Bible Commentaries
Daniel 5

Verses 1-30

IV

DANIEL AND BELSHAZZAR

Daniel 5:1-30

The title of this chapter is "Daniel and Belshazzar." The scripture is Daniel 5. It will be recalled that in the chapter on the historical introduction to this book certain matters relating to introduction were reserved for the exposition. Daniel 5 is a case in point. We are here introduced to two names which have occasioned much controversy, Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. Moreover, there are variant readings in the texts and versions. Usually the accepted Hebrew text, the Greek version of Theodotion and the old Peshito Syriac version agree on the text. The chief variations are found in the Septuagint version. It is a safe rule to follow the three against the one when we come to a variant reading. The Septuagint Daniel is by far the most untrustworthy of the Old Testament books in that version.

Of this much we may be assured – that neither in the accepted Hebrew text, nor in the Theodotion, nor in the Peshito Syriac, nor in the Septuagint do we find any support for the contentions of the radical critics concerning Belshazzar and Darius the Mede. No text or version supports any one of their main contentions: (1) That the book of Daniel was written by an unknown Jew after the days of Antiochus Epiphanes; (2) that there was no king Belshazzar; (3) no king Darius the Mede; (4) that Daniel 5-6 cannot be reconciled with the discoveries of the latest archeological research on the history of Cyrus.

Much has been made in this controversy of what is called the "Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus," brought to light by modern research. This now famous tablet is very brief and is so much broken that it must be reconstructed; even when reconstructed there are gaps which cannot be supplied; and it is very difficult to decipher what is inscribed, so difficult that the experts themselves cannot agree on the rendering. But the most of them, including Driver himself, support a rendering in substantial accord with the book of Daniel.

The historians of the period such as Xenophon, Herodotus, Rawlinston (Ancient Monarchies) furnish corroboration of the statements in the book of Daniel, whatever may be the merits of their testimony. But what is much more important, the Daniel account of the fall of Babylon before the Medes and Persians is in line with the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah concerning that event, and the several accounts by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel are all endorsed in the book of Revelation, giving an account of the fall of the mystical Babylon based on the Old Testament analogue of the historical Babylon.

The reader will find Driver’s rendering of the Cyrus tablet in his book on Daniel in the "Cambridge Bible Series." Professor Sayce’s rendering may be found in Appendix II of Daniel in the Critics’ Den and also the better rendering of Theo. G. Pinches, by whom the tablet was brought to light, and the rendering of St. Chad Boscawen. So that these men – Pinches, Boscawen, and Driver – with others, agree in deciphering the inscription: (1) In harmony with the book of Daniel; (2) against the Sayce rendering.

If, then, we rightly regard this matter as a Judicial inquiry, all its evidence to be compared, cross-examined and weighed by judicial minds according to the laws of evidence; and if we accept for our guidance the six fundamental rules of law touching evidence laid down by Mr. Greenleaf in his Testimony of the Evangelists, there will be no trouble in accepting the book of Daniel as credible history. Mr. Greenleaf’s rules are as follows:

1. "Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be other-wise." Now under that law we have our document of the book of Daniel, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custodian and no evident marks of forgery on it, and that document before any law court would be pronounced genuine.

2. "In matters of public and general interest all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs." Now apply that to Daniel living in Babylon at that time, an observer of the transactions which he relates.

3. "In trials of fact by oral testimony the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true." Now apply that law to every statement made in the book of Daniel.

4. "A proposition of fact is proved when its proof is established by competent and satisfactory evidence."

5. "In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is presumed to be credible until the contrary is shown. The burden of impeaching his credibility lies on the objector."

6. "The credulity due to the testimony of a witness depends upon: (1) their honesty; (2) their ability; (3) their number and the consistency of their testimony; (4) the conformity of their testimony with experience; and (5) the conformity of their testimony with collateral circumstances."

We can then understand why such great authorities on evidence as Mr. Greenleaf, and Lord Chancellors Hatherley, Cairns, and Selborne are never disturbed by the arrogant claims of the radical critics. They never forget that "no kind of evidence more demands the test of cross-examination than that of experts, whose proper place is the witness chair and not the judgment seat" – (Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, History of the Criminal Law, quoted by Sir Robert Anderson). They never confound an expert’s real evidence with his logic or the conclusions of his mind. On this very point Sir Robert Anderson most pertinently quotes Lord Hatherley, in his Continuity of Scripture speaking of "the supposed evidence, on which are based some very confident assertions of a self-styled higher criticism! Assuming the learning to be profound and accurate which has collected the material for much critical performance, the logic by which conclusions are deduced from those materials is frequently grievously at fault, and open to the judgment of all who may have been accustomed to sift and weigh evidence." The book of Daniel, then, as a "document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

Its place in the canon of Hebrew inspired books was never questioned in the ancient synagogue. Our Lord and his apostles found it there and treated it as inspired history and prophecy. Only one man, and he a heathen, ever assailed its genuineness or authenticity for more than two thousand years. The chief presupposition of modern assault upon it is purely atheistical; namely, there can be no real miracle or prophecy and therefore the book must be accounted for naturally (not supernaturally) and must be dated and estimated accordingly, which begs the whole question.

On the premises thus briefly set forth this author accepts Daniel 8:9, a competent witness of the matters relative to Belshazzar and Darius coming under his own observation, and our attention will now be given to that evidence. All its references to Belshazzar apart from Daniel 5 are these: "In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed" (Daniel 7:1). "In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me, Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first" (Daniel 8:1). Daniel 5:1 commences: "Belshazzar the king made a great feast . . " and closes thus: "In the night Belshazzar, the Chaldean king, was slain. And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about three score and two years old."

