Nonconformity to the World

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.”[1]

Introduction

The story of Daniel and his friends in the royal court of King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 1:3–17 has long been a popular Bible story, especially within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The story begins with Daniel and three other “children of Judah” being taken into the king’s court for training and education.[2] Daniel chooses to “not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine which he drank.”[3] Latter-day Saint children are sometimes taught about the courage of Daniel in choosing to live by Word of Wisdom principles, such as abstaining from wine and limiting meat consumption. On the surface, this account seems to directly mirror some of the principles contained in Joseph Smith’s 1833 revelation on the Word of Wisdom contained in Doctrine and Covenants 89. Due to some common misunderstandings surrounding Daniel 1:3–17, as well as potential implications of the story in conjunction with specific instruction given in the Word of Wisdom, the story of Daniel and his friends in the king’s court is worth revisiting.

Many Latter-day Saints who read the story in Daniel 1 are understandably drawn to the apparent parallels to the Word of Wisdom. In the current Latter-day Saint edition of the scriptures, three separate verses from Doctrine and Covenants 89 contain footnote references to the first chapter of Daniel.[4] Similarly, Daniel 1 contains five footnote references to the Word of Wisdom.[5] However, an exegetical analysis of Daniel 1:3–17 reveals some cautions and considerations for those who compare the narrative of Daniel and his friends with the principles contained in the Word of Wisdom. In my exegetical analysis of this passage, I will provide a contextual, formal, and detailed analysis, followed by a synthesis and theological reflection. The contextual analysis section will include both historical and literary contexts. I will demonstrate that this story does not actually provide a direct reflection of the principles contained in the Word of Wisdom. I further argue that this passage can be more accurately reframed as an inspiring and example of nonconformity to the ways of the world.

Contextual Analysis

The Book of Daniel is not found in the Nevi’im (“Prophets”) of the Hebrew Bible but is instead found in the Ketuvim (also known as “Writings” or “Hagiographa”).[6] In contrast to the Jewish canon, Daniel is contained in the “Prophets” section of the Christian canon.[7] Due to the length of this book, Daniel is considered one of the four major prophets in the Old Testament.[8] Interestingly, chapter 1 and chapters 8–12 were written in Hebrew, while Daniel 2–7 was written in Aramaic.[9] In order to more fully understand the story of Daniel and his friends at the royal court, it is important to consider the historical and literary contexts of the text.

Historical Context

Many biblical scholars doubt the historicity of the book of Daniel, especially due to the inclusion of predictive prophesies and other miraculous manifestations.[10] They normally understand this book to be “a fictional or semifictional composition written long after the events of which it purports to prophesy had already taken place.”[11] They consider Daniel’s prophecies to be historical reports given after the events took place, primarily because of the scholars’ lack of belief in predictive prophecy. On the other hand, scholars who believe in the general historicity of this book and in the reality of the spirit of prophecy and other miracles—Latter-day Saints scholars in particular— consider the book of Daniel to have been completed around 530 B.C.[12]

Daniel 1 begins its account “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah” when “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon [came] unto Jerusalem, and besieged it.”[13] The events of this Babylonian takeover are considered to have taken place starting around 605 B.C.[14] King Nebuchadnezzar lay siege on the kingdom of Judah, the southern kingdom, on three different occasions. Babylon attacked in 605 B.C., 597 B.C., and 586 B.C. The context of Daniel 1 is during King Nebuchadnezzar’s first attack on Judah.[15]

The pericope of verses 3–17 takes place during the beginning of the Babylonian rule when King Nebuchadnezzar decides to “bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes” to be trained in his royal court.[16] Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the tribe of Judah are all chosen for this purpose. They were captured by the Babylonians and taken to the king’s court in Mesopotamia.[17] They were “conscripted into the civil service corps of the Babylonian government”[18] due to the potential that was seen within them.

Those selected were described as “Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”[19] The language of the Chaldeans, or Babylonians, refers to “the Akkadian dialect known as Neo-Babylonian.”[20] Daniel and his friends would have already known Hebrew and Aramaic, and most likely Persian as well.[21] Babylon would have taken pride in being the center of knowledge and wisdom.[22] They were also likely interested in eradicating the traditions of the Jews and conforming the children of Judah to Babylonian traditions and beliefs. The historical context of Babylonian rule and the deportation of the Jews demonstrates Babylon’s power over the Jews. Daniel and his friends were faced with the decision to either conform to Babylon or resist conformity, courageously holding fast to their faith and the traditions of their fathers.

