(b) Necromancy. The belief of this also prevailed in nearly all ancient nations, and we find frequent reference to it in the Scriptures. This consisted in the belief that the dead must be acquainted with the world where they now dwell, so dark to the living, and that it might be possible to make a covenant or compact with them by which they would be induced to dis close what they knew. It was extensively, if not universally, believed that they re-appeared to men, and that it was not an uncommon occurrence for them to leave their abodes, and to visit the earth again. It was, therefore, not an unnatural, and not an unfair subject of inquiry, whether they would not disclose to the more favoured among mortals what they knew of the secrets of the invisible world, and what they knew of events which were to come. Comp. Notes on Isa, viii. 19.
(c) The arts of divination. These were founded mainly on the investigations of science. It was at first a fair question whether, amidst the wonders which science was unfolding to the view, it might not contribute to lift the veil from the future, and reveal what was yet to come. It took long to ascertain what were the legitimate aims of science, and what might be hoped for from it. Hence it was directed to the inquiry whether some substance might not be found which would transmute all things to gold; whether some elixer might not be discovered which would arrest all disease, and give immortality to man; and whether science would not disclose some means by which the future could be penetrated, and the mysteries of the invisible world be laid open to the view. It required centuries of investigation, a thousand failures, and the results of long and patient thought, to ascertain what were the true objects of science, and to convince the world that it was not its legitimate purpose to reveal the future to man.
(d) Heathen oracles. It was an early inquiry whether God would not, in some way, lift the veil from the future, and disclose its secrets to man. The belief that this would be done seems to be natural to the mind of man; and in all ages, and in all countries, he has supposed that the future would thus be disclosed. Hence, among the heathen, certain persons claimed to be divinely inspired; hence such shrines as that at Delphi became celebrated; hence ambiguous responses were uttered, so expressed as to support the credit of the oracle, whatever might bo the result; hence men were appointed to observe the flights of birds, to inspect the entrails of animals offered in sacrifice, to interpret any unusual phenomena in the clouds, to mark the direction of meteors, and, in general, to examine any unusual appearances in the heavens or the earth, which would seem to furnish any clew by which the future might be known. Much of all this undoubtedly became mere imposture, and justified the remark of Cicero that he wondered that one Augur could meet another without laughing; but there can be no doubt that by many these inquiries were honestly pursued, and that at first all this seemed to be a legitimate subject of inquiry. What forbade man to pursue it? And who could tell but that in some such ways the secrets of the mysterious future could be found out? It demanded long and patient inquiry and observation to show that this could not be so, and that whatever might be indicated by any of these things, it was never designed that they should be the means by which man could be made acquainted with the mysteries of the invisible world.
(e) Dreams. We have seen (Notes, ver. 1) that it was an early article of belief that through the medium of dreams the divine will might be made known, and the secrets of the future disclosed. The theory on this subject seems to have been, that during sleep the ordinary laws of the mind are suspended; that the soul is abstracted from the visible world; that the thoughts which it has then must be originated by higher beings; and that in this state it has converse with an invisible world, and may be permitted to see much of what is yet to occur. Comp. Intro, to Isaiah, g 7, (2).
(f) Visions. Men supposed that these might be representations made to certain favoured persons respecting the future, their senses being closed to surrounding objects, and that while in an ecstacy, or trance, the mind might have a view of future events. Such were the visions of Balaam; such, in a remarkable manner, were the visions of the true prophets; and so deeply was the conviction that this might occur engrafted in the human mind, that the belief of it seems to have had a place among the heathen nations. Comp. Intro, to Isaiah. 17, (4).
ouch were some of the ways by which it was supposed that the future might be penetrated by man, and its secrets disclosed. By allowing man to make trial of these methods, and to pursue them through a period of several thousand years, until he himself saw that they wer« fruitless, God was preparing the race to feel the necessity of direct communications from himself and to welcome the true revelations which he would make respecting things to come.
(2.) We have in the chapter before us (vs. 4-11) an instance of the acknowledged failure of a class of the wisest of men, whose lives were devoted to this employment, in their attempts to disclose the future. This is a fair illustration of all the attempts of the heathen, and it was doubtless permitted in order that it might be seen that all such attempts must fail. The magicians, astrologers, and Chaldeans were foiled in a case which fairly came within the pro vince of their art, and when pretenders to this kind of knowledge ought to have been able to solve the difficulties of the monarch. Regarding this as a fair illustration of all the attempts of the heathen to penetrate the future, and to discover the great truths which it is desirable for man to know, there are three observations which may be made in regard to it: — I. The trial has been a fair one. (a) There was time enough allowed for it. It was about four thou sand years from the creation of man to the time when the canon of Scripture was completed, and promulgated to the whole world, and it could not be said that man required a longer time to test the question whether he needed a revelation. (6) The trial was a fair one, because it was one which men were at liberty to pursue to any extent, and which was conducted under the best advantages. It was confined to no country or favoured class of men. In all lands, and with every advantage of climate, government, and laws, man has been engaged in the great inquiry, and if it be remembered what immense numbers of minds have been employed in these investigations, it cannot be pretended that the utmost desirable freedom has not been allowed to man to test the question whether ' by searching he can find out God,' and disclose the future, (c) The same thing is true in respect to the talent which has been employed in this investigation. It is not too much to say that the highest talent that the world has pro duced has been engaged in these inquiries, and that the rejectors of revelation cannot hope that higher powers can be brought to bear on it, or that the unaided human intellect can hopa to accomplish more in this respect than has been done. The profoundest minds in Egypt and Chaldea were engaged in inquiries of this sort. The very highest talent which Greece pro duced in its best days was employed on questions of religion; in attempts to find out God, to ascertain the relations of man to him, and to determine what man was to be hereafter. What was true, also, of the ancient heathen, and of the modern heathen, that the best talent has been employed on these questions, is true also of the rejectors of revelation in Christian lands. Men of high powers of intellect have refused to acknowledge the Bible as a revelation, and have chosen to fall back on the unaided resources of their own minds. Aided with all that science and learning can do, they have inquired after a system of religion that would commend itself to man as true, and as adapted to his wants; and it cannot be pretended that man in this respect has not had a fair opportunity to show what the human powers can do. (d) The trial has been a fair one in regard to the field of investigation. Astrology, necromancy, abstruse natural science, oracles, dreams, visions, the observation of the course of events — all these have been open before man, and in one and all of them he has been allowed to pursue his investigations at pleasure. II. There has been an entire failure in the attempt. The Chaldeans failed in Babylon, as the magicians had done in Egypt, to explain what was regarded as a prognostic of the future, and in both cases it was necessary to call in the aid of one who had a direct communication from heaven. The same has been the case in all attempts to ex plain the future, and to disclose what man was so desirous of knowing about the invisible world, (a) All reliance on astrology, necromancy, oracles, dreams, and the revelations of tho abstruser sciences, has failed. Astrology has ceased to be a science, and the stars are studied for other purposes than to disclose future events; necromancy has ceased to be a science — for no one now hopes to be able to make a compact with the dead, in virtue of which they will disclose the secrets of the invisible world; no one now would consult a heathen oracle with the hope of receiving a response to his inquiries that might be relied on; the abstruser sciences are pursued for other purposes, and no one would repose on dreams to furnish a system of truth which would meet the wants of man. (b) The same thing has been true in regard to the various systems of religion on which men have relied. It is true of the systems of the heathen. They have been tried in the most ample manner, and have shown that they do not meet the wants of man. The experiment has been fairly made, and the system is becoming worse and worse. It is not adapted to elevate man in the scale of being in regard to the present life; it does not remove the evils which press now upon the race; it does not disclose a certain way by •which a sinner may be prepared for the life to come. It is truein? yard to an atonement for sin. The attempt has been made now for nearly six thousand years, 1 1 find some way in which an efficacious sacrifice may be made for sin. Blood has been poured an thousands of altars; ani mals have been offered, and thousands of human beings have been devoted to the gods, but Btill there has been no evidence that these bloody offerings have been accepted, or that they have availed to expiate transgression. The experiment has failed. There is no new sacrifice that can be offered now, and it is hopeless for man to attempt to make expiation for his own sins. The same thing is true of the systems of religion proposed by infidelity. They are all failures. One system after another is abandoned, and no one is such as the race needs. The best talent that infidelity can hope to produce has been exhausted in this undertaking; for how can it hope to produce men better fitted to propose a system of religion to mankind than Shaftesbury, or Ilobbes, or Tindal, or Herbert, or Voltaire, or Hume 1 Yet, after all that has been done by infidelity in modern times, an intelligent man would prefer trusting his eternal interests to such a system as Socrates would propose to one proposed by Hume; he would feel laA* under the guidance of Cicero or Seneca than under the direction of Voltaire or Gibbon,
HI. The reasons why God has permitted this trial to be made, in such a manner, and with such results, are obvious. In the cases which occurred in the time of Pharaoh in Egypt, and of Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the reason evidently was, that when there was an acknow ledged failure of the power of the magicians, God might himself, through Joseph and Daniel, get honour to his own name. So the reasons why he has permitted this trial to be made ou a large scale, and has suffered it everywhere to fail, are probably these two: (1.) To show to man, in Hueh a way as to admit of no doubt, his need of revelation; and (2.) To induce him to prize the volume of revealed truth. We should value it the more, and adhere to it the more firmly, in view of the experiment which has been made in all lands. If thai revelation be rejected, man has tto resource; he is wholly unable to penetrate the future; he can devise no way of making atonement for sin; he can originate no system that shall alleviate the sorrows under which we groan, or disclose the prospect of happiness beyond the tomb. For if the Bible is taken away, on what shall we fall back to guide us? On astrology; on necromancy; on heathen oracles and sacrifices; on dreams; on the ravings of priestesses at heathen shrines, or the speculations of infidelity in Christian lands? All these have been tried in vain. The Bible is the only guide on which man can rely to conduct him to heaven. If that fails, all fails, and man is in the midst of impenetrable night.
