Foreword:
The Book of Daniel forms part of the “Writings” in the Hebrew Bible, but is grouped under the “Prophets” in our Bible. The name of Daniel means “God is (my) Judge”. He was a young nobleman of Judah taken to Babylon in the first deportation (605 B.C.). The book covers the historical period of the Babylonian Empire till the first years of the Persian era. Daniel most likely lived to his eighties. The book’s significance goes beyond this historical period within which the sovereignty of God is demonstrated, as it contains prophecies that were fulfilled in the time (and in the person) of Jesus Christ and those that will pertain to the End-time. It is the amazing accuracy of the prophecies which covered the next few hundred years after Daniel that has caused many modern scholars to date the book to the 2nd century B.C. However, in spite of confessing their disbelief in predictive prophecies, they formulate arguments based on the extensive use of Aramaic (2:4b – 7:28), the supposed used of Greek terms (for musical instruments) and other so-called evidence to conclude that the book of Daniel could not have been composed by Daniel, and certainly not during the sixth century B.C. Allow me simply to quote from Goldingay who, in my opinion, gives a fair-minded view on this issue as follows:
“The Aramaic of the book…is a form of Imperial Aramaic, the international language of the Middle East through much of OT times…It contains a fair number of Akkadian and Persian words and in chapter 3, three Greek ones and matches the stories’ setting in the eastern dispersion. It is distinguishable from the later Aramaic of Qumran but might be dated anywhere between the late sixth and early second centuries, B.C., though the spelling may have been updated later in the light of the ongoing development of the living language…The Greek words hardly necessitate a very late date, given the spread of Greek culture in the East, even in the Palestine.”
(Word Biblical Commentary, Goldingay, xxv)
The reading of the book of Daniel is key to the understanding of the book of Revelation. As one source puts it, “Material from every chapter of Daniel is either quoted or alluded to in Revelation” (The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible), and it provides a link to the gospel account as well — Luke begins his gospel account with the appearance of Gabriel at the time of the evening sacrifice; Mark begins his gospel account with Jesus proclaiming that the rule of God which Daniel promised is at hand; and John expands on the message of resurrection in Daniel 12.
Unlike the study of other books in the Bible, each day in our Devotion Guide we shall cover the entirety of each incident as much as possible, thus covering a larger section each day.
(1) From the perspective of the Jews, like Daniel, what do the events of vv. 1-2 signify to you — the defeat of the nation, the destruction of the temple with even its sacred articles carried off to the temple of Babylonian idols and yourself being exiled?
(2) What could you look forward to as an exile? What could you do for the Lord and for your country?
(3) What might be the purpose of Nebuchadnezzar’s policy of vv. 3-5?
(4) What might Daniel be like in modern-day terms since he met the criteria set out by the king?
(5) The meanings of the new (Babylonian) names given to the four Jewish men probably are:
- Belteshazzar: Bel (i.e. Marduk) will protect
- Shadrach: Command (or inspired) of Aku, the Sumerian moon god;
- Meshach: Belonging to Aku: and
- Abednego: Servant of Nego (likely corruption of the word, Nebo, a Babylonian god)
What might be the purposes of giving them such new names? Did it work?
(6) Daniel knew that the royal food and wine would have been sacrificed to their gods, but as exiles did they really have a choice? Was he prepared to face the consequence of such a daring request?
(7) Was the amazing outcome a result of a vegetarian diet or a miracle from God?
(8) What lesson can you learn from Daniel and his friends in this respect?
(9) What role were Daniel and his friends being trained for? As God-fearing Jews, what kind of an environment were Daniel and his friends being put into by God? What particular challenges would they face?
(10) Can you recall from your study of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, when was the first year of King Cyrus? How long a period of time had Daniel remained there (“there” likely means in Babylon)?
(11) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine...” (Dan. 1:8)
From the time of children’s Sunday School, the book of Daniel has been one of the most intriguing books in the Bible to me — the stories of Daniel in the lions’ den and the golden statue of Nebuchadnezzar left a deep impression in my mind. But since I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior at the end of my high school years, it has been its spiritual lessons that continue to draw me to this book, especially the lives of Daniel and his three friends whose lives, to me, define what true faith in God is.
