Daniel 1:1-7

Lord, we come to you, and we're anticipating, as we continue in Daniel, seeing the power of the sovereignty of God as Daniel is now challenged by Nebuchadnezzar to compromise.

We know, Lord, that you are the sovereign, and to be known by you and to be protected by you, we pray for these lessons today, in Jesus' name, amen.

Amen. Amen. Would anybody here loudly and proudly say,

I am a fundamentalist? Interesting.

It depends on how you define that. Exactly. How do you define it? How do you define it? Well, let's begin just with a little sketch of what fundamentalism is.

There was a movement coming out of Germany called higher criticism, which became all the rage by the late 1800s.

And in the early 1900s, most of the German church would have embraced that.

Well, that came over to the United States in the early 1900s, and this liberalism, theological liberalism, did not hold the essentials of the

Christian faith. They did not believe in the inerrancy of scripture. They embraced

Darwin's view of evolution. They embraced kind of a lax position towards culture and things that might be regarded as sinful.

And so there was a counter -movement to the liberalism of German higher criticism.

This was a believing orthodoxy. It affirmed the virgin birth.

Can someone say amen? Amen. It affirmed the substitutionary atonement of Jesus in his dying on the cross.

It affirmed the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. We're sounding charismatic here.

And the point is, you guys are with this, right? It affirmed that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ.

Amen. And all God's people said, amen. And most importantly, here, differentiating it from higher criticism, it affirmed a grammatical, historical, literal hermeneutic, that what the

Bible says it means, as the author originally intended, right? Amen. Amen. Making use of figures of speech and all of these things.

It still, it was a believing orthodoxy, and they called themselves fundamentalists.

Now, this is the early 1900s. The fundamentalists were simply upholding the fundamentals of orthodoxy.

As the century rolled on, times, they were a changing. You have the

Beatles, you have the rock and roll revolution, then you have the hippie generation and all of the changes that happened in Western society.

Feminism, and all kinds of things were a changing. Now, with the changing times, you have a movement of culture, right?

And fundamentalism takes a very hard stand against culture.

And fundamentalism, although it began as a theological stance, began to be associated with some things that may or may not be written in the scripture.

So, you won't get all the amens for everything that became associated with fundamentalism.

Now, these are difficult questions. How much do we acculturate?

How much do we go along with culture? And how much do we resist culture? I'll give you some examples. Alcohol.

Should we be absolutely dry and abstain from alcohol all the time?

Amen. Interesting. It depends on what God puts in your heart. Interesting answer.

Yeah. I personally don't drink. That's my conviction. And the reason for that is

Romans 14. And, you know, I don't want to cause someone else to stumble. I also find that I get pretty addicted to caffeine.

So, why would I even want to play with something that's more addictive than caffeine? So, it's my conviction.

But a fundamentalist would say, as we're using the term nowadays, that needs to be your conviction.

And if you do drink, then you're in sin. Now, what's the problem, biblically speaking, with making such a dogmatic statement over the issue of alcohol?

It's drunkenness, not drinking. Right. Here's the problem. I don't know a chapter and verse.

I know a chapter and verse that says, do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery.

Instead, be filled with the Holy Spirit. But I don't have a chapter and verse. Otherwise, what did Jesus do at the wedding in Canaan?

Yeah, he turned water into wine and presumably drank as well. And he was accused of being a wine bibber, whereas John the

Baptist was accused because he wouldn't drink. You know, and Jesus says, you're like children at a dirge.

You know, we sang and played the flute for you, but you wouldn't dance. And then turn around and complain the other way around.

No matter what you do, they're going to complain. John the Baptist, he doesn't drink. Jesus drinks.

Either case, they're condemned. Yeah. Well, alcohol can be the problem.

Yes. Now, if your brother, a Christian brother, you see having a drink, you think it's

OK for you, but you don't know where to stop. Yeah. You just have a sip or a little gulp, or you keep going and going.

