INTRODUCTION
Where do you draw the line? Have you ever asked yourself that question? In your job, where do you draw the line between being willing to go the second mile and being exploited by your boss?
Daniel 1 raises similar questions. As Christians, where do we make compromises, and where do we not? Where do we draw the line between Christian associations and matters of secondary importance?
I. WITHOUT PHYSICAL DEFECT AND HANDSOME
Read: Dan 1:1–4. This is a momentous event. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Judah and took prisoners of war back to Babylon. These captives, we’re told, were “without physical defect and handsome” (Dan 1:4, NRSV). Why mention that? First, being “without physical defect” was a requirement for priests (Lev 21:21). Secondly, being “handsome” was a characteristic of Judah’s royal house. Remember the impressive King Saul, and then David, Absalom, the beautiful Bathsheba, and many others. So, these captives are like priests (without physical defect) and kings (handsome). God had told Moses that Israel should be a “priestly kingdom” (Exod 19:6, NRSV), or “a kingdom of priests” (1 Pet 2:9). These youths are royal representative Israelites. And they will have to demonstrate that in the court of Nebuchadnezzar.
II. EDUCATION AND IDENTITIES
They are educated in the literature of Babylon. Their studies are challenging for Israelites. They receive Babylonian names. Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Their new names refer to Babylonian gods. They will study Babylonian “literature and language” (Dan 1:5). This will include Babylonian theology and mythology, the interpretation of dreams using Babylonian manuals, and foretelling the future by inspecting the entrails of disemboweled bulls. So, a challenging education. They’d never studied any of that back home in Jerusalem.
These subjects were not their biggest challenge. Their bigger challenge was the food. They were served at the king’s table. The king had made it for them in person, but they would eat meals he had eaten.
However, Daniel and his friends refuse to eat the food (1:8–14). Why did they refuse? Well, we aren’t told—only that they didn’t want to defile themselves. Was it because the food had been offered to idols? Maybe. But all food at court was offered to idols, including the vegetables the young friends eventually requested. Was it because the food was unclean? Possibly. But that’s not it either. Vegetables were unclean too, depending on how they were prepared. It is the ambiguity of their actions that makes it obvious they are intent on drawing a line.
Why draw the line here? Was it because the food was unclean foods? Well, of course, as good Israelites they wouldn’t want to eat unclean food mentioned in Leviticus 11 and elsewhere. But if the food was in the laws in Leviticus, why didn’t they refuse to study at the University of Babylon? Most of what they studied was condemned in the Old Testament: pagan theology, mythology, divination, etc. So why refuse to study those godless Babylonian subjects? Why do they draw the line only when it comes to food from the king’s table?
III. DEDICATED LOYALTY
The main reason they refused the food is probably this. We’re told that this food was the king’s food, “royal rations” (Dan 1:8). This term refers to food from the king’s table. Eating at a king’s table meant that you gave your unquestioning allegiance to him. It was a binding act of covenant. Refusing to eat at a king’s table could be an act of rebellion. For example, King Saul gave a feast and all those invited came, except David. Saul asked his son Jonathan why David was absent. Jonathan replied that David was visiting his family. Listen to Saul’s response in 1 Samuel 20:30–31. Saul wanted David to die! Why such an extreme response? Because Saul believed that David’s absence showed his lack of allegiance—that he was not giving him his full allegiance.
We all know that a meal is often more than consuming food. A meal of more than dinner for two, or a wedding reception. We know the difference between those meals and simply eating a sandwich on park bench. Likewise, eating at the king’s table was much more than just a nice lunch.
Daniel and his friends might have had several reasons for refusing the king’s food. But this is the heart of it. When the youths say, “Here is where we draw the line,” you see big Babylonian names. You can teach us Babylonian language, theology, dream interpretation, and mythology. We’ll go that far. But don’t think that you have captured our loyalties. Nebuchadnezzar and his gods have not captured our allegiance. We will not give that commitment. We will not eat from the king’s table.”
They are now in a Babylonian world that does not acknowledge the God of Israel. They cannot take a stand on everything. They cannot insist on having everything on their terms. But they can communicate one key truth: either so, the decision must be made. Where do they draw the line? They draw the line at eating food from the king’s table.
Where do you and I draw the line? Consider the story of Kay. She is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist pastor conducted his first funeral service. Sister Brown had died unexpectedly. At the viewing, he was in his uniform and the pastor wore a tie. The funeral went well, the food afterwards was very poor, but she’d gone to the expense of preparing sandwiches. Ham sandwiches.
Every one of them. With tears still in her eyes, she held the plate out to the new minister. Where should he draw the line? On this side, and be like the Levites of Leviticus 11; or on that side, and accept this grieving woman’s hospitality? Where would you draw the line? And where should we draw it when considering our personal relationships, the TV shows we watch, the books we read, the web sites we visit, the shopping we do... Where should we draw the line?
We often think of people who compromise in everything, who never draw the line, as lacking principles. But then there are those who never draw the line because they compromise in nothing. And ongoing political conflicts around the world—and, dare I say, disagreements within your church board—might demonstrate that the real danger is not compromise but the lack of it.
Richard Neuheir explores how Christians refuse to conform to our culture. That solves the problem by removing the pressure. But it also removes the benefits. Christians who conform to the other Jewish exiles, who did not draw the king’s table. Secondly, we avoid the extremes. But if we do, we would have no influence at all. Instead, we can engage with our culture. This means living in our culture, not conforming to everything, perhaps having to compromise on some things, but knowing where to draw the line. That’s what Daniel and his friends did. (And that’s why, at the end of the chapter, we are told that they dined at the University of Babylon, none as wise as “Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah” (1:19). Notice they are listed by their names, not their Babylonian names. Why? Because in choosing where to draw the line, they remain true representative Israelites.
CONCLUSION
We live in a complex world. It isn’t always easy to know what is worth compromising and what is not, what is absolute and what is relative. Take Queen Esther, for example. She too lived at a foreign court. She chose to eat from the king’s table. Was it the right choice? We can’t legislate for all circumstances.
However, it’s crucial for us to know where we draw the line and how to live as those who are different. There is Nebuchadnezzar’s table and there is the table around which each of us is invited to sit from. To share in the meal of the one who eats at his head, Christ Himself, and to follow the apostle Paul (1 Cor 11:23–26).
Laurence A. Turner, PhD, is a principal lecturer in Old Testament at Newbold College of Higher Education, Bracknell, UK, and adjunct professor of theology at Avondale College and La Sierra University. Cooranbong, NSW, Australia.
