Sam. 16:21, 22; 2 Chron. 9:7; 10:6, 8; (cf. Num. 16:9; 27:21; Deut. 10:8; 2 Chron. 29:11).

Wisdom and understanding. Literally, “wisdom of understanding.” Along with most other translations the KJV follows the ancient versions, which have an “and” between the words “wisdom” and “understanding.” Certain commentators have explained the Hebrew construction to be the result of a desire on the part of the author to express the highest form of understanding or science, or to convey to his readers the thought that wisdom determined, or regulated, by understanding is meant; hence there was no magical knowledge or supernatural science. This would suggest that Daniel and his friends excelled the men of their profession in matters of exact science, such as astronomy and

mathematics, and in matters of linguistic studies. They had mastered cuneiform writing, the Babylonian and Aramaic languages, and the Aramaic square script. Magicians. Heb. charṭummim, a word occurring only in the Pentateuch (Gen. 41:8, 24; Ex. 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18) and in Daniel (here and in ch. 2:2). It is borrowed from the Egyptian cheri–dem, in which cheri means “chief,” or “outstanding man,” and dem, “to mention a name in magic.” Hence a cheri–dem is a “chief of magic,” or “chief magician.” According to our present knowledge this word was not used in Babylonia, and is nowhere found in cuneiform sources. Obviously Daniel had become acquainted with the term from his reading of the Pentateuch, and need not necessarily have been conversant with Egyptian technical terms. Daniel was well acquainted with the books of Moses and was a keen student of the sacred writings of his people (see ch. 9:2). The use of this Hebrew loan word from the Egyptian is an illustration of how his style and choice of words were influenced by the vocabulary of the portion of the Bible then available. Astrologers. Heb. ’ashshaphim, a loan word from the Akkadian ashipu, “exorciser.” Divination, magic, exorcism, and astrology were widespread among the ancient peoples, but in some countries, like Babylonia, they were practiced by the men of science. Future events were divined by looking for signs in the entrails of sacrificed animals or in the flight of birds. Divination was especially practiced by inspecting the livers of sacrificed animals (hepatoscopy), and comparing them with inscribed “model” livers of clay. These models, like a modern manual of palmistry, contained detailed explanations of all form differences and directions for interpretation. Numerous clay liver models have come to light in the excavations of Mesopotamian sites. Ancient diviners had many methods. Sometimes they sought advice by pouring oil on water and interpreting the form of the spreading oil (lecanomancy), or by shaking arrows in the quiver and looking for the direction in which the first one falls (belomancy). See Eze. 21:21. The diviner also interpreted dreams, worked out incantation formulas by which evil spirits or sicknesses allegedly could be banished, and asked advice from the supposed spirits of the dead (necromancy). Every Oriental potentate had many diviners and magicians in his service. They were at hand on every occasion, and followed their king on military campaigns, hunting expeditions, and state visits. Their counsel was sought for various decisions, such as the route to be followed, or the date for an attack on the enemy. The life of the king was largely regulated and ruled by these men. It is a mistake to assume that the wise men of Babylon were only diviners and magicians. Though skilled in these arts, they were also scholars in the true sense. As in the Middle Ages alchemy was practiced by men of true scholarly education and astrology was frequently practiced by otherwise scientifically working astronomers, so the exorcisers and diviners of ancient times engaged also in strictly scientific studies. Their astronomical knowledge had attained to a surprisingly high degree of development, although the peak of Babylonian astronomy came after the Persian conquest. Astronomers were able to predict both lunar and solar eclipses by computation. Their mathematical skill was highly developed. They employed formulas whose discovery is erroneously but generally attributed to Greek mathematicians. Furthermore, they were good architects, builders, and acceptable physicians, who had found by empirical means the cure for many ailments. It must have been in these branches of knowledge and skill

that Daniel and his three friends exceeded the Babylonian magicians, astrologers, and scholars.

Ellen G. White

Unto the first year. Some commentators have held that there is an apparent contradiction between this verse and the statement of ch. 10:1 that Daniel received a vision in the 3d year of Cyrus. But the text does not necessarily imply that Daniel’s life did not extend beyond the 1st year of Cyrus. Daniel may have referred to that date because of some special event that took place during that year. Some have suggested the event to be the decree of the first year of King Cyrus that marked the end of the Babylonian exile (2 Chron. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1–4; 6:3). That decree brought the fulfillment of an important prophecy that Daniel had carefully studied, namely, the prophecy of Jeremiah that the Exile would last 70 years (Jer. 29:10; Dan. 9:2). Daniel lived throughout the Exile from the first captivity, in 605 B.C. to the time when the decree was given by Cyrus, probably as late as the summer of 537 B.C. (see Vol. III, pp. 96, 97). Daniel may have desired to inform his readers that though he had been carried away in the first captivity, he was still alive at the time the Exile ended about 70 years later. Also, the conclusion seems warranted that ch. 1 and perhaps also some of the other chapters were not written until the 1st year of Cyrus. Such a date explains the use of loan words from the Persian. Daniel again occupied an official position, under the Persian rule, shortly after the fall of Babylon (Dan. 6:1, 2), and from his contact with Persian officials doubtless added to his vocabulary some of the Persian words he used in the composition of his book.