John Calvin Commentary Daniel 1

These are not two different things, but the Prophet explains and confirms the same sentiments by a change of phrase, and says that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had brought into the land of Shinar were stored in the treasury house. The Hebrews, as we know, generally use the word “house” for any place, as they call the temple God’s “house.” Concerning the land of Shinar, it must be remarked that it was a plain adjacent to Babylon; and the famous temple of Belus, to which the Prophet very probably refers, was erected there.

Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his companions, namely, in the third year of Jehoiakim. A difficult question arises here, since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third year, and then taken the people captive as he pleased?

Some interpreters solve this difficulty with what appears to me a frivolous conjecture: that the four years ought to refer to the beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third year. But in the second chapter, we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second year of his reign.

They also explain this difficulty with another solution. They say that the years are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and that this was the second year from the conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh and forced. The most probable conjecture, it seems to me, is that the Prophet is speaking of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least refers to the reign of the second while his father was still alive.

We know there were two kings of the same name, father and son; and as the son performed many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards encounter concerning Nebuchadnezzar can only be understood as referring to the second, the son.

But Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews, and this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change of affairs and enticed them to throw off the yoke. Nebuchadnezzar the younger was carrying on the war in Egypt at the time of his father’s death and speedily returned home so that no one would supersede him.

When, however, he found all things as he wished, Josephus thinks he postponed that expedition and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing strange; indeed, it is very customary to call him king who shares the command with his father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if anyone prefers it, the father himself came.

For there is nothing out of place, whether we refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem; that is, he besieged Jerusalem by the hand of his son. But if a different explanation is preferred—that he was there himself and carried on the war in person—even if that view is not accepted, the events nevertheless happened in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign.

Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus, indeed, says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never read the Book of Daniel. He was an unlearned man and by no means familiar with the Scriptures; in fact, I think he had never read three verses of Daniel.

It was a dreadful judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and others whom he cites when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this seems to fit well enough, since in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city was taken once, and some of the nobles of the royal line were led away in triumph, among whom were Daniel and his companions.

When Jehoiakim afterwards rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled—that the condition of the prematurely ripe figs was better; for those who were led into exile last thought themselves better off than the rest.

But the Prophet deprives them of their vain boast and shows the former captives to have been better treated than the remnant of the people who still remained safe at home (Jeremiah 24:2, 8).

I assume, then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible to us. For had there been any integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it, as Ezekiel includes him among the three just men by whom God would most probably be appeased (Ezekiel 14:14).

Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues that he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile and lived as a slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests; the Lord did not deprive them of their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption.

If anyone here wishes to determine why Daniel was among the first to be led into captivity, will he not betray his folly? Hence, let us learn to admire God’s judgments, which surpass all our perceptions; and let us also remember the words of Christ:

“If these things are done in the green tree,
what will be done in the dry?” (Luke 23:31)

As I have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, although so ignominiously exiled and brought up among the king’s eunuchs. When this happened to so holy a man, who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how great is God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we deserved?

Which of us will dare to compare himself with Daniel? Indeed, we are unworthy, according to the ancient proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slightest doubt, Daniel, through the circumstances of the time, wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift of God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could not turn him aside from the right course of piety.

When, therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an example of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of God. As to his assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by God’s command, this form of speech removes any stumbling block that might occur to the minds of the pious.

Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been diminished. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people.

Therefore, Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, so that we may not think Jerusalem was taken in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and his posterity.

He also specifically mentions the vessels of the temple. Now, this might seem altogether out of place and would shock the minds of the faithful.

For what does it mean? That God’s temple was despoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had not God testified that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here will I dwell because I have chosen it (Psalms 132:14). If any place in the world were impregnable, surely honor should have remained entire and untainted in the temple of God.

When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this dishearten the holy?

Surely no one was so stout-hearted that this unexpected trial would not oppress him.

Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple? Although he does not dwell in this world and is not enclosed by walls of either wood or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself (Psalms 80:1, Psalms 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16) and often through his Prophets asserted his seat to be between the Cherubim.

What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel recalls us to the judgment of God and by a single word assures us that we should not be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked apostates.

For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis, as the Lord did not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God, therefore, exposed him as prey so that he might punish him for the revolt of his impious people.

Here Daniel pursues his narrative and shows the manner in which he was led away along with his companions. The king had demanded young men to be brought, not from the ordinary multitude, but from the principal nobility, who stood before him, that is, ministered to him. From this, we ascertain why Daniel and his companions were chosen: because they were noble young men and of the royal seed, or at least of parents who surpassed others in rank.

