Grace Still Amazes

Daniel and his friends–all sixty or so of them–were here being offered the chance of a lifetime—to be employed in the greatest empire on earth at the time, one with untold wealth and opportunities. All they had to do was go along with their education and the perks that went with it. One of them, a key one as we see from our text, was being offered the “daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank” (Dan. 1:5).

However, as we saw last week, “Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.” He had made a firm resolution that this was something he could not do. Whatever the reason might have been, Daniel knew he had to say “no.”

But notice that Daniel said, “no thanks.” Although he was taking a stand, he was not offensive in the way that he did it. Again, Daniel and his friends sought to maintain their faithfulness to God largely by working within the Babylonian system rather than against it. So we read the rest of verse 8, “Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.”

9 And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs, 10 and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.”

Isn’t it interesting that the very first temptation in history also had to do with food? And the first temptation Jesus faced publicly had to do with food. Now Daniel is facing a temptation regarding food.

To eat or not to eat, that is the question. And, as the balance came down, “two worlds were at stake—this one or the world to come” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 36).

Servers appeared with great trays of exotic food: pork products, shellfish, beef fragrant and tender—meat offered to idols. Others were digging in, marveling over the taste. Consider the fact that these are teenage guys . . . they’re always hungry . . . they don’t eat, they graze.

You can imagine some of the comments: “Hey Daniel – you got to taste some of this honey baked ham . . . you got to try some of that shrimp salad over there – is God good or what?” (adapted from Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 37). But Daniel and his friends stood their ground.

Then the prince of the eunuchs arrived. Behind him was the shadow of a king of uncertain temper, one likely to be personally offended by the prisoners’ refusal to accept joyfully the king’s bounty and goodwill. What was good for him to eat was certainly good enough for them.

But Daniel and his friends weren’t eating. And Daniel “asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.” Other versions say he “sought permission … that he might not defile himself.”

Daniel’s request of the chief of the eunuchs was calm, courageous and courteous. He didn’t demand a different diet. He didn’t stage a “sit in” in opposition to the king’s menu. He didn’t express a “holier than thou” attitude, like “I’m right and you’re all wrong.”

We learn from this that obeying God is only one side of the coin, for we are also responsible as to how we obey God before others. Daniel’s obedience toward God was balanced by a respect for authority. While we live in this world, we will often be in situations where we are placed under the authority of non-believers. God still expects us to honor them; and we honor God by honoring the lines of authority that he has permitted to exist (cf. Rom 13:1–7; 1 Tim 2:1–2; 1 Pet 2:13–15).

This unexpected request must have filled the chief eunuch with surprise and dread—even for his own safety.

Now, notice that Daniel was not offensive in his demeanor or his actions. He was able to take a moral stand without being rude, without attacking the Babylonian religious system. He remained, however, steadfast in his belief, defining himself without getting anxious or angry.

This is what is called being a “non-anxious presence.” In his article, “How to Be a Non-Anxious Presence in a Politically Anxious World” (and who doesn’t think we need that?), Keith Simon remarks on how Daniel and his friends all throughout the book of Danel demonstrate a “calm, cool, and courageous demeanor” and “the more things spun out of control, the more he was at peace.”

He identifies four ways in which Daniel and his friends maintained a “non-anxious presence.”

First, they remembered God. Despite all that Nebuchadnezzar did, either intentionally or not, Daniel and his friends continued to “remember God,” to live their lives as before the face of God (coram deo). Back in verse 2 Daniel reflects on the reality that “the Lord gave Jehoiakim and Judah into [the hand of Nebuchadnezzar].” They reminded themselves often that their God was real and that He was in control of all things. A non-anxious person looks both back to the present and forward the future and sees that God is enthroned—now and forever. Even now, in these difficult circumstances.

Second, Daniel remained connected to a Christian community. When we get to chapter 2, as Daniel is challenged to repeat and interpret the dream of Nebuchadnezzar he calls together his friends to pray to God (Daniel 2:17-18). Simon says, “Anxiety thrives in isolation. If you want more stress, spend more time alone, disconnected from others. Doomscroll with all the doors shut. The non-anxious person has deep relationships with Christians who listen and pray with them when life feels overwhelming. They remind one another of God’s reign and encourage one another to stay calm and faithful.

