Chapter 1

1 Jehoiakim’s captivity. 3 Ashpenaz taketh Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. 8 They refusing the king’s portion do prosper with pulse and water. 17 Their excellency in wisdom.

1. The third year. On the basis of Biblical synchronisms that correlate the reigns of several kings of Judah with that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose Babylonian regnal years have been astronomically established, Jehoiakim’s 3d regnal year lasted, by the Jewish calendar, from the autumn of 606 to the autumn of 605 b.c. (see Vol. II, p. 160; Vol. III, p. 91). Hence the events recorded in this and the following verse must have taken place sometime during the Jewish civil year that began in the fall of 606 and ended in the fall of 605 b.c. Before the ancient systems of regnal reckonings were understood, this verse presented commentators with a seemingly insuperable problem because of the apparent contradiction with Jer. 25:1. As a result of modern archeological discoveries all historical and chronological difficulties on this point have vanished, and the evidence provides a completely harmonious pattern (see p. 747). The integrity of the Sacred Record has once more been vindicated (see p. 746).

Jehoiakim was the second son of Josiah. When Josiah lost his life at Megiddo the people made Jehoahaz, fourth son of Josiah (see on 1 Chron. 3:15), king in his father’s stead. After Jehoahaz had reigned for a period of three months Necho of Egypt, during that summer’s Mesopotamian campaign, deposed him and placed Jehoiakim on the throne (2 Kings 23:29–34). The new ruler of Judah, whose name was changed by the Egyptian king from Eliakim, “My God raises up,” to Jehoiakim, “Jehovah raises up,” was forced to pay a heavy tribute to Egypt (2 Kings 23:34, 35), but seems to have been content to be loyal to his Egyptian overlord.

Nebuchadnezzar. Heb. NebukadneХs\s\ar, the common Hebrew transliteration of the Babylonian NabuЖРkudurriРus\ur, meaning “May [the god] NabuЖ protect the son,” or “May NabuЖ protect my borderstone.” The form NebukadneХs\s\ar (Nebuchadnezzar) occurs more frequently in the Hebrew Bible than the more correct spelling NebukadreХs\s\ar (Nebuchadrezzar) (see Jer. 21:2; Eze. 26:7; etc.). The Greek sources show the same interchange of n and r. The LXX spells the name Nabouchodonosor; but it is spelled Nabokodrosoros in Strabo’s works and as a variant in Josephus.

Nebuchadnezzar’s presence in Palestine in the early summer of 605 b.c., as Dan. 1:1 indicates, is confirmed by two Babylonian accounts: (1) a narrative by the historian Berosus, whose lost work has been quoted on this event by Josephus in his Against Apion (1.19); and (2) a portion of a hitherto unknown Babylonian chronicle (D. J. Wiseman, editor, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings, 1956), which covers the entire reign of Nabopolassar and the first eleven years of his son Nebuchadnezzar.

Berosus, as Josephus quotes him, relates that Nebuchadnezzar was ordered by his father Nabopolassar to quench a rebellion in Egypt, Phoenicia, and Coele-Syria. Having completed his mission but still being in the west, he received word of his father’s death. Leaving the captives—among whom Jews are mentioned—in the hands of his generals, he hurried back to Babylon by the short desert route as quickly as possible. This haste was doubtless due to a desire to prevent any usurper from taking the throne. Berosus says that Nebuchadnezzar left Jewish captives with his generals when he hurriedly returned to Babylon. Daniel and his friends must have been among these captives. The statement of Dan. 1:1, 2 and that of Berosus were the only known ancient records that spoke of this campaign of Nebuchadnezzar until the discovery of this chronicle, a year-by-year account yielding for the first time exact dates for the accession and death of Nabopolassar, the accession of Nebuchadnezzar, and the capture of a king of Judah, obviously Jehoiachin, eight years later (it also places the death of Josiah in 609 and the battle of Carchemish in 605).

Previously the accession of Nebuchadnezzar had been dated approximately to August, 605, by the date lines of clay-tablet business documents from Babylonia (see Vol. III, pp. 86, 87), since the last from Nabopolassar’s year 21 bore a date corresponding to August 8, and the first from the new reign (not counting one assigned formerly to July–August but now to October) was written in September.

