The Book of Daniel - A Guide To Christian Political Resistance

The Book of Daniel: A Guide to Christian Political Resistance Loren Lineberry, 2013
1

The Book of Daniel in the Old Testament may be profitably used as a guide to Christians for
resistance to political overreach. Indeed, the key players in Daniel routinely defy the over-stepping
political power-players of their day.

The modern reader of Daniel should note the political setting of the book. The book opens with
the political overthrow of King Jehoiakim of Judah [1:1]. From this point, the victor Nebuchadnezzar
establishes his own royal court, populating it with Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah [1:6], who are
enlisted to serve in the political regime of Nebuchadnezzar [1:5]. Eventually, Nebuchadnezzar elevates
Daniel to high political office the governor of the whole province of Babylon [2:48]. What is more, at
Daniels behest, his three comrades are also advanced politically in the province of Babylon [2:49]. From
this point to the end of the book, Daniel and his comrades serve under a variety of political regimes
Nebuchadnezzar [Daniel 1-4], Belshazzar [Daniel 5, 7-8], Darius the Mede [Daniel 6, 9], and then Cyrus
[10-12].
1

Now, given the political setting in which the heroes in Daniel move about, the reader should
appreciate the way these four resist the overreach of these various political-military leaders. To be sure, the
stories in Daniel 1-6 have resistance as a key theme.

In Daniel 1, the hero of the book resolves not to defile himself with the food from the royal table
[1:8]. The rationale behind this resolve is not explicitly stated, but an inference may be drawn from an
incident in Daniel 11. In Daniel 11:26, the same royal food is the setting for a table fellowship that binds
the most loyal followers to the politician that figures in the incident. By inference, it may well be this
implied signal of absolute loyalty that Daniel resists.

One of the guidelines for Christian resistance to political overreach is the refusal to intimate
absolute loyalty to anyone other than Yahweh. Daniel knew that he should draw a line between loyalty to
God and allegiance to a head of state.

In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego also draw a line and resist the same politician
who oversteps his bounds. The politician, king Nebuchadnezzar, had erected a statue, presumably
representing himself, and proceeded to legally decree that everyone bow in worship, on cue, on penalty of
death [3:4-6]. The political resistance of these three Jews initially takes the form of privately ignoring the
decree and declining to bow in worship [3:12]. From here, the plot thickens and the resistance becomes
more nuanced.

That is, some Chaldean snitches denounce the discreet resistance of Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abed-nego [3:12b]. The stoolies tell Nebuchadnezzar that the three do not show proper deference to you,
O king [3:12c].
2
Indeed, the Hebrew term translated proper deference may be taken to mean that they are
not concerned about or have no regard for the statue or his decree.
3
William Holladay has a very
interesting gloss for this Hebrew term, rendering it not caring about the statue or the decree.
4
In a
nutshell, their political resistance takes the form of indifference to the decree and the idol.

1
The reader may consult the commentaries and histories for the chronology and identities of these
various political-military leaders. The waters are fairly muddied here, but, whomever and whenever these
politicians reigned, they did fill political-military offices. The upshot is that the book of Daniel has politics
as its setting from beginning to end.

2
All translations are the authors.

3
Ludwig KoNhler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jacob Stamm, translated and edited by M.E.J.
Richardson, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 1986 [hereafter abbreviated KB
1
for volume 1 and KB
2
for volume
2].

4
William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1971), 421.

2

Another guideline for Christian resistance to political overreach is remaining indifferent to
political idolatry. These three Jewish heroes simply did not care whatsoever about idolizing
Nebuchadnezzar, nor did they concern themselves with his decree to this effect. Even more to the point, as
a guide to Christian resistance to this sort of political overreach, these three resisted privately; attention had
to be called to them, they did not call attention to themselves [3:12c]. Public defiance was forced upon
them.

Indeed, their private indifference becomes public defiance through no fault of their own [3:13-18].
Nebuchadnezzar is enraged at the chutzpah of these three impudent Jews and hauls them before him.
Having asked them if their indifference was truly the case, their resistance becomes more plain-spoken. In
unambiguous language, they say that we have no need to defend ourselves to you [3:16] and, more to the
point your gods we will not serve nor worship your idol [3:18]. In the first instance, the resistance affirms
that the king is out of his jurisdiction [3:16]; and in the second, they are directly and resolutely defying him
[3:18]. The rest is history.

A further guideline for Christian resistance to politicians who over-step their bounds is public
defiance in the form of unambiguous testimony to the truth. These three men knew when principled
resistance demanded that they take a stand and give voice to their ultimate commitments. Again, the rest is
history.

Finally, in Daniel 6, our hero is in a similar situation. Upon the death of Belshazzar [5:30], one
Darius the Mede becomes the political-military leader of Persia [6:1]. He proceeds to be duped into
trapping Daniel into some indiscretion.

Creating a set-up, some of Daniels bureaucratic colleagues plot to compromise the highly
esteemed Daniel [6:5-6]. The gist of the plot is that all persons must pray only to Darius on penalty of
becoming the main course for some lions [6:8-10]. Daniel, however, quietly resists by praying as he
always had [6:11]. Obviously, the law of the Medes and the Persians came with limitations for Daniel.
Indeed, his accusers make the same point Daniel pays no attention to you, Darius [6:14]. The precise
nature of Daniels public response is unknown; the outcome, however, is well known and Daniel evades his
dinner date with the lions.

As a guideline for Christians who would resist the political shenanigans of over-zealous leaders,
again we see the emphasis on private, discreet unresponsiveness as a form of resistance. The writer of
Daniel makes the point that Daniel simply went about his prayer life as he always had [6:11]. Daniel did
not seek nor did he require state approval for the privilege of prayer that Yahweh had granted him.

Moreover, in concert with his three companions, Daniel did not appeal publically to the
government for the right to pray. His public defense of this God-given right was forced upon him by those
who intended to entrap him, but Daniel never pursued governmental sanction to pray.

This brief survey shows that the key players in the book of Daniel routinely resist the overreach of
the political power-players of the day. There certainly is a preference for private, unobtrusive, quiet and
inconspicuous resistance, but resist they did. Only when called to account for their resistance did our
heroes speak up and publically resist.

Now, this historical survey sets the stage for the latter portions of Daniel, specifically Daniel 10:1-
12:4. Indeed, Daniel 10:1-12:4 is that portion of the book of Daniel that may provide critical insight into
Christian resistance to politicians who stray outside their jurisdictions. Crucial in regard to Christian
resistance is Daniel 11:30-35].


3

Daniel 11:30-35 is set within the broader context of Daniel 10:1-12:4. In form, Daniel 10:1-12:4
is a self-contained unit that is an historical apocalypse consisting of an epiphany with an angelic
discourse.
5
What all of this tells us is that Daniel 10:1-12:4 is intended to provide a view of the world that
will be a source of consolation in the face of distress and a support and authorization for whatever course of
action is recommended.
6

As we shall see presently, the recommended course of action is resistance via communication of
truth; the distress is opposition and persecution directed to Gods Holy Covenant.

Now, enclosed within this larger unit [10:1-12:4] is Daniel 11:21-45, the lengthiest and arguably
the most important section within 10:1-12:4. Overall, Daniel 11:21-45 is about power; that is, about
acquiring power [11:21-24], using power militarily [11:25-28], using power against righteous resistance
[11:29-35], using power politically [11:36-39], and finally forfeiting power [11:40-45]. We may set out
11:21-45 graphically as a chiasm:

A A politician acquires power [11:21-24]
B A politician uses power militarily [11:25-28]
C A politician uses power against a righteous resistance [11:29-35] Centerpiece
B A politician uses power politically [11:36-39]
A A politician forfeits power [11:40-45]

As noted, the middle unit [11:29-35] of the five sections is arguably the centerpiece of 11:21-45.
For, it details the desire to eliminate the Holy Covenant [11:30-32], the resistance to this overreach [11:33-
35], and the price to be paid for resisting [11:33-35].

The thesis of the essay is that the covenant people of God are authorized to resist in a specific way
when confronted with the overreach of political power-players. Indeed, as we shall see, we must expect
antagonism; we must resist this antipathy in a specified manner; and we must expect to pay the price for
resisting political/military animosity against the Holy Covenant. The reader is invited to pages 55-57 of the
essay for a summary of the guidelines for Christian political resistance.

The intended audience for this essay is the faithful Covenant community, especially where the
Covenant community faces hostility directed toward Gods Holy Covenant. Accordingly, examples, past
and present, of those who face the hostility and resist are provided. In some cases, these examples come
from the modern counterparts to the tyranny in Daniel 11, that is Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, and
so on. The intent here is to strengthen precious brothers and sisters in their resistance to political
overreach.

At the same time, the intended audience for the essay also includes Western democracies,
republics where political idolatry has all but replaced Gods Holy Covenant as the organizing principle of
human governance. In this case, examples are offered to encourage believers to resist replacing Yahweh as
Lord of history and life with human political governance, i.e., political overreach.

The organization of the essay orients around the three movements noted above. The first set of
guidelines is more anticipatory in nature. Specifically, one of the essential guidelines for the resistance is
the expectation of hostility directed toward the Holy Covenant [11:30d-32b]. The resistance must expect
that forces will rage against the Holy Covenant [11:30d]; that vacillators will be complicit in denying the
Holy Covenant [11:30f]; that political power-players may resort to force to squelch the Holy Covenant
[11:31a]; that politicians will attempt to make profane use of religion [11:31b]; that political forces will do

5
Rolf Knierim and Eugene Tucker, ed., The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. 20,
Daniel: With An Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature by John J. Collins (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans, 1978), 99.

6
Ibid., 105-06.

4

everything in their power to abolish normal worship [11:31c]; that power-politicians will attempt to impose
a sacrilege on the people [11:31d]; and that an all-too-serious outcome, apostasy, will emerge [11:32:a-b].

Another set of guidelines is more operational, focusing on the authorization to resist in a specific
manner [11:32c-d, 33a-b, 34a-b]. A crucial guideline for the resistance is preparation we strengthen
ourselves for action [11:32c-d]. Another set of guidelines is also operational we bring comprehension to
many [11:33a-b]; we avoid useless help [11:34a-b]; and we lead many to righteousness [12:3]. The
resistance is authorized to follow these guidelines in effecting resistance to detractors of the Holy
Covenant.

A final set of guidelines is more personal, concerning paying the price for resisting the never-
ending hostility to Gods Holy Covenant. To begin with, the resistance must expect persecution [11:33c].
At the same time, the resistance may expect to be spiritually strengthened during their trials [11:35a-b]. In
the final analysis, the resistance must accept the fact that an ever-present wickedness will reign right up to
the end of human history [12:10].

Two final preliminary matters must be mentioned, and both concern the notion of a prototype.
First, throughout this essay, reference will be made to Antiochus Epiphanes. His place in the context of
Daniel 11:29-35 will be made clear. For now, the reader should note that Antiochus will be presented for
what he actually is: A prototypical political power-player who is violently opposed to anything relating to
the Holy Covenant. He will be referenced at appropriate points in the essay to provide historical examples
of what opposition looks like. The idea is that he was not the last of his kind; rather, Antiochus has had
many successors.

Second, the reader may well ask: Why should this passage in the Old Testament book of Daniel
have any bearing on those who self-identify as New Testament Christians? The answer is: There is another
prototype in Daniel 11:32-12:10 the Messiah. That is, the language in the Hebrew text of Daniel 11:32ff
overlaps with the language of Isaiah 52-53. To wit:

The People of God The Messiah

Those who know their God [Dan 11:32] The Messiah knows suffering [Isa 53:3]
Are the insightful [Dan 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10] The Messiah will act insightfully [Isa 52:13]
Are those who bring comprehension [Dan 11:33] The Messiahs will be comprehended [Isa 52:15]
Will face death [Dan 11:33, 35] The Messiah will die [Isa 53:9]
Lead many to righteousness [Dan 12:3] The Messiah will treat many as righteous [Isa 53:11]
Will know the wicked [Dan 12:10] The Messiah will die among the wicked [Isa 53:9]

Clearly, the overlap between the resistance in Daniel and the Messiah in Isaiah points to the
Messiah as a prototype. Both the Messiah and the resistance are knowledgeable [Isa 53:3; Dan 11:32]; both
are insightful [Isa 52:13; Dan 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10]; both produce the fruit of comprehension [Isa 52:15; Dan
11:33]; both serve the interests of righteousness [Isa 53:11; Dan 12:3]; both deal directly with the wicked
[Isa 53:9; Dan 12:10], and both die for their resistance [Isa 53:9; Dan 11:33, 35].

Just as those who wage war against the Holy Covenant have Antiochus Epiphanes as their
prototype; so also, those who resist follow the Messiah as their prototype. Naturally, the Messianic
prototype comes to full flower after the events on Calvary. But, this is precisely the point: The Messiah
told His followers that those who would choose to follow Him must take up their Cross daily and go along
with Him [Luke 9:23]. The resistance, as outlined in Daniel 11:32-35; 12:3, 10, is what it looks like when
the Covenant community takes up their Cross and walk in the steps of the Messiah. More to the point of
Daniel, the resistance is authorized to represent their prototype The Messiah and take up His part
against those who oppose the Holy Covenant. This is a high privilege and an illustrious calling.


5

I. One of the essential set of guidelines for Christian resistance to political overreach is anticipatory
in nature. That is, Christian resistance must expect hostility directed toward the Holy Covenant [11:30d-
32b]. The resistance must prepare itself to recognize genuine hostility to the Holy Covenant in the form of
political overreach.

As the resistance walks through life, it must anticipate rage against the Holy Covenant [11:30d].
The resistance has a standard the supremacy of the Holy Covenant. Owing to the authority of this
guideline, the resistance anticipates and must identify and diagnose rage directed against the Holy
Covenant, especially when this rage is eliminationist in nature.

As the resistance moves through life, they expect and identify vacillation and complicity on the
part of those who waver vis--vis the Holy Covenant [11:30f]. The resistance has a guideline they expect
to encounter those whose ultimate allegiance is more political than Covenantal.

As the resistance lives its Christian life, they routinely run into those who are willing to use force
to oppose the Holy Covenant [11:31a]. The resistance has a guideline they shrewdly resist those who
would impose their political will by force in order to eliminate allegiance to the Holy Covenant.

As the resistance marches on, they anticipate and distinguish those who usereligion for political
ends [11:31b]. The resistance has a guideline no form of nationalism, no manner of political ideology
must ever supplant the Holy Covenant.

When push comes to shove, the resistance is unalterably opposed to any politically sponsored
effort to terminate the binding relationship between Yahweh and His people [11:31c]. The resistance has a
guideline devotion to Yahweh and His Holy Covenant is regnant; there must be no divided loyalty.

The resistance anticipates that overreaching political power-players will attempt the unholy
substitution [11:31d]. The resistance has a guideline no shameless pagan political cult will ever be
deified; only Yahweh is Lord.

Finally, and regrettably, the resistance anticipates apostasy [11:32a-b]. The resistance is prepared
to see, to detect, and to resist those who simply abandon the Holy Covenant. However, the resistance has a
guideline the resistance is fully prepared to steer the course, doing its work as wheat among the chaff.

A. The resistance must anticipate and recognize rage against the Holy Covenant [11:30d].
In the book of Daniel, it is a given that the resistance is completely dedicated to the Holy Covenant.
Accordingly, the reader must devote some thought to the covenant ideal. At the same time, the resistance
must anticipate and identify the seriousness of the rage the rage intends to eliminate the Holy Covenant.
The guideline, therefore, is this: The resistance must identify subtle or not so subtle attempts to eliminate
the Holy Covenant.

The Covenant ideal is a key theme that binds the entire Bible.
7
Even a casual perusal of
b
e
rTt/covenant in both testaments shows its distribution in [1] the Law, [2] the Prophets, [3] the Wisdom
literature, and [4] the New Testament, including both the Gospels and the Epistles. The Covenant ideal,
therefore, is one of the unifying themes in the Bible as a whole.

Beginning with the covenant with Noah, leading to the covenant with Abraham, moving toward
the Mosaic covenant, proceeding with the Davidic covenant and concluding with the New Covenant, the
covenant ideal traverses the entire Bible. Accordingly, the resistance must be sensitive to the meaning of
attacks intended to eliminate the Holy Covenant.

7
The reader would do well to secure a good English concordance and spend a year or so studying
the usages of the word covenant in the Old and New Testaments. One conjectures that far too many
evangelicals refuse to see much import in the covenant terminology of the Old Testament, aside from more
or less dismissing it.

6

The Covenant ideal is largely defined by the covenant with Noah [Genesis 6:18; 9:9-17]. To make
a long story short, the covenant with Noah is a redemptive covenant that seeks to reestablish the basic
pattern in all of creation, with Yahweh as king and mankind as His servants.
8
A corollary to the centrality
of the covenant with Noah is the notion that all other covenants Abraham, Moses, David, and the New
Covenant are sub-sets of this one, basic, inclusive covenant with all creation.
9

Leaving aside the gory theological details of this statement, this much must be absolutely clear: If
by covenant ideal one means the Divine initiative through Christ to redeem mankind and to recover the lost
order within all of creation, then any attempt to eliminate this covenant must be passionately resisted from
the get-go. The resistance should weigh and consider the idea that the covenant ideal is Gods most all-
embracing and all-encompassing effort to recover [1] the original purpose of mankind in general and [2]
and the orderliness of His creation.
10
From this one basic, all-inclusive covenant, the ensuing covenants
with their promises and responses tease out how Yahweh sets about to secure the original purpose of
mankind and bring orderliness to His creation at the same time.

For example, the covenant ideal in the Abrahamic covenant is a personal covenant. From Gods
side, the promises include family, land, and blessing [Genesis 15]. From mans side, the response called
for faith [Genesis 17]. The redemptive-restorative character of the Abrahamic covenant is clear. However,
the kind of power-hungry politician we see in Daniel 11 will not abide anyone with a personal faith in a
Divine Person.

Moreover, the covenant ideal in the Mosaic covenant is a nationalistic, almost constitutional
covenant between God and a nation. From Gods side, the promises include that any nation that entered
into this covenant would be the unique possession of Yahweh [Exodus 19:5] and that they would be a
kingdom of priest/servants of Yahweh [Exodus 19:6]. From the human side, the response called for
obedience to the various statutes in Torah [Exodus 20-23]. The redemptive-restorative quality of the
Mosaic covenant is well-defined. Obviously, the sort of power-player in Daniel 11 simply cannot allow his
subjects to expose themselves to the laws and ordinances of God, nor be anyones unique possession but
his!

Furthermore, the covenant ideal in the Davidic covenant would have been absolute anathema to
the kind of political power-player we have in Daniel 11. That is, the Davidic covenant was a dynastic
covenant, an ideal that promised a perpetual ruler on the throne that would represent the interests of God.
The redemptive-restorative disposition of the Davidic covenant is equally distinct. Naturally, if one is the
kind of power-hungry thug we see in Daniel 11, no ruler, perpetual or otherwise, can be countenanced on a
throne, which would represent Divine interests.

Finally, the covenant ideal in the New Covenant [Jeremiah 31; Ezekiel 11; Matthew 5, 11]
promises, from the Divine side, rest and peace [Matthew 11] and from the human side, the response is
simply to take up the yoke of the Messiah [Matthew 11]. The redemptive-restorative makeup of the New
Covenant in the Messiahs blood is clear-cut. To be sure, the kind of politician we encounter in Daniel 11
will provide all the peace and rest any citizen could want. Moreover, the only yoke that needs to be taken
up is the one that binds the citizen to the monarch.

The upshot of this digression into the covenant ideal is this: The Holy Covenant is absolutely
fundamental to everything God has been about since the fall of mankind. Up to this very instant, the
covenant ideal has been and remains central to grasping the Divine initiative to recover what was lost in
Eden. The net effect, for the resistance, is that they and they alone remain to defend the supremacy of

8
For this idea, see William J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation (London: Paternoster Press, 1997;
reprint), 41-43; the reader would do well to secure this important volume for a comprehensive portrait of
what I am calling the covenant ideal in the Old and New Testaments.

9
Ibid., 43.

10
Ibid.

7

Gods Holy Covenant with mankind. Accordingly, defense of the Holy Covenant is a guideline for the
resistance.

Rage against the Holy Covenant is an eliminationist antipathy to the Covenant ideal. Specifically,
in Daniel 11:30d, this political power-player returns from a humiliating military defeat and vents his spleen
on the Holy Covenant, being filled with rage against the Holy Covenant [11:30d].

The Hebrew term translated rage has a fairly wide band of possible usages. The Ancient Near
Eastern use of the verb [z~am] is varied. An Arabic cognate means to speak in anger; a Syrian cognate
depicts finding fault with; and an Old South Arabic cognate describes those who burst out against
something or someone.
11

The lexical sense of the term in the Old Testament is pretty much divided between uses for anger
or curse. Holladay opts for the sense of to curse or to scold.
12
KoNhler-Baumgartner prefers the sense of
anger and translates out passage with to hurl imprecations at.
13
BDB follows suit with the anger motif,
rendering our passage with indignation or hostility.
14
Keller affirms that z~am may mean to snap at in
anger.
15

Typically, in the Old Testament, Yahweh is the subject of z~am, and the usage often spells
complete destruction or liquidation for those who face His rage [Ezekiel 21:36; 22:31; Nahum 1:6].
Elsewhere, when a human being is the subject, the sense is usually to denounce [Numbers 23:7].

In the context of Daniel 11:30, the use of z~am seems to have eliminationist overtones.
Obviously, there is more going on here than simple anger or indignation or even hostility. To begin with,
the use of z~am is accompanied by [1] being on the lookout for those who forsakethe Covenant (11:30f),
[2] using military force (11:31a) to make profane use of the sanctuary (11:31b), [3] to abolish normal
worship (11:31c), [4] to imposea ravaging sacrilege (11:31d), [5] to engender a state of apostasy (11:32b),
and when the resistance stands up to resist, they fall by the sword, by flame, by imprisonment and by
plunder (11:33c). The net effect of z~am is well beyond snapping at in anger; we are in the world of a
rage that seeks to utterly destroy the Holy Covenant and its adherents.