Third, these men remained submitted to God’s will. Even when they mighty pay with their lives, they continued to worship God alone (Daniel 3) or pray as he normally did (Daniel 6). Daniel’s three friends have this amazing statement in Daniel 3:16-18).
16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

They are confident that their lives are in God’s hands, no matter what the king does. They do not presume upon God’s will, they just remain faithful, whether they live or die.

Finally, a non-anxious person confesses their own sins. When anxieties and anger run hot, we are prone to quickly point the finger at others and blame them. But the non-anxious person confesses their own sins.

While meditating on Jeremiah, in Daniel 9, Daniel realizes that Jeremiah had predicted that the exile would last 70 years, and that 70 years was almost up. Knowing that, he confesses his sins and the sins of his people, just like Deuteronomy 30 commands. He doesn’t confess Babylon’s sins, even though there were many, but his own sins.

Reflecting upon our own anxiety during an election year, Simon remarks, “While Christians are pointing an accusatory finger at the culture, Daniel hands us a mirror so we can do some self-examination.”

Edwin Friedman talks about a “non-anxious presence,” and we see this side of the equation all throughout the book of Daniel because Daniel makes himself available to every ruler who calls upon him for help. Even when Darius made an edict that God Daniel thrown into the lion’s den, Daniel didn’t cut himself off from Darius, but responded to him with calmness and courage.

Daniel knew that there were all kinds of excuses for giving in and eating the food and wine offered to him.

• These were not “normal circumstances.”
• After all, what had God done for us lately?
• This could cost us our lives.

I love Jonathan Edwards Resolution # 61; Resolved, That I will not give way to that listlessness which I find relaxes my mind from being fully fixed on my [conviction] . . . whatever excuse I may have for it.

Daniel and his friends certainly took a risk in making an issue of the king’s diet. Probably they were also prepared to pay the consequences of their choice. (We should keep in mind that there are times when we must suffer for choosing to obey God.) In this particular case, however, God honored their obedience.

What was the result of Daniel’s calm and courageous request? Verse 9 says, “And God gave Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the chief of the eunuchs…” God enters the picture. He works in Ashpenaz’ heart. God did this for Joseph as well, when Joseph was falsely accused and thrown into prison, Genesis 39:21 tells us that the LORD, the covenant-keeping God, “gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison.” God gave these men favor in the eyes of those in charge, who were over them.

God specializes on working on people’s hearts. Proverbs 21:1 says, “The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will.” And a few decades from this event, “the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia” to allow Jews to return to their homeland (Ezra 1:1).

The chief of eunuchs was able to express favor and compassion towards Daniel and his friends because God had placed this grace and love within him. Had Daniel prayed for this? It is quite possible that he did. In fact, this is an explicit answer to a prayer that King Solomon prayed for when God’s people ended up in exile. That God would “grant them compassion in the sight of those who carried them captive, that they may have compassion on them” (1 Kings 8:50).

Whether or not Daniel had prayed for the favor of the chief of the eunuchs, because Daniel trusted God it “pleased God” (Heb. 11:6) and God brought Daniel the favor and compassion of the chief of the eunuchs. When the text tells us “Yet Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself,” we must understand that this was a choice of faith, in which obedience to God became more important than what might have been momentarily more convenient or beneficial for him.

God had brought Daniel into the favor and goodwill of the chief of eunuchs – much like Joseph many centuries before in Egypt (Gen. 39:21), or Esther years later in Persia. This is one of the ways that God, although working behind the scenes, exhibits his sovereign control. So, in reality God is working way ahead of Daniel. Even before he had made his commitment, God was preparing the chief of the eunuch’s heart to be open to his suggestion. Amir Tsarfati reminds us, “God knows whether we will say yes to righteousness, and He has already begun working out the situation” (Discovering Daniel, p. 32).

Proverbs 16:7 lays down the general principle that, “When a man’s ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”

So this is exactly what God did in the case of the head of the court officials who was over Daniel. Rather than being resistant and completely fearful of the king, or wrathful and vindictive towards Daniel, God caused him to be favorably disposed towards him, even sympathetic to his cause. Without a doubt, God used Daniel’s respectfulness as part of the process.

Obviously, God was at work, both in Daniel’s heart to encourage him to obey with calmness and courage, and He was at work in Ashpenaz’ heart to make him favorable to Daniel and his request. Depend on it, God works on hearts.
When you are in a difficult, disagreeable situation, stay committed to do your part, but in a respectful way, and God can work in the heart of the other person to look with favor and sympathy towards your need.

