When You’re Facing an Impossible Situation, part 3 (Daniel 2:17-19)

What do you do when you are facing an impossible situation?  If you are a believer in Jesus Christ, you probably know the answer to this question.  It’s easy, right?  You pray.  Unfortunately, that is far too often the last thing we do.  We try everything else we know to do first.

Now, in this passage in Daniel 2, the advisors of the king had struck out, enraging the king by holding their position that they would be unable to interpret the king’s dream if he wouldn’t tell them what the dream was.  He was fed up with their fraud.  But Daniel heard about it.  The first thing he did was to respond to Arioch, the captain of the guard, with “prudence and discretion,” which won him an audience with the king.  From there Daniel, “went in and requested the king to appoint him a time, that he might show the interpretation to the king” (Dan. 3:16).

But then Daniel prays.  Recently we were in a church situation in which we didn’t know what to do.  We had tried talking, writing letters, some people even resigned from their positions.  It did no good.  The other side was unwilling to listen.  So we did what we should have done from the beginning, we prayed about it.  This was Daniel’s first resort; why is it so often our last?

“As Daniel made his way back there, mixed thoughts must have whirled through his head. He had just been in the very presence of Nebuchadnezzar, high and mighty as he was, and he had told him that he, Daniel, young as he was, would reveal to him what mature wise men had not been able to tell.  Furthermore, at that moment, he had no idea what this information was.  He did not know what the king had dreamed.  Would God really honor him so much as to tell him?  He had never experienced this kind of miraculous contact with God before.  Would it really happen now?” (Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel)

17 Then Daniel went to his house and made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, 18 and told them to seek mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that Daniel and his companions might not be destroyed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon. 19 Then the mystery was revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night. Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.

First, it is vitally important that we see that Daniel’s God-given ability to interpret dreams was nothing that he depended upon without spending time in prayer asking for God’s help.  Just because God gave Daniel the gift so that he “could understand visions and dreams of all kinds” (Daniel 1:17) doesn’t afford Daniel the excuse to just rely upon himself and his own understanding.  The possession of giftedness does not alleviate us from consciously and purposefully depending upon the empowering work of God’s Spirit (1 Peter 4:10-11) so that He will receive the glory.

Daniel will do two things that demonstrate his dependence on God’s gracious provision: (1) he urges that God be sought for needed answers (vv. 17–18), and (2) he gives God credit—in private and in public—for the revelation of the king’s dream (vv. 20–23, 27–28).  Because for Daniel the demonstration of God’s glory took precedence over his own safety, Daniel was confident that God would answer his prayer” (Gleason L. Archer Jr., Daniel, vol. 7 in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 43).

Daniel was practicing Proverbs 3:5-6, “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.”

That’s the key!  We ALL tend to lean on our own understanding; we ALL depend on our own strength; we FAIL to acknowledge him, which is why we get so confused and start to question things; and we DON’T trust in the Lord, but we trust in ourselves.  Before doing anything, try this: pray before you do anything.

When Hudson Taylor was sailing to China to begin his missionary work, his ship was in great danger.  The wind had died, and the current was carrying them toward sunken reefs which were close to islands inhabited by cannibals—so close they could see them building fires on the shore.  Everything they tried was to no avail.  In his journal Taylor recorded what happened next: The Captain said to me, “Well, we have done everything that can be done.”  A thought occurred to me, and I replied, “No, there is one thing we have not done yet.”  “What is that?” he queried.

Of course, the answer was, “We need to pray.”  Of course, they all survived this situation.

Daniel was willing to take a stand and risk his life for God’s glory.  But what lay behind all that and what gave power to it, was a life of prayer in which Daniel regularly acknowledged his utter dependence upon God and sought God’s help.  He knew “I can’t” but “God can” because he had experienced it many times.

Notice that what Daniel did first was to go home (“Daniel went to his house…” v. 17).  He didn’t escape into the wilderness.  He didn’t run away.  He went home where he regularly practiced his spiritual life (cf. Dan. 6:10), his spiritual disciplines.  Matthew Henry says, “He went to his house to be alone with his God, for from him alone, the Father of lights, he expected this great gift” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1085)

Daniel made the matter known to “Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions.”  Notice the use of their Hebrew names here.  Not only does it reveal that these were the names they used amongst themselves, apart from their official capacity in the kingdom, but it may also reveal that in these moments they reminded themselves that they definitely needed to focus on the LORD’s grace, uniqueness and willingness to help his people in distress—attributes to which these names allude.  It is good to remind ourselves of the attributes of the true God as we pray.

Amir Tsarfati, in his book on Daniel, says, “These teenagers knew what most Christian adults forget.  When you have a problem, the very first thing you do is get on your knees and pray.  You don’t work out the numbers.  You don’t Google opinions.  You don’t make a list of pros and cons.  These options may all come into play later, but the number one action we must always take when faced with a difficulty of whatever magnitude is to immediately put it in the hands of God who can do all things” (Discovering Daniel, p.43).

Even more significant is the fact that he called his friends together and “made the matter known to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, his companions.”  Well in advance of Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament (Matt. 18:19-20), Daniel was aware of the advantages of corporate prayer.  Once again, he was not a lone ranger.  Daniel was not prideful or over-confident.  He didn’t try to do it all himself.  He wasn’t using this situation to seek after his glory and get all the credit for himself.  Neither did he place confidence in his own powers.  Instead, he surrounded himself with a team, sharing with them the details of the situation.  They, in turn, could help him share the load by praying together.

“The prayer meeting is the pulse of the church… The prayer meeting is the rallying point where the power of faith in the church concentrates, and takes hold on the arm that moves the world… The spirit of prayer, and the love and practice of the prayer meeting, will so give organic strength to the church as to make her terrible as an army with banners” (Edward Hulse, The Prayer Meeting and Its History).

Richard Strauss notes: Praying friends are a blessing, and “In prayer meetings such as this history has been made.”

Edward Dennett notes that this “is the first instance of united prayer recorded in Scripture; and the fact that these children of the captivity resorted to it, discovers to us the secret of their holy and separate walk” (Daniel the Prophet: and the Times of the Gentiles, p. 22).

Throughout this book, Daniel and his friends are presented as men of faith and prayer (Dan. 6, 9).  As Matthew Henry says, “Whatever is the matter of our care must be the matter of our prayer” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1085).

Again, one of the ways that Daniel was able to practice a non-anxious presence is that he had a community of friends with whom he could share his burdens.  He knew he needed their prayer and support (Ecclesiastes 4:9-12).  Also, he had a consciousness of God, God’s presence and power, and his need for God.

These facts are what allowed Daniel to maintain a non-anxious presence in the high-anxiety world of Babylonian politics—regular practice of spiritual disciplines, and some good friends.

And what did they do?  They prayed together.  Daniel “told them to seek mercy from the God of heaven, concerning this mystery.”  Daniel knew that only God, the true God, could provide Daniel with the interpretation of the king’s dream and this is the only way that their lives would be rescued.

They believed what the Psalmist had proclaimed:

“The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.  He fulfills the desire of those who fear him; he also hears their cry and saves them.  The LORD preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy” (Psalm 145:18-20)

Daniel and his companions placed confidence in such a passage because they had demonstrated their faith by avoiding defilement during their training and by refusing to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol.  They had proven themselves to be among those “who fear Him.”

They knew that they needed mercy, to escape the punishment demanded by the enraged king, they needed God to show mercy and deliver them from their miserable plight.  In making this request, they were echoing Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the temple in 1 Kings 8:50, that in the times to come God would cause their captors to show his exiled people “mercy.”  They knew that their hope rested on God alone and they needed Him to come through for them.

Iain Duguid points out: “It is particularly amazing that they echoed Solomon’s prayer at this point, for the temple for which Solomon prayed was then in ruins, abandoned by the Lord and destroyed by the Babylonians.  Yet even in the complete absence of earthly signs of God’s favor, they nonetheless trusted in his bare word of promise to be their God in the midst of their distress, no matter where they might find themselves” (Daniel in Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 23).

I love the way C. S. Lewis puts it in chapter 5 of the Screwtape Letters, speaking of the Law of Undulation, which pictures our normal experience as consisting of both the highs of victories and God’s manifest presence and the lows of defeats and experiences of God’s seeming absence.  Screwtape, warning his Nephew Wormwood, a junior demon, says, “Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy’s will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys.”

This is what Daniel and his friends were doing—taken captive in a foreign land, with their lives in danger, seemingly forsaken, they kept on obeying and kept on depending upon their God for mercy.

Trusting in God is never a comfortable situation to be in, for by definition it means that all human means of support have failed.  But because we have a God who does attend to us and has promised to protect us and provide for us, we can trust Him.

In this case, God answered Daniel’s prayer by revealing to him Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and its interpretation.  This was the way that God showed “mercy” to Daniel and his friends, by revealing the dream and its interpretation to Daniel.

It is not clear whether Daniel was asleep or awake (2:1), as God gives visions during both states (cf. 7:1; 9:20-23); possibly Daniel and his friends remained fervent in prayer until God granted understanding.

Christianity begins with the principle of revelation.  We depend upon things revealed to us.  What we know about God is what He has revealed to us.  We do actively seek Him, but we seek what He has revealed.  Our job isn’t to figure things out about God on our own, but to understand what He has revealed to us.

These men knew that their lives were at stake and so you can imagine the urgency and fervency of their prayers.  Whether the other wise men knew anything about Daniel’s supplications to God and how they were prayed for the purpose of sparing their lives, we don’t know.  Many people benefit from our prayers.

Warren Wiersbe encourages us to see in Daniel and his friends an apt example for us.  He says, “When God’s people today face a crisis, they need to follow the example of Daniel and his friends and take the matter to the Lord in prayer.  Faith is living without scheming, and faith brings glory to God.  Daniel and his friends couldn’t take credit for what happened because it came from the hand of God.  ‘Call upon Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you and you shall glorify Me’ (Psalm 50:15 NKJV)  ‘Whatever God can do faith can do,’ said A. W. Tozer, ‘and whatever faith can do prayer can do when it is offered in faith.  An invitation to prayer is, therefore, an invitation to omnipotence, for prayer engages the Omnipotent God and brings Him into our human affairs’” (Weirsbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1350).

Apparently, after they had prayed and gone to sleep, God “revealed to Daniel in a vision of the night” the mystery of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.  Possibly God gave Daniel the same dream He had given to Nebuchadnezzar.

The only way for us to know the plans, thoughts, and hidden things of God, is if He reveals them to us.  Philosophers can sit around a table and theorize, but they won’t be able to understand the mind of God.  A visionary can lay under a tree and meditate, but he won’t be able to discover God’s plans.  Scientists can identify how the laws of nature work, but they won’t be able to plumb the hidden things of God.

However, God didn’t leave us in the dark. He has revealed Himself to us so that we can fully know and understand Him.  While His primary revelation about Himself is through the Scripture, He also reveals Himself to us through creation and our conscience.  In Daniel’s case, it was through a vision.

I find it amazing that Daniel wasn’t up all night pacing the floor, worried about the king’s edict and what might happen.  He slept in peace, trusting God to answer.  He entrusted himself to the sovereign plan of God.

In Psalm 4:8 David said, “In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.”

This is one of several passages in the book of Daniel highlighting the biblical balance between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.  Who can doubt if Daniel and his companions had not fervently sought the Lord things would not have turned out as well?  God is sovereign, yet allows (even expects) His creatures to move His hand through the power of prayer.

I also find it amazing, to my chagrin, that Daniel immediately started praising God for his answer.  Even with his life in the balance, Daniel took the time to give thanks to God for the answer he had received.  I often wait until I see the answer or I forget to thank Him altogether.   In fact, what I probably would have done is gone immediately to Nebuchadnezzar with God’s answer to prove my importance to the king!

This is where we often fall short, isn’t it?  We pray passionately and diligently for a deliverance from our trials, but when that deliverance comes, we fail to return our thanks to God.  Like the nine out of ten lepers healed by Jesus (Luke 17:12-19), we go on our way rejoicing that our problems are solved.  Eager to get on with life, we forget the one from whom our blessing comes.  But Daniel knew better.  He takes the time to praise God for the awesome deliverance he has received, before he brings the answer to the king.

