DANIEL IS EATEN UP IN THE CRITIC’S DEN

Dr. W. A. Criswell

Daniel 6:16

09-17-67

 

Daniel In The Critics Den:  And the sermon next Sunday morning will be: How The Critics Fare in the Fiery Furnace.  This morning, we’re going to listen to what they say against Daniel.  Then next Sunday morning, we’re going to look at them in the light—in the bright and furious light—of truth, and fact, and archeological, and historical evidence.

Now, the sermon last Sunday morning was: Why the Critics Assail the Book of Daniel.  And the message closed with a fact, a historical fact, that in the third century, in about 265 A.D., there was a heathen, pagan, Neo-Platonic philosopher by the name of Porphyry.  And many people have asked me how do you spell Porphyry—P-o-r-p-h-y-r-y.  It is the same name as that red stone they discovered in Egypt in the ancient day and they made sarcophagi out of it.  If a king wanted to be buried royally, he’d get porphyry out of Egypt and carve his sarcophagus out of porphyry.  That’s his name. 

Porphyry was a Neo-Platonic philosopher.  And he vigorously defended polytheism and the worship of all the national gods.  Now, in that, he bitterly attacked Christianity.  He looked upon it as the greatest enemy to Greek speculative philosophy and heathenism, to paganism, to polytheism, to a worship of many gods. 

So against Christianity, Porphyry wrote fifteen books that he entitled: “Against the Christians.”  Now, he was one of the most brilliant men of all time.  And he was one of the most learned philosophers and erudite scholars of all ages.  So when Porphyry wrote his books against Christianity, he directed the attack against their sacred books.  And because he thought Daniel was the most vulnerable, he pointed that attack against Daniel.

Now, I closed the message with the fact that the liberal theologian today has learned his lesson from Porphyry.  And what Porphyry, the Neo-Platonic heathen philosopher, said against Daniel has become without exception universally accepted by the liberal theologian today.  There is not a liberal theologian that lives that believes in the authenticity, the genuineness, the inspiration of the book of Daniel.  Without exception, they say it is a forgery; it is a spurious writing.  They classify it as one of the Pseudepigrapha, that is, a Jewish writing that was delivered under an assumed name: Like “The Book of Enoch,” like “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.”

So this is a Pseudepigraphic apocalypse; it is a false, spurious forgery that was pawned off in 165 B.C., as though it were written by a prophet Daniel who lived four hundred years earlier.  And they all believe that.  They are unanimous in saying that the mighty facts in Daniel are nothing but pure fiction; that the great miracles in Daniel are nothing but feats of the imagination; and that the so-called prophecies in Daniel are nothing other but history that’s already passed, placed in the garb of prophecy as though it were delivered four hundred years before. 

Now, that is the modern theological theologian world.  All of it!  The attack that is made against Daniel can be divided into four different thrusts.  First, historical:  They say that the book of Daniel is full of historical discrepancy, errors, inaccuracies, gross anachronisms.  Second, they attack it philologically (linguistically).  They say it is filled with language, nomenclature, words irreconcilable.  Third, they attack it prophetically.  They say it is filled with prophetic impossibilities.  And last, fourth, they attack it doctrinally.  They say it is full of doctrinal aberrations. 

Now, I wish I had several hours to follow through what these liberal theologians of today say against the authenticity of the book of Daniel.  Now, I never did a thing like this in my life.  I never stood up in a pulpit in my life and mouthed and paraded what those half-infidels say.  But, I’m going to do it this morning.  I think it is a part of our understanding of the day in which we live and the theological world to which we belong.  I think it is nothing but good that we know what they say. 

And then, next Sunday morning, we shall see what they say in the light of what the archeological spade has uncovered.  Now, open your Bible to the book of Daniel.  Open your Bible to the book of Daniel.  First, the historical attack—that it is full of historical errors, and inaccuracies, and inconsistencies, and anachronism.  There is not a single historical reference in the book of Daniel but they say it is incorrect and unhistorical. 

