Anybody Else Want To Study The Book Of Daniel?

Welcome Paul - so you think Daniel, having all his faculties, chose to abstain? It seems to me that somewhere in scripture (OT) it says you could not worship/go into the tabernacle if you didn't have all your parts? And does anyone know why they just ate vegetables?

They ate vegetables because it was against the Law. The Law of Moses forbade eating meat that was not butchered and prepared properly.

Lev. 3:14-17
“If his offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves or pigeons. 15 And the priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head and burn it on the altar. Its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. 16 He shall remove its crop with its contents[b] and cast it beside the altar on the east side, in the place for ashes. 17 He shall tear it open by its wings, but shall not sever it completely. And the priest shall burn it on the altar, on the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the Lord."

It was not against the Law to change their names but it was to eat meat not properly prepared.
 
Nowadays, kosher means it's been blessed by a rabbi, right? In OT times, was all meat prepared by priests? Could they (the 4) have prepared their own meat? Now I am wondering how they managed without protein. Not a vegetarian here (can you tell?). I realize that you can substitute, now, for balance but I still wonder if the eating of veggies then and being robust wasn't more of a miracle than at first glance.
 
Nowadays, kosher means it's been blessed by a rabbi, right? In OT times, was all meat prepared by priests? Could they (the 4) have prepared their own meat? Now I am wondering how they managed without protein. Not a vegetarian here (can you tell?). I realize that you can substitute, now, for balance but I still wonder if the eating of veggies then and being robust wasn't more of a miracle than at first glance.
I am wondering if Daniel did this only to show that God is our provider. Because the choice for Daniel was not meat vs no meat.. It is king's food vs non-king's food.. Whether king is the provider or Lord is the provider.. So he is taking a stand saying test me giving non-nutritious food, imbalanced, not enough and so on.. Still Lord can make me healthy.. Another step of great faith..
 
Nowadays, kosher means it's been blessed by a rabbi, right? In OT times, was all meat prepared by priests? Could they (the 4) have prepared their own meat? Now I am wondering how they managed without protein. Not a vegetarian here (can you tell?). I realize that you can substitute, now, for balance but I still wonder if the eating of veggies then and being robust wasn't more of a miracle than at first glance.
No religious act in the Old Testament was complete unless accompanied with sacrifice; the system was designed by God with the intention of awakening a consciousness of sin and uncleanness and of showing the possibility of obtaining the forgiveness of sin and becoming righteous before God.

Silk, the presenting to God a gift of a portion of the results of one's labor implied a surrender of the person to God. But man is unholy and sinful, and is thus unable to surrender himself to the holy God. Therefore, laying the hand upon the head of the animal was a symbol of transferring to the victim of the sacrifice the sinfulness of the offering, and that is why a priest was to be involved. The animal thus took the place of the offeror and became his substitute; and the killing of the animal pointed out the necessity of death of the man whose sin alienates him from God.
 
I am wondering if Daniel did this only to show that God is our provider. Because the choice for Daniel was not meat vs no meat.. It is king's food vs non-king's food.. Whether king is the provider or Lord is the provider.. So he is taking a stand saying test me giving non-nutritious food, imbalanced, not enough and so on.. Still Lord can make me healthy.. Another step of great faith..

No. He did it because it was the Law of Moses. He was faithful to God in that he and his friends knew the law and obeyed it.
They took a stand for the Word of God.
 
Nowadays, kosher means it's been blessed by a rabbi, right? In OT times, was all meat prepared by priests? Could they (the 4) have prepared their own meat? Now I am wondering how they managed without protein. Not a vegetarian here (can you tell?). I realize that you can substitute, now, for balance but I still wonder if the eating of veggies then and being robust wasn't more of a miracle than at first glance.

Daniel 1:2King James Version (KJV)
2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god."

It would be good to take notice of what has happened in verse #2.

The Babylonian army when taking Jerusalem went to the Temple expecting it to be full of gold idols. But it was empty!!!
The Jews did not worship idols as did the Babylonians so the men took the next best thing......the "Vessals".

This does not sound like at big deal hear, but if we get to go on with this study we will see later that this act will make it possible for something very important to take place.
 
Well, I'm still unsure here. I know the priests (and their families) of the temple got to eat portions of sacrifices (or all?) Just refer me to the verses because I am unclear what is involved in preparation of meat as opposed to vegetables. I'm assuming your last reference to taking vessels means the 4 youths were of the levite or priestly clan. The scrolls would also have been in the temple, how else would Daniel get to read Jeremiah? But I would guess that things like scroll holders would be lavish. Priests wore breastplates (forgot what they are called) with 12 precious stones on them. I assume their implements for worship were valuable. Things like draperies were made of the finest fabric. They also took people of the royal line. Obviously, people of the patriarchal line also survived (the royal line?). So - now that I have wondered all over the mulberry bush - I'm still unclear. If Daniel was of a priestly line, wouldn't he be able to prepare meat? Understood they couldn't eat certain meat, what-so-ever. Which law of the Mosaic set, are they following?
 
Welcome Paul - so you think Daniel, having all his faculties, chose to abstain? It seems to me that somewhere in scripture (OT) it says you could not worship/go into the tabernacle if you didn't have all your parts? And does anyone know why they just ate vegetables?

Yes he had all his parts....where does the idea of him being celibate or a eunuch came from?
 
Yes he had all his parts....where does the idea of him being celibate or a eunuch came from?
I hope I can join! Peace upon you all!....I just copy this online...

Daniel 1:3, indicates that Ashpenaz was the chief of Nebuchadnezzar’s “eunuchs.” It is not clear just how literally the term “eunuch” should be taken. In Isaiah 56:3, the same Hebrew term is rendered “eunuch” and quite obviously refers to one who cannot produce offspring. At best, we can only say that castration was a possibility.
 
Here's another interesting link:
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2007/09/was-prophet-daniel-member-of-davidic.html
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Was the Prophet Daniel a Member of the Davidic Royal Family?
Michael, this one's for you.
One of the questions Michael (who's still off honeymooning) and I have been exploring in recent months is whether there is any Davidic imagery in the book of Daniel. In particular, we've been intrigued by connections such as the "Son of Man" imagery in the psalms of David (e.g., Psalm 8) and the famous messianic "Son of Man" in Daniel 7. There are many others which we will maybe discuss in future posts.
In the course of the conversations, Michael thought it would be very interesting support for this Davidic imagery if we could show that Daniel was perhaps a member of the royal house of David: i.e, that he may have been an heir to the throne. This was suggested to Michael by the opening verses of Daniel 1, which read:
In the third year of the riegn of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. ANd the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand... Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, handsome and skilful iin all wisdom, endowned with knowledge, understanding learngin, and competent to serve in the kings palan and to teach the the letters and langaue of the Chaldeans. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. (Dan 1:1-6)
In light of this verse, Michael and I were speculating that perhaps Daniel was not just one of the "people of Israel," but actually a member of the royal family and as such an heir to the Davidic throne. This would be important, because it would potentially heighten the significance of any Davidic imagery in the book of Daniel.
Sure enough, while reading a fascinating first-century A.D. Jewish work known as the Lives of the Prophets, I found the following tradition:
Daniel. This man was of the tribe of Judah, of the family of those prominent in the royal service, but yet while a child he was taken from Judea to the land of the Chaldeans. He was born in Upper Beth-horon, and he was a chaste man, so that the Judeans that that he was a eunuch (Lives of the Prophets 4:1-2)
In the footnote to this text, D.R.A. Hare states that "By combining Dan 1:3, 6 with Isa 39:7, Jewish tradition maintained that Daniel was a member of the royal family" (Charlesworth, OTP, 2:389). In support of this, he refers to both Isaiah and a text from Josephus:
Then Isaiah siad to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: Behold the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothings shall be left says the LORD. And some of your own sons, who are born to you, shall be taken away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." (Isa 39:5-7)
Even more explicit is Josephus:
Now Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took some of the most noble of the Jews that were children, and the kinsmen of Zedekiah their king, such as were remarkably for their beauty of their bodies and comeliness of their countenances, and delivered them into the hands of tutors... He also made some of them to be eunuchs... Now among these there were four of the family of Zedekiah, of the most excellent dispositions, the one of whom was called Daniel... (Josephus, Antiquities 18.186-189)
One reason this is so significant (for those of you who may be wondering) is that if Daniel was actually a member of the family of Zedekiah--and thus an heir to the Davidic throne--then all of the "kingdom" imagery in the book of Daniel may not be simply generic "apocalyptic" imagery. It may in fact be (coded) Davidic imagery, and hence, by definition, messianic imagery.
All this plays into the debate over whether the "son of Man" in Daniel 7 is in fact the Messiah. Although the text does not explicitly say he is the "messiah" (although cf. Dan 9:24-27), if the "kingdom and dominion" that he receives is in fact the Davidic kingdom--and if it is an heir to the Davidic throne who is having this vision--then this is clearly a messianic text (which is how all the ancient Jews interpreted it, pace Joseph Fitzmyer). We'll do future posts on this, I'm sure, but let me just throw something out:
In Daniel 7, the "son of Man" comes and slays the beasts, in particular "the lion" (Babylonian empire) and "the bear" (the Medo-Persian empire), and then receives the "kingdom." Can you think of any other person who was famous for slaying "lions and bears" before he was elevated to receive a "kingdom"? I'll give you a hint... He's in the books of Samuel.
What's the poin then of Daniel 7? Eventually, the Davidic "son of Man" will triumph over the "beasts" of the pagan empires, and will reign over the universal "kingdom of God" (cf. Daniel 2) forever.
Of course, if Daniel's writing in the second century B.C., when the Davidic kingdom is long gone, none of this coded apocalyptic language makes any sense. But if he's writing during the reign of Babylon, when the Davidic empire is only freshly decimated and its heirs are captive, then all Davidic language and imagery would have to be secret. Which is exactly what we find in the book.
Just some thoughts. More to come.

Posted by Brant Pitre at 2:25 PM
 
Well, I'm still unsure here. I know the priests (and their families) of the temple got to eat portions of sacrifices (or all?) Just refer me to the verses because I am unclear what is involved in preparation of meat as opposed to vegetables. I'm assuming your last reference to taking vessels means the 4 youths were of the levite or priestly clan. The scrolls would also have been in the temple, how else would Daniel get to read Jeremiah? But I would guess that things like scroll holders would be lavish. Priests wore breastplates (forgot what they are called) with 12 precious stones on them. I assume their implements for worship were valuable. Things like draperies were made of the finest fabric. They also took people of the royal line. Obviously, people of the patriarchal line also survived (the royal line?). So - now that I have wondered all over the mulberry bush - I'm still unclear. If Daniel was of a priestly line, wouldn't he be able to prepare meat? Understood they couldn't eat certain meat, what-so-ever. Which law of the Mosaic set, are they following?

Silk.......the "vessals" were the utensils used by the priests in the worship service and were NOT the 4 men. There is no record of the removal of curtains and the like but I would not put that past any invading army.

As for Daniel and his 3 friends, they were teen agers, probably 13 to 15 years old. According to the Law of Moses they were not old enough to be priests.


Numbers 4:3...........ESV
"from thirty years old up to fifty years old, all who can come on duty, to do the work in the tent of meeting."

Numbers 4:23 KJV............
From thirty years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou number them; all that enter in to perform the service, to do the work in the tabernacle of the congregation.
 
Here's another interesting link:
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2007/09/was-prophet-daniel-member-of-davidic.html
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Was the Prophet Daniel a Member of the Davidic Royal Family?
Michael, this one's for you.
One of the questions Michael (who's still off honeymooning) and I have been exploring in recent months is whether there is any Davidic imagery in the book of Daniel. In particular, we've been intrigued by connections such as the "Son of Man" imagery in the psalms of David (e.g., Psalm 8) and the famous messianic "Son of Man" in Daniel 7. There are many others which we will maybe discuss in future posts.
In the course of the conversations, Michael thought it would be very interesting support for this Davidic imagery if we could show that Daniel was perhaps a member of the royal house of David: i.e, that he may have been an heir to the throne. This was suggested to Michael by the opening verses of Daniel 1, which read:
In the third year of the riegn of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. ANd the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand... Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, handsome and skilful iin all wisdom, endowned with knowledge, understanding learngin, and competent to serve in the kings palan and to teach the the letters and langaue of the Chaldeans. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. (Dan 1:1-6)
In light of this verse, Michael and I were speculating that perhaps Daniel was not just one of the "people of Israel," but actually a member of the royal family and as such an heir to the Davidic throne. This would be important, because it would potentially heighten the significance of any Davidic imagery in the book of Daniel.
Sure enough, while reading a fascinating first-century A.D. Jewish work known as the Lives of the Prophets, I found the following tradition:
Daniel. This man was of the tribe of Judah, of the family of those prominent in the royal service, but yet while a child he was taken from Judea to the land of the Chaldeans. He was born in Upper Beth-horon, and he was a chaste man, so that the Judeans that that he was a eunuch (Lives of the Prophets 4:1-2)
In the footnote to this text, D.R.A. Hare states that "By combining Dan 1:3, 6 with Isa 39:7, Jewish tradition maintained that Daniel was a member of the royal family" (Charlesworth, OTP, 2:389). In support of this, he refers to both Isaiah and a text from Josephus:
Then Isaiah siad to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: Behold the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothings shall be left says the LORD. And some of your own sons, who are born to you, shall be taken away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." (Isa 39:5-7)
Even more explicit is Josephus:
Now Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, took some of the most noble of the Jews that were children, and the kinsmen of Zedekiah their king, such as were remarkably for their beauty of their bodies and comeliness of their countenances, and delivered them into the hands of tutors... He also made some of them to be eunuchs... Now among these there were four of the family of Zedekiah, of the most excellent dispositions, the one of whom was called Daniel... (Josephus, Antiquities 18.186-189)
One reason this is so significant (for those of you who may be wondering) is that if Daniel was actually a member of the family of Zedekiah--and thus an heir to the Davidic throne--then all of the "kingdom" imagery in the book of Daniel may not be simply generic "apocalyptic" imagery. It may in fact be (coded) Davidic imagery, and hence, by definition, messianic imagery.
All this plays into the debate over whether the "son of Man" in Daniel 7 is in fact the Messiah. Although the text does not explicitly say he is the "messiah" (although cf. Dan 9:24-27), if the "kingdom and dominion" that he receives is in fact the Davidic kingdom--and if it is an heir to the Davidic throne who is having this vision--then this is clearly a messianic text (which is how all the ancient Jews interpreted it, pace Joseph Fitzmyer). We'll do future posts on this, I'm sure, but let me just throw something out:
In Daniel 7, the "son of Man" comes and slays the beasts, in particular "the lion" (Babylonian empire) and "the bear" (the Medo-Persian empire), and then receives the "kingdom." Can you think of any other person who was famous for slaying "lions and bears" before he was elevated to receive a "kingdom"? I'll give you a hint... He's in the books of Samuel.
What's the poin then of Daniel 7? Eventually, the Davidic "son of Man" will triumph over the "beasts" of the pagan empires, and will reign over the universal "kingdom of God" (cf. Daniel 2) forever.
Of course, if Daniel's writing in the second century B.C., when the Davidic kingdom is long gone, none of this coded apocalyptic language makes any sense. But if he's writing during the reign of Babylon, when the Davidic empire is only freshly decimated and its heirs are captive, then all Davidic language and imagery would have to be secret. Which is exactly what we find in the book.
Just some thoughts. More to come.

