January 4–10

This weekly feature is dedicated to Adventists who are looking for biblical insights into the topics discussed in the Sabbath School lesson quarterly. We post articles which address each lesson as presented in the Sabbath School Bible Study Guide, including biblical commentary on them. We hope you find this material helpful and that you will come to know Jesus and His revelation of Himself in His word in profound biblical ways.

 

Lesson 2: “From Jerusalem to Babylon”

The author is to be commended for his introduction to this week’s lesson showing that Daniel and his friends trusted God instead of the worldly nation where they were enslaved.

Yes, God is the always faithful One and is most decidedly the hero of the whole book. In fact, as we get into the prophetic areas of the later chapters, it is all about Jesus. This introduction is well-stated and full of praise for God and His faithfulness.

I would like to comment, however, on the verse used to highlight this faithfulness. Unfortunately, only part of the verse is used, so first, let’s read the entire verse:

For this reason I also suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed and I am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day (2 Timothy 1:12).

I don’t want to get off subject here—the faith of Daniel and the faithfulness of God—but if you read the entire verse, you get a much larger sense of the reason we trust God. That last part, “He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him,” is a part that is largely ignored by many people. What is it, exactly, that we have entrusted to God? 

Is it our works?

Is it our wealth?

Is it our ability to keep the Law, even if we need His help to succeed?

Is it our wishes and desires?

Or is it our very souls and eternal life? God doesn’t want or need any of our material, earthly things. What He wants is our trust and our soul entrusted to His loving, saving hands. When we first believed in Jesus, we entrusted to Him not only our life here but also the certainty of our eternity. That is what He can be trusted to guard, to hold without fail. 

Many people object to the notion of once saved—always saved; they may think God won’t lose them but they can walk away. But if you don’t trust God to safely hold your very being, you are not trusting Him for your salvation. Instead, you are trusting in yourself and your ability to keep yourself saved.

Entrust it to Him and trust Him to hold it safe! Jesus promised this very security in John 6:39-40 and 10:20, 29. Why is it so hard to believe Him when He says that He will never let us go?

In Sunday’s lesson, the author again points out in well-stated terms the total sovereignty of God and His control over all events, big and small.

The last question at the end of the day, however, reveals the Adventist misunderstanding of knowing God through trusting Jesus:

“How can you learn to lean on the power of God to help you overcome whatever is before you?”

The only way to learn to lean on God is to trust Him. Trust that He means just what He says in the Bible. Trust Him that He saved you when you first believed. Trust Him to hold you and never let you go (John 10:28, 29); trust Him when He says that your sins are forgiven; trust Him when He says that if you believe in Him, you have (present tense) salvation (John 3:16); trust Him when He tells us that we are not under judgment (John 3:18; Romans 8:1).

 

Firm Resolution

This section contains a good summary of the reasons for the choices made by Daniel and his friends. They had obviously been trained in God’s will for them as part of the chosen people and knew how He wanted them to live.

There is some concern for the “free will” that is mentioned several times. The problem is that this is held up as something that outweighs God power to act, as if with his free will, Daniel could have thwarted God’s plans.

God is totally sovereign and can act without our help or hinderance (Job 38-40). We do have free will, but to even suggest that it out-powers God is to fall for the original sin of Lucifer—that of pride and elevating ourselves above God. 

Where the lesson noticeably falls off track, however, is in the third point of the interaction between Daniel and the official.

From the lesson:

“Third, the choice of a diet of vegetables and water points back to the food God gave humanity at Creation (see Gen. 1:29), a fact that perhaps influences Daniel’s choice, as well. After all, what could be a better diet than the one God originally gave us?”

This statement is so totally out of context from the Bible passage that the only reason for it to be here is to support the vegetarianism claims of Adventism.

In discussing this with Colleen Tinker, she had some good insights on this:

“Also, when it coms to the diet of Daniel and his friends, it’s probably important to point out that it wasn’t vegetarianism that made them stronger; it was God’s miracle. They refused to honor the kings traditions over their own God. Furthermore, Daniel wasn’t a vegetarian his whole life; in Daniel 9 it explains that while he prayed, he did not use ointments our eat meat for two weeks. The issue wasn’t vegetarianism but honoring God.”

Ironically, near the end of Thursday’s lesson, the author even says much the same thing and makes the same point:

“…their superior performance owes nothing to the Babylonian system. Everything comes from God. What a powerful example of what God can do for those who trust Him”

Importantly, while the Jews observed the Old Covenant laws on clean and unclean meat, they weren’t vegetarians. Yes, the diet God gave in the Garden of Eden was vegetarian and, yes, that may have been the most healthy diet for those who lived in the pre-flood world. But there are two things to consider here. 

1. There was no death before the fall, so there could not have been meat eating in the Garden.
2. After the flood, God told Noah that he could eat anything:

And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 

The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant (Genesis 9:1-3).

