After observing Daniel in his practice of continuing to pray---continuing, without fail, in the ministry to which he had been appointed by Israel’s faithful God, the men who would have Daniel done away with “approached the king and said to him, ‘Did you not an issue an edict to the effect that for the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human other than to you, O king, would be thrown into a den of lions?’” (Daniel 6:12a) This serves to remind us that, in Jesus’ day, the Roman emperor was the focal point of a large and popular religious cult, whose purpose was to provide a unifying force to a geographically far-flung, ethnically and culturally and religiously diverse empire. The Roman emperor was recognized as a divine being, which is not unlike the movement we see here in Daniel, with prayers to be directed solely to the ruler of the world empire that then held sway.
To the loaded query from his officials, “The king replied, ‘That is correct, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed.’” (6:12b) Knowing that they had driven the king down the path that they so desired, and leading him into a corner at which he would be forced to acquiesce to their scheming, the jealous officials seized upon this re-confirmation of the king’s decree and said to him, “Daniel, who is one of the captives from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the edict that you issued. Three times daily he offers his prayer” (6:13). Before drawing the analogy, we should notice that they do not simply tell the king that Daniel is ignoring the edict, but rather, they first say that Daniel pays no attention to the king. Though the second accusation as entirely true, the first was patently false.
The goings-on here now enable us to return to Jesus being brought before Pilate. In Luke’s Gospel, Jesus’ accusers, after taking Him from His place of prayer (where, let us not forget, He prayed three times, probably facing Jerusalem), “rose up and brought Jesus before Pilate. They began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man subverting our nation, forbidding us to pay tribute tax to Caesar and claiming that He Himself is Christ, a king” (23:1b-2). This sounds remarkably like the accusation that Daniel paid no attention to the king or to his edicts. Jesus was, in a sense, subverting the nation, in terms of the national aspirations towards militaristic overthrow of Rome, so this part of the accusation was true. The second part, indicating that Jesus was attempting to subvert Rome (paying no attention to the king) by forbidding the people to pay taxes, was not true.
Undoubtedly, Darius would have been surprised to hear such things about Daniel, and would have responded with some measure of incredulity. Similarly, if this were true of Jesus, Pilate, in his collusion with the temple authorities (particularly the Sadducees), would have heard something along these lines (a person claiming to be king, instructing people to not pay taxes) prior to this point. So let’s just say that Pilate regarded the accusation with a measure of incredulity as well. Things of this nature, which would require the attention of the governor, didn’t just happen overnight or occur under a rock. They build over time and eventually reach a boiling point that required intervention by Rome. If this issue with Jesus was now at the point of Roman intervention, then it stands to reason that Pilate is going to have some familiarity with the charges that are being brought against Jesus. The Gospel record paints a picture of a governor that is fully unaware of the man that is being placed before him, and the subversion of which He is being accused. To this end, the Gospel of John has these men saying, about Jesus, in response to Pilate’s question of “What accusation to you bring against this man?” (18:29b), “If this man were not a criminal, we would not have handed him over to you” (18:30b).
When it came to Daniel, “When the king heard about this, he was very upset and began thinking about how he might rescue Daniel. Until late afternoon he was struggling to find a way to rescue him” (6:14). This is a regular echo of the Gospel accounts. In Matthew, we find that Pilate’s “wife sent a message to him: ‘Have nothing to do with that innocent man…’” (27:19b) In Luke, “Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no basis for an accusation against this man.’” (23:4b) Pilate would even send Jesus to King Herod, in order to see if he would intervene on behalf of Jesus. After Jesus returns from Herod, “Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said to them, ‘You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. When I examined Him before you, I did not find this man guilty of anything you accused Him of doing. Neither did Herod, for he sent Him back to us. Look, He has done nothing deserving death.’” (23:13-15)
Going on to the Gospel of John, Pilate’s actions are there also reported to be quite similar to those of King Darius, as he questions Jesus and eventually says “I find no basis for an accusation against Him” (18:38b). He repeats these words (“I find no reason for an accusation against Him” – 19:4b) after having Jesus flogged, hoping that this will satisfy those who have brought Jesus before him. Again, a third time, against the protests of the chief priests, as they stirred up the crowds, Pilate says “Certainly I find no reason for an accusation against Him” (19:6b). The Gospel writer is emphatic, insisting on demonstrating that “Pilate tried to release Him” (19:12), exploring every possible option that was available to him, much like Darius struggled to find a way to rescue Daniel from the fate of the den of lions. Their efforts, of course, were to no avail.
No comments:
Post a Comment