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.”
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.
Grace Still Amazes 