This is the thirteenth in a list of non-situational responses to situations. The context will include Chapter 6:12. This is the incident where Darius is convinced to look upon himself for a thirty-day period as a god; and he issues an edict which cannot be revoked once it has been published forbidding anyone to pray to a man or to any other god besides him for this thirty day period. Daniel learning about this edict immediately goes home, goes up to the room that he always used habitually for prayer and promptly violates the edict.

We have a case here where these men created their own verbal symbols and then bowed down to them. This is something that mankind is habitually guilty of. However, Christians, those who are operating on the basis of faith and taking non-situational responses to situations do not worship their own symbols. In Chapter 6:12, it says, "So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: ‘Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or man except to you, O king, would be thrown into the lions’ den?’ The king answered, ‘The decree stands—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.’"

This text suggests a number of generalizations that are immediately accessible. One of those is the nature of symbolism itself. When we symbolize things, especially verbal symbols, it appears to be a kind of act of consolidation. It creates a recognizable form. When we begin to firm up our thinking on any given subject whatever the subject may be, we are learning to symbolize it. We are in effect consolidating that symbolism as well. What ends up being recognizable is what we can identify as a kind of math—anything that has this collection of symbols brought together, they cohere, and they congeal. We can refer to it as a mass. In this case, we will refer to it in our study as a "symbolic mass."

A symbolic mass is the result of a compaction—a bunch of ideas brought together and they congeal. For instance, the concept of evolution would represent itself as a symbolic mass. It is a collection of verbal symbols that have been compacted together. They have been interlaced together. They are compressed together and we might even say that they continue to be strengthened. They are added to, beefed up, etc. So when we consider any of the contemporary philosophers of the day, we can refer to what they have to offer us as a kind of symbolic mass. Now ultimately there would be only two recognizable symbolic masses in the universe. One will be built upon the situational standard and the other, of course, is a symbolic mass, which has been created by the Lord. This is the collection of his absolute abstractions—the word of God, the revelation.

A symbolic mass has a kind of distinction. That is, it is distinct from all other such masses. When we study such areas as American Literature, we know that as a recognizable mass. We can study high-density physics and we have another symbolic mass. The point is that these things are distinct. They have a kind of recognizability. It becomes a kind of externalization of the abstract part of human existence, so externalized that it becomes mass-like and can be recognized on the qualities of its contents and its source. The scriptures certainly as far as we’re concerned would behave and would be looked upon as such a symbolic mass. Now when I went back to the book of Daniel to seek in the book the responses to questions about symbolic masses and how they would operate, I found four statements that are immediately recognizable within the text made about scripture if we were to view it as a symbolic mass.

First, this engine of abstractions would have generated meaning in the following areas:

1. Statements found in Daniel 1:8 describe an incidence where Daniel is brought in to Babylonia as a captive; and he has been picked out of the lineup for advanced training. He is to be socialized into the Babylonian cultural apparatus, into their bureaucracy and into their language. They are to be given the opportunity to study Babylonian literature. One of the things that went along with this training was that he was expected to eat at the king’s table. All of their provisions would have been provided. However, Daniel and his three friends, Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael dissent from the eating of this food and prefer to eat a different kind of diet. This is built upon their understanding of scripture. In Chapter 1:8, when Daniel refuses to be defiled by the royal food and the wine, he asks for permission to be exempted from this program. There was a certain amount of hesitancy on the part of Ashpenaz who was immediately in charge. But he did get some resolution of the problem when he came to the guard. The guard begins to allow for Daniel and his three friends to have some freedom in this case. They were tried and tested and were found to look healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food.

But the fact of the matter is that according to Chapter 1:8 and verses following that embrace the entire context, we discover that revelation, as a symbolic mass will act as an engine of abstractions. As an engine of abstractions, we can draw it in a very simply way. Suppose we put a square in the middle of the page and we will let that square represent the scripture acting as an engine of abstractions; that is, it will generate non-situational meaning. That is what an engine of abstraction would do of this variety. It will generate meaning for the situation, but the meanings will not be situational in any sense. They will be quite non-situational. It will generate non-situational meanings about what we might refer to as pivotal issues.

In Chapter 1:3-4, the aptitudes of these young Jewish boys who were selected to be socialized in this particular way were discussed. Some people might think that having such talents, such capacities, such aptitudes might really be looked upon as pivotal issues in life becoming this prepared, being able to deal with the real-life situation that you have on your hands. These young men being of the nobility, had no physical defects, were perfect in health, handsome, and were quick-witted. They had the grand facility to learn and apparently they had a certain facility with language also. They could learn these things easily. These might be considered to be pivotal issues. However, from Daniel’s point of view these were not pivotal issues at all. Who determines what pivotal issues are? Only the Lord can do that. How is that determined? By the engine of abstractions that generates non-situational meaning about such things as the world refers to as pivotal issues. Because what was pivotal in the minds of these four young Hebrew men was not what was considered pivotal issues in the Babylonian bureaucracy.

