In Chapter 9, we find more information that tells us about how and why and to what degree the scripture became a semiotic presence to Daniel. In 9:2, we discover that he is reading the prophecy of Jeremiah about the 70-years captivity. He knows and acts upon the belief that the prophecy of Jeremiah is a manifestation of truth—it is semiotic presence to him, and to his mind. In 9:6, he would say, "We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land." What the prophets brought was to be a semiotic presence. If it had been that to the people, they would have repented of their sins.

Inherently in Chapter 9, Daniel is saying, "This disaster could have been averted by treating the message of the prophets as a semiotic presence. This is senseless because it did not ever have to take place." There are so many things in our lives as Christians, and in the lives of everyone in general, that should never take place. And they wouldn’t happen if we acknowledged the presence of this unique revelation and allowed it to be what it wants to be, what it claims to be and what it clamors to be in our lives, which is a semiotic presence. In 9:11-13, it says, "All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you." The Law of Moses was not maintained, as it should have been as a semiotic presence to the people of Israel. "You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster. Under the whole heaven nothing has ever been done like what has been done to Jerusalem." Why? Because there was no semiotic presence built on the reality of God to precipitate the kind of semiotic actions that are fundamentally necessary and required by God. "Just as it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us, yet we have not sought the favor of the Lord our God by turning from our sins and giving attention to your truth." Giving attention to the truth has meaning. It means the truth is being allowed to act as a semiotic presence to determine how we think.

When we operate on this non-situational semiotic presence, semiotic actions are going to emerge. The thing that connects the semiotic presence to semiotic actions over here in the situational world is the will of man as it is devoted to God. So we have a circuit that is created—the semiotic presence arches over and brings forth into fruition the semiotic action which is "right" living, "right" thinking; and semiotic action points back to the non-situational semiotic presence. So an entire and complete circuit is performed there. That is what the church lives to be—a group of humble people operating on this non-situational constant. It imposes textual conditions on the world situation. Business decisions would be converted into semiotic actions. This means that there would be a cap on what kind of decisions in the business world can be made. They have to be semiotic actions. We will not find anything about semiotic actions from textbooks on finances or on market theory, or by getting a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard Business School or from anywhere else. We can only find this in scripture.

Biological concerns would be converted in this scheme into semiotic concerns. Semiotic concerns are those that are shaped by the semiotic presence of the revelation of God. Dangers that we would face, and there are a number of those, are converted into something else. All situations would be responded to by semiotic actions. Wants and needs, all of which are germane to human-lived experience and our presence on the earth are going to be affected and turned into semiotic interpretations of life. Thinking in general, all of these things are going to be converted into a semiotic kind of action.

This suggests to us that there is a bifurcation or a division in the way in which we are to look at actions in general. On the one hand, there would be a scriptural class of actions. On the other hand, there would be a conventional class of actions. Let’s momentarily discuss this conventional class of actions. Human beings, as we come to bear on circumstances and the actions that we can take, will gradate those actions. We will divide them up into various categorizations. We might say of some actions that they are either "moral" or "immoral." When we operate on that basis of separating and filtering situations into these two categories, one might come to the conclusion that we didn’t do anything wrong. I haven’t infringed on any moral requirement stated in the society or perhaps in the text. But that’s because we have created a conventional understanding of actions, and we don’t want a conventional understanding of actions. We want a non-situational understanding of actions.

Non-situational actions and conventional actions are not the same; however, if we operate on the difference between types of actions entirely on the basis of their morality or their immorality, we fail to enlarge our scope and our appreciation about what action is and what it’s supposed to be. We can certainly make the statement that "we didn’t do anything wrong" and still not be a taking a semiotic action that points to the semiotic presence of God and his revelation. We sometimes make divisions between actions that we think of as religious and those that are secular. I would suggest that we would do much better if we graded all actions or responses within the world situation in terms of situational and non-situational. Because one could still operate on the basis of what one would think to be a religious class of actions and still be situational in the way in which one responded. So perhaps we can go beyond a limited understanding of actions as being religious or secular.

Some actions we think are acceptable, others are considered to be unacceptable perhaps because of their results or perhaps because of some other conventional set of criteria that we have used to help us decide what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. In the book of Daniel, we find that these four Hebrews were not concerned about "acceptable" and "unacceptable" actions as far as the society was concerned. They were going to be operating on an entirely different basis with an entirely higher range of meaning that would be attributed to the world of action. They were interested in semiotic actions.

