A Missed Lesson from the Book of Daniel

Dominionists and other advocates for Christians in government will often appeal to the example of Daniel and his three friends as a case for contemporary New Covenant believers working for a pagan government – to do good it is argued.

These arguments fail to take into account the context of Daniel's experience. Located under the Old Covenant there are always typological aspects to the story and just as Naaman the Syrian and the widow of Zarephath are appealed to by the New Testament as anticipatory examples of the wider parameters of the New Covenant and the coming Gentile inclusion, there are similarly applicable narratives when it comes to the likes of Cyrus the Achaemenid and some of the events surrounding Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel.

Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were also slaves, captives (and likely eunuchs) brought against their will to Babylon where in the course of Providence and redemptive-history they were meant to testify in terms of prophecy and to bear witness and in some capacity (it could be argued) exemplify antithesis.

Now God is certainly able to deliver His people in our day but under the New Covenant the overt supernaturalism, the miraculous does not have the same prominence that it did under the Old order.  Though it may seem counterintuitive to some, the New Covenant is superior. The signs and wonders phase of the New Testament has with the apostles passed – but this is not to say that God isn't still active in the affairs of men and as Daniel suggests, he still steers the hearts of kings even while raising them up and bringing them down.

But there's another lesson to be learned from the experience of Daniel. Both Daniel and his friends all faced death sentences for their obedience. They were delivered but should believers expect the same today? Are they prepared to embrace that fate (so to speak) – which is the fate of all those who operating in the bosom of the state (and yet remaining faithful) are bound to face. Those holding office will certainly face moments of crisis and the temptation to compromise. Almost without exception the deluded Christians who seek power make these compromises and convince themselves that they are being faithful. This point should be obvious but apparently is not as many of these sell-outs, compromisers, and apostates are celebrated as heroes.

Daniel refused to compromise and was sentenced to death – but God sent an angel to shut the mouths of the lions.

His companions were sentenced to immolation, but were miraculously delivered by the Angel of the Lord.

Babylon is identified as a bestial power – and under normal circumstances faithful Christians will be resented, hated, and persecuted by the power. That's the norm. Even Daniel reveals that.

And as suggested we must ask a simple question, did Daniel and his companions in fact do good in terms of Babylonian society? Did they bring some kind of moral government to Babylon?

We don't actually know but whatever impact they had – it would seem to be insignificant as Babylon was no less the beast.

Even Nebuchadnezzar's declarations demonstrate the folly of unbelievers trying to exercise moral power in the name of the True God. After the fiery furnace incident his piety consists of a declaration that anyone who speaks of ill of Jehovah will be cut in pieces and their house made a dunghill. There is no suggestion that this sort of thing is celebrated by the faithful Jewish community. No Christian who understands the New Testament would want the state to make such a declaration.

As far as Nebuchadnezzar's madness and humiliation, there are those who believe in its aftermath we have a record of his conversion. This cannot be. I'm afraid I agree with Calvin on this point, it was merely outward, an acknowledgement of Divine Sovereignty not regeneration.

In terms of redemptive-historical typology what we have is an anticipation of the Judgment when all will bow the knee – even the lords of the bestial realms. We have a kind of brokenness and repentance but not a conversion. Had Nebuchadnezzar converted he would have been circumcised and ceased to be ruler in Babylon. No convert could continue as the ruler of the lands of Bel-Marduk, as one named for the god Nabu. The ruler of Babylon was a sacral ruler and as a convert he would no longer be able to fulfill that religious role and the rites and ceremonies associated with it. He would have stepped down or more likely started righting the wrongs of his evil empire and dismantling it. He would have been overthrown. A slave might rule in the name of the king but the king rules in the name of the god of the land and often represented the said god or gods.

Nebuchadnezzar's reflections demonstrate how far even fallen man can go in his understanding – but it is not to the point of salvation. There is no evidence of that and we know that his progeny continued in the same wickedness resulting in the dynasty's overthrow.

On a final but connected note, another Old Testament figure that is often appealed to in this line of argument is Joseph. And yet as I have long argued – this proves a little too much. Is Joseph really the model modern Christians wish to emulate? Living out a life of suffering followed by glory, Joseph faithfully played his prophetic and typological role to be sure. And yet on another level, he strengthened the hand of Pharaoh, centralizing power and wealth to an extreme. And as Egypt was also a Beast-power it didn't take long for its true nature to become manifest – which was not an example of good government but the Hand of Providence setting the stage for the calling of Moses, the Exodus, the destruction of Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan.

On the one hand God's people were being saved, on the other hand Egypt was being set up for a fall. So many commentators think they know what God is (or was) doing with regard to the British or American Empires – or in another age the Holy Roman Empire or some other entity. The truth is they don't know and all they're celebrating may in fact be mere preparation for judgment – judgment they are bringing on themselves. Many looking back in lamentation (at the British Empire or Christian America) only flaunt their ignorance and the fact that even after generations of reflection, they've learned nothing. Those like Peter J. Marshall (of The Light and the Glory fame) who try and impose a theological-interpretative grid on American history are not wise or devout in their historiography. They're false teachers – blind leading the blind and wolves in sheep's clothing justifying evil in the name of a narrative, and more often than not calling good evil and evil good.

As with all Old Testament typologies – when looked at on a standalone basis (apart from Christ) they fail and end in defeat. Joseph built up the strength of Pharaoh and when the new dynasty arose, the ruler of Egypt waxed bestial, enslaved God's people, and ultimately tried to destroy them through the killing of their children. For those who would take the Joseph narrative and read it apart from Christ and through rose-coloured glasses, one can only say – be careful what you wish for.

By way of a weak analogy one can point to the way the descendants of the Magisterial Protestant tradition strengthened the hands of the state in the role of education just over a century ago. This was to secure their power and (it was hoped) their control over the reins of the American state and society. A century later the same institutions are now generating grief and even persecuting Christians who fail to submit to its authority. There are other parallels to be sure – one immediately thinks of the security state so-championed by these same Christians during not just the Cold War but in the post-9/11 context – the same security state that many are now threatened by and resisting.

The imagery in Revelation 17 represents a stark warning to the Church as does the language and imagery in Isaiah in his denunciation of those who go down to Egypt for help.

The moral uprightness of Daniel, his friends, and figures like Joseph are certainly inspiring and exemplary but they must be understood in their Christocentric and redemptive-historical context. We needn't dismiss all moral application but to miss the context is to miss the true theological nature of their lives and experiences.