STUDIES IN DANIEL

�� Larry Love, an associate of Billy Graham, saw an unusual and striking piece of advertising in a London railway station.� It pictured a copy of a very exclusive and expensive magazine.� Beneath the picture were the words, "Read by an overwhelming minority."� It is a catchy and clever idea that is so often true.� History is so often most exciting just at those points when the action is in the hands of the overwhelming minority.� The majority rules in the business meetings of men, but in God's business it is often the overwhelming minority that rules.�

�� Noah was practically alone in his stand for righteousness and his labor for God, but he was an overwhelming minority who won the day.� Joseph was alone against his brothers who easily overwhelmed him and sold him into slavery, but it was he who came out on top in the end.� Gideon had only a drop in the bucket force compared to the Midianites, but with his overwhelming minority he put them to flight and gained the victory.� Elijah was an obvious minority when he withstood hundreds of the prophets of Baal, but it was his prayer that was heard, and fire fell from heaven to give him the victory.� It is a popular saying that one man and God are a majority.� The meaning is true, but technically they are still only 2.� It is more accurate to say that one man and God are an overwhelming minority.

�� Emerson said, "All history is a record of the power of minorities and of minorities of one."� The whole history of the church is in this category.� Luther did not face his inquisitors with arms outstretched pointing to the army beside him saying, "Here we stand."� He stood solitary and alone and said, "Here I stand. I can do no other‑God help me."� God did help him and he became an overwhelming minority.�

�� Dorothy Dix was a 33‑year‑old school teacher in Cambridge, Mass. when she became aware of the terrible conditions under which the insane had to live. She decided to do something about it even though the majority were indifferent and thought of them as beasts.� She was strongly opposed by those who profited from human misery.� She gathered data on the conditions and presented it to the state legislature.� If shocked them into action.� She kept it up all across the country, and she saw more than 110 mental institutions built before she died at age 87.� After 33 years of being among the complacent majority she spent 54 years as an overwhelming minority.��

�� Helen Keller, the blind and deaf girl who became a world traveler, was asked by Queen Victoria of England, "How do you explain the fact that even though you were both blind and deaf you were able to accomplish so much?" Without hesitation she replied, "Had it not been for Anne Sullivan the name of Helen Keller would be unknown.� Anne gave of her life to teach Helen and develop her skills and personality.� One person who cared enough changed her life, and then her life changed that of millions.� One who cares enough can do what millions of the uncaring can never do.� There is tremendous power in being an overwhelming minority.�

�� Carnegie free libraries are over the United States giving every person in our society the opportunity to read and learn.� This did not happen because of some great movement of the masses.� It all started with Major Anderson of the Revolutionary War fame.� He owned a library when few did, and he was not selfish with it.� He opened it up for young boys who wanted to use it.� Every Saturday morning the young Scottish lad Andrew Carnegie came and spent the day reading in his library.� He went on to become one of the richest men in America.� He was ever grateful for one man whose generosity opened up new worlds to him.� He gave millions to make this possible for others by setting up free libraries all across the country.� Multiplied millions have been blessed and enriched because of one man who shared his resources.� Great things seldom start with crowds.� They start with one person, or a few persons doing what is wise and right.�

�� In 1619 the Virginia House of Burgesses met.� It was the first legislative body in America. �22 men had been elected.� As soon as they met they were interrupted by 6 Polish men who were respected in the colony for their craft in making pitch and tar.� Being Poles they had been denied the right to vote.� Only Anglo‑Saxons, or those of English heritage, were granted this right.� There was a dispute and the Polish workmen were granted the right to vote.� This minority group won that right for the millions of Poles who would come to America.� William Jennings Bryan was right when he said, "The humblest citizen of all the land, when clad in the armor of a righteous cause, is stronger than all the hosts of error."�

�� Not all minorities, of course, are overwhelming, and not all who are, are so in a good sense.� There have been victories of evil minorities also, and many good minorities struggle just to survive, and others are crushed by the majority.� The fact is, however, that God's greatest instrument in the past has been the overwhelming minority.� This ought to challenge believers today to recognize that they are a minority group that God can use to have an impact on our secular society.� It is an obligation to try whether we succeed or not.� Our attitude is to be that of the poet who wrote‑

"You say the little efforts that I make will do no good.

They never will prevail to tip the hovering scale

When justice hangs in the balance.

