Summer Reading: Daniel 5-6
Chapter 5 brings us into the supernatural, if not science fiction. The king, Belshazzar (who was not, historically, Nebuchadnezzar's son, but for some reason is named so in this story), is hosting a party and decides to use the sacred vessels from the temple in Jerusalem as wine glasses. So a vision appears (reminds me a bit of Dickens' A Christmas Carol), presumably a warning from God in response to the desecration of these holy relics. Daniel is called in to interpret, and tells the king what he sees, even though it's bad news for the king.
This is the second time we've seen a reference to four kingdoms (also seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue, chapter 2). These visions of sets of 4 serve to "predict" the demise of four empires, at the end of which time God will usher in God's eternal and perfect reign. The apocalyptic nature of this vision will be seen again in the second half of the book, when Daniel receives the dreams. The four empires are Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Keep in mind that while this story is set during the Babylonian captivity (605-539 bce), it later references events that happened as late as 146 bce, so it's descriptive in a coded, apocalyptic way more than predictive.
And chapter 6 brings us the story we've been waiting for: Daniel in the Lion's Den. Here we see again this "law of the Persians and Medes that cannot be revoked", when King Darius, who is friendly to Daniel, is bound by his own decree to kill him. Remember this serves a literary purpose but was not historically a practice. This story is quite a bit later than the earlier stories; Darius comes into power in 522 bce, 40 years after Nebuchadnezzar dies.
Think about what you know / remember of this story. Our children's Sunday School versions leave out the collateral violence in these stories: although the heroes are saved by a miracle, people around them are subject to the death to which they were sentenced (guards die in the fire, conspirators are cast to the lions; in Esther, Haman dies on the impaling stake he built for Mordecai). The point remains: God is God, and nothing on earth is more powerful than God who created earth and heaven--not kings, not idols, not fire, not lions, not governments--God undoes their death-dealings to save the lives of God's faithful people.
Some questions:
Does it bother you that verifiable historical details are manipulated (blatant errors) for the sake of a story? (succession of kings, in this case) Does it make the story "less believable" as a story of faith?
Do you appreciate having additional backstory (like all this empire information) to help you understand a Bible story? Does it change how you think about it?
Is it helpful to think of God as a superhero who comes in to save the day? What about when that does NOT happen? Is it the point?
This is the second time we've seen a reference to four kingdoms (also seen in Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue, chapter 2). These visions of sets of 4 serve to "predict" the demise of four empires, at the end of which time God will usher in God's eternal and perfect reign. The apocalyptic nature of this vision will be seen again in the second half of the book, when Daniel receives the dreams. The four empires are Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Keep in mind that while this story is set during the Babylonian captivity (605-539 bce), it later references events that happened as late as 146 bce, so it's descriptive in a coded, apocalyptic way more than predictive.
And chapter 6 brings us the story we've been waiting for: Daniel in the Lion's Den. Here we see again this "law of the Persians and Medes that cannot be revoked", when King Darius, who is friendly to Daniel, is bound by his own decree to kill him. Remember this serves a literary purpose but was not historically a practice. This story is quite a bit later than the earlier stories; Darius comes into power in 522 bce, 40 years after Nebuchadnezzar dies.
Think about what you know / remember of this story. Our children's Sunday School versions leave out the collateral violence in these stories: although the heroes are saved by a miracle, people around them are subject to the death to which they were sentenced (guards die in the fire, conspirators are cast to the lions; in Esther, Haman dies on the impaling stake he built for Mordecai). The point remains: God is God, and nothing on earth is more powerful than God who created earth and heaven--not kings, not idols, not fire, not lions, not governments--God undoes their death-dealings to save the lives of God's faithful people.
Some questions:Does it bother you that verifiable historical details are manipulated (blatant errors) for the sake of a story? (succession of kings, in this case) Does it make the story "less believable" as a story of faith?
Do you appreciate having additional backstory (like all this empire information) to help you understand a Bible story? Does it change how you think about it?
Is it helpful to think of God as a superhero who comes in to save the day? What about when that does NOT happen? Is it the point?
Comments
Post a Comment