Book Study Wk 3 7/18: Tested—But True to Jehovah! p.31,pars.16-32

by ithinkisee 7 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  ithinkisee

  Book Study Wk 3 7/18: Tested—But True to Jehovah! p.31,pars.16-32

  Chapter Three Tested—But True to Jehovah!

  THE curtain rises in the prophetic book of Daniel at a time of momentous change on the international scene. Assyria had just suffered the loss of its capital, Nineveh. Egypt had been restricted to a position of minor importance south of the land of Judah. And Babylon was rapidly rising as the major power in the struggle for world domination.

  2 In 625 B.C.E., Egyptian Pharaoh Necho made a last-ditch effort to block Babylonian expansion southward. To that end, he led his army to Carchemish, located on the banks of the upper Euphrates River. The battle of Carchemish, as it came to be called, was a decisive, historic event. The Babylonian army, led by Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar, inflicted a devastating blow on Pharaoh Necho’s forces. (Jeremiah 46:2) Riding on the momentum of his victory, Nebuchadnezzar swept over Syria and Palestine and, for all practical purposes, put an end to Egyptian domination in this region. It was only the death of his father, Nabopolassar, that brought a temporary halt to his campaign.

  3 The next year, Nebuchadnezzar—now enthroned as king of Babylon—once again turned his attention to his military campaigns in Syria and Palestine. It was during this period that he came to Jerusalem for the first time. The Bible reports: “In his days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him.”—2 Kings 24:1.

  NEBUCHADNEZZAR IN JERUSALEM

  4 The expression “for three years” is of special interest to us, for the opening words of Daniel read: “In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.” (Daniel 1:1) In the third year of the complete kingship of Jehoiakim, who reigned from 628 to 618 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar was not yet “the king of Babylon” but was the crown prince. In 620 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute. But after about three years, Jehoiakim revolted. Thus, it was in 618 B.C.E., or during the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim as a vassal of Babylon, that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem a second time, to punish the rebellious Jehoiakim.

  5 The outcome of this siege was that “in time Jehovah gave into his hand Jehoiakim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the true God.” (Daniel 1:2) Jehoiakim probably died, either by assassination or in a revolt, during the early stages of the siege. (Jeremiah 22:18, 19) In 618 B.C.E., his 18-year-old son, Jehoiachin, succeeded him as king. But Jehoiachin’s rule lasted only three months and ten days, and he surrendered in 617 B.C.E.—Compare 2 Kings 24:10-15.

  6 Nebuchadnezzar took as spoils sacred utensils of the temple in Jerusalem and “brought them to the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and the utensils he brought to the treasure-house of his god,” Marduk, or Merodach in Hebrew. (Daniel 1:2; Jeremiah 50:2) A Babylonian inscription was discovered in which Nebuchadnezzar is represented as saying about the temple of Marduk: “I stored up inside silver and gold and precious stones . . . and placed there the treasure house of my kingdom.” We will read about these sacred utensils once again in the days of King Belshazzar.—Daniel 5:1-4.

  THE ELITE OF JERUSALEM’S YOUTH

  7 More than the treasures of Jehovah’s temple were brought to Babylon. Says the account: “Then the king said to Ashpenaz his chief court official to bring some of the sons of Israel and of the royal offspring and of the nobles, children in whom there was no defect at all, but good in appearance and having insight into all wisdom and being acquainted with knowledge, and having discernment of what is known, in whom also there was ability to stand in the palace of the king.”—Daniel 1:3, 4.

  8 Who were chosen? We are told: “There happened to be among them some of the sons of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah.” (Daniel 1:6) This sheds some light on the otherwise obscure background of Daniel and his companions. For example, we note that they were “sons of Judah,” the kingly tribe. Whether they were from the royal line or not, it is reasonable to think that they were at least from families of some importance and influence. Besides being of sound mind and body, they had insight, wisdom, knowledge, and discernment—all when they were at an age young enough to be called “children,” perhaps in their early teens. Daniel and his companions must have been outstanding—the elite—among the youths in Jerusalem.

  9 The account does not tell us who the parents of these young people were. Nonetheless, it seems certain that they were godly individuals who had taken their parental responsibilities seriously. Considering the moral and spiritual decadence prevalent in Jerusalem at the time, especially among ‘the royal offspring and the nobles,’ it is clear that the sterling qualities found in Daniel and his three companions did not come about by accident. Needless to say, it must have been heartbreaking for the parents to see their sons being taken to a distant land. If only they could have known the outcome, how proud they would have been! How important it is for parents to bring their children up “in the discipline and mental-regulating of Jehovah”!—Ephesians 6:4.

