READING DANIEL

Above:  King Nebuchadnezzar II as a Wild Animal

Image in the Public Domain

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PART IV

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Daniel 4:1-34

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

My graduate school training is in history.  I, therefore, recognize and accept that Daniel 4 is ahistorical.  According to ancient historical sources, King Nebuchadnezzar II was never away from office for any extended period of time.  We do know, however, that King Nabonidus (reigned 556-539 B.C.E.), the last Chaldean/Neo-Babylonian monarch, spent a decade (553-543 B.C.E.) on the Arabian peninsula.  We also know that Crown Prince Belshazzar exercised power in his father’s stead during those years.  When we read Daniel 4, we read folklore and theology, not history.

As I keep writing in this series, the Book of Daniel includes elements of satire.  The depiction of King Nebuchadnezzar II as a blustery, dangerous fool in Chapters 2 and 3 fits into this theme.  The image of him insane, naked, and animalistic in a field (Chapter 4) takes the satire one more step.

The sovereignty of God is a prominent theme in the Book of Daniel, as we have seen in Chapters 1-3.  That theme is evident in Chapter 4.  Once more, we read of King Nebuchadnezzar II acknowledging the sovereignty of God.

The sovereignty of God pertains to another theme I have also addressed in the previous post.  To quote Daniel L. Smith-Christopher, corrected for the standards of The Elements of Style (Strunk and White) to remove “the fact that” and create a gerund to make the sentence make sense:

The book of Daniel suggests that…Christians finding themselves under the rule of an oppressive state (whether over or more subtle) does mean that they need to bow to its authority.

—The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume VII (1996), 76

God is in charge.  Even potentates are subject to divine judgments and standards.  When the laws of God and the laws of governments conflict, one still has a moral duty to obey the laws of God.  One also retains the moral duty to do so by proper methods.

This point–civil disobedience–can easily lead into difficult territory.  I am neither an anarchist nor a right-wing law-and-order, my-country, right-or-wrong partisan.  My moral compass is the Golden Rule, with Jesus as the exemplar.  Therefore, I applaud the conductors of the Underground Railroad–criminals, according to federal law–as moral giants.  I also regard the U.S. federal policy of separating families at the border with moral outrage.  Nobody who supports that policy has any moral standing to lecture me on being pro-life, having family values, and/or keeping the Golden Rule.

One mistake many who seek to follow divine law commit is obnoxiousness.  One ought to act courageously, boldly, and sincerely.  And one should proceed from love.  God is love, after all.  At the end, all must stand before God.  May we, by grace, acquit ourselves as well as possible until then.

KENNETH RANDOLPH TAYLOR

NOVEMBER 16, 2020 COMMON ERA

THE FEAST OF SAINT MARGARET OF SCOTLAND, QUEEN, HUMANITARIAN, AND ECCLESIASTICAL REFORMER

THE FEAST OF SAINT GIUSEPPE MOSCATI, ITALIAN ROMAN CATHOLIC PHYSICIAN

THE FEAST OF IGNACIO ELLACURIA AND HIS COMPANIONS, MARTYRS IN EL SALVADOR, NOVEMBER 15, 1989

THE FEAST OF JOHANNES KEPLER, GERMAN LUTHERAN ASTRONOMER AND MATHEMATICIAN

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++