Gooding, David: 3 - The Importance of Detail

Now, it is a long time since yesterday, so just let me remind you, if I may, of what we are at in these particular seminars. My brief was to let you see the kind of approach that I personally would make to the book of Daniel. And I, uh, begged liberty to consider not only the book of Daniel, but also the book of the Revelation. They are both books filled with prophetic visions. And in addition, the visions that were given to John in the book of the Revelation bear striking similarity to some of the visions that were given to Daniel in his earlier day. And therefore it becomes an interesting and in the end very fruitful, uh, discipline to compare the visions given to John and recorded in the Revelation with those given to his earlier, the earlier prophet Daniel. In my own approach, I said yesterday that I do not, of course, despise, belittle, or in any way disparage the approach that normally is taken by the systematic theologians. Systematic theologians, God bless them, they do take, uh, pieces here and pieces there and pieces elsewhere from the various books in which they find them. And their aim is to put them together in order and thus come to, uh, the, the doctrine of eschatology as a whole. And in their systematic, in their books of systematic theology, you can therefore, with great convenience, turn to one section of the o- o- of the book, and you will find there a survey of all those passages of scripture that deal with prophetic things, and what those passages teach are all put together into one systematic whole. That, of course, is a very valid approach. It is based on the assumption that the word of God is inspired, that what God says by way of prophecy in one part of scripture will not contradict what he says in some other part of scripture, but putting them both together, they will in the end build a logically coherent system of doctrine on matters prophetic. I repeat, nothing that I say is meant to take away or disparage from that exercise in the study of God's word. Like all methods, it has a weakness i- into which its practitioners could fall if they weren't careful. Most of them, I'm sure, don't fall, but they could fall if they weren't careful. And that is, they tend to abstract prophetic elements from the books in which they find them, not always with due care to understand first what that book is saying as a whole, and therefore not taking due care to consider what the prophetic element in that book, how that prophetic element in that book is related to the book as a whole. And therefore, it seems to me that our first exercise in coming at any book of scripture is to try to understand what that book is saying as a book, and how its different elements combine and function together in a coherent message put forward by that book. And then, when we have understood its various elements and how they function together, then to take what elements in it we like out of it and put them with elements elsewhere to construct a systematic theology of any particular subject. The practical effect of that particular approach to the book of Daniel is first to observe that the book of Daniel, though it does contain many chapters of straight, undiluted prophecy, also contains many chapters that are not, in that sense, immediately prophetic at all. And therefore, our approach was to list the contents of the book of Daniel and to see how each of those parts come together as a whole, function as a whole, in relation one to another. And therefore, roughly, we listed the, uh, contents of the book of Daniel. To decide what those contents were and how they should be analyzed, we proposed to ourselves three ideas. First, thought flow, and second, structure, and third, pattern. These three. and the greatest of these three is, did you get it? Thought flow, yes. Thought flow. Thought flow to begin with, thought flow in the middle, and thought flow at the end. Thought flow is always the chief tool to use in the diagnosis of what a passage or a book is saying. And following that, we saw that the first, uh, nine chapters of the book of Daniel, uh, in one sense self-contained units. They come, each of them, to its own climax in its own way. The last three chapters in the book, three chapters as marked in most English translations, we found were in fact just one unit in the book and not three. Ten, eleven, twelve, in other words, are all about one vision. We decided, therefore, on the grounds of thought flow, that there were ten major elements in the book of Daniel. Then, noticing that there were these ten, we asked, were they ten individual items, nothing at all to do with one another? Or did they show any evidence of being somehow in content, in idea, related to one another? And very soon, of course, we found that yes, various, uh, uh, of the elements obviously had things in common. Chapter two is Nebuchadnezzar's dream image. Chapter three is the story of the golden image made by Nebuchadnezzar. Chapters four and five are linked, explicitly linked, as many a gospel preacher has observed. The first is about the king who be- was warned, and instead of listening to the warning and modifying his behavior, he persisted in his arrogance and was cut down, but was restored. The very sentence that said he should be cut down also said that the stump should be left and he should be restored, and he was restored. The second story is of a king who was warned, but warned, as chapter five explicitly says, by being reminded of what happened to this first king. You knew all this, but you took no notice. So the two stories are, uh, are linked together by their very content. It's not my linking them together, it's what the text itself does. This king, with the warning of the previous king in front of him, and nevertheless per- uh, persevering with his folly, was cut. For him, of course, there was no restoration. And we noticed the very obvious thing, chapter seven and eight are both about visions of beasts. Um, we then noticed that, uh, the first five elements in the book, the first five chapters, are linked in another way. Once more, we were back at our thought flow. We noticed how, at the very beginning, when Nebuchadnezzar's attack upon Jerusalem is described briefly, we were told that the king, uh, uh, that the Lord gave Jehoiachin, king of Judah, into his hand with part of the vessels of the house of God, and he carried them into the land of Shinar to the house of his God, and he brought the vessels of gold into the treasure house of his God. And that, when you pause to think, is a remarkable detail. Here goes the great king of Babylon come to assault Jerusalem, and in spite of all the other very significant things he did, almost the first thing that is pointed out is that he not only took the king, but he took these vessels out of the house of the Lord. And then we're told what he did with them. He put them into the house of his God, uh, in Babylon. A remarkable detail to be s- uh, selected by the Spirit of God at that juncture, compared with all the other things that the mighty king did. He put them in the house of his God with pagan reverence, because he respected them as vessels dedicated to a God. His own God, he would have thought Marduk was more important than Jehovah. Nonetheless, Jehovah was a god, and Nebuchadnezzar reverently put them into the house of his god. That we are told at the very beginning of the book. But when we come down to this story five, we have recurrent mention of these vessels out of the house of the Lord when Belshazzar, in the middle of his, uh, uh, his, um, banquet, called for the vessels of the house of the Lord, and before all his guests drank from them, thus committing a desecration and a sacrilege against Almighty God. We notice that in the drama of that story in chapter five, the drinking from those vessels is the crucial point. And when he had drunk from them and put them back on the table, at that moment came out the hand writing upon the wall that pronounced God's sentence upon Belshazzar. Then we noticed that, uh, that night, of course, Belshazzar was slain, but the city was taken by the invading armies of Cyrus the Mede. And here, as far as the flow of the history throughout these narratives is concerned, here you come to the end of Babylon. And Cyrus the Mede took over the kingdom. So on the grounds of thought flow, here you get, you start with Babylon's attack on Jerusalem, the first and early attack. Later it was that Nebuchadnezzar came back and, uh, destroyed the temple. This was only his pre- preliminary attack. After he had arrived at Jerusalem and done these things, news came that his father was dead, and he had to hurry back to to, uh, Babylon to, uh, uh, be crowned king. But anyway, uh, here is the beginning of Babylon's attack on Jerusalem. Chapter five is the end of Babylon. So as a historical unit, that stands. You'll see. Then we noticed that, uh, looking sideways, so to speak, across from the first five to the second, there were obvious similarities. Chapter two, Nebuchadnezzar's dream image, was about a succession of Gentile world powers. Powers, world powers that would follow each other, but eventually be removed by God. And chapter seven was likewise a picture of, in picture form, a prophecy of those very same four world powers that, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's empire, would follow each other and eventually be put aside by God. We paused at that stage to consider, uh, uh, the significance of this. Why, what should we make of it? We used a simple analogy, uh, reminded ourselves that if you get a series of similar things with, um, many points in common, well, first the thing to do is to notice that they are similar. The second thing, of course, is to employ a little differential diagnosis and ask where the differences lie. Remember the three gentlemen? Of course you do. They all arrived at the doctor's surgery with a sore throat, you remember? In that they were all the same. The doctor didn't just dish out the aspirin to all three, wasn't deceived by the fact that they all had similar symptoms, all had sore throats, but bad number one opened his mouth and looking down it discovered that the sore throat resulted by the fact he'd been shouting his head off at the local football match and told him to go home and shut up. That was his medicine for which he was duly charged. The second man opened his mouth, and upon inspection it proved that he had an infection of the larynx. His treatment, of course, was a little penicillin. The third man opened his mouth. It turned out to be more gray than the other two. The doctor took a specimen because he feared it was cancer of the throat. Three so- sore throats? But now the important thing is the difference between them. Two chapters dealing with the succession of the great world imperial powers, uh, o- of ancient times, in that they are similar. But then, of course, being sensible people, we looked at the differences. Why the difference in imagery? Of course, the two are not simply repetitive. They are two, and the imagery used, uh, shows us this, because they are two different ways of looking at these empires. They give not contradictory, but complementary analyses and critiques of Gentile politics. And then when it comes to the, uh, removing of the Gentile powers and the putting in their place of Messiah's kingdom. Messiah's kingdom is differently imaged. In this one, Messiah's kingdom is represented as a stone, rough-hewn, cut