Book Study Wk 16 10/10: pg 115-122: Rescued From the Jaws of Lions!

by ithinkisee 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • ithinkisee
    ithinkisee

    I added some Blondie-like comments this week. Kind of fun. My comments are in red ... and I highlighted the points in the paragraphs.

    Chapter Eight: Rescued From the Jaws of Lions!
    BABYLON had fallen! Its century-long splendor as a world power had been snuffed out in just a few hours. A new era was beginning—that of the Medes and the Persians. As successor to Belshazzar’s throne, Darius the Mede now faced the challenge of organizing his expanded empire.

    2 One of the first tasks undertaken by Darius was to appoint 120 satraps. It is believed that those who served in this capacity were sometimes selected from among the king’s relatives. In any event, each satrap governed a major district or a smaller subdivision of the empire. (Daniel 6:1) His duties included collecting taxes and remitting the tribute to the royal court. Though subject to periodic scrutiny by a visiting representative of the king, the satrap had considerable authority. His title meant “protector of the Kingdom.” In his province the satrap was regarded as a vassal king, with all but sovereign power.

    It is believed: WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    3 Where would Daniel fit into this new arrangement? Would Darius the Mede retire this aged Jewish prophet who was now in his nineties? By no means! Darius no doubt realized that Daniel had accurately foretold the downfall of Babylon and that such a prediction required superhuman discernment. In addition, Daniel had decades of experience in dealing with the varied captive communities in Babylon. Darius was intent on keeping peaceful relations with his newly conquered subjects. Therefore, he would certainly want someone with Daniel’s wisdom and experience close to the throne. In what capacity?

    Would Darius the Mede retire this aged Jewish prophet who was now in his nineties?: The WT has to say "in his nineties to make it fit in with Jerusalem being destroyed in 607 BC.

    no doubt: WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    he would certainly want:WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    4 It would have been startling enough if Darius had appointed the Jewish exile Daniel to be a satrap. But just imagine the commotion when Darius announced his decision to make Daniel one of the three high officials who would oversee the satraps! Not only that but Daniel was “steadily distinguishing himself,” proving himself superior to his fellow high officials. Indeed, “an extraordinary spirit” was found in him. Darius was even intent upon giving him the position of prime minister.—Daniel 6:2, 3.

    just imagine the commotion :WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    5 The other high officials and the satraps must have been seething with anger. Why, they could not stand the thought of having Daniel—who was neither Mede nor Persian nor a member of the royal family—in a position of authority over them! How could Darius elevate a foreigner to such prominence, bypassing his own countrymen, even his own family? Such a maneuver must have seemed unfair. Moreover, the satraps evidently viewed Daniel’s integrity as an unwelcome restraint against their own practices of graft and corruption. Yet, the high officials and satraps did not dare to approach Darius about the matter. After all, Darius held Daniel in high esteem.

    must have been,must have seemed,the satraps evidently viewed:WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    6 So these jealous politicians conspired among themselves. They tried “to find some pretext against Daniel respecting the kingdom.” Could anything be amiss about the way he handled his responsibilities? Was he dishonest? The high officials and satraps could find no negligence or corruption whatsoever in the way that Daniel handled his duties. “We shall find in this Daniel no pretext at all,” they reasoned, “except we have to find it against him in the law of his God.” And so it was that these devious men hatched a plot. They thought it would finish Daniel off once and for all.—Daniel 6:4, 5.

    A MURDEROUS PLOT SET IN MOTION

    7 Darius was approached by an entourage of high officials and satraps who “entered as a throng.” The Aramaic expression here carries the idea of a thunderous commotion. Apparently, these men made it appear that they had a matter of great urgency to present to Darius. They may have reasoned that he would be less likely to question their proposal if they presented it with conviction and as something that required immediate action. Hence, they came right to the point, saying: “All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the high royal officers and the governors, have taken counsel together to establish a royal statute and to enforce an interdict, that whoever makes a petition to any god or man for thirty days except to you, O king, should be thrown to the lions’ pit.”—Daniel 6:6, 7.

    Apparently,They may have reasoned:WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    8 Historical records confirm that it was common for Mesopotamian kings to be viewed and worshiped as divine. So Darius undoubtedly was flattered by this proposal. He may also have seen a practical side to it. Remember, to those living in Babylon, Darius was a foreigner and a newcomer. This new law would serve to establish him as king, and it would encourage the multitudes living in Babylon to avow their loyalty and support to the new regime. In proposing the decree, though, the high officials and the satraps were not at all concerned about the king’s welfare. Their true motive was to entrap Daniel, for they knew that it was his custom to pray to God three times a day before the open windows of his roof chamber.

    undoubtedly,He may also have:WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    Historical records confirm: I wonder if these historical records also talk about the reigns of the neo-babylonian kings and/or the destruction of Jerusalem?

    9 Would this restriction on prayer create a problem for all the religious communities in Babylon? Not necessarily, especially since the prohibition was to last only for a month. Furthermore, few non-Jews would view directing their worship to a human for a time as a compromise. One Bible scholar notes: “King-worship made no strange demands upon the most idolatrous of nations; and therefore the Babylonian when called upon to pay to the conqueror—Darius the Mede—the homage due to a god, readily acceded to the demand. It was the Jew alone who resented such a demand.”

    One Bible scholar notes:Uh-oh ... quoting anonymous bible scholars again. I wonder if you asked this Bible Scholar when Jerusalem was destroyed what they would say? 607 or 586?

    10 In any event, Darius’ visitors urged him to “establish the statute and sign the writing, in order for it not to be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which is not annulled.” (Daniel 6:8) In the ancient East, the will of a king was often regarded as absolute. This perpetuated the notion that he was infallible. Even a law that could cause the death of innocent people had to remain in effect!

    11 Without thinking of Daniel, Darius signed the decree. (Daniel 6:9) In doing so, he unknowingly signed the death warrant of his most valued official. Yes, Daniel was sure to be affected by this edict.

    DARIUS FORCED TO RENDER ADVERSE JUDGMENT

    12 Daniel soon became aware of the law restricting prayer. Immediately, he entered into his house and went to his roof chamber, where the windows were open toward Jerusalem. There Daniel began praying to God “as he had been regularly doing prior to this.” Daniel may have thought that he was alone, but the conspirators were watching him. Suddenly, they “crowded in,” no doubt in the same excited manner in which they had approached Darius. Now they were seeing it with their own eyes—Daniel was “petitioning and imploring favor before his God.” (Daniel 6:10, 11) The high officials and satraps had all the evidence they needed to accuse Daniel before the king.

    may have thought:WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    13 Daniel’s enemies slyly asked Darius: “Is there not an interdict that you have signed that any man that asks a petition from any god or man for thirty days except from you, O king, he should be thrown to the lions’ pit?” Darius answered: “The matter is well established according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which is not annulled.” Now the conspirators quickly got to the point. “Daniel, who is of the exiles of Judah, has paid no regard to you, O king, nor to the interdict that you signed, but three times in a day he is making his petition.”—Daniel 6:12, 13.

    14 It is significant that the high officials and satraps referred to Daniel as being “of the exiles of Judah.” Evidently, they wanted to emphasize that this Daniel whom Darius had elevated to such prominence was in reality no more than a Jewish slave. They believed that as such, he was certainly not above the law—no matter how the king felt about him!

    Evidently: WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    15 Perhaps the high officials and satraps expected the king to reward them for their astute detective work. If so, they were in for a surprise. Darius was sorely troubled by the news they brought him. Rather than becoming enraged at Daniel or immediately consigning him to the lions’ pit, Darius spent all day striving to deliver him. But his efforts proved futile. Before long, the conspirators returned, and in their shameless spirit, they demanded Daniel’s blood.—Daniel 6:14, 15.

    Perhaps :WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    16 Darius felt that he had no choice in the matter. The law could not be annulled, nor could Daniel’s “transgression” be pardoned. All that Darius could say to Daniel was “your God whom you are serving with constancy, he himself will rescue you.” Darius seemed to respect Daniel’s God. It was Jehovah who had given Daniel the ability to foretell the fall of Babylon. God had also given Daniel “an extraordinary spirit,” which distinguished him from the other high officials. Perhaps Darius was aware that decades earlier this same God had delivered three young Hebrews from a fiery furnace. Likely, the king hoped that Jehovah would now deliver Daniel, since Darius was unable to reverse the law he had signed. Hence, Daniel was thrown into the lions’ pit. Next, “a stone was brought and placed on the mouth of the pit, and the king sealed it with his signet ring and with the signet ring of his grandees, in order that nothing should be changed in the case of Daniel.”—Daniel 6:16, 17.

    seemed to respect , Perhaps , Likely :WT-speak for: "We don't really know so we are making it up" or "We are guessing."

    [Footnotes]

    The existence of a “lions’ pit” in Babylon is supported by the testimony of ancient inscriptions showing that Oriental rulers frequently had menageries of wild animals.

    The roof chamber was a private room to which a person could retire when he wished to be left undisturbed.

    The lions’ pit may have been a subterranean chamber with a mouth at the top. Likely it also had doors or gratings that could be raised to allow the animals to enter.

    Sweet! They even speculate in their footnotes!

    [Study Questions]
    1, 2. (a) How did Darius the Mede organize his expanded empire? (b) Describe the duties and authority of the satraps.

    3, 4. Why did Darius favor Daniel, and to what position did the king appoint him?

    5. How must the other high officials and the satraps have reacted to Daniel’s appointment, and why?

    6. How did the high officials and satraps try to discredit Daniel, and why did this effort prove futile?

    7. What proposal did the high officials and satraps make to the king, and in what manner did they do so?

    8. (a) Why would Darius find the proposed law appealing? (b) What was the true motive of the high officials and satraps?

    9. Why would the new law not pose a problem for most non-Jews?

    10. How did the Medes and the Persians view a law enacted by their king?

    11. How would Daniel be affected by Darius’ edict?

    12. (a) What did Daniel do as soon as he found out about the new law? (b) Who were watching Daniel, and why?

    13. What did Daniel’s enemies report to the king?

    14. Evidently, why did the high officials and satraps refer to Daniel as being “of the exiles of Judah”?

    15. (a) How did Darius react to the news that the high officials and satraps brought him? (b) How did the high officials and satraps further show their contempt for Daniel?

    16. (a) Why did Darius respect Daniel’s God? (b) What hope did Darius have regarding Daniel?

  • jstalin
    jstalin

    LOL - good post. I read that book at the uging of a JW friend. My eyes glazed over at all the "must have been" and "evidently" statements. Unbelievable.

  • blondie
    blondie

    It's amazing isn't it, ithinkisee, how many such buzzwords/phrases there are. Yet the rank and file are expected to "bet their life" on this information.

    I tried googling the so-called scholar quote and only come up with an url where the Daniel book is online.

    This Clearly Shows . . .Obviously . . .
    The Bible plainly says . . .Logically . . .
    Has clearly shown . . .Justifiably . . .
    We have clearly seen . . .Surly this is reasonable . . .
    The evidence shows . . .We might reasonable assume. . .
    The evidence should be clear . . .Most/Many Scholars . . .
    Reasonably, then . . . Surely then . . .
    Thus the facts make clear . . .Truly . . .
    What must one do . . . Apparently...
    Most certainly...Of course...
    Isn't it reasonable to conclude...Possibly...
    Fine examples...Probably...
    Thus, we can see....

    http://www.jwfiles.com/jw-words.htm

    Blondie

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Here's the missing last two paragraphs to that chapter in the Daniel book:

    17. Perhaps, evidently, we may assume -- the same God who miraculously rescued Daniel will save his servants too -- if he feels it can sanctify his name, maybe probably you may be saved through the day of Jehovah's anger. Maybe, evidently, the facts show that the same God who rescued Daniel also is bestowing favor on his modern-day Daniel class (isn't there a class for everything??).

    18. If you serve the modern-day Daniel class, you too may be, isn't it reasonable to conclude, favored with the prospect of serving them forever in a paradise earth after all those of the "satraps" class are thrown to the figurative lions at the upcoming, very soon (it is reasonable to assume) day of Armageddon.

  • M.J.
    M.J.

    Thanks for posting that, ITIS. I always make it a point to keep up with the lesson that my wife is feeding on. At least this week's wasn't filled with propaganda, just a bunch of speculation. One area that I think may have been self-serving speculation was when they talked about Daniel probably thinking no one was watching him pray. But if he didn't want to be seen why did he pray in front of open windows? Why would they speculate that he thought nobody saw him?

    The answer may lie in the fact that in Mexico, the Society for 46 years prohibited its members from praying publicly, in order to convince the Mexican government they were not a religion but an educational organization. This allowed the Society to skirt the legal restrictions in Mexico on religions at the time. So they put a halt to any semblance of public worship or tribute to God.

    As stated in the 1995 yearbook:

    *** yb95 pp. 211-213 Mexico ***

    La Torre del Vigía de México—A Cultural Society

    You will recall that back in 1932 La Torre del Vigía de México had been authorized by the government. However, there were obstacles because of the restrictions that the law imposed on all religions. Objections were raised to the house-to-house activity of the Witnesses, since the law stipulated that ‘every religious act of public worship must be held inside the temples.’ For the same reason, objections were raised to our conventions in public places. This was a problem, because these conventions were constantly getting larger. Owning property also presented problems, because the law required that every building used for religious purposes had to become federal property.

    For these and other reasons, the Society decided that it would be wise to reorganize, with a view to giving greater emphasis to the educational nature of our work. Therefore, on June 10, 1943, application was made to the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs to register La Torre del Vigía as a civil society, and this was approved on June 15, 1943.

    With this rearrangement, singing at our meetings was discontinued, and the meeting places became known as Halls for Cultural Studies. No audible prayers were said at meetings, though nothing could prevent a person from saying an earnest prayer silently in his heart. Every appearance of a religious service was avoided, and truly our meetings are designed for education. When Witnesses in other lands began to call their local groups "congregations," the Witnesses in Mexico kept on using the term "companies." House-to-house visits by the Witnesses continued, and with even more zeal; but direct use of the Bible at doors was avoided. Instead, publishers learned the texts by heart so that they could quote them. They also made good use of the book "Make Sure of All Things," which is a compilation of Scripture quotations on many subjects. Only on return visits and on studies (which were termed "cultural" instead of "Bible") was the Bible itself used.

    Now you tell me, does this resemble the principles that Daniel displayed? Again, why didn't he cover the windows? Nothing in Darius' law prevented Daniel from "saying an earnest prayer silently in his heart".

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Ithinkisee, I am glad you did the blondie-scan on this one. I have rarely seen so much speculation in so few paragraphs. Note how Daniel’s “opposers” are demonized. The Watchtower society is so eager to assign motive, something I find typical of a lot of it's followers. I can't tell you how many times that my motive has been questioned, or my husband's at the hall. Who but God knows our motives?

    5 The other high officials and the satraps must have been seething with anger . Why, they could not stand the thought of having Daniel—who was neither Mede nor Persian nor a member of the royal family—in a position of authority over them! How could Darius elevate a foreigner to such prominence, bypassing his own countrymen, even his own family? Such a maneuver must have seemed unfair. Moreover, the satraps evidently viewed Daniel’s integrity as an unwelcome restraint against their own practices of graft and corruption. Yet, the high officials and satraps did not dare to approach Darius about the matter. After all, Darius held Daniel in high esteem.

    6 So these jealous politicians conspired among themselves. They tried “to find some pretext against Daniel respecting the kingdom.” Could anything be amiss about the way he handled his responsibilities? Was he dishonest? The high officials and satraps could find no negligence or corruption whatsoever in the way that Daniel handled his duties. “We shall find in this Daniel no pretext at all,” they reasoned, “except we have to find it against him in the law of his God.” And so it was that these devious men hatched a plot. They thought it would finish Daniel off once and for all.—Daniel 6:4, 5.

    A MURDEROUS PLOT SET IN MOTION

    8 Historical records confirm that it was common for Mesopotamian kings to be viewed and worshiped as divine. So Darius undoubtedly was flattered by this proposal. He may also have seen a practical side to it. Remember, to those living in

    ….

    13 Daniel’s enemies slyly asked Darius: “Is there not an interdict that you have signed that any man that asks a petition from any god or man for thirty days except from you, O king, he should be thrown to the lions’ pit?” Darius answered: “The matter is well established according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which is not annulled.” Now the conspirators quickly got to the point. “Daniel, who is of the exiles of , has paid no regard to you, O king, nor to the interdict that you signed, but three times in a day he is making his petition.”—Daniel 6:12, 13.

    15 Perhaps the high officials and satraps expected the king to reward them for their astute detective work. If so, they were in for a surprise. Darius was sorely troubled by the news they brought him. Rather than becoming enraged at Daniel or immediately consigning him to the lions’ pit, Darius spent all day striving to deliver him. But his efforts proved futile. Before long, the conspirators returned, and in their shameless spirit , they demanded Daniel’s blood.—Daniel 6:14, 15.

  • M.J.
    M.J.

    Something I missed--who does the WTS say Darius the Mede is? Cyrus' governor of Babylon?

  • cyberguy
    cyberguy

    blondie,

    You kill me! hehe! love-it!

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Something I missed--who does the WTS say Darius the Mede is? Cyrus' governor of Babylon?

    They favor an identification with Gubaru, governor of Babylon, but claim that historical identification must remain uncertain.

    BTW, the book of Daniel does not present King Cyrus as ruling at the same time as Darius the Mede, or even involved with the fall of Babylon in any way. Rather, Darius the Mede was the one who "received the kingdom" from Belshazzar (5:31), who ruled over a large empire of 120 satraps ... roughly the same number as appointed by Darius Hystaspis during the Persian Empire (6:2; cf. also Esther 1:1), and "Cyrus the Persian" ruled after "Darius the Mede" (6:28; see especially the LXX). The vision of the statue in ch. 2 also posits a Median kingdom that intervenes between the Babylonian and Persian kingdoms.

    It is interesting that 6:28 reprises 1:21 (as a terminus of Daniel's career), and this verse lies at the literary seam between the historical-prose half of the book (ch. 1-6) and the apocalyptic-visionary half (ch. 7-12), which most scholars believe dates to the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The first half, on the other hand, is generally believed to pre-date the visionary chapters. Collins suggests that 6:28 may thus have been the original ending of the book. Note that the chapters that follow ignore of the chronological sequence of the first half by going back in time to the "first year of Belshazzar" (7:1), and moving their way up again to the reign of Cyrus (10:1, 11:1).

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit