Lessons From the Life of Daniel, Part IV Daniel’s Temperance Principles,

Daniel early gave promise of the remarkable ability developed in later years. He and his three companions who were selected to serve in the court of the king, were of princely birth, and are described as «children in whom was no blemish, but well favored, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them.» Perceiving the superior talents of these youthful captives, King Nebuchadnezzar determined to prepare them to fill important positions in his kingdom. That they might be fully qualified for their life at court, according to Oriental custom, they were to be taught the language of the Chaldeans, and to be subjected for three years to a thorough course of both physical and intellectual discipline.

The youth in this school of training were not only to be admitted to the royal palace, but it was provided that they should eat of the food, and drink of the wine, which came from the king’s table. In all this the king thought that he was not only showing them great honor, but securing for them the best physical and mental development.

In the food provided for the king’s table were swine’s flesh and other meats which were pronounced unclean by the law given through Moses, and which the Hebrews had been expressly forbidden to eat. Here Daniel was brought to a severe test. Should he adhere to the divine teaching, offend the king, and probably lose not only his position but his life? or should he disregard the commandment of the Lord, and retain the favor of the king, thus securing great intellectual advantages and the most flattering worldly prospects?

Daniel could have argued that, dependent as he was on the king’s favor, and subject to his power, there was no other course for him to pursue than to eat of the king’s meat and to drink of his wine. But Daniel and his fellows counseled together. They considered how their physical and mental powers would be affected by the use of wine. The wine, they decided, was a snare. They were acquainted with the history of Nadab and Abihu, the record of whose intemperance had been preserved in the parchments of the Pentateuch. They knew that by the constant use of wine these men had become addicted to the liquor habit, and that they had confused their senses by drinking just before engaging in the sacred service of the sanctuary. In their brain-benumbed state, not being able to discern the difference between the sacred and the common, they had put common fire upon their censers, instead of the sacred fire of the Lord’s kindling, and for this sin they had been struck dead.

A second consideration with these youthful captives was the fact that the king, before eating, always asked the blessing of his gods upon the food. A portion of the food, and also of the wine, from his table was set apart as an offering to the false gods whom he worshiped. According to the religious ideas of the day, this act consecrated the whole to the heathen gods. Daniel and his three brethren thought that even if they should not actually partake of the king’s bounties, a mere pretense of eating the food or drinking the wine, where such idolatry was practised, would be a denial of their faith. To do this would indeed be to implicate themselves with heathenism, and to dishonor the principles of the law of God.

Daniel did not long hesitate. He decided to stand firm in his integrity, let the result be what it might. He «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.»

In this decision there was much involved. The Hebrew captives were regarded as slaves, but Daniel and his companions were particularly favored because of their apparent intelligence and their comeliness of person. In making their decision they did not act presumptuously, but revealed a firm love for truth and righteousness. They did not choose to be singular, but they must be, else they would ruin their own characters, set a wrong example for others, and dishonor God.

Among professed Christians to-day there are many who would decide that Daniel was too particular, and would pronounce him narrow and bigoted. They regard the matter of eating and drinking as of too little consequence to require such a decided choice,—one involving the probable sacrifice of every earthly advantage. But in the day of judgment those who reason thus will find that they turned from God’s express requirements, and set up their own opinion as a standard of right and wrong. They will find that what seemed to them unimportant was not so regarded by God. His requirements should be sacredly obeyed. Those who accept and obey one of his precepts because it is convenient to do so, while they reject another because its observance would require a sacrifice, lower the standard of right, and by their example lead others to regard lightly his holy law. A «Thus saith the Lord» is to be our rule in all things. Mrs. E. G. White. —