out without hands by supernatural power. And that rough-hewn stone smashes the sophisticated and beautiful image, and then itself grows into a mountain. On the other side, the four beasts are wild beasts, and we considered what that meant. When they are put aside, the messianic kingdom that replaces them is seen not as a rough-hewn stone, of course not, not now, but in vivid contrast to the wild beasts, Messianic Kingdom is represented in the person of its head, the ideal human, the Son of Man and the saints. We looked at some of the other, uh, similarities that were here and there. Uh... And then at the end of the session, remember, I set a little homework. I pointed out that if the first five are in some way bracketed together by this mention of the vessels at the beginning, and then the, uh, dramatic use and mention of those vessels in chapter five, And that these five are also linked by the historical thought flow. This is the beginning of Babylon's attack upon Jerusalem, and this is the end of Babylon. I suggested you might care to look overnight, eh, to see whether these five are in any way, uh, thus bracketed together. And doubtless you are brimming over with all kinds of suggestions. I wish we had time this morning to investigate your suggestions, each one individually. Some of you were good enough, however, to remind me after the session, summary times and in divers manners, eh, you'll see, uh, that there are, you said it very politely, of course. You said generally your, your scheme is very good, of course. But there are other schemes, are there not, of analyses of the book of Daniel, you'll say. And one in particular is put forth by the very learned. Uh, uh, and uh, what did I think about that? Well, I think a lot of things, but, um, uh, let's look at that because it will prove very instructive. This is an important point to get hold of. Uh, when it comes to analyses of books of the Bible, you will find almost as many analyses as there are, uh, books, and as many schemes as there are preachers. And the cynical would react to that by saying, they can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. And, uh, are they not anyway subjective? Is not this kind of thing imposing upon scripture the commentator's own view and own analysis? It is not surely part of scripture itself. All right, if we take that view, uh, I would be prepared to, to plead a little bit guilty. Uh, yeah, huh. I take comfort from the fact that all the most famous preachers that I know, when they are expounding a passage, they have, now, is it five points or three points they have? Generally three, you'll see, and they mostly end with Sean at the end, you'll see, and or other such things. And, uh, well, that's very good. They're methods of getting it across, aren't they? Mm. And so long as the preachers allow other preachers to have different analyses, well, very good. So there's no great harm done, uh, here, is there, if, um, you say, yes, well, that's interesting. Uh, it helps us to get the whole of Daniel on our minds as a whole, but there could be other analyses. Let me now mention one of the most famous other analyses, and then give you how I would react to it. The book of Daniel, as you know, is written in two different languages. Some chapters, notably chapter one and a little bit of chapter two, uh are written in Hebrew. The rest of chapter two and chapters three, four, five, six, and uh, seven are written in Aramaic, called in more ancient translations Chaldean Aramaic. Then chapters eight, nine, and ten, uh, you'll see are written again in Hebrew. Liberal scholars have therefore suggested that the book of Daniel is actually made up of two quite distinct sources. One source of material was written in Hebrew, the other source was written in Aramaic, that they were originally independent works, or at least independent material, uh, by different authors, and that someone subsequently got those two different sources and amalgamated them, put them together as one book. But they weren't originally one book. That idea was strengthened when a certain French scholar pointed out that if you take the chapters written in Aramaic and look at them, they form what is called a chiasm, or an ends to middle, if you like to call it that. That's a simpler thing. The chapters concerned are two, three, four, five, six, and seven. So if you list them in your mind, sorry I haven't another whiteboard to write them on, eh, but if you list them, you will notice this, that chapter two, Nebuchadnezzar's dream image, is about the succession of four imperial powers. That would be, in this scheme, it would be the number one. Let me put that one. You'll see. Uh, if you go to the last, and that would be in this other scheme, number six. One and six balance each other. They're both about the same topic, aren't they? And with that, of course, I would agree, as you see, I have them agreeing. Number three, which now becomes number two, uh, has certain similarities with number five, Doesn't it now? For in number, uh, uh, three, the three Jewish young men refuse to obey Nebuchadnezzar's command and bow down to his image, and on that, uh, for that reason, they are thrown into the burning fire from which God delivers them. And if you look at the story in number six, what a similar story that is. The decree goes forth that nobody should pray to any god except to, uh, the emperor for a period of certain days. And Daniel, having heard the decree and understood it, goes home and deliberately opens his window and prays as he always had prayed. He prayed to the God of Israel and not to his imperial majesty. And for his trouble, he was thrown to the den of lions, just like these were thrown, uh, into the furnace of fire. And just like they, he was delivered by a miracle of God. Obvious similarity. That leaves, of course, number in this scheme three and four about the two kings. So there's a nice, neat scheme for you. It is what is technically called a chiasm, that the beginning agrees with the end, and the second with the second last, and the third with the third last in the middle, you see, that makes a nice pattern, doesn't it? Now, as you see, with some of that, my analysis would agree. But if the whole thing is true, if this is the original layout, then of course there is, uh, a conflict between that and the analysis that I have myself suggested. So what should we say? Well, you have your unbiased choice, ladies and gentlemen, you'll see. What is my comment? Not from the question of trying to support my analysis at any cost, at least I hope so. But analyses, ladies and gentlemen, have a limited use, and their use is this: do they or do they not help us to come to understand what God is saying? So let me now here say quite clearly that while I firmly believe in literary analysis of literary books such as Daniel, it is not structure and pattern that are the most important things. There are three things when you come to a book. There is thought flow, there is structure, and there is pattern. These three, and the greatest of these is? Thought flow, yes. Structure and pattern are no substitute for the patient exposition of the detail of any particular passage. First and last, it's the detail of the passage that counts. It is what the passage is saying, and not one little bit of it, but the whole of the passage. That exposition is liable to be right. That is able in its scheme to expound the whole of the detail, and not just one bit of it. And as a man given much to structure and pattern and goodness knows what else, I want to emphasize that, because some people, when they see patterns, they begin to think, uh, subconsciously perhaps, that patterns are the thing. And then they get up in the pulpit and preach patterns, and Mrs. Mops, who's sitting there, wonders what on earth has happened to the word of God, and can't make out and finds it difficult to follow, you'll see. And more than that, when people begin to see patterns, they fasten generally on one element in a story or paragraph, and that to them becomes the predominant thing. And they forget their real task is not to pick out one element here and one element there. Their task is to expound every detail of each story. And if you've got the detail of each story right, you won't need to say much about pattern to your congregation, nor structure either. You will occasionally, of course, dig their ribs and say, you remember when we were in chapter two, it said that talked about these things, it put that point of view. This one puts another point of view. We need both points of view. And people not seeing that that, uh, it comes out of structure, they won't mind what you say, you'll say. Aha. So let's do that on this. Let's look at number five here, and number two here. That looks so very similar. The one is a story, as I say, of the, of the three young men who were cast into the furnace of fire because they wouldn't bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's image. And this one in six is a man who got thrown into a den of lions because he wouldn't obey the king's command that he should, um, pray only to the king. Mm. Yes, but we're interested in this one to see whether this one is related to anything that goes down here. Hm. And this one is in Aramaic, you see, and so is this, but these are in Hebrew. And from the deeper question of, uh, source, are the Aramaic bits originally from separate source and from separate, from separate author, or were they from the start an integral part of the book of Daniel? That's a very big question, gentlemen and ladies, and ladies and gentlemen, isn't it, Watto? Mm. The question of whether this story here in Daniel six is related to the whole of this second section, that's an exceedingly important literary question to do with the sources of the material in scripture. So suppose we forget structure, patterns, everything under the sun, and we started expounding this chapter six. and expounded not merely the fact that Daniel was thrown into a den of lions, like these fellows were thrown into the furnace, but we took all the detail of chapter six seriously, and we're prepared to thump the desk over the whole lot of it, and not just one bit of it. What should we discover? Hmm. Well, let's begin to read the chapter together. This is Daniel chapter six. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, which would be throughout the whole kingdom, and over them three presidents of whom Daniel was one, that these satraps might give account unto them, and that the king should have no damage. Then this Daniel was distinguished above the presidents and the satraps because an excellent spirit was in him, and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom, but they could find none occasion nor fault, for as much as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, we shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law, concerning the law of his God. We shall have to trip him up with his own sword, so to speak. The law of his God. Mm. And, uh, then the presidents and satraps assembled together to the king and said, um, thus unto him, King Darius, live forever, with which the king agreed. All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the satraps, the counselors and the governors have consulted together to establish a royal statute and to make a strong interdict that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the interdict and sign the writing, that it, the intedite and the