Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 1:4

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Daniel 1:4. Children — ילדים yeladim, youths, young men; and so the word should be rendered throughout this book.

Skilled in all wisdom — Rather, persons capable of every kind of literary accomplishment, that they might be put under proper instruction. And as children of the blood and of the nobles mere most likely, from the care usually taken of their initiatory education, to profit most by the elaborate instruction here designed, the master of the eunuchs, the king's chamberlain, was commanded to choose the youths in question out of such.

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

“And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal, and of the nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skilled in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge and, understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace; and that he should teach them the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the King appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s dainties, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be nourished three years; that at the end thereof they should stand before the king. Now among these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And the prince of the eunuchs gave names unto them: unto Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and of Azariah, of Abed-nego.”

It is strangely pathetic to find the names of these precocious young princes of Israel among the eunuchs of the king of Babylon. Now eunuchs were usually persons who had been emasculated; and, although it is true that there were sometimes eunuchs merely in the sense of “officers” of the king, the situation here does not lend itself to such an explanation. These young men were not officers: at all but captives; and we agree with Culver that, “Them is great possibility that Daniel and his friends may have been emasculated.”Robert D. Culver, op. cit., p. 773. We favor this view because of Isaiah’s prophecy:

And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah. Behold the clays come, that all that is in thy house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith Jehovah. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon (2 Kings 20:16-18).

As for the reasons why the names of these men were changed by their Babylonian masters, several motives could have caused it: (1) Hebrew names being unfamiliar to the Babylonians, they replaced them with names they could more easily remember and pronounce. (2) A definite hostility to the religion of the Hebrews is also evident. They replaced names which were derived from the true God through the use of syllables meaning Yahweh, or Jehovah, with Babylonian names which either honored Babylonian pagan gods, or in some way might have been derogatory. Note the following:

Daniel means “God is my judge.”J. D. Douglas, The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 290.

Hananiah means “Yahweh hath been gracious.”J. B. Taylor, The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 503.

Mishael means “Who is what E1 is?”John Joseph Owens, op. cit., p. 383.

Azariah means “Yahweh has helped.”J. G. G. Norman, The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 113.

The names given in Babylon to these men had the following meanings:

Belteshazzar means “Bel ( a pagan god) protects his life.”H. T. Andrews, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, Daniel (London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, Ltd., 1924), p. 17.

Shadrach means “The command of Aku (the moon god).”J. E. H. Thomson, The Pulpit Commentary, Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 17.

Meshach means “Who is this?”D. J. Wiseman, The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 811.

Abednego means “Servant of the god Nabu.”Ibid., p. 2.

From this it is easy to see that the purpose of the names included the desire to eradicate all traces of the Hebrew religion and replace them with names honoring Babylonian pagan gods.

The development of this paragraph shows that these particular Hebrew young men, along with an undetermined number of others, were enrolled in a three-year course of study to master the wisdom, the learning, and the language of the Chaldeans. They were honored by such an opportunity. Among other privileges, they enjoyed being fed from the king’s kitchen.

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Children in whom was no blemish - The word rendered “children” in this place (ילדים y^elâdı̂ym) is different from that which is rendered “children” in Job 1:3 - בנים bânnı̂ym). That word denotes merely that they were “sons,” or “descendants,” of Israel, without implying anything in regard to their age; the word here used would be appropriate only to those who were at an early period of life, and makes it certain that the king meant that those who were selected should be youths. Compare Genesis 4:23, where the word is rendered “a young man.” It is sometimes, indeed, used to denote a son, without reference to age, and is then synonymous with בן bên, a “son.” But it properly means “one born;” that is, “recently born;” a child, Genesis 21:8; Exodus 1:17; Exodus 2:3; and then one in early life. There can be no doubt that the monarch meant to designate youths. So the Vulgate, pueros, and the Greek, νεανισκους neaniskous, and so the Syriac. All these words would be applicable to those who were in early life, or to young men. Compare Introduction to Daniel, Section I. The word “blemish” refers to bodily defect or imperfection. The object was to select those who were most perfect in form, perhaps partly because it was supposed that beautiful youths would most grace the court, and partly because it was supposed that such would be likely to have the brightest intellectual endowments. It was regarded as essential to personal beauty to be without blemish, 2 Samuel 14:25 : “But in all Israel there was none to be so much praised as Absalom for beauty; from the sole of Iris foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him.” Song of Solomon 4:7 : “thou art all fair, my love; there is no spot in thee.” The word is sometimes used in a moral sense, to denote corruption of heart or life Deuteronomy 32:5; Job 11:15; Job 31:7, but that is not the meaning here.

