Commentary on Daniel Chapters 1-12 John Calvin
DANIEL
occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been depressed. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Therefore, Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, that we may not think Jerusalem to have been taken in violation of God's promise to Abraham and his posterity. He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. Now, this might seem altogether out of place, and would shock the minds of the faithful. For what does it mean? That God's temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had not God borne witness that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here will I dwell because I have chosen it. (Psalm 132:14.) If any place in the world were impregnable, here truly honor ought to remain entire and untainted in the temple of God. When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this cast down the minds of the holy? No one was surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected trial would not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple? Although he does not dwell in this world, and is not enclosed in walls of either wood or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Psalm 80:1, and Psalm 99:1, and Isaiah 37:16,)and often by means of his Prophets asserted his seat to between the Cherubim. What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word assures us that we ought not to be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked apostates. For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis; as the Lord did not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God, therefore, exposed him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his impious people. It now follows —
Daniel 1:3 3. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and the of the king's seed, and of the princes;
3. Et mandavit1 70 Rex Aspenazo 71 principi eunuchorum, ut educeret e filiis Israel et ex semine regio, et ex principibus. 72
Here Daniel pursues his narrative, and shows the manner in which he was led away together with his companions. The king had demanded young men to be brought, not from the ordinary multitude, but from the principal nobility, who stood before him, that is, ministered to him. Hence, we ascer-
70Or, declared — Calvin. 71Or, said to Aspenaz, as those who retain the Hebrew phrase translate it. — Calvin. 72Or, elders — Calvin.
JOHN CALVIN
tain why Daniel and his companions were chosen, because they were noble young men and of the royal seed, or at least of parents who surpassed others in rank. The king did this purposely to show himself a conqueror; he may also have taken this plan designedly, to retain hostages in his power; for he hoped, as we shall see, that those who were nourished in his palace would be degenerate and hostile to the Jews, and he thought their assistance would prove useful to himself. He also hoped, since they were born of a noble stock, that the Jews would be the more peaceable, and thus avoid all danger to those wretched exiles who were relations of the kings and the nobles. With regard to the words, he calls this Aspenaz the prince of eunuchs, under which name he means the boys who were nourished in the king's palace to become a seminary of nobles; for it is scarcely possible that this Aspenaz was set over other leaders. But we gather from this place, that the boys whom the king held in honor and regard were under his custody. The Hebrews calls eunuchs
a name which belongs to certain prefects; for Potiphar is called by this name though he had a wife. So this name is everywhere used in Scripture for the satraps of a king; (Genesis 37:36; Genesis 40:2, 7;) but since satraps also were chosen from noble boys, they were probably called eunuchs, though they were not made so, yet Josephus ignorantly declares these Jewish children to have been made eunuchs. But when eunuchs existed among the luxuries of Oriental kings, as I have already said, those youths were commonly called by this name whom the king brought up as a kind of school of nobles, whom he might afterwards place over various province.
The king, therefore, commanded some of the children of Israel of the royal seed and of the nobles to be brought to him. So the sentence ought to be resolved; he did not command any of the common people to be brought to him, but some of the royal race, the more plainly to show himself their conqueror by doing all things according to his will. He means those "elders" who yet were in chief authority under the king of Judah. And Daniel also was of that tribe, as we shall afterwards see. The word {,}פרתמיםpharthmim, "princes," is thought to be derived from Perah, which is the Euphrates, and the interpreters understand prefects, to whom the provinces on the banks of the Euphrates were committed; but this does not suit the present passage where Jews are treated of. We now see the general signification of this name, and that all the elders ought to be comprehended under it. 73 — The rest tomorrow.
PRAYER. Grant, Almighty God, since thou settest before us so clear a mirror of thy wonderful providence and of thy judgments on thine ancient people, that we may also be surely persuaded of our being under thy hand and protection
73'This word has caused great difference of opinion among commentators. Theodotion does not attempt to explain it. Symmaehus takes it for the Parthians. Jerome interprets it by tyranni, and Saadias by their off-spring. Aben-Ezra considers it a foreign word; and R. Salom. Jarehi calls it Persian, and translates it "leaders" Hottinger and Aug. Pfeiffer both treat it as Persian, but derive it from different roots. "Nobles" or "elders" seems its best English equivalent.