writing, be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which changes not. Therefore, King Darius signed the writing and the interdict. And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house and prayed as he had done before. Mm. When the case came before the king, and I abbreviate the record for time's sake, verse twelve, the king answered and said, the thing is true according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Then answered they and said before the king that Daniel, which is of the cap- children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the intedite that thou hast signed. Verse 15. These men said, know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict or statue which the king establishes may be changed. Now, you'd have to be asleep, wouldn't you? I'm not suggesting you are, but you'd have to be asleep, uh, to fail to notice that this chapter is something about a writing. Yes. God's way of writing scripture is, in the end, very simple, like an atom. Eh, the innards of an atom, atom are simple, aren't they, when you really get to know them? And so is God. When he wants to say something, he says it, and if he wants you to take notice of it, he says it several times in his condescending mercy. And he keeps on saying it. So only those that are really asleep fail to notice it. Yes, Daniel was put in the lion's den and God delivered him, but what was it all about? That's the thing. Yes, these boys were thrown into the g- uh, into the furnace, but what was that about? That wasn't about a writing, as you know from the text, this thing was. What's the importance of it? Why, because here you have a very striking feature of the Medo-Persian constitution. Here, in fact, you have the first faint glimmers of the rule of law as distinct from an arbitrary monarch. You see, if you were in Nebuchadnezzar's realm, you would find his majesty was quite arbitrary, you'll see. If he liked you, he kept you alive. If one morning he was up from breakfast and the cornflakes didn't suit him, uh, uh, you'll see, well, he executed you. Whom he would, he slew, and whom he would, he kept alive. The king's word was law, even if it changed from Tuesday to Wednesday. The Medo-Persians had a better system. They had advanced in political science somewhat, not very far, as you would with your excellent constitution in Canada say, but they had begun, you'll see, and they had got this concept of a law and of law being above even the monarch. So that if once the king had signed a writing and passed a law, then the law could not be changed until suitable circumstances, of course. But the beginnings of a glimmer of a concept of the rule of law to which everybody, even the king on the throne, had to be subject, which the king himself couldn't change once it was signed, sealed, and settled. Now that is a very important thing to come at if you are a serious student of political science. And why should it be emphasized here in the book of Daniel? Well, let's think of the whole concept of the book. Daniel was a Hebrew. He lived under what was supposed to be a theocracy. Because of E- Israel's sin and disobedience, God in the end abolished the throne of Judah for the time being, and its princes like Daniel and others were sent off to Babylon. And there they had to live under Gentile systems of poli- polity. The interesting thing about Daniel's book is, true Jew that he was, he was prepared to enter the education of the Gentile system. He did not say, I am a Hebrew, I will not go to your university. Yours is an old pagan university, and I won't go to it. He went to the pagan university and took a degree there. Oh, brilliant degree it was. Yeah. As you know, there were certain things in that university he objected to most strongly, and at the risk of his career, he protested and wouldn't participate, though God was with him. For the rest of his life, he worked in the civil service, first of Babylon and then of Medo-Persia, and rose to eminence in both, and under the Medo-Persians he was head of civil service. He was a man of tremendous experience. He believed in the coming of the Messiah. He believed, as you see from, uh, the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar's image, that there was a fatal flaw in Gentile political practice and theory, and that Gentile government would eventually be destroyed. He believed that the only hope for mankind was the coming of God's Messiah. And that when God's Messiah came and set up his kingdom, it wouldn't be that Earth's kingdoms and Gentile politics has gradually improved and improved and improved and improved. So somehow, you couldn't tell where exactly began to happen, but the kingdoms of Gentile politics had somehow turned into the kingdom of God. Like some people think, oh, I mustn't say that, oh dear, dear, dear, dear, dear, I nearly said it. That America is or is nearly or is one day going to be the very kingdom of God on earth. Daniel didn't hold that view. He held that Gentile systems had a fatal flaw. They were one day going to be demolished. The kingdom of God is not one kingdom in that series in the image. The kingdom of Messiah is a completely different thing from that series of empires. And, uh, when the kingdom of Messiah comes, it will smash the rest and put itself in their place. That's what Daniel believed. What did that mean? He was a prophetic mongerer, and therefore he preached that the coming of Messiah would happen next year or next week or next Tuesday afternoon or nineteen eighty four or something. And, uh, he said because the Messiah is coming, the only thing to do is to get out of society and sit on a mountain and wait for the Lord to come. No, no. Until the kingdom of Christ came, the Messiah came, he was prepared to work as a civil