Daniel 6 – Delivered From Lions

Posted on January 20, 2011 by Rick Wadholm
Cyrus the Great Cylinder
6:1-5 – The kingdom of Darius the Mede.  Joyce Baldwin argues rather persuasively that “Darius” may have been Cyrus’ enthronement name used only in his first year (29-31; 141fn107; cf. Dan.5:31; 9:1; 11:1).  At the very least, it seems very probable that the two names “Darius the Mede” and “Cyrus the Persian” refer to the same individual (without further evidence forthcoming to demonstrate just who this “Darius” might otherwise be…since the conjectures of Gobryas, Ugbaru or even a mythical composite character seem untenable at best).  The “and” in the NIV and other translations (Aram. conjunctive waw) can in fact be read as “even” or “that is” in Dan.6:26 (see the NIV footnote) reading “during the reign of Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian”.  This proposal seems more probable than that this individual was only a king of Babylon and not the ruler of the empire whose decision would be irrevocable.
Darius is said to have appointed 120 satraps to give oversight to the kingdom.  A satrap was a sort of governor and over these he chose three individuals to give specific oversight…Daniel being one of the three.  The 120 would not necessarily each oversee one satrapy, but may have simply shared duties over various regions.  The numbers listed for satrapies elsewhere range in the twenties (though Esther 1:1 lists 127 during the later reign of Xerxes).  The special appointment of Daniel due to his exceptional qualities made him a target for those who were jealous of his position.  This does not necessarily mean that all 122 men were involved in the conspiracy against Daniel, but only that there was a significant group that was leading the way against him.  They were forced to admit that any accusations against him would not be successful unless it pertained to the “law of his God” because Daniel was above any sort of reproach, and was a faithful Jew.
6:6-9 – The decree.  The plan was to convince the king that there was agreement among all of his officials that he should issue a 30-day decree demanding that all prayers be offered to (through?) him for that time period.  The Medo-Persian (Achaemenid dynasty) were Zoroastrians more clearly under the later named Darius I though possibly as early as our king Cyrus (here called “Darius”).  Under Zoroastrianism, there was a single god that was worshipped, Ahura Mazda, whom the king was the earthly representative of and so it would not be a far stretch for Darius in Dan.6 to receive prayers or be a mediator of prayers.  Besides it would be supposed that this may serve to unite a newly gathered empire in their whole-hearted service of their new king.  They further clarify that this decree should be put in writing so that, according to Medo-Persian law, it will be unalterable (cf. Esther 1:19).
The punishment that they surmised would be appropriate was to be “thrown into the lions’ den.”  This “den” would have been some sort of pit where lions would have been kept for just such punishments.  There likely would have been two compartments to this pit with a divider between them.  The lions would be in one part for attacking their victims and that portion would also have an opening for throwing in the victims from the top and sealing it with a stone.  The other portion perhaps would also have some hole for enticing the lions into it in order to move them and replace the divider so that any scraps, feces and bones could be removed as needed from the pit where the lions would be kept.
6:10-15 – Daniel’s prayers.  It was not a matter of Daniel’s ignorance of the law that led to his violating it, but with his full knowledge of it he went home and did as he had always done…he prayed three times a day (cf. Ps.55:17, 18; Didache 8; though Psalm 119:164 mentions seven times a day).  “It is not, as with his three companions [in chapter 3], a question of a positive sin which he will not commit, but of a positive duty which he will not omit” (Miller 182, citing Driver).  Daniel apparently had a room on top of his home built with a window specifically facing towards Jerusalem so that he could pray facing in that direction (cf. 1 Ki.8:35, 38, 44, 48; 2 Chron.6:34).  Not only was Daniel praying as was his custom, but he was “asking God for help.”  What kind of help?  Was he asking for help for himself or for the king or for Jerusalem?  “To Daniel…this was subterfuge, and he did not swerve whatever from his usual customs in prayer….What a testimony Daniel had that even his enemies knew he would be faithful to God although it would cost him his life” (Walvoord 138).  Daniel’s enemies went out of their way to spy on Daniel and report as a group to the king what Daniel had done and make sure the king would enforce his edict.  They made sure to mention that he was one of the “exiles from Judah” perhaps in order to emphasize that even though he had been brought as an exile over 70 years prior, he still remained Jewish in his religious practices of prayer (among other things) and was not integrated into the society as they were.
6:16-24 – Daniel in the lion’s den.  The king begrudgingly followed through with his edict and had Daniel thrown into the lions den even at his old age and even though he was among those most reliable in his new kingdom.  Darius stated “May your God…rescue you” (an imperfect verb and not a jussive as the RSV translated it) meaning that this was not simply a wish, but that Darius was committing Daniel to the hands of Daniel’s God knowing that only Daniel’s would have to be the one to rescue Daniel.  The KJV translation suggests too strongly that it certainly will happen which Darius does not seem so convinced about and so he called to Daniel in “an anguished voice” the next morning.  Darius is convinced that if anyone will rescue Daniel it must be Daniel’s God, because Daniel has given himself so completely to his God that there could be no other outcome that could be positive and perhaps Darius had heard the stories of deliverance that Daniel recounted for him.  The king was so distressed about having Daniel thrown into the lion’s den that he could not even do what he would normally do – whether eating or entertainment (whatever the Aramaic dahăwān seems to signify—which is difficult to define), or even to sleep.
It was a custom that once the sun began to dawn a sentence had been served if the individual had survived the night and so the king rushed to the lions’ den even if not fully convinced that he would find Daniel alive or well.  Did he call out to Daniel expecting a reply or was this more rhetorical?  Note Darius’ use of “the living God” in reference to the God of Daniel (cf. Deut.5:26; Josh.3:10; 1 Sam.17:26; 2 Ki.19:4; Jer.10:10; 23:36; Hos.2:1; Ps.42:3; 84:3).  “This rich OT title for God suggests not merely that God is alive rather than dead, but that he is active and powerful, awesome and almighty, involved in bringing judgment and blessing” (Goldingay 133).  At any rate, he received the reply of Daniel wishing him long life.
Daniel also testified that God had sent an angel to shut the mouths of the lions (Heb.11:33), because of his innocence before God and the king.  As Daniel’s three friends has bodily testified to their deliverance in the fire, here Daniel’s body gave testimony once it was lifted out of the den that it was in no way harmed (Ps.91:9-16).  Is this intended to be a universal promise of deliverance for all of God’s people?  Certainly not.  Many have paid with their lives as Hebrews testifies and as our Lord Jesus Himself testified.  But our God is able and no law of man can over-rule the obedience that is due the Lord.  How might we understand his deliverance?  (cf. Isa.11:6; 65:25; Hos.2:18)  “In the man of God the powers of the world to come have broken in, in anticipation of what will be when the king comes to reign” (Baldwin 145).
The king then commanded all those who had conspired against Daniel to be thrown into the lion’s den.  Was it all of the 120 or considerably less?  The LXX states it was the two other administrators, but this seems a gross re-adjustment to try to downplay how many were involved.  While this punishment may be understandable (Gen.12:3; Deut.19:18-19; Esther 7:9-10) for those specifically involved, how should we understand throwing the wives and children of the conspirators in as well? (cf. Num.16:27-33; Deut.24:16; Josh.7:24-25; Esther 9:25; Isa.13:15-16)  There is not really any condoning of this practice by mentioning it, but only a record that it was carried out (on this being something carried out elsewhere among the Medo-Persians, see Herodotus Histories 3.119).  The account also notes that those who were thrown in did not even reach the floor of the den before the lions killed them and “crushed all their bones” thus demonstrating the miraculous nature of Daniel’s deliverance and the judgment against those who tried to harm Daniel.
6:25-28 – The decree of Darius to all peoples concerning the God of Daniel.  Whereas Nebuchadnezzar had issued a decree against anyone who should speak a word against the God of the three in Dan.3:29, Darius actually commands people everywhere to “fear and reverence the God of Daniel”.  This is not a command against, but a command for.  Does this command exclude the worship of other Gods?  By no means, though it does make clear that Daniel’s God endures when other’s do not and that Daniel’s God performs the miraculous and delivers.  This will be poignant for those who face what is revealed in the chapters that lay ahead in Daniel…particularly as other kingdoms and kings are named that are off in the future who will seem to have authority and power that are unlimited.  However, God is sovereign and able to deliver His people through whatever they will suffer if they will endure and remain faithful.  This chapter closes with the note that Daniel then prospered under the Medo-Persians in an era when God would restore Jerusalem, return the captives and rebuild the Temple.  It could be said of Daniel that in his old age as he “prospered” in Babylon that he had indeed become a light to the Gentiles by the mouth of Darius (cf. Isa.42:1-12; 49:1-7; Zech.2:11; 8:20-23).
John Goldingay notes the similarity and contrast between Jesus final days and Daniel 6, when he writes how Jesus, “too, is the victim of conspiracy and betrayal from people whose position is threatened by him and who seek occasion to manipulate higher authorities into executing him, professing that they have no king but Caesar.  They, too, will eventually pay for their hostility, along with their children.  He, too, is arrested at his customary place of prayer.  These higher authorities, too, find no fault in him and labor to free him, but are reminded that the law forbids it.  He, too, has to rely on God to deliver him as his tomb is sealed.  Indeed, he actually dies, and injury can be found on him after he comes back from the dead: more extraordinary is it, then, that very early, at sunrise, he, too, is discovered to be alive after all” (136).
By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Related articles
Posted in Daniel | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daniel 5 – The Writing Is On The Wall

