الكتاب المقدس

Expositor's Bible Commentary Daniel 1:1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. THE PRELUDE "His loyalty he kept, his faith, his love."-MILTON THE first chapter of the Book of Daniel serves as a beautiful introduction to the whole, and strikes the keynote of faithfulness to the institutions of Judaism which of all others seemed most important to the mind of a pious Hebrew in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. At a time when many were wavering, and many had lapsed into open apostasy, the writer wished to set before his countrymen in the most winning and vivid manner the nobleness and the reward of obeying God rather than man. He had read in 2 Kings 24:1-2 , that Jehoiakim had been a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for three years, which were not, however, the first three years of his reign, and then had rebelled, and been subdued by "bands of the Chaldeans" and their allies. In 2 Chronicles 36:6 he read that Nebuchadrezzar had "bound Jehoiakim in fetters to carry him to Babylon." { Jeremiah 22:18-19 ; Jeremiah 36:30 } Combining these two passages, he seems to. have inferred, in the absence of more accurate historical indications, that the Chaldeans had besieged and captured Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim. That the date is erroneous there can hardly be a question, for, as already stated, neither Jeremiah, the contemporary of Jehoiakim, nor the Book of Kings, nor any other authority, knows anything of any siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King in the third year of Jehoiakim. The Chronicler, a very late writer, seems to have heard some tradition that Jehoiakim had been taken captive, but he does not date this capture; and in Jehoiakim’s third year the king was a vassal, not of Babylon, but of Egypt. Nabopolassar, not Nebuchadrezzar, was then King of Babylon. It was not till the following year (B.C. 605), when Nebuchadrezzar, acting as his father’s general, had defeated Egypt at the Battle of Carchemish, that any siege of Jerusalem would have been possible. Nor did Nebuchadrezzar advance against the Holy City even after the Battle of Carchemish, but dashed home across the desert to secure the crown of Babylon on hearing the news of his father’s death. The only two considerable Babylonian deportations of which we know were apparently in the eighth and nineteenth years of Nebuchadrezzars reign. In the former Jehoiachin was carried captive with ten thousand citizens; { Jeremiah 27:20 } in the latter Zedekiah was slain, and eight hundred and thirty-two persons carried to Babylon. { Jeremiah 52:29 2 Kings 25:11 } There seems then to be, on the very threshold, every indication of a historic inaccuracy such as could not have been committed if the historic Daniel had been the true author of this Book; and we are able, with perfect clearness, to point to the passages by which the Maccabean writer was misled into a mistaken inference. To him, however, as to all Jewish writers, a mere variation in a date would have been regarded, as a matter of the utmost insignificance. It in no way concerned the high purpose which he had in view, or weakened the force of his moral fiction. Nor does it in the smallest degree diminish from the instructiveness of the lessons which he has to teach to all men for all time. A fiction which is true to human experience may be as rich in spiritual meaning as a literal history. Do we degrade the majesty of the Book of Daniel if we regard it as a Haggada any more than we degrade the story of the Prodigal Son when we describe it as a Parable? The writer proceeds to tell us that, after the siege, Nebuchadrezzar-whom the historic Daniel could never have called by the erroneous name Nebuchadnezzar-took Jehoiakim (for this seems to be implied), with some of the sacred vessels of the Temple, {comp. Daniel 5:2-3 } "into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god." This god, as we learn from Babylonian inscription, was Bel or Belmerodach, in whose temple, built by Nebuchadrezzar, was also "the treasure-house of his kingdom." Among the captives were certain "of the king’s seed, and of the princes" (" Parthemim "). They were chosen from among such boys as were preeminent for their beauty and intelligence, and the intention was to train them as pages in the royal service, and also in such a knowledge of the Chaldean language and literature as should enable them to take their places in the learned caste of priestly diviners. Their home was in the vast palace of the Babylonian King, of which the ruins are now called Kasr. Here they may have seen the hapless Jehoiachin still languishing in his long captivity. They are called "children," and the word, together with the context, seems to imply that they were boys of the age of from twelve to fourteen. The king personally handed them over to the care of Ashpenaz, the Rabsaris, or "master of the eunuchs," who held the position of lord high chamberlain. It is probably implied that the boys were themselves made eunuchs, for the incident seems to be based on the rebuke given by Isaiah to the vain ostentation of Hezekiah in showing the treasures of his temple and palace to Merodach-baladan: "Behold the days come, that all that is in thine house 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, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the King of Babylon.". { Isaiah 39:6-7 } They were to be trained in the learning (lit. "the book") and language of Chaldea for three years; at the end of which period they were to be admitted into the king’s presence, that he might see how they looked and what progress they had made. During those three years he provided them with a daily maintenance of food and wine from his table. Those who were thus maintained in Eastern courts were to be counted by hundreds, and even by thousands, and their position was often supremely wretched and degraded, as it still is in such Eastern courts. The wine was probably imported. The food consisted of meat, game, fish, joints, and wheaten bread. The word used for "provision" is interesting. It is "path-bag," and seems to be a transliteration, or echo of a Persian word, " pati-baga ," a name applied by the historian Deinon (B.C. 340) to barley bread and "mixed wine in a golden egg from which the king drinks." But among these captives were four young Jews named Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Their very names were a witness not only to their nationality, but to their religion. Daniel means "God is my judge"; Hananiah, "Jehovah is gracious"; Mishael (perhaps), "who is equal to God?" Azariah, "God is a helper." It is hardly likely that the Chaldeans would have tolerated the use of such names among their young pupils, since every repetition of them would have sounded like a challenge to the supremacy of Bel, Merodach, and Nebo. It was a common thing to change names in heathen courts, as the name of Joseph had been changed by the Egyptians to Zaphnath-paaneah, { Genesis 41:45 } and the Assyrians changed the name of Psammetichus II into "Nebo-serib-ani," "Nebo save me." They therefore made the names of the boys