servant in these various systems. Um, but he was under no dis- uh, uh, illusion working in those systems. He didn't imagine that the glorious age of bliss and peace that all, uh, wish for was coming through human politics. And in his, uh, analyses, he shows us, uh, critique, gives us critiques of the Gentile world government, honestly and fairly. We saw yesterday that this critique, Daniel's, uh, Nebuchadnezzar's dream image that God gave Nebuchadnezzar, owned the brilliance and the worth of man's effort at government. It is far from denouncing human government. It says that human government has been a magnificent achievement among human beings. Who would want to be a pygmy anyhow in the rainforest? Nice chaps, I have nothing against them, but who would want to live in a pygmy forest? Wouldn't you prefer to live in Toronto if you had to make the choice? Uh, you'll see. In spite of all the flaws of modern government. And this vision, this critique of Gentile government recognizes, God himself recognizes the wonderful quality, the gold, the silver, the bronze, the steel, with all their different qualities, and the image itself, an image of a... But as we saw yesterday, you shouldn't be deceived that that great achievement in human politics, the development of various forms of government, is not the secret, will not prove to be the road along which God establishes the age of peace in our world. Why not? Because it has a flaw. We saw yesterday that on chapter seven, the critique of Gentile government given by God to Daniel looked at human government from another completely different point of view. Not now a sophisticated image of a man great and glorious in his achievement, but four beasts, and we saw what that meant yesterday. Power blocks, amoral power blocks. Quite content to purr away if they are at ease and have all the economic things they need, but if they fell short of them, their supplies, then you would find their morality would go out of the window. They're going to have what they need to survive, and if they mean stealing it from other folks, they'll steal it from other folks, and they'll slaughter, and they'll destroy, and they'll wage war with all their sophisticated techniques. Because they are amoral power blocks. Their job simply, as they see it, to protect their nation at whatever cost. Survival is the name of the game. That aspect of the nations, of course, obviously won't lead to the coming kingdom of God. It will have to be put aside, and the kingdom of God will take its place. This chapter six, pattern or no pattern, is another critique of Gentile politics, a very serious critique. It starts by admitting this tremendous advance that had been made in political thinking among the, uh, Medo-Persians. Not now the rule simply of an arbitrary monarch, an absolute monarchy like Nebuchadnezzar was, but the concept of the rule of law, that the leaders of the state can come to some decision, they make a law, an entiteit, they make the writing, they sign the writing, and then nobody can alter it, not even the king himself. All equal in that sense under the law. Now, that was only the first glimmer of it. The Greeks developed it further, didn't they, in their political philosophies? It. Pardon? Did they ever think that this Well, yes. Yes. They did indeed. I hope they learned the lesson. Ah, doze. The Greeks at first, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, when they, uh, hit upon this notion of the rule of law and equality under the law, isonomia, equality under the law, thought it a tremendous advance. It didn't take the Greeks very long to see the flaw in that. And they came, later philosophers, to argue that the law was a bad thing, and that the, that the way to get back to, to get to the wonderful age of peace and blessing that you needed was to go back to nature rather than law. So that in the later Greek philosophers, you'll hear a great deal of discussion of those two terms, nature and law, which is best. They started by thinking that nature was pretty poor and beastly, people living in forests and knighting each other and eating each other and all that kind of thing, and how much better it was when man emerged from the forest and built his cities and therefore became civilized, and then, of course, naturally had to have laws to govern it, and uh, then you proceeded up from absolute monarchs and dictators, and you had a full-blown democracy like in Athens City. They thought that was marvelous. And then they found out what you see from Daniel six, That the rule of law itself can turn into being the most hideous dictator that ever was. And simply in devising this kind of politics, depending on the rule of law, will not be the final answer. It has all sorts of benefits. In a democracy, I'm not, I'm not, uh, insulting it, I hope, that the lowliest citizen has rights before the law equal to the president. Well, at least when he's out of office, it will see. Uh-huh, that is a great advance and has brought a tremendous freedom. We don't have to deny it's an advance, but if you propose the notion that that advance is one of the increments, there will be others and gradually advance and advance, and human society will come to an age of perfection simply by that method, you are grievously mistaken. That is Daniel's testimony. All these advances in the end will come to nothing, and God will have to intervene, remove Gentile power, and at the coming of our blessed Lord will set up the Messianic Kingdom. This is not the word of some prophecy monger, some half deranged extremists. This is a testimony of a man who rose to be the highest official in the civil service of the Medo-Persian Empire, at the end of a long life of experience of men and things, still retaining his faith