And then all of a sudden, the next week, you do the dancing the next week. The next thing you know, you get medical problems.

Right. Your liver, you know, whatever. It leads into other problems. Yes. And that's why you don't see it in the

Scriptures. Right. OK. If it's not there, don't do it.

OK. I agree with you, you know, don't get involved in it. But it is there.

Wine is a mocker. There's warnings against drunkenness. Yeah. But there's also

Scripture that talks about wine being used for celebrations and lifting the heart and things like that.

Medicinal purposes. Medicinal, yeah. Paul tells Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach. Medicinal purposes.

OK. Let's get into this a little bit more. We have a couple of verses to read, and we can look at other

Scripture. But before we do that, let's stay on point of the big idea here. Fundamentalism.

Thou shalt not drink. Thou shalt not dance.

So it's legalism. Yeah. That's what you're saying. It becomes a law. Fundamentalism has become associated in some circles with legalism.

You sound like a Pharisee. Pharisee. Well, the Pharisees are an interesting case. Whether that's actually Phariseeism, but yeah.

Because I think they were actually lawless. I think the Pharisees were the lawless ones. It's taking protective barriers around what is the real law.

Yeah, and adding to what is real. Pharisees definitely did that. They had a whole set of laws that went beyond what was in the

Bible. Right. And yet they would neglect the weightier matters of the law, like justice. And treating people with due process.

Very happy to kill Jesus and trample over his individual rights. So they actually were lawless.

They wouldn't even care for their own parents. But they'd give the 10 % to the church to look good.

Right, to the assembly. Thou shalt not drink. Thou shalt not dance. What other ones have you heard in fundamentalist circles?

Smoke. You shouldn't smoke. Thou shalt not smoke. Women cannot even speak. Even a pipe or a cigar.

Women cannot even speak in church. Okay, that might be an example. Thou shalt not speak in church.

And then the context of 1 Timothy 2. Some groups, you had to wear something on your head.

Head coverings. Yeah, head coverings. What else have you associated with fundamentalism?

Jewelry. Anything that would make you... No jewelry. Uh -oh. And makeup. Anything that made you...

No drums. No drums at all. There can't be a beat. Definitely not guitars.

No guitars. Electric guitars. I've seen that. They were working on Sundays. What about women wearing pants?

None of that either. None of that. Skirts have to reach a certain point of the ankle or of the shin.

No going to the movies. No going to the movies. Right. So fundamentalism began as a theological stand against the liberalism of German higher criticism.

But as times were changing, it became associated with cultural stands and making laws that sometimes go beyond what is written.

So taking this legalistic, if you will, approach, making a law that isn't found in the

Bible. I want us to look at now the first seven verses. Let's read it first through. Would you mind doing that first,

John? Daniel 1, 1 -7. And I want us to have a mind of how Daniel and his friends live in a perverted culture.

You think America is perverted? Try Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, right?

Or any pagan culture outside of Israel. Here they find themselves in exile in a pagan culture.

And I'm going to say today that their stance is always against sin. They stand against bowing to idols.

One of the Ten Commandments. They stand against the compromising of their

Jewish dietary law. That God had made a law that they can't eat certain foods.

Shellfish and pig and a number of birds and different crawling things that they can't eat.

And they will make a stand against those things. And they make a stand against alcohol, interestingly. That's an interesting one.

But we'll talk a little bit more about that one in depth as we get to it. But here's my big point.

I don't think they take a fundamentalist approach to the land in which they live.

Because they're still going to serve under the king. There are things that they will do.

Because it's not sin to them. They understand their identity is not in the land in which they live.

They're citizens of a different kingdom. And they're willing not always to condemn all culture.

And I think this is a model for us that I want to stress. I think we do not want to be identified as quote -unquote fundamentalists.

Now, also realize people are going to call us fundamentalists. And we might say something is fundamentalist because it's a little bit farther right of us.

We want to be careful not to condemn either. Right? So you don't want to fall into that kind of mindset.

So that's the balance that we're going to talk about today. How did Daniel and his friends draw that line between this is only culture.

And I can dress a certain way. I can even allow myself to be called and respond when they call me

Belteshazzar when my name is Daniel. That's an interesting one. Because that name was connected with a

God. We'll talk about what it means to live in a perverted culture. To not compromise your true identity in Christ.

But also not to become legalistic. Because we don't want to put a stick in somebody's eye just to put a stick in their eye.

Does that make sense? That would hurt. Yeah, that would hurt. Right? Some things in culture that we can do.

But where is the line? And that's more of a point of wisdom and discernment. Yeah? I think you can maintain doctrinal immunity.

Yes. Promoting tolerance of different opinions on less crucial matters.

Yes. I think that's an important principle. Yes. We have to have some...

Was it Augustine that said... John, you might have to help me in this. It's become a famous refrain.

In essentials, unity. Right? Right. In non -essentials, charity.

In all things, love. And that's said a few different ways. That's the issue. That's the issue.

Yeah. But yeah, we want to keep the point. There are certain things you have to make your stand.

There are other things you can allow difference. Here at the EFCA, we actually do allow quite a bit of difference.

And we want to make sure we don't allow too much. We don't want to drift into becoming liberals. At the same time, we don't want to...

Here's how I'll put it. You're driving down the road. There is a ditch on your left and there's a ditch on your right.

The ditch on the left is liberalism. And the ditch on the right is legalism. And either ditch can be very dangerous.

You can really hurt people by driving into a ditch. Right? So let's read. Daniel 1, 1 -7.

Then the king commanded Ashpenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish of good appearance, skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding, learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the

Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate and of the wine that he drank.

They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time, they were to stand before the king.

Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah.

And the chief of the eunuch gave them names. Daniel he called Belteshazzar, Hananiah he called

Shadrach, Mishael he called Meshach, and Azariah he called Abednego.

Okay, did the king eat vegetables? Did the king eat vegetables?

Yeah, did the king eat vegetables? Do you think he ever ate any green beans? Maybe. Ate some cauliflower?

Or was he on like that strict only meat diet that some people do? Yeah. Obviously the king would have eaten anything that was delighting, and certainly probably a pretty healthy guy, you'd think he would want to eat some vegetables.

Point being, when Daniel and his friends refused the king's food, it's with reference to certain foods, because the king probably ate all kinds of food, and would have provided, and the king himself does provide the vegetables that they eat.

They end up eating an all vegetable diet. So they don't reject all the king's food. The idea is going to be they're going to reject certain foods, and I think it's what runs against the dietary code of Israel.

They're going to eat clean food, what God has prescribed for Israel. Now later, of course, in the book of Acts, a sheep will descend from heaven in the sight of Peter in a vision, and God will say, kill and eat.

Lord, I've never eaten anything unclean. And God says, do not call unclean what

I have made clean. And this refers to accepting the Gentiles as well as the

Jew, but it also undermines the Jewish dietary code to kill and eat.

It's a vision that undermines that. And in fact, Jesus had already been doing that throughout the gospels.

It's what goes from a man that defiles him, not what he puts into him. So this, we learned, dispensationalists will teach you this, that there is a difference between Israel and the church.

In the church, we are not under Israel's dietary code, but here's the point. Daniel and his friends were.

It would have been sin to them to eat a shellfish or to eat a pig. We had bacon this morning in my home, and I don't have any conscience that we sinned.

Right? Because we're not under that dietary code of Israel. Daniel would have sinned to eat pig, to eat bacon.

All right. He accepts some things of the kingdom. Now, the first thing we need to understand from the passage is what

John reiterated, and he spent an entire message on this because it's so important, the sovereignty of God.

It is God who prescribes for you the time and place and the boundaries of your habitation, where you will live and when, under which culture you will be born, and that is the sovereign choice of God.

Now, for Israel to be taken captive, were they truly overpowered by Nebuchadnezzar?

On a human level, look at verse two. Very good. You saw that, Stan. What does it say?

The Lord gave. Yeah.

It wasn't that Yahweh was overpowered by any false god. It was

Yahweh himself that sovereignly gave Israel under Babylon's control.

So this is the sovereignty of God, and you need to start there in understanding the book of Daniel with the sovereignty of God.

It is key, and I'll give you a key verse for the whole book. This would be almost a thesis statement.

It comes when Nebuchadnezzar himself recognizes the true sovereign.

Someone want to read? It's on the notes. Daniel 4 .35. All the inhabitants of the earth are counted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand or say to him,

What have you done? Right. The free will of God. The sovereignty of God.

No one can stay his hand. No one can stop him from doing his will. And all the inhabitants of earth are accounted as nothing compared to him.

This is the absolute sovereignty of God. To do as he pleases. In heaven and on earth.

The events of this earth. Everything. He's over it and above it, and he does as he pleases amongst the inhabitants of earth.

His will. That's the issue of the book of Daniel. You start there. And yes, Daniel. Well, think of also, go even his prayer.

Our Father who art in heaven. Yeah. And then he also says, not only your will here on earth, but his will in heaven.

Yes. He's sovereign even more. Very well said. Yep. He's sovereign over the affairs of heaven and over the affairs of earth.

Yes. And we can talk about the Lord's prayer with the prescriptive will of God and the decretive will of God.

What he decrees to happen will happen. And we are to obey what he's prescribed, what he's commanded.

And that's in view there. Verse 3 and 4a.

Let's read that again. How about I call on my brother Rich? My brother and my uncle.

In law. In law. Right. Verse 3 and 4. And he brought to them, he brought them to the land of Shinar.

Then the king commanded Ashkenaz, his chief eunuch, to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, used without blemish, of good appearance, and skillful in wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding, learning, and competent to understand, competent to stand in the king's palace and teach them the literature and the language of the

Catholics. Right. When mankind fell, the image of God in man was not erased.

It was defaced. Meaning the image of God is still, the imago

Dei, is still in the unbeliever. Babylon is a wicked culture.

But I don't want you to picture it like aliens versus predator. I want you to picture it as real human beings that still have the image of God in them.

And they still can recognize good and uphold some good. Do you think that a mother in Babylon would love her children?

Yes. Natural human maternal love would have been there. Do you think a father would have disciplined his children for their good?

Even outside of God? Yes. Notice in this passage that the things that they recognize in these special Israelite boys, these four, are universally good values.

That even a pagan who has some perverted and wicked values as well because they're fallen, the image of God is defaced in them, even they can recognize some good and hold some common ground.

So from this I'll say we should not have an absolutely adversarial approach to the culture around us and to other people.

And I think this is the fundamentalist error. I think some things you do not have to be at war against.

I like the movie Braveheart. I have to fast forward a certain scene and maybe a couple of them because it's inappropriate and it shows things that shouldn't be shown on the screen.

But do you know that Braveheart upholds good values? Freedom and being willing to fight and being willing to go die for the truth.

Because William Wallace dies as a martyr and he calls on the name of the Lord for strength to do it. And that's a great picture.

And our young boys need to learn to become men and to be willing to stand for something and to die for something.

And that's good. There's some good things in Braveheart. And there are some bad things that you should fast forward.

A great solution is to use something like VidAngel where it'll just jump the scene and the kid never sees it.

It's great. There are good tools like that. There are many people that would never watch a movie like that with their son.

That's not my conviction. I showed my son the movie. I think it's good for him. And there's things that I would not show him in that movie.

Do you see where I'm going with this? Look at the text. Verses three and four.

This eunuch, he has been defaced. He has been harmed by the culture of Babylon.

