One of the absolute cornerstones of the entire Documentary Hypothesis (DH) is that Deuteronomy was written during the early part of the reign of Josiah, so as to provide justification for his reforms. According to the critical scholars, the “book of the law” that was found by Hilkiah was this brand-spanking-new book of Deuteronomy, written down as a “pious fraud” so as to convince the people that the reforms of Josiah were exactly that: reforms that hearkened back to the words of Moses hundreds of years before. This issue of the dating of Deuteronomy is so important to the DH that I would like to take the time to explain the DH position just a little bit more. The easiest way to do this is to quote a few paragraphs from “Who Wrote the Bible?” by Richard Elliot Friedman.

P 23: “By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the two-source hypothesis was expanded. Scholars found evidence that there were not two major source documents in the Pentateuch after all — there were four!… [In 1805] a young German scholar, WML De Wette, observed in his doctoral dissertation that the fifth of the Five Books of Moses, the book of Deuteronomy, was strikingly different in its language from the four books that preceded it… De Wette hypothesized that Deuteronomy was a separate, fourth source.”

Pp 101-102: “The book that the priest Hilkiah said he found in the Temple in 622 BC was Deuteronomy. This is not a new discovery. [Many early church fathers held this position.] In Germany in 1805, W. M. L. De Wette investigated the origin of Deuteronomy. He argued that Deuteronomy was the book that Hilkiah handed over to King Josiah. But De Wette denied that the book was by Moses. He said that Deuteronomy was not an old, Mosaic book that had been lost for a long time and then found by the priest Hilkiah. Rather, De Wette said, Deuteronomy was written not long before it was ‘found’ in the Temple, and the ‘finding’ was just a charade. The book was written to provide grounds for Josiah’s religious reform… From the law of centralization and other matters, De Wette concluded that the book of Deuteronomy was not a long-lost document, but rather was written not long before its ‘discovery’ by Hilkiah. Though it may have been written for legitimate purposes, it was nevertheless falsely attributed to Moses. De Wette referred to it as ‘pious fraud’.”

No wonder Wellhausen, considered the father of the Documentary Hypothesis, himself described De Wette as the real father of the idea! This idea of Deuteronomy being a ‘pious fraud’ written during the time of Josiah is absolutely essential to the DH. I intend to show that it could not possibly have been written during this time period.

For starters, the reforms enacted by Josiah were not without powerful opposition. Prior to Josiah’s reign, Manasseh had reigned for 55 years and Amon had reigned for 2 years. In 2Ki 21 and 2Ch 33 we read about the idolatrous practices that went on during their reigns, and it is easy for us to forget that these practices were conducted with the assistance of professional “priests”. These were powerful people who would not have stood by and allowed Josiah to pull off this stunt of ‘”finding” a supposedly ancient book that was really just a recent creation. Now we would not expect their literature to last, although we would reasonably expect to find some hints, either in Kings, Chronicles, or prophets like Jeremiah, or their opposition. But none is to be found.

In Deuteronomy we find several things that would be expected were the book really intended as a “pious fraud” to help Josiah’s reforms along, and also several things that are either irrelevant or even potentially counterproductive to his reforms. I will now concentrate on the “expected but missing” elements, and later on the “irrelevant or potentially counterproductive” ones. Both sets are devastating to the DH.

The first of the “expected but missing” items relates to what critical scholars claim is actually a supporting element of their theory — the mention of kings in Deu 17. In Deu 17:14-20, we read of how the Israelites will one day “want a king like the nations around them”, about how this king should not multiply horses or wives for himself, and about how he should write out a copy of the law for himself so that he will constantly consider it. According to critical scholars this is just a little too neat. Surely Moses could not have written these things hundreds of years before they were fulfilled in detail. In other words, the critical scholars believe that whenever prophetic words are closely or exactly fulfilled the only reasonable explanation is that the words were not prophecy, but were rather written after the fact. Thus, they cite this section in support of the DH.

On the contrary, it must be remembered that the primary goal of Deuteronomy, according to the DH, was to provide justification for Josiah’s reforms. If that is the case, and if the writer of Deuteronomy was willing to create the supposed prophecy of Moses with regard to kings of Israel, then why stop there? Only seven vv about kings? Surely any effort at creating Deuteronomy as a work of pious fraud would have gone on, making it look as if Moses were saying that people should honor and follow any kings who do obey the law. Where are the words about a king supporting the priesthood? And if these words were written in a way that condemned the particular weaknesses of Solomon, where are the words that condemn the idolatrous practices of Manasseh and other unfaithful kings? It seems ridiculous to suppose that the writer of this pious fraud would condemn Solomon’s practices but not the practices or the kings previous to Josiah, especially when (a) these later practices were the ones that Josiah was trying to get rid of, and (b) these later practices were the height of the evils conducted by the kings of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Deuteronomy also says absolutely nothing that deals with the division of Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. By the time of Josiah the northern kingdom had come and gone, and only the southern kingdom of Judah was left. Where are the words in Deuteronomy in which Moses exhorts those of the faithful remnant to learn from the lessons of what would happen to their unfaithful brethren?

The next item concerns another item that critical scholars use to bolster their theory about Deuteronomy. This relates to the phrase “beyond the Jordan” or “on the other side of the Jordan”. At issue is the opening verse of the book, the first part of which reads “These are the words which Moses hath spoken unto all Israel, beyond the Jordan.” (YLT — I cite this one here because in the refs in Deu and Jos where this phrase literally occurs in the Heb, most modern translations seek to obviate the confusion by wording the translation less than literally, which in this case obscures the evidence.) Why, the critical scholars ask, would Moses describe the side of the Jordan that he was on as “beyond the Jordan”? The critical scholars submit that this is a mistake in the “pious fraud”. But an honest look into the phrase reveals that, just as “Transjordan” has been used in modern times to describe the area east of the Jordan even by those in the region, so Moses used this phrase properly. Even in Deu, “beyond the Jordan” is used in Deu 3:8,20,25; and Deu 11:30 to describe the area west of the Jordan. If you read these in context they might not seem like problems because the speaker is admittedly on the eastern side of the Jordan at the time the words were spoken, but in Jos 9:1 and Jos 22:7 we come to a different situation. In these refs the speaker is on the west side of the Jordan, and refers to the west side as “beyond the Jordan”. This is permissible because in context the speaker has been dealing with the eastern part of the Jordan, and is now referring back to the western part. In Deu 1:1; 4:41,46,47,49, Moses is likewise “permitted” to speak of the side of the Jordan that he is on as “beyond the Jordan” because in context he is exhorting the Israelites concerning how they ought to live once they cross over.

If Deuteronomy was written as a “pious fraud” to provide justification of Josiah’s reforms, then why does it deal with so many things that are irrelevant to Josiah’s reforms, along with some things that would actually speak against them?

For example, in Deu 20, there are laws about how warfare is to be conducted by the Israelites. These have nothing to do with any of the events of Josiah’s reign. What is the point of the detailed laws about identifying clean and unclean animals in Deu 14? Even though the Jews were quite idolatrous during Josiah’s reign, there is no evidence in Kings, Chronicles, or the prophets that they had forsaken this particular aspect of the Law. What would be the point in describing the cities of refuge in Deu 18, particularly when some of the cities were outside the territory controlled by Josiah? The rule about taking foreign women captive in battle, or ‘cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’, making a parapet upon your roof, not mixing wool with linen, and not muzzling the ox while it is treading out the grain? These are just samples that I selected while skimming through Deuteronomy that have nothing to do with Josiah’s reforms, but make sense as part of Moses’ final exhortation to the people.