But well-favored - Hebrew, “good of appearance;” that is, beautiful.

And skillful in all wisdom - Intelligent, wise - that is, in all that was esteemed wise in their own country. The object was to bring forward the most talented and intelligent, as well as the most beautiful, among the Hebrew captives.

And cunning in knowledge - In all that could be known. The distinction between the word here rendered “knowledge” (דעת da‛ath) and the word rendered “science” (מדע maddâ‛) is not apparent. Both come from the word ידע yâda‛ to “know,” and would be applicable to any kind of knowledge. The word rendered “cunning” is also derived from the same root, and means “knowing,” or “skilled in.” We more commonly apply the word to a particular kind of knowledge, meaning artful, shrewd, astute, sly, crafty, designing. But this was not the meaning of the word when the translation of the Bible was made, and it is not employed in that sense in the Scriptures. It is always used in a good sense, meaning intelligent, skillful, experienced, well-instructed. Compare Genesis 25:27; Exodus 26:1; Exodus 28:15; Exodus 38:23; 1Sa 16:16; 1 Chronicles 25:7; Psalms 137:5; Isaiah 3:3.

And understanding science - That is, the sciences which prevailed among the Hebrews. They were not a nation distinguished for “science,” in the sense in which that term is now commonly understood - embracing astronomy, chemistry, geology, mathematics, electricity, etc.; but their science extended chiefly to music, architecture, natural history, agriculture, morals, theology, war, and the knowledge of future events; in all which they occupied an honorable distinction among the nations. In many of these respects they were, doubtless, far in advance of the Chaldeans; and it was probably the purpose of the Chaldean monarch to avail himself of what they knew.

And such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace - Hebrew, “had strength” - כח kôach. Properly meaning, who had strength of body for the service which would be required of them in attending on the court. “A firm constitution of body is required for those protracted services of standing in the hall of the royal presence.” - Grotius. The word “palace” here (היכל hêykâl) is commonly used to denote the temple (2Ki 24:13; 2 Chronicles 3:17; Jeremiah 50:28; Haggai 2:15. Its proper and primitive signification, however, is a large and magnificent building - a palace - and it was given to the temple as the “palace” of Jehovah, the abode where he dwelt as king of his people.

And whom they might teach - That they might be better qualified for the duties to which they might be called. The purpose was, doubtless (see analysis), to bring forward their talent, that it might contribute to the splendor of the Chaldean court; but as they were, doubtless, ignorant to a great extent of the language of the Chaldeans, and as there were sciences in which the Chaldeans were supposed to excel, it seemed desirable that they should have all the advantage which could be delayed from a careful training under the best masters.

The learning - - ספר sêpher. literally, “writing” Isaiah 29:11-12. Gesenius supposes that this means the “writing” of the Chaldeans; or that they might be able to read the language of the Chaldeans. But it, doubtless, included “the knowledge” of what was written, as well as the ability “to read” what was written; that is, the purpose was to instruct them in the sciences which were understood among the Chaldeans. They were distinguished chiefly for such sciences as these:

(1) Astronomy. This science is commonly supposed to have had its orion on the plains of Babylon, and it was early carried there to as high a degree of perfection as it attained in any of the ancient nations. Their mild climate, and their employment as shepherds, leading them to pass much of their time at night under the open heavens, gave them the opportunity of observing the stars, and they amused themselves in marking their positions and their changes, and in mapping out the heavens in a variety of fanciful figures, now called constellations.

(2) Astrology. This was at first a branch of astronomy, or was almost identical with it, for the stars were studied principally to endeavor to ascertain what influence they exerted over the fates of men, and especially what might be predicted from their position, on the birth of an individual, as to his future life. Astrology was then deemed a science whose laws were to be ascertained in the same way as the laws of any other science; and the world has been slow to disabuse itself of the notion that the stars exert an influence over the fates of men. Even Lord Bacon held that it was a science to be “reformed,” not wholly rejected.

(3) Magic; soothsaying; divination; or whatever would contribute to lay open the future, or disclose the secrets of the invisible world. Hence, they applied themselves to the interpretation of dreams; they made use of magical arts, probably employing, as magicians do, some of the ascertained results of science in producing optical illusions, impressing the common with the belief that they were familiar with the secrets of the invisible world; and hence, the name “Chaldean” and “magician” became almost synonymous terms Daniel 2:2; Daniel 4:7; Daniel 5:7.