Literary Context

The pericope in Daniel 1 is a third-person narrative, specifically considered to be a court story or tale. This genre continues through chapter 6, but then switches to the first-person apocalyptic visions in chapters 7–12. Daniel 1 serves as a preface to the rest of the book of Daniel.[23] Verses 1–2 precede my selected pericope of verses 3–17, with the first verse setting the historical stage by marking the year as Jehoiakim’s third year of reigning. Verse one introduces the king of Judah and king of Babylon and mentions King Nebuchadnezzar’s first attack on the southern kingdom. Verse two indicates that the Lord allowed the Babylonians to capture Jehoiakim and take some of the things from the temple at Jerusalem and bring them back to the temple of King Nebuchadnezzar’s god. The story then transitions to the third verse with the king’s command to Ashpenaz, his palace master, to bring some of the Israelite young men into his court.

After Daniel’s dietary experiment, the pericope concludes by stating that God blessed Daniel and his friends intellectually and gave Daniel the spiritual gift of understanding visions and dreams.[24] Verse 17 then transitions to verse 18, at which time Ashpenaz brings the young men into the presence of King Nebuchadnezzar. The king is very impressed with them and appoints them as officials in his court.[25] The chapter then concludes by stating that Daniel stayed there as one of the king’s royal officials until the first year of King Cyrus, which would have been 539 or 538 B.C.[26]

The next few chapters in the Book of Daniel describe more of the experiences that Daniel had in the king’s court. In chapter two, Daniel interprets King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which results in the promotion of Daniel and his friends. His friends are then tested in chapter three with the pressure of worshipping the golden image which the king had commanded everyone to worship. They refuse to conform to this act of worshiping the golden image, which would have gone completely against their faith and devotion to Yahweh. As a result, they are thrown into a fiery furnace, but are preserved by God.

Daniel’s faithfulness is further tested in the sixth chapter when King Darius issues a decree against the worship practice of praying to God. Daniel again demonstrates his nonconformity to the ways of the world and his faithfulness to God by choosing to continue worshipping God in prayer, even when he is consequently thrown into a den of lions. The careful reader cannot help but notice the connection between Daniel’s nonconformity in chapter one with his nonconformity in chapter six. Since chapter six concludes the third-person narrative portion of the Book of Daniel, there is a clear parallelism between Daniel’s dietary nonconformity at King Nebuchadnezzar’s court with his nonconformity to King Darius’s decree against prayer. The first test seems to be relatively minor in consequence compared with the latter, which threatens his life. The Lord seems to be preparing Daniel as a young man in Daniel 1 with a later, greater test of faith in Daniel 6. Daniel successfully passes both tests, demonstrating that in both matters small and large he will remain faithful to Yahweh and not conform to Babylon.

It is important to make a note in this literary analysis that the prophet Daniel is also mentioned in other books of scripture. He is mentioned in reference to both his prophecies and attributes. In Doctrine and Covenants 116:1, an allusion is made to a prophecy which was “spoken of by Daniel the prophet.” In Doctrine and Covenants 138:44, President Joseph F. Smith indicates that he saw Daniel in the spirit world: “Daniel, who foresaw and foretold the establishment of the kingdom of God in the latter days, never again to be destroyed nor given to other people.”[27] Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:12 (along with Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14) mention “the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, concerning the destruction of Jerusalem.” In Ezekiel 14:14, the righteousness of Daniel is described: “Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness.” In Ezekiel 28:3, Daniel’s wisdom is used as a comparison: “thou art wiser than Daniel.” These honorary mentions of the prophet Daniel can be tied back to Daniel’s faithfulness and his repeated nonconformity to the world.

Formal Analysis

The pericope contains direct transitions throughout the events that take place in this passage. Verses 3–7 describe the setting that Daniel and his friends were placed in, leading up to the decision in verse 8 to “not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine.” This verse is a potential turning point for Daniel, but he makes the harder choice of nonconformity and faithfulness over the easier decision of conforming with Babylonian dietary practices. As I will mention later in the detailed analysis, this decision has more to do with loyalty to Yahweh than anything else.

