Daniel 1:1-21
Introduction:
2. Introduction to Daniel and His Friends(1:3–7)
(1) Social Status (1:3)
Nebuchadnezzar ordered Ashpenaz, the leader of his “court officials” (“eunuchs,” KJV), to take captives of some of the royal family and nobility of Judah. Daniel and his friends were probably members of both classes. The Hebrew word translated “court officials” could refer to a literal eunuch (see Isa. 56:3), but the term was also employed in a general sense to designate any official (see Gen. 37:36). Nebuchadnezzar had a policy of taking the intelligentsia and artisans from conquered territories for service in his kingdom. Being members of the royalty and leading families of the vanquished nation, these Jewish captives also would deter rebellion against Babylon lest they be harmed.
(2) Qualifications (1:4a)
The trainees had to be a certain age, probably about fourteen based on common Persian practice. Nebuchadnezzar wanted boys at a “teachable age” so they would be able and willing to learn new things. Daniel and his friends were also required to be in good physical health and to have a pleasing appearance. Intelligence was of the utmost importance since these young men would eventually serve as advisers to the king. Most likely, the expressions, “showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand,” are cumulative and do not indicate distinct mental functions. “Qualified to serve in the king’s palace” means that they possessed the social skills for serving in the royal court.
(3) Privileged Status (1:4b–5)
Daniel and his friends received a privileged education, a privileged diet (“from the king’s table,” and an opportunity to achieve a privileged position in the king’s court. Their training period continued “for three years” (similar to Persian practice) and was intended to prepare the young men to serve the king in some capacity.
(4) Names (1:6–7)
The names of the Jewish captives were Daniel (“God is my judge”), Hananiah (“The Lord is gracious”), Mishael (“Who is what God is?”), and Azariah (“The Lord will help”). The Babylonians assigned the young men names indigenous to their new country, a common practice (see Gen. 41:45; Esther 2:7). These names were: Daniel=Belteshazzar (“Protect his life!” with the name of a pagan god implied, probably Marduk); Hananiah=Shadrach (“command of Aku,” the moon god); Mishael=Meshach (“Who is what Aku is?”); Azariah=Abednego (“servant of Nebo,” the second ranking god in the Babylonian pantheon). In each case the Hebrew appellation contained a reference to the true God, whereas its Babylonian counterpart alluded to a pagan deity. Some have suggested that this name change was an attempt to convert the Hebrews to paganism. If so, the plan did not succeed.
3. The Moral Test (1:8–16)
(1) Daniel’s Decision (1:8)
Daniel “resolved not to defile himself” with the king’s food and wine for at least two reasons. First, some of the foods served at the royal court (for example, pork and horseflesh) would have been unclean according to the Jewish dietary laws (see Lev. 11:1–47; Deut. 14:3–21). Second, a portion of the meat and wine was (at least on occasions if not always) offered sacrificially to the Babylonian gods before being served to the king’s court and was therefore associated with idolatrous worship. Early Christians faced a similar dilemma (1 Cor. 10:25–28).
Daniel’s request for an alternative diet was courageous for a number of reasons. (1) To refuse the royal diet could have been taken as an insult to the king and as an act of direct disobedience to Nebuchadnezzar’s orders. Daniel could have been executed. (2) Pressure from Daniel’s peers most certainly made the decision difficult. Everyone else was doing it. (3) Such unorthodox behavior could have jeopardized chances for advancement. (4) The quality of food would have been attractive. (5) Their new location may have tempted them to be unfaithful. Judah was nine hundred miles away; parents and friends would never know if they kept God’s laws or not. Yet Daniel and his friends were aware that God would know. (6) They could have argued that, since God had not protected them from captivity, they did not have to be careful to obey His commands.
(2) Ashpenaz’s Response (1:9–10)
The Lord “caused” Ashpenaz to have a favorable attitude toward Daniel (v. 9), demonstrating that Israel’s God was even able to direct the hearts of the captors to accomplish His sovereign will (see Prov. 21:1). However, Ashpenaz feared that if these young men were not well taken care of he could lose not only his job but also his head!
(3) Daniel’s Proposal (1:11–14)
Daniel asked the “guard” (a subordinate of Ashpenaz) if he and his friends might have an alternative diet for a ten-day period. The guard could then judge their physical condition after the test had been completed.
By this request, Daniel was not suggesting that eating meat was wrong (cp. Dan. 10:2–3), for a meat diet was permitted and in some instances even commanded in the Law (for example, in the case of the Passover lamb and other sacrifices).
(4) The Outcome (1:15–16)
At the end of this period, the young men looked “healthier” and “better nourished” than the other youths who were eating the king’s rich food (v. 15). So the overseer allowed Daniel and his friends to continue their new diet (v. 16). Nutritional experts today advocate a diet of mostly fruits and vegetables for optimum health. It is, therefore, no surprise that Daniel and his friends looked visibly healthier after following this menu, even for only ten days.