The king did this purposely to show himself a conqueror. He may also have deliberately adopted this plan to retain hostages in his power, for he hoped, as we shall see, that those who were nourished in his palace would become degenerate and hostile to the Jews, and he thought their assistance would prove useful to him.

He also hoped, since they were born of noble stock, that the Jews would be more peaceable and thus avoid any danger to those wretched exiles who were relatives of the kings and nobles.

Regarding the words, he calls this Aspenaz the prince of eunuchs. By this title, he refers to the boys who were raised in the king’s palace to become a kind of school for nobles, for it is hardly possible that this Aspenaz was placed in charge of other leaders. But we gather from this passage that the boys whom the king honored and esteemed were in his custody.

The Hebrews call eunuchs סריסים, serisim, a name that refers to certain prefects; for Potiphar is called by this name even though he had a wife. Thus, this name is used everywhere in Scripture for the satraps of a king (Genesis 37:36; Genesis 40:2, 7).

But since satraps were also chosen from noble boys, they were probably called eunuchs, even though they were not actually made so. Yet Josephus ignorantly declares that these Jewish children were made eunuchs. However, since eunuchs were among the luxuries of Eastern kings, as I have already said, those youths whom the king brought up as a kind of school for nobles, whom he might later place over various provinces, were commonly called by this name.

The king, therefore, commanded some of the children of Israel of the royal seed and of the nobles to be brought to him. Thus, the sentence should be understood: he did not command any of the common people to be brought to him, but rather some of the royal line, to show himself more plainly as their conqueror by doing everything according to his will.

He means those “elders” who were still in chief authority under the king of Judah. And Daniel also was of that tribe, as we shall see later.

The word פרתמים, pharthmim, “princes,” is thought to be derived from Perah, which is the Euphrates. Interpreters understand this to mean prefects, to whom the provinces on the banks of the Euphrates were entrusted. However, this does not fit the present passage, which deals with Jews.

We now see the general meaning of this name, and that all the elders should be included under it. — The rest tomorrow.

Prayer:

Grant, Almighty God, since you set before us so clear a mirror of your wonderful providence and of your judgments on your ancient people, that we may also be surely persuaded that we are under your hand and protection.

Grant that, relying on you, we may hope for your guardianship, whatever may happen, since you never lose sight of our safety, so that we may call upon you with a secure and tranquil mind.

May we so fearlessly await all dangers amid all the changes of this world, that we may stand upon the foundation of your word, which can never fail. Leaning on your promises, may we rest in Christ, to whom you have committed us, and whom you have made the shepherd of all your flock.

Grant that he may be so careful for us as to lead us through this course of warfare, however troublesome and turbulent it may prove, until we arrive at that heavenly rest which he has purchased for us with his own blood. Amen.

In yesterday’s lecture, we saw how the chief official of the eunuchs was commanded to bring some noble youths, the descendants of the king and the nobles. Daniel now describes their qualities, according to Nebuchadnezzar’s order. They were youths, not as young as seven or eight years, but growing up, in whom there was no spot; that is, in whom there was no defect or physical imperfection.

They were also of beautiful aspect, meaning a sincere and open expression. He also adds, skilled in all prudence, and understanding knowledge; and then, expressing their thoughts. I think those interpreters are right who take this participle actively; otherwise, the repetition would be flat and meaningless. Their eloquence seems to me to be indicated here, because there are some who inwardly understand subjects presented to them but cannot express to others what they retain in their minds, for not all have the same skill in accurately expressing what they think. Daniel, therefore, notes both qualifications here: the acquisition of knowledge and the power of communicating it.

And in whom was vigor, for כח, cach, usually signifies fortitude, as in Isaiah (Isaiah 40:9): Those who fear God shall change their fortitude, or renew their vigor. Then in Psalm 22 (Psalms 22:15), my strength or vigor has failed. He adds, the fortitude or vigor of intelligence, knowledge, and eloquence, or a healthy physical condition, which is the same thing.

That they might stand in the king’s palace, and be taught literature (I cannot translate the particle ספר, sepher, otherwise; verbally it is a “letter,” but it means learning or discipline) and the language of the Chaldees. We now see how the king considered not only their rank when he ordered the most excellent of the royal and noble children to be brought to him, but he also chose his future servants for their intelligence. They were of noble birth, as the saying goes, so they were expected to excel in eloquence and show hopeful promise of overall excellence in both body and mind.

Without a doubt, he wished them to be held in high regard so that he might also win over other Jews. Thus, if they later obtained authority, should circumstances allow, they might become rulers in Judea, governing their own people while remaining loyal to the Babylonian empire. This was the king’s design; it gives us no reason to praise his generosity, since it is sufficiently apparent that he considered nothing but his own advantage.