(3.) Vie may learn from this chapter (vs. 12-19), that in the perplexities and trials which arise in life, a good man may appeal to God for guidance and help. So Daniel felt, when all human power had failed, in complying with the demands of a stern and arbitrary monarch, and when he and his friends, though innocent, were about to be involved in the sweeping sen tence which had been issued against the wise men of Babylon. Then it was clear that nothing could save them but divine interposition; nothing could avert the stroke but such a heavenly influence as would disclose the secret, and thus avert the wrath of the king. In this emergency, Daniel felt that he might call upon God, and to this service he summoned also his three friends, who were equally interested with him in the issue. In view of this we may observe: I. That all good men are liable to meet with similar perplexities and embarrassments; to be placed in circumstances where nothing but the interposition of God can help them. This is true in such respects as the following: (a) In reference to the knowledge of the truth. The mind is often perplexed on the subject of religion: reason fails to disclose those truths which it is desirable to know; darkness and obscurity seem to envelop the whole subject; the soul, op pressed with a sense of conscious guilt, seeks to find some way of peace; the heart, entangled in the meshes of unbelief, struggles and pants to be free, and there is no human help — nothing this side the eternal throne on which reliance can be placed to impart the light which is needed. (6) In reference to duty. The mind is often perplexed to know what should be done. Though desirous of doing what is right, yet there may be so many conflicting views; there may be such doubt as to what is best and right, that none but God can direct in such an emergency, (c) In cases of peril. Daniel and his friends were in danger; and men are often now in such danger that they feel that none but God can save them. On a bed of pain; in a stranded vessel; in a burning house, men often feel that human help is powerless, and that aid can be found in none but God. Thus the church, in the dark days of persecution, has often been so encompassed with dangers, that it could not but feel that none but God could avert the impending destruction. (c) In times when religion declines, and when iniquity abounds. Then the church often is led to feel that there is need of the aid of God, and that none but he can rouse it from its death like slumbers, and put back the swelling waves of iniquity. II. In such circumstances it is the privilege of a good man to appeal to God, with the hope that he will interpose. (1.) This was felt by Daniel, and it is an undoubted truth, as revealed in the Bible, that in such circum stances, if we will look to God, we may hope for his guidance and help. Comp. 2 Kings xix. 14, 15; Job xvi. 19-21; Ps. xxv. 9, xlvi. 1, seq., Iv. 22; James i. 5, 6. But (2.) what kind of inter position and direction may we hope for in such perplexities? I answer: (a) We may expect the divine dh-ectiou by a careful study of the principles laid down in the Scriptures. The Bible indeed does not, for it could not, mention the names of individuals, or specify every case which would occur in which divine direction would be needed, but it lays down great principle of truth, applicable to all the circumstances which will ever arise. In this respect there is a won derful richness and fullness in the Word of God. There is many a rich vein of truth which seems never to have been worked until we are placed in some new and untried situation. When one is thrown into perplexing circumstances; when he is called to pass through trials; when he me\ ts some powerful form of temptation, he is surprised to find how much there is in the Bible adapted to such circumstances that he never saw there before. It seems to be a new book, written to meet just such cases; nor in such circumstances does he ever consult its pages in vain. (6) We may expect direction by his providence. The sparrow falls not to the ground without his direc tion, and all events are under his control, and as these events occur they may be regarded as so many indications of his will. One of the most interesting and profitable employments in a man's life is to study the indications of Providence in regard to himself, and to endeavour to learn, from what is daily occurring to him, what is the will of God in regard to him. A careful and prayerful observer of the intimations of the divine will is not in serious danger of error, (c) God guides those who are in perplexity by his Spirit: There is a secret and silent influ ence on the mind of him who is desirous of being led in the way of duty, suggesting what ia true, delivering the mind from prejudice, overcoming opposition to the truth, disposing the heart to charity, peace, and love, prompting to th<j performance of duty, and gradually elevating the soul to God. If a man would pray when he feels an inward prompting to pray; would read too Bible when some inward voice seems to call him to do it; would do good when the inward monitor urges him to do it; would fix the eye and the heart on heaven when something within seems to lead him toward the skies, he would not be in much danger of error. Such are ' spring-times of piety in the soul' — times when the soul may make rapid progress in the know ledge of the truth, and it is not enthusiasm to say that such states of mind arc produced by an influence from above.
(4.) In view of this chapter (vs. 17, 18), we may observe that it is a privilege to have praying friends — friends on whom we can call to unite with us in prayer in the time of trouble. So Daniel found it when lie called on his friends to pray; so Esther found it when her whole people were in danger, and when all depended on her successful application to the sovereign (Esther iv. 1C), and so the friends of God have found it in all ages. If prayer is heard at all, there are special reasons why it should prevail when many are united in the request. Comp. Matt. xviii. 19. Hence the propriety of worship in the family; hence the fitness of prayer-meetings; and hence the appropriateness of prayer offered in the great congregation.
(5.) God should be praised and acknowledged as having supremacy over all things, vs. 20-23. Particularly he should be acknowledged (a) in the changes that occur on earth; in the changes from childhood to youth, and from youth to manhood, and to old age; in the beautiful changes of the seasons, and in all the variety which the seasons bring with them; in the changes from sickness to health, from poverty to affluence, from oppression and slavery to freedom, from an humble to an exalted condition; in all the revolutions of empire, and the changes of dynasties. (I) He should be acknowledged in his supremacy over the kings and rulers of the earth. Every monarch reigns by his permission, and every one is designed to accomplish some great purpose in the development of his plans. If a full and correct history of the world could be written, it would be found that God had some object to accomplish by the instrumentality of every one whom he has called to a throne, and that as we can now see a distinct design to be accomplished by the reign of Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Cyrus, and Augustus, so we could find some distinct design in re ference to every one who has ever reigned, (c) He should be recognized as the source of all knowledge. Particularly (1.) he originally endowed every mind, and gave it the capacity which it has for acquiring knowledge; (2.) he preserves the faculties of the mind, and gives them their just balance; (3.) he makes the intellect clear and bright, and when it applies itself to the investigation of truth he only can preserve it unclouded; (4) he makes, under the operation of the regular laws of intellect, important suggestions to the mind — those pregnant HINTS con taining so much "the seeds of things" on which all true progress in knowledge depends — those bright thoughts, those happy conceptions, which come into the soul, and which result in such happy inventions, and such advances in science, art, literature, and law; and (5.) he should be regarded as the original source of those inventions which contribute so much to the progress of the race. At the proper time, and the best time, when some new and wonderful discovery is to hurst upon the world, he raises up the individual who is to make it, and the discovery takes its place as one of the fixed points of progress, and society, with that as a treasure never to be lost, moves forward on a higher elevation, with greatly accelerated progress. So it was •with the invention of alphabetical writing; the art of printing; the application of steam to pur poses of manufactory and navigation; the telescope, and the telegraph; and, in general, in re spect to all those great inventions which have contributed to the progress of society. If the whole truth were known, it would be seen that the hand of God was in these things as really as in the ' revelation of the deep and secret things to Daniel.'
(6.) We may learn from this chapter, as was remarked in the Notes on ver. 30, that for all ~ur attainments in knowledge and wisdom we should ascribe the praise to God alone. In illus tration of this we may remark (I.), That there is a strong native tendency in man to ascribe the honour of such attainments to himself. It is one of the most difficult of all things to induce man to attribute the praise of whatever excellence he may have, or whatever attain ments he may make, to his Creator. This exists universally in regard to talent, rank, and scientific attainments; and it is even hard for a heart that is endowed with true religion to free itself altogether from self-glorying, as if it were all to be traced to ourselves. Yet (II.), in our case, as in the case of Daniel, all the honour should be ascribed to God. For (1.) it is to him wo owe all our original endowments of mind and of body, whatever they may be. In this respect •we are as he chose to make us. We have no natural endowment— whether of beauty, strength, genius, aptness for learning, or advantages for distinction in science which he did not confer on us, and which he could not as easily have withheld from us as he did from those less favoured. And why should we be proud of these things? Shall the oak of Bashan be proud of its far-spreading arms, or its strength? Shall the cedar of Lebanon be proud of its height, and its vastness, and its beauty? Shall the rose be proud of its beauty or its sweetness, or shall the magnolia boast of its fragrance? (2.) God has conferred on us all the means of education which we have enjoyed, and all to which the development of our natural powers can be traced. He has preserved our reason; he has furnished us instructors; he has provided the books which we have read; he has continued to us the possession of the health which we have enjoyed. At any moment he could have driven reason from the throne; he could have deprived us of health; he could have summoned us away. (3.) It is equally owing to him that we have been favoured with any success in the prosecution of our calling in life. Let the merchant who has accumulated great property, apparently by his own industry, suppose that all divine agency and influence in his case had been withheld, and whatever labour he might have expended, or with whatever skill he might be endowed, he could have met with no such eucces?. Let him reflect how much he owes to favouring gales on the ocean; to the seasons producing abundant harvests, and to what seems almost to be chanct or fortune, and lie will see at once that whatever success he may have been favoured viih is to be traced, in *n eminent sense, to God. The same thing is true of all the other successful departments of human effort. (4.) This is equally true in ail the knowledge which we have of th*j way of sal vation, and all our hopes of eternal life. It is a great principle of religion that ' we have nothing which we have not received, and that if we have received it, we should not glory as if we had not received it, for it is God who makes us to differ.' 1 Cor. iv. 7. It is God who originally gave us the volume of revealed truth — making us differ from the whole pagan world. It is God who awakened us to see our guilt and danger, making us to differ from the gay an J careless world around us. It is God alone who has pardoned our sins, making us to differ from the multitude who are unpardoned in the world. It is God who lias given us every hope that we cherish that is well-founded, and all the peace and joy which we have had in communion with himself. For these things, then-fore, we should give all the praise to God. and in our case, as in that of Daniel, it is one of the evidences of our piety when we are disposed to do so.
(7.) We have in this chapter (vs. 4b', 47,) an instructive instance of the extent to which an irreligious man may go iii showing respect for God. It cannot be supposed that Nebuchadnezzar was a truly pious man. His characteristics and actions, both before and after this, were those of a heathen, and there is no evidence that he was truly converted to God. Yet he evinced the h'ghest respect for one who was a servant and prophet of the Most High (ver. 46), and even for God himself (ver. 47). This was evinced in a still more remarkable manner at a subsequent period, ch. iv. In this he showed how far it is possible for one to go who has no real piety, and as such cases are not uncommon, it may not be improper to consider them for a moment. I. This respect for God extends to the following things: (1.) An admiration of him, as great, and wise, and powerful. The evidences of his power and wisdom are traced in his works. The mind may be impressed with that which is wise, or overpowered with that which is vast, without there being any real religion, and all this admiration may terminate on God, and be expressed in language of respect for him. or for his ministers. (2.) This admiration of God may be ex tended to whatever is beautiful in religion. The beauty of the works of nature, of the sky, of a landscape, of the ocean, of the setting sun, of the changing clouds, of the flowers of the field, may lead the thoughts up to God, and produce a certain admiration of a Being who has clothed the world with so much loveliness. There is a religion of sentiment as well as of principle; R religion that terminates on the beautifv.1 as well as a religion that terminates on the holy. The Greeks, natural admirers of beauty, carried this kind of religion to the highest possible degree; for their religion was, in all its forms, characterized by the love of the beautiful. So also there is much that is beautiful in Christianity, as well as in the works of God, and it is pos sible to be charmed with that without ever having felt any compunction for sin, or any love for pure religion itself. It is possible for one who has a natural admiration for that which is lovely ia character, to see a high degree of moral beauty in the character of the Redeemer; for on« whose heart is easily moved by sympathy to be affected in view of the sufferings of the injured Saviour. The same eyes that would weep over a well-told tale, or over a tragic representation on the stage, or over a scene of real distress, might weep over the wrongs and woe-s of Him who was crucified, and yet there might be nothing more than the religion of sentiment — the religion springing from mere natural feeling, (ij.) There is much poetic religion in the world. It is possible for the imagination to form such a view of the divine character that it shall seem to be lovely, while perhaps there may be scarcely a feature of that character that shall be correct. Is'ot a little of the religion of the world is of this description — where such a God is conceived of as the iniiid chooses, and the affections are fixed on that imaginary being, while there is not a particle of love to the true God in the soul. 80 there is a poetic view of man, of his character, of his destiny, while the real character ->f the heart has never been seen. So there is a poetic view of heaven — strongly resembling tue views which the ancients had of the Elysian fields. But heaven as a place of holiness, has never been thought of, and would not be loved. Men look forward to a place where the refined and the intelligent; the amiable and the lovely; the accomplished and the upright; where poets, orators, warriors, and philosophers will be assem bled together. This is the kind of religion which is often manifested in eulogies, and epitaphs, and in conversation, where those who never had any better religion, and never pretended to any serious piety, are represented as having gone to heaven when they die. There are few who, under the influence of such a religion, are not looking forward to some kind of a heaven; and few persons die, whatever may be their character, unless they are openly and grossly abandoned, for whom the hope is not expressed that they have gone safe to a better world. If we may credit epitaphs, and obituary notices, and funeral eulogiums, and biographies, there are few poets, warriors, statesmen.or philosophers, about whose happiness in the future world we should have any apprehension. II. But in all this there may be no real religion. There is no evi dence that there was any in the case of Nebuchadnezzar, and as little is there in the instances now referred to. Such persons may have a kind of reverence for God as great, and powerful, and wi«j; they may have even a kind of pleasure in looking on the evidence of his existence and perfections in his works; they may have a glow of pleasurable f motion in the mere poetry of religion; they may be restrained from doing many things by their consciences; they may erect temples, and build altars, and contribute to the support of religion, and even be zealous for religion, as they understand it, and still have no just views of God, and no true piety what ever. (1.) The mind that is truly religious is not insensible to all this, and may have as exalted notions of God as a great and glorious being, and be as much impressed with the beauty evinced in his works as in the cases supposed. True religion does not destroy the lease of the sublime and beautiful, but rather cultivates thie in a higher degree. But (2.)
Is much besides this that enters into true religion, and without which all these things are Tain. (a) True religion always arises from just views of God as he is; not from him as an imaginary being, (b) True religion must regard God as having moral attributes; as benevolent, and just, and true, and holy, and not merely as powerful and great, (c) In all these things referred to, there is necessarily no moral excellence on the part of those who thus admire God and his works. The mere admiration of power implies in us no moral excellence. The admiration of the wisdom which made the worlds and keeps them in their place; of the beauties of poetry, or of a flower, or landscape, though made by God, implies no moral excellence in us, and, there fore, no true religion. There is no more religion in admiring God as an architect or painter than there is in admiring Sir Christopher "Wren, or Michael Angelo; and the mere admiration of the works of God as such, implies no more moral excellency in us than it does to admire St. Paul's or St. Peter's. In religion, the heart does not merely admire the beautiful and the grand; it loves that which is pure, and just, and good, and holy. It delights in God as a holy being rather than as a powerful being; it finds pleasure in his moral character, and not merely in his greatness.
(8.) We may learn from this chapter (ver. 49), that when we are favoured with prosperity and honour we should not neglect, or be ashamed of, the companions of our earlier days, and the partakers of our fortune when we were poor and unknown. Joseph, when exalted to the pre miership of Egypt, was not ashamed of his aged father, but, though he had been an bumble ehepherd, presented him, with the deepest feelings of respect towards an aged parent, to Pharaoh; nor was he ashamed of his brethren, though they had done him so much wrong. Daniel, when in a similar manner advanced to the most honourable post which one could reach, in the most magnificent monarchy of the world, was not ashamed of the youthful friends with whom he had shared the humble and severe lot of bondage. So we, if we are made rich; if we are raised to honour; if we become distinguished for learning or talent; if our names are known abroad, or we are entrusted with a high and honourable office, should not forget the friends and companions of our earlier years.
THE objections which have been urged against the authenticity of this chapter, are much more numerous than those which have been alleged against the two previous chapters.
I. The first which deserves to be noticed is stated by De Wette (p. 383, under the general head of improbabilities in the chapter), and Bleek, p. 268, as quoted by Hengstenberg, die Authentic des Daniel, p. 83. The objection is, substantially, that if the account in this chapter is true, it would prove that the Chaldeans were inclined to persecution on account of religious opinions, which, it is said, is contrary to their whole character as elsewhere shown. So far as we have any information in regard to them, it is alleged, they were fur from having this character, and it is not probable, therefore, that Nebuchadnezzar would make a law which would compel the worship of an idol under severe pains and penalties.
To this objection the following reply may be made: —
(1.) Little is known, on any supposition, of the Chaldeans in general, and little of the character of Nebuchadnezzar in particular, beyond what we find in the Book of Daniel. So far, however, as we have any knowledge of either from any source, there is no inconsistency between that and what is said in this chapter to have occurred. It is probable that no one ever perceived any incongruity of this kind in the book itself, nor, if this were all, should we suppose that there was any improbability in the account in this chapter.
(2.) There is properly no account of persecution in this narrative, nor any reason to suppose that Nebuchadnezzar designed any such thing. This is admitted by Bertholdt himself (p. 261), and is manifest on the face of the whole narrative. It is indeed stated that Nebuchadnezzar demanded, on severe penalties, a recognition of the god that he worshipped, and required that the reverence should be shown to that god which he thought to be his due. It is true, also, that the monarch intended to be obeyed in what seems to us to be a very arbitrary and unreasonable command, that they should, assemble and fall down and worship the image •which he had set up. But this does not imply any disposition to persecute on account of religion, or to prevent in others the free exercise of their own religious opinions, or the worehip of their own gods. It is well known that it was a doctrine of all ancient idolaters, that respect might be shown to foreign gods — to the gods of other people — without in the least legree implying a want of rcgpect for their own gods, or violating any of their obligations to them. The universal maxim was, that the gods of all nations were to be respected, and a gods might be introduced for worship, and respect paid to thorn without in any degree detracting from the honour which was due to their own. Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, simply demanded that homage should be shown to the idol that he had erected; that the god whom he worshipped should be acknowledged as a god; and that respect should thus be shown to himself, and to the laws of his empire, by acknowledging his god, and rendering to that god the degree of homage which was his due. But it is nowhere intimated that he re garded his idol as the only true god, or that he demanded that he should be recognized as Buch, or that he was not willing that all other gods, in their place, should be honoured. There is no intimation, therefore, that he meant to persecute any other one for worshipping their own gods, nor is there any reason to suppose that he apprehended that there would be any scruples on religious grounds about acknowledging the image that he set up to be worthy of adoration and praise.
(3.) There is no reason to think that he was so well acquainted with the peculiar character of the Hebrew religion as to suppose that its votaries would have any difficulty on this sub ject, or would hesitate to unite with others in adoring his image- He knew, indeed, that they were worshippers of Jehovah; that they had reared a magnificent temple to his honour in Jerusalem, and that they professed to keep his laws. But there is no reason to believe that he was very intimately acquainted with the laws and institutions of the Hebrews, or that he supposed that they would have any difficulty in doing what was universally understood to be proper — to show due respect to the gods of other nations. Certainly, if he had intimately known the history of a considerable portion of the Hebrew people, and been acquainted with their proneness to fall into idolatry, he would have seen little to make him doubt that they would readily comply with a command to sbow respect to the gods worshipped in other lands. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that he anticipated that the Hebrew exiles, any more than any other people, would hesitate to show to his image the homage which he required.
