Bible Query from
Ecclesiastes
Q: In Ecc, what is the value of a skeptical book like Ecclesiastes being in the Bible?
A: God loves skeptics too. In fact, God longs to show people who have not found any purpose for their life His purpose for their life. Actually, people who see life as meaningless might have an advantage over some others. It can be easier for them to abandon their own ambitious purposes and submit to God’s purposes, if they already see how meaningless their own purposes are, apart from God. Unfortunately, many are like the Pharisees in Luke 7:30 who rejected God’s purpose for themselves.
Ecclesiastes can be read from different angles. This book can be thought of as a work for workaholics, full or wisdom for people full of themselves, and the logical conclusion of existential thinking. As an aside, The Jewish rabbi Hillel agreed it should be in the Bible, but the rabbi Shammai said it was not canon.
The book itself is an account of a struggle, a struggle to find meaning in a meaningless world. Ultimately the author finds true meaning, but he did not find it in this world.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.254-255, When Critics Ask p.254, Today’s Handbook for Solving Bible Difficulties p.48-50, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.159-160 for complementary answers and also The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1148-1149.
Q: Why is Ecc not quoted in the New Testament?
A: While there is no requirement that it had to be in the New Testament, its teachings are echoed there. Jesus said we should not have many empty words in prayer (Matthew 6:7 and Ecclesiastes 5:2). Paul said the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10 from Ecclesiastes 5:10). We should avoid the lust of youth (2 Timothy 2:22 from Ecclesiastes 11:10) We reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7 from Ecclesiastes 11:1). All are to die once (Hebrews 9:2 from Ecclesiastes 3:2). As Geisler and Howe put it, “Whether, or even how often, a book is quoted does not determine whether it is inspired.” See When Critics Ask p.253 for more info.
Q: In Ecc, what is an outline of the book?
A: Ecclesiastes is loosely organized. Some commentators think Ecclesiastes 6:7-12, 12:8, and 12:9-14 are three separate conclusions. Others think all of chapter 12 is one conclusion. In general, modern outlines of Ecclesiastes fall into two categories.
The “enjoyment” outline is:
1:1-2:26 - 2:24-26 speaks of enjoyment
3:1-5:20 - 5:18-20 speaks of enjoyment
6:1-8:17 - 8:15-17 speaks of enjoyment
9:1-11:10 - 11:7-10 speaks of enjoyment
12 - Epilogue
1:3-11 A poem on human vanity
1:12-6:9 Demonstrating the vanity of human effort
6:10-11:6 Demonstrating the vanity of human wisdom
11:7-12:14 Enjoy our life, as temporary as it is, as a gift from God
However, consider a classical music composer’s symphony. He may have distinct movements, but he may have themes that reoccur based on artistry, and not logical outlines. It would not be surprising to see Solomon, the writer of science, love poetry, Proverbs, and trade strategies, blend the components of art and logic together, and both outlines could each be partially correct.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.978-979, The New Geneva Study Bible p.987, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.879, and The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.488 for more info.
Q: Does Ecc have an Aramaic influence, which the Jews adopted in times later than Solomon?
A: First the facts, then three possibilities.
Facts: Linguists argue over Solomon’s writings. While one Conservative Christian scholar (Delitzsch) found 96 “Aramaisms” in Ecclesiastes, the conservative Christian scholar Hengstenberg found only 10. Solomon’s writings are unique, in not appearing any closer to 5th century Hebrew documents than 10th century Hebrew documents.
1. Contrary to what Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.512 asserts, it was not written in a “later” style. Rather, it shows a Phoenician and Aramaic influence, which Solomon likely learned from his friendship with Hiram son of Abibaal, king of the Phoenician city of Tyre.
2. Later Hebrew scribes might have updated some of the language to the later style.
3. The writer never actually said he was Solomon. However, a son of David reigning in Jerusalem would either mean Solomon or one of his descendants.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.255-258, Hard Sayings of the Bible p.292-293, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.975-976 for extensive discussions.
Q: Does Ecc and wisdom literature come from Greek influence, as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.962 suggests?
A: No, Asimov is off-base here. He claims that “Wisdom” in post-exilic Judaism came from logos and the influence of Greek philosophy. However, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic wisdom literature was written long before the 6th century B.C. Greek philosophers.
Q: Does Ecc seem to be written from 300-200 B.C as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.512 says?
A: It was definitely written earlier. Asimov might not have known that the earliest fragments of Ecclesiastes in the Dead Sea scrolls were written in the second century B.C. However, Asimov forgot to mention that Ecclesiastes was in the Greek Septuagint, which was translated between 285 and 160 B.C. It would be strange that the Masoretic text, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Septuagint all had this book, and it was first written between 300 and 200 B.C.
Q: In Ecc 1:1 how is everything vanity/meaningless?
A: A vanity may have the appearance of being important but it actually meaningless and worthless. Ecclesiastes was written from the perspective of life without God. Without God, our lives do not have any more meaning than an ant’s life.
Different people look at life in five ways: as a
Vexation – life is just full of trouble and suffering
Void - just meaningless
Vanity - looks important but meaningless
Vacation – always seeking pleasure though not having any lasting pleasure
Victory – living victoriously for God
(This neat summary was given in a sermon given on the Dallas radio station 100.7 The Word by Rev. Jack Graham of Prestonwood Baptist Church on May 14, 2009)
Q: In Ecc 1:1-2, was the author a “preacher”, or was that his actual name?
A: While a few people think that was his actual name, it is never used anywhere else as an actual name. It very likely means he was a preacher, as well as a king who was a son of David. This would be Solomon. Also, Psalm 127 is said to be by Solomon, and it speaks of the vanity of building without the Lord. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.885,976 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 1:2 and Ecc 11:8, since everything is meaningless, does that include the Bible?
A: No, rather Ecclesiastes 1:3, sets the tone for the whole book. Everything “under the sun” means things done without God or an eternal perspective. These all are in fact, meaningless. Job 21:23-26 also brings up a common destiny for their bodies.
Q: In Ecc 1:4, how can the earth abide forever, since 2 Pet 3:10 says the earth will be burned up, and Rev 21:1 says the first earth will pass away?
A: The Hebrew word for earth had a range of meaning, as does the word for earth in English. Earth can mean soil, the land, this world, or what is on this world. God has chosen to make what is under the surface survive forever, but God will wipe the surface as clean as He says in Zephaniah 1:2-3. The new earth in Revelation 21:1 will be based on what is left of the old earth.
Q: Does Ecc 1:5 show the sun moves around the earth?
A: First a fact that is not a part of the answer, and then the answer. When modern or ancient people use a colloquial term, such as something happening at sunrise or sunset, that does not mean they are discussing astronomy. However, that fact is not related to this verse, as the subject of Ecclesiastes 1:5 is the sun and its course.
Solomon, in a pre-scientific way, is accurately describing the path the sun makes in the sky. It is true that we have no evidence that Solomon knew the earth actually went around the sun instead of vice versa. He is still accurately describing the periodic course of the sun.
Interestingly, if one “translates” this verse into modern scientific terms, it is still completely true, since we can look at physics and astronomy from a relativistic sense and not just a 19th century view. Scientists today can indeed say the sun goes around the earth - from the frame of reference of the earth.
Q: Does Ecc 1:6 show the wind has to return to the place it came from, just like the sun?
A: The writer of Ecclesiastes is truthful, but extremely vague here, probably because he does not know everything about the wind. However, his point is still scientifically valid. The earth has no net gain or loss of “wind”. When the local air pressure falls, that loss is restored when the air pressure rises. A more scientific way of paraphrasing Ecclesiastes 1:6 is that the air and wind around the world is in dynamic equilibrium.
Q: In Ecc 1:7, how does the “river” return to where it came from?
A: Ecclesiastes 1:7 is simply a description of the earth’s water cycle. Even if you did not believe God inspired the author of Ecclesiastes, you have to admit this was an astute observation from a culture 1,000 years before Christ, that only had common, inexpensive iron tools for a few hundred years.
Q: In Ecc 1:9-10, in our technological age, is there really nothing new under the sun?
A: Much has changed in both technology and society. However, what about man himself is new? Regardless of technology, the most central questions about the meaning of life itself in Ecclesiastes have not changed. Life without God is as meaningless today as it was back then. Whether people live in a house in Jesus’ time, or in a centrally air-conditioned house today, everything else is insignificant compared to the eternal issues of the soul, and nothing has changed in that regard. See When Critics Ask p.254 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : New Testament p.980 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 1:11, since there is no memory of former things, then what about history?
A: The writer of Ecclesiastes is not communicating that nobody ever knows anything about the past, because the writer himself is recounting past events in his writing. Rather, after a person dies, their direct, personal knowledge is lost from this world forever.
In a second, historical sense, the vast majority of the once vitally important information about past kingdoms and empires is not only lost, it is no longer of any value.
Q: In Ecc 1:12, what exactly does the Hebrew mean here?
A: Some have claimed this means “I … was [and am no longer] king.” However, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.976 says the verb could just as well be translated “I …have been [and still am] king.” Thus, Ecclesiastes 1:12 does not address the question of how long the writer remained king.
Q: In Ecc 1:13 and Ecc 4:8 (KJV), what is a “sore travail”?
A: This King James Version expression can be translated “burdensome task” The first Hebrew word (‘ra) has a wide range of meaning. It can mean evil, adversity, distress, misery, and so forth. The Hebrew word for task, ‘inyan, also can mean “employment” or “affair”.
Q: In Ecc 1:16, did the preacher suffer from a problem with pride in his wisdom?
A: What Solomon said was true; he did have great wisdom. But it is possible he took pride in his wisdom, also. It is a paradox that the same person could write Proverbs 3:5-7, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not on your own understanding…. Do not be wise in your own eyes…” and yet later Solomon was wise in his own eyes and sought wisdom first. (Ultimately Solomon saw that true wisdom was beyond him though in Ecclesiastes 7:23-24).
This is a case of “do what Solomon said, not what he did.” We should listen to what God said through Solomon, and learn what the Bible honestly shows us from his mistakes.
Q: In Ecc 1:17 and Ecc 2:12, why would any believer want to give his heart to know madness and folly?
A: Solomon likely wanted to for the sake of knowing wisdom by studying what it is not. However, Solomon (and us), should not want to do things just for the sake of learning about them. Do you want to learn firsthand what it is like to jump from an airplane with no parachute?
This verse, like many others in the Bible (especially the Old Testament) is not a commandment to us, but an observation that we can learn from of what others did.
Q: In Ecc 1:17, is it a good thing to give your heart to know wisdom?
A: Actually, no, wisdom should not be your highest goal. Solomon did this, but Solomon was disobedient to God for much of his earthly life. We should give our heart to God, and learn and use wisdom to serve God. However, loving and obeying God should be our number one desire and goal, not wisdom. Even wisdom, even godly wisdom, can become an idol.
We should pray to God for wisdom, as James 1:5 tells us. In fact, we should pray that we could learn everything that God wants us to learn. But we should also pray to God that we not learn what God does not want us to learn. For example, there is so much about the experience and consequences of sin that we have not learned firsthand, and frankly, we don’t want to learn.
Q: In Ecc 1:18, since in much wisdom there is much grief, then why does it cause happiness as Prov 3:13 says, and should we want to be wise?
A: Under the sun, (or apart from God), even wisdom is useless. Not only is it useless, but knowing everything that is going on, and knowing about death and suffering only causes grief. The common expression “ignorance is bliss” is not true, but without God ignorance can be less grievous than wisdom.
The Bible does not teach that we should merely get wisdom. Rather it distinguishes between worldly wisdom and God’s wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9; 1 Corinthians 1:19-25). We should seek God’s wisdom (Proverbs 9). Yet, we are foolish if we think that mastering all of God’s wisdom is a process we will complete in this life. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 3:5-7, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart; and lean not on your own understanding…. Do not be wise in your own eyes…”. See When Critics Ask p.254-255 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 2:1, why is Solomon “testing” himself with laughter here?
A: Solomon is saying that he is investigating if true happiness and meaning can come from amusement, entertainment, and living for fun. Unfortunately, some people have never grasped Solomon’s lesson. Many today are entertaining themselves to death.
Q: In Ecc 2:2 what should Christians think about laughter and joking.?
A: The Hebrew word here does not only mean joking, but encompasses an entertaining and shallow joy according to the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.438. Here are five point to consider in the answer.
a) “Anything for a joke” is crazy. If you joke around all the time, then people might not take you seriously.
b) There is a proper time to laugh in Ecclesiastes 3:4. Some of Jesus’ parables, such as the camel through the eye of a needle, paint humorous pictures.
c) Being “unfunny” is sometimes better. If a joke is dirty, belittles others, or glorifies sin, they you should not tell it; even if it is very funny.
d) Be discerning: Jesus criticized some laughter Luke 6:25, but still promised laughter for the godly in Lk 6:21. Don’t laugh at things that are hurtful to others.
e) Be positive: Psalm 126:2 and Job 8:21 also mention the righteous laughing with joy.
See When Critics Ask p.255 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 2:2 how can laughter be “mad”?
A: While people suffering from insanity might laugh at inopportune times, that is probably not what is in view here. Sometimes hollow laughter is by people who are very sad.
Billy Graham in The Secret of Happiness tells of a severely depressed patient who went to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist suggested he attend a show in one of the theaters, who made the audience convulse in laughter night after night. The psychiatrist thought this would be excellent therapy, that is, until the patient hung his head and said, “I am that clown.” This is relayed by the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.884.
Q: In Ecc 2:3, should Christians follow the writer’s example, and give themselves to wine?
A: No, we should not “give ourselves” primarily to anything, or anyone, except God, and then secondarily our spouses, family, and brothers and sisters in the Lord. As in harems and materialism, there are many things mentioned in Ecclesiastes, under the sun, that we are not to follow, nor are we ever told to follow.
Q: In Ecc 2:7, what was the point of the livestock and slaves?
A: While some fruit trees, herds, and flocks were necessary for food and clothing, that would not explain why he felt the need for vast numbers of these. These were not for his needs, but for status and making more money. Likewise, some slaves could be highly skilled as scribes, dancers, and musicians, but the main purpose of large numbers of slaves was for prestige. There is no indication her at all that Solomon was following God’s will. How much more of a name would Solomon have if he freed those slaves. 1 Kings 11:3 says that Solomon had 700 wives and he (apparently) also needed 300 concubines.
In contrast to this, just prior to Jesus’ ministry there was a very wealthy Roman named Cornelius who lived in southern Italy. He used his wealth to buy 50,000 men as slaves. Then he freed all 50,000. All of the men, in his honor, changed their name to Cornelius. We don’t know if Cornelius the centurion in Acts 10 was one of these former slaves, but he could have been.
Q: In Ecc 2:8, what were the delights of the sons of men”?
A: The meaning of the Hebrew word is not certain, but its probable meaning is “harem”. A harem is a large collection of wives and concubines. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.438 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.982 say the same.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1156 adds that this rarely used word was in a letter of the Egyptian Pharaoh Amenophis III to (ANETvp.487a).
Q: In Ecc 2:8, as Solomon was sharing his experience with so many wives, when should believers share with others their sinful experiences, and when should they not?
A: First of all, Solomon might have thought he was not sinning, because he was married to all those 800 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). However, God said that the king must not have many wives, and so Solomon was actually disobeying God. Many of the wives were from nations the Israelites were not to intermarry with, according to 1 Kings 11:1-2. Solomon knew so much, yet he did not know, or else knew but did not follow, God’s law.
We can share, as Solomon did, in order to show other people the unhappy consequences of the sin. But we should not share in such as way as to entice other people into wishing they had sinned like that too.
Q: In Ecc 2:8, what are provinces here?
A: This word was used by Persians and later Israelites such as king Ahab in 1 Kings 20:14-15. Other kingdoms in Solomon’s time had provinces, so Solomon had them too. These probably were not lands of the twelve tribes of Israel, but rather other lands David had conquered that brought tribute every year. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1157 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 2:9, what was the point of the wisdom, flocks, herds, and slaves?
A: The point is succinctly summarized here: “I became greater”. That seemed to be Solomon’s real goal. The fact that he was a believer would mean he wanted to still worship God and not disobey his laws (or at least not too many), but still, his goal in life was “I became greater”. Many Christians in life want to love God and not disobey him, but for them tool, their primary goal in life is “I became greater.” If you look at the start of almost every verse in Ecclesiastes 2:1-9, almost all of the them start with “I”. You will look in vain for any indication that Solomon thought” I will wait upon the Lord for what God wants me to do.”
However, though even by modern standards Solomon was very wealthy, he can tell us, it is all in vain.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.438 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 2:10, should a believer want to fill his heart with all pleasure?
A: No. While a believer should not indulge in sinful pleasures, such as drugs, that is not what this verse is taking about. There are two points to consider in the answer.
1. This refers to legitimately acquired pleasures, such as purchased material things, which God’s Law did not specifically forbid?
2. It is still a sin to live a life in pursuit of pleasure, even if the pleasures are not evil ones. Our lives should be in pursuit of a closer relationship with God.
Q: In Ecc 2:12-14, how is Solomon saying that both are true: wisdom is worthless, and wisdom is more valuable than folly?
A: Both are equally worthless as goals. However, a person walking in the light of wisdom can see where he is going, to get to the goal that he wants, while the one waling in the darkness of folly has no clue.
Q: Does Ecc 2:14-15 prove non-existence after death?
A: No, this refers to life under the sun. It simply says one event, that is, death, happens to all. Under the sun, everyone who dies is not under the sun anymore.
Q: In Ecc 2:15, what is the point of being wise?
A: Solomon found that there is no point in having wisdom for wisdom’s sake. Wisdom at best, is a flashlight that helps light our path. But it is not, or at least should not be our goal, any more than reaching the end of a flashlight’s beam should be your goal.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.888 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 2:16, how is there no more remembrance of the wise more than the fool after death?
A: There are three distinct ways.
The Deceased: The direct memories in the minds of those who die are lost to this world forever.
Others: The memories of those left on this earth fade of the one who died. In history, many facts about ancient civilizations, which were crucial for people to know at the time, are forgotten and useless to all but archaeologists today.
Eternally: For both the righteous and unrighteous, all the skills, knowledge, and wisdom of this world are useless after death.
Q: In Ecc 2:17-18,20,23 should we “hate life”?
A: No, but don’t love life more than God. The point of Ecclesiastes concerns “life under the sun”. In other words, it is material life without God. Ecclesiastes never says we should hate life; rather the writer is saying he hates life. Proverbs 8:35-36 speaks well of those who find life. However, it is easy to hate life “under the sun” without God. In a strange sense, this is one place where the teachings of Buddhism and Christianity almost agree. Buddhism first point on the eightfold path says that life is suffering. While Christianity says that the Christian life is great, even despite suffering, Christianity partially agrees with Buddhism on one point, that life without the real God is and will be suffering.
Q: In Ecc 2:17-18, Solomon had all the wealth, slaves, wisdom, and status that he could want, so why could he hate his life?
A: This was not a hate because of what he could not get or achieve. It seems more like a bitterness that he worked so hard, got and achieved all he wanted, and still felt empty. Which wife really loved him, when she only saw him once every couple of years? Which wife did he really love, since he might have only seen them once every couple of years?
Sometimes the satisfaction comes not just from the goal, but from the journey.
There was a play one time, where at night a poor husband and wife, striving to have more money, were lying awake in their beds wondering what rich people do. At the same time there was a wealthy couple, lying in their beds, wondering what poor people do. If you believe that getting rich will make you happy, you might not be rich now, but you have hope, something to look forward to, to the day that you (hopefully) will be rich and thus happy. Solomon, and some rich people, are so depressed because they have already achieved those riches, and they have discovered that it did not make them happy. Then what else could they hope for?
Q: In Ecc 2:18-19, why does it seem so unfair that the rich save up wealth only for another?
A: The person was sacrificed their convenience, freedom, and perhaps even their family and own happiness to accumulate wealth might not enjoy it for many years until they die. The people inheriting the wealth, might lose it, or might enjoy for many years what they did not work for. This was depressing for Solomon. This happened to Solomon when the kingdom was split in two under his son Rehoboam. Even though Rehoboam did not start to reign until Solomon died, Solomon knew beforehand that this would happen because God told him in 1 Kings 11:11-13.
Q: In Ecc 2:19, if someone is not foolish, then would a large inheritance be OK for him?
A: It could be disastrous for them. Proverbs 30:7-9 says, “Two things I have asked of you. Don’t deny me before I die. Remove far from me falsehood and lies. Give me neither poverty nor riches. Feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full, deny you, and say, ‘Who is Yahweh?’ or lest I be poor, and steal, and so dishonor the name of my God.” (World English Bible)
With part of his wealth Solomon made gold shields for the guards in the temple in 2 Chronicles 9:16. Now gold is a soft and heavy metal, unsuitable for shields except for showing off. But in the reign of his son Rehoboam, Pharaoh Shishak carried off Solomon’s gold shields to Egypt in 2 Chronicles 11:9. The money could have been used to pay for teaches or help the poor.
I heard of a new Christian who was a would-be graphics designer, except that he had no computer or software. The mission organization loaned him both, and he became a good graphics designer, and became prosperous. He left his wife for a girlfriend, he left the church, and he never paid back the money. It would have been better spiritually if he had never been given the help.
There was a Christian who won tens of millions in a lottery, in (I believe) Florida. Immediately he gave 10% to Christian organizations, and set up funds so his children would not have to work.
The Christian in Florida who won millions in the lottery. Later he started visiting strip clubs, carrying large amounts of money in his car. Robbers figured that out, and robbed him and beat him up multiple times. His daughter got involved with drugs. He finally reached the point where he said he wish he could go back in time and just tear up that lottery ticket, for the sake of both himself and his family.
Q: In Ecc 2:21, what can you do when it looks like your teenager is growing up to be foolish?
A: Perhaps Solomon personally wondered this about his son, the future king Rehoboam. Rehoboam ultimately was a fool who lost ten tribes from his kingdom.
Simple foolishness is naively not knowing what is going on. But other types of foolishness are practiced and learned from those around them. You should make sure you are a good example for them. Certainly you should talk with your teenager. Sometimes parents will move to try to break free from the bad influences on their teenage daughter or son. You cannot insulate your child, or yourself, from bad influences, and some can help give your faith endurance. But stay away from bad influences you or your children cannot handle. Try to replace those with good influences instead. And there are cases, especially when they won’t listen, when sometimes the best thing is to let them fail.
Q: Does Ecc 2:24 show that Epicureanism is true?
A: No. See the discussion on Ecclesiastes 2:3. 1 Corinthians 15:32 says that without God, there are not many choices, as Epicureanism is as good a choice as any. See When Critics Ask p.256 for more info.
Hard Sayings of the Bible p.293-294 gives a careful translation of this and notes that the words “nothing better” are not present. In other words, this verse is saying that while eating and drinking is good and from God, under the sun without God, there is really nothing else for us to do except eat and drink.
A: The need for times and seasons in life is not always so obvious, so God gave them that in Old Testament times every Saturday with the Sabbath. By the way, there is no indication that Israelite farmers, traders, and craftsmen were any less productive than those in other countries that might work seven days a week.
Even though Christians are not commanded to keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16), many Christians still have a time of rest, usually on Sunday. While every day is a Sabbath for believers now, since we have entered God’s rest in Hebrews 4:3-11, we are not required to observe the Sabbath (or Sunday), but it is fine to do so.
Q: In Ecc 3:1-8 what is the point of these fourteen opposites, or positives and negatives?
A: Things tend to cancel out. Many things get built, but then they are torn down. For many of those things, there is a balance.
A person could choose some of these seasons, many times we don’t have any choice; the times are determined for us. When you spend time because you or your family member is sick, don’t think that is keeping you from doing what God intended for you to do. At that time, it is God’s will to do exactly what He wants you to do, which is to care for the sick one.
Sometimes when you are in a special time, such as mourning, or sickness, you can look at the moment and wrongly assume that it is going to be this way the rest of your life. Likewise, when things are going utterly fantastic, you can wrongly assume the rest of your life will be this way. One thing we can learn from this passage is to be prepared in your spirit, because seasons change. When a season turns to one you would not have chosen, remember that we are only temporarily on earth anyway.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.890-892 for more info.
Q: Since Ecc 3:2 says there is a time to be born and a time to die, when is euthanasia, including physician -assisted suicide, morally right?
A: We must first distinguish between types of dying, and then see what the Bible says.
A definition of euthanasia, from the Greek words eu thanatos meaning “good/easy death”, is intentionally causing death by act or omission of a non-fetal being whose life is deemed not worth living, and thinking it is not morally wrong to do so. Euthanasia can be voluntary or involuntary on the patient’s part, and actively killing, or passively withholding treatment, food, water, or warmth. Of course, how one defines undesirable existence, whether of oneself or others, is subject to a wide range of interpretation.
Involuntary active euthanasia of undesirable existence was widely practiced in Nazi Germany; today we call that evil the Holocaust. Uganda, Communist China, and the Communist U.S.S.R. also had their own holocausts. Involuntary active euthanasia is only for certain criminals, but growing old should not be a crime.
Voluntary active euthanasia laws are most liberal today in the Netherlands. However, since physicians there have the right to administer voluntary euthanasia, the booklet A Christian Response to Physician-Assisted Suicide p.12-13 reports that a Dutch study (Herbert Hendin, Chris Rutenfrans, and Zbigniew Zylicz “Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in the Netherlands” Journal of American Medical Association 277 (1977) p.1720-1722.) found that there was more involuntary euthanasia than voluntary euthanasia. It apparently is a “slippery slope” from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary, as the victims rarely file complaints.
Allowing death, also called passive euthanasia, can be compassionate for the terminally ill, who wish to die more quickly and in less pain. It can merely mean not taking extraordinary medical measures. This is the only type of euthanasia that can be moral. However, some passive euthanasia can be cruel too, for those who do not wish to die, and who are not terminally ill. We should not let otherwise healthy people die simply from lack of food. Who are we to say someone else’s life is not worthwhile, especially when he or she thinks it is.
Suicide was only practiced in the Bible by Judas Iscariot, Saul, and Samson. In the early church, Lactantius (260-330 A.D.) writes that the crime of suicide is as bad or greater than murder of another in The Divine Institutes 3:19. Suicide is a sin, but the Bible does not say it is unforgivable. The early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c.325 A.D.) recounts how six Christian women, on three different occasions committed suicide rather than be abused sexually (Ecclesiastical History chapters 12 and 14).
In brief, the Bible prohibits murder, which includes suicide and most forms of euthanasia of people. The Bible does not prohibit what is called “voluntary, passive euthanasia”, where exceptional medical procedures are withheld, or the patient is allowed to die naturally. While the Bible does not say suicide is OK, see the next question for what the Bible does say that relates to dying.
See A Christian Response to Physician-Assisted Suicide, New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Theology p.357-359,825-826, Christians in Pain, and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1631 for more info. Even though euthanasia is wrong, Christian decisions involving medical treatment can be far from trivial. See Life and Death Decisions for discussions for some of the issues involving medical treatment.
Q: In Ecc 3:2, what does the Bible teach about dying?
A: While the Bible does not use the term “euthanasia” per se, we can learn from it the following 22 things related to dying.
…Values
In dying as in everything else, the world offers us hollow and deceptive philosophies, but we should follow what God teaches us (Colossians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 1:19-23; John 10:16). Do not just do what is right in our own eyes (Judges 21:25).
We are valuable because all people are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 8:4-5). We are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14).
We are to honor the elderly (Leviticus 19:32; 1 Timothy 5:2) .
We are to help (not kill) orphans, widows, sick, prisoners, and others society might consider undesirable (James 1:27; Deuteronomy 15:11; Psalm 68:5; Matthew 25:35-36,42-44; Zechariah 7:9-10; Hebrews 13:3).
…Actions
We must not murder, and people who intentionally murder can be executed (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13; 21:12; Deuteronomy 5:17).
Murder does not include lawful executions and war (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 21:12; Psalm 144:1; Deuteronomy 20:10-18) One can kill in self-defense (Exodus 22:2).
Killing and hunting animals is OK (Acts 10:10-15; Leviticus 17:13; Exodus-Deuteronomy), but do not be cruel to them (Proverbs 12:10).
Christians should offer the comfort of God (2 Corinthians 1:4-6) and be compassionate to all (Colossians 3:12; 1 Corinthians 13:4; Ephesians 4:32; Proverbs 11:16-17; 1 Thessalonians 5:15). God’s love to us endures forever (Psalm 107:1-2).
No one can take their earthly riches with them (Luke 12:18-21; Psalm 37:7-10), so provide for your family and others (Proverbs 13:22; 17:2; 19:14; Psalm 17:14; 1 Timothy 5:3-5,8,16) and give to the Lord’s work (Proverbs 3:9; 1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8:1-8; 9:6-12; Haggai 1:3-11).
We should be courageous in the face of death (Psalm 23:1; Romans 8:35-39; Revelation 2:11,13), and not fear (1 John 4:18), for to live is Christ and to die is gain (Philippians 1:20-21). Pray to God when you are close to death (Psalm 18:4-6; 116:3; 142; Philippians 4:6-7). We find rest in God alone (Psalm 62:1).
Though in general we are not to be intoxicated, intoxicants are good for the dying (Proverbs 31:6-7).
…Understanding
All the time, not just near death, we should realize that our lives on earth are fleeting (Psalm 39:4-6; 90:3-6; 144:4; James 1:10-11).
God already knows every day of our lives (Psalm 139:16).
Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints. (Psalms 116:15) God is there in a special way for those who call upon Him (Psalm 145:18,20).
People can be so depressed that they despair of life (2 Corinthians 1:8-9), but that does not justify suicide.
In some cases, suffering and trials can have beneficial results (James 1:2) and we can glorify God (2 Peter 4:7) as Job did. Our sufferings will seem small compared to the glories of Heaven (1 Peter 1:6-9, 1 Corinthians 2:9).
While often do not see God’s purpose for things now (Psalm 42,43,74,79,88; Job), in the end we will how God works things out (Habakkuk 1:1-11; 1:12-17; 2), see God’s wisdom, justice, love, and mercy, not have any mourning in Heaven (Revelation 21:4).
Suffering and death can be both arbitrary and unjust (Luke 13:1-2; Ezekiel 13:19), but Jesus understands our condition, because He experienced unjust suffering and death too (Psalm 22:1; Acts 3:13-15).
We should long to be with Christ, but see the value of remaining on earth, glorifying God and helping others (Philippians 1:22-23; 3:12-15; 2 Peter 1:5-8).
For non-Christians, God is not slow, but wants people to have time to repent (2 Peter 3:9).
…Hope
People dying was not good or natural, either prior to the Fall or in Heaven (Romans 8:20-23; 5:13; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Corinthians 15:42-58). Nevertheless, all things work together as a part of God’s plan, and for good for those who love God (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28).
Heaven is a place with no suffering, dying or pain (Revelation 21:4-5).
In conclusion, we are not to fear death or ignore it, nor to focus on it all the time. Rather, believers should see our life on earth, and our death, as integrated parts of our path to the best of all possible worlds, our eternal home with the Lord.
Q: In Ecc 3:3, is there really a time to kill?
A: There is a time to kill plants and animals, but that is not relevant to what this verse is saying. Yes, there is a time to kill, as there is a time for war in Ecclesiastes 3:8.
Q: In Ecc 3:8, is there a time for believers to hate?
A: Yes in two ways.
In the Old Testament, believers were not yet taught about loving everyone, including their enemies.
In all times, believers are to hate sin.
Q: In Ecc 3:9-15, is this despairing or hopeful?
A: While some could take it as despairing, it is “optimistic acceptance”. As you visit the seasons of your life, and some things get wiped away and new things take their place, as a believer you know that it is all in God’s hands. Romans 8:28 says that all things work together for good for those who love God. We need to remember that we are not of this world (John 17:14) but citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20).
Q: Is Ecc 3:13 sort of a Judeo-Christian Epicureanism?
A: Ecclesiastes bring this attitude as an option, but does not recommend it. Judeo-Christian Epicureanism is staying away from major sins, tithing, going to church, and doing the minimum you ought to be doing, and just living the rest of your life how you want for yourself, with no further commitment to God. That is not what God wants for any of us. What about the love and passion for God? Do you take initiative in expressing your love for God by your works? Where is the concern for others, and what about the joy of being in God’s presence? God wants every Christian, regardless of whether they are in a paid ministerial position or not, to be committed to Him.
In Ecclesiastes it is important to understand the main point before trying to make generalities out of individual verses. Ecclesiastes 3:13 in particular, and the whole book of Ecclesiastes in general, gives an accurate (and depressing) description of life under the sun without God.
Q: In Ecc 3:16-17, why is there so much injustice and wickedness in the world?
A: One reason is that many people don’t mind injustice and wickedness, only injustice and wickedness done to them. Solomon was bemoaning the fact in verse 16, but concluded in verse 17 that God will judge everything correctly one day.
While injustice and wickedness frequently have and will occur regardless of us, we have to responsibilities. First, we should make sure we are not unjust or wicked toward others. Second, we should help defend the oppressed.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.695 for more info.
Q: Does Ecc 3:19-21 teach there is no afterlife?
A: Not at all, if you read Ecclesiastes 3:18 too. Four points to consider in the answer.
1. Verse 18 starts off with, “I said in my heart”. God is not saying this; this is from the perspective of observation under the sun.
2. According to the NIV 1985 footnotes, this can be translated “Who knows the spirit of man, which rises upward or the…”, instead of “Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the…”. The word “if” is not actually present in the Hebrew.
3. Regardless of the translation, the context of Ecclesiastes is “life under the sun”, and within that context, afterlife is not something anybody can know about, except by God’s revelation. When Cultists Ask p.74-75 adds that physically in the body, death and decay are the same; however, at the resurrection and the judgment things are different. Psalm 49:15 also says God will redeem them from the power of the grave.
4. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.977 points out that the “method” of Ecclesiastes primarily was empirical observation, as Ecclesiastes 1:14,17; 2:1-10; 2:11-13; 3:16; 4:1; 6:1,11; 7:15,27; 8:9,11; 9:11,13. Thus, the hesitation to teach life after death was consistent with both the method of Ecclesiastes, and the “if this be the only life” pessimism of the book.
See also Hard Sayings of the Bible p.294-295, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.229-230, When Critics Ask p.256-258, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.893, and 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.160 for more info.
Q: Does Ecc 3:21 teach that an animal has a spirit like a person does?
A: The Hebrew word here is actually “breath”, which has a range of meanings. This verse does not answer this question. All that the writer of Ecclesiastes is saying, is that from observing what goes on under the sun, one cannot tell what happens to the life of men or animals after death. See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.258-260 for more info. See also the discussion on 2 Peter 2:5 and Revelation 16:3 for more info.
A: Regardless of whether Solomon was the author or not, the writer did not say it was under his rule during his time, though Solomon could have found out he had unjust officials under him. Solomon had knowledge of many other lands in his time, and he knew history, so it would be surprising if Solomon only wrote of his kingdom in his time. These things occurred many times to Israel in the book of judges, and in Solomon’s time to many other peoples. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.976 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 4:1-3; 4:4-6, and 4:7-12 discuss the meaninglessness of oppression, envy, being lonely at the top of the ladder, storing up for a successor. What do these all have in common?
