Perhaps everyone knows the story of Daniel being thrown into the Lion's Den. But why did he receive that negative sanction? What crime did he commit? Here's the explanatory passage from Daniel Chapter 6:
"Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime."
Daniel 6:3-10.
Jealousy among other officials in the Persian Empire was the impetus behind the decree, but Daniel could have closed his window. He would have still been able to worship the God of Israel, for no one would have known he was defying the King's decree. But if he had done so, he would have acknowledged the King's decree as legitimate. And he knew it wasn't. That's why he explained to the King after the lions did not harm him the following: Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." Daniel 6:21-2.
Daniel said, "and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." In other words, my defiance of your decree was not wrong. The only way that could be true would be if the king's decree was void ab initio, meaning it was invalid in its very inception. And it was. It attempted to place the king in the place of God Almighty, determining to whom any individual can pray - when and how often. Even a king does not have that authority. If Daniel had not kept his window open, then he would have allowed a void decree that divinized the king to remain in effect.
Someone might say, "He could have appealed to the king to change his decree." However, that ignores the Persian legal system which tended toward divinization of the king by stating that once a decree is issued by the king, then it cannot be revoked, not even by the king himself. Therefore, Daniel could not have appealed the king's decree to anyone, including the king himself. It is also similar to the present day legal profession's view of the U.S. Supreme Court, which can reverse itself but which normally reverses itself toward a different, less Christian view of the world and the law. In other words and perversely, the only "legitimate" jurisprudence among much of the political world and legal system in the U.S. is the removal of biblical sources of law. The King of Persia at least acknowledged the reality of Daniel's God and faith when he saw it in action. In the modern mind, the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the legal experts, does not even allow the intrusion of reality in its interpretation.
Another character from scripture was Mordecai, the uncle of Esther, and one of the two heroes of the Book of Esther. Chapter 3 contains several keys to understanding the Book of Esther. First, it tells about the King promoting "Haman, the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanc[ing] him and set[ting] his seat above all the princes who were with him." Esther 3:1, NKJV. Second, it tells what the King commanded to all the king's servants: "And all the king’s servants who were within the king’s gate bowed and paid homage to Haman, for so the king had commanded concerning him. But Mordecai would not bow or pay homage." Esther 3:2, NKJV. There is nothing in this passage that indicates Mordecai was ordered to "worship" Haman; bowing was typically an act of respect or homage paid to someone in authority. Third, Mordecai did not simply disrespect Haman; he defied the King's command. Fourth, Mordecai's disrespect toward Haman caused Haman to obtain the King's decree to destroy all the Jews in the Persian Empire. In other words, Mordecai's failure to bow before Haman was the opportunity that Haman used to seek the destruction of all the Jews; it was not merely Haman's hatred of the Jewish race.
"When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow or pay him homage, Haman was filled with wrath. But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him of the people of Mordecai. Instead, Haman sought to destroy all the Jews who were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus—the people of Mordecai."
Esther 3:5-6, NKJV. In fact, you could possibly call Haman's actions preemptive - if he understood the law of Moses in the Hebrew scriptures. God had told the Jewish people to wipe out the Amalekites. Deuteronomy 25:19, NKJV. Notice this command was separate from the command to wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan. Unlike any other people group outside of the seven nations of Canaan, the Amalekites were singled out by God for genocide, whether they were in Canaan or not. Agag was the King of the Amalekites at the time of King Saul's rule over Israel. See I Samuel 15. If Haman was an Agagite, then he was descended from King Agag and most likely an Amalekite. His status as an Amalekite is also the only explanation we have for Mordecai's failure to bow to him in respect. Therefore, Mordecai saw no need to obey the King's command even though he was not being ordered to violate his conscience as to worshipping another god or told to not pray, as Daniel was. Mordecai stood against Haman and defied the King because Mordecai was a Jew who knew an Amalekite deserved death not respect or promotion.
