Daniel's Plan to Stay Faithful to Jehovah - Daniel 1: 3-9

Good morning. Let's open in prayer.

Father, we're glad that you're never hurried or caught unawares. You're sovereign over your entire creation, over everything, and we are grateful for that.

It is a comfort to us to know that nothing escapes your notice. And so this morning, as we look into your word, we would like to be illuminated so that we understand more about yourself, about your son, the

Lord Jesus Christ, that we might adore you and honor you even more in our daily lives. As we look into the book of Daniel, give us wisdom, not to see too much, but to see just what you have prepared.

And we'll thank you for what you're going to do in Jesus' name, amen. So last week, there were two questions.

Where is Carchemish? And the timeline, a little bit of a timeline, this has been an interesting week for me, so I didn't get to them.

I don't know if y 'all got the prayer chain or not, but between the crazy campaign and the passing of my father -in -law,

I didn't get to it. So I will, because I need to know where Carchemish is so I can put it in my

GPS, so I don't end up there when I'm trying to go to Coeur d 'Alene or something. Is that, yeah,

I think it's probably somewhere over in Mesopotamia. So this morning, let's open by reading chapter one, the first, we'll read the first 13 verses of Daniel chapter one.

Daniel chapter one, verses one through 13. Give us our introduction and our context.

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged it.

And the Lord gave Jehoiakim, king of Judah, into his hand along with some of the vessels of the house of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his

God, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his God. Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, the chief of his officials, to bring in some of the sons of Israel, including some of the royal family and of the nobles, youths in whom was no defect, who were good -looking, showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom, endowed with understanding and discerning knowledge, and who had ability for serving in the king's court.

And he ordered him to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed for them a daily ration from the king's choice food and from the wine which he drank, and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king's personal service.

Now among them from the sons of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Then the commander of the officials assigned new names to them, and to Daniel he assigned the name

Belteshazzar, and to Hananiah, Shadrach, and to Mishael, Meshach, and to Azariah, Abednego.

But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king's choice food or with the wine which he drank.

So he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself. Now God granted

Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the commander of the officials. And the commander of the officials said to Daniel, I'm afraid of my lord the king who has appointed your food and your drink, for why should he see your faces looking more haggard than the youths who are your own age?

Would you make me forfeit my head to the king? But Daniel said to the overseer whom the commander of the officials had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, please test your servants for 10 days and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink.

Then let our appearance be observed in your presence and the appearance of the youths who are eating the king's choice food and deal with your servants according to what you see.

A lot in this first chapter and a lot, again, as we talked about before, that's left unsaid.

And remember, the critics will look at every single jot and tittle and try and figure out a way to criticize and drag down the book of Daniel, as they do most of the

Bible, if not all of it, except for the one verse that they love, judge not.

They leave that one alone. So we went through, we finished the introduction months back and then last week we went through verses one and two.

So we discovered that the narrative sense of description was used and that's why

Daniel would call Nebuchadnezzar king when he conquered that area, even before he was king.

And that was one of the critics' complaints. We looked at the fact that geographically was the location of the

Tower of Babel and some of the other inconsistencies, but for the most part, we reveled in the fact that God's word is totally consistent.

And with that said, as a bit of an introduction to the first, reminding us about last week, we'll just jump right into verse three and slide 32, 33.

So Daniel chapter one, verse three. Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, the chief of his officials, to bring in some of the sons of Israel, including some of the royal family of the nobles.

Now this is a description of the fulfillment, direct fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah in chapter 39 of Isaiah, where it says, then

Isaiah said to Hezekiah, hear the word of the Lord of hosts. Behold, the days are coming that is in your house and all your fathers have laid up in store to this day will be carried to Babylon.

Nothing will be left, says the Lord, and some of your sons who will issue from you, whom you will beget, will be taken away and they will become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.

