Daniel Chapter OneVerse 1 This chapter gives the historical setting (Daniel 1:1-2), introduces the four Hebrew young men whose deeds are featured in Daniel (Daniel 1:3-7), tells how these "four" did not wish to violate God's dietary rules and requested that they may eat only those things which God allowed (Daniel 1:9-13), reports how after an experimental period often days, the steward complied with their request (Daniel 1:14-16), and relates that as a result of their loyalty to God, they were blessed exceedingly and were granted the right to "stand before the king" (Daniel 1:17-21). Daniel 1:1-2"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God; 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."It is easily observed that the volume of comments against a given passage of God's Word on the part of Bible critics often exhibits an inverse ratio to the reasonableness of their arguments. The more unbelievable their arguments are, the greater is the volume of them. Nothing could be any more certain than the historical accuracy of the passage before us, but reminding us of that "river" out of the serpent's mouth (Revelation 12:15), Biblical enemies have literally tried to wash this passage away with their denials. The first attack is based on the fact that Jeremiah placed this event in "the fourth year of Jehoiakim" (Jeremiah 25:1). "Daniel, however, evidently employed the Babylonian method of reckoning, in which the first year is regarded as following the year of the king's accession to the throne."[1]"Jehoiakim came to the throne at the end of a year, which Jeremiah reckoned as a year; but Daniel did not count it as it was an incomplete year."[2] Dummelow allowed that both statements were "correct" because the first year of Nebuchadnezzar lay partially in both the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim.[3] Of course, this variation of a single year in the sacred records, however it can be explained, is of no consequence. As Barnes put it, "It is not material."[4]Another objection raised against this first verse is that the first expedition against Jerusalem by Nebudchadnezzar took place about the time of the battle of Carchemish (May or June, 605 B.C.);[5] and the fact of Nebuchadnezzar's being here called "king of Babylon" is labeled as an "error," because Nebuchadnezzar did not actually become king of Babylon until 604 B.C.[6] As anyone should know, "This is a prolepsis."[7] Here is another example: President Eisenhower was born in Dennison. President Eisenhower led the invasion of Europe, etc. Critics are hard pressed for an error to focus upon something like this. We appreciate the words of Owens who said: "All the bits of information given here are individually true; but they are put together in a general sense."[8]All such quibbles about the alleged "errors" are pointless. The big point of the passage is that because of the repeated and continuing rebellions of Israel and her kings against the will of God, God at last sent the whole nation into captivity exactly as the prophet Jeremiah had foretold (Jeremiah 4-6). There were in fact no less than three expeditions of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, in all three of which captives were carried away; and the passage before us refer to the first of these occasions, which was not documented on pagan records. On this pretext, up until very recently, as late as 1956, critics were boldly claiming the account here was "a historical blunder."[9] That slander, however, has been laid to rest; because, "As recently as February, 1956, the ancient documents were first published which now proved full historical support for Nebuchadnezzar's presence in Judah at exactly this time."[10]We have explored this far enough to see that the arrogant charge which denies any historical accuracy to verses like this is a gross and irresponsible error. Arthur Jeffery stated that, "Daniel 1:1 is only a literary device; strict historical accuracy is not important. It is here to prove a setting for the story, not to provide historical information!"[11] We reject such views. It is of interest that Nebuchadnezzar's name, as found here and occasionally in other parts of the Old Testament, is alleged to be misspelled, the true spelling being Nebuchadnezzar. Our usage will conform to the spelling in Daniel. Owens stated that, "There are various spellings of this name in the Old Testament."[12]In light of this, therefore, how weak is the allegation of the same author that, "the Daniel of Eze 14:14; Ezekiel 14:20 cannot be the youth of the Book of Daniel," evidently basing his argument upon the fact that "the names are spelled differently."[13] If the misspelling of a name in the Old Testament is grounds for such conclusions, then we may have half a dozen Nebuchadnezzar's! "Shinar ..." (Daniel 1:2) is a very ancient name for Babylon (Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:2); and the appearance of that name here makes it certain that no forger of the times of the Maccabees wrote this book. People in that age did not use this name for Babylon. Verse 3 "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring in certain of the children of Israel, even of the seed royal, and of the nobles; youths in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skilled in all wisdom, and endued with knowledge and, understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king's palace; and that he should teach them the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the King appointed for them a daily portion of the king's dainties, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be nourished three years; that at the end thereof they should stand before the king. Now among these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. And the prince of the eunuchs gave names unto them: unto Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and of Azariah, of Abed-nego."It is strangely pathetic to find the names of these precocious young princes of Israel among the eunuchs of the king of Babylon. Now eunuchs were usually persons who had been emasculated; and, although it is true that there were sometimes eunuchs merely in the sense of "officers" of the king, the situation here does not lend itself to such an explanation. These young men were not officers: at all but captives; and we agree with Culver that, "Them is great possibility that Daniel and his friends may have been emasculated."[14] We favor this view because of Isaiah's prophecy: And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of Jehovah. Behold the clays come, that all that is in thy house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith Jehovah. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, whom thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon (2 Kings 20:16-18). As for the reasons why the names of these men were changed by their Babylonian masters, several motives could have caused it: (1) Hebrew names being unfamiliar to the Babylonians, they replaced them with names they could more easily remember and pronounce. (2) A definite hostility to the religion of the Hebrews is also evident. They replaced names which were derived from the true God through the use of syllables meaning Yahweh, or Jehovah, with Babylonian names which either honored Babylonian pagan gods, or in some way might have been derogatory. Note the following: Daniel means "God is my judge."[15]Hananiah means "Yahweh hath been gracious."[16]Mishael means "Who is what E1 is?"[17]Azariah means "Yahweh has helped."[18]The names given in Babylon to these men had the following meanings: Belteshazzar means "Bel (a pagan god) protects his life."[19]Shadrach means "The command of Aku (the moon god)."[20]Meshach means "Who is this?"[21]Abednego means "Servant of the god Nabu."[22]From this it is easy to see that the purpose of the names included the desire to eradicate all traces of the Hebrew religion and replace them with names honoring Babylonian pagan gods. The development of this paragraph shows that these particular Hebrew young men, along with an undetermined number of others, were enrolled in a three-year course of study to master the wisdom, the learning, and the language of the Chaldeans. They were honored by such an opportunity. Among other privileges, they enjoyed being fed from the king's kitchen. Verse 8 "But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king's dainties, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore, he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God made Daniel to find kindness and compassion in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your food and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse looking than the youths that are of your own age? So would ye endanger my head with the king. Then said Daniel to the steward whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the youths that eat the king's dainties; and as thou seest, deal with thy servants."It should be remembered that there were other children of Israel besides these particular four who were also given the same opportunities; but the record reveals that only these decided to abide by the rules of the law of Moses regarding the eating of unclean things. "God's people were here facing a situation where it had to be absolute loyalty to God or they were lost. It is the same situation which Christians face today."[23] Of all those who were given the opportunity, only these four remained faithful to God. Defilement through eating the king's dainties was "ceremonial defilement" as outlined in the Mosaic law. The meats which formed, no doubt, a major part of the king's food would have been dedicated to idols after the pagan customs that continued even until the days of the apostles. All of the wonderful things which happened in the Book of Daniel were the result of the blessing of God upon these faithful young men who would not permit themselves to be led into violation of the Holy Scriptures. It is interesting to note that Daniel received favor from the authorities whom he petitioned to allow a diet which did not violate their consciences. It would appear that God Himself intervened to give Daniel the necessary preference to make the granting of his wish possible. "Pulse ... (Daniel 1:12). This word does not mean simply "peas, or legumes," but "It would refer to all plants that bear seeds."[24]It has often been pointed out that there is no mandate here for vegetarianism. There would in all probability have been no scruples whatever on the part of the four young men against eating meat, except for the great likelihood of any meats which the king would have provided for them having been sacrificed to idols, or, at any rate, not kosher. Others have been equally diligent to affirm that the refusal of the wine did not indicate a denial that wine was an acceptable part of the diet for Jews generally. On the other hand, these young Hebrew students might very well have refused the wine on the grounds of its being detrimental and harmful. There are many today who refused to drink alcohol for the same excellent reason. We know of no way that Nebuchadnezzar's wine would not have been kosher. Verse 14 "So he hearkened unto them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king's dainties. So the steward took away their dainties, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them pulse."The inadequacy of the Hebrew language, especially with regard to tenses of verbs, is evident in the rendition in Daniel 1:16, where "the wine that they should drink" actually means "the wine they would (or should) have drank." The steward ran little or no risk at all in complying with Daniel's request; because, if the experiment had not been successful, he could have altered the diet accordingly. God blessed Daniel and his companions; and, basing his actions on the appearance of the four, the steward promptly changed their diet according to Daniel's request. Millard noted that "fatness" is used here in a somewhat different sense from the connotation of the word in our day. It does not mean obesity. "It indicates sufficiency and prosperity through the Old Testament."[25] We do not know whether Daniel was inspired to request this change of diet, or if he did it solely upon his inner conviction of what was right or wrong. We believe that it sprang out of Daniel's attitude of faith and devotion; but the results surely proved that God indeed approved of his action. Occasionally, the inquiry is raised as to how there could have been more danger of pollution to these Hebrew youths in eating the king's food than there was in being schooled in all the knowledge of the Babylonians, but, as Leupold said," such a view comes form a failure to comprehend the issues."[26] In the first place, the "learning of the Chaldeans" was a very extensive field, embracing studies in astronomy, architecture, languages, and magic, but even the "magic" at that point in history was not the "black art" that developed later. On the other hand, there was not merely the possibility of defilement in eating meat sacrificed to idols; to have done so would have violated the plain commandments of the law of Moses. Verse 17 "Now as for these four youths, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. And at the end of the days which the king had appointed for bringing them in, the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. And the king communed with them and among them all there was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore stood they before the king. And in every matter of wisdom and understanding, concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in his realm. And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus."The statement in Daniel 1:17 regarding Daniel's understanding of visions and dreams is apparently introduced here as a foreshadowing of events about to be related. "And at the end of the days ..." (Daniel 1:18). This means at the end of the three-year period of training. "The king communed with them ... (Daniel 1:19)." This examination by the king corresponded to the "oral examination" which candidates for certain higher degrees are required to pass today in many universities. From the standpoint of Daniel and his companions, the occasion was a great success. They passed the test with highest honors and was appointed to begin their service in the palace of the king. Thomson was impressed with the very fact of the hero of this book, Daniel, and his associates diligently studying to excel in Chaldean learning, and then upon completion of the course, willingly, and apparently joyfully accepting assignment in the king's palace. He pointed out that it is utterly impossible to suppose that this book was written to encourage the Jews and to provide examples of how Jews should act in the days of their dealings with the vicious beast of a ruler, Antiochus Epiphanes.[27] Also, "The mention of visions and dreams is an accurate reflection of the Babylonian background of the Book of Daniel."[28]"The magicians ..." (Daniel 1:20)." This word occurs only seven times in the Old Testament: here, and inGenesis 41:8,24; Exodus 7:11; Exodus 7:22; Exodus 8:7; Exodus 9:11.[29]"And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus ..." (Daniel 1:21)." This does not mean that Daniel died that year, for in Daniel 10:1, we find that Daniel was still active and in high standing in the third year of king Cyrus. What is meant is that, "Daniel's career spanned the entire period of the seventy years captivity of Israel."[30] The chronology of this was cited by Owens. "The first year of Cyrus as king over Babylon was 538 B.C. which was slightly less than 70 years after Daniel was taken to Babylon."[31] Add the two more years indicated in Daniel 10:1, where it is said that Daniel was active in the "third year" of Cyrus, and it is clear that all throughout the 70 years captivity, God's representative in the person of Daniel stood quite near to the throne of world authority. Thus, the providence of God watched over the Chosen people even in their bitter punishment. The fact just cited fails little short of being an unqualified miracle. Throughout more than two thirds of a century, Daniel continued serenely above all of the intrigues and treacheries always identified with the court of oriental kings, prevailing over the inevitable jealousies that existed everywhere, and especially against a despised foreigner in high office. He lived to see a whole dynasty of Babylonian kings ascend the throne, continue awhile, and fade away. He even lived to see the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus! Only the special providence and blessing of the Father could have caused such a thing to happen. We must not leave this chapter without remembering why Israel was sent into captivity. Such a dreadful punishment was meted out to them because for 490 years they had not observed the sabbatical years as commanded in the law of Moses. Therefore God brought upon them the king of the Chaldeans who deported the whole nation, "Until the land had enjoyed its sabbaths; for as long as it lay desolate it kept sabbath to fulfill threescore and ten years!" (2 Chronicles 36:21). It seems nearly incredible that Bible critics would allege "a contradiction between verse 21 and Daniel 10:1, assuming that verse 21 meant that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus. The word "until" never means arbitrarily that the person or action under consideration did not continue after the time indicated. For example, when Jacob told Pharaoh that, "Thy servants have been keepers of cattle until this day" (Genesis 46:34), the last thing on earth that Jacob could have meant was that the Jews on that day were going out of the cattle business! Culver noted that, since the last year of the captivity coincided with the first year of Cyrus, that year was mentioned here as indicated that Daniel continued in favor throughout the whole period of the long captivity. He add that, "This is the most natural understanding of the verse (21)."[32]There is built into Daniel a very strong presumptive proof of its having been written before the captivity of Israel ended. If that were not true how can it be explained that no mention of the "return" is found in this book? "This is one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of Daniel."[33] It is a climax of the unreasonable to suppose that if Daniel was written in the days of the Maccabean struggle as an encouragement to the Jews in those bitter times, there would have been no mention of the return of Israel from the Babylonian captivity, the features of which are so prominent in Daniel. Commentary On Daniel One by Eric HallDaniel 1 Verse1-In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. As we mentioned in our introductory comments, the first few verses of Chapter 1 do not seem to be speaking of a single incident, but instead appear to be a summary of the events that led to Daniel’ s deportation. We meet two kings in the first verse of Daniel: King Nebuchadnezzar and King Jehoiakim. One of these is one of the most detestable figures in the Bible – and it is not Nebuchadnezzar! Jehoiakim was the son of King Josiah, and was appointed to be king by Necho, King of Egypt. A few years later Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians and Assyrians, and then turned his sights on Jehoiakim. Read Jeremiah 36 Jeremiah 36:2-3 “ Take a scroll and write on it all the words I have spoken to you concerning Israel, Judah and all the other nations from the time I began speaking to you in the reign of Josiah till now. 3 Perhaps when the people of Judah hear about every disaster I plan to inflict on them, each of them will turn from his wicked way; then I will forgive their wickedness and their sin.” Jeremiah 36:23-24 Whenever Jehudi had read three or four columns of the scroll, the king cut them off with a scribe’ s knife and threw them into the firepot, until the entire scroll was burned in the fire. 24 The king and all his attendants who heard all these words showed no fear, nor did they tear their clothes. Jeremiah 36:27-31 After the king burned the scroll containing the words that Baruch had written at Jeremiah’ s dictation, the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 28 “ Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up. 29 Also tell Jehoiakim king of Judah, 'This is what the Lord says: You burned that scroll and said, "Why did you write on it that the king of Babylon would certainly come and destroy this land and cut off both men and animals from it? 30 Therefore, this is what the Lord says about Jehoiakim king of Judah: He will have no one to sit on the throne of David; his body will be thrown out and exposed to the heat by day and the frost by night. 31 I will punish him and his children and his attendants for their wickedness; I will bring on them and those living in Jerusalem and the people of Judah every disaster I pronounced against them, because they have not listened.” King Jehoiakim took a knife to the word of God, cut it in pieces, and through it in the fire. He had no regard for the word of God. Perhaps its due to my own personal experiences with some modern day Jehoiakim’ s but that story really burns me up (no pun intended). Are we sometimes guilty of the same thing? Do we pick and choose parts of the Bible the way he did? What difference is there if instead of cutting out something from our Bible, we simply choose to ignore it? As we mentioned in our introduction, the city was first besieged (not captured) during the third year of King Jehoiakim’ s reign (according to Daniel’ s Babylonian calendar) or in the fourth year of his reign (according to Jeremiah’ s Judean calendar.) Who was Nebuchadnezzar? His name means “ Nebo, protect my boundary!” He was the son of the Chaldean Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, and would soon be king himself. Note that Nebuchadnezzar is called “ king” even though he was not yet king when the city was first besieged. We use similar language today. We might say that President Bush was once the youngest pilot in the navy – but he wasn’ t president at the time. Thus, Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as king because he had been king when Daniel was written. (We need to approach the Bible with a little common sense and not look for an error around every corner.) Why had this occurred? Why were the people taken captive? One reason was their failure to trust in God. Judah had made alliances with Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt and in doing so had involved themselves in their power struggles – an involvement that eventually led to their destruction. These alliances were NOT according to God’ s will. A second reason was their idolatry. God had tried everything to get them to give up their idols, but they refused. When he sent them to Babylon he sent them to the world capital of idolatry! We should be careful what we attach ourselves to. God may give us our fill of it! (Remember in Revelation how the Romans wanted blood so God gave them a river of blood 200 miles long.) Interestingly, idolatry was never quite the problem for Israel after their captivity in Babylon as it was before. God’ s plan worked. Verse 2-And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. Recall our introductory comments about “ Shinar.” It was the site of the Tower of Babel and was a very early term for Babylon. It points toward an early date for the book. In this verse we meet a third king! Nebuchadnezzar thought he was in charge, but God was in charge. He allowed Nebuchadnezzar to take Judah captive, and when the time was right he removed Nebuchadnezzar from power. Just about all that is left of the mighty Nebuchadnezzar is a pile of bricks. When Nebuchadnezzar built the city, he had his name and picture imprinted on every brick that was used. One in the British museum shows the clear imprint of dog’ s foot over the name of the mighty king! Nebuchadnezzar thought he was building an empire for himself, but he was really building a school for the Jews. God sent them there for a 70 year lesson they would never forget. When the 70 years were over, God removed the Chaldeans through Cyrus the Persian. “ And the Lord gave” is the first indication of a major theme of this book: the absolute sovereignty of God. God is in charge. Babylon was only victorious because God allowed it to be. Later we will see the other side of the coin. Babylon will be defeated when it has finished serving God’ s purposes. Was Jehoiakim taken back to Babylon? The “ them” in verse 2 may just refer to the vessels from the temple, which we know went back to Babylon. What about 2 Chronicles 36:6? Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters to take him to Babylon. Again, this does not actually say that Jehoiakim returned to Babylon, only that Nebuchadnezzar planned to take him there. Why does it matter? Other passages imply that Jehoiakim died in Judah. Jeremiah 22:18-19 Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah: “ They shall not lament for him, saying, 'Ah my brother!' or 'Ah sister!' They shall not lament for him, saying, 'Ah lord!' or 'Ah his majesty!' 19 With the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem.” : It seems likely that Nebuchadnezzar planned to take him back but that after being captured, he died and his body was simply thrown down outside the city. Removing the vessels from the temple was a terrible insult to the Jews. They were taken back to Babylon and placed in the treasury of the Babylonian gods. The mention of these vessels in verse 2 is an example of the unity of this book. They will play an important role later. Belshazzar is going to live to regret this theft in Chapter 5! (Note that singular ‘ god’ is probably more accurately translated ‘ gods.’ The Babylonians had many different deities (Marduk, Nebo, Ishtar).) Verse 3-4 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, handsome and skilful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to serve in the king’ s palace, and to teach them the letters and language of the Chaldeans. The purpose of this section is to explain why Daniel and his friends are in Babylon BEFORE the first big deportation, which occurred in 597. The captives are called “ children of Israel” even though they were not from the Northern Kingdom (Israel, which had been taken captive long ago) but were from the Southern Kingdom (Judah). Later in verse 6, they will be called children of Judah. By this time, many from the Northern kingdom had migrated south due to Assyrian invasions, so Judah included people from both kingdoms. The captives were of royal and noble birth. Why were they taken? This weakened the subjugated nation. They were also hostages that would keep the Jews in line while Nebuchadnezzar went back to assume the throne. This also strengthened the conquering nation. It was considered a good policy to make leaders from the conquered people. Alexander the Great did this, and Cyrus did this (as we will see later in this book). How many captives were taken? Some historians believe there were between 50 and 75. (We remember only four!) Nebuchadnezzar needed enough so that he could train them to later administer his rule among the Jews. How old were they? The Hebrew word for “ youth” used here most probably places their ages between 14 and 17. Since we know that Daniel was still serving as a leader 70 years later, it seems clear that Daniel and his companions were very young when he was taken hostage. It is thus possible and perhaps probable that Daniel was as young as 13 or 14 when he was taken captive. These young men were without blemish. The ancients (much like we moderns) believed that ones outward appearance reflected an inner condition. Indeed, God did not allow men with certain physical deformities to be priests. They learned the ‘ letters and language of the Chaldeans.’ We have already discussed the two meanings of the term ‘ Chaldeans.’ The Chaldeans (led by Nabopolassar) overthrew the Assyrians and conquered Babylon in 612. The term ‘ Chaldean’ can be used in an ethnic sense to describe anyone from the Chaldean tribe. Like ‘ Jew’ however, the term ‘ Chaldean’ had both a nationalistic and a religious meaning. In the latter sense, ‘ Chaldean’ can refer to a group of wise mean that arose from within that tribe. The use here appears to be the former ethnic sense. These captives were going to get a crash course in Babylonian and Chaldean culture. This included a study of the old languages of Babylonia including two dialects of Sumerian. It also included mathematics and science, areas in which Babylon was very advanced. It also included Babylonian mythology, including their creation and flood legends. (Clay tablets at the British museum show the types of math problems and legends that they studied.) They enrolled in the University of Babylon – and were subjected to the same brainwashing that some of our universities employ (or at least are accused of employing.) Brainwashing has little effect on a discerning mind! More evidence for early date: Would a late-date author writing in Palestine have enrolled his Jewish heroes in the University of Babylon for a pagan polytheistic education? The Maccabeans wanted to retain their Jewish heritage in the face of Greek influences. Is this the type of hero they would have created? Daniel was steeped in the foreign culture and seemed to take to it readily with God’ s help and approval. Daniel knew that if he were to have any effect at all on the Babylonians, he would need to understand their culture. Think of Paul teaching the Greeks. Would he have had the effect he had on them if he had not been so intimately knowledgeable about Greek culture. Effective missionaries take the time to learn all about the people they are trying to reach, just like Paul did. Verse 5-The king assigned them a daily portion of the rich food which the king ate, and of the wine which he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. The term for ‘ rich food’ used here is a technical Persian term that is used only twice in the Old Testament (both times in Daniel). It denotes gifts from the royal table. The king’ s food would have helped reverse the effects of the siege and the deportation. However, their seems to have been a more devious reason behind the king’ s generosity. Remember, the king’ s goal was to these children. He wanted them to forget their own land and culture and become Chaldeans. His theme song may have been ‘ How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they’ ve seen Paris?’ Did it work? Of the 50 to 75 captives, only 4 that we know of remained true to God. Our Message: The devil constantly works to change our appetites. He wants us to crave the things of this world. We need to resist the way that Daniel did. Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. 1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world – the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does – comes not from the Father but from the world. 2 Corinthians 6:17 Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you. Our greatest danger is that we will be absorbed by the world. Typically these feasts would have begun with a sacrifice to the false Babylonian gods and would have consisted of many unclean foods. Thus, Daniel and his friends had a dilemma. Would they compromise or not? But shouldn’ t they have eaten the food? After all, as verse 5 says, they were going to have “ to stand before the king” ! Yes, but Daniel answered to another king. There was another king that Daniel would stand before some day. “ To stand before the king” is a Persian term for “ royal service.” It meant more than literally standing before the king. PROBLEM: They were educated for three years and then went before the king. Yet later in Chapter 2 we discover that Nebuchadnezzar’ s first dream occurred during the second year of his reign. Is this a contradiction? No. It is possible that their education did not take a full three years. Mark 8:31 says that Jesus would rise “ after three days” when in fact he rose on the third day. In Genesis 42:17-18, we find that Joseph put his brothers in jail for three days, but we later see that he brought them out during the third day. A second explanation involves the Babylonian system for dating the years of a king’ s reign that we discussed earlier. The actual first year of Nebuchadnezzar’ s reign was called the year of his accession, the actual second year of his reign was called the first year of his reign, etc. The first year of their training would have corresponded to Nebuchadnezzar’ s year of accession. Another possibility is that they were still in school. This would explain why they were not present when the king first spoke to the wise men. Verse 6-7 6 Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. 7 And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego. At last we are introduced to the hero of our story, Daniel, and his three friends. Would anyone in the world have considered Daniel to be an important figure at this time? No, but to God he was of the utmost importance. We must try to see the world as God sees it. Their Hebrew names were all changed to Chaldean names so that they would forget their land and culture. This is not the only time this occurred in the Bible. Joseph became Zaphenath-paneah (Genesis 41:45) Hadassah became Esther (Esther 2:7) Daniel (My judge is El [God]) became Belteshazzar (Nebo protect my life). This is hinted at in Daniel 4:8 where Nebuchadnezzar says that Daniel was named after his God, which was presumably Nebo. Another commentary said that Belteshazzar may refer to Belet, the wife of Marduk. There are many different theories regarding the exact meanings of these names. The ones given here seem to be the most popular. Hananiah (Yahweh has shown grace) became Shadrach (the command of Aku) which honors the Sumerian moon god, Aku. Mishael (who is what God is?) became Meshach (who is what Aku is?) Azariah (Yahweh has helped) became Abednego (the servant of Nego [probably Nebo]). HERE’ S A GOOD : Why do we remember Daniel by his Hebrew name and the others by their Babylonian names? Daniel wrote the book, and he seems to favor his original name. Also, it is easier to pronounce than Belteshazzar. (I wonder if he had used his new name if Belteshazzar would now be a popular name like Daniel is.) As for Daniel’ s three friends, he sometimes uses their old names and sometimes uses their new names. Their new names seem to have stuck, though, because those are the ones that are used during the fiery furnace account. (Again, the pronunciation theory may apply here as well.) Note also that after the exile, some Jews still used Babylonian names. Zerubbabel means the seed of Babylon and Shenazzar refers to a Babylonian moon-god. (Some of our days of the week refer to false gods.) Verse 8-But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’ s rich food, or with the wine which he drank; therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. Nebuchadnezzar’ s brainwashing plan had three components: 1. Teach them Chaldean culture and language. 2. Give them Chaldean names. 3. Feed them Chaldean food.The first two could be done without compromising the word of God. Daniel could learn their culture without having to adopt it and believe in their false gods. (We should never run from knowledge! Would Daniel have had such an impact on Babylon if he had buried his head in the sand and refused to learn about them. We need to teach our children to be discerning, not to run in fear from knowledge.) Also, the Babylonians could call them anything they wanted. But the heathen food was another matter. This is where our fourteen year old hero and his friends had to draw the line. (Theses teenage boys drew the line at food!) Why? Jewish food had to be prepared properly (blood drained…) . Also, many animals were considered unclean and could not be eaten. The Babylonians ate pork and horse. This violated the dietary laws in the Torah (Leviticus 11, Leviticus 17, and Deuteronomy 14). God did not want his people to practice idolatry or to associate with people who did. The Babylonian food would have been offered to pagan gods and would have been served at pagan feasts. To eat under those conditions would have been to wholeheartedly accept the false Babylonian gods. A third reason is that according to Eastern standards, to share a meal was to commit oneself to friendship. It had a covenant significance. For Daniel, it would have meant an obligation of loyalty to the king, and Daniel rejected that symbol of dependence. This also explains why the eunuch was so reluctant to agree with Daniel’ s request later in verse 10. It was treasonous! (But what if they just ate it and didn’ t believe. Would that have been all right? No. God does not need secret agents.) Remember Aesop’ s fable about the bat. The beasts and the birds had a war and the bat joined both sides. With the birds he acted like a bird and with the beasts he acted like a beast. When he was discovered he had to hide and only come out at night. I fear that some of us may be spiritual bats. Daniel was not. Daniel made a resolution and he stuck to it. Was this difficult or easy? Put yourself in his place. His home had been destroyed and he had been dragged away in chains. It seemed like God had forsaken him. He had been without much food for a long time during the siege. Maybe God wanted him to eat this food. Who would know and what would it hurt? Wouldn’ t this little quibble hurt his chances to get a good position in the government? Money was involved! Doesn’ t that overrule all other considerations? Daniel knew what was right and he did it no matter what or no matter who stood against him. We need more Daniels! They were not the first to be tempted with forbidden fruit, but unlike Adam and Eve, they passed the test! But wasn’ t Daniel being a legalist? Wasn’ t carrying this all just a bit too far? Not according to God. We may think it is all right to ignore some of God’ s word, but it doesn’ t really matter what we think. It is what God thinks that matters and God agreed with Daniel! This may come as a surprise to some (particularly in the denominational world), but the church is not a democracy. We do not determine the truth; we don’ t vote on the truth. The truth is the truth regardless of what we think about it. Daniel and his friends did not get together to vote on what to do; they knew what to do. Daniel used the word “ defile.” Even that was courageous! He used a strong word but an appropriate word. We really need more Daniels today! The Babylonians could change many things about Daniel’ s life: his homeland, his culture, his name, his diet. But they could not change his heart. He remained loyal and true to God. Can you imagine the kind of courage this required for a teenager to stand up against all of Babylon! God, give us courageous Christians! Verse 9-10 9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs; 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “ I fear lest my lord the king, who appointed your food and your drink, should see that you were in poorer condition than the youths who are of your own age. So you would endanger my head with the king.” Why did Daniel receive such favor? Was it because of something he did? No. God gave Daniel favor in the Babylonian’ s sight. God deserved the credit for Daniel’ s success. Again we are reminded of God’ s sovereignty. Daniel feared God, but who did the chief eunuch fear? Nebuchadnezzar. The chief eunuch feared for his life. Daniel feared for his soul. Verse 11-13 11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; 12 “ Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’ s rich food be observed by you, and according to what you see deal with your servants.” Daniel next goes to the steward that the chief eunuch had appointed and offers him a deal. Why? Daniel was persistent. The first official did not give him the answer he wanted. He did not give up at the first sign of difficulty. The 10 days in this verse is just that – ten days. Unlike Revelation, much of this book is historical and not apocalyptic. Later, we will study sections of this book in which numbers should be interpreted figuratively. The King James Version uses the word ‘ pulse’ in place of ‘ vegetables’ in verses 12 and 16. It is a poor translation in that it refers only to beans, peas, and lentils. The actual Hebrew word includes all types of vegetables. Verse 14-16 14 So he hearkened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days. 15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’ s rich food. 16 So the steward took away their rich food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables. Why did the steward agree to their plan? Who do you think got all of the rich food they refused to eat? When you answer the second question you will have your answer to the first! As God’ s people we should not run from a test. We should invite a test of our faith. We should pray for such a test. Because such a test gives us a chance to show the world whose side we are on and to prove to the world that we are on the right side. Their improved appearance seems to have been miraculous, since it is difficult to see how a 10 day diet of vegetables could have made a visible difference. Verse 17-As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all letters and wisdom; and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Again note the phrase “ God gave.” God is in charge here. Their learning and wisdom were gifts from God. (Not due to their diet as vegetarians like to claim!) God gave Daniel wisdom and the ability to understand visions and dreams. This gift would allow Daniel to become an advisor to Nebuchadnezzar, which is obviously what God had in mind. It would also allow Daniel to be considered a ‘ wise man’ in the king’ s court, and would allow Daniel to be the channel of revelation that God wanted him to be. Ezekiel speaks of a man named Daniel who was wise and could interpret secrets. Who do you think he had in mind? The liberal critics think [or at least say!] that Ezekiel was speaking of a mythic pagan character who was famous for his drunkenness. Verse 18-20 18 At the end of the time, when the king had commanded that they should be brought in, the chief of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. 19 And the king spoke with them, and among them all none was found like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah; therefore they stood before the king. 20 And in every matter of wisdom and understanding concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his kingdom. These four young men made quite an impression on the king. Although they had only been in the country for a few years, they already knew more than the wise men who advised the king. With God’ s help they passed their final exams. You can almost picture God playing the role of the proud father as these three boys showed up all of the Babylonian wise men! ‘ Ten times’ better? This was a common idiom for ‘ much’ better. Verse 21-And Daniel continued until the first year of King Cyrus. This means that Daniel was around from 605 until AT LEAST 539 B.C. PROBLEM: How can this verse be true since in Daniel 10:1 we find that Daniel receives a vision in the third year of Cyrus? Again let’ s read the verse and see what it actually says. Does it say that Daniel died during the first year of King Cyrus? No. Not at all. It simply tells us that Daniel survived into the next empire. Daniel lasted longer than the Babylonians did! He had predicted the fall and he was there to see it. Who was Cyrus? He was the first Persian emperor that took over after the Chaldeans were defeated. He released the Jews from captivity and allowed them to return to their land. Read Ezra. "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Faith Of A Fifteen Year Old (Daniel 1:1-21) 1. The Old Testament is filled with examples worthy of our study and emulation... a. Such as Joseph, with his stand for God in the house of Potiphar b. Such as Joshua, a great man of faith and conviction in his service to God 2. Another example that ought to inspire us all is that of Daniel... a. As a young man, his faith gave him the courage to remain true to his convictions b. As an old man, his faith sustained him the threat of persecution [We first read of Daniel and his great faith, in the first chapter of the book of Daniel...] I. DANIEL'S FAITH AS A "FIFTEEN YEAR OLD" A. IT WAS A BLEAK DAY IN THE HISTORY OF ISRAEL...1. The beginning of Babylonian domination - Daniel 1:1-2a. In the third year of Jehoiakim (ca. 605 B.C.) b. Jerusalem besieged by Nebuchadnezzar c. Jehoiakim taken into captivity, and precious items taken from the temple 2. This was the first of three times that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem (605, 597, 586 B.C.) B. DANIEL AND OTHERS FOR SPECIAL ...1. Young men taken to serve Nebuchadnezzar - Daniel 1:3-7a. They were truly the "cream of the crop" among the captives 1) Good looking with no blemish 2) Gifted with wisdom, knowledge, and the ability to learn quickly b. To serve in the king's palace, and be taught the language and literature of the Chaldeans (Babylonians) 1) Given special provisions of the king's food and drink 2) With three years of special training c. Among those selected, four are named, and apparently renamed to honor Babylonian gods 1) Daniel (God is my judge) - Belteshazzar (a servant of Bel) 2) Hananiah (the Lord is gracious) - Shadrach (inspired by the sun god) 3) Mishael (who is what God is?) - Meshach (who is what the moon god is?) 4) Azariah (the Lord helps) - Abed-Nego (servant of Nebo) 2. How would these young men respond? a. Would they submit to the temptations placed before them? b. Would they give in, excusing themselves due to youth and inexperience? -- How would you have reacted if you were in their place? C. DANIEL MAKES A ...1. He "purposed in his heart" - Daniel 1:8a. I.e., he made a commitment b. Something too rarely heard of today, in both young and old 2. His commitment was to "not defile himself" with the king's food a. Possibly unclean food according to Levitical restrictions b. Or food used in idol worship which would cause one to be a participant with such worship - cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20-22 D. HOW DANIEL TRUE TO HIS ...1. He did it with politeness - Daniel 1:8 ba. Note that "he requested" b. He did not "demand", but respected the authority of those over him 2. He did it with God's help - Daniel 1:9a. God gave him favor in the eyes of the chief of eunuchs b. Similar to how Joseph found favor in prison - cf. Genesis 39:213. He did it through persistence - Daniel 1:10-11a. He did not give up after the refusal by the chief of the eunuchs b. He tried something else, going to the steward directly over them 4. He did it through willingness to test his faith - Daniel 1:12-15a. He was confident that God's way was the right way b. He was willing to demonstrate the superiority of God's way c. So he asked the steward to give him and his three friends just water and vegetables for ten days E. THE VALUE OF SUCH FAITH SEEN IN ITS RESULTS...1. It affected the lives of others! - Daniel 1:15-16a. It had blessed the countenance of Daniel and his friends b. It then blessed the rest of the young men under the care of the steward 2. God blessed Daniel and his three friends even more! - Daniel 1:17-20a. God gave them knowledge, skill, and wisdom, and to Daniel He gave understanding in visions and dreams b. They became the best of the young men who had been trained, and served in the presence of Nebuchadnezzar c. The king found them better than all his magicians and astrologers 3. Daniel continued in the court of Babylon nearly seventy years! - Daniel 1:21a. Even to the first year of Cyrus of Persia (539 B.C.) b. Eventually becoming provincial ruler and chief administrator over all others - Daniel 2:48 [What a wonderful example of faith and commitment, and of God's providence to care for His people! Now let's consider some...] II. LESSONS AND FROM DANIEL'S FAITH A. HOW TO SUCCEED IN KEEPING OUR TO THE LORD...1. Be politea. There is never any reason to be rude or arrogant b. Impoliteness just aggravates a situation rather than helps it - cf. Proverbs 15:12. Seek God's helpa. Without God, any effort is more likely to fall - cf. Psalms 127:1-2b. God seeks to help those who are loyal to Him - cf. 2 Chronicles 16:93. Be persistenta. Don't give up trying after meeting the first obstacle b. Remember what Jesus taught about persistence: 1) Those who keep on "asking, seeking, knocking" will receive, find, have doors opened to them - Matthew 7:7-112) The parable of the persistent widow - Luke 18:1-84. Be willing to test your faitha. If not willing, how committed are you to trusting God? b. Yet God often invited people to test His promises - cf. Malachi 3:10c. And so does Jesus - cf. John 7:16-17; Matthew 6:31-34 B. SOME ...1. School-age childrena. Out from underneath their mother's apron for the first time b. They will be faced with making decisions -- Will they have the faith of Daniel? 2. College-bound studentsa. Moving away from home for the first time b. Leaving a spiritual environment at home, for one that is likely very worldly -- Will they live and act with the same sort of commitment found in Daniel? 3. Adults in the workplacea. Tempted to accept jobs which may require one to compromise convictions b. Called upon to lie for the boss, show loyalty to the company though illegal or unethical -- Will they have "the faith of a fifteen year old"? 4. Those with unbelieving spousesa. Having to serve God and raise their children in the ways of the Lord on their own b. With little or no moral and religious support from their life mate -- Will they have the "purpose of heart" that Daniel had? 1. Many other applications could be made, but what have we learned from "The Faith Of A Fifteen Year Old" like Daniel? a. Even those who are young need to make a personal commitment to serve the Lord b. One can be steadfast in their purpose to serve the Lord without arrogance c. We should look to the Lord for help, and be willing to trust in His providence d. God will bless and provide for those who put their trust in Him and His will 2. Daniel is not the only person to demonstrate such faith in his youth... a. We made mention of Joseph earlier b. We have other examples in the O.T., such as David and Josiahc. And of course, let's not forget the example of Mary (the mother of Jesus), and that of Timothy May the example of their dedication to the service of the Lord inspire us all to "purpose in our heart" not to defile ourselves by the things of the world! Chapter One The book opens with the first deportation of Jews to Babylonian captivity (605 B.C.), and the selection of Daniel and his three friends for special training (Daniel 1:1-7). Daniel is commitment to remain undefiled is blessed by God, and he along with his friends are given wisdom that is acknowledged and rewarded by the king of Babylon (Daniel 1:8-21). POINTS TO PONDER * Young Daniel's commitment to God in pagan environment * How Daniel was able to keep both his faith to God and service to the king REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Daniel and his friends selected for special training - Daniel 1:1-7- Daniel's faithfulness to God rewarded - Daniel 1:8-21 2) When did Nebuchadnezzar besiege Jerusalem, and who gave him victory? (Daniel 1:1-2)- In the third year of Jehoiakim king of Judah (605 B.C.); the Lord 3) Who were to be taught the language and literature of the Chaldeans? (Daniel 1:3-4)- Some of the children of Israel, some of the descendants of the king and nobles - Young men who were good-looking, wise, quick to learn and able to serve 4) How long was their training to last? What did it include? (Daniel 1:5)- Three years; daily provisions of the king's delicacies and wine 5) What four young men were selected? What names were they given? (Daniel 1:6-7)- Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah - Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, Abed-Nego 6) What did Daniel purpose in his heart? (Daniel 1:8)- Not to defile himself with the king's delicacies and wine 7) How was Daniel able to keep his commitment? (Daniel 1:8-16)- With politeness (he requested, not demanded) - With God's help (God brought Daniel into the favor and goodwill of the chief eunuch) - With persistence (rebuffed by the chief eunuch, he appealed to the steward) - With willingness to test his faith (asking for ten day trial) 8) What did God give the four young men? (Daniel 1:17)- Knowledge, skill in literature, wisdom; Daniel understanding in visions and dreams 9) How did Nebuchadnezzar find these four young men after their training? (Daniel 1:18-20)- Ten times better in wisdom and understanding than his magicians and astrologers Daniel 1:1. Third year should be considered in connection with 2 Kings 24:1, It seems that Jehoiakim had formed some kind of mutual agreement with Babylon but that he broke that relationship after three years. That brought Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem with an army and that was the beginning of the "first captivity" which means the first stage of the noted 70year exile. In Jeremiah 25:1 this event is said to have occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which might be confusing at first thought. However, If a thing takes place at the end of a man’ s third year, it could be thought of as as happening in his fourth year since the term third and fourth are just that indefinite in their force. Daniel 1:2. The Lord gave shows that Nebuchadnezzar's advance against Jerusalem was by the decree of God. The account in 2 Kings 24:3-4 goes farther than this verse and tells why it was done, that it was because of the sins that the nation had committed. This event was not intended to cause the complete ruin of Jerusalem, for it says that the king of Babylon took part of the vessels of the Lord's house with him. Daniel 1:3. The first king means Nebuchadnezzar and the next is Jehoiakim. Ashpmaz was an important servant under the king of Babylon, whose specific duty was to oversee the other servants or any others who might become subject to the king. This man was told by his master to bring from Jersalem to Babylon some ot the king's seed. That does not mean exclusively his bodily offspring, for we shall see that others were taken. But it includes men near the king within the royal family, and also some of his princes which means outstanding men in his service. Daniel 1:4. The terms Chaldeans and Babylonians may be used interchangeably for all practical purposes, although the latter is nowhere used In the book of Daniel. For the information of the readers I shall quote from three works of reference: "The Chaldeans were a Semitic [descended from Shem] people who passed into Babylonia from the south, and occupied the whole seaeoast region of South Babylonia.”— Funk and Wagnalls, New Standard Bible Dictionary, article Chaldea. "In the Old Testament, from the time Of Jeremiah and the establishment of the new Babylonian Empire under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, the terms Chaldeans and Chaldees denote the inhabitants of Babylonia, or the subjects of the Babylonian Empire.”— SchaffHerzog Encyclopaedia, article Chaldeans. "It appears that the Chaldeans were in the earliest times merely one out of the many Cushite tribes inhabiting the great alluvial plain known afterwards as Chaldea or Babylonia. Their special seat was probably that southern portion of the country which is found to have so late retained the name of Chaldea. In process of time, as the Kaldi grew in power, their name gradually prevailed over those of other tribes inhabiting the country; and by the era of the Jewish captivity it had begun to be used generally for all the inhabitants of Babylonia. It appears that while, both in Assyria and In later Babylonia, the Shemitlc type of speech prevailed for civil purposes, the ancient Cushite dialect was retained, as a learned language for scientific and religious literature. This is no doubt the ‘ learning’ and the ‘ tongue’ to which reference is made in the book of Dan 1:4, The Chaldeans were really the learned class; they were priests, magicians or astronomers, and in the last of the three capacities they probably effected [accomplished] discoveries of great importance. In later times they seem to have degenerated into mere fortunetellers." — Smith’ s Bible Dictionary, article, Chaldeans. When considering the subject from a political or national standpoint the two terms are used interchangeably and I trust the reader will keep that truth in mind. When some special personal characteristics are under consideration, the Chaldeans will be spoken of as a distinct group of people. Hence in this verse we see the reference to these special subjects which Nebuchadnezzar wished to develop in the lives of the Jews who had been selected out from the general population in Jerusalem. The mental qualifications were not the only points the king wished these Jews to have. Their bodies were to be without blemish and they were to be well favored. The last word is from MAKEH which Strong defines, "A view \ Daniel 1:5. The schedule as to their bodies consisted of a special provision of food and drink taken out of the store that was brought in for the king's personal use. Having been selected for the special use of the monarch, these articles of diet were supposed to possess unusual qualities for the developing of bodily strength and appearance. This schedule was to be followed for three years after which the men were to be presented to the king for his approval. Daniel 1:6. This verse tells us that Daniel was taken to Babylon at tbe “ first captivity,” that means the first stage of the noted 70year exile. Daniel 1:7. This prince of the eunuchs must have been allowed a considerable amount of authority, for he took the liberty of changing the names of Daniel and his three companions, or at least of giving them names in addition to the ones they had. These companions of Daniel are the familiar “ Three Hebrew Children” who are so often referred to in the stories of heroes of the Bible. Daniel 1:8. Daniel knew that Nebuchadnezzar was an idolater and that a portion of the royal provisions was given over to consecrate the idol in connection with the feasts. For this reason his conscience would not consent for him to take part in the false religion by accepting the food. He requested the prince to be excused from partaking. Daniel 1:9. The prince of the euuuchs was responsible for the development of these speciallychosen men, and he would naturally be unwilling to grant to Daniel the exemption requested. But God took a hand in the matter and caused him to have a tender love for Daniel which led him at least to be personally disposed to favor him. Daniel 1:10, Sort means age, and tbe prince was fearful Lest Daniel should not look as well as the others of his age if he were permitted to abstain from the diet provided for him. Of course that would endanger the life of the man who was made responsible for the welfare of the prisoners allotted to him. He made this protest to Daniel who was reasonable enough to see the position the prince was in, and he seems to have said nothing more to him on that matter. Daniel 1:11. But the prince of the eunuchs had placed the actual work of providing the food in charge of a steward named Melzar. As far as the record informs us, the prince of the eunuchs saw no more of Daniel and his companions until the time for their appearance before the king. He left the task of serving the food to this steward Melzar. Daniel 1:12. Daniel’ s proposition was fair to all parties concerned, for, regardless of the success or failure of the diet he requested, it could not have any ill effect that would show up after three years. On the other hand, his faith in his God was so strong he was certain that such a period would be sufficient to bring about the desired effect. It might be asked if the Lord could not have accomplished the same result in one day. True, he could have done so, but had the transformation been made in one day, the steward would have known that it was not the effect of the diet, and that would have caused an investigation which might have interfered with Daniel’ s plans. And yet a period of ten days would be enough to expect some results from the schedule of diet used. Pulse is sometimes defined as seeds of any kind of vegetables, and in some lexicons it is defined simply as a vegetable food Since the heathen always used animals in their sacrifices, Daniel knew he would be safe if his diet was restricted to vegetables. Daniel 1:13. Daniel was willing to leave the decision to the steward. At the end of the tenday period he was to compare the countenances (from same word as “ favoured” in verse 4) of him and his three companions with those who ate of the king's food. Daniel 1:14. The steward agreed to the test proposed by Daniel. Daniel 1:15, As It was doubtless expected by the reader, the test came out as Daniel wished. One word in the definition for /after is "plump," and fairer means “ beautiful.” 1 am sure the reader will give the Lord full credit for this favorable experience of the four faithful Hebrews. It was an instance of the assurance God had given, that while all citizens of Judah had to share in the national calamity ol the captivity, the individuals who were righteous would he given special favors from God even though they were in a strange land. The apparent disagreement of some statements on this subject is explained in a long note given with comments on 2 Kings 22:17, in volue 2 of this Commentary. Daniel 1:16. Seeing the results of the test, Melzar removed the food that had been taken from the king's supplies, and permitted Daniel to continue with his vegetable diet throughout the period of three years that was appointed by the king for the test. Daniel 1:17. In acquiring the physical developments desired the four children could cooperate with God since it included the partaking of food. In the mental advancement they had no opportunity for their own activity because they were being put through the trial to test out their appearance in body. But God wished them to be as well qualified in mind as in body when the time of their appearance before the king arrived, hence He gave them all those talents as a direct gift. Daniel 1:18. End of the days means after three years (verse 5). It was then time for the prince of the eunuchs to act. since he was next to the king with regard to his rank as a servant. Accordingly he brought Daniel and his three companions before Nebuchadnezzar for his official "review.” Daniel 1:19. The king communed with them indicates that Nebuchadnezzar was not interested only in the bodily appearance of his captives, for that could have been observed without any conversation. This communication proved to the king that Daniel and his companions excelled all the others who appeared before him. Daniel 1:20. There is very little difference between the meaning of wisdom and understanding. The latter could be regarded as knowledge and the former as the ability to use the knowledge rightly. Dike the two words italicized above, the words magicians and astrologers differ very little in their meaning. They both refer to persons who pretend to acquire knowledge of the past, present and future by the relative position of the stars either to each other, or to men and things on the earth. The wisdom manifested by Daniel and his tree companions was ten times better than that possessed by all the socalled wise men of Babylon. Daniel 1:21. Continued, Is from haiah which Strong defines, "To exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass.” The verse means that Daniel lived to see the end of the Babylonian captivity, not that he did not live any longer. It is significant that the man who was among the first to be taken to Babylon, and who gave prophecies that they would finally be released, should live to see the fulfillment of that prediction. It was in the first year of king Cyrus that the Jews were released (Ezra 1:1-4). Daniel Chapter TwoVerse 1 This chapter might well be entitled "The King's Dream," that being the principal feature of it. An outline of the chapter is as follows: (1) the occasion for the dream (Daniel 2:1); (2) the king's demand (Daniel 2:2-9), (3) the failure of all the wise men (Daniel 2:10-11); (4) the king's decree that they should all be put to death (Daniel 2:12-13); (5) Daniel's request for a delay (Daniel 2:14-16); (6) the dream and its interpretation revealed to Daniel (Daniel 2:19-23); (7) Daniel refers all glory to God for the revelation (Daniel 2:24-30); (8) Daniel relates the dream and its interpretation to the king (Daniel 2:31-45); (9) Nebuchadnezzar's response to the revelation (Daniel 2:46-49). Daniel 2:1"And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him."THE KING'S DREAMThis great chapter of God's Word with its magnificent predictive prophecy of the establishment of the kingdom of God has been the object of the most unreasonable and vicious attacks by Biblical enemies. Under their "a priori" rules which disallow any such thing as a genuine prophecy, they are forced to deny a chapter like this, no matter what preposterous and false arguments they must seize upon in their vain efforts to destroy the chapter. The attack begins on the word "and," the very first word. According to the critics, this signals an interpolation, or arouses suspicion. However, as Leupold said, "The word is very much in place here, because it connects the events of Daniel 1 with those recorded here."[1] Furthermore this use of "and" is a genuine indication of Biblical style. The word "and" begins all four of the four final books of the Pentateuch; and this extensive use of that connective extends all the way into the New Testament where in Mark it is found to be one of the salient features. Note that Daniel 1:17 relates that Daniel had "understanding in all visions and dreams." The "and" of this passage, connects the events of Daniel 2 with that special skill of Daniel recorded in Daniel 1:17. Another ground of assault is the statement that this troublesome dream came "in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar." It is alleged that this is a contradiction, because the four Hebrew companions have just concluded a three-year term of education provided by Nebuchadnezzar. No problem! It was while Nebuchadnezzar was commanding the first western expedition that Daniel and his companions were deported and enrolled in the special school; and it was, "While Nebuchadnezzar was on that first expedition that his father Nabopolassar died; and Nebuchadnezzar suddenly left the front and went back to assume the throne."[2] Thus, in all probability, the training of the Hebrew youths actually began a year before Nebuchadnezzar actually ascended the throne. In any case this is a picayune objection having no substance whatever. "There are too many uncertainties about the chronology of the last twenty years of Israel's history (which include the time in focus here) to permit this to be labeled erroneous.[3] In addition, there is the near-certainty that, "The phrase three years (Daniel 1:5) refers only to portions of years, so that the first year of training would comprise part of the year of Nebuchadnezzar's succession; and thus the third year would have been part of the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (Babylonian style of reckoning)."[4]The only objection that critics have been able to raise against the fact just cited was stated by Owens: "With this reckoning, one system of of time is found in Daniel 1 but a different method in Daniel 2![5] Certainly! There was the Judaic system in chapter 1 and the Babylonian system here. Nothing could be wrong with this. The apostle John followed exactly the same pattern in the Gospel where he followed the Jewish system of counting the hours of the day in some instances; while, in others, where the Roman government or its representatives were under consideration, he followed the Roman system. Verse 2 "Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream. Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in the Syrian language, O king, live forever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye make not known unto me the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honor: therefore show me the dream and the interpretation thereof. They answered the second time and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. And the king answered and said, I know of a certainty that ye would gain time, because ye see the thing has gone from me. But if ye make not known unto me the dream, there is one law for you; for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof."THE KING'S DEMANDCertainly His Majesty was in a vile mood! The KJV indicates that Nebuchadnezzar had actually forgotten the dream; but our version seems to reveal the king's utmost distrust of the alleged "wise men" who had been summoned. The last two lines of the passage cited here reveal the king's purpose of requiring the wise men to tell him the dream in order that he might also trust them to reveal the interpretation of it. In this light, we do not know whether Nebuchadnezzar had actually forgotten the dream, or if he had merely decided to test his enchanters and magicians by requiring them to repeat the dream. Of interest is the mention of the Chaldeans in this passage. `This was a name that came to be applied to the astrologers, soothsayers, magicians, enchanters, diviners and wise men as a class, and without reference to race. The inclusion of Daniel in the number here indicates as much. (See the introduction for more on this.) It will be noted that the Chaldeans also included a special group who bore that name; but they seem to have been spokesmen for the entire group. In Daniel 2:4 b, the Syrian language is introduced, not by the author of Daniel, but by the Chaldeans; and Daniel, the faithful author was able to report the proceedings in the language by which the communications were carried on. It is a virtual certainty that only Daniel could have done such a thing. The preposterous notion that some forger some four hundreds years subsequent to the times of Daniel could have done this is such an outlandish improbability that it seems impossible that intelligent writers should have been deceived by it. This Syrian language (the 6th century Aramaic) continues through Daniel 7. "O king, live forever ..." Such language of respect and servility was the stock in trade of all flatterers and courtiers at oriental courts. The king in this instance was unmoved by all the high sounding words. He wanted one thing, actually two, (1) the dream repeated to him, and (2) its proper interpretation. After all, the thing that the king required was not all that unreasonable. Is it not true, that if a man can reveal the future, he should have no trouble remembering someone else's dream? Something had compelled the king to believe that the alleged wise men could not do either! "Ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses made a dunghill ..." Such cruel and excessive punishments were common in the behavior of oriental despots; and there is no doubt that the whole confraternity of the wise men were threatened at this juncture with destruction. The Chaldean spokesmen repeatedly informed the king that they would be unable to interpret the dream unless they were given the essentials of the dream to form the basis of their interpretation; but the king refused to be moved. Verse 10 "The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king's matter, forasmuch as no king, lord, or ruler, hath asked such a thing of any magician, or enchanter, or Chaldean. And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is no other that can show it before the king, except the gods whose dwelling is not with flesh."THE WISE MEN THEIR Here was a full admission by the Chaldeans and their associates of their utter inability to do what the king required. Furthermore there was an inherent confession in their words of their belief in the supernatural, "the gods" to which they referred. This set the stage for the recognition of Almighty God's hand in the ultimate giving of the dream and its meaning through Daniel. What the Chaldeans said here was simply the truth, except for the implied polytheism. Verse 12 "For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. So the decree went forth, and the wise men were to be slain; and they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain."THE DECREE THAT THEY SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATHIt is not clear whether the wise men were being put to death as they were found, or if there was planned a public execution of all of them at one time. It appears that the latter was what was intended to be done. The creel injustice of such an unreasonable destruction was absolutely characteristic of the tyrannical monarchies of that era. Verse 14 "Then Daniel returned answer with counsel and prudence Arioch the captain of the king's guard, who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon; he answered and said to Arioch the king's captain, Wherefore is the decree so urgent from the king? Then Arioch made the thing known to Daniel. And Daniel went in, and desired of the king that he would appoint him a time, and he would show the king the interpretation."DANIEL A DELAYThis is an abbreviated account. Even high servants of the king, such as Daniel, would not merely have gone into the presence of the king without observing the formalities that the occasion would have required. The daring account of how Esther defied tradition and custom by going unbidden into the presence of a Persian king at a later time shows how this was true. Therefore, we must conclude that all necessary formalities were observed on this occasion, just as they were in Daniel 2:24, below, and that they were merely passed over here by the abbreviated account. The great fact working for Daniel and the wise men was that the king had a burning desire to find out what the dream meant. Another indication that the account is abbreviated here is seen in the fact that no mention was made of the king's compliance with Daniel's request for a delay; but a delay there surely was. Verse 17 "Then Daniel went to his house, and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions: that they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his companions should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon."DANIEL AND GO TO PRAYERThis was a wonderful way, and the only way, that the believer should confront every crisis in his life. Like these Hebrew companions, let the believer go down upon his knees in prayer whenever the issues of life and death are involved and where unaided human effort is doomed to futility. Daniel's leadership in this was wonderful; and when the victory came, when the secret was revealed, Daniel failed not to deny all credit for it, and to give the glory to God. A nobler example may hardly be found anywhere. Verse 19 "Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God forever and ever; for wisdom and 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 them that have understanding; he revealeth the deep and secret things; he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him. thank thee, and praise thee, O thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and now hast made known unto me what we desired of thee; for thou hast made known unto us the kings's matter. Therefore Daniel went in unto Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and said unto him Destroy not the wise men of Babylon; bring me in before the king, and I will show unto the king the interpretation."THE DREAM AND THE Daniel exhibited here all of the skill and diplomacy of an accomplished statesman. Note that, even in his prayer, he included his companions. Note the "we" in Daniel 2:23. Furthermore, since Daniel had already received a delay from the king and an appointed day when he might reveal the secret, Daniel, in all probability at that point, might have gone directly to the king; but he sought out the captain of the king's guard Arioch, thus going through channels. A collateral benefit of this was that it also could have delayed the execution of some of the wise men, that is, if Arioch was already proceeding with the executions. Furthermore, it gave Arioch the opportunity to play a conspicuous part in the process of the dream's revelation, an opportunity which Arioch apparently exploited fully. (See Daniel 2:25). Many scholars have pointed out how Daniel's prayer displayed an intimate acquaintance with Old Testament literature, including the Psalms. Like Jonah's prayer from the belly of the fish, Daniel referred to God as "the God of heaven." Many of the phrases used in Daniel's language here are found in the Psalms. Verse 25 "Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said unto him, I have found a man of the children of the captivity of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation. The 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? Daniel answered before the king and said, The secret which the king hath demanded can neither wise men, enchanters, magicians, nor soothsayers, show unto the king; but there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and he hath made known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed are these: as for thee, O king, thy thoughts came into thy mind upon thy bed, what should come to pass hereafter; and he that revealeth secrets hath made known to thee what shall come to pass. But as for me, this secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than many living, but to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that thou mayest know the thoughts of thy heart."DANIEL GIVES THE GLORY TO GODDaniel's disclaimer of any glory for himself in that situation should have disarmed much of the jealousy that was certain to arise against him; but we later learn that it did not. What Daniel said here was a complete defense of the wise men, for he affirmed that "no man," but only God, could reveal what the king demanded. That corresponds fully with what the wise men said. "The `latter days'... (Daniel 2:28). This expression reveals the passage as Messianic. In the Old Testament, "the latter days" invariably speak of the days of Christ's kingdom. "The dream is eschatological, it deals with the Messianic age."[6]Note that Arioch announced to the king, "I have found a man ...!" (Daniel 2:25). Under the circumstances, it seems that Arioch should be pardoned for presenting himself as the man who found the man who could unravel the mystery! Such self-seeking on the part of the king's ministers contrasts with the reluctance of Daniel to claim any glory for himself. Verse 31 "Thou, O king sawest, and, behold, a great image. This image which was mighty, and whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the aspect thereof was terrible. As for this image, its head was of fine gold, its breasts and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and, part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth."THE DREAM WAS RELATEDThe significance of various features of this immense image will appear in the interpretation of it which Daniel promptly revealed to the king. That this image was indeed the feature of Nebuchadnezzar's dream appears in the fact that the king accepted it as the revelation of the dream which he had. "No place was found for them ..." (Daniel 2:35) is merely an archaic way of saying that, "No trace of them was found."[7]"A stone cut out by no human hand would be heaven-sent."[8]Verse 36 "This is the dream, and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king. Thou, O king, art king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory; And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, and hath made thee to rule over them all: thou art the head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee; and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that crushes all these, shall it break in pieces and crush. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters clay, and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but there shall be in it of the strength of iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken."THE Owens noted that the number four prevails in this chapter. "There were four Hebrew children, four classes of wise men mentioned, four metals in the image, which represented four kingdoms."[9] The identity of the four kingdoms is certain. For the first 1700 years of the Christian religion, the four kingdoms represented by the four parts of the image were universally understood to be: The kingdom of Babylon, represented by the head of gold. The Medo-Persian Empire, represented by the silver. The World-Wide Kingdom of Alexander, represented the brass. The Roman Empire, represented by the iron mingled with clay. Owens admitted that this understanding of the passage dates back to the book of 2Esdras in the apocryphal Old Testament, although we were unable to find it from the reference he gave (2Es 12:12).[10] No one can deny that the understanding of the fourth kingdom as that of the Romans is actually older than Christianity. Despite this and without regard to the truth that the fourth kingdom cannot possibly be identified with any other except the Romans, the current crop of Biblical critics are shouting in the most vociferous manner that the fourth kingdom was that of the Greeks. There is only one reason for such allegations, that being the purpose of critics to get rid of the magnificent predictive prophecy in this chapter of the establishment of the kingdom of heaven. That kingdom, of course, was set up in the days of those Roman kings; and, after moving the date of Daniel as close to those times as they dared (quite arbitrarily, of course), the predictive prophecy still foretells the establishment of the kingdom of Christ! So, what do they do? They misinterpret the prophecy in a vain and ridiculous attempt to make it say that the kingdom of Christ would be set up in the days of the Alexandrian Empire. One has to be ignorant of both the Bible and human history in order to be deceived by such a perversion of the truth. The first thing to be determined in the interpretation of this prophecy is the question of what the four kingdoms mean, whether regimes or individual kings, or persons. Owens was correct in his declaration that, "There is no question as to the identification of regimes instead of persons. It was not Nebuchadnezzar as a person, but the Babylonian era,"[11] that was meant by the head of gold. Even today there is no disagreement on this. Now, as any student of history knows, Babylon was succeeded by the Medo-Persian Empire, not two empires, but only one. The Medes and the Persians are repeatedly mentioned in the Book of Esther as joint names of a single government (Esther 1:19, etc.). However, in order to move the prediction of the establishment of Christ's kingdom from the days of the Romans, the critics have (in their own eyes) removed the kingdom of the Romans from the image! How do they attempt such a thing? By making the nonexistent Kingdom of the Medes to be the second kingdom, that of the Persians the third, and that of the Greeks the fourth. We reject such an adjustment of history out of hand. As Leupold put it, "There never was such an empire as the Median empire,"[12] that is, in the worldwide extent indicated by the vision, and especially if it must be found as a successor to Babylon, that is, coming after Babylon, a vital requirement of the vision. There was, of course, a state called Media (never a world empire); but it was conquered by Babylon in 550 B.C.,[13] years before Babylon itself was conquered by the Medo-Persians. Even more disastrous to the theory of making the Medes a successive empire to that of Babylon, is the fact that the Medes were also subjugated by Alexander the Great in 330 B.C.,[14]thus forming a portion of the Greek Empire, exactly as they had been subjugated at an earlier time by the Babylonians. Thus, the Medes were an important subordinate part of both the Babylonian and Greek empires. In the days after Babylon, they enjoyed their greatest worldly authority as identified with Medo-Persia. The Medes first appear in ancient history in the year 836 B.C.; but throughout the greater part of their entire history they were subject to Assyria, Babylon, (subordinate partners with Persia for awhile) and then subject to Alexander the Great. Herodotus referred to Media as an empire; but in view of what is known concerning them they were never an empire in the worldwide sense indicated in this vision, and certainly not after the fall of Babylon! In view of these facts and others to be cited below, the critical device of making subordinate Media one of these worldwide empires is totally unacceptable. Critics misconstrue Daniel 5:31, which declares that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. However, there is no reference in that to a Median kingdom, for the same passage says that, "The kingdom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians" (Daniel 5:19); thus it was one kingdom with two prominent elements, The Medo-Persian Empire. The mention of Darius' race inDaniel 5:31 did not change the facts. It was just like saying that Herod the Idumean (the Great) ascended the throne of Judea; but that could never have meant that he took over the Kingdom of Esau! (Idumeans were Edomites, the posterity of Esau). The interpretation of the vision by Daniel continues. Verse 43 "And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron doth not mingle with clay. And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces, the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." We shall now notice how exactly the traditional interpretation of these four kingdoms fits the image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream. BABYLON was the head of gold. And, by the progressive decrease in the value of the materials in the image, the principle that human governments shall wax worse and worse throughout history is established. It will appear strange to some, in view of Nebuchadnezzar's unreasonable cruelty, that Babylon should have been the head of gold. However, since it was Daniel's duty to interpret the vision, it would have been fatal to him, perhaps, if anyone except Nebuchadnezzar had been named as the head of gold. Besides that, the deep religious convictions of Nebuchadnezzar, and the strict manner in which he honored his word, and a great many other commendable qualities of his reign attest the appropriateness of this symbol. In the matter of the captives, Nebuchadnezzar did not seek out young women to gratify his lust, but young men to be trained in art and science. Later human systems reversed this completely. We have never read of a commentator who denied that Babylon was the head of gold. MEDO-PERSIA was the breasts and arms of silver; and it seems impossible that a more appropriate representative of this dual authority could have been devised than the breasts and arms of the great image. That Medo-Persia was indeed the empire that succeeded Babylon is a matter of history. Darius the Mede was a close confederate of Cyrus who appointed him as his first governor over Babylon after it was taken from the Chaldeans. His name is found on ancient monuments as Gubaru or Ugbaru. (See the full discussion of this in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, pp. 788,789). It is impossible to suppose that any authority, other than that of the Medes and the Persians succeeded the overthrow of Babylon. THE GREEK EMPIRE succeeded to worldwide authority upon the overthrow of Medo-Persia. This power was symbolized by the belly and thighs of brass. "A third kingdom of brass" is the Biblical description; and Jamieson tells us that "This third empire (the Greeks) were celebrated for the bronze armor of their warriors."[15] Another distinguishing mark of this third empire was "its universality."[16] It is said of this third empire, "They shall bear rule over all the earth" (Daniel 2:39). This mark of identification settles forever the error of ascribing this third spot to Persia, for Persia never was able to conquer Greece; and, while it must be admitted that "the whole earth" here must mean the "whole known world"; a prominent nation like Greece could not have been left out of the reckoning. Such allegations as that of Owens which states that, "The third kingdom is that of the Persians,"[17] is clearly in error. Alexander alone conquered the whole world and then sat down and wept because there were no more nations to conquer! There is yet another identification mark of this third world power; and it was pointed out by Thomson. "The word translated "belly" (Daniel 2:32) is plural; and it expresses along with the two thighs the idea of four-foldness!"[18] This points squarely to the Alexandrian Empire, because, upon the death of Alexander, the empire was promptly divided among the four generals of Alexander's army. "Not only that, the four parts eventually were only two: Syria and Egypt. These are the two thighs of the statue."[19] Efforts to make Alexander's Empire the fourth world power represented by the image fail completely. As Young noted, "The understanding of these four world powers foretold by the image as Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome is the only position that interpretsDaniel 2:44 correctly. That verse states emphatically that God's kingdom will appear in the days of these four powers; that means the kingdom had to be established after the fourth of these great powers appeared on earth, that is, in the clays of the Roman kings. THE ROMAN EMPIRE corresponded to the legs of iron and the feet of iron mingled with miry clay. "It shall be a divided kingdom." Rome divided into the Eastern and Western Empires with capitals at Rome and Constantinople. The iron-like nature of the Roman power to break in pieces and crash all nations is known to every student of history. "They shall not cleave one to another" shows that Rome's conquests, despite their overwhelming nature, and the brutal ruthlessness with which they were executed could never actually unite the conquered peoples. Note the rebelliousness of the Jews and that of the Parthians, and that of practically every other power subdued by the Romans. In no sense whatever were Rome's conquered peoples ever united. Iron cannot mix with clay. "They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men." We find no basis whatever for viewing this as the intermarriage of Roman kings with the heads of conquered states, or any such thing. What seems to be indicated by this is the absorption into the historic Roman Empire of successive waves of barbarian invaders. None of these things suggests either the empire or the times of Alexander. THE KINGDOM OF GOD is symbolized by the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, and which smote the great image upon the feet, broke it all into pieces and scattered all of the world empires as dust, and which increased until it filled the whole earth! Some have dared to assert that such a thing never happened, to which it may be replied that all of the world powers of this vision have long since disappeared from the earth; and nothing whatever is known of any of them except what men have written about them in the libraries of the world; but the kingdom of God is still flourishing. There have been more buildings erected to the honor and service of Jesus Christ in the United States of America alone during the last decade only than were previously erected all over the world in honor of all the kings and rulers who ever lived. A certain critic quoted by Leupold stated that, "The victory of Christianity over Paganism was in no sense a victory of Christianity over the Roman Empire."[20] This, of course, is a gross error. Yes indeed Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire. As Leupold put it, "Christianity was in a sense God's judgment upon sinful Rome."[21] Will Durant has this: "There is no greater drama in human record than the sight of a few Christians, scorned or oppressed by a succession of emperors, beating all trials with fierce tenacity, multiplying quietly, building order while their enemies generated chaos, fighting the sword with the word, brutality with hope, and at last defeating the strongest state that history has known. Caesar and Christ had met in the arena, and Christ had won."[22]The Roman Empire was the climax of paganism; and even in the days of Theodosius there yet remained four hundred twenty four pagan temples, each of them manned by a tremendous staff of pagan priests.[23] Every emperor was a self-styled god; and well into the second century Christians were being burned alive for refusing to burn incense to the emperor, as proved by the martyrdom of Polycarp at Smyma (155 A.D.). Did Christianity win over that? Yes. In the year 389 A.D., the Emperor Theodosius closed down all the pagan temples, proscribed and outlawed the pagan priesthood, and initiated many other changes that emphasized the totality of the Christian victory. Verse 46 "Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou hast been able to reveal this secret. Then the king made Daniel great, and gave him many great gifts, and made him to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to be chief governor over all the wise men of Babylon. And Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel was in the gate of the king."It may be that Daniel protested against divine honors being offered to him by the king, because the king's "reply" seems to indicate such a protest. At any rate, the worship conferred upon Daniel was intended to honor Daniel's God, as the king plainly indicated. Notice also that Daniel's being made to "rule" over the province of Babylon did not mean that this "rule" was absolute. Daniel recognized this in procuring the king's permission to name his companions to responsible posts. The magnificent prophecy of the establishment of Christ's kingdom reaching its climax in Daniel 2:44 above is one of the great features of the Book of Daniel. It is significant that all schools of interpreters accept this as a prophecy of the establishment of Christ's kingdom. "Interpreters of all schools, Christian, Jewish, rationalistic, unbelieving, millennial, amillennial, etc., agree that Daniel 2:44 refers to Christ's kingdom."[24]This alone is more than sufficient to establish Daniel as a valid prophet of future events. If Daniel was not inspired by God, and even if he wrote as late as 165 B.C. (which we emphatically deny), then how could he or anyone else have known that Christ's kingdom would be established and that it would flourish and fill the whole world? We conclude with the immortal words of Sir Isaac Newton: "To reject Daniel's prophecy is to reject the Christian religion, for this religion is founded upon his prophecy of the Messiah. This vision composed of the four metals is the foundation of all of Daniel's prophecies. It represents four great nations who should reign over the earth successively, viz. the people of Babylonia, the Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans ... And the stone cut out without hands which smote the image and filled the whole earth shows that in the days of those Roman kings, the God of heaven would set up a kingdom that should never be destroyed, the Kingdom of Messiah."[25] Commentary On Daniel Two by Eric HallIntroduction to Chapter 2 Chapter 2 covers history from Babylon to Rome, and provides the foundation for understanding the other apocalyptic sections in the book. Chapter 7 expands upon chapter 2, especially with regard to the second and third kingdoms. Chapters 11 and 12 expand upon chapter 2, especially with regard to kingdoms two, three, and four. These later chapters supply many details that are not mentioned here in chapter 2. MESSAGE OF CHAPTER 2: God’ s promises to Israel have not been forgotten. (This is the same message in Romans 9– 11.) The Gentiles (those outside of the covenant) are in charge now, but one day (under the Messiah) the kingdom will be restored to the faithful. Verse 1-2 1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him. 2 Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned, to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. The world’ s most powerful ruler has just assumed the throne – and almost immediately he is troubled by his dreams and can’ t sleep. God was trying to tell him something and like most people he found that troubling. He calls all of his wise men to come and interpret the dream. Note that the term ‘ Chaldean’ is used here to denote a special class of wise men. Nebuchadnezzar was himself a Chaldean in the ethnic sense. ‘ Dream manuals’ have been found that list historical dreams and the events that followed them. These wise men would have been very familiar with these very long volumes. There general course of action would have been to have heard the dream and then looked it up in their book – but Nebuchadnezzar has other ideas! Does God talk to us today in dreams? When God talked to people with dreams in the Old Testament, they knew it. They received a definite message, and God was very persistent about it. Nebuchadnezzar knew that this was no ordinary dream. If God did talk to us today with dreams then what would he say? What more do we need to hear from God? The word he has already given us is able to instruct us about salvation (2 Timothy 3:15) and equips us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16). Are you looking for a message from God? You have one! The Bible is God’ s message to us. Those who claim that God speaks to them today apart from his word generally have found something in his word that they don’ t like. As scarce as the truth is, the demand has never exceeded the supply! Verse 3-6 3 And the king said to them, “ I had a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.” 4 Then the Chaldeans said to the king, “ O king, live for ever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” 5 The king answered the Chaldeans, “ The word from me is sure: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be torn limb from limb, and your houses shall be laid in ruins. 6 But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation.” Beginning in verse 4 and continuing through 7:28, the book of Daniel is written in the Aramaic language. Even the Dead Seas Scrolls make this switch to Aramaic. (This strongly suggests that the original was also written in two languages.) Other Aramaic sections in the Old Testament: Ezra 4:8– 6:18, Ezra 7:12– 26, and Jeremiah 10:11. Nebuchadnezzar asked his advisors to interpret the dream that he had, and the advisors at first seem eager to do so. They ask him to tell them the dream that he had, and I am sure that they would have come up with any number of interpretations. They expressed no doubt regarding their abilities in verse 4. Nebuchadnezzar, however, is no fool. He asks them to tell him both his dream and his interpretation. Suddenly their confidence vanishes! The King James Version translates verse 5 to indicate that the king had forgotten the dream. However, he remembers enough later in the story to be able to confirm Daniel’ s interpretation. A better interpretation is found in the Revised Standard Version, which we read above. ANCIENT OMEN: If a man cannot remember the dream he saw then it means that his personal god is angry with him. Failure meant a horrible death and success meant rich rewards. The threat in verse 5 is that they would be “ made into limbs.” The NIV translation that they would be cut into pieces is not correct – no verb for cutting is used here and no cutting instrument is mentioned. What the king had in mind was that their arms and legs would be tied to four trees that had been temporarily roped together. When the ropes were cut, the victim would be torn into four pieces. (He was going to turn each wise man into four wise pieces!) Verse 7-9 7 They answered a second time, “ Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show its interpretation.” 8 The king answered, “ I know with certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see that the word from me is sure 9 that if you do not make the dream known to me, there is but one sentence for you. You have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the times change. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation.” They do not think that the king is serious, so they ask him for the dream one more time. (Do they seem a little nervous to you?) Compare the first request in verse 4 with the second request in verse 7. Notice any difference? In the second request, the wise men don’ t start off by hoping that the king will live forever! In verse 8-9, the king makes it very clear that he is serious, and he lets them in on his strategy. He accuses them of stalling and of planning to lie to him. (Of course, they are stalling! They are repeating themselves in verse 7.) He says that they were planning to wait until “ the times change.” That is, until the crisis has passed and the king has forgotten all about it. Verse 10-11 10 The Chaldeans answered the king, “ There is not a man on earth who can meet the king’ s demand; for no great and powerful king has asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or Chaldean. 11 The thing that the king asks is difficult, and none can show it to the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” The wise men complain that no one could do what the king wanted. In fact, they say that no king has ever asked such a thing. (Indeed, not even Joseph in Egypt was required to do this.) The wise men say that if they don’ t know the answer then no one knows the answer. Job 12:2 “ No doubt you are the people, and wisdom will die with you.” Finally, they speak the truth. They admit to the king (whether they know they are admitting it or not) that their profession is a fraud. This is definitely a lesson we need to hear today. Anytime we look for answers to our problems or answers about our future from someone other than God, we need to seriously consider our spiritual health. SIMPLE PROOF THAT ESP DOES NOT EXIST: Have you ever wondered how they decide how many numbers to use in the state lottery? (6 between 1 and 50) The lottery is designed according to the laws of statistics. The lottery would not work as expected if ESP existed. The fact that it does work as expected (often there are no jackpot winners at all) proves that their is no “ latent ESP” in the populace. The king, they say, isn’ t being fair. He is asking too much. Imagine, asking a fortune teller to tell someone’ s fortune! Again, they hit upon the truth. Only God can reveal someone’ s thoughts. What will the logical conclusion be when Daniel reveals the dream? (I imagine they later regretted their words!) Verse 12-13 12 Because of this the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed. 13 So the decree went forth that the wise men were to be slain, and they sought Daniel and his companions, to slay them. The king becomes upset when he realizes that his “ wise men” are suffering from an acute lack of wisdom. In fact, he becomes furious and commands that they all be killed. (You would think that some of these fortune tellers would have seen this coming and have left town!) Daniel and his friends, unfortunately, are numbered among this group, and their lives become in danger from the king’ s edict. It is possible that Daniel is still in school. That is, the three years of schooling may not yet be over. If this were true, then Nebuchadnezzar must have ordered that all of those who were preparing to be wise men be killed as well. This would explain why Daniel was not with the wise men when they first tried to interpret the dream. As for not standing before the king until the three years were over (1:5), recall that standing before the king was a Persian term for royal service. Verse 14-16 14 Then Daniel replied with prudence and discretion to Arioch, the captain of the king’ s guard, who had gone out to slay the wise men of Babylon; 15 he said to Arioch, the king’ s captain, “ Why is the decree of the king so severe?” Then Arioch made the matter known to Daniel. 16 And Daniel went in and besought the king to appoint him a time, that he might show to the king the interpretation. Arioch shows up to take Daniel to death row, but Daniel talks him into taking him to the king instead. The word for “ severe” in verse 15 really means “ hasty.” Daniel did not question the punishment, but the haste with which the king ordered it. This death sentence was Daniel’ s opportunity. It sounded like very bad news, but Daniel saw it as a gift from God and jumped at it. Christians should be eternal optimists! We usually see the light at the end of the tunnel and think it must be an oncoming train. If God is on our side, then who can be against us. Daniel is a great example of how we should be optimistic since God is on our side. A “ pessimistic Christian” is the ultimate oxymoron. Daniel seems awfully confident in his abilities. Where did this teenager get such confidence? He knew the source of all wisdom. His confidence was not in himself but in his God! The stage is now set to introduce King Nebuchadnezzar to the only true and living God. Also, we are about to see a theme that will last throughout the book: God is still in charge, he is still as powerful as ever, and he still loves and cares for his faithful followers. This was true even after their temple had been burned, their city destroyed, and they had been dragged away in slavery. [The city was destroyed in 587 B.C. This scene occurred in 602 B.C.] If there is one clear message in the Bible it is that things are not always as they appear! We must see things the way that God sees them. Verse 18-19 17 Then Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, 18 and told them to seek mercy of the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his companions might not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven. Note that his three companions are referred to here by their less familiar Hebrew names. The term ‘ God of Heaven’ is used almost exclusively in the captivity books. Why? (Daniel uses it 9 times, Ezra 6 times, and Nehemiah 4 times.) When Judah turned from the Lord, Ezekiel had a vision in which he saw the glory of God depart from the holy of holies in the temple and leave the earth. (Ezekiel 10 and 11) What did Daniel and his friends do? They did not turn to astrology or crystal balls. Instead, they prayed. Notice that Daniel doesn’ t do it all by himself, either. He asks them all to pray with him. Prayer is a team effort! “ Prayer is where the action is. Any church without a well organized and systematic prayer program is simply operating a religious treadmill.” “ The one concern of the devil is to keep Christians from praying. He fears nothing from prayerless studies, prayerless work, and prayerless religion. He laughs at our toil, mocks at our wisdom, but trembles when we pray.” What else did Daniel do? He went to bed! He turned his problems over to God and then he went to sleep. Again, I detect an important lesson for us. Notice that Daniel has already promised to answer the king – before he started praying for the answer. Again, Daniel knows that God will give him the answer that he needs. What confidence! What utter dependence on God! The “ mystery” or “ secret” is revealed to Daniel during the night. The word “ secret” occurs 9 times in this chapter. Ezekiel 28:3 using irony against the prince of Tyre told him “ Behold thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that is hidden thee.” Who was Ezekiel referring to? Remember that if Ezekiel referred to Daniel then the late date theory falls in ruin. Verse 20-23 20 Daniel said: “ Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever to whom belong wisdom and might. 21 He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; 22 he reveals deep and mysterious things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him. 23 To thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for thou hast given me wisdom and strength, and hast now made known to me what we asked of thee, for thou hast made known to us the king’ s matter.” Here Daniel expresses his gratitude to God for answering his prayer and saving him from certain death. Notice in verse 20 that Daniel emphasizes God’ s wisdom and power. GOD IS . He controls history. He controls nature. He created the universe and keeps it operating. He is the creator, sustainer, and sovereign of the universe. GOD IS WISE. We like to think we are wise, but any wisdom we have comes from what God has told us. Although we have certainly progressed in our knowledge of the world, we still know virtually nothing about how it all works. The further you progress in science, the more you realize just how little we really know. When you think you know everything they give you a bachelor’ s degree, when you realize you don’ t know anything they give you a Master’ s degree, and when you realize that no one else knows anything either they give you a Doctorate. Remember what Paul said: 1 Corinthians 1:25,30 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. ... 30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. In verse 21, Daniel touches upon a major theme in the book. It is God who changes times and seasons, removes and sets up kings, and gives wisdom and knowledge. God is in control. Men look at the world, see a mess, and say that God is dead. But throughout the Bible, we see that God is always working – especially when things look the worst. Was the world in bad shape before the flood? Yes. Was God in charge? You bet he was! From a human perspective, could things have looked any worse than they did at the cross? Yet God was at that very moment working out the culmination of a plan that he had formed at the very beginning. We must try to see things the way that God sees them! Daniel did and you can see what the result was. Note that Daniel was not a fatalist. He knew that men could make real decisions and effect history. He also knew, however, that God had the final word on the matter. Daniel did not see himself and the Babylonians as puppets. Verse 21 says that God sets up and removes kings. Read Psalms 2:1– 4.1 Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and his anointed, saying, 3 “ Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.” 