I don't think I ever thought they would,

But I am prejudice beyond debate

In favor of my right to choose which side

Shall feel the stubborn ounces of my weight."

�� We are not responsible for success, but we are fully responsible as to where we put our weight.� We are responsible to be loyal to God and His Word no matter how futile such loyalty seems to be in the face of majority opposition.� We want to look at the life of one of the most loyal of all overwhelming minorities of history in the hope that a consideration of his stand might challenge us to dare to be a Daniel in our day.�

�� Clarence Macartney, the great biographical preacher, said, "Daniel may be described as the most influential man of the Old Testament, for he has exerted more practical influence upon readers of the Bible, and especially upon young men, then any other Bible character."� Plato said, "To be ignorant of the lives of the most celebrated men of antiquity is to continue in a state of childhood all our days."� If this be so, then God forbid that we remain ignorant of the life of Daniel, for he is indeed one of the most celebrated men of antiquity.� Ezekiel, who was his contemporary, and who was carried captive just a few years after Daniel, all ready in his lifetime classed Daniel as one of the three greatest men of faith.� In Ezek. 14:14 God speaks of His wrath against the wickedness of the land and says, "Even though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they would by their righteousness deliver only their own lives."��

�� Daniel had gained unique favor with God, and he was the hero of his people during their captivity.� It was, no doubt, his loyalty to God as a leader in high places that kept many of the Jews faithful during their 70 years captivity.� The Jewish Talmud pays him the highest respect when it says, "If all the wise men of the nations were in one scale of the balance, and Daniel in the other, he would outweigh them all."� And Daniel chose to put all his weight on the side of loyalty to God, and that is why he is a classic example of an overwhelming minority.� We want to consider his forced captivity and his free conscience.� First look at‑

I. HIS FORCED CAPTIVITY.

�� Daniel was not carried away captive to Babylon because of his own sin anymore than Jesus was nailed to the cross because of any personal sin.� Daniel was among the loyal and righteous minority, but the innocent minority must often suffer because of the folly and corruption of the majority.� When Josiah was king and Daniel was just a little boy it looked as if there was going to be a revival, and a great turning of the people back to God.� It did get a good start when Josiah became king and at age 16 began to seek after God.� By the time he was 20 he had become to such conviction and commitment that he began an all out destruction of the system of idolatry.� In II Chron. 34:4 we read, "And they broke down the altars of the Baals in his presence, and he hewed down the incense altars which stood above them, and he broke in pieces the Asherim and the graven and the molten images, and he made dust of them and strewed it over the graves of those who had sacrificed to them."

�� Daniel was born in a day when an overwhelming minority was in control, and there was strong devotion to God, and repulsion from idolatry.� Like so many revivals, however, this one only influenced a few in any permanent way.� Josiah was killed by the Egyptians and his sons who took his place, and especially Jehoiakim, did that which is evil in the sight of God.� In a few years the people went off the road of revival into the ditch of degradation and God gave them into the hand of the king of Babylon in 606 B. C.� This marked the beginning of the 70 year Babylonian Captivity of the Jews.� Nebucadnezzar had to come against Jerusalem two other times in force, and the third time in 588 B. C. he destroyed it and the temple.� The first time when Daniel was taken was mild in comparison.�

The temple was not destroyed, but just the cream of the crop of the youth was carried away.�

�� Daniel was among this cream of the crop youth.� Unlike many of the heroes of the Old Testament Daniel was not a shepherd boy.� He was a rich kid from a high‑class family with the best training and education of his day.� Daniel's story is not that of the poor boy on the wrong side of the tracks who rose to fame.� His is the story of a boy who had every natural advantage for success from the start.� He had money, noble birth, brilliant mind, and a strong handsome body.

�� Daniel's glory consists in his loyalty to God in spite of all the advantages he had to be a success and to be popular with the world without God.� God can and does use men from the scrap heap of life, but Daniel is an illustration about how God also uses the cream of the crop for His glory.� We have a good description of what Daniel was in his background and personal appearance in verses 3‑5.�� Jewish tradition says, "He was of a spare, dry, tall figure, with a beautiful expression."� He was tall, dark and handsome and a brain, and he was only about 14 years old when he was carried away to a strange land.� There they changed his life as much as they could to absorb him and his companions into the Babylonian culture.