  A BATTLE FOR THE MIND

  10 Immediately, a battle for the young minds of these exiles began. To make sure that the Hebrew teenagers would be molded to fit in with the Babylonian system, Nebuchadnezzar decreed that his officials “teach them the writing and the tongue of the Chaldeans.” (Daniel 1:4) This was no ordinary education. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains that it “comprised the study of Sumerian, Akkadian, Aramaic . . . , and other languages, as well as the extensive literature written in them.” “The extensive literature” consisted of history, mathematics, astronomy, and so on. However, “associated religious texts, both omina [omens] and astrology . . . , played a large part.”

  11 So that these Hebrew youths would completely adopt the customs and culture of Babylonian court life, “the king appointed a daily allowance from the delicacies of the king and from his drinking wine, even to nourish them for three years, that at the end of these they might stand before the king.” (Daniel 1:5) Furthermore, “to them the principal court official went assigning names. So he assigned to Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, Shadrach; and to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego.” (Daniel 1:7) In Bible times it was a common practice for a person to be given a new name to mark a significant event in his life. For instance, Jehovah changed the names of Abram and Sarai to Abraham and Sarah. (Genesis 17:5, 15, 16) For a human to change someone’s name is clear evidence of authority or dominance. When Joseph became the food administrator of Egypt, Pharaoh named him Zaphenath-paneah.—Genesis 41:44, 45; compare 2 Kings 23:34; 24:17.

  12 In the case of Daniel and his three Hebrew friends, the name changes were significant. The names their parents had given them were in harmony with the worship of Jehovah. “Daniel” means “My Judge Is God.” The meaning of “Hananiah” is “Jehovah Has Shown Favor.” “Mishael” possibly means “Who Is Like God?” “Azariah” means “Jehovah Has Helped.” No doubt it was their parents’ fervent hope that their sons would grow up under the guidance of Jehovah God to become his faithful and loyal servants.

  13 However, the new names given to the four Hebrews were all closely associated with those of false gods, suggesting that the true God had been subjugated by such deities. What an insidious effort to sabotage the faith of these young people!

  14 Daniel’s name was changed to Belteshazzar, meaning “Protect the Life of the King.” Evidently, this was a shortened form of an invocation to Bel, or Marduk, the principal god of Babylon. Whether Nebuchadnezzar had a hand in choosing this name for Daniel or not, he was proud to acknowledge that it was “according to the name of [his] god.” (Daniel 4:8) Hananiah was renamed Shadrach, which some authorities believe to be a compound name meaning “Command of Aku.” Interestingly, Aku was the name of a Sumerian god. Mishael was renamed Meshach (possibly, Mi·sha·aku), apparently a clever twist of “Who Is Like God?” to “Who Is What Aku Is?” Azariah’s Babylonian name was Abednego, probably meaning “Servant of Nego.” And “Nego” is a variant of “Nebo,” the name of a deity after which a number of Babylonian rulers were also named.

  [Study Questions]

  1, 2. What significant events served as a prelude to the account of Daniel?

  3. What was the outcome of Nebuchadnezzar’s first campaign against Jerusalem?

  4. How is the expression “in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim” at Daniel 1:1 to be understood?

  5. What was the outcome of Nebuchadnezzar’s second campaign against Jerusalem?

  6. What did Nebuchadnezzar do with the sacred utensils of the temple in Jerusalem?

  7, 8. From Daniel 1:3, 4, and 6, what can we deduce about the background of Daniel and his three companions?

  9. Why does it seem certain that Daniel and his three companions had God-fearing parents?

  10. What were the young Hebrews taught, and what was the purpose of this?

  11. What steps were taken to ensure that the Hebrew youths would be assimilated into Babylonian court life?

  12, 13. Why can it be said that changing the names of the young Hebrews was an effort to sabotage their faith?

  14. What do the new names given to Daniel and his three companions mean?
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Thanks for the regular posting
• 

  ButtLight

  umm sorry, thats too long for me to read!
• 

  robhic

  Egypt had been restricted to a position of minor importance south of the land of Judah.

  Say what? I don't have any history books in front of me right now but since when was Egypt ever considered of "minor importance"? Maybe as a personal opinion but in reality I'd have to say "I don't think so!" Egypt was always a key player.

  Why didn't the Isrealites build pyramids, sphinxes, etc.? Too busy wandering the desert like bums and/or pissing off most every other tribe in that part of the world? Oh, give me a break!

  Robert
• 

  Leolaia

  4 The expression “for three years” is of special interest to us, for the opening words of Daniel read: “In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.” (Daniel 1:1) In the third year of the complete kingship of Jehoiakim, who reigned from 628 to 618 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar was not yet “the king of Babylon” but was the crown prince. In 620 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar compelled Jehoiakim to pay tribute. But after about three years, Jehoiakim revolted. Thus, it was in 618 B.C.E., or during the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim as a vassal of Babylon, that King Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem a second time, to punish the rebellious Jehoiakim.

