Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 1:1

Clarke's Commentary

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL

Chronological Notes relative to the commencement of Daniel's prophesying

-Year from the Creation, according to Archbishop Usher, 3397.

-Year of the Jewish era of the world, 3154.

-Year from the Deluge, 1741.

-Second year of the forty-third Olympiad.

-Year from the building of Rome, according to the Varronian or generally received account, 147.

-Year from the building of Rome, according to Cato and the Fasti Consulares, 146.

-Year from the building of Rome, according to Polybius the historian, 145.

-Year from the building of Rome, according to Fabius Pictor, 411.

-Year of the Julian Period, 4107.

-Year of the era of Nabonassar, 141.

-Year from the foundation of Solomon's temple, 397.

-Year since the destruction of the kingdom of Israel by Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, 114.

-Fourth year after the first Sabbatic year after the seventeenth Jewish jubilee, according to Helvicus.

-Year before the birth of Christ, 603.

-Year before the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 607.

-Cycle of the Sun, 19.

-Cycle of the Moon, 3.

-Tenth year of Tarquinius Priscus, the fifth king of the Romans.

-Nineteenth year of Cyaxares or Cyaraxes, the fourth king of Media.

-Forty-fourth year of Archidamus, king of Lacedaemon, of the family of the Proclidae.

-First year of Leon, king of Lacedaemon, of the family of Eurysthenidae.

-Thirteenth year of Alyattes II., king of Lydia, and father of the celebrated Croesus.

-Thirty-fourth year of Philip, the sixth king of Macedon.

-Eleventh year of Pharaoh-necho, called Necus by Herodotus. This king was the immediate predecessor of Psammis; and Psammis was succeeded by the celebrated Pharaoh-hophra, called also Apries.

-Eighth year of Ithobalus, king of the Tyrains, according to Helvicus.

-Third year (ending) of Jehoiakim, king of Judah; for the principal part of A.M. 3397 corresponded to the fourth year of this prince.

CHAPTER I

This chapter begins with giving a short account of

Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Judea, when Jehoiakim became

tributary to him; and consequently the seventy years' captivity

and vassalage began, 1, 2.

On this expedition (taking Egypt in his way) the king of Babylon

set out towards the end of the third year of Jehoiakim, but did

not take Jerusalem before the ninth month of the year following.

Hence the seeming discrepancy between Daniel and Jeremiah,

(Jeremiah 25:1,)

the one computing from the time of his setting out on the

expedition, and the other from the time in which the purpose of

it was accomplished. We have next an account of the manner in

which Daniel and his companions were brought up at the king's

court, 3-7.

They reject the daily provision of meat granted by the king,

lest they should be defiled, and are allowed to live on pulse,

8-16.

Their great proficiency in the wisdom of that time, 17-20.

Daniel flourishes till the reign of Cyrus the Persian, 21.

NOTES ON CHAP. I

Verse Daniel 1:1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim — This king was raised to the throne of Judea in the place of his brother Jehoahaz, by Pharaoh-necho, king of Egypt, 2 Kings 23:34-36, and continued tributary to him during the first three years of his reign; but in the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 25:1, Nebuchadnezzar completely defeated the Egyptian army near the Euphrates, Jeremiah 46:2; and this victory put the neighbouring countries of Syria, among which Judea was the chief, under the Chaldean government. Thus Jehoiakim, who had first been tributary to Egypt, became now the vassal of the king of Babylon, 2 Kings 24:1.

At the end of three years Jehoiakim rebelled against Nebuchadnezzar, who, then occupied with other wars, did not proceed against Jerusalem till three years after, which was the eleventh and last of Jehoiakim, 2 Kings 23:36.

There are some difficulties in the chronology of this place. Calmet takes rather a different view of these transactions. He connects the history thus: Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, finding that one of his lords whom he had made governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia had revolted from him, and formed an alliance with the king of Egypt, sent Nebuchadnezzar his son, whom he invested with the authority of king, to reduce those provinces, as was customary among the easterns when the heir presumptive was sent on any important expedition or embassy. This young prince, having quelled the insurrection in those parts, marched against Jerusalem about the end of the third or beginning of the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. He soon took the city, and put Jehoiakim in chains with the design of carrying him to Babylon; but, changing his mind, he permitted him to resume the reins of government under certain oppressive conditions. At this year, which was A.M. 3398, the seventy years of the Babylonish captivity commence. Nabopolassar dying in the interim, Nebuchadnezzar was obliged to return speedily to Babylon, leaving his generals to conduct the Jewish captives to Babylon, among whom were Daniel and his companions.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

1:1-6:28 STORIES ABOUT DANIEL AND HIS FRIENDS

Training for Nebuchadnezzar’s court (1:1-21)

Babylon’s first attack on Jerusalem came in 605 BC, during the reign of the Judean king Jehoiakim. In keeping with the usual practice among conquerors in ancient times, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar plundered the temple of the conquered people, carried off its sacred objects and placed them in his own temple. In this way Nebuchadnezzar demonstrated his belief that Babylon’s gods were superior to the God of the Jews (1:1-2).