echo the names of the Babylonian deities. Instead of "God is my judge," Daniel was called Belteshazzar, "protect Thou his life." Perhaps the prayer shows the tender regard in which he was held by Ashpenaz. Hananiah was called Shadrach, perhaps Shudur-aku, "command of Aku," the moon-deity: Mishael was called Meshach, a name which we cannot interpret; and Azariah, instead of "God is a help," was called Abednego, a mistaken form for Abed-nebo, or "servant of Nebo." Even in this slight incident there may be an allusion to Maccabean days. It appears that in that epoch the apostate Hellenising Jews were fond of changing their names into Gentile names, which had a somewhat similar sound. Thus Joshua was called "Jason," and Onias "Menelaus." This was done as part of the plan of Antiochus to force upon Palestine the Greek language. So far the writer may have thought the practice a harmless one, even though imposed by heathen potentates. Such certainly was the view of the later Jews, even of the strictest sect of the Pharisees. Not only did Saul freely adopt the name of Paul, but Silas felt no scruple in being called by the name Sylvanus, though that was the name of a heathen deity. It was far otherwise with acquiescence in the eating of heathen meats, which, in the days of the Maccabees, was forced upon many of the Jews, and which, since the institution or reinstitution of Levitism after the return from the Exile, had come to be regarded as a deadly sin. It was during the Exile that such feelings had acquired fresh intensity. At first they do not seem to have prevailed. Jehoiachin was a hero among the Jews. They remembered him with intense love and pity, and it does not seem to have been regarded as any stain upon his memory that, for years together, he had, almost in the words of Daniel 1:5 , received a daily allowance from the table of the King of Babylon. In the days of. Antiochus Epiphanes the ordinary feeling on this subject was very different, for the religion and nationality of the Jews were at stake. Hence we read: "Howbeit many in Israel were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing. Wherefore they chose rather to die, that they might not be defiled with meats, that they might not profane the holy covenant: so then they died." (Macc. 1:62, 63). And in the Second Book of Maccabees we are told that on the king’s birthday Jews "were constrained by bitter constraint to eat of the sacrifices," and that Eleazar, one of the principal scribes, an aged and noble-looking man, preferred rather to be tortured to death, "leaving his death for an example of noble courage, and a memorial of value, not only unto young men, but unto all his nation." In the following chapter is the celebrated story of the constancy and cruel death of seven brethren and their mother, when they preferred martyrdom to tasting swine’s flesh. The brave Judas Maccabaeus, with some nine companions, withdrew himself into the wilderness, and "lived in the mountains after the manner of beasts with his company, who fed on herbs continually, lest they should be partakers of the pollution." The tone and object of these narratives are precisely the same as the tone and object of the stories in the Book of Daniel: and we can well imagine how the heroism of resistance would be encouraged in every Jew who read those narratives or traditions of former days of persecution and difficulty. "This Book," says Ewald, "fell like a glowing spark from a clear heaven upon a surface which was already intensely heated far and wide, and waiting to burst into flames." It may be doubtful whether such views as to ceremonial defilement were already developed at the beginning of the Babylonian Captivity. The Maccabean persecution left them ingrained in the habits of the people, and Josephus tells us a contemporary story which reminds us of that of Daniel and his companions. He says that certain priests, who were friends of his own, had been imprisoned in Rome, and that he endeavoured to procure their release, "especially because I was informed that they were not unmindful of piety towards God, but supported themselves with figs and nuts," because in such eating of dry food (as it was called) there was no chance of heathen defilement. {Josea "Vit." Comp. Isaiah 52:11 } It need hardly be added that when the time came to break down the partition-wall which separated Jewish particularism from the universal brotherhood of mankind redeemed in Christ, the Apostles-especially St. Paul-had to show the meaningless nature of many distinctions to which the Jews attached consummate importance. The Talmud abounds in stories intended to glorify the resoluteness with which the Jews maintained their stereotyped Levitism; but Christ taught, to the astonishment of the Pharisees and even of the disciples, that it is not what entereth into a man which makes him unclean, but the unclean thoughts which come from within, from the heart. And this He said , i.e. , abolishing thereby the Levitic Law, and "making all meats clean." Yet, even after this, it required nothing less than that Divine vision on the tanner’s roof at Joppa to convince Peter that he was not to call "common" what God had cleansed, { Acts 10:14 } and it required all the keen insight and fearless energy of St. Paul to prevent the Jews from keeping an intolerable yoke upon their own necks, and also laying it upon the necks of the Gentiles. The four princely boys-they may have been from twelve to fourteen years old-determined not to share in the royal dainties, and begged the Sar-hassarisim to allow them to live on pulse and water, rather than on the luxuries in which-for them-lurked a heathen pollution. The eunuch not unnaturally demurred. The daily rations were provided from the royal table. He was responsible to the king for the beauty and health, as well as for the training, of his young scholars; and if Nebuchadrezzar saw them looking more meagre or haggard than the rest of the captives and other pages, the chamberlain’s head might pay the forfeit. But Daniel, like Joseph in Egypt, had inspired affection among his captors; and since the prince of the eunuchs regarded him "with favour and tender love," he was the more willing to grant, or at least to connive at, the fulfilment of the boy’s wish. So Daniel gained over the Melzar (or steward?), who was in immediate charge of the boys, and begged him to try the experiment for ten days. If at the end of that time their health or beauty had suffered, the question might be reconsidered. So for ten days the four faithful children were fed on water, and on the "seeds"- i.e. , vegetables, dates, raisins, and other fruits, which are here generally called "pulse." At the end of the ten days-a sort of mystic Persian week-they were found to be fairer and fresher than all the other captives of the palace. Thenceforth they were allowed without hindrance to keep the customs of their country. Nor was this all. During the three probationary years they continued to flourish intellectually as well as physically. They attained to conspicuous excellence "in all kinds of books and wisdom," and Daniel also had understanding in all kinds of dreams and