  Of course, this is not what Daniel 1:1 says; it refers to the "third year of the reign of Jehoiakim", not the "third year of his vassalship to Nebuchadnezzer", i.e. his eleventh and last regnal year, 598-597 BC (cf. 2 Kings 24:1). This plain statement is set aside in order to harmonize Daniel with the accounts in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles (which itself depart from each other), under the assumption that no contradiction can exist in Scripture, but this does not change the fact that the formula "the X year of the reign of Y" is otherwise nowhere attested with any other meaning than "the X year of the reign of Y".

  Without assuming a priori that Daniel cannot contradict statements elsewhere in the OT, it becomes apparent that the author has combined the story in 2 Chronicles 36:5-8 (which has an undated reference to Nebuchadnezzer attacking Jerusalem, binding Jehoiakim in fetters, and taking vessels from the Temple to Babylon; cf. 1 Esdras 1:38, which specifically says that Jehoiakim was "led to Babylon") with 2 Kings 24:1-2 (which dates the attack against Jehoiakim, as occurring after three years of servitude to Nebuchadnezzer, but which does not mention a captivity of Jehoiakim and plundering of the Temple -- indeed, Jehoiakim died a peaceful death presumably in Judea, 24:6), hence the captivity of Jehoiakim from 2 Chronicles occurred at the end of a three-year period. Literary dependence on 2 Chronicles in fact is suggested by the almost verbatim wording (Daniel 1:2 = 2 Chronicles 36:7). The author of Daniel thus interprets the Chronicler by assuming that Nebuchadnezzer first "came up" (2 Kings 24:1) when Jehoiakim became king and made him his vassal, and then in his third year (Daniel 1:1) Nebuchadnezzer besieged Jerusalem (in retaliation for Jehoiakim's rebellion). This was done without noting the crucial datum of Jeremiah 25:1, which indicates that Nebuchadnezzer's first year was in Jehoiakim's fourth year, producing a fatal contradiction with Daniel 1:1.

  The Chronicler's reference to a captivity for Jehoiakim, unknown in 2 Kings (cf. Josephus, Antiquities 10.6.3, which claims that Nebuchadnezzer slew Jehoiakim during his attack on Jerusalem, and Jeremiah's prediction in Jeremiah 22:19, 36:30 that Jehoiakim would be killed and cast outside the gates of Jerusalem and be given a donkey's burial), is likely due to a wholesale confusion between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in the Seleucid period. In the LXX, both names are spelled the same as Ióakeim (2 Kings 23:36-24), and many who follow the text including Porphyry, Hippolytus, etc. assume that one king is meant. The two kings are also probably confused in Matthew 1:10 as Iekhonias, who was taken into captivity to Jerusalem and who was designated as the "son of Josiah", i.e. Jehoiakim; this name is the "Jechoniah" of 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 who was the son of Jehoiakim, i.e. Jehoiachin. Even more striking is the Ionakhim of the Jewish historian Eupolemus (who wrote c. 150 BC), a name which seems to combine Iekhonias with Ióakeim, and who seems to lump together the final three kings of Judah:

  "Then Jonachim became king. During his reign, Jeremiah the prophet prophesied. Sent by God, he caught the Jews sacrificing to a golden idol, whose name was Baal. He disclosed to them the coming misfortune. Jonachim attempted to burn him alive, but he said that with this wood, as captives they would prepare food for the Babylonians, and dig the canals of the Tigris and Euphrates. When Nebuchadnezzer the king of the Babylonians heard the predictions of Jeremiah, he exhorted Astibares the king of the Medes to join him in an expedition....He subdued Samaria and Galilee and Scythopolis and the Jews living in Gilead. Then he seized Jerusalem and captured Jonachim the king of the Jews. He took as tribute the gold and silver and bronze in the Temple and sent them to Babylon, except for the ark and the tablets in it. This Jeremiah preserved" (Eupolemus, On the Kings in Judea, cited in Eusebius, PE 39:2-5).