In skimming through Deuteronomy there were an item that struck me as being contrary to the aim’s of Josiah’s reforms: the mention of the exclusion from the assembly of those of the Ammonites or Moabites and their descendants. Introducing these as part of this “pious fraud” strikes me as incredible because they would speak against the founder of the dynastic line to which Josiah belonged: David. This matter is further complicated by an issue that is in fact magnified when the full claims of the DH are considered. While in this study we have particularly been focusing upon the issue of the authorship of the Pentateuch, it is worth realizing that according to the DH the “Deuteronomistic History” was written at the same time as Deuteronomy. This “History” refers to the historical books that begin where Deuteronomy ends and ends essentially with Josiah, and refers to the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings. (Yes I am aware that Kings deals with events past the time of Josiah. The DH posits a second Deuteronomistic writer who wrapped things up for the period from Josiah to the release of Jehoiachin, and that this second writer may have even been the first writer just tying up loose ends a few years after the “first edition” came out only to be followed by Josiah’s sudden death. See ch 7 of Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible” for more information about this second Deuteronomist, but note that this “second edition” talk only concerns the books that follow Deuteronomy, not Deuteronomy itself.)

Back to the main point: this issue of Deu 23:3 effectively speaking against David, I mentioned that this matter is further complicated by an issue that is in fact magnified when the full claims of the DH are considered. I am speaking here of the book of Ruth. My question is, why in the world would the Deuteronomist write a section of law that would effectively speak against David because of the Moabite blood in his veins, and then proceed to write a book whose main point is the faithfulness of a Moabite ancestor of David?? In fact, why write the book of Ruth at all during the period of Josiah’s reign?

But the most fundamental problem with the DH as it relates to Deuteronomy is the commandment to build an altar and assemble at the Mt Ebal/Mt Gerizim/Shechem area, commanded by Moses in Deu 11:26-32; 27:1-14 and fulfilled in Jos 8:30-35. Related to this is the matter concerning “the place where God’s name will dwell”, mentioned repeatedly in Deuteronomy.

According to critical scholars, the key reason for writing Deuteronomy was to provide a justification for the centralization of worship in Jerusalem. So then why in Deuteronomy would we find this key scene being twice described, whereby Shechem would be so honored and Jerusalem would not be mentioned in any way whatsoever? In fact, the only explanation that would even be remotely plausible would be to note that the Deuteronomist had no choice but to mention this because it was a well-known authentic part of national history. But even this explanation defeats the purpose of the book, and even if it were a historical event it would be fully expected to either (a) leave the incident out, or (b) construct it in such a way that the event was intended to foreshadow the different place where God would cause His name to dwell. Including the event and relating it the way that it is recorded is not at all helpful to Josiah’s reforms, it that is in fact the purpose for writing Deuteronomy.

There is no mention of Jerusalem at all in Deuteronomy; not even a hint. (Some would argue that there are maybe a couple of hints. I will not debate the point. My point is that there are no clear hints that would be readily apparent to the people of Josiah’s day.) The later importance of Jerusalem was certainly known to God in Moses’ day, and in Gen 14 (Salem) and Gen 22 (Mt Moriah) there are the first hints about the appropriateness of this later importance. But there is nothing in Deuteronomy, which makes no sense if indeed it was written as a “pious fraud” during Josiah’s reign.

This is also the issue of “the prophet like me” in Deu 18. What purpose does this serve if indeed Deuteronomy were written to bolster the claims of Josiah’s call to reformation? Nobody in Josiah’s reign would fit this, except perhaps Josiah himself. But in the book of Joshua, Joshua very clearly fulfills the initial aspect of this prophecy, thus deadening the claim that it was written so as to get the people to follow Josiah. If Deuteronomy really were the “pious fraud” that the critical scholars claim, then the “prophecy” of the coming prophet should have been left unfilled by the Deuteronomistic Historian, so that Josiah could be claimed to fulfill this prophetic role.

