Fiery Furnace (Daniel 3)

So, Fall Break is a thing. And, as per my usual irresponsibility I forgot today was Friday because it feels like a Saturday. I apologize to all of you faithful few, and would like to take the time to look at some things here today in reading this.

So today, we are obviously going to look at background because you know, it went from background to exposition to background to exposition. So obviously, the next in the pattern is obviously background.

But as you can tell from the title, that pattern thankfully is broken. We get to continue to look at the Aramaic portion of the book of Daniel and what the Lord chose to reveal to all people at the time of the captivity to show that He let the Israelites get captured as a punishment and is not weaker than the gods of the Babylonians.

So Daniel 3 enters in. We all know the story, and we all know of the admirable faith of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago. And indeed, we should all emulate it. But what can we learn about God through this chapter?

The chapter starts out rather simply in the first 2 verses, 

"Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up."

Obviously, Nebuchadnezzar's changed heart at the end of the last chapter has changed, and he has moved onward to challenge the worship of God. Setting up an idol and commanding essentially that all political officials come and worship this idol.

So what happens? Well, you all know the story. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago refuse to bow down to the idol and there is a tattle-tale, so the king brings them in for questioning.

And we immediately have the set-up of the scene of God's greatness to be seen. In verse 15, we read,

"Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?"

Who indeed? Certainly there isn't a god who is actually stronger than Nebuchadnezzar and his gods and the fiery furnace. Oh yeah, there is a God in heaven. He actually isn't he? Well, I guess we'll find out.

As an even further set-up, Shadrach Meshach, and Abednago express the truth statement and theme of the chapter. Verses 17-18 explains,

"If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."

Oh, yeah, Hebrew God can do things. And of course, Nebuchadnezzar is like, eh no, and he commands the furnace to be set to 7 times the heat it is normally supposed to be set. Just so that there is no chance that they could possibly survive.

To further show that there is no chance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednago surviving without the assistance of some supernatural force, the men commanded to throw them into the furnace explode into flame and perish. They are so much goners.

Except...they aren't. They manage to live, without a hint of burning damage within them. And Nebuchadnezzar tends to notice that. You know, it seems that there are people alive. And for some reason four of them. He says simply,

"Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

So the fourth looks a little majestic. And of course, there is speculation about whether this is an example of the pre-incarnate Christ  appearing to people. There is no proof of this, but it is certainly possible, but probably more relevant is this: there was clearly a supernatural being and force that delivered the faithful Israelites from the fiery furnace that was certain to kill them. And it doth seem based on the prelude into this big test that that supernatural force is a personal being that the Israelites worship as God.

And Nebuchadnezzar, a source that the Babylonians themselves would accept, acknowledges this to be true. In the climax of the event (just as in chapter 2), Nebuchadnezzar declares,

"Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort." 

There is no other God that can deliver after this sort. Indeed. Feel like I heard this at some other point in the book of Daniel that God was the only one who could do things. Hmm....

Respect for Authority

Imagine this: you have a friend who sits down one day and just rants and rants and rants about how restrictive his parents rules are. After he finishes blasting them with insults (and not even addressing the rules), it becomes clear to you that regardless of how wrong his parents are, he is more wrong to disrespect his parents because they are his God-ordained authorities.

Clearly we can see that while we might be able to give some friendly criticism to show the flaws in those that have been placed as authorities before us, we should know not to ridicule, we should know not to constantly complain, and we should know to respect them in all that we say and do.

But among certain groups (of otherwise amazing people) here at my college you would guess that this particular respectfulness and willingness to criticize without mocking has not been understood.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out some things that you find weird about the viewpoints of the authorities in your life. If you think it's weird for instance that this university does not let women teach men in Bible classes (I tend to agree, but I've heard compelling arguments for both sides), then you can say so.

What you can't and shouldn't do, of course, is say that this action obviously proves the current administration to be a collection of sexist pigs who simply want to keep women in the kitchen. (Food for thought: if they really believed that, why would they hire any female professors at all?)

This attitude of name-calling and exaggeration of an issue is disrespectful to an organization that you just happen to disagree with. Regardless of the intentions that these students had in the first place, their comments ultimately just smell of the same bigotry and intolerance that they accuse the university of.

Perhaps another example may illustrate this point further. It is acceptable for one to express disagreement over chapel speakers, but it is disrespectful to make those same speakers the butt of jokes throughout the entirety of the semester (and beyond). They're human; they'll make mistakes, say some things that they regret; some may even change their minds about what they say later. If you were in their position, you wouldn't want to live in infamy for your comments the rest of your days.

