Daniel 1

Third year of Jehoiakim: Babylon comes and besieges. Wesley will mark the captives of this expedition, among whom Daniel and his friends. The siege is a historical act of an empire, not a sermon against “empire” as a modern slogan.

The verse records armies, walls, and dates. Human agency is not canceled by the next verse’s “the Lord gave.” The Most High will be confessed as ruler; the siege is still a king’s doing under that rule.

Calvin labors the chronology (father and son Nebuchadnezzars, Jehoiakim’s years) because the event is history under providence, not a myth. The coming is by command and direction, yet still a coming.

Second causes stand. The siege is not a bare stage-play. Wesley agrees: Jerusalem was actually besieged. The fork waits on v. 2’s “gave.”

And the Lord gave Jehoiakim into his hand, with some of the vessels. Wesley: in this expedition captives were carried, Daniel among them; the god is Baal or Bel and Nebo. The vessels go to Shinar, to a house that is not the Lord’s.

Arminian readers take “the Lord gave” at full strength: Jerusalem’s fall is God’s act of judgment. It does not make Nebuchadnezzar a mere instrument without will, nor excuse Judah’s long unfaithfulness. God rules through a world where a king besieges and a people fall, and the promise to Abraham survives the judgment rather than being cancelled by it.

Calvin: not by his own valor, counsel, fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Providence and judgments, so we may not think the taking violated the promise. Under the name of God a silent antithesis: He did not deliver Jehoiakim without just reason. Vessels of the temple in a pagan treasury would shock; Daniel recalls us to the judgment of God.

Effectual rule, not a bare permission after the fact. No random power in the creatures. The giving is the King’s actual hand, including the means—the siege, the exile, the house of Shinar. Second causes remain; they are established, not erased. Nothing happens but what He has knowingly and willingly decreed, yet He is not the author of Judah’s revolt.

The king commands Ashpenaz to bring some of Israel, of the royal offspring and nobility. Wesley: eunuchs as chief servants; of the princes, Isaiah 39:7 fulfilled.

The conqueror is carrying out a deliberate policy. Isaiah’s word coming true is providence meeting a king’s command. Hostages of rank are still persons who will resolve in v. 8.

Calvin: not from the ordinary multitude but principal nobility, that he might show himself a conqueror and retain hostages. He hoped they would degenerate and become useful, and that the Jews would be more peaceable.

The king consults his advantage. God is still the giver of v. 2; this command is inside that giving. Nobles taken, prophecy standing.

Youths without blemish, skilled, to learn the learning and the language of the Chaldeans. Wesley: the Chaldeans skilled above others in natural philosophy; the tongue differed in dialect; they learned it to be more acceptable to king and court.

Language is a bond, and a snare if it erases Judah. Competence is not sin. The test will be whether the literature owns them.

Calvin: rank plus cleverness. Learning and liberal arts were not despised. Chaldean learning mixed true star-knowledge with imposture; Daniel might learn liberal science as Moses the sciences of Egypt, yet abstain from diabolic arts. The king wished them to forget Jewish birth by degrees.

God can adorn His servants with skill without approving magic. They are to be taught; the heart is not yet renamed.

Wesley: such as he had at his own table.

Assigned food is policy, not yet defilement until the resolve of v. 8 names it. Three years is a long catechism in another court. Agency will show in what they will not eat.

Calvin: that they might be intoxicated with delicacies and forget their nation. Not liberality: he cleverly reconciles the boys to be reckoned Chaldeans rather than Jews.

A snare of the court inside providence. Shared: the king’s meat is assigned; standing before him is the aim. No diet-war as a modern cause.

Among these: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah of Judah. Wesley: probably all of the royal lineage of Judah.

Four youths, not a party. Judah is still their tribe under Babylon’s roof. The story will be theirs without making the rest of the captives a foil for politics.

Calvin: he comes to what belongs to his purpose—how God prepared him for the prophetic office. He does not say he was of the royal house, only of Judah; perhaps modestly. He leaves out the rest because he had nothing to record of them here.

God is already distinguishing servants He will use.

The chief eunuch gives names: Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego. Wesley: other names relating to the idol-gods; Daniel from Baal or Bel. This was by the king’s command, and herein he put forth an act of his sovereignty. A king’s sovereignty is authentic and limited. He can relabel; he cannot finally unmake worshipers of the Lord. The act is an empire’s. Daniel will keep the God of Israel under a Babylonian name.

Calvin: names changed that by all means the king might blot out remembrance of their race. Hard trial: a badge of slavery as often as they heard their names. They could not hinder the change; they had enough to retain the remembrance of their race, which Satan wished to blot out. Divinely governed, they stood pure and spotless.

The palace’s sovereignty is inside a higher one. Both traditions agree: the names are given; the fear of God is not. The youths remain Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah before the Lord.