Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Showdown (14-16)

1. 
   Who was Arioch and what did he proceed to do?
   
   1. 
      According to the translations we use (NKJV, NIV, ESV, NASB), Arioch was the commander or captain of the king’s guard. Some suggest that he was the royal chief of police, or the head of the elite bodyguard of the king. It has been suggested that the Aramaic word seems to come from, or be related to, the root word “slaughterer” (of animals). So, some translations (e.g., NRSV) are more explicit and refer to Arioch as the chief executioner. Regardless of the precise translation, he and his unit had as one of its functions the execution of enemies of the kingdom.
      
   2. 
      He proceeded to carry out the king’s command that the wise men be executed.
      
   3. 
      How might this have been done?
      
      1. 
         It is unlikely that Arioch went personally from house-to-house or building-to-building and executed each wise man that he encountered.
         
      2. 
         It is more likely a process like this was followed:
         
         1. 
            A formal decree was published indicating:
            
            1. 
               The charge against the wise men,
               
            2. 
               Defining the procedure for their arrest,
               
            3. 
               Stating the penalties for those who harboured them, and
               
            4. 
               Setting a date for their execution.
               
         2. 
            The guards under his authority were assembled and each was given a territory to cover in which he would arrest wise men and lead them to a prison for holding.
            
         3. 
            A mass public execution would likely be held to:
            
            1. 
               Cater to the people’s desire for entertainment and blood-lust, and
               
            2. 
               Reinforce the King’s autocratic authority.
               
      3. 
         It would probably have taken some time to arrest all the wise men. This may help to explain how Daniel would have been able to request some time to address the problem of providing an interpretation of the King’s dream.
         
   4. 
      Note: there did not appear to be any distinctions made. The whole group of wise men (whether or not they had been present) were to be included in the arrest and execution. Thus, Arioch himself or one of his cohort is sent to arrest Daniel, who had not been present at the discussions with the king. This is often the case with arbitrary and ill-considered laws or policies of governments (or corporations) which do not allow for valid distinctions and discrimination. For example:
      
      1. 
         Policies about race often result in unintended forms of reverse discrimination. When US universities attempted to balance admission by race, they ended up rejecting better qualified candidates purely on the basis of their race. Similarly, when police forces and fire departments attempted to get a more diverse gender-ethnic mix they rejected qualified candidates merely because they were white males.
         
      2. 
         Valid exercises of Christianity are suppressed when attempts are made to curtail practices of false religions (e.g., British Airways ruled that no religious objects such as ceremonial daggers or headscarves could be worn with uniforms so Christians are prohibited from wearing a cross).
         
      3. 
         Restrictions on gun ownership only limit the rights of honest citizens. Criminals don’t register their guns. Criminals know that citizens they accost will not have guns.
         
      4. 
         Policies for work-at-home vs. working in the office often have unforeseen consequences. Some who work from home are less distracted, take fewer sick days, and are more productive than if they came into the office. Some who work from home abuse the privilege and slack off. Having a single policy for all can result in overall less productivity.
         

2. 
   What did Daniel ask and discover?
   
   1. 
      He asked why the decree had been issued and why it was so urgent.
      
      1. 
         He discovered the details about Nebuchadnezzar’s having had a dream, his demand to have the wise men reveal both the contents of the dream and its meaning, the inability of the wise men to satisfy the king’s demand, and the issuing of the decree to have all the wise men put to death.
         
      2. 
         He also discovered that the king’s command was ‘urgent’ (NKJV, ESV). A better translation of the Aramaic may be ‘harsh’ (NIV) or ‘severe’ from the root of the word used here.
         
   2. 
      What does the fact that he asked this question tell us about his attendance at the court?
      
      1. 
         He had not been present when the king revealed to the wise men (astrologers) that he had had a dream and that he was looking for someone to explain its meaning (see also 13).
         
      2. 
         We don’t know the reason that he had not been at the royal court. It does seem somewhat strange considering the fact that the king had had a positive impression of Daniel’s wisdom—ten times above all his peers.
         
         1. 
            It may be that he avoided being present with the pagan astrologers, if he was able to.
            
         2. 
            It may also be (more likely) that since he was a new graduate of the Babylonian civil service training academy he had not yet been given an appointment or job and had no permission to be in the courtroom with the other wise men.
            

3. 
   How did Daniel approach Arioch?
   
   1. 
      We are told that he approached Arioch with wisdom and tact.
      
      1. 
         The two Aramaic words apparently can take on a variety of translations: wisdom and tact, prudence and discretion, counsel and wisdom, discretion and discernment.
         
      2. 
         The root of the first word seems to have the idea of ‘prudence’ whereas the second word is based on the word ‘taste’ (e.g., 5.2)
         
      3. 
         The two words are essentially synonyms.
         
   2. 
      Why is this stated explicitly?
      
      1. 
         We need to remember that Daniel is a young man, probably no older than 19 at this time. He is not an astute veteran of dealing with many years of courtroom politics and intrigue. His approach to Arioch is much more mature than we would expect from a person of his age in any culture or society (even one where young people become adults at a much earlier age than in our culture).
         
