Daniel's Conduct

2. It’s not so bad. Daniel might have reasoned: “If something were really wrong with this food and drink, why would the king of Babylon insist that they be given to us? He is a great king, a wise man. I come from Jerusalem, the conquered city of an outlying petty kingdom. Maybe some of the things I have been taught are a little backward. I need to enlarge my thinking, broaden my horizons, take a first step out into the world of sophistication.” But Daniel did not hide sin under this sort of excuse.

What about us? Do we long for sophistication? Sophistication beckons to our vanity by promising that if we will chase after a greater, more discriminating knowledge of the world, we will join a superior group—an elite. Yet sophistication is always basically dishonest. It is always making vice look like virtue. To accomplish this deception, sophistication gives vice an alluring name and sets it in the midst of fashionable people.

This is not a pipe full of tobacco weed. This is an exotic Turkish blend in genuine briarwood.
This is not decayed grape juice. This is a rare vintage of Chateau Laffitte-Rothschild.
This is not a dirty movie. This is a memorable example of cinematic art, a classic.

Lest we be seduced by such words, we must remember Paul’s admonition. “I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil” (Romans 16:19). We are to take no interest in evil things, though they appear to contain much good mixed with the bad, though they seem wonderfully desirable or inventive. We are to know nothing about them. Why? Because, as it says in Proverbs about wine, at the last they will bite like a serpent.

If, in obedience to the Word of God, we shield our eyes from worldly attractions, keep our feet from worldly places, and guard our hearts from worldly lusts, the result of our innocence will be that the world will see us as silly and naive—as simple.

3. Everybody else is doing it. As shown earlier, Daniel was probably all alone in his initial decision to refuse the prescribed diet. There is no evidence that he was supported even by his three friends. He could easily have told himself, “Look, nobody else believes it is wrong, so it must not be wrong.” But Daniel was a young man who thought for himself, who could shrug off the influence of others if it undercut his own convictions. His name was, “God is my judge.” That is, “I am concerned only to please God—I follow God, not men.” What about us? How often do we follow men, not God? But the Bible says,

12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. . . .
18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

The chief idea expressed here is that no man has authority in himself. Whatever authority he possesses has been delegated to him by God. Authority resides in his directives only so far as they are consistent with God’s Word. If they are not consistent with God’s Word, he has overstepped his authority, and his directives are not binding on anyone. Now, most people today are inclined to be too headstrong. Resistance to legitimate authority is a prevalent sin undermining the witness of the contemporary church. Yet there are times when good people are too submissive. Frequently in the past, a pastor has entered the pulpit and begun to question the literal truth of the Scriptures or the necessity of separated living, and his people have respected him too much to raise any objection. Instead, they have meekly let themselves be corrupted by devilish lies spoken through the mouth of an authority figure.

5. God will forgive me. If Daniel had repented after taking the king’s food and wine, God would indeed have forgiven him. But the sinner who stands on the brink of sin and says, “I will repent afterward,” is making a very hazardous calculation, for three reasons.

If the sin is attractive today, it will be even more attractive tomorrow, when it is more familiar.
If conscience cannot prevail today, it will have less fight in it tomorrow, when it is discouraged by failure.
No man should think that in himself he has the power to repent. Scripture teaches that repentance is a work of God.

Anyone who ignores God and willfully sins has no right to expect that God will turn him around in the future. Maybe God will let him go his own way. Whoever says, “If I sin, God will forgive me,” is being presumptuous. He is saying that if he throws himself into a pit of self-ruin, God will be obliged to rescue him. He would be well advised to heed the warning stated three times in Scripture, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” (Matthew 4:7; Deuteronomy 6:16; Luke 4:12). Here is a sharp rebuke of the fifth excuse for sin.

6. God has failed me, so I have no duty to obey Him. If anyone has had cause for bitterness against God, it is Daniel. While still a child, he was wrenched away from his own country and transported over a thousand miles into permanent captivity. Never again would he see his home or family. Then he was humiliated by being made a eunuch, and for the rest of his life his only prospect was to be a servant in the court of a pagan fool. It is possible that the boy felt anger churning inside him. But he wanted to do right, so instead of directing his anger against God, he directed it against the ungodly world around him. Anger can be a constructive force. In Daniel’s case, it may have been the force enabling him to stand up and say, nicely, “I will not participate in your sin.”

How do we react when God appears to withdraw His favor from us, when we have multiplied problems that seem undeserved? Do we turn away from Him in anger? Does resentment at the trouble He has permitted in our lives cause us to walk in rebellion against Him? But our trouble and difficulty are nothing compared with Job’s, and look at what he said: “What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10). Here is the answer to the sixth excuse.

The maturity of the young Daniel after suffering several life-shattering blows is remarkable. Forsaking the laws of a God who had apparently forsaken him would have been easy. Yet, even at the price of almost certain death, he chose to do right.

Two Objectives of Daniel’s Protest

On the one hand, Daniel was determined not to accept the king’s food and drink. On the other hand, he did not want to throw his life away recklessly. God wants His children to do right, and in doing right they may earn the violent hatred of an evil world. But they need not deliberately provoke that hatred. If Daniel had defied the king in such a way that the king had no alternative but to take Daniel’s life, then Daniel would have been of no further use to God. Therefore, to save his life, Daniel sought permission from the men over him to abstain from the defiling food and drink.

Conduct Daniel Avoided

How could Daniel escape from the king’s wishes and not incur the king’s wrath? Here was a task for a mature master of diplomacy. Yet Daniel was only a teenager. The great wisdom in the course he chose shows that he must have relied on God’s leading at every step. Only with God’s help could he have avoided all those ways of expressing his conscience that would have courted disaster.

1. He did not publicly oppose the king. If Daniel had been an outspoken young man with rebellious tendencies, he might have mounted a soapbox before all the other boys and announced that he, a holy Jew, would never submit to the king’s unholy demands. But a few minutes later, he would have been dead.

Also today, any Christian whose conscience is uneasy about a demand from higher authority should, if possible, express his reservations privately, not publicly. If he embarrasses his superiors by public opposition, they may harden the objectionable demand and deal with him severely.

2. Even in private, he avoided a defiant attitude. He made no threats, showed no hostility. He did not spit in the king’s face and say, “Forget it, King.” He merely requested permission to forego the food and drink allotted him (verse 8).

The trouble with a defiant attitude is that it may backfire. If a Christian complains belligerently about an offensive requirement, his superiors may feel that he is questioning their ability to make him do what they want. So, to prove their authority, they may insist that he comply. To gain their cooperation, he must keep a spirit of meekness. He must make them feel as if he is seeking a favor that only they can provide. He must convince them that he desires to support and not to subvert their authority.

Steps Daniel Took

The whole process shows the perfect wisdom available to anyone seeking to do God’s will. Daniel’s conduct illustrates the kinds of steps we also should take when we find ourselves poised delicately between the competing directives of God and man.

1. He respected the chain of command. He went straight to Ashpenaz, his immediate superior. He did not go over the head of Ashpenaz to the king. Nor did he go to some underling who lacked authority to make a decision.

2. He approached Ashpenaz with a request. His manner was so tactful and winning that Ashpenaz took a great liking to him (verse 9). The master of the eunuchs answered sympathetically that he would like to help Daniel, but he could not. Why? He was afraid of the king (verse 10). If Daniel showed ill effects after abstaining from the prescribed diet, the king might discover that Ashpenaz had sidestepped one of his orders, and Ashpenaz might lose his head.

3. He did not press the matter too far. After Ashpenaz gave his answer, Daniel did not argue with him. He said only what he planned to say and no more. Then he went home and did some hard thinking. Do we also keep our mouths under control, or do we habitually put them on automatic pilot?

4. He carefully considered what he had been told. He pondered Ashpenaz’s words until he was able to read between the lines. He realized that Ashpenaz’s objection hinged on only one thing, fear for his life. Also, in Ashpenaz’s friendly attitude he sensed an implied permission to forego the king’s diet if he could do so without bringing any danger to Ashpenaz; that is, if he could arrange to take other food secretly. Ashpenaz might even look the other way rather than notice what was going on.

Daniel no doubt understood that it is not deceptive or sneaky to sidestep a requirement which is morally unlawful. Suppose that the United States government made it illegal to read the Bible. Would it be deceptive for Christians to put away their Bibles in public while continuing to read them in private? No, for whereas a Christian must never deny Christ or his own faith in Christ, he is not required to make a show before his enemies of all his beliefs and practices.

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Of course, a Christian must not pretend to approve of evil things, and on occasion he must, for the sake of testimony, publicly take a stand that may provoke persecution. Yet if a ruler issues an edict seeking to draw the people of God into some wickedness, they need not inform him of their noncompliance. With respect to that particular edict, they are not accountable to him, and whether they comply is none of his business.

5. He found a way of satisfying the objection. Instead of going back to Ashpenaz, he would approach someone else, a servant called Melzar in the King James Version (hereafter called the KJV). This, incidentally, is probably the name of an office rather than of a man. Melzar (or, the Melzar) was an underling with direct responsibility for the food and drink of the captives. By negotiating with him, Daniel would avoid implicating Ashpenaz in a plot to disregard the king’s order. If the plot came to light, no blame would fall on Ashpenaz. So, Daniel’s first way of satisfying Ashpenaz’s objection was to leave him out of further negotiations. Secondly, because Ashpenaz had been afraid that a change in Daniel’s diet would produce poor health and appearance, Daniel would propose a test (verses 12–16). He would say to Melzar, “Feed us ten days on pulse and we will emerge healthier and better looking than any of the boys on the king’s diet.” He did not choose too short a time for the benefits to be seen, nor too long a time to be acceptable to Melzar. Obviously, the servant would not wait for weeks to see what would happen. Before then, any change for the worse might come to the king’s attention.

6. He rallied support. Apparently it was just before Daniel approached Melzar that the other boys joined the drama by also deciding to refuse the defiling food and wine. Perhaps Daniel had been urging them to participate in the test so that the healthful benefits of the simple vegetable diet would be conspicuous and undeniable.

7. He took a leading role. Once the other boys were behind him, he did not push off the duty of speaking onto someone else. Rather, he did the speaking himself. He recognized that God had shown him, not the others, the right course of action. Therefore, he should be the one to carry it out.