Posted on January 13, 2011 by Rick Wadholm

<!–[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>

5:1-4 – The party that ended it all.  Daniel 5 moves the book forward in time about thirty years after the events of chapter 4.  The date can actually be fixed to October 12, 539BC (Miller 151) based upon certain historical records that give the date for the conquering of Babylon.  However, Daniel had already seen the end of the kingdom of Babylon in several visions.  He had a vision in the first year of Belshazzar’s reign (Dan.7) and again in the third year (Dan.8).  Also, the prophets of Judah – Isaiah and Jeremiah – had spoken of the fall of Babylon even naming the conqueror of Babylon and then the deliverer of Israel as Cyrus the Persian (Isa.13:17-22; 21:1-10; 44:28-45:1; Jer.51:33-58).  Belshazzar (Akkadian Bēl-šar-usur “Bel, protect the king”) is the “king” of Babylon serving while his father Nabonidus (the actual king) has remained away for the previous ten years at the city of Teima (Tayma) – perhaps due to his worship of the moon god Sin and failure to woship Marduk the chief god of Babylon, but there may have been other reasons for his absence as well including trying to keep control of the empire. 
As it turns out, Nabonidus had just been defeated on the 10th of October, 539BC at Sippar (just 50 miles north of Babylon) without battle by the Medo-Persians who had also defeated him at Opis (ANET 306).  Nabonidus fled, but would be captured after the fall of Babylon days later.  His son, Belshazzar determined for some reason to have a drunken party knowing that the Medo-Persian armies were all about Babylon and had conquered much of the empire already.  Why would he do such a thing?  Perhaps because he did not believe Babylon could fall since it was considered impregnable and had storehouses for a very long siege, or perhaps he was trying to gain bravado in the face of great adversity and wanted to demonstrate how fearless he was of the outside situation to all of his household and kingdom.  The text of Daniel, however, makes no mention at all of the defeat of Nabonidus or of the Medo-Persians at the gates until the very end of the chapter when the party has finished and all is accomplished as it was foretold – and even then it is only of the latter.  Belshazzar apparently determined to invite as many guests as possible to celebrate and the text suggests something more than that he drank wine “with” them, but that he drank wine “in front of, before” (Aram. qŏbēl) them.  This suggests the idea that he may have been making something of a spectacle of himself in front of these nobles.  It is also something quite unimaginable that he included among those invited all of his wives and concubines.  The text also seems to suggest that he was inebriated and this contributed to his failure to even recognize the social mores of superstition against desecrating sacred objects belonging to other gods – even the objects of gods from conquered nations. 
Why was Nebuchadnezzar called his “father” if in fact Nabonidus was actually his father?  All of the other records of history note that there had been several turn-overs of the kingdom since Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus himself had taken the throne, but was not a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.  The Aramaic (as the Hebrew also) for “father” carries the meaning of “grand-father,” “ancestor,” or may even suggest “successor” in some instances.  It has been conjectured that the relation may have been through Belshazzar’s mother to Nebuchadnezzar making him a “son” and Nebuchadnezzar his “father” (on which see notes Dan.5:10ff).
Another question that suggests itself is why he should choose on such a night to drink from the sacred vessels of the temple in Jerusalem?  Why specifically use those items?  Did he also drink from the vessels of the other conquered people’s gods on that night or was it only of Israel’s God?  The Scriptures do not tell us, but they do tell us that the king made a point to do this specifically with the vessels from Jerusalem that Nebuchadnezzar had taken (Dan.1:2) and then to proceed to praise “the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone” (compare also the same phrase in the “Prayer of Nabonidus” in 4QOrNab).
5:5-9 – The writing on the wall and the fear of the king.  Just as the praises were being uttered to the gods while drinking the wine, suddenly a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster wall in a well lit place so the king could clearly see his judgment being written out.  During excavations in the late 1800s and early 1900s a large throne room (56 feet wide and 173 feet long) was found with a plastered wall behind the throne wall likely being the very place Belshazzar held his last feast and saw the writing on the wall.  The effect of the writing (it was on plaster and well lit so the king would not miss it) was immediate.  He was terrified so thoroughly that he could not even stand as it were.  He “called out” (lit. “called out with strength” or “loudly”) apparently frantic for an answer to the omen before him.  Despite the promise of the gold chain and purple robe (signs of authority and blessing) and being made “the third highest ruler” (Aram. taltî) in Babylon (that is that he would become part of a triumvir), none of his wise men could read or interpret what was written.  What would it mean to be “the third highest ruler” in this case?  It seems likely he means that this person would be after himself who was after his father Nabonidus, but why someone might want such a position when the kingdom seems to be lost seems beyond Belshazzar to grasp.  That those who were supposed to have the ability to understand and interpret such things were unable to do so only served to trouble him even more.
5:10-12 – The “queen” has an answer.  Who is this “queen” and just what is her relationship to Belshazzar?  Given that Daniel has already informed us that the wives and concubines of Belshazzar were all present at the party, it seems more likely this woman is not the “queen” of Belshazzar, but of Nabonidus.  Thus she would be the “queen-mother” (see the NIV footnote for verse 10; on the place of the “queen” in the ancient Near East, Oppenheim 104).  She may have been the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (or the former wife as some suggest) and the wife of Nabonidus (see Josephus Ant.10.11.2; Miller 159-160).  She seems to have heard of Daniel (perhaps from the times of Nebuchadnezzar) since she uses the same description found of him earlier (Dan.4:8, 9, 18) that he “has the spirit [Aram. rûah] of the holy [Aram. qodêsh] gods in him.”  Further, she elaborates that in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel (who is in his eighties by the time of Belshazzar) was known to have “insight” (Aram. nahîrû) suggests illumination form God the source of all light (Dan.2:22), “intelligence” (Aram. śākletānû) indicates that Daniel not only possesses intellect or talent, but that he actually knows how to use it, and “wisdom” (Aram. hokmâ) “denotes in Daniel the supernatural intuition of an interpreter of dreams or omens, that wisdom which also belongs supremely to God (2:20)” (Goldingay 109-110).  Daniel is actually attributed with having these attributes “like that of the gods,” something which set him above and beyond the others around him.  The queen-mother is convinced that Daniel (Belteshazzar) was the one able to interpret this riddle of an omen for Belshazzar.
