Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Stipulation (1-7)

1. 
   What are the attributes of the image Nebuchadnezzar made?
   
   1. 
      It’s height was ninety feet (sixty cubits; equivalent to a modern eight-story building) and it’s width was nine feet (six cubits).
      
   2. 
      It was made of/with gold.
      
      1. 
         It may have been made with a wooden core overlaid with gold (compare, Ex 39.38 and Ex 40.5 with Ex 37.25, 26; see also, Is 40.19; Jer 10.3-9), or possibly it was made of stone (e.g., if it was an obelisk [see below]) and plated with gold.
         
   3. 
      It was likely set on a platform.
      
      1. 
         Archaeologists have discovered, 10kms southeast of Babylon, a large platform 4 meters square (45 square feet) and 6 meters (20 feet) high which may have been the pedestal for Nebuchadnezzar’s image.¹²⁸
         
      2. 
         The platform may have been included in the height dimensions.
         
   4. 
      It was an’ image’. What kind of image might it have been?
      
      1. 
         The Aramaic word translated ‘image’ (צְלֵם, ṣelēm) appears to be a general term (something like ‘sculpture’) that may include a human form (possibly like the statue of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream) or may apply to an obelisk.
         
      2. 
         The size dimensions do not have the proportions of a human figure. A 10:1 ratio of height to width would be too thin for a human-like statue (4.1).
         
         1. 
            An obelisk with a 9-foot base could taper to a point over 90 feet.
            
         2. 
            If it was a human-like statue placed on a platform, the statue may have been shorter and more accurately proportioned. Placing the statue on a platform would make it more imposing. Many human statues from antiquity were placed on pedestals or platforms.
            
         3. 
            Alternatively Babylonian sculptures were often grotesque and disproportioned.
            
      3. 
         If it was a representation of a human figure it could have been ~10 times taller than a man, assuming it stood on the (or similar) platform discovered southeast of Babylon.
         
      4. 
         Examples of human statues from the literature of the ancient world, include:
         
         1. 
            Statue of Zeus in Babylon, Diodorus Siculus (Greek historian from Sicily, 80-20 BC) “Semiramis [legendary Babylonian wife of king Shamshi-Adad V, King of Assyria (or of a king Ninus), who ruled 811-808 BC], built in the centre of the city a temple of Zeus whom, as we have said, the Babylonians call Belus. Now since with regard to this temple the historians are at variance, and since time has caused the structure to fall into ruins, it is impossible to give the exact facts concerning it. But all agree that it was exceedingly high, and that in it the Chaldeans made their observations of the stars, whose risings and settings could be accurately observed by reason of the height of the structure. Now the entire building was ingeniously constructed at great expense of bitumen and brick, and at the top of the ascent Semiramis set up three statues of hammered gold, of Zeus, Hera, and Rhea. Of these statues that of Zeus represented him erect and striding forward, and, being forty feet high, weighed a thousand Babylonian talents; that of Rhea showed her seated on a golden throne and was of the same weight as that of Zeus; and at her knees stood two lions, while nearby were huge serpents of silver, each one weighing thirty talents.”¹²⁹
            
         2. 
            Statue of Zeus/Jupiter in Babylon – Herodotus (484-425 BC) describes it as follows: “Below, in the same precinct, there is a second temple, in which is a sitting figure of Jupiter, all of gold. Before the figure stands a large golden table, and the throne whereon it sits, and the base on which the throne is placed, are likewise of gold. The Chaldeans told me that all the gold together was eight hundred talents' weight. … In the time of Cyrus there was likewise in this temple a figure of a man, twelve cubits high, entirely of solid gold. I myself did not see this figure, but I relate what the Chaldeans report concerning it. Darius, the son of Hystaspes, plotted to carry the statue off, but had not the hardihood to lay his hands upon it. Xerxes, however, the son of Darius, killed the priest who forbade him to move the statue, and took it away.”¹³⁰
            
         3. 
            The Colossus of Rhodes -- A statue of the Greek god Helios, erected on the Greek island of Rhodes by the sculptor Chares of Lindos between 292 and 280 BC (about 300 years later than Nebuchadnezzar’s statue). It stood over 30 meters (100 ft) high. It was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, and the tallest statue of the ancient world.¹³¹ His teacher, the sculptor Lysippos, had constructed a similar bronze statue of Zeus at Tarentum.
            
   5. 
      What might the image have represented? It may have represented:
      
      1. 
         Nebuchadnezzar himself; implying worship of him as semi-divine.
         
      2. 
         One of his gods, Marduk or Nabu.
         
      3. 
         His world-dominating kingdom (e.g., an obelisk) with the chronicles and laws of his dominion inscribed on it.
         
      4. 
         Images or statutes were used throughout the ancient world as objects/idols for worship, being representations of deities, or for reverence and worship of humans. It was believed that the greater the image, the more impressive or important was the god or human that was represented.
         

2. 
   When was this image erected by Nebuchadnezzar?
   
   1. 
      The text does not tell us. However, it was after the appointment of Daniel’s three friends to their offices in the province of Babylon (2.49) and before the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in chapter 4, which was probably near the end of his life. So, it occurred sometime between 603 and 562 BC.
      
   2. 
      Some commentators suggest that it occurred not long after the dream of the statue in chapter 2. They argue that the dream, and its interpretation, influenced Nebuchadnezzar to honour himself as the head of gold.
      
   3. 
      Other commentators (including Calvin) argue that many years had passed before the image was erected and Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his confession of the God of Israel as the supreme deity.
      
   4. 
      Some writers suggest that the events of chapter 3 occurred in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, the year before he captured Jerusalem and took Jehoiachin and Ezekiel into captivity (597 BC).
      
   5. 
      It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar summoned all his vassals to Babylon in 594 BC, and that this event occurred in 593 BC. If, so Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, may have been among those summoned to Babylon for the dedication ceremony (Jer 51.59).¹³²
      
   6. 
      The Septuagint (LXX), in 3.1, indicates that this event occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year (587 BC) after Nebuchadnezzar carried away additional captives from Jerusalem (Jer 52.29).
      
      1. 
         The events recorded in chapter 3 would then have occurred during the year before the fall of Jerusalem (2 Ki 25.8) in 586 BC.
         
      2. 
         Some suggest that this cannot be correct, since the destruction of Jerusalem was part of Nebuchadnezzar’s final conquest and the events of chapter 3 would have occurred after Nebuchadnezzar had completed his conquests.
         

