Ana səhifə

Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016


Yüklə 4.02 Mb.
səhifə2/62
tarix26.06.2016
ölçüsü4.02 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   62

Selection (3-7)


  1. Who was Ashpenaz?

    1. An official of Nebuchadnezzar’s staff. He is mentioned only in this chapter by name.

    2. The particular title that he is given (Dan 1.7-11, 18) is (rab-saris) “chief, or master of his eunuchs” (NKJV/ESV). The Hebrew root for this term appears to mean ‘castrated’ or ‘emasculated’. However, it is not clear that this means that the individual in the position was himself in this condition (e.g., Potiphar is given the same title [Gen 37.36; 39.1] and was married) or that it always has to be translated this way. The NIV translates the verse as “chief of his court officials”. Elsewhere, the NKJV and ESV use similar translations to the NIV in Daniel 1.3 (Gen 37.36; 39.1; 1 Sam 8.15; 1 Ki 22.9).

    3. The name Ashpenaz appears to be a Persian name rather than Akkadian. If this is so, he may have been a slave who was captured in war and who had gained a position of trust, respect, and authority in the Babylonian. It should not surprise us that a foreigner would have a position of authority in the royal court. This appears to have been standard practice in the ancient NE. Daniel and his friends are examples of foreigners being given positions of power, as is Nehemiah in later times, and Joseph over a thousand years earlier.




  1. What did Nebuchadnezzar order Ashpenaz to do?

    1. Bring some of the young men from Israel’s aristocracy (royal family and nobility) into the court, for training.

    2. The English translations say “Israelites” or “children of Israel” or “people of Israel”. Although these are valid translations in most instances, the Hebrew says “sons of Israel,” and, in this case, should probably be translated in this way. It is unlikely that women or girls were included in this conscription. If anything captive females, who were virgins and girls, would have been added to the royal harem, they would not have been given instruction to become future court officials.

    3. The boys and young men who were brought in to the court for training were likely among the hostages (to guarantee Israel’s submission to Babylon) who were taken captive at the time of the siege when Nebuchadnezzar had subjugated Jehoiakim (2 Ki 24.1). Members of the nobility were likely taken captive as a warning to Jehoiakim of what would happen to him and the rest of the nation if they rebelled against their suzerain.

    4. We should not read too much into the fact that young men from Judah were brought in for training. For example, we should not assume that Nebuchadnezzar had any particular or initial opinion of the skills of his Hebrew/Jewish slaves or hostages. Nebuchadnezzar (and ancient kings in general) would have looked for young men of potential talent and skill from among any of their subjugated nations (note Dan 1.6, 10 imply that young men from other nations were also being trained at the same time). It was only after a period of training and assessment that Nebuchadnezzar and his court officials would determine who should be brought into royal service.

    5. We also do not have to assume that Daniel and his friends were castrated (as Josephus suggests20) because Ashpenaz was the ‘chief of the eunuchs’. As we noted, above, the term rab-saris may mean ‘court official’.




  1. What qualifications were required of the young men who were selected? Why?

    1. Young men. It is possible that he chose young men, rather than the older, wise, men to serve in his court because he expected to find them easier to mould into model civil servants for the Babylonian Empire. Older men would better remember how things were before their captivity and would probably have been more nationalistic and resistant to serving Nebuchadnezzar.

      1. We are not told their exact age, but they were probably in the 13-19 age range.

      2. Plato refers to the Persian custom of beginning tutoring at age 14.21

      3. Xenophon mentions that Persian youths completed their training about the age of sixteen or seventeen, and then they would take their place as young men.22

Government run schooling is considered a prime means of indoctrination of youth. For example, Germany does not permit home schooling because, since the time of Hitler, the view has been that attendance at schools meeting government curriculum standards will produce compliant citizens. In Venezuela in 2007, Hugo Chavez introduced a new program of socialistic education for the “formation of a new man”.23

    1. Members of the royal family or nobility. The members of the nobility were more likely to have had some formal education and training (e.g., taught to read and write) than sons of peasants (even though Jewish society [the people of the Book] put more emphasis on education than parallel societies). It was also the prevailing view among people in the ANE that sons and daughters of the nobility had special gifts (even being descended from the gods) that the population as a whole did not have. There was a caste system in place that was fairly rigorously applied, consisting of: nobility; priests; trained military; artisans and tradesmen; peasants and labourers (mostly slaves captured in war from among the lower classes of a subjugated nation). The remnants of this caste system still exists among Hindus in India (where the Brahmins are in the highest caste and the Dalits [outcast or untouchables] are in the lowest caste), and among Muslims.