2. It would generate non-situational symbolic masses themselves. In Chapter 1:4, we are told that these men were going to be able to matriculate through a training program so that they could be taught the language and the literature of the Babylonians. Well right there, the language and the literature of the Babylonians represents a kind of symbolic mass—very different than what these boys were used to from the scripture. So it was a situational symbolic mass. Here we have a case where scripture as a symbolic mass operates as an engine of abstractions to generate non-situational meaning about all other symbolic masses. In this particular case, scripture is acting as a non-situational symbolic mass to generate meaning about the situational symbolic mass that is the language and the literature of the Babylonians.

So what were Daniel and these three men to think about this situational symbolic mass that they were to spend three years of their lives studying? That would have made a profound impact on the way in which they looked at what they were studying. We have also indicated that not all these young Jewish boys that were taken and brought before Nebuchadnezzar to be selected took the high road. Not all of them opted for the isolation decision, as did these three young men. And God gifted them with this wisdom and with this understanding that was not something that had been created within the situational environment. When they would have come upon the symbolic mass of the Babylonians, they would know exactly how to deal with it. Simply because we are exposed to antipodal symbolic masses does not necessarily mean that we are going to be polluted. Simply because we live with all these other ideas floating around and we are exposed to these ideas, does not necessarily mean that we are going to be polluted by the very presence of an antipodal symbolic mass. However, the difference there is because we have an engine of abstractions. I would suggest that we must come to grips personally and collectively in the body of Christ with the role of scripture acting as an engine of abstractions about all such things—pivotal issues and situational symbolic masses included. In that way, we can stand in the position of ultimate protection. We won’t be overburdened by the symbols of another intelligence.

If these young men had simply accepted the verbal symbols and the visual symbols that were open to them, or did not recognize the scripture as an antipode (as an engine of abstractions operating as an antipode to the symbolic mass of the world), then they would have bowed down to those symbols that were presented to them. This would have been their grand mistake. Now they did not make that mistake. I suggest it’s up to us to read the scripture and let it function as it was intended to—as an engine of abstractions. We see it as a symbolic mass removed from all other symbolic masses and standing in the key position, bringing to bear upon all other symbols its own non-situational sets of meanings.

3. This engine of abstractions would have generated meaning regarding the rationalization of experience. The rationalization of experience is something that humanity does by nature. That is we bring our own intelligence to bear upon situations. We operate on our own observational skills and abilities. We act inductively. We act deductively. In other words, we are rationalizing experience. Now this is often thought to be a very positive thing. So when someone suggests to us that "God gave us a brain and we are expected to use that" what we are also stating in that phase is that we are in favor of the rationalization of experience. In Chapter 1:8, Daniel did not rationalize the experience of the food. In Chapter 1:9-16, he was very persistent in his dealings with people to try to arrange a different kind of diet for himself and for Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael. They could have surrendered. He could have begun to rationalize his experience generally in that case and could have said, "I’m here to conform. I’m not here to have the freedom to make my own decisions." He had many and multiple opportunities to rationalize.

The second recognizable quality of scripture as a symbolic mass is found in Daniel 3:16-18. These young men have been arrested and are now faced with the ultimatum of bowing down to a gold image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up on the plain of Dura or facing what he considers to be certain death. They know that revelation is a symbolic mass and therefore, they come to a conclusion that can be worded like this: It acts as a foundation for the determination of reality.

When they refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar and to the image and the symbols that he created—both verbal symbols and physical symbols--which would include the image set up on the plain of Dura. But that’s not the only image. There’s also the image of the furnace and what they knew generally happened when you exposed living tissue to intense heat radiation. Nebuchadnezzar thought that when they dissented from bowing down, that they were acting contrary to plain facts. They were contradicting reality. But the fact of the matter is that they weren’t contradicting reality. They were operating on an entirely different symbolic mass, which was used to determine what reality was. The way Nebuchadnezzar interpreted reality was very different than the way these three men were looking at it. They weren’t contradicting it at all. Often times those who operate on the basis of representational use of scripture might be referred to as irrational. We are not irrational at all. We have an entirely different base for determining what reality is and what it is not. That will always enter into a case of dissent with those who operate on a situational foundation for trying to determine what reality is.

