Faithful in Little Things (Daniel 1)

This sermon was preached on Sunday, 16/10/2011

Daniel is one of the great heroes of the Old Testament. He was a Jew who spent his life in Babylon; there he rose to the highest levels of power, yet remained committed to the God of his fathers. He survived the transition from one leading world empire (Babylon) to its replacement (Persia), functioning as a counsellor in both. How was he able to do this? Part of the secret lies in how he began his career as a civil servant in a pagan regime, and that story is told in the first chapter of the Book of Daniel. Yet he was only a teenager when the story begins.

As part of the background to Daniel 1, it is helpful for us to know that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah three times, and each is referred to in the Old Testament. The first occurred in 605 BC, is the one referred to in Daniel 1:1-2, and resulted in Judah becoming a tributary of Babylon; among the captives were Daniel and his friends. The second occurred in 597 BC and during it the prophet Ezekiel was taken captive (which means that he was in Babylon at the same time as Daniel). The third took place in 586 BC when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem.

Another introductory detail is to note that Daniel and his three friends were either members of the royal house of Judah or of the nobility of that country. This factor is important because it is a reminder that God works in the most unlikely places as he prepares for future situations in his kingdom. The royal family and nobles of Judah, in the main, had no time for the law of God. How marvellous that within that evil stratum of society the Lord was at work in the lives of young men whom he would later use in the work of his kingdom.

The sovereignty of God – seen in Jehoiakim

The story begins with a lesson in how to view events (1:1-3). Basically we have two options: we can view them as acts of men or as acts of God. Each would be true in its way. One is history and the other is divine providence. From the point of view of history, Nebuchadnezzar was extending the Babylonian Empire and round the year 605 BC he defeated the king of a small kingdom whose capital city was called Jerusalem. As was typical of ancient monarchs, he attributed his success to his god and placed in its temple some vessels taken from the temple in Jerusalem. History would record that the king who worshipped a Babylonian god defeated the king who worshipped the God of Israel.

The writer of the Book of Daniel, however, wants us to have another perspective on events. His perspective is stated in verse 2 and it states that the God who gave victory to Babylon was actually the God of Israel. Indeed the God of Israel was willing to let his property (the vessels from his temple) be moved into a pagan temple in Babylon. Why was this and what does his actions tell us?

The Lord gave victory to the Babylonians because the people of Judah had sinned against him. We can read the explanation for his actions in 2 Kings 23:36ff. The account says that Jehoiakim ‘did what was evil in the sight of the Lord’. So the invasion by Babylon was an act of divine punishment on Judah because of its ongoing rebellion against the Lord, a rebellion that stretched back to the days of King Manasseh. So what happened to Judah is a reminder that punishment for national sins eventually catch up with a country.

The problem that Judah faced was that it looks as if the sins of the reign of Manasseh had brought about irreversible judgement (2 Kings 21:10-17). Even his repentance did not reverse it; even the good reign of Josiah did not reverse it (2 Kings 22:18-20; 23:26-27). It looks as if situation became so bad that the only remedy is one that involves severe punishment on a large scale. And caught up in the middle of this situation were Daniel and his three friends.

The punishment had been predicted accurately by God, a reminder that his word will not return to him void (). From one perspective, to begin a book with this perspective might seem discouraging. Yet it is not, because it is a reminder that the Lord keeps his word. And in the Book of Daniel, the Lord is going to say many things, including prophecies about powerful kingdoms and empires. Are they reliable? Well, the book begins by telling us we are dealing with a God who keeps his promises and fulfils his predictions.

Yet the historical details reveal that God is patient. The reign of Manasseh was almost fifty years previously. God had not punished Judah immediately for the terrible sins that took place during Manasseh’s reign, although he had made it clear that punishment would come eventually. Indeed he gave at least three encouragements to Jehoiakim to become a good king. First, there was the repentance of his great-grandfather, Manasseh – that was a good example to follow (2 Chron. 33:10-13). Second, there was the example of his father, Josiah, who was the best king that Judah ever had: ‘Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him’ (2 Kings 23:25). Third, there was the providential removal of his brother Jehoahaz by Pharaoh – he only reigned for three months, but it was an evil reign and the Lord removed him (2 Kings 23:32). Despite these encouragements, Jehoiakim was an evil king (2 Kings 23:37). He is probably best known for burning the scroll of Jeremiah (Jer. 36:23), a reminder of another privilege that the king spurned – the ministry of the prophet Jeremiah.

It is also worth thinking about what may seem a small detail, that is, Nebuchadnezzar placing the vessels from the temple of Jerusalem into the house of his god in Babylon. This was a symbolic gesture indicating to all that the gods of the defeated people had also been defeated. We know that the God of Israel had not been defeated, but that was not the way it seemed. And the Lord was willing to let his kingdom be regarded as defeated. Of course, he had his own plans for restoration, yet the public impression would be that his cause was finished. The Lord did not need the vessels that the Judeans may have thought revered. They were the signs of his presence, and if he was no longer in Jerusalem, what good were they? This is a reminder that sometimes the Lord will allow things connected to him to become useless.

On the other hand, there is a sense in which they remained the signs of his presence. Where was God now if he was no longer in Jerusalem? He was in Babylon, and it was in Babylon that he was going to work for the next decades as he prepared his people to go back to the promised land (in Jeremiah 29, the captives were told to pray for Babylon because they would live there for seventy years). God, who seemed to be defeated, was going to work in the place of his apparent confinement for the future benefit of his kingdom. And central to that work of God was Daniel and his friends.

The strategy of the enemy – seen in Nebuchadnezzar

Like any growing empire, Babylon needed competent officials to run the government. It was in the interests of Nebuchadnezzar to make use of all the talents that could be found within his domains, including gifted individuals from the nations he had conquered. One reason for this strategy would be to prevent them using their abilities to plan rebellion against him. He had a system set up which would enable such gifted people become suitable members of his civil service. What did it involve?

We can summarise his strategy in four words: disconnection, education, acclimatization and identification. First, he took them away from familiar surroundings, and with regard to Daniel and his friends they were taken away from the life they had known in Jerusalem, with its religious activities that had meant so much to them.

Second, he wanted them to change their way of thinking, to stop each of them thinking like a member of God’s people, and to start thinking like a Babylonian (v. 5b), and the way to do this was by getting them to know the ideologies of Babylon, here called literature and language (a lot of it was connected to astrology and magic).

Third, he planned to get them used to taking food sacrificed to idols, gradually getting them to compromise their devotion to God’s word, and acclimatising them to the way things were done in Babylon (v. 5).

Fourth, he gave them new names, and in so doing leading them to take on board new identities; instead of having names that were connected to the names of God they had names connected to the gods of Babylon (v. 7).

The basic feature of Nebuchadnezzar’s strategy was to change the previous lifestyle of the Hebrews. No doubt he had his political reasons for pursuing this path. Yet we must also see that a very similar strategy is adopted by the opponents of the Christian church, whether human or demonic. They realise that they way to nullify a Christian’s witness is to get him to follow a different lifestyle from the one outlined in the Bible. So how did Daniel respond to the strategy of Nebuchadnezzar?

It is important to note that suggested ways of changing our thinking will not be the same in every period. For example, in the early church some Christians were urged to live like Jews and adopt their rituals. While some may have regarded it as harmless, Paul realised it was dangerous because it struck at the foundation of Christianity. Today we are under pressure in all sorts of ways: there is the inter-faith movement which reduces Jesus to the level of other religious leaders; there is alleged genetic evidence that explains why some people have sexual preferences and therefore calls us to redefine what sin is; there is the determination to get rid of the Lord’s Day, which is a reminder of divine creation of the universe and of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

The Staunchness of Daniel

Daniel had decided that he would not eat the king’s food because he would defile himself, nor would he take any of the king’s wine. In doing so, he put his career on the line – could he get on by refusing to participate in the meal? He also put his life on the line – his refusal was tantamount to rebellion. We can think of several responses that could have been given to him. ‘Daniel, it is only a little thing; why make a mountain out of a molehill?’ ‘Daniel, the vast majority of your peers have agreed to do it’ (only four of them refused to obey the king). ‘Daniel, you could spoil it for everyone else.’ ‘Daniel, why do you have to adopt the rules of a kingdom that is past its sell-by date?’

Daniel’s staunchness was respectful. In verse 8, he approached the situation through the proper channels and asked the person in charge for favour. His staunchness was considerate, and he was willing to prove to the chief eunuch that another way was possible. His staunchness was sacrificial in that he was prepared to live on something very basis – he was not expecting to receive a lot because he was true to his convictions. Further, his staunchness was reasoned – he did not refuse all of Nebuchadnezzar’s orders. Daniel did not object to education (after all, he could assess all he learned by applying God’s Word to it) or even to his new name (it did not change his nature).

So why did he object to the diet that Nebuchadnezzar provided at the table? The problem with the food was that any Jew who ate it would have broken the ceremonial law of Moses, even although some of it would have been allowed; the problem with the wine was different and may indicate that Daniel was determined to have self-control. Further, it is almost certain that participating in the meals would be an acknowledgement of the kindness of the Babylonian gods in providing it. Daniel could assess what he was taught, could endure his new name, and not become a Babylonian. But if he ate the meal, he would have crossed the line and aligned himself with the opponents of God. And Daniel was not prepared to do this, even at the cost of his career or his life. There was a line that he was not prepared to cross over, no matter who required it.

Daniel’s priority was to obey the Lord at all times. From where did Daniel get his convictions? In a sense, two sources that I will mentions can only be suggestions, but I would say they are reasonable probabilities. The first concerns his name Daniel, which means ‘God is judge’. Normally a person’s name was chosen by parents because they wanted him to live up to it. Imagine how Daniel could be affected by his name! Every time it was used by a friend, for example, it would remind Daniel that he had a judge. It was a wise name to give to a child. This is a reminder that parental involvement in a child’s life begins at his or her birth. The parents themselves would have to live up to the name that they gave the child.

Another probability comes from thinking about his childhood. If we assume that Daniel was about sixteen in Daniel 1, then he was about ten when the good days of King Josiah came to an end. So for most of his childhood he would have observed a king who feared God, and what he saw at that time must have affected him. He would have been aware of Josiah’s determination to obey God’s Word. Childhood is the most important time when it comes to being affected by the example of others. The people around Daniel may not have noticed him, but he noticed them and he resolved to follow their devotion to God.

A clear detail that comes out from his refusal to obey the instructions of Nebuchadnezzar is that young Daniel understood the meaning of God’s law. He knew that God’s requirements were binding everywhere, not just in Judah, but also in Babylon. In Judah, there was a written requirement not to defile himself with food. The written requirement was not in Babylon, but its absence did not give Daniel permission to ignore it. He concluded that it applied even in the palace of the king of Babylon. Daniel accepted that all of life – every moment, every inch – was under the authority of God.

It is interesting that Daniel did not use providence as a reason for not persisting in obeying the law of God. He could have taken the first refusal of the chief eunuch as a sign in providence that it was not possible to obey God in the palace in Babylon. But he did not make that deduction and persisted in expressing his desire to obey God. His determination to obey God was rewarded when God opened the way for him to do so.

The important aspect of Daniel’s conviction is that it came from his heart. He personally embraced what God required. There are people who know what God requires, but who do not obey it. Why? They have not embraced it. It has not moved from their head to the affections. Daniel loved the Lord and his ways, therefore he would not budge in the hour of crisis.

The sequel to Daniel’s choice (vv. 17-21)

Daniel and his friends went to the king’s university but avoided the king’s dining room. It turned out they were the brightest students in the class, indeed they were ten times better than the others. Their obedience was rewarded by having expanded minds and abilities as well as good health. God honoured them because they honoured him.

There is another sequel to Daniel’s choice and that is the effect his experience will have on us. So let me mention several factors that apply to us from this story. The first is that we should not asses God’s kingdom by its apparent weakness or the security of society by its apparent strength. In Daniel’s case, a few more decades saw the end of Babylon and a few more decades will see the end of what is regarded as important today. But God’s kingdom will continue.

The second factor is that religious convictions will eventually be tested. They will not be tested primarily because society wants to do so; instead the One who will arrange the test is God. It was the Lord who brought about the circumstances in which Daniel found himself. God’s people will get tested frequently.

Thirdly, we must recognise the importance of definite choices at crucial moments. A choice does not only affect the present, it also affects the future. A wrong decision will have repercussions, even if we repent of it afterwards. Daniel resolved to put God first whatever the possible outcomes. He could not be accused of inconsistency by anyone because he determined to make the right choice each time.

Fourthly, God honours those who honour him; we are given an example of that in the last verse of Daniel 1, which says that Daniel functioned as a high official for a long time. Jesus said on one occasion, ‘If anyone will serve me, him will my Father honour.’ Surely that is an incentive to make right choices when our religious convictions are tested. And we will see on that Day that the only powerful kingdom belonged to God.