Verses 8–13 describe Daniel persuading the prince of the eunuchs to conduct a dietary experiment to prove them ten days and see the results of eating pulse and drinking water in contrast to the royal food and wine. These verses naturally flow out of Daniel’s own proving experience, which is one of the Lord’s purposes of mortality.[28] Verses 14–17 then describe the results of Daniel and his friends in contrast to the others, along with the decision to change the dietary practices for everyone else in the court. These verses demonstrate the blessings that can come from holding true to one’s standards. In the case of Daniel and his friends, they experienced both personal blessings and the unique opportunity of being able to stand as a light for others as a result of their nonconformity to the ways of the Babylonians. Had the four young men chosen conformity, they would not have stood out from among the others in the same manner and would not have experienced the same opportunities and blessings.[29]

Detailed Analysis

One initial item to note in this detailed analysis is the frequent use of names throughout this pericope. Names are mentioned over 30 times throughout this chapter. The most interesting names that are mentioned are the Hebrew names that Daniel and his three friends are born with, along with the Babylonian names given to them. These latter names are another representation of the pressure to denounce Yahweh and conform to the world. Daniel (Belteshazzar), Hannaniah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abed-nego) are all introduced in verses 6–7. The name “Daniel” means “God is my judge.”[30] Hananiah denotes “Yahweh has been gracious.”[31] Mishael is translated as “Who is/what is God?”[32] And Azariah means “Yahweh has helped.”[33] These theophoric names were strong and constant reminders of the God whom they worship. The Babylonians attempted to erase these reminders through replacing their names with Babylonian ones.

The Babylonian names were not just ordinary names—they represented a direct substitution of Yahweh with the gods of Babylon. Daniel’s name was changed to Belteshazzar, which means “Bel [i.e., Marduk, the supreme god of the Babylonian pantheon] protects his life.”[34] Shadrach was changed to “‘command of Aku’ [i.e., the Sumerian moon-god] or ‘I am fearful of Aku.’”[35] Meshach became “Who is what [the god] Aku is?”[36] And Abednego was changed to “‘servant of the shing one’ or ‘servant of Neg[b]o’ [i.e., Nabu, son of Marduk and patron deity of the scribal guild.”[37] These substitutions contribute to the theme of the external pressure to conform in conjunction with internal decisions to remain faithful to Yahweh.

I will now focus on the apparent parallels between Daniel 1:3–17 and Doctrine and Covenants 89. Verse five of Daniel 1 contains the first potential references to the Word of Wisdom. In the King James version, we read about how “the king appointed them a daily provision of the king’s meat, and of the wine which he drank.”[38] However, this translation does not accurately reflect the Hebrew words used here. This phrase is more accurately rendered as “The king assigned them a daily portion of the royal rations of food and wine.”[39] One reason why the King James version can be confusing and problematic in this instance is that it states that Daniel did not want to defile himself with “the wine which he drank.” This seems to suggest that Daniel had already been drinking the wine, which would reduce the power behind the message of not conforming to the ways of the world. Importantly, the Hebrew does not at all suggest initial conformity. Instead, Daniel has already “resolved that he would not defile himself with the royal rations of food and wine.”[40]

Another caution concerning the connection between these verses and the Word of Wisdom is that the Word of Wisdom was a revelation specifically given to “all saints in the last days.”[41] The Word of Wisdom is not a universally binding law, but rather a specific “word of wisdom” of dietary principles given to Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, the King James word “meat” in Daniel 1 does not necessarily suggest actual meat but seems to be referring to food in general.[42] Of course, since Daniel suggests the use of “pulse,”[43] which is more accurately rendered “vegetables,”[44] it could be reasonably deduced that the royal rations of food contained meat. However, the concern was probably not so much about the fact that it was the flesh of animals (which is of concern in the Word of Wisdom) and more about the way in which the food was prepared and how it did not meet Mosaic dietary standards. Daniel was surely aware of the differentiation between clean and unclean beasts and the type of meat that could be eaten under the law of Moses.[45]