4 He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision. Does he just set up the good kings, or does he set them all up? Although we may have trouble understanding it, the Bible says that God sets them all up and we should (at least in that respect) show respect to them all like Daniel did with Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel was polite and respectful to the one who had deported him because he knew that whatever power Nebuchadnezzar had was given to him by God. We are not required to agree with them (thankfully), but I think that we are required to show them respect and honor. Listen to what Paul and Peter have to say about this: Romans 13:1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 1 Peter 2:13-17 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God. 17 Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Were Peter and Paul just speaking of good rulers? How could they be! There were no good rulers back then. These men were imprisoned and killed by these rulers. I think there is an important lesson for us here, even though we may not want to hear it. On the other side of the coin, it is certainly permissible to pray that evil rulers be removed. The Christians did this in Revelation, and God answered their prayers by judging Rome. Are we then supposed to honor a ruler who we think is wicked. Well, read 1 Peter 2:17 again. The answer is clearly yes. Daniel called God the God of his fathers. Daniel trusted God because he knew what God had done. As Isaiah 28:16 says, God is a tried stone. He has never forsaken his people, and he never will. Notice that Daniel is absolutely sure that he knows the king’ s dream even before he tells the king about it. God said it and Daniel knew it was true. Daniel was thanking God in advance because the king had not yet spared his life. God had made it known “ to me” what “ we” asked of him. Again, we are reminded of the power of combined prayer. Daniel asked his friends to pray with him, and he did not forget their contribution when he thanked God. Verse 24-25 24 Therefore Daniel went in to Arioch, whom the king had appointed to destroy the wise men of Babylon; he went and said thus to him, “ Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon; bring me in before the king, and I will show the king the interpretation.” 25 Then Arioch brought in Daniel before the king in haste, and said thus to him: “ I have found among the exiles from Judah a man who can make known to the king the interpretation.” Incredible, isn’ t it? All by himself Arioch has managed to solve the king’ s problem. Notice how he takes all of the credit in verse 25. (This may have something to do with the reward mentioned back in verse 6.) Many things have changed over the centuries, but human nature has not changed one little bit since the Garden of Eden. Very often you hear modernists claiming that we need a new church, a new Bible, and a new theology for a new age. But of course we don’ t. Man has not changed. Sin has not changed. The remedy has not changed. God has not changed. We may see ourselves as vastly improved, but all we are doing is worshipping different idols. Arioch’ s complete confidence in Daniel is interesting. He shows no doubt that Daniel will be able to interpret the king’ s dream. Daniel had already made quite an impact on Arioch. Verse 26-30 26 The king said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, “ Are you able to make known to me the dream that I have seen and its interpretation?” 27 Daniel answered the king, “ No wise men, enchanters, magicians, or astrologers can show to the king the mystery which the king has asked, 28 but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these: 29 To you, O king, as you lay in bed came thoughts of what would be hereafter, and he who reveals mysteries made known to you what is to be. 30 But as for me, not because of any wisdom that I have more than all the living has this mystery been revealed to me, but in order that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that you may know the thoughts of your mind. Notice that Daniel reminds the reader of his Babylonian name but then resumes using his Hebrew name. And what does Daniel do? Does he come before the king and say, “ I have solved your problem. I know all of the answers. Look what I can do.” No. Unlike Arioch, Daniel does not mention himself. He says look what God can do. The power was not within Daniel and Daniel knew it. God had told him what Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed. See verse 30. Again, we are faced with the truth about astrology, magic, and fortune telling. Daniel says that it does not work. Read verse 27. Now, do we agree with Daniel or not? I hope we all agree with him. Daniel speaks to Nebuchadnezzar with great boldness. Keep in mind that Daniel was under sentence of death, yet he takes this opportunity to tell the king that all of his gods are worse than useless. He tells the king that there is a God who reveals mysteries. Daniel’ s answer to the king is that “ there is a God in heaven.” That is a good answer, isn’ t it! Note also the contrast that Daniel draws between the false Babylonian gods and the one true God. The king’ s gods were helpless, but there is a God in Heaven who is all powerful. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 2:2. As was usual in such cases, the king called for his socalled wise men to help him out of his confusion. Among them the Chaldeans are named in a way that indicates they were a special class of men. See the comments on chapter 1:4 for information concerning them. The first object in calling for these wise men was that they might shew the king his dreams because he had forgotten them. Daniel 2:3. With the preceding verse in view we understand that know the dreams here means to be told what he dreamed. This is indicated also by a statement in verse 6. Daniel 2:4. Syriac was similar to the language spoken by the Jews, and was the common tongue of the court of Babylon. This explains why the wise men used it when speaking to Nebuchadnezzar. They made what they doubtless thought was a reasonable statement, that if the king would tell them his dream they could give the interpretation of it. Daniel 2:5. But the wise men were not to get off so easily, for they were demanded to tell the king both the dream and its interpretation. The word dunghill occurs 6 times in the Old Testament, and when used figuratively means a foul or corrupt condition. Daniel 2:6. These gifts and rewards are not to be regarded in the light of bribes, but as legitimate returns for services rendered. These men were subjects of the king and any assistance they could give towards clearing up the confusion their master was undergoing would he proper and would entitle them to some reward. Daniel 2:7. The men could only repeat their statement of verse 4. Daniel 2:8, Gain is from zebaw, which Strong defines, “ To acquire by purchase.” These men had nothing of purchasing power or value by which literally to obtain more time, so we know the word is used figuratively. The explanation is in the closing words oi the verse, because ye see the thing is gone from, me. In the hope that the king’ s memory would finally return and he could recall the dream, they kept repeating their suggestion as a means of gaining more time. Daniel 2:9. Tell me the dream, and 1 shall know. The logic of Nebuchadnezzar was correct, for if these men possessed the superhuman knowledge they professed to have, it would have been as easy to recall the dream as to interpret it. If there was any difference it would have been easier, since the dream was something that had already occurred while the interpretation was in the future. This consideration led the king to doubt the sincerity of all their pretensions of being wise men in the sense that term was used, and it showed him their reason for seeking more time, which is the meaning of till the time be changed. But one decree means that no change would be made in the decree that was threatened in verse 5. Daniel 2:10. The statements the wise men made to the king were true, but they disproved their claims to being possessed with superhuman knowledge. It is true that no mere normal man can reveal that which is unknown or hid from humanity, but the Chaldeans professed to be superhuman beings as to their knowledge. Daniel 2:11. The statements of these Chaldeans shows they believed in the existence of invisible, supernatural beings who did not live among men. It indicates also that these gods possessed knowledge that was never transmitted to men, for they claimed to have knowledge that ordinary men did not have. The gist of the verse is that the king was asking something that was impossible even of men possessing superhuman talents, Daniel 2:12, However, such a conclusion rested only on the assertion of these men, for no authority was cited for limiting the extent to which these gods could transmit their knowledge to men if they saw fit to do so, hence there was no valid excuse for the failure of these Chaldeans. The king evidently saw this point and concluded that the socalled wise men were frauds as a class and decided to destroy them all. Daniel 2:13. Wise men was a term that designated all men who were looked upon as belonging in the group possessing special talents pertaining to the mind. That is why the executioner of the king's decree sought Daniel and Ms fellows, knowing they had been pronounced even by the king himself as belonging in such a class (chapter 1: 19, 20). Daniel 2:14. The executioner found Daniel and informed him of the king's decree. Daniel would have been helpless had he tried to resist the actions of the officer, and it would also have been helpless had he tried to resist the actions of the officer, and it would also have been foolish to use any rash language to him, especially since the executioner had no choice in the matter. Instead of such a course, Daniel spoke with counsel and wisdom, which is defined in the lexicon as ’ prudence” and “ judgment.” Daniel 2:15. So far the executioner had only announced to Daniel the decree of death with which he was provided as he contacted him and his three companions. Hasty is from ciiatsaph and Strong defines it, “ A primitive root; properly to shear or cut close; figuratively to be severe.” This is what shows Daniel’ s good judgment in his speech to the captain. He did not raise any question as to the authority of the king, nor as to whether none of the socalled wise men were guilty of death. He only asked why the decree was so severe or sweeping In its decision to slay all the wise men. This question induced the executioner to tell Daniel the particulars of the situation that ended with the wholesale death sentence from the king. Daniel 2:16. Having learned that disappointment at failure to obtain the interpretation of his dream was the real cause of the king’ s action, Daniel requested him to give him the opportunity and he would get the desired information for him. This request of Daniel produced a "stay of execution” for a while. Daniel 2:17. Went to his house, and made the thing knvtcn. This indicates that Daniel and hfs three companions lived together, or at least were together much of the time. That would he a fair conclusion since they were such close .companions in tribulation as we shall see in later chapters of this book. Daniel 2:18. The purpose of telling his companions of the situation was that they unite with him in prayer to God. It is good to observe that, his personal safety was not the first consideration as a motive for the prayer, but that God would give him information concerning the secret of the king's dream to relieve the tension holding him. Their escape from the threatened destruction was the next purpose of their prayer. Daniel 2:19. After this prayer service Daniel retired for the night, and God answered the prayer In a vision. (See Hebrews 1:1.) The prophet was grateful and blessed the God of Heaven for the vision. This is another instance discussed in the note cited at chapter 1: 15, Daniel 2:20. This verse continues Daniel’ s prayer of thanksgiving for the favor of God in giving him the information asked for. He attributes all wisdom and might to God, and that is more significant than might be realized at first thought. Wisdom would qualify Him to formulate decrees and might would furnish the ability to do them. Daniel 2:21. Times Is from ipdajt which Strong defines, "A set lime," and seasons is from ZEMAN which is defined. "An appointed occasion," It indicates control over periods and arrangements that are supposed to be fixed. The right and ability to replace one king with another was shown in the histories of the books of Samuel and Kings. Wisdom to the wise means that God will favor those who show their appreciation for and the judgment to use more wisdom: the same thought is in the words knowledge and understanding as to God's dispensing of them to men. Daniel 2:22. The gist of this verse is that there is nothing that is hid from the knowledge of God, hence he is able to expose all secrets. Daniel 2:23. This verse sums up the powers and favors of God. In giving to Daniel the revelation of the matter that was troubling the king. Daniel 2:24. Daniel was now ready to make good his word to the king. He got in contact with Arioch who was the king's captain and who was the one to execute the death sentence on the wise men. The unselfishness of Daniel is shown by his desire to save all the wise men of Babylon. He requested a hearing before the king which he expected to be arranged through the services of the captain. Daniel 2:25. The meeting was arranged without delay and the captain brought Daniel into the presence of the king. He was introduced as one of the Judean captives who had the ability to interpret the king's dream. Daniel 2:26. In Daniel 1:20 Is a statement that might seem to have made the inquiry of the present verse unnecessary. However, that other occasion only pertained to matters supposed to be within the mental qualifications of magicians or astrologers and Chaldeans, and the king had been told that they were not able to solve such a problem as the present situation presented. Now comes this Daniel Who, though found in the first interview with him to exceed the other wise men, was yet in their classification, Hence it was consistent to ask him the questions of the present verse. Daniel 2:27. In his answer to the king, Daniel confirmed the statements of the Chaldeans related in verses 10 and 11, but which did not explain the inconsistency in the pretensions of the wise men to high abilities regarding mysterious subjects, Daniel 2:28. Daniel is about to fulfill his promise to the king that he would give him the answer to his problem. But before doing so he makes it clear that it will not be through his ability as a soothsayer. It Is to be through the wisdom of God in heaven that the vision is to be recalled and explained. Daniel 2:29. Thy thoughts came upon thy ted signifies that Nebuchadnezzar had not seen some image or statue somewhere among the works of men. It was all a mental picture that came to him while asleep and hence was not a material one. Daniel 2:30. When God revealed this great secret to Daniel it was not in recognition of any special talents lie already possessed; in truth, it was not for any personal consideration of Daniel at all, The word their is not authorized by the original and it is in the way of the proper rendering of the passage. The American Standard Version translates the passage, "But to the intent that the interpretation may be made known to the king," and Moffatt's translation and others agree with this rendering. Daniel 2:31, Daniel will first recall the vision to the king then tell him the interpretation. Image is from TsEuau which Strong defines, "An idolatrous figure.” It was appropriate for the Lord to use such an object for the present purpose since Nebuchadnezzar was a worshiper of idols. Brightness has been rendered also by "countenance,'’ and excellent is defined in the lexicon by "preeminent." It means that the image had an imposing appearance. Form, is from a word that means "appearance," and terrible means to be dangerous or threatening. This image with its various parts represented the four world empires described or figurized by the “ four living creatures” in Ezekiel 1 namely, Babylonian, MedoPersian, Macedonian and Roman. In our present chapter the Lord saw fit to represent the four governments by a giant of mixed materials in his bodily composition. Daniel 2:32. Three of the world empires are represented in this verse, using the image down as far as the thighs, which will be shown when Daniel comes with his interpretation of the whole vision. Daniel 2:33. This verse is very brief, making only a short mention of the materials composing the remainder of the image, which we shall learn represents the fourth and last of the world empires to which reference has been made in verse 31. Daniel 2:34. The speech of Daniel is still about his recalling what the king saw in his dream. After the image stood before Nebuchadnezzar until its impression of terrible greatness was fastened upon him, another subject mysteriously appeared on the scene. A stone tea.* cut out, and verse 45 supplies the word mountain which wiil be explained at that, place. This stone was cut out without hands which also will be commented upon when we come to studying the interpretation of the vision by Daniel. We will observe only at present that the stone smote the image oil his feet and broke them; more will be said on that later. Daniel 2:35. The immediate effect of the smiting on the feet by this stone was the crushing of the entire image into powder. It was not only crushed to pieces, but the fragments were blown out of sight as chaff is blown away. Slimmer threshingfloors has reference to an ancient method of threshing grain. The whole straw was piled on the floor in the path of the wind, it was beaten with a flail or trodden by oxen until the grain was forced out of the hull and the whole mass was a mixture of gTaln and chaff. Then it was scooped up and tossed into the air by an instrument called a winnowing shovel (called “ fan" in Matthew 3:12). The passing breeze blew the chaff away because it was light, and the grain, being heavier, fell back to the ground to be recovered for use or to be stored. It should be noted that after this attack was made by the stone, it enlarged until it filled the whole earth. Daniel 2:36. Interpretation is from an original word which Strong defines with the simple phrase, “ An interpretation," and neither is it rendered by any other word in the King James version of the Bible. Daniel 2:37. The description which Daniel gives of Nebuchadnezzar is for the purpose of showing why he should be represented by the most valuable of the materials. King of kings means not only that he is king over other rulers, but the phrase has the force of an adjective to describe the greatness of his power. God of heaven hath given thee means that the greater power of Nebuchadnezzar was not solely by his personal achievements, but that it was the divine will that he be a great ruler. Neither should we conclude that it was in reward for his personal merit, for this king was an idolater and a wicked man who had to be humbled severely later. But the Almighty had a great scheme of the ages that called for the existence of such a monarch. Daniel 2:38, Wheresoever . . . men dwell is what justifies the term "world power" that has been ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar and his dominions. Beasts . . . fowls . . . into thine )Mnd. It helps to arrive at the meaning of a statement to learn first what it does not mean, especially if some explanation has previously been offered that may be incorrect. A popular theory is that when man sinned, God deprived him o£ his dominion over the beasts of the field that was given him in Genesis 3: 28, and that it was renewed on behalf of this king. But such a theory is disproved by Genesis 9:2 where the same dominion is given to man which was after the "fall of man.” Also, James 3:7 declares that "every kind of beasts . . . and serpents . . , is tamed of mankind,'’ and that was in the days of the writer, many centuries after the sin of Adam. So by the process of elimination, the theory mentioned must be rejected which will require us to look for another explanation. The reasonable conclusion is that while God gave man the right to rule over the beasts and birds, the e.afe«£ of that power was not Specified. Hence our verse means that Nebuchadnezzar was given that dominion to a complete degree. It is an indication of the complete cooperation that this heathen king enjoyed with the many units of his vast domain. Thou art this head of gold Includes Nebuchadnezzar and his kingdom, for when Daniel goes on to the next division of the image he says "another kingdom,” which shows that an absolute monarch and his dominions are one unit. Daniel 2:39. This verse introduces briefly the two world powers that succeeded Nebuchadnezzar. The first is mentioned simply as one inferior to thee [Nebuchadnezzar], and the next the prophet calls a kingdom of brass, and he says it was to bear rule oi’ er all the earth which is the reason it is designated as a "world empire" in history. By referring to comments on verse 31 the reader will see that this kingdom of brass was the Macedonian, otherwise called the Greek. We have seen in a number of instances the advantage of citing secular history by way of explaining and corroborating the statements of the scriptures, and I shall do that here on the statement that the third kingdom was one of brass. "After Psammetichus [an Egyptian ruler] had passed some years there, waiting a favorable opportunity to revenge him3elf for the affront which had been put upon him, a courier brought his advice, that brazen men had landed In Egypt. These were Grecian soldiers, Carians and Ionians, who had been cast upon the coast of Egypt by a storm, and were completely covered with helmets, cuirasses, and other arms of brass," — Rollin’ s Ancient History, volume 1, page 223. "Knowing, then, that he [Psammeii chus] had been exceedingly injured by them, he entertained the design of avenging himself on his persecutors; and when he sent to the city of Buto to consult the oracle of Latona, where is the truest oracle that the Egyptians have, an answer came, ’ that vengeance would come from the sea, when men of brass should appear.’ He, however, was very incredulous that men of brass would come to assist him. But when no long time had elapsed, stress of weather compelled some Ionians and Carians [Greek soldiers], who had sailed out for the purpose of piracy, to bear away to Egypt; and when they had disembarked and were clad in brazen armour, went to the marshes to Psammetichus, and told him that men of brass, having arrived from the sea, were ravaging the plains. He perceiving that the oracle was accomplished, treated these Ionians and Ca ldans in a friendly manner, and having promised them great things, persuaded them to join with him,’’— Herodotus, Book 2, section 151. Daniel 2:40. The fourth and last one of the world kingdoms was the Roman Empire which Daniel describes as being strong as iron. This does not refer to the extent of territorial position, for all four of the kingdoms in the geneva! prediction were to be known, as world powers. The characteristic of iron attributed to the fourth one pertains to its power. On this point I shall quote a paragraph from an authentic work of reference: “ The last of the Old World empires was the one having Its capital on the seven hills of Rome. Like most of the others, it was the dominion of a single city; but, unlike others, it represented the conquests, not of a single conquering king, as Nebuchadnezzar or Cyrus, but of a SELF- AND PEOPLE; and, unlike its predecessors, It was not a loose aggregation of states, ready to fall apart as soon as the hand that fettered them was removed, but an empire, carefully welded together, building up in every land. Its own civilization, and developing a national unity which held its possessions together for a thousand years.”— Rand McNally Bible Atlas. Edward Gibbon, author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire says of it, "The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valor. The gentle but influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces.”— Chapter 1. The above estimates by the authentic writers fully justify the prediction of Daniel that the fourth kingdom was to be strong as iron, and that It would be able to break in pieces the elements of resistance which might be encountered by It in the world. Daniel 2:41. The Lord selected the form of a giant man for the imagery of this prediction in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar because it would serve certain features Of the subject better. In proceeding along that line we observe a being with ten toes which represents something that was a part of the Roman Empire. It refers to ten of the prominent governmental units that were incorporated within the Empire and that formed a great part of its strength. I shall reserve the more detailed comments on these ten governments until we reach the 7th ehap (er of this book. Shall be divided does not mean organic or bodily division, but was to be composed of two elements. Daniel 2:42. Tilts verse is much the same as the preceding one, but it adds the statement that the mixture of clay with the iron will cause the kingdom to be partly broken. That is from tebar and Strong’ s definition is, ‘‘ To be fragile." That justifies the rendering of "brittle” that is in the margin of some Bibles, and Moffatt’ s version renders it by the same word. The thought is that, while the presence of Iron will make the kingdom strong, the mixture of clay will force it to have within itself the elements of weakness that will eventually cause it to fall. Daniel 2:43. Mixed and mingle both are derived from a word that Strong defines, "A primitive root; to braid, i.e., intermix; technically to traffic (as if by barter); also to give or be security (as a kind of exchange; to commingle.” Cleave is from debaq which the same lexicon defines, "To stick to." Seed, of men is from an original that means human posterity, indicating that the "mingling" predicted was to he some human relationship, whether by business and political association, or by intermarriage. The above predictions are fully carried out in the vast historical field pertaining to the Roman Empire. It can be seen that (he Roman government and institutional life was infiltrated through the civilized world even in cases where the people did not surrender their personal traits. On the other hand, the Romans were also averse to losing their patriotic identity although they were striving to enlarge the power of Rome through the means of colonization, Hence we read in Acts 16:21 a complaint against the .Tews because they "Teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans," In other words, the Roman Empire was eager to enlarge its borders by any means that would accomplish that purpose. That included war, colonization, political and commercial traffic, and marriage. But so particular was (he empire to retain its own inherent character that the above relationships did not result in a genuine fusion or merging together of all the personalities that professed to embrace the Roman cause. This created an element of weakness that was destined finally to result in the decay of the empire. Daniel 2:44. A question that is susceptible of two answers calls for the consideration of both. These kings could mean those represented by the ten toes, or the entire four kingdoms represented by the giant man considered as a whole. Both would be correct, but the first is more specific since it was literally in course of the ten smaller divisions of the Roman Empire that the event occurred just here being predicted. One very important item which must not be overlooked is that She mentioned event was to take place while the Roman Empire was in its full power, not after it ceased to be. The great event consisted of the setting up of another kingdom, and its character is indicated by the fact that the Ood of heaven was to set it up, whereas the four world powers of the image had been set up by man. It would seem scarcely necessary to state that this institution that was to be set up is the church or kingdom of Christ, set up by the God of heaven and delivered to His well beloved Son. Not left to other people was said in contrast with these kingdoms of the image, concerning which it was said that one was to come after the other, and history shows that was accomplished by the one in power being given over to another. The kingdom of Christ will have no successor and hence it will stand forever. Break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms. Note that it was to destroy all these kingdoms, not just destroy kingdoms. True that is a distinction of Qnty one word, hut there is a vast amount of meaning in the distinction, for without it the prediction would be that all temporal governments were to be overthrown by the kingdom of Christ. That not only is not the prediction here, but it would contradict the teaching of the New Testament. Without taking apace by quoting the many lines that are in point, I shall Cite references that prove beyond any doubt that Christ endorses and expects man to have his own governments and that His servants are to be in subjection thereto. (See Romans 13: 16; 1 Timothy 2:13.) It is an unavoidable conclusion that God would not ask His servants to pray for an institution if the very one of which those servants are members was divinely intended to destroy the one to be prayed for. But the key thought in the noted passage is that the kingdom that God was to set up would destroy these kingdoms, which means it would bring about the end of worldwide empires such as the four represented by the giant man. Neither does it mean that the church would destroy such empires by a direct and arbitrary attack on the very existence of such governments, but it was to accomplish that end through the principles of individual responsibility, and the inherent right of all human beings to have a part in their own government, that were to be taught by this kingdom of God and Christ, In proportion as men received this teaching thus offered to them through the kingdom which the Cfod, of heaven set up, they were to see that worldpowers with their stifling of individual rights were improper and they would rebel against them, which would result in their overthrow. Such was the prediction which Daniel made and it was fulfilled according to history and other authentic sources to which the attention of the reader is next invited. 1 shall first make a quotation from Myers’ Ancient History (page 495) to show the influence that Christianity had on the Roman Empire. "It was in the midst of the reign of Tiberius that, in a remote province of the Roman Empire, the Saviour was crucified. Animated by an unparalleled missionary spirit, his followers traversed the length and breadth of the empire, preaching everywhere the ‘ glad tidings/ Men’ s faith in the gods of the old mythologies, the softening and liberalizing influence of Greek culture, the unification of the whole civilized world under a single government, the widespread suffering and the inexpressible weariness of the oppressed and servile classes,— all these things had prepared the soil for the seed of the new doctrines. In less than three centuries the pagan empire had become Christian not only in name but also very largely in fact. This conver sion of Rome is one of the most important events in all history. A new element is here introduced Into civilization. an element which has given color and character to the history of all succeeding centuries.” The next, historical information will be from Edward Gihbon, author of the famous Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Gibbon was an infidel and would not write anything with the motive or corroborating the scriptures. But he was an authentic historian, and any testimony that comes from him that is favorable to the claims of the Bible will be valuable. In the first paragraph of his great history is the following statement: "During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this, and of the two succeeding chapters, to describe the prosperous condition of their empire; and afterwards, from the death of Marcus Antonius, to deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth." (Emphasis mine, E.M.Z.) My purpose in this quotation is to show that the succeeding chapters of Gibbon's work are histories of facts that he regarded as causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, the event that Daniel said was foreshown by the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. Among the causes of that "decline and fall,” Gibbon devotes two lengthy chapters (35 and 16) to the “ Progress of the Christian Religion,” and "The Conduct of the Roman Government Towards the Christians." The mere fact of his devoting these t ,o chapters to an end which he declares is to show the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire is very significant, and impresses us with the truth of Daniel's prediction. However, I deem it helpful to quote from the first paragraph of the 15th chapter: “ A candid but rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of the historv of the Roman empire. While that great body was Invaded by open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigor from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the Cross on the ruins of the Capitol." in the third paragraph of this 15th chapter is tlie following: “ Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry an obvious but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author.” The foregoing citations to history are sufficient to show that the principles brought to the world through the church or kingdom of Christ resulted in the downfall of the Roman Empire as predicted by Daniel. That was the fourth of the worldwide empires and it was to be tbe last. Not that no one would ever desire and try to set up another; Napoleon, the German Kaiser and Hitler thought they could accomplish a universal rule, but all of them failed. And any other man or group of men who attempt to accomplish such a worldwide government are doomed to failure. Daniel 2:45. Mountain, is from TAWR and defined in the lexicon, “ A rock or hill.” Stones are often cut out from a bed of rock by some quarry instrument in the hands of a workman, but this one was seen to be extracted out of a hill of rock and no human worker was visible. The thought is intended to be a contrast with the kingdoms represented by the giant man, which were the productions of man. The stone and the kingdom that the God of heaven was to set up are the same Inasmuch as it was said of both that they were to smite amt destroy the giant image. Of course the church or kingdom of Christ is not a production of man, hence it was said to have been cut out without [human] hands. As thou saieest was to recall to Nebuchadnezzar the dream that he had, and since Daniel was able to do this, it was evidence to the king that the prophet knew what he was talking about. That constituted the assurance that both dream and interpretation were decreed by the Lord and would prove to be sure. Daniel 2:46. It was natural for the king to act as the account shows for gratitude alone would prompt it. And there would not be anything strained about his views of propriety seeing he had never known any kind of religious activities other t*±an those belonging to idolatry which usually involved some priest or other attendant to represent the deity being worshiped. Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream, but there was nothing to prevent him from remembering it after Daniel recalled it for him. He could not know that the prediction would he fulfilled, but he could know whether the recalling of the dream was correct. He then employed the reasoning he had made with the Chaldeans in verse 9, and concluded that Daniel was a true magician and worthy of devotions. But the record does not say that he accepted them, and we are sure he did not judging from his conduct at other times. Instead, he informed the king that it was not through any superior wisdom that he possessed that he could explain the situation, but that it was by the help of his God, This is indicated by the word answered in the following verse which is properly translated. Daniel 2:47. The king then acknowledged that Daniel's God was greater than ail other gods or ruters. That meant that He had honored Daniel by enabling him to reveal this secret to the king. Daniel 2:48. Offering gifts to Daniel was on the same principle as those promised to the wise men in verse 6 and was proper. The king was eager to do something to show his appreciation for the favor that Daniel had shown him. Making him ruler over the province of Babylon means he was to manage the affairs, even having seniority over other managers, hut of course it would be under the jurisdiction of the king. There was a logical reason for offering such a position to him. The monarchs all had need of such subordinates in their dominions, and Daniel had shown that he possessed great wisdom and was qualified and worthy of such a trust Daniel 2:49. Daniel’ s unselfishness manifested itself again, and through his request the king gave the honor to the prophet's three companions while he was content to remain at the court of the palace, ready to perform any service that might be desired. In thus passing the honor on to his friends Daniel gave a good example of the performance that Paul teaches in Romans 12:10. Daniel Chapter ThreeVerse 1 Daniel is a book of a number of astounding miracles; and these should be understood in light of the absolute necessity of God's prevention of the absorption of the Judaic remnant (the truly important part of Israel) into the gross paganism of their Babylonian captors. If Nebuchadnezzar, or any other king, had been permitted by God to compel the Jews to bow down before pagan images, it must be considered very doubtful that Israel could have survived a period of seventy years and at the same time have retained their faith in God. Many of the older commentators understood the urgent need of just such interposition upon God's part as may be seen in this chapter and other portions of Daniel. The miracles here came at a juncture in Israel's history when the Chosen People were subject to a mighty despot who deemed himself almighty; and, due to the captive state of his people, God could not manifest himself to the autocratic heathen rulers of that era through his people. Therefore, it was necessary that God should have manifested himself through those faithful Jews (Daniel and his companions), who in that situation were God's representatives of the Theocracy.[1]The situation was exactly parallel to that of captive Israel in Egypt when God performed the most powerful miracles of the Old Testament to deliver the oppressed people. God did exactly the same thing here; and those unbelieving scholars who will not believe the miracles recorded in Daniel are apparently blind to the unqualified necessity for exactly this type of intervention from the Father for that people who were destined, in time, to deliver the Messiah to mankind. Note also how effective the miracles recorded here assuredly were. "Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged the true God as being above all the gods that he worshipped (Daniel 3:28). He admitted that it was right for the Jews to worship no other god but their own. He decreed that God's law should be obeyed rather than his (Daniel 3:28); and he forbade under penalty of death that if persons of any people, nation, or language should speak against the God of the Jews, the persons doing so should be cut in pieces and their houses made a dunghill! (Daniel 3:29). This decree promulgated throughout the vast empire of Nebuchadnezzar must have tended much to keep the Jews from idolatry during their captivity and afterward."[2]Therefore we receive the great miracle of this marvelous chapter exactly as it is represented in this holy book, a book that Christ himself did not hesitate to quote during his ministry. Furthermore, the timing of this great wonder came at exactly the correct time, at or near the beginning of Israel's long captivity. That was the time when this miracle was needed, not during the days of the Maccabees. There exists no more unreasonable superstition among critics than the allegation that Daniel was written during the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is true of course that Daniel would have been a book of much comfort to the Jews of that period, but no more, indeed not half as much, as the comfort it brought and the inspiration it provided in the days of Daniel. Dummelow called this chapter "a legend,"[3] and it is quite common among liberal critics to classify most of Daniel with such Jewish writings as the Talmud and the Midrash.[4] However, as the same great scholar affirmed: "This chapter is a straightforward account of a miraculous deliverance that is fully on a par with the rest of Holy Writ; and it is even approved by a New Testament reference to it, "quenched the power of fire" (Hebrews 11:34)."[5]This chapter also reflects the faith of the three companions to the effect that, "Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace" (Daniel 3:17), as a faith that was grounded in the prior writings of the Holy Bible: "When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee, for I am Jehovah thy God, the Holy One of Israel" (Isaiah 43:2-3). Thus what God did, as recorded here, was nothing more than he had faithfully promised that he would do. In fact, Andrews, stated that, "This marvelous rescue is held up as a Divine deliverance, and as an illustration of the fulfillment of Isa 43:2."[6]An outline of this chapter is as follows: the erection of the great image (Daniel 3:1), the dedication of the image (Daniel 3:2-7), the Chaldean's charge against the Jews (Daniel 3:8-12), the manner of Nebuchadnezzar's reception of those charges (Daniel 3:13-15), the Hebrew children stand firm (Daniel 3:16-18), the terrible penalty executed (Daniel 3:19-23), God preserved them in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:24-27), and the final result of this miracle of deliverance (Daniel 3:28-30). Daniel 3:1"Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was three score cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon."THE IMAGE ERECTEDIf one may take somewhat of a speculative glance at the probable psychology that controlled Nebuchadnezzar at this point, it is easy to see what this pagan egotist meant by this image. The previous chapter tells us of his dream of the great image which, according to Daniel's interpretation, represented Nebuchadnezzar as being "the head of gold!" This was not enough for this ruthless despot; he wanted to be the whole cheese! Therefore, he made a great image all of gold. Of course, when he commanded everyone to worship it, he might have identified it as an image of one or more pagan deities. That would have made it easier for the chief officers of the kingdom to comply with his request; but our own view is that the image here was clearly one of Nebuchadnezzar himself. Some scholars, of course, say that it was an image of "one of Nebuchadnezzar's favorite deities.", We strongly prefer the older view that this image was of Nebuchadnezzar himself. Why? (1) There is the probable thinking on Nebuchadnezzar's part that this statute all of gold was a better symbol of his importance than the one of the dream that Daniel interpreted, in which he was only the head of gold. (2) Also, as Arthur Jeffery put it, "The tyrant ever seeks to make men bow down before something he has made ... The egocentric man has idols before which he insists that other men bow. These usurp the place of God."[8] (3) Also, as Young observed, "It was customary for the Assyrian kings to erect statues of themselves."[9] There is nothing in the text which clearly settles the question. "An image of gold ..." The sheer size of this colossus, 90 feet by 9 feet seems to indicate that it was not of solid gold, but that it was made of some other material and overlaid with the precious metal. "On the plain of Dura ..." It is not certainly known where this was. Dummelow thought it was at the "mounds of Dura some 12 miles south-southeast of Babylon."[10]Andrews believed that, "The best suggestion is that it was connected with a small river, Dura, that entered the Euphrates some six miles south of Babylon."[11] The great likelihood is that it was somewhere not too far from Babylon. Verse 2 "Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. Then the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, 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 before the image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then the herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up; and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the peoples, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up."THE OF THE IMAGEOf very great interest in this passage is the prominence of instrumental music in the ceremonies of pagan religious rites. It has ever been thus, and there can be no doubt whatever that this longtime association of instrumental music with paganism was one of the prime reasons why Jesus Christ did not include it in the New Testament worship which Our Lord established. This association of instruments of music with pagan religion continued unto the times of the apostles, when, for example, the Temple of Aphrodite Pan Demos, located atop the Acro Corinthus, encouraged the patronage of their one thousand sacred prostitutes by a cacophonous blast of instrumental music five times a day, signaling that, the prostitutes had changed their clothes and that another feast on the sacrifices had been made ready. In our own times, with the continued degeneration of the whole science of instrumental music into the vulgar rhythms and noisy cacophony of the current era, such later styles of instrumental music are impossible of reconciliation with any conception whatever of holy worship. Another feature of this passage is the repeated list of the satraps, deputies, governors, etc. who were called to the dedication of the image. There are eight of the officers mentioned here, and "half of the names given here are Persian."[12] "It is argued that these words were used anachronously; but this does not follow, since Daniel published his book in the Persian period."[13] It would be an absurdity to suppose that some forger during the Greek period would have inserted all of these old Babylonian words. As Leupold stated, "These Persian names make it impossible to assume that this was written during the times of the Exile."[14] It is a characteristic of the Biblical style that the lists of the musical instruments are repeated in Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:7; Daniel 3:15, and that the list of officers is repeated in Daniel 3:2-3; Daniel 3:27. In their diligent efforts to discover some evidence that Daniel was composed in the Greek period, some of the critics note that some of the musical instruments mentioned here had Greek names. So what? There were Greeks in Nebuchadnezzar's service; and there is ample evidence that Greek culture had penetrated the Babylonian culture. Those musical instruments with Greek names, "simply carried their Greek names with them, as in the case of similar cultural exchanges today, as in the instances of piano, viola, guitar, zither, etc."[15] There is additional comment on this in the Introduction. In Daniel 3:5, the word "worship" is sometimes rendered "do homage to"; and from this, it has been alleged that this image was being dedicated to some god or goddess; but, as Leupold noted, "It is not required that such words should be so construed."[16] We believe that the image was the conceited expression of Nebuchadnezzar's boundless egotism. The harsh penalty announced as punishment for any who refused to honor the king's edict was announced in Daniel 3:6; and in Daniel 3:7, it is revealed that all of the invited government officers indeed did as they had been commanded, that is, all except the three Hebrew companions! Apparently, this command to worship Nebuchadnezzar's image did not extend to all of the Jews, or to all of the people, but only to those who held positions of trust under Nebuchadnezzar's government. Verse 8 "Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and brought accusations against the Jews. They answered and said to Nebuchadnezzar the king, O king, live forever. Thou, O king, has made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psalter, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom thou has appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."THE ' CHARGE AGAINST THE JEWS"Brought accusations ..." (Daniel 3:8). Some translate this, "maliciously brought accusations"; and it would appear to be an accurate reflection of what happened. The Hebrew here has an idiom that reads literally, "ate their pieces."[17] It also may be read, "ate their flesh." Many of the "old guard" in Babylon hated those foreign newcomers who had been so signally honored by the king; and, moved by jealousy, they no doubt believed that they had achieved their purpose of getting rid of them by these accusations, which, of course, were true. "Jealousy is a despicable vice with envy and selfishness for its roots. Under pretense of loyalty to the king, they were chiefly anxious to rid themselves of formidable rivals."[18]It is a mystery as to why Daniel was not in this group accused. Many guesses as to why his name does not appear here have been offered, but the total silence of the Scriptures on that point leaves the matter undisclosed. As Thomson observed, "This omission is an indirect proof of the antiquity and genuineness of the book."[19] Certainly, it is difficult to imagine that same pseudonymous author in the period of Antiochus would have omitted Daniel's name in recording this miracle. Verse 13 "Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought the men before the king. And Nebuchadnezzar answered and said unto them, Is it of purpose, O Shadraeh, Meshach, and Abed-nego, that ye serve not my god, nor worship the golden image that I have set up? Now if ye be ready that at what time 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 set up: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that god that shall deliver you out of my hands?"'S OF THE CHARGESTo this writer it appears to be significant that both in this passage and in Daniel 3:12, the matter of "serving" Nebuchadnezzar's gods is distinguished from worshipping the image which he had set up. From this it would appear that the golden image was not dedicated to any of his gods, but to Nebuchadnezzar himself. Despite his rage and fury, Nebuchadnezzar refused to act against the Jews without an investigation. He perhaps was aware of the vicious jealousy that prompted the charges. Therefore the king gave the Hebrews another chance to clear themselves of the charges. It is important to note that Nebuchadnezzar in his taunting of the disobedient trio specifically challenged the authority and the power of their God. That, no doubt, contributed to the dramatic manner in which God accepted the challenge and dramatically rescued his children and delivered them from the king's wrath "with a high hand." "Who is that god, etc. ... (Daniel 3:15)? These arrogant words remind us of what Sennacherib's Rabshakeh said to Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:19 ff); and that, of course, was another occasion when God miraculously intervened. There would appear to be somewhat of a pattern here. When any pagan ruler tauntingly challenged Jehovah's power and dared to defy the Lord, it resulted in disaster for the audacious challenger. Certainly, in this case, the Chaldean accusers were foiled completely; and the Jewish religion was made to be legitimate throughout the whole period of their captivity! Verse 16 "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of thy hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."THE HEBREW YOUNG MEN STAND FIRMFor raw courage in the face of the most dreadful danger, history has nothing that surpasses this defiant reply. In effect, they said, "Yes, our God is able to deliver us, but even if he does not deliver us, we will not disobey our God. We will not serve your gods nor worship your golden image." It has been said that, "True religion is the determined purpose to do right, and not to do wrong, whatever may be the consequences in either case."[20]Verse 19 "Then 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 the furnace seven times more than it was wont to be heated. And he commanded certain mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. Then these men were bound in their breeches, their tunics, and their mantles, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the burning fiery furnace."THE PENALTY The expression "seven times hotter" appears to be an idiom which actually means, "Make it as hot as possible."[21]The exact meaning of the words describing the articles of clothing in which the condemned men were bound before being cast into the furnace is not known. "The meaning was lost at some period prior to the making of the Septuagint (LXX) in 250 B.C."[22] Such a fact, of course, requires the deduction that, "Daniel was written at a time long prior to that date."[23] This is proof that Daniel was not written in the period of Antiochus. Many guesses have been advanced as to what the various articles of clothing here mentioned actually meant; but the most probable guess which we have encountered is that of Kennedy who said, "It is probable that the articles of clothing here mentioned were articles of official attire, and that they had come to the assembly in court dress."[24] If that was the case, it would have provided another incentive for binding them in their clothes, thus projecting the destruction of the official insignia of their high office. "Customarily the condemned would be stripped of clothing."[25]As translated in this version (ASV), the clothing consisted of breeches, tunics, and mantles. Andrews rendered the words, "mantles, trousers, and hats."[26] There are a number of other guesses. The only thing certain is that all three of these ancient words belong to the court of Babylonian and Persian kings, and that they pertain to the vocabulary of Daniel himself, not to that of some pseudonymous forger in the days of the Maccabees.[27]The urgency and fury of the king served to highlight the wonder about to be enacted. He did not even allow time for the customary stripping of condemned men. "The miracle was enhanced by the fact that all of those clothes constituted just so much more combustible material."[28]Verse 24 "Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and he rose up in hast: he spake and said to the counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O King. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace: he spake and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the Most High God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego came forth out of the midst of the fire. And the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, and the king's counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, that the fire had no power upon their bodies, nor was the hair of their head singed, neither were their breeches changed, nor had the smell of fire passed upon them."GOD THEM IN THE FIERY FURNACEThis was indeed a miracle fulfilling exactly the Divine promise of Isa 43:2. It ranks on a parity with the great plagues by which God accomplished the delivery of Israel from bondage in Egypt. miracle is not merely an astounding wonder. It is a supernatural occurrence designed as a witness of God's redemptive purpose for mankind. Such wonders occurred only when they were necessary; and a time when such a sign from heaven was any more necessary than at this juncture of Israel's history would be hard to imagine. Miracles attest the truth of the Word of God and confirm the fact of God's sovereignty in his creation. This mighty, supernatural deliverance of the three "was designed to show the sovereignty of the true God over the nation that had taken Israel captive."[29] It also had the utility of legitimizing the Jewish religion throughout the period, of their captivity. Otherwise, Israel itself (along with the promise of the Messiah) might have perished. The great thing in the passage, over and beyond the amazing deliverance itself, is the appearance of that Fourth Person in the fire walking with the three. Who was he? Nebuchadnezzar's explanation was that "The Most High God had sent his angel, who delivered his servants who trusted in him" (Daniel 3:28). We are shocked that commentators prefer Nebuchadnezzar's opinion in such a matter and make it the basis of denying that here indeed is a genuine Christophany of the Old Testament. "Here we have to do with a pre-incarnate manifestation of the Son of God."[30] We also wish to protest the rendition in our version of Nebuchadnezzar's remark concerning that Fourth Person, namely, that, "He is one like to a son of the gods" (Daniel 3:25). This is an egregious error. This passage should be rendered, "The fourth is like the Son of God," exactly as it is in the KJV. Why? "The language here is simply: "Like to a son of God ([~'Elohiym])."[31] The translators get their perverted "son of the gods," by mistranslating [~'Elohiym], the famous Old Testament plural title of Almighty God as used throughout the Old Testament. If [~'Elohiym] here means "gods" in the sense of pagan gods, then the pagan gods may be said to have created the world! We protest this perversion of God's Word. Of course, the critics spill lots of ink trying to make their perversion stand up. They say that, "Of course, Nebuchadnezzar could not have known the True God. How do they know what Nebuchadnezzar did or did not know? This very passage reveals that Nebuchadnezzar referred to the Hebrew three as "Servants of the Most High God" (Daniel 3:26); and "Everywhere this word is used in the Holy Bible, it is an appellation of the True God, and of no one else."[32] In that light, how should we evaluate a statement by Barnes that we should not allow the translation of the words "son of God" as they most certainly stand in the text, on the grounds that, "It is clear that no such conception entered into the mind of the king of Babylon."[33] It is admitted that Nebuchadnezzar probably did not know the full meaning of the words he used there; but so what? Caiaphas did not know the meaning of his prophecy of the death of Christ (John 11:49); but God put true words into the mouth of that unbeliever, just like he did here in the case of Nebuchadnezzar. Here is an instance of the vast superiority of the old King James Version above everything since then. The Septuagint (LXX) also rendered this place, "One like to the Son of God." That is what the words mean. This tampering with Daniel is only an instance of a whole science adopted by the critical fraternity, the sole purpose of which is to edit out of the Word of God every prophetic reference to the Son of God in the entire Bible. Verse 28 "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 have yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. Therefore I make a decree, that every people, nation, and language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill; because there is no other god that is able to deliver after this sort. Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the province of Babylon."THE RESULTS OF THE MIRACLEWhat a blessing this decree of Nebuchadnezzar must have been to the Jews throughout their captivity! Right here is the secret of why they were able to return; and the absence of such a wonder upon behalf of the Northern Israel who went captive into Assyria is exactly why they were never able to go back to Jerusalem. Thus this great miracle was a vital link in the long chain of God's dealings with the apostate human race, and also a very necessary one, in the achievement of God's purpose of redemption. The Septuagint (LXX) adds the following to this last verse: "and advanced them, and gave them authority to rule over all the Jews who were in his kingdom."[34] This additional information does not appear in our text; but there would appear to be no grounds for not believing the truth of it. Adam Clarke accepted these words as valid; because, as he said, "It was more likely that the Jews would have been set over other Jews than over the Chaldeans."[35] Commentary On Daniel Three by Eric HallCommentary Daniel 3In this chapter, we discover what it means to take a stand for the Lord and to refuse to compromise with the gods of this world. We also meet three men who are truly ‘ profiles in courage.’ One of the central themes of this book is the absolute sovereignty of God and his love for his people. The apocalytic sections of Daniel portray these attributes of God with signs and symbols. In this chapter (as well as in chapters 5 and 6) we have historical demonstrations of these attributes. Like Revelation, the book of Daniel is a book of assurance. God is telling his people that despite what they might think, they have not been forgotten. We must see the book in this context if we are to understand it properly. Verse 1 1 King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, whose height was sixty cubits and its breadth six cubits. He set it up on the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. The king makes a giant golden image and sets it up before the people. Notice that it did not take long for Nebuchadnezzar to forget his newly found religious insights. Of course, like all polytheists, he probably felt that the Jews would be capable of having multiple loyalties. The polytheistic perspective is very strange to us. But we need to see that the monotheistic view was just as strange to them. The idea of “ one true God” was not something they understood. The similarity between this image and the one in Nebuchadnezzar’ s dream seems to be more than a coincidence. Recall that Daniel said that Nebuchadnezzar was the head of gold in his dream. (He wasn’ t satisfied with being just the head, he wanted to be the whole image!) Out of all that Daniel told him, Nebuchadnezzar seems to have only remembered the statement “ You are the head of gold.” (We also have our favorite verses…) Perhaps the king was saying to Daniel’ s God, “ OK. Here is the image. Now where is your big stone?” (Daniel’ s prediction that Nebuchadnezzar’ s kingdom would be replaced had probably not set to well with him.) Nebuchadnezzar’ s plan was a very common one: He intended to boost his own political power through the use of religion. We see this happen today when politicians espouse religious views when running for office that are quickly forgotten once that office is obtained. A characteristic of idolatry is that the idol serves the worshipper to achieve the worshipper’ s aims. How large was the image? It was 60 cubits tall and 6 cubits wide. At 18 inches per cubit, that means the image was 90 feet tall and 9 feet wide. The height is about the same as the date-palms that still grow in the plains of Iraq (90 feet), and it was almost as slender. It was more of an obelisk than a statue. Archaeologists have found ruins about six miles southeast of the city of Babylon that may be the foundation of this image. Why 60 by 6? The Babylonian number system was sexagesimal (base 6) instead of decimal (base 10) like ours (and Egypt’ s in that day). Some see this Babylonian influence elsewhere in scripture, such as in Ezekiel: Ezekiel 40:5 And behold, there was a wall all around the outside of the temple area, and the length of the measuring reed in the man's hand was six long cubits, each being a cubit and a handbreadth in length; so he measured the thickness of the wall, one reed; and the height, one reed. It is interesting that the sexagesimal system has survived in our division of time and in our division of the circle into degrees. From our study of Revelation, we know that 6 has a symbolic meaning. The number 7 denotes perfection and completion and the number 6 denotes something that is hopelessly short of perfection. In Revelation, the beast of Rome (a new Babylon) was given the number 666. Rome, like Babylon, thought it was great and powerful, but it was hopelessly short of perfection. The numbers here are not symbolic. They are actual measurements. But the symbolism applies nevertheless. Liberal critics see the size of the image as a problem, claiming that the disproportionate proportions would have made the image look preposterous. Too tall? The colossus at Rhodes was taller. (70 cubits compared to 60 cubits) Perhaps the image was on top of a large pedestal. They also complain that there would not have been enough gold in all of Babylon to make such a large image, but where does it say that the image was solid gold? Like smaller statues that have survived, this one was no doubt gold plated. Compare the following description from Isaiah: Isaiah 40:19 The idol! a workman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold, and casts for it silver chains. What was the religious significance of this image? The construction of this large image is yet another facet of this book that points to an early date. Archaeological discoveries have shown that Nebuchadnezzar’ s building projects extended to some of the ancient Sumerian cities such as Ur of the Chaldees. Most feel that Dura was a suburb of Babylon. In these areas, Nebuchadnezzar was a religious reformer. Excavations have shown that when Nebuchadnezzar rebuilt religious temples, he removed the special rooms where the priests conducted their secret ceremonies and replaced them with areas where all could come and view the procedures. Nebuchadnezzar’ s reforms thus centered around permitting the public to participate in the religious ceremonies that had formerly been secret. This seems to be what occurred in here in Daniel 3. Sir Leonard Wooley said the following: What was there new in the king’ s act? Not the setting up of a statue, because each king in turn had done the same; the novelty was the command for general worship by the public: for a ritual performed by priests the king is substituting a form of congregational worship which all his subjects are obliged to attend. How did the author of Daniel know about this new phase of worship that began under Nebuchadnezzar if Daniel were written 400 years later? Verse 2-3 2 Then King Nebuchadnezzar sent to assemble the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image which King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 3 Then the satraps, the prefects, and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the justices, the magistrates, and all the officials of the provinces, were assembled for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. From Nebuchadnezzar’ s viewpoint, it was inconceivable that any reasonable person could refuse this simple demonstration of loyalty to the king. The titles used in this section point to a well organized bureaucracy. Satrap: Persian term for “ realm protector.” Prefect: lieutenant governors. Governors: lord of an administrative district. Malachi 1:8 says that the province of Judea was administered by a “ governor.” Advisers or Counselors: Persian term for “ counsel-giver.” This term is unique to Daniel in all known Aramaic literature. Treasurers: Persian term for “ treasure bearer” Judges: Persian term for “ law bearer” Magistrate: Persian term for “ over chief.” The terms for ‘ judges’ and ‘ magistrates’ occur so far only in Daniel and in Aramaic documents of the 6th and 5th century. Provincial officials: general term for government officials. Note that five of these terms are Persian. This is seen by some as a problem since this episode from early in Nebuchadnezzar’ s reign predates the Persian conquest by nearly 70 years. However, we have already been told that Daniel lived to see the Persian conquest. Thus, it seems most likely that Daniel wrote the book during the Persian rule and substituted the then current Persian titles for the older Aramaic terms. The use of these words points to an early date for the book of Daniel. By the second century B.C. some of these Persian loan terms had become obsolete and could no longer be correctly translated by the Alexandrian Jews. The satirical effect of this section is clear. As one commentator wrote: Here are all the great ones of the empire falling flat on their faces before a lifeless obelisk at the sound of a musical medley, controlled by the baton of King Nebuchadnezzar. Verse 4-7 4 And the herald proclaimed aloud, “ You are commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages, 5 that when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up; 6 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace.” 7 Therefore, as soon as all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, all the peoples, nations, and languages fell down and worshiped the golden image which King Nebuchadnezzar had set up. This command applied to all people of every nation and language. It was apparently Nebuchadnezzar’ s intention to unite his kingdom under one religion. When the music started every person was to fall down and worship the image. ‘Horn’ is the only musical term found here that is also found elsewhere in the Old Testament. ‘ Pipe’ may come from the Hebrew word meaning to hiss or whistle. ‘ Lyre’ is a loan word from the Greek ‘ kithara’ . The term ‘ Trigon’ comes from the Greek word used in the Septuagint meaning a triangular harp. ‘Harp’ is the Greek ‘ psalterion’ and also refers to a stringed instrument. The term translated ‘ Bagpipe’ by the Revised Standard Version may not be an instrument at all, but may simply mean ‘ in unison.’ Some think it refers to a percussion instrument. Can these words be used to date the book as some suggest? One commentator has said: In view of the tentative state of present knowledge of these words it is precarious to base any theory of the date of the book on the evidence of these instruments. Those who did not fall down would be cast into the fiery furnace. The furnaces in Babylon were used to fire the bricks that were used to build the city. As we mentioned before, each brick bore the name and image of Nebuchadnezzar, and many can be seen today in the British museum. These may have been fired in the very furnace spoken of here. The fuel was charcoal, and it burned at a very high temperature. Many large brick kilns have been excavated outside Babylon. The furnace would have been enclosed, since the technology of raising heat by forcing a draught requires it. Here is how one commentator has described the furnace: It resembles a railway tunnel blocked at one end but with an entrance at the other. Uprights at frequent intervals support the dome and serve as ventilation shafts also. Charcoal provides the heat, and it is estimated that the temperature would have been 900 to 1000 °C. Death by burning at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar is not unique to this story. Jeremiah also speaks of it. Jeremiah 29:22 Because of them this curse shall be used by all the exiles from Judah in Babylon: "The Lord make you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire." This has always been the world’ s message to God’ s people: Comply or face the consequences! The world still has its fiery furnaces, and it still loves to frighten God’ s people with them. A literal translation of verse 7 is that ‘ as soon as they were hearing they were falling down.’ Nebuchadnezzar got them to fall down on command, but he could not make them worship. Worship cannot be done on command. It must come from within a person. Verse 8-12 8 Therefore at that time certain Chaldeans came forward and maliciously accused the Jews. 9 They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “ O king, live for ever! 10 You, O king, have made a decree, that every man who hears the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; 11 and whoever does not fall down and worship shall be cast into a burning fiery furnace. 12 There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no heed to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.” The term ‘ Chaldeans’ in verse 8 is an ethnic use of the term, despite the poor NIV translation (astrologers). They were the ‘ master race’ and it is clear they resented the ‘ certain Jews’ who had been given power over them. They quote the king’ s edict word for word and then inform him that these three have paid no heed to him or his decree. Except for the work of these informers, Nebuchadnezzar would never have known about the defiance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The world is full of people who love to create trouble and then sit back and watch the fun. God has a simple message for such troublemakers: Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things which the Lord hates, seven which are an abomination to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, 19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Does God mind if we run around and stir up trouble, when we sit around devising wicked plans, and when we run to do evil? Not only does he mind, he hates it. The phrase ‘ maliciously accused’ in verse 8 is a translation of the idiom ‘ eat the pieces of flesh torn off from someone’ s body.’ Remember what Paul said: Galatians 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another. What was the motive of these troublemakers? First, as we have suggested, they probably enjoyed watching trouble they had created. Like an arsonist they set fires and then watched them burn from a distance. Second, they were jealous. These foreigners had been set up over them by King Nebuchadnezzar and they had no doubt been looking for a way to get rid of them. Recall that Abraham had come from Ur of the Chaldees. This may have contributed to the racial animosity. Again, we are reminded that human nature has not changed one bit since the fall. Verse 13-15 13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in furious rage commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought. Then they brought these men before the king. 14 Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “ Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the golden image which I have set up? 15 Now if you are ready when you hear the sound of the horn, pipe, lyre, trigon, harp, bagpipe, and every kind of music, to fall down and worship the image which I have made, well and good; but if you do not worship, you shall immediately be cast into a burning fiery furnace; and who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?” Nebuchadnezzar’ s response was exactly what these troublemakers wanted. He was in a furious rage. These Chaldeans had pulled his strings and he had dutifully danced to their tune. We need to be on our guard when some troublemaker tries to pull our strings. Justice would not, however, allow these men to be condemned on hearsay evidence alone, so the king gave them an opportunity to recant. Remember that all of this was occurring in front of the international array of delegates that Nebuchadnezzar had assembled to see his statue. This may explain the king’ s ‘ furious rage.’ The king was incredulous. How could these men do this to him after all he had done for them? In fact, it was probably harder for them because the king had done a lot for them. Goethe: Most men can oppose their enemies but it takes a special person to oppose his friends. (Another good reason not to get too friendly with the world.) Notice the arrogance in verse 15. ‘ Who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands?’ The king seems to have forgotten what he said about the God of Daniel in 2:47.Daniel 2:47 The king said to Daniel, “ Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery.” We have a parallel with Pharaoh’ s statement to Moses in Exodus 5:2 (Who is Jehovah that I should obey him?) McGuiggan: “ You recall that Moses signed him up for a ten-lesson correspondence course!” Verse 16-18 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered the king, “ O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up.” Well, it looks like these three had a really big decision to make. Not at all! The decision had been made long ago. They knew that God had said “ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” and they had decided long ago to do what God commanded no matter what. The Aramaic word order in verse 16 places the emphasis on the word ‘ we.’ That is, God himself would provide the king the answer to his question. Here we have an incredible statement of faith: Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace. This is a difficult passage to translate. Two possibilities: If you cast us in the furnace, then our God is able to deliver us… If it fits in with the purpose of God to deliver us then he will do just that… Either way, these men had no doubt about God’ s ability to rescue them. And an incredible statement of courage: ‘ But if not…’ Some people are willing to serve God so long as God always does what they want him to do. (Who is serving whom???) These three were going to serve God no matter what he did. Job: “ Though he slay me, yet will I trust him.” These young men knew the true meaning of the Shema that they had quoted all their life: Deuteronomy 6:4-5 “ Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord; 5 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might..” Paul also knew this when in Acts 20:24 he said: Acts 20:24 But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may accomplish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. What did these three stand to lose by their refusal to bow down before the image? They would lose their royal favor with the king. They would lose their high government positions. They would lose their new found fortunes. They would lose their lives. From a worldly perspective, they were the worst sort of fools. Yet, they were not operating on a worldly level. They had their priorities right. How would we have responded? How do we respond in similar situations? Wouldn’ t it be easy to rationalize this away? No one will see us in this big crowd. Everyone else is bowing down. There are only three of us and we are a long way from home. What does God expect us to do? We know that the idol really isn’ t a god. We could just cross our fingers when we bow down. We can do so much more for God if we remain alive and keep all of our money… Beware when you hear someone say “ I could do so much more for God if….” Most of us can do a lot more for God without any change at all in our present circumstances. We just need to get busy. Why was everyone so upset with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Because they refused to compromise and bow down, and the world hates those who refuse to join the crowd. People who wallow in sin typically aren’ t satisfied unless they can drag others down into the mire with them. The world wants us to go along with it fashions and its customs. It wants to make us just like everyone else. (And if we are just like everyone else, then I guess the world must have been successful.) Romans 12:2 in the Phillips translation reads “ Don’ t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mold.” (Be not conformed to this world.) The world gets very angry with people who don’ t go along with its plans. In fact, the world has its own furnaces. Furnace of scorn and laughter. Furnace of criticism. Furnace of isolation. Furnace of intimidation. But if we are on God’ s side then doesn’ t that mean we won’ t be persecuted and have to face such trials? 2 Timothy 3:12 Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. John 15:20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you. Remember what God told Jeremiah when he was being persecuted. (Cheer up! It’ s going to get worse!) Jeremiah 12:5 If you have raced with men on foot, and they have wearied you, how will you compete with horses? And if in a safe land you fall down, how will you do in the jungle of the Jordan? And we also read: Isaiah 48:10 Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. Malachi 3:3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver. James 1:2-4 Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, 3 for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. 4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. How did God feel about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? Of the thousands who were present at the dedication of this idol, how many do we know by name? Other than the king, just these three. In fact, their names are mentioned 13 times in this chapter! God seems to have been proud of them. Were they seeking the praise of God or the praise of men? If they sought the praise of men they would have bowed down. Instead they sought the praise of God and refused to bow down. Remember what Paul said: Galatians 1:10 Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. Like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, we have a choice. Who are we going to follow? Man or God? Notice again the respect that these men continued to show to the king. This is the same sort of respect that Peter and Paul told us we must show to earthly rulers, who have all been given their power by God. They verbally acknowledge Nebuchadnezzar as king, while committing their ultimate allegiance to the King of kings. Where was Daniel During This Episode? 1. He may have been absent from Babylon at the time, perhaps on government business in some other part of the kingdom. This is perhaps the most popular theory, but there is no evidence to support it. Daniel was governor of the capital of Babylon, so it seems unlikely that he would be away for any length of time. 2. He may have been too ill to attend the public ceremony. Compare Daniel 8:27. Daniel 8:27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days; then I rose and went about the king's business; but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it. 3. As chief of the ‘ wise men’ Daniel may not have been required to bow down. His loyalty to the king may have been beyond question. Presumably, Nebuchadnezzar himself did not bow down. He may have extended this privilege to others as well. 4. Daniel’ s reputation may have been such that even the Chaldeans did not dare to attack him in front of the king. Daniel 2:48 says that Nebuchadnezzar made Daniel ruler (civil governor) over the whole province of Babylon. Thus, Daniel was very powerful and the informers may have been unwilling to risk informing on him. (The lion den episode occurred much later in his life and with a different king and a different governing power.) Thus, perhaps Daniel was there and refused to bow down but the king was not told about it. Our lesson if this was the case: We shouldn’ t invite trouble on ourselves. 5. All of the action in this chapter takes place outside of the city of Babylon. Some have suggested that Daniel may have been asked to stay behind in the city to take care of business in the king’ s absence. This is a simple theory that seems to fit in well with the available evidence. Daniel’ s omission is additional proof of the book’ s authenticity. “ Had the story been the invention that many have suggested; had it originated in the days of the Maccabees to nerve the faithful against Gentile oppression, it is unlikely that the chief hero would have been omitted. Reality transcends fiction, and the very ‘ incompleteness’ of this account testifies to its fidelity.” “ There is no psychological reason for an idealizing romancer to leave Daniel out of this exciting episode. The only way to account for this omission is that in point of fact he was not personally in attendance at this important function.” Aside: The truthfulness of the Bible is self-evident. For example, the resurrection accounts in the gospels all have women being the first to discover the empty tomb. If the apostles had made up the story as some claim, they would never have made women their prime witnesses. Their testimony was considered worthless by the Jews. In fact, many later uninspired 2nd century accounts of the resurrection have men being the first to discover the empty tomb. One thing we know for sure, if Daniel had been with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego when they stood before the king then there would have been four people tossed into the furnace instead of only three. Verse 19-23 19 Then Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury, and the expression of his face was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He ordered the furnace heated seven times more than it was wont to be heated. 20 And he ordered certain mighty men of his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21 Then these men were bound in their mantles, their tunics, their hats, and their other garments, and they were cast into the burning fiery furnace. 22 Because the king’ s order was strict and the furnace very hot, the flame of the fire slew those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. 23 And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the burning fiery furnace. It is worth noting that even though God delivered them, he still allowed them to endure the ordeal of being thrown into the fire. Why? Because it brought more glory to God to have Nebuchadnezzar and his men see those they tried to kill walking around unharmed in the flames. We should thank God for every opportunity he gives us for his glory to be seen at work in us. We should pray that we be given opportunities to stand up and announce that we are on his side. Question: Were these three men happy or unhappy that they had been brought before Nebuchadnezzar on this charge? I believe that they were thrilled to be able to say this to the king. The events here remind us of God’ s promise in Isaiah 43:2. Isaiah 43:2 When you pass through the waters I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. The phrase ‘ heated seven times more’ is a common idiom and should not be understood literally. It simply means to make it as hot as possible, which is what they did. The list of clothing in verse 21 has long been a source of trouble to translators. The Septuagint tried to make sense of the terms but reduced three words to two in the process. The liberals would have us believe that the writer of Daniel lived within 50 years of the Septuagint, yet in that time these words for court clothing had been completely forgotten by the translators. Nebuchadnezzar’ s absurd commands were intended to leave no room for escape. The already deadly furnace was made even hotter. (It killed those who threw the men in!) The men were fully dressed, even with their hats on, so the flames would envelop them. They were tied up and thrown like logs in the fire. Verse 24-25 24 Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished and rose up in haste. He said to his counselors, “ Did we not cast three men bound into the fire?” They answered the king, “ True, O king.” 25 He answered, “ But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” Nebuchadnezzar was dumfounded! Instead of seeing three burning bodies, he saw four people walking around in the flames! “ I see four men loose.” Men bind, but God loosens. Even today it is only through fire that we find freedom from our bonds. Remember John 12:24-25. John 12:24-25 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. “ How we long for holiness without pain; sanctification without a cross, and growth without tears.” Who was the fourth person? The king described him as looking like ‘ a son of the gods.’ The King James Version has “ He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” It seems odd that the pagan Nebuchadnezzar would be able to recognize Jesus in the furnace (and perhaps even stranger that Jesus would personally be there). It seems much more likely that upon seeing an angel he would think the angel looked like ‘ a son of the gods.’ Some commentators believe that this fourth person was a Christophany (a preincarnate appearance of Christ). They could be correct, but the evidence will not let us know for sure. (We know that Jesus was with them in any event! – just perhaps not bodily.) Verse 26-27 26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the door of the burning fiery furnace and said, “ Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come forth, and come here!” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out from the fire. 27 And the satraps, the prefects, the governors, and the king’ s counselors gathered together and saw that the fire had not had any power over the bodies of those men; the hair of their heads was not singed, their mantles were not harmed, and no smell of fire had come upon them. Still giving commands, the king commands that the three come out of the furnace. (Apparently, Nebuchadnezzar was not too anxious for the fourth person to come out!) All of the king’ s illustrious visitors gather with the king and look at the men. Not only are they unharmed but their is no smell of smoke or fire about them. Only their bonds were gone. By the way, this was a miracle. Our liberal friends go to great lengths to remove the miraculous from the Bible, but of course they cannot. Their attempts are in vain. Without the miraculous, Jesus would not have been raised and as Paul said, our faith would then be in vain. (This is the logical consequence of naturalism.) The Bible begins with a miracle (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.) and they recur again and again. Remember 2 Peter 3:3-4. 2 Peter 3:3-4 First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions 4 and saying, “ Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.” The ‘ last days’ that Peter spoke of ended long ago, but the scoffers remain. Verse 28-30 28 Nebuchadnezzar said, “ Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the king’ s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. 29 Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins; for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.” 30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon. What else could the king do but acknowledge his defeat? His challenge in verse 15 (What god will be able to rescue him?) has been resoundingly answered by the one true God. As in chapter 2, the king again acknowledges the power of God. But as we will see in chapter 4 this second change of heart doesn’ t last very long either. The king makes another decree. His first decree had not turned out very well. The king pronounces death on anyone who said anything against God, “ for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.” Notice that the king does not renounce his polytheism, but simply says that God is the greatest god among many. Paul had this event in mind when he wrote Hebrews 11. Hebrews 11:33-34 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. (The author of Hebrews apparently believed in the authenticity of the book of Daniel.) Finally, the king promotes these three, which no doubt really thrilled their accusers. I am reminded of one of my favorite verses. After Jacob died, Joseph’ s brothers were afraid that he might at last seek his revenge. But Joseph told them: Genesis 50:19-20 But Joseph said to them, “ Fear not, for am I in the place of God? 20 As for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.” "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" Faith In The Face Of Fire (Daniel 3:1-30) 1. In Daniel 1, we were introduced to three companions of Daniel: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego... a. Like Daniel, they were young men taken from Judah into captivity and trained to serve before the king - Daniel 1:6-7b. Like Daniel, they were blessed by God and impressed the king after their period of training - Daniel 1:17-20 2. Daniel 3 reveals more about the character of these three young men... a. In recounting an incident that has fascinated many, both young and old b. Like Daniel 1, it illustrates the power of a strong faith in those who are young [This inspiring story, which I like to call "Faith In The Face Of Fire", begins by describing...] I. THEIR TRIAL A. THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO IT...1. Nebuchadnezzar's image, and his command to worship it - Daniel 3:1-73. The king's threat of the fiery furnace - Daniel 3:13-15 B. THE NATURE OF THEIR TRIAL...1. To save their situation a. They had been promoted over the affairs of Babylon - Daniel 3:12b. They would lose their position as well as their lives 2. To sacrifice their conscience a. All they needed to do was to conform outwardly b. Of course, that would have meant disobedience to God - Exodus 20:4-5 C. WE MAY FACE SIMILAR TRIALS TODAY...1. To save our situation, such as: a. Our popularity at school, by doing things our peers or teacher do not see wrong b. Our position at work, by doing that which our boss or company requires which may be illegal, unethical or immoral 2. To sacrifice our conscience a. It would be easy to conform outwardly, to "go along with the crowd" b. But our conscience would condemn us, and so would God [Likely we all have been tempted in some way like this. How did we react? How should we have reacted? How did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego react? Let's consider...] II. THEIR A. THEY FAITH...1. In the power of God - Daniel 3:16-17a. That God was able to deliver them from the fiery furnace b. If it was His will 2. In the will of God - Daniel 3:18a. If it was God's will not to deliver it, so be it! b. They would still not worship other gods, nor the gold image! B. THEY TO SERVE GOD NO MATTER WHAT...1. Like Job in the midst of his affliction - Job 1:20-21; Job 13:152. Like Habakkuk who would praise God even in suffering - Habakkuk 3:17-193. Like the apostles who rejoiced to suffer in His name - Acts 5:27-294. Like Polycarp who offered this prayer as he was being burned at the stake: "O Lord God Almighty, the Father of Thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, the God of angels and powers and of all creation and of the whole race of the righteous, who live in Thy presence; "I bless Thee for that Thou hast granted me this day and hour, that I might receive a portion amongst the number of martyrs in the cup of Thy Christ unto resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and of body, in the incorruptibility of the Holy Spirit. "May I be received among these in Thy presence this day, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, as Thou didst prepare and reveal it beforehand, and hast accomplished it, Thou that art the faithful and true God. "For this cause, yea and for all things, I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the eternal and heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, through whom with Him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now and for the ages to come. Amen.' - From The Martyrdom Of Polycarp [Such examples are truly "Faith In The Face Of Fire"! This is what it means to have faith, trust, and commitment to the Lord. What about our own personal trials at school or work? Have we been true to God, no matter the cost? Finally, consider...] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 3:2. The persons referred to were (he officers of various ranks in the service of Nebuchadnezzar, and their specific work does not need to be inquired into here. It was to be expected that such individuals would be present on such an important occasion as the dedication of the huge idol. Daniel 3:3. The men summoned came to the dedication of the image except the three companions of Daniel. Nothing is said about their absence, but even had they been present there would not have been anything to call for a complaint against them, for no one was asked to perform any act of worship that would have been recognized by the idolaters. It says these officers stood before the image and that would not have amounted to an act of worship in the eyes either of the king or the officers. When the worship was to be done it would require the citizens to fall down. However, the three Hebrews could not conscientiously give even their presence at the dedication of something they would not endorse. Daniel 3:4. Smith’ s Bible Dictionary says the following of herald: "One who makes public proclamation. The only notice of this officer in the Old Testament occurs in Daniel 3; Daniel 4." The Babylonian Empire embraced virtually all the people, nations, and languages, hence the herald addressed these units of the government. Daniel 3:5. Hear . . . cornet ... all kinds of music. The Babylonian Empire was a vaBt domain composed of many kinds of people. They could not he expected to leave their homes and all go to Babylon to appear before the image, but were to do this worshiping wherever they might be. They would not all be acquainted with each instrument named, but all would be expected to know some of them and to recognize instrumental music by some one or more of these instruments. Worship Is from CAOAD and Strong defines it, "A primitive root.; to prostrate oneself (in homage).” Hence the kind of worship demanded did not call for any removal of the people from their places, neither did it stipulate any formal schedule in the service; it required only that the people prostrate themselves when they heard the music. Daniel 3:6. It is a principle that is recognized universally that a law that has no penalty is useless. Hence the decree of Nebuchadnezzar gave the penalty of being cast Into a fiery furnace. Jeremiah 29:22 tells of two men whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire, so we see this was not to be something new for the Hebrews to be cast therein. Also, verse 19 of our chapter show's the furnace was wont to be used. Daniel 3:7. In obedience to the decree, when the people heard the sound of this music, they prostrated themselves in respect for the image which the king had set up. There is no evidence that either the people or the king were aware that any objection would be made by anyone to the kind of action called for, since there would be no outward feature of it that would prevent any man from believing in some other god. Daniel 3:8. But the three Hebrews would not prostrate themselves, for to do so would have violated Exodus 20:5 which not only forbade them to serve false gods, but also prohibited them from bowing domi to them. This conduct was not overlooked by certain Chaldeans who doubtless were the officers mentioned in Chapter 2: 48 called "governors." They came near the king to make accusations against the Jews. Daniel 3:9. Line for ever was a phrase used In old times to denote a feeling of good ’ will. It was sometimes said in a spirit of flattery when the speaker did not really want the one to live endlessly. As an instance, in 1 Kings 1:31 the mother of Solomon used the expression to the frail king David just after he had made her the promise that her son should reign after him. Had David lived for ever, Solomon never could have been king, hence we know she was using the term as a compliment. The Chaldeans used it as a bid for the favorable attention of the king. Daniel 3:10. They reminded the king Of the decree he made that required all people to fall prostrate to the image upon hearing the musical instruments. Daniel 3:11. They reminded him also of the penalty he had attached to the decree. This was all in a pretense of concern for the dignity of the king’ s decree, but that was not the real point of tlieir interest as we shall see. Daniel 3:12. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon. 1 have quoted this part of the verse just as it is in the text because it reveals the actual motive of these Chaldeans in reporting the case Df disobedience to the king. They made no accusation against Daniel although we are sure he also refused to worship the Image. And they certainly knew about it, for the four Hebrews were very close friends and spent much of their time together. (See the comments at chapter 2; 17, 18.) But the three named here were the ones who had been placed in a position of honor over even the other governors (chapter 2: 4S, 49), and that filled these subordinate governors with envy. But they used their pretended interest in the dignity of the decree to Instigate a persecution of the envied Hebrews. Hence they reported to the king that the men of the Jews named had refused to worship the image. Daniel 3:13. It is probable that Nebuchadnezzar was actually surprised at the report of disobedience on the part of these Hebrews. He had not realized that his decree would be objectionable to them. But the bare possibility that the report was true caused him to fly into a rage and proceed to investigate for himself. Daniel 3:14. In spite of his intense feeling Nebuchadnezzar was disposed to question the correctness of the report, or, if it was found to be true, to give the accused parties another chance. Hence he put the question directly to them and specified the charge that he had heard against them. Daniel 3:15, Before receiving their reply the king repeated the degree they were accused of disobeying, and informed them of their chance still to avoid the penalty attached to the decree. Who is that pod that shall deliver you? I have not capitalized the word pod because this heathen king used the word in the same sense as applied to the. gods of the heathen world. It was a challenge to them to test their respective gods. Daniel 3:16. Careful is the key word in this verse, hut it is rendered somewhat indefinitely. It Is from chas iiacm and Strong defines it, "To be necessary,” and Young’ s definition is, "To be or think necessary," We thus can see that it was not a flippant expression of the three men as if the situation did not merit any serious consideration, It means they did not consider that their fate depended on any speech of defense they could make, and they proceeded to tell the king why they thought so. Daniel 3:17. If it be so means the same as the phrase “ if God will.” These men did not know what would be the Lord's will in the case. They had the same thought as Paul expressed in 2 Corinthians 1:9-10. He did not know whether God was ready to permit his faithful apostle to be put to death yet, or would prolong his life for further service, but whichever it was he was resigned to his lot. And the Hebrews did not know whether their God was ready to give them miraculous deliverance although they believed He was able to do so. They also believed that if it were His will to deliver them, it would be done without any speech of defense from them. Daniel 3:18. They then gave to the king their ultimatum, that regardless of the will of their God (as t.o miraculous deliverance), they would not serve the gods of Nebucuadnezzar nor worship the golden image. Daniel 3:19. Upon learning that the report. was true, the rage of Nebuchadnezzar returned with increased fury. Visage means face and changed means distorted. The king was so enraged that his face was twisted Out of its normal shape as he looked at the three Hebrews who were brave enough to defy his decree. Wont means accustomed and it shows that the furnace had been in use for some time. (See comments at verse 6.) Sewn is derived from a word that Strong defines, “ A primitive root; properly to be complete." If a furnace had been accustomed to being heated enough that it would roast a man to death (Jeremiah 29:22), then it would be impossible for a human being to make it literally seven times that hot. The statement therefore means they were to make it as hot as possible. The king allowed his anger to blind him to the inconsistency of his order. He evidently wished to slay these men, yet also intended that they should be tortured first. A furnace "seven times” as hot as usual would cut off their lives all the sooner and lienee cause less torture. Daniel 3:20. There was no occasion for Nebuchadnezzar to employ the most mighty men for this execution, lor the Hebrews bad given no indication iliac they would resist. But the king was being driven on by a blinding fury and was inclined to exhibit the worst possible spirit of vengeance. Daniel 3:21. Hosen is from which Strong defines, “ A gown (as if hammered out wide).'' Many versions render the word “ mantle" or cloak. It was a loosefitting garment worn over the regular articles of clothing for a man, even including The hat in the present case. All of these articles were tied fast around the men and then they were cast into the burning fiery furnace. Daniel 3:22, Exceeding hot is a good definition of "seven times” in verse 19, It was not only the intensity of the heat that slew the executioners, but the extent of the fire, flame is from a wrord which Strong defines, “ flame (as split into tongues),” I do not know by what means the furnace was heated, but whatever was the fuel generally used, It was increased because of the king’ s urgent order. The result was that the flame shot out from the furnace or its heat reached to a radius that included the soldiers and slew them. Daniel 3:23. Fell down bound denotes that whatever was done on behalf of the three men was after they were on. tbe inside of the furnace; no act of trickery was performed by some friend on the outside to free them from their shackles. Daniel 3:24. Nebuchadnezzar must have been near when the men were cast into the furnace, for it was immediately following the act that the text says then the king was astonished at what he saw la the furnace. As if he did not believe the testimony of his eyes, he asked 'whether they did not cast three men hound into the furnace, and his servants gave him an affirmative answer. Daniel 3:25. There are three words of special importance in this verse as regards the miraculous character of the situation, and they are four, loose and walking. There was one more man in sight than were cast into the furnace. They were loose whereas they had been bound by strong men. The fire might have dissolved the fetters that bound them, but the men were walking around in the furnace which showed they were alive and unhurt. Like the son of god. Again I have changed the capitalization because the principles that would make such marking proper were unknown to this heathen king. In verse 28 he is commenting on the circumstance and calls this same person an angel. What the king meant was that tbe extra person was different in appearance from that of ordinary men, hence he must have been related to the gods. Daniel 3:26. We are sure that God took a part in the whole proceeding else the king could not have come near enough to the furnace to speak to the men without being injured by the heat. The men inside were not harmed, yet they were prisoners of Nebuchadnezzar and would not be guilty of "breaking jail” until authorized to come forth by him. The king said nothing to the "fourth man," but spoke only to the three Hebrews; the angel evidently had disappeared. Besides, Nebuchadnezzar would not have felt at liberty or considered it necessary to give instructions to him. Daniel 3:27. Such an event as this would naturally attract the attention of the leading men in the empire, and they were present when Shadrach and his companions came forth. Nor , . . hair , , . singed indicates tbe complete control that was had over the fire. To a believer in the infinite God this miracle is no greater than any other. There are no great and small miracles as far as ability is concerned, for there is nothing too hard for Him (Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27). The same God who created fire is the author of all its laws, and it would be no greater task to control those laws than to create them. These men were members of a nation that had to be sent into captivity, and in that sense they had to suffer along with their fellow citizens. But they were personally righteous and hence were entitled to the special favors that God had promised to such servants. It is important that the reader now consult the note given at 2 Kings 22:17 in volume 2 of this Commentary. Daniel 3:28. We have no evidence that Nebuchadnezzar ever ceased to be an idolater, but be was led to believe that the one god whom the Hebrews worshiped was superior to others. And he understood that the deliverance of the three Hebrews was in reward for their refusal to worship any god but their own. Daniel 3:29. We note that Nebuchadnezzar made no decree that required any person to worship the god of Shadrach and his fellows, only that it would he unlawful to say anything against him. The reason he assigned for the decree was that no other god can deliver after this sort, not that he deserved to be given exclusive worship. Daniel 3:30. To promote is from a word that merely means “ to advance,” whether in matters of temporal success and prosperity or otherwise. All that we can understand from it is that the king bestowed some additional favors upon them besides the position of trust they already had. Daniel Chapter FourVerse 1 There are a number of words which Bible critics use which sound innocent enough until one understands what they mean by them. Talmud, Midrash, and Apocalyptic are three such words. For example, when Andrews writes that, "This chapter takes us again into the realm of the Apocalyptic,"[1] such a code cliche means, "Of course, there's not a word of historical truth in the whole passage!" There is, to be sure, a scriptural meaning of apocalypse. It is a New Testament Greek word which we have been unable to find anywhere in the Old Testament. "It means an uncovering, a revelation. In the New Testament it refers to the drawing away by Christ of the veil of darkness covering the Gentiles."