Resisting Indoctrination, part 1 (Daniel 1:3-7)

We all know how impressionable our children are. At a young age, they believe anything anyone tells them—whether it is true or not. As they grow older, their abilities to discern truth from error improves and then they stop believing everything they are told! In fact, we sometimes wonder if our teenagers listen to anything anyone else tells them anymore, except maybe their friends and the media.
Because children and teenagers are so impressionable and easily led, educators and politicians have recognized the need to educate them so that they can be good citizens. However, these very instruments–our schools and universities–an easily become, and indeed have become, places to indoctrinate our young people in the propaganda of the liberal, far left social agenda.

Both Everett Piper and Jonathan Haidt have written about the disruption on college campuses over the past decade as students have rioted, disinvited speakers who don’t agree with them, and had teachers fired over racial or sexual microaggressions.

Everett Piper, in his book Not a Daycare, writes that…

Our universities are doing a tremendous disservice, both to students and our culture, by letting students think they can bend reality to fit their whims. In the real world, people don’t get paid to be selfish and disruptive, but, rather, to be productive members of society….Our universities are producing a generation of Americans who are unable to function in the real world. We are quickly becoming a culture of Peter Pans, believing we can avoid reality in a Neverland of our own making. We’re encouraging students to embrace their selfish fantasies and to expect everyone around them to bend and submit to their narcissistic whims and personal prejudices. We have created a generation that expects to receive affirmation for every feeling they have and every emotion they feel. Objective reality doesn’t matter. Subjective opinions are king.

In their book The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, they note that students have been, and will be taught three great untruths:

• First, what doesn’t kill you makes you weaker. They are not taught to handle adversity or opposition and thus learn to attack those who make them hurt in any way. They feel justified in attacking someone physically who has wounded them emotionally.

• Second, always trust your feelings. Facts don’t matter, narratives do. If your story feels right to you, no one can deny it. Whatever your desires are, that determines your identity and your reality.

• Third, life is a battle between good people and evil people. In other words, if you aren’t in my tribe, you are evil and I have a right to hate you.

They have forgotten what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in his The Gulag Archipelago:

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart — and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained”

You are in for a battle, and the world wants to change your mind. They want you to doubt what you have been taught at home and in the church. They want you to believe that “truth” is relative. But now there is no “truth,” just how people feel in the moment.

It’s not that you haven’t faced it before. It is all over the media we consume. But the difference is—at college you will be away from home, away from your roots. You will be told that your parents are old-fashioned, irrelevant and that your church taught you “dangerous” dogma.

In our universities and collage faculties here in the U. S. a notable shift began in the middle of the 1990s as the Greatest Generation was leaving the stage and the last Baby Boomers were taking up teaching positions. Between 1995 and 2010, members of the academy went from leaning left to being almost entirely on the left. Moderates declined by nearly a quarter and conservatives decreased by nearly a third.

As we look at the book of Daniel, we see that these four Hebrew friends that had been taken to Babylon, were in very vulnerable positions and might easily have given up on their beliefs and convictions in order to fit in with the Babylonian culture. It seems clear that Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon U was all about trying to make good Babylonians out of any culture that was taken captive. Would Daniel and his friends succumb? What about you and me? We live in a culture that is very anti-God, post-truth, anything goes. We live in a culture that defines themselves by their desires (sexual desires) rather than God’s design. Will we stand for the truth? Will we be faithful to our God?

God had “given” Daniel and his friends to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:1). So we read in vv. 3-7,

Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah. And the chief of the eunuchs gave them names: Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

Soon after Nebuchadnezzar had conquered Jerusalem in 605 B.C., he received word that his father had died, so he quickly returned to Babylon to take care of the affairs of state. Some say he did this in an amazing march of two weeks (roughly 700 miles), taking Daniel and his friends with him, if we assume that they marched along one of the northern trade routes through Damascus that connected to Mari and then down the Euphrates River.

In order to govern such a large, diverse empire, Nebuchadnezzar saw the practical wisdom of recruiting and training individuals from different ethnic groups of his realm to serve within his state department. Nebuchadnezzar wanted the best and brightest minds at the service of his empire. Most Bible historians believe in the neighborhood of 60 young people were specifically marched the 700 miles to Babylon for this very purpose.

Notice that Daniel and his friends were the “cream of the crop,” being from royal or noble families. Some believe that Daniel was of the lineage of David (the “royal family”) while others hold that he was from a wealthy family in Jerusalem (“the nobility”).

According to Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, Rabbinic tradition holds that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were descendants of King Hezekiah, based on Isaiah 39:7. (Jay Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Washington. D.C.: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978), pp. 67, 68).

According to vv. 3-4 these young men had to meet some pretty high standards to meet the entrance requirements for Babylon U.

First, they were to be “youths without blemish.” In other words, Nebuchadnezzar only wanted flawless physical specimens in his court. The Hebrew word translated blemish (מְאוּם, mᵊʾûm) occurs in an alternate form in Lev 21:17–23 in which men with physical defects were disqualified for priestly service. It was not enough, however, that they be free of physical defect. Positively, they had to even be “good-looking” (lit., “those good in appearance”). Thus, a premium was placed upon physical condition and appearance.

Just as Israel often chose their first king based on physical qualities alone, Nebuchadnezzar was all about image. In other words, how they looked made him look good.

But they were not just brawn and beauty, they had to have brains as well. They had to be “skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning.” He didn’t want good looking guys who couldn’t spell – they had to be bright too. A high IQ was mandatory.

“Wisdom is a rare commodity. The king was prepared to pay a high premium to find men who could speak with insight and clarity on complex issues that came to the attention of the throne” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 31). You see wisdom is more than mere comprehension of the facts. Wisdom is the ability to skillfully and successfully apply knowledge and understanding to a specific situation. Any king or leader needs people like that.

They also had to be discerning, a reference to being able to gather data and correlate facts and then come to the right conclusion. This would come in handy in interpreting Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams. He wanted them to be inquisitive and informed.

Finally, they had to be able to “stand in the king’s court.” They not only needed IQ but EQ as well. They had to have refined manners. They had to know their way around a royal, political court with all its rules and regulations. Again, it is likely that they came from noble families, if not royalty itself.

I’m sure they would have to learn some new court procedures there in Babylon, but they had to show some aptitude to learning how to stand in the king’s court.
With all this potential, these youth weren’t given slave duty, they were given scholarships to Babylon U! How exciting! How enticing! How dangerous!

What was Nebuchadnezzar’s strategy in assimilating these young men into the culture of the day? What did he do to try to turn these servants of Yahweh into servants of Babylon and its gods?

First, Nebuchadnezzar brings these young men to a place far from home, far from the influence of their family and their religious support system. Marching through the Ishtar Gate, if there was ever a time to doubt the apparently defeated God of Judah, it was now. If there was ever a time to wonder about the promises of God’s earthly kingdom, it was now.

While together as a group of 60 or so young men, they were stripped of all their former educational and emotional support, making them easy prey for someone else to step in and become their “friend” or “mentor.”

Second, they were young. Most believe these young men were somewhere between 14 and 16 when they were captured. That is still a very impressionable time when young people are trying to figure out the meaning of life and what to do with their lives and are easily led by authority figures in their lives or by the peers around them.

The younger the subject, the longer he could serve in the royal court and the more impressionable he would be to the Babylonian worldview. And as Matthew Henry says, “He chose such as were young, because they would be tractable, would forget their own people and become Chaldeans (Matthew Henry’s Commentary: One Volume, p. 1083).

Warren Wiersbe said, “Obviously the purpose of their education was to transform these Jews into Babylonians” (Warren Wiersbe). He wants to reorient their worldview and capture their allegiance to his own culture and gods.

Third, although this isn’t clear from the text, it is quite possible that Nebuchadnezzar had all these young men emasculated. You will notice in verse 3 that the one in charge of these young men was Ashpenaz, who was Nebuchadnezzar’s “chief eunuch.”

There are a number of reasons to believe that Daniel and his friends were also eunuchs, very possibly “who have been made eunuchs by men.” D. A. Bayliss tells us that foreign kings normally surrounded themselves with eunuchs because then they would not have wives or families that would distract them from duty, or even worse, who might foment rebellion. We have no record in Scripture of Daniel being married or having a family and he showed no interest in returning to Jerusalem when that possibility arose. So “chief eunuch” may mean “chief of the eunuchs.”

If Daniel and his friends were made this way intentionally in a way that his faith taught him was a disgrace, now ripped away from his family and deposited in a strange land he had every reason to be confused, bitter and even angry or maybe more docile and submissive. This is what Nebuchadnezzar wanted. Out of this fertile ground he could turn them into good Babylonians.

Isaiah had made this prophecy to Hezekiah due to his entertaining the envoys of Babylon and showing them all the treasures in his palace (and very likely the “vessels of the house of God”), saying, “Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the LORD. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon” (Isaiah 39:6-7). It is quite possible that Daniel and his friends are the very ones Isaiah prophesied about.

Fourth, these young men were chosen “to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans” (Daniel 1:4). No doubt this involved some of the occultic arts practiced at that time by “magicians and enchanters” (Dan. 1:20), who may even have been some of their teachers. In other words, they were to be indoctrinated into another culture, a godless culture, or rather a culture that would turn their hearts away from the true God to other gods.

While much of this literature would have been of an historical and legal nature, an extensive amount would have been religious, including omen texts, magic, sorcery, occultic practices, and the science of astrology. The Mosaic law had banned the practice of such occultic techniques (Deut. 18:10–12; cf. 1 Sam. 28:3–25). To read and study this material was not therefore strictly forbidden, but Daniel and his friends would have needed a strong walk with God and a biblical mindset to retain the ability to think critically when engaged in this type of study. Evidently, their esteem for God’s Word protected them during this time of indoctrination.

Imagine the influence these pagan Babylonian teachers had on these young teenagers in their classrooms, amazing them with all this new information. The Babylonians’ literature promoted their worldview, their view of man, their view of God, their view of sin, and their view of redemption, which were all directly opposed to everything these young teens had been taught and believed while in Israel.

Though Daniel and his friends went through these classes, they apparently resisted the pressure to change their thinking. This can be seen through the historical accounts of these young men in the chapters to follow.

But we cannot say that about all 60 or so of them. It is likely that many of them blessed their good fortune and became semi-pagans. After all, when you are in Babylon, you do as the Babylonians do.

The pressure on Christians to change their thinking today comes from the print media, movies, and television as well as from teachers. For example, we have all experienced the pressure of our society trying to change our thinking about homosexuality, calling it an alternate lifestyle. Books, even on the elementary level, teach children about “Heather who has two mommies.” They teach children that this is a good alternative. God calls it both shameful and a perversion in Romans 1:26, 27:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Sometimes the world succeeds in molding and shaping our thinking, conforming our minds to the world (Romans 12:2), which is why Paul says that we must continually renew our minds in God’s Word.

Now, some may wonder whether it is appropriate for a Christian to attend a secular university. I think the implication of this text is that these young men were able to take this curriculum and cull from it what is in accordance with God’s truth, discerning truth from error and right from wrong. Other godly men did the same: Moses learned the wisdom of Egypt (Acts 7:22), and Paul spoke before the Supreme Court of Athens (the Areopagus), even quoting from their own poets.

We need to stand firm and resist the pressure. Be encouraged that Daniel and his three teenage friends stood firm against the Babylonian attempts to change their thinking. We will see what these Jewish teenagers and their parents did to prepare to withstand the pressure, because it is not easy. Christian, though the forces against you are great, take heart, stand firm, and dare to be a Daniel.

Taken into Exile (Daniel 1:1-2)

After World War II many of the Eastern European countries were under the control of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic. For those living in these countries the control and intimidation were oppressive. It was a time of terror and intense sufferings. The Socialists were determined to stamp out the culture and religion of the occupied nations, seeking to change their culture, their language and their religion. Their children were indoctrinated into the Socialist worldview. Anyone who was a potential leader was either executed or exiled to some distant part of the Soviet empire.

Can you imagine what it would have been like to have been torn from your families, to be alone and scared, to be stripped of all you formerly believed in and held dear, to be tortured for any sign of disloyalty or disobedience? How could you possibly cope in such a situation? Would your faith and loyalty to Jesus Christ remain intact, or would you just give up and assimilate into the new norm?

While we here in the U. S. have not had to imagine such circumstances, we do have to take seriously that God has called us to live as “strangers and aliens” in whatever country we live in. This world is not our home, and its values are not supposed to be our values. This world will try to squeeze us into its mold (Romans 12:2) and make us conform to the crowds so that we don’t stick out as different (holy). All around us we feel the pressure to fit in, to be like others, to not make waves or stand out, but to go along with the crowd. We are expected to like the same kind of music and TV shows, to laugh at the same jokes, to enjoy gossiping about others. We are expected to cut corners at work, to not work so hard as to make others feel lazy, to lie for our bosses. Whenever we are in public we are asked to leave our religious beliefs at home. They are “not for the public square.” So we, too, have to choose daily whether to act like this world we are “exiled” to, or to take the difficult path of standing against it.
\

So how do we remain faithful and obedient to the God of heaven? When life gets hard, and everything and everyone around us is forcing us to bow to the pressure of becoming like them, what do we do? These are the kind of questions that the book of Daniel helps us with. Again, it was a book written to God’s Old Testament people, the Jews, when they were experiencing the hardness and harshness of life in exile, far away from home and all that they knew. It was written to encourage them to still walk with and depend upon God, who was still with them even in the midst of their pain.

What they needed to know and rely upon, what that God was still their God and He was faithful to keep His promises to them.

Daniel’s story began like this:

1 In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2 And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his god. 3 Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, 4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. 5 The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king.

In order to live faithfully in exile, we first need to know and rely upon God’s constant faithfulness. How did Daniel experience God’s faithfulness?

Well, first of all, he experienced God’s faithfulness in the fact that God’s people were now being judged with exile in Babylon. Verses 1 and 2 show very clearly that Judah’s exile in Babylon was no accident of history, nor was it simply that Babylon had a stronger army than Judah’s. Nebuchadnezzar may have thought that, but God makes it very clear here that the reason Judah was in exile is because “the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand.” Generally when an army of the Ancient Near Eastern culture dominated and destroyed another culture, they believed that their god was the stronger god. But the emphasis of this passage, the true account, is that “the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand.” Nebuchadnezzar’s strength wasn’t the cause, God’s sovereignty was.

Proverbs 21:1 tells us, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” Kings had absolute, irresistible, despotic rule at this time in history, yet in God’s hands they are like water. As Charles Bridges says, “The king’s heart he directs as a responsible agent, without interfering with the moral liberty of his will.”

Yahweh had warned Israel of the determined consequences of their sins in the book of Leviticus. At the beginning of Israel’s history as a nation, God made a covenant with the people, a covenant that was explained in Leviticus 26 as containing curses if they disobeyed it and blessings if they obeyed.
If they served the Lord faithfully, being loving him (no idolatry) and their neighbors (no social sins), then they were experience blessing and favor (Lev. 26:3-13). BUT, if they abandoned the LORD for idols and mistreated one another, they would be visited with wrath and curses (26:19-25). They would experience famine, diseases, defeat by their enemies (26:19-25). If they didn’t learn from their disasters and persisted in disloyalty and disobedience, Yahweh would scatter them among the nations and take them into exile (Lev. 26:33, 39).

Nebuchadnezzar’s actions in Daniel 1:1-2 represent only the first of three stages of Jerusalem’s fall. The dates of 597 and 586 BC complete the second and third stages. From 605 to 586 BC, Judah’s status seemed dark, unfathomable, chaotic, and hopeless. This judgment was an expression of God’s faithfulness to the Mosaic covenant, which contained fitting curses for disobedience and idolatry, one of which was exile: “The LORD will bring you and your king whom you set over you to a nation that neither you nor your fathers have known. And there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone” (Deut. 28:36-37).

Another reason Judah went into exile is more specific. In fact, it relates to the seventy years that they were in captivity (605 B. C. to 536 B. C.). This 70 years was not some random number, but was determined according to the exact number of sabbath years that had been missed in Israel’s history.
“He took into exile in Babylon those who had escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and to his sons until the establishment of the kingdom of Persia, to fulfill the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed its Sabbaths. All the days that it lay desolate it kept Sabbath, to fulfill seventy years” (2 Chronicles 36:20-21).

Israel had been instructed, upon entering the land, that they were to leave the land fallow every seventh year (Lev. 25:1-4). That year they weren’t to plow; they weren’t to plant. But Israel had failed to keep that once-in-seven-years Sabbath for 490 years, thus their captivity would make up for it, seventy years.

Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem because the Pharaoh of Egypt invaded Babylon. In response, the young prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Carchemish, then he pursued their fleeing army all the way down to the Sinai. Along the way (or on the way back), he subdued Jerusalem, which had been loyal to the Pharaoh of Egypt.

This specific attack mentioned by Daniel is documented by the Babylonian Chronicles, a collection of tablets discovered as early as 1887 and now kept in the British Museum. Nebuchadnezzar’s 605 B.C. presence in Judah is documented and clarified in these tablets.

God was already angry with Judah “because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him” (2 Kings 23:26) and had resolved to remove Judah from his sight (v. 27). This began the seventy-year captivity because of Israel’s idolatry (1 Kings 11:5; 12:28; 16:31; 18:19; 2 Kings 21:3-5; 2 Chron. 28:2-8). This is the beginning of the important prophetic time period — the times of the Gentiles. This period began in 605 B.C. and will extend until Jesus returns as the Messiah.
They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:24)

Yet the fate of Daniel and his friends hung not merely on these violations of the covenant stipulations as a nation, but also because of the specific fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah in 2 Kings 20:18.
Judah’s King Hezekiah had received envoys and a gift from Merodach Baladan, then the king of Babylon. In response, Hezekiah showed him everything that was of value in his storehouses and all of his treasures (20:13).

Now, why was the LORD so upset over what Hezekiah had done? What was the problem with giving the envoys of Babylon a tour of the palace? Well, as you might know, in the world of diplomacy, nothing comes for free.

When Merodach Baladan sent envoys and a gift to Hezekiah, it wasn’t merely a friendly gesture of goodwill on his recovery from illness. Rather, he was seeking Hezekiah’s help and support in his ongoing struggle against Assyria.

Thus, Hezekiah showing Merodach Baladan’s envoys around the palace indicates that he was responding positively to his overtures of an alliance and seeking to prove to him that he had resources that Merodah Baladan could use to be successful.

And this in spite of the fact that God had only recently miraculously rescued Jerusalem from the surrounding armies of Sennacherib and the Assyrians. Instead of trusting in God, who had just shown Himself strong in Hezekiah’s behalf, now Hezekiah is looking to political means for resolving his Assyria problem.

This is by far merely an ancient temptation. Our own elections prove that. Every four years we get to vote on a new Savior who will deliver us from the evils of the previous administration. We get so tied into one or the other political party that we lose our voice as a church because our values are co-opted and soon corrupted by our alliance with any political party.

I’m not saying that being political knowledgeable or active is wrong, but political leaders, parties or platforms will not save us or sanctify us. Instead, the church is to be a prophetic voice in society that calls either party back to God and back into the ways of His righteousness.

Isaiah’s word of judgment on Hezekiah’s strategy was very specific and very severe. Because Hezekiah sought to preserve his treasures by trusting in Babylon, it would be the Babylonians themselves (what irony!) who would come and carry off everything in his palace (2 Kings 20:17; Dan. 1:2).

Far from guaranteeing the safety and security of his line, his foolish alliance would even result in some of his own offspring being taken off to become eunuchs in the palace of the Babylonian king.
Behold, the days are coming, when all that is in your house, and that which your fathers have stored up till this day, shall be carried to Babylon. Nothing shall be left, says the Lord. And some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.” (2 Kings 20:17-18)

It is these specific words that are being fulfilled in the first verses of the book of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and carried off treasures from the temple of God to put in the house of his own god (Dan. 1:2), and he also took some of the royal family and nobility—likely the very descendants of Hezekiah—and put them under the charge of Ashpenaz, the chief of his court officials, or eunuchs (1:4). Thus, God’s judgment upon the line of Hezekiah had been faithfully carried out just as Isaiah had said.

Matthew Henry notes how ironic it is that Judah, who had begun to worship the idols of other gods in their own temple, now suffer the vessels of their temple to be carried off to the temples of other gods. In the Babylonian worship, they would only see Israel’s God as a defeated god, a god inferior to their own.

Now, back when the Philistines captured the Ark of the Covenant and brought it into the temple of their god, Dagon. That time, God caused Dagon’s statue to fall broken on its face before the Ark, and the true God was shown to be the most powerful (1 Sam. 5). But this time, nothing happened. The articles were brought into the Babylonian temple, but God didn’t show up to avenge their theft. But God was still on the throne and He would reveal over and over again that He is sovereign over empires, over kings and over history.

No, the Babylonian statues wouldn’t literally fall on their faces. But God would reveal Himself in other ways. And in the very next chapter of Daniel, He would use a statue as an allegory of earth’s kingdoms, and reveal that – in the end – He will smash that statue to pieces and replace it with His own everlasting kingdom that will never be destroyed (Daniel 2).

So just as the Assyrians had been God’s rod against Israel, Babylon performed the same disciplinary action against Judah. God said He had ordained Babylon “for judgment” and that he had “marked them for correction” (Habakkuk 1:12). For the next seventy years the people of Judah would live in Babylon in a constant state of upheaval under the successive control of the Babylonians, Medo-Persian, and Persian empires (David Jeremiah, Agents of Babylon, p. 13).

Yet, the recognition that their fate came from the hand of God as a faithful act of judgment was itself also an encouragement to these exiles. Their future was not controlled by the Babylonian kings or their gods, but rather by the LORD, the God of heaven (Dan. 2:19).

The one who had sent them into exile had promised that He would be with them there, and that he would ultimately restore them from exile after a time of judgment.

Iain Duguid points out an implicit parallel between the sacred articles pilfered from the temple and the Hebrew children who were taken by Nebuchadnezzar: these young men were described as “free from defect” (me’um), a word more commonly used of sacrifices (1:4). Just as the Lord allowed Nebuchadnezzar to carry away the precious temple vessels, he also allowed him to carry away the best of his people. And just as after seventy years these temple vessels would be returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:7-11), so many of the exiles, or at least their children and grandchildren, would be able to return home. God does not abandon those who are His own. (Daniel, Reformed Expository Commentary, pp. 7-8).

God promises in Jeremiah 29:10, “For thus says the Lord: When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place.” Daniel counts on this fact in his prayer in Daniel 9. It is possible, however, that Daniel and his friends did not know this until Ezekiel arrived in Babylon in 597 B.C., some eight years later.
How important this is for us to remember. Even during our hardest moments, when life seems out of control or hardly worth living anymore, we need to remember that God is with us and He is for us (Romans 8:31).

We may believe that our situation is due to unfortunate accidents, or due to the malevolence of wicked people, but in reality it is all always under the control of a all-loving and all-wise God. If we remember that no sparrow falls to the ground without God’s knowledge (Matthew 10:29) and that he knows every hair of our heads (Luke 12:7), then we can be assured that even the most trivial events do not escape either his notice or his control. At the other extreme, God is still in control of even the most wicked, heinous sins that were ever committed against the most innocent Person who ever lived (Acts 4:28). Although sinners were responsible, it was all according to God’s plan. Everything…everything that we experience in life, no matter how difficult or how much it may seem to be meaningless, is God’s purpose for us. All of these circumstances, the good and the bad, are God’s means of sanctifying us. “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). And that “good,” the very best thing for us, is defined in verse 29 as being “conformed to the image of his Son,” becoming more and more like Jesus Christ.

“All things” includes both the good and the bad. In other words, God uses the good things, like our obedience and faith and sacrifice and Bible reading and prayer and worship and fellowship to conform us to the image of His Son, but He will also use the bad things like trials, sickness, pain, financial hardship, rebellious children, a failed marriage, being hated and mistreated, as ways to conform us to the image of His Son.

In fact, we usually learn how to love not by being around lovely, lovable, loving people, but by being around unlovely, unlovable, unloving people. We learn patience not by getting whatever we want right away, but by having to wait in lines, or wait for our birthday. The fruit of the Spirit grows best in difficulties.

Introduction to the Book of Daniel, part 3

Today is our third week introducing the book of Daniel. It is vitally important that we understand the background of any book of the Bible. That is why we are spending so much time on it.
The Purpose of the Book

At this dark hour in Israel’s history, with the tragic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, a strong reminder was needed that their God, Yahweh, really was in total control of nations and national rulers.

The book of Daniel is, for the most part, a prophetical history of Gentile world-power from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the coming of CHRIST. The prophets in general emphasize GOD’s power and sovereignty in relation to Israel, and they reveal Him as guiding the destinies of His chosen people throughout the centuries until their final restoration.

Daniel, on the other hand, emphasizes GOD’s sovereignty in relation to the Gentile world-empires, and reveals Him as the One controlling and overruling in their affairs, until the time of their destruction at the coming of His Son.

“The vision is that of the overruling GOD, in wisdom knowing and in might working; of kings reigning and passing, of dynasties and empires rising and falling, while GOD enthroned above rules their movements” (Campbell Morgan).

John MacArthur reminds us, “The book of Daniel will teach you who is running human history. God raises up the Assyrians and puts them down. God raises up the Babylonians and puts the down. God raises up Nebuchadnezzar and puts him down. God raises up Cyrus and has him do what He wants. God literally controls human history.”

The book’s central theme is God’s sovereignty over history, empires, and kings (2:21; 4:43-47). All the kingdoms of this world will come to an end and will be replaced by the Lord’s kingdom, which will never pass away (2:44; 7:27). This is illustrated by the fact that even Daniel outlived the Babylonian Empire!

Though trials and difficulties will continue for God’s people up until the end, those who are faithful will be raised to glory, honor, and everlasting life in this final kingdom (12:1-3).

John Walvoord notes, “The book of Daniel, like Esther, reveals God continuing to work in His people Israel even in the time of their chastening. In this framework the tremendous revelation concerning the times of the Gentiles and the program of God for Israel was unfolded. While it is doubtful whether these prophecies were sufficiently known in Daniel’s lifetime to be much of an encouragement to the captives themselves, the book of Daniel undoubtedly gave hope to the Jews who returned to restore the temple and the city, and it was particularly helpful during the Maccabean persecutions.”

Key Themes

I. It is possible to live a faithful life while surrounded by pagan influences, if one serves the Lord wholeheartedly (ch. 1).
II. God can give his faithful servants abilities that cause even unbelievers to appreciate them (chs. 2, 3, 6). Nevertheless, believers should not assume that God will always rescue them from harm (3:16-18).
III. God humbles the proud and raises up the humble. Even the hearts of the greatest kings are under his control (chs. 4, 5).
IV. This world will be a place of persecution for God’s people, getting worse and worse rather than better and better (chs. 2, 7). The Lord will judge the kingdoms of this world and bring them to an end, replacing them with his own kingdom that will never end. This kingdom will be ruled by “one like a son of man” who comes “with the clouds,” a figure who combines human and divine traits (7:13).
V. God is sovereign over the course of history, even over those who rebel against him and seek to destroy his people (ch. 8).
VI. The Babylonian exile was not the end of Israel’s history of rebellion and judgment. In the future, Israel would continue to sin against the Lord, and Jerusalem would be handed over to her enemies, who would damage her temple and do other offensive things (chs. 8, 9, 12). Eventually, though, the anointed ruler would come to deliver God’s people from their sins (9:24-27).
VII. These earthly events are reflections of a great conflict between angelic forces of good and evil (ch. 10). Prayer is a significant weapon in that conflict (9:23).
VIII. God rules over all of these conflicts and events, he limits the damage they do, and he has a precise timetable for the end of his people’s persecutions. At that time he will finally intervene to cleanse and deliver his people (ch. 12).
IX. In the meantime, believers must be patient and faithful in a hostile world, looking to the Lord alone for deliverance (11:33-35).

Genre: Apocalyptic

Daniel is classified as an apocalyptic writing, because of its series of supernatural visions which by their character fulfilled what is intimated by the Greek word apokalypsis, which means unveiling of truth which would otherwise be concealed.

Although apocalyptic works abound outside the Bible, relatively few are found in Scripture. In the New Testament only the book of Revelation can be classified as apocalyptic; but in the Old Testament, Ezekiel and Zechariah may be so classified in addition to Daniel.

A couple of hundred years later, apocalyptic writings abound. These were classified as pseudepigrapha, written to imitate the style of biblical apocalyptic books. Apocalyptic works classified as the pseudepigrapha include such titles as Ascension of Isaiah; Assumption of Moses; Book of Enoch; Book of Jubilees; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch; Letters of Aristeas; III and IV Maccabees; Psalms of Solomon; Secrets of Enoch; Sibylline Oracles; Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; Apocalypses of Adam, Elijah, and Zephaniah; and Testament of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob.

Another characteristic about the book of Daniel is that, unlike most of the other prophets, Daniel does not confront the people of Israel with their sins. He comforts only. In addition, Daniel’s book includes historical narrative in the first 6 chapters.

Apocalyptic literature is a uniquely Jewish literary genre. It was often used in tension-filled times to express the conviction that God is in control of history and will bring deliverance to His people.

This type of literature is characterized by:

  1. a strong sense of the universal sovereignty of God (monotheism and determinism)
  2. a struggle between good and evil, this evil age and the age of righteousness to come (a limited dualism)
  3. use of standardized secret code words (usually from the OT prophetic texts or intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic literature)
  4. use of colors, numbers, animals, sometimes animals/human hybrids
  5. use of angelic involvement by means of visions and dreams, which are usually interpreted by angels
  6. primarily focuses on the soon-coming, climatic events of the end-time (new age)
  7. use of a fixed set of symbols to communicate the end-time message from God.

Languages

An unusual feature of the book of Daniel is the fact that the central portion (2:4-7:28) is written in biblical Aramaic, also called Chaldee. A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; and the two words of the compound name Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47, showing that the Aramaic tongue had been around long before the inter-testamental period.
The Aramaic portion of Daniel clearly covers the “Times of the Gentiles,” while the Hebrew portions at the beginning and end devote more attention to what happens to Israel and the children of Israel in the midst of the nations. Aramaic was also the contemporary language of international business.

Canonical Place

When we use the word “canon” we’re talking about the books which were recognized [not “determined,” but “recognized”] as being inspired by God and they formed the group of books we call our Old and New Testaments.

In our English Bible (Septuagint, Vulgate and Luther), the book of Daniel appears as the last of the major prophets. Along with Ezekiel, Daniel wrote in the exilic period. In the Hebrew Bible Daniel is part of the Kethubim (the writings). The Jews call the Old Testament the Tanak, which is a word that consists of the T for Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, what we often call the Pentateuch; the N stands for Neviim, the prophets, and the K stands for Kethubim. Daniel is part of the Kethubim, the writings.

Robert Dick Wilson believes that this is because Daniel was never called a “prophet” (navi, נָבִיא), but a “seer” (hozeh, חֹזֶה) and “wise man” (hakhamin, חַכִּימִ֣ין). J. B. Payne observes, “For though Christ spoke of Daniel’s function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30)” (J. Barton Payne, “Book of Daniel,” Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 198).

So why is Daniel placed in the Writings rather than in the Prophets for the Jews? This may be because Daniel’s prophetic messages do not confront the Jewish people with their sins, which was common among the Major and Minor Prophets. Also, the Masoretes may not have considered Daniel to be a prophet because there is no mention of his ordination or calling to be a prophet.

Major Divisions and Unity

The traditional division of the book of Daniel into two halves (1-6; 7-12) has usually been justified on the basis that the first six chapters are historical and the last six chapters are apocalyptic or predictive. There is much to commend this division which often also regards chapter 1 as introductory.

An alternative approach, recognizing the Aramaic section as being significant, divides the book into three major divisions: (1) Introduction, Daniel 1; (2) The Times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, Daniel 2-7; (3) Israel in Relation to the Gentiles, in Hebrew, Daniel 8-12.
These two approaches are roughly the same.

Overview of the Book of Daniel

One of the things I like to do whenever I study or preach on a book of the Bible is to first look at the whole book and how it is organized and laid out, to get the “30,000 foot view” so that I can see the whole before examining the parts.

There are several good resources for this. The Bible Project has a video on YouTube and a chart that you can find on Google images, that is a good overview of the book.

Charles Swindoll has his book chart on his website Insight for Living. Philip Jensen has a book chart on the Precepts Austin website.

