And Daniel remained there
The phrase "And Daniel remained there" signifies the enduring presence and influence of Daniel in the Babylonian and later Persian courts. The Hebrew root for "remained" is "וַיְהִי" (vayehi), which often denotes continuity and existence. This highlights Daniel's steadfastness and faithfulness to God despite the changing political landscapes. Historically, Daniel's ability to remain in a position of influence through multiple regimes underscores his wisdom and the favor he found with God and man. His presence in the court is a testament to God's providence and the fulfillment of His purposes through His chosen servants.

until the first year
The phrase "until the first year" marks a significant chronological milestone. The "first year" refers to the beginning of King Cyrus's reign over Babylon, which historically is around 539 B.C. This timeframe is crucial as it marks the end of the Babylonian captivity and the beginning of the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem, as decreed by Cyrus. The use of "until" suggests a period of service and influence that Daniel had, which lasted through the entire Babylonian Empire and into the Persian period, indicating his long-term impact and the unfolding of God's plan over decades.

of King Cyrus
"King Cyrus" refers to Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire, known for his decree allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple, as recorded in Ezra 1:1-4. The mention of Cyrus is significant in biblical prophecy, as Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1-4 prophesied his role in the restoration of Jerusalem long before his birth. Cyrus's policies were more lenient and supportive of local customs and religions, which aligns with the biblical narrative of God using foreign rulers to accomplish His divine purposes. Daniel's presence until the reign of Cyrus symbolizes the transition from judgment to restoration for the Jewish people, highlighting God's sovereignty over nations and history.

(21) Continued.--(See Introduction, ? I.) The phrase does not mean that "he prophesied," but that he lived until the time specified; by no means implying that he died in the first year of Cyrus. This year is specified on account of its importance to the Jewish people as the year of their deliverance. We are led to think of Daniel during this period holding high positions in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius, yet so using the things of this world that at the close of his life (Daniel 10:11) he became the man greatly beloved by God. (See Pusey: Daniel the Prophet, pp. 21-23).

Verse 21. - And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus. The Septuagint supplies Περσῶν. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic. It has been objected by Canon Driver that the natural classical order of the latter two words should have been hammelek Koresh, not, as it is in the Massoretic, Koresh hammelek. The Septuagint text seems to have had parseem, which would make the order perfectly classical. A greater difficulty is to explain how it is said that Daniel "continued," or, if we take the Hebrew literally "was," until the first year of "Cyrus the king," when in the tenth chapter the third year of Cyrus is referred to. There are several ways of getting over this difficulty. The first way is to suppose that some words have dropped out of the text. There are, however, different ideas as to the words so lost. Thus Bleak would supply "in high respect in Babylon." Earlier commentators would supply "in Babylon," thinking that not impossibly he returned to Palestine. Jerome - one of these - does not, however, intrude his suggestion into the text, as does Ewald. His suggestion is that the omitted words are "in the king's court," which is much the same as Delitzsch's "at the court." Hitzig is credited by Kranichfeld with asserting that the author did not intend to make his hero live beyond the year he refers to - the first year of Cyrus. In his commentary, however, Hitzig suggests that b"sha'ar hammelek, "in the gate of the king," has dropped out. He does certainly hint that the sentence, to be complete, would need hayah (חָיָה), not hayah (חָיָה). Zockler would supply the same word. There is certainly this to be said for the above theory - that the sentence as it stands is incomplete. The verb hayah is never used instead of hayah. At the same time, there is no trace in any of the versions of any difficulty in regard to the text. Another method of meeting the difficulty is that adopted by Hengstenberg, followed by Havernick, but suggested in the eleventh century by Jephet-ibn-Ali. It is this - that as the first year of Cyrus was the year when he allowed the Jews to return to their own laud, that the attainment of this annus mirabilis was an element in his wonderful prosperity, that he who had mourned for the sins of his people, who had been one of the earliest to feel the woes of captivity, should live to see the curse removed, and Judah permitted to return to their city and temple. The objection to this view, urged by Professor Bevan, is that the author elsewhere "never alludes to the event save indirectly (Daniel 9:25)." To this it may be answered that the whole ninth chapter goes on the assumption that the seventy years are now all but over, and therefore that the return cannot be long delayed. We regard this silence of Daniel in respect to the return from Babylon as one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book. Everybody knows how largely it bulks in preceding prophecy, and how important it is in after-days. No one writing a religious romance could have failed to have laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel as inducing Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not even mention it. Tide is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a contemporary at the present time. In religious biographies of the past generation that involve the year 1832, when the Reform Act was passed - the greatest political change of this century - we find that most of them never once refer to it. If any one should take Cowper's 'Letters,' written during the American War, he will find comparatively few references to the whole matter, although from, at all events, 1780 to 1783, we have letters for nearly every week, and they occupy nearly three hundred pages. Now, if a person were condensing these and selecting passages from them, he might easily make such a selection as would contain not a single reference to that war or to any political event whatever. Yet Cowper was interested in the struggle that was going on. The main objection to Hengstenberg's view is the grammatical one that it implies that we should read יחי instead of יהי, and there is no trace in the versions of this various reading The LXX. has η΅ν; Theodotion has ἐγένετο; the Peshitta has (hu); Jerome has fuit. It is somewhat difficult to come to any conclusion, but there are certain things we must bear in mind. In the first place, an author does not usually contradict his statements elsewhere directly. He may implicitly do so, but not when direct dates are given. If he should fail to put the matter right, some other will be sure to do so, if his work attains sufficient popularity to be commented upon. We may thus be sure that there is some solution of the apparent contradiction between the verse before us and ch. 10. In the next place, we must note that this verse is the work of the editor, probably also the translator and condenser, of this earlier part of Daniel. Therefore the difference may be found quite explicable could we go back to the Aramaic original. If 'ad represented 'ad di (Daniel 6:24) in the Aramaic, and the two latter clauses were transposed, we should translate, "And Daniel was for Cyrus the king even before his first year." The connection is somewhat violent; but if we regard the redactor as thinking of the success of Daniel, this might be a thought which suggested itself to his mind - he was with Nebuchadnezzar, and he was with Cyrus. The difficulty of the date is not of importance. That might be got over in several ways. Either by adopting in Daniel 10:1 the reading of the Septuagint, which is πρώτῳ, instead of τρίτῳ - the only objection to this is that it is a correction that might easily be made by a would-be harmonist; but, on the other hand, the "third" year of Belshazzar being mentioned in the eighth chapter may have occasioned the insertion of "third" in the tenth. Or, since we know that, though in his proclamation Cyrus styles himself "King of Babil," yet in some of the contract tables of the flint two years of his reign he is not called "King of Babil," but only "king of nations," and there are contract tables of those years that are even dated by the years of Nabunahid, is it not, then, possible that the third year of Cyrus as "king of nations" might coincide with the first year of his reign as "King of Babil"? Yet further, we must remember that the reign of Cyrus could be reckoned from several different starting-points. He first appears as King of Ansan, then he becomes King of the Persians, and as such he conquers Babylon. His first year as King of Babylon may have been his third year as King of Persia. Thus it would be equally true to say that the Emperor William I. of Germany died in the seventeenth and in the twenty-eighth year of his reign - the one statement reckoning his reign as emperor, the other as king. No solution seems absolutely satisfactory. The difficulty presses equally on the critics and those who maintain the traditional opinion.

Parallel Commentaries ...

And Daniel
דָּֽנִיֵּ֔אל (dā·nî·yêl)
Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 1840: Daniel -- 'God is my judge', the name of several Israelites

remained
וַֽיְהִי֙ (way·hî)
Conjunctive waw | Verb - Qal - Consecutive imperfect - third person masculine singular
Strong's 1961: To fall out, come to pass, become, be

there until
עַד־ (‘aḏ-)
Preposition
Strong's 5704: As far as, even to, up to, until, while

the first
אַחַ֖ת (’a·ḥaṯ)
Number - feminine singular
Strong's 259: United, one, first

year
שְׁנַ֥ת (šə·naṯ)
Noun - feminine singular construct
Strong's 8141: A year

of King
הַמֶּֽלֶךְ׃ (ham·me·leḵ)
Article | Noun - masculine singular
Strong's 4428: A king

Cyrus.
לְכ֥וֹרֶשׁ (lə·ḵō·w·reš)
Preposition-l | Noun - proper - masculine singular
Strong's 3566: Cyrus -- a person king


Daniel 1:21 NIV
Daniel 1:21 NLT
Daniel 1:21 ESV
Daniel 1:21 NASB
Daniel 1:21 KJV

Daniel 1:21 BibleApps.com
Daniel 1:21 Biblia Paralela
Daniel 1:21 Chinese Bible
Daniel 1:21 French Bible
Daniel 1:21 Catholic Bible

OT Prophets: Daniel 1:21 Daniel continued even to the first year (Dan. Da Dn)