Well, let’s start.  Let’s start with the first sentence: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”  Every syllable in that sentence they say is historically incorrect.  It starts off in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim.  They say that denies Jeremiah 46:2.  They say there was no besieging of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim and there was no deportation of captives to Babylon of whom this book says that Daniel is one. 

You know, that’s a funny thing—I just can’t pass these things by.  I’m trying to do it.  But I don’t have enough homiletical courage to let it go.  I can’t pass that by without saying that’s one of the strangest attacks you could ever read in your life.  But that’s the first one.  They object to the first syllable in it.  They say that that denies what Jeremiah says.  But in the ninth chapter of the book of Daniel and in the second verse, the author, Daniel, says that he was studying the book of Jeremiah.  And, studying the book of Jeremiah, he came across the prophecy of the seventy years. 

Now, it is the strangest thing to me that this man Daniel, whoever he was–and they say he is one of the cleverest authors of all time; that this man Daniel, studying the book of Jeremiah, in the first syllable of his first sentence denies what Jeremiah says.  Isn’t that a funny thing for a man who is trying to pawn off a forgery as though it were a true prophecy of God?  Yet that’s what the critic says.  Well, we got to go on. 

King Nebuchadnezzar, oh, they say that is sure anachronism—Nebuchadnezzar.  Well, they say “Nebuchadnezzar” was the way they spelled the name of the king in after centuries.  After centuries—but in that day his name was Nebuchadrezzar, not "n" but "r"—rezzar.  Well, I can’t help but pause here again.  That’s exactly the same way that his name is spelled in Kings, and in Chronicles, and in Ezra, and in Jeremiah half of the time.  You see, the Babylonians wrote in cuneiform (wedge-shaped letters), and to transliterate out of the cuneiform of the Chaldean language, Babylonian language, into Aramaic and Hebrew was sometimes rather difficult.  So his name is sometimes one, Nebuchadnezzar; sometime again, it is Nebuchadrezzar.  But they say that’s a sure anachronism written centuries later. 

All right, look again.  King, they say, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.  He was not king of Babylon that time, they say.  Nabopolassar his father was.  Well, what happened was that Nabopolassar, who was a mighty monarch—he’s the one who overthrew Assyria, we’re going to get acquainted with him in time—Nabopolassar was king, but his son Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar was co-regent and co-sovereign. 

Now, I want to show you here in the Bible how, if you will let the facts stand, everything in the Bible will fit.  Now, you look at this first chapter.  It says down here in the fifth verse: “Now the king appointed these four Hebrew captives a daily provision of the kings tables” and so forth, “nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.”  Now, did you see that?  They were to nourish these four captives, Daniel and his three faithful friends, three years.  Then they will stand before the king.

Now, I want you to turn the page, just turn it one page to the second chapter, the first verse.  Now look at Daniel two, [verse] one:  “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, he dreamed a dream…” and then these young men stood before him. 

Now, isn’t that something?  In the first chapter it says that they were to be nourished three years at the end of which they were to be presented to the king.  And then I turn in the page and read in the second chapter and the first verse: In the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, and on and on and on.  Well, isn’t that something?  Well, the explanation is very plain.  Nebuchadnezzar was first a king along with his father, Nabopolassar.  Then, he was a king full and in his own right. 

Now, in these three years—that refers to a time when he was a co-regent—he was a co-sovereign.  And then in the second chapter, the first verse: “In the second year of the king Nebuchadnezzar…” that was the second year of his full, sole and alone sovereign.  Every detail in it will fit if you will let it say what it says, and be according to historical truths.

Now, we got to hurry—verse three: “And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs (thus is so)”.

So they said: “Nobody ever heard of an Ashpenaz.  That’s out of pure imagination.  That’s pure unadulterated fiction.”  But did you know not very long ago they dug up in Babylonia one of those, one of those canonical bricks, and it’s in the British Museum to this minute, that’s where it is now.  And on that canonical brick, there is the Babylonian Ashpenaz. 

