22/08/21 – Daniel 1:5-16
Daniel 1:5 – And the king
appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he
drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end
thereof they might stand before the king.
them – the group of young men or youths
that Nebuchadnezzar had given into the charge of his master of eunuchs,
Ashpenaz (Daniel 1:3). In
fact, Daniel 1:3 does
strongly suggest that it is Ashpenaz who is to select and “should bring [certain] of the children of Israel,
and of the king’s seed, and of the princes” from Judah in order to
be prepared for service for Nebuchadnezzar. This group of youths included Daniel
and his three companions. This would place Ashpenaz with Nebuchadnezzar on his
battle campaigns.
appointed – or ordained. The word “appointed” does suggest that their food was made
available for them to have, but Vs 10 below makes it clear that their refusal
to eat such food as provided for them could cost their overseer (“Ashpenaz the
master of his eunuchs” – Daniel 1:3) his head (“then shall ye make [me] endanger my head to the king.”
– Daniel 1:10).
It is apparent that Daniel and his companions were not given any choice
concerning whether they could eat or refuse. The king had ordained (or decreed
by his right of authority) that they be required to eat this daily provision.
daily – yowm yowm (bə·yō·w·mōw yō·wm) Literally “a daily a day”
a provision – dabar
(speech; word; speaking; thing; business; occupation;
matter)
At first it is difficult to see how this can mean
“provision”, but this noun is derived from the verb dabar (to speak; to promise)
and so “provision” could be seen as that portion that has been spoken for or
promised. Or, if taken literally, “a provision” could be “the thing” and
therefore it would be “the thing for that day each day” where “the thing” would
represent their portion of whatever it was that the king was to get that day. Barnes
says it literally means “The thing of a day
in his day”. The
king would have his special menu each day. Being king, he would be entitled to
the best that was available on that day. And, each day (“daily”) a portion of
this would be set aside for others in his court, including Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah (see Vs 6 below).
meat – pathbag
(portion of food for the king; delicacies; food)
supposedly of Persian origin. The same word pathbag
is translated “the portion of …. meat” in Vs 8 below.
nourishing – gadal
(to cause to grow strong and healthy)
Thus
Daniel and the others would have been given a portion or share of what the king
would have considered to be the best possible food. And the king had decreed
that they should eat it because, it seemed, he had strong views on what
constituted good healthy food. What was good for the king just had to be good
for them too! This included a daily portion also of the wine the king drank on
that particular day. (Or rather, whatever the king
considered good for him had to be good for everyone else!)
It is likely that these youths (including Daniel
and his three companions) were young and probably not yet fully-grown adults. The
king clearly had intentions of training these youths as skilled advisors and
clearly considered that they had to be fed properly to ensure their maximum
development intellectually as well as physically. What was good for the king must
be good for them too. It is apparent that the king was making sure (in his
opinion – and the king was always “right”!) that they were given every opportunity
to develop to their fullest capabilities.
This special diet was to continue for three years,
after which they (hopefully) would be fit and able to stand before (present
themselves before; become a servant of) the king. (The implication is that
those who didn’t measure up to the required standard
at the end of these three years would be disposed of, and like any slave at
that time, this would have meant death.)
Daniel 1:6-7 – 6Now among these
were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah: 7Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names:
for he gave unto Daniel [the name] of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of
Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed–nego.
Daniel – “God is my Judge” (Belteshazzar), Hananiah – “God has favoured” (Shadrach), Mishael – “who is comparable to God” (Meschach) and Azariah – “Jehovah has helped” (Abed-nego) were included in this specially-chosen group of youths. Their Chaldean name meanings vary from one scholar to the next; they are generally described as being of uncertain meaning.
the prince – sar
(prince;
ruler; leader; chief; official; captain) Can mean overseer, governor, keeper or superintendent.
Genesis 39:21-23 translates sar as “keeper” (of the prison).
Genesis 40:2 has “chief (sar) of the butlers” and “the
chief (sar) of
the bakers”, and “governor (sar)” in 1 Kings 18:3. sar is seen as a
synonym of rab (master – translated “prince”
in Daniel 1:3). Therefore this prince could be called the master of the
eunuchs. It has the idea of being the one in charge of all in that group. I
think it would be reasonable to call the prince of the eunuchs their overseer.
the prince of the eunuchs – I’ll refer to this person at times as the overseer of the eunuchs. Also, if we put the two words rab (captain; chief) and cariyc (official; eunuch), we get Rabsaris (literally captain or prince of the eunuchs), an official of Assyria and also of the Chaldeans.
Look at 2 Kings 18:17a – And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab–shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem.
We have what appear to be three title-holders: (a) Tartan
(field
marshal, general, or commander, a title used by the Assyrian military; (b) Rabsaris (chief eunuch) and (c) Rabshakeh (chief cupbearer
of chief of the officers). In Daniel 1:3 “the master” is the Hebrew rab
(captain; chief) – from where we get “rabbi” – and Rabsaris = rab + cariyc (official; eunuch). The Hebrew word
sar can be translated as “keeper”, thus the keeper of eunuchs, where “eunuch” is cariyc (official; eunuch)
In many commentaries, the prince of eunuchs in Daniel 1:3 is referred to as
the Rabsaris. In Hebrew in Vs 2 above it is Rab-Cariyc (yet sounding like Rabsaris),
literally the chief or captain of eunuchs.
According to Jeremiah 39:3; 39:13, the Rabsaris (prince of eunuchs) was present with
Nebuchadnezzar on his battle campaigns. It can be assumed that Ashpenaz (prince
of eunuchs) was with Nebuchadnezzar when he took Jerusalem by siege in 605 BC.
Daniel and his companions were all of the tribe of Judah, which isn’t all that amazing, noting that there were only 2 tribes of Israel yet remaining in their land. The 10 northern tribes of Israel had been taken captive to Nineveh over a hundred years earlier. Now only Judah and Benjamin remained in their land. (Jerusalem, while seen as the headquarters of the Judah tribe, actually belonged to Benjamin which was a much smaller tribe than Judah.)
It is likely that they were required to have Chaldean names in order to be acceptable to serve the king.
Daniel 1:8 – But Daniel
purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the
king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore
he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
purposed – suwm
or siym (to
put; set; appoint; make; establish; determine; set in place; fix) Thus
Daniel laid it on his heart (determined in his heart; put it upon his heart) ……
There’s a similar phrase in Isaiah 47:7 – And thou saidst, I shall be a
lady for ever: [so] that thou didst not lay (suwm) these [things] to
thy heart, neither didst remember the latter end of it.
defile – ga’al
(to defile one’s self; to make one’s self unclean or
polluted) It generally refers to a spiritual pollution; thus we should assume that Daniel’s reasoning here was
spiritual. Perhaps the meat had been offered to idols, or perhaps it was from
animals declared unclean by the Law, or even possibly Daniel was determined to
maintain his self-control, especially noting that he also refused the wine
which would have been freely available and likely to cause drunkenness and alcoholism.
Zephaniah 3:1 – Woe to her
that is filthy and polluted
(ga’al), to the oppressing
city!
Ezra 2:62b – ….. therefore were they, as polluted (ga’al), put from the priesthood.
Daniel was determined (from the heart – that is, genuinely) to not be defiled by any corrupt thing. Possibly the food was very fatty or maybe unhealthy if measured by our standards today but it is unlikely that Daniel’s desire to not eat such food and wine stemmed from a desire for health foods, but instead from a desire to not pollute his body spiritually.
So he specifically requested of the eunuch overseer that he be permitted to refuse that portion of which the king had decreed that he should partake. Keep in mind that the king’s decree was law (note the decree that put Daniel in the lions’ den in Ch.6) and that disobedience was usually punishable with death of one sort or another. And, Daniel’s disobedience could also put those in charge of him in hot water; this would have been of great concern to the prince of the eunuchs! If Daniel lost his head, then so could the prince! Note the prince’s response in Vs 10 below. This was clearly not a decision to be made lightly!
Daniel 1:9 – Now God had
brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
had brought – nathan (to
give; put; set; permit; dedicate; produce; set; appoint; assign; designate;
make; constitute)
favour – checed (goodness;
kindness; faithfulness; a reproach; shame)
tender love – racham (womb;
compassion) Translated in the OT as mercy; compassion; womb; bowels; pity; tender
love etc. Note in the NT also: Philippians 2:1 – If [there
be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any
fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
Now God had brought (or made) Daniel into favour (or kindness) and
compassion with (or before) the prince of eunuchs. (It is not clear if this
kindness was prompted by Daniel’s request, or if it were already there
beforehand.) The eunuch overseer, with his kindness and compassion, would now
be torn between two desires: the desire to assist Daniel whom he obviously respected,
and the desire to keep his head on his shoulders!
Daniel 1:10 – And the prince
of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed
your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than
the children which [are] of your sort? then shall ye make [me] endanger
my head to the king.
said – ‘amar (to say, to answer, to say in one’s heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend) In Daniel 1:3 it would have been more of an order of the king’s authority. Here it is likely to have still had authority behind it – the prince of eunuchs was, after all, Daniel’s superior probably with the right to have him punished for daring to oppose the king’s command – but clearly in this case it is softened by the overseer’s kindness and compassion for Daniel.
fear – or “am afraid of”
appointed – or “ordained”
see – or “notice” or “discern”
worse liking – za‘aph (to fret; be sad; be wroth; be vexed; be enraged; be out of humour; be angry) This could be
rendered as “sadder” or gloomier”. Barnes says: “The Hebrew word (זעפים
zo‛ăpı̂ym) means, properly,
angry; and then morose, gloomy, sad. The primary idea seems to be, that of
"any" painful, or unpleasant emotion of the mind which depicts itself
on the countenance - whether anger, sorrow, envy, lowness of spirits, etc.”
The LXX (see below) says “gloomy countenances”. Thus the king might see their faces as not representing
health and happiness but instead with depression and disappointment. It was
common (still is!) for those who looked happy and well to be assessed as in
better health than those who showed signs of anxiety.
which [are] of your sort – giyl (a
circle; age; a rejoicing) Here “age” would fit this context. That is, those
who were of that same age group (youths), or belonged to that same group of
chosen young men.
The LXX says: And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who has appointed your meat and your drink, lest he see your countenances gloomy in comparison of the young men your equals; also shall ye endanger my head to the king. (where “your equals” would refer to all those in that same group)
The idea is that of all those in your immediate circle (the same social group; the same generation)
then shall ye make [me] endanger my head to the king. – The prince of the eunuchs was trying to get Daniel to see his point of view: that it wasn’t only Daniel’s head that risked being be removed!
Daniel 1:11 – Then said
Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah,
Melzar – meltsar (guardian;
an officer of the court; meaning is dubious) of Persian
origin. It could be a title or office the person held, such as steward, or it
could be that person’s name. Most commentaries say that it has the article
attached (in this case, “the”) and therefore is a noun, not a proper noun, and
therefore an office rather than a name. This person was under the overseer’s
authority but in authority over Daniel and his three companions. It is possible
that this person (we’ll call him a steward) was set
over only these four youths, or perhaps over all those youths chosen along with
Daniel, and that the overseer had authority over all groups in service to the
king.
Daniel seems to have bypassed the overseer here for some reason. Maybe
the overseer was too busy with so many people that he just didn’t
have the time to deal with Daniel’s problem individually, and perhaps may have
suggested to Daniel that he approach the steward who should have more time to
deal with this situation properly. If that is so, then this steward would have
been just one more person who risked being separated from his head!
Daniel 1:12 – Prove thy
servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and
water to drink.
Prove – nacah (to
test; try; prove; tempt; assay)
There are two words in the NT that have similar meanings:
dokimazo (to
test; examine; prove; scrutinise for genuineness) Eg 1 Thessalonians 5:21
peirazo (to
try something; attempt; make trial of; test; prove; examine; assay) Eg 1 Corinthians 10:13 (translated
“temptation” but can mean a testing or a trial)
Here Daniel is asking the steward to at least allow him the opportunity
to prove one way or the other who is right on this issue. All he wanted was ten
days to demonstrate his point (and if he couldn’t,
then to deal with them then) – see Vs 13 below.
pulse – vegetables in general, specifically legumes (peas and beans).
Daniel was prepared to eat basic vegetables and plain water for ten days and to let the steward observe his state of health to see if he still appeared fully healthy. It is assumed that Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were also in agreement with this agreement, noting the pronoun “our” in Vs 13 below. If not, then they were agreeing to their heads rolling! It’s what one might call a sudden death playoff: everything (their lives included) was resting on the outcome of what the steward thought about their health in ten days’ time. It is unlikely that the steward had medical training, so their lives were resting on the unqualified opinion of the one directly in charge of them. This was certainly a good time to ensure that the steward didn’t have anything personal against them!
Daniel 1:13 – Then let our
countenances (mar’eh) be looked upon (ra’ah) before thee,
and the countenance (mar’eh) of the children that eat of the portion of the
king’s meat: and as thou seest (ra’ah), deal with thy
servants.
countenances/countenance – mar’eh (sight; appearance; vision) Used twice in
this verse.
Derived from ra’ah (see below)
be looked upon/thou seest – ra’ah (to appear; present oneself; be seen;
be visible; be inspected; be looked at) Also used twice in this verse.
servants – ‘ebed (slave;
servant; subject)
It is clear from the use of visual cues here that it was to be what they
looked like, rather than any clinical assessment of any kind that might involve
more specialised knowledge. It would be merely what the steward concluded from
his visual assessment that would decide their futures, either life or death.
Then after those ten days, look at our faces and see if they are “worse liking” (“for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which [are] of your sort?” Daniel 1:10) than the other youths of their group (who would have been eating their portions of the king’s delicacies and drinking his no doubt good quality wine). And, according to what the steward’s judgment, see if the results warranted a continuance of this diet, or a lack of continuance of their lives! Daniel and his three companions would either live or die according to that steward’s visual assessment.
Daniel 1:14 – So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten
days.
consented – shama‘ (to
hear; listen to; obey; to understand; to give heed; to consent; agree; grant
request; yield to)
proved – or “put to the test”
in this matter – dabar (speech;
word; speaking; thing; business; occupation; matter) This is the same
word translated “a provision” in Vs 5 above. There it appeared to have
something to do with that portion that had been spoken for or promised. Here the
New English LXX translation says “And he dealt with them in this
manner and tested them for ten days.” (The other LXX I
usually quote from has “And he hearkened to them, and proved
them ten days.” Note that the LXX was originally in the Greek of around 250 BC and a number of English translations exist.)
“in this matter” is probably best seen as “in
this manner” and thus “So he (the steward) agreed to do as they requested in
this manner or way (as requested in Vs 12 above), and put them to the test for
ten days.”
Daniel 1:15 – And at the end
of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the
children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.
at the end of – qᵉtsath (end;
part; at the end of) Derived from qatsah (to
cut off).
It would have the idea of this being the cut-off point in time; no more testing
or other argument after the ten days expired.
appeared – ra’ah (see Vs 13 above for
definitions)
As already noted, it was their appearance that was being assessed here,
and not necessarily a medical assessment of their actual health.
fairer – towb (good, pleasant, agreeable) This word is
translated “goodliest” in 1 Samuel 8:16 (And he (Saul)
will take your
menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and
your asses, and put [them] to his work.) Samuel tells Israel that the king they desire will take so much from
them (including the best) simply because he is king. That word "goodliest" is towb
(good; pleasant’
agreeable; becoming; beautiful).
In Daniel 1:4, Nebuchadnezzar asked for “well favoured” youths to be selected, where “well” is
that word towb. It seems that kings in general
prefer to have nice-looking handsome servants, in the same way that many people
today prefer to have a nice new big house, or an expensive car, or nice
clothes; such things are supposed to “enhance” their personal image. In this
case here, the king would have not wanted to have servants that looked like
they were not healthy-looking; such an image might have reflected badly on the
king’s own image.
fatter – or looking better-fed. Often fatness
could be seen as a measure of your financial ability: rich people could afford
more and better food.
At the end
of the ten days, Daniel and his three companions looked healthier (if fairness
and fatness were the criteria) than the rest who had eaten of the king’s rich
food and wine. This was all that was needed to establish this rule on an
ongoing basis; the ten-day cut-off was now to be extended indefinitely.
Daniel 1:16 – Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine
that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
So the steward removed the requirement that they eat their allotment of the king’s food and wine, and instead continued to give them vegetables (notably legumes such as peas and beans).
This may not be taken as a biblical statement that a vegetarian diet is better than one that includes meat. It is clear from Vs 8 above that Daniel’s decision was based on not wanting to be defiled (be corrupted or unclean) by such foods. Such foods may have been unclean and forbidden by the Law, or they may have been associated with idol worship. Vegetables and water would not have been associated with such false worship, nor would they have been forbidden by the Law. It is clear that Daniel’s desire was to ensure that he gave no place to the devil (Ephesians 4:27), that he give no occasion by which God might be offended by his behaviour. And it is equally clear that his good health was not primarily due to the food he ate, but to his sacrificial worship of God whom he wished to please above all.
Benson says “The poor pulse, seeds, and roots, nourished and strengthened Daniel and his companions more than the rich food which the others ate from the king’s table nourished them. Although this might, in part, be the natural effect of their temperance, yet it must chiefly be ascribed to the special blessing of God, which will make a little go a great way, and a dinner of herbs more nutritive and strengthening than a stalled ox.”
Daniel did not choose to eat vegetables and water because he didn’t believe in meat products; rather, he chose to eat that which he believed would glorify God the most.
To Messages and Teachings page
List of all my posts on this site
Hoppers Crossing Christian Church homepage