Daniel The Man who Feared God 2016

Stand (8-16)

1. 
   What resolution did Daniel make? Why? (8)
   
   1. 
      He resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine. He determined that he would not eat the food from the king’s table (1.5).
      
   2. 
      Resolved/purposed: The Hebrew reads: “he placed on his heart” which is viewed as an idiom and is translated in a more abstract form into modern English: the NKJV has “purposed in his heart;” the NIV and ESV have “solemnly resolved”. None of the translations are totally literal, although the NKJV retains the idea of heart.
      

2. 
   Why did he make this resolution not to defile himself?
   
   1. 
      Many commentators state that the reason Daniel refused to eat the king’s food was because it hadn’t been prepared in the proper way, according to Jewish practice (i.e., by draining the blood form the meat; based on their understanding or interpretation of Gen 9.4; Dt 12.23-25), or that the meat was from unclean animals (e.g., pigs; Lev 11; Dt 14.3-20).
      
      1. 
         It is possible that these considerations were part of the reason he stayed clear of the meat.
         
         1. 
            Although it is also possible that the Babylonians practiced sacrificial blood-letting as part of their ceremonial rites, so the blood would have been drained from the meat.
            
         2. 
            Also, even if some of the meat was unclean (e.g., pork), there may have been options as the king’s feasts undoubtedly had something for everyone’s taste, since not everyone would have liked all the food portions served at a feast, and feasts in those days included alternatives (1 Ki 4.22-23; Neh 5.18). Daniel could have selected goat, beef, lamb or deer meat if pork were being served.
            
            1. 
               The idea of ‘clean’ animals was not an exclusively Jewish concept (Gen 7.2, 8; 8.20), and it is possible that the Babylonians did not serve pork. Amy Dockser Marcus argues that pork was not used as part of the diet throughout the ME.³⁴
               
            2. 
               However, pork probably did form part of the regular diet of the Babylonians since many pig bones have been found in city excavations.³⁵
               
            3. 
               In addition, we know that pigs were raised in ME (presumably for dietary purposes) at the time of Jesus (Mt 8.30-32; Lk 15.15, 16), and the practice was probably not much different from 600 years before.
               
      2. 
         Daniel’s refusal to eat the meat, also, does not explain why he wouldn’t drink the wine from the king’s table. Some suggest that the Babylonian’s drank ‘strong’ wine, whereas the Jews diluted it. This seems to be a specious argument as there is absolutely nothing in Scripture that speaks of diluting wine, and the proponents of this view are reading into the meaning of ‘strong drink’ (e.g., Prov 20.1 in the NKJV and ESV) which the NIV translates as beer (or fermented drink).
         
   2. 
      The primary reason, likely in focus, is that the food and wine were consecrated to idols and eating and drinking would have been to participate in, and would be viewed as endorsing, a pagan religious ritual. The meat served at the king’s table would have been dedicated to a false god through sacrifice, and the wine would have been declared sacred through a libation of pouring. Sharing in the meal would have been sharing in the sacrifice and libation and honouring the idol (Ex 34.15; 1 Cor 10.20, 21).
      
   3. 
      Daniel, is set forth as a contrast to the captive Judean King, Jehoiachin, who did evil in the eyes of God (2 Ki 24.8, 9), and accepted rations from Nebuchadnezzar’s table (2 Ki 25.29-30). To Jehoiachin, attending the king’s feasts and filling his belly with rich fare was of more importance than the matter of directly, or indirectly, participating in false worship.
      

3. 
   How does Daniel’s response to this pagan practice differ from how he has responded to the previous pagan practices we have, so far, encountered in this chapter?
   
   1. 
      Daniel and his friends were confronted with three significant pagan influences: their course of education, their changed names, and pagan worship rituals.
      
   2. 
      It is at the latter of these three that they drew the line of non-compliance and non-compromise.
      
   3. 
      We must note, and will consider it when we derive lessons from this section (8-16), that it was with respect to false worship that Daniel drew the line.
      