(4) It is not improbable that they had made advances in other sciences, but of this we have little knowledge. They knew little of the true laws of astronomy, geology, cheministry, electricity, mathematics; and in these, and in kindred departments of science, they may be supposed to have been almost wholly ignorant.

And the tongue of the Chaldeans - In regard to the “Chaldeans,” see the notes at Job 1:17; and the notes at Isaiah 23:13. The kingdom of Babylon was composed mainly of Chaldeans, and that kingdom was called “the realm of the Chaldeans” Daniel 9:1. Of that realm, or kingdom, Babylon was the capital. The origin of the Chaldeans has been a subject of great perplexity, on which there is still a considerable variety of opinions. According to Heeren, they came from the North; by Gesenius they are supposed to have come from the mountains of Kurdistan; and by Michaelis, from the steppes of Scythia. They seem to have been an extended race, and probably occupied the whole of the region adjacent to what became Babylonia. Heeren expresses his opinion as to their origin in the following language: “It cannot be doubted that, at some remote period, antecedent to the commencement of historical records. “one mighty race” possessed these vast plains, varying in character according to the country which they inhabited; in the deserts of Arabia, pursuing a nomad life; in Syria, applying themselves to agriculture, and taking up settled abodes; in Babylonia, erecting the most magnificent cities of ancient times; and in Phoenicia, opening the earliest ports, and constructing fleets, which secured to them the commerce of the known world.”

There exists at the present time, in the vicinity of the Bahrein Islands, and along the Persian Gulf, in the neighborhood of the Astan River, an Arab tribe, of the name of the “Beni Khaled,” who are probably the same people as the “Gens Chaldei” of Pliny, and doubtless the descendants of the ancient race of the Chaldeans. On the question when they became a kingdom, or realm, making Babylon their capital, see the notes at Isaiah 23:13. Compare, for an interesting discussion of the subject, “Forster’s Historical Geography of Arabia,” vol. i. pp. 49-56. The language of the Chaldeans, in which a considerable part of the book of Daniel is written (see the Introduction Section IV., III.), differed from the Hebrew, though it was a branch of the same Aramean family of languages. It was, indeed, very closely allied to the Hebrew, but was so different that those who were acquainted with only one of the two languages could not understand the other. Compare Nehemiah 8:8. Both were the offspring of the original Shemitish language. This original language may be properly reduced to three great branches:

(1) The Aramean, which prevailed in Syria, Babylonia, and Mesopotamia; and which may, therefore, be divided into the Syriac or West-Aramean, and the Chaldee or East-Aramean, called after the Babylonian Aramean.

(2) The Hebrew, with which the fragments of the Phoenician coincide.

(3) The Arabic, under which belongs the Ethiopic as a dialect. The Aramean, which, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, was introduced into Palestine, and which prevailed in the time of the Saviour, is commonly called the Syro-Chaldaic, because it was a mixture of the Eastern and Western dialects. The Chaldee, or East Aramean, and the Hebrew, had in general the same stock of original words, but they differed in several respects, such as the following:

(a) Many words of the old primitive language which had remained in one dialect had been lost in the other.

(b) The same word was current in both dialects, but in different significations, because in the one it retained the primitive signification, while in the other it had acquired different meaning.

(c) The Babylonian dialect had borrowed expressions from the Northern Chaldeans, who had made various irruptions into the country. These expressions were foreign to the Shemitish dialects, and belonged to the Japhetian language, which prevailed among the Armenians, the Medes, the Persians, and the Chaldeans, who were probaby related to these. Traces of these foreign words are found in the names of the officers of state, and in expressions having reference to the government.

