The Book of Daniel by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 11, 1908

The Book of Daniel

By Editor

Character Revealed in Loyalty to Principle

THE EDITOR

But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king's dainties, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God made Daniel to find kindness and compassion in the sight of the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, “I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your food and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse looking than the youths that are of your own age? so would ye endanger my head with the king.” Then said Daniel to the steward whom the prince of the eunuchs had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: “Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the youths that eat of the king's dainties; and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.” So he hearkened unto them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king's dainties. So the steward took away their dainties, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them pulse. Dan. 1:8-16.

As we now begin the study of the personal experiences of Daniel and his companions in Babylon, it may enable us to enter more fully into the spirit of the occasion, if we recall the circumstances surrounding these captives from Jerusalem. A great disaster had overtaken the Jewish nation. The army of a heathen king had been victorious at the very gates of Jerusalem, and Judah's king was now the vassal of a foreign prince. The explanation of this signal misfortune was found in the one word “transgression.” Led on by kings who had done evil in the sight of the Lord, the people had “transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant,” and they were now reaping the fruit of their doings. Their lack of devotion to principle, their failure to distinguish between the service of the Lord and “the service of the kingdoms of the countries,” and their refusal to be God's messengers to the nations,—their transgression of the revealed will of the King of heaven, flagrant and long continued,—had reduced their religion to forms and formularies, had transformed their temple service into an abomination, and had deprived them of that fellowship with God which was their glory and their protection. They first became the servants of sin, and then the servants of the king of Babylon. When the people by their evil course made Jerusalem as Babylon, the Lord permitted the king of Babylon to take control in Jerusalem.

There were, however, exceptions to the general rule, and some were loyal to God and maintained their religious experience in the midst of the almost universal decline of true piety; but they were not sufficient in number to avert the national disaster and to save Jerusalem from destruction. The innocent suffered with the guilty in the general calamity, but they were honored as the messengers of the true God to the kingdom of Babylon. Among these faithful few, the only ones whose experiences are recorded in this book are Daniel and his companions.

Hardly had these youth arrived in Babylon when their character and devotion to principle were tested. Having been selected for service in the royal palace, “the king appointed for them a daily portion of the king's dainties, and of the wine which he drank,” according to the usual custom under similar circumstances. To partake of this food and drink might mean transgression in three particulars:—

The king's dainties might have been prepared from food which was in itself unclean according to the Levitical law: “This is the law of the beast, and of the bird, and of every living creature that moveth in the waters, and of every creature that creepeth upon the earth; to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten.” By disregarding these provisions the people would “be defiled thereby.”

Or eating of this food might have been regarded as an expression of sympathy with one form of idolatrous worship, as will be clear from the following quotation: “Among the heathen, before commencing a meal, the meat was first offered or dedicated to the Lares, or household gods, and a portion of the wine was poured out as a libation to the idols whom they adored. What we call ‘saying grace,’ or, to use a much more Christian phrase, ‘asking a blessing,’ was among them performed by offering a portion of the meat and a portion of the wine to the presiding divinities of their houses. The apostle Paul, in his epistle to the Corinthians, reasons thus upon the subject: ‘It is nothing to you, of course, that he has done so; but if he means to entrap you into an expression of sympathy with his idolatry, by eating of his food thus dedicated to an idol, then you must abstain from it.’ Daniel acted on this principle: and he preferred the pulse and water to the daintier cheer of the royal table; because he would rather have, what I trust you would rather have, the smiles of your God from heaven, than the patronage of the mightiest king that ever swayed a scepter upon the earth.”

But in the third place, and doubtless as the most important consideration, the food prescribed by the king of Babylon was not such as a Christian should choose who desired to conform to the

laws of life and to keep himself in the best condition for acceptable service. This reason has been well stated in these words: “Why did Daniel and his companions refuse to eat at the king's table? Why did they refuse his meats and wines?—Because they had been taught that this class of food would not keep the mind or the physical structure in the very best condition of health to do God's service. These youth urged most earnestly that the one who had charge of their food should not compel them to partake of the king's luxuries, or drink of his wine. They begged him to try them ten days only, and then examine them, and decide by their physical appearance whether their abstemious diet would be to their disadvantage. When they came in for examination, the result was decidedly in their favor.

“It was otherwise with the youth who had eaten of the luxuries of the king's table, and drank of his wine. The clear sparkle of the eye was gone, the ruddy, healthful glow had disappeared from the countenance. The four Hebrew captives were thereafter permitted to have the diet they had chosen. What effect did it have upon mind and character? They had conscientiously refused the stimulus of flesh and wine. They obeyed God's will in self-denial, and he showed his approval. He desired his servants to honor him by their adherence to steadfast principle in all their habits of life. Their countenances would be a certificate of physical soundness and moral purity.”

“Daniel's parents had trained him in his childhood to habits of strict temperance. They had taught him that he must conform to nature's laws in all his habits; that his eating and drinking had a direct influence upon his physical, mental, and moral nature, and that he was accountable to God for his capabilities; for he held them all as a gift from God, and must not, by any course of action, dwarf or cripple them. As the result of this teaching, the law of God was exalted in his mind, and reverenced in his heart. During the early years of his captivity, Daniel was passing through an ordeal which was to familiarize him with courtly grandeur, with hypocrisy, and with paganism. A strange school indeed to fit him for a life of sobriety, industry, and faithfulness! And yet he lived uncorrupted by the atmosphere of evil with which he was surrounded. The experience of Daniel and his youthful companions illustrates the benefits that may result from an abstemious diet, and shows what God will do for those who will co-operate with him in the purifying and uplifting of the soul. They were an honor to God, and a bright and shining light in the court of Babylon.”

Whether we base the reason for Daniel's decision concerning his diet upon either of these three considerations, or upon all three combined, it is important to note that his test came upon the matter of appetite. He declined the king's dainties and asked for pulse and water. And the significance of this choice will appear more plainly when we consider that it was through an appeal to appetite that our first parents were led into sin, and that in the temptation in the wilderness our Saviour won his victory over Satan by resisting the suggestion that he should manifest his divine power by miraculously providing food to satisfy the cravings of his appetite. It is thus evident that there is a very close connection between the physical and the moral, and that victory over sin involves victory over the appetites and passions.

It might be claimed that as Daniel was a captive and subject to the authority of the king of Babylon, there was no sufficient reason for him to decline the bill of fare provided by royal command, and that it was a small matter in any case not worth making a stir about. So it might have been said that it was a small matter for Peter to eat with the gentiles until certain straight-laced Jews appeared on the scene, and then to change his conduct and decline to mingle with those of the uncircumcision, but Paul did not view the occurrence in that light. He discerned in that simple act a violation of the fundamental principle of the gospel, and he resisted Peter “because he stood condemned.” Daniel's case is a parallel one. A great principle was involved in an apparently small act. He refused to swerve from the right principle even under circumstances which to many would have seemed to be a sufficient excuse for so doing. The sequel proved the truthfulness of the statement of the Scripture in his experience: “He that is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much.”

The argument of the prince of the eunuchs has been repeated from that day to this: a diet of plain food will not keep one in a good condition; meat, dainties, and wine are necessary in order to make one strong and to give him a healthful appearance. This is a reflection upon the wisdom of the Creator, who gave neither flesh nor wine to man in the beginning as any part of his bill of fare. It is true that the eating of certain kinds of flesh was afterward permitted, but this was due to man's sinful course and not because such a diet was more healthful or would prolong life. “In the beginning it was not so.”

The result of the ten days' trial of the simple diet of pulse and water was an emphatic testimony in favor of the divine way of living. It was a remarkable, and perhaps miraculous, witness of the physical nature to the benefits arising from faithfulness to moral principle. It showed that something more than ceremonial uncleanness was involved in the matter of eating the Babylonish dainties and drinking the wine of Babylon. It meant a departure from the instruction of the Lord, the rejection of light already received, as well as a compromise with idolatrous practises. In order to become messengers of the gospel to Babylon, Daniel and his companions must themselves remain loyal to divine truth. In order to call others out of Babylon, they must themselves not be of Babylon although they were in Babylon.

The application of this lesson to our time is very clear. Loyalty to principle is always an essential part of Christian experience, but in this last generation, in giving the final call out of Babylon, there is the same special application of this general proposition as in Daniel's time. The laws of our physical being are the laws of God, and a wilful disregard of these laws reveals the spirit of disobedience, just the same as the disregard of what is termed the moral law. A movement which is to prepare for the coming of the Lord a people who shall “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus” will necessarily emphasize obedience to the instruction which God has given for the preservation of health, both for its own sake and because of its intimate relation to the whole question of Christian experience. The indwelling presence of Christ with the believer, “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” is the fundamental truth of the gospel. “Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” And again: “What agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. Having therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” To this experience the temple with its services at Jerusalem was designed to bear witness, but the spiritual truth had been largely overlooked, and while maintaining with much strictness the outward forms of the service of the temple, the people refused to submit themselves as the servants of God to do his will. Although far separated from the temple and its services, Daniel and his companions were loyal in their service of God, revealing the reality of the temple service by treating their bodies as the temple of the living God, consecrated to holy service. God honored those who thus honored him, and brought them to honor even in Babylon. The same loyalty to principle and the same faithfulness in service will bring similar results in this time of general apostasy from God and his truth.