Having conviction does not excuse us from acting with sensitivity, tact, and respect. Daniel had clearly made up his mind that he would be obedient to the Lord, but he went about it in a courteous way. That is especially important to do when relating to those whom God has put in authority over us.

There are several attractive features in the way Daniel made his proposal. First, he was tactful in the way he spoke. He didn’t demand anything, he simply made a request. Second, he was obedient in following the chain of command. Third, his request was reasonable. The test would be over in ten days and didn’t require the preparation of unusual food. Fourth, it was easy to evaluate. The guard simply eyeballed the four versus the others and drew his own conclusions.

As a result, the eunuch’s defenses were down even before he knew they were being stormed. He sensed at once that this strange and unexpected request was quite appropriate and possibly that it had something to do with Daniel’s God.

However, although the official was sympathetic to Daniel’s request, he was also afraid of the potential consequences of bucking the system. He knew he would be held accountable and his head would be on the block if he let Daniel have his way and some physical deterioration would occur, so he was very hesitant. We see this in verse 10, “and the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, ‘I fear my lord the king, who assigned your food and your drink; for why should he see that you were in worse condition than the youths who are of your own age? So you would endanger my head with the king.’”

D. A. Bayliss notes:

This verse, suitably paraphrased, is a verse that has stopped untold numbers of believers from following through on a right stand for God. Almost every clause is dripping with traps into which an undetermined believer can fall and never fully escape. These manipulative statements can be taken in sequence:

First, notice that this was from the chief of the eunuchs. We know that Daniel had the tender love (favor) of the chief eunuch, and we may probably intuit that Daniel had already gained some fondness or trust for this eunuch as well. As a young lad stripped of his past and future he would naturally cling to any friendly soul. Thus, it is exactly that friendly soul that the adversary uses in an attempt to dissuade Daniel from his mission. That’s why Paul warns us in 1 Corinthians 15:33, “Do not be deceived, ‘Bad company ruins good morals.”

Second, he said, “I fear my lord the king.” The appeal to a ‘higher’ authority with an added note of fear. Daniel had probably had to pluck up courage just to talk to the chief eunuch, and how immediately the immensity of the problem was being escalated. Note the way in which any fear Daniel had of the king was now going to be increased by knowing that even the chief eunuch harbored such fears.

Third, it was that king “who assigned your food and drink.” Particularly if we are turning down something we are being offered people will rush to tell us that we should be grateful and take what we are offered. Be it a job, a university position, alcohol or sometimes even a spouse there will always be those who tell us that we ought to take an opportunity just because it is there.

Fourth, “Why should he see that you were in worse condition?” The next ploy is always the “How is this going to look?” The Bible says that ” man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). Frequently though, even as Christians we are told that we need to worry about what the outward appearance is, even by those closest to us. There is also a subtle assumption in this phrase: that they will look worse if they follow God’s method. This kind of subtle word play is something we should look for and fight against.

Fifth, “than the youths who are of your own age.” This is a form of peer pressure. Daniel is being told that he is really part of a group and needed to “fit in.” His ‘sort’ has already been categorized, people know what they do and how they should behave. Any behavior outside of the norm is to be avoided. We often think that peer pressure only comes when our children are with their friends. But that’s not true; often we apply peer pressure to them by expecting them to behave as their friends do. “All your friends go to the youth-group, why don’t you?”

Finally, “So you would endanger my head with the king.” When all else fails try emotional blackmail. A straightforward, you cannot do this, think of the effect you will have upon me.

As we shall see, when presented with a barrage like this the trick is to slow down and analyze each of the different arguments and make sure an answer is available for each one. There is a reason we are told to be “wise as a serpent” (Matt. 10:16). The devil is exceptional at using twisted logic to make sin seem not only okay, but beneficial to us and even our very right.

So far in the book of Daniel we’ve seen that four young Hebrew teenagers have been subjected to some pretty heavy indoctrination to try to change their beliefs. We’ve compared it somewhat to young people today attending university. George Barna estimates that roughly 70% of high school students who enter college as professing Christians will leave with little to no faith. These students usually don’t return to their faith even after graduation, as Barna projects that 80% of those reared in the church will be “disengaged” by the time they are 29.

Many of those young people have a church background, but it is likely that during that time they attended irregularly, rarely read their Bibles, and likely just adopted some of the faith and practices of their parents or friends. It is possible that they had no real faith to turn from.

There are some real challenges to Christianity on university campuses. Aside from liberal emphases in most of your classes, your faith is likely to be ridiculed by both professors and fellow students, your obedience to Christ will be challenged by all of the distractions and temptations of campus life. In other words, it is a minefield of potentially faith-destroying or faith-damaging opportunities. Satan makes sure of it.
Daniel and his friends have been taken to Babylon, far from home, and they have been fed all the Babylonian propaganda, had their names changed to make them forget their past allegiances, and they attempted to wine and dine them to soften them up to changing their worldview and loyalties. In the remainder of Daniel 1 we’re going to see that Daniel and his friends do not question their beliefs or outright deny the religious upbringing of their parents and faith community, but instead they stand firm. Their faith was not merely inherited from their parents – it was deeply owned as their own. One of the ways we know that is that they had to pay a price.

This appears in Daniel 1:8-16. Remember that the background of this passage is back in verse 5, “The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank.”

Events now had Daniel in an iron grip. Sooner or later, he would have to make a difficult decision.

John Calvin wrote that Nebuchadnezzar knew that the Jews were a stiff-necked and obstinate people, and that he used the sumptuous food to soften up the captives.

These young men were being treated to the King’s Buffet. I’m sure it was the best gourmet foods that you could find anywhere in the world at that time. Really sumptuous! For me it would be dark chocolate peanut butter cups.

Up to this point Daniel and his three friends had shown no outward resistance to their assimilation into Babylonian culture. They didn’t skip their Babylonian literature classes, and they answered to their Babylonian names when they were called. That is what makes this encounter so striking. Why did Daniel draw the line here? Why did he suddenly say, “No compromise”? Doesn’t this seem like such a little thing?

Now we read…

8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank. Therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself.

So what was the big deal? Is it that the food being served was not kosher, prepared according to the Levitical dietary laws?

Whether they were actually eating pork, the king’s intention is that they would “eat high on the hog,” symbolizing that they were getting the very best that could be offered. Likely also encouraging them to gorge themselves on this food.

It was not that Daniel was a vegetarian or one who abstained from wine, because later (in Daniel 10) he refrained from meat and wine for a period of three weeks of mourning (vv. 2, 3). That implies that he normally ate meat and drank wine.

Is it because the meat and wine had initially been offered to Babylonian idols?

In his book Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, A. Leo Oppenheim tells us about the care and feeding of the gods of Babylon. We learn in his book that sumptuous food would be offered to the gods, and after the meal, whatever was left would be brought to the king’s table as the royal food.

According to Exod. 34:15, God’s people were forbidden to eat foods that had been sacrificed or offered to pagan deities or idols. In Babylon, food was served to idols and later eaten by the king’s court:

The image was fed, in a ceremonial fashion accompanied by music, from offerings and the produce of the temple land and flocks. When the god was ‘eating’, he was, at least in later times, hidden from human view, even the priests, by linen curtains surrounding the image and his table.… When the god had ‘eaten’, the dishes from his meal were sent to the king for consumption. What was not destined for the table of the main deity, his consort, his children or the servant gods was distributed among the temple administrators and craftsmen. The quantities of food involved could be enormous.

Iain Duguid notes: “The key to understanding why the four young men abstained from the royal food and wine is noticing that instead they chose to eat only those things that grow naturally—grains and vegetables—and to drink only naturally occurring water (1:12). This suggests that the goal of this simple lifestyle was to be constantly reminded of their dependence upon their creator God for their food, not King Nebuchadnezzar. Dependence on Nebuchadnezzar’s rich food would have been defiling because it would have repeated in their own lives the sin of King Hezekiah that brought this judgment upon God’s people in the first place (see 1 Kings 20:17)” (Daniel: Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 13).

Daniel was the influence here, among the four friends. Scripture shows that this was Daniel’s purpose that he shared with the other three, and then they joined with Daniel completely. The four did not collaboratively arrive at the decision, rather it was Daniel’s thought and his persuasion upon the others to follow this course of action.

You and I will all face tests in life, tests that challenge our faith, that call us to compromise, that encourage us to sin. We will be faced with some things that seem so innocent and insignificant, but which could change the course of our lives. This was a defining moment for Daniel.

Daniel “resolved that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, or with the wine that he drank.” He made a resolution; he made up his mind. Likely, this was something that he had been taught about by his parents, knew what the laws of God were, and had already made up his mind that this was a line he would not cross.

Arnold points out how the word-play at the beginning of v. 8 (wayyāśem)—in light of its earlier use in v. 7—sets the stage for the remainder of the book:

The irony of the word play is that the Babylonians think they have changed Daniel’s character, but the narrator knows otherwise. They succeeded in changing all the circumstances of his life, and the name change in verse 7 represents Daniel’s complete transformation, at least from the Babylonian perspective. But the inner resolve and dedication revealed by the word play in verse 8 is the narrator’s full portrait of Daniel and transcends even the description of his impressive personal and intellectual skills in verses 3–4. It is his commitment to God that sets Daniel apart, and prepares the reader for the continued conflict between aggressive world powers and God’s servants.

What about you? Have you made resolutions? Have you determined the lines that you will not cross, no matter what the negative cost might be, or the positive payoff? All of us face forks in the road of our lives, whereby we decide either to follow the Lord or go our own way. And as Robert Frost in his poem The Road Not Taken says that “has made all the difference.”

Now, I know some of us start each new year with a fresh set of resolutions. On average, they last less than four weeks. That’s not what Daniel did. He didn’t decide that he needed to lose weight or get smarter or build better relationships. He knew what God’s Word said and he was determined to do it. He made a settled decision ahead of time not to violate God’s law.

It’s more like what Jonathan Edwards, pastor and theologian in early America, did. Beginning in 1723, when he was 20 years of age, he began composing his list of 70 resolutions. I read a devotional book based on his resolutions last year.

Let me read a few of them:

• Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

That pretty much takes care of everything, doesn’t it? I mean, what more do you need?

He would go on for about a year, writing 70 resolutions in all, which served as a rudder over the course of his life.

Because Jonathan Edwards had such a realistic view of his personal sanctification and growth, he added several along these lines – here’s one:

• Resolved, never to slacken my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

And again:

• Resolved, if I shall fall and grow dull, so as to neglect to keep these Resolutions, to repent of all I can remember, when I come to myself again.

Here’s another realistic, humble admission that led him to add another resolution – he writes:

• Resolved, always to do what I shall wish I had done when I see someone else doing it.

One more: and I think this was a key to his success – Jonathan Edwards made a resolution to review his resolutions –

• Resolved, to inquire every night, as I am going to bed, where I have been negligent, what sin I have committed, and where I have denied myself (that is, where I’ve done the right thing): [and to do so] at the end of every week, [every] month and [every] year.

In other words, every night he’d run through a mental accountability; but at the end of every week, month and year, he’d pull out the list.

Maybe one of our problems is that we so soon forget what we’ve resolved.
I want to introduce to you, another man who made some resolutions while he was still a young man. And I think this is key. He made these decision when he was young. And he seems to have made up his mind ahead of time.

Believe me, the heat of the moment is not the time to be making these decisions. You need to think ahead of time about what you will and will not do, what lines you will not cross. Young men (and women) need to think ahead of time what boundaries they will not cross in dating, with regard to drinking and drugs and parties. Don’t wait until you get tempted; think it through ahead of time.

I believe this is what the book of Proverbs does for the young man. The father gives his son some future scenarios that he will likely face with regard to gangs (Proverbs 1:10ff) and seductive women (Proverbs 5, 7). He warns him about get-rich-quick schemes and the tendency to be lazy. Young people, think through these things ahead of time. Parents, prepare your children for the future. You know the traps that lay ahead of them. Get them ready to make good decisions.

Daniel’s resolutions will place him squarely in the middle of conflict – in fact, they will eventually threaten his life (Daniel 6).

Because of his resolutions, he will live his life in the minority . . . with only a few personal friends; he will face incredible pressure to conform to the surrounding culture his entire life.

Other versions say that Daniel “made up his mind” (NASB, CEV) or “purposed in his heart” (KJV), reminding us how important it is to “watch over [our] heart” (Prov. 4:23) because it affects everything else about our lives.

I think it is important that Daniel “made up his mind” ahead of time. He didn’t wait until the heat of the moment to figure out what his stance on this issue was. He had thought it through ahead of time and made a decision not to defile himself in this way.

This reminds me of Eric Liddell, the “flying Scotsman.” The son of Christian missionaries, Eric Liddell was born in China in 1902 and died there 43 years later in a Japanese internment camp in China. In between, he played for Scotland at rugby, won Olympic gold for Britain and inspired an Oscar-winning film about his athletic exploits many years later.