But the chronicle gives the very day. It tells how, in his father’s 21st year, Nebuchadnezzar decisively defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish and subdued Hattiland (Syria-Palestine); then, on hearing of his father’s death on Ab 8 (approximately August 15) he hurried to Babylon and ascended the throne on Elul 1 (approximately September 7). Later in his accession year and again in his year 1 (which began in spring, 604) he returned to the west and received tribute from the subject kings.

This explains how Daniel could be taken captive in the 3d year of Jehoiakim, the year preceding the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar (see p. 747).

King of Babylon. When Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s 3d year, a few weeks or, at the most, a few months before his father’s death, he was not yet king. But Daniel, recording these events, probably in the 1st year of Cyrus (v. 21), some 70 years after the events described had taken place, calls Nebuchadnezzar “king of Babylon.” When Daniel arrived at Babylon as a young captive, Nebuchadnezzar was already king. From then on he saw Nebuchadnezzar reigning for 43 years. Hence, it seems quite natural that Daniel would call him “king.” It is also possible, but hardly likely, that Daniel was taken during the short interval between Nabopolassar’s death and Nebuchadnezzar’s return to Babylon.

2. Part of the vessels. Nebuchadnezzar doubtless took the most valuable and finest Temple vessels for use in the service of his god Marduk. He naturally left no more than were absolutely necessary to carry on the daily ritual in the Temple at Jerusalem. There were three occasions on which the Chaldeans carried away sacred vessels to Babylon: (1) in the campaign recorded in this passage, (2) when Jerusalem was taken at the close of Jehoiachin’s reign in 597 b.c. (2 Kings 24:13), and (3) at the end of the reign of Zedekiah, when, in 586 b.c. after a long siege, Jerusalem was taken and destroyed (2 Kings 25:8–15). The spoiling of Jerusalem’s treasures by the Babylonian forces was the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy pronounced almost a century earlier (Isa. 39:6). On the fate of the ark see on Jer. 37:10.

Land of Shinar. Earlier commentators identified this term with maЖt SumeЖri, “the land of Sumer,” or southern Babylonia, but this interpretation has now been generally discarded. In most of the OT references Shinar is simply a term for Babylonia. The origin of the word “Shinar” is still obscure (see on Gen. 10:10). However, in Gen. 14:1, 9, Shinar seems to be the name of an area in northern Mesopotamia called SanhЙar in cuneiform texts. As in Gen. 11:2, Isa. 11:11, and Zech. 5:11, the Shinar mentioned in Daniel is definitely Babylonia.

His god. The chief god of the Babylonians was Marduk, who, since the time of the First Dynasty, more than a thousand years earlier, had popularly been called BeЖl, “lord.” His main temple, called Esagila, in the court of which stood the great temple tower, Etemenanki, was in the heart of Babylon (see Additional Note on Chapter 4; see also map p. 796).

Treasure house. Babylonian cuneiform documents frequently mention the treasures of Esagila, the great temple of Marduk. Which of the many auxiliary buildings belonging to that temple complex might have housed these treasures is not known. However, a treasure house of a secular nature has been excavated within the palace compound. Excavators have called this building the Palace Museum because they found there many sculptures and inscriptions collected from conquered cities. As in a modern museum, objects from different parts of the empire were also exhibited. Though the building was open to the public, admission was prohibited to “evil people,” according to a contemporary inscription. It is not impossible that many treasures from Jerusalem, especially such as came from the royal treasury, were housed in this Palace Museum and were viewed by many visitors.

3. Ashpenaz. A name appearing in the cuneiform texts from Nippur of the 5th century in the slightly different form Ashpazanda, but in Aramaic incantation texts, also from Nippur, in the form Aspenaz. Though the meaning is still obscure the name has been thought to indicate Persian origin. It is possible that this high officer was a Persian. Many foreigners won rank and honor in the service of the Chaldeans.

Master of his eunuchs. The Hebrew title rabРsaris, “chief eunuch,” appears also in an Aramaic text written in 682 b.c. In Babylonian inscriptions we find as its equivalent the title rab sha reµshi, literally, “the chief of the one on the head [of the king].” The title was applied to the royal confidant.

