Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

səhifə	9/62
tarix	26.06.2016
ölçüsü	4.02 Mb.

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 62

Source (24-30)

What immediate action does Daniel take? (24)
1. He returned to Arioch, the person from whom he had requested the information about the king’s decree and the person whom he had asked to assist him in gaining time to find the answer to the king’s dream.
2. He informed Arioch that he had the solution to the dream-problem and that he should not execute the wise men.

What character attributes does Daniel display in his action? He was:
1. Committed – He acted promptly. He shows a sense of urgency vs. procrastination.
  1. It is easy for us to become lazy and procrastinators. Christians should be neither (Prov 10.4; 12.24, 27; 10.15; 26.15; Eccl 10.18; Mt 25.26).
  2. Christians should be quick to act and show leadership in situations where needs arise (Luke 10:25-37). For example, Christians should be first to help and not paralyzed by the ‘bystander effect’.^⁸²
2. Calm – While he displayed an urgency it was not uncontrolled. Urgency does not have to include displays of panic. For example, a doctor saving the life of an accident victim acts with deliberate and controlled urgency. A Christian can act calmly and deliberately in any situation because he knows that God is in control of all events, including those transpiring around him.
3. Compassionate – He cared not only for his own life and lives of his friends, but also for the lives of his fellow wise men.
  1. Although those who had deceived the king with their feigned ability to interpret dreams or who participated in divination and sorcery deserved punishment by death, it was not Daniel’s role to mete out that punishment.
  2. Daniel showed compassion to his fellow men. He realized that these men were fooled by their pagan religion and were pawns in the hand of a tyrant, and he had compassion on them
  3. We must be like Daniel. We must not be haughty because we have been given the gift of revealed truth. Rather, we must care for or fellow men who are fooled by their inclination to autonomy and are enslaved by Satan.
4. Commanding – He took charge and commanded (stated in the imperative) Arioch not to execute the prisoners and to him to the king.
  1. Can you think of other Christians recorded in Scripture who took command in whatever situation they were placed?
  2. Paul is a good example. Even as a prisoner he took charge. He must have had such a commanding presence that men listened and complied with his commands (Acts 27.9, 10; 21-26; 33-36).
5. Courageous – He could be courageous because he had no fear of men. He knew that Arioch and Nebuchadnezzar were mere finite, limited, mortals; who were, in principle, no greater than Daniel.
  1. We must not be intimidated by the rich or powerful of this world (Ps 49.16-17; 56.4, 11; 118.6).
  2. The expression “do not be afraid” (e.g., Lk 12.32) occurs more than 60 times in the Bible. Often it is used by God/Jesus to encourage his people.
6. Confident – He displayed confidence (he said he would interpret the dream). It was not confidence in his own abilities but in the provision of God. He knew that the king would want to see him because he had the interpretation to the dream. Christians can be confident in the gifts that God gives them because God does not make mistakes. When he gives us gifts he expects us to exercise them and to use them for his glory (Mt 25.14-30).
7. Competent – He was competent, applying the gifts that God gave him with skill.
8. Courteous – He returned to Arioch who had helped him gain time to find a solution and didn’t by pass him with the solution by going to a different court administrator. He also let Arioch share in the solution (25).
9. Compliant – He followed court protocol to present the solution to the king by going through Arioch rather than around him.

What action does Arioch take? What does this show? (25)
1. He went to the king at once, or he moved quickly (with alarm or greatly excited) to inform him that he had found someone who could provide an interpretation of the dream.
  1. He did it quickly because he didn’t want to kill the wise men and was hopeful that a resolution could be found that would allow the king to lift the decree of execution.
  2. He had a vestige of a conscience left. He, therefore, likely felt a pit in his gut when he saw the injustice of executing all the wise men.
  3. As a (stained) image bearer of God, he knew in his heart that Nebuchadnezzar’s decree was unjust and was encouraged to hear that a solution to the problem may have been found.
2. He took Daniel to the king.
  1. He didn’t try to get Daniel to explain the dream to him and its interpretation and then go into the king and give the answer himself and take the credit for solving the problem.
  2. In spite of being a pagan in a pagan empire, he was a man of integrity.