We often make a gradation between "effective" actions or "ineffective" actions, which once again would be a world away from trying to understand this from the point of view of the semiotic presence, which is the revelation of God. Sometimes we make distinctions between altruistic actions and self-serving actions. We can suggest that the world is very interested in the churches being altruistic—feed the poor, deal with those infected with the AIDS virus, take care of the homeless, address these social issues. We should be concerned about these problems and we do have alleviation to bring to bear in these circumstances. However, to simply say that there are "altruistic" actions and there are "self-serving" actions is to obscure the larger and sharper focus about what action that we take as Christians is supposed to be within the world situation. Sometimes, we in the churches especially, draw a distinction between "doctrinal" actions and "experience." If we look at all of these divisions, every one of them will have a set of criteria to draw delineation between them. We don’t operate on those distinctions. All of these categories of actions we would be willing to call a "conventional" classes of actions.

Now let’s talk about a scriptural class of actions. Let’s make the suggestion that there is a simple division here between "semiotic" actions on the one hand and "situational" actions on the other. Such actions that we call "semiotic" once they are perceived by the world, can explode or penetrate their minds by the semiotic presence, which is indeed what they are supposed to do. It’s not just a series of actions here. We are connected inexorably and definitively to something outside of ourselves. All of our actions tell the world that. Our actions that are semiotic are to be interpreted the way. These actions force that interpretation and they also call for a response from the external world. Once the world looks at us and sees our actions and enlarges upon them to a level that they become a semiotic presence, then they realize that our presence creates a danger. The semiotic presence of God creates a danger. In 1 Corinthians 1:18 and following verses, we see that the erudite of the world, at least from the situational side, saw that danger very clearly and they pronounced the will of God as a semiotic presence to be a danger. They criticized it as being a foolish endeavor. That it did not make sense to the situated mind. In fact, it didn’t. In 1 Corinthians 2, we are warned that the situated mind operating without the spirit of God concludes that those things that come from the spirit, are foolishness; that they are not germane, and they do not have any comment to make about the material world. Therefore, they are to be discounted. They were wrong when they did that.

In Daniel 6, Daniel was a man of honor, a man of faith, a man of purity, and a man of commitment because of his allegiance to God. He was scrupulously honest and he conducted his affairs at the level of empire scrupulously and there proved to be no warrant to accuse him. So his enemies trumped up a collusion to see if they could trap him on the basis of the semiotic action that he took each day which was to pray. Recently in the news when the Baptist General Convention Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah added in to their public record a belief that a tenant of their faith that wives should submit to their husbands within the marriage bond (which comes directly from scripture in the book of Ephesians) and they were largely vilified by the world. That statement that amounted to a semiotic action was enlarged upon. As far as the world was concerned it became a semiotic presence. There were all sorts of recriminations against this from many in the media about that action they took.

In the book of Daniel there are a number of examples about semiotic actions. We will look at seven of these. This is not an exhaustive list, but it will illustrate some of the points to hopefully assure ourselves that we are on the right track here.