When Abraham was confronted with the realities of his own biology and the biology of his wife, he was advanced in age so was his wife and she was biologically unable to have children. He had to confront a definition or a determination of reality. He determined that it was the word of God that formulates our understanding of reality and not human intelligence coming to bear on reality that really determines for us what that is. When we are facing great crises in life, we have to always remember that we are in the presence of a symbolic mass not of this world and therefore it must be allowed to do its job which is to act for us as a foundation for the determination of reality. Now what that means among other things is that the situational mind simply is not competent to determine what reality is.

In Daniel 6, when he was thrown into the lions’ den, his mind operating on its natural capacity, trying to string together a sequence of experiences to make sense of things, is not competent to determine what reality is nor was Darius or anyone else in the world. The situational mind should never be taken as the key to determining what reality is. Of course, humanity has largely violated this biblical dictum. In other words, when the situational mind begins to try and determine what reality is for itself, it is simply acting beyond its own competency. Now Hananiah, Azariah and Mishael in the context here of Chapter 3 are acting on a purely non-situational determination of reality. You have a conflict between faith on the one hand and a situational mind on the other. However, we can suggest that both faith and faithlessness are somewhat structurally similar. That is in terms of the three-place logic that we have discussed heretofore, there are three places, and the intelligence of man always occupies the middle position between the eternal presence and will of God and the world of material content. So to that degree it will look somewhat similar but the differences are very, very vast upon reflection.

In chapter 6:5, when the men who are involved in this collusion against Daniel meet together, they have reached a consensus. It is stated, "Finally these men said, ‘We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.’" (Unless it has something to do with the revelation as a symbolic mass in his mind, they will find no cause for accusation). This tells us that the revelation, acting as a symbolic mass upon which this man based his life, was a point of departure for the two antipodal mental functions in the world. We can identify two antipodal mental functions. One of those is the situational mental function. These men were operating with a mental function that was not created by the influence of God, but was of their own creation, either individually and/or collectively as these things are extended into the area of socialization. When they decided that they could trap Daniel relative to the words that have come to him from his God, they are not thinking as God would have them think. They are not righteous thinkers. Their minds are functioning in a particular way that can be identified. For lack of a better expression up to this point, we shall refer to that as the situational mental function.

Daniel and his mind function in an entirely different way. We will refer to that as the non-situational mental function. What we have tried to define here aren’t just batches of beliefs or certain kinds of belief systems. We are going beyond that and we are looking at the way in which minds function within the world situation. Daniel was a mind within the world situation. How did his mind function? That becomes the genius of our quest here. These other men, Darius and those who were involved in the collusion are also within the world situation and we want to ask ourselves the question, how is it revealed that their minds functioned as well?

A third way that scripture functions as a symbolic mass is found in Chapter 9:4-19, we have the prayer that Daniel offers on his behalf. It is a prayer of repentance, an expression of sorrow for sins and he makes this a collectivized kind of prayer. He is praying not only for himself but also for his people that have been brought into Babylonian captivity. His prayer mentions the revelation that God had given to them through the prophets (revelation as a symbolic mass); and how the prophets were sent to them time and time again calling the people back to repentance, trying to express to them where the lines were drawn, and that it is God who ultimately governs the universe. In his appeal to revelation as a symbolic mass, he is teaching us among other things that this mass acts as a definitional frontier. Shall we draw it this way: Let’s draw a large three sided box and in the center of the box draw a reinforced circle as if the circle had two walls and this circle opens up coming to the left and widens as the lines go out indicating that it is connected to the non-situational source. Put a little stick figure in the middle. What this would demonstrate hopefully is that the non-situational intelligence pushes into the real world situation, which is represented by the three-sided box. The little circle there within which stands the stick figure represents our intelligence being acted upon by the symbolic mass of scripture.

A fourth way that scripture functions as a symbolic mass as a kind of frontier. It is a mental frontier. It is an intellectual frontier. It is a frontier that will be demonstrated in many different ways in which these individuals who believe the word of God and who operate on it within the world situation behave. It’s a frontier that draws a distinction between non-situational intelligence and situated intelligence. In Chapter 9:4-5, he will say, "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned. We have done wrong. We have been wicked and have rebelled. We have turned away from your commands and from your law." In other words, he is admitting that they operated situationally. They were not thinking as God wanted them to think. They had not embraced the non-situational intelligence.

It’s also a frontier between situational wisdom and the wisdom that comes to us from God. It’s also a frontier that establishes a distinction between righteousness as evidenced by the intention of God and the wickedness about which he is fervent in his statements in verse 7: "Lord you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame-- the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you." But how does he know that the Lord is righteous? It was because of the revelation. It was because of this definitional frontier that the scripture produced acting as a symbolic mass. It does draw a distinction. It is a frontier of many different sorts. In chapter 9:8-11, he continues by saying that it produces a definitional frontier between the well being of the people of God and then operating within the curses that will be and are ultimately brought against those who violate this symbolic frontier. So revelation as a symbolic mass was clearly depicted within the book of Daniel.

