Deeper Reflection
Daniel was firm in his heart that he would not be spiritually defiled by eating “the king’s choice food” (v.8). However, in his situation, for him to live out his commitment to God would lead to a complication: The endangering of another person’s life and an unbeliever’s life at that. Should the chief official permit Daniel to be exempted from eating “the king’s choice food” and it resulted in his appearance “looking more haggard” than the other youths in the Babylonisation programme, Daniel would “make” him “forfeit” his “head to the king” (v.10). It is one thing for Daniel to risk his own life in his radical discipleship, but it is a different matter altogether putting another person’s life at risk. We can trust in God to take care of our lives in such a discipleship situation, but we are presumptuous in “trusting in God” to be responsible for others whose lives are put at risk because of our radical discipleship. Are we to make others pay the cost of our discipleship? Radical discipleship is not reckless. Daniel was sensitive to the chief official, saying “I am afraid of my lord the king” (v.10). He was considerate toward him: He did not want to put his life at risk because of his commitment to God. True commitment to God is marked by loving consideration for people. And Daniel acted with wisdom. He asked to be tested for ten days with a vegetarian diet (v.12). Was this proposal Daniel’s idea or was it from God, like Nehemiah – “What God had put in my heart” (Neh 2:12)?