in the coming of the Lord. Still retaining his faith in God's prophetic program. Still believing that while we should do everything in our power to help forward the society around us and to bless it and, and serve it, yet our hope lies not in that, but in the coming of the Messiah. And you see the reason, um, the rule of law, sign the writing that it be not changed. Marvelous, but you have seen through it long since. Rule of law, yes, but the question is, who makes the law? Isn't that funny? I suffer from I don't know what temptations, perhaps I had too strong a coffee at breakfast, but, uh, I do say one can't help noticing as a distant cousin to you folks over here. What has happened to the Constitution of America? The early Pilgrim Fathers, suffering under the persecution of state religion in the countries of Europe from which they came, fleeing to America to escape that persecution, that they might have freedom of conscience to worship God and not be downtrodden, persecuted, and executed by the government, uh, because they didn't bow to the state religion. What marvelous men for freedom they were. And so they set up a constitution, the separation of church and state. They didn't mean what's now happening, did they? How that that very constitutional, uh, detail has been set upon its head. And now you scarce must mention the, may mention the word of, the word God or Christ in a pub- a public school or in a public university. Because the law has been hijacked by left-wingers, atheists, New Age, and goodness knows what else. So that the curious situation is that in communist and post-communist Russia, you can teach children in school the Bible. In free America, under the law, you mustn't. Funny, isn't it? The rule of law are wonderful, but it depends who writes it, who makes the law. Mm. And the story is all too true to life, isn't it? Daniel rose to eminence, and the other chief ranks in the civil service were getting jealous. And, uh, they would have liked to have got him out and themselves installed. They couldn't find fault with him in his daily work. His loyalty to the government. All they could do was to find exception in the law of his God. Hm. So being civil, they weren't paid a high salary to be civil servants or nothing, you know, they had a magnificent way of putting things. They came one morning to His Majesty and they said, you know, we've been thinking, it is our job to think for you, Your Majesty, and we have observed what a marvelous empire you have, and it's full of different ethnic groups, and you see, there is just this point. They tend to be a multitude of religions. Now, religion is nothing against religion as a whole, but it it tends sometimes to be a bit divisive, and it can be, you know, witness Northern Ireland, it can be, uh, uh, uh, you know, religious strife, and uh, it can upset uh things and, uh, and make for trouble and riots and this, that, and the other, uh, you'll see. And now we've been thinking, your majesty, of a good scheme that possibly could overcome this. We don't want to ban religion, that would be a foolish thing to do, and not very wrong it would be, but, um, we're thinking if we could adopt some methods to make religion cohere a little bit, you'll see. Now, mm, I mean, with all these many gods, you can't say one is right and one is wrong, can you? I mean, uh, let people have their variety, except try to combine it. And what we suggest is this, that for a limited period, needn't be for long, but for a limited period, we shall pass a decree that nobody at all shall, um, uh, pray to his god at all, except to you, your majesty. And you be the representative of the divine principle. Um, I mean, they can't object, anyone couldn't object to that, could they? I mean, he's a decent citizen. He's got his own God. Well, he'll be able to go back and pray to that God in due time, and he gets a lot of time to pray to his own God. But we must insist that people be broad-minded, and they recognize that in religions there's one great spirit going through the lot of them, you know. They're all about the same thing in the end, uh, and you worship the one great divine principle, call it Zeus like the Greeks do, and call it Marduk or anything you like. Do you see? Uh, it's really all the same. And we'd like to emphasize the sameness in religion, Your Majesty. Now, isn't that a good thing? It would make for peace in your empire. Yes, said the king, but I don't know that I would be the fitting one to be prayed to. Well, we understand your inhibitions, your majesty, you'll see, but um, um, you know, who else but you? I mean, you are the emperor on the throne of this vast domain, and who but you? I mean, the gods must have intended you to sit upon the throne. Who but you would be a fitting symbol of the divine principle? Well, said the king, if you put it like that, uh, I can see there's a good deal in what you say. Well, they said, sign on the dotted line before we go to breakfast, Majesty, because this is really an urgent matter. And he signed on the dotted line, and the writing was signed. And it could not be changed. And then the king discovered the motivation behind the civil servant. And it was too late. Ah, forgive my furtive, uh, my fertile or perhaps, um, uh, you know, infected imagination. Can you hear things to come? Religion has been a divisive fact, all kinds of wars. We don't want to banish religion, but you know, we want to emphasize that there is a unity, there's a divine principle in it all. We want to bring out that. And could there not be one sort of universal form of religion? It will come, its name will be Babylon, ladies and gentlemen, and it will ride the beast. And it will look the highest bit of sanity and sane procedure as ever was. And anybody who disagrees will be the most bearded troublemaker. Well, he deserved to be thrown to the lions anyway for making trouble. Yes. Pattern or no pattern, structure or no structure, ladies and gentlemen. You don't just tell this story as a story of someone who, uh, uh, refused to obey the king and got thrown into the lions. Otherwise, you'd be merely retelling this one. They refused to obey the king and got put into the furnace. Similar situations, but the principle at stake in each one is different. And I come back to my contention, if you're expounding six, you don't say, well, it's it, look how it agrees with three or one or whatever you say. The structure is there to help us, the preachers, to see what the rel- relationship is, but when you preach it, it's the detail of each story that you must expound, and we must try to see to it that we expa- expound all the detail and not just a little bit of it. Well, you know the rest of the story. Lovely, wasn't it? They said one day, they came to His Majesty, they said, you know, it's just curious things happened. We can't believe it, Your Majesty. You see, we were walking down through the city as we do, uh, one morning we heard a funny noise coming, and we looked up, and now there's a window open, and somebody was praying. And you know what? I couldn't believe it. It was Daniel that was praying. Praying to his God. And the king said, well, I see, yes, but you have to make exceptions in some cases, don't you? Oh, but no, your majesty, the rule of law. There came the true reason. And there is not a civil service, but a higher power, isn't there? Behind all the multifarious suggestions, the God of this world himself. Hmm. Now, where do we go from that? I'm sorry, oh, how I have been preaching. I'll let you, I'll let you have your coffee now. I shouldn't have preached like that, should I? But, uh, the point was, that was a very small point, that whatever your structure, whatever your pattern, first and last is the exposition of the actual detail, and we must expound all the detail, and not just the one bit that in our structure seems to link it with something else. If therefore the writing... that could not be changed. Lies at the very heart of this story. The law that once written could not be changed. Let me ask you a question. Has that theme of the writing got any connection with anything else in this, um, section? Have you ever, in your long travels through Daniel, come across any other place that emphasizes the writing? Of course you have. The last two are obvious cases. When Daniel was talking about Jerusalem, well, he opened his window again, I hope you noticed that, and prayed towards Jerusalem. And he prayed on the basis of the books and the writing about God's plan for Jerusalem and its restoration. And then in the final section, there came a vision of the man above the river and his attendant angels that conveyed the meaning of the revelation to him. And said the angel, I've come to make known to you what stands written in the writing of truth. Structure and motion structure, you ought to shout hallelujah at that point. The writing that couldn't be changed. Ladies and gentlemen, there is another writing. You notice that Daniel in chapter nine is praying on the basis of the Bible, that as then constituted, praying on the basis of Jeremiah's book. But here, when the angel says, I've come to make you know what stands in the writing of truth, the angel isn't to- talking to the Bi- of the Bible, he's talking to the heavenly counsels of God, figured as being written before him. These are God's purposes, the writing, and I tell you, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, that shall never be changed. Kingdoms may come and kingdoms may go, and political philosophies come into fashion and pass out of fashion, but the writing of truth forever, O Lord, thy word is established in heaven. Whichever structure you fi- you decide is the right structure, ladies and gentlemen, when you get round to preaching Daniel, you'll have to preach that connection, won't you? And in spite of the fact that this is written in Aramaic, and this is written in Hebrew. The difference of language now makes no difference whatsoever. This was obviously intended arrangement of material, just like on this side, the vessels in the temple, that's the ritual side of Israel's religion, are linked with this, the vessels, they are the same vessels. So this side of the fence, the writing of man, the constitutional law that couldn't be changed, is deliberately answered at the end here by the writing of truth. How did we come at that? I would be concerned that we all see how we came at it and why. I repeat, structure or no structure. We're concerned, one, with thought flow, and we are concerned with this basic principle of exposition. The danger, I repeat, in seeing similarities is that you take one element out of one, and you take not one element out of the other, and you see the similarity, and you, you jump to your structure. And then the danger is that you don't expound all the detail of it. And it's expounding the detail that is our job. Of course, it helps to see structure. Uh, the chief job is to expound the detail. When we did that, of course, this matter of the writing came up. That is not my subjective impression, ladies and gentlemen. If you think it is, you count out how many times the word the writing occurs in Daniel six. God writes for those who have a propensity to go to sleep while he's talking, and he keeps on saying the same thing until you get the point. That was about the writing that couldn't be changed. This is about the writing that never will be changed anyway. Yeah. Well, anyway, um, we'll proceed from there, shall we? But after our coffee.