FIRST PARTChapters 1–61. Introduciton. The Early History of Daniel and his Three AssociatesDan_1:1-211 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar 2king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with [and] part of the vessels of the house of God, which [and] he carried [them] into the land of Shinar, to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god.23And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring [to bring] certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the 4princes; children in whom was no blemish, but [and] well-favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them [in whom was ability] to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldζans. 5And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank; so nourishing [, and to make grow] them three years, that [; and] at the end thereof they might [should] stand before the king. 6Now [And] among these [them] were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah 7[Chananyah], Mishael, and Azariah; unto whom [and to them] the prince of the eunuchs gave [assigned] names: for he gave [and he assigned] unto Daniel, the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego. 8But [And] Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat,17 nor [and] with the wine which he drank: therefore [and] he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile 9himself. Now [And] God had brought [gave] Daniel into favour and tender love with [before] the prince of the eunuchs. 10And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat [food] and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking [more gloomy] than the children8 which are of your sort? then shall [, and should] ye make me endanger my head to the king? 11Then [And] said Daniel to [the] Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: 12Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. 13Then [And] let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children8 that eat of the portion of the king’s meat;17 and as thou seest [shalt see], deal [do] with thy servants. 14So he consented [And he hearkened] to them in [as to] this matter, and proved them ten days. 15And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared [countenance was seen to be good] fairer and [they were] fatter in [of] flesh than all the children8 which did 16 eat the portion of the king’s meat. Thus [And the] Melzar took away the portion of their meat,17 and the wine that they should drink and gave them pulse.17[And] As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions [every vision] and dreams. 18Now, [And] at the end of the days that the king had said he should [to] bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchad nezzar. 19And the king communed [spake] with them: and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore 20[and] stood they before the king. And in all matters [every matter] of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, [then] he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. 21And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus. REMARKSDan_1:1-2. The transportation to Babylon, by Nebuchadnezzar. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. We have already, shown, in the Introd, § 8, note 2, that this does not conflict with Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 25:9.—Came Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem, and besieged it, i.e., he departed for Jerusalem, in order to besiege it; he began his expedition against Jerusalem, which resulted in the siege of that city. For the view that αּ ?εֹ ?ΰ is here to be taken in the sense of “departing,” see the Introd., § 8, 2, a—Instead of δֵ ?φַ ?ψςַ ?μ, to straiten, besiege, we generally find elsewhere δֵ ?φַ ?ψ with the dative, e. g., Deuteronomy 28:52; 1 Kings 8:37.—The form of the name πְ ?αεּ ?λַ ?γְ ?πֶ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ is the one in general use among the later Hebrew writers (cf. 2 Kings 24:1; 2 Kings 25:1; Ezra 2:1; Ezra 5:12, etc.). Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:1; Jeremiah 39:1; Jeremiah 39:11; DanJer43:10) and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 29:18) have πְ ?αεּ ?λַ ?γְ ?ψֶ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ, which corresponds more exactly to the older rendering Nabukudurr-usur, as found in the Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions, and also to the nearly identical Persian form Nabukhadraηara, which occurs at Behistun (see Oppert, Journ. Asiat., 1851, p. 416; Expιdit. en Mιsopo�amie, 2:257 ss). The name certainly comprehends, as its first element, the name of the Chaldζan god Nebo,=Mercury (πְ ?αεֹ, Isaiah 46:1), and it seems also to include the terms kadr, “might,” and zar=ωַׂ ?ψ, “prince” (compare Gesenius, Thesaur., p 890; Oppert, 1:100). The name is rendered with either n or r by Greek authors; for while Strabo (15, Daniel 1:6) writers Ναβοκοδρόσορος, Berosus (in Josephus contr. Ap., 1:20,21) has Ναβουχοδορόσορος, and the Sept. Ναβουχοδονόσορ. Instead of βְ ?αεּ ?λַ ?γְ ?πֶ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ, however, our book elsewhere has uniformly Ξπֶ ?φּ ?ψ, omitting the euphonic ΰ; cf. πּ ?εֹ, Daniel 3:25; Daniel 7:15, instead of πּ ?εֹ ?ΰ, Daniel 3:6; Daniel 3:11, etc.; Daniel 4:7. [According to Ptolemy’s chronological canon of the reigns of the Babylonian kings, Nebuchadnezzar became king near the close of B.C. 605, whereas his expedition in question, falling in the third year of Jehoiakim, occurred late in B.C. 607, and the capture of the city, in Jehoiakim’s fourth year, fell about the middle of B.C. 606. It appears, however (Josephus Antiq. x. 11, 1), that his father, Nabopolassar, during his own lifetime, and near the close of his reign, had sent him to repel Pharaoh-Necho at Carchemish, and on his way back, Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, as related by Daniel. While he was engaged in this campaign, his father died, and he hastened back to Babylon in order to assume the reins of government. By the Jews, therefore, his reign is naturally reckoned from the date of this conquering expedition, although he did not actually become full king at Babylon till a year or more later.] Daniel 1:2. And the Lord gave … into his hand, i.e., into his power. Compare Genesis 9:2; Genesis 9:20; Exodus 4:21; 2 Samuel 18:2; also Psalms 95:7, etc. The designation of Jehovah simply as “Lord” (ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι) is not confined to later writers, e.g., Ezra 10:3; Nehemiah 1:11, but occurs as early as Genesis 18:27; Judges 13:8; Psalms 16:2; Psalms 35:28, etc.—Jehoiakim, king of Judah. Jehoiakim reigned eleven years, according to 2 Kings 23:36; 2 Chronicles 36:5, while the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar here referred to can hardly have taken place later than the fourth year of this reign (see Introd. § 8, Note 2, and particularly what is there remarked in opposition to Kranichfeld). Hence it is impossible to consider the passage before us as describing a conquest which put an end to the rule of Jehoiakim, but rather an event which resulted in his becoming the vassal of Nebuchadnezzar; or, more correctly, of Nabopolassar, who was yet living. Similarly, what follows does not assert an actual banishment of Jehoiakim, but merely his temporary removal to Babylon, and perhaps not even this.—And a part of the vessels of the house of God, i.e., of the sacred vessels of the temple, which are again mentioned in Daniel 5:2 et seq.—ξִ ?χְ ?φָ ?ϊ, instead of which several manuscripts have ξִ ?χְּ ?φָ ?ϊ (cf. Theodotion’s ἀπὸμέρους), is compounded of χְּ ?φָ ?ϊ “end,” and the preposition ξִ ?ο, and, therefore; its literal meaning is “from the end,” “on expiration,” in which sense it occurs in Daniel 1:5; Daniel 1:15; Daniel 1:18 of this chapter. In this place, where it serves to designate a quantity instead of denoting time, it evidently expresses the idea of an integral part, a considerable part, like the Chaldee ξִ ?οχְ ?φָ ?ϊ in Daniel 2:42, and like ξִ ?χְ ?φָ ?ϊ in Nehemiah 7:70. In explaining this meaning it is not necessary to assume (with Hitzig) that χְ ?φָ ?ϊ may here be equivalent to “a part,” for the word bears this sense in no other instance. The word, rather, indicates that the store in question, from end to end, has contributed a share, and throughout its extent some portion has been taken away. Hence “from the end of the vessels of the temple” signifies merely a portion of all its vessels. Cf. Kranichfeld on this passage; Gesen.-Dietrich s. v. χφϊ, [Fόrst, however (Heb. Lex. s. v.), adopts the simple explanation that ξִ ?χְ ?φָ ?ϊ is merely an alternative form of χְ ?φָ ?ϊ, and this is certainly corroborated by the form εּ ?μְ ?ξִ ?χְ ?φָ ?ϊ, Daniel 1:18, where two prepositions cannot be tolerated.] This view is also essentially established by 2 Chronicles 36:7 : εּ ?ξִ ?λְּ ?μֵ ?ιαֵ ?ιϊιְ ?δεָֹ ?δδֵ ?αִ ?ιΰπְ ?αεּ ?λַ ?γְ ?πֶ ?ΰφַּ ?ψμְ ?αָ ?αֶ ?μ.—Which he carried into the land of Shinar; rather, “And he caused them to be brought to the land of Shinar,”—to Babylonia, which province is here called by the ancient name that occurs outside of Genesis (see Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:2; Genesis 14:1), only in the elevated language of the prophets, e.g., in Isaiah 11:11; Zechariah 5:11.—The suffix in εַ ?ιְ ?αִ ?ιΰֵ ?ν “and he caused them to be taken away,” can hardly be taken (as do Hδvern. and others) as referring exclusively to the sacred vessels, the mention of which immediately precedes this sentence; for the following words refer to them again, and thus distinguish them as a particular of the collective object of the verb δαψΰ. We are not obliged, however, to include the king Jehoiakim among those who were carried away with the sacred utensils; for while the narrative in its progress postulates the presence in Babylon of Jewish youths belonging to the royal and to noble families, it never implies the presence of the king himself (cf. Daniel 1:3; Daniel 1:6; also Daniel 1:13); and while it is related in 2 Chronicles 36:6, that Nebuchadnezzar bound Jehoiakim “in fetters, to carry him to Babylon,” it is not expressly stated that he executed that purpose. The Sept. (καὶἔὀησεναὐτὸνἐνχαλκαιςπέδαιςκαὶἁνήγαγεναὐτὸνεἰςΒαβυλῶνα) first imposed this sense on the passage, because they felt compelled to assume an actual deportation of Jehoiakim, followed by his return to Jerusalem at a later period—an opinion which was shared by the writer of the 3d Book of Esdras and the Vulgate, and by several rabbins of the Middle Ages, e.g., Ibn-Ezra. While the passage before us does not directly contradict this assumption, which represents the fate of Jehoiakim as very similar to that of Manasseh (2 Chronicles 33:13), it does not necessarily compel its adoption. Jehoiakim may be included among the transported Jews who are designated by the plural suffix in ειαιΰν; but, on the other hand, the suffix may, in addition to the temple-vessels, simply designate a band of noble Jews, whom the conqueror carried away as hostages, and to which the youth referred to in Daniel 1:3 et seq. belonged—hence those ιְ ?δεּ ?γִ ?ιν, whose presence may be gathered from the collective singular ιְ ?δεּ ?γָ ?δ, to which reference has already been made (Kranichfeld; cf. Ibn-Ezra, Maldonat, Geier, and others; also Bertheau in Kurzge fasstes exeg. Handbuch zur Chronil, p. 427).—To the house of his god—rather “to the dwelling-place of his gods.” αֵּ ?ιϊΞΰֱ ?μֹ ?ηָ ?ιε is probably to be regarded as in opposition with ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υωִׁ ?πְ ?φָ ?ψ; for the sacred vessels of the temple at Jerusalem, as has been shown, formed only a part of the object in εַ ?ιְ ?αִ ?ιΰֵ ?ν; and, besides, if αֵּ ?ιϊΞΰֱ ?μֹ ?ηָ ?ιε in this place were intended to designate the temple of Nebuchadnezzar’s god (or gods), usage would require the particle ΰֶ ?μ in order to manifest the object towards which the motion is directed (see Genesis 31:4; Isaiah 37:23; Zechariah 11:13). The correct view is stated by Hitzig and Kranichfeld, who refer to Hosea 8:1; Hosea 9:15; Exodus 29:45; Numbers 35:3, etc., in support of the tropical signification, which takes αιϊ in the sense of “land or dwelling-place.” [Keil, however, shows the inaccuracy of this criticism, on grammatical grounds. Moreover, in this way the distinction evidently intended between the different classes of objects transported, is wholly taken away; the persons were merely removed to Babylon, but the utensils were lodged in a heathen temple, as they before had belonged to Jehovah’s. The parallel history, 2 Chronicles 36:6-7, states all this explicitly. Daniel here merely rehearses the facts in a general way, but is nevertheless careful to mention the disposal, both of the captives, of whom he was himself one (Daniel 2:25), and the vessels, which afterwards became so important in his narrative (Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:23).] Whether the genitive ΰֱ ?μֹ ?ηָ ?ιε be translated “of his gods” (cf. Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:29; Daniel 4:6; Daniel 4:15) or “of his god,” is unimportant. In the latter case, the reference is to Bel, the chief divinity of the Babylonians; cf. Isaiah 41:1; Jeremiah 50:2; Jeremiah 51:44.—And he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his gods (or “his god,” viz.: Bel). On αֵּ ?ιϊΰεֹ ?φָ ?ψ, treasure-house γαζοφυλάκιον, compare Malachi 3:10; Nehemiah 13:5; Nehemiah 13:12-13, where the treasury of the second temple is the subject of remark. There is no contradiction between this passage and Daniel 5:2 et seq. where the sacred vessels are profaned by Belshazzar, and thus appear to have been stored in his palace. Belshazzar was not Nebuchadnezzar, and it is conceivable that the son could trample in the mire what his father and predecessor had valued and reserved (cf. Ephr. Syr. on this passage). Nor is there a contradiction of 2 Chronicles 36:7; the statement in that passage: “And he put them in his palace” (αְּ ?ηֵ ?ιλָ ?μεֹ; A. V. “temple”), is merely less exact than the one before us; [or rather, perhaps, δֵ ?ιλָ ?μ is then used in its frequent signification of temple, as all the older versions render, and the suffix “his” designates it as that of his favorite deity]. Daniel 1:3-4. The selection of youthful Jews of noble rank for service at the royal court. And the king spake unto (commanded) Ashpenaz, the master of his eunuchs. ΰַ ?ωְׁ ?τְּ ?πַ ?ζ, a name, whose formation is very similar to that of ΰַ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?πַ ?ζ, Genesis 10:3, but not to be identified with it on that account (as Hitzig suggests) without further inquiry. It appears to be of Indo-Germanic origin, and, according to Rφdiger, is compounded of the Sanscrit aηva, “horse,” and nasa, “nose.” It is, therefore, equivalent to “horse-nose.”—ψַ ?αρָ ?ψִ ?ιρִ ?ιν, the chief of the eunuchs (Sept. ἀρχιεύνουχος; Vulgate, pr�positus eunuchorum), an important and influential officer of the palace at Oriental courts, as may be shown from the position of the Kislar-Aga at the Turkish court in our day. However, neither he nor his subordinates are to be regarded as actual eunuchs, but rather as ordinary chamberlains (Luther: “oberster Kδmmerer”). Compare Genesis 37:36; Genesis 39:1; Genesis 39:7, where Joseph’s master at the court of Pharaoh is called ρָ ?ψִ ?ιρ, although he was married; also 1 Samuel 8:15; 1 Kings 22:9; 1 Kings 25:19, etc., in all of which the rendering of ρָ ?ψִ ?ιρ by “chamberlain” or court-official is adequate. However, the subordinates of Ashpenaz, mentioned in the passage under consideration, may be regarded as actual eunuchs (as also those in Esther 1:10; Esther 1:12; Esther 1:15; Esther 2:3; Esther 2:14; Esther 4:5), without necessitating the conclusion that Daniel and his associates also became eunuchs, on their being placed under his supervision. Only a grossly carnal conception of the facts narrated in this chapter, and of Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 39:7 (where ρψιρ likewise means [or may mean] an official generally) could lead to this opinion, which is entertained by a number of Jewish and older Christian commentators, e.g., Josephus, Antiquit., Daniel 10:11; the Targum, on Esther 4:5; Rashi, on Daniel 1:21; Origen Homil. 4 on Ezek.; Jerome, adv. Jovin. Daniel 1:1; and Joh. Damascenus, De fide orthod. Daniel 4:25. It is not even possible to argue from the relations of Daniel to the master of the eunuchs, as indicated in this passage, that the prophet always remained unmarried (as Pseudo-Epiphanius De vit. prophet., c. 10, Cornelius a Lapide, Huetius, and others, suggest). See the Introd., § 2.—That he should bring certain of the children of Israel—i.e., to choose of the children of Israel, viz.: of the Jews, who had been carried to Babylon as hostages, cf. Daniel 1:2. The more comprehensive. phrase, “the children of Israel,” is justified by the fact that the theocratic state under Jehoiakim included all of the tribes of Benjamin and Levi, and at least fragments of several other tribes, especially of Simeon (2 Chronicles 15:9), in addition to the leading tribe of Judah.—And of the king’s seed, and of the princes—rather, “of the royal seed, as well as of the number of nobles.” Instead of this correlative view of the two εְ ?’s—the only correct view—which is found in Von Lengerke, and in Hitzig, and others, Bertholdt, without reason, adopts the designative (either—or), while a majority, including Hδvernick, take the first εְ (before ζֶ ?ψς, which, however, is wanting in several of Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s manuscripts,—but the authenticity of which is not, on that account, to be questioned) in the sense of “and indeed,” “namely,”—hence as marking the use of an emphatic apposition. Our view is supported by parallel passages, such as Daniel 7:20; Daniel 8:13, etc.—The term δַ ?τַּ ?ψְ ?ϊְּ ?ξִ ?ιν, “nobles,” “magnates,” which occurs only here and in Esther 1:3; Esther 6:9, seems to be borrowed from the Persian, and to be equivalent to the Pehlevi pardom, “the first,” “the noble;” cf. the Sanscrit prathama, Zend frathema, Greek πρω̆τος. Its derivation from the Greek πρότιμοι, essayed by Bertholdt, as well as the opinion which prevailed among older expositors, that the word is of Hebrew origin, and perhaps related to τψϊ, invaluit, are to be decisively rejected. The corresponding term in Hebrew is ΰֵ ?ιμִ ?ιν, the strong or powerful ones: Exodus 15:15; Ezekiel 17:13, 2 Kings 24:15. Daniel 1:4. Children in whom was no blemish, i.e., no physical fault; hence, of faultless beauty; compare 2 Samuel 14:25. (Cf. the form ξΰεּ ?ν in the Kethib in this place with Job 31:7.) Corporeal soundness and a handsome form were considered indispensible among the ancient Orientals (cf. Curtius, 6:5, 29), for those who were destined for court service,—a view which is still shared by the Turks; see Rieaut Gegenwδrt. Zustand des tόrk. Reiches, i. 13.—The indefinite ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν does not admit of a definite conclusion respecting the age of the youths, and particularly of Daniel. The remark in Plato, Alcib. 1. § 37, however, according to which the training of the Persian youth by the παιδαγωγοἰβασιλεῐοι began with the 14th year, has a certain importance for speculations on this question, which is enhanced by the statement of Xenophon, Cyrop. Daniel 1:2, that none of the ἔφηβοι might enter the service of the king before they attained their 17th year. What is said in Daniel 1:5 concerning a period of three years during which Daniel was in training, corresponds remarkably with these statements.—Skilful in all wisdom. The intellectual qualifications are immediately connected with the physical. Hδvernick, Hitzig, and others, are correct in taking ξַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμִ ?ιν in the sense of “discerning, understanding,” rather than “versed, or experienced,”—as denoting aptitudo rather than habitus. “ηλξδ , as λμ indicates, is the objective wisdom, which is displayed in the various fields of knowledge, and, according to Daniel 1:17, is contained in books” (Hitzig)—hence scientific, as distinguished from the purely practical wisdom, which elsewhere is generally referred to.—Cunning in knowledge, and understanding; literally “knowing knowledge” (ιֹ ?γְ ?ιַ γַ ?ςַ ?ϊ and “understanding thought” (εְ ?αִ ?ιπֵ ?ιξַ ?γָּ ?ς). On ξַ ?γָּ ?ς “thought” (elsewhere “knowledge”), compare Ecclesiastes 10:20, and on both phrases compare Daniel 2:21; Nehemiah 10:29.—And such as had ability in them, to stand in the king’s palace, literally “who had power (λּ ?ηַ, here [perhaps] ability, talent; compare Daniel 8:7; Daniel 11:15) to stand in the king’s palace” (μַ ?ςֲ ?ξֹ ?γαְּ ?δֵ ?ιλַ ?μδַ ?ξֶּ ?μֶ ?κְ,—for which αδΧμַ ?ςֲ ?αֹ ?γ is not to be substituted). “To stand in the king’s palace” is the same as “to stand beford the king” (cf. Genesis 18:8; Genesis 41:40; Deuteronomy 1:38, etc.), i.e., to await his commands, to serve him. See below, Daniel 1:17, and compare the absolute δָ ?ςֹ ?ξְ ?γִ ?ιν, the servants, in Zechariah 3:7; also Esther 5:2.—And whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldζans; literally, “and to teach them the learning,” etc. εּ ?μְ ?μַ ?ξְּ ?γָ ?ν depends on the verb εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ Daniel 1:3, and is co-ordinate with μְ ?δָ ?αִ ?ιΰ in the same verse, as the preceding athnβch indicates.—ρτψ, “writing,” does not in this place denote the art of writing, but the learning of the Chaldζans; compare λָּ ?μΞρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ Daniel 1:17, which can only be equivalent to all learning, “all literary knowledge.” Further, μְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ολַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν can hardly signify the Aramζan idiom which begins with Daniel 2:4, but designates the original Chaldee, which was of Japhetic origin, or tinctured with Japhetic elements—as Michaelis, Bertholdt, Winer, Hδvernck, Lengerke, Hengstenberg, and others, hold. That the noble Jewish youths should be compelled to learn the Aramζan dialect, which, according to 2 Kings 18:26 et seq. (Isaiah 36:11), was the official language both at the Assyrian and the Babylonian courts, admits, indeed, of an easy explanation; since the Jews of that time were but slightly acquainted with that dialect (cf. 2 Kings, in the above mentioned place), and since youth especially, of whatever rank, could not have been instructed in this language, which was indeed related to the Hebrew, but was nevertheless a foreign tongue. The view which identifies the “tongue of the Chaldζans” with the official Aramζan of the court, is untenable because of the circumstance that the latter is introduced in Daniel 2:4 by the term ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ξִ ?ιϊ (cf. Isaiah 36:11; Ezra 4:7), and is thus clearly distinguished from the ordinary language of the λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν. (See notes on that passage, and compare Introd. § 1, note 3.) Daniel 1:5. The provision for the selected youth, and their training. And the king appointed them a daily, etc. “Them,” i.e., those who should be selected, but whom the king did not yet know. ξִ ?πָּ ?δ, to ordain, appoint, assignare, compare Daniel 1:10.—γְּ ?αַ ?ψιεֹ ?ναִּ ?ιεֹ ?ξεֹ, literally, “matter of the day in its day,” i.e., a daily supply, or ration. Compare Jeremiah 52:34, where the same expression is used with reference to the daily food of the captive Jehoiachin; also Exodus 5:13; Exodus 5:19; Leviticus 23:7, etc.—Of the king’s meat,—of which, according to Oriental custom, not only noble guests (cf. Jer. as cited above), but also all the servants and officials were accustomed to partake, compare 1 Kings 5:2-3; and concerning the custom in question at the Persian court, see Athenζus, Daniel 4:10, p. 69; Plutarch, Probl. vii. 4.—τַּ ?ϊְ ?αָּ ?β “meat,” really delicacies, luxurious food, is of Persian origin,—a composite word formed out of bag, “tribute” (cf. Sanscrit bhaga, “allowance,” “ration”), and the preposition paiti, “towards, to,” (=Sanscrit prati, Greek προτί, πρός)—and hence is equivalent to “apportioned food,” which sense is also expressed by the Sanscrit pratibhaga, which designates the daily proportion of fruits, flowers, etc., required by the rajah in his household. Cf. Gildemeister in the Zeitschrift fόr Kunde den Morgenlandes, iv. 214.—And of the wine which he drank, properly “of the wine of his drinking,” his banquet. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊָּ ?ιε is to be taken in the singular in this place, as well as in Daniel 1:8; Daniel 1:10.—So nourishing them three years, rather, “and (commanded) to instruct them three years”—-properly “educate,” “bring up” [but literally, “to make great ”—perhaps referring primarily to their physical culture]. The infinitive εּ ?μְ ?βַ ?γְּ ?μָ ?ν with a copulative ε certainly does not depend on εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ in Daniel 1:3; but rather is to be regarded as governed by εַ ?ιְ ?ξο, from whose signification the idea of commanding, ordaining, is zeugmatically derived. Compare ξִ ?πָּ ?η in Daniel 1:11; also Jonah 2:1.—That at the end thereof they might stand before the king, i.e., after the three years had expired. “To stand before the king” is “to serve him,” cf. Daniel 1:3. [“Standing was the position of waiters in readiness to do their master’s will.”—Stuart.] Daniel 1:6-7. The names of Daniel and his associates, and their changing.—Now among these were of the children of Judah, hence, belonging to the most prominent tribe, after which the entire nation was usually called, even at that early period. The four youths are here shown to be Jewish τַּ ?ψְ ?ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιν (Daniel 1:3); but it does not follow from this passage that all of them, and Daniel in particular, were, in addition, of royal family (ξִ ?ζֶ ?ψַ ?ςδַ ?ξְּ ?μεּ ?λָ ?δ. Daniel 1:3). The royal descent of Daniel can only be conjectured; that Zedekiah was his father, as is stated by Josephus, is a mere supposition. Compare Introd. § 2, where the names Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah have been sufficiently considered (cf. also note 1 to that §). Daniel 1:7. Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave (other) names, rather, “and the prince … gave them.” The changing of names as a sign of entrance into the condition of subjection to a ruler, is a frequently attested custom of Oriental and classical antiquity. Compare Genesis 41:45 (Joseph); 2 Kings 23:34 (Eliakim); 2 Kings 24:17 (Matthaniah=Zedekiah); the re-naming of pupils by their preceptors, e.g., 2 Samuel 12:25 (Solomon=Jedediah); Mark 3:16 (Simon=Peter); and respecting this custom among the Greeks and Romans, Theodoret, on our passage; Chrysostom, Opp. 5:286, etc. [“But while the kings referred to only had their paternal names changed for other Israelitish names, which were given them by their conquerors, Daniel and his friends received genuine heathen names in exchange for their own significant names, which were associated with that of the true God.”—Keil.] For he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar, etc.; rather, “and he called Daniel Belteshazzar.” The four new names of the youths doubtless contain, without exception, a reference to the divinities of Babylon. This is apparent in the name αֵּ ?μְ ?θְ ?ωַׁ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ (cf. Daniel 4:5),—with which the royal name αֵּ ?μְֹ ?ωַ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ is probably identical—whether, as a majority hold, we find the name of the god αֵּ ?μ in it, and explain its composition perhaps by Beli princeps (which the expression of Nebuchadnezzar himself in Daniel 4:5 seems to endorse), or prefer Hitzig’s more artificial interpretation = Pβld tschβηara, “nourisher and devourer.” ςֲ ?αֵ ?γπְ ?βεֹ likewise (for which the scriptio plena, Daniel 3:29, is ςΧπְ ?βεֹ ?ΰ) is certainly equivalent to “adorer of Nego,” which divinity is probably not the same as Nebo (Saadia, Hitz., Kranichf., and others), but a reptile god, and perhaps the familiar dragon of the apocryphal book Bel and the Dragon—since the comparison of the Sanscrit nβga, serpent, with this name, which was first essayed by Rφdiger, affords a more likely conception than the transmutation of α into β. But ωַׁ ?γְ ?ψַ ?κְ, which may be identical with ηַ ?γְ ?ψַ ?κְ, Zechariah 9:1 (cf. Kφhler, Sacharia, 2d pt., p. 18) also seems to designate a divinity, and possibly, in case it is based on the root ηγψ or δζψ, “to move in a circle,” the sun-god. ξֵ ?ιωַׁ ?κְ may be the same as the Sanscrit mκschach, “stag,” and therefore denote a god likewise belonging to the siderial domain; whether the sun-god be again intended, as Hitzig supposes, must remain doubtful (but see Hitzig on this place). Daniel 1:8-10. Daniel’s request, and the refusal of the master of the eunuchs to entertain it. But Daniel purposed in his heart. So the A. V. and Luther, literally, but less agreeable to the sense of εַ ?ιָּ ?ωֶׂ ?νςַ ?μμִ ?αּ ?εֹ than “he was concerned,” as Bertholdt properly renders it. That he would (better “should”) not defile himself with the king’s meat. The Sept. renders ΰωψμΰιϊβΰμ by ὄπωςμὴἀλισγήη; cf. ἀλισγήματα, Acts 15:20. The reason for the refusal of the τϊαβ, i.e., the ordinary food of the king, as well as of the wine from his table (cf. Daniel 1:5), by Daniel and his associates, arose doubtless from the heathenish custom of consecrating each meal, by offering a portion to the gods. In order to prevent their being involved in idolatry by partaking of food which had been thus dedicated to the gods (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:18-20), they avoided especially those kinds of food which were commonly offered to the gods, hence those prepared from flesh, wine, or flour. The vegetables, such as pulse, cabbage, etc., of which alone they were willing to partake, were indeed also prepared by the heathen cooks of the king, and were even unclean in themselves, as having been grown on heathen soil (Amos 7:17; Hosea 9:3-4); but, since offerings or libations were never taken from them, they were not specially sacred to the gods, and hence, might be used by pious Jews, without any essential defilement of conscience. Compare Hδvernick and Hitzig on this passage, and against Von Lengerke especially, who thought to find here the χορτώδηςτροφή, 2Ma 5:27; and, therefore, a proof of the composition of the book in the time of the Maccabees; see Hδvernick, Neue krit. Unters., p. 47. [“Daniel’s resolution to refrain from such unclean food flowed from fidelity to the law, and from steadfastness to the faith that ‘man liveth not by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord’ (Deuteronomy 8:3).” —Keil.] Daniel 1:9. Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs; literally, “and God gave into favor … before the prince,” etc. πϊομִ ?δργ is exactly the Greek ἔδωκενεἰςἔλεοςκαὶοἰκτιρμόν (Theodot.). On this subject compare Genesis 39:21; also Nehemiah 1:11; 1 Kings 8:50. Daniel 1:10. I fear my lord, the king, etc. The prince of the eunuchs does not, in these words, positively refuse the favor which Daniel seeks, but intimates that in order to avoid the royal displeasure, he must render at least a formal and apparent obedience to the command he had received; aside from this, he shows his readiness to exercise every possible forbearance towards his wards. The remark in Daniel 1:9 that God had brought Daniel into the favor of the prince is, therefore, by no means in conflict with the tenor of this reply.—For why should he see, etc. The same turn as in Son 1:7, where the poetical ωַׁ ?μָּ ?ξָ ?δ stands for ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψμָ ?ξָ ?δ, and where, similarly, the question expresses the sense of an emphatic negation (cf. 2 Chronicles 32:4; Ezra 7:23).—Your faces worse liking, etc. ζֹ ?ςֲ ?τִ ?ιν, properly “sad, lowering, of a peevish appearance” (Genesis 40:6; cf. ψָ ?ςִ ?ιν, Genesis 40:7), here implying a meager and decayed appearance, exactly like the Greek σκυθρωπός, Matthew 6:16. [ “τְּ ?πֵ ?ι is to be understood before δַ ?ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν, according to the comparatio decurtata frequently found in Hebrew; cf. Psalms 6:8; Psalms 18:34, etc.”—Keil.]—Then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king; properly, “and ye shall endanger.” εְ ?δִ ?ιַּ ?αְ ?ϊֶּ ?ν [and ye cause to forfeit, a Chaldaizing Piel from ηεּ ?α], is coordinated with ιִ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ, and like it depends on ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψμָ ?ξָ ?δ; therefore: “for why should he see … and ye endanger my head,” etc. On the phrase “to endanger the head,” compare I liad, 4:162, ἀποτῐσαισὺ ?̀νκεφαλῆ, and the German, “den Kopf verwirken.” Daniel 1:11-16. Daniel’s abstemiousness, and its consequences. Then said Daniel to Melzar. δַ ?ξֶּ ?μְ ?φַ ?ι, as the prefixed article shows, is not a proper name, but an appellative, and probably designates an official. It can, however, scarcely mean a pedagogue or president of alumni, as Hitzig suggests, but rather a “butler” or “steward,” as appears from the nearly identical Persian melsar, “vini princeps” (according to Haug a compound word from the Zend. madhu =μέθυ, “drink,” and ηara =κάρα, “head”); compare ἀρχιτοͅίκλινος, John 2:8-9),—[and ψַ ?αְ ?ωָׁ ?χֵ ?δ, Isaiah 36:2]. Daniel 1:12. Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days. The number ten, which was constantly employed as a round number (cf. Daniel 1:20; Zechariah 8:23; 2 Kings 20:8, et seq.; and generally my Theologia Naturalis, 1:713 et seq.), was the more suitable in this case, as it was “sufficiently large to leave traces of the change of food in the appearance of the young men, yet not too great for a mere experiment” (Hitzig).—Give us (only) pulse to eat. Concerning ζֵ ?ψֹ ?ςִ ?ιν, vegetables, pulse, see on Daniel 1:8. Daniel 1:13. And as thou seest, deal with thy servants; i.e., according to the result of thy observations. On ϊִּ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δ with tsκrκ, see Ewald, Lehrbuch, § 224, c. Daniel 1:15. Fatter in flesh. The youth themselves, and not merely their faces, are the subjects of this predicate; for neither ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?ιδֶ ?νnor ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?ιπεּ can be regarded as plurals. The plural ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰִ ?ιν can nowhere be pointed out, and finds no support in Ecclesiastes 11:9 (cf. the exegetical notes on that passage, and also Hδvernick on Daniel, p. 36). Daniel 1:16. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they drank; better, “and the steward (henceforth) took away their appointed food and wine.” εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι is “not introductory, but in connection with the participle expresses the duration” (Hitzig). The continuation of their treatment on this wise by the steward is remarked in order that the improvement in the condition of the youth, already mentioned as apparent in Daniel 1:15, may be more strikingly brought out.—On the question whether the narrative aims to represent this fact as miraculous, as well as concerning its ethical importance, see the dogmatico-ethical considerations [below]. Daniel 1:17. The great endowments of Daniel and his companions.—As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill, etc.; properly, “And God gave … to these four,” etc. Luther’s rendering, “And the God of these four gave them,” is inexact. On the precedence of the remote object in the nominative, followed by a personal pronoun in the dative (here μָ ?δֶ ?ν), compare the examples adduced by Ewald, § 309, a, b.—In all learning and wisdom.—ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ, as in Daniel 1:4, “literary knowledge, acquaintance with literature, erudition” (Theodotion, γραμματική).—And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. It was, therefore, his acquaintance with oneirocritics that distinguished him above his companions, who must also be regarded as wise and highly cultured. This was clearly a miraculous gift, which was intimately connected with his χάρισμαπροφητικόν, but must not be confounded with it; for the skill to interpret the dreams and visions of others, is certainly different from the gift of seeing prophetical dreams and visions in person. Still, as the second half of the book shows, the possession of the latter faculty by our prophet presumed the existence of the former; just as in the New Testament the divinely-bestowed power to interpret tongues and prove spirits goes hand in hand with the power to speak in tongues and prophesy, in the case of the truly great bearers of the Divine Spirit, e.g., St. Paul (1 Corinthians 14:6 et seq.), St. Peter (Acts 5:3; Acts 8:20; Acts 10:10, etc.).—δֵ ?αִ ?ιοαְּ ?λָ ?μΞηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο is the same construction as in Daniel 1:4 : ξַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?μִ ?ιναְּ ?λָ ?μΞηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ, compare Ewald, § 217, 2. λμ, however, does not belong only to δָ ?ζεֹ ?ο, but also to εַ ?ηֲ ?μֹ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ following. “All visions and dreams” are all possible ones, of every imaginable kind. Daniel 1:18-20. Favorable issue of their examination before the king. Now at the end of the days. Von Lengerke’s rendering, “and toward the end of the time,” is incorrect.—μַ ?δֲ ?αִ ?ιΰָ ?ν, “to bring them,” viz.: into the presence of the king. Hence not the same as δָ ?αִ ?ιΰ in verses.—The prince … brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. Them—not merely the four (Daniel 1:17,) but, as may be inferred from Daniel 1:19, all those Israelitish youths, Daniel 1:13.—And among them all was none found like Daniel, etc., either in physical beauty, or in marked mental excellencies.—Therefore stood they before the king, i.e., they became his servants. “ςָ ?ξַ ?γ is inceptive; they entered the royal service, and continued in it afterwards” (Hitzig). Daniel 1:20. And in all matters of wisdom and understanding; literally, “the discernment of wisdom” (ηָ ?λְ ?ξַ ?ϊαִּ ?ιπָ ?δ, something like ηֻ ?χַּ ?ϊξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ, Numbers 27:11; cf. Ps. 55:24). ηָ ?λְ ?ξָ ?δ, however, is here, as in Daniel 1:4, employed exclusively in the sense of objective wisdom, which is essentially the same as science; while αִּ ?ιπָ ?δ is “the subjective interior of this wisdom, the mind which shines through it.” γָּ ?αָ ?ψ is here equivalent to a special point, matter, object; cf. Psalms 31:9; Judges 19:24; Jeremiah 44:4, etc.—That the king inquired of them. αִּ ?χֵּ ?ωׁ, not ιֶ ?αַ ?χֵּ ?ωׁ. The perfect refers back to the examination instituted by the king, Daniel 1:19, not forward to later questions, which he addressed to them.—Found them ten times better. Compare Genesis 31:7; Genesis 31:41; Leviticus 26:26; Zechariah 8:23; Ecclesiastes 7:19.—Than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm; rather, “than all the learned (in literature) magicians that were,” etc. ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξִּ ?ιν, by reason of the probable derivation of the word from ηָ ?ψֵ ?θ, stylus, represents those who are versed in writings, scribes (scarcely persons who are clever, discerning, as Hitzig prefers, because of its assumed derivation from the Zend khratumat, the Rabbinical χεּ ?ψְ ?θְ ?ξָ ?ο). The learned Egyptian priests were designated by this term (Genesis 41:8; Genesis 41:24; Exodus 7:11; Exodus 7:22, etc.), while Herodotus (Daniel 2:36) calls them ἱερογραμματεῐς, and the Sept. sometimes terms them ἐξηγηταί (Genesis 41:8; Genesis 41:24), and again σοφισταί (Exodus 7:11). Unlike Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:27; Daniel 4:4, etc., where the Chartummim are mentioned as a special class beside the Ashaphim and other wise men, the word, though not connected with the following, serves in this place merely to enlarge the conception of the predicate. ΰַ ?ωָּׁ ?τִ ?ιν, the more special term, designates (in virtue of the undeniable sameness in sense of its root ωσ with ωׁ ?ΰσ and πωׁ ?σ) “breathers, whisperers,” i.e., conjurers, who murmured their magic formulas in an aspirated whisper. Whether they are to be specially regarded as “snakecharmers” must remain undecided, in view of the fact that the relation of this word to the term ἀσπίς is not established, and is possibly no more than an accidental similarity in sound. Compare, on the other hand, the Arabic naphatha, “to breathe mysteriously on coiled knots” (Freytag, Lexic. Arab. s. v.). Daniel 1:21. Preliminary conclusion of the introduction. And Daniel continued (thus) even unto the first year of king Cyrus. ηָ ?ιָ ?δ, which is neither to be identified with, nor exchanged for ηָ ?ιָ ?δ (the latter is advocated by Kirmss and Hitzig among others, who substitute εַ ?ιְ ?ηִ ?ι for εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι), expresses, in connection with ςַ ?γ, the sense of attaining to, or of existing until the inauguration of an event. But “to live until the first year of the reign of Cyrus” is by no means equivalent to dying in that year. In this case the passage would contradict the statement found in Daniel 10:1, and, therefore, would be in evidence against the original unity of this book (compare Introd. § 4). It is clear that the particle ςγ in this place does not refer to the close of the prophet’s life, but simply designates a highly important period of time, up to which he lived and approved himself as the possessor of the exalted gifts of wisdom, prophecy, and interpreting dreams (Daniel 1:17). The special mention of the first year of Cyrus as such a period, “has, on the one hand, the objective reason that a really new sera, for the Jews especially, and one to which the most remarkable prophecies (Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:1) referred, began with him; and, on the other, the subjective reason, that this sharp separation into great historical periods is general in Daniel, and, in addition, that a longing for the deliverance of his people must be regarded as a controlling disposition of his nature” (Hδvernick). Compare Hengstenberg (Beitr., p. 65, 314 et seq.), and Maurer on this passage, who regards εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιςַ ?γ, etc., correctly, as simply showing that Daniel lived through the whole period of the exile as a highly esteemed wise man at the Chaldζan court. We need not, however, adopt Ewald’s view, who assumes that the words αְּ ?ωַׁ ?ςַ ?ψδַ ?ξֶּ ?λֶֹ ?κְ have been lost after γπιΰμ; “Thus Daniel lived at the royal court until,” etc., with which he connects the venturesome hypothesis that Daniel and his companions dwelt in a separate I building of the palace, which was specially intended to serve as “the royal academy (!).”—The Hebrew form of the name λּ ?εֹ ?ψֶ ?ωׁ evidently corresponds better with the ancient Persian in the cuneiform inscriptions (Qurus, Qurus), than the Greek κῠρος. Its interpretation by “sun,” which is found as early as Ctesias (Plut. Artax. 1. p. 1012) and in the Etymol. M. (cf. the Sanscrit sϋra, sϋrja; Zend hvare; modern Persian khur), is not entirely certain. Se the Zeitschrift fόr Kunde des Morgenl. 6:153 et seq.; 350 et seq. Ethical Deductions Connected With The Scheme Of Redemption, Apologetical Remarks, And Homiletical Hints1. The dogmatic and ethical significance of the early history of Daniel and his companions consists chiefly, and it may even be said exclusively, in the proof of resolute faith and obedient devotion to God, which they displayed by abstaining from the royal provision at the Babylonian court. Our admiration is not enlisted in behalf of the abstinent diet, the fasting, the mortification of self, on the part of these youth, but finds something grand and morally important in the active trust in God, and the faithful obedience to God, that are displayed in those self-denials. They did not abstain from the use of the delicacies of the royal table, during the whole period of their training, from a spirit of desperate ascetic bravado, or because of a super-legal dread of God’s creatures, which, in themselves, are not objectionable (1 Timothy 4:4); nor yet because, like the Buddhists of India, they scrupled to destroy animal life in any form; but from the truly religious motive of remaining faithful and devoted to their covenant God Jehovah (see above, Daniel 1:8), and to avoid their being implicated, to any degree whatever, in the idolatrous practices of their heathen masters. Their abstemiousness has, therefore, essentially the same ethical value as that of the Rechabites, who refused to drink wine, from motives of religious obedience to the vow of their ancestor (Jeremiah 35); or, as the conscientious abiding of the Nazarite by his sacred vow, which imposed similar denials on him, and which might cover the whole period of life (Samson, John the Baptist), or a definite time of longer or shorter duration (St. Paul, Acts 21:24 et seq.; Aquila, Acts 18:18). A further analogy to the course of these youth in Babylon will be found in the case of the Jews at Rome, whom Flavius Josephus mentions in chap. 3 of his autobiography. Our wonder and emulation are not excited in any of these instances by the avoiding of certain indulgences, but rather, by the disposition of faithful submission to the wholesome discipline of God. This it is, that marks their course as the effect of a strong, rather than weak faith, which thus becomes an example for the Christians of all ages. Several of the older expositors already recognized this, on the whole, although their extravagant estimate of the value of ascetic self-denial of any sort, prevented them from reaching a really unprejudiced and truly evangelical conclusion upon the subject. On the request of Daniel to Melzar, Daniel 1:12, to prove him and his companions during ten days with pulse and water, Jerome remarks, that it was a striking evidence of his faith: “Incredibilis fidei magnitudo non solum sibi corpulentiam polliceri esu uiliaris cibi, sed et tempus statuerev Non est ergo temeritatis, sed fidei, ob quam regias dapes contempserat.” Similarly Theodoret on that passage: Οὐδὲντη̆ςεἰςθεὸνπίστεωςισχυρότερον, καὶδὴτοῠτοπολλαχόθενκαὶἀλλαχόθενἐστὶμαθεῐν, οὐχἥκισταδὲκαὶἐκτω̆ντοῠθεσπεσίουΔανιὴλῥημάτων· τὸγὰρπιστεῠσαιτεκαὶθαῤῥη̆σαι, ὡςτη̆ςθείαςῥοπη̆ςἀπολαύσεται, καὶμὴἐσθίων— —εὐπρεπέστερςκαὶπερικαλλέστεροςφανήσεταικαὶμείζων· ποίηνεὐσεβείαςὑπερβολὴνκαταλείπει.—Among later writers, see especially Melancthon, who remarks correctly: “Danielis temperentiam fuisse opus confessionis, et quidem hanc abstinenliam prceceptam fuisse lege Dei, non humanis traditionibus. Ergo abstinebat Daniel, ut testaretur se non abjicere doctrinam, in qua sola exstabat verbum Dei, et abhorrere ab aliarum gentium traditionibus;” also Calvin, who remarks on the words of Daniel, Daniel 1:11 et seq.: “Tenendum est etiam illud, nempe non temere, neque proprio motu h�c dixisse, sed instinctu Spiritus Sancti. Fuisset enim non solertia, sed temeritas, si Daniel sibi fabricasset hoc consilium, et non fuisset certior factus a Domine devfelici event. Non est igitur dubium, quin hoc habuerit ex arcana revelatione, feliciter et ex voto cessurum, si permitteret minister ipsum et socios vesci leguminibus.” And further: “Sciamus, hoc esse verum experimentum frugalitatis et temperenti�, si piossimus esurire, ubi Deus nos ad inopiam et egestatem cogit, immo etiam si sponte possumus abjicere delicias, qu� nobis essent ad manum, sed nostro exitio. Nam hic subsistere in leguminibus et aqua esset valde frivolum, quia major interdum in emperentia se prodit in leguminibus, quam in optimis quibusque et lautissimis cibis.” Note further, what Chr. B. Michaelis says concerning the contrast, indicated in Daniel 1:13, between the majority of the youth designed to be pages to the king, who partook unhesitatingly of the prescribed fare, and the strict abstinence of Daniel and his three friends: “Hi ergo, licet et ipsi Jud�i essent (Daniel 1:3-4; Daniel 1:6), tamen in observanda lege divina minus religiosi fuerunt. Tanto laudibilior fuit Danielis sociorumque ejus pietas et in patria religione constantia.” 2. The course of the self-denying youth will also appear as an effect of faith, from what is said in Daniel 1:15 respecting their surprisingly robust and handsome appearance. Whether this consequence of their vegetable diet is to be regarded as something miraculous, or as a purely natural result, may be questioned. The phenomenon can hardly pass for absolutely miraculous; for the traveler Chardin, in a manuscript remark on that verse, observes, “I have noticed that the Kechichs (i.e., monks) have by far a fresher and more healthful color than others, and that the Armenians and Greeks, though they frequently fast, appear healthy, lively, and handsome” (compare Burder, in Rosenmόller’s Alt-u. Neu-Mor-genland, iv. 340; also Harmer, Observations in the East, i. 357); and it is conceivable that an unrestrained indulgence in luxurious food might rather detract from the beauty of the remaining youths, than enhance it, especially if it were accompanied by the debaucheries and excesses which are so common among the pages at Oriental courts (Lόdecke, Beschreibung des tόrk. Reichs, i. 52 et seq.; Hδvernck, Komment., p. 37). Still, there is something extraordinary, indicative of Divinely supernatural co-operation, in the fact that at the end of three years the appearance of Daniel and his companions excelled that of all the other youths in fullness and beauty, and not less in the additional fact that they excelled these latter in point of intellectual qualities and scientific acquirements. cf. Hδvernick, “At the same time, it would be partial to ignore the Divine assistance; it was God who enabled his servants to find favor with their overseer, who gave them progress in Divine wisdom and understanding, and who did not forsake them in this instance. Only by this reference to God, which is certainly found in our narrative, can the believer comprehend its true bearing. Hence it is unwise, and the mark of a merely carnal exposition, to become involved in far-fetched and physiological explanations and calculations, such as are found in Aben-Ezra, no less than to ignore the Higher power, from which come all good and perfect gifts.” 3. As an apologetical question of some importance, it must be remarked that what is related in this chapter concerning the abstinence and strict observance of the law at the heathen court of the Chaldζan king, by Daniel and his associates, is but poorly adapted to stamp the narrative as a fiction of Asmonζan times, in which the author seeks to beget trust in God on the part of his readers (Hitzig), or to warn them against partaking of unclean food (Bertholdt, Von Lengercke, etc.). The pious Jews of the Maccabζan period not only scrupulously avoided the flesh which was sacrificed to idols by their heathen oppressors, but everything that emanated from them, even to their arts and sciences. Daniel, Hananiah, etc., are, on the contrary, represented as distinguished adepts in all the wisdom of the Chaldζans, and at the same time, as filling official stations at the court of the Babylonian king, or even as members of the order of the magi (cf. Daniel 2:13; Daniel 2:48 et seq.). But while this latter feature shows a striking resemblance between the experience of the leading character and that of Joseph in Egypt; while especially the patronage of the youth Daniel by the prince of the eunuchs, as well as his high endowment as an interpreter of dreams, reminds us strongly of Joseph; we are yet compelled to reject the opinion that the whole is merely an artificial copy of the early history of that patriarch, because nothing is recorded, either of an ascetic refusal of food or drink on the part of Joseph, nor yet of his being trained with especial reference to service at the court of Pharaoh, or of a careful instruction in foreign wisdom and learning. With respect to the latter point, indeed, Moses, rather than Joseph, would serve as an example (see Acts 7:22). Compare also Jerome (on Daniel 1:8): “Qui de mensa regis et de vino potus ejus non vult comedere, ne polluatur, utique si sciret ipsam sapientiam atque doctrinam Babyloniorum esse peccatum, nunquam acquiesceret discere, quod non licebat. Discunt autem non ut sequantur, sed ut judicent atque convincant. Quomodo si quispiam adversus mathematicos velit scribere imperitus μαθήματος, risui pateat, et adversum philosophos disputans, si ignoret dogmata philosophorum. Discunt ergo ea mente doctrinam Chald�orum, qua et Moyses omnem sapientiam Ζgyptiorum didicerat.” 4. The Homiletical treatment will, of course, seize on the chief and fundamental ethical principle of the section, as indicated above, under 1, without regard to subordinate details. Thus, perhaps: “Not dainty food, but the blessing of God develops beauty and strength. All wisdom, even in worldly concerns, is a gift of God, and the fear of the Lord is the beginning of this wisdom also” (Starke, after the Bibl. Tόbing.). —Or: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4).—Or: “It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats” (Hebrews 13:9), etc. Compare Melancthon: “Daniel in aula nec minis nec contemptu, nec illecebris voluptatem aut potenti� victus est, ut deficeret a vero cultu. Hanc constantiam pauci imitantur, sed qui imitantur habebunt ingentia pr�mia corporalia et spiritualia, sicut inquit textas: Glorificantes me glorificabo, etc. (2 Samuel 2:20).” Footnotes:εַ ?ιָּ ?φַ ?ψςָ ?μֶ ?ιδָ, and pressed upon it, namely, with the usual military appliances. ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δָ ?ιο, his gods, probably referring to the Babylonian polytheism, in contrast with the true God above, δָ ?ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν. αֵּ ?ιϊΰεֹ ?φַ ?ψ, store-house, some room connected with the temple of Belus. εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ, and said, in the Chaldaοzing sense of commanded. ψַ ?α chief, principal or head man. ζֶ ?ψַ ?ςδַ ?ξְּ ?μεּ ?λָ ?δ seed of the kingdom, namely, of Judah. δַ ?τַּ ?ψְ ?ϊְּ ?ξִ ?ιν the nobles, a Persic word denoting the aristocracy. ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν, youths, or lads, between infancy and adolescence. θεֹ ?αֵ ?ιξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ good of appearance, i.e., handsome. ξַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?μִ ?ιν intelligent, i.e., of quick natural parts. ιּ ?γְ ?ςֵ ?ι knowing, i.e., by acquired information. ξְ ?αִ ?ιπֵ ?ι considerate, i.e., of attentive habits. λֹּ ?ηַ vigor, i.e., physical strength, and perhaps including mental energy. εּ ?μְ ?μַ ?ξְּ ?γָ ?ν; and to teach them, i.e., cause them to be instructed. This clause is to be connected in construction with the preceding μְ ?δָ ?αִ ?ιΰ Daniel 1:3. ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ book, i.e., the formularies or written mysteries. γְּ ?αָ ?αιεֹ ?ναְּ ?ιεֹ ?ξεֹ a word (or matter) of a day in its day, a regular ration from day to day. τַּ ?ϊְ ?αָּ ?β delicacy, a Persian word denoting luxurious viands. εַ ?ιָּ ?ωֶׂ ?νςַ ?μ assigned upon, i.e., imposed this as a conscientious duty. ψַ ?ηְ ?ξִ ?ιν mercies, i.e., kind consideration of his scruples. ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֵּ ?ιλֶ ?ν is regarded by the Grammarians as an instance of an epenthetic ι in the sing., or perhaps an older form of the construction in which the final η has given place to a cognate letter. λְּ ?βִ ?ιμְ ?λֶ ?ν according to your circle, i.e., in point of age and rank. There is, however, possibly an allusion to their emasculated condition. Eunuchs are constantly represented on the Assyrian monuments as being of fuller habit than other men. ξִ ?κΞηַ ?ζֵּ ?ψςִ ?ινεְ ?πΰֹ ?λְ ?μָ ?η of the seed-fruits, and we will surely eat, i.e., exclusively vegetable diet τַּ ?ϊְ ?αָּ ?β delicacy, a Persian word denoting luxurious viands. ξִ ?κΞηַ ?ζֵּ ?ψςִ ?ινεְ ?πΰֹ ?λְ ?μָ ?η of the seed-fruits, and we will surely eat, i.e., exclusively vegetable diet ιְ ?μָ ?γִ ?ιν, youths, or lads, between infancy and adolescence. ρֵ ?τֶ ?ψ book, i.e., the formularies or written mysteries. εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ, and said, in the Chaldaizing sense of commanded. ςֶ ?ωֶׂ ?ψιָ ?γεֹ ?ϊςַ ?μ ten hands (parts) above, ten-fold superior to. ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξִּ ?ιν is generally explained by the lexicographers as derived from ηֶ ?ψֶ ?θ a style, hence scribes, the Magian ἱερογραμματεῖς. Perhaps it signifies horoscopists.ΰַ ?ωָּׁ ?τִ ?ιν, from ΰָ ?ωַׁ ?σ to whisper incantation, hence are magicians in the bread sence. εַ ?ιְ ?ηִ ?ι was alive and influential in that official capacity.] [“Daniel is careful to say (with historical accuracy) that at this time the king of Babylon took away only a part of the vessels of the temple. Many more were taken during the short reign of Jeconiah (see 2 Kings 24:13), and yet some were left behind even then, to be taken at the final destruction of the city in the reign of Zedekiah (Jeremiah 27:19-22).”—Cowles.] [Stuart, on the contrary, insists that the following clause compels us to understand the same object of ηλιּ ?ΰ in both cases; but he overstrains the particle ΰֵ ?ϊ by the rendering “the same.” The English Auth. Version interprets in a similar manner. But the latter clause certainly implies a distinction between the objects carried away, some of which were deposited in a particular spot. The author is, therefore, correct in understanding the associates of the king to be included generally under the mention of his name, bat not himself particularly; he is inconsistent, however, a little farther on, as we shall see, in destroying the whole foundation of this distinction, in the interpretation of the last clause of the verse.] [Rather, a strictly literal interpretation of Isa 39:7, as well as all the probabilities and analogies of the case, requires this view, which the majority of commentators have accordingly taken. The case of Joseph’s master affords no difficulty, for eunuchs of high rank are often married (cf. Sir 20:4; Sir 25:20); indeed the supposition of his impotence affords some explanation of his wife’s solicitation of Joseph.] [Others, however, maintain that it was of Hamitic affinity. The subject of the origin of the λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν is very difficult. See the note in Keil ad loc.] [Much less does it follow “that the other youths of noble descent, who had been carried away along with them, belonged to other tribes” (.Keil ad loc.), for (as the same commentator immediately adds), “the names of Daniel and his three companions only are mentioned, because their history recorded in this book brings them specially under our notice.”] [That the special reason for their abstinence was not the Levitical distinction of “clean” and “unclean” animals, is evident from their rejection of the wine likewise, which the Mosaic law allowed. In addition to the reason assigned by our author, we suspect some sanitary cause, arising from an apprehension of the stimulating effect of the highly-seasoned food, especially if they were under surgical treatment.] [“Compare the analogous statement, Jeremiah 1:2 et seq., that Jeremiah prophesied in the days of Josiah and Jehoiakim to the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, although his book contains prophecies also of a date subsequent to the taking of Jerusalem.”—Keil.] 2. The vision of the monarchies, or Nebuchadnezzar’s dream concerning the four world-kingdoms, and its interpretation by DanielDan_2:1-491 And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith [and] his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake 2from him. Then [And] the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldζans, for to shew [tell] the king his dreams. So [And] they came and stood before the king. 3And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled1 to know the dream. 4Then spake the Chaldζans to the king in Syriac [Aramaic], O king, live for ever! tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation. 5The king answered and said to the Chaldζans, The thing [word] is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with [and] the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a 6dunghill [sink]. But [And] if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of [from before] me gifts and rewards [largess], and great honour: therefore shew me the dream and the interpretation thereof. 7They answered again, and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation of it. 8The king answered and said, I know of certainty that ye would gain the time, because ye see the thing [word] Isaiah 9 gone from me. But [, that] if ye will not make known unto me the dream, there is but one decree for you; for [and] ye have prepared lying and corrupt words [a lie and a corrupt word] to speak before me till the time be changed; therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can shew me the interpretation thereof. 10The Chaldζans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can shew the king’s matter: therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things [a matter] at any magician, or astrologer, or Chal 11dζan. And it is a rare thing [And the matter] that the king requireth [asketh is weighty]; and there is none other that can shew it before the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. 12For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. 13And the decree went forth that [, and] the wise men should be slain [were about to be killed]; and they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain. 14Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch the captain of the king’s guard, which was [who had] gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon: 15he answered and said to Arioch the king’s captain, Why is the decree so hasty 16from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. Then [And] Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would give him time, and that he would shew [even to show] the king the interpretation. 17Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions; 18that they would desire [even to request] mercies of the God of heaven [the heavens] concerning this secret, that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night-vision. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven [the heavens]. 20Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever [from everlasting and to everlasting]; for wisdom 21and might are his. And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to 22them that know understanding. He11 revealeth the deep and secret things: he 23knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. I thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and made known unto me now what we desired of thee: for thou hast now made known unto us the king’s matter. 24Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had ordained [appointed] to destroy the wise men of Babylon: he went and said thus unto him, Destroy not the wise men of Babylon: bring me in before the king, and I will shew unto the king the interpretation. 25Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus unto him, I have found a man of the captives [children of the captivity] of Judah that [who] will make known unto the king the interpretation. 26The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, Art thou able to make known unto me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation thereof? 27Daniel answered in the presence of [before] the king, and said, The secret which the king hath demanded [asked], cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, shew [the wise men.… cannot show] unto the king; 28but [yet] there is a God in heaven [the heavens] that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days [what is it that shall be in the end of the days]. Thy dream, and the visions 29of thy head upon thy bed, are these [is this]; (as for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed what should come to pass [what it is that shall be] hereafter; and he that revealeth secrets maketh known to thee what 30shall come to pass [what it is that shall be]: but [and] as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have [is in me] more than any living, but for their sakes that shall make known the interpretation [but in order that the interpretation may be made known] to the king, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart:) 31Thou, O king, sawest, and, behold, a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood [a great image—this image was large, and its brightness excessive—rising] before thee, and the form thereof was terrible. 32This image’s head [This was the image: Its head] was of fine gold, his breast [its breasts] and his [its] arms of silver, his belly [its bowels] and his thighs 33[its thighs] of brass [copper], his [its] legs of iron, his [its] feet part [of them] of iron and part [of them] of clay. 34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which [and it] smote the image upon his [its] feet, that were 35of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces [crushed them]. Then was [were] the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of [from] the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that [and] no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became [was for] a great mountain, and filled the whole [all the] earth. 36This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof [its interpretation we will tell] before the king. 37Thou, O king, art a king of kings [the kings]: for the God of heaven [the heavens] hath given thee a [the] kingdom, [the] power, and [the] strength, and [the] glory. 38And wheresoever the children of men dwell [in every place that the sons of man are dwelling], the beasts [living thing] of the field, and the fowls [bird] of the heaven [heavens], hath he given into [in] thy hand, and hath made thee ruler [rule] over them all. Thou art this [the] head of gold. 39And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to [earthward from] thee, and another third kingdom [a kingdom the third another] of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. 40And the fourth kingdom [a kingdom the fourth] shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things [the whole]; and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. 41And whereas thou sawest the feet and [the] toes part [of them] of potter’s clay and part [of them] ofiron, the kingdom shall be divided [a divided kingdom it shall be]; but [and] there shall be in it of the strength of the 42iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part [of them] of iron and part [of them] of clay; so the 43kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly [part of it shall be] broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men [man]; but [and] they shall not cleave one to another 44[this with this], even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the [their] days of these kings shall the God of heaven [the heavens] set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other [another] people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for eDaniel Daniel 2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the [a] stone was cut out of the mountain without [upon not with] hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron,24 the brass,24 the clay,24 the silver,24 and the gold; 24 the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter [what it is that shall be after this]: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. 46Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer [to offer] an oblation and sweet odours unto him. 47The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is that your God Isaiah 29 a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing [that] thou couldest reveal this secret. 48Then the king made Daniel a great man and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole [all the] province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. 49Then [And | Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but [and] Daniel sat in the gate of the king. REMARKSDan_2:1-3. Nebuchadnezzar demands an interpretation of his dream by the Magi. And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e., in the second year of his sole reign, which, as remarked in § 8, note 2, of the Introduction, must have commenced some time after the fourth—perhaps in the sixth—year of the reign of Jehoiakim. The time, therefore, is about four years later than that mentioned in Daniel 1:1, and soon after that designated in Daniel 1:18. The three years of the training of Daniel and his companions had expired, perhaps by only a few weeks or months, and their reception into the number of the royal officials, as well as among the magicians, in the broader sense of the term, was of recent occurrence, when the remarkable event transpired which is here recorded, and which raised the four Jews to a far more exalted position in the royal favor. There is, therefore, no conflict, either with those passages of chap. 1 nor with Jeremiah 25:1, where “the first year of Nebuchadnezzar,” does not designate the first year of his sole reign, but of his joint rule. Compare Hengstenberg, p. 60 et seq., who is correct, in opposition to those who find here essentially a chronological error (Berth., Bleek, Hitz., etc.); and also, as compared with the less suitable modes of reconciliations attempted by several, e.g., Wieseler (Die LXX Wochen, etc., p. 8 et seq.), who places the event narrated in this chapter before the expiration of the three years of Daniel’s training, and therefore before Daniel 1:18-20, thus regarding it as a supplementary attestation and illustration of the statement in Daniel 1:20 (also Fόller, p. 33 et seq.); Hδvernick (Neue krit. Unters., p. 64), who places the facts stated in Daniel 1:1 et seq. altogether at the beginning of the third year of Jehoiakim, and assumes in addition, that Nebuchadnezzar became king a whole year later; from which it follows that 38–39 months may have elapsed between the taking of Jerusalem and the transportation of Daniel (Daniel 1:1 et seq.), and the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Ewald’s opinion that ςֶ ?ωְׂ ?ψֵ ?δ has been lost from after ωְׁ ?ϊּ ?ιִ ?ν, which would give the twelfth instead of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, is likewise superfluous.—The copula in εּ ?αִ ?ωְׁ ?πַ ?ϊωΧ probably indicates that verses l–4a were written immediately after chap. 1 and doubtless for the purpose of connecting this introductory section more closely with the Chaldaic fragment, Daniel 2:4 b–49, which, together with the narratives in Chaldee that follow, may have already existed in manuscript form. Compare the Intr. § 4.—Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams. [“It has justly been regarded as a significant thing, that it was Nebuchadnezzar, the founder of the world-power, who first saw in a dream the whole future development of the world-power (and even its final overthrow).… This circumstance also is worthy of notice, that Nebuchadnezzar did not himself understand the revelation which he received, but the prophet Daniel, enlightened by God, must interpret it to him.”—Keil.] The plural δֲ ?μֹ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ is used in this place with reference to the several contents of the dream, which, according to Daniel 2:31, comprises a number of scenes: (1) The sight of the great image; (2) its destruction; and (3) the growth of the stone which caused its ruin, until it became a gigantic mountain. The dream thus manifested its confused, mysterious character, that dissolved into indefiniteness. The plural may, therefore, with a certain propriety be taken as a plural of unlimited universality, which serves to prepare the way for the singular that follows in Daniel 2:3, in so far as it designates the whole of the confused and complex nature of the dream, among whose visions the image of the monarchies and its fate, were prominent in importance and in the impression they produced (cf. Hδvern and Maur. on the passage). The rabbinical interpretation, which refers the plural to the dream and its explanation, is certainly to be rejected (e.g., Jos. Jacchiad.); and also the unauthorized identification of ηִַ ?μֹ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ with ηֲ ?μεֹ ?ν. (Sept., Vulg., Luther, etc.; and also Hδvernick, who endeavors to define this as a plural of intensity, supporting his view by a comparison with ηָ ?λְ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ, Proverbs 1:20; Proverbs 9:1, which is certainly not plural).—Wherewith his spirit was troubled. Daniel 2:3, and also Genesis 41:8 (where the awaking of Pharaoh from his dream is described) employ the Niphal εַ ?ϊִּ ?τָּ ?ςֶ ?ν in the same sense that the Hithpael in this place bears, viz.: as indicating the alarm of one who has been frightened by a dream; compare Psalms 77:5, πִ ?τְ ?ςַ ?ξְ ?ϊִּ ?ι “I am so troubled” (properly, “I am bruised, beaten,” contundor). and also the Greek ταράττεσθσι. “The Hithpael intensifies the conception of internal disturbance contained in the Niphal, so that it implies that its outward expression could not be mistaken” (Kranichf.).—And his sleep brake from him,” or “and his sleep was over for him.” So, properly, the Sept., Vulg., Luther, Berth., etc., and, in general a majority of expositors. On the Niphal ιִ ?δְ ?ιָ ?δ, in the sense of being past or completed, compare Daniel 8:27, and especially Micah 2:4. The phrase “His sleep went from him” (Daniel 6:19; Esther 6:1) conveys a somewhat different idea. ςָ ?μָ ?ιεּ, “over him,” or “for him,” expresses, as frequently with conceptions of emotional activity, the sense of the dative in a more circumstantial and emphatic manner; cf. Daniel 4:24; Daniel 6:19; Daniel 10:8, and see Gesenius’ Thesaurus, p. 1027, 3, e. Hδvernick renders it incorrectly: “His sleep came on him heavily;” for the statement that the king was greatly troubled does not admit of the other, that a heavy slumber had seized on him. Rather Daniel 2:3 shows clearly that the desire to recall his dream, hence such an effort to recollect as would necessarily banish sleep, formed the real cause of his disturbance.—On the phenomenon that Nebuchadnezzar should have a dream of prophetic significance, and then forget it (with reference to many of its details, if not entirely) consult the dogmatico-ethical considerations, No. 1. Daniel 2:2. And the king commanded to call the magicians, etc. This is exactly similar to Genesis 41:8, to which record the writer seems designedly to have conformed in expression. Of the four classes of wise men here remarked (ηַ ?λִּ ?ιξִ ?ιο, Daniel 2:27), the Chartummim and Ashaphim have already been mentioned, Daniel 1:20 (see on that place). The ξְ ?λַ ?ωְּׁ ?τִ ?ιν, mentioned as a third class, are clearly “enchanters;” cf. λַּ ?ωֵּׁ ?σ (properly “to mutter words of incantation;” Sept., φαρμακεύεσθαι) 2 Chronicles 33:6 and ξְ ?λַ ?ωֵּׁ ?σ (φαρμακός) Exodus 7:11; Deut. 48:10. The term designates, in correspondence with its harsher formation, a stronger and more passionate mode of incantation than ΰωׁ ?ν—an apparent and observable enchantment, as distinguished from the mere breathing of magical formulas. The further mention of the λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν, Chaldζans, in connection with the Chartummim, etc., and therefore, as a special class of wise men coφrdinate with the others, involves no abuse or carelessness of expression, but rather corresponds fully with the statement of Herodotus (I. 181), that the Chaldζans were the priests of Bel, and with that of Diodorus (II. 24), that the Babylonians termed their priests Χαλδαῐοι. Those designated in this place as λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν are therefore the sacerdotal wise men (cf. Hesychius, s. v. Χαλδαῖοι, where the Chaldζans are distinguished as a γένοςΜάγων), who, it is probable, were specially occupied with astronomy, the aboriginal science of the nations about the Euphrates and the Tigris, whose founder was supposed to be Belus, the chief divinity of the Chaldζans (Pliny, H. N, vi. Dan 30: “Belus—inventor sideralis scienti�”). As astronomers, they were probably classed with the astrologers, the βָּֽ ?ζְ ?ψִ ?ιο, who are mentioned in connection with them in Daniel 4:4; Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:11, and instead of them in Daniel 2:27 of this chapter (see on that passage). The nationality of these Chaldζans was clearly different from that of the great mass of the Babylonian populace; for while these, the original inhabitants of Shinar, were pure Shemites, the former had adopted many Aryan elements into their language and customs. The Chaldζans, after inhabiting Babylonia for centuries, as a kind of priestly caste, attained to political supremacy through Belesys or Nabopolassar, whom Diodorus, ii. 26, designates as ἐπισημότατοντῶνἱερέωνοῦςΒαβυλώνιοικαλοῠαιΧαλδαίους, hence through one of their superior priests (about B. C. 637). They retained this pre-eminence until the taking of Babylon by Cyrus, hence, about a century; but this probably did not exclude the primitive Babylonian priesthood from its place beside the sacerdotal class of the dominant nationality, either in regard to office, or to consideration. Thus we may explain why the Chaldζans are only co-ordinate with the other classes of magicians in this place and in the passages of chap. 4 and 5 which have been mentioned, and also understand the fact that the official language (according to Daniel 2:4) was not the Chaldee, but continued to be the Aramζan (primitive Babylonian). The Chaldζns, Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar did not, therefore, found a one-sided, intolerant, sacerdotal dynasty; they had rather, so far as this was possible, become thorough Babylonians, or, in other words, Aramζans. The Chaldζns, however, must have formed the potior pars of the whole body of the wise men at the court, for no other supposition will explain why the entire corps are designated sometimes as δַ ?λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν, and at others as δַ ?λִּ ?ιξֵ ?ιαָ ?αֶ ?μ, in the following account (Daniel 2:4-5; Daniel 2:10, cf. Daniel 2:11-12, etc.). Compare Hitz. and Kranichf. on this passage, and see infra, on Daniel 2:4.—For to show the king his dreams. All of the four classes of wise men just mentioned were therefore to co-operate in interpreting the dream, “because in this important matter the facts and opinions were to be settled by various methods, and possibly, to be placed on record. The several classes of wise men supplemented each other on such occasions, and assisted each other mutually by their peculiar methods. Thus, the priests might propitiate the gods and invoke their aid, by sacrifices; the conjurers might contribute to the increase of prophetic ability, as might also the enchanters, e.g., by the use of narcotics, etc. In this way the Egyptian wise-men were constantly employed in individual cases as a αύατημα, according to Diodorus, iii. 30.” (Kranichf.) Daniel 2:3. My spirit was troubled to know the dream. A constr. pr�gnans, which signifies, “My spirit has become troubled (cf. on Daniel 2:1), and desirous to know the dream.” The king clearly desires to have his dream rehearsed, and not merely to learn its meaning. The words μָ ?γַ ?ςַ ?ϊΰֶ ?ϊΞηִַ ?μεֹ ?ν may certainly imply the latter, but it appears definitely from Daniel 2:5 et seq., 9 et seq. 26, and 36, that he is more immediately concerned to recover the dream itself. The reason was, without doubt, that he had really forgotten it, or, as is frequently the case with intricate dreams, many of its particulars had escaped his memory, and he retained only a general undefined impression of having seen something fearful, monstrous, and alarming, in his dream. A total forgetting of the dream cannot be supposed in this case, since it was not possible for the king to be so greatly troubled as to lose his sleep about a dream which he had forgotten entirely (Daniel 2:1). Nor can it be assumed that he really recollected the dream, and had merely pretended that he no longer remembered it (R. Gaon in Ibn-Ezra, Hengstenberg, Hδvernick); for the writer would hardly have left unnoticed a representation of this nature, which aimed to test the magicians; and, in addition, the rage of the king, as described in Daniel 2:12 et seq., is too furious to be pretended. [On the other hand, Keil justly contends (with the majority of interpreters) that he had not essentially forgotten his dream. “It is psychologically improbable that so impressive a dream, which, on awaking, he had forgotten, should have yet sorely disquieted his spirit during his waking hours. ‘The disquiet was created in him, as in Pharaoh (Genesis 41), by the specially striking incidents of the dream, and the fearful, alarming apprehensions with reference to his future fate connected therewith’ (Kran.). According to Daniel 2:9, Nebuchadnezzar wished to hear the dream from the wise men that he might thus have a guarantee for the correctness of the interpretations which they might give. He could not thus have spoken to them if he had wholly forgotten the dream, and had only a dark apprehension remaining in his mind that he had dreamed. In that case he would neither have offered a great reward for the announcement of the dream, nor have threatened severe punishment, even death, for failure in announcing it. For then he would only have given the Chaldζans the opportunity, at the cost of truth, of declaring any dream with an interpretation. ‘The Magi boasted that by the help of the gods they could reveal deep and hidden things’ (Hengst.).” It is very probable, however, that while the king retained a lively recollection of the main features of the dream, he might have forgotten some of the particulars, which, if rehearsed again, he would be able to recognize. This justifies the whole proceeding.] Daniel 2:4. The reply of the magicians. Then spake the Chaldaeans to the king in Syriac, i.e., Aramaic. ΰֲ ?ψָ ?ξִ ?ιּ ?η, the Aramaic dialect of the Babylonians, which was still prevalent at the court of the Chaldζan rulers, Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, etc., and which was distinguished from their Chaldee idiom, including numerous non-Shemitic elements, by its purely Shemitic character, and especially by its near relationship to the Aramζan of the Syrians. Hence, the Sept. and Theodotion translate Συριστί, the Vulg. Syriace, and Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 31)states directly that the Babylonians spoke Syriac. The reason for Daniel’s express statement that the Chaldζans addressed the king in Aramaic (note the verb γִּ ?αֶּ ?ψ, corresponding to the adverb; cf. Isaiah 36:11) consists simply in the fact that he desired to call the attention of his Hebrew readers to the contrast between the nationality of the λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιν, i.e., the majority of the wise men who were summoned before the king, and the purely Shemitic language, which they were obliged to employ (cf. on Daniel 2:2). It is wrong to look for the reason of their use of Aramaic, with Palmblad, Hδvernick, and others, in their desire to hide the confession of their ignorance from the turba adstantium. This might rather have been accomplished by the use of Chaldee, while the Aramaζan was familiar to all present as the language of the court and nation. Compare supra on Daniel 1:4, and also the correct remark of Fόller (p. 37): “While the language of the Chaldζans was the language of science, this (the Aram.) was the language of popular intercourse.”—O king, live for ever. This was an introductory formula of the address to the king (cf. Daniel 3:9; v. 10; Daniel 6:7; Daniel 6:22), attested as a general Oriental formula of greeting by 1 Samuel 10:24 (Saul); 1 Kings 1:31 (David); Nehemiah 2:3 (Artaxerxes); Ζlian, V. H, I. 31 (βασιλεῠ ʼ ?Αρταξέρξη, δἰαἰῶνοςβασιλεύοις); Curtius, R., VI. 5 (Alexander the Gr.); Jdt 12:14 (Holofernes).—On the Keri μְ ?ςַ ?αְ ?γָּ ?κְ, and similar omissions of ε in the Keris, Daniel 2:26; Daniel 4:16; v. 10, etc., see Hitzig and Kranichf. on this place. Daniel 2:5-6. Renewed demand by the king, connected with a stern menace. The king … said to the Chaldζans, μְ ?λַ ?ωְׂ ?γָּ ?ιֵ ?ΰ. The uncontracted form λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γָּ ?ΰַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, a stat. emphat. plur., from λַּ ?ωְׂ ?γָּ ?ΰִ ?ιο, lies at the foundation of this Kethib, as well as of the Keri μְ ?λַ ?ωְׂ ?γָּ ?ΰֵ ?ι; compare Winer, Gramm. des bibl. und targum. Chaldaism., § 32, No. 3.—The thing is gone from me, rather, “the decree is made known by me,” i.e., it is my settled purpose, I say it with all emphasis. The words ξִ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰξπִּ ?ιΰַ ?ζְ ?γָּ ?ΰ should probably be rendered in this way, as Hitz. and Kranichf. suggest; for (1) this view only is consistent with the repetition of the formula in Daniel 2:8, as well as with the parallel ξִ ?πִּ ?ιωִׂ ?ινξְ ?ςֵ ?ν, Daniel 3:29; Daniel 4:3; (2) ΰַ ?ζְ ?γָּ ?ΰ, which is found only here and in Daniel 2:8, is most readily explained by comparison with the Persian azdβ or azanda, which is found in inscriptions, and is equivalent to publication, science, what is known; (3) the rendering which makes ΰζγΰ correspond to ϊּ ?εּ ?χְ ?τָ ?ΰ ,χְ ?ιָ ?ξָ ?ΰ, “standing fast” (Pesh., Ibn-Ezra, the rabbins in Saadia, Winer, Hengstenb.), which is closely related to the one under consideration, is untenable from the fact that an assurance of the fixed and irrevocable character of the royal decree would here be out of place, and that an identification of the root ΰζγ with the Arabic vazada, “to be firm,” seems rather precarious; (4) the identification of ΰζγ with ΰζμ, abiit (Daniel 2:17; Daniel 2:24; Daniel 6:19-20), from which arises the sense, “the word has gone out from me” (Gesen., Hδvern., Von Lengerke, etc.) is opposed by the extreme improbability that the two forms are identical in meaning, since an interchange of μ and γ is exceedingly rare, and especially because Daniel always employs the form with μ in other places; (5) finally, the view, “the word has escaped my recollection,” which was formerly common, and which is found as early as Theodotion and the Sept. (cod. Chis.) (ὁλόγοςἀπʼ ? ἐμοῠἀπέστι), the Vulgate (sermo recessit a me), Luther, Dereser, and others, but which here, and much more in Daniel 2:8, contradicts the whole context, and does not consist with the only admissible sense of ξִ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?δ=word, command, is wholly untenable; for the term nowhere in this chapter, not even in Daniel 2:23, signifies the dream of the king, but always his decree, his demand. [Moreover, “the punctuation of the word ΰַ ?ζְ ?γָּ ?ΰ is not at all that of a verb, for it can neither be a participle, nor the 3d pers. prζt. fem.” (Keil), but it is the fem, of an adj. ΰָ ?ζַ ?γ, or (as Fόrst thinks), an adverbial form of the same. The meaning firm, however, which the author rejects, seems to us more suitable and better corroborated than any other.]—Ye shall be cut in pieces. ΰϊςαγηγּ ?ξιο, to be made pieces (Sept. διαμερίζεσθαι; cf. μέιληποιεῖν, 2Ma 1:16, and διχοτομεῖν, Matthew 24:51); a cruel punishment in vogue among till the nations of antiquity, and especially among the Chaldζans (Ezekiel 16:40; Ezekiel 23:47); compare Daniel 3:29.—And your houses shall be made a dunghill. Similarly Daniel 3:29, and also Ezra 7:11, where the form πְ ?εָ ?μεּ is used instead of Daniel’s πְ ?εָ ?μִ ?ι. This term, derived from the Pael πַ ?εֵּ ?μ = πַ ?αֵּ ?μ:, to soil, defile, indicates the extremely disgraceful nature of the threatened penalty; the houses are to be changed into dunghills, by being razed to the ground and covered with animal and human ordure—just as Jehu turned the temple of Baal into a sink, 2 Kings 10:27. See the proofs of the frequent use of this method of disgrace and punishment in the East, adduced by Hδvernick. Daniel 2:6. Ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards, and great honors; rather, “great treasures.” The second of the terms here employed, πְ ?αִ ?ζְ ?αָּ ?δ, “reward “(compare the plural πְ ?αִ ?ζְ ?αִּ ?ιο, “gifts,” chap. v. 17, and the Targ. Jonath., Jeremiah 40:5; Deuteronomy 33:24) is satisfactorily explained by its derivation from αζζ, and specially from a Palpel form αַּ ?ζְ ?αֵּ ?ζ, facultates suas contemsit, prodegit. It is not necessary, therefore, to refer with Berth., Eichhorn, etc., to the Greek νόμισμα in its elucidation, nor with Haug (in Ewald’s Jahrb. d. bibl. Wissenschaft, 1853, p. 160), Gesen. -Dietr., etc., to institute a comparison with the old Persian ni-bag-vβ, “presentation,” nor, above all, with the Sanscrit namas, “present, gift,” as Hitzig attempts. Ewald prefers πְ ?αִ ?ζְ ?αֶּ ?δ, and the translation of this term by official stations, or promoting to office (for which he refers to the old Persic and also to Daniel 5:16)—which, however, is opposed to the entire body of exegetical tradition.—Therefore shew me the dream, etc. μָ ?δֵ ?ο, therefore (composed of the demonstrative adverb δֵ ?ο and the preposition μְ), is found in this signification in Daniel 2:9, and Daniel 4:24, and in the Hebrew of Rth 1:13. On the other hand it signifies “but rather” in Daniel 2:30, and “but” in Ezra 5:12. Daniel 2:7-9. Repeated refusal of the Chaldζans, and renewed threatening of the king. They answered again. ϊִּ ?πְ ?ιָ ?πεּ ?ϊ, an adverb from ϊִּ ?πְ ?ιָ ?ο, “the second one,” Daniel 7:5.—And we will shew the interpretation, εּ ?τִ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?δπְ ?δַ ?ηֲ ?εֵ ?δ. The form τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?η is not to be changed into τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψֵ ?η, as Hitzig suggests, but must rather be regarded simply as a Hebraized stat. emphat. for τּ ?ωׁ ?ψΰ, just as (Daniel 2:5) ξִ ?μְּ ?ϊָ ?δ is used for ξμְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ (Daniel 2:8, etc.), or λִּ ?ϊְ ?αָּ ?δ (Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:15) instead of λִּ ?ϊְ ?αָּ ?ΰ (ibid., Daniel 2:8; Daniel 2:16, etc.). Whether the Hebraizing orthography apparent in this and other similar instances is to be placed to the account of Daniel, and to be considered as a peculiar feature of the Chaldee in his time (Pusey, Daniel, p. 46), or whether it originated with later transcribers of Daniel’s text, cannot be definitely decided; compare Kranichf. on this passage. Daniel 2:8. I know of certainty. ξִ ?οιַ ?φִּ ?ια, equivalent to ξִ ?οχְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?θ, ex veritate, assuredly, Daniel 2:47.—That ye would gain the time; literally, “that ye purchase time” (Sept. and Theodotion: καιρὸνἐξαγοράζετε); compare ἐξαγοράζωσθαιτὸνκαιρόν, Ephesians 5:16; Colossians 4:15; also tempus emere, Cicero, Verr. Ι. 3. The time, i.e., the favorable juncture, the opportunitas, which the magicians sought to buy, i.e., to improve, consisted in the fact that the king had forgotten his dream; they aim to improve this circumstance in such a way as eventually to avoid the interpretation altogether. Their design is therefore properly “to gain time,” to postpone the decision. Thus Gesen., De Wette, Von Leng., Hδvernick, and still earlier, Luther, are correct: “That ye seek delay.” Entirely too artificial is the view of Hitzig and Kranichf., that the favorable circumstances, of which the magicians hoped to avail themselves, consisted in the king’s desire to learn the interpretation of the dream; and that they speculated on this desire, in the hope that the king might ultimately be persuaded to disclose to them the dream, etc.