Nebuchadnezzar also took back to Babylon a number of Jewish young men chosen from the upper class families of Jerusalem, his purpose being to prepare them for high positions in his royal court (see ‘Background’ above). He chose men whose good looks would add to the grace of his palace and whose intelligence would enable them to learn Babylonian ways quickly. He wanted them to be skilled in Babylonian law and wisdom, particularly Chaldean wisdom (3-4). (The Chaldeans were the dominant race among the Babylonian people, and the one to which Nebuchadnezzar belonged. Their wise men were famous for their skill in astrology, magic and ancient languages.)
The Babylonians put strong pressure on the young Jewish captives to break with their old religion and culture. To begin with they gave them Babylonian names (containing names of Babylonian gods) to replace their Hebrew names (which contained the name of the Hebrews’ God). Also they gave them a share of the same food served to the Babylonian king (5-7).
Four of the Jewish youths, led by Daniel, asked to be excused from eating the king’s food. They considered it unclean, either because it was of a kind forbidden by Jewish law, or because it represented fellowship with a heathen king and his idols (8). The official in charge of the court trainees refused their request. He feared that the simpler food the youths requested would have a bad effect on their appearance, and that he would be blamed for it (9-10). But Daniel and his friends made a secret arrangement with their personal dining attendant, so that they were served only the simpler food that they desired (11-16).
God rewarded the young men’s faithfulness to him and their diligence in study. He gave them the attractive appearance that the king wanted and an understanding that in all spheres of learning was better than that of their fellows. He gave them also the ability to recognize the difference between the true and the false in Babylonian wisdom, and to Daniel he gave the extraordinary ability to understand visions and dreams (17-20). History shows that Daniel so enjoyed God’s favour that he was still a person of importance even after the Babylonian Empire had fallen (21; cf. 10:1).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

“In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his god: and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.”

It is easily observed that the volume of comments against a given passage of God’s Word on the part of Bible critics often exhibits an inverse ratio to the reasonableness of their arguments. The more unbelievable their arguments are, the greater is the volume of them. Nothing could be any more certain than the historical accuracy of the passage before us, but reminding us of that “river” out of the serpent’s mouth (Revelation 12:15), Biblical enemies have literally tried to wash this passage away with their denials.

The first attack is based on the fact that Jeremiah placed this event in “the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 25:1). “Daniel, however, evidently employed the Babylonian method of reckoning, in which the first year is regarded as following the year of the king’s accession to the throne.”Edward J. Young, The New Bible Commentary, Revised, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 690 “Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of a year, which Jeremiah reckoned as a year; but Daniel did not count it as it was an incomplete year.”Robert Jamieson, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown’s Commentary, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 621 Dummelow allowed that both statements were “correct” because the first year of Nebuchadnezzar lay partially in both the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim.J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 532 Of course, this variation of a single year in the sacred records, however it can be explained, is of no consequence. As Barnes put it, “It is not material.”Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 94

Another objection raised against this first verse is that the first expedition against Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar took place about the time of the battle of Carchemish (May or June, 605 B.C.);John Joseph Owens, Beacon Bible Commentary, Daniel (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1971), p. 281. and the fact of Nebuchadnezzar’s being here called “king of Babylon” is labeled as an “error,” because Nebuchadnezzar did not actually become king of Babylon until 604 B.C.Ibid. As anyone should know, “This is a prolepsis.”Robert D. Culver, Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Daniel (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962), p. 772. Here is another example: President Eisenhower was born in Dennison. President Eisenhower led the invasion of Europe, etc. Critics are hard pressed for an error to focus upon something like this.

We appreciate the words of Owens who said: “All the bits of information given here are individually true; but they are put together in a general sense.”John Joseph Owens, op. cit., p. 381.

All such quibbles about the alleged “errors” are pointless. The big point of the passage is that because of the repeated and continuing rebellions of Israel and her kings against the will of God, God at last sent the whole nation into captivity exactly as the prophet Jeremiah had foretold (Jeremiah 4-6). There were in fact no less than three expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, in all three of which captives were carried away; and the passage before us refer to the first of these occasions, which was not documented on pagan records. On this pretext, up until very recently, as late as 1956, critics were boldly claiming the account here was “a historical blunder.”Robert D. Culver, op. cit., p. 772 That slander, however, has been laid to rest; because, “As recently as February, 1956, the ancient documents were first published which now proved full historical support for Nebuchadnezzar’s presence in Judah at exactly this time.”Ibid. The article Culver referred to here was published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, December issue, 1956, Vol. LXXV, Pt. IV, p. 277.

We have explored this far enough to see that the arrogant charge which denies any historical accuracy to verses like this is a gross and irresponsible error. Arthur Jeffery stated that, “Daniel 1:1 is only a literary device; strict historical accuracy is not important. It is here to prove a setting for the story, not to provide historical information!”Arthur Jeffery, The Interpreter’s Bible, Daniel (New York: Abingdon Press, 1956), p. 360. We reject such views.

It is of interest that Nebuchadnezzar’s name, as found here and occasionally in other parts of the Old Testament, is alleged to be misspelled, the true spelling being Nebuchadnezzar. Our usage will conform to the spelling in Daniel. Owens stated that, “There are various spellings of this name in the Old Testament.”John Joseph Owens, op. cit., p. 381. In light of this, therefore, how weak is the allegation of the same author that, “the Daniel of Ezekiel 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20 cannot be the youth of the Book of Daniel,” evidently basing his argument upon the fact that “the names are spelled differently.”Ibid., p. 374 If the misspelling of a name in the Old Testament is grounds for such conclusions, then we may have half a dozen Nebuchadnezzar’s!

“Shinar” is a very ancient name for Babylon (Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:2); and the appearance of that name here makes it certain that no forger of the times of the Maccabees wrote this book. People in that age did not use this name for Babylon.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem - This event occurred, according to Jahn (“History of the Hebrew Commonwealth”), in the year 607 b.c., and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, 2Ki 22:2; 2 Chronicles 35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, 2 Kings 23:30; 2 Chronicles 36:1. He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, 2Ki 23:34; 2 Chronicles 36:4.