      2. 
         He shows by example how all Christians should honour those in positions of authority over them (whether civil magistrates, employers, elders, or parents). His approach was one of deference and respect.
         
      3. 
         It shows the truth of the Proverb which teaches that a gentle (delicate) answer turns away wrath (Prov 15.1).
         
   3. 
      How did he not approach Arioch?
      
      1. 
         He did not lose his composure and panic.
         
      2. 
         He did not go into a fit and make a fuss. You would not have heard him saying things like: “Not me! What have I done? I don’t deserve to die! I don’t want to die! ...”
         
      3. 
         He did not accuse the king of being an unjust barbarous tyrant.
         
      4. 
         He did not contrive a plan of resistance.
         
      5. 
         He did not contrive a plan for escaping from Babylon and returning to Judea.
         
   4. 
      Can you think of examples, as recorded in the Bible, of other men of God whose actions before kings are not as wise and circumspect?
      
      1. 
         Abraham before Pharaoh (Gen 12.10-20) and Abimelech (Gen 20).
         
      2. 
         David feigning insanity before Achish in Gath (1 Sam 21.12-15).
         

4. 
   What is the basic form of Daniel’s approach to Arioch?
   
   1. 
      He structured his approach in the form of a question.
      
      1. 
         Why is this an effective technique?
         
         1. 
            A question is less likely to put someone on the defensive than a direct accusation.
            
         2. 
            A question is a good way of raising doubt in someone’s mind. Satan understood this (Gen 3.1).
            
         3. 
            A question is a good way to initiate conversations and open dialogue as most people want to talk about things that concern them.
            
      2. 
         What was the result of his question?
         
         1. 
            He was able to be blunt without being belligerent. He could mention the harshness of the edict without appearing to be accusatory.
            
         2. 
            His question probably raised or reinforced doubts in Arioch’s mind. Most people have some vestige of a conscience left and feel a pit in their gut when they see examples of injustice. Arioch, as a (stained) image bearer of God knew in his heart that Nebuchadnezzar’s decree was unjust and was encouraged to hear someone else suggest this, even if obliquely in the form of a question.
            
         3. 
            He got Arioch to talk about the cause of the serious directive.
            
   2. 
      He also approached Arioch boldly.
      
      1. 
         On what basis can we infer that his approach to Arioch was bold?
         
         1. 
            It is unlikely that Daniel had already become a friend of Arioch, the chief executioner. It is improbable that he would have had any reason to have met or discussed matters with Arioch during his training or in the short time since his graduation. There may have been an exception if Arioch was also the head of the king’s body guard as some translations imply. Even then, it seems that Daniel would have had little reason to come into contact with Arioch. It would be as unlikely as a young research assistant from Saskatchewan, in the Department of Finance in Ottawa having contact with the Deputy Attorney General.
            
         2. 
            In a royal court setting there was a regular form of protocol that was supposed to be followed. It would have been considered very out of the ordinary for a young man, a hostage or slave, and a new graduate of the Babylonian civil service training academy to have approached the chief executioner, let alone questioned him.
            
      2. 
         Daniel had a holy boldness, not a rashness. He based his confidence in God, not in his own position, privilege, or power.
         

5. 
   Why is it significant that Arioch answered Daniel?
   
   1. 
      Note that it was more than just than a simple answer, he “explained the matter.”
      
   2. 
      Arioch had no reason to talk with, let alone give an explanation to, a hostage or low ranking court officer, and certainly not one who was condemned to die.
      
   3. 
      It may indicate, in spite of the fact that Daniel may not have known Arioch personally, that Daniel had already gained a reputation of respect and so Arioch took him seriously. Arioch must have known who Daniel was since he sent arresting officers specifically to arrest Daniel and his friends (13).
      
   4. 
      The king’s order was urgent and discussing matters would delay the execution of the order.
      
   5. 
      It is also significant because we see God’s providential governance as he leads Arioch to answer Daniel.
      

6. 
   What action did Daniel take?
   
   1. 
      He appealed to the king for a stay of execution.
      
      1. 
         Did Daniel actually see and speak with the king?
         
         1. 
            Compare 25. He seems to introduce Daniel to the king. If Daniel had actually appeared before the king in this instance, it seems that Arioch would have said something different.
            
         2. 
            What exactly he did isn’t clear. The NIV has “Daniel went in to the king”, whereas the ESV has “Daniel went in and requested the king”. Another way to translate it is “Daniel went in and sought from the king that he would give him time”. The Aramaic says: “Daniel went (in) and requested the king to give him (a) time.”
            
         3. 
            Where exactly did he go? Obviously, Daniel did not rush into the courtroom uninvited. The account must be abbreviated, not giving all the details of court protocol.
            
         4. 
            It is possible that Daniel didn’t actually enter the courtroom and see the king but made his appeal through intermediaries. Regardless, he could not have approached the king directly without the intervention of senior court officials.
            
