The motive here, then, is distinctly religious.  Common life was so woven in with idolatrous worship that every meal was in some sense a sacrifice.  Therefore ‘Touch not, taste not, handle not,’ was the inevitable dictate for a devout heart.  Daniel seems to have been the moving spirit; but as is generally the case, he was able to infuse his own strong convictions into his companions, and the four of them held together in their protest.  The great lesson from the incident is that religion should regulate the smallest details of life, and that it is not narrow over-scrupulousness, but fidelity to the highest duty, when a man sets his foot down about any small matter, and says, ’No, I dare not do it, little as it is, and pleasant as it might be to sense, because I should thereby be mixed up in a practical denial of my God.’  ’So did not I, because of the fear of God’ (Neh. v. 15), is a motto which will require from many a young man abstinence from many things which it would be much easier to accept.

II.  This young confessor was as prudent as he was brave; and the story goes on to show how wisely he played his part, and how willing he was to accept all working compromises which might smooth his way.  He did not at all want to pose as a martyr, and had no pleasure in making a noise.  The favour which he had won with the high officer who looked after the lads before their formal examination (graduation we might call it), is set down in the narrative to the divine favour; but that favour worked by means, and no doubt the lad had done his part to win the important good opinion of his superior.  The more firm is our determination to take no step beyond the line of duty, the more conciliatory we should be.  But many people seem to think that heroism is shown by rudeness, and that if we are afraid that we shall some time have to say ‘No’ very emphatically, we should prepare for it by a great many preliminary and unnecessary negatives.  The very stern need for parting company, when conscience points one way and companions another, is a reason for keeping cordially together whenever we can.

‘The prince of the eunuchs’ made a very reasonable objection.  He had been appointed to see after the health of the lads, and had ample means at his disposal; and if they lost their health in this chase after what he could only think a superstitious fad, the despot whom he served would think nothing of making him answer with his head.  His fear gives a striking side-light as to the conditions of service in such a court, where no man’s head was firm between his shoulders.  Why should the prince of the eunuchs have supposed that the diet asked for would not nourish the lads?  It was that of the bulk of men everywhere, and he had only to go out into the streets or the nearest barrack in Babylon to see what thews and muscles could be nurtured on vegetable diet and water.  But whatever the want of ground in his objection, it was enough that he made it.  Note that he puts it entirely on possible harmful results to himself, and that silences Daniel, who had no right to ask another to run his head into the noose, into which he was ready to put his own, if necessary.  Martyrs by proxy, who have such strong convictions that they think it somebody else’s duty to run risk for them, are by no means unknown.