5:13-16 – The words of the king.  Belshazzar calls for Daniel, but seems to regard Daniel in less high esteem than the queen-mother and refers to him immediately as one of the exiles.  He also notably leaves off the “holiness” of the gods whose spirit was said to be in Daniel by the queen mother.  Has he done this intentionally?  He repeats that the others could not do for him what he needed and also repeats his promise of reward and honor if Daniel can read and interpret (Aram. peshar) the writing on the wall.  He at least confesses that he has heard that Daniel can “solve difficult problems” (lit. “loosen knots” a metaphor concerning difficulties).
5:17-24 – The words of Daniel.  Daniel does not wish the king long life as the queen-mother had done (Dan.5:10) and as he knows would be vain to do in this situation given the interpretation.  He also renounces the gifts in exchange for delivering the message knowing that no message from God can be purchased (cf. 2 Nu.22:18; Ki.5:16).  He begins with recounting the glories of Belshazzar’s “father” Nebuchadnezzar and then of Nebuchadnezzar’s fall from that status for a time because of his pride and arrogance.  He reminds Belshazzar’s of God’s sovereignty over all of the kings and kingdoms of the world.  Then he turns to Belshazzar and points to his pride and failure to humble himself and all of this in the midst of his drunken revelry with the vessels from the temple of Yahweh strewn about.  He charges Belshazzar with having set himself “against the Lord (Aram. mārē’) of heaven” by profaning the holy, having others do likewise, and praising gods that “cannot see or hear or understand” (cf. Deut.4:28; Ps.115:4-8; 135:15-17; Hab.2:19; Rev.9:20).  Above all, Belshazzar failed to honor and praise God who alone holds him and all in His hands.  This is the explanation Daniel gives for the hand that wrote on the wall.
5:25-28 – The inscription of God.  Exactly how the inscription was written is not clear.  Was it written in Aramaic (and therefore without vowels) or Cuneiform (and therefore with vowels)?  Was it written from right to left (as would have been normal) or up and down (as the rabbis propose)?  Could it really not be “read” by the others of the court of Belshazzar and only by Daniel or does this have some other explanation for why he alone could “read” and “interpret” it?  The words that were written were: mene (twice for emphasis?), tekel, parsin.  The explanations that have been given include a monetary/weight explanation where mene is the minah which was equal to 60 shekels, the tekel was the Aramaic form for shekel which was a small sum, and the parsin (Aramaic plural for halves of the shekel; the ‘u’ before parsin in some translations and in the NIV footnote is the conjunction “and” in Aramaic and so should not be included as part of what was written).  However, the most reliable answer is actually the one Daniel himself provides which is that each of these terms is the Aramaic passive participles.  Mene meaning “count, appoint, or destine,” tekel “numbering, weighing,” and parsin from the verb meaning to “broken in half, divided” but also making a play on the name of the Persians since likely this was all written in Aramaic there would have been no vowels and the Aramaic consonantal letters PRSN could work for both the verbal form and the name of the people who were at the gates.  These words that were written are explained by Daniel with Aramaic perfect verbs emphasizing the completeness of what God had determined to do that very night.
5:29-31 – The end of Babylon and the beginning of Medo-Persia.  Belshazzar still gave the command that Daniel should be rewarded and exalted despite the prophetic interpretation and denouncement that had just been given to him.  Did he think to take Daniel down with him if Babylon fell?  Or did he not think this could be fulfilled and thought to persuade his guests and family that he was still in control of everything?  It is notable that whereas Daniel began in exile as a lowly youth in training from a lowly conquered nation in the ‘mighty and vast’ empire of the Babylonians…he has been raised to the rank of third in the empire by the age of about 80 and will see the end of the Babylonians himself and will continue to be given an exalted status after the fall of Babylon and the rise of Medo-Persia.  Daniel records that it was on “that very night” Belshazzar was killed.  The prophecy was fulfilled concerning him (though Daniel would later record what had been given to him years before as written in chapters 7-8 during the reign of the wicked and unrepentant Belshazzar).  In other words, the account of Belshazzar tucked as it is in between the accounts of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 4 and Darius in chapter 6 suggests a tale of three kings…their response to God and to the man of God: Daniel.  Two will give glory to God…one will not.  It creates a sort of chiasm (a poetic structure where God is exalted and praised explicitly in chapter 4 and 6 and carries out his judgment against the wicked king without explicit praise in chapter 5, but demonstrates his sovereignty over every king and kingdom).  This also prepares us for the “little horn” that will come and utter blasphemies and exalt himself and ultimately be humbled by the LORD, but not before the end.
We are informed that Darius the Mede “took over” (lit. “received”) the kingdom that night.  In what sense did he actually “receive” the kingdom and from whom did he receive it?  Also, it is still a curiosity just who “Darius the Mede” is.  Some have proposed this is just another name, or title, for Cyrus the Persian (which may be likely).  As such, we do not have enough to know beyond that Daniel has elsewhere accurately recorded thin
gs for us that have proven vindicated by archeology after being questioned for some time.  It has been recorded (though Daniel does not do so) that the Medo-Persian army diverted the Euphrates River into a marsh from entering Babylon and then waded through the lowered waters and under the walls, into the city without a fight.  All of this was recorded to have happened on a night while the city was engaged in a drunken revelry (cf. Herodotus Histories 1.188-192; Xenophon Cyropaedia 7.5.1-34).  If Babylon had not been in such a state, but had been prepared for an attack the Medo-Persians could never have taken the city in this manner, but as it was the only one said to have died that night was Belshazzar who was put to death.  John Goldingay offers an intriguing note on the mention of Darius’ age being “sixty-two”: “The years attributed to Darius ‘sum up’ another aspect of the omen’s meaning: he is the actual person who brings its fulfillment upon Belshazzar” by being the sum of 60(mene)+1(tekel)+halves(parsin)=sixty-two (Goldingay 112).  Thus the kingdom of Babylon passes to the Medo-Persians just as the LORD had told His prophets over 150 years before.  The fall of Babylon had been prophesied and foretold even that it would be accomplished by His causing them to be in a drunken state while feasting (Jer.51:39, 57).  At last, deliverance has come for Israel (though not finally for Daniel).
By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in 2 Kings, Daniel, Deuteronomy, Habakkuk, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Numbers, Psalms, Revelation | Leave a comment