1. In Chapter 1:8, Daniel had been brought into this great mob of captives after the destruction of Jerusalem, and he had been carted off with his three friends to Babylon. He was confronted with an element of the Babylonian experience that had to do with the food he was to eat. And it says of him that he "resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way." This is a semiotic action. This is an action that creates a textual condition or constraint on this bit of experience. The bit of experience involves the food, but we can enlarge that to other things that had to do with his full range of experience. This is a semiotic action, connected to the semiotic presence; and that is why he did it and why he thought about the food issue precisely the way he did.
2. A semiotic action is recorded in 1:11—the element of constancy. When Daniel first approached the chief official for permission to eat in a different way so that he could maintain his conscientious relationship to God he was rebuffed by the chief official out of fear. The fear was that if the king saw the poor condition biologically of Daniel and his three friends that the king would have his head. Daniel continues on constantly working at yet another level. And then there was a guard whom the chief official had given authority over these four men. So they talked to the guard about this exemption from the food, and he is willing to take the risk as the Lord had shaped the situation. Here is constancy—not giving up. He is not just working through the bureaucracy. He is remaining constant in every situation. We don’t work through bureaucracies. We don’t work through systems. We simply remain constant. Now the outside mind might look at it and say well he is working through the bureaucracy until he finds somebody that will work the situation the way he wants. That is not what he is doing. He is simply constant. These are semiotic actions. The action of constancy is semiotic because it places a biblical and a textual condition on his mind and on his actions.
3. A third semiotic action is that of prayer. In Chapter 2:17-18, a statement is made of Daniel, "Then Daniel returned to his house and explained the matter to his friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. He urged them to plead for mercy from the God of heaven concerning this mystery, so that he and his friends might not be executed with the rest of the wise men of Babylon." He prayed. This is semiotic action. It is calculated. It puts a condition on the situation. When we pray that is the way we pray. That is why the Lord evidently honors prayer; because it is semiotic. It’s precisely semiotic because it is one end of the unity that runs over the hinge back into eternity and it is connected with the semiotic presence of the mind of God as it functions among us and in our hearts and in our souls.
4. A fourth semiotic action would be the acknowledgment of the eternal power. In Chapter 4:17, when Nebuchadnezzar is given the dream about a large tree where birds of the field nest and find nourishment and where animals find protection underneath. But the dream also indicates that the tree is going to be cut down. "The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men." In Chapter 2:23, after he had been given the interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar’s first dream, Daniel acknowledges God in his prayer. He acknowledges that "wisdom and power are his." He acknowledges that "he changes times and seasons, sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom and knowledge to the discerning. He reveals deep and hidden things; he knows what lies in darkness, and light dwells with him." God is acknowledged in that prayer and there are other places that it is stated that God rules the universe. Later on, Nebuchadnezzar himself will come to make that acknowledgement. This kind of acknowledgement is a semiotic action. It is another member of that class of actions that we are saying in our study is headed by the practice of humility. Submitting oneself to the demands of God so that we are not defiled is an act of humility. Maintaining constancy even though there are a myriad number of obstacles through which we have to pass is an act of humility. Prayer and the acknowledgment of the grandeur and power of God are actions of humility. They are semiotic actions.
5. In Chapter 3:6-18, there is another semiotic action and that would be the disregarding of danger. In this scenario, the three friends have been arrested and now they are threatened with death in the fiery furnace. In 3:16, they reply to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." They disregard the danger. Now anytime we face the world situation, this must be one of the responses that we make. This is not pride, this is not arrogance. This is an act of humility. To disregard the danger is a semiotic action. The danger could be very obvious and even more than that it can be quite present. In Chapter 3, there is no question about the presence of this danger. There is a superheated furnace. Here are the guards ready to throw these rebels into the fire—in fact that is exactly what happens. But what do they do? There is a kind of action that puts a condition on the situation and on how they will respond to the situation. Humility does that. Semiotic actions do that.
6. We have to bear the truth in the world of material circumstance in a sociological set of realities. In Chapter 5, Belshazzar, who has succeeded Nebuchadnezzar, has been shown the handwriting on the wall. He is quite disturbed. Daniel is summoned. He comes into the palace setting in the middle of this orgy, which has now ceased because of the appearance of this mysterious writing. He interprets it for the king. He is bold in the way in which he bears the truth into this world situation. This is a semiotic action. Daniel says in vs. 22, "But you his son, O Belshazzar, have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this. Instead, you have set yourself up against he Lord of heaven. (This is not humility). You had the goblets from his temple brought to you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines drank wine from them. You praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood, and stone, which cannot see or hear or understand. But you did not honor the God who holds in his hand your life and all your ways." He was bearing the truth. We are going to have to bear the truth in the middle of world situations. That is a semiotic action. It is not an act of rebellion from the Lord’s point of view. It is a semiotic action. It is interpretive. It brings meaning. It calls for a response. It is a textual condition, not a personal condition. It is a scriptural condition on the situation. That is what humility does. We have to bear the truth up against all the world realities that surround us. That is required. If we don’t, we are going to act situationally. We can’t do this because it is forbidden.
7. We have to pay the price. In Chapter 6:10-12, a decree has gone out from Darius about prayer. No one is allowed to pray for thirty days to any God except to Darius. But Daniel does not recognize Darius as a god and there is a semiotic presence that is so strong he cannot deny the need for a particular response to it. This is a semiotic response. He will pay the price. In Chapter 6:10-12, it says that when Daniel learned that the decree had been published he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened to Jerusalem. He knew the decree, knew what was in the decree, and knew what it meant. No doubt he would have expected visitors. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God just as he had done before. Nothing changed. He was a man of semiotic action. That pattern in his life never changed, never ceased, in this man’s response to any situation. They go as a group to Daniel’s house and found him praying. In vs. 6:12, "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 in the lions’ den?’ The king answered, ‘The decree stands—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed." So Daniel paid a price. They threw him into the lions’ den. That is a semiotic action.