—Because ye see that the thing has gone from me; rather, “that my decree is published,” i.e., because ye observe that I am in earnest about the command; compare Daniel 2:5. λָּ ?μΞχְ ?αֵ ?μγִּ ?ι does not, in this nor any other place, not even in Daniel 5:22, signify “despite that,” as Hitzig suggests, but “because,” properly “because that,” propterea quod. The king evidently aims to point out the motive for the artful temporizing and delay of the magicians, namely, the menace with which he has intimidated and frightened them. Daniel 2:9. But if ye will not make known … the dream. γִּ ?ιδֵ ?ο, Heb. ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψΰִ ?ν. quodsi. The γּ ?ι, properly “since,” “therefore,” takes up the subject of the preceding conditional clause, and places it in emphatic correlation to that clause (Kranichf.).—There is but one decree for you; i.e., one and the same sentence of condemnation shall come on all of you (Vulg. correctly, una est de vobis sententia; cf. Luther, “so ergent das Recht όber euch”). γָּ ?ϊ, the sentence of condemnation in this passage, is clearly the same in substance as ξִ ?μָּ ?ΰ in Daniel 2:5; Daniel 2:8; the suffix plainly indicates this (γַּ ?ϊְ ?λεֹ ?ο, “your sentence,” i.e., that which comes upon you, which concerns you). Von Leng. and Hitzig (following Theodotion) are wrong: “But one thing forms your object,” ye entertain but one design; for γּ ?ϊ never designates a subjective personal opinion or aim, but rather always an objective norm, which is binding on the individual.—For ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me. λִּ ?γְ ?αָ ?δ, “falsehood,” and ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊָ ?δ, properly, “corruption,” “baseness,” are in apposition with ξִ ?μָּ ?δ. The entire object is, however, placed before the infinitive μְ ?ξֵ ?ΰξַ ?ψ which governs it, on account of emphasis; compare Daniel 2:18; Daniel 3:16; Daniel 4:15.—The principal verb is δַ ?ζְ ?ξִ ?πְ ?ϊּ ?εּ ?ο in the Kethib, the Aphel of ζְ ?ξַ ?ο. This form, which does not occur in the Chaldee or Syriac, but is found in the Samaritan, expresses the sense of “conspiring” which is here required, as well as the Ithpa. ηִ ?ζְ ?γַּ ?ξַּ ?πְ ?ϊּ ?εּ ?ο substituted for it in the Keri (cf.συνέθεσθε of Theodotion and the composueritis of the Vulg.).—Till the time be changed, i.e., until by the aid of some hoped for circumstance ye ascertain something more definite concerning the subject of the dream; or, also, until my anger ceases, and I withdraw the demand altogether.—And I shall know that ye can show … the interpretation thereof. The future ϊְּ ?δַ ?ηֲ ?εֻ ?πַּ ?πִ ?ι expresses the idea of ability, competency compare Winer, Gramm., § 44, 3, c. (p. 107). Daniel 2:10-11. The magicians attempt to establish their declaration respecting the impossibility of gratifying the king’s desire. Therefore there is no king, lord, nor ruler, that asked such things; rather, “since no great and mighty king (ever) asked,” etc. λָּ ?μΞχְ ?αֵ ?μγִּ ?ι is to be taken here, as in Daniel 2:8, in its usual sense of “since,” not as drawing a conclusion, in the sense of “wherefore, for which reason” (Gesen., Von Leng., etc.). It does not, indeed, adduce the actual reason for the assertion that no one could satisfy the royal demand; but it refers to the subjective ground that in all human experience, no king, however great, had imposed such a demand. Compare the similar probatio a posteriori, or a gnorismate, in the familiar passage, Luke 7:47.—The predicates ψַ ?αεְ ?ωַׁ ?μִּ ?ιθ are not empty titles after the manner of the Orient (Berth., Von Leng., Hδv.), but imply that while the most extreme demands might be expected from precisely the most powerful kings, nevertheless, etc. Daniel 2:11. Except the gods, whose dwelling is not (to be found) with flesh, or “with men.” αְּ ?ωַׂ ?ψ, flesh, indicates the frailty of created man, encompassed by earthly limitations, as contrasted with the uncreated and divine, which is not confined within these perishable bounds; compare Isaiah 31:3; Jeremiah 17:5; Zechariah 4:6; Job 5:4; also John 1:14; 1 Timothy 3:16, etc. The Chaldζans include themselves in the term flesh, in order to refer excusingly to their imperfection and the limitation of their knowledge, as in no wise deserving of censure.—The fact that the dwelling of the gods is not with men, prevents such intercourse with them, as would admit of man’s instruction in their superior knowledge. This is certainly a truly heathenish, but not a specifically Babylonian thought (as Hδvernick supposes). Von Lengerke’s supposition that the king must already at this juncture have re marked the prophetic rank of Daniel (cf. Exodus 8:15) is too far-fetched. On the other hand, the appeal of the wise men to the gods, becomes significant for the progress of the scene, as it might suggest to the king the consideration, so damaging to themselves, that the gods could not conceal their superior knowledge of important secrets from them, of all others, who were professional priests, in case they were not pretended, but real priests of the gods. In other words, the appeal of the magicians hastens the denunciation of the sentence with which they had been threatened. Daniel 2:12-13. The decree for the execution of the appointed penalty. And commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon; naturally only those belonging to the capital city, who alone are to be regarded as summoned before the king (Daniel 2:2); not those of the whole realm, nor even of the province of Babylon (Daniel 2:49; Daniel 3:1). Those remaining magicians, or wise men, who were not inhabitants of Babylon itself, formed, according to Strabo 16:1; Pliny, H. N. Daniel 6:26, separate colleges, e.g., in Borsippa, Urchoe, Hipparenum. They differed in certain principles and customs from the Babylonian college, as well as from each other, and therefore, could not be held directly responsible for a mistake or a crime committed by their colleagues in the capital. Daniel 2:13. And the decree went forth. γָּ ?ϊ, the decree in proper form, the firman (cf. δόγμα, Luke 2:1); compare Daniel 2:9.—That the wise men should be slain. εְ ?ηַ ?λִּ ?ιξַ ?ιָּ ?ΰξִ ?ϊְ ?χַ ?θְּ ?μִ ?ιּ ?ο probably expresses no more than this; the form of the imperf. partic. ξִ ?ϊְ ?χַ ?ξְּ ?μִ ?ιο seems to be used as a gerundive, “they were (persons) to be slain, devoted to death;” or—of which, however, there is no other example—the εְ coupled with the participle, seems exceptionally to express the sense of design: “sapientes ut interficerentur” (cf. Kranichf. and Maurer on this passage, the one of whom prefers the former explanation, and the other the latter). The execution of the sentence is not to be regarded as having actually begun, as appears sufficiently from what follows, especially in Daniel 2:14; Daniel 2:24 (contra Hitzig, etc.).—And they sought Daniel and his fellows to be slain; evidently because they were regarded as belonging to the ηַ ?λִּ ?ιξִ ?ιο or ξָ ?βִ ?ιν in the broader sense, which could only be the case after they had passed the examination before the king mentioned in Daniel 1:19—hence, after completing the three years of their training. It follows from this that the event here recorded did not transpire during that period (cf. on Daniel 2:1), as Wieseler holds. At the same time the statement before us indicates that Daniel was not entirely unknown to the king at this time, as might appear from Daniel 2:25 et seq. The fact that Daniel and his three fellows had not appeared in person before the king, but were sought for, is easily explained by the consideration that Nebuchadnezzar did not, by any means, summon all connected with the class of magians in the capital before him (cf. Daniel 2:2, where Luther’s “all star-gazers and wise men” is decidedly inexact), but assuredly only the presidents of the several chief classes, the notables and representatives of the whole body.—On the apologetical significance of the circumstance that Daniel and his companions seem, in this place, to be at least connected or affiliated with the order of magians, if not formal members of it (as Von Lengerke, evidently going too far, supposed) see above, Dogm.-eth. considerations on chap. 1, and also Kranichf. on this passage. Daniel 2:14-16. Daniel prevails on the king to delay the execution of the sentence. Then Daniel answered with counsel and wisdom to Arioch, etc. ςֵ ?ξָ ?ΰεּ ?ξְ ?ςֵ ?ν, counsel and wisdom, i.e., words of counsel (cf. ςֵ ?φָ ?δ Isaiah 11:2; Jeremiah 32:19, etc.) and of wisdom, namely, as concerning the difficult position in which he was placed with the rest of the wise men, and in regard to the proper way to relieve the difficulty (ξְ ?ςֵ ?ν, ratio, similar to Daniel 3:12). On δֲ ?ϊִ ?ια “to reply,” compare Daniel 3:16; Ezra 5:11. The connection δֲ ?ϊִ ?ιαθְ ?ςֵ ?ν reminds us of ξְ ?ωִׁ ?ιαֵ ?ιθַ ?ςַ ?ν, Proverbs 26:16.—The name ΰַ ?ψְ ?ιεֹ ?κְ occurs as early as Genesis 14:1, as the name of a king of Ellasar. The leading element in its composition seems to be ΰֲ ?ψִ ?ι ,ΰֲ ?ψְ ?ιֵ ?δ = Sanscrit arja, “lord,” and, possibly, it may even be directly identified with the Sanscrit βrjaka, “venerabilis.” This person was, therefore, a noble, of decidedly Indo-Germanic race, filling an important office at Nebuchadnezzar’s court. His title ψַ ?αΞθַ ?αִּ ?ηַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, chief of the slaughterers (i.e., the executioners), is the Shemitic designation of the same official who was known in the Roman empire as the Prζfectus pr�toris, and in Turkey bears the title of Kapidshi-pasha, hence a chief of the life or body guards. Besides the execution of capital punishments, warlike functions, up to those of a commander-in-chief, might occasionally be devolved on this officer, as appears from the instance of Nebuzaradan, 2 Kings 25:8 et seq. The office existed, however, even at the court of the Egyptian Pharaohs (see ωַׂ ?ψδַ ?θַּ ?αָּ ?ηִ ?ιν, Genesis 37:36; Genesis 39:1; Genesis 40:3 et seq.). His extensive influence at the Chaldζan court is indicated elsewhere than here (see especially the predicate “the powerful one of the king,” ωַׁ ?μִּ ?ιθָ ?ΰγִ ?ιΞξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ Daniel 2:15), in 2 Kings 8:10; Jeremiah 39:9 et seq.; Jeremiah 40:1 et seq.; Jeremiah 41:10; Jeremiah 43:6; Jeremiah 52:12 et seq. Daniel 2:15. Why is the decree so hasty from the king?—rather, “why this furious decree on the part of the king?” or literally, “why the decree which furious from before the king?” ξְ ?δַ ?ηְ ?φְ ?τָ ?η the participle of ΰַ ?ηְ ?φֵ ?σ, which, according to the Targ. Proverbs 7:13; Proverbs 21:29, is equivalent to ηֵ ?ςֵ ?ζ, “to rage,” is here in the stat. absol. instead of emphat., just as the Hebrew participle when in apposition is sometimes without the article, e.g., Cant. 12:5; Amos 9:12; Jon. 4:17. Some, as Hδvernick, and others, prefer to translate “hurried,” “hasty,” in analogy with Daniel 3:29, where ξַ ?ηְ ?φְ ?τָ ?η seems to bear that sense (?); but the ancient versions support the rendering “furious, raging” (Sept. πικρῶς, Theodot. ἀναιδής, Vulg. crudelis), and the entire situation substantiates this meaning.—The writer, however, does not mention everything that Daniel must have said to Arioch on this occasion; but rather contents himself with faintly indicating that only which served to manifest his counsel and wisdom. The author employs an abbreviated style, as in Daniel 1:9-10 (see on the place); he is not, therefore, to be charged with incongruity (Hitzig), nor is the point in question to be strained by an artificially interpolating exegesis, and perhaps (with Kranichf.) to be regarded as particularly surprising and remarkable. Daniel 2:16. And Daniel went in, namely, to the king in the palace (cf. 2 Samuel 19:6), naturally not until announced by Arioch (cf. Daniel 2:25), for none were admitted to the kings of the East without such announcement, see Esther 4:11; Herodotus, I., 99; III., 110,118. Hence, another abbreviating statement by the author, as also in what immediately follows.—That he would give him time, and that he would show the king the interpretation—and naturally, first of all, the contents of the dream itself. He hopes that God will impart both to him, during the respite that is to be granted. In the construction εּ ?τִ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?ΰμְ ?ηַ ?ηֲ ?εַ ?ιָּ ?δμְ ?ξַ ?μְ ?λַּ ?ΰ the copula is explicative, “and indeed, to,” etc., or “namely, to,” etc. The change of construction here is analogous to that in Daniel 1:5, where the verb εַ ?ιְ ?ξַ ?ο first governs a simple accusative of object, and afterward a telic infinitive clause with μ (εּ ?μְ ?βַ ?γְּ ?μָ ?ν). Daniel 2:17-19. God reveals the secret to Daniel. Then Daniel went to his house—evidently because the king had granted the desired respite, which must be assumed in Daniel 2:16, without further question. This favor will not seem strange, nor inconsequent (Hitz.), when we reflect that Daniel and his three friends had secured the favor and good-will of the king but recently, on the occasion of their first appearance in his presence (Daniel 1:19 et seq.). None were better adapted to soothe the angry king and obtain at least a postponement of the impending punishment, than the handsome and richly endowed Hebrew youth, who had already made so favorable an impression on the monarch, and who probably would have arrested the publication of the decree of punishment, had he been among those magians that were summoned before the king, according to Daniel 2:2; compare on Daniel 2:13.—Daniel’s house may probably be considered as an official or servant’s dwelling, as well as the houses of the other wise men mentioned in Daniel 2:5; and moreover, as the context shows, as a residence which he shared with his companions, Hananiah, etc. Daniel 2:18. To desire mercies of the God of heaven; more accurately, “and indeed in order to implore mercies.” The clause εְ ?ψַ ?ηֲ ?ξִ ?ιομְ ?ξִ ?αְ ?ςֵ ?ΰ depends on the last preceding verb δεֹ ?γַ ?ς, “he made the thing known to them;” hence the construction is the same as in Daniel 2:16 b. The design of the δεֹ ?γַ ?ς was to impress the exigency on the prayerful consideration of his friends, and, in fact, a united prayerful consideration in which Daniel himself participated (cf. Daniel 2:23). That the execution of the design to pray is not expressly mentioned, and that we have merely Daniel’s offering of praise after the secret has been Divinely imparted to him, instead of the supplication of the friends, are additional illustrations of the abbreviating style with which our chapter abounds (cf. Daniel 2:14; Daniel 2:16). A New-Testament parallel is found in the Johannean narrative of the raising of Lazarus, John 9:40-41 et seq., where the supplication of Jesus is likewise omitted, and only his thanksgiving after his prayer is heard, is recorded.—The designation of Jehovah as the “God of heaven,” which occurs as early as Genesis 24:7, is very general with Old-Testament writers after the captivity, probably in contradistinction from the custom of the Asiatic Orientals of deifying the several stars or zodiacal regions; cf. Daniel 2:19; Daniel 2:44; Nehemiah 1:5; Nehemiah 2:4; Ezra 1:2; Ezra 6:10; Ezra 7:12; Ezra 7:21; also the related phrase “King of heaven,” Daniel 4:34 (A. V., Daniel 2:37), and συνάστηςοὐρανῶν, 2Ma 15:23. In general see Hδvernick, Theologie des Allen Testaments, 2d ed., p. 49. Daniel 2:19. Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision. δֶ ?ζְָ ?εΰγְּ ?ιΞμֵ ?ιμְ ?ιָ ?ΰ aim, as well as δֶ ?ζְ ?ιεπεֹ ?ϊμַ ?ιְ ?μָ ?η, Job 4:13, is probably not a dream-vision, but a vision generally, and properly a vision seen by night. On the influence of night to promote the higher range and prophetic elevation of spiritual meditation, by which it readily arrives at visions, consult Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, p. 52.—Compare also the dogmat.-eth. deductions, No. 2 [below]. Daniel 2:20-23. Daniel’s praise and thanksgiving. Hitzig observes correctly, “The leading thought which Daniel wishes to express is placed first, Daniel 2:20 a; next the exclamation is justified in b, by the attributes which belong to God, and in Daniel 2:21-22, by the manner in which they are displayed; finally, Daniel 2:22 shows why Daniel felt a desire to utter the specific thought of Dan 2:20 a. Those attributes themselves, Daniel 2:20 b, return in Daniel 2:23 as belonging to Daniel, conferred on him by God; and thus the prayer is rounded into unity.”—[Daniel answered and said, “The word ςֲ ?πֵ ?η retains its proper meaning. The revelation is of the character of an address from God, which Daniel answers with praise and thanks to God.”—Keil.]—Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever. The form μֶ ?δֱ ?εֶ ?ΰ, like the related μֶ ?δֱ ?εְ ?ιָ ?ο ,μֶ ?δֱ ?εֹ ?ο, is to be explained, either by assuming that the particle μְ used as a conjunction (that) has excluded the prefix ι (Gesenius, Abhandlung zur hebr. Gramm., p. 180–194), or that the preformative ι passes over into μ, as in the later Syriac it passes into π (Beer, Inscriptiones et papyri vet. Semitici, I., 19 et seq.; Maurer, Hitz., Kranichf., etc.). The latter assumption seems the more trustworthy. On the phrase, “for ever and ever” (from eternity to eternity) compare the similar doxologies, Psa. 41:14; Psalms 106:48.—For wisdom and might are his. This is almost verbally the same as Job 12:13. The γִּ ?ι in γִּ ?ιΞμֵ ?δּ ηִ ?ιΰ is an emphatic repetition of the former conditional γִּ ?ι. Daniel 2:21. He changeth the times and seasons. Theodotion and the Sept. correctly render καιροὺ ?̀ςκαὶχρόνους, for which Acts 1:7; 1 Thessalonians 5:1, have the inverse order. ςִ ?γָּ ?ο is time in general; ζְ ?ξַ ?ο, the determined time, the appointed period or point of time. Both terms are also connected in Daniel 7:12. The thought that God determines and conditions the change of times refers, like the following (“he removeth kings, and setteth up kings”), to the prophetic subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream-vision, which had just been revealed to Daniel.—He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding. Although Daniel includes himself among these wise and understanding ones, and even has special reference to himself while mentioning them, he utters no offensive sentiment, but expresses essentially the same thought as St. Paul when he writes, “By the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Corinthians 15:10). He traces the wisdom and understanding with which he had just been endowed back to its Divine source, and places himself, as the bearer of such wisdom graciously bestowed by God, in contrast with the heathen magians, who are without it. Daniel 2:22. He revealeth the deep and secret things, etc. Compare 1 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Psalms 139:12.—And the light dwelleth with him, has made its abode with him, as a visiting personage of celestial race; compare the Johannean ἐσκήνωσενἐνἡμι̇ν of the Logos, as well as what is stated in Proverbs 8:30, respecting the Divine wisdom. ωְׁ ?ψֵ ?ΰ (for which, with Hitzig, we are perhaps to read ωְׁ ?ψָ ?ΰ) is often used in the Targums instead of πεּ ?ηַ or ωָׁ ?λַ ?ο. Instead of the Kethib πַ ?δִ ?ιψָ ?ΰ, illuminatio, intellectual light, the Keri has πְ ?δεֹ ?ψָ ?ξ, physical light (compare perhaps Psalms 104:2; 1 Timothy 6:16). The Kethib, however, is sustained by the corresponding Syriac word, and also by the form πַ ?δִ ?ιψεּ, Daniel 5:14. Daniel 2:23. God of my fathers. Daniel addresses Jehovah in this manner, because in contrast with the idols of the heathen, he has just revealed himself again as the same true God, who was known to the patriarchs of his nation.—Who hast given me wisdom and might; namely, wisdom in regard to the understanding of the king’s dream and its interpretation, and strength with reference to the danger of impending death, which he was enabled boldly to face.—And hast made known unto me now. εּ ?λְ ?ςַ ?ο, the Chaldee εְ ?ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, “and now,” connects the requisite special proof with the general statement just made. On the etymology of λςο, probably a contraction of λְּ ?ςִ ?γַּ ?ο, “at the time,” see Gesenius, s. v. Daniel 2:24-26. The announcing of Daniel to the king. Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch. ςַ ?μ shows the direction, like the Hebrew ΰֶ ?μ; cf. Daniel 4:31; Daniel 7:16. The Hebrew, however, also employs ςַ ?μ occasionally in this sense, e.g., 2 Samuel 15:4.—He went and said thus unto him. The ςμ, “he went in,” which is cue off by the insertion of a lengthened clause, is resumed by ΰֲ ?ζַ ?μ in an anacoluthic way. Daniel 2:25. Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste. αְּ ?δִ ?ϊְ ?αְּ ?δָ ?μָ ?δ, “hastily,” properly, “in hasting;” cf. Daniel 3:24 and αִּ ?αְ ?δִ ?ιμεּ, Ezra 6:23, which has the same meaning.—The form ηַ ?πְ ?ςֵ ?μ, which occurs also in Daniel 4:4; Daniel 6:19, neutralizes (like ΰִ ?πְ ?γַּ ?ς, Daniel 2:9) the harshness of the Daghesh (required by the omission of a radical) by the substitution of an epenthetic π; cf. Winer, § 19, 1. In sense δַ ?πְ ?ςֵ ?μ does not differ from ηָ ?ςֵ ?μ, Daniel 2:24. Concerning Arioch as the εἰσαγγελεύς of Daniel, see on Daniel 2:16.—I have found a man of the children of the captivity of Judah (margin), i.e., of the Jewish captives. Arioch here certainly speaks of Daniel as wholly unknown to the king, but this is sufficiently explained by the conceited pride and sovereign contempt, with which he, the dignified Indo-Germanic (Daniel 2:14) minister of police, believed himself compelled to look down upon the poor Shemitic prisoner. The etiquette of the Babylonian court, so to speak, and particularly of its military or police division, forbade the leader of the body-guard from recognizing Daniel as one known to the sovereign. The compiler can, therefore, by no means be charged with mentioning in this place what contradicts his former statements, and especially with having already forgotten the fact recorded in Daniel 2:16 (Hitz., Von Leng.). The manner in which, for instance, David is introduced as a shepherd totally unknown to Saul and Abner, 1 Samuel 17:33; 1 Samuel 17:55, might much more readily lead to the conclusion that the narrative there did not originally consist with that recorded in 1 Samuel 16, which had brought David into closer relations with Saul at an earlier period (cf. even Keil, on 1 Sam., p. 129 et seq., who admits the strangeness of this contradiction). The marked difference between the discrepancy in that case and the far lighter one in the passage under consideration, shows of itself how little reason there is to assume a multiplicity of compilers, or even a want of skill on the part of the sole author. Daniel 2:26. The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar. This Babylonian name, which the king himself had caused to be conferred on Daniel (Daniel 1:7), would naturally be the only one to claim the notice of Nebuchadnezzar.—[“The question, Art thou able? i.e., ‘Hast thou ability?’ does not express the king’s ignorance of Daniel’s person, but only his amazement at his ability to make known the dream, in the sense, ‘Art thou really able?’ ”—Keil.] Daniel 2:27-30. Introductory to the statement and interpretation of the dream. The secret … cannot the wise men, the astrologers, the magicians, the soothsayers, show unto the king. (On ΰָ ?ωְׁ ?τִ ?ιο and ηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξִּ ?ιο, A. V. “astrologers” and “magicians,” see on Daniel 1:20.) Concerning the βָּ ?ζְ ?ψִ ?ιο “star-gazers,” who are for the first time expressly mentioned in this place, see notes on Daniel 2:2. The word (from βְּ ?ζַ ?ψ, “to cut in,” “incise;” cf. βְּ ?ζֵ ?ψָ ?δ, Daniel 4:14) primarily denotes “deciders,” viz.: deciders of fate, dispensers of decisive oracles concerning the fortunes of men, hence astrologers. Compare Daniel 4:4; Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:11; also Isaiah 47:13, from which passage it appears that the office of the Babylonian astrologers was not confined merely to horoscopy, but extended to every kind of fortune-telling founded on the study of the stars. The Vulg. haruspices is incorrect; for the signification of the Hebrew (and Arabic) βָּ ?ζַ ?ψ, “to cut in pieces,” is foreign to the Aram. βְּ ?ζַ ?ψ; and haruspicy as a specifically priestly function would seem rather to belong to the Chaldζans. Daniel 2:28. But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets. These words imply the total inability of the heathen gods as well as of their priests and wise men, to reveal secret things; compare Isaiah 41:22 et seq.; Isaiah 43:8; Isaiah 48:3, etc.; Amos 3:7; Hosea 12:11.—And maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar—though that monarch is a heathen; compare the instances of Pharaoh (Genesis 20:3 et seq.; Genesis 41:16 et seq.), Balaam (Numbers 22 et seq.), the Eastern Magi (Matthew 2:1 et seq.). The ε in εְ ?δεֹ ?γַ ?ς is explicative or particularizing. It serves to introduce the transition from the general truth to the special case in question.—What shall be in the latter days. αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊιεֹ ?ξַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ=Heb. αְּ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψιϊδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, is neither, directly and without qualification, “in the last time “(Hitzig), nor yet “in the course of time, in the future” generally (Maur., Hδv.), but, as everywhere in the prophetic language of the Old Testament (not excepting Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14), “in the Messianic future,”—in the future theocratic period of salvation. Kranichfeld remarks correctly: “The writer at the outset of his prophetic announcement characterizes, by the use of αΰηψιϊιεξιΰ, the whole matter as in relation to the Messianic destiny of his people.”—Thy dream, and the visions of thy head. ηֶ ?ζְ ?εֵ ?ιψֵ ?ιωָׁ ?κְ (Cf. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. The test of the faith of Daniel’s three friends in the fiery furnace.Daniel 3:1-301 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose [its] height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof [its breadth] six cubits: he set it up in 2the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Then [And] Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes [satraps], the governors, and the captains [pashas], the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs [lawyers], and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood [were standing] 4before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then [And] a herald cried aloud [with might], To you it is commanded [lit, they are saying], O [lit. The] 5people, nations [nations, peoples], and languages. That at what time [the time that] ye hear [shall hear] the sound of the cornet [horn], flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer [symphony], and all kinds of music, ye fall down and 6worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: and whose [lit. who that] falleth not [lit. shall not fall] down and worshippeth, shall the same hour [lit, in it the moment] be cast into the midst of a [or, the] burning fiery furnace [lit. oven of fire the blazing]. 7Therefore at that [lit, in it the] time, when [lit, as that] all the people heard [nations were hearing] the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell [were falling] down and worshipped [worshipping] the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 8Wherefore at that time certain Chaldζans [lit, men Casdim] came near and accused the 9Jews. They spake [were answering], and said [were saying] to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O [lit. The] king, live for eDaniel Daniel 3:10 Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; 11and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth 12that he should be cast into the midst of a burning, fiery furnace. There are certain Jews, whom thou hast set over the affairs [work] of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: these men, O king, have not regarded thee [set account upon thee]; they serve not thy gods, nor worship 13the golden image which thou hast set up. Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury, commanded [said] to bring [cause to come] Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men [these men were brought] before 14the king. Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said unto them, Is it true [of purpose], O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego? do not ye [, that ye do not] serve my 15gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now, if ye be ready, that at what time [the time that] ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made, well: but [and] if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour [moment] into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that [he] God that shall deliver you out of my hands? 16Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are 17not careful [needing] to answer thee [return thee answer] in this matter. If it be so, our God [If it be that our God] whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of thy 18hand, O king. But [And] if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve [are not serving] thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. 19Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat [to heat] the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated [lit. above that any one was ever seen to heat it]. 20And he commanded the most mighty men [lit. men, heroes of might] that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and [so as] to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21Then these men were bound in their coats [shirts, or trowsers, or mantles], their hosen [coats, or tunics], and their hats [cloaks, or turbans,] and their other garments, and were cast into the midst 22of the burning fiery furnace. Therefore, because [lit. from that] the king’s commandment [word] was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that look up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. 23And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. 25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose [loosed], walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt [harm is not with them]; and the form [appearance] of the fourth is like the Son of God [a son of the gods]. 26Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth [door] of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the most high God, come [go] forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came [went] forth of [from] the midst of the fire. 27And the princes, [the] governors, and [the] captains, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw [or, were gathered and saw] these men, upon [over] whose bodies the fire had no power [did not rule], nor was a [the] hair of their head singed, neither were [had] their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had 28passed on them. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve or worship any god except their own God. 29Therefore I make a decree [And from me is a decree made], That every people, nation, and language, which [shall] speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, shall be cut [made] in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill [or, sink]; because there is no other god that can deliver after [like] this sort. 30Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in the province of Babylon. REMARKSDan_3:1-2. The erection of the image, and the command to attend its dedication. Nebuchadnezzar the king made (had made) an image of gold. Properly “made” (ςֲ ?αַ ?γ), similar to the repeated phrase in the following: “he set it up,” instead of “he caused it to be set up” (Daniel 3:1 b, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, etc.), or to Daniel 3:24, “we cast three men into the fire,” instead of “had them cast in.”—The Heb. text does not state when the image was made. According to the Septuagint and Theodotion, who are followed by the Syriac hexaplar version, it was prepared ἔτουςὀκτωκαιδεκάτουΝαβουχοδόνοσορ, hence at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah 52:12), and after the accomplished subjection to Chaldζa of all the nations from India to Ethiopia (cf. the additions in the Sept. to Daniel 3:2-3). The incident appears at all events to belong to this later period of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, since Daniel 3:4 b, 7 b, 29 a, mention many “peoples, nations, and languages,” as being subject to him, and it was possibly a feature connected with a feast in commemoration of his victories (cf. Herodot. IV. 88). The impression of Jehovah’s power and greatness which he had formerly received in consequence of Daniel’s interpretation of his dream, appears therefore to have been long obliterated. He not only causes the colossal image subsequently described to be erected in honor of some Babylonian national god, but with arrogant presumption he challenges a conflict (see Daniel 3:15).—An image of gold. φְ ?μֵ ?ν certainly designates in this place, as well as in Daniel 2:31, a statue in the human form, and more particularly, the image of a god, as appears from Daniel 3:12; Daniel 3:18; Daniel 3:28. It was not therefore a statue of Nebuchadnezzar himself. A marked disproportion seems to have existed in its dimensions, on the supposition that it represented an upright human form, since its height is given at sixty cubits, and its breadth or thickness at only six cubits, while the normal height and breadth of a person in an upright posture are as Daniel 6:1, not as Daniel 10:1. For this reason the φְ ?μֵ ?ν has been held to have been in part a mere idol column, similar to the Egyptian obelisks, or, which is certainly more appropriate, analogous to the Amyclζan Apollo, which formed, according to Pausanius (Lacon. III. 19, 2), a slender column provided with head, arms, and feet, in the human form. So Mόnter, Relig. der Babylonier, p. 59; Hengstenberg, p. 95; and more recently Kranichfeld, who refers to the colossus of Rhodes, the height of which was seventy cubits, also to the Egyptian κολλοσσοὶμεγάλοι and ἀνδρόσφογγες mentioned by Herodotus (II. 175), and to the image of the sun mentioned by Pliny (H. N. 24:18), which reached a height of 110 feet, in addition to the Apollo of Amyclζ. [“φְ ?μֵ ?ν is properly an image in human likeness, and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or obelisk, for which ξַ ?φֵּ ?αָ ?δ would have been the appropriate word. Yet … as to the upper part—the head, countenance, arms, breast—it may have been in the form of a man, and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar.”—Keil.] We might be content with this, or refer in addition to the remarkably tall and slender forms of individual persons on Egyptian wall-paintings and also on Assyrian and Babylonian sculptures (cf. the copies in Wilkinson’s Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians, and Layard’s works on Nineveh and Babylon [German by Th. Zenker]—in the latter, e.g., the colossal sitting figure on plate XXII. A), if it were not still more suitable to regard the statement of the height of sixty cubits as a synecdoche, designating both the image and its pedestal, and to allow to the latter perhaps twenty-four, and to the former thirty-six cubits, which assumption clearly results in an entirely well-proportioned shape of the statue. If therefore, the φְ ?μֵ ?ν proper was limited to a height of about thirty six feet, it would compare with the statue of Belus, which, according to Diodor. II. 9, was erected by Semiramis on the summit of the great temple of Bel at Babylon (probably the present “Birs Nimroud”), and attained a height of forty feet; but it can hardly be directly identified (with Bertholdt) with that statue of Bel, nor yet with the one mentioned by Herodotus (I. 183), which measured twelve cubits in height. Not only was it erected outside of the temple area of Babylon, and possibly even at a considerable distance from the city itself (see infra), but it is also extremely questionable whether an image of Bel must be assumed in this case, since the Babylonians were devoted to the zealous worship of numerous gods. Entirely too artificial is the opinion of Hofmann (Weiss, und Erfόllung, I. 277), Zόndel, and Kliefoth, that the image was designed by Nebuchadnezzar to represent the world-power he had founded, in harmony with the religious (cosmical) conceptions of heathenism—as indicated (according to Kliefoth) particularly by the numbers six and sixty.—The expression γּ ?ιΞγְ ?δַ ?α does not compel us to assume that the image was composed throughout of solid gold; for in Exodus 37:25 et seq. an altar of wood, and merely covered with plates of gold, is designated simply as ξִ ?ζְ ?αַּ ?δΞδַ ?ζָּ ?δָ ?α; and Isaiah 40:19; Isaiah 41:7; Jeremiah 10:3-5 indicate plainly that the images of Babylonian idols especially were usually composed of wood with an outside covering of gold. The construction of this image by no means, therefore, involved an immoderate expenditure, as J. D. Michaelis supposed; and the gold required to cover its surface may have been less, in weight and value, than the amount required (800 talents) for the construction of the statue of Bel already referred to as mentioned by Herodotus, whose height was twelve cubits, and for the tables and chairs which accompanied it; and also less than the amount expended on the statue of Bel mentioned by Diodorus, which reached a height of forty cubits, and cost, as is reported, 1,000 talents. The relative unimportance of this image, which is thus so easy to conceive, deprives the argumentum ex silentio of all its force, as against the credibility of the narrative, which Von Lengerke and Hitzig have assigned to it, on the ground of its not being mentioned by profane authors. Finally, it is thoroughly inconsequent and ridiculous to discover, with Bleek (in Schleierm., Lόcke. etc.; Theol. Zeitschr., 1822,III, p. 259; cf. Einl. ins A. T., § 265), an imaginary prototype of the βδέλυγμαἑρημώσεως of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was assigned by pseudo-Daniel to the ζra of the captivity; for according to 1Ma 1:54; 1Ma 1:59, this βδέλ. was not a statue at all, but an altar of small size, erected on the altar of burnt offerings at Jerusalem (cf. Hengstenberg, p. 86).—Whose height was threescore oubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits. τְּ ?ϊָ ?ι, properly “breadth,” but here signifying both breadth and thickness, cf. Ezekiel 6:3. The cubits (ΰַ ?ξִּ ?ιο.) were probably the royal cubits of the Babylonians (Herod. 1:178), and not smaller than the ordinary cubits (Gesen., Thesaur., p. 112s.). Instead of πήχεωνἐξήχοντα as a statement of the height, the Septuagint has πήχεωνἑξ, which reading some have endeavored to defend, e. g., Michaelis, Eichhorn, etc.; but is it probably not even an ancient attempt to provide an easier reading, and must be considered merely as the error of a copyist, if not as a typographical error of the Ed. princeps of Simon de Magistris; see Bugati, in Hδvernick on this passage.—He set it up (caused it to be set up) in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. αִּ ?χְ ?ςָ ?ΰ, like the corresponding Hebrew term, does not designate a narrow valley enclosed by mountains, but a low and level tract, a plain; hence a majority of moderns read “in the plain of Dura.” The location of this plain is not entirely certain; but it was probably east of the Tigris and near Apollonia in the province of Sittacene, where a town by the name of Dura was situated, according to Polyb. V. 52, and Ammian, XXV. 6, 9. The Δοῦρα (otherwise Dor) near Cζsarea Palζst. on the Mediterranean, mentioned in Polyb. V. 66, and the town of that name situated, according to Polyb. V. 48; Ammian, XXIII. 5, 8, near Circesium at the entrance of the Chaboras into the Euphrates, which was too far northward to have been included in the province of Babylon, cannot possibly be intended here. [“We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighborhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert (Expιdit. Scientifique en Mιsopotamie, I. 238 ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura; and at the end of them, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one named el-Mohattat (=la coline obliquιe), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built of unburned bricks, and which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes this little mound to be the remains of the golden image erected by Nebuchadnezzar.”—Keil.] The Sept., which probably regarded the plain here referred to as identical with the plain of Shinar, Genesis 11:2, and which could find no town bearing the name of Dura within its limits, has conceived the name γּ ?ιּ ?ψָ ?ΰ to be an appellative, and rendered it by ἐνπεδἱῳτοῦπεριβόλου (cf. γּ ?εּ ?ψ, circumire, in orbem ire); in which, however, they were more nearly correct than is Hitzig, who assumes that his pseudo-Daniel adopted the name of the plain from the earlier designation (Daniel 2:45) of the mountain, θεּ ?ψΰ. Daniel 3:2. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together, etc. This service was probably performed by couriers (ψφιν, who were doubtless employed in similar duties at the Babylonian court, as well as at the Persian (Esth. 10:15; Esther 8:14), and even at the courts of Saul (1 Samuel 11:7) and of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 30:6; 2 Chronicles 30:10).—The princes, the governors,and the captains. Among the seven classes of officials enumerated, these three are shown to have been more immediately related to each other by the εּ before τַּ ?ηֲ ?εָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ. Their members were executive officers of superior rank, who combined both civil and military functions in their range of duties, and who may have been substantially on a par with the executive officials connected with the ministry of the interior in a modern state, while the four succeeding classes were probably connected with the departments of finance and justice. (1) The ΰַ ?ηַ ?ωֶׁ ?γַּ ?ψְ ?τְּ ?πִ ?ιο were naturally satraps (cf. kshatrapβwan on the cuneiform inscriptions at Behitun, which, according to Haug [in Ewald’s Bibl. Jahrb., 5:153] is equivalent to “protector of the country,” and according to Lassen [Zeitschr. fόr Kunde des Morgenl., VI. 1, 18] is f synonymous with “guardian of the warriors of the host;” cf. also the Zend shτithrapaiti and the Sanscr. kshathrapa)—the superior executive officers of the several provinces, vice or sub-kings to the sovereign (cf. the ξַ ?μְ ?λִ ?ιο, Isaiah 10:8; Genesis 14:1-2, with the ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ ξַ ?μְ ?λַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, Daniel 2:37, Ezra 7:12), and therefore mentioned at the head of the body of officials. The fact that the title of these chief administrators of provinces is Persian does not demonstrate that their office was entirely confined to the time of the Achζmenidian Persian empire, or that it was even created by Darius Hystaspis (Herod. III. 89 ss.); for Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII. 6, 1) dates its existence back to the time of Cyrus, and Berosus (in Josephus, c. Apion, 1,19; Ant. X. 11, 1) designates Necho already as a τεταγμένοςσατράπης of Nabopolassar, which is hardly to be considered a gross anachronism, but rather as an indication of the relation of Necho as a vassal to Babylon. Consequently, the author cannot be charged with a historical error, either in this connection, or in Daniel 6:2 et seq., where he refers to the satraps of Darius the Mede. The ΰδωׁ ?γψτπιο must be regarded rather, as one of the Persian elements of the writer’s Chaldee idiom, the number of which, according to the Introd. § 1, note 3, must have been considerable, even at an early period (cf. on Daniel 2:4); and the early intrusion of such into the language and range of conception among the Chaldζans, is no more remarkable than is the mention of the ψַ ?αΞξָ ?β, Jeremiah 39:3, as a Chaldζan officer. The Septuagint, however, renders the term by σατράπαι only here and in Daniel 6:2; Daniel 6:4, while in Daniel 3:3; Daniel 3:27 it has ὔπατοι, in Ezra 8:36 διοικηταί, in Esther 8:9 οἰκονόμοι, and in Esther 9:3 τύραννοι, These variations indicate that the conception of a definite office was no longer connected with the title, at the time when that version was made.—(2) According to the observations on Daniel 2:48, the ρִ ?βְ ?πִ ?ιο were “superintendents, administrators” generally; in this case naturally not endowed with spiritual functions, but rather performing secular duties under the satraps, and finally employed chiefly in military rather than in civil offices (cf. the ρְ ?βָ ?πִ ?ιν of Babylon, mentioned together with the βִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψִ ?ιν, Jeremiah 51:57). The Septuagint appears to have conceived of these Signin, in harmony with this view, as being “prζfects of the host, or commanders of the provinces;” for they render the term in this instance by στρατηγοί (as in Daniel 3:3 and often, twelve times in all), while they translate it elsewhere by τοπάρχαι (Daniel 3:27), ἡγούμενοι (Daniel 2:48), or ἄρχοντες.—(3) τַּ ?δֲ ?εָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ (Heb. τַּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ from τֶּ ?ηָ ?δ), In view of the probably Indo-Germanic derivation of this term (cf. Sanscr. paksha, “side,” Prakr. pakkha, modern Persian and Turkish pasha) it properly designates “those who are stationed on the sides or flanks, adjutants,” and then governors, or the representatives of a sovereign in a designated field of administration, provincial prζfects. The governors whom Solomon placed over his provinces outside of Palestine, already bore this title (1 Kings 10:15; 2 Chronicles 9:14), also the governors of the Syrian king Benhadad (1 Kings 20:24); the corresponding officers among the Syrians (Isaiah 36:9; 2 Kings 18:24), Chaldζans (Ezek. 26:6, 23; Jeremiah 51:23) and Persians (Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3); and especially the Persian governors of Judζa subsequent to the captivity (Haggai 1:1; Haggai 1:14; Haggai 2:2; Haggai 2:21; Nehemiah 5:14; Nehemiah 5:18, etc.) Among the nations last mentioned, who employed satraps as the chief prζfects of provinces, the τֶּ ?ηָ ?δ was merely a subordinate to those officers (and more purely civil than military in his official character, as appears from the position of Zerub-babel and Nehemiah, according to Haggai and Neh. 50:100); but in the kingdoms of Solomon and Benhadad the τַּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ seem to have been equal in rank to the later satraps, and therefore were chief governors. In this place and Daniel 3:3 the Septuagint translates τοπάρχαι; in Daniel 3:27, ἀρχιπατριῶται (i.e., chief of a nationality).—(4)According to the Sept. the ΰֲ ?γַ ?ψְ ?βָּ ?ζְ ?ψַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ are “overseers” generally (ὑπατοι), while most moderns regard them as “chief judges or discerners.” Ewald defines them as “chief star-gazers, or augurs of the first-class” (!), and Hitzig, as “directors, upon whom devolves the decision of matters, or magistrates.” The term, which occurs only in this place, appears to be a genuine Aramaic compound, from ΰֶ ?γֶ ?ψ, glory, dignity, and βִּ ?ζַ ?ψ. to decide (cf. Daniel 2:27), and therefore probably designates a class of officers with whom rested the final decision, particularly in regard to the economical or financial administration of the provinces [possibly=the modern Oriental viziers]. The class which follows next in order obliges this restriction of the offices of the ΰֲ ?γַ ?ψְ ?βָּ ?ζְ ?ψַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ,—(5) βְּ ?γָ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ. “the treasurers.” These officers do not probably differ from the βִּ ?ζַּ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ιο, Ezra 7:21 (cf. Daniel 1:8), which term signifies γαζοφύλακες, “managers of the public treasury” (cf. Sept. διοικηταί, and is possibly related to the Pers. gaitha, modern Pets, genj, “treasure” (cf. gaza). Ewald’s assertion that βְּ ?γָ ?αַ ?ψ is synonymous with δֲ ?γָ ?αַ ?ψ, Daniel 3:24; Daniel 3:27, and signifies a “bearer of power,” or “exalted prince of the empire” (analogous to the old-Pers. chudvβr, from chad, “God, authorization”), is without adequate support.—(6) The γְּ ?ϊָ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ are clearly the “learned in the law,” or the “guardians of the law.” The first element of the word is evidently γָּ ?ϊ, “the law” (cf. Pers. data, from da,. “to give”), to which the Pers. ending vβr is annexed. Cf. the Pehlvi word datouber (Armen. datavor), “judges.”—(7) The unmistakable connection of ϊִּ ?τְ ?ϊָּ ?ιֵּ ?ΰ (like No. 4, a hapax leg.) with the Arab. ftah (cf. the Turkish mufti, chief judge) marks this class of officers as “dispensers of justice, lawyers, judges” in the strict sense (not “prζfecti” as the Vulgate has it, or “οἱἐπʼ ? ἐξουσιῶν”, as it is rendered by Theodotion, in each case because of a failure to apprehend the true meaning.—And all the rulers of the provinces; i.e., all the remaining officials who administrated the affairs of provinces. On ωִׁ ?μְ ?θεֹ ?ο, “ruler, high official,” cf. Ecclesiastes 8:4, and also the verb ΰωμθ, Daniel 2:48. The prζfect of the bodyguard, mentioned in Daniel 2:14, is not necessarily included among these remaining rulers, since only the officers of the provinces are more immediately referred to in this connection (against Kranichfeld). Von Lengerke is guilty of a gross impropriety, when he finds here “another extravagance, since the empire could not in the meantime be left without an administration.” It is not necessary to stretch λֹּ ?μ so unreasonably in this case, as to make it indicate the presence of all the government officials without exception (cf. 1 Samuel 28:4, and generally Kranichfeld on the passage).—To come to the dedication of the image, etc. ηֲ ?εֻ ?λָ ?δ, the feast of dedication, religious dedicatory services, with which were connected sacrifices, the burning of incense, sacrificial feasts, etc. Cf. Ezra 6:16, where the same expression is employed with reference to the dedication of the second temple. Daniel 3:3-7. The dedication. And they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had (caused to be) set up. The Keri has χιξιο instead of χָ ?ΰξִ ?ιο, as it substitutes γָּ ?ιְ ?ψִ ?ιο for γָּ ?ΰψִ ?ιο in Daniel 2:38, according to the usage of the Targums.— μָ ?χְ ?αֵ ?μ, “before, opposite,” which is employed here and in Ezra 4:16, instead of the usual Chaldee form μָ ?χְ ?αֵ ?μ (Daniel 5:1; Daniel 5:4; Daniel 5:10; Ezra 6:13), is a Syriasm in the pronunciation, similar to that in εּ ?φְֽ ?ψִ ?ψ. Genesis 37:25, which is used instead of εּ ?φְָ ?ψִ ?ιDaniel 3:4. Then a herald cried aloud. λָּ ?ψεֹ ?ζ and the corresponding verb λְּ ?ψַ ?ζ “to proclaim publicly” (Daniel 3:29), are not exactly Aramaic adaptations of the Greek terms κῆρυξ, κηρύττειν (Bertholdt and others), but are without doubt radically related to them, and also to the Sanscr. krus, old-Pers. khresio, “one who calls or screams” (mod. Pers. gris-ten; cf. the German kreischen); while on the other hand, they are also related to χψΰ “to call.”— αְּ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μ, mightily, with a loud voice, as in Daniel 4:11; Daniel 5:7, and as in the Heb. αַ ?λֹ ?δַ, Psalms 29:4; Isaiah 40:9.—To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages. ΰָ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιο, properly “they say” (are saying), a very common idiom in the Chaldee, expressing an impersonal sense, or more directly, serving as a substitute for the impersonal passive construction (Winer, § 49, 3). The collocation of ςַ ?ξְ ?ξַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ (“peoples, nations”), ΰֻ ?ξַָּ ?ιּ ?ΰ (“tribes,” a more limited conception than the preceding; cf. also in the Heb., e.g. Psalms 111:6 with Genesis 25:16), and μִ ?ωָּׁ ?πַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ (“tongues,” “peoples having a common language;” cf. the Heb. μָ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ο Isaiah 66:18; Zechariah 8:23), recurs again in Daniel 3:7, 29, 31, and, indeed, often in the book of Daniel (Daniel 5:19; Daniel 6:26; Daniel 7:14). This formula, which combines in a solemn triad “all the nations in the empire, however distantly related they may be, or however great may be the diversity between themselves or their constituent elements,” and which exhorts them to give attention, was probably stereotyped in the official edicts of the Chaldζan realm, whose motley aggregate of languages and nations would give rise to such comprehensive phrases more readily than would the character of any other empire of antiquity. The proclamation, of course, is not addressed to all the individuals of the various nations, tribes, etc., but only to their representatives who were actually present. [“The proclamation of the herald refers not only to all who were present, since besides the officers there certainly was present a great crowd of people from all parts of the kingdom, as M. Geier has rightly remarked, so that the assembly consisted of persons of various races and languages. ΰֻ ?ξַּ ?ιָּ ?ΰ denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. ΰֻ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ϊ ,ΰֻ ?ξָּ ?δ, Genesis 25:16, denotes the several tribes of Ishmael, and in Numbers 25:15, the separate tribes of Midianites; and is thus not so extensive in its import as ςַ ?ξִּ ?ιο, peoples. μִ ?ωָּׁ ?πַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, corresponding to δַ ?μְּ ?ωֹׁ ?πεֹ ?ϊ, Isaiah 66:18, designates (see Genesis 10:5; Genesis 10:20; Genesis 10:31) communities of men of the same language, and is not a tautology, since the distinctions of nation and of language are in the course of history frequently found. The placing together of the three words denotes all nations, however they may have widely branched off into tribes with different languages, and expresses the sense that no one in the whole kingdom should be exempted from the command.”—Keil.] Daniel 3:5. At what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, etc. As in the case of religious dedicatory festivals among the Israelites (Psalms 30:1; Nehemiah 12:27; 1Ma 4:54), so at the dedication of this heathen statue, there was no lack of music and song (cf. Exodus 32:18 et seq.). This is an especially natural feature, since the Babylonians, as well as the ancient Assyrians, appear, as a people, to have been unusually addicted to music, in view of the testimony afforded by numerous historical records of a positive character; cf. Isaiah 14:11; Psalms 137:2; Herodotus, I. 191 (the χορεύειν of the Babylonians during the capture of their city by Cyrus); Curtius, V. 3 (Alexander welcomed on his entrance into Babylon, by “artifices cum fidibus sui generis—laudes regum canere soliti”). Additional evidence is found in the representations of musicians with various instruments, on the monumental edifices of Nineveh and Babylon.—The names of the six instruments here enumerated are in the singular, not as indicating that only one of each kind was at hand, but as a generic designation of the entire class to which it belonged. Hence, there is no impropriety in rendering them in the plural “the cornets, flutes,” etc. [“χַ ?ψְ ?πָ ?ΰ, horn, is the tuba of the ancients, the χֶ ?ψֶ ?ο or ωׁ ?εֹ ?τָ ?ψ of the Hebr.; see Joshua 6:5. ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ψεֹ ?χִ ?ιϊָ ?ΰ, from ωָׁ ?ψַ ?χ, to hiss or whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the Sept. and Theodotion σύριγξ the shepherd’s or Pan’s pipe, which consisted of several reeds of different thickness and length bound together, and according to a Greek tradition (Pollux, IV. 9, 15), was invented by two Medes.”—Keil. “It is uncertain whether the horn intended was straight, like the Assyrian, or curved, like the Roman cornu and lituus. The pipe was probably the double instrument, played at the end, which was familiar to the Susianians and Assyrians. The harp would seem to have resembled the later harp of the Assyrians; but it had fewer strings, if we may judge from a representation upon a cylinder. Like the Assyrian, it was carried under the arm, and was played with both hands, one on either side of the strings” (Rawlinson, Five Monarchies, III. 20).] —The harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer. For the opinion that of the names of the four instruments here mentioned, which several expositors hold to be derived without exception from the Greek, probably but two are really taken from that language, see the Introd. § 7. See ibid, note 2. concerning the possibility of an importation of musical instruments and their names from Greece, even prior to the time of Daniel. It is yet to be noticed in this connection: (1) that instead of the Kethib χιϊψρ, which is to be pronounced either as χִ ?ιϊְ ?ψֹ ?ρ, or χִ ?ιψָ ?ψρ, the Keri has the shortened form χִ ?ϊψֹ ?ρ which appears to have been in general use in later times. The Syriac affords repeated examples of the conversion of the Greek ending ιζ into εֹ ?ρ (Gesen. Thes., p. 1215), so that in this direction the derivation of the term from the Gr. κίθαρις seems certainly to be secured. However, see the Introd., as above.—(2) The σαμβύκη, which Strabo notices (Daniel 10:3; Daniel 10:7) as being of foreign origin, and whose invention is attributed by Clemens Alex. (Strom. I. 76) to the Troglodytes, might possibly be explained in analogy with the Sanscrit cambuka, “bivalve, muscle.” The form ρַ ?αְ ?λָּ ?ΰ, however, appears rather to point to the Shemitic root ρακְ, “to weave.”—(3) The orthography of τְּ ?ρַ ?πְ ?ϊְּ ?ψִ ?ιο is not fixed; in Daniel 3:7 the name is written with θ instead of ϊ, and in Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:15 it is pointed with—under ϊּ. The numerous changes of the Greek ending ιον into ιο— which are found in the later Chaldee, and of which ρַ ?πְ ?δֶ ?γְ ?ψִ ?ιο=συνέδριον is the most familiar (Gesen. Thesaur., p. 1116), indicate the identity of this instrument with the ψαληριον, [“It was an instrument like a harp, which, according to Augustine (on Psalms 32. [33. 2 and Psalms 42. [43. 4) was distinguished from the cithara in this particular, that while the strings of the cithara passed over the sounding-board, those of the psalterion(or organon) were placed under it. Such harps are found on Egyptian (see Roselini) and also on Assyrian monuments (cf. Layard, Ninev. and Bab., plate XIII. 4).”—Keil. “In Egypt they have an instrument, evidently of the same name, santir (Lane, Mod. Eg., p. 77), which is a species of dulcimer, is stringed, and is beaten with two small sticks.”—Stuart.]—(4) V. 10 has the softer ρִ ?ιτֹ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δ instead of ρεּ ?ξְ ?τּ ?εֹ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δ; a form which points back no less certainly than does(the more usual term, to the Greek συμφωνια, since the sound υ is intermediate between εּ and ι— Its rendering by “bagpipe” (Germ. Sackpfeife, Dudelsack) has a sufficient support in Polyb. XXXI. 4, in Saadias on this passage, and in the Italian sampogna. In addition, the name συμφωνία (Jerome, “consonantia”) is exceedingly suitable for an instrument consisting of two pipes which are passed through a leathern bag, from which their ends protrude equally above and below—the lower of which pipes, when played with the fingers like a flute, emits in screaming tones the sounds breathed into the upper and increased in force by passing through the bag (cf. Winer, Reaw. II, p. 123). We must therefore reject its interpretation by ςεּ ?βָ ?α, “Pandean pipes” in the Heb. translation of the passage; further, its rendering as “a drum” by Isidore (Origg. III. 21); the derivation of the word by Hδvernick from ρεּ ?σ, “a reed;” that by Paulus from ρְ ?τִ ?ιπָ ?δ, “a ship,” “the covering of a ship” (cf. a resonant frame), etc. [Stuart adduces the instrument called summarah, described and figured by Lane (Mod. Eg., II. 81, 82), still commonly used in Egypt by the boatmen, and giving two symphonious sounds, being double.]—And all kinds of music. A comprehensive supplemental phrase, similar to that which follows the names of the officers in Daniel 3:2. [By the addition “this pompous language of the world-ruler and of the herald of his power is well expressed.”—Keil.] ζְ ?ξָ ?ψָ ?ΰ does not designate either instrumental music or “song” (Hitz.) as distinct from each other, but music in general; cf. the Sept. and Theodotion: καὶπαντὸςγένουςμουσικῶν. The expression therefore does not refer to various melodies, nor to different parts of vocal music; but it does not, on the other hand, exclude such music from the ceremony; cf. the Targ. Genesis 4:21; Ezekiel 33:22.—Ye (shall) fall down and worship the golden image, etc. Kranichfeld observes correctly (on Daniel 3:6): “The homage which the king required to be rendered to his god (cf. on Daniel 3:14) on the occasion of this great national festival in honor of their victories (cf. on Daniel 3:1), was regarded as a test of the loyalty of the officers to the king himself, and especially in the case of those who belonged to subjugated nations. The victory of a heathen king over other tribes and nations was considered a triumph of his gods over their gods (1 Kings 20:23; 1 Kings 20:28; 2 Chronicles 28:23; Isaiah 36:18-20, etc.); and hostile kingdoms included the gods of their opponents among their foes, and in contrast with the usual tolerance and indifference of heathenism in regard to the worship of the gods, they refused them reverence, so long as neither party believed that its cause was lost. Thus, for instance, the different foes of the Assyrian empire are characterized on an inscription of Tiglath-pilesar as those who ‘refuse to reverence’ the god of Asshur, as the lord of Tiglath-pilesar. Opposition to the gods of a kingdom was therefore equivalent to hostility against the realm. The same inscription represents Tiglath-pilesar, for this reason, as directly imposing on the conquered nations the worship of Asshur’s god; they must prostrate themselves before this offended god, and -thus render their tribute (Pusey, Daniel, p. 444 ss.). This will illustrate the baselessness of Von Lengerke’s assertion that religious compulsion was unknown among the ancient Asiatic nations, and that they never enforced a recognition of the gods from unwilling persons. What has been remarked, serves to show that, on the contrary, an expression of homage toward the national divinity was always required, and even insisted on, whenever the political supremacy of a realm was in question; and this would be observed especially in the case of officers, upon whose loyalty the security of the realm of such divinity might depend. If Nebuchadnezzar was concerned, on the celebration of the nation’s triumph before us, to secure a recognition of his right, as the supreme ruler, to the allegiance of his subjects, and especially to the homage of the officials to whom was entrusted the administration of his empire, it follows that the compulsory requirement to do homage to the national god of his kingdom, was, in this instance, a necessary measure, aiming simply at the preservation of the realm.” Daniel 3:6, And whoso falleth not down …. shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. ξָ ?οΞγִּ ?ι, quicunque, synonymous with ξָ ?ηΞγִּ ?ι, Daniel 2:28 (cf. Daniel 3:11; Daniel 4:14)— αַּ ?δּ ?Ξωַׁ ?ςְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰ, in the same hour, literally “in it, the hour;” the suffix, which anticipates the connected noun, is annexed to the preposition; cf. Daniel 3:7-8; Daniel 3:15; Daniel 4:30; Daniel 4:33, and also the instances in which, additionally, the preposition is itself repeated before the noun, e.g. αֵּ ?δּ αְּ ?μֵ ?ιμְ ?ιָ ?ΰ Daniel 5:30; cf. Daniel 5:12. [“The frequent pleonastic use, in the later Aramaic, of the union of a preposition with a suffix anticipating the following noun, has in the Bibl. Chald. generally a certain emphasis, for the pronominal suffix is manifestly used demonstratively, in the sense, ‘even this’.—Keil.] ωָׁ ?ςָ ?η, after the Arabic, is literally, “the quickly expiring, the quickly passing,” hence a moment, in which sense the term is often found in the Targums (=Hebr. ψָ ?βַ ?ς). In Daniel it always has the meaning of “hour,” as appears especially from Daniel 4:16 [19]. [The passage here referred to, however, does not support this later or Rabbinical import to the word, which is therefore here, as elsewhere in Daniel, to be rendered moment.] The word does not seem to be related to the verb ωָׁ ?ςָ ?δ “to see;” the root from which it is derived signifies in the Arabic “celeriter ire, currere.”—ΰַ ?ϊּ ?εּ ?ο ,according to the Arabic, literally, “a furrow, excavation” (whence probably: a lime pit), designates an excavated smelting furnace in the form of a pit, a fire pit, which sense is also expressed in the corresponding Ethiop. ΰַ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ο, and by the originally synonymous, but not essentially related Heb. ϊַּ ?πּ ?εּ ?ψ. The smelting furnace here referred to, however, being designed for the infliction of the death penalty on criminals by means of fire, was arranged according to Daniel 3:22; Daniel 3:26, so that at least one, if not more of its sides, rose as perpendicular (or inclined) surfaces above the earth, analogous to the construction of our lime-kilns and furnaces, and probably also to the brickkiln (ξַ ?μְ ?αּ ?ο) at Tahpanhes in Egypt, which is referred to in Jeremiah 43:9 et seq. The principal opening, by which fuel and other materials designed for burning (or smelting) were introduced into the furnace, was above (see Daniel 3:22); a second, for the removal of slag, cinders, etc., or the molten metal, was arranged below, in one of the sides, and permitted persons standing before the furnace to observe the material in its interior (the ϊְּ ?ψַ ?ς Daniel 3:26; cf. Daniel 3:24-25). The passage Jeremiah 29:22 (“The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire”) attests that the Babylonians were accustomed to burn condemned criminals, and perhaps prisoners of war in such furnaces, even prior to the time of Daniel. The Moabites employed the same method of inflicting capital punishment, according to Amos 2:1, as did also the Israelites, according to the Keri of 2 Samuel 12:31. [“That burning was not an unusual punishment in the East is sufficiently known. As to the Persians, see Brissonius. De Reg. Pers., II. cap. 216.… Chardin (who was in Persia A. D. 1671–7) relates that in a time of scarcity, two furnaces were kept burning a whole month, in order to consume such as exacted more than the lawful price of food (Voyages, VI. p. 118).”—Stuart.] The genitive clause πεּ ?ψָ ?ΰιָ ?χִ ?ιγְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰ, “of the burning fire,” exemplifies the terribly cruel and frightful character of the threatened punishment. Daniel 3:7. Therefore at that time when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, etc. [“αֵּ ?δּ ?ζִ ?ξְ ?πָ ?ΰ, (cf. also Daniel 3:8) is interchanged with αְּ ?ςִ ?γָּ ?πָ ?ΰ, at the time (Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:15); but it is to be distinguished from αַּ ?δּ ?Ξωַׁ ?ςְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰ, at the same moment, Daniel 3:6; Daniel 3:15, for ωָׁ ?ςָ ?ΰ, or ωָׁ ?ςָ ?η, has in the Bib. Chald. only the meaning instant, moment (cf. Daniel 4:16; Daniel 4:30; Daniel 5:5), and acquires the signification short time, hour, first in the Targ. and Rabbins.”—Keil.] Only five, instead of six, sorts of musical instruments are here mentioned; but the omission of the ρεּ ?ξְ ?τֹּ ?πְ ?ιָּ ?ΰ hardly be designed, as appears from Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:15. It is probably to be attributed to the haste of the writer, which also caused the orthography of τρπθψιε with θ instead of ϊ in this passage, and only here. Daniel 3:8-12. The companions of Daniel charged with transgressing the royal command. Wherefore at that time certain Chaldζans came near, etc. “Wherefore,” i.e., in view of the worship rendered by all the people, excepting only the Jews, to the idol image. Daniel does not mention that it was refused by the Jews, leaving it to be inferred, as a matter of course.—And accused (or slandered) the Jews (cf. Daniel 6:25); literally, “and ate the pieces (of flash) of the Jews”—a phrase found also in the Arabic and the Syriac, which expresses both the murder caused by the slanderous tongue, and the gloating over the fragmentary remains of the victim. Cf. the German “Jemanden kurz und klein machen, an ihrn kein gutes Haar lassen.” It appears from the indefinite “Chaldζan men” that the malicious informers were not specifically Chaldζan priests or wise men (this would have been indicated by τּ ?ωְׂ ?γִּ ?ιο merely, cf. Daniel 2:2), but people generally, who were of Chaldζan descent. [“That which was odious in their report was, that they used the instance of disobedience to the king’s command on the part of the Jewish officers as an occasion of removing them from their offices,— that their denunciation of them arose from their envying the Jews their position of influence, as in Daniel 6:5 (4), ff.”—Keil] Daniel 3:9. O king, live for ever. Cf. Daniel 2:4. Daniel 3:12. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon. A clear reference to the close of the preceding section (Daniel 2:49). The mention of their exalted official rank was designed to emphasize the dangerous feature connected with the disobedience of such men to the royal command, and also to direct attention to the blackness of their ingratitude toward their royal benefactor.—These men, O king, have not regarded thee; i.e., thy commands, ΰִ ?μֵּ ?κְ “these,” is peculiar to the Biblical Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra, and is not found in the Targums, which have ΰִ ?μֵּ ?ιο or ΰֵ ?μֶּ ?δ instead (Winer, § 9. p. 29).—They serve not thy god, nor worship the golden image, etc. The former of these charges is related to the latter as the general to the particular; the general lack of reverence for the gods of Babylon on the part of the three men, which had been formerly observed, was now demonstrated by a flagrant example. Because of this evident relation to each other between the two clauses—a relation that is again brought out in the parallel Daniel 3:18 (and possibly in Daniel 3:14; see on the passage)—the Kethib μֵ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?ικְ “thy gods.” must be preferred to the Keri μֵ ?ΰμָ ?δָ ?κְ “thy god;” which has been the case accordingly, in Theodotion and the Vulgate. Compare, although it is superfluous, Daniel 3:28 b, where μְ ?λָ ?μΞΰֱ ?μָ ?δּ shows clearly that a number of gods were in question. [“The Chaldζans knew the three Jews, who were so placed as to be well known, and at the same time envied, before this. They had long known that they did not worship idols; but on this occasion, when their religion made it necessary for the Jews to disobey the king’s command, they made use of their knowledge.”—Hitzig. It is barely possible that the proposal of erecting such an idolatrous image and requiring the whole realm, and especially the public officials to adore it, originated, as in chap. 6. with some such malicious and envious enemies of Judaism.]—Why was not Daniel included in this charge of the Chaldζans? To this question that so readily presents itself, no answer can be given that will be sufficiently assured to exclude all others; but we are not on that account compelled (with 5. Lengerke) to find here a new improbability, and a testimony against the credibility of the book. Daniel might be omitted from the number of the accused, (1) because he was too firmly established in the favor of the king, to justify the attempt of a slanderer to destroy him (Calvin, Hδvernick, etc.); (2) because he was absent on business, or sick (Luderwald, Jahn); (3) because his position, as chief of the magian caste, would remove him from the gaze of the multitude, and would also relieve him from the obligation of prostrating himself before the idol, which more immediately affected the secular officials (see on Daniel 3:2, Kranichfeld). All of these explanations are admissible; and very possibly any two of the reasons adduced might combine to cause his absence, e. g. Nos. 1 and 2, or 2 and 3. The opinion of Hengstenberg however (with whom Hitzig agrees), that according to Daniel 2:49, Daniel filled no office of superior power and influence in the state, but that he at once transferred to his three friends the dignity of a viceroy which was offered to him and contented himself with the spiritual rank of chief of the Magi, cannot be entertained. See to the contrary Daniel 2:48-49, where it was shown that, together with this spiritual dignity, Daniel must have possessed considerable influence in the political field, although not bearing the title of a recognized officer of the state. [“But the circumstance that Daniel, if he were present, did not exert himself in behalf of his three friends, may be explained from the quick execution of Babylonian justice; provided some higher reason did not determine him confidently to commit the decision of the matter to the Lord his God.”—Keil.] Daniel 3:13-15. The accused summoned to renounce Jehovah. Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and fury commanded to bring, etc. αִּ ?ψְ ?βַ ?ζεַ ?ηֲ ?ξָ ?ΰ The use of the synonymous terms expresses the violence of the king’s rage. The Inf. Aphel μְ ?δַ ?Ξְ ?σָ ?ψָ ?δ “to let them be brought,” is found also in Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:13.—Then they brought these men before the king; rather, “Then these men were brought before the king.” δֵ ?ιϊָ ?ιεּ is not to be taken transitively, “they brought these men” (Chr. B. Michaelis, etc.); nor is it to be explained as a Hebraizing Hophal form (Buxt., Hδvernick, 5. Lengerke). It is rather a passive form of the Aphel after the manner of the Hebrew [Hophal], of which the 3d pers. masc. sing, is δֵ ?ιϊִ ?ι the fem. ηֵ ?ιϊַ ?ιϊ (Daniel 6:18), while the regular participle with a passive signification would be ξֵ ?ιϊַ ?ι and the active partic. Aphel ξֵ ?ιϊֵ ?ι (cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage). Daniel 3:14. Of purpose (marg.), O Shadrach … do ye not serve my god? The plural μֵ ?ΰμָ ?δַ ?ι “my gods,” is perhaps admissible here, in analogy with Daniel 3:12; Daniel 3:18 (Hitzig); but in this instance the singular is especially suitable, as referring directly to the image of the idol immediately before them; and there is no Keri, in this case, recommending the plural—δַ ?φְ ?γָ ?ΰ literally, “Was it design?”—a combination of the interrogative δֲ with φְ ?γָ ?ΰ, a noun that occurs in no other place, but which may be explained by “fraudulent design, evil purpose” [contumacy] on the analogy of the Hebrew φְ ?γִ ?ιָּ ?δ (Numbers 35:20-21). The question, “Does an evil purpose lead you to refuse to serve my god”? evidently has a substantial basis in the situation as described; for these men had by no means presented themselves at once in the festive assembly, as is shown by the command to “bring them.” Despite their official station, they had rather endeavored to avoid any participation in the ceremonies. Nothing could therefore be more natural than the question of the king, as to whether their absence was grounded on an actual disobedience or evil design, or not. The usual interpretation of ηַ ?φְ ?γָ ?ΰ is therefore to be retained, and the departures from it must be rejected; e.g., the rendering of Hδvernick (“Is it because ye mock, or despise my gods, that ye do not worship them?”), and by Fόrst and Kranichfeld (who conceive δφγΰ as an adverbial Aphel noun, from φְ ?γַ ?ΰ, and thus avoid the interrogative sense of the clause entirely: “In mockery ye not serve my god !”). [The interpretation of the Engl. Bible. “Is it true,” is not only unsustained by the etymological signification of the word, but at variance with the circumstances of the case; for their absence was a matter of fact, and their declining to worship was only a question of inadvertence or setted determination. “The king, seemingly with more than usual moderation, first inquires into the truth of the accusation.” (Rather he first opens the way for the most favorable construction of the omission.) “He probably suspected the accusers of envious motives, and was desirous of sparing these Hebrews on whom he had bestowed special favors.”—Stuart.] Daniel 3:15. Now if ye be ready that at what time …. ye worship; i.e. “at the time … to worship. This conditional clause of a positive character may be readily completed from the negative conditional clause which immediately follows, whose apodosis involves the contrary of the thought here required; hence, e.g., “nothing shall be done to you; ye shall escape the death by fire.” The same construction [aposiopesis] occurs in Exodus 32:32; Luke 13:9. It is also frequent in the classics, e.g., Homer, Il. 1:135; Plato, Protag. 15; and likewise in the Arabic.—λְּ ?ςַ ?ε, at the beginning of the sentence, corresponds to the Heb. εְ ?ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ; the Vulgate renders it correctly by “Nunc ergo.”—And who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hand? Not exactly a direct blasphemy of the God of the Jew (Hitzig), but still a challenge addressed to Him in a presumptuous spirit and with a haughty sense of superior power; cf. Isaiah 37:10; and supra, on Daniel 3:1. Daniel 3:16-18. The steadfast confession of the three Jews. Shadrach …. answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, etc. Thus the Masoretic punctuation, which, however, is departed from by all the ancient translations. The Septuagint introduces a βασιλεῦ, “O king,” before the vocative Nebuchadnezzar, and Theodotion and the Vulgate connect the name of the king with the preceding dative case, and therefore place the Athnach under πְ ?αεּ ?λΧ. But there is no ground for either of these variations: for while on the one hand, the boldness of the reply is indicated at the be ginning by the word μְ ?ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ, the direct address by name, on the other hand, conveys an emphasis and solemnity that fully comport with the situation. The vocative ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ in Daniel 3:17 shows that the form of this address, which contains merely the name of the king, and omits the royal title, was not designed as an expression of contempt. Cf. Daniel 3:14, where Nebuchadnezzar likewise addresses the three Hebrews simply by name.—We are not careful to answer thee in this matter, i.e., it is not necessary. The primary emphasis falls on ΰְ ?πַ ?ηְ ?πָ ?ΰ, as appears from the words δֵ ?ιΰִ ?ιϊַ ?ιΰְֵ ?μָ ?δָ ?πָ ?ΰ at the beginning of the next verse. Hence the sense is, “It is not we that are compelled to answer thee (i.e., to manage our case before thee), but if our God can deliver us,” etc. On δַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιι cf. Daniel 4:16; Daniel 5:25. The root ηֲ ?ωַׁ ?η is foreign to the language of the Targums. but is found in the Syriac, where it signifies “to be useful, suitable,” while in the Bibl. Chaldee it expresses the idea of being necessary (e.g., Ezra 6:9; cf. ηַ ?ωְׁ ?ηεּ ?ϊ “need,” Ezra 7:20), or of standing in need of (as in this place).—ςַ ?μΞγְּ ?πָ ?δ, “upon this,” is connected with the following τϊβν, by the Sept., Theodotion, Vulgate, Hδvernick, etc.: “to answer thee upon this word (or matter);” but in that case τϊβν must be in the Stat, emphaticus, despite the preceding demonstrative; cf. Daniel 4:15; Daniel 2:32; Ezra 6:11.—τψּ ?βν is a word unquestionably borrowed from the Persian (cf. the Introd. § 1, note 3), but found also in the later Hebrew of the book of Ecclesiastes (see on Ecclesiastes 8:11). It is compounded from the Zend preposition paiti (= prati, πρός) and the verb gam, “to go,” and accordingly, signifies “what is going forward, a message” (cf. mod. Pers. paiam, “a messenger,” and the Armen. patgam, “a message”), from which results the further meaning of “a command, edict, word.” The latter is the sense in this place. The idea of “answer” results from its connection with the verb ηֲ ?ϊִ ?ια, “to give back.” Daniel 3:17. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us; rather, “If our God whom we serve, can save us.” ηֵ ?ο is not the Heb. δֵ ?ο or ηִ ?πֵּ ?δ, and cannot be rendered by ecce enim, with the Vulgate, nor by a causal γάρ, with the Sept. It corresponds rather, as always in Daniel, to the Heb. ΰִ ?ν, “if,” and is here, as in Daniel 3:15, in contrast with a ηֵ ?εμָ ?ΰ (see Daniel 3:17). In this case, however, the conditional clause is followed by its apodosis. which begins, as the athnach correctly indicates, with the words ξִ ?σΞΰַ ?ϊּ ?εּ ?ο. ιָ ?λִ ?μ, “to be able,” does not, of course, refer to the ability of God, as limited by any bounds whatever, but as ethically conditioned (cf. Genesis 19:29). The pious Jews were not probably concerned to maintain the perfection of the Divine power in opposition to the king, but at the most, their own worthiness to find mercy at the hands of the Almighty (cf. Daniel 2:18; Daniel 6:22; Daniel 9:15-19),—and perhaps not even this,—for the whole may have been spoken from the point of view occupied by the heathen hearers of the three Hebrews, who certainly doubted Jehovah’s ability to save His servants. In order to refer these opponents, and above all the king himself, with all possible emphasis to the test of experience, upon which everything depended, the Jews employ the words, “If our God—can save” (thus corresponding to Daniel 3:17), although it would have been more in harmony with their Israelitish consciousness to say, “If He will save” (cf. Hitzig on this passage). [“There lies in the answer, ‘If our God will save us, then …. and if not, know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods,’ neither audacity, nor a superstitious expectation of some miracle, (Daniel 3:17), nor fanaticism (Daniel 3:18), as Berth., 5. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submission to the will of God.”—Keil. In the most extreme event they prefer death to idolatry.] Daniel 3:19-23. The execution. Then …. and the form (the expression) of his visage was changed against Shadrach, etc. The A. V. is literal. The Kethib ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?πִּ ?ε is conformed to the Genit. ΰַ ?πְ ?τּ ?εֹ ?δִ ?ι. while the Keri ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?πִ ?ι agrees with the Nom. sing. φְ ?μֵ ?ν. The former construction, as being more rare and difficult, is to be considered genuine.—Seven times more than it was wont to be heated; thus Bertholdt, Gesenius, and others, in agreement with the A. V. But ηֲ ?ζִ ?ι, passive part. of ηζδ, “to see,” is constantly used in the Targums in the sense of “suitable, appropriate” (literally, “what has been selected as appropriate,” quod conveniens visum est), and the construction with μְ, c. Infinit., shows that the same signification is required here. Therefore, “seven times beyond its appropriate heating;” i.e., seven times more than was necessary (παῤὃἔδει, Sept). [The sense thus yielded, however, is more inept than the other, and the impersonal construction of the former verb (ηζδ), together with the active form of the latter (μξζιδּ), rather favors the same rendering. In either case the ultimate thought is the unusually intense fire.]—The command to heat the furnace exactly seven times beyond its proper measure, has a parallel in judicial procedures and limitations, where seven as a number indicates a full atonement or satisfaction, cf. Leviticus 26:18-24; Deut. 38:7 et seq.; Proverbs 6:31; Matthew 18:21 et seq.; and perhaps passages like Isaiah 11:15; Isaiah 30:26; Psalms 12:7, etc. This judicial bearing of the number seven, which was familiar to all the ancient Oriental nations and current among them, is the only respect in which the number is here employed, and it affords the only explanation of the phrase as used by the Babylonian king. Kranichfeld’s remark is less appropriate, when he observes that the number seven serves in this instance to express the idea of intensity, because here, “where a notorious injury had been inflicted on the national divinity,” no other than a pre-eminently sacred number would be adequate; but this may be admitted rather than the general opinion that in this case seven was “merely the indefinite expression of around number” (Hδvernick, etc.) Daniel 3:20. And he commanded the most mighty men … in his army. αְּ ?ηַ ?ιְ ?μֵ ?δּ must not be limited to the life or body guards, against which view the comprehensive and indefinite signification of the term ηιμ is, in itself, a sufficient testimony; but in addition, the selection of executioners from the army is seen to be well grounded and capable of an easy explanation, in view of the fact that the task was not without danger, and would require the services of especially trustworthy men; and the presence of the troops at a religious ceremony is not strange, since a great festive procession was one of its features.—To bind Shadrach …. and to (rather “in order to”) cast them into the burning fiery furnace. The second inf. μְ ?ξִ ?ψְ ?ξֵ ?ΰ is subordinated to the first, μְ ?λַ ?τַּ ?ϊν, as more directly pointing out the special design. Daniel 3:21. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, etc; rather, their undergarments, coats, etc. The haste, as here implied, with which the sentence was executed, is in strong contrast with the direction given immediately before, to heat the furnace more intensely than usual; for the newly added fuel would require time before it could burn with sufficient force, in a furnace of considerable size. But the rage of an inflamed Oriental despot allows itself no time in which to quietly consider all the circumstances connected with any given case.—Three articles of clothing are specified as belonging to the costume of the three Hebrews, which may have constituted the distinguishing features of their official dress; and upon these follows the generalizing εּ ?μְ ?αεּ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδκֹ ?ο, “and their (other) garments” (cf. Daniel 3:2; Daniel 3:5) [as “coverings for the feet and the head” (Keil)]. There would be no need to mention such a variety of garments in the case of men of inferior rank.—(1) The ρַ ?ψְ ?αָּ ?μִ ?ιο were probably long and closely-fitting under-garments, that covered the whole body (shirts, tunics); for the word is most readily explained by comparison with the Chald. quadril. verb ρַ ?ψְ ?αֵּ ?μ, texit, operuit. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ AND NOTES [The numerical division of the verses in chap. 4 differs in the English Bible from that in the original text, as the latter annexes the first three verses of this narrative to chap. 3, and consequently begins its chap. 4 with Daniel 3:4 of the English Bible.] Lange's comments have been divided here for presentation in Bible software based on the English Bible. See near the end of the comments for Daniel 3:1 ff for the division point.Daniel 4:1-6 [Daniel 4:4-9]. The king’s dream. Inability of the Magians to interpret it. I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house. “At rest,” i.e., in the undisturbed possession of my kingdom, which, according to Daniel 4:19, extended to the end of the earth; “in my house,” i.e., in the abode of peace, not in the field in order to prosecute warlike enterprises. Both expressions therefore refer to the later period of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, when his wars (probably including that against Tyre, Ezekiel 29:17) were ended, and he was able to devote himself to the affairs of peace, and especially to the erection of the great edifices at Babylon, to which Daniel 4:27, and also Berosus, in Josephus, c. Apion, I. 19, refer. The time of this dream is therefore still later than that indicated by Daniel 3:1.—And flourishing in my palace. ψַ ?ςֲ ?πַ ?ο, “green,” not ωַׁ ?μְ ?ΰֲ ?πָ ?ο, “quiet” (as the analogy of Job 21:23 might perhaps lead us to expect), is the term employed by Nebuchadnezzar perhaps because he already recalls at this point the fresh and strongly flourishing tree (Daniel 4:7 et seq.), by which he was symbolized in the dream vision. Such a prefatory use of a characteristic feature in the symbolic vision was the more appropriate, since the comparison of fortunate and healthful conditions in life with the verdure of trees was exceedingly common throughout the Orient, and especially so in the Old Testament usage of language; Cf. Psalms 1:3; Psalms 37:35; Psalms 52:10; Psalms 92:13 et seq.; Proverbs 11:28; Hosea 14:7; Ezekiel 47:12 (see upon this thought, my Theologia naturalis, p. 495 et seq,). For the rest, ψַ ?ςֲ ?πַ ?ο belongs to the somewhat numerous class of words which fell into disuse in the later Aramζism; Cf. Pusey, Daniel, p. 599–606. Daniel 4:2 [Daniel 4:5]. I saw a dream which made me afraid. The abrupt connection, without ε or αֵּ ?ΰγַ ?ιִ ?ο indicates the alarming influence which the suddenly transpiring dream exercised over the king, who had previously spent his time in peace; Cf. Job 4:20, and also the numerous antithetic asyndeta in the Proverbs (Introd. to Prov. of Sol., § 14).—And thoughts upon my bed, viz.: “came to me, arose in me;” an independent clause, which must not be connected with the final verb ιαδμππι, but which is rather to be regarded as a parallel to δֵ ?μֶ ?νηֲ ?ζֵ ?ιϊ, exactly as εְ ?ηֶ ?ζְ ?εֵ ?ιεβεΧ is parallel to εִ ?ιγַ ?ηֲ ?μִ ?πַּ ?πִ ?ι in the former half of the verse. The assumption of such a parallelism is not, however, to be strained to the point of regarding (with Kranichf.) the “thoughts” as the details of the vision itself; for they, like the ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?πֵ ?ιμִ ?αְ ?αָ ?κְ in Daniel 2:29, were probably the troubled reflections of the king on awaking from his slumber, and while meditating on the nature of his dream (Von Lengerke; Cf. supra, on Daniel 2:29).—The δַ ?ψְ ?δֹ ?ψִ ?ιο (= the ηִ ?ψδεּ ?ψִ ?ιο of the Targums) seem, however, to be identical with the Armen. chorhurd, “a thought,” and the word, therefore, is perhaps of Indo-Germanic derivation (thus Hitzig, at any rate; but Ewald, p. 477, objects; Cf. also Gesenius and Dietrich, s. v. δψψ)—And visions of my head troubled me. Exactly similar to Daniel 7:15 b. The “visions of the head” are the several fancies or images of the dream, as in Daniel 2:28. Daniel 4:3 [Daniel 4:6]. Therefore made I a decree. The same words occur in Daniel 3:29; Cf. Daniel 2:5.—In regard to μְ ?ηַ ?πְ ?ςָ ?μָ ?δ, see on 2:25.