Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Steadfast (13-18)

1. 
   What is Nebuchadnezzar’s reaction on hearing that the three men had not worshiped his image?
   
   1. 
      Anger (furious rage)
      
      1. 
         The Aramaic uses an idiom that cannot be translated directly into English. The Aramaic uses two words in succession that could both be translated as ‘anger’ or its synonyms. The KJV, NKJV and NASB translate the two words with the ‘and’ literally as ‘rage and fury’ or ‘rage and anger’ but miss the subtlety of the idiom by using the ‘and’ directly. The Aramaic idiom is similar to the situation when the Hebrew (and its cognates) redouble a word to emphasize it (e.g., ‘to die you will die’ for ‘surely you will die’ Gen 2.17). So, we can translate the words in verse 13 something like: ‘in anger of wrath’ or ‘shaking/raging with anger’ and thus we get the form in our English translations of ‘furious with rage’ (NIV) or ‘in furious rage’ (ESV).
         
   2. 
      Why was he angry with the three men?
      
      1. 
         The astrologers/Chaldeans had been successful in their attempt to attack the non-compliance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and had been able to get the king’s attention and direct his displeasure against the three men.
         
      2. 
         In general, men (and women) who are not believers and who have obtained positions of power, expect other people to obey their commands immediately.
         
         1. 
            They become distraught if their subordinates have other opinions about what should be done or take a different course of action.
            
         2. 
            Calvin observed, in regard to this verse, that kings find it troublesome when their authority is despised and want everyone to be obedient to them, even if their commands are unjust,
            
         3. 
            As we noted previously and as Lord Acton said in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
            
         4. 
            By God’s general grace, this tendency is restrained in most people
            
      3. 
         Nebuchadnezzar may have had a short fuse and a violent temper (2.12; 3.19), even though he is generally considered to be a magnanimous ruler. He could control the practices of his subjects, but not the passions of his spirit.
         
      4. 
         A man who has been converted by the Spirit learns to bring his passions under control and checks his anger.
         
         1. 
            An un-Christ like spirit is given to anger (Prov 19.19; 2 Cor 12.20; Gal 5.20).
            
         2. 
            A person filled with Spiritual grace refrains from temperamental anger (Ps 37.8; Eph 4.31; Col 3.8; 1 Tim 2.8; Jam 1.19, 20).
            

2. 
   What did Nebuchadnezzar do on hearing of their disobedience?
   
   1. 
      He commanded that the three men be brought to him. (13) Why is this significant?
      
      1. 
         He could have easily commanded that they be thrown into the fire without an audience with him.
         
      2. 
         He could have behaved like the capricious Queen of Hearts in Alice and Wonderland. When Alice wasn’t able to inform the Queen about the identity of the three gardeners lying at the base of the rose tree, “The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment like a wild beast, screamed `Off with her head!”
         
      3. 
         They were Hebrew captives/slaves who had been promoted to positions of authority at the request of Daniel. They were not necessarily favourites of the king, so any special consideration of them warrants notice.
         
      4. 
         To be given an audience with the greatest king on earth would have been remarkable, under any circumstance.
         
   2. 
      He queried them about the truthfulness of the claim of the astrologers/Chaldeans that they had not bowed down to the golden image (14). Why might he have made this query?
      
      1. 
         From the king’s perspective, it was hard to believe that anyone would dare to disobey him, so he displayed a willingness to find out if it could even be a possibility.
         
      2. 
         He may have wondered about the truthfulness of the astrologers/Chaldeans. They had not been very accurate when they said that no one could interpret his dream, so he might have thought that they were mistaken in their report about the three men’s behaviour.
         
      3. 
         He probably had a degree of respect for them, as he did for Daniel, and hoped that the message from the astrologers/Chaldeans was incorrect.
         
      4. 
         He gave them the benefit of the doubt. He gave them an opportunity to defend themselves and used the equivalent of a court procedure and a form of due process, in spite of his anger.
         