It has frequently been debated whether the term saris was used to designate only officers who were eunuchs in the literal, physical sense of the word, that is, castrated, or whether saris was used in a general way for any type of royal officer. A clear-cut answer to this question cannot be given. However, Assyrian pictorial representations of court life indicate clearly, by showing a distinction of facial features, such as the absence or presence of beards, that the king was surrounded by officers who were literal eunuchs as well as by those who were not. They indicate furthermore that the literal eunuchs seem to have been in the majority. Some of the greatest men in Assyrian history belonged to this class, as, for example, DaiaЖnРAshshur, the grand vizier of Shalmaneser III, along with many military commanders and other high officers. Isaiah prophesied that some of Hezekiah’s descendants would become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon (Isa. 39:7). Some commentators have held that Daniel and his three companions were included in this prophecy.

Israel. After the destruction of Samaria in 723/722 b.c., when the ten northern tribes ceased to exist as a separate nation, the kingdom of Judah remained the sole representative of the descendants of Jacob or Israel. Hence, the name Israel is frequently employed during the Exile and in the postexilic period to designate the representatives of the southern kingdom (see Eze. 14:1; 17:2; etc.; Ezra 3:1, 11; etc.).

King’s seed. When Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem in 605 b.c. he took hostages from the royal house of Judah as well as from the first families of that unhappy country. It was an old custom of conquerors to carry away princely hostages to guarantee the loyalty of the conquered foe. Such a practice is reported in the annals of Thutmose III of Egypt, who, after defeating an alliance of Syrian and Palestinian rulers at the battle of Megiddo in the 15th century b.c., allowed the defeated kings to retain their thrones, but carried to Egypt one prince from each of his defeated enemies. In Egypt they were educated in the Egyptian way of life, and when one of the satellite kings of Palestine or Syria died, one of the deceased’s sons, educated in Egypt and friendly to the Pharaoh, was put on the vacant throne.

Princes. Heb. partemim, a loan word from Old Persian fratama, “nobles,” basically meaning “foremost.” Partemim occurs elsewhere in the Bible only in Esther (chs. 1:3; 6:9). The presence of this and other Persian loan words in Daniel can easily be accounted for on the reasonable assumption that the first chapter of Daniel was written in the 1st year of Cyrus, when Persian influence had become strong (see Dan. 1:21).

4. Children. Heb. yeladim, here designating a word covering a much wider range of age than the English word “children.” Here it designates “youth,” “young men.” The young counselors who had been brought up with King Rehoboam are called yeladim (1 Kings 12:8). The word is translated “young men” (KJV) because it is obvious that they were not children in the English sense of the word. The same term is applied to Benjamin at about the age of 30, shortly before he went down to Egypt, and when he was the father of 10 sons (Gen. 44:20; cf. ch. 46:21). Hence it is not strange to see the word for “children” applied to youth, of whom one at least, Daniel, had reached the age of 18 years (4T 570). It is worth noticing in this connection that Xenophon, speaking of a later time, says that no young men could enter the service of the Persian kings before they had attained their 17th year (Cyropaedia i. 2).

No blemish. Physical soundness and a handsome form were considered indispensable to officers of high rank among the ancient Orientals, and are considered highly desirable qualities in the modern East.

Chaldeans. This term (Akkadian, Kaldu) designates the members of an Aramaean tribe whose early settlement was in Lower Mesopotamia and who had taken over the rulership of Babylonia when Nabopolassar founded the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. The term applies also to a class of scholars at the Babylonian court who were the foremost astronomers of their day. These scholars were equally proficient in other exact sciences, such as mathematics, although they included magic and astrology in their activities. Commentators have been divided in their interpretation of the phrase “learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” The older view, found among the church Fathers, sees in the phrase a study of Aramaic language and literature, while many modern commentators are inclined to interpret it as meaning the combined scientific and linguistic knowledge of the Chaldeans. All known scientific writings of that time were inscribed on clay tablets in cuneiform script in the Babylonian language. It must therefore be concluded that “the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans” included a thorough training in the classical language and script of the country—that is, in the Babylonian language and in cuneiform writing—in addition to colloquial Aramaic. Since proficiency in the cuneiform script, with its hundreds of characters, was not easy to acquire, a good educational background, a natural ability to learn easily, and the gift of picking up a new language readily would be deemed desirable prerequisites for acceptance into the royal school for future courtiers (see PK 480).

5. Appointed. Being members of the royal school for courtiers, the youth were given rations from the royal household. The custom is attested in the later Persian period, for which time we have more contemporary records than for the Neo-Babylonian period.

Provision of … meat. Heb. pathbag, a loan word from the Old Persian patibaga, “portion,” or “delicacies.” For the use of such loan words see on v. 3. Pathbag occurs 6 times in Daniel (chs. 1:5, 8, 13, 15, 16; 11:26).

Three years. That is, by inclusive reckoning (see Vol. II, pp. 136, 137), from the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Daniel was taken captive (see on v. 1), to the 2d year of the king’s reign (see on v. 18).

6. Among these. This expression shows that other young men were selected for training in addition to the four mentioned by name. These four are doubtless mentioned because of the uniqueness of their experience. Their unwavering loyalty to God earned for them great rewards in worldly honor and spiritual blessing (see chs. 2:49; 3:30; 6:2; 10:11).

Daniel. Meaning, “God is my judge.” In the OT the name appears first as that of one of David’s sons (1 Chron. 3:1), and then as the name of a priest in the 5th century (Ezra 8:2; Neh. 10:6). However, the name was already known in Ugarit (Ras Shamrah) in the middle of the second millennium b.c. as that of a legendary, righteous king, whom some scholars have erroneously identified with the Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel (see Eze. 14:14; 28:3). That the name Daniel was very common among Semitic people is evident from the fact that it is found among the Babylonians, the South Arabic Sabeans, as well as among the Nabataeans—the successors of the Edomites—and among the Palmyrenes of northern Arabia.

Hananiah. Meaning, “Yahweh is gracious.” Hananiah was a common Hebrew name borne by at least 14 different individuals mentioned in the OT. The name is also found in the Akkadian transliteration, Hananiyama, as that of a Jew living in Nippur in the 5th century. On another cuneiform document from Nippur the name is scratched in clay in Aramaic characters. It is also found in later Jewish inscriptions, and in the Aramaic papyri from Elephantine.

Mishael. Meaning probably, “who belongs to God?” The name was borne by several Biblical characters before and after the Exile (see Ex. 6:22; Neh. 8:4).

Azariah. Meaning, “Yahweh helps.” The name appears frequently in the Bible. Outside of the Bible it is found incised on jar handles excavated in Palestine, and is found also in cuneiform sources in the form Azriau.

7. Gave names. The new names given to the Hebrew youth signified their adoption into the Babylonian court, a custom that has several parallels in Biblical history. Joseph received an Egyptian name when entering court life in Egypt (Gen. 41:45), and Hadassah’s name was changed to Esther (Esther 2:7), probably when she became queen. This custom is also attested among the Babylonians from ancient sources. The Assyrian king Tiglathpileser III adopted the name Pulu (Biblical Pul) when he became king of Babylon (see on 1 Chron. 5:26; see Vol. II, pp. 156, 157), and Shalmaneser V seems to have borne the name Ululai in the same office.

Belteshazzar. The Hebrew and Aramaic transliteration, representing the later, Masoretic pronunciation of a Babylonian name. Though scholars have proposed various identifications with Babylonian forms, none is entirely satisfactory. In view of Nebuchadnezzar’s remark made many years later, that Daniel’s Babylonian name had been given “according to the name of my god” (ch. 4:8), it appears evident that the first syllable, “Bel,” refers to Bel, the popular name of Babylon’s chief god, Marduk. For this reason the identification with either BalaЖt\РsharriРus\ur, “protect the life of the king,” or BalaЖt\suРus\ur, “protect his life,” must be rejected, although both interpretations have found strong support among Assyriologists as the closest equivalent to the Hebrew form. R. D. Wilson’s suggestion, of identifying Belteshazzar with BeЖlРlit\РsharРus\ur, “Bel, protect the hostage of the king,” can hardly be correct, inasmuch as it is highly unlikely that the Babylonians would have given such a name to a captive, as we would judge from the thousands of Babylonian names found in cuneiform documents. The best identification seems still to be that given by Delitzsch, namely, that of seeing in this name an abbreviation of BeЖlРbalaЖt\suРus\ur, “Bel protect his [the king’s] life.”

Shadrach. The name is inexplicable in Babylonian. Some scholars have conjectured that the name is a corruption of Marduk, whereas others have tried to explain it with the help of Sumerian words. Jensen suggested it was the name of the Elamite god Shutruk, but it is difficult to explain why an Elamite name should have been given by the Babylonians.

Meshach. A satisfactory explanation as to the origin of this name has not yet been found. Like Shadrach (see above), Meshach is not a Babylonian name.

Abed-nego. It is generally agreed that this name stands for ФEbedРNebo, “servant of [the god] Nabu,” a name that is attested by an Aramaic papyrus found in Egypt.

8. Not defile himself. There were several reasons why a pious Jew would avoid eating of the royal food: (1) the Babylonians, like other pagan nations, ate unclean meats (see CD 30); (2) the beasts had not been properly killed according to Levitical law (Lev. 17:14, 15); (3) a portion of the animals eaten was first offered as a sacrifice to pagan gods (see Acts 15:29); (4) the use of luxurious and unhealthful food and drink was contrary to strict principles of temperance; (5) for Daniel and his friends there was the added desire to avoid a flesh-food diet (see EGW, Supplementary Material on Dan. 1:8). The Hebrew youth determined to do nothing that would interfere with physical, mental, and spiritual development.

9. Into favour. Compare the experience of Joseph (Gen. 39:4, 21), of Ezra (Ezra 7:28), and of Nehemiah (Neh. 2:8). It was doubtless the gentleness, courtesy, and fidelity displayed by these men that won for them the favor of their superiors (see PP 217; CD 31). At the same time they attributed their success to the blessing of God. God works with those who cooperate with Him. See p. 750.

10. Endanger my head. The sentence reads literally, “Ye make my head punishable with the king.” The expression does not imply capital penalty, but, as James A. Montgomery has shown, simply means that the chief eunuch would be held responsible if those who had been committed to him deteriorated physically.

11. Melzar. Heb. mels\ar, which, according to recently recovered Babylonian cuneiform records, was obviously derived from the Akkadian mas\s\aru, which means “guardian,” or “warden.” The presence of “the” in the Hebrew is further indication that a proper name was not intended. Hence, the name of the lower official who acted as immediate tutor of the Hebrew apprentices is not known. Although Ashpenaz had been friendly and sympathetic to Daniel’s request, he nevertheless hesitated to help the young captive. Hence, Daniel went to the official who was the immediate tutor and placed before him a specific request.

12. Ten days. This seems a short period of time in which to produce any appreciable change in appearance and physical vigor. But habits of strict temperance had already provided Daniel and his companions with fundamentally sound constitutions (see PK 482) that responded to the benefits of a proper diet. Their recuperation from the rigors of the long march from Judea was, without doubt, more pronounced than that of other captives who had not already formed abstemious habits. Now, in the case of Daniel and his three companions, divine power was united with human effort, and the result was truly remarkable (cf. PP 214). The blessing of God attended the noble resolution of the youths not to defile themselves with the king’s dainties. They knew that indulgence in stimulating foods and drinks would prevent them from securing the highest physical and mental development. The Melzar felt certain that “an abstemious diet would render these youth pale and sickly in appearance …, while the luxurious food from the king’s table would make them ruddy and beautiful, and would impart superior physical activity” (CD 31), and he was surprised when the results were quite the opposite.

God honored these young men because of their unswerving purpose to do what was right. The approbation of God was dearer to them than the favor of the most powerful earthly potentate, dearer even than life itself (see CD 31). Nor had the firm resolution been born under the pressure of immediate circumstances. From childhood these young men had been trained in strict habits of temperance. They knew of the degenerating effects of a stimulating diet, and had long ago determined not to enfeeble their physical and mental powers by indulgence in appetite. The end of the period found them superior in physical appearance, physical activity, and mental vigor.