As Colleen Tinker and the lesson author both pointed out, Daniel’s and his friends’ superiority wasn’t about their food as much as it was about their faith in God. There is no indication in the texts in Daniel that the original diet had anything to do with it.

 

Unblemished and Wise

In this section, the author makes a strange statement about Nebuchadnezzar:

“The Babylonian king seems to compare himself to the God of Israel insofar as he demands similar qualifications for those serving in his palace.”

It is very doubtful that he knew anything at all about the God of Israel or that he would even care. As a ruler of much of the known world at that time, it would not be unusual for him to want and need good counselors, and it is quite likely that he would want only the “un-blemished” in his court. To then liken that to the requirement God gave for sacrifices to be “un-blemished” is an unnatural comparison. 

God’s requirement that offerings be without blemish were because those sacrifices were pointing forward to the perfect, unblemished, Lamb of God. It had nothing to do with outward looks or handsome appearance. 

For the lesson’s author to say that Daniel was a living sacrifice to God because Nebuchadnezzar chose him for his unblemished perfection is to put a New Covenant concept into and Old Covenant situation. It is totally out of context and not even relevant to the situation.

From the lesson: “Read Galatians 2:19, 20.” I also include verses 17, 18 and 21 to complete the thought:

But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin? May it never be! 

For if I rebuild what I have once destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God. 

I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”

That last verse is a summary of the previous 4 verses, and I find it amazing that it is included here. The question after these and the other verses listed in the lesson asks how these verses help us stay faithful.

Very good question! According to Galatians 2 quoted above, hanging on to the Law will “nullify” the grace of God. You clearly can’t have both or you are committing spiritual adultery (Romans 7).

When you combine these verses in Galatians with Matthew 16:24–26 listed in the lesson, you come to the unavoidable conclusion that serving both the Law and Grace is trying to “serve two masters”, and Jesus emphatically said that you can’t do that.

It is doubtful that the author of an Adventist study intended the readers to come to that conclusion, but those verses preach a very powerful sermon on Grace and faith!

Nevertheless, the author did make a subtle point after all. Just look at this sentence near the end:

“We also learn that we do not need to isolate ourselves from society and its cultural life in order to serve God. “

This may be a subtle jab at the Adventist communities where they congregate to the point that they can even get the Post Office to change the day of mail delivery so that it doesn’t come on Saturday. But, whatever his point, it is true. As salt and light in the world, we do no good if we isolate ourselves from those who desperately need that salt and light.

 

Friday’s EGW wrap

In Friday’s lesson, in the inevitable quote from Ellen White, we find this phrase as explanation for the Babylonian captivity:

“…Israel’s departure from His commandments” 

In the Bible, there is more than one meaning of the word “commandment” which makes me question which one she meant.

In the New Testament, “commandments” is used almost exclusively for the commands of Jesus to the disciples and later to us through the writings of Paul and John. This is not the same word that means the 10 Commandments, the Old Covenant—Law.

The other use of “commandments”, which is the one Ellen White usually chose, does mean the 10 Commandments. But violations of the 10 Commandments were not the reasons God gave for the captivity. In Jeremiah 7:30, 31 He laid out the 3 reasons:

For the sons of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight,” declares the Lord, “they have set their detestable things in the house which is called by My name, to defile it. 

They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.

They (1) did evil, they (2) brought “detestable things” into the Temple, and they (3) sacrificed their children to foreign gods.

(On a side note, #3 sounds very much like today’s society’s killing of the unborn for convenience. It is detestable in God’s eyes.)

Look at the question immediately following:

“What should this tell us about how important it is to know our Bibles and to understand “present truth”?”

There are two parts to that question so, one at a time:

1. It is very important to know our Bibles; which apparently Ellen White did not, as she said that violating the commandments is the reason for the captivity. Moreover, this error says nothing of all the other things she said that contradict the Bible.
2. The part about “present truth” is very troubling. God’s truth is just that—true. It doesn’t change over time. While His manner of dealing with fallen humanity has been different over time, all of it comes from His Holy, Sovereign, perfect nature. If God’s truth changes in essence or in fact, it means that either God changed or He lied and both are impossible.

There is a distinct difference between God’s truth, which comes from His very nature, and the ongoing revelation of His truths. The New Testament contains a fuller revelation of God than did the Old, but not a different truth about Him.

While the revelation of God’s truth changed and increased over time, the truth itself never changed. It comes from His very nature and He never changes. Ellen White, however, used the phrase “present truth” to include her supposed revelations as God’s ongoing revelation of new truth—an idea which totally contradicts Scripture.

So far, the author has laid a foundation for the study of Daniel that acknowledges God’s sovereignty and faithfulness, even if his underlying views differ from the Scripture’s revelation of God’s purposes. In the coming weeks we will see what he builds on that foundation. †