(DB)

It really was an astonishing dream which Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had. No wonder he came out of it with a scream. And it must have a terribly important meaning, something to do with himself, for hadn’t he seen his own face in it?

Well, he had an entire trade union of sorcerers, soothsayers and magicians to be his interpreters in all mysterious matters. They’d tell him what it meant!

But could they? He was pretty sure that more than once they had “conspired to tell (him) misleading and wicked things” (Dan 2:9). So to test them he demanded that they tell him first the details of the dream. Then he’d be prepared to listen to their interpretation of it.

Of course, that stumped them completely. So, “Off with their heads!”

But in the nick of time, there stepped forward a young Hebrew prophet claiming that with the help of his God both the dream and its meaning would be made known.

An image of metal

Sure enough, next day Daniel began to spell out the dream, detail by detail, while Nebuchadnezzar sat there on his throne wide-eyed with astonishment.

What the king had seen was a great metallic image with:

1. A head of gold.
2. Chest and arms of silver.
3. Belly and thighs of bronze.

4. Legs of iron.
5. Feet of mixed iron and clay.

What did it stand for? Daniel explained that here was a succession of empires, beginning with the empire of Babylon — of course, for that face had Nebuchadnezzar’s own features.

Its meaning

The identification of these empires is easy to anyone who knows a bit of ancient history. Indeed, other places in the Bible provide simple clues to confirm that the sequence goes like this:

1. Gold / Babylon
2. Silver / Persia
3. Bronze / Greece
4. Iron / Rome

But why stop there? Since the time of Rome there have been quite a few other empires, most of them every bit as important as these. What about the Mongol empire of Genghis Khan? the T’ang and Ching dynasties? the Aztec and Mayan empires? Philip II’s Spain? Napoleon’s Imperial France? the British Empire? The British Empire of Queen Victoria encompassed fully 25% of the land mass and population of the whole world, considerably more than did any of the four “empires” of Daniel!

An important qualification

There is a simple explanation why these other empires are not part of the prophecy. The vision was not intended to be a prophetic history lesson about all future world empires. These four empires were the powers that would oppress the Jews, Daniel’s people, in their own Land of Israel. This qualification explains what would otherwise be two difficulties:

1. The third kingdom of bronze is described (Dan 2:39) as “(ruling) over the whole earth”. But the Greek empire of Alexander the Great, big as it was, did not cover all the earth, not even all known civilization. However, the Old Testament word eretz, translated “earth”, also very commonly means “land” — and quite especially the Land of Israel. Alexander incorporated Israel into his growing empire.

2. Secondly, the empire of Rome is described as “strong as iron — for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others” (Dan 2:40). Yet this “crush-and-break” description seems inappropriate to Rome. For wherever the Romans went, they took the blessings of law and order and settled government, the famous “Pax Romana”. But — once again — these words were grimly true concerning Rome’s relations with that little province of Judea. Unable to tame these turbulent Jews, the frustrated Romans eventually trampled down Jerusalem and leveled the land from end to end. Jews were deported everywhere, and a decree was issued that they must not return to their own land. So Daniel’s prophecy — when taken as relating to Israel — turned out to be marvelously exact in this detail also.

Bible students will readily recognize the importance of Israel, and especially Jerusalem, to God’s purpose. The Old Testament was written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, about Hebrews, in the land of the Hebrews, and in the language of the Hebrews. And the New Testament, though spread across the Roman world in Greek, was also written — predominantly — by Hebrews and about Hebrews, and in language rich with allusions to the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

So the image which Daniel saw and interpreted began with Babylon, not because Babylon was the first “world empire”, but because Babylon was the first Gentile power to rule over God’s people in Jerusalem. The Persians were the second, but they did not “conquer” Jerusalem — they inherited it from a distance, simply by defeating the Babylonians. And similarly with the Greeks: their rule of Jerusalem came with the defeat of the Persians at a place quite remote from Jerusalem, in what is now Turkey.

