Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 1:16

"So the steward took away their dainties, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them pulse." — Daniel 1:16 (ASV)

Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat... - No doubt permanently. The experiment had been satisfactory, and it was inferred that if the course of temperance could be practiced for ten days without unhappy results, there would be safety in allowing it to be continued. We may remark on this:

1. That the experiment was a most important one, not only for the immediate objective at that time, but also for providing lessons of permanent instruction suitable for future times. One such trial was worthwhile, and it was desirable to have one such illustration of the effect of temperance recorded. There are such strong inclinations in our nature toward indulgence; so many temptations are set before the young; so much is alluring in a luxurious lifestyle, and so much conviviality and happiness are supposedly connected with social drinking, that it was good to have a fair trial conducted, with the results recorded for the instruction of future generations.

2. It was especially desirable that an experiment be conducted on the effect of strict abstinence from the use of "wine." Distilled liquors were indeed unknown then. However, alcohol, the intoxicating principle in all strong alcoholic drinks, existed then, as it does now, in wine. It was then, as it is now, of the same nature as when found in other substances.

   The principal danger of intemperance then lay in the use of wine. It may be added that, for a very large group of people of both sexes, the principal danger always lies in the use of wine. Many people, especially young men, are in little or no danger of becoming intemperate from using stronger types of intoxicating drinks. They would never begin with them.

   However, the use of "wine" is considered so respectable by the upper classes of society. It is deemed essential to banquets and, apparently, constitutes a mark of distinction, since ordinarily only the wealthy can afford to indulge in it.

   Its use is widely regarded as proper even for refined and delicate women and is often sanctioned by their participation. It is very difficult to frame a decisive argument against it. So much that is plausible can be said in favor or justification of its use.

   Furthermore, it is often sanctioned by ministers of religion and by influential people in the churches. Consequently, one of the principal dangers for the young arises from the temptation to indulge in wine. Therefore, it was good that there should be a fair trial of the comparative benefit of total abstinence.

   A trial could hardly have been made under better circumstances than in the case before us. Every inducement to indulgence likely to occur was present. There was as much reason to make abstaining a matter of principle as can be found in any circumstances today. The experiment was as triumphant and satisfactory as could be desired.

3. The experiment yielded the following results:

   1. It was complete and satisfactory. More was accomplished in the trial by abstinence than by indulgence. Those who abstained were healthier, more beautiful, and more vigorous than the others. And there was nothing miraculous—nothing occurred in that case which does not occur in similar cases.

      Sir John Chardin remarks, concerning those he had seen in the East, "that the faces of the kechicks (monks) are in fact more rosy and smooth than those of others; and that those who fast much—I mean the Armenians and the Greeks—are, notwithstanding, very beautiful, sparkling with health, with a clear and lively complexion." He also notes the very great abstemiousness of the Brahmins in India, who sleep on the ground, abstain from music and all sorts of pleasant smells, who are very poorly clothed, and are almost always wet, either from going into water or from rain. "Yet," he says, "I have also seen many of them very handsome and healthy." (Harmer’s "Observations," vol. 2, pp. 112-113).

   2. The experiment has often been conducted, and with equal success, in modern times, especially since the beginning of the temperance reformation. An opportunity has been provided to furnish the most decisive proofs of the effects of temperance in contrast with indulgence in wine and other intoxicating drinks. This experiment has been conducted on a wide scale, and with the same result. It is demonstrated, as in Daniel’s case, that more of what people usually anxiously seek, and what is desirable to obtain, will be secured by abstinence than can be by indulgence.

      1. There will be more beauty in personal appearance. Indulgence in intoxicating drinks leaves its traces on the face—the skin, the eyes, the nose, the whole expression—as God meant it should. See the notes at Daniel 1:15. No one who indulges freely in intoxicating drinks can hope to retain beauty of complexion or face.

      2. More clearness of mind and intellectual vigor can be secured by abstinence than by indulgence. It is true that, as was often the case with Byron and Burns, stimulating drinks may excite the mind to brilliant temporary efforts. However, the effect soon ceases, and the mind compensates for its overworked powers by sinking below its proper level, just as it had been excited above it.

         It will demand a penalty in exhausted energies and in the incapacity for even its usual efforts. Unless the exhausting stimulus is applied again, it cannot rise even to its usual level. When applied often, the mind is stripped of all its elasticity and vigor; the physical frame loses its power to endure the excitement; the light of genius is extinguished, and the body sinks to the grave.

         Anyone who wishes to make the most of their mind in the long run, whatever genius they may possess, will be a temperate person. Their powers will be uniformly retained at a higher level, and they will maintain their balance and vigor longer.

      3. The same is true for everything that requires physical vigor. The Roman soldier, who carried his eagle around the world and braved the dangers of every climate—equally bold, vigorous, hardy, and daring amidst polar snows and the burning sands of the equator—was a stranger to intoxicating drinks. He was allowed only vinegar and water, and his extraordinary vigor was the result of the most abstemious diet. The wrestlers in the Olympic and Isthmian games, who did as much to give suppleness, vigor, and beauty to the body as could be done by the most careful training, abstained from wine and all that would enervate.

         Since the temperance reformation began in this land, the experiment has been conducted in every way possible. It has been settled that a person will do more work, and do it better; that they can bear more fatigue, travel farther, and better endure the severity of cold in winter and of toil in the heat of summer, by strict temperance, than if they indulge in intoxicating drinks.

         Never has the result of an experiment been more uniform than this one. Never has there been a case where the testimony of those who have witnessed it was more decided and harmonious. Never was there a question regarding the effect of a certain course on health in which the testimony of physicians has been more uniform. And never has there been a question regarding the amount of labor a person could do on which the testimony of respectable farmers, master mechanics, and overseers of public works could be more decided.

      4. The full force of these remarks about temperance in general applies to the use of "wine." It was with respect to "wine" that the experiment before us was conducted, and this is what gives it, to a great degree, its value and importance. Distilled spirits were unknown then, but it was important that a fair experiment be conducted on the effect of abstinence from wine.

         The great danger of intemperance, for the world at large, has been, and still is, from the use of wine. This danger particularly affects the upper classes in society and young men. In a great majority of instances, it is by the use of wine that the peril begins and the habit of drinking is formed.

         Let it also be remembered that the intoxicating principle is the same in wine as in any other drink that produces intemperance. It is alcohol—precisely the same substance, whether driven off by heat from wine, beer, or cider and condensed by distillation, or whether it remains in these liquids without being distilled. It is neither more nor less intoxicating in one form than in the other. It is only more condensed and concentrated in one case than in the other, better capable of preservation, and more convenient for commercial purposes.

         Therefore, every principle that applies to the temperance cause at all also applies to the use of "wine." Every consideration derived from health, beauty, vigor, length of life, reputation, property, or salvation that should induce a young man to abstain from strong alcoholic drinks at all should induce him to abstain, as Daniel did, from the use of wine.