The historical parts of Daniel are as prophetic as
the rest of the book. They are a revelation of principles that will
operate throughout the times of the Gentiles, typical events the
like of which will be ever recurring. Chapter 1 shows the type of
man God will use in such a day. Chapter 3 reveals the attitude of
Gentile rulers to religion and the duty of the godly in relation to
these rulers. For the people of God this has always been a truly
serious subject, and it has suddenly become so again in modern
Europe. The right to freedom of conscience and expression is being
challenged, and in several countries the battle is becoming ever
more overt.
In chapter 2 the Gentile world empire had been
portrayed before Nebuchadnezzar by a great image. It may be presumed
that this was still in his mind when the king made his own great
image in chapter 3. He had created an empire such as never had been,
and he would have all men own and honour it, and the image was his
representation of it. The state was to be all: its needs paramount,
its demands imperative, its commands absolute law.
The golden image was to be worshipped. Nothing
less than divine honour was to be rendered to it, and such honour
was to be rendered to none other. Great statesmen like
Nebuchadnezzar have always been too astute to ignore the instinctive
religious element of human nature. Man must render homage to
something outside of himself, but an impersonal thing like the state
will not stir the enthusiasm of the human heart for long. It will
lose its fascination unless it becomes embodied in a person who can
be revered or feared. Thus the Babylonian empire, as set forth in
the golden image, was the expansion of its founder. To honour it was
to honour him, and by requiring all men to worship the image he
ensured that they should honour himself, the Empire’s creator,
genius, and inspiration. Consequently, religion is an affair of the
state and its outward forms are to be regulated by law. There is to
be only one religion for the “peoples, nations, and languages” (Dan.
3: 4), and so when “all the peoples heard . . . all the peoples, the
nations, and the languages fell down [and] worshipped” (v7). So it
shall also be at the end of the age: “the whole earth wondered after
the beast … as many as should not do homage to the image of the
beast should be killed” (Rev. 13: 3, 15). In particular, all
officials must conform to state worship: “the satraps, the prefects,
and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the
justices, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered
together unto the dedication of the image” (Dan. 3: 3). Government
service, and especially official position, is more dangerous for the
children of God than private employment. Public employees are the
first to be
required to bind their conscience and
actions by the oath of allegiance and obedience.
Thus is precipitated an inescapable and
irreconcilable conflict.
The NT lays upon the child of God no duty to
the state. Where is the verse that tells the Roman Christian that he
owed a duty to the Roman Empire? The instructions given in the NT
are that we should obey whatever king or governors we are under, the
reason being that they are appointed by God for the purposes of
repressing crime and supporting good (see Rom. 13: 1–7; 1 Pet. 2:
13–17). For this beneficial work rulers of all ranks have divine
authority, but for their state schemes and measures they can plead
no warrant from God, and the precepts commanding obedience to them
cease to apply. It has been the perpetual habit of rulers to extend
their actions into matters for which God has not given them
authority, the attempt at redefining marriage being one recent
example. By this means, state aims and policies arise—for powerful
personalities use the idea of the state to further the grand ends
for which they were not appointed by God and for which they hold no
divine warrant. There is therefore a vital distinction between the
ruler and the state. The one is a person owned by God for a needful
and definite work, the other is a conception and creation of man for
purposes of his own. The Lord did not say, ‘Pay then what is the
state’s to the state’, but “Pay then what is Caesar’s to Caesar”
(Matt. 22: 21). He obeyed all the laws in force in His land and
taught others to do so (see Matt. 8: 4; 23: 2, 3), but in the
affairs of the Jewish state He took no part, and indeed refused to
do so. His people were then suffering under the heel of the Roman
Empire, and only waited an opportunity to free themselves. Yet the
Lord Jesus refused to allow Himself to be made the leader of the
national hopes (see John 6: 14, 15). How could He have done so
without trespassing upon the overruling of affairs by God His
Father, who had permitted the Romans to gain dominion over Israel as
foretold in Deut. 28: 49. Caesar, and Pilate his representative, had
been given their power “from above” (John 19: 11), for “there is no
authority except from God” (Rom. 13: 1), and therefore the Son of
God would
not resist them, not
even when, as in this case, the power was misused.
It also ought to be noted that it was not God’s
wish or plan that his earthly people should be in such relations to
world empires as those in which Daniel, Mordecai, and others found
themselves. It was purely a result of Israel’s sin and as captive
slaves that they so served. Being where they were through no fault
of their own, God used Daniel and others like him for gracious
purposes, but they would have been out of His will had they sought
such positions of their own volition. Nor is it the mind of God that
His heavenly people should fill such positions in world affairs
today. God’s day for Israel and the Church to share in the
government of the nations is yet future, when Christ returns and
takes over the government. In the meantime we are to submit
cheerfully to the present authorities, willingly going two miles
when the law demands only one (see Matt. 5: 41). The limit of
obedience is if rulers require what God does not permit or trespass
into realms not sanctioned by God. What had Shadrach and his
companions to do with the king’s herald or his commission to secure
obedience to the royal decree as to worship? They simply ignored him
and his proclamation, acting as if he had not published the king's
order. And what have we to do instructions from the state as to
making the Assembly
of God conform to the
equality agenda? Nothing! When the issue is forced there is but one
course open to the godly: passive, but uncompromising resistance. “O
Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer thee in this matter. If it
be [so], our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the
burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver [us] out of thy hand, O
King. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not
serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image that thou hast set up”
Dan. 3: 16–18).
In several countries today this is a real and
pressing matter. Is the state supreme or is God? Praise God for all
who are resolute upon this point. Jewish rulers pressed the apostles
with the same sharp issue: “We strictly enjoined you not to teach in
this name: and lo, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine”
(Acts 5: 28). This prompted the same determined refusal: “God must
be obeyed rather than men” (v29).
Behind all this bitter antagonism is the
Prince of this world. For a time his agents may moderate the
expression of their Master’s hatred to Christ, but the fire is
there, and is ready to blaze at any moment. “Then was Nebuchadnezzar
full of fury” (Dan. 3: 19). Formerly from his throne he had smiled
graciously upon his three servants, but now the form of his visage
was changed against them. God may grant to His Church a season of
tranquillity as has occurred in recent times in Britain and America,
but this is wholly exceptional, and we cannot count upon its
continuance. We do well to arm ourselves with the mind of Christ
(see 1 Pet. 4. 1), who came into the world knowing from the first
that He must be lifted up (see John 3: 14; 12: 32), and that the
path to glory lay through suffering. Let us not imagine that we
shall escape tribulation in this world (see John 16: 33) for “to you
has been given, as regards Christ, not only the believing on him but
the suffering for him also” (Phil. 1: 29). Again, “Let none of you
suffer indeed as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer . . . but if as a
Christian, let him not be ashamed, but glorify God in this name” (1
Pet. 4: 15, 16). And even as Shadrach and his companions were
promoted to higher dignity and office in the service of the king
(see Dan. 3: 30), so “if indeed we suffer with [him] ... we shall
also reign together” (Rom. 8: 17; 2 Tim. 2: 12).
