Daniel resists the king's invitation to worship Bel, which might have
led him under the ban of Deut. xviii. 20 (end) as "speaking in the name
of other gods." False theological opinions are corrected by Daniel, who
not only dissuades from idol-worship, but persuades to that of the true
deity. Hence the beautiful appropriateness of ?„??????‚ ??????±????¶???„?¬?‚ ???µ (v. 38)
instead of ?„??????‚ ????»?????¶?????„?±?‚ ???????? ?±????„???? in the corresponding point of
delivery in Sus. 60 ??. For Daniel was fighting for God, while Susanna
was defending herself. The one was an active plaintiff for God, the
other a passive defendant of herself. Thus Love in Daniel's case, Hope
in Susanna's, has its own special appropriateness.
In v. 5 Daniel claims God to be ?„????? ?¶??¶???„?± ???µ????, but Cyrus claims for Bel
to be only ?¶??¶?? ???µ???‚; in v. 24 Cyrus makes the same claim for the Dragon,
and then in v. 25 Daniel makes only a like claim for God (anarthrous),
for Daniel takes here the words out of Cyrus' mouth; in the former
instance it was _vice vers??_.
Pages:
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248