3. 
   Where did Nebuchadnezzar set up the image? Why?
   
   1. 
      On the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon
      
   2. 
      ‘Dura’ generically means ‘an enclosing wall’ and could be a walled city or a city surrounded by hills/mountains. It appears that there are a number of locations in Mesopotamia named Dura.
      
   3. 
      Being in the province of Babylon, this particular Dura appears to have been a city to the south of the city of Babylon in the valley plain between the Tigris and the Euphrates.
      
      1. 
         The remains of a large platform have been found in this location which may have been the base of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.
         
      2. 
         The platform is centrally located in valley-plain. This would have provided an unobstructed and impressive view for a large crowd of magistrates.
         
      3. 
         The proximity of this site to the city of Babylon would have provided a place for assembling the king’s officials (like Tiananmen Square in Beijing with the Great Hall of the People to the west, Red Square in Moscow adjacent to the Kremlin, or the National Mall in Washington DC).
         

4. 
   Whom did Nebuchadnezzar require attend the dedication of the image he had made?
   
   1. 
      All the officials of the provinces.
      
      1. 
         Satraps – chief representatives of the king. Possibly the chief governor of each province (as Daniel was in Babylon (2.48)). The word translated ‘satrap’ (אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפַּן) may be a Persian loan-word probably meaning ‘protector of the realm’. The term ‘satrap’ is a Greek word and the translation given in the Septuagint (LXX).
         
      2. 
         Prefects – possibly military commanders. The term (סְגַן) used here appears to be an Aramaic word,
         
      3. 
         Governors – civil administrators (such as Daniel’s three friends [2.49]). If this assembly occurred in 593 BC, Zedekiah, Judah’s last king, may have been among those summoned to Babylon for the dedication ceremony (Jer 51.59).
         
      4. 
         Advisers (counsellors) – counsellors to those in governmental authority, probably including the classes of wise men encountered in chapter 2. The word used here may be a Persian loanword.
         
      5. 
         Treasurers -- administered taxes and may have been tax collectors (e.g., collecting poll taxes and import/export duties).
         
      6. 
         Judges – codifiers of law and intermediate judges. The king would have had the final judicial authority. The word used here may be a Persian loanword.
         
      7. 
         Magistrates – may have been equivalent to police in our jurisdictions.
         
      8. 
         All the other provincial officials – probably included all senior officials who reported to the Satraps and who represented Nebuchadnezzar throughout the empire.
         
      9. 
         Some argue that the use of (apparently) Persian terms means that the book was written after the exile, after the Persians had conquered Babylon. What optional explanations can we provide?
         
         1. 
            Daniel could have composed this book late in his life. He was still around after the conquest of the Persians (1.21). He could have used official terms from that time.
            
         2. 
            Daniel could have updated his account with Persian terms after he had written it.
            
         3. 
            Alternatively, the words that appear to be of Persian origin may have been contemporary loanwords used in the Semitic languages of Babylon. This would be much like our using a term such as ‘coup d'état’ or ‘détente’.
            
   2. 
      Sargon II, king of Assyria (reigned 722-705) used similar terms for his officials, after he had completed building his palace: “Sargon established himself in his palace with the princes of all lands, the rulers of his lands, the governors, presidents, magistrates, honorable and senators of Assyria, and instituted a feast.”¹³³ See also Esther 1.3 for an example.
      
   3. 
      Who were not included in the list of invitees to the dedication of the image?
      
      1. 
         There is no mention of the common people or general citizenry.
         
         1. 
            Not everyone in the kingdom could have assembled in once place.
            
         2. 
            Undoubtedly there were numerous assistants and retainers with the officials, and some of the local citizens from Babylon may have been permitted to attend.
            
         3. 
            This assembly was probably a political meeting in which the administrators swore allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar. We will consider the reason for the assembly below.
            
   4. 
      Who is not mentioned as having attended the dedication ceremony?
      
      1. 
         There is no reference to Daniel in this chapter.
         
         1. 
            Where was Daniel at this time?
            
         2. 
            Was Daniel required to attend the dedication ceremony?
            
      2. 
         Daniel may have been in attendance, but as second in command over the entire realm, he was not asked to bow to the image, and no one could complain about his non-compliance.
         
      3. 
         If he had been present we can assume that he would not have bowed down to the image. So, it is likely that he was not in attendance.
         
      4. 
         Daniel, as second in command in the Empire and governor of the territory of Babylon, may have been left in the capital city (2.49). He was running the administrative affairs of the empire when Nebuchadnezzar was away.
         
      5. 
         Daniel may have been aware of what was going to happen (i.e., the worship of the image) and may have requested, on the basis of conscience, permission from the king not to attend the event. If so, the king had such respect for Daniel that he excused his attendance.
         

5. 
   What did Nebuchadnezzar require of the provincial officials?
   
   1. 
      Assemble for dedication of the image (2, 3).
      
      1. 
         It appears that Nebuchadnezzar told the people in advance the reason they were to assemble.
         
      2. 
         The dedication ceremony of the image would likely have been similar to ceremonies that people have when they have a ground-breaking, open a new building, christen a ship, or dedicate a statue of a war veteran. You can find many examples of these if you enter into a Web search engine topics such as ‘museum dedication,’ ‘statue of liberty dedication,’ etc.
         
      3. 
         There was probably some form of unveiling of the image.
         
      4. 
         What likely would have accompanied the unveiling of the image?
         
         1. 
            Speeches, flag waving, military displays, and music, dancing and singing.
            
         2. 
            There may have also been a meal and free-flowing alcohol.
            
   2. 
      Worship the image (5).
      
      1. 
         At minimum this included a prostration (falling on their knees with their foreheads placed on the ground) before the image
         
      2. 
         It may have included recitation of some form of oath or singing of some form of praise.
         
      3. 
         What may this requirement indicate about the nature of the image?
         
         1. 
            The image had some form of religious, as well as political, significance.
            
         2. 
            No specific Babylonian god is mentioned, it may be surmised that Nebuchadnezzar was not honouring an existing god.
            
         3. 
            Nebuchadnezzar may have been instituting a new form of religious worship or dedicating a new god (which may have been himself).
            

6. 
   Why did Nebuchadnezzar make the image and require worship of it?
   
   1. 
      He may have been influenced by the statue in his dream (chapter 2) and may have decided to emulate the dream’s image by creating a large human statue.
      
