BOOK OF DANIEL: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Daniel 1:8 Did Daniel reject wine due to kosher food regulations spelled out in Leviticus 19:23?

We can't go at all by current Jewish practices regarding wine consumption since the Levitical laws were greatly expanded and re-interpreted throughout the ages. For example, kosher wine, according to some schools of thought, must be made in a factory where no Gentile looks on the wine until it is bottled. Instead, we must try to determine what the Jews during Daniel's time thought about the regulations, and that is not easy.

The first thing to note about the command in Leviticus 19:23 is that it is not placed with the other kosher food regulations in Leviticus. This is probably because it is, strictly speaking, not a kosher regulation at all, but a rule involving a first fruit offering instead. As such, it was to be practiced by the Jews when they entered the Promised Land for the first time and planted their first crops. The first good crop (usually not until the fourth year after planting) was to be given to God to thank him for leading them there. This sort of thanks offering would be totally inappropriate for Jews being led into exile.

Even if the prohibition against drinking wine from the first few years' crop did carry over into the Exile, two commentaries I consulted noted that the Babylonians at that time had an identical regulation in which the first three years' grape crop could not be used. Thus, Daniel would have had no problem drinking any Babylonian wine.

The third major question is whether the fruit trees in Leviticus 19:23 refer to grape vines at all. I did a fairly extensive examination of all the passages in the Old Testament where tree, fruit, grape, wine or vine occurs. In the vast majority of these passages vines and trees are distinguished from one another by being listed separately (for example, Haggai 2:19, Amos 4:9, Psalm 105:33, Isaiah 36:16, etc.). In two stories especially, Judges 9:8-15 and Ezekiel 15:1-8 (where “vine tree” is better translated “wood of the vine”), the meaning in each passage revolves around the crucial differences between a tree and a vine.

The only place where a grape vine might possibly be called a fruit tree is in Nehemiah 10:35-37. Some translations of verse 37 read “and to bring the first of our dough, and our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the wine and the oil, to the priests...” With this punctuation, it implies that both olive oil and wine come from tree fruit. However, there was no punctuation in the original, and others translate it as “and to bring the first of our dough, and our contributions, the fruit of every tree, the wine, and the oil to the priests...” This understanding clearly separates the fruit of the vine from the fruit of trees.

Even if Nehemiah 10:35-37 does imply that grape vines are fruit trees (and thus fall under the regulation of Leviticus 19:23), it only shows that this was the new understanding in Nehemiah's time (many decades after the events in Daniel 1).

The final argument involves the events in Daniel 10:3, years after Daniel's initial entry into the Babylonian court. In that verse, Daniel again vows that no wine will touch his lips, the implication being that he had been drinking wine up to that time. Putting these two verses together, we can conclude that in both cases Daniel was entering into a time of voluntary fasting, such as practiced at Lent, for a particular reason. It therefore has nothing to do with any dietary restrictions spelled out in Leviticus.

Daniel 1:15-16 How could only 10 days on a different diet have made a visible difference?

As it is doubtful that it would have done so, we should probably take this as evidence of God miraculously working behind the scenes.

Daniel 2:4-11 The footnote on this passage in The Daily Bible says “The text from here through chapter 7 is in Aramaic.” Is Daniel believed to have originally been written in partial Aramaic? Is it possible a later scribe wrote/translated this part in Aramaic? Why would the original author or a later scribe write a portion, or specifically this portion, in Aramaic as opposed to the Hebrew in which the rest of the book was written? Very curious. Look forward to your response.

This is an intriguing question, and one that has puzzled scholars for years. In fact, Daniel is not the only book in which this phenomenon occurs. There is the same mixture of languages in Ezra and Nehemiah (which I will deal with when we get to those books). I believe that the best explanation for the use of dual languages in all these books is a literary one. So below are some excerpts from my unpublished book The Structure of Scripture that attempt to deal with this question (I have eliminated all the footnoted references for convenience sake, but can supply them to anyone who is interested).

One feature of Daniel is the way in which the book is divided by original languages of composition. Verses 2:4b-7:28 are in Aramaic while the rest is in Hebrew. Gammie declares, “Scholars have not yet come up with an altogether convincing explanation for the two-fold languages in the book.” Similarly, after reviewing several theories, Young concludes, “There does not appear to be any truly satisfactory explanation of the two languages.” Many scholars posit an original Aramaic document to which additional Hebrew writings were appended or which was partially translated into Hebrew. But why was the entire document not translated into the same language? Alternatively, it has been suggested that the Aramaic portions of the book are those most suited for a non-Jewish audience or that they are most appropriate for those stories that focus on international events.

Looking at the general subjects and genre that occur in Daniel, one comes up with a slightly different division for the book. Namely, the first six chapters are widely recognized as court tales (similar to the Book of Esther) involving Daniel and his friends while the rest of the book consists of various visions and revelations usually classified as apocalyptic literature. Also, chapters 1-6 refer to the heroes in the third person while chapters 7-12 are narrated by Daniel himself.

“The most perplexing anomaly lies in the fact that the division on the basis of form and date does not coincide with the division on the basis of language.” In other words, why is Chapter 1 in Hebrew instead of Aramaic as are the other court stories of Daniel, and why isn't Chapter 7 in Hebrew with the other visions of the second half of the book?

The answer to the first question is that Chapter 1 is written in Hebrew to highlight its unique function. As Collins has noted, “The position of ch.1 is ambiguous.” It is not only a court tale as are the stories in chapters 2-6, but also serves as an introduction to the entire book. This chapter links the reader, through the character of Daniel, to the exile at start of the chapter and to the return with its mention of Cyrus at end.

Similarly, the retaining of Chapter 7 in Aramaic acts as “an interlocking device” to tie together the two halves of the book. As Sims states, “Chapter 7 has been widely recognized as the structural link between the two parts, so strongly binding the two that efforts to separate them are futile.” Baldwin puts the case even more strongly: “There are good reasons for thinking that ch. 7 is the key to the whole book, even its focal point.” This pivotal role of Chapter 7 is also seen in the way its ambiguity allows the pictured four-kingdom scheme to either refer backwards to the four sovereigns who have already appeared in the first six chapters or forward to the future realms of chapters 8-12. Similarly, Stead notes that “both the stories and the visions of book of Daniel are read together as providing complementary perspectives rather than opposing viewpoints.” A final indication of the structural importance of Chapter 7 is the fact that the attribution of the words of the book jointly to God and the prophet is not given until Daniel 7:1. This is unlike the other prophetic books, whose similar attributions are given in the opening verses.

The two halves of the book are further united in a more general and basic fashion, as pointed out by several commentators:

"...the evidence of verbal and thematic interlocking between the narrative and apocalyptic parts of Daniel works against the view that the book consists of two distinct genres unequally yoked together...clear visions and confused history [are] followed by clear history and puzzling visions.”

"The first part of the book prepares for the second, and the second looks back to the first.”

"...both parts of Daniel have the same purpose: to reveal heavenly realities and events that are to come in the world. In this sense, both are apocalyptic."

"In effect, the book records both the external [chapters 1-6] and the internal [chapters 7-12] history of Daniel."

"Throughout the book the kingdom of God provides the frame for human history. In the tales this is acknowledged primarily in the doxologies."

"...the stories, like the visions, portray a God who rules in heaven who is also sovereign over the realm of death, who is active in the past and trustworthy for the future...It is a mixed form, as much a series of short stories to which visions are attached as a series of visions prefaced by some stories."

Daniel 2:5,8 Why did he demand that they first tell him the dream?

For the same reason that fortune-tellers often start out by telling some verifiable fact to a person before telling their future. It builds confidence in the future predictions. This indicates also that the king did not really trust the “experts” in his court (v. 9).

Daniel 2:37 Why would the king have been chosen by God when he wasn't even a Jew?

OT prophets mention that Babylon was chosen by God as his instrument to punish the Jews. However, it in turn will be judged by God.

It serves God purposes by bringing the Jew's history into world history

Cyrus was even called Messiah by God for his role in returning the Jews to Israel. Read Isaiah 45:1-7.

Daniel 2:46-47 Why would Daniel take part in a pagan worship ceremony?

The situation is actually worse than that. The worship was actually to Daniel. This is perhaps a warning to us that no human being, even Daniel, is perfect. It could be that Daniel didn't make a big deal over it since (a) he had carefully told the king ahead of time that it was God who did the interpreting and (b) the king did give credit where credit was due in verse 47.

Daniel 3:19 What does it mean that the furnace was heated to seven times its usual heat? The only way this would make sense is if the temperature was measured from absolute zero.

One possible answer is that seven times the usual amount of fuel was used. A more likely explanation is that this is one of many OT and NT examples where the number seven is used in its symbolic sense of “complete” or “perfection.” In other words, the oven was heated as hot as it could possibly get.

Daniel 3:25 Who is the fourth person?

The text literally reads “son of God,” which is used for angels elsewhere in the Bible. See verse 28 for 

the king's opinion. Some see him as Jesus, which would be appropriate since Jesus came down to earth 

and suffered alongside of us. That adds additional significance to the statement,“Only their bonds were 

burned.”

 

Daniel 4:1-3 This chapter is narrated by Nebuchadnezzar himself, but he uses almost biblical language

 here. Would he have likely spoken that way?

One possibility is that this may be good evidence of Daniel's witnessing to him.

Daniel 4:6-7 Why didn't King approach Daniel first?

Possibly the king already knew roughly what the dream meant and didn't want to have anything to do 

with Daniel and his God until forced to as a last resort. Also, he hoped his other counselors would give 

a more favorable interpretation. We want people to tell us what we want to hear, not what we need to 

hear.

Daniel 4:19 We can understand why the king is terrified, but why Daniel also?

We can only speculate here. Possibilities are that Daniel is afraid for his life if he tells the truth (“kill 

the messenger” syndrome), he is genuinely concerned for the king's welfare, he is in awe of God's 

power, or he is afraid of what will happen to the Jews if the king is removed from power.

Daniel 4:33 I have read that the author of Daniel confused Nabonidus (father of Belshazzar) with 

 Nebuchadnezzar.

There is a Dead Sea Scroll fragment from about 50 BC which tells a similar story about Nabonidus. 

Conservative scholars say that it is more likely that the author of the fragment was the one confused. 

However, there are cuneiform records which mention Nabonidus being incapacitated for a while. Josh 

McDowell's Daniel in the Critics' Den deals with this and other historical issues in detail. There is of 

course also the possibility that God may have similarly afflicted both kings.

Daniel 9:24 Why doesn't the spectacular fact that this verse predicted to the day when Jesus entered 

Jerusalem convince more people of the truth of the Bible?

Payne’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, pp. 384-385 shows that there have been several other 

accepted ways to understand this prophecy that differ completely in regard to the proper starting event, 

method of assigning “weeks,” and nature of the actual fulfillment. There are several problems with the 

method usually employed to come up with this understanding. The main one is that a 360-day year is 

needed for the dates to come out right. Although Jews used a 30-day month in their calendar, their 

calendar year was, of course, 365 1/4 days just like ours (They added make-up days periodically so that 

their winter months didn’t slowly turn into summer months, etc.) Commentators have noted that it is 

highly unlikely that such a calculation (360 days = one year) was intended.