  The confusion between the names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin, as well as the use of Jechoniah as another name for Jehoiachin, led to a confusion between the two kings, so that the LXX spelled Jehoiachin as "Joakim", Eupolemus mixed both Jechoniah and Jehoiakim as "Jonachim", and Matthew referred to Jechoniah (mentioned twice) as the son of Josiah and was taken into captivity with the rest of his brothers. The Chronicler may have thus had two traditions before him, one on the captivity of Jehoiakim and another on the captivity of Jehoiachin (the latter being historical, being mentioned in Jeremiah and Babylonian sources), and dutifully described a captivity for both Jehoiakim (2 Chronicles 36:5) and Jehoiachin (36:10) three months later. Josephus harmonizes this by explaining that Nebuchadnezzer changed his mind in making Jehoiachin king in Jerusalem. This creates no problem in 2 Chronicles, for the attack is undated and thus can occur at the end of Jehoiakim's reign -- especially since a captivity for Jehoiakim would implicitly end his reign.

  In Daniel, however, the attack occurs in the third year of Jehoiakim. Note that if Jehoiakim himself was taken in captivity to Babylon, this would contradict with the statements in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles that Jehoiakim had reigned for eleven years. Thus, it is interesting that instead of giving an explicit statement that Jehoiakim himself was taken to Babylon, Daniel 1:2 merely says that "The Lord gave into his [Nebuchadnezzer's] hand Jehoiakim, king of Judah, and some of the vessels of the temple of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar". This wording is less explicit; Jehoiakim could have been given into Nebuchadnezzer's hand as a vassal, and what was brought into the land of Shinar may have been the vessels from the Temple, not Jehoiakim and the vessels. In fact, the versions of the LXX, Theodotion, and the Vulgate all have the neuter here, strengthening the idea that it is the vessels and not the king that was brought to Shinar and brought into the "temple of his god".
• 

  Leolaia

  This chapter, incidentally, has three words of Persian origin -- and even a Persian title:

  1:3: 'shpnts "majordomo", in the Greek versions this is rendered as a proper name Asphanez. This is borrowed from Persian ashpinja "lodging, innkeeper", siphanj "guest".

  1:5: prtmym "nobles" is from Old Persian fratama "foremost"; cf. Sanskrit prathama. It specifically refers to a class in Persian society. This word is found only in Daniel and in Esther 1:3, 6:9 (similarly late, and concerning a Persian setting).

  1:5, 8, 13, 15, 16; 11:26: ptbg "royal food" is from the Persian patibaga "portion, offering"; cf. Sanskrit prati-bhaga. It was also loaned into Greek as potibazis "meal of barley or wheat cakes and wine", which actually fits the context even better than the original Persian word.

  More Persian words abound elsewhere in the book. These terms are anachronistic if Daniel was really authored in the sixth century BC. Montgomery notes: "As the history of Dan. through cc. 1-5 is enacted under Bab. kings, it is passing strange that so much Pers. vocabulary, actually including Pers. titles, is included...Why should even a royal official, who was a Semite and has enjoyed most of his life and experiences under Bab. monarchs, be so contaminated in the diction of his old age with the vocabulary of the new empire? Indeed his Pers. vocabulary is more extensive than his Babylonian" (p. 21).
• 

  peacefulpete

  wonderful comments about Jehoiakim Leolaia, thanks
• 

  Leolaia

  In addition to the Persian words, the situation described in Daniel 1:5 is generally recognized as having a Persian background and not representing Babylonian customs per se: "The king allotted them a daily allowance from the royal food and wine, to bring them up for three years, after which they would stand before the king". The word for "royal food" (ptbg) is of Persian origin and is used by Dinon (c. 340 BC) to refer food shared by the Persian king: "There is also the potibazis -- of barley and wheaten baked bread -- and a wreath of cypress, and wine mixed in a golden egg from which the king himself drinks" (Dinon, Persica 3; cited in Athenaeus, 11.503). This sharing of the royal food was reported also in Athenaeus, 4.145: "Just as hired soldiers in Greece receive their wages in money, so these men receive food from the king in requital for services". The unparalleled lavishness of the Persian court was described by Greek historians as well as Esther (cf. Esther 1:7: "Wine was served in goblets of gold, each one different from the other, and the royal wine was abundant, in keeping with the king's liberality"). As for the education of the youths for "three years", this was "the normal three years of training according to the Persian system" (Montgomery, p. 122). Thus, Plato (Alkibiades, 1.121) mentions that the higher education of selected youths under the king's official teachers began at age 14, and at age 17 they entered into the king's service (Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1.2.8). The Persian Avesta also reads: "How long a time of a year's length shall a student go to a master of spiritual learning? For a period of three springtides he shall gird himself with the holy education" (Vendidad, 311). According to Plato, this education is in "the Magi lore of Zoroaster". Similarly, by the time the youths were admitted into the king's service (Daniel 1:19), they were fully trained in matters of "dream interpretation and exorcism" (v. 20). No similar three-year period of religious education is known from Babylonian sources. This is another area where the customs of Daniel are closer in touch with the later Persian and Hellenistic period than the Babylonian period in which the story is supposed to have taken place.