On Being A False Teacher

Posted on January 8, 2011 by Rick Wadholm

Carl Trueman has written a wonderful piece on “being a false teacher” (over at Reformation 21) and the benefits of ordination as a guard against such (not as an absolute guard, but as a guard to be sure).  What is wonderful about this piece is his notion of responsibility to and for the Church that is something which the electronic age has simply continued to facilitate more and more folks being utterly ‘free’ of such notions.  In our context, most would rather ‘do’ church on their own rather than choose to submit to any authority.  Ordination is one form of submission (albeit one with many of its own dangers) which is intended as a guard against becoming a false teacher.  It allows for recourse and action to call teachers to account for the actions and their instruction.  This is something which the electronic age, in particular, seems short on.  Good words Carl…good words indeed.

By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in Carl Trueman, Church, Ordination, Reformation 21 | Leave a comment

N. T. Wright's Justification and the Cry of the Spirit

Posted on January 7, 2011 by Rick Wadholm

I finally finished my paper for the Society for Pentecostal Studies meeting in March on N. T. Wright’s view of justification.  If you are interested in reading it you can do so over on my Scribd page HERE or following the link through my “Writings” page (the footnotes are a bit goofy due to Scribd’s manner of formatting, but can be followed despite this).  This paper is supposed to eventually go to print (sometime this year) as part of an edited volume of the five papers that will be presented as a part of the N T Wright panel on justification (though I still don’t know the details of this edited volume).  Here’s the lineup for Memphis’s presentations and the title/s:

Pentecostal Responses to N.T. Wright

Jenny Everts, Hope College, Chair

Glen Menzies, North Central University, Presenter
“Vocations of Israel and Israel‘s Messiah”

Joonho Yoon, Drew University, Presenter 
 “By Faith in Work or by Work in Faith?: Rahab‘s Justification from the Perspective of Neither New or Old”

Christopher Green, Oral Roberts University, Presenter
“Who Do I Say I Am?: A Pentecostal Response to N.T. Wright‘s Proposals on Jesus‘ Messianic Self-Understanding”

Rick Wadholm, Providence Theological Seminary, Presenter
“N.T. Wright’s Justification and the Cry of the Spirit”

Frank D. Macchia, Vanguard University, Presenter
“The Church and the Economy of Salvation: An Interaction with N.T. Wright‘s Theology of Justification by Faith”

I’d love to know what anyone thinks of my paper.  :-).

By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in Holy Spirit, Justification, N. T. Wright, Society for Pentecostal Studies | Leave a comment

The Best of the Best at W. W. of W.

Posted on January 3, 2011 by Rick Wadholm

So running the stats for the W.onderful W.orld of W.adholms blog its fascinating to see just which posts have received the most hits, which countries follow my posts the most closely and other such totally irrelevant data (but fun new year type stuff).  So here it is:

The top 4 posts from my readership of 2010 according to Blogger stats (as far as hits and not necessarily as far as what was posted in 2010):
#4 – The Church and Same Sex Attraction (always bound to be a winner with search engines ;-).
#3 – Ezekiel 37-Sticks and Bones (who doesn’t like dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones).
#2 – 2 Kings 13-14:22-Grace and Peace for Israel and Judah? (the first of my blogging the Bible study series)
and…..
#1 – Maacah the “mother” of Abijah and Asa (now doesn’t that sound like an exciting read :-).

I was fascinated to find that after the U.S. and Canada (#1 and 2 for readership) that Russia was ahead of the UK for reading this blog.  Apparently the Russkies like me (?) with a tight following for fifth between the Aussies and French (I’m cheering for my friends down-under).

If I was to actually name my favorite blog posts of 2010 they might be as follows (is there something inherently wrong with naming your own favorites???):

#4 –  Why I’m Done With the Christian Life
#3 –  10 Reasons I Shouldn’t Embrace Jesus (But Still Do)
#2 –  Shadow and Light
#1 –  Ode to Artie (2010 has been a year of deaths of many that I’ve loved.  This ode was to my wife’s grandfather early in the year before the many others who would follow him including his own beloved wife and my own grandmother just this last week…so I include this one as an ode to others as well whom I’ve loved and lost for now).

By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in humor | Leave a comment

My Favorite Carol

Posted on December 26, 2010 by Rick Wadholm
The following is my personal favorite Christmas hymn.  I actually love both its melancholy verses and triumphant refrain.  It always draws me into the story of redemption in a way that most of the other Chrismas songs just don’t.  You’ll note perhaps more verses here than you have traditionally sung, but these belong to the song as traditionally sung in tandem over the Sundays of Advent.  Tradition says it began in the twelfth century though it most certainly began in the fifteenth.  As I’m wishing you a Merry Christmas this evening (and a happy new year)…I’m just wondering…what is your favorite Christmas hymn and why?

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.

Refrain
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
Who orderest all things mightily;
To us the path of knowledge show,
And teach us in her ways to go.

Refrain

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.

Refrain

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.

Refrain

O come, Thou Key of David, come,
And open wide our heavenly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.

Refrain

O come, O come, great Lord of might,
Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height
In ancient times once gave the law
In cloud and majesty and awe.

Refrain

O come, Thou Root of Jesse’s tree,
An ensign of Thy people be;
Before Thee rulers silent fall;
All peoples on Thy mercy call.

Refrain

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
And be Thyself our King of Peace.

Refrain
By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in Hymns | Leave a comment

A New Blogging Adventure

Posted on December 19, 2010 by Rick Wadholm

I am now into a new blogging adventure. Yes…you did read that correctly.  I’m now on a third blog besides here and over at I Heart Barth (discussing theology and theologians).  Now I’m also blogging at the Bible.org forum moderator blog-site seeing as I’ve been one of the moderators for awhile.  That’s just what I needed to be doing right??? 🙂  I’ve only posted one so far, but will be posting other random short blog postings over there from time to time if anyone is interested in following the site.  There are also numerous other writers who are also moderators at the forum.  While you are there be sure to check out Bible.org (home of the NET bible which offers the most extensive footnoting of any English translation I’ve ever found and is a helpful translation to follow as a part of anyone’s study).

By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in Blogs, NET Bible | Leave a comment