(d) The Babylonian pronunciation was more easy and more sonorous than the Hebrew. It exchanged the frequent sibilants of the Hebrew, and the other consonants which were hard to pronounce, for others which were less difficult: it dropped the long vowels which were not essential to the forms of words; it preferred the more sonorous “a” to the long “o,” and assumed at the end of nouns, in order to lighten the pronunciation, a prolonged auxiliary vowel (the so-called emphatic א ('); it admitted contractions in pronouncing many words) and must have been, as the language of common life, far better adapted to the sluggish Orientals than the harsher Hebrew. See an article “On the Prevalence of the Aramean Language in Palestine in the age of Christ and the Apostles,” by Henry F. Pfannkuche, in the “Biblical Repository,” vol. i. pp. 318, 319. On this verse also, compare the notes at Isaiah 39:7.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

In yesterday’s Lecture we saw how the prefect or master of the eunuchs was commanded to bring up some noble youths, the offspring of the king and the elders; and Daniel now describes their qualities, according to Nebuchadnezzar’s order. They were youths, not so young as seven or eight years, but growing up, in whom there was no spot; that is, in whom there was no defect or unsoundness of body. They were also of beautiful aspect, meaning of ingenuous and open countenance, he adds also, skilled in all prudence, and understanding knowledge; and then, expressing their thoughts I think those interpreters right who take this participle actively, otherwise the repetition would be cold and valueless. Their eloquence seems to me pointed out here; because there are some who inwardly understand subjects presented to them, but cannot express to others what they retain in their minds; for all have not the same dexterity in expressing exactly what they think Daniel, therefore, notices both qualifications here — the acquisition of knowledge, and the power of communicating it.

And in whom was vigor for כח, cach, usually signifies fortitude, as in Isaiah. (Isaiah 40:9.) Those who fear God shall change their fortitude, or renew their rigor. Then in Psalms 22:0, (Psalms 22:15,) my strength or rigor has failed.” He adds, the fortitude or vigor of intelligence, knowledge, and eloquence; or a healthy habit of body, which is the same thing. ⁽⁷⁷⁾ That they might stand in the king ’s palace, and be taught literature, (I cannot translate the particle ספר, sepher, otherwise, verbally it is a “letter, ” but it means learning or discipline,) and the language of the Chaldees We now see how the king regarded not only their rank, when he ordered the most excellent of the royal and noble children to be brought to him; but he exercised his choice that those who were to be his servants should be clever; they were of high birth, as the phrase is; so they ought to prevail in eloquence and give hopeful promise of general excellence in both body and mind. Without doubt he wished them to be held in great estimation, that he might win over other Jews also. Thus, if they afterwards obtained authority, should circumstances allow of it, they might become rulers in Judea, bearing sway over their own people, and yet remain attached to the Babylonian empire. This was the king’s design; it affords no reason why we should praise his liberality, since it is sufficiently apparent that he consulted nothing but his own advantage.

Meanwhile, we observe, that learning and the liberal arts were not then so despised as they are in this age, and in those immediately preceding it. So strongly has barbarism prevailed in the world, that it is almost disgraceful for nobles to be reckoned among the men of education and of letters! The chief boast. of the nobility was to be destitute of scholarship — nay, they gloried in the assertion, that they were “no scholars,” in the language of the day; and if any of their rank were versed in literature, they acquired their attainments for no other purpose than to be made bishops and abbots’ still, as I have said, they generally despised all literature. We perceive the age in which Daniel lived was not so barbarous, for the king wished to have these boys whom he caused to be so instructed, among his own princes, as we have said, to promote his own advantage; still we must remark upon the habit of that age. As to his requiring so much knowledge and skill, it may seem out of place, and more than their tender age admitted, that they should be so accomplished in prudence, knowledge, and experience. But we know that kings require nothing in moderation when they order anything to be prepared, they often ascend beyond the clouds. So Nebuchadnezzar speaks here; and Daniel, who relates his commands, does so in a royal manner. Since the king commanded all the most accomplished to be brought before him, if they really manifested any remarkable qualities, we need not be surprised at their knowledge, skill, and prudence. The king simply wished those boys and youths to be brought to him who were ingenious and dangerous, and adapted to learn with rapidly; and then those who were naturally eloquent and of a healthy constitution of body. For it follows directly, that they might learn, or be taught the literature and language of the Chaldees We perceive that King Nebuchadnezzar did not demand teachers, but boys of high birth, and good talents, and of promising abilities; he wished them to be liberally instructed in the doctrine of the Chaldees he was unwilling to have youths of merely polished and cultivated minds without natural abilities. His desire to have them acquainted with the language of Chaldea arose from his wish to separate them by degrees from their own nation, to introduce them to forget their Jewish birth, and to acquire the Chaldean manners, since language is a singular bond of communication. Respecting their learning, we may ask, whether Daniel and his companions were permitted to learn arts full of imposition, which we know to be the nature of the Chaldean learning. For they professed to know every one’s fate, as in these days there are many impostors in the world, who are called fortune-tellers. They abused an honorable name when they called themselves mathematicians, as if there were no scientific learning separate from those arts and diabolic illusions. And as to the use of the word, the Caesars, in their laws, unite Chaldeans and mathematicians, treating them as synonymous. But the explanation is easy, — the Chaldeans not only pursued that astrology which is called “Judicial,” but were also skilled in the true and genuine knowledge of the stars. The ancients say, that the course of the stars was observed by the Chaldeans, as there was no region of the world so full of them, and none possessed so extensive an horizon on all sides. As the Chaldeans enjoyed this advantage of having the heavens so fully exposed to the contemplation of man, this may have led to their study, and have conduced to the more earnest pursuit of astrology. But as the minds of men are inclined to vain and foolish curiosity, they were not content with legitimate science, but fell into foolish and perverse imaginations. For what fortune-tellers predict of any one’s destiny is merely foolish fanaticism. Daniel, therefore, might have learned these arts; that is, astrology and other liberal sciences, just as Moses is said to have been instructed in all the sciences of Egypt. We know how the Egyptians were infected with similar corruption’s; but it is said both of Moses and of our Prophet, that they were imbued with a knowledge of the stars and of the other liberal sciences. Although it is uncertain whether the king commanded them to proceed far in these studies, yet we must hold that Daniel abstained, as we shall see directly, from the royal food and drink, and was not drawn aside nor involved in these Satanic impostures. Whatever the king’s commandment was, I suppose Daniel to have been content with the pure and genuine knowledge of natural things. As far as the king is concerned, as we have already said, he consulted simply his own interests; wishing Daniel and his companions to pass over into a foreign tribe, and to be drawn away from their own people, as if they had been natives of Chaldea. It now follows —

