Of King's and King's Dinners

[Arron Cook]

Of Kings and King's Dinners.

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god. Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring in some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility - young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king's palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians. The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king's table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king's service. Among these were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego. But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way."

Daniel 1:1-8

I often wonder how many Christians today can see society in the majority of the western world for what it truly is.

This passage is a very small section from the beginning of the book of Daniel. We are reading the very beginning of a major event in Biblical History called the Jewish Exile. The Exile is a major event in biblical history because it marks a significant change in redemption history and in human understanding of God (or "Theology"). The Exile not only suggested but proved that God was not, as some Jews of the time believed, simply the God of Israel, nor simply the God who was confined to a temple in Jerusalem, but had free reign over all the earth -- something you would imagine they could grasp from the Pentateuch, but obviously hadn't. You see, if we jump into the book of Ezekiel, we get a look at some of the time shortly prior to the exile of the Jewish people. People, particularly Jewish people and Jews of the religious establishment, had begun keeping what R. Clements rightly calls "Pet Bibles."

Many Christians today have a "Pet Bible". A Pet Bible is a Bible that sits on a bed side table, opened merely from time to time. The owner of this Bible might lie in bed of a night time and finger through a favourite verse or two to their comfort before they go to sleep. They call it a "quiet time". And they believe that by this practice of reading a few verses before bed, that they maintain a relationship with God, and are indeed faithful, Bible-reading Christians. But the problem you see is that their Bible simply purrs. It doesn't roar at them as it should do according to the apostle Paul, who dogmatically insists that every word of God is not only breathed from His very mouth but useful for -- comfort? Pleasure? Passing the time? No! For Rebuke, Exhortation, Encouragement (which I might add is a form of rebuke, not always a hug around the shoulders) and so fourth. You see the Bible is not simply a book to read like any other book. It is God's very own library. It is a wonderful collection of events and teachings designed to make YOU a better Christian. You see, much as many people should like to argue otherwise, unless God by His spirit directly chooses otherwise, you absolutely cannot maintain a living relationship with God, without spending a significant portion of time, I would suggest daily, reading the Holy Bible. Is God a mute? If God is not powerful enough to provide for you a trustworthy library to study from and learn about Him from, how can He be powerful enough to save your soul? There is a danger, I think, of confining God to a human sized box that tries to silence the voice that reveals our sin. Sin, as the Apostle John tells us, is transgression of the law, and where would you find the Law? The Law was given that sin might become obvious, as the Apostle Paul tells us, and where would you find the Law? Without the Bible then, you delude yourself into a false sense of Christian Holiness. Does the Bible tell you to read the Bible? "Do not let this law depart from your mouth" God tells Joshua. "But meditate upon it day and night." That's not, "When you're in the mood" or "When you think you should" but DAILY. What is it Jesus says? "Let my words abide within you." Abide means to continuously dwell. To stay, to live in, to be part of even. There are no two ways about it -- the Bible is necessary to our Christian Lives, unless God by His Spirit or extreme circumstances make it otherwise.

But there is something else we need to survive in a world becoming increasingly secular, which we can learn about from Daniel. Taking Action.

Daniel, one of the exiles taken from Judah, was probably feeling more than a little displaced at the beginning of this passage, as one would expect of someone who had had their home ransacked, their possessions removed and then been relocated to a foreign, and need I say idolatrous, city. We read very clearly at the start of this passage that King Nebuchadnezzar has defiled the very temple of God and collect several souvenirs to remember the occasion by. Daniel, as a clearly genuine Religious man, would have been feeling quite overturned by the recent turn of events. But now, things are beginning to look up for him and his friends.

The Prophet Jeremiah had prophesied that the exiles taken from Judah and Jerusalem should settle down in Babylonia and I believe that Daniel knew this. And here's why.