    2. No physical defect and handsome. The ANE was as much impressed by physical appearances as is modern society with its cultish worship of movie stars, athletes, and beauty pageant contestants.

      1. It seems, according to some commentators, that the ANE rulers considered physical soundness and handsome features indispensable in those destined for court service.24

      2. For example, consider Eliab (1 Sam 16.6-7) and Absalom (2 Sam 14.25-26).

      3. However, this is not the criteria God uses for electing those whom he will save and use in his kingdom (1 Sam 16.6-7; Ps 147.10, 11 [those who fear him]; Prov 31.10-31; 1 Cor 1.28-29; 1 Pet 3.3).

      4. The OT ceremonial economy required outward perfection in the priests (Lev 21.17-23) and elements used in sacrifice (Ex 12.5). This had a spiritual significance and pointed to sanctification. The Babylonian and ANE emphasis on selecting only those without physical defects may have been a perversion of God’s requirements applied in the temporal realm of pagan ritual.

    3. Intelligent. They were to show “aptitude for every kind of learning” and be “well informed,” and “quick to understand.” We are not told how the Ashpenaz determined their intelligence, knowledge, and aptitude. They may have had tests, the ancient equivalent to IQ tests or SAT exams, similar to the exams which were used in the Chinese civil service for over a millennium (almost 1,300 years, ending in 1906).

    4. Qualified to serve in the king’s palace. It is not clear what additional qualifications are included in this descriptive phrase. It may be that this is a summary qualification. It may be that they were qualified to serve in the king’s palace because they were handsome and intelligent young men of noble birth. It may also be that what is in focus here is a demonstration of leadership potential or an assessment of their integrity.




  1. What attributes or qualifications are missing from the list that should be included, from a Biblical perspective, in qualified civic leaders?

    1. Spiritual and moral qualifications.

    2. What does Jethro tell Moses should be the primary criteria for the selection of delegated judges? (Ex 18.21; Dt 1.13-18)

      1. Men who fear God, and are trustworthy, wise, understanding and respected; and who hate dishonest gain.

    3. What do you notice about the Biblical qualifications for civic leadership, compared with those for elders/deacons?

      1. Capable men (experienced, skilled) [self-controlled (1 Ti 3.2; Tit 1.8); able to teach is a specific skill required of elders (1 Ti 3.2, 5; Tit 1.9); not a recent convert (1 Ti 3.6); manages own family well, children obey (1 Ti 3.4-5; Tit 1.6)].

      2. Men who fear God [upright, holy (Tit 1.8); keep hold of the deep truths (Tit 1.9)].

      3. Trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain [not lovers of money (1 Ti 3.3); do not pursue dishonest gain (Tit 1.7)].

      4. Wise and understanding (both in the worldly sense, but also in the spiritual sense) [love what is good (Tit 1.8); disciplined (Tit 1.8); temperate (1 Ti 3.2; Tit 1.7)].

      5. Respected [not violent or quarrelsome, gentle (1 Ti 3.3; Tit 1.7); have a good reputation with outsiders (1 Ti 3.7); not overbearing (Tit 1.7); not quick tempered (Tit 1.7); above reproach, blameless (1 Ti 3.2; Tit 1.6); respectable (1 Ti 3.2); not given to drunkenness (1 Ti 3.3; Tit 1.7)].

      6. The Biblical requirements are essentially the same (although the specific skills might be somewhat different) for someone who is in a responsible position in the state as someone who is in a responsible position in the Church.