(77) It can scarcely be correct to confound bodily with mental endowments. Wintle explains the three clauses very appositely, referring the first to “excellent natural abilities,” the second to “the greatest improvement from cultivation,” and the last to” the communication of our perceptions in the happiest manner to others.”

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

Nebuchadnezzar’s enlightened policy was to employ the best minds in his kingdom in government service, regardless of their national or ethnic origin. We do not know how many other Jews and Gentiles were the classmates of Daniel and his three friends. However, they were evidently the only ones who expressed a desire to observe the Jewish dietary laws (Exodus 34:15; Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14; cf. Deuteronomy 8:3; Proverbs 20:1).

"In selecting these youths for education in the king’s court in Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar was accomplishing several objectives. Those carried away captive could well serve as hostages to help keep the royal family of the kingdom of Judah in line. Their presence in the king’s court also would be a pleasant reminder to the Babylonian king of his conquest and success in battle. Further, their careful training and preparation to be his servants might serve Nebuchadnezzar well in later administration of Jewish affairs." [Note: Walvoord, p. 34.]

There has been some question whether Daniel and his three friends were castrated and made eunuchs. This possibility seems unlikely since there is no direct evidence of this in the text. Josephus implied that they may have become eunuchs.

"He [Nebuchadnezzar] also made some of them [the most noble of the Jewish children] to be eunuchs; which course he took also with those of other nations whom he had taken in the flower of their age, and afforded them their diet from his own table, and had them instructed in the institutes of the country, and taught the learning of the Chaldeans . . ." [Note: Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 10:10:1. So also Culver, p. 773.]

The Hebrew word saris ("official," Daniel 1:3) can mean both "court official" (cf. Genesis 37:36, where it describes Potiphar, who was married) and "eunuch" (Isaiah 56:3; cf. 2 Kings 20:18). These youths were without defects (Daniel 1:4). If Nebuchadnezzar wanted youths without defects, it seems unreasonable that he would then turn around and give them a major defect (cf. Leviticus 21:17). [Note: See The New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed., s.v. "Eunuch," by R. J. A. Sheriffs.]

Josephus also wrote that Daniel and his three peers "were four of the family of Zedekiah." [Note: Josephus, 10:10:1.] This may be accurate or only Jewish tradition, but clearly they were either members of the royal family or children of Judean nobles (Daniel 1:3; cf. Isaiah 39:6-7).

The three-year program of study that Daniel and his three companions underwent involved study of the literature and language of the Chaldeans (Daniel 1:4). The term "Chaldean" has a double meaning in the Book of Daniel. In some places, including here, it refers to ethnic southern Babylonians (cf. Daniel 3:8; Daniel 5:30; Daniel 9:1). In others, it describes a class of astrologers and priests that emerged from the ethnic Chaldeans (Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:4-5; Daniel 2:10; Daniel 4:7; Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:11).