Daniel and His friends, as the request of the king, are given oral examinations for the University of Babylon (if you'll allow me the illustration) and let's not kid ourselves, these were marvellous academic opportunities. We know from other documents of the time that the learning in Babylon was of several subjects that Daniel and his friends would have found most intellectually challenging, such as maths and sciences and even astronomy. We can know that the training mentioned in the passage is not simply basic education because we read that they were being trained for the king's service; training that would have involved deep intellectual study. You can almost begin to smell the plot at this point now, can't you? The King is hoping that by this lavish treatment and educational opportunity he is throwing at these young men, he will somehow babylonize them. "I'll get them so Babylonian that they won't even remember their Hebrew names" would have been a good summary of this plot. Christians today face a similar form of temptation in the secular world. With qualification widely available and many careers paying quite adequately one almost wonders why unemployment is as bad as it is. We live in a society where we are constantly told that more is better, that bigger is stronger and that material is all there is. Today, almost everything is slanted towards the idea that it doesn't matter what you do, how you do it, what you believe or how you express that, but that it is the personal enrichment you receive from believing it that truly matters. With such a philosophy, I could say "I like to burn wax candles in my ears until they read my ear drums; I am now deaf but hey, whatever makes me happy." You can see the stupidity of it, surely. But this is sneaking into the Church as well, isn't it? "As a covenant believer, you have the right to better finances." "As a Christian, God will lavish upon you all that this world has to offer". People holding such egocentric theology often like to quote Jesus in John 10 where He says "I have come that they may have life and have it to the full." I am afraid to say that such people misunderstand the verse entirely. Jesus does not mean "Christians will have fantastic material lives." Jesus does not mean "Follow me for lower interest rates", no! To suggest to is an aberration and blasphemous! Jesus, as the text literally means "I have come that they may have a full life." The Apostle Paul often found himself stoned, beaten, imprisoned, hungry and all in all a little worse off then when he had been sat in the Sanhedrin nice and comfortably. But Paul is his letter to the Philippians tells them "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" and contrary to popular belief that does not mean that Christians can do anything. It does not mean that Christians can fly, or walk on water or pop to heaven for afternoon tea on a whim -- don't get me wrong, nothing is impossible for God, but the point is that there is plenty that is impossible for humans. Paul, in the context of that verse, is talking about money! He is saying that God has taught him to content with plenty and to be content with little.

But you see, Daniel is a genuinely religious man. He knows that, at some point, somehow he will have to draw the line. And I think it's really interesting to note where he does that.

We read in the verse 8, the final verse of our section, that Daniel decided not to eat the King's dinner. Some scholars have suggested that the reason that Daniel did this was because the food wasn't kosher, and indeed the Law of Moses did have certain dietary restrictions, but I find it hard to agree as we read that he refused the wine as well; there was nothing preventing that in the Law of Moses. However, we also read that Daniel "chose not to defile himself" with the King's food, so the refusal is clearly religious in origin. Some other scholars suggest that the refusal was on the grounds of the possibility of the food having been consecrated to idols before being served, a valid suggestion. However, Daniel goes on in later verses to request vegetables instead and they could just as easily have been consecrated to idols as the kingly finery had been. The Hebrew reads that Daniel "purposed in his heart" not to defile himself with the King's food, so this is clearly a matter or religious and moral conscience, of personal holiness. So what is Daniel's issue?

I believe that Daniel had chosen to draw the line here. In the ancient world, dining from some bodies table would have been considered a sign of friendship, of covenant even, and we know that Daniel as a Jew was already in an exclusive Covenant to Jehovah. So we see here that Daniel is saying "I'll take your education and settle into your society, but don't delude yourself into thinking, king, that I have abandoned my God and my roots. I am a Jew and always will be," he is almost saying. He is being in the world and not of it. He is settling down without giving up his purity. This appears to be, as we might call it, an act of witness.

Isn't it about time we, as Christians did this too? Should we take a stand against all ungodliness in our world as an act of witness? When people at school or at work are having promiscuous sexual relationships, should we as Christian Believers take a stand and be pure? When the world (as it has done in Britain) writes approval of homosexuality into its legal system, shouldn't we, as Christians. be faithful enough to lose our businesses and positions rather than disobey the Lord our God? Is not Jesus greater and more important than anything else? Don't get me wrong, Christians should be tolerant in terms of what tolerant actually means. We should be tolerant because we trust in the ability of the truth to vindicate itself. Not tolerant in terms of what the western world has turned it into; pluralistic, ecumenical, idolatry.

My challenge to you is to read the life of Daniel and see that he took the steps when he had to. He spoke the truth because the truth needed to be spoken, not because he wanted anything. Read how he remained faithful to his god, even when the legal system told him he couldn't do so. Read his life and see if you can't do the same.

May the Lord Bless His Word to you.

Arron

Edited June 29, 2007 by Arron Cook

[st. Worm]

Unfortunately a lot of people here are going to buy what you are selling. I read your post yesterday where you were in essence saying that Christians should not have financial success and you posted that under the guise of criticizing the prosperity gospel. However, the prosperity gospel is not the same as believers accumulating wealth and being blessed financially. I wish you had responded to my response yesterday but you chose not to do. If you had we could at least have clarified what you were saying. After reading your post today I am nearly convinced you are advocating some type of Christian separatist movement whereby Christians are to have no dealings in the world with sinners and are to live a life of poverty. Unfortunately that type of thinking means we can have no dealings with other Christians, since we too are sinners.

You say we as Christians should lose our "positions and businesses" apparently over the fact that the government acknowledges homosexuality. But the truth is we are to live in this world although we are not of it and we are to do so until God himself decides to separate the sheep from the goats. We are not to advocate it or endorse it but we are part of it just the same.

Believers sometimes tend to fall for things that sound good and pious but what you are promoting is neither.

sw

[Arron Cook]

Hi there Brother

Well, I didn't reply to your response yesterday because I haven't read it yet. LOL.

I do share your concerns, and please don't think for a moment I am advocating a Christian Separatist movement; that in and of itself is an abberation of scripture.

My reference to "losing jobs" is in this sermon because it was given to give to Christians in my country (britain) who are currently facing this issue because of the new Sexual Orientation Regulations which will mean that Christian adoption agencies will have to give children into the care of homosexuals against their will and Christians in miistry will be expected to give their blessing on Civil Partnerships. My message was posted here as a rather copy and paste method I must admit, as this place wasn't it's original intention.

Please do forgive me if I seem to be advocating something I'm not.

Regarding prosperity;

I perfectly agree that God can raise up and bless whomever He chooses, but my point is that it is exacly that; whomever HE chooses. The Prosperity Teachers I have heard are teaching that if we do certain things, pray a certain way or do this, or do that, God's arm will be twisted and He will automatically bless us; as if He were merely some cosmic blessing dispenser. I'm sure you'll agree that blessing and the distribution thereof is God's business and God's business alone; we are merely called to be faithful and if that means giving away and looking outwards? Amen, I say.

I hope this clears it up.

Yours in His Worthy Name,

Arron

[st. Worm]

Hi there Brother

Well, I didn't reply to your response yesterday because I haven't read it yet. LOL.

I do share your concerns, and please don't think for a moment I am advocating a Christian Separatist movement; that in and of itself is an abberation of scripture.

My reference to "losing jobs" is in this sermon because it was given to give to Christians in my country (britain) who are currently facing this issue because of the new Sexual Orientation Regulations which will mean that Christian adoption agencies will have to give children into the care of homosexuals against their will and Christians in miistry will be expected to give their blessing on Civil Partnerships. My message was posted here as a rather copy and paste method I must admit, as this place wasn't it's original intention.

Please do forgive me if I seem to be advocating something I'm not.

Regarding prosperity;

I perfectly agree that God can raise up and bless whomever He chooses, but my point is that it is exacly that; whomever HE chooses. The Prosperity Teachers I have heard are teaching that if we do certain things, pray a certain way or do this, or do that, God's arm will be twisted and He will automatically bless us; as if He were merely some cosmic blessing dispenser. I'm sure you'll agree that blessing and the distribution thereof is God's business and God's business alone; we are merely called to be faithful and if that means giving away and looking outwards? Amen, I say.

I hope this clears it up.

Yours in His Worthy Name,

Arron

Thank you for your clarification. In the context of the situations in Canada and Great Britain and the possibility that Christian churches and agencies may be forced to be accepting of homosexuality in a way that forces them to compromise their biblical beliefs I think we are in agreement. I understood your first post in this thread to be saying that Christians could not have any dealings with homosexuals in any way. I agree with you if you talking about government mandates forcing churches to perform sham marriages between homosexual couples and the like. We are not at that point here yet but unlike you Brits we have a constitution that is supposed to protect us from that.

blessings,

sw

[salos]

Arron, thanks for your posts. I can't imagine being in the situations you described, "Christian adoption agencies will have to give children into the care of homosexuals against their will and Christians in miistry will be expected to give their blessing on Civil Partnerships"

Such behavior, whether dictated by the government or not, is so reprehensible.