Jehoahaz was first imprisoned in Riblah, 2 Kings 23:33, and was afterward removed to Egypt, 2 Chronicles 36:4. Jehoiakim, an unworthy son of Josiah, was, in reality, as he is represented by Jeremiah, one of the worst kings who reigned over Judah. His reign continued eleven years, and as he came to the throne 611 b.c., his reign continued to the year 600 b.c. In the third year of his reign, after the battle of Megiddo, Pharaoh-nechoh undertook a second expedition against Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, with a numerous army, drawn in part from Western Africa, Lybia and Ethiopia. - Jahn’s Hist. Heb. “Commonwealth,” p. 134. This Nabopolassar, who is also called Nebuchadnezzar I, was at this time, as Berosus relates, aged and infirm. He therefore gave up a part of his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who defeated the Egyptian host at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates, and drove Nechoh out of Asia. The victorious prince marched directly to Jerusalem, which was then under the sovereignty of Egypt. After a short siege Jehoiakim surrendered, and was again placed on the throne by the Babylonian prince.

Nebuchadnezzar took part of the furniture of the temple as booty, and carried back with him to Babylon several young men, the sons of the principal Hebrew nobles, among whom were Daniel and his three friends referred to in this chapter. It is not improbable that one object in conveying them to Babylon was that they might be hostages for the submission and good order of the Hebrews in their own land. It is at this time that the Babylonian sovereignty over Judah commences, commonly called the Babylonian captivity, which, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, Jeremiah 25:1-14; Jeremiah 29:10, was to continue seventy years. In Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 46:2, it is said that this was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim; in the passage before us it is said that it was the third year. This difference, says Jahn, arises from a different mode of computation: “Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of the year, which Jeremiah reckons as the first (and such a mode of reckoning is not uncommon), but Daniel, neglecting the incomplete year, numbers one less:” For a more full and complete examination of the objection to the genuineness of Daniel from this passage, I would refer to Prof. Stuart on Daniel, “Excursus” I. (See App. I. to this Vol.)

And besieged it - Jerusalem was a strongly-fortified place, and it was not easy to take it, except as the result of a siege. It was, perhaps, never carried by direct and immediate assault. Compare 2 Kings 25:1-3, for an account of a siege of Jerusalem a second time by Nebuchadnezzar. At that time the city was besieged about a year and a half. How long the siege here referred to continued is not specified.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

These are not two different things, but the Prophet explains and confirms the same sentiments by a change of phrase, and says that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had brought into the land of Shinar were laid up in the house of the treasury. The Hebrews, as we know, generally use the word “house” for any place, as they call the temple God’s “house ” Of the land of Shinar, it must be remarked, that it was a plain adjacent to Babylon; and the famous temple of Belus, to which the Prophet very probably refers, was erected there.

Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his companions, namely, in the third year of Jehoiakim A difficult question arises here, since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third year, and then led away the people captives according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this difficulty by what appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that the four years ought to refer to the beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third year. But in the second chapter we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second year of his reign. They explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say — the years are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and, — this was the second year from the Conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, that the Prophet is speaking of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least uses the reign of the second, while his father was yet alive. We know there were two kings of the same name, father and son; and as the son did many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concerning Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the second, who is the son. But Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews and this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change of affairs, and enticed them to throw off the yoke Nebuchadnezzar the younger was carrying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and speedily returned home, lest any one should supersede him. When, however, he found all things as he wished, Josephus thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing strange, nay, it is very customary to call him King who shares the command with his father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it. In the third year or the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if any one prefers it, the father himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether we refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem, that is, by the hand of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different explanation is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on the war in person, that view not be taken still, the events happened in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus, indeed, says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never read the Book of Daniel. ⁽⁶⁸⁾ He was an unlearned man, and by no means familiar with the Scriptures; nay, I think he had never read three verses of Daniel. It was a dreadful judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this seems to suit well enough, since in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city was once taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led away in triumph, among whom were Daniel and his companions. When Jehoiakim afterwards rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled — the condition of the figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were led into exile last thought themselves better off than the rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their vain boast, and shows the former captives to have been better treated than the remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at. home. (Jeremiah 24:2.) I assume, then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For had there been any integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it for Ezekiel includes him among the three just men by whom most probably God would be appeased. (Ezekiel 14:14.) Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile, and lived as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests the Lord did not deprive them of their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption. ⁽⁶⁹⁾

Should any wish here to determine why Daniel was among the first to be led into captivity, will he not betray his folly? Hence, let us learn to admire God’s judgments, which surpass all our perceptions; and let us also remember the words of Christ,

“If these things are done in the green tree,
what will be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:31.)

As I have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, although so ignominiously exiled and brought up among the kings eunuchs. Then this happened to so holy a man, who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how great is God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we deserved? Which of us will dare to compare himself with Daniel? Nay, we are unworthy, according to the ancient proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slightest doubt Daniel, through the circumstances of the time, wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift of God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could not turn him aside from the right course of piety. When, therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an example of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of God. As to his assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by God’s command, this form of speech takes away any stumbling block which might occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been depressed. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Therefore, Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, that we may not think Jerusalem to have been taken in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and his posterity. He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. Now, this might seem altogether out of place, and would shock the minds of the faithful. For what does it mean? That God’s temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had not God borne witness that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here will I dwell because I have chosen it. (Psalms 132:14.) If any place in the world were impregnable, here truly honor ought to remain entire and untainted in the temple of God. When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this cast down the minds of the holy? No one was surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected trial would not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple? Although he does not dwell in this world, and is not enclosed in walls of either wood or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Psalms 80:1, and Psalms 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16,)and often by means of his Prophets asserted his seat to between the Cherubim. What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word assures us that we ought not to be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked apostates. For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis; as the Lord did not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God, therefore, exposed him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his impious people. It now follows —

(68) Calvin’s expression is tam brutus homo in Latin, and si stupide et brutal in French; but he is evidently too severe on so valuable an analyst, who, in so many passages, confirms and elucidates the scriptural narrative. Besides, Calvin seems to have overlooked the passage in his Antiq., lib. 11. cap. 8, section 5, where this Book is mentioned, and its contents alluded to at length.

(69) Much light has been. thrown upon the chronology of these times since the age of Calvin: later Commentators have dated from the third year of Jehoiakim’s restoration to his kingdom after his rebellion. See 2 Kings 24:2. The subject is discussed with clearness by Bleek in his Theology. Zeitschrist. Pt. in. p. 28O, etc.; and R. Sal. Jarchi on this passage may be consulted, p. 735, edit. Gotham, 1713. See Dissertation at the end of this Volume.

Smith's Bible Commentary

There are men who spend their lifetimes seeking to prove that the Bible is not all that it purports to be. Their whole premise for their doctorates are trying to take some aspect of the Bible and show that it isn't all that it claims to be. One of the favorite tactics of these men are to take the various books of the Bible and to try to prove that they are not written by those authors that they claim to be written by. And the book of Daniel has come under this cloak of what they call "higher criticism," as there have been many who have tried to prove that the book of Daniel was not really written by Daniel. And one of the basic premises for their proof is that it would be impossible to describe with such accuracy events that had not yet taken place. Therefore, it was written by some man a couple of centuries later, after the fact, and that he put the name of Daniel to it.

And they, of course, take the fact that there are about three Greek words in the book of Daniel and there are some Persian words in the book of Daniel. And it is written partially in Hebrew and partially in the Aramaic, the ancient language of Syria, which is like the Chaldaic language. And they used this as their basis of proof that Daniel was not really the author. But to me, the fact that he uses some Greek words, Persian words, and both Hebrew and Aramaic only go to prove that Daniel indeed was the author and was all that the book purports him to be; that is a wise man, a counselor, and in the court of the king, where he would have met Greeks, he would have met Persians, he would have met people from all over the world in his capacity as an officer in the Babylonian kingdom.

And I think that these endeavors by these people to bring doubt upon the Word of God has no value at all. They have written their doctorates and many expositions on it, but it's a waste of time and energy to consider their arguments, just to say that with each argument they present there is a very powerful argument to refute what they presented. And when you look at the whole thing, it turns out that indeed Daniel was the author, and they have not proved anything but their own foolishness. So I don't like to get all involved in those areas of reproving that which is already true. Truth doesn't need to be defended. And so we aren't going to go into the arguments of the authorship of the book. We'll just assume that it is all that is purports to be, that Daniel indeed was the author, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we will leave the critics and those men who love to tamper and dabble in those things to their on follies.

One of the tragic things about a seminary education is that you learn all of these arguments. In fact, you'll spend a whole semester in seeking to determine the authorship of Daniel, and you'll study all of the papers that have been written by the various people and the arguments pro and con on the authorship of Daniel and you can use a whole semester the study of Daniel. And the whole semester would be involved in trying to determine authorship, and you'll never really get into what it says. And that, to me, is a waste of time. What does God have to say to me? That's what's important.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it ( Daniel 1:1 ).

So this would be the year 607 B.C., the first siege of Jerusalem when it fell to Nebuchadnezzar.

And the Lord gave to Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with the part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar into the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes ( Daniel 1:2-3 );

Now this in itself is a fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah, chapter 39, versus 6 and 7, where Isaiah was speaking about how that Judah was going to fall to Babylon. And he declares, "Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house," he's talking to the king, Hezekiah, "and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, they shall take away. And they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."

Now this was hundred years earlier, actually, 105 years, in 712 B.C. Hezekiah had been sick and he prayed to God and he recovered from his sickness. And there came certain emissaries from Babylon with messages with congratulations that you're well again. And Hezekiah showed these men from Babylon all of the treasures there in the house of God. And so Isaiah came to Hezekiah and he said, "Who were these men that where here?" And he said, "They're emissaries from a country that's far away, place called Babylon." And he said, "What did they want?" And he said, "Well, they just wanted to tell me that they were glad that I recovered from my illness." And he said, "What did you show them?" And he said, "I showed them all of the treasures in the house of God." And Isaiah became angry and he prophesied that these Babylons would come back and they would carry away all of that treasure to Babylon and they'll take the young men and the princes and carry them away captives. A hundred and five years later it happened.

Nebuchadnezzar came and, as the scripture here records, he carried away the treasures from the house of God to put in the house of his god in Babylon. And then he ordered that they bring some of these fine young men and the princes and all from Israel in order that they might groom them to stand in the Babylonian court. And so they were, they had chosen,

Children in whom was no blemish, but well-favored [good looking], skillful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such has had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans ( Daniel 1:4 ).

So they took the cream of the young men. They took those who were skillful in science and understanding, good looking, strong. And they carried them away to Babylon to teach them the Chaldean language in order that they might stand in the court of Nebuchadnezzar as an advisor and as a counselor to Nebuchadnezzar.

So the king appointed unto them the daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so he nourished them for three years, then at the end thereof he might bring them before the king ( Daniel 1:5 ).

The idea was, of course, three years of training, learning the Chaldean language, learning the customs of the court and all in order that they might stand in the court of the king. Now, the king's meat was meat that no doubt was sacrificed to his pagan gods. In those days a person, whenever they butchered a lamb or a cow or whatever, they would usually offer it as a sacrifice to their gods and then they would go ahead and eat it themselves. In other words, you sort of roast it and you roast... you take the fat and burn it unto the gods, but it was offered as an oblation or a sacrifice to the gods and then you ate it.