He was selected for the British squad for the 1924 Paris Olympics, where he was among the favourites to win in his strongest event, the 100m sprint.

But when the timetable for the Games was released, the 100m heats were on a Sunday and Eric Liddell dropped a stunning revelation. The Christian Sabbath was the Lord’s Day and there was nothing in this world that could persuade him to run.

In the 1981 film Chariots of Fire, Liddell only learns the 100m heats will be held on a Sunday while boarding the boat to France. In reality, the schedule was known several months in advance. However, the movie’s creative licence does reflect the real-life drama caused by his principled stance.

Looking back 60 years later, his friend and fellow athlete Greville Young said while those who knew Liddell were aware of his strong religious feelings, “it caused tremendous furore amongst many people, particularly with the newspapers and journalists”.

Reporters hammered on the door of their student accommodation in Edinburgh, demanding to speak to Liddell. According to Young, “They were quite menacing almost and there were cries of, ‘He’s a traitor to his country’.”

Liddell’s decision meant he had to give up on his strongest event and switch his focus to the 400 meters. Liddell had experienced some early success at the Paris Olympics, winning bronze in the 200m. Few believed he could improve on this in the longer distance final on Friday 11 July, 1924.

When the starting gun fired, he set off at a blistering speed, flashing past the halfway mark in 22.2 seconds. Throwing his head back in his distinctive style, he stretched his lead and ended up finishing 5 meters ahead of the chasing pack. The finishing time was 47.6 seconds. A rather breathless report in the next day’s London Times described it as “probably the most dramatic race ever seen on a running track”.

Tom Riddell told the BBC he had asked Liddell about his tactical approach: “In his own words he said, ‘Well, when the gun goes, I go as fast as I can, and I trust to God that I’ll have the strength to do the second half.’ And I think he really did.”

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240705-olympics-hero-eric-liddell-and-the-real-story-behind-chariots-of-fire

As the unknown poet put it,

Some ships go east, and some go west,
Before the wind that blows;
It’s the set of the sail, and not the gale;
That determines the way it goes.

We can well imagine Daniel’s emotions as he showed up in the student’s dining hall for that first meal. There was about to be an explosion, a confrontation, perhaps even an execution. Daniel knew the cost. You don’t defy kings.

And we will pick up the rest of Daniel’s test next week.

Today is our third week introducing the book of Daniel. It is vitally important that we understand the background of any book of the Bible. That is why we are spending so much time on it.
The Purpose of the Book

At this dark hour in Israel’s history, with the tragic destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, a strong reminder was needed that their God, Yahweh, really was in total control of nations and national rulers.

The book of Daniel is, for the most part, a prophetical history of Gentile world-power from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to the coming of CHRIST. The prophets in general emphasize GOD’s power and sovereignty in relation to Israel, and they reveal Him as guiding the destinies of His chosen people throughout the centuries until their final restoration.

Daniel, on the other hand, emphasizes GOD’s sovereignty in relation to the Gentile world-empires, and reveals Him as the One controlling and overruling in their affairs, until the time of their destruction at the coming of His Son.

“The vision is that of the overruling GOD, in wisdom knowing and in might working; of kings reigning and passing, of dynasties and empires rising and falling, while GOD enthroned above rules their movements” (Campbell Morgan).

John MacArthur reminds us, “The book of Daniel will teach you who is running human history. God raises up the Assyrians and puts them down. God raises up the Babylonians and puts the down. God raises up Nebuchadnezzar and puts him down. God raises up Cyrus and has him do what He wants. God literally controls human history.”

The book’s central theme is God’s sovereignty over history, empires, and kings (2:21; 4:43-47). All the kingdoms of this world will come to an end and will be replaced by the Lord’s kingdom, which will never pass away (2:44; 7:27). This is illustrated by the fact that even Daniel outlived the Babylonian Empire!

Though trials and difficulties will continue for God’s people up until the end, those who are faithful will be raised to glory, honor, and everlasting life in this final kingdom (12:1-3).

John Walvoord notes, “The book of Daniel, like Esther, reveals God continuing to work in His people Israel even in the time of their chastening. In this framework the tremendous revelation concerning the times of the Gentiles and the program of God for Israel was unfolded. While it is doubtful whether these prophecies were sufficiently known in Daniel’s lifetime to be much of an encouragement to the captives themselves, the book of Daniel undoubtedly gave hope to the Jews who returned to restore the temple and the city, and it was particularly helpful during the Maccabean persecutions.”

Key Themes

I. It is possible to live a faithful life while surrounded by pagan influences, if one serves the Lord wholeheartedly (ch. 1).
II. God can give his faithful servants abilities that cause even unbelievers to appreciate them (chs. 2, 3, 6). Nevertheless, believers should not assume that God will always rescue them from harm (3:16-18).
III. God humbles the proud and raises up the humble. Even the hearts of the greatest kings are under his control (chs. 4, 5).
IV. This world will be a place of persecution for God’s people, getting worse and worse rather than better and better (chs. 2, 7). The Lord will judge the kingdoms of this world and bring them to an end, replacing them with his own kingdom that will never end. This kingdom will be ruled by “one like a son of man” who comes “with the clouds,” a figure who combines human and divine traits (7:13).
V. God is sovereign over the course of history, even over those who rebel against him and seek to destroy his people (ch. 8).
VI. The Babylonian exile was not the end of Israel’s history of rebellion and judgment. In the future, Israel would continue to sin against the Lord, and Jerusalem would be handed over to her enemies, who would damage her temple and do other offensive things (chs. 8, 9, 12). Eventually, though, the anointed ruler would come to deliver God’s people from their sins (9:24-27).
VII. These earthly events are reflections of a great conflict between angelic forces of good and evil (ch. 10). Prayer is a significant weapon in that conflict (9:23).
VIII. God rules over all of these conflicts and events, he limits the damage they do, and he has a precise timetable for the end of his people’s persecutions. At that time he will finally intervene to cleanse and deliver his people (ch. 12).
IX. In the meantime, believers must be patient and faithful in a hostile world, looking to the Lord alone for deliverance (11:33-35).

Genre: Apocalyptic

Daniel is classified as an apocalyptic writing, because of its series of supernatural visions which by their character fulfilled what is intimated by the Greek word apokalypsis, which means unveiling of truth which would otherwise be concealed.

Although apocalyptic works abound outside the Bible, relatively few are found in Scripture. In the New Testament only the book of Revelation can be classified as apocalyptic; but in the Old Testament, Ezekiel and Zechariah may be so classified in addition to Daniel.

A couple of hundred years later, apocalyptic writings abound. These were classified as pseudepigrapha, written to imitate the style of biblical apocalyptic books. Apocalyptic works classified as the pseudepigrapha include such titles as Ascension of Isaiah; Assumption of Moses; Book of Enoch; Book of Jubilees; Greek Apocalypse of Baruch; Letters of Aristeas; III and IV Maccabees; Psalms of Solomon; Secrets of Enoch; Sibylline Oracles; Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; Apocalypses of Adam, Elijah, and Zephaniah; and Testament of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob.

Another characteristic about the book of Daniel is that, unlike most of the other prophets, Daniel does not confront the people of Israel with their sins. He comforts only. In addition, Daniel’s book includes historical narrative in the first 6 chapters.

Apocalyptic literature is a uniquely Jewish literary genre. It was often used in tension-filled times to express the conviction that God is in control of history and will bring deliverance to His people.

This type of literature is characterized by:

1. a strong sense of the universal sovereignty of God (monotheism and determinism)
2. a struggle between good and evil, this evil age and the age of righteousness to come (a limited dualism)
3. use of standardized secret code words (usually from the OT prophetic texts or intertestamental Jewish apocalyptic literature)
4. use of colors, numbers, animals, sometimes animals/human hybrids
5. use of angelic involvement by means of visions and dreams, which are usually interpreted by angels
6. primarily focuses on the soon-coming, climatic events of the end-time (new age)
7. use of a fixed set of symbols to communicate the end-time message from God.

Languages

An unusual feature of the book of Daniel is the fact that the central portion (2:4-7:28) is written in biblical Aramaic, also called Chaldee. A similar use of Aramaic is found in Ezra 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; and the two words of the compound name Jegar-Sahadutha in Genesis 31:47, showing that the Aramaic tongue had been around long before the inter-testamental period.
The Aramaic portion of Daniel clearly covers the “Times of the Gentiles,” while the Hebrew portions at the beginning and end devote more attention to what happens to Israel and the children of Israel in the midst of the nations. Aramaic was also the contemporary language of international business.

Canonical Place

When we use the word “canon” we’re talking about the books which were recognized [not “determined,” but “recognized”] as being inspired by God and they formed the group of books we call our Old and New Testaments.

In our English Bible (Septuagint, Vulgate and Luther), the book of Daniel appears as the last of the major prophets. Along with Ezekiel, Daniel wrote in the exilic period. In the Hebrew Bible Daniel is part of the Kethubim (the writings). The Jews call the Old Testament the Tanak, which is a word that consists of the T for Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, what we often call the Pentateuch; the N stands for Neviim, the prophets, and the K stands for Kethubim. Daniel is part of the Kethubim, the writings.

Robert Dick Wilson believes that this is because Daniel was never called a “prophet” (navi, נָבִיא), but a “seer” (hozeh, חֹזֶה) and “wise man” (hakhamin, חַכִּימִ֣ין). J. B. Payne observes, “For though Christ spoke of Daniel’s function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30)” (J. Barton Payne, “Book of Daniel,” Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, p. 198).

So why is Daniel placed in the Writings rather than in the Prophets for the Jews? This may be because Daniel’s prophetic messages do not confront the Jewish people with their sins, which was common among the Major and Minor Prophets. Also, the Masoretes may not have considered Daniel to be a prophet because there is no mention of his ordination or calling to be a prophet.

Major Divisions and Unity

The traditional division of the book of Daniel into two halves (1-6; 7-12) has usually been justified on the basis that the first six chapters are historical and the last six chapters are apocalyptic or predictive. There is much to commend this division which often also regards chapter 1 as introductory.

An alternative approach, recognizing the Aramaic section as being significant, divides the book into three major divisions: (1) Introduction, Daniel 1; (2) The Times of the Gentiles, presented in Aramaic, Daniel 2-7; (3) Israel in Relation to the Gentiles, in Hebrew, Daniel 8-12.
These two approaches are roughly the same.

Overview of the Book of Daniel

One of the things I like to do whenever I study or preach on a book of the Bible is to first look at the whole book and how it is organized and laid out, to get the “30,000 foot view” so that I can see the whole before examining the parts.

There are several good resources for this. The Bible Project has a video on YouTube and a chart that you can find on Google images, that is a good overview of the book.

Charles Swindoll has his book chart on his website Insight for Living. Philip Jensen has a book chart on the Precepts Austin website.

The book of Daniel is divided into two parts, the historical narratives of chapters 1-6 and the apocalyptic visions of chapters 7-12. In the first half, Daniel is interpreting the dreams or experiences of two Gentile kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Darius is included chronologically in this section as the Medo-Persian empire conquered Babylon in 539 B.C. In the second half, it is Daniel’s visions that are interpreted by an angel. Again, chapters 2-7 are written in Aramaic, primarily because the history (both present and future history) covered in this part concerned Gentile empires, while chapters 8-12 are written in Hebrew because the history (both present and future history) concerns Israel.

The Key Verse

Some books have purpose statements, such as the gospel of John, “these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). The Gospel of John was revealed to John by God’s Spirit for the express purpose of helping people believe in Jesus Christ as God’s Son and experiencing “life in his name.”

Likewise, the first epistle of John has an express purpose statement. 1 John 5:12 says, “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.” The Gospel of John is written so that we may believe and the epistle of John is written so that believers “may know that you have eternal life. God wants us to have the assurance that we possess the very life He promised to give through His Son.

The book of Acts has verse that reveals the programmatic desires of Jesus for his church. In Acts 1:8 Jesus says, “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” As you follow the narrative of the book of Acts, you see that the gospel witness and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit begins in Jerusalem (Acts 2), but later expands into Judea-Samaria (Acts 8) and finally reaches to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and following).

Is there are similar verse for the book of Daniel? Well, there is not a clear and explicit purpose statement, but we can identify a verse which highlights a major theme of the book of Daniel—God’s sovereignty over the nations.

The key verse for the book of Daniel could very well be Daniel 4:17.

“‘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 all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.’”

In this case God wanted Nebuchadnezzar to know that He, “the Most High,” “is sovereign over all kingdom on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of people.” Nebuchadnezzar needed to realize that the power of Babylon did not depend upon Nebuchadnezzar himself but upon “the Most High” God of the Israelites. And as Israel read this, they would remember that they were “the lowliest of people” at this time and would have taken heart that God could reverse their misfortunes that they were presently experiencing. It would give them hope, as prophecy should give us hope, that God will fulfill all His promises for His people someday soon.