It seemed like a good idea to Darius to appoint over the kingdom one hundred twenty satraps who would be in charge of the entire kingdom. Over them would be three supervisors, one of whom was Daniel. – Daniel 6:1-2a (NET)
Daniel is given a tremendous responsibility. It is written that “These satraps were accountable to them,” meaning the three supervisors, “so that the king’s interests might not incur damage” (6:2b). These words allow us to make a consideration of the role of Jesus, to the end that His (God’s) interests, that being the salvation of a people and the restoration of His creation, might not incur damage. Others had been sent into the world for this very purpose. In fact, Jesus was essentially the third of three “supervisors” that had been appointed to this purpose, with the first being Adam, and the second being Israel. As we make this analogous comparison between Daniel and Jesus here in association with the story of Daniel and the lion’s den, and taking the extremely wide, cosmic view entailed by connecting the two men together, we can go on to think about the one hundred twenty satraps, which is a technical term for an official in charge of a region of the empire, as the steady stream of patriarchs, judges, kings, and prophets that had been either chosen or raised up by God to be partially responsible for protecting the King’s interests from incurring damage.
With regard to Daniel, we go on to read that he “was distinguishing himself above the other supervisors and satraps, for he had an extraordinary spirit” (6:3). It is not difficult to transfer and make the application of these words to Jesus, as we recall the event of His baptism, when “a voice came from heaven,” saying, “You are My one dear Son; in you I take great delight” (Mark 1:11). To this utterance, Matthew would add that the Spirit of God descended upon Jesus and came upon Him (Matthew 3:16). Certainly, it could be said that, owing to this descent of the Holy Spirit, Jesus had an extraordinary spirit, enabling Him to distinguish Himself above Adam and Israel and all of the prophets and holy men of God that had come before Him.
Of Daniel, it is said that “in fact, the king intended to appoint him over the entire kingdom” (6:3b). This would be no less true of Jesus, as God’s intention was to appoint His Messiah, that being Jesus, over the entirety of the kingdom that He Himself was establishing on the earth, as He (Israel’s God) personally embodied the Messiah so as to act in history to inaugurate this kingdom.
Clearly, Daniel had great favor with the king, as did Jesus. As a result, “the supervisors and satraps were trying to find some pretext against Daniel in connection with administrative matters” (6:4a). On the local (not cosmic) level, because Daniel’s position of authority, along with the will of the king is being challenged, we now view these supervisors and satraps as the chief priests, elders, scribes, and rulers with whom Jesus found himself in conflict. Just as there was a movement against Daniel, in the area of “administrative matters,” so too was there a movement against Jesus. Here, without taking the time and space to go into specifics, we call to mind the numerous attempts that were made to challenge Jesus and His teaching, along with the questioning of His authority to do and say the things that He was doing and saying.
When it came to Daniel, “they were unable to find any such damaging evidence, because he was trustworthy and guilty of no negligence or corruption” (6:4b). True of Daniel, so true of Jesus as well. Though we don’t want to get too far ahead of ourselves, one only need consider the witnesses at the “trial” of Jesus, who attempted to bring forth condemning accusations and testimony, but ultimately, found their attempts at doing so unsuccessful. Plans were hatched and attempts were made to get Jesus to speak against the Temple, or against the Roman government, or against the Mosaic Law, but all proved futile. Indeed, Jesus was trustworthy, and was guilty of no negligence or corruption by which he could be challenged or damaged in any way.
Having failed to gather any credible evidence against Daniel, “these men concluded, ‘We won’t find any pretext against this man Daniel unless it is in connection with the law of his God.’” (6:5) Ultimately, this would be the path traveled in the plot to take down Jesus, with the accusation of blasphemy against God, as Jesus would be said to have made Himself equal with God, and would thereby be subject to the attendant demand for death associated with a conviction related to that charge. However, those that sought to bring death to Jesus were not in a position to carry out that death penalty, so a case had to be made to those who could do so. To that end, Jesus was taken before Pilate.
No comments:
Post a Comment