While the book of Daniel does not say anything about Belshazzar’s father, history shows that his father was still living and that Belshazzar is called the king’s son. These three verses then suggest that he was co-regent with his father, his father being the first ruler, he the second ruler, and his proposition to make whosoever would interpret that handwriting the third ruler. The critics say it should be "the ruler of the third part," and the Septuagint version seems to support them, but the Hebrew text and the Theodotion version and our common English version and our Revised Version and the English Version of the Jewish text, all testify that the rendering should be, "the third ruler in the kingdom." I have before me the Jewish Bible, that is, the English translation of the Jewish Bible, and on Daniel 5 in each instance it renders those three verses that I have just quoted exactly as I quoted them. It reads as follows: "Whatsoever man will read this writing and tell me its meaning shall be clothed with purple and shall have a chain of gold about his neck and shall rule as third in the kingdom." Daniel 5:16 puts it this way, "and shall rule as the third in the kingdom." The next verse he interprets "that he should rule as the third in the kingdom." So that while the radical critic says that the rendering, "the third ruler in the kingdom," is untenable, he puts himself against the very highest scholarship in Germany and England, against the two English versions, against the Jewish version, against the Theodotion Greek version, and our common Hebrew text. We understand then that Belshazzar was king, his father associating him with himself in the kingdom. We learn from history that Nabonidus, his father, was a man who preferred privacy and seclusion. He had very little to do with public affairs. He was not even in Babylon when it was invaded by the Medes and Persians. He was not present when they took Babylon. He commanded no armies. His son Belshazzar is represented as a warlike man, a general, and whatever war there was conducted by Belshazzar. We look then at the next affirmation.

Daniel 5 says thus: Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Belshazzar while he tasted the wine commanded to bring the gold and silver vessels which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple which is in Jerusalem, that the king and his lords and his wives and his concubines might drink therefrom. Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem, and the king and his lords and his wives and his concubines drank from them. They drank wine and praised the gods of gold and silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.

That is Daniel’s account of what was done on the night of the awful catastrophe of the fall of Babylon. I want to compare that with the prophecy of Isaiah and of Jeremiah concerning the destruction of Babylon. In Isaiah 21:4-5; Isaiah 21:9 we have this account: "My heart fluttereth, horror hath frighted me; the twilight that I desired hath been turned into trembling unto me. They prepare the table, they set the watch, they eat, they drink: rise up,-ye princes, anoint the shield." Then he goes on to give an account of the fall: "Fallen, fallen, is Babylon, and all the graven images of her gods are broken unto the ground." So that Isaiah in his time, prophesying of the fall of Babylon, makes the occasion of the fall the time when they are at the table – when they are eating and drinking.

I take passages from Jeremiah 51: "The mighty men of Babylon have forborne to fight, they remain in their strongholds; they are become as women; they have burned her dwelling places; her bars are broken. One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city is taken on every quarter and the passages are seized, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted" (Jeremiah 51:30-32). "In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep perpetual sleep, and not wake saith the Lord. I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he-goats" (Jeremiah 51:39). "And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men; and they shall sleep a sleep perpetual, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is Jehovah of hosts" (Jeremiah 51:57).

We find then that both Isaiah and Jeremiah represent the downfall of Babylon as coming when they are at a feast, eating, drinking, and drunken, and that feast ends with their sudden destruction, so that Daniel’s account in that affirmation is certainly sustained by the older prophets.

We now come to the next affirmation (Daniel 5:3-4; Daniel 5:18-24), representing that this is a conflict with Jehovah himself. They commence by insulting Jehovah, by using the sacred Temple vessels for drinking their wine on such an occasion. They not only drink their wine out of the sacred vessels, but they praise the idols, and so when Daniel comes in he makes that point against them when he comes to interpret the vision. Let us see what he says on that point. Daniel 5:18: "Oh thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father the kingdom, and greatness, and glory, and majesty: and because of the greatness that he gave him, all of -the peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, whom he would he put down. But when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was hardened so that he dealt proudly, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: and he was driven from the sons of men, and his heart was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses; he was fed with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; until he knew that the most high God ruleth in the kingdom of men, and that he setteth up over it whosoever he will. And thou his son. O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this; but hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou and thy lords, thy wives and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which set not, nor hear, nor know; and the God in whose had thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified. Then was the part of the hand, sent from before him and this writing was written."

It is evident from Daniel 5 that the issues were between Jehovah and Babylon as a nation in the person of its king, Belshazzar. Let us compare that statement in Daniel 5 with the parallel passages in Isaiah. Several chapters of Isaiah, commencing with Isaiah 45, are devoted to that very point, Isaiah foreshowing the destruction of Babylon and its reason, and making it just as plain as Daniel makes it, that the issue is that Babylon was set up by divine providence, that its kings were the servants of God to do his will, that commencing with Nebuchadnezzar and going through their history they had failed to recognize the divine government of nations, in consequence of which Isaiah is now prophesying the downfall of this kingdom of Babylon. So that Daniel 5 stands in harmony with the older prophet upon that point. There are two or three chapters of Isaiah on this point too long for me to give here.

We now come to the next affirmation in this chapter, and this relates to the miracle. It affirms that during that great gathering, the thousand lords, the wives and concubines of the king, the mad reveling, the impious resistance to Jehovah, that just at that juncture part of a hand that was visible came out and wrote on the wall these words: Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. Now, of course, if a man takes the position that there can be no miracle or anything supernatural, he will not believe anything of this kind, but we are not of that class. Everything that was written, as I will show you, when we come to interpret it, is in full accord with everything else that is written in the Bible. We want to know the effect upon Belshazzar. The testimony is very striking on that. Let us see what was the effect on Belshazzar when he saw that hand come out there and write those words: "And the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him; and the joints of his loins were loosed and his knees smote one against another." What a vivid description of fear! Now when we turn to Isaiah 13:7-8, we find there described the condition in Babylon on the night of its fall: "The hands shall become weak and the mortal heart shall melt: and they shall be affrighted ; pangs and pains shall seize on them; they shall have throes) as a woman that travaileth: one at another shall they look amazed; red like flames shall their faces glow."

