Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 1:2

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Daniel 1:2. Part of the vessels of the house of God — He took the richest and finest of them for the service of his god Bel, and left what were necessary for carrying on the public worship of Jehovah, (for he did not attempt to alter the civil or religious constitution of Judea;) for leaving Jehoiakim on the throne, he only laid the land under tribute. The Chaldeans carried these sacred vessels away at three different times.

1. In the war spoken of in this place.

2. In the taking of Jerusalem and Jeconiah a few months after, 2 Kings 24:13.

3. Eleven years after, under the reign of Zedekiah, when the city and temple were totally destroyed, and the land ruined, 2 Kings 25:8-15.

The land of Shinar — This was the ancient mame of Babylon. See Genesis 11:2.

The treasure house of his god. — This was Bel, who had a splendid temple in Babylon, and was the tutelar god of the city and empire.

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

And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand - Jehoiakim was taken captive, and it would seem that there was an intention to convey him to Babylon 2 Chronicles 36:6, but that for some cause he was not removed there, but died at Jerusalem 2 Kings 24:5-6, though he was not honorably buried there, Jeremiah 22:19; Jeremiah 36:30. In the second book of Chronicles 2 Chronicles 36:6, it is said that “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up, and bound Jehoiakim in fetters, to take him to Babylon.” Jahn supposes that an error has crept into the text in the book of Chronicles, as there is no evidence that Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, but it appears from 2 Kings 24:1-2, that Jehoiakim was continued in authority at Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar three years, and then rebelled against him, and that then Nebuchadnezzar sent against him “bands of the Chaldees, and bands of the Syrians, and bands of the Moabites, and bands of the children of Ammon, and sent them against Judah to destroy it.” There is no necessity of supposing an error in the text in the account in the book of Chronicles. It is probable that Jehoiakim was taken, and that the “intention” was to take him to Babylon, according to the account in Chronicles, but that, from some cause not mentioned, the purpose of the Chaldean monarch was changed, and that he was placed again over Judah, under Nebuchadnezzar, according to the account in the book of Kings, and that he remained in this condition for three years until he rebelled, and that then the bands of Chaldeans, etc., were sent against him. It is probable that at this time, perhaps while the siege was going on, he died, and that the Chaldeans dragged his dead body out of the gates of the city, and left it unburied, as Jeremiah had predicted, Jeremiah 22:19; Jeremiah 36:30.

With part of the vessels of the house of God - 2 Chronicles 36:7. Another portion of the vessels of the temple at Jerusalem was taken away by Nebuchadnezzar, in the time of Jehoiachin, the successor of Jehoiakim, 2 Chronicles 36:10. On the third invasion of Palestine, the same thing was repeated on a more extensive scale, 2 Kings 24:13. At the fourth and final invasion, under Zedekiah, when the temple was destroyed, all its treasures were carried away, 2 Kings 25:6-20. A part of these treasures were brought back under Cyrus, Ezra 1:7; the rest under Darius, Ezra 6:5. Why they were not “all” taken away at first does not appear, but perhaps Nebuchadnezzar did not then intend wholly to overthrow the Hebrew nation, but meant to keep them tributary to him as a people. The temple was not at that time destroyed, but probably he allowed the worship of Jehovah to be celebrated there still, and he would naturally leave such vessels as were absolutely necessary to keep up the services of public worship.

Which he carried into the land of Shinar - The region around Babylon. The exact limits of this country are unknown, but it probably embraced the region known as Mesopotamia - the country between the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The derivation of the name “Shinar” is unknown. It occurs only in Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:2; Genesis 14:1, Genesis 14:9; Joshua 7:21; Isaiah 11:11; Daniel 1:2; Zechariah 5:11.

To the house of his god - To the temple of Bel, at Babylon. This was a temple of great magnificence, and the worship of Bel was celebrated there with great splendor. For a description of this temple, and of the god which was worshipped there, see the notes at Isaiah 46:1. These vessels were subsequently brought out at the command of Belshazzar, at his celebrated feast, and employed in the conviviality and revelry of that occasion. See Daniel 5:3.