Daniel did not refuse the viands of the king in order to be singular. Many might reason that under the circumstances there was plausible excuse for departing from strict adherence to principle and that consequently Daniel was narrow, bigoted, and too particular. Daniel sought to live at peace with all and to cooperate to the fullest extent possible with his superiors as long as such cooperation did not require him to sacrifice principle. When fealty to Jehovah was involved, he was willing to sacrifice worldly honor, wealth, position, yea, even life itself.

Pulse. Heb. zeroФim, “food derived from plants,” such as cereals and vegetables. According to Jewish tradition, berries and dates were also comprehended in the term. Since dates are a part of the staple food of Mesopotamia, they seem likely to have been included here. See on v. 8.

17. These four children. See on v. 4.

Knowledge and skill. The instruction that Daniel and his three friends received was for them also a test of faith. The wisdom of the Chaldeans was allied with idolatry and pagan practices, and mixed sorcery with science, and learning with superstition. From these things the Hebrew learners kept themselves aloof. How they avoided conflicts we are not told, but despite the corrupting influences they held fast to the faith of their fathers, as later tests of loyalty clearly show. The four young men learned the skills and sciences of the Chaldeans without adopting the heathen elements mingled with them.

Among the reasons why these Hebrews preserved their faith unsullied may be noted the following: (1) Their firm resolution to remain true to God. They had more than a desire or a hope for goodness. They willed to do right and to shun evil. Victory is possible only by the right exercise of the will (see SC 48). (2) Their dependence on the power of God. Though they valued human capabilities and recognized the necessity of human effort, they knew that these things of themselves would not guarantee success. They recognized that in addition to this there must be humble dependence and full reliance on God’s power (see CD 154). (3) Their refusal to blunt their spiritual and moral natures by indulgence in appetite. They realized that a single departure from principle would have weakened their sense of right and wrong, which in turn would probably have led to other wrong acts, and in the end to complete apostasy (see CD 155). (4) Their consistent prayer life. Daniel and his youthful companions realized that prayer was a necessity, especially because of the atmosphere of evil that constantly surrounded them (see SL 20).

Visions and dreams. While Daniel’s three friends were, like him, endowed with exceptional mental qualities, and equaled him in loyalty to their God, he was chosen as God’s special messenger. Some modern scholars who deny that there is a genuine gift of prophecy have advanced the notion that this verse indicates that Daniel had a special gift for learning the Chaldean way of interpreting dreams and visions, and that in school contests on this subject he excelled his fellow students. Daniel did not belong to this type of dream interpreters. His prophetic gift was not the product of a successful training in the school of the royal soothsayers, sorcerers, and magicians. He was called of God to do a special work, and became the recipient of some of the most important prophecies of all time (see chs. 7–12).

18. At the end of the days. Some expositors have thought that when the king required his wise men to interpret his dream in his 2d year (ch. 2:1), Daniel was not called to the meeting because his schooling was not yet completed, and that he and his friends were condemned to share the fate of the wise men because they belonged to the profession, although they were not yet full-fledged members of it. This view cannot be regarded as correct. The young apprentices were to be trained three years in order to “stand before the king” (ch. 1:5); and it was “at the end of the days” specified that they were brought before the king for examination. Then “stood they before the king” (see on v. 19). This statement indicates that the three-year training period ended before the king examined them and “found” that Daniel and his three friends were better than all the other candidates. This could hardly have taken place after one of them, Daniel, had already received high honors and had been promoted to the rule of the province and supervision over all the wise men, and after the other three had been given high office (ch. 2:46–49). The logical sequence, as well as the narrative order, requires that Daniel’s three-year course end before Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in his 2d year.

All this leads to the conclusion that this was not a period of 36 months; that these three years must be counted inclusively; they represent (1) Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (see on v. 2), in which the Hebrew captives arrived in Babylon and entered their training; (2) Nebuchadnezzar’s year 1, which was the calendar year beginning at the next New Year’s Day after his accession; and (3) Nebuchadnezzar’s year 2, in which Daniel graduated and stood “before the king,” and the year in which he interpreted the dream (see ch. 2:1; also PK 491).

