The Theological Meaning and Significance of Yom in Genesis 1

I have just uploaded my Master's thesis to Scribd for anyone interested in reading it.  Also, I've got a link to it on my "Writings" tab under "Theology" which can be found HERE (along with some of my other writing).  Any feedback is appreciated as I continue to reflect on this topic that I have spent the last number of years working through. 

I have been truly fortunate to study with a fine and godly OT scholar like Dr. August Konkel over these last years.  He was invaluable to the development and direction of my thesis and I pray that my work is representative of his tremendous investment into me.  I was greatly benefited also by the careful reading of all things SBL-standards related by Joel Banman (who cannot in any way be held accountable for any remaining mistakes which I may have additionally created) and the library staff of Providence Theological Seminary (thanks to Terry Kennedy and her wonderful staff).  And also I must thank Tremper Longman for his overly kind comments on my draft of this thesis and his recommendations for several key areas.

The short of it all is that it turns out "day" means and signifies far more than I had initially anticipated when I first set upon writing this thesis.  I truly do hope at some point to contribute further in a positive way to the ongoing discussion of this crucial text of Scripture and trust my thesis might serve as a launch toward that direction.

Esther 5-6 - The Tale Turns

5:1-8 – Esther’s Request.  After three days of fasting (by both the Jews of Susa and Esther and her entourage), Esther determined it was time to see the king.  The motif of three days of waiting for restoration/deliverance is found several times throughout the OT: Gen.22:4; 31:22; Jonah 1:17; Hosea 6:2.  It is important that she prepared herself in her regal garments and entered into the king’s presence where she did not know the outcome, but knew Xerxes must receive her if her life was to be spared immediately.  Though thirty days had passed since Esther had last been seen by the king she was welcomed and actually “pleased” with her.  Whatever the king’s motivation for being pleased, one can be certain that this was no coincidence.  According to the LXX and targums, the king was initially angry with Esther’s entrance, but when she fainted he was moved to receive her by the LORD.  All of such additions suggest far more than the text itself and attempts to explain the reception of the king.  The king apparently recognized that she would not have come unbidden and dressed as she was if not for some important matter.  He was so moved by her presence that he actually tells her (though this would be a euphemism for kingly generosity), “up to half the kingdom” could be asked for and he would give it to her.  Rather than explaining her reason for coming she invited the king and Haman to a banquet (which was ironically prepared for Haman).  Haman was brought immediately to join Xerxes at the private banquet and some time after the dinner, while drinking wine (which would then be the appropriate time for discussing business matters), the king again asked what Esther wanted and repeated the same generous offer.  Her reply was that she wished for the king and Haman to return the next day for another banquet.  Why would she not simply bring up the subject at hand?  What was to be gained in the invitation to another banquet?  It would appear that this gave a sense of ominous anticipation to the whole scene.  “Esther is shrewdly and subtly pursuing a well-designed plan, by which she has maneuvered the king into committing himself in advance” to give her what she would ask for (Bush 407).  As it would turn out, the events leading to the next banquet would change everything.

5:9-14 – Haman’s Plot against Mordecai.  The banquet seems to have pleased Haman in his own sight by suggesting to him that he was truly blessed to be privy to such a private and exclusive party.  His high spirits were quickly altered upon encountering the obstinate Mordecai at the king’s gate.  In fact, he became angry that not only would Mordecai not bow, but now he would not even rise in Haman’s presence or show fear.  Despite his anger, Haman kept outward control, but the author of Esther informs us that Haman was so upset that he discussed his angst with his wife and friends stating that all the honor, power and wealth he possessed meant nothing to him as long as Mordecai was around.  Haman could not wait for the assigned day for the killing of all the Jews, but wished to see Mordecai dead sooner.  He was counseled to build a “gallows” that was approximately 75 feet high for requesting the king in the morning to have Mordecai hung on.  Why should a gallows be erected that would be that tall since most of the important buildings of the era were rarely more than 30-40 feet high already?  This would seem to be in order to facilitate Mordecai’s exposure before everyone for what he had done to Haman.  So he built the gallows.

6:1-14 – The Day Everything Changed.  A string of “coincidences” are noted throughout this chapter that alters the direction of the story up to this point (Karen Jobes calls this literary technique “peripety” which is “an unexpected reversal of circumstances” and provides several helpful diagrams for visualizing the reversals – 155-158; cf. Waltke 765).  The king could not sleep and happened to have the chronicle read to him which contained the account of Mordecai’s foiling Xerxes assassination years before.  Why should he at this time have suddenly had this particular chronicle read to him?  Further, that he should think to ask if he had rewarded Mordecai for this.  The string of coincidences continued as Haman entered the court of the king earlier than he had been advised and just as the king asked who was in the court might give him advice about the reward.  Apparently Haman himself could not sleep with the thought of having Mordecai hung which would account for his early arrival to ask the king about this.

A conversation where the king and Haman fortuitously spoke past one another ensued.  The king wanted to receive advice on how to reward “the man the king delights to honor” which Haman automatically assumed was himself according to the author.  Haman’s advice was to essentially treat that man like the king by giving him the very clothes the king had worn, riding on the king’s horse and being publicly paraded about as the delight of the king.  Haman was attempting to present himself as a “surrogate king” by actually masquerading as the king (Berlin 59-61).  Haman’s pride could not allow him to think beyond himself as the “delight” of the king, but then the king commanded Haman to do all of these things for Mordecai “the Jew” (giving special emphasis to his ethnic identity).  Haman was overwhelmed with grief and shame at what he had to endure publicly honoring as a king the very man who would not honor him.  When Haman told his friends and wife what had transpired, their words in reply echoed the Jewishness of Mordecai as the very reason for this reversal and declared the destruction of Haman.  How should we understand such a statement in the mouths of Haman’s wife and friends?  Before Haman could even respond he was fetched for the next day’s banquet with Esther and the king.  Haman was hurdling towards destruction unaware of what awaited him and unable to change the course that was about to befall him.  Elsewhere the Scriptures declare, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov.16:18).  This would all pertain to the blinding pride of Haman and all who would fail to see things in the light of God’s covenant of grace.

Esther 3-4 - A Time for Action

3:1-6 – Haman…the Agagite.  Whereas the last we read would have suggested that Mordecai should have been rewarded by the king, we find only the mention of another man who instead receives honors and acclaim from the king…and this man will seek for the destruction not only of Mordecai, but of all the Jews.  Haman is introduced by stating that he was an “Agagite” which would suggest an immediate tension for the reader who has just recently discovered that Mordecai is not only a Jew, but even a descendant of Kish the father of King Saul.  This seems intended to bring to mind the age-old conflict between the Amalekites (which used “Agag” for their royal family name) and Israel (Exo.17:8-16; Num.24:7; Deut.25:17-19) and was exemplified in Saul’s nearly destroying all of the Amalekites with the exception of king Agag in 1 Sam.15.  According to Josephus and several of the targums “Amalek” is actually given in place of “Agagite” here (though the Greek versions completely alter the name destroying any connection to this historical conflict).  The term “Agagite” in Esther functions in a nearly synonymous way with “enemy of the Jews” (Esther 3:10; 8:1, 3, 5, 10, 24; Bush 384).  This may, in fact, answer why Mordecai refused to bow down to Haman despite the command of the king.  The text does not explain a reason and there was sufficient precedence for bowing to kings, rulers and others (Gen.27:29; 1 Sam.24:8; 1 Kings 1:16).  Certainly Mordecai had bowed to the king, so why not to Haman?  The only reason suggested by the text is that Mordecai was “a Jew” and this must be read then in light of Haman being “Agagite”.  The targums and the LXX versions add several different explanations about the worship of God alone for the reason that Mordecai would not bow down, but this goes well beyond what the text actually says and tries to spiritualize his reasoning.  It seems more likely it was the ethnic identity that was the factor involved.  The questioning of Mordecai about why he would not bow and pay homage may be more to force him to do this rather than to actually discover why.  Mordecai’s actions so enraged Haman that he actually determined to destroy not only Mordecai, but all of Mordecai’s people—the Jews.  “There is a parallel between the decree against all women because of the disrespect shown by one (Vashti) and the decree against all Jews because of the disrespect shown by Mordecai” (Berlin 37-38).