And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god - It would seem rom this that the vessels had been taken to the temple of Bel, or Belus, in Babylon, not to be used in the worship of the idol, but to be laid up among the valuable treasures there. As the temples of the gods were sacred, and were regarded as inviolable, it would be natural to make them the repository of valuable spoils and treasures. Many of the spoils of the Romans were suspended around the walls of the temples of their gods, particularly in the temple of Victory. Compare Eschenberg, “Manual of Class.” Literally, pt. iii. Sections 149, 150.

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

A. Historical background 1:1-2

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Daniel wrote that the Lord was responsible for Nebuchadnezzar’s success in defeating Jehoiakim. He viewed God as sovereignly controlling the past affairs of His chosen people (cf. Ephesians 1:4). As the book unfolds, this appreciation for God’s sovereignty continues as Daniel described God’s future dealings with the Jews and the Gentiles.

Daniel used the name "Shinar" to describe Babylon (Daniel 1:2). Shinar is a biblical name for Babylon that often connotes a place hostile to God and faith in God (cf. Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:2; Genesis 14:1; Isaiah 11:11 [NIV margin]; Zechariah 5:11 [NIV margin]). Carrying off the vessels from a conquered people’s temple was a way that ancient Near Eastern kings expressed their victorious sovereignty over that nation, particularly its gods (cf. Daniel 5:3-4). Therefore Daniel began this book by reminding his readers that it was not only Israel’s king who suffered defeat at Nebuchadnezzar’s hands, but also Yahweh had experienced humiliation. He then proceeded to vindicate Yahweh with all that follows.

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand,.... And the city of Jerusalem too, or he could not have took the king, and so the Syriac version renders it,

and the Lord delivered it into his hands, and Jehoiakim, c.: this was from the Lord, because of his sins, and the sins of his ancestors, and of his people or otherwise the king of Babylon could not have taken the city, nor him, because of the great power of the Jews, as Jacchiades observes:

with part of the vessels of the house of God; not all of them; for some, as Saadliah says, were hid by Josiah and Jeremiah, which is not to be depended on; however, certain it is that all were not carried away, because we read of some of the vessels of the temple being carried away afterwards, in Jeconiah's time, 2 Kings 24:13, and still there were some left, as the pillars, sea, bases, and other vessels, which were to be carried away, and were carried away by the king of Babylon, in Zedekiah's time, Jeremiah 27:19:

which he carried into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god; which Jarchi understands both of the men that were carried captive, and the vessels that were taken out of the temple; but the latter seem only to be intended, since of men Jehoiakim is only spoken of before; and it does not appear he was ever carried into Babylon; but it is certain the vessels of the temple were carried thither; which is meant by the land of Shinar, where Babylon stood, and where the tower of Babel was built, Genesis 10:2, the same, as Grotius thinks, with the Singara of Pliny s and Ptolemy t. So the Targum of Onkelos, on Genesis 10:10, interprets the land of Shinar the land of Babylon; likewise the Jerusalem Targum on

