John Calvin Commentary Daniel 1:6-7

"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 to Azariah, [of] Abed-nego." — Daniel 1:6-7 (ASV)

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—