Keywords

Introduction

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. (Daniel 12:2–3)

This study is an ideological exegetical analysis of Daniel 9:19 (English Standard Version) that used ancient text from the Old Testament to better understand how a leader grows during a time of crisis. Specifically, this study examined the emerging leadership of a young man named Daniel, who, during a time of great turmoil, grew as a leader as he encountered different challenges within his oppressed environment. While scholars have regarded Daniel as a leader, unfortunately, Daniel has mainly been studied as an apocalyptic prophet rather than as a leader, and the book of Daniel has “often been misused to predict the end of the world” (Greidanus, 2012, p. 257). As a result, the text has been widely disputed among scholars (Greidanus, 2012). However, despite these issues, the text also exemplifies Daniel’s experiences as a leader and the pivotal points for Daniel’s leadership development during the Israeli crisis. As a leader, Daniel had to find the strength to face an abusive political system where people were experiencing death and destruction as well as living in oppressive disarray. Yet, he was eventually able to obtain Divine knowledge that was otherwise unavailable to the Israelis (Werline, 2014). In an effort to better understand the growth a leader will experience through a crisis, this ideological study used socio-rhetorical criticism and inner texture analysis methods regarding the onslaughts of four challenges Daniel faced as a leader, which included being (a) chosen, (b) courageous, (c) accused, and (d) an ambassador for the people. Therefore, the research for this study was structured around the question: How did Daniel grow as a leader through the Israeli crisis?

Crisis and the Leader: Israel Was Not Forsaken

In the 16th chapter of the book of Ezekiel, God announced that, many generations ago, He had brought the Israelites to the Promised Land to be His chosen people set apart from other nations. However, instead of relying on God, the Israelites allied themselves with the great powers around them, mainly Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. As a result, God became angry and considered this as a type of prostitution as they (a) worshiped idols (Ezekiel 8:10–12, 14, 17), (b) listened to false prophets (Ezekiel 13:2–7), and (c) committed injustices such as bribery, usury, extortion, exploitation of the weak (widows and orphans), incest, slander, and sacrificing children to idols (Ezekiel 22:1–12). Therefore, God permitted the Israelites to be conquered and deported (Daniel 1:2; Ezekiel 24:14), and the Israelites found themselves experiencing a major crisis with no end in sight. Then, in 605 BCE, Daniel, a young man and Judean nobleman, was deported from Israel to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar’s command during the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, King of Judah (Daniel 1:1, 3–4). Daniel 1:1 explains, “Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it.” Since Daniel was considered to be a nobleman, a youth without blemish, handsome, and skilled, his life was spared (Daniel 1:4–6). Consequently, although not yet known, the Israelis were given someone who would speak on their behalf (Daniel 9).

The Challenges of Leadership During Crises

Organizations experience many different types of crises such as issues that could stem from an array of situations like leadership issues, scandals, bureaucracy, economic situations, and different types of conflict (Argyris, 2010; Grey, 2009; Johnson, 2012). One extreme example of bureaucratic logic would be the Holocaust and the genocide that occurred with it (Grey, 2009, p. 25). In the early twentieth century, Pennsylvania was known as the core for industry as a result of the strong presence of the steel mills. This was the catalyst for eventual changes in managerial power and the creation of unions and new revolutions (such as Taylorism and scientific management), as well as other new influences that would take the steelworkers’ individual values into consideration after they endured extreme hardship of excessive work for little pay in dangerous situations (Grey, 2009). Ultimately, it was new emphases such as these that were responsible for creating the launching point for generating outcomes such as whistleblowing, morale building, and ethical climates in the workplace (Fisher-Thornton, 2009; Sekerka, 2009), in addition to other factors to be taken into consideration, such as human relations, so that workers could break away from the carrot-stick type of reward system (Grey, 2009). When leaders face a crisis, they become more vulnerable due to the issues that are beyond their control (Kellerman, 2008). However, Argyris (2010) posited that leaders during a time of crisis should “be skillful at presenting arguments in a positive manner” (p. 95). Therefore, the above literature raises a secondary question: WasDanielskillful in presenting hisargumenttoGodin a positive manner?