The butchering was sort of a religious ritual and this, of course, carried on far beyond the Babylonian period on into the New Testament. It was a common practice among the Greeks and all to have the same type of a religious ritual in the butchering of any animal. So you would butcher it and offer the blood and all as an oblation unto your god, and then they would take the meat and serve it in the restaurants or they would sell it in the butcher shops and all. And it was a real problem for a Christian who wanted to eat meat. You know, you wouldn't want to eat meat that had been offered as a sacrifice to some pagan god. And so it was a real problem, because it was hard to buy meat that wasn't killed in a ritualistic way.

So Paul the apostle, in order to help the Corinthians, said, "Hey look, when you go into the butcher shop to buy a steak, don't ask the butcher, 'Was this offered to a god?' You should just buy it, don't ask any questions, you know. And for your conscience's sake, buy it and take it home and enjoy it. And if you go out to eat dinner at somebody's house, don't say, 'Was this offered to a god as a sacrifice?'" He said, "Just eat what is set before you asking no questions." And that's where that comes from, it was... it's when you are visiting someone and they offer you roast beef or something, just eat what is set before you asking no questions, for conscience's sake. Because, he said, "We realize that it really doesn't make any difference. You know we receive everything with thanksgiving and all, and all things are to be received."

But Daniel did not want to have any part of eating meat that had been sacrificed to pagan deities, and so he requested that he be freed from this particular portion that the king offered in a few moments. But that's to give you the reason why Daniel did not want to eat the king's meat.

Now from the children of Judah there was Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah ( Daniel 1:6 ):

In the Hebrew these are actually beautiful names. All of them relate to God. Daniel means God is Judge. Hananiah is beloved of the Lord. What a beautiful name, Hananiah. Some of you young parents wondering what you might name your next son. It's really a beautiful name, beloved of the Lord. I love that name. Mishael, who is as God? And Azariah, the Lord is my help. And so they had beautiful names all relating in some way to the Lord.

But the prince of the eunuchs gave them [Babylonian] names [that all related to the Babylonian deities]: and so to Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar ( Daniel 1:7 );

Which means Baal's prince. Baal was one of the gods of the Babylonians.

to Hananiah [he gave the name] of Shadrach ( Daniel 1:7 );

And Shadrach means illumined by the sun god.

to Mishael, [he gave the name] of Meshach ( Daniel 1:7 );

Which means who is like Shak? Shak was another one of the Babylonian deities.

and to Azariah, [he gave the name] Abednego ( Daniel 1:7 ).

Which means the servant of Nego, which was another one of the Babylonian deities. So Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego, Belteshazzar, these are all the profane names that were given to them by the eunuch in Babylon as they took away from them their Hebrew names which related to God.

But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself ( Daniel 1:8 ).

Daniel did not want to defile himself with this meat offered to pagan deities with the wine. And so he requested that he not have to eat it.

Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto to Daniel, I fear the lord the king, who has appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall you make me endanger of my head before the king ( Daniel 1:9-10 ).

Now look, Daniel, I am fearful of the king. I respect him. And he gave me the command to feed you this stuff, and if you don't eat this and you guys get thin and skinny, and then my head is in danger because I'm the one in charge of making sure that you're strong and healthy when you come to stand before him.

Then said Daniel to Melzar, who was [the chief or] the prince of the eunuchs ( Daniel 1:11 )

And he said, "Let's just have a testing period for ten days."

let them give us pulse [which is a grain cereal] to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat the portion of the king's meat: and as you see, deal with your servants. So he consented to this matter, and for ten days. And at the end of the ten days their countenances [that is, Daniel and his friends] appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all of the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. So Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and they were able to eat the grains [the vegetables. Thus Melzar] and for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all of the learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Now at the end of the days [that is, the three years that they were in this training period] the king had said that they should bring them in, and then the prince of the eunuchs brought them before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king communed with them; and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah: that stood before the king ( Daniel 1:12-19 ).

And therefore they were brought to stand before him.

And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all of his magicians and astrologers that were in all of his realm. And Daniel continued [through the entire reign of Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson, Belshazzar] and even into the first year of king Cyrus ( Daniel 1:20-21 ).

So on through the reign of Darius and King Cyrus.

"

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

The book opens with a synopsis of the first Jewish deportation in 605 B.C. (cf. 2 Kings 24:1-2; 2 Chronicles 36:6). [Note: D. J. Wiseman, The Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings, pp. 25, 46-47, and 66-69, validated this date.] Daniel and his three friends were part of the nobles and royal families taken from Jerusalem as captives then. We know nothing more about Daniel’s family background. Apparently he lived apart from his family in Babylon (cf. Daniel 1:11-13). Perhaps the Babylonians killed his parents, but this is only speculation.

The date of this deportation by Nebuchadnezzar (605 B.C.), as Daniel recorded it, was the third year of King Jehoiakim’s reign (Daniel 1:1). However, Jeremiah wrote that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (605 B.C.) was the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign (Jeremiah 25:1; cf. Jeremiah 46:2). Many critics of Daniel have seized upon this apparent contradiction and have tried to discredit this prophecy. [Note: E.g., J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 113-16.]

Scholars have proposed several solutions to this problem. [Note: See Longman and Dillard, pp. 376-77.] The best one, from my viewpoint, is that Daniel wrote from the Babylonian perspective and Jeremiah from the Jewish. It would have been only natural for Daniel to do so since he spent virtually all of his life in Babylon. The Babylonians considered the first year of their kings’ reigns as the accession year, the year they acceded to the throne. That "year" sometimes lasted only a few months. The first regnal year, the first full year of their reign, began with the first day of the new civil year. For the Babylonians this was the first of Nisan (late March and early April). This is the accession-year system of dating. [Note: See Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, p. 202.]