      1. 
         The revelation of his significance in history (2.37-38) may have caused him to have had an inflated view of his power and position, and he responded by memorializing himself, compare:
         
         1. 
            The pillar Absalom raised for himself (2 Sam 18.18)
            
         2. 
            The image of Saddam Hussein that was toppled in the main square in Baghdad 2003-04-09.
            
      2. 
         As he was identified in the dream as the head of gold he may have had the entire image coated in gold.
         
   2. 
      He may have been celebrating a significant military victory through the subjection of another territory and incorporation into the empire as a province.
      
      1. 
         He may have set up an obelisk, based on one he had seen during his Egyptian campaign. For example, the four obelisk that Queen Hapshetsut (who may have been the Queen of Sheba who visited Solomon in 941 BC) erected at Karnak may have served as his prototype. One of them still stands today and is 97’ high (about the same height at the image Nebuchadnezzar erected).
         
      2. 
         If he set up an obelisk, the record of his exploits and conquests could have been recorded on it.
         
   3. 
      He probably intended to have his officials recognize and submit to his absolute authority over the empire.
      
      1. 
         He likely had them take an oath of allegiance, and the demand to worship the image was understood as a ratification of the oath—similar to someone placing his hand on the Bible when taking an oath in a courtroom.
         
      2. 
         It has been suggested that Nebuchadnezzar summoned all his vassals to Babylon in 594 BC to ensure their loyalty after an attempted revolt in the preceding year.¹³⁴
         
      3. 
         The demand that they fall down before the image and worship, would require of them a public display of obedience. Nebuchadnezzar abused his power (given to him by God) to bind the minds and wills of all his subjects by compelling them to engage in false worship practices at his command.
         
      4. 
         The effect of having many officials standing before the image and then bowing before it would have impressed all assembled with the solemnity of the act and the power of the king requiring it.
         
      5. 
         All the officials who served him were to recognize both his political and religious authority.
         
   4. 
      He probably used the dedication ceremony to unify his empire and show his consolidated authority as ruler.
      
      1. 
         The image may have served as the unifying focus of his empire, similar to a flag or icon.
         
         1. 
            “He feared dissension as a cause of disunion in his empire.”¹³⁵ (Calvin)
            
      2. 
         The religious observation associated with the dedication ceremony may have served to add a unifying dimension.
         
         1. 
            A new idol or religious ceremony served to give the people a new identity.
            
         2. 
            Compare this with Jeroboam’s new religious ceremonies and idols (1 Ki 12.25-33), which he used to unify the northern tribes and keep them from going to Jerusalem to participate in the God-instituted worship ceremonies.
            
         3. 
            Babylon was already full of idols, as were all the other territories in the empire (even, sadly, Judea). The confusion engendered by many false gods would have led some of the people to conclude, correctly, that none of these gods was the true God. However, rather than abandoning all the false gods, Nebuchadnezzar probably set up another which he declared to be the ‘only’ god, or ‘most high’ god.
            
      3. 
         Nebuchadnezzar established himself as the head of the civil and religious establishments.
         
         1. 
            He usurped to himself a priestly function and made a god of his own invention.
            
            1. 
               He based this activity on his own opinion, and did not consider God’s prohibition against anyone who was not his designated prophet or priest promulgating edicts concerning worship.
               
            2. 
               Fabricating a deity displays a supreme hubris on the part of man. Of course men do not see the irony in what they are doing—creating a god is nonsense, since God by definition cannot be created (Is 40.18-20; 41.6-7).
               
         2. 
            From earliest history, political affairs and religion have been intimately interwoven.
            
            1. 
               A single religion was often endorsed by the leader of the government (king, emperor, chief), and the leader of the government often had some form of control over the tribe’s, country’s, nation’s, or empire’s religion.
               
            2. 
               When a country’s leader converted to a new religion, the whole country went along. For example, since the time of Henry VIII, the Church of England and the government of the state have been, nominally, subject to the royal personage.
               
            3. 
               The idea of the separation of religion and state is a modern concept. It arose primarily with Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) who consigned religion to the irrelevance of private observance. His division of reality into facts related to the sensory world and feelings about the non-physical realm created a false dichotomy about facts that he held to be certain (e.g., about horses and turnips) and beliefs that are uncertain (e.g., about God, love, beauty, morality, etc.).
               
         3. 
            The state’s direct control over religion is called Erastianism. However, it has not always been the accepted order of things. In some cultures, the religious leaders have as much or more control than the political leaders (e.g., in Islam). From the time of Constantine until the early modern period of European history, there was a tension between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor as to who was superior to the other.
            
         4. 
            The historic Presbyterian and Reformed view of the role of the king is: “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide, that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.”¹³⁶
            
         5. 
            This view is not accepted today in the West. Kant’s ideas were picked up by Thomas Jefferson and have since become the famous ‘wall of separation’ that has driven the true religion out of the public forum, not only in the US but in all Western democracies that espouse the ‘politically correct’ view of religious tolerance—which actually means, endorse any form of religion as long as it isn’t Christianity.
            
      4. 
         Nebuchadnezzar may have been specifically testing the loyalty of the Jewish officials. If this statue was set up in 593 BC or in 587 (before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC and deportation of the Jews), he may have been using the requirement to worship his image to see how loyal the leaders of the provinces (including Judah) were. The leaders of other provinces would have been polytheistic and would not have objected to the worship of additional (existing or new) Babylonian gods and likely had essentially the same hierarchy of gods in their pantheon. The Jewish leaders, in theory, should have objected to idolatry and should have refused to obey the command to worship the false god.
         
         1. 
            Nebuchadnezzar may have used this test as a means of corrupting the beliefs of the Jews and making them pliable to his will and commands. Zedekiah may have been present (Jer 51.59).
            
         2. 
            Ironically, his test would have been a success if Daniel’s three friends had not been present. The other Jewish leaders, from Judah, that were likely present, appear to have capitulated to the King’s demands and have fallen down in worship before the image.
            
         3. 
            It was only the three men who had been taken captive as youths, before the complete subjugation of Judah and Jerusalem, and who had been living in the pagan realm’s capital, who stood firm against idolatry.
            
   5. 
      He may have been declaring himself to be divine.
      
      1. 
         He may have had the image cast as a representation of himself. However, Calvin does not think that Nebuchadnezzar “wished to include himself in the number of the deities.”
         
      2. 
         The Egyptian kings positioned themselves as gods.
         
      3. 
         Alexander claimed that he was the descendent of Zeus.¹³⁷
         
      4. 
         How many times does the name ‘Nebuchadnezzar’ appear in these seven verses? Seven times (on average one time in every verse).
         
         1. 
            In contrast his name appears 29 times throughout the first 4 chapters of Daniel (on average, 1 time for every 4-5 verses). [Note: for comparison, the name ‘Daniel’ appears 30 times in the same range of verses.]
            
         2. 
            Daniel’s repetition of Nebuchadnezzar’s name so many times in a short passage reinforces the idea that a mere mortal was attempting to raise himself to a great height of honour.
            
   6. 
      Regardless of the specific reason, there is undoubtedly an element of pride in Nebuchadnezzar’s actions, showing that his profession of God’s sovereignty (2.47) over all other gods was largely lip-service and not heart-service.
      
      1. 
         The natural impiety of the human heart came out in Nebuchadnezzar’s actions on the plain of Dura.
         
      2. 
         God was setting the scene for a more significant humbling of this great king (chapter 4), which would lead him to make a more sincere confession of the God of Heaven (4.37)—we will determine whether his confession showed a converted heart when we consider that chapter.
         

7. 
   What accompanied the bowing before the image?
   
   1. 
      The playing of numerous musical instruments (5, 7)
      
   2. 
      The specific instruments mentioned, appear all to be in the classes of wind and stringed instruments:
      
      1. 
         horn (rams horn, trumpet),
         
      2. 
         flute (pipe, whistle, pan pipe),
         
      3. 
         zither (lyre-like instrument with an undetermined number of strings),
         
      4. 
         lyre (a triangular board with short strings and high pitch); ‘trigon’ as in the ESV (referring to the triangular¹³⁸ shape of the instrument),
         
      5. 
         harp (twenty strings),
         
      6. 
         pipes (bagpipes)
         
   3. 
      The reference to all kinds of other musical instruments, probably brings in percussion instruments including drums, xylophones, bells, timbrels (tambourines), castanets, rattles, cymbals, etc..
      
   4. 
      The names of some of the instruments (in the Aramaic text) appear to be of Greek origin.
      
      1. 
         Possible Greek terms:
         
         1. 
            קִיתְרֹס (qî∙ṯ^erōs) may come from the Greek word κιθάρα (used in the Septuagint (LXX) to translate the Aramaic word.
            
         2. 
            פְּסַנְתֵּרִין (p^esǎn∙tē∙rîn) appears to have a similarity to the Greek word ψαλτηρίου (used in the LXX to translate the Aramaic word).
            
         3. 
            סוּמְפֹּנְיָה (sûm^ep∙pō∙n^eyā(h)) appears to sound like συμφωνίας (used in the LXX to translate the Aramaic word).
            
      2. 
         If correct (i.e., the terms are from Greece) then they were included in the book of Daniel 250+ years before the Hellenistic period of wide-spread Greek influence.
         
      3. 
         Some argue that this indicates that the book was written after the time of Alexander, and not at the time of Daniel or the events recorded. They assign a date to the book of Daniel around the time of the Maccabean uprising (c 165 BC).
         
      4. 
         What explanations allow for the writing of Daniel to be contemporary with the events, and yet allow for the inclusion of Greek terms for the musical instruments?
         
         1. 
            Communication and commerce between Greece and the Middle East had been carried on for centuries before the conquest by Alexander.¹³⁹
            
         2. 
            Greek mercenaries served in the armies of Psammetichus II king of Egypt (595 BC-589 BC) and Nebuchadnezzar¹⁴⁰ and may have brought their musical instruments with them.
            
         3. 
            Therefore, the musical instruments could have been of Greek origin and imported into the Middle East. They may have kept their Greek names as we have violin, viola, ukulele, etc. from other languages.
            
      5. 
         The presence of Greek words in Daniel does not provide a problem for concluding that the book was written by Daniel himself or a near contemporary.
         
   5. 
      Why were the musical instruments used?
      
      1. 
         The instruments were used to make the occasion emotionally stimulating.
         
         1. 
            We know that music is used to calm (1 Sam 16.14-23) or heighten emotions (for example in movies), and is used at various ceremonies such as the opening of the Olympics.
            
         2. 
            In Sweden, Uppsala University’s Department of Psychology has a project underway (as of 2008) called AMUSE (Appraisal in Music and Emotion) to study our emotional responses to music.¹⁴¹
            
         3. 
            In the broader Church today music is often used to set the mood. You can even find Web-sites with mood music for church services where you can download instrumental versions of Amazing Grace, Sweet Hour of Prayer, How Great Thou Art, Ave Maria, Rock of Ages, Nearer My God to Thee, Just As I Am, What A Friend We Have in Jesus, Abide With Me, etc.¹⁴²
            
      2. 
         Special pieces of music may have been composed for the event. The unveiling of the image may have been accompanied by a conducted orchestral composition.
         
      3. 
         However, it is also possible that the multitude of instruments was not used in a coordinated symphony but rather to provide a loud blast of continuous raucous and harsh sound.
         
         1. 
            We may be seeing false religion at its worst and Satan’s imitation of true worship is not harmony and symphony but cacophony.
            
         2. 
            The image we might have is similar to what happened when the prophets of Baal raved and danced trying to bring down fire from Heaven (1 Kings 18.28-29), or to the wild dancing, to a rapid drum tempo, of an animistic tribe.
            
         3. 
            The noise of Hell broke out on the plain of Dura.
            
      4. 
         The nations around Israel used musical instruments in their worship of false gods. “According to the concepts of antiquity, music was a part of each sacrifice even when only incense or a libation were offered. Flutes, various stringed instruments, noisy kettle-drums, trumpets, and little bells, the so-called sistrum, were employed. The music was meant to ward off the demons and to invite the coming of the gods.”¹⁴³
         

6. 
   What is the role of music instruments in the worship of God? The fact that musical instruments were used in this false worship ceremony and also in Temple worship in Jerusalem, may raise perplexing questions:
   
   1. 
      How did the purpose for musical instruments in Jewish ceremonial worship differ from the purpose in the pagan worship of their neighbours?
      
      1. 
         Pagans, including the Babylonians, used musical instruments in their false worship to reach a point of emotional frenzy. They viewed this as a means of:
         
         1. 
            Demonstrating sincerity to the god they were appealing to
            
         2. 
            Attempting to appease the god
            
         3. 
            Warding off evil spirits.
            
      2. 
         The pagans also believed that what pleased them would also please their gods. This is a similar view held by many in the Church today—men find music appealing to their senses, therefore so must it appeal to God, they believe. It is a false belief, based on a false logic. There are many things men, in their sinful natures find appealing, that God hates: illicit sexual relations, gluttony, laziness, drug-induced stupors, etc.
         
      3. 
         Musical instruments in the Temple worship of the OT ceremonial economy were used at the time the sacrifice was being offered up [more below].
         
         1. 
            It appears that the instruments were used to inform the crowd who could not see the actual sacrifice that the sacrifice was happening. The music was a surrogate for vision—substituting one sensory perception for another.
            
         2. 
            The musical instruments also may have been used to engender an emotional response in the people, not in God.
            
   2. 
      When did God introduce the use of musical instruments into his worship?
      
      1. 
         There were no musical instruments (or singing) in the worship of Abraham and the other patriarchs.
         
      2. 
         For the Tabernacle system of worship, a trumpet announced the time of the offering of the sacrifice; but no other instruments were used and singing, accompanied by musical instruments, was not included as part of the ceremonial system of worship. The trumpet was used only in the context of the sacrifice (Lev 23.24, 25; Num 10.10; 29.1-4). It may have been used to let the people outside the immediate courtyard know that the sacrifice was being offered, since it would have been impossible for all the people in the camp to enter the courtyard at one time. The trumpet was not used in the Tabernacle to accompany singing. There is no reference in the Bible to singing in the Tabernacle worship. Beyond the specific use of the trumpet at the time of the sacrifice, the trumpet was also used for signalling the times of worship (Num 10.1-9; 31.6).
         
      3. 
         God first instituted the use of different kinds of musical instruments to accompany singing as worship at the time of David. This change occurred with the changes in the sacrificial system that were introduced for the Temple that would be built by Solomon.
         
      4. 
         Under David, musical instruments were used before the Temple was actually built, wherever the sacrifices were offered up (1 Chron 16.37-42). At this time, there were two shrines and (apparently) two high priests. One of the high priests, Zadok, was with the Tabernacle at Gibeon, the other, Abiathar (1 Chron 15.11), was with the Ark in Jerusalem. It appears that David introduced the use of additional musical instruments and singing to accompany the worship of the sacrifice offering at both the Tabernacle (1 Chron 16.41, 42) and the ark. When the Ark was first brought into Jerusalem, it was brought up from Kiriath Jearim where it had been for twenty years (1 Sam 6.21-7.2), and placed near the area of the future Temple. While the Ark was being moved, there was a continuous offering of sacrifices accompanied by an offering of music and singing as worship (2 Sam 6.2-5, 13-18 [especially verses 13, 18]; 1 Chron 15.14-28 [especially v 26]).¹⁴⁴
         
      5. 
         Musical instruments were used in the Temple in Jerusalem built under Solomon and rebuilt under Zerubbabel and Joshua, according to the plan and order of David (e.g., 2 Chron 5.11-14; 7.4-6; Is 38.20). Throughout the Temple era, the collection of musical instruments (i.e., trumpets, harps, cymbals, lyres, etc.) accompanying singing was used only during the offering of animal sacrifices (2 Chron 29.25-28; 2 Chron 30.15, 21, 24). When the sacrifices ended, the music ceased.
         
      6. 
         When musical instruments were used outside the Temple, after the time of David, they were used in conjunction with sacrifices (2 Chron 7.1, 5-6; Neh 12.36, 40-43). Even when God rebuked the Jews for their misuse of songs and musical instruments, he associated them with the misuse of the sacrificial elements of worship (Amos 5.21-23), showing their intimate connection.
         
   3. 
      Why did God introduce and permit the use of musical instruments in the Temple when musical instruments were apparently first used in pagan worship?
      
      1. 
         This is a difficult question to answer.
         
      2. 
         Calvin suggests that God permitted the use of musical instruments to stir up men from spiritual laziness as a stimulant to cause the Jews to worship more fervently.¹⁴⁵
         
         1. 
            Following this line of thinking, it may be that God allowed aspects of what was used in pagan practice to be introduced into worship for a similar reason as Jesus says he permitted divorce (Mt 19.7, 8).
            
         2. 
            God may have permitted musical instruments because of the hardness of human hearts and man’s need/desire for outward expressions of worship.
            
      3. 
         A practical reason may be, as we noted above:
         
         1. 
            The singing and the instruments would inform the crowds in the courtyards, who could not see the actual sacrifice, that the sacrifice was happening. The music was a surrogate for vision—substituting one sensory perception for another.
            
         2. 
            The musical instruments also may have been used to engender an emotional response in the people, not in God.
            
      4. 
         There may be another reason, based on the anticipation of NT worship.
         
         1. 
            God may have introduced the additional musical instruments to accompany the singing of the Psalms.
            
            1. 
               It would have been difficult to sing a Psalm accompanied by the sound of trumpet, especially one such as the shofar (ram’s horn) which had only one, or a few notes.
               
            2. 
               The combined melody of the instruments along with the singing of the Psalms by the Levite choir during the time the sacrifice was being offered, would have been heard by those unable to see the sacrifice.
               
         2. 
            This leads to another question, why did God introduce the singing of the Psalms in Temple worship?
            
            1. 
               God may have introduced the singing of Psalms into/as worship at this time in anticipation of the change in form that would come with NT spiritual worship.
               
            2. 
               The Psalms in Temple-worship accompanied the offering of the sacrifice and therefore were an element of the sacrificial system.
               
            3. 
               However, in the NT economy the Psalms would become the non-bloody spiritual sacrifice that would replace permanently the sacrifice of animals. The singing of Psalms is the spiritual equivalent of offering thank-offering animal sacrifices to God (Ps 69.30, 31; 107.21, 22; Hos 14.2; Heb 13.15).
               
            4. 
               The singing of the Psalms has the added value of increased instruction, directing the hearer to Christ (Lk 24.44), that the offerings alone did could not provide.
               
   4. 
      What was the context of musical instruments in the Temple worship ceremonies?
      
      1. 
         The context for the use of musical instruments in worship appears consistently in the Bible to be that of animal sacrifices. We have seen this with respect to the use of the trumpet. Instruments (other than the trumpet) along with singing were only introduced with the express provision of God for the new liturgy that would be associated with the Temple sacrifices. These changes were introduced under the direction of David as a prophet (not by virtue of his kingly office), with revelation from God.
         
      2. 
         The ceremonies of the OT sacrificial system, including musical instruments and incense, were introduced by God as physical types pointing to the eternal antitype, Jesus Christ.
         
   5. 
      What, if any, is the role for musical instruments in NT worship?
      
      1. 
         Since musical instruments were used to accompany singing in the OT Temple worship can we use them to accompany singing in the NT spiritual temple worship?
         
      2. 
         After the destruction of the Temple (586 BC), the Jews did not use musical instruments to accompany singing in worship, even though they sang Psalms that called for the use of musical instruments.
         
         1. 
            For example, the Levites hung up their harps (Ps 137.2)—apparently, this means that they did not perform their liturgical duties while in captivity in Babylon as there were no sacrifices being offered, since Solomon’s Temple had been destroyed.
            
      3. 
         When Jews met for worship outside of Jerusalem and the Temple, they did not use musical instruments in worship. They understood the use of musical instruments to be part of the Temple sacrificial liturgy and did not use them. “People who appeal to Psalm 150 as a justification for the use of musical instruments in new covenant worship violate a number of standard interpretive procedures. First, what did this Psalm mean to the original old covenant Jewish audience? Did the Jews use this Psalm and other such Psalms as a justification for the introduction of musical instruments in their synagogue worship? No. They most certainly did not. Jewish synagogues did not use musical instruments in praise until 1810.”¹⁴⁶
         
      4. 
         Since the old covenant sacrifices were replaced by the work of Christ, the Early NT Church did not use musical instruments in worship. Most of the earliest NT congregations consisted of Jews who had learned that musical instruments were used as part of the Temple liturgy and associated with the bloody sacrifices. The view that musical instruments were part of the OT ceremonial system that was replaced with the final sacrifice of Christ and NT spiritual equivalents was the predominant view throughout the early NT Church. Musical instruments were universally excluded from worship. “An absolute rejection of … noisy music as a whole was achieved only by Christianity. The Church excluded in those days [i.e., the first half dozen centuries] all musical instruments from her worship; plain homophonic singing only was allowed, unaccompanied by any musical instruments. The human voice and the human heart alone were to sing God’s praises; the use of the one voice only was to symbolize the unity which was to obtain in the Church.”¹⁴⁷ The following are (only) three examples of the teaching of the early Church fathers.
         
         1. 
            Justin Martyr (—165): “Plain singing is not childish, but only the singing with lifeless organs, with dancing and with cymbals, etc. Whence the use of such instruments and other things fit for children is laid aside, and plain singing only retained.”¹⁴⁸
            
         2. 
            Eusebius (church historian/bishop, Palestine, c. 325): “Of old at the time those of the circumcision were worshiping with symbols and types it was not inappropriate to send up hymns to God with the psalterion and kithara and to do this on Sabbath days (breaking the rest and transgressing the law concerning the Sabbath). But we in an inward manner keep the part of the Jew, according to the saying of the apostle...(Romans 2.28f.). We render our hymn with a living psalterion and a living kithara, with spiritual songs. The unison voices of Christians would be more acceptable to God than any musical instrument. Accordingly in all the churches of God, united in soul and attitude, with one mind and in agreement of faith and piety, we send up a unison melody in the words of the Psalms.”¹⁴⁹
            
         3. 
            Athanasius (—373): “Indeed the melodic reading is a symbol of the mind’s well-ordered and undisturbed condition. Moreover, the praising of God in well-tuned cymbals and harp and ten-stringed instruments was again a figure and sign of the parts of the body coming into natural concord like harp strings, and of the thoughts of the soul becoming like cymbals ... Do not let anyone amplify these words of the Psalter with the persuasive phrases of the profane, and do not let him attempt to recast or completely change the words. Rather let him recite and chant, without artifice, the things written just as they were spoken …”¹⁵⁰
            
      5. 
         It was not until well into the Middle Ages that musical instruments came into use in the Western Church, and even then, their use was not universally accepted. For example, Thomas Aquinas (c 1225-1274) said: “Instruments of music such as harps and psalteries, the church does not adopt for divine praises, lest it should seem to Judaize.”
         
      6. 
         Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, held to the position that the modes of worship associated with the sacrificial worship of the OT ceremonial system have been changed in the NT economy. Reformed Protestants did not accept the use of any components of worship associated with the bloody sacrificial system (except the singing of Psalms, as the NT tells us to do this [Eph 5.19, 20; Col 3.16; Jam 5.13—the Greek has ‘psalms’]).
         
      7. 
         Musical instruments were re-introduced into Reformed Protestant worship about 150 years ago. This has been only the beginning. Incense, liturgical dance, non-Scriptural hymns, holy days, Lent, etc. are all coming back into churches, even those that claim to hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith—The Assembly’s Directory for Public Worship explicitly rules out the introduction of these elements of the OT ceremonial worship and man-made worship.
         
      8. 
         The modern Church is mistaken in using musical instruments in, or as, worship, as they were part of the never-to-be-repeated sacrificial system and we have no express or implied command to use them in NT worship.¹⁵¹
         

8. 
   What was to be the punishment for improper observance at the dedication of the image?
   
   1. 
      Whoever did not fall down and worship the image was to be thrown into a blazing furnace.
      
      1. 
         Those who failed to comply would face instant death—with no trial.
         
      2. 
         The harshness of the penalty indicates that submission by the officials was obligatory.
         
      3. 
         False religions and tyrannical governments must enforce compliance by threatened severity. Only true Christianity is able to achieve willing adherents out of love.
         
   2. 
      The furnace may have been (probably was) a brick kiln used for firing bricks on the plain of Dura. Remains of furnaces for this purpose have been found in excavations outside of the ruins of ancient Babylon.
      

9. 
   How did the administrators respond to the command?
   
   1. 
      All the people (officials) of every nation (province) and language group fell down and worshiped the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up; with, of course, the exception of the three Jews—Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (12).
      
   2. 
      Why did the people fall before the image?
      
      1. 
         The king’s command—as an absolute and arbitrary tyrant he could command what he wished.
         
      2. 
         The threat of severe punishment for disobedience—in general sinful men, without the indwelling of the Spirit, are willing to do anything (from false worship, to stealing, and even murder) to preserve their own lives, if they feel they can get away with the evil action.
         
      3. 
         The overwhelming influence of the awesome image—people are easily influenced by spectacle. We see how each generation comes up with more ways to impress. For example, the Roman Emperors tried to gain recognition through the spectacles at the games and triumph parades; each Olympic committee attempts to outdo the previous one with a greater spectacle at the opening ceremonies; cities aspire to have the tallest structures, rock concerts use more and more lights, projection screens, and fireworks to impress; at the 2008 DNC, Obama gave his acceptance speech from an elaborate set that was reminiscent of a Greek temple.
         
      4. 
         The power of the emotional response to the music—we can think how different kinds of music such as marching bands, rhythmic drums, quiet piano pieces, a stirring rendition of Beethoven’s 9^th Symphony or the Hallelujah Chorus from Handel’s Messiah can stir very different emotions.
         
      5. 
         The peoples had no religious principles—falling before one idol or god was no different from falling before another. Even the traditions of their ancestors were of no relevance since the nations had been made subject to Nebuchadnezzar. From their perspective, his god or gods had defeated their gods and they were subject to a more powerful god. If a person does not know God personally and experientially one religion (other than the true one) is as good as another, depending on which way the wind blows on a particular day.
         
   3. 
      What would have been the expected outcome of the officials and leaders of each nation (province) in the empire having paid homage to Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image? Nebuchadnezzar’s could expect the:
      
      1. 
         Officials to act as representatives of the people’s they governed. The concept of federal representation and covenant obligations were well entrenched throughout the AME. The idea of individual freedom was essentially non-existent.
         
      2. 
         Officials to be fully subservient to him in the future.
         
      3. 
         Subject people of each province to follow the same course of obeisance as their rulers.
         

10. 
    What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
    
    1. 
       Presumptive Illusions – Nebuchadnezzar had grand ideas. His head was filled with his own perceived merit and power.
       
       1. 
          Nebuchadnezzar was no different from all prideful men who are elevated to positions of absolute dictator with the ‘freedom’ to exercise tyrannical control over their subjects.
          
       2. 
          These men want to honour themselves and have crowds of their followers around them.
          
       3. 
          We might wonder how it is possible for so many totalitarian dictators to arise.
          
          1. 
             They have appeared in every generation—starting with Lamech before the Flood, and continuing again with dictators after the Flood—e.g., Sargon, Hammurabi, Khufu, Thutmose III ...
             
          2. 
             Examples in recent history include: Adolf Hitler, Kim Il-sung or his son Kim Jong-il, Nicolae Ceausescu, Ida Amin, Robert Mugabe, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, etc.
             
          3. 
             Why do people allow men to become dictators over them? Possible answers include:
             
             1. 
                Fear’s potency – Dictators are generally mean and cruel and average people cannot resist the weapons they wield—whether the weapons are economic or a secret police force.
                
             2. 
                False promises – Dictators make promises, such as providing peace and prosperity that they cannot fulfill, but sound good. People are fooled by the appeal to their baser desires. Politicians, today, are notorious for making false promises. Likewise, those seeking office and power in every age have fallen into the same pattern.
                
                1. 
                   “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels.
                   
                2. 
                   “A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin.
                   
             3. 
                Fealty perverted – People born in sin are willing to let themselves be made subjects. By nature men are slaves to sin and Satan (Prov 5.22; Jn 8.34; Rom 6.16; Tit 3.3) and as a result actually cultivate their enslavement to other men. The only truly free man can be the one set free by Christ (Lk 4.18; Jn 8.36, 44; 2 Cor 3.17; Gal 5.1).
                
          4. 
             It is the lot of men who try to live without the true God, to become subject to men who set themselves up as gods and control their subjects through the harsh use of power.
             
       4. 
          Today the primary descendent of the tyrannical empires of the AME is the Islamic Caliphate, in which adherents of Islam wish to establish a world-controlling empire under the political headship of a single Caliph who would be the successor to the Muhammad and exercise his political authority. Nebuchadnezzar’s empire and all tyrannical realms since use the same basic tactics that Islam uses today to maintain control over people:
          
          1. 
             Permit only one-party rule and/or prohibit and limit elections.
             
          2. 
             Hold people’s behaviour in check through threats of violent punishment, not through the love of what is right.
             
          3. 
             Apply arbitrary procedures under the guise of law: arrest, confiscation, punishment, and execution.
             
          4. 
             Prohibit freedom of thought and expression.
             
          5. 
             Nationalize and expropriate private property.
             
          6. 
             Play favourites with special interest groups.
             
          7. 
             Provide ‘cradle-to-grave’ care (in health, education and welfare) so that the citizens become dependent subjects of the largesse of the government
             
          8. 
             Use nationalistic and human religious traditions to engender allegiance to the state.
             
       5. 
          Nebuchadnezzar presumptive illusions are a warning to us:
          
          1. 
             We must not be surprised that men want to set themselves up as tyrannical gods. This is the only course that is consistent with man’s depraved nature. It was the course that Adam and Eve pursed at the beginning of time (Gen 3.5), it was the means by which Satan attempted to tempt Jesus (Mt 4.8, 9), and it is the source of attraction for all power mongers (Rev 13.4-7; 11-18).
             
          2. 
             We must not think that men are getting better and that there is less of a tendency today for men to pursue the course of absolute, and abusive, dictatorship. Recent history teaches otherwise.
             
          3. 
             We must always be on our guard and. through prayer, wise application of our freedoms and rights, and the use of the franchise and civil procedures. protect ourselves and our neighbours from evil men.
             
    2. 
       Pervasive Idolatry – Idolatry is the natural course that all men will follow if the Holy Spirit does not rein them in.
       
       1. 
          Idolatry can take many forms:
          
          1. 
             In the instance we have been considering in this chapter, idolatry is worshiping a man or an image of a created being. We see this kind of idolatry in the way people worship politicians, athletes, or celebrities.
             
          2. 
             One of the definitions of idolatry is ‘adoration, reverence, or devotion to something other than God’.
             
             1. 
                Certainly, people can set themselves up as idols, since a person can have an excessive devotion to himself.
                
             2. 
                People can also make material objects (gold, money, jewellery, houses, cars) the objects of their reverence and thus idols.
                
             3. 
                Also, there can be excessive or blind devotion to a system of thought or an idea. So, adherents of Darwinian evolution, atheism, environmentalism, or global warming theories are idolaters.
                
          3. 
             If God is not our primary focus and first priority (Mt 6.33), then anything that is put in his place is an idol.
             
       2. 
          Adherents of all false religions, and even many (most) Christians are guilty of introducing objects of blatant or subtle idolatry.
          
          1. 
             We don’t have to look very far to find idolatry in Buddhism or Hinduism. But it is also in Judaism and Islam since both of these religions, although they claim to worship the one true God, have replaced the true personal God (Trinitarian, Creator, Law Giver, Judge, Saviour) with a caricature. The same applies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, etc.
             