A: The common themes in this chapter are the vanity of power before powerlessness. Being oppressed gives a meaningless life, but oppressing others gives a meaningless life too. Envy toil, valuing a work above people, and lo longer being teachable are all meaningless. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1165 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 4:2, is it really better for the oppressed to be dead than alive?
A: It depends. There are two points to consider in the answer.
1. Ecclesiastes is written from the perspective of “life under the sun”, without God. From this perspective, it is definitely better for the oppressed to be dead than alive.
2. From an eternal perspective, it is also easier for oppressed believers to die and go to Heaven than to live on earth.
Q: In Ecc 4:4 how does most labor and achievement come from people’s envy?
A: When people want a promotion, it can be to get more money, but that might only be part of it. Another part is to boss other people around, no longer be bossed around by someone, and to have a more impressive resume or be listened to more.
A key motivator for starting a business is to “Be your own boss”. What small business owners sometimes fail to consider is that instead of having one or two manages as their boss, now, every single customer is in some ways their boss.
Even in school people can graduate with “honors”, implying that those who were not able to score as high grades are somehow less honorable students.
Q: Ecc 4:5 literally says, the “fool eateth his own flesh”, so what does that mean?
A: This is a metaphor for destroying yourself. The example illustrates that a person does not have a net gain of nutrients when he eats his own flesh. Some people do things for short-sighted enjoyment that mortgage or severely limit their future. Sometimes a relationship, family, or life can be ruined for a moment of pleasure. As an example, even though Bernie Madoff until 2008 made millions with a stock fund pyramid scheme, eventually he was caught, went to prison, and one of his sons committed suicide. Now I don’t think Madoff would ever have thought having millions for a few years was worth going to prison and the life of his son; but I don’t think Madoff was thinking about the cost at all. People who “eat their own flesh” are often not deliberately choosing the consequences; rather they have chosen not to think about the consequences at all. But even when you don’t think about the consequences, the consequences still come. See also the discussion on Leviticus 29:29.
Q: In Ecc 4:7-9, people are often better at asking themselves how to do something than they are at asking whether they should do something, and to what degree should they do it. What are ways we should ask whether we should do something and how much?
A: The hard negotiator might ask should they be more of a “win-win” situation than an “I win you lose” situation. If the other party is desperate to settle, do you take them to the cleanser, so to speak, or negotiate something that you would want someone to negotiate with you, if you were in their shoes. A lawyer might ask instead of going to blood with the other party, should I just take what is fair. A wronged party, struggling to get back what is theirs, should ask “where is the line between taking back what I should have and getting revenge. (Christians are never supposed to take revenge, but in the Old Testament they took back what was wrongfully taken and added a fifth to it.) The soldier should ask if a commanding officer is giving unlawful commands. When you can take something that is not really yours, because you know you can, do you refrain from doing so?
Q: What is Ecc 4:9-12, referring to?
A: This is NOT referring just to marriage, just to a father and son, just to a successor, or just to co-workers. It is a general concept that has application to all of those situations and more. If there are no successors then there is no succession. If there are no partners then there is no partnership, and the endeavor goes down if you do.
Q: In Ecc 4:11, since it is better to lie together than alone, is sexual relations outside of marriage better than celibacy?
A: No. While togetherness is a good thing, trying to disobey God and “take a shortcut” to this is sin. In a similar way, while it is better to have money that to have no money at all, a penniless person does not have God’s permission to rob banks.
Many (but not all) sins are people trying to take “short-cuts”, disobeying God’s commandments, to achieve what in some circumstances are good things.
Q: To whom does Ecc 4:13 refer?
A: Some would think it is Solomon. Solomon as a young man was wise, only moderately wealthy, and obedient to God. Solomon never left believing in God, but Solomon did leave being obedient to God. Perhaps he wrote Ecclesiastes after he returned to obeying God, after he saw that he was an old and foolish king, and would not be corrected.
However, this does not completely refer to Solomon or any king anyone in the kingdom of Israel. This sounds similar to Joseph, as Joseph reigned under Pharaoh. However, the writer did not specify who this was, probably because he wanted to illustrate a general principle, and not get people bogged down in historical specifics.
Sometimes when we write or speak, we need to know to put in more details or all the details we can. But other times, we should have less detail so people don’t miss the main point, getting lost in details.
Five choices for the young and old rulers are:
Young vs. old Solomon
Solomon vs. Rehoboam
Joseph and Pharaoh
Other individuals
The concepts in general, but no specific individuals
Q: In Ecc 4:14-16, how do you handle holding on to power or influence (if you do), when someone younger or less experienced appears they can surpass you?
A: One approach is to fight tooth and nail to hold on to your influence. Even worse is to try to sabotage the other person’s work, or at least sabotage their achievements and reputation through slander. The opposite extreme is to never stand up for yourself and your work. However, Romans 14:16 says we are not to let what is good be spoken of as evil. Sometimes these situations can be complicated, both in what is happening to you, and the potential responses (appropriate or not) that you could do. A guiding principle is “what would Jesus have you do?” Don’t do anything that you will later be ashamed to explain to Christ at the bema-seat judgment. It is better to lose, than to win through underhanded means.
Q: In Ecc 5:1, why does it mention going to the house of God, since Ecclesiastes tells of life under the sun without God?
Q: In Ecc 5:1, what is a “sacrifice of fools”, and how do we avoid that?
A: Though it is strange, some can try to find meaning in giving a sacrifice to God, as a poor substitute for just loving and obeying God. Love and obedience will often include a sacrifice, but it is a sacrifice that God wants. Any old sacrifice is not a substitute for love and obedience, as Micah 6:6-8 shows. Jesus said that if you are about to offer a sacrifice, and your recall that your brother has something against you, pause the sacrifice, be reconciled with your brother, and only then resume your sacrifice, in Matthew 5:23-24.
One time there was a little boy who wanted to buy a nice present for his mother’s birthday. So, he bought her a toy firetruck. That is what he would have wanted for his birthday, so in his heart he reasoned that is what she would want. Sometimes we are not much more mature and give a “sacrifice of fools”. We figure God would want us to do something, without paying attention to what God says He really wants.
In English history, Robinhood was famous for “robbing from the rich and giving to the poor”. While there were injustices with the evil ruler, God does not want your money that you go from robbing other people. One of the worst sacrifices of fools was Jephthah’s vow in Judges 11:30-40. The entire period of judges was a dark period when each man did what was right in his own eyes.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1169 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:1, how do some people do evil in offering sacrifices without even knowing it?
A: There are at least three ways.
1) One way is that offerings to idols are offerings to demons and not to God in 1 Corinthians 10:20.
2) Even sacrifices done to the true God can be wicked. Jesus prophesied that some who kill Christians will think they are offering a sacrifice to God in John 16:2. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Roman Catholics, and to a lesser extent Lutherans and Calvinists persecuted others who claimed to be Christian. The Pope even organized crusades to “exterminate” the Waldenses. The church also had persecution against Jewish people, because their leaders thought that was pleasing to God.
3) Money given to God’s work from ill-gotten means is an evil sacrifice. Micah 1:7f says that the pay from the wages of a prostitute shall return to pay a prostitute. If you make money using means God does not want to use, and you give some of it to God as an offering, God is not pleased with that sacrifice. It is better to stop defrauding or taking from others and be able to offer less, then to offer more from doing things that displease God. Some jobs, are like being an accountant for planned parenthood, a leading abortion provider in the United States. You are not breaking any laws, and even if the company is not breaking any laws, you are a team member of an organization that is doing evil against God, you should leave.
But in loving God, we are supposed to offer our bodies as living sacrifices in Romans 12:1.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.441 for a complementary answer.
Q: In Ecc 5:1-2, what is the point here about listening vs. speaking?
A: Are you coming to the House of God more to share your opinions, or to learn and worship? James 1:19 says to be quick to listen and slow to speak. There are so many wise people in a church, perhaps you should make your points too, but not dominate the conversation. Also, the Hebrew word here means more than just to listen. It also means to understand and obey. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.896 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.441 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:2-7, what are some examples of foolish commitments people make today?
A: Just like people can sign up for spam on the internet, or give their credit card to a malicious site, there are other ways to make foolish commitments too. Employment and other legal contracts that are given to you by the other side, are usually always written to favor the other side, many times unfairly. Though we are to be as innocent as doves, we are to be as wise as serpents too, according to Matthew 10:16. Be extremely reluctant to co-sign a loan for someone else. Their irresponsibility will become your commitment.
We do need to make commitments so that people can depend on us. Usually you have to make a commitment with your employer, the church wants financial commitments from members so that they can know how much to budget, and if you take out a loan for a house, you have to agree to pay back the money.
But whenever you make a commitment, ask yourself you making the commitment is necessary. Then ask is the level of commitment necessary. For example, if a prospective employer wants you to sign some agreement that you will have a restriction forever after you leave, ask yourself, and them, if it is more reasonable to make the term just six months or a year. On one employment agreement that wanted me to agree that any and all software I developed on the side, regardless of whether it had any relevance or possibility of competing with the company or not, would be their exclusive property. So, I wrote on my signed contract that this excluded things I was previously working on and gave a list. Then I signed it, sent it in, and told them what I changed. They had no problem with that.
Q: In Ecc 5:2, how can people have a “hasty heart” today?
A: Rash words are not as much the root problem but rather the symptom of a hasty heart. While many people tend to have a “let’s solve this right now” bias, Americans are often more prone to this than others. People tend to remember the successes, and try to forget their defeats, so an average person can remember themselves as on the whole more successful.
If there is a chance that something will succeed, no matter how remote, let’s do it without thinking of the odds or the consequences if we fail. This type of foolishness is actively taught in many action movies today. Rather than waiting for reinforcements, the hero bravely (or foolhardily) goes in with an overwhelming probability that he is just wasting his life with no benefit whatsoever, and by some rare luck, he comes out alive and successful, and everyone congratulates him on his judgment to do that.
Let’s look at the similarities between our heart, investing, and baking bread.
Pretend you had a stock broker, who one month announced to you that he invested all your life savings buying very risky options. But instead of losing all your life saving, he was successful, and doubled your money. Would you congratulate him on his investment strategy and keep him as your stock broker or would you take all your money away from him? It tastes better to wait for the bread to bake than to just eat all the dough right now.
A hasty heart can destroy a fortune over time. Let’s say the same stock broker, over five years gave you annual returns of 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, -100%. The average annual return is 300% / 5 years, or 60% / year on the money you used to have, which is astoundingly good. But look at those numbers again. If the last year you lost 100%, that means you lost everything you had. Bread bakes much faster if you make the oven three times as hot, but the result might not give you anything to enjoy at the end.
Both now the stockbroker has a more conservative strategy, so you trust his judgment and go with him yet again. The first year he makes 23% for you, the second year the market does some things he did not predict and he loses 20%, and alternates like that every year. How much money do you have at the end? For every $1,000, that is $1,000 * 1.23 * 0.8 * 1.23 * 0.8 * 1.23 * 0.8 = only $952.76. Swings work against your money, and a vacillating heart works against your relationships, your word, and people trusting you. If you bake bread at too hot a temperature, but alternate it with cooler temperatures so that the backing time if average, the result is still hard to swallow.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.441 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:2-7, why do people find it so easy to promise something and then to break their promise?
A: People who value their own word so little might think that other people don’t value their word either, and it becomes self-fulfilling. If someone promises something promises something, especially if the net result is to their advantage, and later it appears to no longer be to their advantage, why not break it, if they live like there is no God? But Christians should be people who can be counted on. Deuteronomy 23:21-23 also says that people are supposed to keep their vows.
It is fine to intend to do something and then change your mind, but say that you intend to do it, not that you promise to do it.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.441 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:3,7 what should are attitude towards our dreams be?
A: Dreams here are not referring to what do when you are sleeping. Dreams here are plans and unplanned hopes. A person who thinks they will fulfill impossible dreams can often too easily break promises and commitments they have made. This connection of rash words and wild dreams includes unrealistic plans, sometimes promised with no thought of how to carry them through. Sometimes having “hyperactive dreams” leads to starting many projects that all fail, mainly because they are not carried through. It is better to have one successful project that lasts and keeps on flying than a lot of projects that never got off the ground.
As believers should we give up on all of dreams that we want to do? Or should we wildly dram and start many projects that have no hope of success? Neither, instead, give God your dreams. Some He may take away. But for others, you might have a desire to pursue them because God wants you to pursue them. Even some dreams that might seem foolish and impossible, can become possible with God. But regardless, give all your dreams to God, and be OK with the fact that He will take some away.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.896-897 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:8, what are two relationships between dreams and oppression?
A: There are a couple of ways.
The oppressed: A poor person could have the dream of becoming wealthy, using only honest means. In some countries unfortunately that dream can only be a wild fantasy. There are times where the message to us is the same as God told Baruch in Jeremiah 45:5. Now is not the time to seek great things, but God will protect us.
The oppressor: Conversely, someone might realize that their dream of becoming wealthy can only be accomplished by taking wealth from others. As an example, in some African and Asian countries, a daughter is a means of bringing wealth to the family through the dowry. This might not be the boy the girl wants to marry, but the parent’s greedy heart has become a higher priority than the daughter’s heart.
In general, Ephesians 5:8 says that though we were once in darkness, now we must walk as children of light. We must abandon the deeds of darkness and treating others in an honorable when that we are not afraid when the light shines on what we did and our motives.
Q: In Ecc 5:9 what is the relationship between the king and the fields?
A: The Hebrew says that even the King {himself] benefits from the fields. But the same words can cover two different aspects.
Profits from: even a rich king feels like he still needs to take a cut of the profits from even a small field. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.988 thinks there is a hint of corruption by officials here.
Dependent on: even the greatest king still needs to eat, and thus depends on the lowly fields to live. However, there is no other clue that anything else in this chapter is about keeping the king alive.
So while both are true, which is the primary intent here? Since verses 8-11 are about oppression and greed, so “profits from” is the primary application. But in addition to that, verse 9 is sort of a “pivot” here. Verses 8-9 talk about oppression, and verses 9-11 speak to greed, which often goes hand-in-hand with oppression. Verse 9 ties them both together as ever-increasing greed is one cause of oppression.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.897-598 for more info
Q: In Ecc 5:10, why is it that someone who chases money never thinks they have enough?
A: You can never have enough money for a greedy heart. You can never have enough money to be truly “safe”, if you trust your safety to money. As the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.898 mentions, when the millionaire Cecil Rhodes was close to dying, he said, “I’ve found much in Africa. Diamonds, gold and land are mine, but now I must leave them all behind. Not a thing I’ve gained can be taken with me. I have not sought eternal treasures, therefore I actually have nothing at all.” (referenced from Choice Cleanings Calendar). In other words, he was sort of a Cinderella in reverse, a riches to rags story.
Wealth without contentment is useless. While wealth does not bring contentment, the disappointment of trusting in wealth to bring contentment, finally getting wealth, and still not having contentment is sad. See the New International Bible Commentary p.696-697 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:11, when does demand rise to the supply?
A: In economics, when too many dollars chase too few physical goods, investments, or real estate, then inflation causes the price of the physical goods, investments, or real estate to rise. When there is more of a supply of a commodity available for a fixed buying power, then the cost usually goes down, and buyers might buy a few more.
On an individual level, when people start making money, their cost of living their lifestyle often goes up to match. When they start making less money again, now they have a problem if their lifestyle costs don’t go down.
In software development, it is said that the estimate of the time to do something goes up with the number of available software people. The flip side can also be true. Innovation happens when there is too much to do and not enough time.
Q: In Ecc 5:11f, what is the benefit of being able to look at their riches?
A: This is no benefit at all. It is not that they get to look at their riches, which might be locked away in a storeroom anyway. Rather, they are now forced to keep an eye on their riches, that they don’t lose them. 1 John 2:16 speaks of the lust of the eyes as one of three great motivators to sin. Like crows, people too can be senselessly attracted to shiny objects. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.989 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:13, what is the severe evil of wealth that is mentioned here?
A: The Hebrew word for “severe evil” can also mean “sick” as in “I have seen something so bad it makes me sick.” While riches in general are neither good nor bad, these are riches that harm the owner. Proverbs 30:7-8 (written by Agur, not Solomon) asks God not to give him too many riches or else, being full, he might deny God. Riches do not provide certain protection against disaster. Worrying about riches can make a person lose sleep though. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.989 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 5:16, it is a humorous picture trying to keep back the wind. How do people do that today?
A: If you inherit the wind, then good luck trying to hold on to it! If you had a million dollars, and you could spend it to prolong your life by a week, would you do so? If you could have some short-term pleasure today, at the expense of the rest of your lifetime experiences loss, would a person do so? Unfortunately, the answer is that many people would. The reason is not because they are thinking so foolishly about the future, but rather they are not thinking at all. When younger Americans were asked about spending now vs. saving for retirement, the answers almost indicated that they thought of the older person of themselves as a totally different person.
Q: In Ecc 5:18-20, if you come to the realization that you have greed in your heart, how do you go about getting rid of your greed?
A: First what is not the answer, and then the answer.
Not the answer. We don’t not have the power ourselves to clean up our life, so some could reason that we just wait on God and do nothing. They could rationalize that we don’t have to take any action, as our overcoming greedy sin is God’s responsibility, and not ours. A problem with this answer is that you can so easily use to justify any sin you don’t want to work to stop doing.
The answer: But now we do have the power, not of ourselves but because of God working us. While we have no strength in ourselves, in Christ we have been given the ability to “purify ourselves”, a term used in 1 John 3:3.
Don’t be in a position of trying to tell God, that even with your Holy Spirit working mightily in my life, your power is just not strong enough for me to overcome my greed, or whatever other sin I have. While we won’t stop sinning completely until we get to heaven, we are to be victorious in overcoming much of the sin in our life now.
Q: In Ecc 5:18-20, if you are a Christian, and you do not feel content like we should, what steps can you take??
A: Here are some steps you can take to be content with what you have.
Perhaps you are settling for too little: maybe your greed stems not from wanting too much, but from wanting too little. Why would you settle for a crummy, tiny, tiny, 10,000 square foot multi-million-dollar mansion, that will fall into disrepair in a hundred years, when you can have an eternal mansion, and rule with Christ in heaven? Why would you settle for just a cheap-looking Lamborghini or Bugatti when you could fly between the new heavens and new earth? Why would you care at all about having a good doctor, if you are never going to get sick ever again? You are still on the road; you are not home yet.
Are you winning the race? Paul compared the Christian life to an athletic contest in Philippians 3:13-14, and 2 Timothy 2:5. Are you winning, and how can you tell? Maybe we try to tell by money, prestige, honor, or something else that we don’t feel we have enough of, and we fear we are missing out. But maybe we have the wrong yardstick; we win by glorifying God.
Do you count it all as loss? Imagine competing in a race with a full backpack on your back. You probably have no chance of winning unless you take the backpack off. Likewise, some Christians can’t overcome in the race of the Christian Life until the take off their backpack full of worldly things. Paul said we are to count all things as loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus our Lord, in Philippians 3:7-8.
Accountability: Do you have a willingness to be held accountable by others. Are there others that you will let talk candidly to you, and question how you have been doing in this area last week. Will you honestly tell them if you have been doing good, or not?
Q: In Ecc 5:20, how do we have joy amidst so much meaninglessness?
Q: In Ecc 6:1 (NASB), should it say, “is prevalent among men” or “weighs heavily on men” (NIV 1985)?
A: According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.990, the NASB is incorrect here. The NRSV translates this as “weighs heavily upon humankind” and the NIV 1985 says, “weighs heavily on men”. The NKJV translates this as “common among men”. Green’s literal translation says, “it is great among men”.
Q: In Ecc 6:6 and Ecc 9:2-3, does everyone really share a common destiny?
A: Under the sun, yes. Ecclesiastes 7:2 says death is the destiny of every man. The scope of Ecclesiastes shows only life on earth, not eternal life. Of course, one thing Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, Christians, and many religions agree on is that ultimately everyone does not go to the same place.
Q: In Ecc 6:1-3, how does life seem fully of irony?
A: While the end of chapter 5 speaks of how people can enjoy life, chapter 6 contrasts how people fail to enjoy life. Enjoy your life; rejoice in all things. Enjoy the restful periods, and enjoy the challenges too.
If you have great blessings, but are not able to enjoy them, then what is the point? People seem more intent on gaining prosperity and blessings than enjoying them. We should be joyful in all things. We should be joyful for simple things, challenges we get to overcome, and lessons we can learn.
Q: In Ecc 7:1, why is the day of death better than the day of birth?
A: A person’s name ties both days together. A person receives their name just after birth. But what people will remember about that name is not set until the day of death. The last part is more significant and lasting than the first part. Two points to consider here.
Ecclesiastes 7:8 explains exactly what he means. At the day of death, life under the sun is at an end, and we have completed on earth all we are going to complete. Before we develop pride in our accomplishments, wait until the end, the day of death, to see how things really turn out. The temporal and eternal legacy of a good name after you die, is better than temporary pleasure which does not last any longer than the smell of perfume.
Ecclesiastes 7:2 says why we should consider this. Remembering that death happens to all, will help keep us focused on the eternal perspective instead of the momentary life under the sun.
Q: In Ecc 7:1, what is significant of the writer’s use of the word “oil” here?
A: “Oil” usually had a strong smell. It was used for joy (as in perfume) (Ecclesiastes 9:8), prosperity (Job 29:6), and reputation (Song of Songs 1:3). Oil was also used for anointing the body in death. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.992 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:4-7, what exactly is a fool?
A: Being foolish does Not necessarily means you are less intelligent or would do poorer in school. Rather, being foolish can involve losing a sense of balance and restraint. The foolish corrupt their own minds, and lose the power to make unprejudiced judgments. Think of a person who knows the dangers of illegal drugs and then decides to start taking them anyway. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.901 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:5, what is a “song of fools”?
A: As opposed to a wise, needed rebuke form a wise person, a song of fools is a happy song saying everything is OK, even when it is not. Maybe the point of a song of fools is to bolster the idea of being happy, satisfied and not needing to make any changes, regardless of reality. See the New International Bible Commentary p.697 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:7 is it easier for a foolish person to become wise, or a wise person to become a fool?
A: It is easier for a wise person to become foolish. It is a little bit of a challenge to learn wisdom, but it is more of a challenge and work to practice and apply wisdom in your life. Our natural tendency is to act foolishly, trying to maximize short-term pleasure at the expense of the future.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.901 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:10-12 why do people long for the good old days?
A: When people nostalgically recall the good old days, sometimes they remember things with rose-colored glasses. We remember the good things and try to forget the bad things. We remember the good things done to us, and not the people who were killed unjustly. For example, in the late nineteenth century there was the huge massacre of the War of the Triple Alliance in South America, the Taiping Rebellion in China, and a much smaller conflict than either of those, which American call the Civil War. In twentieth century, the world had the Spanish Flu epidemic in 1917, famine in India, many genocides, the United States had a polio epidemic in 1957, and later the world had the AIDS epidemic that hit Africa especially hard. The world saw World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Then you had the cold war and fear or nuclear war. The nineteenth and twentieth centuries had a lot of good things, too. But the bad things were so bad, let’s just remember the good things.
See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1174, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.901, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.443for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:12, how does wisdom have some similarities to money?
A: Both can help preserve from misfortune. Both can be of assistance in achieving an end. And just like wealthy people are rare, really wise people can be rare. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.901-902 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1177 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:14, how can we tell what we can change and what we cannot?
A: Some things we can change easily, sometimes too easily, for better or for worse. Some things can be changed with difficulty, and other things we cannot change, but God can. While we cannot make straight what God has made crooked in Ecclesiastes 7:13, Isaiah 40:4 says that God can make straight and smooth what was crooked. Some things we cannot change, and God chooses not to change either. The first step is to be accepting of each of those things. Rather than being anxious frustrated, and rather than being passive and fatalistic, we should be patient, persistent, and prayerful. See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.444, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.902, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.993 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:15 (NIV 1985), should this be “meaningless life” or “fleeting life”?
A: Scholars have two views:
Brief life: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.993 says, “meaningless life” in the NIV 1985 is incorrect here and it should be “fleeting life”. “fleeting life” is how the NET Bible translates it.
Meaningless life: The NKJV says, “days of vanity”, the KJV says, “days of my vanity”, and the NRSV says, “vain life”. The NASB says, “lifetime of futility”. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 5 p.1175 quotes the NIV 1985’s “meaningless life” without comment.
Regardless, the Bible teaches both that our life on earth is very brief, and that life without God is meaningless.
Q: In Ecc 7:16, how should people not be overly righteous, since we are to aim for perfection as 2 Cor 13:11 says?
A: In Philippians 3:12-14 Paul encourages believers to press on toward the goal, and we are to strive to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect according to Matthew 5:48. We can never be too Christ-like. However, people can be “overly-righteous” in not just one but three ways.
Self-righteousness: This is actually slightly different (and perhaps worse) than just pride. We can start trusting in our own righteousness instead of trusting in God’s grace and mercy, as the Jews did in Romans 10:3. When Critics Ask p.258 uses different words to make the same point: a person cannot be too righteous, but he can be overly righteous.
Error of sinless perfection: Some people, especially in some Holiness churches, believe they can be sinlessly perfect in this life, contrary to 1 John 1:10. People like this either do not know themselves well, or more commonly, do not understand sin very well. One time a leader in a group like this told a camp director that he had arrived at sinless perfection. The camp director, mildly surprised at this claim, asked for the man’s phone number. The leader asked why. The camp director said it was to call his home and ask his wife if she thought he was sinlessly perfect. The leader backed off and said, “I did not mean I do not make little mistakes.” Some false teachers, such as Rev. Moon, claim to be sinlessly perfect. Catholics claim that Mary was sinlessly perfect. However, when Mary praised God in Luke 1:46-55, Mary called Jesus her Savior too, in Luke 1:47. Apparently, even Mary needed a Savior.
Likewise, a person can be “overly wise” as they can be overly wealthy. Being overly wealthy is not a dollar number, but rather when your money stops serving you, but rather you are servicing your money. Using wisdom, even godly wisdom, to know the right thing to do and how to please God is good, but sometimes the number one goal can shift from following God to just learning knowledge and wisdom.
Hard Sayings of the Bible p.295-296 strongly emphasizes the point that this verse does not mean we appear overly righteous to others, but rather the reflexive form of the verb means we view ourselves to be more righteous than we really are. This is similar to Proverbs 3:7, where it says do not be wise in your own eyes. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.994 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:19, how is a wise man more powerful than ten rulers?
A: Someone who can avert a war will have a stronger army than someone who has just finished fighting a war. Someone who can make friends and allies easily is more secure than someone who always has to fight to survive.
Solomon personally experienced this. During the time of Solomon’s great kingdom, Assyria and Babylon were rather weak. The greatest powers in the Mideast on the land and sea were Egypt and Phoenicia, and Solomon had very friendly relations with both of them.
Q: In Ecc 7:23-24, what are some limitations of wisdom?
A: Wise people still cannot figure out many things for which they have no data. Ecclesiastes 6:10-11:7 uses a phrase similar to “does not/cannot know/discover” section 10 times.
The wise and foolish all will die, and they all can suffer under oppression. So, form Ecclesiastes 7:12, money and wisdom can both be helpful, but there is a limit to how helpful they can be. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.991,994-995 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 7:28, why did the teacher find one upright man among a thousand but no upright women?
A: First of all, why the number 1,000? It might be because Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines according to 1 Kings 11:3. This is what Solomon discovered personally with all his wives and concubines; not what God says is true for all time. Actually though, there is one upright man, Jesus, and in Heaven, all men and women will be upright.
Q: In Ecc 7:28, why did the Teacher find one upright man among a thousand but no upright women?
A: This is what the human teacher personally discovered, not what God says is true for all time. Actually though, there is one upright man, Jesus, and in Heaven, all men and women will be upright.
Q: In Ecc 8:1-5, what can proper manners before a king teach us?
A: As we serve the king of kings, not only should we do the right things, but we should do them in the right manner and timing. For example, when someone is very angry, that might not be a good time to bring up something. Similarly, if they have just suffered a tragedy, or even a good thing that upstages your news, you might not want to directly follow after that.
It is also not good to bring up some things when you are very angry, or very tired. When disciplining your kids, it should be only their benefit, out of love for them, not out of your own anger. If you feel very angry about something a child has done, it is perfectly fine to tell them, “I am going to discipline you, but not right now. I am going to cool off a bit first.”
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.996 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 8:1-5, how do you know when you can tell of your disagreement to someone in authority, and when you should not?
A: If a king, government official, or a business executive has the power to get rid of you or your position on a whim, you might be cautious how you approach thing. Some things, that might like just a means to an end, such as more profits, a better economy, are not that at all, but rather in the ruler’s eyes and end in themselves. They are “sacred cow” in that it is impossible to criticize them without repercussions.
If you determine that it is a “sacred cow” then don’t bring it up. But if you think it is not, you could first ask if they are interested in hearing an alternative or not. If they are willing, try to bring up the better way without making the people who were loyal to the first way from looking back or looking like you are criticizing them.
If possible, if it looks like you two worked together to come up with a good idea, it will have a higher possibility of acceptance than if you alone thought it up.
Don’t just try to do the right thing. Try to do the right thing, the proper way, in the right time. Jesus actually talked about the time of the harvest, night when no one can work, and timing in general. As Jesus told his disciples, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.” John 7:6 ESV.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.905 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.444-445 for complementary answers.
Q: In Ecc 8:2-5, should we always obey kings, regardless of whether they command good or evil?
A: No. An analogy might help here. Regardless of whether a governor likes all the laws of a country, patriotic citizens should obey the laws of the province, except where the laws of the province conflict with the laws of the country. Regardless of whether the premier like God’s laws or not, all citizens should obey the laws of the country, except where the laws conflict with God’s law.
Q: In Ecc 8:3 should this verse say, “will do” or “can do”?
A: According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.996 it should not be translated as “will do” but “can do”. The NASB and NIV 1985 say, “will do”. The NKJV, NRSV, and Green’s Literal translation say, “does” and the KJV says, “doeth”.
Q: In Ecc 8:9-11, what checks are there on a person’s attitude, if “I will do it if I can get away with it”?
A: One of Solomon’s points is that they are not checked by outcomes they see in this life. For every evil criminal that is caught more than one evil person goes free. The only check on that attitude is that after death justice will come and God will pay them back accordingly. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1179 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 8:12, how come a wicked man can live a long time, since God gives the righteous long life?
A: Ecclesiastes 8:12 is not promising anything to the wicked, but remarking on the unfairness of life as perceived only from “under the sun”. Some (not all) wicked do live a long life on earth. Of course, even the longest life on earth is nothing compared to eternal life.
Martin Gardiner, a former editor of Scientific American, and an agnostic, wrote a great essay where he discovered this exact point in his book, The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. Of course, Gardiner discovered this almost 3,000 years after Solomon did. Lactantius (c.303-325 A.D.) made a similar point in The Divine Institutes book 6 ch.9 p.171-172.
See When Critics Ask p.258-259 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 9:5-6 and Ps 6:5, are people unconscious and non-existent at death, since the dead know nothing?
A: Dead people have no memory in this world, not no memory of this world, as When Critics Ask p.259 says. The main thrust of Ecclesiastes is the meaningless of life under the sun. In one way, people on earth will forget what they remembered about them. In a second way, they themselves won’t be involved with the affairs of earth anymore. However, as Luke 17 shows in the parable of the rich man and the beggar, people will still remember things and other people they knew on earth.
The Hebrew word for “know” in Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, yada, is interesting in that it has a wide
range of meaning. Strong’s Concordance says, “a primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing); used in a great variety of senses, figurative, literal, euphemism, and causat. Instruction, designation, punishment, etc. [as follow]:” acknowledge, acquaintance (acquainted with), advise, answer, appoint, assuredly, be aware, etc. Other interesting synonyms in Strong’s Concordance are declare, instruct, tell, and feel.
Of the various words for “know”, this word is appropriate here, because “the dead know nothing” in at least four ways.
1. The dead do not see (ascertain) anything under the sun anymore.
2. Whatever knowledge and experience they may have learned, the knowledge is lost under the sun, for they cannot pass it on.
3. As in verse 5, the (spiritually and physically) dead have no hope and no knowledge of a future state. Even the wicked on this earth can have hope of repenting and being saved while they still breathe the air under the sun.
4. They know of no reward. As in Job 14:21, the dead have no knowledge of honor or dishonor paid to their memory, or how soon they are forgotten.
Job 19:25-27; Psalm 16:10; and Isaiah 25:8 also teach an afterlife. See also the discussion on Psalm 6:5, Jehovah’s Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse p.39-42, 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.162, and When Cultists Ask p.75-76 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 9:7-9 and Ecc 11:3-10 emphasize that we should be happy under the sun with our meaningless lives?
A: Irony means to use various words to express the exact opposite of what they usually mean. God uses irony in a number of places in the Bible, and this is a clear example here.
People “under the sun”, who are never going to seek God, should try very hard to enjoy life as much as they can, because they will not have any enjoyment after they die. Reflect on that sobering thought as you rush off to enjoy the pleasures of this season - and have a good time.
Q: In Ecc 9:10, what does it mean to do whatsoever your hands find to do?
A: This is a part of a larger section, Ecclesiastes 9:7-10, where the advice to those who are not following God is ironic. (An irony is something that is said that has the opposite meaning of the words, such as “you should work hard today to make money for yourself, if you are going to die tomorrow.) The meaning here is that if you are going to live under the sun (without God), work hard at all you do, because it is going to be gone when you die.
There is also a second meaning for believers who are living under God. It is not ironic for them, but rather we are to enjoy and also work hard at whatever we do, because we are doing it unto the Lord, as Colossians 3:23 says.
See Now That’s A Good Question p.578-579 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 9:11, how can “time and chance happen to them all” since God sovereignly rules everything?
A: God is beyond time, yet time was apparently constructed by Him for his creatures. God does not need to guess anything, but God constructed the laws of probability as a part of the natural law for His creation. Chaos, and what we commonly call chance, are just a few of the “brushes” God uses in painting the mural of reality.
Q: In Ecc 9:11b, what is chance?
A: Nothing happens outside of what God knows and what God allows. But when people use the word “chance”, they mean one of two different things, and they usually don’t distinguish between the two. First, in nature “pure chance” is something happening for no natural reason whatsoever. We don’t know much about atomic decay and subatomic particles, but except for that murky area, scientists have never observed anything in nature that is “pure chance”.
Second, when people speak of chance, they usually mean what is called “chaos” as defined by mathematicians. Chaos is something that it is impossible to naturally predict, with any accuracy. For example, if you tried to predict the temperature in an American city a month from now down to the 0.001 degrees, you could read all of the temperatures, and the wind speed, in the United States down to 0.001 degrees at 100-foot intervals from the group up to 60 miles above. But even with that precision, you could still be wrong because you failed to account for some people turning on their fans in Europe. Simplistically, chaos is small changes in input causing large changes in output. Think of rolling dice. I slightly strong flick of the wrist could mean that a die landing on an exact edge would have a little more velocity and turn one more time to be a “6” instead of a “1”.