The next affirmation that I wish to consider is that Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Now, says the higher critic, "this is not true." The Hebrew has no word for grandson or grandfather, and it is one of the most common things in the usage of the Hebrew to represent one as a father who is not immediately the father of the one spoken of. I could spend a half hour citing instances; so that criticism is puerile. What it means is that Belshazzar is a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and we can very easily account for this usage of the term, "father."

We come now to the next affirmation, that is, as the agency employed for the destruction of Babylon. Daniel 5, when it comes to the interpretation, says that the agency employed is that of the Medes and Persians. Not the Medes alone nor the Persians alone, but they are spoken of conjointly and they are so spoken of all through the book of Daniel, and we will need that later on when we come to another criticism, that the Medes and Persians all through this book are one government, two governments in one. Isaiah and Jeremiah, (and I here cite, Isaiah 13:17; Isaiah 21:2; Jeremiah 51:28) inform us that the agency by which Babylon shall be destroyed is both the Medes and Persians. So what Daniel says here is in full accord with the testimony of the older prophets as to the means by which Babylonia was to be overthrown.

And Just here I want to make this statement to which there is no reference in Daniel. Xenophon says that when the city was besieged, to account for the suddenness of the capture, that the Babylonians, having twenty years of provisions in it and resting behind their high impregnable walls, did not concern themselves at all about the besieging army on the outside, and that Cyrus, finding it impossible to storm those walls, diverted the waters of the Euphrates by canals going around on each side throwing the water into the canals and leaving bare the bottom of the river, and that his soldiers entered through the bed of the river and came up into the city at night and were in the city before anybody knew anything about it. What Xenophon says is confirmed by the prophecy of Jeremiah, that the waters of Babylon would be dried up in order to its taking, and that very thought is repeated in Revelation 16, where it speaks of the fall of the mystical Babylon: "I will dry up the Euphrates."

Then we can easily understand another thing said by Jeremiah in telling how the city would fall, that the reeds were set on fire – the reeds that grew along the banks of the river where the bed of the river was dry. They entered that bed of the river and came up on the inside of the walls, setting fire to those reeds that were along both banks of the river on the inside of the city. All of that is thrillingly set forth in the prophecy of Jeremiah. Daniel, however, does not refer to that. All he refers to is the suddenness – the utter unexpectedness – with which death and ruin came upon this assembly, but this does make Daniel’s account in harmony with Xenophon, Jeremiah, and Revelation, and when Jeremiah says that the Babylonians did not fight, that also accords with a part of that celebrated Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus which says that the city was entered without fighting. Isaiah also confirms the suddenness of the capture.

We take up the next affirmation. Daniel says that when that handwriting was seen on the wall the enchanters and diviners and soothsayers were called in and their interpretation sought. Just in point Isaiah’s testimony (Isaiah 47:12) announces the presence of these enchanters and soothsayers and their powerlessness to help.

Let us now look at the interpretation. Daniel interprets it this way, that the first word written and repeated, Mene, Mene, means "numbered, numbered," and he explains it to mean this, "Your days are numbered, the days of your kingdom are numbered; this the last day."Tekel – that means a weight, or weighed. He interprets that to mean, "Thou are weighed in the balances and art found wanting." "This is your last day. This day has been long deferred. God has labored with this kingdom, with its king not wishing to forsake Babylon to ruin," as Isaiah sets forth very pathetically, "but thy constant ignoring of the government of God, thy filling up of the measure of iniquity has brought you to sorrow." "Numbered, numbered! weighed in the balances and found wanting!" The last word) Upharsin, means divisions. He interprets that to mean, "Your kingdom is divided unto the Medes and unto the Persians." What a suggestion there! Divided unto the Medes and Persians! When we commence the next chapter we find that Darius the Mede received that kingdom and was made king. Cyrus was the true leader and the true king, but it was divided. The Medes constituted a large portion of this army and his government, and Cyrus appoints this Mede now to take the city of Babylon. He would remain as chief ruler over all Persia and Media and Babylonia, but how striking the significance of dividing! What a great text! Many times great expounders of God’s Word have preached on that subject. One man, a controversialist, has written a book called Tekel, in which he says of his adversaries, "Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting." Some of the most thrilling revival sermons ever preached have been preached upon the interpretation of those words, Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

QUESTIONS

1. Apart from Daniel 5, what are the references in this book to Belshazzar?

2. What verses in this chapter imply that Belshazzar was not the chief ruler in the kingdom of Babylon, but held only second place, or was co-regent?

3. What historical and archaeologic evidence confirms this implication?

4. What can you say of the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, and according to the best reading of its inscription, how does it confirm Daniel’s account of the death of Belshazzar?

5. In their prophecies of the fall of Babylon show in what particulars Isaiah and Jeremiah confirm Daniel 5.

6. How was Belshazzar a son of Nebuchadnezzar? Give other instances of scripture,

7. Does Daniel 5 say anything of the siege of Babylon? If so, what?

8. How in his feast does Belshazzar make an issue against Jehovah, and how does Jehovah respond?

9. What means were employed, according to Xenophon, to obtain an entrance into Babylon, and bow does Jeremiah and the book of Revelation confirm it?

10. Give Daniel’s interpretation of the handwriting on the wall.

Verses 25-28

VI

THE RELATED PROPHETIC SECTIONS OF DANIEL

Having completed the historical sections of this book, we now consider the related prophetic sections. It is here we find the crux of the opposition of the atheistic critics. Their presupposition is: There can be no prophecy in any supernatural sense. Therefore they refuse to see any reference in the book to matters beyond the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. He to them is the culmination of the book. The unknown writer, as they claimed, lived after his times, and cast well-known history into the form of prophecy, attributing its authorship, through a license accorded to writers of novels, to a fictitious Daniel supposed to be living in the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.