3:7-15 – The Lot Cast.  The time indicated in 3:7 places these events five years after Esther’s choice as queen, sixteen years after the return to Jerusalem of Ezra and the rebuilding of the Temple, and sixty-four years after Zerubbabel and the first return from exile (Breneman 328).  In the first month of that year Haman cast the pur (an Akkadian loanword from which the celebration takes the plural form for its name - Purim) that was explained as the “lot” (Heb. goral).  He did this to determine the best time to destroy the Jews.  This was a normal manner for determining certain matters of great importance and allowing for either the fates or divine direction to lead one (cf. Josh.18:6; Ps.16:5-6; Prov.16:33).  The date selected by the lot was to be exactly eleven months later.  So Haman then went to Xerxes to convince him to make the edict and used truth (“scattered”), half-truth (“different than all others”) and outright lies (“do not obey”) to convince the king to give his approval.  He never once mentioned the people he was referring to, but only referred to them obliquely as “a certain people”.  His appeal was made primarily to the empires and king’s self-interest and greed.  The amount offered of 10000 talents of silver (or about 333-375 tons) equaled nearly the entirety of tribute collected by the Persians in a single year (Herodotus 3.89)!  Perhaps Haman thought to collect this by pillaging the Jews, but the king seems not even to care about such matters.  He simply issues the decree.  “Haman is unmitigated evil, but the king is dangerous indifference personified” (Bush 387).

The exact date that Haman of the edict being issued was the thirteenth of Nissan which was the eve of Passover when the Jews would be celebrating Israel’s deliverance by the hand of God (Exo.12:18; Lev.23:5; Num.28:16).  Would God again deliver His people?  Would the LORD be faithful to His covenant?  None of this is appealed to, but all of it remains implicit.  The edict was made available in every language throughout the empire in order to encourage people everywhere to prepare to take action against the Jews on the 13^th of the twelfth month.  According to Herodotus it took approximately three months for a message to be carried across the entire empire (5.52-53).  The chapter closes with the king and Haman drinking together while the rest of the city of Susa was “bewildered” as the edict went out.

4:1-5 – Sackcloth and Ashes.  Mordecai immediately tore his clothes in mourning and put on sackcloth and ashes, publicly wailing (cf. Num.14:6; 2 Sam.1:11; 3:31; 13:31; Ezra 9:3; Isa.36:22).  These were the normal ancient cultural ways of demonstrating ones sorrow.  He would not even change his clothes to approach Esther with the news, but instead stayed outside the city gate wailing.  The effect upon the Jews everywhere else was similar as they heard the news of their impending destruction.  When Esther heard the news she tried to get Mordecai to put on fresh clothes so she could speak to him, but was forced to speak to Mordecai through her eunuch-servant Hathach.

4:6-17 – A Call for Action.  Mordecai relayed everything to Hathach who in turn relayed it all to Esther including bringing a copy of the royal edict concerning the destruction of the Jews.  Further, Mordecai pleaded with Esther to go to the king on behalf of her people.  Esther relayed that she, though the queen, could not simply go to the king for fear of losing her life unless he should choose to receive her or call for her.  She had not, for whatever reason, been invited to the king’s presence for a month and did not know when this would next happen.  Herodotus records that a message could be sent to the king requesting an audience (3.118, 140), but apparently Esther must have had her reasons for not wishing to send a message to request an audience.

Mordecai’s reply to Esther suggests that she will die if she does nothing.  She must take action if there is to be hope for her and her family (which presumably would include Mordecai).  Bush reads the first part of 4:14 as a rhetorical question with an emphatic “No!” as the answer.  This reading would then suggest that there would be no deliverance for the Jews if Esther did not do something now (395-7; but see the contrary in Breneman 336fn4).  Mordecai also questions Esther that she may have come to her position for such an opportune moment despite whatever the previous circumstances may have suggested.  These are the usual verses that are used to point to God’s providential care, but why at this moment (above all others) didn’t the author of Esther choose to refer to God explicitly in any way whatsoever?  The LXX makes God’s action very explicit both here and at other specific points, but the Hebrew text used in our canon does not.  How should we understand this?  “One logical conclusion from God’s absence is that human action is important.  Time and again, Esther and Mordecai’s initiatives are what make the difference for the Jews; we do not see them passively waiting for signs from God or for God to perform a dramatic miracle of some type….[T]he author is intentionally vague about God’s presence in events.  He affirms on the one hand, that God is indeed involved with his people, but, on the other hand, he admits that it is sometimes difficult to perceive God’s involvement” (NIDOTTE 4:583-4).  “These unfolding events begin to show the inscrutable interplay between circumstances thrust upon us, sometimes unjustly, and those the result of our own behavior, often flawed.  God’s providence marvelously moves through both in his own good time” (Jobes 124).

Esther called for a severe fast of three days whereas normally fasting seems to have only gone from sunrise to sunset (NIDOTTE 3:781; cf. Judges 20:26; 1 Sam.14:24) and that there would be nothing to drink for the time Esther spoke of.  Esther and her maids would also do this and then she would go to the king whatever the consequences to herself.  Here we note that Mordecai does as Esther has commanded.  Why is there no object for their fasting and no spiritual explanation?  Again, this is implied in the text, but is not in any way stated.  Fasting could be carried out for very secular reasons (as it is in our own day), but this would seem to be for an entreaty to the LORD despite His not being named.  The time for action would be prepared for by a call for solemnity and fasting.  When one realizes that the Jews only had one day a year for mandatory fasting (i.e., the Day of Atonement, though there were numerous other days later added – cf. Zech.7:5) this adds to the solemnity of the occasion.  Further, when one realizes that this fasting would be occurring during the Feast of Passover (much as Daniel’s did in Daniel 10:2-4) which was a commanded feast (Num.9:13).

There are often propitious moments where we must take action despite what may appear to be the consequences to ourselves.  The following is a relevant poem by Martin Niemöller who was a leading German pastor that realized all too late that action should have been taken by the true Church of Germany to oppose Nazism and its desire to exterminate certain people including particularly the Jews:

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Esther 1-2 - Parties That Bring Change

1:1-3 – The stage is set.  According to Adele Berlin, chapter one “portrays the Persian court in all its decadent lavishness” and “sets the tone of the book” which is a “tone of excess, buffoonery, and bawdiness” (3).  This would characterize Xerxes and Haman, but does not seem to accurately describe either Mordecai or Esther.  The author of Esther lays out the pomp and “glory” of Xerxes (derived from the Persian khsyay’rsha) in all of his supposed power by establishing the extent of his domain.  He apparently reigned in Susa (cf. Dan.8:2; Neh.1:1) during this account which normally served as a winter palace among the four capitals of the Persian rulers (Susa, Ecbatana, Babylon and Persepolis).  The 127 “provinces” (compare the 120 “satrapies” of Dan.6:1; cf. Ezra 2:1) give particular emphasis to the supposed greatness of the king who threw a banquet in his third year (483BC) for all his officials.  This may have been to determine the best course of action against the Greeks that Xerxes would carry out in the upcoming years before returning in defeat in approximately 480-479BC.

1:4-9 – A Party in Persia.  Perhaps the 180 days mentioned in verse 4 refers only to these meetings with the officials as well as the demonstration of Xerxes opulence.  At the end of that time, he threw a party for seven days by inviting everyone.  The descriptions of the location for the feast are unparalleled in Scripture except by the descriptions of the construction of both the Temple (1 Kings 6-7) and the Tabernacle (Exo.26, 36).  This creates an aura of greatness concerning the scene and also suggests that at the time of the writing of Esther the glory of that scene had passed, but the Temple had been rebuilt (though all of this remains completely unspoken).  The wine flowed freely (or “as befits a king” – Bush 348) at this party and it was, according to Herodotus, customary for the Persians preferred to make important decisions when drunk (1.133).  It is important to the narrative that Queen Vashti gave her own banquet as a separate affair from King Xerxes.

1:10-22 – The King and Queen at Play.  On the final day of the party, King Xerxes  called for his Queen to be brought before him and his whole party to show her off, but Vashti refused and so Xerxes was furious.  So Xerxes sought the advice of his counselors who proposed that in order to save face Xerxes should send out an unrepealable decree (cf. Dan.6:9,13, 16) against Vashti appearing ever again before the king, so that other women will not treat their husbands like Vashti has treated Xerxes.  This is exactly what Xerxes does, but instead of this saving face it ironically reveals the very thing he wished to hide…that Vashti had scorned him.  This is part of the satirical nature of this account (Bush 355).  Further, the lists of the Persian names of the seven eunuchs sent to fetch Vashti (1:10) and the seven nobles asked for advice (1:14) all may be intended to sound “ludicrous to Hebrew ears” (Bush 350).  Whether this edict was ever even enforceable does not even seem to enter into the equation for the advisors and Xerxes, however the Hebrew may suggest that the goal of the edict was assure of husbands of their wives’ respect (1:20) and of ruling their houses (1:22) than that this should be the actual edict (Berlin 20).  Why might Vashti (who after verse 19 is never again referred to with the title “Queen”) have not appeared before Xerxes?  Should we moralize this account to either vilify her for not honoring her husband or should we honor her for not appearing?  Or should we simply recognize that whatever her reason it ultimately did not matter to the author other than to set the stage for someone else to become Queen in her place without any comment as to the wrongness or rightness of any of these actions?