Effective Organizational Communication During a Crisis

As the above literature noted, there are grave challenges a leader may endure depending on the type of crisis. Moreover, as the Danieltext points out and as Argyris suggested, it is essential for leaders to be skillful when presenting an argument during a time of crisis. Additionally, breakdowns in communication typically occur during a time of crisis and effective communication goes out the window despite the leader’s efforts (Argyris, 2010). While the popular understanding of an argument is a quarrel, the operational definition of an argument is not conflict, but rather an argument is a search for truth and the starting place for research (Ramage, Bean, & Johnson, 2011).

Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, and Goodall (2017) described an important aspect of communication such as both parties acting as an open and receptive listener as well as a speaker when there are differing views. Adding to this, Shockley-Zalabak (2012) explained that the underlying fundamentals for organizational communication consist of knowledge, sensitivity, skills, and values and defined organizational communication as a process, people, and messages while also requiring a competency approach in order to develop knowledge, sensitivity, skills, and values. According to Northouse (2013), leadership can develop from communication behaviors, such as the individual being verbally involved, being informed, seeking opinions from others, initiating new ideas, and being firm, but not rigid. Yukl (2013) described this type of communication skill as a managerial competency. Yukl further stated that these types of skills (social, emotional, and learning ability) are all necessary for effective communication. When this type of communication occurs, this demonstrates leaders as having language awareness (Eschholz, Rosa, & Clark, 2016).

Problem and Significance of the Study

Unlike a problem that can be anticipated, when a crisis comes, it comes unannounced, and nothing will test leadership like a crisis when it comes (Yukl, 2013). However, during this unfortunate time, a leader can bring confidence to the oppressed, persecuted, powerless, maltreated, and enslaved people (Malina, 2001). However, these individuals must learn how to do what becomes necessary to achieve victory (Folger, Poole, & Stutman, 2013). In order for launching points to happen within an organization during crises, leaders are needed who can exercise appropriate influence and communication skills while making integration possible with the people (Argyris, 2010; Folger et al., 2013). Daniel’s leadership during the Israeli crisis would inevitably be tested. Many leaders who have strengths like Daniel have existed, do exist, and are still yet to come. However, by examining the growth that occurred in Daniel as a leader during the Israeli crisis, both practitioners and scholars can have a better understanding of the stages of growth leaders will go through when in crises from other types of leadership roles.

Interpretive Methodology

This study uses the socio-rhetorical methodology. According to Robbins (1996), this rhetorical strategy will offer multiple analytic and interpretive modes that will help them to be placed into dialogue with one another (p. 240). Robbins also stated that there are four types of textures used in socio-rhetorical methodology; intertexture, inner texture, socio-cultural, and ideological. Ideological analysis helps the interpreter to analyze the features of the text by considering the entire text in order to develop ideas, discuss functions, and draw conclusions (Osborne, 2006). When conducting an exegesis, the meaning of a text is genre dependent, which means the text is dependent on the literary form (Osborne, 2006). For example, the Bible has different types of literary forms that include proverbs, parables, letters, law, prophecy, and historical narrative to name a few.

Robbins stated that when an individual first looks at a text, it may seem flat, but when that person begins to explore the inner texture of a text, a communication transaction will occur as the reader activates the text (Robbins, 1996). As a result, the interpreter can experience the pericope and bring it to life (p. 28). Socio-rhetorical criticism attempts to nurture the narrator, interpreter, and characters to work together to communicate a message. This study used the socio-rhetorical model for interpretation of Daniel 9:19 through the perspective of Traditional Criticism. As stated earlier, the socio-rhetorical analysis is beneficial to use when examining text because it asks the interpreter to take a systematic approach for developing a purposeful strategy for reading a text from different angles making them an interactive place for both the author and the interpreter (Robbins, 1996, p. 3). Robbins explained that the very act of reading starts the inner text exploration of the text by the reader, and it is the inner text of a text that facilities the communication transaction between the reader and the text.

Early chapters of the book of Daniel were written in Aramaic, while the later chapters were written in Hebrew (Collins, 1984), indicating Daniel to have been written by at least two or three authors (Greidanus, 2012). Using ideological texture analysis to examine Daniel 9:19 will allow for the interpreter to consider the entire Daniel text for analysis. This is important, as interpretation can be an exhausting and strenuous effort in an attempt to find truth (Osborne, 2006; Robbins, 1996). In order to obtain the best analysis, it is important to examine how the relations are influenced by one another. This can be achieved by using various ideological interpretations, which are found in four places; texts, authoritative traditions and interpretations, intellectual discourse, and individuals and groups (Robbins, 1996). While a focus can be placed on text and authoritative traditions and interpretations, the scope of this analysis will mainly involve utilizing intellectual discourse as well as individuals and groups to examine the exegesis of Daniel 9:19, so that the ideological texture can examine the phases of how Daniel’s leadership developed during the Israeli crisis within the Daniel text.

DeSilva (2004) stated, “Recognizing [the] cues that an author has woven into the text’s strategy and instructions helps interpreters to discern more closely what gives the text its persuasive power, or what contributions to the formation of Christian culture a text is making” (p. 111). Interpreters who are interested in observing the text line-by-line, word-by-word to interpret the meaning as the author intended, use the Traditional Criticism approach (Vanhoozer, 2009). The Traditional Criticism approach (Vanhoozer, 2009) is a beneficial method for conducting exegesis so that meaning can be objectively extracted out of the pericope (Osborne, 2006). By doing so, the semantics of the words can be examined to explore the meaning of individual words and patterns as they function within the verse (Osborne, 2006). Additionally, this enables the researcher to find the core of what the original author(s) intended (DeSilva, 2004).

Exegesis and Results

In Daniel 9:19, the author writes, “O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by our name” (English Standard Version).

The first pattern revealed in this pericope to the interpreter is “reverence” that leads to “repentance”:

  • Lord, hear

  • Lord, forgive

  • Lord

The second pattern revealed in this pericope is “action” that leads to “direction”:

  • pay attention

  • act

  • delay not

The third pattern revealed in this pericope is “ownership” that leads to “mercy”:

  • for your own sake

  • my God

  • your city

  • your people

  • are called

  • by your name

Then, there is an individual word left:

  • because

The word “because” is used by the author to introduce Daniel’s reasoning for his claim. Therefore, this text is an enthymeme and not a syllogism as in formal logic (Ramage et al., 2011; Robbins, 1996). A syllogism would be worded as follows: if a = b and b = c then a = c. As stated, the word “because” signals the reason for Daniel’s claim that God needs to act because he is merciful, and not due to the Israelites, nor Daniel as being deserving. This reveals Daniel as having a persuasive discussion with God that is skillfully facilitated as he uses a proposal argument, which occurs when the speaker (Daniel) asks the listener (God) to act (Ramage et al., 2011). This is in contrast to what Daniel exemplified earlier as a leader, which was his initial dependence on being a nobleman and skilled youth without blemish, which reveals his growth and maturity as a leader.

Phases of Leadership Growth: The Chosen, Courageous, Accused, and the Ambassador

While the entire text of Daniel takes place during the Israelites’ crisis, there are four specific instances that exemplify how Daniel grows as a leader during this crisis. During the first phase of his leadership, Daniel gets his start by being chosen along with a small group of others who are considered by the eunuch to be from a royal family, free of scandal, young, good looking, talented, educated, and competent (Daniel 1:4, 6–7). According to the text, the king had a plan to educate them over a three-year period, and they would also have access to the king’s delicacies (Daniel 1:5). At this point, as with leaders who find themselves appointed or elected as a result of their background, experiences, or education (Tatone, 2017), Daniel’s very first phase of leadership development during this crisis involved being chosen due to his education and noble background.