The book of Daniel is divided into two parts, the historical narratives of chapters 1-6 and the apocalyptic visions of chapters 7-12. In the first half, Daniel is interpreting the dreams or experiences of two Gentile kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Darius is included chronologically in this section as the Medo-Persian empire conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. In the second half, it is Daniel’s visions that are interpreted by an angel. Again, chapters 2-7 are written in Aramaic, primarily because the history (both present and future history) covered in this part concerned Gentile empires, while chapters 8-12 are written in Hebrew because the history (both present and future history) concerns Israel.

The Key Verse

Some books have purpose statements, such as the gospel of John, “these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The Gospel of John was revealed to John by God’s Spirit for the express purpose of helping people believe in Jesus Christ as God’s Son and experiencing “life in his name.”

Likewise, the first epistle of John has an express purpose statement. 1 John 5:12 says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” The Gospel of John is written so that we may believe and the epistle of John is written so that believers “may know that you have eternal life. God wants us to have the assurance that we possess the very life He promised to give through His Son.

The book of Acts has verse that reveals the programmatic desires of Jesus for his church. In Acts 1:8 Jesus says, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” As you follow the narrative of the book of Acts, you see that the gospel witness and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit begins in Jerusalem (Acts 2), but later expands into Judea-Samaria (Acts 8) and finally reaches to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and following).

Is there are similar verse for the book of Daniel? Well, there is not a clear and explicit purpose statement, but we can identify a verse which highlights a major theme of the book of Daniel—God’s sovereignty over the nations.

The key verse for the book of Daniel could very well be Daniel 4:17.

“‘The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.’”

In this case God wanted Nebuchadnezzar to know that He, “the Most High,” “is sovereign over all kingdom on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.” Nebuchadnezzar needed to realize that the power of Babylon did not depend upon Nebuchadnezzar himself but upon “the Most High” God of the Israelites. And as Israel read this, they would remember that they were “the lowliest of people” at this time and would have taken heart that God could reverse their misfortunes that they were presently experiencing. It would give them hope, as prophecy should give us hope, that God will fulfill all His promises for His people someday soon.

Introduction to the Book of Daniel, part 2

Well, today we are continuing our introduction the book of Daniel. We ended last week giving some historical background. The first part of Daniel takes place with Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and so we were talking about the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Today we want to start by reminding ourselves of the nature of the place to which Daniel and his friends were taken. This was not a God-friendly place.

An article From Babel to Babylon on monergism.com., describes the anti-God nature of this city throughout history.

Not unlike Babel, Babylon stands for the corruption of human power, wealth, and influence. It represents the perversion of God’s creation, the exploitation of the weak and vulnerable, and the seduction of the nations by false gods. Babylon was notorious for its arrogance, wickedness, and cruelty. It was a center of pagan worship, characterized by sexual immorality, idolatry, and materialism. Babylon was a city that exalted itself above God and oppressed God’s people. It symbolizes the human tendency to use power for selfish purposes, to worship idols instead of God, and to oppress those who are weaker. (https://www.monergism.com/babel-babylon#:~:text=The%20biblical%20narrative%20of%20Babel,power%2C%20wealth%2C%20and%20influence.)

Babylon the Great, in the book of Revelation, is the culmination of human rebellion against God. It is a symbol of the world system that opposes Christ and His kingdom. It is a city that is drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs, that deceives the nations with her sorceries and seduces them with her wealth and power. Babylon the Great is a false bride who entices the world with her beauty and wealth, but who ultimately leads them to destruction. It is a warning against the seduction of the world and the dangers of compromise with the world’s values.

So Daniel and his three friends were entering into a culture that would challenge the foundations of their faith to the very core, down to their roots. Remaining faithful to Yahweh would prove to be very difficult and I’m sure that not every Hebrew youth rose to the challenge.
Not everything was negative, however, for Babylon was a wondrous sight to behold. As Daniel and his three friends were marched into Babylon they would see a spectacular city. Bryan Windle, in his Biblical Archeology article reports on the city Daniel saw (https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/08/09/footsteps-three-things-in-babylon-daniel-likely-saw/).

Nebuchadnezzar had initiated a vast building program and improved the city’s fortifications, raising its magnificence to new heights. At the time Daniel lived there, it was the largest city in the world, covering over 10 square kilometers (4 square miles).

A reconstruction of ancient Babylon, with the Etemenaki (stepped ziggurat) in the center, and the Esagila (Temple of Marduk) to the right of it. Image Credit: J.R. Casals / https://www.artstation.com/artwork/25NVv [tried to get permission]

Taken from the ESV® Study Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright ©2008 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. For more information on how to cite this material, see permissions information here.
Daniel would have seen the grand palace of Nebuchadnezzar.

A panoramic view of the reconstructed Southern Palace of Nebuchadnezzar. Photo Credit: Osama Shukir Muhammed Amin FRCP(Glasg) / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

Here is a modern reconstruction of what Nebuchadnezzar’s palace would have looked like:

Screenshot from Pedersén’s virtual 3D model of Babylon, period of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-662 BCE) and Nabonidus (555-539 BCE). Overlooking south onto the Etemenanki Ziggurat from within the South Palace main courtyard, walls decorated with glazed bricks.

On the north side of the city Nebuchadnezzar had built the majestic Ishtar Gate.

The Ishtar Gate in Babylon. Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

It was one of eight double-gates that served as entrances to the city and stood over 12m (38 feet) high. The gate was finished around 575 BC, after Daniel had already been living in the city for many years. He no doubt watched its construction and marveled at its beauty.

Today, a reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate can be seen at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. It is made out of materials excavated by Robert Koldewey in the early 1900’s.

A reconstruction of the Ishtar Gate at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin, Germany. Photo Credit: flickr photo by youngrobv / CC BY-NC 2.0

In Daniel 4:30, King Nebuchadnezzar boasts, “Is not this great Babylon, which I have built by my mighty power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?” The archaeological record affirms the massive building campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar.

Who was Daniel?

Daniel was a young man (Daniel 1:4), likely around the age of 16, when he was taken captive in the first wave of deportations in 605 B.C. Could you imagine, at that young age, being ripped from your family, your home, your friends, your chances for work or education, not knowing what was going to happen next? You didn’t know if you would live or die. You didn’t know if you would spend the remainder of your life enslaved or in prison. There were a lot of unknowns, and as we know, into that vacuum of unknowns, fear and anxiety are frequent irritants.

He never saw his family, friends, or homeland again. But what matters most about Daniel’s life is how he remained faithful to God throughout his life, while living in a land where its inhabitants had not even heard of Jehovah. Daniel was considered to be a man of great integrity, classified along with Noah and Job in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 as key intercessors. In fact, like Joseph, not a single sin is attributed to Daniel. And the angel repeatedly calls him “greatly beloved.”

These three intercessors represent our battle against the world, the flesh and the devil. Job overcame the devil, Noah the world, and Daniel the flesh.

The name Daniel (dan-i-el) means “God is my judge,” a name that likely guided and guarded Daniel’s thinking and conduct as he realized that one day God would hold him accountable for how he lived his life. It is likely that Daniel was one of several young men who came from “the royal family and of the nobility” (Daniel 1:3).

No mention is made, specifically, of Daniel’s birthplace or family (other than being of the tribe of Judah, Daniel 1:3) and thus the Jewish Encyclopedia concludes “It is not known whether he belonged to the family of the King of Israel or to that of an Israelitish magnate.”

Josephus (“Ant.” x. 10, § 1) evidently inferred from Sanh. i. 3 that Daniel was a relation of King Zedekiah (ἧσαυ τῶυ ἐκ τοῦ Σεδεκίου γέυους τέσσαρες ), while Pseudo-Epiphanius, on the strength of the same passage, makes Daniel the scion of a noble Israelitish family (compare Prince, “Critical Commentary on the Book of Daniel,” p. 25).

According to rabbinical tradition Daniel was of royal descent; and his fate, together with that of his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, was foretold by the prophet Isaiah to King Hezekiah in these words, “and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon” (Isa. xxxix. 7; compare Sanh. 93b; Pirḳe R. El. lii.; Origen, commentary to Matt. xv. 5; Jerome, commentary to Isaiah, l.c.). Of course, we do not know for sure that they were eunuchs, although we never hear of their wives or children.

Daniel served under king Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 1:19-20) all the way through the empire change and served King Cyrus (Daniel 1:21). Daniel bridges the entire 70 years of the Babylonian captivity (ca. 605–536 B.C.; cf. 1:1 and 9:1-3).

Daniel began his career about eighteen years before Jerusalem fell, and his last message was given after the Jews had returned to build again the temple (10:1.), covering a period of about 73 years from the year 607 to 534 B. C., then beyond that to the reign of Darius.

The most well-known event in the life of Daniel was his one-night stay in the den of lions under Darius. Today in the stands this depiction of a roaring lion (with wings, by the way).

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/724/lion-of-babylon-ishtar-gate/

This was one of 120 lions that lined the processional way into Nebuchadnezzar’s throne room and it dates to the exact time that Daniel was there in Babylon! He would have passed by these lions a number of times on his way to advise King Nebuchadnezzar. The glazed bricks remind us of the need for fiery furnaces needed to make the bricks. Daniel had been in Babylon 66 years and was 83 years old when he faced the lions.

The Book of Daniel

Date and Authorship

We will deal with who wrote the book and when because this issue has been debated by biblical scholars and historians. Was it written by Daniel in the 6th century B.C. or by someone else in the 2nd to 3rd century B.C.?

Conservative scholars have believed the book to be written by Daniel, taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in 605 B.C. The record of events extends to the third year of Cyrus, 536 B.C., and, accordingly, covers a span of about seventy years. Daniel himself may well have lived on to about 530 B. C., and the book of Daniel was probably completed in the last decade of his life.

Although Daniel does not speak of himself in the first person until chapter 7, there is little question that the book presents Daniel as its author. This is assumed in the latter portion of the book and mentioned especially in 12:4. The use of the first person with the name Daniel is found repeatedly in the last half of the book (7:2, 15, 28; 8:1,15, 27; 9:2, 22; 10:2, 7, 11, 12; 12:5).

Important confirmation of the historicity of Daniel himself is found in three passages in Ezekiel (Eze 14:14, 20; 28:3), written after Daniel had assumed an important post in the king’s court at Babylon. Convincing also to conservative scholars is the reference to “Daniel the prophet” by Christ in the Olivet Discourse (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14).

Except for the attack of the pagan Porphyry (third century A. D.), no question was raised concerning the traditional sixth century B. C. date, the authorship of Daniel the prophet, or the genuineness of the book until the rise of higher criticism in the seventeenth century, more than two thousand years after the book was written.

Higher criticism, totally humanistic and materialistic in its outlook, denies that Daniel could be the author because they want to deny the possibility of supernatural predictive prophecy and so the book had to be written later so that the prophecies related to Alexander the Great and the wars between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids would be a historical report rather than future events that were miraculously fulfilled by God’s sovereign plan.

Daniel wrote this book in the sixth century B.C. It records the events of Daniel’s life and the visions that he saw from the time of his exile in 605 B.C. (1:1) until 536 B.C., the third year of King Cyrus (10:1). Then it is Darius who consigned him to the den of lions (Dan. 6). So it is likely that Daniel finished this book around 520 B.C.

Ezekiel, Habakkuk, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah were Daniel’s prophetic contemporaries.

Jensen’s Survey of the Old Testament

Daniel is alluded to by the writer of Hebrews as one of “…the prophets: who through faith…stopped the mouths of lions” (Heb. 11:32-33).

Why do we believe that it was Daniel who wrote this book in the 6th century B. C., rather than some unnamed author in the 2nd century?

First, the book claims to be written by Daniel in Daniel 7:1 and 12:14.

In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. (Dan. 7:1)

Second, Jesus attributed to Daniel the prophecy about the abomination of desolation (Dan. 12:11).

Jesus said, “You [will] see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (Mt. 24:15).

Third, Ezekiel—a contemporary prophet—believed in a historical Daniel. Ezekiel lived in roughly 575 BC, and he explains that Daniel is a real and historical figure (Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3).

Fourth, Josephus—a first century Jewish and Roman historian—believed that Daniel was a prophet and a historical person. Josephus believed that the book of Daniel was shown to Alexander the Great, when he came to Jerusalem in 330 BC. Of course, Daniel predicted the life of Alexander the Great. So when he arrived in Jerusalem, the priests showed him these prophecies. Josephus writes,

\He (Alexander) came into the city; and when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifice to God, according to the high priest’s direction, and magnificently treated both the high priest and the priests. And when the book of Daniel was showed to him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended… The next day he called them to him, and had them ask what favors they pleased of him… (and) he granted all they desired.[4]

He did not destroy Jerusalem because of this.

Fifth, the author of 1 Maccabees believed Daniel was a historical person. In 1 Maccabees 2:59-61, we read, “Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael had faith, and they were saved from the flames. Daniel was a man of integrity, and he was rescued from the lion’s jaws. So bear in mind how in the history of the generations no one who trusts in Heaven ever lacks strength.”

In context, Matthathias was writing about an event which took place in 167 BC. Therefore, to have written this, he must have already considered Daniel to be a historical figure. As Walvoord writes, “It is highly questionable whether the Jews living in the Maccabean period would have accepted Daniel if it had not had a previous history of canonicity” (Walvoord, John. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, Introduction, 1989. See “Authorship”).

Sixth, 1 Enoch cites Daniel. When we compare 1 Enoch 14:18-22 with Daniel 7:9–10, we see striking similarities. 1 Enoch dates to roughly 150 BC.

Seventh, archaeological discoveries shows that Daniel faithfully described the sixth century world of Babylon.

  1. Daniel correctly distinguishes Susa and Elam.
    In Daniel 8:2, Daniel writes that he was “in the citadel of Susa, which is in the province of Elam.” Now, Susa was assigned to a new province in the Persian era. The territory of Elam was shrunk during this time, and Susa was assigned to a new territory of Susiana.
    It would have taken a 6th century inhabitant of Susa to know of this historical detail. A 2nd century author would have been out of date with this historical nuance. (Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction: Revised and Expanded. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2007. 380).
  2. The existence of Belshazzar
    Prior to the middle of the 19th century, a Babylonian king named Belshazzar was unknown to history, allowing critics to question the historical accuracy of the book of Daniel. Ancient historians, such as Berosus and Abydenus recorded that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. Similarly, the Uruk King List omits Belshazzar, moving from Nabonidus to Cyrus.
    Things changed in 1854, when J.E. Taylor discovered four cylinders in the ruins of a ziggurat at Ur which contained a prayer of Nabonidus to the gods. The so-called Nabonidus Cylinders record:
    “As for me, Nabonidus, King of Babylon, save me from sinning against your great godhead and grant me as a present a life of long days, and as for Belshazzar, my oldest son my offspring, instill reverence for your great godhead in his heart and may he not commit any cultic mistake, may he be sated with a life of plentitude.”

One of the Nabonidus cylinders from Ur, which records Nabonidus’ renovations to the moon god, Sin’s, ziggurat, as well as a prayer for himself and his son Belshazzar. Photo: A.D. Riddle / Bibleplaces.com.

  1. Nabonidus Chronicle
    That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. (Dan 5:30)
    The Babylonian Chronicle for the years 556 to 539 BC, also called the Nabonidus Chronicle, describes the final years of King Nabonidus’ reign and the fall of Babylon to Cyrus, king of Persia. It records:
    “When Cyrus did battle at Opis on the [bank of] the Tigris against the army of Akkad, the people of Akkad retreated. He carried off the plunder (and) slaughtered the people. On the fourteenth day Sippar was captured without a battle. Nabonidus fled. On the sixteenth day, Ugbaru, governor of Gutium, and the army of Cyrus, without battle they entered Babylon. Afterwards, after Nabonidus retreated, he was captured in Babylon…. On the third day of the month Arahsamna, Cyrus entered Babylon.” (iii, 12-18)

The Nabonidus Chronicle describes the final years of King Nabonidus’ reign and the fall of Babylon to the Persians. Photo: ChrisO / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

Moreover, William Shea has argued, based on other details in the text of the Nabonidus chronicle that the enigmatic “Darius the Mede” who became King of Babylon (Dan. 5:31) was none other than Ugbaru, the general of the army who captured the city. Thus, the historicity of Darius was verified.

  1. Dead Sea Scroll Fragments of Daniel
    “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place…” (Mat 24:15)
    Many today would argue that the book of Daniel was composed sometime during the second century BC, after the prophecies related to the Seleucids and Maccabeans (Dan. 9-12), and not during the sixth century BC by the prophet himself. According to this theory, Daniel was written to encourage the Jewish people during the Maccabean period (ca. 168-165 BC). This late date is assumed largely on the basis of the presupposition of modern scholars that supernatural fore-telling of events is not possible.
    The fact that these copies are now known to exist shows us that already in the second century B. C. the book of Daniel was already composed, circulated and accepted as canonical.
    You might ask, why is this important—whether Daniel wrote the book or not, whether it communicates actual historical events from the 6th century B.C. or records apocryphal tales from the 2nd century?
    As James Hamilton puts it,
    There is a massive difference between the theological meaning of a wish-fantasy and that of a historically reliable account of God miraculously preserving someone alive in a fiery furnace. Dismissing a false fable as irrelevant to my conduct reflects my view of the theological meaning and value of fairy tales. Risking my life because I believe the stories result from convictions about theological meaning that cannot be separated from historicity. …
    If some Maccabean-era author is making fraudulent claims, if these are fictional deliverances and not future predictions but recitals of what has already happened presented as though being predicted by Daniel, then there is no real proof that Yahweh can either deliver from death or predict the future. This means there is no proof that he is any better than the false gods who can neither reveal the future nor deliver their worshippers, which is exactly what the book of Daniel claims Yahweh can do. …
    The whole theological meaning of the book depends upon Yahweh’s ability to deliver his people and declare the future before it takes place. If he cannot do these things, no one should “stand firm and take action” and risk his life for Yahweh (Dan. 11:32).
    J. M. Hamilton Jr., With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology, New Studies in Biblical Theology 32 (Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2014), 31–32.

Introduction to the Book of Daniel, part 1

Well, today we are starting a study of the Old Testament major prophet, the book of Daniel. You might wonder, “Why study the book of Daniel?”

In many corners of the world these days the climate of hostility hangs over any overt Christian faith commitment or any gathering of believers in Jesus Christ. Any kind of Christian commitment is now assumed to imply intolerance and often prompts reactions that range from a low-grade hostility and exclusion in the West to the vicious and murderous assaults on Christian believers in Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Syria and Iraq and elsewhere.

Such issues are not new. Christians have faced them ever since Nero’s lions, and even before that. Jews also have faced the same questions all throughout their history, most tragically sometimes enduring horrendous persecution from states claiming to be Christian. So, it is not surprising that the Bible gives a lot of attention to these questions.

The book of Daniel tackles the problem head on, both in the historical stories of Daniel and his friends, and in the prophetic visions he received. A major theme of the book is how people who worship the one, true, living God—the God of Israel—can live and work and survive in the midst of a nation, a culture, and a government that are hostile and sometimes life-threatening. What does it mean to live as believers in the midst of a non-Christian state and culture? How can we live “in the world” and yet not let the world own us and squeeze us into the shape of its own fallen values and assumptions? How can one stay faithful to God in the midst of a hostile culture in the midst life-threatening pressures to bow the knee to another god? Can God be trusted in such times?

The book was written to encourage believers to keep in mind that both the present and the future, no matter how terrifying they may become, rests in the faithful hands of the sovereign Lord God—and in that assurance to get on with the challenging task of living in God’s world for the sake of God’s mission. We need that encouragement even today.

We want to start today by examining the historical background of the book of Daniel. It’s always important to put the books of the Bible in their historical time and situation. It helps us dive deeper into the text instead of just skimming the surface.

The Assyrian Empire ruled and reigned over the Ancient Near East for nearly 300 years, beginning with an expansion under Ashurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.) and ending with attacks from the Babylonians and Medes around the mid 7th century B.C.

Map 75 Assyrian Supremacy in the Seventh Century, Holman Bible Atlas, p. 151

After Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was divided. Jeroboam took ten tribes and they became known as the Northern Kingdom, leaving only Judah and Benjamin with Rehoboam, the son of Solomon.

Map 57 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Holman Bible Atlas, p. 118

Shalmaneser V sacked Damascus, the capital city of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C., taking those people captive and scattering them among the other conquered peoples of that campaign. The Southern Kingdom, ruled by the line of David, lasted another roughly 150 years. There were no good kings in all the history of the Northern Kingdom, but there were a few in the Southern Kingdom.
Josiah was the last good king of Judah. Under his leadership a religious reform took place (640 B.C. to 609 B.C.). That reform is described in the Bible in 2 Kings 22–23 and 2 Chronicles 34–35. The author of Kings describes the accession of Josiah to the throne at 8 years of age, and then some busy years of reform in his teenage years (age 16-18). So as far as teenagers go, he was a pretty good one! Even as a youth “he began to seek the God of his ancestor David” (2 Chron. 34:3)

It begins with the decision to renovate the Temple, which leads to the discovery of the Book of the Law. Josiah removed pagan altars and idols from the temple, destroyed rural sanctuaries, and took down other places of worship. He centralized worship in Jerusalem, having destroyed the temple at Bethel. He renewed the covenant with his people. Josiah restored the Passover after many years of neglect and he returned the Ark of the Covenant to the Temple.

Both books [2 Kings and 2 Chronicles] bookend the story of Josiah with the highest possible praise for this king. Unlike so many of the kings of Judah, Josiah “walked in the way of his father David, turning aside neither to the right or the left.” But he was even greater than David: “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the Lord with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him” (2 Kings 22:2; 23:25; cf. 2 Chron. 34:2; 35:18).

However, Josiah met an early death at the hand of the Egyptian King Neco II. Neco was leading an Egyptian force northward to support a final Assyrian effort to recapture Haran. Josiah intercepted Neco near Megiddo, was mortally wounded, and eventually was buried in Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:28-30; 2 Chronicles 35:20-27).

Josiah Battles Neco

The consolidation of the Chaldean Dynasty at Babylon was completed by 609 B.C. The victory of Nabopolassar over the Assyrian and Egyptian armies made Babylon the new master. From there, the Babylonians began to invade southward into Syria and Palestine.

The prophet Habakkuk foresaw these events, declaring that God was “For behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize dwellings not their own” (Hab. 1:6)

The ensuing power struggle between Babylon and Egypt caught Israel in a vice-grip and put the kings of Judah in a precarious position. To whom would they appeal for help?

With the death of Josiah in 609 B.C., Neco removed Jehoahaz, a son of Josiah chosen by the people of Judah, and replaced him with another son whose regal name was Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:30-35). Judah was for a short time an Egyptian vassal, and Jehoiakim reigned at the pleasure of Neco.
The Battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. established Babylon as the dominant power all the way to the border of Egypt.

Jeremiah 46

In 604 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar campaigned in Palestine and conquered Ashkelon. Jehoiakim quickly switched his allegiance to Nebuchadnezzar. It was during this campaign that Nebuchadnezzar took hostages from Jerusalem, which included such men as Daniel and his three companions Hanniah, Mishael and Azariah and carried them to Babylon (Daniel 1:1-7) and the seventy years of captivity had begun (Daniel 9:1-2; Jeremiah 25:11; 2 Chronicles 36:17-21).

Jeremiah’s prophecy foretold that the “land shall be a desolation” and that the Jews would “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jeremiah 25:11; compare 2 Chronicles 36:17-21). After the 70 years were completed in Babylon, God told them, He would cause them “to return to this place [Jerusalem]” (Jeremiah 29:10).

However, Jeremiah 29:4-7 also tells the Israelites who were exiled to Babylon to settle down, build homes, and work for the welfare of the city. The passage also instructs them to pray for the city’s prosperity, as their own prosperity would be tied to it. However, this wouldn’t be easy. Psalm 137 hauntingly records, “By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres. For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” How shall we sing the LORD’s song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy!” (Psalm 137:1-6)

These people, who once experienced the favor of the true God, find themselves debased and enslaved by their enemy. Far from home. Paralyzed with fear. Their identity stripped from them. Their captors taunt them, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” And instead they wept, remembering Zion and their glory days there.

Some of these people would grow comfortable in Babylon and would forget Zion. Some would return, and some of them, like Daniel would remain as a faithful remnant in a foreign, anti-God culture.

But Jeremiah had prophesied that their captivity would last 70 years. This prophecy of punishment came upon the people of Judah because of their disobedience to God’s laws. As Jeremiah explained to the people of Judah, “3 For twenty-three years, from the thirteenth year of Josiah the son of Amon, king of Judah, to this day, the word of the Lord has come to me, and I have spoken persistently to you, but you have not listened. 4 You have neither listened nor inclined your ears to hear, although the Lord persistently sent to you all his servants the prophets,” (Jeremiah 25:3-4).

This prophecy of punishment came upon the people of Judah because of their disobedience to God’s laws. According to the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary, the 70 years was “the exact number of years of Sabbaths in four hundred and ninety years, the period from Saul to the Babylonian captivity.

James Tissot’s painting “The Flight of the Prisoners” illustrates Judah’s exile from Jerusalem.

Nebuchadnezzar also came against Jerusalem on two other occasions, first in 598 B.C. against Jehoiakim. Jerusalem was besieged and finally surrendered on March 16, 597 B.C. and Jehoiakim apparently died during the siege. He was replaced by Jehoiahin, who surrendered the city.
The Babylonians plundered the city, including the temple treasuries and deported Jehoiachin and his family along with other Jewish leaders (2 Kings 24:13-16), including the prophet Ezekiel.
After the surrender of Jerusalem in 597 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar appointed Mattaniah, the young uncle of Jehoiachin, as king of Judah and changed his name to Zedekiah. Zedekiah’s reign of 11 years was marked with anti-Babylonian conspiracy despite Jeremiah’s condemnation of this policy (Jere. 27-29).

Nebuchadnezzar’s Final Campaign against Judah

The final collapse of the southern kingdom of Judah as an independent nation came at the hands of King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in 586 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar’s army besieged Jerusalem again from 588-586 B.C., and when the city’s supplies were completely depleted, Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed. Zedekiah fled towards Egypt but was captured and forced to witness the execution of his sons before being blinded and led away to Babylon in chains. A third deportation of Jews occurred at this time.

Judah Is Exiled to Babylon

Babylon: The Heart of the Empire

Daniel and his friends were taken to Babylon (Daniel 1:1-6). Babylon was the chief city of Babylonia, long the capital of the kingdom and empire that controlled the whole or a large part of the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. This was the Neo-Babylonian empire, the latest rendition of Babylonian dynasties.

It was spiritually like walking into the mouth of the lion. Who is our lion-enemy? Living in Babylon was no vacation from home, as Psalm 137:1 reports: “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.” It was indeed a very sad time.

Although we are not sure of the origin of Babylon, its roots lie in Genesis 10:8-12.

8 Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord. Therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord.” 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11 From that land he went into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and 12 Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city.

It appears to be mentioned in a historical inscription by Agu-kak-rime (about 1650 B.C.), who restored the shrines of Marduk and Sarpanit in the temple of E-sagila.

View of the Ruins of Babylon. (From Perrot and Chipiez, “Art in Chaldæa and Assyria.”)

The ruins which have been identified with ancient Babylon lie about 50 miles south of the city of Bagdad and on the east bank of the Euphrates.

Of course, most of us are familiar with the historical situation in Genesis 11, where the nations, which were supposed to ““Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 9:1), instead migrated from the west and found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there, and said “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth” (Gen. 11:4).

God was against this, confused their language (Gen. 11:7) and “dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth” (11:8). That place was called Babel “because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth” (11:9). It is quite possible that the Nimrod mentioned in Genesis 10 took over this region and established his new kingdom.

After Nimrod established himself as a king and began conquering the surrounding lands (Genesis 10:10-11), he was sadly elevated to a godlike status by his descendants, worshipped simply as “Belus/Bel,” or the more common “Baal/Ba’al” (John Gill, Exposition of the Old Testament, notes on Genesis 10:6). He was also known as Marduk/Merodach, who is equated with “Bel” in Jeremiah 50:2. The tower became known as the tower of Bel, after “Belus Nimrod” or the “Temple Tower of Marduk”—another variant name for Nimrod.

From its beginning, as a center lifted up against God, Babel and Babylon became known as the anti-God city. In the Bible, Babel and Babylon are cities that represent human rebellion against God, idolatry, and oppression.

Later in its history the Assyrian king Sennacherib sacked Babylon around the same timeframe as King Hezekiah and the prophet Isaiah (around the seventh to eighth centuries BC). In fact, Sennacherib even tried conquering Jerusalem, which caused Hezekiah to cry out to God for help and resulted in God rescuing the city and sending Sennacherib back to Nineveh.

When the city of Babylon rebelled, Sennacherib had Babylon destroyed and then flooded. The following king of Assyria, Esarhaddon (one of Sennacherib’s sons), rebuilt Babylon back to its famed glory in his short 12-year reign.

Esarhaddon’s oldest son and heir died young. But in a strange twist, Esarhaddon gave the power of his throne, not to his son next in line for the throne (Shamash-shum-ukin), but instead to his younger son (Ashurbanipal). In a consolation attempt, Shamash-shum-ukin was given charge of Babylon itself, yet still under the authority of his younger brother. This, of course, had the initial makings of a rebellion (in case you didn’t notice).

Ashurbanipal of Assyria and Nineveh (the younger brother and now supreme ruler of the empire) defeated the city of Babylon (ruled by his older brother Shamash-shum-ukin) as it tried to revolt. After the fall of the Assyrians, Babylon was taken over by the Chaldeans (descendants of Heber) under Nabopolassar. This was the beginning of the Neo-Babylonian empire.

Order of events using Ussher’s date for the tower of Babel (though it was likely a little later)
https://answersingenesis.org/tower-of-babel/history-and-archaeology-of-worlds-oldest-city/?srsltid=AfmBOooYNryD0J5BVFvFNuS_qr_2JbnvjgdRVoAZjnjVQXBZOaLnThwC

The Final Benediction, part 2 (Hebrews 13:21-25)

“Have you seen God at work lately?” is a wonderful question to ask your friends and family. One person replied, “I see Him at work as I read the Scriptures each morning; I see Him at work as He helps me face each new day; I see Him at work when I know that He has been with me every step of the way—I realize how He has helped me to face challenges while giving me joy.” I love his answer because it reflects how through God’s Word and the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, God stays near to, and works in, those who love Him.”

The writer of Hebrews ends his book with this wonderful benediction. A benediction is more powerful than a prayer because it confers upon the recipient a blessing. The difference is that a prayer or a doxology is from us to God, while a benediction is from God to us. In this case it is from an inspired author of Scripture to the congregation of the Hebrews and it talks about how God is at work in our lives.

“Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen” (Hebrews 13:20-21).

Verse 20 gives the foundation from which this blessing can be imparted—a God of peace, a powerful God who raised Jesus from the dead, a loving and tender shepherd who guides us and an eternal covenant which provides everything necessary for our spiritual life.

His basic sentence is “Now may the God of peace…equip you with everything good that you may do his will,” then adds by way of explaining the means, “working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

What God will do is “equip” us. The Greek word here is καταρτίζω [katartizō], a word that means “to restore, put in order, mend, make complete or usable.” Doctors used it to refer to the setting of broken bones, putting them back into a condition of health. Fishermen spoke of mending a broken net. For sailors it meant to “outfit a ship for a voyage.” To soldiers it means to “equip the troops for battle.” Paul uses it in Galatians 6:1 regarding restoring a brother—that is, putting him back in place of spiritual health and usefulness. Peter experienced this in his own life. Jesus prayed for him, saying, ““Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” That repentance allowed Peter to return to usefulness and to be the one to strengthen his brothers.

In other words, God takes our brokenness and mistakes, God mends all the cracks and crevasses so that we are once again useful to Him. He equips us for service and battle. He does all this so that He can work in us and through us that which pleases Him and accomplishes His will.

The relevance of this closing benediction for the church on troubled seas is obvious: God can put you back together so you can do his will, no matter what. Can you hear the prayer as its benediction lingered over the beleaguered congregation with its sweet, healing hope?

Warren Wiersbe asks the practical question, “How does He equip us?” and then gives several tools that the New Testament says that God uses to bring us to maturity. “He uses the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and prayer (1 Thess. 3:13) in the fellowship of the local church (Eph. 4:11-12). He also uses individual believers to equip us and mend us (Gal. 6:1). Finally, He uses suffering to perfect His children (1 Peter 5:10), and this relates to what we learned from Hebrews 12 about chastening” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: NT, p. 845).

Though false teachers had “varied and strange teachings” (Heb 13:9) that differed from each other, they all had the same goal: to alter “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 1:3). To contend against these false teachers and to promote sound doctrine and right living, Jesus gave to the church gifted leaders–apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. These leaders equip the church for ministry and help them grow into the image of Christ, so that they would no longer be children, “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming” (Eph 4:11-14). (Charles R. Swindoll, Swindoll’s Living Insights: Hebrews, 223)

Notice here in Hebrews 13:21 that God equips us “with everything good,” everything beneficial for the accomplishment of His purpose in our lives, which is to conform us to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:28-29).

The word “good” occurs two other times in Hebrews, all in the plural, referring to all that God has accomplished for believers in Christ Jesus. In Hebrews 9:11-12, the author, contrasting the work of Old Testament priest with Christ, says,

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

It seems clear that the “good things” in verse 11 refer to all the promises of the new covenant fulfilled in Christ.

Hebrews 10:1 defines “good things” in the same way, saying, “For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near.” The good things here also include the once for all sacrifice of Jesus (Hebrews 10:8-14).

Based on this understanding, the author of Hebrews prays that God would equip us with all good things, the precious promises and benefits of Christ in the gospel (Dieudonné Tamfu https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/how-to-please-a-holy-god).

The Apostle Paul, advocating that our justification occurs not through works, but through faith, nevertheless shows that God equips us to do good works in obedience to Him. “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10).

God is the God who both shows us his will and equips us to do it. He never gives us a task without also giving us the power to accomplish it. When God sends us out, he sends us equipped with everything we need. (William Barclay, The Daily Study Bible Series, Hebrews, 201)

The clause “to do His will” (εἰς τὸ ποιῆσαι τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ) is explicitly the purpose. The author’s prayer is that God make us complete for the purpose of doing his will. This is why God equips us “with everything good.” That equipping has a purpose and that purpose is that we “do His will.”
Now, the act “To do God’s will” is to be like Jesus, because He came to do God’s will (Heb. 10:7). This is a lifelong process that is never complete in this life. But the point here is that the same mighty power that raised Jesus from the dead equips us to do God’s will and to live for His glory.

Sam Storms draws out these implications:

What this means is that:

You don’t have to live any longer in unforgiveness. God can equip you with every good thought and affection and determination to do his will when it comes to forgiving those who have sinned against you.

You don’t have to live in bondage to lust. God can equip you with the strength to resist the temptation to look lustfully at another person.

You don’t have to live in bitterness and anger. God can equip you with power to recognize the countless blessings you have in Christ and free you from the habit of constantly berating your spouse or your children.

You don’t have to live in the clutches of pornography. God can equip you and empower you to turn off the computer. He can equip and empower you to set your sights and affections on the beauty of Christ in place of your infatuation with the allure of sexual immorality.

You don’t have to live in constant hatred and resentment of your spouse. No matter how deep the wounds may be, no matter how often he/she has berated you, God can equip and empower you to love as Christ has loved you.

Whatever God’s will is, the promise of his covenant with you in Christ is that he can equip you with everything good so that you might live in obedience to it.

The gift of God working in us can take us by surprise; perhaps we forgive someone who wrongs us or show patience to someone we find difficult.

God equips us to do His will “by working in us that which is pleasing in His sight.” Literally, we are told in v. 21 that God equips us to “do” his will by “doing” in us what pleases him. The words translated “do” and “doing” (or “working”) are the same in Greek. We “work” because God “works”. God is at work in us. Whatever we do in God’s will, it is God doing the doing. When we “do” his will it is because he is “doing” in us what is pleasing to himself. This “working in us” is a present participle, indicating that God is always “working in us.” We may not feel it or notice it right away, but He is constantly “working in us.”

Notice that God works from the inside out. This is not just external behavior modification, but a heart that desires above all else to please God. It is not image management, but new internal motivations. Remember that the promise of the New Covenant is: “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts” (Jeremiah 31:33). This is much like Philippians 2:12-13, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” But more importantly we are told why: “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” or “giving you the desire and power to do His good pleasure.

You are secure not because you are strong, but because God is sovereign and because God is faithful to his new covenant promises. “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes” (Ezekiel 36:27). All the exhortations to persevere in this book God will fulfil in those who are his.
Obedience to God’s will is His desire for our lives. It is not always easy, as Jesus proved when He struggled with God’s will at Gethsemane. Sometimes it is very costly and very difficult to do.

But our hearts now want to please God, to do what would bring Him pleasure. That is now our deepest desire. As John Piper says, “If we are able to please God — if we do his good pleasure — it is because the blood-bought grace of God has moved from mere equipping to omnipotent transforming” (https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/outfitted-and-empowered).

We know from Hebrews 11:6 that faith is what pleases God the most, believing in Him and His good promises and benefits.

We want to do what is pleasing “in his sight,” that is, in His estimation. As infants we begin life seeking above all to please ourselves, then we learn to please others. Unfortunately, we may never grow out of that desire to please others, to live in fear of what others think of us. Our greatest desire, however, should be to “play to an audience of One,” to seek to do what is “pleasing in His sight.”

Is it right and enough for God to be pleased mainly by his work in us and to commend us because of that? Yes, because he is doing so “through Jesus Christ” (Hebrews 13:21). God is just to commend us, not based on our performances, but on his performance for and in us. “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14).

It is only “in Christ” and “through” our union to Him that we are able to do God’s will and do what is pleasing to Him. According to the famed Greek scholar Adolf Deissman, the term “in Christ” or “in Christ Jesus” occurs some 169 times in Paul’s writings. Perhaps the most famous of Paul’s “in Christ” statements is 2 Corinthians 5:17—“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”

None of the other gods work this way. If you want to have a relationship with any other god you have to do the work to please them. But the God of the Bible, through the sacrificial death of His Son, does everything needed for us to please Him and all we have to do is trust Him to do it through us. As we live out our union with Him by abiding in Jesus, then we can produce spiritual fruit (John 15:1-7).

Remember what Augustine prayed: “Command what you will, and give what you command.” We will do God’s will (obey His commands) only because He has equipped us with everything good to do that will.

God does it from beginning (justification) to end (glorification). He does this so that He will receive the “glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Our author closes this exhortation with these words:

22 I appeal to you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. 23 You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon. 24 Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. 25 Grace be with all of you.

Notice that he says two things about his letter to them. First, he calls it “my word of exhortation” and second, he says it is “brief.” The Greek noun paraklasis (“exhortation”) means imploration, entreaty, admonition, encouragement, consolation, comfort, and solace. In other words, he has hoped that his readers will receive and take to heart and apply to their lives what he has taught them.

This expression designates what we call a sermon (cf. Acts 13:15): a spoken exposition and application of Scripture, such as those offered in first-century synagogues or Christian congregations (Acts 13:15; 1 Tim. 4:13). Through his sermon, our author has brought exhortation, as he had urged his hearers to persevere in their trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, not returning to the Jewish religious system.

His mention of Timothy in verse 23 shows that the writer composed this epistle during the lifetime of “Timothy” and after some confinement that Timothy had experienced. By this news the author shows that he too remembers those in prison (10:34; 13:3). Evidently the writer and Timothy were close associates in the Lord’s work. This is the same Timothy who was a co-worker with Paul. Our writer’s hope is to come “see you,” which was a typical hope that Paul expressed to the recipients of his epistles.

The exchange of greetings between a letter’s author and those with him, on the one hand, and its recipients, on the other, is customary in NT correspondence. Here our author gives precedence to “all your leaders,” reinforcing their authority, in case some in the congregation still fail to accord them the respect their office warrants (Heb. 13:17). He then greets “all the saints,” expressing inclusivity and reinforcing their unity (cf. Phil. 1:1; 4:21).

“Those who come from Italy,” who were with the author and asked him to convey their greetings, might be people residing in Italy. But the ESV is probably correct: with the author are believers who now sojourn as expatriates away from Italy and wish to send greetings home. Perhaps they were exiled when Emperor Claudius banned Jews from the imperial capital (AD 49), as Aquila and his wife Priscilla had been (Acts 28:2).

The closing benediction, though similar to many others in the NT, is filled with meaning because of the rich exposition of grace throughout this sermon-letter. This is a fitting end for a book that documents the passing of the Old Covenant and the institution of the New Covenant.

Our preacher has used “grace” (charis) to identify God’s undeserved favor that:

• ordained the redemptive plan in which Christ “[tasted] death” for all his brothers (2:9);
• flows from God’s throne of grace to give us timely help (4:16);
• characterizes the Spirit of God (10:19);
• epitomizes believers’ final inheritance and the means by which they reach it (12:15);
• strengthens hearts through faith in Christ’s priestly mediation (13:9).

Hebrews shows God’s grace with us in other ways. God acknowledges as sons and leads to glory (2:10) those who required purification of their consciences. This could be achieved only by the blood of Christ, shed to redeem us from the transgressions committed under the first covenant (9:13-15). Though once excluded from his presence by our defiance and defilement, we can now draw near in confident assurance of his welcome (10:19-22). We are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and this gift from God makes us grateful and eager to offer worship that pleases him (12:28). Amid the dangers of our earthly pilgrimage, we have the promise of his constant presence and strong protection: “I will never leave you nor forsake you” (13:5). God’s grace is indeed with us.

The Final Benediction, part 1 (Hebrews 13:20)

Do you find it difficult to do God’s will? Do the commands of the New Testament seem daunting to you? G. K. Chesterton, turn of the century British author, Roman Catholic, and journalist, once famously said: “Christianity has not so much been tried and found wanting, as it has been found difficult and left untried.”

Admittedly, forgiving our enemies, keeping ourselves holy…these are not easy things to do. Are we really expected to keep all the commands and exhortations that we find sprinkled throughout the Bible?

But the reality is that God has not left us to rely only upon our own strength and resources to be able to do what He has asked. In fact, let me quote yet another person who has saying to say about this, St. Augustine. In his spiritual autobiography, entitled The Confessions, Augustine says to God: “Command what you will, and give what you command.”

This is precisely the genius of the New Covenant. Whereas with the Mosaic Covenant there were commands but no inner Holy Spirit. Now, God has given us “everything we need for life and godliness” (2 Pet. 1:3). God not only encourages us, but He equips us.

In Philippians 2:12-13 Paul gives us this formula for spiritual life: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.”

These two verses give us both sides of the equation: we work out what God is working in us. Notice verse 12 says “work out your salvation,” (not “for” your salvation) and we do this because “it is God who works in you.” And what does He do? He gives us the desire (the will) and the power (to work) so that we can live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Notice that God’s work always comes first. He takes the initiative and we respond. He acts and then we act. “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). So we can get up and get to work because we have the confidence that God has already been at work in us, equipping us that we “may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight” (Heb. 13:21).

This is why our author ends this book with a benediction. A benediction is literally a “good word,” a pronouncement of blessing upon someone. There are as many as 30 benedictions scattered throughout the New Testament. The original benediction is the Aaronic blessing, found in Numbers 6:24-26.

24 The Lord bless you and keep you;
25 the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
26 the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.

Benedictions in the New Testament are brief declarations of God’s blessings upon his loved ones, and are often found at the end of epistles. They are intended to bring comfort, peace, joy, and security to those who trust in God. Many Christian worship services conclude with a benediction. Pastors have the privilege of announcing, prayerfully, divine blessings on the people of God as they scatter from the place of corporate worship.

Benedictions pack more weight than a petitioner’s requests. They confer benefit through a minister authorized to speak from and for God.

The book of Hebrews closes with one of the most exquisite and soaring of all Scriptural benedictions. Multiple millions of worshipers have been dismissed with the pastor’s upraised hand and the sonorous words that begin, “Now may the God of peace . . .”

The whole benediction reads, “Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen” (Hebrews 13:20-21).

This benediction is requesting God’s help in staying on track in the Christian life—doing God’s will and being pleasing to Him—but it based upon what God offers to us (peace) by the blood of the cross. So verse 20 gives the foundation upon which the blessing in verse 21 is requested. Their ability to continue on living for God is based upon God’s attributes of peace, power (by raising Christ from the dead), loving and tender care (as a great shepherd) and ever giving grace (through the blood of the eternal covenant). This benediction seems to draw together the major themes of Hebrews: peace, the resurrected Christ, the blood, the covenant, spiritual perfection (maturity) and God’s work in the believer.

The first foundational gift is God’s peace. How necessary this peace is. We are born enemies of God, alienated from Him because of our sin and rebellion (Rom. 5:10; Eph. 2:12, 19; 4:18), but God has “brought us near” because “ he himself is our peace” (Eph. 2:12-13). He is the one who has reconciled us to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18-19). God is called “the God of peace” at least five other times in the New Testament (Romans 15:33; 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Philippians 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). Perhaps the frequency of this expression is attributable to the influence of the Aaronic blessing, which closes, “The LORD lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace” (Num. 6:26). These citations, along with the opening invocation of our text, “Now may the God of peace,” reference two marvelous aspects of that peace.

First, it points to His own divine tranquility—the eternal calmness of God’s essential being. This means that God is totally at harmony within Himself and in relation to the Trinity and all He has made. God the Father is called the “God of peace” (Hebrews 13:20). God the Son, the “Prince of peace” (Isaiah 9:6). God the Holy Ghost, the “Spirit…of peace” (Ephesians 4:3).

John MacArthur says, “God is at all times at perfect peace, without any discord within Himself. He is never under stress, worried, anxious, fearful, unsure, or threatened. He is always perfectly calm, tranquil, and content. There are no surprises for His omniscience, no changes for His immutability, no threats to His sovereignty, no doubts to cloud His wisdom, no sin to stain His holiness. Even His wrath is clear, controlled, calm, and confident” (1 and 2 Thessalonians, p. 313).

The Hebrew word shalom means so much more than merely an absence of conflict. It means completeness, wholeness, harmony.

Jesus Christ is the “Prince of Peace” and only through him can we find the “peace that goes beyond understanding.” (Isaiah 9:6, Philippians 4:7).

And that leads us to the second aspect of God’s peace. God can share His peace with us. He gives it to us as a gift. “My peace I give to you” Jesus says in John 14:27. In that vein, there is a distinction between “peace with God” and experiencing the “peace of God.” “Peace with God” is the objective reality that we as former enemies have become, through the cross and belief in Jesus Christ, reconciled to God and now are His friends. This “peace treaty” with God is an objective, one-time experience. Once established, it remains.

The ”peace of God” is the subjective calmness and tranquility we experience whenever we remind ourselves that God is with us, that God loves us and that God is on our side and we need to be reestablished in the “peace of God” time and time again, whenever we face new trials and difficulties. This peace is what Jesus is talking about in John 14:27, “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid.” The normal fears and anxieties of life disappear when we are experiencing God’s peace. Notice that this is a peace that Jesus gives to us and leaves with us even though He would be leaving this earth. It is not a peace like the world gives—shallow and short-lived—but a peace that dwells deep within and sustains us through the storms.

“God took the initiative to establish peace with rebellious men, and He is the author of both personal peace as well as peace among men,” said Matthew Henry.

“Peace with God” precedes experiencing the “peace of God.” In other words, our status with God must change—from enemies alienated from all that He is and has for us, to friends now enabled to receive everything He has for us—before our inner peace can be experienced. All who are God’s children have “peace with God” and can experience the “peace of God” if we fully rely upon Him and His promises.

Invoking God as “the God of peace” is parallel to Jeremiah 29:11, which reads literally, “‘For I know the plans I am planning for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for shalom and not for calamity, to give you a future and a hope’” (based on NASB). Significantly, this promise of shalom was given to God’s covenant people at the beginning of the Babylonian captivity when it appeared that the seas of the Gentile world had inundated God’s people for good.

Therefore, the title “the God of peace” at the end of Hebrews comes as a consciously appropriate benediction to fearful, restless hearts—“Your God is a God of peace, and he will pick up the pieces no matter what happens—he will heal your wounds and fulfill what is lacking. No storm will sink you! So hang in there!”

It is this “God of peace” that is now bestowing these precious blessings upon the Hebrew Christians and us today.

Secondly, we see that God is a powerful, life-giving God. He proved when He “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus.” Surprisingly enough, this is the first and only mention in the book of Hebrews of the resurrection of Jesus. Yes, He is spoken of as “ever living” and having an “indestructible life,” both of which point to the fact of the resurrection, but this is the only mention of Him being raised from the dead.

Of course, Jesus Himself raised Himself up from the dead, as He says in John 10: “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (Johnn 10:17-18).

Here it is again in John 5:21-22: “As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. For the Father . . . has given all judgment to the Son.” So the Son has authority to raise from the dead whomever he will, including himself. So Jesus says in John 2:19: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” And John adds, “He was speaking about the temple of his body” (John 2:21). Destroy this body, and in three days, I will raise it up. And he did.

But God also “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus” (cf. 1 Pet. 1:3; Acts 2:32-33; Rom. 8:11). This was the Father’s stamp of approval on all that Jesus had accomplished through the cross. Jesus said, “Paid in full; it is finished.” The Father showed that it was finished by reversing death and bringing the Innocent One back to life. The significance of this is that “The resurrection of Christ is the Amen of all His promises.” This means that everything God has promised He will now provide.
Hebrews has built its case for Jesus’ perpetual tenure as High Priest, in part, on the “power of [his] indestructible life” (Heb. 7:16), so that “he always lives to make intercession” for believers (7:25). Now, at last, our author explicitly announces Jesus’ resurrection, when God “brought [him] again from the dead.”

As he has previously, our author builds anticipation by reserving the Savior’s name for the end of the clause (in Greek word order): “who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep by the blood of the eternal covenant, our Lord Jesus” (cf. 2:9; 3:1; 4:14; 7:22; 12:2, 24). Thus, the name of Jesus concludes the description of the divine subject who blesses (13:20), and reappears to conclude the blessing he confers (13:21).

“Brought again” (or “led up,” anagō) is an unusual verb for resurrection (cf. Rom. 10:7), reflecting the influence of Isaiah 63:11, which reads in the LXX, “who brought up [anabibazō] from the earth the shepherd of the sheep.” In the exodus, the shepherd was Moses (cf. Psa. 77:20) and the rescue was from the sea; now the great shepherd, Jesus, has been “led up” from the realm of the dead.
And this leads us to the third foundational truth which establishes this benediction with theological weight to carry our obedience to Christ…He is our loving and sacrificial shepherd.

The shepherd metaphor is one of the most spiritually humbling in all of God’s Word. It reveals volumes about us (the sheep) and about the Lord (our Shepherd). As to our “sheepness,” Dr. Bob Smith, long-time philosophy professor at Bethel College in Minnesota, used to humor his point home regarding our human state by insisting that the existence of sheep is prima facie evidence against evolution. Sheep are so unintelligent and obtuse and defenseless, they could not have possibly evolved—the only way they could have survived is with shepherds!

We may gripe and complain about being called sheep, but we cannot but greatly appreciate that Jesus took up the term shepherd and applied it to himself (cf. Mark 14:27). Jesus’ shepherd heart welled with compassion, for Mark tells us, “When he went ashore he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd” (Mark 6:34).

Even more, Jesus identified himself as the shepherd who would lay down his life to protect his sheep (John 10:1-18; cf. Ezek. 34:1-24; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4). This image of Christ comes from Psalm 23, where the Lord God is the Shepherd who provides for His sheep (Ps 23:1), nourishes and refreshes them (Ps 23:2-3), and protects them from their enemies (Ps 23:5; see also Jn 10:11-15). This association between Jesus as “our Lord” and as the “great Shepherd” is a final strong affirmation of the deity of Christ. (Charles R. Swindoll, Swindoll’s Living Insights: Hebrews, 228)

But here our writer tells us that he is not only a “good shepherd”—he is also “the great shepherd of the sheep.” Why? Precisely because he is a risen Shepherd—“brought [back] again from the dead.” As the great risen Shepherd, his compassion and protection are mediated from a position of an unparalleled display of power! He, our Shepherd, is exalted at the right hand of the Father. All other shepherds pale by comparison. There is none like our “great shepherd.” Our risen Shepherd lives not only to give us life, but to tend us so that we will be sheep who bring him glory through our obedience and living a life pleasing to Him. This means that our grandest spiritual desires are never audacious and that any spiritual aspirations less than the loftiest are not grand enough. What security and what challenge the fact of our risen “great shepherd” brings to our souls.

Warren Wiersbe reminds us that “as the Good Sheperd, Jesus Christ died for the sheep (John 10:11). As the Great Shepherd, He lives for the sheep in heaven today, working on their behalf. As the Chief Shepherd, He will come for the sheep at His return (1 Pet. 5:4)” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: NT, p. 845). As the Good Shepherd He worked for us when He completed the great work of redemption (John 17:4). Now that He is in heaven, He is working in us to mature us in His will.

Fourthly, our God is a covenant keeping God, and sealed that covenant with the blood of His one and only Son.

Moses sprinkled the “blood of the covenant” on the Israelites at Sinai (Heb. 9:20, citing Exod. 24:8), but they broke that covenant, and Jeremiah 31:31-34 pronounced it “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). The new covenant, which Jesus’ blood inaugurates, secures our everlasting salvation, fulfilling God’s promises to establish an “eternal covenant” with his people (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3; 61:8; Jere. 32:40; 50:5; Ezek. 16:59-60; 37:26).

“Specifically, the foundation for our highest dreams is the everlasting, unbreakable new covenant promise earlier quoted in 8:10 where God says, “I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (cf. Jeremiah 31:31–34). The promise is nothing less than a renewed heart and a personal relationship with God through the atoning work of God the Son and the indwelling of God the Holy Spirit. We have his word for it that all this is ours if we come to him!

“And this covenant, this promise, is eternal. It will never be replaced by another as it once replaced the old covenant. It was established by the blood of the ultimate Lamb of God, whose atoning death was ratified and verified by his resurrection. The writer’s friends were being encouraged to remember that whatever came, no matter how high the seas, his new covenant promise would never change or fail. The eternal covenant granted them eternal life” (R. Kent Hughes, Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul, Volume 2, p. 244).

Every time we partake of the Lord’s Supper we remind ourselves of this eternal covenant. On the night he was betrayed Jesus broke the bread and distributed the cup as a sign of the new and eternal covenant that his blood would inaugurate and establish: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20; see 1 Cor. 11:25). How can we know with absolute certainty and assurance that God will keep his word in the new and eternal covenant to forgive our sins and be our God and never leave us or forsake us? We can know because the covenant was signed, sealed, established, and delivered on the foundation of the blood of God’s very own, dear Son Jesus Christ.

They Keep Watch Over Your Souls, part 2 (Hebrews 13:18-19)

Last week we talked about the obedience and submission that congregations owe to their spiritual leaders: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you” (Heb. 13:17).

But that is not all we owe our leaders. Verses 18-19

18 Pray for us, for we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things. 19 I urge you the more earnestly to do this in order that I may be restored to you the sooner.
If we don’t pray for our leaders, they will certainly be preyed upon. Satan would like nothing more than to destroy the lives and testimonies of our spiritual leaders and he seems to be having a field day lately.

Jesus told Peter, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:31-32).

Peter didn’t know how vulnerable he was to Satan’s attacks and most of us are not vigilant enough to successfully avoid his deceptions and temptations. The only way that Peter survived this ordeal and didn’t end his life like Judas did, is because Jesus prayed for him. That same thing may be true for any pastor today: Unless people are praying for you, you will fall and fail. The situation is that precarious. If you don’t want to see your pastor fall, then be praying for him.

Fortunately, we know that both the Son (Romans 8:34) and the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:26) are constantly interceding for us—that is one of our assurances that we will persevere to the end and be saved. But we need the intercession of other believers to help us from falling into particular sins or making grievous mistakes in ministry. We need others praying for us and to know that they are praying for us.

If Apostles needed the prayers of the churches, how much more ordinary ministers! “Brethren, pray for us.” (John Brown, Geneva Series Commentaries: Hebrews, 713) Charles Spurgeon indicated that the success of his ministry was not really due to his own giftedness or earnestness, but the prayers of his congregation.

Spurgeon was a19th-century English preacher and pastor of the New Park Street Chapel in London, England, later named the Metropolitan Tabernacle.\

The church held 5,000 people. With no sound system, it was said that his voice could be heard by all.

A group of young ministers called on him one day to see the large preaching place. After showing them his massive sanctuary, Spurgeon offered to show then his “boiler room.” The guests declined but the pastor insisted.

Spurgeon led them to the basement. They found about 100 people in prayer. “This,” Spurgeon said with a smile, “is my boiler room.” Whenever Spurgeon was asked the secret of his ministry he always replied, “My people pray for me.”

The thought occurred to me: “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every church had a boiler room; an asking place in the building where people would seek the will of God.

Nothing warms a preacher’s heart more than to have a faithful member say, “Reverend, I want you to know that I pray for you.”

Thus, Mark Labberton says, “I’m convinced that the dynamic life of the congregation I serve is explained by God’s grace answering the humble prayers of ordinary believers who seek God’s blessing for all we do. That is the story of power and prayer. I am utterly dependent on the way the prayers of such saints have changed my life and ministry. I think the same is true of our whole church. We are what we are by the grace of God at work through the prayers of these saints who lean on God for our sake and for the sake of all we long to see happen in our ministry, both locally and globally” (Mark Labberton, The Dangerous Act of Worship, 129).

So our author asks his hearers to pray for him, as Paul often does as well (Rom. 15:30-32; Eph. 6:19-20; Col. 4:3-4; 1 Thess. 5:25; cf. Phil. 1:19). Paul knew that if he was not prayed for, he would be preyed upon. The world, the flesh and the devil are our constant enemies, seeking to bring us down. Again, seeing how many pastors have fallen just in the past five years is a warning to us to keep our pastors in our prayers.

The reason that our writer wanted his readers to pray for him is because “we are sure that we have a clear conscience, desiring to act honorably in all things.” Previously the “cleansing” (katharizō) of our consciences by the blood of Christ referred to the objective result of forgiveness, which immediately removes defilement and disqualification to approach God’s presence. Now, however, a (lit.) “good [kalos] conscience” reflects the subjective transformation God’s grace produces in believers’ motivations and desires over time.

I think this first of all points back to all that he has communicated to these Hebrew Christians, saying that his conscience is clear in all that he has written—it was done with honorable intentions and for their good.

The writer’s conscience is clear because he has performed well in his spiritual duties toward his friends. His conscience has made him confident toward both men and God. Similarly, Paul could write, “For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you” (2 Corinthians 1:12). And, “By the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God” (2 Corinthians 4:2). What a blessing a clear conscience is! When the conscience is clear, one can ask wholeheartedly for the prayers of all the saints.

Likely this refers to the warnings that he has given his readers. Like Ezekiel, who was a watchman for old covenant Israel, the author of Hebrews was tasked with encouraging his audience away from apostasy and with telling them what would happen if they abandoned the Lord (see Ezek. 3:16-21). Having fulfilled that role with this letter, the author and his fellow workers could rest, knowing that they had done their duty.

But I also think he is wanting their prayers so that he could continue to live with a good conscience. It not only points back to previous ministry but forward to potential ministry. He doesn’t just want to preach the gospel to them; he wants a life that’s lived in line with the gospel. He knows how important it is to practice what he preaches. He knows that he needs the gospel preached to himself every day and asks that they would pray that he could live in line with that gospel.

Paul David Tripp has written a book entitled Dangerous Calling, which is written to pastors with the realization that we can go through the routines of ministry without having a genuine, deep relationship with the God we proclaim. In other words, in the words of John Piper, we have become “professionals.” In that book Brothers, We are Not Professionals, Piper writes:

We pastors are being killed by the professionalizing of the pastoral ministry … Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry. The more professional we long to be, the more spiritual death we will leave in our wake. For there is no professional childlikeness (Matt. 18:3); there is no professional tenderheartedness (Eph. 4:32); there is no professional panting after God (Ps. 42:1).

Professionals can stand apart from a congregation and speak dispassionately. A true pastor cannot. A true pastor gets personal. A true pastor is real before his congregation. A true pastor practices what he preaches. A true pastor knows that the most important thing he can give to his congregation is a holy life. A true pastor knows that he deeply needs the prayers of his congregation in order to live faithfully before them.

God’s leaders face temptations that most other believers do not face to the same degree, because Satan knows that, if he can undermine the leaders, many others will go down with them. If he can get them to compromise, to weaken their stand, to lessen their efforts, to become dejected and hopeless, he has caused the work of Christ great damage.

Paul did not hesitate to ask for prayer. “Pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel” (Eph. 6:19). How much more do God’s ordinary ministers need the prayer of their people. (John MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur NT Commentary: Hebrews, 448). If the apostle Paul was that aware of his need for prayer, how much more the rest of us who attempt to serve the Lord! As Paul exclaimed, “Who is adequate for these things?” (2 Cor. 2:16).

Our author’s request honors his hearers, implying that they have the priestly privilege of access to God’s throne of grace (Heb. 4:14-16). He wants them to realize how vital this is for his success in ministry and in life. Maintaining a good conscience means that he can confidently stand before the judgment seat knowing that he will be rewarded for the “gold, silver and precious stones” with which he has built his ministry.

The verb “pray” is present tense, showing that our writer recognizes his need for their prayers constantly, not just occasionally. It also graciously indicates that he knew that they had already been praying for him. Notice also that he asks pray for “us.” Up until now Paul has sometimes placed himself in the same status as his readers, but he is probably referring to Timothy, who may be able to come with him when he next visits (Heb. 13:23).

Also, the fact that he asks them to pray for him indicates that not all of them had apostatized. He hardly would have asked for prayer from them if he knew that all of them were unbelievers. No, he was confident that at least some of his readers would persevere, so he turned to them for spiritual assistance. His readers, in turn, were to pray for him and his fellow workers, believing that God just might allow the author to visit them sooner. After all, we know that prayers do much in the purposes of God, and through our prayers He often works out His will (James 5:13-18).

Our writer makes one simple request, “that I may be restored to you the sooner” (v. 19). This is why he wanted them to “more earnestly” (v. 19). Like the Apostle Paul, he loved his followers so much that he longed to be with them. This shows his great affection for them. He wanted to see them face to face and have fellowship together. If they fail to pray, his return to them may be slowed or possibly never take place. But if they pray, he expects that their prayers will speed his restoration.
Some obstacle stood in Paul’s way; some difficulty blocked his path. We don’t know if it was a health problem, persecution and imprisonment or something else. Possibly some critics voiced the idea, “If he really cared for us, we would have seen his face by now!” But the author’s heart was to visit them, and so he asks them to pray.

His request shows that God is bigger than any circumstance we face, and that prayer is our means of laying hold of God’s power. Prayer is not just a polite gesture that shows brotherly concern. God has ordained prayer as one of the ways that He pours out His power and blessing on His people. Prayer shows us that we are not competent people who just need a little boost from God now and then. We are totally inadequate, unless He works, and He has chosen to work through our prayers. If more people prayed more regularly for their pastors, maybe there would be fewer church splits and fewer people leaving churches over petty matters, fewer pastors quitting. (adapted from Steve Cole’s sermon Your Duties Toward Church Leaders).

As far as the writer to the Hebrews was concerned their prayers determined if and when he is reunited with them. This shows how seriously he regarded their prayers for him and how important prayer is as a secondary cause of God’s will being enacted. God is sovereign, but prayer makes things possible that otherwise would not be possible. (John MacArthur Jr., The MacArthur NT Commentary: Hebrews, 449)

He knows that if the readers pray for him, the bond of unity between himself and the recipients of his letter is strengthened. And if they pray, they indicate that the message he conveys has been well received. (William Hendriksen & Simon J. Kistemaker, NT Commentary: Hebrews, 428)

His desire to be “restored” to them implies that he had previously ministered among them. This explains his detailed knowledge of their previous experience (Heb. 6:9-10; 10:32-34). Like other NT authors, he prefers ministry offered in person to written correspondence (Gal. 4:18-20; 3 John 1-14). He has urged them to encourage each other daily as they meet together (Heb. 3:14; 10:24-25), and he is eager to join them in that interaction. In the second cycle of closing news he will indicate that Timothy may accompany him “if he comes soon” (13:23), reemphasizing his sense of urgency to return to them “soon.”

A. W. Pink reminds us pastors: “If ministers desire the prayers of their people, then let them see to it that they are not backward in praying for those God has committed to their charge. This is an essential part of the minister’s functions. It is not sufficient that he faithfully preaches the Word: he must also fervently and frequently ask God to bless that Word unto those who have heard him. O that all who are called to the sacred office may feelingly exclaim “God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you” (1 Sam. 12:23). (Arthur W. Pink, An Exposition of Hebrews, 1265-6)

If you want to hear a better sermon Sunday, then pray for your pastor throughout the week. R. Kent Hughes encourages us: “How different the modern church would be if the majority of its people prayed for its pastors and lay leadership. There would be supernatural suspensions of business-as-usual worship. There would be times of inexplicable visitations from the Holy Spirit. More lay people would come to grips with the deeper issues of life. The leadership vacuum would evaporate. There would be more conversions. (R. Kent Hughes, Preaching the Word: Hebrews, vol. 2, 239)

This passage emphasizes the mutual ministry between the pastor/preacher and the congregation. For the pastor to be able to remain faithful in his life and ministry he vitally depends upon the prayers of the people. This is the body image that Paul expounds upon and to which the author of Hebrews frequently alludes. So Philip Ryken says:

The metaphor of the church as a body is employed by the NT to represent both our union with Christ and mutual dependence: “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor 12:21). We need each other: “We, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom 12:5). We need each other’s gifts (Eph 4:11-16; 1 Cor 12-14; Rom 12). We need each other’s graces (as in the many “one anothers” found throughout the NT: love one another, be kind to one another, bear one another’s burdens, etc.). We need each other’s fellowship. So we are warned, “Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together.” The writer to the Hebrews sees the public assembly as the primary place in which the mutual stimulation to “love and good deeds” takes place: “Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (Heb 10:24-25). (Philip Graham Ryken, Give Praise to God A Vision for Reforming Worship, 330-1)

The simple truth is that we need each other. We are not independent titans who can conquer the world on our own, but a band of brothers who together, each fulfilling our God-given roles with the gifts God has graciously given to us, can accomplish great things together.

On one of his visits to the Continent, Charles Spurgeon met an American minister who said, “I have long wished to see you, Mr. Spurgeon, and to put one or two simple questions to you. In our country there are many opinions as to the secret of your great influence. Would you be good enough to give me your own point of view?” After a moment’s pause, Spurgeon replied, “My people pray for me” (in Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon [Banner of Truth], p. 44). Maybe we should listen to him.

Remember: Your pastor, if you won’t pray for him, he will be preyed upon. Satan would love to discourage him, to make him fall, to bring about some moral failure, because Satan knows, the bigger they are, the harder they fall, and more people fall in their wake. In other words, if your pastor falls, many people will be disillusioned. Of course, to be disillusioned, that means that they had to have the illusion to begin with that their pastor was a superman who could never fall. So pray for your pastor, pray diligently, pray earnestly for him.

They Keep Watch Over Your Souls, part 1 (Hebrews 13:17)

We saw earlier in Hebrews 13 where our author encouraged his readers to “imitate the faith” of those who had taught them the Word of God, their “leaders” (Heb. 13:7). These leaders had been there to help them avoid following after “strange teachings” (Heb. 13:9) but now some of them were no longer with them. They still had leaders, however, and now in our passage today our author encourages them to “obey” and “submit” to them.

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

Notice first of all, in both Hebrews 13:7 and verse 17 that this congregation had multiple leaders. A plurality of elders was the biblical norm (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 16:4; 20:17-18; 21:18; 1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1-5).

There are several advantages to having a plurality of leadership.

  1. Biblical accountability. Godly fellow elders are a great means for holding the pastor accountable to live, teach, and lead faithfully. In addition, sharing authority among a number of men can keep one man from wrongly lording it over the congregation
  2. Wisdom. There is more wisdom to be found in a multitude of counselors (Prov. 11:14; 24:6).
  3. Balance. No one man has all the gifts that are necessary to build up the church. Having a plurality of elders serves the church by bringing men with different gifts into the church’s leadership who can complement the pastor’s strengths.
  4. Burden sharing. Caring for the whole church is a burden God does not intend one man to bear alone. Even the most faithful, gifted pastor needs help from other godly men in order to pay careful attention to himself and to all the flock (Acts 20:28).
  5. Sets an example for the church. Having a plurality of elders demonstrates that the work of ministry is not reserved for a select few. Rather, it provides an example of maturity for every man, particularly when some of the elders are men who work ordinary jobs and are not paid by the church.

(Most of this material has been adapted from Benjamin Merkle, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008], pp. 183-186).

Like 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13 and Hebrews 13:7, Hebrews 13:17 directly communicates the responsibility of the congregation to its leaders. By using not one, but two imperative verbs, “obey” (πείθω [peitho]) and “submit” (ὑπείκω [hypeiko]), placed before and after the expression “your leaders,” indicates intensity. “The combination of these two terms,” writes one commentator, “stresses the need for faithful, thorough adherence to the oversight offered by their leaders” (Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 708). Thus, this was an urgent issue for the inspired writer of Hebrews and indeed for every church.

The verb “obey” is not the most normal word for obedience (which is ὑπακοή [hupokoe]). This word, sometimes translated “belief” or “confidence,” emphasizes that we follow a leader because we have confidence in them. This doesn’t exclude the idea of obedience, for obedience is natural when we have confidence in someone. We believe that they have our best at heart and so we are not afraid to entrust ourselves to them and to follow their leadership.

The verb “submit” is the stronger and broader of the two terms and its use here is it only occurrence in the New Testament. Again, it is not the normal word for submission in the New Testament (which is ὑποτάσσω). It means to “yield to someone’s authority” or a “glad disposition to follow the leadership of another person.”

I love how John Piper puts it:

Hebrews 13:17 means that a church should have a bent toward trusting its leaders; you should have a disposition to be supportive in your attitudes and actions toward their goals and directions; you should want to imitate their faith; and you should have a happy inclination to comply with their instructions.

Now you can hear that these are all soft expressions: “a bent toward trusting,” “a disposition to support,” “a wanting to imitate,” “an inclination to comply.” What those phrases are meant to do is capture both sides of the Biblical truth, namely, 1) that elders are fallible and should not lord it over the flock, and 2) the flock should follow good leadership.

We live in an individualistic and anti-authority age which makes it unthinkable for some people to submit to the authority of anyone else. But even more serious, is the fact that some leaders in churches have spiritually abused the people under them. This verse does not justify spiritual abuse.

The authority of elders comes from the Word of God, not from themselves. Also, Jonathan Leeman, in his helpful book Authority: How Godly Rule Protects the Vulnerable, Strengthens Communities, and Promotes Human Flourishing, says that the authority that elders possess is not the authority of command, but the authority of counsel.

“Both authority of command and the authority of counsel should be counted as true authority because God has given its holder the moral right to issue directives that bind the conscience. The difference is, someone with an authority of command also has the right to enforce what’s commanded through the power of discipline. The authority is unilaterally efficacious. It can enforce or make something happen against the will of those being commanded. With an authority of counsel, on the other hand, the power of discipline is dramatically reduced, if not altogether eliminated. It’s not unilaterally efficacious in the same way” (Jonathan Leeman, Authority, p. 153).

Now, why don’t elders have the authority to enforce a command? It is because ultimately church discipline lies in the hands of the congregation, not the elders (Matthw 18:15-18). Elders can guide that discipline process, but the ability to enforce certain standards lies in the hands of the congregation. The authority that elders possess is not “just counsel,” but “the authority of counsel.” As they teach the congregation, they are presenting God’s will for us all, to which we should all submit and for which we all will one day be held accountable.

“The Bible is acutely aware of both good and bad authority, and it intends for us to study both. Consider the Israelite king. The king is over his kingdom. Yet he’s a good king only insofar as he puts himself under God’s law and with his fellow Israelites” (Jonathan Leeman, Authority, p. 10).
This is what Israel’s kings were supposed to do:

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests.
19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees
20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:18-20)

Good human authority is never absolute. Good authority is always accountable. Good authority drives inside the lines that God has painted on the road! In fact, good authority is always submissive. Only God’s authority is absolute and comprehensive, being accountable only to the law of his own nature.

Alexander Strauch notes: “The effectiveness of any body of church leaders is impacted by the response of the people they lead. One angry person or a small hostile group of people can cause untold misery and ugly division within a local church. This was the case in Corinth, and it created painful division between Paul and the church (2 Cor. 2:1-11)” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, Rev. ed., p. 275).

Abuse doesn’t just happen in one direction, from leaders to people. Just as often there is abuse from the congregation towards the pastor or elders. There are many hurting pastors as well. R. Kent Hughes, in his commentary on Hebrews, says “It is an indisputable fact–pastors as a group are one of the most abused and hurting segments of modern society.” Now that abuse could come because of something that pastor does or fails to do: laziness, ineptness, abuse of power to name a few.

Happy is the congregation when both halves of this verse are happily married—a congregation that willingly and joyfully follows and a leadership that leads in love. That loving leadership is expressed in the second half of the verse, “because they keep watch over your souls.” This reflects the shepherding imagery which was used by God to describe rulers in the Old Testament and lies beneath the understanding of the role of elders in the New Testament.

Good leaders have as their highest aspiration not power and authority, but the good of the people, especially the condition of their souls. They want to make sure that these men and women, boys and girls, are saved and sanctified, glorifying and enjoying God. They are working for the joy of their people (2 Cor. 1:24). In 2 Corinthians 1:24 Paul says, “Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, for you stand firm in your faith.”

So we follow the leadership of our elders and pastors because they have a great responsibility to shepherd our souls. They “keep watch” with great vigilance and untiring effort because we have enemies that can attack us. This was the duty of watchmen on city walls (Ezek. 33:6) and shepherds tending flocks in open country (Ezek. 34:8). Watchmen who fail to sound the alarm when enemies approach and shepherds who do not protect the flock from predators will answer to God for their negligence. All will give account to God (Rom. 4:12; Heb. 4:13; 10:21; 12:29; 1 Pet. 4:5).
Church leaders are answerable not only for themselves (1 Tim. 4:16) but also for those they lead (Acts 20:26-31; James 3:1). Spiritual leaders should be obeyed precisely because of what they do sacrificially for their people. Good elders keep themselves alert and awake, sometimes with sleepless nights. Why? Because they are responsible for the souls of the people God has allotted to their care.

“Watchfulness requires tireless effort, self-discipline and selfless concern for the welfare of others. At times all leaders literally do lose sleep over problem issues within the church. As Richard Philipps comments, ‘They lie awake at night…pondering our spiritual well-being, how they might help and support us in the faith. What better reason could there be for us gladly to follow their teaching and rule?’” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, Rev. ed., p. 280).

There will come a day when pastor/elders will have to give an account for how well they looked after…not the finances of the church, nor the reputation of the church, nor the longevity of the church…but after the souls of the people.

When the Scripture tells us that our spiritual leaders are responsible for the welfare of our souls, this does not mean that we do not take personal responsibility for our spiritual welfare. On the contrary, what good spiritual leaders do is to equip and instruct their congregation in how to take care of themselves spiritually.

The Bible tells us that “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Rom. 14:12; 1 Cor. 3:13-15; Heb. 4:13). Although all believers will appear before “the judgment seat of Christ,” James informs us that teachers will be judged more strictly because of their greater influence and God-appointed responsibility (James 3:1). Even if we have responsibility for only one soul, we will be held accountable for taking care of that one soul. This concern should weigh heavily upon the leader and guard and guide the use of both their teaching and their authority.

Strauch mentions, “When God’s people realize that their leaders must give an account to God, they ought to be much more tolerant, understanding, and sensitive toward their leaders’ actions and decisions. All this helps explain why the members of the church owe obedience and submission to their leaders” (Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, Rev. ed., p. 282)

When elders focus on taking care of people and helping them grow to maturity in Christ and the people are following that leadership gladly, then it leads to “joy and not…groaning.” Every leader knows the joy of leading someone to Christ, seeing them grow in their faith, hope and love, watching them serve Christ and seeing them lead others to Christ. John the Apostle expressed this joy to his friend Gaius: “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth” (3 John 4). Paul calls the Philippians his “joy and crown” (Phil. 4:1). This joy, which every leader longs for (2 Cor. 2:3), is possible only when the congregation cooperates by submitting to the Scriptural instruction of God-appointed leaders.

But, when God’s people stubbornly disobey, endless complain and quarrel, or publicly attack their spiritual leaders, the joys of pastoral leadership quickly diminish and may disappear entirely. According to recent surveys, around 42% of pastors have seriously considered quitting ministry within the last year, which translates to a significant number of pastors contemplating leaving their positions, though the exact number of pastors who actually left in 2023 is not readily available due to the lack of comprehensive data on pastor turnover.

Conflict over COVID, over politics, over ethical issues, over interpretations of Scripture, you name it, it is rampant in churches today. Yet those are just the surface issues. Underneath it all are sins like pride, spiritual and emotional immaturity, change and inflexibility, abuses of power and unclear authority (https://www.bmbaonline.org/blog/2020/8/27/seven-causes-of-church-conflict).

When church members refuse to listen to their leader’s warnings of aberrant teaching, unacceptable behaviors, and disrespectful attitudes, the leaders groan in distress. The word groan expresses painful, frustrated emotion, even grief that words are unable to fully articulate (Mark 7:34; Rom. 8:23, 26).

Moses groaned many times because of the folly of the people’s complaints and blatant unbelief. At one point, the people’s complaining became so intolerable that Moses called on God to take his life: “I am not able to carry all this people alone; the burden is too heavy for me. If you will treat me like this, kill me at once, if I find favor in your sight, that I may not see my wretchedness” (Num. 11:14-15).

Paul also groaned and shed many tears because of the disobedience or waywardness of some of the people in his churches. Church work is not easy.

All leaders know this pain. Phillips Brooks, one-time Episcopal Bishop of Boston, said:
To be a true minister to men is always to accept new happiness and new distress. . . . The man who gives himself to other men can never be a wholly sad man; but no more can he be a man of unclouded gladness. To him shall come with every deeper consecration a before untasted joy, but in the same cup shall be mixed a sorrow that it was beyond his power to feel before. (Phillips Brooks, The Influence of Jesus (London: H. R. Allenson, 1895), p. 91)

A heart that can know and accept such pain is a glory to God.

O give us hearts to love like Thee,
Like Thee, O Lord, to grieve
Far more for others’ sins than all
The wrongs that we receive.

When the members refuse to obey and fail to respect their leaders, the work in the church becomes burdensome. The members ought to realize that neither they nor the leaders own the church. The church belongs to Jesus Christ, to whom the readers are responsible. Should they make the work and life of the leaders difficult, they would be the losers. (William Hendriksen & Simon J. Kistemaker, NT Commentary: Hebrews, 426-7)

That is what this last statement is about: “for that would be of no advantage to you.” When church members cause leaders to groan under the burdens of a resistant or rebellious congregation, then everyone loses. In other words, it’s a spiritual disaster. While disobedience distresses the leader, it has an even more serious impact on the resistant believer. This is the final reason why church members should “obey” and “submit to” their leaders.

This is a classic understatement: it would “be of no advantage to you” really means that it would be an extreme disadvantage to you. It is a figure of speech called a litotes, which uses a milder negative statement in place of a stronger, positive one. It is the opposite of a hyperbole. The expression is designed to cause the reader to stop dead in their tracks and think real hard about the negative impact not only to the leaders, but even to themselves and to the whole church. Stated positively, it would read, “that would be disastrous to you.”

An individual who understands submission to spiritual authority is humble, full of love, unselfish, accountable and personally responsible. Conversely, a person who rejects submission to spiritual authority is prideful, full of criticism, selfish, self-ruled, and spiritually irresponsible.

To put oneself outside the teaching and watch care of God’s chosen shepherds is dangerous business. God may severely chastise the disobedient believer (1 Cor. 11:29-34), the devil may delude their minds (2 Cor. 11:3) or a bitter spirit may set in, halting all spiritual growth and Christlike maturity. So the concluding remark is, as William Lane remarks, “a sober reminder that the welfare of the community is tied to the quality of their response to their current leaders” (William Lane, Hebrews, 2:556).

This explains why some churches remain stuck as a small church, because pastors come and go based upon the poor response they receive from the congregation. Matriarchs and patriarchs actually rule the church and oppose anything the new pastor might do to change the church.
Human nature tends to view leaders with suspicion. Don’t fall into that trap. Cultivate a bent to trusting your leaders, because that will not only make their serious job easier, but it will be better for you too. You can be involved in a virtuous cycle or a vicious cycle. The virtuous cycle goes like this: happy sheep make happy shepherds, and happy shepherds make for happy sheep. Everyone wins. The vicious cycle goes like this: unhappy sheep make for unhappy shepherds, and unhappy shepherds make for unhappy sheep. Everyone loses.

As Jared Wilson puts it:

It is my goal now, for as long as God would have me simply as a sheep and not a shepherd, to be as low-maintenance as I can manage for my church. When my pastor sees me coming … I want him not to inwardly sigh or tense up or have to marshal some extra patience or energy but to relax a little, smile, and feel safe…

Good church folks love, respect, and submit to their pastors.

This does not mean idolizing them, treating them like celebrities, or becoming yes-men. It doesn’t mean becoming our pastor’s rubber stamp committee. But it does mean giving grace not just to your fellow sheep but also to your shepherds. In fact, they may need more, as the responsibilities they carry are more burdensome and they will have to give a greater account before God. Submitting to your leaders means repenting of the impulse to “yes, but” everything they say, especially if what they say isn’t sinful. In matters of differences of opinion, it means being circumspect in how we voice our own.

…How can we work toward our leaders’ joy and not their anxiety? It’s no advantage to us to be a nagging pain to our pastors. They will have to give an account for how they pastored us. And we’ll have to give an account for how well we presented ourselves to be pastored.

Stick with Jesus, part 2 (Hebrews 13:11-16)

All throughout the book of Hebrews the author has been warning, encouraging and pleading with these Jewish Christians not to abandon their faith in Jesus and return back to the Jewish religious system with its sacrifices. The passage we have before us today refers back to those sacrifices, particularly the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and the point is made that since that sacrifice happened “outside the camp” (v. 11), then we are to “go to [Jesus] outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured” (v. 13).

11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. 12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. 13 Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. 14 For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come. 15 Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

The imagery shifts from the perennial peace offerings to the annual Day of Atonement sacrifices, when the high priest entered the Most Holy Place, carrying blood to atone first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people (9:7, 25). This annual rite has been contrasted with the self-sacrifice of Christ, who brought his own blood into the heavenly sanctuary, atoning for sins once for all (9:24-28; 10:10-14).

Now our attention is directed to what happened to the carcasses of the animals after their blood was brought into God’s presence. Whereas the meat of peace offerings could be consumed by priests and worshipers after the Lord’s best portions were consumed on the altar, on the Day of Atonement the whole bull and goat from which atoning blood had been taken were carried outside Israel’s camp and completely incinerated. They were destroyed “outside the camp,” the realm of what was unclean, unfit to be seen by the Lord, who “walks in the midst of your camp” (Deut. 23:14; cf. also Lev. 13:45-46; Num. 5:1-4).

The bodies of Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, were taken outside the camp after they were judged and killed for offering up strange fire on the altar. If someone blasphemed God they were stoned outside the camp (Lev. 24:14, 23). When Miriam, the sister of Moses, was stricken with leprosy, she had to spend seven days outside the camp (Num. 12:14ff.). After the sins of the people were symbolically laid on the head of the scapegoat it had to be taken outside the camp (Lev. 16).
Eventually Jerusalem itself was considered holy ground. Everything beyond its borders was considered unholy or profane. Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified, was considered outside the city.

The road to Calvary

Golgotha site photographed in about 1870.

The association of territory “outside the camp” with defilement and banishment from God’s holy presence explains the theological significance of the fact that Jesus was crucified “outside the gate” of Jerusalem (cf. John 19:16-17). He endured God’s wrath as he bore others’ sin in his body on the tree (Matt. 27:46; Rom. 3:24-25; 1 Pet. 2:24). By bearing our guilt and absorbing its penalty, this “holy, innocent, unstained” High Priest (Heb. 7:26) endured sin’s curse (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13) and thereby “sanctified” all believers by his blood. Throughout this sermon, “sanctify” (hagiazō; Heb. 2:11; 10:10, 14), “cleanse” (katharizō; 9:14, 23), and “perfect” (teleioō; 7:19; 9:9; 101, 14) have designated the purging from defilement that now qualifies worshipers to approach God’s holy presence.

Jesus’ sacrifice sanctifies his people so that they may respond to divine grace with thankful and reverent worship (12:28), standing in God’s presence as priests and offering sacrifices pleasing to him (13:15-16).

Our author is communicating two great things: (1) All those who remained committed to the old Jewish system were excluded from the benefit of partaking of Christ’s atoning death. And, (2) Jesus’ death outside the camp means that he is accessible to anyone in the world who will come to him.
Jesus’ crucifixion outside Jerusalem represented not only his forsakenness by God but also his repudiation by the Jewish community, “his own” people (Mark 15:9-15, 29-32; John 1:11; Acts 3:13-15). Jesus bore “our reproach” (v. 13).

When he says that Jesus died “outside the city,” he means He died outside Judaism. The Lord was utterly rejected by Israel. Judaism didn’t want Him. He was taken OUTSIDE and crucified–as if He were refuse. Therefore, His death was totally outside the Jewish system; utterly removed from it. (C. S. Lovett, Lovett’s Lights on Hebrews, 331)

Jesus did faithfully prepare his disciples to endure the same rejection he had endured (Luke 6:22; John 16:2), and indeed they were rejected (John 9:22, 33; 12:42; Acts 18:5-7). To follow after Jesus is to carry one’s cross toward shameful death (Mark 8:23; Heb. 12:2). Now the recipients of this letter must be prepared to share the reproach that Jesus endured, just as Moses did long ago (Heb. 11:24-26). To join Jesus “outside the camp” may demand that one forgo access to the Jerusalem temple, acceptance in local synagogues, and acknowledgment by one’s own family (Matt. 10:35-38).
For the Christian there must be a real identification with Christ and his shame; he must enter into a genuine “fellowship of Christ’s sufferings (Phil 3:10), and be willing even, like the first martyr Stephen, to lay down his life for his Lord and Savior “outside the city” (Acts 7:58). The recipients of this letter had gone forth “outside the camp” to associate themselves with Christ and his cross; but now their resolve is weakening and they are being tempted to turn back in the hope of finding an easier and more respectable existence “inside the camp.” (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 580)

There was and even is today a price to be paid in following Jesus which the Jews of that age did not have to bear. But as Jesus was despised, so would be His disciples. The question is: Are we willing to pay the price?

Spurgeon said: “A sorry life your Master had, you see. All the filth in earth’s kennels was thrown at him by sacrilegious hands. No epithet was thought coarse enough; no terms hard enough; he was the song of the drunkard, and they that sat in the gate spoke against him. This was the reproach of Christ; and we are not to marvel if we bear as much. ‘Well,’ says one, ‘I will not be a Christian if I am to bear that.’ Skulk back, then, you coward, to your own damnation; but oh! Men that love God, and who seek after the eternal reward, I pray you do not shrink from this cross. You must bear it.”
Pursuing Jesus “outside the camp” comes at a price.

Yet one OT passage foreshadows the privilege now enjoyed by those who go “outside the camp” for Jesus’ sake. After Israel’s adultery with the golden calf, the Israelites’ defilement was so pervasive that Moses had to pitch the tent of meeting “outside the camp” (Exod. 33:7-11). That became the place where people went to meet with God. Because of institutional Judaism’s repudiation of the Messiah, the spheres of the holy community and the polluted wasteland have been reversed. Those unwelcome in earthly Jerusalem’s temple and expelled from synagogues have become heirs of God’s unshakable kingdom and citizens of “the city that is to come.” Admittedly, “here we [followers of Jesus] have no lasting city.” But within a few years, in AD 70, Roman troops would destroy Jerusalem and its temple on Mount Zion. That city, which the psalmists had extolled for its security (Psalm 48, 87), would lie in ruins. When compared to the promise of being welcomed into the coming city that abides forever, to be expelled from a community that has turned its back on God’s grace in Christ is no great loss.

There thus remains only one thing to do, and so the writer exhorts us: “Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (vv. 13, 14). Guthrie sees verse 13 as the crux of the conclusion, a final direct appeal to the readers to identify themselves wholly with Christ.” In other words, he says, “Christians, join Jesus in his sufferings!”

The cities of the earth—all earthly institutions—will fall apart. Only the heavenly Zion will remain. We must go, flee to him outside the camp, and willfully embrace his “reproach,” for such an act is worth doing a million times over! Thus Jesus Christ, who is “the same yesterday and today and forever,” becomes our constant meal—our food, our drink, our life—and we will receive from him grace upon grace upon grace. And because he is outside the camp, he will always be accessible. In fact, he is with us, in us, and coming to us! This understanding that he nourishes us and is accessible to us will help us stay on course.

The good news is that for those who bear His reproach, this world is the worst they will ever have it. The best is yet to come! But for cowards who turn their back on Jesus, this life is the absolute best they will ever have it.

May we not say, too, that the Son who invites us to join him “outside the camp” himself first left the “camp” of heaven, which is the true and abiding camp and to which he returned in triumph; and that he came to our unholy ground for the purpose of removing the defilement of his people and for the consecration and renewal of the whole creation, so that in the eternity of his glorious kingdom all will be one “camp,” one “city,” without blemish and without bounds, because there will no longer be any such things as unholy territory, and the harmony of heaven and earth, of God and man, will be established forevermore? (Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 582-3)

Christ went outside the city gate and suffered. We must go after him, and to him. This means we have to relinquish all the privileges of the camp and the city for his sake. We have to leave them behind and go to him. We must cling by faith to his sacrifice and through this sanctification, in place of all the sacrifices of the law. We must own him under all that reproach and contempt that were heaped on him during his suffering outside the gate. We must not be ashamed of the cross of Christ. (John Owen, Crossway Classic Commentaries: Hebrews, 264)

It was time for Jewish Christians to declare their loyalty to Christ above any other loyalty, to choose to follow the Messiah whatever suffering that might entail, to “go out to him outside the camp.” They needed to move outside the safe confinement of their past, their traditions, and their ceremonies to live for Christ. Since Jesus was rejected by Judaism, they should reject Judaism. (Bruce Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: Hebrews, 238)

First, to the Hebrews to whom this letter was addressed, they are being told that as long as they remain within old covenant Judaism they cannot eat at the altar of God’s grace in Jesus Christ. They must leave the old covenant and embrace the new covenant. If they are to share in the salvation that Christ has obtained they must renounce their trust and confidence in the sacrifices and rituals of the old covenant system and put their hope and trust in Jesus Christ who is himself the fulfillment of all that came before. They must sever themselves from the now outmoded Mosaic system and cleave unto Christ in whom that system has been fulfilled. Don’t look to the priesthood of Aaron. Don’t put your hope in the feasts and rituals of the old covenant. Put your trust entirely in him to whom all such religious practices pointed: Jesus!

Second, we are also being called to share in the reproach that Jesus endured (v. 13). Today we don’t have a literal “camp” or “city” outside of which we are to go. So the “camp” must represent or symbolize something else for us. I think it points to everything we regard as safe and secure and respectable. To go “outside the camp” is to move beyond the comfort and acceptance that this world offers us. Inside the camp, inside the city gates, is where we find familiarity and ease and affirmation and respect from this world and its value system. To follow Jesus outside the camp is to embrace and bear the shame and reproach he suffered. To join Jesus outside the camp is to willingly identify with him in his suffering and to move out among the lost and unbelieving people of this world. It’s only outside the camp that we will find the unreached people of the world.

And the only thing that makes this a reasonable thing to do is the simple but glorious truth stated in v. 14. There we read that we do this “because” here “we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (v. 14). We can joyfully embrace the reproach that Jesus himself endured because we are looking for the city to come, the heavenly Jerusalem that God has prepared for his people who trust him and put their hope in him.

Perhaps the Jews were trying to entice the Hebrew Christians back into the Jewish fold by saying, “We have Jerusalem, but you have no such glorious city!” The author says, “Oh, but we do have a city! Ours is the same city that Abraham and the patriarchs were seeking, that heavenly city that God prepared for them and us” (11:13-16). After 70 A.D. these Jews would no longer be able to claim Jerusalem for themselves.

The religious leaders clung to the city of Jerusalem and cast Jesus from it. They surely did not realize that within a short span of some forty years the city of Jerusalem and the temple they trusted in would be totally destroyed. On the Temple Mount platform there would not be one stone left standing upon another exactly according to Jesus’ words in Matthew 24:2.

This concept of a heavenly city and heavenly reward is something we’ve seen repeatedly in Hebrews. Do you recall in Hebrews 10:34 that Christians are described as having “joyfully accepted the plundering” of their property because they knew they “had a better possession and an abiding one”? They were seeking a city that is to come; a city that has foundations; the eternal and heavenly Jerusalem on the new earth. Knowing this was theirs, they gladly suffered for the sake of aiding and supporting other Christians. It was a permanent possession that could never be taken away from them.

We saw it in Hebrews 11:25-26 where Moses “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.” The reward is the heavenly Jerusalem, the place of God’s eternal dwelling with his people on the new earth.

And what is to be our response to this pursuit of Christ into a life with pain and suffering?

15 Through him [Jesus] then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

Verse 15 says it is a life of praise to God — real, heartfelt, verbal praise — the kind that comes out of your mouth as the fruit and overflow of your heart.

In ancient days some Jewish rabbis believed that the time would come when all sacrifices would cease and instead there would be praises. Also, the First Century Jewish writer Philo spoke of a time when the best sacrifice would be the ones glorifying God with hymns. Indeed, in Psalm 50:23 it is written: “The one who offers thanksgiving as his sacrifice glorifies me, to the one who orders his way righty, I will show the salvation of God.”

Scholars feel the “fruit of lips” is taken from Hosea 14:2. In the Hebrew of this verse it reads literally “the young bulls of our lips” (par-im se-fa-te-nu). Praise is indeed like a sacrifice, that costs us something.

When our author refers to this worship as a “sacrifice,” it is an analogy that we’ve seen Paul and Peter use (Romans 12:2; 1 Peter 2:9). Under the New Covenant the sacrifices are no longer physical, but spiritual—the praise of our lips to the God who saved us.

In the words of Warren Wiersbe, “The words of praise from our lips, coming from our heart, are like beautiful frit laid on the altar” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentqry: New Testament, p. 844).
So we are to offer sacrifices…sacrifices of praise. This exhortation can only rightly be exercised “through him,” that is, through Jesus. It is only because of Him and what He has done for us that we have something to praise God for.

It is praise “to God,” certainly not to ourselves. We did absolutely nothing to deserve or gain our salvation. And this praise is to be “continuous,” why? Because of all that God has done for us through Christ. As we noticed in 12:28, worship is always our most natural response to our redemption. Praise, therefore, should be our constant habit. There should hardly be a moment when our lips are not trembling with praise for how kindly and graciously and tenderly and mercifully our God has dealt with us through His Son Jesus Christ.

This praise is further clarified as “the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name,” that is praise that publicly affirms our trust in Jesus Christ, acknowledging Him as our Savior and Lord.
The second response we should have toward our redemption in Christ is to love one another, a theme that began in verse 1, but here it is spelled out in very practical terms.

16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

These works of “doing good” and “sharing what you have” would likely include the hospitality mentioned in Hebrews 13:2, as well as the ministry to prisoners in Hebrews 13:3. “Doing good” today can include a number of ministries: sharing food with the needy, transporting people to and from church or medical appointments, contributing to needy causes; perhaps just being a helpful neighbor.

Our highest aspiration as those being “conformed” to the image of Jesus, is to live a life that is “pleasing to God.” In my mind, pleasing God goes a step beyond obeying God. We obey the explicit commands or prohibitions of God, while we please God by knowing His heart well enough to know not so much what He demands, but what He desires.

When we go with Jesus to the place of his sacrifice outside the camp, we see more clearly than ever that his sacrifice for us — the sacrifice of himself, once for all for sinners (Hebrews 9:26, 28) — brings to an end all sacrifices except for two kinds: the sacrifice of praise to God (verse 15) and the sacrifice of love to people (verse 16).

Jim Elliot, Pete Fleming, Ed McCully, Nate Saint, and Roger Youderian were killed on January, 1956, in Ecuador, moving toward the need of the Auca Indians and not toward comfort.

Shortly before their deaths on Palm Beach they sang this hymn. Elliot writes,
At the close of their prayers the five men sang one of their favorite hymns, “We Rest on Thee,” to the stirring tune of “Finlandia.” Jim and Ed had sung this hymn since college days and knew the verses by heart. On the last verse their voices rang out with deep conviction.

We rest on Thee, our Shield and our Defender,
Thine is the battle, Thine shall be the praise,
When passing through the gates of pearly splendor
Victors, we rest with Thee through endless days.

With that confidence, they went to Jesus outside the camp. They moved toward need, not comfort, and they died. And Jim Elliot’s credo proved true: “He is no fool to give what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” “Here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come” (Hebrews 13:14).