04.07. DANIEL: AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF INSPIRATION

7. THE BOOK OF DANIEL: AN OUTSTANDING EXAMPLE OF INSPIRATION FOR this chapter we have the selection of a book from the Old Testament, and a discussion of the inspiration of that book. The book selected is Daniel, the one about which, in recent years, there has been the most controversy.

First, I call attention to the fact that the book of Daniel, from the time it was first written until the time of Christ, impressed the imagination of the people more than any other book of the Old Testament, just as the book of Revelation has impressed the public mind and the imagination since it was written, more than any other book of the New Testament. The circumstances connected with Daniel were very much like the circumstances of Joseph and Moses. The reader will recall that Joseph was taken as a prisoner into a foreign land, and there, on account of his purity and piety, and the favor of God, he was exalted to the chief position in the government of that nation, precisely similar to the case of Daniel, who was taken to Babylon and attained the highest position in the court there.

Many hundreds of years after Joseph came Moses, and Moses also was exalted to the highest position in the foreign government where his people were in bondage, and he was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and the favor of God was upon him. The circumstances of Daniel were very much like the circumstances which surrounded Moses. The book of Daniel is written in two languages. From the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter is written in Aramaic. The first chapter and three verses of the second chapter, and from the eighth on, it is written in Hebrew. The transition from Hebrew to Aramaic is very remarkable, and the transition back to Hebrew is equally remarkable. The circumstances under which the transition takes place sufficiently explains the transition to any thoughtful mind. I shall not discuss that phase of the subject here. I simply call attention to the fact. The Hebrew part of it is about like the Hebrew of the contemporaries of Daniel, and the Aramaic is about like the Aramaic of the contemporaries of Daniel.

Such is the testimony of the best scholarship upon this point.

Now, the reason I have chosen Daniel to illustrate the inspiration of a Book is that its inspiration has been attacked upon the following grounds: First, they say that it had no place in the Jewish canon of Scripture; that it was a novel written by a gifted Jew, say about one hundred and fifty years before Christ, in the time of the Maccabees.

Then they allege that the book cannot be inspired, because of false historical statements made in it. They deny the statement in the beginning of the book that there was any deportation of the Jewish people in the third year of the reign of Jehoiachim to Babylon. They say that is a false statement. They deny, as a matter of fact, that there was any Belshazzar, king of Babylon. They deny that Babylon was taken as represented in the book of Daniel. These are some among the matters of fact which they deny, and therefore they question its inspiration.

They then question its inspiration on account of the “incredible” miracles which it relates, and the “incredible” predictions which it makes. They admit that a large part of the predictive portions of the book exactly correspond to the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, but they claim the book was written after these events.

Now they claim that these are the grounds upon which the book of Daniel has been denied a place among the books of God. It is these objections that I wish to answer, and the first point that I make, or the first question I ask, is this: Was the canon of the Old Testament completed before the Maccabean period? Were all the books of the Old Testament written, as we now have them, before the time of Judas Maccabaeus? His history is set forth in the Apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus, a very fine book, though not inspired, and a book well worth reading. It is conceded that this book was written two hundred years before Christ. The grandson of the man who wrote it translated it into Greek one hundred and thirty years before Christ, and issued a preface, and now I quote from that preface. This book can be found in any of the large Bibles which contain also the Apocryphal books. He says:

“My grandfather, seeing that he had much given himself to the reading of the law, of the prophets, and of the other books of the fathers, and had gotten therein sufficient learning, was drawn himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom.” That is only a part of the preface, but the reader will note that the preface states the three divisions of the Old Testament the law, the prophets and the other books, or writings and three times he makes that statement in the preface-that the author of Ecclesiasticus, who wrote the book two hundred years before Christ, had, before he wrote his book, given much attention to the reading of this threefold division of the Old Testament the law, the prophets, and the other writings.

