We then come to this pivotal verse, and one of the great ‘buts’ of the Bible: ‘But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat’. Up to this point, you can only imagine what this must have meant to these four young men, let alone the other Israelite youngsters (however many there may have been of them).
Trials of faith are inevitable and trials are what God uses to train his people. Daniel was being made fit for the next stage of his service to God. Self-denial is essential to godliness. We have to keep a grip on ourselves in a world full of goodies that can lead us away from our love for God.
That is something we so often fail to do. We have good intentions. We are going to serve the Lord; we are going to witness; we're going to do better in the coming year than we have in the past; we are going to be much more careful about certain things and much more watchful. But Daniel went a step further. He purposed in his heart. It indicates a real commitment and dedication and determination. That is what we all need. Not just to think we will do this, and to improve on that, but to form deep inner vows. ‘I am going to honour the Lord in this objective, in that objective. Daniel made up his mind.
We need to face some hard things as believers. There has been a lie of liberalism when evangelicalism ran low at the start of the twentieth century. The primary purpose of ministry has become to nurse aches and pains, to soft-soap God’s people, rather than to encourage vigorous evangelism. One has said that there are two types of ministry: one which includes goading to action, and the other which only provides consolation. But comfort and consolation are intended for those who are suffering while attempting great things for him. A ministry which turns us all into hospital patients is a deception.
Why did Daniel choose to make a stand about not defiling himself with the king’s meat and not the other things? There were a number of things which he must have found pretty unbearable. Those names, those dreadful, dreadful names. To change, as it were, your Christian name for a pagan name, naming a god, a pagan god, each one a different one. That must have been highly objectionable and uncomfortable. You would think that that was bad enough. And then there was the indoctrination of the training program. They are going to learn Babylonian, ancient Babylonian. They were going to learn the current Chaldean vernacular. Yes, they would do maths; they would do astronomy – the Babylonians were very good at those. They would also do astrology and mythology, and they would find those subjects very undesirable, and they would be part of the brainwashing. They would have to learn the philosophy, the learning of the Chaldean. But they could reject that; they could learn it so that they would be familiar with their environment and the society they were now part of, and better equipped to serve their own kingdom, Israel, the fortunes of the Israelites, but they wouldn't be breaking the law of God by learning those things. It would be a burden to them and objectionable, yes. They would probably learn some agricultural and some architecture, perhaps also do military studies, and perhaps Chaldean law and social order, but the mythology was the worst. They would certainly have had to learn physical combat, and they may well have found that offensive. They would be involved in fencing and riding and trekking and all sorts of things, and if you've been round the British Museum, you know that the Chaldeans absolutely loved – at least the royalty did – lion hunting, and who knows what they would have been exposed to in the Royal Court, frenzied and fantastic activity. Some people find the narrative about the food a little unrealistic, especially when we come to the verse where they are going to prove a vegetarian diet for ten days. People say, would ten days make a great deal of difference to them? Well, when you think of the regime they probably followed, and the physical activity they were subjected to, as well as the intellectual side of things, yes it would make a difference. Anyway, why pick on the food? Because the law of God forbad the eating of food which had been offered to idols. And every meal in the royal palace at Babylon was a kind of devotional act, an act of worship to the gods. All the food had been offered to the gods, and would be right before their eyes, and that was transgressing a direct commandment of God. That was absolutely against the laws of Moses. So Daniel purposed in his heart, ‘No, I'm not going to eat anything which has been offered to idols.’ Of course a lot of the foods would also be foods forbidden under the laws of Israel, foods that were regarded as unclean. He could put up with some of the theoretical instruction, because he would dismiss it in his mind. He could defend himself against that even that name, but not the eating of food offered to idols.