[2] That latter meaning is indeed applicable to this chapter. God here enlightened the governing head of the whole Gentile world. In keeping with the respect and awe in which the whole pagan world looked upon dreams, God chose exactly that instrument of conveyance for the information that God determined should be imparted to Nebuchadnezzar. It is remembered that the dream was usually the method God chose when speaking to pagans, as for example in the case of Pharaoh. Why should God have done such a thing as to teach Nebuchadnezzar of the existence and power of the one true and Almighty God? He did so in order that the Gentile world could have no excuse for their terrible apostasy during the pre-Christian centuries. As Paul stated it, "That which is known of God is manifest in them (the Gentiles); for God manifested it unto them" (Romans 1:19). Yes indeed the pre-Christian Gentiles knew God (Romans 1:21); and the episodes recorded in Daniel reveal some of the instances in which God "manifested" such knowledge to them. It must be admitted that the Chosen People went into Babylonian captivity; and that the purpose of God required that at the end of seventy years Israel would be delivered from captivity and returned to "their land" until such a time as the Christ should be born of the posterity of Abraham. Given these undeniable facts, it was acutely necessary that God should have so instilled the knowledge of Himself and the fear of His Name in the Babylonian overlords of God's People that those all-powerful world rulers would have restrained themselves from the utter destruction of the Israel of God, and that, in time, they should have consented to allow the return of Israel to Jerusalem. In these glorious chapters of Daniel, one is permitted to see something of the amazing manner in which God accomplished those very objectives. This chapter has the form of an edict published by Nebuchadnezzar to the whole world of his kingdom, following the "seven times" of his insanity, a sorrow brought upon him because of his pride, and which was revealed to him in advance by a dream interpreted by Daniel. The language of Nebuchadnezzar is a curious mixture of polytheistic and monotheistic expressions; but it gives every impression of being true and accurate in every particular. Outline: the doxology (Daniel 4:1-3), Chaldeans cannot interpret the dream (Daniel 4:4-7); the dream was told to Daniel (Daniel 4:8-18), Daniel's interpretation of the dream (Daniel 4:19-26); Daniel's faithful counsel to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:27); the events foretold indeed occur (Daniel 4:28-33); Nebuchadnezzar restored after his illness passes (Daniel 4:34-36); Nebuchadnezzar praises the True God (Daniel 4:37). Daniel 4:1-3"Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all the peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you. It hath seemed good unto me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God hath wrought toward me. How great are his signs and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation."THE Some critics are quick to assert that a pagan like Nebuchadnezzar could never have used such language as appears here; but such assertions prove merely that the critics are not nearly as intellectually alert as was Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson that the judgment against him was designed to impart. Although Nebuchadnezzar indeed recognized God as the Most High God and so spoke of him here, it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar still fell short of recognizing God as the one and only God. The conception he apparently had was that the Most High God was "the greatest God of all," but not necessarily the only God. Such language on the part of Nebuchadnezzar also indicates the influence which Daniel doubtless exercised upon Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, "The theocratic language here is probably due to the influence of Daniel."[3]The form of the edict as exhibited in these three verses indicates that, "Here is a state paper incorporated into God's Word; this shows that inspiration of Scriptures is by virtue of the Divine authority of the person at whose direction a given word is included."[4] An ass's words are even included in Scripture in Numbers 22:28; Numbers 22:30. Owens mistakenly affirmed that these three verses are actually the conclusion of the previous chapter, "They are the happy ending of chapter three."[5] However, Thomson stated that, "It is difficult to see anything that could even seem to be a reason for such a division!"[6] Our own opinion is that the verses appear exactly where they belong. Verse 4 "I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at rest in my house, and flourishing in my palace. I saw a dream which made me afraid; and the thoughts upon my bed and the visions of my head troubled me. Therefore made I a decree to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me the interpretation of the dream. Then came in the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers; and I told the dream before them; but they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof." CANNOT DREAMThe critics are perplexed by the fact that Daniel was not here called in with the rest of the wise men, over whom Daniel was the governor. However, it appears to be certain that Nebuchadnezzar already had a fairly good idea of what this dream indicated. He, no doubt, had already identified that great tree in the middle of the earth with a top reaching to heaven as himself; and he must have suspected that its being cut down signified some disaster coming upon himself. Under those circumstances, "Nebuchadnezzar wants nothing to do with Daniel's God, until driven to him by extreme necessity."[7] Having suspected that the real meaning of the dream probably foretold some spectacular humiliation for himself, this call for all the wise men except Daniel was likely an appeal for the pagan magicians, etc., to devise something against it. Also, we should not overlook the fact that the text does not say that Daniel was the last one to be called, but that he was the last one to arrive on the scene. He might have been out of town on official business at first. Concerning the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothsayers, Culver stated that, "This school of pompous quacks should long ago have been dismissed."[8]Verse 8 "But at last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and I told the dream before him, saying, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of the dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof. Thus were the visions of my head upon my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it there was found food for all: the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the birds of the heavens dwelt in the branches thereof, and all flesh was fed from it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from heaven. He cried aloud and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches. Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven: and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth: let his heart be changed from man's, and let a beast's heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. The sentence is by decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men. This dream I, king Nebuchadnezzar, have seen; and thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation, forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me the interpretation; but thou art able; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee."THE DREAM TOLD TO DANIELThe fact of Daniel's hearing in these verses the dream told for the first time surely indicates that he had not been present earlier when the king told his dream to the magicians, etc. There are several guesses as to why Daniel was not then present; but, as far as we have been able to determine, the sacred text has no hint of the reason. Owens complained that the connection between the names Belteshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar's god "is unsupportable."[9] However, such an opinion is altogether presumptuous because of our total ignorance of which god the name is supposed to suggest. "My god in Daniel 4:8 is of uncertain identity. It may mean Bel as in Belteshazzar, or Nabu as in Nebuchadnezzar, or Marduk, chief patron god of Babylon and of the whole Babylonian pantheon."[10] On this account, we reject the speculative allegations such as that of Jeffery, who ascribed ignorance of the Babylonian language to some "later compiler!"[11] It is sufficient to note that Nebuchadnezzar who gave the name considered the connection genuine. Our ability to understand that connection is immaterial. The suggestion of some commentators that Daniel was brought in last here in order to heighten the effect of his superior wisdom; but this explanation could hardly be correct. "It suggests the shaping of material to produce certain effects rather than the truthful reporting of exactly what happened,"[12] that latter alternative being, as we believe, what Daniel actually did. Barnes discussed the singular mixture of monotheistic and polytheistic language in Nebuchadnezzar's words in this chapter, pointed out that Nebuchadnezzar had been a heathen all of his life, despite his also having some knowledge of the true God, and concluded that this unusual mixture of heathenism and true religion in the language of Nebuchadnezzar was "neither unnatural nor improbable."[13]The reference to a great tree (Daniel 4:10) is in keeping with the fact that, "Great men and princes are often represented in the language of the prophets under the similitude of trees."[14]; Ezekiel 17:5-6; Ezekiel 31:3;Jeremiah 22:15; Psalms 1:3; and Psalms 37:35 are examples of this. "Let seven times pass over him ..." (Daniel 4:16). The personal pronoun "him" indicates that the words passed over the vehicle (the tree) and focused upon the meaning of the symbol as applied to Nebuchadnezzar. There is a similar transition in Daniel 4:15, where, "The language passes from the type to the person represented by it."[15] It is a fact, of course, that "seven times" here has "a variety of possible meanings."[16] The expression appears to be idiomatic and could possibly refer to days, months, weeks, or years. However, there can be little doubt that the expression, as used here, means "seven years." The Septuagint (LXX) thus renders it.[17] Dummelow gave that as the meaning,[18] as did Jamieson[19] also, and many of the older expositors. Josephus also stated that the expression meant "seven years."[20] Certainly, neither days, weeks, or months would have allowed enough time for the developments that followed. Some critics have a field day declaiming how this dream that came allegedly from God falls into terminology in Daniel 4:17 a which appears to ascribe the decisions regarding the fate of men, not to God Almighty, but to certain ranks of angels said to characterize Babylonian mythology. Even Dummelow thought that the passage teaches that, "Angels are entrusted with the power of deciding the destinies of men."[21] Nothing like that is here. Keil's explanation of this is perfect: "The heavenly information imparted to the king in this passage regarding the judgement that was to fall upon him from God to humble him for his pride was presented as "the resolution of the watchers," that it might be announced to him in the way most easily understood by him as a divine judgment."[22]Daniel most certainly corrected any false notion the king might have had about the source of the decision against him in Daniel 4:24-25, where he clearly indicated that the decree came from the Most High. "That the living may know ..." (Daniel 4:17). The purpose of God is seen in this, that purpose being to spread the true knowledge of Himself throughout the whole Gentile world of that era. This has a definite bearing upon the need for just such a wonder as is here recorded. The king, of course, cooperated with this by giving the decree the widest possible circulation. The purpose of the king's dream and the decree that circulated the knowledge of it was that of, "making known the supremacy of the God worshipped by the Hebrews."[23]Translators have had difficulty with "stump of the roots" from the earliest times. Martin Luther's rendition has been followed by many, making it, "the stump with its roots."[24] Actually, the meaning is clear either way. "The sentence is ... to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men ..." (Daniel 4:17 b). "This verse which solemnly declares God's sovereign providential control over the course of human history is the core of the Book of Daniel (Compare: Isaiah 40:15 ff; Proverbs 21:1; Romans 13:1; and Acts 17:24-26)."[25] Nebuchadnezzar indeed could repeat this message even before the interpretation; but, "He was blinded to the fact that he was one of the lowliest of men who acted upon the consent of the Most High."[26] It was only after the "seven times" had passed over him that the king could appreciate the full meaning of the dream. The expression "King Nebuchadnezzar" appears a number of times in this chapter, which is a slight variation from "Nebuchadnezzar the king." Of course, Biblical enemies would like to make a big issue out of this and postulate various sources, or interpolations, or anything else that might be construed as discrediting the sacred text. Leupold discussed such efforts, concluding that, "Efforts of this sort to cast doubt upon the Biblical text must be branded as what they are, unscientific."[27]Verse 19 "Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was stricken dumb for awhile, and his thoughts troubled him. The king answered and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or the interpretation trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine adversaries. The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and it was for food for all; under which the beasts of the field dwelt, and upon whose branches the birds of the heavens had their habitation: it is thou, O king, that art grown and become strong; for thy greatness is grown, and reacheth unto heaven, and thy dominion to the end of the earth. And whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew down the tree, and destroy it; nevertheless leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven; and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over. him; this is the interpretation, O king, and it is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king: that thou shalt be driven from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and thou shalt be made to eat grass as oxen, and shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee; till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. And whereas they commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree; thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shall have known that the heavens do rule."THE OF THE DREAMThe king's edict here used both the Hebrew name and the Babylonian name of Daniel; and critics seize this as a grounds for destructive remarks; but, on the other hand, this use of both names is exactly what should have been expected. "So far from being an objection, it is an undesigned mark of genuineness. In a decree to 'all peoples' and one designed to honor the God of the Hebrews, Nebuchadnezzar would naturally have used the Hebrew name (derived from [~'El], God), the name by which the prophet was best known among his own countrymen."[28]Of special interest is the evidence of mutual love and respect between Daniel and the king in Daniel 4:19. This attitude of the principal characters here is proof that no writer in the days of Antiochus had anything to do with the composition of the prophecy of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar in this passage is so utterly unlike Antiochus Epiphanes that it must ever remain a mystery why critical scholars are always mentioning Antiochus and the need of the people for encouragement in those times, as being pertinent in any manner whatever to this prophecy. We have already noted that Daniel 4:24-25 were designed to correct the king's notion about the source of the decree against him. It did not come from angels, but from God. "Thou shalt be driven from men ..." The description here of the king's condition during the days of his punishment should not be pressed as to details. They have the general meaning that, "The king would be in such a state as to be treated like a beast; he would be removed from his ordinary abode, and become a miserable and neglected outcast."[29]The nature of the king's strange malady is readily identified by a number of writers as "lycanthropy,"[30] a strange form of insanity in which the victim imagines that he is a beast and adopts a form of behavior appropriate to such a delusion. A dissenting view was quoted by Thomson from a famed British medical doctor, David Yellowlees, of the University of Glasgow: "Nebuchadnezzar's illness was not lycanthropy; it was an attack of acute mania, from which he likely recovered, as usually in such attacks, if uncomplicated, in seven months. In its extreme form, acute mania causes victims to exhibit all kinds of degraded habits such as stripping or tearing of clothes, eating filth and garbage of all sorts, wild and violent gesticulations, dangerous assaults, howling noises, and utter disregard of personal decency."[31]This quotation has been included here not from any personal acceptance of it as true, but as a matter of general interest. Our own viewpoint is that, since the visitation upon Nebuchadnezzar was a heaven sent punishment, it might not have been any particular disease with which men are familiar. We simply do not know what it was. Whatever was the length of time that Nebuchadnezzar was deprived of his throne, the government of Babylon would have been taken care of by a regent. Adam Clarke gives us the name of that regent. "Evil-merodach his son was regent during his father's insanity."[32]The destructive critics gleefully remark that, "The silence of the inscriptions is inexplicable!"[33] Such a remark is based on the fact that none of the monuments or inscriptions uncovered from the mud of Mesopotamia have any report of king Nebuchadnezzar's terrible malady. Apparently critics know nothing at all of human rulers. Do they suppose that Senator Ted Kennedy would have a monument erected to his escapade at Chappaquiddick? or that President John Kennedy would have memorialized his sexual escapades in the White House? How can anyone on earth suppose that Nebuchadnezzar would have erected a monument to his status while in the throes of that awful malady? Despite that, however, the king did publish the decree which we have before us in the historic Book of Daniel; and this writer believes, along with a great many other conservative scholars, that the discoveries in the ancient Babylonian area my yet reveal a copy of this very decree. But if and when that should happen, the enemies of the Word would not stop denying it. "Thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, after that thou shall have known that the heavens do rule"(Daniel 4:26). "Heaven rules is the oldest surrogate for God in the Bible. It was widely used later, as in Luke 15:18."[34] Note that the plural is used here, "the heavens do rule." In fact the kingdom of heaven as written in the Greek New Testament is actually, "The royal majesty of the heavens has approached"[35] (Matthew 3:2). Verse 27 "Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if there may be a lengthening of thy tranquility."DANIEL'S GOOD COUNSEL TO THE KINGThe thought here is not that the king's changing from his sins might avert the experience that had been decreed for him, but that the onset of it might be delayed, referred to here as, "a lengthening of thy tranquility." Of course, "If righteousness is merely almsgiving or charity, then it is not Biblical righteousness."[36] Keil vigorously complained of a mistranslation here, declaring that: Nowhere in the Old Testament does the expression used here refer to mere almsgiving or charity. It can only mean to throw away sins and to set oneself free from sins."[37]The only way in which men may actually do such a thing is revealed in the New Testament, where is revealed to men for the first time the Sin Bearer, even Jesus Christ the Righteous, in whose name alone is salvation possible. Surely, as Young said, "It is a perversion of the text to force it to teach the doctrine of salvation by human merit."[38]Verse 28 "All this came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of twelve months he was walking in the royal palace of Babylon. The king spake and said, Is not this great Babylon which I have built for the royal dwelling place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty? While the word was in the king's mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken: The kingdom is departed from thee; and thou shalt be driven from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and thou shalt be made to eat grass as oxen, and shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee; until thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws."From a human standpoint, Nebuchadnezzar had much of which to boast. Babylon was indeed the wonder of the ancient world; and something of the elaborate and expensive nature of the buildings there may be seen in the fact reported by Josephus, that in order to please his wife who had formerly lived in a mountainous country, he erected for her a mountain in Babylon, composed of magnificent stone terraces with trees, flowers, waterfalls, and many other wonders called "The Hanging Gardens of Babylon."[39] Human pride, however, is terribly sinful; and no man should boast of anything. Whatever a man is, whatever he may be able to do, however magnificent his achievements, or whatever honors men may be willing to confer upon him, nevertheless no man is or has anything that is not a gift of God. Culver pointed out that, "The king's last clear minded conscious experience directed his attention upward to that voice from heaven; and his first action following his recovery was to look upward."[40]Millard stated that the boastful words spoken by the king here, "are reminiscent of the words stamped upon the thousands of bricks he used to build Babylon."[41]Verse 34 "And at the end of the days, I, Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the Most High, and I praised and honored him that liveth forever; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom from generation to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? At the same my understanding returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and brightness returned unto me; and my counselors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent greatness was added unto me." TO HIS THRONEFrom this chapter it is clear that God will require an accounting of all evil and presumptuous rulers of their blasphemous and wicked deeds. From this, it also appears that, "In that very moment when the king was willing to acknowledge the Most High, his reason returned to him."[42]Verse 37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven; for all his works are truth, and his ways justice; and those that walk in pride he is able to abase." PRAISES THE TRUE GOD"King of heaven is unique in the Old Testament."[43] "In this final statement, Nebuchadnezzar condemned himself before the world in order to glorify God."[44]The magnificent change wrought in Nebuchadnezzar as a result of his experiences as recorded in Daniel constituted God's bulwark against any attempted annihilation of the Chosen Race during their Babylonian captivity. It is the relationship that Nebuchadnezzar sustained toward Israel during the fateful years of their captivity that accounts for all of the wonders recorded in Babylon. One may very well believe that without the genuine historical occurrences of just such things as are recorded in Daniel, the Israel of God might have been lost forever. There was no way that God would have tolerated such a disaster. Daniel records the Divine action by which God prevented it. Commentary On Daniel Four by Eric HallDaniel 4This chapter continues the story of how the mighty ruler Nebuchadnezzar came to capitulate to the God of the captives he brought back from Judea. This chapter is unique in all scripture. It was composed under the authority of a pagan. Apparently what happened is that Nebuchadnezzar authorized Daniel to write up this account, which he then did under the inspiration of God. But the motivation to put the account in writing seems to have come from Nebuchadnezzar and most of the account is written in the first person with Nebuchadnezzar speaking. In Chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar learned that God was all knowing. In Chapter 3, Nebuchadnezzar learned that God was all powerful and could override the will of even the mightiest rulers. In this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar will learn of his own weakness and folly before God and of his own utter dependence on God. Nebuchadnezzar was but an instrument in God’ s hand. Nebuchadnezzar will come face to face with the theme of this book: The absolute sovereignty of God and God’ s faithfulness to his covenant people. The first part of this theme is repeated three times in this chapter: Daniel 4:17 The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men.' Daniel 4:25 that you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will. Daniel 4:32 and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; and you shall be made to eat grass like an ox; and seven times shall pass over you, until you have learned that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will." Nebuchadnezzar finally learned this. Have we? Warning: This chapter has been called ‘ historically absurd’ by some. The Biblical narrative is the lone witness to most of the events in this chapter. The Babylonian Chronicles end with the 11th year of Nebuchadnezzar’ s reign. Verse 1-3 1 King Nebuchadnezzar to all peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you! 2 It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has wrought toward me. 3 How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is from generation to generation. King Nebuchadnezzar is much like us – his spiritual life has its ups and downs! After Daniel interpreted his first dream, Nebuchadnezzar praised God, but in the very next chapter he made a giant graven image. After God saved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace, Nebuchadnezzar again praised God. Here in chapter 4, Nebuchadnezzar again praises God but only after he has undergone a very humbling experience about which we will learn more in just a moment. This account of Nebuchadnezzar’ s experience, however, was written after the fact and thus his praise of God at the beginning of the chapter occurred after the experiences the chapter describes. Did he finally learn his lesson? We don’ t know for sure because the book will tell us nothing more about him. Even if Nebuchadnezzar’ s motives are dubious (gratitude or fear of silence?), he speaks the truth about God. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom. His dominion is from generation to generation. This is what Daniel had told Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2:44 about the church. But it also true in a larger sense. God’ s kingdom and dominion are eternal. He has always and will always rule over everyone and everything. Nebuchadnezzar thought his kingdom was eternal, but it was not. Human rule is transient. God’ s rule is permanent. History is full of kingdoms that thought they would be last forever. (Babylon, Greece, Rome, Nazi Germany) There is but one eternal kingdom. Verse 4-7 4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was at ease in my house and prospering in my palace. 5 I had a dream which made me afraid; as I lay in bed the fancies and the visions of my head alarmed me. 6 Therefore I made a decree that all the wise men of Babylon should be brought before me, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream. 7 Then the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers came in; and I told them the dream, but they could not make known to me its interpretation. Poor Nebuchadnezzar. Every time things seem to be going well, he has a troubling dream. Here we have a repeat of what we saw in Chapter 2. The king was at ease and was prospering. Verse 30 implies that when this occurred, Nebuchadnezzar’ s building activities had been completed. These events probably took place after Egypt had been conquered and Jerusalem destroyed and about 8 or 9 years before the siege of Tyre in 573 mentioned in Ezekiel 26:7. The seven year illness of Nebuchadnezzar in this chapter may have been from 582 to 575, a period in which we know of no military operations. Thus, he was at ease and prospering. This may have been a source of his problems! Recall Jesus’ parable of the rich fool in Luke 12:16-21. There we had a man who had everything but God – and God called him a fool. (If there is any parable that captures the spirit of our own age, it is that one.) Again he makes a decree. (He does this a lot doesn’ t he!) This decree commands that all of the wise men be brought forward to interpret his dream. The ‘ astrologers’ mentioned here were not mentioned in the list found in Chapter 2. The king seems to be grasping at straws in his increasingly desperate attempt to understand his dreams. (He may be ready to call the Psychic Hotline next!) As before, the Chaldean wise men are unable to interpret the dream. Note that this time, Nebuchadnezzar tells them what the dream was. Their inability to interpret it means that it must not have been listed in their dream manuals. Even if they knew or guessed the meaning, they probably would have lacked the courage to tell the king. Even Daniel later hesitates to tell the king what the dream means. Verse 8-9 8 At last Daniel came in before me— he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods— and I told him the dream, saying, 9 “ O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is difficult for you, here is the dream which I saw; tell me its interpretation. Daniel comes in last. He was not part of the ‘ group.’ Why was Daniel the last one called and not the first one called? Maybe he was out of town or ill. I think a better explanation is that Nebuchadnezzar didn’ t want to ask him unless it was absolutely necessary. I doubt that Nebuchadnezzar liked having to go to Daniel for answers. Also, unlike the other wise men, he no doubt did not hang around the king like a sycophant. It is clear that Nebuchadnezzar is still a card-carrying polytheist. When he calls Daniel, he reminds us that Daniel’ s Babylonian name is Belteshazzar “ after the name of my god.” Recall from our earlier comments, that Nebuchadnezzar’ s ‘ god’ was presumably Nebo. Belteshazzar means ‘ Nebo, protect my life.’ But, he assures the reader, Daniel has the “ spirit of the holy gods.” The ‘ name of my god’ is singular, but the ‘ spirit of the holy gods’ is plural. Nebuchadnezzar is mixing Hebrew terminology with his pagan nonsense. Verse 10-12 10 The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth. 12 Its leaves were fair and its fruit abundant, and in it was food for all. The beasts of the field found shade under it, and the birds of the air dwelt in its branches, and all flesh was fed from it. The king had dreamed of a giant tree that gave shelter and food to all the beasts and birds of the earth. This looks like a happy dream. What was troubling the king? We are about to find out. Verse 13-14 13 “ I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven. 14 He cried aloud and said thus, 'Hew down the tree and cut off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit; let the beasts flee from under it and the birds from its branches. This beautiful tree was going to be cut down and its foliage was going to be stripped away. The order came from “ a watcher, a holy one” who “ came down from heaven.” Who was this? Although the dream was a message from God, it is possible that God was using some imagery from Babylonian mythology to make his point. The Babylonians believed in heavenly beings whose task was to keep watch over the earth. However, this image is not unique to Daniel. A vision in Zechariah 1:10 speaks of those whom the Lord has sent to patrol the earth. The word for ‘ watcher’ or ‘ messenger’ occurs nowhere else in the Bible. It does occur in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in a commentary on Genesis), where it is used to denote an angel. This has caused some to believe that this is a special class of angels whose duty is to watch and patrol the earth. They would also seem to be responsible for executing the decrees of God. One effect of cutting down the tree was that the birds and beasts that had found shelter under it would be scattered. Verse 15-16 15 But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender grass of the field. Let him be wet with the dew of heaven; let his lot be with the beasts in the grass of the earth; 16 let his mind be changed from a man’ s, and let a beast’ s mind be given to him; and let seven times pass over him. Although the tree was to be cut down, the stump was to be left, and it was to have a band of iron and bronze placed around it. The purpose of these bands seems to have been to protect and preserve the stump. They would keep the stump from being removed. Although Daniel had not yet interpreted the king’ s dream, I think we can now see why the dream was so troubling to the king. Look very carefully at what the watcher said in verse 15. But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender grass of the field. Let him be wet with the dew of heaven; let his lot be with the beasts in the grass of the earth The watcher begins referring to the ‘ stump’ as a man! It was no doubt very clear to the king which man the watcher had in mind.What was going to happen to this stump/man? The mind of this stump was to changed from that of a man to that of a beast. The word for ‘ mind’ here means ‘ heart.’ It ‘ refers to the inner self as the seat of moral reflection, choice of the will, and pattern of behavior.’ How long was this change going to last? It was to last for ‘ seven times.’ What does that mean? The word ‘ times’ can denotes years or seasons or it can be more general as it is in 2:8 and 3:5. Most commentators translate it as ‘ appointed times’ or ‘ seasons,’ which would mean that it refers to 7 years. Another possibility is that ‘ seven times’ denotes an indefinite period of time that is long enough for the lesson to be learned. As we know, seven denotes perfection. Thus, this period of seven times might denote a period of time that would be just right for Nebuchadnezzar to learn his lesson. This is supported by the wording later in verse 25. Daniel 4:25 that you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will. This passage seems to stress the meaning of the seven times. The Jehovah’ s Witnesses have an interesting approach to the “ seven times.” The seven times denotes seven years, each day of which also denotes a year. (Thus, we have 2520 years.) This period is the “ times of the Gentiles” – the period of Gentile opposition, which is depicted by Nebuchadnezzar’ s madness. (Doesn’ t it seem odd that a time of Gentile prominence would be symbolized by the insanity of a very prominent Gentile?) This period supposedly began in 607 BC when they say the temple was destroyed. (This actually happened in 587 BC. They give incorrect dates for virtually all of the events that we have been studying.) Counting 2520 years from 607 BC brings us to 1914, which is when they say the kingdom was established. Many textbooks have the answers to certain exercises and problems listed in the back of the book. The purpose of these answers is to allow the students to check their work. However, many students look at the answers first and then work backwards through the problem trying to set things up so that they obtain the answer they started with. This seems to be what the Jehovah’ s Witnesses have done. They started with the answer ‘ 1914’ and then worked backward through history doing whatever they needed to make sure they got the answer they were seeking. Verse 17 17 The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, the decision by the word of the holy ones, to the end that the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men.’ Notice the plural ‘ watchers’ and ‘ holy ones’ here. Although one is mentioned in verse 13, there are apparently more than one involved in this decree. The watcher continues the decree, and gives the reason behind it. The decree was so that “ the living may know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will, and sets over it the lowliest of men.” That is, the purpose of this decree was to make clear one of the principle themes of this book – the absolute sovereignty of God. The term ‘ lowliest of men’ in verse 17 is interesting from several perspectives. God chooses who will wear the crown and often he has chosen those who are humble and of low social standing. Job 5:11 he sets on high those who are lowly, and those who mourn are lifted to safety. 1 Samuel 2:7-8 The Lord makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. 8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the Lord'S, and on them he has set the world. Luke 1:51-53 He has shown strength with his arm, he has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts, 52 he has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree; 53 he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away.But this term also has a particular application to the history of Nebuchadnezzar (as we mentioned in the introduction). The lowly origin of Nebuchadnezzar’ s family was otherwise unknown until an inscription made by his father Nabopolassar was found in which he was referred to as “ the son of a nobody” (of non-royal birth), “ insignificant,” “ not visible,” “ the weak,” and “ the feeble.” This kind of knowledge (the lowly origin of Babylon’ s greatest king) would have quickly been forgotten – but the author of Daniel knew about it. The decrees of the Babylonian kings in Daniel are remarkably similar to those found inscribed on ancient monuments. How would a Jewish writer produce such an accurate record 400 years after the fact? Verse 18 18 This dream I, King Nebuchadnezzar, saw. And you, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation, because all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known to me the interpretation, but you are able, for the spirit of the holy gods is in you.” The king turns at last to Daniel for the interpretation of the dream because the other wise men could not interpret it. But why couldn’ t they interpret it? The meaning seems very clear. The portrayal of a man in his pride as a lofty tree is common in the Old Testament. Isaiah 2:12-13 For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up and high; 13 against all the cedars of Lebanon, lofty and lifted up; and against all the oaks of Bashan; Isaiah 10:34 He will cut down the thickets of the forest with an axe, and Lebanon with its majestic trees will fall. Ezekiel used a very similar picture to describe Assyria just a few years before Nebuchadnezzar had this dream. (See Ezekiel 31:3– 17.) Why couldn’ t the other wise men interpret the image? They may not have been familiar with the imagery that must have been very clear to any Hebrew. This is possible but unlikely. The image seems very clear. (Indeed, it was so clear to Nebuchadnezzar that he was terrified by it.) God may have kept them from understanding it so that Daniel would be chosen to explain it to the king. The most likely possibility is that they understood exactly what the dream meant but they were too cowardly to explain it to the king. Verse 19 19 Then Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar, was dismayed for a moment, and his thoughts alarmed him. The king said, “ Belteshazzar, let not the dream or the interpretation alarm you.” Belteshazzar answered, “ My lord, may the dream be for those who hate you and its interpretation for your enemies! Even Daniel was reluctant to tell the king what his dream meant. The Aramaic here literally reads “ He was stupefied for one hour” but the word for “ hour” can simply mean a period of time. This verse gives us an interesting picture of the relationship between these two men. Daniel was not happy in the least about the bad news he had for the king. Daniel’ s loyalty was genuine. But maybe he just delayed because he was scared? It seems more reasonable to believe that Daniel’ s reluctance arose from his feelings for the king rather than from his fear of the king. Notice the concern of the king for Daniel as well. “ Belteshazzar, let not the dream or the interpretation alarm you.” Their relationship seems to have involved mutual respect and perhaps mutual affection. Their concern seems genuine. When Daniel at last begins to speak, he voices the fruitless wish that the dream might apply instead to Nebuchadnezzar’ s worst enemies. Verse 20-22 20 The tree you saw, which grew and became strong, so that its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth; 21 whose leaves were fair and its fruit abundant, and in which was food for all; under which beasts of the field found shade, and in whose branches the birds of the air dwelt — 22 it is you, O king, who have grown and become strong. Your greatness has grown and reaches to heaven, and your dominion to the ends of the earth. Daniel has good news and bad news – and he starts with the good news. The mighty tree represented Nebuchadnezzar in all his military success and genius. His kingdom stretched from the border of Egypt to the kingdom of the Elamites, near the Persian Gulf. Did Nebuchadnezzar’ s dominion extend to the ends of the earth as verse 22 suggests? The scope of the term ‘ earth’ always depends on its context. (Here it refers simply to the Mesopotamian orbit in which the king reigned supreme.) It was common to describe a king’ s dominion in this way even though no earthly king has ever literally ruled the entire earth. (It was simply a hyperbole.) Even in the New Testament, we read in Luke 2:1 that “ In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled” and in Romans 1:8 Paul said “ your faith is proclaimed in all the world.” Verse 23-27 23 And whereas the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, 'Hew down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field; and let him be wet with the dew of heaven; and let his lot be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him’ ; 24 this is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king, 25 that you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will. 26 And as it was commanded to leave the stump of the roots of the tree, your kingdom shall be sure for you from the time that you know that Heaven rules. 27 Therefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you; break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your tranquillity.” Here Daniel gives the interpretation of the more ominous part of the dream. The decree of the watcher, Daniel says in verse 24, is a decree of the Most High. This judgment, whatever it will be, is from God. The bad news is that the king was going to lose his kingdom and his sanity until he understood the lesson that God wanted to teach him – that God rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will. The guarded tree stump represents Nebuchadnezzar’ s kingdom during his illness. The stump was left so that the king would know that his kingdom would not be taken away permanently. Why was this important? If Nebuchadnezzar lost his kingdom while he was out of the picture then that would prove his point. That is, it would show that Nebuchadnezzar was the real power and that it was his genius that kept the kingdom together. God, however, wanted to show him that the opposite was true. Nebuchadnezzar ruled and had his kingdom because it pleased God for him to. If God could keep his kingdom together while he was out in the field living the life of an ox then God did not need a brilliant leader to hold a kingdom together. In the ordinary course of events, any ruler suffering from such an illness would have been deposed and replaced. History tells us that Nebuchadnezzar’ s sons were worthless, and indeed were unable to retain power very long after his death. In any event, however, it was God’ s will that the kingdom would be returned to Nebuchadnezzar after he recovered – so that is what happened. There was still a possibility that Nebuchadnezzar could avoid this misfortune if we would amend his ways and acknowledge the absolute sovereignty of God. What did the king need to do? He needed to adopt two new policies: He needed to renounce his sins and do what was right. He needed to protect the poor in his kingdom and not allow them to be exploited and oppressed. Did he do this? Perhaps he tried. The judgment was delayed for one year. Verse 28-30 28 All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 At the end of twelve months he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 and the king said, “ Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” Verse 28 gives us the sad news. Everything in the vision came true because Nebuchadnezzar refused to change his ways. Notice that the account changes from the first person to the third person. This makes sense since the king could not have been a sane witness of his own insanity! What was the straw that broke the camel’ s back? The king looked out over his kingdom and said “ Look what I have done!” Herod suffered a similar fate in Acts 12:21– 23. Acts 12:21-23 On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. 22 And the people shouted, "The voice of a god, and not of man!" 23 Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died. Nebuchadnezzar, like Herod, was filled with pride at his own achievements. He had not given glory to God. This is a lesson for us in the church. Often we are tempted to boast about all that we have done and all that we have built in God’ s kingdom. This church is not “ our church” – it is the Lord’ s church (it is the church of Christ!), and any building that goes on is done by him. He adds people to his church – we don’ t add people to our church. He deserves all of the glory. The Bible has much to say about the sin of pride, and we will not repeat it all here. However, it is useful to note that when God listed seven things that he hates, pride was at the top of the list. (Proverbs 6:17) Also, recall what Jesus said: Luke 16:14-15 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. 15 But he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. The first step toward overcoming pride is to learn to see things the way that God sees them. What is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. An inscription has been found in which Nebuchadnezzar boasted “ The fortifications of [the temple of Marduk] and Babylon I strengthened, and established the name of my reign forever.” How do you suppose the author of Daniel knew about Nebuchadnezzar’ s extreme pride if he wrote the book 400 years after the fact? Verse 31-33 31 While the words were still in the king’ s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, “ O King Nebuchadnezzar, to you it is spoken: The kingdom has departed from you, 32 and you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; and you shall be made to eat grass like an ox; and seven times shall pass over you, until you have learned that the Most High rules the kingdom of men and gives it to whom he will.” 33 Immediately the word was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar. He was driven from among men, and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails were like birds’ claws. God interrupts the mighty king while the words were still in his mouth. As McGuiggan points out, he was “ bragging one moment and munching the next!” The humor of this incident is hard to miss. Imagine for a moment how the court must have handled the visit of foreign dignitaries. Poor Nebuchadnezzar. After all that he did, this is what he is most remembered for. Even Shakespeare mentions him with respect to this episode. In “ All’ s Well That Ends Well” , the clown, after being rebuked for his ignorance of herbs, responds by saying “ I am no great Nebuchadnezzar, sir; I have not much skill in grass.” In verse 31, God says that the kingdom “ has” departed from him. So sure was the coming judgment that God used the past tense. When God starts using the past tense, it’ s time to watch out! The sky is about to fall on someone. Verse 33 tells us the condition of Nebuchadnezzar during his insanity. 1. He grazed in the field like a beast. 2. His skin was toughened by the exposure to the extreme heat in the summer (110 to 120°F) with high humidity to well below freezing in the winter. 3. His hair, matted and coarse, looked like eagle feathers. His fingernails and toenails became like claws. This description still points to a long period of time even if “ seven times” does not mean “ seven years.” As we mentioned in our introductory comments, some have said that this description of Nebuchadnezzar is too absurd to be true. But is it really that absurd? Not at all. In fact, it is very similar to a known medical condition – boanthropy. R. K. Harrison speaks of an encounter he had with such a person in a British mental hospital. He ate only vegetation and drank only water. His health was excellent and the only physical abnormality noticed was the length and coarseness of his hair and the thickened condition of his nails. No Babylonian record has been found that mentions any activity by Nebuchadnezzar during the period 582 to 575. What do you think he was up to? (Perhaps he was “ out standing in his field” !) Verse 34-35 34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives for ever; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; 35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing; and he does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “ What doest thou?” For the third time in as many chapters, King Nebuchadnezzar seems to get the message. His reason returns to him and he realizes just how inappropriate his pride was. Nebuchadnezzar says: God deserves all of the glory and praise because he has an everlasting dominion and an eternal kingdom – unlike the king whose kingdom could be taken from him. No one can stay God’ s hand – as the king had tried to do. No one can question God’ s actions – the way that God had repeatedly questioned Nebuchadnezzar’ s actions. Nebuchadnezzar said “ I blessed and praised the Most High.” Does it seem unreasonable that the pagan Nebuchadnezzar would use this Hebrew terminology? Not at all. He knew Daniel, so he must have been familiar with the terminology that Daniel used to praise God. Verse 36-37 36 At the same time my reason returned to me; and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven; for all his works are right and his ways are just; and those who walk in pride he is able to abase. As promised, Nebuchadnezzar’ s kingdom was returned to him and he was returned to power. In fact, he says that even more greatness was added to him. Do you think that this is how he would have expressed his increased greatness before he learned a lesson about pride? That his greatness was added to him? Added by whom?Again, the significant part of this account is that Nebuchadnezzar regained his kingdom. That proved to him and to all that his kingdom was not his because of his own power or genius. His kingdom was a gift from God – and at last he understood that. He finally knew the power of the God of the Hebrews. This is the end of the story as far as Nebuchadnezzar is concerned. Before proceeding to Chapter 5, it will be helpful to briefly consider the history that occurred between the events in these two chapters. Without any warning or explanation, the narrative leaps from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the very end (very last day!) of the Babylonian empire. Note: It is clear that a large break occurs between these two chapters. Later we will see other similar large breaks that occur without warning – but they should not come as a surprise since we now know that such breaks occur in the book. Nebuchadnezzar died in 563. He was succeeded by his son Evil– Merodach (Amel-Marduk or man of Marduk), who released Jehoiachin from prison and gave him an honorable place in the court. (2 Kings 25:27– 30) (Perhaps when you name your son ‘ Evil’ you have only yourself to blame when he turns out bad!) Two years later, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, who died 4 years later. He was succeeded by his son, who was murdered 9 months later. When the dust cleared, Nabonidus was on the throne. He apparently married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to legitimize his claim to the throne. Belshazzar, who we meet in Chapter 5, was the son of Nabonidus. The final year of the Chaldean empire was 539 BC. The ruler who takes charge of the empire is Cyrus. The ruler who takes charge of the city of Babylon is Darius. Note: Neither Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, nor Darius attempted to destroy or severely persecute the Jewish people. Unlike Revelation, courage in the face of persecution is not the point of Daniel. Instead, Daniel is more concerned with how the people of God should live in an ungodly culture and in that sense it has a more important and relevant message for us than Revelation does! "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Most High Rules In Kingdom Of Men (Daniel 4:1-37) 1. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon had a dream... a. Involving a large image with head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, legs of iron with feet of iron mixed with clay - Daniel 2:36-431) Representing four world empires 2) I.e., Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome b. In which the image was destroyed by a small stone made without hands - Daniel 2:44-451) Representing the establishment of a kingdom by the God of heaven 2) A kingdom that would never be destroyed, and would consume the other kingdoms -- Prompting the king to praise the God of Daniel - Daniel 2:47 2. In Daniel 3, Nebuchadnezzar made a large image of gold... a. He required all to worship it, under threat of death - Daniel 3:4-6b. Three young men did not, yet survived the fiery furnace - Daniel 3:23-27-- Prompting the king to bless the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego - Daniel 3:28-29 3. From Daniel 4, it appears that Nebuchadnezzar had more to learn about God... a. He knew that God was Lord of kings and a revealer of secrets - Daniel 2:47b. He knew that God can deliver His servants - Daniel 3:28-29-- But now it was time for him to learn that God, the Most High and King of heaven, rules in the kingdoms of men, including his own! [It was through a second dream and succeeding events that led Nebuchadnezzar to this conclusion. In his own words, the king of Babylon relates how it happened...] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 4:2. I thought it good gives the purpose of Nebuchadnezzar in sending the proclamation to the nations of the world. The subject of the message is the great things the nigh God had done toward him. Daniel 4:3. This verse expresses the opinion the king had of God after the events that are recorded in the rest of the chapter. He was convinced that the wonders of Him were great, and that His kingdom was destined to be an everlasting one. Daniel 4:4. With this verse begins the report of Nebuchadnezzar’ s experience that is referred to in the preceding verses. The icing was at rest which is defined In the lexicon, "to be secure,” and flourishing means to be prosperous. He seems to have been lulled into a feeling of assurance that nothing could ever happen to endanger his independence as a monarch over the whole civilized world. Daniel 4:5. It was the appearance of the things Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream that frightened him, not what it meant, for he did not know what that was. Daniel 4:6. We do not know why the king did not call Daniel at first, since he had previously shown his superiority over the wise men. Perhaps the force of habit, or his natural attachment to his own kind had its influence with him. At any rate the usual result followed the call of the Chaldeans, for they could not interpret the dream. Daniel 4:7-8. It could be that the king did not specify by his decree just who of the wise men should he called in, and that Daniel might have responded to the call to “ bring in all the wise men,” since he was thus classified by the men of the empire according to Daniel 2:13. But whatever was the situation, we are not to think of it as being on the principle of “ the last resort” for the king to call Daniel. Nothing is said about any specific call for him at all, only that at the last Daniel came. Spirit of the holy gods was Nebuchadnezzar’ s way of describing Daniel to the people of his dominions. He had formed that opinion of him at the time he explained the prob-lem of the giant man recorded in the 2nd chapter. Daniel 4:9. The king remembered this dream, not because it wras any more impressive, for it could not have been more important than the one of the giant man. But in that case the Lord wished to convince him that Daniel had superhuman knowledge, which would not have been done merely by offering an interpretation of a dream, for any man might do that and nobody could know whether it was correct. But when he recalled the king’ s dream tt proved his divine standing. That evidence was not needed in the present case, hence the Lord enabled Nebuchadnezzar to relate his dream. Daniel 4:10. Bee and behold is thought of as being the same, but the idea is that Nebuchadnezzar directed his attention to something that seemed to call for it, and what he beheld was as follows. A tree in the midst of the earth. Being situated in that way would indicate that the tree was the center of attraction amidst a vast territory. Daniel 4:11. Tree grew denotes that it became larger and therefore stronger, until it was so high that It reached into heaven, meaning It reached up Into the sky or higher air zone. The height Of the tree was so great that its top was visible to all the people of the civilized world. That denotes that the curvature of the earth was overcome and it could have harmonized with some scientific discoveries of our day. Daniel 4:12. This verse gives a descrip-tion of a fruit tree which, if taken literally, would present one that is beautiful to the sight, affords shelter from the heat by its shadow, a resting place In its boughs for the birds, a gathering place for the beasts, and food for all living creatures. We shall learn, however, that it is a figurative description of something else. Daniel 4:13, Watcher and an holy one does not mean there were two persons. The first word is from iyr which Strong defines, “ A watcher, i,e„ an angel (as guardian)." Holy one is added as an adjective for watcher, Moffatt's version renders this place, "One of the angel-guard," and this also agrees with the singular pronoun with which the next verse begins. Daniel 4:14. The king heard the watcher shout with a loud voice that the tree must be shorn of its leaves (its beauty), its branches (place of resting) cut off, its fruit (food) be scattered, be forsaken by the beasts and birds, and the body Of the tree be cut down. This would seem to be the end of the tree, but we shall see that the condition was not to be permanent. Daniel 4:15. As a rule if a tree is cut down it means the death of the plant, but that Is chiefly because the stump is exposed as a flat surface to the sun which will cause it to crack open, ad-mitting the rain and other weather conditions to penetrate further until it reaches the roots. But this stump was to be bound with a ring of brass and iron which would hold it from opening. In the tender grass indicates this stump was in a field that had plenty of moisture, and that would be favorable for the roots of the tree and tend to sustain the life until they could sprout up into new growth. This very thought is expressed in Job 14:7-9 and Isaiah 11:1. Then the spokesman switches from the stump to the person represented by the tree that had grown on it and uses a personal pronoun. This person is destined to have his portion with the beasts that feed upon this “ grass of the field." Daniel 4:16. The heart or mind of this unfortunate person was to be changed or deranged so that he would have an intellect no better than a beast. And being thus he will eat grass as they do (verse 25). This condition was to continue until seven times pass over him. Times is from sdpan which Strong defines, "a set time; technically a year.” Moffatt renders the place “ seven years," so the meaning is clear that a period of 7 years (complete number; see definition at chapter 3: 19) was to pass with above conditions. Verse 17. Watchers is plural because it refers to the “ angel-guard" mentioned in verse 13, of which the one was a member and a representative when he came down from, heaven (verse 13) to deliver the decree. Demand is from SHELA which Strong’ s lexicon defines, “ Properly a question (at law), i.e., judicial decision or mandate.” The passage gives us an interesting and beautiful thought. Everything and all creatures in existence are subject to the will of God, but it is wonderful when that subjection is conducted in the spirit of willing cooperation. As long as the angels are permitted to reside in heaven they will he thus in harmony with the wishes of their Commander-in-Chief. Knowing that He willed to demonstrate a certain great truth, this "angel-guard" (the imtchers) agreed on a demand (“ judicial decision") that one of their number (the one in verse 13) should go down to earth and carry out the decree upon the king of Babylon. That decree is so fundamental that I shall here copy It in full in order to make the connection the more impressive: “ To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest, of men.” Daniel 4:18. With the preceding verse the king completed the telling of his dream, and now be requests Daniel to give him the interpretation of it. He expresses his confidence in Daniel's ability to do what all the wise men could not do. The grounds of that confidence are that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee. Daniel 4:19. Troubled is from baiivj, which Strong defines, "To tremble inwardly (or palpitate), i.e. (figuratively) be alarmed or agitated; by implication to hasten anxiously." As- tonied is from siiamem and Strong defines it, “ To stun (or intransitively grow numb), i.e., devastate or (figuratively) stupefy." Hour is from shaah and the same lexicon defines it, “ Properly to look, i,e., a moment." With these definitions of key words the meaning of the passage is clear. The story of Nebuchadnezzar’ s dream was so unusual that for a moment Daniel was stunned with amazement. However, he soon recovered himself and spoke to the king. Let not , . . trouble thee was said to reassure the king, since Daniel had recovered from his own surprise. Dream be to them that hate thee. The enemies of Nebuchadnezzar were the ones to worry, for the dream will reveal that the king will yet be victorious over his foes. Daniel 4:20-21. This paragraph merely repeats the description of the tree as the king gave it to Daniel, and does not call for any additional com-ments. Daniel 4:22. It is thou, 0 king, la a similar expression to the one Daniel made to this same king in connection with the dream of the giant man (Daniel 2:33). But the application is somewhat different, for that included the king and his kingdom, while this pertains to the king personally. That is, his connection with the kingdom was to be affected by the events indicated in the dream. Daniel 4:23. This verse repeats the statements in verses 13-15, and watch-ers and holy one is explained with the comments on verse 17. Daniel 4:24. The description of the dream having been repeated, Daniel will next give the interpretation, which he says will be by the decree of the Most High. Daniel 4:25. They shall drive thee means the same as if it said “ thou shalt be driven," for it is worded he was driven in verse 33, This also corresponds with mine understanding returned in verse 34 which indicates that the driving was done by some condition within the king’ s own being. The conclusion is clear, that Nebuchadnezzar was driven from his throne by the strange mental affliction that God sent upon him. That was what the angel meant in verse 16 when he said, “ let a beast’ s heart be given unto him." The rest of the verse has been explained at verse 16. Daniel 4:26. They commanded has the meaning of “ it was commanded." Thy kingdom shall he sure unto thee is ex-plained by the comments at verse 22. Daniel 4:27. Having interpreted the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel con-cluded his speech with some advice regarding his conduct. Break off thy sins by righteousness is like the advice that Isaiah gave Judah in his book, chapter 1: 16, 17, “ Cease to do evil; learn to do well.” Both phrases of the passage must work together, for it is certain that nobody will learn to do well while continuing in his evil doing. Tranquility is from a word that means security and prosperity. It also has about the same sense as "rest” In verse 4. At the time Daniel stood before Nebuchadnezzar the king was in the midst of great power and peace and royal success. The prophet suggested that if he would make the reformation in hiB life as just advised, it might mean the prolonging of his tranquility. Daniel 4:28. This verse merely intro-duces the seciuei of the story. Daniel 4:29. God was very lenient and gave Nebuchadnezzar a year to change his ways but to no avail. Therefore it was time to bring the fulfillment of the dream upon the king, and the Lord chose a time th.it was especially ap-propriate. Nebuchadnezzar gave a demonstration of his chief fault (pride) as he was walking around the palace. Daniel 4:30. The greatness of Babylon was not to he questioned, for the prophet had already declared it to be so. If the king had expressed his ap-preciation for the good fortune that was his and given proper credit for it, there would have been no objetion to his admiration. The fault lay In Ilia pride and claiming that he had accomplished the great work, and that it was done in honor of his majesty. Daniel 4:31, While the word was in the king's mouth is very significant. It is a recognized principle of discipline, boih as to human beings and dumb creatures, that an act of punishment is the more eifactive if administered as near as possible to the evil for which it is a chastisement. Hence, just as the king was uttering his boastful sentence, he was interrupted by a voice from heaven with the announcement, The kingdom is departed from thee. Daniel 4:32. Beginning with verse 28 the language lias been in the third person, because the king is composing the account of his own experiences ac-cording to the announcement in the beginning of the chapter. They shall drive thee means "thou Shalt be driven,” and the announcement was repeated that was shown in the dream. Daniel 4:33. Without further delay the Lord smote Nebuchadnezzar with the strange mental derangement with the result that he was driven from men, which means that he forsook his throne and fled out into the field. He was exposed to the outdoor conditions of the weather. In course of this pe¬riod and in such a state of mind, all care of the body would naturally be neglected. This resulted in a sort of wild development which made his nails and hair become coarse. Daniel 4:34. End of the days . . . lifted up mine eyes . . . understanding returned. These phrases are written in reverse of the order in which the events occurred. It is certain that Nebuchadnezzar would not look toward heaven while the mental derangement still possessed him, And it is equally certain that God would not end the days of the punishment of the king if he were in his right mind but refused to recognize heaven; hence the order of events is as follows. When the Lord considered that Nebuchadnezzar had been punished enough He replaced the beast's heart with the normal one. Then the king was convinced of the truth by his condition of body and his remembrance of Hie past. Being thus convinced, he was penitent and looked respectfully toward heaven, when the Lord ended the period of exile from the throne. It is not necessary for the text to state that the Lord also changed the debased condition of the king's body; that is taken for granted here, but will be implied in the 36th verse. Daniel 4:35. Continuing his praise of the Most BiflA, Nebuchadnezzar de¬clared that He doeth whatsoever is according to His will, and that the inhabitants of the earth are as noth¬ing. Daniel 4:36. Reason is from the same original word as understanding in verse 34, so this is merely a repetition of that statement. However, another thought is added which is that his honor and brightness returned, and the reason for it is stated namely, for the glory of my Kingdom. Verses 15 and 26 had assured the king that his throne would be reserved for him after he had learned that “ the heavens do rule." God would not return a man to the throne of such a glorious kingdom as Babylon who was not worthy of it. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar was placed back on his til rone a changed man, both 1n body and mind and one fitted to rule over his former dominions. Daniel 4:37, The king concluded the proclamation that was made to “ all people, nations, and languages" (verse 1), and in this verse expresses the final impression that his experience left on his mind. It caused him to praise the King of heaven and to acknowledge that He is able to abase every man who is guilty of pride. This is all we will hear of the actual reign and life of Nebuchadnezzar in this book, except what will be said of him historically, referring to his reign as a thing of the past. Daniel Chapter FiveVerse 1 This chapter relates the events of the last night of the Babylonian empire. The first thing that the Christian student confronts in the study of this chapter is a barrage of assertions by critical commentators that the events here recorded are "unhistorical." This should produce no uneasiness whatever upon the part of believers. The events here reported are unassailable; and this may be viewed as the only accurate report of that final fatal night of the power of Babylon. The contradictory, inaccurate, and confusing secular records of the sixth century B.C. have, of course, been made the grounds of denying the historical accuracy of this chapter. The key fact to remember, however, is that there are numerous ancient writers who have mentioned the fall of Babylon, including: Berosus, Abydenus, Herodotus, Xenophon, and Josephus, and that, "They contradict each other!"[1] Josephus contradicts Berosus; Herodotus and Zenophon agree with Daniel in vital points; statements by Berosus and Abydenus are known to be unhistorical, etc., etc. The point of this is simply that the extra-Biblical records of events related to this chapter are an unqualified can of worms. There is no single author of that remote period who could be trusted above the simple and straightforward record we have before us in this chapter. Moreover, there has never been a single charge against the Book of Daniel that could not be paralleled by as many or more charges of inaccuracy against any other author in human history who treated the subject discussed here. Daniel is far more trustworthy than any other writer whose works have come down to us. "The historical credibility of this narrative is established, because opponents of its genuineness are not in a position to find, in behalf of their assertion that the Biblical account is fiction, any situation that can be comprehended as accounting for it in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and the times of the Maccabees."[2]The words of Young on this subject are: "The fifth chapter of Daniel, though it has often been attacked as inaccurate in its statements, is nevertheless noteworthy for its accuracy."[3] In the text we shall note a number of passages once alleged to be inaccurate which are now known to be exactly true. The summary of the chapter is: the king's insolent deed (Daniel 5:1-4); the handwriting on the wall (Daniel 5:5-9); the queen-mother's suggestion (Daniel 5:10-12); the king's request (Daniel 5:13-16); Daniel's admonition to the king (Daniel 5:17-24); Daniel's interpretation of the handwriting (Daniel 5:25-28); and the sequel (Daniel 5:29 to Daniel 6:1). Daniel 5:1-4 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar, while he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives and his concubines, drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, or iron, of wood, and of stone. The date of this remarkable banquet was the night in which Babylon fell, usually given in the history books as in 538 B.C. A Babylonian text (presumably of Herodotus) was cited by Millard, which gave the date of this event as October 12,539 B.C.[4]"Belshazzar the king ..." It was at one time the arrogant assertion of Biblical enemies that there never was any such king as Belshazzar during the final years of Babylon. Andrews was boasting as recently as in 1924 that, "The statements of the historians and the evidence of the Inscriptions make it abundantly clear that at the time of the conquest the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus."[5] He even went on to say that it is "impossible" that Belshazzar could have been king at that time. But, as has been the case so frequently, in the case of blatant and confident denials of God's Word, archeologists have excavated from the mud of Mesopotamia dramatic and undeniable proof of the Bible's accuracy. "One of the cuneiform documents expressly states that Nabonidus entrusted the kingship to Belshazzar."[6] It follows, of course, that if a man has been entrusted with the kingship and is exercising all of the authority and privileges of autocratic rule, then he should properly have been addressed as "king," exactly as in this chapter. That Nabonidus the "king's" father was still living, and that Belshazzar's true status was that of a sub-king while his father was either absent or incapacitated appears in Belshazzar's promise to make Daniel the "third ruler" in the kingdom, indicating that Belshazzar himself was the "second ruler" in the kingdom, under his father, the true king, Nabonidus. Thus the Book of Daniel fits the true facts of history perfectly. Charges are also leveled against this passage because of the reference to Nebuchadnezzar as "the father" of Belshazzar. This is no problem whatever. In the Hebrew usage of the term, the word father is often used for grandfather, as in Genesis 9:20-25, where Canaan, a grandson, is called Noah's son. Also, father is also used for ancester. Jeffery admitted that this usage of father in such a loose sense was common, but went on and called such an explanation "unsatisfactory."[7] "That this true explanation is indeed "unsatisfactory" to critics is of no concern at all to believers. Owens declared unequivocally that, "Daniel 5:2 refers to Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar's predecessor."[8]"And drank wine before the thousand ..." (Daniel 5:1). Jeffery stated that this might mean either of two things: (1) the king, by drinking first, opened the drinking phase of the banquet, or (2) that he drank before the thousand in the sense of doing so in their presence.[9] It is our opinion that the king probably did both. The critical allegation that Belshazzar's actions here "were very similar to those of Antiochus Epiphanes,"[10]is absolutely untrue. Antiochus robbed the treasury of the temple, but he did not do so for pleasure, as did Belshazzar here, but because he found himself in dire financial straits. Besides that, look at the rewards that Belshazzar heaped upon Daniel. We might go so far as to say that nothing in this passage is remotely suggestive of Antiochus Epiphanes. Frequent references to this alleged resemblance by critics is merely their device of trying to import such a likeness into the chapter. Keil and many other great scholars have exposed this error repeatedly. Belshazzar's behavior here was incredibly arrogant and sinful. To begin with, he was not actually king in the full sense of that word. "Belshazzar here had insolently and arrogantly taken to himself a higher position and authority than were rightfully his. Many elected officials of church and state have done likewise."[11]"Gobryas, Cyrus' great general, was at that very moment making his way up the bed of the Euphrates, its waters diverted by a canal, leaving the gates of Babylon unguarded."[12]The bringing of the women into the banquet hall, probably at a point in the feast when the drinking had begun, is a strong suggestion of the immorality and debauchery which usually attended such affairs. Keil tells us that both Herodotus and Xenophon confirm the fact of Babylon's fall upon the occasion of a drunken feast in Babylon.[13]Verse 5 "In the same hour came forth the 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. Then the king's countenance was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him; and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers. The king spake and said unto the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then came in all the king's wise men; but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were perplexed."THE ON THE WALL"Excavations in Babylon have uncovered a great hall more than 50 feet by 160 feet;[14] and, "Robert Kildewey's excavations at Babylon have uncovered just such a large banqueting hail with walls of white plaster."[15] This is mentioned to emphasize the minute accuracy of everything mentioned in this chapter. Therefore, there cannot be any excuse for Jeffery's comment that, "The fact that this chapter does not agree with actual history is of no importance."[16] It is our contention that such a remark is irresponsible, inadmissible, and unacceptable to a believer. The critical proposition that, "Such stories were not written to teach history, but to teach a religious lesson,"[17] and that the authors were totally unconcerned with historical accuracy is a base falsehood. It is our conviction that, at last, the critical community have totally over-reached themselves by accepting a premise so false and ridiculous. If Biblical writers tried to teach religious lessons by relating false stories, they themselves were fraudulent, dishonest, and untruthful. One cannot help wondering if Biblical critics themselves are guilty of alleging "falsehoods" in order to teach religious lessons. After all, the critical approval of such methods surely raises the question. Thus it is clear that allegations like the one just cited actually tell us far more about the critics than they tell us about the Bible. "The third ruler in the kingdom ..." (Daniel 5:7). This, of course, implied that Belshazzar himself was only the second ruler; and, "This is a mark of accuracy such as would be almost inconceivable if the Book of Daniel were a product of the 2century."[18] As Culver stated it, "No Jew of Palestine in the 2century could possibly have written a thing like this."[19]It is important to note that Belshazzar's actions were especially wicked because of the contempt he showed by his actions against the true God. The sacred vessels dedicated to the service of Jehovah and robbed out of the Temple by Babylonian conquerors were used by this arrogant and lustful king as instruments of his sensuous pleasure, while at the same time he was praising the idol gods of gold, silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone. The Jewish opinion to the effect that Belshazzar had deliberately decided to insult Jehovah because of a miscalculation on his part is quite interesting. Jeremiah had prophesied that the Jewish captivity would end in 70 years; and it is alleged that Belshazzar mistakenly calculated that the 70 years were ended, that the victory over Jehovah and his people was complete, and that it was at that time perfectly safe for him to insult and blaspheme Jehovah. Below is given the possible manner of his miscalculation: "Belshazzar figured on the basis of Jeremiah's statement that Belshazzar had been in the kingdom some 23 years at that time (though not king all of that period), that the extent of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was 45 years, and that Evil-Merodach had been king two years, thus making up the full seventy."[20]Belshazzar, however, made the same mistake some make today in counting Israel's captivity from the beginning of Israel's deportation instead of from the completion of it. "Bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers ..." (Daniel 5:7). "Once more these monumental frauds appeared. Not only did they not know God (1 Corinthians 1:21) in "their wisdom", they knew little else."[21]THE QUEEN-MOTHER'S Verse 10 "Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: the queen spake and said, O king, live forever; 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 holy gods, were found in him; and the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made him master of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and soothesayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of dark sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation."The appearance of the queen and her addressing the king without being solicited to do so attest, "...The remarkable accuracy of this chapter. In Babylonia, the queen-mother held the highest rank in the royal house."[22] The queen who appeared in this scene could not have been the king's wife, for the "wives and concubines" of the revelers were already present. Barnes gives us the name of this queen. "She was Nitocris and could not fail to have been well acquainted with the character and services of Daniel."[23] This grand lady might well have been a believer in the true God; and, as Jeffery stated, "Although gods is used in the plural form both in this place (Daniel 5:11), and in Daniel 4:8, the sense is singular."[24] One of the primary words for God in the Old Testament is [~'Elohiym], and the term is plural; but as in the case here, the meaning is singular. We have already noted that "father" in these passages might mean any one of a number of things. Culver believed that in this passage it only meant "Father in a legal sense,"[25] basing his view upon the probable fact of Belshazzar's having been "adopted" into the ruling dynasty. Other scholars appear to be certain that Belshazzar was actually a blood descendant of Nebuchadnezzar through Evil-Merodach, and therefore he was really the grandson of the famous Nebuchadnezzar. Until more is certainly known of the history of that whole period, it is a waste of time to wade through all of the guesses and theories. Verse 13 "Then was Daniel brought in before the king. The king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, who art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Judah? I have heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in thee And now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof; but they could not show the interpretation of the thing. But I have heard of thee, that thou canst give interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now, if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom."THE KING'S REQUESTThe account here is probably abbreviated. Notice that the king mentions Daniel's being of the children of the captivity of Judah. Did the king suddenly remember this, or did this information appear in the words of the queen somewhat earlier? The text does not tell us. The bankruptcy of the human family concerning any reliable knowledge of the future, or of the supernatural, is pitifully apparent in such a passage as this. Babylon was the head of the ancient world at the time of this episode; and yet its king, calling for the wisest men on earth, as they were alleged to be, found them absolutely ignorant of any information that could have been valuable to the king. But, is it any different now? The answer is NO! All that men know of the future, or of the will of Almighty God, is found in the Bible. Only within its sacred pages may one learn how the lost fellowship with our Creator may be restored and how a mortal may be rescued from the certain destruction that is coming upon all of Adam's rebellious race. As regards such verities as life and death, time and eternity, heaven and hell, life after death, the resurrection of the dead, the eternal Judgment, the eternal destiny of men, or any other of those most important problems confronting the human mind, our brilliant educators, philosophers, and intellectuals are on an absolute parity with the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothesayers of ancient Babylon. Only in the Word of God may one find the "Words of Life." Despite this, the world rushes on in the gathering shadows neglecting its only true source of that knowledge which is able to save the soul. Verse 17 "Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; nevertheless I will read the writing unto the king, and make known to him the interpretation. O thou king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty: and because of the greatness that he gave him, all the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: and he was driven from the sons of men, and his heart was made like the beasts; and his dwelling was with the wild asses; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; until he knew that the Most High God ruleth in the kingdom of men, and setteth up over it whomsoever he will. And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this, but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk wine from 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 his hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, thou hast not glorified. Then was the part of the hand sent from him, and this writing was inscribed."DANIEL'S TO THE KINGDaniel's refusal of the king's gifts has been interpreted in radically different manners. Some have seen it as an affirmation by Daniel that he would interpret the writing without regard to gifts; and others have declared that, "Daniel's speech to the king here was insulting, and if he had made such a speech he surely would have been punished."[26] We reject such a view, and also the same author's contention that the majority of this passage in Daniel 5:17-24 is an interpolation, basing that notion on the absence of most of this from the Septuagint. It is possible, however, that this abbreviated account may have lost some of its color by the omission of the formalities and stereotyped salutations that usually marked such court appearances. Regarding the gifts, Daniel later accepted them in spite of the disclaimer that stands here. Barnes' view of this passage appears to be the best. He said, "Daniel (in refusing the gifts) meant merely that, 'I do not act from hope of reward,' intimating that what he did would be done from a higher motive than a desire for reward or office."[27]Verse 25 "And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE; MENE TEKEL, U - PHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and brought it to an end.TEKEL; thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians."DANIEL'S OF THE In the interpretation, it should be noticed that Daniel read the last word as Peres, instead of U-Pharsin. The reason for this was that, "The `U' in Aramaic is a simple connective such as `and.' The `Ph' is an aspiration of `P' to accommodate the preceding vowel sound. The passage reads: `Mene, Mene, Tekel, and Peres, the Mene being repeated for emphasis.'"[28]The words could be pointed in two different directions, thus making two different meanings of the passage possible. The two meanings are (1) "a mina, a mina, a half shekel (Tekel = shekel), and half minas."[29] (2) The other meaning is that given in the passage above. Keil noted, however that "divided" in the meaning ofPERES does not mean merely, cut in two. "The word means to divide into pieces or to dissolve the kingdom."[30] We would say that it was to be shattered or smashed. Of particular interest is the announcement that the kingdom will be given to "The Medes and Persians." This cannot mean that part would be given to Medes and another part to the Persians. "The writing indicates that the Babylonian kingdom would be turned over to the Medes and Persians; here the Medes and Persians are taken to be a single unit. Also, the Medes and Persians are noted as combined in Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15."[31] This makes it positively certain that no "Median Empire" was developed between Babylon and the Greeks. Only this one government, that of the Medes and Persians, existed between Babylon and the Greeks, meaning that the Greek empire was the third, not the fourth world kingdom identified with the Great Image in Daniel 2. The meaning of those three mysterious words of this passage may be reduced to only three words in English, as follows: ; WEIGHED, and DIVIDED, or ; WEIGHED; AND SMASHED.[32] Culver preferred, COUNTED; WEIGHED, and DIVIDED.[33]"Daniel 5:28 proves conclusively that the author of Daniel believed that the successor to Babylon was a dual kingdom, including two national elements; he was not guilty of supposing that the second and third empires of Daniel 2 were the Median and Persian powers respectively. Unbelieving criticism is `hung' by this verse!"[34] Amen! Verse 29 "Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with purple, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made proclamation concerning him, that he should be made the third ruler in the kingdom."DANIEL According to the rules of courtesy in those times, it would have been improper for Daniel to have refused the honors bestowed upon him by Belshazzar; and Daniel's acceptance here of the gifts mentioned in Daniel 5:17, indicates that Daniel meant no disrespect whatever to the king in that passage. A very valuable comment on this is: "If Belshazzar was intended to represent Antiochus Epiphanes, certainly the portrait here is utterly unlike anything that we know of Antiochus. He was cruel and treacherous and would never have kept such a promise as the one which king Belshazzar here kept with reference to Daniel."[35]The whole critical conspiracy of making the Book of Daniel a product of the second century self-destructs upon a careful study of the Book of Daniel. It is not merely an erroneous theory, but an impossible one. Verse 30 "In that night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old."THE Darius did not take the Median kingdom; Darius the Mede took the kingdom for the Medo-Persians. No "Median kingdom" is in the passage. It was just like saying that Eisenhower the Texan took the presidency! or that William the Frenchman took the kingdom of England in 1066. Of course, the critics are certain that there never was such a king as Darius; and it is difficult to know just what the passage here indicates. We believe that the passage stands without any support whatever from secular history. Truth revealed in God's Word needs no outside support. Faith can wait on the ultimate answer here. Many ancient kings had more than one name; and it is possible that Darius was another name for Cyrus whom the secular historians identify as the ruler who captured Babylon. Culver concluded that Darius was a sub-king under Cyrus.[36] "Some authorities have identified Darius with Gobryas (of which the name may be a corruption), who is said to have commanded the attacking army at the siege of Babylon, and as viceroy of Cyrus to have taken over the government of the city, appointing governors, etc."[37] Either of these very plausible and reasonable solutions of the problem could be correct; but no believer need feel any embarrassment by a little problem like this. It is the truth that Darius the Mede received the kingdom! Commentary On Daniel Five by Eric HallDaniel 5In this chapter, Daniel says that Belshazzar was king of Babylon, that Belshazzar was the last Chaldean king, and that Nebuchadnezzar was his father. In fact, Nabonidus was the last king and Belshazzar was his son. Let’ s recall what we had to say in our introduction about these questions: Belshazzar was once thought to be merely a figment of Daniel’ s very active imagination. Then an inscription was found in which Belshazzar was mentioned by name and was said to have been left in charge when the Persians invaded just like Daniel 5 says happened. By the time of the Greek historian Herodotus (called the father of history), writing about 100 years later, the name of Belshazzar had been completely forgotten except for the mention in the book of Daniel. The story of Herodotus provides a good example of the bias of historians against the scripture. You have probably heard that the three big pyramids at Giza were built as tombs for Pharaoh’ s from the 4th dynasty. How do we know this? After all, no pharaoh has ever been found in one of these pyramids, and no evidence of any royal burial has ever been found. The answer is that some tour guide told Herodotus that this was the case and historians have been repeating it ever since with no other evidence. What if the Bible had said this instead? Would historians have accepted it so readily as the true explanation? I doubt it. If Daniel had been written in the second century as the liberals suggest then how did the author know about Belshazzar? To a truly unbiased historian, this mention would be enough evidence to prove the early date for the book of Daniel. But the historians in our universities are hardly unbiased. They will obtain a naturalistic answer no matter what amount of evidence they have to disregard. (I don’ t mind their bias as much as I mind their claim that the bias does not exist. I have a bias toward believing God and his word, but I also readily admit that bias.) 1: Why is Nebuchadnezzar called the father of Belshazzar four times in Daniel 5 and Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar once in that chapter when Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus? The Hebrew use of “ father” and “ son” can simply mean “ ancestor” and “ descendent.” It is possible that a genetic relationship existed between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. If Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar in order to legitimize his rule then his son by her would be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. This view is strengthened by the fact that Nabonidus named one of his sons Nebuchadnezzar. Also, an earlier king (Neriglissar) is known to have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. A second explanation is that “ by ancient usage the term son often referred to a successor in the same office whether or not there was a blood relationship.” This may have been the usage in Jeremiah 27:7. Jeremiah 27:7 All the nations shall serve him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes; then many nations and great kings shall make him their slave. 2: Why does Daniel say that Belshazzar was king of Babylon when his father was the actual king? Archaeology has shown that Nabonidus took up residence at Teman in North Arabia and left his son Belshazzar in charge of the northern frontier of the Babylonian empire. Thus, he became the de facto king of Babylon. One commentator has written: Belshazzar then, technically occupied a position subordinate to that of Nabonidus. Nevertheless, since he was the man in regal status with whom the Jews had to do, Daniel calls him king. This cannot justly be charged as an inaccuracy. Further, tablets dating from 543 B.C. have been found which imply that Belshazzar and his father were on equal footing. Daniel apparently knew what he was talking about! The radical critics argue that Belshazzar’ s authority to appoint anyone he pleased as third ruler in the kingdom in Daniel 5 indicates that he was an absolute ruler, not a sub-king. Just the opposite is true, however! Why did Belshazzar only promise the third and not the second ruler? Because he was the second and his father was the first! How would a Jew writing 400 years later have known this? One modern scholar has written: We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar, as the excavations have proved, and that Belshazzar was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538. Perhaps we already know! 3: Why not just call him the “ son of Nabonidus” since that is what he actually was? Nabonidus was a very unpopular king. This may explain why he was absent from the city of Babylon for 14 years. Also, inscriptions have been found that show Nabonidus claimed to have authority from Nebuchadnezzar to administer his kingdom. Thus, it is quite likely that his sons were required to be addressed as sons of Nebuchadnezzar to stress this connection. (Belshazzar and his mother both refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar in this chapter.) This is not unlike presidents who like to stress their connections with Lincoln, FDR, JFK, or Ronald Reagan. Verse 1-4 1 King Belshazzar made a great feast for a thousand of his lords, and drank wine in front of the thousand. 2 Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought, that the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines might drink from them. 3 Then they brought in the golden and silver vessels which had been taken out of the temple, the house of God in Jerusalem; and the king and his lords, his wives, and his concubines drank from them. 4 They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone. It was bad enough when Nebuchadnezzar looted the temple and stole the gold and silver vessels, but now Belshazzar and his friends were using them in a drunken feast while they praised their false gods and idols. What else was going on while the king was giving this feast? History tells us that this ‘ great feast’ was occurring while the Persians and Medes were camped outside of the city! Belshazzar was no doubt trying to drown his fears with this drunken feast, but as dark as things seemed they were about to get much worse. The ‘ Nabonidus Chronicle,’ which has recently been unearthed, says that Belshazzar’ s father Nabonidus had abandoned the city and fled leaving his son (and, as we will see, perhaps his own wife) to face the enemy forces alone. Looked at in this light, Belshazzar becomes a very pitiable and perhaps even sympathetic character. The ‘ Nabonidus Chronicle’ also says that the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without any battle, which as we will see is precisely the picture we get from Daniel 5. Verse 1 says that Belshazzar “ tasted the wine.”Some feel that this phrase refers to a ritual that preceded the feast in which the king tasted the wine. Others think that this is a euphemism for saying that the king was drunk – which seems to fit the context very well. If alcohol did indeed play a part in the king’ s fall, then Belshazzar would join the ranks of many kings and kingdoms that have fallen due to drunkenness – including Alexander the Great, Napoleon at Waterloo, and the French in World War II. Notice how the vessels mentioned in the first chapter (written in Hebrew) play a prominent role in this story from the fifth chapter (written in Aramaic). It is this type of evidence that causes even liberal scholars to agree that Daniel was written by a single author even though two languages were used. We might pause at this point and wonder why these temple vessels were so important. After all they themselves like the false gods of the Babylonians were just made of gold and silver. They were important because they were God’ s. They were important because God made them important – and neither Belshazzar nor we have any right to question their importance. Here is an important lesson for us: No person is in a position to tell God what is important and what is not important. Most religious division is caused by people who decide all by themselves that God couldn’ t possibly think that BLANK is important, where they fill in the BLANK with some clear command of God they don’ t want to do. ‘This is what Jesus said that is important and this is what Jesus said that is not important…’ ‘ This is the part of God’ s pattern for proper worship that is important and this is the part that is not important…’ ‘ This is the part of God’ s plan for salvation that is important and this is the part that is not…’ ‘ This is the part of what Paul said about Christian conduct that is important and this the part that is not…’ Good starting point: Everything that God has to say about anything is of the utmost importance and we should treat it that way. Verse 5-6 5 Immediately the fingers of a man’ s hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall of the king’ s palace, opposite the lampstand; and the king saw the hand as it wrote. 6 Then the king’ s color changed, and his thoughts alarmed him; his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. No trumpet blast, no earthquake, no fanfare. Just the fingers of a hand that appeared, wrote four words (2 of which were identical), and then vanished – leaving only the words on the wall. Everything stopped as the king gazed at the words. His color changed, his limbs gave way, and his knees knocked together. The ‘ color’ or ‘ countenance’ in verse 6 literally means ‘ brightness.’ That is, his bright looks, his cheerfulness, and his hilarity changed. One commentator has written: Belshazzar had as much of power and of drink withal to lead him to bid defiance to God as any ruffian under heaven; and yet when God, as it were, lifted up his finger against him, how poorly did he crouch and shiver. How did his joints loose, and his knees knock together! Verse 7-9 7 The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrologers. The king said to the wise men of Babylon, “ Whoever reads this writing, and shows me its interpretation, shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom.” 8 Then all the king’ s wise men came in, but they could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation. 9 Then King Belshazzar was greatly alarmed, and his color changed; and his lords were perplexed. Belshazzar promises to make the interpreter the third ruler in the kingdom. Why the third? Belshazzar could make someone only the third ruler, because he himself was the second ruler, and his father Nabonidus was the first ruler. It would be helpful if the liberals who see mistakes around every corner in the Bible would bother to read the Bible that they love to attack. If they did they would discover that Daniel knew Belshazzar was not the supreme ruler in Babylon. The wise men “ could not read the writing or make known to the king the interpretation.” Why couldn’ t the king’ s advsiors read and interpret this message? Many theories have been advanced to explain why the king’ s wise men could not read this message or interpret it. (Why they could not interpret it is easier to explain than why they could not read it.) 1: What language were the words written in? Many think that the words were written in Aramaic since that is the language used in Chapter 5. However, if this were the case then the wise men would have been able to read the words. Others think that the words were written in Hebrew. This would better explain the facts that we have in this chapter. The wise men might not have been able to read Hebrew, whereas Daniel certainly could have read the message. Other suggestions include the Phoenician language and an unknown language known only to Daniel. There is very little evidence for such suggestions. 2: If the language was Aramaic, then how can we explain why the wise men were unable to read it? The words may have been written using just consonants and no vowels. Thus, in interpreting the message, Daniel completed the words by filling in the appropriate vowels. Some suggest that the wise men were stricken with blindness, but the king was apparently unable to read the message as well. The Jews believe that the words were written vertically forming an anagram. If this were true then the message would be unintelligible if read horizontally. Others think only the first letters of the words may have been given, or the words may have been jumbled. The simplest explanation seems to be that the words were written in Hebrew, and Daniel was the only person around who could read Hebrew. Verse 10-12 10 The queen, because of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banqueting hall; and the queen said, “ O king, live for ever! Let not your thoughts alarm you or your color change. 11 There is in your kingdom a man in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father, made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers, 12 because an excellent spirit, knowledge, and understanding to interpret dreams, explain riddles, and solve problems were found in this Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar. Now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation.” The queen in verse 10 was probably the wife of Nabonidus, Belshazzar’ s mother, since verse 2 tells us that Belshazzar’ s ‘ wives’ were present at the feast and this queen was not at the feast, but came in when she heard the trouble. Herodotus tells us that Nabonidus’ wife was named Nitocris. Whoever this queen was, she was not at the drunken feast. This suggests that she may have been the real power here since someone was presumably worrying about the Persians who were camped outside. We have said earlier that it is quite likely that Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar to secure his claim to the throne. These verses support that claim. This queen seems to have known a lot about Daniel and his dealings with Nebuchadnezzar. This would be easy to explain if Nebuchadnezzar were her father. Notice that even the queen herself refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar. How did Belshazzar know about the temple vessels in the first place? Perhaps his mother told him about the items that her father had brought back from Jerusalem. Further, note in verse 10 that the queen entered the king’ s presence unbidden. According to Esther 4:11 she could have been put to death for this under the Persian system. Perhaps a similar system was used by the Chaldeans. The translators of the Septuagint thought so because they felt this behavior was so odd that they added the phrase ‘ The king called the queen on account of the mystery’ to explain it. But is this really that odd if this queen is Belshazzar’ s mother and the wife of the king? Again we are faced with question of why Daniel was called last and not first. Since this happens each time he is called, I am inclined to believe that God was behind it and arranged things so that it would happen this way each time. He seems to have wanted all of the other wise men to be proved incapable before Daniel was called – and this is just what happened each time. Verse 13-16 13 Then Daniel was brought in before the king. The king said to Daniel, “ You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah. 14 I have heard of you that the spirit of the holy gods is in you, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom are found in you. 15 Now the wise men, the enchanters, have been brought in before me to read this writing and make known to me its interpretation; but they could not show the interpretation of the matter. 16 But I have heard that you can give interpretations and solve problems. Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about your neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Belshazzar, apparently meeting Daniel for the first time, relays the story of what has happened and offers Daniel the same rewards as he offered the others if he can interpret the writing. (“ You are that Daniel” in verse 13 can be translated “ Are you that Daniel?” which would further suggest that the king did not know who Daniel was.) Daniel had apparently lost his power and was living in obscurity. When did he lose his power and position? No doubt he lost it when Nebuchadnezzar died. In verse 13 Belshazzar refers to ‘ the king my father.’ He is not speaking of Nabonidus but of Nebuchadnezzar. Even Belshazzar himself referred to Nebuchadnezzar as his father. It was apparently very important to Nabonidus and Belshazzar that they legitimize their rule at every opportunity. Also, by mentioning Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar gave Daniel an opportunity to give him a little history lesson, which Daniel proceeds to do.... Verse 17-24 17 Then Daniel answered before the king, “ Let your gifts be for yourself, and give your rewards to another; nevertheless I will read the writing to the king and make known to him the interpretation. 18 O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty; 19 and because of the greatness that he gave him, all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him; whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down. 20 But when his heart was lifted up and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and his glory was taken from him; 21 he was driven from among men, and his mind was made like that of a beast, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; he was fed grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, until he knew that the Most High God rules the kingdom of men, and sets over it whom he will. 22 And you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this, 23 but you have lifted up yourself against the Lord of heaven; and the vessels of his house have been brought in before you, and you and your lords, your wives, and your concubines have drunk wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which do not see or hear or know, but the God in whose hand is your breath, and whose are all your ways, you have not honored. 