Nobody has ever been able to question the accuracy of the statement by this historian. We do not accept him as an inspired writer, but we do accept him as a competent historian who states a fact. This can be found now in any Jewish Bible just as he quotes it; so it appears in the Jewish Old Testament today, which, with the exception of the Apocrypha, is exactly like our Old Testament. The order of the books is not the same, but all the books are there, and they are just the same as our Old Testament. The next historical fact that I cite is the prevalent Jewish tradition which nobody questions, that the Old Testament canon was completed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, and that the last book added was the book of Malachi. That tradition can be found in writing in a number of places, and I could quote a great many passages in the Old Testament that make it extremely probable that this is correct, but I merely wish to cite historical facts. It is therefore a settled Jewish tradition that the canon of the Old Testament was closed in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, who were contemporaries of Daniel. The third historical fact is the testimony of Josephus, who himself cites this Jewish tradition, and who goes on to state that no book could possibly have been added after the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, because no Jew would accept, in his canon of Scripture, a book that had not been given by a prophet or approved by a prophet.

He says that after that time prophecy ceased in Israel, and that while they had a great many books written after that time, they were not accepted as inspired books. So here are three historical testimonies. My next question is, Was the book of Daniel in that list? If the book of Daniel was in the list of the Jewish sacred books as part of the law or the prophets, or other writings, that settles its inspiration and thoroughly answers at least two of the objections made against the book.

Without citing a vast multitude of authorities, I give a single statement by Eidersheim, one of the greatest of the Hebrew scholars. In the second volume of his Life of Christ, and in the fifth appendix, he pays a great deal of attention to the formation of the Jewish canon and the books that enter into that canon, and says: “No Jew of the ancient synagogue ever questioned the right of Daniel’s place in the canon of the Old Testament Scriptures,” and he challenges the world to show a single instance. In Smith’s Bible Dictionary is an article on the book of Daniel by Westcott, one of our greatest Hebraists, and he states about the same thing that Eidersheim does with reference to it.

Let us now examine the testimony of Josephus upon Daniel. He not only places Daniel among the sacred books, but he refers to some of his remarkable predictions which have been fulfilled and, in closing, he says, “Now, as for myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me.”

He also says that the prophetic character of the book of Daniel was by the Jews placed higher than any other book of the Old Testament, except the Law of Moses. In the next place, nobody denies that the book of Daniel is in the Septuagint translation, the Greek version of the Old Testament. These are historical evidences to show about the canon and about the books being in the canon. The next question is, “Does any Old Testament book refer to Daniel to show that he was a real person, and that he lived at the time specified in his book, and that his character corresponds to the character set forth in the book?” The only place that one could find this would be in some book written by a contemporary, and I will cite such a book: Ezekiel was a captive in Babylon at the time Daniel was. He was brought there some time later, but the two were there together. Ezekiel was a prophet to the people of Israel in Babylonian bondage. Daniel was an officer of the court. Now here is Ezekiel’s testimony.

Ezekiel 14:13-14 : “Son of man, when the land sinneth against me by trespassing grievously, then will I stretch out mine hand upon it, and will break the staff of the bread thereof, and will send famine upon it, and will cut off man and beast from it. Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God.”

Ezekiel 14:20 of the same chapter reads:“Though Noah, Daniel and job were in it, as I live, saith the Lord God, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall deliver but their own souls by their righteousness.”

Another passage from the same book - Ezekiel 28:3 - reads: “Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel: there is no secret that they can hide from thee.”

These are the references. In the first and second, a reference is made to the righteousness of Daniel, and in them he is associated with Noah and Job; Noah interceding for the whole world, but able to save none of them, except himself and his family, by his righteousness; Job interceding for his three friends, and Daniel interceding for his people in captivity. The last reference shows the extraordinary wisdom of Daniel.

Now we must either assume that there were two Daniels, one who had lived in the time of Ezekiel, whose piety and intercessory power in prayer and whose wisdom were so remarkable as to make him a colossal figure in the mind of Ezekiel, and that some man far subsequent to this time wrote the book and put it off as a forgery under the name of this Daniel, or that Daniel wrote the book that is attributed to him. But Ezekiel’s facts came from the book of Daniel. It is in the book of Daniel that we find out about his piety, his intercession and his righteousness. In the next place, they say this book was written by a forger in the days of the Maccabees. Now against that I submit two quotations from the book of Maccabees. The first page of the first book of Maccabees, fifty-fourth verse, quotes the following passages from the book of Daniel:

“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand, two hundred and ninety days.” When the book of Maccabees was written there was the Daniel literature in the hands of the writer of the book, and he quotes from it; but in 1Ma 2:59-60, he quotes from the book of Daniel about the three Hebrew children in the fiery furnace, and how that God preserved their lives, and then he quotes that Daniel himself, though innocent, was cast into the den of lions, and was saved by the power of his God.

I cite another fact: The impress of the book upon the inter-Biblical period appears by the number of myths and legends that attach themselves to this book. In the Catholic Bible we find in that chapter that tells about the three Hebrew children in the furnace right in the midst of that account-a number of verses purporting to give the song of the three Hebrew children the song they sang while in that fiery furnace. This Apocryphal writer of the inter-Biblical period had the history Daniel wrote about the preservation of these Hebrew children.

Then we find at the end of the book two appendices which the Roman Catholics receive. One is the account of Susanna, and the other, the Dragon.

Here are three Apocryphal traditions, or legends, which have fastened themselves upon the book of Daniel, and such is the character attributed to him for wisdom, and his veracity in writing the account of the three Hebrew children that these traditions continue to survive. But Dr. Farrar objects to the book of Daniel because it made no impress upon the inter-Biblical period. That is his objection to the book. But here is the history, and here are three legends that, during this period, grew up and attached themselves to the book. They are not in the Hebrew canon, of course, but we find them appended to the book in the Septuagint translation. The next question is, “What has the New Testament to say about the book of Daniel?” I cite first Matthew 24:14-15 :

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand).”

Jesus is answering three questions here: When shall the Temple be destroyed? When shall Jerusalem be destroyed? What shall be the sign of His coming and the end of the world? His answer is:

“When therefore ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, flee unto the mountains.”

Now, this is the testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. He quotes from Daniel the prophet. He cites that remarkable prediction of the desolation set forth in Daniel 12:1-13. Now let us look into the next chapter, Matthew 26:64. Here Jesus Christ is again speaking: “Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.” Where from the Old Testament could such a conception as that be found? We find it in the seventh chapter of Daniel, where the Son of man comes to the Ancient of Days, and where there is given unto Him a kingdom, and power, and great glory, and that expression, “Son of Man.” There is no other book of the Bible from which it could be taken, except the book of Daniel.

Here, also, we find “the Kingdom of Heaven,” the institution of the Kingdom represented by the Stone that was seen cut out without hands, and that struck the image that represented the kingdoms of the world and that broke them up in pieces and scattered them. Our Saviour refers to that when telling how His Kingdom shall be preached throughout all the world, and says:

“Whosoever falls upon this stone, he shall be broken, and upon whomsoever this stone shall fall, he shall be ground to powder.”

Suppose we look at the miracles recorded in Daniel. In Hebrews 11:33 we find that miracle of preservation from fire quoted by the author of the letter to the Hebrews.

Let us also look at the doctrine of the angels, as set forth in the book of Daniel. In Luke 1:19-26, we see the angel Gabriel appearing to Zacharias and to Mary.

Now let us look at the analogues that Daniel furnishes. We see them reproduced in the book of Revelation, so that the book of Revelation and the book of Daniel stand or fall together. The thirteenth chapter of Revelation and the seventh, eighth and eleventh chapters of Daniel must fall together, or stand together forever.

We now look at Paul’s “man of sin” that speaks the great swelling words of blasphemy and thinks himself above God. Unquestionably he gets it from Daniel 7:26, and it is again referred to in Revelation 13:5. It is thus evident that the New Testament certifies to the prophecies of Daniel, the miracles of Daniel, the history of Daniel, and the inspiration of Daniel.

Here, then, we have the Old Testament in Ezekiel, the inter-Biblical period in the book of Maccabees, and the New Testament in Christ and Paul and John, all pointing to this book as a proof of God’s revelation and inspiration.

Let us now look at the objections, which are: first, that this book is a forgery; second, that certain statements made in it are falsehoods unsupported by any historical evidence; third, that the miracles in it are incredible; and fourth, that the predictions in it are incredible.

Let us look at the matter of fact. I have examined with great care the statements made in the first chapter of Daniel. He says that Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third year of the Jewish King (Nebuchadnezzar at that time was not King, but Prince Royal) and that he took back with him certain Jewish prisoners of the princes: Daniel and those three young men, specifically mentioned in the book of Daniel, are all identified in the beginning of the book as having been taken by Nebuchadnezzar.

Now what the objectors claim is, that Nebuchadnezzar never made that expedition. The statements made in Jeremiah and in Herodotus, the Greek historian, and in Josephus with reference to this matter, are simply inexplicable unless this fact occurred just as Daniel says it did.

Take the next objection stated. They claim that Daniel’s statement about Nebuchadnezzar’s madness-that he lost his mind for a number of years and ate grass like an ox is unsupported, but it is that very fact that the Babylonian historians confirm, and a number of other historians who testify to that very derangement of mind of Nebuchadnezzar. The next fact is that about Belshazzar. Now, upon what ground do they dispute the capture of Babylon and the death of Belshazzar? They dispute it upon one solitary ground, the recent discovery of a tablet set up by Cyrus to commemorate his conquest of Babylon. Let us assume, in the first place, that this tablet says what they claim it says. But, on the other hand, what is it?

There is first the testimony of Xenophon in his history, who lived there in his time, and whose account of the conquest of Babylon harmonizes with Daniel.

Then we put over against it the testimony of Herodotus, the father of history, who lived near that time, and his accounts and the account of Daniel are in harmony.

Here, now, are three historians Daniel, Xenophon and Herodotus and the critics propose to offset the testimony of these three historians by a little tablet scarcely discernible. The inscriptions on it-the most important part of them-are defaced or rubbed out, so that one cannot make out what it says. And yet it is a fact that the tablet confirms the Daniel account, according to the best translations of that tablet. It is needless to go over all of this. I simply say that a close examination of the tablet clears up the only point of doubt in it, viz.: as to whether Darius the Mede entered into Babylon. Somebody died that night. The inscriptions read, “the King’s son,” and the King’s son was Belshazzar. Daniel testifies that Belshazzar was to die the very night of the capture of Babylon. That tablet declares that on that very night a certain important personage died, which filled the whole land with mourning.

Now, the question is, How are we going to read it? They say we should read it,

“the King’s wife.” We say that we should read it, “the King’s son.” While there can be no certainty attached to it, it ought to be the King’s son that died, and, giving it this reading, the tablet and the record in Daniel are in harmony; and no matter what the tablet may have said, it is not sufficient to displace the testimony of three competent historians-one, Daniel, living at the time, and one Xenophon, living so near the time and writing upon matters of which he is fully informed, and Herodotus, the father of history. So the historians and the Greek stand together, and the tablet may be harmonized with them.

Now with reference to the miracles: They say that the miracles are incredible, yet any miracle is incredible from a human standpoint. The question is, was there an occasion for special miracles at this juncture? It certainly was a transition period. The Jewish polity had just been destroyed. The people had been led into captivity. They were now passing through one of the most vital transitions in all of their history, and it is always at those periods that miracles are introduced.

Miracles became necessary in the time of Moses to attest him, to accredit him in the movement that led the people out of their captivity and to establish them as a nation in their own country, and the character of the miracle corresponded with the necessity of the case. Here are the people in captivity again. Here is a great man like Joseph and Moses, the man of highest power among his people, and if ever miracles were needed to give credentials to a man through whose mighty influence Israel was to be restored, it was needed now. So, there is nothing incongruous in the miracles of that period.

Suppose we take a passage from the Scriptures on this. I cite Micah 6:5 : “O my people, remember…that ye may know the righteous acts of Jehovah.” The reference is to the effect that, as in the days of Moses, God intervened with mighty wonders, so He will again intervene under similar conditions. That is the substance of the statement. The point I am seeking to impress is that miracles in the New Testament time were never introduced unless they were necessary. There must be an occasion to justify them. The conditions justified the kind of miracles that were brought to pass in Daniel’s time; and if we object to this book on the basis of miracles, we can object to any other book in the Bible just as well.

Now let us look at the predictions. What is the matter with the predictions? The critics say that the references to the four successive kingdoms, culminating as they did with full explanations about the Greek and Persian kingdoms, were so very exact that they must be history instead of predictions. They make exactly the same objections to Isaiah 53:1-12. They say that Isaiah’s picture of the sufferings of our Saviour is so exact-that it is so precisely fulfilled in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ-that it must have been written after the coming of Christ. But let us take another prediction in the book. This prediction, if it had any fulfilment at all, had to be fulfilled after the writing of the book. Here it is:

“Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy. Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Anointed One, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks:” (that is, sixty-nine weeks,) “and it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. And after the threescore and two weeks shall the Anointed One be cut off, and shall have nothing: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined.”

Here is a prediction that, first of all, points to the destruction of Jerusalem. The city is to be destroyed; next, the vision and the oblation are to cease, so there are to be no more offerings upon the Jewish altar; next, to make reconciliation for sin; next,’ the coming of Messiah, the Prince; then the cutting off of the Messiah to be followed by the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. That is the prediction, and the time is given, and that is one of their objections to it-the specific time given.

Now I submit one simple test, set forth over and over in the prophecies. Sixty-nine weeks must pass before Messiah comes. The Jewish method of computation at that time was to count thirty days to the month, and just exactly to a day from the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, as we find in the second chapter of Nehemiah just to a day from the issuing of that decree, sixty-nine weeks of years, Jesus of Nazareth came into Jerusalem, and the multitudes spread their garments before Him and quoted the words of the prophet Zechariah about the coming of the Kingdom and the Messiah of the Kingdom, who was Jesus of Nazareth. In other words, the crucifixion of Christ under the statement that I have just made, fits the prophecy of Daniel, not to a year, not to a month, but to a day; and if the Messiah-Prince has not come, when is He to come? He was to come before Jerusalem was destroyed.

We know that it is the doctrine of our belief as much as we believe anything about the Bible, that when He died He made reconciliation for sin, and that it was then that He brought in everlasting righteousness; and we do know that after the destruction of Jerusalem the oblation ceased; and we do know that the vision has closed, that prophecy has ceased. Now, that is the prediction. I know of nothing in all the prophecies of the Bible so remarkable as that ninth chapter of Daniel. Now they claim that the book was written as late as one hundred and fifty years before Christ! This is one of its predictions. Let us now take another-the prediction that those kingdoms of this world are to be given over to the saints of the Most High God-and compare this with the prophecy of Jesus in the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth chapters of Matthew, also the prophecy of Jesus in the book of Revelation, and if one can deny the inspiration of Daniel he must deny the inspiration of Christ. If he can take away the authority of that book he may take away the authority of any book in the Bible.

I don’t know any better exemplification of the folly of the higher critics than the issue that they have made upon the book of Daniel. I don’t know of one single point that they can sustain as a matter of fact in history. Suppose, for example, to illustrate their questionings of the integrity of this book, this argument: “There are certain Greek words in the book that demand a later day for its writing than the date assigned to it.” The first time that I saw that argument I thought it must be something very formidable. What are those Greek words? They are just two-the names of two instruments of music. Two Greek instruments of music are referred to under their Greek names, and that, they say, demands a later date for the book than the time assigned to it.

Let us go back to the time assigned to it, and that is about the time of Ezekiel and Jeremiah. Was there any contact with the Greek world up to that time? Had there been any touch with the people of Greece that would at least account for the names of two musical instruments in the book? No other fact of history is established more clearly than that. The only mystery to me is that there are not more such words, and how puerile that sounds to make such a tremendous assertion upon such a trivial basis as that! The subject for the next chapter is this: Why have inspired books, and especially inspired in their words, unless we have the precise text of the books?

Second: Why have inspiration of words when the masses of the people have to depend upon translations and versions, as we do?

Now, as the words, as originally given, are lost, and we depend upon copies only, and as we admit that the copies vary, and that we have to depend upon the translations of those copies, then why insist upon inspiration?

These are two of the objections that will be answered in the next chapter, with some others of like nature.