2:1-14 – The Search for a Queen.  Xerxes later seemed to wish he still had his Queen, but since he had decreed that she could never return to him, he sought the advice of his counselors again.  And they advised that he should issue a decree to find among the most beautiful young women of the empire one who “pleases” him to be made queen in place of Vashti.  These women would be put into the harem of the king and would have one night to impress the king after undergoing extensive (one year according to the text of which six months were aromatic in nature) “beauty treatments.”  Suddenly a man by the name of Mordecai is introduced and his lineage is signified as being from the tribe of Benjamin with Kish (the father of Saul[?] in his family tree; cf. 1 Sam.1:9).  He is further connected as either one of the exiles from the time of Jehoiachin (cf. 2 Kings 24:6-17) in 597BC (but this would make him about 120 years old) or as a descendant of one of the exiles.  It is very significant that Mordecai is called “a Jew” (Heb. yehudi) which refers to the ethno-religious origin rather than to the tribal origin (Judah) since he was from Benjamin.  “Mordecai’s most outstanding characteristic” is not his morality, but “his Jewishness” (Berlin 24).  He had adopted his orphaned cousin Hadassah (meaning “myrtle”), daughter of Abihail (2:15; 9:29), whose notable characteristics here are her beauty and body (2:7) and whose name is everywhere else called Esther (from either Babylonian “Ishtar” the goddess of love and war or from Persian stâra for “star”).  The women chosen for the harem were all appointed to Hegai the King’s eunuch who provided for their preparations and who favored Esther.  Mordecai would regularly check on her during all of this time and in the days to come as he had also tried to protect her (knowing what might lay ahead for them?) by telling her to keep her ethnicity a secret.  Can we appropriately accept the actions of either Mordecai or Esther in her allowing herself what will become of her in the life with a gentile King? (cf. Deut.7:3; Ezra 9:12; 10)  In what sense must each of us seek to obey the Lord in a world where it is not always easy to do so?   “Regardless of their character, their motives, or their fidelity to God’s law, the decisions Esther and Mordecai make move events in some inscrutable way to fulfill the covenant promises God made to his people long ago” (Jobes 103).

2:15-18 – A Queen is Found.  Esther chose to make herself appealing by doing what she was told.  This brought favor from those she was surrounded by (cf. Gen.39:4; Dan.1:9).  She was taken to Xerxes after three more years some time in either December of 479BC or January of 478BC.   The king was particularly please with Esther though we are not told exactly why.  Certainly something about her pleased him more than all the other women he had taken to “try out” as a potential queen.  So another banquet was held and this one was in honor of Esther as the new queen.

2:19-23 – A Plot is Foiled.  Mordecai served somehow in the administration (which is what it means to sit at “the king’s gate”) and overheard an assassination attempt was going to be made on Xerxes life.  Rather than use this as an opportunity for a new king he told Esther who told the king and this will prepare for the events in chapter 6 when Mordecai will eventually be rewarded for this deed according to the reading of the annals of that day.  The two potential assassins were “hanged” but this more than likely does not refer to either impalement or to crucifixion, but to exposure of their bodies post-mortem (Berlin 32; Bush 373; cf. Gen.40:19; Deut.21:22; Josh.8:29; 10:26).

Daniel 12 - The Vision of the End

11:36-39 – The king who exalts himself.  This king does have certain levels of overlap with Antiochus IV Epiphanes (and many commentators believe that this individual is one and the same), but the description does not fit as it did in the verses prior.  The best explanation seems to be that this king is some yet future king who also exalts himself and of which Antiochus IV was only a type.  He is none other than the “little horn” of Daniel 7 and the “ruler who would come” of Daniel 9:26 (cf. the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess.2:3-12; the “Antichrist” in 1 Jn.2:18; and the “beast” in Rev.11-20).  This king does “as he pleases” and exalts himself “above every god” and even speaks blasphemies against the one true God (cf. 2 Thess.2:4; Rev.13:12, 14-15).  Note that he will have a certain leeway to do what he plans until the “time of wrath” if fulfilled or “complete”.  What would it mean for him to “show no regard for the gods [the Hebrew could also read “God”, but “gods” is most likely] of his fathers”?  It means that he breaks with those before him and does what would have not been thinkable before.  He also shows no regard for the “desire of women” which some have taken as a reference to unnatural inclinations, others as a rejection of the messianic hope of the Jewish people and still others as the god Tammuz who was likened to such (cf. Eze.8:14).  This last is the most plausible given the context of “gods” before and after.  He regards himself and a god of his own strength as his god and even a “foreign god” as his own.  In the New Testament, this “god” is described as the dragon or Satan, but here we are left to wonder at who or what this might be.  He will give great rewards to those who support him.

11:40-45 – The end of that king.  “At the time of the end” points to the time that was to be completed for this king and thus in some sense to the end of all the kingdoms of this world.  The “king of the South” once again may be referring to Egypt though it may also refer to some alliance considered “south” of Israel while the “north” (rather than only to Syria) may refer to some alliance primarily to the north of Israel.  How these are to be conceived is less important than to consider that this is simply the continuing struggle between kings and kingdoms that fight for control over and in the “Beautiful Land” (the land of Israel; cf. Jer.3:19; Eze.20:6; Dan.8:9; 11:16; Mal.3:12).  Many nations and peoples will fall, but apparently the traditional enemies of Israel (Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon – these tribal groups would be in what is now modern Jordan) will not fall to him (contrast Isa.11:14; Mal.1:2-5).  Though he will succeed in his assault against the “king of the south” and many others he will be distraught by news of an impending attack from the east and north and he himself will be at “the beautiful holy mountain” (Jerusalem), but this does not exclude the notion of his forces making their final stand at the valley of Megiddo in what has come to be known as the battle of Armageddon (Rev.16:16).  The end of the king will come and he will not find any help from anywhere – whether his gods or otherwise.  Though he set out to destroy many, he will be destroyed.

12:1-4 – The time of the end.  “At that time” refers to the raging of the last portion of chapter 11 and the raging of the king of the north.  Michael (“Who is like God?”; cf. Dan.10:18, 21; Jude 9; Rev.12:7) the “great prince” is again named and here declared to defend against Israel’s complete annihilation, but not against many being martyred.  The promise of the “time of distress” (Heb. ‘ēt sārâ) is such that there will no other equal for Israel (cf. Matt.24:21 where it appears that Jesus uses the language of the LXX and thus speaks of thlipsis).  According to Zechariah 13:8, only one third of Israel will survive, but it will lead to the ultimate salvation of Israel (cf. Zech.12:10; Rom.11:25-27).  The “deliverance” is not from the first death, but the second death (Rev.2:11; 20:6; 21:8) though this is not at all laid out in Daniel with clarity.  It is notable that only those whose names are “found written in the book” are spared this.  What is this “book”?  According to Goldingay, it would be the citizenry of the “true Jerusalem” (306; cf. Ezra 2; Neh.7; Ps.87:6; Isa.4:3; Eze.13:9); though we might assume this to later be the “book of life” (Ps.69:28; Phil.4:3; Rev.3:5; 20:12, 15; 21:27).  The “multitudes” (Heb. rabbîm) can sometimes mean “all” (cf. Deut.7:1; Isa.2:2), but the typical all inclusive word in Hebrew is kol.  “The emphasis is not upon many as opposed to all, but rather on the numbers involved” (Baldwin 226).  Why are these many said to be sleeping?  The very notion of “sleep” for death implies the reality of the resurrection.  “The words…do not exclude the general resurrection, but rather imply it.  Their emphasis, however, is upon the resurrection of those who died during the period of great distress” (Young 256).  The state of those who “awake”, that is are raised to life, is to either everlasting life or “shame and everlasting contempt”.  Why should these be contrasted and in this manner?  Also, are we to think of a time difference between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked mentioned here?  (cf. Rev.20:5, 12-13 where it is described in terms as separated by the millennium)

Note the blessing that is given to those who are “wise” (or see the footnote in the NIV “who impart wisdom” which may be the likelier reading).  They are described as shining “like the brightness of the heavens” and “like the stars forever and ever”.  How might this blessing be understood?  It was common to consider celestial beings with the notion of the “stars” (Jud.5:20; Job 38:7; Dan.8:10; 1 Enoch 104), but Paul would later take this up as the promise concerning those who were pure and blameless in a wicked and perverse world (Phil.2:15).  John Goldingay makes note that the angelic beings of Daniel have all been described in very human-like terms and as such he notes the contrast as follows: “As chapter 10 speaks of celestial figures who are the embodiments of earthly institutions, so chap. 11 speaks of earthly figures who are the embodiments of spiritual principles” (317).  What does it mean for Daniel to “close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end”?  It does not pertain to making it a secret since he has already written it down, but instead means that it was to be preserved and protected for the appointed time and the appropriate readership (i.e., the “wise”; see Young 257).  The idea is that only those who are fit to understand this message will do so.  “Many will go here and there to increase knowledge” but they will not discern the times nor the message which was to the wise and discerning (Amos 8:2).  It is notable that Daniel is not included among the prophets in the Hebrew canon, but among the writings and it may very likely be because of his emphasis upon wisdom.  As such this suggests Daniel as a form of wisdom literature, albeit unlike the traditional proverbs or the likes of Ecclesiastes and Job.  Yet, Daniel is intended as wisdom for the future generations who will grapple with hopelessness and despair, but must know that if they will remain faithful they will be raised at the last day and receive their reward despite the terrorizing of the kings of this age and the ages to come.  The end will yet come and the wise know this and live accordingly.

12:5-13 – The end of all these things and of Daniel.  There were two beings, one on either side of the river and one other who hovered over the middle and wore linen and was likely the one from before (Dan.10:5).  Again, Daniel is meant to overhear the conversation.  The question of “How long?” was put to the one hovering over the water who raised both hands which gives special solemnity to the swearing by God (normally only one hand was raised – cf. Gen.14:22; Deut.32:40; Rev.10:5-6) and declares that it will be for “a time, times and half a time” (cf. Dan.7:25; that is for approximately three and a half years).  The time designated was to bring to an end the one who would be destroying the “holy people” (see the NET).  Daniel was still concerned about the outcome of this time that was yet future, but was assured and told that it would be accomplished and would have the effect that was necessary for the wise and the wicked (cf. Rev.22:11).  What should this tell us about applying ourselves to the wisdom of the book of Daniel? 

The final notes about the number of days from the time of the ceasing of daily sacrifices and the abomination of desolation offers a problem to the more simple approximate three and a half years of verse 7.  Instead, 1290 days are first mentioned which would give forty-three months of thirty days each which gives one extra month and also requires thirty day months for the three and half years.  Then the 1335 days for holding out to the end is given which makes for an extra forty-five more days on top of that.  According to John Walvoord, these numbers are necessary for adequate time to deal out judgment and for the establishment of Christ’s millennial kingdom (295-6).  However, it remains rather obscure as to why and without further elaboration elsewhere in Scripture one is left wondering just what was meant (whereas other such issues have had some clarity brought to bear on them by other Scripture).  The best explanation for the days beyond what would be expected seems to be that of Joyce Baldwin: “As in the teaching of Jesus, the emphasis is on endurance to the end (Mark 13:13).  A particular blessing awaits one who goes on expectantly even after the time for the fulfillment of the prophecy is apparently passed, as in the parable of Jesus there is a special blessing for the servant who continues to be faithful even when his master does not come home at the stated time (Matt.24:45-51)” (232).

The Old Testament for Seventh Graders (in Four Weeks!) 2

The Covenant With Abraham - Genesis 11-50

Calling and Covenant – God called Abraham and made a covenant (everlasting promise) with him to make him a blessing to the world in order to rescue the world from its own destruction and death. (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:4-19)  STARS 

Tests: Failures and Faithfulness – Though there were many times where it seemed like the promise of God to Abraham would fail because it seemed impossible, yet God was forever faithful and Abraham had only to remain faithful as well. (Genesis 22:1-18)  ALTAR

Jacob – Abraham’s grandson Jacob attempted to take the promise of blessing that God had given to Jacob, but instead was forced to receive it from God by learning to trust in God himself. (Genesis 27-28)   POT

Covenant Renewal – Jacob, whose name was changed to “Israel,” remembered all that God had done for his family and remade the covenant with God knowing that God would be faithful to complete everything else God had promised (Genesis 35:1-15) STONE

Jacob’s Family in Egypt – Joseph (one of the twelve sons of Israel) was loved by his father and hated by his brothers who sold him as a slave into Egypt where he ended up by the care of God rising to a place of authority, saving his family and the world from destruction. (Genesis 45:4-11) COAT

For the first installment: Old Testament for Seventh Graders (in Four Weeks) 1 

The Old Testament for Seventh Graders (in Four Weeks!)

As the senior pastor of a small church I take the time once a month to change from leading my weekly adult Bible study to once a month lead the youth group. I always look forward to this time with the youth of my congregation. Since I get very little specific time with them I decided this year I'd endeavor to take them through the entire Bible in six months (as that covers the months where I actually have one week with them).

What follows in the next several posts are the four handouts I gave to my youth and taught from over the course of four different weeks concerning a summation of the Old Testament written with seventh graders in mind. I chose a title for each paragraph of several simple sentences. Several (hopefully) representative passages and the word in capital letters at the end of each paragraph was a picture that I drew and had them draw if they wanted of something somehow to help connect to that particular part of the Old Testament. I'd be interested to know what others think of this approach and of the specifics of what I did. Each handout was intended to be a half-sheet of paper.

Creation and Fall - Genesis 1-11

Creation – God IS.  Everything exists because He made it.  Everything was made “good” in the beginning.  SEVEN

Man and Woman – Man and woman were created in “God's image” and for all things good and were told to have children and spread out over the earth and take care of it.  TREE

Sin/Curse/Death – Man and Woman disobeyed.  Disobedience concerns everyone throughout all time and is under the curse of God demanding death and actually brings death to everything and everyone.  It also means removal from God's presence and that we can have nothing good apart from God providing this Himself to us.  LAMB

Flood – People got worse and worse over time and disobeyed God more.  God destroyed the earth and saved only Noah and his family and animals for refilling the earth, because Noah loved and obeyed God.  After the flood God promised to never destroy the earth in the same way again. RAINBOW

Babel – Later, the people united against God, but God confused them and spread them out over the earth like they were supposed to have done in the very beginning.  TOWER

Daniel 8 - The Vision of the Ram and the Goat

Vision de Daniel à Suze
By: Stephanus Garsia (11th Century)

8:1-2 – Daniel has a vision three years after the dream of chapter seven (approximately 550BC) while Belshazzar was still in Babylon (and his father, Nabonidus, still king of all Babylon).  Perhaps the reason he repeats the “vision” three times is because it was so disturbing to him (8:27).  Daniel was taken (much like Ezekiel) in this vision to the “citadel of Susa” (another name for the “city”) located 220 miles east of Babylon and 150 miles north of the Persian Gulf.  This city was later to become one of the royal cities of Medo-Persia acting as a winter palace (cf. Est.1:2; Neh.1:1; 2:1).  The location is important as it had not yet become a location of prominence again having been destroyed some years before and the Medo-Persians having not yet rebuilt it for full use yet at the time of Daniel’s vision.

8:3-4 – A Ram Appears.  The ram has two horns, one longer than the other, but the shorter growing longer than the former.  According to one fourth century AD writer (Ammianus Marcellinus 10:1 – see Goldingay 208) the Medo-Persians always carried a golden head of a ram into battle with them as their symbol.  More importantly this ram is later interpreted as Medo-Persia and it can be surmised that the initially longer horn was Media which was the initially predominant power of the two, until Persia became the more powerful.  The charging of the ram is to the west, north and south following essentially the path of Medo-Persia in her conquests of Babylon, Lydia, Asia Minor, and Egypt.  There appeared to be none that could stop this empire.  In what sense might the kingdoms of this world all be understood as “animals” in light of the implications of verse 4?  What does this suggest about all worldly kingdoms even though they be ordained of the LORD?

8:5-8 – A Goat Appears.  This goat is described with a “prominent horn between his eyes” suggesting a single ruler and kingdom (Alexander the Great of Macedon as the interpretation of Dan.8:21 declares).  The ram notably charges across the earth “without touching the ground” in a similar manner to the four-headed leapord-like creature of Dan.7:6 that suggested Greece as well.  The enraged goat destroyed the ram and the two horns.  However, the “large horn” before it could become even greater than it had already become was “broken off” and replaced by “four” (again the connection to Dan.7:6).  Alexander’s untimely death off in Babylon (323BC) left his empire shattered and ten years later it was divided among four of his generals.