We might continue to expand the idea and describe a conflict between non-situational symbolic masses. Suppose that we draw a number of blocks on a page—blocks that are stacked one on top of another and suppose you have two lines or two series of blocks like a brick wall that are put together. We will allow this set of bricks to represent the non-situational symbolic mass. These are the words of God. Now suppose we draw little wavy lines coming out of each block and that will represent kind of a branch-like structure and then at the end of every one of these little branches we draw a little "g" and this "g" will represent "generalizations." This structure shows us the intellectual burden that we must bear. One of these symbolic masses, either that of the world or this which is of a non-situational nature has got to be abandoned in favor of the other. We know that’s the case for instance in chapter 9:13, Daniel says, "Just as it is written in the law of Moses all this disaster has come upon us. Yet we have not yet sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth." In other words, something has to be abandoned.

Max Planck in some of his writings suggested that the world around him had to be created of absolute structures. What he meant by that was absolute structures that could be determined to be absolute from the point of view of man. He is referring to the statistical laws of nature and the things that work in all parts of the universe concomitantly and without contradiction. We have to suggest that Max Planck was wrong in suggesting that the world is going to be controlled by absolute structures. The only absolute structure in the universe would be the Lord himself. That requires us to cling to his symbolic mass and requires the subsequent abandonment of dependence upon a situational symbolic mass of a different nature. In the book of Luke 5 there are a number of statements made in that context that are worthy of consideration relative to this particular insight. Jesus heals a paralytic and then he makes a statement to this man after he has been lowered through the tiles of the roof. He is laid out before Jesus on his mat of suffering. These people were moved to take the tiles off the roof and to bring this man upstairs and then lower him down so he could be deposited in the very presence of Jesus. Jesus sees that as faith. He says in vs. 20:5, "When Jesus saw their faith, he said, ‘Friend, your sins are forgiven.’" This is a remarkable statement. Of course the Pharisees and the teachers of the law were highly incensed. They thought among themselves, "Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?" They, of course, were quite right about that and that is why Jesus had established this framework the way he did. Jesus knew what they were thinking. They were operating on a symbolic mass that is very different than that which comes from scripture. He asks them, "Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk?’ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…’ He said to the paralyzed man, ‘I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." And of course the man was immediately healed.

We are not dealing with a world populated by physical absolute structures. We recognize that only the Lord himself is in charge of the universe and every aspect of every universe and it’s HIS symbolic mass that makes a difference. There was this grand conflict In Luke 5 between two symbolic masses. Now the Jews had for a long time rationalized scripture. They had been doing that for a long time before Jesus came along—which is the essence of the Talmud, which is really nothing more than a collection of rationalizations about the text. Now it is possible for such people to map external meanings of a situational variety on to the text, which is exactly the problem associated with the rationalization of the text, rather than to draw generalizations from the text. There is a mutual exclusion line that must exist between the symbolic mass of scripture and the situational symbolic mass. Both of them will serve as bases for generalizing, but only one is valid in the universe in which we live. Jesus is operating on a symbolic mass that is revealed from the Lord.

Suppose that we furthermore suggest that personality can best be understood as a symbolic mass. We have long known that in order to grasp a personality, that personality must express itself. Therefore, what is known about a personality is achievable through the way in which it is symbolized. No one can see a personality, no one can touch a personality, and no one can take it out of a person’s body and analyze it in any kind of 3-dimensional way. So it is best approached as a symbolic mass. Suppose we thought of ourselves as symbolic masses. The way we speak, the way we think, and the way symbolize the world of material content would create this symbolic mass. This is either dependent upon the revelation of God or dependent upon the situational world that is around us. I’m content with the idea that the Lord himself can draw a distinction between personality and symbolic mass. But I doubt very seriously if we can do that. So if they are not one and the same thing, they are certainly so simultaneous that they have to be considered in the same breath.

Suppose we consider marriage to be a symbolic mass and understand it uniquely in terms of it being that. A family should be understood as a symbolic mass. Any temporal structure—a business or any other social structure—would be acting as a symbolic mass. Society and culture at large would be understandable on the basis of what they represent as a symbolic mass and certainly history is a unique symbolic mass. Everyone has one of those; every nation has one of those. As a result of that it is knowable only through the concentration of the symbols that they have created and have exuded. That is our means of understanding temporal structures to a more profound degree. Now if we are in agreement that personality, marriage, family, structures in the temporal order and society in general, culture and history can be interpreted as symbolic masses then we have a way of understanding and critiquing them and bringing the scripture to bear upon them.