—Observe that, in this instance, where the contents of the dream were not forgotten by the king, nor regarded as being especially marvellous, the condition of the king while demanding an interpretation of the dream is very different from that described in Daniel 2:5—a circumstance that strongly endorses the credibility of the narrative. Daniel 4:4 [Daniel 4:7]. Then came in all the magicians, etc. Concerning the various classes of the wise men of Babylon, four of which are here specially referred to, see on Daniel 2:2.—Instead of ςָ ?μְ ?μִ ?ιο (read ςָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?μְ ?μִ ?ιο), the participle of ςָ ?μַ ?μ, “to go in,” the Keri in this place has ςָ ?μִּ ?ιι (cf. chap. Daniel 4:8), which is contracted from ςַ ?μְ ?μִ ?ιο, a form that shortens the initial —ָ to—ַ; with the latter cf., e.g., ηַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιο, Daniel 3:16. Daniel 4:5 [Daniel 4:8]. But at the last Daniel came in before me. The Kethib ΰָ ?‍ ?ֽ ?ηְָ ?ψֵ ?ιο is a form with an undeniably adverbial signification (=“at last, postremo”—not adjective: “the last, postremus,” as Hitzig prefers), that does not occur in the later Chaldee, and is replaced by the Keri ΰָֽ ?ηֳ ?ηָ ?ο (or ΰָֽ ?ηֳ ?ψֵ ?ο). It is rather to be regarded as an extension of the sing. adjective formation ΰָ ?ηֳ ?ψְ ?ι, than as an irregular plural in which the e-sound has taken the place of —ַ ?ι (see Olshausen, Lehrb. der hebr. Sprache, p. 208).—The ςַ ?γ preceding is the familiar conjunction “until” (Ezra 4:21; Ezra 5:5); the whole expression γςγΰηψο, “until at last,” is an adverbial phrase similar to ξִ ?οιַ ?φִּ ?ια, Daniel 2:8.—Whose name is Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god. Cf. on Daniel 1:7. This thoroughly heathen reference to the name of Daniel is immediately followed by a reference to his person, which indicates the feature that had inspired the heathen king with confidence in his superior power and understanding, and, through this, with a faint conception of the nature of that Deity to whom he owed such power and wisdom. From this affirmation “that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee,” which is repeated in Daniel 4:6 [Daniel 4:9] and Daniel 4:15 [Daniel 4:18], it follows that Nebuchadnezzar had by no means forgotten what he had learned upon two previous occasions respecting the eminent prophetic gifts of Daniel, and his direct intercourse with the only true God. The expression does not, indeed, have an orthodox look from a theocratic or Old Testament point of view; but it is only to the half a heathen sentiment, similar to the remarks by Pharoah in praise of Joseph, Genesis 41:38.—χַ ?γִּ ?ωִׁ ?ιο is probably not an epitheton ornans of the gods in general, but rather a special designation of the ἀγαθοδαίμονες in distinction from the destructive divinities (Kranichf.). Daniel 4:6 [Daniel 4:9]. O Belteshazzar. master of the magicians, ψַ ?αηַ ?ψְ ?θֻ ?ξַּ ?ιּ ?ΰ. This title differs only in form and not in substance from that of “chief president of all the wise men of Babylon,” which dignity was conferred on Daniel, Daniel 2:48. It was by no means necessary that Daniel, as the possessor of this exalted dignity, should at once and without ceremony present himself before the king with the remaining ηλιξιο. The more independent position which he occupies, according to this passage, is rather in entire harmony with chap. 3, where he is absent from a large assembly of the officials of the royal court, and also with chap. Daniel 4:10 et seq., where it is represented that his character as the chief magian was lost sight of by Nebuchadnezzar’s successors, but not that he had been deprived of that dignity. Among the various answers to the question as to why Daniel was not at once summoned before the king to interpret the dream, instead of being subsequently introduced, the one here indicated, which refers to the freedom of his official station, is certainly the most simple and appropriate, since various features of our book appear to conflict with the assumption that he occupied a political or priestly station in the proper sense (cf. on Daniel 2:49; Daniel 3:12; and on 8:2). Consequently we prefer this explanation to the many which have been attempted, e.g., that of Jahn, that “custom required that the chief of the magians should not be summoned at the first;” that of Fόller, which considers Daniel as being, in fact, an officer of the state (chief satrap) rather than a magian; that of Hδvernick, that “the haste with which the terrified king caused the wise men to be summoned” caused the overlooking of Daniel at the outset; that of Kranichfeld, which argues that Nebuchadnezzar, who already surmised the relation of the image of the fallen tree in his dream to his royal person, dreaded the harsher judgment and sterner prophecy of evil to be expected from Daniel, the prophet of Jehovah, exactly as Ahab, in 1 Kings 22:8 et seq., summoned the heathen wise men and seers into his presence, before he turned to the proper source, etc. J. D. Michaelis, however, observes with entire correctness, that a certain and trustworthy answer to that question would require a more exact acquaintance with all the facts of the history than we are able to command. —And that no secret troubleth thee. ΰְַ ?πַ ?ρ signifies in the Targums “to sweep away, to apply force,” but here “to cause difficulty or trouble;” Cf. the Heb. ΰָ ?πַ ?ρ, “to compel,” Esther 1:8. Daniel 4:7-14 [Daniel 4:10-17]. Subject of the king’s dream. Thus were the visions of my head, etc.; literally, “And (concerning) the visions of my head upon my bed; I saw;” an abrupt and detached clause similar to Daniel 7:17-23.—In relation to “vision of my head,” see on Daniel 4:2.—And behold, a tree (stood) in the midst of the earth. ΰִ ?ιμָ ?ο, unlike the corresponding Heb. ΰֵ ?μεֹ ?ο, does not signify an “oak” in particular, but “tree” generally; Cf. δοῦς and robur. The position of this tree, “in the midst of the earth,” indicates its great importance for the whole earth, and its destiny to develop an unlimited growth in every direction (cf. Daniel 4:8). The tree thus occupies a central position that corresponds to its exceeding height. The symbolizing of the mighty Babylonian king by a tree recalls the description by Ezekiel, Ezekiel 21:3 et seq., which was probably not known to Nebuchadnezzar, but with which Daniel, the narrator of his dream, must have been acquainted. It also suggests a reference to Ezekiel 17:22; Ezekiel 19:10 et seq.; and, among the earlier prophets, to Isaiah 2:13; Isaiah 6:13; Isaiah 14:12; Jeremiah 22:15; Amos 2:9 (cf. also the passages cited above, on Daniel 4:1). The especial fondness of the ancient Orientals for the illustration of the growth or decline of human greatness and power by the figure of a growing or fallen tree, is shown by Hδvernick in the parallels he adduces from Herodotus (3:19; the dream of Xerxes; 6:37; the threat of Cr�sus to destroy the town of Lampsacus like a pine tree; Cf. also 1:108; the dream of Astyages respecting his daughter Mandane), from Arabic writers (Antara’s Moallaka, v. 51, 56; Reiske on Tarafa, proleg., p. 47), from the later Mohammedan traditions (Mohammed’s comparison of a Moslem to an evergreen palm in Sunna, according to v. Hammer, Fundgruben des Orients, I. 152), and from Turkish history and literature (the prophetic dream of Osman 1., according to Murajea d’Ohsson, Allgem. Schilderung des ottoman. Reichs, p. 273 et seq.). Cf. further, with reference to the general use of this tree-symbolism among the Greeks, the interesting work of Bφtticher: Baumkultus der Hellenen (Leips., 1858). Daniel 4:8 [Daniel 4:11]. The tree grew and was strong, “became great and strong;” thus, correctly, Chr. B. Michaelis, Hitzig, and Kranichfeld. The finite verbs ψְ ?αָ ?δ and ϊְּ ?χִ ?σ do not designate a fixed, but a becoming state; hence Nabuchadnezzar sees the tree growing and becoming greater than it was in Daniel 4:7 [Daniel 4:10].—And the height thereof reached unto heaven, like the tower of Babel, Genesis 11:4, or the δένδρεαοὐραυομήκεα, Herod. 2:138. Observe the imperfect ιִ ?ξְֹ ?θֵ ?ΰ, which here takes the place of the perfect, and indicates the heaven-aspiring tendency of the slowly developing tree.—And the sight thereof to the end of all the earth; rather, “its extent” or circumference. ηֲ ?ζεֹ ?ϊֵ ?δּ does not signify “its visibility” (Vulg., Syr., de Wette, and many moderns), but “its outlook, its circumference, its extent” (the Sept. and Theodotion are correct, so far as the sense is concerned: τὸκῦτοςαὐτοῦ, its bulging, extension); the contrast with ψεּ ?ξֵ ?δּ would itself require this interpretation. Daniel 4:9 [Daniel 4:12]. The leaves (branches) thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much. ςָ ?τְ ?ιֵ ?δּ, properly its branching, its crown, as ΰπְ ?αֵּ ?δּ is the aggregate of its fruit. Bertholdt, von Lengerke, and others, render incorrectly “and its fruit was large” (i.e., it bore a large, thick kind of fruit); for there was no reason to mention such a quality of the tree. The immediate connection shows that the great quantity of fruit, instead of its size, was here referred to.—And it was meat for all, rather, “and food for all (was found) on it.” μְ ?λֹ ?μָּ ?ΰ, “for all,” i.e., for all who lived under its shelter—an exemplification and more circumstantial exposition of ωַׂ ?βִּ ?ιΰ. It is, however immaterial to the sense of the passage as a whole, whether αֵּ ?ηּ be construed with ξָ ?ζεο by neglecting the makkeph between μְ ?λֹ ?μָּ ?ΰ and αֵּ ?δּ, as a majority of expositors, including ourselves, translate, or whether we translate, as Kranichfeld [and Keil], with regard to the makkeph: “and food was found for all on it,” i.e., for all the birds that nestled on it. The masora evidently requires this rendering here, while in Daniel 4:18 [Daniel 4:21], where the makkeph is wanting from between μְ ?λֹ ?μָּ ?ΰ and αְּ ?δּ, it observes the other construction.—The beasts of the field had shadow under it. ϊּ ?θְ ?μֵ ?μ, umbram egit spent in the shadow. The aphel of θμμ (“obumbrare, to overshadow, protect”), which, in the language of the Targums, is generally transitive, like the Heb. δַ ?φְ ?μֵּ ?μ, 1 Chronicles 4:3, is here intransitive by virtue of its Niphal signification.—And the fowls of the heaven dwelt in the boughs thereof; Cf. Matthew 13:32, and the parallel passages. The masculine ιְ ?γֻ ?ψεּ ?ο has its explanation in the fact that φִ ?τֲּ ?ψִ ?ιο is of the common gender; the Keri ιְ ?γֻ ?ψָ ?ο construes the word in the feminine, in analogy with ιִ ?ωְׁ ?λְּ ?πָ ?ο, Daniel 4:18 [Daniel 4:21].—And all flesh was led of it. “All flesh,” i.e., not merely all the birds, but also all the beasts of the field, and, in short, all the animals living on and under the tree, thus imaging all of the human race that were united under the sceptre of Nebuchadnezzar; Cf. Daniel 4:19 [Daniel 4:22]. Daniel 4:10 [Daniel 4:13]. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed; a formula designed to prepare for the new and remarkably sudden turn of the hitherto quietly transpiring dream.—A watcher and holy one came down from heaven. εְ ?χַ ?γִּ ?ιωׁ ςιψ, obviously a hendiadys for “a holy watcher, a watcher who is holy.” ςιψ, the pass. part. of ςεּ ?ψ, expergefieri, designates a “watchful one, one who watches” (cf. ςַ ?ψ, Son 5:2; Malachi 2:12), in this place more particularly a celestial watcher, an angel who from heaven watches over the fortunes of men. Thus Aquila, Symm., and the Sept.: ἐγρήγορος; also a scholium in the Cod. Alex, on the εἴρ [a transfer of ςִ ?ιψ] of Theodotion (ἐγρήγοροςκαὶἀγρυπῶν); also Polychronius: τὸὰγρυπνονκαὶἄγγελος, and Jerome: “Significat angelos, quod semper vigilent et ad Dei imperium sint parati.” By the addition of the modifying εְ ?χַ ?γִּ ?ιωׁ the ςִ ?ιψ mentioned in this place is expressly classed with the good or holy watchers of heaven, and thus is distinguished from the κακοδαίμονες, in which light the Babylonians regarded a number of their astral gods (see Gesenius on Isa., II. 334 et seq.), and also from the ἐγρήγοροι of the book of Enoch, who are described as bad angels and as inimical to men. The expression “decree (determination, counsel) of the watchers” points strongly to the conclusion that the ςִ ?ιψִ ?ιο of our book are identical with the θεοὶβουλαῖοι of the Babylonians in Diodor., 2:30—i.e., with the thirty-six inferior gods associated as counsellors (deos) with the five superior planetary gods; but the entire correspondence of this feature to the Babylonian doctrine of the gods does not exclude the existence, at the same time, of a certain analogy or essential relation of the “watchers” with the Amesha-cpenta of the Parsees, nor even that the supposed etymology of Amesha-cpenta = non connivens sanctus (thus Bopp, who is, however, contradicted, e.g., by Burnouf) might be asserted in its support. But that ςִ ?εψεְ ?χַ ?γִּ ?ιωׁ is “merely a translation of Amshaspand” is an arbitrary dictum of Hitzig, which is opposed by the possibly post-Babylonian age of the name Amesha-cpenta (this does not occur at all in the oldest portion of the Zendavesta), and which lacks all scientific support, to an extent equal to the identification of ςִ ?ιψ with ςִ ?ιψ, “a messenger” (Isaiah 18:2; Isaiah 57:9), as was attempted by several older expositors, e.g., Michaelis (in Castell. Lex. Syr., p. 649), cf., however, Hδver-nick and Kranichfeld on this passage, and also Hengstenberg, Christologie des Alten Testaments, III. 2, 74 et seq. Daniel 4:11 [Daniel 4:14]. He cried aloud and said thus. “Aloud,” exactly like the royal herald, in Daniel 3:4; cf. Daniel 10:16; Isaiah 58:1, etc.—Hew down the tree and cut off its branches. The command is addressed to the servants of the angel, who were perhaps inferior angels, and whose presence the rapidly transpiring dream presumes without further explanation; Cf. Matthew 8:9, and the parallel passages. Isidorus Pelusiota already is correct (Epp. I. 2. n. 177): ἁγίουςδὲἔφησεντοὺςτὸδένδρονἐκτέμνεινπροσταχθένταςἀγγέλους. [Perhaps Keil rather is correct, who suggests that “the plur. is to be regarded as impersonal: the tree shall be cut down.”]—Shake (strip) off its leaves, literally, “cause them to fall off.” ΰַ ?ϊַּ ?ψοּ (instead of ΰַ ?ϊִּ ?ψεּ after the analogy of verbs third gutt.), the aphel of πְ ?ϊַ ?ψ, which designates the falling of faded leaves or blossoms from the tree, in the Targums, Psalms 1:3; Isaiah 40:8; Joe 1:10.—Scatter its fruit; contemptuously, as if it were of no value, and as if it were not worth the trouble of gathering. The consequence, that the animals, who were hitherto sheltered by the tree, were now likewise scattered, and driven far asunder—a lively image of subjects alarmed by the fall of their sovereign—is indicated in what follows. Daniel 4:12 [Daniel 4:15]. Nevertheless, leave the stump of its roots in the earth. ςִ ?χָּ ?ψ, the still thrifty stump, like ξַ ?ςֶ ?αֶ ?ϊ, Isaiah 6:13, or βֶּ ?ζַ ?ς, Isaiah 11:1; Job 14:8. The ultimate sprouting of this root-stump (cf. Job 14:7-9), which was allowed to remain in the earth, typified, as appears from Daniel 4:23 [Daniel 4:26] compared with Daniel 4:33 [Daniel 4:36], the restoration of Nebuchadnezzar from his sickness; but not the continued supremacy of his dynasty, as Hδvernick interprets, since ςִ ?χָּ ?ψ in this passage obviously designates an individual, Nebuchadnezzar himself, instead of the whole race of Chaldζan rulers.—Even with a band of iron and brass; rather, “but in fetters of iron and brass,” Supply “shall he lie, or be;” or even “shall he be left” (ωְׁ ?αֻ ?χεּ ?δִ ?ι). The figure of a tree is now dropped; in the stead of a vegetable organism that necessarily clings to the ground there is presented, obviously with regard to the bestializing of Nebuchadnezzar, an animal organism, which, while naturally capable of unimpeded motion and of an individual and independent participation in life, is for the present forcibly restrained. There is thus a partial transition from the figure to the fact (as is frequently the case in the comparisons and allegories of our Lord, e.g., Mark 4:28; Luke 12:46; Matthew 22:13; John 10:11 et seq.), or at least an approximation of the figurative representation to the actual conditions of the event typified. This fact is misunderstood as soon as the attempt is made, with Von Lengerke, to conceive of the fetters of iron as fastened on the root-stump, “in order to prevent it from cracking and splitting,” and also when it is assumed, with Jerome and others, that an actual binding of Nebuchadnezzar as a furiosus, who required to be fettered like all maniacs, is asserted at this early stage. The literal conception of the idea “to fetter” is inappropriate on either method. The “fetters of iron and brass” symbolize the chains of darkness and coarse bestiality in which the mind of the king was held during an extended period. Cf. expressions like “chains of darkness,” Wis 17:17; 2 Peter 2:4, and figurative descriptions, such as Psalms 107:10; Psalms 116:16; Psalms 149:8; Job 36:8. Kranichfeld observes correctly: “A more forcible binding of his sovereign aims for himself, exceeding the disgrace of that which might be applied to a prisoner of war, could scarcely happen to the king, than was that to which he was compelled to submit according to Daniel 4:22 [Daniel 4:25] and Daniel 4:29 [Daniel 4:31], in the form of a beastly restraint on his understanding, and of an actual expulsion from the society in which he moved. And since binding in fetters of iron and brass is a metaphor as common as it is in this instance a striking figure of the deplorable condition to which the Babylonian universal monarch was reduced; since, moreover, the towering height of the tree in the dream is of itself sufficient to establish the selection of an expression to indicate the corresponding contrast of a severe and servile compulsion, the explanation of the figure does not require the combination of this expression proposed by Hitzig with an assonant kedan, Syr., ‘to bind.’ taken from the name of Nebuchadnezzar. This is the more obvious because of the consideration that no reference is made to the name in other portions of the description, although, by a repeated use of the k in nebuk (Nebuch), it might to the Hebrew sound portentously like the Arabic inbaka, “turbata mente fuit.” For the Talmudic animal with an ingrown tree which resembled man in form and language, adne sadeh (Buxt. Lex. Chald., p. 34), may be explained, as by Hitzig, without any doubt whatever, from the ΰַ ?γְ ?πֶ of the name Nebuchadnezzar much more readily than that really fabulous creature would have allowed itself to be fabricated, had not the self-authenticated description of Daniel (Daniel 4:12-13 [Daniel 4:15-16], in connection with the otherwise familiar ΰֲ ?γָ ?πֵ ?ι, the heliotropum which moves its leaves (see Buxt., l. c.), furnished the material.”—In the tender grass of the field, etc. This lying in the grass and being exposed to the dews of heaven is as applicable to the stump of the tree as to Nebuchadnezzar, the maniac; Cf. Daniel 4:20 [Daniel 4:23] et seq.—Concerning the reading γִּ ?ϊְ ?ΰָ ?ΰ, for which Daniel 4:20 [Daniel 4:23] substitutes γִּ ?ϊִ ?ΰָ ?η (corresponding to the Hebraizing Keris in 5:39; 6:1), cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage.—And let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth. Cf. Daniel 4:30 [Daniel 4:33], “and did eat grass as oxen.” The figure has been departed from entirely in this place, and a feature of the interpretation is anticipated. ηֲ ?λִָ ?χ, “portion.” occurs also in Daniel 4:20 [Daniel 4:23] and Ezra 4:16. The Targums have ηεּ ?μַּ ?χ instead. Concerning the not local, but telic signification of αְּ, “in or of the grass,” cf. e.g., Joshua 22:25; 2 Samuel 20:1. Daniel 4:13 [Daniel 4:16]. Let his heart be changed from a man’s; literally, “they shall change from (that of) a man” (ξִ ?οΞΰֲ ?πָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ = ξִ ?μֵּ ?αΰֱ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ, as Ibn Ezra correctly adds). Cf. the similar brevilo-queuti� in Daniel 1:10; Daniel 7:20, etc., and concerning the active signification of ιְ ?ωַׁ ?πεֹ ?ο (for which the angels addressed in ωְׁ ?αֻ ?χεּ serve as an indefinite subject), Cf. supra, on Daniel 3:4. “His heart,” i.e., his faculties of conception and desire, or, if it be preferred, his consciousness; Cf. Daniel 4:29-30 [Daniel 4:32-33]. The Hebraizing form ΰֲ ?πεֹ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ here and in Daniel 4:14 [Daniel 4:17] is perhaps to be rejected in favor of the more correct Chaldee ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωָׁ ?ΰ; Cf. Daniel 4:22; Daniel 4:29-30 [Daniel 4:25; Daniel 4:32-33]; Daniel 5:21; Daniel 7:13, etc. [—And let a beast’s heart be given unto him. “The heart of a man is dehumanized when his soul becomes like that of a beast; for the difference between the heart of a man and that of a beast has its foundation in the difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a beast (Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych., p. 252).”—Keil.]—And let seven times pass over him, properly, “change over him;” δֲ ?μַ ?σ, a select word for “to pass over, expire,” prζterire, prζterlabi. It may be seriously doubted whether the term ςֲ ?μεֹ ?δִ ?ι, “over him,” was chosen with a special reference to “the stars succeeding each other in the heavenly heights above the tormented one, which were to indicate the duration of his affliction” (Kranichfeld), although the mystical phrase “seven times” may contain a certain reference to the astrology of the Chaldζans. The seven ςִ ?γָּ ?πִ ?ιο are seven years, as appears from Daniel 7:25, compared with 12:7 (thus the Sept., Josephus, Ibn-Ezra, Rashi, etc.),—not seven months (as Saadia Gaon, Dorotheus, Pseudo-Epiphanius, etc., held) or seven half-years (Theodoret). ςִ ?γָּ ?ο, in itself equivalent to “juncture, emergency,” receives in this place and Daniel 7:25, the sense of ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ or ζְ ?ξַ ?ο, “a point of time,” from the context. The duration of the king’s punishment as extending over seven years is explained here, as in Daniel 3:19, by the fact that a judicial retribution is concerned; and the heavy weight of punishment which Jehovah caused to be announced with solemn emphasis to the king was accordingly inflicted, Daniel 4:25; Daniel 4:29 [Daniel 4:28; Daniel 4:32]. The number seven is. however, not to be pressed literally, to the extent of assuming that the duration of the king’s sickness covered exactly seven times 365 days, which would do violence to the always prophetically-ideal pragmatism of the history. Cf. infra, on Daniel 7:25. Daniel 4:14 [Daniel 4:17]. This matter (message) is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones. The parallelismus membrorum in which the solemn and elevated speech proceeds, shows that the ύύύύ͏ ?͏χַ ?γִּ ?ιωִׁ ?ιο are here also, as in Daniel 4:10 [Daniel 4:13], identical with the χִ ?ιψִ ?ιο. The terms τִּ ?ϊְ ?πָּ ?ν and ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?μָ ?ΰ are likewise synonymous, but do not, as Hitzig holds, signify “matter” (concern) and “circumstance,” but, in harmony with their etymology and the sense of τϊβν in Daniel 3:16, must be rendered “word” (message, announcement) and “demand” (command); cf. the Heb. ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?μָ ?δ, “a request, desire,” Judges 8:24; 1 Kings 2:16; Job 6:8; Esther 5:6; Esther 5:8, etc. Entirely too artificial and contradictory of the unquestionable sense of βְּ ?ζֵ ?ψָ ?ΰ, “a decision, resolution” (and also of ξֵ ?ΰξַ ?ψ, “a decision”), is the attempt of Kranichfeld to vindicate the signification “a request, petition,” for ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?μָ ?ΰ, which is based on the idea of a petition such as the watchers, as inferior θεοὶβουλαῑοι (see on Daniel 4:10 [Daniel 4:13]), were obliged to address to their superiors, the five planetary gods. But the ςִ ?ιψִ ?ιο appear nevertheless to be advisory deities, inasmuch as they are only ςִ ?ιψִ ?ιο, and not ΰֱ ?μָ ?δִ ?ιο, and inasmuch as the supreme decision in their college rests, according to Daniel 4:21 [Daniel 4:24], with the “Most High” (ςִ ?μָ ?ιָ ?ΰ). Cf. the representation of a great subordinate council of the Deity as composed of angels in 1 Kings 22:19 et seq.; Job 2:1 et seq.; and also, with reference to the specifically Babylonian idea of a decision in the council of the deity, Diodor. 2:30: οἱδ̓οὐ ?̄νΧαλδαῖοι—φάσιντὴντῶνὅλωντάξινκαὶδιακόσμησινθείατινὶπρονοίαγεγονέναι, καὶνῦνἕκαστατῶνἐνοὐρανῶγινομένωνοὐχὡςἔτυχενοὐδ̓αὐτομάτως, ἀλλ̓ὡρισμένητινὶκαὶβεβαίωςκεκυρωμένηθεῶνκρίσεισυντελεῖσθαι; further, the familiar picture near Kazwini, which represents Bel as a judge and surrounded by genii (Gesen., on Isa., 2:337). Before ξֵ ?ΰξַ ?ψ, “a decree,” the instrumental αְּ must be supplied from the preceding. The variation εּ ?αְ ?ξֵ ?ΰξַ ?ψ is, therefore, correctly supplied in the interpretation.—To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth, etc. ςַ ?γΞγִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊγְּ ?ι is to be rendered, either “until, to the circumstance, that” = “until that” (donec, Vulg.), or, with Hitzig, in harmony with Daniel 2:30, and with the ἵναγνῶσιν of Theodotion, ςַ ?μΞγִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊγִּ ?ι, “to the end that.” The latter may perhaps be preferred, because of the ease of mistaking ςַ ?μ for ςַ ?γ, and because of the fact that ςַ ?γΞγִּ ?αְ ?ψַ ?ϊ does not occur elsewhere. Daniel 4:22 [Daniel 4:25], which directly substitutes ϊִּ ?πְ ?γַּ ?ς for the ιִ ?πְ ?γְּ ?ςεּ ?ο of this verse, shows that Nebuchadnezzar, the ruler of the earth, is not excluded from the number of the “living” who are to recognize the authority of the Most High, but rather, that he especially is included.—And setteth up (rather, “can set up”) over it the basest of men. ωְׁ ?τַ ?μΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, “the humblest of men,” is grammatically a. general conception conveying the idea of the superlative, as in 2 Chronicles 21:17, the Heb. χְ ?θοαָּ ?πָ ?ιε; Cf. Winer, Chald. Gramm., § 58, 2. The assertion of Hitzig, that by this humblest of men, an Israelite, or even the Israelitish Messiah (αַּ ?ψΰֱ ?πָ ?ωׁ, Daniel 7:13), is designated as successor to the great world-monarch, is without support from the context. The thought of a person of the lowest rank, rather, was naturally suggested to the mind of the dreaming king, because the fall of himself, the most exalted man, was concerned.—For the opinion that the imperfects ιִ ?ϊְּ ?πִ ?πַּ ?δּ and ιְ ?χִ ?ιν in this place express the idea of ability—“is able to confer, can exalt”—cf. Daniel 2:47, where βָּ ?μֵ ?δψָ ?ζִ ?ιο also designates that Being who is able to reveal secrets. [—“The Kethib ςμιδ is shortened from ςֲ ?μֵ ?ιδָ ?ΰ, and in the Keri is yet further shortened by the rejection of the ι; cf. Daniel 5:21; Daniel 7:4 sq., etc.”—Keil.] Daniel 4:15 [Daniel 4:18]. Daniel required to interpret the dream. This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. The demonstrative γְּ ?πָ ?δ is placed first for emphasis, thus corresponding to the disturbing and exciting subject of the dream. The predicative rendering, “This is the dream, which,” etc., is opposed by the rule that the relative cannot be omitted after the designated noun (Winer, § 41, 4).—Declare the interpretation thereof. τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψֵ ?ΰ, is a softened form for τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψֵ ?δּ, “its interpretation,” in this place, Daniel 4:16 [Daniel 4:19], and chap. Daniel 4:8. This view is confirmed by the Peshito, while Theodotion and the Vulgate have τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?ΰ, which reading is still represented among moderns, e.g., by Hitzig.—On the close of the verse, Cf. Daniel 4:6 [Daniel 4:9]. Daniel 4:16-24 [Daniel 4:19-27]. The interpretation. Then Daniel.… was astonished for (about) one hour. On the reading ΰֶ ?ωְׁ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ξַ ?ν instead of ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊΧ, Cf. Winer, § 25, 2. Several MSS. have αְּ ?ωִׁ ?ςַ ?δ instead of λִּ ?ωָׁ ?ςָ ?η, but this reading conflicts with the usage of the context, and also with the testimony of the ancient translators (Theodot., Vulg., Syr., and probably with the Sept.). Concerning the etymology of ωָׁ ?ςָ ?δ, “hour,” which is certainly to be taken here in the literal sense, Cf. on Daniel 3:6. That the astonished gazing of Daniel continued “about an hour,” is mentioned by the author from a motive (viz., in order to indicate the greatness of his astonishment) similar to that from which the book of Job records the sympathetic mourning and silence of the three friends during seven days (Job 2:13). Hitzig observes correctly: “He meditates on the interpretation, and is astonished when he perceives it, because he wishes well to the king, and probably, also, because Nebuchadnezzar might receive the prophecy ungraciously, and might take vengeance on him (as Ahab did on Micaiah, 1 Kings 22:26-27). His confusion is depicted on his countenance; which causes the king to observe that he has found the interpretation, and to invite him in encouraging terms to impart it freely.” It cannot really be comprehended how it is possible, in the face of so unsought for, and, in itself, probable a historical situation, to establish the hypothesis of a conventional forgery in the Maccabζan age.—[“That Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:16 [Daniel 4:19]) in his account speaks in the third person does not justify the conclusion either that another spoke of him, and that thus the document is not genuine (Hitzig), nor yet the conclusion that this verse includes a historical notice introduced as an interpolation into the document; for similar forms of expression are often found in such documents; Cf. Ezra 7:13-15; Esther 8:7-8.”—Keil.]—My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies! i.e., Would that the dream concerned thine enemies, and that its interpretation related to thy foes rather than to thee! Instead of the Kethib ξָ ?ψְ ?ΰִ ?ι (a regular formation from ξָ ?ψֵ ?ΰ, Daniel 2:47; Daniel 4:23), the Keri has, here and in Daniel 4:21 [Daniel 4:24], the shorter form ξָ ?ψִ ?ι, which corresponds to the usage of the later Chaldee. The following ςָ ?ψ, “an enemy,” is likewise peculiar to the pre-targumistic Chaldee. Daniel 4:17 [Daniel 4:20]. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong; rather, “of which thou sawest that it was great and strong.” The second γִּ ?ι is subordinated to the first in γִּ ?ιδֲ ?ζַ ?ιְ ?ϊָ, and is therefore to be rendered as a conjunction, not as a relative pronoun coordinated with the first. The ensuing description of the tree, in Daniel 4:17-18 [Daniel 4:20-21], and likewise of the Divine sentence of judgment pronounced on it in Daniel 4:20 [Daniel 4:23], are repeated verbally from Daniel 4:7; Daniel 4:13 [10 and 16], although with abbreviations and unessential variations. Daniel 4:19 [22]. It is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong, etc.; i.e., “that art become great and strong.” The following εּ ?ψְ ?αεּ ?ϊָ ?κְ ψְ ?αָ ?ϊ, etc., is loosely connected with the relative clause γִּ ?ιψְ ?αַ ?ιְ ?ϊָּ εְ ?βεΧ The Keri offers the smoother form ψְ ?αַ ?ϊ instead of ψְ ?αַ ?ιְ ?ϊָ, and in the following, the third pers. fern. ξְ ?θַ ?ϊ instead of ξִ ?θְ ?ΰַ ?ϊ = ξְ ?θָ ?ΰϊ; Cf. also Daniel 4:21 [24].—Concerning the remarkable addition by the Sept. to Daniel 4:19 [22], cf., e.g., Eth.-fund. principles, No. 3 [below]. Daniel 4:21 [Daniel 4:24]. This is the interpretation (of it), O king;—the conclusion to the lengthy antecedent clause, Daniel 4:20 [Daniel 4:23].—And this is the decree of the Most High which is come (determined) upon my lord the king. In regard to ξְ ?θָ ?ΰςַ ?μ, cf. the Heb. αּ ?εֹ ?ΰςμ, Genesis 34:27; Job 2:11. The preterite ξְ ?θַ ?ϊ represents the decree as already decided on, and, therefore, as unavoidable, and certain to be executed on the king. Daniel 4:22 [Daniel 4:25]. They shall drive thee from men, literally, “and thee shall they drive,” etc. The εְ in εְ ?μָ ?κְ is consecutive: “and thus shall they drive thee.” The impersonal active θָ ?ψְ ?γִ ?ιο is exactly similar to ΰָ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιο, Daniel 3:4, and infra, Daniel 4:28 [Daniel 4:31]. The agents of the punishment, who are not designated, are the inferior angels, as with ιְ ?ωַׁ ?πּ ?εֹ ?ο, Daniel 4:13 [Daniel 4:16], and as in Daniel 4:28 [Daniel 4:31]. Daniel 4:23 [Daniel 4:26]. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the tree roots; “they” = the heavenly watchers, of whom one only spoke, Daniel 4:10-14 [Daniel 4:13-17]; but that one was the representative of the entire community of angels.—Thy kingdom shall (again) be sure unto thee, after that thou shalt have known, etc χַ ?ιָּ ?ν neither signifies “to continue” (Theodotion, Vulg., Dereser, von Lengerke, etc.), nor “to be preserved” (Bertholdt), but rather, “to arise, stand, be firm,” and here, in view of the context, “to again be firm” (Hitz., Kranichf.). ξִ ?οΞγִּ ?ι in this place is not inferential—“since, because,”—as in Daniel 3:22, but instead relates to time, “as soon as,” and designates a juncture following the period included in ςַ ?γγִּ ?ι, Daniel 4:21; Daniel 4:29 [Daniel 4:24; Daniel 4:32]—hence at the close of the seven years.—That the heavens do rule, viz.: over the kingdoms of men, Cf. Daniel 4:14 [Daniel 4:17] and Daniel 4:22 [Daniel 4:25]. “The heavens” is here used to designate God, instead of “the Most High.” The expression must be regarded as an abbreviation of the phrase “the God of heaven,” which was employed on former occasions (chap: 2:18, 37, 44), or of “the King of heaven” (4:34), which is synonymous with the former, or also of “the Lord of heaven” (Daniel 4:23). There is nothing untheocratic and polytheistic in the expression, even though the Chinese designate their god as heaven, and though the same usage prevailed among the ancient Persians (Herod, 1:131), the Greeks (Ζεύς = Sanscr. jβus, “heaven”), and the Romans (Deus; Divus, Jovis, etc.). Even in the New Testament the βασιλεἰατῶνοὐρανῶν is identical with the βασιλ. τοῦθεοῦ, and the Talmudists (e.g., Nedarim, ix. 10; x. 13, etc.; Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., col. 2440), as well as the Jews of a much earlier period (according to Juvenal, Sat., XIV. 96 et seq., and Diodorus in Photius, Bibl., XL.), generally designated God directly as “heaven,” indicating thereby that they attributed to Him the sole dominion over the heavenly world, and denied that other gods were associated with Him (cf. Psalms 115:16). Daniel 4:24 [27]. Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee. μָ ?δֵ ?ο, “wherefore,” as in Daniel 2:6. In regard to ωְׁ ?τַ ?ψ, Cf. on Daniel 3:32. The term is here construed with ςַ ?μ, as in that passage and Daniel 6:2, with χֳ ?γָ ?ν, by which the persuasiveness of the remarks is increased (cf. ξָ ?α with ςַ ?μ, Ezra 5:17), and by which the desire of Daniel to aid the king, if possible, in averting the impending danger and punishment, becomes more apparent than would be the case if the more courteous phrase ωְׁ ?τַ ?ψχֳ ?γָ ?ξָ ?ικְ had been employed. From this truly theocratic standpoint, the prophet persists in holding it possible to turn aside the punishment threatened in the dream, similar to Isaiah (38:1 et seq.) and Jeremiah (18:7 et seq.) in analogous cases; Cf. Joe 2:12 et seq.; Amos 7:3; Amos 7:6; Jonah 3:5 et seq.; 2 Kings 20:1 et seq. —And break off thy sins by righteousness; rather, “purchase thy deliverance from thy sins,” etc. The ancient translators justly regard ηֲ ?θָ ?ιָ ?κְ as plural; Cf. the parallel ςֲ ?εַ ?ιָּ ?ϊָ ?κְ. The suffix in ηֲ ?θָ ?ιָ ?κְ, instead of ηֲ ?θָ ?ιָ ?ικְ, is defective, similar to that in ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?πָ ?κְ, Daniel 5:10. The word is derived from the Stat, emphat. ηֲ ?θָ ?ψֵ ?ΰ of a singular ηַ ?θִ ?ι (= Heb. ηֵ ?θְ ?ΰ, cf. Olshausen, Lehrb., p. 283).—τְּ ?ψַ ?χ, properly “to break” (cf. Sanscr. prak, Lat. frango, Germ, brechen), designates, similar to the Heb. τψχ in passages like Psalms 136:24; Sam. 5:8, etc., a “tearing out” of a matter from its former position or relations, and hence, a “liberating, redeeming, or purchase” (cf. 2 Samuel 7:23; Isaiah 35:9-10, where τψχ is used for βΰμ or τγδ, exsolvere, redimere). The Sept. and Theodot. therefore render it correctly by λύτρωσαι, the Vulg. redime, and Syr., Saad., Ibn Ezra, Berth., de Wette, Hitzig, etc., in a similar manner. On the other hand, Rashi, Geier, Starke, Dereser, Hδvernick, von Len-gerke, Kranichfeld, etc., prefer the idea of casting off, casting away, as it is found in Gen. 37:40, and accordingly interpret: “lay off thy sins” (Hδv.), or “break off thy sins, give them up” (Kranichfeld). But in the usage of the Chaldee language, and especially in that of the Targums, τψχ constantly and undeniably bears the sense of redeeming by purchase (e.g., a birthright, a field, the daughter of Jephthah, Judges 11:35); and the rather broad conception, admitting, as it does, of an application to many and diverse relations, by no means requires that the object to be redeemed should be desirable to the purchaser, and possess value for him. Rather, the remark of von Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, i. 519,) is correct: “The sins are not under restraint, but, instead, they enslave. The idea of Daniel, therefore, is that the king should deliver himself from the sins that involve him in guilt and slavery, by practising righteousness and mercy for the future, instead of persisting in the arbitrary and tyrannical course to which he had hitherto been addicted.” Cf. Melancthon also, in the Apology (Art. III., p. 112), where the “redime” of the Vulgate is retained, but the supposed interpretation is decidedly rejected, as favoring the doctrines of work-righteousness insisted on by the Jewish and Roman Catholic exegesis (see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 2 [below]). This interpretation, however, does not result from any possible rendering of the imper. τְּ ?ψַ ?χ, but from the incorrect explanation of φִ ?γְ ?χָ ?η by “doing good, alms,” which is found in numerous expositors, from Jerome to Hitzig; and the latter rendering is not justified, either by Psalms 37:21, nor by a comparison with extravagant laudations of works of mercy in Sir 3:28; Sir 29:12; Tob 4:10; Tob 12:9, etc. The only interpretation of φִ ?γְ ?χָ ?δ allowed by the context and general usage is “righteous deportment” to be observed by the king toward his subjects, in contrast with his former tyranny and arbitrary domination. In the parallel member, “mercy toward the poor” is intimately connected with this, as being the second leading virtue in rulers, which virtue the king is exhorted to cultivate (cf. Hofm., as above). The historical situation, rather than the usage, indicates that, in connection herewith, the ςֲ ?πִ ?ιִּ ?ιο are to be sought for principally in the number of the poor Israelites, the theocratically wretched (ςֲ ?πִ ?ιִּ ?ιν), who were languishing in exile and captivity. The usage would admit of a different rendering of the ςֲ ?πִ ?ιִּ ?ιο. —If it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility; rather, “if thy prosperity shall be durable.” This is the external motive addressed to the king, to induce him to heed the warning of the theocratic seer. The conditional language is very decided; δֵ ?ο, “if,” is no more to be taken in the dubious sense of εἰἄρα (Acts 8:22) in this passage than in Daniel 3:17.—ΰַ ?ψְ ?λָּ ?ΰ is not “forbearance, forgiveness,” but “duration, continuance;” Cf. Jeremiah 15:15; Ecclesiastes 8:12. Daniel 4:25-30 [Daniel 4:28-33]. The fulfilment. All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. Hδvernick regards these words as still belonging to the royal proclamation, while all that follows, to Daniel 4:30 [Daniel 4:33], is a parenthesis inserted by the prophet (see supra, on Daniel 3:31). But this hypothesis renders it impossible to observe unity of the report, which must obviously be preserved, since the theocratic coloring apparent in these verses may elsewhere be frequently noticed (supra), and since a detailed statement of the infliction of the threatened punishment is required in order to give point to the report. This does not make it inconceivable that Daniel, the writer of the report as a whole, should in this connection relegate the royal subject, who had hitherto been spoken of in the first person, to the background, and that he should describe the Divine judgment executed on the king from his own theocratic point of view.Daniel 4:26 [Daniel 4:29]. At the end of twelve months he walked upon (marg.) the palace of the kingdom of Babylon; rather, “the royal palace at Babylon.” In relation to the time indicated, “at the end of twelve months,” Kranichfeld observes: “When the important incident of the dream was a year old, and on that account its recollection naturally exercised the imagination of the king with special force, he gave himself up, despite the Divine warning, to the proudest exaltation of self, which indicated that he was neither controlled by religious piety in general, nor by reverence for the God of the Jews in particular,” etc. It appears to us that this is seeking too much in that designation of time. It is simply a historical circumstance that exactly twelve months elapsed between the dream and its fulfilment, and at the same time an illustration of the simple accuracy and concrete truth of the narrative. —“Upon the royal palace,” i.e., upon its flat roof; Cf. 2 Samuel 11:2. The proud king, who has employed the respite of twelve months in nursing his tyrannical superciliousness, instead of improving it by repenting and working righteousness, wishes, by actual observation from this elevated spot, to assure himself of the condition of his royal power, and to feast himself with looking on the gigantic metropolis of the world which he had created. His thoughts are similar to those of another, in Schiller’s Glocke (the Bell): “The splendor of the house Stands firm as earth’s foundations Against the power of evil,” etc. The “walking along” (ξְ ?δַ ?μֵּ ?κְ δֲ ?εָ ?ΰ; cf. ξְ ?δַ ?μְ ?λִ ?ιοαְּ ?βֵ ?εָ ?δ, Daniel 4:34 [Daniel 4:37]) likewise indicates his conceited arrogance and pride; cf. the Germ. “einherstol ziren” (strutting along).—The mention of the location, “at Babylon,” does not at all compel the assumption of a Palestinian origin of the book, or of any particular part of it, as even Hitzig acknowledges. It merely indicates that the author was not a constant resident in the city of Babylon, and that his narrative was composed for readers who were chiefly, or without exception, strangers in Babylon (however long they might have been detained in that city against their will). These features are suited to the view that Daniel was the writer of the document before us, as thoroughly as they militate against the idea that Nebuchadnezzar was its immediate author; Cf. supra, on Daniel 3:31.Daniel 4:27 [Daniel 4:30]. Is not this (the) great Babylon that I have built, etc. “The great” (ψַ ?αְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ) was evidently a standing title of Babylon, with its circumference of 480 stadia (Herod. 1:191), its colossal walls, its 25 gates on either side of the immense square, its 676 districts filled with houses of several stories each, its hanging gardens on the Euphrates, its gigantic temples and palaces, etc. Cf. Herod., 1. c.; Diodor. ii. 5 et seq.; Aristotle’s Polit., 3:2; Philostratus, i. 18; Curtius, 6:1 et seq.; also Starke’s Synopsis on this passage; Wattenbach, Nineve und Babylon (Heidelberg, 1868); and Alfred Maury, Nineve et Babylone, in the Revue des deux Mondes, 1868, March 15, p. 470 ss.; [also Rawlinson’s Five Ancient Monarchies, I. 510 et seq.]. For this reason many other authors apply the predicate ἡμεγάλη to that city; e.g., the Apocalyptist John, Revelation 14:8; Revelation 16:19 (cf. also Isaiah 13:19; Isaiah 14:4; Isaiah 47:3-4); and Strabo (50:16.), who applies to it the stanza: ἔρημίαμεγάληεστὶνἡμεγάληπόλις, Cf. Pausanius, Arcad., p. 509, who describes Babylon as a city ἤντιναεἰ ?̄δεπόλεωτῶντότεμεγίστηνἥλιος. Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon might certainly be designated as “the great city” with as much propriety as formerly Nineveh (cf. Genesis 10:11-12; Jonah 1:2; Jonah 3:2; Jonah 4:11), and far more justly than, e.g., Hamath (see Amos 6:2; ηֲ ?ξַ ?ϊψַ ?αָּ ?η), or Diospolis (Διόσπολιςἡμεγάην, Inscr. 4717), or Ephesus, Smyrna, Peragmos, Nicomedia, and other cities of a later period in Asia Minor (cf. Rheinwald, Komment. zum Br. an die Philipper, p. 3 et seq.).—That I have built for the house (or seat) of the kingdom. The A. V. is literal. The expression is equivalent, in modern idiom, to “the royal capital and seat of government.” The ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ of the whole empire was to have its seat, its residence, in that metropolis (Kranichf.). Cf. the reference to Bethel as a ξַ ?ξְ ?μָ ?λָ ?δ, in Amos 7:13. “That I have built;” i.e., that I have developed and completed. On αְּ ?πָ ?ΰ, otherwise αָּ ?πָ ?δ, in this signification, Cf. 2 Kings 14:22; 2 Chronicles 11:5-6; and see the Chaldζan historians Berosus, Abydenus, and Megasthenes, in Josephus. Ant, x. 11, 1; c: Apion, 1:19; and in Eusebius, Chron., 1:59, with reference to the numerous edifices erected in Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar; also Bochart, Phaleg, p. 263 et seq., where Nebuchadnezzar’s services in beautifying the city and increasing its architectural greatness are compared with those of Augustus in Rome, which justified his well-known remark, “se marmoream relinquere, quam lateritiam accepisset” (Suetonius, Aug., c. 29). —For the honor of my majesty; μִ ?ιχַ ?ψδַ ?γְ ?ψִ ?ι; Cf. the similar constructions in Deuteronomy 5:33; Deuteronomy 5:17; Zechariah 11:13; and with reference to the preceding expression, “by the might of my power,” Cf. passages like Isaiah 40:26; Ephesians 1:19; Colossians 1:11, etc. Daniel 4:28 [Daniel 4:31]. While the word was in the king’s mouth. The Divine punishment follows closely after the vain and presumptuous exclamation (cf. Isaiah 28:4); exactly as in the poem by Schiller quoted above, where it is added: “For no eternal bond can be With the fates that rule our destiny, And misfortune’s pace is swift.”— There fell a voice from heaven. Observe the agreement between the prophetic description in the dream, Daniel 4:10 [Daniel 4:13] and Daniel 4:11 [Daniel 4:14], and the fulfilment twelve months later. The words πָ ?δִ ?ϊξִ ?οωְׁ ?ξַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, which are employed in the former passage, are here echoed by πְ ?ςַ ?μ (cf. Isaiah 9:7), which still more strongly emphasizes the suddenness with which the judicial sentence is promulgated; and ςָ ?ψֵ ?ΰαְ ?δַ ?ιִ ?μ in that place is here repeated by the characteristic χָ ?μ, which recalls the analogies in Deuteronomy 4:33; Deuteronomy 4:36; Matthew 3:17; John 12:28; Acts 9:4; Acts 5:13, etc. The record, although sufficiently circumstantial, is but a summary, and affords no trustworthy indications to show whether this φωνὴἐξοὐρανοῦ was produced by the mediation of psychological or of physical causes. The leading fact to be observed is merely that the powerfully excited king was compelled to recollect the warning formerly conveyed in the dream, by what he now heard, whether by a purely subjective mode of perception, or whether objective agencies were at the same time employed.—O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee. The perf. ςַ ?γָ ?ϊ is employed, because he who was degraded to the level of the brute by the most fearful of mental maladies, was at once and directly incapacitated for his position and office as ruler as a matter of course. In regard to ΰָ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιο, “they say,” see on Daniel 4:22 [Daniel 4:25]; concerning Daniel 4:29 [Daniel 4:32] see ibid., and on Daniel 4:14 [Daniel 4:17]. Daniel 4:30 [Daniel 4:33] The same hour (hence immediately; cf. on Daniel 3:6) was the thing (or word) fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. ρָ ?τַ ?ϊ, literally, “came to end;” for the end of a prophecy is its coming to pass, by which it ceases to be prophecy (Hitzig); cf. λμδ, Daniel 12:7; Ezra 1:1. etc.—Concerning the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar, see Introd., § 8, note 1, and the literature there adduced.—Till his hairs were grown like eagles’ feathers, and his nails like birds’ claws; literally, “like eagles—like birds” (λְּ ?φִ ?τֲּ ?ψִ ?ιο—λְּ ?πִ ?ωְׁ ?ψִ ?ιο), a comparatio compendiaria, with which the Stat, const, after the particle of comparison has been omitted, as with ξִ ?ο in Daniel 4:13 [Daniel 4:16], and as in Isaiah 9:3; Joshua 5:36, and also in the classics (e.g., Il., 17, 51; Juvenal, Sat. 4, 71, etc.). Daniel 4:31-34 [Daniel 4:34-37]. The restoration of Nebuchadnezzar, and his ascription of praise to God. And (rather “but”) at the end of the days, i.e., of the period of seven years, Daniel 4:13; Daniel 4:22; Daniel 4:29 [Daniel 4:16; Daniel 4:25; Daniel 4:32].—I.… lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, namely, as seeking help from thence, as supplicating the God of heaven (see on Daniel 4:23 [Daniel 4:26]; cf. Psalms 123:1 et seq.; Psalms 25:5, etc. —And mine understanding returned unto me; or, taking the ε as illative, “so that mine understanding returned.” The prayer of the hitherto maniac king was thus shown to be anything rather than a “flagrant inconsequence,” as Von Lengerke. Hitzig, and others characterize it. On the contrary, it produced the beneficial effect of delivering the penitent king from his disease, and of restoring him to the society and the mode of life of civilized people. Cf. Pusey and Kranichfeld on this passage, in relation to the inclination to prayer, or to other religious manifestations and observances, which has frequently been observed in the case of maniacs afflicted with lycanthropy. In the case before us, where the period of insanity and punishment imposed by God had, at any rate, expired, the prayerful looking up to heaven by the humbled king could not possibly result in less than the elevation of the sufferer from his brutal condition to manhood—from the state of one lying helplessly on the ground, and looking earthward in his debasement, to the dignity and bearing of man, who is formed in the image of God, that is to say, to the normal form of man, of which Ovid sings (Metam., i. 85 ss.): “Pronaque cum spectent animalia c�tera terram, Os homini sublime dedit, c�lumque videreJussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus.”— And I praised and honored him that liveth forever. Cf. 6:27; 12:7; and also, in relation to the latter half of the verse, Daniel 3:33. [“The first thought he entertained was to thank God, to praise him as the ever-living One, and to recognize the eternity of His sway. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges and praises God as the ‘ever-living One,’ because He had again given to him his life, which had been lost in his mad-ness.”—Keil.] Daniel 4:32 [Daniel 4:35]. And all the inhabitants of the earth are (to be) reputed as nothing, that is, “in comparison to Him.” The partic. ηֲ ?ωִׁ ?ιαִ ?ιο must be regarded in this place as the part. fut. pass., and is not, therefore, to be explained (in analogy with Isaiah 40:17) by, “are reputed as nothing by Him” (Hδvern., Kranichf., etc.). [“The eternity of the supremacy of God includes His omnipotence as opposed to the weakness of the inhabitants of earth” (Keil).] λְּ ?μָ ?δ instead of λְּ ?μָ ?ΰ may be regarded as the error of a copyist, who thought to correct a supposed λֻּ ?μָּ ?ΰ (that is ΰַ ?ψְ ?ςָ ?ΰ)by substituting λֻּ ?μָּ ?δ. Or “μָ ?δ for μָ ?ΰ, is an archaism, conforming to the pregnant character of the negation, similar to μֹ ?η for μֹ ?ΰ, Deuteronomy 3:11” (Kranichf.). [The final η seems to be a mere Chaldaic interchange for ΰ in the ordinary λְּ ?μָ ?ΰ, as not.] The rabbinical assertion, found in Rashi and Saadia, that μָ ?η signifies “an atom of solar dust,” is at all events to be rejected.—And he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, etc. Cf. Isaiah 24:21, a passage that evidently lies at the foundation of the one before us, in which “the host on high” presents the same idea as is contained in “the army of heaven” in this place. Both refer to the innumerable companies of angels who inhabit heaven (Genesis 32:2 et seq.; Hebrews 12:22 et seq.; cf. Daniel 7:10).—And none can.… say unto him, what doest thou? Cf. Isaiah 43:13; and in relation to the phrase, “to stay one’s hand= to oppose him,” see the Targ. on Ecclesiastes 8:4; Tr. Sanhedr., 100:2; also the Arabic of Hariri, p. 444. Daniel 4:33 [Daniel 4:36]. And the glory of my kingdom, mine honor, and my brightness returned unto me. The μ before ιְ ?χַ ?ψ serves to introduce that word as a new subject, after the former, ξַ ?πְ ?γְּ ?ςִ ?ι (cf. Isaiah 32:1; Isaiah 38:16; Psalms 89:19). ιְ ?χַ ?ψ “station, majesty, dignity,” such as is manifested in the look, bearing, and manners of a princely personage. δֲ ?γַ ?ψ, “splendor,” A. V. “honor” (cf. Daniel 4:27 [Daniel 4:30]; chap. Daniel 4:18), is here contrasted with his former appearance and condition, which denied his royal state, and even his nature as a man, Daniel 4:30 [Daniel 4:33]. ζִ ?ιε is properly “brightness,” and here refers to the beauty or beaming freshness of the human countenance (cf. chap. Daniel 4:6; Daniel 4:9; Daniel 7:28), while δγψ refers more particularly to the splendor of his robes (cf. Psalms 110:3; Psalms 29:2; Psalms 96:9; 2 Chronicles 20:21).—And my counsellors and my lords sought unto me,—they, who had formerly avoided and deserted me! That αְּ ?ςָ ?ΰ signifies a search for one who is believed to have disappeared without leaving a trace by which to discover him, is an assumption made by Hitzig and also by a number of earlier expositors, such as Geier, Michaelis, Bertholdt, etc., which, however, is without any support whatever. The expression rather designates “a search conducing to the honor of the king, which was instituted by his former counsellors and magnates in their capacity as the council of the regency during the interim, for the purpose of officially requesting the king on his restoration to health, to resume the control of the government.” The terms δγαψιο (see on 3:24) and ψαψαπιο do not, however, designate different subjects, but the same ones with reference to their several powers and dignities; cf. ωַׂ ?ψεְ ?βָ ?γεֹ ?μ, 2 Samuel 3:28; μέγαςκαὶδυνάστης, Job 9:22.—And I was (again) established in my kingdom. ηָ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?πֵ ?ϊ instead of ηָ ?ϊְ ?χְ ?πֵ ?ϊ, because of the following accent, distinct.—And excellent majesty was added unto me; “I received still greater power” than I had formerly enjoyed; cf. Job 42:10. There are no historical authorities to show in what the additional power consisted which came to Nebuchadnezzar toward the end of his life; but the truth of this statement cannot on that account be questioned. Daniel 4:34 [Daniel 4:37]. Now (or therefore) I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, and extol, and honor, etc. By this doxology the close of the royal proclamation returns to the thought of the introduction, Daniel 3:32 et seq.—All whose (rather, “for all His”) works are truth, and his ways judgment. χְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?θ, literally “firmness, immutability,” and hence, “faithfulness, truth” (=Heb. ΰֶ ?ξֶ ?ϊ). γִּ ?ιο, literally “judgment,” procedure strictly conformed to justice (=Heb. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ): Cf. Jeremiah 9:23; Jeremiah 22:13.—And those that walk in pride, he is able to abase. cf. Isaiah 10:33; Isaiah 13:11; Isaiah 25:11; 1 Samuel 22:7; Psalms 18:28; Luke 1:51 et seq.—In relation to the enlargement of this doxology of Nebuchadnezzar which is found in the Sept. in this place, see the Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 3 [below]. Ethico Fundamental Principles Related To The History Of Salvation, Apologetical Remarks, And Homiletical SuggestionsAccording to the remarks on Daniel 3:31 [Daniel 4:1], the authorship of this section is divided between Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel, with the distinction that the former is conceived as the moral originator and ordainer of the edict, while the latter is its writer. But, at the same time, both the heathen king and the theocratic prophet are so exclusively the active (or suffering) characters of the narrative, that every observation of dogmatic or apologetical importance must be derived from the conduct of one or the other of these two persons. We therefore direct our attention 1. To Nebuchadnezzar,—with reference to whose seizure by lycanthropic mania, as being credible on general grounds, and also as being attested by extra-biblical authorities, the necessary explanation has been given in the Introd. (§ 8, note 1). We now direct attention to the act of profound self-abasement which the king performed by publishing, of his own impulse, a report respecting his protracted disease of several years’ duration, and also respecting its causes and his final cure. This involves no improbability on psychological, political, or religious grounds. (1) From a psychological point of view, the report became necessary, because a spirit of repentance and of sincere self-abasement had really come over the proud monarch, and because he had been led to recognize with all emphasis that the humiliation, as wearisome as it was deeply painful to his consciousness, was a righteous punishment inflicted on him by the only true God, even though a genuine, durable, and fruit-bearing conversion might not have been accomplished in his case. On the nature of this sincere and profoundly realized humiliation of the king, which, however, was inadequate to secure his admission to a gracious state, or to formal membership in the congregation of God’s people under the Old Covenant, cf. Calvin on Daniel 4:34 : “Hic est modus omnis humiliationis; sed careret profectu illa humiliatio, nisi Dominus postea regeret nos spiritu mansuetudinis. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 5. Belshazzar’s feast, and Daniel’s foreshadowing of the downfall of the Chald�an Empire, based upon the mysterious handwriting on the wallDan_5:1-301 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank 2wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tested [in the taste of] the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that [and] the king and his princes [lords], his wives and his concubines, might drink therein. 3Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at [in] Jerusalem; and the king and his princes 4[lords], his wives and his concubines, drank in them. They drank wine1 and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone. 5In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace; and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled [would trouble] him, so that [and] the joints of his loins [loin] were loosed, and his knees smote one against another [this to that]. 7The king cried aloud [with might] to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldζans and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon Whosoever [That any man that] shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet [put on the purple], and have a [the] chain of gold about [upon] his neck, and shall be the third ruler [rule third] in the kingdom. 8Then came in all the king’s wise men: but [and] they could not read [call] the writing, nor [and] make known to the king [make the 9king know] the interpretation thereof. Then was [the] king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonished. 10Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet-house [house of the drinking]; and the queen spake and said, O 11king, live for ever; let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed. There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and, in the days of thy father, light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom [and] the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made [appointed him] master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldζans, and soothsayers; 12forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences [riddles], and dissolving of doubts [knots], were [was] found in the same [in him] Daniel, whom the king named [put his name] Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew [or, and shew] the interpretation. 13Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry. [Judah]?6 14I have even heard of [upon] thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light, and understanding, and excellent wisdom, is [was] found in thee. 15And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read [call] this writing, and make known unto me [make me know] the interpretation thereof: but [and] they could not shew the interpretation of the thing. 16And I have heard of [upon] thee that thou canst make [interpret] interpretations and dissolve doubts [knots]: now, if thou canst read [call] the writing and make known to me [make me know] the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet [put on the purple], and have a [the] chain of gold about [upon] thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler [rule the third] in the kingdom. 17Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself [thee], and give thy rewards [largesses] to another; yet I will read [call] the writing unto the king, and make known to him [make him know] the interpretation. 18O thou king, [Thou O king—] the most high God gave [to] Nebuchadnezzar thy father a [the] kingdom, and majesty [greatness], and glory, and 19honour. And, for [from] the majesty [greatness] that he gave him, all people, nations [the nations, peoples], and languages, trembled and feared [were trembling and fearing from] before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive, and whom he would he set up, and whom he would he 20put down. But [And] when his heart was lifted up, and his mind [spirit] hardened in pride [to act proudly], he was deposed from his kingly throne [the throne of his kingdom], and they took [caused to pass away] his glory the 21dignity] from him. And he was driven from the sons of men [mankind]; and his heart was made like [with] the beasts [living creatures], and his dwelling was with the wild-asses: they fed him with [would make him eat] grass [herbage] like oxen, and his body was [would be] wet with [from] the dew of heaven [the heavens]; till [that] he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men [mankind], and that he appointeth [will set up] over it whomsoever he 22[may] will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, 23though [because] thou knewest all this; but [and] hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven [the heavens]: and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk [are drinking] wine in them: and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, 24hast thou not glorified. Then was the part of the hand sent from [before] him; and this writing was written [signed]. 25And this is the writing that was written [signed], MENE, MENE, TEKEL, 26. This is the interpretation of the thing [or, word]: MENE 27[NUMBERE]; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL 28[Weighed]; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting, PERES [DIVIDED]; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia]. 29Then commanded [said] Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet [the purple], and put a [the] chain of gold about [upon] his neck, and made a proclamation concerning [upon] him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. 30In that night was Belshazzar the king of the Chaldζans slain. REMARKSDan_5:1-4. The desecration of the sacred vessels of the temple at the royal feast. Belshazzar the king made a great feast. The name of the king αֵּ ?μְ ?ωַׁ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ differs in its orthography merely from the Chaldee name αֵּ ?μְ ?θְ ?ωַׁ ?ΰφַּ ?ψ, which Nebuchadnezzar, according to Daniel 1:7 (cf. infra, Daniel 5:12 of this chapter), had conferred on Daniel, as it omits the t-sound between the letters l and sh. It is therefore a softened form, having the same etymological significance in its elements, and both are equivalent to Beli princeps, = the Bel-sarussur of the Babylonian inscriptions (cf. Introd., § 8, note 3). According to Hitzig (on Daniel 1:7, and on this passage), Bel-tsh-βzar is synonymous with the Sanscrit Pβla-tshβηara, “provider and devourer,” while in Bel-shazzar the middle member of this compound, the Sanscr. and Zend copula tsha, “and,” has been dropped out and replaced by the Heb. relative ωׁ, so that the shortened form signifies. “provider, who (is) devourer.” This hypothesis appears altogether too artificial, and, like the direct derivation of the word from the Aryan, is doubtful, especially as the Bel-sarussur of the inscriptions on the Babylonian monuments favors it but little. Ewald’s assumption that the royal name αֵּ ?μְ ?ωַׁ ?Χ comprehends the name the male god Bel, while that of Daniel, αֵּ ?μְ ?θְ ?ωַׁ ?Χ, includes that of the goddess Belt, is likewise without sufficient proof, and is opposed by Daniel 4:5 [8], and also by the orthography with θ instead of ϊ.—Concerning the hypothesis that Belshazzar was the same us Evil-merodach, the son and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, see the lntrod., § 8, note 3.—Made a great feast, i.e., caused it to be made. ςֲ ?αַ ?γ, “he had prepared,” as in Daniel 3:1. μְ ?δֶ ?ν, “bread, food,” comprehends the beverages (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊֵּ ?ΰ, Daniel 5:10) also, as the second half of the verse shows; cf. in the Heb, Genesis 26:30; 1 Samuel 25:36; Ecclesiastes 10:19.—And drank wine before the thousand. This does not probably mean that he “vied with them in drinking” (Hδvernick), but that he “drank in their presence, while seated at a separate table,”—as was the custom of the Persian kings on the occasion of their great banquets, according to Athenζus, Deipnos, iv. 10. On the expression, “to eat and drink before others,” cf. Jeremiah 52:33; it differs materially from “to eat and drink with others,” Exodus 18:12; Acts 10:41, etc. The number of the king’s guests, a thousand lords (grand-officers, mighty ones, cf. Daniel 4:33 [36], which the Sept. doubles, δισχίλιοι), is not remarkable, when it is remembered that, according to Ctesias (in Athen., l. c.). the Persian king provided daily for fifteen thousand persons at his table; that, according to Curtius, Alexander the Great invited ten thousand to a wedding feast; and that Ptolemy Dionysius (according to Pliny, H. N., XXXIII. 10) supported a thousand soldiers of the army of Pompey the Great from his kitchen. [“The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e., the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand” (Keil).] However, according to the genuinely Oriental custom, which is attested, e.g., by Herodotus, II. 78. in the case of the Egyptians, and by Ζlian, V. H., xi. 1, among the Persians, the wine-drinking or carousal follows upon the feast proper. At such times, and especially at a court like the Babylonian immediately prior to the Persian period, the banqueters may have given way to all the excesses of their dissolute frivolity, in the manner described in the ensuing narrative. In relation to the drunkenness and wantonness of the Babylonians, cf. Isaiah 14:11; Isaiah 47:1; Jeremiah 51:39; Herod., I. 193, 195; Athenζus, XIV. p. 601; Curtius, V. 1 etc. Daniel 5:2. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded, etc. αִּ ?θְ ?ςֵ ?νηַ ?ξְ ?ψָ ?ΰ, “while tasting, while enjoying the wine,” therefore, while under its influence; cf. Proverbs 20:1; Acts 2:13; and in regard to θςν, cf. Job 6:6. [It “does not mean merely sipping in order to determine the flavor, or as a prelude to drinking more freely, but drinking with relish, and therefore plentifully” (Stuart).]—To bring the golden and silver vessels, namely, out of the “treasure-house of the gods,” in which they had been deposited by Nebuchadnezzar, according to Daniel 1:2. The etymology of the name Belshazzar invented by Saadia and favored by Hitzig, by which it is derived from this very act of causing the vessels to be brought from the treasure-house (αְּ ?μַ ?ωׁ, “to seek” and ΰεֹ ?φָ ?ψ), is an idle vagary that never entered into the mind of the writer.—That the king.… and his concubines might drink therein. The ε in εְ ?ψִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊּ ?εֹ ?ο is expressive of the design; cf. Daniel 1:5 b. ωְׁ ?ϊָ ?η with αְּ, “to drink from a vessel,” occurs also in Daniel 5:3; Daniel 5:23; cf. Winer, § 51, 1.—His wives and his concubines. ωֵׁ ?βָ ?μ designates the legal consort as contrasted with the concubine (μְ ?ηֵ ?λַ ?δ), as in the Hebrew (Psa. 15:10; Nehemiah 2:6). The Sept. represents only the concubines as present at the feast (both here and in Daniel 5:3; Daniel 5:23), being apparently governed in this by what is described in Esther 1:9 et seq. (cf. Josephus, Ant., XI. 6, 1) as the court custom of the ancient Persians; but even with reference to them, Herodotus (Daniel 5:18) testifies that their wives (κουρίδιαιγυναῖκες) were admitted to banquets (cf. also Plutarch, Sympos. I. 1 and Macrob. Daniel 7:1, who represent that at least concubines were present at the Persian feasts). It is clear that the luxurious Babylonians were even more lax in the observance of a strict etiquette, from Herod, i. 191; Xenophon, Cyrop., iv. 2, 28, and especially from Curtius, i. 1, 38. From this may appear the propriety with which Bertholdt (p. 366), on the strength of Dan 5:10 of this chapter, which he misunderstood, charges ignorance of the Babylonian custom in question on the prophet. Daniel 5:3. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem. Merely the golden vessels are here mentioned, while the silver ones are omitted, on the principle a potiori fit denominatio. The temple” (δֵ ?ιּ ?λְ ?μָ ?ΰ) in this place, as in 1 Kings 6:3; Ezekiel 41:4, is the temple proper, consisting of the holy and the most holy place, and is here distinguished from the “house of God,” i.e., the whole of the sacred area of the temple. Daniel 5:4. They drank wine, and praised, etc. ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִּ ?ιε (with ΰ prosthet., Winer, Gramm., § 23, note 1) resumes the εְ ?ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊִּ ?ιּ ?ε of the preceding verse supplemented by ηַ ?ξְ ?ψָ ?ΰ, “wine,” in order to connect immediately with it the praising of the gods, and thus to present in a striking manner the profanity and lasciviousness of the scene. —On the six-fold number of the materials from which the idols were constructed, “gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone,” compare the similar number (“gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble”) in 1 Corinthians 3:11; also Psalms 115:5-7; Bar 6:7 et seq.; Wis 15:15. On the number itself, as the number of the world amenable to judgment because of its hostility to God, cf. Auberlen, Dan., p. 304 et seq.; and my Theologia naturalis, p. 816 et seq.—The aggravated feature of this profanation of the sacred vessels of the temple does not consist in the “placing of Jehovah and the idols of the king upon the same level” (Hδvernick), but in the fact, which Daniel mentions with censure in Daniel 5:23, that Belshazzar proudly exalted himself above the God of Israel, and in mockery employed the vessels stolen from His sanctuary to drink wine while singing the praises of the victorious gods of Babylon. It was thus essentially an exaltation of the idols above Jehovah, who had succumbed to them in battle, and whom they had despoiled (cf. Kranichf. on this passage). Daniel 5:5-6. The finger on the wall, and the consequent terror of the king. In the same hour, therefore while the sacrilegious act was in progress; immediately and suddenly. cf. Daniel 3:6.—Came forth fingers of a man’s hand. The Kethib πְ ?τָ ?χεּ (3 plur. masc.) is sufficiently explained by its position before the feminine subject ΰֶ ?φְ ?αְּ ?ςָ ?ο, or also by the supposition that the mind of the writer reverted in an indefinite manner to the Divine powers here engaged. The feminine plural πְ ?τָ ?χָ ?δ, substituted for it by the Keri, is therefore to be rejected, as an easier reading (similar to that in Daniel 2:33). The participle εְ ?λָ ?ϊְ ?αָ ?ο (“and writing,” instead of “and wrote”), which follows the verb πְ ?τָ ?χεּ, has a realizing effect, as in Daniel 2:7 a; Daniel 3:9 a.—Over against the candlestick on the wall of the king’s palace. The wall of the banquet-hall was not panelled nor draped, but rather a simple, light-colored “wall of lime or plaster” (λְּ ?ϊַ ?μ = the λּ ?εֹ ?ϊָ ?μ of the Targums), such as the ruins of the palaces at Nineveh still exhibit in great number, according to Layard (Nin. and Babylon, p. 651). Upon a spot of this wall that was especially exposed to the light from the lamp above the king, he suddenly beheld the mysterious and terrifying phenomenon of the hand engaged in writing.—And the king saw the part (the extremity) of the hand that wrote. τַּ ?ριְ ?γָ ?ΰ properly designates here and in Daniel 5:24 the “extremity of the hand,” probably including the fingers, hence what the first sentence describes by ΰֶ ?φְ ?αְּ ?ςָ ?ο. The rendering of Gesenius and Dietrich in the Handwφrterbuch, “palm of the hand, palma,” is hardly correct; nor is that of Hitzig, who, in connection with Saadia, takes ιְ ?γָ ?ΰ in the wider sense of “the lower arm, including the hand,” and hence explains τρΞιγΰ by “the whole hand.” The writer appears rather to have employed the words “fingers” and “extremity of the hand” interchangeably, with design,—“in order to excite more effectually the conception of a mysterious person in the background, by the observation that only the extremity of the organ employed in writing was visible” (Kranichfeld). Whether the phenomenon of the mysterious hand is to be placed solely to the account of “the fancy of the king under the influence of wine,” and therefore to be reduced (with Kranichfeld) from an objective and actually transpiring miracle to a merely subjective apprehension (similar to the perception of the fourth person in the fiery furnace—see on Daniel 3:24), or otherwise, depends entirely on the other question, whether the mysterious writing on the wall, which certainly was visible to others as well as to Belshazzar (cf. Daniel 5:7-8; Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:25), is to be regarded as having been previously carved or painted in a natural way and by human agency, or whether it is to be accepted that the inscription was made by supernatural intervention at the time of the banquet and before the eyes of the terrified king. In support of the former theory reference might perhaps be made to the distinction between an older and a later cuneiform writing among the Babylonians, the former of which differed materially from the latter, or even to the hieroglyphics which the primitive Babylonians are said to have employed (cf. Spiegel, Art. Nineve u. Assyrien, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., vol. xx. p. 234 et seq.), but with which the later ages were entirely unacquainted. It is conceivable that the king may suddenly have noticed an inscription in characters of that former time, that were traced on bricks and inserted in the wall, and that such characters were not intelligible to the ordinary magians of the time, but required the all-surpassing knowledge of Daniel to decipher. But, aside from the evident design of the narrator to report a positively miraculous incident, this theory is militated against and positively overthrown by the nature of the writing, which does not bear the character of the primitive oracles of the kind represented the Sibyllines, but is a Divine sentence of destruction upon the king and his people, that was called forth by the insolent presumption of the present ruler, and is adapted to the circumstances of his time (cf. on Daniel 5:25 et seq). The theory of an actual miracle is therefore to be received, and the psychological explanation cited above, as well as every other naturalistic theory, must be rejected. —Then the (color of the) king’s countenance was changed; literally, “Then the king, his color was changed to him.” [“ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ (the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted” (Keil).] The intransitive ωְׁ ?πָ ?ΰ (“to change”) has the accusative suffix in ωְׁ ?πεֹ ?ηִ ?ι, instead of the dative; cf. αְּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αֵ ?πִ ?ι in the Heb. of Ezekiel 47:7. However, the more circumstantial expression ςֲ ?μֹ ?εδִ ?ιζִ ?ιεֹ ?δִ ?ιωָׁ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ο, Daniel 5:9, has substantially the same signification, as is the case also with the somewhat different expressions in Daniel 5:10 and Daniel 7:28. On ζִ ?ιεִ ?ιο, see on Daniel 4:33.—And his thoughts troubled him; ψςιεπιο, the uncomfortable and terrifying thoughts concerning the meaning of the writing, which sprang from the guilty conscience of the king. cf. Daniel 2:30.—The joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The tremulous knocking together of the knees is a consequence of the yielding of the joints of the loins, and this again, like the change of color in the countenance, is the natural effect of terror. cf. with ηֲ ?ψַ ?υ, “hip, loin,” the etymologically equivalent Heb. ημυ (only in the dual, ηֲ ?μָ ?φַ ?ιִ ?ν), ΰַ ?ψְ ?λּ ?εּ ?αָ ?ΰ, “knee,” appears not to be etymologically related to αψλιν ,αψκ, but rather to signify originally “combination, commissura;” cf. commissura genu, Plin., H. N. XI. 103. Daniel 5:7-9. The useless consultation with the Magians. The king cried aloud; αְּ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μ, “with power,” as in Daniel 3:4; Daniel 4:11.—To bring in the astrologers (soothsayers), the Chaldζans, and the soothsayers (astrologers). Several classes of wise men are here mentioned to designate the entire number, as in Daniel 2:2 (cf. 27) and in Daniel 4:4; and among them the Chartummin or learned class (see on Daniel 2:2), whose wisdom would be especially required in the present instance, are not even mentioned by name. This is evidently an oversight on the part of the writer, which is paralleled in the somewhat more complete enumeration of the principal classes of Magians in Daniel 5:11, and also in the abbreviated expression, “the wise men, the soothsayers,” in Daniel 5:15. The indefinite ηλιξιααμ in this verse, and the expression λֹּ ?μηַ ?λְּ ?ιξֵ ?ιξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ in Daniel 5:8, show clearly that the author always refers to all the wise men, without excluding any of the chief classes, and especially so in this instance. But it cannot be required here, any more than in the similar case mentioned in the preceding chapter, that Daniel should have at once presented himself among all these wise men of Babylon (see on Daniel 4:5). The position of the great Jewish wise man under Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, which was not official in the more limited sense, was probably continued to him under Belshazzar; and, moreover, the latter, who, according to Daniel 5:11 et seq., knew little or nothing about Daniel, would be far more likely than was his father to ignore the prophet of Jehovah, and to seek the counsel of the heathen wise men at the outset. The words of the queen in Daniel 5:11 et seq. by no means indicate that the king was wholly unacquainted with Daniel, but merely that up to that time no personal or official intercourse had taken place between them. This circumstance also finds a sufficient explanation in the greater freedom of action incident to the partly official and partly private station of Daniel, which devolved on him the obligation to attend to certain portions of “the king’s business” indeed (see Daniel 8:27), but released him from the duty of frequently presenting himself before the king. The assumption of Hengstenberg and Hδvernick, that on the accession of Belshazzar Daniel was formally deprived of his office as the chief Magian, is a very doubtful supposition, and stands in direct contradiction to Daniel 8:27 (cf. Daniel 8:1)—Whosoever shall read this writing, etc. λְּ ?ϊָ ?αָ ?δ (here and Daniel 5:15), for λְּ ?ϊָ ?αָ ?ΰ Daniel 5:8; Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:25, appears to be the orthography of a later copyist, as in the case of λְּ ?μָ ?η, Daniel 4:32, and of τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?η in Daniel 5:12, below.—Shall be clothed with purple (marg.) and have a chain of gold about his neck. ΰַ ?ψְ ?βְּ ?εָ ?ο here, and in the Chaldaizing Heb. of 2 Chronicles 2:6, equivalent to the Heb. ΰַ ?ψְ ?βָּ ?ξָ ?ο (Exodus 25:26-27, and often), the “red or genuine purple,” πορφύρα, was probably more costly and brilliant than the violet or blue purple ϊְּ ?λֵ ?μֶ ?ϊ, from which it must be distinguished. It formed the distinguishing feature of clothing among the Persian kings (Pollux, vii. 13), and was by them occasionally bestowed on high officials, as a mark of especial favor and exalted dignity; e.g., on Mordecai, Esther 8:15; and on the purpurati, i.e., persons who were adorned with the purple κάνθυς, whom Xenophon (Anab., I. 5, 8), Curtius (Daniel 3:2; Daniel 3:10; Daniel 8:3; Daniel 8:15; Daniel 13:13,14), and others mention (cf. Xenophon, Cyrop., Daniel 1:3; Daniel 1:2; Daniel 2:4; Daniel 2:6; Herodotus, 3:20, etc.). Purple was probably the badge of distinguished rank at the Babylonian as well as at the Persian court, especially as Babylon, like Tyre, was celebrated among the ancients for its manufacture of purple goods. Cf. Philostratus, Ep., 27; Ezekiel 27:24; Joshua 7:21; and generally, Heeren, Ideen, etc., I. 2, 205 et seq. With respect to their etymology, both forms, ΰψβξο and ΰψβεο, may be most readily derived from the Sanscrit, in which both rβgaman and rβgavan occur as adjectives derived from rβga, “red,” and signify “red-colored;” cf. Gesen., Addit. ad Thesaur., p. 111. Hitzig however refers to the Sanscr. argh = “to possess value, be costly,” and most of the older expositors prefer a Shemitic root, e.g.ψβν.—δַ ?ξְ ?πεּ ?λָ ?ΰ, “chain, necklace” (Sept. and Theodot., μανιάκης; also Aquil. and Symm. on Genesis 41:42), seems not to have been changed to δַ ?ξְ ?πִ ?ιλָ ?ΰ (= Gr. μανιάκης), the form which is here and in Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29 preferred by the Keri. As among the early Egyptians (Genesis 41:42), so also among the later Persians the golden necklace served as the ornament of princes and as the mark of special favor from the king, cf. Herod., III. 20; Xenophon, Anab., I. 2, 27; 5, 8; 8, 29.—And shall be the third ruler in the kingdom; rather, “shall have power in the kingdom as a triumvir.” ϊַּ ?μְ ?ϊּ ?ι not the same as ϊַּ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰ, Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29, is generally regarded as an ordinal number, “the third,” formed after the Heb. analogy, and is compared with the more usual ϊְּ ?μִ ?ιϊַ ?ι; but it may perhaps, and with greater probability, be regarded, with Kranichfeld, as a feminine adverbial formation after the analogy of adverbs like ΰְ ?ψָ ?ξִ ?ιϊ, ΰָ ?δְ ?ψִָ ?ιּ, etc., and be rendered accordingly, by like, or as a triumvir; while ϊַּ ?μְ ?ϊָ ?ΰ in Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29 is the corresponding masculine noun “triumvir” (formed from ϊְּ ?μָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “three”). There is therefore no difference in sense between the term employed in this passage and those found in the parallel verses cited above; but it is unnecessary and arbitrary to declare, with Hitzig. that the two forms are identical, and on that account to substitute ϊַּ ?μְ ?ϊַּ ?ι in this place. The dignity of triumvir which is here promised to the fortunate interpreter of the mystery is probably not identical with the office of one of the three governors of the province of Babylon mentioned in Daniel 2:49, but designates the position of one of the three chief governors over the whole kingdom. The latter office is noticed in Daniel 6:3, as established by Darius the Mede; but that statement may be regarded as merely indicating the restoration of a feature in the administration of government which had already existed under the Babylonian regime. The Sept. presents the correct idea: ἐξουσίατοῦτρίτουμέρουςτῆςβασιλείας; but the Peshito is less correct in its rendering by “the third rank in the kingdom,” which results in the idea that the recipient should immediately succeed in rank the king, who was supreme, and the prime minister or grand vizier, who filled the second place in the kingdom. This thought was certainly foreign to the author, and would be expressed as indefinitely as is possible by εְ ?ϊַ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ιεβιΧ. The evident meaning of these words is rather that the person concerned should be placed over the kingdom αὐτόςτρίτος, or the third beside two other grand officials or ωַׁ ?μִּ ?ιθִ ?ιο (cf. Daniel 6:3). Daniel 5:8. Then came in all the king’s wise men. On the Keri ςַ ?μִּ ?ιο see on Daniel 4:4. The λֹּ ?μηַ ?λִּ ?ιξֵ ?ιξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ are evidently the same as those mentioned separately (although not exhaustively, and merely by way of indicating their office) in Daniel 5:7. Kranichfeld is exceedingly arbitrary when he assumes a gradation between the three classes of wise men who are specially mentioned in Daniel 5:7, and the summoning of all the wise men related in this passage, and consequently finds between the lines and preceding the ΰֱ ?γַ ?ιִ ?ο, “then,” a series of incidents that are not expressly noticed (after the manner in which many expositors treat the καὶεἰ ?̄πενὁδοῦλος, Luke 14:22). Instead of this compare the relation of the general expression λֹּ ?μηַ ?λִ ?ιּ ?ξֵ ?ιαָ ?αֶ ?μ in Daniel 4:3, to the special classes of wise men which are immediately referred to (ibid. Daniel 5:4), and also what has been observed above, on Daniel 5:7, in relation to the careless style of the author.—But they could not read the writing, etc. Kranichfeld supposes that the reason for this was, that the mysterious inscription was written in the old Ph�nician characters, which Daniel, being a Hebrew, would have recognized, while the Chald�an Chartummin, who were acquainted only with the character in use among the ancient Babylonians, which corresponded to the later Syriac or Palmyrene, would naturally be unable to understand them. But in this instance we are probably to conceive of cuneiform writing, or of hieroglyphic characters (see on Daniel 5:7), because the brick walls of the palaces in ancient Babylon generally contained only such. Prideaux, however, preceded Kranichfeld in the opinion expressed in the Universal History, part. III. p. 755, that the writing was not composed of the square characters in use among the Chald�ans, but of the ancient Arabic (?), which preceded the modern Samaritan. Daniel 5:9. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled.… and his lords were astonished. The unusual, and even unique and incomprehensible characters in which the suddenly apparent writing was composed, increased the alarm produced by the apparition, and filled the king and his guests, now thoroughly aroused from their wild debauch, with anxious dread in relation to the misfortunes predicted by the supposed oracle. If, with Hδvernick, and many earlier expositors, we could believe that Belshazzar’s feast was held during the siege of the city by the Medo-Persians, and with a design to ridicule the danger from that source, it would be still easier to explain so general an alarm, and it would not even be necessary, in that case, to allude to the fear of the many officials that their own deposition from office might be connected with the king’s impending fall; but that conclusion does not necessarily result from Daniel 5:30 et seq.—Hitzig remarks on the Ithpael part. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?αְּ ?ωִׁ ?ιּ ?ο and probably with justice, that “it not only comprehends the idea of alarm, but also that of confusion and excited movement.” “None retained their places; a general uproar ensued; groups were formed; and the people talked, and ran hither and thither to no purpose.” Daniel 5:10-12. The queen-mother refers Belshazzar to Daniel. Now (or “then”) the queen … came into the banquet-house. ξַ ?μְ ?λְּ ?ϊָ ?ΰ can only be the queen-mother (βְּ ?αִ ?ιψָ ?δ, 1 Kings 15:13; 2 Chronicles 15:16; cf. Jeremiah 13:18)—not one of the king’s wives; for, according to Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:23 these were already in the banquet-hall among the carousers. Hence, if Belshazzar was the same person as Evil-merodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, this queen-mother, who here evidently displays a dignity and authority such as belonged to the gebiroth at the Israelitish courts (cf. the passages adduced), was probably the Nitocris whom Herodotus celebrates in I. 185. Cf. the Introd., § 8, note 3. —Instead of the Kethib ςַ ?μְ ?μַ ?ϊ, the Keri, conforming to the usage of the later Chaldee, has ςַ ?μַּ ?ϊ; cf. on Daniel 4:4.—μְָ ?χָ ?αֵ ?μξִ ?μֵּ ?ιξΧεβεΧ , “by reason (on account) of the words of the king and his lords.” So the majority of moderns, correctly; for a confused, excited talking, whose sound possibly penetrated to the apartments of the queen mother, is implicitly included in ξωϊαωιο. Daniel 5:9 The plural ξִ ?μִּ ?ιο, as well as the complementary genitive, is opposed to the version of the Vulg., Luther, Bertholdt, Dereser, von Lengerke, etc.: “by reason of the matter, or the affair.”—O king, live for ever. Cf. on Daniel 2:4, where also the defective ψַ ?ςְ ?ιεֹ ?πָ ?κְ εְ ?ζִ ?ιεָ ?κְ has been noticed. Daniel 5:11. And in the days of thy father light (πַ ?δִ ?ιψεּ , cf. on Daniel 2:22), and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him. Cf. 1 Kings 3:28; Wis 8:11.—King Nebuchadnezzar, the king, thy father. The subject is briefly repeated at the close of the sentence, because its first position was somewhat distant from the verb, similar to Son 5:7. Daniel 5:12. Forasmuch as an excellent spirit … were found in the same Daniel. The wisdom of Daniel, which had been extolled in Daniel 5:11, is again mentioned as the reason for the distinction conferred on him by Nebuchadnezzar, for the purpose of preparing Belshazzar to listen to the counsel which follows.—Interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts; rather, “to interpret; dreams, show riddles, and loosen knots.” This triplicate circumstantial clause,—the first and third of whose members are expressed in the Heb. [Chald.] by participles, and the second by the infinitive ΰַ ?ηֲ ?εָ ?ιָ ?ΰ—is a genitive, depending on εְּ ?ωָׂ ?λְ ?μְ ?ϊָ ?πεּ which closes the series of objects governed by the principal verb δִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊְּ ?λַ ?ηַ ?ϊ in the manner of a parenthesis. Hitzig holds differently, taking the three terms ξְ ?τַ ?ωַּׁ ?ψ, ΰְַ ?δַ ?εָ ?ιָ ?ΰ, and ξְ ?ωָׁ ?ψֵ ?ΰ, under the precedence of the Vulgate, as three nouns of action, coordinated to the preceding ones (“an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding”), and consequently assuming six subjects to ηִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊְּ ?λַ ?ηַ ?ϊαֵּ ?δּ. But ξְ ?τַ ?ωַׁ ?ψ and ξְ ?ωָ ?ψֵ ?ΰ are clearly Pael participles, and they cannot be taken as nomina actionis, even under reference to the Heb. ξְ ?λַ ?ρֵּ ?δ, “a covering,” or to ξְ ?ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, Daniel 9:27. It is exceedingly doubtful whether the figurative expression “to loosen knots” (cf. the Lat. nodos solvere; and also Seneca’s “nodosa sortis verba,” �dip., 101) contains an illusion to the “loosening of the loins,” in Daniel 5:6 (as Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., assert), or not, in view of the merely superficial relation between ξωψΰ and ξωϊψιο. In … Daniel whom the king named Belteshazzar; αֵּ ?ηּ αְּ ?γָ ?πִ ?ιּ ?ΰֵ ?μ (cf. Daniel 5:30), an emphatic pleonasm. The giving of the name is referred to, as in Daniel 4:5, as something honorable to the prophet.—Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. Concerning the form εּ ?τִ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?η, see above, on Daniel 5:7. [“The tone in which this last clause is spoken betokens that the speaker herself is conscious of an elevated rank and a kind of authority, or, at least, a right to give advice; a tone which only such a woman as stood in the relation of a mother (not a wife) could assume in the East before a king” (Stuart).] Daniel 5:13-16. Daniel’s appearance before the king. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. δֻ ?φַ ?μ and δֻ ?ςַ ?μּ ?εּ are Hebraizing Hophal-forms, like δεּ ?ρַ ?χ, Daniel 4:33, or like ηָ ?πְ ?ηַ ?ϊ in Daniel 5:20.—Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, etc. [“The question did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel.”—Keil.] This question clearly indicates that no direct intercourse had hitherto taken place between the king and Daniel (see on Daniel 5:7), but also, on the other hand, that the former had some knowledge of the prophet. The use of the name Daniel instead of Belteshazzar, in the king’s address, was probably dictated simply by a desire to avoid the use of a name so nearly identical in sound to his own—although it certainly belonged to the prophet in the official language of the Babylonian court. Hitzig therefore commits a decided error, when he assumes a historical improbability in this place, suggestive of a later Jewish authorship.—Whom the king.… brought from (rather “hitherto, out of”) Jewry? γִּ ?ιδַ ?ιְ ?ϊִ ?ι is probably to be referred to the captives, as Theodotion, the Sept., Luther, Hitzig, etc., hold, and not specially to the person of Daniel, which is the view of the Vulgate, Kranichfeld, etc. On the form ΰַ ?αִ ?ι for ΰַ ?αִּ ?ι (cf. the voc. ΰַ ?αָּ ?ΰ = Ἀββᾶ, Romans 8:15), see Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and others, on this passage.—On Daniel 5:14 of. Daniel 5:11; on Daniel 5:15 cf. Daniel 5:8. [“It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with ΰֱ ?μָ ?δִ ?ιο, gods” (Keil).]—The wise men, the astrologers (“soothsayers”). On this combination cf. on Daniel 5:7.—That they should read this writing, etc. γִּ ?ι, as the accompanying imperfect indicates, is in this place the telic conjunction “that, in order that.” Upon this clause which indicates the design, depends that which follows, construed with μ c. Inf. (cf. Daniel 2:16). Concerning the form λְּ ?ϊָ ?αָ ?η see supra, on Daniel 5:7.—But they could not shew the interpretation of the thing (or “word”). ξִ ?μְּ ?ϊΰ cannot be rendered by “matter, thing,” any more than ξִ ?μּ ?Ξο in Daniel 5:10; it rather signifies, collectively, the words written on the wall (against Hitzig and others).—Concerning ϊַּ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰ Daniel 5:16 b., see supra, on Daniel 5:7. Daniel 5:17-24. Daniel’s censuring address to the king, as the prologue to the interpretation of the writing. Let thy gifts be to thyself. This refusal of the royal presents was designed merely to decisively reject, at the outset, and in a manner becoming the prophet of Jehovah, any influence that might be brought to bear on him. It is not, therefore, a pert expression, which the king might justly punish, nor is it inconsistent with the fact that Daniel ultimately accepted the reward offered for the interpretation, Daniel 5:29, since he regarded it as a recognition of his God. The assertion of v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc., that we should expect either that the enraged king would punish the prophet who bears evil tidings and couples them with threatenings and censure, or that, in Daniel 5:29, Daniel would despise the royal purple and the golden necklace, all this is simply adapted to afford a conception of the manner in which a Maccabζan tendency-writer would have treated this history, and of the probable issue to which he would have conducted it. Daniel 5:18. O thou king, the most high God, etc. The absolute position of the vocative ΰπְ ?ϊָּ ?δξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ at the beginning of the sentence, places the king rhetorically in a living relation with the facts reported in the following clause, with regard to his father Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel 5:19. And for the majesty (or “power”).… all people, nations (“tribes”), and languages trembled and feared; properly, “were trembling and fearing,” were in a state of fear and trembling. The Keri has ζָ ?ιְ ?ςִ ?ιο instead of ζָ ?ΰַ ?ςִ ?ιο, similar to γָּ ?ιְ ?ψִ ?ιο (Daniel 2:38; Daniel 3:31; Daniel 4:32) instead of γָּ ?ΰψִ ?ιο; see on Daniel 2:38. Concerning the triad, “people, tribes, and tongues,” see on Daniel 3:4.—Whom (soever) he would (cf. Winer, Gramm. § 47,1, a).… he kept alive. ξָ ?ηֵ ?ΰ is derived by Theodotion (ἔτυπτεν) and the Vulgate (percutiebat; cf. Luther, “er schlug”) from ξְ ?ηָ ?ΰ “to smite;” but the parallelism requires the Aphel partic. of ηְ ?ιָ ?ΰ, “to live,” and ξָ ?ηֵ ?ΰ must either be considered as such (namely, as a peculiar, old-Chaldaic contraction of ξַ ?ηְ ?ιֵ ?ΰ, which is generally contracted to ξַ ?ηֵ ?ι, e.g., Targ. Deuteronomy 32:39), or, with Saadia, Rashi, Buxt., Bertholdt, Gesenius, Fόrst, Hitzig, etc., the usual contracted form ξַ ?ηֵ ?ΰ must be substituted for ξָ ?ηֵ ?ΰ. [“The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzar’s power in Daniel 5:18-19 has undesirably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that he did not equal his father (that monarch) in power and majesty.… The last clause in Daniel 5:19 reminds us of 1 Samuel 2:6-7” (Keil).] Daniel 5:20. But when his heart was lifted up. ψִ ?ν = ψִ ?ιν, is a preterite with intransitive signification, not a passive partic., as v. Lengerke suggests. Cf. Winer, § 22, 4.—And his mind hardened in pride. ψεּ ?ηַ, the nearest synonym to μְ ?αַ ?α, is also frequently used interchangeably with it in the Hebrew, e.g., Psalms 51:12; Psalms 51:19. ϊχσ, in this place, is about equivalent to the Heb. ηεֹ ?χ in Exodus 7:13. —He was deposed … , and they took his glory from him; or, “his glory was taken from him.” Instead of εִ ?ιχָ ?ψָ ?ΰ the best MSS. have ειχψδ, which is possibly to be read as εִ ?ιχָ ?ψֵ ?δּ (Hitzig); but on the other hand the case may be analogous to τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ψֵ ?ΰ, supra, Daniel 5:8 and Daniel 4:15. Daniel 5:21. And his heart was made like the (heart of) beasts. Read ωַׁ ?εִּ ?ι, not ωַׁ ?εִּ ?ιε (Keri) or ωֱׁ ?εִ ?ι (v. Leng., Hitzig), or even ωֻׁ ?εַּ ?ι (Ewald). The 3d sing. active ωַׂ ?εִּ ?ι is used, instead of the more usual 3d plural active, to express an impersonal sense. There are thus three several modes of indicating that sense employed in Daniel 5:20-21 : a, the passive (ηָ ?πְ ?ηַ ?ϊ Daniel 5:20, θְ ?ψִ ?ιγDaniel 5:21); b, the 3d plural active (δֶ ?ςְ ?γִּ ?ιε Daniel 5:20, ιְ ?θַ ?ςֲ ?ξεּ ?πֵ ?δּ Daniel 5:21); c the 3d sing. active (ωַׁ ?εִּ ?ι Daniel 5:21)—a rapid change, that is conditioned by the rhetorical, or if it be preferred, the poetical elevation of Daniel’s remarks.—[And his dwelling was with the wild asses. This “circumstance is added by the speaker, and not found in Daniel 4:29 (32). It is added for the sake of stronger impression” (Stuart).]—Till he knew that… God. appointeth over it (or “them”) whomsoever he will. Cf. Daniel 4:14, at the close of which, as here, the Keri substitutes ςֲ ?μַ ?δּ for the Kethib ςֲ ?μַ ?ιδּ. Daniel 5:22. And thou.… hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this. Properly, precisely because (γִּ ?ιλָּ ?μΞχְ ?αֵ ?μ) thou knewest all this,” hence, because of a defiant opposition to the well known design and will of the Highest. The words indicate the reason not for what Belshazzar should have done, but for what he did not perform (thus Kranichf. correctly, against v. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc.). Daniel 5:23. And thou has praised the gods of silver, and gold, etc., cf. Daniel 5:4. The descriptive addition in this case, “which see not, nor hear, nor know,” is based on Deuteronomy 4:28; cf. Psalms 115:5 et seq.; Psalms 135:15 et seq.—And (rather “but”) the God in whose hand thy breath is. Cf. Job 12:10; Numbers 16:22. On the following, “whose (“or with whom”) are all thy ways” (ΰָ ?ψְ ?ηָ ?ο ways = experiences, Targ. Job 8:13), cf. Jeremiah 10:23.—Hast thou not glorified; a litotes for, “hast thou dishonored, disgraced.” [“This is surely plain and faithful admonition; and probably the king’s conscience was smitten by it.”—Stuart.] Daniel 5:24. then (or “therefore”) was.… . sent from him. αֵּ ?ΰγַ ?ιִ ?ο, properly “then,” namely at the time when thou didst thus exalt thyself against God. The post hoc in this instance is really a propter hoc.—ωְׁ ?μִ ?ιηַ does not, as, e.g., in Ezra 6:12 (cf. the Heb. Daniel 11:42), designate the stretching forth of the hand, as if God Himself were the writer; but rather indicates the emanation of the hand from God in a general way, and therefore, so as not to exclude the intervention of angels, but rather to presume it. Hitzig remarks correctly: “The hand that writes is that of an angel who stood before God (Daniel 7:10), and received the commission to write this.” Daniel 5:25-28. The reading and interpretation of the writing. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin = numbered, numbered, weighed, and-dividers. The forms ξְ ?πֵ ?ΰϊְּ ?χֵ ?μ, and also τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ, which in Daniel 5:28 takes the place of τַּ ?ψְ ?ρִ ?ιο, are unmistakably passive participles Peal, by which the surely-impending future is expressed in the manner of a Prζteritum propheticum, but with greater brevity and emphasis. The forcible laconic utterance of a mysterious oracle sounds forth from these disconnected consecutive passive participles; and this tendency and signification appear also in the unusual and antique form of the participles, of which only the first, ξְ ?πֵ ?ΰ, has a somewhat regular formation (analogous to χְ ?ψֵ ?α, Daniel 3:26, or ωְׁ ?λֵ ?λ, for ωְׁ ?λִ ?ια, in the later Chaldee), while the e-sound in ϊְּ ?χֵ ?μ and τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ is decidedly abnormal, and conflicts with the ordinary usage. ϊְּ ?χֵ ?μ appears to have been selected as an equivocal mediating form between ϊְּ ?χִ ?ιμ, the regular passive participle of ϊְּ ?χַ ?μ, and ϊִּ ?χַּ ?μ (from χμμ, “to be light;” cf. Daniel 5:27); ξְ ?πֵ ?ΰ was possibly chosen because of its assonance to ξָ ?ΰπַ ?ιָּ ?ΰ, Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:23; and in like manner τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ = τְּ ?ψִ ?ιρ may contain an amphibole, by way of an allusion to the name τָּ ?ψָ ?ρ—hence a reference to the world-power which was chiefly instrumental in the “division,” i.e., the overthrow of the Chaldζan empire. Kranichfeld rejects, but without any reason, this assumption of a designed two-fold sense of the terms, and especially of ϊְּ ?χֵ ?μ, which is adopted by Hitzig and others; although Hitzig is probably in error when he assigns to τψρ (upon the ground of Isa 63:7, and in connection with Ibn-Ezra and Rashi) the meaning of the Heb. ωָׁ ?αַ ?ψ or τָּ ?ψַ ?χ, “to break.” As Daniel 5:28 shows, the writer represents the destruction of the Chaldζan empire, which is foretold in τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ (τַּ ?ψְ ?ρִ ?ιο), precisely as a division between the allied nations of the Persians and the Medes, although he might properly have mentioned the Persians only, as effecting the destruction of the kingdom. The substitution of the plural active partic. τַּ ?ψְ ?ρִ ?ιο for the abnormal passive partic. τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ in the written oracle itself, which results in a change of construction similar to that observed in Daniel 5:20-21 (cf. also Daniel 2:7; Daniel 3:9; Daniel 6:14, and the remarks on ωָׁ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιο, Daniel 3:4), appears to have been made for the sake of clearness. The unusual τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ would have accorded more exactly with the two preceding terms, but would scarcely have been intelligible; while the plur. εּ ?τַ ?ψְ ?ρִ ?ιο, “and dividers,” or, “and they divide,” could not be misunderstood. (Ewald’s interpretation: “and in pieces and in ruins,” is without any linguistic proof.) However, the expressions “to number” or “count,” and “to weigh” are found elsewhere also, as figures to designate a final judicial determination; cf. Psalms 56:9; Psalms 62:10; Job 31:4; Job 31:6. The repetition of ξְ ?πֵ ?ΰ as indicating the character of the entire sentence, is designed merely to add a solemn emphasis to the words; cf. the frequent ἀμήν, ἀμὴνλέγωὑμῖν in the New Testament, and O.-T. passages like Genesis 14:10; Deuteronomy 2:27; Deuteronomy 14:22, etc.; and, generally, Ewald, Lehrb., § 313 a.Daniel 5:26. God hath numbered thy kingdom. ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊָ ?κְ is not “thy kingdom,” but “thy kingship” the duration of thy reign, the days of thy sovereignty. The verb ξְ ?πָ ?δ is written with δ probably with design, in order to indicate the change of the vowel as compared with ξְ ?πֵ ?ΰ.—And finished it. δַ ?ωְׁ ?μְ ?ξָ ?δּ, literally, “has made it complete,” or “has fully numbered it;” i.e., has brought it to the end of the time assigned to it. Cf δωμιν, Isaiah 38:12. Daniel 5:27. Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. “Thou,” i.e., thy moral personality, thy moral character and worth; cf. Job 31:6 : “Let me be weighed in an even balance, that God may know mine integrity.”—Thou “art found wanting” seems to refer to the threatening λִּ ?ιχַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ϊָ, “for thou art vile” (or “too light”), which the prophet Nahum (Daniel 1:14) hurls at the Assyrian king; and in so far may serve to substantiate what has been observed above on the two fold sense of ϊְּ ?χֵ ?μ. ηַ ?ρִּ ?ιψ, properly “wanting” (= ηָ ?ρֵ ?ψ), namely in moral worth or capacity. Daniel 5:28. Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. In regard to the abnormal form τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ, which is followed by the regular fern. pass. part., τְּ ?ψִ ?ιρַ ?ϊ, see above, on Daniel 5:25. God is naturally conceived of as the divider; the related tribes of the Medes and the Persians are named as the recipients, although the latter clearly appears as the principal power. The oracle contains an etymological allusion to τַּ ?ψָ ?ρ only, and none to ξָ ?γַ ?ι, an assonance to which might have been readily found in the root ξγγ, “to measure” (cf. ξִ ?γָּ ?δ, ξִ ?πְ ?γָּ ?δ, Ezra 4:20; Ezra 6:8; Ezra 7:24). The evident design with which the Persians, as the preponderating power in the Medo-Persian kingdom (for only thus was it known to the author, as the comprehensive εּ ?τַ ?ψְ ?ρִ ?ιο indicates: cf. on Daniel 2:39), are thus brought into prominence, is not contradicted by Daniel 6:1, where Darius the Mede is mentioned as the first foreign ruler over Babylon after the Chaldζan dynasty was overthrown. The actual state of affairs compelled the author to represent that at that time Media still held the same rank as Persia, at least formally and officially, and at first even gave a dynasty and name to the whole empire; and this was done with sufficient clearness by the mention of the Medes before the Persians in this verse.Daniel 5:29-30. The consequences. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel; rather, “and caused Daniel to be clothed.” The literal rendering is, “Then said Belshazzar, and they clothed,” etc.; a similar construction as in Daniel 2:49; Daniel 4:17; Daniel 4:25. In the Heb. εַ ?ιַּ ?μְ ?αִּ ?ιωׁ ?εּ (fut. with vav convers.—cf. Nehemiah 13:9; 2 Chronicles 24:8; Jon. 2:11), rather than εְ ?δִ ?μְ ?αִּ ?ιωׁ ?εּ would have corresponded to εְ ?δַ ?μְ ?αִּ ?ωׁ ?εּ. The enrobing is therefore to be regarded as immediately succeeding the command, and Hδvernick’s opinion, that “the sudden death of the king prevented the execution of his design,” is evidently wide of the narrator’s meaning. The opinion that the prophet was invested with the royal insignia of the purple and the necklace on the same evening, involves no questionable feature, which could lead us to refer the execution of the king’s command to the following day (Dereser), or even to regard the whole incident as improbable (Hitzig, etc.); but rather, the immediate bestowal of the promised marks of favor and honor harmonizes fully with the oriental despotic methods of administering government and justice, which under different circumstances observed the most rapid modes of executing punishment (see Daniel 3:6; Daniel 3:20 et seq.). The “public announcement” of the promotion which had taken place (the verb λְּ ?ψַ ?ζ = Sanscrit krus, κηρύπτειν, signifies to proclaim publicly, as was shown on Daniel 3:4), in the same night and in every street by means of heralds, is however an unjustified demand which the closing words of Dan 5:29 by no means involve. The solemnity in question may have been confined to the range of the royal palace, and even to the banquet hall (which, according to Daniel 5:1, must be regarded as an extended building, and as filled with an extraordinary multitude).—Concerning the probable motive (namely, because his God and Lord was thus honored) which induced Daniel, despite his former refusal, to accept the expressions of the royal favor, see on Daniel 5:17. In connection with this, the assumption is still admissible, that any protest which the prophet may have offered, remained without effect, in view of the stormy haste of the king in his alarm, and was lost amid the acclamations and the noisy conversation of the excited throng. Cf. Jerome: “Accepit autem (Daniel) insigne regium, torquem et purpuram, ut Darius, qui erat successurus in regnum, fieret notior et per notitiam honoratior. Nec mirum, si Baltasar, audiens tristia, solverit prζmium, quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura, quζ dixerat, aut dum Dei Prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum.”Daniel 5:30. In that night was Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldζans, slain—evidently through a conspiracy of a number of his magnates, which may have existed previously, but which did not attempt the execution of its design, until the interpretation of the mysterious writing by Daniel gave the conspirators courage. Only this opinion seems to be justified by the language of this passage and by the context, to the exclusion of the more general view, by which the king was slain at the hands of the victorious Medo-Persians, who are supposed to have taken the city on that night, and by which Belshazzar is in consequence identified with Nabonidus, the last Chaldζan king—all of which is based on a combination of Isaiah 16; Isaiah 21:5; Jeremiah 51:39; and of Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 5, 15 et seq.; Herodotus, I. 190, etc., with this narrative. The latter view has recently been defended, especially by Hengstenberg (p. 325 et seq.), Keil (Einl., p. 457), Hδvernick, etc., and also by nearly all the rationalistic expositors and critics (also by Stδhelin, Einl. ins A. T., p. 350 et seq.), and is certainly supported by the opening verse of chap. 6, in case it be immediately connected with the one before us, as is done by the writers named. It is however more than questionable whether this arrangement corresponds to the conception and design of the author; for (1) the words, “And Darius the Median took the kingdom,” together with the subjoined reference to his age, “being about threescore and two years old,” seems intended to introduce the narrative concerning Darius and his relations to the Babylonian dynasty, much rather than to close that relating to Belshazzar. (2) Berosus and Abydenus relate nothing of a taking of Babylon while a luxurious banquet, held by the last Chaldζan king and his magnates, was in progress, as the tradition of Xenophon and Herodotus asserts (cf. Introd. § 8, note 3, and especially the extracts from Kranichfeld on this question there adduced). (3) Berosus, in Josephus, Ant. x. 11, 1, does not, indeed, state that Nabonidus, the last Babylonian king, became the victim of a conspiracy, but he does ascribe that fate to Evil-merodach, the immediate successor of his father Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:13; Daniel 5:18; Daniel 5:22). The conspiracy in the case of the latter was headed by Neriglissar, the brother-in-law of the king, and removed the latter under circumstances entirely similar to those under which Belshazzar is said by our passage to have been slain, by murderers whose names are not given. The identity of the latter with Evil-merodach thus becomes highly probable (cf. Introd. l. c.). (4) Finally, the prophecy of the mysterious writing in Daniel 5:25, which transfers the Chaldζan empire to the hands of the Medes and Persians, does not oppose, but it rather favors, the mode of division we advocate, on which an entirely new section begins with Daniel 6:1. For precisely as in Daniel 2:38-39, Nebuchadnezzar, the head of gold, appears first as an individual, and then as identified with his dynasty and as the representative of the Babylonian world-kingdom, so Belshazzar appears first under the conception of a single person—in the words, “numbered, numbered, weighed”—but afterward as identified with his kingdom, in the closing prediction expressed by τְּ ?ψֵ ?ρ or τַּ ?ψְ ?ρִ ?ιο. The interval of perhaps 22–24 years which thus falls between his own destruction and that of his kingdom, will, in view of the recognized perspective character of all prophecy, appear no more questionable than the still greater number of years which, according to that earlier prediction, were to elapse between the death of Nebuchadnezzar and the ruin of his dynasty. Similar groupings of immediate with more distant events are frequent in the O.-T. prophecies; in particularly noteworthy and instructive instance of which fact may be found in the remarkable prophecy to the wife of Jeroboam by Ahijah of Shiloh in 1 Kings 14, that comprehends three distinct events, between which extended intervals intervene: (1) The death of the sick prince, Abijah (Daniel 5:12-13); (2) the overthrow of Jeroboam’s dynasty, more than 28 years later (Daniel 5:10; Daniel 5:14; cf. 1 Kings 15:29 et seq.); (3) the ruin of the kingdom of Israel, which did not transpire until two centuries afterward (Daniel 5:15 et seq.; cf. 2 Kings 17). The fundamental law of all Messianic typology, by which later events are grouped organically with earlier ones, and by which one and the same guilty act conditions a succession of Divine judgments in the course of developments, underlies this collocation in the perspective vision of a single prophecy. “The cause of the sad end of the kingdom of the ten tribes existed already in the beginning made and cultivated by Jeroboam, two and a half centuries before; the fate that extinguishes the house of Jeroboam is at bottom the same which destroys the kingdom of the ten tribes. Jeroboam’s sin destroys his dynasty and his kingdom; for this reason the destruction of both is comprehended in the same prophecy, and not merely because the destruction of the dynasty coincides with that of the kingdom” (Kranichfeld; cf. also Bδhr, on 1 Kings chap. 14 p. 149 of vol. 7 of the Bibelwerk). Substantially the same principles apply to the predictions of evil denounced by our prophet against Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, and against Belshazzar and his kingdom. The connection of widely separate events which they embody, is natural and organically necessary; and therefore the reference to two events of fulfilment, although separate in point of time, upon which we insist, involves no arbitrary features.—The assertion of Keil (Einl. l. c.) that if the two events were not coincident, the author would have been required to state, in Daniel 6:1, how the second fact in the fulfilment stands related to the first, or, in other words, “when and how the transmission of the kingdom to the Medes and Persians came to pass,” is entirely uncalled for, and is opposed by the analogy of Ahijah’s oracle, whose final and complete realization by the overthrow of Israel, is likewise not expressly noticed; and in addition the mere mention of the taking of Babylon by Darius is a sufficient indication of the anti-typical relation of that event to Daniel 5:25-28. The annexed reference to the age of Darius seems rather to indicate a reference to a period considerably later, than a design to designate the particular night in which Belshazzar was slain as falling in the sixty-second year of Darius. There was certainly no apparent motive for the author to make a chronological statement of this sort.—In relation to the peculiar opinion of Ebrard (Die Offenbarung Johannis erklδrt, p. 55 et seq.), that chap. Daniel 5:30 together with Daniel 6:1, refers to the overthrow of Laborasoarchad, the grandson and third successor of Nebuchadnezzar, by Nabonidus (= Darius the Mede), see on Daniel 6:1 et seq. (cf. supra Introd. § 8, notes 3 and 4). ethico–fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions1. The principal object in an apologetic point of view will have been realized in this section, whenever the identity of Belshazzar with Evil-merodach is established, and when, in consequence, the repeated designation of Nebuchadnezzar as his father (Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:13; Daniel 5:18; Daniel 5:22), the correspondence of the mode of his sudden and violent death (Daniel 5:30) with that attested by Berosus with regard to Evil-merodach, and the accession of Darius the Mede Co the throne of Babylon at a period considerably later, shall have been properly substantiated. After what has been observed upon this question on Daniel 5:30, and also in the Introd. (§ 8, note 3), it only remains to examine the question, “In how far does the narrative yield to the tendency-critical attempts to represent it as a romantic fiction of the Maccabζan age?”—According to Bleek (Einl. § 266), v. Lengerke (Daniel, p. 241 et seq., p. 256) and others, the story was inspired by the plundering of the temple at Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes in the year B. C. 168, and above a year before the Maccabζan revolt. The brutal manner in which the Syrian king at that time penetrated into the temple of Jehovah, and seized, with polluted hands, the golden lavers and other sacred vessels (1Ma 1:21 et seq.; 2Ma 5:15 et seq.), is said to have led the pseudo-Daniel to compose this history, and “by the fate of Belshazzar to warn the Syrian monarch, that a similar Divine judgment would be visited on him, because of his sacrilege.” But the narrative concerning the Seleucidζ and the Maccabees makes no mention of a luxurious banquet, such as a sacrificial feast, at which anything transpired that would at all compare with the profanation of the sacred vessels, as described in this chapter; and the only remaining parallel between the passages cited from 1James , 2 d Maccabees, and Daniel 1:2 (cf. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 6. The deliverance of Daniel from the lion’s denDan_6:1-28 [English Bible, Daniel 5:31 to Daniel 6:28] 31Darius the Median took [received] the kingdom, being about three score and two years old [as a son of sixty and two years]. 1It pleased [seemed good before] Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes [satraps], which should be over the whole [in all the] kingdom; 2and over these [them], three presidents, of whom Daniel was first [one]; that the [these] princes might give accounts [the reasons] unto them, and the king should have no damage [not be damaged]. 3Then this Daniel was preferred [made eminent] above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm [all the kingdom]. 4Then the presidents and princes sought [were seeking] to find occasion against [cause as to] Daniel concerning [from the side of] the kingdom; but [and] they could find none occasion nor fault [corrupt thing]; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error [wrong] or fault [corrupt thing] found in him. 5Then said these men, [That] We shall not find any occasion against [cause as to] this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning [in] the law or his God. 6Then those presidents and princes assembled [crowded] together to [upon] the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. 7All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains [pashas], have consulted together to establish a royal [or, for the king to establish a] statute [an established act of the king], and to make a firm decree [confirm an interdict], that whosoever [any one that] shall ask a petition of [an asking from] any god or man for [till] thirty days, save of [except from] thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of [the] lions. 8Now, O king, [mayest thou] establish the decree [interdict], and sign the writing, that it be not changed [change not], according to [like] the law of the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia], 9which altereth not [will not pass away]. Wherefore [Therefore the] king Darius signed the writing and the decree [interdict]. 10Now when Daniel [And Daniel, as soon as he] knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and, his [its] windows being [were] open in his [its upper] chamber toward [in front of] Jerusalem, [and] he kneeled upon his knees three times a day [in the day], and prayed [was praying], and gave thanks [thanking] before his God, as he did aforetime [because he was doing so from before that time]. 11Then these men assembled [crowded in], and found Daniel praying [asking] and making supplication before his God. 12Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning [upon] the king’s decree [interdict]; Hast thou not signed a decree [an interdict], that every [any] man that shall ask a petition of [from] any god or man within [till] thirty days, save of [except from] thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of [the] lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true [word is firm] according to [like] the law of the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia], which altereth not [will not pass away]. 13Then answered they, and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of [from] the captivity of the children of Judah, regardeth not [has not put attention upon] thee, O king, nor [and] the decree [interdict] that thou hast signed, but [and] maketh his petition [is asking his asking] three times a day [in the day]. 14Then the king, when he heard these words [this word (thing)], was sore displeased with [it greatly offended upon] him-self, and [he] set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he laboured [was exerting himself] till the going down of the sun to deliver [rescue] him. 15Then these men assembled [crowded] unto [upon] the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is [it is a law to Media and Persia], that no decree nor statute [interdict and established act] which the king establisheth [shall establish] may be changed [change]. 16Then the king commanded [said], and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of [the] lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God, whom thou3 servest continually [art serving in continuity], he3 will [may he] deliver thee. 17And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords, that the purpose [(will) matter] might not be changed [change] concerning [in respect to] Daniel. 18Then the king went to his palace, and passed [lodged] the night fasting: neither were instruments of music brought [and concubines he did not bring] before him, and his sleep went from [fled upon] him. 19Then the king arose very early in the morning [in the dawn would rise in the early light], and went in haste unto the den of [the] lions. 20And when he came [near] to the den, he cried with a lamentable [pained] voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou3 servest continually [art serving in continuity], able to deliver thee from the 21lions? Then said [talked] Daniel unto [with] the king, O king, live for eDaniel 6:22 My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that [and] they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in [to] me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. 23Then was the king exceeding glad [it greatly rejoiced] for him [upon himself], and commanded [said] that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So [And] Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon [in] him, because he believed in his God. 24And the king commanded [said], and they brought those men which [who] had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of [the] lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever [ere] they came at the bottom of the den.25Then [the] king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that 26dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; for he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that 27which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth [delivering] and rescueth [rescuing], and he worketh [working] signs and wonders in heaven [the heavens] and in [the] earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions. 28So [And] this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. REMARKSDan_6:1 [Daniel 5:31]. Transitional introductory observations. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, etc. The copula before γָּ ?ψְ ?ιָ ?πֶ ?ωׁ serves, indeed, to connect the present section closely with the preceding one, and indicates that its subject is more intimately related to the foregoing, than is the case in chapters 3, 4, and 5, which begin without any copulative particle whatever. The εְ however, does not compel the assumption that chapters 5. and 6. were properly a unit in their plan and the time of their composition (Hitzig, Kranichfeld; for (1) chap. 2, although forming a decidedly independent whole, likewise begins with the copula, as do also numerous sections in the historical and prophetical portions of the Old Testament, whose subjects are independent of what precedes them. (2) Kranichfeld’s opinion (p. 210) that chap. 5. ought to conclude with a “theocratic panegyrical closing sentence” similar to Daniel 6:27-28, if it were to rank as an independent and complete section in itself, is apparently confirmed, indeed, by the closing verses of chaps, 2, 3, and 4, but is decidedly opposed by chap. 1, which has no such doxology at the close. (3; Chapters 5 and 6 are distinguished from each other by several unmistakable differences in the mode of expression and representation, which indicate the composition of these sections at different times. Notice especially the character of the descriptions in chap. 6, which are more circumstantial and full of repetitions than those in chap 6. (cf. Daniel 6:2-4 with Daniel 6:23; Daniel 6:7 with Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:12 with Daniel 6:16; Daniel 6:16 with Daniel 6:7, 29, etc.). (4) The transactions recorded in the two sections are separated by an interval of at least twenty-two years (cf. supra, on Daniel 5:30) since the events of chap. 5. transpired under the fourth reign before the close of the Chaldζan dynasty, while chap. 6. falls in the reign of Darius the Mede,—which covered about two years and a half—and probably not in its opening period (see Daniel 6:15; Daniel 6:17); and chap. 5. creates the impression that it was composed immediately after the events which it records transpired, and that, like all the narratives in the historical part of the book, it originated while they were still fresh in the recollection of the writer (cf. In-trod., § 4, note 2). The connection of the two sections by means of a copulative εְ, despite the difference in the time of their composition, is probably owing to the circumstance that at the close of chap v. only the beginning of the fulfilment of the oracle addressed to Belshazzar had been noticed, while the principal fact, which concludes the fulfilment, is reserved for the narrative in the present section; cf. on Daniel 5:30.—For the view that “Darius the Mede” can only designate Cyaxares, the son of Astyages and father-in-law of Cyrus, see In-trod., § 8, note 4. Perhaps the Sept. also referred to this Cyaxares, when it translated this passage ΚαὶἈρταξέρξηςὁτῶνΜήδωνπαρέλαβεντὴνβασιλειανκαὶΔαρεῖοςπλήρηςτῶνἡμερῶνκαὶἔνδοξοςἐνγήρει; by Ἀρταξέρξης they may have intended Astyages, the father of Darius Medus, and by the predicate πλήρηςκτλ., which they applied to Darius, they may have attempted to repeat the λְּ ?αַ ?ψωְׁ ?πִ ?ιο of the second half of the verse (cf. Michaelis, Oriental. Bibl., iv. 20). Despite the marked ignorance of history which the Alexandrians occasionally reveal, they can hardly be presumed to have been guilty of the gross anachronism of confounding the Median Darius with Darius Nothus, the son of Artax-erxes 1. Longimanus (against Hδvernick).—Ebrard (Die Offenbarung Johannis [in Olshausen’s Bibl. Kommentar], p. 55 et seq., and in a review of Fuller’s Prophet Daniel in the Gόters-lohe Allg. literar. Anzeiger, October, 1868, p. 267), attempts, in harmony with his assumption that Belshazzar was identical with Laborasoarchad, to identify Darius the Mede with Nabonidus, whom the conspirators who slew Labora-soarchad elevated to the throne (similarly Syncellus, Scaliger, Petavius and Buddeus). In this way he certainly succeeds in removing every difference between the time of chap. 5 30 and 6:1; but he neglects to notice (1) that Laborasoarchad was a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of being his son, as chap Daniel 5:11 et seq. requires; (2) that Nabonidus, according to the express statement of Berosus, was not of Median, but of Babylonian descent, although not of royal blood; (3) that according to Daniel 6:9; Daniel 6:13; Daniel 6:16 (the “laws of the Medes and Persians”) the administration of the king in question is characterized, in the plainest manner, as modelled and organized after the Medo-Persian code, rather than the Babylonian; (4) that the system of espionage and denunciation (Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:14; Daniel 6:16), the barbarous custom of executing the families of criminals (Daniel 6:25) together with the culprit, and also the aristocratic constitutional procedure connected with the promulgation of the prohibition and with the sealing of the stone (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:18), all likewise refer to specifically Medo-Persian arrangements, such as could not yet have been introduced under Nabonidus. These arguments will also hold good against A. Scheuchzer, of Zurich, who, without reference to Ebrard, and to some extent basing his views on different grounds, has recently likewise attempted to identify Nabonidus with Darius the Mede (Assyrische Forschungen, in Heiden-heim’s Vierteljahrsschrift fόr engl.-theolog. For-schung, vol. 4., No. 1, p. 17 et seq.).—[“The addition of ξָ ?γָ ?ιָ ?ΰ (Kethib) forms on the one hand a contrast to the expression, ‘the king of the Chaldζans’ (Daniel 5:30), and on the other hand it points forward to τַּ ?ψְ ?ρψָ ?ΰ, Daniel 6:29 (Daniel 6:28); it, however, furnishes no proof that Daniel distinguished the Median kingdom from the Persian; for the kingdom is not called a Median kingdom, but it is only said of Darius that he was of Median descent, and, Daniel 6:29 (Daniel 6:28), that Cyrus the Persian succeeded him. In χִ ?αֵּ ?μ, he received the kingdom, it is indicated that Darius did not conquer it, but received it from the conqueror” (Keil).]—Being about threescore and two years old. This precise and concrete designation of his age was hardly designed to note that he had overthrown the Chaldζn empire after attaining to old age and when he was no longer competent to the personal conduct of warlike operations (Kranichfeld); for such a purpose is not expressed with sufficient clearness, and moreover, the implied reference to the weakness and defenceless condition of the declining Babylonian empire would involve a historical inaccuracy Which cannot well be charged against the author. The real motive that led him to mention the age of Darius can only consist in the design to refer to the considerably later time of the taking of Babylon, in its relation to the events that had just been described (cf. supra, on Daniel 5:30).Daniel 6:2-3 [1, 2]. The new constitution of the empire under Darius, and the position assigned to Daniel. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes. The Sept. increases this number to 127, probably with a reference to Esther 1:1. Josephus Ant. x. 13 multiplies it by three (ἑξήκοντακαὶτριακόσιοισατράπαι perhaps because he believed each of the three chief prζfects to have been placed over 120 satraps, or because he believed himself obliged to make the number of satrapies equal to that of the days in the year. The number 120 is to be retained, in opposition to both these uncritical attempts to enlarge it, although no other authorities mention so large a number of satrapies or provinces in the Medo-Persian empire at the time of its first organization under Darius-Cyaxares and Cyrus, and although according to both Herodotus and Xenophon their number seems to have been considerably smaller at that period. The former of these authors mentions no definite organization of satrapies by Cyrus whatever, and remarks of Darius Hystaspis that he founded in all only twenty of such provinces for the whole empire (iii. 89); the latter notices satraps under Cyrus as well, but mentions only nine, eight of whom were appointed for Asia Minor and one for Arabia—from which it might be concluded that the aggregate number of such officials did not much exceed twenty, and perhaps, did not even reach that number (Cyrop. vii. 4, 2; viii. 6). The statements of these Greek historians do not, however, compel us to doubt the accuracy of Daniel’s report, or to reduce the number from 120 to 20; for various indications lead to the conclusion that the number and boundaries of the satrapies varied exceedingly in different periods of the Persian empire. The three lists of Persian provinces, for instance, which are found among the inscriptions of Darius (at Persepolis, at Behistun, and at Nakshi Rustam) enumerate on the whole thirty-three satrapies or provinces, without permitting us to regard the number as exhaustively complete. The opinion that such changes among the satrapies actually occurred is further supported by Ezra 8:36, where several satraps beyond the Euphrates are mentioned as holding office under Artaxerxes, while Herodotus, iii. 91, knew of but one; and also by Esther 1:1, where the whole number of the Persian satrapies is fixed at 127, etc. Hence, it must probably be assumed that at different times the arrangement of provinces varied in the Persian empire, and that a subdivision of the realm into numerous smaller sections (whose number, 120, may have been symbolically significant, and relating to astronomical conditions) existed already under Darius-Medus and Cyrus, but in such a manner that in addition a reckoning by larger, and consequently less numerous provinces, was customary. The division into 120 smaller satrapies may have descended to the Medo-Persians from the Chaldζo-Babylonian world-kingdom, in which, according to Daniel 3:2; Daniel 3:27, the title of satrap had long been known, and on account of its almost sacred astronomical importance, they may have gladly admitted it into the constitution of their realm. The enumeration by larger and less numerous (20–30) satrapies may have been chiefly in use in the official language of the court and the arts in the kingdom of the Achζmenidζ, as being a national Medo-Persian institution, and for that reason may have been principally or exclusively observed by the Greeks. The Biblical enumeration, having a Babylonian origin, may therefore be properly designated as the esoteric or hieratic, and the ancient Aryan division, supported by the classics, as the exoteric or demotic. Nor is it a questionable feature that on this explanation the title kshatrapa (shτitrapaiti, achashdarpan) was applied interchangeably to the administrators of both larger and smaller divisions; since this harmonizes well with the fluctuations of later Hellenistic writers in rendering the word and especially with the indecision of the Sept. On this question, and in relation to the origin and significance of the title of satrap, cf. the exeg. Remarks on Daniel 3:2 Daniel 6:3 [21]. And over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first; rather, “was one.” [The following verse, however, shows that he was the principal one]. The ρָ ?ψְ ?λִ ?ιο (in the Targ. equivalent to ωׁ ?εֹ ?θְ ?ψִ ?ιν “arrangers, overseers”) were certainly “chief -prζfects, princes, ministers,” whether the ρψκְ is regarded as related to ωַׂ ?ψ, i.e., as derived, by means of the Pers. particle of derivation κְ, from the Zend sara (Gr. kαpa, Pers. ser), “head,” or as related to the Sanscr. ηarana, “protector,” or also to tβraka, “steersman” (the former according to Gesenius, the latter, to Hitzig). The dignity of these Sarekin was doubtless identical with that of the Taltaοn or “triumvirs,” who are mentioned in the preceding chapter (Daniel 6:7, 16, 29) as the superior princes of the realm, or heads of the government under Belshazzar. Accordingly, like the 120 satraps, they were a class of dignitaries in the Medo-Persian kingdom, whose office was modelled after the Babylonian precedent, but was discontinued at a later period, or perhaps, was developed into the institution of the seven counsellors of the Persian kings (corresponding to the seven Amshaspands—cf. Esther 1:14; Ezra 7:14; Herod. iii. 31). Daniel owed his elevation to this rank to the circumstance that he had already been raised to the dignity of a triumvir by Belshazzar, and had probably remained in that office until the overthrow of the Chaldζan kingdom; as also Nebuchadnezzar, according to Daniel 2:48-49, had already conferred on him a position of distinguished political and priestly power and eminence.—That the princes (satraps) might give accounts- to them, and the king should have no damage, i.e., not suffer loss in his revenues (cf. πְ ?ζַ ?χ Ezra 4:13; Ezra 4:15, and πֵ ?ζֶ ?χ Esther 7:4). The satraps are thus designated more particularly as officers of finance, which doubtless constituted one of their chief functions; cf. Herod. iii. 89 et seq. Daniel 6:4-5 [3, 4]. The ill-will of the other grand officials of the realm against Daniel. Then this Daniel was preferred above (showed himself superior to) the presidents, etc. ξִ ?ϊְ ?πַ ?φַּ ?η, “distinguished himself,-outshone them.” The demonstrative γְּ ?πָ ?η, “this,” which is connected with the name of Daniel only here and in Daniel 6:20, is conceived and spoken from the standpoint of his opponents, who look with envy on him (istum) whom God has hitherto so highly favored with His assistance. In this way the succeeding remark, “because an excellent spirit-was in him” (cf. chap. Daniel 6:12), may likewise be explained without involving any suspicion of self-laudation on the part of the narrator.—And the king I thought to set him over the whole realm, I hence, to promote him to the office of grand-vizier or prime minister—the superior of the “triumvirs” or Sarekin. The Targums always employ the Ithpael for the intransitive ςֲ ?ωִׁ ?ψϊ, “to be inclined, to purpose.” [“This intention of the king stirred up the envy of the other presidents” (Keil)]. Daniel 6:5 [4]. Then the presidents.… sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom, i.e., they sought to assail his official character; and only after frequent proofs that their efforts in this direction were futile, did they direct their attention to his religious standpoint (Daniel 6:6 et seq.). —But they could find none occasion nor fault. ςִ ?μָּ ?η, as before, is an “occasion, opportunity, pretext,” upon which the accusation might be based [“as atria, John 18:38; Matthew 27:37, an occasion for impeachment”(Keil)]. This more general term may be co-ordinated with ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊָ ?η, “wickedness,” because it is conceived concretely or objectively; and hence also with the following ωָׁ ?μεּ, “fault, inadvertence” (from ωׁ ?μη, the probable primitive form for ωׁ ?βη, cf. in the Gr. μόλις and μόγις). Fidelity is the leading political virtue of the servant or officer of a government (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:2), in like manner as justice and mercy should be the ornament of rulers (Daniel 4:24). Daniel 6:6-10 [5–9]. The procuring of a governmental edict pertaining to religion, directed against Daniel. We shall not.… against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. γָּ ?ϊΰֱ ?μָ ?ηֵ ?δּ, the law of Daniel’s God, is the theocratic law, considered as the rule of his religious life, and especially of his devotional exercises. Cf. γִּ ?ϊ in Ezra 7:6; Ezra 7:12; Ezra 7:14; Ezra 7:21; Ezra 7:25-26; and supra, Daniel 2:9. Daniel 6:7. Then these presidents (princes) and princes (satraps) assembled together to the king; rather (as marg), “ran in stormy haste.” “These princes and satraps” (cf. “these men,” Daniel 6:6 [5]) were not, of course, all of them, without exception, but only those who envied and sought to calumniate Daniel, since only such are here concerned; cf. Daniel 6:25 [24]. The idea that all the satraps participated is the more improbable, in view of the fact that the possible presιnce of all in the metropolis is nowhere indicated (not even in Daniel 6:8 [7]).—On ΰψβιω, “to rush anywhere in stormy haste, to rush anywhere frequently” [rather, tumultuously] (Luther, “came often”), cf. the German “jemanden die Thόre stόrmen” (“to storm somebody’s door”); see infra, Daniel 6:12 [11] and 16 [15]. Daniel 6:8. All the presidents (princes) of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes (satraps), the counsellors, and the captains (prefects) have consulted together; rather, “have considered it advisable.” ρָ ?ψְ ?λִ ?ιο seems here to be employed in a more extended sense than heretofore (Daniel 6:3 [2], 5 [4], and 7 [6]), where it designates the chief-prζfects who were placed over the satraps; for the four classes of officials which follow—the same as in Daniel 3:27, but in a different order—are evidently intended to specialize the prefixed general idea of “princes” or “prζfects” (thus Chr. B. Michaelis correctly, against Hitzig and others, who in this place also regard the Sarekin as the chief prζfects who were Daniel’s colleagues). In like manner the term Chaldζans was found to be employed above, at one time to designate a special class of wise men, and at another to denote the whole order of magians (see on Daniel 2:2). —In relation to ΰϊְ ?ιָ ?ςַ ?θ, “to determine or agree among themselves,” compare the term, ιָ ?ςֵ ?θ, “a counsellor,” consiliarius, as designating one of the principal officers of the Persian king, Ezra 7:14-15.—To establish a royal statute; rather, “that the king should establish a statute.” In view of the accentuation, ξַ ?μְ ?λָּ ?ΰ is not to be construed with χְ ?ιָ ?ν as a genitive (“to establish a royal statute,” etc.), but must be regarded as the subject of the Inf. μִ ?χַ ?ϊιָּ ?ξָ ?η so that the object χְ ?ιָ ?ν is placed between the infinitive and its noun, as in Isaiah 5:24; Isaiah 19:8; Isaiah 20:1 (thus correctly Rosenmόller, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil], etc., against Theodotion, Vulgate, Luther, Bertholdt, and a majority of moderns). —And make a firm interdict (marg.). The χְ ?ιָ ?ν which the king was to establish, is at the same time an ΰֱ ?ρָ ?ψ. “interdict;” in the parallelism of the address it is at first designated generally as a “statute,” and afterwards more especially as an “interdict.” On ΰָ ?ρֵ ?ψ, “to bind,” in the sense of “to prohibit,” see Numbers 30:10, and also the N.-T. δέειν as the opposite of λύειν Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18.—That whosoever shall ask a petition.… for thirty days; i.e., during the thirty days next ensuing, from that time until the expiration of thirty days. Literally, “unto thirty days.” This number, the triplicate of the ten days in Daniel 1:12-15, is a round number, corresponding to the duration of a month, and employed otherwise also as a general period, during which an interdict was imposed on persons; e.g., by the vows of Nazarites, Acts 21:26; cf. Tract. Nasir, i. 3; Joseph., de B. Jud., ii. 15,1.—The command (or interdict) to pray during one month only to the king was in this instance specially aimed at Daniel, the pious worshipper of Jehovah, for the purpose of entrapping him; but it was suggested by a national religious custom of older date among the Medes, by which Divine honors were rendered to the king. Herodotus, i. 199, refers to this custom, when he remarks that Deioces had introduced the περὶἑαυτὸνσεμνύειν for himself and his successors, by removing his person from the observation of his subjects, in order to persuade them that he was ἑτεροῖος (cf. also Xenophon, Cyrop., i. 3, 18). The existence of this custom among the Medes is further substantiated by the fact that the Persians, who were intimately related to the Medes, observed it, as did several others of the Oriental nations of antiquity (e.g., the Egyptians and Ethiopians, according to Diodor., Sicul., Daniel 1:90; Daniel 3:3; Daniel 3:5)—the former from the peculiar religious reason that they considered the king as the “offspring of the gods” (ἔκγονοςθεῶν) and the image of Ormuzd, and even addressed him directly as θεός; cf. Ζschylus, Pers.,157, 855; Plutarch, Themist, 27; Curtius, Daniel 8:5; Daniel 8:11; Isocrates, Panegyr., in Brissonius, de Persar. princ, p. 17, and generally, Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, etc., p. 127 et seq.; Delitzsch, Art. Daniel in Herzog’s Real-Encykl, p. 278 et seq. See the Ethico-fund. principles, etc., against the assumption of the modern pseudo-Daniel tendency-criticism, on which the edict of Darius in question is a cunningly invented prototype, and at the same time an exaggerated caricature of the course of Antiochus Epiphanes as described in 1Ma 1:41 et seq.; 2Ma 6:1 et seq. Daniel 6:9 [8]. Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing; rather, “and record the writing,” for ψων always signifies to record, and not to sign; and moreover, the Persian edicts received their official stamp as laws from the royal seal, instead of the royal signature; cf. Esther 3:10 et seq.; Daniel 8:8.—That it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, i.e., according to that law of the united Medo-Persian realm, as is somewhat more fully described in Daniel 6:16 [15], by which every official edict from the king, issued with certain formalities, should possess enduring force as law, hence, “should not be changed” (μָ ?ΰμְ ?ηַ ?ωְׁ ?πָ ?ψָ ?η, cf. Winer, Gramm., § 46, 3); cf. Esther 1:19; Esther 8:8. Against the opinion of Von Lengerke, that the writer here was guilty of an anachronism, since the phrase “the law of the Medes and Persians” must have originated subsequently to the time of Cyrus, cf. supra. Hitzig also rejects this position of Von Lengerke, inasmuch as he denies, for telling reasons, the presumption on which it rests, that γָּ ?ϊ in that formula designates the whole body of laws of the kingdom.—[Daniel 6:10 (9). the king carried out the proposal. εְ ?ΰֱ ?ρָ ?ψָ ?ΰ is explicative: the writing, namely, the prohibition (spoken of); for this was the chief matter, therefore ΰֱ ?ρָ ?ψָ ?ΰ alone is here mentioned, and not also χְ ?ιָ ?ν (edict), Daniel 6:8 (7).”—Keil] Daniel 6:11-12 [10, 11]. Daniel’s protest, by his conduct, against the royal decree. And, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem; rather, “but he [it] had open windows,” etc. The upper chamber, or attic, receives consideration as being more removed and less liable to be disturbed, hence as being particularly adapted to purposes of devotion; cf. 2 Samuel 19:1; 1 Kings 17:20; Acts 1:13; Acts 10:9.—“Opened windows,”λַּ ?εִּ ?ιοτְּ ?ϊִ ?ιηָ ?ο, are the opposite of such as are covered with lattice-work (λַּ ?εִּ ?ιοζְ ?ϊִ ?ιξָ ?ο, Ezekiel 40:16) by which the view is obstructed. These open windows were required to be “toward Jerusalem,” because according to ancient custom the face of the worshipper must be turned towards the temple in that city; for as in Jerusalem the supplicant turned toward the sanctuary (Psalms 5:8; Psalms 28:2 etc.), so he turned when abroad towards the “holy city” (Matthew 4:5) as the site of the(temple. This was the case long prior to the captivity; see 1 Kings 8:33; 1 Kings 8:35; 1 Kings 8:38; 1 Kings 8:44; 1 Kings 8:48; 2 Chronicles 6:29; 2 Chronicles 6:34; 2 Chronicles 6:38. The corresponding custom among the Mahommedans (Kibla) with reference to Mecca, appears thus to be the imitation of a custom developed on the primitive soil of Bible lands; and for the earliest followers of Islam Jerusalem itself was Kibla. On the other hand, the ancient Jewish and the most ancient Christian custom prohibited, on the ground of Eze 8:16-17, the turning of the face in prayer towards the east, i.e., towards the sun (cf. Clement, Strom. vii. 724; Origen, Homil. Daniel 5 : in Num.; Tertull. Apol. c. 16), while the later church, standing on the ground of Mal. 3:20; Luke 1:78 et seq., zealously recommended that supplicants and houses for prayer should face towards the east, and introduced it into general use. Cf. Bingham, Origines, 5:275 ss.—He kneeled upon his knees three times a day. Kneeling is mentioned as the characteristic posture of supplicants in 1 Kings 8:54; 2 Chronicles 6:12; Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59; Acts 9:40; Acts 21:5; Ephesians 3:14; Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 48; Hermas, Pas-tar, Vis. Daniel 1:1, etc. Cf. O. A. Hubnerus, de genuflexione (Halle, 1741); Zφckler, Krit. Geschichtc der Askese ( Frankf. and Erlangen, 1863), p. 350 et seq.—[“Daniel offered prayers not to make an outward show, for only secret spies could ob serve him when so engaged. λָּ ?μΞχְ ?λֵ ?μγִּ ?ι does not mean altogether so as (Rosenmόller, Von Leng., Maurer, Hitzig), but, as always, on this account that, because. Because he always did thus, so now he continues to do it”—(Keil).] The custom of praying three times in a day, which is attested for the first time in this passage, and which, according to the Talmudic tradition was first brought into general use among the Jews by the “men of the great synagogue,” appears to have taken shape during the Babylonian captivity as a usage observed by pious individuals among the Israelites. The fundamental general idea of this custom is already expressed in Psalms 55:18; but the desire to find a regular substitute for the morning and evening sacrifices, which were now interrupted, doubtless contributed towards originating the custom, since the Jews were accustomed, from an early period, to regard prayer as in itself a sacrifice with which God is pleased (Hosea 14:3; Psalms 51:17; Psalms 116:17, etc.), and especially since they associated it in their minds with the evening sacrifice (Psalms 141:2; 1 Kings 18:36 et seq.; Ezra 9:5; cf. Daniel 9:21). The Parsee custom of rendering Divine honors to the three parts of the day themselves, has, of course, nothing in common with the habit of the Jews and primitive Christians (Acts 3:1; Acts 10:9; Acts 10:30; cf. Pusey, Daniel, p. 554); nor has the custom of the Egyptian priests, who, according to Porphyry, de absnent. Daniel 4:8, sang daily four hymns of praise to the sun; nor yet the three daily sacrifices and hymns of the Pythagoreans, as mentioned by Jamblichus, Vit. Pythag. c. 149 ss. Cf. generally, Zφckler, 1. c. p. 329 et seq. Daniel 6:12 [11]. Then these men assembled (rushed together), and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. Here, as in Daniel 6:7 [6], δַ ?ψְ ?βִּ ?ιωׁ ?εּ is not a single rushing together, but a frequent hasty gathering; the only difference is that in that passage the design was to obtain the decree from the king, while here it is to watch Daniel in order to denounce him. According to Daniel 6:11, the open windows in Daniel’s upper chamber seem to have enabled them to execute their plan of espionage with success, either because they saw him while engaged in prayer (perhaps from a still more elevated room in the vicinity, cf. 2 Samuel 9:2), or because they heard him from the street. At any rate, a repeated [?] approach and observation in secret must be assumed, instead of a single surprise; hence the question, “At which of his daily prayers was he surprised?” is inappropriate.—Concerning the thoroughly organized system of espionage and denunciation in the Medo-Persian kingdom, of which this passage affords a characteristic proof, see Max Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, ii. 648. Daniel 6:13-15 [12–14]. The denunciation. Then they came near and spake before(“with”) the king, etc., cf. Daniel 3:8, and for what follows, Daniel 3:24.—The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians; rather, “the word is firm, according, etc. ιַ ?φִּ ?ιαִ ?ΰξִ ?μְ ?ϊָּ ?ΰִ does not affirm that the decree was published, but indicates the certain punishment of any who might transgress it. Daniel 6:14 [13]. Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah. Cf. chap. Daniel 6:13, and observe that the accusers do not mention the high official station of Daniel and his intimate official relations with the king, but merely refer to his foreign birth, [“in order that they may thereby bring his conduct under the suspicion of being a political act of rebellion against the royal authority.” (Keil.)] Daniel 6:15 [14]. Then the king.… was sore displeased.αְּ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ is impersonal in αְּ ?ΰֵ ?ωׁ ςֲ ?μεֹ ?δִ ?ι, like ιֵ ?ψַ ?ς in Genesis 21:12, and like θְ ?ΰֵ ?α below, in Daniel 6:24 [23]. Literally, therefore, it reads, “Then the king, when he heard the word—sorrow came on him” (and similarly Daniel 6:24 [23], “Then … joy came on him”). —And set his heart on Daniel to deliver him. αָּ ?μ, “heart,” is not found in the later Chaldee, but occurs in the Syriac and Arabic. Compare, however, the phrase μִ ?αָּ ?ΰωָׂ ?νμΧ, Targ. Proverbs 22:17.—And he labored till the going down of the sun, etc. On the form ξֵ ?ςָ ?μֵ ?ι (st. constr. plur. of ξֵ ?ςָ ?μֽ ?ΰ, or also of the Inf. ξֵ ?ςַ ?μ, cf- Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage. Instead of ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?γַּ ?ψ, “he labored” (cf. ἀγωνιζεσθαι, Luke 13:24), the Targums have ΰωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?γֵּ ?μ, which, however, has a different meaning from that of ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?γַּ ?ψ. Daniel 6:16-18 [15–17]. The condemnation and execution. On Daniel 6:16 cf. supra, on Daniel 6:9 b. Daniel 6:17 [16]. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions; rather, “that they should bring Daniel and cast,” etc. The construction is the same as in chap. Daniel 6:29 [but in neither this nor that passage is this rendering justified by the force of the text, εִ ?ηַ ?ιְ ?ϊִ ?ιο.… εּ ?ψְ ?ξεֹ ?]. According to Oriental custom, the execution in this case, as in that under Belshazzar, chap. Daniel 6:29, and in that under Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 3:19 et seq., was to follow immediately on the sentence. [“This does not, however, imply that it was on the evening in which, at the ninth hour, he had prayed, as Hitzig affirms, in order that he may thereby make the whole matter improbable.” (Keil). The season of prayer at which Daniel was discovered would seem to have been at noon. This will allow ample time for the preparation of the edict the same morning, and the execution the same evening. The accusers were evidently in hot haste].—Thy God, whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee rather, “may thy God.… deliver thee.” Pilate may have solaced himself with a similar confession of his own weakness and cowardice, when he delivered the Saviour into the hands of his mortal enemies (Matthew 27:24; Luke 23:25, etc.); or Herod, when he commanded to bring the head of the Baptist (Matthew 14:9). Daniel 6:19 [18] et seq. shows that the exclamation was by no means intended to be ironical or malicious, as those in Psalms 22:9; Matthew 27:43; but on the other hand, Josephus probably attributes too favorable a disposition to Darius, when he observes: ἐλπίσαςδὲὁΔαρεῖος, ὄτιῥύσεταιτὸθεῖοναὐτὸςκαὶοὐδὲςμὴπάθηδεινὸνὑπὸτῶνθηρίων, ἐκέλευσεναὐτὸνεὐθύμωςφέρειντὰσυμβαίνοντα (similarly also Jerome et al.). Daniel 6:18 [17]. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den. δֵ ?ιϊָ ?ιִ ?ϊ, a Hebraizing passive form of the Aphel; cf. on Daniel 3:13. ωֻׂ ?ξַ ?ϊ Hebraizing passive partic. Peal, instead of ωִׂ ?ιξַ ?ϊ (cf. Daniel 6:27 [26]).—It is natural to suppose that the stone was of sufficient size to completely close the mouth of the den, and that it was at hand for that purpose, instead of assuming, with Hitzig, that it was necessary to bring it from a distance. The den itself, corresponding to the sense of βֻּ ?αָּ ?ΰ (βּ ?εּ ?αָ ?ΰ), which is thoroughly identical with that of the Heb. αּ ?εֹ ?ι, must not be conceived of as a cistern or funnel-shaped pit (Hitzig); but rather as having a capacity sufficient to hold several lions and permit them to move freely about (which involves no greater difficulty than that the βּ ?εּ ?αָ ?ΰ in the Targ Jeremiah 41:7; Jeremiah 41:9 should have contained the corpses of seventy slain persons; cf. also the Targ. Jeremiah 37:16; Isa. 16:15). In brief, it may be supposed to have been an actual lions’ den, similar to those connected with the Roman amphitheatres, from which it probaby differed simply in having a horizontal opening in the flat or arched roof, through which the ad bestias damnati were thrown to the lions, in addition to the door at the side, by which the beasts were introduced into the den or removed from it. Its construction may therefore have been similar to that of the fiery furnace, upon the whole (see on Daniel 3:6)—an opinion which seems to derive additional support from the manner in which Darius was enabled to converse with Daniel while in the den, even before the stone was removed from its opening (Daniel 6:21 et seq.). The two lions’ dens at Fez, belonging to the emperor of Morocco, which Hφst describes in his Nachrichten von Fez und Marokko (pp. 77, 290) as being large rectangular and uncovered pits in the earth (whose wide opening was surrounded by a wall one and a half ells in height), were consequently constructed somewhat differently from that of the Medo-Babylonians under consideration, but are still interesting for comparison with the latter.—And the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords. On the custom of sealing cf. Matthew 27:26. The two-fold sealing, with the ring of the king and with that of his grand officers, may have been designed to secure Daniel, for whose deliverance the king still hoped (see Daniel 6:17 [16], 21 [20], against any violent assault, and also against any attempt to liberate him—hence, to insure a strict control of the prisoner. Cf. Jerome: Obsignavit annulo suo lapidem, quo os laci claudebatur, ne quid contra Danielem moliantur inimici.… Obsignat autem et annulo optimatum suorum, ne quid suspicionis contra eos habere videretur.”— That the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel; rather, “that the matter,” etc.; that his situation might not be unlawfully altered. φְ ?αεּ here is not “intention, purpose” (v. Leng. etc.) but “affair, matter;” cf. the corresponding Syriac word. Daniel 6:19-23 [18–22]. The king discovers the miraculous preservation of Daniel. Then the king went … and passed the night fasting. θְ ?εָ ?ϊ is properly a substantive with adverbial signification—“with fasting”—i.e., supperless. Luther renders it forcibly, “and remained not eating.”—Neither were instruments of music brought before him; rather “concubines.” Instead of “food,” which is the interpretation assigned by Theodotion, the Peshito, the Vulgate, Luther, etc., the rendering of γַּ ?ηֲ ?εָ ?ο by “concubines, women of the harem,” is sufficiently supported by closely related terms in the Arabic; and the verb ηַ ?πְ ?ςֵ ?μֹ in connection with the prep. χֳ ?γָ ?ν admits of no other interpretation. The bringing in of inanimate objects would have been expressed by ηָ ?ιְ ?ϊֵ ?ι cf. Daniel 5:2 with Daniel 2:24-25; Daniel 4:3; Daniel 5:13; Daniel 5:15.—And his sleep went from him; forsook him; cf. on Daniel 2:1. Daniel 6:20 [19]. Then the king arose very early in the morning; “with the dawn, when it became light.” ωְׂ ?τַ ?ψְ ?τָּ ?ψָ ?ΰ “the dawn” (= ωַׁ ?ηַ ?ψ, Targ. Jon. on Isaiah 58:8). The hypothetical rendering of the imperf. ιְ ?χεּ ?ν, for which Kranichfeld contends, is unnecessary. [“The future or imperfect is used instead of the perfect to place this clause in relation to the following, meaning: the king, as soon as he arose at morning dawn, went hastily by the early light” (Keil).] The Septuagint is [substantially] correct: ὤρθρισεπρωΐ; also Theodotion, the Peshito, etc.—αְּ ?πָ ?βְ ?δָ ?ΰ, “with the twilight, with the dawn or break of day” [“serves for a mere determination of the αִּ ?ωְׂ ?τַּ ?ψְ ?τְּ ?ψָ ?ΰ, at the morning dawn, namely, as soon as the first rays of the rising sun appeared” (Keil)]; cf. μָ ?ΰεֹ ?ψ, Job 24:14.—And went in haste. αְּ ?δִ ?ϊְ ?αְּ ?δָ ?μָ ?δ, as in Daniel 2:35, = μετὰσπουδῆς; cf. Luke 1:39. Daniel 6:21 [20]. And.… cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel. ξַ ?ψ = ςֲ ?φִ ?ια; cf. Isaiah 54:6 with Proverbs 31:6.—O Daniel, servant of the living God. Darius was able to designate the God of Daniel as the living God (cf. v. 27) thus early, before his observation had convinced him of the prophet’s safety, for the simple reason that during the intercourse consequent on their intimate relation, Daniel had instructed him concerning the nature and power of his God as the God of all gods, and also because the pangs of conscience endured by him during the night that had just elapsed, had produced a profound conviction of the truth of the prophet’s testimony to Jehovah. Daniel 6:23 [22]. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths. Cf. Daniel 6:28 [27]; Acts 12:7. The summary conciseness of the statement forbids any conclusion as to whether Daniel had seen the angel who wrought his miraculous deliverance, as an objective fact, or whether he merely argued from the effect to the underlying invisible cause (cf. Psalms 34:8; Psalms 91:11 et seq.; Matthew 8:9, etc.). On the expression, “to shut the lions’ mouths,” cf. 2 Timothy 4:17; Hebrews 11:33.—And also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. “Before thee,” χֳ ?γָ ?ξָ ?ικְ, i.e., “in thine eyes, according to thy judgment”—a loosely connected supplemental proof of what he has just asserted, viz., that he is innocent. In modern speech the connection might have been, “even as I was likewise found innocent by thee” (which was apparent to him from the king’s anxious inquiries concerning his welfare).Daniel 6:24-25 [23, 24]. The deliverance of Daniel and the punishment of his enemies. Then was the king exceeding glad (cf. on Daniel 6:15) for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. δִ ?πְ ?ρָ ?χָ ?δ the inf. Aphel of the root ρְ ?μֵ ?χ compensates for the doubling by π, similarly to δַ ?πְ ?ςֵ ?μ in Daniel 6:19 [18] (cf. Daniel 2:25). Cf. δַ ?ρִּ ?ιχ Daniel 3:22. Daniel 6:25 [24]. And the king commanded, and they brought those men; rather, “that those men should be brought.” The same construction as in Daniel 6:17 [16].—“Those men” are the same who are mentioned in Daniel 6:6 [5] and 7 [6], viz.: the grand officers who were present in “Babylon itself, and who had taken part in traducing Daniel. A number of them may have been in the king’s train, when he commanded that the seals should be broken and the stone removed (Daniel 6:24 [23]), without venturing to protest, in the presence of the angry monarch, against the violation of the seal which belonged in part to them. The others were brought from their houses by the king’s command. There is consequently nothing in the passage that involves a difficulty or that contradicts Daniel 6:18 [17] (against Hitzig).—Which had accused Daniel. Literally, “who had devoured Daniel’s flesh;” cf. on Daniel 3:8.—And they cast … into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives. Upon this point even Hitzig is compelled to remark: “To execute the familes of criminals together with themselves was eminently the Persian custom (Herod., III. 119; Ammian Marcel., xxiii. 6, 81); Justin, in such an instance, makes especial reference to the wives and children (x. 2); cf. further, Justin, 21:4; Joshua 7:24-25.” On the authority of the statements quoted from Herodotus and Justin (and also influenced by what Curtius, vi. 11, states with reference to the custom among the Macedonians), Hitzig contends that such fearfully bloody justice—whose barbarous severity our prophet seems to allude to when he mentions the children before the wives—was only inflicted on conspirators against the king. But Ammian. (1. c.) states no such limitation; and the malicious plot of these magnates against one of the chief officials of the kingdom, as well as intimate counsellor of the king, was almost equivalent to a conspiracy directed against the royal person.—And the lions had the mastery of them (or “fell upon them”) … or ever they came at the bottom of the den. Literally, “and not came they.…until that,” i.e., when the lions already seized them. On the incident, cf. Daniel 3:22; concerning the form ωְׁ ?μִ ?θεּ see Daniel 2:29. Daniel 6:26-28 [25–27]. The royal proclamation consequent on the miraculous deliverance of Daniel. Then king Darius wrote (commanded to write) unto all people, nations, and languages, etc.; i.e., to all the subjects of his realm, which was a world-kingdom like that of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 3:31. Daniel 6:27 [26]. I make a decree. Cf. Daniel 3:29; Daniel 4:3, where the shorter ξִ ?πִּ ?ι occurs instead of ξִ ?οΞχְָ ?γָ ?ξַ ?ι which is found in this place.—That… men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. Cf. chap. Daniel 6:19.—The theocratic phraseology of the royal edict admits of the same explanation as do the similar proclamations of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:28 et seq.; Daniel 3:31 et seq.; Daniel 4:31 et seq. It results in part from the extended intercourse of the king with Daniel, the representative of the theocratic faith of revelation; and in part from the profound influence of the experience of theim-mediate past.—And his kingdom (is one) which shall not be destroyed; a forcible ellipsis, similar, for instance, to that in Daniel 7:14; cf. also Daniel 2:44; and on the thought, Daniel 3:33; Daniel 4:31.—And his dominion (shall be even) unto the end; i.e., “to the end of all earthly kingdoms, to the end of the world” (the συντέλειατοῦαἰῶνος), which coincides with the erection of the completed kingdom of Messiah or God; cf. Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:26 et seq. Daniel 6:28 [27]. He delivereth and rescueth; rather, “He is a saviour and deliverer.” Cf. Daniel 3:29 b., and for what follows cf. Daniel 3:32; Daniel 4:32.—From the power of the lions: literally, “out of the hand of the lions;” cf. Psalms 22:21, “out of the hand of the dogs.” Daniel 6:29 [28]. The epilogue. So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius. “This Daniel,” as in Daniel 6:4 [3].—δַ ?φְ ?μַ ?η “found prosperity, prospered;” similar to cnap. Daniel 3:30. Ewald’s reading, ηָ ?φμַ ?γ, which is designed to be equivalent to, “he was reinstated in his office”(?), is unnecessary.—On the subject cf. Daniel 2:48.—And (also) in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. This complementary closing sentence, like that in Daniel 1:21, appears to have been added a considerable time after the preceding facts were recorded, for the purpose of closing the historical part of the book as a whole. But the objection that it is clearly a “bald and labored gloss in its appearance” (Kranichf.), is not therefore justified. The reign of Cyrus is merely mentioned, as having been reached by Daniel, for the same reason that dictated Daniel 1:21. ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apolo getical remarks, and homiletical suggestions1. The similarity of the facts recorded in this section to those of the third chapter is certainly evident and undeniable; but these analogies do not warrent the disregarding of the important differences between the incidents of the two sections. These differences, on the one hand, affect the disposition and the modes of action of the persons engaged in the various transactions, in which respect the king Darius especially observes from the beginning a more cordial bearing toward the worshipper of Jehovah than does Nebuchadnezzar; and, on the other, they relate to the miracle which forms the end and climax of the entire event. The deliverance of Daniel from the lions’ den was a miracle differing materially in character from that of the deliverance of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace; while the latter, as was intimated on Daniel 3:22, would admit of a natural explanation. To some extent at least, this is absolutely impossible with the event recorded in this chapter, as may be seen more particularly from the fact, noticed in Daniel 6:25 [24] b, that the same lions who spared Daniel during an entire night immediately seized on his accusers with a ravenous voracity in order to rend them. By this contrast between the subjection of the beasts to the prophet, and the outburst of their savage nature towards the guilty princes—a contrast which evidently constitutes the fundamental characteristic of the incident before us—this miracle takes its position among that series of marvellous events in Old and New Testament history in which the life and work of isolated distinguished messengers of revelation appear, by virtue of Divine grace, to have restored the paradisaical dominion of man over nature, so that the beasts of the desert yield him a ready obedience as their rightful lord. We class here, prior to the time of Daniel, the ravens of Elijah (1 Kings 17:4) and the bears of Elisha (2 Kings 2:24); and in N. T. times, the sojourning of the Saviour with the beasts of the desert, immediately subsequent to his temptation (Mark 1:13), Paul’s escape from injury by the viper on the island of Malta (Acts 28:5; of. Mark 16:18), and perhaps several incidents of a similar character in the history of the earliest monkish saints and missionaries of the Church down to the times of Columban and Gallus, so far as any faith may be placed on the statements in the generally fancifully distorted biographies of these saints which relate to their friendly intercourse with wild beasts (cf. Montalembert, Les Moines d’ Occident depuis St. Benoit jusqu’d St. Bernard, vol. 2 and for a criticism of the often excessively credulous judgment of this author with reference to such miracles, see the review of his work in the Jahrbόcher fόr deutsche Theologie, 1862, No. 2).—It is, however, precisely because the miraculous incident of this section belongs to the category of such facts, that it must rank as the greatest wonder recorded in the historical part of the book, as the climax in the series of mighty works by which God glorified Himself in His servants in the metropolis of the Chaldζan empire, and which, forming a gradation of miracles in certain aspects, and presenting a constantly-increasing manifestation of the supernatural element in them, from Daniel 1:15 to the close of this chapter, excludes, with steadily-increasing emphasis, the possibility of tracing back the events to natural causes (cf. especially on Daniel 5:5). 2. So far as the general situation is similar to that described in Daniel 3 : it accords well with the conditions of the captivity, “in which the aim was not, as afterwards under Antiochus Epiphanes, to extirpate the Jewish worship, but where we find merely certain very natural and intelligible displays of grudging selfishness and envy on the part of individual native officials, as against a captive foreigner who was preferred above them in official stations; while the general condition of the captives was very tolerable, as a natural result of the lax administration of government which was usual among Oriental conquerors” (Kranichfeld). The assertion of the modern “tendency-critics” (Hitzig, p. 89 et seq.; Bleek, p. 604, etc.), that the edict of Darius which prohibited the rendering of Divine honors during one month to any but the king (Daniel 6:8 [7]) was invented for the purpose of exaggerating or caricaturing the proclamation of Antiochus Epiphanes, which prohibited the Jews from observing the Divine law and their worship of Jehovah (1Ma 1:41; 2Ma 6:1-9), in order to incite them to steadfast endurance and to patient trust in God,—this assertion is decidedly nugatory, since the raging fanaticism of the Syrian king, which aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish worship and nationality, had nothing in common with the far milder disposition of Darius, and since the latter was merely concerned to bring about a temporary suspension of the religious observances in vogue, rather than to definitely extirpate the current systems of religion. Nor would it have been possible for the pious Jews of the Maccabζan period to recognize an edict, which amounted directly to the deifying of the king, as a proto-type of the manifesto of the Syrian king, which differed materially from it, in respect both to its language and its character. For this reason Von Lengerke, more cautious than his compeers, rejects the assumption that the edict of Dan 6:8 [7] was a conventional fiction framed on the model of that mentioned in the Maccabζan books, as being too artificial and unsupported a hypothesis, and contents himself with observing that “the proclamation of Darius on the religious question corresponds in general to that persecuting spirit which produced the measures of Antiochus.” But it will be seen that even this is not correct, since the deportment of Darius towards Daniel, manifesting in every respect a mild, friendly, and benevolent spirit (Daniel 6:14-15 et seq.; 21 et seq.), presents the sharpest contrast to the senseless rage and blood-thirsty spirit of persecution displayed by the intolerant Syrian tyrant; and, moreover, since no reason whatever can be discovered that could induce the alleged Maccabζan-tendency writer to invent so weak, and in all respects so inappropriate, a counterfeit of Antiochus at the last, after having furnished in Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar far more suitable and tangible types of that despot. Nor does it appear why he should desire to conceal the person of Antiochus behind that of a jealous and scheming official under the Median king (Daniel 6:4-5 et seq.).—How much more simple and intelligible, in comparison with such hypercritical assumptions, does the narrative appear when its characteristic peculiarities are regarded as historical facts, such as were naturally to be expected in the scenes of a politico-religious drama that transpired on the soil of the newly-founded Medo-Persian world-kingdom! This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND Chap. 7–121. The vision of the four world-kingdoms and of the Messianic kingdomDaniel 7 1In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had [saw] a dream, and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters.2Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven [heavens] strove upon [were rushing to] the great sea. 3And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another4The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made [to] stand upon 5the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. And, behold, another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself [was made to stand] on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. 6After this I beheld,4 and lo, another, like a leopard, which [and it] had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl [bird]: the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. 7After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts 8that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom [and from before it] there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots [were extirpated]: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.9I beheld, till7 the thrones were cast [set] down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose [his] garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the13 fiery flame [flames of fire], and his wheels as burning fire. 10A fiery stream [stream of fire] issued [flowed] and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set [did sit], the books 11were opened. I beheld4 then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake [was speaking]; I beheld, even till7 the beast was slain, and his 12[its] body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. As concerning [And] the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time. 13I saw4 in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came [was coming] with the clouds of heaven [the heavens], and came to [reached] the 14Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him [to him was given] dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. 15I Daniel was grieved in my spirit [my spirit was grieved] in the midst of my body [its sheath], and the visions of my head troubled me. 16I came near unto one12 of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of21 all this. So [And] 17he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things. These great 18beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But [And] the saints of the Most High26 shall take [receive] the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever. 19Then I would know [wished] the truth of21 the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others [of them], exceeding dreadful, whose [its] teeth were of iron, and his [its] nails of brass; which devoured, brake [breaking] in pieces, and 20stamped the residue with his [its] feet; and of21 the ten horns that were in his [its] head, and of the other which came up, and before whom [from before it] three fell; even [and] of that horn that [and it] had eyes, and a mouth that spake [speaking] very great things, whose [and its] look was more stout than his 21[its] fellows. I beheld,4 and the same [that] horn made war with the saints, and prevailed1 against them; 22until the Ancient of days came, and [the] judgment was given to the saints of the Most High;26 and the time came [arrived] that [, and] the saints possessed the kingdom. 23Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon [the] earth, which shall be diverse from all [the] kingdoms, and shall devour the Whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. 24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise [arise] after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue [abase] three kings. 25And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out [afflict] the saints of the Most High,26 and think to change times and laws [law]: and they shall be given into his hand, until a time and times and the 26dividing of [half a] time. But [And] the judgment shall [did] sit, and they shall take away his dominion, o consume and to destroy it unto the end. 27And the kingdom and [the] dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven [heavens], shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose [his] kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all [the] dominions shall serve and obey him. 28Hitherto is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my cogitations [thoughts] much troubled20 me, and my countenance changed in21 me: but [and] I kept the matter30 in my heart.8 REMARKSDan_7:1. Historical introduction. In the first year of Belshazzar; hence, in the first year after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, the father and predecessor of Belshazzar; see on Daniel 5:1.This designation of the time “seems substantially to have furnished the occasion for renewed reflection on the part of the prophet, bearing upon the former series of prophetical meditations that had been called forth in him by an important event (the dream of Nebuchadnezzar concerning the image of the monarchies, which Daniel interpreted, chap. 2). The idea of the four heathen kingdoms which were to precede the introduction of the Messianic kingdom of Israel, that was announced by the earlier prophets and believed by them to be near, is again brought out comprehensively in this place, with reference to the course observed by those kingdoms toward the theocracy” (Kranichfeld). —Concerning the chronological parallelism of the series of apocalyptic visions, opened by this new vision of the monarchies, with the series of historical events recorded in the former division of the book, and beginning with chap. 2, see the Introd., § 3.—Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed. Cf. Daniel 2:19; and with reference to the visions of his head, cf. Daniel 2:28.—Then he wrote the dream, immediately or soon after it transpired; a note intended to strengthen the following statements concerning its nature (cf. Daniel 12:4). This note, however, as the change of person between Daniel 7:1-2 indicates, was probably introduced by the author at a later time, in connection with his final revision of the whole book. The closing verse of the chapter, which likewise is merely important as a transitional passage, seems also to be a later addition.—And told the sum of the matters; gave the leading features. ψֶ ?ΰωׁ ξִ ?μִּ ?ιο, the sum or substance of the words; cf. ψֹ ?ΰωׁ in passages like Lev. 5:24; Psalms 119:160; and also the Talmudic ψΰωιγαψιν (Rosh hash., II. 6), and the Gr. κεφάλαιον, which is employed in this place by the Sept. The “sum” signifies, of course, the aggregate of all that is of Messianic significance. Cf. Ewald: “When it is said that Daniel merely recorded the leading features, or gave a mere summary, of the wonderful visions which he saw, the meaning becomes evident, when it is observed with what freedom the leading outlines of the visions are drawn in the first two turns of the description (Daniel 7:1-14), and are afterward repeated for the purpose of interpretation. All the remaining prophetic sections of the book have the same plan in substance; but whenever it is attempted to record personal experiences and observations in writing, it is advisable to furnish the briefest outline consistent with clearness, on account of the readers, if for no other reason.”