Jeremiah was writing from the Jewish perspective. During the reigns of Jehoash to Hoshea, the Jews also followed the accession-year system. However, the Jews began their civil years on the first of Tishri (late September and early October). This explanation harmonizes these references. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," pp. 31-32. Cf. Walvoord, pp. 30-31; and Leon J. Wood, The Prophets of Israel, p. 344.] Other conservative scholars have offered other ways of resolving this problem that they, too, regarded as only an apparent contradiction. [Note: E.g., Leupold, pp. 47-55; E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 166; Culver, p. 772; and Pentecost, pp. 1328-29.]

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

A. Historical background 1:1-2

Gann's Commentary on the Bible

Book Comments

Walking Thru The Bible

DANIEL

I. The Man: About eight years before Ezekiel was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar-- the young man Daniel was taken from Jerusalem to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar the king. He was young, intelligent and skillful in wisdom (Daniel 1:4). Daniel is one of the few men about whom God says only good. Three times he is referred to as "the greatly beloved" one (Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:11, Daniel 10:19). Taken into captivity with Daniel were three other young men whom you know by their Babylonian names:-- Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The name "Daniel" means -- "God is Judge."

II. The Book: Daniel is sometimes called the Old Testament "Apocalypse" while Revelation is the New Testament "Apocalypse." The word "Apocalypse" means -- "an unveiling of the secret purposes of God." The secret purposes of God can never be known until they are revealed. The manner in which the events are unveiled in Daniel is mainly by visions. In the book of Daniel the word "vision(s)" appears 32 times.

    Much of the book of Daniel is written in Hebrew but a large section (Daniel 2:4b - 7:28) is written in Aramaic, the common language spoken in Babylon at this time and also later used by the Jews when they returned from Babylonian captivity.

III. The Contents:

    1. The first part of Daniel (Daniel 1:1-6:28) deals with the history of Daniel and his friends.

    Nebuchadnezzar first conquered Jerusalem in 605 BC and took away many of the better educated young men from leading families to be trained for government service in Babylon (Daniel 1:1-5). Daniel was of royal blood and he and his three young friends were from the tribe of Judah (Daniel 1:6-7). These four young men would not defile themselves with the food from the king’s table (1:8-16). God blessed them with progress far above the others who were in similar training in Babylon (Daniel 1:17-21).

    Later when Nebuchadnezzar had a troublesome dream only Daniel was able to tell the king about it and give him its interpretation (Daniel 2:1-45). Daniel attributed his ability to the Lord God of heaven and was elevated to a position of prominence in Babylon’s royal court (Daniel 2:46-49).

    Nebuchadnezzar erected a giant golden image and required everyone to worship it (Daniel 3:1-7). Because Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego would not participate in this idolatry the King had them cast into a fiery furnace but they were miraculously de-livered (Daniel 3:1-30).

    Another of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams is interpreted for him by Daniel in Daniel 4:1-37. Its message was that because of the King’s pride he would be temporarily insane living like a wild animal. His recovery was predicted and he gave glory to the Lord.

    Belshazzar was a Babylonian king when the nation fell to the Medes (Daniel 5:1-28). Daniel was called on to interpret a mysterious hand writing which appeared on a wall during a feast. The message was a warning spelling doom to the king. That night Darius the Mede conquered Babylon and Belshazzar was killed (Daniel 5:29-31).

    Daniel was given a position in government supervision under Darius the Mede (Daniel 6:1-3). Some jealous rivals plotted against Daniel (Daniel 6:4-9) which led to the famous episode of Daniel in the lions’ den (Daniel 6:10-24). Darius honored Daniel and his God as a result of this event (Daniel 6:25-28).

    2. The second part of Daniel’s book encompasses his visions and prophecies (Daniel 7:1 - 12:13).

    The later part of the book focuses on the revelations given to Daniel about the coming kingdoms of the world. There are four of these and there is a parallel between a dream of Nebuchadnezzar which is recorded in chapter 2 and the vision of Daniel in chapter 7.

In Daniel’s vision he sees four great beasts which symbolize the coming of four kingdoms (Daniel 7:1-28); the vision of the ram and he-goat (Daniel 8:1-27); the vision of the seventy weeks Daniel (9:1-27); and the visions of some events of the Maccabean era (between the testaments ) Daniel 10:1-12:3. Daniel was told to seal up his book (Daniel 12:4) and the prophecy was concluded (Daniel 12:5-13).

IV. Lessons From Daniel:

    1. Faithfulness under difficult circumstances is one of the major lessons from Daniel. The Bible is filled with examples of godly people who maintained their faith in difficult situations. There was Joseph (Gen. 38-50), John the Baptist (Matthew 14:1-2); and the unnamed Christians in Nero’s household (Philippians 1:12-14; Philippians 4:22). The book of Daniel brings outstanding examples of faith withstanding great trials: a) the fiery furnace of chapter 3, and b) the den of lions in chapter 6.

    A number of situations come to mind where Christians today face special challenges: a) people who go to plant the gospel in new areas; b) Christians in certain employment situations; c) young people in their school and social relations; and d) persons living in non-Christian homes.

    Being a Christian today is not always easy. The church came into being in suffering and sacrifice and the world today is not cordial to Christian beliefs and values. Daniel challenges us to serve God with the same devotion and singleness of heart he displayed.

    2. Prophecy fulfilled so explicitly and perfectly serves as evidence for divine inspiration and a supreme God who controls the rise and fall of nations.

