Through my continuing studies in the book of Daniel, I have found several significant ways that comparing Scripture with Scripture provides important illumination about passages. Looking closely at Daniel 5 compared to Daniel 3 reveals a valuable insight about the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar made.

Daniel 5

The Spirit begins Daniel 5 by telling us that Belshazzar made a great feast in which a large number of people participated:

Daniel 5:1 Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand.

A thousand lords were present at this feast! Beyond the king and the 1000 lords, others were also participants:

Daniel 5:2 Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. 3 Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them.

From Daniel 5:1-3, we learn that there were considerably more than a 1000 participants in this feast.

Daniel 5 versus Daniel 3

Strikingly, the Spirit has chosen to give us a large specified number for how many people participated in Belshazzar’s feast, but He has not done so for how many people worshiped the image that Nebuchadnezzar made! Why did the Spirit want us to know numerical information about the former but not about the latter?

Although we cannot know the answer to this intriguing question, Daniel 5 illumines Daniel 3 in an important way, as follows.

We know that there were more than 1000 participants in Belshazzar’s feast. Given the greater importance of the event in Daniel 3, we should therefore hold that there were more people at the dedication of the image than at Belshazzar’s feast.

This comparison thus teaches us that there surely were well over a thousand people at the dedication of the image in Daniel 3.

Because at least some of the king’s army also seems to have been present at the dedication (cf. Dan. 3:20), and a well-armed presence of a sufficient number of trusted soldiers would have been necessary for ensuring the safety of the king and his guests, we should expect that there would have been more armed soldiers present than there were present officials in Nebuchadnezzar’s government. Reasoning in this way teaches us that there were at least more than 2000 people present at the dedication of the image.

Even if one says that Nebuchadnezzar may have had only half as many lords in his government as Belshazzar did in his, the presence of the army would still mean that there were more than 1000 people at the dedication of the image.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Daniel 3 records King Nebuchadnezzar’s making a colossal image and then acting to bring about the dedication of the image. Some advocate that sound interpretation of the passage limits what we can say happened to what amounts to a minimalist interpretation.¹

One minimalist interpretation holds that the only thing that we can say with certainty took place was that those assembled bowed before the image and that bowing itself was the worship rendered to it. For at least seven reasons, we should reject such a minimalist interpretation.

A Royal Event

The king of the most powerful empire of his day ordained what activities the dedication of the image would include. A royal event necessarily would have involved a certain protocol, decorum, pageantry, pomp, majesty, etc.

A minimalist interpretation requires the understanding that the entire event almost entirely lacked any such features fitting for a royal event. Moreover, what kind of dedication event fitting for a king would consist only of a brief bowing down to the image and nothing more than doing that?

No Known Constraining Factors

A royal event ordained by the most powerful human authority of his day necessarily entails certain realities about the situation. No human authority limited the king about what activities the dedication could include. The king did not lack any needed finances to pay for what would take place.

No evidence exists for any time constraints to the event that limited it in any way. No evidence exists for any circumstantial factors that required the event to be as minimal as possible, such as mass famine in the land or an empire-wide plague or impending weather-related calamities or impending invasions by powerful enemies etc.

Given that there are no known factors constraining what could have been done on this occasion, no basis exists for holding to a minimalist position.

The Biblical Witness about the Central Activity in Idolatrous Worship

Scripture provides numerous passages that show that offering sacrifices to idols was a central activity in idolatrous worship about which God informs and warns His people (cf. Exod. 34:11-17). Positing that an idolatrous emperor would dedicate an image of a god without offering any sacrifices to that god goes against that evidence and also goes against what we already know would have been his own previous experience in his own temple.

Explicit Contextual Evidence That Refutes a Minimalist Interpretation

Comparing what the king did earlier to honor Daniel with what Daniel 3 explicitly says brings out a crucial point. The king honored Daniel by bowing to him, worshiping him, and commanding that certain offerings would be made to him.

Daniel 2:46 Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him.

Using the same verbs for bowing and worshiping found in Daniel 2:46, Daniel 3 says that the people bowed and worshiped the image. To hold that the king honored Daniel by doing more to honor him than he ordained to be done to honor his image is an indefensible position.

Understanding what Daniel 2:46 compared with Daniel 3 shows requires that we hold that the dedication event in Daniel 3 included the offering of things to the image to honor it more than the king had offered to honor Daniel. A minimalist interpretation of Daniel 3 is therefore an impossible reading given what Daniel 2:46 reveals.

Would the King Have Dishonored All the Rulers of the Provinces?

To hold a minimalist interpretation of Daniel 3 would include holding that the king did not provide any amenities for his royal guests. Given that the king had previously ordained on a separate occasion that some captives be fed from his choice food, would the king surely not have fed his royal guests with such food?

Moreover, eating what has been offered to an idol in worship is such a vital aspect of the biblical witness concerning idolatry that there would have to be a very compelling basis to hold that this event did not include such eating. No such basis exists so we must reject a minimalist interpretation that asserts that there were no sacrifices offered on this occasion and no eating of those sacrifices afterward.

An Extravagant “Signal” for a “Bare-Bones” Event?

Some proponents of the need to hold a minimalist interpretation say that the musical instruments mentioned in the account were used to sound a “signal blast” to initiate the worship.The explicit mention of at least six different instruments to sound that supposed blast (and a phrase that may signify the use as well of many other instruments) would seem to be a perplexing extravagance for a “bare-bones” event when the herald himself could have given a sufficient signal or one trumpeter could have done so.

Why would a king who supposedly chose to forgo all other extravagances in a dedication yet choose to use an extravagant signal? Taking a minimalist position about everything else that happened hardly makes sense given the diverse nature of the musical instruments used in the event.

Consideration of the Aftermath of the Event

A minimalist interpretation of Daniel 3 promotes a lack of consideration about the aftermath of the event. Had the king only directed all those present to bow to the statue and then return to their homes, the people would have returned to their homes having experienced a strange event in which the emperor bestowed less honor on his god in a dedication ceremony of kingdom-wide importance than the people were routinely used to bestowing on their gods.

Had the king done so, he would not have communicated to them the proper appreciation of the greatness of his god that he would have wanted them to come to have. A minimalist understanding of what happened would thus mean that the king did not accomplish his objective of setting forth the surpassing greatness of his god in a manner that would have been in keeping with the greatness of his colossal image.

Because there are no reasons to accept such an interpretation that the king failed to furnish his people with a proper appreciation of the greatness of his god, we must reject a minimalist interpretation of what took place.

Conclusion

A minimalist interpretation of Daniel 3 is unsupportable for many reasons. The king did not only just command that all the people bow as the worship that they offered to the image of his god.

We should reject such a minimalist interpretation of Daniel 3.

¹Cf. “Chapter 3 of the book of Daniel revolves around a strange religious ceremony that involved no priests, prayers or sacrifices:“

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

Who were Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians? In the first article in this series, I treated Daniel 1:2 and Daniel 3 to show that they were profoundly idolatrous people who were thereby regularly in fellowship with demons. Later in Daniel 1, the Spirit provides another vital statement that reveals another key aspect of who Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians were.

Profound Consultation with Occultists

At the end of their three years of preparation for entering into the king’s service, Daniel and his friends excelled profoundly in their wisdom and understanding:

Daniel 1:19 And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king. 20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.

Specifically, they vastly excelled the wisdom and understanding of all the leading practitioners of two types of occult practices in the entire Babylonian kingdom.

The king could have compared them with philosophers or prophets but instead they were compared with all such leading occultists in the kingdom. Pondering who they were compared with brings out that Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians were people who profoundly consulted with occultists and esteemed their counsel very highly.

It also shows that the king himself had fully consulted with all such leading practitioners of the occult in his entire kingdom. Two later statements in the book show that the king even had various occultists among his leading advisers (Dan. 2:2; 4:6-7).

Because all practitioners of the occult engage in demonic activities, the profound consultation with occultists reveals a second key way that demons influenced Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. To understand just how immensely the occultists corrupted Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, we must compare Scripture with Scripture concerning the exceedingly great corruption of at least certain occultists.

Immense Corruption by the Occultists

To understand how immensely Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians were corrupted by all the occultists in all his kingdom, we must solemnly consider that Scripture reveals the horrific extent to which demons can corrupt humans in a passage that makes several key revelations about an ancient sorcerer:

Acts 13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus: 7 Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. 8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. 9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

This profound revelation is noteworthy for many reasons.

First, it says that he was an occultist (who was also a false prophet) who sought to turn away from the faith an unbeliever who wanted to hear God’s truth. Such people thus are profoundly dangerous to unbelievers.

Second, it infallibly reveals key truths about the sorcerer by infallibly recording what the leader of the apostolic company being filled with the Spirit said to the sorcerer. This shows that the statements that Paul made about the sorcerer were exactly what the Spirit directed him to say about the sorcerer. None of Paul’s statements about him were in any way just his own thinking, perspectives, or even possible biases against a particular kind of person because of that person’s ethnicity or any other important aspects of his person.

Third, it shows how consummately this human being was a corrupted human being.

Elymas was “full of all subtilty and all mischief.” He was a profoundly crafty and fraudulent person who used deceit to accomplish his objectives.

He was an “enemy of all righteousness.” He actively opposed everything that was an aspect of righteousness before God. He thus openly fought against the doing of anything that was righteous in the sight of God.

He also would “not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord.” This man continually did whatever he could to corrupt the doing of something in a way that was right before God.

Fourth, and most disturbingly, he was a “child of the devil.” Through his involvement and participation in the occult, this man whom God made in His image had become so corrupted that he was now a child of the most evil being in the universe. In effect, the image of God in him had been completely overcome so that he effectively was a human being who was in the image of the devil!

This passage thus shockingly reveals that there are occultists (at the very least those who are sorcerers) who actively and passionately seek to promote demonic interests in every possible way!

We know that sorcerers were among the leading advisers of king Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:2). We also know that the Babylonians were a shockingly occult people (Is. 47:9, 12).

Applying what this profoundly sobering passage (Acts 13:6-10) reveals to what we know about the pervasive influence that occultists (including sorcerers) had with Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians shows that the king and his people were people who had been immensely corrupted by demonically corrupted humans who actively sought to corrupt them from doing anything that was righteous before God.

Application to Daniel 3

Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians were people who were profoundly influenced by demons through their idolatry. Furthermore, they were also profoundly influenced by demons through their profound consultation with occultists.

The musical perspectives and practices of such demonically corrupted people were thus routinely directed into following every possible way to produce instrumental music that does not please God. Given the role that music played in the profoundly important idolatrous worship event in Daniel 3, we have further biblical basis to hold that the music played in the event in Daniel 3 was profoundly ungodly music.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.

John 16:13-14 is an important passage that reveals what Jesus taught about the Holy Spirit:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Some believers think that Jesus said that the Spirit would not talk about Himself. They further think that Jesus said that the Spirit would always only glorify Christ and never glorify Himself.

To understand why this understanding is not correct, we need to consider what the Spirit inspired would be written about Himself elsewhere in Scripture. In this post, we will consider what the Spirit inspired to be written in the book of Acts.

What the Spirit Inspired Luke to Write about Himself (the Spirit) in the Book of Acts

(1) The Spirit did not have Luke write that Ananias lied to Christ. He directed him to write that he lied to the Spirit.

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

(2) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that Christ caught away Philip. He directed Luke to write that the Spirit did so.

Acts 8:39-40 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

(3) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that Christ was the One who spoke to Peter and directed him about what to do; He directed Luke to write that the Spirit spoke to Peter to direct him.

Acts 10:19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

Acts 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man’s house:

(4) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that Christ was the One who directed the church at Antioch about what they were to do; He directed Luke to write that the Spirit directed them.

Acts 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

(5) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that Christ was the One who directed the Jerusalem Council about what they would decree to believers everywhere; He directed Luke to write that the Spirit was the One who directed the Council.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

(6) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that Christ was the One who directed Paul and others about where they could not go; He directed Luke to write that the Spirit was the One who did so.

Acts 16:6-7 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, 7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.

(7) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that Christ was the One who told Paul in every city what he was going to experience in every city; He directed Luke to write that it was the Spirit who did so.

Acts 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

(8) The Spirit did not inspire Luke to write that it was Christ who made people overseers over churches; He directed Luke to write that the Spirit was the One who did so.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Conclusion

The Spirit has spoken about Himself many times in Scripture, and He has glorified Himself in many ways in Scripture. Jesus did not teach in John 16:13-14 that the Spirit would not speak about Himself or glorify Himself.

Copyright © 2011-2024 by Rajesh Gandhi. All rights reserved.