Another important commentary is that the Mosaic dietary restrictions did not include wine, which was also something of which Daniel and his friends refused to partake.[46] The reader is left to consider alternative or additional reasons why they refused to eat the royal food and wine. One possible explanation is that “the royal food rations would have probably been associated with idol worship in some way (either by the food’s having been offered to idols or blessed by idolatrous priests).”[47] This would have represented disloyalty to Yahweh and disobedience to his commands. Another possible explanation is that “Daniel simply interpreted the eating of the royal food rations as a formal demonstration of allegiance to the Babylonian king.”[48] Daniel and his friends chose to remain loyal to Yahweh rather than pledge allegiance to the lordship of King Nebuchadnezzar. Regardless of which explanation is correct, Daniel’s refusal to partake of the royal food and wine is a clear demonstration of nonconformity to Babylon and loyalty to Yahweh.[49]

Synthesis

In my exegetical analysis of Daniel 1:3–17, I have demonstrated that, although this story does not directly mirror the principles contained in the Word of Wisdom, it is still an inspiring illustration of nonconformity to this world. In the historical context section, we learned of the Babylonians efforts to take over the kingdom of Judah. Daniel and his friends were uprooted from their homeland and taken to Babylon (Mesopotamia). They had the opportunity to prove themselves and demonstrate through their faithfulness that they would be in the world, but not of the world. Through their nonconformity, they chose to not defile themselves.

In the section on literary context, I highlighted the connection between the pericope in Daniel 1 and other examples of nonconformity in the Book of Daniel. Daniel’s friends proved faithful through refusing to bow down to King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, even though they were thrown into a fiery furnace in consequence of their nonconformity. Daniel also later experienced a second, more serious test of faith than the one in Daniel 1. He defied King Darius’s decree which restricted worshipping Yahweh in prayer. Again, Daniel would not defile himself through conformity, even though he was thrown into a den of lions.

In my formal analysis, I highlighted the importance of Daniel’s decision to not defile himself. This theme is found throughout the pericope. Another example of this theme is contained in the meaning of the young men’s Hebrew and Babylonian names. In the detailed analysis, I provided some cautions against assuming a direct reflection between Daniel 1 and the principles contained in the Word of Wisdom. In contrast to this approach, I demonstrated how the story can be more accurately reframed as an example of nonconformity to the world and loyalty to Yahweh.

Theological Reflection

A theological item to discuss is the causal relationship between the nonconformity of Daniel and his friends, and the blessings bestowed upon them. “To these four young men God gave knowledge and skill in every aspect of literature and wisdom; Daniel also had insight into all visions and dreams.”[50], [51] In addition to these intellectual and spiritual blessings, a temporal blessing that they received was the fact that they “stood before the king,”[52] which is more accurately translated as “they were stationed in the king’s court.”[53] Latter-day Saints are reminded of the promise contained in Mosiah 2 and the invitation to “consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual.”[54] Similarly, in Doctrine and Covenants 130:20–21, we learn that, “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

One might ask whether the blessings bestowed upon God were the direct result of dietary choices or the loyalty to Yahweh demonstrated through their nonconformity to Babylon. Since there is no indication that the other young men in the court, who were beneficiaries of the dietary change after the initial ten-day experiment, received these same kinds of blessings, the text suggests the latter. Daniel and his friends were blessed because of their resistance to the pressure of conforming to Babylonian beliefs and traditions. Their example is an inspiring example of nonconformity to the world. From this account, we learn that it is more than okay to stand out and stand up for personal standards. In fact, the Lord expects this. His promised blessings far outweigh the implications of peer pressure and potential social exclusion and loss of status due to nonconformity to the ways of the world. From the examples of Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, we observe the wisdom of Paul’s message to the Romans: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.”[55]

Endnotes

[1]. Rom 12:2 NRSV.

[2]. Dan 1:6, KJV. Unless otherwise noted, the King James Version will be the Bible translation used throughout the rest of this post.

[3]. Dan 1:8.

[4]. See D&C 89:14, 18–19.

[5]. See Dan 1:8, 12–13, 17. Two footnote references to the Word of Wisdom are included in Daniel 1:8, but only one of them is included in the 2013 Latter-day Saint edition of the Standard Works. The other one, a reference to the Gospel Art Book’s picture “Daniel Refusing the King’s Meat and Wine,” is only found in the current digital form of the scriptures. See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/ot/dan/1?lang=eng.