A complete answer to both their premise and conclusion would be the proof of even one real prediction in the book, fulfilled after their own assigned date for the author. Any one who really believes the New Testament will find that proof in the words of our Lord: "When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place (let him that readeth understand) then let them that are in Judea flee to the mountains."

But as our purpose it to expound the prophetic sections of this book, and not merely to reply to the contentions of atheists, we now take up our work. These are the prophetic sections:

1. Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream of the great and luminous image, or the five world empires (Daniel 2:31-45).

2. Nebuchadnezzar’s second dream of the great tree, or what befell the great king of the first world empire (Daniel 4:10-27).

3. The handwriting on the wall at Belshazzar’s feast, or what befell the last king of the first world empire and how the second empire comes to the front (Daniel 5:25-28).

4. The vision of the four great beasts arising from the sea, representing in another form the four secular world empires and the enthronement of the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 7:1-28).

5. The vision of the ram and the he-goat, or the fortunes of the second and third world empires (Daniel 8:1-27).

6. The seventy weeks, or the coming and sacrifice of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 9:24-27).

7. The vision of the Son of man (Daniel 10).

8. Revelation of the conflicts between two of the divisions of the third world empire) and the transition to the final advent of the Messiah, the King of the fifth world empire (Daniel 11-12).

On these eight prophetic sections let us give careful attention to the following observations:

OBSERVATIONS ON THE EIGHT PROPHECIES TAKEN TOGETHER

1. The most casual glance at this grouping of the several prophetic sections reveals both the unity of the book and the relation of its prophetic parts and the design of all.

2. Any man who looks carefully at this group and finds its culmination in Antiochus Epiphanes, a ruler of a fourth fragment of the third world empire, either is devoid of common sense and should receive the charity accorded to those unfortunates afflicted with mental aberration, or is so blinded with prejudice he cannot see. In the case of the latter alternative this much of Paul’s words apply: "If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them whom the god of this world has blinded lest they should see," or our Lord’s words, "Having eyes they see not." An unbiased child can see that the culmination of the book as to a person is in the King of the fifth world empire, and the culmination as to a fact is in the Messiah’s final advent for resurrection and judgment.

3. Following the characteristic Bible method and plan, secular governments in this book are considered only as they relate to the supremacy of the divine government and to the kingdom of God. All the rest concerning them is left in silence.

4. The relation between the parts of the prophecy is manifest throughout: The first prophecy is the basis of all the following sections. They only elaborate some detail concerning one or the other of the five world empires set forth in the first dream of Nebuchadnezzar, the four-pointed image and the conquering stone. For example, the first prophecy tells in general terms of four successive world empires to be followed by a fifth and spiritual world empire. The second and third sections of prophecy elaborate some details of the first great secular monarchy, telling us what befell its first and last king and the transition to the second monarchy. The fourth prophecy presents under different imagery the same five world empires, but gives some detail of every one not stated in the general terms of the first prophecy.

The fifth prophecy confines itself to details not before given of the second and third monarchies, how sovereignty passes from one to the other, how the third is dismembered, to prepare the way for the fourth, and how both are related to the kingdom of God. The sixth prophecy speaks only of the King of the fifth monarchy in his humiliation and sacrifice, as the third had spoken of his glory and exaltation, and the seventh is the vision of the Son of man.

The eighth deals only at first with the strifes between two of the parts of the dismembered third monarchy, incidentally alluding to the coming power of the fourth monarchy, glides, by easy transition, from the first antichrist, Antiochus, to a second antichrist in the far distant future, an antichrist already foreshown in the little horn of the fourth beast, and concludes with the final advent of the king of the fifth monarchy. No other book in all literature, sacred or profane, more clearly evidences greater unity, one consistent plan, more order in treatment, or a more glorious climax.

Of very great interest to us and to all who love God and his cause is the development of the messianic thought as the hope of the world. It concerns us much to fix in our minds this development.

The first prophecy tells of the divine origin and ultimate prevalence of Messiah’s kingdom.

The sixth tells of Messiah’s first advent in his humiliation and sacrifice.

The fourth tells of his exaltation and enthronement after the humiliation.

The eighth tells of his final advent for resurrection and judgment.

And so we need to note the coming of the first antichrist. Antiochus, in the little horn of the third beast (Daniel 8:9) and the second antichrist in the little horn of the fourth beast (Daniel 7:8) identical with John’s antichrist, (Revelation 13:1-8) with its papal head (Revelation 13:11-18). And so we find reference to the third antichrist in Daniel 11:34-45 who is not the same as Paul’s man of sin. (2 Thessalonians 2:8 and Revelation 20:11), but this third antichrist comes at the beginning of the millennium and wages a conflict against the Jews, at which time they will be converted and the millennium will be ushered in. Daniel does not see Paul’s man of sin.

How clearly and with what precious comfort do all these prophecies reveal the supreme government of God over nations and men, the universal sweep of his providence, both general and special!

5. Finally how well we can understand, in the light of these great prophecies, the influence of the man and his book on all subsequent ages. His apocalyptic style and symbolism reappear in Zechariah’s visions, and form the greater part of the basis of John’s New Testament apocalypse.