Posted by Brant Pitre at 2:25 PM

As for Daniel being in the line of Messiah, I have found no such information.

Matthew's genealogy goes through Jehoiachin and ends with Joseph. Though the father of Jesus, he is not Christ's birth father. Thus Jesus inherits the right to the throne through his father's geneology without being blemished by the blood curse.

Luke's genealogy goes to David and then turns off slightly to move through Nathan rather than Solomon, ending up with Mary, the birth mother of Jesus. Thus both parents came from the line of king David, just as God promised. Jesus received the legal right to the throne through his father, but his blood is untouched by the curse on the line of Jehoiachin.

Daniel 7:13
Daniel 7:13-14English Standard Version (ESV)
13 “I saw in the night visions,and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."

Daniel saw the Lord Jesus Christ in his vision and take notice that what we have here is the Trinity in view.

Daniel was IN the Spirit of God so as to receive this vision.
The Son of man is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ancient of Days is the Father!
 
OK - I misunderstood. My 2 links showed one thinking Daniel was a eunich, another not necessarily so. And that the name Daniel means "God is my judge". Possibilities that Daniel was of noble birth, maybe of the line of David. As teenagers, they would have been studying Torah, right? I admit I am not up on Jewish dietary laws but what I get from this 1st chapter is that there is a way to follow God's Will, even in the most difficult if not impossible circumstances.
 
Yes he had all his parts....where does the idea of him being celibate or a eunuch came from?

Paul..........It comes from Daniel 1:3....
"And the king spake unto Ashpenaz, the master of his EUNUCHS, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel and the kings seed......."

It comes from the fact that the 4 boys were to be in the charge of the master of the EUNUCHS. IF they were to be managed and taught by the man who trained eunuchs, then logic says that they were then in fact eunuchs.

I did not say that....just telling you where the thinking comes from.
 
Oh yeah - almost forgot - Isa 39:5-7 prophesizes eunichs

Isaiah 39:5-7
Envoys from Babylon
5Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD of hosts:6'Behold, the days are coming d when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,' says the LORD.7'And they shall take away some of your e sons who will descend from you, whom you will beget; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.' "
 
Last edited:
OK - I misunderstood. My 2 links showed one thinking Daniel was a eunich, another not necessarily so. And that the name Daniel means "God is my judge". Possibilities that Daniel was of noble birth, maybe of the line of David. As teenagers, they would have been studying Torah, right? I admit I am not up on Jewish dietary laws but what I get from this 1st chapter is that there is a way to follow God's Will, even in the most difficult if not impossible circumstances.

The lesson is that NO matter where we are believers we are to be obedient to God no matter the circumstances.

Yes, Daniel was of royal birth, but there is no indication that he was of the line of David.
He is not listed in the genealogies of Matt. or Luke so anything else would be speculation and in fact would be adding to the Word of God.
 
Top