Daniel in Babylon: An Adaptive Strategy

In 1 Peter 2:11, the Apostle Peter describes Christians as spiritual “sojourners and exiles” heading to their heavenly home. Living in a sinful world, it is expected that Christians will face trials. For that reason, Peter said “do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Pet. 4:12). Jesus also warned, “In the world, you will have tribulation” (John 16:33). Such trials, however, are not an excuse to defy secular authorities, so Peter also instructs his readers to “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor (1 Pet. 2:17). The Apostle Paul made a similar point when he instructed bondservants to “obey in everything those who are your earthly masters.” He even stressed the excellence of such service by saying this service is “not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.” In other words, Paul taught that “whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men” (Colossians 3:23).

In the annals of the Old Testament, few figures exemplify the biblical virtues of vocation as profoundly as Daniel; his life serves as a testament to these values. Daniel’s entire professional career unfolded within the courts of pagan kings. Starting as a court official under Nebuchadnezzar and continuing through the reign of Cyrus the Great, his service spanned over seventy years. During this time, Daniel appeared to adapt to and adopt the cultural norms of his new environment. He seemed to seek the welfare of the city where the Lord had sent him (cf. Jeremiah 29:7), despite the city’s and king’s role in the devastation of his people and Jerusalem. In essence, Daniel’s life mirrors the contemporary situation of Christian believers, who are likewise called to work as spiritual “sojourners and exiles” (1 Pet. 2:11) within a spiritually adverse environment. Consequently, Daniel’s life provides valuable lessons for us today.

Daniel experienced a period of transition in his native country of Judah. Babylon had just begun the initial stages of deporting Judeans into Babylon, with Daniel being part of this first group (Daniel 1:1). He was accompanied by three compatriots mentioned in the Book of Daniel: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. According to Daniel 1:3–4, these four were selected to be integrated into Babylonian society for three reasons. First, they were from the upper strata of the Judean community (“the royal family and the nobility” in v.3). If the social elite accepted Babylonian authority, it would encourage their fellow Judeans to conform to the norms of their captors and establish a compliant attitude toward their cultural rulers. Second, they were physically attractive (“without blemish, of good appearance,” v.4). These youths were expected to serve in the royal court, and displaying the physical beauty of court-servants was a way for a king to demonstrate his superiority to visiting dignitaries. Third, they were intelligent (“skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king’s palace,” v.4). They needed to show they possessed the skills necessary for statecraft, advisory and diplomatic roles, and strategic military counsel when required.

Since Daniel and his three friends met these criteria, they were chosen to undergo a meticulous and rigorous cultural assimilation program that emphasized Babylonian superiority. What is curious (and perhaps even surprising) is the extent to which they willingly participated and conformed to the demands placed upon them. This program had four stages of development. We will examine each of these stages below.

The first stage in the Babylonian assimilation process was to force the Judean exiles to become “eunuchs.” The Hebrew term here, saris, refers to a “eunuch,” but it also can refer to an “official” of some sort. Potiphar, in Genesis 39:1 was also called a saris, which must have meant “high-official” since he was married. In the case of Daniel, however, it seems more likely that he was indeed made a “eunuch.” This would not have been an uncommon practice as the servants of ancient kings were frequently made eunuchs.[1] The fact that Daniel had the “chief eunuch” (v.3) with oversight over him suggests that Daniel shared that similar physical experience.

Isaiah 39:7 is also helpful here. In that verse, Hezekiah permitted the envoys of the Babylon king, Merodach-Baladan, to view his treasury room that contained all the wealth and valuable goods of Judah. Because of this, Isaiah prophesied that “some of your own sons, who will come from you, whom you will father, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs [sarisim] in the palace of the king of Babylon” (Isa. 39:7). Given the strength of this prophetic word, it seems highly likely that Daniel and his friends became actual eunuchs as part of the overall re-culturalization of deportees into Babylonian life.[2] This also affirms the extent to which Nebuchadnezzar would go to enforce his authority.[3]

The second stage in the re-culturalization of Daniel and his companions was a strenuous re-education, where they were taught “the literature and the language of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 1:4). In other words, they were forced to enroll in the University of Babylon and trained in their culture, language, religious practices, and literature.