�� They began to indoctrinate him in Chaldean lore and knowledge.� They changed his name from Daniel, which means God's judge, to Belteshazzar, which means Bel's Prince.� Bel was the god of Babylon.� If ever a young person lived in a day of change where the pressure to forsake the true God for a false faith was pushing on every side, it was Daniel.� No minority was ever nearer the brink of extinction than was Daniel and his companions in the captivity of Babylon.� Yet in that captive setting all of the pressures and all of the changes had not captured Daniel's heart, mind, and soul.� He was in a forced captivity, but his conscience was still free, and we want to look at that now.�

II. HIS FREE CONSCIENCE.

�� Verse 8 says that Daniel was resolved not to defile himself with the king's food and wine.� Most all agree that because the kings provisions were first offered to his pagan gods it would be a compromise with idolatry for Daniel to eat of it.� He and his companions refused to compromise with idolatry.� On the state capital building in Sacramento, California these words are inscribed:� "God give us men to match these mountains."� Daniel was just such a man in his day.� He was a match for the mountainous obstacles to loyalty to God in captivity by a pagan society.�

�� We need to stop complaining that the world is so strong, and that non‑Christian forces around us are dragging us down.� They drag no one down but those who stoop.� Daniel stood erect in his day.� His convictions did not melt under the fires of pressure and persecution.� His loyalty did not fly away with the fleetness of a dear for fear of the lions of opposition.� Right from the start on the very first point of where he was tempted to compromise, he said "No!"� They could change his location, his education, and his occupation, and even his name, but his conscience they could not change.� It remained free from their captivity, and stayed loyal to God.� He refused to defile his conscience regardless of the actions of the majority.�

�� A doctor examined a patient and told him he had a serious condition.� The best thing to do he told him was to give up smoking, drinking, and fast living.� The man thought for a minute and then asked, "What's the next best thing?"� The next best is what the majority shoots for.� The best is too hard and calls for absolute allegiance to the Almighty.� Only those among the overwhelming minority choose to stand with Daniel for God's best.� He had 3 companions who stood with him on this matter of conscience.� The implication is that the majority of the Jewish youth in captivity operated under the philosophy‑when in Babylon do as the Babylonians do.

�� I can just imagine one of them surprised at Daniel's decision to refuse the kings food, and saying, "What is with you Daniel?� All of the guys are doing it and why not?� This is a time of war, and besides, God certainly doesn't care now.� He let you get captured didn't He?� Why should you worry about Him?� Live it up Danny boy, it's later than you think.� Junk this religion bit and get with the times.� Nobody keeps those old fashion rules anymore, for times have changed radically."� Young people face this type of argument in every age. Only the few dare to be Daniels and dare to stand alone in their loyalty to God, but these few are the overwhelming minority that God uses to accomplish His will in history.

�� Daniel refused to be taken captive in conscience, and he won the battle by remaining faithful.� Scripture says, "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much."�� Daniel made a good start, and then continued all his life to the end of captivity in loyalty to God.�� The result was that he was used marvelously of God, as no other man in history, as an adviser to some of the greatest rulers in history.� God's people were scattered and in captivity, but God continued to work and speak through His overwhelming minority.�

"Minorities since time began

Have shown the better side of man,

And often in the lists of time,

One man has made a cause sublime."�

�� The tragedy that overtook Daniel, which was not due to any sin of his at all, did not fill him with resentment.� God could use Daniel because he was a man who did not let life's rotten deals fill him with bitterness.� Overwhelming minorities are persons who do not let life's unfairness rob them of their loyalty to God.� Studies indicate that numerous people who get a raw deal in life, and who suffer unjustly, become bitter and resentful against God.� It is only the overwhelming minority who can, like Daniel, suffer terrible injustice and still be a powerful force in the world for God.� Edmund Cooke wrote‑

"Oh, a troubles a ton, or a troubles an ounce,

Or a trouble is what you make it,

And it isn't the fact that you're hurt that counts,

But only how did you take it?"

�� The tragedy is that many Christians facing what Daniel did would be filled with anxiety and much resentment.� Resentment puts the whole mental system of a person in a state of civil war.�� Life is filled with things to resent, and not a day goes by in this life where we are immune to being hurt by friend or foe.� We are most often hurt by those we most need and love.� Christians are seldom hurt by those who are not Christians.� All of the petty things we endure in a lifetime are not to be compared to being hauled off into captivity, yet we often find it hard to keep resentment from taking us captive.� It is so hard to surrender and leave it in the hands of God as Daniel did.� Christians have breakdowns at the same rate as non‑Christians because they do not learn to deal with life's burdens the way Daniel did.� They rob themselves of power and health because they will not let go of their resentments. They would not dream of contaminating their bodies with drugs or alcohol, but they let resentment fill their life with destructive chemicals and emotions.

