ASIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

FOOD AS RESISTANCE:
THEMATIC STUDY OF DANIEL 1:8-16

SUBMITTED TO:
DR. TIM UNDHEIM
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE
BOOK OF DANIEL

Submitted by:
Moises Yao Acayan
March 15, 2018
2
 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3

Genre and Purpose/s of the Book of Daniel 5

Outline of Daniel Chapter One 6

Setting 7

Daniel and the other Jewish Captives 10

Aims and Limitations of the Current Study 11

DISCUSSIONS 12

Personal Translation of Daniel 1:8-16 12

Daniel’s Resolution 12

Significance of Meals 13

Probable Explanations for the Renunciation 14

Reversal of Roles 19

God’s Providential Care 21

SYNTHESIS 22

CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION 24

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 4

I. INTRODUCTION

When one speaks of conquests, physical occupation readily comes to mind. However, there

is a type of conquest that transcends the physical boundary. Unknown to some, the mind or

intellect can also be the object of subjugation. This type conquest, i.e. intellectual, is discussed

in the article of Renato Constantino entitled the “Mis-Education of the Filipino”. This article

states that firstly, Filipinos had long been misled into believing that they were properly

educated1; and that, there is a need for Filipinos to have a system of education which befits their

needs, context, and culture2.

As Filipinos, we have been educated under the western/American system for decades. As

explicitly stated by Prof. Constantino, “…the educational system and philosophy of which they

are proud inheritors were valid only within the framework of American colonialism. The

educational system introduced by the Americans…was designed to correspond to the economic

and political reality of the American conquest.”3 As a result thereof, Filipinos became “little

Americans” who thinks, speaks, and acts like Americans.4 Clearly, education can serve as a

means of subjugation.5
In every conquest and subjugation, the culture of the dominating party is imposed upon the

conquered. Over a period of time, the dominated gradually mirrors the lifestyle, language, and

worldview of its conqueror.

The Jews were not spared from foreign domination. As early as the book of Exodus, we are

informed that the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. The Egyptians did not exert any military

force upon them because they were already living within Egyptian territory. Further, towards the

end of the divided kingdom, the northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians, while the

lower kingdom was conquered by the Babylonian empire. However, the foreign domination over
1
Renato Constantino, “The Mis-Education of the Filipino,”JCA 1 (1970): 20-21
2
Ibid., 35-36.
3
Ibid, 21.
4
Ibid., 23.
5
Ibid., 21.
 5

the Jews did not end until the fall of the Roman Empire. Consequently, the Jews struggled to

maintain their “purity” and identity as the people of Yahweh, especially at the height of the

persecution of Antiochus IV against the Jews. He was determined to eliminate the “Jewishness”

in Jerusalem, and showed special favour to those who adopted his policy of Hellenization.6
1 Maccabees chapter 1 verses 44 to 50 records the order issued by Antiochus IV, to wit:

“44 The king sent letters by messenger to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah, ordering them to
45
follow customs foreign to their land; to prohibit burnt offerings, sacrifices, and libations in the
46
sanctuary, to profane the sabbaths and feast days, to desecrate the sanctuary and the sacred
47
ministers, to build pagan altars and temples and shrines, to sacrifice swine and unclean
48
animals, to leave their sons uncircumcised, and to defile themselves with every kind of
49 50
impurity and abomination; so that they might forget the law and change all its ordinances.

Whoever refused to act according to the command of the king was to be put to death. (1Macc

1:44-50 NAB)

According to Sangtinuk, Antiochus IV proscriptions can be summarized as follows: “the

scriptures, sacrifices to Yahweh, circumcision, observance of the Sabbath, and other Jewish

festivals” 7. In addition, failure to comply with his order or show resistance against it will only

lead to either suffering or death.8

Genre and Purpose/s of the Book of Daniel

6
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book: a Guided Tour (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2002), 206.
7
Sangtinuk, “Daniel: A Counter Paradigm to the Hellenistic Imperialism vis-à-vis Burmanization in Chin State”,
AJT 24 (April 2010): 36.
8
Ibid., 37.
 6

The entire book of Daniel, in general, is considered as an apocalyptic piece literature.9

Apocalyptic literatures are understood as “a genre of revelatory literature with a narrative

framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an other-worldly being to a human recipient,

disclosing a transcendent reality, which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological

salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world”. 10 Further, apocalyptic

literatures are produced during times of crisis. It addresses serious crises of faith, and seeks to

answer the question of God’s sovereignty and human suffering. 11 Moreover, apocalyptic

literature is described as “literature of resistance to any form of hegemony”12 because “it

provides a counter paradigm to resist hegemonic imperialism”.13

Aside from being apocalyptic literature, it has also been proposed that the first six chapters of

the book of Daniel are classified as “court tales”. Court tales “deal with the exploits of a godly

exile in a foreign court whose piety and wisdom enable him to emerge triumphantly from various

tests and rise to personal prominence”.14 The elements of court narratives are: “specific test

involving faith, morality, or compromise of covenantal standards; the friendliness of a resident

court official; besting the foreigners in contests or conflict; and unexpected extraordinary

resolution to a besetting problem”.15 Furthermore, court narratives can be sub-categorized into

“court conflict” and “court contest”.16 John Collins asserts that “in the “conflict” tales the heroes

9
Sangtinuk, “Daniel: A Counter Paradigm to the Hellenistic Imperialism vis-à-vis Burmanization in Chin State”,
35.
10
John J. Collins, “Book of Daniel,” in ABD 2:31.
11
D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese, Jr., Cracking Old Testament Codes: a Guide to Interpreting Old Testament
Literary Forms (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 186.
12
Sangtinuk, “Daniel: A Counter Paradigm to the Hellenistic Imperialism vis-à-vis Burmanization in Chin
State”, 35.
13
Ibid.
14
Richard D. Patterson, “Holding on to Daniel’s Court Tales,” JETS 36/4 (December 1994); 447.
15
Ibid.

16
Collins, John J. “Book of Daniel.” ABD 2:31.
 7

are endangered because of a conspiracy, but are miraculously delivered from certain death. These

stories bear considerable similarity to later martyr legends. The “contest” stories describe the rise

of the hero from lowly status to an exalted position because of his ability to solve insoluble

problems”.17 For Richard Patterson, Chapter one serves to introduce the Aramaic narratives of

chapters 2 to 6, and such can be considered as a court contest. 18 He adds that the heroes

underwent a test that endangered their lives (v. 8-13) but resulted in their vindication (v. 14-16),

reward from God (v.17), and recognition from men (v.18-20).19

It has been proposed that the book of Daniel was put together shortly after the Maccabean

crisis.20 It has also been suggested that the book of Daniel was written “to inspire and encourage

God’s people living under foreign domination”. 21 Thus, the book is not primarily about the

future, but to encourage the people “to live within the terrifying earthly kingdoms by remaining

confident that only God’s kingdom will last forever”.22

Outline of Daniel Chapter One

Verses 8-16 which is the subject of our discussion is best understood in light of its

surrounding passages. Thus, the first chapter of the book can be outlined as follows: Setting: v.1-

2; Conflict Arises: 3-7 (Daniel and his friends); Climax: v.8-16 (conflict/s they faced: “Patbag”

‫ פ פתת בבג‬Issue); Solution: 17-20 (God grants favor before the Chief Official); Conclusion: 21

(Daniel’s career).

17
Ibid.
18
Patterson, “Holding on to Daniel’s Court Tales,” 448.
19
Ibid.
20
John J. Collins and P.Flint, The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1:2.
21
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible Book by Book, 205.
22
Les P. Bruce, “Discourse Theme and the Narrative of Daniel”, Bibliotheca Sacra 160 (April-June 2003): 182.
 8

Moreover, verses 8-16 which is the focus of our study can be further divided as follows: v. 8

Daniel’s decision; v. 9-10 Daniel and the Commander; v. 11-13 Daniel and the Overseer; v. 14-16

Period of Testing.

Setting (v.1-2)

The opening verses state the period of time during which Jerusalem fell in the hands of

the Babylonians, “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar

king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it” (NASB). Interpreters had been divided

over the historical exactitude of these verses.23 John Collins avers that “the statement of Daniel

that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign cannot be

reconciled with any plausible reconstruction of the course of events. The accession of Jehoiakim

is usually dated to 609 B.C.E. (eleven years before he was succeeded by Jehoiachin in 598 and

four years before the battle of Carchemish and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar). The

Babylonians made no incursion into the vicinity of Israel before the battle of Carchemish.

Nebuchadnezzar could not have laid siege to a city as far south as Jerusalem in the few months

between that battle and his coronation later in 605.”24 However, for Tremper Longman III, the

author “does not argue for the historical event; it narrates it”. 25 He asserts that the author may

have used a different method of dating, namely, Judean/Non-accession year and

Babylonian/Accession year system, in harmonizing the passages in Daniel and Jeremiah. The

passage in Jeremiah may have used the Judean system, wherein the first year of a king’s reign is

considered as the first year, whereas the Babylonian system used in Daniel, counts the first year

23
John J. Collins, Daniel: a Commentary On the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg,
1994), 130.
2420
Ibid., 131.
25
Tremper Longman III, Daniel, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Mich: Zondervan, 1999), 45.
 9

as an “accession year”.26 Despite the historical issue, Robert Anderson states that one should not

allow the historical inexactitude to distract us from the real issue of God’s judgment upon

Jerusalem.27
Aside from stating the time of Jerusalem’s fall, the author also narrated what transpired

during Jerusalem’s fall, “The Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some

of the vessels of the house of God; and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his

god, and he brought the vessels into the treasury of his god” (NASB). According to Joyce

Baldwin, the author of Daniel does not explicitly state that king Jehoiakim was taken to

Babylon.28 Moreover, John Goldingay asserts that “neither biblical nor extrabiblical sources

require that Jehoiakim was actually taken to Babylon”. 29 Further, Towner elucidates that it was

Jehoiachin, King Jehoiakim’s son, who was actually brought to Babylon30.

The author of Daniel was explicit that the fall of Jerusalem was by divine decree, “The

Lord gave…” (‫אדד ננני‬ ‫)ו פי י פ פ‬. The verb ַ‫תן‬

‫תתןן א‬ ‫ נ נ פ‬can be translated as give, hand down, surrender, set, or

place.31 Interestingly, the verb ַ‫תן‬

‫ נ נ פ‬appeared thrice in chapter one. It appeared in verse 2, “The

Lord gave...” (‫אדד ננני‬ ‫ ;)ו פי י פ פ‬verse 9, “Now, God granted…” (‫הים‬
‫תתןן א‬ ‫אלד י‬ ‫ ;) ו פי י פ תתןַ הנ‬and in verse 17, “…
‫ה א‬