*Daniel 7:2-3. The entrance of the four beasts. Daniel spake and said. The incoherence of these words with the statements of Dan 7:1 seems to indicate that they no longer belong (as Kranichfeld believes) to the supplementary note, Daniel 7:1, but that they originally served to introduce the description of the vision.—I saw in my vision by night; ςִ ?ν, “during, by,” spoken of synchronous things; cf. Daniel 3:33.—And behold, the four winds of the heavens strove (“broke forth”) upon the great sea. Concerning ΰֲ ?ψεּ, see on Daniel 2:31.—The fourfold number of the “winds of the heaven” (i.e., the winds blowing from the different quarters of heaven, or, more simply, those blowing under heaven; cf. “the birds of heaven”) has reference, of course, to that of the beasts in Daniel 7:3 et seq. It designates all the winds of the world (cf. Daniel 8:8; Zechariah 6:5; Jeremiah 49:36), and therefore indicates at the outset the universal importance of the following vision. Hence actual winds must be intended, and not “angelicζ potentates” as Jerome suggests, under reference to Deuteronomy 32:8 (Sept.). It is not necessary to ask, in connection with a dream-vision, how all the four winds could arise together; nor how the great sea (i.e., probably the Mediterranean, the ocean of the nations of hither Asia; cf. Joshua 15:48) could enter into the dream of an Israelite who resided from his early youth at Babylon. The sea, as is frequent in prophetic figurative language of the Old Testament, represents the heathen world of nations, which unquestionably afforded a striking illustration in every case when they arose in hostility against the theocracy, in order to overwhelm and destroy the constantly-diminishing people of God, as the raging waves of the ocean break upon an insignificant island or coast. Cf. Isaiah 8:7 et seq.; Isaiah 17:12; Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 57:20; Psalms 46:4; also Revelation 8:8; Revelation 17:15; and with reference to the overflowing (by hostile forces) see Daniel 9:26; Daniel 11:10; Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:26.—ξְ ?βִ ?ιηָ ?ομְ ?ιַ ?ξָּ ?ΰ may be properly translated “breaking forth upon the sea, breaking loose against the sea;” on βִּ ?ιηַ, cf. the corresponding Heb. word in Job 40:23; Ezekiel 32:22, and also the Syr. and Targum. usage, which principally employs the word to represent the hostile irruption of warlike forces. Less natural is the factitive rendering of the partic, “caused the great sea to break forth” (Kranichf.), and the reciprocal, by Luther, “stormed against each other on the great sea (cf. Ewald’s “swept through the great sea”); the prep. μְ seems not suited to either conception.Daniel 7:3. And four (excessively) great beasts came up from the sea. The strengthening of the idea implied in the reduplicated ψַ ?αְ ?ψְ ?αָ ?ο may be rendered, with Ewald, by “monstrous,” or by an adverb of comparison prefixed to “great,” as “very, excessively,” etc. Kranichfeld is incorrect and interpolating: “four ravenous beasts.”—The rising of “the beasts from the sea” describes, figuratively, their rising out of the great undefined, and, so to speak, mist-enveloped sea of nations, and their more noticeable entrance into the range of the dreaming prophet’s vision. There is therefore no allusion to a coming up out of the sea to the land (unlike Genesis 41:2; Genesis 41:18 et seq.), especially since, in the parallel description in Daniel 7:17, four kings, corresponding to the four beasts, arise “out of the earth.” [“These four fierce beasts arise, not all at once, but, as Daniel 7:6-7 teach, one after another” (Keil).]—Concerning the representation of nations or kingdoms under the figure of certain beasts, especially ravenous beasts, monsters (cf. Isaiah 27:1; Isaiah 40:9; Ezekiel 29:3; Ezekiel 32:2; Psalms 68:31; Psalms 74:13), see Ewald: “It is an ancient habit to regard beasts as symbols of kings and empires; but it first became really significant through the custom of emblazoning them on standards and arms, especially on shields, and also on permanent monuments and works of art, as standing symbols. The most ancient picture-writing in Egypt and Assyria afterward contributed its part to introduce an intimate connection in thought between a figurative creature and a kingdom corresponding to it. It is now known that each of the twelve tribes of Israel bore the figure of an animal on its standard and its coat of arms; and likewise that every representative of a tribe could wear such a symbol, while a king could elevate the symbol of his tribe to the dignity of a national emblem” (Geschichte des v. Israel, iii. 341, 849). Certain animals, such as the lion, panther, and ox, would naturally be suggested in any case; and others would be chosen by way of contrast. But nowhere would such animal-symbols be likely to become so significant as in the ancient Assyrian empire. This has become the more certain, since the frequent colossal animals scattered among the ruins of Nineveh and other places, which served as symbols of the power and greatness of that empire, i.e., of its kings and gods, have been brought to light. Hence, after Assyria and the other great powers of the ancient world had, from the 8th and 7th centuries B. C, been opposed to the Israelites, whom the latter were continually less and less able to resist, their poets and orators adopted the custom of designating them on proper occasions by such symbols, e. g., Assyria as a lion or as a “reed-beast,” and Egypt as a crocodile or dragon. As a consequence, it is comprehensible why animals were chosen here and in chapters 7 and 8 as symbols of the great monarchies beginning with the Assyrio-Chaldζan, although these animals are selected independently, because an entirely new conception is here introduced. Since an increased spiritual significance was attributed to animals as the emblems of kingdoms, it would become possible for the imagination to extend such figures beyond the realm of actual creation, and to construct ideal forms; but our author clearly avoids the use of wholly imaginary animals for this purpose, as being inappropriate. His object is here to represent in a more striking and impressive manner the four successive changes of the great world-kingdom described in chap. 2 under the figure of a monstrous human image, which t afforded but faint analogies; and for this purpose he selects four wild beasts, which differ among themselves respectively, and which over-come each other in succession.—Diverse one from another, for the reason that they represented distinct kingdoms, which differed from each other respectively, and were peculiarly constituted in respect to their national character and their political tendencies. These distinctions are now to be brought out as clearly and prominently as possible, thus indicating a different purpose from that connected with the image of the monarchies, which was chiefly designed to represent the perpetuation of the same heathen world-power throughout the four successive phases of its development. Daniel 7:4-8. More detailed description of the four beasts, and especially of the fourth. The first was like a lion and had eagle’s wings. The emblem of a wonderful beast so constituted might be chosen with propriety to represent the Chaldζan, or, if it be preferred, the Assyrio-Chaldζan world-power (cf. supra, Eth.-fund. principles, etc., on chap. 2), since the winged lions with human heads recovered at Nimrud (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 348) and also the similar images of winged animals at Babylon (Mόnter, Religion der Babylonier, pp. 98, 139) were doubtless designed as symbols of the power and glory of that empire or of its rulers. In addition, the description of Nebuchadnezzar as a lion in strength and an eagle in swiftness was familiar to his contemporaries, as may be seen on the one hand, in Jeremiah 4:7; Jeremiah 49:19; Jer. 1:17, 44; on the other, in Jeremiah 49:22; Lamentations 4:19; Habakkuk 1:8; Ezekiel 17:3; Ezekiel 17:12. Moreover, the rank of the lion as the king of beasts, and of the eagle as the king of birds, corresponds to that of gold, the most precious of metals, which had been in chap. 2 the symbol of the first world-kingdom. As in that instance (Daniel 7:38) the king was identified with his realm, and therefore was regarded as its representative, so here the fate of the first world-kingdom is illustrated by various traits taken from the history of Nebuchadnezzar in chap. 4—I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, i.e., until its power and unrestrained motion were taken from it; cf. Daniel 4:28 et seq.—And it was lifted up from the earth, to which, after being deprived of its wings, it had been confined; compare Daniel 4:30 with Daniel 4:33. The words, therefore, as well as those which follow, relate to the restoration from a state of beastly degradation to the upright posture and free dignity of man. Others, as Jerome, Theodoret, Rashi, Bertholdt, Hitzig, etc., render it, “and it was taken away from the earth,” as if the sentence implied the destruction of the Chaldζan world-power; but neither its connection with the following context, nor the usual meaning of πְ ?θַ ?μ “to raise up, elevate,”—cf. Daniel 4:31 and the corresponding Heb. verb, Genesis 21:18—will justify this reading.—And made (to) stand upon the feet as a man; cf. Daniel 4:13; Daniel 4:31; Daniel 4:33; Daniel 5:21. Notice the suffixless ςַ ?μψַ ?βְ ?μַ ?ιִ ?ο “upon two feet,” instead of “on its two feet,” which (corresponding with 2 Kings 13:21) would have been employed if the description had from the first referred to Nebuchadnezzar in person. [The phrase “does not mean that the whole beast was lifted up into the air, but that it stood upon its hinder legs, taking the upright position of a man. The purpose of this is explained more fully by the clause that follows.—ψַ ?βְ ?μַ ?ιִ ?ο is a Hebraizing dual form, only found in Biblical Chaldee.…—The heart of a man was given to it, i.e., (in connection with the preceding clause), not only did it take the outward position of a man, but also, partook of his internal mind and feelings. I understand the design here to be to characterize the greater moderation and humanity which the Babylonian dominion exhibited after Nebuchadnezzar’s malady and restoration, or, to use the language of the prophet, after ‘its wings were plucked.’ ”—Stuart.]—See Hitzig on this passage, with reference to the at times venturous explanations offered by exegetes who deny its relation to chap. 4 in any way whatever (e.g., Bertholdt: “The writer designed to indicate in this place that human empires are symbolized;” J. D. Michaelis, Dereser: “The civilizing of the formerly barbarous Chaldζns, which was reserved until the Babylonian period, was to be described;” Jerome, Rashi, Ibn-Ezra, etc.: “The standing upon two feet of the hitherto four-footed beast was to symbolize the humiliation of the Chaldζans on the overthrow of their supremacy;” etc., etc.). Daniel 7:5. And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear. ΰָ ?ηֳ ?ψִ ?ι is the more extended, ϊִּ ?πְ ?ιָ ?πָ ?δ the more definite idea; the former only is repeated in Daniel 7:6, and the latter in Daniel 7:7. The bear, considered as being second only to the lion in point of strength and savage disposition, is frequently mentioned in close connection with the latter; e.g., 1 Samuel 17:34; Proverbs 28:15 (cf. Daniel 17:12); Wis 11:17.—And it raised up itself on one side; or even, “it stood leaning to one side” (Hitzig), as it is to be rendered on the authority of the reading ωְׁ ?θַ ?ψ, “side” (for which several MSS. substitute the usual Aram, form ρְ ?θַ ?ψ. The common reading ωְׁ ?θַ ?ψ would require to be regarded as synonymous with the Heb. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?θָ ?ψ, “dominion” (Job 38:33), but would thus lead to the vapid sense, “and it raised up one dominion,” which is opposed by the context, and is questionable in every respect. This meaning, however, has recently been unsuccessfully advocated by Kranichfeld, who refers to the erection of a Median empire on the ruins of the Babylonian. Most expositors regard it correctly as indicating a leaning posture of the beast, an inclination to one side. Such a posture would naturally suggest a tendency to fall, an unsteady, vaccillating character of the monarchy in question, verging upon ruin—and thus it has been interpreted by the Sept., Theodot., the Syr., and by many moderns, as Hitzig, Ewald, Kamphausen, etc., who find here a reference to the weakness and brief duration of the Median supremacy, which soon gave way to that of the Persians. The context, however, requires that a strong kingdom, animated with a lust for conquest—or, in the figurative language of the text, a “voracious” kingdom—should be understood, to which the words “arise, devour much flesh,” are not spoken ironically and uselessly. For this reason we must suppose (with Hδvernick; cf. also Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, and Maurer) that the beast inclined forward, i.e., that it was prepared to spring and to attack; and this threatening, rapacious, and warlike posture of the beast shows clearly that not the weak and short-lived Median kingdom, but the powerful empire of the Medo-Persians. with its greed for lands and conquest, is intended.—And it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it. ϊְּ ?μָ ?ϊςִ ?μְ ?ςִ ?ιο evidently designates a prey that has already been seized by the beast, and which it is preparing finally to devour (cf. Num. 11:38; Zechariah 9:7), and not (as Saadia, Bertholdt, and Hδvernick suppose) parts of its own body, such as three molar teeth—an interpretation which ςμςιο nowhere bears. The three states, or even cities, which became the prey of the Persian empire as symbolized by the “three ribs,” an hardly be specified; perhaps three is used merely as a round and indefinite number. If, however, it is attempted to designate them more particularly, it will certainly be more appropriate to conceive of three countries, e.g., Babylon, Egypt, and Lydia (or, instead of the latter, Palestine, including Syria), which were conquered by the Medes or Medo-Persians (with De Wette), than (with Hitzig) to think of the three great Assyrian cities on the Tigris, Nineveh, Calah, and Resen,—or Nineveh, Mespila (?), and Larissa, which, according to Xenophon, Anab., Daniel 3:4; Daniel 3:10, the Medes are said to have destroyed (cf. Genesis 10:12; Jonah 3:1 et seq.).—And they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. These words evidently refer to something in the history of the Median empire, that is subsequent to the devouring of the three ribs, and therefore to the later wars of that state for conquest and plunder, which followed after the subjugation of the three neighboring kingdoms. This clearly indicates that the beast described in this connection does not represent Media only, but the united Medo-Persian empire (against Ewald, Kranichfeld, etc., and also against Hitzig, who applies this command to “devour much flesh” to the overthrow of the Chaldζan empire by the Medes, which he believes to have preceded the destruction of the three cities on the Tigris). The direction to devour much flesh is, however, an appropriate feature in the description of the voracity of this ζῶονπάμφαγον; cf. Micah 3:2-3; Isaiah 9:11; Jeremiah 50:17. The speakers who are implied (ΰָ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιο, as in Daniel 3:4; Daniel 4:28) are the angelic powers of God, who govern the world and especially watch over and guide the fortunes of the great world-powers.Daniel 7:6. After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of (or “like”) a fowl. Ewald observes, with entire correctness: “This beast is already distinguished from the other in being less one-sided, and in having ‘four wings of a bird’—i.e., such as are large and capable of carrying it swiftly to any place—on its back. [It moves, however, “not so royally as Nebuchadnezzar—for the panther has not eagle’s wings but only the wings of a fowl—yet extending to all the regions of the earth” (Keil).] Hence it can move with ease and freedom towards either of the four regions of the world, and therefore, in a sense, it possesses all the four regions of the world, i.e., it is in the full sense a world-kingdom.” Cf. Kranichfeld also: “The flashing swiftness of movement, the παρδάλεοςὀξύτης (Habakkuk 1:8), which is here specially indicated by ‘four wings of a fowl on the back of it,’ i.e., in a condition for flying, is regarded as characteristic of this beast (the leopard) while lurking for its prey (Jeremiah 5:6; Hosea 13:7). Compared with the clearness and correctness of this interpretation there seems to be a strange lack of motive for the refusal of the two scholars to apply it to that world-kingdom, which more than any other was remarkable for its extension by leaps of panther-like swiftness, and by the lightning-like rapidity of its rise and fall—namely, the Macedonian empire of Alex, the Gr.” Cf. the remark of Hitzig: “The special rapidity of the Persian movements to war and victory cannot be historically established”—certainly a correct remark, but one which ought not to have decided its author, who was likewise an opponent of the Macedonian hypothesis, to regard the four wings in this instance, not as symbols of rapid movement, but as “an emblem of the far-reaching protecting royal power from above” (after Lamentations 4:20; Psalms 36:8).—The beast had also four heads, i.e., it extended its dominion in the four quarters of the earth, and governed the whole world. The words which follow, “and dominion was given unto it,” are probably merely epexegetical of this symbolical description, in which the four heads have the same significance as the pushing of the ram towards the four quarters of the heavens in Daniel 8:4, or as the four faces of the cherubs which looked towards the four quarters of the earth in Ezekiel 1:10 et seq. If it is desired to interpret the four heads more closely, they may be taken to represent the four principal divisions or aggregates of countries which the empire of Alexander embraced (cf. Hδvernick on this passage), e.g., Greece, Western Asia, Egypt, and Persia (including India). This is less arbitrary, at least, than the opinion of Jerome, that the heads represented the four leading generals of Alexander, viz.: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Philip, and Antigonus, or than the favorite assumption of many moderns after Von Lengerke (e.g., Hitzig, Ewald, Kamphausen, etc.), that the author represents the four earliest Persian kings, from Cyrus to Xerxes, who alone were known to him as the four heads of the leopard. The advocates of the latter opinion refer for support to Daniel 11:2, which passage, however, does not even imply that Daniel knew of but four kings of Persia (see on that passage), to say nothing of its affording no proof whatever that the present passage is concerned with any Persian kings. Our apocalyptist does not represent kings by heads, but by horns (see Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:24 et seq.); a feature which recurs in the apocalypse of St. John, where the ten horns of the beast (Revelation 17:13) symbolize ten kings, while the seven heads indicate seven mountains. This analogy seems to favor the view of Hδvernick, which assumes that the four heads represent the four principal sections of the world-kingdom in question, but of course without demonstrating its correctness. Daniel 7:7. After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly. Observe the solemn minuteness with which the fourth beast is introduced, and also the description as both “dreadful and terrible,” γְּ ?ηִ ?ιμָ ?δεְ ?ΰֶ ?ξְ ?ϊָּ ?πִ ?ι; cf. Chr. B. Michaelis: “Jung-untur duo synonyma, ad intendendum rem signi-ficatam, ut hζc bestia non vulgariter, sed supra modum horribilis apparuisse videatur.”—And it had great iron teeth. Iron is mentioned as signifying firmness and incisive sharpness (cf. Jeremiah 15:12; Micah 4:13), while the teeth symbolize its lust of conquest (cf. Daniel 7:5).—It devoured and brake in pieces and stamped the residue with the feet of it. Unlike the other beasts, it was not content with simply securing its prey, but, rejoicing in destruction, it stamped with its feet what it could not devour. This description evidently does not indicate that the conquests of the fourth world-kingdom were more extensive than those of its predecessors, but merely that its course was more devastating and destructive. This obviously alludes to the description of the legs of iron and clay (the organs employed in treading and stamping), which belonged to the colossus in chap. 2, and corresponds fully to the actual character of the empires of the Macedonian Diadochi, and particularly that of the Seleucidζ. Cf. Kranichfeld: “It is generally acknowledged that the description of the fourth beast agrees in its leading features with that of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2:40; especially in regard to its rage for destruction, which crushed without pity and trode everything under foot. Even the iron, the medium of destruction in Daniel 2:23; Daniel 2:40, returns here in the large teeth of the monster. The terrible appearance of the colossus resulted primarily from its fourth constituent part, and corresponding to this, the qualities which produce a terrible appearance are here expressly connected with the form of the fourth beast.”—And it was diverse from all the beasts before it. This does not assert that “it combined in itself all that was prominent in the three former beasts, the lion, bear, and leopard respectively” (Jerome, Hδvernick, et al., under comparison with Revelation 13:2), but merely that it differed from them all, and displayed its nature in a way that could not be realized by a comparison with the lion, the bear, or the leopard. This difference of the fourth beast from all the others is chiefly suggestive of the fragmentary and divided character of the fourth world-kingdom, and consequently alludes to the composition of the feet of the colossus out of intermingled iron and clay. The opinion of Hδvernick and other advocates of the theory which regards the Roman empire as the fourth world-kingdom, that this description indicates the contrast between the character of that empire and that of the Oriental-Hellenistic monarchies which preceded it, is entirely too far-fetched; but that of Hitzig is no less so, when, in the support of his theory that the fourth beast represents Alexander the Great, he asserts that the contrast between the Hellenistic and the Oriental rule is here indicated—a contrast that was far greater than that between Rome and the world-kingdoms which preceded it.—And it had ten horns. According to Daniel 7:24 these ten horns represent “ten kings.” Unlike ordinary animals, which have two horns, this monster representing the fourth world-kingdom has ten, being so many symbols of warlike power and dominion (cf. Deuteronomy 33:17; 1 Samuel 2:1; 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalms 18:3; Job 16:15; Micah 4:13, etc.). The number ten is hardly to be strained, in this connection, to represent ten specified kings; but like the number four in Daniel 7:6, it is rather to be taken in a symbolic sense, and to be regarded as indicating a multiplicity of rulers, or an indefinitely large number of kings—in harmony with the usual significance of the number, both in the Scriptures and elsewhere, as the symbol of earthly perfection. Kranichfeld observes correctly, “It is clearly not in the nature of the prophetic idea, that the number ten, in addition to the value which it thus has for the writer, should be capable of being demonstrated on the analogy of ordinary numerals, in the realization of the picture of the future.” The notes on chap. 11 will show that in the more detailed description of the development of the fourth world-power in that place, there is by no means an exact enumeration of ten kings on the throne of the Seleucidζ. Daniel 7:8. And behold, there came up among them another little horn. Concerning ΰָ ?ηֳ ?ψִ ?ι and its relation to the succeeding modifying predicate, see supra, on Daniel 7:5.—The prophet observes the rising or springing up of this little horn, the eleventh one, as taking place between the ten which already existed (notice the idea of continued observation, so to speak, of being lost in observation, which is indicated by the expression ξִ ?ωְׂ ?ϊַּ ?λַּ ?μδֲ ?εֵ ?ιϊ, “I was engaged in considering, in observing”). The smallness of the new horn in this case, as in the parallel Daniel 8:9, refers merely to its original state, not to its later appearance when fully grown; for, according to Daniel 7:20, it was then greater than any of the other horns. Concerning the reading ρִ ?μְ ?χַ ?ϊ, instead of ρִ ?μְ ?χָ ?ϊ, see Hitzig on this passage.—Before (or “by”) whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; i.e., it grew so strongly, and through its growth exercised so disturbing an influence upon its neighbors, that three of them were uprooted and wholly destroyed. Here also the definite number “three” is hardly to be strained to signify precisely three kings, who were overthrown by the monarch represented by the eleventh horn. The prophecy certainly had its more immediate Messianic fulfilment in the manner in which Antiochus Epiphanes rose from his originally obscure condition to the throne of the Seleucidζ, by removing two or perhaps three of his rivals (see infra); but from the prophet’s point of view, involving substantially a merely ideal, or, more correctly, a dream-like indefinite view of the future, the idea of precisely this personage in future history, and of the political conjunctures preceding his accession to the throne, was assuredly excluded.—And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man. Eyes like those of a man, human eyes (therefore two in number, despite the plural ςַ ?ιְ ?πִ ?ιο, which is probably substituted for the dual for euphonic reasons merely, and by virtue of a usage that is frequent in the chaldee), are borne by the horn in token that it represents a man, and, moreover, a wise, judicious man; for here as elsewhere (e.g., Ezekiel 1:18; Ezekiel 10:12) eyes are the symbol of understanding; cf. ωλμ, “to look at, understand.”—And a mouth speaking great (or “proud”) things; a farther indication of the human nature and character of the historical personage prefigured by the horn. ξְ ?ξַ ?μֵּ ?μψַ ?λְ ?ψְ ?αָ ?ο, properly, “speaking great or monstrous things;” cf. supra, on Daniel 7:3, and also infra, Daniel 7:11; also the Heb. γִּ ?αַּ ?ιβְּ ?ψεֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ, Psalms 12:4. The interpretation in Daniel 7:25 shows that blasphemies are meant by this “speaking of great things;” cf. Daniel 11:36; Revelation 13:5.Daniel 7:9-12. The Divine judgment upon the world-powers. I beheld (such things) till the thrones were cast down (or “set”) The A. V. is literal (ψְ ?ξִ ?ιε). The chairs of the Orientals consist of cushions, which are not set down, but laid down, and, in case of haste, are cast down; cf. ἔκειντο, Revelation 4:2. The place where the thrones are set is not in heaven, for according to Daniel 7:13 the Son of man descends to it from heaven; nor is it on the earth, but, as in Daniel 12:7, a locality intervening between heaven and earth. [“Seats, not merely a throne for God the judge, but a number of seats for the assembly sitting in judgment with God. That assembly consists neither of the elders of Israel (Rabbins), nor of glorified men (Hengstenb. on Revelation 4:4), but of angels (Psalms 89:8), who are to be distinguished from the thousands and tens of thousands mentioned in Daniel 7:10, for those do not sit upon thrones, but stand before God as servants to fulfil his commands and execute His judgments” (Keil).]—And the (“an”) Ancient of days did sit; viz., on his throne, in order to preside at the judgment; cf. Psalms 9:5; Psalms 29:10; Isaiah 28:6. The “Ancient of days” (ςַ ?ϊִּ ?ιχιεֹ ?ξִ ?ιο), i.e., the aged in days (πεπαλαιωμένοςἡμερῶν, Sus. 52), is doubtless the God of Israel, the same as the Most High, Daniel 7:25, who was blasphemed by the little horn. He is described as the “Ancient of days,” probably not by way of comparison with the younger associated judges, nor yet with the “blasphemous upstart,” the little horn (Kranichfeld), but in comparison with the more recent gods of the heathen; cf. Deuteronomy 32:17; Jeremiah 23:23. This predicate therefore refers to that attribute of the God of the Old Covenant, which is designated in such expressions as ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δֵ ?ιχֶ ?γֶ ?ν, Deuteronomy 33:27, ιωֵׁ ?αχֶ ?γֶ ?ν, Psalms 55:20; βασιλεὺςτῶναἰώνων, 1 Timothy 1:17; (ὁπρῶτοςκαὶὁἔσχατος,) Revelation 1:17 (cf. Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 48:12). “He, who from primitive times has proven Himself a powerful judge, assumes the form of venerable age, in order to beget the confidence that He possesses the wisdom and power to bring the blasphemer to judgment.”—His garment was white as snow; thus correctly Theodot., Vulg., Hitzig, under comparison with Mark 9:3, but conflicting with the Masoretic accentuation, which requires “as the white snow” The white color of the garment is probably not designed “to increase the impression of awful majesty” (Kranichf.), but to symbolize the purity and innocence of the judge. He appears, “so to speak, robed in the φְ ?γָ ?χָ ?δ of the righteous judge;” cf. Isaiah 59:17; Job 29:4; 2 Chronicles 19:7, and also the passages which mention the light, the symbol of holiness, as the garment of God, e.g., Ezekiel 1:26; Psalms 104:2; 1 Timothy 6:16.—And the hair of his head like the pure wool, hence, likewise as white as snow, as in the case of a venerable sage. Cf. the parallelism of snow and wool in passages like Isaiah 1:16; Psalms 147:16; Revelation 1:14.—His throne like the fiery flame; flashing like flaming fire, and apparently composed of it. The mention of the fiery appearance of the throne of God, does not of itself convey the conception of flaming vengeance on the part of the strict judge (Deuteronomy 4:24; Deuteronomy 9:3; Deuteronomy 32:22; Hebrews 12:29, etc.); for He frequently appears surrounded by fire in cases where His judicial character is not involved, e.g., Genesis 15:17; Exodus 3:3; Psalms 18:9, etc. In the present instance, however, the judicial significance of the fire that emanates from God is clearly established by the connection, as in Exodus 19:16; Exodus 20:15; Psalms 50:3 et seq. (against Hitzig and Von Lengerke).—His wheels as burning fire. The throne of the universal judge is therefore mounted on wheels (cf. the cherubic chariot, Ezekiel 1:12 et seq.; Daniel 10:13 et seq.; Psalms 77:19), whose swift revolutions are encompassed with flashing fire. This description of the Divine throne of judgment as mounted upon wheels leads Kranichfeld to the incongruous opinion that the “casting down of the thrones” was accompanied with noise (!). Daniel 7:10. A fiery stream issued and came forth from him; i.e., from the Divine Judge, not from His throne; for the χֳ ?γָ ?ξεֹ ?δִ ?ι of the first sentence can hardly be construed with a different object from that of the second, which clearly relates to God. Nevertheless both the author of the book of Enoch (Enoch14:19) and the writer of the Apocalypse (Daniel 4:9) represent the fiery stream as issuing from the throne, in the descriptions copied by them from this passage. Ewald interprets the “stream of fire” as a “stream of light,” and arbitrarily makes it the symbol of the speech which issues from God, that is, of His command to begin the judgment (in support of which he appeals to Daniel 2:15; Daniel 6:27, etc., whose character is entirely different). Hitzig is no less arbitrary when he remarks that the stream must be conceived as flowing evenly over a smooth bottom (hence like liquid glowing lava!), and as constituting the floor for the entire scene of the judicial procedure, since without this “the whole apparition would float in the air without support”—an empty fancy, which the prophet’s language in no wise favors.—Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The imperfect tense of the verbs indicates that a readiness to serve existed in the thousands as a constant and enduring quality. Concerning “to stand before one” as synonymous with “to serve,” cf. Daniel 1:4.—In relation to the plural ending ιλ—in ΰֲ ?μָ ?τִ ?ιν, which the Keri rejects as a Hebraism, cf. Daniel 4:14; Ezra 4:3.—The Kethib ψִ ?αְ ?εָ ?ο (the plural of ψִ ?αּ ?εֹ) immediately following is likewise to be retained, in opposition to the Hebraizing Keri ψִ ?αְ ?αָ ?ο, Hitzig’s suggestion, however, to write ψִ ?αּ ?εּ (on the analogy of the corresponding Syr. word) instead of ψִ ?αּ ?εֹ is unnecessary.—The “thousand thousands and ten thousand times ten thousand” are of course a host of ministering angels, which, standing in a wide circle, surrounds the council of the judges who are seated beside God (these are angels of a superior order, or perhaps “elders,” cf. Revelation 4:4). Cf. Deuteronomy 33:2; 1 Kings 22:19; Nehemiah 9:6; Psalms 68:18; Psalms 103:20 et seq., and also the mention of the angelic hosts in Genesis 32:3; 2 Kings 6:17, etc. The Numbers 1,000 and 10,000 are not to be regarded as definite; they indicate, in a symbolic manner, the impression of an innumerable multitude which was made on the prophet in his dream-vision, while he was naturally in no condition to overlook the whole of this immense host, to say nothing of counting its numbers exactly; cf. Psalms 68:18; Psalms 91:7.—The judgment was set. γִּ ?ιπָ ?ΰ is properly an abstract word, signifying “judgment;” here used concretely to designate the judicial conclave composed of the superior angels—the angelic princes or archangels (cf. Joshua 5:14; Tob 12:15, etc.); cf. the analogous use of judicium in the concrete by Cicero, Verr., II. 18. Since chairs indeed were mentioned in the foregoing (Daniel 7:9 a), but nothing was said about the judges taking their seats, we must find it indicated in this place, and it is therefore not necessary to explain, with Dathe and Kranichfeld, that “He seated Himself in judgment” (the Ancient of days), as if this were merely a repetition of ιְ ?ϊα in Daniel 7:9 (similarly also Syrus, who read γַּ ?ιָּ ?πָ ?ΰ instead of γִּ ?ιπָ ?ΰ, and therefore renders it, “the judge seated himself”).—And the books were opened; the books of record, in which the good and bad deeds of men were recorded, that they may serve as a basis of the sentence to be pronounced upon men by God, the heavenly judge. Cf. Revelation 20:12, as well as the frequent mention of the “book of life” in which the names of the heirs of celestial glory, who have been reconciled to God, are inserted,—in Exodus 32:32; Psalms 69:29; Isaiah 4:3; Daniel 12:1 (see on that passage); Luke 10:20; Philippians 4:3; Revelation 3:5; Revelation 20:15; also the “book of remembrance,” in which God records the sufferings of His faithful servants, which is noticed in Psalms 56:9; Malachi 3:16, etc. Daniel 7:11. I beheld then, because of the voice of great words which the horn spake—I beheld even till the beast was slain. An anacoluthon, in the second ηָ ?ζֵ ?δδֲ ?εֵ ?ιϊ repeats the first, which was separated from αֵּ ?ΰγַ ?ιִ ?ο by the accent, but gives a somewhat different turn to the thought; cf. the similar constructions in Jeremiah 20:5; Revelation 12:9; 1Ma 1:1. ςַ ?γγִּ ?ι, “till that,” indicates a protracted trial, which ends with the destruction of the beast, i.e., with the judicial execution of the God-opposed world-power. The little horn, representing the last anti-christian king of the fourth monarchy, who brings ruin upon his whole empire by his insolent rebellion against the Most High, is designated as the cause for this destruction.—And his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame; rather, “and given for burning to the flame.” The latter of these expressions illustrates the former; the destroying of the “body” of the beast, i.e., of the entire edifice of anti-christian national power, is effected by burning, which burning (ιְ ?χֵ ?γָ ?ΰ= Heb. ωְׂ ?ψֵ ?τָֹ ?δ in Isaiah 64:10) is of course to be taken figuratively, as in Isaiah 9:4; Isaiah 66:24; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10; and the fiery nature of the Divine Judge of the world, as described in Daniel 7:9, unquestionably stands in a causal relation to the kindling of this devouring fire of judgment; cf. Isaiah 10:17; Isaiah 30:27; Zephaniah 1:18, etc. Daniel 7:12. The rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away; rather, “and the power of the rest of the beasts was also taken away.” The subjects of δֶ ?ςְ ?γִּ ?ιε are the celestial powers, as in Daniel 7:5. Since the dominion of the three earlier beasts was destroyed before the rise of the fourth, so far at least as it was a dominion over the world in the proper sense, and since it does not seem admissible to take δֶ ?ςְ ?γִּ ?ιε in the sense of the pluperfect, thus explaining the passage as a mere supplementary note (against Ephraem, Polychron., Kamphausen, C. B. Michaelis, etc.), the judgment inflicted on the “rest of the beasts” together with that visited on the fourth must be understood to signify that utter destruction of the heathen world-powers which subjects the remnants of all the four world-kingdoms to the new all-embracing Messianic dominion, and incorporates them in its realm; for as the characteristic expression ωְׁ ?ΰָ ?ψηֵ ?ιεָ ?ϊָ ?ΰ, “the rest of the beasts” (instead of ηιεϊΰΰηψο or λμΞηιεϊΰγΞχγξεη, Daniel 7:7 b) indicates, certain fragments or remnants of the three former world-kingdoms are conceived of as continuing to exist beside the fourth, and as being involved in its destruction. The fall of the three earlier world-kingdoms is not regarded as complete by the prophet, inasmuch as larger or smaller portions of them continue to exist beside the last—perhaps temporarily incorporated into it as provinces, but not on that account assimilated to it—until the Messianic judgment involves them in a common destruction. That he refers only to such remnants, and not to new kingdoms essentially distinct from the former world-monarchies (as J. D. Michaelis, Von Lengerke, Hitzig, Ewald, etc., suppose), is evident (1) from the parallel description in chap. 2, where the destruction of the four constituent parts of the colossus results at the last and in the same moment through the agency of the stone which rolls from the mountain (see Daniel 7:34 et seq., and especially Daniel 7:44); (2) from the later parallel, Daniel 8:4, where all the beasts (λָּ ?μΞηַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊ) with whom the Persian ram contends, are likewise only the constituent parts into which the latest world-kingdom had dissolved, and which are all overthrown and subjugated by the new dynasty (see on that passage, and compare Kranichfeld’s remarks on this place, p. 265 et seq., which are certainly correct).—Yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time; rather, “for the duration of their life was fixed, to the season and time.” This time (ζְ ?ξַ ?ο, identical with ζִ ?ξְ ?πָ ?ΰ, Daniel 7:22, according to the correct opinion of Von Lengerke, Kranichfeld, etc.) has come, so far as the seer is concerned, with the judgment of the fourth beast and of the remnants of the other beasts, which has just been described. The duration of their lives (ΰַ ?ψְ ?λָ ?ΰαְ ?ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιο, properly “respite, prolongation of life”) finds its unalterable terminus ad quem in this period of Messianic judgment, beyond which, indeed, the various nations (Daniel 7:14) continue to exist, but not the heathen world powers formerly composed of them. Concerning ζְ ?ξַ ?οεְ ?ςִ ?γָּ ?ο Heb.=ςֵ ?ϊεּ ?ξּ ?εֹ ?ςֵ ?γ) see on Daniel 2:21. Daniel 7:13-14. The erection of Messiah’s kingdom. I saw in the night visions, and behold; again a solemn and circumstantial introduction, like that preceding the description of the fourth beast in Daniel 7:7. Cf. the minuteness with which the prophet dwelt on the description of the fourth world-power, and of the Messianic judgment which came upon it, in Daniel 2:40 et seq.—(One) like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven; literally, “with the clouds of heaven (one) coming like a Son of man” (ΰָ ?ϊֵ ?δδֲ ?εָ ?ΰ). The subject is omitted, and must be rendered indefinitely by “one,” as in Daniel 8:15; Daniel 10:16; Daniel 10:18. “With the clouds of heaven,” i.e., together with them (Revelation 1:7), and therefore in them (Mark 13:26) or upon them, ἐπὶτῶννεφελῶν (Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64; Revelation 14:14). As the Messiah here comes to God upon the clouds of heaven and stands before Him, so God Himself rides, in poetical and prophetic descriptions elsewhere, upon the clouds as His celestial chariot, cf. Psalms 104:3; Jeremiah 4:13; also Psalms 18:10-18; Psalms 97:2-4; Nahum 1:3 et seq.; Isaiah 19:1 (cf. Isaiah 14:14).—αַּ ?ψΰֱ ?πָ ?ωׁ, “son of a man, son of man,” is a simple circumlocution to express the idea “man,” which is found also in the Syr. and the Targums; and therefore = the Heb. ΰֱ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ or ΰָ ?γָ ?ν, or which the Heb. also occasionally substitutes αֶּ ?οΞΰָ ?γָ ?ν or αֶּ ?οΞΰֱ ?πεֹ ?ωׁ (see Psalms 8:5; Psalms 144:3; and infra, Daniel 8:17; Daniel 10:16; Daniel 10:18). This combination serves to specially point out an organic connection with or membership in the human race. The personage whom Daniel saw coming with the clouds of heaven had the appearance, therefore, of being one of the human race—a man. The mention of the human appearance of the apparition certainly does not aim at contrasting it with the forms of the beasts before described (as Hofmann supposes, Weissagung und Erfόllung, I. 290); for these have passed from the prophet’s vision in consequence of their destruction, which has already transpired (Daniel 7:11-12). The comparison with the human form of Him who comes with the clouds, which, although not expressed, is certainly implied, is to be found in the super human—hence the Divine, or at least angelic—form, which the seer would naturally expect to behold in these exalted scenes (see Ewald on this passage). That he should observe a form similar to that of man, shining through the clouds, instead of a terrifying apparition that blinds and confuses his senses, produces on him an impression of wonder, but also of pleasure. Cf. Kranichfeld: “The case here is different from that of Dan 3:25, where only ordinary men might be looked for in the fiery furnace, so that he who became the associate of the three Jews was at first regarded merely as partaking of human nature, and a comparison with merely human traits was necessary to lead the judgment to express the stronger utterance λְּ ?αַ ?ψΰֱ ?μָ ?δִ ?ιο, without thereby denying the human appearance of the form. And as the judgment in Daniel 3:25 rests in the conclusion that the personage in question belongs to the race of gods, although present in human form, so it here concludes that the object of notice is one belonging to the human race, but wearing the form of God.” The prophet, however, holds fast to the distinction between a wholly human appearance and the vision he has seen, and indicates this by the particle of comparison λְּ, which points out that he intends to represent a really supernatural, but still human like personage. (The correspondence with the λְּ in Daniel 7:4; Daniel 7:6, does not militate against this conception of the λְּ here—despite the assertion to the contrary b4y Richno, in the Stud. u. Kritt., 1869, II., p. 255.) There cannot be the slightest doubt, in view of the entire description, particularly in Daniel 7:14, and also in view of the exactly corresponding signification of the destroying stone, in the parallel vision of the 2d chapter (see Daniel 2:44 et seq.), that this superhuman form of a man represents the Messiah, the Divine-human founder of that fifth world-kingdom, which is at the same time a heavenly kingdom of eternal duration. The effort of Hitzig to refer the λְּ ?αַ ?ψΰֱ ?πָ ?ωׁ to the people of Israel as the “personified community of saints, which rules over the heathen,” is merely the product of a persistent and fundamental aversion to the idea of a personal Messiah, which results naturally from the extreme rationalistic position of that exegete. The interpretation which asserts a personal Messiah is advocated by nearly all expositors (with the exception of Ibn-Ezra, Jahn, Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hofmann, who agree with Hitzig, but, in part, for very different reasons, and giving a more positive turn to the subject), and is removed beyond the region of doubt, (1) by Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:21 of this chapter, in which an unbiassed exegesis is compelled to find the people of Israel clearly distinguished from the Son of man (see on Daniel 7:18); (2) by the undeniable reference of υἱὸςτοῦἀνθρώπου, the pre-eminently favorite Messianic designation of Himself employed by the Saviour, to this passage (Matthew 8:20, etc.; John 12:34); (3) by important testimonies of the Jewish-Hellenistic literature, such as Enoch (Enoch 46:1–3; (Enoch 48:2 et seq., (Enoch 62:7, 9, 14; (Enoch 63:11; (Enoch 69:27.—Cf. Hilgenfeld, Jόdische Apokalyptik p. 155 et seq.), Orac. Sibyll. (III., 286 et seq., 653 et seq., ed. Friedlieb; cf. Zόndel, Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 163 et seq.);(4) by most of the rabbins (e.g., R. Joshua in Ibn-Ezra, Saadia, Rashi, Ibn-Jahja, etc.), who frequently designate the Messiah simply as ςֲ ?πָ ?πִ ?ι, “the beclouded one.” Cf. the Eth. -fund. principles, etc., No. 4.—And came to the Ancient of days; i.e., he was admitted to the immediate presence of God (cf. Ezekiel 42:13), conducted before Him until he was placed as near as were the elders who sat on the right and left, and even still nearer.—And they brought him near before him. The subject of δַ ?χְ ?ψְ ?αεּ ?δִ ?ι is probably not “the clouds,” but rather thy ministering angels, Daniel 7:10. Thus Hitzig, Ewald, etc., correctly hold, in opposition to Kranichfeld, who construes the clouds as the subject, and to several others, as Kamphausen, etc., who prefer to leave the subject wholly undesignated, as with δֶ ?ςְ ?γִּ ?ιε, Daniel 7:12.—That the Messiah was required to be brought before God and be presented to Him at this juncture, indicates that the prophet regards him as having previously existed while the beasts exercised their dominion—and therefore that he ascribes personal pre-existence to him. Daniel probably conceived of him as pre-existing among the thousands and tens of thousands of the saints of God, and as subduing and crushing the God-opposed world-powers at their head (Daniel 7:11-12); for only thus can be explained the investing of the Messiah with eternal dominion over the kingdom of God, which is evidently a reward for his valiant battling in the service of the Most High, as described in the next verse; cf. also the parallel description in Daniel 2:44 et seq. Daniel 7:14. And there was given him dominion and glory, and a kingdom. Instead of ιְ ?δִ ?α Syrus and the Vulgate read ιְ ?δַ ?α—“and He (the Ancient of days) gave him,” etc.; likewise Luther in this place and the parallel Daniel 7:22, where also the Sept. and Theodot. interpret ιְ ?δַ ?α. In the latter instance the active sense would certainly seem preferable, since the “Ancient of days” immediately precedes a different verb in the 3d sing. active as its subject; here, however, this subject is too distant, and the analogy of Dan 7:4; Daniel 7:6 recommends the passive form ιְ ?δִ ?ια.—The triad “dominion, glory, and kingdom” recalls Daniel 3:33; Daniel 4:31; Daniel 6:22, where at least “dominion” (ωָׁ ?μְ ?ξָ ?ε) and “kingdom” (ξַ ?μְ ?αεּ) are given. Upon it is based the ancient, doxology at the close of the Lord’s prayer: σοῦγὰρἡβασιλείακαὶἡδύναμιςκαὶἡδόξαεἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας.—And all people.… should serve (“served”) him. Concerning the triad “peoples, tribes, and tongues” see on Daniel 3:4. Von Lengerke and Ewald regard ιִ ?τְ ?μְ ?ηΧεּ ?ο as future, “shall serve him,” but thereby assume a rather harsh change of tense in the midst of the remarks which describe the objects seen in the vision. Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc., are correct in considering the verb as logically dependent on the preceding principal verb ιְ ?δִ ?ια, thus expressing design “in order that,” or, “so that all people, etc., should serve him.” τμη in itself is certainly not to be limited to signify religious service (Divine adoration, cultus), for in the extra-Biblical Chaldee, e.g., in the Targums, it signifies also a purely secular service, and in Daniel 7:27 of this chapter it is synonymous with ΰωϊξς, “to obey;” but in point of fact it serves, both here and in that passage, to designate service rendered to a Divine person, which is also its bearing in Daniel 3:12 et seq.—His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not be destroyed. Cf. Daniel 3:33; 4:3; 6:27; also Micah 4:7; Luke 1:33; Revelation 11:15; Revelation 19:16, etc. Daniel 7:15-18. The interpretation of the vision in general, without special reference to the fourth beast. The impression of alarm produced on Daniel by what he saw, led him to seek a further explanation of its meaning. He therefore mingles with the host that surrounds the Ancient of days, after having hitherto remained apart as a mere observer. A second act in the drama of the dream-vision, in which the prophet himself takes part, though merely as an inquirer, begins therefore at this point. Von Lengerke arbitrarily remarks: “The vision is now over (with Daniel 7:14); but the seer remains on the heavenly scene, and requests an angel to interpret the dream.” That this is incorrect, appears from Daniel 7:16, where the ministering hosts of angels mentioned in Daniel 7:10 still appear, while on that assumption they must have disappeared with all the other features of the vision; and the character of what follows, to the end of the chapter, does not indicate that it is a mere interpretation as distinguished from the preceding dream.—I, Daniel, was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body; properly, “within in the sheath” (αְּ ?βεֹ πִּ ?γְ ?πֶ ?η) i.e., in the body, which contains the spirit, as the sword is contained in its scabbard; cf. Job 27:8; Pliny, H. N., VII., 53. Ewald well remarks that “as the sword remains at rest as long as it is in its sheath, so the spirit of man is generally quiet while it feels itself enclosed by the coarse veil of the body; but there are still moments in which the spirit becomes restless while in its coarse tenement, and when it would break forth impatiently and venture all,” etc. In relation to λְּ ?ιָ ?ΰ (properly “to abbreviate, contract, torquere”) as designating an unusually bitter grief, cf. the corresponding Syr. and Arab. verbs. The feature that plunges the prophet into so severe and bitter sorrow is not so much the circumstance that he is unacquainted with the special meaning of the vision, as that a majority of its features, and particularly the four beasts and the dreadful fate imposed on them, were so prophetic of evil and misfortune. The end, indeed, toward which everything was tending, according to Daniel 7:13-14, was glorious, but the way by which to reach it was painful, and opened a prospect of severe conflicts for the people of God; and the prophet must have suspected this, even before it was explained to him in detail.—ΰֲ ?πָ ?ΰ, in the combination ψεּ ?ηִ ?ιΰֲ ?πָ ?ΰ, is not the nominat. absol., as Bertholdt supposed, but is in apposition to the suffix in ψεּ ?δִ ?ι; cf. Daniel 8:1; Daniel 8:15; Ezra 7:21; also Winer, § 40, 4, and concerning the corresponding construction in the Hebrew, see Gesenius, Lehrgeb., p. 728. The solemn emphasis which the prophet’s language gains by this appositional supplement, corresponds to the importance of his vision; cf. Daniel 10:1; Daniel 10:7; Daniel 12:5. Daniel 7:16. I came near unto one of them that stood by, i.e., one of those engaged in His service, who stood about God.—And asked him the truth (or “the true explanation”) of all this; ιַ ?φִּ ?ιαָ ?ΰ properly “the firm, or certain;” here used of the trustworthy interpretation, conforming to the designs of God, for which Daniel asks. Kranichfeld interpolates: “He desires that nothing should be concealed because of a desire to spare the inquirer in his excited state.” This additional idea of laying aside reserve, of disregarding considerations of pity, is not contained in the simple ιַ ?φִּ ?ιαָ ?ΰ.—And he told me, and made me know the interpretation of the things (or “words”), viz.: in the remarks which follow (Daniel 7:17-18). The clause “and made me to know is therefore epexegetical to “and he told me;” the εּ before τְּ ?ωַׁ ?ψ is explicative, as in Daniel 7:1 a. Von Lengerke and Kranichfeld unnecessarily take ιְּ ?δεֹ ?γְ ?ςִ ?πַּ ?πִ ?ι in the telic sense, “He told me that he would make me to know,” etc. The reason for such a promise to reveal the interpretation is not discoverable, since the interpretation itself immediately follows. Daniel 7:17. These (exceedingly) great beasts, which are four—four kings—shall arise, etc. With reference to the clause in the nom. absol., “these exceedingly great beasts, which are four” (or, “With reference to these.… beasts, concerning them,” etc.), cf. Daniel 7:23-24, and also Isa. 49:49.—The four kings ξַ ?μְ ?λִ ?ιο, whom the beasts are here said to denote, are unquestionably not regarded as four individuals, but as the representatives of four kingdoms, as appears from Daniel 7:23-24 (where the fourth beast is represented as a ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ governed by a numerous succession of individual kings). Cf. the identifying of ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ and ξֶ ?μֶ ?κְ which appears already in Daniel 2:37 (as well as supra, Daniel 7:4) in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, and again in Daniel 8:21 et seq.; Daniel 11:2.—The “arising of the kings will be ξִ ?οΰַ ?ψְ ?ςָ ?ΰ, i.e., not “out of the earth,” but “from the surface of the earth,” hence, in effect, “on earth” (Luther).—In the later Heb. parallels, Daniel 8:22-23; Daniel 11:2-3 et seq., χεּ ?ν is rendered by ςָ ?ξַ ?γ. The future ιְ ?χεּ ?ξεּ ?ο denotes the Divine decree, which limits the duration of the dominion of kings, as well as appoints their rise. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. The vision of the two world-kingdoms and their fallDan_8:1-271 In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me [I] Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. 2And I saw in a vision (and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at [in] Shushan in the palace [or, citadel], which is in the province of Elam); and I saw in a vision, and I was by [upon] the river of Ulai. 3Then [And] I lifted up mine eyes and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a [single] ram which [and he] had two horns, and the two horns were high; but [the] one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. 4I saw the ram pushing westward [sea-ward], and northward, and southward; so that [and] no beasts might [could] stand before him, neither was there any that could. deliver out of his hand; but [and] he did according to his will, and became great.5And as I was considering [then], behold, a he-goat came from the west, on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground [earth]: and the goat had a notable [sightly] horn between his eyes. 6And he came to the ram that had [master of the] two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. 7And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against [towards] him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns; and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground [earth], and stamped upon [trampled] him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. 8Therefore [And] the he-goat4 waxed [became] very great:3 and when [as] he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable 9[sightly] ones, toward the four winds of heaven [the heavens]. And out of [the] one of them came forth a [single] little horn which waxed [and it became exceeding great,3 toward the south, and toward the east and toward the pleasant land. 10And it waxed [became] great,3 even to the host of heaven [the heavens]; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground [earth], and 11stamped upon [trampled] them. Yea [And] he magnified himself3 even to the prince of the host, and by [from] him the daily [continual] sacrifice was taken 12away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And a host was [would be] given him against the daily [continual] sacrifice by reason of [in] transgression, and it [would] cast down the truth to the ground [earth]; and it practised [did], and prospered. 13Then [And] I [quite] heard one saint [holy one] speaking, and another saint [one holy one] said unto that certain saint which spake [to so-and-so the one speaking], How long shall be the vision concerning [of] the daily [continual] sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation [desolating or astounding transgression], to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days [evening-mornings]; then [and] shall the sanctuary be cleansed [sanctified]. 15And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning [understanding], then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man [person]. 16And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which [and he] called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the 17vision [appearance]. So [And] he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was afraid, and fell [quite] upon my face: but [and] he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for [that] at [to] the time of the end shall be the 18vision. Now [And], as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep [stunned] on my face toward the ground [earth]: but [and] he touched me, and set me [made me stand] upright. 19And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be [it is to the time of the end]. 20The ram which thou sawest having [master of the] two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21And the rough goat is the king of Grζcia [Javan]; and the great horn that is between his eyes [, that] is the first king. 22Now that being broken, whereas [And the broken one, and] four stood up for it, four kingdoms 23shall stand up out of the nation, but [and] not in his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when [as] the transgressors are come to the full [have completed], a king of fierce countenance [strong (bold) of face], and understanding dark sentences [stratagems], shall stand up. 24And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy [or, corrupt] wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise [do], and shall destroy [or, corrupt] the 25mighty [ones] and the holy people [people of the holy ones]. And through [upon] his policy also [and] he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself3 in his heart, and by peace [in security] shall destroy [or, corrupt] many: he shall also [and he will] stand up against the Prince of 26princes; but [and] he shall be broken without hand. And the vision [appearance] of the evening and the morning20 which was told is true [, it is truth]: wherefore [and thou] shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. 27And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days: afterward [and] I rose up, and did the king’s business [work]; and I was astonished at the vision [appearance], but [and] none understood it. REMARKSDan_8:1-2. Time and place of the vision. In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar; hence, shortly before the end of this king, who reigned but little more than two years (cf. Introd., § 8, note 3), and therefore not long after the incident recorded in chap. 5, which revealed the Medo-Persian kingdom already rising with a threatening light above the political horizon of the Chaldζan empire, as the heiress of Babylonia. Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of the image and that of the four beasts and the Son of man (seen perhaps two years before the present date), as well as the vision of the Medo-Persian ram and the Grζcian goat, described in the following verses, had already prepared Daniel, before he interpreted the mysterious writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s banquethall, to see Medo-Persia standing on the arena of history as the leading world-power instead of Babylonia in the not distant future The extent, however, to which recent political events, such as successes achieved by the Medes, or, what is more probable, the rise of the youthful Persian prince Cyrus and his victory over Astyages (B. C. 559, and therefore two years after the death of Nebuchadnezzar in 561, and shortly after the overthrow of his successor Belshazzar-Evilmerodach), may have been influential in inciting the prophet to the politico-religious meditations from which originated the vision of this chapter, cannot be positively decided, in view of the silence of the book with regard to such externally conditioning circumstances. The political situation must certainly not be apprehended as if the fall of the Babylonian empire were immediately impending, and the approach of the Medes under Darius were looked for shortly. Against this view, which is based on the familiar but incorrect interpretation of Dan 5:29 et seq., and which is still advocated by Hitzig, Ewald, etc., see supra, on that passage.—A vision appeared unto me … Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first; i.e., “after having seen, somewhat earlier, an important prophetic vision, another of a similar character appeared to me.” This new vision, however, is not called a “dream” or a dreamvision, like that in Daniel 7:1, but simply a ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο, “’ vision, what has been seen;” cf. Daniel 8:15; Daniel 8:26, and also ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?η (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 8:27; Daniel 10:7; also Exodus 3:3; Ezekiel 43:3), which is often substituted for ηָ ?ζֹ ?εο. It is evident that the prophet was awake and conscious during this vision, from the language of the verses at the beginning and end of the section (Daniel 8:2; Daniel 8:27), and also from a comparison with the vision in chap. 10, which is analogous in form (see especially Daniel 8:7-10).—δπִּ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ, instead of δֶ ?ηָ ?ζεֹ ?οΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψπִ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ. On this apparently relative use of the article, cf. Ewald, Lehrb., § 335 a.—αַּ ?ϊְּ ?δִ ?μָּ ?δ, properly, “in the beginning,” is here and in Daniel 9:21 equivalent to “formerly, before,” and therefore:=αָּ ?ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πָ ?δ, Isaiah 1:26; Genesis 13:3-4 (in both passages the two terms are employed as synonyms). The expression refers back to chap. 7, and especially to 7:28. Daniel 8:2. And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιαִּ ?εְ ?ΰֹ ?ϊִ ?ι indicates that he was merely visionally present at Shushan, or that in spirit he was transported to that Persian metropolis; but in the following words he describes its situation and locality in so realizing and exact a manner that his actual presence in or near that city becomes exceedingly probable. During his long official and semi-official service under Nebuchadnezzar he may have visited that region more than once (cf. supra, on 3:12 and 4:6). Like Josephus, a majority of the older translators, Luther, Grotius, etc., Bertholdt and Gesenius advocate the view that the words beginning with ειִ ?δִ ?ι are in parenthesis; but this is contrary to the Heb. usage and to the expression of the author, and consequently the view adopted by nearly all the modern expositors, which finds only a presence of Daniel ἑνπνεύματι at Shushan indicated by this language, is preferable. This destroys all foundation for the charge of Bertholdt, that the writer is guilty of anachronism in this instance, since Shushan was no longer subject to the Babylonian empire in the reign of Belshazzar, i.e., Nabonidus. Even prior to the fall of the Chaldζan world-power Daniel was able to speak of the palace (or castle) of Shushan (with regard to αִּ ?ιψָּ ?δ, Pers. bβru, “a castle,” Sanscr. bura, Gr. βάρις, cf. Gesenius and Dietrich, s. v) as a centre of Persian power, and even, in a measure, as the heart of the Medo-Persian world-monarchy, because the city of Susa (Old-Pers. probably Shuza, now Shush—see Lassen, Zeitschr. fόr Kunde des Morgenl., VI. 47), together with its well-fortified castle, was, from the earliest times, a principal feature in the province of Elymaοs (which is indicated by the terms applied to it by Herodotus, e.g., Μεμνόνιονἀστυ, ΣοῦσατὰΜεμνό-νια etc.; see Herod., V. 53, 54; VII. 151; cf. Strabo, XV. 52 et seq.; Pausan., IV. 31, 5), and because the prominent and all-controlling part which that city would take under the direction of a native Persian prince could readily be foreseen, even before cyrus should have solemnly declared it the capital of his empire, and before Darius Hystaspis should have enlarged and splendidly ornamented it as such (cf. Hδvernick, on this passage).—Which is in the province of Elam. Kranichfeld observes correctly that “if this book had been written subsequent to the exile, Shushan would not have been located in Elam, but in Susiana” (cf. Fόller, p. 190); for Elam (Gr. Ἐλυμαΐς Sept. Αἰλάμ) is the old-Heb. designation of the countries situated east of Babylon and the lower Tigris, which were inhabited from the earliest times by Shemites (see Genesis 10:22; Genesis 14:19; cf. Isaiah 11:11; Isaiah 21:2; Isaiah 22:6; Jeremiah 25:25, etc.), and it was not till the period of the Persian supremacy that the extended province of Elam was limited to the narrow strip between the Tigris and the Eulζus, or between the Persian satrapies of Babylonia and Susiana, by which arrangement the river Eulζus (see the notes immediately following) became the boundary between Elymaοs and Susiana, and the city of Susa was assigned to the latter province. Cf. Strabo, XV. 3, 12; XVI. 1, 17; Pliny, II, N., VI. 27: “susianam ab Elymaide disterminat omnis Eul�us.” The expression ςֵ ?ιμָ ?νδַ ?ξְּ ?γִ ?ιπָ ?δ, “the province of Elam,” does not by any means convey the idea of a Chald�an province of that name, whose capital was Susa, because the author conforms entirely to the ancient Heb. usage. Cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs und Babels, p. 198 et seq.; Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., Art. Elam.—And I was by the river of Ulai, i.e., on the banks of the Eulζus, which flowed on one side of the city of Susa, while the Choaspes (on which river the classics, as Herod., I. 188; V. 49, 52; Strab., XV. p. 728, etc., locate that town) probably bounded it on the other. Corresponding with this, the representation of a large city, lying between two rivers, on a bas-relief of Kuyunjik copied by Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 452), was probably designed for Susa. The explorations of Loftus in the region of Shush in 1851 make it probable that the Eulζus itself was merely a fork or branch of the ancient Choaspes or modern Kerkhah, and that the latter stream was also occasionally called Eulζus (see Rφdiger, Zeitschr. f. Kunde des Morgenl., 13:715 et seq.; Rόetschi, in Herzog’s Real-Encykl., art. Susa). The peculiar name ΰεּ ?αָ ?μ, stream, water-course,” which is applied to the Ulai in this place and in Daniel 8:3; Daniel 8:6; Daniel 8:16, appears likewise to indicate that it was not so much a single river as a stream which divided into two forks. The same idea was probably intended by the expression “between the Ulai,” Daniel 8:16 (see on that passage).Daniel 8:3-4. The first leading feature of the vision: the Persian ram. And behold there stood before the river a ram. “Before it,” i.e., probably, eastward from it, in case the branch of the river which flowed to the west of Susa is intended; for if Daniel did not stand in the castle of Shushan, he was at any rate close beside it, and therefore on the eastern bank of that branch of the stream. If from this position he saw the ram standing before the river, the latter must likewise have been on the eastern bank. [“Daniel first sees one ram, ΰַ ?ιּ ?μ standing by the river. The ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ (one) does not here stand for the indefinite article, but is a numeral in contradistinction to the two horns which the one ram has” (Keil). Rather it indicates a solitary ram, and not a member of a flock, as is usual with these gregarious animals. For every ram has of course two horns.] The vision symbolizes the Persian monarchy as a ram (and afterward the Grζcian empire as a he goat), in harmony with that mode of representation—which prevailed generally in the figurative language of O.–T. prophecy and accorded with Oriental modes of conception in general—by which princes, national sovereigns, or military leaders were typified under similar figures; cf. Isaiah 14:9 (“all the great goats of the earth”), and as parallel with it, “all the kings of the heathen,” Jeremiah 1:8; Ezekiel 34:17; Zechariah 10:3. From extra-Biblical sources, cf. Zendav., part II., p. 273 et seq., in Kleuker (Ized Behram appears “like a ram with clean feet and sharp-pointed horns”); Hamasa, p. 482, ed. Shultens; also the Iliad, 13:491–493; Cicero, de divinat., i. 22, 14; Plutarch, Sulla, c. 27. It is especially significant that Persia is represented as a male sheep, while the Macedonian-Greek empire is symbolized as a he-goat, in view of the contrast between the solid prosperity and even abundant wealth of the Persian monarchy, and the combative, rampant, and warlike nature of Macedon. With similar propriety the preceding vision (Daniel 7:5 et seq.) employed the bear to represent the slow, clumsy, but enormous power of Medo-Persia, and the four-winged leopard to illustrate the fleetness and warlike spirit of the Macedonians. It is also possible that an indirect allusion to the ethical contrast between Medo-Persia, as a power which in a religious point of view approximated somewhat towards Shemitism and the Theocracy, and maintained friendly relations with them, and the Grζcian empire, as being thoroughly heathen and fundamentally opposed to all monotheism, was implied in this representation; for the parallel descriptions in chapters 2 and 7 likewise describe the succeeding world-kingdoms as in every case more degraded and abominable, in a religious and ethical light, than their predecessors (see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., on chap. 2 No. 3, a and b). He-goats serve elsewhere also as symbols of a violent, savage, and obstinately hostile disposition, while sheep (and consequently rams also) are distinguished by being more governable, and by evincing a more peaceful and mild nature, and thus are better adapted to typify what is ethically good and attractive. See Matthew 25:31-46, and cf. Lange on that passage, who observes against Meyer, and certainly with justice, that in this description of the last judgment, Christ does not represent the wicked under the symbol of goats because of the inferior value of that animal (Luke 15:29), but because of its “incorrigible obstinacy” and ungovernable temper (Vol. I. of the New-Test portion of this Bible work). Cf. also Piper, Christus der Weltrichter in the evangel. Kalender, 1853, p. 25.—Which had two horns; and the horns were high. The ram was therefore not impotent and defenceless, since the tall horns which he bore are symbols of great power, being the natural weapons of rams, both for offence and defence; cf. on Daniel 7:7; Daniel 7:24.—But one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. The vision therefore represents the horns as still growing, and fixes the prophet’s attention on the fact that the horn which comes up last excels the other in its powerful growth—a striking illustration of the well-known process of development by which the Persian nation became the head of the Medo-Persian world-empire after the time of Cyrus, as being the more powerful element in the confederacy, and thus able to compel the Median branch, though older, to assume the second place in power and dignity. Theodoret thinks that this passage refers to the expulsion of the dynasty of Cyrus by the later, but more powerful family of Darius Hystaspis; the ram, however, does not represent Persia only, but the combined Medo-Persia, as the angel expressly states in the interpretation Daniel 8:20, and as the parallel visions in Daniel 2:39; Daniel 7:5, when properly conceived and understood, compel us to suppose (see on that passage). Daniel 8:4. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward. The “pushing” can only be intended to signify the assertion and extension of its power in a warlike manner; cf. Daniel 11:40; Psalms 44:6; Deuteronomy 33:17; 1 Kings 22:11. In this place the pushing westward denotes more particularly the victories of Medo-Persia over Babylonia and the Lydian kingdom of Asia Minor; that toward the north, the expeditions for the conquest of Scythia, led by Cyrus and Darius; and that towards the south, the conquest of Egypt and Libya by Cambyses. The ram does not push eastward, because the east already belonged to the Medo-Persian empire, and no farther extension in that direction was to be expected. Hitzig remarks, with incredible absurdity: “The fourth quarter of the earth is here unnoticed. While the ram turns his head to the right or left, he may, without changing his position, push northward and southward, but not backwards; in that direction, moreover, he would assail Daniel himself, and afterward Susa”—as if there could have been any difficulty in the matter of changing the position of the ram, in case it became necessary to represent an extension of its power eastward, by the symbol of pushing in that direction!—So that no beasts might stand before him; literally, “and all beasts—they stood not before him.” The imperfect μֹ ?ΰψַ ?ςַ ?ξְ ?γεּ expresses here, as often, the sense of “not being able to resist” (cf. Gesen., Lehrgeb., p. 772 et seq.). The verb in this place is masculine (unlike Daniel 8:22), because the writer has in his mind the kingdoms or monarchs symbolized by the ηַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ϊ. Cf. the similar enallage gen. in Job 15:6; Hosea 14:1.—But he did according to his will and became great. εְ ?δִ ?βְ ?γִּ ?ιμ properly, “and he made great,” namely, his power, i.e., he became strong, mighty. Not “and he pretended to be great, gave himself boastful airs”(de Wette, van Ess, Ewald, etc.); for, as Daniel 8:25 shows, δִ ?βְ ?γִּ ?ιμ never expresses the sense of boasting or conceited superciliousness when standing alone, as it does here and in Daniel 8:8, but only when joined with the particularizing αִּ ?μְ ?αָ ?αεֹ. With regard to Daniel 8:10-11 cf. infra, on those passages. Daniel 8:5-7. The Grζcian he-goat and its victory over the Persian ram. And as I was considering, behold, a he-goat, etc. “Considering,” ξֵ ?αִ ?ιο, as in Daniel 8:27. The he-goat with a single notable horn between the eyes—hence in its general appearance resembling one of the unicorns which are prominent in the drawings on the monuments of Nineveh, Babylon, and Persepolis—symbolizes the Macedonian-Hellenistic world-monarchy founded by Alexander the Great (whom the single great horn more directly represents, see Daniel 8:21), and at the same time the kingdoms of the Diadochi which emanated from it, as Daniel 8:8 indicates with all possible clearness by the growth of four new horns in the place of the great horn which was broken. This comprehensive animal symbol accordingly includes all that had been characterized separately in the two former visions of the world-monarchies, chapters 2 and 7, at-first by the figure of two different parts of the body of the colossus, and afterward by the symbol of two beasts appearing in succession. This departure from the former mode of representation involves no questionable features whatever, inasmuch as this chapter follows a different train of ideas in many other respects as well, and the advocates of the interpretation of the fourth beast in chap. 7 (and of the legs of clay and iron intermingled, in chap. 2), which differs from ours, must not be permitted to urge their view to the exclusion of our own, because they also are compelled to acknowledge that the present vision combines in one two features which are there found separately, so that the one Medo-Persian ram in this place corresponds to the two beasts in the former vision, which, in their judgment, represent Media and Persia (cf. supra).—Came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground; therefore, with great swiftness, as if flying, or as if borne on the wings of the storm. Cf. the description of the leopard in Daniel 7:6, and the statement respecting Alexander the Great, in 1Ma 1:3 διῆλθενέωςἀκρωντῆςγῆς; also Isaiah 41:2 et seq.; Hosea 13:7; Habakkuk 1:6; Habakkuk 1:8, and other descriptions relating to conquerors of earlier times.—And the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. χֶ ?ψֶ ?οηָ ?ζεּ ?ϊ does not signify a “horn of vision” (Hofmann, Weiss und Erfόllung, I. 292), but rather a “notable horn,” as the parallel βְּ ?γεֹ ?μָ ?δ in Daniel 8:8; Daniel 8:21 shows, and as the ancient versions already declare (Theod.: κέραςθεωρητόν; Vulg.: cornu insigne, etc.); cf. ΰִ ?ιωׁ ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ,2 Samuel 23:21; also Targ., Esther 2:2; Genesis 12:11. Daniel 8:6. And he came to the ram that had two horns. The Arabs term Alexander the Great “the two-horned one,” because he was represented on coins, etc., as the son of Jupiter Amnion, wearing two horns on his head. The fact that on the contrary, the Medo-Persian empire which he conquered is represented as a double-horned ram, indicates with sufficient clearness that the symbolic visions of this chapter did not originate with a pseudo-Daniel, who prophesied subsequent to the event. Cf. Kranichfeld on this passage, where he justly rejects Hitzig’s opinion that we have here merely an “accidental analogy” to the Arabian idea.—And ran unto him in the fury of his power; properly, in the heat of his power, i.e., in the irresistible rage (ηξη) of which he was capable by reason of his mighty power. Hδvernick is not exactly correct when he reads “full of a fierce desire for battle;” nor are De Wette, Von Lengerke, etc., in their version, “in his mighty rage.” Daniel 8:7. And I saw him come close unto the ram. The manner in which Alexander the Great, at the head of the Macedonian forces, put an end to the Medo-Persian empire, corresponds in the main with this description of the assault by the goat upon the ram, which resulted in the breaking of the two horns of the latter (i.e., the power of Media and of Persia), but still not so exactly as to suggest a sketching ex eventu of that event. The figurative description is especially defective in not containing any tolerably clear indication of the fact that several vigorous blows by the ram, which were inflicted at different points (the first at Granicus, the next at Issus, and the final one in the neighborhood of Susa and the Eulζus river), were required to break and destroy the Persian power. A Maccabζan pseudo-Daniel would hardly have escaped the temptation to introduce more tangible allusions to these features. Daniel 8:8-12. The little horn which grew from the goat, and its violence against the Most High and His sanctuary. And the goat waxed very great. Here again ηִ ?βְּ ?γִּ ?ιμ does not signify “to pretend to greatness,” but “to become great, to develop mightily.” ςַ ?ψξְ ?ΰֹ ?γ, “unto excess,” as in Genesis 27:33; 1 Kings 1:4; Isaiah 64:8.—And when he was (or, “had become”) strong, the great horn was broken. λְּ ?ςָ ?φְ ?ξεֹ, when the height of his “becoming great” was reached, when his power was at its climax. Think of Alexander’s expeditions to Bactria, Sogdiana, and India, which were soon followed by his death. The “breaking of the great horn,” however, does not refer simply to Alexander’s death, but also to the division of the dominion and disruption of the unity of the realm immediately consequent on the decease of that monarch.—And for it came up four notable ones. ηָ ?ζεּ ?ϊ is properly in apposition with ΰַ ?ψְ ?αַּ ?ς, “conspicuousness, four,” or also an adverbial accusative, “in conspicuousness, in a notable manner;” cf. supra, on Daniel 8:5. Each of the separate powers is therefore still important, although each receives but a fourth of the power and greatness of the original collective empire.—Toward the four winds of heaven. This addition alludes to the centrifugal principle, tending to division and separation, which after Alexander’s death (not after the battle of Ipsus, as Hitzig prefers) seized on the Macedonian-Hellenistic world-monarchy, in which the centralizing principle had hitherto prevailed. The number of the horns appears to be based on the number of the winds, and to be a standing symbolic expression which is found in other writers also (cf. Jeremiah 49:36; Zechariah 2:10; Zechariah 6:5; Job 1:19). It is at any rate of symbolic significance, referring to the separation and parting of the empire toward all quarters of the world; and it is therefore not admissible to seek four particular kingdoms which should be denoted by the four horns growing towards the four quarters of the earth, as those of Cassander (Macedon), Lysimachus (Thrace and Asia Minor), Seleucus (Syria, Babylonia, and Persia), and Ptolemy (Egypt), Both the opponents and the advocates of the genuineness of this book, since Porphyry and Jerome, are agreed in this specializing interpretation of the four horns, by which the kingdoms of the four Diadochi, who have been mentioned, are obtained (cf. in addition Hδvernick, Hitzig, Ewald, and Kamphausen, on the passage). But they do not consider (1) that not the battle of Ipsus, but the death of Alexander, the monarch who founded the empire, is given as the terminus a quo at which the growth of the “four horns” begins; (2) that in point of fact the number of the great empires of the Diadochi Cassander, Lysimachus, etc., was limited to four during a period even more brief than that during which the empire was a unit under Alexander; (3) that the enumeration of four such empires even immediately subsequent to the battle of Ipsus might be assailed as being inexact, inasmuch as Demetrius, the son of Antigonus whom those kings had conquered, stood upon the scene of action (as ruler of the sea, and lord of Ph�nicia, Cyprus, Athens, etc.), as well as the independent rulers of the Achζmenidζ who governed Pontus, Armenia, and Cappadocia; (4) that the parallel visions in chap. 2 and 7 appear to indicate a division of the original empire into two kingdoms (the “two legs” of the colossus, Daniel 2:33; Daniel 2:40 et seq.), or into ten (cf. Bleek’s interpretation of the ten horns, Daniel 7:7) instead of four. Among modern expositors Kranichfeld advocates the correct view by laying the principal stress on the symbolic idea of a “dispersion to the four winds,” and contenting himself with observing in relation to the bearing of this prophecy upon the four empires of the Diadochi in question, that “the prophetic idea is verified formally also, by events suggesting its fulfilment which were connected with the four kingdoms of the Diadochi in the Macedonian realm.” Daniel 8:9. And out of one of them came forth a little horn. ξִ ?φְּ ?ςִ ?ιψָ ?δ, literally, “out of littleness, in a small way,” an adverbial conception of similar formation as ξִ ?οιַ ?φִּ ?ια ,ξִ ?οχְ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?θ in Daniel 2:8; Daniel 2:47 (see on those passages). On the masculine forms ξֵ ?δֶ ?ν and ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ cf. the similar constructions ad sensum in Daniel 8:4 (ιַ ?ςַ ?ξְ ?γεּ) and Daniel 8:11 (δִ ?βְ ?γִּ ?ιμ).—The horn from which the horn “sprouting in a diminutive manner” comes forth has its historical counterpart in the kingdom of the Seleucidζ; the little horn which sprouts or branches forth from it—after the manner of the prongs in the antlers of a deer—finds, like that in Daniel 7:8, its most pregnant historical illustration in the most godless offspring of that dynasty, Antiochus Epiphanes. The little horn, however, was certainly not intended to represent Epiphanes only and exclusively, as the description shows that immediately follows, which relates to the predecessors of Epiphanes also, especially to Antiochus the Great, and perhaps even suggests a reference to Seleucus Nicator and his expeditions to Persia and India in search of conquest.—Which waxed exceeding great toward the south and toward the east. It is usual to apply this to the wars of Ant. Epiphanes against Egypt (1Ma 1:18 et seq.; cf. infra, Daniel 11:22 et seq.), against the countries beyond the Euphrates, Armenia and Elymaοs (1Ma 1:31; 1Ma 1:37; 1Ma 6:1 et seq.; cf. Appian., Syr., c. 45, 66), and against the Jews under the leadership of the Asmonζans. But Syria derived no “exceeding greatness under that tyrant from these wars; the εְ ?ϊִ ?βְ ?γַּ ?μΞιֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ may be far more appropriately applied to the former extensions of the power of the Seleucidζ under Sel. Nicator and Antiochus the Great (whose conquests toward the west are not noticed, probably because of their transient character). Moreover in case the reference to the undertakings of Epiphanes that have been mentioned could be established, the prophecy would be so direct in its application, that it would be hardly possible to defend its origin during the captivity with Daniel. It is better, therefore, to be content with the more general, and, so to speak, collective or genealogical interpretation of the “little horn,” by which it signifies, more immediately, the antitheocratic or anti-Christian governing power in the empire of the Seleucidζ merely, the power of the “transgressors,” who are clearly distinguished in like manner in Daniel 8:23 from Ant. Epiphanes as the most concentrated expression of the anti-theistic principle (see on that passage). Cf. also Kranichfeld, who, while assenting to this general idea of the little horn, seeks to explain the circumstance that the growth of this horn toward the west is not mentioned, by assuming that “the Grζcian horn as such is conceived as being in the west and as operating from thence,” and that therefore the author “would naturally describe it as asserting its power only in the regions which lay southward and eastward from Javan.”—And toward the pleasant land. δφְ ?αִ ?ι, properly, “the ornament;” here equivalent to ΰֶ ?ψֶ ?υδַ ?φְ ?αִ ?ι (Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:41), i.e., the valued, precious land, the blessed land, the land of Israel; cf. Jeremiah 3:19; Ezekiel 20:6; Ezekiel 20:15; Zechariah 7:14; Psalms 106:24. “Palestine is here noticed as a third land between the south and the east, as, in a different connection, in Isaiah 19:23 et seq., it is located between the once hostile Egypt and Assyria,”Daniel 8:10. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven. The “becoming great” is here no longer to be taken in the strict and proper objective sense, but is subjective, an impious presumption, a conceited pride whose greatness reached to the host of heaven; cf. Daniel 8:25. The “host of heaven,” however, is doubtless a figurative expression, referring in strong eulogistic phrase to Israel, the community of saints, who contsitute “the Lord’s host” on earth, even as the glittering stars form His host in the sky; cf. Genesis 15:5; Genesis 22:17; Numbers 24:17; also Exodus 7:4; Exodus 12:41; and further, the name Jehovah Sabaoth, which probably designates God in a two-fold sense, namely, as the “Lord of hosts,” with reference to the starry host, and also to people of Israel, the host of His earthly servants and elect ones. The figurative designation of Israel as the “host of heaven” was probably caused by the designed assonance between φָ ?αָ ?ΰ and φָ ?αִ ?ι, the latter of which had just been employed to characterize the land of Israel.—And it cast down (some) of the host and of the stars to the ground. The copula before δַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?λָ ?αִ ?ινξִ ?ο is explicative (=namely), and serves to introduce an explanatory clause, intended to sustain the force of the figure presented in the preceding sentence while applying the term φָ ?αָ ?ΰ—which is not metaphorical in itself—to the host of Israel, and thus to strengthen the conception of the impious character of the attempt.—And stamped upon them, namely, the members of the people of God; cf. Daniel 8:13 and Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:25. The manner in which this part of the prophetic vision was fulfilled under Ant. Epiphanes is recorded in 1Ma 1:24; 1Ma 1:30; 1Ma 1:37; 1Ma 2:38. Cf. the reference expressly to this prophecy in 2Ma 9:10. Daniel 8:11. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host. The masculine δִ ?βְ ?γִּ ?ιμ is used because the foe who is typified by the horn is intended; cf. 11:36.—The “prince of the host” is of course not identical with him who is mentioned in Joshua 5:14 (who is probably identical with Michael, Daniel 10:13), but the Most High God Himself, to whom Daniel 8:25 refers as the “Prince of princes.” Cf. Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20; Daniel 7:25; Daniel 11:36.—And by him the daily sacrifice was taken away. The enemy of God’s people, who is symbolized by the horn, must be regarded as the agent of the two passive verbs δεּ ?ψָ ?ν and δֻ ?ωְׁ ?μָ ?κְ (for which Hitzig, following the Keri and the versions, unnecessarily desires to substitute the actives δֵ ?ψִ ?εν and εְ ?δַ ?ωְׁ ?μֵ ?κְ, δַ ?ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ “the daily” (Gr. ἐνδελεχισμός), designates, as is shown by the mention of “the place of his sanctuary” immediately afterward, the daily service in the temple, and more particularly, probably the daily morning and evening sacrifices, the ϊָ ?ξִ ?ιγςεֹ ?μָ ?δ, Numbers 28:3; 1 Chronicles 16:40; 2 Chronicles 29:7. Cf. the rabbinical usage which expresses, this idea also by δִ ?ϊξιγ simply; cf. also infra, on Daniel 8:14.—The events in the history of the theocracy immediately prior to the Christian ζra, which fulfilled this prophecy in a measure, are narrated in 1Ma 1:39; 1Ma 1:45 et seq.; 3:45. Daniel 8:12. And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression; rather, “and war is raised against the daily sacrifice, with outrage.” The imperf. verbs ϊִּ ?πָ ?ϊֵ ?ο and ϊַּ ?ωְׁ ?μֵ ?κְ are not, indeed, prζterites (Hitzig), but they are not used in a strictly future sense (Ewald, Lehrb., p. 829 et seq.). They denote, rather, the idea that the predicted course of conduct accords with the Divine decree, or that it is ordained or permitted by God, thus corresponding to Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:17, or supra, Daniel 8:4. This sense is most readily expressed in the English by the present tense.—φָ ?αָ ?ΰϊִּ ?πָּ ?ϊֵ ?ο does not signify “the host is given up, or devoted to ruin” (De Wette, Von Lengerke, Hδvernick, Kranichfeld, etc.), but, “a war is carried on, a warlike expedition is begun, a campaign is undertaken” (cf. Isaiah 40:2). The correct view was already entertained by Jerome, Luther, etc., and among moderns by Hitzig, Kamphausen, and Ewald, the latter of whom justly notices the contrast between φָ ?αָ ?ΰ here and the same word in Daniel 8:10, where it stands in a different sense, and therefore translates, “and the compulsion of a host is imposed on the daily. His idea is that compulsion is employed for the purpose of introducing idolatrous worship in place of the service of the true God, and particularly, compulsion to service in the host, so that “host stands opposed to host, serfdom to the true service (of God), coercion to freedom.”—In imitation of Theodotion (καὶἐδόθηἐπὶτὴνθνσίανἁμαρτία), Bertholdt makes the very uncalled-for proposition of rejecting εְ ?φָ ?αָ ?ΰ from the text, and then reading αְּ ?τֶ ?ωַׁ ?ςδַ ?τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ς unquestionably indicates the method of making war upon the daily sacrifice; it stands sensu objectivo, to designate the outrageous heathen idolatry or sacrificial service, which superseded the worship belonging to the true faith. The same feature occurs in Daniel 8:13, where ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν is added, to strengthen the idea.—And it cast (“casts”) down the truth to the ground. The subject of εְ ?ϊַ ?ωְׁ ?μֵ ?κְ (for which Hitzig, following the Septuagint, Theodot., and Syr., prefers to read εְ ?ϊֻ ?ωְׁ ?μַ ?κְ) is the χֶ ?ψֶ ?ο, which is last mentioned in Daniel 8:10, and which forms the principal feature of the entire description before us. The “truth” (ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ Theodot., διλαιοσύνη) to be cast down by this “horn” is the true religion, the objective truth of God, which is revealed in the law and the prophets (cf. Psalms 19:10; Psalms 30:10; also Daniel 9:13). Daniel 8:14 shows that its being cast down, like that of the daily sacrifice, shall continue but for a brief period.—And it practised and prospered; rather, “and it accomplishes this, and prospers,” namely, because of the Divine permission. The words, and indeed the verse as a whole, serve to recapitulate and gather together the preceding statements. Daniel 8:13-14. A question concerning the duration of the oppression of the truth, and the answer to this question. Then I heard one saint speaking. This speaking angel (for χָ ?γֹ ?εωׁ here signifies an angel, cf. χַ ?γִּ ?ιωׁ, Daniel 4:10, and also Deuteronomy 33:2; Job 5:1; Job 15:5; Psalms 89:6; Psalms 89:8; Zechariah 14:1) enters into the vision here described without previous notice, because the prophet conceives of the whole scene as surrounded by angels, similar to Daniel 7:10; cf. Daniel 8:16, and analogous features (perhaps in imitation of this passage) in the night visions of Zechariah, e.g., Zechariah 1:9 et seq., 13 et seq.; 2:2, 5, 7; 3:1 et seq.; 4:1 et seq. The prophet does not state what the angel, who is introduced in this mysterious and dream-like manner, said at first, evidently because he does not know, i.e., because, although he has heard him speak, he has not understood his words. He saw, therefore, two angels, who were engaged in conversing with each other, and heard one of them say something which he failed to understand; the question, however, which the other addressed to the first speaker was so clearly apprehended by the prophet that he was able to repeat it in the latter half of this verse. Ewald puts it, correctly: “Thus, at the first moment of silence after that speech, he suddenly hears one angel ask another, with whom he is conversing,” etc. Hitzig, Kamphausen, etc., on the other hand, are arbitrary: “The second angel addressed the speaker, by directing an inquiry in the interest of Daniel to him (Daniel 8:13 b), by replying to which the other angel became for the first time speaker.” According to this the greater part of Dan 8:13 would be a logical parenthesis, and the words “and he said unto me” at the beginning of Dan 8:14 would serve simply to resume the introductory words of Dan 8:13; the language of the writer, however, does not accord with this view. His evident aim is to repeat what he has overheard of a conversation between two angels; otherwise the most simple course for him would have been to address the inquiry concerning the duration of the tribulation to the angel in person, as in Daniel 7:16, which is, in other respects, an analogous case.—How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice. “The vision,” i.e., the subject of the vision, which is here more specially indicated by the two genitives that follow, viz.: δַ ?ϊָּ ?ξַ ?ιγ and εְ ?δַ ?τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ςωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν. The anxious question as to “how long?” (cf. Isaiah 6:11) is caused by the fearful and alarming character of the profanation and destruction, as seen in the vision of the prophet.—And the transgression of desolation; rather, “and the horrible transgression.” ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, the partic. of ωָׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, “to be astonished,” and then “to be desolate or laid waste,” certainly expresses the idea of the “horrible or monstrous” (Lat. horrendus), whether the intransitive sense of “being astounded,” or, in accord with Ezekiel 36:3, the less general transitive sense of “laying waste,” be regarded as the radical meaning; cf. on Daniel 9:27. In the latter case it would probably be necessary to translate the participle as a substantive in apposition; “and (of) the transgressor, the destroyer;” but in the former case also, where the adjective sense “’ horrible” (Ewald) or “astounding” (Kranichfeld) is chosen, the participle must be regarded as a kind of appositional supplement to τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ς, to which it is therefore added without the article (as in Ezekiel 39:27). The expression ωׁ ?ξֵ ?νδַ ?τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ς, instead of which τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ςδַ ?ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν might have been expected (cf. 11:31), produces a solemn emphasis, which warrants the urgent question that is proposed.—To give both the sanctuary (rather, “the most sacred thing”) and the host to be trodden under foot, i.e., to give both the holy sacrifice (the central point of worship) and the community of the saints of the Most High (cf. 7:18, 22, 27), the partakers of the theocratic covenant, to be trodden under foot (thus Ewald, correctly). [The grammatical construction of the latter clause of the verse seems to be that ϊֵּ ?ϊ and χֹ ?γָ ?ωׁ and φָ ?αָ ?ΰ are all in dependence upon ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο, like ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ and τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ς preceding. “How long shall be.… (the) giving, and (the) sanctuary, and (the) host (to be) trampled.” ξִ ?ψְ ?ξָ ?ρ thus qualifies all the last three nouns, the latter two directly as an adj., and the former as an equivalent for the infin.] “The expression adds nothing that is new to the former statements, but simply repeats the comprehensive estimate of the condition of the Jewish religion referred to, and the outrage committed against it, in the light of the idea that they are permitted by a superior Providence; and, in point of fact, the only object of the question is to recapitulate what has already been said. The asyndetic connection accords with the abrupt conciseness of the description, and the disjunctive εְ before χֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ and φָ ?αָ ?ΰ, added to the lack of conjunctions, is suited to its poetic character (note also the omission of articles!. Consequently, everything that Hitzig regards as objectionable in this place, and that he urges against the traditional pointing for the purpose of removing ϊֵּ ?ϊ to the preceding clause, arises naturally from the subject itself. Moreover, the explanation of πָ ?ϊַ ?ο by Hitzig, ‘to permit the horrible transgression to go on,’ has no parallel, neither in Daniel 8:12. nor in Isaiah 10:6, where, like the synonymous ωׂ ?ιν, ‘to make into something,’ it is joined to a double accusative; and when Hitzig takes πָ ?ϊַ ?ο at first in the sense of ‘ to permit,’ and immediately afterward makes it signify ‘ to make into something,’ the artificial zeugma certainly does not diminish the imaginary difficulty which, in view of the disjunctive vav, he discovers in the vav that is not prefixed to ϊֵּ ?ϊ,” (Kranichfeld.) Daniel 8:14. And he said unto me. Thus all the MSS., which read ΰֵ ?μַ ?ι, while the ancient translators, and among modern expositors, Bertholdt. Dereser, Hitzig, Ewald, etc., prefer ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε. The latter form certainly seems to accord better with the contents of Dan 8:13, since it is supposed that the τַּ ?μְ ?ξֹ ?πִ ?ιδַ ?ξְּ ?γַ ?αֵּ ?ψ (cf. Rth 4:1) who says what follows, would address it to the other angel, who inquires of him; but it is conceivable, on both logical and psychological grounds, that the witness to the conversation of the angels would represent the information conveyed in the reply to the angel’s question as imparted to himself, because he was still more interested in that information than was the inquirer. Accordingly, he substitutes himself for the angel, because the interest felt by him in equal measure justifies him in identifying himself to some extent with the questioner.—Unto two-thousand and three-hundred days (“evening-mornings”); then shall the sanctuary be cleansed (rather, “justified”). The “justifying of the sanctuary” is the re-consecration of the desecrated sanctuary and its services (which were permitted to be trodden under foot), which is accomplished by the renewal of the daily sacrifices. εְ ?πּ ?φְ ?γּ ?χ consequently denotes a being justified by that work, and, in its position at the head of the apodosis to the antecedent clause beginning with the connective ςַ ?γ, expresses to some extent the sense of the fut. exactum. The material justification or renewal of the perfection of the host, according to Daniel 8:13, the second of the objects exposed to being “trodden under foot,” is conceived of as essentially coincident with that of the sanctuary, or as immediately involved in it, and for that reason is not expressly mentioned. The neglect to mention the host does not warrant the conclusion reached by Hitzig, under reference to 1Ma 5:2 et seq., that the author intended to point out that its state of being trodden under foot was to be more protracted, while that of the sanctuary was to cease at an earlier date.—The duration of the period which is to precede the re-dedication of the sanctuary, is again indicated by a mystically indefinite and equivocal limitation of time, as in Daniel 7:25. The 2,300 evening-mornings (ςֶ ?ψֶ ?ααּ ?χֶ ?ψ) cannot be intended to signify so many days (as Bertholdt, Hδvernick, v. Lengerke, etc., assume), for although the several days are, in Genesis 1:5 et seq., divided into the two parts which represent them, ςֶ ?ψֶ ?α and αּ ?χֶ ?ψ, they are not numbered accordingly; and the Gr. νυχθήμερον, which is often adduced in comparison, is the less adapted to serve as an analogy or ground of probability for the signification of evening-morning as synonymous with “day,” as ςֶ ?ψֶ ?ααֹּ ?χֶ ?ψ can hardly be regarded as a compound word (on the analogy of ξַ ?ρִ ?βֵ ?ψ), but is, on the contrary, an asyndeton, arising from the poetic brevity of expression in this section (similar to δַ ?τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ςωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν in Daniel 8:13), which, so far from being a “current phrase” or “stereotyped formula,” occurs only in this place as a designation of time. The limitation of the expression in this sense to this passage indicates, with an almost absolute certainty, that ςψα and αχψ do not signify the corresponding periods of the day, but rather the sacrifices required to be offered in them. The whole prophecy relates principally to the ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ, to which the passage under consideration assigns an especially prominent position; but as, according to Exodus 29:41 (cf. infra, Daniel 9:21), this consists of a ξִ ?πְ ?ηַ ?ϊΞςֶ ?ψֶ ?α and a ξΧΞαχψ, the terms “evening” and “morning” in this place clearly denote the evening and morning sacrifices, or, if it be preferred, the times at which they were offered. “Morning” and “evening” are therefore to be counted separately; and thus the period indicated by the author covers 1,150 days instead of 2,300. This period is nearly equivalent to the three and a half years in Daniel 7:25, while, on the other hand, the later numbers of 1,290 and 1,335 days (Daniel 12:11 et seq.) exceed the medium of three and a half years but little. How this discrepancy in the limits assigned to the duration of the time of anti-Christian persecution and oppression is to be explained, and, in particular, how the number in this place is to be interpreted, is of course very uncertain, and must always remain undecided. In general, those expositors of the truth who always come nearest to the sense of the prophetic author, will regard the present number 1,150 as a designed narrowing, and the Numbers 1,290 and 1,335 as a designed extension or overstepping of the limit of three and a half years, and seek to establish a conformity to law both in the narrowing and the extension of that period. If it is assumed that this book limits the year to 360 days (or to twelve months of thirty days each) besides five intercalated days, amounting in all to 365 days, it will be found (1) that the whole number of 1,277 days, which are necessary to cover the period of three and a half years, is decreased by 127 days, or something more than four months, by the number 1,150; (2) that the number 1,290 adds twelve days or about half a month to 1,277 days or three and a half years; and (3) that the number 1,335 adds fifty-eight days, or nearly two months, to the period of three and a half years. A certain conformity to law is evident from these figures, inasmuch as the two months by which the three and a half years are extended in the last number, are added to the shorter period of three years in the first (i.e., to 1,095 days); or, in other words, in the one case the prophet regards the period of three and a half years as extended by two months, in the other (in the present passage) as shortened by four months. These prophetic limitations of time correspond generally to the events of the primary historical fulfilment of this vision in the Maccabζan ζra of oppression and revolt, without being chronologically covered by them. It has already been shown, on Daniel 7:25, that the interval between the abrogation of the daily sacrifices by Epiphanes (1Ma 1:54) and the reconsecration of the sanctuary by Judas Maccabζus (ibid. 4:52) amounted to three years and ten days, or 1,105 days, thus covering forty-five days or one and a half months less than 1,150 days, as here stated. But if, on the other hand, the arrival in Judζa of Appollonius, the commissioner of tribute (1Ma 1:29), is taken as the starting-point of the calculation (as Hitzig does), a result of three and a quarter years to the rededication of the temple is obtained, with tolerable exactness, which amounts at least to from one to one and a half months more than 1,150 days. A comparison of the larger periods of 1,290 and 1,335 days with the circumstances of the ζra of the religious persecution by Antiochus, as recorded in the books of Maccabζs, leads to still more unsatisfactory results (cf. infra, on Daniel 12:11 et seq.). Hence, nothing more definite than a general or approximate correspondence between the predicted periods and their historical counterparts can be looked for; or, what amounts to the same thing, the prophetically-ideal value of the numbers in question must be recognized. Cf. the remarks in the Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 1, respecting the necessity that the predictions of any prophet which involve numbers should be only approximately fulfilled.—All the expositors of this passage, whether upholding or denying the composition of Daniel’s prophecies during the captivity, are in the end obliged to assume a merely approximate correspondence of the number 1,150 to the periods of the Maccabζan ζra of persecution. Among the former class, the view we have presented comes nearest to that of Delitzsch (p. 280), who holds that, “for reasons which our knowledge of history does not permit us to recognize,” the prophet’s estimate of the period of something more than three years, from the 15th Chisleu 145 ζ. Sel. to the 25th Chisleu 148, is “somewhat inadequate;” and also to that of Kranichfeld (p. 300 et seq.), who diverges from us on the mode of estimating the duration of the years in question, but is wholly agreed on the general principle. His opinion is that here, as well as elsewhere in the book, Daniel estimated the year at twelve months of thirty days each, intercalating a month of thirty days every third year. This results in exactly 1,290 days for 3½ years, but leaves a discrepancy of forty days between 1,150 days and three years or 1,110 days. With regard to this difference he then observes: “It is equally in harmony with the very general employment of the number forty in theocratic representations of times of severe trial and sifting (e.g., Genesis 7:4; Genesis 7:12; Genesis 7:17; Numbers 14:33-34; Ezekiel 4:6; Ezekiel 29:11 et seq.; 1 Kings 19:8; Matthew 6:1 et seq.), and with the author’s general usage which employs numbers in an ideal sense (cf. on 4:13; 7:25), as well as with the context more especially, that precisely this number should be found in combination with the final half-time. Consequently the amount 1,110 + 40 results as substantially identical with the more direct measurement of the three and a half times in Daniel 12:11; and this discrepancy within the book itself becomes no more strange than that for instance, which represents the same kingdom at one time as divided into two parts, at another as falling into ten, and again (see supra, on Daniel 8:8) as separating into four, in all of which descriptions the same fundamental idea prevails, although presented under different forms.” We cannot adopt this estimate of the 1,150 days, by which they are made to consist of 1,110 + 40 days, because it seems too artificial upon the whole, and because the opinion on which it rests, that Daniel added an intercalary month of thirty days to every third year of 360 days, seems to be untenable, and to conflict with the 1, 260 days or forty-two months of the Apocalypse, which, beyond all question, are synonymous with the three and a half years of this book (cf. Auberlen, Daniel, etc., pp. 185, 286 et seq.).—Among those who deny the genuineness of this book, Ewald approaches our method of reckoning, upon the whole, inasmuch as he supposes that the author constantly assigns 365 days to the year; and he consequently extends the 1,290 days over three and a half years + one-half month, and the 1,335 days over three and a half years + two months; but he departs from our view in arbitrarily reducing the number 2,300 to 2,230, so as to obtain only 1,115 days, or three years + one month, instead of 1,150 (p. 468). In opposition to such critical violence, Hilgenfeld, Kamphausen, etc., retain the reading 2,300 in the text, reckon the 1,150 days backwards from the dedication of the temple on the 25th Chisleu 148, and accept some unknown event as marking the beginning of the 1,150 days, since they exceed the period to the 15th Chisleu 145 by forty days. Hitzig thinks that only 1,105 days elapsed between the 15th Chisleu 145 and the 25th Chisleu 148, instead of 1,110, and therefore forty-five less than 2,300 evening-mornings, and that this difference of one and a half months “belongs to the interval between the abrogation of the ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ (1Ma 1:45) and the introduction of the βδέλυγμαἐρημώσεως (ibid. 8:54).” A hasty glance at the description of these incidents in 1 Maccabζs will be sufficient to show that this interval of exactly forty-five days between the interdict of the daily sacrifices and the erection of the statue of Zeus in the temple is wholly imaginary. Moreover, the critic contradicts himself, since he employs all his acuteness to prove, on Daniel 7:25, that the Antiochian persecution began at least a quarter of a year, or more than three months, before the 15th Chisleu 145, while he finds it proper in this place to place the abrogation of the ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιγ, or the beginning of the same period of oppression, only one and a half months earlier than this date.—While the representatives of the opinion that the 2,300 evening-mornings are but half as many days, fail to establish an exact correspondence between the prophecy and its fulfilment, those expositors who regard the language as designating 2,300 days succeed no better. Bertholdt and Hδvernick go three years beyond the time of Antiochus, to the defeat of Nicanor (1Ma 7:43; 1Ma 7:49), and assign to that period 2,271 days; the 29 days which, accordingly, are still lacking, are placed by Bertholdt at the close of the period, as an interval between that victory and the consequent celebration of the triumph, while Hδvernick would prefer to assign them to the beginning, prior to the 15th Chisleu 145 (in opposition to both, see Hitzig, p. 136). On the other hand, Dereser. Von Lengerke, Wieseler (Die 70 Jahrwochen, etc., p. 110 et seq.), and Von Hofmann (Weissagung und Erfόllung, I., 295 et seq.) go back to the year 142 ζ. Sel. in reckoning the entire period of about six years—Dereser and Hofmann calculating from the 25th Chisleu 148 (the day of the dedication of the temple), and Von Lengerke and Wieseler from the death of Ant. Epiphanes in the month of Shebat 148. The former are thus carried back to the summer of the year 142 in fixing the date of the beginning of the apostasy of the Jews who were seduced by Antiochus, Von Lengerke to Sivan, or the third month, and Wieseler only to the feast of tabernacles in the same year, 142. Wieseler himself afterwards recognized the untenable character of this method of reckoning, and therefore acknowledged his conversion to the exegetically more correct view entertained by a majority of moderns, which estimates only 1,150 days, in his subsequent essay in the Gφtt. Gelehrten-Anzeigen, 1846. [The author, it will be perceived, ignores that class of interpreters, quite common in this country and Great Britain, but comparatively rare in Germany, who understand by the days in question so many years, and generally apply the prophecy to the continuance of the papal supremacy. There is, however, a great discrepancy among these interpreters as to the point of time from which to date the period spoken of as well as some diversity as to its length, whether 2,300 years or only 1,150 years, although the majority prefer the latter. It would be a tedious, and, in our opinion, a bootless task, to follow them into all the details of their historical investigations, computations, and comparisons. Others, adopting the same substitution of years for “days,” apply the prophecy to the rise and sway of Mohammedanism, and make out the requisite dates as best they can. It is an adequate answer to all these interpretations to say that such a meaning of the word day has no sufficient—if any—warrant in Scripture use, and certainly is not hinted at in this entire passage. A calm but fundamental refutation of the theory in question is given by Tregelles, Remarks on Daniel (Lond., 1864, 5th ed.), p. 110 et seq. It is also abundantly met by Stuart in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, II. 459 seq. Elliott, the strongest advocate of this theory, admits (Horζ Apocalypticζ, II. 965) that it was unknown till the close of the fourteenth century, when it was first broached by Walter Brute. It came into vogue with the Reformation, and owes its prevalence, not to any sound exegetical support, but to the polemical spirit of the times, which has seized upon it as a popular weapon against papacy.] Daniel 8:15-19. Preparatory to the interpretation of the vision of the ram and the he-goat. And … when I … sought for the meaning, namely, of the entire vision that was seen. The seeking was purely subjective, and not expressed in the form of a question addressed to the angel (Von Leng.), nor in a silent prayer to God (Hδvernick).—Behold, there stood before me (one), as the appearance of a man, i.e., appearing like a man. The expression “behold, there stood,” etc., indicates the startling and extraordinary character of the apparition, which argued something terrible and superhuman (cf. Job 4:16); the λְּ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δβֶ ?αֶ ?ψ then follows to denote the encouraging effect produced on the seer by the manlike appearance of the form. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 3. The vision of the seventy weeks of yearsDan_9:1-271 In the first year of [to] Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes 2[Media], which [who] was made king over the realm of the Chaldζans; in the first year of [to] his reign, I Daniel understood by [the] books the number of the years, whereof [which] the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came [was] to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish [for fulfilling] seventy years in [for] the desolations of Jerusalem. 3And I set [gave] my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes. 4And I prayed unto the Lord [Jehovah] my God, and made my confession, and said, O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy to them that love him, and to them that keep his commandments; 5we have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by [and there has been a] departing from thy precepts [commandments], and from thy judgments; 6neither have we [and we have not] hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which [who] spake in thy name to our kings, our 7princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee; but [and] unto us confusion [shame] of faces,4 as at this day; to the men [man] of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are far off, through [in] all the countries [lands] whither [where] thou hast driven them, because of [in] their trespass [treachery] that they have trespassed [done treacherously] against [with] thee. 8O Lord, to us belongeth confusion [shame] of face [faces], to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we [or, we who] have sinned against [to] 9thee. To the Lord our God belong mercies4 and forgivenesses,4 though [for] we have rebelled against [with] him; 10neither have we [and we have not] obeyed the voice of the Lord [Jehovah] our God, to walk in his laws, which he set [gave] before us by [the hand of] his servants the prophets. 11Yea, [And] all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by [and there has been a] departing, that they might not [so as not at all to] obey thy voice; therefore [and] the curse is [has] poured upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against [to] him. 12And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing [to bring] upon us a great evil; for [,which] under the whole heaven [heavens] hath not been done as [it] hath been done 13upon [in] Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, [as to] all this evil [,it] is [has] come upon us; yet [and] made we not our prayer before [we besought not the face of] the Lord [Jehovah] our God, that we might [to] turn 14from our iniquities, and understand [become wise in] thy truth. Therefore [And] hath the Lord [Jehovah] watched upon the evil, and brought it upon us; for the Lord [Jehovah] our God is righteous in [upon] all his works which he doeth [has done]; for [and] we obeyed not his voice. 15And now, O Lord our God, that hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten [made for] thee renown [a name], 16as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to [in] all thy righteousness [righteousnesses], I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away [return] from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain [the mountain of thy sanctuary]; because for [in] our sins, and for [in] the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become [are for] a reproach to 17all that are about us. Now, therefore [And now], O our God, hear [hearken to] the prayer of thy servant, and [to] his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon 18thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold [see] our desolations, and the city which is called by the name [upon which thy name has been called]: for we do not present our supplications before thee for [upon] our righteousness, but [for it is] for [upon] thy great mercies. 19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken, and do; defer not: for thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are called by thy name [thy name has been called upon thy city and upon thy people]. 20And while I was [And I was yet] speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord [Jehovah] my God for the holy mountain [upon the mountain of the sanctuary] 21of my God; yea, while I was [and I was yet] speaking in prayer,4 even [and, i.e., then] the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at [in] the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched [reached] me about the time of the evening oblation. 22And he informed me, and talked [spoke] with me, and said, O 23Daniel, I am [have] now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At [In] the beginning of thy supplications the commandment [word] came [went] forth, and I am [have] come to show thee; for thou art greatly beloved, therefore [and] understand [in] the matter [word], and consider [have understanding in] the vision [appearance]. 24Seventy weeks [sevens] are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city [the city of thy sanctuary], to finish the transgression, and to make an end of [seal up] sins, and to make reconciliation for [cover] iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint 25the Most Holy [holy of holies]. Know, therefore [And thou shalt know], and understand [be wise], that from the going forth of the commandment [word] to restore [return] and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks [sevens], and threescore and two weeks [sevens]: the street shall be built again, and the wall [trench], even [and, i.e., but] in troublous [trouble 26of the] times. And after [the] threescore and two weeks [sevens] shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself [and there shall be nothing to him]: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof [or, his end] shall be with a [the] flood, and unto [till] the end of the war desolations are determined [there is a decision of desolations]. 27And he shall confirm the covenant with [to] many for one week [seven]: and in the midst [half] of the week [seven] he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for [upon] the overspreading [wing] of abominations he shall make it desolate [there shall be a desolator], even [and] until the consummation, and that determined [decided], shall be poured [it shall pour] upon the desolate. REMARKSDan_9:1-3. The time of the penitential prayer which led to the vision, and the occasion which inspired it. In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus. Concerning both Darius the Mede and his father Ahasuerus (Theodot., Sept., Vulg., “Assuerus”) or Astyages, see the Introd. § 8, note 4. The point of time referred to in the text belongs to a period later than that of the vision in the preceding chapter by more than twenty years, or about B.C. 537; cf. on Daniel 5:30; Daniel 6:1.—Of the seed of the Medes. The nationality of the new ruler is noticed, because the subject of the prayer which follows, and also of the prophecy respecting the seventy weeks of years vouchsafed in consequence, was conditioned by the circumstance that at the time when this incident transpired in the experience of Daniel, he was a Medo-Persian subject, and hence, had seen the second world-power of his former vision replace the first. The overthrow of Babylon by the Median king would naturally lead him to meditate on the question concerning the time of the restoration of Jerusalem and the realization of the further theocratic hopes connected with that event. In the nature of the case, such meditations would connect themselves at once with Jeremiah’s prophecy relating to the seventy years which were to elapse, before Jerusalem, the desolate, should be restored; and such a reference was unavoidable in the case of a vir desideriorum (see Daniel 9:23, Vulg.), like Daniel, who searched the Scriptures.—Which was made king. The passive δָ ?ξְ ?μַ ?κְ denotes that he did not become king over the Chaldζan realm in the ordinary way and by right of inheritance, but that he reached the throne in an extraordinary and violent manner, through the agency of the victorious Persian army (led by his nephew, Cyrus). Daniel 9:2. I Daniel, understood (or “observed”) in books the number of years, i.e., I gave attention to that question, meditated upon it. With regard to αּ ?ιπεֹ ?ϊִ ?ι, a shortened Hiphil-form like αִּ ?ιο, Daniel 10:1, or like ψִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊָ, for δֲ ?ψִ ?ιαεֹ ?ϊָ, Job 33:13, cf. Ewald, Lehrb. § 127 a, 1—The construction with an accusative is similar to Daniel 10:1; Proverbs 7:7; Proverbs 23:1. Von Lengerke renders it incorrectly, “I sought understanding in the books, in the number,” etc., as if δαιο were here construed with αְּ, as in Daniel 9:23, and this αְּ were then dropped before the more definite ξִ ?ρְ ?τַּ ?ψ.—The “books” (or “writings,” ρτψιν) in which Daniel observed the number seventy, and thus made it the subject of his meditations, were, according to the context, those which would engage the attention of a captive, be familiar and adapted to him. They did not probably include the whole collection of O.-T. writings, the Torah, Nebiim, and Kethubim (as v. Lengerke, Hitzig, Ewald, and other defenders of the Maccabζan origin of the book suppose), nor were they limited to the letter of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 29, although the plural δַ ?ρְּ ?τָ ?ψִ ?ιν might, without difficulty, designate a single letter; cf. Jeremiah 29:25; 2 Kings 19:14) which contained the prophecy concerning the seventy years, but they were simply a collection of prophetic writings which Daniel had at command. It cannot be decided how great the extent of this collection was. Perhaps it was confined merely to prophecies by Jeremiah—possibly including only those which are now contained in chapters 25 and 29 (to which Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen, etc., p. 4, limits the ρְ ?τָ ?ψִ ?ιν, as being the particular rolls of writing in which these oracles of Jeremiah were recorded), or extending to a larger number, or even comprehending all that are now found in the book of Jeremiah. Perhaps it comprehended a larger circle of prophetic and other writings, similar to the private collection which Jeremiah already must have owned (cf. Hengstenberg, Beitrδge, etc., p. 33 et seq.). It is likely of itself that the Pentateuch was included among the sacred books belonging to Daniel, although no positive evidence of that fact can be derived from Daniel 9:11; Daniel 9:13 of this chapter; for the mention of the ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?δ in those passages does not prove that the prophet classed them among the ρְ ?τָ ?ψִ ?ιν which are here referred to.—To what passage in Jeremiah’s prophecies, then, does Daniel allude? Chiefly and primarily, no doubt, to chap. 25, from which the term ηֳ ?ψָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ, “ruins,” is evidently borrowed (see Jeremiah 25:9; Jeremiah 25:11); but likewise to chap. 29, the 10th verse of which clearly refers back to Jeremiah 25:11 et seq., and with which our prophet was doubtless as well acquainted as with the former.—Whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet. ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, “whereof, in regard to which” (namely, years); cf. the use of ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ in the same sense in Daniel 8:26. ιִ ?ψְ ?ξְ ?ιָ ?η, as found also in Ezra 1:1, and in chapters 27–29 in the book of Jeremiah itself, is the later form of the name.—That he would accomplish seventy year in the desolation of Jerusalem; or, “that seventy years should be full in the ruins,” etc. ηֳ ?ψָ ?αεֹ ?ϊ, “ruins, desolate condition;” cf. Lev. 24:31; Ezekiel 36:10; Ezekiel 36:33; Ezekiel 38:12, etc. Our prophet, as appears in Daniel 9:25 a, regards the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the year B.C. 587, as the terminus a quo of the seventy years of desolation, while, on the other hand, Jeremiah uttered his prophecy relating to the seventy years (Jeremiah 26; cf. Jeremiah 29:1 et seq.) as early as the “fourth year of Jehoiakim,” i.e., B.C. 605, or 19 years before that date, and accordingly seemed to favor the method which reckoned the seventy years from the first conquest of Judζa by Nebuchadnezzar, and ended them with Cyrus (606–536). When and how the end of the seventy years should be realized, was therefore a question which would engage his special attention when the Chaldζan monarchy was supplanted by the Medo-Persian.Daniel 9:3. And I set my face unto the Lord God, i.e., probably, heavenward (cf. Genesis 21:17; 1 Kings 8:22; John 17:3); for the turning of his face toward Jerusalem or the site of the temple (cf. Daniel 6:11), would certainly not be disregarded in this instance, when about to pray for the restoration of the city and temple. The name ΰֲ ?γֹ ?πָ ?ι is used here to designate God (instead of ιְ ?δεָֹ ?η, which is found in several MSS.), as in Daniel 1:2; Ezra 10:3; Nehemiah 1:11; Nehemiah 4:8, and as in several places in the prayer itself, Daniel 9:4 et seq.—To seek by prayer and supplications; rather, “to seek prayer,” etc. Prayer is conceived of as an operation of the Divine Spirit (cf. Zechariah 12:10; Romans 8:26), which must be sought after or elicited from within, by means of fasting, putting on mourning garments, etc.; cf. 2 Samuel 7:27; 2 Samuel 12:16; Ezra 9:3; Sir 34:21; Luke 2:37, etc. Upon this subject see my Geschichte der Askese, p. 136 et seq. ϊְּ ?τִ ?μָּ ?δ is “prayer” generally considered (Psalms 65:3), while ϊַּ ?ηֲ ?πεּ ?πִ ?ιν, like ϊְּ ?ηִ ?πָּ ?η, Daniel 9:20, is “prayer for mercy, importunate, moving prayer.” Daniel 9:4-19. Daniel’s prayer. In order to justly appreciate the impressive beauty of this prayer, and to understand its plan and aim, cf. Ewald, p. 430 et seq.: “The motives that led him to pray are scarcely indicated in the introductory statements, Daniel 9:1-3, and must be discovered in the nature of the circumstances. He had long been deeply afflicted because the sufferings of his people were protracted during so long a period, and thus found and meditated on those passages from Jeremiah in the Bible (?); but the difficulty of understanding the Divine meaning of the number, redoubled his grief. He comprehended, however, that if the period of Israel’s punishment at the hand of God was so protracted, and the mystery relating to himself and the whole nation was so hard to solve, it must be charged solely to the consequences of the former grossly wayward course of the people as a whole, and in this concurrence of the most incongruous emotions he sought and found the proper plea to present before God. He does not plead for ability merely to solve this numerical riddle—the entire prayer contains no allusion to this; and what, indeed, is a mere number in the sight of God? The mystery of the number is oppressive to the heart of this individual supplicant who prays for light, and likewise to the whole nation, only because of other and entirely different errors, darknesses, and faults; and not until this supplicant has put forth all the powers of his soul in wrestling with God for the removal of those general sins, can he hope that the next uncertainty which bows him down and troubles him shall be dispelled by a gracious ray from the original source of all light. Thus the moving stream of this deeply agitated prayer gushes forth from a profound sense that only when the most earnest desire for renewed purification, forgiveness, and elevation at the hand of God shall take possession of the people as a whole, can Divine help be expected for the desolations of Jerusalem, for which after all Daniel also pleads. His words, resulting from the oppressive darkness of the present and from a further retrospect of all former history relating to this state, thus become at first the expression of a true confession, and then of genuine confidence and supplication. They become a sincere confession in view of the present, Daniel 9:4-10, but still more so, Daniel 9:11-14, in consequence of a retrospect of all former history, which is the more proper in this connection, because the blame for this exceeding great destruction and disintegration dates back, in the first instance, to the older times; but in Daniel 9:15-19 the trustful prayer and supplication for mercy become gradually more fervent (at first in the name of the whole people, Daniel 9:15 et seq., but ultimately in the name of the individual supplicant himself, Daniel 9:17 et seq.), until they cease, so to speak, in disconnected sighs, and as if exhausted with the last glow of the fire (Daniel 9:19).”—However appropriate we may find this analysis to be in general, we are nevertheless obliged to enter a decided protest against the presumption of a Maccabζan composition of the prayer, which forms its background. The proof of this presumption is found by Ewald, Hitzig, v. Lengerke, etc., in the similarity between this prayer and the penitential prayer found in Ezra 9:6 et seq.; Nehemiah 1:5-11; Nehemiah 9:6 et seq., Bar 1:14 to Bar 2:19, which unquestionably exists, and which they believe indicates the imitation of those passages by an alleged pseudo-Daniel, who lived at a much later time. The points of contact referred to, however, are in part merely indirect and accidental, such as sprang naturally from the general type of thought produced by the period of the captivity and the age immediately subsequent to it. Other features belonging to them in common are more specific and direct; but in these cases the prayer before us must be regarded as the original, instead of the others (as, e.g., αּ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊδַ ?τָּ ?πִ ?ιν, Daniel 9:7-8, cf. Ezra 9:7; ρְ ?μִ ?ιηεֹ ?ϊ, Daniel 9:9, cf. Nehemiah 9:17; also the combination “our kings, princes, fathers, and all the people of the land,” Daniel 9:6, which is exactly repeated in Nehemiah 9:32, and again in Nehemiah 9:34, where [as here in Daniel 9:8] “all the people of the land” is omitted, etc.). The more verbose and diffuse style of these prayers, and especially of those found in Nehemiah and Baruch, is of itself sufficient to arouse the suspicion at a glance, that Daniel’s prayer, with its comprehensive brevity and freshness, must be the original (cf. particularly, Zόndel, Kritische Unterss., etc., p. 191, whose exposition has not been controverted in a single feature by anything adduced by Ewald, p. 485). The fact, moreover, that it represents the sufferings of Israel as deserved, but does not allude with a syllable to the damnable character of the human agent who executed the Divine punishment, nor yet to the raging of Israel’s oppressors, which still continued, and to the Divine judgment which was certainly impending over them—all this is surely not conformable to the idea that this section is a compilation made in imitation of older models and dating as late as the Maccabζan age. “It is certainly conceivable that an author writing in the midst of the sufferings of the Maccabζan period, might occasionally avail himself of the opportunity to remind the people that their affliction was partly deserved, because of their general sinful conduct toward the God of their fathers, and thus attempt to remove their bitterness of heart in view of the fact that God had permitted such misery to come upon them. But it does not seem natural that he should fail to strengthen the courage of his nation by a direct reference, to say nothing of a passing allusion, to the excessive wickedness of the course of the persecuting despot, the μιαρός, at a juncture when they took their stand upon the ground of that very law of their fathers for which they suffered. Still more unnatural is it that here, where practical encouragement was needed in a time of decisive and terrible conflicts, he should neglect this for the mere purpose of keeping up a conformity to the prayers of Ezra and Nehemiah, which originated in circumstances of a totally different character and involved a reference to the earlier fact of the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem” (Kranichfeld). Cf. in addition the remarks in the Introd. § 6, respecting the relation of the book of Daniel to the writings of the period subsequent to the captivity, which refer to it; and also the exposition of the several passages. Daniel 9:4-10. The introduction. A penitential confession of sin in the name of the people. And I prayed.… made my confession, and said. δִ ?ϊְ ?εַ ?γֶּ ?δ, “to confess, acknowledge,” as in Daniel 9:20; Ezra 10:1.—O Lord, the great and dreadful God, keeping the covenant and mercy. The same address to the mighty and terrible God, but who is good and merciful when His conditions are met, occurs also in, Nehemiah 1:5; with this difference only, that the article is carelessly omitted before δֶ ?ρֶ ?γ, the second object of ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ψ, in the latter passage, while in the present instance and in Nehemiah 9:32 and Deuteronomy 7:9, it is retained. Daniel 9:5. We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled. Properly, “and sinned and rebelled,” for the εְ in εְ ?δִ ?ψְ ?ωַׁ ?ςְ ?πεּ is probably to be retained; its omission from several MSS. is explained from the desire to assimilate this passage to the parallels Daniel 9:15 and 1 Kings 8:47. The Hiphil δψωις, “to sin, do wickedly,” is used instead of the more usual Kal ψως; cf. Daniel 11:32; Nehemiah 9:33; Psalms 145:6.—By departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments. The infinitive ρεψ is used as a continuation of the v. finit., as in Daniel 9:11; cf. Nehemiah 9:8; Nehemiah 9:13; Esther 3:13; Esther 9:1; Esther 9:12; Esther 9:16; Esther 6:9, etc. Daniel 9:6. The prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, etc. The “fathers” in this place and in Daniel 9:8, as well as in Jeremiah 44:17; Jeremiah 44:21, denote the ancestors of the Israel of that day, including all but those who were of royal and princely blood; cf. the comprehensive “and to all the people of the land,” which immediately follows. The same language occurs in Nehemiah 9:32, where, however, the “prophets and priests” are also specially included, between the princes and the fathers—an extension which clearly reveals the thought of a later age, and which appears the more superfluous, inasmuch as both prophets and priests might unquestionably be comprehended in the term “fathers” (cf. Judges 17:10; Judges 18:19). Daniel 9:7. O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces, i.e., the confusion which depicts itself on the face (by blushing) because of our sin and the consequent disgrace and tribulation; cf. the familiar use of αּ ?εֹ ?ωׁ, and the passage Ezra 9:7, which paraphrases the thought here presented.—As at this day (so from time immemorial). In λְּ ,λַּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?νηַ ?ζֶּ ?δ does not indicate the indefinite temporal sense of “about, at” (as v. Lengerke, Hδvernick, etc., think), but that of comparison, as always in this form of speech; cf. Daniel 9:15; Nehemiah 9:10; Jeremiah 25:18, etc. Consequently the expression of God’s righteousness and the contrasted being put to shame or disgrace of Israel are both described as having always been apparent and as being still evident.—To the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Vs. 16–18, which represent Jerusalem as being in ruins, show clearly that this reference is not to inhabitants of Jerusalem who were contemporary with the prophet (Bertholdt, v. Lengerke, Stδhelin, etc.). Daniel 9:8. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, etc. cf. Jeremiah 3:25; Jeremiah 14:20; Nehemiah 9:34, etc. Daniel 9:9. Though (rather “for”) we have rebelled against him. ξָ ?ψַ ?γְ ?πεּ, as in Daniel 9:5. The clause with λִּ ?ι serves to explain why the mercy and forgiveness of God (ρְ ?μִ ?ιδεֹ ?ϊ; cf. Nehemiah 9:17, and ρְ ?μִ ?ηָ ?η, Psalms 130:4) are referred to, namely, because the children of Israel need mercy, etc., before all else, since they are guilty of rebellion against God. The thought is still farther developed in the following verse. Daniel 9:10. Neither (rather “and we”) have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in his laws; cf. Jeremiah 44:23; 1 Kings 8:61; Luke 1:6 etc. The ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ here mentioned differ from the ϊּ ?εֹ ?ψδ of the next verse merely in the form of the word, the latter comprehending the commandments, i.e., the several manifestations of God’s will in a united whole. The prophets accordingly appear as the guardians, teachers, and enforcers of the law; cf. Isaiah 21:11, where the term ωֹׁ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιν is applied to them; Jeremiah 6:17; Ezekiel 33:2; Micah 7:4, etc., which designate them by φֹ ?τִ ?ιν. Daniel 9:11-14. Continuation. Reference to the past history of the nation. Therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath. As in other places the anger of God (Jeremiah 42:18; Jeremiah 44:6; 2 Chronicles 12:7; 2 Chronicles 34:21, etc.), so here the curse which represents it, is characterized as, so to speak, a fiery hail (Genesis 19:24; Exodus 9:33; Nahum 1:6) which is poured out on the sinner. It is, moreover, not a simple curse, but stands connected with an oath, which supports and strengthens it; cf. Numbers 5:21; Nehemiah 10:30; Psalms 95:11; Hebrews 3:11; Hebrews 3:18; Hebrews 6:17.—That is written in the law of Moses the servant of God. Leviticus 26:14 et seq.; Deuteronomy 28:15 et seq.; Deuteronomy 29:19. Concerning the designation as the servant of God, cf. Exodus 4:10; Exodus 14:31; Numbers 11:11; Numbers 12:7; Joshua 1:2; Hebrews 3:5. See also Daniel 9:5, where the same predicate is applied to the prophets Daniel 9:12. And he hath confirmed his words, which he spake. δֵ ?χִ ?ιν, usually “to raise up,” here signifies “to preserve intact, to maintain, to confirm in act;” cf. Numbers 30:14-15.—Instead of γְּ ?αָ ?ψָ ?ιε the Keri has γְּ ?αָ ?ψεֹ, referring back to the curse, Daniel 9:11; but all the ancient versions and also the parallels Nehemiah 9:8; Bar 2:3 support the plural.—Against us, and against our judges; literally “over us,” etc. ωֹׁ ?τְ ?θֵ ?ιπεּ, a comprehensive term denoting “our superiors” generally; cf. Psalms 2:10; Psalms 148:11, and above, Daniel 9:6; Daniel 9:8, the separation of this idea into “kings and princes.”—By bringing upon us a great evil, etc.; rather, “that he would bring upon us,” etc.; cf. Lamentations 1:12; Lamentations 2:17; Ezekiel 5:9, etc. Daniel 9:13. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us; rather, “as all this evil is written in the law of Moses, that is come,” etc. ΰֵ ?ϊ before λָּ ?μΞδָ ?ψָ ?ςָ ?δ serves to introduce the subject, as in 2 Kings 10:6; Jeremiah 45:4; Ezekiel 44:3. Concerning λַּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ cf. Isaiah 14:24 b.—Yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God; rather, “yet conciliated we not the face of the Lord,” etc.,—who prepares for our just punishment. It appears from the following verse that this neglect of propitiating his anger, hence an obstinate and hardened persistence in sin, was the immediate cause that brought misfortune to the nation. With regard to τΧηִ ?μּ ?δָ τְּ ?πַ ?ι which literally signifies “to stroke one’s face, to smooth its stern furrows,” cf. Exodus 32:11; 1 Samuel 13:12; 1 Kings 13:6, etc.—That we might (or “should”) turn from our iniquities, and understand (or “observe”) thy truth. The truth of God which was not observed by the people is His immutability, by virtue of which He actually permits the punishment threatened against the sinner to be inflicted—hence His faithful adherence to His pledges from a negative point of view, which is identical with His punitive justice (cf. 1 John 1:9). Hitzig’s adoption of a hendiadys, “that observing thy faithfulness, we should turn from our sins,” is unnecessary. Daniel 9:14. Therefore hath the Lord watched upon the evil, i.e., “He cared for it, was concerned about it;” cf. Jeremiah 1:12; Jeremiah 44:27.—For the Lord our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth; literally, “on the ground of all his works” (ςַ ?μΞλָּ ?μΞξַ ?ςֲ ?ωַׂ ?ιε); cf. Nehemiah 9:33. ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ “which he doeth,” is aorist, like Jonah 1:14 (not pret., “which he has done”).—For (rather “and”) we obeyed not his voice, i.e., despite that we obeyed not; cf. the similar expression, with εְ ?μΰεְ ?βοΧ, in Daniel 9:13. Daniel 9:15-19. Conclusion. The petition itself in its intensity and importunity, which increase from sentence to sentence. That hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand; a glorious and striking proof of the grace and mercy which God formerly manifested towards his people; cf. Exodus 20:2, etc.; Psalms 105; Psalms 114 etc.—And hast gotten thee renown, as at this day, i.e., by that wonderful act of deliverance hast acquired renown that continues to this day; cf. Jeremiah 32:20; Nehemiah 1:10; Nehemiah 9:10. Daniel 9:16. O Lord, according to all thy righteousness…. let thine anger … be turned away, i.e., according to the displays of thy righteousness. φְ ?γָ ?χεֹ ?ϊ, whether it is to be regarded as the plural of φְ ?γָ ?χָ ?δ, as a majority hold, or as the plural of a singular φֶ ?γֶ ?χ, which is Hitzig’s view (cf. Isaiah 41:10; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 42:21), certainly denotes “proofs of righteousness” and not of mercy; but it is decidedly erroneous, and involves a gross weakening of the sense of the Scriptures, to assign the meaning “mercy” to the Old-Test term “righteousness,” in a single instance.—From thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain. The opposition is the more appropriate, as in Daniel’s time nothing remained of Jerusalem but its site, its mountain.—Jerusalem …. (are become) a reproach to all that are about us; cf. Psalms 79:4. Daniel 9:17. Now therefore, O our God, hear. εְ ?ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ is a conclusion from Daniel 9:16 b, and does not serve to resume Daniel 9:15.—The prayer of thy servant, and his supplications. Daniel applies the designation ςַ ?αְ ?γְּ ?κָ to himself in full consciousness of the mediatorial position occupied by him, as by Moses and the earlier prophets (cf. Daniel 11:5).—Cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate. The ruined temple here takes the place of the city and the mountain which were mentioned before, indicating that the prayer constantly increases in fervor and importunity, and addresses God with motives whose effective character steadily grows stronger.—For the Lord’s sake, i.e., for thine own sake, for thy name’s sake (Daniel 9:19). The noun is repeated, to the neglect of the pronoun, for the sake of emphasis, as in Genesis 19:24, and as often in the usage of the New Test., e.g., Romans 15:5-6; Ephesians 2:21, etc. Daniel 9:18. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, etc. The Kethib τְּ ?χָ ?ηָ ?δ is to be retained, in opposition to the Niphalizing Keri τְּ ?χַ ?η; cf. Daniel 9:19; Psalms 41:5; Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 32:11.—The though of the phrase “incline thine ear” (cf. Psalms 88:3; Psalms 86:1; Psalms 102:3; Psalms 116:2, etc.), is also frequently expressed in the plural, “thine ears,” e.g., Psalms 130:2; cf. Isaiah 59:1; Ezekiel 8:18; Psalms 34:16; 1 Peter 3:12; James 5:4. Luther’s translation generally disregards this distinction, and in almost every instance employs the plural, even where the original has the singular.—And behold our desolations (ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ξεֹ ?ϊ, as in Daniel 9:26, instead of the former ηֳ ?ψָ ?αεϊ, Daniel 9:2; cf. Isaiah 61:4) and the city which is called by thy name, literally, “upon which thy name is called;” cf. Jeremiah 7:10; Jeremiah 25:29; Jeremiah 34:15; Psalms 48:3; Psalms 48:9, etc.—For we do not present (lit. “lay down”) our supplications before thee for our righteousness. On the expression δִ ?τִּ ?ιμϊηΧ, “to lay down or pour out supplications at one’s feet,” cf. Daniel 9:20; Jeremiah 38:26. [“The expression is derived from the custom of falling down before God in prayer.”—Keil.] On the thought cf. Isaiah 57:12; Isaiah 58:2; Nehemiah 9:19; Nehemiah 9:27; Nehemiah 9:31, etc. Daniel 9:19. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken, etc. The two-fold repetition of the name Adonai, “Lord,” denotes the highly importunate and almost uncontrollable character which the prayer assumes at the close; cf. Isaiah 6:3; Jeremiah 7:4; Jeremiah 22:29.—And do it, defer not. It cannot be proved that Daniel intended to refer to the long delay attendant on the fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy weeks by the expression “defer not” (cf. 40:18; 70:6), as Ewald thinks. The expression is not sufficiently definite for this; and at any rate, nothing in favor of the Maccabζan origin of this passage can be deduced from it.—For thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are called by thy name. The explanatory clause “for … are called by thy name,” implies that μְ ?ξַ ?ςַ ?πְ ?κָ is equivalent to μְ ?ξַ ?ςַ ?οωְׁ ?ξֶ ?κָ (Isaiah 48:9; Psalms 23:3; Psalms 25:11), and therefore signifies, “for the sake of thy honor, of thy renown” (cf. on Daniel 9:18). Daniel 9:20-23. Arrival of the angel Gabriel, who was sent from God to interpret Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy weeks. And while I was speaking, and praying, etc. This does not mean, “before I ceased praying”—for the prayer had evidently reached its conclusion with Daniel 9:19—but rather, “I was concluding my remarks, I was just speaking the last words,” etc. Cf. Isaiah 28:4.—My supplication … for the holy mountain of my God; properly, “on the basis (or ground) of the holy mountain.” The preposition ςַ ?μ, by virtue of its fundamental meaning “over,” may signify “against” (Daniel 9:12) as well as “for.” According to Daniel 9:16-17 the “holy mountain” includes the “holy city” (Matthew 4:5) and the temple. Daniel 9:21. Yea (lit., “and”), while I was (yet) speaking in prayer; rhetorical epanalepsis or brief repetition, designed to favor the connection.—Even (or “and”) the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning (or “formerly”), a reference to Daniel 8:15 et seq., where the designation of the angel as a “man” was explained as being derived from his human form. Concerning αַּ ?ϊְּ ?δִ ?μָּ ?η see on Daniel 8:1.—Being caused to fly swiftly; rather, “come to me with flying speed.” The expression ξֻ ?ςָ ?σαִּ ?ιςָ ?σ is difficult. The rendering, “wearied with an extended (or rapid) course,” which is adopted by Ibn Ezra, Gesenius, etc. (substantially also by Kranichfeld, “very weary”) appears to be supported by the circumstance that the same root ιςσ, which always signifies “to weary, become exhausted,” lies at the bottom of both words. The sense of “being wearied,” however, will not apply to angels generally, nor is it appropriate in the present instance, where the ιָ ?φָ ?ΰϊִ ?ιςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ of the following verse clearly alludes to the rapidity of the angel’s coming. This rapid approach does not indicate that he ran swiftly (Hδvernick, v. Lengerke, etc.), but denotes nasty flying, with lightning speed, as may be seen (1) from the root ιςσ, which is unquestionably related to ςεσ, “to fly,” and therefore may involve that idea; (2) from the testimony of the ancient versions, which unanimously express the idea of flying rapidly (Sept. τάχειφερόμενος; Theodotion, πετόμενος; Vulg., cito volans, and also Syrus); (3) from the fact that the Scriptures frequently represent the angels as flying—a trait which is not confined to the New Test. (Revelation 14:6), but is found in the Old Test. also, as Isaiah 6:2 et seq.; Judges 13:20; Psalms 104:4, etc., demonstrate, despite the assertion to the contrary of Hitzig, Hδvernick, and others (cf. also Matthew 28:3 etc.).—About the time of the evening oblation, or about sundown (Numbers 28:4). This theocratic and Levitical designation of time finds a simple explanation in the prophet’s yearning recollection of the sacrifice that was offered at that hour in the temple-worship, and therefore does not in any way militate against the belief that this chapter originated during the captivity. It is no more remarkable, as uttered by the captive Daniel in the reign of Darius Medus, than it would be if a Christian youth of the Middle Ages who had fallen into the power of the Saracens, should, after being separated from scenes of Christian worship for many years, still have spoken of matins, or vespers, or the completorium. Cf. supra, on Daniel 6:11. Daniel 9:22. And he informed me, or “gave me to understand.” Thus it is rendered, correctly, by most expositors; cf. ηֵ ?αִ ?ιο in Daniel 8:16. Hitzig’s version, “and he became aware”—namely that the, time of evening sacrifice was not yet past, and therefore that Daniel had just finished his evening prayer—is entirely too forced.—I am now come forth, namely from God, before whom Gabriel usually stands (Luke 1:19; cf. also Job 1:12); That he should now come forth (ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, like John 14:11) denotes that Daniel’s importunate prayer had caused his being sent; cf. the next verse. Daniel 9:23. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment (rather, “a word”) came forth, i.e., a decree (γָּ ?αָ ?ψ, as in Job 4:12; Isaiah 9:7, etc.) intended to comfort and encourage thee (and consequently to answer thy prayer). It was not “a commandment,” for this could only have been laid on the angel, and not on Daniel, who is nevertheless exhorted “to attend to the word” (αַּ ?γָּ ?αָ ?ψ). Hitzig renders it correctly, “a decree, an oracle, which is recorded verbally in Daniel 9:24-27.”—For thou art greatly beloved. ηֲ ?ξεּ ?γεֹ ?ϊ, synonymous with ΰִ ?ιωׁ ?Ξηֲ ?ξεּ ?γεּ ?ϊ, “man of costlinesses, of joys,” i.e., well-beloved, a favorite (Luther, “beloved man, beloved and precious;” Ewald, “a loved sweet one.”). The “vir desideriorum” of Jerome is misleading; for ηֲ ?ξεּ ?γεֹ ?ϊ certainly does not relate to the prophet’s anxiety to understand the mysteries of God (“quod pro desiderio tuo Dei secreta audire merearis, et esse conscius futurorum”). With far greater correctness Jerome himself compares, in remarks immediately preceding, the predicate ιְ ?γִ ?ιγְ ?ιָ ?δ, “the favorite of God,” which was applied to Solomon (2 Samuel 12:23); and several moderns have also adduced the cognomen of Titus, “amor et deliciζ generis humani,” with equal justice.—Therefore understand thou (or “observe” the matter (“word”), and consider the vision. “The transition from αιο to δαεο denotes a slight variation of meaning in the fundamental idea. The difference is not greater than exists between γָּ ?αָ ?ψ itself and ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ, the latter of which=ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο, ‘revelation,’ the substance or soul of the spoken word” (Hitzig).Daniel 9:24-27. The interpretation of the seventy weeks of years. Seventy weeks are determined. Literally, are “cut off;” for this is the proper meaning of πֶ ?ηְ ?ϊַּ ?κְ, in like manner as ηַ ?ψָ ?υ primarily signifies “to cut, to sharpen to a point,” and then “to conclude, determine;” cf. Job 14:5; Isaiah 10:22; 1 Kings 20:40. The Vulgate, influenced by ἐκολοβώθησαν, Matthew 24:22, has “abbreviatζ, sunt,” which conflicts with the context. Hitzig, on the contrary, is correct when he rejects the idea of “dividing” into two sections, which might seem to accord with Daniel 9:25 et seq., and instead applies the cutting off to the “sum of the time” as a whole, in consequence of which he paraphrases, “a section of time (consisting) of seventy years is appointed.”—The construction is the familiar one of the impersonal passive with an accusative (cf. Genesis 35:26; Exodus 13:7; Isaiah 21:2; also supra, on Daniel 9:13). Entirely too artificial is the view which Wieseler adopt3, that γָּ ?αָ ?ψ in Daniel 9:23 is the subject, while the seventy weeks form the predicate—“the word is cut off at seventy weeks.” This view is opposed further, by the fact that πηϊκְ cannot in this place denote the idea of “being abbreviated.”—ωָׁ ?αֻ ?ςִ ?ινωִׁ ?αְ ?ςֵ ?ιν, “seventy weeks.” This cannot possibly denote seventy weeks in the ordinary sense, or 490 days; for the number has an obvious relation to the seventy years of Jeremiah, Daniel 9:2, and the brief limit of 490 days is not suited to serve as a mystical paraphrase of the period of three and a half years. Moreover, according to the descriptions in chapters 7 and 8, the three and a half years were throughout a period of suffering and oppression, while in Daniel 9:25 et seq. the latter and more extended subdivision (amounting to sixty-two weeks) of the seventy weeks is characterized as being comparatively free from sufferings. Finally, the three and a half years evidently reappear in Daniel 9:27, in the form of the: “half-week” during which the sacrifices and oblations were to cease, etc.: and this undeniable identity of the small fraction at the end of the seventy weeks with the three and a half years of tribulation, heretofore described, removes it beyond the reach of doubt that the seventy weeks are to be regarded as seventy weeks of years, and therefore as an amplification of the seventy years of Jeremiah. Such a prophetic or mystical transformation of the seventy years into as many periods of seven years each is not unparalleled in the usage of the ancients; cf., e.g., the remarks of Mark Varro, in Aul. Gellius, N. A. III., Daniel 10 : “Se jam undecimam annorum hebdomadem ingressum esse et ad eum diem septuaginta hedomadas librorum conscripsisse;” also Aristotle, Polit., vii. 16; Censorin., de die natali, C. 14. It was, however, peculiarly adapted to the prophet’s purpose, and was especially intelligible to his readers, inasmuch as the Mosaic law (Leviticus 25:2; Leviticus 25:4 et seq.; Daniel 26:34, 35, 43; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:21) had designated every seventh year as a sabbath of the land, and had introduced the custom of dividing the years into hebdomads, which thus became familiar to every individual in the Jewish nation during all subsequent ages. The thought that instead of seventy years, seven times seventy were to elapse before the theocracy should be restored in all its power and significance, and that consequently, an extended period of delay should precede the advent of the Messianic ζra, is “an integral feature in the mode of conception which prevails throughout the book” (Kranichfeld). It should also be observed that the idea weeks, as the principal idea, is placed before the numerical idea for emphasis: “weeks (of years, not simple years), seventy in number, are determined,” etc. The masculine form of the noun occurs also in Daniel 10:2-3; cf. Genesis 29:27 et seq.; Leviticus 12:5.—Upon thy people and upon thy holy city. “Thy” is used in the sense of “near thy heart, dear and precious unto thee;” cf. Daniel 9:20; Daniel 12:1. As the people of Jehovah (Daniel 9:19) is also Daniel’s people (Daniel 9:20), so is Jerusalem his city, his favorite city. It may have been, in addition, his native place; but this circumstance cannot be determined from this passage; see the Introd. § 2, at the beginning. The predicate “holy” was deserved by Jerusalem, even when in ruins, and without regard to the length of the period during which it was desolate, since by virtue of all its history in the past, and in view of its importance for God’s kingdom in the future, it was absolutely “the holy city,” cf. Daniel 9:16-20; Isaiah 52:1; Matthew 4:5.—To finish the transgression and to make an end of sins. The infinitives with μְ which follow, to the end of the verse, “direct attention, with a view to comfort, to the blessed experiences connected with the close of the period in which the people and the city were then languishing,” thus denoting from the outset that the vision is concerned with the realization of the Messianic hopes of Israel, in the time when “Zion’s warfare” shall be accomplished (Isaiah 40:2 et seq.)—in short, that the prophetic remarks of the angel acquire a Messianic character from this point.—Theo-dot., Hengstenb., v. Leng., Wiesel., Kranichf., etc., punctuate the Kethib μִ ?λִ ?μֹ ?ΰηַ ?τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ς, and read “to seal up the transgression,” which, according to v. Lengerke, signifies “to forgive the transgression,” and according to Kranichfeld, means “to hinder or restrain the sin.” The former rendering, however, would lead to an unsuitable tautology with μְ ?λַ ?τֵּ ?ψςָ ?εֹ ?ο; and the idea of “restraining (cohibere) sin” would be more properly expressed by φψψ; cf. Job 14:17; Hosea 13:2. The idea of “restraining,” moreover, has not been presented by a single one of the more ancient translators, not even by Theodotion. It is better, therefore, to read μְ ?λַ ?μֵּ ?ΰ with a majority of moderns, and to regard this as standing for μλַ ?μֵּ ?δ, expressive of the idea of completing or filling up. This view is also supported by the parallel εּ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ϊֵ ?ν, as it should be read, with the Keri and all the ancient versions, excepting that of Theodotion; cf. Daniel 8:23; Isaiah 16:4; Isaiah 33:1, etc. The “making full of sin,” i.e., of the measure of sin, is substantially identical with the finishing of the transgression, from which it differs only in expressing the idea more forcibly. The Kethib εְ ?μַ ?ηְ ?ϊּ ?ν (similarly Theodotion also: τοῦσφραγίσαιἁμαρτίας) is decisively rejected’ by the single fact that εְ ?ϊַּ ?μְ ?ην, “and to seal up,” is repeated in this passage, and in a sense that differs materially from what it would bear in the former half of the verse. It is certainly possible to refer (with Kranichfeld) to Daniel 6:18; Daniel 12:4; Deuteronomy 32:34; Job 9:7; Job 37:7, in support of this rendering, which would perhaps add to μִ ?λְ ?μֹ ?ΰ, “to seal up, to hinder,” the idea of a still more effective sealing up or of a more complete banishment. The sense of “filling up,” however, which is secured by Daniel 8:23, and by which the language of the whole verse gains a harmonious variety and multiformity, is far more likely to prove correct; and, in addition, the substitution of εμηϊν for εμδϊν in the preceding line would, in and of itself, be an exceedingly probable error on the part of a copyist, which might be easily comprehended.—To make reconciliation (rather “expiation”) for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness. These closely united members stand related to each other as antecedent and conclusion, or as a negative and a positive statement of the same fact. They form the central point of the acts of gracious blessing wrought by God, and both are introduced alike by the two infinitive clauses which precede, and appear to be conjoined and brought to a common conclusion by those which follow. According to this, three pairs of actions, or three double numbers, were designed in this verse, as Gesenius, Maurer, and Hitzig correctly observe; and for this reason the disjunctive accent seems less suitable after ςָ ?εֹ ?ο than it would have been after ηַ ?θָּ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ. The intimate collocation of λִּ ?τֵּ ?ψςָ ?εֹ ?ο with δָ ?αִ ?ιΰφֶ ?γֶ ?χςΧ is warranted, further, by the fact that, without doubt, God is regarded as the efficient cause of both these results, and particularly of the “expiation” (literally “covering over”) of sin; cf. Psalms 32:2; Psalms 65:4, etc.—Righteousness, which is a characteristic of the Messianic period in other prophecies also (cf. Isaiah 53:11; Jeremiah 33:15 et seq.; Mal. 3:20), is here described as “everlasting,” in harmony with the eternal character of Messiah’s kingdom (cf. Daniel 2:44; Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27; Isaiah 51:5-8). It is of course not to be limited to the sphere of a merely external (Levitical and theocratic) righteousness, as even Hitzig acknowledges, when he observes that external righteousness cannot be regarded as separate from internal in any case.—And to seal up vision and prophet (marg.), and to anoint the most holy (rather, “a holy of holies”). The relation between these final members of the whole series of Messianic results to be secured is that of the internal to the external, of the ethical to the ritual, or of religion to worship. Kranichfeld’s remark is incorrect, when he observes that the third pair in the gracious series occupies an inverse relation to the first, in view of its form, inasmuch as the latter proceeds from the antecedent to the consequent, while that method is here reversed (namely, the sealing of prophecy precedes the anointing of the most Holy). But Hitzig, Bleek, etc., are no less at fault, when they assume that the anointing of the most Holy is mentioned after the sealing of prophecy, and at the end of the entire series, because it had not been foretold by Jeremiah, while the other features had, directly or indirectly, formed the subject of the Messianic promises with that prophet. The opinion that the “sealing of vision and prophet” denotes specifically the confirmation of Jeremiah’s prophecy respecting the seventy years (as v. Lengerke, Wieseler, Kamphausen, etc., also hold) in chap. 25 and 29 is wholly untenable, since the terms ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο and πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ, without the article, evidently do not refer to any particular prophet or prophecy, but rather to the prophetic institution and its visions relating to the prospective salvation in general. The idea is, that everything in the form of prophetic visions and predictions which had been produced in the course of theocratic development from the time of Moses (πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ and ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο are collective and general; cf. Daniel 11:14) should receive “sealing,” i.e., Divine confirmation and recognition, in the form of actual fulfilment (cf. 1 Kings 21:8; Esther 8:8). Jeremiah’s prophecy cannot be intended, either exclusively, or even by way of pre-eminence (as Ewald thinks), because it does not mention the expiation of sin and the establishing of everlasting Messianic righteousness, which nevertheless are here particularly emphasized. The sense is clearly general, similar to that found in New-Test, passages like Acts 3:19; Acts 10:43; 2 Corinthians 1:20, etc.—The prospect of an “anointing of the most Holy,” which is presented at the close, or rather of a most Holy (χֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ χΧ, without the article) is evidently a solemn act of worship, which is substantially equivalent to the restoration of the theocratic worship as a whole. It is the anointing with oil or theocratic consecration of the sacrificial altar of the New Covenant, of the Messianic community of the redeemed, the pure sanctuary, which shall no more be profaned, that according to Daniel 8:14 (of. 7:35; Daniel 9:17), shall take the place of the desecrated and denied altar of the Old Dispensation. From Leviticus 8:11, comp. with Ezekiel 43:20; Ezekiel 43:26, where a consecration of the altar of burnt-offerings by means of an act of anointing is described (in Lev., l. c., with oil, in Ezek., l. c., with the blood of the sacrifice), and also from Exodus 29:37; Exodus 30:29; Exodus 40:10, where the sacrificial altar is expressly designated as the χָ ?γָ ?ωִׁ ?ινχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ, it is evident that the altar of sacrifice is here intended, instead of the holy of holies in the temple at large, or even the Messiah himself (sanctus sanctorum), as Syrus, the Vulgate, and others suppose.—The prophecy under consideration has been twice fulfilled,—at first externally and in a literal sense, by the actual restoration of the Old-Test, services in the temple with their bloody offerings of animals, which came to pass three years after they had been interrupted by Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maccabζan age (1Ma 4:54-59), and afterward in the anti-type by the historical introduction of the more perfect sanctuary and worship of the New Covenant, which were likewise foretold by the prophet Zechariah (Daniel 3:9) and whose sacrificial altar is Christ, having become such through the cross which he anointed and consecrated by his own exalted priestly sacrifice and blood.Daniel 9:25. Know therefore and understand. This exhortation is intended to introduce the more detailed explanation of the relation of the seventy year-weeks to the yet unexpired seventy years, and also to the subject of the earlier theocratic promises which follows. It directs the notice of both the hearer and the reader to the importance of the disclosures now to be made, and to the duty of subjecting them to serious and thoughtful consideration; cf. ὁἀναγινώσκωννοείτω, Matthew 24:15.—From the going forth of the commandment (or “word”) to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks; rather, “unto an anointed one, a prince,” etc. The expression ξζָ ?ΰγָ ?αָ ?ψ corresponds to γָ ?αָ ?ψιָ ?φָ ?ΰ at the beginning of the angel’s remarks, and therefore probably denotes the promulgation of a Divine decree rather than of a royal edict (as Dereser, Hδvernick, Weigl, etc., conceive with reference to the edict of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which commanded that the rebuilding of Jerusalem should be commenced). The latter idea would require that ξֶ ?μֵ ?κְ should be connected with γαψ, in order to its clear expression; and the observation of Hitzig is probably correct: “Gabriel could not speak so objectively, and with composure, of the decree of a heathen king that would imply his right to dispose of the holy city; such a decree would no more be a γָּ ?αָ ?ψ in the mind of a theocrat than the confederacy in Isaiah 8:12 would be a χֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ.”—Moreover, γαψ cannot denote a decree at all, but rather a prophetic statement, an oracle, which in this instance promises the restoration of Jerusalem. This Divine prediction concerning the rebuilding of the holy city cannot differ materially from the repeated prophecy by Jeremiah (chap. 25 and 29), which foretold the desolation of Jerusalem during seventy years, and the subsequent restoration of the exiles and punishment of their Chaldζan oppressors. Although the restoration of the theocracy, and especially the rebuilding of Jerusalem, are not expressly mentioned in the latter prophecies, these features are yet implicitly included in the prediction, Jeremiah 25:12 et seq., concerning the judicial visitation of the Chaldζans and the re-adoption of Israel; and in Jeremiah 29:10 the gracious visitation of the Jews is described directly as a restoration to their place, i.e., their country. It is not necessary, therefore, to seek for a prophecy by Jeremiah that predicts the rebuilding of Jerusalem in more literal and explicit terms. If such a passage be found in Jeremiah 30:18, or Jeremiah 31:38 (Hitzig, Ewald, Bleek, Kamphausen, etc.), it is nevertheless unnecessary to assume that Daniel here refers only to that prophecy (which was probably composed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 588, according to Jeremiah 31:5 et seq.). It is more probable that our prophet made no chronological distinction between Jeremiah 29 (a letter composed about B.C. 598) and the more extended prophecy in chap. 30 and 31 They (and also chap. 25) were probably regarded by him as belonging, upon the whole, to the same period and the same circle of prophecies, namely, that of the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah which covered eighteen to twenty years, beginning with the first conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, or B.C. 605, and ending with the destruction of the city in B. C. 588. His starting-point for the calculation of the seventy years thus naturally became uncertain and vacillating, and for that very reason became the inciting cause of the prophecy under consideration. See supra, on Daniel 9:2—It would conflict with the general usage to take λְֹ ?δָ ?ωִׁ ?ια in an adverbial sense and to connect it with the following verb, so as to obtain the sense “to build Jerusalem again,” since only ωׁ ?εּ ?α in the Kal is used to designate our “again” (rursus, iterum) in other places (and also here, in the latter half of the verse). Wieseler’s rendering, “to lead back,” i.e., the people, is opposed in part by the harshness of such an objective supplement, and partly by the impossibility of showing that this passage refers directly and exclusively back to Jeremiah 29:10, where μְ ?δָ ?ωִׁ ?ια certainly occurs in the sense of “to lead back.” The second half of the verse, moreover, refers only to a rebuilding of the city (ϊָּ ?ωׁ ?εּ ?αεּ ?πִ ?αְ ?πְ ?ϊָ ?δ), and not to a reductio populi exulis, which is decisive in favor of a restoration, i.e., of bringing back out of the state of desolation; cf. Ezekiel 16:55.—Who is designated by ξָ ?ωִׁ ?ιηַ πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, the “anointed one, the prince” (or, as it may be rendered with equal correctness, the “anointed prince;” cf. Ewald, Lehrb., p. 741), in the sense of the prophet? Certainly not the Messiah of Israel in an immediate and primary sense, as the Jewish and orthodox exegesis has generally held, down to the latest time. He would scarcely have been referred to as “an anointed prince” without the article; nor would Daniel have introduced Him after the brief interval contained in the first seven of the seventy year-weeks, since he always places the advent of the Messiah in the distant future, when the fourth and last world-kingdom shall fall—which is especially apparent in chapters 2 and 7. The reference is probably to a prince contemporary with Daniel and already well known, who was destined to exert a powerful influence in favor of the theocracy, and to fulfil the special Divine purpose relating to the Israel of that day (about forty-nine or fifty years after the destruction of Jerusalem)—hence, without doubt, to Cyrus, who is designated as Jehovah’s Mashiach in Isaiah 48:1 also. Cf. Kranichfeld, p. Dan 327: “Rather, the person referred to appears as a different prince, who has a theocratic dominion, and is endowed with the spirit of Jehovah for his calling; cf. 1 Samuel 16:13 et seq.; Daniel 10:1; Daniel 10:6 et seq. But since the special mention of the feature of anointing in the case of the ordinary, i.e., non-Messianic national kings who came in contact with Israel would be strange, it is proper to search for a heathen prince, who became prominent as the promoter of the theocracy, and especially so, because of his relation to the Messianic hopes before referred to. As such a one, and unique in this respect, the theocratic literature conceives of Koresh, the victor from the east who effected the return of Israel from the exile. He is expressly designated in Isaiah 45:1 as the Mashiach of Jehovah. He appears in the first year of the reign of Darius Medus over Babylon, therefore at the time of the vision, and was then at least the victorious leader of the armies of Darius. We are compelled to decide for him, in interpreting the ξωׁ ?ιηπβιγ of Daniel’s description. He was regarded as the executor of the will of Jehovah already referred to, agreeably to the description which immediately follows, and in harmony with the theoratic hopes which Israel based on him. Having realized other prophetic expectations, the author regarded him as the agent who should bring about the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem; and consequently, the writer expressly confirms these expectations, since he merely separates from them the direct Messianic idea, which he finds himself obliged to refer to a more distant future, in view of the course of political events.”—The “Mashiach Nagid,” accordingly, is in himself merely a type of the Messiah, corresponding to the person introduced in Isaiah 45, but is not Christ Himself (correctly rendered by Saad., Gaon., Bertholdt, Von Leng., Hitzig, Bleek, Kamph., etc., with the exception, however, that they generally reject the typical Messianic sense as well as the direct reference to Christ). This typical forerunner of Christ, the first restorer of the theocracy in the age of Daniel itself, is placed by the prophet at the close of the first cycle of seven Sabbatic years, and hence after the expiration of the first jubilee-period which had elapsed since the prophetic activity of Jeremiah, while he assigns sixty-two additional weeks of years (or nearly nine jubilee-periods) to the interval of tribulation that announced and prepared for the coming of the genuine antitypical Christ. Several expositors attempt to substantiate the direct Messianic interpretation of ξַ ?ωִׁ ?ιηַ πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, by placing the seven weeks referred to in this passage after the sixty-two weeks which follow (Von Hofmann, Wieseler in the Gφttinger Gelehrten-Anzeigen. 1846, Delitzsch, etc.), and thus “reckon the contents of the seventy backward;” but if Daniel had preferred this order he would certainly have noticed the sixty-two weeks first and the seven weeks afterwards, and, moreover, the one week in Daniel 9:27 cannot be suitably provided for. Finally, all that has been heretofore observed against the direct Messianic interpretation of that expression, militates against their view. Upon the whole, cf. the “history of the exposition” in appendix to exeget. remarks.—And three-score and two weeks; the street shall be built again, etc.; rather, “and (during) three-score and two weeks (it) shall return (or ‘be restored’) and be built.” This period of sixty-two weeks, the “result of subtracting the significant seven at the beginning, and of one to be reserved for the end,” covers the time during which the heathen world-kingdoms succeed each other, down to the fourth and most godless power, which is to attempt to entirely suppress the Divine kingdom of the Old Covenant that had mean while been perfectly restored, although with much labor, but which by that very effort secured its own destruction through the Messianic judgment (cf. Daniel 8:11 et seq.; 23 et seq., and the preceding parallels). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 4. The prophet’s last vision, containing the most thorough description of the future sufferings of Israel, and of its ultimate Messianic exaltation.Chapters 10–12.a. The appearance of the angel on the banks of the Tigris, as preparatory to the subsequent prophecies and introductory to them.Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 11:1.1In the third year of [to] Cyrus king of Persia, a thing [word] was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [word] was true [truth], but [and] the time appointed [warfare] was long [great]: and he understood the thing [word], and had understanding of [in] the vision [appearance.] 2In those days I Daniel was “mourning three full weeks. I ate no pleasant 3 bread, neither came flesh nor wine in [to] my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all till three whole weeks were fulfilled. 4 And in the four and twentieth day of [to] the first month, as [and] I was by 5 [upon] the side of the great river, which [it] is Hiddekel, then [and] I lifted up mine eyes, and looked [saw], and, behold, a certain [one] man clothed in 5 linen [linens], whose [and his] loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; his body also [and his body] was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in colour to [the aspect of] polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. 7And I Daniel alone saw the vision [appearance]; for [and] the men that were with me saw not the vision [appearance]; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that [and] they fled to hide [in hiding] themselves. 8Therefore [And] I was left alone, and saw this great vision [appearance], and there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was turned in [upon] me 9 into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet [And] heard I the voice of his words: and when [as] I heard the voice of his words, then [and] was I in a deep 10 sleep [stupified] on my face, and my face toward the ground [earth]. And, behold, a hand touched me, which [and] set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands. 11And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand [have understanding in] the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken [at his speaking] this word unto [with] me, I stood trembling. 