These are comments on Sabbath School Lesson 11, Mission in a Pagan Land: Daniel and Company.
Once again, the lesson this week covers so much ground that I can take the discussion in any number of directions. I could discuss how some of the historical and cultural aspects relate to the stories. I could talk about one of the stories in great detail. I could discuss God's progressive revelation of himself to the pagan kings. However, it appears that the primary message of the narratives in the book Daniel is that of trust and dependence. "In whom or what does a person place his trust and dependence?" is the question asked of every person. It is this question that is at the heart of each narrative in the book. I've heard it said that "the stories of Daniel illustrate its prophecies." If true, that would mean that the relevant final judgment question comes down to, "In whom or what do you trust and depend?"
In the opening story (chapter 1), the prologue to the rest of the book, Daniel and company are faced with this question. Being in a pagan environment, being given pagan names, and being required to study pagan subjects, for them, does not compromise trust and dependence upon their God. But to accept food from the king's table crosses that line, regardless of whether or not the food was offered to idols, was unclean, etc. Accepting food from someone meant to acknowledge dependence upon the giver. One of the commentaries I referenced notes that "vegetables" does not necessarily imply vegetables, but rather that they were given provisions that they were able to prepare for themselves. In any case, the point of this is that Daniel and company were not going to partake of anything that would allow anyone to say that it was because of the king's blessings that they accomplished what they did.
The next story (chapter 2) is a story of conflict between the gods of the Babylonians vs. the God of Heaven, the Revealer of Mysteries. Nebuchadnezzar's faith in his gods is shaken as their spokespersons are discovered to be impotent. (Commentaries note that there may have been plots against him around this time, and thus his distrust and extreme reactions, both in this chapter and the next. The reason Nebuchadnezzar refused to relate his dream may have been a test of loyalty. Another theme that could be explored is the insecurity of Nebuchadnezzar contrasted with the security of the Hebrews'.) Daniel and friends pass this "test" not because of anything they have in themselves, but because they are completely dependent upon their God. Their whole purpose in this is not to save their own lives, but to be used by God to show what power really is, and to save the lives of the other wise men.
The next story (chapter 3) leaves Daniel aside and focuses on his three friends. Once again this is a test of loyalty. This time, to profess loyalty to the king is to renounce complete trust and dependence upon God. The three have no guarantees of deliverance. But their trust in their God is so strong that even if God chooses to not deliver, they will not let go of their trust in Him. They are delivered, I believe not because of their trust in God, but because of Nebuchadnezzar's challenge and doubt. When God's name -- his character, his glory - is challenged, it is best to leave defense of it up to Him. The three Hebrews let God do what was best to defend His honor. In doing so, they demonstrated the utter dependence and trust they had in Him.
Finally, the lesson skips to the story of Daniel in the Lion's Den (chapter 6). Once again, it is a story of a test of loyalty. This time, it is Daniel himself that must choose between expediency and continued dependence upon God. Like the three before him, Daniel chooses to continue to depend upon God. There is once again, no guarantee of deliverance. Once again, I believe it was Darius' fragile faith combined with some doubts that brings God to act to bring glory to His name. Daniel's trust was strong enough to take him to his death, but Darius' faith may not have survived it. Therefore God chooses to intervene so that Darius can have freedom to continue to learn the way of the true God.
In each of the above stories, Daniel and friends have no guarantees of the outcome of their decisions. From what I can tell, the outcomes are not a concern to them. For them, maintaining their trust in God, even when God seems to have failed, is the non-negotiable thing. Whatever "rewards" came about in the aftermath, as I've noted already, I think was primarily for the benefit of those observing. The general pagan mindset was that if a person is faithful to his or her God or gods, they are rewarded appropriately. I see these stories as showing how God works within the cultural and religious language of the times and people to try to move people to a better understanding of Him.
Finally, the first three stories imply the importance of having a community of like-minded believers. Would Daniel and friends have been able to stand so strongly in their trust in God if they didn't have one another? They were likely in their late teens, and certainly not out of their twenties when these stories took place. What if it was just Daniel and he was surrounded by other Hebrews who took the more expedient path? Of course we don't know what could have been. But the fact that Daniel takes care to mention the four of them together tells me that there is strength in numbers.
As missionaries for Jesus Christ, we must trust and depend completely upon God. However, that does not mean that we can stand alone. We need others around us who can encourage us and whom we can encourage in our journeys. Our journey to Christ, our salvation, is both an individual and a community pursuit. Our strongest witness may not be our words and preaching, but rather how we walk the journey of trust and dependence upon God. Ultimately, I think it was Daniel's life demonstrating trust that won Nebuchadnezzar over to the living God, the Most High God, the Revealer of Mysteries, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.
No comments:
Post a Comment