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.
Several commentators point out another valuable lesson from
Daniel's attitude. He used persuasion to get this pagan friend to
take a risk for him. This is the only legitimate means of getting men
who are not committed to your cause to take a risk for it. To use
force to compel a man to take risk for that which he had no
conviction is immoral, and is a denying him of his right to be loyal to
his own convictions. Alexander Maclaren said years ago, "Martyrs
by proxy, who have such strong convictions that they think it
somebody else's duty to run risks for them, are by no means
unknown." As Christians we have no right to expect a
non-Christian to risk anything for us unless we can persuade him to
do so voluntarily. Daniel's friendly manner was used of God to
persuade this pagan to take the risk. It turned out that the risk was
no real danger after all, for in verse 15 we read that Daniel and his
friends thrived on their diet. They were better looking than all of
those who ate the rich food of the king. So they were free to eat
what they chose from then on, and to remain undefiled.
The text goes on to point out how God so richly endowed these
faithful youth. They were wise and skilled in learning. They
probably learned all kinds of nonsense as well, but one does not need
to be any less loyal to truth because he becomes informed about
error. This gift of learning was also likely providential and not
miraculous. They had to put forth effort to study in order to acquire
knowledge. It was not just put into them by God. To the Jews all of
life was under God's guidance, and not just the supernatural. The
Jews also had a high regard for education and the learning of
wisdom. Most of the heroes of the Old Testament were men of
wisdom. Daniel and his companions were all that an ideal Jew
should be.
Daniel was not only blessed with the ability and skill to learn,
but he also had a unique and miraculous gift of being able to
understand dreams and visions. This is preparing us for what
comes later in the book, for the book centers around Daniel's ability
to interpret dreams, and they make up a large part of the book.
When the 3 years of training ended Daniel and his 3
companions were brought before the king. He apparently gave them
an oral test by asking questions. He found them to be 10 times
better than all the magicians and enchanters in the land. Daniel was
the valedictorian of his graduating class. This first chapter ends by
bringing us to a point where Daniel is seen to be a man that must be
reckoned with, for he is loyal to God and superior to the pagans who
hold him captive. He lives right through the whole length of the
Babylonian empire to the time of Cyrus when the 70 years captivity
ends, and the Jews return to their land. The setting is laid, and it is
one that is bound to produce some exciting stories about Daniel and
his friends, and also of his friendly enemies, and his not so friendly
enemies.