   3. 
      He gave them another chance to conform their behaviour to his laws and commands (15).
      
      1. 
         Being granted a second chances by a king of the ANE was likely not a common occurrence.
         
      2. 
         It appears that there is some moderation in his words and even a willingness to remove any blame from them if they conformed their behaviour to his command. It is as if he said, “There must be some mistake here. We’ll overlook this if you are willing to obey my command”.
         
      3. 
         He even appears willing to repeat the worship ceremony so that they have a chance to bow down to his image. This is an amazing concession on his part to their rebellion against his command.
         
      4. 
         All of the English translations (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV) add an expression like ‘well’, or ‘good’ to the first part of verse 15. The Aramaic text leaves the outcome of their compliance unstated, “If you do—but if not ...”
         
         1. 
            In logic, this is referred to as a protasis without an apodosis; where a protasis is the if-clause in a conditional sentence. For example, in “If A, then B”, the protasis is “If A” and the outcome (“then B”) is the apodosis.
            
         2. 
            It may have been better to have left the sentence dangling, rather than supplying the implied missing word. It is more accurate and it heightens the sense of expectancy and foreboding in the discourse.
            

3. 
   What threat and boast did Nebuchadnezzar make?
   
   1. 
      He repeated the threat of execution by fire for disobedience (3.6).
      
      1. 
         Turn or burn.
         
      2. 
         Notice that the threat is somewhat hollow in that the initial warning of immediate execution was not carried out.
         
      3. 
         We have noted previously that false religions have to resort to physical violence in an attempt to achieve their ascendency over the true religion (OT Messianic faith and NT Christianity).
         
      4. 
         Pagan religions cannot defend their positions rationally so they have to resort to either force or farce to challenge Christianity.
         
   2. 
      He boasted that no god could rescue or save them.
      
      1. 
         Where do we find similar claims from other pagans in the Biblical account?
         
         1. 
            Pharaoh: Exodus 5.2.
            
         2. 
            Sennacherib through the Rabshakeh (field commander): 2 Kings 18.35.
            
         3. 
            The Psalms speak of men in general who take this view about God (Ps 10.4; 12.4; 14.1)
            
         4. 
            Herod received worship due to God, and effectively boasted to be the god who controlled the famine and food supply of the province of Judea: Acts 12.20-25.
            
         5. 
            Job and Paul tell us that this is normal behaviour for man steeped in sin (Job 21.15; Rom 1.28).
            
      2. 
         What is the essence of this boast?
         
         1. 
            Nebuchadnezzar claims to be stronger than any god, and to have supreme power, even the power to fabricate a god.
            
         2. 
            He is declaring himself to be the measure of all things.
            
         3. 
            He is effectively declaring himself to be God. If no god is stronger than him, then he is the strongest being or entity in the universe, and therefore (by definition) he must be God.
            
      3. 
         What is the irony in this claim?
         
         1. 
            If no god was stronger than Nebuchadnezzar, then why would Nebuchadnezzar bother to worship the gods? What could they do that he could not, himself, do?
            
         2. 
            Without realizing it, he is declaring the worthlessness of all man-made religions. The pantheons of the pagans, the delusions of the deists, the mumblings of the Muslims, blasphemies of the Buddhists, and the heresies of the Hindus are all pretentious prattle. In the end they resort to human definitions of God and of true religion.
            
         3. 
            Manmade gods are worthless (Is 40.18-20; 44.9-20).
            
         4. 
            Biblical Christianity is unique among all religions in that only through the Bible and Christ does God reveal himself as the infinite and eternal Creator, one God in three persons.
            
      4. 
         Why then did Nebuchadnezzar pretend to worship the gods?
         
         1. 
            As a man, he was by nature religious and knew that there is a true God. He groped after God and created his own substitutes.
            
         2. 
            He knew that his subjects also were religious beings and he was seeking to provide them with an outlet for their religious sentiments, which he controlled. From his viewpoint, it would be better to direct their religious affections to strengthen his control over them than to allow them to worship in their own ways.
            

4. 
   What do Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego mean by their response in verse 16?
   
   1. 
      “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer (ESV)/defend ourselves before (NIV) you in this matter.”
      
