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.
No comments:
Post a Comment