THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
The text specifies that Daniel was assigned the name Belshazzar, which also referred to their deity or, more accurately, was a name given to the king’s son. Was it not presumptuous for him to use this name for a captive? Indeed, it would seem so, unless this name carried a distinctly different connotation here, similar to how Joseph was known and honored by his father. What significance is there in being addressed by such a title? We observe today that even many ordinary individuals bear names associated with royalty. You might argue that this does not apply within the royal family. However, what reason is there for altering names? All these elements fall into place. The king has a dream only after three years. Can you perceive how God is orchestrating events here? For what reason?
Read more (271 words)
So that Daniel would possess greater confidence when addressing the king. Some might argue that he would have gained more recognition had the king experienced the dream sooner. Yet, had that occurred, the decree against the young men would not have been issued, and Daniel's credibility would have been in question. Therefore, the eunuch secures evidence of God's favor through seemingly trivial matters, ensuring that when he requests more significant considerations, he does not deny them out of skepticism, while also helping them to master the language and build their confidence. Consider how a similar situation unfolded with David, where the king doubted his capabilities because of his youth, despite David's promise to confront a foreign adversary. Moreover, it is evident that Daniel diligently studied the ways of those from foreign lands. Similarly, Moses and Daniel both took care to understand other cultures, so as to avoid being perceived as ignorant of the wisdom of others. God permitted them to experience the knowledge of these nations, so that when we encounter Moses’ statement, ‘This great nation alone is a wise and prudent people’ (Deuteronomy 4:6), we recognize that such an assertion arises not from favoritism but from sound reasoning, knowing that Moses would not disregard their teachings out of disdain for their educators. Both were held in high esteem yet remained loyal to their heritage. Thus, Paul expressed his admiration for Moses, noting that ‘he was more willing to suffer with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin, and he regarded the reproach of Christ as greater riches than the treasures of Egypt’ (Heb. 11: 25-26).