    4. What are some possible implications of applying these Biblical qualifications?

      1. We won’t accept the idea that a man’s personal life (e.g., his divorces, adulterous affairs, sexual escapades, drug problems, family difficulties) have no bearing on his ability to perform in a public office. How a man administers his private moral life has a direct bearing on how he will administer his public ethic.

      2. We should take seriously the Biblical qualifications for civic office when we are voting for elected officials.

      3. Does this mean that there should be a ‘spiritual’ test for those who are appointed to public office?

        1. This is extremely difficult to work out (essentially impractical) in a fallen world.25

        2. We cannot have reformed government without reformed hearts. Those who go by the name of ‘Christian Reconstructionists’ put too much emphasis on reformation of the state. A reformed state will be a natural outworking of a pervasive Christian influence in society.




  1. Why did Nebuchadnezzar want these young men assembled for training?

    1. The text says that they would ‘serve in the king’s palace’ and to ‘enter the king’s service’ [4, 5].

    2. What classes of service might this include?

      1. Scribes, recorders, chroniclers, historians

      2. Supervisors of administrative staff for palace and city functions (supply provisions and manage maintenance and construction)

      3. Judges and governors

      4. Diplomats to subject and non-subject nations.

    3. The young men would have already known the languages of their respective former nations and could provide services in an empire composed of many subject nations and cultural/linguistic groups.

    4. Nebuchadnezzar was not afraid to bring in ‘new-blood’ to work in his civil service. This would have the advantage of making his ‘cabinet’ more representative of the peoples in his empire and also would have allowed for new ideas to advance his administration.




  1. How were the young men to be prepared for their service in government?

    1. They were to be taught the language of the Babylonians (the Chaldeans).

      1. ‘Chaldea’ is a transliteration/Anglicization of the Greek word ‘Chaldaia’ (Χαλδαία) that probably comes from Assyrian ‘Kaldu’ (Hebrew: Kasdim). It is the general designation for the people and civilizations that lived in the lower Mesopotamian valley (between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) regardless of what the actual kingdom or dynasty was called at a particular time.

      2. The language of the Babylonians was primarily Aramaic although they also spoke Akkadian (and they may have had to learn other languages that were spoken and written in earlier kingdoms, going as far back as the Sumerians).

        1. Aramaic became the language of diplomacy and government throughout the Mesopotamian valley around 1000 BC.

        2. It displaced older languages like Sumerian, Akkadian, Hurrian, Babylonian, etc.

        3. The Semitic language family includes: Akkaidan, Assyrian (Syriac appears to have developed from this), Babylonian, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic.

        4. Much of the book of Daniel is written in Aramaic (Dan. 2.4-7.28) as are a few other passages of the OT (Gen. 31.47; Jer 10.10-11; Ezra 4.8-6,18; 7.12-26)

        5. At the time of Jesus, the remnants of ancient Aramaic was the common spoken language of Palestine, although Greek had had significant influence from about 325BC, and Latin was becoming increasingly common. Jesus probably spoke a dialect of Aramaic and some words in the NT are derived from Aramaic, e.g., Talitha Cumi, Maranatha, and Golgotha.

      3. The alphabetic script of the Babylonians:

        1. The Sumerians, after 2400 BC, used pictographs that evolved into a semi-phonetic cuneiform script (signs created in wet clay, with a wedged stylus).

        2. For writing on skins and papyrus, an alphabetic script was developed in the Mesopotamian valley (sometime around 2000 BC).

        3. At the time of Daniel, the Jews used an alphabetic script that was similar to that used by the Canaanites and Phoenicians (it is angular and prong like, like ‘W’ and ‘Y’, and has symbols that look like flags and squares. You can see similarities to, what later became, the Greek and then the Latin alphabets.

        4. The script that we think of today as Hebrew is in fact not ‘Hebrew’. It is based on the script that was used by the Babylonians to record the Aramaic language at the time of Daniel. During the Babylonian Captivity (Exile) the Jews transferred their writings to the Aramaic alphabetic script and developed it into the more nearly square form we know today. You can think of this as similar to how French and English both use the Latin alphabet to record written versions of their language.

    2. They were to be taught the literature of the Babylonians (the Chaldeans). What might have been included in the literature that they had to learn?

      1. We are not given any details as to what was included within the category of ‘literature’. Some commentators, concerned to maintain the intellectual and spiritual purity of Daniel, suggest that this literature did not include the religious writings of the Babylonians (i.e., they were not taught the religion of the Babylonians).

        1. They argue that if Daniel and his friends would not defile their bodies with meat scarified to false God’s, they certainly would not defile themselves by intellectually ingesting false religious teachings.

        2. This view presents a significant difficulty, since there is no possibility that we can separate the Babylonian literature from their religious writings. In general, in the ancient world (as in Islam today), it was inconceivable that a society, culture, or nation could have a secular (i.e., non-religious) government and educational system. Religion permeated all aspects of society. For example, kings were deified, priests served as part of the kings’ staff, philosophy and religion were intimately intertwined, and religious rituals and festivals were tightly integrated into civic ceremonies.

        3. It is only since the (so-called) Enlightenment that people have developed the idea that societies and governments can be religiously neutral. Of course, this is a naive view. It is impossible for any society or government to be religiously neutral. If the society or government does not espouse Christianity (or Islam, Shintoism, Hinduism, Communism, etc. as the official state religion) then it must (there ultimately can be no such thing as religious neutrality or pluralism) endorse secular humanism and the religious myths of Darwinianism.

      2. They undoubtedly had to memorize the legal codes from different previous administrations such as from the Sumerians, Akkadians, and Amorites, including Hammurabi’s (c 1810-1750 BC; ruled 1790–1750 BC) Code from an earlier Babylonian Empire.

      3. They likely learned the history of the neo-Babylonian Empire and those that preceded it, through the chronicles that court scribes kept as records of kings’ accomplishments.

      4. They likely also studied topics such as the following:

        1. Sumerian/Babylonian mathematics – Knowledge of Babylonian mathematics is derived from clay tablets, written in Cuneiform script, that go back to around 1800 BC. Topics covered, include fractions, reciprocals, algebra, quadratic and cubic equations, the Pythagorean theorem (known before Pythagoras), trigonometric functions, formulas for calculating area and volume, and the use of square roots (e.g., the square root of 2 was accurately calculated to six decimal places). The Babylonian system of mathematics was a sexagesimal (base-60) numeral system. We still have remnants of this system in our division of time into 60 minutes in an hour and 60 seconds in a minute, and the division of circles into 360 (60×6) degrees. The Babylonians had a place-value system, where digits were written in different columns to represent their relative value (similar to our base ten system). They also had worked out dates for eclipses and a sophisticated system for calculating the length of a year.26

        2. The prevailing principles of running a semi-agrarian economy

        3. The arts of negotiation and diplomacy

        4. Current strategies for conducting warfare.

      5. They probably studied the Sumerian and Assyrian myths and legends:

        1. Sumerian and Akkadian creation stories such as Enlil and Ninlil: The Begetting of Nanna and The Journey of Nanna to Nippur.

        2. The Enuma Elish, the Assyrian creation story. Creation begins with a male fresh water ocean-god, Apsu, and a female salt water ocean-god mating to produce lesser deities. One of these gods, Marduk the storm god, fought with Tiamat and her dragon children. Marduk killed Tiamat and the upper half of her body became the sky and the lower half the earth. Men were produced from the blood of Kingu,Tiamat’s field marshal, who was also killed during the war.

        3. The Epic of Gilgamesh which includes an account of a great human hero that challenged the gods and an account of a flood with some similarities to the account in Genesis.

      6. They probably also learned about astronomy/astrology and fortune telling. In Babylonia culture (derived from Sumerian culture) astrology (along with reading livers of sacrificed animals) was part of the official cultic observance used by priests and kings for determining the will of the gods. The Babylonians did not have a system of ‘natural laws’ in either physics or chemistry. They held superstitious views about why things occur as they do (e.g., floods, famine, disease, deaths), and attributed events to the direct intervention of various gods. Although, they did have some applied knowledge of physical principles such as the use of the lever, and in the areas of metallurgy and ceramics (e.g., glazes), they did not connect these principles with general ‘laws’ of causation behind natural events. They were at the opposite extreme from many materialists today, in that they held to direct intervention by the gods in the events of the world.

