If you have the privilege of being a shepherd in one of Jesus’ churches, take these words to heart. Feed your sheep with the Word of Truth. Tend to and defend your sheep with the Word of Christ. Shield the flock from the fear of death with God’s promises of life.

Travel back in time with me to a quiet shore on the Sea of Tiberius. The sun’s rays have just begun chasing the gray dawn away, casting light upon a ragged band of disillusioned disciples rising and falling with the waves. John 21 hints that the small crew had caught about as much sleep that night as fish. And so, with empty nets in their hands and tired eyes in their heads, they turned and saw through the thinning haze the form of a Man standing on the sand, watching. After a divinely appointed déjà vu (see Lk 5:5-8), the weary group sat down to eat with that Man, Jesus. No one said a word. Why? Not too long before, all the disciples had scattered and fled, leaving Jesus utterly alone before those who would eventually crucify him. Earlier still, one of those disciples named Peter had vowed unyielding faithfulness to his Lord (Jn 13:37). As most of us know, and as all of us have experienced ourselves, his creed had far exceeded his deeds. Despite his bold promise to stand unto death, Peter wilted before a servant girl while warming himself around a charcoal fire (Jn 18:15-18).
Did a guilty silence hang in the air while those disciples, Peter included, gathered around yet another charcoal fire (Jn 21:9). Whatever the atmosphere only one voice cut through the relentless sound of the waves breaking upon the sand. The voice belonged to Jesus. The Savior interrupted the deafening silence and fell uniquely upon the ears and heart of a despondent Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?” (Jn 21:15). While some hold that “these” refers to the fish, there is good reason to believe otherwise. That reason cut to Peter’s heart: he who had boldly promised courage above all the other disciples (Mt 26:33) had been humiliated and needed comfort more than all the other disciples.
Three times Peter had denied the Lord Jesus. Now that same Jesus gave Peter opportunities to reaffirm his love three times. What did Jesus require from Peter to demonstrate his love for the risen Savior? Not bloody-kneed penance. Not an earth shattering crusade. It was, in fact, gentle and faithful care for lambs and sheep. John gave us this passage not to argue about different Greek words for love, but rather to show the Great Shepherd restoring one of His under-shepherds in order to care for the flock. Take some time with me now to consider two aspects of this conversation: first, what Jesus reveals about His own character and concern, and second, what Jesus expects from those who enjoy the privilege of shepherding any part of God’s flock.
Read More

Christ’s kingdom may have a small and inauspicious beginning (twelve disciples) but it becomes far greater than any geopolitical empire (such as Nebuchadnezzar’s), as the gospel spreads to the end of the earth, through word and sacrament, in the power of the Holy Spirit. As the apostle Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:8, “none of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” Jesus’s kingdom–which uses the same tree imagery as found in the king’s dream–truly shelters the birds and beasts (symbolic of the great expanse of this kingdom), and provides genuine rest and shelter for the people of God.

The New Situation In Babylon
In Daniel chapter 4 we are given remarkable insight into a man who has played a central role in Daniel’s prophecy–the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. In each of the previous chapters of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar exerted his royal power and authority, demonstrated his hot temper and tyrannical nature, while championing the “gods of Babylon.” We have also seen that his “gods” and his Chaldeans (the wise men and court magicians) repeatedly failed to give the king that which he demanded. The great king was even forced to seek help from one of his young Hebrew servants to interpret a troubling dream–which he will do yet again in chapter 4. YHWH has clearly won the battle with the idols of Babylon. Through all of this, it has become clear that YHWH is sovereign over all things, a fact which Nebuchadnezzar has been forced to admit repeatedly when neither his idols nor his Chaldeans could help him. This was also made clear to him in chapter 3 when Nebuchadnezzar witnessed three Hebrew officials (who were friends of Daniel) survive being thrown into a super-heated fiery furnace with the aid of a mysterious fourth man (the pre-incarnate Christ, or an angel of the Lord).
But in Daniel chapter 4 we find that everything has changed. Much time has passed and Nebuchadnezzar is a different man. Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which Daniel must interpret for him–only this dream comes much later in the king’s career, toward the end his life. In this chapter–filled with remarkable contrasts and ironies–we read of a king whose days as a cruel tyrant seem to be in the past. The king greatly enjoys the creature comforts accrued after a long career as ruler of a great empire. Daniel’s report almost makes us feel sorry for Nebuchadnezzar as the pagan king is forced to wrestle with the fact that YHWH is the sovereign Lord, who rules the affairs of men and nations, and of whom Nebuchadnezzar will affirm, “how great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his dominion endures from generation to generation.”
Another Dream – A Different Outcome
We also learn in this chapter that Nebuchadnezzar has yet another dream which must be interpreted by Daniel after we read again of the inability of the king’s court magicians to do so. We also learn (in vv. 28-33) that at some point during this period of his life, the great king experiences what used to be described as a “nervous breakdown.” This complete mental and emotional unraveling causes the king to flee his palace and his capital city to live among wild animals, eating grass, and becoming almost unrecognizable in appearance. Chapter 4 ends with Nebuchadnezzar regaining his sanity and affirming YHWH’s greatness, but not making a credible profession of faith.
On the one hand, this is a fascinating story as we witness such a mighty and cruel man come to the brink of faith, then instead fall into madness, only to be restored unto sanity. On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar’s inner-struggles are revealed by Daniel to serve as a powerful reminder to the Jewish exiles then living under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule in Babylon (those who are the initial recipients of Daniel’s prophecy), that no human king is truly sovereign over the dealings of men and nations–only YHWH is. Kings rule only as YHWH allows them. YHWH can and will protect his people, even as they suffer under a tyrant’s rule, Daniel and his three friends being the proof.
YHWH Rules Over All – Even Pagan Empires
Daniel’s message to the Jewish exiles living in Babylon is that YHWH chose to give this particular kingdom to this man at this time and place–but YHWH forces Nebuchadnezzar to realize that fact. YHWH can easily give Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom to another–as we will see with the fall of Babylon to the Persians, shortly before the end of Daniel’s life. YHWH is Nebuchadnezzar’s Lord. YHWH is the one who ultimately determines the fate of the Jewish exiles. Through his prophets, YHWH has revealed to the exiles in Babylon that one day their exile will come to an end, and YHWH’s people will return to Jerusalem to rebuild the city and its temple. Nebuchadnezzar cannot stay YHWH’s hand, and in this chapter we are given a glimpse into why this is the case. The great king is but a mere man, with a great many problems, fears, and weaknesses of his own.
Two Kingdoms in Contrast
As the fourth chapter of Daniel unfolds, we see the sharp contrast between Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom and Christ’s. The Babylonian empire under Nebuchadnezzar’s rule is mighty, powerful, and fearsome by human standards, yet is puny, weak, and pitiful when considered in the light of Christ’s kingdom. Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and kingdom will come to an end as foretold in the vision of the metallic statue in chapter 2. Yet not all the kingdoms of this world combined can defeat the kingdom of Jesus Christ, which, conquers not with the sword, but through the gospel. Jesus Christ’s kingdom is a heavenly kingdom, which explains why earthly kingdoms and worldly power cannot contain it. This is the lesson the king is beginning to learn.
We turn our attention to Daniel 4, which recounts the 4th and final incident in the Book of Daniel from the life of Nebuchadnezzar. As is the case with Daniel 2, this passage is also a single literary unit and best covered in one sitting. But the tyranny of space and the span of attention does not allow us to do this with any degree of depth, so I will devote several posts to go through this chapter, precisely because it is so rich in historical, theological, and psychological insights. To hurry through the entire chapter in one blog post, hitting but the high points, will cause us to miss much. So, we will turn our attention to the setting and background of chapter 4 (toward the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign), then take up Nebuchadnezzar’s ascription of praise to YHWH (vv. 1-3), before turning to the king’s second disturbing dream (vv. 4-18).
The theme of God’s sovereignty over all things has been made clear by Daniel from the opening verses of his prophecy which recount Daniel’s capture and forced indoctrination into the ways of the Babylonian court and its pagan religion. Daniel and his three friends actually thrived while under Babylonian control, even as they subversively resisted all attempts to convert them into pagans. In chapter 2, we saw YHWH give the king a dream which troubled Nebuchadnezzar greatly, yet which neither he nor his court magicians could interpret. Only Daniel could do so, since Daniel had been given the dream as well as its interpretation by YHWH.
Then, in chapter 3, we saw YHWH’s power in preserving Daniel’s three friends (Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) who refused to bow and worship the king’s golden statue. In chapter 4, God reveals his power over Babylon and King Nebuchadnezzar, also revealing himself to the king, so that the pagan tyrant, now mellowed with age and illness, acknowledges YHWH as “the king of heaven” in the closing verse of the chapter (v. 37). The change in this man is dramatic, but not necessarily the sign of conversion from a pagan polytheist into a worshiper of the true and living God.
Nebuchadnezzar Grows Old
The historical setting for chapter 4 is important because these events occur well after the scene in chapter 3 (which can be dated about December 594-January 593 BC). This material recounts events much closer to the end of the king’s life than previous chapters. Daniel 4 recounts a time when Nebuchadnezzar is at home in his palace, while, as he puts it, was “at ease and prospering” (v. 4). One year later (vv. 26-29), the king is stricken with a loss of sanity for a period of “seven times,” often interpreted as seven years, but which is much more likely referring to a time of completeness (symbolized by the number 7), i.e., the time it takes the king to acknowledge YHWH’s sovereignty over all things and then regain his sanity.[1]
The historical record enables us to follow Nebuchadnezzar’s subsequent career after the construction and erection of the gold statue in chapter 3. We know from Babylonian sources that Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year of his rule was 594 BC. He then laid siege to Jerusalem in 589-587, finally sacking the city and destroying the temple in 587. His motivation was likely the king’s realization that the vassal king of Judah (Zedekiah), had made an alliance with other nations against Nebuchadnezzar. So, whatever acknowledgments Nebuchadnezzar made previously regarding YHWH in the first three chapters of Daniel did not prevent him from destroying YHWH’s temple in Jerusalem.[2]
Next, the king laid siege for thirteen years to the coastal city of Tyre (from 586-573), and he engaged in a battle in Egypt in 568/567 so as to crush another revolt by a vassal state subject to the Babylonian empire. We do know that Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BC. So, if this chapter depicts a time at least one year prior to the king’s death in 562, one possible time frame for the chapter is somewhere between 573-569, with Nebuchadnezzar in Egypt in 568/67 well enough to lead his troops, being an indication that he had regained his health and sanity.[3]
No official Babylonian records mention the king’s illness (official state records end in 594 BC–about the time the king built his statue), but there are other accounts of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness and recovery which have come down to us in the form of tradition and legend. One Christian writer (Eusebius of Caesarea) recounts a Babylonian tradition that Nebuchadnezzar cried out from the roof of his palace that great misfortune was about to befall his people (a Persian victory). The Jewish historian Josephus cites a similar legend to the effect that the king was felled by a mysterious illness and died in his 43rd year of rule.[4] So, while not ironclad as we would like, there is some external evidence to the effect that Nebuchadnezzar did have some sort of serious mental illness late in his life.
Why does this matter to us? The tyrannical king played a significant role in Israel’s history, equivalent to that of Pharaoh’s role in the mistreatment of the Jews and then in the Passover/Exodus. The king took Daniel and other Hebrew royals into exile, is the same man who destroyed the city of Jerusalem and YHWH’s temple, and who took most of the population of Judah into exile into Babylon in 587. Despite his success in conquest, he proved to be a mere mortal, brought to his knees by YHWH’s mighty hand, his life and his empire now heading toward their inevitable ends. Although the king was repeatedly forced to acknowledge YHWH’s power and rule as superior to his own, he was eventually pushed to despair by this knowledge.
Read More
Related Posts:

John Murray demonstrates from the totality of Scripture’s witness that our faith cannot be our righteousness. This is clearly the work of a systematic theologian and not that of an exegete enamored with a single text believing it has the power to uproot and upset an entire system of thought! 

For those who believe that God does not accept and account a person righteous by imputing to them faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, as the Westminster Confession contends, a passage like Romans 4:3 is hard to understand.  Not because of the grammatical construction. We see it in Genesis 15:6, from where Paul derives the quote, and we see the same construction in other places like Psalm 106:31. There we read that Phinehas’s killing of an Israelite man and Midianite woman was “counted to him as righteousness.” So, were the Westminster divines simply oblivious to something so plain as Romans 4:3 when they wrote chapter eleven or is there something that we might be missing?
The divines also state that “all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves” and therefore require some work on our part to understand them. Therefore, I opt for the latter. We are missing something. But before we can start talking about what is missing from our understanding of the text, we need to start a little farther back.
Unity of the Theological Disciplines
To put it simply, what’s missing is the unity of the theological disciplines. We ought to think of the disciplines as a pyramid. At the foundation is the Bible, God’s Word. The Old Testament and the New Testament form the foundation of the pyramid. These disciplines include, at the very least, a study of the original languages and exegesis. Having done their work, these exegetes hand up the fruit of exegesis to the Biblical theologian whose method is historical in character. After he are finished, the historical theologians assess the development and continuity of a particular doctrine or movement.  And finally, the ripened fruit of these disciplines is handed to the queen of the sciences, systematic theology, and she assesses and organizes the evidence into a logical concatenated system of thought.
However, today the disciplines have gone rogue. Scholars have placed a chasm between the testaments and the queen has been accused of being a Greek philosopher in disguise. As a result, it is each discipline for itself. So, today it might help us to think about our opening example from the perspective of one scholar who appreciated the unity of the theological disciplines.
John Murray was a professor at old Westminster, and he was both a New Testament exegete and a first-rate systematic theologian who understood the need for the theological disciplines to respect and work together for the well-being of the church. Consider what Murray wrote in his essay titled, “Systematic Theology.”
Systematic theology is tied to exegesis. It coordinates and synthesizes the whole witness of Scripture on the various topics with which it deals…. Thus, the various passages drawn from the whole compass of Scripture and woven into the texture of systematic theology are not cited as mere proof texts or wrested from the scriptural and historical context to which they belong, but, understood in a way appropriate to the place they occupy in this unfolding process, are applied with that particular relevance to the topic under consideration.  Texts will not thus be forced to bear a meaning they do not possess nor forced into a service they cannot perform.  But in the locus to which they belong and by the import they do possess they will contribute to the sum-total of revelatory evidence by which biblical doctrine is established. We may never forget that systematic theology is the arrangement under appropriate divisions of the total witness of revelation to the truth respecting God and his relations to us men and to the world.[1]
Thus, in the work of exegesis, Murray is unwilling to do systematic theology and yet systematic theology is the end and capstone of the vital process of interpreting Scripture. This is a valuable lesson. In our haste to prove a point we must not press a particular passage to teach more or even less than it does. Or, as Murray puts it, we should not ask a text to bear a meaning that it cannot sustain. Now, you can already see how this applies to Romans 4:3.
Read More
Related Posts: