Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Snitches (8-12)

1. 
   Who took action to see that the king’s decree was faithfully observed? (8)
   
   1. 
      Some of the astrologers.
      
   2. 
      When Nebuchadnezzar made the decree requiring worship of the image, he probably did not think about the possibility, or realize, that some of his subjects might disobey his command.
      
      1. 
         He probably was not specifically testing the Jews to see if they would obey.
         
      2. 
         Note, however, that Calvin suggests that he might have been testing the Jews: “[T]he king expected to meet with many differences of opinion, and so he placed the statue in a celebrated place by way of trial and experiment, whether the Jews would adopt the Babylonian rites.”¹⁵²
         
   3. 
      It was the guardians of the established order, a group of the wise men, who noted that the three young men disobeyed the decree and reported it to the king.
      
      1. 
         The astrologers may not have been enemies specifically of the Jews (as a nation) at this point. But they may have been enemies of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. We will consider possible reasons for the denouncement below.
         
      2. 
         Rather, it appears that they objected, in general, to anyone disrupting the observance of their sacred practises and the established order.
         
   4. 
      They were members of the first ACLU (Akkadian/Astrologers Court Liturgical Union)—it was at work in Daniel’s day as much as it is today!
      
   5. 
      Today there are numerous organizations that claim to be preservers of the established order.
      
      1. 
         Of course, they mean their liberal, socialistic, left-wing, ‘political-correct’ views.
         
      2. 
         Organizations in the US and Canada include: ACLU, GLAD (homosexual activists, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders), NOW (National Organization of Women), NEA/AFT (National Education Association or American Federation of Teachers), HRC (Human Rights Councils).
         

2. 
   Whom did they denounce? (8, 12)
   
   1. 
      The word translated ‘denounced’ (NIV) or ‘maliciously accused’ (ESV) is an idiom in the Aramaic [אֲכַל קְרַץ (^ʾǎḵǎl ^qerǎṣ)] which means: ‘eat/chew to pieces’ or ‘devour’.
      
   2. 
      The Jews (8, 12) in general or certain Jewish men—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego (12).
      
      1. 
         It is possible that the only Jews present who refused to worship the image were the three men. If this is so, then they denounced the specific men and referred to them by their nation of origin.
         
      2. 
         It would be similar to someone in the southern US saying something like, “There are certain Mexicans who have taken jobs illegally in the meat processing plant.” They would not be denouncing all Mexicans or all illegal immigrants of Mexican origin. However, their statement could easily be construed as a comprehensive denouncement against the entire national group.
         
   3. 
      Why were Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego present and, apparently, Daniel was not?
      
      1. 
         We have already noted that Daniel is not mentioned as having been present. He may have been absent because:
         
         1. 
            As second in command in the Empire and governor of the territory of Babylon, he may have been left in the capital city (2.49). He was running the administrative affairs of the empire when Nebuchadnezzar was away.
            
         2. 
            He was aware of what was going to happen (i.e., the worship of the image) and may have requested of the king, on the basis of conscience, that he be permitted not to attend.
            
      2. 
         Leupold says, “Daniel does not deem it worth reporting his absence.”¹⁵³
         
      3. 
         Daniel may have been in attendance, but as second in command over the entire realm, he was not asked to bow to the image, or no one dared to complain about his non-compliance.
         
      4. 
         Whatever the reason for Daniel’s presence or absence not being mentioned, we can be sure that he would not have bowed before the image and compromised his testimony against blatant idolatry.
         
      5. 
         Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were not as powerful or as well respected as Daniel and they could not excuse themselves from attendance. Also, as obedient subjects of the empire they went as far as possible in their obedience to the king without compromising their profession of Jehovah/Yahweh as the only true God.
         

3. 
   Was it wrong for Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to attend the assembly on the plain of Dura?
   
   1. 
      We will assume that they knew that the intent of the assembly was to dedicate and worship the image.
      
      1. 
         They did not feel that attendance at the dedication ceremony was improper so did not make a case for avoiding attendance, and obeyed the king’s command.
         
      2. 
         Whereas, when it came to the command to worship the image, they refused to participate in idolatry.
         
   2. 
      Can one make a distinction between being present at a pagan ceremony and actually participating in it?
      
   3. 
      In general, we should start with the view that it is very dangerous for a person to attend a false worship ceremony.
      
      1. 
         Even if one does not participate in the false worship ceremonies, attendance can soften a person’s views about what is right and wrong and weaken his resolve not to participate. Continual attendance could eventually lead to participation.
         
      2. 
         We should therefore not make it a regular practice to attend pagan or false worship exercises.
         
   4. 
      There may be circumstances where other reasons may make it necessary to attend. We’ll consider some examples in a moment.
      
      1. 
         Mere observation and attendance does not imply agreement. This is, in principle, not really different from someone reading a book about evolution. Reading the book does not mean that the reader agrees with the argument or conclusions presented.
         
   5. 
      We can possibly derive some guidance from:
      
      1. 
         2 Kings 5.17-19: The fact that Elisha tells Naaman to go in peace seems to imply that he understood the situation that Naaman was in and that his attendance at the false worship did not mean that Naaman would participate in it or agree with it.
         
      2. 
         1 Corinthians 10.25-29: Paul indicates that eating meat sacrificed to idols does not imply that we agree that eating meat with this status will bring us a special blessing. This may have an indirect application to the situation of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. Their mere attendance at the dedication of the image may be in the same class of indifference to false worship as is eating the meat that was sacrificed to idols and then sold in the market.
         
   6. 
      What are some possible valid reasons for attending a false worship observation:
      
      1. 
         To evaluate. It could be useful to attend false worship, to see what is done to understand it, so as to provide a basis for a critique. We have to be careful here as we might want to make the same argument in other areas—e.g., viewing pornography to critique it. However, even here there may be legitimate reasons. A police officer might have to create an inventory of pornography on a person’s PC in order to develop charges.
         
      2. 
         To protest. A person may attend a false worship observation (or some other event that is perpetrating or teaching falsehood) in order to stand in protest. It may be that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego deliberately attended, knowing that their enemies would protest their non-participation and they would be able to make a public protest against idolatry. Randall Terry’s Operation Rescue may be similar to this.
         
      3. 
         An opportunity for witness. There may be opportunities to witness to the truth. For instance, when we lived in Sudbury and attended a Baptist church which sang human compositions, I would not sing the hymns. Some people noticed and it provided an opportunity for me to present the concept that God regulates and requires pure worship. If nothing else, it caused my associates to think about the matter of what constitutes pure worship—even if they thought I was a kook.
         
      4. 
         In obedience. If the civil magistrate commands that we obey a law, we are to go as far in our obedience as we can, without sinning, even if we disagree with the law (Mt 22.21; Rom 13.1; Tit 3.1; 1 Pet 2.13-17).
         
         1. 
            The Westminster Confession of Faith provides guidance in this area: “It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honour their persons, to pay them tribute and other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience' sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates' just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them ...”¹⁵⁴
            
         2. 
            There will be some people who will argue that attendance at false worship without participation is not possible. However, the principle is the same as looking at an idol (e.g., a statue of a Hindu goddess, an image of Mary, or a carved Aztec god or image of Aphrodite in a museum) without worshiping it.
            
         3. 
            We have to be careful with this reason, as our motives for attendance may be valid yet we might be misunderstood as giving in to an unjust or unlawful command.
            
      5. 
         By virtue of office. A person in a particular government office may feel compelled to attend a false worship ceremony because of the circumstances of his office. For example, to attend the wedding or funeral of another government official. If that government official were a Jew, Hindu or Muslim it may be wise to attend the ceremony rather than to cause insult.
         
         1. 
            As with the above reason, we may be misunderstood if we attended a false worship ceremony.
            
   7. 
      What are some examples where we might be placed in a situation where it might be appropriate to attend at the observance of false worship, without participating in it?
      
      1. 
         Baron Mackay of Clashfern (b. 2 July 1927) is a mathematician and Scottish advocate who was appointed by Margaret Thatcher as Lord Chancellor (1987–1997). Lord Mackay has also been the Queen’s Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 2005 and 2006 and was appointed by the Queen to the office of Lord Clerk Register in 2007. Lord Mackay is a devote Christian who observes the Sabbath-keeping principle. In 1986 Lord Mackay attended the funeral of a senior judge who was a Roman Catholic. In 1988 he attended another funeral service for one of his colleagues, held in a Roman Catholic church. He was an Elder in the Free Presbyterian Church. For his attendance at the funerals he was suspended from communion. The FPC Synod reviewed the action of the local congregation and upheld the censure. Lord Mackay, with great sadness, left the Free Presbyterian Church. The censure of Lord Mackay was a key factor that led to split in the FPs and the creation of the Associate Presbyterian Church (APC).¹⁵⁵
         
      2. 
         If you were invited to a wedding of two Roman Catholics, you would probably witness them taking part in the sacrifice of the Mass as part of the wedding ceremony.
         