   2. 
      What could they be saying?
      
      1. 
         There is no need of an answer and we won’t explain ourselves.
         
      2. 
         There is no need to give an explanation because your pagan mind is darkened and you could not understand the truth if it were explained to you.
         
      3. 
         We don’t need to give you an answer because we are accountable only to God.
         
      4. 
         We don’t need to answer but will explain ourselves.
         
   3. 
      Before we determine what their answer means, what do you notice about their direct address to the king?
      
      1. 
         There is no honorific used in their address. They don’t use the term ‘king’ or other expression such as that used by the wise men or Daniel (2.4, 28, 29, 21, 37).
         
      2. 
         Their response may have been too personal and arrogant on their part.
         
      3. 
         Alternatively, it may be that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego had become personal friends of King Nebuchadnezzar and this is why he is patient with them and giving them a chance to explain themselves.
         
      4. 
         Alternatively, it may be an abbreviated account of their address to the king.
         
   4. 
      We should conclude that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were not being evasive, impertinent, or prideful in their answer. This is inconsistent with their display of godly faith and the overall tone of the book of Daniel which is to show the supremacy of the true religion which humbles men and exalts the true God.
      
   5. 
      Whatever they are saying, we should understand it as a direct statement of truth and absolute trust in God. We need to understand the statement in verse 16 in the context of verse 17.
      
      1. 
         The best way to interpret it seems to be: “There is no need for us to provide a defence of our actions because we are being obedient to God and we appeal to him in this matter.”
         
      2. 
         We find an example of this in the martyrdom of Cyprian who was sentenced to death (probably 258 AD) under the edict of Valerian in 257 AD. In the official court transcript of his examination we read the following:
         

Bishop Cyprian answered, “Yes, I am.”

Proconsul Galerius Maximus said, “Are you the one who has presented himself as the leader of a sacrilegious sect?”

Bishop Cyprian answered, “I am.”

Galerius Maximus said, “The most holy emperors bid you to sacrifice.”

Bishop Cyprian said, “I will not do it.”

Proconsul Galerius Maximus said, “Think it over.”

Bishop Cyprian said, “Do what you have been ordered to do. In such a just cause there is nothing to think over.”’¹⁷²

5. 
   What character traits are displayed by the response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? (16-18)
   
   1. 
      Confidence. They displayed a strong confidence that God could save them and would, if it agreed with his sovereign will to do so.
      
      1. 
         On what was their confidence based? On neither arrogance nor fanaticism.
         
         1. 
            It was not based on their own abilities or perceived worth.
            
         2. 
            Nor was it based on disrespect for the value of their lives.
            
         3. 
            They were not seeking martyrdom by throwing away their lives.
            
      2. 
         They had reason to hope and expect that God would deliver them by resolving this issue in some manner.
         
         1. 
            The display of blatant idolatry and presumption—“[W]ho is the god who will deliver you out of my hands?”—was so dishonouring of God that the three believed that God would deal with the extreme display of human arrogance according to the Scriptures they had been taught (Ps 74.18–19; 89.50; 94.2-8; Is 37.23,24; 43.1–2).
            
         2. 
            However, we should not conclude that they had been given a vision or had an intuition that God would perform a miracle on their behalf as he had at time of Moses or Elijah.
            
      3. 
         Their confidence was based on a trust in God’s providential governance of the universe and his benevolence toward his own people.
         
         1. 
            They knew God personally (“our God”) and confidently expected him to be faithful to them in response to their faith and trust in him.
            
         2. 
            They believed that God would provide a way of deliverance (not necessarily miraculous) or he would take them into his nearer presence and they would then know the perfect and God-glorifying reason for their death at that time.
            
   2. 
      Courage. They refused to obey the unlawful command of the king even if it meant a painful death.
      
      1. 
         They were not ashamed to align with and profess the true religion, and to denounce false religion (18).
         
      2. 
         They were not afraid to tell the most powerful monarch in the world that they would not obey his command, because they were obeying the command of a greater king.
         
      3. 
         They did not break out into any intemperate heat or passion against those that did worship the golden image and did not insult or affront them; nor did they rashly thrust themselves into a trial.
         
