Why were both Daniel
(figuratively) and Jesus (literally) resurrected from their respective (or
intended) graves with no injury? The answer that was given in Daniel’s
case, as has already been seen, was “because he had trusted in his God”
(6:23b). This was true of Daniel, and it is equally true of Jesus.
At this point, Daniel could have easily retreated once again into the words of
the Psalmist, saying “For He did not despise or detest the suffering of the
oppressed; He did not ignore him; when he cried out to Him, He responded”
(22:24). This crying out would be based upon a hopeful trust in the
delivering power of Israel’s faithful, covenant God. Such words could certainly
be found, reflecting that same trust, on the lips of a risen Jesus as
well. Trust was paramount.
Now, the fact that
Jesus’ ordeal of suffering is so closely linked to the story of Daniel’s ordeal
of suffering, with both sharing the controlling, compelling narrative of the
twenty-second Psalm, what now follows in Daniel’s story helps to shed a great
deal of light on the response to the stories of Jesus’ Resurrection.
If Jesus has
successfully connected Himself to the story of Daniel, and it seems that He
has, then this does not bode well for those who were directly responsible for
His death. For “The king,” who is positioned as the sovereign ruler
desirous of appointing a “resurrected” Daniel to a place of rule over his
entire kingdom (with all of the connections to the kingdom-related desires of
the God of Israel and His messiah that are implied and which would have been
well understood in Jesus’ day), “gave another order, and those men who had
maliciously accused Daniel were brought and thrown into the lions’ den---they,
their children, and their wives. They did not even reach the bottom of
the den before the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones”
(6:24).
With such a fate in
mind, there is little wonder that the chief priests and elders began telling
the story that “His disciples came at night and stole His body” (Matthew
28:13b). It is not difficult to understand why these same men would later
order the disciples “not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus” (Acts
4:18b), and later reminded the disciples of this order, saying “We gave you
strict orders not to teach in this name” (5:28a). The words that
immediately follow the reminder of the order draw direct attention to the men
that were cast into the lion’s den, as well as the shouts of the people upon
Pilate’s washing of his hands, as they said, “Look, you have filled Jerusalem
with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood on us!”
(5:28b)
When one considers
that the story of Daniel, for a number of reasons, was so incredibly important
and significant to the Jews of the first century, and that Jesus had so well
seized upon that fact (especially during the whole of His ordeal), it makes
sense that those who stood to find themselves identified with Daniel’s accusers
(and therefore identified with those thrown to the lions) so furious with and
desirous of executing (Acts 5:33) those who said things like (noting the
parallels with Daniel) “The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you
seized and killed by hanging Him on a tree. God exalted Him to His right
hand as Leader and Savior” (5:30-31a). Anyone who found him or herself in
that position would be just as unwilling to allow this story to be told.
Ultimately, as was
said of Daniel’s God by Darius, as he is said to have echoed what was previously
set forth by the Psalmist, would be said of Jesus and His God, by the church,
with this communicated to what would eventually be all believers by the Apostle
Paul. Jesus experienced and overcame His own den of lions, and (noting
the parallels with Daniel) “As a result God exalted Him and gave Him the Name
that is above every name, so that at the Name of Jesus every knee will bow---in
heaven and on earth and under the earth---and every tongue confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:9-11).
No comments:
Post a Comment