“Daniel’s first response was to bless the Lord for hearing and answering their petitions.  They asked for wisdom and God gave it (James 1:5) and His mighty hand stopped the execution process and gave the four men time to pray” (Warren Wiersbe, Commentary on the Whole Bible: OT Volume, p. 1350).

In vv. 20-24 we have Daniel’s prayer of praise and thanks to God.  This is the second thing most of us forget to do, to thank God for His answer.

Then Daniel blessed the God of heaven.  Daniel answered and said: “Blessed be the name of God forever and ever, to whom belong wisdom and might.  He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; he reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.  To you, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, for you have given me wisdom and might, and have now made known to me what we asked of you, for you have made known to us the king’s matter.”

And we will dive deeper into this prayer of praise next week.

When You’re Facing an Impossible Situation, part 2 (Daniel 2:13-16)

Last week we noted that king Nebuchadnezzar had been given a dream by the Most High, by the God of the Jews, the only true God.  He was quite troubled by this dream.  He didn’t know what it meant.  So, he called his advisors to him, but was unwilling to tell them his dream as a test to see if they truly could interpret his troubling dream.  They couldn’t tell him what his dream was and demanded more time.  This enraged the king and he intended to have all his advisors (which would have included Daniel and his three friends) mercilessly and cruelly killed.  They were all in a very precious position.  The king wasn’t about to give in to his advisors and recount his dream to them.

But what about Daniel?

The first part of his response is found in vv. 12-15:

12 Because of this the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed. 13 So the decree went out, and the wise men were about to be killed; and they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them. 14 Then Daniel replied with prudence and discretion to Arioch, the captain of the king’s guard, who had gone out to kill the wise men of Babylon. 15 He declared to Arioch, the king’s captain, “Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” Then Arioch made the matter known to Daniel. 

The king’s patience had grown thin.  He was now “angry and very furious.”  The word “furious” coming from a root similar to that from which came the Hebrew word for the wrath of Pharaoh (Gen 40:2; 41:10).  But Nebuchadnezzar had rightly judged that his soothsayers, psychics and astrologers were impotent to help him in his need, so he “commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed” (Daniel 2:12).  He had no use for wise men who had no wisdom.

“As was already evident in the scale of the rewards that he promised and the punishment he threatened, Nebuchadnezzar did nothing by halves.  In line with the king’s normal pattern of overreaction—it is tempting to say “overkill”—the decree of death involved far more people than those who had faced the original demand to interpret the dream.  Perhaps he concluded that if the wisdom of his counselors was insufficient for this crisis, what good was it in any situation.  The failure of his diviners to reveal his dream and its meaning thus resulted in a decree of death for all his wise men, including Daniel and his three friends (v. 13)” (Iain Duguid, Daniel in Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 21).

Warren Wiersbe makes the point that in chapter 1 “Satan had lost one battle, but now he would try to pull victory out of defeat by having Daniel and his friends killed.  The Evil One is willing to sacrifice all his false prophets in the city of Babylon if he can destroy four of God’s faithful servants.  Satan’s servants were expendable, but the Lord cares for His people” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1349).  On a deeper level, the king’s decree was an attempt by Satan to rid the world of Daniel.  But Daniel’s life was in God’s hands.

In the midst of his anxiety the King went for the quick fix: kill them all!  If he had thought it through, he may not have included Daniel and his friends.  But he didn’t think it through.  Fortunately, someone else slowed things down and did think things through (Daniel).

So the death warrant was signed and sent out, so that “they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them” (Daniel 2:13).  Why?  Simply because they were a part of this class of advisors for the king.  It was not that Daniel had become a sorcerer, magician, or enchanter (cf. 2:2); such positions would have compromised his devotion to Yahweh.  Nor had Daniel failed the king as the other advisors had.

It is not entirely clear from verse 13 whether the executioners killed the wise men right where they were when found or whether they were being collected for a public execution.  The latter is more likely the case as subsequent scripture reveals that Daniel has the time to ask questions and pray.

Put yourself in Daniel’s shoes for a moment.  After being preserved out of the holocaust of the destruction of Judah and then miraculously protected in the king’s court even though they had not eaten the king’s food, and now they were condemned simply because the king had had a sleepless night and was upset with his counselors!  It seemed proof of the monumental meaninglessness of life!  Yet, in the face of all this, Daniel did not panic.

Although the wise men previously could hardly be accused of discourtesy, there seems to be an additional dignity and calmness in Daniel’s approach to the problem. As Keil expresses it, “Through Daniel’s judicious interview with Arioch, the further execution of the royal edict was interrupted.”

The arresting officers arrived and Daniel replied “with prudence and discretion” (2:14) to Arioch.  “Prudence and discretion,” how these qualities are needed today, especially in the midst of escalating anxiety and anger.  Here again we see an example of Daniel being a “non-anxious presence.”

Daniel’s calmness and courage in the face of acute anxiety show what kind of man he really was.  Remember, crises do not make the man, they reveal the man.  Daniel illustrates how a great man handles a crisis.  Don’t panic.  De-escalate the situation through a calm demeanor and sound reasoning.

I think, first of all, that this means that Daniel didn’t just blurt out the first thing that came to his mind.  He stopped to think.  He remained calm.

Prudence is the virtue of making wise, God-honoring choices and acting in a way that is consistent with the way God has ordered life to be lived.  As Jerry Bridges points out, “Prudence uses all legitimate, biblical means at our disposal to avoid harm to ourselves and others and to bring about what we believe to be the right course of events.”

Jay Wood says that prudence “is the deeply anchored, acquired habit of thinking well in order to live and act well” (“Prudence” in Virtues and Their Vices, p. 37).  What is amazing is that Daniel had this ability as young as he was.  It often takes years to develop such a skill in life.  This is one of the reasons Solomon wrote the book of Proverbs, to “give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth” (Prov. 1:4).

Joseph Pieper, in Four Cardinal Virtues, says that our knowledge transforms into prudent action through three stages: deliberation, judgment, decision (p. 12).  Our prudent actions and decisions depend upon having done the work of deliberation prior to the moment of action.  In other words, think before you speak or act.

The other virtue is discretion, not discernment, but discretion.

Discretion “is “the ability to avoid words, actions, and attitudes which could result in undesirable consequences.”  A person practices discretion by thoughtfully considering the possible consequences before taking any action.  He values silence, both to allow himself to think before he speaks, and then after he has spoken, to allow the hearer to consider his message.  He is cautious and thoughtful, because he knows careless actions often hurt people and damage relationships.  He wants to help others, and he realizes others may be influenced by his choice of activities, music, and entertainment” (https://iblp.org/character/discretion/).

Discretion is a combination of knowing just what to say, when to say it and how to say it.  Again, it is amazing that Daniel possessed this ability while yet a young man.

Carelessness, recklessness, impulsiveness, Irresponsibility, and a lack of concern are all opposites of discretion.  If we possess these diabolical traits, we will fail to see others as important or worth our effort to respond to them in a tactful and healthy relational way.  We will have the world’s mentality of “let it all hang out” or “I just tell it like it is,” which we believe gives us permission to say a careless word, even unintentionally, that causes hurt or to use words and actions to tear others down.

Perhaps the king’s decision in itself did not surprise Daniel, since he surely realized that many of the wise men were charlatans (deceivers).  However, the harshness of the verdict puzzled him. 

It is quite possible that the purge of these imposters had already begun.  While the ESV says in v. 13 that “the wise men were about to be killed,” that it was imminent, the NKJV says “they began killing the wise men.”  Do Daniel’s words to Arioch resolve this when he says, “Do not destroy the wise men of Babylon…”?  Maybe they were being assembled for execution, but the executions were not yet in progress.  On the other hand, it may be that he is merely asking that it be stopped at this point.  Regardless, it was a very precarious position Daniel was in.

But he didn’t allow this to push him into an impulsive reaction.

Instead, what Daniel did was ask a question of Arioch, “Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” (v. 15)  Notice that Daniel begins not with an accusation or demand, but a question.  He didn’t just hear part of the story and then fly off the handle and react.  He asked and then listened so that he could understand the whole picture.  He determined to hear things from Nebuchadnezzar’s point of view (through Arioch).  He curiously inquired about the situation in order to gain more information.

Kent Hughes, in his book Disciplines of a Godly Man, said, “The true test of a man’s spirituality is not his ability to speak, as we are apt to think, but rather his ability to bridle his tongue.”  We should be “quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger” (James 1:19).

Proverbs 18:13 gives us this wise advice: “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”  In other words, do go off half-cocked, slow down and get the facts before you react.

Too often, we start talking without really knowing what we’re talking about.  “At the most practical level, this describes someone who habitually interrupts.  Interrupters see no real need to let the other person finish.  They aren’t really engaged in a genuine conversation.  They aren’t responding to what you actually said.  Rather, they see the interaction as one more opportunity to air their own opinion” (Tim and Kathy Keller, God’s Wisdom for Navigating Life, p. 188).

Many arguments could be avoided by first asking simple, neutral questions and then listening, really listening to what the other person has to say.

Good listening involves three things, according to Wayne Mack:

1. Letting the other person speak without interruption.

2. Giving the other person your undivided attention.

3. Making sure you really understand what the other person is saying or thinking.

For example, if a husband comes home hours late, his wife might say, “You don’t care about the nice meal I made. You are always late. You always put your work first.” It would be much better first to ask a question, and not a loaded question such as, “Why are you home late again?”

A better question would be, “Is everything OK?” or “were you delayed?”

Neutral, fact-finding questions can help you understand the whole story rather than acting based on assumptions that may turn out to be false.

And Carolyn Mahaney says, “Attentive listening entails an eagerness to hear everything with regard to (another’s) thoughts, feelings, and experiences.  It’s more than just keeping our mouths shut.”  It’s an eagerness to understand the other person.

One thing listening does is that it slows down our response.  We don’t launch into our perspective or our solution right away.  Talking right away really does give us good exercise, for we have a tendency to jump to conclusions, fly off the handle, carry things too far and dodge responsibility for myself.

Daniel and his friends had not been at court when the king asked for the professionals to come and interpret his dream, so he personally applied to the king for a stay of execution, promising something that the court psychics were unable to provide—to tell the king his dream and the interpretation of that dream.

Daniel went in and requested the king to appoint him a time, that he might show the interpretation to the king. (Daniel 2:16)

John Walvoord says, “In verse 16, only the briefest summary is offered of what actually transpired.  Undoubtedly, Daniel expressed to Arioch the possibility that he could interpret the dream and secured Arioch’s co-operation in going before the king.  It would hardly have been suitable, especially with the king in the mood he was in, for Daniel to go in to the king unannounced without proper procedure.  Possibly, the king by this time had cooled down a bit.  In any event, Daniel was given his audience in which he asked for time and promised to show the king the interpretation” (John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation).

In contrast to the other wise men who were so filled with terror that they had no plans and had already been cut off from any additional time, Daniel, who had not been a part of the king’s frustration with his older counselors, was granted his request.  It is possible that his calm demeanor, his courage in speaking forthrightly to the king, and his previous integrity enabled the king to give him favor.

How he gained access is not reported, but the reason for his request is not surprising: “that he might show the interpretation to the king.”  This was an act of faith, for Daniel did not even have knowledge of the dream yet.  Apparently he was very persuasive, because he left the palace alive.  Surely, although Daniel had proven himself “ten times better” (Dan. 1:20) than the other wise men already, it was once again the favor of Yahweh (Dan. 1:9) upon Daniel that made the difference.

So God may have put this thought in the mind of Nebuchadnezzar: “Why kill my four best counselors just because of the incompetence of the others?”

Notice that unlike chapter 1, where Daniel went through the chain of command (being new to Babylon and the king’s court), and he addressed his petition to the chief of the eunuchs, the one directly in command.  Then he didn’t go directly to the king.  But here Daniel goes directly to the king.  He doesn’t back down in fear just because the king’s authority is absolute and his mood is sour.  He approaches the king with God-given courage.  Why?  Because he feared God more than he feared man, even the most powerful, most fearsome man on earth!

Apparently, with the promotion he had received from the king back in chapter 1 had afforded him more opportunities to associate with the king.

Verse 16 says, “Daniel went in and requested the king to appoint him a time, that he might show the interpretation to the king.”

The first thing that Daniel asked for was time.

Isn’t it interesting that Nebuchadnezzar would not give his professional psychics any more time (v. 8, “you are trying to gain time”), but was willing to give Daniel time (v. 16ff)?  Could he discern a difference in motivation between Daniel and his other advisors?