24 “ Then from his presence the hand was sent, and this writing was inscribed. Why did Daniel refuse the king’ s gifts? It would not have been wrong to accept them, since he had earlier accepted the gifts and favors of Nebuchadnezzar, as had his three friends on two occasions. Perhaps Daniel felt that he was too old to get back into government service, which would have been required had he assumed the position that Belshazzar offered. (However, he did serve a role in the Persian government, which took over the very next day!) The best explanation, however, may be that Daniel knew that Belshazzar’ s rule (and indeed the Chaldean kingdom) was not going to last much longer. Indeed, Belshazzar was killed that very night. As mentioned above, before Daniel interprets the message, he gives the king a history lesson. In verse 19 Daniel reminds Belshazzar that Nebuchadnezzar was an absolute sovereign. He could dispense life and death at his whim – unlike Belshazzar who seems to be much less powerful and mighty. Would Nebuchadnezzar have spent the night in a drunken feast with the enemy camped just outside the city? Daniel is telling the king: “ I knew Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was a friend of mine. You, sir, are no Nebuchadnezzar!” The “ but” in verse 20 is the turning point in the story. Nebuchadnezzar was great, but…He was filled with pride and refused to give the glory to God. As bad as Nebuchadnezzar’ s punishment was, Belshazzar’ s punishment was going to be worse. Finally, like any good history teacher, Daniel reminds the king in verse 22 that he already knew all of this but he had not learned from the past. Verse 25-28 25 And this is the writing that was inscribed: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, and PARSIN. 26 This is the interpretation of the matter: MENE, God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; 27 TEKEL, you have been weighed in the balances and found wanting; 28 PERES, your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Daniel next translates (perhaps) and interprets the four words (three different words) on the wall. Even if the king could have read the words they would have been hard to understand. Literally they mean “ Number, Number, Weight, Division.” The meaning is hardly clear. Daniel will need to tell the king what they mean. The first word ‘ MENE’ (mene) was repeated twice. This word means numbered, counted out, or measured. It meant that the years of Belshazzar’ s reign had been counted out to their very last one. Both his days and the days of his kingdom were numbered – that is, they were both coming to a swift end. The second distinct word was ‘ TEKEL’ (tekel). This word meant ‘ weighed’ and Daniel explained that Belshazzar had been weighed and found wanting. He did not measure up. The third distinct word was ‘ PARSIN.’ (The ‘ U’ in ‘ ’ in the King James Version means ‘ and.’ Thus, the final word on the wall was ‘ PARSIN.’ ) The word means ‘ to divide’ and Daniel says that Belshazzar’ s kingdom had been divided or separated from him and given instead to the Medes and the Persians who were at that time besieging the city. The ‘ divided’ or ‘ shared’ or ‘ fragmented’ may also refer to the sharing of power by the Medes and Persians. This would further discredit the liberal contention that Daniel thought a separate Median kingdom ruled before the Persians. There is a double word play at work with this word. This word also points to the word ‘ Persian,’ which means that Daniel knew that the kingdom that defeated the Chaldeans was the Persians operating with the Medes – and not the Medes all by themselves as the liberals suggest. These three words can also be translated to mean three different measures of weights. This may also explain why the king’ s advisors were unable to tell the king what the words referred to. Liberals have latched onto this and have suggested that instead of being written by God, the words were really written by a waiter at the feast who was trying to remember how much food to serve. (This would be funny if it were not so sad…) Verse 29 29 Then Belshazzar commanded, and Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold was put about his neck, and proclamation was made concerning him, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom. Belshazzar was true to his word even though Daniel had given him very bad news. He made Daniel ‘ king for day’ – literally. One might have though that Belshazzar would have had Daniel killed on the spot for his effrontery. Why didn’ t he? He may not have wanted to appear untrue to his word in front of his guests. If he had lived, Daniel might not have fared well after the guests were gone. He may also have thought that God would spare him if he bestowed his gifts on Daniel and made him his prime minister. Verse 30 That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was slain. 31 And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old. While the king and his friends had been having their drunken feast, the Medes and the Persians were camped outside. History tells us that the Medes and the Persians diverted the river Euphrates to expose a dry river bed leading into the city under the wall. The historian Xenophon in telling the story confirms several of the details that we see here in Chapter 5. He wrote that “ the whole city that night seemed to be given up to revelry.” He also said that the king was killed the night the city was taken. The historian Herodotus, writing about 80 years after these events, explained what happened on that night: Hereupon the Persians who had been left for the purpose at Babylon by the river-side, entered the stream, which had now sunk so as to reach about midway up a man’ s thigh, and thus got into the town. Had the Babylonians been apprised of what Cyrus was about, or had they noticed their danger, they would never have allowed the Persians to enter the city, but would have destroyed them utterly; for they would have made fast all the street-gates which gave upon the river, and mounting upon the walls along both sides of the stream, would so have caught the enemy as it were in a trap. But, as it was, the Persians came upon them by surprise and took the city. Owing to vast size of the place, the inhabitants of the central parts (as the residents at Babylon declare), long after the outer portions of the town were taken, knew nothing about what had chanced, but as they were engaged in a festival, continued dancing and revelling until they learnt the capture but too certainly. Verse 30 tells us that Belshazzar was killed that very night and verse 31 tells us that Darius the Mede took over after Belshazzar. Who was Darius the Mede? Recall our earlier comments on this subject: One critic (Professor H. H. Rowley of England) has written: The references to Darius the Mede in the Book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem of the book. … The claim of the Book of Daniel to be a work of history, written by a well-informed contemporary, is shattered beyond repair by this fiction of Darius the Mede. … So far as Darius the Mede is concerned, we have seen that there is no way of reconciling the Book of Daniel with assured history, and all the efforts of the apologists, of whom the present century has seen a new and plentiful crop, definitely fail. The truth of the matter is that this learned professor is dead wrong. (In fact, later work has shown that much of his supposed evidence was flawed.) Listen to what he had to say about this supposed historical inaccuracy in Daniel. Its very historical mistakes add to the fulness of its religious message to our hearts, for the God Who maketh the wrath of men to praise Him can also convert the mistakes of His servants, whose hearts are consecrated to His service, to rich use. If the book of Daniel has no historical reliability then it has no religious message at all. What does Jesus think about the historical reliability of Daniel? O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! (Luke 24:25) In any event, Darius the Mede presents no difficulty at all. Daniel never claims that the Medes conquered the Chaldeans all by themselves – in fact he said just the opposite in Daniel 6:12. Darius was a governor who was subject to Cyrus, the king. In fact, in Daniel 9:1, we read explicitly that Darius ruled the kingdom of the Chaldeans – that is, Cyrus gave him that specific newly conquered territory to govern. (Notice Daniel does not say that Darius ruled the kingdom of the Medes!) It is interesting to note that Daniel gives far more information about the personal background of Darius than he does for Belshazzar or even Nebuchadnezzar . Daniel 5:30 says that Darius was 62 when he began to reign. (This use of a very particular detail does not sound like a vague recollection about a forgotten or imagined king.) Daniel 5:30 also tells us his nationality – Darius was a Mede. Daniel 9:1 says that Darius was the son of Ahasuerus. Thus, unlike even Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel tells us the age, the nationality, and the parentage of Darius. The late-date proponents claim that: The author of Daniel believed that a Median kingdom, under Darius, conquered Babylon and subsequently gave way to the Persian empire under Cyrus. Darius the Mede never actually existed but was a confused reflection of a later Persian ruler, Darius I (Hystaspes). The four kingdoms in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 are thus Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Five reasons why this view is wrong: (1) The book of Daniel never claims that Darius was the king of Media but only that he was of Median descent. (2) The author of Daniel says that Darius and Cyrus had different ancestries (Cyrus the Persian and Darius the Mede), NOT that they ruled separate kingdoms. (3) Daniel 6:12 says that Darius was subject to the law of the Medes and Persians. If Darius ruled an independent kingdom of Media then why was he subject to the law of the Persians? (4) Daniel’ s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall in this chapter indicates that the Persians would be the main element of the empire that succeeded the Babylonians.(5) The vision in chapter 8 depicts a combined Medo-Persian empire as a single ram with two horns. The horn depicting Persia comes up last, but BEFORE the ram sets out to conquer. But couldn’ t the author of Daniel have been referring to Darius I, a later Persian king? No, for the following five reasons: 1. Darius I was Persian (a cousin of Cyrus) and not a Mede.2. Darius I was in his 20’ s when he began to reign, not 62. 3. Darius I began to reign 7 years after the death of Cyrus, whereas Darius the Mede and Cyrus were both in power when the Chaldeans were conquered. 4. In Daniel 5:31 we read that Darius received the kingdom and in Daniel 9:1 we read that he was made king. These passages imply that Darius’ power to rule came from a higher earthly authority (Cyrus). This was not true of Darius I who took control after the death of Cambyses. 5. The liberals would have us believe that Daniel was written in the second century BC and that Daniel mistakenly thought Darius I preceded Cyrus. Any such author would have been laughed to scorn. Every schoolboy of the time would have read the Greek historians and would have known that such was not the case. The Jews would never have let enter the canon a book containing such a grievous error. Just because the name ‘ Darius the Mede’ has not been found in any ancient inscriptions does not mean that he did not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The critics made similar claims about Belshazzar and archaeology later proved them wrong. (We wait in vain for their apology…) Who then was Darius? We suggested in our introductory comments that Darius the Mede was an early governor of Babylon under Cyrus. The references to Darius in Daniel do not say that he ruled the Persian empire – only that he took control of the conquered Chaldean empire. It was a well known practice of Cyrus to appoint Medes to high positions in order to foster goodwill and loyalty. Which governor was he? John Whitcomb in his book Darius the Mede wrote the following: Gubaru the Governor of Babylon fits the Biblical description of Darius the Mede so remarkably that the writer believes he will be recognized in due time as the monarch who played such an important role in the life of Daniel and the fall of Babylon. "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Hand Writing On The Wall (Daniel 5:1-31) 1. So far in our study of the book of Daniel, we have seen... a. The faith of young Daniel, who made the commitment not to defile himself - Daniel 1b. The first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, interpreted by Daniel - Daniel 21) Prophesying the rise and fall of four world empires 2) Foretelling the establishment of the kingdom of Christ c. The faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego in the face of fire - Daniel 3d. The second dream of Nebuchadnezzar and it is fulfillment, confirming that the Most High rules in the kingdom of men - Daniel 4 2. We now come to the Daniel 5, where we find an incident familiar to many... a. The event is often called: "The Hand Writing On The Wall"b. As with any Old Testament account, it was written for our admonition - cf. 1 Corinthians 10:11 [As we begin with the text, we first read of...] I. BOOZE AND IN A KING'S COURT (Daniel 5:1-4) A. , THE KING...1. The time is now about 539 B.C. a. Nebuchadnezzar had died in 562 B.C. b. He was succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach - cf. 2 Kings 25:271) After two years he was assassinated by Nergilissar, his brother-in-law 2) Who in turn died four years later (556 B.C.), leaving the throne to his infant son, Labashi-Marduk 3) Labashi-Marduk was soon deposed by a priestly revolution c. Nabonidus, a former priest under Nebuchadnezzar, was made king in 556 B.C. 1) Who was more interested in scholarly and religious pursuits 2) So he appointed his son Belshazzar as ruler of Babylon in his place d. Belshazzar therefore became co-regent in 550 B.C. 1) He was "second" in command 2) Which explains why he offered Daniel only the "third" position in the kingdom - cf. Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:293) Nebuchadnezzar is called his "father" - Daniel 5:2; Daniel 5:11; Daniel 5:13; Daniel 5:18; Daniel 5:22a) Nabodonius (Belshazzar's father) may have been Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law, and it was common to refer to one's ancestor as "father" b) Or "father" may be used figuratively 2. Belshazzar throws a big feast - Daniel 5:1-3a. Nebuchadnezzar had taken gold and silver vessels from the temple in Jerusalem - cf. 2 Chronicles 36:10b. Belshazzar adds insult to injury by using them in the feast B. THEY PRAISED THE GODS OF GOLD AND SILVER...1. The king and guests foolishly praised the creation rather than the Creator 2. Would we ever stoop so low? a. Worship the gods of silver and gold? b. Become guilty of idolatry? 3. We do if we succumb to the sin of covetousness! - Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5a. When we make mammon (material riches) our god - cf. Matthew 6:24b. When we make created things the prime focus of our time and interest [As we continue in Daniel 5, notice how quickly things change as we read of...] II. PANIC AND IN A KING'S COURT (Daniel 5:5-9) A. THE HAND WRITING ON THE WALL...1. The fingers of a man's hands appear - Daniel 5:5 a2. They write on the plaster of the wall of the king's palace - Daniel 5:5 b3. Belshazzar sees the part of the hand that wrote - Daniel 5:5 c B. THE QUAKING KING...1. In the case of King Belshazzar... a. One moment his heart is puffed up with pride b. The next moment, his knees are knocking together - Daniel 5:6-- A vivid illustration of: "Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs 16:183. All he saw was a man's hand... a. What if he had seen the face of God? b. If just a tiny manifestation of God's power had that effect, then what would be the effect of coming face to face with God? 4. What about the coming Judgment? Will we be able to stand? a. Not if we are wicked - cf. Psalms 1:5b. But we can if we have pure hearts and holy hands - cf. Psalms 24:3-5 C. THE ...1. Once again, a king appeals first to those unable to help - Daniel 5:7-92. Just as Nebuchadnezzar did in Daniel 2, 43. People often do the same thing today in times of crisis a. They go to the wrong place for help 1) Looking to their own strength or wisdom 2) Or that of other people b. When they need to trust in God first - cf. Proverbs 3:5-10; Matthew 6:33 [As we continue with the Biblical account, we read of...] III. THE ARRIVAL OF GOD'S MAN (10-16) A. THE ADVICE OF THE QUEEN...1. The queen was likely the "queen mother", for the wives were already present - Daniel 5:10-12; cf. Daniel 5:22. Note that the queen was not present at the banquet... a. Could the one who knew where to turn in time of trouble, have also known the banquet was no place for her to be? b. Those who like to party and "live it up" are usually those who are lost in despair when trouble strikes! B. DANIEL BEFORE THE ...1. Twice the king says "I have heard of you" - Daniel 5:13-16a. It sounds as though the king knew him only by reputation b. He evidently had not made much effort to know Daniel prior to this event 2. People in the world are not much different a. They make little effort to get to know the people of God b. But in times of sickness, trials, and death, where do they turn? To the church, of course -- The time to get to know God's people is before, not after! [Next comes...] IV. THE (Daniel 5:17-24) A. DANIEL REJECTS THE KING'S REWARD...1. At this point the character of Daniel really shines - Daniel 5:172. Unlike many, who teach only if given gifts (or "love offerings") 3. Daniel willingly tells the truth for free B. DANIEL A LESSON FROM HISTORY...1. The lesson from Nebuchadnezzar's second dream is recounted - Daniel 5:18-212. We would do well to learn from history a. Those who ignore history, are doomed to repeat it b. This is especially true with inspired history! C. DANIEL REBUKES THE KING...1. Belshazzar did not learn from his father's experience - Daniel 5:22-24a. He exalted himself, when he should have glorified God b. This handwriting on the wall was sent 2. When will people learn from history? a. Should we not learn from the pride of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus? b. Should we not learn from the murmuring of the Israelites in the wilderness? -- Indeed, inspired history was written for our learning! - Romans 15:4; 1 Corinthians 10:11 [Belshazzar failed to benefit from his knowledge of God's dealings with mankind, and so upon him was to come...] V. THE AND (Daniel 5:25-31) A. THE HAND WRITING ON THE WALL ...1. The meaning of: "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin" - Daniel 5:25-28a. Mene - God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it b. Tekel - You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting c. Peres (Upharsin) - Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians. 2. From the Believer's Study Bible: a. The term mene (Aram.) could be the monetary "mina," or a participle meaning "numbered." Its repetition produces the sense "thoroughly numbered." God had set limits on Belshazzar's kingdom. b. The term tekel (Aram.) could be a monetary unit corresponding to the Hebrew shekel, or a participle meaning "weighed." c. The final word upharsin (Aram.) could also be a monetary unit, a half-mina or half-shekel, or a plural participle from the verb paras, "divide," meaning "and divided." d. The message of Daniel's interpretation is that Belshazzar's kingdom had been numbered for destruction. The king himself is weighed and found wanting. The kingdom was to be taken away and given to the Medes and the Persians. B. A THIRD OF NOTHING...1. Belshazzar is true to his promise - Daniel 5:292. But as we will soon see, what he gave Daniel was a "third of nothing" This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 5:2. Whiles he tasted the trine. Belshazzar was an idolater in genera! life, but nothing indicates that this feast was at first intended to be anything but a royal banquet. But intoxication will cause a man to do things he would not do when sober. This drunken king commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels that had been taken from the temple at Jerusalem. We have no account of their having been used before this after being brought to Babylon. The text says the vessels had been taken by his father Nebuchadnezzar, because that word is used very generally in the Bible and other literature. It sometimes means any forefather; in this case it means his grandfather. Perhaps it will be well to verify the last statement by a quotation from ancient history. "LINE OF KINGS— (of Babylon) Nabapolas sar, Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodaeh, Nerigiissar, Laborosoarchod or Labos soracus, and Nabonadius the last king. He, not being of royal birth, married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (probably Neriglissar's widow), and as soon as his son by this marriage, Belshazzar (Betsharuzur), is of sufficient age, associated him on the throne.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 49. For the difference between wives and concubines see the comments on Genesis 22:21, Volume 1. Daniel 5:3. The order of Belshazzar was obeyed and the king and his company drank wine from the sacred vessels that had been taken front the Lord's service at Jerusalem. Daniel 5:4. The writer must have been greatly affected by the conduct of the king and his party. In one unbroken statement he says they <tr(mk wine and praised the gods of gold, etc. Thus an occasion that started out as a royal banquet was turned into a drunken, religious service to dumb idols that were made by human hands. Daniel 5:5. The familiar expression “ handwriting on the wall” is not technically correct, for this verse begins and ends with a distinction between the hand and its fingers. A well known commentator thinks that when the king saw the writing but could not see Him to whom the hand belonged, the invisibility of that One would heighten the “ awful impressiveness of the scene.” I will agree with that opinion, but will add that the "impressiveness" of the scene would he even more awful to see only the fingers that held the writing instrument. Such a scene would eliminate every hint of any mechanical trick of some objector to the merrymaking. Daniel 5:6. Countenance is from zrsv which Strong defines, “ cheerfulness.” The statement means that the merrymaking spirit that had been showing itself in the king’ s face was altered and he looked pale. Strong defines the original tor loins, “ vigor; the loin (as the seat of strength).’’ Webster defines the English word, "The seat of generation or procreation.” Joints is from a word that means something that binds or holds together, and In this place it refers to the muscles. So the clause the joints of his loins were loosed means that the abdominal region of his body had a feeling as if it were falling apart. The same thought is expressed in Psalms 22:14 by the words, “ My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels." This is a prophecy of Christ on the cross and the moral nature of the case is different, but it describes the mental and physical feeling that was being experienced. Smote is derived from naqaph and Strong says it means “ to knock together.” Thus we can get a mental picture of the king as he looked upon the weird performance going on over on the wall of his palace. His face turned ashy pale, the abdominal portion of hia body seemed to be all in a quiver, and his knees pounded each other. Daniel 5:7. Aloud means more than merely being audible; it is from an original that means “ with might." In addition to the physical feelings the king had by reason of the strange sight, he was perplexed because he could not even read the writing, much less understand what it meant. His common sense told him that such a demonstration had a great significance and that it concerned him since it occurred within his palace. In his fright and perplexity he shouted his orders to summon the Chaldeans and other socalled wise men. Those heathen rulers were so accustomed to relying on their soothsayers and their kind for special information that Belshazzar never thought about calling for Daniel. It was natural for him to expect his own Babylonian wise men to solve the problem that confronted him. See the comments on chapter 2: G on the subject of offering gifts to these men. They were asked to perform a double feat; read the writing and teli its meaning. Daniel 5:8. All the king's ivise men means those ordinarily employed by him and who were supposed to be “ standing by” for service whenever needed; that is why Daniel was not present at this call. As we would expect, these men could not do the king any good in his great confusion. Daniel 5:9. The failure of the king’ s wise men to read the writing affected his countenance in the same way that writing did in verse 6, but it did not seein to have the same effect on his body. Doubtless he had consulted these wise men many times and had been satisfied with their work. However, there was never a situation like the one before them now. It was similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar in some respects. The failure to recall to that monarch his dream indicated that they could not have interpreted it either. So with the wise men before Belshazzar, for if they could not even read the writing, something that was present before them and needed no future knowledge to do, it was evident they could not give the interpretation after it was read. It is no wonder, then, that the king was worried and his lords astonished. Daniel 5:10. A queen was not the king’ s wife as a rule but instead she was his mother, and the word is so rendered by various versions. See an example of this subject in 1 Kings 15:13, and it is further explained by the following from Smith’ s Bible Dictionary. “ This title is properly applied to the queenmother, since in an Oriental household it is not the wife but the mother of the master who exercises the highest authority. Strange as such an arrangement at first sight appears, it is one of the inevitable results of polygamy.” This helps to explain, also, why the queen was so well acquainted with the events in the life of Nebuchadnezzar. Being older, and also associated near the throne for many years, she would have some personal recollection of those events, and she also had access to the records of the empire, (See comments on chapter 4:1, 2.) Learning of Belshazzar's difficulty in solving the mystery about the writing, she came into his presence to console him with her information. Daniel 5:11. The queen related to the king the story of a certain man in whom was the spirit of the holy gods. For information on “ thy father” see the comments on verse 2. Master of the magicians means he was given a rank of “ chief magician,” not that he had any authority over them. The point the queen was making was the superior wisdom this particular “ magician” must have possessed for the king to give him the rank. Daniel 5:12. The most of this verse is the same description of Daniel’ s talents we have had before, but the word doubts adds an interesting feature. It is from QiiTAn and Strong defines it, “ A knot (as tied up), i.e. (figuratively) a riddle.” It means that Daniel was able to untie all “ bard knots.” Daniel 5:13. When Daniel was brought in, the king first asked him a question for the purpose of identification. The text does not state whether Daniel made any direct reply, but its silence indicates that the king understood the prophet's affirmative attitude toward the question. Daniel 5:14, As a reason for calling him into the situation, Belshazzar told the prophet of the favorable reputation that he had concerning his knowledge. Daniel 5:15, Wise men, the astrologers is very significant. All of the astrologers were considered wise men, hut there were wise men who were not asLrologers. Hence the king made the distinction as to which class of wise men had been brought in; it was the astrologers. He did this in respect for Daniel, who, though classed as a wise man (chapter 2: 13), was a higher rank than astrologers; he was one in whom was the spirit of the gods. Daniel was Informed of the failure of the astrologers. Daniel 5:16. The king repeated a part o£ the report lie had heard of Daniel, then made him a proposition. If he could read the writing AND make known its interpretation, he would receive personal gifts and other rewards. (See the comments at verse 1 for the meaning of third ruler.) Daniel 5:17. Let thy gifts he to thyself, etc. This is not to be taken to mean that Daniel thought it would be wrong to accept the gifts, for verse 29 shows he did accept them afterwards. Rewards is rendered “ fee’ in the margin which helps to describe the situation. (See comments at chapter 2: 6.) The meaning is that Daniel wanted the king to know he would tell the answer desired without regard for the reward. Daniel 5:18. Before going into the subject of the writing, Daniel related to Belshazzar the background that led up to the present crisis. The meaning of “ father" for Nebuchadnezzar is explained by a quotation from history given at verse 2. It should be noted that Daniel says God gave to Nebuchadnezzar his kingdom and his glory. Daniel 5:19. For the majesty means in view of or because of that majesty, the nations trembled and feared. The first is from zuwa which Strong defines, “ To shake (with fear); the second is from dechal and the same lexicon defines it, “ To slink, i.e. (by implication) to fear, or (causatively) be formidable,” We see these words are used in their worst or most unfavorable sense which agrees with the very next phrase, whom he would he slew. It is still to be understood that God gave to Nebuchadnezzar his great might and glory, but that does not mean that He approved of the abuses that the king made of the favors thus bestowed upon him. Daniel 5:20. The abuses were manifested by the things described in this verse. The pride of the king over his greatness was so displeasing to God that he caused the cruel monarch to be taken from his throne and he was shorn of his glory. Daniel 5:21. This verse repeats in detail what happened to Nebuchadnezzar, and it was what Daniel had prophesied should occur (chapter 4: 25), The only way that Daniel could know of its fulfillment was either by inspiration or from the word of the king himself (chapter 4: 2, 3), for it came upon him while away from the sons of men. However it was, all acounts agree and hence we know that they are true. Daniel 5:22. The general sense of the terms son and father is explained at verse 2. Though thou, knewest alt this. The kings of great empires kept records of their transactions and the people, especially men in high positions, had access to those records, Daniel knew that Belshazzar had seen the account of Nebuchadnezzar's experience. The example should have taught him a lesson but it seems to have failed. Daniel 5:23. In conducting t.he kind of feast that was being done on this night, Belshazzar was in rebellion against the Lord of heaven. The king did not need to be informed of what was actually done on that night, but Daniel enumerated the items so as to make the contrast stand out. He and his family and royal group had given praise to gods that have no intellect of any kind, but had no glory to give to Him from whom even his breath was derived. Daniel 5:24. Then, because of and at the time of this abominable conduct, God sent the part of the hand. (See the comments in verse 5 about the fingers only being seen.) Daniel 5:25. We should remember that the wise men not only were unable to interpret the writing, but they could not read it (verses 8, 15), so the first thing done was to pronounce the words. In this paragraph I shall copy the words and give Strong’ s definition from the standpoint of a lexicon. Mene. "(Chaldee), past participle of menu, numbered.” Tekel. “ (Chaldee), to balance.” Upharsin. “ (Chaldee), to split up.” Daniel 5:26. The lexicon definitions of the writing were given in the preceding verse. I shall now comment on Daniel's explanation of their significance. Numbered is derived from a word that is defined, “ To weigh out; by implication to allot or constitute officially; also to enumerate or enroll.” According to Daniel’ s interpretation it meant that the days of the Babylonian Empire had reached the number allotted to it by the Lord and the kingdom was to be declared ended. Daniel 5:27. A balance is a weighing device with a beam poised with its center on a neutral pivot. An article to be weighed is placed at one end of the beam, and a weight supposed to be equal to the article is placed at the other end. If the article is correct the beam wiil remain level or perfectly horizontal. The balance was a familiar instrument in Biblical times (1 Samuel 2:3; Job 31:6; Psalms 62:9). When a balance is used figuratively it means that a man is weighed or compared with what ia required of him and if he stands the test the "beam" will be level, and if not the balance will sink on the heavier end which will condemn the other. Belshazzar was weighed in the balances of God's character requirements but was "found wanting,” or was unable to hold the beam level. Daniel 5:28. Peres and upharsin are from the same original word. The word means to split and was a fitting one here because the Babylonian kingdom was doomed to be taken over by another kingdom that was composed of two parts, the Modes and Persians, Daniel 5:29. Belshazzar fulfilled his promise in rewarding Daniel for solving the problem. See the comments at verse 17 on the matter of Daniel's accepting these rewards. The quotation cited at verse 1 explains the meaning of third ruler. Daniel 5:30. The history above explains in what sense Belshazzar was king, Daniel 5:31. Darius the Median. As was stated at verse 28, the empire that succeeded the Babylonian was composed of the Medea and Persians, thus forming a dual monarchy. This kingdom is referred to ia various ways; sometimes by Its full title and at others as the Persian, It is occasionally mentioned by the single branch Median, which ft is in this verse. I shall copy a statement from ancient history on this subject as follows: “ After the death of Belshazzar, Darius the Mede is said in scripture to have taken the kingdom; for Cyrus, as long as his uncle lived, allowed him a joint title with him in the empire, although it was all gained by his own valour, and out of deference to him yielded him the first place of honor in it. But the whole power of the army, and the chief conduct of ail affairs being still in his hands, he only was looked on as the supreme governor of the empire, which he liad erected; and therefore there is no notice at all taken of Darius in the Canon of Ptolemy, but immediately after the death of Belshazzar (who Is there called Nabo nadius), Cyrus is placed as the next successor, as in truth and reality he was; the other having no more than the name and the shadow of the sovereignty, excepting only in Media, which was his own proper dominion."— Pri deaux’ s Connexion, Book 1, Part 2, Year 538. Verse 30 merely states that Belshazzar was slain on the night of this feast, but nothing is said about what was going on near and inside the city. The lengthy quotation from history on that interesting subject may be found in connection witli Isaiah 13:7-8 in Volume 3 of this Commentary. Daniel Chapter SixVerse 1 In this chapter we have the famed story of Daniel in the lion's den. The events of this chapter occurred at the beginning of the reign of Darius the Mede who preceded Cyrus as king of the Medo-Persian empire. The fact that profane history has no record of this Darius the Mede has, of course, led to all kinds of irresponsible and inaccurate allegations by Biblical critics. The two great errors current in such criticisms are (1) that this Darius was Darius Hystaspes, a supposition which would make the account in Daniel a gross error, and (2) the notion that the writer of Daniel here thought that a Median empire preceded the Persian empire. Neither allegation is true. Based on the sacred record, "This Median Darius was a son of Ahasuerus (Daniel 9:1), of the seed of the Medes; and according to Daniel 11:1, the angel Gabriel stood by him in his first year."[1] This would suggest that Gabriel was the mighty angel who prevented injury to Daniel in the lion's den. This he would have done not in his own authority, but as an instrument of God. Now concerning the whole question of whether or not the Darius of this chapter is a historical person or not, many volumes have been written; and our purpose here is not to explore the multiple facets of this question. Our own view is that this Darius the Mede was none other than Cyrus' great general Gobryas who actually captured Babylon and held the government for a couple or three years until Cyrus the real king could take over the government. During that period, Darius would have held full authority as king and would have been so addressed and honored by the citizens of Babylon. Our reasons for this preference are: (1) The resemblance in the names. The name Darius might easily have been a corruption of Gobryas, the names having the same number of syllables, and the "y" or `T' sound accented in the penult in both. Also, the fact of different languages being involved increases this possibility. (2) What is definitely known of Gobryas fits what the Bible says of Darius in this chapter. "From Cyrus' annalistic tablet we know that he appointed his general Gobryas to be governor of Babylon, and that Gobryas set up sub-governors.[2] The mention of 120 satrapies in this chapter appears unreasonable to the critics; but the record defies their criticism. There were no less than 127 subdivisions of this same empire in the days of Esther (Esther 1:1); and besides, as Jeffery noted, "The Jews used the word `satrap' in a wider sense than it had in official Persian usage."[3](3) Ptolemy's Canon gave the reign of Cyrus the Perisan who succeeded Nabonidus (and Belshazzar) as nine years; and Xenophon referred to the reign of Cyrus as seven years.[4] The assumption is that the first two years of the nine credited to Cyrus were actually the reign of Darius. "The supposition that Darius reigned two years over Babylon is correct."[5](4) The Babylonian kingdom was destroyed sixty-eight years after the commencement of the Exile. The seventy years of the Exile were completed in the first year of the reign of Cyrus (2 Chronicles 36:22 f; Ezra 1:1), therefore Cyrus became king two years after the overthrow of Babylon. Darius the Mede was king during the other two years. (Keil develops this carefully). (5) A gold coin called the Daric has been excavated from Babylon, and it must be identified with an older Darius than Darius Hystaspes, most likely the Darius the Mede of Daniel.[6](6) There is even the possibility that Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian (Daniel 6:29) were one and the same person. It might be that the man had two titles. Wiseman suggested that we should translate Daniel 6:28 thus, "In the reign of Darius, even in the reign of Cyrus the Persian."[7] Independently of any such scholarly postulation as that of Wiseman, this writer was impressed by that same possibility, suggested by the very proximity of the two names in Daniel 6:28. "We do know that it was common for kings in those days to have two or more names."[8](7) There is also an enigmatic passage in the profane writer Abydenus' writings which was preserved by Eusebius: "Cyrus, after he had taken possession of Babylon, appointed him margrave of the country of Carmania. Darius the king removed him out of the land."[9] This is almost certainly a reference to Darius the Mede of this chapter. Despite our preference for the identification of Gobryas as the Darius of this chapter, there are other postulations just as reasonable. Keil, for example cited the possibility that Darius was actually Cyaxerxes, whom Cyrus visited following the fall of Babylon, and who gave Cyrus his daughter for wife. Cyrus enthroned him in Babylon for a two-year period. Keil favord this explanation, and it might be correct. In any case, it is no longer possible for critics to scream "unhistorical" when this character is mentioned. It is true, of course, that practically nothing is known of him, except what is written in this chapter, but the muddled and confused affairs of both the Medes and the Persians of that distant time make it perfectly reasonable that a short inter-regnum kingship like that of Darius would have been completely passed over by the profane histories of the period. "Therefore, the absence of all notice by Berosus, Herodotus, Ctesias, etc., can furnish no substantial ground"[10] for denying the historical facts of this chapter. Young believed that, "It is possible that Darius was some hitherto unknown figure who may have been entrusted with the kingship by Cyrus."[11] However, in the same paragraph, Young mentioned that: John C. Whitcomb (Darius the Mede, 1959), distinguishes Gubaru from Gobryas of the Behistun Inscription and holds that he and Darius are identical.[12]Our own view is that every line of the Bible is truly historical, and superior in every way to all profane writings. As Culver remarked, "The language of Dan 5:31 and Daniel 9:1 requires us to believe that Darius was sub-king under Cyrus who was king of the whole Medo-Persian empire."[13]The chapter divisions are: the new king is pleased with Daniel (Daniel 6:1-4); his fellow officers, through envy and jealousy, plot to destroy Daniel (Daniel 6:5-9); Daniel ignores the decree which the king signed (Daniel 6:11-15); Daniel is cast into the den of lions (Daniel 6:16-18); the king early the next day discovers that Daniel is unhurt (Daniel 6:19-23); Daniel's accusers and their families are cast to the lions (Daniel 6:24); Darius publishes a decree legitimizing the Jewish religion (Daniel 6:25-27); and Daniel prospers in the reign of Darius and Cyrus (Daniel 6:28). Daniel 6:1-3"It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, who should be throughout the whole kingdom; and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one; that these satraps might give account unto them, and that the king should have no damage. Then this Daniel was distinguished above the presidents and the satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm."DANIEL'S FAVOR WITH THE NEW KINGThe profane writers exhibit the most radical differences in the number of satraps Babylonian kings are said to have appointed. Xenophon stated that Cyrus appointed six over the whole realm; Herodotus said that Darius Hystaspes divided the country into twenty satrapies; other historians mention twenty-four and twenty-nine; Xerxes had 127 provinces (Esther 1:1); later in the Grecian period, there were seventy-two of these; and Josephus even claimed that there were 120 satraps for each of the three presidents, making 360 in all! Keil discusses all of this at length. We only mention this here to suggest that before the critics can criticize the number of satraps mentioned here, they should first straighten out all the profane historians on the same subject. The big point in this passage is the ability and consequent popularity of Daniel with the new king Darius. Darius was even considering the appointment of Daniel as prime minister over the whole of his realm. When Daniel's peers learned of this, they were filled with envy and jealousy and immediately laid a trap which they hoped would lead to his destruction. "That the king should have no damage ..." "The repetition of the word `king' might imply that Darius was not the king whose loss of revenue was to be guarded against."[14] This of course would reflect the relative positions of the sub-king Darius over Babylon and of Cyrus the great king over the whole empire. It is of interest here that there is no mention of Darius having appointed Daniel as one of the three presidents; and Keil suggested that, "We may only conclude that Darius merely confirmed Daniel in the office to which Belshazzar had appointed him."[15]The mention of the age of Darius (Daniel 5:31) as sixty-two years "is the only mention of the age of a Gentile accession to a throne in all canonical records; this was probably the age of Cyrus' general Gobryas when the Babylonian kingdom fell in 539 B.C."[16]Verse 4 "Then the presidents and the satraps sought to Find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion nor fault, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Then these presidents and satraps assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live forever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the satraps, the counselors and the governors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a strong interdict, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the interdict."THE PLOT TO DESTROY DANIELAlthough the language here might be construed as meaning that all of the persons mentioned, the presidents, satraps, counselors, etc., were consulted, such was manifestly not the case. Daniel had not been consulted. Furthermore, it is exceedingly likely that the accusers of Daniel were quite a limited number. All of the show of unanimity here was merely window dressing to induce the king to go along with the plot. Poor old weak and unskilled Darius was an easy prey for that kind of intrigue. All of this account is absolutely reasonable and fully in keeping with the inevitable situation that always typified the kind of despotism that was fashionable in antiquity. Biblical enemies never overlook anything, no matter how trivial, as a possible grounds for complaint; and therefore it is not surprising that some would allege a disunity in Daniel on the grounds that "the fiery furnace" was the means of execution in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, while here it is "the lions' den!" Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was Chaldean, however; and the kingdom here is that of the Medes and Persians. "The Persians, being Zoroastrians, held fire to be sacred. Hence for them it would have been improper to cremate or execute by fire."[17]"All the presidents of the kingdom ..." (Daniel 6:7)." This passage does not imply that all of the satraps, counselors, etc. were engaged in the conspiracy, but that they were all present on that occasion. Their presence as a company was due to their having been convened by the presidents (without Daniel); and the claim that all of that host had been consulted and that they had all agreed that the proposed edict should be signed was an unqualified lie. Daniel had not be consulted. Furthermore, "The Aramaic text does not indicate how many came into the presence of the king; and the Septuagint (LXX) indicates that only the other two governors (presidents) were involved."[18] If that was indeed the case, then it is likewise possible that only those two, along with their families, were cast into the lions' den. "It was the other two presidents and the satraps ... who came before the king; but they claimed to speak in the name of all classes of government."[19]"Which altereth not ..." This aspect of Medo-Persian law also appeared in the edict against the Jews, as contrived by Haman (Esther 1:19; Esther 8:8). It was, of course, a stupid and unreasonable conceit which thus interpreted their laws; and some commentators have tried to soften it. Adam Clarke, for example, thought that the irreversible aspect of their laws extended only for the first thirty days.[20] This appears to be erroneous. "The laws remained unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honored as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change."[21]Critics, ever eager to discover some flaw, have alleged that such a decree was so foolish and unreasonable that it should be viewed as a fabrication by some author who made up this tale in Daniel to support "a religious truth!" This view is totally in error. Jeffery, however, is correct in stating that, "There is nothing inherently absurd in the idea of such a decree. An ancient Sumerian king might well have issued one ... a Japanese emperor at the end of the 16th century issued a somewhat similar edict![22]Another unreasonable worthless criticism is that of Owens who declared that, "The idea of keeping a lion in a pit would only be used by a writer unfamiliar with lions outside of the pages of literature."[23] The implication of such a canard is that, of course, the narrative here is an invention by someone, certainly not Daniel! The truth is that no scholar could make a complaint like that who was familiar with either the excavations of ancient Babylon or with the Word of God. The Sacred Scriptures make reference to the den of lions in the Book of Nahum; and the garden walls, as well as the avenues of approach to the palace in ancient Babylon were all beautifully decorated with magnificent bas-relief lions done in turquoise, gold, and yellow colors. The basis of the critical assault on this part of Daniel is their mistranslation of the lions' den, reading it as "cistern" or "pit." The translators of all acceptable versions of God's Word reject such renditions. We do not have any detailed description of just exactly how ancient lions' dens were constructed; and the total ignorance of the critical community on the same subject is grounds enough for rejecting their ridiculous criticisms. The citizens of ancient Babylon probably knew more about how to use lions for their national purposes than any other government of human history. The conceit that one can take the sketchy references to the lions' den in this chapter, blow them up out of context to postulate an entire engineer's drawing of how lions' dens were made, and then to use that fabrication as a criticism of what is written here ... that is a measure of the critic's bias against the Verse 10 "And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house (now his windows were open in his chamber toward Jerusalem); and he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime. Then these men assembled together, and found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God. Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king's interdict, that every man that shall make petition unto any god or man within thirty days, save unto thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, who is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the interdict which thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day. Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to rescue him. Then these men assembled together unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians, that no interdict nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed."DANIEL TO BE What a feeling of exultation must have come to the conspirators against Daniel at such a complete success of their diabolical plot. They had calculated everything perfectly (so they thought). The king, unaware of their hatred and of their evil purpose had signed the decree. True to what they knew would happen, Daniel went on in the faithful exercise of his holy religion without regard to human legislation. They were able to catch Daniel "in the act." Daniel did not even bother to deny the charges. The king was caught in the cruel vice of his own stupid law; and these enemies of Daniel must have thought at that juncture of affairs that they had everything under control. They overlooked the will of God, which is a universal characteristic of all wicked men. WINDOWS OPEN TOWARD "Windows open toward Jerusalem ..." (Daniel 6:10). "This habit of praying toward a particular point has been maintained till this day by the Mohammedans who pray in the direction of Mecca."[24]This writer feels a certain appreciation of this text, which was the basis of a sermon delivered in the Sixteenth and Decatur Streets Church in Washington, D.C. in January of 1953, attended that morning by Major General Charles I. Carpenter, Chief of the Armed Services Board of Chaplains, for the United States of America. As a result of the General's strong approval of that sermon, he extended an invitation for this writer to spend three months in the Far East as a guest of the U.S. Military, conducting Preaching Missions throughout the Far East. Later a plan was worked out to allow a vast expansion of the number of ministers from Churches of Christ privileged to participate in the chaplaincy programs of the U.S. Military. OUTLINEIntroduction A. Daniel's attitude: 1. Was not one of defiance (he did not kneel outdoors). 2. Was not one of cowardice (he did not hide). 3. He continued in his normal pattern. B. As he did aforetime: 1. A man's habits are the key to his destiny. 2. It is always what one is in the habit of doing that determines the course of his actions. I. Daniel had his windows opened toward Jerusalem: A. Not open toward Babylon. B. Not opened toward the king's palace. C. But open toward Jerusalem, from whence the Word of God came. D. Similarly people today should refuse to open the windows of their souls toward Paris (for fashions), or toward Moscow (for politics), or toward New York (for financial news), or toward Washington (for governmental support), etc. E. But let them open the windows of their souls to Jerusalem, to the word of the Lord, which alone is able to save the soul. II. Daniel was faithful: A. Without regard to personal enemies, B. Without regard to human legislation, C. Without regard to personal danger, D. Without regard to impending death. III. Daniel's faith was rewarded: A. God heard his prayer and answered it. B. His enemies saw his faithfulness. C. The king reluctantly executed the penalty. D. The king rejoiced when Daniel was safe. IV. The purpose of God was advanced gloriously by Daniel's rescue. A. The king's edict B. It guaranteed for Israel their religious freedom for yet awhile. C. This was a key episode in the rescue of Israel from their second captivity (the first was in Egypt). "Three times a day ..." (Daniel 6:10) Andrews gave the hours of prayer as, "the time of the morning burnt offering, the ninth hour (which was 3 p.m.), and at sunset."[25] The same writer also stated that the Jews frequently spoke of praying "before God," instead of praying "to God." The Talmud instructed that the Jews in foreign lands pray toward Jerusalem, and that persons in Jerusalem should pray toward the temple.[26]Commenting on the true purpose behind the ridiculous law which Daniel, in conscience, violated by his prayers three times a day, Keil pointed out that, "The fundamental principle of heathenism is that the king is the son, the representative, the living manifestation of the peoples' gods."[27] However, it could not have been any concern for the protection of the peoples' religious systems that prompted the presidents who initiated the movement for the law passed in this situation. The prime motivation was the desire to destroy Daniel; and all the rest of the campaign in favor of the law was pure hypocrisy. The evil strategy of Daniel's enemies (probably the two colleagues of his in the presidency) appears in a number of particulars. (1) They first rehearsed the terms of the new law and procured the king's agreement that it was indeed an irrevocable statute. (2) In their charge against Daniel, they left off any mention that he was one of the presidents, saying only that he was "of the children of the captivity of Judah," a despised foreigner, of course. (3) Thomson suggested that, "The subordinate position of Darius, occupying the place of king of Babylon only for a season, instead of Cyrus, would have made it very difficult for Darius to override any constitutional maxim."[28] The king was indeed effectively trapped by his own evil law. Of course, he should have violated that law at whatever cost to himself. "Not to break a wicked promise is not firmness; it is guilty obstinacy."[29] This writer has known parents who were pressured into signing up with some church to rear their children in a certain faith, and who, upon learning "a more excellent way" of serving the Lord, nevertheless honored their prior wicked commitment by observing it. In such cases, the keeping of a wicked promise is more dishonorable than the breaking of it. "Interdict and statute are mentioned together in Daniel 6:17 as if they were two documents, as is more clearly visible in Daniel 6:9. The style of rhetoric here is called "hendiadys." This is a device in which "two words are used to express the same idea as a single word with a qualifier."[30] There was only one document in view here, whether called a writing, a statute, or an interdict. Verse 16 "Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee. And 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 nothing might be changed concerning Daniel. Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting, neither were instruments of music brought before him: and his sleep fled from him."DANIEL CAST IN THE LIONS' DENAny man, trapped and frustrated by his own words and deeds, is to be pitied; and Darius spent an agonizing night, no doubt realizing just what a fool his unscrupulous lords had made of him. On the other hand, they must have enjoyed a banquet of feasting and rejoicing. However, there was to be a sequel to this event which none of them could have foreseen. "A stone was brought ... etc." (Daniel 6:17). The critical picture which is imported into the text here, alleging that this "den" was a little tiny cistern with a bottle top entrance that could be easily covered up with a single stone is ridiculous. The lions were kept in commodious quarters and were fed at regular intervals and occasionally released to provide quarry in a hunt in which the king participated. No one knows exactly the dimensions, or the arrangements of those "dens." The word "cistern" is a critical perversion of the text for the purpose of rendering it ridiculous. No reputable version of the Bible thus translates the word. "Instruments of music ..." Alternative renditions of this word are "dancing girls" or "concubines" or "tables for food." The king wanted none of the usual treatment, but he was in terrible distress and anxiety on behalf of Daniel whom he had been compelled reluctantly to condemn to death. Verse 19 "Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions. And when he came near unto the den to Daniel, he cried with a lamentable voice; the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions? Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live forever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me; forasmuch as before him innocence was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. Then was the king exceeding glad, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he had trusted in his God."THE KING FINDS DANIEL UNHURT THE NEXT MORNING"Forasmuch as before him innocency was found ..." The innocency here is in no sense absolute; and as Jamieson noted, "Therefore this passage does not justify Rome's doctrine of works meriting salvation."[31]"God hath sent his angel ..." (Daniel 6:22). Even in the current dispensation of God's grace, it is stated that angels are "ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for them that shall inherit salvation" (Hebrews 1:14). Serving the interests of God's people is thus one of seven different functions set forth in the Bible as performed by angels. All seven are: (1) in the general sense, as here; (2) to watch over little children (Matthew 18:10); (3) to bear away the souls of the righteous in death (Luke 16:22); (4) to execute the punitive judgments of God upon the incorrigibly wicked (Acts 12:23); (5) to aid providentially in bringing sinners to hear the gospel of Christ (Acts 8:3); (6) to excercise influence over human rulers and princes as in the case of Persia (Daniel 10:20); and (7) to hold open forever the "Word of God" until the dispensation is ended (Revelation 10). Verse 24 "Then the king commanded, and they brought those men that had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces, before they came to the bottom of the den."DANIEL'S ENEMIES Critics have interpreted "the accusers of Daniel" here as meaning all of the 120 satraps, the presidents, the counselors, the governors, and the deputies, and then have alleged that the lions' eating up that many people before they ever hit the bottom of the "den" is a monstrous absurdity; but the only real absurdity is the allegation of the critics. As Keil put it: "Those critics who thus spake have themselves fabricated the idea of throwing 122 men with their wives and children into the lions' den ... this they have done, trying to make the account absurd; but the text states no number of the condemned."[32]We have already noted that in all probability, only the two presidential colleagues of Daniel were the actual accusers of the prophet and that, accordingly, only those two with their wives and children were executed. It is extremely interesting that Josephus has supplemented the information here with a number of observations which sound much like the truth, although of course Josephus' words never carry the authority of Scripture. "Now when his enemies saw that Daniel suffered nothing, they would not allow that he was saved by God's providence; but they said the lions had been well fed before Daniel was cast in, and that the lions were not hungry. Therefore the king commanded that the lions should be fed a great deal of flesh; and when they had filled themselves, the king ordered Daniel's enemies to be cast in, to learn if they would touch them or not. The lions spared them not but tore them in pieces, so the king knew that it was God who had spared Daniel."[33]Verse 25 "Then king Darius wrote unto all the peoples, nations, and languages, that dwelt in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you. I make a decree, that in all the dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel; for he is the living God, and stedfast forever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed; and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions."DARIUS' DECREE DANIEL'S GODThe overwhelming proof of the wonders reported in Daniel is inherent in one tremendously important historical certainty, namely, that Israel did indeed return, after a full seventy years, from their Babylonian captivity and were again settled in the land of Palestine, where they rebuilt the temple and the walls of Jerusalem. Now that undeniable fact proves that the wonders here recorded actually occurred. Otherwise, Israel would never have returned. This marvelous decree published by Darius was very similar to the edict of Nebuchadnezzar subsequent to God's delivery of the faithful three from the fiery furnace; indeed it used some of the very terminology of that prior edict. The acute need for this very type of encouragement and protection of God's people was far more than sufficient grounds for God's intervention here in order to bring about the full achievement of his purpose of redemption for mankind. Biblical wonders must always be understood in their relation to the universal, worldwide purpose of God's redemptive intention for Adam's race. Most scholars agree that Darius did not become a monotheist by this experience. What he apparently did was to accept God as indeed the greatest of the gods, but not as the one and only true God. SUMMARYDan_6:28, So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. See the chapter introduction for a discussion of the historical difficult of these two names. One possible reading of this verse was given by Millard thus: "The reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian."[34] It is of course true that ancient kings often had more than one name; and this reading of the passage is not as far-fetched as some might think. One of these days, the whole truth about these two names may be excavated from the mud of ancient Babylon; and when this is done, the Bible will, as always, be completely supported and proved to be correct. In the meanwhile, the Bible needs no such support or corroboration from pagan sources. Commentary On Daniel Six by Eric HallDaniel 6 Verse 1-3 1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; 2 and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. 3 Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom. Cyrus was king of the Persians, and Darius was his governor. The “ kingdom” over which Darius ruled was thus the old Chaldean kingdom that Cyrus had just conquered. This was the kingdom that Daniel has been concerned with so far, and he continues to refer to it as “ the kingdom.” Darius’ first responsibility was to appoint administrators over his newly won territory. He appoints 120 satraps and 3 commissioners of which Daniel becomes the chairman. Edwin M. Yamauchi, in his book Persia and the Bible, wrote that “ the satrap was in charge of all aspects of provincial rule. He levied the funds necessary for his administration and provided troops for the king.” Daniel’ s character and integrity are such that Darius plans to make him his prime minister. If Darius answered only to Cyrus, then Daniel would have become third in power, which is what the late Belshazzar had promised him! Why did Darius think so highly of Daniel? 1. Daniel had a good reputation. 2. He had recently made a very successful prediction concerning Belshazzar. 3. Daniel was not a Chaldean, but he was very familiar with their system. 4. Daniel was experienced. (He was at least 83 years old at this time! Most drawings showing Daniel in the lion’ s den picture a much younger man, but he was actually in his 80’ s.) 4 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom; but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. As with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, jealousy again rears its ugly head. Those who are jealous and envious of Daniel seek to bring him down. Nothing they could possibly do could bring Daniel down one inch. They could lie about him and effect the opinion of other men, but they could do nothing to change God’ s opinion of Daniel – and that is the only opinion that really matters. We need to remember this, particularly when faced with false accusations. God knows the truth and he will never be fooled by a false accusation. These envious men could find no fault with Daniel. They could find nothing bad to say about him. What would they do next? They decide to lie to the king and get him to pass a law that would trap Daniel. This is not the only place in scripture where this occurs. Jesus, also, was delivered up because of envy and he also faced false accusers. In Proverbs 6:17– 19 God lists seven things that he hates. Proverbs 6:17-19 There are six things which the Lord hates, seven which are an abomination to him: 17 haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, 19 a false witness who breathes out lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. How many of these actions were these envious men guilty of? All seven! Not only do we see jealousy and envy at work here, but we see racism as well. Just like the Chaldeans had earlier, the Medes and the Persians looked down on the Jews as being inferior because of their captivity. Again, we need to see things the way that God sees them. Not only were the Jews not inferior, but they were the stars of this show! Note also that although racism played a part in this story, the Jews were much better off under Cyrus. As he did with many other captive people, he let the Jews return to their homeland. Ezra 1:1-4 In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing: 2 "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel – he is the God who is in Jerusalem; 4 and let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God which is in Jerusalem." This proclamation may have already been issued at this time. Remember what Isaiah had to say about Cyrus by name – before he was born and 150 years before he began to rule! Isaiah 45:1-4 Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and ungird the loins of kings, to open doors before him that gates may not be closed: 2 "I will go before you and level the mountains, I will break in pieces the doors of bronze and cut asunder the bars of iron, 3 I will give you the treasures of darkness and the hoards in secret places, that you may know that it is I, the Lord, the God of Israel, who call you by your name. 4 For the sake of my servant Jacob, and Israel my chosen, I call you by your name, I surname you, though you do not know me. Verse 5 5 Then these men said, “ We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.” What a compliment! Do people see us this way? If people wanted something bad to say about us, would they find it? We need to make sure that our accusers are not true accusers! These accusers knew that to succeed they would have to put Daniel in a position where he would have to choose between obedience to God and obedience to the government. While this may be true of us, does the world know that it is true? Daniel’ s life was such that these men knew he would choose God when forced to make a choice. Are our lives such that the world knows that we too will choose God when forced to make a choice? Do we choose God when we are forced to make a choice between God and the world? Problem: Persia had no law against monotheism. Solution: They would come up with a law that would look merely political to Darius, but would pose a religious issue for Daniel. Verse 6-9 6 Then these presidents and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “ O King Darius, live for ever! 7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an interdict, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the interdict and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.” 9 Therefore King Darius signed the document and interdict. These envious accusers show up in a group to work their plan. Notice how this type of person also seems to travel in a pack! Darius should have noticed that Daniel was not present, but as we will soon see, Darius was completely unsuspecting. He did not know that these men were out to deprive the king of his most trusted advisor. The Proposed Law: For one month, all petitions and all prayers in the realm may be directed toward Darius only. Those who disobeyed would be cast into a den of lions. Why did Darius agree with this suggestion? 1. It was a very flattering suggestion. 2. It reinforced the idea that the empire was now under new management. It would help unify the kingdom under Darius and Cyrus. 3. It was a reasonable time limit. What harm could it cause to impose this seemingly modest requirement for only 30 days? 4. Darius was under the impression that Daniel had agreed to this plan. (Verse 7 says all the presidents of the kingdom had agreed to the plan when in fact they had not.) 5. Whereas the sanction was severe, Darius no doubt thought that it would not be needed. Who could possibly fail to follow this simple 30 day requirement? Why were offenders to be cast into a den of lions instead of into a fiery furnace? The Persians used fire in their religious ceremonies and thus would not have cast anyone into fire as a form of punishment. Edwin M. Yamauchi has written the following in this regard: (Persia and the Bible, pp. 401 and 447.) But it is especially to fire and water that they offer sacrifice. To fire they offer sacrifice by adding dry wood without the bark and by placing fat on top of it; and then they pour oil upon it and light it below, not blowing with their breath, but fanning it; and those who blow the fire with their breath or put anything dead or filthy upon it are put to death. [quote from Strabo] Fire stands at the center of the Zoroastrian cult; no ceremony can take place without fire being present. [quoting Eckehard Kulke] If Daniel were written by a second century Jew living in Palestine as some suggest, then how did such an author know about such a subtle difference between the Chaldean and Persian methods of execution? (This is the same author who they say was so badly mistaken about the well known history of the time.) Verse 10 10 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem; and he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. Note that verse 10 tells us plainly that Daniel at some point learned that the document had been signed. Thus, whatever he does next is not done in ignorance of the decree. He knows the new law and he knows the penalty for breaking it. Daniel’ s prayers had been his lifeline all these years under the corrupting Babylonian influences. What would he do now? 1. He could compromise and simply not pray for one month. (For many of us this would hardly be noticed!) From the world’ s standpoint this would be reasonable and prudent. This plan would have several advantages. First, it would be the most peaceful plan. Nobody would get upset. But Daniel knew that peace at any price was too costly if the price turned out to be disobedience to God. Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. The truth always creates a division. Some accept it and some do not. Jesus was often accused of creating division – and he never denied the charge. Second, this plan would allow Daniel to follow the path of least resistance. It would be the easy way out. But Daniel knew that the path of least resistance never intersected the path of righteousness. In fact, for Daniel, the path of righteousness was the path of most resistance! Daniel could not simply do nothing and hope for the best. He knew like James that: James 4:17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. Daniel had to act. To do nothing would have been a sin. 2. He could have gone underground and prayed silently or at night when no one could see him. Sadly, many seem to have adopted this plan ourselves. God, however, has never put out a call for secret agents. We must speak out and let the world know where we stand. If we are on God’ s side then we must let the world know. This plan might appear to be the best of both worlds. Daniel could please both God and man by just praying silently. Wrong! It is not possible to please God if at the same time you are trying equally hard to please men. Galatians 1:10 Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. Sometimes it is easy to just ignore what we might consider the “ little” compromises. But the little things are training for the big things! Jeremiah 12:5 If you have raced with men on foot, and they have wearied you, how will you compete with horses? And if in a safe land you fall down, how will you do in the jungle of the Jordan? The time to take a stand against the world is early before it gets a foothold because once it gets a foothold it may be too late. 3. He could have rationalized. Just think how much good he could do if he stayed in power. He had just gotten his power back after being without it for so long. God wouldn’ t want him to loose it again so quickly, would he? We too are faced with choices every day. Remember what Joshua told the people in Joshua 24. Joshua 24:14-15 "Now therefore fear the Lord, and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness; put away the gods which your fathers served beyond the River, and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. 15 And if you be unwilling to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." I think that we often follow the advice of that great philosopher Yogi Berra who once said “ When you come to a fork in the road, take it!” But we cannot do that. We must make a choice. Deuteronomy 30:19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live. God has given us a choice, and God is begging us to choose life. We must choose whose side we are on, and once we do that all of our other decisions will be easy. Should we compromise with the world or should we do what we know is right and stand with God? Listen to Paul’ s answer: Ephesians 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. Isn’ t this exactly what Daniel did? Not only did he did not take part in the wicked plan, but he exposed the wicked plan. 4. He could concern himself with pleasing God instead of pleasing men and not worry about the consequences – and that is exactly what he did. The decision was easy. In fact, there was no decision to make. Daniel had made the decision to follow God long ago, and whether he was 13 or 83, he would not compromise with the world. What a wonderful example of faithfulness and loyalty to God! Why did Daniel pray toward Jerusalem? 1 Kings 8:10– 11 tells us that God’ s presence resided in the temple. 1 Kings 8:10-11 And when the priests came out of the holy place, a cloud filled the house of the Lord, 11 so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord filled the house of the Lord. While Ezekiel 11:23 tells us that this presence left prior to the destruction of the city in 587, Ezekiel 43:2 tells us that God promised to return – and in fact Cyrus’ order to rebuild the city had probably already been given. Ezekiel 11:23 And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city. Ezekiel 43:2 And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the east; and the sound of his coming was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with his glory. What was Daniel praying for? In Daniel 9:1– 2 we will discover that since Darius had begun to reign Daniel had been reading Jeremiah with regard to the 70 year period of exile. Daniel 9:1-2 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by birth a Mede, who became king over the realm of the Chaldeans – 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years which, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years. Thus Daniel knew it was time for his people to return from their exile and indeed many may have already returned. Thus, the returning captives may have been the primary item on Daniel’ s prayer list, and he could hardly stop praying for them now that they needed his prayers the most. Verse 11-12 Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and supplication before his God. 12 Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the interdict, “ O king! Did you not sign an interdict, that any man who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?” The king answered, “ The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.” This group waited around for Daniel to pray, and then went and reported to Darius as soon as he did. Notice in verse 12 the word “ you.” Suddenly this law has become the king’ s idea! Darius is reminded of his decree. Darius remembers and also points out that the law of the Medes and Persians cannot be revoked. This passage provides absolute proof that Daniel did not believe that a separate Median kingdom conquered the Chaldeans prior to the Persian kingdom under Cyrus. The late-date hypothesis that the second kingdom is Media and the third kingdom is Persia is shown to be ill-founded. Daniel treats Media and Persia as a unified kingdom – which historians tell us is what they were. Why couldn’ t the law be changed or revoked? Having a law that stood even above the despot was a very politically sophisticated system of government. Although we take it for granted, it was quite rare at the time. Although we can only speculate about the reason for this system, this same requirement provided the drama in the book of Esther after the decree went out to kill the Jews. (See Esther 1:19 and 8:8.) History tells us that it also played a role during the reign of Darius III who ruled from 336 to 331. It is said that he put a man to death who he knew was innocent because “ it was not possible to undo what had been done by royal authority.” We are about to watch God as he changes and revokes a law that cannot be changed or revoked! Verse 13-14 13 Then they answered before the king, “ That Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no heed to you, O king, or the interdict you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.” 14 Then the king, when he heard these words, was much distressed, and set his mind to deliver Daniel; and he labored till the sun went down to rescue him. The charge made against Daniel is similar to the charge made against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Daniel 3:12. Daniel 3:12 There are certain Jews whom you have appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These men, O king, pay no heed to you; they do not serve your gods or worship the golden image which you have set up." This was a false charge. Daniel did pay heed to the king. He just did not give his ultimate loyalty to the king – that belonged to God. Darius’ response is not what the conspirators had hoped for! When the real reason for the decree finally dawned on him, he became greatly distressed. He had been duped by Daniel’ s enemies, and I am sure he now regretted not having discussed the matter with Daniel personally. He no doubt respected Daniel for his loyalty to his God, and he tried to save his life. But there was nothing he could do. Providing Daniel with armor, or feeding the lions ahead of time would have undermined the law of the Medes and the Persians. A miracle was Daniel’ s only hope. How did Darius know so much about God? He may have learned from Cyrus. Read Ezra 1:2 again. Ezra 1:2 "Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Cyrus seems to have known a lot about God! Perhaps he told Darius about God as well. Darius, at least, would have been familiar with the decree found in the book of Ezra. He may have heard about God from Daniel. We already know that Daniel had become a very trusted advisor. It would seem unlikely that Daniel had never talked to Darius about God. Verse 15-17 15 Then these men came by agreement to the king, and said to the king, “ Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or ordinance which the king establishes can be changed.” 16 Then the king commanded, and Daniel was brought and cast into the den of lions. The king said to Daniel, “ May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” 17 And 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 nothing might be changed concerning Daniel. Darius is again reminded of his decree, and finally he resigns himself to carrying it out. Still concerned, however, he goes with Daniel to the pit, and Daniel is thrown into the pit. (Recall that Daniel was at least 83 years old at this time.) Darius calls out to Daniel hoping that God would deliver him. (We often talk about the faith of Daniel, but the faith of Darius is impressive as well!) The pit is closed and sealed by Darius and the others who are present. Seals of this sort have been found. They consist of a cylinder that is rolled across a clay tablet. Why was the pit sealed? Darius may have been concerned that Daniel’ s enemies might decide to give the lions a little help. Verse 18-20 18 Then the king went to his palace, and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him. 19 Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 When he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish and said to Daniel, “ O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” The king returned to the palace very troubled. Darius and Pilate share some similarities. Both were forced by circumstances against their will to put someone to death who did not deserve it. However, Darius seems to have been much more concerned about his decision than Pilate was. Darius certainly never washed his hands of Daniel’ s blood. The king ate no food, enjoyed no entertainment, and could not sleep. As soon as it was light, he ran to the pit to check on Daniel. Do you think the conspirators may have been worried by the king’ s behavior? They should have been! I think they were starting to sweat. Darius refers to Daniel as the servant of the living God. To Darius, this test would determine whether or not Daniel’ s God was living. Verse 21-22 21 Then Daniel said to the king, “ O king, live for ever! 22 My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.” Can you imagine the king’ s relief when Daniel answered! Daniel calls out and tells the king that God had sent an angel to shut the mouths of the lions. He also reminds the king that this was proof of his innocence. But was he innocent? He had violated the law of the land. God, however, declared him innocent. God does not recognize as valid any law that contradicts his own. Every nation and king answers to God. He is the only supreme ruler. These verses may give us a clue as to who the fourth person was with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. Recall Daniel 3:25.Daniel 3:25 He answered, "But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods." Here Daniel was delivered by an angel. This seems the most likely explanation for the deliverer in Chapter 3 as well. Again, we should note that this was a miracle. As I mentioned before, there are many who deny the miracles in the Bible and try to explain them away. Their strained attempts to believe the Bible yet remove the miracles it contains would be laughable if they were not so sad. Listen carefully to what John Crossan had to say about the resurrection of Lazarus in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. …while I do not think this event ever did or could happen, I think it is absolutely true. Let me explan.... This quote is then followed by pages of mumbo-jumbo and double speak. How would he respond to the following questions? Do you believe that the resurrection of Lazarus is absolutely true? (He would say yes.) Do you believe that the resurrection of Lazarus ever did or ever could happen? (He would say no.) Keep this example in mind when you try to pin a liberal down about what he believes!! They are very skilled at using language intended to deceive. Verse 23 23 Then the king was exceedingly glad, and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of hurt was found upon him, because he had trusted in his God. Darius brings Daniel out and looks him over. Not a scratch is found on him. “ And no hurt was found upon him…” because Daniel was so powerful? No. because Daniel was so charismatic? No. because Daniel was so popular? No. because Daniel was so wealthy? No. because Daniel was so smart? No. because Daniel trusted in God? Yes! Daniel was delivered because Daniel was faithful to God. Indeed, he takes his place in the roll call of faith we find in Hebrews 11. Hebrews 11:32-34 And what more shall I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets – 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions, 34 quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. Daniel is a wonderful example of someone who absolutely refused to compromise with the world and instead remained loyal and true to God despite the earthly consequences. Verse 24 24 And the king commanded, and those men who had accused Daniel were brought and cast into the den of lions— they, their children, and their wives; and before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces. Without any trial or hearing, Darius has Daniel’ s accusers and their families paraded past Daniel and thrown into the pit. They were killed before they reached the bottom of the pit. (These lions seem to have been in a foul mood for some reason. Perhaps because they had been forced to just stare at their dinner all night…) And Daniel’ s reaction? He did not object. God has said that he will judge – and we should not get in the way when he does! What was their crime? They had lied to the king. They had tried to deprive the king of his most trusted advsior. While Darius’ actions may seem arbitrary and unjust to us, we must keep in mind that ancient despots did not generally follow the law of Moses! Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Indeed, even the Jews did not always follow the law of Moses. 2 Kings 10:11 tells us that Jehu killed everyone in the house of Ahab in Jezreel. Why were their families killed as well? Probably to minimize the chance of revenge. Darius wanted a secure prime minister. Verse 25-27 25 Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: “ Peace be multiplied to you. 26 I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring for ever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end. 27 He delivers and rescues, he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, he who has saved Daniel from the power of the lions.” Darius makes a public proclamation as Nebuchadnezzar had done in Daniel 3:29 and 4:34. It was clear to all that God was alive and that he worked in history to bring about justice and the welfare of his people. Indeed, while this was going on, his people were as promised returning to the Holy Land under Zerubbabel. Verse 28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Daniel’ s usefulness to the king continued and he prospered as he had during the days of Nebuchadnezzar. This verse does not imply that Cyrus followed Darius as some suggest that it does. Instead it states (correctly) that Darius and Cyrus ruled simultaneously. He also continued to pray and study his Bible. The visions in Chapters 10– 12 were given to him during the third year of Cyrus. The book was probably written shortly after these visions were revealed, which perhaps puts its date around 532 (about 7 years after the Persians took over in 539). "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" Daniel In The Lions' Den (Daniel 6:1-28) 1. The faith of Daniel has been an inspiration to many young people... a. Due to his faith as a young man, when only 15-17 years old b. In which he purposed in his heart not to defile himself - Daniel 1:8 2. Daniel should also be an inspiration to elderly people... a. As an example of service and commitment in our "golden years" b. For we can also read of his faith as old man, perhaps in his mid-eighties [The account of elder Daniel's faith is found in Daniel 6:1-28, involving an incident commonly referred to as "Daniel In The Lion's Den". The story is certainly worthy of our careful consideration, and so we begin our study by reading verse one...] I. THE TRAP IS SET (Daniel 6:1-9) A. DANIEL IS ...1. He is appointed one of three governors over the kingdom - Daniel 6:1-2a. The kingdom may be Babylon (Chaldea), recently conquered by the Medo-Persian empire - Daniel 5:30-31b. The identity of Darius the Mede is uncertain, possibly a man known as Gubara appointed by Cyrus of Persia to rule Chaldea 2. Daniel "distinguished" himself above the others - Daniel 6:3a. His success was due to his "excellent spirit", not cunning or political maneuvering b. Proving one can be successful in business and politics without compromising character c. Darius contemplates setting Daniel over the whole realm B. DANIEL IS ENVIED...1. His success leads to envy by others - Daniel 6:4a. Even the most godly men can have their enemies (e.g., David, Christ) b. Enemies by virtue of jealousy 2. His noble character is attested to by his enemies - Daniel 6:4a. They could make no charge against him, finding no fault or error in him b. Because he was "faithful" (i.e., trustworthy, dependable) 3. His enemies determine there is only one way to defeat him - Daniel 6:5a. To find some conflict between the law of God and that of the land b. Which they then set out to do C. DANIEL IS ...1. The king is approached by Daniel's enemies - Daniel 6:62. They propose a royal statute, a firm decree - Daniel 6:7a. That no petition can be made of any god or man for thirty days, except the king b. Under punishment of being cast into the den of lions 3. The king is encouraged to establish the decree - Daniel 6:8-9a. Which according to the law of the Medes and Persians, cannot be altered b. King Darius signs the decree [Daniel's faith in God brought him success up to this point. But now the exercise of his faith could cause him to lose it all! What would we have done in his place? As we continue to read, we see what Daniel did...] II. THE TRAP IS SPRUNG (Daniel 6:10-17) A. DANIEL TO PRAY...1. Knowing full well that the decree had been signed - Daniel 6:102. Practicing a custom common among the Jews - Daniel 6:10a. Praying three times a day - cf. Psalms 55:17b. Praying toward Jerusalem - cf. 1 Kings 8:27-30c. Praying on his knees (a common posture for prayer) - cf. 1 Kings 8:54d. Praying with thankfulness to God, even in times of trouble - cf. Philippians 4:63. His own custom since "early days" - Daniel 6:10a. Though great and powerful, fervent prayer was not beneath him b. Though aged, he had not grown weary of prayer B. DANIEL IS CAUGHT...1. His enemies catch Daniel praying - Daniel 6:112. His enemies report Daniel to the king - Daniel 6:12-13a. Reminding Darius of the unalterable decree b. Accusing Daniel of disregarding the king and his decree 3. The king is forced to abide by his own decree - Daniel 6:14-15a. Displeased with himself, the king tries to deliver Daniel b. Daniel's enemies pressure the king to abide by his decree C. DANIEL IS THROWN INTO THE LIONS' DEN...1. Yet the king is hopeful - Daniel 6:16a. That Daniel's God will deliver him b. Whom Daniel had served "continually" -- Would he have had such hope if Daniel was sporadic in his service to God? 2. The den is closed with a stone and sealed - Daniel 6:17a. Sealed with the signet ring of the king and his lords b. Ensuring that the purpose concerning Daniel would not be changed [It appears Daniel's enemies have won. He is in the lions' den and it is sealed. Yet could any "seal" by man ever keep God from accomplishing His plans (don't forget the "sealed" tomb! - cf. Matthew 27:62-66)? And so we read how...] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 6:2. These princes were more official than ttie word generally means. It is derived from a word that Strong defines, "Of Persian derivation; a satrap or governor of a main province of Persia,” These men were to manage the affairs as they pertained to the business matters, on behalf of the king, and over them were placed three men called presidents to whom they were to report their work. This was all done as an organization to see that the king would not suffer any damage or loss of any kind, Daniel was one of the three presidents and the statement is that he was first, which will prove to be very significant later on in our story. Daniel 6:3. Was preferred means that Daniel distinguished himself by his superior talents, and the writer of the text accounts for it by saying that an excellent spirit was in him. This was naturally brought to the attention of Darius and it made a favorable impression on him. The king had already delegated most of the business cares to the 120 princes, and now he was thinking of setting Daniel over the whole realm which means to give him a ruling authority that would have made him superior to the other presidents as well as to the princes. Daniel 6:4. Envy is a terrible spirit and will lead men to commit great crimes. The favorable position which Daniel acquired filled the other presidents and princes with this evil spirit and they began to plot against him. They wished to get him into trouble by some kind of disagreement or rebellion against the government. But Daniel was a lawabiding subject so that no statute could be found that he was violating. Daniel 6:5, These envious men admitted among themselves that no charge could be cited in connection with any of the existing laws. The only chance was to do something that would bring him into conflict through liiB religion. To do so it was necessary to have some specific statute which they knew would interfere with bis religious practice; something that could be reported as an actual performance. To do this they took notice that one of his regular religious performances was to open the windows of his room that faced in the direction of Jerusalem, and there upon his knees three times daily to pray to God, That furnished them the subject for their wicked plot. Daniel 6:6. With their envious motive in their wicked hearts they came before the king. They introduced themselves with the familiar salutation, King Darius, live far ever. Such a salutation was sometimes uttered out of genuine respect for a dignitary without any selfish motive prompting it. In the present case, however, we know it was for the purpose of getting the king into a favorable attitude toward them and hence it was said tn flattery. Daniel 6:7. There would not seem to be anything wrong with the proposition on first hearing it, only an overture for the purpose of showing honor to the king. Yet a little thought should have at least raised the suspicion of Darius. Why limit the decree to thirty days? If there was any good reason for limiting all petitions, that they should be addressed to the king only, that reason would continue after the period named. Another thing, the proposed decree made no specification as to whether the petitions involved pertained to religion or temporal matters. Had any such distinction been made it might have at least aroused the curiosity of the king and the plot been exposed, so they chose to word it with this indefinite form so as to give it the impression of a movement Just for his honor. Daniel was accustomed to praying daily and hence thirty days may seem to be longer than necessary. But sickness or some other unavoidable circumstance could interrupt his devotions for a few days. Also, something might intervene in their own personal affairs that would make it uncertain to specify a shorter period. So the time allotted would be enough to cover all of these possible emergencies. These men evidently understood the principle of government that requires a law to have a penalty in order to be effective, hence they suggested that one be attached and even named the penalty they wished to be used. Daniel 6:8. Sign the writing, That it be not changed. The Persians had the foolish notion that when their king signed a decree it made it so sacred that it could not be repealed or changed even by the king himself. Had the king merely authorized the decree, there might have been some Haw discovered and it could have been set aside. That is why these abominable men induced him to put his signature io the document. The later conduct Of Darius proves that he would have repealed the decree had he not signed it, which act took the law out of his hands for ever. Daniel 6:9. The writing pertained to the body of the document which stipulated what the people were prohibited from doing, and the decree was the paragraph that was to place it in the class of enactments that could never be repealed, and Darius signed all. Daniel 6:10. When Daniel knew might be taken to mean that Daniel went to his house to pray just because he learned of the edict, and that he did it for spite. His whole life and character would forbid such a conclusion. Besides that, the verse concludes with the words as he did aforetime. This shows that he did not make any change in his practices just because of this edict. In truth, it was evidently their witnessing that pructice that caused the men to bring about that particular kind of degree. But the phrase means as if it said, "though Daniel knew," or "notwithstanding that Daniel knew." The point is that Daniel was not intimidated out of his regular service to God by hearing the persecuting edict of the king. Daniel 6:11. The men would naturally be expected to spy on Daniel to be able to report as witnesses of his conduct to the king. Daniel 6:12. Their speech to the king was that of a group of hypocrites. They pretended to he shocked and surprised at what they had discovered. But it might be well to remind Darius in the form of a question of the decree he had made and signed. It might have a more active effect upon him to have the edict brought fresh to his mind, and to have him verify it verbally before them. Daniel 6:13. Every statement these men made in this verse was true, but was uttered with a vicious motive and without regard for the context. It was true that Daniel ignored the decree of the king, but it was not because he did not respect temporal and royal government as they wished to imply. Instead, it was because the decree would hinder his religious service to God, and it has always been taught in the scripture that if a human law conflicts with the law of God. the servants of righteousness should "obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). Daniel 6:14. The king realized he had been entrapped into something he would not have done had he known what these men were plotting. He had no Ut feeling against Daniel but was displeased with himself. Labored . . . to deliver him. We are not told what the king did in his “ labor," whether he was acting the part of an unscrupulous lawyer and trying to find some technical loophole, or thought perhaps that it he would not be in too much of a burry in putting the edict into execution, something, somehow, might turn up that would release Daniel. Daniel 6:15. Unlike the decree concerning the image set up by Nebuchadnezzar (chapter 3: 6, 15), nothing was said in this one about the hour at which Us violation was to be punished. The delay of Darius in executing it seemed to cause the men to become uneasy lest he fail for some reason. Therefore they assembled before him and reminded him of the unobange ableness of the decree which he had signed. Daniel 6:16, Being thus goaded by these men, the king was Impelled, against his personal inclination, into carrying out the wicked decree. As the prophet was being thrust Into the den the king commended him to his &od whom, thou servest continually. Whether "the wish was father of the thought," or he was malting a challenge of the issue I do not know. However, whatever the expectations of the king were, we may truly consider It a test, both of Daniel’ s faith and of the might or his God. Daniel 6:17. A stone was brought and laid upon the mouth, not at the mouth or door. That language is appropriate because the den was a pit dug oat in the ground. The stone was sealed with the king’ s own signet, which was a ring equipped with an engraving for making a stamp such as a notary uses today. That sealing had nothing to do with the coniinement of Daniel, but protected the place against outside interference. Daniel 6:18. The whole circumstance was grievous to Darius, for he thought well of Daniel, and had realized that he was the victim of a plot caused by the envy of the lords and princes. The king passed a very restless night. Musick has no separate word in the original, but the phrase instruments of musick Is from and the most that Strong says of it by way of definition is, “ probably a musical instrument (aa being struck)," and he says it is equivalent to another original word that he defines, “ a primitive root; to push down." Young says the word is of "uncertain meaning,” Mof fatt renders the word for instruments of musick by "dancing girls,” and a footnote in the American Standard Version gives the same rendering. Another work of reference renders it “ concubines.” Prom the foregoing information we can get a reasonably clear picture of the situation. Darius was an idolater, also was a weak, pleasureloving king. Under less serious circumstances a man unabie to sleep would pass the time in the indulgence of his appetites and passions. But the wakefulness of Darius was caused by a grief so profound that be had no desire for “ wine and women.” Daniel 6:19. After a sleepless night the king arose and went to the den. When one is forced to go through a night without sleep from physical causes, the morning usually finds him in a very disturbed frame of mind; how much more so when it has been caused by a feeling of guilt. The entire nervous system of Darius was shattered with remorse. Daniel 6:20. He approached the den with mingled feelings, torn between hope and despair. The record of Daniel’ s life was evidently known somewhat to the king, which would tend to give him hope that he would be miraculoualy protected. And yet he was net certain that Daniel's God would see fit In this case to intervene. Lamentable is from atsab and Strong's definition is, "to afflict.” The meaning of the passage is that Dorious cried with a voice that expressed his affliction in both mind and body. We may condense the heartrending cry to “ 0 Daniel, has thy God seen fit to preserve thee?” Daniel 6:21, I have no words fully to describe the suspense in which the king must have hung after uttering the foregoing, wailing cry. He could scarcely wait long enough for Daniel to respond should he be still alive, for seconds would seem like minutes or hours. And yet, even a seemingly long silence would not be quite enough time; perhaps when a reasonable pause has passed the prisoner will speak. And again my words fail me in trying to describe (he joyous relief the king must have felt when he heard the brief but respectful salutation, O king live for ever. No tinge of bitterness or resentment, but the same attitude of respect for his earthly master be had always shown. Daniel 6:22. In a candid but respectful manner Daniel explained to his king that his God had preserved him. He then accounted for the miraculous escape from the lions' mouths. He had been innocent in the sight of his God, and also had done no hurt to his king. That word is defined as "crime” in Strong's lexicon, which proves to us that Daniel was justified in his use of the word. It is true that he had disobeyed the decree of the king, but it was one that he had signed without any knowledge of the circumstances. Since Darius would not have signed the edict had he known the facts, the act of Daniel in continuing what had been his practice ail along without any disapproval of the king, constituted no deed that injured the dignity of his sovereign. Daniel 6:23. We are sure that whatever show of gladness the king made because of Daniel's preservation was sincere. Not only was he preserved but he was not injured in any way. The word hurt in this verse means bodily damage. It is the writer who says that Daniel escaped all damage because he believed in his God. Daniel 6:24. In the ordinary sense of accuse it means to charge one with something wrong. It is a stronger word In the present case and means "to eat or consume.” The thought is that the men desired to have Daniel destroyed by being eaten by the lions. Instead of sueb a fate happening to the prophet it came upon the accusers. The,ir children and their wives were thrown into the den with them. The reason for casting these people into the den is clarified by a statement of Josephus, Antiquities, Book 10, Chapter 11, Section 6, as follows: "Now when his enemies saw that Daniel had suffered nothing which was terrible, they would not own that he was preserved by God and by his providence; but they said, that the lions had been filled full with food, and on that account it was, as they supposed, that the lions would not touch Daniel, nor come to him, and this they alleged to the king; but the king, out of an abhorrence of their wickedness, gave order that they should throw in a great deal of flesh to the lions; and when they had filled themselves, he gave further order that Daniel’ s enemies should be cast into the den that he might learn whether the lions, now they were full, would touch them or not; and it appeared plain to Darius, after the princes had been cast to the wild beasts, that it was God who preserved Daniel, for the Hons spared none of them, but tore them all to pieces, as if they had been very hungry, and wanted food. I suppose, therefore, it was not their hunger, which had been a litile before satisfied with abundance of flesh, but the wickedness of these men that provoked them to destroy the princes. For if it so pleased God, that wickedness might by even those irrational creatures, be esteemed a plain foundation for their punishment.” No doubt these wicked enemies of Daniel thought they had a sufficient explanation of his preservation in claiming that the beasts had been previously fed to their full. Whether Darius seriously considered their suggestion we have no way of knowing. But it was a fair test for these accusers to have the lions fed under the king's orders before offering them these human bodies. If being filled before caused them to ignore the body of Daniel (as these men had claimed), then the same condition should work that way again. Or ever means "before ever” they reached the bottom of the cave or den. The beasts were so vicious towards these people, even though they had (heir stomachs filled with fresh meat, that they lunged up and seized them before they had a chance to alight. Daniel 6:25. The world empires were made up of all people, nations, and languages of the civilized world, hence a proclamation such as the king wished to be made would be sa addressed in order to reach and affect all the subjects of his realm. Daniel 6:26. Every dominion of my kingdom is explained by the comments on the preceding verse. Religion was a sLate affair with the ancient empires, hence it was in line with the rule for Darius to make the requirement set forth in this decree, though the Lord did not depend on the worldly governments to stipulate the form of worship that was to be offered to Him. The king made a specific mention of his reasons for issuing the decree which were true and very respectful, Daniel 6:27. The king continued his general remarks about the greatness of "the God of Daniel," but he did not stop with generalities; he cited the case of Daniel's deliverance from the power of the lions. Daniel 6:28. Strong defines prospered as, “ A primitive root; to push forward, in various senses (literally or figuratively, transitively or intransitively).” Cyrus is called the Persian because the Darius named in the same connection was a Mede. The Persians also had kings with that name but they will come into the history of the empire after the events of this hook. This verse is intended as a general statement covering the span of time that Daniel and his work as a prophet had recognition before the rulers of the world. Daniel Chapter SevenVerse 1 Practically all scholars, whether liberal or conservative, are convinced that the prophecy of this chapter follows the same pattern as that in Daniel 2, and that the "four beasts" appearing here are to be identified with the four parts of the great image with the head of gold which appeared in Daniel 2. This means also that the same critical errors alleged in their interpretations of Daniel 2 are repeated in this chapter, where against all reason, and opposed to the plainest facts, critical enemies of the Bible insist on identifying the fourth of the world empires prophesied here as that of the Greeks and Macedonians under Alexander the Great. The greatest minds of human history, as well as many of the intellectual giants of our own millennium, have unanimously and invariably identified the "four beasts" of this chapter as Babylon, Medo-Persia, the Greeks, and the empire of the Romans. Note the following: "The traditional theory is that the fourth empire is the Roman."[1]"The common Jewish belief much earlier than the fourth century was that the fourth empire was the Roman."[2]"The Fourth Book of Esdras (dated near the beginning of the Christian era) describes the Roman power as an eagle and expressly identifies the Roman empire as the fourth beast of Daniel."[3]The apostle John, as we found in our studies of the Revelation, did not hesitate to identify the beast with the ten horns as Rome. "The apocalypse of Baruch which was written about 60 B.C. expressly designates Rome as the fourth beast of Daniel."[4]The Bible teaches that the kingdom of God was to be established in the days of the "fourth beast"; and that of course was during the times of the Roman empire. Trying to force the interpretation that Alexander's kingdom was the fourth beast reduces the prophecy to an absurdity. "The interpretation commonly received in the church (throughout history) is that these four kingdoms (or beasts) are the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman. On this opinion, Martin Luther wrote, 'All the world are agreed, and history and fact abundantly establish it.'"[5]"Sir Isaac Newton stated that the fourth beast is undoubtedly that of the Roman empire and devoted an entire chapter to his exposition of how the little horn rooted out three of the ten horns."[6]From the above, it is absolutely clear that when this prophecy is approached intellectually, the traditional and we believe authentic understanding of the prophecy is absolutely valid. The greatest minds of two millenniums could hardly be wrong about what the language says and means. Besides, anyone who will put his mind to the task of discerning what is meant by the words of these chapters (Daniel 2 and Daniel 7) cannot fall to discern the truth. How then does it come about that the near-unanimous opinion of critical scholars today shifts from the true interpretation? It is very important that this be properly understood. The a priori bias of the critical schools today which deny the supernatural, reject any such thing as predictive prophecy, reject all ideas of the miraculous, do not believe in the inspiration of Bible writers, and in fact reject every major premise of Christianity, including all of its fundamentals such as the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment - this bias, this necessity which they have taken upon themselves to deny everything in the Bible that contradicts their godless prior assumptions forces them to deny a book like Daniel. Keil stated that the true understanding of Daniel prevailed until about the end of the last century; but when faith in the supernatural origin and character of Biblical prophecy was shaken by Deism and Rationalism, the prophecy of the Roman Empire under the figure of the fourth best was denied. On what grounds? Here is the logic (?). Since there is no such thing as predictive prophecy, the author of Daniel could not have prophesied anything that he had not seen and witnessed; and, since the very earliest that they dared to allege the date of Daniel had to be placed subsequent to what is prophesied, they misinterpreted clear and undeniable references to the Roman Empire as being references to the empire of Alexander! Then they arbitrarily, and against all evidence and all reason, moved the date of Daniel to the times of the Maccabees (about 165 B.C.). This meant, of course, that Daniel could not have written the book. The whole fraudulent position of critical enemies of the Bible is apparent in such shenanigans as that! Furthermore, look at the writings of the whole fraternity of the Bible enemies; there is not an original idea in all of them put together. They are all parroting the same outdated, exploded, disproved and ridiculous arguments that were first advocated a hundred years ago. We are willing to admit this: if one is willing to give up all hope, reject the claims of the Christian religion, and enter upon a sensuous unbelieving existence apart from God and without hope in the world, these critical enemies of God's Word are exactly the crutch that he needs. Any truth in their evil postulations? Certainly not. Daniel 7:1"In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream and told the sum of the matters.""This dream and the visions were special, divinely-imposed revelations from God, as the rest of the chapter shows? We are here dealing, not with an ordinary dream of Daniel, but with a revelation from God. Some of the inscriptions excavated from Babylon indicate that Nabonidus was actually king, leading to charges that this contradicts the Biblical account where Belshazzar is seen as the king when the nation fells But, as Thomson said, "We now know that for five years during the nominal reign of his father Nabonidus, Belshazzar was acting as king."[9] This solves the difficulty. Verse 2 "Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and behold the four winds of heaven brake forth upon the great sea.""The four winds of heaven here ..." are cosmic forces of the greatest extent. Involved are the rise of populations and human systems and developments pertaining to all the people of the earth. The "great sea" here is not the Mediterranean sea, but the oceans of population upon earth. Just as we have in Revelation 13, where either the apostle John, or perhaps even Satan himself (depending upon the translation) "stood upon the seashore" to behold the great scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns that came up out of the sea, the sea of earth's peoples, just as in the case here. The kinship between Revelation and Daniel is evident in many such particulars. Verse 3 "And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagles' wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made to stand upon two feet as a man; and a man's heart was given to it."These beasts do not represent individual kings, but kingdoms. Scholars of all schools agree that Babylon was this first beast. We have already noted that Babylon was noted for its identity with this beast, the king of animals. There is some disagreement about what is meant by "a man's heart being given to it" (Daniel 7:4); but Young's view that, "The change that came upon the beast evidently has reference to the event of Nebuchadnezzar's madness and his subsequent restoration,"[10] is as good as any. Verse 5 "And behold another beast, like to a bear; and it was raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh."The big factor in the identification of this beast is that it came after the first thus denoting that it was the empire that succeeded Babylon. All of the other details, it appears to us are inert factors in the vision, collectively designed to show the ruthless and destructive character of all the great pagan empires as they most surely applied to the second beast also. We have discovered no reasonable interpretation of the three ribs between its teeth. For long ages, this second beast was identified by all scholars as the Medo-Persian power which succeeded Babylon. The critical device of making this second beast refer to the Median Empire and the third beast a reference to the Persian empire, with only one thing in mind, namely that of making the fourth beast a prophecy of Alexander's empire, is fraudulent. The Medo-Persian empire was not two different empires, but one only. "History knows of no Median empire."[11] "This hypothesis of Medo-Persia being two empires is destitute of every foundation."[12] In Daniel's prophecy that Babylon would be divided and given to "the Medes and the Persians" (Daniel 5:28), the fulfillment is given in Daniel 5:31, "Darius the Mede took the kingdom," indicating that there was just one kingdom, Darius taking "the kingdom of the Medes and the Persians." Verse 6 "After this I beheld, and, lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon its back four wings of a bird; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it."This beast having four wings of a bird was thus represented as moving very rapidly; and of all the empires ever to rise in human history, Alexander's came to power with the greatest swiftness. Another factor that make it mandatory to apply this to the Macedonian-Grecian empire is the mention of four heads. This simply cannot be applied to Persia. It is obviously a prophetic reference to the four generals of Alexander the Great who founded four different empires upon the territory conquered by Alexander. This particular alone makes it impossible intellectually to identify this third beast with any other except the empire of Alexander. The proof of this is in Daniel 8:22, on which Keil made this comment: "If the four horns of the he-goat represent four world-kingdoms rising up together, then the four heads of the leopard can never represent four kings reigning one after the other, even though it were the case, which it is not, that Daniel knew only four kings of Persia."[13]Verse 7 "After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and powerful, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet: and it was diverse from all the other beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the other horns were plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things."See the chapter introduction for some of the reasons why it is necessary to see this fourth beast as a prophetic reference to the Roman Empire and to no other. In the mid-19th century, Alexander Campbell debated Bishop Purcell of the Roman Catholic Church, affirming that, "The Scriptures teach that the hierarchical Papacy of the Roman Church is `The great Harlot' of John's apocalypse, `The Man of Sin' of Paul, and `the Little Horn' of Daniel." It is the resistance of this interpretation that leads to the false allegations seeking to deny this. This interpretation is still true, no matter how men may resent it. Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest intellectual giants of an entire millennium, unequivocally interpreted this `little horn" as follows: "The little horn is a little kingdom. It was a horn of the fourth beast, and rooted up three of the first horns; and therefore we are to look for it among the nations of the Latin Empire. But it was a kingdom of a different kind from the other ten kingdoms, having a life and soul peculiar to itself, with eyes and a mouth. By its eyes it was a Seer;, and by its mouth speaking great things and changing times and laws, it was a Prophet as well as a King. And such a Seer, Prophet, and King, is the Church of Rome."[14]There is not a Protestant church of any name on earth today that was not founded upon the premise that this interpretation of "the little horn" is true and correct. Furthermore, Sir Isaac Newton went on to identify in detail the "ten kingdoms" (the ten horns) that succeeded the fall of Rome in 476 A.D., and to identify the "three" which were rooted up by the "little horn," the same three being "The Exarchate of Ravenna," "The kingdom of Lombardy," and "the Duchy of Rome," these three becoming "the Patrimony of Peter," making the Roman church a small temporal kingdom, which began about that time to coin money, and to assume other signs of temporal authority, such as the establishment of an armed force (the Papal Guards), etc. It was shortly after the development of this usurpation that the Papacy claimed authority over the kings of the earth, one Pope even presuming to crown Charlemagne as "King of the Holy Roman Empire" on Christmas Day, 800 A.D.[15]The identification of the hierarchical apparatus of the Medieval apostate Church as the little horn of Daniel has been accepted through the entire series of our commentaries; and related passages in the Epistles, and in the Book of Revelation are all synchronized with this interpretation. We do not feel that it is necessary to go into all of this in detail here; but supporting passages in the New Testament should be consulted in the commentaries for further comment on this interpretation. Needless to say, there is absolutely nothing in the description of this fourth beast that gives any hint whatever that the Greek empire is the world power represented by that beast. The critics have tried to find "ten kings" in the Greek Empire; but they are not there. Keil has devoted 22 pages of detailed studies to this question, pp. 245 to 267; and reference is here made to this very excellent study. Of all the preposterous postulations the critical enemies of the truth have ever made, this attempt to make the fourth beast mean the Greek empire is the most ridiculous and unbelievable of all. Verse 9 "I beheld till the thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit: his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and the wheels thereof burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousands of thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld at that time because of the great words which the horn spake; I beheld even till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed, and it was given to be burned with fire. And as for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time."This passage is undeniably a prophecy of the eternal judgment. (See extensive comment upon the thoughts here as expanded and developed in Revelation 20.) This is the so-called "Great White Throne Judgment." The Ancient of Days should here be capitalized as it could not possibly refer to anyone else except Almighty God; and the fact that in the New Testament (Revelation 20) it is Christ who sits on this throne, such is a natural result of the early church's acceptance of Our Lord as indeed Deity, to whom the Father has committed the judgment of all men. It is surprising that the "other beasts" here are represented as being present even until the destruction of the final beast. This is a remarkable consonance with the Apostle John's Apocalypse, in which it appears that "the kings of the earth" (all of them), the Great Harlot (apostate religion), and Satan himself shall all perish simultaneously in the "lake of tire." Verse 13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him: and there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, and 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."This paragraph somewhat out of chronological sequence relates to the setting up or the establishment of the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. Note the statement that he was brought near unto God (the Ancient of Days) "with the clouds of heaven," corresponding exactly with the facts related in the New Testament, that upon Christ's ascension to the Father to receive the kingdom that he was taken up "with the clouds of heaven" (Acts 1:9-11). Keil and other usually dependable scholars are mistaken in their view that "coming with the clouds of heaven" indicates Christ's coming down from heaven to earth. We are sure that the words refer to Christ's "coming with the clouds of heaven" is a reference not to the Second Coming, but to His Ascension to heaven "to receive the kingdom." "One like unto a son of man ..." This expression should be capitalized. "Son of Man," by far and away Jesus' favorite title for himself, simply cannot refer to anyone else who ever lived. See extensive discussion of this title under John 1:51 in this series of Commentaries. The problem encountered by the position of this paragraph relates to the fact that it appears that Christ received the kingdom only after the total and final destruction of the world kingdoms. However, the placement of this paragraph cannot indicate the chronological sequence of the event of Jesus' receiving the everlasting kingdom. Daniel 7:9-12 merely indicate the fact of the vision's continuing until the time of the judgment and the destruction of the four beasts. These verses do not teach that all of the world powers were destroyed before Christ's kingdom was established. Daniel 7:13-14 simply announce the establishment of Christ's kingdom with no word whatever of exactly when this magnificent achievement took place. The Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20 states categorically that at the time of Christ's giving that commission, "All authority in heaven and upon earth" were at that time in the possession of Christ. Without this light from the New Testament, it would be difficult to discern this.Daniel 2:44, however, which is parallel to the visions here and must be consulted in connection with the interpretation, makes it very plain that the kingdom was to be established "in the days of those kings," not in the days after the kings were destroyed. Verse 15 "As for me, Daniel, my spirit was grieved in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me. I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth concerning all this."There is no wonder at Daniel's grief. Such terrible monsters as appeared in the vision were a dreadful indication that terrifying times were in store for the troubled races of men. "One of them that stood by," indicates some heavenly being, perhaps an angel, who explained to Daniel the significance of the visions. Verse 17 "These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, that shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom, forever, even forever and ever."There is practically no disagreement from the understanding that "kings" in this vision are to be understood as "kingdoms" or "world-governments." "Four" in the numerology of the Hebrews is the number of the earth; and what is indicated here is that monstrous world-governments shall continue throughout the world's history (Isn't it true?). "But the saints of the Most High shall possess the kingdom ..." Exactly when this event takes place was not indicated here; but Daniel 2:44 and supplemental information from the New Testament indicate that the possession was to take place in the days of the "fourth" great beast, namely, the days of the Roman Empire. Daniel 7:22 also mentions the saints' possession of the kingdom; and apparently that reference is focused upon the everlasting phase of the kingdom mentioned by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:10-11. Thus the "possession of the kingdom" is not a single date at all. Christian baptism admits one into the kingdom (Colossians 1:13); but it is fidelity that grants one, at last, admission "into the eternal kingdom" (2 Peter 1:10-11). Such facts as these were not revealed to Daniel; and it is therefore quite normal that there should have appeared some evidence of ambiguity on these particular points in the vision. Verse 19 "Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was diverse from all of them, exceeding terrible, whose teeth were of iron, and its nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; and concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up, and before which three fell, even that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."Some scholars have mistakenly confused "saints of the Most High" with the Jewish people; but, in this connection it must be remembered that during the times of the fourth beast with the ten horns and the little horn that made war against God's people, the Jews are most definitely not meant. Israel was at that time in total rebellion against God and had already suffered judicial hardening. Therefore, the mention of "saints" here is a reference to Christians, servants of Jesus Christ. Any notion that secular Israel, or racial Jews ever "received the kingdom of Christ" is totally refuted by every word of the New Testament. It is precisely in the instance of these ten horns and the little horn that uprooted three of the ten, persecuted God's people, and became a perpetual factor on earth even until the time of the judgment, - it is precisely here that the fourth beast was "diverse" from the others. See under Daniel 7:25, below, for interpretation of "how long" this little horn continued, namely, for "time and times and half a time." "Until ... the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom ..." The possession of the kingdom here is not a reference to the establishment of the kingdom, nor to the entry of saints into the kingdom, but is a reference to that point in the future at which time, "The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ: and he shall reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). Verse 23 "Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be a fourth kingdom upon 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. And so for the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall put down three kings. And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and a half a time."Several very important deductions are made mandatory by these words. Note that the "saints" existed throughout the period of the little horn, itself a part of the fourth beast, having arisen out of it. "Shall be diverse ..." This is twice mentioned - in both Daniel 7:24 and Daniel 7:25. Not all of that diversity is spelled out here; but the New Testament sheds further light upon it. The diversity is seen in that (1) the little horn is a religious kingdom, as indicated by its two horns (of a lamb) (Revelation 13:11); (2) it shall prevail mightily, continuing, even to the end; (3) it will think to change times and law, especially as regards sacred things (changes were made in such things as baptism and the Lord's Supper, the two central ordinances in the Christian religion); (4) it became a terrible persecuting power of God's true people; it formed alliances with the kings of the earth, etc., etc. "Time and times and a half a time ..." The key fact of what this means is plainly taught in the Book of Revelation; but as far as we have been able to determine, the true meaning is today unknown by practically the whole world of Bible scholars. The whole dispensation of the kingdom of Christ until the final judgment, embracing all of the time between the First Advent of Christ and the Second Advent of Christ culminating in the Final Judgment of all men, is repeatedly mentioned in Revelation. Here are the references: 1. The Christian martyrs of Rev 6:10 pleaded with God to tell them, "How long?" it would be before the final judgment at which time they would be avenged upon those who had slain them. From the answer given, it is obvious that that vengeance would come at the final judgment in the end of time, that is, at the end of the whole Christian dispensation. The answer? And it was said unto them that they should rest yet FOR A LITTLE TIME (until all the future martyrs who were yet to die in the faith should join them). Here the whole Christian dispensation is called "a little time." 2. Revelation 12:12 explains the hatred of Satan for God's church, a hatred which, of course, exists during every moment of the Christian dispensation. What is the reason? "Satan has great wrath, knowing that he hath but a SHORT TIME. How long is that? It is the total time between the First Advent and the Second Advent of Christ. 3. God promised to nourish his church during her wilderness probation (Revelation 12:14). This period is described as "always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20); but it is also referred to in this passage (Revelation 12:14), as A TIME AND TIMES AND HALF A TIME. 4. This same period when God will nourish his Church in the wilderness, protecting her from Satan's hatred, is also called in Revelation 12:6 A TWO HUNDRED AND THREE-SCORE DAYS. 5. The authority of the little horn (identified with the fourth beast of Daniel) is stated in Revelation 13:5 to continue for FORTY AND TWO MONTHS. Since both Daniel and Revelation make it clear that this period is actually to last until the end of time, it becomes mandatory to believe that all such time-references in Revelation have exactly the same meaning. Every one of these means "The whole Christian Dispensation." 6. "They shall live and reign with Christ a YEARS" (Revelation 20:4-6). As long as saints "suffer with Christ," they also "reign with Him"; and therefore this " YEARS" can be nothing else except the whole dispensation of Christ, lasting all the way from the First Advent through the Second Advent of Christ. The above understanding of these mysterious time-references in Daniel and Revelation is absolutely necessary to any complete understanding of these prophecies. In connection with these studies, the Commentary on Revelation should be consulted. Much additional material is available there. (Also see the Excursus on "The Man of Sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2 in this series.) A careful coordination of the passages in Revelation, with the revelations in this prophecy (Daniel 2 andDaniel 7), with due respect to other New Testament references to this same phenomenon, namely, that of the Great Apostasy from Christianity which was specifically foretold by the New Testament authors, will fully confirm all of the positions which we have advocated in the interpretations presented here. Verse 26 "But the judgment shall be set, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and destroy it unto the end. And the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given unto the people of the saints of the Most High: his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my countenance was changed in me: but I kept the matter in my heart.""But the judgment shall be set ..." This is God's final and effective answer to all of the misdeeds of men and of nations. It is necessary in the mercy and providence of God that the continuity of Adam's race upon earth shall be allowed until the full number of the Redeemed have come into service of God through Christ. Concurrently with this it is unavoidable that many terrible developments shall plague Adam's rebellious, sinful race. These terrible examples of wicked human governments, symbolized by the four beasts, are among the most prominent and the most evil of those wicked things that shall arise among earth's populations. But, in His own good time, THE . "But the Judgment!" Yes there shall indeed be a final Judgment Day. This is one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity (Hebrews 6:2). The Judgment Day is extensively mentioned in the New Testament. That is the occasion when God will cast evil out of his universe, when Satan, and the Beast (all of the beasts), and the False Prophet (all false and immoral religion) shall be cast alive into the lake of fire that burneth with brimstone. (See Revelation 18-20.) The Final Judgment may not be dismissed as merely a sensational feature of apocalyptic literature. Christ spoke plainly of it in Matthew 25; and those who accept Christ as the world's only Lord and Saviour are surely obligated to believe what he said of that Eternal Day. Commentary On Daniel Seven by Eric HallDaniel 7As we leave the first six chapters and enter chapter 7, we are leaving historical narrative behind and entering an apocalyptic section. What is apocalyptic language?Apocalyptic language is composed of symbols that are often lurid in color, violent in tone, and easily remembered. They strike the imagination and grab hold of the mind. Such language is found in Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, Isaiah, and even in the gospels and epistles. What is the purpose of apocalyptic language?It denotes conflict and victory. It is used when God judges and smites an oppressor and vindicates his people. It is used to describe times of crisis and judgment. Why does God use apocalyptic language?Some think that the language is used to hide the true meaning from hostile authorities and thus shield God’ s people from retaliation. This makes more sense with the book of Revelation than it does with the book of Daniel. Who are the hostile authorities in Daniel? The Jews were not being persecuted. Further, writing the message in Hebrew would no doubt have been sufficient to hide its meaning from the Chaldeans and the Persians. I think the reason God uses such language is because of its emotional impact. Apocalyptic books are oil paintings from God. The vivid and violent language conveys emotional images while also conveying historical facts – just as a painting can convey emotions and facts. Numbers 12:8 reminds us that God does not always speak clearly, but sometimes uses dark language. (Such language may be reserved for times of conflict and judgment.) How do we interpret apocalyptic language?We need to pay particular attention to numbers and periods of time. They have symbolic meanings that must be deduced from the evidence. 3 is the number of God. 12 is the number of God’ s people. 10 is the number of completeness. 7 is the number of perfection. 6 is the number of imperfection. 8 is the number of renewal. Apocalyptic language always has historical significance, so we must study history in order to interpret it properly. The usual approach to scripture is to understand a passage literally unless we are forced to do otherwise. For example, Jesus told us to cut off our right hand if it offends us. Was this a literal command or should we interpret it figuratively? This is reversed for apocalyptic language – it should be understand figuratively unless we are forced to do otherwise. Whatever we do, we should strive to be consistent. (Hal Lindsey says the 144,000 Jews in Revelation 7:4 are literal yet the locusts in Revelation 9:3 are cobra helicopters. John Walvoord says the 10 days in Revelation 2:10 are figurative yet the 1000 years in Revelation 20 are literal.) The following principles are helpful in interpreting apocalyptic language. (1) We should understand apocalyptic language figuratively unless we are forced to do otherwise. We should be consistent in our interpretations. (2) Similarity of language does not prove identity of subjects. (There are many judgments in the Bible, but the same language is used to describe each – Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Edom. Jerusalem, Rome, the world.) (3) Dissimilarity of language does not prove distinctness of subjects. (4) Easy to understand scriptures should be used to understand harder passages. This basic principle of hermeneutics should be used whenever we study the Bible. We should be very wary of any interpretation of apocalyptic language that conflicts with easier passages found elsewhere. (Premillennialism is based entirely on Revelation 20 and as we know is in conflict with a host of other passages.) (5) Mark Twain: “ When you find yourselves on the side of the majority, it is probably time to change sides.” Keep in mind that more nonsense has been written about these books than any other Biblical subject. We must be discerning. But shouldn’ t we just take all scripture literally? NO ONE takes all scripture literally. Of course, when we say that we do not take all scripture literally we do not mean that we do not believe that all scripture is true. We know that God’ s word is absolutely true and contains no falsehoods or inaccuracies – historical, scientific, or otherwise. The question is not whether a particular passage is true, but is instead whether God is using literal language or figurative language to convey the truth to us. To take Matthew 5:30 literally would require Christians to practice self-mutilation. Is Genesis 3:15 a prophecy about snakes and humans or about God and Satan? Was Hosea mistaken when he told Israel they were going into Egyptian captivity when they really went into Assyrian captivity – or did he simply know that to a Jew ‘ Egypt’ denotes slavery and captivity? To literally interpret Ezekiel 16:53– 55 would require the resurrection of the Sodomites to their former prosperity despite what we read in Jude 7. To literalize Ezekiel 37:22– 25 would require David and not Jesus be Israel’ s eternal king. To literalize Isaiah 34:5– 17 would require that Edom exist eternally here on earth and burn eternally while weeds and animals live in it. NO ONE takes all scripture literally – indeed, it is not logically possible to do so. Instead we need to approach the scripture with the common sense that God has given to us and that he knew we had when he gave us his word. God wants a thinking people! One last example: Matthew 24:21 and Ezekiel 5:9, in reference to different events, both claim that the event in question will be a greater calamity than anything that has occurred or will ever occur. Logically, this could not be literally true of both events! The solution is to recognize the language as hyperbole and reject the literal interpretation. Sometimes one hears or reads Deuteronomy 29:29 applied to apocalyptic language. The secret things belong to the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. The idea is that we shouldn’ t worry about what books like Revelation and Daniel mean because they contain secret things that belong only to God. But does this make any sense? The word apokalupsis in Greek means unveiled, uncovered, or revealed! Apocalyptic books do not contain secret things, they contain revealed things. The Bible is meant to be understood – and if we don’ t understand it, we shouldn’ t blame our inability on God. He wants us to understand his word. Apocalyptic language is meant to convey comfort to those suffering captivity or persecution. What would it say about God if he offered us comfort but worded it in such a way that we could never receive that comfort? He wants us to understand his word. Final comments before we begin:Many different interpretations about the following passages have been given. Without discussing all of the other opinions, I will largely confine my efforts to presenting and providing evidence for my own opinions. While it is hard in some places to be dogmatic, it is not impossible. Also, our inability at some points to state with certainty what a passage means does not imply that it could mean anything. We can, even in those cases, still often state with certainty what the passage does not mean. We all have preconceptions about what this book says or does not say. Countless sermons, for example, have used Daniel 12 to preach about the end of the world. We must, however, keep an open mind regarding the evidence in this book. Remember, however, Chesterton’ s comment that an open mind is only useful when it clamps down on something solid. Of course, it goes without saying that whatever is said about these passages should be checked carefully with the word. In Mark 4 and Luke 8 we find two commands of Christ that have largely been ignored. Mark 4:24 Take heed what you hear. Luke 8:18 Take heed how you hear. Hearing is not a neutral activity. Jesus told us to be active hearers and to watch both how and what we hear. (This is not directed just to our leaders, but it is directed to every Christian. This is a very important responsibility that we shouldn’ t turn over to anyone else.) This is particularly crucial today when so many are twisting the scriptures to their own and their listeners’ destruction. Verse 1 1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream, and told the sum of the matter.Notice that chronologically this vision occurred before the events that we studied in chapter 6. In fact, this vision occurred prior to the defeat of the Chaldeans by Cyrus. The first year of Belshazzar probably refers to the year 553 in the 6th century BC when Nabonidus left the city of Babylon for 14 years to live in North and Central Arabia. Thus, the first year of his reign would refer to the first year of his coregency. This book states very clearly that this vision was given to Daniel in the 6th century BC. The late-date crowd states very clearly that this vision was made up in the 2nd century BC. Who are we to believe? To believe the late-date crowd requires us to believe that the author of Daniel was guilty of a deliberate lie. (If he lied he certainly had Jesus fooled! See Matthew 24:15.) Verse 2-3 2 Daniel said, “ I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. 3 And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. The wind often denotes the action of God. Like God, the wind is invisible yet can have very dramatic effects. Psalms 18:10 He rode on a cherub, and flew; he came swiftly upon the wings of the wind. Hosea 13:15 Though he may flourish as the reed plant, the east wind, the wind of the Lord, shall come, rising from the wilderness; and his fountain shall dry up, his spring shall be parched; it shall strip his treasury of every precious thing.The sea often denotes the restless nations of the world as they toss and churn.Isaiah 17:12-13 Ah, the thunder of many peoples, they thunder like the thundering of the sea! Ah, the roar of nations, they roar like the roaring of mighty waters! 13 The nations roar like the roaring of many waters, but he will rebuke them, and they will flee far away, chased like chaff on the mountains before the wind and whirling dust before the storm. Thus, the wind on the sea would denote the action of God on the restless nations of the world. In verse 3 these four beasts come up from the sea. Later in verse 17 we will see that they also come up from the earth. Coming from the sea means that these beasts will arise from the restless nations of the world. Coming from the earth means that these beasts are of human origin. Verse 4 4 The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand upon two feet like a man; and the mind of a man was given to it.This first beast is Babylon – the same kingdom that was represented by the golden head of the statue we saw in chapter 2. (Chapter 7 parallels chapter 2 in many ways.) A winged lion was a very common symbol for Babylon, especially during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. ALL commentators agree on this point. Like Babylon, this beast was hindered and humiliated by God. In historical fact, the king of Babylon was a man who was given the heart of a beast. In the vision, Babylon is pictured as a beast who is given the heart of a man. Verse 5 5 And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side; it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, 'Arise, devour much flesh.’ This second beast is the combined Medo– Persia empire that both Daniel and secular history say followed the Babylonians. Recall that in chapter 2, Medo– Persia was represented by the breast and arms of silver on the giant statue. Note that one side of the bear is higher than the other side. This stresses the point that in the Medo-Persian empire, the Persians were dominant. This beast is like a bear and is told to continue eating even before it has finished its last meal. It is voracious and greedy. The three ribs may simply add to the picture of the greedy starving bear, or they may depict the three major Medo-Persian conquests that occurred under Cyrus and his son Cambyses. Lydian kingdom in 546 BC haldean kingdom in 539 BC Egypt in 525 BC Verse 6 6 After this I looked, and lo, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back; and the beast had four heads; and dominion was given to it. This third beast represents Greece, which in chapter 2 was denoted by the belly and thighs of brass on the giant statue. This beast is a leopard, which like Greece, moved very fast. This beast has four wings and four heads. Recall that after the death of Alexander, Greece was split into four pieces ruled by his four generals. Note 1: This is an example where it seems most logical to interpret a number literally rather than figuratively even though the number appears in an apocalyptic section. Note 2: Here in Daniel 7:6 Greece is depicted as a beast with four heads. Later in Daniel 8:8 Greece will be depicted as a goat with four horns. In Daniel 8:21– 22 we will find out that those horns denote kings or kingdoms. Thus, heads and horns are sometimes used to denote the same thing – kings or their kingdoms. (This point will be useful to remember as we continue.) The liberals would have us believe that this divided third kingdom is Persia, but Persia remained unified until its end when Alexander the Great conquered it. Who is mistaken? Daniel or his critics? I wonder… The arrogance of these liberal critics is unbounded. Instead of admitting that they are mistaken, they insist that Daniel must have mistakenly thought that Persia would be split into four pieces! Verse 7 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. This fourth beast is Rome, which in chapter 2 was represented by the legs and feet of iron and clay on the giant statue. Like Rome this beast is terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong. And like Rome, it is different from the beasts that came before it. This beast has ten horns, which we will discover in verse 24 denote 10 kings. (We will see which kings they are when we get to verse 24.) Verse 8 8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots; and behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. From among the ten horns arises an eleventh horn. This little horn (which we will later discover denotes an eleventh king) comes up only after three of the ten horns are plucked up. Who is this little horn? We will discover that when we get to verses 24 and 25. Verse 9-10 9 As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. 10 A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. Here we have a judgment scene in which the ancient of days sits at the head of an enormous court in which the books are opened and judgment in rendered. Which judgment does this refer to? There are many different judgments in the Bible. The two leading candidates are the judgment of Rome and the judgment of the world at the end of time. Which choice fits better with the context? Clearly the judgment of Rome does. This is the judgment of the fourth beast, and the fourth beast is Rome. Verse 11 tells us that after this judgment the fourth beast is slain and burned with fire. Verses 21– 22 tell us that this judgment was against the little horn who was waging war against the saints. Verse 26 tells us that this court would take the dominion away from the little horn. Revelation 20 contains another great judgment scene similar to what we see here. (It also contains thrones, books, and fire.) John said that the judgment in Revelation 20 would come to pass soon after the book was written. (Revelation 1:1;1:3;10:6;22:6;22:10) Revelation was written during the Roman persecution. Thus, the context suggests that the judgment scene in Revelation 20 also applies to the judgment of the fourth beast from Daniel 7 – the Roman empire. Thus, I believe that the judgment scene in Daniel 7 and the judgment scene in Revelation 20 both apply to the same judgment – the judgment of Rome. Did Rome fall in the first century? Absolutely no. Was Rome judged and sentenced by God during the first century? Absolutely yes! Verse 11-12 11 I looked then because of the sound of the great words which the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. The judgment of the court is that the fourth beast be destroyed, which is thus pictured in verse 11. The beast is burned with fire and utterly destroyed. The other three beasts have lost their power (their dominion was taken away), but they are pictured as still being around waiting to hear their fate as well. These three beasts lived on in the fourth beast. They had the same ungodly ways and aims. We saw this in chapter 2, where all four kingdoms were denoted by a single giant statue. What did they have in common? They were all earthly kingdoms that were trying to take the place of or destroy the one true heavenly kingdom of God. We also see this in John’ s description of Rome found in Revelation 13.Revelation 13:1-2 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems upon its horns and a blasphemous name upon its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear's, and its mouth was like a lion's mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority.In Revelation 13, the beast (Rome) is like a leopard, a bear, and a lion. Where have we seen these three animals before? In Daniel 7, we just saw a lion, a bear, and a leopard (in that order). In Revelation, John mentions a leopard, a bear, and a lion (in the reverse order). Daniel and John are both looking at the same three kingdoms, but Daniel is looking FORWARD through time whereas John is looking through time! Verse 13-14 13 I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. 14 And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.At the end of this remarkable judgment scene, Daniel sees “ one like a son of man” come to the Ancient of Days to be presented before him. This son of man is Jesus Christ, the Messiah, and in fact this is where the Messianic title “ the Son of Man” came from. Why the Son of Man? Jesus was saying that he was the son of man who was mentioned in Daniel 7! He was taking a Messianic title familiar to every Jew and applying it to himself. Jesus as the representative of his people comes to receive the kingdom. What does this mean? In verse 22 and 27, it is the saints who receive the kingdom. Like we mentioned in our study of Revelation, Jesus did not receive something here that he did not already have. This part of the judgment scene depicts a public reaffirmation of something that had been true all along. God has removed and judged a great enemy of his people and he wants everyone to be aware of the outcome. In Revelation 1:9, John made it very clear that the kingdom had been established. Yet in Revelation 12:10 we read that “ Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ.” What is meant by this? It is simply a public reaffirmation and display of what was already true! Is it still appropriate to pray “ Thy kingdom come” as the apostles’ were instructed to do in the Lord’ s prayer? Yes. Although the kingdom was established on the Day of Pentecost after the Lord’ s ascension, God’ s kingdom continues to come anytime and anywhere the Lord and his church are victorious over their enemies. Verse 15-16 15 “ As for me, Daniel, my spirit within me was anxious and the visions of my head alarmed me. 16 I approached one of those who stood there and asked him the truth concerning all this. So he told me, and made known to me the interpretation of the things.Luckily, Daniel was just as curious as we are, so he asks someone standing in the court what the vision meant, and he receives the interpretation. Be very wary of any commentary whose interpretation of this passage disagrees with what we are about to read! At this point we might pause to consider why Daniel was given this vision. A cursory reading of Isaiah might have led some to conclude that the Messiah would appear immediately following the Babylonian captivity. In fact, liberals today believe that Zerubbabel was a disappointing Messiah figure. Daniel’ s vision says NO. The Messiah will not come until two other kingdoms have come and gone. The Messiah, Daniel will say, will come during the fourth kingdom (Rome). Paul dealt with a similar problem in 2 Thessalonians. There some had quit working to await what they felt would be the immediate return of Christ. Paul told them that Christ would not return until the man of perdition was destroyed. I think the man of perdition is the little horn from Daniel 7, and Paul was simply saying that Jesus could not return until all that God had prophesied in Daniel had come to pass. Some say that the New Testament authors were under the mistaken impression that Jesus’ return was imminent. That is just not so. Paul said just the opposite in 2 Thessalonians. While we say (correctly) that Jesus can return at any moment, that was not true in the first century before all of the events in Daniel had come to pass. Verse 17-18 17 'These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. 18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever.’ The four beasts are four kings (or kingdoms) as we have suggested. The term “ king” and “ kingdom” are used interchangeably in this chapter. The fourth beast is called a king here in verse 17 and is called a kingdom in verse 23. When the term “ king” is used it most likely speaks of the king or kings who rule the kingdom in question. Should God’ s people have been frightened of these four fierce powers that had arisen or would arise from the earth? No. Notice the word “ but” in verse 18. Things look bad, BUT we are going to win. Our kingdom (unlike these earthly kingdoms) will never pass away. It will outlast them all. Verse 19-22 19 “ Then I desired to know the truth concerning the fourth beast, which was different from all the rest, exceedingly terrible, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze; and which devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; 20 and concerning the ten horns that were on its head, and the other horn which came up and before which three of them fell, the horn which had eyes and a mouth that spoke great things, and which seemed greater than its fellows. 21 As I looked, this horn made war with the saints, and prevailed over them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given for the saints of the Most High, and the time came when the saints received the kingdom.Daniel skips quickly to the fourth beast, which in this vision was different from all the others. What about the other three? Daniel does not ask about those or perhaps he does but does not give us the details regarding the answer he received. We will learn a great deal about these other kingdoms in the visions that occur later in the book. Daniel repeats the details regarding the fourth kingdom and we learn more about the little horn. Notice that this little horn wages war against the saints. This sheds doubt on the theory of some that this vision is speaking about the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There, Rome was not waging war on the saints but on the Jews who had persecuted the saints. Daniel will have some things to say about the fall of Jerusalem, but I don’ t think it is being discussed here. In verse 22 we see God coming in judgment. There are many comings of God in the Bible. We often speak of the “ second coming of Christ” as if there were only two. However, the phrase “ second coming of Christ” does not appear anywhere in the Bible. The closest we get is Hebrews 9:28 which says that he will appear a second time – which will occur at the end of the world. While Christ did not literally appear in AD 70, he did come in judgment at that time. Matthew 24:30 describes a coming of Christ and Matthew 24:34 tells us that it happened during the first century. Conclusion? We need to consider the context very carefully when we read of a coming of God or of Christ in the Bible. While Jesus will come again literally at the end of the world, he has come before figuratively in judgment against oppressors of God’ s people. Matthew 24 speaks of his coming in judgment against Jerusalem, and Revelation speaks of his coming in judgment against Rome. Verse 23 23 “ Thus he said: 'As for the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom on earth, which shall be different from all the kingdoms, and it shall devour the whole earth, and trample it down, and break it to pieces.This is an accurate picture of the Roman empire which grew from a dusty village on the Tiber River in the 8th century BC to control virtually the entire known world. This fourth beast is Rome, which was different than all the other kingdoms in its organization and unity. This kingdom breaks things into pieces, unlike Greece which was itself broken into pieces. The fourth kingdom is not Greece; it is Rome. Verse 24-25 24 As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them; he shall be different from the former ones, and shall put down three kings. 25 He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times, and half a time.Here we again meet the ten horns and the little horn. Do they rule simultaneously? Some have suggested that the language requires that they do so. However, this is not true at all. In Chapter 2, the statue was destroyed at one time yet the kingdoms it depicted did not rule simultaneously. What do we know about the little horn? Let’ s consider the clues: 1. He is of the fourth beast. (verses 7– 8 and 24) This would mean that he would be a king of the Roman empire, which is represented by the fourth beast. 2. He is the 11th king. (verses 7– 8 and 24) The 11th Roman emperor was Domitian. 3. He is a braggart. (verses 8 and 20) Listen to what Suetonius had to say about Domitian in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars: From his youth he was far from being of an affable disposition, but was on the contrary presumptuous and unbridled both in act and word.4. He claims to be deity. (verse 25) Verse 25 says that he would think to change the times. In Daniel 2:21 we read that God changes the times. Thus, this little horn claims to be in the place of God. Suetonius wrote: With no less arrogance he began as follows in issuing a circular letter in the name of his procurators, ‘ Our Master and our God bids that this be done.’ And so the custom arose henceforth of addressing him in no other way even in writing or in conversation. William Barclay wrote: But with the coming of Domitian there came a complete change. Domitian was a devil. He was the worst of all things – a cold blooded persecutor. With the exception of the mad Caligula, he was the first Emperor to take his divinity seriously, and to demand Caesar worship. 5. He is a persecutor of God’ s people. (verses 21– 22 and 25) Domitian began an empire policy of persecution that did not end until 311 AD under the Edict of Toleration by Galerius and Constantine. Tertullian called him a “ limb of the bloody Nero” and that name was associated with him even into the third century. Eusebius called him “ the successor of Nero.” 6. He is depicted as the 8th king when 3 others are removed. (verses 8 and 20– 24) Why was it important to depict Domitian as number 8 rather than number 11? Listen to what Milligan had to say about the number eight: The number six itself awakened a feeling of dread in the breast of the Jew who felt the significance of numbers. It fell below seven just as eight went beyond it. [The number eight] denoted more than the simple possession of the Divine. As in the case of circumcision on the eighth day, of the “ great day” of the feast on the eighth day, or of the resurrection of our Lord on the first day of the week, following the previous seven days, it expressed a new beginning in active power.The Year of Jubilee when everyone got the chance to begin all over again, followed seven sevens of years. The leper who had been excluded from the congregation was given a new beginning on the eighth day. (Lev. 14:10) In early Christian literature, Christ was referred to as 888. How does the number 8 fit with Domitian? Nero was the first to actively persecute Christians.Tertullian wrote: Consult your annals, and there you will find Nero, the first emperor who dyed his sword in Christian blood.He later referred to Domitian as a “ limb of the bloody Nero.” A rumor arose during the reign of Domitian that he was literally Nero, raised from the dead. How else would he be described except by the number 8? Who are these three kings that are uprooted? Galba, Otho, and Vitellius all reigned within less than a two year period of time. These are the three that are pushed out of the way so that the actual 11th emperor can be seen as the symbolic 8th emperor. They are ignored in Revelation and are mentioned but uprooted in Daniel. How was Domitian “ different from the former ones” as verse 24 says? As we mentioned, he was the first to make it a policy of the empire that all who refused to worship him be persecuted. What does it mean in verse 25 when it says that the saints would be given into his hand for “ a time, two times, and half a time” ? This phrase denotes 3.5 years, a period of time that is also found in Revelation 11:2, 11:3, 12:6, 12:14, and 13:5. In each case it denotes a state of affairs in which God’ s people would be persecuted yet be sustained. It denotes a temporary state of affairs – something that would not last. Why Isaiah 3.5 used to denote this? It is a broken seven, and seven denotes perfection – something that will last. Thus, a broken 7 denotes something that is temporary. Another possible source is the drought that Elijah prayed for. It lasted 3.5 years. (See James 5:17.) Thus, this may have been the source for a period of time denoting a temporary affliction. Verse 26-27 26 But the court shall sit in judgment, and his dominion shall be taken away, to be consumed and destroyed to the end. 27 And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.’Here we again have a public demonstration of something that was already true. Similar language was used in Revelation to also describe the judgment of Rome: Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever."Did the kingdom of the world become the kingdom of the Lord when Rome was judged? No. That had always been true. Jesus has always and will always rule the universe. Jesus did not begin to reign in Revelation 11. He had been reigning all the time. What did happen when Rome was judged? The rule of Christ was vindicated. The triumph of the church was a public demonstration of the power of Christ, which was thus made know to all of the world. That is how the language is used here in Daniel. Again, note that while Rome did not fall in the 1st century, Rome was judged and sentenced in the 1st century. Indeed, we have just seen a picture of the judgment scene in which that happened. Verse 28 28 “ Here is the end of the matter. As for me, Daniel, my thoughts greatly alarmed me, and my color changed; but I kept the matter in my mind.”Daniel was greatly alarmed by what he had seen. Why? He had been given a glimpse of the great persecution that awaited the people of God – and that disturbed him. Paul said that we should rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. (Romans 12:15) Sometimes I fear that we weep with those who rejoice and rejoice with those who weep! Further, he bore the burden of this knowledge alone because he was not able to make the vision known when he first received it. (Verse 28 says that he kept the matter in his mind.) If you agree with the conclusions in this chapter, then you have absolutely undeniable proof of Biblical prophecy. Why? Because we have copies of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls that predate the Roman empire. Even the late date critics are unable to push the book of Daniel past 160 BC. That is why they deny the obvious internal evidence that the fourth empire is Rome. "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Four Beasts (Daniel 7:1-28) This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 7:2. Prophecies are frequently made in symbols and the interpretation consists in determining what the symbols stand for. It is not so difficult to do that if we may find the history of such prophecies as have been fulfilled. Four winds signifies the whole world is to be involved because there are four directions on the compass. Strove is from giyach and Strong defines it, "To push forth," which means to cause some commotion or movement. Since the outcome of this rushing will result in something pertaining to human beings, we know the great sea means the inhabitants of the civilized world that were to become subjects of this empire. Daniel 7:3. When this great sea of humanity was stirred up by the four winds it brought forth four great beasts. They correspond to the four world kingdoms of chapter 2: 3640. These kingdoms were diverse one from another, which means that although the four governments were alike in that they were world powers in their scope, yet each had characteristics peculiar to itself. Daniel 7:4. The first beast (Babylon) was like a lion which indicates strength. (See chapter 2: 37.) It bad eagle's wings which indicates the ability to soar and cover the whole area of mankind. (See chapter 2: 38.) Man's heart given to it signifies the beast, referred to something composed of intelligent, human beings, which was true of the Babylonian Empire. Daniel 7:5. The second beast (Medo Persia) was like to a bear. That animal is cruel and vicious (2 Kings 2:24), and likewise the Persians were a cruel people. See the comments on chapter 6: 24, and note that women and children were east together into the lions’ den. The three ribs denotes a devouring disposition, and it was told to devour much flesh, which means this kingdom would conquer many people. The beast raised itself up on one side. It was composed of the Medes and Persians (two sides), and one side (the Persians) rose higher as a political institution than the Medes. To verify this I shall quote some history. "Although the Persians were destined to become the dominant tribe (emphasis mine, E.M.Z.) of all the Iranian Aryans, still the Medes were at first the leading people."— Myers' Ancient History, page 88. This statement is verified also by Herodotus, Part 1, section 130. Daniel 7:6. A leopard is of the same family of beasts as the lion (the cat), but is smaller and apparently with less prospect of accomplishing much in the world. But it is a swift animal (Habakkuk 1:8) and can make up in speed what it lacks the size of body to perform. This feature of the beast will be described soon. The kingdom represented by the leapard was the Greek or Macedonian (two names applied interchangeably to the same government). This empire was started by Philip of Macedon, but its worldwide proportions were accomplished by his son, known in history as Alexander the Great. In 12 years he covered the territory of the MedoPersian Empire and brought It under the control of the Grecian, and by such swift military accomplishments justified the comparison to the leopard made by the prophet Habakkuk. Four wings and four heads refers to the four divisions into which the conquests of Alexander fell upon his untimely death. This great event is well described by the historian from whom I shall quote. "There was no one who could wield the sword that fell from the hand of Alexander. It is said that, when dying, being asked to whom the kingdom should belong, he replied ‘ to the strongest,' and handed his signet ring to his generat Perdiecas. But Perdic cas was not strong enough to master the difficulties of the situation. Indeed, who is strong enough to rule the world? Consequently the vast empire created by Alexander's unparalleled conquests was distracted by the wran glings and wars of his successor's, and before the close of the fourth century B.C, had become broken into many fragments. Besides minor states, four monarchies rose out of the ruins,”— Myers’ Ancient History, pages 286, 287. Daniel 7:7. The fourth beast (Roman) is described as dreadful and terrible. The first word is from an original that means to look dangerous; the second is defined in the lexicon as “ mighty,” and both of these characteristics were true of the Roman Empire as history abundantly shows, iron, teeth is explained by the comments and history quoted at chapter 2: 40, and also are devoured and brake. I trust the reader will see that place before going further with the study of this verse. The ten harm corresponds to the ten toes in the 2nd chapter that belonged to the' giant man in Nebuchadnezzar’ s dream. They refer to ten European governments that Were within the Roman Empire and whose kings or other heads ruled their dominions in subjection to the great head in the city of Rome. It does not mean that just that number was all of such governments that existed, but they were representative of the group of local powers that made up the fourth and last world empire. The reason for selecting the number of ten is that the initial symbol for the subject was a human form which would call for ten since that is the proper number for the toes. The ten governments are, England, Germany, Italy, France, Holland, Belgium. Austria. Switzerland, Portugal, and Spain, Daniel 7:8. Religion was a state affair in the world empires, and the success or failure of any conflict between church and state depends on which was the stronger at any given time. The ten horns of the fourth beast were the temporal powers named in the preceding verse, and each of them had some jurisdiction over the religious lives of its subjects. A9 a rule that jurisdiction was exercised in harmony with the will of the beast to which the horn belonged. But in time a little horn sprang up among these temporal powers, and it also had a religious theory, and there was some kind of conflict between it and the temporal powers and the result was that three of them were subdued or plucked up. The little horn was the papacy that started with anmll proportions but expanded as the years went by. There is some uncertainty as to which temporal powers were the three and I shall not attempt to determine it. But the purposes of this commentary do not require any definite conclusion here. The characteristics of eyes of a man and mouth speaking great things identify the horn as the papacy. Daniel 7:9. Not only was religion a state affair in the world empires, but that religion was forced upon the subjects without regard for their personal convictions. As long as that condition existed, such institutions as world empires could exist also. But God pur possed to introduce an institution into the midst of "these kings" (chapter 2: 44) that was to change things and teach the principle of individual responsibility that would result in the downfall of these world powers. That is the prediction in the words till the thrones ive.re cast down In this verse. The Ancient of days is the same being as is called Ihe God of heaven in chapter 2: 44, Daniel 7:10. Fiery stream is a symbol ot the forceful discharge of truth that proceeds from God. The many thousands refers to the extent of God's dominion over the lives of mankind. Judgment set; hooks opened indicates that God is about to put into execution His determination to overthrow the reign of the world empires. The words italicized are used for this great revolution because such is the usual procedure when anyone or any group is to be brought to a test. In its fulfillment it refers to the predictions made by both Ezekiel and Daniel previously that the dominating world powers were to be overthrown by the influence of God’ s teaching on individual responsibility. Daniel 7:11. Two creatures or institutions are referred to in this verse, and they seem to be in collusion for the one purpose of depriving men of their personal liberty of thought and action. Those two creatures are the horn and beast, The first is the papacy and the second is the world empire ot Rome. We do not usually think of these as being in the same class, for one is political and the other is religious; yet they both were opposed to the personal liberty mentioned a few lines above. It is true that the papacy was formed many years after the kingdom was started that the God of heaven was to set up. And it is true also that the beast (Rome) continued many years after it was Btarted, But it received the "death stroke” when that heavenly kingdom was set up and some time was required for it to succumb to the stroke. But knowing that it would do so, God directed a vision that is to be dated according to the time of the "stroke," some more particulars of the same which will be seen in the following verses. Beast was slain is the event resulting from the "death stroke” stated above, and the turning flame is the fiery stream, of verse 10, Daniel 7:12. Best of the beasts refers to the same as the ten horns. When the world empires were made to be a thing of the past, the kings of those governments lost the position they once held (had their dominion taken away) as part of such an empire. Yet their lives prolonged is a figurative way of saying they would not be entirely blotted out. When the next great event occurs, soon to be predicted, these governments will find that their existence as temporal institutions, independent of the world monarchies, will be recognized and encouraged. Daniel 7:13. The Scot of man is Christ and the Ancient of days is God bis Father. Near before him denotes the close association of these two divine Beings in bringing into the world the principles destined to accomplish the things just predicted. Daniel 7:14. This verse predicts the same things as Daniel 2:44, slightly different terms being used. Given him means that God was to work through his Son in “ setting up" the kingdom that wan never to be destroyed. 41! people were to serve Him even as all nations of them had been under the sway of the world empires. But those empires dominated the people by their political control to such an extent that they perverted even their religious conduct. The kingdom of the God of heaven (the church) was to rule all who became its subjects with the rod of divine truth, which would give to each man the liberty of conscience and conduct that is in harmony with individual responsibility under the principles of that divine truth. Daniel 7:15. Up to this verse the chapter is describing the dream or vision that Daniel had. The interpretations and comments that I have been giving on the verses are not those of the prophet, for he had not known them himself as yet, but is soon to learn them through another. My comments are based partly on some of the statements of one of them that stood by (verse 16), and partly on the facts and truths of history as quoted. We may note here that Daniel was not given the interpretation of his dream along with the vision itself, as was done in other cases, but he must obtain that information from another. So it is another instance of the “ divers manners" spoken of in Hebrews 1:1. After having this vision, the prophet was grieved and troubled because he did not know what it meant. However, upon awaking he recalled it and made a record of it, "wrote the dream,” and also “ told the sum” of it (verse 1), Daniel 7:16, This verse tells ns to whom Daniel told his dream; it was to one of them that stood by. This was evidently some person sent by the Loi’ d to explain to Daniel the interpretation of his dream. It is true that God could have inspired the prophet with the interpretation also even as he did in other instances, but He has not always done his work after the same maimer (Hebrews 1:1). After the one that stood by had given to Daniel the interpretation of the dream he disappeared from the scene and the rest of the chapter will be the direct words of Daniel, repeated, of course, after the interpretation as he received it. We may be sure that the Lord will give the prophet whatever help is necessary to assure a correct report of that given him. Daniel 7:17. I shall avoid lengthy or unnecessary repetition of Interpretations that have been given in the forepart of the chapter. The four kings are the same as the four great beasts in verse 3, and the four kingdoms of Dan 2:38-40. Verse 18. Saints of the Most High are members Of the kingdom that the God of heaven was to set up. Take the kingdom is equivalent to "break in pieces and consume these kingdoms*' in chapter 2: 44. possess . , . for ever and ever means the overthrow of world empires by the Influence of the church, and this influence was to last always. Daniel 7:19-20. Tile one that stood by at first gave Daniel a brief interpretation of the four great beasts, that they represented four kings who were to arise, and then he added that the saints of the Most High would take the kingdom, indicating that this particular prediction pertained to only one of them, and naturally it would be the fourth and last one. Just then he recalled that in his dream he saw much more concerning it than of any of the others. That caused him to ask tor the interpretation of those events, and to make sure that his inquiry was appreciated he repeated the description and doings of the fourth beast; such is the subject matter of these verses. Daniel 7:21. It is not an unusual thing for a prophecy in the Bible to have a twofold application, or for it to have its original application extended so as to include other things farther in the future, and that was done in this prediction. But to get the background that leads up to this extended application I must take the reader back to a word in the beginning of verse 19 which is the word truth. We know Daniel was not in any doubt as to whether anything the one standing by said would be true, hence we must look for a special meaning of the word. It is derived from yatsab which Strong defines, "A primitive root; to place (any thing so as to stay); reflexively to station, offer, continue.” The last word in the definition is the one for our use here. It signifies that Daniel wanted to know the application of the prophecy so that it ‘ 'continued” until it included the horn (the papacy). Continuing his inquiry of the man, he saw some additional symbols, and they are the things of the present verse and others to follow. The war this horn made against the saints was the persecution of Christians by the church of Rome, that received such strong support from the empire of Rome (the fourth beast) before that beast was overthrown. Daniel 7:22, The war mentioned in the preceding verse was to continue until God gave his saints some relief from the persecutions they were enduring. This general prediction will become more specific a little farther down. Daniel 7:23. For some reason the prophet goes hack to an earlier time and repeats some things about the fourth beast, describing it. as a world power and devouring men, Daniel 7:24. The story continues on with the inclusion of the ten horns which have been previously explained to be the ten European governments that were a part of the Roman Empire. Perhaps we can see (he logieai connection between this and what is soon to come before the chapter is concluded. It was among or out of “ these kings,” including the ten horns, that another “ little horn” was to arise which was the papacy. It was necessary to refer anew to this institution in order to connect the story up with the important revolutionary events yet to be foretold. Daniel 7:25. The pronoun he stands for the “ tittle horn” which is the papacy or church of Rome, and the passage is a description of the character and conduct of that institution through a Jong period of years. Wear but the saints is a repetition of the “ war with the saints” in verse 21. Think to change times and laws is still a prediction of the church of Rome which was to be in cooperation with the fourth beast, the Roman Empire; as long as that government existed, and tile two thus united composed what is known in history and prophecy as Babylon the Great, otherwise described as the union of church and state. The words italicized means the church of Rome boastfully will claim authority to regulate public matters the same as if it were God. (See a like prediction of this institution in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.) Shall be given into his hand means they will be persecuted and suppressed during the period soon to be described. That period is known in the language and literature of Christian teachers as the Dark AgeB. and its length Jb acknowledged to have been 1260 years. But the period here is stated in symbols, and we know that all inspired symbols must be interpreted in harmony with the known facts of history. So the symbols denote the following: A time , times (which would require at least 2 years), and the dividing of time (which would be haif a year.) Altogether there would he three and a half symbolical yars. In prophecy or symbols a day stands for a year. There are 360 days in a prophetical year: multiply 360 by three and a half and we get 1260, the number of years of the Dark Ages. This is not simply an arbitrary conclusion of a devoted advocate of the Bible, but even the historian Edward Gibbon, who was an infidel as regards the Bible, gives us in round numbers the same period for the reign of the church of Rome, and I shall quote a paragraph from his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28. as follows: "In the long period of twelve hundred years, which elapsed between the reign of Constantine and the reformation of Luther [which are the beginning and ending dates of the Dark Ages according to Christian scholars], the worship of saints and relics corrupted the pure and perfect simplicity of the Christian model; and some symptoms of degeneracy may be observed even in the first generations [See 2 Thessalonians 2:7] which adopted and cherished this pernicious innovation.” Daniel 7:26. This verse Is a prediction of the period in history known as the Reformation, started by Martin Luther and conducted in cooperation with others of that time. Take aioay his dominion means the union of church and Slate was to be dissolved as a result of the Reformation, for that event overthrew the despotic rule of the church of Rome over the lives of men in both public and private life. Daniel 7:27. The language of this verse is similar to that of chapter 2: 44, and it is fitting that it should be. Each passage had to do with the perpetuity of the church or kingdom Of Christ. In the first place the teaching of that church resulted in the overthrow of the world empires, and in the second it resulted in the downfall of Babylon the Great, and in spite of a'l the tests its enemies forced upon it, the kingdom of Christ stood and ia still standing. Daniel 7:28. Hitherto is the end means that Daniel has related the whole story of this dream. Cogitations is defined by Strong as, "a mental conception.” The prophet repeats what he said in verse 15, that what he saw in the vision troubled him. Yet he was able to keep the matter in his heart and relate it to the one who stood by. Daniel Chapter EightVerse 1 This chapter stands as the irrefutable example of genuine predictive prophecy at its most excellent achievement. Nobody, but nobody, can deny the obvious meaning of this prophecy. Even the most outspoken critical enemies freely admit the true meaning of the chapter, as did Herbert T. Andrews. He wrote: "The interpretation of the vision which is given by Gabriel to Daniel is exceptionally clear, and leaves no manner of doubt that it refers to events of the Maccabean age. The ram with the two horns stands for Medo-Persia. The He-goat is the Greek Empire, the first horn representing Alexander the Great, and the four later horns the four kingdoms into which the empire later split up. The "Little horn" is Antiochus Epiphanes. His attack upon the Jewish religion is clearly described."[1]The only support for the critical proposition that this is "prophecy written after the fact," based on the absurd proposition that the Book of Daniel was written about 165 B.C. (in the times of the Maccabees), is their arrogant, imaginative assertion to that effect. We have referred to that assertion as "absurd." Why? Every line of the Book of Daniel is in the Septuagint (LXX) version of the Old Testament.; and it was translated into the Greek language in the year 250 B.C.. What better proof could there be that Daniel was written long, long before the times of the Maccabees which are so accurately described herein? There are also many other remarkable proofs of the divine origin of these remarkably vivid prophecies. For example, if Daniel had been written in the times after Alexander appeared upon the historical horizon, any writer of that period would most certainly have made the ram, and not the goat, to have been the Greek kingdom. Why? Because Alexander wore a ram's horn on his crown; and this writer has seen gold seals in the Metropolitan Museum, New York City, carrying the image of Alexander the Great with his invariable ram's horn. "Alexander wore that horn in support of his boast that he was the son of Jupiter-Ammon."[2]Then again, there is that story in Josephus which we mentioned in the introduction that when the High Priest of Jerusalem showed Alexander this chapter in the Book of Daniel, he spared the city from the punishment which their behavior had surely merited, and even extended the most amazing privileges to Jerusalem and the Jews. Some would question that story; but we accept it as the only reasonable explanation of what most surely happened in those events. In the light of known facts, therefore, we find it ,somewhat incredible that an alleged Christian author would declare that: Daniel is a straight piece of historical writing cast in the form of prophecy![3]We fully agree with the words of many of the old commentators, for example, those of Gaebelein, who stated that: "Here indeed is history prewritten, for all of these things were revealed while the Babylonian Empire was still flourishing. No wonder that critics and kindred infidels have tried their very best to break down the authenticity of this book."[4]Daniel 8:1-2"In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first. And I saw in the vision; now it was so, that when I saw, I was in Shushan the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was by the river Ulai."It is not necessary to suppose that Daniel was actually physically in Shushan for this vision, because the text clearly says that his being there was "when he saw." Furthermore, at the end of the chapter, when he took up his regular business with the king he was not in Shushan, but in Babylon. From time to time, critics in their vain efforts to discredit the prophecy have complained that in the time here cited, namely in the third (and last year) of Belshazzar, Shushan had not then been constructed, or that it was not in the province of Elam, etc., etc. Those interested in pursuing such nit picking criticisms will find all of them thoroughly refuted by C. F. Keil.[5] His unequivocal conclusion was that, "The vision stands in intimate relationship to its contents and also to the time at which the revelation was made to Daniel."[6]Verse 3 "Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; and no beasts could stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and magnified himself."Many have pointed out that the ram here is the same world power represented by the arms and breast of silver in Daniel 2:32 and the beast "like unto a bear" (Daniel 7:5). The symbolism is exactly the same in all three instances. The ram represents Medo-Persia. This is one kingdom with two elements (Median and Persian), not two successive powers, for they are here represented by one animal. The bear's having three ribs in his mouth is the same as the ram pushing in three different directions, westward, northward, and southward. The bear's raising up on one side is the same as the younger horn of the ram rising up higher than the first one. These symbols show that the Persian Power, which was subsequent to the Median power, would become dominant in the later phase of this kingdom. The ferocity, power, and force of the ram speak of the mighty conquests of the Persians who at places such as Marathon and Thermopylae even extended their power out of Asia into Europe. It is of interest that in the ancient signs of the Zodiac, the Persians were under the sign of Aries the Ram, and Greece was under the sign of Capricorn the Goat.[7]Verse 5 "And as I was considering, a he-goat came from the west over the face of the whole earth, and he touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I saw standing before the river, and ran upon him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with anger against 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, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. And the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and instead of it there came up four notable horns toward the four winds of heaven."THE OF THE GREATThis is so clear a prophecy that there is no wonder that Alexander the Great recognized himself in it when it was shown to him. Again we have the clear consonance of this vision with the earlier ones in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7. The Greek kingdom of Alexander was represented in the first as belly and thighs of brass, and in the second by a leopard with four wings. The four wings, of course, stand for swiftness; and here that characteristic is inherent in the fact that this he-goat went so fast that he did not even touch the ground! Note also that he came from the west. Alexander's great conquests followed that course exactly. He crossed the Hellespont and carried his campaigns all the way to India, the only conqueror in world history ever to do that. The great central horn of the he-goat stands for Alexander himself. Note that it was broken when it was strong. It was at the very height of Alexander's glory in 323 B.C. that he suddenly died as a result of his drinking and of a fever. The four notable horns that followed Alexander were most circumstantially fulfilled by the division of his world-empire into four parts: (1) Cassandra controlled Macedonia and Greece; (2) Lysimachus controlled Thrace and Asia Minor; (3) Ptolemy I took firm control of Egypt; and (4) Seleucus controlled Syria and Babylonia. As the prophecy said, "toward the four winds of heaven." Note also that none of these ever attained the importance of Alexander's kingdom, despite the fact of the Seleucids gaining some preeminence. It was from them that the blasphemous "little horn" arose to challenge the Jewish religion in the times of the Maccabees. Palestine at first fell under the control of Egypt, but later was taken over by the Seleucids. It was from them that the terrible "little horn" developed. All of Alexander's empire finally disappeared into the dominions of the Roman Empire. The last little remnant was that of the Ptolemys in Egypt; but Pompey reduced it to a Roman Province in 63 B.C. The famed Cleopatra was involved in events related to that. Verse 9 "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the glorious land. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host and some of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them. Yea, it magnified itself, even to the prince of the host; and it took away from him the continual burnt-offering, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt-offering through transgression; and it cast down truth to the ground, and it did its pleasure and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said unto that certain one who spake. How long shall be the vision concerning the continual burnt-offering, and the transgression that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."THE LITTLE HORNSalient features of this are: (1) The terrible calamity prophesied was allowed to fall upon Israel "through transgressions" (Daniel 8:12), that means as a punishment for the sinful rebellion of Israel. (2) It will be a limited, controlled punishment. The sanctuary will again be cleansed. (3) The mention of the `glorious land' (Daniel 8:9) is a reference to Palestine. (4) `The prince of the host' (Daniel 8:11) is a reference to God Himself, since he is depicted as the owner of the sanctuary and as the possessor of the continual burnt-offerings. There is no disagreement whatever among scholars of all shades of belief. The `Little Horn' of this passage is a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes. The title means, "Antiochus the Illustrious"; but the Jews referred to him as "Antiochus Epimanes," meaning "Antiochus the Madman." This Antiochus Epiphanes was an evil character who inherited the throne of the Seleucid branch of Alexander's empire from his brother Seleucus IV, continuing his abominable tyranny until his death in 163 B.C. His outrages against Judaism were related to his efforts to exterminate the worship of God which at that point in history was still controlled by the Law of Moses. This was in connection with his desire to Helenize (Grecianize) Palestine. Onias III was High Priest; but his brother Jason, who fully favored Antiochus' plans to exterminate God's religion and replace it with the worship of the Grecian deity Zeus, went to Antiochus and made a deal with him, that if he would get rid of Onias III, Jason would aid his plans. Onias III, therefore was murdered and the corruption of the Jewish worship for a few terrible years was indeed accomplished.[8]Antiochus' outrageous actions precipitated a rebellion against him by the Maccabees; and the Maccabean war resulted in the overthrow of Antiochus, and the cleansing and re-consecration of the temple, events which the Jews thereafter celebrated with a fourth annual convocation rivaling the three older ones dating from the times of Moses, namely, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles. They called this celebration"The Feast of Lights," or"The Feast of Dedication." Many of the facts of the Jewish war led by the Maccabees are recorded in the apocryphal books of 1,2Maccabees and in the writings of Josephus. The extent of the desecrations imposed by Antiochus included the following: "The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the Sabbath and circumcision were forbidden under penalty of death. All Jewish sacrifices were forbidden, and sacrifices to pagan deities the old mythical gods of the Romans) were offered throughout the nation. Once a month they had a search; and anyone found with a copy of the Law of Moses was put to death. The same penalty applied to anyone who either permitted or allowed the rite of circumcision. In the year 168 B.C., a pagan altar was erected on top of the great Altar in the temple itself. Both the temple and the city of Jerusalem were dedicated to Zeus.[9] (This deity was the same as Jupiter Olympus). "He sacrificed a sow upon the altar of burnt-offering and sprinkled its blood over the entire building. He corrupted the youth of Jerusalem by the introduction of lewd and shameful practices; the feast of Tabernacles was made to be the feast of Bacchus; he auctioned off the office of the high priest; and he murdered at least 100,000 pious Jews."[10]Regarding the true interpretation of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, it would appear that any certain solution of this is impossible. Note that: (1) we do not know if the year or the religious year is meant; (2) we do not know if "evenings and mornings" mean "days," 2,300 days, or half that many days, since each day had both an evening and a morning; (3) the allegation that each day stands for a year (an assumption by no means proved) leads to the fantastic claim of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church that "Christ did not enter into the Holiest until the year 1844! In our studies of Revelation, it became evident that such numbers are almost certainly symbolical; and in that likelihood we have concluded that Keil is correct in seeing this number as a symbol. A symbol of what? "If we reduce these 2,300 days to years, we find that they add up to some three months and a little more past six years. The period of God's judgments falling either upon pagans as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4, or upon Israel as in the seven years famine under Ahab, or the punishment of Israel for David's numbering of the people (2 Samuel 24:13), was usually a full period of seven years; and the fact of this desecration to be terminated in a little over six years, indicates that, `It shall by no means reach the status of a full divine judgment against Israel.'"[11]Robert D. Culver was therefore most probably correct in the suggestion that the twenty-three hundred days, "Seem to refer to a period in 168-165 B.C. when the Temple was desecrated by pagan sacrifices."[12] If we must supply a reason why God permitted such outrageous transgressions against his holy religion, we need search no further than the prophecy of Malachi. The priesthood itself was cursed by Almighty God Himself for their shameful lapses; and such desecrations as arose in the 2century before Christ should therefore have been expected. Daniel 8:10-11 above, indicates that the wickedness of Antiochus was against the "host of heaven, and the prince of the host (even God)." Such language is very extravagant, after the manner of prophecy; but the simple meaning of it would appear to be: "The insolence of Antiochus was a wickedness against Heaven, and the heavenly order of things!"[13]Up to here the explanation of the prophecy is nearly transparent, there being practically no disagreement about it from any quarter. However, the introduction of an additional element inDaniel 8:17 brings into the passage suggestions of its application to events far in the future from the times of Antiochus. We shall note these in the explanations given in the prophecy itself. Verse 15 "And it came to pass when I, even I, Daniel, had seen the vision, that I sought to understand it; and, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man's voice between the banks of the Ulai, which called and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was affrighted, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man; for the vision belongeth to the time of the end. Now as he was speaking with me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face toward the ground; but he touched me and set me upright. And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the latter time of the indignation; for it belongeth to the appointed time of the end."This paragraph has the first naming of a holy angel in the entire Bible, Gabriel being the same angel that appeared to Mary and to Zacharias. The great burden of what the angel here said is that this great prophecy has an application to "the end time," It is extremely unlikely that this could possibly refer to anything else other than the end of "the indignation," that is, "God's indignation upon the human race as a result of their shameful rebellions against his will." In the understanding of the prophets, the "latter days," "the last days," the "end times," etc. invariably refer to the end of time, the setting up of the Messianic kingdom (always in the foreground) and of the final execution of the Great Judgment upon all mankind. Still another factor that almost certainly must be taken into consideration is the fact of Christ's making the end of the Israelite nation (in the destruction of Jerusalem) a type of the final judgment (Matthew 24). In view of this, "the time of the end" might well have a dual application, being prophetic of the "end of the indignation" against Israel, which issued in the destruction of the nation, and also prophetic of the final judgment itself. "Certainly, there is more here than history relating to the times of Antiochus and the Maccabees."[14] Keil is apparently correct in the discernment that the primary application of this to the end time is not to the final judgment, but to the setting up of the kingdom of Christ in the First Advent of the Messiah.[15] It should also be remembered in this context that the apostle Peter designated the entire Church Age as "the last days" (Acts 2:16). Of course, this does not at all deny the existence of prophetic overtones reaching to the Final Judgment itself. "The time of the appointed end ..." (Daniel 8:19). Paul declared that God had "appointed a day" in which he would judge the world (Acts 17:31). There were also other days which God appointed. He had appointed seventy years as the termination of the captivity in Babylon, a time which when Daniel was written, had just about expired. Verse 20 "The ram which thou sawest, that had the two horns, they are the kings of Media and of Persia. And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king. And as for that which was broken, in the place whereof four stood up, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not with his power. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power; and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper and do his pleasure; and he shall destroy the mighty ones and the holy people. And through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself mightily in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many: he shall also stand up against the prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.""But not in his own power ..." (Daniel 8:24). Apparently God gave this evil man the power to bring punishment upon Israel. Also, the intervention of God is behind the statement that, "He shall be broken without hand ..." (Daniel 8:25). He is said to have died of madness. "The defeat of Antiochus by Judas Maccabaeus might have been overcome by that evil power if he had had the money to pay his troops. Not having it, he attempted to plunder the pagan temple of Artemis at Elymais. He utterly failed, and that caused his death. Historians of those times viewed his death as caused by madness inflicted by a Divine hand."[16]"When the transgressors are come to the full ..." (Daniel 8:23). This is a reference to the transgressions of Israel. It was the climax of such sins that led to God's permission for such an evil power as Antiochus to rise up. Verse 26 "And the vision of the evenings and the mornings which hath been told is true: but shut thou up the vision; for it belongeth to many days to come. And I, Daniel, fainted, and was sick certain days; then I rose up and did the king's business: and I wondered at the vision, but none understood it.""Shut thou up the vision ..." (Daniel 8:26). Andrews thought this meant, "Keep it secret";[17] but we believe the better understanding of it is that of Barnes who said it meant, "Keep a record of it, that it may be preserved and that the fulfillment of it might be noted."[18]It is of very great significance that Daniel himself made no claim whatever to a full understanding of what he recorded. Even believing commentators often make the gross error of assuming that no prophet ever wrote anything that was not fully understood by the prophet himself, and that it is illogical to look for anything in the prophets that cannot be traced to the prophet's own knowledge or experience. It would be hard to imagine an error more directly opposed to what the Word of God teaches than is the one just cited. There are examples in both the Old Testament and the New Testament in which prophets plainly declared what they did not understand. For example, on Pentecost, Peter stated that the promises of the Christian gospel were for them that "were afar off," a plain reference to the Gentiles; yet it took a miraculous vision later to convince Peter that he should go to the home of Cornelius (a Gentile) and baptize him. In the Old Testament, there can hardly be any doubt whatever that Amos was without the foggiest notion of what God's Words through him actually meant, when he stated that the sabbath would be gone, "When the earth is darkened in a clear sky, and the sun goes down at noon." This error fails to recognize that it was God who spoke "through" the prophets. People who are influenced by this error should read 1 Peter 1:10-12. In that passage an apostle of Christ stripped this common error of every vestige of its validity. Commentary On Daniel Eight by Eric HallDaniel 8With chapter 8, the book again switches to the Hebrew language. Recall that since chapter 2, Daniel’ s record had been given in Aramaic. As we mentioned earlier, the use of different languages probably has much to do with the different audiences. Perhaps the Aramaic sections had messages primarily for the Babylonians and the Hebrew sections had messages primarily for the Jews. The two languages used in Daniel casts serious doubt on the idea that the apocalyptic language in the book was used to hide its message from the hostile powers that be. On the contrary, Daniel seems to have had the opposite objective in mind. He wanted the authorities to read his book. Indeed, he went out of his way to explain visions to two of the “ hostile” kings. Although certain symbols in Chapter 8 may remind us of symbols that were used in Chapter 7, we must keep in mind one of our principles of interpretation: Similarity of language does not prove identity of subjects. While the primary subject of Chapter 7 was the fourth kingdom, the primary subject of Chapter 8 is the third kingdom. Daniel 8:1-2 1 In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, Daniel, after that which appeared to me at the first. 2 And I saw in the vision; and when I saw, I was in Susa the capital, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in the vision, and I was at the river Ulai. This vision appeared to Daniel in the third year of Belshazzar’ s reign. If this denotes the third year of his coregency with Nabonidus, his father, then this vision would have appeared to Daniel in 550 BC. Again, we are faced with a choice. Either this book was written and these visions were received in the sixth century BC or its author was a liar. Jesus called Daniel a prophet and said that we should believe all that the prophets had written. Matthew 24:15 So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand). Luke 24:25 And he said to them, “ O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!” The Bible is not a grocery store where we can take what we want and reject the rest. If the book of Daniel is not trustworthy, then none of the Bible is trustworthy. The city of Susa (or Shushan) has been identified and the palace of Xerxes was discovered there in the late 1800’ s. It is not clear whether Daniel was in Susa when he received the vision or if the setting of the vision was Susa. (Verse 16 seems to support the former view since it occurs ‘ after’ the vision.) If Daniel was in Susa then what was he doing there? Susa was the capital of Elam, which at one time was independent of both the Babylonians and the Medes. By around 550 BC, however, Elam seems to have become a province of Persia. While Persia and the Medes were rivals, the Babylonians and the Persians were friendly. However, that changed when the Persians and the Medes merged. It was then that Nabonidus began to negotiate with Lydia and Egypt, hoping to form a triple alliance. Perhaps, Daniel was acting as an ambassador in these difficult negotiations.Problem: Daniel was apparently unknown to Belshazzar in Chapter 6, which of course occurred after the vision recorded here in Chapter 8. Belshazzar hardly seems to have had his pulse on the nation. Recall that he was engaged in a drunken feast when the city fell to the Persians. I doubt that he knew every government official in his employ. Note that Daniel was not in the city itself but was outside of the city by the river Ulai. This ‘ river’ was a wide artificial canal that connected the Choaspes River and the Coprates River. Daniel 8:3 I raised my eyes and saw, and behold, a ram standing on the bank of the river. It had two horns; and both horns were high, but one was higher than the other, and the higher one came up last. What does the ram denote? There is no doubt but that it denotes Medo-Persia. This is stated explicitly in verse 20. (See our comments about verse 20 below.) Again, one must wonder where the liberals get their idea that Daniel thought the Medes and the Persians acted as separate kingdoms in their dealings with the Babylonians. How could it be any more clear? We have one ram denoting both kingdoms. Why don’ t the liberals see this? They do see it, but they have a hidden agenda – naturalism at any cost, even when that cost is their own intellectual integrity. This ram has two horns which denote the Medes and the Persians. One horn is higher than the other. This higher horn denotes the supremacy of the Persians in their merger with the Medes. This higher horn comes up last. This is in perfect accord with history. The Medes were the dominant power until Cyrus the Great came along and brought prominence to the Persians. Daniel 8:4 I saw the ram charging westward and northward and southward; no beast could stand before him, and there was no one who could rescue from his power; he did as he pleased and magnified himself. This verse gives us a completely accurate picture of the Medo-Persians. The three general areas of Medo-Persian expansion were: Westward toward Lydia, Ionia, Thrace, and Macedon. Northward toward the Caspians and the Scythians. Southward to Babylon and Egypt. In these campaigns, the Medo-Persians were nearly invincible and, as pictured here, their targets were helpless against them. Medo-Persia and its king, Cyrus, became arrogant and Cyrus “ magnified himself.” The careful student of the Bible will infer from this language that Cyrus was ripe for a fall. Daniel 8:5-7 5 As I was considering, behold, a he-goat came from the west across the face of the whole earth, without touching the ground; and the goat had a conspicuous horn between his eyes. 6 He came to the ram with the two horns, which I had seen standing on the bank of the river, and he ran at him in his mighty wrath. 7 I saw him come close to the ram, and he was enraged against him and struck the ram and broke his two horns; and the ram had no power to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and trampled upon him; and there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. Who is this goat from the East? Again we are left with no doubt. Verse 21 tells us explicitly that it denotes Greece. This goat with one conspicuous horn comes from the West and charges the ram with the two horns. Again, this is in perfect accord with history. Alexander the Great and the Greeks came against Persia in 334 BC from Macedonia and Greece, which were in the West. Like this goat, Alexander moved fast. The hooves of this goat did not even touch the ground. (Alexander died when he was 33, but by that time he had virtually conquered the world!) Who was this conspicuous horn? As we have suggested, it must be Alexander the Great. Daniel 8:21 tells us that this horn was the “ first king.” Alexander was the first king of the consolidated Greek empire. (Indeed, he was the one who consolidated it.) This attack by the goat against the ram appears to be unprovoked. History tells us that Alexander launched just such an attack in 334, and emerged victorious just 3 years later. One commentator wrote: Alexander’ s conquest of the entire Near and Middle East within three years stands unique in military history and is appropriately portrayed by the lightning speed of this one-horned goat. Despite the immense numerical superiority of the Persian imperial forces and their possession of military equipment like war elephants, the tactical genius of young Alexander … proved decisive. Daniel is suggesting that Alexander had a little help! He was acting out his part of a plan that God had put in place hundreds of years earlier. Recall that Josephus says that the Jews showed Alexander this very passage when he marched against their city. Alexander then spared the city out of gratitude. (We had more to say about this in our introductory comments.) Daniel 8:8 Then the he-goat magnified himself exceedingly; but when he was strong, the great horn was broken, and instead of it there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven. This goat “ magnified himself.” What does that mean? It could denote Alexander’ s advances into Afghanistan and India which occurred in 327 BC. That is, he magnified his empire. More likely, it refers to Alexander’ s pretensions of divinity, which distressed his troops to the point that they mutinied and refused to advance further into India. Egyptian priests had told Alexander that he had descended from Zeus, and he took it very seriously. He required his comrades to prostrate themselves before him. Isn’ t it interesting that when God uses a man to do great things, that man often ends up thinking that he is a god himself? The progression seems to be: God did… God and I did… I did…Numbers 20:10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels; shall we bring forth water for you out of this rock?" We should remember to give God all of the glory and credit when we are allowed to do something great on his behalf. After all, how much credit do we give to Michelangelo’ s chisel? None. Which is exactly how much credit we deserve. This horn is broken at the height of its power, and in its place arise four other horns. Alexander died in 323 at the age of 33 due to a sudden fever brought on by dissipation. (The rumor was that he had in fact been poisoned by Cassander, the son of Antipater, viceroy of Macedonia.) After his death, attempts were made to hold his empire together, but they proved futile. By 311, four of his generals had claimed independence and by 301 they had it. (At one point 13 men were trying to carve out a piece of the Greek empire, but when the smoke cleared only 4 were still standing.) Ptolemy in Egypt (including Palestine) Seleucus in Babylonia Lysimachus in Thrace and Asia Minor Cassander in Macedonia and GreeceHistory tells us that the initial division of Alexander’ s kingdom was four-fold and that is what Daniel tells us as well. The difference is that Daniel told us many years before Alexander was even born! Daniel 8:8-12 9 Out of one of them came forth a little horn, which grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land. 10 It grew great, even to the host of heaven; and some of the host of the stars it cast down to the ground, and trampled upon them. 11 It magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host; and the continual burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown. 12 And the host was given over to it together with the continual burnt offering through transgression; and truth was cast down to the ground, and the horn acted and prospered. Here we have another little horn. Recall that we saw a little horn in Chapter 7 as well. That little horn was Domitian, the 11th emperor of Rome. Is this little horn also Domitian? No. The little horn in Chapter 7 came up from the fourth kingdom (Rome). The little horn here in Chapter 8 comes up from the third kingdom (Greece). Remember, similarity of language does not prove identity of subject – and this ‘ little horn’ is a perfect example. Who then is this little horn that arises out of the Greek empire? We are given a few clues here and more clues later in the chapter. Let’ s summarize the clues: He grew great toward the south, the east, and the glorious land. (verse 9) He was able to cast down some of the host of the stars and the host of heaven. (verse 10) He greatly magnified himself. (verse 11) He took away the burnt offerings. (verse 11) He overthrew the sanctuary. (verse 11) He was a king of bold countenance. (verse 23) He understood riddles (verse 23) He had great power (verse 24) He caused great destruction (verse 24) There is only one ruler who fits all of these clues. The little horn of Chapter 8 is Antiochus IV Epiphanes of the Seleucid Empire. Historical Review of Antiochus IV Epiphanes As we have seen, after the death of Alexander, Ptolemy and his successors established themselves in Egypt and at first controlled Palestine as well. The Seleucids on the other hand controlled Mesopotamia and Syria. There was constant friction between these two groups, and as was often the case, Palestine became a battlefield. In 200 BC, the Seleucids gained Palestine from the Ptolemies at the Battle of Panias. Initially the Seleucid rule was popular with the Jews. According to Josephus, Antiochus III eased the tax burden considerably. However, he soon came in conflict with Rome and after several defeats was forced to pay a large annual indemnity. This meant he had to tax the Jews more heavily, and understandably his popularity began to wane. (The conflict between taxes and popularity is hardly new!) Antiochus III was killed in 187 BC while raiding a temple treasury in Elam in order to pay off the Romans. His successor, Seleucus IV, continued this policy by plotting unsuccessfully to rob the temple treasury in Jerusalem. He was assassinated in 175 BC. As one might expect, this period gave rise to Jewish opposition and the gradual emergence of a nationalistic movement. Antiochus IV Epiphanes came to power after the death of his brother, Seleucus IV. He needed to unify his empire against the threats of Rome to the west, Parthia to the east, and Egypt to the south. He sought to accomplish this unity by fostering Hellenism; that is, by encouraging the adoption of Greek culture and ideals. He particularly identified with Zeus and took the name Epiphanes because he considered himself to be a divine personification of Zeus. Due to the Roman taxes, he was virtually penniless when he assumed the throne, so he increased taxes and continued to rob temples. Although they all disliked the taxes, the Jews were divided about Hellenism. Younger Jews were eager to adopt Greek culture and integrate it into Jewish society, but most older Jews were uncompromising traditionalists. Matters came to a head in Jerusalem when two men tried to outbribe each other in an effort to have Antiochus make them high priest. The new High Priest supported the establishment of a Greek gymnasium within sight of the temple. There, young men (including priests) studied Greek culture and took part in sports. The intertestamental book of First Maccabees contains the following description: Whereupon they built a place of exercise at Jerusalem according to the custom of the heathen. And made themselves uncircumcised, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the heathen. Greek sports were conducted without clothing. When they author writes that they made themselves uncircumcised, he is not just speaking figuratively. Some of the Jews actually tried to reverse their circumcision with surgery. Later, the High Priest (who had obtained that position by paying Antiochus a bribe) assisted the king in plundering the temple and said nothing while Antiochus murdered citizens and nearly destroyed the city. Later, an altar to Zeus was built in the temple and sacrifices were offered on it. And this was not all, as the following excerpt from one commentary makes clear: Antiochus issued decrees forbidding the practice of Jewish religion on pain of torture and death; the Sabbath and the festivals were not to be observed and circumcision was forbidden; copies of the Torah were to be destroyed and Jews were to be forced to offer sacrifices to Zeus and eat the meat of the sacrifice. Pigs were deliberately chosen as the sacrificial animals because they were considered unclean by the Jews. One elderly priest, Mattathias, refused to sacrifice to Zeus and, with his five sons, rose up and killed the king’ s officers who were trying to force him to comply. This led to the Maccabean Revolt, which eventually gave rise to the first independent Jewish nation since before the Babylonian captivity. This nation only lasted 79 years. In 63 BC, the Romans under Pompey conquered Jerusalem and once again the Jews were under foreign domination. Now, let’ s look at those clues again. Who is the Little Horn of Chapter 8? He grew great toward the south, the east, and the glorious land. (verse 9) This accurately describes the directions of the Seleucids. The ‘ glorious land’ denotes Palestine. He was able to cast down some of the host of the stars and the host of heaven. (verse 10) This ‘ stars of heaven’ and the ‘ host of heaven’ refer to the people of God, who at this time were the Jews. This symbol may point back to the promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:5. Antiochus caused many ‘ stars of heaven’ to fall as he caused them to renounce their covenant with God. He greatly magnified himself. (verse 11) Antiochus declared himself to be the divine personification of the Greek god Zeus. He took away the burnt offerings. (verse 11) Daniel 8:11 says that “ It magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host; and the continual burnt offering was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary was overthrown.”This Prince of the host is undoubtedly Jesus Christ himself, who we also saw in Chapter 7. It was from him (the Prince) that the burnt offering was taken. (The Hebrew here simply says that the daily was taken away. That is, the daily activities of the priests were stopped.) As we have seen, Antiochus did just this. He overthrew the sanctuary. (verse 11) Antiochus looted the temple and set up an altar to Zeus in the sanctuary. He was a king of bold countenance. (verse 23) Even the Roman Pompey refused to disrupt the Jewish worship, but no so with Antiochus. He definitely had a bold countenance! He understood riddles (verse 23) A better translation is that he was skilled at double dealings. Again, this was true of Antiochus. History tells us that he was extremely crafty and devious. He had great power and he caused great destruction (verse 24) This, of course, as we have seen was also true of Antiochus. In summary, Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the little horn that arose out of the Greek empire and persecuted the people of God ruthlessly. He overthrew the sanctuary and caused the daily sacrifices to end. He caused many of God’ s people to fall by causing them to renounce their covenant with God in favor of Greek culture and gods. Daniel 8:12 gives us the reason behind his success. It was through transgression. God didn’ t lack power; it was just that the people were evil. They followed him and allowed him to do what he did. Also, in verse 12 we see that he would cast the truth down to the ground. In fact, he forbid scriptural faith and service to God on pain of death. Daniel 8:13-14 13 Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to the one that spoke, “ For how long is the vision concerning the continual burnt offering, the transgression that makes desolate, and the giving over of the sanctuary and host to be trampled under foot?” 14 And he said to him, “ For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.” Daniel hears a ‘ holy one’ (probably an angel) ask how long the sanctuary and the people would be trampled under foot. A second ‘ holy one’ provides the answer: The sanctuary will be restored after 2300 evenings and mornings. History tells us that the sanctuary was restored in December 164. In fact, the Jewish Hanukkah holiday celebrates this very event. This is the feast that is called the feast of the dedication in John 10:22– 23. This celebration of the rebirth of the temple was later adopted by Christians to celebrate the birth of Christ. What about the time period of 2300 mornings and evenings? Is it literal or figurative? View 1: The time period is a literal 2300 days, which would be a little over 6 years and 100 days. A problem with this view is that nothing really notable occurred 6 years and 100 days before the temple was cleansed. That is, there appears to be no terminus a quo. View 2: The time period is a literal 1150 days, which would be a little over 3 years and 50 days. (1150 days contain 1150 mornings and 1150 evenings for a grand total of 2300 mornings and evenings.) This view is appealing in that the altar to Zeus was set up in the temple about 3 years before it was cleansed. View 3: The time period refers to a figurative time period of 6 years that falls just short of a figuratively complete 7 year period.If this view is correct then a period of six years would indicate that the persecution would be temporary. Why ‘ evenings and mornings’ instead of ‘ days’ ? The removal of the ‘ daily’ sacrifices was the center of attention in this story. Daniel 8:15-17 15 When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, there stood before me one having the appearance of a man. 16 And I heard a man’ s voice between the banks of the Ulai, and it called, “ Gabriel, make this man understand the vision.” 17 So he came near where I stood; and when he came, I was frightened and fell upon my face. But he said to me, “ Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end.”After the vision, Daniel sees the angel Gabriel and hears a voice asking Gabriel to explain the vision to Daniel. Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament that gives us the name of an angel. The angel tells Daniel that the vision is for the time of the end. What does he mean by this? The phrase ‘ time of the end’ is one of those phrases that requires us to examine the context very closely. Although we might be tempted to think ‘ the end’ must always refer to the end of the world, that could not be the case here. The vision very clearly ends with the cleansing of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus. Thus, the time of the end refers here to a time even before the birth of Christ. Consider the following passage where similar language is used: Habakkuk 2:2-3 And the Lord answered me: “ Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets, so he may run who reads it. 3 For still the vision awaits its time; it hastens to the end – it will not lie. If it seem slow, wait for it; it will surely come, it will not delay.” The ‘ end’ is the end of the vision. That is, it is the appointed time when the vision will be fulfilled. The key idea is that God is in charge of the timing and he will determine when the ‘ end’ occurs. The fulfillment is sure and will not occur by accident. Daniel 8:18-19 18 As he was speaking to me, I fell into a deep sleep with my face to the ground; but he touched me and set me on my feet. 19 He said, “ Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end. Daniel is so overcome that he faints, but the angel sets him on his feet again. Here we see it even more clearly. The ‘ time of the end’ in verse 17 is called the ‘ appointed time of the end’ in verse 19. It is the time that God has appointed for the events in the vision to be completed. The ‘ indignation’ in verse 19 refers to the outpouring of God’ s wrath against the enemies of his people and against sin. Daniel 8:20-22 20 As for the ram which you saw with the two horns, these are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn between his eyes is the first king. 22 As for the horn that was broken, in place of which four others arose, four kingdoms shall arise from his nation, but not with his power.Here was have the explanation of the vision, which we have already discussed. Recall that the ram was Medo-Persia and the goat was Greece. As history tells us, Greece defeated Medo-Persia and then split into four pieces after the death of Alexander the Great. These four kingdoms did not arise ‘ with his power.’ That is, they were ruled by his generals and not by his sons. Daniel 8: 20 speaks of the ‘ kings of Media and Persia.’ Did Daniel believe that the Medes and the Persians were separate kingdoms when these events occurred? No. Daniel clearly sees that Media and Persia are represented by a single ram. That is, they act and do everything together. They are, as history tells us, a single entity. Why, then, does he refer to the ‘ kings’ of Media and Persia when in fact Cyrus was in charge of both? The answer is suggested by verse 21: And the he-goat is the king of Greece; and the great horn between his eyes is the first king. Verse 21 shows us that the the term ‘ king’ can also refer to ‘ kingdom’ . The goat is called the king of Greece, yet the first king is a horn on the goat. Thus, the ‘ two kings’ of Media and Persia in a single ram denote the two kingdoms of Media and Persia which merged into a single Medo-Persian empire. Daniel 8:23-25 23 And at the latter end of their rule, when the transgressors have reached their full measure, a king of bold countenance, one who understands riddles, shall arise. 24 His power shall be great, and he shall cause fearful destruction, and shall succeed in what he does, and destroy mighty men and the people of the saints. 25 By his cunning he shall make deceit prosper under his hand, and in his own mind he shall magnify himself. Without warning he shall destroy many; and he shall even rise up against the Prince of princes; but, by no human hand, he shall be broken. Here we have a description of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who we have also already discussed. Recall that each of these items fits Antiochus precisely. In Jewish writings, he is referred to as Antiochus the Wicked. Daniel 8:23 tells us that he would arise in the latter end of their rule. Although, chronologically he ruled about midway in the timespan of the Seleucid kingdom, God’ s interest in the Seleucids ends with Antiochus IV (as we will see in Chapter 11). The kingdom began to decline with the death of his father Antiochus III. This is not unusual in the Bible. There were many Roman emperors, but as far as God was concerned there were only 11. He talks about the first 11 in Daniel and in Revelation, but says nothing about all the others that followed. God’ s interest in Rome (and in the Seleucids) seems to have ended after they were judged and sentenced. Daniel 8:25 tells us that Antiochus IV would be broken by no human hand. History tells us that after making an unsuccessful attempt to pillage a wealthy temple in Elymais, he died of a sudden mysterious illness. Daniel tells us that the illness was anything but mysterious! God removed Antiochus from the scene just like he removed Herod from the scene in Acts 12. Daniel 8:26 26 The vision of the evenings and the mornings which has been told is true; but seal up the vision, for it pertains to many days hence.” Daniel is told to seal up this vision because it pertains to many days hence. How many days hence? The vision was received in 550 BC and it was fulfilled in 164 BC. Thus ‘ many days’ refers here to a time period of 386 years. Daniel was told to seal the vision up because it dealt with events that would pertain to people who would live much later. This vision was not directly applicable to the people of his own day. In Revelation 22:10 John was given the opposite command! Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “ Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” Why was John told to not seal up the words? Because the time for their fulfillment was near! This is also mentioned elsewhere in the book. Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place. Revelation 1:3 the time is near. Revelation 22:6 And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. Thus, Daniel was told to seal up a vision that referred to a time less than 400 years after he received it, yet John was told not to seal up his vision. Does it make sense to teach that nothing in Revelation has yet been fulfilled as so many teach today? Daniel 8:26 and Revelation 22:10 provide a very good starting point for discussing the prophecies in these two books and especially the prophecy in Revelation. Daniel 8:27 27 And I, Daniel, was overcome and lay sick for some days; then I rose and went about the king’ s business; but I was appalled by the vision and did not understand it. Daniel was appalled by the vision and was overcome for some days. Why? Because he saw what would one day happen to God’ s people. Even though it would not happen to him or to anyone he knew, still he was disturbed. This is certainly a lesson for us. We should be concerned for God’ s people everywhere and for all time. How can we show our concern for future Christians? By carefully guarding the truth that has been entrusted to us, we show our care and concern for God’ s people in the future. 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Jude 3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. This is not just the elders’ or the ministers’ responsibility. It is everyone’ s responsibility. We neglect it at our own and our children’ s peril. Notice that even after the explanation, Daniel confesses in Daniel 8:27 that he did not fully understand the vision. (This should provide some comfort to us in our efforts to understand these visions!) "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Ram And The Goat (8:1-27) 1. In previous chapters we've seen visions describing four kingdoms... a. The vision of Nebuchadnezzar - Daniel 2b. The vision of Daniel - Daniel 7-- These kingdoms were the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, the Greek, the Roman 2. In Daniel 8, Daniel relates another vision... a. Commonly called "The Vision Of The Ram And The Goat" b. In which two kingdoms are described [As we shall see, the two kingdoms as the same as two of the four kingdoms in earlier visions. But just as the vision in Daniel 7 related more information about the fourth kingdom, so now the vision in Daniel 8provides information about the second and third kingdoms...] I. THE VISION (1-14) A. DATE OF THE VISION...1. Received by Daniel in the third year of Belshazzar king of Babylon - Daniel 8:12. This would be about 552 B.C., two years later than the vision in Daniel 7 B. DETAILS OF THE VISION...1. In the vision, Daniel saw himself in Shushan (Susa) - Daniel 8:2a. In the province of Elam (western Persia, modern day Iran) b. The winter capital of the Persian kings c. He was by the river Ulai 2. He saw a two-horned ram - Daniel 8:3-4a. Standing beside the river b. The horns were high, with one higher than the other which came up last c. The ram was pushing westward, northward, and southward 1) No beast could withstand him 2) None could deliver from his hand 3) He did according to his will and became great 3. He saw a one-horned male goat - Daniel 8:5a. Coming suddenly from the west b. Across the surface of the whole earth, not touching the ground c. With a notable horn between his eyes 4. He saw the goat defeat the ram - Daniel 8:6-7a. With furious power the goat attacked the ram and broke his two horns b. The ram was unable to withstand the goat, and was trampled 5. The goat become great, but when he became strong... - Daniel 8:8a. The large horn was broken b. In its place four notable ones came up toward the four winds of heaven 6. He saw a little horn come out of the four with great power - Daniel 8:9-12a. Which grew exceedingly great 1) Toward the south and east 2) Toward the Glorious Land b. Which grew up to the host of heaven 1) Casting down and trampling to the ground some of the host 2) Exalting himself as high as the Prince of host c. By this powerful horn... 1) The daily sacrifices were taken away 2) The place of His (God's) sanctuary was cast down 3) An army was given him to oppose the daily sacrifices (because of transgression) -- He did all this and prospered 7. Daniel then heard a conversation between two holy ones - Daniel 8:13-14a. One asking: "How long will the vision be, concerning..."1) "...the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation..."2) "...the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled under foot?"b. The reply given to Daniel: 1) "For two thousand three hundred days"2) "Then the sanctuary shall be cleansed" [With the details before us, we are now ready to consider the explanation provided Daniel...] II. THE VISION A. GABRIEL TO EXPLAIN THE VISION...1. Daniel was seeking to understand the meaning - Daniel 8:15-16a. When there stood before him one having the appearance of a man b. When a man's voice from the banks of the Ulai charged Gabriel to make Daniel understand the vision 2. Gabriel speaks to Daniel - Daniel 8:17-19a. He approaches Daniel 1) Prompting Daniel to fall on his face in fear 2) Telling him that "the vision refers to the time of the end"b. He stands Daniel on his feet 1) For Daniel had fallen into a deep sleep with his face to the ground 2) To tell him "what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be" B. GABRIEL THE VISION...1. The two-horned ram - Daniel 8:20a. Depicts the kings of Media and Persiab. The larger horn may represent Persia's greater influence - Daniel 8:3c. The expansion of the Medo-Persian empire illustrated by the ram pushing westward, northward, and southward - Daniel 8:42. The one-horned male goat - Daniel 8:21a. Depicts the kingdom of Greece; note that it came from the west - Daniel 8:5b. The large horn representing it's first king (Alexander the Great) c. The speed of the goat aptly reflects Alexander's conquests - Daniel 8:5d. Alexander defeated the Persians in three decisive battles - Daniel 8:6-71) At Granicus (334 B.C.) 2) At Issus (333 B.C.) 3) At Gaugamela (331 B.C.) 3. The broken horn and four horns that arose in its place - Daniel 8:22a. Alexander died at 33 years of age b. His empire was divided between his four generals - Daniel 8:81) Ptolemy (Egypt) 2) Seleucus I (Syria) 3) Cassander (Macedonia and Greece) 4) Lysimachus (Thrace and Asia Minor) 4. The little horn that became exceedingly great - Daniel 8:23-25a. Some time later a king shall arise 1) When transgressors have reached their fullness (when Israel has fallen back into sin) 2) With mighty power, but not by his own 3) Who shall destroy fearfully, prosper and thrive 4) Who shall destroy the mighty and also the holy people 5) Through cunning he shall cause deceit to prosper 6) He shall magnify himself, and destroy many in their prosperity 7) He shall even rise against the Prince of princes (i.e., God Himself) 8) But he shall be broken without human hand (God shall destroy him) b. This is most likely Antiochus Epiphanes, ruler of Syria (175-163 B.C.) 1) Who imposed Greek culture and deities upon his subjects 2) Who when he conquered Jerusalem: a) Set up an image in the temple b) Offered swine flesh upon the altar c) Encouraged Greek soldiers to commit fornication in the temple d) Forbade circumcision, keeping the Sabbath, possessing a copy of the Scriptures (Harkrider) 5. The vision of the evenings and mornings - Daniel 8:26a. The number of days the sacrifices will cease, and the temple desolated b. Maybe a literal period (a little over six years) corresponding to the actual period of time the abomination by Antiochus Epiphanes occurred (171-165 B.C.) c. Daniel instructed to seal up the vision 1) For it was to occur "many days in the future"2) I.e., almost four hundred years later C. EFFECT ON DANIEL...1. He fainted and was sick for days - Daniel 8:272. Though he afterward arose and went about the king's business, he was astonished by the vision (but no one understood it) - Daniel 8:27 1. This vision is probably the easiest to understand of the four visions that Daniel saw... a. The identity of the ram and goat are clearly given b. History confirms what is described in this vision 1) The conflict between Medo-Persia and Greece 2) The division of the Grecian empire following Alexander's death 3) The rise of Antiochus Epiphanes and his desecration of the temple in Jerusalem 2. The purpose of the vision was to prepare the people of Daniel for what was to come... a. In "the time of the end"b. In "the latter time of the indignation"-- I.e., the persecution that would come upon Israel toward the end of the OT period, during the inter-testamental period (Young) The remarkable accuracy of this vision has led some to date the book of Daniel after the events of Antiochus Epiphanes. But its accuracy poses no problem for those who accept the inspiration of the Scriptures, and should remind us of God's power to fulfill His Word: "Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, `My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,' "Calling a bird of prey from the east, the man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it." - Isaiah 46:9-11 "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" Chapter Eight In the third year of King Belshazzar (550 B.C.) Daniel has another vision: a swift goat defeating a mighty ram. The goat's large horn is then broken into four horns, followed by a little horn that brings desolation to the sanctuary and the host of heaven (Daniel 8:1-14). The angel Gabriel interprets the vision which foretells the rise of a fierce and mighty king (Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 175-164 B.C.) that would bring desolation against the holy people (Daniel 8:15-27). POINTS TO PONDER * The interpretation of Daniel's vision in this chapter * The meaning of the expression, "the time of the end" REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The vision of the ram and the goat - Daniel 8:1-14- Gabriel interprets the vision - Daniel 8:15-27 2) Describe the ram and the goat in Daniel's vision. (Daniel 8:3-8)- Ram: mighty and great, with two horns, one higher than the other - Goat: swift, from the west, with a notable horn - The goat tramples the ram, then grew very great - The goat's horn is broken into four, and out of them a little horn 3) List the actions of the little horn that arises from the four horns. (Daniel 8:9-12)- Grew great toward the south, the east, and the Glorious Land - Grew up to the host of heaven and cast some of them and stars down - Exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host - Took away the daily sacrifices, cast down the sanctuary, cast truth to the ground 4) How long would the desolation against the sacrifices and sanctuary last? (Daniel 8:13-14)- For 2300 days (evening-mornings, v.26); then the sanctuary would be cleansed 5) According to Gabriel, to when did the vision pertain? (Daniel 8:15-19)- The time of the end, the latter time of the indignation, the appointed time 6) What did the ram and goat represent? (Daniel 8:20-22)- Ram: Media and Persia; Goat: Greece (Alexander and his generals) 7) How is the king who shall rise (the little horn) described? (Daniel 8:23-25)- Fierce, mighty, cunning, who will destroy the mighty and holy people - Rising even against the Prince of princes, but will be broken without means 8) What was Daniel told to do with the vision? Why? (Daniel 8:26)- Seal up the vision; it pertained to many days in the future Daniel 8:1. Again the Lord gave to Daniel a prophecy, but this time it was in the form of a vision instead of a dream. It was shown to him two years after the dream of the preceding chapter. Another difference in this chapter is that, whereas the other considered the four world empires, this will be about the MedoPersian and Grecian. Daniel 8:2. At the time Daniel saw this vision he was on the banks of a river in the province of Elam. Shushan (sometimes spelled Susa) was one of the capitals of the MedoPersian Empire. The reason for saying one of its capitals is that after the ascendency of this world power, its rulers resided sometimes in this place and sometimes in Babylon. However, at the time of this chapter the Babylonian Empire was still in power, and the reference to the palace was because tlie province had once been a prominent territory and had its own local rulers who had their mansion here. Since Daniel hau this vision while the first of the fonr world powers was in force, it would make the events shown in the vision truly prophetical. Daniel 8:3. The ram In this vision was the Medo-Persian Empire, the two parts of the empire corresponding to the two horns of the beast. In symbols an event may occur that is different from the natural procedure, yet one which truly represents the actual transaction in the application. Thus we here have two circumstances that differ front the natural course of events. The horns of this ram did not giow up together, nor did they maintain the same greatness or height. That was fulfilled in the history of the two parts of the empire, the Medes and the Persians. The Medes were the older of the two groups but never did attain to the proportions of tile Persians. The historical evidence of this may be seen in the comments on Daniel 7:5. Daniel 8:4. The three directions mentioned are significant. A glance at the map will show the original headquarters of the Medes and Persians were in the eastcentral portion of the then civilized world. If the empire was to expand it would have to do so in these directions. It continued to do so until it grew into the proportions of a world empire. This was the second one of the four kingdoms that had been predicted by both Ezekiel and Daniel. And both of these prophets predicted that it. would he subdued and replaced by another, which brings the story up to the next event of the vision seen by Daniel. Daniel 8:5. Daniel was interested in the event he had just seen and wras thinking over it when another sight came before him. A he goat was selected by the Lord, that animal being rougher and stronger and better adapted to the action about to take place. The goat represented the Greek or Macedonian Empire which was the third of the world empires we have been reading about. Like the Babylonian Empire, its first king was not its greatest. The first of the Babylonian rulers was Nabopoiassar, but its greatest one was Nebuchadnezzar. The first ruler of the Macedonian Empire was Philip of Macedon, but by far its greatest one was his son Alexander, represented by a notable horn. In symbolic literature a horn represents power and authority, and Alexander surely possessed both. Touched not the ground is figurative and refers to the swiftness of Alexander’ s march across the Persian dominions. He covered that vast territory in twelve years with very little resistance. Daniel 8:6. This verse refers to the furious advance of Alexander upon Persia, Daniel 8:7. In tills one verse the complete subjugation of Persia by Alexander was indicated by the vision. Choler means bitterness according to Strong’ s lexicon, but it does not necessarily refer to the personal character of Alexander only. The idea is that the defeat that was inflicted upon, the Persians was a bitter experience. Daniel 8:8. When, he was strong denotes that Alexander was at the height of his success when he died, and that event also fulfilled the rest of the prediction, the great horn teas broken. I shall quote a passage from one of the "church fathers,” otherwise called the Nicetle Library, "Again, the sons of Greece celebrate Alexander the Macedonian as the conqueror of many and diverse nations; yet we find that he was removed by an early death, before he had reached maturity, being carried off by the effects of revelry and drunkenness. His whole life embraced but the space of thirtytwo years, and his reign extended to no more than a third part of that period. Unsparing as the thunderbolt, he advanced through streams of blood and reduced entire nations and cities, young and old, to utter slavery. But when he had scarcely arrived at the maturity of life, and was lamenting the loss of youthful pleasure, death fell upon him with terrible stroke, and, that he might not longer outrage the human race, cut him off in a foreign and hostile land, childless, without successor, and homeless. His kingdom, too, was instantty dismembered, each of his officers taking away and appropriating a portion for himself. And yet this man is extolled for such deeds as these.’ '— Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book 1, Chapter 7. The four notable ones refers to the four divisions into which Alexander's conquests fell upon his death, predicted by the four wings and four heads in chapter 7: 6. Daniel 8:9. In the comments at verse 1 it is stated that this chapter would be concerned with only two of the world powers. That is, all of the chapter would be about those two or some part of them, However, to avoid confusion, I think it should be explained that the four divisions into which Alexander's conquests fell at his death, while still a part of the third world empire, will receive some special attention. It was not long until two of these divisions were absorbed by the others, leaving only two which occupy the prophecy and history until they, too, were absorbed by the growing power of the fourth world empire, the Roman, The two remaining divisions will be referred to as Syria and Egypt. The former embraced the country formerly called Syria, and most of the countries as far eastward as the Indus River, and it Included Palestine also, which will account for much of the important prophecy yet to come. The latter embraced the country of Egypt and the territory immediately surrounding it. These two kingdoms are also referred to in history and prophecy as the "northern” and the "southern” kingdoms, and the two were almost constantly in a state of hostitity against each other. The present verse has to do with the kingdom of Syria, and especially with one of its kings who was one of the most vile and wicked men in history. Much of this chapter has to do with this man whose name was Antiochus Epiphanes, sometimes referred to by either one of the names only. He is the little horn of this verse, and is represented as becoming eager for more and more power. Hence he pushed outward to other territories and included the pleasant land which means Palestine. Daniel 8:10. Stars Is from KOWKAR which Strong defines, "figuratively a prince." The words host of heaven, therefore, means the citizens of this "pleasant land," and the stars has reference to the outstanding men among them. This wicked king had a bitter feeling against the Jews, and was disposed to do them all the harm he could. Daniel 8:11. The daily sacrifice was presided over by the priest, hence we know that in this passage the prince of the host refers to the priest.. The meaning of the prediction is that Epiphanes would stop the offering of the daily sacrifice, Place of the sanctuary cast down. Not only was the sacrifice to be stopped, but the altar and temple were to be desecrated. The fulfillment of prophecy is to be seen in the events of history, hence it will be appropriate for me to quote some now: “ At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy [one of the kings of Egypt] about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be suhject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the highpriests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea, The king being thereto disposed beforehand. complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy and sent out his soldiers to plunder them, without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a dally sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the highpriest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place for him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple; concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter. "Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking of fhe city, or with pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of the country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death, Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction; till at length he provoked the poor sufferers, by the extremity of his wicked doings, to avenge themselves." — Josephus, Wars, Book 1, Chapter 1, Sections 1, 2, Daniel 8:12, We might wonder why God would suffer as wicked a man as Antiochus to be so successful against His people. It was not the first time He had used evil characters as instruments by which to chastise the Jews. The last great instance was that of the king of Babylon who was empowered to take them off into eaptivity to punish them for their idolatry. But after that experience the Lord assured his people that they would never again be sent as a nation out of their own land. However, He did not tell them they never would be punished at all if they disobeyed the divine laws. And when they again became corrupt in other ways (not idolatry), He determined to punish them. This time it was by suffering the wicked king Antiochus to interrupt their sacred practice of the daily sacrifice, and the present verse has to do with that sad affair. Host is from TSEBAAH which Strong defines. “ A mass of persons (or figuratively things), especially regularly organized for war \ Daniel 8:13. The disgraceful condition produced about Ule temple and altar aroused the anxious Inquiry of the saint who beheld it. The verse may well be abbreviated by the words, “ How long will it be until this condition will be corrected, and the daily sacrifice be resumed according to the law?” Daniel 8:14. The answer was addressed to Daniel instead of the saint who had asked the question, because it had been asked in the hearing of the prophet who was to be the reporter of the scene. The number of days, 2300, Is nearly six and a half years. This includes the time the altar lay desecrated and idle, and also the period required for the war for the repossess.on of the holy institution. The war was conducted by Judas Maccabeus, a faithful and zealous Jew. The history of that war is too extensive to co.^y here, but the reader may see the information in Josephus, Antiquities, 12-7-1-6. Daniel 8:15. As in the vision of the preceding chapter, after the prophet had seen this one just related, he wished to know its interpretation. We do not know the identity of the person who will speak first, but he evidently was a messenger acting under divine orders, for his directions were obeyed. Daniel 8:16. That spokesman used the voice of a man, and Daniel heard him speak to the one who stood before the prophet, who had the appearance of a man, and bade him explain to Daniel the vision, at the same time addressing him by the name of Gabriel. Daniel 8:17. The appearance of this messenger from heaven filled Daniel with surprise and terror, and in rev. erence he fell face downward upon the ground. Then Gabriel made an introductory remark as to the time when the vision would be fulfilled. The time of the end could not he the end of the world, for the events predicted do not agree with that period. Neither could it mean the end of the four world empires, for there was still one more of them to come which was to exist for centuries. Hence, on the basis of elimination, the conclusion is that it refers to the end of the second one of the world powers that are pictured in the vision. That is in harmony with the facts of history, for Antiochus Epiphanes, with whom the vision concludes, appears in the historical records about 150 years B.C., and the reign of the Macedonian Empire was tapering off toward its end, to be supplanted by the Roman Empire, which waa then beginning to cast its shadow ahead. Daniel 8:18. The prophet was still under the effect of his prostrating surprise which had thrown him into a deep sleep. That not being the desirable condition in which to receive such an important communication, Gabriel restored him to full consciousness. Daniel 8:19. Last end means the same as time of the end, explained by the comments on verse 17. However, there is a more specific item added to the prediction as to the date and that is, end of the indignation. The vision ended at the final downfall and death of Antiochus, whose wicked conduct provoked the indignation of God. Daniel 8:20. This is fully explained at verse 3, Daniel 8:21. King of Grecia means the royalty in general, for a particular one of the kings will be alluded to at the erd of the verse. First king is explained at verse 5. Daniel 8:22. The four kingdoms is explained at verse 8. Not in his power means that the four divisions into which the conquests of Alexander fell at bis death were none of them as strong as he. This prediction and conclusion may be verified by secular history, and I shall again quote from Myers' Ancient Ifistrry, page 286: "There was no one who could wield the sword that fell from the hands of Alexander. It is said that, when dying, being asked to whom the kingdom should belong, he replied, 'to the strongest,’ and handed his signet ring to his general Ferdiccas. But Perdic cas was not strong enough to master the difficulties of the situation. Indeed, who is strong enough to rule the world?’’ Daniel 8:23. Their kingdom has special reference to the four divisions of Alexander's empire, of which Syria was the most important. Near the close of that period (see the comments on “ last end’’ in verse 19) a condition was to exist described by transgressors are come to the full. This subject of transgression is treated at length by comments and quotation from history at verse 12, which includes the name and some of the traits of the king referred to in this verse. Fierce countenance is defined by Strong as meaning "harsh of face." Dark sentences is from one original word which is chiydah, and Strong defines it, "A puzzle; hence a trick, conundrum, sententious [brief or pithy] maxim.” Shall stand up means to appear and become very prominent. Hence we understand that Antiochus Epipbanes waB a man with a hard looking face and a character equally harsh. He was an expert in matters of trickery, and would not hesitate to use it to his own advantage when the opportunity came before him. Daniel 8:24. Not by his own power is explained at length at verse 12. Prosper ana practice refers to the success of Antiochus in his wicked transactions. Destroy the mighty and holy people. Antiochus was to overthrow those with whom he came in contact, whether they be the strong people of the world or the good people of God. Daniel 8:25. Cause craft to prosper is explained under dark sentences In verse 23. Magnify hi rase If denotes he will be puffed up with a feeling of his own importance, and will plot and scheme various kinds of wickedness to gratify his egotism. Peace 1e from SHALYAH which Strong defines, “ security (genuine or false)." Antiochus would win the confidence of men by his false promises and then would destroy them. Against the Prince of princes refers to his attack upon the institutions of God as we saw in verse 11. Be broken without hand. One word in the definition of the original for hand is "means,” and the thought is that no apparent or human means would be used to cause the ruin of Antiochus. This violent and super natural death of the wicked man is so outstanding in the annats of the times that I shaii quote from history as follows; “ When this concern about these affairs was added to the former, he [Antiochus] was confounded, and, by the anxiety he was in, fell into a distemper, which, as it lasted a great while, and his pains increased upon him, so he at length perceived he should die in a little time; so he called his friends to him, and told them that his distemper was sore upon him and confessed withal, that this calamity was sent upon him for the miseries he had brought upon the Jewish nation, while he plundered their temple and condemned their God; and when he had said this he gave up the ghost.”— Josephus, Antiquities, 1291. "On his arrival thither [Antiochus Epiphanes at Ecbatana in Media], greatly grieved for this baffle and disappointment at Elymais, news came to him of what happened to Nicanor and Timotheus in Judea; at which being exceedingly enraged, he hastened back, with ali the speed be waa able, to execute the utmost of his wrath upon the people of the Jews, breathing nothing else but threats of utter destruction and utter extirpation against them all the way as he went. As he was thus hastening toward the country of Babylonia, through which he was to pass in his return, he met on the road other messengers, which brought him an account how the Jews had defeated Lysias, recovered the temple at Jerusalem, pulled down the images and altars which he had erected, and restored that place to its former worship; at which being enraged to the utmost fury, he commanded his charioteer to double his speed, that he might be the sooner on the place to execute his revenge upon the people, threatening, as he went, that he would make Jerusalem a place of sepulchre [burying place] tor the Jews, wherein he would bury the whole nation, destroying them all to a man. But while these proud words were in his mouth, the judgment of God overtook him; for he had no sooner spoken them but he was smitten with an incurable plague, a great pain seizing his bowels, and a grievous torment following thereupon in his inward parts, which no remedy could abate. However, he would not slacken his speed; but still continuing in the same wrath, he drove on the same haste to execute It, till at length, his chariot overthrowing, he was cast to the ground with such violence, that ho waa sorely bruised and hurt in all the members of his body; whereon he was put into a litter; but not being able to bear that, he was forced to put in at a town called Tabae, lying in the mountains of Paraetacene, in the coniines of Persia and Babylonia, and there betake himself to his bed, where he suffered horrid torments both in mind and body. For in his body a filthy ulcer broke out in his secret parts, wherein were bred an innumerable quantity of vermin continnally flowing from it; and such a stench proceeding from the same, as neither those that attended him nor he himself could well bear; and in this condition he lay languishing and rotting till he died. And all this while the torments of his mind were as great as the torments of his body, caused by the reflections which he made on his former actions, Polybius [a heathen historian] tells us of this, as well as Josephus, and the authors of the first and second books of Maccabees; and adds hereto, that it grew so far upon him as to come to a constant delirium, or state of madness, by reason of several spectres and apparitions of evil spirits, which he imagined were continually about him, reproaching and stinging his conscience with accusations of his past evil deeds which he had been guilty of. Polybius saith, this was for the sacrilegious attempt which he made upon the temple of Diana in Elymais, Overlooking that which he had actually executed upon the temple at Jerusalem. Josephus reproves him [Polybius] for this, and with much more reason and justice, lays the whole cause of his suffering in this sickness, as did Antiochus himself, to what lie did at Jerusalem, and the temple of God in that place, and the horrid persecution which he thereon raised against, all that worshiped him there." — Prideaux's Connexion, year 164. God used Antiochus to chastise his own people “ by reason of transgression,” (verse 12), yet He was not willing that they should have charge of the last part of the just punishment upon the wicked king, but instead He struck him with a terrible affliction that tormented him in mind and body. Daniel 8:26. Evening; morning is in reference to the number of days mentioned in verse 14. The marginal rendering there is “ evening, morning.” That agrees with the expression “ evening and morning” which occurs six times in Genesis 1 in enumerating the days of creation. The things predicted in the vision were some time in the future, hence Daniel was told to shut if up or keep it a secret for the time being. Daniel 8:27. Daniel obeyed the instructions about keeping the vision as a secret so well that none understood it. But the tension of the whole circumstance was so great that it affected him physically for some days. He finally recovered and resumed his duties under the king which Is the meaning of did the king’ s business. Daniel Chapter NineVerse 1 This chapter recounts the prophecy of the seventy weeks, probably the most debated portion of the whole prophecy. The chapter has four divisions: (1) Daniel comes to understand that the "seventy years" of Israel's captivity are about to end (Daniel 9:1-2); (2) his fervent prayer that God will indeed bless and restore Israel to Palestine (Daniel 9:3-19); (3) Gabriel interrupts his prayer in order to show Daniel things to come (Daniel 9:10-23); and (4) the prophecy of the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:24-27). Chapter Orientation (Daniel 9:1-2) Daniel 9:1-2"In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans, in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood by the books the number of years whereof the word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishment of the desolations of Jerusalem, even seventy years."Daniel himself was a prophet, indeed one of the greatest of the prophets, yet when he eagerly desired to know more of God's will, he gave diligent attention and study to the prophets who were before him. What a remarkable contrast is here with the behavior of some of our present day religious leaders who pretend to be in constant communication with God Himself over every petty little thing confronting them, even their budget problems! The great avenue of communication established between the Father in heaven and his earthly children is still that of the Word of God, namely, the holy Bible. How did Daniel acquire that knowledge that the "seventy years" of the Babylonian captivity were about to end? He read it in the prophecy of Jeremiah, as follows: "For thus saith Jehovah, After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place" (Jeremiah 29:10). Here is also something especially important regarding prayer. God had indeed promised Israel to restore them to Palestine after the "seventy years" were ended; nevertheless, Daniel considered it most important to offer this impassioned prayer to God with the most earnest supplications and petitions that God would indeed fulfil his glorious promises to the people. The prayers of God's people are a constant necessity for the reception of those great blessings which God Himself has already promised. By Daniel's mention of the "books" in this passage, it is quite evident that many of the Old Testament books were at that time in existence. A little later he mentioned "the curse" from the Deuteronomy 28. The critical conceit that would interpret "the books" here as the completed canon of the Old Testament (with a view to preventing Daniel's prophecy from being considered a part of the canon) is merely another groundless, unproved, and ridiculous assertion. "Darius ... who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans ..." (Daniel 9:2). This monarch, Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, is still unknown by name to history and to the monuments; but that is no argument against Daniel, "Belshazzar's name was also likewise unknown to the monuments, until the discovered memorials of Nabonnaid fully continued Daniel's record. But the poor critics have not yet learned their lesson; and they will continue to doubt the Word of God until some day to their eternal loss they will find out their complete defeat as well as the wickedness of their destructive work."[1]As a matter of fact, the very text here gives evidence of the secondary nature of Darius' kingship, thus providing the probable reason why the monuments ignored him. "After pointing out the near unique structure of the original language here, especially the Hophal; Keil declared that, `It shows that Darius did not become king over the Chaldean kingdom by virtue of a hereditary right to it, nor that he gained the kingdom by means of conquest, but that he received it from the conqueror of Babylon.'"[2]Thus we have additional confirmation of some of the conclusions reached in our study of Dan 6:1, above. Verse 3 "And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. And I prayed unto Jehovah my God, and made confession, and said, Oh, Lord, the great and dreadful God, who keepeth covenant and lovingkindness with them that love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned and have dealt perversely, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even turning aside from thy precepts and from thine ordinances; neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, that speak in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land."DANIEL'S PRAYER (Daniel 9:3-19) Daniel here confessed the sins of Israel as progressing from mere wickedness and transgression to outright rebellion against God; also, it should be noticed that he included himself as partaker of the sins of the people and with them equally guilty before God. It was this general wickedness of Israel which had by no means abated during the "seventy years" captivity that actually moved Daniel to prayer. "The Exile had not produced the expected fruits of repentance; so that, although Daniel did not doubt the promise of God, namely, that the people would be returned; yet his concern appeared to be the blessings God had promised after their return."[3]Notice the mention of the prophets having spoken to, "our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people." Why are not the priests mentioned here? Simply because, at the time when Daniel was written, namely, in Babylon shortly before the termination of the Captivity, there was no officiating priesthood of God's people in Babylon. This was definitely not the case in the days of the Maccabees, the period in which critics have vainly supposed this prophecy was written. As a number of other factors in this prayer also indicate, this refutes the false allegations of the late-date fad. "To a man who still remembered the kings and princes in Jerusalem (as did Daniel), this language is natural; "but in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes (the Maccabean period) this language would be absurd and meaningless."[4]Verse 7 "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of face, so at this day; to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and unto all Israel, that are near, and that are afar off, through all the countries whither thou hast driven them, because of their trespass that they have trespassed against thee. O Lord, to us belongeth confusion of face, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because we have sinned against thee. To the Lord our God belongeth mercies and forgiveness; for we have rebelled against him; neither have we obeyed the voice of Jehovah our God, to walk in his laws, which he set before us by his servants the prophets. Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even turning aside, that they should not obey thy voice: therefore hath the curse been poured out upon us, and the oath that is written in the law of Moses the servant of God; for we have sinned against him.""The curse ... and the oath ..." (Daniel 9:11). This is evidently a reference to Leviticus 26:14 and toDeuteronomy 28:15, especially the latter where the "oath" is mentioned. Verse 12 "And he has confirmed his words, which he spake against us, and against our judges that judged us, by bringing upon us a great evil; for under the whole heaven hath not been done as hath been done upon Jerusalem. As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come upon us; yet have we not entreated the favor of Jehovah our God, that we should turn from our iniquities, and have discernment in thy truth. Therefore hath Jehovah watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for Jehovah our God is righteous in all his works which he doeth, and we have not obeyed his voice." IN RUINSEven the most casual attention to this prayer reveals that Daniel's concern was centered upon the devastated state of the city of Jerusalem. Here in the prayer, Daniel said, "Under the whole heaven" there does not exist another example of the kind of ruthless destruction that had been poured out upon Jerusalem. Not merely here, but a second time afterward in this prayer we have reference to the ruins of Jerusalem and to "thy holy mountain," a Jewish designation of the destroyed temple (Daniel 9:16). Also, "sanctuary" (Daniel 9:17) carries the same meaning. Let the Bible student note the significance of this. Is the situation that was extant when Daniel uttered this prayer to be identified with the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean wars? Indeed no! Antiochus did not destroy the city of Jerusalem; and, although he desecrated the temple, he did not destroy it; and therefore, we have here another proof of the utter absurdity of the impossible theory that this prophecy was written in the Maccabean period. Even a novice in Bible study should know better. If the writer of Daniel had lived in the days of Antiochus, it would have been impossible for him to have regarded the mined state of Jerusalem and the temple as being "unique under heaven."[5]Verse 15 "And now, O Lord our God, thou hast brought thy people forth out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and hast gotten thee renown, as at this day; we have sinned, we have done wickedly. O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, let thine anger and thy wrath, I pray thee, be turned away from thy city of Jerusalem, thy holy mountain; because for our sins and for the iniquity of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are round about us. Now therefore, O our God, hearken unto the prayer of thy servant, and to his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies' sake. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God, because thy city and thy people are called by thy name."This prayer reaches an amazing intensity and fervency in the final clauses. Note also the repeated references to the destroyed temple and the devastated city. Also, of interest is the basis of Daniel's prayer: (1) the previous blessings of God are mentioned; (2) the persistent sins of the people are repeatedly confessed; (3) it is admitted that the reproach which has fallen upon Israel is of their own sinful deeds and entirely their fault; (4) not any righteousness either of the people or of Daniel are alleged as grounds for the requests uttered, but "the righteousness and mercies of God" are pleaded as the grounds of hope. Surely, this is one of the greatest prayers ever spoken. We shall pass over the nonsense in which critical enemies have tried to find out where Daniel got the terminology used in this prayer. Sure enough, there are certain phrases and expressions which are common to many who came both before and after Daniel; but there is nothing of any importance to be gained from such comparisons. As to the problem which must be solved when two writers used similar expressions, as to which one of them was "the original"; it is usually impossible to know. Keil alleged that in some of the similarities between Daniel and other writers, "Daniel did not borrow from Ezra or Nehemiah; but they borrowed from him! This is beyond doubt."[6]Verse 20 "And while I was speaking and praying, and confessing my sin, and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before Jehovah my God for the holy mountain of my God; yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he instructed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee wisdom and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment went forth, and I am come to tell thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision."GABRIEL THE PRAYERIt is of interest that from the place where Gabriel was when God's commandment reached him, it evidently required some time, even at the velocity which the flight of an angel might attain, for Gabriel to reach Daniel. There are glimpses here of things mortals cannot know. The instructions of Gabriel to "understand the vision" should evidently be applied to a vision previously written in Daniel; because, in the prophecy of the seventy weeks about to be imparted to Daniel by Gabriel, it does not appear to be by means of a vision at all. "This revelation was not communicated to Daniel in a vision, but while he was in the state of natural consciousness."[7]Daniel mentioned the precise hour of Gabriel's touching him, "about the time of the evening oblation." That means about the time of the evening sacrifices; but of course, there were no "evening sacrifices" by God's people while they were captives in Babylon. Nevertheless, Daniel had observed the times of the prescribed sacrifices by engaging in prayer as seen here. Furthermore, we may in all likelihood suppose that this was a regular habit, marking Daniel's well-disciplined, godly life. Verse 24 "Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem unto the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate."THE FAMED OF THE SEVENTY WEEKSThere is not a single word in this prophecy that is not disputed; and we shall note some of these opinions; however, in the overall sense, there is not anything very hard about this prophecy. First we shall notice some of what we hold to be impossible interpretations of it. (a) The critics who deny the trustworthiness and dependability of the holy Bible refer this prophecy to Antiochus Epiphanes in the Maccabean period about the year 160 B.C. The desolation is caused by Antiochus, and the anointed one is Onias III; and the passage is robbed of any reference whatever to the Messiah. "The objections to this type of interpretation are so serious that it cannot possibly be regarded as correct."[8](b) A second school of interpreters (the dispensationalists) has many shades of beliefs; but generally, they deny that the six things to be accomplished in Daniel 9:24 were achieved by Christ in his First Advent. They interpose a gap between the 69th and 70th week and suppose that at the 2nd Advent of Christ, following the Church Age, the Christ will return and the seventieth week will resume at that time. The Scofield Bible gives a general presentation of this interpretation. We cannot possibly accept such notions about this prophecy, principally because they nullify the great work of Christ in his atoning death, burial and resurrection. Also, Christ gave his blood for the church (Acts 20:28), which is ample proof of the absolute necessity and importance of the Church. Such premillennial theories as these are guilty of downgrading the Church and of stripping it of its genuine place in the economy of redemption. THE TRUE As Keil said, "Most of the church fathers and the older orthodox interpreters find prophesied here the appearance of Christ m the flesh, His Death, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70."[9]That this is indeed the true interpretation is plainly indicated by the words of Jesus Christ who definitely applied "the abomination" spoken of by Daniel as an event that would occur in the siege of Jerusalem, as prophesied by Christ repeatedly in Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21. Furthermore, Christ warned the Christians that, "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place, then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains" (Matthew 24:15-16). Many Christian commentators have pointed out that the Christians indeed heeded that warning. Eusebius tells how the Christians fled from Jerusalem when the Romans most unpredictably lifted their siege, a fact that even Josephus noted.[10] No Christian is said to have lost his life in the final destruction of Jerusalem. Now, for the believer in Christ, one such indication from our Lord and Redeemer is worth more than thousands of human opinions. Since, therefore, Jesus Christ himself related this vision to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, that settles it; and we may therefore reckon the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. as an event that was indeed accomplished within the prescribed "seventy weeks" of this vision. That is what these verses actually say. WHAT THE SAYSNote that six things are to be accomplished within the seventy weeks: 1. To finish transgression. 2. To make an end of sins. 3. To make reconciliation for iniquity. 4. To bring in everlasting righteousness. 5. To seal up vision and prophecy. 6. To anoint the most holy. (as in Daniel 9:24). "To finish transgression" is a reference to the fairness of Israel's sins culminating in their rejection of the Messiah. As a result of that "finishing" of their transgressions, they were judicially condemned and hardened, their city and religious economy destroyed, and the people scattered all over the world. For almost 2,000 years they disappeared as a nation; and, even with the revival of a modern "Israeli" today, it has no legitimate connection whatever with ancient Israel. "To make an end of sins ..." This was accomplished when Christ "condemned sin in the flesh." Only in Jesus Christ has there ever been any such thing as the absolute forgiveness of sins. This line alone makes it certain that Christ's coming is here foretold. "To make reconciliation for iniquity ..." "This means `to pardon, to blot out by means of a sin-offering, to forgive.'"[11] Here is a certain reference to the atonement for human transgression wrought by Jesus Christ on Calvary, as a result of which "reconciliation of men to God" could occur. This is precisely the thing that restored the broken fellowship between man and his God. We are indebted to Thomson who tells us that the word used here, "`To make an atonement,' is the technical word used fifty times in Leviticus for the offering of atoning sacrifice."[12]"To bring in everlasting righteousness ..." The only righteousness our poor world ever saw was the righteousness wrought by Christ. He is indeed "the righteousness of God"; there cannot possibly be any other source of it. The notion that this bringing in of everlasting righteousness could pertain to any other person that Christ is impossible of acceptance. This righteousness came from above; it did not rise out of the earth; Jesus brought it. "To seal up vision and prophecy ..." We regard this as a figure referring to the confirmation of the ancient prophecies by their most marvelous fulfillment in the events of the ministry of Jesus Christ. Some 333 prophecies of the Old Testament pointing to the coming of Jesus Christ were most circumstantially fulfilled in his life, death, resurrection, etc. "To anoint the most holy ..." This is so obviously a reference to Jesus Christ that we still marvel that the expression Most Holy is not capitalized, as in KJV or as in Douay which reads it, "Saint of saints may be anointed." As we noted above, however, every word of this prophecy is disputed, and even Keil did not allow that this expression can refer to a person, making it a reference to some thing, not a person. Keil could not have so misunderstood this if he had consulted 1 Chronicles 23:23, where without the article (the basis of Keil's rejection) the phrase applies to an individual. "It is indeed applied most frequently to persons: to Aaron (Exodus 40:13), to Saul (1 Samuel 10:10), and to David (1 Samuel 16:3);"[13] Therefore the ancient renditions of this place are correct. "This understanding of it was accepted by the Jews, and the old Syriac translates this text, `To the Messiah, the Most Holy.'"[14]The shenanigans of the critical community regarding the interpretation of this anointing were discussed by Keil. He noted that they refer all of this to the times of Maccabees or a little earlier, alleging that the "anointing" here refers to the consecration of the altar of burnt-offering which was restored by Zurabbel and Joshua, or to the consecration of the altar following its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes. Keil stated categorically that, "None of these interpretations can be justified."[15] To begin with, there were not any anointings during the era of the 2temple! "According to the definite uniform tradition of the Jews, the holy anointing oil did not even exist during the times of the second temple!"[16]These six things therefore pertain exclusively to the times of the First Advent of Christ and the setting up of his eternal kingdom. Daniel 9:25 advances the prophecy by giving the "terminus a quem" for the seventy weeks, namely from the date of the commandment to restore and to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. This of course was somewhat subsequent to the end of the Babylonian captivity; and the difficulty is compounded by our ignorance of just exactly when that commandment went forth. It is not even known if this means the commandment "from God" or by some kingly edict. There are several proposals as to just exactly when we should begin counting the seventy weeks. There is another problem. The weeks, understood as "weeks of years" theory is widely accepted and generally taken for granted; and yet it has not been actually proved. The nearest thing we have to proof that these 490 days should actually be understood as 490 years derives from the fact that Christ identified this prophecy as reaching to 70 A.D., which definitely favors the day for a year understanding of it. The big message in Daniel 9:25, from Daniel's viewpoint was that God definitely promised that "The city shall be built again ... in troublous times." For a city that had already lain in desolation for the better part of a century, this must have been welcome news indeed to the grieving prophet. The whole seventy weeks were not to pass before Messiah came; that event would occur at the expiration of 69 weeks, interpreted by many as 483 years. Here again is the difficulty of any certainty as to what part of Jesus' life is reached by this calculation. His anointing (baptism) took place in A.D. 26; his death, burial, and resurrection in April of A.D. 30. Added to the uncertainty as to the "terminus a quem", it is almost impossible to be dogmatically certain as to the exact times specified. Nevertheless there is great utility in the prophecy. Thomson calculated the starting point of the "seventy weeks" as 445 B.C., relating it to a positive command for Nehemiah to build "the walls." Allowing this, the 490 years would bring us to 32. A.D. (about the time, but not exactly the time, of Christ's Ascension); and the sixty-nine weeks would bring us to A.D. 25 (about the time of Christ's baptism, that is, his anointing).[17] No one can fail to be impressed with how nearly these calculations correspond to sacred occasions in the life of Our Lord. Allowing for the fact, that the seventy years of Israel's captivity turned about to be only about 68 or 69 years, one can see that such calculations as these commend themselves to many people. Daniel 9:26 begins with the statement, "After the threescore and two weeks"; and the interesting thing is that there has been no previous mention of any "threescore and two weeks." There is a mention of the seven weeks and three-score and two weeks (69 weeks); and therefore it is hard to resist the conclusion that perhaps a word has fallen out of the text here, thus making the meaning to be, "Now after the sixty nine weeks." Some scholars have raised the question of a defective text here; and we are not personally able to evaluate such claims. Nevertheless, it is perfectly clear that the 69th week takes us to "The Prince" who can be none other than the Christ. The cutting off of "the prince" followed quickly upon the appearance of Christ in his ministry; and although the destruction of Jerusalem which is mentioned in Daniel 9:26 as something to be accomplished within the seventy weeks, it is not necessary to suppose that the seventieth week needed to be extended unduly to reach the actual terminal date of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Christ indeed prophesied the total destruction of the city repeatedly, declaring that not one stone should be left on top of another within the temple complex itself, that her enemies would come and cast a trench about her and dash her little ones in pieces within her. True to the language of all the prophets, what God (or Christ) prophesied would happen was spoken of in the past tense, as something already done. That is why the destruction of Jerusalem was to be accomplished (in that sense) within the actual terminus of the seventy weeks. It is apparent that in this interpretation, we have ignored altogether the "sixty and two weeks," there being no way that we can discover any meaning in them. That they are indeed a part of the seventy weeks, and that they do not constitute a gap and an extension of the seventieth week to some far off end of time appearance, has been discerned by many scholars. The destruction of Jerusalem is here plainly included in the seventy weeks; and we have interpreted this to mean that within that time, Christ indeed condemned the city to total destruction, a prophecy actually fulfilled nearly forty years after Christ spoke. "Even unto the end ..." would appear to be a reference to the end of the Jewish nation. That there could also be overtones of the final termination of human probation in this is also freely admitted. Now, the prophecy in Daniel 9:27, to the effect that Christ should make the covenant firm with many for one week is a clear reference to the public ministry of Jesus Christ. It is here called "a week," indicating a seven year period; but with this limitation! He the Messiah was cut off "in the midst of the week," that is after three and one half years, which corresponds exactly to the facts. The further references to the destruction of Jerusalem, "the flood," and "the war," etc. are prophecies of the great tribulations that should overwhelm Jerusalem at the times when her doom was executed by the armies of Vespasian and Titus in the year 70 A.D. THE OF Jesus Christ interpreted this as an event that would be openly visible to all, saints and sinners alike; he associated it with the destruction of Jerusalem; and in the light of the fact that the destruction of that city was itself a type of the final holocaust on the eternal Judgment Day, and that many of the conditions existing in God's Israel prior to that event would also be manifested a second time in the New Israel prior to final Judgment, it appears that a second abomination of desolation shall occur in the final days of Adam's race on earth. Exactly what was this "abomination of desolation?" Notice that there are two things in this, namely, abomination, and desolation. The abomination referred to the gross pollution of the "holy place," a reference to the temple sanctuary, or more properly, the Holy of Holies itself. This was to be the signal that indicated the approaching "desolation," thus it is said that the desolation was to come upon the "wing" of abominations (note the plural), indicating that the desolations would be a direct result of the gross pollution of the holy place. What happened? The Jewish people requested that a robber, named Barabbas, should be released to them instead of Christ (Mark 15:11); and it was appropriate that the consequences of such a choice should have been received by them making it. Josephus devotes twenty pages to a description of the sordid details of how a band of ruthless outlaw robbers took complete charge of the city, along with the entire temple complex, long before the Romans came, and who committed wholesale barbarity, rapines, plunderings, and murders, "over 12,000 of the nobility being brutally put to death, along with countless thousands of the common people. They even filled up the Holy of Holies itself with dead bodies! The robbers fell upon the people as upon a flock of profane animals and cut their throats in what place soever they caught them!"[18] Josephus commented on this thus: "I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, that he cut off those great defenders, namely, the nobility."[19] In this connection Josephus also related how: "There was a certain ancient oracle of those men (the Jews), that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hands should pollute the temple of God."[20]Bickersteth's discerning comment on this is that, "Their outrages against God were the special cause of the desolation of Jerusalem ... theirs was the abomination that filled up the measure of their iniquities and caused the avenging power of Rome to come down upon them and crash them."[21] Thus the Jews made the holy place desolate morally; and the Romans made it (and the city) desolate by their ruthless destruction of them. Almost certainly, here is the portion of this prophecy that may be applied to the end of all things culminating in the Final Judgment. Just as the Old Israel finally turned totally against God; so also shall it be in the final days of the New Israel when "the times of the Gentiles have been fulfilled." Revelation 16 describes a time when the moral environment of the whole earth shall be corrupted in a near-total degree. It is of that period that Jesus asked, "When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth" (Luke 18:8). In Christ's multiple prophecy of the end of the world (Matthew 24:9-11), Christ warned that the ordinary upheavals of history such as wars and rumors of wars, floods, earthquakes, famines, etc. were not to be understood as "signs" of the end. The significant thing was what was happening among God's people themselves! When the time comes that the Church herself has forsaken the fundamentals of her faith in Christ, the abomination that makes desolate shall again appear in the "holy place," in the last instance of it, in the Church herself. There are many shameful developments in the visible Christendom of our own times that are frightening! All of this prophecy appears to this writer as clearly understandable except the matter of the 62 weeks which we cited above. What ever this may mean, granted that it could indeed be a faithful record of the sacred text, we have been unable to discover any means of arriving at a scriptural explanation of it. There remains the strong possibility that "the sixty two weeks" was not originally a reference to a period of sixty-two weeks (no such period having been mentioned previously in the whole Bible), but rather to the "seven weeks and threescore weeks and two weeks" just mentioned in the previous verse, namely, the 69 weeks. Certainly, we are justified in the rejection of the irresponsible millennial views that are imported into the passage. Some things are simply not revealed; and, as far as we can discern, the matter of these alleged 62 weeks is one of them. One thing stands out - these seventy weeks were about to be completed, as indicated by Christ's reference to the abomination that makes desolate, which was soon to be fulfilled. This was clearly stated by Christ. Therefore, when Christ charged the Pharisees with being weather prophets who were nevertheless unable to "discern the signs of the times" (Matthew 16:3), it was most likely that one of the signs the Pharisees could not discern was that of the "seventy weeks" of Daniel approaching their termination. "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" Daniel's Penitential Prayer (Daniel 9:1-19) 1. As we continue our survey of the book of Daniel, we come to a remarkable chapter... a. In which we find a beautiful prayer expressed by Daniel - Daniel 9:1-19b. In which we find an amazing revelation regarding "seventy sevens" - Daniel 9:20-27 2. Without question, the latter part of the chapter is difficult... a. Edward J. Young describes it as "one of the most difficult in all the OT, and the interpretations which have been offered are almost legion."b. H. C. Leupold wrote "This is one of the grandest prophetic passages; and yet, if there was ever an exegetical crux, this is it." 3. In light of its difficulty... a. We should certainly approach this passage with humility, and not dogmatically b. We should be careful not to draw conclusions that contradict clear teachings of Scripture 4. But before we consider the actual vision of the seventy weeks, let's take the time to consider the prayer offered by Daniel... a. A beautiful example of confessing sin and seeking forgiveness b. Akin to the prayer of David in Psalms 51 [A wonderful blessing we enjoy as Christians is the cleansing blood of Jesus as we confess our sins (1 John 1:9). Daniel's prayer in this chapter provides insight into the art of confessing sin...] I. THE SETTING OF THE PRAYER A. THE DATE OF THE PRAYER...1. In the first year of Darius, son of Ahasuerus - Daniel 9:1a. Of the lineage of the Medes b. Made king over the Chaldeans (Babylonians) - Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:1-282. The time is now about 538 B.C. B. THE REASON FOR THE PRAYER...1. Daniel knew the prophecy of Jeremiah, regarding 70 years of Babylonian captivity - Daniel 9:2; cf. Jeremiah 25:9-12; Jeremiah 29:102. The 70 years of Jerusalem began in 606 B.C., with the captivity of Daniel and the first devastation of Jerusalem - 2 Chronicles 36:5-7; Daniel 1:1-6-- So with this first year of the Medo-Persian empire (With Darius the Mede over Chaldea, but with Cyrus the Persian over all), the prophecy of Jeremiah was almost completed - 2 Chronicles 36:21-23; Ezra 1:1-4 C. THE FOR THE PRAYER...1. Daniel set his face toward the Lord God - Daniel 9:3a. To make request by prayer and supplications b. This may have included facing toward Jerusalem - cf. Daniel 6:10-112. With fasting, sackcloth, and ashes a. Physical preparations which illustrated his humility and contrition b. Similar to the practice of others - Nehemiah 9:1-2; John 3:5-9 [With the Word of God fresh on his mind, his heart humbled by his own sins and those of his people, even his physical body humbled into submission, Daniel begins his penitential prayer...] II. THE CONTENT OF THE PRAYER A. DANIEL'S ...1. Addressing the Lord his God - Daniel 9:4a. As great and awesome b. Who keeps His covenant and mercy with those who: 1) Love Him 2) Keep His commandments - cf. Psalms 103:17-18; John 14:152. Confessing in behalf of his people - Daniel 9:5-6a. Of sinning and committing iniquity b. Of doing wickedly and rebelling c. Of departing from His precepts and judgments d. Of failing to heed His servants the prophets, who spoke to their kings, princes, fathers, and all the people - 2 Chronicles 6:15-213. Contrasting their shame with God's righteousness - Daniel 9:7-9a. To Judah, Israel, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem belong shame of face 1) Those both near and far off in countries where God had driven them 2) To them, their kings, princes, and fathers 3) Because of their unfaithfulness against God, their sin and rebellion - Ezra 9:6-7b. To God belongs righteousness 1) To Him belongs mercy and forgiveness 2) Even though they had rebelled against Him - Ezra 9:8-94. Reviewing their sin, and the fulfillment of God's warnings - Daniel 9:10-14a. The nature of their sin - cf. Nehemiah 9:13-301) They have not obeyed the voice of the Lord 2) They have not walked in His laws set before by His prophets 3) They transgressed His law, and departed so as not to obey His voice 4) They had not prayed that they might turn from their iniquities and understand His truth b. The fulfillment of God's warnings - Leviticus 26:14-39; Deuteronomy 28:15-681) The curse and oath written in the Law of Moses has been poured out 2) He has confirmed His words spoken against them by bringing a great disaster upon them 3) Especially the disaster which has come upon Jerusalem 5. Summarizing their sin - Daniel 9:15a. To Him who delivered them from Egyptian bondage with a mighty hand b. They have sinned, and done wickedly! B. DANIEL'S ...1. His passionate plea for God to: a. Turn away His anger and fury - Daniel 9:161) From His city Jerusalem, His holy mountain 2) Because of their sins and iniquities 3) For which they have become a reproach b. Hear his prayer and supplications - Daniel 9:17 ac. Cause His face to shine on His sanctuary, which is desolate - Daniel 9:17 bd. See their desolation, and the desolation of the city called by His name - Daniel 9:18e. Hear, forgive, act and not delay! - Daniel 9:192. His passionate plea based, not because of their righteous deeds, but upon: a. God's righteousness, and for His sake - Daniel 9:16-17b. God's great mercies, and for His city and His people called by His name - Daniel 9:18-19 1. Like the penitential prayer of David in Psalms 51, this prayer of Daniel is a classic example of how to confess our sins and seek God's forgiveness a. To seek forgiveness on the basis of God's lovingkindness and mercy, not one's own righteousness - cf. Psalms 51:1-2b. To acknowledge one's sins before God - cf. Psalms 51:3-4-- As we confess our sins (cf. 1 John 1:9), remember the example of godly men like David and Daniel! 2. Daniel's noble character is seen in how he identified himself with his people in their sins... a. Even though he had been faithful to God throughout his life - Daniel 6:10b. For such reasons he was "greatly beloved" by God - Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:11; Daniel 10:19 May the example of Daniel's life and faith inspire us in our own walk with God, for we too have been blessed to be "greatly beloved": "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!" - 1 John 3:1 a Are we trusting in the love and mercy of God for the forgiveness of sins, and not our own righteousness? The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks (Daniel 9:20-27) 1. We come now to one of the most difficult passages of the Old Testament... a. Commonly called "The Vision Of The Seventy Weeks" - Daniel 9:20-27b. Edward J. Young describes it as "one of the most difficult in all the OT, and the interpretations which have been offered are almost legion." c. Stuart says that "it would require a volume of considerable magnitude even to give a history of the ever-varying and contradictory opinions that have been offered" 2. With such a difficult passage before us, we should ... a. Approach it with humility, and not dogmatically b. Not draw conclusions that would contradict clear teachings of Scripture [We begin our study with verse 20, in which Daniel first describes...] I. THE ARRIVAL OF GABRIEL A. AT THE TIME OF EVENING ...1. Even as Daniel was confessing his sin and the sin of his people, and making supplication for the holy mountain of God (i.e., Jerusalem) - Daniel 9:20-212. This was the same person seen in the vision at the beginning - cf. Daniel 8:16 B. TO GIVE DANIEL SKILL TO ...1. Commanded to do so even at the beginning of Daniel's prayer - Daniel 9:22-232. For Daniel was "greatly beloved" - cf. Daniel 10:11; Daniel 10:19 [And so Gabriel, who provided explanation to Daniel regarding the vision of the ram and the goat (Daniel 8:16), now proceeds to give details concerning...] II. THE VISION OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS A. A GENERAL OF WHAT IS TO OCCUR...1. 70 "weeks" are determined for Daniel's people (Israel) and his holy city (Jerusalem) - Daniel 9:24a. The word "weeks" in Hebrew is actually "sevens" (i.e., 70 "sevens") b. Most agree it likely refers to "weeks", but weeks of what? 1) Weeks of days? a) Then it would be 490 days b) Few believe this to be the case, and so most all figuratize this passage to some extent 2) Weeks of years (i.e., each day representing a year)? a) Then it would be 490 years b) But the Jews used a lunar calendar (360 days/yr), so it would be 483 years according to our calendar) c) Many suggest this to be the answer, but it is not without difficulty 3) Of some complete, yet non-specific period of time? a) Then it may just refer to seventy complete periods of time b) And each week may not be equivalent in time (i.e., one "week" may be longer than other "weeks") 2. This period of time will be for the fulfillment of six things, each apparently related to the work of the coming Messiah a. To finish the transgression1) The marginal reading has "restrain" for "finish" 2) The idea is that Messiah would provide a restraining power and influence which would check the progress of sin (Barnes) - cf. Acts 3:25-26b. To make an end of sins1) The marginal reading has "to seal up" for "make an end" 2) The idea is that sins will be sealed up, or closed, or hidden, so that they will not be seen, or will not develop themselves (Barnes) - cf. Acts 3:19c. To make reconciliation for iniquity1) Literally, to cover iniquity 2) How this would be done is not stated here, but cf. Isaiah 53:5-6; Isaiah 53:10-12-- Note: The first three things relate to our Lord's work of dealing with the problem of sin, how sin would "restrained", "sealed up", and "covered over" d. To bring in everlasting righteousness1) Literally, to cause to come 2) To provide a way by which a man could become righteous and holy - cf. Romans 3:21-26; 2 Corinthians 5:21e. To seal up the vision and the prophecy1) To complete, to finish, meaning the prophecies would be fulfilled (Barnes) 2) Young suggests that it is referring to OT prophecies, especially those related to the work of the Messiah making an end of sin - cf. Luke 24:44-47f. To anoint the Most Holy1) Barnes opines that the Most Holy refers to the temple in Jerusalem 2) And that the anointing of the temple refers to the presence of the Messiah in the temple - cf. Malachi 3:1-2; Matthew 12:63) Especially regarding the presence of the Lord in the temple during His final week - cf. Matthew 21:1-164) Some believe it may refer to the baptism of Jesus when the Spirit came upon Him in the form of a dove - Matthew 3:16-17 B. A OF HOW THIS WOULD OCCUR...1. There shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks - Daniel 9:25a. Beginning with the command to restore and build Jerusalem, until Messiah the prince (the street and the wall shall be built, even in troublesome times) b. At least three possible decrees may serve as the "terminus pro quo" (starting point) of the 70 "weeks" 1) The decree of Cyrus (539-538 BC) - cf. Ezra 1:1-4a) To rebuild the temple (and the city, cf. Isaiah 44:26-28; Isaiah 45:13) b) If one starts here, then the 70 weeks could not be 490 literal years, for that would place the end of the 70 weeks around 55 B.C. (much too early) c) The appeal of using this decree as the starting point 1] It is the most well-known decree regarding the restoration of Israel 2] It was given about the time Daniel received his vision of the 70 weeks -- This decree is preferred by many who do not hold to a literal 490 years (Young, Harkrider, McGuiggan) 2) The decree of Artaxerxes (457 BC) - cf. Ezra 7:13-14a) For Ezra to restore the Law and its worship b) Starting here, 490 Julian years would end the 70 weeks around 33 A.D. c) But 490 lunar years end the 70 weeks around 26 A.D. (seven years too early) -- This decree is preferred by some amillenialists who hold to a literal 490 years, but not lunar years (Haley's Bible Handbook) 3) The second decree of Artaxerxes (445-444 BC) - cf. Nehemiah 2:1-8a) For Nehemiah to build the city b) Starting here, 490 lunar years end the 70 weeks around 38 A.D. c) This would place the start of the 70th week near the beginning of Jesus' public ministry (ca. 30 A.D.) d) There are problems with the first 7 weeks ending around 396 B.C., which some contend is too late for the restoration of the city -- Premillenialists prefer to start with this decree, but so do some amillenialists such as Albert Barnes c. Each starting date has its problems, but I lean towards Barnes' choice of the second decree of Artaxerxes in 445 B.C. as the terminus a quo for this prophecy 1) The 7 and 62 "weeks" is the period of time from the decree until "Messiah the Prince" 2) Barnes has this period ending with the baptism of Jesus and the beginning of His public ministry 2. After the 62 weeks, certain events will occur - Daniel 9:26-27a. Messiah will be cut off, but not for Himself1) This refers to the death of Christ 2) Whose death occurs midway during the 70th week (see below) b. People of the prince who is to come shall destroy the cityand the sanctuary1) The end of it shall be with a flood; until the end of the war, desolations are determined a) The people are generally accepted to be the Romans, who destroyed Jerusalem in A.D. 70 b) The "prince" is thought to be either Titus, the Roman general, or perhaps referring to Jesus Himself (with the Roman army as the instrument of God's judgment upon Jerusalem) 2) Many contend that the destruction must fall within the 70th week a) However, Young and Barnes argue that such is not necessarily required by the text b) The desolation to befall Jerusalem may be the consequence of events during the 70th week, and not fall within the period of the 70th week c. For 1 week, he shall confirm a covenant with many1) "He" refers to Jesus (Barnes) 2) "Confirm a covenant" describes the work done by Jesus and His apostles in Israel, before and immediately after His death (Barnes) a) His earthly ministry lasted about 3 and half years b) The gospel was preached only to Jews for 3-4 years after Pentecost d. In the middle of the week he shall bring an end tosacrifice and offering1) This refers to Jesus who was cut off, but not for Himself (Barnes) 2) Through His death, He brought the need for sacrifices to an end - Hebrews 10:12-18e. The abomination and desolation to come - Daniel 9:271) Alluding to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 2) Jesus referred to this in Matthew 24:153) Again, this desolation may be the consequence of what occurred in the 70th week, even though it occurred after the 70th week 4) But if required to occur during the 70th week, then the 70th week must extend beyond A.D. 70 (Harkrider, McGuiggan) 1. Such a brief look at this difficult passage will naturally raise many questions, which are beyond the scope of our study 2. For more detailed study, one might consider the following commentaries which provide several alternative views... a. Commentary on Daniel, Albert Barnes b. The Prophecy of Daniel, Edward J. Young c. Commentary on Revelation, Robert F. Harkrider d. The Book Of Daniel, Jim McGuiggan e. Exposition Of Daniel, H. C. Leupold -- Each of these examine the passage from the amillenial perspective, which finds no place for the "gap theory" favored by dispensational premillenialists While the passage is admittedly difficult, let's not lose sight of the wonderful promises concerning the Messiah's work related to sin and righteousness. For Jesus through His death has truly brought an end to the consequences of sin and introduced everlasting righteousness! Chapter Nine In the first year of Darius (539 B.C.), understanding that Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years of captivity has been fulfilled (Jeremiah 25:11), Daniel confesses his nation's sins and prays that God will restore them (Daniel 9:1-19). In response, Gabriel is sent to give Daniel understanding of key events that will take place in a time period of 70 "weeks" (lit., "sevens"), one of the most challenging prophecies in the Bible (Daniel 9:20-27). POINTS TO PONDER * Daniel's prayer, confessing the sins of his people Israel * The difficulty in interpreting the vision of seventy weeks REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Daniel's prayer for his people - Daniel 9:1-19- The vision of seventy weeks - Daniel 9:20-27 2) What prompted Daniel to pray with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes? (Daniel 9:2-3)- Jeremiah's prophecy concerning the 70 years of captivity which had been fulfilled 3) List some of the sins mentioned by Daniel that Israel had committed (Daniel 9:4-10)- Rebellion, failure to heed the prophets, unfaithfulness, failure to walk in God's laws 4) What had come upon Israel for their sin? (Daniel 9:11-14)- The curse and oath written in the Law, involving great disaster (cf. Leviticus 26:27-45) 5) For what does Daniel pray God regarding Jerusalem and the sanctuary? (Daniel 9:16-19)- To turn away his anger, cause His face to shine; to hear, forgive, and not delay 6) Who was caused to fly swiftly to Daniel because of his supplications? (Daniel 9:22-23)- Gabriel, whom he had seen earlier (cf. Daniel 8:16) 7) List six things that were to happen within the period of seventy "weeks" (Daniel 9:24)- To finish the transgression - To make an end of sins - To make reconciliation for iniquity - To bring in everlasting righteousness - To seal up vision and prophecy - To anoint the Most Holy 8) What events would occur in the course of this prophecy's fulfillment? (Daniel 9:25-27)- A command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, followed by 69 weeks - The coming of the Messiah who would in turn be cut off, but not for Himself - The destruction of the city and the sanctuary with war and desolations - The confirmation of a covenant with many for one week - The end to sacrifice and offering in the middle of the week - The coming of one who with abomination brings desolation upon the desolate Daniel 9:1. Another jump is made in the chronology of dates and the prophet comes down to the year following the taking of Babylon. This is the same Darius named in Daniel 5:31, who was explained to be the uncle of Cyrus the Persian, Although Cyrus was the one who actually made the successful attack upon Belshazzar and took over the city, he permitted his uncle to ascend the throne as the ruler as stated in this verse. It was in the first year of the reign of Darius that Daniel was reading the records. Daniel 9:2. The prophet read in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:12) that the desolations of Jerusalem (the Babylonian captivity) was to last seventy years. That period was just ended when his attention was called to the prophecy. Of course he did not stop with the mere item of the length of the captivity, but read the history of the facts that caused God to send that calamity upon the nation. Daniel 9:3. Daniel was shocked by the history of his people, because their conduct was so rebellious that all this humiliation had to be imposed upon them. He was not personally responsible for the situation, but had to share in the sad debasement of the nation because be was one of its citizens. He set his face or made a firm resolution that he would approach God in prayer and supplication on behalf of his countrymen. He accompanied that prayer with fasting and wearing of sackcloth, a practice of devout people in olden times when under the weight of distress or anxiety. Daniel 9:4. Made my confession. This is in the first person because Daniel is speaking on behalf of the nation as a whole of which he was a member at the time of the great iniquity. Great and dreadful God is used in the sense of the supreme reverence and awe that should be accorded to Him. Them that love him is the condition on which God will fulfill the promises made to mankind. Daniel 9:5. We have sinned is to be understood in the same light as "confession" in the preceding verse. Have sinned is made more specific by the words departing from thy precepts; forsaking a law is the same as disobeying it. Daniel 9:6. Daniel recognizes the prophets to have been the servants of God, and that they spake in thy name which gave their words the weight of divine authority. Daniel 9:7. The switching back and forth between the first and third persons. and between the plural and singular pronouns, is because of the relationship of Daniel to the nation, as a whole. We have no evidence that he ever had an opportunity even to protest against the corruptions of the nation before his prophetic call, which came to him after being taken to Babylon. Daniel 9:8, Confusion of face refers to the state of humiliation that was felt by the people of Israel after being exiled into a foreign land. Daniel 9:9. The justice of God had been poured out upon the rebellious nation in the 70-year captivity that was Just ended. Now the prophet is praying for the mercy and forgiveness that can come only from the same God. Daniel 9:10. It is not enough to profess faith in the Lord, but we must show our faith by walking in Ms laws that had been set out by the prophets. Daniel 9:11. One outstanding place where Moses gave the threat of God’ s course upon a disobedient nation is Deuteronomy 28. That passage was plainly written in the book of the law, and the people had no excuse for their disregard of it. Daniel 9:12. The evil that God brought upon the nation means a puntshment, not in the sense of something wrong. By imposing this distress upon the nation God confirmed his words that were spoken against it. Daniel 9:13. This verse indicates the thought expressed at verse 11, that the people had been given plenty of opportunity for knowing the law of God, but they had turned from it unto their own wicked ways. Daniel 9:14. Watched upon the evil denotes that God sees all that is done by His servants. Daniel acknowledges that everything that God does is righteous, which includes the chastisement He had brought against the nation. Daniel 9:15. The gratitude of the prophet is so great that he goes hack to the very beginning of Israel’ s history as a nation. He recalls the deliverance from Egyptian bondage which was many centuries before; now the same people are just emerging from another bondage. However, there is a wide difference between the two eases. The former was imposed upon God's people for no wrong on their part, while the latter was decreed by the. same God as a punishment for sin. Daniel 9:16. Daniel continues his prayer on behalf of his people, and acknowledges that all of their suffering is because of their sins. The most disheartening feature of it is that the nation has become a reproach In the eyes of the other nations. Daniel 9:17. Sanctuary that is desolate is in reference to the condition of the temple in Jerusalem. The captivity had just been ended, but the Jews had not yet rebuilt it which they will later on. For the Lord's sake means that he prays for the holy place to be restored for His sake, not that the people deserved the favor. Daniel 9:18. Open thine eyes. The first word is from PAQAOH which Strong defines, "to be observant.” God never literally closes his eyes, hut Daniel means for Him to take favorable notice of them in their sad condition. The closing statement of the verse is very humble and respectful towards God, Daniel does not claim that his people deserved the favor of God on the ground of their righteousness; he is relying solely on the mercy of the Lord. Daniel 9:19. This verse is an excellent example of a supplication made to God. That word is a stronger one than merely praying or asking for a favor. It consists in expressions of deep and earnest entreaty, made impressive by repetitions of terms that indicate great humility and a profound sense of helplessness. And again the prophet portrays more concern for the dignity of the name of God than for any personal favor for himself or his people. Daniel 9:20. My sin and the sin of my people Is explained at verse 4, Roly mountain of my Ood is a figurative reference to the nation of God whose capital city was Jerusalem which was in ruins at the time the prophet was offering this prayer. Daniel 9:21. Daniel is about to receive an answer to his prayer, and the thing to be promised will be far greater or include more than he is asking. The favor the prophet is Beeking pertains to the restoration of the capital city of Jerusalem, That is going to be granted, and it also will be the dating place for an event concerning his people that will be without a parallel in all history. He is not going to be held waiting very long for the answer to his prayer, for even while he was praying the angel Gabriel came and contacted him Time of the evening oblation means the daily sacrifice that the Jews' religion included when they were in their own land. The sacrifice was conducted twice daily, at 9 and 3 o'clock respectively. Daniel only refers to it by way of designating the hour when Gabriel contacted him, not that such an offering was being made, for the Jews were not permitted, even by the Lord, to perform their altar services in the strange land (Deuteronomy 28:36; Isaiah 43; Isaiah 24). Daniel 9:22. Skill and understanding means mental skill, that which comes from special understanding. Gabriel Informs Daniel he was sent to him for the purpose of giving him this favor. God could have inspired the prophet directly with the information as had been done previously, but He saw fit to do it in a different manner this time by sending an angel to him. In this circumstance we have an instance that Is spoken of in two passages of the New Testament; Hebrews 1:1; Hebrews 1:14. Daniel 9:23. As soon a9 Daniel had begun ills prayer, the Lord gave the order to Gabriel to go unto the earth and deliver the message. We do not know when the angel began his flight to the land of Persia, for he did not interrupt the prophet until he was near the conclusion of his prayer. When it was the proper instant to make the contact, Daniel saw him in a "forced march” or flight as he approached him. As a personal merit on the part of Daniel for his receiving the favor just promised, the angel tells him he is greatly beloved. The severe tests of faith which Daniel had undergone and withstood, endeared him to the God of heaven and determined Him to bestow upon the prophet this honor. Daniel 9:24, This verse introduces the most important time prophecy in the Bible; important because it concerns the last act in God's provision for the salvation of mankind. The reason the subject should be considered as an answer to Daniel’ s prayer for his people, is the fact that it was to be accomplished through the instrumentality of those people and while their dispensation was still In force. The verse is a general statement that covers the entire period of the great transaction, after which the prophet sLarts with the details of the prophecy. Seventy weeks is figurative as to "weeks,” and means 70 times 7 years. In other words, the period to be covered by the great prophecy will he 490 years. The grand purpose to be accomplished, and with which it will complete the fulfillment of the prophecy, will include the items referred to in general terms In this verse. Make an end of sins means to perform the final act of God for the salvation of mankind from their sins, Bring in everlasting righteousness refers to Ihe same fact that was predicted before Nebuchadnezzar about the kingdom that would “ stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). Sen? up the vision and prophecy means to ratify the prophecy about to be made through the prophet. Anoint the most Holy refers to the crowning of Jesus as ‘ "king of kings” for the whole earth, both Jew and Gentile. Daniel 9:25. This verse includes 69 of the 70 weeks, which brings us to the beginning of the public ministry of Christ, here expressed by the words unto the Messiah the Prince. This 69 week space is subdivided into smaller periods of 7 and 62 weeks. The first period (and hence the whole 70-week period) begins with the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem. When we learn the date of that commandment. we will know when the famous 70week time prophecy began. It is thought by some that the work of Nehemiah could not figure in the question of the beginning time, but the reference to the rebuilding of the streets undoubtedly connects the work of that great reformer with It. And since the work of Ezra and others had to do with the temple and the services so vitally connected with Jerusalem, we may well Include that also In the subject. But there is a difference of 13 years between the work of Ezra and that of Nehemiah. If each of the men Is used as a beginning point, will they both come out at the one time, that of the beginning of the public work of Christ? Yes, the apparent difficulty is clarified by remembering that in those times both the lunar and solar years were used. The solar year contains some 11 or 12 more days than the lunar, hence if the beginning point of Ezra be taken, using solar years, there will be enough extra days to make up for the 13 years between that and the work ot Nehemiah, using the lunar year from his date. The work of Ezra began in the year 457 B.C. which is to be regarded as the beginning of the 70week time prophecy now under consideration. There is a good reason for marking off the first seven weeks into a period to itself, for that was about the time covered by the commotions set up by the enemies of the Jews at the work and reforms of Ezra, Nehemiah and other zealous Jews, referred to here by troublous times. After that the prophet ignores all the events of the Intervening years down to the beginning of the public ministry of Christ, merely mentioning the period as threescore and two weeks. Daniel 9:26. After threescore and two weeks means 62 weeks after the first 7 (69 weeks in all) shall Messiah he cut off, but it does not say how long after. We shall see that it was to be three and a half years after, for it was that many years after Jesus began his public ministry that he was cut off by the crucifixion. Not for himself. The last word has no separate term in the original and it must be understood in the light of the context. Moffatt’ s translation renders the phrase, "leaving no successor," and the American Standard Version says, "shall have nothing.” These renderings agree with Isaiah 53:8 on the same subject which says, "who shall declare his generation?” The statement is in question form but it is actually an affirmative prediction. The meaning ts that when Jesus died he left no successor, and the thought is most significant and beautiful. Daniel 2:44 and many other passages predict that the kingdom of Christ was to "stand forever.” In that case He would have no need for a successor, and God would see to it that even death should not prevent his Son from ascending the throne of the everlasting kingdom to be set up soon after his death and resurrection. People of the prince. The last word is from nagid which Strong defines, "A commander (as occupying the front), civil, military, or religious.” The prince in this passage is Titus, who commanded the Roman forces at the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. The reader should secure the history of Josephus and read the third volume if possible, for the matter is too lengthy to copy here. He will find that the stubbornness of the Jews forced Titus to press the siege with unspeakable suffering being imposed upon them, "ending in desolations” as this verse states. That event occurred 40 years after the death of Christ, and we may wonder why it is injected at this place, when the passage as a whole is not through with the public ministry and death of Christ. It was appropriate to interrupt the prophecy because of the direct relationship between the death of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem. When Jesus was before Pilate (Matthew 27:25) and that governor was hesitating about what to do with his prisoner, the Jews cried out, “ His blood be on us, and on our children,” God sometimes takes people at their word, as lie did in this case. Forty years after that terrible sentence the city of Jerusalem was destroyed with ail the afflictions referred to above, and it was a punishment upon them for their murder of Jesus. The death of the Son of God was necessary for the salvation of the world, and it was to be accomplished by the wicked Jews as predicted. But the Lord never did tolerate a wrong attitude shown by any of His agencies, even when they were carrying out the divine decrees. Hence we have the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem (40 years apart) predicted in one connection, after which the prophet resumes predictions of the Messiah. Daniel 9:27. The one week is the last one of the 70-week period, being the seven years from the beginning of Christ’ s public ministry to the conversation of Cornelius. The covenant is the one made with Abraham in Genesis 12:3 that “ In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." In other passages the same covenant includes the words "and in thy seed,” which we know refers to Christ (Galatians 3:16), The Mosaic covenant was for the Jews only but the one in this passage was for Jews and Gentiles alike, which is signified by the words toith many. The reason it required a week (of years) for Jesus to confirm or fulfill the covenant, is the truth that His office required him to continue the good work until both Jews and Gentiles had been accepted. The covenant demanded that, because it was to biess “ ail the families of the earth.” Jesus accomplished the work for the Jews in person while in his personal ministry of three and a half years: but this was for the Jews only (Matthew 15:24). The part for the Gentiles was performed by the apostles in the course of the three and a half years after the crucifixion, which culminated with the conversion of the household of Cornelius, Twice three and a half years gives us a week (of years), designated in this verse as one week. In the midst of the week denotes the time of the crucifixion, which came three and a half years after Jesus began his public ministry, ami the same length of time before Cornelius. Before proceeding with the verse, I shall sum up the dates to show how this time prophecy was literally fulfilled in 70 weeks of years or 490 years. The work of Ezra began in the year 457 B.C., the public ministry of Christ began in the year 26 A.D., the conversion of Cornelius was in 33 A.D.; 457 plus 33 Isaiah 490, the number of years required by the time prophecy. Shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease means that the death of Christ put an end to all other sacrifices for sin (Romans 10:4; Hebrews 10:8-9; Hebrews 10:14). For the overspreading of abominations, etc., was commented upon in the preceding verse. The crucifixion of Christ and destruction of Jerusalem are very properly mentioned here in direct connection; for while the crucifixion had to be, yet the motive of the Jews in destroying Him brought upon them t.he destruction of their city. Daniel Chapter TenVerse 1 This entire chapter is actually preliminary to the final two chapters, the whole chapter along with Daniel 11:1 dealing with the events that led up to the sensational predictions made in the following two chapters. One of the very interesting things in this chapter is the revelation of the activities of the holy angels upon behalf of God's people. The Holy Scriptures have reference to this phenomenon elsewhere, especially inHebrews 1:14; but Daniel's revelation goes beyond what is stated there. Daniel 10:1-3"In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, even a great warfare: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. In those days, I, Daniel, was mourning three whole weeks. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, until three whole weeks were fulfilled.""Even a great warfare ..." (Daniel 10:1)." Young has pointed out that the meaning of "great" in this phase is "for a long time." "The word has now been found on the tablets of Mari in the sense of 'time.'"[1]Robert D. Culver is correct in the opinion that Daniel's fasting here was not due to asceticism, but applied to a special reason for his mourning.[2] Note also that "mourning" and fasting here are in apposition, the word mourning carrying with it the idea of fasting as indicated in Daniel 10:3. The special reason for Daniel's mourning would appear to be that, in the 3years of Cyrus, the restoration of the Temple (Ezra 1-3, especially Ezra 4:4-5) had been stopped, hence Daniel's concern and anxiety. "Three whole weeks were fulfilled ..." (Daniel 10:3)." The literal words from which this expression is translated are: "three sevens days." "The reason for using the word 'days' here is to show the difference in the meaning of sevens from previous passages (where it means sevens of years)."[3] Thus we have a strong indication here that the previous mention of "seventy weeks" is actually a reference to "sevens of years," as we have interpreted it. The critical quibble based on the first verse here as compared with Daniel 1:21 where Daniel is said to have lived until the first year of Cyrus, whereas in Daniel 10:1 he is said to have seen a vision in the third year of Cyrus, is typical of that class of objection. In the first place, the statements are not contradictory but supplementary. Also, as Wilson put it: "If we suppose that Belshazzar was king of the Chaldeans while his father was king of Babylon, just as Cambyses was king of Babylon while his father Cyrus was king of the lands, or as Nabonidus II seems to have been king of Haran while his father, Nabonidus I, was king of Babylon, this statement will harmonize with the other statements made with regard to Belshazzar."[4]Thomson likewise offered almost the same explanation of this. "We are here assuming that the chronology of this passage reckons from the overthrow of Nabunahid, that is from Cyrus' accession to the throne of Babylon; this `third year' may be reckoned from his assumption of the title `King of Persia.'[5]Verse 4 "And in the four and twentieth day of the first month, as I was by the side of the great river Hiddekel, I lifted up mine eyes and looked, and, behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with pure gold of Uphaz: his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as flaming torches, and his arms and his feet like unto burnished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision; for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me; for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength. Yet heard I the voice of his words; and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I fallen into a deep sleep on my face, with my face toward the ground."Of all the picayune objections that Bible enemies have cited in this passage, the prize-winner must be the objection that since Babylon was on the Euphrates River, this mention of the Hiddekel (the Tigris), some fifty miles distant from Babylon, is therefore an error. What a ridiculous objection! Daniel was a man of high authority in Babylon and could very well have been at the Hiddekel on business for the king, as the fact of his being accompanied by a number of men surely appears to suggest. Such quibbles are merely the knee-jerk response of persons who have no desire to believe the Bible anyway. Who is this magnificent person who appeared here to Daniel? Some have suggested that he was Gabriel; but the remarkable similarity between this passage and the description of the Christ in Revelation 1 points to Christ himself. As Young noted, "This is a theophany, a pre-incarnate appearance of the Eternal Son."[6] As Keil said, "This understanding is placed beyond doubt by a Comparison with Revelation 1:13, where John saw the glorified Christ, who is there described by a name definitely referring to Daniel 7:13."[7]As for the reason that Daniel was on the banks of the Tigris, Thomson stated that, "His purpose in being there was probably governmental, as he had attendants with him."[8]The fact of Daniel alone seeing the great vision corresponds with that which occurred to the apostle Paul and his companions on the Damascus road. Paul's companions heard only the voice but saw no man (Acts 9:3 ff). Inherent in such facts is the truth that when Christ appeared to a person, he was seen only by those whom Christ wished to see him. It has been supposed that only Daniel was prepared in heart to receive such a vision, whereas his companions were not so prepared. Verse 10 "And, behold, a hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands. And he said unto me, O Daniel, thou man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright; for unto thee am I now sent. And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling. Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thy heart to understand, and to humble thyself before thy God, thy words were heard: and I am come for thy words' sake. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for the vision is yet for many days. And when he had spoken unto me according to these words, I set my face toward the ground, and was dumb. And behold one in the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth and spake and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the reason of the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I retain no strength. For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? for as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither was there breath left in me."One of the things of very great interest in this passage is the glimpse of the work of the holy angels striving with the rulers of this world's darkness. This is the only passage in the Bible where this information surfaces. We are not informed just what the nature of such activity really entails; but according to Hebrews 1:14, we are certain that the mightiest of God's angels are diligent to bring about world conditions favorable to the achievement of the purposes of God. The other principal factor in the passage is that of the weakness and helplessness of Daniel due to the awesome appearance of the celestial visitors who came unto him in this scene. It is idle to speculate upon the identity of the persons appearing to Daniel, as their names are not given. Some believe Gabriel was one of the angels, since he had appeared to Daniel earlier. Habakkuk also used words similar to these to mark his weakness when he heard "the voice": "I heard, and my body trembled, My lips trembled at the voice; Rottenness entered into my bones, and I tremble in my place" (Habakkuk 3:16). "And stand upright; for unto thee am I sent ..." (Daniel 10:11). Thomson has this comment: "In the Assyrian marbles, however lowly the obeisance made to the monarch by anyone admitted to his presence, he stands when he receives the monarch's commands. Standing implies attention."[9]"Unto thee am I sent ..." Indicates that the messenger had the authority to command Daniel in the name of God Himself. "In the latter days ..." (Daniel 10:14)." Many commentators deny that this is a reference to what is called eschatological events or to the final summation of all things. As Thomson said, "There seems no need to take `end of the days' as the end of the world."[10] However, we find that agreement with that view is most difficult. Throughout all of the prophets, especially the multiple references to this in the Minor Prophets, such words as "the latter days," "the end of the days," etc., invariably carry the implication that the final summation of the Adamic probation is in view. For example, "the last days" (Joe 2:28) was specifically declared by the apostle Peter to be a reference to Messianic times (Acts 2:16 ff). The ASV weakened the passage by translating it "afterward," probably out of deference to the opinions of scholars denying its reference to eschatological events. In our own view, the mention of the resurrection of the dead in Daniel 12:2 makes it a practical certainty that the scenes of the Final Judgment itself are envisioned here. Such a view makes the events of the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes which, in a sense, are repeated in Daniel 11 with the inclusion of many details not cited earlier, a type of many of the final events. If this is not the case, this restatement of the Anticohus terror would seem to have no meaning whatever. It had already been prophesied with sufficient detail (Daniel 8). "From the first day that thou didst set thy heart ... etc." (Daniel 10:12). Barnes cited this as proof that, "Prayer is heard at once, though the answer may be long delayed."[11]In this whole paragraph, a feature of the teaching is that Daniel was raised up, somewhat gradually, and finally endowed with full strength and understanding, which actually did not occur until he had been "touched" for the third time (Daniel 10:18). Verse 18 "Then there touched me again one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me. And he said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee, be strong, yea, be strong. And when he spoke unto me I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me. Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I am come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I go forth the prince of Greece shall come. But I will tell thee that which is inscribed in the writing of the truth: and there is none that holdeth with me against these but Michael your prince.""Lo, the prince of Greece shall come ..." (Daniel 10:20), and, "Michael your prince ..." (Daniel 10:21)." Here is a glimpse of the unseen world; and what seems to be indicated is that the nations of the world themselves are being monitored and to the extent of God's will being directed, influenced, or controlled by the mighty angels of God. It must be admitted that we know very little of this subject, due to the absence of specific teaching on it in the Word of God. Here, "Michael is presented as the guardian angel of the Jews."[12] The idea of guardian angels for the different nations is hinted at in earlier portions of the Old Testament."[13] Cited in this connection were the following passages: "A time is coming when the Lord will punish the powers above the rulers of the earth. God will crowd kings together like prisoners in a pit (Isaiah 24:21). God presides in the heavenly council; in the assembly of the gods he gives his decision (Psalms 82:1). Both of these quotations are taken from Good News Bible."[14]The firm New Testament word on the function of angels includes the following: (1) They bear away the souls of the departed in death (Luke 16:22). (2) They exercise diligence to watch over little children (Matthew 18:11). (3) All of the angels are engaged in the service of those who shall inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14). (4) They aid providentially in bringing sinners in contact with the gospel (Acts 8:26). (5) They execute the sentence of God in the destruction of sinners whose importance justifies their immediate removal from the earth (Acts 12:23). (6) One of the mightiest angels, The Rainbow Angel of Revelation 10 has charge of maintaining an open Bible, "the little book," "until time shall be no more." (7) On special occasion when God's great prophets and preachers of the Word needed special encouragement an angel of God stood by to inform, to prophesy, and to encourage (Acts 27:23). This last would appear to have been a special thing upon behalf of the apostles. Here in Daniel, however, there is definitely another function of the blessed angels, that of influencing human affairs through human governments for the achievement of God's purposes among men. Also, it is not amiss here to point out that there most definitely existed in the early Church in the city of Jerusalem a conviction that every Christian had a guardian angel. We base this conviction upon the words attributed to the whole church praying in the home of Mary the sister of Barnabas, when informed by Rhoda that Peter was standing at the door, they said, "It is his angel!" (Acts 12:15). One of the great mysteries of the New Testament is why the references to angels, which are plentiful enough in the earliest days of the church, nevertheless ceased almost completely, except for their mention in connection with Revelation. Some have pointed out that this is powerful evidence supporting the authenticity of the appearances of angels that are recorded. The psychological likelihood of this phenomenon having been continued and greatly expanded, had it been anything other than actual appearances, is very, very great. Significantly only two angels are named in the Bible, both names appearing here in Daniel. Michael is called "archangel" in Jude 1:1:9, and he is mentioned as the leader of the angelic war against "the Dragon (Satan) and his angels" in Revelation 12:7-8. It has been assumed that Gabriel was also an archangel; but many have pointed out that there could be only one archangel! The Hebrew traditions on this are extensive, but no one has ever attributed any dependability to them. Commentary On Daniel Ten by Eric HallDaniel 10 Chapter 10 is a prelude to the final vision in the book of Daniel. This vision, found in Chapters 11 and 12, will cover the history of the Jews from Daniel’ s day down until the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Daniel 10:1 1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar. And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision. The third year of Cyrus would be the third year of his reign over the Chaldeans (about 536 BC), not the third year of his reign over Persia – which would have been 20 years earlier. As we have suggested, the third year of Cyrus may have coincided with the first year of Darius the Mede, but we do not know for sure. We know for sure, however, that this vision occurred after Cyrus’ s decree that the Jews could return to Palestine. Ezra 1:1 tells us that decree went out in the first year of Cyrus. The timing here is important because Daniel, who was obviously concerned about the exiles, may have just heard that work on the temple had been halted. This may explain why he is mourning later in the chapter. What does Daniel tell us about the word that was revealed to him? (1) The word was true. Daniel received this vision and this word from God, and thus the word and the vision are true. The vision contained prophecies that would certainly be accomplished. There was no doubt on Daniel’ s part. The liberals do not approach this book from that perspective. Instead, they determine what the vision must mean, and then check to see if the events in their interpretation ever occurred (and, no surprise, they hardly ever have!). Thus, they conclude, the author of Daniel was mistaken since the events he predicted never came true. For an example of this approach to Biblical interpretation, consider the following excerpt from The New Oxford Annotated Bible commenting on Daniel 11:40– 45. Predictions that Ptolemy will provoke another war with disastrous results, so that Antiochus will conquer Libya to the west of Egypt and Ethiopia to the south, but on his way back will perish somewhere along the coastal route. None of these predictions was fulfilled. You can sense the glee as the author makes that final comment. “ Here is what Daniel said would happen, but it never happened. So much for those who think the Bible is always right…” But notice that the commentator himself is never in doubt with regard to his own conclusions. He couldn’ t be wrong, could he? What do you think? If instead we believe that the word of God is true, then the situation is different. If we make some conclusion about the scriptures that later turns out to be in conflict with historical or scientific truth, then we must be in error – not God. It is our fault for misunderstanding his word. God’ s word is truth no matter what we have to say about it. The two approaches are not all that different. We begin by assuming that God is infallible. The liberals begin by assuming that they themselves are infallible. Beginning with our premise, the liberals are wrong. Beginning with the liberal premise, God is wrong. And what does God have to say to these critics? Isaiah 44:7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be. (2) The word involved great conflict. The King James Version translates this phrase by saying “the time appointed was long” or great. The Hebrew word translated “ time appointed” in the King James Version is more properly translated “ army” or “ host” going forth to war. The Revised Standard Version translation “ it was a great conflict” is preferred. The “ conflict” here is the warfare that we will see in Chapter 11. That is, the vision will involve conflicts between many different peoples and nations. (3) Daniel understood the word and the vision. Recall that in Daniel 8:27, Daniel confessed that he did not fully understand the vision that he received in that chapter even after an angel appeared to help him understand it. How is this vision different? The primary difference is that the vision in Chapters 11 and 12 is longer and contains more details. This extra detail seems to have helped Daniel understand what was in store for his people. Also, the vision in Chapters 11 and 12 is largely historical narrative, and in that sense is more straightforward than his earlier visions. This first verse in Chapter 10 is an overview of the last three chapters of Daniel. The “ understanding” of the vision in 10:1 was not present until the end of Chapter 12. If we skip down to verses 12– 14 we discover that Daniel prayed for understanding and an angel was sent to explain to him what would occur to his people in the last days.With the next verse, Daniel begins to give the account of the events that led him to this understanding. As we will see, it began with spiritual preparation and prayer. (Perhaps we should follow his example when we too seek to understand the will of God.) Daniel 10:2-3 2 In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. 3 I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks. Again, we see the extent of Daniel’ s spiritual preparation. Daniel prepared himself to seek God and study his word. Daniel made time for God. Indeed, Daniel seems to have made time for little else. Should we follow Daniel’ s example? Daniel got results when he prayed. God heard his prayers and acted to answer his prayers. If we want similar results then perhaps we should prepare ourselves as Daniel did. For easterners, anointing oneself with oil was a daily ritual except for those who were sick, who were mourning, or who were facing a crisis. In James 5:14, the elders anointed the sick person with oil to express their faith that the person was going to recover. (They did not think the oil healed the person.) Here, Daniel abstains from the oil because he is mourning. Note also that Daniel abstained during this time from meat and wine. The inference of course is that normally he did not abstain from these foods. Thus, the dietary changes he made when he first arrived in Babylon seem to have been just temporary. (Some have said that Daniel was a vegetarian all of his life, but this verse casts serious doubt on that idea.) Why was Daniel mourning? As we have suggested, Daniel may have heard bad news from the exiles who had left several years earlier for Palestine. As we know from Ezra, the news was not all good. Also, the vision in Chapter 8 had discussed the horrors that lay in store for God’ s people under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The vision in Chapter 9 had told Daniel that one day the Messiah would come, only to be cut off, and that one day the city and the sanctuary would be destroyed. Further, this would be God’ s last word with regard to the Jews. The vision in Chapter 11 that Daniel was about to receive will have even more to say about the horrors that would soon face God’ s people. What else could Daniel do but mourn? Daniel knew that there was a time to mourn, and he knew that the time was now! And how long did Daniel fast? Well, if we believe those who think there is a Universal Day Equals a Year Principle in the Bible, then Daniel must have fasted for 21 years! But of course there is no such principle as we have already discussed. Daniel fasted for 3 weeks – a literal 21 days. Daniel 10:4-6 4 On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river, that is, the Tigris, 5 I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz. 6 His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the noise of a multitude. Daniel received this vision on the 24th day of the first month. The first month of the Jewish calendar is Nisan. The Passover celebration took place on the 14th day of this month, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread was from the 15th to the 21st day. Thus, Daniel received his vision 10 days after Passover. While traditionally this was a time of feasting, Daniel had spent the time fasting and mourning. Why did Daniel give us the day and the month and the year of this vision? (The year is given indirectly in verse 1.) One reason is that the extra level of detail adds to the testimony of his book. Daniel is not just making this up – these visions really occurred. A second reason is that Daniel knew that the starting point of a vision was often crucial in understanding a vision. Daniel was standing on the bank of the Tigris River. Earlier Daniel had a vision next to the River Ulai (which flows into the Tigris River). As you recall, it was unclear if Daniel was actually at the River Ulai or rather was just seeing the river in his vision. The wording here, however, seems to suggest that Daniel was actually present at the Tigris river when these events occurred. Daniel was not the only prophet to receive a message from God next to a river. Ezekiel received several visions by the River Chebar. Verse 5– 6 contain perhaps the most detailed description of an angel’ s appearance found anywhere in the Bible. The description of this angel is very similar to the description of Christ found in Revelation 1. This has caused some to conclude that perhaps Daniel was seeing the preincarnate Christ rather than an angel. One big point against this theory is that this angel, as we will soon see, fought with the Prince of Persia for three weeks until he was helped by Michael. Christ, on the other hand, had little trouble with the demons he encountered in the New Testament. Despite the similarity of their appearance in Revelation 1 and Daniel 10, the similarity between angels and Christ goes no further. Christ is the eternal creator (Colossians 1:16). Angels are creatures (Psalms 148). Christ is omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:27). Angels are not (Daniel 10). Christ is omnipresent (Psalms 139). Angels are not (Daniel 10). Christ is omniscient (1 John 3:20). Angels are not (1 Peter 1:12). Christ is worthy of our worship (Revelation 22:3). Angels are not (Revelation 22:8– 9). Daniel 10:7-9 7 And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. 8 So I was left alone and saw this great vision, and no strength was left in me; my radiant appearance was fearfully changed, and I retained no strength. 9 Then I heard the sound of his words; and when I heard the sound of his words, I fell on my face in a deep sleep with my face to the ground. The vision in verse 7 is the vision of the angel himself appearing, not the vision in Chapters 11 and 12. The word that the angel brings is also called a vision in verse 14, but this vision in verse 7 occurs before the angel says anything. Daniel’ s companions are not able to see the vision, but they sense enough to be afraid and to flee, leaving Daniel alone. Daniel’ s experience is similar to that of Paul on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:7 and 22:9 tell us that Paul’ s companions could not see Christ or understand his voice, but did sense enough to be frightened. (They saw the bright light and stood speechless.) Also, we are reminded of the incident in 2 Kings 6:15– 17 in which Elisha prayed that the eyes of his servant would be opened so that he could see the great angelic army that surrounded them. Why could Daniel, Elisha, and Saul see what their companions could not? The most likely reason is simply that God did not want their companions to see the visions. Perhaps, though, they were more spiritually alert than their companions. Daniel’ s appearance changed when he saw the angel. Verse 8 in the New English Bible reads “ My strength left me; I became a sorry figure of a man.” Daniel 10:10-12 10 And behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. 11 And he said to me, “ O Daniel, man greatly beloved, give heed to the words that I speak to you, and stand upright, for now I have been sent to you.” While he was speaking this word to me, I stood up trembling. 12 Then he said to me, “ Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your mind to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. Again, Daniel is said to be greatly beloved by God. A literal translation of greatly beloved would be “ man of preciousness.” Daniel was precious in God’ s sight. What a tremendous complement! Why was Daniel precious in God’ s sight? Because Daniel was a man of faith and a man of good works. Because Daniel devoted himself entirely to doing God’ s will and pleasing God. We have heard so often that our works do not earn our salvation that I fear we have begun to believe that our works don’ t count for anything in God’ s sight. Our works are important to God. Indeed, Ephesians 2:10 says that we were created for good works. Why were Daniel’ s prayers so effective? Verse 12 says that Daniel set his mind to understand and he humbled himself before God. Thus, the angel says, God heard his words. It is a sad fact that although God is always able to hear us, sometimes he chooses not to hear us. Why? Because of our sinfulness. Isaiah 59:1-2 Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save, or his ear dull, that it cannot hear; 2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear. Daniel 10:13-14 13 The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, so I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia 14 and came to make you understand what is to befall your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.” The answer to Daniel’ s prayer was delayed for 21 days. Why? Some suggest that the answer was not delayed, but that the angel was acting to answer his prayer. Daniel’ s concern was with the Jewish exiles, and this angel no doubt had the same concern as he wrestled with the forces behind Persia. Often answers cannot be given at once, but instead must be delayed by the arrangements necessary to bring them about. Daniel’ s prayer was heard the first day he started praying, yet the answer didn’ t show up for 21 days. Why didn’ t Daniel just give up? Luke 18:1 tells us that we should continue to pray and not lose heart, and this is just what Daniel did. James 5:16 tells us that our prayers can be very effective. Daniel 10 gives us some idea of the mighty forces that we can unleash with our prayers. This is the place of prayer – on the battlefield of the world. It is a wartime walkie-talkie for spiritual warfare, not a domestic intercom to increase the comfort of the saints. (John Piper) The prince of Persia is apparently the satanic agent assigned to work with Persia in fighting the will of God. We would be foolish to think that Satan is not organized in his fight against him. He has a plan and he works to carry out that plan. 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour. Although God could wipe out all the forces of Hell with a single thought, he does not. Instead, he accords demons (like men) certain limited powers and gives them free will. Michael comes to the aid of this angel and remains to fight the prince of Persia. The angel Michael is also mentioned in verse 21 and later in 12:1. Here he is called a chief prince. In Jude 9 he is called an archangel. He also makes an appearance in Revelation 12:7. One conclusion we can draw is that apparently there is a hierarchy of angels in which Michael occupies a high position. By the way, the liberal critics look at all that Daniel has to say about angels, and they conclude that the theology in his book was too advanced to have been written in the sixth century BC. Of course, this theory presupposes that the Jews were just making everything up as they went along, which is exactly what the liberals believe. Why was this angelic warfare occurring? Why was Satan interested in Persia and Greece? The short answer is that Satan was interested because God was interested. Satan constantly seeks to thwart God’ s plans. Even today, Satan is seeking to destroy the church and his attacks come from within and without. He attacks the church from without through the sinful culture of the world and the false doctrines of the world’ s religions. He attacks the church from within by raising up false teachers from within our own ranks who twist the word of God to their own destruction, who deny the miracles and prophecies of the Bible, and who seek to change the eternal pattern that is found in God’ s word. This battle is not new. As we see, it was going full tilt back in the days of Daniel, 500 years before Christ. Now, 2500 years later, it continues. Our job is to take our position in God’ s army and remain faithful and true to his word. When we compromise with this world, we betray him. To God, compromise is treason! An interesting question to consider is to look at how much Satan knows about the plan of God and to ask when he found out about it. Satan obviously knew that the Jews were part of God’ s plan and so he sought to frustrate their efforts at every turn. Satan, of course, knew that Jesus as the Son of God was the focus of God’ s plan so he put temptations before him at every opportunity. But what about the death of Christ? Did Satan see that as a victory? If he did, then as we know he was badly mistaken, because as John 12:31 and Hebrews 2:14 tell us, Satan was defeated at the cross. I think that Satan first saw the cross as a victory, but later realized his mistake at the last moment. Matthew 27:19 tells us that Pilates’ wife sought to have Jesus released because of a dream she had. Who was behind that dream? I think Satan was. One thing that these verses make very clear is that there is an unseen spiritual war going on that is related to events occurring in this world. This warfare is going on behind a curtain and is obscured from our sight. The Bible occasionally pulls back that curtain a bit and gives us a glimpse of what is going on. Daniel 10 pulls back the curtain perhaps more than any other section of the Bible. Even so, we are not told very much and we can only speculate about the details of this spiritual battle. Other verses that pull back the curtain are: Hebrews 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation? Ephesians 6:10-12 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.Of course, we can only speculate about the details of this spiritual warfare since the only thing we know for sure about it is what God has revealed to us – and he hasn’ t revealed very much on this topic. There is nothing wrong with conjecture just so long as we remember where the word ends and the conjecture begins. We must be careful not to go to far and become preoccupied with demons as some have done. C.S. Lewis said the following in this regard: There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors, and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight. When are the ‘ latter days’ mentioned in verse 14? The phrase could simply mean “ later” or it could point to the latter days of the Jewish age. This latter interpretation seems to fit the context better. Many assume that the “ latter days” refers to the end of the world. But as we saw in Acts 2, the ‘ last days’ occurred in the first century. If we do take the ‘ latter days’ to refer to the end of the world, then we need to be aware of some consequences of that belief. Verse 14 states very clearly that this vision concerns the role of the Jews in the latter days. As I have already suggested, I think the ‘ latter days’ refers to the time when God’ s special plan for the Jews would come to an end. This happened in the first century and fits nicely with how Peter described the last days in Acts 2. But could this vision also relate to events that will occur at the end of the world? We need to be very careful how we answer that question. To answer the question ‘ yes,’ is to logically imply that the Jews still have a special role to play in the plan of God, which many today believe is the case. If we take Daniel to refer to the end of the world in this vision, then the idea of a future Jewish role in God’ s plan follows as a logical consequence of verse 14 – we cannot avoid it. Thus, we need to be careful about the time frame we choose for this prophecy. What does the Bible have to say about the future role of the Jews in God’ s plan? Romans 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. Acts 13:32-33 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘ Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee.’ Jeremiah 33:14-16 Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘ The Lord is our righteousness.’ Does God have a plan for the Jews today? Yes. Does God have a plan for Jews today that is different from his plan for Gentiles? Absolutely not! Daniel 10:15-19 15 When he had spoken to me according to these words, I turned my face toward the ground and was dumb. 16 And behold, one in the likeness of the sons of men touched my lips; then I opened my mouth and spoke. I said to him who stood before me, “ O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength. 17 How can my lord’ s servant talk with my lord? For now no strength remains in me, and no breath is left in me.” 18 Again one having the appearance of a man touched me and strengthened me. 19 And he said, “ O man greatly beloved, fear not, peace be with you; be strong and of good courage.” And when he spoke to me, I was strengthened and said, “ Let my lord speak, for you have strengthened me.” Daniel is unable to speak until the angel (or perhaps another angel) touches his lips. Daniel’ s response to the angel is similar to that of Isaiah in Isaiah 6:5 where after seeing the vision of God on his throne he was moved to say, “ Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips.” Daniel turns his face toward the ground and is unable to speak. Daniel’ s responses to the visions he receives are worth studying. Often he is overcome and unable to speak for a time. Indeed, he sometimes loses consciousness for a moment and must be revived. I think that we have sometimes been guilty of emphasizing that Jesus is our friend (which is certainly true) at the expense of also emphasizing that Jesus is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe who upholds the universe by the power of his word and possesses all authority in Heaven and on Earth. Listen further to what Isaiah saw in Isaiah 6: Isaiah 6:1-4 In the year that King Uzzi'ah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. 2 Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." 4 And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. Our attitude toward sin is directly related to our attitude toward God. If we have become lax about sin, then perhaps it is because we have tried to lower God down to our level instead of seeing him sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up. John Calvin said: Hence that dread and amazement with which, as Scripture uniformly relates, holy men were struck and overwhelmed whenever they beheld the presence of God. … Men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their insignificance, until they have contrasted themselves with the majesty of God. And we might add that men are never duly touched and impressed with a conviction of their sinfulness until they have contrasted themselves with the holiness of God. The first step in saving someone is too convince him that he is lost. We cannot proclaim the good news until we have first proclaimed the bad news. Holy, Holy, Holy. That is the only attribute of God that is repeated three times for emphasis. You never read that God is love, love, love or merciful, merciful, merciful. But you do read that he is holy, holy, holy – and when we really understand that, we will see ourselves and our sin in a whole new light, just like Isaiah did. We are guilty, guilty, guilty. Voltaire said that “ God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.” Instead of coming up with new gods, I fear we have often been guilty of trying to refashion the one we have. And the result? One author has said that we are like Lancelot in search of the Holy Grail who finds himself at the end of his quest at a Tupperware party. We have tried to trivialize God. Our so-called Christian society has tried to reduce God to some catchy phrase or fish symbol we stick on our bumpers. Some even parade around in so-called “ Christian T-shirts” with slogans such as “ This Blood’ s For You,” which brings Christ’ s atoning sacrifice down to the level of a beer commercial. When Isaiah saw God on his throne and when Daniel met a messenger of God they were not driven to put a new slogan on their clothing or a catchy phrase on their chariot. They were driven to their knees when they realized their own sinfulness in the presence of the holiness of God. Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is insight. Hebrews 12:28-29 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire. Daniel is strengthened by the angel, and for good reason. There is bad news ahead! His people are going to undergo serious trials. Daniel 10:20-21 20 Then he said, “ Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I am through with him, lo, the prince of Greece will come. 21 But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince. The angel had already answered the question in verse 20. In verse 14, the angel told Daniel that he had come to help Daniel understand what would happen to the Jews at the end of days. The question here in verse 20 is merely rhetorical. Although we have a picture of spiritual warfare involving the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece, it is important to note that the outcome of the battle was never in doubt. God had already told us how the battle was going to end! Persia was a part of God’ s plan, yet Persia was supported by demonic powers. The faithless Jews that rejected Christ were also critical to God’ s plan yet were also acting on the side of Satan. Is this a contradiction? No. Paul dealt with this problem in Romans 9– 11. The Jews’ rejection of Christ allowed God to bless the whole world. Thus, how could God hold them responsible for rejecting Christ? Paul answer was that just because God is able to use evil people to further his own aims does not mean that those evil people are no longer responsible for their actions. What evil man could possibly say to God, “ You are not allowed to use my evil to accomplish something good unless you give me credit!” The idea, as Paul points out, is ludicrous. Daniel was very important to God. Indeed, God’ s dealings with the powers of the world were put on hold for a moment so that this angel could answer Daniel’ s prayer. The vision in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 is found in the book of truth. This book conveys the idea of God’ s control and knowledge of past, present, and future. The future that God is about to tell Daniel is so certain that it is already written down. It is as if it has already happened. Psalms 139:16 Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. Isaiah 44:7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it, let him declare and set it forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell us what is yet to be.This angel and Michael appear to be outnumbered. They are contending by themselves against the demonic powers of Persia. But, of course, no one is outnumbered when God is on his side. Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Time Of The End - I (Daniel 10:1-11:1) 1. As mentioned in previous lessons, the second half of Daniel contains four visions... a. The vision of the four beasts - Daniel 7:1-28b. The vision of the ram and the goat - Daniel 8:1-27c. The vision of the seventy weeks - Daniel 9:1-27d. The vision of the time of the end - Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 12:13-- In which God reveals to Daniel many things about His purpose and plan in history, regarding the nation of Israel and the everlasting kingdom to come 2. In the tenth chapter, therefore, we find the beginning of the final vision recorded by Daniel... a. A vision that pertains to what will affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Daniel 10:14b. Describing what will occur "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Daniel 10:14c. Its words were to be closed and sealed "till the time of the end"- Daniel 12:9-- For such reasons this vision has been called "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" 3. But what is meant by the expression "the time of the end"? a. Is it the end of time as we think of it, when Christ returns? b. Or does it refer to the end of God's dealings with Israel as His covenant nation? [As we seek to address this and other questions raised in this difficult portion of Scripture, we first notice...] I. THE OF A MAN A. THE DATE AND SETTING OF THE VISION...1. It occurred in the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, on the 24th day of the first month (ca. 535 B.C.) - Daniel 10:1; Daniel 10:42. Daniel had been in mourning (fasting) for three weeks - Daniel 10:2-33. He was beside the Tigris river - Daniel 10:4 B. THE OF THE MAN...1. Daniel saw a certain man - Daniel 10:5-6a. Clothed in linen, whose waist was girded with gold of Uphaz b. With a body like beryl c. His face like lightning, his eyes like torches of fire d. His arms and feet like burnished bronze in color e. His words like the voice of a multitude 2. Only Daniel saw the vision - Daniel 10:7a. The men with him did not b. They fled with great terror to hide themselves 3. The impact on Daniel - Daniel 10:8-9a. Without strength, his vigor turned to frailty (he was probably in his nineties!) b. When he heard the sounds of the man's words, Daniel was in a deep sleep with his face to the ground [The similarity between this "certain man" and John's vision of the Son of Man (cf. Revelation 1:12-17) have led many to wonder if this was a Christophany (an appearance of the preincarnate Christ); but he may have been only an angel. As we continue, we next read of...] II. THE WITH THE MAN A. THE MAN'S INITIAL WORDS TO DANIEL...1. A hand touches Daniel, causing him to tremble - Daniel 10:102. The man addresses Daniel - Daniel 10:11a. Calling him "man greatly beloved" - cf. Daniel 9:23; Daniel 10:19b. For Daniel to understand, and to stand up c. For the man has been sent to Daniel -- Daniel stands up, but trembling 3. The man comforts Daniel - Daniel 10:12a. Telling him not to fear b. That he has come because of Daniel's humility, and desire to understand 4. The man explains the reason for the delay - Daniel 10:13a. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him twenty-one days (the same time during which Daniel had been in mourning - cf. Daniel 10:2-3) 1) Spiritual warfare seems to have been taking place (cf. Revelation 12:7; Ephesians 6:12) 2) The "prince" (angel?) of the kingdom of Persia had been withstanding him - cf. Daniel 11:1b. But Michael came to help him who had been left alone with the kings of Persia 1) Michael is described as "one of the chief princes"2) Later he is called "your prince" and "the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people" - Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:13) Jude calls him "the archangel", who contended with the devil over the body of Moses - Jude 1:9-- Michael appears to have served as the guardian of the nation of Israel 5. But now the man has come make Daniel understand - Daniel 10:14a. What will happen to his people (Israel) b. What will occur "in the latter days", "many days yet to come"-- From what follows, the expression "latter days" appears to refer to the time leading up to the coming of the Messiah and into the Messianic period (Harkrider) - cf. Daniel 2:28; Acts 2:16-17 B. DANIEL IS ...1. Daniel is initially speechless - Daniel 10:15-17a. With his face turned to the ground b. But one with "the likeness of the sons of men" touched his lips (some think this may have been Gabriel, who had helped Daniel before - Daniel 8:16) c. Daniel can now speak, but is overwhelmed with sorrow and without strength 2. Daniel is strengthened - Daniel 10:18-19a. By the touch of the one having the likeness of a man b. By the words bestowing love, peace and courage c. Ready now to hear what he has to say C. THE MAN RESUMES HIS WORDS WITH DANIEL...1. Though he must soon return - Daniel 10:20a. To fight with the prince (angel?) of Persia b. To deal with the prince (angel?) of Greece yet to come 2. Yet he will tell Daniel what is noted in the Scripture of Truth - Daniel 10:21 to Daniel 11:1a. Adding that only Michael helps him against them (the angelic princes of Persia and Greece) - cf. Daniel 10:13b. Adding that he had confirmed and strengthened him (Michael?) in the first year of Darius the Mede 1. At this point (Daniel 11:2), "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" begins in earnest... a. Describing what will happen "in the latter days"b. Referring to what will occur "many days yet to come"-- Which we shall examine when we resume our study in the next lesson 2. In these introductory remarks of the vision, we find a glimpse of the spiritual warfare that was going on "behind the scenes"... a. With angelic forces withstanding each other - Daniel 10:13 a,20b. With angelic forces helping each other - Daniel 10:13 b,21; 11:1c. With Michael introduced to Daniel as: 1) "one of the chief princes" - Daniel 10:132) "your prince" - Daniel 10:213) "the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people" - Daniel 12:1 While there is little we truly know about this "spiritual warfare", and to what extent it may be going on today, perhaps our study will encourage us to take more seriously Paul's words: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." "Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." - Ephesians 6:12-13 What are we doing to take up the armor of God, that we might be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might (cf. Ephesians 6:10-18)? Chapter Ten In the third year of Darius (ca. 535 B.C.) Daniel receives a vision that will affect his people (Israel) "in the latter days" (Daniel 10:14), its words to be closed and sealed "till the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9). "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" begins with an appearance of a "glorious man" to Daniel beside the Tigris River (Daniel 10:1-9), with an explanation for his delay in coming (Daniel 10:10-21). The prophecy of the vision continues in chapters eleven and twelve. POINTS TO PONDER * The meaning of the phrase "in the latter days" as used in the vision * The angelic conflict behind the scenes briefly described by the "glorious man" REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The appearance of the "glorious man" to Daniel - Daniel 10:1-9- The conversation between Daniel and the "glorious man" - Daniel 10:10-21 2) Describe the "glorious man" seen by Daniel by the Tigris river (Daniel 10:4-6)- Clothed in linen, waist girded with gold - Body like beryl, face like lightning, eyes like torches of fire - Arms and feet like burnished bronze - His words like the voice of a multitude 3) Describe the impact of seeing this "glorious man" on Daniel (Daniel 10:8-9)- Left him without strength, his vigor turned to frailty - In a deep sleep, Daniel heard the sound of the man's words 4) How does the "glorious man" address Daniel? (Daniel 10:11)- "Man greatly beloved" (cf. Daniel 10:19) 5) Why had the "glorious man" delayed his coming to Daniel? (Daniel 10:12-13)- The prince of Persia withstood him for 21 days, but then the prince Michael helped him 6) Why was the "glorious man" sent to Daniel? When would the events occur? (Daniel 10:14)- To help him understand what would happen to his people (Israel) - In "the latter days", "many days yet to come" 7) Speechless and overwhelmed, how was Daniel strengthened? (Daniel 10:15-19)- The "glorious man" touched Daniel, and spoke encouraging words to him 8) What would the "glorious man" do after leaving Daniel? Who would help? (Daniel 10:20-21)- Return to fight with the prince of Persia, after that with the prince of Greece - Michael the prince (cf. Daniel 10:13; Daniel 12:1; Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7) Daniel 10:1. When giving a date for any event, a reference to either Darius or Cyrus is the same, Tiiis is because the MedoPersian Empire was ruled jointly by the two men, hence they may he used interchangeably for dates since they took possession of Babylon together as far as chronology was concerned. The preceding chapter began with the first year while the present one comes down to the third year of the same reign. This verse is com posed in the third person and Daniel writes it only as a historian. True, hut . . . long signifies that an inspired prophecy is not weakened any as to its reliability just because it looks far into the future. God knows as much about the future as he does of the past, hence an inspired prediction cannot fail. Daniel 10:2-3. Fasting or making of vows was not required as a general practice under the law of Moses. However, such devotions were approved when entered into by servants of God, and they were generally done in times of great anxiety or sorrow. Daniel put on a threeweek fast because of his concern for the Jews, who, though formerly released from the Babylonian captivity, were yet in an unsettled state due to the desolated condition of their city of Jerusalem, Ate no pleasant bread means he abstained from the food of bis choice and ale only what was necessary to support an existence. The people among whom Daniel then dwelt used aromatic ointments upon their bodies for the purpose of its pleasant odor and sensation, but he abstained from the use of that costly delicacy during the period of his fast. Daniel 10:4. Apparently the fast that Daniel observed was to bring no results. for it was three days before he heard any word of encouragement. The reason for the delay will be explained later. The prophet was on the bank of one of the rivers of Babylon; Hiddekel, later known as the Tigris. Daniel 10:5. Uphaz is another word for “ Ophir,” a place that produced an unusually fine quality of gold. The fine clothing this certain man was wearing indicated the dignity of his mission and the giory of the authority behind it. Daniel 10:6. All of these descriptive words were used for the same purpose that was stated in the preceding verse. Whether the person was directly from heaven, sent to the earth in the form of a man, or was a being of the earth and especially adorned and qualified to serve the present purpose, I do not know. In either case we may regard him as a person being used by the Lord to accomplish certain ends with conditions on earth. Daniel 10:7. Daniel had some men with him, but upon the approach of this unusual person they became frightened and ran away, and as a result Daniel was the only one who saw the vision and beard the words spoken. Daniel 10:8. The prophet did not flee, yet he was greatly affected by the circumstance so that he had a prostrated feeling or a loss of bodily strength. However, this prostration did not interfere with his hearing and activity of mind. Daniel 10:9. Daniel heard the voice of the man, which, in addition to the state of his mind and body already produced by the appearance of such an unusual person, caused him to fall upon his face to the ground. Daniel 10:10. Before continuing the communication, the man caused Daniel to have a bodily posture of resting on his hands and knees. Daniel 10:11. While in this position the prophet received assurance that no harm was intended against him for he was greatly beloved. But before any further parL ot the message would be delivered he was told to stand up. He obeyed the instructions to arise, but his full strength bad not returned and he trembled as he stood in the presence of this aweinspiring personage. Daniel 10:12. In this verse the man again encourages Daniel and acknowledges the threeweek fast that he had observed. He assures him that his words of prayer were heard from the beginning, and that it was for his words or because of them lie had come. Daniel 10:13. In this verse the ''man'’ (or angel) will explain to Daniel why his prayer was not acknowledged sooner, although it was observed favorably from the start. To use a familiar form of speech, the man was engaged in other business which detained him. Some commentators think that Daniel was contending with this prince of the kingdom of Persia to persuade him to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem. I do not understand how that would be, for according to Ezra 1:1-4 that privilege had been granted them two years before. If this controversy had anything to do with that subject, it must have been with some outstanding men of Persia who were not in full accord with the edict of Cyrus. Whatever it was, it pertained to the interests of the Jews, and this man or angel could not go to the relief of Daniel for a while. He finally had “ reinforcements" in the person ot Michael, and together they got matters in shape so that the latter could “ hold the fort” for a time, which released the "man” to go and comfort Daniel. Daniel 10:14. The situation is similar to that described in Daniel 9:23, in that Daniel is to have his prayer answered favorably, but is also to be given more information than he had expected. In the present instance, if the prophet was asking for some reassurances of the return of his people to Jerusalem he was granted that consolation. But this inspired messenger was to tell hint of some events in the centuries ahead that would involve these same people of the Jews. Since that vision is for many days, however, the specific predictions will not be given him until the next chapter. But in recognition ot his devotion and concern for the people of God, the messenger was sent to give him the encouragement. Daniel 10:15. Daniel was again overcome by the presence and communication of the man, but nothing is said about his being frightened as before. He was rendered dumb or speechless but it did not affect his body Otherwise, and he could ouly bend his head toward the ground. Daniel 10:16. I do not understand that more than one man or angel came to Daniel, though the language seems to indicate that there was. The general subject has been the same all through these verses and hence there would be no occasion for another messenger. The person was in the form of a man whoever he was, but he was endowed with supernatural power and knowledge for he was yet to make many predictions for us to examine. This angel recovered Daniel from his dumbness, and also renewed his bodily strength after a few moments. After regaining his power of speech, Daniel toid the angel of his sorrow and its effect upon his bodily feeling. Daniel 10:17. Daniel felt humiliated and inferior in the presence of the person whom he called my lord. Neither is there breath left in me is figurative as to its extent, and means that the prophet was virtually exhausted by the vision. Daniel 10:18. Then came again means the same man or angel again contacted Daniel for the purpose of further strengthening him and making him feel assured. Daniel 10:19. Being comforted and strengthened by the angel, Daniel requested him to speak, which indicated that he felt prepared in body and mind to give attention. Daniel 10:20. The angel asked Daniel if he knew or understood why he had come to him. There is no recorded answer to the question that is available to us. but the absence of everything to the contrary implies that he understood. Thus the subject or occasion of the present meeting between Daniel and the angel was dropped, and the latter informed the prophet that he was going back to Persia to resume the controversy that is mentioned in verse 13. He added a general reference to another great event that was to occur between Persia and Greece after this angel lias conducted his “ fight” with the former. But this item is out of place chronologically and Jt will be treated in its proper place in the next chapter. Daniel 10:21. Chronologically speaking, the first part of verse 20 has been fulfilled and the last part of it is due: that is, it is the proper place to go more into detail as to the meaning of the words prince of Qreda shall come. Before doing so, the angel assures Daniel that what he is going to reveal to him will be in harmony with what the scriptures had previously foretold. On the present matter of predictions, Michael was the only one of the angels who was taken into the same confidential service as the one now talking to Daniel, Daniel Chapter ElevenVerse 1 The remarkably accurate prophecies of this chapter are so true, so astounding, and so wonderfully accurate that the whole critical world for centuries have never questioned a single one of them. The only allegation that Bible enemies have ever been able to bring against this chapter is that it is so exactly accurate that it had to be written after the events prophesied had already occurred. This slander against the Book of Daniel has existed a long time. It was first advanced by Malchus Porphyrius a follower of Plotinus who was bitterly opposed to Christianity. Porphyry is the Anglicized form of his name; and he lived 233-304(?) A.D.[1] Since the great burden of these prophecies concerns the time following 250 B.C. (all of the prophecies dealing with Antiochus and the Maccabean rebellion), the undeniable refutation of the critical position is inherent in the fact that every single line of Daniel existed centuries prior to those events! The Septuagint (LXX) (translated into Greek in 250 B.C.) has every line of Daniel, centuries prior to the events which are admittedly prophesied in Daniel! It is a comment on the sterility and impotence of criticism that not a single new argument has been invented against Daniel in the last 1600 years!. The present-day student of the Bible is not overly concerned about the details of the pre-Christian history of Israel during the inter-testamental period and with the details of the depraved struggles of the pagan world powers and their ultimate efforts to exterminate the true worship of God. The undisputed point to remember about all of this is that Daniel's prophecy has an accurate, detailed account of what was to happen, and of what did actually occur. As Millard stated it, "It is this vision (the eleventh chapter) above all that leads many to the second century dating of the book (Daniel)."[2]First, we shall take a look at the sacred text. Daniel 11:1-21 a "And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him." (Actually the conclusion of Daniel 10). "And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven, but not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion wherewith he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others besides these.And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes; and he shall be strong above him, and have dominion; and his dominion shall be a great dominion. And at the end of years they shall join themselves together; and the daughter of the king of the south shall come to the king of the north to make an agreement: but she shall not retain the strength of her arm; neither shall he stand, nor his arm; but she shall be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, and he that strengthened her in those times. But out of a shoot from her roots shall one stand up in his place, who shall come unto the army, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north, and shall deal against them, and shall prevail. And also their gods, with their molten images, and with their goodly vessels of silver and of gold, shall he carry captive into Egypt; and he shall refrain some years from the king of the north. And he shall come into the realm of the king of the south, but he shall return into his own land. And his sons shall war, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces, which shall come on, and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and war, even to his fortress. And the kings of the south shall be moved with anger, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north; and he shall set forth a great multitude, and the multitude shall be given into his hand. And the multitude shall be lifted up, and his heart shall be exalted; and he shall cast down tens of thousands, but he shall not prevail. And the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former; and he shall come on at the end of the times, even of years, with a great army, and with much substance. And in those times shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the children of the violent among thy people shall lift themselves up to establish the vision; but they shall fall. So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mound, and take a well-fortified city: and the forces of the south shall not stand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to stand. But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him; and he shall stand in the glorious land, and in his hand shall be destruction. And he shall set his face to come with the strength of his whole kingdom, and with him equitable conditions; and he shall perform them; and he shall give him the daughter of women, to corrupt her; but she shall not stand neither be for him. After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; yea, he shall cause his reproach to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face toward the fortresses of his own land; but he shall stumble and fall, and shall not be found. Then shall stand up in his place one that shall cause an exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom; but within few days shall he be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle. And in his place shall stand up a contemptible person, to whom they had not given the honor of the kingdom." There is no way that this prophecy actually qualifies as some kind of a historical survey passed off as a pretended prophecy. The critical proposition that some forger in the second century wrote this is obviously ridiculous. What "historical survey" could possibly have passed over the tremendous military campaign of Xerxes against Greece with its tremendous battles which are still the talk of all mankind? Later on in Daniel 11:34, the great campaigns of the Maccabees were practically ignored, being called in that verse "a little help!" It is simply impossible to suppose that any person whatever could have written such a thing after those stirring events of the Maccabean rebellion. The whole proposition that this chapter is a prophecy "post eventum" (after the event) is false, contrived, unsupported by anything whatever except the unbelieving slanders of the Bible by evil men. Keil has summarized some of the reasons why it is impossible intellectually to allow the allegations against the chapter which are advanced by unbelievers. His conclusion was that, "The contents and form of this prophecy contain much which a supposed Maccabean origin makes in the highest degree improbable, and directly contradicts."[3]Moreover, all of the exact dates and many other particulars which are alleged to be in the prophecy are simply not in it. For example, take a look at Dummelow's analysis of what he alleges to be prophesied here: "Yet three kings ..." (Daniel 11:2) "These are Cambyses, Darius I (Hystaspes), and Xerxes I (Ahasuerus). The fourth including Cyrus I is Xerxes I, a king of vast wealth. He prepared a great army and navy, invaded Greece, encountered total failure, suffered great losses at Thermopylae, Salamis (480 B.C.) and at Plataea and Mycale."[4] Note that hardly any of this is actually in the prophecy! "A mighty king ..." (Daniel 11:3) Alexander the Great (333:322 B.C.)." "The partition of Alexander's empire is described."[5] (Daniel 11:4) "The king of the south ..." (Daniel 11:5) "This is Ptolemy I (Sorer), the first Egyptian king." "One of his princes ..." is Seleucus I (Nicator), the first Syrian king. "The king's daughter of the south ..." (Daniel 11:6) is a reference to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II (Philadelphus). She was given in Marriage to Antiochus II. On the death of Ptolemy II, Antiochus divorced Berenice and took Laodice back. Laodice poisoned Antiochus, and their son Seleucus (afterward Callinicus) murdered Berenice and her child. "He that begat here, etc..." refers to Ptolemy II. Ptolemy III (Euergetes), brother of Berenice, to avenge his sister's death invaded Syria, then ruled by Callinicus, captured Seleucia and returned to Egypt with much spoil. "A branch of her (Berenice's) roots ..." was her brother Ptolemy III. (Daniel 11:7-8) (Daniel 11:9) Seleucus II (Callinicus) invaded Egypt in 242 B.C. but had to retreat. Daniel 11:10; "His sons ..." The sons of Seleucus II were Saleucus III and Antiochus III (called the Great). Daniel 11:11 is an allusion to the battle of Raphia. Daniel 11:12 refers to Ptolemy the IV. Daniel 11:13-14. Twelve years later Antiochus joined with Philip of Macedon in an attack upon Ptolemy V (Epiphanes), son of Ptolemy IV. Daniel 11:15-16. Antiochus III shut up Ptolemy V in Sidon, where Ptolemy surrendered in 198 B.C. Antiochus then overran Palestine and threatened Egypt. "The glorious land" (in Daniel 11:16) is Palestine." "A well fortified city ..."; Daniel 11:15 is a reference to Sidon. "He that cometh ..." (Daniel 11:16) is Antiochus III. "Against him ..." against Ptolemy V. (Daniel 11:17) Antiochus III gave his daughter Cleopatra in marriage to Ptolemy V. "...The isles ..." (Daniel 11:18) is a reference to the coastlands on the shores of the Aegean Sea. "A prince on his own behalf ..." is the Roman general Scipio. "Fortresses of his own land ..."; Daniel 11:19 is a reference to his withdrawal to Syria. "Then shall stand up in his place one ... and in his place shall stand up a contemptible person ..."(Daniel 11:20-21) Antiochus III was succeeded by Seleucus IV (Philopater) who sent his chief minister to take charge of the Temple treasures in Jerusalem. That chief minister (Heliodorus) murdered Seleucus IV and tried to usurp the kingdom, but he was dispossessed by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), the brother of Seleucus. Antiochus Eipihanes was the contemptible one. The next major paragraph of the prophecy is devoted to the career of Antiochus Epiphanes (176-164 B.C.). We leave it to any fair minded person to judge whether or not a// of this is spelled out in the prophecy. The purpose of such detail is to show how it would have been impossible for a prophecy written before the event could possibly have contained so many details. However, critics need to remember that the sacred prophecies contain all kinds of the most detailed information. Examples: (1) The exact amount, kind, and disposition of the 30 pieces of silver weighed out for Jesus' betrayal by Judas was prophesied (Zechariah 11:12). (2) There were two Bethlehems in ancient Israel; but the prophet declared that Christ would be born in Bethlehem Judah (Micah 5:2). (3) More than 20 of the most particular details of the crucifixion of Christ were foretold in Psalms 22, including even the fact of the soldiers gambling for the seamless robe of Christ! This list could be extended for many pages; but it is obvious to all Christians that true prophecy did indeed predict the most exact and circumstantial details; and the very fact of the critics finding all the details noted above in this prophecy of Daniel is merely what they should have expected to find. Remember, there is no doubt whatever that Daniel existed for centuries before these events happened. As old H. A. Ironside put it, "Don't ever forget that history is His Story!"[6] In this amazing prophecy, God wrote it down (through Daniel) before it happened! Verse 21 "But he shall come in time of security, and shall obtain the kingdom by flatteries. And the overwhelming forces shall be overwhelmed from before him, also the prince of the covenant. And after the league made with him he shall work deceitfully; for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people. In time of security shall he come even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them prey, and spoil, and substance: yea, he shall devise his devices against the strongholds, even for a time. And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall war in battle with an exceeding great and mighty army; but he shall not stand; for they shall devise devices against him. Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall fall down slain. And as for both these kings, their hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper; for yet the end shall be at the appointed time." (176-164 B.C.) "The prince of the covenant ..." is thought to be the Jewish high priest Onias III, who was deposed by Antiochus in favor of Onias' brother Jason who became a full-fledged ally of the corrupt Antiochus. The real feature of this great prophecy is not the exact historical events foretold, but the development of the pagan world powers in their opposition to God and to his holy worship. The mighty features of the prophecy are therefore these: lust, murder, greed, avarice, cunning deceit, falsehood, treachery, violation of trust, breaking of treaties, mass extermination of whole populations, self-glorification, disregard of all sacred things, hatred of both God and man. Brother, there is your prophetic picture of the pagan world governments that rose up to destroy the worship of God and to remove his holy name from the face of the earth, culminating in +the outrages of Antiochus Epiphanes. Now, all of this happened unto God's FIRST ISRAEL; and in this prophecy Daniel offers it as a prophecy of what shall at last happen to THE SECOND ISRAEL in that culmination of world events leading up to the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment. It is most distressing to see unfolding in the present-day history of world powers the very same ugly characteristics which led up to the disasters that befell the first Israel. The focal point of all the events prophesied here is noted in Daniel 11:15, where we have these lines, "The forces of the south shall not stand, NEITHER HIS CHOSEN PEOPLE." This refers to God's chosen people. It was the overwhelming of Israel itself by the pagan world powers that formed the focal center of the holy prophet's attention in this chapter. To miss this is to miss the whole point of the prophecy. Again, from Keil: "This war arose under the Seleucidan Antiochus Epiphanes to such a height, that it formed a prelude of the war of the time of the end. The undertaking of this king to root out the worship of the living God and to destroy the Hebrew religion, shows in type the great war which the world power in the last phase of its development shall undertake against the kingdom of God, by exalting itself above every god, to hasten on its own destruction and the consummation of the kingdom of God."[7]Verse 28 "Then shall he return into his land with great substance; and his heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he shall do his pleasure, and return to his own land. At the time appointed he shall return, and come into the south; but it shall not be in the latter time as it was in the former. For ships of Kittim shall come over against him; therefore he shall be grieved, and shall return, and have indignation against the holy covenant, and shall do his pleasure: he shall even return, and have regard unto them that forsake the holy covenant. And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, even the fortress, and shall take away the continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination that maketh desolate. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he pervert by flatteries; but the people that know their God shall be strong, and do exploits. And they that are wise among the people shall instruct many; yet they shall fall by sword and by flame, many days. Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help; but many shall join themselves unto them with flatteries. And some of them that are wise shall fall, to refine them, and to purify, and to make them white, even to the time of the end; because it is yet for the time appointed."This paragraph stresses the outrages of Anitochus Epiphanes, stressing his destructive attacks upon God's worship, the Temple, and the Law of Moses. Such an all-out attack upon the very soul and continuity of the Israel of God was truly an event of the greatest magnitude. (See under Daniel 8:14, above, for a discussion of Antiochus Epiphanes' attack upon God's worship.) We have already noted the almost negligent reference to the "little help" that the Maccabees would give to God's cause in that emergency (Daniel 11:34). This absolutely forbids any notion that anyone in the second century B.C. era could have authored this chapter. "The abomination that maketh desolate ..." It is the use which Jesus Christ himself made of this passage that must take priority in our efforts to understand it. In the first instance of that "abomination," it was without question the desecration of the Temple, the pollution of the altar by the offering of a sow upon it, the erection of an image of Zeus Olympus in the Temple itself, and other outrages of Antiochus. However Christ inMatthew 24:15,16 (and related passages) mentioned another "abomination of desolation" that would come into the "Holy Place," making that a signal for the Christians living at that time to flee from the City of Jerusalem, which they did, saving their lives by their flight to Pella, during the final destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus this "abomination of desolation" was associated with "the end of the first Israel" in the destruction of their nation, their worship, and their status as "God's chosen people." But there is something which goes far beyond even that. Christ himself by his detailed prophecy of Jerusalem's destruction mingled it with prophecies of the Final Judgment and of the end of the world, the prophecies themselves having double meanings applicable to both events! From this, the conclusion is irresistible that the destruction of Jerusalem is to be understood as a type of the destruction of the whole world, or "the end of the world," to use Jesus' own words. Therefore, since the abomination of desolation was featured dramatically in the fall of Jerusalem, it follows that the antitypical fulfillment of this will occur a second time in"the time of the end." All of the ancient students of the Bible have understood this perfectly. What is that antitypical fulfillment. The world powers shall become increasingly hostile to the worship of God, any god. The final result will be an all-out effort to exterminate the name and knowledge of God from the face of the earth. There will arise an Antichrist, the antitype of Antiochus Epiphanes, "Whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8). This evil person is called the Lawless One (2 Thessalonians 2:8). It is incorrect to identify this person with the Man of Sin. (See Excursus on the Man of Sin (Vol. 9 in our New Testament Series of Commentaries), pp. 106-117.) These are but a few of the very weighty considerations that require an eschatological interpretation of some of the following passages in this prophecy. Therefore with Daniel 11:36 we pass into a prophetic presentation of the kind of world governments that shall precede the end of the world. Verse 36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods; and he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that which is determined shall be done."It is not possible to apply these words to Antiochus Epiphanes. His attack was not against "all gods," for he erected an image of Zeus in the Temple itself. Antiochus directed his attack against the true God, not against the pagan deities which he evidently still honored. The evil person in view here is that Lawless One mentioned by Paul, the Antichrist. "Till the indignation be accomplished ..." What is this? It is the indignation of God. Why should God be indignant with Adam's rebellious race? Simply because of their continued rebellion against God, the stubborn and persistent refusal of practically all the human race to honor God in any way whatever, their insistence on walking in drunken and immoral ways contrary to all of God's laws and without showing any remorse or repentance whatever. To all such wicked men, there is an important word here designed especially for them. It is the word "accomplished." God's righteous indignation against Adam's race will yet have a climax. What is it? Satan shall be loosed a little while (Revelation 20:3). Brother, that will accomplish the indignation! If we should inquire as to the purpose of this, it would appear to be that God, at last, his patience exhausted and his forbearance and longsuffering toward Adam's posterity having at last reached its inevitable end, God will finally (in the loosing of Satan) permit Adam (in the person of his total remaining posterity) to receive an object lesson in what serving the Devil really means. That will be the time when the horrors of the "time of the end" shall unfold. This is that period of which Jesus inquired, "When the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on the earth (Luke 18:8)? As Keil stated regarding this passage, "This revelation of the Lord to Daniel did not concern what was going to happen from the third year of Cyrus to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes; but according to the express declaration of Dan 10:14, what shall happen to God's people in Messianic times."[8]Verse 37 "Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall magnify himself above all."None of this can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes, these characteristics being applicable to the Antichrist who will appear at the end of the age. Verse 38 "But in his place shall he honor the god of fortresses; and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and precious stones and pleasant things. 39 And he shall deal with the strongest fortress by the help of a foreign god; whosoever acknowledgeth him he will increase with glory; and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for a price.""These words in no sense agree with Antiochus, nor do they permit us to think of any heathen deity in this connection."[9] The "god of fortresses" is perhaps only another way of saying the "god of force." "Might makes right" is the policy of such a character. Keil's view was that: "The god of fortresses is a personification of war; ... he will regard no other god, but only war. The taking of fortresses will be his god; and he will worship this god above all as the means of his gaining world power."[10]Daniel 11:39 means that this Lawless One, this Antichrist, shall reward with glory, riches, and honor all who acknowledge him and do his will. Verse 40 "And at the time of the end shall the king of the south contend with him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass through. He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. And he shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps."THE LAST DOINGS OF THE HOSTILE KING; AND HIS ENDAny application of these words to Antiochus Epiphanes "stands in irreconcilable contradiction to the historical facts regarding the last undertakings of Antiochus."[11] Furthermore, the final paragraph of this chapter "is irreconcilable that in them we have a comprehensive repetition of what has already been written of Antiochus.[12] As a matter of simple fact, it is impossible to apply the words of this chapter beginning withDaniel 11:36 to Antiochus or to any other ruler of the inter-testamental period. Here we are dealing with a prophecy of the final developments of the Adamic probation on earth. "These words refer only to the final enemy of the people of God, the Antichrist."[13]The mention of the sparing of Edom, Moab and Ammon is somewhat misleading until it is remembered that these peoples are the old, hereditary, and chief enemies of God's people. Therefore they would appear again finally as allies and helpers of the anti-God "king" who appears in these lines. The enmity of those ancient peoples against the people of God accounts for their being spared by God's enemy. Verse 44 "But the tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; and he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to sweep away many. And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."THE END OF THE HOSTILE KING (Daniel 11:44-45) We are not given any details about the "end" of this evil king, except what may be inferred from the fact that his success continued right on up to the very end itself. The planting of his tents between the sea and the glorious holy mountain indicates that at the very last he shall stand near the "holy place" itself as a contradiction of everything true and faithful. Apparently also, his end would come at the very zenith of his presumptuous and arrogant power. This harmonizes with what Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians 2:8. The Second Advent of Jesus Christ would be the occasion of his utter destruction. Thus, right down to the end of this passage, it is obvious that no reference whatever is found here that can be applied to Antiochus Epiphanes. Despite this, many have tried to harmonize this with the end of Antiochus, including that Master Infidel Porphyry who is the father of all the critical denials encountered even today regarding this chapter. "The glorious holy mountain ..." In the days of Daniel and later this would have indicated the city of Jerusalem; but in the frame of reference in which the Antichrist will appear, such an expression has reference to the Church. In some disastrous manner not revealed to us the Antichrist will in large measure checkmate and destroy the witness of the Church during those final days. Now, none of this can apply to Antiochus. He met his destruction, not near the city of Jerusalem at all, but far away in the Persian city of Tabae on his return from Persia to Babylon. Again, for those interested in the further pursuit of this subject, please see our Excursus cited above. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ Daniel 11:2. We now come to the grand drama of the nations that was referred to by the angel after he had made the necessary preliminary' explanations to Daniel, and while he was stiil in the presence of the prophet on the bank of the Tigris River. The truth refers to that mentioned as "scripture of truth” in the last verse Of the preceding chapter. No other scripture goes into as many details as does the present chapter, but the prophecy as a whole was seen by inspired eyes, and made known by the prophets in various places and under diverse figures. Stand up yet three kings in Persia. At the time this speech by the angel was made, Cyrus and Darius were the joint rulers of the empire. The three to follow were unimportant and are passed over with the brief numerical statement italicized, to bring the prophecy down to the fourth king in this enumeration, who was to be a very important king. The pronoun fftee refers to Daniel Lo whom the angel was delivering this prophecy. The prediction is that this fourth king was to be rich and strong and finally would cause such a stir among the nations of the world that he would bring the powerful kingdom of Greece (destined to be the third world power) into a hostile attitude because of the encroachments of Persia upon that realm. In this chapter there are no less than 20 characters referred to, either directly or otherwise, and it will be helpful if not necessay for the understanding of the great passage to have the history that confirms the predictions. Hence I shall make numerous quotations from time to lime from authentic sources for the information of the reader. The fourth king Of this verse was XERXES I. and history has this to say of him: “ For eight years alt Asia was astir with the work of preparation [for the expedition against Greece]. Levies were made upon all the provinces that acknowledged the authority of the Great King [Xerxes I], from India to Macedonia, from the regions of the Oxus to those of the Upper Nile, From alt the maritime states upon the Mediterranean were demanded vast contingents of war galleys, transport ships, and naval stores. While these land and sea forces were being gathered and equipped, gigantic works were in progress on the Thracian coast and on the Hellespont to insure the safety and facilitate the march of the coming hosts.’’— MYERS’ Ancient History, page 191. "Xerxes thus levied his army searching out every region of the continent. For from the reduction of Egypt, he was employed four whole years in as sembing his forces, and providing things necessary for the expedition. In the course of the fifth year be began his march with a vast multitude of men. For of the expeditions with which we are acquainted, this was by far the greatest, so that that of Darius against the Scythians appears nothing in comparison with this,” — , Book 7, Sections 19. 20, "Xerxes, in the four years which followed on the reduction of Egypt, continued incessantly to make the most gigantic preparations for his intended attack upon Greece, and among them included all the precautions which a wise foresight could devise in order to ward off every conceivable peril). A general order was issued to all satraps throughout the Empire, calling on them to levy the utmost force of their province tor the new war; while, as the equipment of Oriental troops depends greatly on the purchase and distribution of arms by their commander, a rich reward was promised to the satrap whose contingent should appear at tbe appointed place in the most gallant array. , . . His army Is said to have accompanied him; but more probably it joined him in the spring, flocking in, contingent after contingent, from the various provinces of his vast Empire. Fortynine nations, according to Herodotus, served under his standard.”— Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Volume 3, Chapter 7, pages 448, 452, "All these expeditions, and any others, if there have been any besides them, are not to be compared with this one. For what nation did not Xerxes lead out of Asia against Greece? What stream, being drunk, did not fail him, except that of great rivers. Some supplied ships; others were ordered to furnish men for the infantry, from others cavalry were required, from others transports for horses, together with men to serve in the army; others to furnish long shipB for the bridges, and others provisions and vessels.”— Herodotus, Book 7, Section 21. "The Decline and Fall of the Persian Empire.— The power and supremacy of the Persian monarchy passed away with the reign of Xerxes. The last one hundred and forty years of the existence of the empire was a time of weakness and anarchy, and presents nothing that needs claim our attention in this place. In the year 334 B.C., Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia, led a small army of Greeks and Macedonians across the Hellespont intent upon the conquest of Asia. His succeeding movements and the estab ishment of the shortlived Macedonian monarchy upon the ruins of the Persian Empire are matters that properly belong to Grecian history, and will be related at a later stage of our story." — MYERS' Ancient History, page 94. “ From Xerxes we have to date at once the decline of the Empire in respect to territorial greatness and military strength, and likewise its deterioration in regard to administrative vigor and national spirit."— Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, Volume 3, Chapter 7, Page 471. There were some other rulers in Persia, but they were Inferior to the one just seen in these quotations and will not claim our attention at this time. Daniel 11:3. This mighty king was Alexander the Great of Macedonia, the same who was referred to in chapter 8: 5. The angel passes immediately from Xerxes to Alexander, thus Ignoring all the intervening history. This was evidently because of its unimportance; also because Alexander's work was the next important event for prophecy after Xerxes. I shall quote some more history in confirmation of the predictions of this verse: "Alexander was now free to carry out his father's scheme in regard to the Asiatic expedition. In the spring of 334 B.C., with all his plans matured, he set out at the head of an army numbering about 35,000 men for the conquest of the Persian Empire. Crossing the Hellespont, Alexander first proceeded to the plain of ancient Troy, in order to place a garland upon the supposed tomb at that place of his mythical ancestor Achilles. Proceeding on his march, Alexander met a Persian army on the banks of the Granieus. over which he gained a decisive victory. Three hundred suits of armor, selected from the spoils of the field, were sent as a votive offering to the temple of Athena at Athens. The victory at the Granieus laid all Asia Minor open to the invader, and soon practically all of its cities and tribes were brought to acknowledge the authority of the Macedonian."— Myers, Ancient History, pages 274, 275. Daniel 11:4. When he shall stand up means that just as Alexander reaches the height of his glory lie will come to his end, and his conquests will be divided into four parts. See the comments and quotation from history at chapter 8: 8. Not to his posterity refers. to the fact that Alexander died without any descendants to receive his kingdom, as may be seen in the historical quotation referred to. Nor according to his dominion means that no man lived in Greece who was strong enough to handle the dominion left by Alexander, since no one was as strong as he. I shall quote again from history as follows: "And when he [Alexander] shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided towards the four winds of heaven and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others namely, besides the four greater princes. We have already seen the vast empire of Alexander parcelled out into four great Kingdoms; without including those foreign princes who founded other kingdoms in Cappadocia, Armenia, Bithynta, Heraclea. and on the Bosphorus. AH this was present to Daniel.”— Boltin, Ancient History, Volume 3, Page 597. From the various citations to history that have been offered the reader, he may understand that the pronoun those with which the verse closes, refers to the four winds or the four divisions into which Alexander’ s conquests fell at his death. Others besides means the forces in the world that finally swallowed up the realms of the four princes of Alexander, since they were not strong enough to retain them. As the statement has already been made by the historian elsewhere, “ No one was strong enough to handle the sword that fell from the hand of Alexander.” Daniel 11:5. We have seen that when Alexander died his dominions were divided into four parts and taken over by his generals. Two of these divisions were shortlived and were absorbed by the other forces about them. The two that remained were ruled by Seleueus Nicator, and Ptolemy. The dominions of the former are referred to in this chapter as king of the north, the latter as king of the south. They may occasionally be referred to simply by a pronoun, in which case an explanation will be given. These two divisions of Alexander's conquests were ruled at first by the two men named, but their realms were ruled successively by different persons as long as they existed as governments, until all was finally absorbed by the Roman Empire. This northern, and southern kingdom were constantly hostile toward each other, in spite of a few occasions of pretended friendliness, and the entire chapter from here on is a series of predictions of their dealings with their respective conditions. I shall now take up the comments on the verses in their order. The king of the south was Ptolemy Soter who ruled over Egypt. One of his (Alexander’ s) princes was Seleueus Nicator who ruled over Syria. Stronjr above him means the king of the north was stronger or had more extensive dominions than those possessed by the king of the south. The history and geography of the times will verify this prediction. Syria embraced "Syria and the countries eastward to the Indus,” while "Ptolemy held sway over Egypt,” according to the history of Myers, it can thus be seen why the prediction is that the king of the north was to be strong above him (the king of the south). Daniel 11:6. The rulers of these two dominions were succeeded by others as the years went by, but the scripture does not make mention of the new kings by name. The two governments are merely referred to as the north and the south, and if a change in kings iti either has taken place, we will have to learn It and find the name of the king by history. For this reason it will be necessary to make quotations from the historical sources. In order that the reader may the more readily detect the particular word or words concerned in the prediction, I shall add my own emphasis to them. It will be the rule to make the quotation first, then interpret the verse or verses in the light oi the history, hence it is very important lliat the reader give carefui attention lo the quotations. The history to be used for the present verse is as follows: “ The commotions and revolts which happened in the east, making Antiochus (Theos) weary of his war with King Ptolemy (Phil adelpints), peace was made between them on the terms, that Antiochus, divorcing Laodice, his former wife, should marry Bernice, daughter of Ptolemy, and make her bis queen instead of the other, and entail his crown upon the male issue of that marriage. And this agreement being ratified by ooth sides, for the full performance of it, Antiochus put away Laodice, though she were his sister by the same father, and he had two sons born to him by her; and Ptolemy carrying his daughter to Pelusium, there put her on board his fleet, and sailed with her to Selucia, a seaport town near the mouth of the River Orontes in Syria; where having met Antiochus, he delivered his daughter to him, and the marriage was celebrated with great solemnity, And thus ‘ the king's daughter of the south came, and was married to the king of the north’ ; and, by virtue of that marriage, 'an agreement was made between those two kings,' according to the prophecy of the prophet Daniel 11:5-6. For in that place, by the king of the south, is meant the king of Egypt, and by the king of the north, the king of Syria; and both are there so called in respect of Judea, which lying between these two countries, hath Egypt on the south, and Syria on the north. For the fuller understanding of this prophecy, It is to be observed, that the holy prophet, after having spoken of Alexander the Great (verse 3) and of the four kings among whom hia empire was divided (verse 4) confines the rest of his prophecy in that chapter to two of them only, that is to the king of Egypt, and the king of Syria, and first be begins with that king of Egypt who first reigned in that country after Alexander, that is, Ptolemy Soter, whom he calls the king of the south, and saith of him that he should be strong. And that he was so, all that write of him do sufficiently testify: for he had under him Egypt, Libya Cyrene, Arabia, Palestine, Coele Syria, most of the maritime provinces of Lesser Asia, the island of Cyprus, several of the isles of the Aegean Sea, now called the Archipelago, and some cities also in Greece, as Sicyon, Corinth. and others. And then the Prophet proceedeth to speak of the four successors (or princes, as he calls them) of Alexander, and he was Seleucus Nicator king of the north; of whom he sail.h 'should be strong above the king of the, south, and have great dominion'; that is, greater than the king of the south. And that he had so. appears from the large territories be was possessed of; for he had under him all the countries of the east, from Mount Taurus to the river Indus, and several of the provinces of Lesser Asia, also from Mount Taurus to the Aegean Sea; and he had moreover added to them, before his death, Thrace and Macedon, And then, in the next place (verse 6) he tells us ‘ the coming of the king's daughter of the south, after (he end of several years, to the king of the north, and the agreement, or treaty of peace, which should thereon be made between these two kings.' Which plainly points out unto us this marriage of Bernice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, with Antiochus Theos king of Syria, and the peace which was thereon made between them; for ail this was exactly transacted according to what was predicted by the holy prophet in his prophecy. After this the holy prophet proceeds, through the rest of the chapter, to foreshadow ail the other most remarkable events that were brought to pass In the transactions of the succeeding times of those two races of kings, till the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the great persecutor of the Jewish nation; all which I shall take notice of in the following series of this history, and apply them to the prophecy for the explication of it, as they come in my way.— ’ S , year 249. "Details of this reign. [That of Antiochus Theos]— Marriage of Antiochus with Laodice, daughter of Aehae us. Her influence, and that of his sister Apame, wife of Matas, engaged him in war with Ptolemy Philadelphue, B.C. 260, which is terminated, B.C. 252, by marriage between Antiochus and Berenice, Ptolemy’ s daughter. Soon after the close of this war, B.C. 255, Partliia and Bactria revolt and establish their independence. On the death of Phlladeiphus, B.C. 247, Antiochus repudiates Berenice and takes back his former wife Laodice, who however, doubtful of his constancy, murders him to secure the throne for her son, Seleucus, B.C. 246." — Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 25L "As soon as Antiochus Theos had received intelligence of the death of Ptolemy Phlladeiphus, his fatherinlaw, he divorced Berenice, and recalled Laodice and her children. This lady, who knew the variable disposition and inconstancy of Antiochus, and was apprehensive that the same levity of mind would induce him to supplant her, by receiving Berenice again, resolved to improve the present opportunity to secure the crown for her son. Her own children were disinherited by the treaty made with Ptolemy; by which it was also stipulated that the issue Berenice might have by Antiochus should succeed to tire throne, and she then had a son, Laodice, therefore, caused Antiochus to be poisoned.. . . Laodice, not believing herself safe as long as Berenice and her son lived, concerted measures with Seleucus to destroy them also; hut that princess, being informed of their design, escaped the danger for some time by retiring, with her son, to Daphne, where she shut herself up in the asylum built by Seleucus Nicator; but being at last betrayed by the perfidy [treachery] of those who besieged her there, by the order of Laodice. first her son, and then herself, with all the Egyptians who had accompanied her to that retreat were murdered in the basest and most inhuman manner."— Rollin, Ancient History, Volume 3, Book 16, Chapter 3, Section 1. In view of the foregoing information from history we may be able to comment, briefly, on the leading terms of this verse. The first pronoun they means the kingdoms of the north and the south. King’ s daughter is Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, whom her father gave In marriage to the king of the north in hopes of bringing about a peace. But the plan did not have the effect that was expected, which is the meaning of the words not retain the power of the arm. Shall he given up, etc. All who were involved in this "love triangle" were brought to disappointment Daniel 11:7. The preceding paragraph informs us that the ones involved in the affair of Berenice were disappointed and that she was slain. But her death did not end the matter, for at the time she was being held there were certain forces at work to avenge her misfortune. I shall quote from history again as follows: "While Berenice [daughter of Philadelphus and former wife of Antiochus Theos] continued shut up and besieged in Daphne, the cities of Lesser Asia [or Asia Minor], hearing of her distress, commiserated [sympathized] her case, and immediately, by a joint association, sent an army toward Antioch for her relief; and Ptolemy Euergetes, her brother, hastened thither with a greater force out of Egypt for the same purpose. But both Berenice and her son were cut off before either of them could arrive for their help; whereupon both armies turning their desire of saving the queen and her son into a rage for the revenging of their death, the Asian forces joined the Egyptians for the effecting of it, and Ptolemy, at the head of both, carried all before him; for he not only slew Laodice, but also made himself master of oil Syria and Cilicia, and then passing the Euphrates, brought all under him as far as Babylon, and the River Tigris, and would have subjugated to him all the other provinces of the Syrian Empire, but that a sedition arising in Egypt during his absence called him back to suppress it.”— Prideaux's Connexion, year 246. Daniel 11:8. The very things predicted in this verse took place, therefore the best and only comments necessary will be offered in another historical quotation which is as follows: "Ptolemy III, Euergetes, , B.C. 247-222; alluded to in Daniel 11:7-9; invaded Syria in 246 BC, to avenge the repudiation and murder of his sister, Berenice (See Antiochus II, page 95), and had conquered it as far north as Antioch, and was moving eastward towards Babylon, when he was recalled by troubles at. home. His policy towards the Jews in Egypt was generous; while, in token of his victories, he sacrificed in the temple at Jerusalem ‘ after the custom of the law’ (Josephus: C. Ap., 11: 5). He brought hack to Memphis the gods taken from Egypt by Cambyses. It was for this he received the epithet, ‘ welldoer.’ ’’— SchaffHerzog, Article, Ptolemy III. "And therefore, having appointed Antiochus and Xantippus, two of his generals, the former of them to command the provinces he had taken on the west side of Mount Taurus, and the other to command the provinces he had taken on the east side of it, he marched back into Egypt, carrying with him vast treasures, which he had gotten together, in the plunder of the conquered provinces; for he brought from thence with him forty thousand talents of silver, a vast number of precious vessels of silver and gold, and images also to the number of two thousand five hundred, among which were many of the Egyptian idols. which Cambyses, on his conquering Egypt, had carried thence into Persia. These Ptolemy (son of Philadelphus and brother of Berenice) having restored to their former temples, on his return from this expedition, he thereby much endeared himself to his people,"— Prideaux’ s Connexion, year 246. Daniel 11:9. King of the south was Ptolemy Euergetes of whom we read in the preceding verse and historical comments, The reader should see that paragraph for the explanation of this verse. We note that in verse 8 the statement is made that the king of the south was to continue more years than the king of the north. Daniel 11:10. This is one of the verses where we have only the pronouns for the kings, and their names must be learned from history. Since the events of the preceding verse another king has arisen over the north by the name of Seleucus Callinicus, and the pronoun his, second word of this verse, refers to him. But he was to be opposed by another man in his kingdom referred to in the words one shall certainly come; that "one" was Antiochus the Great, sometimes titled Antiochus HI. He not only opposed Callinicus, but carried his operations even to the border of Egypt. The last his refers to the Egyptian king Ptolemy Philo pator who had succeeded Ptolemy Philadelphus. That is what is meant by the words he stirred up even to his (Philopator’ s) fortress. In confirmation of the predictions of this verse I shall quote some more history: "The weakness of Philopator, and the mismanagement of the State by Sosibius, who was at once incapable and wicked, laid the empire open to attack; and it was not long before the young king of Syria, Antiochus HI, took advantage of the condition of affairs to advance his own pretensions to the possessions of the longdisputed traet between Syria Proper and Egypt. . . . Details of the war. Antiochus commenced B.C. 219. by besieging Seleuceta, the port of Antioch, which had remained in the hands of the Egyptian governor of CoeleSyria. He invaded that country, took Tyre and Ptolemais (Acre), and advanced to the frontiers of Egypt.” — Rawlinson, Ancient History, Page 275. Daniel 11:11. It may be a surprise and yet a help to the reader to know that, beginning with the second verse of this chapter and Including the rest of the chapter, a space of over 300 years is covered. It is natural to think that since the rulers and other outstanding characters in the chapter, about 20 in all, belonged to the two governments, there would be both long and short reigns among them. In some instances the ruler in one of the kingdoms would reign as long as two or more kings in the other. Hence we may pass from one verse to another without a change of kings in one or the other. Before making further comments on this verse 1 shall quote from history: "Ptolemy Philopator, was an indolent, effeminate prince. It was necessary to excite and drag him, in a manner, out of his lethargy, in order to prevail with him to take up arms, and repulse the enemy, who were preparing to march into his country. At last he put himself at the head of Ills troops; by the valor and good conduct of his generals, obtained a signal victory over Antiochus (the Great) at Raphia,'*— Rollin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, Page 143. “ It might have been expected that, under the circumstances, he (Antiochus the Great) would have been successful. But the Egyptian forces, relaxed though their discipline had been by Sosibius, were still superior to the Syrians; the battle of Raphia (B.C. 217) was a repetition of the lessons taught at Pelusium and Gaza. The Invader was once more deEeated upon the borders, and by the peace which followed, the losses of the two preceding years were, with one exception, recovered (by Phiiopator). ... In the third year of the war. B.C. 217, Phiiopator marched out from Alexandria in person, with 70,000 foot, 5,000 horse and 73 elephants. Antiochus advanced to give him battle, and the two armies met at Raphia, on the eastern edge of the desert. After a vain attempt on the part of Theodotus to assassinate Phiiopator in his camp, an engagement took place, and AntiochUB was completely defeated. He then made peace, relinquishing all hla conquests but Seleu ceia.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, Page 275. The king of the south Is Ptolemy Philopator who was a weakling in character, but others insisted and agitated him until he finally bestirred himself. He gathered a large army and came with choler (bitterness) against him, king of the north who is the Antiochus the Great of verse 10. Multitude shall be given into his (Philopator’ s) hand. Daniel 11:12. He is Ptolemy Philopator, king of Egypt. His success against Antiochus the Great filled him with pride and his heart shall be lifted up. Shall not be strengthened by it means that his kingdom did not profit by the success against Antiochus, although he personally had the arrogant satisfaction of looking upon his victory. We shall learn in the next verse that defeat finally came to his kingdom from the very man whom he had beaten. But for the present verse, let the reader keep the foregoing comments in mind as he reads the following quotations from history: “ Antiochus III lost upwards of ten thousand foot and three hundred horse, and four thousand of his men were taken prisoners. Phiiopator, having marched, after his victory, to Jerusalem, was so audacious as to attempt to enter the sanctuary, ; and being returned to his kingdom, he behaved with the utmost pride toward the Jews, and treated them very cruelly. He might have dispossessed Antiochus of his dominions had he taken a proper advantage of his glorious victory; but he contented himself with recovering CoeleSyria and Phoenicia, and again plunged into his former excesses; ‘ but he shall not be strengthened by it.'"— Rollin's Ancient History, Volume 4, Page 143. "Ptolemy (Philopator) having thus regained these provinces, made a progress through them; and, among other cities which he visited in his perambulation, Jerusalem was one that had this favor from him. On his arrival thither, he took a view of the temple and there offered up many sacrifices to the God of Israel, and made many oblations to the temple, and gave several valuable donatives to it. But, not being content to view it only from the outer court, beyond w'hich it was not lawful for any gentile to pass, he would have pressed into the sanctuary itself, and into the holy of holies in the temple, where none but the high priest only, once a year, on the great day of expiation, was to enter. This made a great uproar all over the city. The higbpriest. informed him of the sacredness of the place, and the law of God which forbade his entrance thither. And the priests and Levites gathered together to hinder it, and all the people to deprecate it; and great lamentation was made everywhere among them on the apprehension of the great profanation which would hereby be offered to their holy temple, and all hands were lifted up unto God in prayer to avert it. But the king, the more he was opposed, growing the more intent to have his will in this matter, pressed into the inner court; but, as he was passing farther to go into the temple itself, he was smitten from God with such a terror and confusion of mind, that he was carried out of the place in a manner half dead, On this he departed from Jerusalem, filled with great wrath against the whole nation of the Jews, for that which happened to him in that place, and venting many threatenings against them for it.”— Prideaux, year 217. "Ptolemy IV, Philopator , B.C. 222-205; alluded to in Daniel 11:10-12, defeated Antiochus the Great at Raphia. near Gaza (B.C. 217); sacrificed ia the temple, and attempted to enter the sacred precincts, when a shock of paralysis stopped him. He was indolent, effeminate, and licentious, but capable, on occasion, of splendid and vigorous deeds."— Schaff Herzog, Arlicle, Ptolemy IV. Daniel 11:13. This verse begins with the word for which indicates a continuation of some of the thoughts in the preceding verse. Those thoughts were regarding the success of Ptolemy Philopator against Antiochus the Great. It Is stated as verse 12 concludes, that (hose thousands of nun would not strengthen the kingdom of Phiiopator, and the present verse proceeds to tell us why It would not. And since that subject consists in the further activities and success of Antiochus (he great, my comments on the verse further will be some historical quotations: "Antiochus, after he had ended the war beyond the Euphrates, raised a great, army in those provinces. Finding, fourteen years after the conclusion of the first war, that Ptolemy Epiph anes. who was then but five or six years of age, had succeeded Philopator his father, he united with Philip of Macedon, in order to deprive the infant king of his throne. Having defeated Scopas [a general conducting the war on behalf of the infant king] at Pallium, near the source of the river Jordan, he subjected the whole country which Philopator had conquered, by the victory he gained at Raphia.” — Robin's Ancient History, Volume 4, page 144. "He (Antiochus III) then turned towards the eastern frontiers of his realm, against Parthia and Eaetria; penetrated into Northern India and organized a formidable army, including a hundred and fifty Indian elephants. In 204 Philopator died; and the Egyptian crown devolved on his son, Ptolemy V, (Epiphanes) a boy of five years. This circumstance Antiochus meant to utilize. He conquered CoeleSyria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, and gained a decisive victory in 198 at Paneas in CoeleSyria. Peace was then concluded." — SchaffHerzog. Article, Antioehus III. "Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of Macedon. thinking to serve themselves of the advantage they bad by the death of Philopator, and the succession of an infant king after him, entered into a league to divide his dominion between them, agreeing that Philip should have Carla, Libya, Oyrene. and Egypt, and Antiochus all the rest. And accordingly Antiochus forthwith marched into CoeleSyria and Palestine, and partly this year, and partly in the next, made himself master of these provinces, and all the several districts and cities in them.”— Prideaux’ s Connexion, year 203. "Return of Antiochus from the East, B.C. 205 and resumption of his Egyptian projects, A treaty is made with Philip of Macedon for the partition of the kingdom of Ptolemies between the two powers. War in CoeleSyria, Phoenicia, and Palestine with varied success, terminated by a great victory over Scopas near Panias, B.C. 198. Marriage of Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus, with Ptolemy V. CoeleSyria and Palestine promised as a dowery, but not delivered.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 254. Daniel 11:14. The first half of this verse is virtually a repetition of the prediction in the foregoing, but I shall Insert a brief quotation again from history as an explanation: "Antiochus, king of Syria, and Philip, king of Macedon, thinking to serve themselves of the advantage they had by the death of Philopator, and the succession of an infant king alter him, metrerf into a league to divide his dominions between them." Prideaux's Connexion, year 203. The second half of this verse introduces a new item into the prediction. They is a pronoun referring to Daniel, against whose people the robbers were to emit themselves. But the prediction is that they were to fail which the history shows did happen. I have departed somewhat from the rule suggested a short while ago to quote the history for each verse first and then make my own comments upon It. Whichever may seem to be the better plan in given cases will he followed. I now shall insert the history that confirms the prediction favorable to the Jews In the last of this verse. "At this time [reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes] Antiochus having passed into Lesser Asia, and there engaged himself in a war with Attalus, king of Pergamus, the minister Of Alexandria took advantage hereof to send Scopas with an army into Palestine and Coele Syria, for the recovery of those provinces; where he managed the war with such success that he took several cities, and reduced all Judea by force, and put a garrison into the castle at Jerusalem; and. on the approach of winter, returned to Alexandria with full honor for the victories he had obtained, and with as great riches, which he had gathered from the plunder of the country. . , , The Jews were at this time very much alienated in their affections from the Egyptian king: whether it were by reason of the former ill treatment of their nation by bis lather, or for some fresher ill treatment they had received, is not said. It is most likely it was because of the ravages and robberies of Scopas, in his taking Jerusalem the former year; for he was a very Covetous and rapacious man. laying his hands everywhere on all that he could get; and therefore, on Antiochus’ marching that way, they willingly rendered all places unto him., and on his coining to Jerusalem, the priests and elders went out in a solemn procession to meet him. and received him with gladness, and entertained him and all his army in their city, provided for his horses and elephants, and assisted him with their arms for the reduc'ntj of the castle where Scopas had left a garrison.”— Prideaux's Connexion, year 193. "Now it happened that in the reign of Antiochus the Great, who ruled over ail Asia, that the Jews, as well as the inhabitants of CoeleSyria. suffered greatly, and their land was sorely harassed; for while he was at war with Ptolemy Philopator, and with liis son, who was called Epiphanes, it fell out that these nations were equally sufferers, both when he was beaten and when he beat the others; so that they were very like a ship in a storm, which is tossed by the waves on both sides; and just thus were they in their situation in the middle between Antiochus’ prosperity and its change to adversity. But at length, when Antiochus had beaten Ptolemy, he seized upon Judea; and when Philopator was dead, his son sent out a great army under Scopas the general of his forces, against the inhabitants of CoeleSyria, who took many of their cities and In particular our nation; which, when he fell upon them, went over to him. Yet was it not long afterward when Antiochus overcame Scopas, In a battle fought at the fountains of Jordan, and destroyed a great part of his army." — Josephus, 12-3-3, Daniel 11:15-17. The persons and facts of this series of verses are so interwoven that I think it will the better be explained by grouping them into one paragraph. I shall quote some lines from history, then explain the events in their relation to the persons involved in the light of the history. Let the reader give close attention to the following: "Antiochus, besieged and took, first Sidon, then Gaza, and afterwards all the cities of those provinces, notwithstanding the opposition made by the chosen troops which the king of Egypt had sent against him. ‘ He did according to his own will,' in CoeleSyria and Palestine, and nothing was able to make the least resistance against him. Pursuing his conquests in Palestine, he entered Judea, ‘ the glorious,' or, according to the Hebrew, ‘ that desirable land,’ He there established his authority and strengthened it, by repulsing from the eastle of Jerusalem, the garrison which Scopas had thrown into it. This garrison being so well defended that Antiochus was obliged to send for all the troops in order to force it, and the siege continuing a long time, the country was ruined and consumed by the stay the army was obliged to make in it. . . , Antiochus, seeing that the Romans undertook the defence of young Ptolemy Epiphanes, thought it would best suit his interest to lull the king asleep, by giving him his daughter in marriage, in order to 'corrupt her,' and excite her to betray her husband; but he was not successful in his design; for as soon as she was married to Ptolemy, she renounced her father’ s interests, and embraced those of her husband. It was on this account that we see her join with him in the embassy which was sent from Egypt to Rome, to Congratulate the Romans on the victory which Acilius had gained over her father at Thermopylae.”— Rollin's Ancient History, Volume 4, pages 144, 145. It should be remembered that a reference to the north always means Syria in this chapter, and the king who is ruling there at the time, and the south means Egypt. Cast up a mount means that Antiochus III would prepare to attack the cities of the south, which would not be able to withstand the attack. He that cometh against him means that Antiochus was to come against Ptolemy Epiphanes and the latter would not succeed. To make bis gains further sure, the king of the north was to give his daughter (whose name was Cleopatra as supplied by history) in marriage to the king of the south, thinking that she would place her love for her father above that for her husband, and thus really act as a spy for her father in the household of her husband. But she was true to her husband; not stand on his (her father’ s) side, neither be for him. Daniel 11:18. Antiochus III was a noted man and accomplished many exploits among the nations. However, we have just seen that he had some reverses, and we shall see some more of the same in the present verse. Before making further comments on it, I shall make some historical Quotations: "Antiochus, having put an end to the war of CoeleSyria and Palestine, sent his two sons, at the end of the land army, to Sardis, while he embarked on board the fleet, and sailed to the Aegean Sea, where he took several islands, and extended his empire exceedingly on that side. However, the prince of the people, whom he had insulted by making this Invasion, that is I>. Scipio, the Roman consul, caused the reproach to turn upon him, by defeating him at Mount Sipilus, and repuls ing him from every part of Asia Minor.”— Rollin, Volume 4, page 145. "He (Antiochus III) then invaded Asia Minor, and in 195 he crossed the Hellespont, and advanced into Europe. Here he encountered the Romans; but in 190 he was totally defeated at Magnesia by Scipio Asiaticus, and he obtained peace from Rome only on very severe conditions."— SchaffHerzog. Article, Antiochus III, "The conquests of Antiochus in Asia Minor and Europe, B.C, 197 to 196, bring him into contact with the Romans, who require him to evacuate the Chersonese and restore the Greek cities in Asia Minor to freedom. He indignantly rejects their demands, and prepares for war. Flight of Hannibal to his court. B.C. 195. Antiochus makes alliance with the Aetoliana. and in B.C. 192 crosses into Greece, lands at Demetrius, takes Chalcis. Great battle at Thermopylae between the Romans, under Acilius Glabrio, and the allied forces of Antiochus and the Aetolians. Antiochus, completely defeated, quits Europe and returns to Asia B.C. 191. His fleet lias orders to protect the shores and prevent the Romans from Sanding. But the battle of Corycus ruins these hopes. The Romans obtain the mastery of the sea; and their army, having crossed the Hellespont without opposition, gains under the two Scipios the great victory of Magnesia, which places Antiochus at their mercy, B.C. 190. He purchases peace by ceding all Asia Minor except Cilicia, and by consenting to pay a contribution of 12,000 talents. The ceded provinces are added by the Romans to the kingdom of Pergamus, which is thus raised Into a rival to Syria.”— Rawlin son. Ancient History, page 254, With the tacts of history before us, we can understand the present verse and properly assign the pronouns. Isles means inhabited spots, and that is the meaning of the places where he (Antiochus III) turned his face. That called the Romans into action and they sent their military leader, Scipio, into the field. When Antiochus invaded the territories in which the Romans were interested it was considered a reproach upon them. But Scipio was successful in repulsing Antiochus, so that he caused it to rebound upon him (Antiochus) without having any reproach of his (Scipio's) own. Daniel 11:19. Antiochus, completely defeated, turned his steps towards his own country. Stumble, and fall refers to his failure in another matter of his obligations, and tbe explanation of the predictions is best shown in the his torlal quotations which will be quoted before making further comments. "Antiochus, after his defeat, returned to Antioch, the capital of his kingdom, and the strongest fortress in it. He went soon after into the provinces of the east, in order to levy money to pay the Romans; but having plundered the temple of Elymais, he there lost his life in a miserable manner."— Rollin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 146. “ The defeat of Magnesia is followed by the revolt of Armenia, B.C. 189, which henceforth becomes independent, It leads also to the death of Antiochus. who, in order to pay the war contribution imposed upon him by the Romans, is driven to the plunder of the Oriental temples. Hence a tumult In Elymais, wherein the king Is killed, B.C. 187.”— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 254. "Retiring to his eastern provinces in order to raise money for the tribute he [Antiochus III) owed Rome, he was slain in 187. while plundering the temples of Belus in Elymais.”— Schaff Herzog, Article, Antiochus III. Daniel 11:20. His estate means In the place of Antiochus III whose death was predicted in the preceding verse. The prediction raiser of taxes means he will be an extortioner and will lay heavy tax burdens on the people. He was to be destroyed, neither in anger nor in battle denotes he would not die in open warfare nor by voluntary bodily contest with another, hut will die unresistingly by the hand of another. I shall give the reader the history which confirms the predictions of this verse. "These few words (Daniel 11:20) denote, evidently, the short and obscure reign of Seleucus, and the kind of death he was to die. The Hebrew text points him out still more clearly. ‘ There shall arise up in his place, (of Antiochus) a man who, aB an extortioner, a collector of taxes, shall cause to pass away, and shall destroy, the glory of the kingdom,’ And. indeed, this was the sole employment of his reign. He was obliged to furnish the Romans, by the articles of peace concluded between them, a thousand talents annually; and the twelve years of this tribute exactly ended with his life. He reigned but eleven years.”— RolIIn's Ancient History, Volume 4, page 203. “ Antiochus was succeeded by his son, Seleucus IV, who took the name of Philopator, and reigned eleven years, B.C. 187 to 176, This period was wholly uneventful. The fear of Rome, and the weakness produced by exhaustion, forced SeleucuB to remain quiet, even when Eumenes of Pergamus seemed about to absorb Pontus. . . . Seleucus was murdered by Heiiodorus, his treasurer (B.C. 176), who hoped to succeed to his dominions."— Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 255. “ After the death of Antiochus the Great, Seleucus Philopator, his eldest son, whom he left at Antioch on bis departure thence into the east, succeeded him in the kingdom, but made a very poor figure of it, by reason of the low estate which the Romans had reduced the Syrian Empire to. and the heavy tribute of one thousand talents a year, which, through the whole time of his reign he was obliged to pay them; by the treaty of peace lately granted by them to his father. The whole of this king’ s reign is expressed by Daniel 11:20. For in that text it Is foretold, that after Antiochus the Great, who is spoken of in the foregoing verses, 'there should stand up In his estate a raiser of taxes.' And Seleucus was no more than such all the time, for the whole business of his reign was to raise the thousand talents every year, which, by the treaty of peace that bis father had made with the Romans, he was obliged for twelve years together, annually to pay that people; and the last of these years was the last of his life. For, as the text saith, ‘ within a few years after be should be destroyed, and that neither in anger, nor in battle’ ; so accordingly R happened. For he reigned only eleven years, and his death was neither in battle nor in anger; that is, neither in war abroad, nor In sedition or rebellion at home, but by the secret treachery of one of his own friends. His successor was Antiochus Epiph anes his brother, of whom we shall treat in the next book.”— Prldeaux’ s Connexion, years 186, 176. Daniel 11:21. The pronoun his refers to Seleucus IV, also called Philopator, and is referred to in the preceding verse as a “ raiser of taxes.” Shall stand up means he shall get the place occupied by the preceding king. The man who was to take this place is named Antiochus Epiphanes, brother of the murdered Philopator. The predictions Indicate that he was to obtain the throne in an irregular manner, not in an honorable way. The details of that event, are described in the following historical Quotation: “ On the death of Seleucus Philopa tor, Heliodorus, who had been the treacherous author of his death, endeavored to seize the crown of Syria. Antiochus, the brother of Seleucus, was then on his return from Rome. While at Athens in his journey, he there heard of the death of his brother, and the attempt of Heliodorus to usurp the throne; and finding that the usurper had a great party with him to support him in his pretensions, and that there was another party also forming for Ptolemy, (who made some claim to the succession in right of his mother, she being sister to the deceased king) and that both of them were agreed ‘ not to give unto him (though the next heir in the absence of Demetrius) the honor of the kingdom,’ as the holy prophet Daniel foretold, he applied himself to Eumenes, king of Perbannis, and Attains hia brother, and (by flattering speeches and great promisee of friendship) prevailed with them to help him against Heliodorus, And by their means that usurper being suppressed, he was quietly placed on the throne, and all submitted to him, and permitted him. without any further opposition, peaceably to obtain the kingdom, as had been predicted of him in the same prophecy. Eumenes and Attalus, at this time having some suspicions of the Romans, were desirous of having the king of Syria on their side, in ease a war should break out between them, and Antiochus’ promises to stick by them, whenever such a war should happen, were the inducements that prevailed with them to do him this kindness.” — Prideaux’ s Connexion, year 175. See also, Rawlinson, Ancient History, page 255. This Antiochus Epiphanes is described here as a vile person, which refers to his character as a man as well as to his conduct in public affairs. In view of his prominence in the prophecies and history of things pertaining to God’ s people, I believe it will be helpful to quote at length from the historical sources. As this quotation may be referred to again, the reader is urged to give it carefull attention, particularly the parts .licit 1 shall emphasize. “ On his being thus settled on the throne, he took the name of Epiphanes, that is, The Illustrious; but nothing could be more alien fo his true character than this title. The prophet Daniel foretold of him that he would be ‘ a vile person,’ so our English version has it; but the word NIBZEH In the original rather signified despicable than vile. He was truly both in all that both these words can express, which will fully appear from the character given him by Polybius, II, Philarchus, 12, Livy, 13, and Diodorus, 14, who were all heathen writers, and the two first of them his contemporaries. For they tell us, that he would get often out. of the palace and ramble about the streets of Antioeh, with two or three servants only accompanying him; that he would be often conversing with those that graved in silver, and cast vessels of gold, and be frequently found with them in their shops, talking and nicely arguing with th em about the mysteries of their trades, that he would very commonly debase himself to the meanest company, and on his going abroad would join in with such as he happened to find them met together, although of the lowest of the people, and enter into discourse with any of them whom he should first light on; that he would, in his rambles, frequently drink with strangers and foreigners, and even with the meanest and vilest of them; that, when he heard of any young company met together to feast, drink, or any otherwise to make merry together, he would, without giving any notice of his own coming, Intrude himself among them, and revel away the time with them in their cups and songs, and other frolics, without any regard to common decency, or his own royal character, so that several, being surprised with the strangeness of the thing, would, on his coming, get up and run away out of the company. And he would sometimes, as the freak took him, lay aside his royal habit, and putting on a Roman gown, go round the city, as he had seen done 1n the election of the magistrates of Rome, and ask the votes of the citizens, in the same manner as used to be there practiced, now taking one man by the hand, and, then embracing another, and would thus set himself up. sometimes for the office of aedile, and sometimes for that of tribune; and, having thus voted into office he sued for, he would take the chair, and sitting down in it, hear petty causes of contracts, bargains, and sales, made in the market, and give judgment in them with that serious attention and earnestness, as if they had been matters of the highest concern and importance. It is said also of him, that lie was much given to drunkenness! and that he spent a great part of his revenues in revelling and drunken carousals; and would often go out into the streets while in these frolics, and there scatter his money by handfuls among the rabble, crying out, ‘ Let him Lake to whom fortune give it.' Sometimes he would go abroad with a crown of roses upon his head, and wearing a Roman gown, would walk the streets alone, and carrying stones under his arms, would throw them at those who followed after him. And he would often wash himself in the public baths among the common people, and there expose himself by many absurd and ridiculous actions. Which odd and extravagant sort of conduct made many doubt how the matter stood with him; some thinking him a fool, and some a madman; the latter of these, most thought to be his truest character; and therefore, instead of Epiphanes, or the Illustrious. they called him Epimanes. the Madman. Jerome tells us also of him that he was exceedingly given to laciv ousness, and often by the vilest acts of it debased the honor of his royal dignity; that he was frequently found in the company of mimics [clowns], pathics [boys kept for unnatural purposes], and common prostitutes, and that with the latter he would commit acts of lasciviousness, and gratify his lust on them publicly in sight of the people. And it is further related of him, that having for his catamites [same as pathics] two vile persons, called Timarchus and Heraclides, who were brothers, he made the first of them governor of Babylonia, and the other his treasurer in that province, and gave himself up to be governed and conducted by them in most that he did. And having, on a very whimsical occasion, exhibited games and shows at Daphne, near Antioch, with vast expense, and called thither a great multitude of people of foreign parts, as well as from his own dominion, to be present at the solemnity; he there behaved himself to that degree of folly and absurdity, as to become the ridicule and scorn of all that were present; which actions of his are sufficiently abundant to demonstrate him both despicable and vile, though he had not added to them that most unreasonably and wicked persecution of God’ s people in Judea and Jerusalem which will be hereafter related."— Prideaux, year 175. Daniel 11:22. This is still making predictions about Epiphanes; in fact, this wicked character will figure in most of the affairs throughout the rest of this chapter. Arms of a flood refers to the military forces that Epiphanes brought against the Egyptian king. The pronoun him, refers to Epiphanes, and the prince is Heliodorus who had seized the throne. The fulfillment of this verse will be seen in the following history. "Heliodorus, the murderer of Se leueus, and his adherents, as also those of the Egyptian king, who had formed designs against Syria, were defeated by the forces of Attains and Eumenes, dispersed by the arrival of Epiphanes, whose presence disconcerted all their projects. By (he ‘ prince of the covenant,' we may suppose to be meant, either Heliodorus, the chief of the conspirators, who had killed Seleucus; or rather Ptolemy Epiphanes king of Egypt, who lost his life by a conspiracy of his own subjects, when he was mediating a war against Syria. Thus Providence removed this powerful adversary, to make way for Antiochus Epiphanes, and raised him to the throne.” — Roilin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, page 236. “ On the death of Seleucus, the throne was seized by Heliodorus; but it was not long before Antiochus Epiphanes, the brother of the late king, with the help of Pergamene monarch, Eumenes, recovered it. This prince, who is known in history as Antiochus IV, or (more commonly) as Antiochus Epiphanes, was a man of courage and energy.” — Rawlinson's Ancient History, page 255. Daniel 11:23. Another king is in power in Egypt by the name of Ptolemy Philometor, and the pronoun him stands for this man. The pronoun he is Epiphanes who is to come against this new king in Egypt. He will have a small people which means he will have a smaller army than usual, but yet by certain tactics he will win the contest. The fulfillment of the verse may be seen in the following history. "Antiochus Epiphanes, though he was already determined on the war, ‘ yet shall he assume a specious [deceptive] appearance of friendship for the king ot Egypt’ He even sent Apollonius to Memphis, to be present at the banquet given on occasion of that prince’ s coronation, as a proof that it was agreeable to him. But soon after, on pretence of defending his nephew, he marched into Egypt, with a smalt army, in comparison of those which he levied afterwards. The battle was fought near Pelusium. Antiochus was strongest, that is, victorious, and afterwards returned to Tyre. Such was the end of bis first expedition,"— Rollin, Volume 4, pages 236, 237. "Antiochus, having, ever since the return of Apollonius from the Egyptian court, been preparing for the war which he found he must necessarily have with Ptolemy about the provinces of CoeleSyria and Palestine, and being now ready for it, resolved to defer it no longer — and then forthwith marched his army toward the frontiers of Egypt, where, being met by the forces of Ptolemy (Philometor) between Mount Caslus and Pelusium, it there came to battle between them, in which Antioehus having gotten the victory . . . without attempting anything further this year, returned to Tyre; and there, and in the neighboring cities, put his army into winter quarters.”— Prideaux, year 171. Daniel 11:24-26. We have another series of verses that can better he considered as a group. The predictions are still about Epiphanes and his dealings with the king of the south which means Egypt. Epiphanes is still pictured as an insincere person, making plausible offers of friendship that he did not mean. Another expedition is here predicted and the history showing his fulfillment will now be quoted: "In these three verses (Daniel 11:24-26) appear the principal characters of the second expedition of Antiochus into Egypt. His mighty armies, his rapid conquests, the rich spoils he carried from 1,hence, and the dissimulation [hypocrisy] and treachery he began to practice with regard to Ptolemy. Antioehus, after employing the whole winter in making preparations for a second expedition into Egypt, invaded it both by sea and land, as soon as the season would permit. ‘ Wherefore, he entered into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great navy. And made war against Ptolemy king of Egypt; but Ptolemy was afraid of him, and fled; and many were wounded to death. Thus they got the strong cities in the land of Egypt, and he took the spoils thereof. I Maccabees, 1; 17, 18, 19,’ Diodorus relates, that Antioehus. after this victory, conquered all Egypt, or at least the greatest part of it; for all the cities, Alexandria excepted, opened their gates to the conqueror. He subdued Egypt with an astonishing rapidity, and did that ‘ which his forefathers had not1 done, nor his father’ s fathers.’ Ptolemy either surrendered himself, or fell into the hands of Anti ochus, who at first treated him with kindness; bad but one table with him; seemed to be greatly concerned for his welfare, and left him the peaceable possession of his kingdom, reserving fo himself Pelusium, which was the key to it. For Antioehus assumed this appearance of friendship, with no other view than to have the better opportunity of ruining him, ‘ They that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy,' Antioehus did not make a long stay in Egypt at that time, the news which was brought of the general revolt of the Jews obliging him to march against them. In the mean time, the inhabitants of Alexandria, offended at Philometor for having concluded an alliance with Antioehus, raised Euergetes, his youngest brother, to the throne in his stead. Antioehus, who had advice of what had passed in Alexandria, took the opportunity to return into Egypt, upon pretext of restoring the dethroned monarch, but in reality to make himself absolute master of the kingdom/’— Roilin, Volume 4, pages 237, 238. "Antiochus, having been making preparations during all the winter for a second expedition into Egypt, as soon as the season of the year would permit, again invaded that country both by sea nnd land. . . . While Anti oebus carried on his vast invasion, Philometor came into his hands; whether he were taken prisoner by him, or else voluntarily came in unto him, is not said; the latter seems most likely. For Antioehus took not from him his library, but they did eat at the same table, and conversed together as friends; and for some time Antioch us pretended to take care of the interest, of this young king his nephew, and to manage the affairs of the kingdom as tutor and guardian to him. But when he had, under this pretence, made himself master of the country, he seized all to himself; and, having miserably pillaged all parts where he came, vastly enriched himself and his army with the spoils of them,”— Pri deaux’ s Connexion, year 171. Daniel 11:27. The first sentence of verse 28 should be included in this paragraph, for the historical quotation that will be made includes it. Both these kings means Philometor and Epiphanes. They both put on a show of friendliness, even eating at the same table which was one of the strongest indications of friendship in ancient times. But all the time they were chatting In a goodnatured manner at the table, Epiphanes was plotting the ruin of Phiiometor, The latter actually suspected the treachery of Epiphanes, but pretended not to see anything wrong; thus they did speak lies at one table. Nothing decisive was accomplished and Epiphanes returned to his own land, having only the consolation of obtaining some great possessions of personal property, 1 shall give the reader some history, showing the fulfillment of this prophecy. “ The third expedition of Antiochus could scarcely be pointed out more clearly (in Daniel 11:27-28). That prince, hearing that the Alexandrians had raised Euergetes to the throne, returned to Egypt upon the specious Pretence of restoring Phiiometor, After having overcome the Alexandrians in a sea fight at Pelusium, he laid siege to Alexandria, But. finding the inhabitants made a strong opposition, he was contented with making himself master of Egypt again, in the name of his nephew, in whose defence he pretended to have drawn the sword. They were then at Memphis, ate at the same table, and behaved towards one another with all the outward marks of a sincere friendship. The uncle seemed to have the nephew’ s interest at heart, and the nephew to repose the highest confidence in his uncle; but all this was mere show, both dissembling (acting hypocritically] their real sentiments. The uncle endeavored to crush his nephew, and the nephew, who saw through his design, strove immediately to be reconciled to his brother. Thus neither succeeded in deceiving the other; nothing was yet determined, and Antiochus returned into Syria."— Rollin, Volume 4, page 239. "Antiochus, on hearing of this [the raising of Euergetes to the throne of Egypt] laid hold of the occasion for his making a third expedition into Egypt, under pretence of restoring the deposed king, but in reality to subject the whole kingdom to himself. Ptolemy Euergetes and Cleopatra his sister, who were then shut up in the town, being hereby much distressed, Bent ambassadors to the Romans to represent their case, and pray relief. And, a little after there came ambassadors from the Rhodians, to endeavor to make peace between the two kings. But while they were proceeding in long harangues on these topics, Antiochus interrupted them, and in a few words told them that there was no need of long orations as to this matter; that the kingdom belonged to Phiiometor the elder brother, with whom he had some time since made peace, and was now in perfect friendship vnth Mm; that, if they would recall him from banishmeut, and again restore him to his crown, the war would be at an end. This said he, not that he intended any such thing, but only out of craft farther to embroil the kingdom, for the better obtaining of his own ends upon It, .. , And, with this view having withdrawn from Alexandria, he marched to Memphis, and there seemingly again restored the whole kingdom to Phiiometor, excepting only Pelusium, which he retained in his hands, that, having the key of Egypt still in his keeping, he might thereby again enter Egypt, when matters should there, according to the scheme which he had laid, be ripe for it, and so seise the whole kingdom; and, having thus disposed matters, he returned again to Antioch."— Frideaux, 169. Daniel 11:28. The latter part of this verse predicts the wicked conduct of Epiphanes toward the Lord’ s institutions in Jerusalem. That subject comes up again in this chapter, and I shall defer any further comments together with historical quotations till later. Daniel 11:29. This paragraph must include half of verse 39 to get the predictions. It is a prophecy of the fourth expedition of Epiphanes into Egypt. Vot be as the former or as the latter. Some indeflniteness is seen in the historians as to which expeditions are meant since he had made three of them before. But it is clear that the fourth one would not be as successful as the others had been. The reason for it is given in the statement about the ships of Chittim that were to come against him. I shall quote the history for this paragraph: "Fourth expedition of Antiochus into Egypt— Advice being brought to Antiochus, that the two brothers were reconciled, he threw off the mask, and declared publicly that he intended to conquer Egypt for himself. And, to support his pretensions, 'he returned toward the south,’ that is, into Egypt, but. was not so successful in this expedition as before. As he was advancing to besiege Alexandria, Popilius and the other Roman ambassadors, who were on board a fleet composed of Macedonian or Greek ships, for this the Hebrew word Chittim signifies, which they found at Delos, obliged him to lay down his arms, and leave Egypt. He obeyed, but ‘ with the utmost reluctance, and made the city and temple of Jerusalem feel the dire effects of his indignation,' as will be presently seen."— Roliin’ s Ancient History, Volume 4, pages 239, 240 Daniel 11:30. The conduct of Epiphanes as It pertained to the Jews was so vicious. and it occupies so much of the prophecy and in so many places, that 1 think it will be proper to copy at length from history before making any more of my own comments on that subject. After doing this shall resume my interpretation of the various statements in the verses, relying on the history quoted for the basis of my comments, and adding other historical quotations from time to time as the subject matter may require. I again insist that the reader give the most possible attention to these quotations as they will be needed in the understanding of the predictions. "At the same time that Antioehus, who is called Epiphanes, bad a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his righL to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the highpriests, got the better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; 'who fled to Antioehus, and besought him to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them, without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, an4 put a stop to the constant practice of offering a flail)/ sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. . . . Now Anti ochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised. and to sacrifice swines flesh upon, the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death,”— Josephus, Wars, Book 1, Chapter 1, Sections I, 2. "And when the king [Epiphanes] had built an idol altar upon God’ s altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also, compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should he found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king’ s commands, either voluntarily. or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced; but the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to Lhe disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods and their bodies were torn to pieces, and they were crucified while they were still alive and breathed; they also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed; and those with whom they were found, miserably perished also," Josephus, Antiquities, Book 12, Chapter 5, Section 4. "After this, having spoiled the city of all its riches, they [forces of Epiphanes] set it on fire in several places, demolished the houses, and pulled down the walls round about it; and then, with the ruins of the demolished city, built a strong fortress on the top of an eminence in the city of David, which was over against the temple; and overlooked and commanded the same, and there placed a strong garrison; and making it a place of arms against the whole nation of the Jews, stored it with ail manner Of prolusions of war, and there also they laid up the spoils which they had taken in the sacking of the city. And this fortress, by the advantage of its situation, being thus higher than the mountain of the temple, and commanding the same, from thence the garrison soldiers fell on all those that went up thither to worship, and shed blood on every side of the sanctuary, and defiled it with all manner of pollutions; so that from this time the temple became deserted, and the daily sacrifices omitted; and none of the true servants of God durst any more go up thither to worship, till Judas, after three years and a half, having recovered it out of the hands of the heathens, purged the place of its pollutions, and, by a new dedication, restored it again to its pristine use."— Prideaux's Connexion, year 168. Before leaving this verse I shall make a few comments. This indignation was caused by the trouble the Jews gave Epiphanes by not all submitting to him. But some of them did submit and furnished him with "inside” information concerning the confidential interests of the holy service. We notice this information or intelligence was furnished by them that forsake the holy covenant. It is true that the worst enemies the work of the Lord has are those In the ranks of His professed servants who turn spies. Daniel 11:31. The arms were seen in the historical quotation, which Epiphanes used to further his opposition to the Jews. Abomination that maketh desolate is a descriptive phrase that might be used at different limes. In general it meanB any condition where some abominable character or group of characters threaten the decency and dignity of the service of God. That is why Jesus applies the saying to the presence of the Roman army near the holy city of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:15). In the present ease it means the corrupt condition created by Epiphanes about the temple and altar of sacrifice. Daniel 11:32. Shall he corrupt by flatteries refers to the persons who gave Epiphanes “ intelligence” in verse 30, who were the real enemies of the Jewish nation although they professed to love it. The people that do Know their God shall be strong, and do exploits refers to a family known in history as the Maccabees. This family performed the service of rescuing the altar from the corrupt servants of Epiphanes and restoring it to its lawful use. I shall quote some history on this subject. “ Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus supported the distressed nation, and the almost universally abandoned religion, with so small a number of forces, that we can consider the success which the Almighty gave their arms no otherwise than a miracle. The troops grew more numerous by degrees, and afterwards formed a very considerable body." — Rollln's Ancient History, Volume 4, page 242. “ At this time Judas Maccabeus, with some others that accompanied him, fled into the wilderness, and there lived in great hardship, subsisting themselves upon herbs, and what else the mountains and woods could afford them, till they gained an opportunity of taking up arms for themselves and their country, in a manner as will be hereafter related." — Prideaux's Connexion, year 168. “ These measures [of Epiphanes] induced an open revolt, whose leader was the priest and patriot Mattathias of Modin, His bold deed of the public murder of a royal official was the sign for the beginning of the revolt. Fleeing to the mountains, he, with the cooperation of five heroic sons, organized war on a small scale. He died in 166 B.C.”— ScbafEHersog. Article, Maccabees. Daniel 11:33. "Judas, one of the younger sons, who had taken the moat prominent part in the plans of his father, was appointed his successor. For six years he led the party with almost superhuman effort and varrying success. Decisive battles he had to avoid. But in innumerable skirmishes he defeated the hated foreigners: and his enthusiastic followers called him 'Mae cabi,' or the 'Hammerer,' from which his family has received the appellation ‘ Maccabees.’ It is apparent that this conflict had more of a religious than of a national character.”— SchaffHer zog, Article, Maccabees. This verse predicts the hardships endured by the Maccabees in their struggles against the vicious Epiphanes. They had an army finally that fought, under them, and Its men suffered the hard treatment here named, including the sword, Are and prison. Daniel 11:34. The chief item predicted in this verse is the fact that the forces with which the conflict for the altar was waged were a tittle help, which means that the number was small, as we have seen in the history quoted. Daniel 11:35. There is not much new in this verse as it 1b still speaking of the hardships that the Maccabees endured in their struggles for the restoration of the worship In Jerusalem. Make them white refers to the purification that results to the righteous when they are "persecuted for righteousness’ sake.” Daniel 11:36. This king is still Epiphanes whose wicked doings we have been observing through many of the verses. Bo according to Ms will. This king was selfish and headstrong and acted according as his own will dictated, regardless of others' rights and whether the thing he wished to do was right or wrong. The predictions of the verse are general but the main thought is the same as that in verse 31. Till the indignation he accomplished. This means the indignation of God against his own people because of their sins at this time. Epiphanes was suffered to oppress the Jews in order to punish them, and as soon as the wrath of the Lord was satisfied, the wicked king was to be brought to his own punishment. This prediction is the same as that made in Daniel 8:12. There is an extended comment with a quotation from history at that place and the reader is asked to see it again. Daniel 11:37. Nor the desire of women. Epiphanes was a very immoral man, and most of his immoral actions were unnatural. The prediction does not mean he never was intimate with women for he was. but that was not the chief object of his carnal desires. Another lengthy paragraph is devoted to the vile character of this king at verse 21 which the reader should see. The rest of the items of this verse have been explained. Daniel 11:38-39. Epiphanes had no regard for the true God, neither for the rights of good men. The only god he served was that of military and financial forces. Such Is the gist of this paragraph, and the many historical quotations that have been given clearly prove the predictions to be true. Daniel 11:40-43. No advantage would be gained by separating these verses into paragraphs for each, for all of them are on the same subject and have been virtually explained previously. The paragraph is a summing up of the activities of Epiphanes in his mad hostilities against Egypt and other peoples. Daniel 11:44-45. The historical quotation that belongs with this paragraph is quoted at Daniel 8:24-25. Briefly summing up, Epiphanes was madly pursuing liis attacks in the south when he learned of the disturbances going on in another part of his dominions. In his fury he started thither, determined to wreak severe vengeance upon the Jews whom he blamed for most of the disturbances. But he was not suffered to carry out his wicked designs. In the midst of his mad performances he was smitten by the Lord and finally died in a most shameful and loathsome manner. In this way he fulfilled the prediction, yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. Daniel Chapter TwelveVerse 1 This final chapter of Daniel is interpreted in various ways by different schools of scholars. Practically all of the critics limit the application to the last days of Antiochus, supposing that Daniel was totally mistaken about the resurrection which he mentioned, there being no resurrection whatever that marked the closing of the Antiochus persecution. We must reject this in its entirety, because we cannot believe that Christ would have quoted part of this chapter, applying it to the destruction of Jerusalem with antitypical overtones in the final judgment itself unless there had been much more here than a blunder on the part of the prophet Daniel. Such interpretations we leave without comment to those who prefer to disbelieve the holy prophecies of the "end times." The various premillennial views of this chapter we also reject on the basis that "the millennium" of Revelation 20 is nothing more nor less than the entire dispensation of the Gospel, embracing all of the time between the First Advent and the Second Advent of Christ. (See extensive studies on this in the Book of Revelation. Also, we have given a summary of it underDaniel 7:25, above.) The really destructive heresy regarding this chapter is the error of seeing nothing in it except the conclusion of the persecutions under Antiochus Epiphanes. Keil pointed out that the critical application of the first few verses of Daniel 12 to the times of Antiochus could be true and correct, "Only if the premises from which it is drawn were allowed."[1] These premises were confidently contradicted by Keil; and, as we found in our studies of the last paragraph of Daniel 11, there is no reference whatever in those verses to Antiochus. That impressive gap between undeniable references to Antiochus earlier in chapter eleven, prior to Daniel 11:36, and the introduction of the resurrection of the dead in the first three verses of this chapter, make it absolutely imperative to understand that in this chapter the focus of the prophecy moves to the climax of the Messianic kingdom itself in the Final Judgment and Second Advent of Jesus Christ. In this connection, Albert Barnes declared that: "The full meaning of the language (Daniel 12:1-3) is not met by the events of the times of the Maccabees. The passage looks forward and onward to a higher and more important event than any that occurred in the times of Antiochus."[2]What then is the meaning of these first few verses in Daniel 12? Young summarized them as follows: "When these events take place, those who are found written in the book will be delivered. The reference is to the elect, those destined to receive eternal life."[3] We hold that analysis to be absolutely correct. We are also certain that the resurrection of the dead mentioned here is the general resurrection of all the dead at the time of the final judgment, as we shall more fully explain in the notes on the text itself. Daniel 12:1"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of the people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as there never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book."Fortunately, this verse is crystal clear in its meaning, thanks to the direct comment of Jesus Christ himself regarding what is here prophesied. "At that time ..." is a reference to Messianic times; and the fact of the final judgment and the Resurrection coming into view almost simultaneously should not be confusing. It is a thing common enough in the prophecies that "the last Days" is a reference to the whole times of the Messianic kingdom including the final judgment itself; and, since all of these events (first, and last, and in between) were in the same line of vision, they are often mentioned in the same passage. "The Lord himself coordinated the destruction of Jerusalem with the end of the world."[4] "It was no uncommon thing in the prophets to allow the eye to glance from one object to another lying in the same range of vision."[5] Even in astronomy today, two stars may appear in one photograph appearing to be almost touching each other, whereas in fact, they could be separated by thousands of millions of miles! In understanding this prophecy it is imperative to understand that Daniel 10-12 are all one prophecy, not two or three. The chapter divisions here have been deplored by scholars ever since Cardinal Hugo butchered the job of dividing them in the 13th century; but to understand the passage before us, we must go back and read Daniel 10:14 - "Now I am come to make thee understand WHAT SHALL BEFALL THY PEOPLE IN THE LATTER DAYS, for the vision is yet for many days (Daniel 10:14)." In these verses, we have therefore come to that part of the prophecy that particularly deals with the TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD in the beginning of Messianic times. It is most important to separate this prophecy and its application from the ISRAEL; FROM THE VINE; FROM THE ; SECULAR ISRAEL. After that Israel rejected and crucified the Son of God Himself, they lost forever their status as God's chosen people. That distinction now belongs only to the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ and to no other. Without seeing this vital fact, no one can understand this prophecy. This reference, therefore is not of what is going to happen to the Jews (racially) but to the Church of Jesus Christ. Very well, what does this first verse say? "At that time ... there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time, and at that time thy people shall be delivered ..." Now, when was that? Christ said it would occur at the destruction of Jerusalem, which we can definitely pinpoint as an event occurring in A.D. 70. In his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, Christ said: "Then shall be great tribulation, such as there hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be" (Matthew 24:21). Thus the very terminology of Daniel's prophecy was used by the Lord and applied to the end of Jerusalem (with overtones of the final judgment also). But the people who cannot understand this verse have a stumbling block in the next clause, "And at that time, thy people shall be delivered." They say this cannot apply to the destruction of Jerusalem because that is when 1,100,000 Jews were put to the sword; and how could God have said, "Thy people shall be delivered?" They just don't understand WHO God's people were in that holocaust! They were the Church, the TRUE ISRAEL OF GOD; and it is history that they were indeed delivered, fleeing to Pella, as every student of history knows. The Jews at that time were not, nor have they ever since been, God's chosen people. The study of this passage, together with the fact of Christ's having definitely applied it to the destruction of Jerusalem raises the possibility that Christ himself relied in part upon this promise of God regarding the safety of his church during the siege of Jerusalem when he warned the Christians to flee. One of the most important, and one of the most universally unknown, facts about the ISRAEL of GOD is that the true ISRAEL today is a far different group of people from what it was in the days of Daniel. "Everyone that shall be found written in the book ..." Here is the definition of God's people who shall be saved from the horrible holocaust of the destruction of Jerusalem. Who are these? They are the Christians. This is a reference to the "Lamb's Book of Life," where the names of the redeemed are enrolled. "This is the book of life (Psalms 69:28; Revelation 3:5)."[6] The very idea that the racial Jews who had engineered the crucifixion of Christ and hounded the holy apostles all over Europe in their vicious efforts to prevent the spread of the Gospel all had their names written in the book of life because they were racially descended from Abraham is ridiculous. It is absolutely certain, as Keil put it, that, "These verses do not treat of the times of Antiochus and the Maccabees."[7] The notion that the persecutions under Antiochus were of the dimensions of those which Christ associated with the end of the city of Jerusalem (which are the ones found in this verse) is contradicted by no less authority than Christ himself. Verse 2 "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt"The big problem with this verse is the word "many," construed by some as an indication that "some" or a "major number" of the dead shall rise, with the conclusion that the general resurrection of all the dead is not in view in this passage. We disagree with that. It is undeniable that in Scripture the word "many" is often used as a reference to all. Note this passage: "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous" (Romans 5:19). A comparison with verse 18 in that same passage indicates positively that "many" in both of the references here actually means "all." Therefore, it is a gross error to fasten a limited denotation upon the use of "many" in Daniel's reference to the general resurrection. Thus the principal idea to be derived from the use of many in this verse 2 is the great multitudes that shall rise from the dead. "No one can doubt that the word 'many' is used to denote all."[8] Thomson and many other dependable scholars have mentioned this same thing. "We cannot, therefore, deduce that 'many' here excludes 'all'; the idea suggested is rather multitudinousness."[9]The Resurrection of the Dead There are a number of important revelations connected with this verse. The resurrection of both wicked and righteous persons shall occur simultaneously. Here is the only reference in the Old Testament to "everlasting life."[10] Note also that "everlasting contempt" for the wicked appears in the same verse. Although a number of other Old Testament passages speak somewhat ambiguously of the resurrection, these being: Ezekiel 37:11; Isaiah 55:10 ff; Isaiah 26:19; Ecclesiastes 3:18-22, Isaiah 53:10 ff; Psalms 17:39,49,73; Hosea 6:2; Job 19:26, etc, nevertheless this is the most forthright promise of the resurrection to be found in the Old Testament. The denials of most critical scholars that the general resurrection is here promised should be set aside. The passage cannot possibly refer to anything else. To deny this is to assert that Daniel made a false prophecy, because there has never been even until this day such a resurrection as is promised here. Some of course would get around this by declaring this to be the "first resurrection"; however, Jesus Christ left no doubt at all that "the first resurrection" is a resurrection from the deadness in sins by hearing and obeying the gospel (John 5:25-29). Still others have tried to make it out that the saints who came out of their graves upon the occasion of the resurrection of Christ constituted the resurrection mentioned here; but that cannot be true, because only "the saints" were raised on that occasion (Matthew 27:53). Therefore, in this second verse we have a prophecy of the general resurrection of all the dead, and also the assignment of his true destiny to every man. Thus Daniel, as did our Lord Jesus Christ in Matthew 25, made the Final Judgment and the general resurrection of the dead to be concurrent events coming at the end of the age. That our Lord Jesus fully approved of this chapter is demonstrated by his use of it in the prophecies which he himself uttered. If men would heed their Saviour's words instead of following the wild speculations of Biblical enemies they would find little difficulty in believing every word of this prophecy. Verse 3 "And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever."Here again we have a Messianic promise focused upon the post-resurrection glory of the saints who have been glorified. This is a Scriptural promise to be fulfilled in the Final Judgment, that day mentioned by Paul when all of the saints in Christ shall receive the crown of life that never fades away (2 Timothy 4:8). Although the apostle Paul did not quote Daniel, he nevertheless applied this conception of the saints being glorious like the stars in this passage: "For one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:41-42). It should be observed from these words who are the truly wise. "True religion is wisdom, and sin is folly, and those who live for God and for heaven are truly wise."[11] The utter foolishness of sin and rebellion against God is stressed by the words of the Saviour. Regarding that rich farmer who mistook his stomach for his soul and said, "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up," the Lord said, "Thou fool, this night shall thy soul be required of thee" (Luke 12:20). Of those virgins in the parable who took no oil for their lamps, Jesus said, "Five were foolish" (Matthew 25:2). Concerning the man who heard the sayings of Jesus and did them not, our Lord said, "He shall be likened unto a foolish man who built his house upon the sand" (Matthew 7:27). What an incredible folly characterizes every person who does not strive to live in a manner well pleasing to God! "They that turn many to righteousness ..." "This is a reference to those who are instrumental in converting men to the worship of the true God and to the ways of holy religion."[12] This is frequently applied to preachers of God's Word; but there are many others who qualify. This writer still recalls the example of Sgt. Herbert F. Elrod, of the United States Air Force at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, who was baptized in 1932, and who, within the period of a single year, was the chief instrument in the baptism of twenty-three other persons! Verse 4 "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.""Shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end ..." Keil stated that the true meaning of shut up and seal is that of "guarding and protecting the message" that it might be available to future generations."[13] Moreover, it is perfectly obvious that the instructions thus to guard and protect the message "refers to the whole Book of Daniel."[14]"Men shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased ..." Some interpreters have tried to apply this to persons letting their eyes run to and fro searching for the truth; but we cannot find anything like that in the passage. If men will just look at the travel to and from upon the planet earth by men of all nations throughout this whole century, they could not fail to be impressed with the truth that this going "to and fro" on the earth has been multiplied fantastically above everything that was even dreamed of a hundred years ago. Is not this prophesied here as being a development "at the time of the end"? Likewise, has not knowledge been "increased"? In the field of medicine, more knowledge has been learned in the past century than in all previous centuries put together. Furthermore, this same phenomenon may be noted in any one of a hundred different fields of knowledge. Take transportation, chemistry, biology, agriculture, space travel, etc., etc., Is it not a fact that "knowledge has been increased"? Does this mean, therefore, that we are indeed approaching the time of the end? Our own conviction is that the answer is undoubtedly affirmative. Verse 5 "Then I, Daniel, looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on the brink of the river on this side, and the other on the brink of the river on that side. And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand, and sware by him that liveth forever and ever that it shall be for a time, and times, and a half; and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.""How long shall it be to the end of these wonders ..." (Daniel 12:6)." This means, "How long shall it be to the end of the world, the general resurrection of the just and the wicked, and the glorification of the saints of God? The answer came back that all of these wonders would come at the end of time, and times, and a half. Fortunately, we know exactly what this means. It is the totality of all the time between the First Advent of Jesus Christ and the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. (See under Daniel 7:25 for an elaboration of this.) The most dreadful and terrible thing in this little paragraph is the raw prediction that, "THEY SHALL MAKE AN END OF IN PIECES THE POWER OF THE HOLY PEOPLE." That cannot possibly have any reference to Antiochus Epiphanes, for his persecutions in no manner made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people (The Jews). The meaning here comes far beyond the events of the Maccabean period. "The breaking in pieces of the power of the holy people" is a reference to the near-extermination of Christianity which shall occur near the end of the whole dispensation when the time, and times, and a half are about concluded. Revelation 16 develops this very same idea, revealing a future time when the total spiritual environment on the whole earth shall be seriously if not indeed fatally polluted. It was of this period that Christ inquired, "When the Son of Man cometh shall he find faith on the earth" (Luke 18:8). Note the terminology here, "breaking in pieces the power of the holy people." What can this be if not indeed the utter fragmentation of Christendom by literally hundreds and hundreds of denominations, sects, cults, fads, etc? Note in this connection that "the holy people" is by no stretch of the imagination a reference to racial Israel. No! The reference is to God's TRUE ISRAEL, the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is positively theONLY ISRAEL God has ever had since the birth of the Son of God. Verse 8 "And I heard, but I understood not; then said I, O my lord, what shall be the issue of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end."One of the favorite dictums of Bible enemies is that we should look for what was "probably in the mind of the prophet" to understand and interpret his words; but the Holy Scriptures in this passage offer the complete denial of such a bastard ruling, which, alas, influences much of the so-called "interpreting" of the ancient prophecies. Here Daniel freely admitted that he did not understand the words which the holy one spoke unto him and which he wrote down and sealed. He asked for information about what the words meant, but the holy one refused to enlighten him further, saying, "Go thy way, the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end." There was no way, really, that Daniel could have understood these words. Why? (1) The holy people whose power was to be broken in pieces in the mind of Daniel was doubtless a reference to the OLD ISRAEL; but we have known since Jesus Christ that HE, and HE ALONE is the true Israel of God (John 15:1; John 15:5). (2) The expression, "time, and times, and a half a time" could have had no practical meaning whatever for Daniel. (3) The prophecies of knowledge being increased and men going "to and fro" could never have been fully understood by any person living prior to the 20th century! In this connection, one should read 1 Peter 1:10-12, where this phenomenon of the prophets not understanding their own prophecies is specifically stated. Verse 10 "Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but they that are wise shall understand."Daniel desired to know, "What shall be the issue of these things...(Daniel 12:8)." Well here it is. Many shall indeed obey the gospel of Christ and be saved, or "refined" as stated here; but there shall continue to be wicked men who shall act wickedly and shall not be able either to understand or comprehend spiritual things in any manner whatever. This little sentence is a picture of the entire dispensation of the Gospel of Christ. The great cleavage of mankind into the two Biblical groups is seen here: the saved and the lost, the good and the bad, the wheat and the chaff, the wise and the foolish, the wheat and the tares, the keepers and the rejects (the parable of the fish-net), those on the fight hand and those on the left, etc. etc. Verse 11 "And from the time that the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days."The big problem with this verse is that of the one thousand two hundred and ninety days. It so nearly corresponds with the one thousand two hundred and sixty days that one is at a total loss to account for the discrepancy. We agree with Thomson that, "No satisfactory solution to this mystery is possible."[15] Probably the best view of it is to understand it as a symbol of the same period, namely, the whole Christian dispensation, as that of the "time, and times, and a half a time," the one thousand two hundred and three score days. One possible meaning, which is as reasonable as any we have encountered is that, since the one thousand two hundred and threescore days stands for the whole period between the First and the Second Advents of Jesus Christ, these tabulations in verse 11 (one thousand two hundred and ninety days) and the one in verse 12 (one thousand three hundred and five and thirty days) also represent the whole dispensation, the slightly different numbers indicating God's adjustment of the exact time of Christ's coming in order more exactly to conform to his infinite will. It will be recalled that there was mentioned "a shortening" of certain days (Matthew 24:22). Some have vainly tried to get Antiochus into this passage; but many have pointed out that there is positively no period whatever in the life of that evil ruler that could possibly have been fulfilled by these predictions even if viewed as literal days, or upon any other reasonable conjecture. Assuming, then, that the one thousand two hundred ninety days is but a slightly variable reference to "the time, and times, and a half a time," which we understand to be the entire Christian dispensation, the "terminus ad quem", or starting point for the calculation of this period is described in this verse as, "the time when the continual burnt-offering shall be taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate shall be set up." That time, of course, was pinpointed by the Christ himself as occurring at the destruction of Jerusalem when the Christians were warned to flee from the city. At first thought, one might hesitate to place this event in A.D. 70 as concurrent with the beginning of the Christian era in A.D. 30; but in the prophetic sense, that was precisely the date when Jesus Christ consigned the Herodian temple to complete destruction and removal, even to the extent that not a single stone would be left on top of another. In this light, we see no difficulty at all in finding the entire Christian dispensation indicated by this time reference. "The continual burnt-offering was taken away forever in the destruction of Jerusalem. The short period of time when Antiochus caused the daily sacrifices to cease was a trifling and unimportant event compared with the actual and permanent removal of the continual burnt-offering in Christ's condemnation and commitment of the Temple to complete destruction. Verse 12 It is strange that the "thousand three hundred and five and thirty days" should have been identified by the definite article "the," as if this time period had already been mentioned earlier. This is the grounds upon which many hold this to be merely a variable of the "the time, and times, and half a time," featured in these final verses, and in the Book of Revelation. However, as Barnes pointed out, "The article is not used in the original."[16]"There is much apparent abruptness here. What the angel said in these closing communications has much the character of being fragmented...hints, or detached and unexplained thoughts thrown out, upon which the angel did not elect to enlarge, or explain."[17]It is simply a mystery to us as to why these variable time-periods are used here; and our conviction remains that in some general sense, at least, they appear to have reference to the whole Christian dispensation, exactly as does "the time, and times, and a half a time." THE BLESSED PROMISE TO DANIEL"Thou shalt rest, and shall stand in thy lot, at the end of the days ..."Young's beautiful comment on this is, "Daniel himself is assured of his salvation, and that he shall stand in his lot at the end of the days. May this same destination be that of all who read these words!"[18]Our studies in Daniel remind us of those done in the Book of Jonah. Both books have come under the most vicious fire of the critics; but it turns out that both afford very rich rewards for the student. Both Daniel and Jonah were approved and endorsed, quoted and made applicable to the ministry and kingdom of Christ by the Lord himself. There is no intelligent reason for rejecting a single line of either book. Each one of them carries its own imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. Commentary On Daniel Twelve by Eric HallDaniel 12 Daniel 12:1-4 1 “ At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” The most important words in understanding this section of the vision are the first three in verse 1: “ At that time.” They provide the time frame for this part of the vision, which of course is crucial to understanding the vision. What is the time frame? The items mentioned here in Chapter 12 will occur at the time when Chapter 11 came to an end. What was happening when Chapter 11 came to an end? Rome had just established its authority in Palestine. The angel is telling Daniel (very plainly) that this part of the vision applies to the time when Rome would be in charge of the Holy Land. But, we do not have to rely on this clue alone to determine the time when this prophecy would occur. We can also look at what the angel said would happen, and then look elsewhere in the Scripture to see when it happened. Let’ s consider these other clues: (1) At this time, the angel Michael would arise. Here he is called the “ great prince who has charge of your people.” In Daniel 10:21, he is called “ your prince.” Just like Persia had a prince in Chapter 10, the Jews also had a prince; Michael. The fact that Michael is involved here indicates that this vision involves the Jews. This also fits in well with what we were told at the beginning of this vision. Daniel 10:14 told us that this vision would tell us about the Jews in the latter days. (Recall that Acts 2 tells us that the latter days spoken of by the prophets occurred in the first century.) (2) At this time there would be “ a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” As we have already discussed, this was a common way of describing a very terrible calamity. Did such a calamity befall the Jews at this time? Yes. Read the description of Jerusalem’ s destruction found in Matthew 24:21.Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. You might also compare Josephus’ description of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. It is impossible to give every instance of the iniquity of these men [the Romans]. I shall therefore speak my mind here at once briefly: that never did any other city suffer such miseries. (3) Verse 1 tells us that at that time all of the faithful Jews (i.e. those of Daniel’ s people whose names are in the book) will be delivered. Did that happen in the first century? Absolutely. Jeremiah 33:14-16 Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfil the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring forth for David; and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: 'The Lord is our righteousness.' Luke 1:68-70 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people, 69 and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David, 70 as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old. Verses 2– 3 talk about a resurrection. Is this the final resurrection at the end of the world? Well, despite countless sermons to the contrary, I do not think that this is the final resurrection. If this is the final resurrection, then we must conclude that the vision includes the end of the world, and hence we must conclude that the Jews have a special role to play in the end of the world. This is clearly in conflict with other scriptures that tell us there is no distinction between Jew and Greek in the church. Which resurrection does it apply to then? It is the resurrection of the Jewish nation. It is the time when a Jewish Messiah would come to bring blessings to the entire world. The Jewish nation would be resurrected under Christ. What happened to the Jews at this time? Those Jews who followed Christ were saved. Here they are pictured as awakening to everlasting life. This is the resurrection of the faithful Jewish remnant who were taken from foreign domination and ushered into the kingdom of God under the rule of their Messiah. Those Jews who rejected Christ were lost. Here they are pictured as awakening to shame and everlasting contempt. Is this resurrection spoken of elsewhere in the Bible? You bet! Ezekiel 37:12-13 Therefore prophesy, and say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people; and I will bring you home into the land of Israel. 13 And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, and raise you from your graves, O my people. John 5:25 Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. Ephesians 5:14 Therefore it is said, “ Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give you light.” Luke 2:34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, “ Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel… A very puzzling event to many has been the actual resurrection of some that occurred at the death of Christ. Recall: Matthew 27:52-53 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. I think that this actual resurrection of faithful Jews in Jerusalem was a sign that all of the faithful Jews still living would be resurrected as well at this time. That is, this physical resurrection reminded the people of the spiritual resurrection that occurred at this time. Many use this passage to apply to the end of the world. I think they are taking it out of context. (How many times have you heard both Daniel 12:2 and Daniel 11 discussed in the same sermon?) If you want to apply Daniel 12:2 to the end of the world then you should be aware of the logical consequence that the Jews must then have a future role to play in God’ s plan. Finally, Daniel is again told to seal up the vision, which means that it pertains to a future time and a future people. (Recall that John was told just the opposite in the book of Revelation!) Daniel 12:5-7 5 Then I Daniel looked, and behold, two others stood, one on this bank of the stream and one on that bank of the stream. 6 And I said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, “ How long shall it be till the end of these wonders?” 7 The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven; and I heard him swear by him who lives for ever that it would be for a time, two times, and half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished. Daniel asked how long it would be until the end of the events in the vision. He is told that it would be “ a time, two times, and half a time” and that everything in the vision would be accomplished when “ the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end.” First, nowhere is there a clearer statement than here that the vision ends in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That was the shattering of the power of the holy people. This vision ends with the Romans and the Romans are the ones who shattered the power of the holy people. (If we take Daniel 12:2 to apply to a still future event then we must conclude that this shattering is still future as well.) The “ time, two times, and half a time” is a broken 7, and we have seen this symbol before. The angel is telling Daniel that while the Jews will be oppressed, it will not be a permanent oppression. The power of Rome would end one day, and the faithful remnant of true Jews would be victorious in Christ. God’ s promises to the Jews have always been conditioned on their faithfulness to him. The true Jew was always the faithful Jew. The prophets said this. Jesus said this. Paul said this. The faithful Jews were saved at the time of Christ. (Jeremiah 33:14– 16 and Romans 11:26.) The faithless Jews were completely cut off during the time of Christ. (Matthew 21:43 and Acts 3:22– 23.) Daniel 12:8-12 8 I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, “ O my lord, what shall be the issue of these things?” 9 He said, “ Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but those who are wise shall understand. 11 And from the time that the continual burnt offering is taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. 12 Blessed is he who waits and comes to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days. 13 But go your way till the end; and you shall rest, and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.” As you might suspect, Daniel is confused. This story does not seem to have a happy ending. How can God’ s plan for the Jews end with the complete destruction of Jerusalem and the temple? Daniel asks the angel for an explanation of this seeming discrepancy. Now, here is an important point. At this point, Daniel does not understand the point of the vision. Yet, in Daniel 10:1, Daniel said that he did understand the vision. Thus, the explanation from the angel that we are about to read gave Daniel the extra information he needed to understand the point of the vision. First, the angel reminds Daniel that the end of the vision would not occur for some time. He would not be personally affected by these events. Many good things and many bad things would happen before it came to pass. Those who were wicked would not understand; that is, they would not know that they were playing a part in the plan of God. Those who were wise, however, would know that they were playing a part in the plan of God. Indeed, they would know that the events that were occurring had been spoken of here in Daniel 11 and 12. In verse 10, the angel is assuring Daniel that God will bless those who are good and the wicked will perish. This is just what Daniel needed to hear since this vision ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. That is, it appeared that at the end of this vision the wicked were blessed and the good perished. The angel assures Daniel that just the opposite is true. The angel then says that from the time that the burnt offering is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate is set up, there shall be 1290 days. Further, those who wait for 1335 days will be blessed. Note that the 1290 days occur after both the removal of the burnt offering and the abomination that makes desolate. In particular, the 1290 days do not separate these two events. Are this removal of the daily sacrifice and this abomination of desolation the same ones that we read about in Daniel 11:31? They cannot be. Jesus pointed to a prophecy of Daniel in Matthew 24:15 regarding the abomination of desolation and said that it had not happened yet, but that it would happen in the first century (Matthew 24:34). The abomination of desolation in Daniel 11:31 happened nearly 200 years before the birth of Christ. Since Daniel only mentions the abomination twice, Jesus must be referring to the one mentioned here. We have another clue that this is the fact. Look at Matthew 24:15. Matthew 24:15 So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand). Do you see the phrase “ let the reader understand” ? Why did Jesus say that? He wanted us to know that he was pointing back to Daniel 12:11 because almost the same phrase is found in Daniel 12:10 where we read “ those who are wise shall understand.” (A similar phrase is found in Daniel 11:33 but there it refers to the Maccabeans.) Which abomination is this then? It is the desecration of the temple by the Romans in AD 70. The vision ends with the Romans. Jesus was talking about the Romans in Matthew 24. In Matthew 24:15,34 Jesus said that the abomination he spoke of would occur in the first century. The desecration by Antiochus IV occurred long before the birth of Christ. What about the 1290 days and the 1335 days? What do they denote? What would we expect then to denote? Daniel doesn’ t understand how God’ s plan for the Jews could end with the destruction of the Jews. After he hears this, though, he understands God’ s plan. What must God have told him? God must have told him that God’ s plan for the Jews did not end with the destruction of the their city and their temple. He may also have told him that those who destroyed the city and the temple would themselves be destroyed, and thus would not ultimately be victorious. How do these symbols denote that? Revelation 13:5 uses 1260 days to describe the temporary power of Rome. Since 1260 days Isaiah 42 months (30 days each), we have 3.5 years. Thus, 1260 days points to a broken 7. But here we have 1290 days. Why the extra month? I think that God is telling Daniel that while the Roman persecution will be temporary, it will be longer and worse than other persecutions. It will be a broken 7 plus a little bit more. What about the extra 45 days between the 1290 days and the 1335 days? What would we expect it to denote? The context suggests that it denotes the time after Rome during which God’ s followers must continue to persevere. Why would 45 denote that? No one knows for sure, but we can speculate. The number 5 is said by some to symbolize the grace of God. (The number 5 and multiples of 5 occur all throughout the tabernacle.) The number 9 is said by some to denote finality and judgment. (The 9 judgments of Haggai 1:11, for example.) [See the book You Can Count On It by Eli Borden.] Thus, 45 being 5 × 9 may denote the grace of God leading to the final judgment of the world. This is just speculation, however. It is possible that the number 45 had some significance that has been lost to us but was quickly understood by Daniel. (While we cannot be certain of the meaning of this number, we can be certain of the meaning of the message that Daniel received.) One other possibility is that the 45 days (month and a half) is simply God’ s way of telling Daniel that after Rome, God’ s people will need to persevere a little longer. This would fit in well with our explanation of the extra 30 days in the 1290 days. Finally, Daniel is assured that while he will not live to see these events , he will be present at “ the end of the days.” And the “ end of the days” ? What does that refer to? I think that we have at last come to the end of the world! The vision is over. The Romans are gone. God’ s grace has been extended to the final judgment. Daniel is again present and standing in his allotted place. This is the final judgment of the world. (Recall that the vision dealing with the end of the Jewish age ended in verse 4 of this chapter. Thus, it does not violate the time frame of that vision to say that Daniel is now hearing about the end of the world.) Thus, while Daniel 12:2 does not refer to the final resurrection, I think that Daniel 12:13 does. Daniel goes to his rest in verse 13, but then we see him standing again. Another possibility is that the end of the days is the fall of Jerusalem and that Daniel stands up and figuratively takes his place when the events in his book come to pass. This view is not as appealing since verse 12 seems to take us past the end of Rome. The book ends with a complete confirmation of one of the book’ s principle themes: the absolute and total sovereignty of God. God is in control of this world and this universe and he has a plan to bless the entire world through his son Jesus Christ. This book has given us a glimpse of just what was involved in bringing that plan about. 1 Peter 1:18-21 You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake. 21 Through him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. We are looking back over 2500 years of history, and during that time we have seen virtually everything in this book come to pass. But there is one thing that we have not yet seen. We like Daniel are waiting for that day when we will stand up and take our allotted place among the people of God. "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" The Vision Of The Time Of The End - III (Daniel 11:36 to Daniel 12:13) 1. We have been studying the final vision recorded in the book of Daniel... a. Depicting what will affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Daniel 10:14b. Describing events "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Daniel 10:14c. Its words were closed and sealed "till the time of the end"-Daniel 12:9-- For such reasons this vision has been called "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" 2. In the introductory remarks of the vision, there is a glimpse of spiritual warfare... a. Angelic forces withstanding each other - Daniel 10:13 a,20b. Angelic forces helping each other - Daniel 10:13 b,21; 11:1-- Such forces affecting the nations of Persia and Greece 3. As the vision unfolds, a series of future conflicts involving nations is described... a. Between the Persians and the Greeks - Daniel 11:2-4b. Between kings of the South (Egypt) and kings of the North (Syria) - Daniel 11:5-351) In this conflict, Israel would be caught in the middle 2) Israel would suffer extreme blasphemies by one Syrian king (Antiochus Epiphanes) 4. Beginning with Daniel 11:36, there is a large diversity of opinion... a. Regarding the identity of the king described in Daniel 11:36-45b. The time in which events described in Daniel 11:36 to Daniel 12:13 would be fulfilled [As with any difficult portion of Scripture, especially one involving prophecy, dogmatism should be avoided. In this study, our final one in this series of lessons on the Book of Daniel, I shall offer what I believe is a plausible explanation of the text...] I. THE OF THE KING AND HIS TIMES A. THREE VIEWS...1. The king is Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria a. The vile and blasphemous ruler described in Daniel 11:21-35b. The time of his persecution would therefore be 169-167 B.C. c. The time of the Maccabean revolt -- This view is espoused by Albert Barnes in his commentary 2. The king represents the Roman emperors a. Who persecuted Christians in the early years of the church b. The time of this persecution would therefore be 60-313 A.D. -- This view is proposed by Robert Harkrider in his workbook 3. The king represents the Anti-Christ a. A future ruler still to come b. The time of this persecution would be shortly before the return of Christ -- This view is held by pre-millennialists, but also by some amillennialists (e.g., Edward Young) B. SEEMS A LIKELY CHOICE...1. The allusion in previous verses is undoubtedly to Antiochus Epiphanes 2. There is no indication in the prophetic narrative of any change; notice... a. "Then the king shall do..." - Daniel 11:36b. "At the time of the end the king of South shall attack him..." - Daniel 11:40c. "At that time Michael..." - Daniel 12:1d. "At that time your people shall be delivered..."-Daniel 12:13. A sudden transition, with no given indication, is not in accordance with what is usually found in prophetic writings (Barnes) 4. The word "king" is never applied to Antichrist (if there in fact be "the Antichrist", as the Bible speaks of many antichrists - 1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7) 5. The description that follows can easily be applied to the person and times of Antiochus Epiphanes [This is not imply there is no difficulty with applying this passage to Antiochus Epiphanes and his times, but I believe it possesses fewer difficulties than alternative views. Now let's consider what is described to come...] II. THE EVENTS AT "THE TIME OF THE END" A. THE OF THIS KING...1. He shall magnify himself above every god - Daniel 11:36-37a. Speaking blasphemies against the God of gods b. Prospering till the wrath that has been determined is done (suggesting that this was allowed by God as part of divine judgment against Israel) - cf. Daniel 11:35; as with the case of Assyria and Israel, Isaiah 10:5-12c. He shall not regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor any god 2. He shall honor a god of fortresses - Daniel 11:38-39a. A god which his fathers did not know (some suggest the Roman god Mars, or Jupiter) b. He shall act against the strongest fortresses with this foreign god, rule over many and divide the land for gain -- In his commentary, Albert Barnes explains how this could apply to Antiochus B. THE AND END OF THIS KING...1. The king of the South (Egypt) shall attack him - Daniel 11:40a. Note that this will occur "at the time of the end" b. This may help pinpoint the meaning of the "latter days" of Daniel 10:142. The king of the North (Antiochus Epiphanes) will respond and overwhelm the countries - Daniel 11:40-43a. Entering the "Glorious Land" (Israel) b. Overthrowing many, while Edom, Moab and Ammon will escape c. Egypt will not escape, even Libyans and Ethiopians will submit 3. He shall come to his end - Daniel 11:44-45a. News from the east and north will trouble him (from Persia) b. He shall proceed to destroy and annihilate many, planting his tents between the seas and the glorious holy mountain (Mt. Zion, Jerusalem?) c. Yet he shall come to his end, no one helping him (Antiochus died in 163 B.C. of a terrible disease) -- Again, Barnes relates in detail how these events could refer to Antiochus C. THE VICTORY OF DANIEL'S PEOPLE...1. To occur "at that time" - Daniel 12:1a. To be assisted by "Michael...the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people" - cf. Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21b. In a time of a trouble not seen before c. Deliverance of Daniel's people "at that time" 1) I.e., the time just previously described 2) I.e., the time of the conflict involving Antiochus Epiphanes 2. Many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake - Daniel 12:2a. Some to everlasting life b. Some to shame and everlasting contempt -- Note that this is not likely the physical resurrection of the dead, for then "all" (not "many") shall be raised - John 5:28-293. Those who will shine at this time - Daniel 12:3a. The wise will shine like the brightness of the firmament b. Those who turn many to righteousness will shine like the stars forever and ever -- Using the figure of the resurrection, this may depict the Maccabean revolt when the Jews came out of caves and mountain hideouts to resist Antiochus - cf. Daniel 11:33-35 D. FINAL AND ANSWERS GIVEN TO DANIEL...1. Shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end - Daniel 12:4a. Perhaps what is meant is to stop writing, and secure what he has written b. Compare this with Daniel 8:17; Daniel 8:19; Daniel 8:261) Both visions (Daniel 8, 10-12) were to be sealed up 2) Both pertained to many days in the future 3) Yet both visions were fulfilled within 200-400 years c. Contrast this with Revelation 22:101) The vision of the Revelation was not to be sealed, for the time was at hand 2) How then the explanation of some that the events of Revelation have yet to begin, nearly 2000 years later? 2. Two final questions answered a. One question overheard by Daniel - Daniel 12:5-71) Daniel saw two others, one on each side of a river bank 2) One asked the man clothed in linen (cf. Daniel 10:5-6) above the river: "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?" 3) The answer: "...a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished." a) The "time, times, and half a time" (3 and a half years, 42 months, 1260 days) is commonly used to describe a definite, marked, period of tribulation - cf. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 11:2-3; Revelation 12:6; Revelation 12:13-14; Revelation 13:5b) When the persecution has accomplished its purpose, then the things described will take place b. The question asked by Daniel - Daniel 12:8-131) Not understanding, Daniel asks: "...what shall be the end of these things?" 2) Daniel is first told: a) To go, for the words are closed and sealed till the time of the end b) That many shall be purified, and the wise shall understand - cf. Daniel 11:33-35c) That the wicked shall do wickedly, and not understand - cf. Daniel 11:32d) That there will be a period of "1290 days" beginning from: 1/ The time the daily sacrifice is taken away - cf. Daniel 11:312/ The abomination of desolation is set up - cf. Daniel 11:31e) Those who wait and come to "1335 days" will be blessed -- Whether literal or figurative, these numbered days appear to apply to the period of the Antiochian persecution (ca. 168 B.C.) 3) Daniel is then told: a) To go his way till the end b) For he shall rest and arise to his inheritance at the end of the days -- This "end" or "end of the days" may refer to the actual resurrection on the day of Judgment, not "the time of the end" spoken of throughout this vision 1. We have seen that "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" describes events that would... a Affect Daniel's people (i.e., Israel) - Daniel 10:14b. Take place "in the latter days, for the vision refers to many days yet to come" - Daniel 10:14c. Occur in "the time of the end" - Daniel 11:35; Daniel 11:40; Daniel 12:4; Daniel 12:9 2. From the context, "the time of the end" likely refers to the closing days of God's dealings with Israel as His covenant nation; i.e.,... a. The inter-testamental period between Malachi and Matthew b. The period involving the Greek-Persian and Egyptian-Syrian conflicts -- Which is how the phrase is used in "The Vision Of The Ram and The Goat" that depicts many of the same events - cf. Daniel 8:1-27(esp. Daniel 8:17; Daniel 8:26) 3. As we conclude our study of the Book of Daniel, we have found it to be a book that... a. Strengthens faith in God and His Word through its fulfilled prophecies 1) Describing the rise and fall of world empires - Daniel 2, 4-52) Foretelling the establishment of God's everlasting kingdom - Daniel 2, 7, 93) Depicting the events to befall the people of Israel - Daniel 8, 9, 10-12b. Inspires faithfulness to God through its examples of dedicated faith and service 1) Of Daniel - Daniel 1, 62) Of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego - Daniel 3 While there is certainly much in this book that challenges our understanding, may we never neglect to mine its spiritual treasures preserved for the people of God: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." - Romans 15:4 "THE BOOK OF DANIEL" Chapter Twelve "The Vision Of The Time Of The End" concludes with assurance of ultimate victory for Daniel's people (Israel), in words suggestive of the final resurrection (Daniel 12:1-3). Daniel is given instructions to seal the book because it pertain to things in the future. Asking when these things will be accomplished, he is given cryptic answers, but is reassured that he himself shall rest and rise to his inheritance at the end of the days (Daniel 12:4-13). POINTS TO PONDER * Identifying the "time of trouble" and "time of the end" in this chapter * The instructions for Daniel to "shut up the words, and seal the book" REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The ultimate victory of Daniel's people - Daniel 12:1-3- Final instructions and answers given to Daniel - Daniel 12:4-13 2) What events were to occur "at that time"? (Daniel 12:1-3)- Michael, the great prince who watches over Daniel's people, shall stand up - There shall be time of trouble, unlike any before - Daniel's people (those whose name found written in the book) will be delivered - Many will who sleep in the dust shall awake, some to life and others to shame - The wise and those who turn many to righteousness will shine 3) What suggests that this "time" is not the Last Day or end of time as we know it? (Daniel 12:2)- Only "many" are said to arise, not "all"; thus this text may be figurative (cf. John 5:28-29) 4) What instructions was Daniel given, and why? (Daniel 12:4; Daniel 12:9)- Shut up the words, and seal the book - For the words are closed and sealed until "the time of the end" 5) What questions does Daniel ask of the man clothed in linen? (Daniel 12:6; Daniel 12:8)- "How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?" - "What shall be the end of these things?" 6) What answers are given to Daniel? (Daniel 12:7; Daniel 12:11-12)- "It shall be for a time, times, and half a time" - "From the time the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be 1290 days." - "Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the 1335 days." 7) What words of comfort and assurance are given to Daniel? (Daniel 12:10; Daniel 12:13)- "Many will be purified, made white, and refined...the wise shall understand." - "...you shall rest, and will arise to your inheritance at the end of the days." Daniel 12:1. That is a demonstrative pronoun but does not necessarily refer to any definite time as to exact date. It means that a certain time is referred to and is designated by this pronoun because of the importance of the events to be predicted. The closing events of the preceding chapter bring the date down to a century and a half before Christ. Since those events were directly connected with the bitter experiences of the Jews, it was appropriate to speak of the good things about to be predicted as being for the sake cf thy (Daniel’ s) people. However, there were to be some more hardships imposed upon God’ s people, only they will be His people belonging to all nations and not the Jews alone. Altogether, the things predicted in this chapter will pertain to the greater part of the Christian Dispensation, even including the general resurrection at the last day. No doubt the prophecy in this verse is still remembering the persecutions of the Jews because of Epiphanes’ wicked treatment of them, and that Michael was an instrument in God’ s hands to help them according to Hebrews 1:13-14, But the passage is not restricted to that subject for the vision passes immediately in the next verse to the events of the resurrection day. Daniel 12:2. Beyond any question, this verse predicts the general resurrection since it includes the two classes of mankind, the good and the evil. In John 5:28-29 the Lord Jesus makes the same prediction in virtually the same language. As further evidence that this is a prediction of the general resurrection we have Paul In Acts 24:15 mentioning the general resurrection, and says of it that they (the Jews) themselves also allow, or admit. Yet the Jews could not have known of this doctrine but from the prophecy of Daniel. Many of them does not signify that not all will arise. The word many is defined by Strong as “ abundant,” and the phrase merely means that a vast number of people will have lived and died by the time of the resurrection day. Daniel 12:3. This verse has been perverted to teach that the saved will have stars in their erowns. That theory is wrong from every standpoint, and entirely misses the things pre-dicted. The saved are said to shine as the stars hut that has nothing to do with their possessing any stars in their crown, for there is not even any mention of crowns. Daniel 12:4. Shut up the words, and seal the booh Indicates that the fulfillment of the predictions would be far in the future. Before they are fulfilled knowledge shall be increased. This refers to the general diffusion of the light of truth to be sent out through the kingdom of Christ, and predicted also in Isaiah 11:9. Daniel 12:5. The prophet next sees a vision of things to take place in the Gospel age, or at least things that will be a part of its blessings. The Lord often uses rivers and other streams figuratively to represent His blessings upon the righteous. However, at the present time Daniel is still by the river where he received his last message from heaven. Now there is a person on each side of the river prepared to give some information in the hearing of the prophet. Daniel 12:6. One of the men spoke to the man clothed in linen (Daniel 10:5) and asked how long it would be to the end of these wonders. The answer that will be given Indicates the question pertained to a period in the far- off future that would be similar in principle to that previously predicted to come In the nearer future on the Jews. Daniel 12:7. The answer came in figurative language, that it was to be after a time, times and a half. This is the same symbolic prediction that is made in Daniel 7:25 and means the "dark ages” of 1260 years. The figure is explained at that place which the reader should see. Scatter the power of the holy people refers to the persecutions of Christians by Rome during the dark ages. Daniel 12:8. Daniel saw the men and heard them speak, but he was concerned because he did not understand the answer to the question. Daniel 12:9. The spokesman rather put Daniel off with an indefinite reply for the same reason as expressed in verse 4 where be was told to seal the book because the fulfillment was to be in the long future. Daniel 12:10. While the man or angel would cot go into all the details of the things predicted, yet Daniel was given some further information as to what would happen in the course of the "dark ages." Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried by the per-secutions of the dark ages. None of the wicked shall understand refers to the blindness of the Roman clergy, and the same is predicted by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:11. Daniel 12:11. Daily sacrifices and abom-ination. that maketh desolate are used figuratively or comparatively. The terms are those used of the corruption of the sacrifice by Epiphanes, but they are used to denote the time when the dark ages would start, because at that time the pure worship would be polluted by Rome. The prophet was told it would be 1290 days, while the period of the dark ages was 1260 (years). But it took some time before the work got a good start, so the addition of 30 (years) is allowed in this figurative prophecy. Daniel 12:12. When the work of Luther and his co-laborers got well underway, the clergy of Rome and leaders of the temporal dominions of the State that formed the union known as Babylon the Great, began to see what it was all about and began to persecute the reformers. For some time they were subjected to bitter experiences, comparable with the ones suffered by the Maccabees, and the distress was so great that some yielded and gave up the struggle. There were others, though, who waited and came through until the battle of the Reformation was won, which the passage sets at the end of 1335 days (years), and a blessing is promised to those who endured to that time. Of course the number of years indicated is only approximate, but it gives the general idea of the great epoch. Daniel 12:13. The vision is ended and Daniel is dismissed to go on his way. He has faithfully and patiently given attention to the address of man or angel. Thou shalt rest is a blessing pronounced upon him in view of his righteous life. He has been an exile from the land of his fathers since the beginning of the great captivity and it is now the third year since that period ended. Stand in thy lot. The first word means to be established and the last means fortune or destiny. The promise means that when the last great day cornea fend of the days), Daniel will be among those who will be able to join with the faithful of all ages in sharing the blessings of Him whose faithful servant lie lias been while living on the earth.