"The Babylonian sages combined many of the functions fulfilled by wise men, prophets, and priests in Israel, though they are to be distinguished from those cultic functionaries who were more especially concerned with the temple and its ritual. They were the guardians of the sacred traditional lore developed and preserved in Mesopotamia over centuries, covering natural history, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, myth, and chronicle. Much of this learning had a practical purpose, being designed to be applied to life by means of astrology, oneirology, hepatoscopy and the study of other organs, rites of purification, sacrifice, incantation, exorcism and other forms of divination and magic." [Note: Goldingay, p. 16.]

Evidently what these young men studied was the history and literature of this ancient part of the world. This included the old Akkadian and the ancient Sumerian cultures from which the Babylonian had developed. Learning the language of a people is one of the best ways to absorb the worldview of its people. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was seeking to acculturate these youths and make them thoroughly Babylonian.

"In order to witness to their God in the Babylonian court they had to understand the cultural presuppositions of those around them, just as the Christian today must work hard at the religions and cultures amongst which he lives, if different thought-worlds are ever to meet." [Note: Baldwin, pp. 80-81.]

This is a dangerous task, however (cf. Deuteronomy 12:30; 1 Corinthians 10:12; Colossians 2:8). [Note: See Whitcomb, p. 32.]

". . . Daniel had no physical blemish and was pleasing in appearance. Mentally, he was intelligent, knowledgeable, and quick to learn. Socially, he was poised and able to live in the king’s court without creating embarrassment for himself or others." [Note: Donald K. Campbell, Daniel: Decoder of Dreams, p. 9.]

Notice the similarity between Daniel’s experience and character-and Joseph’s-throughout this chapter.

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

B. Nebuchadnezzar’s training program for promising youths 1:3-7

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Children in whom was no blemish,.... Not mere children, but young men of fifteen or twenty years of age; about which age Daniel is by Aben Ezra supposed to be when he was carried captive; and less than this be cannot well be thought to be, since, in a few years after, he was put into posts of the greatest eminence and importance: such were ordered to be selected that had no deformity or defect in any parts of their body, or wanted any, as an eye, or a hand, c. or, "in whom was not anything" h; vicious or immoral, or scandalous in their character:

but well favoured; of a good complexion, a ruddy countenance, and a healthful look. So Curtius i says, that, in all barbarous or uncivilized countries, the stateliness and size of the body is had in great veneration; nor do they think any capable of great services or actions, to whom nature has not vouchsafed to give a beautiful form and aspect. And Aristotle k says it was reported, that, in Ethiopia, civil offices of government or magistracy were distributed according to the bulk or beauty of men, the largeness and tallness of their bodies, or the comeliness of them; and not only among them, but this has always been the custom of the eastern nations, to choose such for their principal officers, or to wait on princes and great personages, and continues to this day. Sir Paul Ricaut l observes,

"that the youths that are designed for the great offices of the Turkish empire must be of admirable features and pleasing looks, well shaped in their bodies, and without any defects of nature; for it is conceived that a corrupt and sordid soul can scarce inhabit in a serene and ingenious aspect; and (says he) I have observed not only in the seraglio, but also in the courts of great men, their personal attendants have been of comely lusty youths well habited, deporting themselves with singular modesty and respect in the presence of their masters: so that when a pascha, aga, spahee, travels, he is always attended with a comely equipage, followed by flourishing youths, well clothed, and mounted in great numbers; that one may guess at the greatness of this empire by the retinue, pomp, and number of servants, which accompany persons of quality in their journeys.''

And no doubt Nebuchadnezzar had some of these ends in view, in ordering such persons to be selected and brought up at his expense; that they might be both for service and usefulness, and for his grandeur and glory.