What do we learn about Arioch’s knowledge of, and attitude toward, Daniel?
1. He believed Daniel.
  1. In spite of the denial of the astrologers that anyone could provide an interpretation to the dream, and their assertion that only the gods could provide the interpretation, Arioch believed Daniel when he said he could provide an interpretation. If we put this into a modern context, if would be equivalent to someone saying he had figured out how to make cold fusion work when most other scientists have said it could not be done, or someone saying that he had evidence that carbon dioxide emissions do not cause global warming when most scientists think the opposite.
  2. Daniel was credible and his word was taken as factual. This indicates that Daniel was already viewed as honest and that he had not given any reason for people to doubt his word.
2. He respected Daniel.
  1. He didn’t dismiss Daniel’s claim as foolishness.
  2. He didn’t tell Daniel to give him the interpretation and he (Arioch) would take it to the king.
  3. He thought Daniel worthy enough to bring him into the presence of the king. Don’t underestimate how significant this is. Nebuchadnezzar was the greatest absolute monarch the world had ever seen to this point. He ruled an immense dominion. Few people would ever see the king, let alone have direct access to his throne room. It truly was amazing that a young exiled hostage/slave (even though trained in the court schools) would have been granted access to the king.
3. He knew that Daniel was from Judah.
  1. He informed Nebuchadnezzar that one of the exiles from Judah would provide the interpretation of the dream for him.
  2. This would be similar to someone saying in government today, “Prime Minster Harper, a Christian, provided an update to the House of Commons on Canada’s involvement in the war in Afghanistan. “
  3. After three years in captivity and training in the Babylonian civil service academy, Daniel would have spoken Aramaic (and other languages of the AME) and would have worn the clothes of a civil servant.
  4. What would have stood out that would have made Arioch cognizant of the fact that Daniel was from Judah?
    1. The mention of his being from Judah seems to be an indication that his Jewishness stood out.
    2. This would probably not have been in terms of a distinct dress or language, or even hair curls (as are visible on some orthodox Jews today) but in terms of his deportment. He would not have participated in the dissipation of his cohorts.
    3. His life was already known for discipline and dedication. In simple terms, his Christian (i.e., trust in God and looking for the coming Messiah—so a Christian) profession stood out.

How does Arioch introduce Daniel to the king?
1. He does not introduce Daniel by name, but rather by his position—an exile from Judah.
2. He introduces Daniel to the king as if the king did not know Daniel.
  1. This seems to indicate that Daniel wasn’t known to the king.
  2. What possible problems does this cause?
    1. It seems to contradict the fact that Daniel had been introduced to, and been examined by, the king. However, even though Daniel had been through the final civil service exams/interview (1.18-21), and the king had been impressed with his learning, he may not have been remembered by the king. Consider this: if a dozen High School Jeopardy champions were introduced to the US President and asked some questions by him, would he necessarily remember all their names and who they were?
    2. It seems to contradict the fact that Daniel had asked the king for time to provide a solution to the dream (16). However, as we noted previously, it may be that Daniel didn’t actually present his case to the king at that time, but that it was relayed through official channels.
3. Arioch said that he had found a man who could provide an interpretation of the dream.
  1. It seems that Arioch wrongly claims credit for having found an interpreter for the king’s dream; whereas it was Daniel who approached Arioch.
  2. Some commentators therefore conclude that Arioch hoped to ingratiate himself to the king and hoped to receive a reward for finding someone who could provide a solution to the problem.
  3. I suggest that this may be too harsh an interpretation of Arioch’s motives. Suppose the following scenario: A person has been looking for rare blood-donor match for someone sick with leukemia. Advertisements have been placed on the radio and in the newspapers. One day, a possible donor appears at the doctor’s office mentioned in the ads, and after a blood test is determined to be a suitable candidate. The doctor then goes into the patient and says, “I have found someone who can provide blood for your transfusion.” Would we accuse the doctor of lying because he didn’t actually find the donor but the donor came to his office? Would we accuse the doctor of trying to ingratiate himself with the patient or of hoping to get credit or a reward from the patient? I think not!
  4. Arioch was doing nothing more than using an expression similar to someone saying “I have found a solution!” He was excited and joyful that the king’s problem would be resolved and that he would not have to execute the wise men.

What is the King’s question of Daniel?
1. The king wanted to know if Daniel could provide both the content of his dream and its interpretation.
2. Notice the two parts: tell me the dream’s contents and the dream’s interpretation. He continued to require both dimensions of the answer.
3. Daniel was subjected to the same test of veracity that the king had demanded of the wise men.
4. The king was going to be sure that the interpretation of the dream was true, by establishing the truthfulness of the interpreter.

How does Daniel answer the king? What is the structure of his answer? (27-30)
1. He opens his remarks to the kings with a preamble that positions the explanation of the mystery that is going to be revealed to the king. It consists of the following, general sections or topics:
2. Putdown – He puts the wise men and the false gods of Babylon in their place.
  1. He says that no mere human wise man could do what the king had requested (i.e., reveal the content of the dream and its interpretation).
  2. Daniel’s put-down of the wise men is also a rebuke of the king for his having asked the wise men to do something that is humanly impossible.
  3. He is exhaustive in listing the classes of wise men to make it clear that no human means would provide an answer.
  4. He introduces a class of wise men not previously mentioned in the text of Daniel: ‘diviners’ (NIV) or ‘soothsayers’ in the NKJV; but translated ‘astrologers’ in the ESV. This word is based on the Aramaic root ‘to divide’ and appears to refer to those who sought to ascertain or decree the fate of others through the interpretation of fissures and orifices in animal entrails. Thus the NIV may have the best translation. However, some suggest that the divination has to do with interpreting omens by dividing the heavens into spheres or areas of influence—thus the translation ‘astrologers’ in the ESV.
  5. What else is implied by his put down of the wise men?
    1. The implication is that the king should not have been angry at the wise men for not doing what they could not do.
    2. Also, he implies that the king should not consult the wise men anymore because they do not have any ability to provide interpretations of dreams.
    3. He is actually rebuking the king for asking the humanly impossible and for consulting with pagan astrologers or diviners.
3. Pronouncement – He indicates where true revelation of mysteries comes from.
  1. Only the God in heaven can reveal mysteries
  2. The wise men had claimed that only the gods could reveal the future to man (11) and that they had no access to the gods who did not live among men, so there was no means of gaining an answer.
    1. They were grasping for truth without knowing it and were partially correct, in that revelation of mysteries belongs to the divine realm.
    2. They were wrong however, in their assumptions of multiple deities and that the divine realm does not communicate with the created/human realm.
  3. Daniel asserted that the wise men of Babylon were wrong—a man could have access to the answer, but not by consorting with the pagan deities. However, the answer would be supplied only by the true God.
  4. He asserted twice (28, 29) that God makes things known by revelation. God reveals himself and truths that can only be known by revelation.
  5. He asserted that it is only the God in heaven who reveals mysteries. He used the expression ‘God in heaven’ as he did in his prayer (18; ‘of’) to reinforce the fact that it was the true God, the transcendent God, and the God above the pantheon of false gods of the pagan religions.
  6. Daniel introduced to Nebuchadnezzar the reality that there is one true God.
    1. It is probable that, until this point, Nebuchadnezzar had no (or limited) formal knowledge of the truth that there is only one living and true God. Although in his inner being he knew this truth (Rom 1.19).
    2. When he was in Judah, and took captives from Jerusalem, he may have heard of Jehovah/Yahweh as the God of the Jews (compare with: 1 Kin 20.23), but would likely have considered Jehovah/Yahweh as nothing more than a tribal deity.
    3. But now Daniel introduces Nebuchadnezzar to the fact that the God Daniel worshipped, Jehovah/Yahweh, is a unique, transcendent, God—the only true God.
  7. Daniel used a new name for God: ‘revealer of mysteries/secrets’ (28, 29, 47). This is uniquely applicable to God, and therefore a good name for him.
4. Prediction – He gives the king a hint about the importance of what he had dreamed.
  1. He, twice, indicated that the revelation in the king’s dream referred to what would happen in the future, in ‘days to come’ or in the ‘latter days’.
  2. Daniel asserted that the king’s dream was prophetic, having to do with future events.
  3. He speaks of the ‘latter days’ or ‘days to come’; literally: ‘at the end of days’ or ‘in after days’ or ‘the farthest part of the days’;
    1. When are the latter days?
    2. Daniel is not speaking of merely a future time, but of a specific age.
    3. The time covering the first coming of Christ to the end of time (Is 2.2; Acts 2.17; 1 Tim 4.1; 2 Tim 3.1; Heb 1.2; Jam 5.3; 2 Peter 3.3; 1 Jn 2.18).
    4. There are three key events in history: Creation, Christ, Consummation and only two ages of eternal importance; the former age of the OT economy—the era of types and symbols—and the latter days of the NT economy—the era of the reality in Christ (Acts 17.30).
    5. The ‘latter days’ is the final period of history when God establishes his kingdom under the Messianic king.
    6. We live in the ‘last days’ when time is wrapping up, and the world is quickly moving toward the Day of Judgment.
  4. While the entire contents of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream does not fall within the latter days, the most important part of the dream does. The dream is of great significance because it foretells of key events in the latter days.
5. Personalization –He draws the king’s interest with a personal reference, by speaking of ‘your dream’ and ‘your bed’.
  1. He uses these personal references twice.
  2. Daniel portrays events as if he had seen them and as if he had been in the king’s bedchamber when he had the dream.
  3. It may be that Daniel was given a vision (19), as distinct from a dream (1).
    1. Although, as we noted previously, the two words may be synonyms in the Semitic cognates, as shown by their adjacent use in parallel structures (Num 12.6; Job 4.13; 7.14; 20.8; 33.15; Is 29.7; Dan 4.5; 4.9).
    2. If we are to understand that there is a distinction, it may be that Daniel was shown a picture of Nebuchadnezzar lying in his bed and his dream unfolding around him.
  4. He indicates that what was revealed to him (30) was exactly what was revealed to the king (29, 30), indicating that he had the same information that the king had.
6. Pretention-less – He informs the king that there is nothing special in his (Daniel’s) station that allows him to be the recipient of the solution to the mystery.
  1. Daniel took no credit to himself (see 23) and gave all the credit to God. It was nothing in Daniel that provided the revelation but it was all from God.
  2. He twice refers to his humble status; indirectly in 27 by including himself among humans in contrast to God, and directly in 30 by dismissing the possibility of the mystery having been revealed to him because he was a wiser wise man.
  3. Compare Genesis 41.16 where Joseph takes the same humble position before God in the presence of Pharaoh.
  4. After saying that the wise men could not interpret dreams, Daniel was not going to suggest that he had special power to do what other men could not. Rather, he gave the credit and glory for the revelation of the mystery to God.

Why does Daniel repeat a number of his declarations twice?
1. Some suggest that this account is an amalgam of two separate accounts that are woven together. Why they come up with this kind of nonsense is beyond understanding!
2. This format is not a garbled account from two sources, but rather it shows how Daniel used repetition to build suspense.
3. He used suspense, through repeating his message, to:
  1. Engage the king in the revelation.
  2. Reinforce the importance of what was to be revealed.
  3. Reinforce the definiteness of what was revealed as the meaning of the dream (compare Gen 41.32).

Why did God reveal the meaning of the mystery to Nebuchadnezzar?
1. For the education of the king. God was using the dream and Daniel to humble the monarch of the greatest kingdom ever, by showing him that he was a mere human who was a subject of the true God and King.
2. To endorse Daniel. God revealed the mystery through Daniel so that he might make the king realize that Daniel was among the true prophets and not a fake like the other wise men.
3. To demonstrate that he is a God who communicates, in contrast to the gods of the pagans which are silent (Ps 115.4-7; 135.15-17; Jer 51.17; Hab 2.19).
4. To demonstrate to Nebuchadnezzar that he is the true God who plans and predestines (not ‘predicts’), and therefore knows, the future.
5. For our encouragement—we can be assured that the God who puts Nebuchadnezzar in his place controls all events of history and therefore all kings and rulers of the earth are subject to him.

What are some lessons that we can derive from this section? (24-30)

This section teaches us that we should:

Display – We should visibly display the attributes of a Christian. As Daniel was known to be from Jerusalem (Judea) by the way he lived, so we should be known as from the spiritual Jerusalem by or lives.
1. It is not our dress but our demeanour that should stand out. Daniel stood out because of his character not because he wore a special turban or trimmed his hair in a particular way.
2. It is not our haughtiness but our humility that should distinguish us; not our self-aggrandizement but our self-abasement. Daniel put aside his own wisdom and worthiness in declaring God the revealer of mysteries.
3. We noted the character attributes of Daniel (24) and can apply them to our own situation:
  1. Committed – Christians should display urgency, not procrastination, and be quick to act in situations where needs arise.
  2. Calm – Christians should not display panic but act calmly and deliberately in every situation because we know that God is in control of all events.
  3. Compassionate – Christians should care for the lives of their friends and fellow men—both temporal and eternal.
  4. Commanding – Christians should not be afraid to take charge in a situation of chaos, because we are members of a royal family, children of the Great King.
  5. Courageous – Christians can be courageous, with no fear of men, because we know that God is in control.
  6. Confident – Christians should display confidence in exercising the gifts that God gives them because God does not make mistakes. When he gives us gifts he expects us to exercise them and use them for his glory (Mt 25.14-30).
  7. Competent – Christians should display competence and skill in applying the gifts that God gives them.
  8. Courteous – Christians should be polite. We are not to be respecters of persons, but respecting of people (1 Pet 2.18; Titus 3.2; Jam 3.17).
  9. Compliant – Christians should follow the laws of men (Ex 20.12), even if they are unnecessary, unless they are contrary to God’s law.
Deliver – Daniel showed kindness to those who did not deserve it as he delivered not only himself but all the wise men from disaster (24).
1. God shows goodness to good and evil men through his general grace.
2. Jesus taught that we are to help those in need (Lk 10.25-37); even our enemies (Mt 5.44).
3. We should be like our Father in Heaven and be ready to help all who are in true need, even when they do not appreciate the help (3.8).
Demolish – Daniel used the opportunity he had in the presence of the king to demolish the false gods of the pagans and to show the foolishness of those who sponsored them.
1. We need to be alert to opportunities where we can show the inconsistency of philosophical, psychological, social, economic, and ethical thinking that is un-Christian.
2. A few examples:
  1. Darwinians claim that all behaviour is programmed by our genes and natural selection. We can point out that this then includes rape and misogyny or gender differences. The ‘political correct’ don’t like to hear this.
  2. Homosexual advocates declare that their practices are programmed by their genes, natural, and are as unchangeable as skin colour. If homosexuality is in fact ‘natural’ what are the evolutionary selective factors that produce it when evolution is supposedly directed by reproductive pressures?
  3. Feminists express moral outrage at anyone who suggests that abortion is wrong, and shut down dialogue or debate on university campuses. We need to ask them on what standard they base their objection to alternative opinions.
  4. Activists apply guilt on rich consumers to get us to buy ‘fair-trade’^⁸³ products at prices that must “never fall lower the market price”. We can ask them, “How can a competitive price based on free-market bidding ever be below the ‘market price’? This is illogical. It is like proponents of some new schooling program saying, “We want all students to perform above average.” We can also ask how we help a developing country become competitive if we subsidize inefficiency in their production.^⁸⁴ Supporters of ‘fair-trade’ often also tell us that we should buy local (e.g., to support local jobs and reduce transportation costs and the generation of CO²). While we might buy our coffee and bananas from a ‘fair-trade’ organization should we buy underwear, soft drinks, or soccer balls made by manufacturer in Vietnam or in Truro, Nova Scotia? It is easy to point out their inconsistencies, but they don’t want to hear about them.
3. We need to think clearly, logically, and Biblically and be able to analyze the sloppy thinking of our culture and thereby demolish the idols of our generation.
4. We should never fall into the false belief of our pluralistic culture, and of even many in the Church, which holds that we cannot present Christianity, and God as presented in the Bible, as uniquely true.
  1. Religious pluralism is a relatively new phenomenon for the ‘Christian’ West. However, for Daniel and his contemporaries in ancient Mesopotamia there were many religions and many gods. Also the administration of the state (e.g., laws and customs) and religion were blended into an amalgam that dominated the lives all people.
  2. Daniel did not compromise with other religions and claim that his belief in Jehovah/Yahweh was one of many ways to find truth. He did not go through gymnastic exercises to engage in dialogue with other ‘great faiths’ or cultivate a relationship with them as if they were searching for truth. He declared bluntly that the other religions and their gods were false and the only true religion is that which holds to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
  3. In this context, Daniel presented the true God as unique. He did not accept the view that truth was a private matter, but rather declared God in the presence of the king of the pagan empire and expected him to believe in the uniqueness of Biblical truth.
  4. Like, Daniel we need to stand firmly on the solid ground of truth and declare emphatically that only Christianity is true and all other religions are delusions that lead their adherents nowhere near truth, but only to Hell.
Declare – Daniel declared the existence and attributes of the true God in a pagan setting.
1. Daniel presented the following attributes of God as fact (28):
  1. God exists (there is a God)
  2. He is transcendent (in heaven)
  3. He is the creator (God in heaven); implied by his being the supreme God.
  4. He is all-knowing (who reveals mysteries)
  5. He communicates (he has made known to King)
2. Daniel didn’t attempt to prove the existence of God through a cosmological (first cause or prime mover), teleological (order, complexity, design), ontological (the greatest that can be conceived), transcendental (logic, beauty, ethics make no sense without God), moral (an objective standard), or epistemological (we can know only as image bearers) arguments.
3. Rather, Daniel assumed the existence of God as presented in the Bible and expected the king to accept the truth about the true God. This is how the Bible opens (Gen 1.1) for as Paul states (Rom 1.18-23) all men know that there is a God and they are accountable to him.
4. How can we follow Daniel’s example?
  1. If a person seriously enquires about the existence of God we can present arguments that the Holy Spirit may use to open his heart. However, we cannot prove God’s existence and argue someone into the Kingdom with your ‘brilliant logic’.
  2. In general, it isn’t helpful to get into debates and arguments with those who have hardened their hearts against the existence of God.
  3. Rather we should always be looking for opportunities simply to state (as Daniel did in a dozen words) the existence of God and his providential governance and moral supremacy. Many people are deistic and need to be reminded that God not only exists, but he directs the affairs of this world.
  4. It best in many situations to state the simple truth and let God use the seed planted to convict the heart. To God be the gory (Rom 16.25-26).
Depend – Daniel’s denunciation of the wise men of Babylon (27) should warn us about the insufficiency of human systems of thought. This should drive us from considering, honouring, and worshiping the creature to believing and praising the all-sufficient Creator.
1. Trust in man and his systems and you will have despair (Ps 146.3-4).
2. Depend on God and his truth and you will have hope (Ps 146.5-6).

1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 62