Babylonian Renaming as Cultural Assimilation and Control

In ancient Babylon, the practice of renaming captives was a deliberate and powerful symbol of ownership and cultural assimilation. When Nebuchadnezzar and his officials took young men from Jerusalem, they did not merely imprison them; they actively changed their identities by assigning new Babylonian names. This act of renaming signified that these individuals now belonged to Babylon and were integrated into its culture ([13:14]).

Naming or renaming in ancient times was a profound assertion of possession and control. By giving Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego new names, Nebuchadnezzar asserted his authority over them, marking them as Babylonian property subject to his rule and cultural influence ([13:23]). This process extended beyond language; it was a means of cultural assimilation, incorporating these young men into Babylon’s cosmopolitan identity.

Many of the new names given to the captives were connected to Babylonian deities, particularly Marduk, the chief god of Babylon. For instance, Daniel’s Babylonian name, Belteshazzar, is linked to Marduk. This religious association reinforced the captives’ new identities as part of Babylonian religious and cultural systems, symbolizing their inclusion within the Babylonian worldview and spiritual domain ([13:55]).

Renaming functioned as a form of psychological and spiritual control, stripping captives of their original identities and heritage and replacing them with identities aligned with Babylonian values. This strategy aimed to assimilate captives into the empire’s culture, making them more manageable and loyal to Babylon’s authority. The act of renaming was a clear declaration: “You are ours now,” carrying profound implications for the captives’ sense of identity and faith.

In response to this cultural and spiritual pressure, Daniel’s refusal to accept the royal food and wine represents a deliberate assertion of his own identity and integrity. By requesting permission to consume vegetables and water instead, Daniel resisted the Babylonian attempt to redefine him through both names and diet ([15:53]). This choice was a tangible expression of maintaining faithfulness and personal conviction amid efforts to conform.

The decision to uphold integrity and faithfulness in the face of cultural assimilation set the foundation for Daniel’s enduring influence and leadership within a foreign empire. This example illustrates the importance of making pre-decisions about identity and faithfulness, standing firm even when confronted with pressures to conform ([18:10]).

The Babylonian practice of renaming captives served as a tool of ownership, cultural assimilation, and political control, deeply intertwined with their religious system. Daniel’s response—his refusal to be renamed or defiled—exemplifies the power of maintaining integrity and identity amid cultural and spiritual challenges.

This article was written by an AI tool for churches, based on a sermon from Andy Stanley, one of 60 churches in Boulder, CO