Daniel

THE

BOOK OF DANIEL.

[1] [2]

[3] [4]

[5] [6]

[7] [8]

INTRODUCTION

DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal

(compare

Da 1:3,

with 1Ch 3:1,

where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have been his

birthplace (though

Da 9:24,

"thy holy city," does not necessarily imply this). He was

carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by

Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation in the fourth year of

Jehoiakim. As he and his three companions are called

(Da 1:4)

"children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when

put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier

(Da 1:3, 6).

He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a change in

one's condition

(2Ki 23:34; 24:17;

Ezr 5:14;

Es 2:7),

Belteshazzar, that is, "a prince favored by Bel"

(Da 1:7).

His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early

period; probably owing to that noble proof he gave of faithfulness,

combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the

king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heathen

banquets

(Da 1:8-16).

Hence Ezekiel's reference to him

(Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3)

is precisely of that kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be

undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as a writer, but as

exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in

those circumstances now found in his book, which are earlier

than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by

interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interpreting

Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and

president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach,

Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the

accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which

led him occasionally to be away from Babylon

(Da 8:2, 27).

Again he came into note when he read the mystic writing of Belshazzar's

doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. BEROSUS calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus and says

he was not killed, but had an honorable abode in Carmania assigned to

him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. RAWLINSON has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh

inscription. Belshazzar was joint king with his father, Evil-merodach

or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was

subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, while the other king took

refuge elsewhere, namely, in Borsippa. BEROSUS

gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as

being to the national dishonor. Had Daniel been a late book, he

would no doubt have taken up the later account of BEROSUS. If he gave a history differing from that current

in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as

true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, succeeded and reigned two years.

The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history

(being eclipsed by the splendor of Cyrus) is an incidental proof that

Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and

did not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the

visions (the tenth through twelfth chapters) relating to his people

down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been

about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel

as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did

not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never

ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart

(Da 9:3-19; 10:12).

AUTHENTICITY OF THE

BOOK OF

Da 7:1, 28;

8:2; 9:2; 10:1, 2; 12:4, 5,

testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention

himself in the first six chapters, which are historical; for in

these it is not the author, but the events which are the

prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the

author makes himself known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a

revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank in

the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the

Hagiographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like it relating

to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held

exclusively the profession of "prophets" in the theocracy, but

was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not the office

of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it doubtless would have

been placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its

genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different

from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther,

and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time

after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as BENGEL

calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the

prophets. The Psalms also, though many are prophetical, are ranked with

the Hagiographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John is

separated from his Epistles, as Daniel is from the Old Testament

prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and

making them the foreground of his picture, he writes in a heathen

court, the world kingdoms occupying the foreground, and the kingdom of

God, though ultimately made the most significant, the background. His

peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar

position in the canon. As the "prophets" in the Old Testament, so the

epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written by divinely

commissioned persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and John

were not in immediate contact with the congregation, but isolated and

alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle

(Re 1:9).

PORPHYRY, the assailant of Christianity in the

third century, asserted that the Book of Daniel was a forgery of the

time of the Maccabees (170-164 B.C.), a time when

confessedly there were no prophets, written after the events as

to Antiochus Epiphanes, which it professes to foretell; so

accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration,

if his prophecies can be shown to have been before the events.

Now we know, from JOSEPHUS [Antiquities,

10.11.7], that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel as in the

canon. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer

to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Son of

man,"

Mt 24:30

(Da 7:13);

also expressly by name, and as a "prophet," in

Mt 24:15

(compare

Mt 24:21,

with Da 12:1,

&c.); and in the moment that decided His life

(Mt 26:64)

or death, when the high priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in

Lu 1:19-26,

"Gabriel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture,

save in

Da 8:16; 9:21.

Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the

prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king

(Da 7:8, 25; 11:36),

in

1Co 6:2;

2Th 2:3, 4;

the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions"

and "the fire," in

Heb 11:33, 34.

Thus the book is expressly attested by the New Testament on the three

points made the stumbling-block of neologists--the predictions, the

narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection

has been stated to the unity of the book, namely, that Jesus quotes no

part of the first half of Daniel. But

Mt 21:44

would be an enigma if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote

the image"

(Da 2:34, 35, 44, 45).

Thus the New Testament sanctions the second, third, sixth, seventh, and

eleventh chapters. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts

where Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world

power, which seemed to be victorious over the theocracy, to see the

essential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to

itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was the same

as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees

1:24; 9:27, 40, with

Da 12:1; 11:26,

of the Septuagint) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and

even refers to the Septuagint Alexandrian version of it. The

fact of Daniel having a place in the Septuagint shows it was

received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The

Septuagint version so arbitrarily deviated from the

Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotius' version was substituted for it

in the early Christian Church. JOSEPHUS

[Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had

designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that

Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the

head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's

prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is,

Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS'

statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the

Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel

was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. With Jaddua

(high priest from 341-322 B.C.) the Old Testament

history ends

(Ne 12:11).

(The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah,

who died about 400 B.C., but was inserted with

divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An

objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few

Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek

musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East,

rather than vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common

Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek and Chaldee: hence

their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through

the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Chaldee. The fact that from the

fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the

language is Chaldee, but the rest Hebrew, is not an

argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two

languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been

composed by someone in the circumstances of Daniel, that is, by one

familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived

in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with the same

idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's

use of both are just such as were natural to one in his

circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one

not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts

of Daniel which concern the whole world are mostly Chaldee, then

the language of the world empire. So Greek was made the language

of the New Testament, which was designed for the whole world. Those

affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew; and this not so impure as

that of Ezekiel. His Chaldee is a mixture of Hebrew and

Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that

Daniel was a true prophet. (1) That his prophecies reach beyond

Antiochus; namely, he foretells the rise of the four great

monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (the last not

being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather

of Latium), and that no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth,

but that it would divide into parts. All this has come to pass. No

fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted,

as by Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon. (2) The time of Messiah's

advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut off, and the

destruction of the city. "He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says

SIR ISAAC NEWTON, "undermines Christianity, which is founded on

Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ."

CHARACTERISTICS OF

DANIEL. The vision mode of revelation is the

exception in other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah

(Zec 1:1-6:15),

who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from

the seventh chapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is

perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be called the Old Testament

Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the difference above

noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the

world kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This

mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen

court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant-people

then stood to the world powers. No longer are single powers of the

world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are

the chief theme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom

of God, manifests itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in

the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole

future from the eschatological point; but in Daniel the historical

details are given of that development of the world powers which

must precede the advent of the kingdom [AUBERLEN].

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

BABYLONIAN

CAPTIVITY. The exile is the historical basis of

Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which

commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the

captivity

(Da 1:1, 21;

compare

Da 9:1, 2).

A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar

made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the

theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were

carried away. In the third (588 B.C.),

Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah.

Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea"

(Da 7:2)

of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's

mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and

Solomon, the theocracy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its

climax in the Old Testament, not only being independent, but lord of

the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was

henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people,

instead of resting on Him, seek alliance with the world power, that

very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim

(722 B.C.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn

into the sphere of the world's movements from the time of Ahaz, who

sought Assyrian help (740 B.C.,

Isa 7:1-25)

at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less

dependent on the world monarchies, and so, till Messiah, was favored

with no revelations from the time of Malachi (four hundred years).

Thus, from the beginning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict

sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world powers superseding it.

But God's covenant with Israel remains firm

(Ro 11:29);

therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now

foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is

the turning point in the history of the theocracy, which ROOS thus divides: (1) From Adam to the exodus out of

Egypt. (2) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian

captivity. (3) From the captivity to the millennium. (4) From the

millennium to the end of the world. The position of Daniel in

the Babylonian court was in unison with the altered relations of the

theocracy and the world power, which new relation was to be the theme

of his prophecy. Earlier prophets, from the standpoint of Israel,

treated of Israel in its relation to the world powers; Daniel, from

Babylon, the center of the then world power, treats of the world powers

in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon,

and his high official position there, gave him an insight into the

world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political

revelations; while his spiritual experiences, gained through

Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation, Belshazzar's downfall, and the rapid

decay of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous

deliverances of himself and his friends (the third through sixth

chapters), all fitted him for regarding things from the spiritual

standpoint, from which the world's power appears transient, but the

glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the

body, the school of magicians in which he had studied for three

years

(Da 1:4, 5)

was the soul; and his mind strong in faith and nourished by the

earlier prophecies

(Da 9:2),

the spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for the spirit of

revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their

work. AUBERLEN compares Daniel to Joseph: the one

at the beginning, the other at the end of the Jewish history of

revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen

courts; both interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed

in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honor by the powers of the

world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priesthood among

the nations; and types of Christ, the true Israel, and of Israel's

destination to be a light to lighten the whole Gentile world, as

Ro 11:12, 15

foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of

Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of the Hellenic

people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel.

CONTENTS OF THE

BOOK. Historical and biographical

introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive

exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile:

while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding that of the magi,

represents the divine superiority of the covenant-people over their

heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thereby

attained, typify the giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people

of the saints of the Most High"

(Da 7:27).

Thus Daniel's personal history is the typical foundation of his

prophecy. The prophets had to experience in themselves, and in their

age, something of what they foretold about future times; just as David

felt much of Christ's sufferings in his own person (compare

Ho 1:2-9, 10, 11; 2:3).

So

Jon 1:1-17,

&c. [ROOS]. Hence biographical notices of

Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. The second

through twelfth chapters contain the substance of the book, and consist

of two parts. The first (the second through seventh chapters)

represents the development of the world powers, viewed from a

historical point. The second (the eighth through twelfth chapters),

their development in relation to Israel, especially in the future

preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But

prophecy looks beyond the immediate future to the complete fulfilment

in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of

salvation cannot be understood except in connection with the whole.

Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for

spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the

kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophecy which they needed

ought therefore to comprise both, and so much of the history of the

world as would elapse before the final consummation. The period of

Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the

theocracy at the captivity till its final restoration, yet future--the

period of the dominion of the world powers, not set aside by Christ's

first coming

(Joh 18:36;

for, to have taken the earth-kingdom then, would have been to

take it from Satan's hands,

Mt 4:8-10),

but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His

second coming

(Re 11:15).

Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the

world powers (the second through seventh chapters) fittingly precedes

the disclosures as to the immediate future (the eighth through twelfth

chapters). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in

Chaldee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew;

the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of

the then dominant world power under which he lived; the latter,

relating to the people of God, in their own language. An interpolator

in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the

ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere Aramaic, so as to be

understood by his contemporaries, he would have used it in the second

rather than in the first part as having a more immediate reference to

his own times [AUBERLEN].