�� If anyone had just reason for complaint, it was Daniel.� He could have been filled with hate toward all the idolatrous Jews whose wickedness led him to become a captive in a pagan land. Daring to be a Daniel is to put all of the bad breaks and rotten deals that have ever happened to you behind, and press on into the future with a determination to put the stubborn ounces of your weight on the scale of loyalty to God. By so doing you join that group that God uses to change the world, which is the overwhelming minority.

2.�� COMPROMISE�� Based on Dan. 1:1‑8

�� A man who had been a notorious thief was telling a friend how going to church had really changed his life.� He was in a store just that week and saw the nicest pair of boots.� They were just his size, and while he was there the owner of the store stepped out.� He could have easily slipped them under his coat and gotten away, and ordinarily he would have, but this time he resisted the temptation.� The devil said to take them but the Lord said not to, and there I was in the middle.� He concluded, "I didn't know what to do, so I compromised.� I took a pair of shoes instead."�

�� Obviously his life was not as dramatically changed as he thought, for his compromise still left him as a thief.� The question is, however, is all compromise of this same worthless nature?� Is Reginald Kauffman accurate when he says, "Compromise is never anything but an ignoble truce between the duty of a man and the terror of a coward."�� Or is Edmund Burke the one who speaks the truth when he says, "All government indeed, every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act is founded on compromise and barter."� Any wise student seeing these on a true or false test would mark them both false, for one has a never and the other an every, and an absolute is almost always false.� Neither extreme can be defended which says that compromise is always a virtue or always a vice.�

�� This question on compromise is stimulated by this first chapter of Daniel because it appears that there is a contradiction in Daniel's attitude.� He refuses to compromise when it comes to eating heathen food, but he submits without objection to a heathen education and a heathen name.� Some commentators question Daniel's values here.� They wonder why he draws the line where he does.� It seems to be such a minor point on which he resists, and then he goes along with more major issues.� It has to be admitted that Daniel did enter into involvement with the pagan culture on many levels.� But he refused to do so on this level of eating.� I think it is worth our time to try and discover the difference, for this would give us instruction for our own lives as to our own relationship to our culture.� I think there are at least three kinds of compromise, and each of them is illustrated by Daniel's experience in Babylon.� First we see‑

I. COMPROMISE WHICH IS A VIRTUE.

�� The first thing we have to do is establish that this can be so, and that compromise is not an absolute evil.� John Herman Randall Jr. wrote, "Now anybody who is capable of learning anything from experience knows that the only way to get along with people, the only way to do anything together with anybody else, is through compromise.� You don't need exceptional brains to realize that.� You need only to be married or to have a friend."� If your wife insists that you go on a picnic on a Saturday, and you insist that you go on it on Sunday, and both of you hold your conviction with the view that it is evil and cowardly to give in, you have a situation which one can predict will lead to a dark future.

�� If one yields to the other and avoids the conflict, it is a virtue.� It is a virtue because it compromises only personal interests and not any principle or moral that affects your relationship to God.� Examples of this kind of compromise are endless.� It would be tragic if there were no such thing as compromise between management and labor. �It neither made any concession, but were uncompromising in their demands, our whole economic system would be in chaos, and nothing would ever get settled.� One could make 20 compromises a day on the level of human relationships, and not in any way be out of God's perfect will.�

�� This is the kind of compromise Daniel made on the matter of the pagan education he was to receive.� He no more compromised his loyalty to God at this point than does a Christian youth who goes off to a secular university to study ancient mythology under an atheistic professor.� Daniel was getting one of the best educations of the day.� The Chaldeans were advanced and cultured, and they had plenty to offer.� The fact that they also had some weird courses on astrology and magic made no difference.� A youth like Daniel, who had been instructed in the truth, and who had an intimate relationship with the true God, would be no more disturbed than a mature Christian today would be by taking a course in mythology.�

�� It was a good thing for Daniel to get an education, even if it was from a pagan viewpoint.� Moses was trained in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and this also was in God's providence.� If Daniel was going to be a leader of great influence for God, he had to learn the Babylonian language, culture, etc., just as missionaries today study all sorts of strange things in seeking to understand the culture of the pagans they are trying to reach for Christ.� To be used in this world we must see that it is a virtue to compromise and give some time to the learning of what is part of a pagan culture so we can understand those who are captivated by it, and be more effective in combating it.� Daniel may have had other plans for his life's studies before he was taken captive, but had he been unbending and refused to study under the Chaldeans, he would have been no good to God or his people.� Daniel was too wise to be stubborn here.� He gladly took the opportunity to learn all he could, and such a compromise was a virtue.� Next we look at‑

II. COMPROMISE WHICH IS A NECESSITY.

�� There are compromises which are not in any way virtues, and are even partly tinged with any evil, but which are the lesser of two evils, and, therefore, are necessary.� An example would be, if a drunk comes charging at you with a knife, and in the fight you are forced to save your life by fighting so furiously that you kill the attacker in self‑defense.� Here is a case of a necessary compromise on the commandment against killing.� It is no virtue to have killed the man, but it is less evil than if you who are innocent are the one who is killed.� This illustration does not leave much room for choice, but the same thing can apply where there is premeditated choice.� It happens all the time in politics.� A man can be an idealist and refuse to settle for anything less than utopia, but he will get nowhere.� It is the man who is willing to compromise and take little steps at a time who can move forward.� He may have to stand for less in order to get something rather than nothing.� If a man always says all or nothing, he is more likely to get nothing.

�� So there are points in life where a believer must compromise in a way that is not virtuous, but yet not totally evil either.� It is a matter of the lesser of two evils.� Luther said that we must exist in compromise where there is no such thing as existential perfection.� For example, if you were in Russia and two Christians escaped from prison where they were political prisoners falsely condemned to die, and they came to your home for refuge, and the state police come searching and asking if you had sent two escapes convicts, would you say, with Washington, "I cannot tell a lie," and give them up, or would you compromise on what you believe about lying.� Would you insist that love for your brothers in Christ is greater than the obligation to tell the truth?� Would you say then that you had not seen them?� Situation ethics says that love alone is the absolute, and if need be all other laws can be broken to keep the law of love.� Dwight Eisenhower said, "People talk about the middle of the road as though it was unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas.� Things are not all black and white.� There have to be compromises.� The middle of the road is all of the usable surface.� The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters."��

�� This is not just a made up illustration, for there are decisions like this that people are making all the time, and they are forced to compromise truth and principles for the sake of love, or for the sake of a greater good.� Winton Churchill said that this is essential in political life to escape total impotence.� But the fact that it is necessary does not make it a virtue.� Let us never think that it is good in itself to compromise because love demands it, or because it is a matter of necessity.� It may be the lesser of two evils, but it is nevertheless an evil.�

�� How does Daniel's experience fit this category?� On the matter of accepting the chance of his name from one that gives a witness to God to one who gives a witness to a pagan god, we have to admit there is no virtue in this at all.� There was a tinge of evil, as Daniel comes close to the system of idolatry.� He may have despised it, and he would have denied he would ever do such a thing earlier, but now he compromises.� He had no choice because it was a matter of necessity.� He could not control what his captures called him.� He and his companions may not have called each other by these names, but likely they did.�

�� Most Christians know the three companions by their pagan names of Shadrack, Meschack and Abed‑nego rather than by their Hebrew names.� They might have put a futile fight over the issue and lost their chance for an education, but they choose to endure the change.� It was a compromise of necessity because resistance would end only in lost opportunity to be used of God.� It was better to allow the evil of the names and offset it by living for the glory of God in that negative situation.�� Next we see‑

III. COMPROMISE WHICH IS VICE.

�� For Daniel this was the compromise over eating meat offered to idols, and wine dedicated to a pagan god.� This was the line they would not cross.� Compromise like this was totally evil.� In the New Testament this particular issue changed, and eating meat offered to an idol was no longer an absolute sin.� In the Old Testament, however, it was a matter of law and God's clear revelation.� The mark of a godly man was his loyalty to what he knew of God's law.� Daniel's contemporary was Ezekiel, and he wrote in Ezek. 4:14, "Ah, Lord God!� Behold, I have never defiled myself; from my youth up to now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has foul flesh come into my mouth."�

�� The issues they faced were certainly different from what we face today, for we are free from all those provisions of the law on clean and unclean foods.� Nevertheless it was God's final word up to then, and it called for absolute loyalty.� To compromise on what is clearly revealed is outright rebellion against God when one is not trapped by necessity to do a lesser of two evils.� Daniel was not trapped by necessity on this point.� He had the opportunity to try and escape from partaking of the food.� Had there been no escape Daniel may have chosen to die rather than compromise, for he did so later on the matter of prayer, and he was cast to the lions.� There are absolutes, which are not to be compromised even if the consequence is death.� Such was the case with the many martyrs who were killed by refusing to deny Christ.� Rudyard Kipling wrote,

Man, a bear in most relations, worm and savage otherwise‑

Man propounds negotiations, man accepts the compromise‑

Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact

To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

�� This is true for Christians also.� It is rare that our stand must be absolute and uncompromising, but when it comes to matters of clear revelation concerning Jesus Christ the Christian dare not compromise, but push the logic of Christ's Lordship to its ultimate conclusion, and recognize that death is the lesser of two evils if the choice is between death and the denial of Christ.� We need to pray for wisdom in our dealings with the world that we might be able to clearly discern when compromise is wrong, and when it can be legitimate and beneficial to the kingdom of God.�

�

3.�� FRIENDLY ENEMIES�� Based on Dan. 1:9f

�� One of the perpetual questions in the life of a believer is, what should my relationship be to unbelievers?� Can a Christian be a real friend with a non‑Christian?�� What if his beliefs and actions are obviously contrary to Christian� values?� Is the often‑quoted verse for separation to be our guide?� It says, "Come out from among them and be separate says the Lord."� Does this verse mean we ought not to have fellowship with the unbeliever?� These are questions of such a practical nature that we answer them in living regardless of what conclusions we come to theoretically.�

�� Everywhere I ever worked I had to get along with non‑Christians.� I had to work along side of them in a common effort.� For 4 years I worked in a printing company where my boss was an atheist.� He had no love for spiritual things at all, and yet I had to obey his orders and cooperate with him as a Christian.�� I debated the faith with him often, and I had much in common with him even though I was a child of God, and he was a child of darkness.� We were opponents and yet we were also friends.� He did not care for my beliefs, and I did not care for his, but we were friendly enemies.�

�� It would be foolish for me to believe theoretically that a Christian can never be friends with a non‑Christian, for in actuality I have already been friends with them.� Does this mean I do not believe in separation?� Not at all!� These men I worked with had many evil habits, and they lived for material and sensual pleasures, which was especially evident at the annual Christmas party.� It was no problem at all to be friends with him and still be totally separate from their non‑Christian living.� Every Christian who works has a similar experience.� There is no contradiction at all in being separate from sinners an at the same time being friends with sinners.

�� Jesus was a friend of sinners, and yet He was totally separate and undefiled.� Separation is not isolation.� Jesus associated with publicans and sinners, and He won them to Himself without ever participating in any of their sin.� This ability to be friendly with those outside of the kingdom of God without forsaking that kingdom yourself is a major characteristic of those people whom God uses to reach the world.�

�� The two men in the Old Testament who had the most outstanding ministries among the Gentiles were noted for this ability.� Joseph rose to a top position of leadership in Egypt because of his ability to work in harmony with those who even worshipped false gods.� His brothers were hard to get along with event though they were of the same faith.� But he knew how to win friends and influence people among pagans, and God used him in a mighty way.� His God given ability to interpret dreams was the key factor in his rise to power, but without the ability to be friends with men of false faith he may never have been given the chance to use that gift.�

�� Daniel's life is a close parallel to that of Joseph.� He was not sold into captivity like Joseph, but he was carried away by enemy forces.� He too rose to a position of leadership in a great pagan empire, and did so by means of his God‑given power to interpret dreams.� He, like Joseph, gained the opportunity to use his gift because of his ability to get along with his pagan captives.� Daniel was determined to remain undefiled by pagan practices, and one might think that a man with such deep conviction would probably be unable to get along with anyone who does not see eye to eye with him on everything.� But Daniel was not this way at all.� In fact, the paradox is that Daniel needed and got pagan help to remain loyal to his God.�� This, of course, was all in the providence of God, for God brought Daniel into favor with the prince of the eunuchs.� Here was a friendship of a believer and a pagan that was not only approved by God, but appointed by God.