visions, to which the Chaldeans attached supreme importance. The Jews exulted in these pictures of four youths of their own race who, though they were strangers in a strange land, excelled all their alien compeers in their own chosen fields of learning. There were already two such pictures in Jewish history, -that of the youthful Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and a great man and a prince among the magicians of Pharaoh; and that of Joseph, who, though there were so many Egyptian diviners, alone could interpret dreams, whether in the dungeon or at the foot of the throne. A third picture, that of Daniel at the court of Babylon, is now added to them, and in all three cases the glory is given directly, not to them, but to the God of heaven, the God of their fathers. At the close of the three years the prince of the eunuchs brought all his young pages into the presence of the King Nebuehadrezzar. He tested them by familiar conversation, and found the four Jewish lads superior to all the rest. They were therefore chosen "to stand before the king"-in other words, to become his personal attendants. As this gave free access to his presence, it involved a position not only of high honour, but of great influence. And their superiority stood the test of time. Whenever the king consulted them on matters which required "wisdom of understanding," he found them not only better, but "ten times better," than all the "magicians," and "astrologers" that were in all his realm. The last verse of the chapter, "And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus," is perhaps a later gloss, for it appears from Daniel 10:1 that Daniel lived, at any rate, till the third year of Cyrus. Abn Ezra adds the words "continued in Babylon ," and Ewald "at the king’s court." Some interpret "continued" to mean "remained alive." The reason for mentioning "the first year of Cyrus" may be to show that Daniel survived the return from the Exile, and also to mark the fact that he attained a great age. For if he were about fourteen at the beginning of the narrative, he would be eighty-five in the first year of Cyrus. Dr. Pusey remarks: "Simple words, but what a volume of tried faithfulness is unrolled by them! Amid all the intrigues indigenous at all times in dynasties of Oriental despotism, amid all the envy towards a foreign captive in high office as a king’s councillor, amid all the trouble incidental to the insanity of the king and the murder of two of his successors, in that whole critical period for his people, Daniel continued. " ("Daniel" pp. 20, 21). The domestic anecdote of this chapter, like the other more splendid narratives which succeed it, has a value far beyond the circumstances in which it may have originated. It is a beautiful moral illustration of the blessings which attend on faithfulness and on temperance, and whether it be a Haggada or a historic tradition, it equally enshrines the same noble lesson as that which was taught to all time by the early stories of the Books of Genesis and Exodus. {Comp. Genesis 39:21 1 Kings 8:50 Nehemiah 1:1 Psalm 106:46 } It teaches the crown and blessing of faithfulness. It was the highest glory of Israel "to uplift among the nations the banner of righteousness." It matters not that, in this particular instance, the Jewish boys were contending for a mere ceremonial rule which in itself was immaterial, or at any rate of no eternal significance. Suffice it that this rule presented itself to them in the guise of a principle and of a sacred duty, exactly as it did to Eleazar the Scribe, and Judas the Maccabee, and the Mother and her seven strong sons in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. They regarded it as a duty to their laws, to their country, to their God; and therefore upon them it was sacredly incumbent. And they were faithful to it. Among the pampered minions and menials of the vast Babylonian palace-undazzled by the glitter of earthly magnificence, untempted by the allurements of pomp, pleasure. and sensuous indulgence- "Amid innumerable false, unmoved, unshaken, unseduced, unterrified, Their loyalty they kept their faith, their love." And because God loves them for their constancy, because they remain pure and true, all the Babylonian varletry around them learns the lesson of simplicity, the beauty of holiness. Amid the outpourings of the Divine favour they flourish, and are advanced to the highest honours. This is one great lesson which dominates the historic section of this Book: "Them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." It is the lesson of Joseph’s superiority to the glamour of temptation in the house of Potiphar; of the choice of Moses, preferring to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than all the treasures of Egypt and "to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter"; of Samuel’s stainless innocence beside the corrupting example of Eli’s sons; of David’s strong, pure, ruddy boyhood as a shepherd-lad on Bethlehem’s hills. It is the anticipated story of that yet holier childhood of Him who-subject to His parents in the sweet vale of Nazareth-blossomed "like the flower of roses in the spring of the year, and as lilies by the water-courses." The young human being who grows up in innocence and self-control grows up also in grace and beauty, in wisdom and "in favour with God and man." The Jews specially delighted in these pictures of boyish continence and piety, and they lay at the basis of all that was greatest in their national character. But there also lay incidentally in the story a warning against corrupting luxury, the lesson of the need for, and the healthfulness of, "The rule of not too much by temperance taught." "The love of sumptuous food and delicious drinks is never good," says Ewald, "and with the use of the most temperate diet body and soul can flourish most admirably, as experience had at that time sufficiently taught." To the value of this lesson the Nazarites among the Jews were a perpetual witness. Jeremiah seems to single them out for the special beauty which resulted from their youthful abstinence when he writes of Jerusalem, "Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphires." { Lamentations 4:7 } It is the lesson which Milton reads in the story of Samson, - "O madness! to think use of strongest wines And strongest drinks our chief support of health, When God, with these forbidden, made choice to rear His mighty champion, strong above compare, Whose drink was only from the liquid brook!" It is the lesson which Shakespeare inculcates when he makes the old man say in "As You Like It,"- "When I was young I never did apply Hot and rebellious liquors in my blood, Nor did not with unblushful forehead woo The means of weakness and debility; Therefore mine age is as a lusty winter, Frosty, yet kindly." The writer of this Book connects intellectual advance as well as physical strength with this abstinence, and here he is supported even by ancient and pagan experience. Something of this kind may perhaps lurk in Pindar; and certainly Horace saw that gluttony and repletion are foes to insight when he wrote, - " Nam corpus onustum Hesternis vitiis