By applying the commonly used ancient method of inclusive reckoning, which is attested in numerous cases as the usual way of counting time (see Vol. II, pp. 136, 137), there is no need to assert, as modern commentators have done, that ch. 1 stands chronologically in contradiction to ch. 2, or to take recourse in the fanciful or forced explanations that are found in many commentaries. For example, Jerome declared that the 2d year of ch. 2:1 refers to the 2d year after the conquest of Egypt; and the Jewish scholar Ibn Ezra thought that it was the 2d year after the destruction of Jerusalem. Later some conjectured that Nebuchadnezzar reigned with his father two years (see Vol. III, p. 91).

19. Communed with them. When, at the end of the training period, the chief eunuch presented his graduates to the king, an examination conducted personally by Nebuchadnezzar proved the four young Hebrews to be superior to all the others. “In physical strength and beauty, in mental vigor and literary attainment, they stood unrivaled” (PK 485). The manner of examination is not indicated. From a later description of Daniel’s abilities given by Belshazzar’s mother, who was probably a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, we learn that Daniel was known to her as a man able to “explain riddles, and solve problems” (ch. 5:12, RSV). The questions asked may have required the explanation of riddles, which has always been a favored sport in the court life of Oriental countries. The examination also may have included the solving of mathematical and astronomical problems, in which the Babylonians were masters, as their documents reveal, or a demonstration of ability to read and write the difficult cuneiform script.

The superior wisdom of Daniel and his youthful companions was not the result of chance or destiny, or even of a miracle, as that word is usually understood. The young men applied themselves diligently and conscientiously to their studies, and God blessed their endeavors. True success in any undertaking is assured when divine and human effort are combined. Human effort alone avails nothing; likewise divine power does not render human cooperation unnecessary (see PK 486, 487; cf. PP 214).

Among them all. This may refer to the other Israelite youths (v. 3) brought to Babylon along with Daniel and his friends, but doubtless also to the young noble captives from other lands who had received the same training as the Hebrews.

Stood they before the king. Compare v. 5 with ch. 2:2. That is, they entered the royal service. For similar usage of the words “stand before,” see Gen. 41:46; 1 Sam. 16:21, 22; 2 Chron. 9:7; 10:6, 8; (cf. Num. 16:9; 27:21; Deut. 10:8; 2 Chron. 29:11).

20. Wisdom and understanding. Literally, “wisdom of understanding.” Along with most other translations the KJV follows the ancient versions, which have an “and” between the words “wisdom” and “understanding.” Certain commentators have explained the Hebrew construction to be the result of a desire on the part of the author to express the highest form of understanding or science, or to convey to his readers the thought that wisdom determined, or regulated, by understanding is meant; hence there was no magical knowledge or supernatural science. This would suggest that Daniel and his friends excelled the men of their profession in matters of exact science, such as astronomy and mathematics, and in matters of linguistic studies. They had mastered cuneiform writing, the Babylonian and Aramaic languages, and the Aramaic square script.

Magicians. Heb. chart\ummim, a word occurring only in the Pentateuch (Gen. 41:8, 24; Ex. 7:11, 22; 8:7, 18) and in Daniel (here and in ch. 2:2). It is borrowed from the Egyptian cheriРdem, in which cheri means “chief,” or “outstanding man,” and dem, “to mention a name in magic.” Hence a cheriРdem is a “chief of magic,” or “chief magician.” According to our present knowledge this word was not used in Babylonia, and is nowhere found in cuneiform sources. Obviously Daniel had become acquainted with the term from his reading of the Pentateuch, and need not necessarily have been conversant with Egyptian technical terms. Daniel was well acquainted with the books of Moses and was a keen student of the sacred writings of his people (see ch. 9:2). The use of this Hebrew loan word from the Egyptian is an illustration of how his style and choice of words were influenced by the vocabulary of the portion of the Bible then available.

Astrologers. Heb. Хashshaphim, a loan word from the Akkadian ashipu, “exorciser.”

Divination, magic, exorcism, and astrology were widespread among the ancient peoples, but in some countries, like Babylonia, they were practiced by the men of science. Future events were divined by looking for signs in the entrails of sacrificed animals or in the flight of birds. Divination was especially practiced by inspecting the livers of sacrificed animals (hepatoscopy), and comparing them with inscribed “model” livers of clay. These models, like a modern manual of palmistry, contained detailed explanations of all form differences and directions for interpretation. Numerous clay liver models have come to light in the excavations of Mesopotamian sites. Ancient diviners had many methods. Sometimes they sought advice by pouring oil on water and interpreting the form of the spreading oil (lecanomancy), or by shaking arrows in the quiver and looking for the direction in which the first one falls (belomancy). See Eze. 21:21.