Why don’t they just play one game for the baseball world series or the basketball national championship? Because there is a significant “chance” that the better team might not win the first game. When we are successful at something, we might like to hide or minimize the role that chance/chaos had in it. But some people see right through this. For example, when J. Paul Getty was asked how he got so successful, he replied, “Some people find out. Others don’t.”
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.908 for more info and also The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1183 for a different but complementary answer,
Q: Since Ecc 9:12 says no man knows when his hour will come, what about criminals who have a date and time set for their execution?
A: People in general do not know when they will die, and it can often seem so sudden when it comes. Yet, this verse is true even if a criminal was told the exact second of his execution. For, until the event occurs, not even the executed criminals know for certainty they will die on that second, or will be pardoned at the last minute.
Q: In Ecc 10:1, how come something with half good and half bad, is not halfway good, but rather stinks?
A: It is an interesting law of nature, or a law of entropy, that a little bit of rottenness brings the entire batch way down. This applies to medicine, food, and even buildings and beauty as well as perfume. Would you be interested in buying a very large, fancy, and expensive house with a foundation crack that you could see the inside of the house through the crack? 99% of the house is still good. In a similar way, a little evil in our lives can mess up a whole lot of good. A little evil tolerated in a church can wreak a lot of damage. It is easier to ruin something than to build it up.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1000 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.909 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:1 (NET Bible), should it by “fly” (singular) or “flies” (plural)
A: The Hebrew is literally “flies of death”. The NET Study Bible says that the plural form could mean multiple flies, or else the multiple parts of one fly. The NIV 1985 has “flies”.
Q: In Ecc 10:2, is God prejudice against left-handed people?
A: No. Some of the men of Benjamin were valued as soldiers for being left-handed in Judges 20:16. Though the Benjamites sinned in going to war, and left-handedness was specifically mentioned, their being left-handed or right-handed had nothing to do with their being good or bad.
Ecclesiastes 10:2 is simply using colloquial language for good and bad. God can communicate in easy to understand, colloquial language as He wishes.
Q: In Ecc 10:2, what does wise to the right and foolish to the left mean?
A: Most people were right-handed. So doing something with your right hand would be natural, graceful, and efficient. Doing the same task with your non-dominant hand can be awkward, clumsy, or humorous, at least to others. One effect of lively wisely is that your words and actions are gracious, reasonable, and consistently reflect who you are. An effect of living foolishly is that your words and actions can appear capricious and hypocritical, as though you have no core values but are just saying what appears most pleasing to say at the time.
Q: In Ecc 10:3, what are some ways that fools show everyone (except themselves) that they are a fool?
A: One of the most common ways is boasting. They do not realize that boasting can tell others more about their view of their self-importance than it says about what they are boasting about. Fools might feel they have to put other people down in order to build themselves up. If a stranger tells me someone bad about somebody else, my first thought is to wonder why they are telling me this, and my second thought is what is wrong with them, they think they need to tell me this.
A wise person will speak wise words, yet avoid talking too much. When words are many, sin is not absent as Proverbs 10:19 says. A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word makes people angry, as Proverbs 15:1 teaches.
A drunk walking on a road teeters from side to side. If you tell lies to different people you have to now keep track of which lies you told to which people, and you might be in trouble if they get together in the same room.
Q: In Ecc 10:4, what are good options for responding when someone in authority is angry against us?
A: James 1:20 says that the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. It is easy to say something in anger that you will regret later. Some antagonists might even want you to respond in anger, so that they can feel better when they crush you.
It is better to pretend you were an outside observer, objectively looking at the situation with two other people. What is the best thing you can do now, as well as the best thing to do later, to best increase your chance of getting the desired result? Opposing an angry person before they have a chance to cool down has almost no chance of convincing them. The only time to possibly do that is if there are onlookers and you need to defend your reputation or actions.
Q: In Ecc 10:5-7, what do you do when those in authority govern on a whim?
A: If you are over them you can replace them with honest people under you. But if you are not under them, sometimes there is not much you are able to do. If they are willing to learn from you and consider an alternate and possibly better way of doing things, then great. But if not, you might only make them mad by suggesting something. When possible, at least in a work situation, see if you can get out of being under their authority. If not, think if there is anything you can do to shield yourself or reduce their anger or dislike of you, without compromising your character.
See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.447, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1001, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.909 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:6-7, when is it wiser not to criticize an incompetent or corrupt leader?
A: When there is little chance or making a change that will benefit, and a great chance of retribution. Sometimes folly is set in great dignity because a person is put in authority based on if people like what they say, not because of their wisdom or what is best.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.909 and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.447 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:7, what is meant by servants on horses and princes like servants?
A: Do the best people rise to the top, at least most of the time? Many times, and in many situations not at all. Some rulers have been insane, or moral monsters. The effect of their unworthiness can be reduced if they have wise minsters under them, but then why couldn’t the wise ministers just be the ruler instead? On the other hand, people look up to the genius of Augustine, Galileo, Thomas Aquinas, Newton, Gauss, Fermi, and Einstein, and say that the world only produces a very small number of individuals like these. On the other hand, the truth could be quite different. For every one of these people there might also be a hundred others with the potential to be just like them, that were never allowed, or never allowed themselves, to reach their potential.
Maybe one hallmark of a consistently successful organization is one that can identify gifted individuals and put them in appropriate positions, rather than putting in anyone based on fortuitous circumstances.
Q: In Ecc 10:8-9, what does this say about being careful not to be harmed by what you produce?
A: There are three applications.
Physically, if you do something, without adequate precautions, it could come back to bite you.
Morally, if you do or create something evil, it can turn around and attack you, because evil often has no loyalty.
Heart-wise, you can put so much of your heart into something that it can start to possess and own you. Even for a good work, are you prepared, at any time, to walk away from it; if God wanted you to do so?
It might be that most things you do, good as well as bad, could have a possibility of harming you. The lesson is not to do anything, but rather continue doing what you are supposed to do, but take any precautions that you can.
Q: In Ecc 10:10, what are some non-physical examples of trying to work with a dull ax?
A: In non-physical ways you can work with improper tools also. In addition, you can fail to sharpen your ax, or rather, not keep up your skills, when you know there will be a need for them later. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.910 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:12-13, what are mad words, coarse words, gracious words, flattering words, and untruthful words?
A: There are many different ways of either speaking, and almost the same information can be given in each of these ways.
Mad words are surprising in that they can destroy the speaker’s reputation as well as others for no purpose. Ecclesiastes 10:20 also talks about made words, though not by that term. Proverbs 26:18-19 also talks about mad words said in jest. Mad words are just pouring out foolishness in Proverbs 12:23; 15:2f; and 14:3a. Proverbs 16:28 says that wrong words can separate even the best of friends
Coarse words are spoken without regard for the effect they have on others, i.e., with no social context. We are not just to speak the truth, but rather speak the truth in love in Ephesians 4:15. We do not want to speak corrupt words, like in Ephesians 4:29a.
Gracious words here and in Ephesians 4:29f heal, build up, as well as correct and rebuke when necessary. They maintain and strengthen relationships and help others as Proverbs 16:23 teaches. A soft answer can turn away wrath in Proverbs 15:1a. Gracious words have a proper setting, as Proverbs 25:11-12 shows.
Flattering words in Proverbs 28:23 superficially resemble gracious words; but they are not for helping the other person and appealing to their pride, often for your own advantage. Paradoxically, they often end up hurting the person being flattered, as Proverbs 29:5 says.
Untruthful words, in Proverbs 12:19,22 and 13:5, which include some flattering words too, and false things that might be said for short-term gain, such as to make a sale. Sometimes untruthful words have truth and truthful details in them, but their intent is to mislead.
Jesus said in Matthew 10:16 to be as wise as serpents but innocent as doves.
Q: In Ecc 10:15, how is easily getting wearied or bored a sign of a fool?
A: Fools are all about instant gratification. Some very worthwhile things take time and hard work. Some people don’t care far enough in the future to do that. See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.448 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:16, what is the problem observed when the king is a child?
A: Solomon was an adult when he became king, so this is not referring to Solomon personally. But Solomon was in a position to hear about many kings in other countries.
When the king is a little child, they can be easily coaxed to do the bidding of others. Proverbs 22:15a says that foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child. A king or someone in high authority often will not be given correction when they need it. See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.448 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:19, how is money the answer for everything?
A: Under the sun money can appear to be the answer for everything, at least under the sun. In ancient times, and today in some Muslim countries, a murderer would be allowed to go free if they or their family pay enough “blood money” to the victim’s family. Even in the United States in modern times, wealthy clients, with expensive lawyers, have gotten away with statutory rape and other crimes by their money. See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.448 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 10:20, why should we be so careful where we are negative or critical about something?
A: The point of this is not to avoid thoughts and birds. Rather, almost everyone at some point has a mistaken notion that their words and actions have a much smaller audience than they actually have; when others hear of it second and third-hand.
Q: In Ecc 11:1-2, what does it mean to cast your bread upon the waters and give portions to seven or eight?
A: There are two views.
Diversification: You don’t know what will turn out to be prosperous and what will not. In fact, some things that seem like sure bets can often go the opposite way. So. it is best to apportion your investments in different things in different areas. If something gets destroyed then you still have the other parts. Ecclesiastes 11:6 says similar. Remember, Ecclesiastes 11:2f does not to do this if disastrous things happen but when.
Helping others: This can also refer to helping others. You don’t know the good effects of the lives you touch, and you could even get paid back, in a good way, for the good you did. The Jewish Talmud, Mishnah and Targums give this interpretation.
See the Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.6 p.391, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1002-1003, the New International Bible Commentary p.700, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.911, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1189, and the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.449 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 11:3a, what do clouds and rain teach us here?
A: You can see dark, rain-laden clouds from a long distance away. Even though it is not raining yet, you can have great confidence that rain is coming.
Q: Does Ecc 11:3f, prove there is no chance for salvation after death as some say?
A: Ecclesiastes 11:3 neither proves nor disproves that. It is a poetic means of reminding us that some things in our life are irreversible. You cannot do anything more in this life, after you die.
Q: In Ecc 11:4,9 what are some examples of failing by being too cautious or deliberating?
A: A few examples are the good Samaritan who never helps anybody, because there might be a risk that they will be taken advantage of. Investors who will not invest in anything, no matter how promising, unless they have almost certainty that it will not lose money. The corporate CEO, whose company loses out to new entrants to the market, because he or she will not fund anything that is not a sure winner.
Ask yourself if you are in analysis-paralysis; what actionable things will change with your further analysis? Consider whether you are going after confidence in something, or certainty.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.911 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 11:5-6, what good is wisdom when external events often make predictions worthless?
A: Wisdom does accurately predict the outcome sometimes, as Ecclesiastes 11:3 shows; but sometimes it does not, as 11:5-6 shows. Wisdom involves more than predicting a future outcome. Wisdom also involves resiliency; planning for the unplanned with a backup plan. In World War II general Eisenhower said, “Plans are useless, but planning is essential.” In that time of war they knew that their plans would all be outdated in a week or two. Yet they knew that having those plans, as imperfect and temporary as they were, would make them better off than not having planned. Solomon also talks of this in Ecclesiastes 11:1-2.
Q: What does Ecc 11:6-7 mean?
A: These verses rapidly cover some complex types of events. There are two patterns interwoven here.
Reversibility vs. Irreversibility: A sprouting seed in Ecclesiastes 11:6 is an example of an irreversible event, while Ecclesiastes 11:7 shows a “reversible” event. Many times, tragedies and disasters “play for keeps”. Ecclesiastes 11:8 speaks of aging. Are you prepared for your final event, which is naturally inevitable and irreversible?
Hopeful vs. Inevitable: It is wise for a farmer to work hard on all his fields, even though he does not know which things will prosper, or if any will. On the other hand, without God, the coming “days of darkness” are inevitable.
Q: In Ecc 11:8, in good times, why is it good to remember the coming days of darkness?
A: This is not our ultimate home, so don’t get too comfortable! All the nice things of earth will eventually all be gone, but for believers, they will be replaced with even nicer things in heaven.
On the other hand, when things seem bad, it is only temporary, because this is not our ultimate home. So whether we feel like we are living in sunlight or darkness now, we need to maintain an eternal perspective.
Q: In Ecc 11:9, should a young person follow the ways of his heart, or God’s way?
A: Sarcasm is sometimes used in scripture, and the ironic sarcasm of Ecclesiastes 11:9 is only made clear in the last phrase of this verse. In other words, be happy, do all you desire, “but know that for all these things God will bring you to judgment.”
Haley’s Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible p.250 mentions that the Jewish commentators Menasseh ben Israel, Aben Ezra, and Rashi all take this as ironic. Ironic means the statement communicates the opposite of what the words literally mean, such as when someone says, “so have fun without God”, when someone comes to the realization of how empty and un-fun eternal life ultimately will be without God.
Some people can learn by observing others, and others have to experience it themselves. Someone once said, “experience is the best teacher, but the most expensive.”
Of course, the best way is to seek God with all of your heart, as Jeremiah 29:13 says, and then there is no difference.
See When Critics Ask p.259 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 11:10, why are youth and vigor meaningless?
A: For someone living “under the sun”, their past youth and vigor can seem very meaningless when they are old.
Q: In Ecc 11:10, since everything the teacher wrote is upright and true, why do some statements in Ecclesiastes “under the sun” seem to contradict other parts of the Bible?
A: A legalist is one who rejects using context, and the context, of life under the sun, is especially important here. One of the most blatant examples of taking a verse out of context is a dermatologist who claimed the Bible said, “skin for skin, a man will give all he has for his skin.” However, he forgot the preceding three words: “And Satan said”.
Q: In Ecc 12:1, why do some older people have no joy in their life and others do? How do we nurture joy in our life?
A: Joy is a by-product of your choices. Joy depends where your focus is. Just as some actors and actresses might consider suicide, or less self-destructive behaviors when their looks go as they age, some people might feel depressed if they think their looks or youth are all they have. But those who look beyond, at the future eternal joy, and those who look around at their family and relationships, have a lot to be joyful for, and how fast they can run a mile does not matter much anymore.
Q: In Ecc 12:1-8, why is it so depressing? We already got the point back in Ecc 11:8.
Q: In Ecc 12:2-4, how does the light grow dark, strong men stoop, grinding and singing sounds fade?
A: This refers to what believers consider a short, temporary condition: old age. Specifically, trembling can refer to shaking, such as from Parkinson’s. While strong men bowing down could refer to a bent back, it more likely means the legs. The grinders ceasing can refer to our grinders (i.e., teeth) becoming few. The light growing dim, the doors are shut, and those who look through the windows grow dim, can mean that the vision is not so good. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1193, the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.450, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1005, Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.6 p.405-408, and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.912-913 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:4, what is the point of rising up at the sound of birds?
A: Birds can get up at the crack of dawn, as soon as it is light enough to look for seeds and bugs. A person who gets up with the birds probably does not sleep well. See the New International Bible Commentary p.700 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1005 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:5, what do the almond tree and grasshopper represent?
A: In midwinter in Palestine, almond trees have blossoms that are pink or red at the base and white for the rest of the flower. This symbolizes white hair. The grasshopper dragging itself along near the end of its life can represent lack of energy in general, or last of sexual desire. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1005, Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.6 p.413, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1193 and the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.913 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:6, what do you think the silver cord, golden bowl, pitcher, and wheel represent?
A: These are most likely metaphors of our body. The spinal chord is a silver chord, our head might be a silver bowl, a pitcher (holding fluid) might be our heart, and the wheel that draws things out might be our digestive system or else the lungs. At some point they stop working so well. See The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1194 and Keil-Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament vol.6 p.423-425 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:7 what is the meaning of dust and wind/spirit?
A: Ecclesiastes 11 set the stage for this, that many things in life are irreversible. Genesis 3:19 says that as our bodies were made from dust, to dust they shall return. God gave us our spirit, and our spirit will leave our body and return. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1005 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:8 what is the poignant point of “all is vanity” here?
A: Just as the dust and wind make up man under the sun, but then go full circle, so too does the vanity described go full circle. The rest of Ecclesiastes, up to this point, shows that all other things, accomplishments under the sun, and everything we can seek after is vanity. But chapter 12 shows us that our youth and our own lives are also vanity, or dust and wind, with no significance apart from God. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.914 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:9-11, what is the point of the preacher?
A: From here to the end of the chapter might well have been written by a secretary or someone else. The point is that even though all these things are vanity, the preacher did something that was not vanity; helping teach others what is and is not vanity. See the New International Bible Commentary p.701 for more info.
Q: Is Ecc 12:9-14 an addendum written later, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.515 claims?
A: We have no external evidence either way. Within Ecclesiastes itself, Ecclesiastes is written in first person, with the exception of the ending, so Asimov might be correct here. If a second person wrote an addendum to Ecclesiastes, that poses no problem for inerrancy.
Q: In Ecc 12:11f, who is the one Shepherd here?
A: There is only One Shepherd, and that Shepherd is God. Since sheep are not very smart, how do sheep know where the predators are, where the green pasture is, where to lie down for the night, and where to go in winter. The sheep know to follow the shepherd. Likewise, God gives us wisdom. God also give our lives meaning. As a Russian proverb says, “If a road does not lead to a church, then what good is it?” See the Evangelical Commentary on the Bible p.451 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:12, when is studying books and learning more a bad thing?
A: It is not always good. Much literature, that claims to be factual, is a waste of time for someone who wants to know the truth. Also, it is bad when you only want to learn but you don’t want to obey God and apply the godly wisdom you know. If you spent 100% of the time you were not eating or sleeping just reading, you would not have time to read everything. At some point you have to stop just reading for yourself and love the people around you too.
Sometimes a person can come to church solely for what they can learn from the sermon. Singing and otherwise worshipping God does not interest them, and being with others doesn’t interest them, just learning. While learning God’s Word is good, they have missed the point. We should relish being a part of activities with others, that God wants us to be a part of, even if we don’t learn a single thing.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1006 and The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.5 p.1196 for more info.
Q: In Ecc 12:13-14, what is the main point of this book of the Bible?
A: The whole book of Ecclesiastes, except the last six verses, if full of irony. However, in case someone completely missed the point, the writer steps out of irony at the end. There is no point in living under the sun instead of in the fear of the Lord. Whatever you decide to do, remember that God will reward every good thing, and punish every bad thing. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.296-297 for more info.
Q: In Ecc, what are some of the earliest manuscripts that still exist today?
A: Dead Sea scrolls: (175-150 B.C.) 3 separate copies in cave 4 (The Dead Sea Scrolls Today p.30, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated : The Qumran Texts in English 2nd ed., and The Dead Sea Scrolls in English 4th ed.). The copies are called 4Q109 and 4Q110. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated : The Qumran Texts in English 2nd ed. p.481 mentions that 4Q110 consists of two fragments. These are dated from the late second century B.C.
However, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438 says there were only 2 separate copies. It mentions that one of them was written from 175-150 B.C.
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls p.296 says there were two copies, the older, 4QQoholeth(a) is dated 175-150 B.C.; it contains Ecc 5:13-17; 6:1; 6:3-8; 6:12; 7:1-10; 7:19-20.. The newer, 4QQoholeth(b) is dated c.50 B.C.. It contains Ecclesiastes 1:10-14, 15?.
Overall, preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls are the following 31 verses out of 222 total verses of Ecclesiastes (14.0 %)
Ecc 1:10-14,15? 5:13-17; 6:1,3-8,12; 7:1-10,19-20. See The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls for more details.
Christian Bible manuscripts, from about 350 A.D., contain the Old Testament, including Ecclesiastes.
Papyrus Med. 13 (3rd century) has part of Ecclesiastes according to The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.463.
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.), Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.), and Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.) each have preserved all of Ecclesiastes.
Q: Which early writers referred to Ecclesiastes?
A: Pre-Nicene writers who referenced or alluded to verses in Ecclesiastes are:
Shepherd of Hermas (c.115-155 A.D.)
Melito/Meleto of Sardis (170-177/180 A.D.) lists all the books of the Old Testament, and he includes every book we have except Nehemiah and Esther. Fragment 4 From the Book of Extracts p.759.
Tertullian’s Five Books Against Marcion (207/208 A.D.)
Hippolytus (222-235/6 A.D.) mentions by name Proverbs, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs in Fragment of Commentary on the Song of Songs p.176
Origen (225-254 A.D.)
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.)
Gregory Thaumaturgus (240-265 A.D.) wrote an entire work, Metaphrase of Ecclesiastes.
Dionysius of Alexandria (246-256 A.D.)
Peter of Alexandria (306,285-310/311 A.D.) quotes Ecclesiastes 1:15 as “For in them is fulfilled what was spoken by the Preacher” The Canonical Epistle canon 4 p.270
Methodius of Olympus and Patara (270-311/312 A.D.)
After Nicea:
Athanasius (367 A.D.) lists all of the Old Testament books in Paschal Letter 39 ch.4 p.552.
Gregory Nanzianus (330-391 A.D.) mentions Ecclesiastes in his poem of scripture. Gregory's poem is (in Greek) in Gregory vol.37 of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, cols. 471-474 (Carmina Dogmatica, Book 1, section 1, Carmen XII) See http://www.bible-researcher.com/gregory.html for more info.
Augustine of Hippo (338-430 A.D.) mentions Ecclesiastes in The City of God book 17 ch.5 p.345 and book 17 ch.20 p.358
Epiphanius of Salamis (360-403 A.D.) mentions Ecclesiastes in Panarion.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) quotes Ecclesiastes 9:7,8 as by Solomon in Ecclesiastes in Lecture 22 ch.8 p.152
John Chrysostom (-407 A.D.) said Ecclesiastes 7:2 was by Solomon vol.10 Commentary on Matthew Homily 40 p.263
Among heretics and spurious works
Pelagian heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia (392-423/429 A.D.) alludes to Ecclesiastes 12:7 Commentary on Malachi ch.22 p.411
Q: In Ecc, what are some of the translation differences between the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint?
A: Here are a few of them. In the examples below, the Masoretic text is first, except where noted. I mainly focused on the first chapter, to get a sample for the whole book. The first reading is the Masoretic text, and the second is the Septuagint, unless otherwise noted.
Ecc 1:1 “the king in Jerusalem” vs. “the king of Israel in Jerusalem”
Ecc 1:6 the “wind” vs. the “it” goes to the south and returns to the north
Ecc 1:11 “former of memory” vs. “first things”
Ecc 1:11 “be afterward” vs. “been last”
Ecc 1:13 “heavens” vs. “heaven”
Ecc 1:15 “weighed out” vs. “numbered”
Ecc 1:17 “I gave my heart to know wisdom” vs. “my heart knew much”
Ecc 2:3 “folly” vs. “mirth”
Ecc 2:25 “more than I” (Masoretic, Targum, Vulgate) vs. “without Him” (some Masoretic, Septuagint, Syriac)
Ecc 8:10 “praise” (Hebrew and Septuagint, Aquila, Vulgate) vs. “praise and are forgotten” (other Hebrew texts)
Ecc 9:2 “good and the bad” (some Hebrew, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate) vs. “good” (most Hebrew manuscripts)
Ecc 9:14 “snares” (Masoretic) vs. “bulwarks/siegeworks” (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate)
Ecc 12:6 “loosed” (Qere, Targum) vs. “removed” (Ketubim) vs. “broken” (Septuagint, Vulgate)
Bibliography for this question: the Hebrew translation is from Jay P. Green’s Literal Translation and the Septuagint rendering is from Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translation of The Septuagint : Greek and English. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary and the footnotes in the NASB, NIV 1985, NKJV, and NRSV Bibles also were used.
Bible Query from the Song of Songs
Q: In SofS, what is the book of Canticles?
A: This is an alternate name for the Song of Solomon. Another popular name is Song of Solomon. There is no difference. The Hebrew name is literally translated “Song of Songs”, which means the best of all songs. Solomon wrote 1,005 songs (1 Kings 4:32), and the title implies that this was the best one.
In the Latin Vulgate, the book is called Canticum Canticorum, which means Song of Songs. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.10 for more info.
Q: In SofS, why is a sexually-oriented book like Song of Solomon in the Bible?
A: What is wrong with wild, passionate, romance and sex within marriage? While some would make God against all sexual enjoyment, God is the one who created sex. Since God has spoken so strongly and clearly against sex outside of marriage, one might false generalize to think God is against all sexual pleasure - if it were not for the Song of Solomon. See When Critics Ask p.261-262 and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.261-262 for more info.
Q: In SofS, how should this book be interpreted?
A: Christians and Jews have had four views.
Allegory of our relationship with God is how many historically have seen this book. Allegories of God as our husband are in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, but these were written centuries after the Song of Solomon.
Romance: The allegorical view goes too far when it describes the wife’s beauty. Rather, this is a practical, yet passionate story about romantic love, a small problem in the relationship, and its solution. The Song of Solomon is a very important book. Without it, one might wonder if it is proper for believers to have passionate romantic feelings, are an emotionally exciting marriage. This book not only validates this, but shows how.
Romance with Solomon as an intruder: The Shepherd and girl love each other, and Solomon tries unsuccessfully to woo the girl away. Viewing this book as a protest against marital infidelity is the view of the Believers Bible Commentary and Arthur Clarke’s The Song of Songs. A variation of this view is that the girl is actually Abishag. See www.scripturewise.com for more on this view.
(Unlikely) Collection of love poems: Some apparently have given up on a structure and see this as an anthology of love poems. The New Geneva Study Bible p.1004 mentions this view, commenting that it is both unhelpful and unnecessary.
(Unlikely) Play: Some have seen a third option, that this was a kind of play. However, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1009 points out that while some seem this as a drama or play to be acted out, “the literary genre of a full-fledged drama was not known among the Israelites. Also the book cannot be analyzed into acts and scenes like a drama.”
(Unlikely) Allegory of the Exodus from Egypt was the ancient rabbi interpretation, according to 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.10.
Also see When Critics Ask p.263 for more info.
Q: In SofS, what is an outline of this book?
A: There are two outlines, depending on whether you think there is one man, or Solomon and a shepherd.
One-man view: This book is about the courtship, wedding, and marriage of a couple.
1:2-3:5 The Courtship
3:6-5:1 The Wedding
..3:6-11 The Wedding Procession
..4:1-5:1 The Wedding Night
5:2-8:4 The Marriage
..5:2-6:13 A “fox” in the marriage. Taking the other for granted
.. 6:4-13 Overcoming the problem
8:5-14 Conclusion
Protest Against Infidelity view: Solomon is trying to take the girl away from her shepherd boyfriend/husband, and he fails to do so.
The Believers Bible Commentary has 18 top-level sections, based primarily on speaker. Here is a rather free condensation of that.
1-2:7 The Shulamite in Solomon’s Court
..2:7 - O daughters of Jerusalem
2:8-3:5 Reminiscing about her shepherd-lover
..3:5 - O daughters of Jerusalem
3:6-4:6 Solomon’s grand procession arrives
4:7-5:1 The Shepherd comes and asks the Shulamite to leave
5:9-8:4 Everyone tries to convince the Shulamite
..8:4 - O daughters of Jerusalem
8:5-14 She goes with the shepherd-lover
Q: In SofS, who are the speakers of each verse?
A: Here are the speakers, given the view that there is only one man. Be careful of semantics though, because the NIV 1985 uses the word “beloved” to refer to the woman, and the NKJV uses the word “beloved” to refer to the man.
One man view:
The man is the speaker in 1:9-10, 1:15, 2:2, 2:14, 4:1-15, 5:1a-d, 6:4-9, 7:1-9a, 8:13.
The woman is the speaker in 1:2-4a, 1:4c-7, 1:12-14, 1:15, 2:1, 2:3-14, 2:16-3:11, 4:16, 5:2-8, 5:10-16, 6:2-3, 7:9b-8:4, 8:6-7, 8:10-12, 8:14
Either the woman or the man in 1:17, 6:11-12, 6:13b
Either the woman or the man or (according to the NKJV) the woman’s brothers in 2:15.
The friends (including daughters of Jerusalem) speak in 1:4b, 1:8, 1:11, 5:9, 6:1, 6:13a, 8:5a
Either the man or the friends in 1:8, 1:11, 6:10
Either the man, woman, or a relative in 8:5b
Either God or the friends speaks in 5:1e
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1020 says it was God, because friends would not be there when they were consummating their marriage.
The woman’s brothers speak in 8:8-9
See also The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1012 for more info.
Shepherd + Solomon view:
Roughly the same speakers, except that it is Solomon and not the shepherd speaking prior to 4:7. After that Solomon only speaks in 6:4-10 and 7:1-10.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.919-921 for more info.
Q: In SofS 1:1,5; 3:7,9,11; 8:11,12 did Solomon actually write this book?
A: Solomon might have been the author, but it is not necessarily true that he was. The book mentions Solomon and it could be named for the subject matter, not the author.
Q: In SofS 1:2, how is his love better than wine?
A: Drinking wine does not give as much pleasure as the warm feeling of knowing how much he cares for her. If you are a husband, how pleasured does our wife feel in just knowing how much you love her?
Q: In SofS 1:3, why would a girl tell her beloved that the young maidens all love him?
A: She is appreciative that he likes her and not others. This is far removed from the concept of trying to get every advantage possible from your spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend.
Q: In SofS 1:4, since they are not married, why is the girl talking about being brought into the king’s chamber?
A: In Jewish tradition, the marriage was consummated privately, right after the wedding ceremony. Either they are married at this point, or she is telling her beloved she is looking forward to marriage.
Q: In SofS 1:5, was the girl here black, or was she Jewish, and thus Caucasian?
A: First an interesting side note, and then an answer. Judaism has been in the country of Ethiopia ever since around the time of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. The Judaism in Ethiopia was distinct in that they had no concept of Purim or Hanukkah, which were introduced over four hundred years after Solomon’s time.
Answer: We cannot tell the race of the girl. The girl might have been black, and she might have been Ethiopian. On one hand many see that she was more likely Caucasian and her skin was tanned, because she mentioned that the sun made her dark. On the other hand, a black person’s skin can look darker if they spend a lot of time in the sun too.
Perhaps more was not made of her race because in this story it does not matter, just as today we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. If my children were to marry an Anglo, oriental, Hispanic, Desi, black, Arab, Persian, or other, they would all be equally fine with me. However, I am still greatly concerned with what that the person was like on the inside; whether the potential spouse had Christlike character.
Q: In SofS 1:5, should this word be “but” or “and”?
A: The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.928 says that it could be translated either way. The NASB, NET Bible, KJV, and NKJV translate this as “but”, and the NIV 1985 translates this as “yet”. The NRSV translates this as “and”.
Q: In SofS 1:7, why would the girl go to the flocks of her beloved’s companions?
A: It never said that she did. She told her beloved she might do so, perhaps by mistake, if he did not tell her where he grazed his flocks. One characteristic of a good romantic love is wanting to spend time with the other person.
Q: In SofS 1:8, why did the man not tell the woman where his flocks grazed?
A: The woman wonders why she cannot be with her lover all the time. I once talked with a college student who was distraught over the fact that a particular senior did not notice her. I asked her when she got married, what percent of the time did she think she would be with her husband. She seriously said “90%”!
The speaker of this verse is either the lover being playful or the daughters of Jerusalem, perhaps being sarcastic. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1013 and The New Geneva Study Bible p.1006 for more info. The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.922 says it is the daughters of Jerusalem.
Q: In SofS 1:9, why was the person compared to Pharaoh’s chariots?
A: The New Geneva Study Bible p.1006 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1013 say that twin stallions pulled the Pharaoh’s chariot. The NIV Study Bible 1985 p.1005 says that his beloved attracts attention the way a mare among the Pharaoh’s chariot stallions would attract attention.
Q: In SofS 1:12 (KJV) (NKJV), what is spikenard?
A: The NET Bible and the NRSV translates this as “nard” and the NASB and NIV 1985 translate this as “perfume”. Spikenard and nard were types of perfume. Nard (or spikenard) was very costly, as the woman who anointed Jesus with nard had a jar that cost a year’s wages in Mark 14:3-5.
Q: In SofS 1:12,14,3:6, is it OK for Christians to wear perfume?
A: Yes. These verses approve it and nothing in scripture forbids it. However, if your only beauty if outward adornment, that is sad. Your attractiveness should be from inward beauty, which does not fade, a 1 Peter 3:1-5 and 1 Timothy 2:9-10 show.
Q: In SofS 1:14 (KJV), what is camphire?
A: Camphire is a strong and pleasant-smelling balm. However, the NASB, NET Bible, NIV 1985, and NRSV translate this as henna blossoms. The NKJV says, “henna blooms”. These are pleasant-smelling too.
Q: In SofS 1:14, what is the significance of En-gedi?
A: En-gedi was a remote desolate place on the west shore of the Dead Sea. David went there to hide from King Saul in 1 Samuel 24:1. Someone might go there to be alone. Of course, any place in the world is almost a paradise if you are with the one you love. Since all Christians, are with the One they love (God), any place in the world can be almost a paradise for us.
Q: In SofS 2:2, how is his beloved like a lily among thorns?
A: In his eyes, all other woman are ugly and undesirable compared to her. Compared to all others, she is like a lily.
Q: In SofS 2:3, what is special about apple wood that was similar to her beloved man?
A: Apple wood was valuable because there was not much available, since one had to cut down a fruit tree to obtain it. Likewise, a man or woman gives up their ability to “play the field” and date others when they commit to be married.
Q: In SofS 2:4, could this refer to Christ?
A: People who believe the Song of Solomon must be an allegory of Christ and the church think so. However, even people who do not agree this is an allegory, can agree that Christ’s love for His bridegroom, the church, is just as tender and deep.
Q: In SofS 2:5 (KJV), what is a flagon?
A: A flagon is a drinking vessel, such as people used at banquets. However, the NIV 1985 and NRSV translate this word as “raisins”, the NET Bible, NASB, and Green’s Literal Translation say, “raisin cakes”, and the NKJV says, “cakes of raisins”. Raisins taste sweet, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1014 says that raisin cakes would be a delicacy at a banquet.
Q: In SofS 2:5 and SofS 5:8 (KJV), why is she sick of love?
A: Today, almost 400 years after the King James Version was translated, a person does not often tell the one they are in love with “I am sick of love!”. The NASB and NKJV say, “lovesick”, and the NIV 1985, NET Bible, and NRSV say, “faint with love”.
Q: In SofS 2:7,17 and SofS 3:5, what is a roe and a hart?
A: A “roe” is what we would call a “doe” or female deer, and a hart is a male deer.
Q: In SofS 2:9, what is a lattice?
A: This word, found in the NASB, NIV 1985, and NRSV means a wooden frame that one might have to cover a window. Sometimes people have vines or flowers growing around a lattice.
Q: In SofS 2:12 (KJV), how could the voice of a turtle be heard in the land, since turtles do not make vocal sounds?
A: The King James Version accurately translated this as the bird we today call a “turtledove”. The skeptic Isaac Asimov, in Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.522 says essentially the same thing.
Q: In SofS 2:14 (KJV), what does countenance mean?
A: It can mean face, but here it most likely refers to her smile.
Q: In SofS 2:15, what is the significance of foxes?
A: This Hebrew word could refer either to foxes or jackals. Foxes are small animals, which pose no physical danger to people, and one fox, running through a vineyard once, does negligible damage. However, a family of foxes, over a long time, can destroy the roots of the vines and ruin a vineyard.
Likewise small sins, pet peeves, and unlovely attitudes can appear as insignificant as a couple of foxes. Over time, they can ruin a marriage. It is good to recognize those small things, and get rid of them.
Q: In SofS 2:17 (KJV) (NKJV), where are the mountains of Bether?
A: We are not sure of the Hebrew here. This could also be translated “mountain gorges” as the NET Bible, or “rugged hills” as the NIV 1985 does, but adds in a footnote that it may be the mountains of Bether. The only trouble is, we have a very good idea of the geography of Palestine and we have no idea where the mountains of Bether would be. The Believers Bible Commentary p.924 says this could mean “the mountains that separate us”. See also the extensive NET Bible footnote.
Q: In SofS 3:1-4, why did the woman seek the man here?
A: She missed seeing him, and this verse shows there is nothing wrong with the woman seeking the man. In a different context, Ruth also sought Boaz.
Q: In SofS 3:5 and SofS 8:4, does it say not to stir up my love (KJV, NASB) or not to stir up love?
A: The NIV 1985, NKJV, NET Bible, and NRSV show it is the second way. Even the KJV and NASB have the word “my” in italics in both verses. Thus the word “my” is not present in the Hebrew.
Q: In SofS 3:5 and SofS 8:4, why should people not stir up love until it pleases?
A: There are two meanings here. One should not try to rush someone to sexual maturity or sexual intimacy. Also, one should not try to rush the other person into a marriage commitment.
Q: In SofS 3:9, did Solomon make chariots, since kings of Israel were not to have chariots according to Dt 17:16; 2 Chr 9:28; 1 Ki 10:26-29?
A: Three points to consider in the answer here.
1. Deuteronomy shows the king was not to make chariots for battle. The description here indicates this was a decorative vehicle, not one for battle.
2. Solomon did make war chariots, and he was wrong to do so.
3. This book is not focusing on Solomon’s obedience, but just mentioning that he had a marvelous-looking carriage.
Q: In SofS 4:1-7 and SofS 7, if a man’s prospective wife is not a prefect model of physical beauty, can he still love her?
A: Sure. Four points to consider in the answer.
1. Having physical beauty is fine, as Job 42:15 as well as the Song of Solomon shows.
2. However, inward beauty which endures is more important than outward beauty that fades, as 1 Peter 3:2-4 shows. Are you marrying someone with which you would like to grow old together?
3. It is interesting to consider why many people think there is only one standard of physical beauty for men and women. Perhaps Hollywood and Disney have conditioned us this way. For example, during the Renaissance in Europe, their view of the ideal shape of a woman would be considered overweight by modern standards. Likewise in China, at times the ideal for a woman would be considered too heavy today. Someone living back then in those cultures would be equally surprised at modern standards of beauty. Loving the one you marry is more important than a cultural standard of beauty. You can over time find that you are indeed married to the most physically attractive girl in the world - for you.
4. As for men, in some oriental cultures, where food has been more scarce, the ideal-looking man had a big belly. However men, do not use this as an excuse to gluttony saying, “me and my belly are already perfect, we are just born in the wrong time and place!”
Q: In SofS 4:2 and SofS 6:6, what is the significance of the teeth like sheep that bore twins?
A: Her teeth remind this shepherd of white-wooled sheep. This is a poetic way of saying all the teeth are there, and none of them are missing.
Q: In SofS 4:3, since her lips were like scarlet, did they have anything similar to cosmetics back then?
A: Yes they did.
For perfumes, we know of small containers that were buried with Egyptian Pharaohs from 5,000 to 3,500 B.C., according to the Encyclopedia Britannica volume 6 (1956) p.495-496b (I did not know they had pages of b). Also by 1500 B.C. men and women had lumps of sweet-smelling nard on their heads.
For eye-liner, women used kohl (probably antimony sulfide) for their eyelids from 1500 B.C., which is just before the time of Moses.
For red colors, Henna was a reddish color used for nails, palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet. (can’t forget the bottom of your feet!) The later Romans used “fucus” for red cheeks and lips. The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1198 says that scarlet dye came from the crushing of the cochineal worm.
Q: In SofS 4:9-10,12 and SofS 5:2, why is he calling his beloved his sister?
A: This shows both how deep his love is for her, and the kind of love he has for her. Even if he could not have physical intimacy with her, being her brother, he would still be happy just to be near her all the time. That is how it should be. While the physical relationship should reflect the love for each other, the love for each other should be more important than the physical relationship. If some accident occurred, and your spouse somehow lost the use of his or her sexual organs, would you still love him or her?
Q: In SofS 4:12-5:1, what are they talking about?
A: According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament, verses 1:2-3:5 are the courtship, 3:6-5:1 are the wedding, 4:1-5:1 are the wedding night, and 5:2-8:4 are the marriage.
Q: In SofS 5:1-8, what is the main point here?
A: There was a “little fox”, or a problem with the relationship here. The husband was asking the wife to open the door. Whether the husband was demanding something he could do for himself, whether the wife was becoming apathetic to the husband returning home, or whether the husband just missed his wife excitedly greeting him at the door, there apparently was a problem here. The husband then left, but he put perfume on the doorknob, signifying he still desired her and was sorry she did not get up for him.
Q: In SofS 5:2 (KJV), what is the “undefiled one” here?
A: The NASB, NKJV and NRSV translate this as “perfect one”. The NIV 1985 and NET Bible translate this as “flawless one”.
Q: In SofS 5:2-6, what is the meaning of this passage?
A: There are two views, though the second view is likely the correct one.
1. In the view that Solomon was an intruder on the love of two people, “the barred door passage” was all a dream the girl had, according to the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.925.
2. In the “two lovers” view, some apathy had settled in the marriage. He asked her to unbar the door, and in verse 3 she initially refused, giving an excuse that showed her apathy. She eventually got up, but by that time he had left. He put some perfume on the door, to show that he regretted the separation caused by her apathy, and he was eager to make up and forgive her.
Sometimes when we are taken for granted, we should go away, “leaving perfume on the door”, and be eager to reconcile. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1020-1021 for more info.
Q: In SofS 5:4, what does “my heart yearned for him” mean?
A: These Hebrew words are the same ones used in a non-romantic sense in Isaiah 16:11 and Jeremiah 31:20 for compassion or pity. For this reason, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1020 says it does not mean sexual excitement.
Q: In SofS 5:7, why did the watchmen strike her?
A: This verse does not say. Perhaps it was maliciousness, or perhaps lust, but more probably the watchmen mistakenly thought she was a prostitute and they struck her so that she would leave the streets and go home.
Q: Does SofS 5:16 refer to Mohammed because it mentions one as “totally desirable” and Makhmad and Makhadim are [somehow] adherents of Mohammed?
A: I have never heard this one before. Is the love story of the Song of Solomon (=Song of Songs) how Muslim women (not to mention men) were to act towards Mohammed? I do not think Muslims would say so!
Q: In SofS 6:4, does this reference to Tirzah indicate the poem was written after Solomon’s time, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.522-523 suggests?
A: The Song of Songs never said it was written by Solomon, or in his time. However, this verse does not indicate a later date. There was a king of Tirzah in Joshua 12:24 and Jeroboam I (900-880 B.C.) stayed in Tirzah in 1 Kings 14:17. Archaeologists have found Tirzah occupied since Joshua’s time.
The Song of Songs 6:4 mentions both Tirzah and Jerusalem, and 6:5 mentions Gilead. Asimov says this indicates a later time because Tirzah was not analogous to Jerusalem. It was not in power, but in beauty that it might be just as analogous to Jerusalem as Gilead was.
Q: In SofS 6:4, what else do we know about the city of Tirzah?
A: Tirzah means “delight”, and it was mentioned in Joshua 12:24. We do not know the Canaanite name of the city, but the Israelites apparently renamed it to Tirzah, after one of Zelophehad’s daughters.
While archaeologists are not absolutely certain of the location of Tirzah, they are fairly confident it is the site of Tell el-Far’ah, which at about 600 by 300 meters is a larger hill than Megiddo. The Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 6 p.573-577 says that the earliest settlements were from the stone age. A new stone wall was built about 1700 B.C. during the bronze age. The next stratum indicates a new city was built on the same site fairly soon after the old one was destroyed. This Iron Age I site was until the beginning of the 9th century B.C., apparently when Omri moved the capital of Israel from Tirzah to Samaria. It was burned with fire, which might indicate Zimri burning himself to death by burning down his palace. Tirzah was rebuilt, but was destroyed again, apparently by the Assyrians in 723 B.C.
See also the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1717 and The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.1020 for more info.
Q: In SofS 6:4,10, how is the man as terrible as an army with banners?
A: The emotionally and perhaps the nervousness within her felt as great as if she had seen an army ready for war.
Q: In SofS 6:7, why were his temples compared with pomegranates?
A: Pomegranates have a juice so red that people used the juice for makeup. In other words, he was blushing.
Q: In SofS 6:8, did Solomon have 140 wives and concubines, or 1,000 as 1 Ki 11:3 says?
A: The verse does not say these were Solomon’s wives. Even if they were though, Solomon originally had only one wife, and his harem gradually grew. 1 Kings 11:3 tells the total number of wives Solomon had by the end of his reign. See When Critics Ask p.264 for more info.
Q: In SofS 6:12, what chariots were these?
A: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1022 says this is one of the most difficult verses in the Bible to interpret.
The KJV says, “chariots of Amminadab”. The NIV 1985 says, “royal chariots of my people” with a footnote saying it could be “among the chariots of Amminadab, or among the chariots of the people of the prince” The NASB and NKJV say, “chariots of my noble people” The NRSV says, “chariot beside my prince”
The NET Bible has “besides myself with joy”, with a long footnote explaining the alternatives and which translations used which alternative.
Q: In SofS 6:13, why was she called a Shulamite?
A: There are two views.
Town of Shulem/Shunem. The New Geneva Study Bible p.1014 and the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.523 say this was likely a copyist’s error for someone from the town of Shunam, which was about three miles (five kilometers) north of Jezreel. The NIV Study Bible 1985 p.1011 says the letters “l” and “n” were sometimes interchanged in Semitic languages. Abishag was a Shunamite according to 1 Kings 1:3,15; 2:17,21. See www.scripturewise.com for more on the view that the girl in the Song of Solomon was Abishag.
Solomon’s girl: Shulamite is the feminine form of “Solomon”. Perhaps she was being called a “Solomoness”, meaning Solomon’s girl. The NIV Study Bible 1985 p.1011 mentions both these views.
Since we know of a town of Shunem, the first view is more reasonable, since Abishag was a Shunemite, but she was not especially Solomon’s girl. Otherwise, every girl from Shunem would be Solomon’s girl.
Q: In SofS 7:13, what is the significance of mandrakes?
A: Mandrakes had a pleasant smell, and back then mandrakes were thought to enhance the ability to have children, as Rachel and Leah thought in Genesis 30:14-15.
Q: In SofS 8:1-2, why in the world would the girl wish her beloved was related as her brother?
A: Probably for the same reason the man spoke of her as his sister. See the discussion on Song of Songs 4:10 for the answer.
Q: In SofS 8:6-8, is love really as strong as death?
A: Of course God’s love for us is much stronger than death, but that is not the point of this verse. Love for others survives death, and believers will see again those who have already gone to be with our Lord. For both believers and some unbelievers, love for another person can be stronger than the desire for self-preservation. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.298-299 for more info.
Q: In SofS 8:7, why can money not be compared to love?
A: If two people really love each other, they will value that love more than all the money in the world. Furthermore, financial problems should not be a barrier to a good marriage, and financial incentives should not entice people to separate who truly love each other.
If you could take a job that offered twice as much pay as your present one, but you had to be separated from your family at least five days every week, and your family was not going hungry with your present job, would you take the higher-paying job? I hope you would not want that long term, for the sake for your witness, your spouse, your family, and for your own sake.
Q: In SofS 8:8-10, what is the significance of these words by the girl’s brothers?
A: They are saying they have been watching over her. Using very poetic language, they were saying that if she was like a door and needed restrictions, they would “enclose” her. If she had self-control like a wall, they would honor her. Silver on a city wall does not help in the city’s defense, but it sure would gleam brightly.
It is interesting that while some modern cultures think that frank discussions as these should be taboo, in the Bible moral purity is an openly-discussed “family affair”.
Q: In SofS 8:8-10, why responsibilities does a child have toward their younger brothers and sisters?
A: Certainly brothers and sisters are to jointly take care of each other, as Cain failed to do in Genesis 3:9-10. We are to materially care for family members in need, according to 1 Timothy 5:8. Beyond that, young children have responsibility for the younger children as the parents delegate authority to them.
How should parents delegate authority? In our house, when the age different is less than three years, the old one does not have authority over the next younger one except in cases where the parents are not around.
Q: In SofS 8:11-12, what is the girl saying here?
A: She is saying she was righteous, and an honorable girl who saved her body until marriage.
Q: In SofS, what are some of the earliest manuscripts of that still exist today?
A: Dead Sea scrolls: (c.1 B.C.) 4 separate copies according to the Dead Sea Scrolls Today p.30, the Dead Sea Scrolls in English 4th ed., the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438, and The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated : The Qumran Texts in English 2nd ed.. These are called 4Q106, 4Q107, 4Q108, and 6Q6. The scroll 4Q240 is possibly a commentary on the Song of Songs.
4QCanticles(a) (early Herodian) parts of 3:7-11; 4:1-7; 6:11?-12; 7:1-7. Song of Songs 4:8-6:11 is not missing but absent.
4QCanticles(b) (50-1 B.C.) parts of 2:9-17; 3:1-2,5,9-10; 4:1-3,8-11,14-16; 5:1. Song of Songs 3:5-9 is not missing but absent.
4QCanticles(c) (50-1 B.C.) 3:7-8
6Q6 Song of Songs 1:1-7 (c.50 A.D.)
Overall, preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls are the following approximately 49 verses out of 117 total verses of the Song of Songs (41.9 %).
SofS 1:1-7; 2:9-17; 3:1-5,7-11; 4:1-11,14-16; 5:1; 6:11?,12; 7:1-7. See The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls for more details.
Christian Bible manuscripts, from about 350 A.D., contain the Old Testament, including the Song of Solomon, also called Canticles.
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) has preserved all of the Song of Solomon.
Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.) has preserved all of the Song of Solomon. It starts on the same page as Ecclesiastes ends. It ends on the same page as Wisdom starts.
Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.) has preserved all of Song of Solomon.
Q: Which early writers referred to Song of Songs?
A: Pre-Nicene writers who referenced or alluded to verses in Song of Songs are:
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.)
Melito/Meleto of Sardis (170-177/180 A.D.) lists all the books of the Old Testament, and he includes every book we have except Nehemiah and Esther. Fragment 4 From the Book of Extracts p.759.
Tertullian’s Five Books Against Marcion (207/208 A.D.)
Hippolytus (222-235/6 A.D.) mentions by name Proverbs, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs in Fragment of Commentary on the Song of Songs p.176
Origen (225-254 A.D.) wrote an entire commentary on the Song of Songs showing all the allegories of that and Christ and His church.
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.)
Firmilian of Caesarea to Cyprian (256 A.D.)
Methodius of Olympus and Patara (270-311/312 A.D.)
After Nicea
Pacian of Barcelona (342-379/392 A.D.) refers by name to the Song of Songs and quotes Song of Songs 6:8,9 Letter 1 ch.4 p.22
Q: In SofS, what are some of the translation differences between the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint?
A: Overall, the quality of the Septuagint translation for the Song of Solomon does not seem as high as was done for the Torah. Here are a few of translation differences, first the Masoretic text, followed by the Septuagint, mainly from chapter 2.
SofS 1:7 “veils herself” (Masoretic) vs. “wanders” (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate)
SofS 2:1 “rose of Sharon” vs. “flower of the plain” (Sharon was the name of a large plain.)
SofS 2:3 “trees of the forest” vs. “trees of the wood”
SofS 2:3 “taste” vs. “throat”
SofS 2:4 “He brought me” vs. “Bring me”
SofS 2:5 “Feed me with raisin cakes” vs. “Strengthen me with perfumes”
SofS 2:5 “sick with love” vs. “wounded with love”
SofS 2:7 “gazelles and does of the field” vs. “powers and virtues of the field”
SofS 2:8,9,10,16, etc. “beloved” vs. “kinsman”
SofS 2:9 “likened to a gazelle, or to a young deer, the stag” vs. “like a roe or a young hart on the mountains of Baethel”
SofS 2:9 “lattice” vs. “nets”
SofS 2:10 “answered” vs. “answers”
SofS 2:10 “my love, my beautiful one, and come away” vs. “my companion, my fair one, my dove.”
SofS 2:12 “time of singing” vs. “time of pruning”
SofS 2:12 “is heard” vs. “has been heard”
SofS 2:13 “give a fragrance by the blossom” vs. “put forth the tender grape, they yield a smell”
SofS 2:13 “My love; come. My beautiful one, and come yourself” vs. “come, my companion, my fair one, my dove, yea, come”
SofS 2:14 “form” vs. “face”
SofS 2:14 “form vs. “countenance”
SofS 2:15 “foxes, the little foxes” vs. “little foxes”
SofS 2:15 “blossoms” vs. “tender grapes”
SofS 2:17 “Until when does the day blow” vs. “Until the day dawn”
SofS 2:17 “gazelle, or a young deer, the stag, on the cleft mountains” vs. “roe or young hart on the mountains of the ravines”
SofS 7:9 “lips of sleepers” vs. “lips and teeth” (Septuagint, Aquila (126 A.D.), Syriac, Vulgate)
Bibliography for this question: the Hebrew translation is from Jay P. Green’s Literal Translation and the Septuagint rendering is from Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translation of The Septuagint : Greek and English. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary and the footnotes in the NASB, NIV 1985, NKJV, and NRSV Bibles were also used.
Bible Query from Lamentations
Q: In Lam, did Jeremiah write this book?
A: While nothing in the book of Lamentations indicates either way, 2 Chronicles 35:25 says that Jeremiah composed laments over Josiah. However, since most of the Lamentations mention the fall of Jerusalem, either Jeremiah
a) Did not write Lamentations
b) Wrote all of Lamentations after Jerusalem’s fall
c) Wrote part before and some after
d) Wrote about the fall of Jerusalem before it happened.
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1207 says the following sources said it was written by Jeremiah: the Septuagint, the Aramaic Targum of Jonathan, the Babylonian Talmud, the Peshitta, and the Vulgate. See also 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.181 and the discussion on 2 Chronicles 35:25 for more info.
Q: In Lam, when was this book written?
A: Most or all of it was likely written after the fall of Jerusalem in 7/18/587 or 586 B.C. If Jeremiah wrote it, then he probably wrote it prior to being taken to Egypt in 583/582 B.C.
Q: In Lam, what is unusual about the structure?
A: Lamentations is a highly structured book. It consists of five poetic dirges (or lamentations), and one poem per chapter.
1. Each poem except the middle one consists of exactly 22 verses. This is the structure in the Hebrew, not just the translation.
2. Each verse in chapters 1, 2, and 4 starts with a successive letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Another place in the Bible where this style of poetry is used is in Psalm 119. However, in chapters 2 and 4, the order of two letters is ‘ayin-pe, when it is reversed in the Hebrew alphabet.
3. The middle poem has exactly 66 verses. The first three verses each start with Aleph (A), then next three verses start with Beth (B), etc.
4. Lamentations 4:1-6 is parallel with Lamentations 4:7-11.
Q: In Lam, what is the main message of the book?
A: From A to Z, God punished in full the sin of Jerusalem. As surely as one can remember the alphabet, one should remember that God lets people repent and return to Him.
Q: In Lam, why were acrostics used?
A: Lamentations does not say, but we can see at least three reasons.
1. Scripture was often memorized, and this would be an aid to memorization.
2. The high degree of structure alludes to the orderly, determined consequences God brought upon the people. There was nothing haphazard about God’s judgment.
3. This was a Hebrew poetic device, which shows us that this book was not a spontaneous outburst, but rather a well thought-out, designed communication of grief.
Q: In Lam, what is an outline of the book?
A: Here is a high-level outline.
Lam 1 Groaning over Zion’s desolation and distress
…Lam 1:1-11 Desertion by God and man
…Lam 1:12-22 Why he weeps over sin
Lam 2 Who and Why: The Lord did this as He planned
Lam 3 Response to God’s discipline
Lam 4 Past and future of Judah
Lam 5 Appeal to God’s Mercy for Restoration
Q: In Lam, to which other book in the Bible is this most similar?
A: There are at least 12 clear similarities (plus 3 arguable ones) between Lamentations and chapter 28 of Deuteronomy. While there are many other things in Deuteronomy that are not in Lamentations, 15 similarities in 154 verses is about 1 similarity per 10 verses. See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1209 for more info.
Q: In Lam, what are the similarities between Lamentations and the rest of the Old Testament?
A: Here are many of the parallels
|
Concept or Phrase |
Lamentations |
Old Testament |
Lovers of the adulterous Judah/Zion |
Lam 1:2,19 |
Jer 30:14 |
No one to comfort Jerusalem |
Lam 1:2,7,9,17,21 |
Ps 142:4 |
No resting place for the people |
Lam 1:3 |
Dt 28:65 |
Their children given away to captives |
Lam 1:5 |
Dt 28:32; 41 |
Have no strength to fight them |
Lam 1:6 |
Dt 28:25 |
Nakedness and filthiness in clothes |
Lam 1:8-9 |
Isa 4:4; 64:6 |
Eyes fail with tears |
Lam 1:16; 2:11,18; 3:49 |
Jer 9:1,18 |
A devouring fire comes before God |
Lam 2:3 |
Hab 3:5-6; Ps 50:3 |
God bends His bow |
Lam 2:4; 3:12-13 |
Ps 7:12; 21:12; Isa 41:2 |
God casts off His altar |
Lam 2:7 |
Jer 7; Ezek 8-10 |
Who can heal |
Lam 2:13 |
Jer 8:22; Nah 3:19 |
False prophets did not warn the people |
Lam 2:14; 4:13 |
Jer 29:23 |
Passersby clap their hands and hiss at Zion |
Lam 2:15,16 |
Ezek 25:6 |
Mothers eating their young children |
Lam 2:20 |
Dt 28:53; Jer 19:9; Ezek 5:10 |
Young and old die in the streets |
Lam 2:21 |
Dt 28:50; Ezek 9:6 |
Drinking wormwood |
Lam 3:15,19 |
Jer 9:15,19 |
Not cast off forever |
Lam 3:31 |
Jer 3:5,12 |
Not desire to afflict people |
Lam 3:32 |
Ezek 18:23,32; 33 |
Both good and calamity come from God |
Lam 3:38 |
Jer 11:11; 18:11 Ezek 6:10; Am 3:6; 9:3; Jon 3:10 |
Asking for revenge |
Lam 3:64-66 |
Jer 10:25; Ps 140:10,11; 141:10; 143:12 |
Relating them to Sodom |
Lam 4:6 |
Jer 23:14; Isa 1:9 |
Mothers eating their own children |
Lam 4:10 |
Dt 28:56-57 |
Pursuers were swifter than eagles |
Lam 4:19 |
Jer 4:13; Hab 1:8 |
Edom too will be punished |
Lam 4:21,22 |
Jer 49:7-22; Obadiah |
Forced to drink a cup |
Lam 4:21 |
Jer 39:12 |
Houses occupied by foreigners |
Lam 5:2 |
Dt 28:30 |
They will find no rest in exile |
Lam 5:5 |
Dt 28:65 |
They will go hungry |
Lam 5:10 |
Dt 28:48 |
Foreigners will lie with their women |
Lam 5:11 |
Dt 28:30 |
They will show older people no respect |
Lam 5:12 |
Dt 28:50 |
None will drive the wild animals away |
Lam 5:18 |
Dt 28:26 |
31 parallels in 132 verses means 1 parallel per 4.3 verses. There are too many parallels for this to be coincidence. Two reasons for the many parallels, are that 13 parallels are from the book of Jeremiah, probably because Jeremiah likely was the author of Lamentations. Also, 12 parallels imply the writer of Lamentations intentionally sought to show how this disaster fulfilled the prophetic curses in Deuteronomy 28.
Q: In Lam 1, which city is this?
A: This is Jerusalem, which was originally built on the mountain called Zion, according to Lamentations 1:7-8. Metaphorically, this could apply to any group of God’s people, who have been disobedient and then been crushed.
Q: In Lam 1:2,9,16,17,21, why do you think it says five times there was none to comfort Jerusalem?
A: None of these times said she was crying out to God. She trusted in Egypt, pagan gods, and others, and though she cried out, they did not come. But Isaiah 40:1-2 speaks of God comforting God’s sinful people, and so Lamentations is claiming that promise.
Q: In Lam 1:2,9,16,17,21, when people are unhappy because they don’t have people to turn to, how do you encourage them to turn to God?
A: Sometimes people look solely to others for healing and to meet their emotional needs when they should be looking primarily to God. Be careful when you help them that you don’t accidentally foster dependency or attachment to you. But your words, your example, your encouragement or maybe simply your being there for them, can encourage them not to give up but to seek the peace of God.
Q: In Lam 1:4 (KJV, NASB, NKJV), how were Zion’s virgins afflicted?
A: This means Jerusalem’s maidens were grieved, according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1212, NIV 1985, and NRSV. Regardless of whether rape was intended here, they were raped according to Lamentations 5:11.
Q: In Lam 1:6 (KJV), what is a “hart”?
A: A hart is an adult male deer.
Q: In Lam 1:7, how did people mock at Zion’s Sabbaths?
A: Different texts have a different word here. The Masoretic text says, “her annihilations”, the Greek Septuagint says, “her habitation”. The Authorized text says, “her Sabbaths”, and the Alexandrine text says, “her captivity”
If the word is Sabbaths, the people of Judah did not keep the Sabbath like they were supposed to do. It should be no surprise that others scoffed at God’s commands, when God’s people did not obey them either.
Q: In Lam 1:11; 2:3, how does a person become vile in God’s eyes?
A: People can be vile in at least three ways.
1. Vile because of vile actions. (vile on the outside)
2. Vile because of the character and desires. (vile on the inside)
3. Vile because they have no desire to change.
Q: In Lam 1:12, why would God be so angry against His own people?
A: They were stubbornly disobedient to God.
A Christian friend once asked if there were any proof that people have free agency, and are not robots, from God’s perspective of eternity. Yes there is, and for a just God, the proof is in three words: “man has responsibility”. God’s people were wicked and disobedient to Him, and He gave them the responsibility to obey, and the freedom and grace to obey or disobey.
Some strict Calvinists have disagreed, saying we have responsibility without ability. It is true that we have the responsibility not to sin without the ability not to sin. However, if we had responsibility without any choice of respondability, it would be sort of like commanding your pet fish to play Mozart on the piano, and then killing your pet fish because he failed in his responsibility. God is not like that; God is just.
Q: In Lam 1:16,21, what is the appropriate role of mourning in society today?
A: Mourning is downplayed in society today, but prominent in the Bible. Outside of great disasters today, many in the church have forgotten the role of mourning in the Bible. After David’s sin with Bathsheba, he mourned when their child was sick and dying in 2 Samuel 12:16-22. Nehemiah mourned over the consequences of the sin of his people in Nehemiah 1:4-11. In the church Paul said the Corinthians should be mourning over the sin of someone in their church in 1 Corinthians 5:2.
Q: In Lam 1:20; 2:10, (KJV) how were the writer’s bowels troubled, and his liver spilled on the ground?
A: This was a literal translation from the Hebrew. These idioms meant the writer’s felt sick to his stomach (NRSV has his stomach churned) and he was heartbroken over Israel’s sin.
Q: In Lam 1:22, how does some sin come before God before other sin, and why?
A: People can heap up sins “up to the limit” in 1 Thessalonians 2:16 Seriousness, visibility to others, effects of the sin, can all be factors in God choosing some sins to judge more quickly or severely than others in this life. James 3:1-2 says not to have many of us become teachers, because teachers will be judged with greater strictness.
Q: Lam 2:1 what does it mean not to “topple from your splendor”?
A: Casting down from heaven to earth means more than just hurting your witness before others. For believers it implies a loss of rewards that they would have had.
Q: In Lam 2:1,2,3,4,6 why do you think God was angry towards Jerusalem, more so than the Babylonians that destroyed her?
A: It was not so much because of wickedness, but rather wicked rebellion. Unlike the Babylonians who did not know God’s law, and never claimed to follow God, the Jews knew well God’s law and claimed to follow it. Actually when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem they did not destroy it, initially. But after Jerusalem rebelled once they had surrendered, then Jerusalem was leveled after a siege of 30 months.
God had “fierce anger” towards Jerusalem in Lamentation 4:11. For those who had much knowledge, much was required. (See 2 Peter 2:21). God gave them the land and the city, and since they were turning their back on God as they did, and trusted in both their idols and God protecting their city, God was going to destroy the city that He gave them.
It is one thing not to follow God. It is another to claim to follow God and then subsequently turn your back on Him.
Q: Lam 2:3 says that God has cut off their strength (horn in Hebrew). To what extent does our strength/success in natural means depend on God?
A: Some atheists make fortunate decision in the stock market, or get lucky as a casino. Christians can gain or lose money in financial investments. God does not promise Christians material success, but rather His power to live well for Him, regardless of our finances. God does not promise us that we will never have rough times; but that God will be there and take us through the rough times.
God wants us to have a “successful” life; but it is by His definition of success, not the world’s.
Q: In Lam 2:5, why is God the enemy of some people, since God has compassion on all in Ps 145:9,16?
A: The answer is found in Psalm 145:20: While God has compassion on all He has made in Psalm 145:9,16, that does not negate that He will destroy the wicked in Psalm 145:20.
God is merciful even to those going to Hell, as He gives them a delay in their judgment and gives them time to repent, as 2 Peter 3:9 says.
Q: In Lam 2:5 what do you think of the statement, “the rebellious Israelites did not have to worry primarily about the Babylonians, they had to worry about God.”?
A: God did not use allow the Babylonians to invade and punish Judah; he actively sent them. If they had been more concerned about obeying God more, and less on world events, they would have repented and turned back to God, and God would have taken care of the Babylonians. Many other nations besides Judah were overrun by the Babylonians too. Being God’s people, when you are in rebellion against Him, can be a costly blessing. See the New International Bible Commentary p.803 for more info.
Q: In Lam 2:6, there were probably many happy occurrences in God’s place of meeting. How bad would things have to be for God to want to destroy it?
A: While scripture does not tell exactly, it gives us some examples we can observe. Idolatry, double-minded loyalty, and just plain apathy were serious enough that God finally said, “I’m done here”. People can sin up to the limit (1 Thessalonians 2:16).
Q: In Lam 2:13, what is a burden here?
A: A burden was a word for a prophet’s vision. It was a “burden” from God that he had to carry to the people. But it was a heavy message.
Q: In Lam 2:22 (KJV), what does “swaddled” mean?
A: Babies being “swaddled” means they were dressed in swaddling clothes. This means the enemy even killed the babies and children.
Q: In Lam 3:1-3, why does God sometimes seem to reverse His actions?
A: God miraculously saved Jerusalem in Hezekiah’s time. Then the people trusted in Jerusalem. God warned them in an entire sermon (Jeremiah 7) not to trust in Jerusalem. They did not change, so God’s favor towards their city did. Likewise, when an individual or a people move towards God, but then stop and refuse to keep on moving, God’s favor towards them might change too.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1217 for more info.
Q: In Lam 3:4,16, why did the writer say God made his skin old and broke his bones and teeth?
A: If Jeremiah was the author of this book, after the fall of Jerusalem he would have been over 90 years old.
Q: In Lam 3:15,19, what is wormwood?
A: A very bitter-tasting drink was made from wormwood. Drinking it would rid the body of intestinal worms and other parasites. Sometimes it was fermented, and the resulting alcoholic drink is called absinthe. Absinthe is one of the few alcoholic drinks whose import is prohibited in the United States. It is banned because repeated drinking causes insanity. Wormwood is also mentioned in Revelation 8:11 as the name of a fallen star.
Q: In Lam 3:22, Ps 145:9-10, and 2 Cor 1:4-7, how is God compassionate, since He did not pity the people, as Lam 2:2,17 says?
A: God has both love and wrath, as the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 28 shows. In addition to having compassion on all creation, and having compassion on the righteous, God also has great compassion on the wicked who repent and turn to Him. See When Critics Ask p.281 for more info.
Q: Since Lam 3:31 says the Lord will not cast off forever, so will all eventually go to Heaven, as the heresy of universalism teaches?
A: No. God does not cast off His own people forever, but that does not mean He does not send others to the Lake of Fire forever. Any who would use this verse to try to prove the falsehood of universalism, should at least be honest and state they think that John (and/or Jesus) is wrong in Revelation 20:10.
Q: In Lam 3:38, does anything happen that is not decreed of the Lord, or do some things not enter God’s mind as Jer 5:29; 8:19; 12:8; 32:35 says?
A: The word “decreed” is understood in two ways.
1. Everything that happens is decreed in the sense that God permits it to happen. According to Charles Hodge, “God never decrees to do, or to cause others to do what He forbids. He may, as we see He does, decree to permit what He forbids. He permits men to sin, although sin is forbidden.” (The History and Theology of Calvinism p.230). In Chosen by God p.97 R.C. Sproul writes, “[God] ordained the Fall in the sense that he chose to allow it, but not in the sense that he chose to coerce it.”
2. Some things are not desired by God, and they are not decreed in the sense that God forces them to happen, or that God is the cause of their happening.
Q: In Lam 3:38, how does both good and evil come from the mouth of God?
A: Lamentations 3:39, as well as Jeremiah 18:11, show that “evil” meaning physical harm, is intended here, not moral evil. The entire book of Lamentations makes the point that God is not evil or unjust to bring on these punishments, but this was justly deserved, and warned about in Deuteronomy 28.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.312-313 and Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.219-220 for more extensive discussions of essentially the same answer.
Q: In Lam 3:40, how does a person search and try their ways?
A: Examining ourselves is an important thing, as 1 Corinthians 13:5 shows. One way is by asking these questions.
1. If you were to die and stand before God right now, would He would let you into His Heaven?
2. How is your relationship with God, and your devotional time in fellowship with Him?
3. Are you spending time taking delight in God’s word?
4. What are you doing that is not what God wants you to do?
5. What are you not doing, and not teaching others, that God wants you to do?
6. When is your attitude and desires not Christlike? Are you growing in Christlikeness?
7. What barriers do you see in your spiritual growth, and how can those be removed?
8. Where are you not giving God your best, but just a token effort? Like tithing you mint and spices, are you overdoing some minor things, and neglecting greater things.
Q: In Lam 3:43; 2:1, what does it mean for God to cover someone with anger?
A: The NRSV translates this as “You have wrapped yourself with anger”. The NASB has the same meaning, but it shows the word “thyself/yourself” as italicized, so it could be either way. The NET Bible says, “shrouded yourself” but a footnote says it could be either “covered yourself [God]” or “covered us”. Either way all the means for a wicked person to access God are covered with anger, or God has covered them with anger roughly analogous to a human body’s antigens attaching to a foreign body so the white blood cells know to destroy it.
Q: In Lam 3:55, how did the writer call to God out of a dungeon or pit?
A: The Hebrew here literally is “lowest pit”, and the Septuagint translated this as “dungeon”. Jeremiah, and God’s faithful people, were acknowledging they were calling to God from the worst circumstances possible. They also acknowledged that their situation was just, because of their sins.
In addition, King Zedekiah was blinded and put in a dungeon in Babylon the rest of his life in Jeremiah 52:11 and 2 Kings 25:7. King Jehoiachin was taken prisoner in 2 Kings 24:12. Earlier, King Manasseh was imprisoned in Babylon in 2 Chronicles 33:11.
Q: In Lam 3:55, how do some believers feel like they are in a pit today?
A: Genuine believers can feel like they are in a dungeon for a few reasons.
1. Paul at one time felt like he despaired on life itself in 2 Corinthians 1:8.
2. Believers can feel down when God disciplines them for their own sins (Hebrews 12:5-11).
3. Believers can feel down when their people are in a bad situation due to the people’s disobedience, even though the believer herself was obedient (Nehemiah 1:3-5).
4. God can allow calamity to happen to obedient believers, without their understanding why as happened to Job and David before reigning as king. It could be for a history-changing purposes that someone like Joseph could not see yet. Believers can still glorify God by their perseverance through this though.
5. In the previous three situations, sometimes a believer mistakenly feels that God has abandoned them, or their people, and God will never draw near to them again.
Q: In Lam 3:64-66, Ps 140:10,11; 141:10, and 143:12, is it sometimes OK to ask for revenge?
A: Three points to consider in the answer.
1. This was a prayer to God, and like the imprecatory Psalms, this shows that we should pray everything to God.
2. Even in Old Testament times, they were supposed to leave the vengeance to God.
3. In New Testament times, Jesus gave us a higher standard on many things. We are to love our enemies, and pray for (not against) those who persecute us.
Q: In Lam 4:3, why are jackals and ostriches contrasted here?
A: Many animals, from birds, to most mammals, even the ugly-looking jackal, take care of their young. Ostriches are known not to be very smart in that regard. They lay their eggs and then abandon them, occasionally even accidentally stepping on them. Many people take care of their kids, their spouses, family, friends, and even strangers. However, some people don’t take care of anyone but themselves. Some people are evil in that they have no hesitation to lie, cheat, and steal for themselves and their family. But others are different. They are evil in that they will lie, cheat, and steal and take care of only themselves. “Ostrich” describes their love and concern for others.
You can be hurt being around these people, even when trying to help them. They don’t think of gratitude, but only how that can get an advantage off of you. These people all might almost seem completely hopeless as far as the gospel goes, - but they are not. The Holy Spirit can pierce even a totally selfish and wicked heart, or more appropriately in this case, give them a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone, as Ezekiel 11:19 says.
Q: In Lam 4:6, how was their punishment greater than that of Sodom?
A: In one sense, the sins of Sodom were worse (Jude 5-7; 2 Peter 2:6), and while their destruction was total (Luke 17:28-29), the end was sudden with little suffering. On the other hand, the Israelites had much more knowledge than the people of Sodom had. The suffering of the Israelites on earth was much greater, though their destruction was not complete.
Q: In Lam 4:7, what does “her Nazirites were purer than snow” mean?
A: There is some text uncertainty here. The Hebrew text says “Nazirites”, but the Greek Septuagint says “princes”.
Nazirites were both men and women who made a special vow to God. The view was usually only for a period of time, though Samson was a Nazirite from birth.
Q: In Lam 4:10 (KJV), what does the word “sodden” mean?
A: The Hebrew word (as well as “sodden”) means to boil or cook. The NASB and Green’s Literal translation say, “boil”, and the NIV 1985, NET, and NKJV say, “cooked”.
Q: In Lam 4:10, Jer 19:9, and Ezek 5:10, did mothers really eat their own children?
A: Unfortunately, yes. The writer was recording just how severe the famine was when the Babylonians besieged Jerusalem. Of course this says nothing to condone their wicked behavior.
Q: In Lam 4:13, how can even prophets have sins?
A: There are three kinds of prophets, and at least three ways prophets have sinned. Probably all of them occurred.
False prophets were telling the people to trust in idols, either pagan gods, or the city of Jerusalem itself that God had once miraculously preserver. Just a little before Lamentations was written Jeremiah 28 spoke about the false prophet Hananiah. Jeremiah 23:9-18,33-39 speaks of other false prophets who were lying.
Silent watchmen, who should have been prophets, but they said nothing. Ezekiel 3:17-21; 33:1-9 says that a watchman who fails to warn someone who is wicked or turning away from the Lord, will be accountable for their blood.
Even true prophets can be discouraged and stop talking to others. Jeremiah at one point was deeply discouraged in Jeremiah 20:7-18.
Q: In Lam 4:13-16, when things go bad, why do some people ask “Why?” less than others?
A: Some people don’t think their actions usually have consequences, and some people don’t think that any consequences every have reasons. They think life is meaningless and absurd, and wonder why they always seem to be victims.
A second reason is they already have a guess as to why, but they don’t want to be honest with themselves. It is hard to find the answer when you are looking to avoid it.
Q: In Lam 4:16, why did God no longer regard them?
A: This can mean both that God no longer respects them, and the God no longer watches over them (as the NIV 1985 has). The people did not respect God’s priests or elders, so God is not respecting them either. When they are out of God care and favor, why should they expect God to watch over them? If a country today has experienced God’s favor in the past, and they no longer respect God, they should not take for granted God favor in the future.
Q: In Lam 4:17, 1:19, what is wrong with foreign alliances?
A: There are a number of things wrong.
1) God said not to trust in other nations in Jeremiah 37:6-10 and Ezekiel 26:6-7.
2) It often involves compromise. For the Assyrians it mean the king bowing to the Assyrian gods.
For Solomon it meant marrying foreign prince4sses, who turned his heart from the Lord.
3) It demonstrates lack of faith in God. They thought it essential because they were not trusting in God to protect them.
4) Sometimes no hope is better than a false hope, that let’s you down when you risk to put your trust in it.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1220 for more info.
Q: In Lam 4:21, why was Edom told to rejoice and be glad?
A: This is sarcasm here. They were rejoicing anyway over Jerusalem’s destruction, and the writer told them to go ahead and rejoice for now, because soon it would be their turn to be destroyed, just like the city they were rejoicing over.
Q: In Lam 5, without downplaying the situation, and without being a nag, how do you encourage somebody to mourn and repent?
A: You can’t argue someone into repentance. It is God who gives them a spirit of repentance but there are a few things you can do. First, pray for them that they repent. Second, talk with them, to help them get a clear picture of how things are. Rebuke them as needed, comfort them as needed, and encourage them as needed. Try to understand how things look from their point of view, for the purpose of helping them shift to see things from God’s point of view.
Q: In Lam 5:2, how can an inheritance be turned over to foreigners in a religious sense?
A: In this time, the Temple was destroyed and the land had high places to pagan gods, since pagans were living there. However, the idol high places were not originally put there by the pagans, but by the Israelites themselves, who were worshipping idols, either instead of God, or in addition to God
When God’s people worship or trust in something instead of God, eventually it can find its way into their life, family, churches, and schools. Some of the earliest American universities, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, were founded in part to train pastors. Harvard had a Unitarian president, and other Unitarian faculty. Yale, and then much later Princeton turned away from the Bible teaching later.
Church organizations, can have a small flaw, that uncorrected can cause great problems. Even Mission organizations, that were once bright stars in translating the Bible, can add non-Bible believing Christians to their board and then start making low fidelity translations to try to appease Muslims.
Q: In Lam 5:2-5, how should godly discipline work?
A: When a person is under discipline from God, many times their reaction is “I am so sorry that this is happening to me” or “I am so sorry for these consequences”. But our attitude should be changed to be “I am so sorry for what I did”, or “I am so sorry for displeasing God.” Instead of looking at the consequences and saying, “why me”, i.e., why did this happen to me, we should look at the situations “why me”, why did I sin and do (or fail to do) those things.
When we bear up under God’s discipline, and praise Him anyway despite the circumstances, God can bless us through the situation. God promises to work all things, even discipline, together for those who love Him in Romans 8:28. The things we have lost due to God’s discipline we might get back, or we might never get back. But even in the latter case, God can “restore the years the locusts have eaten in Joel 2:25.
Q: In Lam 5:7, how do people bear their father’s sins?
A: People are not guilty for their father’s sins, as Ezekiel 18 and Deuteronomy 24:16 show. However, people often bear the consequences of others’ sins. In addition, if they are brought up to sin in the same way, and voluntarily share in the same sins as their parents, then they share the guilt too.
Q: In Lam 5:8, how did slaves rule over Israel and Judah now?
A: The people of Judah went from being ruled by a king to being ruled by lowly Babylonian governors. Their titles were “slaves of the king” according to The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.6 p.731.
Q: In Lam 5:11-13, how was Nebuchadnezzar brutal here?
A: Nebuchadnezzar killed did not torture those he though most guilty in Jeremiah 52:10-11, 24-27, so it is probably dishonoring the corpses of those he executed, as The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.6 p.731 says. Nebuchadnezzar did this to break people’s trust in their former nobles, culture, and past. Today some are not so much trying to prove the Bible wrong as to ridicule it, so that people would be ashamed to say they are a Christian.
Q: In Lam 5:13, why would young men grind the millstones and boys carry loads of wood?
A: This was probably not due to Babylonian cruelty but rather practicality. Since most of the animals were probably eaten during the long siege, they used Jewish men to do the work that animals would usually do. Metaphorically, when you get rid of the things and people that were helping you, you have to do things yourself you might not really be well-suited for.
Q: In Lam 5:21, should someone ask God to turn to them?
A: Both the Masoretic text and Septuagint say, “turn/return us to you”. The meaning is not to ask God to change and come back to us, but rather to ask God to turn them back to God. Even repentance is by God’s grace as Jeremiah 31:18,33-34 and Ezekiel 36:26-27 show in God giving people a new heart. As Jesus says in John 6:44, no one comes to Jesus unless the Father draws Him. Pray for others, that God would draw them to be saved.
Q: In Lam, what are some of the earliest manuscripts that still exist today?
A: Dead Sea scrolls: (c.1 B.C.) 4 separate fragments according to the Dead Sea Scrolls Today p.30 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438. A photograph of the Dead Sea scroll 4QLam is in the New International Bible Dictionary p.580. One fragment in cave 3 (3Q3) contains Lamentations 1:10-12; 3:53-62 according to Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea Scrolls p.22.
Overall, preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls are the following 60 verses out of 154 total verses of Lamentations (39.0 %)
Lam 1:1-18; 2:5; 3:53-62; 4:5-8,11-22; 5:1-13,16-17. See The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls for more details.
Christian Bible manuscripts, from about 350 A.D., contain the Old Testament, including Lamentations.
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) and Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.) have each preserved all of Lamentations.
Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.) has preserved all of Lamentations. It starts on the same page that Jeremiah ends. It ends the page before Joel starts.
Q: Which early writers referred to Lamentations?
A: Pre-Nicene writers who referenced or alluded to verses in Lamentations are:
X* Melito/Meleto of Sardis (170-177/180 A.D.) did not list Lamentation, Nehemiah, or Esther in his canon. However, some placed Lamentations as a part of Jeremiah, and Nehemiah as a part of Ezra. Fragment 4 From the Book of Extracts p.759.
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) quotes 7 out of 21 Greek words of Lamentations 4:20 in the Septuagint in Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.10.3 p.423.
Clement of Alexandria (193-217/220 A.D.) quotes Lamentations 1:1,2 as by Jeremiah. The Instructor book 1 ch.9 p.230
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) quotes the first half of Lamentations 4:7 “her Nazirites were whiter than snow;” Five Books Against Marcion book 4 ch.8 p.354
Origen (225-254 A.D.) “is not unknown in the older Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations of Jeremiah, it is said,” and quotes Lamentations 3:27-28,30. Origen Against Celsus book 7 ch.25 p.621
Origen (225-254 A.D.) “which is in the opened heaven. Hence Jeremiah says,” and quotes Lamentations 4:20. Commentary on John book 2 no.4 p.326
Methodius of Olympus and Patara (270-311/312 A.D.) quotes Lamentations 3:27 as by Jeremiah. Banquet of the Ten Virgins Discourse 5 ch.3 p.326
After Nicea
Eusebius of Caesarea (318-339/340 A.D.)
Aphrahat (337-345 A.D.)
Athanasius (367,325-373 A.D.) lists Lamentations with the rest of the books of the Old Testament in Paschal Letter 39 ch.4 p.552.
Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (350-370 A.D.)
Ephraim the Syrian (350-378 A.D.)
Basil of Cappadocia (357-378/379 A.D.) alludes to Lamentations
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-385 A.D.)
Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.)
Gregory Nazianzen (330-391 A.D.)
Gregory Nyssa (c.356-397 A.D.)
Didymus the Blind (398 A.D.) quotes Lamentations 1:1 as scripture. Commentary on Zechariah 12 p.289
Syriac Liber Graduum (350-400 A.D.) quotes from Lamentations as scripture.
Epiphanius of Salamis (360-403 A.D.) put Lamentations at the end of his list of canonical books.
Rufinus (374-406 A.D.) translating Origen (225-254 A.D.) quotes Lamentations 3:25 as “in the Lamentations of Jeremiah” de Principiis book 2 ch.5.4 p.281
Orosius of Braga (414-418 A.D.) refers to Lamentations as scripture
Jerome (393-420 A.D.)
Augustine of Hippo (338-430 A.D.) quotes Lamentations 4:20 as by Jeremiah in The City of God book 18 ch.33 p.379
The Semi-Pelagian John Cassian (419-430 A.D.) quotes from Lamentations.
Theodoret of Cyrus (423-458 A.D.)
Among spurious works
Pseudo-Cyprian of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) quotes Lamentations 2:18; 3:31,40 from the Septuagint. Exhortation to Repentance p.593
Among heretics
Marinus the Bardasene (c.300 A.D.) refers to Lamentation 3:34 as by Jeremiah. Adamantius' Dialogue on the True Faith Fifth part section 21 p.176
Q: In Lam, what are some of the translation differences between the Hebrew and Greek Septuagint?
A: The Expositor's Bible Commentary vol.6 p.699 says, “The MT [Masoretic text] is well preserved, and little help for possible corrections can be obtained from the LXX [Septuagint] or Syriac. These seem to be based on the present MT. Indeed, variants in the LXX apparently are due mainly to corruption of the Greek text rather than to a difference in the Hebrew.” Here are a few of the differences. The following is the Masoretic text wording, followed by variations. This example focuses on chapter 1, and a few places in other chapters.
Before Lam 1:1, in the Septuagint, is the following: “And it came to pass, after Israel was taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, Jeremias sat weeping, and lamented this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said. In the Septuagint the title of the book is “The Lamentations of Jeremiah”
Before each verse in the Septuagint is the Hebrew letter. Since the Hebrew acrostic structure would be lost in the Greek, apparently they felt it good to put the Hebrew letter to show the structure.
Lam 1:3 “between the straits” vs. “between her oppressors”
Lam 1:4 “roads” vs. “ways”
Lam 1:4 “in mourning” vs. “mourn”
Lam 1:4 “gates are deserted” vs. “gates are ruined”
Lam 1:4 “virgins are afflicted” (Masoretic) vs. “virgins (parthenoi) are led captive / dragged away” (Septuagint and Old Latin)
Lam 1:4 “she is in bitterness” vs. “she is in bitterness in herself”
Lam 1:5 “have prospered” vs. “at ease”
Lam 1:6 “splendor has departed” vs. “beauty has been taken away”
Lam 1:7 “Jerusalem remembers” vs. “Jerusalem remembered the days of her affliction, and her rejection”
Lam 1:7 “foe” vs. “oppressor”
Lam 1:7 “her annihilations” (Masoretic) vs. “her habitation” (Septuagint) vs. “her Sabbaths” (Authorized version) vs. “her captivity” (Alexandrine text)
Lam 1:8 “vile” vs. “been moved/removed” vs. “come into great tribulation”
Lam 1:8 “ones knowing her despised her” vs. “all that used to honour her have afflicted her”
Lam 1:8 “nakedness” vs. “shame”
Lam 1:9 “in her skirts” vs. “before her feet”
Lam 1:9 “gone down astoundingly” vs. “lowered her (plural) tone”
Lam 1:9 “Look/Behold O Lord, on my affliction” (Masoretic, Septuagint) vs. “Look/Behold O Lord, on her affliction” (Old Latin, Bohairic Coptic)
Lam 1:11 “I have become vile” vs. “she is become dishonoured”
Lam 1:12 “nothing to you, all you who pass by? Behold, and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow which is done to me with which” vs. “All yet that pass by the way, turn, and see if there is sorrow like to my sorrow, which has happened”
Lam 1:13 “all the days faint” vs. “all the day”.
Lam 1:14 “The yoke of my transgressions is bound by His hand; they intertwine,” (Masoretic, Targums) vs. “He has watched over my sins, they are twined about my hands” (some Hebrew, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate)
Lam 1:14 “He caused my strength” vs. “my strength”
Lam 1:15 “trampled” vs. “cut off”
Lam 1:16 “My eye, my eye” (most Masoretic) vs. “Mine eye” (a few Hebrew, Septuagint, Syriac, Targum, Vulgate)
Lam 1:16 “is a comforter reviving my soul” vs. “he that should comfort me, that should restore my soul”
Lam 1:16 “are desolate the enemy prevails” vs. “have been destroyed because the enemy has prevailed.”
Lam 1:17 “hands” vs. “hand”
Lam 1:17 “as an impure thing among them” vs. “as a removed woman.”
Lam 1:18 “rebelled against His mouth” vs. “provoked His mouth”
Lam 1:19 “expired in the city” vs. “failed in the city”
Lam 1:20 “bereaves” vs. “has bereaved”
Lam 1:21 “They hear that” vs. “Here, I pray you”
Lam 1:21 “evil” vs. “afflictions”
Lam 1:22 “and do to them as You have done to me for all my transgressions” vs. “and strip them, as they have made a gleaning for all my sins”
Lam 2:6 “as/like a garden” (Masoretic) vs. “as/like a vine” (Septuagint)
Lam 2:13 “What can I say for you?” (Masoretic) vs. “What can I compare to you?” (Septuagint, Vulgate)
Lam 3:19 “Remember” (Masoretic) vs. “I remembered” (Septuagint)
Lam 3:22 “The kindness of Jehovah that we are not destroyed, for His mercies never fail/cease” (Masoretic) vs. “ the mercies of the Lord, that he has not failed me, because his compassions are not exhausted. Pity us, O Lord, early every month: for we are not brought to an end, because his compassions are not exhausted.” (Septuagint, one Hebrews, the Targum)
Lam 3:22 “Lord, we are not cut off” (Masoretic) vs. “Lord’s mercies never cease/fail” (Syriac, Targum)
Lam 3:27 “in his youth” (Masoretic, some Septuagint) vs. “from his youth” (numerous Hebrew, some Septuagint, Old Latin, Vulgate)
Lam 3:34 “prisoners in the land” (Masoretic) vs. “prisoners of the earth” (Septuagint) vs. “captives bound of earth” (Marinus the Bardasene (c.300 A.D.) in Adamantius' Dialogue on the True Faith Fifth part section 21 p.176)
Lam 3:53 “silenced my life” (Masoretic) vs. “put to death” (Septuagint)
Lam 3:55 “lowest pit” (Masoretic) vs. “dungeon” (Septuagint)
Lam 3:56 “cry for help” (Masoretic) vs. “to my relief/salvation” (Septuagint, Symmachus) vs. absent (Vulgate)
Lam 4:7 “her princes” vs. “her Nazirites” (Septuagint)
Lam 4:16 “elders” (Masoretic and Alexandrine text) vs. “prophets” (Septuagint from Brenton’s Septuagint)
Lam 5:5 “sword on our necks” (Masoretic, some Septuagint) vs. “ sword of the wilderness” (some Septuagint) vs. “with a yoke/burden on our necks” (Symmachus)
Lam 5:13 “young men toil at the millstones” (Masoretic) vs. “The chosen men lifted up the voice in weeping” (Septuagint)
Bibliography for this question: the Hebrew translation is from Jay P. Green’s Literal Translation and the Septuagint rendering is from Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translation of The Septuagint : Greek and English. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary and the footnotes in the NASB, NIV 1985, NKJV, and NRSV Bibles also were used.
Bible Query from Daniel
Q: In Dan, when was this book written?
A: Daniel was most likely written down shortly after the events occurred, in the 6th century B.C., according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1324. Many Jewish youths were taken to Babylon in 605 B.C, and some commentators guess that Daniel was about 16 years old. This would make Daniel about 85 years old when the Persians captured Babylon.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.596 claims it could have been written as late as 165 B.C. However, the Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 11.8.5 (c.93-94 A.D.) records that when Alexander the Great approached Jerusalem (c.333 B.C.), the High Priest Jaddua met him and showed Alexander part of the book of Daniel where the Greeks would overcome the Persians. Alexander apparently was impressed, and he left the Jews alone.
Origen (225-254 A.D.) says that when Alexander of Macedon came to Jerusalem, the Jewish high priest, clothed in his sacred robe met him. Alexander bowed before him, saying that he had seen someone with the same robe in his dream, announcing that he was to be the subjugator of all of Asia. Origen Against Celsus book 4 ch.50 p.565
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367 for more info on Alexander, When Critics Ask p.291, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.282-284 for more info in general on the date of the book of Daniel.
Q: Was Dan written down in the second century (after Alexander’s conquest), because of the Greek words found in Daniel?
A: No. While the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.597 claims “other subtle facets of the language used bespeak the Greek period rather than the time of Exile”, there are only three Greek words in Daniel, which is less than the seven Persian words found. Here is more on these two points.
Only three Greek words are in Daniel (Daniel 3:5,10,15), and all three of them refer to musical instruments. However, this does not show second century authorship, as Assyrian inscriptions say Greek captives were in Mesopotamia in the 8th century B.C. In addition, in the 7th century, the Greek Alcaeus of Lebos mentions that his brother was serving in the Babylonian army. Likewise, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 1 p.247 also says, “There is little doubt that the names of the instruments in Daniel were Old Persian in character, and were assimilated by the Greeks into their own culture with some orthographic modifications. Consequently this particular argument is no longer important for the literary criticism of Daniel.”
6 1/2 Persian words are in Daniel referring to administration (Daniel 6:1-4,6-7), and fell into disuse within a century after the Persian Empire fell to Alexander. As 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 says, “…Daniel’s correct use of these words simply cannot be explained if the author were an unknown second -century writer unfamiliar with the details of Persian government three hundred years before his time.” (The word satrap is counted as a half, because it was actually a Medean word, which later was adopted by the Persians too.
Q: Was Dan written after Sirach, since Sirach 47-49 contains a fairly exhaustive list of the Old Testament, omitting Daniel, as Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.623 says?
1. In the Apocrypha, 1 Maccabees 2:49-60 mentions Daniel and the three young men in such a way to imply that the book was already written by then. Otherwise, how would the readers of 1 Maccabees be expected to understand Daniel and the three young men? See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367 for more info on this.
3. Babylonian excavations show that the details of Daniel are correct. M. Lenormant says, “The more the knowledge of cuneiform texts advances, the more is felt the necessity to revise (correct) the too hasty condemnation of the book of Daniel by the German exegetical school” (La Magie p.14) (quoted from 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.367)
4. Also the reference in Josephus already mentioned in the previous question.
Q: In Dan, what are the similarities with the rest of the Bible?
A: Daniel can be considered the Revelation of the Old Testament. Here are the similarities with other books of the Bible.
|
Concept or phrase |
Daniel |
Rest of the Bible |
|
A beast with ten horns |
Dan 7:4-7 |
Rev 13:1-3; 17:3 |
|
Wheels of fire on the heavenly throne |
Dan 7:9 |
Ezek 1:15-28; 10:1-22 |
|
Ten thousand times ten thousand and the river of fire in heaven |
Dan 7:10 |
Rev 19:14. See also Mt 16:27; Jude 14 |
|
Jesus comes with the clouds; every eye shall see Jesus return |
Dan 7:13 |
Rev 1:7; Mt 24:30; Mk 13:26; Lk 21:27; Acts 1:11 |
|
Dragon casting down stars |
Dan 8:10 |
Rev 12:4 |
|
Gabriel |
Dan 8:16; 9:21 |
Lk 1:19 |
|
Corporate prayer of confession |
Dan 9:4-19 |
Nehemiah 1:5-11 |
|
A flood, or river of water |
Dan 9:26 |
Rev 12:15; Nahum 1:8 |
|
3 ½ years |
Dan 9:26-27; 12:7,11 |
Rev 11:1-3; 12:6; 13:5 |
|
Abomination that causes desolation |
Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11 |
Mt 24:15 |
|
Michael |
Dan 12:1 |
Rev 12:7; Jude 9 |
|
The Book of Life |
Dan 12:1 |
Rev 3:5; 13:8; 17:8; 20:12,15; 21:27; Lk 10:20; Ex 2:32-33; Ps 69:28 |
|
Coming to life again |
Dan 12:2 |
Rev 20:4-5 |
|
Do / Do not seal up words of a prophecy |
Dan 12:4 |
Rev 22:10 |
|
Parts of God’s Revelation sealed up |
Dan 12:9 |
Rev 10:4; Isa 29:11-12 |
|
Good and evil both increase |
Dan 12:10 |
Rev 22:11 |
Q: In Dan, what is an outline of this book?
A: Scholars differ on the best way to outline the book of Daniel. There are two overall outlines to the book of Daniel. On one hand, chapters 1-6 are Daniel’s life (and Nebuchadnezzar’s visions) written in third person, and chapters 7-12 are Daniels visions, written in first person. The other way to outline the book is chapter 1 is Daniel’s early history in Hebrew, chapters 2-7 are written in Aramaic as Daniel’s life prophesying the future of the Gentiles, and chapters 8-12 are written in Hebrew as the prophetic history of Israel. If we have puns (plays on words), could God have “plays on outlines”? Anyway, Here is a simple outline of the book of Daniel.
Dan 1-6 Daniel’s Life
Dan 1 Daniel’s Situation
Dan 2 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of the Statue
Dan 3 Nebuchadnezzar Makes his Own Statue
Dan 4 Nebuchadnezzar’s Dream of His Insanity
Dan 5 Belshazzar’s Feast and Writing on the Wall
Dan 6 Darius’ 30-Day Decree
Dan 7-12 Daniel’s Visions
Dan 7 Vision of the Four Beasts
Dan 8 Vision of the Ram and the Goat
Dan 9 Vision of the Seventy Sevens
Dan 10-12 Vision of the Greeks
Q: In Dan 1:1, what do we know about Nebuchadnezzar II apart from the Bible?
A: His name is written in English both as Nebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzar, but the latter is more similar to the way the Babylonians pronounced it. It means Nabo [a god] protect my frontier.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica (1972) Nebuchadnezzar II was the oldest son of Nabopolassar. He defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish in 605 B.C. When Nabopolassar died, Nebuchadnezzar II returned to Babylon and ruled from 605 B.C. to August/September 562 B.C. The Babylonian Chronicle gives details of his fighting Egypt, besieging Tyre, and defeating Judah in 597 B.C. He fought Elam in 596 B.C. and put down a revolt in 595 B.C.. After that the Babylonian Chronicle is missing here.
The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.696 has a photograph of a Babylonian decree listing the events from the last year of Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar II’s 11th year. It mentions the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem.
Nebuchadnezzar built the hanging gardens of Babylon, which have been called one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. He built them for his wife Amytis, the daughter of king Astyages (Medean Ištumegu) of Media.
Q: In Dan 1:1, did Nebuchadnezzar invade Judah in the third year of Jehoiakim, or in the fourth year as Jer 46:2 says?
A: Both, and this was only one invasion, because the dating system used in Judah in the fifth century B.C. was different than the one used in Babylon.
There is an interesting side note here. As 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.192 points out, no Jew writing centuries later would use a Babylonian calendar system that gave a year different from what Jeremiah wrote. Rather than being an error in the book of Daniel, this confirms that Daniel was written in the fifth century rather than later.
When Critics Ask p.291-293 explains the details of the two calendar systems. The “Nisan” calendar system Jeremiah (and the Assyrians) used started in Nisan (April). Jehoiakim because of Judah a few days after the new year, so the first [full] year would start the first day of the following year. Daniel used the “Tishri” calendar where the new year started in “Tishri” around October. The first [full] year of Jehoiakim’s reign started on that the first day of Tishri. The Babylonian invasion took place in the summer of 605 B.C. Also, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1328-1329 adds that the Babylonians did counted the part of a new king’s reign prior to the start of the new year as his first year, while the Jews did not.
See Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.284-285 for more info.
Q: In Dan 1:2, where is Shinar?
A: Shinar is a synonym for the land of Babylonia. The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.599 claims this is anachronistic. However, literary writers often used synonyms for the same word, and Daniel is doing so here.
Q: In Dan 1:3-6, these four were not the only youths taken from Judah for the king’s service. Why do you think other youths are not mentioned anywhere in Daniel?
A: Perhaps the other youths thought they had no choice and ate the food offered to them. Once the made that compromise, then they might make other compromises. But remember, you always have a choice.
Q: In Dan 1:7, how do you pronounce Belteshazzar?
A: The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.216 pronounces it as bel-te-SHAZ-er. The first and third syllables have short vowels, the “te” has a long e with a dot over it, and the “er” has an e with a tilde over it.
Q: In Dan 1:6, what did these names mean?
A: Here is what they meant according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1330.
Belteshazzar was the Akkadian word Belet-sar-usur, which meant, “Lady, protect the King”.
Shadrach was probably the Akkadian verb Saduraku, which meant “I am fearful [of a god]”. Alternately, it might come from Aku, the Sumerian moon god.
Meshach possibly was the Akkadian verb mesaku, which meant “I despised, contemptible, humbled [before my god]”.
Abednego meant servant of [the god named] Nebo. Nebo was the Babylonian god of writing and vegetables. He was the son of Bel.
The names seemed to serve the purpose of reminding them that they were a conquered people, and exalting the Babylonian gods.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.600 gives totally different meanings. It says Belteshazzar means “Bel protect his life”, Shadrach means “Aku commands”, Meshach was a word of doubtful meaning. He agrees that Abednego means “servant of Nebo”.
Q: In Dan 1:7; 4:8, why did Daniel and the three other Jewish teenagers consent to have their names changed to be names that included pagan gods?
A: They probably did not have any choice in the matter. The Bible does not have a prohibition on someone having a name with a pagan idol, though a believer would normally not want to do so.
Q: In Dan 1:8-20, Daniel and the three other youths could have said, “since we have no choice” we must eat the food. On the other hand, they could have said, “we will die rather than eat that food.” Do you think Daniel’s course of action was best?
A: Daniel’s course required trusting in God. He believed that God would keep them healthy, even though they were not eating the meat, or drinking the wine (which can reduce the ill-effects of bacteria-infested food).
Q: In Dan 1:9 (KJV), what is “tender love” here?
A: The NKJV translates this as “favor and goodwill”. The NIV 1985 translates this as “favor and sympathy”. The NRSV and NASB translate this as “favor and compassion”. The NET Bible says “sympathetic”.
Q: In Dan 1:10, why did Daniel and his friends not eat this food?
A: Since these Jewish youths took the Old Testament dietary commands seriously, there were at least three reasons.
1. Some of this undoubtedly included pork, shellfish, perhaps camel meat, and other animals they were prohibited to eat. In addition, even the clean animals probably were cooked in the same pots as the unclean ones.
2. For even the clean animals, the Jews could not eat the blood. We do not hear of ancient cultures draining the blood before cooking the animals.
3. The meat might have been first sacrificed to idols, and perhaps they did not want to eat that meat.
4. There were other laws, such as one could not cook a young animal in its mother’s milk.
John Chrysostom (before 407 A.D.) eloquently discusses their plight in his treatise None Can Harm Him Who Dot Not Injure Himself ch.15 (NPNF vol.9) p.281-282.
Q: In Dan 1:10-15, why did these Jewish boys look healthier than the others?
A: While scripture does not say, it could be a combination of at least five reasons.
1. It might be a miracle, outside of nature.
2. Perhaps the Jewish youths’ simple food, with no pork or delicacies, did not have any parasites and the other food did.
3. There were no preservatives, refrigerators, and few spices back then. (Food poisoning was probably more common then.)
4. Perhaps many in the royal court drank wine excessively. Besides being bad for your liver, I have been told that extensive drinking can make a light-complected person have a redder-appearing face. This is because small capillaries burst and give the reddish appearance.
5. A very simple possibility is that cutting down on food that is very fatty and sweet can reduce the pimples on a person’s face.
Q: In Dan 1:11 (KJV), who was “Melzar”?
A: This might have been a proper name. On the other hand, this might have been a title, such as “chief official” (NIV 1985), “steward” (NKJV and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1099-1100), “overseer” (NASB), or “guard” (NRSV).
Q: In Dan 1:12 (KJV), what is “pulse” to eat?
A: This word means vegetables, or non-meat food.
Q: In Dan 1:12, what kind of vegetables did they eat?
A: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1331 says this Hebrew word zeroa’ was rather generic and included grains and any food that was sown too.
Q: In Dan 1:12-16, was Daniel a vegetarian and not a wine drinker the rest of his life?
A: No, because in Dan 10:2-4 when Daniel mourned for three full weeks, he changed his diet and did not take meat or wine. This indicates he did have those normally.
Q: In Dan 1:20, were magicians and astrologers prominent in ancient Babylon?
A: Yes. In particular, western astrology traces its origins back to Babylon. Another, later source of astrology was Pergamum, in Asia Minor, but that was 400 years later, and that too came from Babylon.
Q: In Dan 1:21, did Daniel continue until the first year of Cyrus, or the third year as Dan 10:1 says?
A: Both, since Daniel continued even beyond the third year. Daniel 1:21 stresses that Daniel served as an official not only through the end of the Babylonian empire, but even into the Persian Empire. It does not say Daniel died or retired in the first year of Cyrus. Indeed, Daniel 10:1, perhaps written down slightly later, says even through the third year.
See When Critics Ask p.295 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2, when did this dream occur?
A: In Daniel 1 Daniel was carried off June-August 605 B.C.. On September 7, 605 B.C, King Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father, died, and Nebuchadnezzar became the supreme ruler of Babylon. Daniel 2 was in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.
604 B.C. according to the NIV Study Bible 1985 notes p.1301 and the Evangelical Bible Commentary p.592
603 B.C. according to the New International Bible Commentary p.854 and Walvoord’s Daniel : Key to Prophetic Understanding p.45-46.
Between April 603 B.C. and March 602 B.C. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.7 p.39
About four years after 605 B.C. and the events of Daniel 1 according to the older Lange’s Commentary on Daniel p.66 (published 1901). He believed that Nebuchadnezzar did not become sole ruler until a few years after his father’s death.
Q: In Dan 2:1, why did God communicate directly to Nebuchadnezzar, an ungodly man, in a dream, instead of just speaking to Daniel?
A: A person’s wickedness does nothing to restrict God from communicating with them or using them for His ends.
Q: In Dan 2:2-10; 2:18; 4:7; 5:7,11, who were the Chaldeans here?
A: While the Amorite Babylonian people were called Chaldeans, that is not what is meant here. Within Babylonian culture, the Chaldeans were a class of priests. The Amorites came from the northwest. The Chaldeans did not emerge from the Arabian desert, despite what Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.387 states.
Q: In Dan 2:2-10; 4:7; 5:7,11, does calling the priests Chaldeans show a later authorship, as some the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.601 maintains?
A: No. Gleason Archer has an extensive article in Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.285-286 discussing this.
1. Daniel uses the Hebrew term, Kasdim, not only to refer to priests, but also the Chaldean (Babylonian) people in Daniel 5:30. If using it to refer to priests showed a late authorship, then Daniel 5:30 would show an early authorship.
2. However, using this in two ways shows this was written around Daniel’s time. The Akkadian language, which Babylonians in Daniel’s time spoke, used the same word Kal-du (from the Sumerian Gal-du to refer to both the priests and the nation. A table dated in the 14th year of Shamash-shumukin (668-648 B.C.) uses Gal-du for the priests. Archer says the Babylonians prior to the fall of Assyria used Gas’du for the Chaldean people. After the fall of Assyria, they changed the consonant “s” in many words to the consonant “l”.
3. The Greeks, who knew of the Babylonians long before Daniel was born, called the nation Chaldaioi.
See also When Critics Ask p.293 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:2, how could Daniel be a Babylonian “wise man”, since the wise men were trained in occultic arts?
A: The Jewish youths were trained in the language and literature of the Babylonians. It does not necessarily mean they were trained in religious or occultic arts, and even thought they might have been against their will, there was no evidence they practiced those. Notice in Daniel 2:2 that when Nebuchadnezzar summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers, and astrologers, Daniel was not among them. Only later did Daniel hear about this. See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.194 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:3-7, was King Nebuchadnezzar more unreasonable than other kings to tell the astrologers and fortune tellers they would be executed if they did not interpret his dream?
A: Not necessary. According to Herodotus in History book 14 p.134, when the Scythian king got sick, he asked for three soothsayers to tell which person made him sick by that person swearing falsely by the king’s hearth. If the accused person admitted it, the accused was executed. If the accused person denied it, then six more soothsayers were called, and if they did not pick out the same guy, then the original three soothsayers were bound and thrown on a cart with brushwood which was then set on fire.
This might be a case when a job might pay well, but there are still good reasons not take it. I think I will pass on trying to get a job as a royal soothsayer! Some jobs today, like working for organized crime, are not redeemable and you would not want. But some other jobs might be stressful, and you might get fired, but God wanted you there as a testimony to Him. For example, let’s say you were elected as a politician where you had to choose between being beholden to one of two special interest groups. You could choose not to be beholden to any group, even though when the election came, you would have no campaign funds, get trounced in the election, and have to look for another job. Daniel was in a rather stressful job. But rather than run from that position, Daniel stood where God wanted him to be.
Q: What does Dan 2:4-16 tell us about Nebuchadnezzar’s character?
A: Here are five things.
1. Nebuchadnezzar was capricious. He had these four Jewish youths trained, and after having them trained he was going to kill them along with al the other wise men, for something that no human could naturally do? Nebuchadnezzar was impressed with Daniel and his friends in Daniel 1:18-20, but they were going to be killed with the others in Daniel 2:17!
2. He was severe and harsh. In this part of the world, in Daniel 2:5 when they reduced a house to a pile of rubble, they did this by pulling out the wooden beams until everything collapsed. The family would still be in the house.
3. Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury.
4. Nebuchadnezzar was proud and arrogant.
5. Nebuchadnezzar was surprised that the astrologers answers him that no one could do this in Daniel 2:10-11. He seemed to have no clue as to how his words would make others fell or think. Or perhaps he did not care.
Q: In Dan 2:4 (KJV), what is “Syriack”?
A: This is another name for the “Syriac” or the Aramaic language often spoken in from Palestine to Babylonia.
Q: Why was Dan 2:4b-7:28 written in Aramaic, while Dan 8:1-12:13 were written in Hebrew?
A: Daniel or his one or more secretaries could write in whatever language they deemed best; there is nothing more sacred about Hebrew. We do not know why the human authors chose to write it this way. One reason might be that the first chapters related to nations in the Mideast, while the last chapters relate specifically to the Jews.
Ezra 4:8-6:18 and Ezra 7:12-26 also were written in Aramaic. Also note that in Daniel chapters 1-6 are written in third person, while verse 7:2 starts in first person.
The Aramaic portion starts immediately after “answered the king in Aramaic”. It does not go back to Hebrew until Daniel 8:1.
Q: In Dan 2:4b-7:28, what else do we know about Aramaic?
A: Aramaic was an extremely long-lived language, closely related to Hebrew. It was spoken by Laban and people of Syria back in Abraham’s time (Genesis 31:47); it was spoken here, and in Jesus’ time, and it was spoken for a few more centuries by Nestorians and other Christians in Syria and eastward. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 1 p.247 says that linguistic research has shown there were four principal groups of Aramaic: Old Aramaic, Official Aramaic, Levantine Aramaic, and Eastern Aramaic. The Assyrians from c.1100-605 B.C. spoke Official Aramaic.
Outside of the Bible, “Aramaisms”, including some found in the book of Daniel, have been seen in writings from Ugarit during the Amarna period, around 1400 B.C. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary also says the Aramaic of Daniel was used from the 7th century and on, and used in the fifth century by Jews in the papyrii in Elephantine, Egypt and in Ezra. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 1 p.403 says that this Aramaic is considerably different from the Aramaic written at Qumran near the time of Christ.
See The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.74-75 for a photograph of Aramaic written on pottery addressed to Eliashib, the probable commander of the fortress of Arad. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.123 says that abundant examples have been found of the Babylonians (605-538 B.C.) and the Persians using Aramaic in their official letters. The Borchardt collection has 13 Persian letters, written in Aramaic, from Egypt.
Q: In Dan 2:6, what does this word “rewards” imply?
A: “rewards” is a singular (not plural) word and has the idea of a present more than a reward. See Daniel : Key to Prophetic Understanding p.50 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:20-23 what are at least four reasons why did Daniel might have spent so much time praising God after God revealed the meaning to him?
A: This is a very beautiful prayer, that is well-composed. There might be these four reasons.
1. If Nebuchadnezzar had executed all of the wise men, Daniel 2:18 shows that Daniel and his three friends would have been executed too. Daniel was grateful because of the safety of him, his friends, and others.
2. Even apart from the danger that passed, Daniel was specifically grateful that God revealed His mysteries to Him. We should be grateful when God reveals things to us by His word.
3. Daniel was generally grateful and in the habit of praying to God, three times a day in Daniel 6:10. Daniel was in the habit of praising God and thanking Him.
4. This prayer might actually have served as “protection” for Daniel. IT was obvious that no human could do this, without God’s help. Daniel might have thought that he was rally something now, or that he was especially worthy of merit because he had such a close connection with God. This prayer was Daniel’s acknowledgement that it was all God, and he did not do anything apart from what God had revealed to him.
Q: In Dan 2:24, why did Daniel not let the pagan wise men of Babylon be killed?
A: Daniel had no hatred or ill-will toward them. One of God’s chosen people being involved in the occult or magic was punishable by death in the Old Testament. However, the Babylonian wise men were not all sorcerers, and even those that were probably did not know of the prohibitions in the Bible.
Q: In Dan 2:24-25, why did Arioch say he found Daniel, rather than Daniel came to him?
A: Perhaps Arioch wanted to get credit for something he did not do. Unfortunately, sometimes people today in business also want to get credit for things they did not do.
Q: In Dan 2:28-3:1, did Nebuchadnezzar believe in God after that?
A: Nebuchadnezzar at least believed that Daniel’s God was to be reckoned with, especially since Daniel’s God could set up and depose kingdoms. However, after that, in Daniel 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar set up an image that everyone had to bow down and worship.
Q: In Dan 2:30, why was Daniel so careful to make it clear this wisdom was not from him, but straight from God?
A: In a society where people and lifeless images were worshipped for the slightest of reasons, Daniel wanted to make sure to communicate that it was God who should be praised here, and not Daniel.
Today, even when there is no chance of us being worshipped, it is important to give God the glory, rather than letting others give us the glory when they should be focused on God.
Q: In Dan 2:31-35, what are the characteristics of these metals?
A: Gold is the most precious, heaviest, and least hard. Silver is second, and iron the last. Ignoring the fact that gold statues were typically gold-plated, not pure gold, this showed that the Babylonian Empire would seem the best, most stable, and unchallenged. The Persian Empire always had revolts from Greeks, Egyptians, and internally. The Greek (Macedonian) Empire split into four parts immediately upon Alexander’s death. The Roman Empire had more challengers than the other empires, and would seem the least secure (between the Gauls, Carthaginians, Germans, revolts, Huns, etc.) but it was the strongest. Of course there are other metals not mentioned in this dream. Likewise, there are other empires not mentioned here, but they were not over the Jews. See Daniel: Key to Prophetic Understanding p.63 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:35a, what might the wind that swept them away represent?
A: The wind here is not just the sands of time, but more likely it would be God’s working in history to fulfill the destiny He has planned.
Q: In Dan 2:35b, what was the mountain that filled the whole earth?
A: This would be the Kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ. This is Jesus destroying the nations. This is fulfilled at the Battle of Armageddon according to 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.291-292.
Q: In Dan 2:37-44, what were these four kingdoms in the “monarchy-colossus” and the mountain?
A: They are the Babylonian (c.605-538 B.C.), Medeo-Persian (c.538 B.C.), Greek/Macedonian (c.333 B.C.), and Roman Empires. Here are three clues to help us arrive at the answer.
1. These were not just any four Empires, but four Empires that related to the Jews and superseded each other. Thus, Indian, Chinese, Mongol, and New World empires are not under consideration here.
2. Daniel 2:36-39 shows that the Neo-Babylonian Empire of Nebuchadnezzar is the first one. Thus, the Egyptian Empire cannot be one of the four, as it preceded the Babylonian Empire, yet existed in some form until Persian times. Likewise, the Assyrian Empire is not one of the four as it was destroyed forever prior to Nebuchadnezzar.
3. Jesus Christ, the Kings of Kings, will set up His kingdom during the time of the fourth empire.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.603 claims the Median and Persian Empire were counted as two empires, and the fourth empire was Alexander’s Macedonian Empire. Asimov probably says this because he believes Daniel was written after Alexander came to power (perhaps as late as 165 B.C. Asimov claims). However, the Medean Empire was never distinct from the Persians, anymore than the Roman Empire was distinct, before, during, or after Julius Caesar’s time.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.290-291 for more info.
Q: In Dan 2:37-44, could the Empire of the Medes and Persians be two Empires instead of one?
A: No, because as Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.293 reminds us, Daniel 5:28 could not be any more plain. The writer knew imperial control passed directly from the Babylonian to the Medo-Persian Empire, not first to the Medes (whom the Persians had defeated prior to this time) and later to the Persians.
Q: In Dan 2:38, why might Daniel say Nebuchadnezzar had dominion over mankind, the beasts of the field, etc.?
A: While Nebuchadnezzar had dominion over the entire land of the fertile crescent, there might have been a more immediate reason. In the Babylonian New year Festival, they probably recited the Babylonian Epic of Creation, and the king was the representative of the god Marduk, who created everything. Daniel : Key to Prophetic Understanding p.65
Historically, everyone agrees that Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful king in the Mideast, but even everyone in Nebuchadnezzar’s empire knew of kings who were not subject to him. So how would people in Bible times have understood this?
The Aramaic word in Daniel 2:38,39; 4:22 is ‘ara (Strong’s 772) which comes from the Hebrew word ‘erets (Strong’s 776). It has a very broad range of meaning. According to Strong’s Concordance the Hebrew word ‘erets means “common, country, earth, field, ground, land, x nations, way, + wilderness, world.” So the word besides meaning earth, can just as easily mean land (i.e., Mesopotamia). A saying like this was both an idiom of speech and a title, as years earlier King Amar-Enzu of the Third Dynasty of Ur referred to himself as lugal dubdalimmubak, or “king of the Four Quarters of the earth” in his building inscriptions. This is according to The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.7 p.63. It would be understood by all listeners that this would not refer to the entire planet, as both in Nebuchadnezzar’s time and Amar-Enzu’s time, the Elam, Persia, Lydia, Egypt, and Greece were all independent lands well-known to them. However, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful king in the Mideast, and the longer he reigned the more powerful he grew.
So there are two possibilities: ‘ara (‘erets) meant the entire planet earth or it meant the land of Mesopotamia. Note that Daniel 2:38,39 and 4:22 are NOT prophecies; toward the last part of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign they are telling him what he already has. It has to be the second possibility, because nobody back then would have understood that the Babylonians ruled over Greece, Media, Lydia, etc.
As a side note, Nebuchadnezzar reigned from 605-562 B.C., and here are some of the military battles during his reign.
May/June/604 B.C. At Carchemish Babylonians defeat the Egyptians.
11-12/605/604 B.C. Babylonians sack Ashkelon in Phoenicia.
603 B.C. Babylonians sack Ekron in Phoenicia.
601 B.C. Babylonians and Egyptians fight to a draw; heavy losses.
600 B.C. Lydians destroy Smyrna in Asia Minor.
599-598 B.C. Babylonians fight Arabs.
16 Mar 597 B.C. Babylonians capture Jerusalem, but do not destroy it.
596 B.C. Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II fights the Elamites.
595-594 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar II puts down revolt.
593/591 B.C. Egyptian Psamtik II+Greek, Phoenician and Jewish mercenaries defeat Nubia.
589-587 B.C. Jews rebel against Babylon. Jerusalem suffers a 30-month siege.
585-573 B.C. Babylonians besiege King Ethbaal II of Tyre.
585 B.C. War ends between Medes and Alyattes of Lydia after the eclipse of 28 May 585 B.C..
584-584 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar II besieges Tyre.
581 B.C. Babylonians deport more from Judah.
570 B.C. Greeks and Cyrene fight in Cyrenaica.
570 B.C. Greeks in Cyrene defeat Apries of Egypt.
568-567 B.C. Apries and Babylonians try to invade Egypt.
560 B.C. Lydian King Croesus subjugates Ionian cities.
560-547/546 Persians subdue King Croesus of Lydia.
Q: In Dan 2:44, how would Christ’s kingdom break and destroy the other kingdoms?
A: It would break the other kingdoms in at least four ways.
Spiritually, demons have influence over kingdoms, as Daniel 10:13 shows.
Politically, kingdoms that claimed to be Christian, or at least pretended to be Christian, would rule much of the world, starting with the Roman Empire in Constantine’s time (324 A.D.).
Culturally, A Christian worldview would dominate western thought for over fifteen hundred years.
Ultimately, (and this is most important) God the Son will come on the earth, set up His rule, every knee will bow to Jesus (Philippians 2:9-11), and all will be under His dominion (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).
Q: In Dan 2:46, why did Daniel appear to accept oblation, incense, and worship from Nebuchadnezzar?
A: A better translation than “worship” is “praise”. One issue is whether or not Daniel was wise to accept this praise. However, even assuming Daniel acted properly, this was praise and definitely not worship, as no king would want to compromise his authority by worshipping one of his subjects.
Q: In Dan 2:48-49, what was the final outcome of Nebuchadnezzar’s harshness? What does this reveal about Nebuchadnezzar’s character?
A: Nebuchadnezzar gave Daniel a high position and lavished gifts on him. Perhaps Nebuchadnezzar did this not out of love for Daniel, but rather to make an example of him so that others would want to loyally serve Nebuchadnezzar too.
Q: In Dan 3, what are some ways people try to play out what they think is their own destiny, - on their own terms?
A: People can see something as their destiny, fate, or God’s choice for their life based on their talents and gifts, their circumstances, what others tell them, or just the opportunities they see. Adults do this, but high-schoolers and college students are told they must do this to decide their career, or sometimes the kind of spouse they want. Once they think that something is for them, they naturally might go through the following steps.
Have an idea of what one or more successful outcomes would be.
They want to first visualize and believe it,
Then get others to believe their perceived destiny
Take small steps to realize it while hedging their bets or “keeping their day job”.
Test the waters and see how things go so far.
Sometimes they might “count the cost” and decide if the dedicated investment in time, money is worth the goal.
At some point take the leap, and go all in for it, realizing they are cutting off their other options.
Then they either make it, or else go with a lesser, fallback option, or feel depressed because they completely failed and think they won’t get another chance to try anything. Or, they realize that there will be other days and other opportunities and they keep trying, perhaps at the same thing, or at something else.
The preceding might be a wise, natural way of accomplishing your goal, but notice that God has nothing to do with the preceding. Instead, why not start with prayer, and ask for God’s leading on being successful on what God wants you to be, as well as keeping your eyes open for situations that would set you up for failure.
Then pray for God’s leading, and then you can do the preceding steps, asking for God’s guidance and help each step of the way.
Q: In Dan 3:1, why did Nebuchadnezzar set up a golden image, since he recognized the true God in Dan 2:46-47?
A: While the book of Daniel does not imply either a short or long time interval between the vision and the statue, the two were likely related. The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.831-832, points out that perhaps Nebuchadnezzar was trying to defy God’s message given in the king’s dream, that his kingdom would fall.
Q: In Dan 3:1, why make such a narrow image of a man 90 feet tall by 9 feet wide?
A: These were not necessarily the dimensions of the figure but of the statue. The sculpture probably was on a tall pedestal.
Q: In Dan 3:2-3 (KJV), who were the sheriffs?
A: The NASB, NIV 1985, NET, NKJV, and NRSV Bible translations all translate the title of these Persian officials as magistrates.
Q: In Dan 3:12, since only three Jewish boys refused to bow to this idol, does that mean Daniel bowed to the idol?
A: No, because in both Daniel 1 and Daniel 6, Daniel showed that he would not do things disobedient to God. Daniel and other godly Jews were not caught, because they were not present there. When Critics Ask p.294 also mentions that since Daniel was a government official, he could have been out of town on business at the time.
Q: In Dan 3:17-18, were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego confident that God would save them, or did they have some uncertainty? Should we have confidence that God will always save us?
A: They had some uncertainty, as shown by verse 18. But even if God was not going to save them, they would rather die in the blazing fire than compromise by bowing to the statue.
Q: In Dan 3:19, how did Nebuchadnezzar’s attitude change so that he was “no more Mr. nice guy”?
A: Before he thought he was kind to threaten them with being thrown into the fiery furnace, yet still give them one last chance. Now he no longer wanted to reason with them but made the furnace hotter to make an example of them. In verse 22, it was so hot that even the soldiers throwing them in were burned up, but we have no indication that this even bothered Nebuchadnezzar at all. Many times, kings and top leaders do not care about people, but about their position, and power derived from their subordinates following them. Sometimes even leaders, who do care about people, can abandon their care if they are put in a defensive position.
Q: In Dan 3:19, how could the fire be seven times hotter?
A: They could not measure the temperature of the fire. Rather, there were probably a number of air bellows used to feed oxygen to the fire, and seven (or seven times) as many were turned on to provide more heat. Long prior to this time, iron weapons were not very common because they could not make furnaces hot enough. But by the time of the Babylonians (and even earlier Assyrians) they could make furnaces that could melt and forge iron.
Q: In Dan 3:25, who was the fourth man here?
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) says that the only Begotten God “… was seen with those who were around Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, as present with them in the furnace of fire,… And the appearance of the fourth,’ it is said, ‘was like to the Son of God.’” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 4 ch.20.11 p.491
Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) in fragment 3 (Commentary on Daniel) ch.2.93 p.188 also mentions that Jesus was in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, though Jesus was not yet born on earth of a virgin. After Nicea Hilary and Augustine of Hippo taught the same. Jerome thought it was not Christ, but rather just an angel who prefigured in type Christ.
Q: In Dan 3:26, what is so strange about Nebuchadnezzar calling the Lord “the most High God, not only here, but in Dan 2:47 calling Him the God of gods?
A: This is the same Nebuchadnezzar who set up the statute to worship in Daniel 3:1. Apparently it did not click in his mind that if there was a Most High God, then we should pay attention to what He says, and not worship other so-called gods.
Q: In Dan 3:30, what end result did the people who accused Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in Dan 3:8 see? What is the number one reason who think God did that?
A: They saw the three Jewish youths promoted. The number one reason was probably NOT as a reward to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. It was probably that God’s name be magnified, and if others heard abut the promotion, they might be more inclined to listen to the Most High God. Jews especially, who might be tempted to drift away and assimilate, would be encouraged.
Q: In Dan 4:1-3, is this before Nebuchadnezzar’s experience, or after?
A: This is after Daniel’s experience, because this first person account by Nebuchadnezzar is from the letter Nebuchadnezzar wrote later.
Q: In Dan 4:8-9,18, why did the king persist in calling Daniel Belteshazzar, and that the spirit of the “holy gods” is in him?
A: Daniel spoke that he served the Most High God (singular), but Nebuchadnezzar apparently heard that as Daniel served the gods (plural). Many times when we say things, and people say they believe us, they still filter what we say through their worldview, and re-interpret our words to fit their pre-conceived ideas.
Q: In Dan 4:10-17, why do you think God gave Nebuchadnezzar this dream?
A: It would not have the same credibility in the king’s eyes if the dream was given to Daniel or someone else. It was not given to Nebuchadnezzar because he was more spiritual, or better than Daniel, or because Nebuchadnezzar was godly at all. God giving it to the most appropriate person was for God’s purposes, and not due to any merit of Nebuchadnezzar.
Q: In Dan 4:13,23, what is a “watcher”?
A: This would be a type of angel. Jewish apocryphal literature also mentions angelic watchers, but they might have been written after Daniel. At the very least, the apocryphal literature shows that the Jews were familiar with the concept of a watcher class of angels.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, when did Nebuchadnezzar temporarily leave the throne because he went insane?
A: Daniel 4 says that twelve months after this dream, God finally dealt with Nebuchadnezzar’s pride and fulfilled this prophecy.
The Aramaic word here can mean “time or season” as well as “year”. Thus, 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.195 points out that this might be less than two years rather than seven years.
The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1080-1081,1092 adds that this mental condition is called boanthropy (meaning ox-man.) Dr. R. K. Harrison discusses a man he met with this condition in his Introduction to the Old Testament p.1114-1117.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1343 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1190 for more info.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, is there any extra-Biblical evidence that Nebuchadnezzar temporarily went insane?
A: Perhaps. While the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.605 says there is none, but The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 7 p.63 mentions an interesting Aramaic Dead Sea scroll fragment found at Qumran in cave 4. It is a prayer attributed to Nabonidus that says, “The words of the prayer which Nabunai(d), King of Assyria and Babylon, the great king, prayed when he was smitten with an unpleasant skin-disease by the ordinance of God Most High in the city of Teima: ‘ I was smitten with an unpleasant skin-disease for seven years … to the name of God Most High’” (This conjectural translation, dependent on several restorations of missing letters, was published by J.T. Milik in Revue Biblique, 63 (1956): 408; cf. Saggs, Babylon, p.154 for the English version above.) The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 7 p.63 says this might be a late, partially legendary fragment, that either could contain a true account either of a skin disease of Nabonidus. But, it says, “… a careful examination of the Nabonidus fragment shows that it is far more likely to have been a late, garbled tradition of the illness of Nebuchadnezzar himself, if indeed it does not represent a later illness that actually befell Nabonidus personally (whose ten years of confinement to the North Arabian city of Teima [Teman] may have been partly occasioned by the illness.)”.
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 1 p.246-247 says that the Prayer of Nabonidus is too mythical to be helpful, but adds that we still know of the madness of Nebuchadnezzar through Berossus, a third century Babylonians priest and historian, and the second century writer Abydenus, who said that Nebuchadnezzar was “possessed by some god or other”, where he made a prophecy and disappeared from Babylon.
So, this evidence is certainly not conclusive, but it illustrates that the official Babylonian records and Greek history do not give all the details.
Q: In Dan 4:33-37, could the idea of Nebuchadnezzar acting like an animal have from Assyrian statues of bulls with human heads and bird’s wings, as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.605 says is an attractive guess?
A: Not likely. First of all, humans with heads of bulls were known in ancient Egypt and Crete from the time of Moses. Second, these were Assyrian statues, not Babylonian. Daniel would have less reason to write something about an “animal-man”, than Moses who lived in Egypt.
Q: In Dan 5:1 and Dan 5:30, who was Belshazzar?
A: The Greek historian Herodotus, writing only about 90 years after the fall of Babylon, never mentioned Belshazzar and explicitly said the last king was Nabonidus. Until the 20th century, that was the final word on the subject apart from the Bible. This would be one of the things Christians would have to accept that there would be an explanation someday, without knowing the explanation.
However, in the 20th century archaeologists have found a cuneiform table, called the “Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus”. Belshazzar was the firstborn son of Nabonidus, and after his first three years of rule (553 B.C.), Nabonidus went into voluntary exile for ten years in Tema in Arabia, and Nabonidus appointed Belshazzar as the ruler. Significantly, when the Persians conquered Babylon, Nabonidus was not even there; he was in Tema in the northern part of modern Saudi Arabia. When Critics Ask p.209 concludes on this, “Since Belshazzar was the subordinate of Nabonidus, his name was forgotten, because the ancient Babylonian and Greek historians were primarily interested in the reigns of the official kings. Daniel’s record has proven to be amazingly accurate.”
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.286 mentions an “inscription of Nabunaid” uncovered at Ur. This is likely the same as the “Persian Verse Account of Nabonidus”. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.286 also adds that other cuneiform documents say how Belshazzar presented sheep and oxen offerings at the temples of Sippar as “an offering of the king.”
Now Herodotus is considered generally to be very accurate. If Belshazzar’s co-regency (under Nabonidus) was so insignificant that Herodotus, writing 90 years later, overlooked it, how could anyone expect the book of Daniel to naturally get this correct, unless Daniel were written at this time? Since Daniel knew more about this than Herodotus, is it simply amazing that some liberal scholars in the late Twentieth century still considered Daniel as a second century book. See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.193 for more on this.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.606 does not mention these details, except it says that Belshazzar (Bel-shar-utsur meaning “Bel, protect the king”) was the firstborn son of Nabonidus.
See also Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.65-66, the New Geneva Study Bible p.1339-1340, and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1170-1171 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:1, what was the political climate in which Daniel was living at this time?
A: After Nebuchadnezzar of previous chapters died in 562 B.C., there were troubled times. Historians actually call this empire the Neo-Babylonian Empire, to distinguish it from the past Empire under Hammurapi. Here are the kings
627-605 B.C. Nabopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur)
605-Aug/Sept./562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabu-kudurri-usur)
562-August 560 B.C. Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) Nebuchadnezzar’s son (assassinated)
560-556 B.C. Neriglissar (Nergal-Sharezer) Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law
May-June 556 B.C (2 months) Labashi-Marduk (assassinated)
556-539 B.C. Nabonidus (Nabu-na’ia)
553- October 11 or 12/539 B.C. Belshazzar (Bel-shar-usur) (co-regent)
October 11 or 12.539 B.C. Persian governor Ugbar of Gutium captures Babylon
According to the Greek historian Herodotus (1:191) the way they captured it was ingenious. They built a large “lake” to temporarily divert the water of the Euphrates River. Then at night, they waded under the wall where the Euphrates River was and surprised the Babylonians, who were feasting.
See the New International Bible Commentary p.848 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1344-1345 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:1, why in the world would the Babylonians feast at a banquet, with vast Medeo-Persian army outside the walls?
A: Perhaps it was general pride in their defenses, or else a sudden “in your face” show of bravado. The city wall was massive, and part of the wall was (seemingly) impossible to attack because the Euphrates River flowed under it. The city was built to hold food supplies for 20 years.
Also Nabonidus’ mother was a high priestess of the moon god at Haran. He restored many temples, including the temple at Haran to the moon god, Sin. So perhaps one reason for taking out the vessels from the Temple in Jerusalem was to show the superiority of their gods. A related reason might have been to undo the influence of Nebuchadnezzar, promoting the God of Daniel.
Q: In Dan 5:1-5, why do you think God choose to miraculously write on the wall, and announce their fate, at exactly this time?
A: Two reasons. First, they were using expensive things given to God’s temple to praise pagan gods. Second and perhaps related, that night they would be slain by the Persians. The Persians by the way, took over Babylon, but did not destroy Babylon until years later.
Q: In Dan 5:1-5, what promise or prophesy did God fulfill by having the writing on the wall?
A: In Jeremiah 27:21-22, God said the holy vessels would be stored in Babylon, until the day He visited the vessels, and then they would be returned to Jerusalem. The Babylonians did not get much chance to use them though, before the writing on the wall appeared.
Q: In Dan 5:2, where did the gold goblets originally come from?
A: Solomon made a lot of gold and silver for the Lord’s Temple about 950 B.C.. The interesting thing about gold is that even if you bury it in the ground, it does not tarnish or corrode. We don’t know if they took the silver goblets from the temple, and the silver was protected from tarnishing, or if the silver goblets were not from the temple. On the other hand, while the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Theodotion all say gold and silver goblets, the Aramaic only says gold goblets.
Q: In Dan 5:10, why would the “queen” introduce Daniel?
A: Belshazzar did not think to do this, which indicates he did not have much association with Daniel and did not value his advice. This is 23 years after Nebuchadnezzar’s death, so Daniel was much older now. The “queen” here might have been the queen mother, perhaps a wife of Nebuchadnezzar, who remembered Daniel and brought him.
Q: In Dan 5:25-28, could the guests read the writing on the wall?
A: The four words were written in Aramaic, and Aramaic was widely spoken in Babylonia as well as Persia, so probably all those who could read could read the words. However, deciphering this riddle was another story.
Q: In Dan 5:25-28, what is the meaning of Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin?
A: Scholars are unsure of the meaning of these Aramaic words. There are three possibilities, and a play on words could include more than one.
a) They are words that referred to money. The mina, shekel, and half-mina were common coins. The Wycliffe Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology p.170 has a picture of a one mina weight from the time of Nebuchadnezzar.
b) They meant numbered, numbered, weighted, and divisions.
c) “u” in upharsin can mean “and”. pharsin is the plural of peres, which would sound like their word for Persian.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.607 gives essentially the same answer. See the New International Dictionary of the Bible p.640 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:25-28, how did the writing on the wall help Daniel?
A: Many people would certainly hear that Daniel predicted the Persians would defeat the Babylonians. A speculation is that if the Persians heard of this, they would be favorably impressed with Daniel, and they would be more likely to retain Daniel as a high official.
Q: In Dan 5:29, why was Daniel made the third highest ruler and not the second?
A: Belshazzar could not offer Daniel anything higher, as Nabonidus was the highest ruler, and Belshazzar himself was the second.
Q: In Dan 5:29b, was it unusual that there would be a third ruler in the kingdom?
A: No, both Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions mention having a third ruler in the kingdom. The “third ruler” might be like a vizier, or “manager” under the king and his successor. Having a deeper line of succession would also be safer if the top two kings got killed suddenly. See the New International Bible Commentary p.858 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:30, what is a list of Babylonian kings?
A: Historians actually call this empire the Neo-Babylonian Empire, to distinguish it from the past Empire under Hammurapi. Here are the kings.
627-605 B.C. Nabopolassar (Nabu-apal-usur)
605-Aug/Sept./562 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabu-kudurri-usur)
562-560 B.C. Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk)
Nebuchadnezzar’s son
560-556 B.C. Neriglissar (Nergal-Sharezer)
Nebuchadnezzar’s son-in-law
556 B.C (2 months) Labashi-Marduk
556-539 B.C. Nabonidus (Nabu-na’ia)
553-10/12/539 B.C. Belshazzar (Bel-shar-usur) (co-regent)
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1326 for more info.
Q: In Dan 5:30-51 and Dan 9:1, what is the difference between a Mede and a Persian?
A: This question is more complicated than it first appears. Three points to consider in the answer.
1. The Medes and Persians were two distinct but related peoples. The Medes were very closely related to the Scythians and lived in central Iran, while the Persians lived in ancient Elam in southwestern Iran. The two peoples were always closely allied together, with the Medes being the dominant partner. This changed under Cyrus (a Persian who was one-fourth Mede), when he defeated his Median grandfather Astyges in 625 B.C.. From then on, the Persians had the dominant role, and Herodotus 3.91-96 says the Medes had to pay the annual tax to the Persian Empire.
2. However, Herodotus 1.135 also says the Persians adopted Median dress. “As Widengren notes, ‘both Medes and Persians were often called simply Medes by the Greeks, and this usage evidently dates from the first contact between Greeks in Ionia and Iranians of the west.” The Persians were known as Medes down to the age of Demosthenes (fourth century B.C.).” (Persia and the Bible p.56-57)
3. In the Bible, they were considered collectively as one people, “Medes and Persians”, in Daniel 6:8,12,15, and “Persians and Medes” in Esther 1:3,14. Persia and the Bible p.57 also says that both were termed just “Medes” in Isaiah 13:17ff and Jeremiah 51:11,28).
Q: In Dan 5:30-6:1 and Dan 9:1 very briefly, who was Darius the Mede?
A: Most think he was the first governor of Babylon, named Gubaru, though some think it was Cyrus himself. The reason it says Darius is either:
a) a manuscript copyist error,
b) a throne name for Cyrus, or
c) the Jews did not have a good transliteration for “Gubaru”.
See the next question for a more extensive answer.
Q: In Dan 5:30-6:1; Dan 9:1 who was this Darius the Mede?
A: First are some historical facts, then some Biblical observations, and finally the three views.
1. Historical Facts
1.1 The Medes’ history is reconstructed exclusively from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Greek sources, since no Medean writing has been found. The careful Greek historian Herodotus noted that he had heard four different accounts of the childhood of Cyrus. Ctesias was another Greek historian, but he was not very reliable.
1.2 In 625 B.C., the Medes conquered the Persians, and the Medes ruled over them until 553 B.C.
1.3 From 553 to 550 B.C., the Persian Cyrus the Great revolted, and succeeded with the help (in 550 B.C.) of the Medean chief Harpagus. The Medes still had the highest position after the Persians, and as the 1956 and 1972 editions of Encyclopedia Britannica say, “many noble Medes were employed as officials, satraps and generals.”
1.4 Astyages (Medean Ištumegu) was the Medean King Cyrus overthrew in 550 B.C.. The historian Ctesias says that Cyrus treated Astyages well, and made him a satrap of Barcania or Hyrcania, but Oebares (Babylonian Ugbaru) killed Astyages.
1.5 In the Persian Empire, Medea was one of the 20 satrapies of the Persian Empire, but it was divided into two parts for taxation purposes. As a side note the 20 satrapies were subdivided into 120 districts, which were also sometimes called satrapies, but were more properly hyparchs.
1.6 Ugbaru, the Babylonian governor of Gutium (according to the Nabonidus Chronicle), defected to the Persians and became general of the Persian army that overthrew Babylon on 10/11 or 10/12 539 B.C. He died 11/6/539 B.C., almost a month later. While we do not know his ancestry, the liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.2 p.39 points out that Babylonians used the word Gutium to refer to the Northeast, and the Medes were in the northeast part of the Persian Empire. It also mentions that the historian Berossus lists Gutium with the tyrants of the Medes.
1.7 Cyrus himself was with other troops at Opis when Babylon was captured, and Cyrus did not enter Babylon until 10/29/539 B.C. Cyrus was said to be the grandson of Astyages, through Astyages’ daughter Mandane. However, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.424 point out that this was not the Persian Emperor, because Darius here was “made king”. Of course, Daniel was called a “king” too in Daniel 5:29, and he was not an emperor.
1.8 Gubaru/Gaubaruwa (whom Xenophon the Greek confused with Ugbaru), was appointed the governor of Babylonia for a year or two by Cyrus.
1.9 Darius I, the son of Hystaspes/Vishtaspa, was a Persian (not a Mede) who became King in 522 B.C., after Cyrus and the false Bardiya reigned. Darius I was involved in putting down a revolt in Babylon in 520 B.C., 19 years after Persia conquered Babylon. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.287 points out that he was in his twenties when he began his rule, not 62 years old. The liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.2 p.39 says that his inscriptions say, “I am a Persian, son of a Persian”.
1.10 In the ancient world, Pharaohs and kings often had their birth-given name, and a second name given when they ascended the throne.
1.11 The Persian word Darius “Darayawush/Dareyawaes” is related to the Persian word dara which means king. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.288 says this might be title as well as just a proper name. The liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary p.39 also points out that darayarahu means “He who holds firm the good”. This is the reason for the theory that Darius was a throne name.
1.12 Within a year or two of the capture, Cyrus made his son Cambyses governor of Babylon, replacing Gubaru.
1.13 In the Old Testament there are a number of copyist errors, especially on numbers and names. For example, the Greek version of Proto-Theodotion says “Artaxerxes”, and not “Darius” in Daniel 6:1. In particular, there are a number of additions to the Greek translation (Septuagint) in the book of Daniel. Jerome mentions that while the early church generally used the Septuagint, they did not use the Septuagint of the book of Daniel, but rather the Greek version of Theodotion. Apparently, they saw too many problems with the Septuagint in Daniel.
1.14 All our “Hebrew” copies of Daniel have the middle section of Daniel, 2:4b-7:28, written in Aramaic, not Hebrew. Either it was originally written in Aramaic, or it was translated from an earlier Hebrew manuscript.
2. Biblical Observations
The Darius in Daniel was a Mede, 62 years old, who had 120 administration districts under him. He was the son of Ahasuerus. He could make decrees, and he was worshipped. In Daniel 6:6, he was called a king. From Daniel 9:1, this Darius, was emphasized to be a Mede, not the Persian Darius. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.287 mentions that the usual work malak means became king, but the word here homlak, which is a passive and means made king. The liberal Anchor Bible Dictionary vol. 2 p.39 also points this out. Thus a higher ruler made him ruler. Also, the phrase “all the earth” could be translated as “all the land”.
3. Identity of Darius the Mede
Since Darius was the one who took over Babylon, there are three choices.
3.1 Cyrus: This was really Cyrus, and the incorrect name was transcribed, similar to how in Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim was incorrectly transcribed in a majority of Hebrew manuscripts when both the context and other manuscripts show it was Zedekiah. While Cyrus was a Persian, his mother, Mandane, was a Mede and the daughter of Astyages, and the Persian chief Cambyses. Either he really was a quarter Mede and a grandson of the previous king, or else he just claimed to be to keep the support of the Medes.
3.1.1 Since many kings had throne names, Cyrus might have had a throne name of Darius the Mede. Daniel 6:28 could be translated as “reign of Darius, “even the” reign of Cyrus the Persian” This view is advocated by D.J. Wiseman, and John F. Walvoord speaks well of this view in Daniel : The Key to Prophetic Interpretation p.134. The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1347 also mentions this view but prefers the Gubaru view that follows. Other examples of synonyms or throne names being used in the Bible are:
Joram for Jehoram (2 Kings 8:23)
Jehoash for Joash (2 Kings 12:1)
Coniah for Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:9)
Shallum for Jehoahaz (Jeremiah 22:11, 2 Kings 23:30-34)
3.1.2 Cyrus did not have the throne name of Darius. The name Darius got in here as a copyist error, confusing Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon in 539 B.C. with Darius’ conquest of Babylon in 522 B.C.
3.2 Gubaru is mentioned here, since Cyrus appointed him the governor of Babylon, as When Critics Ask p.295 espouses. However, we have no historical record saying whether or not Gubaru was a Mede. Either Darius was how the Hebrews would refer to Gubaru, or else a confused Hebrew scribe put in the name Darius. While Gubaru was replaced by Cambyses after a year or two, Daniel never mentions anything beyond the first year. Governors could be called “kings”, because the Behistun Rock says that Hystaspes was “made king” by Cyrus, as Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.287-288 says.
3.3 (not an answer) Darius here some might think might really be Darius I (a Persian), and there would be a 19-year gap between the Babylonians being overthrown in Daniel 5:30, and Darius mentioned at the end. However, this is highly unlikely because the book especially notes that this Darius was a Mede. Furthermore, no Bible verse says this Darius was over all the Medes and Persians, but rather that he was made king over just the Babylonians.
In summary: Since the third view is unlikely, the person intended here is either
S1. Gubaru, the first governor of Babylon under Cyrus, or
S2. Cyrus. Either Darius was a throne name for Cyrus, or the scribes had a manuscript error, where it should have said Cyrus.
Copyist errors and changes are not unknown in the Old Testament, and the Septuagint of the book of Daniel has a number of known changes.
Q: In Dan 5:31, when was Babylon captured?
A: Archaeologists believe it was the night of October 11 or 12, 539 B.C.. However, it is important to note that Babylon was not destroyed until many years later.
Q: In Dan 5:31; 6:1, 9:1, how do you pronounce “Darius”?
A: The Cruden’s Concordance and The New International Dictionary of the Bible p.254 have da-RI-us, with the a and u short, the i long, and the accept on the second syllable. Hebrews would pronounce it daryawesh, and Greeks pronounced it Darious. Now a Mede or Persian would pronounce Darius’ name similar to “Darayawush / Dareyawaes”.
Q: In Dan 6:1, who were the 120 princes?
A: They were not sons of Darius, but rather 120 administrators. There were 20 provinces, called satraps, but they were subdivided into 120 districts, sometimes also called satraps, though really “hyparchs”. These people were not generals of armies but accountants, “that the king might not suffer loss.” Imagine having someone who was not only wise, but you knew you could trust to have integrity even when you were not watching him. The king probably would have greatly valued Daniel, and that is why he was one of the top three accounting officials.
Q: In Dan 6:1-5, why were the princes out to get Daniel?
A: Perhaps for two reasons.
Jealousy: Daniel was an outsider, a Jew, who was suddenly promoted above them.
Cold-hearted Practicality: Even if they did not have any hatred or ill-feelings toward Daniel, some unscrupulous people have no qualms about eliminating rivals in order to get ahead.
So the first thing they did was engage in a “fishing expedition”. Since many officials had corruption, they could simply go exploring to discover Daniel’s corruption and expose it. Perhaps they thought that selectively exposing Daniel’s corruption or negligence, though not other officials, was all they had to do. When they unexpectedly discovered that they could find none, in verse 5 they went with “plan B”, and looked for something in God’s law. Not everyone who looks into God’s word is doing so for good motives.
Q: In Dan 6:1,6,7 (KJV), who were the presidents?
A: These were the three people set over the 120 satraps. Daniel was one of these three officials.
Q: In Dan 6:6-9, how did they get all these officials throughout the empire to agree to this?
A: They did not. Perhaps they predicted the other officials would acquiesce to this demand. Note that if a typical pagan official agreed with suggesting this decree, he would have no idea that the whole point of this was to get Daniel and possibly other Jews. Alternately, perhaps they never would have got agreement at all and knew they misrepresented that they would even be able to get agreement. Also note that they told Darius a lie when they said the officials have “all” agreed. Daniel would not have agreed.
Q: In Dan 6:6-9, why would Darius make this decree that they could not pray to any god or man for thirty days?
A: While scripture does not say, we can speculate on a few reasons.
Rubber stamp: Darius was told (perhaps falsely) that all the other administrators agreed with this. (They certainly did not all agree, as Daniel did not.) Since Darius trusted his people, he merely signed what they said.
Empire Cohesion: A large and powerful group of subjects, the Babylonians, were until recently independent and fighting the Persian Empire. This would reinforce to both the Babylonians and the former subjects of the Babylonian Empire that they were no longer under the Babylonians but now the Persians. So they would have to stop worshipping Marduk, or other Babylonian gods for thirty days, because the Persians would be considered greater since they can command the halt of worship of other gods. Of course those who refused would be unmasked as traitors and dealt with.
Vain pride: Darius would be honored, not only that people were worshipping and praying to him, but they would not be praying to anyone else for thirty days.
Q: In Dan 6:6-9, is there any archaeological evidence for this thirty-day decree?
A: No, but this is something King Darius probably would not desire to have remembered either.
Q: In Dan 6:10, should we always kneel or do another posture when praying?
A: No and Yes. No, the Bible does not command us to have any particular posture when praying. Sometimes people prayed
Kneeling (Ezra 9:5-6; Daniel 6:10; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:59-60; Ephesians 3:14)
On their face (Genesis 17:17,18; Joshua 6:7-9; Matthew 26:39)
Kneeling or face on the ground (Mark 14:35)
Standing (Genesis 18:22-23; 24:11-13; Nehemiah 9:4-5)
Sitting (2 Samuel 7:18; 1 Kings 19:4)
Lying down on their bed (2 Kings 20:2)
Unable to change their position (Judges 16:28; Nehemiah 2:3-4; Jonah 2:1; Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34; Luke 23:46).
However, yes we are free to assume whatever posture is conducive to the prayer we are praying.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.235 for more info.
Q: In Dan 6:10, is it good to have a set time for prayer?
A: Yes. While nothing in the Bible says we have to have any specific set time, many have found it helpful to have a set time. Consistent prayer takes discipline, and having a set time can help with that. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.455 for more info.
Q: In Dan 6:10 should we pray towards Jerusalem? Will God hear our prayers better if we pray in a certain direction?
A: In New Testament times the direction towards which we pray does not matter. In the Old Testament there is not a command to pray towards Jerusalem, or towards the temple, but perhaps Daniel was thinking of Solomon’s prayer where He specifically asked God to hear those who prayed towards the temple and towards Jerusalem in 1 Kings 8:29,42,44,48. God spoke and answered Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 9:3-9 in an encouraging, positive way, but God did not say anything about hearing prayers better facing any direction. In fact, God said though the temple looked very imposing, the day will come when people will be appalled at the temple site.
Q: In Dan 6:10-11, what would you do if you wanted to honor God in something, when continuing to do so would mean financial loss, embarrassment, or worse?
A: I would try to see if there was a way to continue to do a thing and not suffer loss. However, not only should Christians not be evil, they should avoid the appearance of evil. In the days of the early church, Christians were commanded to sacrifice to the Emperor as a God. Many Christians chose torture and death over idolatry. But others were weak and sinned by sacrificing. If someone paid a bribe so that they did not have to sacrifice but the bribed public official said that they did, they were still dishonoring God by having the appearance of sinning by sacrificing.
Q: In Dan 6:10-11, should Daniel have bought curtains? Metaphorically, when should we buy curtains today? And what about praying in secret?
A: Praying in secret, away from unbelievers is good, but Jesus command to pray in secret in the New Testament (Matthew 6:5-8) not the Old, and the New Testament was not given yet. Curtains would not have done any good, because the men already knew that he prayed, and they would have just come to see him anyway, as they did in Daniel 6:11.
Q: In Dan 6:12, what were these lions like?
A: Until people hunted them to extinction, lions roamed the Mideast. Many people, especially the Assyrians and Persians, were fond of hunting them. Samson killed a lion in Israel in Judges 14:5. An interesting article titled Asia’s Last Lions is in The National Geographic Magazine June 2001 p.46-61. Asiatic lions were somewhat smaller than African lions, have shorter manes, and have a fold of skin on their undersides that African lions lack. Their range was from north central India through Iraq, all the way to Greece, Bulgaria, and Albania.
Q: In Dan 6:14, why would it say Darius tried to rescue Daniel, since in Dan 6:16 the king ordered Daniel thrown into the lion’s den?
A: Because both are true. Here was a powerful non-believer, who probably thought of himself as a good and just leader, who generally wanted to help Daniel, but his allegiance to following the customs was greater than his allegiance to doing what was right. Today there are many people who often want to do what is right, but their custom or precedent is the ultimate standard, and is more important than their conscience of following God.
Q: In Dan 6:24, was it not cruel to cast the men’s wives and children to the lions too?
A: The Bible does not say the Persians were never cruel, or that they always did the correct thing. However, compared to the Assyrians, who gloried in torture, the Persians appeared kind.
Q: Dan 7 occurred prior to Dan 6. Why do you think the order is this way?
A: The previous chapters all had to do with Daniel’s life. These are visions that do not have any interaction with Daniel’s life. This vision occurred around 556-553 B.C.
Q: In Dan 7:2, what do the winds of heaven represent? Why are there four winds and not just one?
A: Four winds would be blowing in different directions, making the sea more agitated. The four winds could be the spirits behind the four empires.
The Expositors Bible Commentary vol.7 p.85 says the four winds are kept under control, until their release, by four angels in Revelation 9:14. However, there is scant evidence for this.
Q: In Dan 7:2, what does the sea represent?
A: The sea likely represents the throng of humanity. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary vol.7 p.85 says the same.
Q: In Dan 7:3-7,17-19, what are the four beasts?
A: Daniel 7:17 says these are four kings or kingdoms. They are Babylon, Medeo-Persia, Greece / Macedonia, and the Roman Empire. Here is how they fit the imagery.
Lion with eagle wings: Creatures appearing like winged lions covered the magnificent-looking Ishtar Gate in Babylon, which Nebuchadnezzar II built in 575 B.C.. Also, the facade of Nebuchadnezzar’s throne room in the Verderasiatisches Museum in Berlin shows lions originally painted in yellow, white, blue, and red. A picture of this is in the book Babylon by Joan Oates p.150.
Babylon was referred to as a lion Jeremiah 4:7. Babylon’s horses were swifter than eagles in Jeremiah 4:13. Babylon and Egypt were both referred to as eagles in Ezekiel 17:3,7. Later, the Babylonians treated the Jews well, when Daniel was in the court. Habakkuk 1:8-9 is not relevant here, as the Babylonian horses are compared to leopards and wolves, as well as eagles.
Bear raised on one side: The Medeo-Persian Empire had two parts, with the Persian side being dominant.
Leopard with four wings and four heads: Though a leopard is the fastest large land animal, reaching speeds of 60 miles (97 km) per hour, a leopard with four wings would be even faster. Alexander the Macedonian conquered the entire Persian Empire and parts of even India in a breathtaking thirteen years. After his death, the empire was divided up among his four generals. While the leopard of Africa was not a typical symbol of the Greeks, no other predatory animal could represent the speed of Alexander’s conquests any better.
Iron-toothed beast: The fourth beast was different, had horns, and was arrogant. The Roman Emperors had themselves declared as gods, and even had annual sacrifices made to them.
In addition, many see a dual fulfillment of this prophecy, with the Antichrist coming from a revived Roman Empire.
The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.610 claims the leopard was the Persian Empire, its four heads were four kings known to Daniel, and the fourth beast was Alexander’s Empire. Asimov says this because Asimov tries to separate the Median Empire from the Persian Empire. However, the Medes, aside from assisting the Babylonians in destroying Assyria, fighting the Scythians, and merging with the Persians, had no other independent effect on world history.
See The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1350-1351, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1082-1083, and 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.290-291 for more info.
Q: In Dan 7:3-7,17-19, instead of the Roman Empire, does the fourth beast represent the ideal Jewish state, as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.610-611 says seems more likely?
A: No. Unless Asimov thinks the Jews thought an ideal Jewish state was a terrible, evil thing, Asimov is very confused here. Daniel 7:7 says, “…before me was a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful. It had large iron teeth; it crush and devoured its victims and trampled underfoot whatever was left… it had ten horns.” In Daniel 7:11 (BSB) says, “…As I continued to watch, the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and thrown into the blazing fire.” It is God who kills the fourth beast, so this fourth beast certainly is not a godly state.
Q: In Dan 7:5, what do the three ribs represent?
A: There are three different views.
Preceding Persia were three kingdoms: Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. Technically Persia did not conquer Assyria, because Assyria was already absorbed in the Babylonian Empire, which Persia conquered.
Conquered by Persia were three Empires: Egyptian, Babylonian, and Lydian. Most Empires up to this time conquered only one preceding Empire. However, Persia conquered three.
Tusks instead of ribs is how the NRSV translates this. However, the preceding two answers could apply to the tusks, so this is somewhat of a moot point.
Conclusion: Since the ribs were in the bear’s mouth, it had to be three kingdoms “eaten” by the bear. Thus, Egypt, Babylon, and Lydia are the correct interpretation.
Q: In Dan 7:7-9, 20,24, what are the ten horns?
A: Daniel 10:24 tells us these are kings. The last king may be the Antichrist in the revived Roman Empire. Ten horns on a scarlet beast are discussed in Revelation 17:3,12-14.
Q: In Dan 7:9, when the Ancient of Days came, why would thrones (plural) be set in place?
A: Multiple thrones for the Father, and the Son of Man. However, “the court of was seated in Daniel 7:10b, so it would be elders and perhaps even us, who judge angels.
Q: Why is Dan 7:13-14 a good verse to share with Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses?
A: It mentions the Ancient of Days (the Father), and one like the Son of man coming to the ancient of days, then authority given to the son of man, and people properly worshipping Him. This refers to Jesus Christ.
Q: In Dan 7:16; 9:21 who is Gabriel?
A: Gabriel is the archangel who was a messenger to Daniel, and later a messenger to Mary the mother of Christ in Luke 1:19,26. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.65 for more info.
Q: In Dan 7:25, what is time oppression of the saints for a time, times, and half a time?
A: This is the same as the three and a half year period of half of the tribulation in Daniel 9:27 and Revelation 11:3; 12:6,14.
Q: In Dan 8:2, where is Shushan?
A: This used to be the capital city of the ancient kingdom of Elam, which is in the southwest part of modern Iran. It is close to the later capital of the Persian Empire.
Q: In Dan 8:2,16, where is the Ulai River?
A: Today we would call it a canal instead of a natural river. It ran north-south just west of the city of Susa (Shushan), according to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1124.
Q: In Dan 8:3-4, what is the ram?
A: This represents the Empire of Medeo-Persia. The longer horn that came up later was Persia, the dominant part of the Empire. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1084 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1355-1356 say the same.
Q: Why would Dan 8:5 refer to the Empire of Alexander of Macedon as a goat?
A: Scripture does not say. However, a myth in Alexander’s time was that Alexander had two horns growing out of his head to show his semi-divine status.
Q: In Dan 8:8, why did the four horns grow towards the four winds of heaven?
A: These are the four generals of Alexander who took over his empire after his death. Cassander got Macedonia, Lysimachus got Thrace and Asia Minor, Seleucus got Syria, Mesopotamia and Persia, and Ptolemy got Egypt.
Q: In Dan 8:9-11, is the little horn the same as the little horn of Dan 7:8?
A: No, because the horn in Daniel 8:9-11 grow out of the third empire, not the fourth. Both the Seleucids and Romans had rulers intent on destroying God’s people.
Q: In Dan 8:9-11, why did the little horn grow out, instead of just a part of one of the other horns?
A: The little horn would be the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes. He was not actually a descendant of Seleucus. Antiochus Epiphanes is definitely referred to here, but this could also be a dual prophecy, with the second fulfillment being during the Tribulation.
Q: In Dan 8:13-17, could the 2,300 evenings and mornings be a prophecy the 2,300 years from the decree of Artaxerxes [allegedly 457 B.C.] to the manifestation of the Bab in 1844 A.D. as Baha’is claim? (Some Answered Questions p.40-42)
A: No, there are four problems with this.
Wrong type of years: 1844 (A.D.) + 457 (B.C.) -1 (no 0 A.D.) = 2300 (365.25 day years). However, prophetic years in the Bible are 360-day religious years, no 365.25 day years.
Wrong duration: 2,300 is evenings and mornings, and nothing in Daniel says, “evenings and mornings” are years.
Wrong starting point: The decree was in the 20th year of the reign of Artaxerxes according to Nehemiah 2, so the starting point was 445/444 B.C., not 457 B.C.. 457 B.C was merely a decree from Artaxerxes confirming Cyrus’ earlier decree that the Jews could return to Jerusalem.
Wrong ending point: If you look at the rest of the words, not just the numbers, 2,300 evenings and mornings is the time when the sanctuary was brought low until the sanctuary is reconsecrated. Baha’is would have to mean that God’s sanctuary was trampled and brought low when this Persian named Artaxerxes became king; it remained low through the time of Jesus until the Bab.
Conclusion: The only things Baha’u’llah got wrong were the duration, starting point, and ending point. In other words, everything!
Q: In Dan 8:16; 9:21 and Dan 10:13,21; 12:1, what is interesting about the names Gabriel and Michael?
A: Daniel is the only Old Testament book where angels are named. Of course, both Gabriel and Michael appear in the New Testament too. Gabriel is in Luke 1:19,26, and Michael is in Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.
Q: In Dan 8:17, why is Daniel called the Son of Man?
A: This simply means that Daniel was a human, a son of Adam. The Son of Man also refers to Christ too. In Daniel 7:13-14 this Son of Man, (Jesus Christ) received worship.
Q: In Dan 8:23-25, why would God allow this?
A: This sounds very catastrophic. The rebels have become completely wicked, there will be astounding devastation, destroying the mighty men and the holy people. The king will not just allow deceit, but cause it to prosper. Furthermore, this prophecy knows that God knew all of this and allowed it to happen.
Q: In Dan 8:27, why was Daniel “appalled” at the vision?
A: Daniel was so overwhelmed by the devastation of this vision, that with the stress he fell ill. While scripture does not say why Daniel was so shocked, we can see the probable reasons. This vision and the others showed that God was in control of history. But even so, Daniel was appalled at the terrible things that would happen, both to God’s people and God’s sanctuary. Since God was in control of history, why would God allow this to happen?
Today it is possible that we could get appalled at what God permits to happen. But we need to remember that God knows what He is doing, - better than we do.
Q: In Dan 9:1, who was Darius the Mede?
A: See the discussion on Daniel 5:30-6:1 for the answer.
Q: In Dan 9:2, what was the 70 years of the destruction of Jerusalem?
A: The seventy years, would be 360-day years. This is almost exactly 69 of our years. This was from 605/604 B.C. to 538/537 B.C. See the discussion on Jeremiah 29:10 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:4-19, how does Daniel’s prayer of corporate confession compare with Neh 1:5-11?
A: Here are seven common elements.
1. Both prayed in regards to what they saw should have been happening but was not. In Nehemiah’s case it was the external event of the city not being built, and in Daniel’s case it was the internal event of the 70 years of Jeremiah being almost over.
2. Both fasted and mourned - Daniel in sackcloth and ashes, and Nehemiah not, presumably because he was the cupbearer to the king.
3. Both start out mentioning God’s greatness and his covenant of mercy.
4. Both intermix the sins of the people with God’s just punishment.
5. Both mention not obeying the law of Moses.
6. All Christians know that we should pray prayers of confession, but there are different types of prayers of confession. These were both confession for the people as a whole. These were from a “historical confession” as opposed to an “emotional confession” as in Jeremiah. Their historical confession stresses what they did, God’s just punishment, what they did next, etc.
7. Both conclude with asking God to do something. Daniel asks that God turn His anger away from Jerusalem, while Nehemiah merely asked that God make the king favorable toward his request.
Q: In Dan 9:23, how did this vision answer Daniel’s question?
A: Daniel prayed that the people would return and Jerusalem would be rebuilt as God promised in Jeremiah 25:11-14. God not only repeated to Daniel that this would happen, God told him some of the details of then, and the how the exact timing of that would lay the groundwork for a future time when the Messiah would come.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how does this refer to the Messiah?
A: In Daniel 9:25,26, the word “anointed one” is recognized by both Jews and Christians as the Messiah. See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.318-320 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, since the New Testament writers quoted old testament prophecies as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, why do none of them refer to one of the most amazing of all the Messianic prophecies, Dan. 9:24-27?
A: While I do not know for certain why the gospel writers did not refer to Daniel 9:24-27, I have a guess. They predominantly wrote on what Jesus said Himself. Jesus might not have publicly mentioned that prophecy because He would not want to give the false impression that they were in God’s will to crucify Him, or that they were forced to do this because of a prophecy. It was their own responsibility that they crucified Him, and the prophecy that announced that fact did not lessen their guilt.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, what are the seventy weeks?
A: Here is what they are, when they started, and when they were fulfilled.
1. These are seventy weeks of years. If the “weeks/sevens” were weeks of days, it would be incredible to say that people would rebuild the entire city in 42 workdays. Here is what Jews themselves said about the “sevens”, when this prophecy should come to pass, and how it relates to the Messiah.
1a. Maimonides (Rabbi Moses Ben Maimon): “Daniel has elucidated to us the knowledge of the end times. However, since they are secret, the wise [rabbis] have barred the calculation of the days of Messiah’s coming so that the untutored populace will not be led astray when they see that the End Times have already come but there is no sign of the Messiah” (Igeret Teiman, chapter 3 p.24.)
1b. Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi: “I have examined and searched all the Holy Scriptures and have not found the time for the coming of Messiah clearly fixed, except in the words of Gabriel to the prophet Daniel, which are written in the 9th chapter of the prophecy of Daniel (The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers, 1971) p.141-142
(These two quotes were taken from The Creator Beyond Time and Space by Mark Eastman, M.D. and Chuck Missler (The Word for Today, 1996)).
2. The starting point is March/April 444 B.C. Daniel 9:25 explicitly states the starting point was the decree to restore and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. This decree is given in Nehemiah 2, and this is 444 B.C. Note that it is not Cyrus’ 538/537 B.C. decree to allow the Jews to return home, and it is not Artaxerxes’s decree in 458 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-26) allowing the Jews to take back the gold and silver that the Babylonians looted from Solomon’s Temple. The early Christian writer Julius Africanus, writing 232-245 A.D.) also mentions the command during Nehemiah’s time as being the starting point. (Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 p.135)
3. 360-days years are used. The Jewish religious year was 12 months of 30 days each. Thus 7 sevens is 49*360 = 17,640 days. 7+62=69 sevens is 173,880 days. 1 seven is 2,520 days. Skipping the details of converting 360-day years to 265.25 day years (and 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is 1 year, not 2), this gives dates of:
3a. 396/395 B.C. (June/July) the city will be rebuilt.
3b. 32/33 A.D. (March/April + 5 days) The Messiah will be killed. The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1092 says that Anderson computed this to April 6, 32 A.D. Dr. Harold Hoehner comes up with 33 A.D.
3c. Skipping a period of time (for reasons given in the next answer), the end times will be a period of 7 * 360/365.25 = 6.9 of our years.
God wanted to point out to people when His Messiah would come, and for those who cared to look, it is very clear.
See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1085-1087, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.289-292, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1361-1365, The Complete Book of Bible Answers p.256-257, and 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.285-286 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, could a week here be seven days instead of seven years?
A: No. Daniel was praying about the prophecy of Jeremiah, which is in years. Also in Daniel 9:25, it would be hard to rebuild the city in just 7 days. Hard Sayings of the Bible p.318-320 says that since the whole sabbatical year was laid out in terms of sevens, equating the “sevens” with years was not a problem for Jewish listeners, especially since the Jubilee was once every seven years in Leviticus 25.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how do we know which is the correct decree?
A: There were in fact three decrees: For the Jews to return in 538/7 B.C., Artaxerxes’ decree in 458 B.C. for the Jews to get back the gold and silver from their Temple, and Artaxerxes’ decree in 444 B.C. However, Daniel 9:25 explicitly says the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (not the Temple). Artaxerxes’ decree of 444 B.C. is the only decree that fits this description.
The early Christian writer Julius Africanus, (232-245 A.D.) also discusses this in Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 Five Books of the Chronology of Julius Africanus ch.16.1 p.134. He mentions the command during Nehemiah’s time as being the starting point. (p.135)
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how do we know the decree in the 20th year of Artaxerxes I was 444 B.C., and how do we know it was not Artaxerxes II?
A: When Artaxerxes became king by defeating his brother Hystaspes in Bactria, this was almost immediately known in Egypt by January 2/3, 464 B.C., as the Elephantine Papyrus Cowley #6 proves. This first “reigning year” was counted as starting April 13, 464 B.C. The fired Athenian general Thucydides, who was also a historian, wrote about Artaxerxes I, as did the historians Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.).
We know this was Artaxerxes I (not II) because a Papyrus found in Elephantine Island, Egypt (Cowley #30), dated 407 B.C. mentions the sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. (There was a Persian fort made up of Jewish mercenaries at Elephantine).
See Persia and the Bible p.242,247-248 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, why use a 360-day year?
A: Why use a 365.25-day year, since the Bible never does? The Jewish religious year was always 12 months of 30 days each. Periodically, the Jews added an extra month to get the calendar back in sync with the seasons. In the Bible, a 30-day month goes back to Noah in Gen 7:11,24; 8:3-4. Besides all the references to religious months in the Old Testament, in the New Testament 30 days is a month in Revelation 11:3,4. The early Christian writer Julius Africanus, writing 232-245 A.D.) also mentions converting from a 365.25 day year to the Jewish year. He said the Jewish year was 29.5 days, with 3 extra months added every 8 years. (Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 6 p.137)
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, what is the rationale for saying there is a gap between the 69th and 70th year?
A: Four points to consider in the answer.
1. Nothing in Daniel indicates that the last seven is immediately after the 69 sevens.
2. In contrast, Daniel 9:25 implies the 7 sevens and 62 sevens are one unit until the Messiah comes. There is no mention of the last seven being combined with any other period.
3. After the Messiah is cut off and has nothing, a number of events are listed that are not associated with either the middle period (62 sevens) or the last seven. Namely, the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and Temple, the end will come, war will come, and desolations. The last seven is not said to include these events. It only includes the ruler who will come making a covenant, and 3 1/2 years later breaking this covenant.
4. Many theologians call the gap before the last seven by a specific term, to describe a mystery God did not reveal until later. The term they use is “the church age”.
In conclusion, treating the 69 sevens as one unit without treating the last seven, and mentioning a number of events between the end of the 69th seven and the start of the last seven, strongly implies a gap before the start of the last seven.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, how does this square with the view that Jesus was born 4-5 B.C?
A: This prophecy neither supports nor refutes that view. The Bible does not say Jesus was thirty when he began his ministry. Rather, Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was about thirty years old
Q: In Dan 9:24, should this read “most holy one” or “most holy place”?
A: The Hebrew and Septuagint both simply say, “most holy”.
Q: In Dan 9:24-27, what did the early church teach about the seventy weeks?
A: They taught the same as Biblical Christians today, that it was Messianic.
Even Jewish writers Maimonides in Igeret Teiman and Rabbi Moses Abraham Levi in The Messiah of the Targums, Talmuds and Rabbinical Writers. Daniel 9:20-27 is messianic.
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) discusses Daniels’ prophecies and says, “and shall purpose to change times and laws; an [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and half time.,’ that is, for three years six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.” Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5 ch.25.3 p.553-554
Clement of Alexandria (193-202 A.D.) says that Daniel 9:24-27 refers to Christ. Stromata book 1 ch.21 p.319
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) compares the chronology of history with Daniel 9. Answer to the Jews ch.8 p.158-161
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) “For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognise that so it has befallen.” And then Tertullian quotes Daniel 9:26. Answer to the Jews ch.13 p.169
Hippolytus (222-235/6 A.D.) “‘Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, to seal up sins and to blot out transgressions, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy; and thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of words for the answer, and for the building of Jerusalem, unto Christ the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.’” Visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar ch.12 p.180
Hippolytus bishop of Portus (222-235/236 A.D.) Commentary on the Prophet Daniel ch.2.22
Julius Africanus (235-245 A.D.) discusses the seventy weeks of Daniel and that prophecy was until John [the Baptist]. Five Books of the Chronology of Julius Africanus ch.16.1 p.134.
Origen (225-254 A.D.) Origen Against Celsus book 6 ch.46 p.594-595
Athanasius (c.318 A.D.) “the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying: ‘Seventy weeks are cut short upon thy people, and upon the holy city,…” Incarnation of the Word ch.39 p.57
Lactantius (c.303-c.325 A.D.) David prophesied about Jesus in Psalm16:10 as did Daniel 7:13. Epitome of the Divine Institutes ch.47 p.241. He also discusses Isaiah 7:14 in the Epitome of the Divine Institutes ch.44 p.239.
They taught the same after Nicea, except that the first person known to have said it was not Messianic was Julius Hilarianus (ca.397 A.D.) (non-Messianic view of Daniel 9) Chronologia sive Libellus de Mundi Duratione preserved in Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel.
See the article by J. Paul Tanner: ‘Is Daniels’ Seventy-Weeks Prophecy Messianic? Part 1” in Bibliotheca Sacra vol.166 (April-June 2009) p.181-200 for more info.
Q: In Dan 9:25, is it reasonable to understand the Messiah the Prince to mean Cyrus of Persia, as the skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.614 says?
A: No, Asimov apparently is confused on this point. According to Daniel 9:25 there will be 69 “sevens” of years, before the Messiah comes. Cyrus already came when Daniel was written. In addition, the Messiah is killed (cut off) in Daniel 9:26.
Q: In Dan 9:26, what flood is scripture referring to? I have seen a translation that says, "The end of it will be like a flood", but most say, "with a flood". Did Jerusalem suffer a flood in 70 AD when the Roman's destroyed the temple?
A: Jerusalem is on top of Mt. Zion, so it is not subject to floods of water, and none occurred in 70 A.D. In Hebrew the word “like” is not there, but the Hebrew word can be translated overflowing, so some translations apparently put in “like a flood” to reflect that, there is no indication this has to do with water.
The Expositor's Bible Commentary p.116 says, “More literally, this might be rendered thus: 'And the end of it will be in the overflowing, and unto the end there will be war, a strict determination of desolations' or 'the determined amount of desolations.' The general tenor of this sentence is in striking conformity with Christ's own prediction in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:7-22).”
Q: In Dan 10:2-4, was Daniel right to mourn three full weeks?
A: Yes. Mourning does not mean depression, or a psychological problem. There are times for believers to mourn, just as there are times to rejoice.
Q: In Dan 10:4, where is the Hiddekel River?
A: This was another name for the Tigris River. He don’t know why Daniel used this uncommon word for the River, but sometimes common things can seem unfamiliar when we can seen more of what will happen in the future. Some universities with great Christian seminaries, such as Yale, Harvard, and Princeton, have been changed and become unfamiliar in the last century or so.
Q: In Dan 10:4-9, what can we learn about this angel here?
A: There are at least three things.
Physically the angel was dressed in linen, which would be white, with a gold belt. The angel sounds both difficult to look at, and handsome to look at, at the same time. His face like lightning would be so bright you would not want to look at it.
The effect on the others was for them to run in terror, even though they did not see the angel. The effect on Daniel was to drain his strength, and then fall down in a deep sleep.