God gave…” (‫אלדהההים‬

‫ה א‬
‫) נ ננבתןַ ל נ ההם הנ‬. This is to highlight the fact that God remains to be in

control of the situation, and not Nebuchadnezzar. On the human level, Nebuchadnezzar appears

to have the “upper hand”, but the author reminds his audience that the God they worship remains

to be in control. Further, the text states “into his hand” ( ‫) ב ת פי נדדוד‬. The word hand (‫יד‬
‫ ) נ‬in this
26
Longman III, Daniel, 44.
27
Robert A. Anderson, Signs and Wonders: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1984), 1.
28
Joyce G. Baldwin, Daniel, TOTC (Downers Grove, Il: IVP Press, 2009), 86.
29
John E. Goldingay, Daniel, WBC (Dallas: Word, 2002), 14.
30
W.Sibley Towner, Daniel, Interpretation (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1984), 23.
31
Ludwig Köhler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, Johann Jakob Stamm, Benedikt Hartmann, G. J.
Jongeling-Vos, and L. J. de Regt, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994),
733-734.
 10

passage should be construed figuratively to refer to power or possession. 32 In other words, God

has given up Jerusalem at Nebuchadnezzar’s disposal. It was not through the military force of

Nebuchadnezzar that Jerusalem fell. It was God who permitted Nebuchadnezzar to come against

Judah in order to judge them for their sinfulness.33

Aside from “giving” Jehoiakim to Nebuchadnezzar’s hand, the text further states that

some of the vessels of the house of God were brought to Nebuchadnezzar’s temple at Shinar.

These vessels refer “to gold and silver cups and utensils used in the temple ceremonies in

Jerusalem”.34 The act of plundering these vessels signifies the victory of Nebuchadnezzar and

his god over Jerusalem’s king and god. 35 In the ancient near east, wars were carried out in the

name of a god, and the plundered materials belong to this god.36 Thereafter, the plundered

materials are placed in the “treasury” of the foreign god’s temple. 37 Raenald Showers opine that

“Nebuchadnezzar placed the vessels of Jehovah in Esagila, the temple of Marduk, the chief

Babylonian god.” 38
Further he avers that aside from offering these vessels to Marduk,

Nebuchadnezzar also wanted “to exalt Marduk and humiliate Jehovah by asserting that Israel’s

God was subject to his god”.39 However, Nebuchadnezzar’s action would afford Yahweh a

splendid opportunity to demonstrate that He isn’t subject to any gods, and to show that it was

Yahweh who gave Nebuchadnezzar’s victory.40

32
Köhler, “ָ‫”ייד‬HALOT 388.
33
Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, NAC (Nashville, Tenn: Broadman Press, 1994), 58.
34
Ibid.
35
Goldingay, Daniel, 15.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
Renald E. Showers, The Most High God : Commentary on the book of Daniel (Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel
Gospel Ministry, 1982), Libronix CD-ROM.
39
Showers, The Most High God, Libronix CD-ROM.
40
Ibid.
 11

Daniel and the other Jewish Captives (vv.3-7)

The story now shifts to a different locality, namely, Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar then

charged Ashpenaz to choose some Israelites who are of royal and noble descent. The designation

of Ashpenaz as ‫ריס‬
‫ס י‬
‫ נ‬has been a subject of discussion. The word ‫ריס‬
‫ס י‬
‫ נ‬either refer to a state

official or to a eunuch.41 Also, the word ‫ריס‬

‫ס י‬
‫ נ‬had been previously used to describe Potiphar in

Genesis 37:36, ‫ס בהריס‬

‫טיפ פנר ת‬
‫ ל תפ הוד י‬. In the book of Genesis, we are informed that Potiphar had a

wife which then possibly negates the idea that Potiphar was a eunuch. On the other hand, the

same word ‫ריס‬

‫ס י‬
‫ נ‬had also been used to refer to a eunuch, specifically in Isaiah 56:4, “ ‫כי־ בכ כה׀‬
‫יפ‬

‫סי נ‬
‫ם‬ ‫רי י‬
‫ס י‬
‫א במר תיה וו נה ל פ נה פ‬
‫” נ‬. In the absence of additional proofs regarding Ashpenaz’s status in life,

it will be “safe” to merely describe him as a court official.

With regard to the qualities of the Israelites, the king stated that they should be “youths in

whom was no defect, who were good-looking, showing intelligence in every branch of wisdom,

endowed with understanding and discerning knowledge, and who had ability for serving in the

king's court.” (NASB) Once chosen, they were to be educated in the “literature and language of

the Chaldeans”. They were also given food provisions (‫פת־ ב תבג‬
‫ ) פ‬from the king.
The author then introduces the protagonists of the book, namely, “Daniel, Hananiah,

Mishael and Azariah” who were then given the names, “Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach and

Abed-nego”. It has been suggested that the changing of their Jewish names to Babylonian names

is an act of dominion over their person and destiny, and in the hopes that they would

acknowledge the Babylonian gods.42 It has been a practice in the Ancient Near East to change

the names of the captive to facilitate their assimilation into the culture of the conqueror. 43 It is

41
Köhler, “‫ריס‬
‫ס י‬
‫” נ‬, HALOT 769-770.
42
John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old
Testament (Downer Grove, Il: IVP Press, 2000), 731.
43
Victor H. Matthews. The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World( Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 209.
 12

done with the assumption that it would be less likely for the conquered to revolt if their own

people administered the policies set by the empire. Thus, by resettling the captives at an early

age to the capital of the empire and educating them, the Babylonians can ensure the loyalty of

these local officials.44 Also, from the perspective of social science, the change of name attempts

to coerce a change of loyalty from one conception of kinship and religious duty to another.45

Aims and Limitations of the current study

This paper aims to focus upon the theme of resistance in 1:8-17. The theme of resistance is

shown by Daniel’s resolution to renounce the “patbag” ( ‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬

‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫) פ‬, reversal of roles, i.e.

from being tested to being the tester, and by God’s providential care upon Daniel. Moreover, we

will explore the possible reasons advanced to explain why Daniel renounced the “delicacies”

served to him. These reasons cover social, cultural, and even theological aspects of the Jewish

life.
The study will only limit its discussions in Daniel 1: 8-16. Nevertheless, other passages in

the Old Testament will be quoted or discussed to shed light on the theme of resistance.