The diviner also interpreted dreams, worked out incantation formulas by which evil spirits or sicknesses allegedly could be banished, and asked advice from the supposed spirits of the dead (necromancy). Every Oriental potentate had many diviners and magicians in his service. They were at hand on every occasion, and followed their king on military campaigns, hunting expeditions, and state visits. Their counsel was sought for various decisions, such as the route to be followed, or the date for an attack on the enemy. The life of the king was largely regulated and ruled by these men.

It is a mistake to assume that the wise men of Babylon were only diviners and magicians. Though skilled in these arts, they were also scholars in the true sense. As in the Middle Ages alchemy was practiced by men of true scholarly education and astrology was frequently practiced by otherwise scientifically working astronomers, so the exorcisers and diviners of ancient times engaged also in strictly scientific studies. Their astronomical knowledge had attained to a surprisingly high degree of development, although the peak of Babylonian astronomy came after the Persian conquest. Astronomers were able to predict both lunar and solar eclipses by computation. Their mathematical skill was highly developed. They employed formulas whose discovery is erroneously but generally attributed to Greek mathematicians. Furthermore, they were good architects, builders, and acceptable physicians, who had found by empirical means the cure for many ailments. It must have been in these branches of knowledge and skill that Daniel and his three friends exceeded the Babylonian magicians, astrologers, and scholars.

21. Unto the first year. Some commentators have held that there is an apparent contradiction between this verse and the statement of ch. 10:1 that Daniel received a vision in the 3d year of Cyrus. But the text does not necessarily imply that Daniel’s life did not extend beyond the 1st year of Cyrus. Daniel may have referred to that date because of some special event that took place during that year. Some have suggested the event to be the decree of the first year of King Cyrus that marked the end of the Babylonian exile (2 Chron. 36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1–4; 6:3). That decree brought the fulfillment of an important prophecy that Daniel had carefully studied, namely, the prophecy of Jeremiah that the Exile would last 70 years (Jer. 29:10; Dan. 9:2). Daniel lived throughout the Exile from the first captivity, in 605 b.c. to the time when the decree was given by Cyrus, probably as late as the summer of 537 b.c. (see Vol. III, pp. 96, 97). Daniel may have desired to inform his readers that though he had been carried away in the first captivity, he was still alive at the time the Exile ended about 70 years later. Also, the conclusion seems warranted that ch. 1 and perhaps also some of the other chapters were not written until the 1st year of Cyrus. Such a date explains the use of loan words from the Persian. Daniel again occupied an official position, under the Persian rule, shortly after the fall of Babylon (Dan. 6:1, 2), and from his contact with Persian officials doubtless added to his vocabulary some of the Persian words he used in the composition of his book.

Ellen G. White comments

1–21Ed 54, 55; FE 77–81; PK 479–490

1, 2 PK 422

1–4PK 428

2 Ed 54; PK 479

3, 4 PK 480

3–5SL 18

3–6MH 148; PP 592

4 FE 77; PK 484

4, 5 Te 271

5 CD 29; PK 481; 4T 570

6 PK 480

7 PK 481

8 CD 28, 30, 154; CE 43; CG 166; CH 50, 65; CT 478, 496; Ed 54; FE 78, 86, 227; ML 75, 120, 147, 254; MM 276; SL 19; Te 35, 101, 151, 189, 237, 271; 4T 515, 570; 5T 448; 9T 157, 165

8–12CH 64; PK 483

9 PK 546

10 SL 21

12 CD 31; FE 79

12–20SL 22

15–17PK 484

15–20CH 65; FE 80

17 CD 31, 154; CH 50, 65; COL 357; CT 456; FE 87, 225, 247, 339, 358; MM 89

17–20FE 193

18–20CH 65

19 CD 32; Te 271

19, 20 Ed 55; ML 147; MYP 241; PK 485

20 CH 50; FE 247, 358, 374; MM 276; Te 191; 6T 220