[6]. Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and J. Andrew Dearman, Introducing the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), 328.

[7]. Hubbard and Dearman, Introducing the Old Testament, 329.

[8]. The other major prophets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, comprising the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, and Ezekiel.

[9]. Andrew E. Hill, “Daniel,” in Daniel–Malachi, Vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Rev. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009), 25.

[10]. Ogden and Skinner, “Daniel.”

[11]. Daniel K. Ogden and Andrew C. Skinner, “Daniel” in 1 Kings Through Malachi, Vol. 2 of Verse by Verse: The Old Testament (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2013), Deseret Bookshelf edition.

[12]. Ogden and Skinner, “Daniel.”

[13]. Dan 1:1.

[14]. Hubbard and Dearman, Introducing the Old Testament, 328.

[15]. Hegumen Fr. Abraam Sleman, The God of Daniel: A Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (East Brunswick, NJ: Coptic Media Productions, 2008), 11.

[16]. Dan 1:3.

[17]. Hill, “Daniel,” 22.

[18]. Hill, “Daniel,” 23.

[19]. Dan 1:4.

[20]. Hill, “Daniel,” 50.

[21]. Hill, “Daniel,” 50.

[22]. Hill, “Daniel,” 50.

[23]. Choon L. Seow, Daniel (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 20.

[24]. Dan 1:17.

[25]. Dan 1:19.

[26]. Hill, “Daniel,” 56.

[27]. D&C 138:44.

[28]. “And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them” (Abraham 3:25).

[29]. “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.” (D&C 130:20–21).

[30]. Hill, “Daniel,” 49.

[31]. Hill, “Daniel,” 49.

[32]. Hill, “Daniel,” 49.

[33]. Hill, “Daniel,” 49.

[34]. Hill, “Daniel,” 49.

[35]. Hill, “Daniel,” 49–50.

[36]. Hill, “Daniel,” 50.

[37]. Hill, “Daniel,” 50.

[38]. Dan 1:5.

[39]. Dan 1:5 NRSV.

[40]. Dan 1:8 NRSV.

[41]. D&C 89:2.

[42]. Another potential example of refusing meat is found in Alma 8:19–22. However, an exegetical analysis of these verses would similarly include cautions against trying to directly relate this to the principles contained in the Word of Wisdom. Additional scriptures to consider in terms of meat restrictions include D&C 49:18–21, 89:12–15; JST, Gen 9:8–11; and 1 Tim 4:1, 3–5.

[43]. Dan 1:12.

[44]. Dan 1:13 NRSV.

[45]. Lev 11; Dt 12:23–25, 14.

[46]. In contrast to the Word of Wisdom which now forbids the use of alcohol. This is a major barrier to a potential direct reflection between Daniel 1 and Doctrine and Covenants 89.

[47]. Hill, “Daniel,” 52.

[48]. Hill, “Daniel,” 53.

[49]. An additional connection to the Word of Wisdom that could be explored is the connection between the fact that “they appeared better and fatter than all the young men who had been eating the royal rations” (Dan 1:15 NRSV), and the promised blessings contained in the Word of Wisdom. However, here there is still no direct connection between the result at the end of the ten days, and the blessings mentioned in D&C 89.

[50]. Dan 1:17 NRSV.

[51]. As another witness to these blessings, the king observed that “in all matters of wisdom and understanding [they were] ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm” (Dan 1:20).

[52]. Dan 1:19.

[53]. Dan 1:19 NRSV.

[54]. Mosiah 2:41.

[55]. Rom 12:2 NRSV.

Bibliography

Hill, Andrew E. “Daniel.” Pages 19–212 in Daniel–Malachi. Vol. 8 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009.

Hubbard, Robert L. Jr., and J. Andrew Dearman. Introducing the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018.

Ogden, Daniel K., and Andrew C. Skinner. “Daniel.” 1 Kings Through Malachi. Vol. 2 of Verse by Verse: The Old Testament. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2013. Deseret Bookshelf edition.

Seow, Choon L. Daniel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Sleman, Hegumen Fr. Abraam. The God of Daniel: A Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. East Brunswick, NJ: Coptic Media Productions, 2008.