    In Daniel we see prophesied the rise of four world empires. In Daniel 2 we read of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream about an image composed of four substances. Daniel interprets it’s meaning:

    1) the gold = the Babylonian kingdom;

    2) the silver = the Medo-Persian empire;

    3) the brass = the Greek empire; and

    4) the iron = the Roman kingdom.

    In the days of the fourth kingdom, God himself was to set up an eternal kingdom. Thus the stone cut of a mountain which destroyed the great image pointed to the establishment of the church (Acts 2).

    3. There is a prophecy of the rise of Alexander the Great and conquest of the Medo-Persians by the Grecian empire in Daniel 8 under the vision of the ram and he-goat. Daniel asserts that God is in control of history and will set aside these human kingdoms for the sake of establishing the church.

SERMON OUTLINE

The Fearless In A Furnace of Fire

Daniel 3

Introduction:

1.    Daniel 3 is a very familiar section of Daniel and it is about

        "The Fearless In A Furnace of Fire" or

        "Three Young Men Who Would Not Bend."

2.    It is about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who had rather burn than turn. They "quenched the violence of fire" (Hebrews 11:34) and there are many good lessons to learn.

I.    THEY WOULD NOT BOW (3:1-13)

    A.    The image revealed-- v. 1-3

    B.    The worship required-- v. 4-7

    C.    The order refused-- v. 8-13 c

II. THEY WOULD NOT BUDGE (3:14-18)

    A.    Given another change they would not budge. They would not bow in spite of the fury they faced and they would not budge in light of the faith they followed.

    B.    We observe that their faith was:

            1.    Settled -- (v. 16 & 18)

            2.    Sure -- (v. 17)

            3.    Steadfast -- (v. 18)

III. THEY WOULD NOT BURN (3:19-30)

    A.    The furnace was heated as much as possible.

    B.    The men who cast them in were killed by the heat.

    C.    The king saw an amazing thing in the furnace!

    D.    The men were called out and carefully examined.

        Their bodies were not hurt, their hair was not singed, their coats were nor scorched!

    E.    They would not burn because the God they served was:

        1) Personal; 2) Powerful; and 3) Present.

Conclusion:

    1.    The three Hebrews would not BOW in spite of the fire they face. They would not BUDGE because of the faith they followed. And they would not BURN because of the favor they found.

    2.    We must remember these lessons when we are in the "fiery trials" that we too sometimes must face (I Peter 4:12).

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Verse Comments

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah,.... At the close of it, and at the beginning of the fourth, which was the first of Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah 25:1. Jerusalem seems to have been taken twice in his time, and two captivities in it: the first was in the third or fourth year of his reign; when humbling himself, he was restored to his kingdom, though he became a tributary to the king of Babylon; Daniel and his companions, who were carried captive with him, were retained as hostages; but after three years he rebelled, but it was not until his eleventh year that Nebuchadnezzar came against him again, took him, and bound him, in order to carry him to Babylon, but he died by the way; see

2 Kings 24:1, some, as Jarchi and Saadiah Gaon, make this to be the third year of his rebellion, and the last of his reign; they suppose that he was conquered by the king of Babylon, and became subject to him in the fifth year of his reign; that he served him three years, and rebelled against him three years: at the end of which

came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it; with his army, and took it; and the same way it is accounted for in the Jewish chronicle p according to Bishop Usher q, this was in the year of the world 3398 A.M., and before Christ 607 or 859; according to Mr. Bedford r, 605.

p Seder Olam Rabba, c. 25. in principio. q Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3398. r Scripture Chronology, p. 676.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.   2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.   3 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes;   4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.   5 And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.   6 Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:   7 Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abednego.

      We have in these verses an account,

      I. Of the first descent which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, made upon Judah and Jerusalem, in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, and his success in that expedition (Daniel 1:1; Daniel 1:2): He besieged Jerusalem, soon made himself master of it, seized the king, took whom he pleased and what he pleased away with him, and then left Jehoiakim to reign as tributary to him, which he did about eight years longer, but then rebelled, and it was his ruin. Now from this first captivity most interpreters think the seventy years are to be dated, though Jerusalem was not destroyed, nor the captivity completed, till about nineteen years after, In that first year Daniel was carried to Babylon, and there continued the whole seventy years (see Daniel 1:21; Daniel 1:21), during which time all nations shall serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his son's son, Jeremiah 25:11. This one prophet therefore saw within the compass of his own time the rise, reign, and ruin of that monarchy; so that it was res unius ætatis--the affair of a single age, such short-lived things are the kingdoms of the earth; but the kingdom of heaven is everlasting. The righteous, that see them taking root, shall see their fall,Job 5:3; Proverbs 29:16. Mr. Broughton observes the proportion of times in God's government since the coming out of Egypt: thence to their entering Canaan forty years, thence seven years to the dividing of the land, thence seven Jubilees to the first year of Samuel, in whom prophecy began, thence to this first year of the captivity seven seventies of years, 490 (ten Jubilees), thence to the return one seventy, thence to the death of Christ seven seventies more, thence to the destruction of Jerusalem forty years.