And then there was Rome. Jerusalem passed into the possession of the Romans in their annexation of the Seleucid portion (called ‘the king of the north’ in Dan. 11) of the Grecian empire, in what is now Syria.

In proportion?

If we assume that the components of the image refer to the Gentile kingdoms during the times when they ruled over a Jewish Jerusalem, then a remarkable proportion becomes apparent:

1. Babylon conquered and trampled down Jerusalem in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (c 609 BC.). The time during which Babylon was destined to rule over Jerusalem was scripturally designated, as 70 years (Jer 25:12; 29:10). The prophet Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, understood by reading Jeremiah’s writings that the period of “70 years” was coming to an end (Dan 9:2).

2. True to Jeremiah’s prophecy, Cyrus of Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC, ending the Jewish captivity in Babylon. Ezr 1:1 refers to this event as the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Some Jews returned to their land, and Persian rule over Jerusalem continued until Alexander crushed the Persian army at Issus, and moved southward through Jerusalem in 332.

3. After the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, control of Jerusalem alternated between the Seleucids of Syria (the “king of the north”) and the Ptolemies of Egypt (the “king of the south”) for another 160 years. Eventually, a revolt broke out among the Jews because the Grecian “king of the north”, Antiochus Epiphanes, deliberately desecrated the Jewish temple in 167 AD. In 161 AD the Jewish leaders, the Maccabees, sought a Roman alliance for protection.

Thus, the first three portions of the image endured, respectively, 70 (the head), 206 (chest and arms), and 170 years (belly and thighs) — give or take a couple of years! This is just about perfectly proportional to the human form.

Now comes the hard part! We can assign the Roman portion of the image a starting point of 161 BC, but where does it end? Some historians consider that the Roman Empire endured until 565 AD — a total period of 726 years. But such a period for the fourth portion of the image (the legs, from knees to feet) would yield, in proportion, legs almost twice as long as all the rest of the body: something like a circus clown on ridiculously long stilts!.

But consider the alternative, as suggested earlier: that the Roman empire should be of consequence only when it was ruling over God’s people in Jerusalem. This would yield a period of 230 years (161 BC through 70 AD — when Jerusalem was trodden down by the Romans, and the Jews were scattered); such a shorter period would restore the whole image to proper perspective .

The “gap” in the image

Finally, what about the toes of iron and clay? If we remain true to our assumption (ie, that the “kingdoms” enumerated in Daniel 2 are those that bore or will bear rule over Jews in Jerusalem), then — after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD — there can/could be no fifth and final part of the image until there are/were Jews back in the Land again. And so we are compelled, by this assumption, to allow for a sizable “gap” between the first four parts of the image and the last and most crucial part, the feet and toes.

Such a gap certainly appears to work against the congruity of the image in its time perspective, and might be construed as a point against this view. However, it must be admitted that a similar “gap”, of almost 2,000 years, is by far the most reasonable interpretation of the Olivet prophecy (Mat 24; Mar 13; Luk 21), which clearly contains elements already fulfilled in 70 AD and elements yet to be fulfilled in the Last Days. And, likewise, the Book of Revelation (with its oft-repeated ‘I come quickly… shortly… or soon’, but also with prophecies plainly about the Last Days) is most easily reconciled by a “gap”, or “deferment”, hypothesis.

[The “deferment” theory — put simply — differs from the “gap” theory in this: The “deferment” theory is of an initial but partial fulfillment of the whole of a prophecy, to be followed by a final and complete fulfillment of the whole — thus involving some repetition. (For more information, see WRev 259-273.)]

And, in each case, the gap (or deferment) in prophetic fulfillment is for the same reason: During that period, the Jews were not in their Land or in possession of Jerusalem. It is not stretching the point too far to say that the Divine “clock” seems to stop when the conditions in the Middle East are not immediately favorable to the fulfillment of God’s purpose.

Who are the toes?

These “toes” must refer to ten powers, some strong, some weak, who oppress the Jews when they are finally back in the Land of Israel, and who subdue Jerusalem once again. Daniel provides the clue for their identification: “Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed [ereb] with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed [ereb] with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture [ereb] and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes [ereb] with clay” (Dan 2:41-43).

The “mixed”, or “ereb”, peoples are of course the Arabs of the Middle East (cp also the same Hebrew word in 1Ki 10:15; Jer 25:20,24; 50:37; Eze 30:5; Neh 13:1,3). These are peoples of mixed ancestry, descended variously from Ishmael, Esau, Lot, the Philistines, and others. They have never “remained united”, always quarrelling and falling out among themselves… except in one particular: they are almost always solidly united in their hatred of Israel!

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar’s vision, fully authenticated so far, suggests an Arab conquest of Israel in the not too distant future. This is exactly in line with what is evident in many other Bible prophecies.

However, just as the toes take up only a small amount of space in the human figure, so also it may be expected that the Arab domination will last for only a very short while. And the Bible gives us that time period also: 3 1/2 years… 42 months… 1,260 days (Dan 7:25; 9:27; 12:7,11,12; Rev 11:2,3; 12:6; 13:5). Such a period — if taken literally — would preserve the perfect proportion of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.

Roman, or European, “toes”?

There is, of course, another and very different view of things held by some prophecy students, as follows: The feet and toes of Daniel’s image, being extensions of the legs, have often been equated with the “divided Roman empire” that followed the decline and fall of Rome herself in the sixth century AD. It is suggested that this “divided” state of Europe corresponds to the feet and toes of the image, the last part of the image.

Beginning in the late 1950s, it was for some time popular to interpret the “ten toes” as the European Economic Community. The nations of the EEC were, according to this view, the last vestige of the old Roman Empire, and would be the final part of the Kingdom of Men. (It is generally forgotten that there are about 50 nations in existence today, many of them not even in Europe — including most of the Arab nations — that occupy territory formerly held by the old Roman Empire. So any of these other nations could also be considered “successor nations” to Rome.)

But, as the member nations in the EEC climbed to 12 and then 14, and with more almost certain to be admitted as of this date, this interpretation has fallen on hard times.

There is another problem with the “European toe” interpretation. If all the divided states of Europe, from approximately 565 AD to the present and beyond, are represented by the feet and toes of the image, then our image is grossly out of proportion. Not only does the image look like a man on ridiculously tall stilts, but he is standing on “feet” with seven or eight toes each, which are now more than half again as long as the rest of the body, including the greatly elongated legs!. The absurdity of this figure is a good reason for rejecting the interpretation which suggested it.

Sudden destruction

In the vision a stone cut out of a mountain without human hands (ie, a divinely-appointed “stone”!) comes flying through the air and crashes into the feet of the image, completely pulverizing them; the image crashes to the ground, and every bit of it is similarly ground to powder; then a mighty wind blows the whole out of sight, while the stone grows and grows until it becomes a mighty mountain filling all the earth (Dan 2:34,35,44,45).

The “stone” is clearly Jesus: the Son of God is the precious stone, the stone which the builders rejected, the stone of stumbling, but also the stone which God will make the chief cornerstone in His eternal temple (Psa 118:22; Isa 8:14,15; 28:16; Mat 21:44; Mar 12:10,11; Luk 20:17; 1Pe 2:4-8).

A different kingdom

This “great mountain” which grows from a little stone will be a Kingdom set up by God Himself, which will last forever (Dan 2:44). When the Arab “toes” overrun Israel and trample down Jerusalem once again (as did the Babylonians and the Romans before them), then they will themselves be smashed swiftly by the coming of Christ in power and glory.

Where will this kingdom begin?

Hoping not to belabor an obvious point, we must nevertheless ask the question: Where will this eternal Kingdom begin? All Scriptures point to Jerusalem (Psa 2:6; Isa 2:2-4; 24:23; Jer 3:17; Mic 4:1,2; Joel 2:32; Oba 1:17; Zec 14:1-4; etc, etc).

So, working backward, if Jerusalem is where the Kingdom of God will begin (ie, where the “little stone” will begin to grow into a “great mountain”), then Jerusalem must also be the place upon which that stone falls in the first place.

And if this is so, then where will the feet of the image be standing when they are struck by that little stone? Jerusalem again. Jerusalem, the center of Bible prophecy — not Rome or Europe!

Author: Daniel

Time: 605 – 535 BC

Summary: The book of Daniel predicts the destiny of two opposing powers: The Kingdom of Men and the Kingdom of God, stressing that “the Most High rules in the Kingdom of Men”. Daniel’s prophecies generally deal with the nations that control Israel, from Daniel’s day until the return of Christ.

Key verse: “In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure for ever” (Dan 2:44).

Outline

Background

In 605 BC Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon’s victory, Egypt’s vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 BC. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon including Daniel, whose name means “God is my judge” or “God is judging” or “God will judge” (Dan 1:1-3), plus some of the vessels from Solomon’s temple (2Ch 36:7). This was the first of Judah’s three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2Ki 24:1-4).

Jehoiakim’s son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 BC. Jehoiachin reigned only three months and 10 days (2Ch 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 BC, he took Jehoiachin to Babylon along with most of Judah’s remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2Ki 24:10-17; 2Ch 36:10).

A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 BC. Jehoiakim’s younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah’s puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon’s sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer 37; 38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king’s eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2Ki 24:18 — 25:24).

Scope

Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 BC. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of Dan 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 BC (Dan 1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 BC (Dan 10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.

Writer

There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 BC or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel’s life. What makes Daniel’s authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.

Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (Dan 8:1; 9:2,20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf Exo 20:2,7).

Language

Daniel is written in two languages, not just one. The Book is written in Hebrew and in Aramaic:

• Dan 1:1 through 2:4a: Hebrew language

• Dan 2:4b through 7:28: Aramaic language

• Dan 8:1 through 12:13: Hebrew language

There are a number of theories why two languages were used. One reason may be that the Spirit of God was indicating that the message of this book was for both Jews and Gentiles. Thus, the Hebrew portions would get the attention of the Jews, while the Aramaic portion would have the attention of the Gentiles.

Dare to be a Daniel.

The integrity of the prophet Daniel is sometimes overlooked in the excitement of understanding the prophecies written in the book that bears his name.

Dan 2 unfolds the fascinating interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s awesome image (see page 4 of this issue). Dan 7 contains an equally intriguing vision and explanation about four beasts, a little horn, the saints, and the Kingdom of God. Dan 8 presents a comparable intrigue between a ram, a he-goat, their horns, and the people of the saints. As a response to Daniel’s impassioned prayer, chapter 9 ends with the multi-aspected, far-reaching “seventy weeks prophecy”. The remaining chapters unfold an angel’s story meant to “make you [Daniel] understand what is to befall your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come” (Dan 10:14).

Yet even Daniel didn’t understand all that was revealed to him (Dan 12:8). But he did believe in his God! So the book rightly ends with a key message of the book — the ultimate reward for Daniel’s integrity:

“But go your way till the end; and you shall rest, and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days” (Dan 12:13).

Daniel will “stand” at the end-time (when God judges men by Jesus Christ) because he consistently made his stand for God during his lifetime.

Remember the first time Daniel took a stand for God? He was a Jewish teenager in Babylonian exile. Taken from his royal/noble life in Judah for the express purpose of being indoctrinated with the culture and lifestyle of the Chaldeans, Daniel refused to eat the food offered to him — probably because it had been dedicated to pagan gods and/or categorized as ‘unclean’ by the law of Moses.

“But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s rich food, or with the wine which he drank; therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself” (Dan 1:8).

And his resolution for personal integrity and God-honoring behavior was rewarded:

“God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs” (Dan 1:9).

Blessed with understanding and wisdom ten times better than anyone else in Babylon, Daniel was suddenly ‘on the hook’ to explain Nebuchadnezzar’s mysterious dream — or else he would be killed along with the other ‘wise men’. In addition to his prudence and discretion in answering this challenge (Dan 2:14), Daniel immediately went to his God-fearing comrades and “told them to seek mercy of the God of heaven concerning this mystery…” (Dan 2:18). Because Daniel made it absolutely clear that only God in heaven could provide the right interpretation to the king’s vision (Dan 2:27-30,45), he was again rewarded by God via Nebuchadnezzar:

“Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (Dan 2:48).

When Nebuchadnezzar asked Daniel about another dream, the man of integrity gave it to the king straight from the shoulder: “…O king, let my counsel be acceptable to you; break off your sins by practicing righteousness, and your iniquities by showing mercy to the oppressed, that there may perhaps be a lengthening of your tranquillity” (Dan 4:27). The outcome of this warning was a remarkable ‘conversion’ of Nebuchadnezzar and an even more remarkable distributed statement exalting and praising the Most High God (Dan 4:1-3,34-37).

The significance of these declarations is twofold. Nebuchadnezzar had already been mightily impressed with the stand taken by Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, Daniel’s three comrades who likewise resolved to honor God even at the cost of their lives (Dan 3:16-18). Consequently, Nebuchadnezzar had issued a decree extolling the God of Israel, and rewarded the three men appropriately (Dan 3:28-30). So this was the second time that an empire-wide decree was made telling people about the wonderful God of Israel!

Unfortunately, Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson king Belshazzar did not learn from the example of his grandfather. Shocked sober by the divine handwriting on the wall, he implored Daniel to explain the words. (Chapter 5 of Daniel’s book tells this dramatic story of the prophet’s continued integrity.) Daniel had refused to take part in the king’s revelry and debauchery, which pointedly mocked the God of Israel. He also refused any reward from this vain and unrepentant king. In the midst of a party dedicated to the praise of the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood and stone, Daniel took his stand for the living God and declared the end of the Babylonian empire to its badly-shaken ruler! And so Babylon fell to the Persian army that very night.

Fortunately, the next king Darius the Mede (who had commanded the Persian army) did understand the value of a man like Daniel, as demonstrated by his keeping him on from the old regime. Now well on in years, Daniel did not fail to pray three times a day to his God. The result of this dedication was reflected in his service to the king who, like the monarchs before him, rewarded such distinguished behavior:

“Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom” (Dan 6:3).

Tricked into having his top administrator thrown into the lion’s den, Darius “set his mind to deliver Daniel, and he labored till the sun went down to rescue him” (Dan 6:14). Unable to undo the ‘law of the Medes and Persians’, Darius went with his man to the den of lions and said to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” (Dan 6:16). Triumphantly, God did! Darius was so thrilled that he issued an empire-wide decree surpassing even those of Nebuchadnezzar in the praise and exaltation of the God of Daniel (Dan 6:25-27). Because one man took a stand for God, “all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth” would hear about “the living God, enduring for ever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end.”

See then how the lifestyle of Daniel was as important as his prophecies and interpretation-capabilities. Two monarchs were greatly impressed, resulting in two empires being given a prophetic message of the most fundamental kind: know who God really is, and serve Him (cp Heb 11:6)! Warning the wayward, encouraging the faithful, and vindicating God were — and are — three key purposes of Bible prophecy.

The New Testament teaching is the same. Two passages illustrate the need for disciples of Christ to get their strength from God so that they can withstand the evil days and be found still standing for Christ when he returns:

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil… Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Eph 6:10-13).

“But take heed to yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a snare; for it will come upon all who dwell upon the face of the whole earth. But watch at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that will take place, and to stand before the Son of man” (Luke 21:34-36).