   2. 
      He asked for time to address the king’s request.
      
      1. 
         The other wise men had insisted that what the king asked for was impossible. They didn’t consider that having more time would help them come up with an answer; although they might have asked for time as a stalling tactic (they were accused of stalling by the king, 8).
         
      2. 
         Daniel, in contrast, asked for some time to fulfill the king’s demands.
         
      3. 
         We are not told how long a period he requested.
         
         1. 
            It could not have been open ended as the king would have wanted an answer and would have concluded quickly that any extended period was a stalling tactic.
            
         2. 
            If we translate it with the article, ‘a time’, it could refer to a measure of time and mean a day.
            
   3. 
      He asserted that he would provide an answer to the king’s request.
      
      1. 
         He had an implicit trust that God would provide him with the answer.
         

7. 
   What was the outcome of Daniel’s request?
   
   1. 
      His request was granted; he was given time to obtain an answer about the king’s vision.
      
      1. 
         This is implied by the silence between verses 16 and 17.
         
   2. 
      Why might the king have granted Daniel’s request?
      
      1. 
         He had been intent on executing the wise men, yet acceded to the request of a novice court official. Ultimately, God intervened.
         
      2. 
         He may have been having second thoughts about his decree and was hoping for some form of mitigation that would allow him to save face. Much like Darius hoped that Daniel hadn’t been killed in the lions’ den.
         
      3. 
         Also he would still have wanted an interpretation of the dream; and if there was some way he could obtain an answer he was willing to entertain the possibility.
         
      4. 
         The boldness of Daniel’s course of action contributed to its success. It was so bold and unexpected that it got attention.
         

8. 
   What does this account tell us about Daniel?
   
   1. 
      He was wise and discerning. He knew how to read people and events. Again, we need to consider how amazing this is—Daniel is a young man, probably no older than 19.
      
   2. 
      He understood how to use psychology. By asking for time to provide an answer for the king, he delayed the execution of the wise men and provided the king with a cooling off period.
      
      1. 
         [We have to wonder if the wise men ever thanked Daniel for saving their lives. They probably did not. They would have been jealous of his abilities, his favour with the king and his rise to a prominent position of power (compare 6.4).]
         
   3. 
      He was bold – His request of both Arioch and the king took boldness because the king had already accused the wise men of wanting more time and of being useless prophets.
      
   4. 
      He had already gained respect within the Babylonian court:
      
      1. 
         Otherwise, Arioch would have dismissed his request as insubordinate.
         
      2. 
         If he appeared personally before the king, then he had some form of access to the king or was able to persuade the king’s subordinates to grant him access. Regardless, his request for time was heard by the king and he was granted time.
         
      3. 
         The response of Arioch and the king indicates that Daniel was already viewed with respect.
         
   5. 
      He depended on God. He was not afraid of earthly potentates because he revered the supreme ruler of the universe. He was convinced that the Spirit of God was with him and would provide a solution to the dilemma.
      
      1. 
         It is possible that he had already displayed skills in dream interpretation (1.17) and may have interpreted dreams previously for his contemporaries, if not for the king—though there is no record of this.
         
      2. 
         If he had already interpreted dreams for others, he may have been resting his confidence in God’s working through him on evidence.
         
      3. 
         Regardless, he was in new territory with having to discern the dream as well as provide its meaning.
         

9. 
   What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
   
   1. 
      God Rules – Kings and their servants are in the hand of God (Prov 21.1). Just as Nebuchadnezzar and Arioch were overruled by God and responded to Daniel’s request, so all persons in governing positions today are subject to God. We need never be afraid of men, no matter how powerful they appear, because they are ultimately nothing more than mere men under the hand of almighty God.
      
   2. 
      General Respect – Daniel approached all men, whether Arioch or Nebuchadnezzar, with the same degree of deference and boldness. So, we should approach all men with a common respect—from a king on a throne to a slave sweeping horse manure from the streets. All men are created in the image of God, and we should treat them as such. We are not to be respecters of persons, but respecting of people (1 Pet 2.18; Titus 3.2; Jam 3.17).
      
   3. 
      Guarded Response – We need to cultivate a wise approach to how we respond to unjust people and difficult events. Daniel displayed wisdom and tact, even with the threat of execution above his head. He did not over react; rather he acted in a shrewd but sincere way. We need to become masters of the studied and subtle art of tact and diplomacy (Mt 10.16; Eph 5.15-17).
      
   4. 
      Grudging Recognition – Godly men gain respect from their peers, even if hated by the sinful world. Daniel was a man of principle who stood out in a pagan culture. Today in government, sports, business, etc. men of dedication and principle are like statues of granite in the clay of relativism (1 Thes 4.11-12; Titus 2.8-10; 1 Pet 2.12; 3.16-17).
      
   5. 
      Great Results – William Carey is reported to have said: “Expect great things; attempt great things [for God].” From the example of Daniel, we can conclude the same thing: Think boldly, act boldly. Christians should never be timid. What we undertake for the kingdom of God, for the glory of God, will be blessed with the greatness of God. When we walk in trust we can expect great results (Ps 18.29; 56.10,11; 144.1).