Now, we must hurry: “Now among these (sons)—(and this is verse six)—now among those (boys that were brought there, those children) was Daniel.”

And they scoff and laugh at such a thing as that.  “Daniel!”  And they say: “No person such as a Daniel ever lived.”  (And I’m going to preach on “Let the Real Daniel Stand Up.”  Will the real Daniel stand up?  I want to preach on that Sunday after next.  So I haven’t time but just to mention one thing.)

They say—these liberal theologians—all of them, they say: “There never was anybody like Daniel because his name is never found on the monuments and in the Chaldean literature that has been archeologically preserved.” 

What do you think of an argument like that?  Where do you find the name of Moses on any monuments in ancient Egypt?  It is not found.  Yet, you have to account for the Mosaic legislation; you have to account for the Ten Commandments; you have to account for the children of Israel who were slaves and were brought out and made a great nation before God.  But because his name is not found on any monuments or any Pharaohonic literature, therefore, he never existed.

Where do you find the name of Jesus in a contemporary reference?  Where do you find the name of the apostle Paul in any contemporary reference?  And on and on and on and on!  Oh, it is preposterous and unbelievable that such things are said as being scientifically true against the authenticity of the Book.  But there’s not a young theologian in any liberal seminary in the world that does not believe that.  And this morning, one of the young ministers came to me and he said: "I am amazed.  I am amazed.  I have been taught all of these things as being true."  And I hate to tell you what school he attends.  Yeah, I wouldn’t dare tell you.  We must go on. 

Chapter two—now these are historical errors that they are pointing out—chapter two, verse two: “Then the king commanded to call the magicians, the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams.”

Oh, they say: “This is an immense anachronism.  For the use of the word "Chaldeans" to refer to magans (magicians), to refer to astrologers was a word that was not used until centuries, and centuries, and centuries after Daniel is supposed to have lived.”  Oh, they say: “That’s a sure-fire anachronism.”

So we know it was written years and years, and centuries and centuries after Daniel is supposed to have lived because he uses the word “Chaldeans” to refer to magicians and astrologers as they did in centuries after.  Now, that’s a funny [thing].  Did you know that in Daniel 9:2, and did you know that next to the last verse of the fifth chapter of Daniel, he uses the word “Chaldeans” to refer to the nation—the Chaldeans, the Babylonians.  And he uses it here to refer to a class of magans, astrologers.  He uses it both ways.  Well, there must be some reason.  For the fella knows the country of Chaldea, and the nation of Chaldea; and he speaks in the prophecy of the king of the Chaldeans and the nation of the Chaldeans.  And yet, he speaks here of the Chaldeans who are also astrologers.

Well, what happened is this—and we just turn it over to those spades, and we have found that the astrologers, the astrologers that he mentions here were in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, a high priestly cast who served the god Bel.  And they were called proudly the “Chaldeans” just as Daniel has written it here in The Book. 

Now, let’s turn the page rapidly.  Let’s turn to chapter five.  Turn to chapter five, first verse: “Belshazzar the king…”  And that has been a topic of scoff and ridicule for the years and the years: “There never was any Belshazzar.  That’s a figment of his imagination.  Nor was he king over Babylon.”

Now look at the eleventh verse.  It refers to the king Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar.  “He was not a son of Nebuchadnezzar, this Belshazzar, nor was he any kin to him.” 

Now turn over here to the next to the last verse: “In that day was Bel-shazzar the king slain.”  And they scoff and say: “He never was slain.  There’s no such incident like that that ever happened in history.”  Then they deny the next verse.  “And Darius the Median took the kingdom…” 

“And there never was anybody named ‘Darius the Median!’”

Now the first verse, the next one in chapter six—verse one: “It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes…”  He divided the country into one hundred and twenty satrapies.  And they scoff at that: “There never was any such thing as that in the history of the world.”

Well, we’re going to quit.  That is, we are going to quit that first part.  This is just the little instance of how every assertion and every historical reference in the book of Daniel, they deny and call it anachronism, and achromatic (would that be a good word?), and inaccurate, and unhistorical, and untrue.  Brother, we’re going to look at those critics next Sunday morning. 

All right, second—the second attack—the second attack against Daniel is philological, linguistic.  It has to do with the words and the language that is used.  Now, I’m just going to point some things out and we’re going on.  For example, in the first chapter and the last word in the third verse, that word "princes" there is a Persian word.  Now the fifth verse of the first chapter:  “And the king appointed them a daily portion of the king’s meat…” The original would be the kings “dainties,” and that’s a Persian word.  And there are fifteen Persian words in the book of Daniel.  So they say that is a sure-fire give-away that it was written centuries and centuries later.

And isn’t that the funniest thing that you ever heard of in your life.  For Daniel was a courtly minister in the reign of Cyrus, the king of Persia.  And it seems to me just the opposite.  It seems to me that a man who was a minister, a “Prime Minister,” in the court of Persia would unconsciously use some Persian words.  But that’s supposed to be a sure-fire thing against it. 

All right.  Let’s turn the page over here.  Beginning at the fourth verse in the second chapter through the end of the seventh chapter, it is written in Aramaic.  It’s written in Aramaic.  And they say that’s a sure-fire thing to show that it’s not an authentic genuine book.  But did you know in Qumran—haven’t you heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the cave of Qumran—did you know in Qumran they have discovered Aramaic documents that are supposed to be written in the time that they say this book was written—in the days of the Maccabees.  And the Aramaic of the Qumran documents is altogether different Aramaic than the Aramaic of the book of Daniel.  Isn’t that something?

And did you know, as they discovered some of those Dead Sea Scrolls, they found Isaiah and they found Daniel?  Well, I haven’t got time to talk about those things.  I’m going to speak of that when I speak of the linguistics, the philology, the languages of the book of Daniel. 

Now, let’s go to the third one.  The third great attack against the book of Daniel refers to its prophetic impossibilities.  Now, I want you to turn to the second chapter of Daniel, and looking there at the thirty-second verse and on down.  Now, Daniel says—and now we enter the great prophetic revelations of this man of God—Daniel says that the sweep of world history will follow the pattern of a man.  A man!  First, the head of gold, and he said that was the Babylonian Empire; second, the breast of silver with the two arms; third, the thighs of brass.  And fourth, the legs parted in two—made out of iron.  Then after that no world empire; it is broken up, represented by the toes on the feet.

Now, that is the great prophecy.  But, you see, these higher (destructive) critics, when they say there is no prophecy in the book of Daniel: “That it is just history, already passed, clothed in the spurious garb of prophecy.  And it was written four hundred years after it was supposed to have been written.”  So it was written, they say in the days of the Maccabees, in 165 B.C.  Now, in 165 B. C., there was no Roman power.  It was an emerging little country on the other side of the known world in Italy.

So they say that the four great empires that Daniel saw in his vision are first: the Babylonian, the head of gold; second, the Median, the silver; and the arms third, the Persian, the brass; fourth, the Greek, the iron, the iron legs.  And that, not being a prophet, he never knew and he never saw the Roman Empire.  And that is one of the key destructive attacks against the prophetic element in the book of Daniel.

Well, first of all, I am saying to you that there is no such interpretation in the Book.  Second, it diametrically violates what Daniel himself affirms.  All right, turn to chapter eight.  Turn to Daniel, chapter eight.  Daniel chapter eight, in the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel, he takes two of those world empires, the one of silver and the one of brass.  And here, he sees that prophetic revelation again.  In verse three he says: I saw a ram with two horns.  And one was higher than the other and the higher one came up later—a ram with two horns.

Now, look at verse five: “And after that, I saw a rough he goat…”  Now what do they mean?  Daniel himself says the angel revealed it to him.  Look at verse 20 and verse 21: “The ram (singular)—the ram which thou sawest having the two horns are the kings (and that stands for the kingdom) of Media and Persia.”  One!  One—the ram (singular) stands for the kingdom of Media and Persia.  The ram with two horns stands for Media and Persia.  And the he goat, the rough goat, is the king of Greece; it stands for the Grecian Empire.  When you reach the kingdom of Media and Persia apart and make it two different kingdoms in this vision, you do violence to what Daniel himself has said; and what the angel has said that those images meant.