Daniel 4 – The God Who Rules

Posted on December 16, 2010 by Rick Wadholm

<!–[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>

4:1-3 – The opening address by Nebuchadnezzar.  This chapter opens with a personal address to all peoples everywhere and announces the power and majesty of the God of Israel as the Most High God.  The confession that he makes here is no small confession coming from a man who ruled the known world and had all things at his personal disposal.  This is an announcement that is written after what follows, but also precedes it.  Nebuchadnezzar speaks in the first person until verse 19, where the account shifts to Daniel’s interpretation of the dream and to the state of insanity.  Then the account returns to the first person once Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity is restored again in verses 34 and following.
4:4-8 – Another dream and another call for interpretation.  Nebuchadnezzar opens by describing himself as “contented” (Aram. šělěh “at ease/rest”) and “prosperous” (Aram. ra‘ănān “flourishing/luxuriant”; a term used in Biblical Hebrew to refer to trees which prepares us for the dream that follows; cf. Ps.92:15).  In the very place where he felt most secure suddenly he was gripped by fear.  His dream, now troubling him as he was awake, needed interpretation, but as before none but Daniel could give the interpretation.  This despite the fact that here he actually shares the dream with those who should have been able to interpret it for him and this dream was certainly not difficult to understand the figures, so it appears that somehow the others were kept from the interpretation.  The Babylonian name of Daniel is given (Belteshazzar) because that is the name he was best known by among the Babylonians, but still Nebuchadnezzar recognized that it was not per se “his god” that had anything to do with helping Daniel, but “the spirit of the holy gods” that was “in him.”  The reference to the spirit by Nebuchadnezzar is a confession “of a real presence of God that contrasts with the spurious presence that the statue of chap. 3 claimed to bring” (Goldingay 87).  The spirit of the “gods” (Aram. ‘ĕlāhîn) that Nebuchadnezzar refers to could still be taken in a singular sense (much as the name of the one true God is) even though grammatically it is plural (interestingly Theodotion has the singular theou), however it seems more likely that it is still a plural for Nebuchadnezzar given his use of the plural adjective for “holy” (Aram. qādîšîn) that is included with the noun. 
4:9-18 – The Dream of the Tree.  Nebuchadnezzar recognized that Belteshazzar had what the others of his kingdom did not and could interpret mysteries beyond understanding.  The dream was as follows:  he saw a great tree (cf. Ps.92; Eze.17; 19:10-14; 28; 31) that stood in the middle of the earth and reached to the heavens themselves.  This tree provided was magnificent and provided shelter and food for all of the creatures.  However, suddenly, in the dream a “messenger, a holy one coming down out of heaven” (this refers in Nebuchadnezzar’s own language to what we might call an “angel” which is a transliteration of the LXX here, whereas Theodotion has “watcher” following the Aramaic ‘îr which literally means “one who is awake”—see Miller 133—and thus they are just like their Lord—see Ps.121:4; also Karl Barth—Church Dogmatics III.3 pp.460-463—proposes that the true ministry of angels  is to be witnesses to God’s word and work, and to the God who alone is Lord of all).  The command is given to chop the tree down and strip it of everything, but to leave the stump.  Actually, the stump was to be “bound with iron and bronze.”  Are we to understand this in a positive or a negative way?  This is actually a word of ultimate hope to Nebuchadnezzar since he is the tree.  The bands on the stump refer to God’s allowing Nebuchadnezzar to “retain control of his kingdom” and let him know that God will eventually restore it to him “after he comes back to his senses” (Walvoord 106).  In a time when any sign of weakness could mean a sudden overthrow and assassination, this was no time for insanity.  It would actually require divine intervention for Nebuchadnezzar to be spared and restored.  Suddenly the image shifts from a bound stump to one who will be forced to live as the animals though he had at one time provided for all of the animals.  The time frame of “seven times” was set for the duration of this insanity, but does this refer to years or seasons?  Miller (134-5) and Walvoord (103) think it likely it refers to years because of its relation to Dan.7:12, 25 and also the LXX translation as “years,” however Goldingay (81) and Baldwin (125) understand it to simply refer to “seasons” following the Theodotion translation and the more vague use of the same term outside of this chapter in Dan. 2:8, 9, 21; 3:5, 15.  While the sense of “times” may be debated, perhaps also the sense of “seven” should be understood to refer to the fullness of the time for him.  Perhaps this is too vague, but it also lends itself to understanding that God’s timing is always right on time.  John Goldingay notes that the first reason we are given for the felling of the tree is not pride, but simply to “show that God rules” (93).  It is only noted as secondarily a matter of humility.  The interpretation would seem to be apparent, but for whatever reason the interpretation was not forthcoming from all those in the kingdom who should have interpreted and so Belteshazzar was called upon for the interpretation.
4:19-27 – The interpretation of the dream.  Daniel, for obvious and perhaps not as obvious reasons, was reticent to provide the interpretation.  He also was greatly bothered by the dream and the meaning.  It would appear though that Daniel’s concern has less to do with his own self-preservation over giving the king a negative interpretation than to do with a genuine concern for the benefit of the king and therefore of the kingdom.  Daniel’s concern for Nebuchadnezzar “invites us to care about people in power, even people who abuse power, to appeal to their humanness not their sinfulness, and to treat them as people given a responsibility by God and people who may respond to an appeal to right and wrong” (Goldingay 94).  After describing the tree again to Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel declares “You, O king, are that tree!” (cf. Nathan’s very similar words to David “You are the man” – 2 Sam.1