And skilful in all wisdom: in the wisdom of the Jews, or had a liberal education according to the custom of their country; or were young men of good capacities, capable of being instructed, and of improving themselves in all kind of wisdom:

and cunning in knowledge; or "knowing knowledge" m; having a large share of the knowledge of their own country, customs, and laws, civil and religious: and understanding science; the liberal arts and sciences; or however were persons of a good genius, and of retentive memories; young men of capacity, diligence, industry, and application, and of great docility, and so very promising to make great and useful men:

and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace; not only strength of body, which was requisite to a long waiting there, as sometimes they were obliged to do; but strength of mind, courage, and undauntedness, to stand before the king and his nobles, without showing a rustic fear, and timidity of mind:

and whom they might teach the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans; or, "the book and language of the Chaldeans" n; book for books; such as contained their literature, history, and philosophy, mathematics, the knowledge of the stars, in which they excelled, as well as architecture and military skill; and it was necessary they should learn the Chaldean language, which differed from the Hebrew chiefly in dialect and pronunciation, that they might be able to read those books of science, and to speak with a good accent, and readily, before the king and his nobles; or rather the sense is, that they might understand the Chaldean language, the manner of reading, writing, and pronouncing it

ספר, translated "learning", may signify the letters of the language, the Scripture or manner of writing, as Saadiah and Aben Ezra interpret it; which must be first learned in any language, in order to attain the knowledge of it; so it seems to be used in Isaiah 19:12. "I am not learned, or know not a book or letters" see John 7:15 and לשון, translated "tongue", may signify the rules, idioms, and properties of the language; the nature, genius, and dialect of it, and signification of the words and phrases used in it to be learned, so as to be thorough masters of it, understand it, speak it, and pronounce it well. But here a difficulty arises, since the form and character of the letters of the Chaldee and Hebrew languages now in use are the same; it may seem unnecessary that Hebrew youths should be put to school to learn the Chaldean letters and language, though the dialect and idioms of the two languages might in some things differ; but let it be observed, that it might be, and it is not improbable, that the letters of the Chaldean language were not the same then as they are now; and Hottinger o expressly says, that the ancient Chaldee character is not known; not to say anything of the difference of the Hebrew letters then from what they are now, which some have surmised: besides, it is a clear case that the Chaldee and Syriac languages are the same, as appears from Daniel 2:4, where the Chaldeans are said to speak to the king in Syriac; and yet, what follows is no other than Chaldee, their mother tongue, in which it was most proper and agreeable to speak to the king: and as it is the opinion of many learned men now that these languages are the same, so it was the sense of the ancient Jews. Says R. Samuel Bar Nachman p, let not the Syriac language be mean in thine eyes, or lightly esteemed by thee; for in the law, in the prophets, and in the Hagiographa, the holy blessed God has imparted honour to it; in the law, Genesis 31:47, in the prophets, Jeremiah 10:11, in the Hagiographa, Daniel 2:4 in all which places it is the Chaldee language that is used; and that which was spoken in Babylon, the head of the Chaldean empire, is called the Syriac; for Cyrus, when he took that city, ordered a proclamation to be made, by men skilled, συριστι, in the Syriac language, that the inhabitants should keep within doors, and that those that were found without should be slain q; which orders were published in that language, that they might be universally understood, being the language of the common people. So Herodotus, speaking of the Assyrians, says r, these by the Greeks are called Syrians, and by the barbarians Assyrians, among whom were the Chaldeans: and, as Strabo observes s, the same language or dialect was used by those without Euphrates, and by those within; that is, by the Syrians, strictly so called, and by the Babylonians or Chaldeans: and elsewhere t, the name of Syrians reached from Babylon to Sinus Issicus; and, formerly, from thence to the Euxine sea. Now it is certain that the form and character of the letters in the Syriac language are very different from the Hebrew, and difficult to be learned, and might be those which these Hebrew youths were to be taught at school, as well as the rudiments of it; and it is as evident that the language of the Jews, and that of the Syrians, Chaldeans, and Babylonians, were so different, that the common people of the former did not understand the language of the latter when spoke, as appears from

2 Kings 18:26 so that there was an apparent necessity for the one to be taught the language of the other, in order to understand it.

h מאום "quidquam quod obstet", Gussetius. i Histor. l. 6. c. 5. k Politic. l. 4. c. 4. tom. 2. p. 224. l Present State of the Ottoman Empire, B. 1. c. 5. p. 13. m וידעי דעת "et scientes scientiam, Pagninus, Montanus, intelligentes scientiam", Calvin. n ספר ולשון "librum et linguam", Jo. Henr. Michaelis. o Smegma Oriental. l. 1. c. 3. p. 35. p Bereshit Rabba, sect. 74. fol. 65. 4. q Xenophon. Cyropaedia, l. 7. c. 23. r Polymnia, sive l. 7. c. 63. s Geograph. I. 2. p. 58. t Ibid. l. 16. p. 507.

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.