Now that's a pretty startling and accurate prediction that Isaiah made. And it comes to fruition, it is fulfilled in this part of the scriptures where Daniel and the sons of Judah, Jehoiakim is conquered and all of those people are taken to Babylon to become just what it says, to become servants, to become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.

And that's exactly what they're headed for doing. Now, so these young people, these youths would have been between the ages of 15 and 20 years.

They would have been in excellent physical condition, handsome and intellectually superior. They were to be taught in the writings and language of the

Chaldeans who were of the privileged class in Babylon, the same class to which belong the kings of Babylon.

Likely, they would be taught astronomy, astrology, mathematics, natural history, mythology, agriculture, architecture and they would have studied the ancient languages of Babylon.

This training would last about three years and it would prepare these young men to become officers in the king's court just as Isaiah's prophecy specified.

So the four young men that we're introduced to in the beginning of this book are well known in Christian circles. The first would be

Daniel whose name meant God is judge. His name was changed as were the other young men's changed and those names were changed specifically to honor the gods of Babylon.

If they were going to be officials in the court of the king, then their names needed to reflect subservience to the gods of Babylon.

That would have been a difficult thing for me to be named after. I mean, my name's strange enough as it is to be named after some

Babylonian god. Can't you just call me Bill?

But this wasn't to happen. The four young men we were introduced to, their names were changed.

Daniel was given the name Belteshazzar to be distinguished from the next king,

Belshazzar. His name was Belteshazzar, which is to be distinguished from that and his name means bell protect his life or the lady protect his life.

This was one of the chief Babylonian's gods, Bell. There's actually an apocryphal book written around this time, no, later on, but it describes this time called

Bell and the Dragon. It almost sounds like a child's, a children's fairytale.

Actually, it is. So, yeah, it is a fairytale.

So Bell was one of the chief Babylonian gods. Hananiah, whose name meant Jehovah is gracious, was given the name

Shadrach, connoting command of Aku, another Babylonian god, the moon god of Babylon.

Mishael, actually, his name actually expressed a question. Who is what

God is or who is like God? And his name was changed to Mishak, which is who is

Aku, which is another reference to the moon god. And then finally, Azariah, Jehovah has helped, his name meant

Jehovah has helped, was named Abednego, servant of Nebo. He was named after the

Babylonian god Nebo with Nego being a corrupted spelling. So these young men's names were given to them by their parents and expressed devotion to their

God, to Jehovah God. They very likely, very likely came from devout

Jewish families who loved the Lord and who served him in various ways. So what happens here is the captors hoped that their mindset would be changed by receiving these new names and they would begin to take on responsibility to and be loyal to the

Babylonian gods. It wasn't just a name change, just for the sake of different letters. It was to confer on these young men the idea that you now serve us, you now serve the

Babylonian gods, act like it. And so we're going to see that all four of these young men do a great job of serving the king as they should have, but they didn't do it to the disrespect of Jehovah.

It cannot be overemphasized the amount of pressure these young men would have been under. To knuckle under and to conform to this strange pagan culture.

The pressure would have been immense. Everybody around them was doing it. All of their teachers did it.

The king was that way. They lost the war. God, they were delivered into the hands of these people who were pagan as pagan can be.

And vicious, a vicious culture. Very, very perverted and vicious culture. They had no family.

Only 15 -year -old, turned loose in a pagan, not turned loose, captured and put in a pagan culture.

No family around him, no support, no loved ones. Matter of fact, many of them might have seen their loved ones killed.

They were uprooted from their homeland. They were young and living in a completely strange environment that they could most likely not even understand.

Unlikely that they were given any instruction at home about some of these pagan cultures. The Israelites didn't do that.

They taught their children about God, about Jehovah God. So they would have had no point of reference.

I can't emphasize enough how difficult this would have been. It wasn't just like going to grandma's and getting homesick for mom.

This was, they had nothing to sustain them. So Reynolds Showers says in his commentary, he says, they were only teenagers subjected to the authority of the most powerful adult ruler on earth.

It appeared that their God had been humiliated. They were put under the instruction of elite, but ungodly teachers, men who were regarded as the world's top scholars.

Do your research, believe the science. Where we've heard that. They were a situation that could be deadly for the faith of impressionable teenagers.

Their education exposed them to such anti -God subjects as astrology and pagan mythology.

They were placed in the enviable position of gaining favorable government posts if they would cooperate fully with their rulers, with their captors.

They were afforded what many would have regarded as a great privilege, the eating of the king's fare. With the change of names, one of the major things that had given them personal identity since birth was removed.

One, was their commitment to Jehovah strong enough to withstand this onslaught of pressure?

One aspect of the pressure provided a specific test that would tell, namely the giving of the king's food to the students.

And it's hard for us, I'll continue reading here in a minute, but it's hard for us to comprehend how difficult this would have been.

Because the eating of that food in that culture was obedience to the gods that that food was sacrificed to.

Eating the fare of the Gentile king posed a two -fold problem for a Jew faithful to Jehovah. First, it contained food that God in the

Mosaic Covenant, the Mosaic Law, had forbidden the Jews to eat. Second, the king's food was offered as a sacrifice to the

Babylonian gods before it was eaten. To the Babylonian way of thinking, to eat that food was to participate in the worship of their gods.

Thus, if a Jew were to eat the king's fare, he would appear to a forsaken Jehovah for the worship of idols.

That was no small thing in the minds of these young men who had been raised, devoted to Jehovah God.

So now, the word for officials, where it says, then the king ordered Ashpenaz, the chief of his officials, can also be translated eunuch.

Because of this, some scholars have believed that the Hebrew youths were castrated.

Josephus assumes this to be the case. Verse four indicates, however, it says, youths in whom was no defect.

Verse four indicates, however, that the youths had no defect. This would militate against the idea that they were castrated, and it is very unlikely that they were.

It was unnecessary to do that. Not all officials were so rendered. The word saris can indeed mean eunuch, but it is also used of Potiphar, who was a married man.

So it's not exclusively used of that situation. It's used to denote someone as an actual official.

It was just that often, the officials were castrated. In yet another attempt by liberals to discredit the book, the word translated nobles comes from the

Persian partemim. This, they say, indicates a later date for Daniel.

The simple explanation that seems to escape them is that Daniel served as an official in the

Persian king's court, and so using Persian words would not be unusual at all.

In fact, scholars have not concluded for certain that the word is Persian in the first place, and it has an uncertain etymology.

So my son, when he was born, had an affliction in his mother's womb, and that affliction is called spina bifida occultus.

That is the word of the medical, that is the language of the medical community. Now let me translate that for you.

There's a number of ways to translate it. It depends on how elaborate you want to get based on how much you know about the conditions that it causes in people that have it later on in life.

Spina bifida occultus simply means a cutting of the spine in the dark, a cutting of the spine in the dark.

That's what it means. But here's what translation actually means. Sometime while Nick was in his mom's womb, something happened to his spine and busted something in his nervous system.

There's your true translation. So when he came out, part of his nervous system didn't function the way it was supposed to.

But you don't get that just from spina bifida occultus. There, now you all know

Latin. So this is not uncommon in any culture to use languages of specific categories or specific,

I'm trying to think of the word, but like mathematics has its own language, engineering has a language, medicine has a language, the law, legal, they have their own language.

I remember researching some stuff. Well, I'm getting way off track, getting way off in the rabbit's trail. This is just not uncommon in any age.

And to say that it places Daniel later is just grabbing at straws.

Another aspect, it should be noted that another aspect of their captivity would be that they would be hostages.

They would actually be hostages to this kingdom. And it would be far less likely that the royal family left in Jerusalem would attempt anything, would attempt any kind of a rescue or anything.

Plus, seems like it really just took the wind out of the Jewish sails at this time in history. So any comments or questions about verse three?