animum quoque praegravat una, Atque afligit humo divinae particulam aurae. " Pythagoras was not the only ancient philosopher who recommended and practised a vegetable diet, and even Epicurus, whom so many regard as "The soft garden’s rose-encircled child." placed over his garden door the inscription that those who came would only be regaled on barley-cakes and fresh water, to satisfy, but not to allure, the appetite. But the grand lesson of the picture is meant to be that the fair Jewish boys were kept safe in the midst of every temptation to self-indulgence, because they lived as in God’s sight: and "he that holds himself in reverence and due esteem for the dignity of God’s image upon him, accounts himself both a fit person to do the noblest and godliest deeds, and much better worth than to deject and defile, with such debasement and pollution as sin is, himself so highly ransomed and ennobled to a new friendship and filial relation with God." The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah. Daniel 1:1-3 The Captivity William White. Jehoiakim was the son of one of the best kings that ever sat upon the throne of David. His father, Josiah, was a fearer of the Lord from his youth. In a period of great degeneracy, he was enabled to live a holy and consistent life. Convinced that religion is the true source of national prosperity, and that sin is the procuring cause of national calamity, Josiah exerted his royal influence to promote the revival of godliness among his subjects. The land, however, was ripe for vengeance, and in wrath against it the days of this excellent prince were shortened. He was "taken away from the evil to come." In the flower of his days, he was slain in the battle of Megiddo, while fighting against Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt. After the death of Josiah, his son Jehoahaz was raised to the throne. This appointment being offensive to the king of Egypt, he deposed Jehoahaz, after a reign of three months, and selected, as his successor on the throne of Judah, Eliakim, another son of Josiah, who, on that occasion, had his name changed into Jehoiakim. The exaltation of such a prince to the throne, in so corrupt a state of society, was a token that judgment was nigh. So early as the third year of his reign, the land was overtaken by the first stroke of calamity. The minister of Divine indignation was Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. From the days of Manasseh, the land of Judea was tributary to Babylon. But when Pharaoh-Necho conquered Josiah, he obtained the superiority of Judea. Babylon and Egypt were then rival monarchies, struggling with one another for the ascendancy of the world. When, therefore, Nabopolassar king of Babylon heard that Pharaoh had taken Jerusalem and other towns in Palestine, he resolved to make an effort for their recovery. Through age and infirmity, being unable to head such an enterprise in person, he assumed Nebuchadnezzar his son into partnership with him in the empire, and sent him into Syria. Having conquered the Egyptians on the Euphrates, he marched into Judea and took Jerusalem. Secular history is generally written, just as it would have been, if no agent had the least influence on the affairs of the world, besides those who are visible to our senses. It traces the actions of man, as if man was all. It takes no notice, or but little notice, of God. But Scripture history is written on a different plan. It begins with God, as the creator of the world, and throughout, it exhibits him as its governor, everywhere present, and always operating. In an especial manner, it traces all the revolutions that take place in kingdoms — their origin — their progress — their decline and fall — to his sovereign and holy will, as the ultimate cause. "And the Lord gave into his hand Jehoiakim king of Judah, — a mode of expression which signifies that Divine displeasure was the true and proper cause of this calamity. In a period of defection from God, superstition often usurps the place of religion. When men have ceased to confide in God himself, they often place their confidence in something pertaining to him, and trust in it for protection from danger. To reprove such a spirit, God usually permits that in which they confide to fall into the enemy's hand. But while they had no confidence in God, they placed the most overweening confidence in the temple. They thought, that so long as it remained among them, they was safe. In one of the earlier messages of Jeremiah, God warned them against this delusion ( Jeremiah 4:4, 12, 13, 14 ). This threatening God now began to execute. Literally, "judgment began at the house of God." Having entered the temple, Nebuchadnezzar carried away part of the vessels of the Lord's house. These he took into the land of Shinar, the ancient name of the region in which Babylon was situated, and placed them in the treasure-house of his god. Considering the place from which these vessels had been taken, and to whose service they had been consecrated for ages, they may certainly be regarded as one of the most remarkable trophies that ever a conqueror presented at the shrine of his deity. But victories obtained over God's people, when they are also triumphs over God himself, will in the end be found pregnant with disaster. Thus, when the Philistines took the ark captive, God glorified himself in a very remarkable manner. And, when he summons the nations to the overthrow of Babylon, one reason mentioned is, to take vengeance on her for what she had done to his temple. "Make bright the arrows; gather the shields; the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes; for his device is against Babylon to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple." In a subsequent chapter of the Book of Daniel, we shall meet again with these vessels, and see them prostituted, by an impious monarch, to bacchanalian purposes. Jerusalem was taken in the third year of Jehoiakim. We are not, however, to suppose that this was the end of his reign. Having humbled himself, and promised to pay tribute to the king of Babylon, he was restored to his throne, and reigned seven years. Having then rebelled a second time, Jerusalem was again taken, and he bound in chains, to be carried to Babylon, but died by the way. The final overthrow of Jerusalem did not take place till the eleventh year of Zedekiah's reign, about eighteen years after this period. When we consider that the sins of the Jewish people were so numerous, varied, and aggravated, and that they had been accumulating for ages, it might have been expected, that they would have suffered the seventy years of threatened captivity, from the time when the final stroke of vengeance came upon them, in the reign of Zedekiah. But, "for the sake of the elect, the days were shortened." The seventy years of the Babylonian captivity did not begin when the temple was destroyed, but when the vessels of the temple were taken away — not when the nation was removed, but when Daniel and a few others of noble birth were carried into Babylon. I. Nebuchadnezzar invested Jerusalem, and took it, by the union of his own skill, and the courage of