(4.) The whole account agrees well with the character of Nebuchadnezzar. He was an arbitrary monarch. He was accustomed to implicit obedience. He was determined in his character, and resolute in his purposes. Having once formed the resolution to erect such a magnificent image of his god — one that would correspond with the greatness of his capital, and, at the same time, show his respect for the god that he worshipped, — nothing was more natural than that he should issue such a proclamation that homage should be shown to it by all his subjects, and that, in order to secure this, he should issue this decree, that whoever did not do it should be punished in the severest manner. There is no reason to suppose that he had any particular class of persons in his eye, or, indeedj that he anticipated that the order would be disobeyed by any class of persons. In fact we see in this whole transaction just one illustration of what usually occurred under the arbitrary despotisms of the East, where, whatever is the order that is issued from the throne, universal and absolute submission is demanded, under the threatening of a speedy and fearful punishment. The order of Nebu chadnezzar was not more arbitrary and unreasonable than those which have been frequently issued by the Turkish Sultan.
II. A second objection to the chapter, is the account of the musical instruments in ver. 5. The objection is, that to some of these instruments Grecian names are given, and that this proves that the transaction must have a later date than is attributed to it, or that the account must have been written by one of later times. The objection is, that the whole statement seems to have been derived from the account of some Greek procession in honour of the gods of Greece. See Bleek, p. 259.
To this objection, it may be replied, (a) that such processions in honour of the gods, or such assemblages, accompanied with musical instruments, were, and are, common among all people. They occur constantly at the East, and it cannot, with any propriety, be said that one is bor rowed from another. (6) A large part of these instruments have undoubtedly Chaldee names given to them, and the names are such as vre may suppose that one living in the times of Nebuchadnezzar would give them. See Notes on ver, 5. (c) As to those which are alleged to indicate a Greek origin, it may be observed, that it is quite uncertain whether the origin of the name was Greek or Chaldee. That such names are found given to instruments of music by the Greeks, is certain; but it is not certain whence they obtained the name. For anything that can be proved to the contrary, the name may have had an Eastern origin. It is altogether probable that many of the names of things among the Greeks had such an origin; and if the instrument of music itself — as no one can prove it did not — came in from the East, the name came also from the East, (d) It may be further stated, that, even on the supposition that the name had its origin in Greece, there is no absolute certainty that the name and the instru ment were unknown to the Chaldeans. Who can prove that some Chaldean may not have been in Greece, and may not have borne back to his own country some instrument of music that he found there different from those which he had been accustomed to at home, or that he may not have constructed an instrument resembling one which he had seen there, and given it the same name? Or who can prove that some strolling Greek musician may not have travelled as far as Babylon — for the Greeks travelled everywhere — and carried with him some instrument of music before unknown to the Chaldeans, and imparted to them at the same time the knowledge of the instrument and the name? But until this is shown the objection has no forco.
III. A third objection is, that the statement in ver. 22, that the persons appointed to execute the orders of the king died from the heat of the furnace, or that the king issued an order to execute which perilled the lives of the innocent who were intrusted with its execution, is improbable.
To this it may be paid (cr), that there is no evidence or affirmation that the king contemplated their danger, or designed to peril their lives; but it is undoubtedly a fact that he was intent on the execution of his own order, and that he little regarded the peril of those who executed it. And nothing is more probable than this; and, indeed, nothing more common. A general w he orders a company of men to silence or take a battery, has no malice against them, and nc design on their lives; but he is intent on the accomplishment of the object, whatever may be the peril of the men, or however large a portion of them may fall. In fact, the objection which is here made to the credibility of this narrative is an objection which would be with equal force against most of the orders issued in battle, and not a few of the commands issued by arbitrary monarchs in time of peace. The fact in this case was, the king was intent on the execution of his purpose — the punishment of the refractory and stubborn men who had resisted his com mands, and there is no probability that, in the excitements of wrath, he would paut-e to inquire whether the execution of his purpose would endanger the lives of those who were entrusted with the execution of the order or not. (b) There is every probability that the heat would be so great as to peril the lives of those who should approach it It is said to have been made seven times hotter than usual (ver. 19); that is, as hot as it could be made, and, if this were so, it is by no means an unreasonable supposition that those who were compelled to approach it so near as to cast others in should be in danger.
IV. A fourth objection, urged by Griesinger, p. 41, as quoted by Ilengstenberg, Authentic des Daniel, p. 92, is, that 'as Nebuchadnezzar had the furnace already prepared ready to throw these men in, he must have known beforehand that they would not comply with his demand, *nd so must have designed to punish them; or that this representation is a mere fiction of the writer, to make the delivery of these men appear more marvellous.'
To this it may be replied (a), that there is not the slightest evidence, from the account in Daniel, that Nebuchadnezzar had the furnace prepared beforehand, as if it were expected that 5ome would disobey, and as if he meant to show his wrath. He indeed (ver. 6) threatens this punishment, bxit it is clear, from ver. 19, that the furnace was not yet heated up, and that the >ccasion of its being heated in such a manner was the unexpected refusal of these three men to obey him. (1) But if it should be admitted that there was a furnace thus glowing — heated with a view to punish offenders — it would not be contrary to what sometimes occurs in the East under a despotism. Sir John Chardin (Toy. en Perse, iv. p. 276), mentions in his time (in the seventeenth century), a case similar to this. He says that during a whole month, in a time of great scarcity, an oven was kept heated to throw in all persons who had failed to comply with the laws in regard to taxation, and had thus defrauded the government. This was, in fact, strictly in accordance with the character of Oriental despotism. We know, moreover, from Jer. xxix. 22, that this mode of punishment was not unknown in Babylon, and it would seem probable that it was not uncommon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Jeremiah says, " And of them shall be taken up a curse by all the captivity of Judah which are in Babylon, saying, The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom, the king of Babylon roasted in the fire."
V. A fifth objection is stated thus by Bertholdt: 'Why did the wonders recorded in this chapter take place? It was only for this purpose that Nebuchadnezzar might be made to appear to give praise to God, that he is represented as giving commandment that no one should reproach him. But this object is too small to justify such an array of means.' To this it may be replied (a) that it does not appear from the chapter that this was the object aimed at. ((>) There were other designs in the narrative beside this. They were to show the firmness of the men who refused to worship an idol god; to illustrate their conscientious adherence to their religion; to show their confidence in the divine protection; to prove that God will defend those who put their trust in him, and that he can deliver them even in the midst of the flames. These things were worthy of record.
VI. It has been objected that 'the expression in which Nebuchadnezzar (ver. 28), is repre sented as breaking out, after the rescue of the three men, is altogether contrary to his dignity, and to the respect for the religion of his fathers and of his country, which he was bound to defend.' Bertholdt, p. 253. But to this it may be replied (a) that if this scene actually oc curred before the eyes of the king — if God had thus miraculously interposed in delivering his servants in this wonderful manner from the heated furnace, nothing would be more natural than this. It was a manifest miracle, a direct interposition of God, a deliverance of the profes,-cd friends of Jehovah by a power that was above all that was human, and an expression ofsurpri.se and admiration was in every way proper on such an occasion, (b) It accorded with all the prevailing notions of religion, and of the respect due to the gods, to say this. As above remarked, it was a principle recognized among the heathen to honour the gods of other nations, and if they had interposed to defend their own votaries, it was no more than was admitted in all the nations of idolatry. If, therefore, Jehovah had interposed to save his own friends and worshippers, every principle which Nebuchadnezzar held on the subject would make it proper for him to acknowledge the fact, and to say that honour was due to him for his inter position. In this, moreover, Nebuchadnezzar would be understood as sayinir nothing derog atory to the gods that he himself worshipped, or to those adored in his own laud. All that is necessary to be supposed in what he said is, that he now felt that Jehovah, the God whom the Hebrews adored, had shown that he w,as worthy to be ranked among the gods, and that in common with others, he had power to protect his own friends. To this it may be added
(c) that, in his 'way, Nebiichadnezzar everywhere showed that he was a reli'ffini's mnn: that is. that he recognized the gods, and was ever ready to acknowledge their interference in human affiiirs, and to render them the honour which was their due. Indeed, this whole afthir grew out of his respect for religion, and what here occurred was only in accord mcc with his general principle, that when any God had shown that he had power to deliver his people, he should be acknowledged, and that no words of reproach should be uttered against hi n, ver. 29.
VII. A more plausible objection than those which have just been noticed is ursred by Liiderwald. J;ihn, and Dereser, in regard to the account, which is given of the image which Nebuchad nezzar is said to have erected. This objection has reference to the sizs of the image, to its proportions, and to the material of which it is suid to have been composed. This objection, as stated by Berlholdt (p. 2aO), is substantially the following: ' that the image had probably a human torin, and yet that the proportions of the human figure are by no means observed — the height being represented to have been sixty cubits, and its breadth six cubits — or its heighth being to its breadth as ten to one, whereas the proportion of a man is only six to one: that the amount of gold in such an image is incredible, being beyond any means which the king of Babylon could have possessed; and that probably the image here referred to was one that Herodotus pays he saw in the temple of Belus of Babylon (I. 183), and which Diodorus Siculus describes (II. 9), and which was only forty feet ia height.' See Notes on ver. 1. In regard to this objection, we may observe, then.
(a) That there "is no certainty that this was the same image which is referred to by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus. That image was in the temple: this was erected on the ' plain of Dura.' See Notes on ver. 1. But so far as appears, this may have been erected for a temporary pur pose, and the materials may then have been employed for other purposes; that in the temple was permanent.
(/>) As to the amount of gold in the image— it is not said or implied that it was of soh'J gold. It is well known that the images of the gods were made of wood or clay, and overlaid with gold or silver, and this is all that is necessarily implied here. See Notes on ver. 1.