8:9-12 – A Small Horn.  From among one of the four horns of the goat there appeared a small horn initially that grew in the south, east and toward the “Beautiful Land” (Heb. sebî : that is toward “Jerusalem”; cf. Dan.11: 16, 41; Jer.3:19; Eze.20:6, 15)  On this occurring see 1 Macc.1 and 2 Macc.5-6.  Who is this “small horn” that grew?  History now tells us it was Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175BC-163BC) of Syria who assassinated the high priest Onias III in 170BC replacing him with another priest, ended the sacrifices and desecrated the temples setting up an altar to Zeus and sacrificing a swine on the altar in 167BC, that the temple was restored and dedicated December 14, 164BC (Hanukkah), while he died shortly thereafter in 163BC.  But who are the “host of heaven” that he threw down to the earth and trampled?  Certainly not angels.  More likely this refers to the faithful of Israel (cf. Dan.12:3; see also Gen.15:5; 22:17; Deut.17:3; Enoch 46:7; Mt.13:43; Phil.2:15; Rev.12:4).  Further, he set himself up against the “Prince” of the host…which suggests God Himself.  This is done by his taking away the “daily sacrifice” (Heb. tāmîd “continually”; cf. Exo.29:38-42; Num.28:3-8) and desecrating the temple.  Why would the LORD allow it to prosper in everything it did and truth to be “thrown to the ground”?  Does the LORD have a greater purpose than the immediate or temporary?

8:13-14 – The Conversation.  Daniel is meant to overhear a conversation among some of the “holy ones” (angels?).  It seems that even they are concerned with the question of humanity, “How long?” (cf. Ps.6:3; Isa.6:11; Zech.1:12)  The two speaking are concerned with how long it will take for all of the declared to happen to actually occur.  The answer is declared to Daniel (though the LXX and Syriac read that the answer was given to the other holy one) that it will take “2300 evenings and mornings”.  How should we understand this?  As 1500 days or as 2300 days?  The latter seems preferable given the manner in which Hebrew chooses to express the form for the numbers with mornings and evenings.  Thus this would be about seven years time from beginning to end.  In other words, there is a definite limit set to the wickedness of this king and his kingdom.  There is no reason to automatically assume that this “horn” is to be identified with the “horn” of chapter seven since that one belonged to the fourth beast (rather than the third which was Greece) and came from one of the four horns as opposed to that fourth beasts little horn that came up among the ten horns and displaced three.  While both chapters speak of little horns, they are distinguished considerably even while both being arrogant and prideful and opposing the LORD and the saints.

8:15-18 – Gabriel Arrives.  While Daniel was contemplating all that he had seen and heard he received a messenger like “a man” (Heb. gāber) who would explain the vision.  There are only two angels ever named in Scripture and this is the first occasion where one is named.  “Gabriel” appears again at the announcement of John the Baptist’s birth (Luke 1:19) and Jesus birth (Luke 1:26).  “Michael” is the other angel named in Scripture (Dan.10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev.12:7); though in the approximately second-third century BC apocryphal work of 1 Enoch there are several others named as well: Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Saraqqel and Remiel (1 Enoch 9:1; 20:1-8).  Gabriel task appears always to be that of messenger in the Scripture (thus “angel” is a fitting name though he is not called that here in Daniel).  Daniel kept falling in fear before Gabriel and actually may have passed out, but Gabriel lifted him up.  The message Gabriel had for Daniel was that these things pertained to “the time of the end”, but the “end” of what?  The end of that era or the end of all things?  The former seems more likely if one postulates the historical interpretation at all, but if one still holds to any future sense then there must be also something remaining of the actual “end” of this world and the reign of the LORD. 

There are actually four main views for interpreting Daniel 8: (1) Historical – All of Daniel 8 was historical and has been fulfilled; (2) Futuristic – All is still in the future; (3) Dual Fulfillment – The chapter referred both to what happened historically now and what will happen at the Second Coming; (4) Typological – The chapter refers to historical fulfillment but also things typical of that which points to the end of the age (see Walvoord 192-196).

8:19-27 – The Interpretation.  Gabriel interprets the vision for Daniel (who earlier in the book had been the interpreter for others) and explains that the ram was Medo-Persia and the goat was Greece and specifically the horn was the first king of Greece.  What Daniel has seen up to this point is over two hundred years in the future from his time.  He is told that the kingdom of Greece will be divided into four kingdoms none of which will come close to the power of Greece and from one of those will be raised up a particular king (this actually foretells what will occur 350 years in the future).  It is noteworthy that this king is raised up when wickedness is complete (cf. Gen.15:16; 1 Th.2:16).  The king is noted for his appearance, intelligence, and unknown source of power; and though everything he does even against the LORD and the saints seems to succeed it will only be temporary until the LORD Himself destroys him.  What does it mean for Daniel to “seal up” (Heb. sātam) the vision?  This term when “applied to a book is not strictly ‘seal’ but rather ‘guard from use’ and therefore from misuse (cf. 12:3)” (Baldwin 179).  Why should the LORD have told Daniel any of this and not saved such matters for another more near to the time of the incidents?  What was the purpose of revealing this in the third year of Belshazzar?  Also, does this not point ahead beyond Antiochus IV Epiphanes to one who like him will do much the same even as it would appear that almost similar sorts of calamity overtook Judea in the latter part of the first century (cf. Matt.24; Mark 13; Luke 21:5ff), but still point ahead to “the end”?

Daniel 6 - Delivered From Lions

Cyrus the Great Cylinder

6:1-5 – The kingdom of Darius the Mede.  Joyce Baldwin argues rather persuasively that “Darius” may have been Cyrus’ enthronement name used only in his first year (29-31; 141fn107; cf. Dan.5:31; 9:1; 11:1).  At the very least, it seems very probable that the two names “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian” refer to the same individual (without further evidence forthcoming to demonstrate just who this “Darius” might otherwise be…since the conjectures of Gobryas, Ugbaru or even a mythical composite character seem untenable at best).  The “and” in the NIV and other translations (Aram. conjunctive waw) can in fact be read as “even” or “that is” in Dan.6:26 (see the NIV footnote) reading “during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian”.  This proposal seems more probable than that this individual was only a king of Babylon and not the ruler of the empire whose decision would be irrevocable. 

Darius is said to have appointed 120 satraps to give oversight to the kingdom.  A satrap was a sort of governor and over these he chose three individuals to give specific oversight…Daniel being one of the three.  The 120 would not necessarily each oversee one satrapy, but may have simply shared duties over various regions.  The numbers listed for satrapies elsewhere range in the twenties (though Esther 1:1 lists 127 during the later reign of Xerxes).  The special appointment of Daniel due to his exceptional qualities made him a target for those who were jealous of his position.  This does not necessarily mean that all 122 men were involved in the conspiracy against Daniel, but only that there was a significant group that was leading the way against him.  They were forced to admit that any accusations against him would not be successful unless it pertained to the “law of his God” because Daniel was above any sort of reproach, and was a faithful Jew.

6:6-9 – The decree.  The plan was to convince the king that there was agreement among all of his officials that he should issue a 30-day decree demanding that all prayers be offered to (through?) him for that time period.  The Medo-Persian (Achaemenid dynasty) were Zoroastrians more clearly under the later named Darius I though possibly as early as our king Cyrus (here called “Darius”).  Under Zoroastrianism, there was a single god that was worshipped, Ahura Mazda, whom the king was the earthly representative of and so it would not be a far stretch for Darius in Dan.6 to receive prayers or be a mediator of prayers.  Besides it would be supposed that this may serve to unite a newly gathered empire in their whole-hearted service of their new king.  They further clarify that this decree should be put in writing so that, according to Medo-Persian law, it will be unalterable (cf. Esther 1:19). 

The punishment that they surmised would be appropriate was to be “thrown into the lions’ den.”  This “den” would have been some sort of pit where lions would have been kept for just such punishments.  There likely would have been two compartments to this pit with a divider between them.  The lions would be in one part for attacking their victims and that portion would also have an opening for throwing in the victims from the top and sealing it with a stone.  The other portion perhaps would also have some hole for enticing the lions into it in order to move them and replace the divider so that any scraps, feces and bones could be removed as needed from the pit where the lions would be kept.

6:10-15 – Daniel’s prayers.  It was not a matter of Daniel’s ignorance of the law that led to his violating it, but with his full knowledge of it he went home and did as he had always done…he prayed three times a day (cf. Ps.55:17, 18; Didache 8; though Psalm 119:164 mentions seven times a day).  “It is not, as with his three companions [in chapter 3], a question of a positive sin which he will not commit, but of a positive duty which he will not omit” (Miller 182, citing Driver).  Daniel apparently had a room on top of his home built with a window specifically facing towards Jerusalem so that he could pray facing in that direction (cf. 1 Ki.8:35, 38, 44, 48; 2 Chron.6:34).  Not only was Daniel praying as was his custom, but he was “asking God for help.”  What kind of help?  Was he asking for help for himself or for the king or for Jerusalem?  “To Daniel…this was subterfuge, and he did not swerve whatever from his usual customs in prayer….What a testimony Daniel had that even his enemies knew he would be faithful to God although it would cost him his life” (Walvoord 138).  Daniel’s enemies went out of their way to spy on Daniel and report as a group to the king what Daniel had done and make sure the king would enforce his edict.  They made sure to mention that he was one of the “exiles from Judah” perhaps in order to emphasize that even though he had been brought as an exile over 70 years prior, he still remained Jewish in his religious practices of prayer (among other things) and was not integrated into the society as they were.

6:16-24 – Daniel in the lion’s den.  The king begrudgingly followed through with his edict and had Daniel thrown into the lions den even at his old age and even though he was among those most reliable in his new kingdom.  Darius stated “May your God…rescue you” (an imperfect verb and not a jussive as the RSV translated it) meaning that this was not simply a wish, but that Darius was committing Daniel to the hands of Daniel’s God knowing that only Daniel’s would have to be the one to rescue Daniel.  The KJV translation suggests too strongly that it certainly will happen which Darius does not seem so convinced about and so he called to Daniel in “an anguished voice” the next morning.  Darius is convinced that if anyone will rescue Daniel it must be Daniel’s God, because Daniel has given himself so completely to his God that there could be no other outcome that could be positive and perhaps Darius had heard the stories of deliverance that Daniel recounted for him.  The king was so distressed about having Daniel thrown into the lion’s den that he could not even do what he would normally do – whether eating or entertainment (whatever the Aramaic dahăwān seems to signify—which is difficult to define), or even to sleep.

It was a custom that once the sun began to dawn a sentence had been served if the individual had survived the night and so the king rushed to the lions’ den even if not fully convinced that he would find Daniel alive or well.  Did he call out to Daniel expecting a reply or was this more rhetorical?  Note Darius’ use of “the living God” in reference to the God of Daniel (cf. Deut.5:26; Josh.3:10; 1 Sam.17:26; 2 Ki.19:4; Jer.10:10; 23:36; Hos.2:1; Ps.42:3; 84:3).  “This rich OT title for God suggests not merely that God is alive rather than dead, but that he is active and powerful, awesome and almighty, involved in bringing judgment and blessing” (Goldingay 133).  At any rate, he received the reply of Daniel wishing him long life. 

Daniel also testified that God had sent an angel to shut the mouths of the lions (Heb.11:33), because of his innocence before God and the king.  As Daniel’s three friends has bodily testified to their deliverance in the fire, here Daniel’s body gave testimony once it was lifted out of the den that it was in no way harmed (Ps.91:9-16).  Is this intended to be a universal promise of deliverance for all of God’s people?  Certainly not.  Many have paid with their lives as Hebrews testifies and as our Lord Jesus Himself testified.  But our God is able and no law of man can over-rule the obedience that is due the Lord.  How might we understand his deliverance?  (cf. Isa.11:6; 65:25; Hos.2:18)  “In the man of God the powers of the world to come have broken in, in anticipation of what will be when the king comes to reign” (Baldwin 145).

The king then commanded all those who had conspired against Daniel to be thrown into the lion’s den.  Was it all of the 120 or considerably less?  The LXX states it was the two other administrators, but this seems a gross re-adjustment to try to downplay how many were involved.  While this punishment may be understandable (Gen.12:3; Deut.19:18-19; Esther 7:9-10) for those specifically involved, how should we understand throwing the wives and children of the conspirators in as well? (cf. Num.16:27-33; Deut.24:16; Josh.7:24-25; Esther 9:25; Isa.13:15-16)  There is not really any condoning of this practice by mentioning it, but only a record that it was carried out (on this being something carried out elsewhere among the Medo-Persians, see Herodotus Histories 3.119).  The account also notes that those who were thrown in did not even reach the floor of the den before the lions killed them and “crushed all their bones” thus demonstrating the miraculous nature of Daniel’s deliverance and the judgment against those who tried to harm Daniel.

6:25-28 – The decree of Darius to all peoples concerning the God of Daniel.  Whereas Nebuchadnezzar had issued a decree against anyone who should speak a word against the God of the three in Dan.3:29, Darius actually commands people everywhere to “fear and reverence the God of Daniel”.  This is not a command against, but a command for.  Does this command exclude the worship of other Gods?  By no means, though it does make clear that Daniel’s God endures when other’s do not and that Daniel’s God performs the miraculous and delivers.  This will be poignant for those who face what is revealed in the chapters that lay ahead in Daniel…particularly as other kingdoms and kings are named that are off in the future who will seem to have authority and power that are unlimited.  However, God is sovereign and able to deliver His people through whatever they will suffer if they will endure and remain faithful.  This chapter closes with the note that Daniel then prospered under the Medo-Persians in an era when God would restore Jerusalem, return the captives and rebuild the Temple.  It could be said of Daniel that in his old age as he “prospered” in Babylon that he had indeed become a light to the Gentiles by the mouth of Darius (cf. Isa.42:1-12; 49:1-7; Zech.2:11; 8:20-23).

John Goldingay notes the similarity and contrast between Jesus final days and Daniel 6, when he writes how Jesus, “too, is the victim of conspiracy and betrayal from people whose position is threatened by him and who seek occasion to manipulate higher authorities into executing him, professing that they have no king but Caesar.  They, too, will eventually pay for their hostility, along with their children.  He, too, is arrested at his customary place of prayer.  These higher authorities, too, find no fault in him and labor to free him, but are reminded that the law forbids it.  He, too, has to rely on God to deliver him as his tomb is sealed.  Indeed, he actually dies, and injury can be found on him after he comes back from the dead: more extraordinary is it, then, that very early, at sunrise, he, too, is discovered to be alive after all” (136).

A Brief Theology of Suffering: The Story of God and Man

There can be no missing that something is terribly wrong with the world.  One need not look far to conclude this.  Sin and evil; death and suffering; sorrow and loss abound.  Not that there is never life and hope or blessing and goodness, but that all things are not well with this world we live in.  How one understands this in the light of the Gospel of Christ is another matter that must be considered carefully.  What follows is a brief personal understanding of the biblical theodicy offered as the story of the suffering God[1] and of the ultimate satisfaction.

In the Beginning...and a World Gone Mad

Everything that is was created by God and for God (Gen.1:1; John 1:3; Col.1:16; Rev.4:11; 10:6) in the very beginning.  This is to say that nothing is an accident of chance or of “fate,” but of purpose and intention.  We, indeed, were created as his special “workmanship” to carry out God's plan of the ages (Eph.2:10) having been made in the very “image” and “likeness” of God (Gen.1:26-27).  If we were created for such blessing and goodness then why is there such suffering and evil?  Obviously, something in this world of ours has gone terribly wrong...was it God's plan that failed?  Or was God unable to keep His plan on track?  God is sovereign and God is love so what went wrong?  Let's look closer.

God IS and It Was Very Good

The Scriptures begin with the simple statement of God's existence (Gen.1:1 – בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים).  He just is and out of the divine freedom of His love He created all that is.  His existence proved (and still proves) to be the very foundation of continuing existence for everything and everyone (Luke 20:38; Acts 17:28; Col.1:17; Heb.1:3).  Existence is therefore a matter of grace and not of necessity.  Life consists always as a gift of God and never more.  This is the nature of His ever abounding Self-giving love that is confessed in the creeds of the Church in the form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

In the account of God's creating, the repetitive refrain that God saw it was “good” (טוֹב – Gen.1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) is concluded by God seeing everything that he had made as “very good” (טוֹב מְאֹד – Gen.1:31).  This does not imply any kind of philosophical perfection (as if to leave no room for any possible fall...which would deny the nature of the “gift” of life as truly “gift”), but it still refers to a world where goodness reigned and happiness was the rule.[2]  Their world was one where loss was yet unknown, because humanity was still clothed in the glory of obedience and the world was all as it should be.

The Fruit of a World in Rebellion

Then through disobedience to the word of God, sin entered and by it…death.  The loss of the wholeness that had been the worlds and humanity’s prior to that moment was no more…lost in an instant.  What had been blessed was now cursed.  The curse of death reverberated even from that very first family (Gen.4:8) and became the morbid litany of all the generations (and of creation itself) to follow despite the longevity attributed to some of them (וַיָּמֹת “and he died” Gen.5:5, 8, etc.).[3]  The world was now a place filled with death and sorrow, pain and loss.  There were moments of happiness to be sure (the birth of sons and daughters, creativity and music – Gen.4:21-22), but none of it could overcome the sign of the curse that hung as a heavy shadow over everything.

Redemption...Now...But Not Yet

In the midst of the world of chaos, God called and covenanted Himself to a man (and to a people).  In so doing, God revealed Himself as the unchanging forever faithful  יהוהwho Himself would save His people and by so doing would work the redemption of the whole world through the redemption of His people (Gen.22:14-18).  His people Israel would not (indeed…could not do this) and so David’s greater son Jesus of Nazareth was the faithful deliverer bringing light to those who sat in darkness…to the Jews and to the Gentiles (Matt.1:21; 4:16; Luke 2:32).  This was a message of redemption and hope for the whole world (John 3:16), but it actually meant the suffering of God with us.  Our redemption was not simply purchased.  God has entered into our very suffering and born our sorrows (Isa.53:4).  God intimately knows our pain and by his own suffering our Lord Jesus has purchased our redemption (1 Pet.2:24).  In the shadow of the cross and the light of the resurrection suffering has been borne and redeemed by God Himself – not that suffering (and death as its sting) has suddenly been denied, but that now it has been swallowed up in victory.

He has not only purchased our salvation, but he has given “gifts” (χαρισματα) by his Spirit to his Church in order that in the midst of suffering and difficulties we may be sustained and built up as the Church (Rom.12:6-21; 1 Cor.12:4-28; Eph.4:8-16).  We must be sustained through encouragement, through timely prophetic messages, pointed teaching confronting us and directing us in the way we should go and acts of mercy when we are down-trodden.  We act in love towards one another by the Spirit which we have received as sons of God and co-heirs with Christ (1 Cor.13; Rom.8:14-17).  In these workings of the Spirit we live as Christ in the midst of a world of suffering declaring that this world belongs to the Lord (1 Cor.12:1-28).  That very Spirit which groans within us in the midst of a world in travail and agony also begs for our glorification that is yet to be revealed in us at the Day of Christ’s coming (Rom.8:18-28) because it will entail the restoration of all things and the end of death.

And yet we wait (not in passivity, but in Spirit-empowered activity) for our Lord’s return and the final establishment of His kingdom where all our tears will be wiped away and these bodies will be changed from loss to immortality (Rom.8:23; 1 Cor.15:53, 54; Titus 2:13; James 5:8; Rev.21:4).  In that Day, suffering will cease.  In that Day, suffering will have new perspective.  Answers seem trite today and overly simplistic (as evidenced by the friends of Job and even Job’s own response or that of the “Teacher” of Ecclesiastes).  But in light of that Day suffering has meaning, because in light of the day of Christ crucified (and risen)…suffering has been given meaning beyond measure in the overflowing free gift of God’s love for us.

Bibliography

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 14 vols. Hendrickson Pub, 2010.  Harris, R. L., G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Moody Press, 1980.  Sittser, Gerald Lawson. A Grace Disguised: How The Soul Grows Through Loss. Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 2004.

---

[1]  Karl Barth wrote that one must remember "we have to do with the God who Himself suffers pain because of our sin and guilt, for whom it is not an alien thing but His own intimate concern" in Church Dogmatics II/1 (Hendrickson Pub, 2010), 373; and see also the discussion of the God who suffers in Gerald Lawson Sittser, A Grace Disguised: How The Soul Grows Through Loss (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2004), 158, 159.

[2]  cf.טוֹב  793 by Andrew Bowling in R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, and B. K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Moody Press, 1980).

[3] With the notable anomalous exception of Enoch who it is said of that he “walked with God, and then he disappeared because God took him away.” (Gen.5:24 NET)  He may be one who serves as a “type” looking forward to the eventual undoing of death itself in the eschaton as the work of Christ – see 1 Cor.15:26.

Daniel 3 - The God Who Saves

3:1-7 – The image of gold.  Theodotian and the LXX provide an interesting time note that is not included in the Aramaic text found in our Bibles.  They actually state that it was Nebuchadnezzar’s 18^th year when what follows happened and that would place the incident of the fiery furnace in the very year of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (cf. Jer.52:29).  This made the trial of the three synonymous with the trial of the people of God and offered hope of salvation through the fires of Babylonian captivity. 

It is unclear whether Nebuchadnezzar made the image of himself or (more likely) of one of his gods – Marduk or Bel.  The dimensions of the image or statue are irregular.  In the Aramaic, it is sixty cubits high and six cubits wide (Walvoord pg.81 notes this as unintentionally the number of man; cf. Rev.13:18) with the NIV giving 90 feet high and 9 feet wide (appearing like an obelisk much like the Washington Monument).  In accordance with this, the Babylonians used the Sumero-Akkadian sexagesimal system of measurement which seems to be the explanation for the dimensions being in sixes (we still use this system in telling time: 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds, etc).  “To reduce [the dimensions of] the statue to something normal…[is]…to miss the point that the statue is extraordinary and monumental, even grotesque” (Goldingay 69; cf. Oppenheim 183-9).  The place for the dedication was called Dura (meaning “a walled place”) and it was likely a location six miles southeast of Babylon where a massive pedestal of bricks has been discovered. 

Why would Nebuchadnezzar set up such an image after his disturbing dreams mentioned in the second chapter?  Perhaps the dreams gave him the idea (see the comments of third century Church Father Hippolytus 2.15), but perhaps he simply did not care what the end would be and only obsessed over the present and the head of gold which represented himself.  Everyone present was commanded to worship the image at the sound of the music playing to demonstrate their loyalty to the king and to the empire and his gods (cf. Rev.13).

3:8-15 – The three Hebrews who would not bow.  Some of the “astrologers” (Aram. kaśdāyin) apparently driven by jealousy for the elevated status of the three friends of Daniel accused them before Nebuchadnezzar who otherwise would have been ignorant of their failure to bow and worship the image.  With all of the leaders of Babylon that are named as called to the dedication (Aram. hānukkah) of the image why was Daniel not mentioned specifically?  His presence at the royal court might explain his absence from this ceremony (see Dan.2:49; Miller 108) though there may be other explanations as well. 

The accusations brought against them are that they neither worship Nebuchadnezzar’s gods nor the image he has set up.  They are given another chance or will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace of fire.  Could Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego have bowed on the outside and still remained true to God on the inside? (cf. 2 Kings 5:18-19; but see Deut.4:27-28; while gross idolatry occurred at that very time in the temple of Jerusalem according to Ezekiel 8, yet the three remained pure in far off Babylon where no one would have been the wiser).  Note Nebuchadnezzar’s challenge that no god could save the three from his hand (compare the similar comments by Rabshekah in 2 Ki.18:33-35; Isa.36:17-20).  In fact, in another place we discover that Nebuchadnezzar did kill two men – Zedekiah and Ahab – by throwing them into a fire (Jer.29:22).  However, this account is not really a contest between Nebuchadnezzar and the three…it is a story about the one True God and His power and presence.  This is not a “moral story” but it is a “display of a God who is faithful to His people even in captivity and is ever ready to deliver those who put their trust in Him.  The contrast of the God of Israel to the idols of Babylon is a reminder that the god of this world, behind the Gentile dominion, is doomed to judgment at the hands of the sovereign God” (Walvoord 94).

 3:16-23 – Thrown into the fire.  The three offered no defense of themselves, but left everything to their God.  “Formally, the existence of their God is expressed hypothetically; but neither they nor the reader actually question his existence as uncertain. Given that he exists, he is able to rescue…and he will rescue (that is a bold, un-evidenced wager parallel to those of 1:12-13; 2:14-16)” (Goldingay 73).  According to the fourth century writer Jerome, “They indicate that it will not be a matter of God’s inability, but rather of His sovereign will if they do perish” (Miller 120).  They would neither worship Nebuchadnezzar’s gods (which each of the three were named after) nor would they bow before the image outwardly.  They stood upon the promise that their God would be with them even through the fire (cf. Exo.3:12; Isa.7:14; 43:1-3) and so in essence they were saying, “Death is preferable to apostasy” (Goldingay 74; note the confession of Job 13:15). 

John Walvoord proposes that “the blazing furnace” following the Aramaic should be read without the definite article “the” and therefore would have “the resultant meaning that He [God] could deliver them from any fiery furnace, not just the one immediately at hand” (89).  Their denial of worship absolutely infuriated Nebuchadnezzar who had the furnace heated “seven times hotter” which suggests simply that it could not be hotter (on the use of seven times cf. Prov.24:16; 26:16).  His rage (as often is the case) moved beyond reason and instead of a slow burn which would have proven more painful to the three, he instead chose to kill them more quickly.  The heat of the fires seems to match the heat of his temper. 

He called for his strongest soldiers to throw them into the furnace, but this proved fatal to the soldiers.  It appears that the three were thrown in through some hole in the top and then later the king saw them through some hole lower in the massive furnace.  In the rush to punish the three they are not even stripped of their clothing as would have been normally done and so they were thrown into the fire with all their garments still on (though the exact translation of just what it was that the three Aramaic terms refer to remains unclear the significance is that they were thrown into the fire with clothes on and pulled out with their clothes not even singed or smelling of smoke let alone the any of their hairs singed, but the ropes were burned right off).  At this point in the LXX the “Prayer of Azariah” and the “Song of the Three Hebrew Children” is inserted between Dan.2:23 and 2:24.  The Rabbis have written that at the very moment the three were thrown into the fire Ezekiel was sent to restore the dead in the valley of dry bones…God was protecting and giving life (Sanhedrin Tractate, Rodkinson 279).

The Prayer of Azariah (and The Song of the Three Hebrew Children - NRS)

1:1 They walked around in the midst of the flames, singing hymns to God and blessing the Lord. ² Then Azariah stood still in the fire and prayed aloud: ³ "Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and worthy of praise; and glorious is your name forever! ⁴ For you are just in all you have done; all your works are true and your ways right, and all your judgments are true. ⁵ You have executed true judgments in all you have brought upon us and upon Jerusalem, the holy city of our ancestors; by a true judgment you have brought all this upon us because of our sins. ⁶ For we have sinned and broken your law in turning away from you; in all matters we have sinned grievously. ⁷ We have not obeyed your commandments, we have not kept them or done what you have commanded us for our own good. ⁸ So all that you have brought upon us, and all that you have done to us, you have done by a true judgment. ⁹ You have handed us over to our enemies, lawless and hateful rebels, and to an unjust king, the most wicked in all the world. ¹⁰ And now we cannot open our mouths; we, your servants who worship you, have become a shame and a reproach. ¹¹ For your name's sake do not give us up forever, and do not annul your covenant. ¹² Do not withdraw your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham your beloved and for the sake of your servant Isaac and Israel your holy one, ¹³ to whom you promised to multiply their descendants like the stars of heaven and like the sand on the shore of the sea. ¹⁴ For we, O Lord, have become fewer than any other nation, and are brought low this day in all the world because of our sins. ¹⁵ In our day we have no ruler, or prophet, or leader, no burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, no place to make an offering before you and to find mercy.

 ¹⁶ Yet with a contrite heart and a humble spirit may we be accepted, ¹⁷ as though it were with burnt offerings of rams and bulls, or with tens of thousands of fat lambs; such may our sacrifice be in your sight today, and may we unreservedly follow you, for no shame will come to those who trust in you. ¹⁸ And now with all our heart we follow you; we fear you and seek your presence. ¹⁹ Do not put us to shame, but deal with us in your patience and in your abundant mercy. ²⁰ Deliver us in accordance with your marvelous works, and bring glory to your name, O Lord.²¹ Let all who do harm to your servants be put to shame; let them be disgraced and deprived of all power, and let their strength be broken. ²² Let them know that you alone are the Lord God, glorious over the whole world." ²³ Now the king's servants who threw them in kept stoking the furnace with naphtha, pitch, tow, and brushwood. ²⁴ And the flames poured out above the furnace forty-nine cubits, ²⁵ and spread out and burned those Chaldeans who were caught near the furnace. ²⁶ But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace to be with Azariah and his companions, and drove the fiery flame out of the furnace, ²⁷ and made the inside of the furnace as though a moist wind were whistling through it. The fire did not touch them at all and caused them no pain or distress.

 ²⁸ Then the three with one voice praised and glorified and blessed God in the furnace: ²⁹ "Blessed are you, O Lord, God of our ancestors, and to be praised and highly exalted forever;³⁰ And blessed is your glorious, holy name, and to be highly praised and highly exalted forever.³¹ Blessed are you in the temple of your holy glory, and to be extolled and highly glorified forever.³² Blessed are you who look into the depths from your throne on the cherubim, and to be praised and highly exalted forever.³³ Blessed are you on the throne of your kingdom, and to be extolled and highly exalted forever.³⁴ Blessed are you in the firmament of heaven, and to be sung and glorified forever.³⁵ "Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁶ Bless the Lord, you heavens; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁷ Bless the Lord, you angels of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁸ Bless the Lord, all you waters above the heavens; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.³⁹ Bless the Lord, all you powers of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁰ Bless the Lord, sun and moon; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴¹ Bless the Lord, stars of heaven; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴² "Bless the Lord, all rain and dew; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴³ Bless the Lord, all you winds; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁴ Bless the Lord, fire and heat; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁵ Bless the Lord, winter cold and summer heat; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁶ Bless the Lord, dews and falling snow; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁷ Bless the Lord, nights and days; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁸ Bless the Lord, light and darkness; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁴⁹ Bless the Lord, ice and cold; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁰ Bless the Lord, frosts and snows; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵¹ Bless the Lord, lightnings and clouds; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵² "Let the earth bless the Lord; let it sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵³ Bless the Lord, mountains and hills; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁴ Bless the Lord, all that grows in the ground; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁵ Bless the Lord, seas and rivers; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁶ Bless the Lord, you springs; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁷ Bless the Lord, you whales and all that swim in the waters; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁸ Bless the Lord, all birds of the air; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁵⁹ Bless the Lord, all wild animals and cattle; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁰ "Bless the Lord, all people on earth; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶¹ Bless the Lord, O Israel; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶² Bless the Lord, you priests of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶³ Bless the Lord, you servants of the Lord; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁴ Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the righteous; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁵ Bless the Lord, you who are holy and humble in heart; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever.⁶⁶ "Bless the Lord, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael; sing praise to him and highly exalt him forever. For he has rescued us from Hades and saved us from the power of death, and delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace; from the midst of the fire he has delivered us.⁶⁷ Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his mercy endures forever.⁶⁸ All who worship the Lord, bless the God of gods, sing praise to him and give thanks to him, for his mercy endures forever."

(NRS = New Revised Standard Version. Copyright © 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America)

3:24-30 – The God who walks in the fire.  Why might the Lord have allowed Nebuchadnezzar to be the first one to see the three walking in the fire and also a fourth in the fire?  They were tied and he noted they were unbound…they were thrown into a fire so hot it killed his strongest soldiers for just getting to close and he noted they were unharmed and walking around (and in the LXX they are actually singing!).  Who exactly is the fourth one seen by Nebuchadnezzar in the fire who never emerges from the flames?  Note the reference in Isaiah 43:1-3 about the LORD being with His people even through the fire.  One who looks like “a son of the gods” (Aram. bar ’elāhin) or even “a divine being” is a far more likely rendering in English than the KJV’s “Son of God”.  Nebuchadnezzar also refered to this fourth being as God’s “angel” (Aram. mal’ak) sent to care for His servants.  

What sort of transformation should this have made in him or did this make in him?  His use of “the Most High God” is really not significant as it is other times spoken by those who were not of the faith of Israel (cf. Gen.14:19; Num.24:16; Isa.14:14).  It is not that the king abandons his gods, but that he demanded that none blaspheme the God of the Jews under punishment of the very things he had declared he would do to those who failed to tell him his dreams and then interpret them (Dan.2:5).  They were willing to give up their very lives or literally “yielded up their bodies” (and Theodotian adds “to the fire” which Paul adds to his letter to the Corinthians in 1 Cor.13:3) rather than deny their God total worship and trust.  It was not a matter of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego knowing how their lives would end.  They simply knew that to trust the LORD meant that whatever happened He would be faithful and they must also be faithful because He was faithful.  This story later was taken up by Mattathias to encourage his sons in revolt against the tyrant Antiochus Epiphanes in the second century (1 Maccabees 2:59) and also by the writer of the Hebrews concerning those who “quenched the fury of the flames” in their walk of faith without having yet received the reward they sought (Heb.11:34).  Contrast the command of Deut.7:25 concerning what supposed to be done to idols with what was done to the three in this account.  The conclusion of Nebuchadnezzar is indeed the conclusion of the book of Daniel: no other god can save in the way that the God of Israel saves.