      3. 
         A preacher asked to preach in another church where they do not worship according to the historic Reformed principles may have to observe aspects of worship that he disagrees with before/after he preaches. In situations like this, I have asked the Elders or ‘worship’ team leaders to conduct most of the service and I would read the Bible and preach.
         
   8. 
      We must be very careful about passing judgement on those who attend a pagan worship ceremony, without actively participating in the ceremony.
      
      1. 
         We are all guilty to some degree of falling into false worship practices. No one is immune from false worship, whether in practice or attitude.
         
      2. 
         Modern Reformed Presbyterians who might denounce the Roman Catholic Mass or some other aspect of their practice (e.g., veneration of Mary, genuflection before images of saints, or the use of confessional), are often just as involved in idolatrous worship practices but are unwilling to admit it:
         
         1. 
            Singing human compositions during a time of worship instead of the Psalms inspired by the Holy Spirit.¹⁵⁶
            
         2. 
            Using musical instruments during worship, which are symbols of animal sacrifice and are a regression to the types of the OT economy.¹⁵⁷
            
         3. 
            Attending Christmas Eve or Easter services—which are not permitted by God (1 Ki 12.33 with 1 Ki 13; Is 1.13, 14; Gal 4.9-11) and are contradictory to the Westminster standards: “THERE is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.”¹⁵⁸
            
         4. 
            Paul would ask us (paraphrase), “Who has bewitched you? Wasn’t the sacrifice of Christ complete and sufficient? Why are you returning to the shadows of the OT economy? “ (Galatians 3.1-3)
            
      3. 
         We are over scrupulous about the things that we think are idolatrous but not scrupulous enough in areas where we have decided (without Biblical warrant) that our practice is acceptable and pleasing to God—largely because we like it.
         

4. 
   Why did the astrologers/Chaldeans denounce the Jews?
   
   1. 
      We can suggest the following possible reasons:
      
      1. 
         Protective – They were concerned about protecting their own positions of religious authority.
         
         1. 
            As custodians of their religion, they were concerned that if anyone was permitted to be a non-observer of their gods or religious practices, others might follow his example and denounce their religion or gods.
            
         2. 
            They were concerned that their positions of prominence and influence in the empire might be reduced or diminished.
            
         3. 
            They were not specifically concerned about the worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s new image, but rather that their will would be done by the people—power-hungry people cannot countenance any challenges to their authority.
            
         4. 
            They were not particularly concerned if people practiced other religions and observed other worship practices, as long as they also worshiped Nebuchadnezzar’s image. They lived in, and endorsed, a syncretistic polytheism so one more god wasn’t the problem. Rather it was exclusion or ignoring of their god that caused them concern.
            
      2. 
         Prideful – The astrologers were envious of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. They did not like the fact that these men had been promoted to positions of authority so soon after graduating from the civil service academy (2.49). They also objected to the fact that these captives/slaves had been promoted over natives or long-term citizens of the empire, rather than being relegated to positions of servitude.
         
         1. 
            Ironically, it was the prayers of Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego that had been instrumental in saving the lives of these men (chapter 2).
            
         2. 
            They would take the benefits of true religion without being grateful—much like modern folk are happy to have peace and prosperity that can only be found in societies based on Christianity, but do not want anything to do with the Lord of Christianity.
            
      3. 
         Parasitic – Their apparently patriotic behaviour is actually indicative of the spirit of servile sycophants. They were attempting to curry favour¹⁵⁹ with Nebuchadnezzar by snitching on the three Jews.
         
      4. 
         Pawns – Ultimately because they were pawns of Satan who was acting behind them.
         
         1. 
            Satan hates the worship of God, true religion, and the Church, and attempts to use every opportunity presented to silence those who are practicing truth and denouncing falsehood.
            
         2. 
            The force of the astrologer’s denouncement, which as we noted is expressed in idiomatic Aramaic as ‘eat/chew to pieces’ or ‘devour’, is consistent with the tactics of false prophets (Ezk 22.25) and Satan, who goes about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet 5.8).
            