(c) The heif/ht of the alleged image can be no real objection to the statement. It is not neces sary to assume that it had the human form — though that is probable — but if that be admitted, there can be no objection to the supposition that, either standing by itself, or raised on a pedestal, it may have been as lofty as the statement here implies. The colossal figui'c at Hhodes was an hundred and five Grecian feet in height, and, being made to stride the mouth of the harbour, was a work of much more difficult construction than this figure would have been.
(d) As to the alleged disprnp'trtion in the figure of the image, ree Notes on ver. 1. To what is there said may be added: (1) It is not necessary to suppose that it Lad the human form. Nothing of this kind is affirmed, though it may be regarded as probable. But if it had not, of course the objection would have no force. (2) If it had the human form, it is by no means clear whether it had a sitting or a standing posture. Nothing is said on this point in regard to the image or statue, and until this is determined, nothing can be said properly respecting the proportions. (3) It is not said whether it stood by itself, or whether it rested on a basis or pediment— and until this is determined, no objections can be valid as to the proportion of the statue. It is every way probable that the image was reared on a lofty pedestal, and for any thing that appears, the proportions of the image itself, whether sitting or standing, may have been well preserved. But (4) in addition to this it should be said, that if the aceoxint here is to be taken literally as stating that the image was ten times as high as it was broad — thus failing to observe the proper human proportions — the account would not be incredible. It is admitted by Gesenius (Ency. von Ersch. und Gruber, art. Babylon, Th. vii. p. 24), that the Babylonians had no correct taste in these matters. ' The ruins,' says he, ' are imposing by their colossal greatness, not by their beauty; all the ornaments are rough and barbarian.' The Babylonians, indeed, possessed a taste for the colossal, the grand, the imposing, but they also had a taste for the monstrous and the prodigious, and a mere want of proportion is not a sufficient argument to prove that what is stated here did not occur.
VIII. But one other objection remains to be noticed. It is one which is noticed by Bertholdt (pp. 251, 252), that, if this is a true account, it is strange that Daniel himself is not referred to; that if he was, according to the representation in the last chapter, a high officer at court, it is unaccountable that he is not mentioned as concerned in these affairs, and especially that he did not interpose in behalf of his three friends to save them. To this objection it is sufficient to reply (a) that, as Bertholdt himself (p. 287) suggests. Daniel may have been absent from the capital at this time on some business of state, and consequently the question whether he would woi'- ehip the image may not have been tested. It is probable, from the nature of the case, that lie would be employed on such embassies, or be sent to some other part of the empire from time to time, to arrange the affairs of the provinces, and no one can demonstrate that he was not absent on this occasion. Indeed, the fact that he is not mentioned at all in the transaction would serve to imply this, since he was at court it is to be presumed that he himself would have been implicated as well as his three friends. Comp. ch. vi. He was not a man to ehrink from duty, or to decline any proper method of showing his attachment to the reli gion of his fathers, or any proper interest in the welfare of his friends. But (/>) it is possible that even if Daniel were at court at that time, and did not unite in the worship of the image, he might have escaped the danger. There were undoubtedly many more Jews in the province of Babylon who did not worship this image, but no formal accusation was brought against him, and their case did not come before the king. For some reason, the accusation was made specific againiit these three men— /or they were rulers in the province (ch. ii. 49), and being fo- reigners, the people under them may have gladly seized the occasion to complain of them to the king. But so little is known of the circumstance*, that it is not possible to determine the mattei with certainty. All that needs to be said is, that the fact that Daniel was not implicated in the affair, is no proof that the three persons referred to were not; that it is no evidence that what is said of them is not true because nothing is said of Danid.
THIS chapter, which is complete in itself, or which embraces the entire narrative relating to an important transaction, contains the account of a magnificent brazen image erected by Ne buchadnezzar, and the result of attempting to constrain the conscientious Hebrews to worship it. The narrative comprises the following points:
I. The erection of the great image in the plain of Dura. ver. 1.
II. The dedication of the image in the presence of the great princes and governors of the provinces, the high officers of state, and an immense multitude of the people, accompanied with solemn music, vs. 2 — 7.
III. The complaint of certain Chaldeans respecting the Jews, that they refused to render homage to the image, reminding the king that he had solemnly enjoined this on all persons, on penalty of being cast into a burning furnace in case of disobedience, vs. 8 — 12. This charge was brought particularly against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abcd-nego. Daniel escaped the accu sation, for reasons which will be stated in the Notes on ver. 12. The common people of the Jews also escaped, as the command extended particularly to the rulers.
IV. The manner in which Nebuchadnezzar received this accusation, vs. 13 — 15. He was filled with rage; he summoned the accused into his presence; he commanded them to prostrate them selves before the image on penalty of being cast at once into the fiery furnace.
V. The noble answer of the accused, vs. 16 — 18. They stated to the king that his threat did not alarm them, and that they felt no solicitude to answer him in regard to the matter (v. 16); that they were assured that the God whom they served was able to deliver them from the fur nace, and from the wrath of the king (ver. 17); but that even if he did not, whatever might be the issue, they could not serve the gods of the Chaldeans, nor worship the image which the king had set up.
VI. The infliction of the threatened punishment, vs. 19 — 23. The furnace was commanded to be heated seven times hotter than usual; they were bound and thrown in with their usual apparel on; and the hot blast of the furnace destroyed the men who were employed to perform this service.
VII. Their protection and preservation, vs. 24 — 27. The astonished monarch who had com manded three, men to be cast in bound, saw four men walking in the midst of the flames loose', and satisfied now they had a divine protector; awed by the miracle; and doubtless dreading the wrath of the divine being that had become their protector, he commanded them suddenly to come out. The princes, and governors, and captains were gathered together, and these men, thus remarkably preserved, appeared before them uninjured.
VIII. The effect on the king, vs. 26—30. As in the case when Daniel had interpreted hia dream (chap, ii.), he acknowledged that this was the act of the true God, ver. 26. He issued a solemn command that the God who had done this should be honoured, for that no other God could deliver in this manner, ver. 27. He again restored them to their honourable command over the provinces, ver. 30.
1 Nebuchadnezzar the king amade an image of gold, whose height was
1. Nebuchadnezzar the king made an iinar/c of gold. The time when he did this is not mentioned; nor is it stated in whose honour, or for what design, this colossal image was erected. In the Greek and Arabic translations, this is said to have occurred in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not, however, in the original text, nor is it known on what authority it is asserted. Dean Prideaux (Connex. I. 222,) supposes that \t was at first some marginal comment on the Greek version that at last crept into
threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
the text, and that there was probably some good authority for it. If this is the correct account of the time, the event here recorded occurred B. C. 587, or, according to the chronology of Prideaux, about nine teen years after the transaction recorded in the previous chapter. Hales makes th chronology somewhat different, though no^ essentially. According to him, Daniel was carried to Babylon B. C. 586, and the image was setup B. C. 569, making an interval from the time that he was car ried to Babylon of seventeen years; and if the dream (ch. ii.) was explained with in three or four years after Daniel was taken to Babylon, the interval between that and this occurrence would be some thirteen or fourteen years. Calmet makes the captivity of Daniel 602 years before Christ; the interpretation of the dream 598; and the setting up of the image 556 — thus making an interval of more than forty years. It is impossible to deter mine the time with certainty; but allow ing the shortest mentioned period as the interval between the inierpretation of the dream (ch. ii.) and the erection of this statue, the time would be sufficient to account for the fact that the impression made by that event on the mind of Nebu chadnezzar, in favour of the claims of the true God, (ch. ii. 46, 47,) seems to have been entirely etfaced. The two chapters, in order that the right impression may be received on this point, should be read with the recollection that such an inter val had elapsed. At the time when the event here recorded is supposed by Prideaux to have occurred, Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from finishing the Jewish war. From the spoils which he had taken in that expedition in Syria and Palestine, he had the means in abundance of rearing such a colossal'statue; and at the close of these conquests, nothing would be more natural than that he should wish to rear in his capital some splendid work of art that would signalize his reign, record the memory of his conquests,.and add to the magnificence of the capital. The word which is here rendered imatje — Chald. aSx — Greek tiicdva, in the usual form in the Hebrew, means a shade, shadow; then that which shadows forth anything; then an image of anything, and then an idol, as representing the deity worshipped. It is not necessary to suppose that it was of solid gold, for the amount required for such a structure would have been immense, and probably beyond the means even of Nebuchad nezzar. The presumption is, that it was merely covered over with plates of gold, for this was the usual manner in which statues erected in honour of the gods were made. See Isa. xl. 19. It is not known in honour of whom this statue was erected. Grotius supposed that it was reared to the memory of Nabopoaassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and observes that it was customary to erect tatues in this manner in honour of pa rents. Prideaux, Hales, the Editor of the Pict. Bible, and most others, suppose that t was in honour of Bel, the principal deity worshipped in Babylon. See Notes on Isa. xlvi. 1. Some have supposed that it was in honour of Nebuchadnezzar siimself, and that he purposed by it to be worshipped as a god. But this opinion las little probability in its favour. The opinion that it was in honour of Bel, the principal deity of the place, is every way the most probable, and this derives some confirmation from the well-known fact that a magnificent image of this kind was, at some period of his reign, erected by Nebuchadnezzar in honour of this god, n a style to correspond with the magni ficence of the city. The account of this given by Herodotus is the following:
' The temple of Jupiter Belus, whose huge gates of brass may still be seen, is a square building, each side of which is two furlongs. In the midst rises a tower, of the solid depth and height of one fur long; upon which, resting as upon a base, some other lesser towers are built in regular succession. The ascent is on the outside; which, winding from the ground, is continued to the highest tower; and in the middle of the whole structure there is a convenient restingplace. In the last tower is a large chapel, in which is placed a couch, magnificently adorned, and near it a table of solid gold; but there is no statue in the place. In this temple there is also a small chapel, lower in the building, which contains a figure of Jupiter, in a sitting posture, with a large table before him; these, with the base of the table and the seat of the throne, are all of the purest gold, and are estimated by the Chaldeans to be worth eight hundred talents. On the outside of this chapel there are two altars; one is gold, the other is of immense size, and appropriated to the sacrifice of full grown animals: those only which have not yet left their dams may be offered on the golden altar. On the larger altar, at the anniversary festival in honour of their God, the Chaldeans regularly consume in cense to the amount of a thousand talents. There was formerly in this temple a sta tue of solid gold twelve cubits high; this, however, I mention from the infor mation of the Chaldeans, and not from my own knowledge." Clio, 183. Diodo-
rus Siculus, a much later writer, speaks
to this effect: "Of the tower of Jupiter
Belus, the historians who have spoken have given different descriptions; and this temple being now entirely destroyed, we cannot speak accurately respecting it. It was excessively high; constructed throughout with great care; built of brick and bitumen. Semiramia placed on the top of it three statues of massy gold, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. Jupi ter was erect in the attitude of a man walking; he was forty feet in height; and weighed a thousand Babylonian talents; Rhea, who sat in a chariot of gold, was of the same weight. Juno, who stood upright, weighed eight hun dred talents." B. II. The temple of Bel
or Belus in Babylon, stood until the time of Xerxes; but on his return from the Grecian expedition, he demolished the whole of it, and laid it in rubbish, having first plundered it of its immense riches. Among the spoils which he took from the temple, are mentioned several images and statues of massive gold, and among them the one mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, as being forty feet high. See j Strabo. lib. 16, p. 738; Herodotus lib. 1 I Arrian de Expe. Alex. lib. 7, quoted by j Prideaux I. 240. It is not very probable i that the image which Xerxes removed j was the same which Nebuchadnezzar i reared in the plain of Dura (coinp. the j Intro, to this chapter, $ 1, VII. a,); but j the fact that such a colossal statue was i found in Babylon may be adduced as one! incidental corroboration of the proba- | bility of the statement here. It is not | impossible that Nebuchadnezzar was led, as the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary has remarked, (Taylor vol. hi. p. 194.) to the construction of this image by what he bad seen in Egypt. He had conquered and ravaged Egypt but a few years be fore this, and had doubtless been struck with the wonders of art which he had seen there. Colossal statues in honour of the gods abounded, and nothing would be more natural than that Nebuchad nezzar should wish to ma,ke his capital rival everything which he had seen in Thebes. Nor is it improbable that, while he sought to make his image more mag- statue might be borrowed from what height; that is, if it had stood upright it the difficulty, Taylor himself supposes that the height referred to in the descripather proportional than actual had been seen in Egypt. It may per haps furnish some illustration, therefore, of the subject before us, to copy here some figures from Calmet, representing would have been sixty cubits, though the actual elevation in a sitting posture may have been but little more than thirty cubits, or fifty feet. The breadth, he sup poses, was rather the depth or thickness measured from the breast to the back of the usual forms of statuary in Egypt. The cut on page 176 represents two "colossal figures which yet remain stand- j than the breadth measured from shoulder ing at the ancient Thebes," and is copied | to shoulder. His argument and illustrafrom Norden, who thus describes the i tion may be seen in Calmet, vol. iii. figures. " The figure A seems to be Frag. 156. It is not absolutely certain, feet in height, from the basis of the I the passage is, that the statue was actu- from the sole of the feet to the knees is doubt that an image of that height could fifteen feet; the pedestals are five feet in be erected; and when we remember the height, thirty-six and a half long, nine- one at Rhode?, which was 105 Grecian teen and a half broad." f Whose heiyltt \ feet in height, (see Art. Colossus, in was threescore cubits. Prideaux and Anthon's Class. Die.,) and the desire of others have been greatly perplexed at the Nebuchadnezzar to adorn his capital in proportions of the image here represented. | the most magnificent manner, it is not to Prideaux says on the subject, (Connex. | be regarded as improbable that an image 1.240, 241,) " Nebuchadnezzar's golden i of this height was erected. What was image is said indeed in Scripture to have j the height of the pedestal, if it stood on been sixty cubits, that is, ninety feet! any, as it probably did, it is impossible high; but this must be understood of the j now to tell. The length of the cubit was image and pedestal both together; for [ not the same in every place. The length that image being said to be but six cubits! originally was the distance between the broad or thick, it is impossible that the | elbow and the extremity of the middle image would have been sixty cubits high; j finger, about eighteen inches. The Hefor that makes its height to be ten times brew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberits breadth or thickness, which exceeds land and M. Pclletier, was twenty-one inches; but others fix it at eighteen. Calmet. The Talmudists say that the He brew cubit was larger by one quarter than the Roman. Herodotus says that the cubit in Babylon was three fingers longer
all the proportions of a man, no man's height being above six times his thick ness, measuring the slenderest man living at the waist. But where the breadth of this imago was measured is not said; perchance it was from shoulder to shoul der; and then the proportion of six cubits breadth will bring down the height exactly to the measure which Diodorus has men tioned; for the usual height of a man being four and an half of his breadth between the shoulders, if the image were six cubits broad between the shoulders, it must, according to this proportion, have been twenty-seven cubits high, which is forty and an half feet." The
statue itself, therefore, according to Pri deaux, was forty feet high; the pedestal, fifty feet. But this, says Taylor, the Editor of Calmet, is a disproportion of parts which, if not absolutely impossible, is utterly contradictory to every principle of art, even of the rudest sort. To meet surement of the cubit, would make the image in Babylon about ninety feet high. ^[ And the breadth thereof six cubits. About nine feet. This would, of course, make the height ten times the breadth, which Prideaux says is entirely contrary to the usual proportions of a man. It is not known on what 2)art of the image this measurement was made, or whether it was the thickness from the breast to the back, or the width from shoulder to shoulder. If the thickness of the image here is referred to by the word " breadth," the proportion would be well preserved. "The thickness of a well-proportioned
2 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the
man," says Scheuchzer (Knupfer Bibel, in loc.) " measured from the breast to the back is one-tenth of his height." This was understood to be the proportion by Augustine, Civi. Dei, L. xv. c. 26. The word which is here rendered breadth — T2 — occurs nowhere else in the Chaldean of the Scriptures, except in Ezra vi. 3: " Let the house be builded — the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits." Perhaps this refers rather to the depth of the temple from front to rear, as Taylor has re marked, than to the breadth from one side to another. If it does, it would cor respond with the measurement of Solo mon's temple, and it is not probable that Cyrus would vary from that plan in his instructions to build a new temple. If that be the true construction, then the meaning here may be, as remarked above, that the image was of that thickness, and the breadth from shoulder to shoulder may not be referred to. ^\He set it up in the plain of Dura. It would seem from this that it was set up in an open plain, and not in a temple; perhaps not near a temple. It was not unusual to erect im ages in this manner, as the colossal figure at Rhodes shows. Where this plain was, it is of course impossible now to deter mine. The Greek translation of the word is Aetipa — Deeira. Jerome says that the translation of Theodotion is Deira; of Symmachus, Doraum, and of the Ixx. Ttt.fiiSo'hov — which he says may be rendered vinarium vel conclusum locum. (< Inter preters commonly," says Gesenius, "com pare Dura a city mentioned by Ammin. Marcel. 25, 26, situated on the Tigris; and another of like name in Polyb. 5. 48, on the Euphrates near the mouth of the Chaboras." It is not necessary to sup pose that this was in the city of Babylon; and, indeed, it is probable that it was not, as the "province of Babylon" doubtless embraced more than the city, and an extensive plain seems to have been se lected, perhaps near the city, as a place where the monument would be more con spicuous, and where larger numbers could convene for the homage which was pro posed to be shown to it. ^f.7h the pro-
judges, the treasurers, the coun sellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to
vince of fiabylon. One of the provinces, or departments, embracing the capital, into which the empire was divided, ch. ii. 48.
2. Then Nebuchadnezzar the Jcing sent to gather tor/ether the princes. It is diffi cult now, if not impossible, to determine the exact meaning of the words used here with reference to the various officers designated: and it is not material that it should be done. The general sense is, that he assembled the great officers of the realm to do honour to the image. The object was doubtless to make the occasion as magnificent as possible. Of course, if these high officers were assem bled, an immense multitude of the people would congregate also. That this was contemplated, and that it in fact occurred, is apparent from vs. 4, 7. The word rendered princes— N}Jj?"n£?n^ — occurs only in Daniel, in Ezra, and in Esther. In Daniel iii. 2, 3, 27 j vi. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, it is uniformly rendered princes; in Ezra viii. 36, Esther, iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3, it is uniformly rendered lieutenants. The word means, according to Gesenius (Z ex.), "satraps, the governors or viceroys of the large provinces among the ancient Persians, possessing both civil and mili tary power, and being in the provinces the representatives of the sovereign, whose state and splendour they also rivaled." The etymology of the word is not certainly known. The Persian word satrap seems to have been the foundation of this word, with some slight modifica tions adapting it to the Chaldee mode of pronunciation. ^And governors. — X^.JD- This word is rendered governors in ch. ii. 48. (See Notes on that place, and in ch. iii. 2, 3, 27; vi. 7.) It does not else where occur. The Hebrew word corres ponding to this, cult? occurs frequently, and is rendered rulers in every place ex cept Isa. xli. 25, where it is rendered princes. Ezra ix. 2; Neh. ii. 16, iv. 14, v. 7, 17, vii. 5; Jer. Ii. 23, 28, 57; Ezek. xxiii. 6, 12, 23, et al. The office was evidently one that was inferior to thai of the satrap, or governor of a whole province. ^And captains. N^in.5. This the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3 Then the princes, the govern ors and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the she riffs, and all the rulers of the pro vinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Ne buchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
word, wherever it occurs in Daniel, is rendered captains, ch. iii. 2, 3, 27, vi. 7; wherever else it occurs it is rendered governor, Ezra v. 3, 6, 14, vi. 6, 7, 13. The Hebrew word corresponding to this, nns, occurs frequently, and is also ren dered indifferently governor or captain.
2 Kings xviii. 24, Jer. xxxvi. 9; in the Chaldean, Ezek. xxiii. 6, 23, Jer. li. 23, and in the Persian, Est. viii. 9, ix. 3. The word captains does not now very accurately express the sense. The office was not exclusively military, and was of a higher grade than would be denoted by the word captain with us. ^The judyes. {Oi'i'nN. This word occurs only here, and in ver. 3. It means properly great or chief judges — compounded of two words signifying greatness, and judges. See Gesenius, Lex. ^ The treasurers. N^ana. This word occurs nowhere else. The word "On — Gisbar, however, the same word with a slight change in the pronunciation, occurs in Ezra i. 8, vii. 21, and denotes treasurer. It is derived from a word (TJJ) which means to hide, to hoard, to lay up in store. ^[ The counsel lors. Nn?rn. This word occurs no where else, except in ver. 3. It means one skilled in the law; a judge. The office was evidently inferior to the one denoted by the word judges, f The sheriffs. A sheriff with us is a county officer, to whom is entrusted the administration of the laws. In England the office is judicial as well as ministerial. With us it is merely ministerial. The duty of the sheriff is to execute the civil and criminal procetses throughout the county. He has charge of the jail and prisoners, and attends courts, and keeps the peace. It is not to be supposed that the officer here referred to in Daniel, corresponds pre cisely with this. The word used — x;npn — occurs nowhere else. It means, accord ing to Gesenius, persons learned in the law; lawyers. The office had a close rela tion to that of Mufti among the Arabs, the term being derived from the same word, and properly means "a wise man; one whose response is equivalent to law." ^And all the rulers of the provinces. The term here used is a general term, and would apply to any kind of officers or rulers, and is probably designed to em brace all which had not been specified. The object was to assemble the chief officers of the realm. Jacchides has com pared the officers here enumerated with the principal officers of the Turkish em pire, and supposes that a counterpart to them may be found iif that empire. See the comparison in Grotius, in loc. He supposes that the officers last denoted un der the title of "rulers of the provinces," were similar to the Turkish Zangiahos, or viziers. Grotius supposes that the term refers to the rulers of cities, and places adjacent to cities — a dominion of less extent and importance than that of the rulers of provinces. ^To the dedica tion of the image, <fcc. The public set ting it apart to the purposes for which it was erected. This was to be done with solemn music, and in the presence of the principal officers of the kingdom. Until it was dedicated to the god in whose honour it was erected, it would not be regarded as an object of worship. It is easy to conceive that such an occasion would bring together an immense con course of people, and that it would be one of peculiar magnificence.
3. And they stood before the image. In the presence of the image. They were drawn up, doubtless so as at the same time to have the best view of the statue, and to make the most imposing appearance.
5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, a dulcimer, and all
proclamation. A herald here means a public crier. ^To you it?'« commanded. Marg., they commanded. Literally, 'to you commanding' (plural]; that is, the king has commanded. ^0 people, na tions, and language*. The empire of Babylon was made up of different nations, speaking quite different languages. The representatives of these nations were as sembled on this occasion, and the com mand would extend to all. There was evidently no exception made in favour of the scruples of any, and the order would include the Hebrews as well as others. It should be observed, however, that no oth ers bnt the Hebrews would have any scru ples on the subject. They were all accus tomed to worship idols, and the worship of one god did not prevent their doing homage also to another. It accorded with the prevailing views of idolaters that there were many gods; that there were tutelary divinities presiding over particu lar people; and thaj, it was not improper to render homage to the god of any peo ple or country. Though, therefore, they might themselves worship other gods in their own countries, they would have no scruples about worshipping also the one that.Nebuchadnezzar had setup. In this respect the Jews were an exception. They acknowledged but one God; they believed that all others were false gods, and it was a violation of the fundamental principles of their religion to render homage to any other.
5. That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet. It would not be practicable to determine with precision what kind of instruments of music are denoted by the words used in this verse. They were, doubtless, in many respects different from those which aro in use now, though they may have belonged to the same general class, and may have been constructed on substantially the same principles. A full inquiry into the kinds of musical instru ments in use among the Hebrews, may be found in the various treatises on the sub ject in Ugolin's Thesau. Ant. Sacra, torn, xxxii. Comp. also the Notes on Isa. v. 12. Thi? Chaldee word rendered cornet — *A"2 — the same as the Hebrew word pp — kinds of music, ye fall doAvn and worship the golden image that Ne buchadnezzar the king hath set up.
keren, means a horn, as e. g., of an ox, stag, ram. Then it means a wind instru ment of music resembling a horn, or per haps horns were at first literally used. Similar instruments are now used, as the French horn, &c. ^Flute. x.TpnV'S — mashrokitha. Gr. (rii/jiyydj. Vulg. fistula, pipe. The Chaldee word occurs nowhere else but in this chapter, vs. 5, 7, 10, 15, and is in each instance rendered flute. It probably denoted all the instruments of the pipe or flute class in use among the Babylonians. The corresponding Hebrew word is SiSn — hhalil. See this explained in the Notes on Isa. v. 12. The following remarks of the Editor of the Pictorial Bi ble will explain the usual construction of the ancient pipes or flutes: " The ancient flutes were cylindrical tubes, sometimes of equal diameter throughout, but often wider at the off than the near end, and sometimes widened at that end into a funnel shape, resembling a clarionet. They were always blown, like pipes, at one end, never transversely; they had mouth-pieces, and sometimes plugs or stopples, but no keys to open or close the holes beyond the reach of the hands. The holes varied in number in the different varieties of the flute. In their origin they were doubtless made of simple reeds or canes, but in the progress of improve ment they came to be made of wood, ivory, bone, and even metal. They were sometimes made in joints, but connected by an interior nozzle which was generally of wood. The flutes were sometimes double, that is, a person played on two instruments at once, either connected or detached; and among the classical an cients the player on the double-flute often had a leathern bandage over his mouth tc prevent the escape of his breath at the corners. The ancient Egyptians used the double-flute." Illustrations of the flute or pipe may be seen in the Notes on Isa. v. 12. Very full and interesting descrip tions of the musical instruments whicb were used among the Egyptians, may be nish an illustration of the usual form of this instrument among the ancient?. ^1 Harp. On the form of the harp, see Notes on Isa. v. 12. Cornp. Wilkinson, as above quote'!. The harp was one of the earliest instruments of music that was invented, Gen. iv. 21. The Chaldee word here used is not the common Hebrew word to denote the harp (~VU3, Jfi>,nor), but is a word which does not occur in Hebrew — Dnrvf? — kathros. This occurs nowhere else in the Chaldee, and it is manifestly the same as the Greek KiSdpa, and the La tin citharrt, denoting a harp. Whether the Chaldees derived it from the Greeks, or the Greeks from the Chaldees, however, cannot be determined with certainty. It has been made an objection to the genu ineness of the book of Daniel that the in struments here referred to were instru ments bearing Greek names. See Intro. $ 2, IV. (c) (5). ^Sackbut. Vulg. Sambuca. Gr. like the Vulg. aa\tliii<t\. These words are merely different forms of wri ting the Chaldee word N;3? — sabbechn. The word occurs nowhere else except in this chapter. It seems to have denoted a stringed instrument similar to the lyre or harp. Strabo affirms that the Greek word aapfivKti — scimbyk'u, is of barbarian, that is, of oriental origin. The Hebrew word from which this word is not impro bably derived — "13p> sabach — means to in terweave, to entwine, to jylait, as e. g. branches; and it is possible that this in strument may have derived its name from the intertwining of the strings. Comp. Gesemus on the word. Passow defines the Greek word aanftvvn — sambuca (Lat.), to mean a triangular stringed instrument that made the highest notes, or had the highest key; but as an instrument which, on account of the shortness of the strings, was not esteemed as very valuable, and had little power. Porphyry and Suidas describe it as a triangular instrument, furnished with cords of unequal length and thickness. The classical writers men tion it as very ancient, and ascribe its invention to the Syrians. Musonius describes it as having a sharp sound; and we are also told that it was often used to accompany the voice in singing iambic verses. Pict. Bib. It seems to have been a species of triangular lyre or harp. ^Psaltery. The Chaldee is jnrip?— pesanterin, Gr. i}sa\rfipiov; Vulg. psalterium. All these words manifestly have the same origin, and it has been on the ground that this word among others is of Greek origin, that the genuineness of this book has been called in question. The word occurs nowhere else but in this chapter, vs. 5, 7, 10, 15. The Greek translators often use the word ^aXrrjpiov — psaltery — I for ^55 — 7ie&7<eJ,and "\U3 — kinnor, and the I instrument here referred to was doubtless! of the harp kind. For the kind of instru-! ment denoted by the Sp) — nebhel, see j Notes on Isa. v. 12. Comp. the illustra-! tions in the Pict. Bible on Psalm xcii. 3. j It has been alleged that this word is of j Greek origin, and hence an objection has been urged against the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, on the presumption j that, at the early period when this book is supposed to have been written, Greek musical instruments had not been introduced into Chaldea. For a general reply to this, see the Intro. $ 2, IV. (e) (8.) It may be remarked further in regard to this objection, (1) that it is not absolutely certain that the word is derived from the Greek. See Pareau 1. c. p. 524, as quoted in Hengstenberg Authentic des Daniel, p. 16. (2) It cannot be demon strated that there were no Greeks in the regions of Chaldea as early as this. In deed, it is more than probable that there were. See Hengstenberg, p. 16. seq. Nebuchadnezzar summoned to this cele bration the principal personages through out the realm, and it is probable that there would be collected on such an oc casion all the forms of music that were known, whether of domestic or foreign origin. ^[ Dulcimer. X\32D'D — snmponya. This word occurs only here, and inverses 13, 15 of this chapter. In the margin it is rendered symphony or singing. It is the same as the Greek word av^wta — symphony, and in Italy the same instru ment of music is now called by a name of the same origin, zampogna, and in Asia Minor zambonja. It answered pro bably to the Hebrew 3J|1J?, rendered organ, in Gen. iv. 21, Job xxi. 12, xxx. 31, Ps. cl. 4. See Notes on Job xxL 12. Comp. the tracts on Hebrew musical instruments inscribed schiltc haggilborim in Ugolin, Thesau. vol. xxxii. The word eeems to have had a Greek origin, and is one of those on which an objection has been founded against the genuineness of the book. Comp. the Intro. $ 2, IV. (c) (7.) The word dulcimer means sweet, and would denote some instrument of music that was characterized by the sweetness of its tones. Johnson (Die.) describes the instrument as one that is "played by striking brass wires with little sticks." The Greek word would denote properly a concert or harmony of many instruments; but the word here is evidently used to denote a single instrument. Gesenius describes it as a double pipe with a sack; a bagpipe. Servius (on Virg. Aen. xi. 27) describes the symphonia as a bagpipe: and the Hebrew writers speak of it as a bag pipe, consisting of two pipes thrust through a leathern bag, and affording a mournful sound. It may be added that this is the same name which the bagpipe bore among the Moors in Spain; and all these cir cumstances concur to show that this was probably the instrument intendeo here. "The modern oriental bagpipe is composed with a goat skin, usually with the hair on, arid in the natural form, but deprived of the head, the tail, and the feet: being, thus of the same shape as that used by the water carriers. The pipes are usually of reeds, terminating in the tips of cows' horns slightly curved; the whole instrument being most primitively simple in its materials and construction." Pict. Bib. The annexed cut will furnish an illustration of this instrument, f And nil kinds of music. All other kinds. It is not probable that all the instruments employed on that occasion were actually enumerated. Only the principal instru ments are mentioned, and among them those which showed that such as were of foreign origin were employed on the oc casion. From the following extract from
I here is not an improbable one, and that such things were not uncommon in the East: "At the coronation of Soliman, king of Persia, the general of the mus-
| queteers having whispered some moments in the king's ear, among several other things of lesser importance gave out, that j both the loud and soft music should play in the two balconies upon the top of the great building which stands at one end of the palace royal, called kaisarie, or
6 And a whoso falleth not down and worsb.'ppeth shall the same
place imperial. No nation was dispensed with, whether Persians, Indians, Turks, Muscovites, Europeans, or others; which was immediately done. And this same tintamarre, or confusion of instruments, which sounded more like the noise of war than music, lasted twenty days to gether, without intermission, or the 'inter ruption of night; which number of twenty days was observed to answer the number of the young monarch's years, who was then twenty years of age." p. 51. Quoted in Taylor's Fragments to Calinet's Die. No. 485. It may be observed, also, that in such an assemblage of instruments, nothing would be more probable than that there would be some having names of for eign origin, perhaps names whose origin was to be found in nations not represented there. But if this should occur, it, would not be proper to set the fact down as an argument against the authenticity of the history of Father Chardin, and as little should the similar fact revealed here be regarded as an argument against the genuineness of the book of Daniel, f Ye shall fall doicn and worship. That is, you shall render religious homage. See these words explained in the Notes on eh. ii. 46. This shows, that whether this image was erected in honour of Belus, or of Nabopolassar, it was designed that he in whose honour it was erected should be worshipped as a god.
6 And loJtoso falleth not down and worshippeth. The order in this verse seems to be tyrannical, and it is contrary to all our notions of freedom of religious opin ion and worship. But it was much in the spirit of that age, and indeed of almost every age. It was an act to en force uniformity in religion by the au thority of the civil magistrate, and to secure it by threatened penalties. It should be observed, however, that the command at that time would not be re garded as harsh and oppressive by heathen worshippers, and might be complied with consistently with their views without in fringing on their notions of religious liberty. The homage rendered to one god did not, according to their views, conflict with any honour that was due to another, and, though they were required
hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery b furnace. t> Je. 29. 22.
to worship this divinity, that would not be a prohibition against worshipping any other. It was also in accordance with all the views of heathenism that all pro per honour should be rendered to the particular god or gods which any people adored. The nations assembled here would regard it as no dishonour shown tc the particular deity whom they wor shipped, to render homage to the god worshipped by Nebuchadnezzar, as this command implied no prohibition against worshipping any other god. It was only in respect to those who held that there is but one God, and that all homage ren dered to any other is morally wrong, that this command would be oppressive. Ac cordingly the contemplated vengeance fell only on the Jews — all, of every other nation, who were assembled, complying with the command without hesitation. It violated no principle which they held to render the homage which was claimed. for though they had their own tutelary gods whom they worshipped, they sup posed the same was true of every other people, and that their gods were equally entitled to respect; but it violated every principle on which the Jew acted — for he believed that there was but one God rul ing over all nations, and that homage rendered to any other was morally wrong. Comp. Hengstenberg Authentic des Da niel, pp. 83, 84. ^[ Shall the same hour. This accords with the general character of an oriental despot, accustomed to en join implicit obedience by the most sum mary process, and it is entirely conform able to the whole character of Nebuchad nezzar. It would seem from this, that there was an apprehension that some among the multitudes assembled would refuse to obey the command. Whether there was any design to make this bear hard on the Jews, it is impossible now to determine. The word which is here rendered hour — NpJL'f — is probably from n;;E> — to look, and properly denotes a look, a glance of the eye, and then the time of such a glance — a moment, an instant. It does not refer to an hour, as understood by us, but means instantly, immediately — as quick as the glance of an eye. The word is not found in Hebrew, and occurs in Chaldee the golden image that Nebuchad nezzar the king had set up.
8 Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews.
7 Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the lan guages, fell down and worshipped
only in Dan. iii. 6, 15; iv. 19, 33; v. 5, to terrify the bakers, and to prevent their in each case rendered hour. Nothing can! taking advantage of the scarcity to inbe inferred from it, however, in regard to | crease their gains.' See liosenmuller, the division of time among the Chaldeans j A1'e «• neue Morgenland, «•» loc. into hour*— though Herodotus says that | 7" AU- ™e people, the nations, the Ian- the Greeks received the division of the day into twelve parts from them. Lib 2, c. 109. ^ Be cast into the midftt of a burning fiery furnace. rendered furnace — pnN — attun, is derived from un — tenon, to smoke; and may be gna(jc8,fdl down, &c. All excepting the Jews. An express exception is made in regard to them in the following verses,
The wonTlaere an<* 'fc (*oes not HPPear ^iat any of them 1 were present on this occasion. It would seem that only the officers had been sum moned to be present, and it is not im-
8. Wherefore at that time certain Choideans came near and accused the Joes. It does not appear that they accused the oven. It does not denote the use to which the furnace was commonly ap plied, or the form of its construction. Any furnace for burning lime — if lime was then burned, or for burning bricks, j Jews in general, but particularly Shadrach, if they were burned, or for smelting ore, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ver. 12. They would correspond with the meaning of | were present on the occasion, being sumthe word. Nor is it said whether the I moned with the other officers of the furnace referred to would be one that \ realm, (ver. 2,) but they could not unite would be constructed for the occasion, or j in the idolatrous worship. It has been one in common use for some other pur- i frequently said that the whole thing was pose. The editor of Calmet (Taylor) arranged, either by the king of his own supposes that the 'furnace' here referred accord, or by the instigation of their eneto was rather a fire kindled in the open mies, with a view to involve the Jews in court of a temple, like a place set apart j difficulty, knowing that they could not for burning martyrs, than a closed fur- i conscientiously comply with the coninace of brick. See Cal. Die. vol. iv. p. I tnand to worship the image. But nothing 330, seq. The more obvious representa- j of this kind appears in the narrative tion, however, is, that it was a closed itself. It does not appear that the Jews place in which the intensity of the fire were unpopular, or that there was any could be greatly increased. Such a mode I less disposition to show favour to them of punishment is not uncommon in the than to any other foreigners. They had East. Chardin (vi. p. 118.) after speak- been raised indeed to high offices, but ing of the common modes of inflicting there is no evidence that any office was the punishment of death in Persia, re- 1 conferred on them which it was not re marks that 'there are other modes of in-! garded as proper to confer on foreigners; flicting the punishment of death on those; nor is there any evidence that in the diswho have violated the police laws, espe- i charge of the duties of the office they had cially those who have contributed to pro- i given occasion for a just accusation. The duce scarcity of food, or who have used j plain account is, that the king set up the false weight, or who have disregarded, image, for other purposes, and with no mathe laws respecting taxes. The cooks,' licious design towards them; that when says he, 'were fixed on spits, and roasted summoned to be present with the other over a gentle fire, (Comp. Jer. xxix. 22), j officers of the realm at the dedication of and the bakers were cast into a burning j the image they obeyed the command; oven. In the year 1668, when the famine i but that when the order was issued that was raging, I saw in the royal residence they should render religions homage to xn Ispahan one of those ovens burning the idol, everj principle of their religion
9 They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, 0 king, live afor ever.
10 Thou, 0 king, hast made a de cree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden im age:
11 And whoso falleth not down
be cast into the midst of a burning | fore the king, fiery furnace.
12 There are certain Jews whom thou hast set b over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadraeh, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, 0 king, c have not regarded d thee: they servo not thy gods, nor worship the golden imago which thou hast set up.
13 Tj Then Nebuchadnezzar in Jiis e rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men be-