II. DISCUSSIONS

Personal Translation of Daniel 1:8-16

“V.8. And Daniel regarded upon his heart that he would not defile himself with food provisions
of the king and with the consumption of wines and he requested the chief of the court officials in
order that he will not defile himself V.9. And God gave Daniel compassion and mercies before
the chief of the court officials. V.10. And the chief of the court officials said to Daniel, “I fear my
lord the king who appointed your food and drinks so why will he see your faces looking poor
than the young men who are like your age then you will endanger my head before the king” v.11
Then Daniel said to the overseer whom the chief of the court officials appointed upon Daniel,
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. v.12 Please test your servants ten days and give us vegetables
and we will eat and water and we will drink. V.13. And let our appearance be observed by you

44
Ibid.
45
Sharon Pace, Daniel, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys, 2008), 32-33.
 13

and the appearance of the young men eating with the food provisions of the king and according
to what you see deal with your servants. V.14. Then, he listened to them concerning this matter
and tested them ten days. V.15. At the end of the ten days and their appearance appeared pleasant
and fatter than all the young men eating the food provisions of the king. V.16 Then the overseer
took away their food provision and their consumption of wine and gave them vegetables.”

The theme of resistance in verses 8-16 is shown by Daniel’s resolution, Reversal of

Roles, and God’s providential care of Daniel.

1. Daniel’s Resolution (v.8)

“V.8. And Daniel regarded upon his heart that he will not defile himself with food provisions
of the king and with the consumption of wines and he requested the chief of the court officials in
order that he will not defile himself”.

Verse 8 states that “Daniel regarded in his heart” ( ‫על־ל יבבוד‬ ‫) ו פתנישששם נד פנ י ת פ‬. The verb ‫ששים‬
‫יאנל פ‬

can mean to set, put, stand, place, or install.46 However, in this context, it denotes paying

attention or to regard.47 Further, the expression “regarded upon his heart” indicates “deepest

sincerity concerning crucially important matters”.48 When Moses recited the stipulations of the

covenant, he exhorted the Israelites to “take to your heart” (‫ ) בהשימו פ ל תב פב תבהכם‬all the words that he

uttered to them (Deut. 32:46).49

Moreover, it states that he resolved “not defile himself” ( ‫) לדא־יתתג נ פהבאל‬. The verb defile or

‫ גאל‬can pertain to matters “in connection with blood, with impure offerings, and with

disqualification from the priesthood”.50 It can also be applied to “gravest matters of moral

46
Köhler, “‫”ששים‬,HALOT 1322-1324.
47
Ibid., 1324.
48
Sharon Pace, Daniel, 34.
49
Pace, Daniel, 34
50
Collins, Daniel, 142.
 14

culpability”.51 In the case of Daniel, Collins opines that the concept of defilement primarily

refers to ritual, but not strictly.52

Further, Daniel’s decision to avoid defilement has to do with the king’s provision or patbag (

‫ פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬
‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫) פ‬. The term ָּ‫ פפתַּתַּ פ בבג‬/ָּ‫ פפתַּ־יבג‬is an Old Persian word, and pertains to “a technical term

designating a government-supplied “portion, ration” of food”.53 Hartman and Di Lella also opine

that although the terminology in Daniel is influenced by the Persian usage, nevertheless, the

custom correctly reflects the Neo-Babylonian period, and that the author seems to “depends on

the accounts given in 2 Kings 25:30 and Jer 52:34 concerning the daily allotment of food granted

by the king of Babylon to exiled King Jehoiachin.”54

Significance of meals

The crucial issue that one has to deal with is Daniel’s predicament with the “patbag” (

‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬
‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫) פ‬. Several proposals have been advance to explain the relation of the “patbag” (

‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬
‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫ ) פ‬to the issue of “defilement”. Interestingly, meals served as a demarcation line

as to who are “insiders” and “outsiders” in their families, communities and ethnic group.55 Also,

the Jews believed that God is present at meals, thus, “to eat defiled food or to eat with an

“unclean” person would be inappropriate and dishonoring to God”.56 John Goldingay also notes

that “the distinctiveness of the smaller group is preserved by its avoiding the objects and

activities in question”.57 Chaim Pearl and Reuben Brookes aver that by observing the dietary

laws or kashrut, consequently, “a degree of separation from other peoples has always been
51
Pace, Daniel, 34.
52
Collins, Deaniel, 142.
53
L.F. Hartman & Di Lella, A. A. The Book of Daniel, AB (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 130
54
Hartman & Di Lella, Daniel, 130.
55
Wilhoit L. Ryken, Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D., & Reid, D. G., “Meal”, in DBI 544.
56
Ibid.
57
Goldingay,Daniel, 18.
 15

necessary to prevent the total assimilation of the Jew” 58, and that “a unique religious life depends

on the preservation of the distinctive identity of the Jews as a group”59.

In the case of Daniel and his friends, the incorporation into the prevailing culture and

power is completed “by providing not only of an education but also of food and drink”.60

Probable Explanations for the Renunciation

Hartman and Di Lella state that Daniel was observing the biblical dietary laws. 61 They

note that the observance of these laws during and after the exile helped to preserve the Jews as a

distinct people.62 Also, they assert that the fact that Daniel requested for “vegetables” imply that

“feared that any meat or fish they received as royal rations might include forbidden species or

might have been prepared in an “unclean” way”.63 Lastly, they argue that this “food test”

narrative was included by the author in order “to encourage his persecuted compatriots to be

faithful to the dietary laws of their religion”.64

Moreover, Sharon Pace asserts that “the very fact that Daniel states the foods would

“defile” him is an indication that he is concerned with the spiritual purity and obedience to food

laws.”65 She adds that “during the occupation of Judah as well as throughout the Diaspora,

kashrut takes on further significance of obeying God’s commands even while under foreign

control and of bringing the holiness of the temple into one’s home”. 66 She also avers that “a

foreign government could easily legislate where subjects might live and work and could outlaw

58
Chaim Pearl & Reuben Brookes, A Guide to Jewish Knowledge (London: Jewish Chronicle, 1982), 37.
59
Ibid.
60
Shane Kirkpatrick, Competing for Honor: a Social-Scientific Reading of Daniel 1-6 (Boston: Brill, 2005), 41.
61
Hartman & Di Lella, Daniel, 133.
62
Ibid.
63
Hartman & Di Lella, Daniel, 133.
64
Ibid.
65
Pace, Daniel , 31.
66
Ibid.
 16

sacrificial services or public religious rites”.67 But “it would be difficult to regulate what food a

people will not consume or how a family infuses its table with holiness”. 68 Daniel faced the

challenge of compliance with the dietary laws because their only source of sustenance is the

king’s “patbag” (‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬

‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫) פ‬.
For E.J. Young, the Daniel’s renunciation of the king’s food provision is not about

whether the food were clean or unclean or prepared according to the dietary laws, but whether

the food had been sacrificed to idols.69 Citing Keil, Young asserts that Daniel’s rejection was that

the gentiles at their feasts “offered up in sacrifice to their gods a part of the food and drink, and

thus consecrated their meals by a religious rite”. 70 Also, to partake of the meal sacrificed to the

foreign gods is to participate in the worship of idols.71

Stephen Miller appears to have combined the assertions made my Hartman/Di Lilla,

Pace, and Young. He states there are two possible reasons why the king’s provision was rejected.

First, the foods to be eaten includes pork and horsemeat, and thus would have been unclean

according to the law of Moses.72. “To eat such foods would have been a sin for an Israelite and

would have rendered the individual ceremonially unclean before God”. 73 Secondly, that “the

meat and wine would have been undesirable because they could have been initially offered to the

Babylonian gods before being sent to the king, and was therefore associated with idolatrous

67
Ibid.
68
Ibid.
69
Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), 44.

70
Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, 44.
71
Ibid.
72
Miller, Daniel, 66.
73
Ibid.
 17

worship”.74 Although wine was not forbidden by the Jewish law, “Daniel’s aversion to drinking it

probably is to be explained by its use as a libation in these pagan rituals”.75

Aside from the social and religious explanations, Danna Fewell reads the renunciation

from a political perspective. She observes that Daniel’s decision to renounce the food provision

was made before the foods were presented to him. 76 Thus, it will be impossible for him to know

whether the foods comply with the dietary laws or that they were sacrificed to idols. On the

other hand, she opines that the assigned diet has political connotations, and that “eating from the

king’s table is symbolic of political covenant and compromise”. 77 With the assigned food

provisions, the captives are indebted to Nebuchadnezzar for their very existence. 78 She

comments that Daniel’s rejection of the food provision has to do with the source. She explained

that “it is the king’s special food and the wine which the king himself drinks…the symbol of

political patronage, the eating of which would be tantamount to declaring complete political

allegiance”.79
Joyce Baldwin shares the same opinion with Fewell. Baldwin avers that “the book itself

provides the needed clue in 11:26, where the rare word pat bag recurs: ‘Even those who eat his

rich food shall be his undoing.’ By eastern standards to share a meal was to commit oneself to

friendship; it was of covenant significance... Those who had thus committed themselves to

allegiance accepted an obligation of loyalty to the king. It would seem that Daniel rejected this

symbol of dependence on the king because he wished to be free to fulfill his primary obligations

to the God he served. The defilement he feared was not so much a ritual as a moral defilement,

74
Ibid., 67.
75
Ibid.
76
Danna N. Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty (Sheffield: Almond, 1988), 39.
77
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty, 37.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid., 40.
 18

arising from the subtle flattery of gifts and favours which entailed hidden implications of loyal

support, however dubious the king’s future policies might prove to be”.80
On the other hand, for John J. Collins, Daniel’s refusal is “in the spirit of the biblical laws

insofar as it is concerned with purity and defilement, even though it goes beyond the specific

prohibitions of the Torah”.81

In contrast to the preceding explanations, Tremper Longman III asserts a theological

reason for Daniel’s renunciation. He contends that if Daniel was concerned with keeping the

kosher, then he should not had refrained from drinking wine since wine is not included in the Old

Testament laws. 82 Moreover, in the threats and warnings of the pre exilic prophets, he notes that

it was impossible “to keep the kosher in the land of captivity”. 83 Concerning the foods being

offered to the idols, Longman III avers that this could not had been Daniel’s reason because there

is no reason as to why vegetables would not be included among the foods offered to idols along

with the meat and drink.84 Anent the explanation of political compromise, Longman III states

that Daniel did not entirely refused the food provision because he in fact requested for

vegetables.85 Further, the diet of vegetables was only temporary, and that book does imply that

Daniel did enjoy rich foods in later in his life. 86 The only explanation left, according to Longman