His Son of man creates a messianic title which our Lord adopts. His unique prophecy of the exact time of Messiah’s first advent creates a preparation in the hearts of the pious to expect him just then. We could not understand old Simeon at all if Daniel hadn’t fixed the time. Other prophets had foretold his lineage, the place of his birth, his great expiation and consequent enthronement, but no other showed just when he would come. His stress on "the kingdom of God and its certain coming and prevalence" put the titles of this divine government in the mouths of John the Baptist, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. His sublime character as evidenced in his temperance, wisdom, incorruptible integrity, audacity of faith, indomitable courage, and inflexible devotion to God, has fired the hearts of a thousand orators and created a million heroes. His words have become the themes of a thousand pulpits. His righteous administration of public affairs has created a thousand reformers in politics and supplied the hope of all subsequent civic righteousness. "Dare to be a Daniel" has become the slogan of the ages.

His distinction between duty to the human government and duty to the divine government prepared the way for the reception of our Lord’s great dictum, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s." He laid the foundation of the doctrine that the state cannot intrude into the realm of conscience, and so was the pioneer, piloting a burdened world to its present great heritage of religious liberty. This man was not a reed shaken by the wind. He was no Reuben, unstable as water. We can’t even think about him without wanting to sing:

How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,

is laid for your faith in his excellent word. Born in the reign of good Josiah, thy childhood remembering the finding of the lost book of Moses, thy youth passed in the great reformation and thy heart warmed in the mighty revival that followed, student of Jeremiah, prime minister of two world empires and beloved of God – thou art a granite mountain, O Daniel, higher than Chimborazo, Mount Blanc or Dwa Walla Giri! Snarling little critics, like coyotes, may grabble their holes in the foot-hills that lean for support against thy solidity, but their yelping can never disturb thy calm serenity nor the dust they paw up can ever dim the eternal sunshine of the smiles of God that halo thy summit. – SELECTED.

Having now considered these eight prophetic sections in group, let us give attention to their exposition in severalty.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S FIRST DREAM
God’s sovereignty extends to men asleep as well as to men awake. Often his spirit has made revelation through dreams. Dreams of indigestion are chaotic, without form, plan, or coherence. But dreams sent by the Spirit awaken after-thought, appeal to the intelligence and vividly impress the dreamer. So Jacob’s dream at Bethel of the ladder reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels of God ascended and descended, or Pharaoh’s dreams interpreted by Joseph, and the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar. No human system of psychology has ever explained the subtle and direct impact of Spirit on spirit. It is quite possible that there may have been some connection between Nebuchadnezzar’s waking thoughts and the dream which follows. We can at least conceive of previous reflections on his part full of questionings to which this dream would be a pertinent answer.

He may well have meditated upon the worldwide empire he had established and wondered if it would last, and if not what other government would succeed, and would it last. He may have pondered the causes of stability in human government, or the elements of decay and disintegration, and have wondered if human history would always be a record of the successive rising and falling of nations, or would the time ever come when the earth would know a universal and everlasting kingdom, and if so, who would be its author and what the principles of its perpetuity. Nebuchadnezzar was a truly great man, a thinker and organizer, and he was a pious man according to the requirements of his religion. So he may have been the waking subject of thoughts and questionings to which God sends an answer in a dream by night. Anyhow, he had the dream, and this was the dream: He saw a great and terrible image, a silent and luminous colossus in human form, standing upon the level Babylonian plain. Its several parts were strangely incongruous. The head was gold, the chest and arms were silver, the lower body and thighs were brass, the legs were iron, ending in feet with ten toes whose iron was mingled with clay.

Did this image reveal the highest attainment of human government and prophecy, its inevitable deterioration from gold to silver, from silver to brass, from brass to iron, from iron to crumbling clay? Or did it suggest a succession of governments, the first with the greatest unity and the greatest excellency, one head and that gold? The second dual in composition with its two arms, third commencing one, but dividing into two thighs, the fourth standing dual in it he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without human hands, falling to the plain and intelligently rolling toward the image, and rolling gathering bulk and momentum until it smites the image on its feet of mixed iron and clay, overthrows it, crushes it, pulverizes it, and rolling on in resistless power, ever growing as it rolls, until it becomes a mountain in bulk and fills the whole earth. Such the dream.

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DREAM
The dream foretells five great world empires:

The first is identified as the Babylonian.

The second is identified in the prophecy as the Medo-Persian.

The third is identified in the prophecy as the Grecian.

The fourth by a suggestion in the eighth prophecy as the Roman.

The fifth is the kingdom of God set up by the God of heaven and without hands in the days of the fourth empire.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THESE EMPIRES
This is the characteristic of the first: Thou, O king, art king of kings unto whom the God of heaven hath given the kingdom, the power, and the strength and the glory, and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the birds of the heaven hath he given into thine hands and hath made thee to rule over them all, and thou art that head of gold.

The characteristic of the second one is, so far as this chapter tells us, that it is inferior to the first. This chapter, in identifying the second world monarchy, simply tells us that it succeeds the Babylonian, the first, but in the later prophetic sections when this vision is elaborated it is expressly said to be a kingdom of the Modes and of the Persians. I say that the book of Daniel identifies the second world government as the Medo-Persian Empire just as plainly and explicitly and exactly as it identifies the first with the Babylonian.

Now when we come to the third, "another third kingdom of brass which shall bear rule over all the earth," is all this chapter says about this one, but when we take up the subsequent prophetic section it is explicitly said to be the Grecian Empire, the thighs indicating subsequent division of the empire. One man said to me, "If the third empire is unquestionably the Greek Empire, how can it be represented as the lower body and two thighs divided into four parts?" My answer is that this book tells us that it did divide into four parts, but deals only with the two parts which touched God’s people. This book has nothing in detail to say about the divisions of Alexander’s empire beyond the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, one of them getting Syria and the other getting Egypt.

When he comes to speak of the fourth this is what he says: And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things, and as iron that crusheth, all these shall it break in pieces and crush. Whereas, thou sawest the feet and the toes, a part of potter’s clay and part of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom. But there shall be in it of the strength of the iron forasmuch as thou sawest iron mixed with the miry clay, and as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so shall the kingdom be partly strong and partly broken; and whereas, thou sawest the iron mingled with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another even as iron does not mingle with clay.

This book in this chapter does not name that fourth government, but when we come to consider the visions of the four beasts which is the same as this vision in another form, but with other details, we get a still clearer idea of the characteristics of this government; and when we come to chapter 2, when we are considering the last prophetic revelation, we have a suggestion where this fourth government comes in and holds Antiochus Epiphanes at bay, that place where the representative of Rome made a little circle in the sand around Antiochus and said, "You must answer before you step outside of that circle." We know it also to be Rome because Rome with two legs divided into the Eastern and Western Empires, Constantine establishing Eastern Rome at Byzantium on the Bosporus while the Western Empire continues at Rome. We also know it by its divisions into ten kingdoms as its imperial supremacy passed away.

Here is what he says about the last kingdom:

1. He gives its origin: "I saw a little stone cut out without hands." Those other four stood in the form of a man because man was the author of them all. This fifth one is divine, this fifth kingdom is set up by the God of heaven, and we should never lose sight of that fact.

2. The second thought that he presents is as to the time when the God of heaven would set up this kingdom; that it would be in the days of the fourth monarchy – the Roman monarchy: "In the days of these kings will the God of heaven set up a kingdom." So when a man asks when was the kingdom of heaven set up, and that, of course, means in its visible form, as the Babylonian kingdom was visible, the Medo-Persian kingdom was visible, the Greek kingdom was visible, the Roman kingdom was visible, and as God all the time had a spiritual kingdom, but now he is to set up a visible kingdom and it is to be just as visible as any of these others – then, as a Baptist, I answer: Jesus set up the kingdom in his lifetime, as the Gospels abundantly show.

3. The third thought in this description of this kingdom is its beginning, its gradual progress, its prevalence over the whole earth, Just a pebble falling, and as it falls getting bigger, rolling, and as it rolls getting bigger, smiting these other governments, becoming a mountain, becoming as big as the world. And when we get to thinking about that progress of this kingdom, we should remember what our Lord said, that in its eternal working it is like leaven which a woman puts in three measures of meal and ultimately it leavens the whole lump; and when we think about its external development, it is like a grain of mustard seed which a man planted and it grew and grew and grew until it became a tree.

Whenever we hear a pessimist preaching an idea of a kingdom like a tadpole, that commences big at first and tapers to a very fine tail, getting smaller and smaller and worse and worse, then that is not the kingdom Daniel spoke of.

His kingdom commences small and gets bigger and bigger, and mightier and mightier, and I thank God that I don’t have to preach concerning a kingdom that is continually "petering out." I am glad that I can preach a gospel that is growing in power and extending in domain and that has the promise of God that it shall fill the whole world and be everlasting. It always did give me the creeps to hear one of those pessimists. They get their ideas from an inexcusable misinterpretation of certain passages of the Scriptures.

I heard one of them say, "Doesn’t our Lord say in answer to the direct question, ’Are there few that will be saved?’ that ’Straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find if ?" I said, "Yes, but to whom did he say that?" To the Jews of his day, and then to prevent a misconstruction, while only a few Jews of his day would be saved, he says, "But I say unto you that many shall come from the east and the west and the north and the south and shall recline at the table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob." The thought reappears in Revelation where John sees the host of the redeemed. He introduces us first to 144,000 Jews and then he shows us a line that no man can see the end of: "I saw a great multitude that no man could number out of every nation and tribe and tongue and kindred." So if the kingdom which Jesus Christ in the days of his flesh set up on this earth is narrowing, that is cause for sadness, but if it is spreading out, growing bigger and bigger, and has perpetuity, that is a cause for gladness.

This visible kingdom of Jesus Christ will be perpetual. Perpetuity is its heritage.

We need not be afraid to preach its perpetuity and its visibility, with visible subjects, with visible ordinances, with a visible church charged with its administration. It will not be sponged off the board, any of it, neither the kingdom nor its gospel nor its church nor its ordinances. They will stand until the rivers shall be emptied into the sea. As Dr. Burleson used to say: "It will be standing when grass quits growing, and we should not be afraid to preach perpetuity." Let us not be too sure that we can take a surveying chain and trace that perpetuity through human agencies and human history, but we may certainly stand on the declaration of God’s Word that this kingdom is everlasting: Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Over and over again in this book, Daniel holds out, as he explains the thought of this first dream as a light that gets bigger and bigger and brighter and brighter, that the saints shall possess the kingdoms of the world.

I expect to see (in the flesh or out of the flesh – it matters not – ) every mountain of this earth or mountain range and every valley between and every plain, whether rich red land like the Panhandle or dry sand like the Sahara Desert; and every zone, Arctic, Temperate, or Torrid: every iceberg shivering in the Aurora Borealis around the North Pole or South Pole, have floating over it the great white conquering banner of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

We are to have every bit of it, and the time will come when no fallen angel will flap his wing and make a shadow on any part of it and when no wicked man shall crush beneath his feet any of its beautiful or sweet flowers, but when the meek shall inherit the earth, and throughout the whole earth, after its regeneration, there shall dwell eternal righteousness.

QUESTIONS

1. Give, in order, the prophetic sections of the book of Daniel.

2. Show the unity of the book from these sections.

3. Show the culmination of the book in person and fact.

4. In what respect only are secular governments considered in this book and throughout the Bible?

5. Show the relations of the prophetic sections to each other and how all the rest are developments of the first.

6. Give, in order, all the developments of the messianic thought.

7. Give the several antichrists, citing passages for each.

8. What great doctrine of special comfort do all these prophecies show?

9. Give particulars to show the influence of the man and the book on later ages.

10. Name the five world empires of Daniel 2.

11. What are the characteristics of the fifth, who its author and when set up?

Verse 31

V

THE HISTORY OF DARIUS THE MEDE

Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:1-28; Daniel 9:1

The testimony of Daniel concerning Darius the Mede is found in Daniel 5:31; Daniel 6:1-28; Daniel 9:1. The Jewish Bible properly places the last verse of Daniel 5 at the beginning of Daniel 6. From these passages we gather the following facts:

1. Darius is here said to be the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Modes.

2. Darius, like Pharaoh and Caesar, is a title rather than a name.

3. He "received the kingdom," i.e., from another. He "was made king," i.e., by another.

4. He was an old man, "about three score and two."

5. Only one year of his reign is mentioned (Daniel 9:1).

6. As elsewhere throughout the book, the Medes and Persians are considered jointly as one government (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15).

7. The reigns of Cyrus and of Darius were contemporaneous (Daniel 6:28).

On this testimony the following observations are submitted:

1. It is difficult from outside history, whether sacred or profane, to determine definitely the real name and place of this Darius. If we adopt the Jewish method of dividing the chapters so as to make the last verse of Daniel 5 the first verse of Daniel 6 then there is nothing in Daniel’s account to connect closely in time the death of Belshazzar with the accession of Darius, king of Persia, so often named in the book of Ezra. But while we may accept the chapter division, the conclusion deduced, identifying this Darius with the Darius of Ezra, is every way improbable, not to say impossible. The deduction creates far greater difficulties than it removes – difficulties in this book as well as in Ezra, and even greater difficulties in Persian history. So our conclusion is that Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, in this book, is not the Darius, the Persian, the son of Hystaspes, so prominent in the book of Ezra. The testimony of Daniel, even if wholly unsupported from the outside, should be accepted as trustworthy unless better testimony should show it to be impossible. A probable explanation of this history when compared with others is all that we need to show.

The famous Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus, upon which the radical critics so confidently rely, itself alone furnishes the probable explanation. That tablet shows that a certain general of Cyrus, Gobryas by name, led the night assault in which Belshazzar was slain, and was made governor of the province of Babylon by Cyrus, and then as governor appointed all the subordinate rulers in the realm, which harmonizes perfectly with Daniel’s account that (1) Darius "received the kingdom," "was made king," and (2) that "it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty satraps." Professor Sayce, though so adverse to the historicity of Daniel, thus reads a part of the Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus: "Cyrus entered Babylon. Dissensions were allayed before him. Peace to the city did Cyrus establish, peace to all the province of Babylon did Gobryas, his governor, proclaim. Governors in Babylon he (i.e., Gobryas) appointed." Professor Driver thus renders another part of the tablet: "Gubaru (same as Gobryas) made an assault, and slew the king’s son." The king’s son was Belshazzar. Then the tablet goes on to show the national mourning for the king’s son.

Defenders of the historical trustworthiness of the book of Daniel need not commit themselves irrevocably to this identification of Daniel’s Darius with the tablet’s Gobryas. It suggests all that is necessary, a probable explanation. Mr. Pinches, who brought the Annalistic Tablet to light, and many others are quite confident of this identity. Mr. Thomson ("Pulpit Bible," Daniel) adopts this theory in his exposition. There are several other theories concerning the identity of Daniel’s Darius most plausibly argued by learned men who fully accept the trustworthiness of the history in the book of Daniel. It is not at all necessary to recite them here.

2. It is quite in line with all the probabilities in the case that Cyrus, ruler over two united nations, Medes and Persians, should appoint a Mede as subking over the conquered province of Babylon, while he attended to the general affairs of the whole empire. The reference to both Cyrus and Darius in Daniel 6:28 indicates a contemporaneous reign, Darius as subking at Babylon, Cyrus as supreme king over the whole empire.

3. Darius, being an old man when he "received the kingdom," or "was made king," did not probably reign long, Daniel specifying only his first year (Daniel 9:1).

4. The contention of the radical critics that, in Daniel’s mind, the empire of the Medes precedes and is distinct from the empire of the Persians is contradicted flatly by the whole tenor of the book. While everywhere recognizing them as distinct peoples, the book throughout knows them only as a conjoined nation, one government. The laws of the one government are the laws of the Medes and Persians (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15). This unity in duality is manifested in the symbolic features: the silver beast and two arms of Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Daniel 2:32); the bear with one side higher than the other (Daniel 7:5); the ram with the two horns, one higher than the other (Daniel 8:20). This last symbol is expressly interpreted as a unity in duality and named "Medes and Persians."

This absurd contention of the radical critics is evidently intended to hedge against any possible prophecy in the book concerning Rome, as the fourth world empire, and so to make the prophetic forecast of history culminate in Antiochus Epiphanes, and then by arbitrarily dating the book after his reign, to deny all prophetic element in it. In no other radical criticism do they so utterly betray their atheistic presuppositions, and so clearly manifest their utter untrustworthiness as biblical expositors. The very exploit which they regard as their greatest achievement most overwhelmingly exposes their disqualifications and advertises their shame.

THE CONTENTS OF DANIEL 6
1. On the fall of Babylon and the death of Belshazzar, Cyrus appoints Darius the Mede, subking over the province of Babylon.

2. Darius districts the kingdom under his jurisdiction and appoints 120 satraps over the several districts. Over these satraps he appoints three presidents, Daniel, one of the three, to whom all the satraps must give account of the king’s matters in their several satrapies. This division of authority and responsibility was common then and is yet common in Oriental countries. The three presidents would constitute the king’s cabinet. From this place Farrar gets his "board of three," but his arbitrary attempt to transfer it back to a preceding regime in order to break the force of "third ruler in the kingdom" (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15) is merely puerile and amusing. Daniel’s age, wisdom, experience, administrative capacity and character so easily make him the dominant spirit over the two other presidents and over all the satraps that Darius purposes to set over the whole realm a grand vizier.

3. And now comes a development so true to the life and character of Oriental despotism, with their large delegation of powers to subordinates, that its absence from the story would have discounted its credibility. Envy, jealousy, and disappointed greed on the part of the two other presidents and all the satraps, lead them to conspire against Daniel. It was bad enough, in their minds, to have him one of three presidents, but if he be made grand vizier, then there would be no hope of successful fraud and loot. Daniel here brings to mind that great commoner, the elder William Pitt, who, as secretary, stood alone in a corrupt age, whose spotless character and imperious will dominated an unwilling king and a venal ministry, before whom all fraud in politics and peculation in office fled affrighted. One such man in a thousand years is about all the world can produce. And when he appears he is like a solitary, huge, cloud-piercing granite mountain in an almost boundless plain.

What a tribute to Daniel’s purity of life, official integrity and sublimity of character, is their confession that nothing could be found against him except his alien religion! But just here these jackals were most sure of their lion. His record was unequivocal and univocal. Not even the mighty Nebuchadnezzar could shake him in a matter of conscience and religion, but rather bowed before him. On this point he was as God himself before the white-faced, pale-lipped, knee-shaking Belshazzar. Hence the low scheme of cunning, the short-sighted trick of engineering on the unsuspecting Darius the signing of a blasphemous law that for thirty days no man should offer prayer or petition to any god, but to the king alone. To polytheistic Orientals, or even to a Roman Caesar, who was ex officio not only pontifex maximus, but was himself divine, such temporary suspension of empty religious services except through the ruler himself, was a light matter enough. But to a pious Jew recognizing one only true God it was every way blasphemous and horrible.

In all the world history of legislative folly this statue stands unique – "without a model and without a shadow." The suspension of the law of gravitation, the suspension of either the centripetal or the centrifugal force, whose joint powers produce the circling orbits of heavenly bodies, would not introduce more confusion in the material universe than such a law, if capable of execution, would produce in the moral and spiritual realm.

NO PRAYER TO GOD FOB THIRTY DAYS

All connection between the throne of mercy and grace and helpless, hungering, thirsting, dying men, severed for thirty days! For a whole month travailing mothers may not cry to God; cradles must remain unblessed; youth helpless before temptation; widows and orphans at the mercy of oppressions and without appeal; human life unguarded in the presence of assassins; property at the mercy of the thief, the burglar and the incendiary; sinners dying unabsolved and unforgiven, an earthly embargo against angel ministrations or heavenly mercies – such a law, if enforceable, would be the climax of insanity. What an ocean-sweeping dragnet to catch one fish!

How clearly the record brings out the weakness of Darius I The mind instantly calls up, in association, Herod’s vain regret for his oath when called upon to surrender John the Baptist to the murderous woman, and Pilate vainly washing his hands as he surrenders Jesus to crucifixion, as if consistency were more than righteousness.

Daniel’s attitude was calm, inflexible. Though he knew that the law was signed, and could not have been ignorant of either its malicious purpose or its result to himself, he kept right on praying to God at the three regular Temple hours of prayer, morning, noon, and evening.

He kept his window open toward Jerusalem. How well he bears in mind the words of Solomon’s great intercession at the dedication of the Temple, preserved in the sacred history of his people: If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name: then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause. If they sin against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication in the land of them that carried them captive, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness; and so return unto thee with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, which led them away captive, and pray unto thee toward their land, which thou gavest unto their fathers, toward the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name: then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place, and maintain their cause, and forgive thy people that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed against thee, and give them compassion before them who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them. – 1 Kings 8:44-50.

But by espionage on his private devotions in his own domicile – the most accursed method of tyranny – his infraction of human law is clearly established. Peter and John when charged by human authority "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus" boldly replied: "Whether it is right in the sight of God to hearken unto you rather than unto God, judge ye: for we cannot but speak the things we saw and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). So Daniel here.

DANIEL IN THE LION’S DEN
This miraculous preservation of Daniel, though its miracle sorely grieves the radical critics, is, like the preservation of his three friends in the fiery furnace, certified in the New Testament book of Hebrews, which records among the achievements wrought by Israel’s ancient worthies: "By faith they quenched the violence of fire – by faith they stopped the mouths of lions." The fate of Daniel’s accusers when he was vindicated is fully in line with the history of Oriental nations as well as the law of Moses. The consequent proclamation of Darius is not incredible per se, because in keeping with his character, his times, and his people. It is in line with other proclamations in this book, in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther.

I must again call attention to this fact concerning the text: The accepted Hebrew text, Theodotion’s Greek version in the second century A.D., and the Peshito Syriac version of the same century are generally agreed. The important variant readings are in the Septuagint Greek version. That version, for example, makes only the two other presidents (not the satraps) accuse Daniel, and they alone, with their families (not the satraps) are cast in the lions’ den when Daniel is vindicated. I have not thought it necessary to give all the Septuagint variations.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the affirmations in Daniel 5:31; Daninel 6; Daniel 9:1 concerning Darius?

2. Is he the same as the Darius of the book of Ezra? What the proof?

3. State the archaeological proof that he was probably Gobryas.

4. Give the reply to the radical critic contention that, in Daniels mind the kingdom of the Medea was distinct from the Persian kingdom and preceded it. .

5. By whom and why a conspiracy against Daniel, and what their method of destroying him?

6. State the comparison of Daniel with William Pitt.

7. Show the folly of the statute Darius was induced to sign.

8. What the weakness of Darius and with whom compared?

9. From what texts and versions must we get a true text of Daniel, and which of these are in agreement and which one variant?

10. State the most important variations in the Septuagint.