2:7).  Note the parallels and contrast between the tree that is Nebuchadnezzar and the description Jesus gave of the Kingdom of God in Mark 4:30-32.  Daniel emphatically tells the king that the “Most High” had issued a “decree” against him that he would live like a wild animal for “seven times” until he acknowledged “Heaven rules” (this is the only place in the OT where “heaven” stands for the name of God, but this became more common by the inter-testamental period and was particularly used by Matthew in his many—31 verses to be precise—references to the “kingdom of heaven” where the other Gospel accounts have a preference for “kingdom of God”)  The acknowledgment that “Heaven rules” was an acknowledgment that the Most High was sovereign over everything and everyone.  Nebuchadnezzar was informed that there was mercy in this for him.  The Most High would preserve him until he acknowledges this, but he did not have to necessarily even face this suffering (though that would be left to the mercy of God).  He could have followed the advice of Daniel and renounced his sins by doing right and also caring for the oppressed.  “Nebuchadnezzar might not have been treating others cruelly but he probably did what many people do today, practiced an indulgent lifestyle and simply ignored the misfortunes of others” (Miller 139; cf. Isa.1:17).
4:28-33 – The fulfillment of the dream.  Approximately one year after the dream and interpretation everything happens just as it had been predicted.  It began with Nebuchadnezzar walking on the roof of one of his palaces (there were several in Babylon) and glorying in the majesty of “the great Babylon” (cf. Rev.14:8; 18:2) that he believed himself to have built by his own doing.  Babylon was, of course, one of the most magnificent cities of the ancient world.  Walls forty feet high wide enough for chariots to ride upon with gates that were renowned for their magnificence.  He also built the hanging gardens for his wife that the Greeks labeled one of the Seven Wonders of the World.  Perhaps it was even there that looked out upon that vast city and was in awe of the dozens of temples and the numerous palaces and mighty walls.  A truly awe-inspiring spectacle, but just as the words were “still on his lips” suddenly “a voice came from heaven” with the decree that had been given in the dream.  God not only was capable of giving all of Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar but of taking it from him, making him insane and keeping him from death in that state of insanity for seven times until he should be humbled and restored.  “Perhaps one should say that the true insanity belongs to the Nebuchadnezzar who had earlier been talking as if he were the eternal king and God did not exist.  His outward madness is the external expression of a delusion he has already been the tragic victim of” (Goldingay 96).  The illness of Nebuchadnezzar finds allusion in the 2nd century BC Abydenus (Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelico 9.41.1) and the 3rd century BC Babylonian priest Berosus (Josephus Against Apion 1.20).  Interestingly the LXX has added that his madness happened in his eighteenth year which would be the very year he destroyed Jerusalem (586BC), but the Theodotion Greek does not include this time note and neither does the Aramaic and it seems very unlikely (the LXX having a text that is ¼ longer in chapter four than the Aramaic; despite the fact that the LXX does not have 4:6-10a solving the dilemma of Daniel’s absence that the Theodotion did not have an issue with including).  Stephen Miller proposes that it likely happened no later than 571BC which seems probable (128).  According to Jewish legend, his son Amūl-Marduk ruled in his stead until his sanity was restored (Baldwin 128).  Is it possible that Daniel may have actually cared for Nebuchadnezzar in this state?  Somehow he was cared for and kept from the public so that he eventually could be restored.  That alone speaks of God’s grace and mercy.
4:34-37 – The insanity ends and sanity begins.  Nebuchadnezzar again writes whereas in his previous state he could not and it had to be told in the third person.  Now he tells us that he looked to heaven and he was restored.  What praise belongs to God who restores us when our profession can be as little as a crazed man who lifts his eyes finally to acknowledge the God who is sovereign over all?  Nebuchadnezzar makes a profession of faith in God as sovereign over all, but how much a saving faith is perhaps beyond what we should conjecture.  What does Nebuchadnezzar’s profession of faith teach us?  Why did God choose to restore Nebuchadnezzar who had been given a chance earlier to do what was right and didn’t?  Can we profess trust in a God that we know little about and it be sufficient?  What can we learn about the kingdoms and authorities of this world through this account? 
John Goldingay comments that though Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the tree between heaven and earth that was glorified and then shamed ends, there would “eventually be a very different tree, one which more effectively links earth and heaven and displays itself—or rather displays the one it bears—before earth and heaven; a tree which, moreover, also has to become a tree of shame—but not for its own shortcomings—before it can be a tree of glory.  That tree will offer life, security, and provision in fuller senses—though the fuller sense must not exclude the physical senses which are this vision’s concern, and which are God’s own concern” (91-2).
By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in 2 Samuel, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Mark, Psalms, Revelation | Leave a comment