�� Just as I am sure that Jesus did not get people to love Him by a miracle, but won them by His own friendliness, so I am sure Daniel won the favor of this pagan by his friendly nature.� Daniel was the brilliant, yet humble clean‑cut, kind of young man that would take personal interest in another person, and just naturally win their friendship.� Daniel was a worshipper of the true God, and yet he was a friend of one who was an idolater.� The result of this was that by this pagan's help he was able to maintain his standards without losing his life.� Christians today need to be people who can make friends with all kinds of other people who are outside the kingdom of God.� It is the only way to be an effective servant of God.� A Christian in business, politics, or any aspect of life that calls for dealing with many people will have to have non‑Christian friends.� It is essential both for success in his secular task as well as in his spiritual task of witnessing.

�� But what of the Scripture that says that all who live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution?� Doesn't this contradict what I have just said?� Not if we see it as a paradox.� It is no contradiction that a believer can be both loved and hated by unbelievers.� Both can be true just as they were in the case with Daniel.� Those who ruled with Daniel became so jealous of him that they devised the plan that led to his being cast to the lions.� Their hate, however, did not mean that all non‑believers hated him, for this eunuch, plus the king himself, loved Daniel.� Some loved and some hated, and so it will ever be.�

�� If we see the statements of the Bible as paradoxical we avoid a lot of futile arguments.� It says clearly that both can be true, and that godliness will bring both peace and persecution.� Prov. 16:7 says, "When a man's ways please the Lord, he makes even his enemies to be at peace with him."� Here we have the paradox of friendly enemies.� They are enemies who will keep the peace with you.� When a person is truly godly the will experience both sides of the paradox, for some non‑believers will love them, and others will hate them.� We are in this text focusing on the friendly relationships of Daniel.�

�� The chief of the eunuchs no doubt recognized that Daniel was standing on a principle when he refused to eat meat offered a god he did not believe in, and he respected that stand.� To take a dogmatic stand and refuse to compromise a conviction does not have to lead to bigotry as Daniel demonstrates very admirably.� Had he taken the negative approach and began to rail at the utter stupidity of the Babylonians in their idolatry, he probably would have gotten nowhere but to an early grave.� Isaiah and Jeremiah did this, and they hit idolatry with everything they had.� But we need to make a very important distinction.� These prophets spoke to God's own people.� They rebuked, warned and condemned because they spoke to Israel as a straying child and unfaithful wife.� Daniel was not a prophet to his own people, but to the Gentiles.� His manner was altogether different.� His victories had to be gained through the channels of diplomacy.� He had to be a believing politician in an unbelieving society.�

�� Daniel was able to recognize that he needed help from his captors, even though God was his helper, for he recognized that God works by means and only rarely does he work directly.� Daniel, therefore, approaches his friend, the chief of eunuchs, and he asks a favor.� His friend wanted to help but points out the risk he would be taking.� Anyone who dared to interfere with an oriental ruler's command could be killed immediately with no chance for a trial, or even an explanation.� It appears that he is saying that he won't help, but the very next verse 11 indicates that he told Daniel to take the matter to a lesser officer who would risk less chance of detection, sense he himself would be able to handle the matter if someone decided to report it.�

�� Daniel, therefore, appeals to the steward, and he agrees to take the risk.� Here was a pagan willing to risk his life so Daniel could be loyal to his conviction.� We have no reason to believe that this man agreed with Daniel's convictions, or that he ever accepted Daniel's God as his own God, but he respected Daniel, and he gave him a chance to prove himself.� We see Daniel's first success at going through the proper channels of authority to accomplish his purpose.�� He was kind and did not demand his rights, for in his circumstances he had none.� But he requested from these pagans an opportunity to prove that he could be loyal to his God and not be of less value to them, but even more.

�� Daniel and his 3 companions were allowed to eat vegetables and water for 10 days.� This was a strange diet, and one that would cause the steward to probably worry, for if they began to lose weight and get weak, it would mean his head.� They won the chance to give it a try, and only a truly Christ‑like character could induce a pagan to take such a risk.� Joseph Seiss observing this wrote, "An obtrusive piety is never of God.� True religion is always courteous, modest, and anxious to avoid unnecessary collisions.� With all its inflexibility it is always amiable and kind.� There be some who seem to think they cannot be faithful without being rude, or true to God without harshness toward men."� Daniel did not compromise on his convictions or loyalty to God, and was still able to maintain a courteous and respectful attitude toward his pagan captives.