The “language of the Chaldeans” was the east-semitic language of Akkadian, which was the lingua franca of the ancient world during the time of the Babylonian empire. Whereas Aramaic texts were written by using an alphabet of approximately twenty consonants, Akkadian texts required the use of hundreds of cuneiform signs to accomplish the same goal. Akkadian was written using cuneiform signs. This system used wedged-shaped symbols orthographically, thus the term “cuneiform” (from the Latin cuneus meaning “wedge”). When compared to the Northwest Semitic language of Aramaic, the cuneiform sign system is much more difficult to read. Also, unlike its Northwest Semitic counterpart, these cuneiform signs represent syllables, not consonants. Practically, this meant that the Babylonian scribe was required to read a much more difficult writing system and learn many more sigla. In other words, Akkadian was a much more difficult language to read and write.

The “literature of the Chaldeans” was vast, ranging from legal materials, such as Babylonian law codes, economic texts, and marriage/annulment contracts, to love songs, wisdom instruction, and epic narratives that depict the grand adventures of ancient heroes and majestic acts of gods.[4] One purpose of this re-education perhaps was to display the superiority of the Babylonian literary tradition over those of other nations.

Daniel, along with his companions, diligently studied Babylonian scriptures and their associated religious doctrines. And yet, despite his deep engagement with these texts, Daniel remained unwaveringly loyal to the tenets of the Old Testament and the God of his ancestors.

The third stage in the Babylonian re-culturalization program was to give the Judeans new Babylonian names. Daniel (“God is my judge”), Hananiah (“Yahweh is gracious”), Mishael (meaning unknown), Azariah (“Yahweh is my help”) were renamed Beltshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego respectively. The meanings of these Babylonian names are unclear.[5]

Just as with the practice of making eunuchs, so also this renaming was common when establishing a foreigner in a place of authority. Joseph, in Genesis 41:45, was given the Egyptian name “Zaphenath-panaeh” when he was made a court official for the Pharaoh of Egypt. Hadassah, as she was entering the selection process to become the new queen of Persia, was given the new name of “Esther” (Esther 2:7). Mordecai, her uncle, has a Babylonian name. Since he was a Benjaminite (Est. 2:5), it is reasonable to conclude that his birth name was Hebrew, which is not revealed in the Book of Esther. Thus, the standard protocol was followed here in renaming the four Judean youths.

This renaming served three distinct purposes. Firstly, it acted as a reminder that the four individuals were serving a higher authority, specifically the monarch who had renamed them. Earlier instances of this practice can be observed in the cases of Joseph and Esther (see above), as well as several biblical kings, such as Pharaoh Neco renaming Eliakim to Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:24), and Nebuchadnezzar renaming Mattaniah to Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17). Secondly, the new names provided a new identity. Adopting the name of a different culture is a significant step towards embracing that culture as one’s own, thereby making it more challenging to maintain the virtues, language, and history of one’s original homeland. Thirdly, the new names served as a reminder of the deities worshipped by their captors. It is evident that at least two of the new Babylonian names contained theophoric elements, likely all four, which countered the theophoric components of the Judean names. Thus, the purpose of these new names was to facilitate the assimilation of the four Judeans into Babylonian society. The constant use of their Babylonian names would serve as a reminder of the earthly king who authorized their renaming, the gods of the land of exile, and their new identity within this community. The necessity for such renaming becomes increasingly evident as the practice of deportation became more prevalent during the age of the empires.

At each stage of their re-culturalization program, Daniel conformed to the cultural norms that were expected of him. As mentioned above, it is debated among scholars whether Daniel endured such physical treatment, though there is ample biblical, historical, and cultural evidence to support an actual castration. If this is true, it describes the extent that he was willing to endure for the sake of sustaining peace as an exile. Regarding his re-education, although we have no records of his days as a student, it does not appear that Daniel questioned or challenged the curriculum he was taught. Rather, he must have been a diligent student as he excelled academically in every program of study, becoming a very competent philologist (cf. Dan. 1:17, 20). This made him an entrusted scribe and sage for numerous kings throughout his career. Regarding his new Babylonian name, it was accepted without question. Though the Book of Daniel refers to Daniel by his Hebrew name, we are constantly reminded of his Babylonian name of Beltshazzar and the god for whom that name was based (Dan. 2:26; 4:8, 9, 18, 19 [MT v.5, 6, 15, 16]; 5:12; 10:1). In Daniel 3, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are also called by their Babylonian names.

In many ways, Daniel (and his three friends) were model citizens. He did not rebel against the assimilation plan, he did not argue or complain about them, nor did he attempt to transform Babylon. Instead, he accepted them and “prospered” (Dan. 6:28), even to his own physical detriment (i.e., eunuch). However, during his training the only time he refused to comply was when he was required to eat the royal meal of the king (Dan. 1:8–16). For Daniel, to partake of this meal would “defile himself” before God (v.8). He wanted to live in peace with Babylon, but not at the expense of losing his vertical relationship with his God. For that reason, he was “resolved” not to eat these foods, even if that put him in harm’s way.

This was not the only time Daniel stood firm in opposition to his authorities. He would again revolt against a human king in Daniel 6 (Darius the Mede) when a royal edict demanded all peoples to direct their prayers to the earthly monarch, not to their gods. Similarly, in Daniel 3, the three friends Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego also stood their ground in defiance to a royal decree that mandated the worshipping of a pagan idol in the image of Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, it seems that Daniel and his three friends had a modus operandi for life in exile: they were willing to participate in the assimilation process and the daily routines of life until their fidelity to the Lord was challenged and they were no longer permitted to “have no other gods” before the one and only God (Exodus 20:3; Deuteronomy 5:7). In other words, Daniel eagerly and wholeheartedly loved his neighbor as himself (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31), but not if this meant compromising his ability to love God with all his heart, soul, and might (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37–38; Mark 12:30). Such priority is applicable for us, even in our day today as we engage in our vocational calls as pilgrims in unholy land.

Although Daniel was resolute in maintaining his religious purity, he remained respectful toward his Babylonian authorities and did not act with belligerence. Instead, he demonstrated wisdom in his thoughts and deeds, which is not surprising given that Daniel 1:4 told us he was “skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning.” Thus, he approached the challenge strategically.[6] His initial attempt to abstain from the royal food was denied, presenting a setback. However, Daniel stayed committed to his goal of faithful living, recognizing the need for an alternative approach. In other words, Plan A did not succeed, so it was prudent to develop a Plan B, reflecting a wise and adaptive strategy.

Daniel 1:12 gives us Daniel’s Plan B: a period of ten days during which he (and his friends) would adhere to a diet of vegetables and water. That length may not be as dramatic as four hundred years (Israel in Egypt), seventy years (exile), or even forty years (wilderness wanderings), but it is sufficient to gather evidence about the diet’s effects. Ten days of only vegetables and water is sufficient to have an impact on a person’s physical and mental abilities. Again, that was the intended goal. If Daniel and friends showed no harmful effects during or after ten days, then they can bring that as evidence to their overseers to persuade them to pursue Plan A (i.e. vegetables and water as their main dietary provision for the remainder of the re-culturalization program). If there are negative effects, then there is still plenty of time for them to recover without arousing any suspicions. Ten days is long enough to determine the effectiveness of a vegetable and water diet, but not too long to cause lasting negative effects.