   2. 
      We see the same kind of behaviours in all false religions (whether Islam, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, or Darwinianism). Sadly, we even see some elements of this behaviour displayed in professed Christianity. Wherever the indwelling of the HS is not supremely evident, there is a marked tendency for religions to be:
      
      1. 
         Protective – Religious leaders in most systems—whether Islamic imams, Hindu priests, ‘scientists,’ or cultural elites in the universities, etc.—who feel that their personal positions may be undermined by expression of the true religion quickly become protective. They claim to be interested in protecting the ‘truth’ of their own systems but are mostly concerned that their positions of influence and power over people will be usurped. They will even use the power of the civil authority in an attempt to force compliance with their systems. For example:
         
         1. 
            Islamic imams expect infidels, from their perspective, to be brought into submission or punished by the government of Arab or other states that proclaim Islam as their primary religion.
            
         2. 
            The Organization of the Islamic Conference has pushed to have the UN pass a resolution to outlaw religious defamation—which is really an attempt to stop anyone from voicing legitimate criticisms of Islam.¹⁶⁰
            
         3. 
            Hindu extremists in the Indian state of Orissa violently attacked Christians over concern that conversions would reduce the number of adherents to Hinduism¹⁶¹ and have been instrumental in having a law passed that requires people to obtain government permission before they change their religion.
            
         4. 
            The ACLU uses the courts to shut down debate on Intelligent Design or arguments against evolution, as it did in Dover, PA.
            
         5. 
            ‘Scientists’ punish editors of journals which accept and print articles favourable to creation or intelligent design.¹⁶²
            
      2. 
         Prideful – Religious leaders are as full of pride as any other man and react, sometimes with violence and certainly with verbal attacks, if historic Christianity is given any prominence. They do not like it when professing Christians are elevated to positions of prominence. An example is how the mainstream media and liberal politicians reacted to the appointment of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket, in the 2008 US election.¹⁶³ They sent a team to Alaska to dig up ‘dirt’ on her and invented smears against her character.
         
      3. 
         Parasitic – Leaders of false religions are as parasitic as were the astrologers of Daniel’s day. They want to be seen as having influence with world political leaders. However, there is a far more insidious way in which religious leaders are philosophically parasitic.
         
         1. 
            They disavow Christianity but live off the societal capital that was put in place by Christian influence from the late Middle Ages through the Reformation.¹⁶⁴ For example, they use freedom of speech in the West to propagate their false views, without acknowledging that freedom of speech is an inheritance of the Christian West and is unavailable in nations that are under the autocracy of Communism or benighted Islam.
            
         2. 
            They claim to follow the facts in their scientific research, while ignoring what the facts really show us about the hand of God being visible throughout nature. While they emphatically state that science is to be based on empirical evidence gathered through our five senses alone, they cannot demonstrate that this statement is a logically valid premise nor prove that their own thoughts are real using their ‘empirical’ evidence. Further, they deny the reality that modern science is founded on a Christian worldview—e.g., causality, repeatability of phenomena.
            
      4. 
         Pawns – False religions along with most governments, are the two pawns—the False Prophet and the Beast (Rev 16.13; 19.20; 20.10)—that Satan uses to attack Christianity. They (false religion and national governments) will do anything (including bribes, intimidation, lies and murder) to attack Christianity. They hate the true God, his true religion, his Son, his laws and requirement, his plan of Salvation, and his Church. They particularly hate it when Christianity makes the exclusive claim to be the only true religion.
         

5. 
   How did the astrologers/Chaldeans address the king? (9-12)
   
   1. 
      Adulated – They used the typical flattery of servile subjects and said, “O king, live forever!”
      
      1. 
         We considered this greeting when the wise men attempted to get Nebuchadnezzar to reveal the contents of his dream (2.4). We noted about this particular adulation that:
         
         1. 
            It was likely used as a wish that the king’s reputation be perpetuated.
            
         2. 
            When used by the court astrologers, it was probably nothing more than an empty formality; although it was still a sign of respect.
            
      2. 
         The wise men appeared to be concerned with advancing the interests of the king, but were more likely concerned about maintaining and advancing their own positions and power.
         
   2. 
      Appealed – They appealed to the king’s decree and associated punishment for non-compliance.
      
      1. 
         They undoubtedly had no real concern for upholding law.
         
      2. 
         They only appealed to the exercise of law when it suited their purposes.
         
      3. 
         They were like most people who look for any opportunity to get around or ignore laws if they think they can get away with disobedience, but are quick to bring down the demands of law and its censures if it serves their own purposes. For example, people:
         
         1. 
            ‘Forget’ to declare income when they are paid cash, but watch gleefully when tax cheats are fined or jailed.
            
         2. 
            Drive above the speed limit on the 401, but feel vindicated when the guy who went by them 10km faster is caught in the speed trap under the next overpass.
            
         3. 
            Solicit sexual favours when on business trips to Las Vegas but become angry if they discover that someone had an affair with their wives.
            
      4. 
         People everywhere, throughout time, have displayed this kind double-standard. It also appears in other areas of behaviour such as:
         
         1. 
            When automobile drivers wish that others would take public transit so that they can have less crowded roads.
            
         2. 
            People complain about the price of gasoline but are unwilling to have a refinery built in their municipality.
            
         3. 
            People are happy to use airplanes to travel to the Caribbean but are not willing to have an airport built near them.
            
         4. 
            They want taxes kept low but also want services funded by taxes—and especially want their salaries increased if they are on the public payroll.
            
   3. 
      Accused –They not only made an accusation against the three men—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego —but presented the grave consequences that were associated with this breach of law.
      
      1. 
         “Over the affairs (appointed) of the province”: They reminded the king that since these men were in positions of authority over the affairs of the province of Babylon that their behaviour could influence others, and therefore needed to be dealt with (compare with Esther 1.16-22).
         
      2. 
         “Some Jews”: They implied that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were being insolent. They were mere Jews, a subject and captive people, and it was disrespectful of them to think that they could disobey the king and his royal religious advisors.
         
      3. 
         “Who pay no attention to you, O king”: They reminded the king that his will was absolute law and that these men had clearly been disobedient to a direct command.
         
         1. 
            They astrologers/Chaldeans claim that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego paid no attention to the king’s command. They didn’t ignore it. They took is seriously, but chose to disobey. Choosing a different course of action is not ignoring but rather disagreeing.
            
         2. 
            They appear to suggest that their refusal to obey the king’s command was based on a rebellious contempt for the king’s authority rather than a principled response to a great evil.
            
      4. 
         “Whom you have set”: They insinuated that the king had created the problem by setting these impertinent Jews in positions of authority in the Babylonian Empire.
         
      5. 
         “They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up”: They appeal to a greater ‘good’ by suggesting that the disobedience of the three men went beyond disobedience to the king but showed disrespect for the gods of Babylon.
         
         1. 
            They lay the charge of being irreligious before Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, which is ironic as the three men were likely more sincerely religious than were the astrologers/Chaldeans.
            
         2. 
            Early Christians were accused by both Jews and Romans of being irreligious. The Jews accused them of irreligion for not accepting the ceremonial ordinances of the OT economy and the Romans accused them of irreligion for not agreeing to worship the Roman gods and, in particular, the Emperor.¹⁶⁵
            

6. 
   What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
   
   1. 
      Precedence of Cults – False religion in whatever forms it takes (Islam, Hinduism, Secular Humanism, Darwinianism, etc.) will always try to take precedence over the true religion.
      
      1. 
         As we saw above, the leaders of false religions are: protective, prideful, parasitic, pawns.
         
      2. 
         False religions cannot allow free inquiry and discourse lest their flimsy foundations be discovered and destroyed.
         
      3. 
         The proponents of false religions will do whatever they can do, and think they need to do, to suppress Christianity (or other religions) to maintain the precedence of their own religion. They use intimidation and violence (often by the power of the state and with the endorsement of the state) to maintain their supremacy. For example, Islamic jihadism and Islamic states prohibiting other religions or Hindu extremists in the Indian state of Orissa having a law passed that requires people to obtain police permission before they change their religion.
         
   2. 
      Persecution of Christians – There will always be attacks against the true religion until Christ returns to bring everyone in his Church home to Heaven.
      
      1. 
         In OT times, the Jews lived in relative isolation from the other nations. However, during periods of captivity, in Egypt or Babylon, or during times of occupation under the Seleucids (312-164 BC) and after the Maccabean period (63BC to 70AD) under Rome, they suffered greatly. True believers before the time of Christ were persecuted for their faith in God and his coming Messiah.
         
      2. 
         Christians have been persecuted for their faith and worship since the earliest days of Christianity: from the earliest martyrs under Rome,¹⁶⁶ through the time of the Inquisition and into the Reformation era¹⁶⁷. Christians continue to suffer greatly today.¹⁶⁸ It is estimated that more people were martyred for Christ in the 20^th century than in all the preceding centuries together.¹⁶⁹ “[A]bout 70 million faithful have given their lives for the faith, and of these, 45.5 million—fully 65%—were in the last century, according to “The New Persecuted”.¹⁷⁰