While we're on the subject of chapel, why is it that we think we have the right to avoid punishment when we skip chapel? Don't get me wrong, if you want to skip chapel, you have a right to do that. But if you are going to go past your 8 allowed unexcused absences (as well as that 5 absence grace period), then you should submit to the authority of the university and pay the fine. You should not falsify excuse forms or "scan and scram" in order to avoid the consequences. We should not defiantly refuse chapel "because the university has no right to force mature adults to attend a worship service every day."

At the end of the day, students here (and everywhere, I assume) have accepted the authority of their college. Disrespecting the authority of one's parents is one thing, but we do not typically think that disrespecting a university is really bad. But this becomes especially bothersome when you consider that most students specifically chose this specific authority in their life.

When you agreed to come to this university, you agreed to respect and accept their authority. That's not even in the fine print. So can we all just take a moment to purge the wonderful community here of this one glaring problem and start to change our attitude of the current administration and beyond.

The Battle for Supremacy: Church v. State

During the time of a unified Catholic church before the Reformation, there was a controversy that still holds some weight today. A controversy dealing with the scriptural understanding of who actually holds supreme authority on earth - church or state.

With such decisions coming from the government on freedom of religion, the question must again be asked - who has that control? Since the question is not new, let's spend some time examining the history of the viewpoints.

The argument between church and state authority stemmed first of all from an understanding that both the church and the state did have legitimate authority. To prove this, the two camps misused Luke 22:38, where Jesus proclaims that two swords is “enough.”

However, this misinterpretation does not answer the question of which “sword” had the higher authority. Of course, both the church and the state wanted to exert that influence themselves and thus had “biblical support” for the supremacy of their authority.

The legal rulers used Romans 13 to illustrate that the members of the church were to be “subject” unto the authority of the government. Furthermore, Romans 13 clearly states that to resist this authority is to resist God Himself. Taken with Romans 13's labeling of government officials as "ministers of God…for good,” this passage, according to the rulers, provided ample support that the government was a high authority on earth, and indeed higher even than the church.

On the other hand, the church used support from the book of Matthew. In chapter 16, Jesus tells Peter that He will build his church “upon this rock.” This the church uses to indicate that Peter is a representative of the church itself. Thus, when within the same verse, Jesus promises to give Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven,” the church finds this to mean that the church has immense authority upon earth. Further support can be garnered for this from the fact that Jesus goes on to explain, that whatever Peter shall “bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,” and the same for that which he shall loose on earth – a sentiment that is repeated later on in Matthew 18. This according to the church, means that everyone (even government) is bound to follow the edicts of the church.

As we examine these arguments as we approach today's questions, I think we should clearly see the varying difficulties that both of these positions dictate. If we are honest in our interpretative framework, at best what both of these positions are able to prove is simply that both the church and the state should have legitimate authority.

Romans 13, as stellar as it is to show Christian's obligations to government, does not give the government control over spiritual concerns. It doesn't give the government control over the church itself, only over the members of the church in the sphere of politics.

The verses in Matthew honestly don't mention government subservience to church either, or any reason why governmental affairs should be handled by the church. At best, the church could only use this to claim authority over the life of the Christian. Even that interpretation takes a few giant logical leaps away from the text itself.

Thus, it is my contention that both the church and the state are wrong in this viewpoint. Ultimately, the church should have its authority over its own members and spiritual concerns, but the state should have its own authority over political and legal issues. An argument can be made that both should be concerned with moral concerns (but then the question becomes, how much authority over morality do you give to the slimy government?).

Of course, keeping the divide between the two authorities is much easier said than actually done. The fact is, that each of the two authorities have a desire to control the other from time to time, such as demonstrated by this very argument.

In actually solving this conflict then, it becomes necessary to write (and have an enforcement mechanism for) a separation between church and state. Ultimately, there is no perfect solution, but I believe that the United States system is probably a fair model to emulate in creating a new one.

In it, both the church and the state are ultimately protected from each other. In the “free exercise” clause, each individual is given the opportunity to choose for themselves which religion they want to enter or even to not be religious at all, whereas the “establishment” clause gives a practical application to the free exercise clause broadly speaking.

These work to protect the church from the state, as well as the harmful effects of the church controlling the state in that there is no way to use the coercive power of the government to violate the freedom of conscience. It's a win-win for all.

Oh, and since you're probably wondering why the church needs protected from the state, and the state needs protected from the church, let's just say, there's another politics post in two weeks, and it might just be related to this one...