          2. 
             Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism have idols as much as the pagans and false religions. They dedicate icons, painting, statues, graves, saints, Mary, etc. for devotion; and associate rites with their devotion.
             
          3. 
             Evangelical Protestants are also idolaters. They have adulterated and polluted the true worship of God with their man-made hymns and their introduction of unauthorized practices such as instrumental music. They also are idolaters in their adoration of men and false doctrines (e.g., dispensationalist speculations, human free will to choose salvation).
             
          4. 
             However, lest we look smugly at others, Reformed Presbyterians are also guilty of idolatry. In our hearts we can make men and systems, rather than God our primary focus. We are hardly less immune to idolatry than were Nebuchadnezzar’s wise men or an Incan priest. We just hide it better. To the extent that we are kept from idolatry, it is by God’s grace alone.
             
       3. 
          Idol worship is pervasive throughout the human race, throughout history.
          
          1. 
             Men have no compunction about falling before or reverencing their idols.
             
          2. 
             It really does not require compulsion or fear of reprisal to get people to bow before idols because our natural instinct is to worship idols.
             
       4. 
          People go to great expense for their false views:
          
          1. 
             Nebuchadnezzar expended sums of wealth building and gilding his image. Most images worshiped as idols throughout history have been expensive (with gold and precious stones; Is 46.6). Men believe that if their idols are not lavish and if their construction of them does not cost them a degree of discomfort, then the god represented by the idol will not be honoured.
             
          2. 
             The kings of Egypt destroyed thousands of slaves building their mausoleums. Canaanites offered their children to different Baals. And, Aztec and Incan priests offered the lives of thousands of virgins and captive warriors.
             
          3. 
             Today we can consider the funds (sometimes in very poor counties) that are spent building mosques, temples, and even church buildings under the false belief that the sacrifice on the part of the suppliant will appease or please the god.
             
          4. 
             God requires a tribute of one tenth of our increase as a means of reminding us that we are his subjects and that ultimately the universe is his possession. But he does not require his worshipers to exhaust their resources in vain attempts to placate him. Rather he looks for worship in Spirit and in truth (Jn 4.24).
             
       5. 
          Idolatry is a pernicious evil that pervades all of man’s thinking and practice. Thus, the NT writers warn us to flee from idolatry (1 Cor 10.14; 1 Jn 5.21). We must be aware of idolatry’s hold and avoid it with great care.
          
    3. 
       Pliant Inconsistency – Men with false beliefs and worldviews can be easily and quickly turned to almost any false beliefs—but not to truth, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
       
       1. 
          What demonstrates this truth from the account in Daniel?
          
          1. 
             Nebuchadnezzar would have professed the gods of his ancestors, as the priest-king head of the empire, yet he introduces another god—the implication being that the gods already recognized and honoured were not sufficient for the care and superintendence of the empire.
             
          2. 
             The leaders of the nations within the empire had also professed the gods of their own ancestors and nations to be the true gods, yet they easily fell before a new god in compliance with a human command. This shows that their commitment to their god(s) was superficial.
             
          3. 
             Of course, adding another false god in a system that espouses a pantheon of gods is not really an inconsistency since one god is as good as another.
             
       2. 
          Nebuchadnezzar had made a profession that Jehovah/Yahweh is the true God (46). Yet, the impression made upon him was not lasting. In direct defiance and contradiction of that profession, he set up a false god and demanded that it be worshiped.
          
       3. 
          Men today are no different:
          
          1. 
             Men on whom God has made a marked impression, but who have not been truly converted, quickly return to their former idolatries and even extend them
             
          2. 
             Men with strong convictions often fall short of sound conversion.
             
             1. 
                Expressions of zeal, compassion, or exuberance do not guarantee on-going compliance with truth (Mt 13.3-9).
                
             2. 
                Men often profess belief in the true God only as far as they feel it can help achieve other ends.
                
             3. 
                Politicians (especially in the US) become very ‘religious’ around election time. For example, Obama attended church during the campaign, but six months into his presidency, apparently, had not attended a single service.
                
             4. 
                People who are facing disasters (relatives trapped in a mine, an approaching hurricane, facing chemotherapy, seeing off loved ones heading into a war zone, experiencing a rapid descent in an airplane due to a failed engine, etc.) often claim prayer as their means of support.
                
             5. 
                But these people have no interest in what God requires of men.
                
          3. 
             Many who have felt conviction of guilt over their actions continue to wallow in the same sins.
             
             1. 
                For example, someone with a sever hangover says, ‘I won’t drink like that again.’ But the next weekend he is partying in the same way. Or a person who spreads rumours finds out that he has really hurt a friend and swears to himself he won’t do that again. But the next time juicy gossip comes along he sends out an e-mail repeating it.
                
             2. 
                The speed with which people lapse from their New Year’s resolutions is a proverbial example of this tendency in human nature to profess reformation without carrying it out.
                
       4. 
          Men today are as gullible as they were in Nebuchadnezzar’s day. Even with our modern pretentions of being scientific and not subject to myths, men today are as superstitious and deceived as were the ancient pagans.
          
          1. 
             Superstition takes many forms. Today it appears in the guise of Darwinian, psychological, sociological, or political myths—such as: man is the product of chance events in a pool of amino acids a couple of billion years ago, man is innately good, society can correct all misbehaviour through education, or governments is responsible for providing for our needs.
             
          2. 
             Men jump from one form of nonsense belief to another without seeing the inconsistencies and contradictions.
             
    4. 
       Personal Imperative – Each person must take personal responsibility for ensuring that he worships only the true God.
       
       1. 
          We must make sure that we do not profess belief in the true God and then bow down to idols.
          
       2. 
          We must not be fooled by the pressures of our culture or our ‘friends’ to abandon our adherence to the one true God or to compromise his uniqueness by reverencing false gods.
          
          1. 
             Solomon’s later life is a warning of how easy it is for even professed (and true) believers to fall into syncretism and worship idols (1 Ki 11.1-8).
             
       3. 
          It is important that each generation understand what is the true worship that God requires and embrace it.
          
          1. 
             Knowing that the human heart can easily deceive us and lead us to follow idolatry, we need to be continually subject to the Word of God.
             
          2. 
             We need to ensure that we avoid and resist temptations to introduce false worship.
             
          3. 
             We need to stand immovable in the true worship of God and not compromise, even if ‘kings’ command otherwise or the threat of death compels us.
             
          4. 
             We need to pray for grace, through the indwelling of the Spirit, to restrain us from falling into idolatry.