Living in the Image of God M05S17
Early during captivity in Babylon, Daniel negotiated an alternative diet of vegetables and water to replace a daily ration of food and wine ordered by King Nebuchadnezzar. The diet ordered by the king presented a conflict for Daniel and his compatriots. Accept the diet and violate their relationship with God or disobey the king by refusing the diet. Through stepwise negotiation, Daniel won an agreement that enabled him and compatriots to stay obedient to the king without accepting the diet ordered by the king. They completed their training and entered the king’s service. The principles he applied in the mediation are consistent with principles based on the mediation in Ephesus. However, application of the principles depends on the facts and circumstances of each specific dispute. Daniel built understanding of the facts and circumstances through earlier negotiation and used the understanding in subsequent negotiation.
This study is the second of a two-part bible study for understanding the principles of Christian mediation—for resolving single-party or multi-party disputes. The first study discusses conflict resolution by a city clerk in Ephesus. He diffused a riot instigated by fear of potential impact of the Gospel on business interests. The current study discusses conflict resolution by Daniel, between commitment to God and obedience to King Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniel and his compatriots were living in Babylon as captives under King Nebuchadnezzar, who had conquered Judah, looted the Jerusalem temple, and took selected people captive. In Babylon, he placed the captives in training to prepare them for the king’s service. By an order of the king, the trainees were assigned a diet based on daily ration of food and wine from the king’s table.
However, the assigned diet was problematic for Daniel and his compatriots, because food and wine from the king’s table would likely have passed through Babylonian religious rites. They would violate their relationship with God by consuming such food and wine. In contrast, refusing the diet would violate the king’s order. Therefore, the diet presented a single-party conflict to Daniel and his compatriots. Accept the diet and violate their relationship with God or disobey the king by refusing the diet.
Daniel negotiated a peaceful resolution accepted by all. Through stepwise negotiation, he won an agreement that enabled him and compatriots to stay obedient to the king without accepting the diet ordered by the king.
The discussion shows that mediation principles based on the conflict resolution by Daniel are consistent with principles based on the mediation in Ephesus. However, application of the principles depends on the facts and circumstances of each specific dispute.
Daniel and Compatriots in Captivity
The account of Daniel begins with the conquer of Judah by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. He conquered Judah, looted the Jerusalem temple, and took Daniel and others captive [Daniel 1:1–2]: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.”
Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah were taken to Babylon as captives of King Nebuchadnezzar; given new names; and placed in training to prepare them for the king’s service.
Conflict Regarding Diet
By an order of the king, the trainees were assigned a diet based on daily ration of food and wine from the king’s table [Daniel 1:5]: “The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service.”
The assigned diet was problematic for Daniel and his compatriots, because food and wine from the king’s table would likely have passed through Babylonian religious rites. They would violate their relationship with God by consuming such food or wine. In contrast, they would violate the king’s order if they refused the diet. Therefore, the diet presented a single-party conflict to Daniel and his compatriots. Accept the diet and violate their relationship with God or disobey the king by refusing the diet.
They chose to obey God—they would not accept the king’s diet because it would violate their commitment to worship God: “But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine…” [Daniel 1:8]. Also, they knew they could not disobey the king. Therefore, they needed to find a way to obey the king but reject the diet ordered by the king. This was a single-party conflict—Daniel and compatriots versus themselves.
Diet Negotiation
Daniel was apparently appointed to lead the negotiation toward finding a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The bible does not state that he was appointed but shows he took leadership. He sought to negotiate for a peaceful resolution with the chief of court officials (i.e., Ashpenaz) that the king appointed in charge of the trainees. He requested for an exemption from the diet: “But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way” [Daniel 1:8].
The chief declined the request. However, he was kind to Daniel and provided an explanation for declining the request. His explanation included key information that Daniel needed to formulate the next step of the negotiation. The chief explained that the king assigned the diet to maintain a health standard among the trainees. The health of the trainees would be monitored for the king based on their general appearance [Daniel 1:10]: “but the official told Daniel, ‘I am afraid of my lord the king, who has assigned your food and drink. Why should he see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you.’”
Understanding Based on Negotiation
Daniel learned two key facts through the information provided by the chief official. First, he understood the king’s purpose for assigning the diet. He wanted the trainees to be healthy and well-nourished. Therefore, an alternative diet would satisfy the king if the trainees’ health and appearance were satisfactory to him. Second, he learned that a lower-level official had the authority to make such a diet substitution. The lower-level official was closer to Daniel: he was a guard that the chief appointed to be directly in charge of Daniel and his compatriots.
Second Step of Negotiation
Daniel proposed a substitute diet to the guard and asked for a ten-day trial of the substitute diet [Daniel 1:11–13]: “Daniel then said to the guard whom the chief official had appointed over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, ‘Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.’”
The guard accepted Daniel’s proposal. Daniel and his compatriots were granted a trial period on their chosen substitute diet. The substitute diet was successful and was confirmed as the diet for Daniel and his compatriots [Daniel 1:15–16]: “At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.”
They completed the training program and were found better prepared than others. They were placed into the king’s service: “In every matter of wisdom and understanding about which the king questioned them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters in his whole kingdom” [Daniel 1:20].
Principles of Mediation in Daniel’s Negotiations
To understand Daniel’s approach to resolving the conflict, recognize that he took on the responsibility of a mediator in the single-party conflict. A mediator should understand the dispute, disputants, and stakeholders. Daniel understood the dispute and disputants as discussed earlier. Additionally, he understood that the king was the only stakeholder. The king was interested in the trainees’ health, which would be monitored based on their physical appearance. The king’s chief official was general overseer of the trainees on behalf of the king. He appointed a guard as specific overseer of Daniel and his compatriots.
Also, a mediator should understand the principles of mediation (discussed previously in Mediation Example from Ephesus). The first principle is that mediation should be motivated by seeking to make peace among the disputants. Daniel was motivated to find a peaceful resolution: he needed to find a way for him and his compatriots to obey the king without accepting the diet assigned by the king. He sought a negotiated settlement: first with the king’s chief official and, second, with the guard in charge of him and his compatriots.
The second principle is that the mediator should be acceptable to all disputants. Daniel took leadership to represent himself and his compatriots. His appointment as leader is not discussed explicitly in the bible but appears to follow leadership principles discussed in earlier studies. He clearly was accepted as leader by his compatriots. Also, the king’s officials talked with him because they accepted him as representing himself and his compatriots.
The third principle is that the mediator should understand the relevant facts and circumstances. Also, the mediator should be able to explain the facts and circumstances clearly, respectfully, sincerely, and without emotion. Daniel understood which official had authority for each decision needed. He used information from the chief official to update his understanding of the facts and circumstances and plan subsequent negotiation.
The principles that Daniel applied in the mediation are consistent with principles based on the mediation in Ephesus. However, the mediation by Daniel shows that the specific approach to applying the principles of Christian mediation could vary, depending on the facts and circumstances of a specific dispute. A key aspect of Daniel’s mediation is that he built his understanding of the facts and circumstances through the negotiation and used the understanding to plan subsequent negotiation.
Summary of What We Learned
Early during captivity in Babylon, Daniel negotiated an alternative diet of vegetables and water to replace a daily ration of food and wine ordered by King Nebuchadnezzar. The diet ordered by the king presented a single-party conflict to Daniel and his compatriots. Accept the diet and violate their relationship with God or disobey the king by refusing the diet.
Daniel negotiated a peaceful resolution accepted by all. Through stepwise negotiation, he won an agreement that enabled him and compatriots to stay obedient to the king without accepting the diet ordered by the king. His proposed substitute diet of vegetables and water was tried and accepted. He and his compatriots completed their training and entered the king’s service.
The principles that Daniel applied in the mediation are consistent with principles based on the mediation in Ephesus. However, the specific approach for applying the principles could vary, depending on the facts and circumstances of a dispute. Daniel built his understanding of the facts and circumstances through earlier negotiation and used the understanding in subsequent negotiation.