The second phase of Daniel’s leadershipgrowth occurs when Arioch, the caption of the king, seeks out Daniel and his fellow companions to kill them, as no one can interpret the king’s dream (Daniel 2:13–15). However, Daniel reveals himself to act courageously, by requesting the king to appoint a time in which Daniel could give the king an interpretation (Daniel 2:16). This demonstration of boldness reveals Daniel to exhibit courage and self-confidence (Chaleff, 1995; Northouse, 2013; Yukl, 2013) due to his talent and skill set as an oneirologist, who is a person that can interpret dreams (Daniel 1:7). Therefore, this text reveals Daniel as having grown from a leader who was appointed, to a leader who has courage due to his confidence in his talents and skills.

The third phase of Daniel’s leadershipgrowth occurs when Daniel is accused of praying to his God due to a new injunction that Darius had been deceived into agreeing (Daniel 6:5, 10–12). Up to this point, the ancient text reveals Daniel to have shown continual faith, as he would continually pray for the sake of his companions who faced grave dangers from accusations such as when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace and survive (Daniel 3:8–27). However, Daniel had yet to experience a danger of such magnitude personally, that is until his accusation causes him to be thrown into a lion’s den (Daniel 6:16). The author of this text did not write any reaction expressed by Daniel when this happened. However, the author did write that Daniel did know that the document was signed yet; despite this, Daniel proceeded to pray. While this may appear on the surface as an act of either defiance or great faith, in order to have been emotionally prepared for such an event and what was to come, this exemplifies Daniel as now displaying emotional intelligence, as emotional intelligence combines both thinking and feeling and control of emotions (Maamari & Majdalani, 2017) in precarious conditions.

The fourth phase of Daniel’s leadership development occurs when Daniel acts as an ambassador for the people (Daniel 9). In this instance, Daniel begins to reflect on Jeremiah 25:11–12; 29:10, which states that after 70 years has gone by, Babylon would fall, and the Israelites would be freed, yet they were still in captivity. Redditt (2000) stated that this meant the author of the Daniel text was not going to accept that 165 BCE was going to be the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. However, the author of this text does reveal Daniel to act on behalf of the people as their ambassador to the LordGod Almighty. Moreover, in doing so in his prayer to God, Daniel does not need to exert his strong education and noble background, his abilities, nor his emotional intelligence. Daniel now prays with reverence to God as the decision-maker, while also repenting for his sins and the sins of the people in a skillful, persuasive manner that demonstrates sensitivity and respect for God’s authority and for his ability to give mercy to the people (Daniel 19:9). Consequently, Gabriel comes to confirm that God has granted forgiveness and deliverance (Jones, 1968), as well as to affirm God’s love for Daniel and to offer clarification regarding Jeremiah’s vision (Daniel 9:23; Redditt, 2000). Conclusively, the exegesis reveals that, through acting as an ambassador of the people, Daniel has learned selfless humility in his final phase of his leadership growth during the Israeli crisis.

Daniel’s Skillful Presentation of an Argument

As the exegesis of the Danieltext reveals the four phases of Daniel’s leadershipgrowth in developing from a state of self-reliant confidence to a state of selfless humility through admission of his (and his people’s) imperfections (sin), it also reveals that, through his humility, Daniel does rely on effective communication with God. As stated above, the exegesis reveals that the Daniel 19:9 text is an enthymeme. According to Ramage et al. (2011), an enthymeme is the core for an effective argument, as an otherwise missing premise is revealed by the speaker. The text reveals Daniel 9:19 to exemplify Daniel’s reverence “Oh Lord” and repentance “forgive” at the start of his conversation with God. However, despite this, the conversation then shifts to Daniel telling God to take action “pay attention” and he directs God to “act” and “delay not,” which is Daniel’s claim for his argument. What makes Daniel skillful in presenting his argument to God in a positive manner using persuasive techniques is his use of an enthymeme. The word “because” completes the enthymeme as Daniel can offer reasons for his argument (Ramage et al., 2011). These reasons include God’s ownership “for your sake,” “my God,” and “your city” and segues to a plea of mercy “your people,” “are called,” and “by your name” (Daniel 9:19). This type of communication is not a form of negotiation, as negotiation is a type of argument that is used by a leader to influence someone who is “actively disagreeing with them” (Hackman & Johnson, 2013, p. 181). In this instance, the text does not reveal Daniel attempting to change God’s mind; the text reveals that Daniel is giving God reason for his claim. Successful enthymemes will “root the speaker’s argument in assumptions, beliefs, or values held by the [listener]” (Ramage et al., 2011, p. 57).

According to Rothwell (2017), there are three potential goals speakers have when using persuasion. Rothwell explained that the first goal is conversion, which delivers the message to flip the belief of the listener in order to create a 180-degree turnaround. This is the most difficult type of persuasion. Setting conversion as the goal in persuasive speaking is unrealistic. This is because conversion asks the listeners to move from an anchored position to a position that is contradictory to the listener’s view. Based on this, it is unrealistic for leaders to think that they are going to switch their listener’s viewpoint 180 degrees by using conversion tactics when communicating (Rothwell, 2017, p. 252).

The second goal of persuasion is modification. In order for the speaker to persuade the listener to at least consider the point of view, or to at least think about it further when the listener may have otherwise never thought about the subject before, the speaker will create a new anchor in the listener, therefore changing the listener’s thinking. In other words, while the listener may have had a position or understanding regarding the topic, there has now been a shift to consider the differing viewpoint. Rhodes (2015) stated that modification, rather than extreme positions in communication, is the most effective type of persuasion and has the potential to shift the listener’s thinking to agree with “some” of the communication topic, after either “not agreeing with any of it, or not knowing anything about it” (as cited in Rothwell, 2017, p. 254).

Finally, the third goal of persuasion is maintenance. This will favorably keep the listener thinking. The attempt to persuade is not to adopt a new point of view or argue about an issue; it is about communicating in a way that helps others to stay the course regarding the topic, despite the listener possibly having a different outlook, belief, or understanding on the matter (Ramage et al., 2011; Rothwell, 2017).

While Daniel’s conversation with God is facilitated through the act of prayer (Jones, 1968), the exegesis also reveals that Daniel receives affirmation and a response from God’s archangel Gabriel (Daniel 9:21–23). Therefore, this prayer, that is spoken in the form of a skillful argument, which is presented positively to God by Daniel, ultimately brings forth revelation of the Messianic Christ regarding the Israelis’ freedom and the coming of Christ (Jones, 1968; Redditt, 2000). As stated, forgiveness and deliverance are granted (Jones, 1968), and a glimpse of very early Christianity occurs (DeSilva, 2004). According to Werline (2014), this action through Daniel’s communicative prayer “denotes that God’s time and order continues no matter how humans may have attempted to disrupt it” (Werline, 2014, p. 15).

Implications and Further Research

Implications regarding this study include not considering the type of communication techniques being considered by God’s response, nor does this study examine differences of how God does not directly speak with Daniel as he did with Abraham (Genesis 17). Instead, God sends his archangel Gabriel to deliver the message to Daniel (Daniel 9:23–27), unlike Abraham. This study also does not consider other types of crises such as when Daniel is going to be forced to eat the king’s rich delicacies (Daniel 1:8–16) and only examines when Daniel’s faith is tested when thrown into the lions’ den. It also does not address God’s giving favor to Daniel in the eyes of others, such as the chief of the eunuchs (Daniel 1:9). The researcher did not address these so that data from this study can be applied to leaders both organizationally and to all faiths and belief systems outside of the Judaic and Christian faiths, but they are worth considering nonetheless. Future researchers may consider replicating this study, so more dimensions can be explored, as publications currently do not exist regarding Daniel’s growth as a leader during the Israeli sixth centuryBCEcrisis.

Conclusion

In most crises, leaders may suddenly find themselves in an unexpected leadership role and, if they do, there will not be much time available for deciding how to act in the time of crisis. Daniel demonstrates wisdom when making his decisions through each stage of his leadership growth during the Israeli crisis despite his age at any given point. This helps him to make crucial decisions and avoid making crucial mistakes while developing selfless humility. While this study aimed to understand how a leader grows through a crisis in order to benefit scholars and practitioners in organizational leadership, it also provides beneficial information on leadership and effective communication techniques for leaders who suddenly have to deal with an unexpected crisis such as war, natural phenomena, or other conflicts.