ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK OF
DANIEL
I. DANIEL THE INTERPRETER--Chapters 1-6
A. The Early Life of Daniel--1:1-21
1. The historical setting--vv. 1, 2
a. The siege of
Jerusalem--v. 1
(I)
Occurred about 605 B. C..
(II)
The parallel passages
(A) 2 Kings 24:1, 2
(B) 2 Chronicles 36:5-7
(III)
The reasons
(A) Forsaken the Law
(B) Ignored God's covenant
(C) Desecrated the Sabbath Day
(D) Did not observe the sabbatic year where the land was to
have a year's rest; the basis of the 70 years
of captivity
(E) Had gone into idolatry; several passages state this and
repeated warnings from prophets
(F) Having forsaken the Law, they went into immorality.
(IV)
The so-called problem
(A) The statement of the problem
(1) Verse 1 states that Nebuchadnezzar fought
against Jerusalem and captured it in the third year of
Jehoiakim’s reign.
(2) Jeremiah 25:1 states, "The word that came
to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah in the
fourth year of Jehoiakim
the son of Josiah king of Judah, that was the first year of
Nebuchadrezzar king of
Babylon."
(3) The critics jump on this supposed
discrepancy.
(B) The solution to the problem
(1) Remember Daniel was in Babylon and was using
its time designation.
(a) The Babylonians "considered
the first year of a king's reign as the year of accession and
to call
the next year
the first year." (Walvoord, 31)
(b) Keil, C. F. [Carl
Friederich], Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel.
Trans. M. G.
Easton.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978, 60) and some other commentators say that
there is no
such idea
in the Old Testament prior to this statement.
(c) "What Keil ignores is
that Daniel is a most unusual case because he of all the prophets was
the
only one
thoroughly instructed in Babylonian culture and pint of view." (Walvoord,
op. cit., 31)
(2) Another possibility, proposed by Leupold,
Herbert Carl, Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1947, 47-54) suggests
an battle a year earlier, c606 B. C. based on 2 Kings 24:1 (see
also Jeremiah 46:2).
(a) He assumes that the battle
at Carchemish in 605 B. C. when Nebuchadrezzar went against the
Egyptians
as per Jeremiah 46:2, could not be ignored by Nebuchadrezzar.
(b) This idea "is not actually
supported by the facts, as there is no evidence that the Egyptian armies
were in any
strength at Carchemish until just before the battle that resulted in the
showdown."
(Walvoord,
op. cit., 31).
(c) The discrepancy is easily
solved when one realizes that Daniel used one calendar (Babylonian)
while Jeremiah
use a different one (Judaic).
b. The carrying to
Babylon--v. 2
(I)
The simple statement is made that Jehoiakim was taken together with the vessels
of the tabernacle and
carried into the land of Shinar--a name for Babylon which
had unpleasant connotations.
(II)
The so-called problem
(A) The phrase he carried is used by the critics as an
inaccuracy, for they say that there is no evidence
that Daniel and the others were taken to Babylon
at this time.
(B) The phrase clearly refers to the vessels not the captives.
(C) "The obvious answer is that mention of carrying off
captives is unnecessary in the light of the context
of the following verses." (Walvoord, 32)
(D) The critics love to nitpick at every little thing, rather
than trying to expound faithfully the text.
2. The training of Jewish youths--vv.
3-7
a. The kind of
youth chosen--vv. 3, 4a
(I)
"The king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of the eunuchs"
(A) Some suggest that should be better rendered "commanded."
(1) Who spake here? "The king."
(2) When a king speaks he is commanding, so why
speak of a better translation?
(B) Who is Ashpenaz?
(1) The text states that he is "the master of
the eunuchs," that is, the one in charge of them.
(2) Why not simply take it to be his name rather
than trying to find some significance for it?
(3) Granted that names in the Old Testament had
significance.
(4) Young states that "its etymology is uncertain."
(Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1949, 39; quoted by Walvoord, 33)
(5) It is best left there.
(C) What about the eunuchs?
(1) Apparently this term was used of nobles
as well as those who were physically eunuchs.
(2) As far as is known, Daniel never married,
but this did not make him an eunuch physically.
(3) Verse 4, "in whom was no blemish," would
seem to preclude these Jewish youths having been
made eunuchs physically.
(II)
The nature of these youths described
(A) As already seen, there was no blemish (not even a pimple).
(B) Well favored
(1) They were in good physical condition.
(2) They were in excellent mental condition (see
(D) below).
(C) They were of Jewish nobility.
(1) "Children of Israel, and of the
king's seed [royalty], and of the princes."
(a) They were of the
tribe of Judah (and possibly Benjamin--cf. Joshua 18:11).
(b) They were of the
king's seed, thus of the royal family.
(c) They were of the
princes, thus the nobility.
(d) It would suggest that
there were three groups (which this writer takes it to be), although it
could
be construed
as three different designations of the same group.
(2) The problem
(a) Only so because of the
critics
(b) The words "the princes"
is a Persian word; so the critics take it to show a late date for Daniel.
(c) One must keep in mind
that Daniel lived into the Persian era and thus the use of a Persian
word
would be
completely legitimate.
(D) Their mental condition
(1) Skilled in ALL wisdom
(2) Cunning in knowledge
(3) Understand science
(a) Not, of course,
science in the modern sense
(b) Might refer to having
an understanding of physical facts which are now known
(4) Were of such character and ability
as to be able to stand before the king.
(E) Walvoord's conclusion (Walvoord, 34) is pertinent here,
"their total physical, personal, and
intellectual capacities as well as their cultural
background were factors in the choice."
b. The nature of the
training of the chosen youth--v. 4b
(I)
Taught the language of the Chaldeans
(II)
Taught the learning of the Chaldeans
(III)
"Their training, however, was to separate them from their previous Jewish
culture and environment . . ."
(Ibid.)
(IV)
The term "Chaldeans" could refer the people as a whole or to the learned
men of the day (Daniel 2:2
suggests this idea, but that does not exclude the other.).
(V)
It is generally conceded that these youth were teenagers.
c. The provision for
these youth--v. 5
(I)
It was daily.
(II)
It was from the king's table.
(A) His meat--offered to idols
(B) His wine
(1) Probably fermented
(2) Possibly also offered to idols
(III)
The provision was for the three years of their education.
d. The four prominent
Jewish youth--v. 6, 7
(I)
Daniel
(A) The most prominent
(B) Name means "God is judge" or "God has judged."
(C) Named Belteshazzar by the prince (same as the master in
verse 3)of the eunuchs
(1) Doubtlessly to separate them further from
their Jewishness
(2) Name meant "May Bel protect his life." (NOTE:
Bel was a Babylonian god.)
(D) As shown to be the author of this book
(II)
The three Hebrew youth who eventually went into the fiery furnace (also named
by the prince of the
eunuchs)
(A) Hananiah, named "Shadrach"
(1) Name meant "Jehovah is gracious."
(2) His changed name meant "command of Aku"
(Aku was the moon-god.).
(B) Mishael, named "Meshach"
(1) His name meant "Who is He that is God?"
(2) His new name "Who is what Aku is?"
(C) Azariah, named "Abednego"
(1) Name meant "the Lord helps."
(2) New name, "servant of Nebo" (Nebo was
the son of Bel.)
3. The test of the Hebrew
youths--vv.8-16
a. The purpose of
Daniel--vv.8-10
(I)
His purpose was not to defile himself.
(A) Verse 8 is the key verse--"He purposed in his heart." (NOTE:
when your heart is right with God, you
will do what is right.)
(B) These youths were confronted with the conflict between their
faith in God as demonstrated in the
keeping of the Law and the idolatrous provision
of the king.
(1) "The food provided did not meet the requirements
of the Mosaic law in that it was not prepared
according to regulations
and may have included meat from forbidden animals." (Walvoord, 37)
(2) Though no prohibition was in the Law against
drinking wine, as noted earlier it--as well as the
meat--had been offered to
idols.
(3) This was, then, a test of their
faithfulness to God's word as set forth in the Law of Moses.
(C) Daniel respectfully "requested of the prince of the
eunuchs that he might not defile himself."
(D) The prince was favorably disposed to Daniel--v. 9
(1) Some think that the KJV implies that this
favor came about prior to the request, whereas it should
be at the time of the
request.
(a) Here again, this writer
finds undue criticism of the Authorized Version.
(b) He does not see this
implication, but if it is there, it really makes little difference
whether Daniel
was favored
prior to the request or at the time of it.
(2) The term "tender love" is the Hebrew word
rahamin, which is a plural word that carries the idea of
deep sympathy.
(3) Here we have God's provision for Daniel and
friends even before the request; how like our God!
(E) The prince of the eunuchs expresses his concern.
(1) "I fear my lord the king."
(a) This was not idle talk.
(b) He could lose his head
if the king's instructions were not followed.
(2) If he did allow this and they looked
worse for it, the king would have his head.
b. The request of
Daniel for a test--vv. 11-13
(I)
Daniel appeals to his immediate superior; the chief of the eunuchs
had set this warden over the four of
them.--v. 11
(II)
This warden was called Melzar.
(A) Here again it is questioned as to whether this was his name
or his position.
(B) The term is Hamelsar; the ha is like our definite
article; thus this would tend to make it his position,
namely, "the steward."
(C) Here again, however, in the nitpicking that often goes on
between the KJV and the so-called modern
versions.
(D) The main problem here is that the LXX renders this section
that indicates that Daniel spoke to the
chief of the eunuchs.
(1) The critics, of course, grab at this
to question the genuineness of this text.
(2) After quoting Montgomery, Walvoord (40) states,
"The chief steward, not being in as close or
responsible a position as
the prince of the eunuchs in relation to the king, could afford to
take a
chance."
(III)
The proposed test--vv. 12, 13
(A) Daniel requests a test for ten days.
(1) This was a reasonable length of
time.
(2) Such a short time would not risk the wrath
of the king.
(B) He suggests a diet.
(1) Pulse
(a) This would cover a large
group of vegetables, and would not be limited to peas and beans.
(b) It would include fruit
such as apples, etc.
(2) Water
(C) This passage is not a justification for vegetarianism.
(1) The key to this matter is verse 8--”He
purposed in his heart.”
(2) Daniel and friends had hearts attuned to
God.
(3) Therefore, this diet could be followed to
the glory of God.
(4) The issue was not the diet per se, but rather
obedience to God's word.
c. The granting of
Daniel's request--vv. 14-16
(I)
Melzar consented to the test--v. 14
(II)
The results of the test were examined--v. 15
(A) At the end of the ten-day test, Daniel and friends
were better in their appearance than the others.
(B) They were actually fatter in their flesh.
(III)
Melzar then prescribed the same diet for all the eunuchs.--v. 16
(A) Thus, their diet was continued.
(B) Reading between the lines, this writer can surmise that
the other eunuchs were not too happy about the
change in their rich diet.
4. The examination of Daniel and
his friends--vv. 17-21
a. The source of
their skill--v. 17
(I)
This section serves as a close to these Hebrew youths three year training.
(II)
The text plainly states that "God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning
and wisdom."
(A) The training was in the Chaldean school.
(B) "Here the grace of God operated, however, in giving
them understanding so they could distinguish
between the true and the false." (Walvoord, 41)
(C) This writer experienced somewhat that same grace in
college.
(III)
Daniel was also given understanding of visions and dreams.
b. The test before
the king--vv. 18-20
(I)
The close of their training is stated.--v 18a.
(II)
They were brought before the king--v. 18b
(III)
King Nebuchadrezzar questions Daniel and his three friends--vv. 19, 20
(A) He "talked with those four boys and found they were geniuses
and so he gave them good positions in
his kingdom." (J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible
with J. Vernon McGee. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, c1982; III:532)
(B) There are those who criticize verses 20 (together with 21),
saying that the phrase "ten times better than
all the magicians and astrologers that were in
all his realm." belong at the end of chapter 2.
(1) They reason that if these four so good,
the king would have consulted them immediately concerning
his dream in chapter 2.
(2) This is just another example of unbelief
in the text as it is.
(3) "There is no indication in chapter 1 that
they were immediately given the rank of chief wise men."
(Walvoord, 43)
(IV)
The continuance of Daniel until the first year of King Cyrus--v.
21
(A) Critics again grab this statement as an inaccuracy because
Daniel 10:1 states that Daniel received a
revelation in the third year of King
Cyrus.
(B) As Walvoord (42) so aptly points out, this "is much ado
about nothing."
(C) "Obviously to Daniel, the important point was that his ministry
spanned the entire Babylonian empire,
and he was still alive when Cyrus came on the
scene." (Ibid.)
(D) Just because it states the first year of Cyrus does
not imply that he did not continue past that.
(E) "The narrative as it stands in beautifully complete--an
eloquent testimony to the power and grace of
God in a dark hour of Israel's history
when the faithfulness of Daniel and his companions shines all the
brighter because it is in a context of
Israel's captivity and apostasy. In every age, God is looking
for
those whom He can use." (Walvoord, 43)