Reflections on the Old Testament

Posted on December 11, 2010 by Rick Wadholm

If you haven’t read them already (and chances are that you haven’t since I’ve just posted the last two within the last  couple of days) and have an interest in Old Testament studies…I’ve posted some of my own reflections on the Old Testament over at my Scribd account.  You can find them through my Writings tab HERE (as well as a few of the other things I’ve written).  I’ve posted four different papers on the OT (hopefully worth a read):

Formation of Canonical Texts: The Question of the “Original” Text of the Old Testament 

Formation of the Old Testament Canon or The Formation of a Community

A Midrashic History of the (Hebrew and Greek) Old Testament Text 

Reflections Towards an Interpretation of the Old Testament 

While these were done for assignments in a course on OT Text and Interpretation…I would still appreciate any feedback or critique you have.  I’m always game for improving what I’ve written and working through my understanding.  Hopefully they are worth the read….if not you can let me know that too…but do let me know gently… :-).

By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in Old Testament | Leave a comment

Confessions of a Book Fiend

Posted on November 29, 2010 by Rick Wadholm
This cartoon is courtesy of Incidental Comics

This comic is to all my bibliophile friends out there…you know who you are…because your READING a BLOG for goodness sake (which means you probably have scattered and/or stacked books around you as you read this…trying to justify your reasons for NOT fitting the overly realistic morbid caricature of this cartoon)!  Some illustrations are just a little too close to home!  I sure hope my wife doesn’t read this blog post ;-).

By: Rick Wadholm Jr.
Posted in Books, humor | Leave a comment