I have no idea how young Daniel and his three friends were when they were chosen to be trained in the language and literature of the Babylonians in order that they might enter into the king’s service. But to be offered such an opportunity was like being recruited into Harvard — a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, not to mention that the alternative would be to remain as exiles in a foreign land, living under oppression.
However, Daniel and his friends did not allow such an opportunity of promotion and affirmation of their smartness to get to their heads. They knew who they were — part of a people that had sinned against their Lord and were receiving the just punishment of God in being exiles in a foreign land. Their hearts were with their homeland, and their spirits remained steadfastly devoted to their God. Their present demise only served to heighten their sense of loyalty and repentance to Yahweh. This was fully played out in their refusal to be defiled by the royal food and wine.
It is not hard to understand that, given the pagan practices of the time in Mesopotamia, the royal food and wine would be involved in the sacrificial rites of the gods of the Babylonians, and the consumption of such would amount to participation at the sacrifices of these pagans. But to refuse to consume the food and wine as provided by the king would amount to more than political suicide. Given the ruthless nature of Nebuchadnezzar, they could be executed for their defiance:
- Should they not just go with the flow? God should understand that as exiles they really did not have a choice?
- They could first establish their credibility before the king and then gradually refrain from eating or drinking the royal meal;
- Such alienation would hurt their cause, if they wished to influence their peers to know the truthfulness of their religion!
As it turned out, their commitment to honor God and not to defile themselves paid dividends. God indeed honors those who honor Him, just as He promises in 1 Samuel 2:30.
(1) The king’s demand seemed absurd at first sight. However, if the interpretation was to be true, it had to have come from a divine source. Was his request to prove the divinity of the source too unreasonable? Why or why not?
(2) What might be the possible reason that Daniel and his friends were not summoned before the king at all for such an important occasion?
(3) Why would the king grant Daniel time?
(4) What did Daniel and his friends do during the time granted by the king?
(5) Judging from his praise to God in vv. 20-23, do you think Daniel expected God to reveal the king’s dream to him? Why or why not?
(6) Reflect on his praise further and see what Daniel has learned about God through
a. His answer to his prayer;
b. The contents of the dream revealed to him.
(7) Before giving his answer, why did Daniel seize the chance to give credit to God and deflect any glory to himself?
(8) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation and that you may understand what went through your mind.” (Dan. 2:30)
Christianity stands out as a “Revealed Religion” to distinguish it from other religions or religious systems which claim no origin outside the created order; such may be described as “man-made”. As a result, allow me to quote from Gatiss:
“Christian theology claims not to be the accumulation of ancient wisdom — mankind's best thoughts on the topics of the day, nor is it ‘an exercise in religious self-expression’…To claim Christianity is a revealed religion is to set it apart from the Aristotelian idea of an inactive God, discovered through argumentation. Usually, it also refers to an active deity involved in a purposeful act of revealing, rather than a passive God who allows himself/itself to be revealed. Integral to the Christian claim is that God himself is both the agent and the object of revelation.” (Lee Gatiss, Is Christianity a Revealed Religion)
This was exactly the point Daniel tried to make as he was about to tell Nebuchadnezzar not only the interpretation of his dream, but the content of his dream as well.
“As for me, this mystery has been revealed to me, not because I have greater wisdom than other living men, but so that you, O king, may know the interpretation that went through your mind.” (Dan. 2:30)
As wise and well educated as he was, he maintained that such knowledge about God and God’s plan cannot come from human wisdom. It is absolutely the prerogative of God to reveal or not to reveal. I believe that as much as Daniel and his three friends believed that God would reveal the dream and its interpretation to them or one of them, they knew it was ultimately God’s prerogative.
In the same vein, our Lord rebukes
those who think that by human wisdom they can know the mystery of God,
“I praise you Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and revealed them to little children. “ (Matt. 11:25)
Indeed, God has chosen to reveal to Daniel not because he is wise, but because he, like a child, acknowledges his utter ignorance before God and expresses his total dependency on God.
As a devotional study, we will not concern ourselves with all the debates regarding the identification of the world powers depicted by the statue, but the dream obviously portrays human kingdoms and contrasts them to the Kingdom of Heaven that will finally come and destroy all human dominions.
Irrespective of variations in our application of the dream to history, the following are worth noting:
(1) “The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and glory; in your hands He has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air.” (2:37-38)
a. Does this statement apply only to the Golden Head, Nebuchadnezzar?
b. What is the responsibility given by God to each of the world powers?