12 Then [And] said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set [give] thy heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy 13 God, thy words were heard, and I am [have] come for [at] thy words. But [And] the prince of the kindom of Persia withstood [was standing in front of] me one and twenty days: but [and], lo, Michael, one of the chief [first] princes, came 14 to help me; and I remained there with [beside] the kings of Persia. Now [And] I am [have] come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter [sequel of the] days: for yet the vision is for many days. 15And when he had spoken [in his speaking] such like [like these] words unto [with] me, I set [gave] my face toward the ground [earth], and I became dumb. 16 And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men [man] touched [touching upon] my lips: then [and] I opened my mouth and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision [appearance] my sorrows 17 are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength. For [And] how can the servant of this my lord talk [speak] with this my lord? for [and] as for me [I], straightway there remained [would stand], no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me. 18Then [And] there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, 19and said, O man greatly beloved, fear not; peace be unto thee; be strong, yea [and], be strong. And when he had spoken unto [in his speaking with] me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me. 20Then [And] said he, Knowest thou wherefore I [have] come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, 21 [then lo, the prince of Grζcia shall [has] come. But I will show [tell] thee that which is noted [recorded] in the scripture of truth: and there is none that 1 holdeth with me in [upon] these things, but Michael your prince. Also [And] I, in the first year of [to] Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. REMARKS Concerning the final vision of Daniel (chap. 10–12) as a wholeThe last section of the prophetically visional part of this book falls into three clearly defined subdivisions of unequal length, and was therefore not inappropriately treated by the person who divided the Holy Scriptures into chapters. It is not only the most comprehensive, but, because of its form and contents, also the most remarkable and difficult among the prophetic portions of the book. Having been composed later than the three preceding visions, namely subsequent to the captivity and when the return of the exiles had already begun (see on Daniel 10:1), it supplements their contents, and develops them still farther—especially those of the second vision (chap. 8) and of the third (chap. 9). The development of the fourth and last world-power to the stage of anti-Christianity, which was described with special interest in those two chapters, is now illustrated more fully than in any former instance, and at the same time, the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God over that and all other opposing powers is brought into a clearer light and portrayed in more glowing colors than heretofore. The relation of the section to chap. 7 as serving to complement and still farther develop its subject, becomes especially prominent in this bright closing scene; while the prophecy is in so far complementary to chapters 8 and 9 as it describes the development of the anti-Ohristian world-power in predictions distinguished by a greater fulness of detail—to say nothing of the similarity between its preparatory scenery and that of chap. 8 and also of Dan 9:20-23. The section serves to complete the visions of chap. 8 by describing more exactly the hostile relations in which the various constituent sections of the fourth world-power stood to each other, as already symbolically indicated in Daniel 8:22 et seq.; and particularly by showing how the holy land, which lay between the contending sections of the divided empire, in some cases was drawn indirectly into suffering, and in others was made the object of direct attack. In like manner this vision becomes complementary to that in chap. 9 since it fills the outline of the sixty-two weeks and also of the one final week of tribulation [?], which were but briefly referred to in that chapter, with a wealth of contents, that displays a growing animation and interest as the description draws near to the close of the sixty-second and the beginning of the last week. In tracing the particular manner of the development of the anti-Christian power out of the fourth and last world-monarchy, there seems to have been the occasional intervention of a later hand, which drew the prophecy with sharper lines and adapted it more fully to the subsequent facts connected with its historical fulfilment, than had been done in the general outline which was revealed to the prophet. The statements in Daniel 10:5 et seq., concerning the geographical position of the two most powerful sections of the great divided Javanic world-empire, and also concerning the direction taken by the various expeditions for conquest which their rulers organized, the repeated attempts to unite the contending dynasties by means of matrimonial alliances, the insurrections and treasonable plots against individual sovereigns, etc., can hardly be regarded otherwise than as interpolations on the part of a pious Jewish apocalyptist of the Maccabζan age, although it may be impossible at this day to venture a definite estimate respecting the proportion of the whole section Daniel 11:5-45 that originated with Daniel, or as to how much is to be credited to the subsequent reviser (see the exeget. remarks on the several passages, particularly on Daniel 10:5-6; Daniel 10:8; Daniel 10:14; Daniel 10:17-18, 25, 27, etc., and pre-eminently on Daniel 10:40 et seq.; and cf. supra, Introd. § 1, note 2, and § 4). While, for reasons that have been given (cf. Introd. § 4, note 1), we decidedly reject the hypothesis that the entire section Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 12:13, excepting only the first four verses of chap. 12, is spurious, we regard the theory that chap. 11 has been interpolated as above suggested, as necessary, chiefly because details characterized by such unusual precision as is found in that chapter, seem to conflict with the nature of genuine and healthful prophecy, and with the analogy of all the remaining prophecies in the history of Old-Test. Revelation 4 We are entirely agreed with Kranichfeld (p. 340 et seq.) in holding that the nature or the “self-evident canon” of prophecy requires “that the prediction should not usurp the place of historical development itself, i.e., that it should not adduce such future dates, as cannot be connected with the time of the prophetic originator, as the unfolding of a religious or moral idea animated by the operations of God—although in other respects a particularizing description may offer any amount of detailed representations in illustration, limited only by the confines established by that canon.” We cannot, however, agree with him in believing that the entire vision before us, and especially that part contained in chap. 11, must be regarded “by that canon” simply as a developing of the ideas contained elsewhere in the book. The many surprising details of that chapter do not appear to an unbiassed mind as the mere development of former thoughts, but rather as concrete statements respecting the political and family history of the Seleucidζ and the Ptolemies, such as no other Old-Test. prophet would have attempted to furnish, even approximately, and such as conflict with the spirit of Old-Test. prophecy in general. We are certainly not compelled by any merely subjective reason to assume an interpolation of the text of Daniel in this place, after having rejected that theory in every other instance. The only reason which prevents us from defending the genuineness of this closing section is based on the analogy of all the balance of O.-T. prophecy, which in no case affords a similar example of specific and detailed description of the future (cf. Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, p. 105 et seq.; Die Grenzen einer Prδdiktion—an investigation, however, which seems to require a more strict apprehension). The whole section divides itself, as has already been observed, into three parts, the first of which describes the general circumstances that conditioned the new vision, and also the introductory features of the vision itself (consisting in the appearance of a mighty angel, which at first excited the prophet’s alarm and terror, but subsequently exercised a comforting and exalting influence over him), Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 11:1. The special description of the future having been thus introduced is taken up by the second part and carried forward from the unfolding of the Persian world-empire, then upon the stage, to the highest point of conceited power developed by the antitheistic tyrant who ultimately sprang from the Javanic world-monarchy, and who became the antichrist of the Old Testament (Daniel 11:2-45). Finally, the third part describes the triumph, the deliverance, and the exaltation of God’s people in the Messianic period, and, if it does not certify the nearness of that ζra of ultimate prosperity, it yet conveys the assurance that its approach is determined by immutable measurements and conditions fixed by God (Daniel 12:1-13).—The exorbitant length of the intermediate part, exceeding, as it does, the aggregate of the others nearly two-fold, might be adduced as an additional and highly probable evidence of its interpolation, as suggested above. REMARKSDan_10:1. The time and significance of the vision. In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia—therefore B. C. 536 or 535 [probably, 534], later than any other date in the book (cf. on Daniel 1:21). It is significant and instructive, as bearing on the subject and design of the vision, which dwells with special interest on the aspect of affairs subsequent to the Persian dominion, that when it was imparted to Daniel, he had already lived under Medo-Persian rule during several years. Cf. Kranichfeld, p. Dan 340: “After a series of prophetic announcements by Daniel had received a genuine prophetic fulfilment during the time of the exile itself, and, on the one hand the newly confirmed return of the exiles had been but lately realized, while on the other, the φεֹ ?σδָ ?ςִ ?ϊִּ ?ιν, which had been predicted instead of the Messianic glory, was feelingly demonstrated, e.g., by the disputes with the Samaritans, by the interruption of the building of the temple (cf. Ezra 3:8 with Daniel 4:8), and, above all, by the continued aversion of the supreme Persian powers (cf. Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20), it now became the interest of the seer to devote special attention to the last heathen empire of the earth, the only one remaining to be demonstrated, and to present theocratically this last characteristic picture of hostility, in colors that would constantly impress its nature, and in such detail as the confidence springing from the unvarying success of the past would justify. Thoroughly convinced as he was, on the ground of his own observation and of the teaching of earlier prophecy that the Javanic west would eventually displace the east in the dominion of the world, and that at the same time the ultimate form of heathen government would appear in connection with the former, he would naturally not regard the transient Persian empire, which had indeed been adequately characterized at its very beginning, as the ΰַ ?ηְַ ?ψִ ?ιϊηַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν (cf. Daniel 10:14; Daniel 2:28; Daniel 8:19) upon which prophecy elsewhere dwells by preference, but would rather consider the final form of heathen power over the theocracy in that light.”—Hitzig inquires “Why Daniel was still at Babylon in the third year of Cyrus? Why so pious a theocrat, and so devoted a lover of Jerusalem and the holy land, had not returned thither? Why he should seem to place himself among the despisers of the holy mountain and among the apostates (Isaiah 65:11; Isaiah 66:5), by disregarding the exhortations of Isaiah 2 to return (Isa. 4:20; 52:11 et seq.)?”—to all of which the simple answer is, that while ranking as a highly esteemed and influential officer of the state, even under Persian rule (cf. 6:29), he must have been persuaded that he would be able to render his nation more important service with regard to the rebuilding of their city and temple, were he to remain behind to represent them at the court, than he possibly could were he to accompany them on their return to Judζa. As a secondary consideration his somewhat advanced, age may have influenced his decision (despite Ezra 3:12), cf. Hδvernick on the passage.—Unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar. Cf. Daniel 1:7; Daniel 2:26; Daniel 4:5; Daniel 5:12. Both names are given in this place, for the reason, probably, that the two-fold relation which the prophet occupied (being connected with the Old-Test people of God, and also filling an official station at the court of the world-kingdom) and which is thus indicated, constituted the feature by which he was enabled “to view the history of the conflict of Israel with the world-power, and to record for the benefit of his people what might be expected from the latter” (Fόller).—And the thing was true; or, “and the word is truth,” i.e., the word of God which was revealed to the prophet, and which, unlike the words of so many false prophets of that time (Jeremiah 29:8 et seq., 15), is not a lying and deceptive word, but truth, that is worthy of credit and shall surely come to pass; cf. 2 Samuel 7:28; 1 Kings 8:26; also below, Daniel 10:21; Daniel 11:2; Daniel 12:7.—But the time appointed was long; rather, “and great tribulation,” supply, “formed its subject” φָ ?αָ ?ΰβָ ?γεֹ ?μ is an additional predicate of δַ ?γָּ ?λָ ?ψ (cf. Genesis 11:1; Isaiah 7:24; Jeremiah 26:2). Maurer renders it correctly: “φΧβ oraculum vocatur ab argumento,” and also de Wette: “and refers to great wretchedness.” φָ ?αָ ?ΰ here denotes “warfare, oppression, trouble,” exactly as in Isaiah 4:2; not “bravery, might” (Vulg., Syr.), nor “exertion,” as if the great effort put forth by the prophet while receiving the revelation were alluded to (Hδvern.), and least of all, “ministering,” as Ewald strangely conceived, referring to the numerous angels whom he regarded as being engaged in this new revelation with industrious energy and care (!).—And he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision; rather, “observed the word, and gave attention to the vision.” αִּ ?ιο is not an imperative (v. Lengerke, Ewald), but an infinitive with a perfect signification. The construction with an accusative of the object is similar to that in Daniel 9:2; cf. Daniel 12:8. The following αִּ ?ιπָ ?δ, although milel, is not an imperative (as v. Lengerke supposes, but a noun, which has the accent here on the first syllable, because of the accented λֹ ?εִ that immediately follows; cf. Ezekiel 19:14. The probable design of the statement that Daniel gave careful heed to what was revealed was to emphasize the highly significant and profoundly important subject of the vision from the outset, and also to give assurance of the credibility of the prophet’s narrative. Daniel 10:2-3. The frame of mind of Daniel and his outward deportment while receiving the revelation. Daniel 10:2. In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks. The tidings respecting the discouraging state of affairs among the Jews, who had returned to the holy land, which may have reached Daniel about this time, may be regarded as the probable cause of his sadness. An especial cause of grief to him probably lay in the fact, that as the intervention of the Samaritans had interrupted the building of the temple since the second year after the return of the exiles (Ezra 4:4 et seq.; cf. Daniel 3:8), the latter were prevented from observing the Passover in a lawful manner. His attention would be especially directed to that fact, since according to Daniel 10:4, the period of three weeks spent by him in mourning and fasting was included in the very month of the feast of the Passover, so as to precede the date fixed for the beginning of that feast (which continued from the 14th to the 21st Nisan, the “first month” of the Jewish year) by twelve days, and to extend three days beyond its close—to the 24th Nisan.—ωָׁ ?αֻ ?ςִ ?ινψָ ?ξִ ?ιν. The addition ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν, which is designed to indicate the full or enumerated measure of the weeks (cf. our “three full weeks”), is hardly intended to contrast with the weeks of years which are implied in chap. 9; for the contrary cf. Genesis 29:14; Genesis 41:1; Numbers 11:20 et seq.; Jeremiah 26:3; Jeremiah 26:11, etc.—I ate no pleasant bread. μֶ ?ηֶ ?νηֲ ?ξֻ ?γεֹ ?ϊ, “bread of pleasures, of desires,” is doubtless a contrast to the “bread of affliction,” Deuteronomy 16:3, i.e., to the unleavened bread which was eaten during the Passover. Hence, the first expression of his grief mentioned by Daniel is that he abstained from the use of leavened bread, or from eating the μΧςֳ ?πִ ?ι or ξַ ?φּ ?εֹ ?ϊ. Luther’s rendering, “I ate no dainty food,” is therefore mistaken and inexact; and also Bertholdt’s, “I abstained even from the use of bread.”—Neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth. A genuine fast, in which all dainty, attractive, or luxurious viands were avoided; cf. Genesis 27:25; 2 Samuel 12:20; Isaiah 22:13, etc.—Neither did I anoint myself; another characteristic indication of a sorrowful disposition, cf. Ecclesiastes 9:8; Psalms 23:5; Isaiah 61:3, etc.—Hitzig’s view is substantially correct: “The design of his mourning was not to support prayer and intercession as in chap. 9 (for which reason it does not assume its appropriate garb, cf. Psalms 35:18; Psalms 35:14), but rather to prepare to receive a revelation. However, the writer by no means entertains the opinion that asceticism could secure or compel a revelation; for in that case the means employed would have been increased, particularly as the vision was delayed. Daniel rather confines himself to abstinence from worldly enjoyment, in order to maintain the serious frame of mind in which the desired revelation should be received, and which is the only one that may hope to be blessed with a revelation.” Daniel 10:4-7. Designation of the special time and place. Description of the appearance of the angel who conveys the revelation. And in the four and twentieth day of the first month. Since, according to Esther 3:7, the “first month” was Nisan (cf. also 1Ma 7:49; 1Ma 9:3), and since by Daniel 10:12-13, the mourning and fasting of Daniel began precisely twenty-one days before the present date—therefore on the third Nisan,—the special reason why he commenced such exercises on that particular day may probably be found in the fact that the 1James , 2 d Nisan were still observed, at the period of the captivity, as they were already in the time of Saul and David, as the festival of the New-year or of the first new moon in the year; and it was of course unsuitable for him to fast while that joyous festival continued (cf. 1 Samuel 20:18, et seq.; 27:34, with 2:19, 6:29).—I was by the side of the great river, which is Hiddekel. It cannot be easily determined whether he was there in vision merely, as in the similar case, Daniel 8:2 (see on that passage), or likewise in body. The latter opinion (Hδvern., v. Leng., Maurer, Hitzig, Kliefoth, Fόller) appears to be preferable, in view of the subsequent mention of Daniel’s companions on the bank of the river.—Concerning ηִ ?γֶּ ?χֶ ?μ, i.e., probably, the “swift, tearing” (from ηγχ), as the Scriptural designation of the Tigris, cf. Gesen.-Dietrich, s. v., and also the expositors of Gen 2:14. The latter passage, moreover, clearly asserts the distinction between the Hiddekel and the Euphrates, which is observed throughout the Old-Test. generally, and thereby demonstrates the mistake of Syrus, who regards the ηִ ?γּ ?Χ in this place as denoting the Euphrates. Daniel 10:5. Then I lifted up mine eyes and looked, etc., exactly as in the vision on the banks of the Eulζus, Daniel 8:3.—And behold a man clothed in linen. The description begins with his clothing, hence proceeds from without inward (contrary to the method of, e.g., Matthew 17:2; Matthew 28:3). White linen (αַּ ?γִּ ?ιν, from αַּ ?γ, cf. Ezekiel 9:2) was the garb of priests, especially of the high-priests (cf. Leviticus 16:4; Leviticus 16:23; Leviticus 6:3 with Isaiah 43:28), and therefore symbolizes holiness; the addition of golden ornaments denotes princely rank. The person here described was therefore at all events a ωַׂ ?ψχֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ (cf. Isaiah 43:28) or holy angelic prince, and more particularly, was identical with the “man’s voice between the Ulai,” Daniel 8:16, which directed Gabriel to interpret the vision for Daniel in that place, since according to Daniel 12:6, he hovered over the river. It was shown on the former passage, that the angel who uttered that command need not necessarily have been superior to Gabriel, but that he may have belonged, as well as the latter, to the class of archangels or ωָׂ ?ψִ ?ιν; and he may be regarded as the compeer of Michael as well, despite Daniel 10:13, where he refers to the aid he received from the latter against the prince of Persia. Hence, he was a third angel-prince besides Gabriel and Michael, whose name, however, is not given; and it is therefore vain to search for the specific name he bore. Hofmann, Auberlen and Fόller conceive of this angelic prince as being the power of nature which operates for the kingdom of God in the entire heathen world, or as the good principle in the world-power, which is identical with the κατέχων, 2 Thessalonians 2:6; but they fail to establish exegetically, and in an adequate manner this identity, as well as the character ascribed to the angel. Concerning the modicum of truth which may nevertheless underlie this opinion, see Eth.-fund. principles, etc., No. 1.—The identity of this angel with Michael, which Kranichfeld assumes, is opposed by the manner in which Michael is represented as not being present, in Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21. It is more probable that he was identical with Gabriel (Ewald et al.); but the appearance of the latter on his entrance in chap. 8 is described in different terms, and, moreover, the name of Gabriel is not expressly mentioned; cf. infra, on Daniel 10:13.—Whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; i.e., with the finest and most valuable gold; cf. Psalms 45:8, “gold of Ophir.” The identity of ΰεּ ?τָ ?ζ and ΰεֹ ?τִ ?ιψ, which is assumed by, e.g., the Vulg., Chald., and Syr. (but not by Theodot.), is opposed by the different form of the name, and by the impossibility of transforming ψ into ζ. The country here referred to (and in Jeremiah 12:8) was probably a region in the south or east, and perhaps adjoining to Ophir, which abounded in gold, and like the latter, constituted a principal source from whence the people of hither Asia derived their precious metals in ancient times. The theory which seems best recommended is that of Hitzig, who combines the Sancr. name vipβcβ = Hyphasis, with the supposition based on that etymology, that the country derived its name from a colony which came to Arabia Felix from the river Hyphasis in India. Cf. Nδgelsbach on Jer., l. c., concerning this question. Daniel 10:6. His body also was like the beryl, or “crysolite,” hence having the golden lustre of topaz or amber, which shone through his garb of white linen. With regard to ϊַּ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ψωׁ ?—whose primary signification was doubtless “the sea” (= Sanscr. tarisha), and which afterward became the name of the celebrated colony of Ph�nician merchants located in Spain near the Mediterranean sea, and still later was employed to designate the precious stone brought from thence, which the Sept. and Josephus term the χρυσόλιθος with probable correctness—see Hitzig on Ezekiel 1:16; Gesen.-Dietrich in the Handwφrterbuch; and also my observation on Son 5:14.—And his face as the appearance of lightning; cf. Ezekiel 1:13; Matthew 28:3. On the comparison of his eyes with lamps of fire cf. Revelation 1:14, which passage is wholly imitated from the one before us.—And his arms and feet like in colour to polished brass; rather, “arms and feet like the gleam of glowing brass.” ξַ ?ψְ ?βְּ ?μψֹ ?ϊ, which primarily denotes the “place of the feet,” is here synonymous with ψַ ?βְ ?μִ ?ιν, “feet,” as appears from the mention of ζְ ?ψֹ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ, “arms,” in the same connection; for why, if the arms glowed like brass, should the place only of the feet present the same appearance and not rather the feet themselves? (against Kranichfeld, etc.). —χָ ?μָ ?μ, the attribute of πְ ?ηׄ ?ωֶׁ ?ν, together with λְּ ?ςֵ ?ιο (cf. Numbers 11:7), is taken from Ezekiel 1:7. It denotes brass in a glowing and liquid or molten state (χָ ?μָ ?μ, a fuller form of the more usual χμ, light, swiftly moving, volubilis), not merely “shining or gleaming” brass (Ewald, etc.), nor yet “brass of the smelting furnace,” as Hitzig assumes, putting entirely too artificial a sense on the idea. Cf., however, the parallel Revelation 1:15, οἱπόδεςαὐτοῦὅμοιοιχαλχολιβάνῳὡςἐνκαμίνῳπεπυρομένῳ.—And the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude, or “of a roaring.” χεֹ ?μδָ ?ξεֹ ?ο primarily signifies the “voice (sound) of a roaring,” and may denote the roaring of the sea, of the stormy waves of the ocean, or of a great multitude of people (Theod., Vulg., Syr., and also moderns, e.g., Kranichfeld, Fόller, etc.). The parallels, Ezekiel 1:24 (ψαִּ ?ινλְּ ?χεֹ ?μξַ ?ιִ ?ν); Ezekiel 43:2; Isaiah 17:12; Revelation 1:15, determine in favor of the former interpretation. The terrified prophet does not at first recognize what the speaker says in so dreadful a voice, either here or in Daniel 10:9. Cf. the analogous circumstance in Daniel 8:13 a. Daniel 10:7. The men that were with me saw not the vision; a feature similar to that connected with the conversion of St. Paul, Acts 9:7; Acts 22:11. It is impossible to determine who the prophet’s companions were; they may as well have been the servants of the highly esteemed “prince” Daniel (Daniel 6:21), as associates of a different rank.—But a great quaking fell upon them; evidently because they heard the dreadful sound of the roaring, although they saw nothing; cf. Genesis 3:8; Amos 3:6; Acts 9:7. —They fled to hide themselves; rather, “they fled hiding themselves.” αְּ ?δֵ ?ηָ ?λֵ ?ΰ, properly, “while hiding themselves,” a periphrase of the gerund; cf. Gesenius, Thesaur., p. 175 a. The infinitive with μ would have expressed the somewhat different idea, “they fled to hide themselves;” cf. 1 Kings 22:25; 2 Kings 19:11. Daniel 10:8-11. The impression made on Daniel by the appearance of the angel. His temporary stupor, and subsequent and gradual restoration. I …. saw this great vision. The same language is used with reference to the appearance of the Lord in the burning bush to Moses, Exodus 3:3.—My comeliness was turned in me into corruption; rather, “the color of my face was changed into disfigurement for me.” Literally, “and my brightness,” etc. (thus Ewald et al). δεֹ ?γ, “brightness, freshness of color,” here corresponds to the Chald. ζִ ?ιε, Daniel 5:6; Daniel 5:9; Daniel 7:28. ςָ ?μַ ?ι “on me,” seems to be a Chaldaism employed as a periphrase for the dative, and therefore to be equivalent to ΰֵ ?μַ ?ι (unlike Daniel 10:16). It is hardly to be separated from the verb and to be immediately connected with δεֹ ?γִ ?ι, thus periphrasing the genitive (against Hitzig).—μְ ?ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιּ ?ϊ, properly, “to destruction;” cf. 2 Chronicles 20:23. The following context indicates the nature of this destruction or disfigurement, by stating that the loss of color was joined to faintness and a total loss of strength. Daniel 10:9. Then was I in a deep sleep on my face, i.e., in a stupefied state, during which a total loss of his senses and of consciousness was depicted on his countenance.—And my face (sank) toward the ground; i. e., the loss of consciousness was not momentary, but was protracted during some time, and brought him to the ground on his face. With a strange arbitrariness Hitzig finds “an attention to trivial details that border closely on the comical” in the statement that the face was toward the ground; as if the frequent expression ΰַ ?ψְ ?φָ ?δΰַ ?τַּ ?ιִ ?ν (Genesis 19:1; Genesis 42:6) or εַ ?ιִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ηεּ ΰַ ?ψְ ?φָ ?δ (Genesis 33:3, etc.) did not likewise indicate the apparently general use of ΰַ ?ψְ ?φָ ?δ in this sense! On the subject cf. Daniel 8:17. Daniel 10:10. And behold, a hand touched me. The stunned prophet is not able to say whose hand it was; but the tenor of the entire representation shows, beyond the reach of doubt, that it was the hand of the same person who had hitherto been in his presence (cf. Daniel 8:18; Ezekiel 2:9). Kranichfeld (see above, on Daniel 10:5) is therefore in error when, after having assumed that the angel described above was Michael, he regards the one who now appears and henceforth addresses Daniel as being Gabriel (as do Hδvernick, Hengstenberg, etc.). Such a multiplication of persons is unnecessary, and is opposed by the total silence of the author with regard to the names of the appearance here introduced. Maurer, Hitzig, 5 Hofmann, Fόller, Kliefoth, etc., correctly hold to the identity of the angel who touches Daniel with the one introduced in Daniel 10:5.—Set me (rather “shook me”) upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands; a constr. pr�gnans, for “shook me and helped me,” etc. The couching position which he accordingly assumed at first is the natural posture of one who is stunned and overwhelmed with awe in the presence of a superior being. Daniel 10:11. O Daniel, a man greatly beloved. See on Daniel 9:23.—For unto thee am I now sent; namely, sent at this precise moment, as the servant of God and the bearer of a message of blessing and comfort. The angel designs by this encouraging address not merely to induce Daniel to arise to an erect position, but also to fix his attention on the words about to be spoken. —I stood trembling—in fearful expectation of the things to which he should listen; cf. Ezra 10:9. Daniel 10:12-14. The angel’s statement respecting the design of his coming and the reason of his delay to that time. Cf. Daniel 9:23. —For from the first day (therefore from the third Nisan, according to Daniel 10:4) that thou didst set thine heart; properly “gavest thy heart;” cf. Ecclesiastes 1:13; Ecclesiastes 1:17.—To understand, and to chasten (or “humble”) thyself before God. Daniel 10:14 a states what Daniel desired to understand, viz.: the future experiences of his people. He sought to obtain the knowledge of this by humbling himself before God in fasting, etc. Consequently μְ ?δָ ?λִ ?ιοεּ ?μְ ?δִ ?ϊְ ?ςַ ?πּ ?εֹ ?ϊεβεΧ may be considered a hendiadys, to the extent to which the implied verbal idea is co-ordinated.—And I am come for thy words, i.e., in consequence of the words of thy prayer to which reference has just been made. On λִּ ?γְ ?λָ ?ψֶ ?ικָ, “according to thy words,” cf. for instance, Esther 1:12; Esther 3:15; Esther 8:14; 1 Kings 13:1, etc. The perfect αָּ ?ΰϊִ ?ι, “I have come,” denotes that the coming of the angel, which had already been determined on at the beginning of the prophet’s prayer, had only then become an accomplished fact. The delay in his coming, which was caused by the interference of a hostile angelic power, is accounted for in the following verse. Daniel 10:13. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days. ωַׁ ?ψξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊτָּ ?ψַ ?ρ. Jerome observes correctly, although upon a possibly inadequate exegetical foundation: “Videtur mihi hic esse angelus, cui Persis credita est, juxta illud quod in Deuteronomio (Deuteronomy 32:8, lxx) legimus: ‘Quando dividebat Altissimus gentes it disseminabat filios Adam, statuit terminos genitium juxta numeiurn angelorum Dei.’ Isti sunt principes, de quibus paulus apostolus loquitur: ‘Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos, quam nullus principum s�culi hujus cognovit; si enim cognovissent, nunquam Dominum gloriζ crucifixissent.’ Restitit autem princeps, i.e., angelus Persarum, facians pro credita sibi provincia, ne captivorum omnis populus dimitteretur.” This interpretation is supported, and that of Calvin, Havernick, Kranichfeld, et al. which takes ωַׂ ?ψ in the sense of “king, earthly and human sovereign,” is opposed by the following considerations: (1) in Daniel 11:5, where ωַׂ ?ψ is unquestionably employed in the latter sense, the connection is entirely different from the character of the present passage, where the δַ ?ωִׂ ?ψִ ?ιν which immediately follows obviously denotes angelic princes; (2) the Persian kings, on the other hand, are termed ξַ ?μְ ?λֵ ?ιτָּ ?ψַ ?ρ at the end of the verse; (3) the idea of an angel’s conflict with a human king seems very inappropriate; (4) the angel Michael was Israel’s “prince,” i.e., guardian angel, according to Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1; and corresponding to this, the prince of Persia who is here noticed, and the prince of Grζcia mentioned in Daniel 10:20, were, without doubt, the angels of Persia and Javan respectively; (5) the idea of guardian angels over entire realms, whether friendly or hostile in their disposition toward the theocracy, is attested by various Old-Test. parallels, particularly by Isaiah 24:21 (see Knobel on that passage); Isaiah 46:2; Jeremiah 46:25; Jeremiah 49:3 (where the gods of heathen nations take the place of the guardian angels); Deuteronomy 32:8; and Psa. 96:4, 70; also Bar 4:7 and Sir 17:17 (where ήγούμενος seems to designate an angel prince, exactly like ωַׂ ?ψ in this passage),—to say nothing of New-Test, passages, such as 1 Corinthians 8:5; 1 Corinthians 10:20 et seq.—The withstanding or resisting during twenty-one days is obviously to be understood sensu hostili (μְ ?πֶ ?βֶ ?γ, as in Proverbs 21:30; cf. 2 Samuel 18:13), without, however, involving the idea that the Persian court, or any earthly locality whatever, was the scene of such opposition or warfare (as, e.g., Fόller assumes). That adversari may more probably have taken place in super-mundane regions; and that this was the case seems to have been attested by parallels like 1 Kings 22:19 et seq.; Job 1:6; Job 2:1 et seq.; Luke 10:18; Luke 22:31. Hofmann (Schriftbew., I. 286 et seq.) and Fόller hold that “the prince of the kingdom of Persia” does not denote an actual guardian angel of that realm, but any evil spirit whatever, who may have sought to exert an influence on the decisions of the Persian king, while on the contrary the angel who appeared to Daniel sought to counteract that influence by his own, as being more beneficial to Israel; but this opinion is altogether too artificial, because it supposes two spiritual powers—the one good and the other evil—in every case (a “court-angel” and a “royal court-devil,” in the language of Starke), as exerting influence over the ruler of a kingdom. Moreover, the idea of the spirit ruling at a court, as being either good or bad, either peaceful or warlike, has too modern an aspect, and is foreign to the modes of conception that were current among the ancient Orientals. The strongest argument against this opinion, however, consists in the consideration that the title ωַׂ ?ψξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊτָּ ?ψַ ?ρ, and farther on, the appellations ωַׁ ?ψιָ ?εָ ?ο and ωַׂ ?ψλֶ ?ν (Michael, the prince of Israel; Daniel 10:21, cf. Daniel 10:20), imply a more intimate connection, a much closer and more constant relation between the angel and the corresponding nation than is involved in a merely temporary influence over the governmental policy of any particular ruler. A spirit who may have exercised a temporary control over the decisions of one or more Persian kings could not on that account simply be designated the τָּ ?ψַ ?ρωַׂ ?ψ, The angel who is thus entitled must be considered the constant patron of the Persian nation and state, as much so as Michael was the constant patron of Israel, having been known as such in the age of Joshua (Joshua 5:13) as well as in that of Daniel, and still later, in that of the New-Test, apocalyptist (Revelation 12:7; Judges 1:9). For additional thoughts on the subject see on Daniel 10:20-21, and the Eth. fund, principles.—And lo, Michael, one of the chief princes; properly, “one of the first” (δָ ?ψִ ?ΰωֹׁ ?πִ ?ιν), i.e., of the most eminent; cf. 1 Chronicles 18:17, and also δַ ?ωַּׂ ?ψηַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, Daniel 12:1. The name Michael, “quis sicut Deus” (cf., e.g., Exodus 15:11; Psalms 89:7), and also the name of Isaiah’s prophetic contemporary ξִ ?ιλָ ?δ (=ξִ ?ιλַ ?ιָּ ?δּ) is, according to Haneberg’s correct observation (in Reusch’s Theol. Literaturbl, 1867, No. 3, p. 72), “a name that sounds like a decided monotheistic protest against every undue exaltation of the angelic dignity.” It expresses still more strongly than the similar name of Gabriel (cf. on Daniel 8:16), the idea of God’s incomparable and assisting power, as whose instrument the angelic being who bears this name must be regarded (Kranichfeld). His “coming to help” is probably to be conceived of as an armed intervention, and supported by celestial hosts, as is suggested by the preceding warlike phrase ςֹ ?ξֵ ?γμְ ?πֶ ?βְ ?γִּ ?ι, and as the term μְ ?δִ ?μָּ ?ηֶ ?ν in Daniel 10:20 indicates still more clearly. Michael must be conceived of in this place as battling at the head of an angelic host, as in Joshua 5:14 and Revelation 12:7; cf. also Genesis 32:2; 2 Kings 6:17, and other references to hosts of celestial angels. How little this belligerent attitude of Michael comports with the view of Hofmann and Fόller, that the speaker was a special “good spirit of the heathen world-power,” whose battle with the prince of Persia was fought in the circles of the Persian court, will be apparent at once. Concerning the theory of the older exegetes and also of Hδvernick, which directly identifies Michael with Christ, see Eth. fund principles, No. 1, and also on Daniel 12:1.—And I remained there with the kings of Persia; rather, “and I became superfluous there,” etc., namely, because another who was still more powerful than I had relieved me, and now represented me in the resistance to be made to the prince of Persia. The angel says that his presence became superfluous “with the kings of Persia” because he refers to all the powers who operate at the head of the Persian empire, including both the earthly and the super-earthly, the guardian spirit and the king beside his chief officers (cf. Isaiah 24:21 et seq.; Isaiah 57:9; Psalms 82:6; also the more extended signification of “kings” [= great ones, mighty ones], which occurs, e. g., in Psalms 2:2; Job 29:25; Ezekiel 26:7; 1 Kings 11:24). The difiicult εַ ?ΰְַ ?λִ ?ιλεֹ ?ϊַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ιωָׁ ?νΰֵ ?φֶ ?μξַ ?μְ ?λֵ ?ιτָ ?ψַ ?ρ must probably be explained in this way (with Ewald and partly also with Hitzig). The explanation offered by others,” and thus it happened that I remained or tarried during an extended period with the kings of Persia” (Vulg.: “et ego remansi ibi,” etc.; Syr., Dereser, Rosenm., Kranichf., etc.), is opposed by the fact that λεֹ ?ϊַ ?ψ does not properly signify “to remain behind,” but “to remain over, to be superfluous” (at the most, it might be possible to adduce Genesis 32:25 in support of the former meaning); and also that the construction of the sentence does not justify its being regarded as a supplement or complementary explanation of the remainder of the verse. The translation of Luther, Geier, Winer, Gesenius, Hδvernick, etc.: “and I gained the ascendancy, or the victory, with the kings of Persia,” is likewise at variance with the general usage of λεֹ ?ϊַ ?ψ. The explanation of Fόller (and Hofmann [also Keil), “and I then maintained my place beside the kings of Persia,” certainly accords better with the usage; but it is opposed by the consideration adduced above, concerning the assumption of two angelic powers who contend for the greatest influence over the Persian king. Nor can it be understood on that theory why the plural ξַ ?μְ ?λֵ ?ιτΧ was used instead of the singular; for, although the opinion that the writer intended Cyrus together with his successors, hence the entire Persian dynasty, by his “kings of Persia,” has recently become an especial favorite (being accepted likewise by Fόller and Hofmann), it seems to us so improbable in itself, that even the adoption of the theory which asserts the Maccabζan origin of the book, could scarcely serve to establish it (cf. especially Hitzig, who contends for the more extended signification of ξַ ?μְ ?λֵ ?ι upon substantial grounds). The Sept. (and Theodot.) renders the passage correctly with regard to its meaning: καὶαὐτὸν (sc. τὸνΜιχαήλ) κατέλιπονἐκεῖμετὰτοῦἄρχοντοςβασιλείαςΠερῶν. Daniel 10:14. I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days. Cf. the introductory words of Jacob’s blessing, Genesis 49:1; also Numbers 24:14. Concerning ΰַ ?ηְַ ?ψִ ?ιϊηַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν as a designation of the Messianic future (the “issue of the ages,” Fόller), cf. on Daniel 2:28. The “end of the indignation,” mentioned in Daniel 8:19, is not materially different from this end of (pre-Messianic days.—For yet the vision is for many days; rather, “for yet a vision for those days,” supply “I now bring, am about to reveal.” δַ ?ιִּ ?ξִ ?ιν, the days, those days, viz.: the latter days just mentioned. ςεֹ ?γ is probably to be taken (with Fόller and C. B. Michaelis) as referring indirectly back to the two preceding visions which treated of the latter days, hence to chapters 8 and 9. (cf. especially Daniel 8:19 b and Daniel 9:23 et seq.). Consequently the angel now brings yet an eschatological prophecy, yet a vision of the last times which forms the final and most specific revelation. None of the other interpretations yield a clear sense that agrees with the context, e.g., that by Hitzig: “but it is yet continually a prophecy for ages;” by Hδvernick, “for the prophecy to be imparted to thee shall extend to this time” (similarly Kranichfeld: “ςεֹ ?γ, exceeding the present and the immediate future in its range”); the highly artificial one by Cocceius: “expectatio promissionis adhuc protelabitur, nempe per ista tempora, quζ partim c. 8, partim c. 9 descripta sunt,” etc. Daniel 10:15-17. The prophet’s renewed consternation, in consequence of the reverential awe felt by him in the presence of his super-human visitor, who therefore now assumes an increasingly human bearing (see Daniel 10:16 a; cf. Daniel 10:18 a).… I set my face toward the ground and became dumb; the same attitude of reverential awe as in Luke 18:13; Luke 24:5.—The prophet’s dumbness was twice removed by the comforting interference of the angel (Daniel 10:16 et seq. and Daniel 10:19); but he afterward remained speechless, excepting that he asked the brief question in Daniel 12:8. —And behold one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips, or, “like the sons of men he touched my lips;” the subject is not indicated here (and in Daniel 10:18), which does not, however, permit a doubt to arise that the. one “after the similitude…of men” is identical with the angel who was hitherto present. λִּ ?γְ ?ξεּ ?ϊαְּ ?πֵ ?ιΰָ ?γָ ?ν serves to recall the λְּ ?λַ ?ψΰֱ ?πָ ?ωׁ, Daniel 7:13, as λְּ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δΰָ ?γָ ?ν in Daniel 10:18 recalls the similar expression in Daniel 8:15. An identity with Gabriel, however, cannot be established on this repeated assurance of the angel’s manlike appearance (against Kranichf.).—The touching of the lips (for the purpose of unsealing and opening them) is similar to the incident in Isaiah 6:7; Jeremiah 1:9. —O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me. There is nothing strange in the form of the prophet’s address to the angel, which terms him “my lord,” particularly since the angel belonged to the class of “chief princes;” cf. Joshua 5:14; Judges 6:13. With regard to φִ ?ιψִ ?ιν, “sorrows,” properly, “pains,” cf. Isaiah 13:8; Isaiah 21:3; 1 Samuel 4:19. φִ ?ιψַ ?ι, “my sorrows” (cf. Psalms 18:24), characterizes the acuteness of the terrified sensation alluded to more impressively than could have been done by φִ ?ιψִ ?ιν merely; and since the term is obviously employed in a tropical sense only, it does not sound strange from the lips of a man (against Hitzig), and does not require to be obviated by means of putting an unusual sense on φִ ?ιψַ ?ι, e.g., by “my joints trembled in me” (Vulg., Luther, Berth., Hδvernick, Fόller), or by “my features were changed” (Ewald, following Psalms 49:15).— Daniel 10:17. And how can the servant of my lord talk, etc. δֵ ?ικְ, as in 1 Chronicles 13:2, a Chaldaism for ΰֵ ?ικְ.—As for me (properly “and I”) straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me; i. e., the power to stand and breathe regularly (1 Kings 10:5; Joshua 2:11) departed from me afresh. The renewed consternation described in these words was not as great as the former, in Daniel 10:9; the “ceasing of the breath” was not in a literal sense as in 1 Kings 17:17, but only figurative, as in the similar form of speech, Son 5:6.—A majority of recent expositors correctly regard this second member of the verse as no longer belonging to Daniel’s address to the angel; for if it were still included, the words “there is no strength in me” would have been employed twice in close proximity (Daniel 10:16 b and here) and in nearly the same form. Moreover, the incident of the two following verses requires a suitable preparation.—Fόller, however, is entirely too artificial when he includes the words “and I —” in Daniel’s explanation to the angel, but excludes everything else, to the close of his remarks. Daniel 10:18-19. The prophet is touched and strengthened for the third time, and more effectually than before (cf. Daniel 10:5; Daniel 10:16). The being touched and strengthened three times by the angel (in which old-churchly exegetes, e.g., Ephraem, etc., sought to find an allusion to the Trinity) was certainly not accidental; cf. the conflict of Christ in Gethsemane, Matthew 26:38 et seq.; his being tempted thrice in the desert, Matthew 4:1 et seq.; also such passages as John 21:15 et seq.; Acts 10:16; 2 Corinthians 12:8 et seq., etc. Hitzig, however, being utterly unaware of the profound mystical meaning of the description, thinks that “the broad representation that he was gradually invigorated, at first to speak himself, and afterward to listen to speech (Daniel 10:16; Daniel 10:19 b), has a manufactured appearance, and does not impress.”—Like the appearance of a man; cf. on Daniel 10:16. Daniel 10:19. Peace be unto thee; be strong, yea, be strong. ηֲ ?ζַ ?χεַ ?ηֲ ?ζַ ?χ; cf. ηְַ ?ζַ ?χεֶ ?ΰֶ ?ξַ ?υ, Joshua 1:6-7; Joshua 1:9; and with regard to the repetition of the verb, as strengthening the idea, cf. Jeremiah 10:25; Jeremiah 51:34, etc.—For thou hast strengthened me, viz.: sufficiently to enable me to listen with courageous composure to all that is to be revealed, not excepting even what is calamitous and terrible. Daniel 10:20—chapּ Daniel 11:1. Solemn and circumstantial introduction of the subsequent detailed description of the future, connected with an encouraging reference to the constant readiness of God to assist Israel, despite the serious character of the situation of the time (and particularly, despite the dangers which threatened from the direction of Persia and Javan).—Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? i.e., art thou aware of the serious and highly important character of the message which I am to deliver unto thee? Dost thou sufficiently estimate the tremendous earnestness of the situation, in consequence of which my mission became necessary?—And now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia. That is, the peaceful service of disclosing the future unto thee, in which I am now engaged, forms but a brief interruption to the great war which I must continue steadily to wage against the guardian spirit of the Persian power. With regard to δִ ?μָּ ?ηֵ ?ν, considered as denoting an actual warfare rather than a mere altercation or dispute in the council of the angels of God (as Bertholdt and others think), see on Daniel 10:13.—And when (as soon as) I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grζcia shall come. The “going forth” in this passage, as often in descriptions of warlike incidents (e.g., Joshua 14:11; 1 Kings 2:7; 1 Samuel 8:20; Isaiah 42:12; Zechariah 14:10), certainly denotes a going forth to battle rather than the mere departing from a locality (Hofmann, Fόller, etc.). The observation does not, however, refer to his going forth to meet the prince of Persia, but a going forth to other conflicts after the war with the latter shall have been brought to a close; or, in other words, it denotes a going forth out of the war against the prince of Persia (so Jacchiad., Bertholdt, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, etc.—correctly). The sense is therefore: “Scarcely shall the Persian war be ended, when the Greek arises against me; the conflict with the Grζcian world-power shall be immediately consequent on the war with that of Persia.” Cf. the similar contrasting of ιָ ?φָ ?ΰ and αּ ?εֹ ?ΰ in 2 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 11:7. Hofmann’s exposition of the passage is altogether too labored: “The prince of the Grζcians enters into the quarrel against the prince of the Persians, from which the angel retires; but, after the Persian empire has fallen, the angel renews the conflict with the new adversary, and, as in the former instance, is supported by Michael, the prince of Israel” (Schriftbew, I. 290; cf. Weissag. und Erfόltung, 1:312 et seq.). Hofmann, however, properly rejects v. Lengerke’s view, on which the coming of the prince of Grζcia must be regarded as victorious, and leading to the defeat of the angel. Hitzig, on the other hand, comes especially near to the latter theory, in his venturesome assertion that the angelic prince who converses with Daniel, and who is to battle against Persia and afterward against Greece, represents the guardian spirit of Egypt, as of a power that had been friendly to the Jews in former ages and that especially made common cause with them against Syria (= Javan) in the period of the Seleucidζ!—a bold hypothesis, that has no support in the context, and that is absolutely incompatible with the expressions of sacred awe and reverence which Daniel made use of toward this celestial ωַׂ ?ψ, according to Daniel 10:5 et seq. Daniel would have been an idolater of the coarsest kind had he rendered such homage as is described in this chapter, and particularly in Daniel 10:16-19, to the angelic patron and representative of Egypt (whom he assuredly regarded as a dζmonic power inimical to God, no less than those of Persia and Javan). And a possible Maccabζan pseudo-Daniel would have been still less likely than the Daniel of the ζra of the captivity, to involve himself in the guilt of so gross a violation of the monotheistic principle and of disobedience to the first commandment in the decalogue. Daniel 10:21. But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture (or book) of truth. ΰְַ ?αָ ?μ, “but still,” a strong adversative particle, serves here to introduce the antidote to the fears for the theocracy excited by Daniel 10:20—in the shape of a comforting allusion to the ultimate welfare and blessing which are awaiting God’s people according to the book of Divine providence, despite all the conflicts and sufferings that must precede them. Properly, “in a book of truth,” i.e., in a Divine document upon which “the yet unrevealed (Deuteronomy 32:34) fortunes of nations (Revelation 5:1) as well as of individuals (Psalms 139:16) in the future are entered” (Hitzig). Cf. the books of judgment in Daniel 7:10, and also the term ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ in Daniel 11:2, which briefly comprehends the contents of the book of truth.—And there is none that holds with me in these things; rather, “and yet there is none that exerts himself with me against these,” i.e., against the guardian angels of Persia and Javan, the dζmonic patrons of the heathen world-powers. On ξִ ?ϊְ ?ηַ ?ζֵּ ?χςִ ?ν, exerting oneself with another, battling beside one, supporting one, cf 1 Samuel 4:9; 2 Samuel 10:12. The participle characterizes the action, although future, as nevertheless being constant.—But (only) Michael your prince,—namely, in the sense of Jos 5:13 et seq.; cf. supra, on Daniel 10:13. The sentence “and there is none.… your prince,” taken as a whole, is not intended to justify the greatness of the sufferings through which Israel must pass (Hofmann), or the long duration of the prospective conflict with the world-powers (Fόller); it simply aims to place in a clearer light the help afforded by the grace of God, which requires no foreign support in order to protect, and eventually to fully deliver Israel” (Kranichf.). The sentence would still express the idea of the self-sufficiency of the good spiritual powers in the kingdom of God. which require no aid from the world, and also of their ability to effect all things, even if it were made (as Fόller proposes) dependent on ΰַ ?βִּ ?ιγμְ ?κָ, and consequently if (in disregard of the accentuation) it were translated, “But I will show thee that which is noted,” etc., “…. and the absence of one to help me,” etc. In that case, however, it would present two very dissimilar objects of the angel’s remarks as co-ordinate with each other, the former of which is very general in its character, and the latter equally specific; and this rendering would not obviate the incongruous relation between the contents of the former half of the verse and those of the latter, which exists in any case.— Daniel 11:1. Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him, or, “As I also.…. stood by him as a supporter and helper;” properly, “and I also.” εַ ?ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι begins a new sentence (cf. Psalms 30:7; Job 19:25) which does not stand in an adversative relation to the preceding verse (Hitzig), nor serve to explain it (Luther, etc.), but which is comparative. It describes the relation by which the angel who now speaks and Michael, the prince of Israel, assisted each other, as being reciprocal. ςָ ?ξְ ?γִ ?ι serves to repeat the ΰֲ ?πִ ?ι without regard to sequence, “and I.…. my standing was as his support,” etc. Cf. Job 9:27; Zephaniah 3:20; and respecting the use of ςָ ?ξַ ?γ sensu bellico s. militari cf. supra, Daniel 10:13 and Daniel 8:25.—μεֹ “to him.” Hδvernick and Hitzig propose to refer this particle to γָּ ?ψְ ?ιָ ?εֶ ?ωׁ rather than to Michael, because the strong terms ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ζ and ξַ ?ηֲ ?ζִ ?ιχ are supposed to warrant the conclusion that the one to whose support he came was a being inferior to the assisting angel, which would not apply to the relation of the latter to Michael. But in view of all the teaching of this section, a martial angelic prince may well be in occasional need of the aid and support of another, without being inferior to the latter on that account; and in support of the view that Michael, the guardian angel of Israel, was obliged to put forth special efforts in behalf of his wards, and therefore required the assistance of other good angelic powers to an unusual degree, precisely “in the first year of Darius the Mede,” or at the period when the world-power passed from the Chaldζans to the Medo-Persians, it will be sufficient to refer to chap.6 and to Daniel 9:1 et seq. (cf. Zechariah 1:12). Cf. Hofmann, Schriftbew., I. 289, and also Fόller, p. Dan 279: “The first verse of chap. 11 is thus intimately connected with the last verse of chap. 10; and it was unwise to separate them, and thereby to confuse the train of thought (by referring μεֹ to Darius the Mede). If it be asked, what interests were at stake in the first year of Darius, the answer will be, the position which the new dynasty should occupy toward the people of Israel. And it may be seen from the narrative in chap. 6 that efforts were made in that particular year to place it in a hostile attitude toward that people. It was in that juncture that the good angel of the world-power stood by Michael, the prince of Israel, until he prevailed; in the coming conflict Michael shall support him.” ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions1. The characteristic and leading feature of the contents of this section is angelological in its nature. An angelic being is introduced and described in an unusually minute and life-like manner, whom we (see on Daniel 10:5; Daniel 10:13) cannot regard as being identical with the Gabriel of chapters 8 and 9, nor yet with Michael, to whom he repeatedly refers in the communications addressed by him to Daniel; but the important disclosures made by this being respecting the nature and functions of several leading representatives of the angelic world, and the exalted rank and powerful influence within that world claimed by him, no less than his tremendous influence on the fortunes of earthly empires, justify the careful description of which he is the object (Daniel 10:5-7), as well as the expressions of profound reverence addressed to him by Daniel (according to Daniel 10:8-11; Daniel 10:15-19). These expressions, together with the counteracting efforts of the angel called forth by them, by which he designed to strengthen and encourage the terrified and overwhelmed prophet, are analogous to the incidents connected with the appearance of Gabriel to Daniel in Daniel 8:15 et seq.; but while the prophet’s fainting and his restoration by Gabriel occurred but once in that instance (see on Daniel 10:18), the same features appear thrice in this connection, leading to the conclusion that this nameless angelic prince is of extraordinary importance, and at least equals, if he does not outrank Michael, the “captain of the Lord’s host” (Joshua 5:13). As the latter comes to his assistance (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21), so he affords aid to that prince in return (Daniel 11:1) in the conflict with the “princes” of Persia and Javan, the angels who fight against God at the head of the heathen world-power. The latter likewise appear to be possessed of exalted power, and therefore as terrible spiritual beings who are dangerous to the kingdom of God and its representatives. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ b. Detailed prophetic description of the Persian and Grζcian world-kingdoms, and also of the kingdoms which should arise from the latter, together with their conflicts.Daniel 11:2-45.     2And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in [to] Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by [according to] his strength through [by] his riches he shall stir up all [the whole] against [with] the realm of Grζcia [kingdom of Javan]. 3And a mighty king [a king, a hero] shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion [rule], and do according to his will. 4And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided [partitioned] toward the four winds of heaven [the heavens]; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion [rule] which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for [and given to] others besides those [these] 5 And the king of the south shall be strong, and [become] one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion [rule]; his dominion 6 [rule] shall be a great dominion [rule]. And in [to] the end of years they shall join [associate] themselves together; for [and] the king’s daughter [daughter of the king] of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement; but [and] she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor [and] his arm; but [and] she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these [the] times. 7 But [And] out of a branch [shoot] of her roots shall one stand up in his estate [basis, i.e., stead], which [and he] shall come with an army [to the force], and shall enter into [come in] the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against [do with] them, and shall prevail [strengthen himself]; 8and shall also carry captives [cause to go in the captivity] into Egypt their gods, with their princes [anointed ones], and with their precious [prized] vessels of silver and of 9 gold; and he shall continue [stand] more years than the king of the north. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom [And he shall come into the kingdom of the king of the south], and shall return into his own land [ground]. 10But his sons shall be stirred up [strengthen themselves], and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through; then [and] shall he return, and be stirred up [or, they shall 11 strengthen themselves], even to his [or, their] fortress. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler [become very bitter], and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth [cause to stand] a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand. 12 And when he hath taken away the multitude [or, the multitude shall be taken away], his heart shall be lifted up [or, raised up]; and he shall cast down [cause to fall] many ten thousands: but [and] he shall not be strengthened by it.13 For [And] the king of the north shall return and shall set forth [cause to stand] a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain [at the end of the times the] years with a great army [force] and with much riches. 14And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also [and] the robbers [sons of tyrants] of thy people shall exalt themselves [be lifted up] to establish [cause to stand] the vision; but [and] they shall fall [be stumbled]. 15 So [And] the king of the north shall come, and cast up [pour out] a mount [mound], and take [catch] the most fenced cities [city of defences]; and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither [and, i.e., or] his chosen people16 [the people of his choice], neither shall there be any strength to withstand. But [And] he that cometh against [to] him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land [land of comeliness], which [and] by his hand [he] shall be consumed. 17He shall also [And he shall] set his face to enter [come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus [and] shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of [the] women, corrupting [to corrupt, or, destroy] her; but 18 [and] she shall not stand on his side, neither [nor] be for him. After this [And] shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take [ catch] many; but a prince [general] for his own behalf [his reproach] shall cause the reproach offered by him [for him] to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon 19 [to] him. Then [And] he shall turn his face toward the fort [fortresses] of his own land; but [and] he shall stumble [be stumbled] and fall, and not be found. 20 Then [And] shall stand up in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] a raiser of taxes in [one causing the exactor to pass through] the glory of the kingdom: but within few days [and in single days] he shall be destroyed [broken], neither [and not] in anger nor in battle. 21And in his estate [on his basis, i.e., stead] shall stand up a vile [despised] person, to whom [and on him] they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but [and] he shall come in peaceably [with tranquillity], and obtain [or, 22 strengthen] the kingdom by flatteries. And with the arms of a [the] flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea [and], also the prince of the covenant. 23And after the league made with [from the covenanting to] him he shall work deceitfully: for [and] he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. 24He shall enter [come] peaceably [with tranquillity] even upon [and with] the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor [and] his fathers’ fathers; he shall scatter among [to] them the prey, and spoil, and riches; yea, and he shall forecast [devise] his devices against the strong holds, even [and that] for [till] a time. 25And he shall stir up his power and his courage [heart] against the king of the south with a great army [force]; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to [the] battle with a very great and mighty army [force]; but [and] he shall not 26 stand: for they shall forecast [devise] devices against him. Yea [And], they that feed [eat] of the portion of his meat [dainty food] shall destroy [break] him, and his army [force] shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. 27And both these kings’ hearts [the kings, their heart] shall be to do mischief [wrong], and they shall speak lies [falsehood] at [over] one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at [to] the time appointed.28 Then [And] shall he return into his land with great riches; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do exploits and return to his 29 own land. At [To] the time appointed he shall return, and come toward [in] 30 the south: but [and] it shall not be as the former, or [and] as the latter. For [And] the ships of Chittim shall come against [in] him; therefore [and] he shall be grieved [dejected], and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant; so [and] shall he do; he shall even [and he shall] return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. 31And arms shall stand on his part [from him], and they shall pollute the sanctuary of trength [the stronghold], and shall take [cause to turn] away the daily [continual] sacrifice, and they shall place [give] the abomination that 32 maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against [the wicked doers of] the covenant shall he corrupt [pollute] by flatteries: but [and] the people that do 33 know their [its] God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that understand among [the prudent of] the people shall instruct [understand for the] many; yet [and] they shall fall [be stumbled] by the sword, and by flame, 34 by captivity, and by spoil, many days. Now [And] when they shall fall [be stumbled], they shall be holpen [helped] with a little help: but [and] many 35 shall cleave [be joined] to them with flatteries. And some of them of understanding [the prudent] shall fall [be stumbled], to try [lit., smelt in] them, and to purge [purify], and to make them white, even to [till] the time of the end: because it is yet for a [to the] time appointed. 36And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous [distinguished] things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished [fail]: for that that is determined shall be done. 37Neither shall he regard [And he will not have understanding upon] the God of his fathers, nor [and upon] the desire of women, nor regard [and he will not have understanding upon] any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. 38But in His estate [And on his base, i.e., stead] shall he honour [give glory to] the god of forces [strongholds]; and [to] a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour [give glory] with gold, and [with] silver, and with precious stones [stone], and pleasant 39 things. Thus [And] shall he do in the most [fortresses of] strongholds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase [increase to acknowledge] with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over [the] many, and shall divide the land for gain [distribute ground with a price]. 40 And at [in] the time of the end shall the king of the south push at [wage war with] him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind [will storm upon him], with chariots [chariot], and with horsemen [horses], and with many ships [boats]; and he shall enter [come] into the countries [lands], and shall overflow and pass oDaniel Daniel 11:41 He shall enter also [And he will come] into the glorious land [land of comeliness], and many countries shall be overthrown [stumbled]: but [and] these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief [first] of the children of Ammon. 42He shall stretch forth his hand also [And he shall send his hand] upon [in] the countries [lands]; and the land 43 of Egypt shall not escape [be for an escaped one, i.e., exempt]. But [And] he shall have power [rule] over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious [pleasant] things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall 44 be at [in] his steps. But [And] tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore [and] he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away [devote to extermination] many. 45And he shall plant the tabernacles [tents] of his palace [pavilion] between the seas in [at] the glorious holy mountain [holy mountain of comeliness]; yet [and] he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. REMARKSDan_11:2. Touching upon the last kings of Persia in a hasty and summary review. And now will I show thee the truth. ΰֱ ?ξֶ ?ϊ, see Daniel 10:21.—Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; i. e., doubtless, after the present king, hence after Cyrus (see Daniel 10:1), there shall be three more kings of Persia,—the Persian state shall have three more kings. The author therefore assigns altogether four kings to Persia, from which, however, it by no means follows that he “knew” only that number; nor can it be shown from Ezra 4:5; Ezra 4:7 that the writer of that book knew of four Persian kings (Hitzig, Ewald). The number four is rather to be regarded as a symbolic number, exactly like that of the wings and heads of the leopard in Daniel 7:6 (see on that passage), which indicates that the development of the kingdom in question is completed, and is, to that extent, parallel with the number of the world-monarchies and with other significant quadruples; cf. Eth.-fund principles, etc., on chap. 2 No. 3.—And the fourth shall be far richer than they all; rather, “shall acquire greater riches,” etc. This fourth one does not denote the last of all the Persian kings, Darius Codomannus, but the fourth from the beginning (or, in other words, the third of the three just mentioned), and therefore Xerxes, as pseudo-Smerdis, is probably not included, and Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius Hystaspis are considered the first three. The characteristic noticed in this place applies well to Xerxes, as he became especially famous because of his immense riches (Herodotus, III. 96; IV. 27–29), and as his expedition into Greece obscured those of his father by the excessive greatness of his armament. The significance of this fourth member of the old Persian dynasty (whose identity with Xerxes was naturally not yet apprehended by the prophet [?], especially as the angel did not see fit to state his name) is that he represents, on the one hand, the acme of the development in power of the kingdom in question, and, on the other, the beginning of its dissolution.—And by his strength through his riches, or, “when he has become strong through his riches. εּ ?λְ ?ηֶ ?ζְ ?χָ ?ϊεֹ, an infinitive (cf. 2 Chronicles 12:1; also infra, Daniel 11:4, and Daniel 8:8; Daniel 8:23), is not co-ordinated with the following αְּ ?ςָ ?ωְׁ ?ψεֹ, but is placed above it.—He shall stir up all against the realm of Grζcia, i.e., “stake all.” δַ ?λֹּ ?μ, properly, “the all,” i.e., all that has been mentioned, all the immense treasures and forces referred to. ιָ ?ςִ ?ιψ, properly, “shall excite, stir up,” does not allude so much to inanimate treasures as to the subjects of this king as being the objects of his exciting activity; cf. Daniel 11:25; Job 12:2; Jeremiah 1:9.—ΰֵ ?ϊξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊιָ ?εָ ?ο is not properly “against the realm of Javan,” but “to the realm,” etc.; ΰֵ ?ϊ serves to introduce the accusative denoting the direction of the movement.—It accords fully with the position of the seer prior to Xerxes, that Greece (with regard to Javan, cf. on Daniel 8:21) should be represented as a kingdom. A Maccabζan writer, who might aim to sketch the history of that king, and of his expedition against the Greeks, would assuredly have known, and indicated, that at that time Javan was not yet a ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊ. Daniel 11:3-4. Alexander the Great and his immediate successors. And a mighty king shall stand up. ξֶ ?μֶ ?κβִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψ, a herioc, warlike king; cf. ΰֵ ?μβִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψ, Isaiah 9:5, and also the symbolic description of Alexander’s martial greatness in Daniel 8:5 et seq., 21. ςָ ?ξַ ?γ, “he stands up,” i.e., comes up and presents a warlike and threatening appearance; cf. Daniel 11:4; Daniel 11:14, and also Daniel 11:1.—And do according to his will. Cf. Daniel 8:4 and infra, Daniel 11:16. The sovereign arbitrariness with which Alexander ruled all the persons of his time is likewise attested by Curtius, Daniel 10:5, Dan 35: “Fortunam solus omnium mortalium in potestate habuit.” Daniel 11:4. And when he shall stand up (rather, “when he has stood up”), his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven. εּ ?λְ ?ςָ ?ξְ ?γεֹ is probably to be closely connected with the idea presented by ςָ ?ξַ ?γ in the preceding verse: “and when,” or, “and as soon as he shall have stood up” (Von Lengerke, Fόller, etc.); so that the brief duration of Alexander’s reign is here indicated. Others, e.g., Hδvernick, Kranichfeld, Ewald, etc., render it, “and when he shall stand in his power, when his power has reached its highest point” (Luther); but this view is questionable, because of the entirely too pregnant meaning which is thus attributed to ςξγ. Hitzig’s assertion that ςξγ in this place is synonymous with the Syr. ςλγ, “to depart in death, to die,” and that the following ϊִּ ?ωָּׁ ?αֵ ?ψ (with which cf. Daniel 8:8) is not passive in its signification, and therefore does not denote “to be broken,” but “to break apart,” must certainly be rejected.—On the phrase, “be divided toward the four winds of heaven,” cf. the analogous symbolic description in Daniel 8:8.—And not to his posterity, namely, “shall it be divided;” they shall not be benefited by the division, but shall be entirely deprived of their patrimony, thus realizing a feature that was common in the early experience of the theocracy, 1 Samuel 15:28; 2 Samuel 3:10; 1 Kings 11:11; 1 Kings 14:7-10; 1 Kings 15:29; 1 Kings 16:3 et seq.; 1 Kings 21:21. It is well known that this actually was the case with Alexander’s sons, Hercules (whose mother was Barsina, and who was murdered by Polysperchon) and Alexander (a filius posthumus. born of Roxana, and likewise murdered). Cf. Diodorus, 19:105; 20:28; Pausan., 9:7; Justin., 15:2; Appian, Syr., C. 51.—Nor according to his dominion which he ruled, “shall the divided kingdom be;” on the contrary, it shall present a painful picture of impotence; cf. εְ ?μΰׄ αְ ?ληεֹ in the parallel, Daniel 8:22.—For his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides those, ξִ ?μְ ?αַּ ?γΰֶ ?μֶּ ?ΰ, to the exclusion of those, i.e., of the natural heirs and rightful successors of this ruler. Concerning the phrase, “to be torn out, uprooted,” cf. on Daniel 4:12; Daniel 4:12; also Job 14:7 et seq.; Isaiah 6:10, etc. Daniel 11:5-6. The first Seleucid� and Lagid�. While the prophetic description, upon the whole, has hitherto confined itself to general outlines, and has not materially deviated from the ordinary methods of prophecy, it begins at this point to assume a suspiciously specific character, which arouses the thought that later hands may have improved on the prophecy by interpolating various features of detail. The fact that only the two states, emanating from the great Grζcian world-empire, which bordered immediately on the “pleasant land,” are more carefully followed in their further development, is not, indeed, enough to arouse this suspicion, for the other kingdoms of the Diadochi might have been passed over as too unimportant in their relations with the theocracy. It was, moreover, to be expected that Israel should be alternately oppressed by a southern and a northern neighbor, in view of the similar parts taken in earlier prophecies by the Assyrio-Babylonian north on the one hand, and by Egypt in the south, on the other (cf., e.g., Isaiah 30:6; Isaiah 43:6; Jeremiah 3:12; Jeremiah 3:18; Jeremiah 6:22; Jeremiah 46:20; Jeremiah 46:24; Zephaniah 2:13; Zechariah 10:10-11). But the manner in which the transactions between the two kingdoms, whether peaceful or hostile in their character, are described with regard to their changeful course, is too exact, and covers too extended a succession of reigns and events, to find even a remote parallel in any other part of the prophetic literature of the Old-Test, canon. The unique character of the section in this respect was recognized at an early period, and has been made use of by the opponents of the authenticity and genuine prophetic dignity of the book (e.g., early by Porphyry), in order to attack its character, and has also been employed for apologetic purposes, in order to demonstrate the inspired character of the prophecy, and the astonishing exactness with which its predictions corresponded with the actual development of the dominion of the Seleucidζ and the Lagidζ. With this view it is employed by Luther in his preface to Daniel and in his exposition of chap. 12 (which begins, according to his opinion, with Daniel 11:36;—see vol. 41, pp. 252 et seq., 294 et seq.); by Venema, Commentarius ad Danielis cap. XI. 5–XII. 3 (Leovard., 1752); by Hengstenberg, Beitr., p. 173 et seq.; and, generally, by a majority of orthodox expositors in ancient and modern times. Cf. especially Ebrard, Die Offenb. Joh., p. 81 et seq., where a thorough illustration of the harmony between the contents of this section and the facts of history precedes the remark: “For that very reason—this is the internal design of the specializing prophecy, chap. 11—the coming of the Macedonian tyrant is connected with the age of Daniel by an unbroken chain of the most particular events, that it might be thoroughly apparent that no interval for the coming of the Messiah and his rejection should intervene between the time of Daniel and that tyrant.” But Ebrard himself does not seem to have remained permanently satisfied with this mode of justifying the remarkably specific character of the prophecy on the supposition of a higher plane of revelation; for, in his review of Fόller’s commentary, he confesses that he “has not yet found any exposition of chap. 11. that was entirely satisfactory” (p. 207).—We shall attend specially to Kranichfeld’s view in the following exposition of the several passages. He likewise contends for the genuine character of the section throughout, but on the frequently forced assumption that the modern exegesis applies what was indefinite and merely ideal in the mind of the prophet to the facts of history in the corresponding period in far too pointed a manner.—And the king of the south shall be (or “become”) strong, i.e., the ruler to whom the south, or Egypt, has fallen; cf. Daniel 11:8, where the south is expressly designated as ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν; also the Sept. on this passage, and Zechariah 6:6.—And one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him; rather, “but one of his princes—he shall be strong above him.” With regard to the partitive ξִ ?ο in εּ ?ξִ ?οωָׂ ?ψָ ?ιε, cf. Genesis 28:11; Exodus 6:26; Nehemiah 13:28. The subject, “one of his princes,” occupies a detached position at the beginning (cf. Ezekiel 34:19); the copula, however, restores the connection: “(so far as he is concerned) he shall still be stronger.”—Others (Luther, etc., Bertholdt, Rosenm., Kranichfeld, Fόller, etc.) regard the ε in ωָׂ ?ψָ ?ιεεּ ?ξִ ?ο as the definite “and indeed, namely,” and refer the suffix to the subject of the preceding verse: “and the king of the south, namely one of his (Alexander’s) princes, shall become strong.” This, however, is opposed by the lack of a definite subject of εְ ?ιֶ ?ηֱ ?ζַ ?χ in that case, and by the unanimous authority of the ancient versions, which regard this second ειηζχ as the predicate of εξοωψιε, despite the Athnach. Consequently, the event to which the passage alludes is the founding of the dynasty of the Seleucidζ in the year B. C. 312. by Seleucus Nicator. the general of Ptolemy Lagus (Diodorus, 19:55, 58; Appian, Syr., C. 52), who extended his dominion from Phrygia to the Indus, and thus greatly exceeded his former lord in power, approaching to the position of power and greatness occupied by Alexander himself more nearly than any other of the Diadochi (Appian, Syr., 55; Arrian, Anab., VII. 22. 9).—And (shall) have dominion; his dominion shall be a great dominion. ξִ ?ξְ ?ωָׁ ?μψָ ?λ is the predicate, followed by the subject in regular order. The whole clause, however, is logically subordinated to εּ ?ξָ ?ωָׁ ?μ; cf. Genesis 12:8. Daniel 11:6. And in the end of years they shall join themselves together. εּ ?μְ ?χֵ ?υωָׁ ?λִ ?ιν, “and after the lapse of several years,” cf. 2 Chronicles 18:2; also infra, Daniel 11:8; Daniel 11:13. The subjects of the sentence are the kings of the northern and of the southern kingdoms, and the alliance referred to is the marriage of Antiochus II. Theos (the son and successor of Antiochus I. Soter, who had followed Seleucus Nicator upon the throne of the Seleucidζ as its second possessor, B. C. 281–261, but who is wholly unnoticed in this prophecy) with Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus (280–247), the second of the line of Ptolemies. Antiochus was obliged, on that occasion, to banish Loadice, his former wife and half-sister, and to disinherit the children she had borne to him (Appian, Syr., C. 55; cf. Jerome on this passage). It is impossible to doubt that this event is referred to in this place, in view of what follows, and Kranichfeld therefore wastes his labor when he observes, with reference to ξֶ ?μְ ?κηַ ?φָּ ?τεֹ ?ο, and with an apologetic aim, that “it is an interpolation to assume that Daniel here intended precisely a king of Syria.”—To make an agreement; properly, “to make a straightening, to establish a just and peaceful condition.” Cf. ιְ ?ωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν, Daniel 11:17, and the corresponding Sikata, 1Ma 7:12.—But she shall not retain the power of the arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; i.e., probably, neither her arm nor his, which had strengthened themselves by that union, shall be able to retain the power thus acquired; their union shall again be dissolved, and the political alliance, with its strengthening influence upon both kingdoms, shall thus be set aside. It seems unnecessary, upon this view, to adopt Hitzig’s emendation, εְ ?μΰׄ ιַ ?ςַ ?ξְ ?γεּ ζְ ?ψֹ ?ςָ ?ε (“his [i.e., the arm of Berenice] arms shall not stand,” which is held to be equivalent to “her father as well as her consort, who were hitherto her protectors, shall forsake her), and also Kranichfeld’s rendering of ηַ ?ζְּ ?ψεςַ in the sense of host, in support of which Daniel 11:15; Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:31 may indeed be adduced, but this is decidedly opposed by the context, which treats solely of an intermarriage and its immediate consequences, and not at all of warlike events. It is likewise arbitrary to take ζְ ?ψεֹ ?ςַ in the sense of “support, protector,” with Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, etc., and accordingly to find the assistance to be derived by Berenice from Egypt referred to in the former half of the sentence, and in the latter half the aid rendered to her husband by Berenice herself. “Arm” is intended in each case to simply denote the physical or political power of the respective royal personages, and consequently, in the first instance, that of the Egyptian princess, and in the next that of her consort.—But she shall be given up and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in these times; or, “he that begat her and he that led her away in the times.” ξְ ?αִ ?ιΰֶ ?ιδָ, “they that brought her,” denotes either the “begetter” who is mentioned immediately afterward, and the one that “led her home,” hence her father and her husband (Hδvernick, Fόller, etc.), or the company of her followers, her train when she left Egypt (Ewald), [or “who brought her into the marriage” (Keil)]. The word is hardly to be taken, with Hitzig, as a categorical plural, and thus to be limited to the husband. ξַ ?ηֲ ?ζִ ?χָ ?δּ properly signifies “he that holds her, that obtains possession of her,” i.e., her consort (thus correctly Von Lengerke and Hδvernick, while Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil], etc., contend for the rendering of δֶ ?ηֱ ?ζִ ?ιχ by “maintaining or supporting,” which is too artificial).—αַּ ?ςִ ?ϊִּ ?ιּ ?ν, “in the times,” is an idiom signifying “at that time,” i.e., when his critical situation obliged him to marry her. ϊִּ ?πָּ ?ϊֵ ?ο, “she shall be given up, be given over to ruin, overthrown (in perniciem traditur),” is a very general expression that does not necessarily imply death by violence; cf. Isaiah 5:12; also infra, Daniel 11:11.—The historical commentary on the latter half of this verse is as follows: As soon as Ptolemy Philadelphus had died in B. C. 247, Antiochus Theos expelled Berenice, and recalled the formerly rejected Laodice. The latter, however, aimed at farther revenge, and to achieve it she poisoned the king, had her son by him, Seleucus II. Callinicus, declared his successor, and sent assassins against Berenice, who had fled to the sanctuary of Daphne. The latter queen was slain, together with her little son, and the hope of the Ptolemies to behold one of their lineage on the throne of the Seleucidζ was thus wholly destroyed. Cf. Polyζn., viii. 50; Justin., xxvii. 1; Appian, 1. c.—Kranichfeld vainly attempts to shake the evident correspondence of this series of facts with the language of the passage by regarding ϊִּ ?λָּ ?ϊֵ ?ο as denoting a violent death, and consequently as not harmonizing with the natural death of Ptolemy Philadelphus. He farther translates ζְ ?ψεֹ ?ςַ in the sense of “host,” and attributes to ξְ ?αִ ?ιΰֶ ?ιηָ the questionable meaning, “the promoters of her marriage” (the “furtherers of the whole Delilah-like match”), by all of which he obviously becomes liable to the charge of arbitrary “interpolation,” to a far greater degree than the opponents whom he accuses of that crime because they frankly recognize the reference to those events. Daniel 11:7-9. Ptolemy Evergetes and Seleucus Callinicus. But out of a branch of her roots shall one stand up in his place (marg.). The partitive ξִ ?ο as in Daniel 11:5. λֵ ?ςֶ ?ψωΧ, “the sprouting of her roots” (cf. Isaiah 11:1) signifies the lineage, the immediate ancestry of Berenice; the person referred to was consequently the son of her parents and her own brother, viz.: Ptolemy III. Evergetes, the successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 247–221. λִּ ?λּ ?εֹ, an accusative of the direction (cf. Daniel 11:2, at the end); in Daniel 11:20-21, it is replaced by a definite ςַ ?μλַּ ?λּ ?εֹ.—Which (or “and he”) shall come with an (rather, “against the”) army, and shall enter into the fortress of the ting of the north ΰֶ ?μΞδַ ?ηַ ?ιִ ?μεְ ?ιָ ?αΰֹ signifies neither, “he shall come to his host” (Hitzig), nor “he shall come to power” (Hδvernick); the former rendering is as forced as the latter is contrary to the language (owing to the missing article). ςμ is rather equivalent to against, and the “host” is that of the northern king. The “coming into his fortress” which follows, designates the result of the expedition as a whole, the taking of the northern king’s fortress by the king of the south. It must, however, remain undecided whether this “fortress” denotes specially the strongly fortified maritime city of Seleucia (as Hitzig thinks). It is more probable that ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ζ is used collectively (cf. Daniel 11:19), and that therefore αּ ?εֹ ?ΰαְ does not denote the entering into the fortresses, but only the arrival before them.—And shall deal (or “execute it”) against them and prevail. “Against them” refers to the subjects of the northern kingdom, not to the fortresses. With regard to ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δαְ, “to do to, or against one,” namely, according to pleasure, cf. Jeremiah 18:23; also the more definite ςָ ?ωָׂ ?η, λִ ?ψְ ?φεֹ ?λεֹ Daniel 11:3; Daniel 11:36; Daniel 8:4. Concerning the magnificent success achieved by Ptolemy Evergetes during his expedition against Syria (the conquest of almost the entire Syrian realm from Cilicia to beyond the Tigris, the taking of numerous fortresses, and the slaying of Laodice, the rival and murderess of his sister Berenice) cf. Appian, Syr., C. 65; Justin., XXVII. 1; Jerome on the passage. Daniel 11:8. And shall also carry captive into Egypt their gods, with their princes (rather “molten images”), etc. The suffix in ΰֱ ?μηֵֹ ?ιδֶ ?ν and also in πְ ?ρִ ?λֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν refers to the inhabitants of Syria, the same to whom αָּ ?δֶ ?ν in the preceding verse referred. λְ ?ρִ ?λִ ?ιν does not signify “princes” in this passage (as it does, e.g., in Joshua 13:21; Ezekiel 32:30), but “molten images, cast images, brazen statues;” and consequently λָ ?ρִ ?ικְ is employed in the sense which is more generally denoted by πֶ ?ρֶ ?κְ (Isaiah 41:29; Isaiah 48:5) or ξַ ?ρֵּ ?λָ ?δ (Exodus 32:4; Exodus 32:8; Exodus 34:17, etc.). The express mention of the molten images besides the gods arises from the fact that the existence of the latter is made wholly dependent on the former. The transportation of the idols in itself is the significant evidence of the total subjugation of an opposing kingdom (cf. Isaiah 46:1-2 : Jeremiah 48:7; Jeremiah 49:3; Hosea 10:5 et seq.); and likewise the removal of the “precious vessels of silver and gold” which is afterward noticed (λֶּ ?ρֶ ?σεְ ?ζָ ?δָ ?λ, genit. materiζ, depending on the immediately preceding gen. qualitatis, λְּ ?μֵ ?ιηֶ ?ξְ ?γָּ ?ϊָ ?ν, cf. Nahum 2:10; Jeremiah 27:18 et seq.; Ezekiel 7:19 et seq.; Zephaniah 1:18; Daniel 1:2.—The historical event which corresponds to this was the return of Ptolemy Evergetes to Egypt, occasioned by a revolt, when he carried away from Syria a booty of 4,000 talents of gold, numerous jewels, and 2,500 idol-statues, the latter including among their number those which Cambyses had formerly transported to Persia. It was the restoration of these that secured to this third Ptolemy the name of Εὐεργέτης. Cf. Jerome on the passage, and the Marmor Adulitanum, the monument erected by the victor in commemoration of his deeds, which boasts that he had united Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Persia, Susiana, Media, and all the countries as far as Bactria, under his sceptre. In view of this exact correspondence of our passage to the facts of history, which, it is alleged, occurred subsequently to the composition of the prophecy, the suspicion that the oracle was conformed to the history appears to be only too well founded, especially as Egypt (ξִ ?φְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν) is expressly mentioned as the goal of the magnificent triumphal march. The predictions by other prophets relating to expeditions that secured great booty and that captured immense numbers of idol-images, e.g., those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum, Ezekiel, etc., in the passages cited above, are always associated with very different surroundings, and present fewer circumstances of detail to be particularly fulfilled. For this reason it cannot be admitted that the neglect to mention the death of Laodice forms a proof of the undimmed originality of the prophecy (against Kranichfeld).—And he shall continue more years than the king of the north; rather, “and shall abstain from the king of the north (several) years,” i.e., shall refrain from waging war against him, shall leave him in peace. Thus Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, etc., correctly render the sense. On the other hand, Syr., Vulg., Luther, Kranichfeld, Fόller, etc., render: “and for years he shall maintain himself before the king of the north,” i.e., preserve his superiority over him, prζvalebit adversus regem Aquilonis (Vulg.). This interpretation is opposed by the usage of ςָ ?ξַ ?γξִ ?ο in the sense of “to cease, abstain from something,” which occurs elsewhere also; cf. Genesis 29:35; Genesis 30:9; 2 Kings 4:6; 2 Kings 13:18.Daniel 11:9. So the king of the south shall come into his kingdom; rather, “and he shall (now) come into the kingdom of the king of the south.” The subject obviously is the northern king, who was mentioned at the close of the preceding verse, for ξֶ ?μֶ ?οδַ ?πֶּ ?βֶ ?α is clearly a genitive depending on ξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊ (against Kranichfeld).—And shall return unto his own land, i.e., to the northern kingdom, to Syria. The reference to the expedition against Egypt by sea (with a fleet that was soon destroyed in a storm) and also by land, which Seleucus Callinicus undertook about B. C. 240, or two years after the departure of Ptolemy Evergetes from Syria, but which resulted in his total defeat and hasty flight, is sufficiently obvious; cf. Euseb., Chron., I. 346; Justin., xxvii. 2. Daniel 11:10-12. Seleucus Cerauhus and Antiochus the Great against Ptolemy IV. Philopater. But his sons shall be stirred up (or “prepare for war”) and shall assemble a multitude of great forces. If the Keri εּ ?αָ ?λָ ?ιε is to be followed, it is unquestionable that the suffix of this plural refers back to the last named Syrian king Seleucus 2. Callinicus, and that his two sons, Seleucus III. Ceraunus (B. C. 227–224) and Antiochus III. the Great (224–187), are intended. It is reported concerning the latter, although only by the somewhat credulous and hasty Jerome (on the passage), that, in connection with his younger brother, Antiochus, he made war on Egypt; but it is hardly possible that he should have attempted a war against Ptolemy Evergetes, who lived and reigned until B. C. 221, three years beyond the reign of Ceraunus. But the writer does not probably intend to assert by ιִ ?ϊְ ?βָּ ?ψεּ that the warlike expedition undertaken by the brothers was primarily and directly aimed against Egypt. The verb is rather used in a comprehensive sense, so as to cover the campaign of Seleucus Ceraunus (in which he met his death, B. C. 224) against Attalus of Pergamus, and also that commenced several years afterward by Antiochus Magnus, which was directed against the indolent Ptolemy IV. Philopater of Egypt; cf. Polyb., IV. 48; Appian, Syr., C. 06 (Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, Maurer, Hitzig, Fόller, etc., are substantially correct). This counteracts the attempt of venema, Bertholdt, and Kranichfeld to read εּ ?αְ ?λεֹ with the Kethib, and to understand Ptolemy Philopater, the son of Evergetes, by this “son,” by proving it to be superfluous, and, moreover, to be conflicting with the plural ιִ ?ϊְ ?βִּ ?ψεּ εְ ?ΰָ ?ρְ ?τεּ.*—And (one) shall certainly come, overflow, and pass through (or “inundate”) εּ ?αָ ?ΰαεֹ ?ΰ, a strong description of the protracted but irresistible advance, followed by a portrayal of the overflowing masses of warriors that recalls the similar description in Isaiah 8:8. Beginning with this point, the subject is singular, denoting Antiochus the Great alone, who became king of Syria after the death of his brother Seleucus III., and after that of Ptolemy Evergetes became the terrible and victorious foe of Egypt, whose luxurious and cowardly king, Ptolemy philopater, quietly permitted him to take the fortress of Seleucia on the Orontes, to capture Tyre and Ptolemais through the treachery of Theodotus, and finally to besiege the fortress of Dora during a protracted period, while entering into a four months’ truce with him in connection with that siege (Polyb., V. 45–66).—Then shall he return, and be stirred up (or, “and they wage war”), even to his fortress. εְ ?ιָ ?ωֹׁ ?α can in no case designate the return of Antiochus to Seleucia on the Orontes, after concluding the truce above referred to, in order to go into winter quarters at that place (Polyb., 11:66), but rather, as appears from the verb. bellicum εְ ?ιִ ?ϊְ ?βָּ ?ψεּ (as it must be read with the Kethib, instead of ιִ ?ϊְ ?βָּ ?ψֶ ?δ, as the Keri prefers) which immediately follows, it denotes a renewal of his operations against the Egyptians in the spring of 218, in the course of which he surrounded the Egyptians in the strong city of Sidon, to which they had advanced, conquered all Ph�nicia and Palestine, and finally established himself in Gaza (Polyb., 11:68–80). ξָ ?ςֻ ?ζּ ?ηֹ (as it should be read, or even ξָ ?ςֻ ?ζּ ?εֹ, with the Keri, but not ξָ ?ςֻ ?ζָּ ?δּ, as Kranichfeld desires),” his fortress,” doubtless refers to the great and exceedingly strong city of Gaza, so that its suffix points back to the king of the north, the subject of ιָ ?ωֹׁ ?α. It is arbitrary, however, to assume a designed assimilation in sound between ξςζδ and ςַ ?ζָּ ?δ, as do Venema and Hitzig. Daniel 11:11. And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, etc. On εְ ?ιִ ?ϊְ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ξַ ?ψ cf. Daniel 8:7. The king of the south who is “moved with choler” is Ptolemy Philopater, and his “coming forth,” as here described, denotes his moving to attack Antiochus the Great in the year 217, with 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse, and 73 elephants (Polyb., 11:79).—And he shall set forth a great multitude; but (rather, “and”) the multitude shall be given into his hand. The southern king is the subject here likewise, whose success, as based on the support of a great army, is described in this and the following verse (not the king of the north, as Kranichfeld supposes). δָ ?ξεֹ ?οψָ ?λ designates the great host before described, at whose head the aroused Egyptian king goes forth, and δֶ ?ηָ ?ξεֹ ?ο the host, of nearly equal strength (62,000 foot, 6,000 horse, and 102 elephants) with which the Syrian opposed him. Hitzig arbitrarily assumes that instead of εְ ?λִ ?ϊָּ ?ο we should read εְ ?πָ ?ξַ ?ο; so that the sense would be, “and he (Ptolemy Philopater) gave the great multitude into his own hand.” Daniel 11:12. And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; rather, “and the multitude shall rise up (or “lift itself up”), and his courage (or “heart”) increase.” The “multitude” denotes the powerful host of the Egyptians (=δָ ?ξεֹ ?οψָ ?α Daniel 11:11) which is now advancing; “his courage” (μְ ?αָ ?αεֹ) is the courage of the hitherto cowardly, dissipated, and lustful Ptolemy Philopater (cf. 2 Kings 14:10). The Kethib ιָ ?ψεּ ?ν is probably to be retained, instead of replacing it by the Keri εְ ?ψָ ?ν, which is simply an easier reading. εְ ?λִ ?ωָּׂ ?ΰ is spoken of a warlike “rising up” to battle, as in Isaiah 33:10.—And he shall cast down ten thousands (“myriads”). This occurred near Raphia (southwest of Gaza), where Ptolemy Philopater inflicted a heavy defeat on Antiochus the Great, in which the Syrians lost in killed 10,000 foot, 300 horse, and five elephants, and more than 4,000 prisoners (Polyb., 11:86).—But he shall not be strengthened by it; or, “but yet he shall not become strong,” i.e., inasmuch as he followed up his victory very negligently (see Justin., XXX. Daniel 1 : “Spoliasset regem Antiochum, si fortunam virtute juvisset;” cf. Polyb., V. 87), and immediately returned to Egypt after garrisoning the cities that had formerly been lost, in order to resume his former dissipated life. The Vulgate, “sed non prζvalebit,” is incorrect. Daniel 11:13-14. Farther description of the warlike deeds of Antiochus Magnus. For the king of the north shall return, and set forth (rather “shall again set forth”) a multitude, greater than the former. This new adventure falls fully thirteen years after the defeat of Antiochus near Raphia. Not until he had carried on fortunate wars during an extended period against the Parthians, the Bactrians, and even to the borders of India, and until he had likewise conquered Asia Minor and the Thracian Chersonnesus, did he turn his arms against Egypt in B. C. 203, where Ptolemy Philopater had recently died and left the throne to his son Epiphanes, a child of five years, who was placed under the guardianship of the voluptuous and cruel Agathocles. In league with Philip of Macedon, who concluded a formal treaty for the division of the Egyptian empire with him, he advanced toward Egypt at the head of the immense army which he had formed while engaged in his protracted eastern wars, and which he had especially strengthened by the addition of a great number of Indian elephants, and succeeded in depriving it again of Phoenicia and southern Syria; see Justin., XXX. 2; XXXI. 1; Polyb., XV. 20; Jerome, on this passage.—And shall certainly come after certain years; rather, “and toward the end of times he shall come (repeatedly) during a period of years.” The “times” at whose end his annually repeated coming shall begin (ωָׁ ?λִ ?ιν, during several years, as in Daniel 11:8 b) are the thirteen years bet ween the battle near Raphia and the death of Ptolemy Philopater (B. C. 217–204).—With a great army and with much riches (rather, “equipment”). In connection with this equipment we are probably to conceive of the rich treasures secured in past wars, in addition to the Indian elephants.—And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south. Insurrections occurred in upper Egypt as early as the first year of the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes, occasioned by the bad administration and the cruelty of his guardian Agathocles; and these were followed in subsequent years by renewed insurrections, the revolt of subjugated countries, etc. Before his eighth year had expired, the king was obliged to conquer Lycopolis, a stronghold of the rebels (see Corp. inscr., III. Dan 339: Inscr. of Rosetta, 20, 26, 28; Jerome, on the passage).—Also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves; rather, “and criminal sons of thy people shall revolt.” The literal reading is, “and sons of the ravenous ones, of the oppressors of thy people.” τָּ ?ψִ ?ιφִ ?ιν denotes persons who overturn the law and justice (cf. Psalms 17:4; Ezekiel 7:22; Ezekiel 18:10; Isaiah 35:9), hence violent persons, robbers. With regard to the occurrence of two stat. constr. in immediate succession (αλιτψιφι), which must not be strained so as to denote robbers’ sons, robbers by birth (Fόller), cf. the examples collected by Ewald (Lehrb., § 289 c.). The oracle refers to the league against Egypt, into which a large number of Jews entered with Antiochus the Great, and to their participation in his warlike operations against that country, e.g., in his attacks on the garrison which the Egyptian general Scopas had left in the citadel of Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 3). The theocratic writer sternly condemns this partial revolt to the Syrians as a criminal course or as common robbery, because of the many benefits conferred on the Jewish nation by the earlier Ptolemies.—To establish the vision (rather, “visions”), namely, the visions respecting the afflictions of the Jews under Ant. Epiphanes already recorded in chap. 8 and 9, which could appropriately be regarded as a consequence or punishment of the revolt from the Egyptians as here described. ηָ ?ζεֹ ?ο is used collectively in this passage, in the sense of “what there is of prophecy, such visions as exist.”—But they shall fall. πִ ?λְ ?ωָׁ ?μεּ does not probably denote stumbling or falling in a moral point of view (Hδvernick, etc.), but to be unfortunate in war, to be oppressed politically and religiously, etc. The special event referred to, whether a punishment imposed by Scopas, in the shape of taking away various nobles as hostages (cf. Polyb., XVI. 39; Josephus, Ant., XII. 3, 4), or otherwise, must remain undetermined. It is not to be denied that at any rate this particular passage presents a somewhat considerable discrepancy between the prophetic text of the section and the corresponding historical events; cf. Kranichfeld on the passage, p. 368.Daniel 11:15-19. Last wars and death of Antiochus Magnus. So (rather, “and”) the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities; rather, “a strongly fortified city.” The reference is probably to the siege and ultimate capture of Sidon, into which “city of fortifications” (ςִ ?ιψξִ ?λְ ?φַ ?ψεֹ ?ν, cf. Ewald, § 177 c) the Egyptian leader Scopas had thrown himself after suffering a severe defeat at the hands of Antiochus at Paneas, near the sources of the Jordan, which reduced his army to 10,000 men (B. C. 198). While Antiochus was carrying on a war in Asia Minor against Attalus in the preceding year, Scopas had again brought C�le-Syria under the dominion of Egypt; but in consequence of that terrible defeat he was deprived not only of that province, but also of the whole of Palestine as far as Gaza by the Syrian king. After enduring a protracted siege in Sidon, in the course of which an Egyptian army under Eropus, Menocles, and Damoxenus had vainly attempted to extricate him, he was compelled by hunger to surrender himself into the victor’s hands (Polyb., XXVIII. 1; Livy, XXXIII. 19; Josephus and Jerome, 1. c). The text, consequently, does not expressly notice the repeated advance of the Egyptians and the great battle near Paneas, but contents itself with referring to the final results of this new war, viz.: the capitulation of the remaining Egyptian troops in Sidon. The idea that ςִ ?ιψξִ ?αְ ?ςַ ?Χ is used collectively (Theodot., Syr., Vulg., Kranichfeld) must be rejected, because this event is so obviously referred to as appears especially from the second half of the verse.—And the arms of the south shall not withstand, etc.; an allusion to the unsuccessful nature of the attempt made by the three Egyptian leaders to come to the assistance of the besieged Scopas. ζְ ?ψֹ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ is evidently used in the sense of military forces (arms=army), hence not as in Daniel 11:6; on the other hand, cf. Daniel 11:22; Daniel 11:31. Daniel 11:16. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will; i.e., Antiochus, the victor of Paneas and conqueror of Sidon, who now subjugated the whole of Palestine (the “pleasant land” or “land of beauty,”—cf. on Daniel 8:9)—Which by his hand shall be consumed; rather, “and destruction is in his hand.” λָּ ?μָ ?ηαְ ?ιָ ?γεֹ, as in Isaiah 10:32; cf. Isaiah 44:20; Job 11:14. If there were no other reason, these parallels would be sufficient to show that λָּ ?μָ ?δ cannot here denote “to consummate” (Luther), nor yet “completeness or totality,” which would result in the meaning, “and it is wholly in his hand,” i.e., the glorious land (Hδvern., Von Leng., van Ess, Fόller, etc.; also Bertholdt and Dereser, who prefer, however, to read λֻּ ?μָּ ?δּ).Daniel 11:17. He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom. “To set his face” is equivalent to “fixing his aim” upon something; cf. 2 Kings 12:18, and for the rest of the sentence, cf. Psalms 71:16; Isaiah 40:10. Livy, XXXIII. 19, plainly asserts that Antiochus was temporarily inclined to follow up his victories in C�le-Syria and Ph�nicia by a powerful attack on Egypt: “Omnibus regni viribus connixus, cum ingentes copias terrestres maritimeasque comparasset,” etc. The same author records also an attack on the cities on the coast of Cilicia and Caria belonging to Ptolemy, as being an introductory step toward the execution of that plan. The reference of the text to this fact is so unequivocal, that all explanations which do not accord with it must be rejected, e.g., that of Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, etc.: “to come against the strength of his (the Egyptian monarch’s) whole kingdom;” and of Fόller, “to come in the power of his (Antiochus’) whole kingdom,” which is interpreted to mean, that he should secure the complete possession of the royal power throughout Syria, and re-establish its former limits.—And upright ones with him; rather, “and an agreement shall he make with him.” This rendering of εִ ?ιωָׁ ?ψִ ?ινςִ ?ξּ ?εֹ εְ ?ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ was adopted by the Sept. (καὶσυνήκαςμετʼ ? αὐτοῦποιήσεται), Vulg., Luther, Berth., Dereser, Von Leng., and Hitzig, although the two last-named writers attempt emendations of the text (Von Leng., εּ ?ξֵ ?ιωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν instead of εִ ?ιωָׁ ?ψִ ?ιν; Hitzig ιַ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ instead of εְ ?ςָ ?ωָׂ ?η) which are entirely uncalled for. It is certainly obvious that the words refer to the treaty concluded in the year 198 between Antiochus and the defeated Ptolemy Epiphanes, by which C�le-Syria was left in the hands of the victor, and in connection with which the marriage of Cleopatra, the daughter of Antiochus, with Ptol. Epiphanes was agreed upon, although not consummated until five years afterward (Polyb., XXVIII. 17; Josephus, Ant., XII. 4, 1); see what follows. Such explanations as the following must therefore be rejected. “and upright ones shall be with him,”—i.e., the Jews (!)—“and he shall succeed in it” (Gesenius, Winer, etc.); “and strong ones come with him, and he conducts it successfully” (Fόller); or, “and uprightness with him, and he shall accomplish it” (Hδvernick, Kranichf.), etc.—And he shall give him the daughter of women, i.e., his daughter Cleopatra, who is here designated as “a daughter of the women” (i.e., of her mother, grandmother, etc., who were still employed with her education), probably on account of her youth; cf. Zechariah 9:9, where αֶּ ?οΞΰֲ ?ϊֹ ?πεֹ ?ϊ in like manner denotes a young ass-colt. As Ptolemy himself was but seven years old when this treaty was made, the agreement primarily involves a betrothal only, the marriage being postponed during five years to B. C. 193.—Corrupting her; rather, “to destroy it,” i.e., his league with Egypt; his purpose was to ruin his former opponent and present ally. μְ ?ηַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊָ ?δּ is probably to be taken in this sense, without substituting μְ ?ηַ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊ for it with Hitzig, or, with others, referring the suffix to the daughter. If the latter interpretation (“to destroy her”) were adopted, the μְ would certainly lose its telic signification, and become consecutive: “so that he destroys her, so that he ruins her in this way” (Kranichf.), but the following clause does not accord with this view.—But she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him; rather, “but it shall not succeed, nor result to his advantage,” i.e., Antiochus shall not realize the expected benefits from the agreement. Others, less appropriately, conceive of Cleopatra as the subject, “she shall not stand on his side (?), neither be for him (?), but rather take sides with her husband, the king of Egypt” (cf. Jerome on the passage). The rendering preferred by us is supported by the exactly similar expressions in Isaiah 7:7; Isaiah 14:24.Verse. 18. And he shall turn his face unto the isles (or coast-lands), and shall take many (of them). The Kethib εְ ?ιָ ?ωֵׁ ?α is to be retained in opposition to the Keri εְ ?ιָ ?ωֵׁ ?ν, which is transferred to this place from Daniel 11:17 for the sake of analogy. ΰִ ?ιִּ ?ιν, i.e., “the isles and coast-lands” probably denotes the coasts of Asia Minor, which Antiochus subjected to his power through the aid of his fleet and army in the summer of 197, and also Macedon and Hellas, which were attacked and conquered by him in the following year, after having spent the intervening winter at Ephesus and crossed the Hellespont in the spring (Livy, XXXIII. 19, 38, 40; Polyb., XVIII. 34).—But a prince …. shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; or, “but a general (military leader) shall stifle his scorn,” i.e., his scornful and contemptuous declaration to the Roman ambassadors at a meeting in Lysimachia, that “Asia did not concern them, the Romans, and he was not subject to their orders” (Polyb. and Livy, 1. c.). The leader (χָ ?ςִ ?ιο, as in Joshua 10:24; Judges 11:6; Judges 11:11) who stifled the scornfulness of the Syrian king (δִ ?ωְׁ ?αִּ ?ιϊ literally, “to cause to cease” [to teach it to cease, Luther]), was Lucius Scipio Asiaticus, whose brilliant victory near Magnesia on the Sipylus in Lydia, B. C. 190, enabled him to force Antiochus to conclude an immediate peace on very severe and humiliating terms (Polyb., XXI. 14; Livy, XXXVIII. 38; Appian, Syr., 38, 39, etc.).—Without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him; rather, “he shall assuredly give him back his reproach;” he shall retaliate by inflicting a more bitter reproach on his part. αִּ ?μְ ?ϊִּ ?ι in this place is synonymous with ΰַ ?κְ or λִּ ?ιΞΰִ ?ν and does not signify “except that” (Hδvernick).—Kranichfeld attempts in vain to obviate and obscure the manifest reference of this representation to the defeat of Antiochus near Magnesia, as being an artful “fabrication of history” on the part of the “positivists in prophetic interpretation.” Daniel 11:19. And he shall turn his face toward the fort (“forts”) of his own land. These words are probably ironical; instead of advancing against the fortresses of foreign lands, he is thenceforward to be employed only with those of his own realm, perhaps in the direction of placing them in good condition for defence. Fόller’s remark, that here and in Daniel 11:24; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 11:39, ξָ ?ςεּ ?ζִ ?ιν denotes temples, which Antiochus was eventually obliged to plunder, because of the distracting state of his finances, is entirely too artificial and without adequate support from the customary usage of the term. History is acquainted with but a single instance in which Antiochus pillaged the temples, viz.: that of the temple of the Elymaic Zeus, or Bel, in connection with which he was slain, together with his warriors, in a rising of the people; and it is arbitrary to argue a number of similar acts from this single fact.—But he shall stumble and fall, and not (or, “no more”) be found. Cf. what has just been remarked, and see Strabo, XVI. 1, 18; Justin., XXXII. 2; Diodorus, Fragm., 26, 39. 40.Daniel 11:20. seleucus Philopater, the son and successor of Antiochus Magnus, B. C. 187–176. Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes (in) the glory of the kingdom; rather, “one that causeth an exacter of taxes to pass over” (marg.), or “one that sendeth out a driver,” to the ornament of the kingdom. The driver was obviously a collector of money, or of tribute, and the person intended was the treasurer Heliodorus, who was sent out by Seleueus Philopater (according to 2Ma 3:7 et seq.) to Jerusalem to confiscate the treasure in the Jewish temple. ηֶ ?γֶ ?ψξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ν, “the splendor or ornament of the kingdom,” doubtless designates Jerusalem (as does also the φְ ?αִ ?ι of Judζa, Daniel 8:9); cf. the similar laudatory terms applied to that city in Psalms 48:3; Psalms 1:2; Lamentations 2:15. The accusative ηֶ ?ψֶ ξΧ accordingly indicates the direction rather than the measure (“who causes to pass through the extent (?) of the land,” Fόller et al.), and cannot in any case be regarded as a nominative in apposition with the subject ξַ ?ςֲ ?λִ ?ιψπεֹ ?βֵ ?ωׁ, as Kranichfeld proposes, who consequently translates: “(one) who shall lead drivers thither, the ornament of dominion.”—But in few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. Soon after Heliodorus was despatched to plunder the temple of Jehovah, B. C. 176 or 175, Seleueus Philopater was suddenly and mysteriously removed, possibly by poison which had been administered to him by the same Heliodorus (Appian, Syr., C. 45). The words “after some (or ‘a few’) days” doubtless refer to the brief interval between the departure of that officer and the king’s death, rather than to the brief duration of his reign of only twelve years, as they are generally applied. On the statement that he was to be destroyed “neither in anger, nor in battle,” the remarks of Appian respecting the mode of Philopater’s death (ἐξἐπιβουλῆς) should be compared.Daniel 11:21-24. The rise of Antiochus Epiphanes; his first Egyptian campaign. And in his estate shall stand up a vile person. λִ ?λְ ?ζֶ ?δ does not probably denote “a despised one, whose birth deprived him of every right to the throne” (Kranichfeld), but rather one who is deservedly despised, who is despicable, morally contemptible, thus corresponding to λִ ?ξְ ?ΰָ ?ρ Jeremiah 6:30, and contrasting with ξֵ ?ιθָ ?λ 1 Samuel 15:9 (cf. Hitzig on the passage). The symbolic description of the person here introduced, as a “little horn,” Daniel 7:8; Daniel 8:9, is in any case appropriate. A contrast with the cognomen ’Επιφανής was probably not intended, since the term appears to be one of the original constituents of the section, rather than an interpolation; for a Maccabζan interpolator would hardly have avoided the temptation to avail himself of the suggestion afforded by the familiar perversion of Ἐπιφανής into Ἐπιμανής to make use of a term like ξְ ?ωֻׁ ?βָּ ?ς for instance (cf. 1 Sam. 21:16; Jeremiah 29:26; Hosea 9:7).—To whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom; rather, “to whom was not given,” etc.—who has seized the royal dignity instead, in opposition to the will of his nation. Cf. the Eth.-fund, principles, etc., on chap. 7, No. 3; and with reference to the expression ηεֹ ?γξַ ?μְ ?λεּ ?ϊ cf. 1 Chronicles 29:25; Psalms 21:6.—He shall come in peaceably (or “unexpectedly”—αְּ ?ωַׁ ?μְ ?εָ ?η as in Daniel 11:24 and Daniel 8:25) and obtain the kingdom by flatteries; rather, by “dissimulations.” ηְַ ?μַ ?χְ ?μַ ?χּ ?εֹ ?ϊ does not denote smooth speeches or flattering words merely, but dissimulating words and actions, a hypocritical and deceitful bearing in both word and deed. It occurs in the same sense in Daniel 11:34. The historical tradition, indeed, speaks only of the application of military force by Antiochus, when seeking to obtain the Syrian throne for himself, and of the assistance which Eumenes and Attalus rendered him to that end, by expelling the usurper Heliodorus. But this assuredly did not exclude the employment of all manner of canning arts and secret man�uverings, which probably were the only means by which he could secure the countenance of those kings of Pergamos. The difference between the language of the passage and the historical fact is at any rate inconsiderable; and it is not necessary to assume that to obviate that difficulty the Sept. substituted the more appropriate αַּ ?ηְַ ?μָ ?χεֹ ?ϊ or αְּ ?ηֶ ?μְ ?χָ ?η for λημχμχεϊ, and translated it by κατισχύσειβασιλεὺςἐνκληροδοσίᾳαὐτοῦ on the ground that they “could find no historical equivalent for the former term” (against Kranichfeld). Daniel 11:22. And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him; rather, “and the overflowing power of the host shall be swept away and broken before him;” literally, “and the arms of the overflowing—before his face they shall be swept away,” etc. On ζְ ?ψֹ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ, cf. Daniel 11:15; Daniel 11:31; on ωֶׁ ?θֶ ?σ cf. Daniel 9:26. The tropical expression ζψְ ?ςֹּ ?εֹ ?ϊηַ ?ωֶּׁ ?θֶ ?σ, when taken as a whole, involves a metaphor that is not entirely unmixed, similar to ωׁ ?εσθωׁ ?εֹ ?θֵ ?σ, “the overflowing scourge,” in Isaiah 28:15. The “overflowing hosts” probably represent in part the troops of Heliodorus, whom Antiochus routed with the assistance of his Pergamenian allies, and in part the Egyptian forces which sought to deprive him of C�le-Syria soon after his accession to the throne. “For after the death of Cleopatra (Daniel 11:17), Eulaus and Lenζus, the guardians of her son, Ptolemy Philometor, demanded the cession of C�le-Syria, the dowry which had hitherto been refused (Polyb., 28:1; Diodor., Leg. 18, p. 624 Wess.; Livy, XLII. 49). Antiochus, on the other hand, would not acknowledge that his father had promised such a dowry (Polyb., XXVIII. 17), and therefore refused to grant it. Finding that the Egyptians were preparing for war, he took the initiative, and succeeded in defeating the generals of Ptolemy between the Casian mountains and Pelusium. On every calculation, that event transpired in B. C. 171” (Hitzig).—Yea, also the (rather, “a”) prince of the covenant; supply ιִ ?ωָּׁ ?αֵ ?ψ “shall be broken.” The person referred to was probably the high priest Onias III., who was put to death by command of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year 172, and hence about the time of the war between that king and Ptol. Philometor. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ c. Conclusion of the vision. The Messianic deliverance and glorifying of God’s people, together with a reference to the definite determination by God of the time at which the Messiah’s coming to deliver should transpire.Chap. 121And at [in] that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which [who] standeth for [over against] the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as [which] never was since there was a nation even to [till] that same time: and at [in] that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2And many of them that sleep in the dust [ground] of the earth [dust] shall awake, some [these] to everlasting life, 3and some [these] to shame [reproaches] and [to] everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn [the] many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever. 4But [And] thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to [till] the time of the end: many shall run to and fro [run through the book], and [the] knowledge [of it] shall be increased. 5Then [And] I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank [hither at the lip] of the river,:and the other [one] on that 6side of the bank [hither at the lip] of the river.2 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which [who] was upon the waters of the river,2 How long 7[Till when] shall it be to the end of these [the] wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which [who] was upon the waters 3of the river, when [and] he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven [toward the heavens], and sware by him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter [as (at) the finishing of scattering] the power [hand] of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. 8And I heard, but I understood not [could not understand]: then [and] said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end [sequel] of these things ? 9And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 10Many shall be purified [purify themselves], and made white [whiten themselves], and tried [be smelted]; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but [and] the wise [prudent] shall understand. 11And from the time that the daily [continual] sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up [to the giving of the desolate 12abomination], there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. 13But [And] go thou4 thy way till [to] the end be: for [and] thou shalt rest, and stand in [to (at)] thy lot at the end of the days. REMARKSDan_12:1-3. The Messianic deliverance and the judgment for eternal retribution. And at that time; i.e., at the time just indicated (Daniel 11:45), when judgment shall overtake the impious oppressor, Antiochus Epiphanes, and when he shall come to his end “without a helper.” In opposition to Hδvernick’s attempt to interpret εּ ?αָ ?ςֵ ?ϊηַ ?δִ ?ιΰ in the indefinite sense of “once, at a certain time,” nearly all recent expositors have justly contended: (1) that the copula ε connects this new designation of time most intimately with the preceding; (2) that it is impossible to regard the words αַּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?νδַ ?δεּ ?ΰ, which Hδvernick adduces in comparison, otherwise than as a reference to the time indicated in the context immediately preceding; (3) that the time referred to is immediately afterward characterized as a time of trouble, which shows with sufficient clearness, that, like the mention of the ξωλιμιν in Daniel 12:3 (cf. Daniel 11:35), the allusion is to the period of persecution under Antiochus as heretofore described.—Shall Michael stand up, the great prince, which standeth for the children of thy people. This introduction of Michael as the heavenly ally and protector of Israel (not as the Son of God or the Messiah himself,—as Havernick, in accord with the older exegesis, still supposes), refers back to Daniel 11:1, and also to the preliminaries to the vision as a whole in chap. 10, and especially to Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21, in the same way as εּ ?αָ ?ςֵ ?ϊδַ ?δִ ?ιΰ refers to the close of the preceding chapter. In both places ςξγ is employed sensu bellico, and denotes an armed and martial appearance (cf. Daniel 11:14; Daniel 11:16, etc.). ςַ ?μ is, following δָ ?ςֹ ?ξֵ ?γ, serves to express the idea of protecting oversight over, etc., as in Esther 8:11; Esther 9:16. He “stands up” or “stands there” for the children of thy people, i.e., he represents their interests in the way of actively supporting them and of protecting them; cf. Daniel 10:13.—And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; i.e., he trouble of the faithful shall then reach its highest intensity, shall have reached its climax when deliverance finally arrives; cf. Daniel 11:45; Daniel 9:26-27. On the relative clause εβεΧΰֲ ?ωֵׁ ?ψμֹ ?ΰπִ ?ηְ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?η, which describes this as a time of unheard of, unprecedented trouble, cf. Exodus 9:18; Exodus 9:24; Joe 2:2, and particularly Jeremiah 30:7, which latter passage seems to have served generally as a prototype of the text.—And at that time thy people shall be delivered. Kranichfeld remarks properly, that “the deliverance of Israel (ιִ ?ξָּ ?μֵ ?θ) which is here conceived of as accomplished under the direction of ξִ ?ιλָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, is coincident in fact with the descriptions of Dan 7:18; Daniel 7:26 et seq., 14; Daniel 9:24; and the entrance to the Ancient of days (Daniel 7:13) of him who was like the son of man, and who was the spiritually endowed leader of Israel, i.e., the Mashiach, sprung from Israel itself, receives notice as being the final result and attestation of the victorious conflict maintained, under the invisible direction of the angel ξִ ?ιλָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, against the adversary of the theocracy, who appears in the history of the nations. The absolute identity of the Mashiach with ξִ ?ιλָ ?ΰֵ ?μ, whose spiritual endowments and official relations were similar to his, does not, however, become manifest from this observation—as Hδvernick and others assert—despite the appropriate and well-founded application of the description to the glorified Son of man in person, in the New Test. Apocalypse,—any more than the direct identity of Satan, the adversary of God in the angelic world, with the New Test. antichrist, who stands under his ζgis, can be demonstrated.”—Every one that shall be found written in the book; or, “whosoever shall find himself recorded, in the book.” The A. V. is literal. On λμ in the sense of “whosoever, quicunque,” cf. Isaiah 43:7; 2 Samuel 2:23. The book is the same as that mentioned in the similar passage, Isaiah 4:3, and hence, the book of life; cf. on Daniel 7:10. It is, of course, not to be regarded as a “list of living Israelites” (cf. Psalms 69:29; Exodus 32:32); nor, probably, as a “record of those who shall be delivered in the decisive hour and be permitted to live.” It is rather a record of those who shall inherit eternal life, a “list of the subjects of Messiah’s kingdom” (cf. Hitzig on the passage), of those who shall stand approved in the judgment, whether they live until it transpires, or are raised from the dead to meet it, according to Daniel 12:2. Hofmann (Schriftbew., I. 209) is in substantial accord with this view—the “Divine register of Israel, upon which are entered all who truly belong to Israel,”—while Fόller arbitrarily applies the expression in this place to the “book of truth,” Daniel 10:21. Daniel 12:2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth; rather, “and many of them that sleep under the earth;” literally, “many of the sleepers of the dust land.” ΰַ ?γְ ?ξַ ?ϊΞςָ ?τָ ?ψ, “land, earth of dust” (i.e., the dust of the grave, cf. Psalms 22:16; Psalms 22:30; Isaiah 26:19, etc), is substantially equivalent to “earth dust, soil;” the ιְ ?ωֵׁ ?πֵ ?ιΰΧΞςΧ are those who sleep the sleep of death in that dust of the earth; cf. Psalms 13:4; Job 3:13; Jeremiah 51:39; Jeremiah 51:57; and also the New Test. κοιμώμενοι, κεκοιμημένοι.—Shall awake, some to everlasting life, etc. While all the ancient Christian expositors regard this as referring to the general resurrection of the dead, and, among moderns, Hδvernick, Hofmann, Auberlen, Zόndel, Kliefoth, etc., still agree with that view, which makes “many” to be equivalent to “all” (or translates, with Hofmann, Schriftbew., II. 2, 549, “and in multitudes shall they arise from the world of the dead”), a majority of writers since Bertholdt (also Kranichfeld, Fόller, Kφstlin, in Stud. und Krit., 1869, No. 2, p. 252) hold that the many who awake from their sleep belong solely to the nation of Israel; as Fuller expresses it, p. Dan 339: the resurrection of the dead foretold in this place is “not the last and general resurrection, but a partial one which precedes that, and is confined to Daniel’s nation.” It is manifest, however, that the final and general resurrection is here intended, (1) because the expression, the “sleepers of the dust of the earth” is far too general in its character, to admit of its being limited to the deceased Israelites; (2) because the mention of the eternal punishment of the wicked in the closing words of the verse would be incomprehensible, and serve no purpose, if they refer only to Israelites who are to be punished eternally (see the context immediately below); (3) further, ψַ ?αִּ ?ιν, which primarily implies the immeasurable extent of the multitude of the resurrected dead (cf. Hofmann’s rendering: “in multitudes”), may as well designate the entire world of dead arising from their graves as a large fraction of it—in the same way as πολλοί or οἱπολλοί is frequently employed in the New Test, as synonymous with πάντες; cf., e.g., Matthew 20:28; Matthew 26:28, with 1 John 2:2; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Romans 5:15-16, with Daniel 12:12; Daniel 7 (4) if the earlier prophetic parallels, Isaiah 26:19; Isaiah 66:24; Ezekiel 37:1-15, actually do foretell a partial resurrection which is confined to Israel (which can by no means be positively established, since they rest, without exception, on the pre supposition of an ultimate resurrection of all men, cf. Hofmann, Schriftbew., II. 2, 461 et seq.), this will not involve that the passage before us has a similar bearing; (5) on the contrary, the expectation of a general resurrection of the dead, whose existence is abundantly evidenced in the Jewish apocalyptic literature (2Ma 7:14) and in the New Test, (see especially John 5:28 et seq.; Acts 24:15), would require that there should not be wanting basal testimonies to that fact in the canonical Old Test. as well, which would obviously be the case if this passage referred exclusively to a particular resurrection of the Israelites; (6) nor does the intimate connection of the passage with the preceding context, or, in other words, the concatenation of the eschatological prophecies in Daniel 12:1-3 with the ζra of the Antiochian MaceabfeanMaceabfean troubles, as described in the preceding chapter, militate against the universal character of the resurrection in question. It is evident that in the mind of the prophet that period of trial was the immediate precursor of the end of the world. (4) if the earlier prophetic parallels, Isaiah 26:19; Isaiah 66:24; Ezekiel 37:1-15, actually do foretell a partial resurrection which is confined to Israel (which can by no means be positively established, since they rest, without exception, on the presupposition of an ultimate resurrection of all men, cf. Hofmann, Schriftbew., 2:2, 461 et seq.), this will not involve that the passage before us has a similar bearing; (5) on the contrary, the expectation of a general resurrection of the dead, whose existence is abundantly evidenced in the Jewish apocalyptic literature (2Ma 7:14) and in the Sew Test, (see especially John 5:28 et seq.; Acts 24:15), would require that there should not be wanting basal testimonies to that fact in the canonical Old Test, as well, which would obviously be the case if this passage referred exclusively to a particular resurrection of the Israelites; (6) nor does the intimate connection of the passage with the preceding context, or, in other words, the concatenation of the eschatological prophecies in Daniel 12:1-3 with the ζra of the Antiochian-Maccabζn troubles, as described in the preceding chapter, militate against the universal character of the resurrection in question. It is evident that in the mind of the prophet that period of trial was the immediate precursor of the end of the world.*As he viewed it, the end of the persecution by Antiochus and the advent of the Messiah to introduce a new and eternal period of blessing were substantially coincident. He saw nothing at all of the long series of years that were to intervene between those Old-Test. “woes of the Messiah” and his actual birth and incarnation, nor did he observe the many centuries between His first and second advent, between the beginning of the end and the ultimate end of all things, because it was inconsistent with the nature of prophetic vision (cf, supra, Eth.-fund. principles, etc., on chap. 9. No. 1). The antitypical general judgment of all flesh was identical with the typical judgment that came upon the Old-Test, oppressor of God’s people, to his understanding; and it is therefore equally one-sided to deprive the judgment here referred to of its universal character, and to reduce it to a special judgment over the good and the wicked Israelites, as Bertholdt, Hitzig, and the remaining rationalistic expositors contend,—or to arbitrarily refer Daniel 12:1 to the deliverance of Israel from the oppression of Antiochus, and therefore interpret it typically and distinctively, but Daniel 12:2-3 to the general resurrection and judgment, making them antitypical and eschatological, so that an immense chasm between the time of Dan 12:1-2 is postulated, of whose existence there is no indication in the text. Against this arbitrary disruption of a description that obviously forms a unit, see Hilgenfeld, Die Propheten Ezra und Daniel, p. 84, and also Kranichfeld, p. 402. A hiatus of centuries certainly exists; but it belongs between Daniel 11:45 and Daniel 12:1, and is of such a character that the prophet could have been in no way conscious of its presence.—And some to shame, and everlasting contempt. As the awaking “to everlasting life” recalls Isaiah 26:19, so the arising “to shame, to everlasting contempt” (γִּ ?ψְ ?ΰεֹ ?ο, stat. constr. of γֵּ ?ψָ ?ΰεֹ ?ο, similar to ζִ ?λְ ?ψεֹ ?ο, constr. of ζִ ?λָּ ?ψεֹ ?ο) suggests Isaiah 66:24. cf. the New Test, expressions ἀνάστασιςκρίσεως, John 5:29, and θάνατοςδεύτερος, Revelation 20:14.—Fόller supposes, very arbitrarily, that “the resurrection to shame” is “merely a passing observation,” which might be omitted from the passage without damaging its meaning. On the contrary, the mention of the eternal shame and torment which await the wicked at the judgment is a leading thought, which was not only suggested, but positively demanded, by the recent mention of the helpless and irretrievable ruin of the antichristian madman (Daniel 11:45), and which deserves consideration as a leading proof that the judgment here foretold is not to be distinctively Jewish, but universal in its character, precisely because of this undeniable reference to Daniel 11:45 b; see supra, No. 2. Daniel 12:3. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament. There is no more reason here than in Daniel 11:33; Daniel 11:35, to translate ηַ ?ξָּ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμִ ?ιν otherwise than “the wise, prudent, or understanding” ones. It does not characterize the pious generally (who were designated as the “many,” ψַ ?αִּ ?ιν, in Daniel 11:33, and who are again mentioned by the same term in b of this verse), but “those who were prominent among the people by their piety, fidelity, and steadfastness, who accomplished more than others by word and deed, and suffered more than others for the holy covenant” (Fόller). It is self evident that the activity of such theocratically wise or prudent persons would include the work of teaching, but this does not involve the necessity of rendering ξωλιִ ?μιν directly by “teachers.” This over-precise adaptation of the idea is not established by the parallel ξַ ?φְ ?γִּ ?ιχֵ ?ιηָ ?ψַ ?αִּ ?ιν, nor by the designation of Jehovah’s servant by ξַ ?ωְׁ ?λִּ ?ιμ, in Isaiah 52:13 (against Hitzig). On the other hand, the too general and diluted rendering, “pious, well-disposed ones” (de Wette), has no sufficient support, e.g., in Matthew 13:44; for Christ’s statement respecting the “righteous” in general, that “they shall shine as the sun in the kingdom of their Father,” is a free application, but not a translation or an explanation of this passage.—On the comparison of the shining of the “wise (ηַ ?ζְ ?ηִ ?ιψ, properly, “to radiate brightness, to shine brightly”) with that of the bright arch of heaven (ψָ ?χִ ?ιςַ, “the firmament,” cf. the expositors on Genesis 1:6), see especially Exodus 24:10; also Ezekiel 1:22; Ezekiel 1:26, etc.—And they that turn (the) many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever. The words ξַ ?φְ ?γִּ ?ιχֵ ?ιηָ ?ψַ ?αִּ ?ιν seem to have been borrowed from Isaiah 53:11, but do not on that account justify the assertion of Kranichfeld, that only originators of the righteousness mediated by the priestly function,—hence priests, “who take away the sins of the people through the sacrificial ceremonial”—are to be understood thereby;—a view concerning ηִ ?φְ ?γִּ ?ιχ that is entirely too contracted, and, at the same time, interpolating in character, which finds no support either in the former mention of theocratic sacrifices (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 8:11; Daniel 8:13; Daniel 9:26), or in the passage, Daniel 9:24.—The stars are mentioned as symbols of the heavenly condition of the righteous who have been glorified after the image of God in 1 Corinthians 15:40 et seq.; Revelation 2:28; cf. also supra, on Daniel 8:10. Daniel 12:4. Concluding exhortation of the prophesying angel. But thou, O Daniel shut up (or “conceal”) the words, and seal the book. The “words” and the “book” can hardly designate the entire book of Daniel’s prophecies, but refer merely to the final vision, Daniel 11:2 to Daniel 12:3 (Hδvern., Von Leng., Kranichf., Fόller, etc., are correct). On ρֵ ?τֵ ?ψ as denoting a limited section of connected writing, which occupies a single roll, cf. Nehemiah 1:1; Jeremiah 51:63; also supra, on Daniel 9:2.On ρϊν, “to conceal,”—i.e., to preserve in secret, or not publish it—and ηִ ?ϊν, “to seal,” which is added to strengthen the idea, see on Daniel 8:6. Neither of the words was to be taken literally, of course (against Hitzig). What the angel required of the prophet, and to which the latter doubtless consented, was merely that he should avoid any intentional or inconsiderate publishing of the prophecy, hence, that he should transmit it into chaste, approved, and trustworthy hands, that would be prepared to treat it in accordance with its mysterious and awe-compelling subject.—To the time of the end: i.e., until the juncture indicated in Daniel 12:1, to which the entire prophecy, beginning with Daniel 11:2, is directed.—Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased; rather, “many shall search it through, and the understanding shall become great.” ιְ ?ωֹׁ ?θְ ?θεּ, properly, “they shall run about,” namely, for the purpose of searching or investigating; cf. Jeremiah 5:1; Amos 8:12; Zechariah 4:10; 2 Chronicles 16:9. The interpretation by “wandering about, roving about without a guide” (as contrasted with the assured guidance afforded by God’s word), which was advocated by J. D. Michaelis and Von Lengerke, cannot be established; nor can the sense of “careful reading,” which was adopted by Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, etc., be demonstrated, despite the citation of the rabbinical ωִׁ ?θִּ ?ιν ,ωִׁ ?θָּ ?δ, “a line (of reading), a straight line,” which is alleged as underlying the words in the text.—The whole observation was evidently intended to assign a reason for the exhortation to conceal the imparted prophecy, and treat it sacredly, and to prevent its falling into profane hands; for that prophecy was not unimportant and ordinary in its character, but a means to secure to many, who should zealously examine it in the future, a deeper insight into the ways of God, the controller of all earthly fortunes. For that reason it would be sinful to profane it. [“If Daniel, therefore, must only place the prophecy securely, that it may continue to the time of the end, the sealing then does not exclude the use of it in transcriptions, and there exists no reason for thinking that the searching into it will take place only for the first time in the end” (Keil).] Daniel 12:5-7. Solemn averment, by oath, of the assured realizing of the prophecy until a determined point in the future—namely, until the expiration of the mystical three and a half years, to whose close the prophet had already been referred, Daniel 7:25 (cf. Daniel 8:14; Daniel 9:27). The recurrence of this comforting designation of time indicates that the contents of these verses to the end of the chapter are designed to form an epilogue, not merely to the last prophetic vision (chap. 10–12:3), but to the entire prophetic part of the book, and even to the whole book itself. The new scene, however, which begins with this verse, and serves to introduce the epilogue, obviously occupies a more intimate relation to the scene, Daniel 10:4 et seq., which introduces the last great vision, than to the others, and may even be regarded as a resumption of that scene, with but little modification. Compare, on the one hand, the words indicating a new beginning, “Then I, Daniel, looked,” etc., which recall Daniel 10:5, and, on the other hand, the circumstance that the principal person in the former scene, the mighty angelic prince, “clothed in linen,” still continues to be the principal person in word and action (Daniel 12:6 et seq.), although two other angels, who had not been present hitherto, now appeared (as witnesses of the oath to be taken by him; see immediately below), so that the number present was now double its former size, when only Daniel and the angelic prince in linen clothing were on the scene.—And behold, there stood other two; i.e., other than the one who had hitherto spoken and who again resumes in Daniel 12:7,—other than the priestly angelic prince in linen garments. ΰֲ ?ηֵ ?ψִ ?ιν is certainly not used with reference to the speaker introduced in Daniel 12:6 (Hengstenb.), but refers, as it always does, to what has been previously mentioned, so that it distinguishes two other persons besides the angel who was thus far the speaker; and these enter into the prophet’s range of vision at this point. There can be no doubt that these persons were likewise angels; and the following verses leave no room to question that their number was precisely two, that they might be recognized as witnesses to the oath in Daniel 12:7; cf. Deuteronomy 19:15; Deuteronomy 31:28; 2 Corinthians 13:1, etc. (thus correctly, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, and in substance Kliefoth also). It would be useless, however, to venture any supposition as to who the two angels were, for the simple reason that the writer did not see fit to furnish their names. It is scarcely probable that they were Gabriel and Michael, for Daniel would certainly have noticed their presence, since he had already mentioned these two chief princes among the angels in several instances. Probably angels of inferior rank are to be conceived of, since they were capable of being witnesses in the present case. Whether they were identical with the two saints whom the prophet heard conversing together in Daniel 8:13, or not, must remain undecided. In any case, the following theories, which conflict with the context, must be rejected: (1) that one of the two ΰֲ ?ηֵ ?ψִ ?ιν was Gabriel, whose disappearance was nowhere mentioned (Von Lengerke); (2) that one of them was Gabriel, but the other was a different angel, who was already introduced in the former scene, chap. Daniel 12:5 et seq., but had not yet been designated by name (thus Hδvernick, who consequently finds the three angels of this scene present in chap. 10, without exception, but without being clearly distinguished from each other); (3) that the ΰֲ ?ηֵ ?ψִ ?ιν were the guardian angels or princes of Persia and Grζcia, mentioned in Daniel 10:20 (Jerome, Luther, Grotius, Sanctius, etc.); (4) that they were Judas and Simon Maccabζus (!—so J. D. Michaelis); (5) that they were the representatives of all who in the future should wait for the kingdom of God and inquire after the time of its coming (Cocceius); (6) that they were a mystical personification either of the law and prophecy (thus a gloss in the margin of the cod. Chisian.) or of reason and imagination (rabbins, e.g., Jos. Jacchiades). M. Geier already remarks respecting these and other theories of a similar character: “H�c figmenta sunt hominum, textus auctoritate destituta.”—The one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river; rather, “the one here on the bank of the river, the other yonder on the bank,” etc. ηַ ?ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψ, usually the Heb. name for the Nile (which in the Egypt, itself is called ior [Sahid. jero, Memphit. jaro]; cf. Gesen. Dietr., s. v., ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ι), is here used to designate the “great river” Tigris, Daniel 10:4. The reason is probably to be found in the fact that at an early period ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψ had acquired a purely appellative signification =ηַ ?πָּ ?ηָ ?ψηַ ?βָּ ?γεֹ ?μ, as may appear from the poetic use of ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψִ ?ιν in the sense of “channels” (cf. Job 28:10; Isaiah 33:21). It is useless for Hitzig and Kranichfeld to deny the purely appellative use of ιְ ?ΰֹ ?ψ in this place, and to contend instead that the Tigris is here termed the Nile by way of metonymy—from which position they deduce consequences of a more or less arbitrary character (the former, that this designation reveals that the angel who had hitherto spoken, and who now, Daniel 12:6 et seq., hovered over the water, was the guardian spirit of Egypt [cf. on chap. Daniel 12:5] and also that the author of the entire book was of Egyptian descent [!]; the latter, that “the metonymical co-ordination in fact of the Nile, representing Egypt, and the Hiddekel, the representative of the coming time of trouble [?], was designed to indicate a second Egyptian deliverance” ). Daniel 12:6. And one said to the man clothed in linen, etc. The subject of εַ ?ιּ ?ΰֹ ?ξֶ ?ψ is certainly not “each of the two, the one on this side and one on the other” (Theod., Syr., Kranichf., Kliefoth), but rather only one of them (ηִ ?ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γξֵ ?ηֶ ?ν, Ibn-Ezra), as the analogy of Dan 8:13 clearly suggests, and probably the one nearest to the prophet, on the same side of the stream as the latter, and the only one whom he could hear. This angel represents the prophet himself in his inquiry, similar to Daniel 8:13 (cf. 12:14); Jerome is therefore not in the wrong to that extent, when he substitutes “et dixi” for “et dixit (alter eorum),” without further question.—Which upon (or “above”) the waters of the river; supply “stood,” or “hovered.” This hovering over the waters of the Tigris denotes a new position, which was not mentioned in connection with the former introduction and description of the “man clothed in linen,” chap. 10, and with which Daniel 8:10 is probably not to be compared (see on that passage). The fact that the revealing angel hovered over the stream was hardly for the mere purpose of placing him between the two inquiring angels on its banks, nor was it merely designed to recall the brooding of God’s Spirit over the waters, Genesis 1:2 (Hitzig), but rather serves to designate the mighty and swiftly flowing stream of the Tigris—as formerly the sea (Daniel 7:2)—as a symbol of the surging world of nations over which “the good spirit of the world-power” exercises sway as a beneficent and guiding principle of order (so Fuller, probably with correctness; but he combines with it the extremely forced hypothesis that the angels on the banks of the river were intended to denote the two-fold end of the world-period, hence the two manifestations of Christ, the first in lowliness and the second in glory!)—How long to the end of the wonders? i.e., “when (ςַ ?γΞξָ ?ϊַ ?ι, here equivalent to ξָ ?ϊַ ?ι) shall the end, the consummation, come of the wondrous things foretold by thee ?” The χֵ ?υ is evidently that referred to in Daniel 12:1 (cf. Daniel 11:45), and therefore different from the ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, “the last end,” concerning which Daniel makes inquiry in Daniel 12:8. The “wondrous things” (τְּ ?μָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ) themselves are the extraordinary sufferings and judicial punishments, whose instrument Antiochus, the Old-Test. Antichrist, was to become, and which are described at the end, beginning with Daniel 11:30; cf. the similar use of πִ ?τְ ?μָ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ in Daniel 8:24; Daniel 11:36; and particularly Isaiah 29:14. Daniel 12:7. And he held up his right hand and his left hand. The raising of both hands was designed to impart a solemn emphasis to the act of taking the oath; cf. Deuteronomy 32:40; Ezekiel 20:5.—And sware by him that liveth for ever. αְּ ?ηֵ ?ιΞςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, cf. Daniel 4:31; Deut., l. c., and Revelation 10:6. ηַ ?ι is an adjective, not a substantive, in this place. cf. the similar predicates connected with the names of heathen gods also, e.g., ἀείζωοςθεός in the inscrip. at Shakka (Burkhardt, Reisen, etc., pp. 147, 503); Πτολεμαῖοςαἰωνόβιος on the Rosetta stone, lines 4, 9, 54. In connection with the true God Jehovah, the predicate vivens in ζternum has the profounder significance, that He not only lives for ever, but also fixes the limit of evil for ever (Ewald, on this passage).—That for a time, times, and a half; i.e., after a time, and two times, and a half time, or, briefly, after three and a half (mystical [rather, literal]) years; cf. on Daniel 7:25. To this limitation of time, which has become familiar from its former occurrence (cf. also Daniel 8:14; Daniel 9:27), is now added a further one, which, however, substantially coincides with it:—and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people; rather, “and when the scattering of a part of the holy people shall have ceased.” No material objection can be brought to bear against this exposition of the words εּ ?λְ ?λַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ϊπַ ?τֵּ ?υιַ ?γΞςַ ?νΞχֹ ?γֶ ?ω, since πִ ?τֵּ ?υ almost invariably has the meaning “to scatter, disperse,” in the prophetic usage (cf. Isaiah 11:12; Jeremiah 13:14; Jeremiah 51:20; Jeremiah 51:23), while that of “break, shatter,” seems to be confined more particularly to poetry (cf. Psalms 2:9; Psalms 137:9), and further, since the rendering of ιָ ?γ by “part, division,” seems to be adequately supported by parallels like Genesis 47:24; 2 Kings 11:7; Nehemiah 11:1. It is not necessary, in order to obtain this meaning, to change the pointing so as to read γְ ?λִ ?λְ ?μֹ ?γϊπֶ ?τֶ ?υγβγΧ, as Hitzig proposes The correct view is represented by Bertholdt, Dereser, Gesenius, Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, Zόndel, and substantially by Theodot., Vulg., Luther, etc., excepting only that the latter neglect to render ιָ ?γ by “part,” and either interpret it by “might, warlike power,” or leave it altogether untranslated. On the other hand, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Maurer, Auberlen, Kranichfeld, Fόller, Kliefoth, Ewald, etc., render: “When the shattering of the hand of the holy people shall have ceased” (i.e., when its power shall have been entirely broken). In support of this view it is usually contended (with Hofmann, Weiss, und Erf., I. 314 et seq.) that the idea of reuniting the scattered Israel, which occurs nowhere else in Daniel, would be presented in this place without any preparation whatever. This is as if the chapter under consideration did not present a number of other ideas, which are wholly new and have never occurred previously, e.g., the prophecy of the resurrection in Daniel 12:2; the shining of the wise like the brightness of the firmament, in Daniel 12:3; and also the contents of Dan 12:10; or as if the mention in this book of the expectation that the dispersed people of God should be reunited, which was so familiar to the earlier prophets, could be in any way remarkable, when taken in connection with the correspondence, usually so thorough, of the range of this prophet’s ideas with that of his predecessors (cf. Joe 3:5 et seq.; Amos 9:11 et seq.; Isaiah 11:12; Jeremiah 51:20 et seq., etc., etc.). It is entirely unnecessary to adopt the historical reference to 1Ma 5:23; 1Ma 5:45; 1Ma 5:53 et seq.; 2Ma 12:32, which Hitzig discovers in this passage, and regards as a proof that in this instance there is another vatic, exeventu. There is not the slightest difficulty, however, connected with the opinion that the facts recorded in those passages of the Maccabζan books (relating to the bringing back to Judζa of the scattered Jews who lived in Galilee and Gilead among the heathen, by Judas and Simon Maccabζus), constituted a first typical fulfilment and historical exemplification of the present prophecy.—All this shall be finished. λָּ ?μΞΰֵ ?μֶּ ?δ, not the foregoing words, but the things spoken of, the sum of the prophecy beginning with Daniel 11:2 (inclusive of the contents of Dan 12:1-3).Daniel 12:8-9. The prophet’s question concerning the final end, and the angel’s encouraging reply. And I heard, but I understood not, namely, the information just imparted by the angel, involving a two-fold designation of the time, and also including the statement, which was especially incomprehensible to the prophet, that at the expiration of the three and a half times the dispersion of a part of Israel should have reached its end.—What shall be the end of these things? i.e., “which event is to be the last of these ‘wondrous things?” (Daniel 12:6); by the occurrence of what event shall it be possible to know that the last end of the entire series of the predicted troubles and judgments has been reached?—Hence the ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, concerning which Daniel now inquires, does not directly coincide with the χֵ ?υ to which the question of the angel in Daniel 12:6 referred, but stands related to it as the final point in a course of development is related to a final period of extended duration.Daniel 12:9. And he said, Go thy way, Daniel, etc. μֵ ?κְ, as in Daniel 12:13, an encouraging remark addressed to the prophet, who had approached with anxious questioning; cf. Ecclesiastes 9:7. This parallel demonstrates, if there were no other reason, that it is impossible to take δμκְ in the sense of “to die, to die peacefully, to lie down to sleep,” in this place, as Bertholdt, Hδvernick, etc., propose.—For the words are closed up (or “concealed”) and sealed till the time of the end. cf. Daniel 12:4, where ηַ ?γְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν, “the words,” is evidently employed in the same sense as here, namely, as designating the words of the prophecy, Daniel 11:2 to Daniel 12:3. The statement that these words are “concealed and sealed” till the time of the end, has, of course, a different meaning from the exhortation in that passage, “to conceal and seal” them. While that exhortation was intended to warn him earnestly against an inconsiderate desire to publish and prostitute to common uses the statements of the prophecy, the present reference to their hidden condition (i.e., to the mysterious nature of the revealed facts), is designed to encourage and to lead to humble submission to the Divine guidance, whose purposes cannot at first be understood, ςֵ ?ϊχֵ ?υ, however, has no other signification in this place than in Daniel 12:4, or than χֵ ?υ in Daniel 12:6.Daniel 12:10-12. Approximatedetermination of the final point (the ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊ) of the predicted development, for the purpose of affording additional comfort and encouragement to tie prophet, in his anxiety to receive information. Many shall be purified and made white, and tried, rather, “shall purify and cleanse themselves, and shall be thoroughly tried.” The terms recur from Daniel 11:35, excepting that they are differently arranged, and that the two leading verbs, αψψ “to purify”, and μαο “to cleanse,” are to be taken in a reflexive sense, corresponding to the Hithpael, while the third φψσ (Niph.) expresses the passive sense of being thoroughly tried, or of being thoroughly purified (cf. Psalms 12:7; Proverbs 30:5). With each of the verbs the idea of suffering and persecution on account of the faith is of course again involved, as forming the media of purifying.—But the wicked shall do wickedly. The ε in εְ ?δִ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ιςεּ is adversative, and serves to contrast the conduct of the wicked in the last time with the contemporaneous course pursued by the faithful. cf. the free rendering of the passage in Revelation 22:11.—And none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand, namely, what is the meaning and ultimate aim of the predictions relating to the last time; consequently they shall then understand the prophecy, and by its light shall be able to correctly interpret the signs of the time (cf. Matthew 24:32 et seq.; Luke 21:28 et seq.), and accordingly, to act and regulate their conduct with reference to the salvation of their souls, —Hitzig himself realizes that it would be exceedingly inappropriate to render ξַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμִ ?ιν by “teachers” in this passage; but why should he arbitrarily refuse to assign to it the meaning of “understanding ones,” which is the only one that can be admitted here, in the former passages (Daniel 11:35; Daniel 12:1), where it is no less appropriate? Daniel 12:11. And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and an abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and nicety days. On the construction of the words γּ ?ξֵ ?ςֵ ?ϊηγּ ?ρַ ?ψγβψ, which denote the beginning of the 1290 days, cf., e.g., Daniel 2:16; Daniel 5:15; Ecclesiastes 9:1; Jeremiah 17:10, etc. ηεּ ?ρַ ?ψ, as appears from the following μָ ?ϊֵ ?ϊ, which does not depend on ςֵ ?ϊ after the manner of the genitive, is not an infinitive, but a “relative asyndetic connection of the prζt. propheticum with ςֵ ?ϊ” The μְ in μָ ?ϊֵ ?ϊ may be regarded as “expressing the fateful purpose of God,” and therefore as taking the place of the jussive imperfect, which ordinarily serves that purpose (cf. Daniel 11:18).—The expression ωִׁ ?χּ ?εּ ?υωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν is distinguished from the synonymous δַ ?ωִּׁ ?χּ ?εּ ?υξְ ?ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, Daniel 11:31, and also from ωִׁ ?χεּ ?φִ ?ινξְ ?ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, solely by its greater brevity, which may be indicated by the combination “desolating abomination” (cf. also the substantially identical ηַ ?τֶּ ?ωַׁ ?ςωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ν, Daniel 8:13). It seems to be inadmissible because of the substantial identity of the expression with those former parallels, to translate this passage, with Wieseler (Die siebzig Wochen, etc., p. 109): “From the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, till the desolating of the abomination, i.e., till the destruction of the idol-altar and the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabζus.”—It has already been shown, on Daniel 8:14, that the 1290 days are substantially identical with the half year-week (Daniel 9:27), or with the three and a half times (Daniel 7:25; Daniel 12:7), and that they involve an extension of that period by about half a month only (twelve to thirteen days); and it was also shown on that passage, that on the other hand the 2300 evening-mornings or 1,150 days shorten the same period by about four months. According to all the passages relating to the period of three and a half years as thus determined (in the one case exceeding those years by a few days, in the other falling below them by a few months), and especially according to the present passage, the terminus a quo for that period was the juncture when the daily sacrifice was taken away, and when the abomination of desolation was placed in the sanctuary. Our passage is silent with regard to the special terminus ad quem, which had in former passages been described as coincident, on the one hand with the judgment of the wicked author of such profanation (Daniel 7:26; Daniel 9:27), and on the other with the rededication of the profaned sanctuary (Daniel 8:14); in other words, the revealing angel does not precisely determine the final point of the last time of trouble (the ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊ, concerning which Daniel inquired, Daniel 12:8). He affords an indication, indeed, that a period of blessing should ensue on the expiration of the mystical three and a half years, by employing the beatitude of the following verse: “Blessed is he that waiteth,” etc.; but he refrains from determining the exact point of time in which it should begin. Upon this point his language is even undecided and equivocal, inasmuch as he fixes the limits of the intervening time, at first at 1290, but afterwards at 1335 days—thus in the one case exceeding the measure of exactly 1277 days by thirteen, and in the other by fifty-eight days. The troubled events of the Maccabζan period, which might deserve notice as the points of the beginning and the end of the historical equivalent of the three and a half years, do not present a satisfactory reason for such vacillating predictions; for the exact period required cannot be found in that epoch, however its limits may be fixed. E.g., if, with Bertholdt. Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, et al., its conclusion is assigned to the day of rededicating the temple by Judas Maccabζus, or the 25th Chisleu (Dec. 15th) of the year B.C. 164 (1Ma 4:52), and the 1290 days are reckoned backward from that date, their beginning will fall on June 10th, B.C. 167, or more than five and a half months earlier than the event which is generally regarded as marking the commencement of the three and a half years (i.e., earlier than the abrogation of the daily sacrifice on the 15th Chisleu, 167; cf. 1Ma 1:54); nor will that reckoning consist with the arrival in Jerusalem of Apollonius, the commissioner of taxes, which might possibly be regarded as the introductory event of the period in question; for according to 1Ma 1:29, his arrival took place only about three months prior to the 15th Chisleu, 167, instead of 5th (cf. supra, on chap. 7). Further, the attempt to regard the Maccabζan dedication of the temple as the characteristic fact that marked the conclusion of the 1290 days, is antagonized by the circumstance that the troubles of the Jews had by no means reached their end at that time, since the dreadful tyrant Antiochus yet lived, the citadel of Zion was still garrisoned by enemies, their leader, Lysias, who had gone to Antioch, was employed in making preparation for farther extensive operations, in order to wipe out the shame of his former defeat by Judas, and, in addition, the Ammonites, Edomites, and other heathen neighbors threatened the little band of Jews led by the Maccabees with dangerous attacks (cf. 1Ma 4:35; 1Ma 4:41; 1Ma 5:1 et seq.). If we assume, with Hitzig, Bleek, Hofmann, Delitzsch, Fόller, etc., that the death of Epiphanes, which took place somewhat later than the dedication of the temple, ended the 1290 days, we are met by the difficulty of ascertaining the date of his death, which has not been preserved by any historical authorities that have descended to our times, and for that reason cannot be definitely settled. That Epiphanes died precisely 140 days after the dedication of the temple, is a mere assumption of Hitzig, Bleek, etc., based on a comparison of the 1150 days of Dan 8:14,—which, it is asserted, extend exactly to the dedication—with the 1290 days of the present passage. This assumption appears the more uncertain, in proportion as, on the one hand, it becomes impossible to exactly accommodate those 1150 days between the desecration of the temple and the ascertained date of its rededication (cf. on Daniel 8:14), and as, on the other hand, it becomes difficult to reconcile the date of the death of Antiochus, as thus assumed, with historical statements respecting his end which have been preserved to us. We are accordingly compelled to abandon every attempt to demonstrate an exact correspondence between the time indicated in the text and the periods of the Maccabζan ζra of persecution, and to remain content with the hypothesis that the 1290 days have a merely mystical and symbolical significance. The merely approximate character of the correspondence between the prophetic measurement of time and the chronological relations of the history of its typical realization, with which we were obliged to content ourselves in a former instance, in connection with the 1150 days, returns here in a somewhat different manner. In that instance we found a considerable minus in comparison with the number 1277, and. here a smaller plus. It will scarcely become possible to ever assign a more definite reason for this two-fold discrepancy than that the seer’s attention was to be emphatically called to the approximation of the designation of time. cf. Kranichfeld also, p. 413, who justly observes in opposition to the artificial attempts to ascertain the exact historical grounds for the difference between the 1150 and 1290 days, which he adduces, that “it is, moreover, an assertion which can never be exegetically established, that the deliverance of the nation, the destruction of the foe, and the restoration of the order of worship are everywhere in this book regarded as separate in time. On the contrary, they designate the same juncture of time at the end, as seen in the prophet’s perspective, which appears from their indiscriminate application, or in other words, from the substitution of one for another; cf. Daniel 7:25 with 26; Daniel 8:14 with 25 et seq.; Daniel 9:24 with 26, 27; Daniel 11:45 with Daniel 12:1.… For the rest, the profanation of the temple which an Antiochus Epiphanes imposed on Israel during three years, continues to be a historical exemplification of the facts revealed to Daniel’s prophetic vision, in the face of the 1290 days, and despite the fact that in the nature of the case it accords but relatively with them in a formal aspect.”Daniel 12:12. Blessed is he that waiteth (or “is steadfast to the end”) and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. In view of its connection with the foregoing, the meaning of this exclamation can only be as follows: “After 1290 days have expired, the tribulation shall end; it shall not be completely ended, however, until forty-five additional days (one and a half months) have elapsed, hence, until a total of 1335 days has been reached.” Here again we believe ourselves obliged to rest satisfied with finding a symbolic and approximate value in the relation of the several numbers to each other; cf. the remarks on this point in a former connection, Eth.-fund. principles, etc., on chap. 8 No. 1. Among the various attempts that have been made to explain with historical accuracy the difference of forty-five days between the time fixed by Daniel 12:11 and that given in Daniel 12:12, none have succeeded in realizing an entirely satisfactory result: e.g., (1) that of Hitzig, based on the assumption that the 1335 days extend to the reception from Tabζ of the tidings respecting the death of Antiochus, forty-five (?) days subsequent to his demise; (2) the assumption of Fόller, that the 15th Xanthicus (April) of the year B.C. 164 (?), when a letter from Antiochus V. Eupator to the Jews reached Jerusalem, according to 2 Maccabees 11, which contained the welcome proffer of peace, marks the end of the 1335 days; and (3) the theory of Bertholdt, Hδvernick, Von Lengerke, Wieseler, etc., that while the 1290 days extended to the dedication of the temple, the 1335 days reached down to the death of Antiochus, forty-five days afterward. Against the latter opinion it may be objected that the interval between the dedication of the temple and the death of Antiochus was unquestionably longer than forty-five days; or, in other words, that Epiphanes did not die as early as the month of Shebat in the year 148 ζ. Sel., as those scholars (including Wieseler in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop., I. 387, Art. Antiochus) assume, in contradiction of 1Ma 6:16 (cf. also Hitzig, p. 226, and Fόller, p. 357 et seq.). The two former theories, on the other hand, are open to the objection that the reception of the news from Tabζ of the king’s death, and also of the offers of peace from Antioch, were events of far too little importance to lead the writer (whether prophesying ex eventu, or by virtue of a disclosure of the future from God) to assign to either of them the dignity of marking the final conclusion of all troubles. The letter from Eupator was merely an offer of peace, and and not the peace itself; and at the time both of its arrival and of the tidings from Tabζ, the horizon of Judζa was far too dark to enable a pseudo-Daniel, writing at that day, to announce the end of all the sufferings of his nation as having already arrived, or as being immediately at hand (cf. 1Ma 4:35; 1Ma 6:17 et seq.), on the ground merely that such messages had been received. The mode of escape from the difficulty that is adopted by Kirmss, Bleek, Delitzsch, et al., is however still more questionable than the reference of the 1335 days to any of the events that were adduced in support of the foregoing theories. It assumes that some other fact of an encouraging nature, which is no longer found in our historical documents, formed the terminus ad quem of the 1335 days of the prophet; and is clearly nothing more than an expedient prompted by embarrassment and helpless discouragement, which feelings our theory of the merely symbolic value of the designation of time serves to justify better than any other hypothesis. cf. Kliefoth, p. Dan 514: “In extending this period of 1290 days by forty-five, the design probably was merely to indicate that whoever should live in patience and religious faith beyond the 1290 days, i.e., beyond the death of the wicked oppressor Antiochus, should be accounted blessed. The forty-five days are mentioned for the purpose merely of expressing that idea of surviving, and the form of the expression was governed solely by a desire to retain the analogy of Dan 12:11.” Also Kranichfeld, p. Dan 416: “The period of final conflict which leads to the victory is here described as being very brief, comparatively, for the purpose of comforting and encouraging the pious ones; it is not measured by years, but merely by fractions of months. The half of a cycle of three months here takes the place of the limited period in the mind of the writer, according to Daniel 9:26; Daniel 8:25, etc.; and by the arithmetical measurement of time by days which is current in this book, it obtains the forty-five days which lie outside of the period of 1290 days or three and a half times,” etc. cf. also the Eth. -fund, principles, No. 2. Daniel 12:13. Concluding exhortation and promise. But go thou thy way (rather, “on”) till the end. εְ ?ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, properly, “and: thou,” with conclusive ε, but which may also be taken in an adversative sense, because it leads over from the foregoing to the close in an encouraging manner. μֵ ?κְ μֵ ?χּ ?υ is of course to be understood according to the analogy of Dan 12:9 : “go on, toward the final point of the predicted events;” not “go thy way” (Hitzig), nor yet “go toward thy end” (Hδvernick, Fόller, Kliefoth, etc.), for χֵ ?υ is clearly shown by the article to refer to the same end as that mentioned in Daniel 12:9.—For thou shalt rest and stand in thy lot at the end of the days; i.e., thou shalt rest in the grave, in the quiet sleep of death (cf. Isaiah 57:2, and supra, Daniel 12:2). The meaning is, “that thou mayest rest, and enter on thy lot,” etc., i.e., that thou mayest receive thy portion of the inheritance at the judgment of eternal recompense; cf. Daniel 7:18; Daniel 7:27; Revelation 20:6. The thought refers back undeniably to Daniel 12:2-3, hence to the Messianic recompense, of which Daniel also should partake, and a majority of interpreters recognize that fact; but they generally pervert the meaning of εְ ?ϊַ ?ςֲ ?ξֹ ?γ, so as to make it apply to the resurrection (standing up) for the purpose of being thus recompensed. The correct view in this respect is advocated, e.g., by Ewald, Kamphausen, Kranichfeld, etc.—Hitzig’s interpretation is very flat and exceedingly forced (in partial imitation of Grotius and Dathe): “And thou, go on to the goal, and thou mayest be content (!), and attend to thy office (!) for the end of days.”—[“βּ ?εֹ ?ψָ ?μ, lot, of the inheritance divided to the Israelites by lot, referred to the inheritance of the saints in light (Colossians 1:12), which shall be possessed by the righteous after the resurrection from the dead in the heavenly Jerusalem. μְ ?χֵ ?υδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, to=at the end of the days, i.e., not=ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιϊδַ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, in the Messianic (rather Antiochian) time, but in the last days, when, after the judgment of the world, the kingdom of glory shall appear.—Well shall it be for us if in the end of our days we too are able to depart hence with such consolation of hope!”—Keil.] ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apolo-getical remarks, and homiletical suggestions1. The fundamental dogmatic thought that is especially prominent in this closing section is the future resurrection of the dead and their eternal destiny, as predicted in Daniel 12:1-3, and as again repeated and confirmed in the closing words of Dan 12:13. That in the meaning of the book this resurrection is not to be regarded as confined to Israel only, but rather as universal in its scope, has been shown in the remarks on Daniel 12:2. It remains only to briefly answer the important question respecting the relation of that prediction to the Maccabζan age, which primarily afforded a typical and preliminary realization only of the prophecies of Daniel in general. Is it necessary, for instance, to take the entire prophecy in a figurative sense, as Dereser does, and to apply it merely to a spiritual or national resurrection of the nation from its former condition of apparent helplessness and death? Or are we, with Bertholdt, Hitzig, and the remaining rationalistic exegetes, to charge the prophet with having committed a gross error, in conceiving of the end of the world, the resurrection, and the judgment as immediately consequent on the death of Ant. Epiphanes?—Neither of the two would be correct; on the contrary, we are again reminded of the perspective character of prophetic vision in this connection, according to which the interval between the preliminary and the ultimate end was overlooked, from the point of view occupied by the prophesying seer long before either came to pass. By virtue of this perspective vision, the Old-Test, and the New-Test. Antichrists become one, which is true also of all the circumstances and results connected with their appearance. “As Antiochus became a type of Antichrist, so the oppression of the Old-Test, community of God’s people by him became a type of the oppression of the New-Test, congregation of the people of God by the latter. And as little as it surprises us that Joe 3:1 et seq. should make the preliminary signs of the end follow immediately upon the pouring out of God’s Spirit, with which the last world-period begins, without remarking the period intervening between them; or as easily as we can explain the fact that Amos 9 should predict the restoration of the fallen tabernacle of David and the final return of Israel to its native land, immediately after the judgment which he denounces upon the nation, thus overlooking the whole of the immense period in the course of which Israel indeed returned to its country, but was a second time expelled by the Romans; or as little as we charge untruthfulness upon the prophet Ezekiel, when, in chap. 36, he announces to the mountains of Israel the future return of the nation, and adds that God would show greater kindness to them than ever before, because this was not fulfilled on their first return; or as natural as we find it that in chap. 11 Isaiah should connect a description of the glory and peace of Christ’s kingdom, which shall only be realized at His second coming, with the words, “there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,” which are regarded as bearing on the appearance of Christ in lowliness, thus viewing Christ’s first and second advents together; so little should it surprise us or seem incompatible with the nature of prophecy, that the present prediction should represent the Seleucid persecution as being immediately followed by the full and final deliverance of the nation, without observing that a long series of years intervenes between the two.… Call it prophetic limitation, or whatever else we will, it is nevertheless the manner of the prophets j and the fact that we find it exemplified in the present instance is to us an evidence that the prophecy is genuine. Why do its opponents neglect to show how the prophecy respecting the resurrection of the dead immediately after the decease of Antiochus can be reconciled with their view concerning the composition of the book? If it was written immediately before the death of Antiochus, what was there to excite the hope that the time of blessing and the resurrection of the dead should follow immediately afterward? And if it was felt that such a hope was warranted, and it was not realized, were men not deceived? Who would have attached further value to such a mistaken prophecy?—But if it was composed after the death of Antiochus, it becomes wholly inconceivable that the false prophet should have compromised his pretended prophecy by this conclusion. But the features that are inconceivable on the presumption that the prophecy is spurious, are readily explained on the view that it was the actual Daniel who prophesied thus, centuries before Antiochus. The truth of his prophecy was in that case so incontestably assured in the time of Antiochus, that the apparent failure of its prediction concerning the resurrection of the dead (or, more properly, the delay of its fulfilment) was no longer sufficient to cast a doubt upon it. In one word, this passage of our book, usually considered so difficult, is so little worthy to be regarded as the heel of Achilles in the case, that it rather constitutes its strength, before which its assailants are put to shame” (Fuller, p. 343 et seq.).—It should, however, be observed in this connection that the leading idea in the prophecy in Daniel 12:1-3 is not the prediction of the resurrection, but rather the universal and eternal recompense to be meted out to them. The rising of the many “sleepers in the dust of the earth,” as predicted in Daniel 12:2, is at bottom a mere auxiliary thought, or a preparation for the principal feature of the prophecy, consisting in the promise of everlasting life to the pious, and the denouncing of everlasting shame and torment upon the wicked. Inasmuch as the judgment upon the Old-Test. Antichrist, as foretold in a former passage (Daniel 11:45), forms, in a measure, the opening act and point of commencement of this great recompensing judgment, all subsequent instances of such judgment must appear as a continued series of displays of the Divine righteousness, whose final conclusion at the last judgment will constitute the highest and most perfect, but not the only fulfilment of this prophetic passage. Among such displays of God’s justice may be reckoned the end of the tyrant Herod and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the subjugation of the Eastern churches by Islamism and the overthrow of the Middle-age Papal church by the Reformation.—As the eternal recompense, so the awaking of the dead, which forms its substratum and preliminary condition, reaches far into the history of time and earth, extending itself close to the historical position of our prophet, even though Jesus Christ, as the first fruits of them that sleep, began the blessed series of those who shall have a part in the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14; Luke 20:36; 1 Corinthians 15:20 et seq.), and though, consequently. He was the first who could say with entire truth, “The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear him shall live” (John 5:25; of. 12:28, 29). Both the preliminary judgment of the world, which is transpiring in the events of history, and the ethical resurrection in Christ Jesus of the spiritually dead, which is the basis and pre-condition of the future resurrection of all flesh,—both these have their beginning at the very point where the prophet’s scope of vision ends, and by that fact attest the truth and the Divine origin of his predictions, to which the Lord would assuredly not have repeatedly appealed and referred, had He not considered this book equal, in its inspired character, to any of the remaining prophets of the Old Covenant (cf. the Introd. § 6). 2. The prophecy, which forms the second leading thought of this section, relates to the point of time of the end. It repeats in substance the mystical [?] measure of time noticed in a former section, by which the last severe trouble of God’s people should continue during three and a half times, and adds a further period of one and a half months, during which the last remnants of suffering and trouble shall be removed. It was shown above that the historical conditions of the Maccabζan period afford but little countenance to the assumption that these periods of 1290 and 1335 days were invented to accord with the course of events in the experience of the past. It was also shown in a former instance (on Daniel 7:25) that the underlying idea, which is common to all the parallel mystical limitations of time (the half-week, the three and a half times, the 1150, 1290, 1335 days), is that the time of suffering should be shortened,—that the time of tribulation should indeed begin, but should be broken through at the middle, and by the grace of God should quickly be brought to its close. It is consequently a time to which the words of the Saviour respecting the shortening of the days of tribulation (κολοβωθῆναι, Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20) will apply. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/