III, is Daniel’s conviction that it is the Lord who will sustain them.87
Personally, we are inclined to pursue Longman’s argument due to the fact that the author

appears to highlight God’s sovereign act behind the scenes in chapter 1. In short, we are

persuaded that the cause for renouncing the king’s food provision is that he wanted to maintain

his faith and loyalty to Yahweh as the one who can provide and sustain him.
80
Baldwin, Daniel, 92.
81
Collins, Daniel, 142.
82
Longman III, Daniel, 52.
83
Ibid.
84
Longman III, Daniel, 52.
85
Ibid., 52-53.
86
Ibid., 53.
87
Ibid.
 19

Clearly, all the proposals lead to the idea of resistance against the prevailing culture and

power. Kirkpatrick maintains that Daniel’s rejection of the “imperial food communicates a

rejection of the imperial education, the king’s attempt to alienate Daniel from his native tradition

and replace it with a foreign one”.88 The author uses “food as a symbol of resistance to the total

domination and assimilation to the culture and ways of dominant powers”.89

In addition, we can also see that Daniel’s resistance was peaceful and non-violent. This

only shows that resistance cannot be equated with violence, or that violence is the only means of

resistance. Peaceful means of resistance can be employed to show that one is not in agreement

with the prevailing power. Daniel did not lead a rebellion against the Babylonians, but tried to

do everything within his means, peaceably, to resist assimilation into the Babylonian culture. In

short, the people of God do have the option to peaceably go against ideas or policies which goes

against the faith.

2. Reversal of Roles (vv.9-16)

“V.9. And God gave Daniel compassion and mercies before the chief of the court
officials. V.10. And the chief of the court officials said to Daniel, “I fear my lord the king
who appointed your food and drinks so why will he see your faces looking poor than the
young men who are like your age then you will endanger my head before the king” v.11
Then Daniel said to the overseer whom the chief of the court officials appointed upon
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. v.12 Please test your servants ten days and give
us vegetables and we will eat and water and we will drink. V.13. And let our appearance
be observed by you and the appearance of the young men eating with the food provisions
of the king and according to what you see deal with your servants. V.14. Then, he listened
to them concerning this matter and tested them ten days. V.15. At the end of the ten days
and their appearance appeared pleasant and fatter than all the young men eating the food
provisions of the king. V.16 Then the overseer took away their food provision and their
consumption of wine and gave them vegetables.”

88
Kirkpatrick, Competing with Honor, 61.
89
Sangtinuk, “Daniel: A Counter Paradigm to the Hellenistic Imperialism vis-à-vis Burmanization in Chin State”,
38.
 20

In verses 9-16, it is clear that the dominating powers are represented by Ashpenaz ( ‫שר‬
‫בת‬

‫סים‬
‫רי י‬
‫ס י‬
‫ה נפ‬
‫ ) פ‬and the overseer (‫צר‬
‫)מל ת נ‬. Verse 9 to 10 merely describes the person whom Daniel

approached as ‫סים‬
‫רי הי‬
‫ס י‬
‫ה נפ‬
‫שבשר פ‬. Though it does not specify the name of the person as Ashpenaz,

nevertheless, we can safely assume that it was Ashpenaz whom Daniel approached because in

verse 3, Ashpenaz was described as ‫רי נ ססיו‬

‫ס י‬
‫בברב נ‬ , and the word ‫ בברב‬and ‫ שבשר‬can be

interchanged and refer to as “chief”. Further, the passage does not also state what Daniel’s

request was, nonetheless, we can safely surmise that his request was about their non-inclusion in

the distribution of the “patbag”. Unfortunately, Ashpenaz turned down the request. In verse 10,

we are told that it was because of Ashpenaz’s fear of Nebuchadnezzar, and the serious

consequence that he may face if he fails to provide Daniel and his friends with the “patbag”.

John Goldingay states that Ashpenaz’s reply should not be construed as an outright dismissal of

Daniel’s request, but merely raises a problem, and that Ashpenaz is open to Daniel’s request

should such problem be overcome.90 Failing in his first attempt, Daniel then proceeds to talk to

their overseer ‫צר‬

‫מל ת נ‬
‫ ש‬. The Greek translation of verse 11 uses the word Αβιεσδρι just like in

verses 3 and 16. It implies that Daniel was talking to Ashpenaz during the entire time. However,

we are not persuaded that Daniel was talking with Ashpenaz in verses 11 and subsequent verses.

In verse 10, Ashpanez already manifested his intention of disapproving Daniel’s request; hence,

Daniel’s continuous pleading before him would only be futile. Further, the fact that the Hebrew

text did not repeat the word ‫סים‬

‫רי הי‬
‫ס י‬
‫ה נפ‬
‫ ב ששר פ‬but used the word ‫צר‬
‫מל ת נ‬
‫ ש‬proves that Daniel was

talking to another person, other than Ashpenaz.

Daniel then pleads with the overseer to test them for ten days with vegetables and water as

their diet. Goldingay opines that ten days would be short enough not to arouse suspicion but

90
Goldingay, Daniel, 19.
 21

long enough to see the result. 91 Thereafter, the overseer approves the request. After the

stipulated period of time, Daniel and his friends turned out to be in better shape than those who

continuously ate from the king’s provision. Thus, the overseer continued their “vegetarian” and

water diet.
As discussed earlier, Daniel chapter one can be classified as a court tale wherein Daniel,

being the protagonist, emerged to be victorious and vindicated. However, in the process of

allowing Daniel to emerge as a victor, we note that the author appears to have used “reversal” as

a literary device.
According to Leland Ryken, “Reversal” is a plot device wherein the situation is reversed,

“sometimes in the specific form of a character’s performing an action that produces the opposite

of the effect that was intended”.92 It consists of sudden change of direction, and relates to the

concept of “surprise as a narrative ingredient”.93

When the request was presented to Ashpenaz, he could have immediately reported or inflict

punishment on Daniel. Fewell contends that refusing the king’s food symbolizes political

dissent.94 Naturally, Daniel could have died for political reasons because he rejected the king’s

provision. Nevertheless, Ashpenaz showed compassion and mercy upon Daniel, instead of

antagonism. The same favourable reaction was shown by the overseer upon Daniel. Ashpenaz

and the overseer are expected to be in-charge of the situation. They could have inflicted pain and

punishment upon Daniel. They could have strictly imposed the king’s provision upon them.