(2) What might the decrease in the value or preciousness of the metal in the successive powers indicate?
(3) List the features of the rock, the manner it crushes the statue and the kingdom it will become. What does it reveal about Christ, His coming and the “End-time”?
(4) What did Daniel emphasize in the conclusion of his interpretation in v. 45? (Also look up Rev. 22:6.)
(5) How did the king respond to Daniel’s interpretation and why?
(6) What did he learn about the God of Daniel?
(7) What was God’s purpose in giving Nebuchadnezzar such a dream? Does it necessarily mean that Nebuchadnezzar believed in the God of Daniel? Why or why not?
(8) With Daniel being exalted to such a high position within such a world power:
a. What might it mean to his people in exile?
b. What might be the message to them?
c. What might be the message to us today?
(9) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
Note: To many conservative scholars, Daniel’s interpretation, without being hard-pressed, does reflect the actual course of history following the Babylonian dynasty:
a. The Golden Head, as Daniel explains is that of Babylon.
b. The Silver chest and arms — likely Medo-Persia
c. The Bronze belly and thigh — likely Greece
d. The Iron legs — likely Rome with its Eastern and Western Empires
e. The mixed iron and clay feet and toes: This is the less certain part which could depict the diversified rulers and dynasties that governed the Roman Empire or the various world powers that would eventually terminate at the complete rule by Christ.
“Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell prostrate before Daniel and paid him honor and ordered that an offering and incense be presented to him.” (Dan. 2:46)
The king’s reaction to Daniel’s revelation of his dream and its meaning is not totally unexpected, because it had to be divine revelation. Even the astrologers admitted to the king that “No one can reveal it to the king except the gods…” (2:11) and Daniel further made plain who this God is, the God in heaven (2:28).
But I suspect Nebuchadnezzar was more absorbed by the dream and its interpretation in that he was the golden head of the statue. He was the king of kings who had been given “dominion and power and might and glory”, and in whose hand had been placed “mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air” (2:37-38).
As much as he humbled himself before Daniel and acknowledged his God as the God of gods and the Lord of kings, he did not necessarily submit to Him. The fact that he went on to make an image for all to worship (in chapter 3), whether an image of one of his gods or himself, clearly indicated that he had maintained the worship of his gods and continued with his ruthless rule.
One wonders why he would not worship Yahweh alone after such an extraordinary act of God in giving him the dream and enabling Daniel, and Daniel only, to reveal its meaning to him.
I believe it might have something to do with his system of belief or more accurately, the system of pagan belief. In the pagan belief systems of his time, the gods are deities who do not necessarily care about the affairs of humankind; even if they do, they do not take too active a part in it. While they might punish and reward people based on their deeds, they can be swayed by their allegiance, most notably by their building of great temples and their offering of lavish sacrifices. The way Nebuchadnezzar treated Daniel was his way of expressing his utmost respect for his God. However, it does not necessarily translate into any ethical behavioral change, nor a rejection of all other gods, since He is “the God of all gods” (2:47).
Furthermore, apart from ethnic pride, it was not easy for Nebuchadnezzar to get rid of his “tribal” concepts, and thus he saw Yahweh still as the God of Daniel, for he referred to Him before Daniel as “your God” (2:47).
This reminds me of the mistake I made in not taking into consideration any pagan belief system as I led someone with traditional ancestral worship background to Christ. Once she was converted to Christ, she prayed to the Lord Jesus instead of her other gods, except that she prayed to Jesus by burning incense. Based on her pagan belief, that was the only way she knew how to pray all her life before her conversion. Once we found out, we quickly taught her the proper way to pray, and that is in spirit and in truth.
(1) Now Nebuchadnezzar built an enormous statue of gold:
a. So, what impact might the dream in chapter 2 and its interpretation have had on the king?
b. Did it help that the king had humbled himself and submitted to the “God of gods” (2:46-47)?
c. The Bible does not say in whose image this statue was made. Do you think it was made in the image of one of the Babylonian gods, or in the image of Nebuchadnezzar? Why?
(2) The building of such a huge statue obviously took a long time. The three friends of Daniel would also have had ample time to consider what to do at the dedication ceremony, which they were obliged to attend, due to their positions.
a. What might they have done to prepare for this occasion?
b. What are the pros and cons that they might have considered?
c. What was the basis of their final decision?
