faith – Page 3 – Grace Still Amazes

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.

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.

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?

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.

Taken into Exile (Daniel 1:1-2)

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel’s story began like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction to the Book of Daniel, part 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Themes

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

Genre: Apocalyptic

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

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

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

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

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

This type of literature is characterized by:

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

Languages

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

Canonical Place

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

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

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

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

Major Divisions and Unity

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

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

Overview of the Book of Daniel

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

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

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

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

The Key Verse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Storms draws out these implications:

What this means is that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our author closes this exhortation with these words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The road to Calvary

Golgotha site photographed in about 1870.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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