his army, and yet it is here said, "the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand." From this, we may learn, that there is a twofold agency concerned in all the events that take place in this world, — the agency of man on the earth, and the agency of God in the heavens. This twofold agency, however, is not co-ordinate. God and man are not possessed of equal efficiency in the production of events, Nebuchadnezzar besieges Jerusalem, but it is the Lord who gives Jehoiakim into his hand. Jehovah is the God of gods, and the King of kings, the First Cause of all events, as well as the First Cause of all beings. Men may form their plans, and gratify their passions, with the most entire freedom from all control, and yet they will only do "what God determined before to be done." This is the fundamental truth of religion, whether natural or revealed; the denial of which shows as great a lack of philosophy, as of piety. If the material, or intelligent, creation, was in any respect independent of God, this would sap every rational ground of confidence and composure. I know few duties more necessary to be inculcated, than this, of connecting outward events with the Divine government. Jehovah is, to a great extent, practically deposed from his throne of providence. Even many who profess to believe in his supremacy, "put a reed into his hand for a sceptre." Speculations on the state of the world too generally overlook the influence of God in the affairs that are occurring. In contemplating the world and its affairs, we should beware of looking only to the hand of man. Let us look beyond the creature, to the Creator. II. The political causes, that led to the overthrow of Jerusalem, are apparent to all. These causes are not stated in the Book of Daniel. They are, however, fully developed in the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. In mentioning irreligion, as the radical cause of God's controversy with Judea, it is unnecessary to produce proofs of the assertion from Scripture. While the outward forms remained, there was such a want of true godliness, that Jehovah loathed and abhorred his own ordinances. And, when a people cease to fear God, or decline in this, their national character will begin to lower. They will cease to be distinguished for those loftier sentiments, which have their origin in the more strictly spiritual department of human nature, and which, more than anything else, tend to cherish wisdom, courage, genius, and patriotism. When the religious feeling of a country begins to decline, it will be marked by a growing disregard for God's holy day. Sabbath desecration is placed prominently among the causes of God's wrath against Judah. Religion is the parent and the nurse of all genuine morality. As might have been expected, from the low state of religion, we find the prevalence of immorality stated as one cause of this calamity that came upon Judea. "Run ye," said God to Jeremiah, "to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it "( Jeremiah 5:1-6 ). Zephaniah in like manner represents the corruption of manners as extending to all classes. "Her princes within her," says he, "are roaring lions, her judges are ravening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow. Her prophets are light and treacherous persons; her priests have polluted the sanctuary and done violence to the law." There are some sins particularized by all the prophets. Among these none is mentioned more frequently than deceit. With the prevalence of this the prophet Jeremiah was so affected, that at the beginning of the ninth chapter of his book, he breaks forth in these heart-rending strains, "O that mine head were waters," etc. ( Jeremiah 9:1-8 ). Covetousness is specified as another sin ( Jeremiah 6:12, 13 ). Covetousness is represented as producing fraudulent dealing, and corrupting the sources of justice, because of which the Lord was displeased ( Micah 6:10, 11 ). Pride and luxury are also mentioned ( Isaiah 3:16-24 ). The prevalence of immorality, and particularly, the prevalence of deceit, covetousness, and luxury, may, generally, be considered as symptomatic of the last stage of nations. These operate disastrously in two ways. First, They expose to danger, because they are offensive to God. Secondly, They operate, naturally, to produce a dissolution of the social body. Luxury has the same influence on the social health, that an Asiatic climate has upon an European frame; it enervates and debilitates, and causes premature decay, and death. And deceit is like a secret poison, pent up within the bowels of the empire, and gliding fatally, yet imperceptibly, through its veins. And covetousness is like a vulture preying on a diseased and disabled victim, while its blood is still warm, and its breath has not gone forth. And general immorality is like begun mortification, a disease that has no successor in the list of maladies. Irreligion and immorality, when combined, never fail to produce a bitter and malignant aversion to the cause of holiness and truth, and to their adherents. Before the overthrow of Jerusalem, the spirit of irreligion did not exist in a state of apathy. It was roused to great fierceness; it stood forth in the form of malignant contumacy, and defiance against the Lord. His warnings were rejected, his denunciations were scorned, his prophets were persecuted. III. We shall only mention two things illustrative of the circumstances in which the captivity came. 1. The overthrow of the Jewish state came gradually. Manasseh was first carried captive, then Josiah was slain in battle, Jerusalem was then taken four times by the enemy, twice in the days of Jehoiakim, again in the days of his son, and finally in the reign of Zedekiah. From this we may learn, that national destruction is sometimes a gradual thing. It comes in successive shocks, some at a greater interval, and others at a lesser interval. We are not to suppose, because the sins mentioned prevail in any land, that it shall be instantly overthrown. It is with nations as with individuals, — the impenitent person shall perish, but God may spare him to a good old age. Caution is, therefore, necessary, lest we should commit the honour of Christianity, as good men have often done, by denouncing judgment as certainly at hand. Sin will assuredly Bring it; but the times and the seasons are in the Father's hands. 