      7. They may have been taught the hymns and worship ceremonies connected with the rites and festivals of the cultic practices in the worship of the Babylonian pantheon.

      8. They may have also learned the religious writings of Zoroastrianism called the Avesta.

        1. The Avesta (probably meaning ‘praise of god’) includes a collection of creation myths, rites of purification for sins, cleansing rites, and religious observances (much of these writings have been lost over the past 2,000 years).

        2. Zoroastrianism was the dominant religion of Persia (Iran) that would cover the entire ME 100 years later during the time of the Persian Empire. However, at the time of these events (following 605 BC) it was already gaining a presence beyond Persia in Babylon and India.

        3. Principle beliefs:

          1. According to the Gathas, possibly composed by Zoroaster, devotion is to be given to no other divinity besides Ahura Mazda the creator of everything, visible and invisible (i.e., a form of monotheism).

          2. Daena is the eternal Law which was revealed to humanity through the Mathra-Spenta ‘Holy Words’ (i.e., a divinely revealed moral law).

          3. Asha the equitable law or master plan of the universe governing the course of everything (i.e., it appears to have a form of providence or fate; however see the next item below).

          4. The Gathas emphasizes the importance of deeds and actions. Asceticism and fleeing from the experiences of life (including pleasure, duties, responsibilities and social obligations) is frowned upon in Zoroastrianism. In addition, there is an emphasis on the importance of moral choice and a rejection of predestination. Humans are responsible for all situations and how they act toward one another. Rewards and punishment are directly dependent on how one lives his life. Zoroastrian morality is summed up in the simple phrase, “good thoughts, good words, good deeds” (i.e., a works-based ‘salvation’).

          5. Zoroastrianism has the concepts of heaven, hell and personal and final judgement. However, personal judgement is not final. At the end of time, when evil is finally defeated, all souls will be ultimately reunited with their Fravashi (guardian spirit) (i.e., a form of universalism and pantheism).

        4. As of 2007 Zoroastrianism had probably fewer than 200,000 adherents worldwide, with its largest concentrations in India and Iran. A few prominent Parsis in 2007 included the Indian industrialist and philanthropic Tata family, conductor Zubin Mehta, rock artist Freddie Mercury (Farrokh Bulsara) [d 1991], and English cricketer Ronnie Irani.

    3. They were to be provided with a special diet (or food and wine) from the king’s own provisions and table.

      1. The word used in the Hebrew for ‘food’ is not one of the common words used to represent food eaten at a meal, such as ‘bread’ or ‘flesh/meat’. Rather it is, apparently, a Persian word that seems to have the sense of ‘fine’ or ‘rich’ food. It is used only in this verse and in Daniel 11.26.

      2. Why is this provision of food called out in the account? The provision of special food is probably mentioned for the following reasons:

        1. It was atypical. Most students through the millennia have had to fend for themselves. Either they or their parents have to provide their food. Records from ancient times, through the Greek and Roman period and into the Middle Ages and early Modern era indicate that students have often subsisted on a meagre diet. There are examples of students protesting and even rioting in every era over the cost of food, logging and tuition.

        2. The young men were treated as part of the royal staff, even though they were in training. It gave them a special status to share the food of the king (2 Sam 9.7, 10, 11, 13; 2 Ki 25.29, 30).

        3. As a literary device to set up the situation and highlight the resolve of Daniel in verses 8-17.

    4. They were to attend the court school for three years.

      1. It appears that three years was considered the standard period for court training in the ancient Near East. The Persian practice, as prescribed in the Zoroastrian Avesta, was for a student or disciple to study for three years in order to become a priest. It may have been the same for court officials.

      2. Plato refers to the Persian custom of beginning tutoring at age 1427 and Xenophon mentions that Persian youths completed their training about the age of sixteen or seventeen.28 This would seem to support the three-year duration for the training period.