(3) What official positions did the three friends of Daniel hold at the time and who were the people who came forward to denounce them? What might be their motive?
(4) Although the king was filled with rage, did he simply go ahead and have the three friends thrown into the fire?
(5) Why did the king make such an exception and give them a second chance? Did he have any choice?
(6) Although he was giving them a second chance, how did he end his warning? Did he mean what he said? Why or why not?
(7) The reply of the three friends’ was one that defines what true biblical faith is:
a. Did they believe in the power of God to rescue them from the fiery furnace?
b. Did they believe that God would rescue them from the fiery furnace?
c. What if God, in His sovereign will, chose not to rescue them? Would they renounce their faith in God? Why not?
d. How did their decision define what true biblical faith is?
(8) What about your faith in God? — Is yours one that depends on whether or not God will answer your prayer, especially in rescuing you or your loved one from death?
(9) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“But even if He does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Dan. 3:18)
Death, whether it is our own or that of one of our loved ones, often is the ultimate test of our faith in God.
I have come across many Christians who faced death in such a calm manner that reflected their true faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ and their submission to His will. It is not that they would not miss their loved ones and feel sorrowful for the sadness that they would cause their loved ones, but the assurance of eternal life and the forgiveness of their sins gave them peace that transcended such sorrows.
However, I have also met many Christians who faced death with not only sadness, but fear. Not that they did not have faith in God, nor did they doubt their eternal destiny, but they departed without demonstrating much difference from any unbeliever.
The saddest situation that I have come across involved believers who turned away from their faith in God because God would not heal their loved one, one who had truly been born again in Christ, and He allowed that one to die. While I do not wish to be harsh on them, it does invite the question whether their belief in the Lord Jesus is based on whether their prayers are answered or not — this is typical of the religions of the pagan.
I have had the blessing of having walked alongside a few Christians who, in spite of what was perceived as the untimely death of their loved ones — children or spouses c were able to give thanks to God, even under these circumstances. This kind of faith resembles the faith of Job and that of the three friends of Daniel. Some theologians call it, “Disinterested Faith”— a faith in God that is not based on “interest”.
Job lost basically most if not all of his possessions. Worse, he lost all of his ten children, and yet in extreme grief and sorrow, he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, may the name of the Lord be praised.” (Job 1:21)
In the same way, the three friends of Daniel were facing the fiery furnace, and yet they refused to bow down to the image set up by Nebuchadnezzar with these words, “But even if He does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Dan. 3:18)
Today, God continues to seek those who would follow the footsteps of Job and of the three friends of Daniel.
What kind of faith do you have?
(1) Can you blame Nebuchadnezzar for changing his attitude toward the three friends? Why or why not?
(2) Why did he order the furnace to be heated seven times hotter than usual? Would not a normal furnace be enough to burn them to death?
(3) Did he really need “the strongest soldiers” to tie them up?
(4) What did the killing of these soldiers by the fire indicate?
(5) The fourth person in the fire looked like “a son of the gods”— what does it mean? Who is this fourth person?
(6) How does this scene depict God’s promise to be with us always in Matthew 28:20?
(7) Does His presence necessarily mean that we will not be harmed, as happened in the case of the three friends of Daniel? Why or why not?
(8) Apart from the fact that they were unharmed, what does the detailed description of their clothes and smell indicate?
(9) How did the king show his reverence and submission to the God of the three friends?
(10) How did the king describe the faith of these three Jews? Does it necessarily mean that he believed in their God? Why or why not?
(11) What lesson can we learn from the three friends about non-conformity to the pressure we face in society?
(12) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
“But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon…who pay no attention to you, O king. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up.” (Dan. 3:12)
Often in a small group discussion, as we talk about the pressure of conformity imposed by the culture, I hear over and over again comments like this, “It is simply not practical to practice the teachings of the Bible in the marketplace all the time.”
When I pressed further for “practical” examples, I received answers like the following:
- If you do not pay under-the-table money, you will not be able to get the contract;
- If you do not play Mahjong (or go to the bar or nightclub) with them, you will be considered an outsider and there will not be any chance of promotion;
- Everybody is doing it; it is really no big deal (they are referring to not reporting certain income or the padding of their expense report).
The truth of the matter is, these are not life and death situations and all amount to whether we are willing to forgo extra income or suffer financial losses ultimately.