Meanwhile, we observe that learning and the liberal arts were not as despised then as they are in this age, and in those ages immediately preceding it. Barbarism has prevailed so strongly in the world that it is considered almost disgraceful for nobles to be counted among educated and literary men!

The chief boast of the nobility was to be lacking in education—indeed, they gloried in the assertion that they were “no scholars,” in the language of the day. If any of their rank were skilled in literature, they gained their skills for no other purpose than to be made bishops and abbots. Yet, as I have said, they generally despised all literature.

We perceive the age in which Daniel lived was not as barbarous, for the king wished to have these boys, whom he had instructed in this way, among his own princes to promote his own advantage, as we have said. Yet we must note the custom of that age.

As for his requiring so much knowledge and skill, it may seem inappropriate, and more than their young age allowed, that they should be so accomplished in prudence, knowledge, and experience. But we know that kings demand nothing in moderation; when they order anything to be prepared, their demands often reach beyond the clouds.

So Nebuchadnezzar speaks here, and Daniel, who recounts his commands, does so in a royal manner. Since the king commanded all the most accomplished individuals to be brought before him, if they truly manifested any remarkable qualities, we need not be surprised at their knowledge, skill, and prudence. The king simply wished those boys and youths to be brought to him who were ingenious and dangerous, and able to learn quickly, and then those who were naturally eloquent and of a healthy physical constitution.

For it follows directly, that they might learn, or be taught the literature and language of the Chaldees. We perceive that King Nebuchadnezzar did not demand teachers, but boys of noble birth, good talents, and promising abilities. He wished them to be liberally instructed in Chaldean learning; he was unwilling to have youths whose minds were merely polished and cultivated but who lacked natural abilities.

His desire to have them acquainted with the language of Chaldea arose from his wish to separate them gradually from their own nation, to lead them to forget their Jewish origin, and to adopt Chaldean customs, since language is a unique bond of communication.

Regarding their learning, we may ask whether Daniel and his companions were permitted to learn deceptive arts, which we know to be the nature of Chaldean learning.

For they claimed to know everyone’s destiny, just as in these days there are many impostors in the world who are called fortune-tellers. They misused an honorable name when they called themselves mathematicians, as if there were no scientific learning apart from those arts and demonic illusions. And as for the use of the word, the Roman emperors, in their laws, equate Chaldeans and mathematicians, treating them as synonymous.

But the explanation is easy: the Chaldeans not only pursued that astrology which is called “Judicial,” but were also skilled in the true and genuine knowledge of the stars.

The ancients say that the Chaldeans observed the course of the stars, as their region was uniquely suited for this; it is said that no part of the world was so filled with stars, and none possessed such an extensive horizon on all sides.

Since the Chaldeans enjoyed this advantage of having the heavens so fully open to human observation, this may have led to their study and contributed to the more earnest pursuit of astrology. But as human minds are inclined to vain and foolish curiosity, they were not content with legitimate science but fell into foolish and perverse speculations.

For what fortune-tellers predict about anyone’s destiny is merely foolish fanaticism.

Daniel, therefore, might have learned these arts—that is, astrology and other liberal sciences—just as Moses is said to have been instructed in all the sciences of Egypt. We know how the Egyptians were infected with similar corruptions; but it is said of both Moses and our Prophet that they were instructed in the knowledge of the stars and of the other liberal sciences.

Although it is uncertain whether the king commanded them to go far in these studies, yet we must hold that Daniel abstained from the royal food and drink, as we shall soon see, and was not led astray or involved in these satanic deceptions. Whatever the king’s command was, I suppose Daniel was content with the pure and genuine knowledge of natural things.

As far as the king is concerned, as we have already said, he simply considered his own interests, wishing Daniel and his companions to assimilate into a foreign people and be drawn away from their own, as if they had been natives of Chaldea.

In this verse, Daniel shows that the king had ordered some young men to be brought to him from Judea, and to be nourished with such delicacies that they would become intoxicated by them, and thus be made forgetful of their own nation. For we know that wherever there is any cunning in the world, it reigns especially in kings' palaces!

So Nebuchadnezzar, when he perceived that he was dealing with an obstinate people (and we know the Jews to have been of a hard and unsubdued spirit), wished to acquire servants who would be spontaneously obedient, and thus endeavored to soften them with luxuries. This was the reason why he provided for them an allotment of his own meat and drink; as at present it is the greatest honor at princes' tables to be served with a bon-bouche, as they say.

Nebuchadnezzar wished Daniel and his companions, though only captives and exiles, to be brought up not only splendidly but royally, if they were of the royal race. Through his right of conquest, he had drawn them away violently from their country, as we said yesterday. Therefore, he did not act this way from any feeling of liberality, and his feeding those miserable exiles from his own table should not be considered a virtuous action. Instead, as we have said, he cleverly sought to sway the minds of the young men to accept being counted as Chaldeans rather than Jews, and thus to deny their own race.

This, then, was the king's intention. But we shall see how God governed Daniel and his companions by His Spirit, and how they became aware of these snares of the devil and abstained from the royal diet, lest they become polluted by it.

This point will be treated later in its proper place—we are now only commenting on the king's craftiness. He commanded a daily portion of food to be distributed to them, not because a spirit of parsimony dictated this daily portion, but because the king wished their food to be exactly the same as his own and that of his officials.

He adds, that they should be educated for three years; meaning, until they were thoroughly skilled in both the language and knowledge of the Chaldeans. Three years were sufficient for both these objectives, since he had selected young men of sufficient talent to learn with ease both languages and sciences. As they were endowed with such capacity, it is not surprising that the period of three years had been prescribed by the king.

Finally, he says, at the end of them, meaning at the end of the three years. We have shown how this should not be referred to the young men as if the king afterward selected some of them, for we shall see in its proper place that a distinct time was fixed beforehand; therefore, no long refutation is needed.

It is certain, then, that the Prophet speaks of the close of the three years. It had been said just before, that they with stand in the palace; but this should also be understood in relation to the time that has been mentioned. They did not stand before the king immediately but were reserved for this purpose.

Since the king commanded them to be brought up so that he could use their services later, Daniel twice emphasizes that they were splendidly educated. This was because the king wished them to become his servants at table and in other duties.

The Prophet now comes to what properly belongs to his purpose. He did not propose to write a full narrative, but he touched briefly on what was necessary to inform us how God prepared him for the subsequent carrying out of the prophetic office. After he had stated their selection from the royal and noble seed—as excelling in talent, dexterity, and eloquence, as well as in physical vigor—he now adds that he and his companions were among them.

He leaves out the rest because he had nothing to record of them worthy of mention; and, as I have said, the narrative up to this point is only subsidiary. The Prophet’s objective, then, must be noted. He was exiled and educated royally and sumptuously in the palace of King Nebuchadnezzar, so that he might afterwards be one of the prefects, and his companions be elevated to the same rank.

He does not say that he was of the royal house, but only of the tribe of Judah. However, he was probably born of a noble rather than a plebeian family, since kings more commonly selected their prefects from their own relations than from others. Moreover, since the kingdom of Israel was cut off, perhaps through a feeling of modesty, Daniel did not record his family, nor openly assert his origin from a noble and celebrated lineage.

He was content with a single statement: he and his companions were of the tribe of Judah and brought up among the children of the nobility. He says—their names were changed; so that by all means the king might erase from their hearts the remembrance of their own people, and they might forget their own origin.

As far as interpretations are concerned, I think I have said enough to satisfy you, as I am not inclined to be overly curious about names where there is any obscurity, especially with these Chaldean words. As for the Hebrew names, we know Daniel’s name means "the judge" or "judgment of God."

Therefore, whether by the secret prompting of God his parents had given him this name, or whether by common custom, Daniel was called by this name, as God’s judge. The same is true for the others. Hananiah has a clear meaning: "one who has obtained mercy from God." Misael means "required" or "demanded by God." And Azariah means "the help of God," or "one whom God helps."

But these matters have already been better explained to you, so I have only briefly touched on these points, as the change of names itself does not have a profound reason warranting detailed discussion here. It is enough for us that the names were changed to erase the memory of the kingdom of Judah from their hearts.

Some Hebrews also assert these to have been the names of wise men. Whether it was so or not, it was the king’s plan to draw away those young men so that they would have nothing in common with the chosen people, but would degenerate and adopt the customs of the Chaldeans. Daniel could not prevent the prince or master of the eunuchs from changing his name, for it was not in his power to prevent it; the same must be said of his companions.

But they had enough within them to retain the memory of their heritage, which Satan, by this artifice, wished utterly to erase. And yet this was a great trial, because they suffered from this badge of slavery.

Since their names were changed, either the king or his prefect Aspenaz wished to force them under the yoke, as if he intended to constantly confront them with the fact of their slavery each time they heard their names.

We see, then, the intention behind the change of name: namely, to cause these miserable exiles to feel themselves in captivity and cut off from the people of Israel. By this mark or symbol, they were reduced to slavery to the king of Babylon and his palace.

This was, indeed, a hard trial, but it did not matter to the servants of God that they were treated with contempt by men, as long as they were not infected with any corruption. Therefore, we conclude they were divinely governed, as they stood pure and spotless. For Daniel afterwards says—