      II. The improvement he made of this success. He did not destroy the city or kingdom, but did that which just accomplished the first threatening of mischief by Babylon. It was denounced against Hezekiah, for showing his treasures to the king of Babylon's ambassadors (Isaiah 39:6; Isaiah 39:7), that the treasures and the children should be carried away, and, if they had been humbled and reformed by this, hitherto the king of Babylon's power and success should have gone, but no further. If less judgments do the work, God will not send greater; but, if not, he will heat the furnace seven times hotter. Let us see what was now done. 1. The vessels of the sanctuary were carried away, part of them, Daniel 1:2; Daniel 1:2. They fondly trusted to the temple to defend them, though they went on in their iniquity. And now, to show them the vanity of that confidence, the temple is first plundered. Many of the holy vessels which used to be employed in the service of God were taken away by the king of Babylon, those of them, it is likely, which were most valuable, and he brought them as trophies of victory to the house of his god, to whom, with a blind devotion, he gave praise of his success; and having appropriated these vessels, in token of gratitude, to his god, he put them in the treasury of his temple. See the righteousness of God; his people had brought the images of other gods into his temple, and now he suffers the vessels of the temple to be carried into the treasuries of those other gods. Note, When men profane the vessels of the sanctuary with their sins it is just with God to profane them by his judgments. It is probable that the treasures of the king's house were rifled, as was foretold, but particular mention is made of the taking away of the vessels of the sanctuary because we shall find afterwards that the profanation of them was that which filled up the measure of the Chaldeans' iniquity, Daniel 5:3; Daniel 5:3. But observe, It was only part of them that went now; some were left them yet upon trial, to see if they would take the right course to prevent the carrying away of the remainder. See Jeremiah 27:18. 2. The children and young men, especially such as were of noble or royal extraction, that were sightly and promising, and of good natural parts, were carried away. Thus was the iniquity of the fathers visited upon the children. These were taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, (1.) As trophies, to be made a show of for the evidencing and magnifying of his success. (2.) As hostages for the fidelity of their parents in their own land, who would be concerned to conduct themselves well that their children might have the better treatment. (3.) As a seed to serve him. He took them away to train them up for employments and preferments under him, either out of an unaccountable affectation, which great men often have, to be attended by foreigners, though they be blacks, rather than by those of their own nation, or because he knew that there were no such witty, sprightly, ingenious young men to be found among his Chaldeans as abounded among the youth of Israel; and, if that were so, it was much for the honour of the Jewish nation, as of an uncommon genius above other people, and a fruit of the blessing. But it was a shame that a people who had so much wit should have so little wisdom and grace. Now observe, [1.] The directions which the king of Babylon gave for the choice of these youths, Daniel 1:4; Daniel 1:4. They must not choose such as were deformed in body, but comely and well-favoured, whose countenances were indexes of ingenuity and good humour. But that is not enough; they must be skilful in all wisdom, and cunning, or well-seen in knowledge, and understanding science, such as were quick and sharp, and could give a ready and intelligent account of their own country and of the learning they had hitherto been brought up in. He chose such as were young, because they would be pliable and tractable, would forget their own people and incorporate with the Chaldeans. He had an eye to what he designed them for; they must be such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, not only to attend his royal person, but to preside in his affairs. This is an instance of the policy of this rising monarch, now in the beginning of his reign, and was a good omen of his prosperity, that he was in care to raise up a succession of persons fit for public business. He did not, like Ahasuerus, appoint them to choose him out young women for the service of his government. It is the interest of princes to have wise men employed under them; it is therefore their wisdom to take care for the finding out and training up of such. It is the misery of this world that so many who are fit for public stations are buried in obscurity, and so many who are unfit for them are preferred to them. [2.] The care which he took concerning them. First, For their education. He ordered that they should be taught the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans. They are supposed to be wise and knowing young men, and yet they must be further taught. Give instructions to a wise man and he will increase in learning. Note, Those that would do good in the world when they grow up must learn when they are young. That is the learning age; if that time be lost, it will hardly be redeemed. It does not appear that Nebuchadnezzar designed they should learn the unlawful arts that were used among the Chaldeans, magic and divination; if he did, Daniel and his fellows would not defile themselves with them. Nay, we do not find that he ordered them to be taught the religion of the Chaldeans, by which it appears That he was at this time no bigot; if men were skilful and faithful, and fit for his business, it was not material to him what religion they were of, provided they had but some religion. They must be trained up in the language and laws of the country, in history, philosophy, and mathematics, in the arts of husbandry, war, and navigation, in such learning as might qualify them to serve their generation. Note, It is real service to the public to provide for the good education of the youth. Secondly, For their maintenance. He provided for them three years, not only necessaries, but dainties for their encouragement in their studies. They had daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank,Daniel 1:5; Daniel 1:5. This was an instance of his generosity and humanity; though they were captives, he considered their birth and quality, their spirit and genius, and treated them honourably, and studied to make their captivity easy to them. There is a respect due to those who are well-born and bred when they have fallen into distress. With a liberal education there should be a liberal maintenance.

      III. A particular account of Daniel and his fellows. They were of the children of Judah, the royal tribe, and probably of the house of David, which had grown a numerous family; and God told Hezekiah that of the children that should issue from him some should be taken and made eunuchs, or chamberlains, in the palace of the king of Babylon. The prince of the eunuchs changed the names of Daniel and his fellows, partly to show his authority over them and their subjection to him, and partly in token of their being naturalized and made Chaldeans. Their Hebrew names, which they received at their circumcision, had something of God, or Jah, in them: Daniel--God is my Judge; Hananiah--The grace of the Lord; Mishael--He that is the strong God; Azariah--The Lord is a help. To make them forget the God of their fathers, the guide of their youth, they give them names that savour of the Chaldean idolatry. Belteshazzar signifies the keeper of the hidden treasures of Bel; Shadrach--The inspiration of the sun, which the Chaldeans worshipped; Meshach--Of the goddess Shach, under which name Venus was worshipped; Abed-nego, The servant of the shining fire, which they worshipped also. Thus, though they would not force them from the religion of their fathers to that of their conquerors, yet they did what they could by fair means insensibly to wean them from the former and instil the latter into them. Yet see how comfortably they were provided for; though they suffered for their fathers' sins they were preferred for their own merits, and the land of their captivity was made more comfortable to them than the land of their nativity at this time would have been.