      3. It is interesting, although there is likely no direct connection, that Jesus’ training of the Apostles took three years, and that Paul appears to have been engaged in a similar period of post-conversion training (Gal 1.17, 18).




  1. Which young men are mentioned by name? Why were their names changed?

    1. The four Jewish men mentioned (there may have been others selected for training) are:

      Meanings of the Names of Daniel’s Three Friends

      Hebrew Name

      Meaning
      [from Hebrew]

      Babylonian Name

      Meaning
      [from Akkadian]

      Daniel

      God has judged or God is my judge

      Belteshazzar

      Lady, protect the king or guard his life! or, possibly, keeper of the hidden treasures

      Hananiah

      Yahweh has been gracious

      Shadrach

      I am fearful (of a god) or, possibly, the sun is my inspiration

      Mishael

      Who is what God is? or he that is the strong God

      Meshach

      I am despised, contemptible, humbled (before my god) or of the goddess Shach (Venus)

      Azariah

      Yahweh has helped or Yahweh is my helper

      Abed-nego

      Servant of Nebo (Nego being a Hebrew variation of the Babylonian name of the god Nebo29)

      1. All four names include references to the personal name of God, Jehovah/Yahweh (iah), or the Hebrew name for God (el) of Israel, which suggests that the young men came from God-fearing families.

    2. Their names were changed:

      1. Because in ancient times names were more than just convenient labels; they had cultural and religious significance (Gen 2.20, 23; 3.20; Gen 17.5).

      2. It was the custom, in the ANE, to change a person’s name when he or she started in a new role (e.g., Gen 17.5; 41.45; 2 Sam 12.24, 25; 2 Ki 23.34; 24.17; Est 2.7). There are also NT examples: Peter (Jn 1.42); Rev 2.17.

      3. Because all four names include references to the personal name of God this would have been considered unacceptable, and even offensive, in the Babylonian court that worshiped a pantheon of different gods; and probably took offense at the exclusiveness of Biblical Judaism. They accepted pluralism, including all forms of false religions. However, their pluralism could not leave room for the true religion.

      4. To obliterate any testimony to the God of Israel from the Babylonian court. [The ACLU—Akkadian/Astrologers Court Liturgical Union—was at work in Daniel’s day removing all references to the true God from the public forum, just as it is today!]

      5. To remove references to their Jewish origin and give them names considered suitable for the Babylonian court.

      6. To show his (Ashpenaz’s) authority over them and to make them appear to be subject to the Babylonian gods.

      7. In an attempt to acculturate them into Babylon and make them forget the place and religion of their origin. Calvin: “[T]heir names were changed; so that by all means the king might blot out of their hearts the remembrance of their own race, and they might forget their own origin.”30

    3. Observations about name usage:

      1. The Aramaic portion of Daniel is from 2.4-7.28. These six chapters cover material that is of direct relevance to the Gentile nations. The rest of the book is written in Hebrew.

      2. Daniel’s name Belteshazzar, is mentioned ten times in the book of Daniel (2.26; 4.8-9, 18-19 [3 times]; 5.12). In other words, he is called by his Babylonian name only in the Aramaic section of the book (with one exception; 10.1). Although he is mostly referred to, in both sections by his Hebrew name.

      3. His three companions are only mentioned again, after chapter 1, by their Hebrew names only in 2.17. In 2.49 and in (the very well known) chapter 3 they are mentioned by their Babylonian names.




  1. Who was Daniel?

    1. Other than what we are told in the book of Daniel about Daniel, there isn’t much else said about him in the rest of Scripture. In those other passages, we learn:

      1. Ezekiel 14.14, 20: He was righteous man; considered on the same level as Noah and Job.

      2. Ezekiel 28.3: He was a wise man, wiser than those of his age.

        1. Ezekiel and Daniel were contemporaries.

        2. The material in Ezekiel could have been written ~12 years after Daniel was deported (8.1 compared with 1.2, gives the year 592 BC), but could also have been written as late as 30 years after Daniel’s deportation (sometime around 575 BC, before the destruction of Tyre, after a 13 year siege, by Nebuchadnezzar, in 573 BC)

        3. While it may seem surprising that Daniel could have gained such a reputation in a relatively short period, it is still conceivable that he did. John the Baptist, Jesus, and the Apostles had gained significant reputations for righteousness and wisdom within a few years.

