Daniel 1:1,2

HOMILETICS

SECT. I.—THE CAPTIVITY (Daniel 1:1)

This remarkable book opens with the scene or Israel’s deepest degradation and misery. Threatened judgments had at length come. Warnings had been addressed in vain. Divine expostulations had been unheeded. The kingdom of Judah, like that of Israel, had forsaken its God and King, and must now, like it, be forsaken by Him. Idolatry and wickedness can no longer be tolerated in the chosen people. Manasseh’s sin in filling Jerusalem with innocent blood had, on his repentance, been mercifully forgiven as regarded himself, but not as regarded his children and subjects, who still continued impenitent. The blow began to fall on Jehoiakim and the people of his reign (2 Kings 24:1). It was, as the text states, “in the third year of his reign” [1], after he had been some time tributary to Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, that Nebuchadnezzar [2], king of Babylon, “came up,” or rather “set out,” as in Jonah 1:3, on his expedition against Jerusalem, as the chosen instrument of Jehovah’s vengeance. The blow, however, even then did not immediately descend. It was the next or fourth year of Jehoiakim’s reign before Nebuchadnezzar, who first encountered the king of Egypt at Carchemish on the Euphrates, arrived at Jerusalem (Jeremiah 46:2). Divine forbearance was still exercised. Jerusalem was taken, and Jehoiakim was “bound in fetters” to be carried away to Babylon, but was again released and allowed still to reign as a tributary prince. Many captives [3], some of them of noble and even of royal birth, were taken to Babylon, here called by its ancient name, “Shinar” [4], as well as a portion of the sacred “vessels of the Temple,” which Nebuchadnezzar placed “in the house of his god” [5] as the trophies of his conquests and the expression of his gratitude to Bel. The king, however, still remained impenitent. To all his other sins he added that which apparently sealed his doom. The book or roll, containing a divine message, which Jeremiah shortly afterwards sent by Baruch to be read in the Temple-court to the people (Jeremiah 36:1), he defiantly cut in pieces with a penknife, and threw the fragments in the fire. Some six years afterwards, after vain attempts to free himself from the yoke of Babylon, bands of Chaldeans and others were sent against him by Nebuchadnezzar. The threatened punishment then fell on the infatuated monarch. He was put to death in his capital, and, according to the word of the prophet, his dead body was ignominiously cast outside the gates of the city, and “buried with the burial of an ass” (2 Kings 24:7; Jeremiah 22:18) [6]. Observe—

[1] “In the third year,” &c. No contradiction between this and Jeremiah 46:2, which says that Nebuchadnezzar smote the army of Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Hengstenberg and Keil both prefer to render the word בָּא (ba), not “came,” but “set out or marched,” the word, as the latter observes, being frequently used of military expeditions. Objectors to the genuineness of the book have put this down among Daniel’s alleged historical errors. According to Jeremiah 25:1, say they, Nebuchadnezzar did not mount the throne of Babylon till the fourth year of the reign of Jehoiakim; and according to Jeremiah 46:1, the conquest of the Egyptians at Carchemish did not occur till the same year; and the subjugation of Jerusalem could only take place as a consequence of that conquest. Hence, it is said, the deportation here spoken of, if it really took place, could only do so in Nebuchadnezzar’s expedition to Lower Asia in the seventh year of his reign, and the eleventh of Jehoiakim’s. Hengstenberg and others have met this objection by stating that Berosus, in his Chaldean history, informs us that Nebuchadnezzar the father, also called Nabopolassar, on hearing that the governor whom he had appointed in Syria and Phœnicia had revolted to the Egyptians, being too weak to go himself, sent his son Nebuchadnezzar with an army, who defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish, and brought Syria and Phœnicia again under the Babylonian dominion, the campaign being brought to a close by the tidings of Nabopolassar’s death. The beginning of this expedition must fall, at least, in the end of the third year of Jehoiakim. Nebuchadnezzar soon succeeded in taking Carchemish, and marched into Judæa, whose king, Jehoiakim, was an ally and tributary of the king of Egypt, towards the close of his fourth year. It is thus historically certain that before the invasion in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim, Judæa was once conquered by the Babylonians. Indeed history tells of no other expedition of Nebuchadnezzar than that before us, the rest of his life, according to Berosus, being taken up with fortifying and embellishing the city, and in other internal arrangements. As to the title of “king” here given to Nebuchadnezzar, the same historian relates that Nabopolassar, being aged and infirm, conferred on his son, Nebuchadnezzar, who had attained the age of manhood, some share of the government. In reference to Jeremiah 25:1, Hengstenberg thinks that it is the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s coregency, and not that of his sole reign, that is likely to be intended; while in Daniel 2:1, on the contrary, it is the second year of his sole monarchy, this reckoning being as natural to an author living in Babylon as the other would be to one living in Judæa.

[2] “Nebuchadnezzar.” According to the canon of Ptolemy, the son of Nabopolassar, whom some call the elder Nebuchadnezzar. According to Josephus, the father reigned twenty-three years, and the son forty-three. Ptolemy states that it was in the nineteenth year of Nabopolassar’s reign that the Babylonish captivity began. His son, to distinguish him from the father, is sometimes called Nebuchadnezzar the Great. Keil observes that as Nabopolassar came into no contact at all with Judæa, the Jews knew scarcely anything of his reign and death; and the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s appearance at Jerusalem would be regarded in a general way, both by Jeremiah and his contemporaries, as the first year of his reign; and the commander of the Chaldean army would be viewed as the king of Babylon, no matter whether on account of his being co-regent with his aged and infirm father, or merely as he was clothed with royal power as the chief commander of the army. In this sense Keil thinks Daniel now names him king, who was only afterwards such, and not yet in actual possession of the throne.

[3] Berosus relates that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of the death of his father, he set in order the affairs of Egypt and the neighbouring countries, and having commissioned some of his friends to transport to Babylon the prisoners of the Jews, Syrians, Phœnicians, and the nations in Egypt, together with the heaviest part of the army, himself with a few attendants went across the desert to Babylon. Mr. Bosanquet thinks that the year in the text could not be the third of Jehoiakim’s reign, as, among other reasons, the author of the last chapter of Jeremiah, when enumerating the several occasions when captives were carried off in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, makes no mention of this in the third year of Jehoiakim, nor of any before the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Jehoiakim fell into this king’s hands and ceased to reign (Jeremiah 36:28); also, as the author of Second Chronicles, writing after the seventy years of captivity were ended, makes no reference either to this supposed important siege, or to this commencement of the captivity, simply relating that Jehoiakim reigned eleven years in Jerusalem, and that “against him came up Nebuchadnezzar,” &c. (2 Chronicles 36:6); finally, as Ezekiel appears to know of no other commencement of the captivity at Babylon than that which began in that eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. He quotes the Rabbinical book Seder Olam Rabba as stating that Daniel is to be understood as speaking of the third year after the rebellion of Jehoiakim, and, speaking in reference to the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, says that Scripture reckons the years from the destruction of the Temple. He refers also to Josephus, who reckons that Daniel was carried to Babylon as late as the time of Zedekiah, and to Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and others, who considered that it took place at the time when Jehoiachin or Jechoniah was taken prisoner to Babylon. He thinks the “desolations of Jerusalem” (Daniel 9:2) are clearly marked in 2 Chronicles 36:19 as beginning with the burning of Jerusalem.

[4] “Shinar.” The name of the country indigenous to Babylonia itself, of which we find traces not only in classical writers, but in modern travellers. Bertholdt is led by it, according to his hypothesis of a plurality of authors, to maintain the composition of this first chapter in an earlier age and in Babylonia. The name found in historical prose only in the Book of Genesis. In later times it became quite antiquated among the Hebrews. Occurs again only in prophetic poetry,—twice in Isaiah and Zechariah. Here, however, it is found in simple prose, as the common geographical appellation of Babylonia. Assuming Daniel to be the author of the book, this is easily explained.—Hengstenberg. Dr. Rule observes that Babylonia is named Shinar in the cuneiform inscriptions.

[5] “His god.” This was Bel, the tutelar god of the city of Babylon. According to Gesenius, the planet Jupiter intended by the idol. The name identical with Baal or Beel, denoting lord, possessor, or husband, corresponding to the sun or generative power in nature. Baal or Bel worshipped by the Carthaginians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and others. Supposed by some to be the same with Moloch, to whom the Ammonites made their cruel and bloody sacrifices, and to whom Israel was seduced to offer their children, causing them to pass “through the fire.” Bel’s worship prevailed through all ancient Scandinavia, and is supposed to have been general throughout the British Islands. To this day there are various superstitious observances in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales very closely resembling the ancient worship of Bel. A town in Perthshire is called Tilliebeltane, that is, the Hill of the Fire of Bel. In Ireland, Beltein, denoting the Fire of Bel, is one of the festival days, on which fires are made early on the tops of the hills, and all the cattle are made to pass through them, in order, it is said, to be freed from contagion and disease for that year.—Dr. Eadie. Dr. Rule observes that the cuneiform inscriptions show the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s deity to have been Merodach or Bel-Merodach. Berosus says Bel was Jupiter Belus, the son of Saturn, who had a temple there, with the stupendous tower in the midst of it, which, according to Pliny, continued till the reign of Vespasian. Dr. Cox remarks that this treasure-house was probably the edifice to which Herodotus refers, where a large golden statue of Jupiter was erected, and that historians compute the riches of this temple at upwards of twenty millions sterling. It is remarkable, says Hengstenberg, that Berosus, a Chaldean historian, states that with the spoils of this very war he magnificently adorned the temple of Belus and other sacred edifices. Dr. Rule quotes from the Standard Inscription Nebuchadnezzar’s boast of having repaired the temple, which he made his treasury. “I set up long beams to support it: with pillars and beams plated with copper and strengthened with iron: I built up its gates: I stored up inside silver and gold, and precious stones whose names were almost unknown: and placed there the treasure-house of my kingdom.”

[6] Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judæa. The first, in the time of Jehoiakin (606 b.c.), reduced the Theocracy to a tributary of the Babylonian world-power. Daniel was among the captives brought at that very time to Babylon. At the second inroad (598 b.c.), King Jehoiachin and the prophet Ezekiel were led into captivity. In the third (588 b.c.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed at last the Holy City, brought the last Jewish king in fetters to Babylon; and thus the kingdom came to its end. Thus a new stage in the history of the development of the Theocracy begins with the Babylonish captivity, which may be reckoned from the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar; for the independent existence of the Theocracy then terminated—a stage which may be designated as the rule of the powers of the world. This captivity, as well as its termination, was itself a fulfilment of prophecy. Micah (Micah 3:12; Micah 4:10) foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple, as also the return from Babylon. Isaiah (ch. 40–66) announced the deliverance of Israel out of Babylon, and the building up of the ruins of Jerusalem and Judah, with the final glory of Zion, through the creation of new heavens and a new earth; giving the very name of the Persian monarch through whom the return should be effected. Jeremiah (ch. Jeremiah 25:29) proclaimed the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar, but predicted the very period of its continuance (seventy years), after which Judah and Israel should return to the land of their fathers. The captivity of Babylon, however, was to succeeded in the space of 600 years by another and a much longer one—a captivity which still continues, called by the Jews the Great Captivity, commencing with the destruction of their city and Temple by the Romans. The reason of this second one acknowledged by the Jews themselves to be their national guilt. This time, however, that guilt consisted not in idolatry according to the ordinary meaning of the word—idolatry in its gross form, but the rejection of their promised King and Saviour, which was also rejection of their God who sent Him. “Not this man,” they cried out, “but Barabbas:” “We have no king but Cæsar;” as before they said, “Not Jehovah, but the gods of the heathen” (Jeremiah 44:17). Even still, however, the Lord has not cast off His people whom He foreknew. Israel shall yet look on Him whom they pierced, and mourn because of Him. All Israel shall yet be saved, and the receiving of them be life from the dead to the world, at large.—Auberlen.

1. The certain fulfilment of divine threatenings. God’s word, whether of mercy or judgment, will not return to Him void. “Hath He spoken it, and will He not do it?” The promise and the threatening sure, sooner or later, to be fulfilled, unless prevented in the one case by unbelief, or in the other by repentance. Jehoiakim may cut the hated roll in pieces and cast it into the fire, but the threatened judgment is only brought so much nearer its fulfilment. The burned Bible only adds fuel to the fire.

2. The consequence of unrepented sin. Divine wrath against impenitence slow but sure. Justice travels with leaden feet, leaving time for repentance. Mercy rejoices over judgment; but, mercy despised, judgment strikes the blow. “Though sentence against an evil work be not executed speedily,” yet the judgment of the impenitent “lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” The sun rose on Sodom gladsome and joyous as usual, but set on it a heap of ashes. The path of disobedience, whatever it may promise of pleasure or of profit, is found, sooner or later, to be planted with thorns. In continuing to do what is forbidden or to neglect what is commanded, whether to avoid a difficulty or to gain an end, we one day discover that we have but “sown the wind and reaped the whirlwind.”

3. The terrible effects of the divine displeasure. The desolated land, the sacked city, and the burned Temple of the Jews only additional illustrations. “The wrath of a king is as the roaring of a lion.” What then the wrath of a God who is holy, righteous, and omnipotent? Slow in coming, fearful when it falls. “Who can stand when once Thou art angry?” “A fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” To hide one from the wrath of the rejected Lamb, rocks and mountains will be appealed to in vain. Men’s highest wisdom and interest to prepare for the Diet Iræ, “the great day of His wrath,” before it come. “If once His anger be kindled but a little, blessed are all they that put their trust in Him.” The “blood shed for the remission of sins” the only refuge in that day; the only refuge now.

4. The awful evil of sin. It was sin that brought destruction upon Jerusalem and its king. “An evil thing and a bitter” to forsake the living God and to trample upon His laws. Only “fools make a mock at sin.” Sin the abominable thing that God hates. Kindles a fire in His anger that “burns to the lowest hell” (Deuteronomy 32:22). “Brought death into the world and all our woe.” Banished man from Paradise and buried the world in a deluge of water. Covers the earth at present with every form of sorrow and suffering, and will one day overwhelm it in a deluge of fire. Makes men and women partakers of the devil’s character now, and of his condemnation hereafter.

5. The reality of God’s government of the world. Nations and kings raised up or overthrown at His will. His to plant and to pluck up, to build and to throw down. The hearts of rulers in His hand to turn them whithersoever He will. The Lord “gave” Jehoiakim into Nebuchadnezzar’s hand. The king of Babylon but Jehovah’s executioner, “the axe in the hand of him that heweth therewith.” “Against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge: howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so” (Isaiah 10:6; Isaiah 10:15). Attila, taught by the light of nature, called himself the Scourge of God. Who did not recognise the same in the first Napoleon? God Himself the author of the calamities that befall a sinful people, whoever or whatever the instrument. “Is there evil in a city and the Lord hath not done it?” “I make peace and create evil” (Amos 3:6; Isaiah 45:7). An all-controlling and superintending agency where man sees only the operation of human passions. A great truth uttered by England’s favourite author, “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough hew them as we will.”

6. Desecration of sacred things often a divine chastisement. The only calamity here recorded in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem, the removal of the sacred vessels of the Temple to Babylon, to be placed among the treasures of Bel, the abomination of Chaldean idolatry. The acme of Israel’s distress in the days of Eli that the Ark was seized and carried off by the Philistines. Fallen Churches in the East chastised when their sanctuaries were seized by the Saracens, and appropriated to a religion that robbed the Saviour of His divinity and placed Mahomet above Him as a prophet. The Church that shed the blood of the Huguenots like water saw its communion vessels seized and melted down to be coined into money for the payment of revolutionary armies, its bells converted into cannon, and the ancient cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris desecrated by the worship of the Goddess of Reason in the person of a prostitute. Such desecration often the chastisement of abused privileges and rejected truth. The warning addressed to Oriental Churches still applicable to those of the West, “Repent, or else I will come to thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent” (Revelation 2:5). Matthew Henry remarks: “See the righteousness of God; His people had brought the images of other gods into His Temple, and now He suffers the vessels of the Temple to be carried into the treasuries of those other gods. When men profane the vessels of the sanctuary with their sins, it is just with God to profane them by His judgments.”

7. The externals of religion no defence to a sinful, hypocritical nation. The Ark of God carried into the battle unable to save backslidden Israel from the hands of the Philistines. Christian sanctuaries unable to protect those who had already perverted the religion of Christ to one of formality, worldliness, and superstition. Hypocrisy and sin only make a Church or people a carcase where the eagles of divine vengeance will be gathered together. “Take away her battlements, for they are not the Lord’s.” “Israel fondly trusted to the Temple to defend them, though they went on in their iniquity; and now, to show them the vanity of that confidence, the Temple is first plundered.”—Henry.

8. Nebuchadnezzar, even in his profanity, an example of the recognition of, and gratitude to, a Supreme Being for favours received and success obtained. The vessels of the Temple placed in the house of his god rather than in his own, in recognition of the aid by which, as he supposed, those trophies were won. Belief in and recognition of a Supreme Being, among the first and plainest teachings of nature. The heathen, who knew not the true God, accustomed to impute their success to the favour of the deities they acknowledged (Habakkuk 1:11). After the plague in Athens, B.C. 434, the Athenians dedicated a statue to Apollo as the Averter of evil. After the battle of Salamis, the Greeks dedicated the throne of Xerxes as a thankoffering to Minerva. The Parthenon itself, where it was kept, was built in gratitude to the same imaginary deity, by whose assistance they believed their heroes had fought and conquered. The small community of the village of Phigaleia in Arcadia erected the beautiful Temple of Bassæ in gratitude to Apollo for deliverance from a pestilence. Pythagoras sacrificed an ox to the Muses on a new discovery made in geometry. The sin was, that in the blindness and depravity of the natural heart, the heathen substituted false gods for the true one. But may not the gratitude of the heathen to their false deities condemn many a professed worshipper of the true God?