It definitely shows his high respect for Daniel.  This was a highly unusual move for an imperial king who had just condemned his top brain trust for making the same plea.  But Daniel had God’s favor.

Daniel asked the king for time, for a time when he could return and “show the interpretation to the king.”  So this wasn’t just a stalling tactic. Daniel knew that it would take time to listen to the Lord and to wait upon Him for an answer, and Daniel was willing to take the time if the king would grant it.  Even though God had given Daniel an unbelievable power to understand and interpret dreams and visions, that gift didn’t keep him from praying when the crisis came.

Apparently, Daniel’s request had a ring of confidence, something that was missing entirely from the whining of the professional court psychics.

Gleason Archer reveals:  “The stage was now set to show the reality, wisdom, and power of the one true God—Yahweh—as over against the inarticulate and impotent imaginary gods the magicians worshiped.  It is the same general theme that dominates the remainder of the book and serves to remind the Hebrew nation that despite their own failure, collapse, and banishment into exile, the God of Israel remains as omnipotent as he ever was in the days of Moses and that his covenantal love remains as steadfast toward the seed of Abraham as it ever had been” (“Daniel” in Daniel-Minor Prophets, Vol 7 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 42).

But this is not all that Daniel did, as we will see next week.

When You’re Facing an Impossible Situation, part 1 (Daniel 2:4-13)

Several years ago I preached a Labor Day’s message entitled “How to Work for a Jerk.” I imagine many of us have had to work with someone who is difficult and maybe even disgusting. Maybe they are brilliant, but they don’t know how to communicate well or how to get along with people. If there’s a trail of people who feel demeaned, de-energized, and hurt wherever that person goes, that’s usually an indication that you are working for a jerk.

One person online says, “My boss keeps giving me impossible tasks and then gets upset when I don’t manage to complete them. How do I explain that any engineer in my position would have the same difficulties? Ever felt that way? I imagine that Nebuchadnezzar’s chief advisors felt this way when Nebuchadnezzar demanded not only that they interpret his dream (something they could at least fake their way through), but also to repeat his dream back to him (something he could verify).

1 In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him. 2 Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. 3 And the king said to them, “I had a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream.”

So far, so good. This is what they were hired for, what they had trained for. At this point they were expecting that the king would recount his dream to them so that they could interpret it.

Then the Chaldeans said to the king in Aramaic, “O king, live forever! Tell your servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” (Dan. 2:4)

You tell us the dream and we’ll tell you the interpretation. Deal? That’s the way this works, right?

Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t know for certain that the wise men would give a correct interpretation of his dream. But he could test their ability to tell him what he had dreamed. So, he throws them a curveball, one with enough juice on it to make it impossible to hit.

Notice first that from this veres to the end of chapter 7, the language of the text of Daniel changes from Hebrew to Aramaic. Aramaic is a sister Semitic language that the Jews adopted during the intertestamental period and spoke during the days of Jesus’ incarnation.

Why change to Aramaic here? Because Daniel 2-7 focus on the “times of the Gentiles” and the Gentile world powers that would dominate the middle East for the next several hundred years. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the ancient Near East and it was a fitting vehicle for God to use when speaking to and about the Gentile kingdoms. In fact, the very first words in Aramaic are the words “O King.” When Daniel gets back to Hebrew in chapter 8, he is once again dealing with prophecies that pertain primarily to the Jewish nation and its destiny.

Some have taken this reference to Aramaic and the succeeding text to be communicated in Aramaic as proof that Daniel was actually written in the 2nd century B.C. Critics of the Book of Daniel have alleged that Aramaic was not in use when Daniel is supposed to have lived, in the sixth century B.C., but that there is evidence of its use in the second century B.C., when many of them believe the book was written.

However, Aramaic was spoken even as early as the patriarchs. Jacob was referred to as a “wandering Aramean in Deuteronomy 26:5 and Laban actually uses an Aramaic loan word when he calls a pile of stones “Jegar Sahadutha” (יְגַ֖ר שָׂהֲדוּתָ֑א) erected as a memorial of the covenant between him and Jacob, while Jacob called it “Galeed” (Hebrew for the same thing). So the presence of Aramaic here does not demand that these events took place in the second century B.C. but rather in the sixth century B.C.

Now these professionals ask Nebuchadnezzar for the details of the dream so that they can provide an “interpretation” that would satisfy him. It may be mumbo jumbo, but this is what they made their living doing, just like psychics do today.
But Nebuchadnezzar was too clever to fall for their tricks. So he says…

“The word from me is firm: if you do not make known to me the dream and its interpretation, you shall be torn limb from limb, and your houses shall be laid in ruins. But if you show the dream and its interpretation, you shall receive from me gifts and rewards and great honor. Therefore show me the dream and its interpretation” (Daniel 2:5-6).

I don’t think that Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten his dream, but rather that he wanted to test these psychic experts to see if they could really do what they claimed to be able to do! They claimed to be able to do the impossible, so Nebuchadnezzar wants them to PROVE IT!

Such a capricious action on the part of a monarch is in keeping with his character and position. It may have been a snap decision arising from the emotion of the moment, or it may have been the result of frustration with these men over a long period.
The punishment for failure seems very severe (being “torn limb from limb”), but this is consistent with a method of execution used by ancient eastern monarchs. Gleason Archer described one method of dismemberment: four trees were bent inwards and tied together at the top. The victim was tied to these four trees with a rope at each limb. Then the top rope was cut and the body snapped into four pieces.

This punishment for failure was no idol threat, as proven by Nebuchadnezzar’s harsh treatment of King Zedekiah (2 Kings 25:7), two Jewish rebels named Ahab and Zedekiah (not King Zedekiah Jere. 29:22), and Daniel’s three friends in Daniel 3.
Not only would these men suffer physical harm and death, but their homes would “be laid in ruins,” thus affecting their families’ ability to survive.

It is as if Nebuchadnezzar suspected all along the emptiness of the diviner’s ability to foretell the future and was determined to put them to the test.

On the other hand, if they could succeed in interpreting the dream, he would reward them with “gifts and rewards and great honor,” which Nebuchadnezzar eventually does to Daniel.

So he made a further demand in vv. 7-11.

The Babylonian experts were now shaking in their boots. They knew they couldn’t interpret a dream that Nebuchadnezzar was unwilling to report to them. They were diviners, not prophets. They retort, “Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show its interpretation” (Dan. 2:7). Their slim hope was that Nebuchadnezzar would change his mind and now disclose his dream. They felt like they were calling his bluff.

But Nebuchadnezzar seemed to see through their ruse. The truth was surfacing that they were all bogus. Though they were the best the world had to offer, they couldn’t do the job that needed to be done.

It is possible that he had long suspected their fraud and now he saw the opportunity to put them to the test.

The king answered and said, “I know with certainty that you are trying to gain time, because you see that the word from me is firm–if you do not make the dream known to me, there is but one sentence for you. You have agreed to speak lying and corrupt words before me till the times change. Therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that you can show me its interpretation” (Daniel 2:8-9).

We can’t help but notice that Nebuchadnezzar here expresses little faith in his own system. While he may have had suspicions that these men were imposters, it didn’t really both him until it affect his own future and peace of mind.

Nebuchadnezzar seems about to purge his kingdom of the whole lot of these magicians who, in reality, were absolutely useless to him. Talk about high anxiety!
He sees them as trying to buy time (“gain time,” v. 8). He also accused them of agreeing to “speak lying and corrupt words before me till the times change.” In the context of this chapter (cf. 2:21), he seems to be implying, “until the regime changes and I’m no more.” Nebuchadnezzar’s accusation implies that he did remember the main facts of the dream sufficiently to detect any invented interpretation which the wise men might offer.

So he reinforces that he means for them to “tell me the dream” so that he will be assured that they can give a correct interpretation.

They immediately declare the impossibility of Nebuchadnezzar’s demand. In view of Nebuchadnezzar’s troubled spirit (vv. 1, 3), warnings of destruction (v. 5, 9a), and accusations of flattery (v. 9b), the wise men declared the impossibility of what he demanded.

The Chaldeans answered the king and said, “There is not a man on earth who can meet the king’s demand, for no great and powerful king has asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or Chaldean. The thing that the king asks is difficult, and no one can show it to the king except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.” (Daniel 2:10-11).

Note the comprehensive phrases: “There is not a man on earth,” “no great and powerful king has asked such a thing,” of “. . . any magician or enchanter or Chaldean” (v. 10). “C’mon man, you’re expectations are out of this world.”

The Chaldeans proceeded to explain, with abundant flattery, that what the king requested was humanly impossible. No one could tell what the king what he had dreamed. Only a god could do that. Furthermore, no king had ever asked his counselors to do something like this before! The strategy of the wise men was to convince the king that he was being unreasonable, not that they were proven incompetent.

Well, how do you think that went over?

Did Nebuchadnezzar himself think such a request was unreasonable? Perhaps his previous encounter with Daniel, who had “understanding in all visions and dreams” (1:17), and who along with his three friends was “better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all [the] kingdom” (v. 20), had given Nebuchadnezzar unrealistic expectations of his own band of astrologers and magicians.

Only the immortal gods, they say, could provide this information, and the implication was that these men could not get that information from the gods. Yet normally this is precisely what they claimed to be able to provide: supernatural information.

Their confession sets the stage for Daniel’s ability to do precisely what they said no person could do, because only the God of Israel can predict the future (Isaiah 41:21-23). Here is the uniqueness of the God of the Bible, who is both able and willing to reveal His plans and purposes to mankind. And this forms the polemic in the book of Isaiah for why the God of Israel is superior to any idols: they cannot predict the future.

They were partially accurate that “no one on earth” could reveal and interpret the king’s dream; however Daniel, who was on earth, had connections with the real and true God of heaven who could interpret it.

Ironically, the ideas of the gods dwelling with man was not conceivable in Babylonian “theology,” but from the beginning of the Hebrew Scriptures, Yahweh was a God who did dwell with his people. He was in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (Gen. 2:15-25; 3:8), his glory filled the tabernacle the Israelites carried to the Promised Land (Exod. 40:34-38), and he indwelled the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1-11). Israel’s God is not only the high and holy God whose glory fills the heavens, but also the God who dwells with those of a humble and contrite spirit (Isa. 57:15). The story of the world’s true Lord is that of a God who dwells with flesh. And, in the outworking of God’s redemptive plan, one day the Word himself would not only dwell with flesh but become flesh (John 1:14).

“By issuing this impossible challenge, the king was unconsciously following the plan of God and opening the way for Daniel to do what the counselors could not do” (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1349).

Nebuchadnezzar was a smart man, smarter than some of our contemporaries who are fooled by psychics and astrologers, palm readers and tarot cards and seances.
Hitler and Germany were lured by evil spirits into occult practices. Before they were through, they had devasted Europe, destroyed Germany, and left the world prey to the evils that now beset it. Whatever “gods” exist, above, and beyond horoscopes and Ouija boards and incantations of black magic, they are dark, satanic “gods.”

Graham Scroggie writes: “Daniel 2:10 shows in one single sentence that all of the astrology and necromancy and oracles and dreams and mantic revelations of the whole pagan world for six thousand years are nothing but imbecilities and lies, and it proves that all the religions and arts and sciences and philosophies and attainments and powers of men apart from God-inspired prophets and an all-glorious Christ are nothing but emptiness and vanity as regards any true and adequate knowledge of the purpose and will of God” (Daniel: A Detailed Explanation of the Book).

Notice that the Chaldeans acknowledge the existence of such “gods” (v. 11), but here they confess that they were far beyond their beck and call.

Verses 12—16 then gives the king’s decree.

12 Because of this the king was angry and very furious, and commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed. 13 So the decree went out, and the wise men were about to be killed; and they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them. 14 Then Daniel replied with prudence and discretion to Arioch, the captain of the king’s guard, who had gone out to kill the wise men of Babylon. 15 He declared to Arioch, the king’s captain, “Why is the decree of the king so urgent?” Then Arioch made the matter known to Daniel. 16 And Daniel went in and requested the king to appoint him a time, that he might show the interpretation to the king.

The king’s patience had grown thin. He was now “angry and very furious.” He rightly judged that his soothsayers, psychics and astrologers were impotent to help him in his need, so he “commanded that all the wise men of Babylon be destroyed” (Daniel 2:12). He had no use for wise men who had no wisdom.

“As was already evident in the scale of the rewards that he promised and the punishment he threatened, Nebuchadnezzar did nothing by halves. In line with the king’s normal pattern of overreaction—it is tempting to say “overkill”—the decree of death involved far more people than those who had faced the original demand to interpret the dream. Perhaps he concluded that if the wisdom of his counselors was insufficient for this crisis, what good was it in any situation The failure of his diviners to reveal his dream and its meaning thus resulted in a decree of death for all his wise men, including Daniel and his three friends (v. 13)” (Iain Duguid, Daniel in Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 21).

Warren Wiersbe makes the point that in chapter 1 “Satan had lost one battle, but now he would try to pull victory out of defeat by having Daniel and his friends killed. The Evil One is willing to sacrifice all his false prophets in the city of Babylon if he can destroy four of God’s faithful servants. Satan’s servants were expendable, but the Lord cares for His people” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1349). On a deeper level, the king’s decree was an attempt by Satan to rid the world of Daniel. But Daniel’s life was in God’s hands.

In the midst of his anxiety the King went for the quick fix: kill them all! If he had thought it through, he may not have included Daniel and his friends. But he didn’t think it through. Fortunately, someone else slowed things down and did think things through (Daniel).

So the death warrant was signed and sent out, so that “they sought Daniel and his companions, to kill them” (Daniel 2:13). Why? Simply because they were a part of this class of advisors for the king. This was a reverse “class action lawsuit” where one person was bringng charges against a group for failure to provide services expected. Realize that it was not that Daniel had become a sorcerer, magician, or enchanter (cf. 2:2); such positions would have compromised his devotion to Yahweh. Nor had Daniel failed the king as the other advisors had. But he was simply automatically grouped in which all the others. The king was upset with all of his advisors.

What would Daniel be able to do in such a circumstance?

The King’s Disturbing Dreams (Daniel 2:1-3)

Have you ever had a nightmare?

I have. One night I dreamt that Becky and I were over at Mom and Dad’s. This was years ago when they were still alive. Becky was sitting at a table to the right of the TV doing something with a big needle on a rug.

While watching TV, all of a sudden an image appeared of a woman who was not fully clothed, or maybe with no clothes on at all. Remember, this is a dream.

I immediately turned towards Becky to see if she noticed and she picked up that needle and aimed it straight at my eye. I woke up panting, sweating…and I was glad that it was just a dream.

Sometimes we have dreams like that, dreams that disturb us, dreams that can stay with us for years. I’m sure that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 was a dream similar to that. Our text says that Nebuchadnezzar “dreamed dreams” and “his mind was troubled and he could not sleep.” So, his dreams kept him awake for the remainder of the night.

His dreams seem to be a portent of the future and he couldn’t escape the feeling that it was his future that was at stake. In the ancient world, such dreams were thought to be shadows that the future cast in front of itself, tipping its hand to show what lay ahead. Indeed, this dream is about the future and the rise and fall of several ancient (and future) kingdoms around the Mediterranean.

That is why Nebuchadnezzar was in such a tizzy to have this dream interpreted. Like most kings of that day, Nebuchadnezzar had a staff of diviners, on hand to interpret the significance of such dreams, and whatever omens might occur.

Matthew Henry notes that “while the sleep of the labouring man is sweet and sound, and the sleep of the sober temperate man free from confused dreams” but we see here that Nebuchadnezzar was a “troubler of God’s Israel” and thus God used these dreams to chasten and humble him.

As chapter 2 begins, we see that it had been a bad night for the king, for his dreams disturbed him. I’m sure he spent the rest of his night in sleepless anxiety, determined to find out what it meant the next morning. And when the king ain’t happy, everybody is in danger. Warren Wiersbe reminds us that “Oriental despots were notoriously temperamental and unpredictable, and here Nebuchadnezzar reveals this side of his character” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: Old Testament, p. 1438).

Charles Feinberg tells us, “Whoever wishes to understand the prophetic Scriptures must come to this chapter for the broad outline of God’s future program for the nations, for Israel, and for the glorious kingdom of Messiah. This outline is the simple but comprehensive framework of a multitude of future events. No political document can compare with it, and its importance cannot be overstated” (Charles Lee Feinberg, Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord, p. 29).

Beginning with the second chapter of Daniel, the grand outline of the program of God for the period of Gentile supremacy and chastisement of Israel is now presented. Nowhere else in Scripture, except in Daniel 7, is a more comprehensive picture given of world history as it stretched from the time of Daniel, 600 years before Christ, to the consummation at the second advent of Christ. It is most remarkable that Daniel was not only given this broad revelation of the course of what Christ called “the times of the Gentiles” (Lk 21:24), but also the chronological prophecy of Israel’s history stretching from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the second advent of Christ.
Daniel 2 is part of a greater design extending through chapter 7. This section of six chapters is in Aramaic rather than Hebrew and is arranged chiastically:

A. Vision of Four Kingdoms Preceding an Eternal Kingdom (2:1-49)

  1. Nebuchadnezzar Responds to His Dream (2:1-2)
  2. Babylonian Wise Men Fail to Convey the Dream and Interpretation (2:3-13)
  3. Daniel Speaks with the Captain of the Guard (2:14-16)
  4. Daniel Praises God for Answering His Prayer (2:17-23)
    3′. Daniel Speaks with the Captain of the Guard (2:24-25)
    2′. Daniel Succeeds in Conveying the Dream and Interpretation (2:26-45)
    1′. Nebuchadnezzar Responds to Daniel’s Interpretation (2:46-49)

The chapter begins and ends with the king’s responses. Nebuchadnezzar is troubled by his dream and summons Babylonian wise men (1), and later he honors and promotes Daniel for his ability to meet the royal request (1′). Sections 2 and 2′ contrast the Babylonian wise men with Daniel: court magicians and enchanters cannot relay the king’s dream, but Daniel does. On two occasions Daniel speaks with Arioch, the captain of the king’s guard (3 and 3′), while the center of the chiasm (4) recounts Daniel’s praise to God for answering his prayer.

The structure of the chapter showcases Daniel’s praise, as his themes are integral to the rest of the book. Wisdom and might belong to God (v. 20); he is sovereign over kings and kingdoms (v. 21); he reveals mysteries (v. 22); and he is worthy of thanks and praise (v. 23). This exaltation of God’s sovereignty and power is important for the interpretation Daniel will relay to Nebuchadnezzar, as the succession of kingdoms will occur according to a divine timetable and toward a consummation exalting God’s kingdom over all.

Daniel 2 showcases also the difference between Daniel and the other court enchanters and magicians, but more fundamentally, the vast difference between the true God and the god that Nebuchadnezzar worshipped. Ian Duguid comments that “This is evident from the fact that the story conforms closely to the genre of a “court tale of contest,” much like that of Joseph’s interpretation of Pharoah’s dream in Genesis 41 and similar stories from the Ancient Near East” (Daniel in the Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 19).

In verses 1-3 we see the king’s dilemma.

First, there is the dream that disturbed King Nebuchadnezzar. Verse 1 says…

In the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar had dreams; his spirit was troubled, and his sleep left him.

The events related in this chapter happened in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. According to several reliable scholars, Nebuchadnezzar officially became king on September 7, 605 B.C. On the first of Nisan, 604 B.C., during the following spring, the first official year of his reign began. The intervening months constituted his accession year and were credited to his father’s reign. The first year of his reign then ended on the first of Nisan the following year: 603 B.C. The second year of his reign (v. 1) began in 603 and ended in 602 B.C.

Daniel probably arrived in Babylon during the summer of 605 B.C., soon have Nebuchadnezzar’s victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish and began his three-year education (1:4-5) shortly after that, perhaps in the fall. His curriculum may not have taken three full years; it could have ended in the spring of 602 B.C. Thus, Daniel had probably just finished his education and entered into government service when the events of chapter 2 unfolded, as the text implies.

John Walvoord includes this timeline. The chronology of the period, following Wiseman, Thiele, and Finegan, seems to require the following order of events.

May-June, 605 B. C.: Babylonian victory over the Egyptians at Carchemish

June-August, 605 B. C.: Fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar, and Daniel and companions taken captive

September 7, 605 B. C.: Nebuchadnezzar, the general of the army, made king over Babylon after the death of his father, Nabopolassar

September 7, 605 B. C. to Nisan (March-April) 604 B.C.: Year of accession of Nebuchadnezzar as king, and first year of Daniel’s training

Nisan (March-April) 604 B. C. to Nisan (March-April) 603 B. C.: First year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, second year of training of Daniel
Nisan (March-April) 603 B. C. to Nisan (March-April) 602 B. C.: Second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, third year of training of Daniel, also the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream

This dream came to Nebuchadnezzar in the second year as sole monarch. “It was not something that the king was likely to forget, but the Holy Spirit ensured his memory by dating it” (John Philllips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 44).

David Jeremiah points out how strange this was, that God would communicate His future plans through a pagan, “the vilest world ruler at that time. It was like God revealing to Hitler what was going to happen with the Berlin Wall, the demise of the USSR, and the Second Coming” (The Handwriting on the Wall, p. 47).

Thomas Constable notes: “Daniel opened this new section of his book with another chronological reference (cf. 1:1, 21). This indicates that his interest in this book was in the progress of events and their relationship to one another. As the book unfolds, chronology plays an important part in what God revealed, though the chronology is not always without interruption” (https://soniclight.com/tcon/notes/html/daniel/daniel.htm#_ftnref85).

The Hebrew text of verse 1 says that Nebuchadnezzar had “dreamed dreams” that disturbed him. Evidently he had a recurring dream or similar dreams that he later described as one dream (v. 3). These dreams robbed him of rest, as Pharaoh’s dreams did him (Gen. 41), and Ahasuerus’ dream did him (Esth. 6). He couldn’t go back to sleep for the rest of the night.

He was unsettled, deeply disturbed, by what he saw and because he did not understand its meaning. This would be especially frustrating for a king who thought that perhaps the gods were revealing something to him about the future of his kingdom. What was it?

Maybe Nebuchadnezzar was worried about how long Babylon would be great. Shakespeare was right, “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Or as British teacher Geoffrey R. King writes, “As is so often the case, the cares of the day become also the cares of the night….Nebuchadnezzar did a thing which no believer in God should ever dream of doing: Nebuchadnezzar took his problems to bed with him” (Daniel: A Detailed Explanation of the Book, p. 49).

All of these Gentile rulers suffered insomnia as part of God’s dealings with them and the people who lived under their authority. Earlier Gentile rulers who received revelations from God were Abimelech (Gen. 20:3) and Pharoah (Gen. 41:1-8). The ancients regarded dreams as having significance and as foreshadowings of events to come.

God gave this dream to Nebuchadnezzar because through him “the times of the Gentiles” had begun. Nebuchadnezzar was the first Gentile king to be ruler of the world, but more particularly, he was the Gentile king who, in conquering Judah, started the era known as “the times of the Gentiles,” which stretches from 605 B.C. to the second coming of Jesus Christ.

By the way, when God gave His revelation to Nebuchadnezzar, He communicated by dreams. He never used visions, as He did in His revelations to Daniel. “In fact,” writes commentator Leon Wood, “the Scripture shows God regularly employing a dream when giving a revelation to pagans. The reasons seems to be that, with the dream, the human personality is neutralized and made a passive instrument for the occasion. With the vision, however, the person himself is often a participant and must be constituted to respond and react in a proper manner, something true only of a child of God” (A Commentary on Daniel, p. 44). In visions, there can be back and forth conversation.

Then there is Nebuchadnezzar’s decision to call his wise men to help him determine the meaning of this dream. Daniel and his friends were not included for some reason. This may well have happened the very same night of his dream, early in the morning.

Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king.

Notice that he had a whole cadre of counselors to help him not only interpret troubling dreams, but to give him guidance for ruling his kingdom. In modern American terms, this was his “cabinet” of advisors and Nebuchadnezzar called for all of them. So greatly in need of the help of his expects in oneiromancy (a form of divination based upon dreams, and the use of those dreams to predict the future), Nebuchadnezzar turned in vain to them to reconstruct the dream itself (v. s) and then to tell him its significance (v. 3).

“Magicians” functioned to “repel demons and evil spirits by means of special spells and incantations. In other words, they dealt in magic, an art of reaching back into the mists of antiquity” (John Philllips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, pp. 44-45).