These are examples in the book of Daniel germane to the way in which we must respond in the midst of conventional situations. We respond semiotically because of the presence of a semiotic revelation. We are not going to go back on that, therefore, we come to a conclusion that the scriptural classes of actions and the conventional classes of human action are antipodes. Therefore, we are humble only if we see this fact and if we operate on it. These seven examples of semiotic actions that we discussed above, and all other semiotic actions, impose textual conditions on all situations. There are other semiotic actions. Baptism is a semiotic action. Repentance is a semiotic action. Obedience is a semiotic action. Sacrifices that we make before God are semiotic actions.

Finally, on the one hand there is the semiotic presence of God himself and of his revelation. On the other end of that unity there are semiotic actions taken by human beings, all of which are subordinated to the semiotic presence. This again is a picture of marriage. Why does the wife subordinate herself to her husband? Because that is a semiotic action. Why in 1 Peter 3 does the wife of the unbeliever act the way she does with dignity and with honor? Why those particular type of actions? Because they are semiotic actions. They clamp textual conditions on her behavior and on the situation itself. It is a picture of marriage. We, of course, in the material world—all human beings—occupy the temporal representation in this unity. We are the ones that are required to act semiotically because we have a semiotic presence that arches over us. And these are the actions we are told in the scripture that are blessed by the Lord.

However, such actions are seen as foolishness from the world’s point of view. They could be referred to as quite impractical. The word of God has always been criticized (even by those who should know better) as being impractical, a hindrance or a limitation. Often the situated mind sees the revelation of God as a limitation. Sometimes they might make the appraisal that there is no security to be found by operating on these classes of action that we refer to as semiotic. Often men of science who desire to denigrate the reality of the semiotic presence, which is revelation, will simply dismiss such things as metaphysics and therefore not worthy of serious consideration. Nebuchadnezzar would have said in his day, before God humbled him, that you couldn’t build an empire on semiotic actions. Well, that’s not true. That is certainly not true for God. In the dream that Nebuchadnezzar had in Chapter 2, a stone that cut out of a mountain--but not by human hands--rolled down and destroyed the metals that represented all the subordinate kingdoms of men. This stone represented a semiotic action of Christ, the man, who came and lived and functioned according to this standard; and his kingdom would be greater than any other.

Human intelligence is a sensible horizon because it is built on the five senses of the central nervous system in general. Semiotic action is not relative to the sensible horizon. Any action that is to be considered semiotic such as humility is not relative to the sensible horizon. Quite the contrary, all semiotic actions are relative to the semiotic presence. There is a big difference. If people decide to operate on the validity of the instruction that we get from the sensible horizon or that we think we are deriving from it, whatever action we take is not humble by biblical definition. And yet the human race has a strong penchant for creating a subsidiary or a different and opposing kind of unity. On the one hand, there is the sensible horizon. On the other, is the world of action. That unity that runs sensible horizon to action is the unity of pride. In Chapter 4:30, we have Nebuchadnezzar saying one day on his balcony, "Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?" The sensible horizon shaping action creates the unity of pride. It is destructive. In Chapter 4:37, he has now learned that those who walk in pride will be humbled. That’s what it means to walk in pride, making all actions relative to the sensible horizon. In Chapter 5:22, Daniel accuses Belshazzar of the sin of pride. "You have not humbled yourself, though you knew all this." This becomes the great mistake.

Therefore we can conclude and believe faithfully that we are going to have do away with this whole conception of a periodicized text or scripture. The concept of a periodicized revelation has a negative affect on scripture because scripture in that case is not perceived as a semiotic presence. It is only rather a source of doctrine and ethics and soteriology. For the Jews, because they saw it that way, it became a requirement for them to fulfill its laws, it brought with it certain iconic repetitions that they went through such as going to the temple when it was built and carrying on with some of the feasts that were required, and the circumcision ritual and other things. But those are iconic representations. They are not semiotic actions unless they are connected and made relative to the semiotic presence. That is the thing that changes life for us and for all who operate on the basis of faith.