So now here in verse four it says, youths, so verse three was, then the king ordered Ashpenaz the chief of his officials to bring in some of the sons of Israel, including some of the royal family and of the nobles.

Youths, verse four says, in whom was no defect, who were good -looking, showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom, endowed with understanding and discerning knowledge, and who had ability for serving in the king's courts.

And he ordered them, he ordered him to teach them the literature and language of the

Chaldeans. So these young men, the word youths comes from the Hebrew for a lad, a boy, a child.

They were handsome and intelligent, but not simply in schoolwork. They would have been young men who had demonstrated the ability for critical reasoning and logic.

They would have been the kind of young people who would study their studies, and out of that they had become in their own right people who could critically reason to a logical conclusion about different things.

So, and you all, yes, Nathal. They would have just, at some point they would have observed them, watched them talking to each other, that's one thing.

And then more than likely, now this is a guess, this is a sanctified guess, the officials would have interviewed them.

So this is, we're compressing a lot of happenings into four verses here.

So they would have, Peter. Oh, how would they have known that they were intelligent is the question.

And the answer, or at least as much as I can come up with, because I wondered about that. They would have probably, during the time in their early captivity, they would have been interviewed, they would have been asked lots of questions, they would have been observed in their interactions with each other and their interactions with their captors.

You can learn a lot about a person that way. You can see which ones are sheep and which ones aren't.

It kind of surprises me that these guys were singled out in some ways because their captors had to have said,

I don't think these guys are gonna go along to get along. We'll see what happens. Maybe they liked that, maybe they liked the challenge the captors did,

I don't know. Yeah. They were sons of noblemen, so the assumption would be that they had received the best training that their culture could give them as well, yes.

So they would have also needed to be able to serve the king, serve in the king's court, which implied physical capability.

They were to be instructed in the learning of the Chaldeans. This reference could have been to the Chaldeans as a whole or to a class of learned men within that nation, within the nation of Babylon.

So it is likely that at this time in the Babylonian Empire's history, the Chaldeans were a class of learned men.

In Daniel chapter two, it says this, verse two, then the king gave orders to call in the magicians, the conjurers, the sorcerers, and the

Chaldeans to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. So they're a class of teacher, savant, upper crust person in this empire.

They were a class of learned men who were entrusted with the wisdom of the Babylonians. So this description of the

Chaldeans comes from Smith's Bible dictionary. It appears that the Chaldeans were in the earliest times merely one out of many

Cushite tribes inhabiting the great alluvial plain known afterwards as Chaldea or Babylonia.

Their special seat was probably that southern portion of the country, which is found to have so late retained the name of Chaldea.

In process of time, as the Chaldea grew in power, their name gradually prevailed over those of the other tribes inhabiting the country.

And by the era of the Jewish captivity, they had begun to be used generally for all of the, it had begun to be used generally for all of the inhabitants of Babylonia.

It appears that while both in Assyria and in later Babylonia, the Shemitic type of speech prevailed for civil purposes, the ancient

Cushite dialect was retained as a learned language for scientific and religious literature.

This is no doubt the quote learning and tongue to which reference is made in the book of Daniel in Daniel 1 .4.

The Chaldeans were really the learned class. They were the priests, magicians, astronomers, and in the last of the three capabilities, they probably affected discoveries of great importance.

In later times, they seemed to have degenerated into mere fortune tellers. And so, in the history of their activities, they went from the learned class down to gypsies,

I guess, or fortune tellers. Any questions about verse four? Comments. Verse five, and here's where it gets difficult for Daniel and his four friends.

The king appointed for them a daily ration from the king's choice food and from the wine which he drank and appointed that they should be educated three years at the end of which they were to enter the king's personal service.

So, the appointment of food was actually from the very larder or stores of food that the king himself partook of.

It is not to be misunderstood as something that just possibly some liberal critics would misunderstand that the king himself did this.

Rather, it was part of the responsibilities of his underlings that took care of those being trained for service in the kingdom.

They would have appointed the king's food to these young men. The education period was specifically designed for boys of this age group so that they would come out of it properly trained, properly prepared for actual service to the king.

Their service would be in the areas of advice, legal issues, science, literature, and any other areas that the king might require for himself individually or for service to the kingdom.

It was actually considered a special honor to be given a portion of the king's food. Honors directly from the king, given in Babylon, were not taken lightly.

Disregarding them or refusing them often carried the death penalty. I would really rather not have that diet pop.

Bang. I don't know that that happens here yet. Some of us might have had parents.

No, I'm just kidding. Their service, so disregarding or refusing them did carry the death penalty.

Remember the story in Esther? Where simply speaking in the king's presence without him acknowledging you or giving you the right to speak could result in death.

Esther was afraid to go in to talk with King Ahasuerus because he hadn't talked with her or met with her in quite a bit of time.

It was months if I remember right. And her uncle said to her, well you were born for such a time as this.

And so she decided, she called on the rest of the country to pray and fast, and she went in before Ahasuerus knowing that if he didn't point his scepter at her and grant her an audience, you couldn't even go in.

If he didn't grant her audience to speak, she could be killed. It was not a light thing to disagree with the king in those days.

Today, we take it for granted. We have free speech. They didn't. They didn't have anything like that.

There were no freedoms like that in this kingdom. You could be killed just for disagreeing with the king.

And when I say disagreeing, he likes broccoli. Huh, you're dead. I don't think

I'm exaggerating. They could be that petty. Tyrants can be that petty.

So, any other questions or comments about verse five?

Verse six. Now among them, among all these youths that were brought in, among all these captives, all the people that were captured and brought to Babylon from the sons of Judah were

Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. So clearly by the wording of this verse, there were a lot of youths appointed to the king's service.

Apparently, there were even quite a few more from the tribe of Judah, from the sons of Judah alone.

Later, when each of these four young men were faced with choices they had to make regarding faithfulness to their God, it is notable that they are the only four who stood against the pagan influences of Babylon.

Who says one person can't make a difference? Or just a couple of people can't make a difference? This is a beautiful acknowledgement of that fact that if you will but stand for what is right, you can make a difference.

And Daniel and his three friends do. The general consensus is that the corrupting influences of Babylon as well as the danger of according any resistance to the

Babylonian edicts had already worked their pernicious designs on the rest of the young captives.

It is indeed possible that out of all of those people, only four stood up against the destructive effects of the pagan culture.

Daniel's contemporary, the prophet Ezekiel, mentions Daniel in his book. Interesting mention,

Ezekiel 14, 14. Even though these three men, in their particular time of history,

Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst by their own righteousness, they could only deliver themselves, declares the

Lord God. And then in 1420 of Ezekiel, even though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst as I live, declares the

Lord God, they could not deliver either their son or their daughter. They would deliver only themselves by their righteousness.

Their effect, however, later on, affected all of the

Jewish nation. And Ezekiel 28 .3, behold, you are wiser than Daniel. There is no secret that is a match for you.

So Ezekiel knew about Daniel, his contemporary, in the very same pagan culture that he'd been captured and brought into.

And it would be quite natural for Ezekiel to do this. As a captive himself, it would have been notable to him that one of his contemporaries had risen to a position of power in the

Babylonian empire. The critics that object to this offer as their only evidence that they believe that Daniel is a second century forgery.

And thus, Ezekiel can't be referring to this Daniel. No, this was written later.

Why? Well, because it was. And therefore, they can't be referring to Daniel, this

Daniel. For reference sake, just so we know, just for reference purposes, there are three other

Daniels mentioned in Scripture. In 1 Chronicles 3 .1.

Now these were the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron. The firstborn was Ammon by Ahinoam, the

Jezreelitus. The second was Daniel by Abigail, the Carmelitus. And the second mention of a

Daniel, the son of Ithmar, Ezra 8 .2. Of the sons of Phinehas, Gershom. Of the sons of Ithamar, Daniel.

Of the sons of David, Hathash. And then a priest is mentioned in the time of Nehemiah with the name

Daniel, Nehemiah 10 .6. He names Daniel, Ginnathon, and Barak.

So just for those purposes, I just want everybody to be aware that there are three other Daniels mentioned in Scripture.

They are not the Daniel that this is talking about, that this book was written by. No one assumes Ezekiel is talking about one of those.

And the implication that he is talking about a Daniel mentioned in the Rosh Shamla text written 1500 to 1200

BC is completely absurd and incorrect. And again, it is based on assumptions.

Daniel couldn't have been written back then. The prophecies are too accurate. Therefore, it was written later.

Therefore, he must be talking about a guy from 1200 BC. Next question. That's not the kind of reasoning that Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, or Mishael, Hanai, the three holy children would have come to.

They would have reasoned better than that. Any questions about verse six? Verse seven.

Then the commander of the officials assigned new names to them. And to Daniel, he assigned the name

Belteshazzar to Hananiah, Shadrach, to Meshach, and to Abednego.

As mentioned earlier, the Babylonian officials changed these men's names from Hebrew names that glorified and honored the

God of Israel to names that would reflect the glory of the gods of Babylon. This was one of the actions that an ancient conqueror would take, would effect, in order to demonstrate sovereignty over captives.

He owned the captives. They weren't just his advisors. They were his slaves.

They were his objects of ownership. And he had the power of life and death in their hand for any reason.

Because each of these four men's name in Hebrew in some way honored Jehovah God, it is likely, as I pointed out earlier, that they came from godly families.

This would have contributed greatly to their ability to stand firm against the pagan culture. So, because when we look at ancient words, there's usually a pool of meanings, sometimes you'll get a little bit of different reference about names.

So, Daniel, God is my judge, goes to Belteshazzar, which is Bel, save the king, or Bel, protect the king.

Well, Bel was a lady goddess. Lady, protect the king. Hananiah, Yahweh is gracious to Shadrach.

I am very fearful of God. Or, command of,

Jehovah is gracious to command of Aku, to observe a command is to fear someone and do what they tell.

So, that's the pool of words that comes up with those two, a little bit of different. And then, who is what

God is? Meshach, I am of little account. Same thing, compared to God, what are we?

Nothing. And so, that is reflected in that other suggested translation of the third young man's name.

So, all kinds of interesting information about that, but when you look up the meaning of names, and I'm sure all of you have, or most of you, if not all of you have, when you named your children.

Sometimes people don't, and they find out later on what the name means. They go, whoops, I didn't wanna name that.

So, you come up with a creative alternative. But, all that aside, any questions about verse seven?

So, verse eight. Now, here's where it's, God is so economical.

He gives us so much truth in so few words. Behind these words are the fear, and the concern, and the bravery that comes out when these three young men make a decision, four young men, excuse me, make a decision to continue to honor

Jehovah God, knowing that it could mean the end of their lives in a painfully horrifying way.

Verse eight, but Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king's choice food, or with the wine which he drank, so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself.

So, in an example that would be taken up by his three friends later, Daniel literally, it says that he laid upon his own heart.

He laid upon his own heart, made up his mind, the decision not to defile himself with food and drink that had been offered to idols, and that did not properly meet the

Mosaic laws and guidelines for food. This is in contrast to the situation in the

Corinthians where the New Testament had devolved them of the responsibility to the ceremonial law. Daniel and his friends were indeed obligated, they were obligated to the

Mosaic law. In Daniel's situation, if he did not eat the food, he ran the risk of angering the officials who with the king's sanction could kill him.

If he did eat the food, he would offend God. He could have made excuses since he was in the, he was in the unique situation of being in captivity.

So, quote, you know, think of the impact we can have for Jehovah since we're in such important positions.

All we have to do is eat a little food and drink some wine that they provide for us. It's a fair trade -off for the impact we can have on this culture.

What happens to your impact on others when you make a compromise at the beginning of your potential?

Do you, right after that compromise, get stronger and begin to do what's right again?

Or does it usually lead to a whole series of compromises that you begin to devolve down into what you never thought you would?

Daniel knew this. Even at his young age, this is remarkable. So, he didn't make any excuses.

He might have been concerned that if he didn't eat the food, it might cost the lives of the officials that were put over him.

But he determined to remain true to everything God required, both morally and ceremonially. In this particular case, the outward ceremonial purity that Daniel maintained was an evidence of the inward moral purity he had maintained within.

Now, the phrase choice food, choice food, is from a Persian word which means both the provision of meat and it means a dainty.

So, I'm thinking, like, this would have been the really fancy foods that probably most of us can't afford, you know.

If fish eggs cost $46 an ounce, I'm gonna eat a hamburger. So, the phrase, it comes from a

Persian word, another Persian word. These were special cuts and portions that the king himself would eat. And they more often than not were used in special ceremonies to the

Babylonian deities. Thus, they were foods offered to the idols in the most real sense. They were specially set aside for idol worship.

And it would have been well known in this context. Daniel's decision to maintain his purity was not done in a fanatical display of religious fervor.

He didn't come uncorked at the officials, screaming at them that he would remain true to his God and you could do whatever you want and I'm just not gonna,

I'm not gonna do that. He didn't do that. He was a thoughtful young man. He was a critical thinker.

And he was a child of God. He sought permission to the commander of the officials to be exempted from partaking of the food and drink offered.

So, it was important to Daniel and his friends to stay true to the responsibilities they had before the Lord God, Jehovah.

If they compromised in this area, they would be unusable in the days and months and years to come.

And they knew that. I believe they knew that. Now, that's taking hopefully a sanctified insight into the verse.

I'm not saying that that's written here, okay? But H .A. Ironside in his commentary said this.

The only way you can advance in the truth is by maintaining a good conscience. Allow one thing in your life, and have it unjudged that you know to be contrary to the word of God, or that you fear is not in line with God's will for you, and you will soon find your spiritual eyes have become darkened, your spiritual susceptibilities deadened, and no real progress made in your soul, but rather a steady decline.

But where there is faithfulness, in separation from that which is opposed to the mind of God, where his word is allowed to sit in judgment on all your ways, you will learn that, quote, the path of the just is as a shining light, which shineth brighter and brighter unto the perfect day, unquote.

The word will illumine each step before you as you take the one already pointed out. I'm not talking about legalism,

I'm talking about obedience to what you know God's word says. We can't know everything

God's word says, and we can't understand everything God's word says. There's a lot

I don't know, there's a lot I don't understand, but there's an awful lot that I don't misunderstand, that I actually have to make effort to misunderstand.

And I think that's true of all of us. And in this particular case, they understood what was required of them, and they made the decision not to conform to the

Babylonian edicts. Daniel's decision also demonstrates that he understood that God had brought the

Israelites into captivity because of their failure to observe the law. He couldn't make the decisions and the suggestions and give the orders.

He was under the authority of others who were making the decisions and giving the orders. And he appealed to them in a proper way.

So we're gonna, the next verse has, we'll do verse nine really quickly, but any questions about verse eight?

Yes, Nathel. Yes, so they would have wanted food, was all of the king's food dedicated to the idols?

They would have wanted food from a different store. I would think so.

I would think so that anything that came out of the king's stores. It was a special store of food that the king partook of, and his partaking of it continually daily evidenced his devotion to the

Babylonian gods. So they wanted it from, they didn't wanna get their food from Fred Meyers, they wanted to get it from Walmart.

Or something, you know, that's a poor analogy, but I think you get it. Yes, Melvin.

Yeah, actually the word is added, he sought from the commander. He asked the commander. So what the word is implying, if nothing else, is that Daniel knew that if they said no, then he would either have to stand and be killed, or break and eat the food.

So he was asking, and as we see it go on here, we'll see that he's actually gonna lay out a plan for the overseer, not the official, but the overseer that's under the over.

Yeah, there's a whole layer here. Not the general, but the major, or you know. Right, yeah, takes a soft approach.

And another thing to remember is that when you've made up your mind to do something or not do something, but you know you have to answer to somebody else, the wise thing to do is to ask them in a way that you clearly convey to them that you still think they're in charge.

Now they don't know that your heart has made a decision. I'm not gonna do this. So if we follow this process, and we get to the end of this process, and he still requires me to do this, then

I'm going to stand. But at this point, he asked permission. The overseer would see it as a proper subservient attitude, and would actually, quite frankly, and I know you can all connect with this, would be more likely to at least give it an audience.

So if you come to your parents and you say, I ain't going to bed at nine o 'clock, or you say, hey, you know,

Mom, I'm a little older now. What do you think about considering maybe letting me stay up a little longer? I finished my homework by about eight, and that only gives me an hour to kind of decompress.

What do you think? Is Mom gonna go, that was really awesome. No, go to bed.

You see what I'm saying? He's asked, you asked permission. You're trying to get permission from someone that's over you, even though in Daniel's heart, it said he had already made up his mind.

He had laid upon his heart, I'm not gonna eat that food. Now how can I best get there? Well, I've got an overseer.

I'm gonna see if he'll help me in this. Maybe he will. A soft answer turns away wrath.

Yeah, is that kind of like a soft answer turns away wrath? It can be seen in that way. We could all take a lesson from that, especially on Facebook.

Enough said. Any other comments? We'll finish up there. Well, actually, we're gonna go over a little bit because this is a short one.

It's just a marvelous, it's a marvelous answer to Melvin's question. What happens when you do that?

Verse nine, now God granted Daniel favor and compassion in the sight of the commander of the officials.

God's sovereignty moved the officials. Never forget God is sovereign. The officials aren't sovereign.

The king of Babylon isn't sovereign. God is sovereign. He moved the officials over Daniel and his friends to grant the request.

We're gonna see that. I stole the thunder. You heard the last chapter of this chapter anyway.

He's gonna grant the request, even if reluctantly. It was remarkable that these four men,

Daniel in this case, would have been given such latitude by someone who was used to killing those who had any dissent with them, any dissent to what was happening.

It was unusual for a Babylonian captor to show compassion to a captive. This was a remarkable demonstration to Daniel and his three friends of the loving care of their

God. And they didn't miss it. And later on in their lives, they would evidence their devotion to that God in other ways.

So any other comments or questions before we close? Nathael. Correct. Yes. Right, God would have had a purpose, just like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego said, whether you throw us in the furnace or not, we're not gonna kneel before the king.

And Daniel had said that in his heart. He would have gotten to that had the officials said, no, you're gonna eat the king's fare.

Then he would have gotten to that. But he didn't have to. He didn't have to in this case.

And he would agree with you today, right now, that yes, whether God delivered him from the officials or not,

God was a good God. And whatever God does is righteous and just. But it was really, it had to be remarkable for those men to see that, see

God working in their lives that way. Isn't it when it happens to you? Isn't it delightful? Even though when the times come that it seems like he isn't acting, we know he is because he has said he is.

He has said. He has told us in his word who he is. And that is what we stand on.

Let's pray. Father, you grant favor every day and you take away favor every day.

But you are Jehovah God. And we kneel before you, loving you and acknowledging that it is your wisdom that we seek.

It is your favor that we seek. But in all things, we seek to lift you up. Let us do that today together as we worship you in Jesus' name, amen.