Even though this angel was resisted by the Prince of Persia for 21 days, he did not look any the worse for being resisted so long.
We are not angels, and we will not become angels. Nevertheless we can find a few similarities between the angel and what our character should be. Our life and message should be attractive and winsome for others. Yet, people will feel conviction when they hear God’s message. People’s desire to sin should be reduced when they are around us, if we are having an impact on their lives.
Q: In Dan 10:5 and Jer 10:9, what is the fine gold of Uphaz?
A: We do not know, but there are two views. Perhaps Uphaz was a place in Africa (Ophir), or another location. Alternately, perhaps Uphaz was not a place at all, but an adjective describing very high-quality gold.
See The New International Bible Dictionary p.1044 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.1758 for more info.
Q: In Dan 10:5-10,13-21, with whom was Daniel speaking?
A: This glorious being was an angel of God. We do not know his name, and it was not necessarily Gabriel, who spoke to Daniel earlier.
Q: In Dan 10:7,8,15-19, as well as Rev 1:17, why are people weak when they see a heavenly being?
A: When a person on earth comes in contact with God’s holiness, or the holiness reflected in His angels, they not only feel sinful and inadequate, but they physically lose their strength. In Isaiah 6:5 Isaiah was in terror, saying “Woe is me”.
Q: In Dan 10:13,21, 12:1 who is the angel Michael?
A: Daniel 10:13 simply says he is one of the chief princes. Daniel 10:21 says he is the chief prince of Israel, and Daniel 12:1 says he is “the great prince.” The New Testament tells us more. Revelation 12:7 says he is the archangel who led the armies of heaven against the dragon. Jude 9 says he disputed with Satan over the body of Moses and said “The Lord rebuke you.” See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.65 for more info.
Q: In Dan 10:16 (KJV), what is similitude of the sons of men?
A: This King James Version expression means he looked like a human male.
Q: In Dan 10:21, how do you pronounce “Michael”?
A: Most people say, “MI kel”, as in English, though I heard it pronounced “mi KA el”, in a Bible Bee. (The seventh-grade contestant misspelled it.)
Q: In Dan 10:21, who is Michael the prince over?
A: Michael was the prince over the Jewish people. In the other two times Michael appears in scripture, he is contending about something. In Jude 9, Michael the archangel said “The Lord rebuke you” to Satan. In Revelation 12:7 it is Michael who is fighting against the dragon in Heaven.
Q: In Dan 10:21, could Michael be Jesus Christ?
A: No. Unlike Jehovah’s Witnesses say, Michael is not Jesus Christ. One reason is that in Jude 9, Michael said for the Lord (Jesus) to rebuke Satan; Michael did not rebuke Satan himself. See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.339 for more info.
Q: In Dan 10:21, what is the scripture of truth?
A: There are two similar views.
a) The Bible which had been revealed up to that time. This includes the Torah and most of the prophets.
b) “God’s record of truth in general, of which the Bible is one expression” (Daniel : The Key to Prophetic Revelation p.250).
Q: In Dan 11, do you think God is only interested in the big picture, or also in the details?
A: When you read this entire chapter, the length of this passage, as well as all of the details of who defeated who when, show that God is very detail-oriented, in addition to looking at the overall big picture.
Q: In Dan 11, most other prophecies in the Old Testament do not have this avalanche of detail; even other prophecies in Daniel. Why do you think there might be so many details here?
A: Scripture does not say, but there are two likely reasons.
First, if you draw a line on land connecting Syria in the north and Egypt in the south, the line passes directly through Israel. You have to go out of your way somewhat to go through Ammon, Moab, and Edom. In this seesaw of battles and fortunes many of the battlefields were in Israel.
Second, there was a 400 year gap where there were no prophets or prophecies given for God’s people. This gap was finally broken when John the Baptist, the forerunner, came. But during these four centuries, God’s people could lose heart, or think they were out of God’s plan, with this long silence. The gap might have been to build expectation for John the Baptist, who built the expectation for the Messiah. But they were not forgotten during this gap; just prior to this, Daniel gave the details to show that God foreknew the history and the armies they would encounter.
Q: In Dan 11:1; 12:1, why is Michael called a “prince” when he is in fact an angel?
A: We observe that Michael is called one of the chief princes in Daniel 10:13; an angel is called a man in Daniel 10:5, or looked like a man in Daniel 10:18. Gabriel is called a man in Daniel 9:21. It is said to be a human hand writing on the wall in Daniel 5:5. In fact, the word “angel” is only used in Daniel 3:28 (by Nebuchadnezzar) and 6:22 (by Daniel). When Daniel uses the word angel in Daniel 6:22, he is referring to the effect of an angel stopping the mouths of the lions, and not anything that is visible. The word “messenger” is used in Daniel 4:13,17,23.
In Daniel’s way of writing, he writes what he says, whether it be the shape of a man or a hand. Daniel only used the term “angel” once, when there was no physical appearance to see. God did not have an angel appear for no purpose, but every time it was to convey a message. Perhaps we should not be concerned about seeing angels, but rather benefitting from their effects in our lives.
Q: In Dan 11:1, why did the angel strengthen Darius?
A: This probably does not refer to physical strength or health, but rather to strengthening his position to become king and to remain king.
Q: Does Dan 11:1, contradict history, which says the Persian King who conquered Babylonia was Cyrus I, not Darius I?
A: Neither Cyrus I nor Darius I captured Babylon. The man who captured Babylon was a general under Cyrus, name Gubaru (Gobryas in Greek). This was likely the individual mentioned here under the name Darius. Gubaru was an interesting man. He was actually the Babylonian governor of Gutium, who defected to the Medes and Persians.
For the contrary view that Darius here was Cyrus, see the Concordia Self-Study Commentary p.577, 581-82 for more info. See Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.66-67 for more info. In addition, see the two questions on Daniel 5:30-6:1.
Q: In Dan 11:1-33, who were the kings of the Persian Empire?
A: They were:
Cyrus the Great (559 B.C. - Anshan, 550 B.C. Medeo-Persia - 530/529 B.C.
Cambyses II 530/529-523/522 B.C.
Pseudo-Smerdis (Guatama) 523/522-522/521 B.C.
Darius I 550-522/521-486 B.C.
Ahasuerus (Xerxes in Greek) 486-465/464 B.C.
Artaxerxes I 464-423 B.C.
Darius II 423-404 B.C.
Artaxerxes II 404- B.C.
Artaxerxes III -336 B.C.
Darius III 336-331 B.C.
Then Alexander of Macedon conquered Persia.
Q: To what does Dan 11:1-33 refer?
A: Both The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1367 and the New Geneva Study Bible says these refer to the Persian kings: Cambyses II (530-522 B.C.), Pseudo-Smerdis (Guatama) 523/522-522/521 B.C.), Darius I (550-522/521-486 B.C.), and Ahasuerus (Xerxes in Greek) (486-465/464 B.C.) The skeptical Asimov’s Guide to the Bible p.616 says the same.
The fourth king, Xerxes, invaded Greece. It was later, in verse 3, that Alexander the Great (356-336-324 B.C.) conquered the Persian Empire.
Finally, Alexander’s empire was split into four parts. Cassander ruled Macedonia
Lysimachus ruled Thrace and Anatolia
Seleucus (312-281 B.C.) ruled Syria, and
Ptolemy (I Soter) (323-285 B.C.) ruled Egypt.
The Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1092 points out that Daniel 11:5-33 refers to the leaders of Syria and Egypt, and not to the same two rulers all throughout the text.
Q: In Dan 11:31, what was the abomination that causes desolation?
A: This prophecy had both a foreshadowing under Antiochus Epiphanes and a fulfillment that is future to us.
Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple. He entered the Holy of Holies, and according to one account put a pig’s head there.
According to Hippolytus’ Fragment 2 from his Commentaries (p.184) (225-235/6 A.D.) Daniel’s abomination of desolation occurs during the endtimes when the Antichrist comes.
See 735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.198 and 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.290-291 for more info.
Q: In Dan 11:37-38, what exactly does the Hebrew word here for God mean?
A: The Hebrew word, elohim, has two meanings. It can refer to the One True God, or it can refer to false gods. The English word God/god is the same. However, unlike the English, elohim is a plural form, so it is The “royal we” for the One True God, and it can mean gods (plural). In Daniel 11:37-38, “gods of his fathers” refers to false idols, and “the one desired by women” refers to a false God (probably Tammuz). See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.288 for more info.
Q: In Dan 11:40-12:3, what does “Epiphanes” mean?
A: It means illustrious, or self-evident. As a side note, the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1092 and The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1369 say the Jews had another nickname for him, “Epimanes”, which means madman. A photograph of a coin showing Antiochus Epiphanes, with the title “God manifest” is in The Journey from Texts to Translations p.52.
Q: In Dan 11:45, how did Antiochus Epiphanes IV “come to his end, with no one to help him” (NKJV)?
A: Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) reigned from 165-163 B.C. He was humiliated when the Roman Senate forbade him to invade Egypt again. The Anchor Bible Dictionary volume 1 p.271 says that the papyrus Appian Syr. 66 says that Antiochus IV withdrew to Tabae and died of consumption in late 164 B.C.
Q: In Dan 12:1, what time period will this be?
A: This and Daniel 11 refer to the future time during the Great Tribulation, when the Antichrist reigns. See the Believer’s Bible Commentary p.1091, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : Old Testament p.1372, The NIV Study Bible 1985 p.1318, The Nelson Study Bible p.1442-1443, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary volume 7 p.149-152, and 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.287.
In the early church, Hippolytus bishop of Rome (225-235/6 A.D.) in his Commentary on Daniel 12 also says this refers to the time of the Antichrist.
Q: Does Dan 12:2, indicate a separate resurrection for godly Jews?
A: No for two reasons.
If a passage discusses something that happens to one people, and a second passage mentions the same thing happening to other people, putting the two together does not indicate whether they will be raised together or separately.
But in this particular case, Daniel 12:2 says, “your people – everyone whose name is found written in the book” While this could mean only elect Jews, it more naturally means everyone who is elect.
By the way, two later Jewish rabbis who affirmed these refer to physical resurrection are Saaidah the Gaon and Ibn Ezra, according to 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.280.
See 1001 Bible Questions Answered p.139 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:2, will “many” be raised, or will all be raised as Rev 20:5 says?
A: Both, in at least two events. The righteous will be raised from the dead first, and later all will be raised by the end of the Millennium in Revelation 20:5. Daniel 12:2 is the oldest passage of Scripture that says the ungodly will be raised as well as the godly. See When Critics Ask p.296 and The NIV Study Bible 1985 p.1318 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:6, who were the two beings here?
A: These are two angels. The river here is the Tigris River (Daniel 10:4), not the Euphrates, which is more to the west. Therefore, these angels are probably not to be identified with the four angels at the Euphrates River in Revelation 9:14-15.
Q: In Dan 12:6, do angels know everything?
A: No, they do not know everything about the future, because one of the angels asked when this would happen. In 1 Peter 1:12, angels longed to look into the things coming of Christ.
Q: Could Dan 12:6 refer to the Bab as Baha’is claim, since he appeared 1,260 years from the Hejira of Mohammed? (Some Answered Questions p.43)
A: No. They claim this because 3.5 times or 3.5 lunar 360-day years is 360 * 3.5 = 1260 days. They say a day is a year, and the Bab appeared 1,260 lunar years from the Hejira of Mohammed.
First of all days does not mean years here. Second, the starting date they want to use is not what the Bible says. You have to also read what the end point is in Daniel 12:1-4. At this time multitudes of people will be raised from sleeping in the dust, and Michael, who protects the Jewish people will arise. This certainly did not happen; especially since the Holocaust happened after this.
Basically Baha’is take nearly every Bible prophecy that proclaims future knowledge or deliverance, and begs the question by applying it to Baha’u’llah. Then they can say, “See, this prophecy was fulfilled, therefore Baha’u’llah is true.”
Q: In Dan 12:8-10, why did Daniel himself not understand what he was writing?
A: Daniel understood the individual words, but not the meaning nor the significance. Unlike most writings in the Bible, this part was “mechanically dictated”, in that Daniel merely wrote down what he heard from the angel. Of course, Satan and the demons would not be able to see what this said either.
Today, sometimes people will give up on understanding anything about something if they cannot understand everything. If you do not understand everything about love, does that mean you should not love anybody else? If you cannot understand everything about God, does that mean you cannot understand anything? - Of course not.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.320-321 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:9, how did they seal things back then?
A: When a deed or other important document was needed, scribes would write two identical copies. One would be “public” and one would be sealed up and stored away in a safe place. They would seal a scroll by rolling it up, and each scribe would place his wax seal over it, so that if anyone tried to open it or tamper with it, the seal would be broken. If anyone tried to change the public copy, they could go to the sealed up copy and verify the original text.
Q: In Dan 12:9; Rev 6:1-3; 10:4, why does God seal things up?
A: There are at least three reasons.
a) God does not want people to know some things, at least until a future time. But God could have just not said anything, rather than said something that would be sealed up.
b) God wants us to realize now there is something important to know, that we will not learn until later.
c) Perhaps God does not want Satan or demons to hear this information about the future.
Q: In Dan 12:9 and 1 Pet 1:10-11, since the prophets did not understand everything they were saying, does that somehow support the Jehovah’s Witness Watchtower leadership of making false prophecies?
A: No. Though the prophets did not fully understand everything, they truthfully, accurately, and faithfully communicated to us everything the God of truth wanted them to reveal. Likewise, Jonah was not a false prophet, because the book of Jonah shows he communicated correctly, and that the prophecy of Nineveh’s destruction was conditional on their repentance. (Of course, their destruction was not really taken away, only postponed.)
See Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses p.52-53 for more info.
Q: In Dan 12:10 and Rev 22:11, how are the pure purified, and the wicked continue to be wicked?
A: Once we have turned to God and repented from some sins, God still has a lot of work to do to develop our Christlike character and free us from other sins. We should not be discouraged with ourselves if you do not show complete Christlike character soon after coming to Christ. We also should not be discouraged with other brothers and sisters in the Lord, when they do not show complete Christlike character immediately.
Revelation 22:11 also say the wrong, and the vile, will continue to be wrong and vile; the right and holy will continue to be right and holy. There is not merely an “inertia” but also a trajectory that naturally leads sinners to more sin, and those who seek God to more righteousness.
Q: In Dan 12:11, what is the sign of the 1,290 days and 1,335 days?
A: A religious year was 360 days. 1,290 days is just over 3 years 7 months. 1,335 days is exactly 45 days later.
Q: In Dan 12:11-12, does the 1,290 days refer to the Baha’ullah being 1,290 years after Mohammed announced his mission as Bahai’s claim in Some Answered Questions p.43-44?
A: Baha’u’llah made his claim 19 years after the Bab, so one would think they would say it was 1,279 years. However, since that does not fit 1,290 years, they move the starting date back to approximately when Mohammed said he was a prophet.
Q: In Dan, what would you do if you had knowledge of God’s will as great as Daniel had?
A: Daniel knew much beyond the people of his time; much beyond what anyone could naturally know. He used his knowledge to instruct others, encourage us, and warn others, even kings.
But we all have knowledge even greater than Daniel had. We know about the Messiah, and much more about His future coming too. But we should not be proud of the knowledge we have, but rather use our knowledge for others, as Daniel did. Our words and lives should be a mirror, reflecting God's word.
Daniel knew how to weather the storms of life. Whether uprooted or secure, in a palace or lion’s den, Daniel was a man for all seasons. Whatever times we live in, we should be the same.
Q: Which verses of Daniel exist among the Dead Sea scrolls?
A: They are:
Dan 1:10-17 1Q71 (=1QDan a)
Dan 1:16-20 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 2:2-6 1Q71 (=1QDan a)
Dan 2:9-11, 19-49 4A112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 3:1-2 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 3:22-30 1Q71 (=1QDan a)
Dan 4:5?-9; 12-14 4Q115 (=4QDan d)
Dan 4:29-30 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 5:5-7, 12-14, 16-19 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 5:10-12, 14-16, 19-22 4Q113 (=4QDan b)
Dan 6:8-22, 27-29 4Q113 (=4QDan b)
Dan 7:1-6, 11(?), 26-28 4Q113 (=4QDan b)
Dan 7:5-7, 25-28 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 7:15-19; 21v-23? 4Q115 (=4QDan d)
Dan 8:1-5 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 8:1-8, 13-16 4Q113 (=4QDan b)
Dan 8:16, 17(?), 20, 21(?)4Q114 (=4QDan c), 6Q7 (=6QpapDan)
Dan 9:12-14; 15-16?; 17?
Dan 10:5-9,11-16,21 4Q114 (=4QDan c)
Dan 19:8-16 6Q7 (=6Qpap Dan)
Dan 10:16-20 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 11:1-2,13-17,25-29 4Q114 (=4QDan c)
Dan 11:13-16 4Q112 (=4QDan a)
Dan 11:33-36, 38 6Q7 (=6Qpap Dan)
See The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament p.165 for more info. See also The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls for more details.
Q: In Dan, what are some of the earliest manuscripts that still exist today?
A: Here are the earliest ones.
Ketef Hinnom scrolls are 650-587 B.C., on silver (so they survived), and have fragments of Exodus 20:6; Numbers 6:24-26; Deuteronomy 5:10; 7:9; Nehemiah 1:5; and Daniel 9:4.
Dead Sea scrolls: (120 B.C.) 8 separate copies according to the Dead Sea Scrolls Today p.30 and the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary p.436-438. The oldest manuscript is dated at 120 B.C.
1Q71 (=1QDan a) Dan 2:2-6; 3:22-30
1Q72 (=1QDan b)
4Q112 (=4QDan a) is dated to the late Hasmonean or early Herodian period. It contains Daniel 1:16-20, 2:9-11, 19-49; 3:1-2; 4:29-30; 5:5-7, 12-14, 16-19; 7:5-7, 25-28; 8:1-5; 10:16-20; 11:13-16
4Q113 (=4QDan b) is dated 20-50 A.D. It contains Daniel 5:10-12, 14-16, 19-22; 6:8-22, 27-29; 7:1-6, 11(?), 26-28; 8:1-8, 13-16
4Q114 (=4QDan c) is dated 125-100 B.C. It contains Daniel 10:5-9, 11-16, 21; 11:1-2, 13-17, 25-29
4Q115 (=4QDan d) has Dan 4:5?-9; 12-14; 7:15-19; 21v-23? according to The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls by James VanderKam and Peter Flint on p.423.
4Q116 (=4QDan e) has “Dan 9:12-14, 15-16?, 17?” according to The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls by James VanderKam and Peter Flint on p.423. The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated by Florentino Garcia Martinez on p.482 for manuscript 4Q116 (=4QDan(e)) said it contains “Remains of Dn 9” without specifying any verses.
6Q7 (=6QpapDan) contains Daniel 8:16; 17(?), 20, 21(?), 10:8-16; 11:33-36,38. The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament p.77 says it is poorly preserved, but generally agrees with the proto-Masoretic text.
Overall, preserved in the Dead Sea scrolls are the following approximately 168 verses out of 357 total verses of Daniel (47.1 %)
Dan 1:10-20; 2:2-6,9-11,19-49; 3:1-2,22-30; 4:5?-9,12-14,29-30; 5:5-7,10-22; 6:8-22,27-29; 7:1-7,11?,25-28; 8:1-8,13-16,17?,20-21?; 9:12-15,16?,17?; 10:5-20; 11:1-2,13-17,25-29,33-36,38. See The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls p.423 for more details.
Theodotion was a Jew after the time of Christ who made a Greek translation of the Old Testament. We have copies of his translation of Daniel, as well as some other books.
Christian Bible manuscripts, from about 350 A.D., contain the Old Testament, including Daniel. The Chester Beatty Papyrii IX and X (2nd-4th century A.D.) contain Daniel according to The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts p.367 and The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge p.746.
Scheide Papyrii 1 contains Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther. It is dated the early third century A.D. It originally had 118 leaves, of which 109 survive today. For more info and a photograph of it see Manuscripts of the Greek Bible p.70-71.
Vaticanus (325-350 A.D.) has preserved all of Daniel.
There are no parts of Daniel in Sinaiticus (340-350 A.D.)
Alexandrinus (c.450 A.D.) has preserved all of Daniel.
Christian writers also referred extensively to Daniel as the next question shows.
Q: Which early writers referred to Daniel?
A: Pre-Nicene writers who referenced or alluded to verses in Daniel are:
Clement of Rome (96-98 A.D.) (allusion) “For what shall we say, brethren? Was Daniel cast into the den of lions by such as feared God? Were Ananias, and Azarias, and Michael shut up in a furnace of fire by those who observed the great and glorious worship of the Most High? Far from us be such a thought!” He references Daniel 6:16 and Daniel 3:20. 1 Clement ch.45 p.17
Epistle of Barnabas (c.70-130 A.D.) ch.4 p.138 “In like manner Daniel says concerning the same, ‘And I beheld the fourth beast, wicked and powerful, and more savage than all the beasts of the earth, and how from it sprang up ten horns, and out of them a little budding horn, and how it subdued under one three of the great horns.”
Justin Martyr (c.138-165 A.D.) “‘Of these and such like words written by the prophets, O Trypho,’ said I, ‘some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold.’” Dialogue with Trypho the Jew ch.14 p.202
Melito/Meleto of Sardis (170-177/180 A.D.) lists all the books of the Old Testament, and he includes every book we have except Nehemiah and Esther. Fragment 4 From the Book of Extracts p.759.
Theophilus of Antioch (168-181/188 A.D.) “But so far as regards the periods we speak of, we are corroborated by Berosus, the Chaldean philosopher, who made the Greeks acquainted with the Chaldean literature, and uttered some things concerning the deluge, and many other points of history, in agreement with Moses; and with the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel also, he spoke in a measure of agreement.” Theophilus to Autolycus book 3 ch.29 p.121
Irenaeus of Lyons (182-188 A.D.) quotes half of Daniel 2:34 as by Daniel. Irenaeus Against Heresies book 3 ch.21.7 p.453
Clement of Alexandria (193-205 A.D.) “And Daniel the prophet says, ‘The mystery which the king asks, it is not in the power of the wise, the Magi, the diviners, the Gazarenes, to tell the king; but it is God in heaven who revealeth it.’” Stromata book 1 ch.3 p.304
Tertullian (198-220 A.D.) “and then of such as concerned all nations up to the very end of the world. For after He had declared that ‘Jerusalem was to be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled,’ -meaning, of course, those which were to be chosen of God, and gathered in with the remnant of Israel-He then goes on to proclaim, against this world and dispensation (even as Joel had done, and Daniel, and all the prophets with one consent), that ‘there should be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars, distress of nations with perplexity, the sea and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth.’” On the Resurrection of the Flesh ch.22 p.560-561
Tertullian (207/208 A.D.) “He also was revealed to Daniel himself expressly as ‘the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven’ as a Judge, as also the Scripture shows.” Five Books Against Marcion book 4 ch.10 p.359
Hippolytus (225-235/6 A.D.) wrote a commentary on Daniel. Specifically we have quotes of parts of chapters 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, the apocryphal Song of the Three Children and Susannah.
Origen (225-254 A.D.) “Any one, moreover, who likes may find the prophecy in Daniel respecting antichrist.” Origen Against Celsus book 2 ch.50 p.451
Anonymous Treatise Against Novatian (c.246-258 A.D.) ch.17 p.662-663 “17. Like things to these also says Daniel:” and then quotes Daniel 7:9-10.
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (c.246-258 A.D.) quotes from “Daniel” in Treatise 12 the third book 10.
Firmilian of Caesarea to Cyprian (256 A.D.) For the grace of God is mighty to associate and join together in the bond of charity and unity even those things which seem to be divided by a considerable space of earth, according to the way in which of old also the divine power associated in the bond of unanimity Ezekiel and Daniel, though later in their age, and separated from them by a long space of time, to Job and Noah, who were among the first; so that although they were separated by long periods, yet by divine inspiration they felt the same truths.” Letters of Cyprian Letter 74.3 p.390
Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) quotes Daniel 7:13 as by Daniel, following the Septuagint and Theodotion, in Dialogue on the True Faith First Part no.25 p.69
Victorinus of Petau (martyred 304 A.D.) “Thence here he places, and by and by here he renews, that of which the Lord, admonishing His churches concerning the last times and their dangers, says: ‘But when ye shall see the contempt which is spoken of by Daniel the prophet standing in the holy place, let him who readeth understand.’” Commentary on the Apocalypse from the Thirteenth chapter no.13 p.357
Athanasius (c.318 A.D.) “the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying: ‘Seventy weeks are cut short upon thy people, and upon the holy city,…” Incarnation of the Word ch.39 p.57
Lactantius (c.303-c.325 A.D.) “Daniel also foretold similar things: ‘I saw,’ he said, "in a vision of the night, and, behold, one like the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, and He came even to the Ancient of days. And they who stood by brought Him near before Him. And there was given unto Him a kingdom, and glory, and dominion; and all people, tribes, and languages shall serve Him: and His dominion is everlasting, which shall never pass away, and His kingdom shall not be destroyed.’” The Divine Institutes book 4 ch.12 p.111
Theodotion was a Jewish writer who translated Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek, independent of the Septuagint. He also included in Daniel the story of Susannah according to ANF vol.5 p.191 footnote 5. Susannah is also in the old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic versions according to the same source.
After Nicea
Eusebius of Caesarea (318-339/340 A.D.) “For the Scripture, in the book of Daniel, having expressly mentioned a certain number of weeks until the coming of Christ…” Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History book 1 ch.6 p.90
Aphrahat the Syrian (337-345 A.D.) “And again Daniel also spoke concerning this stone which is Christ.” And quote Daniel 2:34-35. Select Demonstrations Demonstration 1 ch.8 p.347
Hilary of Poitiers (355-367/368 A.D.) mentions the Jewish children in the flames and Daniel, “did not fear the lion’s den.” On the Trinity book 10 ch.45-46 p.194
Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae (350-370 A.D. or 5th century)
Athanasius (367, 325-373 A.D.) lists Daniel with the rest of the books of the Old Testament in Paschal Letter 39 ch.4 p.552.
Life of Antony (356-362 A.D.) ch.82 p.217 (possibly by Athanasius) quotes Daniel 4:19 in the Septuagint as “is written in Daniel”.
Ephraim the Syrian hymn-writer (350-378 A.D.) “For behold, Daniel also was melted and poured out on every side before the glory of the angel, whose vehement brightness suddenly shone upon him!” Three Homilies Homily 1 ch.27 p.316
Basil of Cappadocia (357-379 A.D.)
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.349-386 A.D.) refers to Daniel 4:9 as in Daniel. Catechetical Lectures Lecture 16.31 p.123
Ambrose of Milan (370-390 A.D.)
Gregory of Nanzianzen (330-391 A.D.)
Pacian of Barcelona (342-379/392 A.D.) “By prayer Daniel removed the sword over the wise men of Babylon.” Letter 3 ch.24.1 p.66
Pacian of Barcelona (342-379/392 A.D.) alludes to Esther and Daniel. Letter 2 ch.5.1 p.33
Gregory of Nyssa (c.356-397 A.D.)
Epiphanius of Salamis (360-403 A.D.) mentions every book of the Old Testament.
Rufinus (374-406 A.D.)
John Chrysostom (-407 A.D.) refers to Daniel 7:13-15 as by Daniel in vol.9 Letters to the Fallen Theodore ch.12 p.101
Sulpitius Severus (363-420 A.D.) refers to Daniel as Daniel in History book 2 ch.1-2 p.97
Jerome (373-420 A.D.)
Council of Carthage (218 bishops) (393-419 A.D.)
Augustine of Hippo (338-430 A.D.) mentions Daniel and Ezekiel in The City of God book 17 ch.34 p.380
The semi-Pelagian John Cassian (419-430 A.D.)
Theodoret of Cyrus (bishop and historian) (423-458 A.D.)
Jerome and Gennadius (c.485-492 A.D.)
Gregory of Rome (590-605 A.D) (allusion)
Among Heretics and spurious books
Megethius (c.300 A.D.) quotes Daniel 2:34-35, as by Daniel, following the Septuagint and Theodotion, in his debate with Adamantius. Dialogue on the True Faith First part no.25 p.68.
Q: In Dan, what are some of the translation differences between the Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint?
A: Focusing primarily on chapter 9, the first alternative is the Masoretic text, the second is the Septuagint, unless otherwise noted.
Dan 1:2 “to the land of Shinar” (Septuagint, Theodotion) vs. “to the land of Shinar to a house of his own” (Hebrew)
Dan 2:34-35a “You continued until a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces. Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were together broken to pieces; and they became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors. And the wind carried them away, so that no trace was found for them.” (Hebrew) vs. “Thou saw until a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands, and it smote the image upon its feet of iron and earthenware, and utterly reduced them to powder. Then once for all the earthenware, the iron, the brass, the silver, the gold were ground to powder, and became as chaff from the summer threshing floor; and the violence of the wind carried them away, and no place was found for them:” (Septuagint, Theodotion) vs. “I saw, and behold, a stone was cut out of a mountain without hands: and it struck the image and made it like a cloud of dust, and it was blown away by the wind.” (Adamantius paraphrased (c.300 A.D.) Dialogue on the True Faith first part ch.25 p.68)
Dan 2:40 “just as iron crushes and smashes everything” (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate) vs. “just as iron crushes and smashes everything, and like iron that crushes” (Aramaic)
Dan 2:43 “in marriage (most) vs. “by human seed (Aramaic)
Dan 3:15 “that I have made, well and good” (most) vs. “that I have made” (Aramaic)
Dan 3:25 “appearance of a god” (most) vs. “appearance of a son of the gods” (Aramaic)
Dan 4:9 “Hear the dream” (most) vs. “Hear the vision of the dream” (Theodotion, Aramaic)
Dan 6:1 “Darius” (Masoretic text, Septuagint) vs. “Artaxerxes” (proto-Theodotion)
Dan 7:1 “[Daniel] told/said the sum of the matter” (Masoretic) vs. “[Daniel] the sum of the matter” (4QDana)
Dan 6:6 “wrote down the dream in a summary fashion” (Masoretic) vs. “wrote down the words” (Theodotion, according to the NET Bible)
Dan 7:5 “in its mouth between its teeth” (Masoretic) vs. “in its mouth” (Septuagint)
Dan 7:9-10 “I beheld a throne placed, and the Ancient of days sat upon it, and His clothing was as it were snow, and the hairs of His head as it were white wool: His throne was a flame of fire, its wheels were burning fire. A river of fire came forth before Him: thousand thousands ministered to Him, and thousand thousands stood before Him: He sat to judgment, and the books were opened.” Anonymous Treatise Against Novatian (c.246-258 A.D.) ch.17 p.662-663
Dan 7:3 “...one like the Son of man came with the clouds of the heavens....” (Hebrew) vs. “one coming with the clouds of heaven as the Son of man...” (Septuagint, Theodotion) vs. “I saw One like a son of man coming through the clouds” (Adamantius (c.300 A.D.) Dialogue on the True Faith first part ch.25 p.69)
Dan 8:5 “a horn of vision” vs. “one horn” (Septuagint, Theodotion)
Dan 9:1 “was made king” vs. “who reigned”
Dan 9:2 “which came as the word” vs. “which was the word”
Dan 9:3 “seek by prayer” vs. “seek diligently by prayer”
Dan 9:4 “love Him … His” vs. “love You … Your”
Dan 9:7 “shame of our faces” vs. “confusion of face
Dan 9:8 “shame” vs. “confusion”
Dan 9:10 “by His servants” vs. “by the hands of His servants”
Dan 9:11 “that they might not” vs. “and refused”
Dan 9:13 “make our prayer before Jehovah” vs. “besought the Lord our God”
Dan 9:13 “and understand your truth” vs. “and have understanding in all thy truth”
Dan 9:14 “has looked / watched on the evil, and has made it come on us” vs. “also has watched, and brought them [the evils] upon us.”
Dan 9:16 “O Lord, I pray to You, according to all Your righteousness, let” vs. “O Lord thy mercy is over all; let, I pray thee,”
Dan 9:16 “anger … fury” vs. “wrath … anger”
Dan 9:16 “For because of our sins and our father’s iniquities” vs. “for we have sinned, and because of our iniquities, and those of our fathers,”
Dan 9:17 “holy desires” vs. “supplications”
Dan 9:17 “for the sake of the Lord” vs. “for your sake, O Lord”
Dan 9:19 “O Lord, forgive” vs. “be propitious, O Lord”
Dan 9:20 “my cry fall before” vs. “bringing my pitiful case before”
Dan 9:21 “setting my prayer in order” vs. “speaking my prayer”
Dan 9:21 “then the man” vs. “behold the man”
Dan 9:21 “touched me in [my] severe exhaustion” vs. “[came] flying, and he touched me”
Dan 9:22 “He made to understand / give you skill in understanding” (Hebrew) vs. “He instructed and spoke with me” (Hebrew according to the NET footnote) vs. “He came / to impart to you understanding” (Septuagint, Syriac) (The NRSV footnote does not completely agree with Brenton’s translation.)
Dan 9:23 “pay attention” vs. “understand”
Dan 9:24 “to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy,” vs. “for sin to be ended, and to seal up transgressions, and to blot out the iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet,”
Dan 9:24 “to anoint the most holy” (Qere, Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate) vs. “to seal up the Most Holy Place” (Ketubim, Theodotion)
Dan 9:25 “62 weeks. The street” vs. “62 weeks, and then [the time] shall return and the street”
Dan 9:25 “even in times of affliction” vs. “and the times shall be exhausted”
Dan 9:26 “Messiah shall be cut off, but not [for] Himself. And the people of a coming prince shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end [shall be] with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end [shall be] war.” vs. “anointed one shall be destroyed, and there is no judgment in him: and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary with the prince that is coming: they shall be cut off with a flood, and to the end of the war which is rapidly completed he shall appoint [the city] of desolations.”
Dan 9:27 “covenant with many [for] one week.” vs. “covenant with many”
Dan 9:27 “he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and on a corner [of the altar] desolating abominations. Even until [the] end. And that which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator.” vs. “and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away; and on the temple [shall be] the abomination of desolations; and at the end of the time an end shall be put to the desolation.”
Dan 10:1 “Persia” vs. “the Persians”
Dan 10:1 “Belteshazzar” vs. “Baltasar”
Dan 10:13 “I was left there with the kings of Persia” vs. “I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia” (Septuagint, Theodotion)
Dan 10:16 “one who looked like a man” vs. one who looked like a son” (Theodotion, Vulgate), vs. “something that looked like a man’s hand” (Septuagint, Dead Sea scrolls, one Hebrew Masoretic text)
Dan 10:17 “For as for me henceforth / from now” vs. “For I am shaking” (Septuagint) (NRSV)
Bibliography for this question: the Hebrew translation is from Jay P. Green’s Literal Translation and the Septuagint rendering is from Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton’s translation of The Septuagint : Greek and English. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary and the footnotes in the NASB, NIV 1985, NKJV, and NRSV Bibles also were used. Also used were The Dead Sea Scrolls & Modern Translations of the Old Testament.
by Steven M. Morrison, PhD.
For more info please contact Christian Debater™ P.O. Box 144441 Austin, TX 78714. www.BibleQuery.org