And the great prophetic outline of history in Daniel is lucid and it’s clear.  First, the head of gold which is the Babylonian Empire—that is the lion in chapter seven.  Second, the breast and the arms of silver, that is, the two that made one empire, Media/Persia—the Medo-Persian kingdom represented by the two arms.  Here in the eighth chapter, it is a ram with two horns.  In the book—of the seventh chapter, it is the bear with three ribs in his mouth.  The three kingdoms they destroyed.  And then the thighs of brass, that’s Greek, and represented here by the rough he goat. And then the iron legs split, one leg here and one leg there representing the mighty Roman Empire with its Eastern Roman Empire with the capitol at Byzantium (Constantinople), and the western empire with the capitol at Rome.

All history has followed in the great mold that was revealed to Daniel.  But there’s not a liberal critic, there’s not a liberal theologian, in the world that believes it.  It is a spurious philosophy.  It is a spurious writing. To what lengths do men go who wish to deny God, and the miraculous, and the supernatural, and the prophetic gift by which the Lord reveals to men what God is going to do? 

Now this, and this is the last one:  We have spoken of the historical (alleged) inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and anachronism.  We have spoken of the philological irreconcilables that they speak of (and we shall take a message on that).  We have spoken of the prophetic impossibilities that they envoy against. 

Now, at last, the doctrinal aberrations: And when I read those men—would you like to know one of those men?  And you can read it easily.  I’ve been debating in my mind whether to tell you because some of you will go read it and then you will put it down and then you’ll say: “That’s a fact!  These infidels are right.”  Well, I’m going to tell you one.  In the far-famed expositor’s Bible—which is one of the great theological publications of all time—in the expositor’s Bible, the exposition on Daniel is made by the Right Reverend Frederic W. Farran, Dean of Canterbury; and he is typical of those men who attack.  And I mean attack the book of Daniel.  He cuts it to threads.  He cuts it to threads!  He decimates it!

So if you want to read for yourself an instance—and he’s not alone, they are all like that—if you want to read for yourself an instance of what I’m talking about, get the Expositor’s Bible.  It’s in every library in the world.  We have a half a dozen of them, as you know, in our library.  All of it good for the most part, except just read what Farran, Dean Farran says about the book of Daniel, and you’ll get a good idea of what they avow. 

All right, now let’s conclude.  The last attack is doctrinal.  First, turn to Daniel 12, verses two and three.  Daniel 12, verses two and three:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever.

 

And oh, how they viciously attack that, for this is a plain revelation of the resurrection from the dead.  And they say: “No such revelation is possible from God in the days of Daniel.”

The same men attack Job, chapter 19, verse 25, 26, when Job says:

I know!  I know that my redeemer liveth, and that in the latter day he shall stand upon the earth:

And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

Whom I shall see for myself, whom mine eyes shall behold and not as a stranger.

 

            They attack that as being spurious—a late, late, late word.  I cannot understand such men.  They undo, they unravel the very thread of the gospel message itself.  Talking about doctrinal aberrations now, this, this is one they viciously attack, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. 

All right, second, turn to Daniel six, Daniel 6:22: “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths…” And oh, what they write about Daniel’s exhibit of angels in his book.  I am avowing that when you follow an attack like that, you undo the whole fabric, you dissolve the whole fabric of the Word of God. 

In the twenty-second chapter of the book of Genesis, when Abraham was offering Isaac on the altar and he raised the knife to plunge into his heart, the Bible says an angel called out of heaven and said: “Abraham, Abraham, stay thy hand.”

When Jacob fell asleep in Bethel, he saw a ladder from earth leaning against the heavens, and the angels ascending; descending.  I wish I had time to preach on that.  And the angels descending and ascending, oh, and the angels ascending and descending—as though the earth were filled with the living, flaming ministers of God.  “And the angels ascending and descending.”

Or the story of Moses in the thirty-second chapter of Exodus when God sends him out and says: “My angel shall go protect you.”

Or when the angels that announced the birth of Samson to Manoah, and the angel did wondrously and went back to heaven in a flame of fire.

Or the angel who fed Elijah in the wilderness;

Or the angel that strengthened Jesus in His temptation;

Or the angel that strengthened the Lord in Gethsemane;

Or the angel that stood at the tomb when Jesus was raised from the dead;

Or the angel that smote Peter on the side and awakened him, that the iron doors might be opened;

Or the angel that stood by Paul in the twenty-seventh chapter of Acts in that terrible storm: “For an angel of the Lord stood by me.”

Or the angel in the first verse of the first chapter of the Revelation (the apocalypse), the unveiling of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him that He might show unto His servants things which will shortly come to pass.  And He signified it unto John by an angel.

To sweep out the doctrine of angels in the book of Daniel is to unravel and undo the whole fabric of the Word of God.  It’s all alike!  It’s all alike!  And how they object to Gabriel—Gabriel in the eighth chapter, verse 16: Gabriel, Gabriel--isn’t that amazing?  You find Gabriel again in the ninth chapter and the twenty-first verse.  Gabriel!  Why, Gabriel is the servant of God who says: “I stand in the presence of the Lord and on the right side of the golden altar.”  He announced to Zacharias the priest, the birth of John the Baptist.  And six months later he was sent to a village in Nazareth in Galilee to announce to Mary the virgin Jewess, that she should be the mother of that foretold and foreordained child.  But Gabriel is an offense. 

I turn the page to the next chapter—look at the end of chapter ten, there is Michael.  There is Michael—at the end of chapter ten is Michael.  And look, the first verse in chapter 12, and there shall stand up at the time the great prince Michael.  Michael!  In the seventh chapter of the book of Jude, Michael the archangel disputing with the devil over the body of Moses—and, in the twelfth chapter of the book of Revelation, Michael and his angels warring against the dragon, the devil and his angels.

Yet all of this is an offense to the higher critic.  I say, I affirm, I avow, I repeat, reiterate, that when you destroy these revelations in the book of Daniel, you are getting ready to destroy the whole Word of God.  It’s all alike.  It’s all alike!  If there are no angels in Daniel, there’s no angels anywhere else.  If there is no Michael, and no Gabriel, in Daniel, there’s no Gabriel and no Michael anywhere else.  And if there is no resurrection of the dead in Daniel, there’s no resurrection in the dead in the life of Christ or in the Christian hope.  You wash it all away.  Yet this is the life, and calling, and the ministry of the modern day theologian without exception, without exception.  And if one were to listen to me on the radio or on the television at this message, he would sit in his chair and scoff at such inanity as I am purporting to call a message from God today. 

It’s a different world.  It’s a new age.  Men of God, mouthing and repeating the arguments of the pagan, heathen philosopher who was called the bitterest enemy that Christianity ever knew—But that’s today!   Well, maybe the Lord has set us in the earth for a light to shine, to speak, to say, to deliver God’s message in our day and in our generation.  If so be, so help us, God!

Now, we must sing our song.  And while we sing it, you, somebody you, give himself to Jesus; or a family you to come into the fellowship of the church—a couple you.  In the balcony round on this lower floor, as God shall say the word, shall open the door, shall lead in the way, come now.  Make it now.  Do it now.  Decide, now. 

And when you stand up in a moment to sing, stand up coming down one of these stairwells on either side of this balcony, into this aisle on the lower floor and down here by me: “Pastor, here’s my hand, I have given my heart to the faith.  God’s called me and I’m answering with my life and here I come.  Pastor, this is my wife.  These are my children.  All of us are coming today.”

As God shall say the word and open the door, make it now.  Come now, do it now, while we stand and while we sing.