Genesis 10:10, and the Targum of Jonathan on Genesis 11:2 Zechariah 5:11, only on Genesis 10:10, he paraphrases it the land of Pontus. So Hestiaeus u an ancient Phoenician writer, calls Shinar Sennaar of Babylonia. It seems to have its name from נער, which signifies to "shake out"; because from hence the men of the flood, as Saadiah says, or the builders of Babel, were shook out by the Lord, and were scattered over the face of the earth. And as the tower of Babel itself, very probably, was built for idolatrous worship, for which reason the Lord was so displeased with the builders of it; so in this same place, or near it, now stood an idol's temple, where the king of Babylon, and the inhabitants thereof, worshipped, here called "the house of his gods" w, as it may be rendered; for the Babylonians worshipped more gods than one; there were Rach, Shach and Nego, from whom Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, are supposed to have their names given them by the Chaldeans, Daniel 1:7. Rach is thought to be the sun, whose priests were called Rachiophantae, observers of the sun; Shach, to which Sheshach is referred by some, Jeremiah 51:41, for which a feast was kept once a year for five days, when servants had the rule and government of their masters; and Nego either was worshipped for the sun, or some star, so called from its brightness. Venus was also had in veneration with the Babylonians, whom they called Mylitta; in whose temple many acts of uncleanness and filthiness were committed, as Herodotus x relates. And, besides these, there were Merodach, Nebo, and Bel; of which see Isaiah 46:1, the latter seems to have been their chief deity, and who was called Jupiter Belus; and with whom were the goddesses Juno and Rhea. And in the city of Babylon stood the temple of Bel, or Jupiter Belus, which was extant in the times of Herodotus, and of which he gives an account y, and is this:

"the temple of Jupiter Belus had gates of brass; it was four hundred and forty yards on every side, and was foursquare. In the midst of the temple was a solid tower, two hundred and twenty yards in length and breadth; upon which another temple was placed, and so on to eight. The going up them was without, in a winding about each tower; as you went up, in the middle, there was a room, and seats to rest on. In the last tower was a large temple, in which was a large bed splendidly furnished, and a table of gold set by it; but there was no statue there; nor did any man lie there in the night; only one woman, a native of the place, whom the god chose from among them all, as the Chaldean priests of this deity say.''

Diodorus Siculus says z it was of an extraordinary height, where the Chaldeans made observations on the stars, and could take an exact view of the rise and setting of them; it was all made of brick and bitumen, at great cost and expense. Here the vessels of the sanctuary were brought by Nebuchadnezzar, to the praise and glory of his idols, as Jarchi and Jacchiades observe; to whom he imputed the victory he had obtained over the Jews. Even these

he brought into the treasure house of his god; very probably this was the chapel Herodotus a speaks of, where was a large golden statue of Jupiter sitting, and a large golden table by it, and a golden throne and steps, reckoned by the Chaldeans at eight hundred talents of gold. And Diodorus Siculus b relates that there were three golden statues, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. That of Jupiter was as one standing on his feet, and, as it were, walking, was forty feet in length, and weighed a thousand Babylonian talents (computed three millions and a half of our money). That of Rhea was of the same weight, sitting upon a throne of gold, and two lions standing at her knees; and near to them serpents of a prodigious size, made of silver, which weighed thirty talents. That of Juno was a standing statue, weighing eight hundred talents; in her right hand she held the head of a serpent, and in her left a sceptre set with precious stones; and there was a golden table, common to them all, forty feet long, fifteen broad, and of the weight of fifty talents. Moreover, there were two bowls of thirty talents, and as many censers of three hundred talents, and three cups of gold; that which was dedicated to Jupiter weighed a thousand two hundred Babylonian talents, and the other six hundred. Here all the rich things dedicated to their god were laid up, and here the king of Babylon brought the treasures and rich vessels he took out of the temple of Jerusalem; and to this agrees the testimony of Berosus c, who says, that with the spoils of war Nebuchadnezzar took from the Jews and neighbouring nations, he adorned the temple of Belus. The riches of this temple, according to historians, are supposed to be above one and twenty millions sterling d, even of those only which Diodorus Siculus gives an account of, as above.

s Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 24. t Geograph. l. 5. c. 18. u Apud Joseph. Antiqu. l. 1. c. 4. sect. 3. w בית אלהיו "domum deorum suorum", Cocceius, Michaelis. x Clio, sive l. 1. c. 199. y Ibid. c. 181. z Biblioth. 1. 2. p. 98. Ed. Rhodoman. a Clio, sive l. 1. c. 183. b Biblioth. I. 2. p. 98. c Apud Joseph. Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 1. d Vid. Rollin's Ancient History, vol. 2. p. 70. and Universal History, vol. 4. p. 409.

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.