Just the fact that they have a eunuch indicates that we are dealing with a wicked people.

How wicked is our culture that it celebrates the making of young boys into eunuchs?

Not in America. What do you think transgenderism is? Especially if it goes to the full extent of a surgery or cutting the breasts off of a young girl or injecting hormones of the opposite nature.

Think about this for a minute. And not telling the parents. We are living in a very perverted culture.

Do you know that when you give the opposite hormone to a young person, you have reduced their life expectancy considerably?

You have consigned them to become a lifelong medical patient.

For the rest of their life, they will have to manage the damage done to their body because a young girl's body is not meant to be injected with testosterone.

To do that is child abuse and they will suffer their whole life under the affliction of that.

It will result in an early death. Medical studies prove this. It's known science.

Babylon was doing the same thing. They made this man a eunuch in order to serve in the king's palace.

Wicked culture. Wicked. And then it says in verse four, they looked for youths without blemish, of good appearance.

Here you have a description that's similar to that of David. When David was described as a young boy, he was described as ruddy.

What does the word ruddy mean? Red, handsome. It really has to do with the color of skin.

It's a healthful vigor in the flesh. It doesn't matter if a person has dark skin or light skin.

The idea is that he's healthful. You can see in his skin and his eyes. He doesn't have bags under his eyes. He's full of life and vigor.

He's got good oxygen flow to the flesh, right? That's what ruddy means. Here, that's a universal value.

These kids look healthy. And even when they don't take the king's food, they'll look more ruddy at the end.

So it's God giving this to them, but other people are noticing it. It is a good to be healthy.

That's something that we should pursue. It's wrong of me to pour too much soda into my body, because it's not helping my body, right?

It's wrong of me to overeat. It's wrong of you to abuse yourself with drugs.

If you put drugs into your body, you'll start looking like a zombie over time, right? Sadly, go to Kensington, and now they allow shooting up openly, and it looks like a zombie movie.

It's sad. But here, what does the culture value? It actually values health.

That's a good thing. Look at verse four again. They value skillful in wisdom.

People who are wise, that can make differentiations. That's what wisdom is. They value knowledge.

People who have read. Is it a good thing to be knowledgeable? There are certain fundamentalist circles, and guys,

I'm not claiming any particular church, by the way. There are some fundamentalist churches that are very much like us,

I would say, and there are others that they don't even want to read a book. They don't want to read what theologians say.

They would never pick up Calvin's Institute to read it before criticizing it, right?

Right, or read MacArthur or anything like that. They don't value knowledge. It's actually a cultural devaluation of learning, and they wouldn't read a science textbook because, ah, it's just all

Darwinian evolution, Larry Bates. No, there's real science in science books as well, right? And we should be learned in our field.

John, in your field as an engineer, did you read something other than the Bible? Oh, yeah.

Right? Stan, when you were doing sales, did you ever read anything other than the Bible? Oh, yeah.

Yeah, right? And in all of your respective fields and everything that you've done.

How about at nurses? Nursing. Yeah, in nursing, did you ever read anything other than the Bible? I read all the time, all kinds of stuff.

Of course, and we should do that. Christians should not be afraid to read what anybody has to say.

We should be well -versed in what they say, and you should be the best one at being able to describe their position in terms that they would say, yep, yep, that's what

I believe. That's what I hold. You should understand their view so well that you can refute

Darwin on his terms, right? This is the skill of the youths that they're seeing.

They were knowledgeable, understanding, learning, competent to stand in the king's palace.

What about language? Language is fundamentally cultural. It's what a culture ascribes in terms of meaning with regard to sound.

Your mouth can create all different sounds, but culture connects what those sounds mean in that language, and they were competent in the literature and the language of the

Chaldeans. A missionary who goes overseas needs to learn the language.

They need to study hard and become expert in the language of the people they're trying to reach. So then here's my question.

How far does that extend in reaching people? If we need to learn the language, what else do we need to learn and be aware of?

Is it important to exegete culture just like we exegete the word?

Tell them what I mean by that, Rich, because you're saying yes. Exegete culture? Yeah. To understand the culture and know what they're dealing with in the culture.

Yeah. And whether or not it's biblical. I'm a big proponent of exegeting culture. In my preaching,

I try to address things that people know about and think about and care about in their practical personal lives and largely in the culture at large.

Culture matters. We're living in a culture. We're enculturated. And the job of a preacher is to connect the world of the

Bible and the world of culture, where you are and say, thus says the Lord in this context.

So we do talk about transgenderism this morning. Yes, Dan. Well, not only with the missionaries, but in the culture, you've got to learn it so that you can be a friend of them.

The same way here. When I'm out witnessing, I just can't go and just lay a bomb on somebody.

I've got to learn who they are, what they do, how they do it and become a friend to them.

Then I can get into talking about the word Jesus Christ that they will now understand where I'm coming from.

These four youths are regarded as expert. They've learned the language already.

Now, Daniel's probably 15 years old when he's carried off into exile, which happened in 605 B .C.

and then a second wave of exportations in 587 B .C. They're taken into captivity. As a 15 -year -old, his mind is pretty astute for learning language.

The older we get, I don't think I would be very good at learning language at 45. But if I had started when

I was 15, I could probably know Spanish or whatever, right? Here, he's learned the language.

He picks it up quick. By the time he's there, these four young men are selected because of competence, not competence in the

Hebrew Scriptures. They don't care about that. Nebuchadnezzar does not care about that.

He might be interested, and that's just more of the learning. He's cultured. He'd want to know what's written in the

Torah, but he likes the fact that these boys have picked up the Chaldean language very quickly.

Right? That's important. If I want to reach my next -door neighbor, and he's a

Roman Catholic, do you think Matt Hoek's teaching on Monday night in apologetics, he taught on Roman Catholicism?

Do you think it would help me to know that? Very much so. To know

Roman Catholicism will help you apply the truth of the

Gospel against their culture. Their culture is telling them what being born again is.

What is it to be born again to a Roman Catholic? Anybody know? My Roman Catholic friend said, oh, those born -again people.

Yes. I said, well, you better hope that you are born again. You know what that means.

Right. I told her, and she said, well, I didn't mean it like that. Yeah. They only associated with this cultural thing of the evangelical voting bloc, and especially people who are

Bible thumpers, right? The hardcore, maybe even the fundamentalist is what they have in mind.

Yeah. Probably do. To the Catholic priest, it's to be born of water. It's the original sin washed away in baptism.

To the scripture, according to John 3, where this teaching actually comes about and in 1 Peter, it's to believe.

John 3, 16 is part of that context. It's to believe. It's to have the eyes of your heart enlightened and to have the spiritual birth from above.

Just like you were born of flesh and water from your mother, you are born from above, spiritually born through faith.

The person who's come alive. Regeneration. We know that the spiritual birth is actually regeneration.

If I don't know what Catholics think, how can I share the gospel with that Catholic priest and explain that, right?

So, culture is, it's not always our enemy to learn these things and to be engaged and to be aware.

You don't just bury your head in the sand. That's what you come across as a Bible thumper If you pop out of the sand and just thump the

Bible, but you don't understand even what they're saying, it just comes across like you're a wild eye and you have no clue what you're talking about.

All you're doing is this, what's called theism. That's faith in faith.

They think, oh, you just have faith in the Bible and you're just gonna say whatever it thinks. You're not reasoned. You don't have evidence.

You're just Bible thumping. That's not the picture here of Daniel and his friends.

In other words, the values of learning are actually taught right here in verse four.

They recognize what was good in those young men. The Bible is holding these young men out as excellent because they study.

The young man who studies hard is doing better than the kid who daydreams and goes home and plays video games and doesn't learn in school.

It's actually a good value to try hard and be disciplined in your thought and to read.

How did Spurgeon become Spurgeon? Because as a kid, he didn't really excel athletically and he spent all of his time reading and reading and reading.

He read the Pilgrim's Progress 100 times. He would read it once a year and he would read books every day.

He would read a book a day. Spurgeon was a reader. He was intelligent and he was very well versed.

How did he get these incredible comparisons in his preaching to the things of culture?

It's because he read science and he read books. The Albert Muller of our day.

How is Albert Muller doing so well as a seminary president? And I know he's had some woke tendencies but he's backed off of that and become conservative again.

How has Albert Muller risen to his place? He has a library of books that he has read that's probably as big as this room.

The guy reads a book a day. He reads everything that comes out. He's engaging in culture.

And I'd say that's commendable. It doesn't mean I agree with everything Albert Muller says. I'm just saying that to be great, you have to be willing to work hard and be skillful.

Verses 5, I think we just take the end of verse 4, literature of the

Chaldeans and then verse 5, John, if you will. Teach them the literature and language of the

Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate and of the wine that he drank.

They were to be educated for three years and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king.

Okay, now this gets to the heart of the question and the hard part, okay? On the one side you have a ditch called legalism which is writing laws that God didn't say and trying to enforce that on other people.

It's a violation of Romans 14, right? To his own master, the servant stands or fall. And he will stand for God is able to make him stand.

But if one man eats only vegetables and another man eats meats, that's between him and his master.

If one man regards every day alike and another has holidays, that's between him and his master.

You're not to judge that. That's an area of conscience, of liberty, all right?

So the ditch on the right is legalism where your standard, you impose on other people.

The ditch on the left is sin. It's to actually drift into doing what is wrong and what

God actually says is wrong. So we want to do and have convictions and live by conscience, Romans 14, 23.

If your conscience is not clear, to you it's sin. Now here's the question. Of the foods and the drinks that the boys were being given, what was sin?

What was not? All right. I think there's a middle road happening here in the verse.

They speak the language, we saw that already, so they're not rejecting everything of the

Chaldeans. They're also not rejecting all of the king's food because they're going to eat his vegetables, right?

The king eats vegetables. Why did they not drink wine?

That's the question. Look at their decision. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate and of the wine that he drank.

Now obviously next week John's going to take over at verse 8. We're going to be told that they decided not to do it.

They're not going to eat defiling food and they're not going to drink the wine.

What do you all think? Why wouldn't they drink the wine? Underage.

There was a law in Babylon that you had to be 18. Well, I think from experience how their culture that they grew up under that wine was not to be partaken.

Now they see it in this culture. You mean as a youth or would nobody drink wine in that culture?

Nobody would drink wine in that culture. In Israel? Well, that's how they grew up.

I don't think that's the case. I think that it could be that they wouldn't allow children to drink.

They were young. Yeah, they're only 15. We think Daniel's about 15. So I'm looking at their age group and I'm saying you have to partake of the wine in that particular age group.

Now they're in captivity and now they're going through a learning process and now they're seeing the

Babylonians maybe they're indulging maybe in too much wine and they're seeing okay, they're not quite thinking straight.

Now you want me to get all this education and follow your rules and do what you want me to do but I'm not going to partake of their wine because I see some negative things on that wine.

It could be. Any other opinions? I think they just didn't want to be Greek. The fraternities, the parties, the wine would have been not something to have with your meal.

The wine represented indulgence. Yeah, and these are kind of like the elite of the Babylonian youth.

They're like with the in crowd and you'd have to think that where they are in that position, they're not like always before the king.

Most of their time they're training, they're reading, they're studying. They're kind of like at college basically. They're basically in college and they're making a decision probably because of what they're seeing with their friends around them that they're just going to abstain.

That's what I did in college. I abstained. My first week at college

I had one beer to try to fit in and then I said why am I doing that? And I just decided none.

And I didn't drink in college, even a beer. Why? Because I thought they know

I'm claiming to be a Christian. I know what beer means here at Eckerd College. It means you're going to go get drunk.

So why even let somebody see me holding this beer? It was just I think, and so here's my point.

I have to close up because we're running out of time. I'll just make my point. I believe it was a choice of conscience.

They wanted to make a stand for the sake of the name of Yahweh. They knew their true identity and they made that decision.

Now let me just say what I think about wine. Generally I think it's okay if you want to drink wine at a wedding, if you even want to in the privacy of your home have a glass of wine at dinner, that kind of thing.

Clearly the scripture outlaws drunkenness, right? That is what the Bible is clear about.

I personally have the conviction that it's better for me not to drink because I don't want to stumble somebody else.

If you see Pastor Jeff drinking at Olive Garden, probably most people in this room would say, so what?

He's having a glass of wine with his wife. But there could be somebody who says, what a hypocrite.

Look at him over there drinking. They have a conviction against alcohol and my drinking would stumble them. Why is it worth it to me when

I'm just as happy to drink a soda? Right? My conviction, and this is my point about legalism and fundamentalism,

I don't want to as a pastor ever say to my church you can never have a beer, you can never have a glass of wine.

I think that's fundamentalism in the bad sense. That's me imposing my conscience and my choice upon others.

I'm binding the conscience of fellow Christians. Yeah, Sam. Yes. Amen, brother.

Well, that could be too. That's an interesting theory. Yeah, I mean, it might have been used in libation.

It's probably more likely because the context here is that's what they're being given to eat and drink. They're having wine with their meals and probably couldn't drink enough to get drunk.

Yeah. Alright, so then lastly in verses six and seven, we know their true identity, and that's why

I think that Daniel is recording these verses. Who are they? They're known by God.

Their names are Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, Azariah. That's who they are.

That's their true identity, and they're going to live in right relationship with their king. They're not going to sin.

They're also not going to put a stick in the king's eye at every particular point. They ask the eunuch to be given these other things, and that's good, and God moves on the eunuch's heart that they could eat these other foods and drink only water.

Right? They're living by conscience, and that conscience is informed by the word of God.

They're not going beyond what is written. They're not rejecting the language of the Chaldeans and saying we will only speak

Hebrew or something like that. I think they play Chaldean sports. They're willing to do that as long as it doesn't involve sin.

Right? This is the key, and this is my message here this morning.

Cultivate habits that Christians and non -Christians together agree are admirable.

Those are the kind of habits you cultivate, and that includes reading, being knowledgeable.

That's what they were commended for. That's a good thing. In this way, win respect in the culture.

Our goal is not to be identified as fundamentalists. That word itself has become tainted because it's associated with things that go beyond what is written.

You can call yourself a fundamentalist, fine, but the point is you're not attempting to put a stick in the eye of culture at all times.

We're not always adversarial. I don't have a conviction against going to the movies.

Depends on what you're watching. There are sin at the movie theater. Depends on the movie, but I'm not going to just say you are never to go to the theater.

You are never to drink a drop of wine. That's my conviction, and therefore no

Christian can be a Christian and drink. You are never to listen to a song that has a drum in it.

You are never to wear pants if you're a woman. You see my point? That's not the idea that I'm getting from Daniel chapter 1.

Is that helpful? Yeah. Alright, let's pray. John, would you close it? Oh, one more comment. I think this is what you were looking for earlier.

Yes. In essentials unity, non -essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

That's it. Nailed it. John? Lord, we take that exhortation to keep our focus on the things that are significantly important but not to be dogmatically holding against things, to have that liberty, but to always do it with charity.

We think of the example of Daniel and of Hananiah, Mishael, Nazariah, as they are going to be challenged by the

Babylonians. Not taking a stand against all things, but taking a stand where God would put it in their heart.

that be our life's direction, we pray in Jesus' name. Amen. Wow.