The situation faced by the three friends in not bowing to the image set up by the king was a matter of life and death, and of course that involved their whole family, not to mention the loss of their high position and lucrative income. Their special diet exemption back in their days of training, no doubt, would have attracted jealousy from their peers. Their continued practice of their religion which would likely have involved the observance of Sabbath, would have raised the eye-brows of many influential officials in the court. Now, with blatant disobedience to the royal decree to bow at the dedication ceremony of the golden statue, it offered their long-time adversaries the golden opportunity to put them away. Yet, they did not flinch for a second!
How could they maintain such a strong, uncompromising attitude in such a serious matter and at such a critical time? The answer should not be hard to understand as Jesus exhorts us:
“He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.” (Lk. 16:10)
I have not seen anyone who compromised on “small things” being used by God for anything significant for His Kingdom.
(1) What might be the reason that Nebuchadnezzar chose to tell his own story?
(2) Since Daniel had previously told the interpretation of his dream back in chapter two, Nebuchadnezzar knew that the Spirit of God was in Daniel:
a. Why then would he still consult his other magicians, enchanters, astrologers and diviners?
b. Why then did he continue to call Daniel Belteshazzar, after the name of his own god?
(3) What was God’s purpose in inflicting him with this unusual illness? (See note below.)
(4) As Daniel interpreted the dream to the king, what advice did he give to the king?
(5) Did his advice have any impact on the king? Why or why not?
(6) Why is it so hard for the king to humble himself? Is it hard for you too?
(7) What could God have done, instead of inflicting this arrogant king with a likely 7-year period of unusual illness (i.e. the whole tree could have been cut or uprooted, why would God allow the stump to remain)?
(8) The story opens and ends with a poem of praise (v. 3 and vv. 34-35):
a. How did he address God?
b. What was being repeated in both poems? What does this tell us about what he had learned from this particular experience?
c. In the closing poem, can you tell what he did learn about the sovereignty of God?
(9) Did Nebuchadnezzar regret having to go through such a process of humbleness? How can we tell?
(10) Have you been disciplined or humbled by God? Do you cherish or regret such an experience? Why or why not?
(11) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
Note:
“The illness described in Daniel 4:22-34 appears to have been a delusional disorder…Lycanthropy, in which patients imagine themselves to be wolves, is one such disorder.”
(Archaeological Study Bible, 1391)
“Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed…” (Dan. 4:27)
Although it is debatable whether Nebuchadnezzar did eventually get converted to worship Yahweh alone as his God, one thing is more than obvious and that is God has chosen to give him many chances to repent and to know Him.
Nebuchadnezzar might not be aware of it; he was being used by God to discipline His people for their sins of idol worship and for turning away from Him. In other words, his rise to power was not accidental, but part of the eternal plan of God to bring about the salvation for His people. The destruction of the nation of Israel, that was effected through his hands, lasted for some 2,500 years.
And for whatever reason, God saw fit to allow him to know His sovereign will of putting an eventual end to all human dominions through the dream of the huge statue (Dan. 2). In preparation for this revelation, God had posted Daniel and his three friends close to Nebuchadnezzar, so that he would not only understand the dream, but realize beyond a doubt that it came from the God of Heaven. Unfortunately, instead of converting him to worship the One True God of Heaven and to understand his role in His eternal plan, the dream appeared to give him the delusion that as the “golden head”. His power was assured and he, somehow, deserved to be the most powerful ruler ever lived. His building of the golden image (Dan. 3), I believe, was greatly influenced by Daniel’s interpretation of the dream.
But in God’s mercy, his ruthless arrogance brought him face to face with the God of the three defiant friends of Daniel. Once again, he had to humble himself to acknowledge the greatness of this God of Heaven. However, presumably he had not turned away from his other gods, or his wickedness, or his arrogance.
Then, God gave him one more dream to warn him of the discipline he would receive from the hands of God — the illness that would turn him into a wolf-like being. Again, it was Daniel who interpreted the dream for him and gave him a very stern warning, “Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed…” (Dan. 4:27)
It is interesting to note that in the dream, the tree would not be totally cut off, but a stump would remain. Why would God be so gracious to such a ruthless ruler? Why would He give him chance after chance? Would he now listen to the advice of Daniel and repent? The answer is no — he did not change a bit, and 12 months later, the prophecy of Daniel came true.
Personally, I believe that eventually Nebuchadnezzar had learned his lesson, and my belief is not so much based on his words of humility said after he was restored to sanity and power, but on the fact that he acknowledged what God did was just (in punishing him) and that “those who walk in pride, He is able to humble” (Dan. 4:37). My belief is based on the mercy of God. I believe that God’s persistent pursuit of Nebuchadnezzar would not be in vain.
(1) For a king to throw a lavish banquet was not that unusual. What then made this banquet thrown by King Belshazzar so offensive to God?
(2) What does the statement that “As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver…” reflect?
(3) To be frightened by the appearance of the fingers writing on the wall is understandable, but what made it more frightening was the circumstance under which it happened. See if you can imagine the scene preceding the appearance of the fingers, and why the king was so frightened that “his knees knocked together and his legs gave way” (5:6).
(4) Based on how the Queen mother introduced Daniel, and how Belshazzar talked to him, what seemed to have happened to Daniel since the death of Nebuchadnezzar?
(5) By what name did the Queen mother call Daniel?
(6) Why did Daniel respond with rudeness to this king, when before he seemed to be very respectful toward Nebuchadnezzar?
(7) Why did Daniel find it necessary to bring up the incident concerning the illness of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar at this time?
(8) How did this add to his guilt?
(9) Scholars cannot determine the exact meaning of the three words on the wall, except to assume that they were basically nouns that denote measurement. But the best explanation has already been provided by Daniel:
a. Mene (a mina): Daniel explained that it means God has numbered the king’s days, and brought it to an end;
b. Tekel (a shekel): Daniel explained that the king has been weighed on the scales and found wanting;
c. Peres (half): Daniel prophesied that his kingdom is divided to the Medes and Persians.
What does each of these terms mean to you?
(10) What is the main message to you today and how may you apply it to your life?
Note:
“That very night, Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians was slain, and Darius the Mede took over the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.” (Dan. 5:30-31)
These two verses in the book of Daniel (5:30-31) have been a hot topic of debate, speculation and the basis of attacks by those who seek to discredit the credibility of the book based on historicity.
One thing that was held as an obvious error was that for over two thousand years, no extant historical documents outside of the Bible (except the deuterocanonical Book of Baruch which depended on Daniel as its source) mentioned the name of Belshazzar as a king of Babylon, let alone the last king of Babylon.
The next issue was that nowhere, again, in any extra-biblical document, was there any Darius called Darius the Mede.
And finally, Cyrus the Great was the Persian king who overthrew the last of the Babylonian kings, not Darius.
Since, the discovery of the Nabonidus Cylinder by J.G. Taylor in 1854 and the subsequent purchase of the Verse Account of Nabonidus by the British Museum in 1879, the first issue about the existence of Belshazzar had been put to rest.
Both discoveries confirmed that Belshazzar was the son of this last king of Babylon, Nabonidus, who was so interested in archaeology that he designated his son as his co-regent and went on his expedition in Arabia. This fully collaborates with the account of Daniel, especially in explaining why Belshazzar could only offer him the 3rd highest position in the nation.
As some readers have noticed, I often quote from the work of Keil and Delitszch in this Devotional Guide. Although they belonged to a former generation, they produced some of best German commentaries which ignore modern criticism. They view the Old Testament and the New Testament as the “revealed word of God”, and regard the development of German theological science as a passing phase of error.
However, it is interesting to read their more than 11 pages of argument on who Belshazzar might be. Their exhaustive treatment of the accounts of historians like Herodotus and Josephus was very scholarly and fair-minded. However, given the fact that the Nabonidus Cylinder and the Verse Account of Nabonidus had not yet been discovered, they concluded that Belshazzar was most likely the same person as Nabonidus.
While
I admire Keil and Delitzsch’s commitment to view the
Bible as the “revealed word of God’, this particular issue
teaches me two important lessons.
If we truly commit to viewing the Bible as the “revealed word of God",
(1) It is best to follow the advice of an old Rabbinic adage: Confess what we do not know (especially when it comes to the issue of apparent discrepancies between the Bible and secular historical accounts); and(2) It is prudent to judge secular historical accuracies by the biblical accounts and not vice-versa; and to not rush to conclude that scribal errors account for supposed discrepancies.