   4. 
      Sadly, many in the Church today have little concern for respecting the true forms of worship that God requires but make a big deal out of avoiding other matters that may or may not be a moral issue. For example:
      
      1. 
         They object to their children watching a particular movie or listening to a particular song but they don’t object to participating in false worship in the church through the use of drama or hymns of merely human composition.
         
      2. 
         They object to Christians drinking alcohol but are happy to participate in the festivals introduced into the Church from paganism, such as the those associated with Saturnalia (e.g., putting an evergreen tree in the church foyer, decorating it with candles/lights, and putting presents under it [along with a crèche]).
         
      3. 
         They would make a point about buying only ‘Fair Trade Certified’ coffee but would not object to the ordination of women to having a woman filling the office of Elder and preaching in the congregation.
         
      4. 
         They make one’s view about prophecy and end-times a standard for fellowship, but don’t believe that misusing God’s time by going to a restaurant or shopping on the Lord’s Day is an offence.
         

4. 
   How did Daniel approach the execution of his resolution? (8)
   
   1. 
      He asked for permission to avoid partaking of the meat and wine that had been offered to idols.
      
      1. 
         We are to understand from this that his tone was one of deference and submission to those in authority over him.
         
      2. 
         He did not demand that the Babylonian court administrative system and religious cult conform to God’s laws (although they should have).
         
   2. 
      At this point Daniel is acting as the spokesman for all four of the young men.
      
      1. 
         This is an important point that should not be missed as it is relevant to Daniel’s approach to the matter.
         
      2. 
         It does not indicate that the other three (Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah/Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego) were not also resolved in this matter. We know that they also had strong convictions not to participate in false worship (chapter 3).
         
      3. 
         Rather, his approaching the official in charge was to meet one-on-one. This allowed Daniel to discuss the matter with the official without putting him on the defensive. This could not have happened if a group delegation had showed up at his office door.
         
      4. 
         Daniel shows wisdom (at a relatively young age) about the dynamics of human relationships and how to approach those in positions of power.
         

5. 
   What did Daniel have supporting him as he made his request of the chief official? (9)
   
   1. 
      He approached the problem in the will and power of God, and with an understanding that his petition had some likelihood of success from a human-perspective.
      
   2. 
      He knew that if his request was in accordance with God’s will then whatever transpired would be what God wanted for him. God works all things for the good of his people who act in accordance with his will—i.e., those who love him (Rom 8.28).
      

6. 
   What behaviour traits had, likely, been displayed by Daniel in the short time that the chief official had known him that would help make the chief official favourable to Daniel and his request?
   
   1. 
      It is reported here (9), that the chief official was favourably disposed to Daniel.
      
      1. 
         Ultimately it was God who was in control and had made the chief official like or respect Daniel.
         
      2. 
         However, Daniel was the responsible agent who had already shown grace, composure, and discipline and had gained the favour of the chief official.
         
      3. 
         It should not surprise us that in such a short time (possibly hours or at most a few days) Daniel had gained this standing. People form first impressions of others within about 30 seconds of meeting them. Also, a typical job interview that lasts ½-1 hour is used as a key determinant in the selection of people for many responsible positions.
         
      4. 
         Daniel reports the attitude of the official as ‘hesed’ (kindness) translated ‘favour,’ and sympathy (‘compassion’ or ‘brotherhood’). It appears that a strong bond of loyalty had already developed between Daniel and the court official.
         
   2. 
      Even in the manner in which he asked for permission to desist from partaking of the king’s fare, display’s these traits.
      
      1. 
         He was gracious in his approach. He was not belligerent, rude, or fanatical.
         
      2. 
         He came across as a man of principle.
         
         1. 
            A scene in the movie Chariots of Fire, has similarities to what may have happened in the case of Daniel.
            
         2. 
            Eric Liddell is appearing before the Olympic Committee and the Prince of Wales attempts to cajole him into running in the 100M heat on Sunday, with an appeal to God and country: “There are times when we are asked to make sacrifices in the name of that loyalty. And without them our allegiance is worthless. As I see it, for you, this is such a time.”
            
         3. 
            After Lord Lindsay offers his place in the 400M to Liddell, the Duke of Sutherland says “He did have us beaten, and thank God he did. … The ‘lad’, as you call him, is a true man of principles and a true athlete. His speed is a mere extension of his life, its force. We sought to sever his running from himself.”
            
         4. 
            The Duke of Sutherland recognized from that brief (apocryphal?) meeting, a man of principle.
            
         5. 
            Notice that Eric Liddell was dealing with a matter related to God’s honour in worship (keeping the Sabbath holy), just as Daniel was dealing with God’s honour in worship (not bowing to idol).
            

7. 
   What objection and concern was raised by the chief official? (10)
   
   1. 
      His objection was that if Daniel, and his friends, did not partake of the assigned food and drink they might show signs of malnourishment compared with their peers in the training program.
      
      1. 
         “Looking worse” includes the idea of being dejected or out of humour. The verbal form means ‘to storm’.
         
      2. 
         The diet of the king would have been quite rich. For active young men it would have made them look filled-out compared with most people who had a meagre diet and would often have looked gaunt and impoverished.
         
   2. 
      His concern was that he would lose his head for not having carried out his duties adequately.
      
      1. 
         Kings in the ancient world had a notorious reputation for having little patience with anyone who appeared to be going contrary to their will. Biblical examples, include:
         
         1. 
            Pharaoh who had his cupbearer and baker imprisoned at the time of Joseph and removed the head of the baker.
            
         2. 
            Pharaoh who had the children killed at the time of Moses.
            
         3. 
            Jehoram who, on gaining the rule over Judah, killed all his brothers and other princes (2 Chron 21.4).
            
         4. 
            Herod who had the children killed at the time of Christ and (extra-Biblically) had killed his brother-in-law, his wife, his mother in law and a number of his sons. Augustus Caesar is reported to have said that he “would rather be Herod's pig than Herod's son!”
            
         5. 
            John the Baptist losing his head for calling Herod an adulterer (Mt 14.3-11).
            
      2. 
         Ironically, Nebuchadnezzar appears to have been of a more humane disposition than typical of the cruelty of Assyrian emperors.
         

8. 
   How did Daniel overcome the objection? (11-13)
   
   1. 
      He proposed a short test or experiment to determine if his suggestion would be a problem and thus to overcome the practical objection.
      
      1. 
         He proposed the use of the ‘scientific method’³⁶ through an experiment with a control group and a test group.
         
      2. 
         The test was to have Daniel and his friends—the test sample—fed a different diet for a period of 10 days and then to compare the results of their diet against the results of those in the ‘control’ group—the rest of the young men in training.
         
      3. 
         The 10 days may have been a round number implying an unspecified period of time (1.20; Amos 5.3; Zech 8.23).
         
   2. 
      The specific diet that he proposed consisted of vegetables and water.
      
      1. 
         The vegetables and water were to be substitutes for the meat and wine used as cultic offerings. This does not mean that they would eat nothing (although the NIV adds ‘nothing’ in verse 12, this is not in the Hebrew) other than vegetables and drink only water, any more than at the king’s feast people ate only meat and drank only wine.
         
      2. 
         Vegetables in general are included, not just legumes as implied by the KJV. The word used here (only here and in verse 16) for vegetables, is closely related to the word (used in Lev 11.37 and Is 61.11) that refers to ‘things sown’ including grain.
         
      3. 
         Their diet, therefore, would probably have consisted of breads (wheat, rye, and barley; rice was apparently introduced from further east during the Hellenistic era³⁷ a couple of centuries after the time of Daniel), beans, lentils, and nuts (e.g., pistachio nuts and almonds; Gen 43.11). It likely also included fruits (e.g., olives, pomegranates, figs, dates, raisins and apples; all of which are mentioned in the OT) and dairy products (e.g., cheese, curds and yoghurts; Gen 18.8; Dt 32.14; 2 Sam 17.29).
         
      4. 
         This means that, in general, vegetables were not offered to idols by the Babylonians in contrast to the kenzen offerings in Buddhism. Kenzen is an offering of a vegetarian meal to the Three Treasures of True Buddhism with four trays that include bowls of rice, a cup of soup, a bowl of beans, a plate of boiled vegetables, and a plate of pickles.
         
      5. 
         We are not to understand the diet proposed by Daniel as an endorsement of vegetarianism. There is nothing evil in eating meat. In fact, to the contrary, eating meat is required by God as part of the observance of the covenant meal in the Passover and is required of us as a symbol or token of the covenant made between God and man.³⁸
         
   3. 
      There are different views about the nutritional value of the diet proposed by Daniel.
      
      1. 
         Some argue that Daniel and his friends would not have been able to stay healthy on a long-term diet consisting merely of vegetables and water without God’s intervention and they attribute their success to a miracle. However, a planned vegetarian diet can provided sufficient amounts of protein, iron, calcium and vitamins; especially if it is augmented with dairy products (e.g., cheese) and eggs. As noted above, it is more likely that their diet included more than just vegetables.
         
      2. 
         Others argue that the rich fare of meat and wine (which often excluded fresh vegetables) provided at the royal feasts would have been unhealthy and fattening, and that Daniel’s proposal was just common sense. They state that it isn’t surprising, therefore, that Daniel and his friends would have been healthier than their peers. However, the fuller knowledge that we have today about a balanced, healthy diet and the notion of eating from the four (or five) food groups, would have been largely unconsidered in Daniel’s day.
         
      3. 
         We are not to conclude that the diet suggested by Daniel displayed particular wisdom on his part, or that it required a specific miracle to be effective. Rather we are to focus on the important decision by Daniel and his friends to avoid anything that would imply that they were participating in, or supporting, false religious practices. The items of food in the substation are not really the important consideration, but rather it is the fact that they were abstaining from endorsing an evil practice—consuming food offered to idols.
         

9. 
   Is Daniel’s suggested test presumptuous or a form of a wager?
   
   1. 
      As noted above, the diet he proposed does not necessarily require a miracle to be effective. So he is not assuming that God will work a miracle on his behalf. He is merely being faithful to God by refusing to do something that would be perceived as supporting a false religion.
      
   2. 
      Daniel’s decision was based on three key facts, that Daniel knew clearly:
      
      1. 
         It would be a sin to participate in eating meat that he knew was offered to idols and would lead others to believe that he endorsed the false religious practices.
         
      2. 
         God called him to obey without equivocation; regardless of the outcome.
         
      3. 
         God was in control of events and that whatever happened was exactly what God had planned.
         
   3. 
      There is nothing in the text that suggests that Daniel is testing God, or presenting a wager to the Babylonian authorities. He is simply being faithful and leaving the results to God—whatever they may be.
      
   4. 
      Daniel may have had a revelation from God, in a dream or vision (as he was given visions and the ability to interpret dreams, 17, etc.), similar to what Paul received during the storm, about the safety of those onboard, before the shipwreck on Malta (Acts 27.21-26). If he had this vision, God may have assured him of the outcome.
      
   5. 
      Daniel pointed out that there was no great risk in trying his proposed test for a short period of ten-days. (12)
      
      1. 
         He proposed a brief period for the test as a means of overcoming their fears.
         
      2. 
         The officials would have realized that not too much could go wrong in ten days. They likely did not have to present Daniel and his friends to the king for a few years, so a negative outcome from a ten-day trial could be easily corrected in sufficient time to prevent dire long-term results from their perspective.
         
      3. 
         The unspoken implication in Daniel’s proposal (13) is that if, at the end of ten days, their condition was considered to be worse than that of their peers, then they would be willing to accept the consequences and revert to the diet of their peers.
         

10. 
    Whom did Daniel approach among the Babylonian officials with his request? (8-11)
    
    1. 
       He asked for permission from the steward or guard to try the test for ten days. The word used here (melzar) appears only in the Hebrew OT in this verse. It has been translated as “guard”, “steward”, or “official” (Greek: treated as a proper noun/name; in Theodotion as Amelsad; in the Septuagint (LXX) as Abiezdri).
       
       1. 
          The translations (NIV, ESV, NKJV) have “Daniel said”. This is a correct translation. However in English it has a firmness or sense of demand that may not be present in the Hebrew. It is possible that we should view Daniel’s response more as a request than a statement. An alternate (equally valid translation) is, “Daniel replied” or “Daniel answered” (Gen 18.30, 38.18; 2 Chron 31.10; etc.)
          
    2. 
       Why did Daniel approach the steward (or guard)?
       
       1. 
          The steward or guard mentioned in verse 11 is a different individual from the chief of the eunuchs Ashpenaz (3, 11).
          
       2. 
          Some argue that since Ashpenaz raised an objection and denied Daniel’s request, he went around the chief official and approached the steward (or guard) who had been placed immediately over the four youths to supervise their training, and requested the ten-day trial.
          
       3. 
          It could, however, be that Daniel was in front of both Ashpenaz and the steward (or guard). It is unlikely that Daniel would (or could) have appeared before the chief of the eunuchs (i.e., the leading official in the Nebuchadnezzar’s court) without his immediate supervisor being present. A slave, captive, or hostage youth did not just walk into the presence of a senior court official and receive an audience and ask for a boon. Daniel would have been accompanied by the subordinate official (the steward or guard) who had immediate charge of his training or feeding and care.
          
       4. 
          It is quite likely that his initial request of the chief of the eunuchs was made through, or at least in the presence of, the steward (or guard).
          
       5. 
          In this context, it appears that when the chief of the eunuchs raised a concern, Daniel, in his presence, turned to the person who had immediate charge of his development and proposed the ten-day trial.
          
       6. 
          This is a much more likely scenario, than to suggest that Daniel connived with a subordinate to the chief of the eunuchs or that he tried to get around the concern or decision of the chief of the eunuchs by going to another official. We do not need to conclude that Daniel failed to get permission not to eat the food presented before idols, in his first attempt and then tried with a second person. If the chief of the eunuchs was concerned about the possible consequences of not following the prescribed royal diet, we can be sure that a subordinate official would not have agreed with the plan of a young slave (captive, or hostage) from a rebellious nation.
          
    3. 
       In summary, Daniel’s approach was:
       
       1. 
          Respectful – He approached the officials with respect for the positions of authority. He was not insubordinate.
          
       2. 
          Requesting – He asked for their permission to pursue his alternate course of action. He did not demand his rights, or even God’s rights; but rather presented his petition as a request.
          
       3. 
          Responsive – He had prepared a means of convincing the officials. He was prepared to handle objections to his proposed test.
          
       4. 
          Reasonable – He proposed a means of testing his proposal (i.e., a brief period) that could not be challenged except by someone who was being totally uncooperative. As we noted previously, he used an empirical means of demonstrating the success of his proposed diet.
          
       5. 
          Reverent – He based his approach to the officials on a trust and fear of God. He was sure that he was doing the right thing for the right reasons.
          

11. 
    Would Daniel have eaten the king’s food if he had not been granted the exemption?
    
    1. 
       From what we know of Daniel as recorded in later parts of this book, it is unlikely that he would have. He was consistent throughout his lifetime to the principles of godliness.
       
    2. 
       However, we should not strain ourselves on hypotheticals. The fact is that he was acting in the will of God and trusted that God would provide for their circumstances.
       

12. 
    What was the outcome of Daniel’s proposal? (14-16)
    
    1. 
       The Babylonian officials agreed to his proposal to test the alternative diet for ten days (14). God worked graciously (through what is often called ‘common grace’ but I prefer to call it ‘general grace’) and asserted his power over the Babylonian officials. The heart of kings (all rulers and government officials) is in the hand of God (Prov 21.1).
       
    2. 
       The diet that Daniel and his friends ate made them appear healthier than their peers (15).
       
       1. 
          Literally, the Hebrew says, “good/better in appearance and fatter of flesh”. The term ‘fat’, when used in the Bible does not necessarily mean ‘obese’ but rather can have the simple idea of healthy (e.g., Ezk 34.20; Zech 11.16).
          
       2. 
          As we noted previously, whether the diet was naturally healthier or miraculously healthier for Daniel and his companions does not need to be debated.
          
       3. 
          The food that had been sacrificed to idols was proven to be of less value than the diet God provided to the godly men. The Babylonian gods were, in effect, shown to have less power than Yahweh.
          
    3. 
       Daniel and his friends were permitted to continue their vegetable-based diet (16).
       
       1. 
          Daniel’s test was proven a success and his request was granted.
          
          1. 
             God blessed and prospered Daniel because he was obedient to his commands and trusted in him.
             
       2. 
          Daniel and his three friends were able to avoid participating in pagan worship practices.
          
       3. 
          Daniel was established, through this incident, as a leader, a man of principle, and a wise man.
          
          1. 
             We know that first impressions and publicly visible actions carry a lot of weight. For example, if a president of the United States is seen tripping on the stairs to Marine One, he is ‘forever’ viewed by the media as a bumbling fool. If a new manager comes into a company and fires a few incompetent staff, he ‘forever’ has the reputation of being tough. In the same way, if a person in a newly formed work unit makes an astute observation or gives wise advice in a meeting (especially if it is done in a way that is not perceived to be designed to impress people) and his comments are recognized by the boss, from then on people will look to him for further guidance and will listen with care to what he says.
             
       4. 
          Daniel’s refusal to eat the diet of meat sacrificed to an idol and drink wine, of which a portion had been poured to an idol as a libation, must have occurred within the first day or two of his tenure in the Babylonian training school. So, from that moment forward he would have been perceived as one who was willing to challenge the status quo and as a man who knew how to tactfully and wisely achieve his goals.
          

13. 
    What are some lessons that we can derive from this section?
    
    1. 
       Priority of obedience – Daniel shows the importance of being obedient to those in authority over us. What are the two aspects of Daniel’s obedience?
       
       1. 
          He was, first, obedient to God. He would not do anything that he knew was wrong and that would displease God, regardless of who commanded him to do it or what might be the potential outcome.
          
       2. 
          He was, second, obedient to the human authorities placed over him. Daniel respected and obeyed the king and his appointed officials and the teachers who instructed him (even though they were pagans steeped in false religions). His respect was for their position of authority as instituted by God (Rom 13.1-7; Tit 3.1; 1 Pet 2.13-17), not for the faulty religious foundation on which they based their authority and instruction.
          
       3. 
          Daniel and his friends were obedient to the human authorities in every matter, unless it contradicted God’s authority (Dan 3.12, 16-18; Acts 4.19-20; 5.29). They were not young rebels resisting all authority. They understood what the real issues were, and when it was necessary to resist human authority.
          
    2. 
       Purity of observance – Daniel teaches us that we must be discerning about what constitutes false worship.
       
       1. 
          Someone else, in a situation similar to Daniel’s, might have said, “I don’t believe that idols are anything and I don’t worship them, therefore eating meat and drinking wine used in oblations to false gods are nothing. I can worship Yahweh and eat the meat and drink the wine of king Nebuchadnezzar.”
          
       2. 
          What is the faulty logic in this kind of interpretation or approach to worship? True worship includes not only doing what is right in worship, but also avoiding doing what is wrong in worship.
          
       3. 
          What does this imply? It means that when we come to consider questions about what are right and wrong practices in worship we must consider what God has defined (explicitly or implicitly through example and sound inference) as the elements, modes and circumstances of true worship.³⁹ We must ensure that we include in worship only what God has prescribed. We must exclude from worship, and avoid participation in, any practice that God has proscribed and exclude from worship any practice that he has not explicitly prescribed.
          
       4. 
          How can we apply the example of Daniel in our own situation today? A few examples (which many in the Church today won’t understand) include:
          
          1. 
             Opening a store on Sunday in order to meet sales targets is a form of idol worship. The idol in this case is material gain. We are to cease commercial activity on the Lord’s Day (Ex 20.8-11).⁴⁰
             
          2. 
             Neglecting to tithe on income. The idol in this case is the selfish clinging to financial well-being that God has provided. Tithing is a required of all mankind (Mal 3.10) to remind us that we a subject to the Great King⁴¹
             
          3. 
             Singing human-composed hymns (instead of the Psalms) as worship. The idol in this case is the vain imagination of humans. We are to present only the best sacrifices of praise to God, which are the God-breathed words from the songbook of the Church, the Psalms.⁴²
             
       5. 
          Participating in the worship practices or religious rites of a false god was what Daniel carefully avoided.
          
          1. 
             Some commentators on Daniel cannot understand that the real issue, for Daniel when he refused to eat the meat and drink the wine of the Babylonian court, was false worship not the avoidance of the meat of unclean animals (since that doesn’t explain why he also avoided the wine).
             
          2. 
             People in the Church today do not understand the importance of true and pure worship (Jn 4.24) and often compromise in this area.
             
          3. 
             Eating food sacrificed to an idol is a denial of the true God. Therefore, false worship is the ultimate sin.
             
       6. 
          We will again consider the importance, for Daniel and his friends, of maintaining purity in worship when we study later portions of the book of Daniel (e.g., chapters 3 and 6).
          
    3. 
       Promise obtained – God has told us not to fear men but to trust him in every situation (Ps 25.2-3; 56.11; 62.8).
       
       1. 
          If we are obedient to what he has commanded, he will provide for us and protect us.
          
       2. 
          This does not mean that we will never face hardship or persecution. In fact, the opposite may be true. Jesus says that it is inevitable that persecution will come upon his people (Mt 5.10-12; Jn 15.21), because the world hates him, and God’s truth.
          
       3. 
          Rather, it means that:
          
          1. 
             God will provide means for us to escape from sin, no matter how difficult the circumstances he sends in his providence (1 Cor 10.13; Jam 5.11).
             
          2. 
             God will ultimately vindicate and honour his people, even if they are abused in this life (Ps 135.14).
             
    4. 
       Perceived as obliging – We are to live quiet and holy lives in the midst of a pagan society, and thereby gain a good reputation with those whom we serve (1 Tim 3.7; Eph 6.5-8; Col 3.22-24). Daniel gives us good principles for acting in any situation when dealing with government officials or when interacting with authorities in an employment setting. We should be (as we noted above):
       
       1. 
          Respectful – He approached the officials with respect for the positions of authority. He was not insubordinate.
          
       2. 
          Requesting – He asked for their permission to pursue his alternate course of action. He did not demand his rights, or even God’s rights; but rather presented his petition as a request.
          
       3. 
          Responsive – He had prepared a means of convincing the officials. He was prepared to handle objections to his proposed test.
          
       4. 
          Reasonable – He proposed a means of testing his proposal (i.e., a brief period) that could not be challenged except by someone who was being totally uncooperative. As we noted previously, he used an empirical means of demonstrating the success of his proposed diet.
          
       5. 
          Reverent – He based his approach to the officials on a trust and fear of God. He was sure that he was doing the right thing for the right reasons.