“Enchanters” were prophets “who cast horoscopes and studied the stars, announced the will of heaven, and predicted the future” (John Philllips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 45). These could communicate with the spirit world.

The “sorcerers” were the wizards who practiced black magic and communicated with the dead.

Now, in the law, God had warned the Hebrews not to have any dealings with such people. In fact, they were to exercise strict and swift judgment against them. Exodus 22:18 says, “Do not allow a sorceress to live.”

The “Chaldeans” were a special class, distinct from ordinary Babylonians (Jere. 22:25; Ezek. 23:23) and belonged to southern Babylonia. “They seem also to have comprised a special class within the priesthood. They were the elite, a group made up of those people of exclusively Chadean linage, and they seem to have had a special relation to the temple of Bel-Merodach, in which Nebuchadnezzar had put the temple vessels that he had plundered from the temple of Jerusalem” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 45).

These were the professional counselors to the king. Their specialty was the world of the unknown, discerning the “signs.” Today we call them “psychics.”

All of this dependence upon signs and the stars is still around today. According to a Gallup survey more than 32 million Americans believe in astrology.

It is likely that the king already had his doubts about this group. He said to them “I had a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream” (Daniel 2:3). As we will see, Nebuchadnezzar refuses to tell them what the dream itself was. This would make it impossible for them to give a correct interpretation of the dream unless truly inspired by the gods. As we will see, their inability to do so put them all in real danger and provides the opportunity for Daniel to come forth as a genuine interpreter of dreams because he served the true God.

Thus, this was like the showdown at O.K. Corral. Death was certainly a possibility in this story. It was Daniel and his three friends vs. Nebuchadnezzar’s cabinet of advisors; but even more, it was between Judah’s God and the idols and false gods of the Babylonian empire. Through all this God was trying to humble Nebuchadnezzar so that he would seek the true God and He was seeking to assure His people that He was still in control and still watching out for them.

Resisting Indoctrination, part 5 (Daniel 1:11-21)

Daniel had resolved not to defile himself with the king’s food and wine. But taking a stand is just one part of dealing with difficult temptations that involve others and their expectations. One must not only take a stand, but do so in a calm and courteous way. God is concerned not only that we do what is right, but that we do it the right way.

As we noticed last time, Daniel “asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself” (Dan. 1:8) and while the chief of the eunuchs was favorably disposed towards Daniel, he feared that this would show badly on him if these young men failed the test, in this case a physical health test based on their menu.

So what Daniel does is to offer an alternative, a test, another way, but a different way, to accomplish the same desired results.

11 Then Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12 “Test your servants for ten days; let us be given vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13 Then let our appearance and the appearance of the youths who eat the king’s food be observed by you, and deal with your servants according to what you see.”

Notice that in this case Daniel goes down the chain of command. He isn’t speaking to King Nebuchadnezzar, nor Ashpenaz, the chief of the eunuchs, but to the steward “whom the chief of the eunuchs had assigned over” them.

“Let us try another diet and see if we do not look as healthy (or even healthier) than the others,” says Daniel. Daniel didn’t go along with the crowd. He didn’t bow to the pressure of the herd. Instead, he boldly suggested another way to accomplish the very same purpose, a way that would allow him to remain ritually pure.
He saw another way (another alternative option) that would not only fulfill God’s will but it would also prove that the God of the Jews was better. Daniel put his own life on the line believing that God would protect him for doing what was right.

It is clear from v. 12 and following that all four of the young men were in this together (“Test your servants”). Daniel, however, appears to have been the leader among them as well as the spokesman to the authorities. Yet the decision was a mutual one made by all four young men

It is likely that Daniel did not want the credit for their appearance to go to this pagan king and his training process. He wanted God to receive the glory. So he proposed a way that would both please the Lord through his obedience and also glorify God by showing what God could do.

Why do I say that?

Believe me, this decision to stand against what the king was suggesting was an act of defiance against the god Marduk. Marduk was suddenly being challenged by Yahweh (through his representatives) right there in his very own city. By narrating the fact that Daniel and his friends prefer a different diet, the author establishes a base of operation for Yahweh within Marduk’s god-space.

The battle will culminate, in vv. 17-20, with Nebuchadnezzar’s examination and affirmation of the superiority of Yahweh’s representatives. Not only are these three representatives of Yahweh wiser and superior to all the other young men, but also to Nebuchadnezzar’s own counselors! The lesson is that if Yahweh can invade Marduk’s own “god space” and show himself superior there, he can certainly protect his people who have to live out the days of their exile in the land of Marduk or wherever they are.

Their decision to be obedient to God paves the way for a long life of faithful service to God even in enemy territory. All of that could have been far too easily sabotaged by giving in at this one “small” compromise. But they stood their ground in a seemingly insignificant situation, which I believe enabled them to stand their ground in much larger issues in their lives later on. We all have temptations to compromise. That’s why, like Daniel, we need purpose and resolution because if we compromise now, we’ll regret it later.

Now, the word translated “vegetables” is from the Hebrew word zērōaʿ, which has the basic idea of that which grows from “seed” (zeraʿ). This would include not only vegetables but fruits, grains, and bread made from grains (so Goldingay, 6). This would have been quite a healthy diet. The test, then, was simple: if after ten days the Hebrew youths looked fine, they could be allowed to continue the alternative diet.

Verse 14 says, “So he listened to them in this matter, and tested them for ten days.”

Again, that this steward “listened to them” and didn’t just dismiss them out-of-hand shows that God was working on their hearts to give Daniel favor.

“The vegetarian diet that Daniel proposed was probably not confined to one single item but included a variety of lentils, beans, seeds, and other similar food—spartan fare, indeed, but probably much more healthful than the rich, spiced concoctions, saturated with fats and spices, that the others were offered” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 40).

Daniel’s personal choice of holiness had a powerful influence on three areas of his person (1:15-17, 20). First, Daniel’s body “looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food” (v. 15).

15 At the end of ten days it was seen that they were better in appearance and fatter in flesh than all the youths who ate the king’s food. 16 So the steward took away their food and the wine they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.

Okay, you do realize. don’t you, that people normally go on salad and vegetable diets to lose weight, not gain it. Right? These were the guys who skipped the meat and deserts…and they gain weight. Obviously God was in this! Also, for this to happen in the space of just ten days is quite amazing. I mean, who has seen such drastic results from any diet in ten days? Anyone?

As Amir Tsarfati says, “When we determine to do what is right, the Lord will be there with us 100 percent of the time. He won’t just be watching us from a distance, rooting for us and hoping it all turns out okay. He will be intimately and intricately involved” (Discovering Daniel, p. 34).

This was a spiritual contest. Daniel had invited this comparison and God made sure that whether the comparison was done qualitatively or quantitatively then the Children of God still came out shining. And look at the use of the word all. Daniel and his friends were not ‘on average’ better than the others. Every one of Daniel and his friends were better than every one of the others.

Second, his spirit was in tune with God, who gave him a special ability to understand visions and interpret dreams of all kinds (v. 17).

17 As for these four youths, God gave them learning and skill in all literature and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams

Between verses 16 and 17 three years have now passed. The Lord had given all four Hebrew youths knowledge and skill in learning and wisdom. To Daniel alone, the Lord also gave the gift of understanding in all visions and dreams.

Here were men whom God could trust with learning. They soaked up knowledge with ease and used it for good purposes, for God’s glory, rather than their own.

When Daniel protested, he protested as a participant within the system, rather than an outside observer. This allowed him to be more sympathetic with those he served. We will see that in his relationship with Nebuchadnezzar and Darius in the following chapters.

Notice that these gifts came from God: “God gave them learning and skill…” Of course, this doesn’t mean that the young men didn’t study and apply themselves to learning, but behind and above it all, it was a gift of God to them.

God enjoys rewarding his children for their obedience. In 1 Sam. 2:30 we are told, “those who honor Me, I will honor” (NASB). How and when God chooses to honor his children, however, is his prerogative. Sometimes it may not be until glory.

Paul Tanner notes that these steps all contributed to the good results that we now see in their lives. First, they, likely from their upbringing back home in Jerusalem, knew what God desired of them. They had memorized the Torah. Second, that process of meditation helped them develop an inner conviction to obey. Third, whether planned ahead of time or given in the moment by the Holy Spirit, they had a wise implementation, wise in the way that they communicated. Fourth, they endured in their obedience and submission. The outcome: God blessed them and distinguished them.

The Babylonians could change everything—his diet, his location, his education, his language, even his name—but they couldn’t change his heart. Why? Because his heart was engaged with God’s Word.

Also, realize that visions and dreams were one of the ways that God communicated back then. Today we have the finished canon of Scripture from which to determine God’s will (Heb. 1:1-2).

We also see the academic abilities in verse 20.

“In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom” (v. 20).

Third, their political position was elevated. It soon became evident that these four young men outranked all of the others and, of those four, one was without peer. The king asked this one, young Belteshazzar, questions that stumped even the members of his own court who were themselves famous in both the colleges and the court. Daniel outshone them all. He was “ten times better” than they. “None was found like Daniel…”

Fourth, we see the personal continuation of Daniel’s ministry. Others came and went, whether wise men or kings, but Daniel continued “until the first year of king Cyrus” (v. 21). He was there at the beginning and the end of the seventy-year captivity. “We see him [then] standing in the shadows as that small band of pioneers set out for the Promised Land, an old man, his finger pointing to Jeremiah’s scroll and his hand raised in thanksgiving and prayer” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 41).

Note: This verse does not say that Daniel died in the first year of king Cyrus. Daniel 10:1 records a vision given to him in the 3rd year of king Cyrus. The purpose of Daniel’s statement about King Cyrus is to show that Daniel’s career spanned into the period of the Persian domination of Babylon.

Daniel does not reveal much about his relationship with Cyrus; however, Cyrus proclaimed the emancipation of the Jews recorded in Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:22-23. Daniel may have given Cyrus the prophecy of Jeremiah that was fulfilled in 536 B.C., the first year of Cyrus, for him to read for himself.

Application

It is unlikely any of us with face a life-and-death decision over an issue of obedience. But we do face situations every day when we have a choice to say yes to God or yes to ourselves. Some of these may be big decisions, but most will be small. In those lesser times, the enemy may whisper in our ear as he did to Eve, “It’s really no big deal. Just this one time.”

Every decision as to whether we sin or not is a big one, because every sin is big. Not only does it separate us from our closeness with God, but it has a cumulative effect. Jesus told His disciples, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Luke 16:10). I have seen far too many Christians shipwreck their faith after giving in to little sinful compromises.

Peace comes from knowing you are right with God. Hope comes from holding on to the promises the Lord gives to us when we are right with Him. Daniel experienced a bounty of spiritual blessings because of his faithfulness.

I read about a 400-year-old redwood that suddenly and without warning toppled to the forest floor. What caused the death of such a majestic giant? Was it fire? Lightning? A strong wind? A post-mortem examination revealed a startling cause. Tiny beetles had crawled under the bark and literally eaten the fibers away from the inside. Although it looked healthy on the outside, on the inside it was virtually hollow and one day finally collapsed.

The same thing happens when we refuse to stand our ground for Christ. Every time we compromise something bad happens in our soul. Eventually all those little decisions add up and we become hollow on the inside even though we may look great on the outside.

Devotion to God is something that even a teenager can experience, yet it is something that all of us have to maintain and nourish (regardless of our age or maturity). Devotion to God develops in proportion to the degree that we are “God-centered” in our lives. It is futile for us to expect that devotion and obedience will take place in our lives apart from being “God-centered.” Listen to the advice of Jerry Bridges:

The practice of godliness is an exercise or discipline that focuses upon God. From this Godward attitude arises the character and conduct that we usually think of as godliness. So often we try to develop Christian character and conduct without taking the time to develop God-centered devotion. We try to please God without taking the time to walk with him and develop a relationship with him. This is impossible to do.

As Bridges wisely advises, we must take the time to develop a relationship with the living God. Otherwise, devotion and obedience will never really develop in our lives. What are you doing to develop a God-centered devotion? Are you taking regular time to be alone with God? Are you communing with him in prayer and actively studying his Word?

It is sometimes easy to excuse ourselves in our thought life and actions because of the world we live in. If we are not careful, we begin to define our standards in relation to the world rather than in relation to God himself. We can be lulled into thinking that as long as our standard is just a little bit better than the world’s, we may think we are pleasing God (cf. Titus 2:11–13).

Look what God did for this courageous teenager:
• God protected Daniel (when he proposed the test)
• God prospered Daniel (during the test and afterward)
• God promoted Daniel (in the eyes of the King)

I cannot read this story without thinking of the words of God to Eli in 1 Samuel 2:30b, “Those who honor me I will honor.”

In 1873, P.P. Bliss wrote a gospel song about this story that became very popular but has in our day become virtually unknown. It is called “Dare to be a Daniel.” Likely you sang part of it in Sunday School or Vacation Bible School.

Standing by a purpose true,
Heeding God’s command,
Honor them, the faithful few!
All hail to Daniel’s band!
Many mighty men are lost
Daring not to stand,
Who for God had been a host
By joining Daniel’s band.
Many giants, great and tall
Stalking through the land,
Headlong to the earth would fall,
If met by Daniel’s band.
Hold the gospel banner high!
On to victory grand!
Satan and his hosts defy,
And shout for Daniel’s band.
Refrain:
Dare to be a Daniel,
Dare to stand alone!
Dare to have a purpose firm!
Dare to make it known.

Resisting Indoctrination, part 4 (Daniel 1:8-10)

Daniel and his friends–all sixty or so of them–were here being offered the chance of a lifetime—to be employed in the greatest empire on earth at the time, one with untold wealth and opportunities. All they had to do was go along with their education and the perks that went with it. One of them, a key one as we see from our text, was being offered the “daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank” (Dan. 1:5).

However, as we saw last week, “Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.” He had made a firm resolution that this was something he could not do. Whatever the reason might have been, Daniel knew he had to say “no.”

But notice that Daniel said, “no thanks.” Although he was taking a stand, he was not offensive in the way that he did it. Again, Daniel and his friends sought to maintain their faithfulness to God largely by working within the Babylonian system rather than against it. So we read the rest of verse 8, “Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.”

9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.”

Isn’t it interesting that the very first temptation in history also had to do with food? And the first temptation Jesus faced publicly had to do with food. Now Daniel is facing a temptation regarding food.

To eat or not to eat, that is the question. And, as the balance came down, “two worlds were at stake—this one or the world to come” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 36).

Servers appeared with great trays of exotic food: pork products, shellfish, beef fragrant and tender—meat offered to idols. Others were digging in, marveling over the taste. Consider the fact that these are teenage guys . . . they’re always hungry . . . they don’t eat, they graze.

You can imagine some of the comments: “Hey Daniel – you got to taste some of this honey baked ham . . . you got to try some of that shrimp salad over there – is God good or what?” (adapted from Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 37). But Daniel and his friends stood their ground.

Then the prince of the eunuchs arrived. Behind him was the shadow of a king of uncertain temper, one likely to be personally offended by the prisoners’ refusal to accept joyfully the king’s bounty and goodwill. What was good for him to eat was certainly good enough for them.

But Daniel and his friends weren’t eating. And Daniel “asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.” Other versions say he “sought permission … that he might not defile himself.”

Daniel’s request of the chief of the eunuchs was calm, courageous and courteous. He didn’t demand a different diet. He didn’t stage a “sit in” in opposition to the king’s menu. He didn’t express a “holier than thou” attitude, like “I’m right and you’re all wrong.”

We learn from this that obeying God is only one side of the coin, for we are also responsible as to how we obey God before others. Daniel’s obedience toward God was balanced by a respect for authority. While we live in this world, we will often be in situations where we are placed under the authority of non-believers. God still expects us to honor them; and we honor God by honoring the lines of authority that he has permitted to exist (cf. Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:1–2; 1 Pet 2:13–15).

This unexpected request must have filled the chief eunuch with surprise and dread—even for his own safety.

Now, notice that Daniel was not offensive in his demeanor or his actions. He was able to take a moral stand without being rude, without attacking the Babylonian religious system. He remained, however, steadfast in his belief, defining himself without getting anxious or angry.

This is what is called being a “non-anxious presence.” In his article, “How to Be a Non-Anxious Presence in a Politically Anxious World” (and who doesn’t think we need that?), Keith Simon remarks on how Daniel and his friends all throughout the book of Danel demonstrate a “calm, cool, and courageous demeanor” and “the more things spun out of control, the more he was at peace.”

He identifies four ways in which Daniel and his friends maintained a “non-anxious presence.”

First, they remembered God. Despite all that Nebuchadnezzar did, either intentionally or not, Daniel and his friends continued to “remember God,” to live their lives as before the face of God (coram deo). Back in verse 2 Daniel reflects on the reality that “the Lord gave Jehoiakim and Judah into [the hand of Nebuchadnezzar].” They reminded themselves often that their God was real and that He was in control of all things. A non-anxious person looks both back to the present and forward the future and sees that God is enthroned—now and forever. Even now, in these difficult circumstances.

Second, Daniel remained connected to a Christian community. When we get to chapter 2, as Daniel is challenged to repeat and interpret the dream of Nebuchadnezzar he calls together his friends to pray to God (Daniel 2:17-18). Simon says, “Anxiety thrives in isolation. If you want more stress, spend more time alone, disconnected from others. Doomscroll with all the doors shut. The non-anxious person has deep relationships with Christians who listen and pray with them when life feels overwhelming. They remind one another of God’s reign and encourage one another to stay calm and faithful.

Third, these men remained submitted to God’s will. Even when they mighty pay with their lives, they continued to worship God alone (Daniel 3) or pray as he normally did (Daniel 6). Daniel’s three friends have this amazing statement in Daniel 3:16-18).
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

They are confident that their lives are in God’s hands, no matter what the king does. They do not presume upon God’s will, they just remain faithful, whether they live or die.

Finally, a non-anxious person confesses their own sins. When anxieties and anger run hot, we are prone to quickly point the finger at others and blame them. But the non-anxious person confesses their own sins.

While meditating on Jeremiah, in Daniel 9, Daniel realizes that Jeremiah had predicted that the exile would last 70 years, and that 70 years was almost up. Knowing that, he confesses his sins and the sins of his people, just like Deuteronomy 30 commands. He doesn’t confess Babylon’s sins, even though there were many, but his own sins.

Reflecting upon our own anxiety during an election year, Simon remarks, “While Christians are pointing an accusatory finger at the culture, Daniel hands us a mirror so we can do some self-examination.”

Edwin Friedman talks about a “non-anxious presence,” and we see this side of the equation all throughout the book of Daniel because Daniel makes himself available to every ruler who calls upon him for help. Even when Darius made an edict that God Daniel thrown into the lion’s den, Daniel didn’t cut himself off from Darius, but responded to him with calmness and courage.

Daniel knew that there were all kinds of excuses for giving in and eating the food and wine offered to him.

• These were not “normal circumstances.”
• After all, what had God done for us lately?
• This could cost us our lives.

I love Jonathan Edwards Resolution # 61; Resolved, That I will not give way to that listlessness which I find relaxes my mind from being fully fixed on my [conviction] . . . whatever excuse I may have for it.

Daniel and his friends certainly took a risk in making an issue of the king’s diet. Probably they were also prepared to pay the consequences of their choice. (We should keep in mind that there are times when we must suffer for choosing to obey God.) In this particular case, however, God honored their obedience.

What was the result of Daniel’s calm and courageous request? Verse 9 says, “And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs…” God enters the picture. He works in Ashpenaz’ heart. God did this for Joseph as well, when Joseph was falsely accused and thrown into prison, Genesis 39:21 tells us that the LORD, the covenant-keeping God, “gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison.” God gave these men favor in the eyes of those in charge, who were over them.

God specializes on working on people’s hearts. Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” And a few decades from this event, “the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia” to allow Jews to return to their homeland (Ezra 1:1).

The chief of eunuchs was able to express favor and compassion towards Daniel and his friends because God had placed this grace and love within him. Had Daniel prayed for this? It is quite possible that he did. In fact, this is an explicit answer to a prayer that King Solomon prayed for when God’s people ended up in exile. That God would “grant them compassion in the sight of those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them” (1 Kings 8:50).

Whether or not Daniel had prayed for the favor of the chief of the eunuchs, because Daniel trusted God it “pleased God” (Heb. 11:6) and God brought Daniel the favor and compassion of the chief of the eunuchs. When the text tells us “Yet Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself,” we must understand that this was a choice of faith, in which obedience to God became more important than what might have been momentarily more convenient or beneficial for him.

God had brought Daniel into the favor and goodwill of the chief of eunuchs – much like Joseph many centuries before in Egypt (Gen. 39:21), or Esther years later in Persia. This is one of the ways that God, although working behind the scenes, exhibits his sovereign control. So, in reality God is working way ahead of Daniel. Even before he had made his commitment, God was preparing the chief of the eunuch’s heart to be open to his suggestion. Amir Tsarfati reminds us, “God knows whether we will say yes to righteousness, and He has already begun working out the situation” (Discovering Daniel, p. 32).

Proverbs 16:7 lays down the general principle that, “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

So this is exactly what God did in the case of the head of the court officials who was over Daniel. Rather than being resistant and completely fearful of the king, or wrathful and vindictive towards Daniel, God caused him to be favorably disposed towards him, even sympathetic to his cause. Without a doubt, God used Daniel’s respectfulness as part of the process.

Obviously, God was at work, both in Daniel’s heart to encourage him to obey with calmness and courage, and He was at work in Ashpenaz’ heart to make him favorable to Daniel and his request. Depend on it, God works on hearts.
When you are in a difficult, disagreeable situation, stay committed to do your part, but in a respectful way, and God can work in the heart of the other person to look with favor and sympathy towards your need.

Having conviction does not excuse us from acting with sensitivity, tact, and respect. Daniel had clearly made up his mind that he would be obedient to the Lord, but he went about it in a courteous way. That is especially important to do when relating to those whom God has put in authority over us.

There are several attractive features in the way Daniel made his proposal. First, he was tactful in the way he spoke. He didn’t demand anything, he simply made a request. Second, he was obedient in following the chain of command. Third, his request was reasonable. The test would be over in ten days and didn’t require the preparation of unusual food. Fourth, it was easy to evaluate. The guard simply eyeballed the four versus the others and drew his own conclusions.

As a result, the eunuch’s defenses were down even before he knew they were being stormed. He sensed at once that this strange and unexpected request was quite appropriate and possibly that it had something to do with Daniel’s God.

However, although the official was sympathetic to Daniel’s request, he was also afraid of the potential consequences of bucking the system. He knew he would be held accountable and his head would be on the block if he let Daniel have his way and some physical deterioration would occur, so he was very hesitant. We see this in verse 10, “and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, ‘I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.’”

D. A. Bayliss notes:

This verse, suitably paraphrased, is a verse that has stopped untold numbers of believers from following through on a right stand for God. Almost every clause is dripping with traps into which an undetermined believer can fall and never fully escape. These manipulative statements can be taken in sequence:

First, notice that this was from the chief of the eunuchs. We know that Daniel had the tender love (favor) of the chief eunuch, and we may probably intuit that Daniel had already gained some fondness or trust for this eunuch as well. As a young lad stripped of his past and future he would naturally cling to any friendly soul. Thus, it is exactly that friendly soul that the adversary uses in an attempt to dissuade Daniel from his mission. That’s why Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 15:33, “Do not be deceived, ‘Bad company ruins good morals.”

Second, he said, “I fear my lord the king.” The appeal to a ‘higher’ authority with an added note of fear. Daniel had probably had to pluck up courage just to talk to the chief eunuch, and how immediately the immensity of the problem was being escalated. Note the way in which any fear Daniel had of the king was now going to be increased by knowing that even the chief eunuch harbored such fears.

Third, it was that king “who assigned your food and drink.” Particularly if we are turning down something we are being offered people will rush to tell us that we should be grateful and take what we are offered. Be it a job, a university position, alcohol or sometimes even a spouse there will always be those who tell us that we ought to take an opportunity just because it is there.

Fourth, “Why should he see that you were in worse condition?” The next ploy is always the “How is this going to look?” The Bible says that ” man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Frequently though, even as Christians we are told that we need to worry about what the outward appearance is, even by those closest to us. There is also a subtle assumption in this phrase: that they will look worse if they follow God’s method. This kind of subtle word play is something we should look for and fight against.

Fifth, “than the youths who are of your own age.” This is a form of peer pressure. Daniel is being told that he is really part of a group and needed to “fit in.” His ‘sort’ has already been categorized, people know what they do and how they should behave. Any behavior outside of the norm is to be avoided. We often think that peer pressure only comes when our children are with their friends. But that’s not true; often we apply peer pressure to them by expecting them to behave as their friends do. “All your friends go to the youth-group, why don’t you?”

Finally, “So you would endanger my head with the king.” When all else fails try emotional blackmail. A straightforward, you cannot do this, think of the effect you will have upon me.

As we shall see, when presented with a barrage like this the trick is to slow down and analyze each of the different arguments and make sure an answer is available for each one. There is a reason we are told to be “wise as a serpent” (Matt. 10:16). The devil is exceptional at using twisted logic to make sin seem not only okay, but beneficial to us and even our very right.

Resisting Indoctrination, part 3 (Daniel 1:8)

So far in the book of Daniel we’ve seen that four young Hebrew teenagers have been subjected to some pretty heavy indoctrination to try to change their beliefs. We’ve compared it somewhat to young people today attending university. George Barna estimates that roughly 70% of high school students who enter college as professing Christians will leave with little to no faith. These students usually don’t return to their faith even after graduation, as Barna projects that 80% of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29.

Many of those young people have a church background, but it is likely that during that time they attended irregularly, rarely read their Bibles, and likely just adopted some of the faith and practices of their parents or friends. It is possible that they had no real faith to turn from.

There are some real challenges to Christianity on university campuses. Aside from liberal emphases in most of your classes, your faith is likely to be ridiculed by both professors and fellow students, your obedience to Christ will be challenged by all of the distractions and temptations of campus life. In other words, it is a minefield of potentially faith-destroying or faith-damaging opportunities. Satan makes sure of it.
Daniel and his friends have been taken to Babylon, far from home, and they have been fed all the Babylonian propaganda, had their names changed to make them forget their past allegiances, and they attempted to wine and dine them to soften them up to changing their worldview and loyalties. In the remainder of Daniel 1 we’re going to see that Daniel and his friends do not question their beliefs or outright deny the religious upbringing of their parents and faith community, but instead they stand firm. Their faith was not merely inherited from their parents – it was deeply owned as their own. One of the ways we know that is that they had to pay a price.

This appears in Daniel 1:8-16. Remember that the background of this passage is back in verse 5, “The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank.”

Events now had Daniel in an iron grip. Sooner or later, he would have to make a difficult decision.

John Calvin wrote that Nebuchadnezzar knew that the Jews were a stiff-necked and obstinate people, and that he used the sumptuous food to soften up the captives.

These young men were being treated to the King’s Buffet. I’m sure it was the best gourmet foods that you could find anywhere in the world at that time. Really sumptuous! For me it would be dark chocolate peanut butter cups.

Up to this point Daniel and his three friends had shown no outward resistance to their assimilation into Babylonian culture. They didn’t skip their Babylonian literature classes, and they answered to their Babylonian names when they were called. That is what makes this encounter so striking. Why did Daniel draw the line here? Why did he suddenly say, “No compromise”? Doesn’t this seem like such a little thing?

Now we read…

8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.

So what was the big deal? Is it that the food being served was not kosher, prepared according to the Levitical dietary laws?

Whether they were actually eating pork, the king’s intention is that they would “eat high on the hog,” symbolizing that they were getting the very best that could be offered. Likely also encouraging them to gorge themselves on this food.

It was not that Daniel was a vegetarian or one who abstained from wine, because later (in Daniel 10) he refrained from meat and wine for a period of three weeks of mourning (vv. 2, 3). That implies that he normally ate meat and drank wine.

Is it because the meat and wine had initially been offered to Babylonian idols?

In his book Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, A. Leo Oppenheim tells us about the care and feeding of the gods of Babylon. We learn in his book that sumptuous food would be offered to the gods, and after the meal, whatever was left would be brought to the king’s table as the royal food.

According to Exod. 34:15, God’s people were forbidden to eat foods that had been sacrificed or offered to pagan deities or idols. In Babylon, food was served to idols and later eaten by the king’s court:

The image was fed, in a ceremonial fashion accompanied by music, from offerings and the produce of the temple land and flocks. When the god was ‘eating’, he was, at least in later times, hidden from human view, even the priests, by linen curtains surrounding the image and his table.… When the god had ‘eaten’, the dishes from his meal were sent to the king for consumption. What was not destined for the table of the main deity, his consort, his children or the servant gods was distributed among the temple administrators and craftsmen. The quantities of food involved could be enormous.

Iain Duguid notes: “The key to understanding why the four young men abstained from the royal food and wine is noticing that instead they chose to eat only those things that grow naturally—grains and vegetables—and to drink only naturally occurring water (1:12). This suggests that the goal of this simple lifestyle was to be constantly reminded of their dependence upon their creator God for their food, not King Nebuchadnezzar. Dependence on Nebuchadnezzar’s rich food would have been defiling because it would have repeated in their own lives the sin of King Hezekiah that brought this judgment upon God’s people in the first place (see 1 Kings 20:17)” (Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 13).

Daniel was the influence here, among the four friends. Scripture shows that this was Daniel’s purpose that he shared with the other three, and then they joined with Daniel completely. The four did not collaboratively arrive at the decision, rather it was Daniel’s thought and his persuasion upon the others to follow this course of action.

You and I will all face tests in life, tests that challenge our faith, that call us to compromise, that encourage us to sin. We will be faced with some things that seem so innocent and insignificant, but which could change the course of our lives. This was a defining moment for Daniel.

Daniel “resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.” He made a resolution; he made up his mind. Likely, this was something that he had been taught about by his parents, knew what the laws of God were, and had already made up his mind that this was a line he would not cross.

Arnold points out how the word-play at the beginning of v. 8 (wayyāśem)—in light of its earlier use in v. 7—sets the stage for the remainder of the book:

The irony of the word play is that the Babylonians think they have changed Daniel’s character, but the narrator knows otherwise. They succeeded in changing all the circumstances of his life, and the name change in verse 7 represents Daniel’s complete transformation, at least from the Babylonian perspective. But the inner resolve and dedication revealed by the word play in verse 8 is the narrator’s full portrait of Daniel and transcends even the description of his impressive personal and intellectual skills in verses 3–4. It is his commitment to God that sets Daniel apart, and prepares the reader for the continued conflict between aggressive world powers and God’s servants.

What about you? Have you made resolutions? Have you determined the lines that you will not cross, no matter what the negative cost might be, or the positive payoff? All of us face forks in the road of our lives, whereby we decide either to follow the Lord or go our own way. And as Robert Frost in his poem The Road Not Taken says that “has made all the difference.”

Now, I know some of us start each new year with a fresh set of resolutions. On average, they last less than four weeks. That’s not what Daniel did. He didn’t decide that he needed to lose weight or get smarter or build better relationships. He knew what God’s Word said and he was determined to do it. He made a settled decision ahead of time not to violate God’s law.

It’s more like what Jonathan Edwards, pastor and theologian in early America, did. Beginning in 1723, when he was 20 years of age, he began composing his list of 70 resolutions. I read a devotional book based on his resolutions last year.

Let me read a few of them:

• Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

That pretty much takes care of everything, doesn’t it? I mean, what more do you need?

He would go on for about a year, writing 70 resolutions in all, which served as a rudder over the course of his life.

Because Jonathan Edwards had such a realistic view of his personal sanctification and growth, he added several along these lines – here’s one:

• Resolved, never to slacken my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

And again:

• Resolved, if I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.

Here’s another realistic, humble admission that led him to add another resolution – he writes:

• Resolved, always to do what I shall wish I had done when I see someone else doing it.

One more: and I think this was a key to his success – Jonathan Edwards made a resolution to review his resolutions –

• Resolved, to inquire every night, as I am going to bed, where I have been negligent, what sin I have committed, and where I have denied myself (that is, where I’ve done the right thing): [and to do so] at the end of every week, [every] month and [every] year.

In other words, every night he’d run through a mental accountability; but at the end of every week, month and year, he’d pull out the list.

Maybe one of our problems is that we so soon forget what we’ve resolved.
I want to introduce to you, another man who made some resolutions while he was still a young man. And I think this is key. He made these decision when he was young. And he seems to have made up his mind ahead of time.

Believe me, the heat of the moment is not the time to be making these decisions. You need to think ahead of time about what you will and will not do, what lines you will not cross. Young men (and women) need to think ahead of time what boundaries they will not cross in dating, with regard to drinking and drugs and parties. Don’t wait until you get tempted; think it through ahead of time.

I believe this is what the book of Proverbs does for the young man. The father gives his son some future scenarios that he will likely face with regard to gangs (Proverbs 1:10ff) and seductive women (Proverbs 5, 7). He warns him about get-rich-quick schemes and the tendency to be lazy. Young people, think through these things ahead of time. Parents, prepare your children for the future. You know the traps that lay ahead of them. Get them ready to make good decisions.

Daniel’s resolutions will place him squarely in the middle of conflict – in fact, they will eventually threaten his life (Daniel 6).

Because of his resolutions, he will live his life in the minority . . . with only a few personal friends; he will face incredible pressure to conform to the surrounding culture his entire life.

Other versions say that Daniel “made up his mind” (NASB, CEV) or “purposed in his heart” (KJV), reminding us how important it is to “watch over [our] heart” (Prov. 4:23) because it affects everything else about our lives.

I think it is important that Daniel “made up his mind” ahead of time. He didn’t wait until the heat of the moment to figure out what his stance on this issue was. He had thought it through ahead of time and made a decision not to defile himself in this way.

This reminds me of Eric Liddell, the “flying Scotsman.” The son of Christian missionaries, Eric Liddell was born in China in 1902 and died there 43 years later in a Japanese internment camp in China. In between, he played for Scotland at rugby, won Olympic gold for Britain and inspired an Oscar-winning film about his athletic exploits many years later.

He was selected for the British squad for the 1924 Paris Olympics, where he was among the favourites to win in his strongest event, the 100m sprint.

But when the timetable for the Games was released, the 100m heats were on a Sunday and Eric Liddell dropped a stunning revelation. The Christian Sabbath was the Lord’s Day and there was nothing in this world that could persuade him to run.

In the 1981 film Chariots of Fire, Liddell only learns the 100m heats will be held on a Sunday while boarding the boat to France. In reality, the schedule was known several months in advance. However, the movie’s creative licence does reflect the real-life drama caused by his principled stance.

Looking back 60 years later, his friend and fellow athlete Greville Young said while those who knew Liddell were aware of his strong religious feelings, “it caused tremendous furore amongst many people, particularly with the newspapers and journalists”.

Reporters hammered on the door of their student accommodation in Edinburgh, demanding to speak to Liddell. According to Young, “They were quite menacing almost and there were cries of, ‘He’s a traitor to his country’.”

Liddell’s decision meant he had to give up on his strongest event and switch his focus to the 400 meters. Liddell had experienced some early success at the Paris Olympics, winning bronze in the 200m. Few believed he could improve on this in the longer distance final on Friday 11 July, 1924.

When the starting gun fired, he set off at a blistering speed, flashing past the halfway mark in 22.2 seconds. Throwing his head back in his distinctive style, he stretched his lead and ended up finishing 5 meters ahead of the chasing pack. The finishing time was 47.6 seconds. A rather breathless report in the next day’s London Times described it as “probably the most dramatic race ever seen on a running track”.

Tom Riddell told the BBC he had asked Liddell about his tactical approach: “In his own words he said, ‘Well, when the gun goes, I go as fast as I can, and I trust to God that I’ll have the strength to do the second half.’ And I think he really did.”

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240705-olympics-hero-eric-liddell-and-the-real-story-behind-chariots-of-fire

As the unknown poet put it,

Some ships go east, and some go west,
Before the wind that blows;
It’s the set of the sail, and not the gale;
That determines the way it goes.

We can well imagine Daniel’s emotions as he showed up in the student’s dining hall for that first meal. There was about to be an explosion, a confrontation, perhaps even an execution. Daniel knew the cost. You don’t defy kings.

And we will pick up the rest of Daniel’s test next week.

Resisting Indoctrination, part 2 (Daniel 1:3-7)

Do you remember the Sunday school song Dare to be a Denial?

Dare to be a Daniel
Dare to stand alone
Dare to have a purpose firm
Dare to make it known
Standing by a purpose true
Heeding God’s command
Honor them, the faithful few
All hail to Daniel’s band

I find it amazing that these four young men, facing tremendous pressures to give up their faith and assimilate into the Babylonian culture, stood firm for God. Daniel was entirely alone, but he was able to stand alone and lead his friends to stay true to the God of Israel.

Last week we began to look at how Nebuchadnezzar was attempting to indoctrinate these young Hebrew youths into becoming good Babylonians—not only politically, but religiously, psychologically, mentally and emotionally. Like Satan, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to capture their hearts, their deepest loyalties to himself and his gods.

Thus, we saw last week that he ripped them from their homes and support systems, leaving them vulnerable to suggestion and temptations. He chose impressionable youths that he could train in his system. He very possibly made them eunuchs, which would keep them undistracted at least and more docile and submissive at best. And we saw that he trained them for three years in Babylon U, immersing them in the polytheistic religion and practices of the “magicians and enchanters” (Dan. 1:21). As youth are always fascinating with new ideas, the old truths of Judaism would become irrelevant, or maybe even no longer worthy of being believed.

What else did Nebuchadnezzar do to try to capture their loyalty?

Fifth, they were treated with kindness, receiving from the king “a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank” (Dan. 1:5). D. A. Bayliss reveals the temptation:

To assume that the world has only one angle of attack, or to assume it will play in a straightforward manner is always a mistake. In this passage the young men had been taken from their homes and permanently mutilated. The hopes and aspirations they might properly have had had been taken from them. At this point the cost of being in Babylon would have been very clear to the young Jews and resentment would readily have built. And thus the world switches tactic. Suddenly the king is taking a personal interest and providing them meat directly from the royal table. It is not difficult to imagine how readily an uncertain person would have grasped at this sign of potential favor. It is a long distance from a poor, besieged, tributary nation to the sumptuous luxury of Babylonian life. Yet the king had kindly offered to feed these young men food that would make them healthy.

Iain Duguid comments: “This provides us with a picture of the world’s strategy of spiritual reprogramming. At its most effective, it consists of a subtle combination of threat and promise, of enforcement and encouragement. Those who are totally recalcitrant may be sent to prison camps or gulags if necessary, but the majority of the population are more easily assimilated if they are well fed and provided for. After all, more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar. The fundamental goal of the whole process, though, was in one way or another to obliterate all memory of Israel and Israel’s God from the lips and the minds of these young men, and to instill into them a sense of total dependence on Nebuchadnezzar for all of the good things in life” (Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 9).

In the words of David Jeremiah, “He wanted them to get accustomed to the good things of the palace so they would never be satisfied to leave the king’s service” (Agents of Babylon, pp. 18-19). This would place them under a sense of obligation as well as accustom them to luxury, lavishness and comfort.

And isn’t this still Satan’s way today? With some he may violently persecute them, but for many of us he works more effectively by seducing and deceiving us into desiring his dainties that he sets before us rather than the riches of Christ. It reminds me of that great quote by C. S. Lewis in his “The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses” when he said: “It would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

Sixth, Nebuchadnezzar changed their names.

Verse 7 says, “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.”

This was part of the psychological and spiritual reprogramming; and was this a clever tool. It was all designed to encourage them to forget about the past and become “new men,” to put their race and their religion behind them.

We all have names. We’ve all received names throughout our lives, some of them unwanted, like fat, ugly and stupid.

It is important to remember our true name, our real name, especially our spiritual identity. The names you allow to label you often title the scripts you live by.
In the Bible, names were given to show the ownership or sovereignty of the name-giver. Adam named the animals; God changed names to indicate new destinies. In the Bible, names were vitally important.

This explains why the number one goal of your Enemy, the Devil, is to attack your identity. He wants to give you a different name, one that stands in direct contrast to the name God gave you when He created you. He wants to give you the name “Ugly” or “Stupid” or “Worthless.”

We live in a world where people have become adept at doing what is right in their own eyes, defining their identities according to their own constantly shifting desires. From school-age children who want to change their genders to couples of the same gender planning their weddings, it’s increasingly acceptable to pursue what feels right.

But there are limits as to how far we can go to reinvent ourselves. Our created bodies provide some limits, but also the fact that we have been created by God, in His image.

God knows who He made each of us to be, and in the end his design is always better than what we come up with on our own. Daniel understood this even though Babylon U gave them new names.

This was not an innocent attribution of nicknames, but an intentional strategy to try to fully acculturate these men into Babylonian culture. In those days, when victors integrated enslaved captives into their own culture, it was customary to change the captives’ names as a sign of new ownership. These new names are meant to obliterate the old identities.

In colleges and companies today people will applaud and even promote you taking on a new name, like Gay Christian, or Trans Christian or White Fragility Christian, or to apply new pronouns to yourself.

Their original Hebrew names of these four young men had been given to them at birth to reflect the glory of God. Now, their new names are intended to remind them, every time they hear their name called, that their God is as good as dead.

Rodney Storz sees this as an attempt to change their worship. It wasn’t just about them and their self identities as much as it was about the way that they would see God. It was to enforce a total break from their past lives, to make them believe about themselves and about their god something new and different.

The Hebrew names of these young men were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They were changed to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. It should be immediately evident to anyone with even a limited knowledge of Hebrew that the Jewish names of these men each contains a name of God and has a spiritual meaning. Their parents named them to remind them of their spiritual heritage in relation to the one true God.

The name Daniel means “Elohim is my judge.” Elohim is one of the Hebrew names for God. The name Belteshazzar means “May Bel protect his life.” Bel is one of the gods of Babylon.

The prince of the eunuchs decided that his life must be spent under the shadow of the Babylonian God Bel, the patron God of Babylon, otherwise known as Marduk. He was the sun god and believed to be all-powerful.

“Imagine this young man, while striving to remain true to his Lord, being labeled with the name Baal, the one false god who had likely been the greatest stumbling block for wayward Jews over the centuries” (Amir Tsarfati, Discovering Daniel, p. 27).

Hananiah means, “Yahweh is gracious.” Yahweh is the personal name of the God of the Bible. Shadrach means, “Aku is exalted.” Others believe that “Shadrach” is an Akkadian term meaning I am fearful, command of Aku.

Again, this was designed to directly contradict the meaning of his original name – “Under the gracious care of God” to “Under the enlightening care of the sun/moon god.” This might seem to be an improvement because they were now living under God’s wrath. Hananiah needed to remember that God was gracious, even in the midst of judgment. But that is the rub, isn’t it? I think we all struggle with that.

More than a thousand years earlier, Abraham had turned his back on this very god and chosen to worship the true and living God instead.

Mishael means, “Who is what Elohim is?” while Meshach means, “Who is what Aku is?” Surely this was a form of insult. Phillips believes that this goddess was also known as Ashtoreth, Astarte, or Ishtar, the goddess of sensual love and fertility (Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 33).

Azariah means, “Yahweh is my helper,” and Abednego means “The servant of Nebo,” another Babylonian god. Would Azariah continue to remember that God was his helper? Would he keep looking to him for strength?

Now, instead of looking to God to be his help, he would feel enslaved to the service of a new god.

Did this rebranding work? What is interesting is that, with just a few exceptions, whenever Daniel is mentioned using his Babylonian name, he used some variation of the formula, “Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar.” Nebuchadnezzar changed the men’s names, but he could not change their hearts. They remained faithful to the true God of Israel, as the story shows.

By giving these four young men these names, Ashpenaz hoped to eradicate Hebrew culture and inculcate Chaldean culture into their thinking. The new names indicate that they were subject to the Chaldean gods.

After awhile they would be asking: Are our Jewish names for real? Was it all make-believe? Is our God the true God? Is He gracious . . . wise . . . all powerful . . . able to care for us?

Doesn’t look like it!

John Lennox tells us, “This name-changing was no innocent action. It was an early attempt at social engineering, with the objective of obliterating inconvenient distinctions and homogenizing people, so that they would be easier to control. Throughout history such attempts have often been marked by the undermining of human dignity. A contemporary example of this phenomenon is political correctness which, though originally intended to avoid offence, has become an intolerant suppressor of open and honest public discussion” (John Lennox, Against the Flow: The Inspiration of Daniel in an Age of Relativism (Oxford: Monarch Books, 2015), 69

The Babylonians changed the Hebrew teens’ names in an attempt to make them forget the true God and change their worship, but it appears throughout the entire book that Daniel never did forget the name he was given, which honored the true God. Even the king (in chapter 6), when Daniel was in the lions’ den, came to him the next morning and used his Jewish name saying, “Daniel, servant of the living God. . .” “Nebuchadnezzar wanted Daniel and his three friends to forget Jerusalem, their god, the temple, and everything related to their Jewish heritage and culture. But Daniel and his friend didn’t forget” (David Jeremiah, Agents of Babylon, p. 20). After noting Daniel’s faithfulness to pray even when it was against state law, David Jeremiah says, “Nebuchadnezzar could change their names, but he couldn’t change their nature. Though much of David’s life was assimilated into Babylonian culture, his heart remained centered in Jerusalem” (Agents of Babylon, p. 20).

“Across the Babylonian’s whole futile exercise of trying to wean these young Judean princelings from their loyalty to the living God by changing their names, God wrote the word folly! ‘Thou shalt have no other gods before me.’ So ran the law (Exod. 20:3). Little weight would these Babylonian gods have with these four committed believers!” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 34).

Like Babylon, our culture wants you to forget who you belong to. They want to encourage you to “be yourself,” “be true to yourself,” “be anything you want to be,” thus untethering you from your God-given identity, given first through creation and then through redemption.

The world wants you to forget who you are and where you have come from. The world will encourage you to change your identity, to encourage you to live to impress others rather than living for God.

Can you remain faithful to God under such pressure? Will you?

The purpose of the food, names, and education was simple. This was an effort at total indoctrination, with the goal of making these young Jewish men leave behind their Hebrew God and culture. Undoubtedly, Nebuchadnezzar wanted to communicate to these young men, “look to me for everything.” Daniel and his friends refused, insisting that they would look to God. (David Guzik)

ow, not only are they at a new location far from home, learning lots of exciting new things, living under aliases, they will face a brand new temptation.

What was the response of Daniel and his friends? We will see some of this in the next scene, but I think Iain Duguid captures their thinking when he writes:

“To be sure, they did not outwardly resist the Babylonian system. They did not refuse to work for the Babylonians, perhaps because they recognized the hand of God in their situation. They understood the word that the Lord gave through Jeremiah, that those whom he had sent to Babylon should labor there for the blessing of the place in which they found themselves (Jere. 29:4-7). As far as possible these young men sought to work within the system in which they had been placed, being good citizens of Babylon as well as of heaven” (Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 10).

He goes on to say however, “they also inwardly resisted the assimilation process of the Babylonian empire in a number of specific ways. In the first place, they resisted the total renaming program of the Babylonians. They didn’t refuse to answer to their Babylonian names, to be sure, but they did maintain their Jewish names (and identities) as well. Daniel did not become Belteshazzar, even though he answered to that name, nor did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah become Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-Nego. They preserved their Hebrew names amongst themselves as a marker of who they really were (see 1:11, 19; 2:17); they lived with dual names as a reminder of their dual identities, and more fundamentally as a reminder of the true nature of their God” (Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, pp. 10-11).

We also have to live with a dual citizenship. We are “citizens of heaven” but we live also in Mena, Arkansas. While our ultimate loyalties lie with heaven, we are still to be good citizens here, engaged in this world for the glory of God and the good of our neighbor.

And we come together every week to remind ourselves of our true homeland. The goal of our worship services should be not only to be equipped for more effective service here on earth in our home towns, but to remind ourselves of who were truly are in heaven’s eyes and the importance of remembering our heavenly destiny and judgment. If our heavenly identity is strong, it will change the way we live within our families and communities.

As the Word is preached, a heavenly wisdom is proclaimed that runs counter to the wisdom of the world around us. In baptism, the sign of heavenly citizenship is acknowledged by us, reminding us of where our true citizenship lies. In the Lord’s Supper, we eat and drink the elements from the earth, but we remind ourselves of the cost at which our citizenship was bought and to look forward to the ultimate feast that awaits us at home. All of these aspects of our worship services should help us to preserve and remember our true identity.

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.