         1. 
            They were prepared to participate in a form of peaceful civil disobedience.
            
         2. 
            They did not become terrorists for a cause.
            
   3. 
      Conviction. They declared themselves ready to die rather than to yield to practices that God had proscribed.
      
      1. 
         They faced imminent death but did not hold their lives of more value than a commitment to truth.
         
         1. 
            They treated God’s honour and glory of greater importance than clinging to their own lives for a few more years.
            
         2. 
            Their unwillingness to participate in idolatrous worship was not because they were ‘scientific rationalists’ who did not believe in the existence of the gods. They were not atheists. Rather their unwillingness was due to the fact that they were believers in the only true God.
            
         3. 
            They feared God rather than men (Mt 10.28; Heb 10.31).
            
      2. 
         They did not compromise. They didn’t say something like “It is better for us to capitulate to the king’s command, after all we aren’t really worshiping the image, than to destroy any hope that we could have an influence for morality and the safety of our people at a future date.” They didn’t believe, as many do, that they were indispensable for the cause of the Kingdom.
         
         1. 
            Many in the Church attempt to defend various forms of compromise, such as telling lies to avoid death. These men realized that dying for truth is preferable to denying truth.
            
         2. 
            In this regard, Calvin said, “But at this day, this fallacy deceives the multitude, since they think it lawful to debate whether it is allowable to swerve from the true worship of God for a time, whenever any utility presents itself on the opposite side.”¹⁷³
            
   4. 
      Commitment. They were committed to observing only true worship and understood that all forms of false worship are an abomination to God.
      
      1. 
         They took the Second Commandment (Ex 20.4-5) seriously.
         
         1. 
            Their worship of God was not based on expediency, but principle.
            
         2. 
            We should remember the relative young age of these three and be impressed by their understanding and commitment to the Law of God, regardless of the cost.
            
      2. 
         They understood that ultimately there is nothing more important for mankind than to render to God true and lawful worship.
         
         1. 
            Man’s primary purpose in existence is to glorify God through worship and service, and to gain meaning and purpose from that action.
            
      3. 
         People in the Church today generally don’t understand this commitment.
         
         1. 
            The Church, in general, has little understanding about what constitutes true worship and what falls within the scope of false worship.
            
         2. 
            We do not comprehend how much false worship has been embraced by the Church—not just by the Orthodox denominations and Roman Catholicism, but also by much of Protestantism.
            
         3. 
            Even if it is the Lord’s purpose that we should die for refusing to participate in false worship, we should not participate in it—for any reason.
            
            1. 
               At the time of the Reformation in the 16^th and during the 17^th century many Protestant believers understood how important it is to render to God only true worship and lost their lives because of their unwillingness to compromise.
               
            2. 
               They understood that true worship excludes not only veneration of images and participation in the Roman Catholic Mass, but also the use of human compositions (called ‘hymns’) and instrumental music in worship, and the observance of human authorized holy days (e.g., Christmas and Easter).
               
            3. 
               They did not consider the number who agreed with them to be the factor for determining right from wrong. As there were only three who protested against Nebuchadnezzar’s false worship, the Reformers were usually outnumbered.
               
            4. 
               Today the broad spectrum of the Church (including Protestant Evangelical and Reformed) compromises true worship by accepting practices that had polluted the Church during the middle ages.
               
         4. 
            A person today who is willing to die for the preservation of true worship and to avoid false worship would be considered a fanatic or crackpot. It is a concept that is so foreign to modern thinking in the Church that it is considered to be suspect.
            

6. 
   What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
   
   1. 
      Rebellion against God – The haughtiness of men, and in particular rulers, in their rebellion against God.
      
      1. 
         Men think they are God and have ultimate control over their lives and the lives of others.
         
         1. 
            Monarchs of the ancient world considered themselves to be equivalent to God and their people honoured them as gods.
            
         2. 
            They ruled with absolute authority and believed that they ruled by divine right, being only accountable to God or their gods. The concept of ‘divine right’ can be found in the ancient world as far back as the Gilgamesh Epic and Sargon I and is the impetus behind the events in Genesis 11.4.
            
         3. 
            Men today are just as susceptible to the god-like claims of rulers and people often attempt to deify their rulers.
            
            1. 
               During the 2008 US presidential election, many people declared Obama to have Messianic status.¹⁷⁴
               
            2. 
               Rulers of the 20^th century (Hitler, Idi Amin) and 21^st century (Saddam Hussein and Kim) have claimed the equivalent of divine rights or even near-divinity.
               
      2. 
         Rulers often claim to have faith or religious beliefs (as evidence, note how in the 2008 US presidential primaries both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama claimed to be Christians); yet in reality they despise God and true religion.
         
         1. 
            They think nothing of claiming their own greatness and blaspheming the true God by denying that they owe to God any allegiance or service.
            
         2. 
            Calvin said, “Hence, they traffic in the name of God to attract greater reverence towards themselves...”¹⁷⁵
            
      3. 
         It is very difficult for any human ruler to be entirely purged of these tendencies. Even Christians in positions of power can let their ascendancy to positions of power influence their opinion of themselves and their behaviour.
         
      4. 
         Without being cynical, we should learn that it is a natural sinful human trait to seek and abuse power.
         
      5. 
         Even the system of separation of powers that the founders of the US attempted to put in place is not sufficient to control abusive power (whether of presidents, congress, or judges). Prime Ministers with strong parliamentary mandates can be just as convinced that they rule by divine right (consider the Trudeau years in Canada).
         
      6. 
         We must be discerning and ever watchful. Rulers do not like being defied and as their power increases they become more demanding of obedience. As we noted previously, Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
         
   2. 
      Resignation toward God – We are to have an accepting, unresisting attitude of submission to the will of God. We are to obey God in every circumstance.
      
      1. 
         What is the principle that governed the behaviour of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?
         
         1. 
            It is our duty to obey God before we obey men
            
         2. 
            We are to obey the commands of men (Mt 22.21; Rom 13.1; 1 Pet 2.13-17).
            
         3. 
            However, if the commands of men and the commands of God are in conflict, the commands of God are to supersede man’s law. God’s laws are higher than man’s laws, while man’s laws are to be consistent with and subject to the laws of God. Man’s laws are to be:
            
            1. 
               Derivative: it must be possible to demonstrate that each specific human law is a direct application of one, or more, of the Ten Commandments and follows the example of the case laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy (e.g., speed limits on highways are a direct application of the 6^th commandment; laws requiring fences around swimming pools or construction sites are an application of the case law requiring parapets on flat roofs [Dt 22.8]).
               
            2. 
               Consistent: No human law may be contrary or contradictory to God’s Law (e.g., permitting Sunday shopping or the ‘marriage’ of homosexuals).
               
            3. 
               Subordinate: No human law can be of greater importance than God’s law (e.g., a mother‘s ‘right’ to abortion cannot ‘trump’ the father’s right over a child or a child’s right to life).
               
         4. 
            If the commands of men require that we do something that is contrary to the commands of God we are to obey God and not man (Acts 4.19; 5.29).
            
         5. 
            We are to obey God and the king ... in that order.
            
      2. 
         What are the practical implications, of this principle?
         
         1. 
            We have a duty to obey even unjust, unnecessary, or silly laws of the civil magistrate, as long as they don’t require us to go contrary to God’s law.
            
            1. 
               We are to obey as far as we are permitted by God, but to go no further in our obedience.
               
            2. 
               The principle of ‘God first and then the king’ does not mean that we can ignore the laws of the state that we don’t like or disagree with. For example, we cannot:
               
               1. 
                  Open our business on statutory holidays because we believe the state has no right to prohibit us from making a livelihood,
                  
               2. 
                  Refuse to pay taxes because the taxes are used to fight an unjust war or to perform abortions, or
                  
               3. 
                  Go over the speed limit in a rural area where no one is around because we feel that the speed limit is unreasonably low.
                  
            3. 
               We are only to disobey the laws of the state when the laws would require us to do something that is contrary to God’s law. For example, worshiping an idol, aborting a child, euthanizing an elderly relative, working on the Lord’s Day, professing to believe a pagan practice.
               
            4. 
               We cannot claim that a king’s command is ultimate. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were captives/slaves; subjects of the greatest king on earth, but they did not let that influence their thinking about God’s rights and say ‘But Nebuchadnezzar told us to do it. It is never legitimate to say, “But he commanded me to do x”. Our responsibility is to obey the commands of God, not to give into the whim and will of people (Gen 3.17; 1Sam 15.24 Mk 7.7-9).
               
         2. 
            Civil disobedience is only to be exercised through passive disobedience to a command that would cause to break God’s law.
            
            1. 
               Civil disobedience for Christians cannot include active rebellion against a civil magistrate (Rom 13.1; 1 Pet 2.13-17).
               
            2. 
               We have numerous examples of individuals in the Bible who refused to obey the commands of men, where that would have caused him to sin, but who never engaged in rebellion against those in positions of authority over them:
               
               1. 
                  David didn’t lead a rebellion against Saul.
                  
               2. 
                  Elijah and Obadiah didn’t lead a rebellion against Ahab and Jezebel.
                  
               3. 
                  John didn’t lead a rebellion against Herod.
                  
               4. 
                  Jesus didn’t lead a rebellion against Herod or Rome.
                  
               5. 
                  Paul didn’t lead a rebellion against Herod or Rome.
                  
            3. 
               It is never right to do evil that good may come about (Rom 3.8).
               
            4. 
               Although rulers (laws) may require us (even on pain of death) to obey, we are to be guided by an overriding principle—it is our duty to obey God first and thereby please and honour him.
               
         3. 
            In spite of what others in the Church may do, we are to do right in our obedience to God, particularly in worship.
            
            1. 
               It is irrelevant what others in the Church may choose to do with respect to obeying God’s laws. Our attitude must be, “If God requires it, I will obey!”
               
            2. 
               The rest of Israel had capitulated and worshiped false God’s even in the land of Judah. But Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (along with Daniel) were on their own in pagan territory and they stood firm by refusing to bow to an idol.
               
         4. 
            On the other hand, Elders/Pastors are never to require false worship from the members of the congregations over which God has made them stewards.
            
            1. 
               If it is wrong for kings to impose false worship on their subjects, it is more heinous for Church leaders to implement and call for false worship from the people.
               
            2. 
               If during worship the officiating preacher called for false worship (e.g., use of a non-Biblical hymn), then a person who refused to sing the hymn—because he believed that only Psalms are to be offered to God as the sacrifice of Praise—would be disobedient to the Elders of that congregation and should be subject to censure. In this instance his conscience would be bound. The Puritans and, in particular, the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith were scrupulous in their concern that nothing should be introduced into worship that isn’t demonstrably required by God. They state: “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any thing contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.”¹⁷⁶
               
   3. 
      Reliance upon God – We are to have an absolute trust and assurance in God, knowing that he will take care of us.
      
      1. 
         Our reliance on him is not to be conditional on the expectation that he will rescue us from all worldly danger.
         
      2. 
         Rather, it is to be based on the reality that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego displayed—God’s purposes for us may include our having to forfeit our lives before a normal lifetime or lose it at the hands of unjust men.
         
         1. 
            Most of us are spoiled in NA because we do not know of extreme persecution against Christians.
            
         2. 
            We need continually to think about immortality in Christ so that we are prepared should we need to stand for the confession of our faith in Christ.
            
         3. 
            We need to make this life seem cheap in comparison to eternity.
            
         4. 
            We need to prepare now so that we won’t be cowards if the day were to come in which we have to give our lives as martyrs.
            
      3. 
         We must believe that God will ultimately rescue us from the hands of Satan by protecting us into eternity.
         
         1. 
            Their (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) standing firm against sinful compliance to the king’s command was a greater miracle than their being saved from the fiery furnace. It showed that God had saved them by grace and was working his grace in them.
            
         2. 
            Being saved from the fires of Hell is infinitely more important than being saved from the furnace of men (Mt 10.28).
            
         3. 
            Even an early and untimely death for a believer is God’s working out all things, ALL things, for our good and his glory (Rom 8.28)