        4. At least one scholar31 has suggested that Ezekiel is referring to an ancient Daniel from the age of the patriarchs, who is mentioned in the Ras Shamra tablets from Syria containing ancient Canaanite myths and legends (e.g., the Aqhat Epic). These tablets were written in Ugaritic (a Semitic language written with cuneiform alphabetic characters, sometime during the 14th to 12th centuries BC).32

        5. However, it is inconceivable that Ezekiel would draw into his account a mythical/legendary character from Canaanite writings, whom he would place on par with Noah and Job; especially considering that Jews would not have considered Canaanites to be righteousness or wise, in the godly sense.

      3. Mathew 24.15: He was a prophet.

        1. Jesus calls Daniel a prophet.

        2. In quoting from the book of Daniel, Jesus confirms the inclusion of the book in the OT canon of Scripture. [We will look at the Daniel’s reference to the abomination of desolation that Jesus mentions when we study chapters 9, 11and 12 (9.27; 11.31; 12.11).]

        3. He was not a prophet in the way Elijah or Isaiah were, who were raised up to speak to Israel (Dt 18.18). But Daniel had the prophetic gift, and his message was to the pagan nations and their courts like Jonah.

        4. God did not speak directly to Daniel as he did to Moses (Num 12.7-8). He was given prophetic visions and dreams. Much of his prophetic messages are in the form of images and symbolism.

    2. So far we have learned that Daniel was:

      1. Of the nobility or even the royal line (1.3). If he was of the royal line he was descended from David.

      2. Handsome, without any physical defects (1.4)

      3. Intelligent, well informed, showing an aptitude for learning, and wise (1.4; Ezk 28.3)

      4. Qualified to serve in a palace (1.4)

      5. Righteous—meaning god fearing, worshipful, and obedient to the law of God (Ezk 14.14, 20)

      6. A prophet (Mt 24.15)

    3. We won’t look ahead at this time to derive additional attributes about Daniel. But even what we have learned thus far about Daniel, indicates that we are dealing with an exceptional man raised up by God for an exceptional age.




  1. What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?

    1. From one perspective God uses the weak things of this world to confound or put to shame the worldly-wise (1 Cor 1.27).

      1. Nebuchadnezzar selected young Jewish slaves (essentially) to be part of his royal staff and planned to train out of them any recollection of their heritage. Yet these young men would put to shame the entire assemblage of the religious rites, councils of leaders, and academic learning of the Babylonians.

      2. God cannot be mocked by the modern equivalents in our society: secular humanism and Darwinianism; cradle-to-grave socialistic systems; and the political correctness of the universities. He can, and will, raise up Christians who will shame all these worldly systems.

      3. We see examples of this in the confrontation between ID and modern ‘science’; the self-defeating support of abortion in the Roe Effect, and the, similarly, self-defeating results of feminists and homosexuals who leave no progeny (demographics is destiny!).

    2. Although God uses the weak things of this world to confound the worldly-wise, this does not provide us with an opportunity to be deliberately ‘weak’. Instead, we (Christians) should stand out in our age as those who pursue excellence and deliver quality, because we serve God and not self (1 Cor 10.31).

      1. We get the impression from our first considerations of Daniel and his friends, that they were capable individuals who, even at a relatively young age, showed outstanding promise.

      2. Today’s Christian youth should stand far above their peers in key attributes such as honesty, reliability, dedication, discipline, and wisdom (applied knowledge).

      3. Likewise, God is calling each of us to excel in whatever tasks we undertake.

      4. As the Western world crumbles further into the futility of post-modernism and is sucked into the vortex of Islamism, Christian young people and adults can have tremendous influence and witness for Christ through living out the Christian life. Our decorum will set us apart from the two extremes found in our culture: the debauched depravity of the neo-pagans and the fanatical fatalism of Islam.

    3. Daniel gives us an interesting insight into questions raised by some about the propriety of Christians sending their children to schools funded by governments or of obtaining a secular education.

      1. Based on Daniel’s willingness to attend the Babylonian government run and funded school system (which was also a propaganda machine for the state government and pagan state religion) we can derive some principles for guiding our thinking and practice.

        1. Some apologists for Daniel attempt to get around his attendance at the pagan school by suggesting that he did not ‘defile’ himself with the mythological teachings of the Babylonians, just as he did not defile himself with the physical food of the Babylonians. I believe that that idea is mistaken. As we noted when considering verse 4, his course of study included pagan mythology and religion.

        2. Others suggest that the account is merely providing an historical record of what happened. They say that we cannot draw moral lessons from this particular historical account of Daniel’s practice.

      2. Daniel is presented to us in Scripture as an exemplar of righteousness who would have nothing to do with pagan religious practices. His life is presented to us as a model for practical Christian living. His attendance at a pagan school cannot, therefore, be relegated to an insignificant fact, but has to be considered in the context of his representation as a type for the Christian life in a pagan society.

        1. A parallel to Daniel is Moses who was instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was considered mighty for God in his words and actions (Acts 7.22).

        2. It is possible that Daniel used Moses’ example to guide him in his obedience to God. In the same way, we can use the example of Moses and Daniel to guide our thinking.

      3. Based on Daniel’s example, we can conclude that attendance at a government-run school or a school that teaches pagan philosophies is not morally wrong for a Christian.

        1. We may believe that governments should not be funding educational systems; even though it was the New England Puritans in Massachusetts who initiated (in 1647) the practice of municipal funding of elementary schooling33, which has now become almost a universal practice.

        2. We may also believe that it is best for youth in Christian families to be educated at home or in private (i.e., non-government funded) schools that are run by a board of Christian parents.

        3. It does not logically follow, however, from these beliefs that it is wrong for children of Christian parents to attend a public (i.e., government funded) school or to study, for example, the works of Aristotle, Homer’s legends, or to study about the theories of evolution.

        4. Based on this consideration, we must be careful not to condemn families that utilize the public school system. There are some denominations that require their elders, and possibly even their members, to home-school their children or to send their children to private schools run by Christians. This requirement is going beyond the requirements of God.

      4. Studying the world’s teachings without accepting or believing in them can help Christians to become aware of the world’s thinking and the foolishness of it. Some of those who study the world’s systems of philosophy, religion, pseudo-science and psychology are able to become apologists for defending the true religion.

        1. However, this does not mean that all children should study all aspects of pagan systems. Some children are not old enough to be able to discern between truth and error and some will always be too easily influenced by falsehood.

        2. This also does not necessarily mean that children should be sent to a government-run school to study the world’s foolishness. Not all young people from Christian families are able to withstand the onslaught of pagan teachings.

        3. Parents must exercise great discretion and care in their determination of which of their children can be sent to a pagan school or study pagan teachings without succumbing to the temptations engendered by such attendance.

      5. We must also note that even though government-run schools have a faulty philosophy of education, this does not mean that everything that they teach is counter-factual. Because of God’s general grace, and in spite of their faulty world-view, many non-Christians are able to teach effectively and correctly many subjects from skating to mathematics and engineering to cooking.

    4. Today most people would not take seriously the myths of Babylon and would consider them nothing more than silly stories. The Babylonians were not stupid people and yet they took their myths seriously. This is a reminder to us:

      1. That the world without Christ is always going to invent myths and legends to replace God, his teachings, and his precepts and laws.

      2. To be extremely cautious of falling into the trap of accepting the latest cosmological myth (such as the Big Bang), biological myth (such as Darwinianism), psychological myth (such as the innate goodness of man), or sociological myth (such as the view that society can correct all misbehaviour through education).

      3. That although men today think they are modern and beyond superstition, they are just as ignorant of truth as were the administrators in Nebuchadnezzar’s court.



1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   62


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət