Introduction: Currently, I’m reading a delightful book that explains
why the outspoken opponents of God are idiots. That may sound a
little undiplomatic, but this book is filled with humor and logic,
and it pokes a hole in the so-called scientific gasbags that
publically attack the existence of God. My problem is that when I
read some of the logical arguments in the book, I have to think about
them to be sure I’m understanding what I read. That should be our
constant quest. Even when reading something that we think we
understand, we need to take a moment to be sure. Then we need to
explore whether what we just understood makes sense. That is our
study this week. As we begin our exploration of the book of Daniel,
are we prepared to really understand it? Do certain distinctions make
sense? Let’s dive into the Bible and see what we can learn!
- God’s Wisdom
- Read 1 Corinthians 1:18. What caution does this suggest
about sharing the gospel with unbelievers? (We should not
assume that they will understand. They may think we are
talking foolishness.) - Even if they understand our words, will they
understand our message? - If you answered, no, how can we evangelize?
- Read 1 Corinthians 1:19 and Isaiah 29:14. What is God’s
approach to pagan wisdom? (He will destroy and frustrate
it. I think the book that I am reading logically destroys
pagan wisdom.) - 1 Corinthians 1:19 refers back to Isaiah 29:14 when
it says, “it is written.” How does Isaiah suggest
that the wisdom of the world will disappear? (“Wonder
upon wonder” will destroy worldly wisdom.) - What do you think that means? (The recent
scientific discovery that the universe is
expanding, and therefore logically had a
starting point, resulted in the “Big Bang”
theory. Prior to that, the scientific belief
was that the universe was static, and therefore
no outside force was involved.) - Contemplate the “Big Bang” theory for a few
minutes. What does it require? (It requires
external intervention. It requires a lot of
energy to suddenly show up. This “wonder”
creates a lot of problems for scientists who
oppose the idea of an outside god.) - Read 1 Corinthians 1:20-21. Does this suggest that God
does not want the worldly wise to know Him? That we cannot
evangelize? (Read 1 Corinthians 1:27. I don’t think that
Paul is arguing that we cannot evangelize or that God
rejects well-educated people. Instead, he argues that God
works through human weakness. Consider how Jesus came to
earth and how He died. Worldly wisdom rejects this. If God
rejected smart, educated people, He would not have chosen
Paul for he was a very educated man.) - Read Daniel 2:31-36. We will learn that God bypassed all
of the Babylonian wise men and revealed the meaning of the
dream through Daniel, a Jewish captive. What do you know
about the interpretation of this dream? (It lays out the
future of the world! This shows that God works through
weakness.) - What does “weakness” mean in this context? Was Daniel
weak? Was he dumb? Was he uneducated? (Weakness here
means that he was not part of the pagan power
structure.) - What lesson do you learn about God’s approach to
understanding from what we have discussed? (The best the
pagan world has to offer is unlikely to lead you to a
correct interpretation of God’s will.) - Prophecy
- I recently read that there is a difference between
“classical” and “apocalyptic” prophecies. Some scholars
promote various forms of this theory. What I want us to
consider is the specific assertion that classical prophecy
might not end up being true because it depends on “human
response.” Apocalyptic prophecy, on the other hand, will
always be true. Does this mean that we cannot trust all
prophecy? - Does the trustworthiness of prophecy turn on how we
label it? - What do you think about this claim?
- Do you think this distinction helps us to better
understand what we read in the Bible? - Let’s look at an example. Read Zechariah 9:1-4. This is
labeled a “classical” prophecy. But, slip down a few
verses to Zechariah 9:9-10. This is a prophecy about the
coming of Jesus and presumably would therefore be
“apocalyptic” in the sense it is not subject to human
response. Would you be able to tell the difference
between these two prophecies? Does a prophet switch from
one type of prophecy to another in the same chapter? - Read Zechariah 14:1-4. This is part of a “classical”
prophecy about the future of Jerusalem, meaning that it
may not come true depending on human response. What do you
say about this? (While I understand scholars’ desire to
categorize things, I think the claim about reliability is
a problem. At least one proponent of this distinction uses
it to dismiss the expectation that the final events of
history will unfold in the Middle East. Since final events
have not yet taken place, dismissing this possibility
places human wisdom (the correct labeling of prophecies)
over the word of God.) - On the face of it, what reason is there to believe
that the prophecy of Zechariah 14:1-4 is any less
reliable than the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9-10? - Read Jonah 1:2, Jonah 3:4, Jonah 3:10 and Jonah 4:1-2. Did
Jonah think this was a conditional prophecy? (Yes and no.
He is angry because he thinks it was not conditional. But,
he recognizes that God is “gracious and compassionate.”) - Did God intend this prophecy to be conditional
(classical)? (Look again at Jonah 3:10. “God
relented.” This means God changed His mind. It does
not mean that He intended all along to let the
outcome turn on how the people reacted.) - If you reject labeling prophecies in advance as to
their certainty, what theory would you suggest in its
place? (Consider this: our God is gracious,
compassionate, slow to anger, abounding in love, and
His character is consistent with changing His mind
about sending calamity. This leaves His followers
simply trusting that God will do the right thing. I
favor that approach.) - Timing
- We previously read the dream of King Nebuchadnezzar. Let’s
read the interpretation in Daniel 2:37-41 and Daniel 2:44-45. Scholars differ on whether this is merely symbolic,
something that happened in the past, something that will
happen in the future, or something that describes the arc
of earthly history. How do you view this? - What is the argument against this being a symbol of
general ideas? (Read Daniel 2:37-38. Daniel says the
prophecy has a specific application.) - What is the argument against it describing only
events that have not yet taken place? (Read Daniel
2:39. Daniel not only says that the events are
happening now, he says that the dream describes a
series of kingdoms that will rise and fall in the
future – and we can now see that this has happened.) - What is the argument against the dream describing
only past events? (Read again Daniel 2:44-45. The
prediction of the never-ending Kingdom of God which
destroys all the other kingdoms has not yet taken
place.) - Why do you think God gave this dream to King
Nebuchadnezzar? Why give it at this time in history?
(Jerusalem was destroyed. God’s people were taken captive
by a nation hostile to the true God. A follower of God
could reasonably worry that God was not in control. This
dream and its interpretation showed that God has the
entire history of the world planned out.) - We are going to study this dream in more detail, but what
does this say about the existence of our God? (First, it
tells me that God is real. Nebuchadnezzar could never
correctly dream the empires that would follow his. Daniel
could never read Nebuchadnezzar’s mind. That most of this
dream has already been fulfilled gives us confidence in a
God who is involved in the affairs of humans and who has
established His eternal Kingdom.) - Friend, why not trust God for your future? Will you commit
to that today? - Next week: From Jerusalem to Babylon.
