The Strength of Your Conviction
By William R. Cunningham
February 7, 2000
Introduction
We are going to examine the situation with the three Hebrew boys, Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and their conviction pertaining to the Hebrew Law and food.
The events and prophecies in the book of Daniel span the period of exile. The first date mentioned is the third year of Jehoiakim (605 b.c.) when Nebuchadnezzar deported the first group of Jewish exiles to Babylon. The last date mentioned is the third year of Cyrus (10:1), to be dated somewhere between 537 and 535 b.c., just after the first group of exiles returned to Palestine to rebuild Jerusalem and the temple.
Verses 3 – 5 describe the king’s instruction to train certain Israelites in the ways of the Babylonians. The Israelites were to be converted to the Babylonian system.
The selected people that were to be trained were given a daily ration of food from the king’s table. The first part of the food was offered to idols and some of the wine was first poured on a pagan altar. Ceremonially unclean animals were also included in the king’s ration of food. These animals were not slaughtered or prepared according to the Israelite law. These practices went against the Israelite Law pertaining to foods that could be eaten.
Lesson
Daniel 1:6 through Daniel 1:7 (NKJV) 6Now from among those of the sons of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. 7To them the chief of the eunuchs gave names: he gave Daniel the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abed-Nego.
Our attention is going to be focused on four Israelite boys, namely Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The Babylonians changed their names to Belteshazzar, Hananiah, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego.
Daniel 1:8 (NKJV) 8But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s delicacies, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
Now Daniel (I will use the name Daniel instead of Belteshazzar) decided that he would not defile himself with the Babylonian food. Note that this was not something that Daniel just decided to do based on procedure. He purposed in his heart that he wouldn’t defile himself. This evidently was very real to him and he therefore took it seriously enough to take action. It is again very important to note that his decision was based on the conviction in his heart and not something that was simply done out of knowledge of the law. What is very interesting is that he respectfully asked the chief official to exempt him from eating the king’s rations.
I would like to bring out the very important point of how Daniel handled the situation. He did not adamantly refuse to eat what the king gave him in defiance of the king and therefore the Babylonian nation. That would most likely have cost him his life. Instead, he asked the official, whom God caused to have favor and sympathy for Daniel, to exempt him from the rations. This implies that there was a good relationship between the captive and the captor. Though Daniel was a prisoner, he did not act unruly so that the Babylonians would treat him harshly. Instead, he acted respectfully even in his "bad" situation. How would you act if you were in a situation that you really do not want to be in? How would you act if you job sent you someplace that you didn’t want to go? Would you be respectful even in your displeasure or dismay or would you act rudely because of your displeasure? Consider Daniel and his friends and learn from what God did for them.
Daniel 1:9 through Daniel 1:10 (NKJV) 9Now God had brought Daniel into the favor and goodwill of the chief of the eunuchs. 10And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel, "I fear my lord the king, who has appointed your food and drink. For why should he see your faces looking worse than the young men who are your age? Then you would endanger my head before the king."
As I said previously, Daniel received favor and goodwill (love) from the chief official (eunuch). However, the eunuch expressed his concern for granting Daniel’s request because he felt that Daniel’s health would degrade because of insufficient nourishment and that he would get in trouble with the king.
EUNUCH A male deprived of the testes or external genitals. Such were excluded from serving as priests (Lev. 21:20) and from membership in the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:1). Eunuchs were regarded as especially trustworthy in the Ancient Near East and thus were frequently employed in royal service. By extension, the Hebrew word translated eunuch could be used of any court official (At Gen. 37:36 and 39:1 the reference is to a married man). The Greek term translated eunuch is literally one in charge of a bed, a reference to the practice of using eunuchs as keepers of harems (Esth. 2:3, 6, 15). Part of Isaiah’s vision of the messianic era was a picture of the eunuch no longer complaining of being "a dry tree", one without hope of descendants, because God would reward the faithful eunuch with a lasting monument and name in the Temple which would be far better than sons or daughters (Isa. 56:3-5). Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8:27 was reading from Isaiah’s scroll.
A "eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12) is likely a metaphor for one choosing single life in order to be more useful in kingdom work. Compare 1 Cor. 7:32-34. |
Daniel 1:11 through Daniel 1:14 (NKJV) 11So Daniel said to the steward whom the chief of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, 12"Please test your servants for ten days, and let them give us vegetables to eat and water to drink. 13Then let our appearance be examined before you, and the appearance of the young men who eat the portion of the king’s delicacies; and as you see fit, so deal with your servants." 14So he consented with them in this matter, and tested them ten days.
Now Daniel was determined not to defile himself with the king’s food. He therefore asked the guard that was given responsibility for him by the chief of eunuchs if he would test him for ten days and allow he and his friends to eat vegetables and water instead of the king’s food. The guard agreed to the test.
Note Daniel’s faith in his conviction. He didn’t want to defile himself with the king’s food so he pressed the issue with the Babylonians. He could have given in to what they wanted because, after all, they were no longer in Jerusalem or any Israelite nation. He remained committed to his conviction of the Hebrew Law pertaining to eating food in relationship to idol worship.
Daniel had faith in God and his word such that he was confident that God would sustain him because he didn’t want to break God’s law even while in Babylon. His faith was not necessarily that God would miraculously sustain him if he didn’t eat the Babylonian food. His faith was most likely in the fact that God’s word was honored and therefore God would sustain him as he obeyed His command.
Daniel 1:15 through Daniel 1:16 (NKJV) 15And at the end of ten days their features appeared better and fatter in flesh than all the young men who ate the portion of the king’s delicacies. 16Thus the steward took away their portion of delicacies and the wine that they were to drink, and gave them vegetables.
You see that God did sustain Daniel and his friends. God honored their conviction to obey His word even in another land. It wasn’t so much that the Babylonian food was bad. As a matter of fact, the food itself was not really the issue. The problem was that a portion of the food was sacrificed to idols before it was served. A similar situation occurred during Paul the Apostle’s time (see 1 Corinthians 8). Daniel and his friends felt that they would defile themselves by eating such food. However, realize that the vegetables also came from Babylonia and therefore "Babylonian food" was not the issue.
Conviction of the Heart
I would like to briefly highlight the concept of the conviction of the heart. Christians are taught to obey the law of the land. However, what happens if the laws of the land contradict with a particular conviction you have pertaining to the Christian faith. What if one day, your state required all residence to say a prayer to the "tree god" for example? Would you obey the law? Your conviction and loyalty to God may cause you to reject such an activity. Now, how would you handle this rejection of the law of the land? Would you be abusive and confrontational or would you handle it diplomatically as Daniel did?
How far would you go to uphold your convictions? What is the limit to you upholding your convictions? In the United States we tend to be immune from the reality of this question that occur in other nations. Christians are slaughtered in African nations for example—just because they are Christians. However, we do face similar situations. Will your desire to be in the "in crowd" cause you to compromise your convictions? These are some things to think about because I’m sure you have noticed that the world is not getting better. The morals of the leaders are getting more and more immoral, which affect the morals of the general population.
What are your convictions about certain things? What is your conviction about marriage, church, Christian life, etc.? Have you ever asked yourself what you think about certain issues? Perhaps you should take the time to do just that because your convictions may be helpful to someone else if you can answer why you believe what you believe and explain the source of your conviction.
Implementing your Convictions
Implementing your convictions does not have to be confrontational as we noticed with Daniel. You can be polite and respectful in expressing your conviction. I recall a time when I attended a lecture by one of my co-workers. There were three of us on local travel to Villanova University to attend the presentation of my co-worker. The other two co-workers wanted to go to a bar after the presentation was over. I said that I didn’t want to go. They looked at each other as if to say "this guy is a party pooper" but they did respect my objection. One of the guys asked me why I didn’t want to go since they new I was a "church goer." I told them that I had nothing against the bar per se but that I was a deacon of a church and it wouldn’t look good if someone saw me coming out of that bar knowing I was a deacon. I had to remain blameless according to Timothy 3:10. He understood.
I could have gone to that bar and risked being seen and then having to deal with all of the slander and gossip after the fact. However, I stuck to my conviction about the bar in a respectful manner and my co-workers understood. They could have insisted since I was a passenger in the car.
My point is that you don’t have to express your convictions with fire and brimstone. You can remain gentle and respectful in expressing your beliefs and convictions about various topics. Yes, there may be a time were you have to stick to your guns and it may get pretty nasty sometimes. However, the important thing is that you express your convictions and implement your convictions with wisdom.
Always remember that your convictions should be based on God’s word and therefore you can trust God to uphold you in your stance. Always remember that God is in control of all that exists and we don’t have to fear being swept away by the "system" or other people. Sometimes the fear of the system or what others may say can cause us to forfeit our convictions so that we can fit in. However, stick to your convictions because they will help you to remain free. If you habitually compromise your convictions then you are a slave to the wishes and expectations of others. You will be like driftwood that goes wherever the waves take it. Be free and stick to your convictions with wisdom and understanding and with faith in God to sustain you and uphold you. Amen.
|