According to the modern idea even among Christians - that we are to always obey the civil authority - would not Mordecai's failure to respect Haman violate that thinking. He disobeyed a King's command, and he did not apologize nor change his actions toward Haman. No, he continued to not bow to him even after the King's decree to destroy the Jews was issued at Haman's urging to the King. In other words, Mordecai saw nothing wrong with his disobedience of the King, nor felt any responsibility for the danger to the Jews of Persia because of the decree. Yet, that decree was issued as a direct consequence of his refusal to obey the King's command. A modern Christian should have educated Mordecai that if he had only been obedient, there would have been no danger caused in the first place. Mordecai's disobedience caused the Jews to be threatened with genocide.
But the message of Esther is that Mordecai and Esther were heroes. Esther appealed to the King for her people after revealing Haman's plot to him, and Mordecai ended up being placed in Haman's place, after Haman was hung on the gallows he had built for Mordecai. God caused a total reversal of consequences. And Mordecai's disobedience of the King, though it caused the whole debacle which God had to unravel was never rebuked. On the contrary, Mordecai was honored. How does that fit in with the modern explanation of Romans 13 and obedience to civil authority?
Daniel's three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, also disobeyed the King of Babylon, but he was requiring actual worship of the idol which he had built. Hopefully, a modern Christian would agree with their disobedience in that circumstance - command to explicitly defy God Almighty. However, where they would violate the modern interpretation of Romans 13 was in their answer; it was not respectful. It was contemptuous of the King.
"Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, 'O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.'"
Daniel 3:16-8. Therefore, not every leader is deserving of respect, nor is every law or command due to be obeyed. Authority comes from God according to Romans 13. We Believers have a responsibility to honor the law, but we do not have a responsibility to honor those who despise or undermine the law. Those people might be in positions of authority, and they may be utterly lawless and despisers of authority themselves. Just because the saboteur works in management for the company owning the vandalized factory does not mean he can do damage. If the policeman pulls you over and tells you to drive your car at double the speed limit, must you obey? And if the highest court in the land tells everyone to pervert the law, are we all, particularly public officials, obligated to go along?
Therefore, in light of the above passages, the Church needs to examine the teaching that all must obey "the authority" no matter what that so-called authority is saying or doing and in spite of the position of authority of those being ordered to obey. Questions to ask: What is the position of the authority and its lawful boundaries? What does God's law say about what is being commanded? What is the position and lawful responsibility of the public official(s) who are being ordered by a higher authority, when told to violate the law by that higher authority?
Those questions are fundamental to the ultimate question and could lead to an unorthodox answer for our day, that is, defy the authority and remain firm in that defiance, no matter the consequences. And these questions are not always simple to answer. The Church of our day is not even training people on the questions.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Friday, December 9, 2016
Does God Want His Kingdom to Succeed?
"The Late Great Planet Earth," a book published in the 70's stating essentially, "The End is Near!" Many Christians believe that the end is near, and that things will get worse before the end. Is that a biblical view of the future? Such a viewpoint could determine whether people even attempt to improve life in our society from a Christian perspective. It needs to be examined.
We as Christians all believe that God's kingdom succeeds, but the question is when. Some of us say, "I know who wins; I've read the end of the book." What about the rest of the book? What about before Christ's second coming? What happens during that period of time? I submit that His kingdom will not only succeed but win in history, and that such success need not wait until Christ's actual second return. His first coming was what the earth needed, and it is all we need to continue the process he started. But will he find faith in us to do so?
I heard an interesting news item a few years ago that was very telling. An organization called "The Long Now" was building a 10,000 year clock on the border of New Mexico and Texas. Such a construction is an unusual thing, and I used to live on the border of New Mexico and Texas, so it got my attention quickly. The clock was intended to show people how to have a long-term perspective on time. The radio interviewer asked the representative of the organization why he had even conceived of the project.
The fellow told a story that he had heard about New College in England. New College is not new; it's about 900 years old. It's a part of Oxford University. New College's main building was built using huge, 50-foot long beams of oak as cross beams for the ceiling. But something had happened to these beams. I forget whether a bug had gotten to them or if they had simply rotted with age, but they needed to be replaced. The administration of New College asked each other: "Where are we going to get huge, 50-foot long oak beams in 20th century England?"
Someone told them to talk to the College Forester. They responded with: "We didn't even know there was a College Forester." They asked the College Forester if he could fix the problem. He said, "Oh sure, that's no problem. I'll get right on it." The New College admin people were surprised and asked how he intended to find the beams. He said, "Well, you see, the folks who founded this College and had the building built knew that one day the beams would need replacing, and they planted a forest for that very purpose. . . . 900 years ago. So we'll just go cut down the trees we need and have them cut for the building."
That's a long-term perspective on the future. Do we have that kind of perspective in our modern world? Some do. Do Christians? Are they preparing for a long future? Or are they preparing for the alleged, "soon-to-occur rapture?" Or are they preparing for things to just get worse and worse, no matter when "The End" arrives? These are important questions, and they could explain why Christians face a society which often considers them irrelevant to the conversation about the future and how best to arrive there.
If you're like many Christians, you have been taught just one way to look at the future biblically. And it is: "Things go downhill and get worse and worse, then the end comes when Jesus returns." If that's all you know, how will you plan for the long-term future as a member of God's kingdom? Did you know that the scripture teaches something entirely different? Did you know that perspective on the future can make a huge difference in your outlook on life, how you view your children, and how you view your calling, career and life? Stick around for future posts on this topic, and you'll be edified and hopefully encouraged, "knowing your labor is not in vain in the Lord." I Corinthians 15:58.
You can learn more about the bible's view of eschatology from my blog called "The Last Days of the Old Covenant," which can be found at https://thelastdaysoftheoldcovenant.blogspot.com/ My future posts on "Biblical Judicial System" will apply that eschatology, that is, an eschatology of victory, to the judicial system.
We as Christians all believe that God's kingdom succeeds, but the question is when. Some of us say, "I know who wins; I've read the end of the book." What about the rest of the book? What about before Christ's second coming? What happens during that period of time? I submit that His kingdom will not only succeed but win in history, and that such success need not wait until Christ's actual second return. His first coming was what the earth needed, and it is all we need to continue the process he started. But will he find faith in us to do so?
I heard an interesting news item a few years ago that was very telling. An organization called "The Long Now" was building a 10,000 year clock on the border of New Mexico and Texas. Such a construction is an unusual thing, and I used to live on the border of New Mexico and Texas, so it got my attention quickly. The clock was intended to show people how to have a long-term perspective on time. The radio interviewer asked the representative of the organization why he had even conceived of the project.
The fellow told a story that he had heard about New College in England. New College is not new; it's about 900 years old. It's a part of Oxford University. New College's main building was built using huge, 50-foot long beams of oak as cross beams for the ceiling. But something had happened to these beams. I forget whether a bug had gotten to them or if they had simply rotted with age, but they needed to be replaced. The administration of New College asked each other: "Where are we going to get huge, 50-foot long oak beams in 20th century England?"
Someone told them to talk to the College Forester. They responded with: "We didn't even know there was a College Forester." They asked the College Forester if he could fix the problem. He said, "Oh sure, that's no problem. I'll get right on it." The New College admin people were surprised and asked how he intended to find the beams. He said, "Well, you see, the folks who founded this College and had the building built knew that one day the beams would need replacing, and they planted a forest for that very purpose. . . . 900 years ago. So we'll just go cut down the trees we need and have them cut for the building."
That's a long-term perspective on the future. Do we have that kind of perspective in our modern world? Some do. Do Christians? Are they preparing for a long future? Or are they preparing for the alleged, "soon-to-occur rapture?" Or are they preparing for things to just get worse and worse, no matter when "The End" arrives? These are important questions, and they could explain why Christians face a society which often considers them irrelevant to the conversation about the future and how best to arrive there.
If you're like many Christians, you have been taught just one way to look at the future biblically. And it is: "Things go downhill and get worse and worse, then the end comes when Jesus returns." If that's all you know, how will you plan for the long-term future as a member of God's kingdom? Did you know that the scripture teaches something entirely different? Did you know that perspective on the future can make a huge difference in your outlook on life, how you view your children, and how you view your calling, career and life? Stick around for future posts on this topic, and you'll be edified and hopefully encouraged, "knowing your labor is not in vain in the Lord." I Corinthians 15:58.
You can learn more about the bible's view of eschatology from my blog called "The Last Days of the Old Covenant," which can be found at https://thelastdaysoftheoldcovenant.blogspot.com/ My future posts on "Biblical Judicial System" will apply that eschatology, that is, an eschatology of victory, to the judicial system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)