2. A second thing very observable is, that before each of these successive shocks of national disaster, God made use of means to promote the reformation of the country. Before the calamities that came upon the land, in the days of Manasseh, godly Hezekiah, had endeavoured, during a lifetime, to promote a revival of true religion. The reign of Josiah immediately preceded this disaster in the days of Jehoiakim. In the interval between the death of Josiah and the destruction of the temple, they were warned by divinely-commissioned prophets. Among others, God employed Jeremiah, a man in whose character, zeal for God was finely united with tenderness to man. And it has been God's ordinary way, to use means for reforming nations, before their overthrow. The flood came and swept away the ungodly world, but did not God give them warning? Nineveh was not overthrown till she was called to repentance by the ministry of Jonah. If God's government be a moral government, then moral evil must be the cause of all physical sufferings, and of all political difficulties. Moral evil is the crime, the political evil is the punishment. Moral evil is the disease, political evil is but the symptom. ( William White. ) The Judean Captives John Taylor., The Southern Pulpit. I. INTRODUCTORY. Nebuchadnezzar is called king, but he was not yet the reigning sovereign of Babylon. He shared the throne in conjunction with his father Nabopolassar. His accession to the sole sovereignty was some two or three years later (compare chapter 1, verse 5, with verse 18, and chapter 2, verse 1). This captivity is here said to have taken place during the third year of Jehoiakim, while Jeremiah ( Jeremiah 25:1 ) places it in the fourth . Both statements are true. Daniel reckons the three completed years. Jeremiah the fourth upon which Jehoiakim had just entered. There were three deportations of the Jews in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar; this — the first — in , a second in , and the third when Jerusalem was destroyed in This captivity appears to consist of nothing more than a number of hostages carried to Babylon, among whom was Daniel and his three friends, whose history, more particularly of the first, is given in this book. II. THE CAPTIVES. 1. They were of noble birth. They were selected of the king's seed and of the princes. Daniel himself was probably of the blood-royal, as we learn in 1 Chronicles 3:1 , that David had a son of that name. Josephus says he was the son of Zedekiah. It was a sad day at Jerusalem when the most promising of the young nobility, in whom the hopes of the nation were centred, were carried away captive to Babylon. 2. They were distinguished by personal beauty. The orientals connected a handsome form with mental power. This, alas! is not always true. Neither spirituality nor intellect appears to be partial to beautiful tenements; but sometimes the purest gem is found in the commonest setting. When , now an elderly man, becomes acquainted with Charmides, the loveliest youth in Athens, he is so deeply touched by the charms of this paragon that at first he knows not what to say. Recovering his self-possession, however, the sage speaks worthily of himself, telling Charmides that the fairest form needs one addition to make the man perfect — a noble soul . History makes it more than doubtful whether the, Grecian did not fail here; but about the Jewish youth there is no doubt whatever. ( John Taylor. The Jewish traditions represent Daniel as a tall, spare man, with a beautiful expression. 3. They were intelligent and well instructed. They are represented as "skilful in wisdom," "cunning in knowledge," and "understanding science": by which is probably meant that they had been well taught in the knowledge of their day and had discovered an aptitude for deep studies. The Babylonian king designed to induct them into all the lore of the Chaldeans, in order to wean them away from the worship of God and make them subverters of Israel's national faith. If, therefore, they should be the future prophets of heathenism to their own people, it was necessary that they should be skilful and wise; and if he, indeed, had any such ulterior designs, it must be confessed he chose his instruments well. But there was an element in their previous training which he either overlooked or held too cheaply. If a Jewish youth was taught in science and earthly knowledge, he was yet far better instructed in the truths of his religion. Nebuchadnezzar will find it difficult to eradicate this deeply-planted faith; and the issue will show that, with four of them at least, he makes lamentable failure. 4. They were very young. But God can strengthen the hearts of the young and make the mouths of babes and sucklings to render him praise. Doubtless many a mother, parting with her offspring and sending them forth into life, or to the temptations of collegiate halls, can find comfort in this reflection. III. THE PROSPECTS OF THESE CAPTIVES. Considered from a world-standpoint there were two sides to their future. There were elements of deep sorrow, and elements which might be regarded by some as mitigations of their lot. 1. They were exiles. This word is enough to excite our sympathies. So long as the sentiment of patriots remains, exile will be among the saddest of words. But chiefly to the Jew was exile a bitter misfortune. Not only patriotic sentiments, but religious, contributed to darken the life of one who was borne away from his loved Jerusalem, where stood that Holy Temple in its glorious beauty, the visible centre of the worship of Jehovah. Some of the psalms of the captivity reveal the depth of this great sorrow to a Jew, particularly that beautiful song: "By the rivers of Babylon" ( Psalm 137 ). 2. They were cut off from hope of posterity. They were significantly given into the care of the "prince of the eunuchs," and the ordinary practice of oriental courts leaves us little doubt of their fate. This, moreover, had been prophesied ( 2 Kings 20:18 ). 3. They were to be taught all the wisdom of the Chaldeans. No doubt much of the Chaldaic learning was valueless, but it is undeniable that they cultivated many useful arts and sciences. Daniel and his friends would learn new languages unfolding to them new literature. They would be trained in arts of divination by which they could obtain power over kings, and princes, and the common people. They would be taught the science of astronomy, which at that day the Chaldeans had carried beyond any people. They would be educated in the science of politics, rendering them necessary to rulers as advisers. All this knowledge would of itself give them caste among this new people, would elevate them to position and power. 4. They were to occupy honourable positions in the court of the king. This opens up many prospects which might fire the ambitions of youth. We can well imagine, then, that if these had been godless youths this prospect of power, stimulating their ambitions, might have suited to offset the horrors of exile; yet we may be sure that there was not one of them who would not have given all the wealth and splendour of Nebuchadnezzar's court for one brief day on the hills of Judea, among the comrades of their childhood. IV. A LESSON. The prince, their keeper, shall endeavour to make of these Jewish captives, Chaldean sages, and he begins this endeavour by changing their names. These four are named for the four chief deities of Babylon. Bel — the Chief-god, the Sun-god, the Earth-god, and the Fire-god. To render this change of character and religion complete all their external relations are correspondingly changed, and a whole new set of influences are brought to bear upon them. And yet, change what they would, they could not reach the heart. It is beyond man's power to do that. How powerless man stands before the spirit of his fellows! ( The Southern Pulpit. ) Affairs in Judea W A. Scott, D.D. From 2 Kings 23:34-36 , we learn that Jehoiakim was raised to the throne of Judah by Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt. He continued tributary to Egypt three years, but in his fourth year, which was the first year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, a great battle was fought near the Euphrates between the Egyptian and Babylonian kings, and the Egyptian army was defeated. This victory placed all Syria under the Chaldean government; and thus Jehoiakim, who had been tributary to Egypt, now became a vassal of the King of Babylon. ( Jeremiah 25:1 , and Jeremiah 46:2; 2 Kings 24:1 ). After three years, the King of Judah rebelled against the King of Babylon, who came against Jerusalem, and besieged and took it, as soon as his engagements with other wars allowed him to direct his attention to Jewish affairs. The land of Shinar was the ancient name of Babylon. ( W A. Scott, D.D. ) Children in whom was no blemish. Daniel 1:3, 4 Piety at Court C. S. Robinson, D.D. I. THE HISTORY OF DANIEL'S FIRST APPEARANCE. — 1. It is evident that this lad had come in with the others when Nebuchadnezzar led home his captives from the smoking ruins of Jerusalem. 2. Suddenly comes a summons for this young Hebrew to take a position at court (vers. 3-5). Nebuchadnezzar appears to have determined to bring forward into his service some of this captive race. Quite likely his reasons were these:(1) He desired to gain the advantage of outside talent; the long siege had taught him the stubbornness, gifts, and availability of the Jewish character.(2) He planned to propitiate the whole race by choosing some of their number for high office; while so strong an element of his population was in a sort of sullen opposition to his government, there was always danger around the throne.(3) He wished to add the strange power of their divine inspiration to such forces of magic as he held under his control now (ver. 20). 3. The group of companions thus strangely thrown together has enough of picturesqueness in it, if nothing else, to attract attention. Only three besides Daniel are mentioned by name, but there were others associated in the transaction. It is always a serious moment when any young man is summoned to come to the front. Good men are often found in the unlikeliest places, even in our day. II. THE DESCRIPTION OF DANIEL'S PERSONAL ENDOWMENTS (ver. 4). 1. For one thing, he was finely fashioned in figure and stature. This makes us think how the Israelites once admired Saul, the son of Kish, when he came to the throne; and how the same wayward people afterwards went into rebellion with Absalom, won by his height and his hair. 2. He was nobly born. These all were to be "of the king's seed, and of the princes," when the selection was made. Some say that Daniel was a descendant of Hezekiah, concerning whose Sons it was once predicted that they should reign in Babylon. We need not reason much concerning birth or rank, for God's choice of us is all we can wish." 3. He was liberally educated. That counts grandly in the career of each young man; for knowledge is power. The Israelites were not an intellectual race, as a whole; most of the people were farmers, and had flocks and fields; it was an agricultural nation, rather than a scientific. But Daniel had been taught to study, and had learned to think. 4. He was religiously trained. Those old Jews made thorough and honest work of this part of their duty. Here our golden text comes in with all its power: "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to Thy word." 5. He was studious in taste. There is an expression in the narrative which is very significant (ver. 20). We are told that when in consultation with these Hebrew advisers, the king found them ten times better than his magicians and astrologers; the original word is "hands"; they were ten hands above them in wisdom and understanding; they were, hand over hand, superior to them in common-sense and, intelligence. 6. He was eminent in the Divine favour (ver. 17.) The Lord. even then was giving help from heaven to this young man for his calling. III. THE TEMPTATION TO WHICH DANIEL WAS SUBJECTED (vers. 5-7). 1. The king's plan was this: he designed to swerve these men out from the straight lines of traditional fidelity and belief, and commit them to the orthodox religion of his own country.(1) He adroitly caused their Hebrew names to be changed; from suggesting Jehovah's worship and service, they suggested the following of false gods and profane policies.(2) He proposed a distinct political aggrandizement; these captive slaves were to be admitted at court as the peers of the realm.(3) He offered them free education; they were to be instructed in the Chaldean language and lore.(4) He furnished them full support gratis; he actually descended into details; he "appointed" the portion of provisions, and of the wine he himself was accustomed to drink. 2. But the implied condition was this: the whole thing was an adroit ruse and a snare. It made at least four distinct pledges for an alienation of all that these young Hebrews cherished.(1) They should surrender their religion;(2) They should drift away from their national speech, history, and hope;(3) They should take part with the traditional oppressors of their fathers;(4) Worst, and fatallest, of all, they should enter upon the service of a religion of idolatry. IV. THE EXPEDIENT OF ESCAPE WHICH DANIEL PROPOSED, (vers. 8-14). 1. Observe carefully what Daniel did not do. He did not decline the chance given him for conspicuous service. He only avoided the embarrassing conditions attached to it. He was willing to be useful, if so splendid an opportunity was offered him; but he would not peril his convictions, nor sacrifice his principles. No young man has any right to refuse an opening in life that is advantageous; he must just accept the gift which in the providence of God comes to him, and then consecrate it to the service of God and his fellow-men. 2. Observe the devoutness and trust of the piety these young Hebrews exhibited. 3. Finally, observe the superb success these young men achieved. The ten days passed; they were "fairer and fatter." But there were now three years more before they should come before the king; and still they trusted God.. "It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth." ( C. S. Robinson, D.D. ) Bible Biography W. A. Scott, D.D. 1. The narrative of striking facts and the delineation of celebrated characters, is perhaps, of all methods of instruction, the most effective. No one is ignorant of the power of example both for good and evil. Such is man's nature, that he is more guided by the practice of others than by his own reason. A child writes more easily after a copy than by rule. Men are prone to imitate whatever they see done, be it good or bad, emulating the one and aping the other. 2. Examples inform and impress the mind in a manner more compendious, easy, and pleasant than precepts or any other instrument or way of discipline. Precepts are abstract, naked, powerless — without a hold on either the fancy, sense, or memory; like the shadows of a passing cloud, too subtle to make any great impression, or leave any remarkable footsteps. But example comes home with irresistible power and strikes out its likeness. Precept is the man chiselled out, standing mute in the awful majesty of a statue of Praxiteles; example is the man with the life-speaking eye, the grace of living motion, and the lips parted with instructive lessons. The most successful professors of arts and sciences explain, illustrate, and confirm their general rules and precepts by particular examples. Mathematicians demonstrate their theorems by schemes and diagrams; orators back their enthymemes with inductions; philosophers urge the reason and nature of things, and then throw themselves aback on the practice of Socrates, Zeno, and such like personages. Politics are more easily and clearly drawn out of veritable history than out of books De Republica . Artificers describe models, and set patterns before their learners with greater success than if they merely delivered accurate rules and precepts to them. Nor is the ease at all different when these principles are applied to morals. Seneca says "that the crowd of philosophers which followed Socrates derived more of their ethics from his manners than his words." It is said of , the most learned man of his age, the author of a Hexapla — a man that employed seven amanuenses at once — "that he recommended religion more by his example than by all he wrote." One good example may represent more fully and clearly the nature of virtue than a thousand eloquent descriptions of it. Is it faith we have to acquire? Then we have but to look at Abraham. Is it wisdom, constancy, humility, and resolution? Behold Moses. Is it zeal, patience, perseverance, and piety? Then look at Peter, Paul, and John. 3. Good examples are powerful, because they persuade and incline us to follow them by plausible authority. In a word, examples incite our passions and impel us to duty. It is by reading and studying the lives of those who have distinguished themselves above the rest of mankind, that we may both amuse and instruct ourselves. History has, therefore, done well in immortalizing those men who have, by their talents or genius, or by their enterprise and benevolence, done much for the well-being of their fellow-men. Two important particulars are worthy of being mentioned here and remembered; namely, that the field is open to all, and that special Divine energy is promised to all that will trust in God, and walk in the way of his commandments. Circumstances aid great men, but do not make them. On the contrary, great men make circumstances. ( W. A. Scott, D.D. ) True Nobility J. R. Bailey. I. WHAT DO WE KNOW OF THE PERSONALITIES OF THESE YOUNG-MEN? 1. They appear to have been nobly born. At all events, if the instructions which Ashpenaz received were literally carried out, that must have been the case. Birth, however, is nothing if it be a man's sole claim upon the esteem of his fellows. 2. But Daniel and his friends were both noble and good, not only of the king's, seed but children of the living God. When one thinks of the temptations to which those of high rank are exposed, it would almost appear that a pious prince is one of the most admirable of men. Of old, man, for his sin, was doomed to labour for his bread in the sweat of his brow. But the curse has proved, in the good providence of God, the greatest boon which fallen man could have bestowed upon him. Let us think with prayerful sympathy of those perils of a life of leisure and temptation to which some by their birth are exposed, while we thank God for our own humbler, and, it may be, safer lot. 3. Then, further, we may gather from the text that the personal appearance of these four young nobles was attractive. They were "children in whom was no blemish, but well-favoured" ( Josephus , Ant. 10; 10, 1). The body, it is true, is only the house which the spirit inhabits. But while the tenant is of infinitely more importance than his dwelling, we have no right to despise either a goodly home or a comely body. If the whole man belongs to God, physical beauty is a gift which the fortunate possessor of it may use for the glory of Him who bestowed it. 4. But the beauty of these young Hebrews was not that of those who have only their faces and forms to recommend them. The powers of their minds were of no mean order (verse 17). Observe here that their knowledge and skill, their learning and wisdom, are directly traced to the hand of the Giver of all good. How apt we are, if we excel our fellows in the matter of intellectual ability, to become proud of our superiority! Ours! It is not ours; it is God's. Did you ever reflect that the mental ability with which a sceptic argues out his conclusions, with which even an atheist seeks to disprove the existence of God, is the glorious gift of God Himself, prostituted to ignoble uses, and turned in defiance against its Make

1:1-7 Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, took Jerusalem, and carried whom and what he pleased away. From this first captivity, most think the seventy years are to be dated. It is the interest of princes to employ wise men; and it is their wisdom to find out and train up such. Nebuchadnezzar ordered that these chosen youths should be taught. All their Hebrew names had something of God in them; but to make them forget the God of their fathers, the Guide of their youth, the heathen gave them names that savoured of idolatry. It is painful to reflect how often public education tends to corrupt the principles and morals. 1:8-16 The interest we think we make for ourselves, we must acknowledge to be God's gift. Daniel was still firm to his religion. Whatever they called him, he still held fast the spirit of an Israelite. These youths scrupled concerning the meat, lest it should be sinful. When God's people are in Babylon they need take special care that they partake not of her sins. It is much to the praise of young people, not to covet or seek the delights of sense. Those who would excel in wisdom and piety, must learn betimes to keep the body under. Daniel avoided defiling himself with sin; and we should more fear that than any outward trouble. It is easier to keep temptation at a distance, than to resist it when near. And we cannot better improve our interest in any with whom we have found favour, than to use it to keep us from sin. People will not believe the benefit of avoiding excess, and of a spare diet, nor how much they contribute to the health of the body, unless they try. Conscientious temperance will always do more, even for the comfort of this life, than sinful indulgence. 1:17-21 Daniel and his fellows kept to their religion; and God rewarded them with eminence in learning. Pious young persons should endeavour to do better than their fellows in useful things; not for the praise of man, but for the honour of the gospel, and that they may be qualified for usefulness. And it is well for a country, and for the honour of a prince, when he is able to judge who are best fitted to serve him, and prefers them on that account. Let young men steadily attend to this chapter; and let all remember that God will honour those who honour him, but those who despise him shall be lightly esteemed.