Though Daniel acted wisely, he also trusted in the Lord. He placed all his hope in the ten-day test. It is ironic that someone who demonstrated such shrewdness and strategy could also, from the vantage point of human wisdom, appear so foolish and illogical. How can a meal based solely on vegetables without the sustenance and nourishment of meat strengthen men at all, much less in comparison to those who are given the luxurious meats of the day (i.e., “the food of the king”)? If Daniel and his friends prevail at the end, this is only because their God has supernaturally sustained them with physical strength and mental acuity. He would have chosen “what is foolish in the world to shame the wise” and “what is weak in the world to shame the strong” (1 Corinthians 1:27). The end result was that he preserved his religious purity, satisfied the Babylonian officials overseeing him, and excelled the work that was assigned to him (Dan. 1:20). In fact, these principles served Daniel well throughout his career as he “prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian” (Dan. 6:28).

Daniel demonstrated that it is possible to live and work at peace with a hostile world around. In fact, he shows that it is possible not only to live in such a setting but to flourish personally and professionally. Residing in such an environment means engaging in their cultural practices. To do so is not sin per se. Daniel was willing to participate in various Babylonian traditions that might surprise some modern Christians. When he was required to defile his worship to the Lord, however, this was a line he would not cross. After all, love for God is the highest virtue for a believer, and nothing is worth compromising our faithfulness to our Lord. When faced with such a challenge, only then did Daniel stand his ground.

Yet even in his defiance, Daniel acted with wisdom. In doing so, he embodied the wiseman from the Book of Proverbs. This explains how he and his friends were able to overcome intense animosity and religious prejudices and successfully steer around awkward relationships and difficult peoples throughout their time in exile. By doing so, they also demonstrated for their fellow Judeans that it is possible to live a life of religious faithfulness and still be at peace with their Babylonian neighbors. They just need to “trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths” (Proverbs 3:5–6). Daniel teaches the same lesson for the modern Christian in vocation today.

[1] See C. A. Newsom, Daniel: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville; Westminster John Knox, 2014), 42–43, where she describes similar accounts of prisoners-of-war being assimilated to royal courts in the royal archives of Mesopotamia in the second millennium B. C. This suggests the possibility that the scenario of Daniel 1 was a common practice in the ancient world.

[2] This is also a popular view in rabbinic interpretations of Daniel. For more details of this, see J. Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (CBQ Monograph Series 7; Washington, D. C.: CBA, 1978), 53–66; J. J. Collin, Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 135–36, where various rabbinic sources are listed that support this view.

[3] It is also possible that this was intended to prevent the breeding of further generations of Judeans. Many centuries later, the Jewish people would have to endure another forced (and more vicious) re-culturalization, this time under the reign of the Antiochus IV Epiphanes, whose brutality is prophesied in the Book of Daniel (cf. Dan 8 and 10–11) and historically recorded in the deutero-canonical book of 1 Maccabees.

[4] For some of the more famous Akkadian literary works, see Benjamin Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (2 vols; Bethesda, MD; CDL Press, 1993); Stephanie Dalley, Myths of Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others (Oxford; Oxford Press, 1989). Among these Akkadian texts, arguably the most well known was the Epic of Gilgamesh, which has a complex literary development. For a helpful summary of its ancient literary history (including descriptions of its Sumerian sources) and a reliable translation of the Standard Version, see Andrew George, The Epic of Gilgamesh (England: Penguin, 1999); see also Benjamin Foster, The Epic of Gilgamesh: A Norton Critical Edition (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019).

[5] Daniel’s new name, “Beltshazzar,” could possibly mean “protect his life,” where “his” presumably referring to a royal figure; or “protect the life of the prince.” The meaning of the Babylonian names “Shadrach” for Hananiah and “Meshach” for Mishael are unknown. The name “Abed-Nego” for Azariah is generally considered a distortion for “Abed-Nabu,” meaning a “servant of Nabu,” where Nabu is one of the many Babylonian deities.

[6] See T. Longman, Daniel (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 49. See also Joe Sprinkle, Daniel (EBTC; Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020), 58, who observes Daniel applying a proto-scientific method.