Instead, Daniel received pleasant reactions from those in power. Moreover, Daniel was supposed

to be the one tested by Babylon’s education and food, of whether they will assimilate into the

dominating power’s culture. However, it was the dominating powers who became the subject of

91
Ibid., 20.
92
Leland Ryken, Literary Forms in the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014), 176.
93
Ibid.
94
Fewell, Circle of Sovereignty, 41.
 22

the test, when Daniel requested that they be tested for ten days. The testor then became the

tested. Their roles were then reversed.

Sharon pace likewise avers that “rather than the governing and assimilating the young men,

the Babylonians themselves faced a test by Daniel”.95

3. God’s providential care (v.9)

“V.9And God gave Daniel compassion and mercies before the chief of the court official”

All throughout chapter one, we can see the author’s intent to stress God’s sovereignty over

Babylon and the life of Daniel. Verse 9 states “God gave Daniel compassion and mercies…” (

‫סד ו ה פל תר פ א‬
‫ח ה סמים‬ ‫את־ נ בדנ יביתאל ל ת ה חח ש‬
‫ם ש‬
‫הי נ‬
‫אלד י‬ ‫)ו פי י פ תתןַ הנ‬. Moreover, in verse 17, we are also informed
‫ה א‬

that it was God who gave them the knowledge, wisdom, and skills that they needed to enter the

king’s service. The Babylonians thought that it was through their efforts, resources, and power

that Daniel, and by extension to his friends, were able to reach their full potential. Nevertheless,

Chapter one is quick to inform us that it is not through the dominating culture or power, but by

God’s providence alone. Clearly, God surpasses Babylon’s authority and power. God became a

subversive character against the Babylonian power and culture.

III. SYNTHESIS

Cultural assimilation and forgetting one’s identity have always been a threat to God’s

people. Daniel chapter 1 shows us that God’s people are to resist the prevailing power and

culture which may cause them to compromise their faith and loyalty to Yahweh. Daniel’s refusal

to take the “patbag” (‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬

‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫ ) פ‬symbolizes his refusal to assimilate with Babylonian

power and culture. Daniel considers the “patbag” (‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬
‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫ ) פ‬to be contaminating or

95
Pace, Daniel, 33.
 23

causing defilement. In short, Daniel’s refusal is an act of resistance. The theme of resistance in

Chapter 1 verses 8 to 16 can be seen as follows: Daniel’s resolution, Reversal of Roles, and

God’s providential care over Daniel and his friends.

Daniel resolved that he will not partake of the king’s food provisions. Several

explanations have been advanced to explain Daniel refusal of the “patbag” (‫פ פתתבבג‬/‫בג‬
‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫) פ‬.

There are those who explain that Daniel was observing the kashrut. They claim that the “patbag”

(‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬

‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫ ) פ‬contains foods which are classified as unclean based on dietary laws. Aside

from being unclean, some scholars aver that the problem is not with the foods per se, but with its

preparations. The foods to be served may not have been prepared in accordance with the dietary

laws. Some would even allege that the foods may have been sacrificed to pagan gods. There are

also some scholars who opine that to partake of the “patbag” (‫פ פתת בבג‬/‫בג‬
‫פת־ נ פ‬
‫ ) פ‬is to give

obeisance to the ruling power. Hence, to partake of it is to compromise one’s loyalty to one’s

ethnos. Lastly, there are also those who interprets Daniel’s refusal as his act of loyalty to his

God. He wanted to show that it is God who will sustain him during the course of the testing

period. We can likewise see that to resist does not always mean to be violent. One can perform

acts of resistance without employing violence.

Moreover, the theme of resistance is also shown by the reversal of roles. Ashpenaz and the

overseer represent Babylon’s power. Instead of inflicting punishment upon Daniel, they showed

compassion and mercy upon them. Daniel’s request can be construed as act of rebellion.

Nevertheless, he received pleasant reactions from these super powers. Further, these ruling

powers were expected to test Daniel and his friends of their capability and talents to serve the

king. Yet, they ended up being tested when Daniel asked the overseer to “test” them for ten days.

With the approval of such request, the ruling powers were then placed at the mercy of Daniel and

his friends.
 24

Lastly, we are informed that it was through God’s providential caring that Daniel and his

friends received favourable outcomes. On the human level, the Babylonians thought that they

were responsible for the life and destiny of the captives. The Babylonians appeared to be in

control of the situation, however, the author informs the readers that it was all by God’s divine

decree and intervention, and that God remains to have the “upper” hand.

IV. CONCLUSION AND APPLICATION

Resistance is inevitable when one is confronted with situations that violates or challenges

the will of God. One can only resist when the faith is taken seriously. The apathetic will never

feel the pressure of conforming because of their disinterest. Further, there are also those who

would prefer to conform because of the possible privileges that they would receive. These are

people who prefers to have the “best of both worlds”, receiving the blessings from God and from

the prevailing powers or culture. The call to resist the dominating-sinful culture remains to be

true for us today. We are bombarded with ideas that go against the will of God.
Moreover, in the New Testament, Christians are exhorted not to be conformed to the

pattern of this world. This implies that there are prevailing worldviews, cultures, and practices

which are not in accord with God’s will. To observe them is to live a life of disobedience. For

the readers of the book of Daniel, their motivation had been their loyalty to Yahweh or to their

social heritage as a Jew. To assimilate to the governing culture can be construed as disloyalty to

one’s identity and forefathers. However, as Christians, we have a deeper reason to resist the

dominating-sinful culture, and that is the life and death of our saviour Jesus Christ. Our loyalty

only belongs to Jesus who gave his life for us.

Some of the issues confronting the Filipino Christians are the culture of death and fake

news. During the 2016 national election, President Rodrigo Duterte had been vocal that his
 25

presidency will be “bloody”. Bloods will be shed in order to maintain peace and order in our

country. But despite the warning that he gave, yet around sixteen million Filipinos voted for

him. Being true to his campaign promise, it has been reported that almost thousands of people

had already died in his “war against drugs”. The victims are alleged to be drug-users or drug

traffickers. They were never given a chance to change or defend their innocence before proper

fora. These people are victims of extra-judicial killing. Unfortunately, Pastors and lay leaders

tend to support and defend the president’s “war against drugs”, even if innocent lives were taken

in the course of this so-called “war”. They would even justify that “collateral damages” are

necessary. Surprisingly these people who justify such statements are perceived to be “men of

God”.
Furthermore, there is also the issue of fake news. What is fake or false is presented as

fact and truth. At times, fake news is used to besmirch a person’s good reputation or cause

public disturbances. Misleading statements have been proliferated to advance political agendas.

According to reliable news media, fake news is uttered by the supporters of the current

administration. Worst, government officials are also involved in the spread of fake news.

Gradually, the culture of death and fake news are becoming the prevailing culture in

Philippine society. Apparently, Christian leaders are being used in the advancement of such

culture. Christian leaders who previously stood for human rights and other civil liberties have

now turned their back at these principles. Most of them were given government positions, and

are now advocating the administration’s culture of death and fake news. The culture of life has

been sacrificed for death, and the search for truth for perjury. Christian leaders would even quote

Romans 13 verses 1 to 2, “Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For

there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore

whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will
 26

receive condemnation upon themselves. (NAU), to advance the current administration’s foul

culture. They argue that all Christians owe absolute, unqualified obedience to the government.

Daniel Chapter 1 verses 8 to 16 serves as corrective to the prevailing mindset that

Christians owe unqualified allegiance to the current administration. Daniel had the

determination to withstand the “defiling” culture of Babylon. When he entered Babylon’s

training ground, he already made up his mind to live-out and stand for his principles. He took it

upon himself and believed that Yahweh is greater than Nebuchadnezzar. He would not

compromise his loyalty to Yahweh. In contrast, the current Christian leaders in the Duterte

administration had already sold their principles in favour of the administration’s political

agendas. They have shifted their loyalty from God to political power, fame, and money. This

chapter is also a good reminder for Christians who are serving in the government. Whether one

would falter to the prevailing culture or power is a matter of choice. Daniel could have ceased

from trying to be loyal to Yahweh, yet he chose to be steadfast even if it means losing his life.
 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles

Bruce, Les P. “Discourse Theme and the Narrative of Daniel” Bibliotheca Sacra 160
(April-June 2003).

Collins, John J. “Book of Daniel,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary vol.2, ed. David
Friedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Constantino, Renato. “The Mis-Education of the Filipino”. Journal of Contemporary Asia
1 (1970).

Patterson, Richard D. “Holding on to Daniel’s Court Tales,” Journal of Evangelical

Theological Society 36/4 (1993).

Ryken, Wilhoit L., Longman, T., Duriez, C., Penney, D., & Reid, D. G.“Meals” in
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2000.

Sangtinuk.“Daniel: A Counter Paradigm to the Hellenistic Imperialism vis-à-vis

Burmanization in Chin State”. Asia Journal of Theology 24 (2010).

Books

Anderson, Robert A. Signs and Wonders: a Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Il: IVP
Press, 2009.

Collins, John J. Daniel: a Commentary On the Book of Daniel. Hermeneia. Minneapolis,

MN: Augsburg, 1994.

Collins John J. and P.Flint. The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. Leiden:
Brill, 2001.

Fee, Gordon and Douglas Stuart. How to Read the Bible Book by Book. Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 2002.

Fewell, Danna N. Circle of Sovereignty. Sheffield: Almond, 1988.

Hartman, L.F. & Di Lella, A. A. The Book of Daniel, Anchor Yale Bible Commentary.
New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008.
 28

Kirkpatrick, Shane. Competing for Honor: a Social-Scientific Reading of Daniel 1-6.

Boston: Brill, 2005.

Longman III, Tremper. Daniel. New International Application Commentary. Grand

Rapids: Mich: Zondervan, 1999.

Matthews, Victor H. The Hebrew Prophets and Their Social World. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 2012.

Miller, Stephen R. Daniel. New American Commentary. Nashville, Tenn: Broadman

Press, 1994.

Pace, Sharon. Daniel. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth and
Helwys, 2008.

Ryken, Leland. Literary Forms in the Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014.

Sandy, D. Brent and Ronald L. Giese, Jr. Cracking Old Testament Codes: a Guide to
Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms. Nashville, TN: Broadman &
Holman, 1995.

Showers, Randy E. The Most High God : Commentary on the book of Daniel. Bellmawr,
NJ: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1982.

Walton, John H., Victor H. Matthews, & Mark W. Chavalas. The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: Old Testament. Downer Grove, Il: IVP Press, 2000.

Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949.

Lexicon

Köhler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, Johann Jakob Stamm,

Benedikt Hartmann, G. J. Jongeling-Vos, and L. J. de Regt, The Hebrew and
Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994),