The sum of the matter is this: politically driven rage is intended to completely eliminate the
covenant ideal. Those who rage against the Holy Covenant, whether they know it or not, are hell-bent on
denying Yahweh the glory of recovering the lost order in all of His creation as well as blocking His
initiative to redeem His fallen humankind. This eliminationist threat directed to the Holy Covenant seeks
to preclude Yahwehs desire to recover mans original purpose on this earth: To serve Yahweh alone as
King.

The resistance is guided in its opposition to those who are intent on counteracting the Divine
initiative by exalting the covenant ideal. That is, the resistance is consumed with devotion to Yahwehs all-
embracing, historically comprehensive, plan to recover the relationship with man that was Eden. The

11
KB
1
, 276.

12
Holladay, 90-91.

13
KB
1
, 277.

14
Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979 [reprint]), 276-77 [hereafter abbreviated BDB].

15
Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by
Mark Biddle, vol. 3, z~am, by C.A. Keller (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 1143 [hereafter abbreviated
TLOT
1
, TLOT
2
, and TLOT
3
for each volume respectively].


8

resistance is fully aware of the fundamental and supreme significance of the covenant ideal. Accordingly,
the resistance has a guideline: Identify, diagnose, and resist all politically driven attempts to abolish the
effects of the Holy Covenant.

Elimination of the Holy Covenant as a viable spiritual relationship will be the order of the day as
political power-players vie for unrestricted dominance. For example, according to Radio Free Asia, the
United States Department of State, in its annual report to lawmakers, slammed China, saying that there
was a marked deterioration in Beijings respect for and protection of religious rights in the worlds most
populous nation.
16
Among other outrages, the report reproaches Chinese officials for raiding house
churches, confiscating Bibles, and placing some Falun Gong adherents in psychiatric clinics.

As anyone can see, the resistance must identify and resist this high level of eliminationist anti-
Covenantalism.

B. The resistance must anticipate, diagnose and resist vacillation and complicity on the part
of those who would waver concerning unadulterated devotion to the Holy Covenant [11:30f]. The
resistance should envisage opposition to the Holy Covenant from within the covenant community. There
are tares alongside the wheat.

The celestial speaker notes that this prototypical eliminationist politician will be on the lookout for
those who forsake the Holy Covenant [11:30f]. The resistance should expect that there will be those who
are willing to make compromises when it comes to the Holy Covenant. The resistance may well have to do
its work where a wedge has been driven between the true and the false among the people of God.
17

On the lookout for glosses a Hebrew term that means that this politician can distinguish the true
from the false. Indeed, the activity depicted here is quite calculated and deliberate on this politicos part,
and the celestial speaker parses his words accordingly.

That is, the verb pay heed to or be on the lookout for is written in the Hebrew Bible in the
jussive form.
18
Now, one may reasonably assume that the verb is written in the jussive for a reason, if
Divine inspiration of the Biblical text means anything at all. The reason may well be to rhetorically
underline the determination of this politician to seek and find people like this. For, the jussive is often used
to communicate what is firmly settled in ones mind as a course of action.
19
The drift is that he is firmly
resolved to seek out these vacillating people, perhaps because he knows he will find them. So, what is he
scanning the horizon for? What does he expect to find if he looks long enough?

The celestial speaker seems to assume that those who forsake will be ripe for the picking by our
prototypical power-politician. Those who forsake are those who stand out to the shrewd observer who is on
the lookout for them in the first place. A tree is usually known by its fruit.

16
See the website for Radio Free Asia, 2025 M Street, Suite 200, Washington, DC.

17
On this point, see D.J. Wiseman, ed., Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce
G. Baldwin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 195 [this commentary, though small, is highly
recommended for the reader].

18
The more advanced reader will know that grammarians often tend to dismiss the jussives in
Daniel 11. Some simply regard them as defective, as a mistake in writing; for this position, see Paul Joqon,
A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, 2 vols., translated by T. Muraoka (Rome: Edtrice Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1996), 114 l [hereafter abbreviated J-M].

19
For this nuance of the jussive, see E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, second
English edition, revised by A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 109 [hereafter abbreviated
GKC].


9

To begin with, there is something stunningly consistent about those who forsake. That is, in the
Hebrew text those who forsake is written as a participle. What this tells us is that, at one level, this
forsaking is an ongoing sort of activity. And, at another level, the fact that this participle is used as a
substantive means that it signals the deportment and action that characterize a person.
20
The syntactical
point underscores the fact these people are spectacularly unswerving in their vacillation, thus making them
real standouts for the politician scanning for them.

Moreover, when we consult the lexicons for the sense of to forsake, we run into a very graphic
depiction of the character of these people. For, the lexical nuance of forsake [!~zab] features a rich and
telltale semantic pedigree.

For example, there is an Arabic cognate [!azaba] that points to one who remains at a distance
from or identifies one who is unattached to something; then, there is an Akkadian cognate [ezbu] that
means to leave something behind.
21

Turning from the Ancient Near Eastern sense of forsake [!~zab], the use of the verb in the Old
Testament is equally revealing. Those who forsake [!~zab] are those who ignore, those let go and give up,
and those who leave behind the Holy Covenant.
22
BDB affirms that those who forsake [!~zab] are those
who fail to follow in the sense of fail to obey the responses as outlined in the covenants.
23

The resistance must anticipate that they will rub covenantal shoulders with religious people who
distance themselves from the principal covenant objective; that there will be those among the covenant
community characterized by remaining unattached to Yahwehs divine initiative to restore fallen mankind
and recover the lost order within creation; and that, for all intents and purposes, the resistance must be
prepared to encounter those among their fellows who have simply left behind any serious devotion to Gods
all-embracing, historically comprehensive initiative to recover what was forfeited in Eden.

The resistance must be guided in what it does by the fact that not every member of the covenant
community is equally committed to the covenant. The resistance will encounter those who simply ignore
the covenant promises and responses, treating them as if they were marginal at best or irrelevant at worst.
The resistance can expect to run into those who have let go and given up on the covenant ideal, treating the
recovery of the basic pattern of all creation as if it could never really make a difference. Finally, the
resistance will bump into those within the covenant community for whom following through on the
covenant ideal is simply pass, worn-out, obsolete.

The sum of the matter is this: the resistance must anticipate doing its work within a divided
covenant community. That is, there may well be a wedge driven between the true and the false within the
covenant community. The resistance may anticipate that, in terms of the covenant ideal, many inside the
covenant will detach, distance themselves, leave it behind, ignore it or simply give up on the covenant ideal
totally. Accordingly, the resistance has a guideline: Identify, diagnose, and resist all within the covenant
community who have jettisoned the original, all-embracing covenant ideal to redeem fallen man and
recover the former orderliness in creation.

20
Bruce Waltke and Michael OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 37.2b [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].

21
KB
1
, 806.

22
Ibid., 807.

23
BDB, 737.


10

For example, the resistance must be alert to de facto dismissal of the covenant that masquerades as
political messianism, at least in the United States. We tend to hold our politicians in a higher regard than
they deserve, virtually deifying them and sacking the Holy Covenant in the process. Ross Douthat offers
examples of this messianic gushing:
24

Barack Obamas campaign for the presidency brought the messianic
style back in a big way. Obama might just be the rare kind of attuned
being, a writer for the San Francisco Chronicle gushed in the summer
of 2008, with the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies
or health care plans or whatnot, but actually help usher in a new way
of being. Hes the One, Oprah Winfrey declared when she broke
with her usual nonpartisan stance to endorse Obama (briefly uniting the
therapeutic and messianic heresies in the process).

To be fair to the Democratic Party and Mr. Obama, the Republican Party has had, and still has for
that matter, its own messiahs. One shining example is Ronald Reagan, a former president who is still
resurrected by the Right in apocalyptic moments. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Reagan, there is little doubt
that he misstated and misrepresented, probably unintentionally, the covenant ideal:
25

The Gipper took elements from modernist theology and adapted them
to right-of-center politics. Instead of Historys God working out His
purposes through the development of the modern bureaucratic state, it
was democratic capitalism that reflected Gods ultimate will for
humanity [emphasis mine].

The resistance must be vigilant, insightful, and discriminating in this politically idolatrous age.
The faithful covenant community must be on the alert for devotees of political messiahs who swathe
political or capitalistic or democratic ideals in religious language and thereby corrupt the will of God in
human history. The fact remains, and the resistance must defend this position even among those within the
ranks, that the covenant ideal is the all-encompassing agenda of God for human history. The resistance
must differentiate, diagnose, and challenge all within the covenant community who discard the primary,
sweeping covenant ideal to emancipate fallen man from his/her darkness and recover the lost harmony that
once dominated creation.

C. The resistance must anticipate that there will be those who are willing to use force to
oppose and eliminate the Holy Covenant [11:31a]. The reader can readily appreciate the nature of the force
predicted by the celestial speaker in Daniel 11:31a.

In Daniel 11:31a, the celestial speaker predicts that force [z
e
r!] will come on the scene and do
what it does best impose the political will of a tyrant by sheer might. It is noteworthy that BDB identifies
the military force [z
e
r!] with a political-military force;
26
obviously, in Daniel 11:31 and in history in
general, the two go hand in glove. It is a sad pattern in history that military force often compels adherence
to political agendas. To be sure, elsewhere in the Old Testament, force [z
e
r!] is associated with the
imposition of the political will of a tyrant over those essentially unable to defend themselves militarily
[Exodus 6:6; Isaiah 9:19; Jeremiah 17:5; Ezekiel 22:6; Daniel 11:15, 22].

24
Ross Douthat, Bad Religion (New York: Free Press, 2012), 266.

25
Ibid., 267.

26
BDB, 283.


11

Later, the use of force will be directed against the resistance, those who clearly and publically
witness to the truth [11:33]. The resistance will endure the force of death, imprisonment, and loss of
personal property. Death is risked for the odious crime of bringing comprehension to many [11:33].
The worlds poster-child for the use of force against the covenant community is surely China.
Notwithstanding its sham constitutional freedom of religion,
27
China has an unusual way of protecting its
religious community from discrimination. The United Nations, no bastion of Christian zeal, routinely
traces religious persecution in China. The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearance [WGEID] reports that in April of 2011, more than 300 monks of Sichuans Ngaba Kirti
Monastery were arrested by agents of the Peoples Armed Police, the Public Security Bureau, and the
Peoples Liberation Army and simply disappeared. Three armed state agencies dispatching 300 monks to
an unknown destination is a genuine show of force. But, the resistance must expect such calamities, even
where they are expressly forbidden.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance must anticipate the use of force, up to and including
lethal force, where Christians are serious about the Covenant ideal. The resistance has a guideline: In
anticipation of the penalty of death for the simple act of believing in Yahweh, the resistance will be shrewd
and vigilant in their faith. In this regard, the underground house-church movement in places like China and
North Korea is to be commended.

D. The resistance must anticipate, astutely analyze, and resist the use of religion for political
purposes. In Daniel 11:31b, the celestial speaks predicts that once this military force digs in, it will profane
the sanctuary. As we shall see, one clear-cut example of profaning the sanctuary using religion for
political ends was displayed by Antiochus Epiphanes. Sadly, he has had many successors. The
resistance must be diligent about combatting the politicization of religious faith.

As a preliminary, there seems to be a translation challenge here. That is, most of the English
versions translate with either profane or pollute or desecrate. While these glosses are fine as far as they go,
the reader should appreciate the nuance of the usage of the Hebrew verb ch~lal.

The lexicons help clear away some of the fog. Holladay glosses ch~lal with to make profane use
of;
28
KoNhler-Baumgartner offers to put into profane use.
29
And, along these lines, BDB adds the very
interesting nuance for ch~lal to treat as common.
30

The question is: How does this political thug make profane use of the sanctuary? Or, just how
does he treat the sanctuary as common? The short answer is: By politicizing religious faith. That is, the
profane use of the sanctuary would soon take the form of abolishing normal worship [11:31c], and then
imposing the ravaging sacrilege [11:31d]. As we shall note as regards 11:31d, the sacrilege takes the form
of using religion for political ends, up to and including deification of political leadership.

For the moment, the resistance must understand the undercurrents, religious and political, of
making profane or common useof religion. In both tyrannies and democracies, politicians are adept at
using religion, when it suits them, for political purposes. Not long after the celestial speaker predicted this

27
Article 36 of the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China affirms: No state organ, public
organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may
they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects
normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public
order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies
and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

28
Holladay, 105.

29
KB
1
, 319.

30
BDB, 320.


12

profanation of faith, Antiochus Epiphanes came on the scene as a prototype. His use of religion is
instructive.

We should take careful note of the method in Antiochus madness. That is, he begins with an
eliminationist rage against the Holy Covenant [11:30d]; from here, he shrewdly enlists the support of those
who vacillate and compromise when it comes to the Holy Covenant [11:30f]. Where connivance fails,
military force picks up the slack [11:31a]. So far, Antiochus has been dealing in preliminaries; but now,
the endgame comes into view put religion to some use.

As we delve into the undercurrents here, we note that this master politician is [1] using religion to
unify his nation, in order to [2] solidify his hold on power.

As far as Antiochus goes, he will eventually impose a ravaging sacrilege in the sanctuary, an
event that is documented in 1 Maccabees 1:54ff. Fair enough, but to what use was all of this? The answer
comes earlier in 1 Maccabees 1:41-42:

(1:41) Then, the king [Antiochus] issued a decree pertaining to his
entire realm to the end that they would all be a single nation. (1:42)
Specifically, that every single person should abandon his own rules for
lawful behavior; accordingly, all the non-Jews accepted the decree of
the king. (1:43) Indeed, many Jews also consented to his religion,
sacrificing to idols and profaning the Sabbath.

It seems clear that the useto which Antiochus put religion was to attempt to unify his nation
politically. 1 Maccabees 1:41 depicts the goal they would all be a single nation; 1 Maccabees 1:43
describes the means consent to his religion. Religion is the means; national, political unity is the end.
George Foot Moore comments on this political agenda, noting that:
31

The measures he [Antiochus] took in Judea were themselves justified
by political reasons [emphasis mine]. The essentially political motive
of the religious persecution is evident from the fact that it was confined
to Palestine. There is no evidence that the Jews in Syria or Babylonia
were molested in the observance of their religion.

The resistance will take due note of the language of 1 Maccabees 1:41 and 1:43. That is, the goal
of creating a single nation [1:41] coalesces around his religion [1:43]. Now, his religion had a decidedly
Greek cast to it. For example, when he came on the scene, Antiochus renamed Jerusalem Antioch and
introduced many traits of Greek culture, including recasting their worship along more Greek lines
[imposing a ravaging sacrilege (11:31d)]. Clearly, the object in all of this was to solidify Antiochus hold
on power by unifying his kingdom around a common culture and common religion.
32
The upshot is that the
resistance must be vigilant to oppose any who would make religion his main tool in imposing is will.
33

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance must anticipate, must analyze, and must resist the use
of religion for political ends. The resistance has a guideline: Identify, diagnose, and resist those political
power-players who would use religion as a tool to solidify their hold on power.

31
George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the
Tannaim, vol. 1, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932), 52.

32
On this point, see S.A. Cook, F.E. Adcock, and M.P. Charlesworth, ed., The Cambridge Ancient
History, vol. VIII, Rome and the Mediterranean 218-133 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1975; reprint), 507.

33
Baldwin, 192.

13

There are patterns in history; Antiochus was not the last to use religion to impose his political
agenda on a nation.

During World War II, Nazi Germany created what it called the National Reich Church. At the
time, the resistance Dietrich Bonhoeffer among others realized immediately the unholy use to which the
church in Germany was to be put. The one-piece fellowship between religion and the politics of the Reich
is made clear in decrees such as these from Albert Rosenberg of the National Reich Church:
34

The National Reich Church demands immediate cessation of the
publishing and dissemination of the Bible in Germany

The National Reich Church declares that to it, and therefore to the
German nation [emphasis mine], it has been declared that the Fuehrers
Mein Kampf is the greatest of all documents

On the day of its foundation, the Christian Cross must be removed from
all churches, cathedrals and chapels and it must be superseded by
the only unconquerable symbol, the swastika

There will always be an honorable resistance to this shameless exploitation of religion for merely
political purposes. For his part, Dietrich Bonhoeffer would spell out the rationale for his resistance in a
letter to his grandmother in 1933. His letter said, in part:
35

It has become ever more evident to me that we are to be given a great
popular national church, whose nature cannot be reconciled with
Christianity [emphasis mine], and that we must prepare our minds for
the entirely new paths which we shall have to follow. The question is
really: Christianity or Germanism [emphasis mine]? And, the sooner
the conflict is revealed in the clear light of day, the better.

The resistance will be diligent to discern the dissimilarity between faithfulness to the Covenant
ideal and faithfulness to the use of religion in the service of exclusively political purposes. The resistance
is wholly dedicated to the Covenant ideal: The God of Eden intends to emancipate his fallen creation and to
return His creation to its pristine harmony. The resistance is wholly opposed to the use of religion for either
purposes of nationalism or the retention of power by ideological partisans of the Right or the Left. Alexis
de Tocqueville wrote that when religion allies itself with a political power, it increases its power over
some but gives up hope of reigning over all [emphasis mine].
36
The Covenant ideal, on the other hand, is
Yahwehs all-compassing effort to recover the original purpose of all mankind, forfeited in Eden.

34
Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 171
[this biography is recommended for a powerful portrait of principled, Christian resistance to political
tyranny].

35
Ibid., 185.

36
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, translated by Arthur Goldhammer (New York:
Literary Classics of the United States, 2004; reprint), 343.

14

E. The resistance must anticipate, must scrutinize, and must oppose politically driven
attempts to obliterate the binding relationship between God and His human creation [11:31c]. The celestial
speaker insists that some political power-players will attempt to abolish the regular offering [11:31c]. The
resistance should expect that when politics beds down with religion, political tyrants, in their own political
self-interest, will seize the opportunity to sever profound and personal and permanent ties between God
and His people. This is what Daniel 11:31c is about: Those who idolize political power cannot permit
anything like a divided loyalty directed solely to Yahweh. For the power-hungry politician, there is only
one leader, and his residency is not in heaven!

Accordingly when, in Daniel 11:31c, the celestial speaker predicts that there will be those political
leaders who will abolish the regular offering, the divine revelator is warning us of those who will undertake
to dissolve the union between Yahweh and His people. The operative term here is regular offering. The
question for the resistance is: Whom do we worship?

The term glossed regular offering is variously translated in the English versions. Some go with
daily sacrifice, others opt for regular burnt offering or regular sacrifice, and some prefer perpetual
sacrifice. Whatever the English translation, the Hebrew term [t~mTd] exhibits a rich history.
Understanding this history is crucial to grasping the threat posed by religious-political connivers, a peril
aimed at driving a wedge between God and His human creation.

To begin with, the t~mTd points to what is lasting or continual, and it is often used in connection
with worship.
37
The t~mTd/regular offering had begun with Moses and continued through the post-exilic
period. For more than a millennium, the spiritual power attached to the t~mTd/regular offering had been
considerable. In Daniel, the point of attack regarding the t~mTd consisted in daily worship, entailing two
daily sacrifices, the burnt offering in the morning and the meal offering in the evening [1 Chronicles 16:40;
2 Chronicles 2:3].

The spiritual impact of the t~mTd consisted in its permanence; the t~mTd had been a lasting and
continual act of worship since the days of Moses. Beyond permanence, the daily worship forged a binding
relationship with Yahweh, a continual attachment to God that had lasted for centuries with His people.
Jacob Milgrom summarizes the spiritual impact of t~mTd this way, The unbroken continuity of the
T~mTd was reassuring [emphasis mine], and its cessation a traumatic calamity [Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31:
12:11].
38

This traumatic calamity would soon assault the covenant community, prototypically, with
Antiochus Epiphanes.

As a matter of historical record, not long after the celestial speaker announced this travesty, the
prototype Antiochus Epiphanes appeared and proceeded to undercut just about everything that had
characterized worship and devotion to Yahweh. According to 1 Maccabees 1, the sacrificial system was
forbidden [1:45]; altars to idols were erected [1:47]; circumcision was forbidden [1:48]; Torah was
abandoned as the rule of faith and practice [1:49], and all of this on penalty of death [1:50].

37
KB
2
, 1748, points out that the derivation of t~mTd must remain open. On one hand, t~mTd may
point to what is extended or expanded [Arabic nuance] or simply to what is lasting and enduring. For
t~mTd used in worship contexts, see, among other passages, Exodus 25:30; 27:20; 28:29-30, 38; 29:38, 42;
30:8; Leviticus 24:3, 4, 8.

38
William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Bible, vol. 3, Leviticus 1-16 by
Jacob Milgrom (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 456.


15

As a matter of political strategy, by systematically wiping out the nuts and bolts of the Jewish
religion, this prototype was, by these means, methodically eradicating the stability and permanence that
Yahweh Himself embodied for His people; he was carefully stamping out the closeness, the bond between
Yahweh and His people; he was painstakingly seeking to eliminate the comfort and encouragement with
which Yahweh alone could sustain His people; and he was carefully attempting to destroy the support and
buttressing that Yahweh alone could furnish His people.

Now, this prototypical political strategy has its modern reincarnations. Political hooligans
continue to attack worship, and the resistance continues to steadfastly resist.

In a December 23
rd
story in the Wall Street Journal on-line, Melanie Kirkpatrick depicts the heroic
resistance by North Korean Christians in merely attempting to worship. The sad truth is that only a
member of the ruling Kim family may be worshiped. As this story is read, one can only be humbled, if not
shamed, by the level of faithful and determined resistance of these North Korean Christians as they simply
seek to worship.
39

The story of the resistance in North Korea is as inspirational as it is heart-breaking. Ms.
Kirkpatrick describes worship this way:

North Korean Christians necessarily worship in secret. Many of the
congregations are small family units consisting of just a husband and
wife, and when they are old enough to keep a secret, their children.
Other times, a handful of Christians form a kind of congregation in
motion. A worker for Open Doors explains how it works: A Christian
goes and sits on a bench in the park. Another Christian comes and sits
next to him. Sometimes, it is dangerous even to speak to one another,
but they know they are both Christians, and at such a time, this is
enough.

Resistance: Worship on a park bench without saying a word! Resistance: If caught worshiping,
these people face arrest, torture, and possible execution.
40
Resistance: Thousands of Christians are
incarcerated in North Koreas political prison camps.
41
Resistance: Christianity is growing in North Korea,
possibly numbering as many as 400,000 people who were converted by recent converts.
42

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance must anticipate that politicians who idolize
themselves and enthusiasts who follow suit must in the name of self-preservation of political power
disconnect the last vestige of an undeviating, enduring, deep-seated, and intensely unalterable loyalty to
Yahweh. In the face of this, the resistance has a guideline: Daniel 1 and Daniel 6; these chapters reveal
quiet, bold, audacious, faithful to a fault, and completely unbendable worship of God alone. If Daniel 12:1
may be taken at face value, this level of resistance may become more prevalent.

39
See Melanie Kirkpatrick, A Christmas Prayer for North Korean Christians, available on
WSJ.com, December 23
rd
, 2012.

40
Ibid.

41
Ibid.

42
Ibid.


16

F. The resistance should expect to resist those politicians who would attempt the unholy
substitution [11:31d]. The celestial speaker informs the resistance that there will be those power-players
who will impose some form of political idolatry, substituting ultimate allegiance to Yahweh for adulation
of politics and/or politicians. The resistance shall have to challenge the installation of politics and political
leaders as worthy of deification. Just as the central players in Daniel 1, 3, 5, and 6 disregarded the idolatry
of politics and politicians in their day, so also the resistance will have to draw lines and live by them.

To begin with, there are differences in translation among the English versions for Daniel 11:31d.
Many prefer the familiar abomination of desolation or some variation of it; others tweak this translation
into appalling abomination; still others go with some variation of the sacrilegious object that causes
desecration. This last gloss is both accurate and clear.

Moreover, the Hebrew construction has a noun sacrilege followed by a nominal participle in
apposition ravaging. Strictly speaking, apposition functions to relate the second term ravaging very
closely to the lead term sacrilege. This construction is clearly adjectival in nature, where the quality or
basic characteristic of the sacrilege is ravaging.
43
The upshot is that the resistance faces a sacrilege that
ravages. Lets consider each Hebrew term in turn.

Sacrilege is something that is detestable for the simple reason that it represents a pagan cult. The
gory details of sacrilege bear this out.

Sacrilege translates a noun [igg|ts] that the lexicons render with an object to abhor, an
abhorrence, or even a horror, used in reference to some pagan deity.
44
BDB also picks up on the
deification implicit in the noun, noting that igg|ts references some detested thing and goes on to translate
the term in 11:31d as detested thing causing horror representing an altar to Zeus Olympius.
45
Holladay
brings out the pagan cultic associations in igg|ts, glossing a (pagan) abominable idol or something
abominable (associated with a pagan cult).
46
The upshot is that the sacrilege is something or someone
detestable, something or someone associated with a pagan cult.

Ravaging is a quality term that depicts the impact on the viewer of the sacrilege; the sacrilege is a
shameless exhibition of pagan idolatry. Again, the details support this notion.

When the celestial speaker uses the participle ravaging he/she uses a term for shame.
KoNhler-Baumgartner translate ~mm with to be put to shame, or to be inwardly shattering or even to be
numbed, and translates our passage with devastating/ravaging horror.
47
Holladay picks up on this
internalized response by translating the Polel stem with to be reduced to shuddering, or to be appalled, or

43
For the use of apposition in Biblical Hebrew, see J.C.L. Gibson, Davidsons Introductory
Hebrew Grammar-Syntax (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1994), 39.

44
KB
2
, 1640.

45
BDB, 1055.

46
Holladay, 382.

47
KB
2
, 1565.


17

even to be stupefied, and translates ~mm in our passage with desolating.
48
Stolz makes a telling point
on ~mm as desolation, noting that to be desolate means to be cut off from life.
49

The upshot is this: The sacrilege is someone or something associated with a pagan cult; ravaging
is the impact this sacrilege has, at least on the celestial speaker who uses these terms. Specifically, the
sacrilege is a shameful imposition; it is appalling to the beholder; it is both devastating and numbing
precisely because the sacrilege is cut off from life.

The resistance gives due note to the fact that ravaging is a Divine assessment of this sacrilege.
The celestial speaker offers the evaluation of heaven on the imposition something or someone, associated
with a pagan cultic icon being venerated in place of Yahweh. To heaven, this is a shameful, shocking, and
appalling state of affairs. The resistance will want to keep this Divine is appraisal in mind; for what God
thinks, matters, and what God thinks about this unholy substitution is shameful to Him. Perhaps even
Yahweh can be reduced to shuddering when people opt to venerate idols that are cut off from life!

Now, at this point, the reader must appreciate how the early prototype fleshed out this ravaging
sacrilege. Once the history is appreciated, the modern incarnations may become clear to the resistance.

Scarcely had the celestial speaker finished with this predictive assessment than Antiochus
Epiphanes came on the scene. As the resistance looks at how Antiochus fleshed out this ravaging
sacrilege, the resistance is armed with a prototypical example of what the ravaging sacrilege looks like
today. To anticipate a bit, the ravaging sacrilege will be seen to be the deification of political ends, up to
and including the deification of political leaders.

As a matter of history, Antiochus Epiphanes would become a poster-child for a ravaging
sacrilege, precisely because he became the self-deified focal point of a pagan political cult. The details are
teased out in 1 Maccabees 1 and 2 Maccabees 6.

The pagan political cult is narrated in 1 Maccabees 1:54; indeed, the reader is reminded of the
political use of religion, already associated with Antiochus profane useof the temple complex.
50
As
noted at that time, Antiochus purpose was to politically unify his kingdom, in other words consolidate his
hold on power, by means of a religion of his own choosing. Accordingly, 1 Maccabees 1:54 sets the
historical stage for this prototypical ravaging sacrilege on the part of Antiochus Epiphanes:

Now, on the fifteenth day of the month of Kislev, in the year one
hundred and forty five, the king [Antiochus] erected the desolating
abomination upon the altar for burnt offerings, and, in the surrounding
cities of Judah, they built [similar] pagan altars.

The self-deification of this particular pagan politician is teased out in 2 Maccabees 6:1, 2, and 5. 2
Maccabees 6:2 is especially crucial for pinpointing the self-deification of this specific politician. 2
Maccabees 6:1 depicts the pseudo-religious character of Antiochus efforts; 2 Maccabees 6:2 identifies the
self-deification, while 2 Maccabees 6:5 returns to the pseudo-religious character of this political cult:

(6:1) Not long after, the king [Antiochus] sent an elderly man from
Athens [Greek influence] to compel the Jews to depart from the laws of
their fathers so as to not live according to the laws of God.

(6:2) Even to the point of polluting the temple in Jerusalem by calling it
[the temple] the temple of Jupiter Olympius [pseudo-religion] and by

48
Holladay, 376.

49
F. Stolz, ~mm, in TLOT
3
, 1372.
50
See the discussion above on 1 Maccabees 1:41-42 and Antiochus profane use of religion.


18

calling the temple in Gerizim the temple of Jupiter, the Defender of
Strangers.

(6:5) The altar was also filled with profane things, things forbidden by
the law [Torah].

Historians clarify the background of 2 Maccabees 6:2. That is, 2 Maccabees 6:2 refers to an
image of the Greek god Zeus Olympius being erected on the temple altar, an image probably bearing the
features of Antiochus himself.
51
Concerning this image, it was explained to the Jews in their own tongue
that this was Baal Shamin, the Lord of Heaven.
52

Historians further clarify this self-deification by noting that Antiochus appears as Zeus on some of
the coins he minted during this period.
53

The sum of the matter is this: whether we translate Daniel 11:31 with abomination of desolation or
the sacrilege that causes desolation, the fact of the matter is that this lifeless and shameful sacrilege takes
the form of the elevation of politics and politicians to virtually consecrated status. Viewed from the
standpoint of our prototypical politician, the ravaging sacrilege is the use of religion for political ends, up
to and including the deification of the political leadership, Antiochus Epiphanes in this case. The sacrilege
is the creation of a pagan cult of politics, complete with a self-deified political-military leader, with the net
effect of this shameful outrage resulting in the replacement Yahweh as Lord of life and the covenant ideal
as the purpose of human history. The mantra is: Politics is everything!

However, the resistance adheres to a guideline: pretenders to Yahwehs throne will be
differentiated, studied, and resisted; Yahweh alone is Lord of History and His Holy Covenant ideal
reestablish the basic pattern in all of creation, with Yahweh as Lord and mankind as servant is the
exclusive operational guideline for the resistance.

Sadly, since the days of our prototypical example, history is littered with politicians who either
deified themselves or were venerated by a pagan population; moreover, history attests the tendency to
venerate political ends.

The deification of individual politicians is especially shameful. For example, we have already
mentioned the National Reich Church in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. The decrees cited previously from
the National Reich Church had the net effect of making Adolph Hitler a virtual deity. In fact, one of
Hitlers most lethal and fanatical disciples was Reinhard Heydrich, one of Heinrich Himmlers henchmen.
In a conversation with a member of the German resistance, Heydrich devotedly predicted, Just you wait.
Youll see the day, ten years from now, when Adolph Hitler will occupy precisely the same position in
Germany that Jesus Christ has now.
54
It is almost too strange that, ten years from Heydrichs prophecy,
Hitler swallowed some cyanide, put a bullet in his brain, and was cremated outside the ruins of his
Chancery in Berlin.

Much closer to our own time frame, pretenders to the throne just keep on coming. Melanie
Kirkpatrick notes that in North Korea, religion, in anything like a traditional sense, is banned. She writes
that the only permissible worship is that of the trinity of Kim family dictators the late Eternal President

51
On this point, see D.S. Russell, The Jews From Alexander to Herod (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1967), 41; and Edwyn Bevan, Jerusalem Under the High Priests (London: Arnold, 1930; reprint),
82.

52
Cambridge Ancient History, 508.

53
Ibid., note 2.

54
Metaxas, 170.


19

Kim Il Sung, his son Kim Jong Il (who died last year) and the current leader Kim Jong Eun.
55
As noted,
however, the resistance worships on the nearest park bench!

Not only do individual political superstars attempt to nudge Yahweh from His throne, His
Covenant ideal is also exchanged for decidedly political objectives. Indeed, there is a kind of American
exceptionalism, a de facto messianic Americanism, which passes muster for deification of political ends.
In 2010, the Public Religion Research Institute published the results of a survey of the intersection
between religious and political attitudes in the United States. The survey disclosed that 60 percent of
Americans believed that God has granted America a special role [emphasis mine] in human history.
56
As
a matter of fact, of the 60 percent who accepted this proposition as truth, 80% were white evangelicals.

The resistance perceives a danger here: Turning American democracy into a religion unto itself.
Douthat elaborates on this pagan cult of politics, the so-called special role:
57

Piggybacking on the parallels between American universalism and
Christian universalism, messianic Americanism turns liberal democracy
into a religion unto itself, capable of carrying out the kind of
redemptive work that orthodoxy reserves for Christ and His Church
[emphasis mine]. It historicizes and secularizes the story of salvation,
transforming the eschatological promises of the New Testament into
political promises here on earth [emphasis mine]. Instead of seeking
the Kingdom of God, it seeks the end of history.

The resistance fully appreciates the distinction between an America that is unquestionably blessed
by God or even available to be used by God, with an American political agenda that supplants the
Covenant ideal. The resistance will vigorously challenge the idea that only American democracy can fulfill
Gods purposes on earth. The resistance will be diligent about upholding the redemptive work of Christ
and His Church, which means advancing the Covenant ideal. The resistance simply refuses to abandon or
negotiate the Messianic agenda outlined in Daniel 9:24; to wit: [1] bring an end to covenant betrayal, [2]
seal up sin, [3] wipe away guilt, [4] bring near everlasting righteousness, [5] seal with approval the vision
and prophecy, and [6] anoint a Holy One. Human, political governance, the cult of pagan politics, is
simply not equipped to accomplish this sort of sweeping redemptive work. Political promise is not in a
position to promise an end to covenant betrayal, sealing up sin, wiping away guilt, or bringing near
everlasting righteousness; and, what is more, the resistance knows this!

The upshot is that, as far as the resistance is concerned, the Messiahs redemptive work is their
work, and they are compelled to preserve and complete it, until He returns. Under no circumstances does
the resistance cede to any pagan political cult, the power, authority, and great commission of the Church,
the covenant people of God, to be the instruments of Gods redemptive will on this earth. Political promise
is not redemptive; the resistance will not strive merely to make other nations democracies, laudable as
democracy is, rather, the resistance will endeavor to offer other nations the opportunity for redemption, for
a return to Eden. The resistance is wholly dedicated to serving under the umbrella of the Covenant ideal
the assurance that Yahweh fully intends to reestablish the basic pattern of all original creation, with
Yahweh as King and mankind as His servants.

G. Finally, and regrettably, the resistance must anticipate apostasy [11:32a-b]. The celestial
spokesperson points out that there will be times when members of the covenant community will act
wickedly in regard to the covenant [11:32a] to the point of being suckered into a state of apostasy [11:32b].
The resistance should be prepared to do its work as wheat among the tares. The resistance will continue to

55
Kirkpatrick, 1.

56
E.J. Dionne and William Galston, The Old and New Politics of Faith: Religion in the 2010
Election, quoted in Douthat, Bad Religion, 250.

57
Douthat, 255.

20

operate among those who remain morally and spiritually neglectful in living out the responses dictated by
the covenant ideal [11:32a]. The net effect is that the resistance will fulfill its commission in spite of the
apostate tendencies of many around it [11:32b].

For openers, the celestial speaker is making a fairly surprising promise there will still be those
who act wickedly with regard to the covenant [11:32a]. Now, Daniel had already mentioned those who
acted wickedly in reference to the national sin that earned Israel the exile [Daniel 9:5]. Now, however, the
celestial speaker is obviously referencing some time frame after the exile; the upshot is that many among
the covenant people still fail to get the covenant right [11:32a]. Only a resisting remnant seems to
understand their role in spite of continued wickedness and apostasy. Many just dont get it!

The resistance will toil at its commission in company with those among the religious
community who act wickedly [11:32a] and are in a state of apostasy [11:32b]. Lets consider each of these
in turn.

Those who act wickedly with regard to the covenant [11:32a] will be a fact of life for the
resistance.

To begin with, the celestial speaker uses a participle to reference those who act wickedly. This
tells the resistance that the celestial speaker is alerting them to what is typical or characteristic in the lives
of many in the religious community.
58
These people are well beyond simply struggling with their
faith; rather, they evince a more or less settled state of wickedness vis--vis the covenant. The resistance
shall interact with those whose moral fiber bears little or no resemblance to an all-out commitment to the
Covenant ideal.

Moreover, the celestial speaker uses a participle in the Hiphil stem, a fact that also tells the
resistance something. As we have noted before, the Hiphil stem may convey an internally transitive
nuance. When this is the case, the gist is: These people causes themselves [internal transivity] to act
wickedly. The upshot is that the resistance will often find itself surrounded by those whose indifference to
the Covenant ideal is neither here nor there to them. Moral apathy and spiritual disinterest in Yahwehs
covenant the Divine initiative to reestablish the original pattern in all of creation will distinguish some
among the covenant community; this is the spiritual environment within which the resistance will do its
work.

The lexicons render act wickedly [r~~] in the Hiphil with the causative nuance to make oneself
guilty.
59
In terms of the covenant ideal, then, these persons lead a guilty life, since they are morally
delinquent when it comes to the covenant.
60
Indeed, such a lifestyle is impious, effectively the polar
opposite of righteousness [tsedeq].
61
The net effect is this: Those who act wickedly are those who act with
treachery vis--vis the covenant by refusing to honor their own word and do not respect the covenant of
God.
62
The question is: What triggers this wickedness? The history helps fill in the gaps.

Subsequent history points out that this wicked activity on the part of many within the Covenant
community was fleshed out by desertion of covenant loyalty for totally self-interested reasons.

58
IBHS 37.2b.

59
See KB
2
, 1295; BDB, 957; Holladay, 347.

60
Ibid.

61
C. van Leeuwen, r~~, in TLOT
3
, 1261.

62
Ren0 P0ter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on The Book of Daniel (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1993), 311.

21

To be sure, the celestial speaker has already told us that there would be those who prefer to
forsake the Holy Covenant [11:30]; now, the means by which this forsaking occurs is via acting wickedly
[11:32b]. When this prophecy comes to fruition later during the Antiochian period, many Jews sever their
relationship with the Holy Covenant and place their bets with the political covenant of Antiochus
Epiphanes. As we shall note, they acted wickedly, driven by pragmatic self-interest. 1 Maccabees 1:11 has
the grisly details:

(1:11) In those days [days of Antiochus Epiphanes], there emerged out
of Israel many lawless renegades [acting wickedly] who seduced many
by saying, Lets go and make a covenant with the Gentiles who are all
around us, because in separating ourselves from them [loyalty to the
Holy Covenant] we have suffered much harm.

Now, it is clear that many among the Covenant people out of Israel decided to create a new
covenant relationship with the reigning political force of the day, Antiochus Epiphanes. Thus, acting
wickedly with regard to the Holy Covenant takes the form of making an alternative political covenant with
the Gentiles, strictly for reasons of pragmatic self-interest. In fact, attempting to live a separated life
[loyalty to the Covenant ideal] has led to a fair amount of personal inconvenience.

1 Maccabees 1:15 displays the lengths to which many went to ingratiate themselves with their new
covenant partner: They [the Jews] made themselves as if they were uncircumcised; they abandoned the
Holy Covenant; they united themselves with Gentiles; and the sold themselves into wickedness. To be
sure, these renegade religious people are no longer suffering much for their spiritual treason: Many of
the Jews were pleased with his religion, and accordingly sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath [1
Maccabees 1:43].

The upshot, so far, is this: Those who act wickedly with regard to the Covenant are those who
come to terms with the political fads of the day for self-serving reasons. These are not the struggling;
they are the decided. Those who act wickedly have decided that moral indifference to the Covenant ideal
is inconsequential; they have decided that moral callousness to the ideal that the original, Edenic, pattern in
all of creation should and must be reestablished is immaterial; they have decided that guilt for covenant
abandonment is illusory. Rather, they have decided that a trade-off is warranted on practical grounds:
Better to make a covenant with the Gentiles than to suffer much harm as a result of loyalty to the
Covenant ideal. Those who act wickedly have decided to embrace a religion that pleases them.

Now, there are consequences for those who come to terms with the political fads of the day.
Having prepared the soil by capitulating to the dominant political forces of moment, even the Covenant
people who vacillate must pay the price for their backsliding ways. Getting into bed with the dominant
political forces of the day simply spells disaster: He [the politician and his political regime] will bring them
[the waverers, the appeasers, the compromisers] into a state of apostasy [Daniel 11:32b]. Politicians have a
way of corrupting everything and everyone they touch.

The resistance understands that a state of apostasy is the price to be paid for jettisoning the Holy
Covenant and being suckered into a political covenant. Indeed, the resistance will doggedly continue its
work in spite of the apostate behaviors of those around them.

For openers, there is a translation issue that must be considered regarding Daniel 11:32b. I have
translated the Hebrew text with he will bring into a state of apostasy. The English versions seem to
demur, translating the Hebrew verb [ch~np] with corrupt, defile, seduce, or even flatter. These
translations seem a bit benign, especially when we consider what the standard Hebrew lexicons do with the
Hiphil of ch~np.

That is to say, the lexicons translate the Hiphil of ch~np in fairly passionate terms. For example,
BDB translates the Hiphil of this verb in 11:32b with to make one godless;
63
Holladay opts for to bring into

63
BDB, 338.

22

apostasy for 11:32b.
64
Finally, Rolf Knierim notes that the Hiphil of ch~np in 11:32b implies seduction
to apostasy.
65
At least on lexical grounds, the risk entailed in abandoning any meaningful commitment to
the Holy Covenant by replacing the covenant with a religion of political expediency involves godlessness
and seduction into apostasy. The renegades who acted wickedly [11:32a] proceeded from bad to worse,
from wickedness to apostasy [11:32b].
66

So, the celestial speaker notes that wicked abandonment of the Holy Covenant, exchanging the
Covenant for a political covenant [1 Maccabees 1:11] born of self-advantage [1 Maccabees 1:11], leads to
apostasy [11:32b]. What is more, apostasy makes one godless. What else does the Old Testament tell us
about apostasy?

Apostasy means that one dismisses God from thought and life. Job 8:13 refers to the apostate
[ch~np] as one who forgets God, where forget [kch] means to dismiss God or simply to cease to care
about God.
67

Apostasy means a barren and unproductive life. Job 15:34 affirms that, as a group, the apostate
[ch~np] are barren [galm|d], where barren is an evaluation of the apostate life as incapable of producing
life.
68

Apostasy means leading a life that is untrustworthy. Job 34:30 makes a very telling point about
political leaders rulers; specifically, an apostate [ch~np] man should not rule because he is essentially
treacherous and devious, laying snares for people. Such political leadership, in the final analysis, treats
people as dupes and quarry.

Apostasy is spiritual adultery. In Jeremiah 3:1-2, 9, the prophet likens apostasy [ch~np] to
spiritual adultery with others idolatrous lovers. The apostasy/spiritual adultery motif implies that the
covenant people of God attempted to share their loyalty with another sovereign. Jeremiah 3:9 adds the
stunning indictment of this behavior: Those who attempted to divide their loyalties between Yahweh and
idols were utterly indifferent to what they were doing. Indeed, the term translated indifferent or causal in
most English versions of Jeremiah 3:9 actually suggests that they were lighthearted about their
apostasy/spiritual adultery.
69

Apostasy means annulling the everlasting covenant. In Isaiah 24:5, the prophet links
ch~np/apostasy with [1] transgressing Torah, [2] changing statutes, and [3] annulling the everlasting
covenant. This last point is very telling: The prophet uses a term for annul that means [1] put an end to, or
[2] frustrate, or simply [3] invalidate.
70

The upshot is this: Apostasy is the deadly attempt to share ones ultimate loyalties, ones most
basic and fundamental affections with two lovers. In the case of Daniel 11:32b, apostasy means

64
Holladay, 111.

65
Rolf Knierim, ch~np, in TLOT
1
, 448.

66
James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989; reprint), 458.

67
See BDB, 1013.

68
KB
1
, 194.

69
Holladay, 318.

70
Holladay, 299.

23

exchanging Covenant loyalty for political loyalty. Apostasy is that form of godlessness that ceases to care
about God, especially His Covenant ideal; the apostate can effortlessly dismiss Yahwehs stated desire to
recover fallen man and to restore the lost order in His creation; the apostate has finalized the trade-off
better to place ones bets with the political movers and shakers of the era than some pie in the sky ideal that
hopes to reestablish the basic pattern in all of creation, with God as King and mankind as servant.

The resistance accepts the fact that there will be apostates among the covenant people, defectors
who prefer political solutions to spiritual and moral problems; deserters who succumb to the temptation to
use the levers of political power to accomplish Covenant goals; renegades who surrender to the fantasy that
moral reclamation can be effected without recourse to God at all; and quislings who yield to the fiction that
virtue can be realized through political means, thereby annulling the Holy Covenant. Accordingly, the
resistance has a guideline: Recognize, examine, and resist those who would choose the path of moral
wickedness and abandon the Holy Covenant ideal; what is more, the resistance will continue about its task
as the next section of the essay makes clear regardless of the apostate behavior of some within the
covenant community.

Summary thus far: in this opening section of the essay, we have pointed to guidelines that are
intended to help the resistance know what to expect in terms of political overreach, an overreach that comes
from outside the covenant community as well as from within the covenant community. The resistance
knows when to resist by these guidelines:

[1] Rageagainst the Holy Covenant [11:30d], which is overreach that is eliminationist; the
resistance must challenge opposition to the Holy Covenant that intends to liquidate it. We have cited
poignant and powerful examples from North Korea in this regard.

[2] Complicity within the Covenant community [11:30f], which is overreach that enlists the aid of
those within the covenant community; the resistance will be opposed by those from their own ranks,
persons who have, for all intents and purposes, left a serious commitment to the Holy Covenant in the dust.
We have noted the lamentable preoccupation with political messianism in the United States in this regard.

[3] Force[11:31a] requires little elaboration; the resistance will have to endure the kind of
political overreach that imposes its ideological will by force. We have cited some examples of the use of
force to compel obedience to a political ideology now current in China.

[4] Profane useof religion [11:31b], which is the deadly compromise: the conciliation of the Holy
Covenant with a strictly political agenda. The resistance will encounter the kind of overreach that is
willing to make political use of religion, as long as such a negotiated settlement suits the immediate
political circumstances. We have cited examples of the politicization of religion, the use of the church for
strictly partisan/ideological reasons, in the Maccabean correspondence, in Nazi Germany during World
War II, as well as the back-and-forth between partisans of the Right and Left in the United States. Vis--
vis this last instantiation of politicized religion, the statement of de Tocqueville rings true with the
resistance.

[5] Abolishing normal worship [11:31c], which is the overreach realized when politicians are
basically worshiped; the resistance will anticipate that politicians will seek some form of deification in their
own political interest. We cited early examples from the Maccabean material and current specimens from
North Korea in this regard.

[6] Imposing a ravaging sacrilege [11:31d], which is the overreach that replaces Yahweh and the
Holy Covenant with a pseudo-religious worship of politicians and politics. The resistance will be diligent
in being on the lookout for politicians who eliminate the Holy Covenant in lieu of their own political
fortunes. Examples of this sacrilege are cited from the Maccabean era, World War II Germany, and
modern day North Korea and the United States.

[7] Apostasy [11:32a-b], which is the overreach, again from within, that intends to make defectors
and deserters of as many members of the covenant community as possible. The resistance must accept the

24

fact that many will cede the sovereignty of the Holy Covenant ideal of Yahweh for a mess of political
pottage. Illustrations are provided from the pre-Christian, Maccabean era.

We now transition to the second part of the essay: The guidelines that tease out what Christian
political resistance looks like. Some of these guidelines are personal in nature, guiding the resistance in
how to prepare, when confronted with political overreach [Daniel 11:32c-d]. By far, the more prevalent
guidelines are operational [Daniel 11:33a-b (bring comprehension), 34a-b (avoid useless help); and 12:3
(lead many to righteousness)].

Furthermore, in following these guidelines, the resistance to political overreach is following the
lead of the Messiah. As noted above, there is considerable overlap between these guidelines for the
resistance and the life of the Messiah in Isaiah 52-53.

Both the guidelines in Daniel 11-12 as well as the overlap with the Messianic prototype in Isaiah
52-53 define Christian resistance to political overreach in decidedly non-violent and non-political terms.
Indeed, to the extent that the Messiah is the resistances prototype, we also operate in terms of insight
[Daniel 11:33, 35; 12:3, 10; Isaiah 53:3], in terms of comprehension [Daniel 11:33; Isaiah 52:12], and most
assuredly in terms of righteousness [Daniel 12:3; Isaiah 53:11].

As we shall stress presently, this entire angelic discourse [Daniel 10:1-12:4] not only teases out
the kind of opposition the resistance will face [11:30d-32b], but also stipulates the kind of resistance we are
authorized to offer [11:32c-12:3]. As the Apostle Paul both wrote and lived: The weapons of our warfare
do not belong to the order of earthly things, but quite the opposite, our weaponry consists in the power of
God that can demolish any and all strongholds [2 Corinthians 10:4].

II. Obviously, the Christian resistance is eager to know how it should resist the various incarnations
of political overreach delineated in section one of the essay. To make a long story short, the resistance is
authorized [1] to prepare in a certain way [Daniel 11:32c-d] and [2] to proceed in a certain way [Daniel
11:33a-c and 35a-b, 34a-b, and 12:3].

Authorization to prepare is the first guideline for the resistance. The resistance is authorized to [1]
take up the cause of their God, [2] bind themselves tightly to that cause, and [3] as a result, take action
commensurate with the cause [11:32c-d].

Authorization to proceed comprises the second set of guidelines for the resistance. The resistance
is authorized [1] to bring many to comprehension; this means that [a] the insightful [b] will bring
comprehension [c] to the rank and file [11:33a-b]. The resistance is authorized [2] to face the
consequences; this means, adversely, [a] they shall not prevail, [b] due to sword and flame, [c] due to
imprisonment, and [d] due to loss of personal property [11:33c], and supportively [e] by refining, [f] by
purifying, and [g] by cleansing [11:35b]. The resistance is authorized [3] to eschew pointless help [11:34a-
b]. Finally, the resistance is authorized [4] to lead many to righteousness [12:3].

A. The resistance is authorized to prepare, personally, in a certain way. The celestial speaker puts it
this way: [1] the people who know their God [2] will strengthen themselves, and [3] will act [Daniel 11:32c-
d]. As we shall see, what this means personally is: [1] those who take up the cause of their God, [2] will
bind themselves tightly to that cause, and [3] as a result, act on the cause.

1. Those who know their God begins a long antithesis to the preceding depiction of
opposition [11:30d-32b]. Accordingly, read more literally, Daniel 11:32c may be understood But, on the
contrary, the people who know their God where this opening antithetical sentence depicts the kind of
resistance [11:32c-12:10] that opposes the antagonism to the Holy Covenant [11:30d-32b], resistance that
is teased out in the remainder of this paragraph.
71
The resistance has a calling.

71
For the syntax of the antithetical sentence, see Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical
Hebrew (The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1980; reprint), 179.


25

The upshot is that the Christian resistance is authorized to understand its personal role as a living
contradiction of the multifaceted opposition to the Holy Covenant. This is the vocation of the resistance.

The question, however, is: Just what is meant here by know God? In essence, the answer involves
taking up the cause of God in the world. This is the duty of the resistance, and no one else.

When we turn to the lexicons, the translations offered for know [y~da] their God [ElohTm] are
clear and straightforward. Holladay stands out, glossing the collocation with [1] to care about, or [2] to be
concerned about, or better yet, [3] to take up the cause of.
72
In a context that underlines the opposition to
the Holy Covenant [11:30d-32c], the resistance takes up the causeof their God and remains firm in their
defiance. Schottroff also underscores the pragmatic element in knowing God. He notes that knowing God
indicates without exception not merely intellectual knowledge but a relationship to the deity that includes
practical behavior.
73
Michael Fox concurs with this practical orientation to knowing God, writing,
Knowledge of God is not erudition in theological esoterica or divination. It is awareness of how God
behaves in human affairs, and it is knowledge available to all and requited of all.
74

As noted above, the practical element of this knowledge of God involves the Covenant. Note
especially that those who know their God in Daniel 11:32c are the complete antithesis of those who act
wickedly in regard to the Covenant in Daniel 11:32a. The upshot is this: The resistance takes up the cause
of the Holy Covenant and acts in concert with this all-embracing cause.

This means that the resistance personally and pragmatically stands for Yahwehs all-embracing
redemptive covenant with Noah, a cause that intends to reestablish the basic pattern in all creation, a cause
that embraces recovery of the original purpose of all mankind, and a cause that acknowledges Yahweh as
sovereign King and mankind as His servant. The resistance has a responsibility, an obligation, a cause.

In terms of this obligation in Daniel [11:29-35; 12:3], the cause is teased out pragmatically in
terms of [1] bringing comprehension, [2] paying the price through suffering and obedience to the cause, [3]
avoiding useless help by continuing to resist spiritual opposition with spiritual weapons, [4] shining like
light and thus bringing many to righteousness. To put the same thing in New Testament terms, our cause
is to take up our Cross and follow in the footsteps of the Messiah [Luke 9:23]. Wherever one finds the
cause, it remains, for the resistance, the commission, the raison dAtre, the mission, the duty, and the
assignment come-what-may.

(a). The resistance eschews other causes as not especially worthy of the Messiah. For the
moment, one stands out: Self. One suspects that far too many evangelicals, in the United States at least,
seek out a church home for selfish reasons. That is, What is in this for me? Entire ministries today are
built around making us the Christian community better persons or more successful persons or even
more financially prosperous persons. There is a common denominator here Self. The cause of self is
poles apart from taking up the cause of our God.

Joel Osteen epitomizes the cause the Self in no uncertain terms. In his 2007 book, Become a
Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Every Day, he voices his thesis:
75

72
Holladay, 129; BDB, 393-94, translates this collocation with to acknowledge or to confess.

73
W. Schottroff, y~da, in TLOT
2
, 517.

74
William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible, vol. 18A, Proverbs 1-9,
by Michael V. Fox (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 31.

75
Joel Osteen, Become a Better You: 7 Keys to Improving Your Life Every Day (New York: Free
Press, 2007), xiii.


26

In our inner being, we hear a voice saying, You were born for better
than this; you are meant to live at a higher level than you are currently.
Dont be satisfied with less. You can be better. The question is:
How? What must I do to become a better me [emphasis mine]?

The cause of Self means living by the spiritual assumption that God didnt create any of us to be
average. He didnt make any of us to barely get by. We were created to excel.
76
In order to experience
the best that the cause of Self can enjoy, one must annul low self-esteem by making positive declarations
over our lives; to wit:
77

We should say such things as, I am blessed. I am prosperous. I am
healthy. I am talented. I am creative. I am wise. When we do that, we
are building up our self-image [emphasis mine]. As those words
permeate your heart and mind, and especially your sub-conscious mind,
eventually they will change the way you see yourself [emphasis mine].

The reader can easily perceive the idolatry of the Self that these snippets from Mr. Osteens book
lay bare. The emphases on I, and our self-image, as well as the way you see yourself, and a better
me clearly traffic in the cause of Self at a very high level. Religion, Church, or even Christianity, are to be
measured by their personal benefits; Whats in this [religion or church or Christian faith] for me? The
idolatry of Self often means that religious people choose the kind of church that works for them.

The resistance is aware of our contemporary culture of narcissism, where narcissism is defined as
extreme and reigning self-absorption. Sadly, this narcissism currently influences the Christian Church.
Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell, in their book The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of
Entitlement clarify the impact of our national obsession with the cause of the Self on the church:
78

Originally, religions could enforce narcissism-reducing practices
because they did not have to compete for adherents: if you were born
into a religion, you usually stayed. Now, however, people can select
the religion that works best for them often the one that offers the most
benefits with the least pain. To compete, religions have to give people
what they want.

The upshot is this: The resistance has a guideline take up the cause of the all-embracing Holy
Covenant regardless of the cost to Self.

2. The resistance will strengthen themselves; having taken up the cause of their God, the
resistance will strengthen themselves to that end [Daniel 11:32c]. As we shall note presently, this
strengthening is most assuredly not spiritual self-seeking; rather, the resistance binds the cause tightly to
themselves.

Again, we have a translation matter to consider. That is, the English versions translate the Hebrew
verb [ch~zaq] with be strong or stand firm or even display strength. In and of themselves, these
translations are certainly possible, but they seem to suffer from what seems to be the tautologous use of the
next verb and act; displaying strength is acting.

The best way to read this action word should take into account that the verb will strengthen
themselves is in the Hiphil stem, and is probably another inwardly transitive use of the Hiphil. Literally,

76
Ibid., 109.

77
Ibid.

78
Jean M. Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of
Entitlement (New York: Free Press, 2010; paperback), 246.

27

those who take up the cause of their God will actually cause themselves to be strengthened. The
syntactical-semantic drift of the inwardly transitive Hiphil is that the resistance assumes personal
responsibility for preparing themselves to take up the cause of their God in a hostile environment, and act
accordingly.

Now, this element of personal responsibility for personal preparation is supported when we turn to
the lexicons for the sense of ch~zaq/strengthen. Kohler-Baumgartner provides some Ancient Near
Eastern background, which helps us nuance ch~zaq/strengthen. For, there are Syriac and Arabic cognates
that mean to bind on tightly.
79
This nuance fits the context admirably: Those who ch~zaq/strengthen
themselves are those who will bind on tightly the cause of their God in an environment that strenuously
opposes the Divine cause from the get-go.

The lexicons also provide excellent insight into the Hiphil of ch~zaq. The verb may be glossed to
keep hold of,
80
where again we may supply the sense: Those who ch~zaq/strengthen themselves are those
who will keep hold of the cause of their God. BDB also adopts this nuance and adds to sustain and
support,
81
where here also the sense of the collocation is: Those who ch~zaq/strengthen themselves are
those who sustain and support the cause of their God.

The upshot is this: Those who ch~zaq/strengthen themselves are those who assume personal
responsibility for personal preparation by binding on tightly the cause of their God; they are those who keep
a firm hold on the cause of their God; they are those who sustain and support the cause of their God in an
openly hostile environment. The resistance clarifies its guideline: Not only does the resistance take up the
cause of their God; indeed they do so in such a way as to bind that cause tightly to their consciences.

North Korean Christians are those who have bound themselves tightly with the cause of their God.
Melanie Kirkpatrick picks up the story:
82

Open Doors USA operates safe houses in China for North Koreans who
cross the border looking for food, work or introduction to people who
can help them reach South Korea. While at the safe houses, the North
Koreans learn about Christianity and some become Christians. A few
decide to return to North Korea, where they continue to practice their
new faith and, in some cases, introduce it to family and friends.

The consciences of the resistance are taken captive by the cause of their God. Introducing the faith
to family and friends is the quintessential endorsement of Yahwehs all-embracing plan to redeem fallen
man and bring orderliness back to his chaotic creation.

Furthermore, embracing this cause at the peril of life is poles apart from serving the cause of Self,
mentioned above. These North Koreans are not asking of their new faith: Whats in this for me? Or, how is
this going to make me a better me? Rather, they are risking all they are and all they have or ever will have
for the sake of expanding the reach of the Holy Covenant. Many, if not the vast majority of readers of this
essay in North America, are simply put to shame by these North Koreans who bind themselves tightly with
the cause of their God come-what-may!

79
KB
1
, 302.

80
Ibid., 304.

81
BDB, 304-05.

82
Kirkpatrick, 2.


28

3. The resistance, as a result of its unswerving commitment to the cause of their God
[11:32c], as a result of binding that cause tightly to their consciences [11:32c], will, as a result act on that
cause [11:32d]. For the resistance, this deep and abiding loyalty to the cause of Yahweh will bear fruit,
will yield virtue.

For openers, a syntactical point must be taken into account. That is, the celestial speaker affirms
that those who are committed to the cause of their God [those who know their God, 11:32c] will bind
themselves tightly with that cause [will strengthen themselves, 11:32c], and as a result of this spiritual
preparation will take action. Thus, the syntactical gist of the final verb will act accordingly teases out
the consequence of binding oneself tightly with the Divine cause.
83

This syntactical point suggests a vital spiritual point: The resistance serves a cause superior to the
needs and desires of the individual Self. Quite the contrary, the resistance takes action out of profound and
deep-seated devotion to the cause of their God.

Now, the verb translated will act accordingly [!~V>] may be used in the sense of to give effect
to,
84
where in our passage the sense would be: Those who have bound themselves tightly with the cause of
their God will give effect to their commitment to His cause. This means that the resistance will give effect
to their part in Yahwehs redemptive covenant; the resistance will give effect to their part in reestablishing
the basic pattern in all creation, where Yahweh is honored as King with mankind His servant.

Another use is similar to carry out or simply to perform;
85
where in Daniel 11:32c-d the sense
becomes: The resistance will carry out its part in Yahwehs all-embracing, historically comprehensive plan
to recover the relationship with mankind that once dominated Eden. Obviously, the spiritual riches
entrusted to the resistance are not personally hoarded, lusting to become a better me; rather, the resistance
will perform its function in recovering the original purpose of mankind in general and restoring the
forfeited orderliness in all of Yahwehs creation.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance is authorized to follow a guideline they must act on
that which presides over their consciences, which is the cause of their God, the cause of reestablishing the
basic pattern to all creation. The resistance understands that humanity is east of Eden, and that the
resistance is honored to fulfill their part in leading the human race back home.

4. Now, by virtue of the fact that the resistance is dominated by [1] taking up the cause of
their God, and by [2] binding themselves tightly with this cause, and then [3] giving effect to the dominance
of this cause is real time action, the resistance is thereby following the lead of their prototype the
Messiah.

It is striking to place side by side the descriptions of the resistance [Daniel 11:32c] and the
Messiah [Isaiah 53:3]. The resistance is peopled by those who know their God, where this ultimately
means they have taken up the cause of their God [Daniel 11:32c]. At the same time, the Messiah is
described as One who knows suffering, where this means and was lived out as One who took up the cause
of suffering [Isaiah 53:3]. In His case, the cause of suffering meant being despised [53:3a], forsaken
[53:3a], tormented with personal pain [53:3b], shunned and avoided [53:3d], and held in contempt [53:3e].

The sum of the matter is this: This side of the Cross, the resistance is led by those who have sold
out to the cause of their God, taken up their Cross, and set about to follow the Messiah [Luke 9:23]. The
resistance has, in other words, a guideline: The Cross!

83
For the use of the waw consecutive perfect in will act to signal consequence, see IBHS 32.2.1c.

84
KB
1
, 890.

85
Ibid., 391.

29

B. The resistance is authorized to operate in certain ways. To begin with, the resistance is
authorized to take the lead in bringing comprehension to Gods human creation concerning its jeopardy and
its options [11:33a-b]. Moreover, the resistance is authorized to accept the consequences of their work,
both the adverse consequences [11:33c] and the supportive consequences [11:35b]. Beyond this, the
resistance is authorized to evaluate and avoid useless help [11:34a-b]. And finally, the resistance is
authorized to lead many to righteousness [12:3]. Accordingly, the resistance has four operational
guidelines: [1] Bring comprehension, 11:33; [2] Accept the consequences, 11:33, 35; [3] Shun useless help,
11:34; [4] Lead many to righteousness, 12:3

Once more, it is vital to repeat that the resistance does not engage in anarchy or public and armed
rebellion or even secession. Rather, the weapons of warfare wielded by the resistance are the non-violent
firepower of comprehension and righteousness.

What is more, it is crucial to note that the resistance does not do battle with political weaponry.
The resistance does not hope to bring about a virtual return to Eden through ballot initiatives, or lobbyists,
or lawsuits, or voting, or supporting a political Party of the Right or the Left. The Messiah did not form a
super-pac; rather, He came with a vision of the Cross. There is a vast operational difference.

1. The Christian resistance is authorized to bring many to comprehension. The resistance,
and no-one else, is authorized to bring all who would listen into a state of comprehension concerning what
Yahweh is up to in the world of geopolitics. The celestial speaker breaks down this guideline thus: [1] the
insightful [2] will bring comprehension [3] to many [Daniel 11:33a-b]. Furthermore, the resistance will
want to know that, in this teaching role, they are following their prototype, who also acted insightfully
[Isaiah 52:13] and who also brought comprehension [Isaiah 52:12].

Now, to begin with, there is a key point regarding the word order in 11:33a that must be
appreciated by the resistance: the insightful [and no one else] can bring many to a state of comprehension
into Gods handiwork in the world of geopolitics.

The words translated wise people or insightful among the people are front-loaded in the sentence,
at the very least to lift out the focal point of the utterance.
86
Beyond this, the context may also support the
notion that, by fronting the insightful, the celestial speaker intends to signal the exclusive role of the
insightful in the Divine cause at hand. The sense, therefore, becomes: The insightful (and no-one else) can
bring comprehension.
87

The resistance operates with a sense of having been singled out for an exclusive purpose. The
resistance grasps its unique role in disseminating and supporting Gods cause in this world: They and they
alone are tasked with bringing comprehension to the madness, with orienting the geopolitical folly vis--vis
Yahwehs intention to reestablish the basic pattern in all creation.

Furthermore, there is a corollary to this syntactical point. That is, this front-loaded member the
insightful may also function to contrast with entities introduced previously in the context.
88
Accordingly,
it is crucial to differentiate this front-loaded Hiphil participle the insightful [11:33a] from the previously
front-loaded Hiphil participle those who act wickedly [11:32a]. To the extent that there is fecklessness
vis--vis the Covenant ideal from with the covenant community, then the resistance, and no-one else,
accepts its role in challenging this internal wickedness.

86
Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud0, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference
Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 47.2.(i)a.

87
Ibid., 47.2.(i).b.

88
Ibid., 47.2.(ii).e.


30

Turning more to the wording in the text, the resistance is described as insightful people [Daniel
11:33a]. The resistance is not merely defiant or purely quarrelsome or simply argumentative; on the
contrary, the resistance is populated by persons of intelligence, persons who have gained insight based
upon wisdom.

The term translated wise or those who understand or the insightful comes from a semantic field of
terms for wisdom and/or discernment.
89
At the very least, the insightful are those who are intellectually and
spiritually equipped for what they alone are authorized to do. In addition, this level of equipage is
characteristic of these people. For the most part, when the insightful appears in the Old Testament, it is a
participial form. This tells us that m~VkelTm/insightfulness is what characterizes the normal deportment
of these people, their wisdom and sagacity stand out consistently.

Typically, the insightful is the political leadership, the kings, of Israel. Indeed, when m~VkelTm
is used in the Old Testament, it often used of kings [David (1 Samuel 18:5, 14, 15, 30; 1 Chronicles 28:19);
Solomon (1 Kings 2:3; 1 Chronicles 22:12); Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:7); kings of the earth (Psalm 2:10)].

This last reference, Psalm 2:10, is in the form of a challenge: If the kings of the earth do not gain
insight by yielding to Yahweh and accommodating themselves to His Son, then they will suffer the
consequences. Indeed, the consequences include the wrath of God [Psalm 2:12]. It is clear that what the
kings of the earth should have done acted insightfully they refused to do [Psalm 2].

The upshot is this: The insight that should have characterized national political leadership the
kings of the earth has now become the gift granted to the people. The gift of insight has been
democratized among the people as a whole, specifically in this case [Daniel 11:33a] among the people of
the Covenant community. The net effect is that this democratization motif is yet another way of
rhetorically underlining the exclusive role of the insightful among the Covenant community: The insightful
(and no-one else) has been the gracious recipient of the kind of m~VkelTm the kings of the earth eschewed.

So, having said all of this, just what is this m~VkelTm/insight? The lexicons offer valuable
understanding from the Ancient Near Eastern uses of m~VkelTm. For example, there is a Syriac cognate
that is used in the sense of to examine or to consider.
90
At the very least, the m~VkelTm are among those
who weigh and consider geopolitical history from the vantage point of Yahwehs covenantal sovereignty.
The Dead Sea Scrolls use the participle in the sense of to instruct or to give insight.
91

When we turn to the use of m~VkelTm in the Old Testament, Michael Fox points out that
m~VkelTm is the ability to grasp the meanings or implications of a situation or message; m~VkelTm
represents the kind of discernment that can understand practical matters and interpersonal relations and
make beneficial decisions.
92
Fox also notes that in Daniel the m~VkelTm are those who can interpret
events (12:10) and teach others also (11:33, using the same verb).
93

89
See Willem VanGemeren, The New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000; C-D ROM), Wisdom and Discernment, [hereafter
abbreviated NIDOTTE].

90
KB
2
, 1328.

91
Ibid.

92
Fox , 36.

93
Ibid.


31

Broadly speaking, then, the m~VkelTm are those who look at the overpowering conflicts and
evidently unresolvable problems of political governance raging over the plant and grasp what is going on
in terms of the Covenant ideal. The m~VkelTm understand that mankind is estranged from its original
purpose: To yield to Yahweh as Sovereign and cooperate with Him and others to recover the lost
orderliness in Gods creation. In essence, then, the m~VkelTm are those who interpret human events
through the lens of the Covenant.

Digging a bit more deeply, the Hiphil participle [m~VkelTm] in the Old Testament identifies one
who closely considers or keeps an eye on events;
94
the m~VkelTm characterizes one who routinely ponders
and considers and then has comprehension into events.
95

One final point about m~VkelTm should be noted. In Daniel 9:25, m~VkelTm is granted to Daniel
by his celestial visitor. In other words, m~VkelTm has a Divine origin, at least as far as Daniel is
concerned. The m~VkelTm are not perceptive, discerning, or intuitive simply on the basis of unaided
human reason. On the contrary, the ability to connect the dots in human events from Yahwehs point of
view is itself a gift from heaven [9:25]. In fact, we are told that Daniel had already equipped himself to
gain some level of Divine perspective, consulting the book of Jeremiah in order to understand the Exile
[Daniel 9:2]. The point is a crucial one, for the m~VkelTm have a constant point of reference by which to
judge the madness in the modern world: Yahwehs Holy Covenant.

The sum of the matter is this: As members of the Covenant community, then, the m~VkelTm are
those who can see the hand of God in human history; they are those who can understand and interpret the
meaning of events from a Divine perspective.

John Goldingay neatly summarizes who the m~VkelTm are what the m~VkelTm actually do:
96

The discerning are the conservative leaders who possess that wisdom
which consists in awed submission to Yahweh, that understanding
which has reflected deeply on His ways in history [emphasis mine], and
that insight which perceives how His cause will ultimately triumph
[emphasis mine].

The Christian resistance has a guideline: Starting with the Divine template, the Holy Covenant, the
resistance, and no-one else is authorized to reflect, interpret, evaluate, explain, grasp meanings and
implications, and otherwise discern the hand of God in human history.

(a). An essential operational guideline for these insightful people within the Covenant
community is to bring comprehension [Daniel 11:33b]. The Christian resistance, and no-one else, is
currently authorized to reflect, to perceive, and to publicize the handwriting on the wall. This
communication has the net effect of bringing comprehension.

Bringing comprehension is variously translated among the English versions. For example, we
have such glosses as give understanding, make many understand, teach the masses, or simply instruct
many. Overall, these translations get the drift: The resistance, and no-one else, brings about a state of
understanding from the Divine, covenantal point of view, into the human, geopolitical malaise.

94
KB
2
, 1328.

95
BDB, 968.

96
John D.W. Watts and James W. Watts, The Word Biblical Commentary, vol., 30, Daniel by
John Goldingay (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 303.


32

To begin with, the verb that is used here [bTn] is in the Hiphil stem, a stem that underlines
causation in this case. The net effect is that the insightful people will, more or less literally, bring about or
cause comprehension to occur.
97
The resistance, and no-one else, is authorized to bring about a state of
discernment among the many; the resistance fully understands and embraces this vocation. There are those
who can bring light to bear upon the darkness and wickedness attendant upon abandoning Yahweh and His
Covenant ideal; there are those who can bring understanding to conflicting and tumultuous events, political
and religious.
The lexicons provide deeper insight into this operational guideline for the resistance. For
example, Holladay glosses, with the direct object, in the sense of to make someone perceptive.
98

Comprehension denotes discernment into the reality of some situation or circumstance; comprehension is
the perception of relations and causes.
99
One who comprehends understands the sources and
underpinnings of outcomes in human life and history in terms of the all-embracing Holy Covenant ideal.

The sum of the matter is this: It is the task of the resistance, exclusively, to bring about a state of
comprehension into the ups and downs, relations and causes, of human history; the resistance brings clarity
and perceptiveness to the absurdity; it is the task of the resistance to shine the light of Divine, all-inclusive
covenantal reality on the folly in human history. The resistance [and no-one else] is authorized to create
this culture of comprehension based upon Yahwehs fundamental intention to reestablish the indispensable
pattern in all creation Yahweh is Sovereign; we are His servants.

(b). The reader may well ask: Why dont more comprehend? Why does comprehension seem
to be in such short supply?

The prophet Isaiah has a very telling use of this very same verb bring comprehension [bTn] in
Isaiah 44:18. The prophet, however, is addressing the absence of comprehension and what he says is
striking.

The prophet is discussing idolatry [Isaiah 44:17], which leads him to comment on the dearth of
comprehension in his era. The prophet notes that He [Yahweh] has shut their eyes so that they cannot see,
and their minds so that they cannot comprehend [bTn] [44:18]. Idolatry comes with a kind of dual
judgment: The idolatry itself is blinding and then Yahweh intensifiers what the idolaters have begun. Rabbi
Abraham J. Heschel refers to this phenomenon in Isaiah 44:18 as spiritual deprivation; he writes:
100

The haunting words which reached Isaiah seem not only to contain the
intention to inflict insensitivity, but also to declare that the people
already are afflicted by a lack of sensitivity. The punishment of
spiritual deprivation will be but an intensification or an extension of
what they themselves had done to their own souls.

Does this not explain why comprehension into Gods hand in geopolitical history is in such short
supply? Does not the judgment of spiritual deprivation explain in simple terms the callous indifference to
what God does to carry out His Holy Covenant in human history? In our reading of Daniel 1-11, have we
not been immersed in idolatry raised to an art form? Is it any wonder, then, with this worlds rampant
idolatry that so few listen, so few care, and so few comprehend?

97
IBHS 27.1b.

98
Holladay, 38.

99
Fox, 30.

100
Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets, Two Volumes in One, The Prophets I, vol. 1 (Peabody:
Prince Press, 2003; reprint), 90.


33

(c). One final point of operational concern involves the intended recipients of this
comprehension. The celestial speaker simply refers to those who accept this instruction as the many
[rabbim]. The definite article on the plural adjective suggests that the celestial speaker has in mind a class
of persons.
101
It would be fair to infer that the resistance simply reaches out to the masses. In fact,
Holladay glosses rabbim in the sense of the rank and file.
102

The resistance is not interested in creating a caste or a cult or some kind of sub-culture. To be
sure, the resistance renounces searching for those of like political persuasion for involvement in the
covenant community. Rather, the resistance spread their nets as widely as possible in order to reach as
many as will listen.

(d). Finally, these who bring about a state of perceptiveness into Gods handiwork in human,
geopolitical history are actually walking in the footsteps of the Messiah. He also worked in the world of
insight [Isaiah 52:13] and He also left comprehension in His wake [Isaiah 52:15].

Yahweh says, Behold My servant will act insightfully [Isaiah 52:13a]. The use of the Hiphil of
V>kTl [act insightfully] implies that the Servant of Yahweh the Messiah will act with insight, with
devotion. The implication is that the Messiah will know what to do in order to bring about the intended
result.

Likewise the Messiah deals in the world of comprehension. Isaiah 52:12 affirms that those who
would hear the Messiahs message would comprehend, attended by silence. The implication is that this
Messianic message is so startling as to disquiet those who hear. The audiences will see or perceive what
they had never perceived before [52:15c]; they will comprehend things they had never previously heard
[52:15d]. The implication here is that the Messianic message is understood and comprehended for its
absolute uniqueness.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance has an operational guideline bring about a state of
understanding and perceptiveness among a many as will listen. There are entailments of this guideline.

The resistance is fully aware that it is unique; that is, the resistance [and no-one else] is authorized
to bring comprehension into what God is doing in the world. In part, this means that the insightful
resistance [and no-one else] is authorized to resist the Covenant unfaithfulness of those who act wickedly
vis--vis the Holy Covenant. For the resistance, truth and the purity of the Holy Covenant matter; they
shall and must resist any and all denials or denigrations of Gods Covenant ideal, whether from within or
from without.

The resistance is insightful; that is, they are not merely resisting for the sheer sake of being
belligerent. Rather, theres is a resistance birthed of insight. The resistance is authorized to act as wise
leadership in the dissemination of the truth about the Covenant of God with mankind. In a nutshell, the
insightful and wise resistance grasps the meaning and the implications of world events from the standpoint
of Yahwehs sovereign Lordship of history. The resistance comprehends that history is not some form of
kinetic social energy that moves of its own accord; rather, the resistance is authorized to point out the hand
of God in the judgments and the opportunities as God presents them. The insightful are those who can
interpret the handwriting on the wall, and, they [and they alone] are authorized to do so.

The resistance is vocal; that is, the resistance brings comprehension to as many as will listen.
There is a level of discernment available to mankind, discernment into where history has been and where it
is going. The resistance is authorized to speak, to write, to witness about reality from the Divine
covenantal perspective. The resistance is tasked with creating a culture of comprehension amidst the
madness.

101
IBHS 13.5.1f.

102
Holladay, 330.


34

The resistance is democratized; that is, the wisdom and insight that should have been the chief
characteristic of political leadership, the province of kings, has been handed over to the people, in this case,
the resistance. Up to the time of Daniel, and after for that matter, wisdom and insight of a Divine quality
were, and remain, in short supply. As things now stand, the resistance is authorized to make
comprehensible the wisdom of God that kindles the geopolitical events in world history. What is more, the
resistance refuses to surrender their vocation to the savvy and shrewd and world-wise in their midst.

The resistance is gifted; that is, the resistance, men like Daniel, do not reach a level of Divine
insight by simply reflecting on human events. Unaided and uninspired human reason is the problem, not
the solution. Rather, there is an element of grace and inspiration involved that imparts the ability to
connect the dots in human history from Yahwehs covenantal point of view. It took a celestial speaker to
show Daniel how Yahwehs causes actually work and triumph in human history; the resistance is,
ultimately, divinely authorized and equipped to comprehend and to speak.

The resistance is a servant; that is, the modern resistance follows in the tracks laid down by the
Messiah. They, like Him, deal in the world of insight; they, like Him, bring comprehension. This means,
among other things, that their resistance, like His, is both non-violent and most assuredly non-political.
Both of Yahwehs servants the Messiah and the resistance deal in the world of truth, of the Divine will
of God, of the Covenant ideal. The resistance is not authorized to serve any sovereign beyond Yahweh;
rather, the resistance is authorized to represent Yahwehs initiative to recover the original purpose of
mankind and to restore the forfeited orderliness in creation.

2. The Christian resistance is authorized to accept the consequences of bringing
comprehension to the world [Daniel 11:33, 35]. The celestial speaker makes it quite clear that the
resistance will pay their dues for their work [11:33c]. At the same time, caught up in this crucible of
suffering, the resistance is also authorized to reap the benefits of their suffering [11:35a-b]. In the first
case, they are authorized to forfeit everything they shall fall by sword, by flame, by imprisonment, and by
loss of personal property; in the second case, they are authorized to gain everything refining them,
purifying them, and cleansing them up to the time of the end.

One of the operational guidelines involves the risks associated with the ministry of comprehension
[11:33c]; another operational guideline includes reaping the rewards associated with the ministry of
understanding [11:35a-b].

(a). The resistance is authorized to operate in the face of considerable risk, that is, to forfeit
life for standing for the cause of the Holy Covenant. The celestial speaker notes that [1] they will fall [2] by
sword and [3] by flame [Daniel 11:33c].

The syntax of Daniel 11:33c is as unembellished as it is dumbfounding. That is, the previous line
has this: insightful people will bring comprehension to many [11:33b]; then, the syntax of this line teases
out the consequence [11:33c]: as a result [of bringing comprehension] they will fall by sword and by flame.
Under precisely what circumstances does a society rate comprehension a capital offense? To die for the
crime of bringing comprehension is simply obscene.

For example, according to Open Doors USA,
103
Saudi Arabia, a nation with whom the United
States has sundry business interests, continues to execute Muslims who convert to Christianity. Open
Doors affirms that when a Saudi converts, family members of the convert believe it is their sacred duty to
initiate an honor killing and murder the convert. Again, under precisely what rationale, what conceivable
warrant, does one person or state, for that matter, execute anyone who comes to a state of comprehension
about God?

103
See Saudi Arabia on opendoorsusa.org for the details; indeed this website is among the best
for keeping abreast of persecution of Christians in this world, including among some of our so-called allies.


35

James Muilenburg offers an explanation for this kind of obscenity, noting that, in the final
analysis, such people or states are consumed by the idolatry of power:
104

In all of this we witness one of the most striking and one of the most
pervasive features of the prophetic polemic: the denunciation and
distrust of power in all its forms and guises. The hunger of the
powerful knows no satiety; the appetite grows on what it feeds. Power
exalts itself and is incapable of yielding to any transcendent judgment;
it listens to no voice (Zeph. 3:2)

The resistance knows and accepts the crass reality that daring to bring comprehension into what
the transcendent voice says and expects entails appalling risks. He or she who dares to come to terms with
the transcendent and all-embracing Covenant ideal will pay a price; so will those who render the voice
comprehensible. For, the powerful, in their incessant idolizing of power, are simply unwilling to bow
before Yahweh, the transcendent power.

One final point before moving on; the celestial speaker mentions death by flame. This is the same
punishment meted out to the resistance in Daniel 3. However, as the reader knows, in that instance, the
resistance was delivered; in Daniel 11:33c, they are not. This may well be the celestial speakers not so
subtle way of telling us that, over time, the risks will become greater for the resistance who brings
comprehension.

(b). The resistance is also authorized to operate in circumstances that risk [1] the loss of
freedom, and [2] the loss of personal property. The celestial speaker says that the resistance shall fall [1] by
imprisonment and [2] by plunder.

The noun glossed imprisonment [
e
bT] may be used of either incarceration or deportation.
105

The noun is used in reference to prisoners in a dungeon,
106
or prisoners of war,
107
or even a term describing
the Exile.
108
In these cases, imprisonment is an act of a tyrant, and may lead to death.

Among the resistance to the Nazi desecration of humanity, many faced imprisonment, sham trials
and hanging, with a voice that still should be heard. There were members of the German resistance to the
demonic hegemony of Hitler and his henchmen who were motivated by moral concerns. After the failed
coup attempt of July, 1944, most of the resistance was hauled before the buffoonish judge Roland Freisler.
One of them, Yorck von Wartenburg told the court, The essential thing that ties all these questions
together is the totalitarian claim of the state in dealing with the citizen without regard for his religious and
moral obligations to God.
109
The resistance in this case was hanged from a meat hook in Pltzensee
prison and filmed, in the nude, for the amusement of the Fqhrer.

104
James Muilenburg, The Way of Israel: Biblical Faith and Ethics (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1961), 89.

105
KB
2
, 1390-91.

106
Exodus 12:29; Isaiah 49:25 (prey of a tyrant).

107
Numbers 31:21; Deuteronomy 21:10; 2 Chronicles 6:37; Isaiah 20:4; Jeremiah 20:6 (where you
will die).

108
Ezra 3:8; 8:35.

109
Theodore S. Hamerow, On the Road to Wolfs Lair: German Resistance to Hitler (Cambridge:
Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1997), 371.


36

Finally, the resistance faces the forfeiture of personal property [11:33c]. The English versions
render bizz> with robbery, plunder, or pillage. Overall, these glosses get at the main idea: The resistance
faces having all they possess confiscated for the simple fact of speaking their minds in order to bring
comprehension.

The plundering of the resistance is intended to humiliate them [Ezra 9:7]; it is also geared to show
contempt for them [Nehemiah 4:4].

To be sure, in the New Testament, Christians suffered the confiscation of their personal property
for the sake of the Gospel [Hebrews 10:34].

(c). The resistance is also operationally authorized to court failure in their resisting. The
celestial speaker predicts that the resistance shall fall [11:33c]. The resistance has a guideline here: Failure
is one of the risks the resistance takes when it takes up the cause of the Holy Covenant.

They will fall [k~al] signals to collapse,
110
to be overthrown,
111
or to be ruined.
112
Overall, the
sense of the verb will be disambiguated by each prepositional phrase. The upshot is that k~al in and of
itself implies to be overthrown or simply to fall and fail, with each prepositional phrase clarifying the
precise nature of the collapse.

Elsewhere, this verb will fall is disambiguated with such notions as not prevailing [Jeremiah
20:11] or being hindered [Proverbs 4:12], or simply perishing [Psalm 9:3]. Obviously, there is a wide
range of risk here, including the risk of failure. The resistance may not prevail, at least in the short term.

The guideline here is daunting: Steer the course, bring comprehension wherever and whenever one
can, while knowing full well that one may not prevail at all.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance will have to face the fact that, for the most part, they
are going to meet opposition that either hinders them or overwhelms them. To be sure, there will be
victories, small wins in equally small skirmishes between the forces of good and evil, but, overall, to the
world, they will look like failures.

The resistance is authorized to do its best, suffer and die if need be, in the name of a cause that for
all intents and purposes looks like a spelled out and underscored disaster. This is the real challenge to the
resistance: Should I swim against the ever greater waves of idolatry and apathy and sin knowing full well
that in all likelihood I shall drown in the effort?

(d). Yes; in this also, we follow the Messiah. For, the Messiah endured the horrified
responses of those about Him [Isaiah 52:14a]; He withstood insignificance [Isaiah 53:2d]; He put up with
apathy [Isaiah 53:2e]; He bore the ignominy of being despised for what He said and did [Isaiah 53:3a], of
being ignored [Isaiah 53:3d], and of being held in contempt and derision for His work [Isaiah 53:3e]; He
put up with those who misunderstood His motives [Isaiah 53:4c-d]; He experienced firsthand the injustice
meted out to Him [Isaiah 53:8a], and no one seemed to care at the time [Isaiah 53:8b]. Eventually, all of
this earns Him death [Isaiah 53:9]. Failure, collapse, disaster, ruin.

Yes; in this also, the resistance follows the Messiah. The numbers tell a tale. At one point in His
life, He had crowds numbering five thousand [Matthew 14:21] and then again four thousand [Matthew
15:38]. Yet, when all was said and done, when He had fulfilled His cause [Isaiah 52-53], He had 120

110
KB
1
, 503r.

111
BDB, 505r.

112
Holladay, 166.


37

disciples [Acts 1:15]. It might be argued that the Messiah was a statistical flop. Failure, catastrophe,
disgrace, defeat.

Like the Messiah before them, the resistance will bring comprehension and lead many to
righteousness in the face of overpowering odds and in spite of the apparent failure of their labor. This kind
of resistance can be explained only in terms of the source from which it flows: Those who know their God,
being those who take up His cause come-what-may, are those who carry out the spiritual and ethical
obligations of the cause even at the cost of failure or ones life.

Like the Messiah before them, the resistance also comprehends that the definitive outcomes are in
the hands of God. Just as the Messiah was allotted a portion with the great [Isaiah 53:12a], so also the
resistance knows that, at long last, there is Resurrection [Daniel 12:2], an awakening to eternal life.
(e). At the same time, the resistance is authorized to relish the rewards of their labor. The
celestial speaker puts it this way: Some among the insightful will fall resulting in refining them, purifying
them, and cleansing them up to the time of the end [Daniel 11:35]. Bringing comprehension into the
sovereignty of the Holy Covenant entails ordeal, but it also brings exultation. The guideline is this: The
resistance may do its work in full anticipation of [1] refinement, [2] purification, and [3] cleansing [11:35].

A preliminary point must be made. The celestial speaker specifies that some among [mTn] the
insightful will fall [11:35]. This detail, a back reference to the same insightful ones in 11:33, is crucial.
The preposition [mTn] is partitive.
113
The upshot is that some but not all of the insightful will fall. The
resistance is assured that there will always be a resisting remnant to the kind of political overreach we see
in Daniel 11, an overreach that intends to eliminate and replace the Holy Covenant.

Moreover, the sense of fall in play here is the general sense alluded to above being hindered or
not prevailing. The reader will note that, unlike 11:33, there are no disambiguating prepositional phrases.
Accordingly, will fall is used more broadly. Whether not prevailing or perishing, this suffering does have
rewards for the resistance: [1] refining, [2] purifying, and [3] cleansing.

Additionally, each of the three terms noted above are infinitives, which we may read as infinitives
of result.
114
The rationale for reading these infinitives as attained results lies with the context; that is, it
seems reasonable that, for those who are insightful and under such intense pressure, the attainment of these
various rewards will actually be the case when they fall, whether by not prevailing or by dying. The path
of suffering does have its rewards and the resistance may count on this.

The resistance may count on refinement. The resistance may count on refinement as ongoing
examination. Once more, some Ancient Near Eastern cognates shed light on the sense of refine [ts~rap].
There is a Samaritan cognate that means to check or to examine.
115
In this sense, then, refinement is a kind
of examination. Similarly, there is an Arabic cognate that points to what is unmixed.
116
Thus, the
refinement is a kind of check-up to test for impurities.

The resistance may count on refinement that verifies ones mettle. The lexicons are helpful in this
regard. BDB offers to refine (men by trials) or to test (and prove true) for 11:35b.
117
Robin Wakely notes

113
Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996;
second edition), 324; see also GKC 119 w.

114
See Williams 197, 198; Van der Merwe 20.1.3; Gibson 107; most of the English versions
seem to prefer infinitives of purpose in order to.

115
KB
2
, 1057.

116
Ibid.

117
BDB, 864.


38

that ts~rap implies to test in order to develop ones faith or commitment.
118
Indeed, in Zechariah 13:9, the
prophet predicts that one third of Yahwehs covenant community will be refined [ts~rap], resulting in a
faithful people who are unswervingly devoted to Yahweh.

The upshot is this: The resistance can expect to be refined; they can expect that they, and many
others like them, will be tested and proven true, will be tested in order to develop commitment to the cause.
The resistance understands that it is a part of a refined resistance, a people of unswerving personal
integrity, whose identity as a member of the Covenant resistance is vindicated in the character and
determination of their witness.

The resistance can also assume purification. The resistance may count on purification, knowing,
as a result, that one has been carefully selected for the task.

The Ancient Near Eastern cognates of b~rar are helpful. There is a Jewish Aramaic cognate that
means to be clear or to be select.
119

Turning to the lexicons, the Piel of b~rar is glossed to sort out by KoNhler-Baumgartner.
120
This
nuance would seem to comport with the Jewish Aramaic sense to be select.

The Septuagint translators use either the passive of ekleg or the middle voice of the same verb.
Either way, ekleg generally means to pick or to single out. In the passive, the verb connotes select or
recondite; in the middle, it can mean to pick out or choose for oneself.
121

There is a pattern developing here: Purification is the means whereby Yahweh makes it clear to
His faithful resistance that He has chosen them for Himself. The resistance faithfully and doggedly goes
about its tasks of bringing comprehension and leading many to righteousness in the personal assurance that
they have been carefully selected, sorted out, sifted out, singled out, picked out, and chosen by Yahweh to
be His resistance.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance is fully aware of being selected, of being carefully
chosen, for the task of bringing comprehension and leading many to righteousness. They, and no-one else,
have been singled out for this task, and the resistance has settled, in their hearts and minds, on the
exclusivity of Yahwehs call.

The resistance is at peace with their covenantal purpose: They embrace an unflinching confidence
in their role in Yahwehs covenantal economy; the resistance values an unwavering assurance in their
vocation and an unswerving determination to fulfill their one-of-a-kind purpose in the Covenant
community. The resistance retains a state of purity.

The resistance has been, over time, sanitized from the distractions of the world and
decontaminated of undue concern over the unrelenting opposition of those who would eliminate the Holy
Covenant. The resistance has learned, through what it has and continues to suffer, the unchallengeable
supremacy of that for which it is persecuted. As Montgomery and others have pointed out, this verse in

118
Robin Wakely, ts~rap in NIDOTTE [H7671].

119
KB
1
, 162.

120
KB
1
, 163.

121
Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon; revised by Henry Stuart Jones and
Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982; reprint), 511 [hereafter abbreviated LSJ].


39

Daniel is the earliest expression of the thought that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
122

So it is with the resistance.

The resistance may count on cleansing. The resistance is entitled to believe that they will reveal
their true colors to the glory of God. Again, the English versions are fairly consistent, glossing l~ban with
make white, make pure, or make spotless. For most readers, these glosses suggest moral or spiritual
nuances, and this may not be wide of the mark. The resistance does nail its colors to the mast.

We may clear away some of the thicket when we note that cleanse [l~ban] is written in the Hiphil
stem of the verb. More specifically, we may well have yet another instance of the internally transitive
Hiphil, where the subject the resistance causes itself to behave in concert with the figure of whiteness.
123

The upshot is that the resistance the insightful behaves, in the face of lethal opposition, in such a way as
to reveal morally and spiritually white conduct.

Picking up on the show oneself to be white theme, BDB offers to show whiteness as a gloss for the
Hiphil of l~ban.
124
One Septuagint tradition uses the passive of apokalupt, which may be translated to be
uncovered, to be disclosed or to be revealed.
125
This second translation is very interesting and comports
well with the internally transitive Hiphil. That is, taken together, we have the sense that the resistance
discloses its true colors, shows itself to be white, pure and undefiled when it comes to resisting opposition
to the Holy Covenant.

One of the more striking examples of this kind of moral nakedness in the presence of
eliminationist opposition to the Holy Covenant comes from a Jesuit Priest, Father Josef Spieker, in
Cologne, Germany, on October 28, 1934. Preaching to an audience that included Nazi party functionaries,
Father Spieker fearlessly denounced Adolph Hitlers presumptuous assertion of his leadership over the
people of Germany. Father Spieker unambiguously showed his true colors in his sermon. Repeatedly in
his sermon, he excoriated Hitler and reminded the people that they had only one true Fqhrer Jesus
Christ.

Listening to that sermon that day was a particular Nazi who took copious notes on the sermon and
then proceeded to share them with the Cologne Gestapo. From this mans notes, we have the following
excerpts from a truly resistance sermon:
126

A Fqhrer must have the true love of his people. That is no Fqhrer
whom the people celebrate because they have been forcibly organized
and led into the streets while they fear for their jobs and daily bread.

A Fqhrer must be loyal. That is no Fqhrer whose subordinates torment
and harass torture and harm the people.

A Fqhrer must be true. That is no Fqhrer who invents great deeds so
as to secure the allegiance of the masses.

122
Montgomery, 459.

123
IBHS 27.4a; J-M 54 d.

124
BDB, 526.

125
LSJ., 201.

126
Eric A. Johnson, Nazi Terror: The Gestapo, Jews, and Ordinary Germans (New York: Basic
Books, 2000), 197.


40

Germany has only one Fqhrer. That is, Christ! All worldly Fqhrers
and spiritual Fqhrers are subject to this Fqhrer. We recognize the
states authority, but we are only subject to it insofar as its laws do not
stand in contradiction with the laws of our one and only Fqhrer.

As Professor Johnson points out, this sermon earned Father Spieker a distinction: He was the first
Catholic priest to be sent to a concentration camp.
127
Be that as it may, can any reader doubt for a second
that this lone, Jesuit Priest nailed his colors in glorious and splendid white to the mast? Is this not a
sermon from a member of the resistance that uncovers, discloses, and reveals what the preacher really
knows to be the truth? And, was not this sermon pure and undefiled in its denunciation of one of historys
more demonic thugs?

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance has a guideline One must disclose the truth one
holds and nurtures and guards in the inner man. The resistance knows that it must show itself to be morally
white; the resistance must be unflinchingly clear in disclosing its true colors.

By way of review on this point, the resistance does its work under the aegis of this guideline:
There will be consequences for daring to speak words of comprehension among people who have already
made up their minds. There are two entailments of this operational guideline.

First, the resistance knows that it will face crushing and sneering opposition to its efforts to bring
comprehension.

The resistance knows that its work courts failure; often these efforts simply will not triumph.
There will be moments when the resistance collapses, situations in which the resistance is overthrown,
conditions whereupon the resistance faces ruin. In fact, there will be circumstances when the resistance
simply will not prevail. The resistance harbors no illusions: For the most part, the resistance knows that it
is fighting a rear guard action; they know that they face failure more often than success. The spiritual odds
are overwhelming; the political opposition to the Holy Covenant is entrenched and prodigious and
unrelenting. With all of this, the resistance soldiers on, for, they and they alone have taken up the cause of
their God; they and they alone will offer comprehension of Yahwehs all-embracing intention to recover
fallen mankind and restore the lost order within creation.

The resistance knows that its work may exact the price of death; so thoroughly loathed will be the
efforts of the resistance that they face extermination. Whether by sword or flame, the resistance is
authorized to risk capital punishment for the outrageous crime of educating others about the dangers of
political overreach in lieu of Gods management of human history. Like Ri Hyon Ok, the resistance may
be publically executed for the unspeakable crime of distributing Bibles. Or, like Yorck von Wartenburg,
the resistance may be so bold as the utter the truth about fidelity to God with ones last breathes upon this
earth. With all of this, the resistance steers the course, for, they and no-one else are those who represent the
restoration of the Gods Covenant ideal with His fallen creation.

The resistance is fully aware the personal liberty may be forfeited; so eager to silence these
unyielding spokespersons, the worlds knee-jerk reaction will be to deprive them of the liberty to speak. A
sermon may land a member of the resistance in a concentration camp; a pastoral life, like that of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, may end up in Flossenbqrg at the end of a rope. Arrest, torture, or even execution at the hands
of masters of political overreach may await the resistance in North Korea. With all of this, the resistance is
assured, based upon the book of Daniel, that the prophets supernatural survey of political governance
shows unquestionably that Yahweh is sovereign Lord of history; so, the resistance courageously and
unfailingly upholds His cause before a watching, incredulous, and corrupt world; knowing full well that the
overarching covenantal program will win the day.

The resistance accepts the fact that their sacred honor may leave them penniless; there will be
circumstances in which the resistance suffers enormous personal financial loss. Political thugs like

127
Ibid., 195.

41

Antiochus Epiphanes may enter a city, like Jerusalem, and take the spoils of the city [1 Maccabees 1:31],
rifle the houses of the faithful resistance [1 Maccabees 1:61], and then, as a coup de gr>ce, raze the city to
the ground [1 Maccabees 1:31]. With all of this, the resistance is undeterred; the cause, the Holy Covenant
of Yahweh, is worth any and all loss.

But, second, the resistance knows that it will enjoy seasons of refreshing even as they doggedly
seek to offer comprehension into Yahwehs all-encompassing covenantal plans.

The resistance is granted the gift of refinement; the resistance can expect to be tested resulting in a
subsequent development of faith. The opposition the resistance faces yields a stronger faith. There comes a
time in the lives of the resistance, when the opposition to the Holy Covenant has the blessed effect of
actually emboldening, of strengthening, of reinforcing, and of solidifying ones allegiance to the cause of
ones God. The resistance can expect to be refined.

The resistance is granted the gift of purification; the resistance experiences the strengthening of
their personal calling during their efforts to bring comprehension. There comes a time in the lives of the
resistance when the resistance, having taken the risks, is rewarded with a personal awareness, deep within
the soul, that they have been selected for this task, singled out for this mission, chosen to take up the cause
of their God at this moment in human history. The resistance is rewarded with an unquenchable inner
resolve that they have been hand-picked by Yahweh to take up His cause in the world; they are carefully
selected and they are privileged. The resistance can expect to be purified.

The resistance is granted the gift of cleansing; the resistance discovers, boiling up from within
them, the unquenchable determination to nail ones colors to the mast. There comes a time in the lives of
the resistance when silence is no longer an option, when peaceful coexistence with those who would
degrade or seek to eliminate the Holy Covenant is simply cowardice, and when apathy toward the vast
array of covenant opposition simply cannot be tolerated. At such times, the resistance senses the
imperative to disclose the true faith publically that has been simmering privately. For the resistance, a
choice blessing in life is in knowing that one has declared, in the face of all the opposition and in defiance
of all the risks, ones most profound hold on truth for the Holy Covenant of their God. The resistance can
expect to be cleansed.

On the last day of his life, mere hours before he would be executed for daring to resist the
barbarism of Adolph Hitler and his cronies, Dietrich Bonhoeffer held a preaching and prayer service for
those who were incarcerated with him. Among those who listened to his sermon from Isaiah 53:5 and 1
Peter 1:3 were a Catholic, and man named Pqnder, and an atheist, a man named Kokorin. On the last day
of his life, Bonhoeffer carried the torch for the cause of his God bringing comprehension in the cause of
righteousness before a congregation of three.

Then, Bonhoeffer had barely finished his last prayer on earth when, as Payne Best, who was there,
narrates:
128

The door opened and two evil-looking men in civilian clothes came in
and said, Prisoner Bonhoeffer. Get ready to come with us. Those
words Come with us for all prisoners they had come to mean one
thing only the scaffold. We bade him good-bye he drew me aside
This is the end, he said, For me, the beginning of life.

Bonhoeffer, like others before him and after, and like many yet to come, took the risks and reaped
the rewards in this life refined, purified, and cleansed.

3. The resistance is authorized to follow another operational guideline: Shun useless help
[Daniel 11:34]. The celestial speaker notes that during the fall of the insightful among the people [Daniel

128
Metaxas, 528.


42

11:33c], the resistance will simultaneously receive help trifling [11:34a] furthermore, this trifling help
seems to be tainted by hypocrisy [11:34b]. For whatever reasons, the resistance will be offered help of
dubious quality arising from motives that are suspect. There will be those who insist on resisting political
overreach directed toward the cause of Yahweh with human weaponry; the resistance eschews this brand of
help, as did the Messiah [Matthew 26:52-54].

The question always before the resistance is: What is trifling help?

(a). To begin with, the English versions translate m~at/trifling more less consistently with a
little help or some help. I have chosen trifling for the following reasons.

Grammatically, the term glossed trifling is an adjective. This means that the celestial speaker
intends to qualify an attribute of the help the failing receive. The celestial spokesperson characterizes this
help as negligible.

Furthermore, the lexicons tell us that trifling [m~at] help is the kind of help that is of little
value.
129
The trifling nature of this proffered help may be depicted as poor or small.
130
The upshot is that
this help is actually insignificant. Fair enough, but what makes this help trivial? Subsequent history
probably teases out the answer. Once more, the political prototype Antiochus Epiphanes comes into
play, albeit in a new way.

We have consistently noted the presence of Antiochus Epiphanes prowling in the background of
Daniel 11. So it is here, albeit in the form of the military resistance to his political overreach in attempting
to eliminate Judaism. This military resistance emerged with the Maccabean resistance and their followers.
We pick up the military resistance in 1 Maccabees 3:58-60:

(3:58) So, Judas said, Arm yourselves and be valiant; be prepared for
the next day so that you may fight with these nations that are arrayed
against us to destroy us and our sanctuary. (3:59) For, it is better to die
in battle, than to stand by witnessing the calamities of our people and to
our sanctuary. (3:60) Nevertheless, as God who is in heaven wills, let
it be.

The initial successes of the military resistance are portrayed later in 1 Maccabees 4:36-61. Among
the highlights are these:

(4:41) So, Judas appointed certain soldiers to fight against those who
were in the fortress-sanctuary, until they had cleansed the sanctuary.
(4:42) Then, Judas chose priests who were utterly blameless, men who
took great pleasure in Torah; (4:43) priests who cleansed the sanctuary
and carried off the defiled altars to a place for unclean things.

Ultimately, and this is where the trifling value mentioned above comes in, this revolt against the
forces of religious oppression petered out. Baldwin notes that The Maccabean resistance movement did
not come to any decisive end, because it struggled on after political independence only to be frittered
away by internal dissatisfactions and intrigue connected with problems of succession.
131

129
M. Daniel Carroll R., m~at, in NIDOTTE [H5070].

130
Holladay, 206.

131
Baldwin, 197.


43

Now, if the question ever-posed to the resistance is What constitutes trifling help? then the
answer is The resistance that fights spiritual battles with mundane weaponry is both of little value and
probably destined to fail.

This means that, as an operational guideline, the resistance is authorized to evaluate the kind of
help that is offered, and by implication, the kind of help the resistance courts. The resistance is expected to
pursue its opposition per the guidelines as outlined in Daniel 11:33 bringing comprehension and Daniel
12:3 bringing many to righteousness. The celestial speaker is more impressed with martyrs than with
militia. D.S. Russell nicely contextualizes the position of military help in redressing a spiritual matter:
132

The author of Daniel does not condemn such a means being used to
achieve the goal of freedom. On the other hand, he does not seem to
lay much store by it. To him, it is only a little help. His people
should not be blind to the fact that theirs is essentially a spiritual battle
and that their trust should be placed not in sword and spear but in the
righteousness and power of God. He is the One who will bring their
conflict to an end in his appointed time.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance is authorized to shun purely nonspiritual support in
what is clearly a spiritual battle. The resistance is advised to avoid political and/or political-military
solutions to spiritual opposition to the Holy Covenant. As the celestial speaker puts it, this kind of
assistance is negligible at best.

(b). Let me offer an all-too-common example of help in establishing the covenantal program,
albeit help that is of little value. In the United States, there is a tendency to blur the distinction between
Biblical theology and political ideology of either the Right or the Left. For example, the Right manages to
co-opt Biblical theology of same sex relations to comport with its political ideology on this point. This
kind of help, in the form of state ballot initiatives, for the resistance at least, is of little value and should be
eschewed. Here are the details.

Some years ago in California, a ballot initiative Proposition 8: The Protect Marriage Act
appeared. The promoters of this initiative drew upon a study Marriage and the Public Good: Ten
Principles by the Witherspoon Institute.
133
The drift of the study was to lay the groundwork for political
opposition to same sex marriages through Proposition 8.
134
There were some evangelicals who
wholeheartedly supported this ballot initiative and others like it. Sadly, these sorts of initiative are of little
value, when one looks into the Biblical data that is claimed to support them.

For the moment, lets merely lift out the function of faith in this study. Principle number 10 says
this: Civil marriage and religious marriage cannot be rigidly or completely divorced from one another.
135

To be sure, the study affirms a supportive role for religion in the civil debate on marriage: It is thus
important to recognize the crucial role played by religious institutions in lending critical support [emphasis
mine] for a sustainable marriage culture on which the whole of society depends.
136

132
J.C.L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Bible Study Series, Daniel by D.S. Russell (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1981), 209.

133
Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles (The Witherspoon Institute, 2006); the
document is readily available on the Witherspoon Institutes website.

134
See the authors Same Sex Relations in Leviticus available on Scribd.com.

135
Ten Principles, 5.

136
Ibid., 14.

44

From the standpoint of faith, the issue facing the resistance is this: Does faith maintain a
supportive role to civil law and public policy in matters of same sex relations? No; it would seem that the
author of Leviticus affirms the exclusive role of the covenant community in teasing out the propriety of
same sex relations. Outside this exclusive role of the covenant community vis--vis same sex relations, the
resistance wanders into the world of negligible help. Lets consider some details from the relevant material
in Leviticus.

To begin with, the relevant theological material comes from the Covenant ideal as outlined in
Leviticus 18-20. Leviticus 18:22 is a prohibition on sexual activity between consenting males do not
have sexual intercourse with a man as one has sexual relations with a woman; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 is similar if a man has sexual relations with a man, as one has relations with a woman,
both of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death, their bloodguilt is upon them.

One has to turn to the New Testament, Romans 1:26, to find a reference to same sex relations
between consenting females their women exchanged a natural function for an unnatural one.

These prohibitions against same sex relations are common knowledge for most persons even
minimally acquainted with the Bible. Indeed, these are often cited with approval among evangelicals who
promote state ballot propositions concerning the proper definition of marriage.

However, the joker in the Levitical pack is this: Yahweh never commanded His people to rewrite
the laws of the land where they were soon to reside, Canaan in this case. Take, for example, this set of
directives from Yahweh through Moses to His covenant people in Leviticus 18:2-5:

(18:2) Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them; I am Yahweh, your
God. (18:3) According to the customs of the land of Egypt where you
used to live, you shall not behave; nor according to the customs of the
land of Canaan where I am sending you, you shall not behave nor by
their statutes, you will not live. (18:4) My judgments, you must perform
and my statutes, you must take care to follow them; I am Yahweh, your
God. (18:5) So, you shall be devoted to My statutes and My judgments,
whereby a man may perform them and live by them; I am Yahweh.

Now, pay close attention to the following: the covenant people are soon to be residing in a land
that has its own set of laws by their statutes [18:3] but, the covenant people are directed essentially to
ignore them you will not live by [18:3] but rather live by Yahwehs statutes My judgments you must be
careful to perform [18:4]. There is not a single hint in this passage that the covenant people are expected to
revise the statutes of the land of Canaan.

Fair enough; but, then, just how does the covenant community protect and defend the sanctity of
heterosexual marriage? The answer comes with Leviticus 18:24-30, with special attention on Leviticus
18:26:

(18:24) You will not defile one another in any of those ways, because
it is by such things that the nations, which I am casting out before you,
have become defiled. (18:25) Thus, the country is defiled, and I am
calling it to account for its iniquity; then, the country disgorged its
inhabitants. (18:26) However, you are to be devoted to My statutes and
to My judgments, and you will not perform any of those abhorrent
things; neither the native nor the alien who resides among you. (18:27)
For, all these abhorrent things, the residents of the nation who were
before you performed; and so, the country was defiled. (18:28)
Accordingly, you must not let the country disgorge you for defiling it;
just as it disgorged the nation that preceded you. (18:29) Because,
anyone who engages in any of these abhorrent things the persons
who do so shall be cut off from their people. (18:30) Thus, you are to

45

devote yourself to my charge never to perform any of the abominable
customs that were performed before you and you must not defile
yourselves through them; I am Yahweh, your God.

Note well the alien who resides among you. The alien, the non-Israelite, the Canaanite, with all
of his or her illicit moral baggage, may decide for reasons of their own to throw in their lot with the
covenant people. When they do so, then and only then are they subject to the Covenant definitions of
sexual behavior. The moral cleansing mechanism is unity with the Covenant ideal through affiliation with
the covenant people. Both the native and the alien are subject to the all-encompassing directives and
expectations of the Covenant.

The sum of the matter is this: the resistance will avoid attempting to establish the covenant ideal
through civil law, or ballot initiatives. The resistance must stand fast by the exclusive role of the Covenant
ideal as the means of installing Yahwehs recovery of fallen mankind and restoration of the moral
orderliness in all creation.

(c). Another guideline for the resistance is: The resistance is authorized to be circumspect
about motives. The celestial speaker notes that many will join the [military] resistance out of hypocritical
instincts [Daniel 11:34b]. Working within this negligible assistance are shades of self-interest in taking up
the fight. What we may well have here is further reason for the resistance to eschew non-spiritual support.

A translation matter masks a deeper reality. That is, many English versions translate Daniel
11:34b as if it were an antithetical statement to 11:34a. Thus, some have: Now, as they fall, they will
receive help a trifle [11:34a], but many will join them hypocritically [11:34b].

However, the joker in the pack is the syntactical function of the verbal construction glossed
many will join. That is, the waw consecutive perfect form in which this verbal construction is written
admits of more than one syntactical function. To make a long story short, the syntax of 11:34b may very
well tease out a chronological circumstance that accompanies receiving help.
137
The upshot is: as they
fall, they will receive trifling help [11:34a], with many joining them hypocritically [11:34b]. The negligible
help may lure those with impure motives to join the victorious side, successful for the moment at least.
Motives of self-interest, if not self-preservation, are beginning to emerge.

At the same time, these mixed motives may be inferred from the way the celestial speaker nuances
his language. That is, he/she notes many will join [11:34b]. There may be a refinement lurking here.
That is, the verb many will join is written in the Niphal stem of the verb. Now, stems have syntactical-
semantic import, and in this case, the Niphal stem may signal a benefactive nuance. Accordingly, the
Niphal stem communicates the idea that these people join out of their own personal interest.
138
The
addition of the prepositional phrase hypocritically tends to support the self-interest nuance of the Niphal
stem. Overall, then, the translation sense is: they will join (out of personal interest) by means of smooth
talk (hypocritically).

When we turn to the lexicons, the self-interest motif is strengthened. The lexicons translate the
verb will join in a more or less straightforward manner. Holladay offers to attach oneself to.
139
If the
benefactive nuance of the Niphal stem is taken into account here, then the attachment is for self-serving
motives. Moreover, not only the benefactive Niphal, but also the prepositional phrase hypocritically
tends to underscore the high dose of self-interest involved here. The sense of the key term in the
prepositional phrase [ch
a
laqlaq] suggests resorting to intrigue or more simply out-and-out hypocrisy.
140

137
IBHS 32.2.1c.

138
Ibid., 23.4d.

139
Holladay, 174.

140
KB
1
, 324; see also Holladay, 107.

46

There is an interesting back reference to this intrigue/hypocrisy [ch
a
laqlaq]. That is, this is the
very same term used of the despicable person who started all of this in Daniel 11:21. This curious point is
that these who now join themselves to the military resistance [11:34b] are cut out the same piece of cloth as
the one they are fighting [11:21].

We have already referenced the Maccabean armed resistance to the demonic thuggery of
Antiochus Epiphanes. We have also noted that, for a time, the Maccabean military resistance was
victorious. Now, during this period during which the Maccabean forces held the day, they were
exceptionally harsh on the renegade Jews who acted wickedly regarding the Holy Covenant [Daniel
11:32a]. Some highlights of the gory details are in 1 Maccabees 2:44-46. That is, some of the renegade
Jews were killed [1 Maccabees 2:44], and those young men who had not been circumcised were
circumcised [1 Maccabees 2:46].

It is not hard to spot the motive for joining with them, hypocritically. Given the harshness of the
military resistance to Antiochus would-be Jewish partisans, one understands why there were those who
would join (out of personal interest) by means of smooth talk (hypocritically) [11:34b]. Later, after the
death of Judas Maccabeus, the Jews once more abandoned their faith [1 Maccabees 9:23].

The lesson seems to be that non-spiritual weaponry in an essentially spiritual war is itself of very
negligible value. The faithful resistance does well to keep this idea in mind.

(d). In all of this, the resistance dogs the steps of the Messiah, who also eschewed non-
spiritual help in His decidedly spiritual warfare [Matthew 26:52-54].

Matthew 26:52-54 concerns the events comprised in the betrayal and arrest of Jesus. During this
encounter between His betrayer and His servants, the Messiah disavows the non-spiritual solution offered
by at least one of His number.

The betrayal scene opens with Judas arriving with a mob [26:47]. The betrayer Judas had pre-
arranged to identify the one to arrest by means of kissing him [26:48]. There is little doubt here of Judas
hypocrisy and deceit. So, the deceit is carried out, when Judas approaches Jesus, says Greetings, Rabbi
and proceeds to kiss the Messiah [26:49]. The kiss is both insincere and a kind of mockery inflicted on the
Messiah.

Then, after an enigmatic remark addressed to Judas by Jesus, the authorities arrest the Messiah
[26:50]. It is then that some of His followers take up non-spiritual cudgels in His defense, which the
Messiah is very quick to renounce.

One of the disciples with Jesus, John identifies the culprit as Peter [John 18:10], draws a sword
and slices off an ear of the servant of the high priest [26:51]. It is at this point that the Messiah resists this
trifling show of help via force [26:52-54]; He does so verbally and in no uncertain terms.

In Matthew 26:52, the Messiah commands [the Messiah does not suggest or recommend] this
disciple to sheath his sword and affirms: everyone who takes up the sword shall die by the sword. The
command to sheath the sword is supported by this motive statement, the gist of which is: all violence does
is to reproduce itself.
141
But, Jesus is not finished with refuting this trifling and negligible kind of help.

In Matthew 26:53, the Messiah reminds His disciples that, if need be, He could muster twelve
legions of angels on the spot. At the very least, this claim by the Messiah ridicules the trifling help offered
by one disciple with one sword. However, more to the point, the reader may rightly assume that the
Messiah could in fact command these legions to rescue Him, thus exercising an unchallengeable level of

141
On this point, see W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 3, Matthew 19-28 (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1997), 512.

47

authority and invincibility. Then, the Messiah discloses the reason behind His stout denial of this non-
spiritual help.

In Matthew 26:54, the Messiah affirms that He is committed to a cause: How, then, would the
Scriptures be fulfilled that say that it must happen this way? To put the same thing another way: The
Messiah has taken up the cause of His God, elaborated in Scripture. He must see it through to the end as
outlined in Scripture.

So, the sum of the matter is this: The Christian resistance to political overreach is authorized to
evaluate and shun trifling forms of help. There will be those who insist on resisting political overreach
aimed at eliminating the cause of Yahweh with nonspiritual, secular, human forms of weaponry; the
resistance eschews this brand of help as did the Messiah.

A principle to be lifted out by the resistance is this: We must remember that our warfare is
essentially spiritual; accordingly, the resistance eschews political means, or military means if it comes to
that, to accomplish the spiritual ends of the Holy Covenant. To put the same thing the other way around,
and the resistance in the United States must be especially vigilant here, the resistance must never fall victim
to the conceit that political reform is religions only purpose.
142
I have offered an example, above, of the
kind of misplaced and thoroughly trivial political reform of this countrys drift toward appeasing same sex
marriage through trifling with ballot initiatives. The resistance must be wary of relying on political power
when spiritual power is readily available.

The resistance is in a war, a spiritual warfare that does not wage war in an unspiritual way [2
Corinthians 10:3]. On the contrary, the weapons of our warfare invoke the power of God, able to destroy
strongholds, which means overpowering sophistry [2 Corinthians 10:4]. The resistance counterattacks the
entrenched enemies of the Holy Covenant with the power of Gods truth and righteousness.

February of 1943 saw a first in Nazi Germany: Three students from the University of Munich
were the first to be executed beheaded [this was GoNrings doing] for resisting the demonic and
pathetic political tyranny of Adolph Hitler. These three, with others who were also executed, dared to write
their protest on leaflets and with a duplicating machine wage a frontal attack on the moral underpinnings of
the Third Reich. Strange weapons; strange people!

Two of the central figures in what has come to be called the White Rose Revolt were brother
and sister Hans and Sophie Scholl. Hans Scholl was a young medical student at Munich who was shaped
in his resistance to the political tyranny of Adolph Hitler by spiritual values:
143

Hans was driven by the idea, stressed in the last White Rose leaflet, that
in National Socialism something irrational and inhuman was at work
demons emerging from the dark which gave resistance to the Hitler
regime a dimension both deeper and higher than mere political
opposition. Marked in his New Testament was the passage in
Ephesians that speaks of wrestling not against flesh and blood, but
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.

The resistance must adhere unswervingly to this guideline: Shun useless, non-spiritual, purely
political, help at all times; the resistance must defy the eliminationist efforts of those outside the Covenant
as well as those within the Covenant with comprehension, with truth, and with righteousness. It is to
resisting with righteousness that we now turn.

142
Douthat, 274.

143
Richard Hanser, A Noble Treason: The Story of Sophie Scholl & The White Rose Revolt
Against Hitler (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012), 191.

48

4. The resistance is authorized to follow this operational guideline: Shine in such a way as
to lead many to righteousness [Daniel 12:3]. Shine and bring the light of righteousness is the prime
operational guideline of the resistance to political tyranny and political overreach. Righteousness, not
politics or political power or political ideologies, is the means of restoring the lost orderliness in Yahwehs
Edenic creation. Politics are post-Eden; righteousness was there from the get-go. The world, including the
United States, is in moral darkness in large measure owing to uninspired political governance and to a
larger measure owing to a dearth of righteousness. Only righteousness can offset our flirtation with the
depths of madness so shockingly evident in our world today.

In the text, the celestial speaker affirms that, in the face of intense, virtually unheard of
persecution [Daniel 12:1], the resistance will steer the course. That is, the insightful resistance [1] will
shine, and [2] lead many to righteousness [Daniel 12:3]. In this, the resistance anticipates the Messianic
prototype, who is also light [Isaiah 9:2] and who also ushers in righteousness [Isaiah 53:11].

The celestial speaker says this in Daniel 12:3a-b: [1] The insightful will shine like the splendor of
the firmament; [2] specifically, those who lead many to righteousness [will shine] like the stars forever and
ever.

The reader observes that these two lines are written in a kind of poetic parallelism, where 12:3a is
parallel to 12:3b. To put the same thing another way, Daniel 12:3b specifies the kind of action that Daniel
12:3a opens with. In other words, the reader may read the relationship between 12:3a and 12:3b as an
example of specification of action.
144

The upshot is this: The operational guideline that informs the work of the resistance is teased out
in terms of [1] what they do shine [12:3a], and in terms of [2] how they do it lead to righteousness
[12:3b]. Again, the Messiah leads the way in both realms light and righteousness.

(a). As an operational matter, the resistance is authorized to shine like the splendor of the
firmament [Daniel 12:3a]. In a nutshell, the resistance sheds a kind of light that simply cannot be evaded
any more than the sun, the moon, or the stars. The resistance is stubbornly and stunningly obvious.

To begin with, the resistance is characterized by those who illuminate human events from the
standpoint of Yahwehs Holy covenant. The resistance clarifies, enlightens, and sheds light on the world
from Gods perspective [12:3a].

The Hebrew verb glossed will shine [z~h>r] has Ancient Near Eastern cognates that mean to make
clear and obvious.
145
The entry for z~h>r by BDB is noteworthy: to be light, or in the Hiphil, to send out
light.
146
Taken at face value then, the resistance is light; in the sense that the resistance emanates light.

There are two Septuagint traditions offering translations of z~h>r. One offers phain; Theodotion
offers eklamp. The first term indicates bringing to light, causing to appear, revealing, showing forth,
displaying, or setting forth.
147
The second term means to shine forth, to beam forth, or to flash forth.
148

The illumination metaphor is equally clear with either Greek term.

144
For this poetic technique, see Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic
Books, 1985), 33.

145
KB
1
, 265.

146
BDB, 263-64.

147
LSJ, 1912.

148
Ibid., 511.


49

Turning from the lexical drift of the term shine to the simile like the glow of the firmament the
simile signals that the light of the resistance is every bit as inescapable to the beholder as the glow of the
firmament. Indeed, the term glossed firmament [r~qTa!] is found in Genesis 1, where it is parallel with the
heavens [Genesis 1:8], including the sky with stars and planets [Genesis 1:14-15]. The simile points to
similarity in clarity.

The upshot is that the simile seems to point to clarity, or illumination of the sort that is readily
apparent and difficult to evade. The letter of Paul to the Philippians neatly summarizes the illumination
provided by the resistance children of God in the midst of an unscrupulous and depraved generation,
among whom you shine like stars in the heavens [Philippians 2:15].

The resistance has a guideline to represent the Covenant ideal Yahwehs Divine initiative to
redeem His fallen humanity and to recover the lost orderliness within His creation by clarifying, by
shedding light, by illuminating this Covenant ideal amidst the darkness of the world. The net effect of this
operational guideline is to so represent the Covenant ideal that one shines like the stars in the heavens.

In following the lead of this operational guideline, the resistance follows in the footsteps of the
Messiah. Indeed, the Messiah is a great light [Isaiah 9:2], who approaches as light [r] that dispels
darkness [chek] and the dark shadow of death [tsalm~wet].

The Messiah and the resistance share the same darkness dispelling task. The darkness that the
Messiah dispels is associated with the kind of darkness that occurs when God is absent [Job 3:4], or the
kinds of deeds that men prefer to keep hidden [Job 12:22; 24:16]; darkness is where evildoers hide [Job
34:22], is associated with rebellion against God [Psalm 105:28], is tantamount to evil [Isaiah 5:20], and is
where there is neither justice nor righteousness [Isaiah 59:9].

The dark shadow of death [tsalm~wet] describes the despair or suffering that arises in the wake of
disobedience to Yahweh [Psalm 107:10]. In this respect, the dark shadow of death is life under the aegis of
Divine judgment [Psalm 44:19]. Finally, the noun also describes being enveloped in evil [Psalm 23:4].
This too is the kind of deep darkness that the Messiah, and by following Him the resistance, ousts once and
for all.

The sum of the matter is this: The resistance has an operational guideline to carry forward the
light-bearing work of the Messiah. This means that the resistance self-identifies as a source of light into the
promise and the meaning of the Covenant ideal. As a lifestyle, the resistance defies the eliminationist
agenda of those outside and within the Holy Covenant by shining forth, by bringing to light the Covenant
ideal. To the extent that the world is sinking to ever greater and ever deeper levels of moral darkness, the
resistance carries on by shining like the stars of the heavens.

The resistance accepts the responsibility of shining like the stars in the heavens and bringing to
light the Covenant ideal. In practical terms, what displaying the light that is the Covenant ideal means is
leading many to righteousness.

(b). The resistance knows that the centerpiece of its resisting work coalesces around leading
many to righteousness [Daniel 12:3b]. Obviously, righteousness was and remains prominent with the
Messiah [Isaiah 53:11].

Obviously, the range and scope of righteousness in the Old Testament is well beyond the scope of
this essay, if not the author. What the resistance should be concerned to understand, however, is how
Daniel, as a guide to Christian resistance to political overreach, uses the term, righteousness.

In the first place, then, the English versions translate Daniel 12:3b with some variation of the
following theme: turn to righteousness/bring to righteousness/lead to righteousness. These are very solid

50

ways of translating the Hiphil participle of the verb, ts~d>q. BDB supports the English versions, rendering
ts~d>q in the Hiphil in 12:3b with to turn to righteousness.
149

Fair enough; but, just what does Daniel 12:3b suggest when it commits the resistance to leading
many to righteousness? For the answer, the reasonable course of action would be to turn to the use of the
tsdq word group in Daniel as a whole, with special reference to the uses of the group in Daniel 9.
150

As we shall note as we tease out the various uses of these forms of the tsdq word group, a theme
will emerge in Daniel, tsdq/righteousness is heavily slanted toward the concept of Covenant loyalty. If
this is borne out by the data, then the resistance shines in such a way as to lead many to loyalty to Yahwehs
Covenant.

(i). The nominal form ts
e
d~q~h is used in Daniel 9:7, 16, 18. In 9:7, this ts
e
d~q~h is an
attribute of Yahweh, an attribute that should have prompted loyalty on the part of His covenant people, but
instead is met with disloyalty [because of the disloyalty we have shown to You]. To be sure, Yahweh is
loyal to the covenant [b
e
rTt] in 9:4.

Furthermore, ts
e
d~q~h is used in Daniel 9:16, again of Yahwehs righteous acts, or in other words,
Yahwehs loyalty to His side of the covenant promises.

Immediately in Daniel 9:18, ts
e
d~q~h is used of the people whose behavior has not been ts
e
d~q~h,
in the sense of demonstrating loyalty to their side of the covenant.

Accordingly, this nominal form ts
e
d~q~h does imply right/just behavior based upon loyalty to
the covenant as the standard.

(ii) Turning to the single use of the adjective [ts>ddTq] in 9:14, the term is used of Yahweh,
who is said to be ts>ddTq in what He has done; namely, He is ts>ddTq in bringing upon the people the
calamity that is the Exile [9:13]. Now, this disaster was a curse stipulated in Torah for covenant disloyalty
[Daniel 9:13; see also Leviticus 26:14-45 (26:25, 42, 44, 45 explicitly mention covenant as the standard);
Deuteronomy 28:15-68]. In this instance also, the adjectival member of the word group ts>ddTq
references Yahwehs covenant loyalty in response to the covenant disloyalty we have disobeyed Him
recorded in Daniel 9:14.

Once more, the adjectival form ts>ddTq references Yahwehs loyalty to the Covenant
stipulations for disobedience to the Covenant standards.

(iii) Finally, the other nominal form of the tsdq word group ts
e
d
e
k is used by the writer of
Daniel in 9:24. Daniel 9:24 is admittedly a crux in Daniel 9. Leaving aside the thorny problem of seventy
sevens in 9:24a, the structure of Daniel 9:24 may be depicted as six Divine goals divided into two sets of
three:

Concerning the problem of sin
[1] Bring an end to covenant betrayal [9:24b]
[2] Seal up sins [9:24c]
[3] Wipe away [the guilt of] iniquity [9:24d]

Concerning the issue of righteousness

149
BDB, 843.

150
Daniel uses the verb [ts~d>k] twice [8:14; 12:3]; the writer uses the nominal form ts
e
d
e
k one
time [9:24] and the other nominal form ts
e
d~q~h three times [9:7, 16, 18]. Finally, the adjectival form
of the tsdq group [ts>ddTq] is also used one time [9:14]. The reader will note that the bulk of the uses of
the tsdq word group fall within Daniel 9.

51

[4] Bring near everlasting righteousness [ts
e
d
e
k, 9:24e]
[5] Confirm the vision and the prophecy [9:24f]
[6] Anoint a most holy one [9:24g]

For the resistance, bringing near everlasting righteousness [9:24e] sounds strikingly similar to
leading many to righteousness [12:3b]. So, the question for the moment is: What is intended by bring near
everlasting righteousness? The outline above suggests the following line of inquiry: That is, bringing near
everlasting righteousness offsets the problem of sin, an end to covenant betrayal, sealing up sins, and
wiping away [the guilt of] iniquity.

(iv). Obviously, bringing near everlasting righteousness [9:24e] does have the desirous effect
of offsetting the various manifestations of sin [9:24b, 24c, and 24d]. As far as the resistance is concerned,
this means that their work concerns counteracting the effects of human sin. As far as the Covenant ideal
goes, this also means that fallen mankind is redeemed from his/her fall and that the lost moral orderliness in
human creation is regained.

(9:24b) The first of the six Divine purposes is that of bringing an end to covenant betrayal
[9:24b]. Most English versions translate 9:24b with some variation of finish/bring an end to the
transgression. On the surface, this sort of translation seems a bit curious; that is, in just what sense may
one bring an end to the transgression?

There is not much doubt over the sense of the infinitive to bring an end to [k~l>h]. In the Piel
stem, this verb may be translated to cause to fail, to destroy, or simply to finish.
151
Moreover, the Piel stem
is more than likely a resultative use of the Piel, where the infinitive connotes bringing about an end state, a
result in other words.
152
The upshot is that something is for all intents and purposes ended; fair enough, but
the joker in the pack is the word transgression.

The lexical import of pe>!, usually translated transgression, is more satisfactorily translated
covenant betrayal.
153
Indeed, as noted below, pe>!/rebellion/transgression assumes a covenant standard
which is intentionally and knowingly betrayed. What is more, the noun in 9:24b uses the definite article,
which probably has a collective function, drawing together all of the activities and qualities that represent
covenant betrayal. It is an end to this covenant betrayal, therefore, that is the first of the purposes Yahweh
intends to fulfill during the seventy sevens.

151
KB
1
, 477; see also BDB, 478, who translates our line with to bring an end to.

152
IBHS 24.3; see also Van der Merwe 16.4.2.(ii) end result of a process.

153
The import of the noun, pe>!, is that it signifies a willful, knowledgeable violation of a norm
or standard. Beyond that, it represents a willful breach of trust. It occurs most frequently to designate the
disruption of an alliance through violation of a covenant, [Eugene Carpenter and Michael Grisanti,
pe>!, in NIDOTTE (H7322)].
The noun pe>!/rebellion occurs ninety three times in the Old Testament. In general terms,
the noun, pe>!/rebellion, refers to punishable offenses [KB
2
, 981]. As a crime or a criminal act, rebellion
is an act that breaks relationships within the community and with God [KB
2
, 981]. Indeed, the uses of
pe>!/rebellion in the Old Testament assume the covenant between God and man, where a pe>!/rebellion
is a violation of that existing covenant [Exodus 22, 23, 34; Leviticus 16, and Numbers 14]. Accordingly,
the Mosaic covenant in Exodus [3 uses], Leviticus [2 uses], and Numbers [1 use] is the theological
framework for the sense of pe>!/rebellion in the Old Testament. When the prophets use pe>!/rebellion,
the same covenant setting is assumed. Isaiah [11 uses], Ezekiel [10 uses] and Amos [10 uses] make use of
/rebellion to indict Israel for its willing violation of the covenant with Yahweh.


52

The net effect is this: Accordingly, bringing near everlasting righteousness [ts
e
d
e
k] in 9:24e
occurs within a theological and spiritual framework of ending covenant betrayal on the part of people in
9:24b. This means that the resistance operates within the same guideline: shed light on putting an end to
Covenant betrayal. Put positively, this means leading many to Covenant loyalty.

(9:24c) The second of the six Divine initiatives is that of sealing up sin [9:24c]. For openers,
there is a textual matter here that muddies the waters considerably. The Hebrew text has a form of the verb
chtm, while an emendation proposes tmm. The first verb ch~tam may be glossed to seal up or to place
a seal about.
154
Alan Millard notes that what is sealed up [ch~tam] may be read as put an end to, where the
metaphor implies sealed and not to be reopened.
155
If one reads the other verb that is proposed by BHS
[t~mam], then the translation becomes something like to bring to an end or to finish.
156
The upshot is that,
on either reading, the problem of sin is effectively dealt with.

The problem of sin is communicated in Daniel 9:24c using a noun [cha~t] in the plural. The
net effect of plurality is to underscore the sum total of qualities and attributes associated with sin.
157

Accordingly, to the extent that sin is sealed up, the after-effect is that the problem of sin is taken care of
exhaustively.

Beyond this, the term used for sin implies a failure to live up to a standard. This failure may be
unintentional [Leviticus 5:15] or intentional [Leviticus 5:21], or one may not even be aware that anything
constituting sin has been done at all [Leviticus 5:17]. The upshot is that during the seventy sevens,
Yahweh intends to dispose of, once and for all, sin in its most across-the-board sense: The failure to live up
to the Covenant ideal.
158

The aftermath is this: The resistance understands that bringing near everlasting righteousness
[ts
e
d
e
k] in 9:24e also includes dealing with the human problem of sin in a far-reaching fashion. Expressed
metaphorically, the problem of human sin will, for all intents and purposes, be sealed or effectively ended
not to be reopened. The upshot, in terms of the Covenant ideal is that the fundamental reason behind the
fall of man and the turmoil lived out in a highly disordered creation sin is effectively taken in hand.
159

To put the same thing another way, the resistance acknowledges that the power of sin which indeed
fractured the relationship between God and man in the Garden to begin with has been sealed in such a
way that it need not be reopened. The resistance points the way home for mankind.

(9:24d) The third of the six Divine initiatives is that of wiping away [the guilt of] iniquity
[9:24d]. The English versions seem to roam all over the map when translating 9:24d. Thus, we have wipe
away iniquity or atone for iniquity or make reconciliation for iniquity or simply atone for wickedness.
While these glosses are not necessarily faulty, they do lack precision.

154
KB
1
, 364; see also Holladay, 120; BDB, 367.

155
Alan Millard, ch~tam, in NIDOTTE [H3159].

156
KB
2
, 1754, glosses in order to finish the transgression; Holladay, 392, translates this verb in
this sentence with to finish (doing something); Olivier notes that t~mam in the Hiphil stem means to finish
off some action [J.P.J. Olivier, t~mam, in NIDOTTE (H9462)].

157
GKC 124 f.

158
For the New Testament on this point, see Romans 6:1-11.

159
This is not the place to enter into a full-blown discussion of the Christian and sin. The
resistance will profess the claims made by Paul in Romans 6:1-11. Moreover, the resistance will not
hesitate to make known the truth, regarding sin and the Christian, in 1 John 1:8-10, as well as 1 John 3:1-8.


53

The sense of the verb wipe away suggests to wipe clean or to purge.
160
When this verb, k~par,
and this object, !~wn, are used together elsewhere, parallel expressions support the idea of k~par as
wiping clean or eradicating. For example, in Isaiah 27:9, wiping away iniquity is parallel to removing,
canceling, setting aside or doing away with sin. Then, in Jeremiah 18:23, our collocation wipe away
iniquity is parallel to wiping out, annihilating sin from Yahwehs sight. The net effect is that k~par
means that, during the seventy sevens, Yahweh intends to eradicate, remove, and expunge the guilt
associated with iniquity.

Turning to the term for iniquity [!~wn], the sense of the direct object of the infinitive iniquity
is a term that focuses on the consequences of sin, especially guilt.
161
Thus, !~wn includes not only the
intentionality involved in an action or omission that is unjust or simply not right according to Divine
covenantal standards, but also, !~wn carries consequences with it, particularly guilt.

The outcome, for the resistance, is this: The resistance understands that bringing near everlasting
righteousness [ts
e
d
e
k] in 9:24e also brings with it the blessed circumstance of eradicating our true moral
guilt before Yahweh. The personal responsibility for our intentional disregard of the Covenant ideal is, for
all intents and purposes, removed, set aside, cancelled and simply done away with. To put the same matter
another way, the fact that our !~wn/guilt as a consequence of iniquitous behavior has positioned a barrier
between ourselves and Yahweh [Isaiah 59:2] is dismissed and is null and void and is no longer binding on
us. In terms of the Covenant ideal Yahwehs Divine intention to reestablish the basic pattern in all
creation, with Yahweh as King and mankind as His servants the resistance is not at all bashful in pointing
out that the way back to the basic pattern of life as Yahweh intended and created it is now wide open!

(c). The sum of the matter is this: The resistance is authorized to follow the operational
guideline of shining in such a way as to lead many to righteousness [Daniel 12:3]. The resistance must
note that it is sanctioned and empowered to shine with the truth of Covenant loyalty. This means that
bringing many to righteousness is the cause that consumes the resistance. There are entailments of this
cause.

(i) The resistance must shine [Daniel 12:3a]. As an operational guideline, the resistance
functions to bring moral clarity to the forfeitures attending the forced exit from Eden. The resistance
works at emanating light on our moral laxity, our functional atheism, our fashionable agnosticism. The
resistance reveals, shows, and displays the folly of our modern penchant for self-absorption. To be sure,
the resistance does not hide from this operational guideline. The resistance shines like the stars in the
heavens; the resistance communicates in such a way as to be obvious. Neither the resistance nor their
message can be missed.

(ii) The resistance exists to bring many to righteousness [Daniel 12:3b]. As an operational
guideline, the resistance works in the world of righteousness. The centerpiece of righteousness, from the
perspective of Daniel and the rest of the resistance, is uncompromising, unadulterated, and unswerving
loyalty to the Covenant ideal. When the resistance sets its hands to bring many to righteousness, the

160
Richard Averbeck, k~par, in NIDOTTE [H4105]; usually, k~par is glossed to cover over, to
atone for [BDB, 497r; KB
1
, 494r], while Holladay, 163, offers to cover over so that no punishment is
necessary.
The Ancient Near Eastern cognates for this verb, k~par, are instructive. Syriac has a cognate that
is glossed to wipe off; the Arabic cognate, kafara, may be glossed to cover or to atone; the Akkadian
cognate, kaparu, may be translated to wipe off, and kuppuru may be glossed to cleanse ritually [KB
1
, 493-
94].

161
KB
1
, 800, notes that !~wn indicates the reality of what is unjust or not right and its
consequences; misdeed, sin, guilt caused by sin (and the consequences thereof); Kohler makes two points
regarding!~wn: [1] !~wn designates a sin that originates in wrong intention, and [2] !~wn always
presupposes consciousness of guilt, [Ludwig Kohler, Old Testament Theology, translated by A.S. Todd
(Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 169-70].

54

resistance, first and foremost, redirects many back toward the Covenantal arrangement with Yahweh. This
means:
(a) bringing an end to the Covenant betrayal [Daniel 9:24b]. To put the same thing in a
positive frame of reference, this means leading many to Covenant loyalty. As noted in connection with the
Covenant ideal, above, the Covenant ideal is Yahwehs all-embracing and historically over-arching
redemptive initiative that is intent on reestablishing the basic pattern in all of human creation, which means
Yahweh is King and humanity is His servant. When the resistance brings many to righteousness, the
resistance is unambiguous in declaring the Covenant ideal as mankinds basic paradigm.

(b) sealing up sin [Daniel 9:24c]. For the resistance, their work of leading many to
righteousness necessarily includes sealing up sin. The resistance understands that, from both an historical
and eternal point of view, the problem of sin must be sealed up and not reopened. The resistance is
virtually alone in this world in believing that sin must be effectively dealt with. Ultimately, the problem of
human sin is the glitch in the original covenant arrangement between men and God. By leading many to
righteousness, the resistance is pointing mankind back in the direction of Eden, back to restoring the
shattered relationship between God and man and restoring the forfeited moral symmetry in all creation.

(c) wiping away the guilt of iniquity [Daniel 9:24d]. The resistance also tackles another
forgotten matter the problem of human guilt. Once more, the resistance holds a view that many, if not
most in the world, consider antiquated: There is such a thing as true moral guilt before God. The sin,
mentioned above, also yields the fruit of moral consequences guilt in the eyes of God. The resistance
understands that its work involves clarifying the consequences of choices from the Divine point of view.
To put the same thing another way, the resistance offers the guilty of this world the opportunity of having
their guilt eradicated, removed, and expunged from the presence of God. By leading many to
righteousness in this way, the resistance does its part to reestablish the basic pattern in all of creation by
redeeming mankind from its fallen state.

(c). The resistance is charged with [1] shining with moral clarity and [2] leading many to
righteousness; in so doing, the resistance also treads the path of the Messiah. He, too, was light [Isaiah 9:2]
and He, too, ushered in righteousness [Isaiah 53:11]. The resistance is unswerving in its devotion to its
prototype the Messiah.

(i). The Messiah was a great light [Isaiah 9:2]. In this case, the Messiah approaches as light
[r] that dispels darkness [chek] and the dark shadow of death [tsalm~wet].

The darkness that the Messiah dispels is associated with the kind of darkness [chek] that
occurs when God is absent [Job 3:4]; the Messiah dissipates the darkness of deeds that men prefer to keep
hidden [Job 12:22; 24:16]; the Messiah drives away the darkness that is associated with rebellion against
God [Psalm 105:28], rebellion that is tantamount to evil [Isaiah 5:20], where there is neither justice nor
righteousness [Isaiah 59:9].

The light that the Messiah brings dispels the gloom in which people live [Isaiah 9:1]. The Hebrew
term used here for gloom [m|ts~q] points to the kind of distress that arises from being hemmed in.
162
No
more fitting figure for mankinds forfeiture of his covenant relationship with Yahweh could be offered for
men in darkness, men without God. Repeated moral perversions have left human beings with a sense of no
way out of the moral mess we have created for ourselves. To this, the Messiah and the Messiah alone
brings light.

To be sure, the light-darkness motif reminds the resistance of Genesis 1:3-5, the original
covenantal relationship between Yahweh, His natural creation and His human creation. In this case, Isaiah
9:2, God is once more engaged in a creative work, offering mankind the choice of light and a loving,
gracious covenant relationship with the creator.

162
KB
1
, 559.

55

The dark shadow of death [tsalm~wet] describes the despair or suffering that arises in the wake of
disobedience to Yahweh [Psalm 107:10]. In this respect, the dark shadow of death is life under the aegis of
Divine judgment [Psalm 44:19]. Indeed, dark shadow of death [tsalm~wet] also describes being enveloped
in evil [Psalm 23:4]. This too is the kind of deep darkness that the Messiah ousts once and for all.

(ii). The Messiah spent His last ounce of strength and courage to usher in righteousness
[Isaiah 53:11]. Isaiah 53:11 depicts the Messiah as thesource of righteousness; the triumph of the Servant
consists in the righteousness the Servant alone provides [Isaiah 53:11]. The collaboration between Yahweh
and the Servant will make the offer of righteousness a bit more clear:

The anguish of His [the Servants] soul, He [Yahweh] will see [Isaiah 53:11a]
He [Yahweh] will be satisfied with His [Yahwehs] knowledge [Isaiah 53:11b]
My [Yahwehs] Servant will treat many as righteous [Isaiah 53:11c]
That is, their guilt, He alone [Servant] will bear [Isaiah 53:11d]

The absolutely stunning claim here is that Yahweh is satisfied; the Messiahs anguish, bearing the
guilt of humanity, allows Him to clothe them in His righteousness, thus sharing with them His own perfect
acceptability before God.
163
With all of this, Yahweh is satisfied.

The relationship between the Servant and covenant motifs is evident in the book of Isaiah as a
whole. As Dumbrell notes, Covenant motifs are especially associated with the figure of the servant who
was a pledge that the ideal of Israel would continue with the welfare of the world finally in view [emphasis
mine].
164
The insightful resistance in Daniel 12:3 are the human mediators who, in bringing many to
righteousness, continue with the welfare of the world in view.

III. The thesis of this essay is that Christian resistance is authorized to resist the overreach of political
power-players. Indeed, the book of Daniel offers guidelines to specific kinds of resistance.

A. Before summarizing the various guidelines informing Christian political resistance, the
point must be stressed, again, that the kind of political resistance that is authorized in the book of Daniel
shuns armed resistance or out-and-out anarchy. Rather, as we shall see, the summary of guidelines is
peaceful, intent on trafficking in truth.

B. The guidelines to Christian political resistance may be enumerated thus:

1. Early in the book of Daniel, the central character resists political overreach by refusing to
intimate a level of absolute loyalty to the head of the government, a loyalty Daniel did not have [1:8]

2. Moreover, early in the book, three Hebrew men resist political overreach from this same
head of state by remaining indifferent to a law that contradicted a basic tenet of Torah [3:12]. The text tells
us that these three simply ignored the law in question. When confronted with a similar decree in Daniel 6,
the text tells us that Daniel defied the decree and simply carried on in his prayer life as he always had
[6:11].

3. In both of the above cases, the resistance carries out its defiance privately, with no
fanfare whatsoever [1:8; 3:12; 6:11]. The resistance in Daniel 1-6 defies political overreach quietly,
unobtrusively, and inconspicuously. The guideline seems to prefer the unassuming and less headline
grabbing forms of resistance to political overreach. To be sure, when these men are called out, and they are
in Daniel 3 and 6, then they are not bashful about articulating what they believe. Fair enough, but
originally at least, they seem to opt for modesty in resistance, content to leave the outcomes in Gods
hands.

163
Motyer, 442.

164
Dumbrell, 200.


56

4. When called upon, the resistance in the opening narrative section of Daniel follows the
guideline of public defiance in the form of unambiguous testimony to the truth that animates them. In the
case of the three Jews in Daniel 3, they told Nebuchadnezzar in no uncertain terms that [1] his decree was
well outside his jurisdiction [3:16], and that [2] the resistance had no intention of obeying him [3:18].

5. The essential theological or spiritual guideline that shapes Christian political resistance
emerges in Daniel 11 and is the Covenant ideal [11:30-32]. As we have already noted, the moral compass
of the resistance is pointed due North, pointed toward the redemptive covenant with Noah, a covenant
which has all of the other covenants Abraham, Moses, David, and the New Covenant as subsets. The
resistance is ever on the lookout for politically driven infringements on Yahwehs Covenant ideal: His
Divine initiative to reestablish the basic pattern in all creation, which means that Yahweh is King, and men
are His servants.

6. The resistance is prompted to resist when encountering power-players who are intent on
eliminating the Holy Covenant [11:30d]. The guideline, therefore, is simple enough: Whenever and
wherever one is confronted by attempts to eliminate the Holy Covenant resist. Indeed, when the
eliminationist disposition emerges from within the covenant community, the resistance challenges;
obviously, when the eliminationist attitude arises from outside the covenant community, the resistance
takes up the cudgels and stands firm.

7. The resistance will not be cowed by those who use force to curtail or eliminate the Holy
Covenant [11:31a]. To be sure, as in the case of our four heroes in Daniel, this resistance may be guided by
unobtrusiveness and remaining discreet. Underground house-church movements are to be especially
commended in this regard.

8. The resistance will utterly defy any attempt to use religion for political purposes
[11:31b]. In essence, the resistance never permits the Covenant ideal to be subordinated to any political
paradigm, including the reigning regimes hold on power. As de Tocqueville observed, above, to do so is
to abandon any hope of the Covenant ideal reigning over all.

9. The resistance will refuse to idolize either politicians or politics [11:31c]. When
Antiochus Epiphanes placed a likeness of himself on the altar in the temple, his act, symbolic to be sure,
was the first in a series of attempts by a politician to place a politics where only God belongs as an object
of worship. Taking guidance from Daniel 1 and 6, the resistance quietly and inflexibly will worship only
Yahweh. The resistance adheres to a guideline: Pretenders to Yahwehs throne will be discerned,
scrutinized, and resisted; Yahweh alone is Lord of History.

10. Throughout their resistance, the covenant community will stoutly refuse to capitulate to
apostasy [11:32a-b]. The resistance has drawn a line in the sand: The resistance refuses to share its
ultimate loyalties with two lovers God and government. And, under no circumstances does the resistance
exchange Covenant loyalty for political loyalty.

11. Guidelines 1-10 are more or less negative, offering guidelines to the resistance in terms
of what not to do. There are, obviously, some positive operational guidelines that shape what the resistance
actually contributes to the cause of extending the influence of the covenant ideal. At the same time, it is
useful for the resistance to keep in mind both what it must reject and what it must realize.

12. The resistance knows that it must be prepared to act in the name of the Holy Covenant
[11:32c-d]. It is not enough that the resistance stands against encroachments on the Covenant ideal; the
resistance has an obligation to be prepared to act on behalf of the Covenant ideal. At the heart of this
guideline for the resistance is this: Those who know their God [11:32c] are those who are committed to His
cause in this world, which is the all-embracing Covenant ideal. The cause of Yahweh, for the resistance, is
the only cause that really matters. Resisting in the cause of the Covenant is the commission, the duty, and
the assignment come-what-may.


57

13. As a corollary of the previous guideline, the resistance is prepared to look beyond its own
personal needs as it serves the cause of God. This particular guideline is lifted out especially for the
evangelical community in the United States, a national culture that is currently saturated with narcissism.
The resistance simply refuses to select some evangelical church simply because it works for them. The
resistance has sold out to a cause that transcends personal needs; the resistance is absorbed in the task of
introducing the world to the Covenant ideal.

14. The resistance is prepared to strengthen themselves with the cause of their God [11:32c].
As noted at the time, this matter of strengthening oneself amounts to binding the cause of God tightly to
oneself. The resistance keeps a tight hold on the cause of the Covenant ideal; they sustain and support the
Covenant agenda, which is Yahwehs all-embracing plan to redeem fallen man and restore the lost moral
orderliness in creation. To paraphrase Luther: The consciences of the resistance have been taken captive by
Yahwehs Holy Covenant.

15. A basic operational guideline for the resistance is the work of bringing comprehension to
many [11:33a-b]. As previously noted the resistance is not engaged in pitched battle and armed conflict.
Rather, as an operational matter, the resistance is in the business of communication bringing
comprehension. As a guideline, the resistance operates under the assumption that they and no-one else are
tasked with bringing comprehension to many. The comprehension that the resistance knows intimately and
that it seeks to impart is insight into Gods ways in geopolitical history. Indeed, the resistance is compelled
to point out that it is Yahwehs causes in history, and only His causes, that will ultimately triumph.

16. As an operational matter, the resistance knows that it must accept the consequences of its
obsession with Yahwehs Holy Covenant [11:33, 35]. The resistance is prepared to take the risks death,
imprisonment, personal losses and the resistance expects to reap the rewards refinement, purification,
and cleansing.

17. As the resistance pursues its work, it is authorized to shun useless help [11:34]. When all
is said and done about the nature of the resistance, this much is obvious, to the resistance at least: The
resistance refuses to wage a spiritual warfare with non-spiritual weapons. Political or legislative solutions
to spiritual challenges are short term at best, and usually peter out over time. The resistance knows that
only a change of heart can help in restoring the Covenant ideal.

18. As an operational matter, the resistance knows it must lead many to righteousness [12:3].
The resistance is committed to dealing with the problem of sin and the offer of righteousness [Daniel 9:24].
The resistance is fully aware that it serves to bring an end to the ubiquitous covenant betrayal, to place a
seal on the problem of sin so that it cannot be reopened, and to offer the removal of human guilt. This is
the offer of righteousness that shapes the operational work of the resistance.

19. Finally, as an operational guideline, the resistance has its own prototype; the ultimate
guideline for the work of the resistance is Jesus Christ, the Messiah. To put the resistance as portrayed in
the book of Daniel in New Testament terms, the resistance is prepared to take up their own Cross and
follow the Messiah [Luke 9:23]. So be it!

The Book of Daniel - A Guide To Christian Political Resistance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Book of Daniel - A Guide To Christian Political Resistance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Book of Daniel: A Guide to Christian Political Resistance Loren Lineberry, 2013

You might also like