John Calvin Commentary Daniel 1:14-15

"So he hearkened unto them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king`s dainties." — Daniel 1:14-15 (ASV)

Now this surprising event took place: Daniel contracted neither leanness nor weakness from that simple food, but his face was as shining as if he had continued to eat most richly. From this we understand, as I have already said, that he was divinely compelled to persist firmly in his own plan and not to pollute himself with the royal diet.

God, therefore, showed by the outcome that He had guided Daniel and his companions in their prayer and proposal. It is clear enough that there is no inherent power in bread to nourish us, for we are nourished by God’s secret blessing. As Moses says, Man lives not by bread alone (Deuteronomy 8:3), implying that the bread itself does not impart strength to people, for the bread has no life in it. How then can it give us life?

Since bread possesses no power by itself, we are nourished by the word of God. Because God has determined that our life shall be sustained by nourishment, He has imbued the bread with its nourishing power. Meanwhile, however, we ought to consider our life sustained not by bread or any other food, but by the secret blessing of God.

For Moses does not speak here of either doctrine or spiritual life, but says our bodily life is cherished by God’s favor, who has imbued bread and other food with their particular properties. This, at least, is certain: whatever food we eat, we are nourished and sustained by God’s gracious power.

But the example Daniel mentions here was unique. Therefore, God, as I have said, shows by the event how Daniel and his companions could not remain pure and spotless except by being content with pulse and water. For our improvement, we must observe that we should be very careful not to become slaves to our appetite, and thus be drawn away from our duty, from obedience, and from the fear of God, when we ought to live sparingly and be free from all luxuries.

We see today how many feel it is a very great burden if they cannot indulge at the tables of the rich, which are filled with an abundance and variety of food. Others are so hardened in the enjoyment of luxuries that they cannot be content with moderation. Consequently, they are always wallowing in their own indulgence, being quite unable to renounce the delights of the palate.

But Daniel sufficiently shows us that not only when God brings us to a state of need, but also when, if necessary, all indulgences must be voluntarily rejected. Indeed, as we saw yesterday, Daniel does not attach any virtue to abstinence from one kind of food or another. All we have learned until now has no other object than to teach him to guard against approaching danger, to avoid adopting the morals of a foreign nation, and so to conduct himself in Babylon as not to forget that he was a son of Abraham.

Still, it was necessary to renounce the luxuries of the court. Although delicate foods were provided, he rejected them voluntarily, since, as we have seen, it would be deadly pollution—not in itself, but in its consequences. Thus Moses, when he fled from Egypt, entered a new life far different from his former one; for he had lived luxuriously and honorably in the king’s palace, as if he had been the king’s grandson. But he lived sparingly in the desert afterwards and obtained his support by very toilsome labor. He preferred, says the Apostle, the cross of Christ to the riches of Egypt (Hebrews 11:26). Why? Because he could not be esteemed an Egyptian and also retain the favor promised to the sons of Abraham. To have remained in the king’s palace, attempting to reconcile his heritage with Egyptian life, would have itself been a form of self-denial.

We may take this as a true test of our frugality and temperance: if we are able to satisfy our appetite when God compels us to endure poverty and want; indeed, if we can reject the delicacies that are at hand but tend to our destruction. For it would be very trivial to subsist entirely on pulse and water, as greater intemperance sometimes displays itself in eating pulse than in the best and most delicate dishes.

If anyone in weak health desires pulse and other such food that is harmful, he will surely be condemned for intemperance. But if he eats a nourishing diet, as they say, and thus sustains himself, frugality will have its praise. If anyone, through a craving for water and being too gluttonous, rejects wine, this, as we well know, would not be praiseworthy. Therefore, we should not focus solely on this kind of food to understand the greatness of Daniel’s virtue.

Instead, we ought always to direct our minds to the object of his plan: namely, what he wished and what was in his power. He aimed to live under the rule of the king of Babylon in such a way that his whole condition should be distinct from that of the nation at large, and never to forget himself as an Israelite. Unless there had been this great difference, Daniel would have been unable to sharpen himself, to shake off his lethargy, or to rouse himself from it. Daniel necessarily kept before his mind a clear and remarkable distinction that separated him from the Chaldeans; he desired pulse and water, seeking to avoid the harmful effects of rich living.

Lastly, this passage teaches us that although we should find nothing but the roots and leaves of trees, and even if the earth itself should deny us the smallest blade of grass, yet God by His blessing can make us healthy and active no less than those who abound in every comfort.

God’s generosity, however, is never to be despised when He nourishes us with bread and wine and other food. For Paul lists, among things worthy of praise, knowing how to experience both abundance and poverty (Philippians 4:12). Therefore, when God bountifully offers us both meat and drink, we may soberly and frugally drink wine and eat savory food. But when He takes away from us bread and water, so that we suffer from famine, we shall find His blessing sufficient for us instead of all nourishment.

For we see that Daniel and his companions were ruddy and plump, and even remarkably robust, by eating nothing but pulse. How could this happen, unless the Lord—who nourished His people in the desert on manna alone when other food was lacking (Exodus 16:4)—even today turns our food into manna, food which might otherwise be harmful to us?

If anyone asks the medical profession whether pulse and other leguminous plants are wholesome, they will tell us they are very harmful, since they know them to be so. But at the same time, when we have no choice of foods and cannot obtain what would contribute most to our health, if we are content with herbs and roots, the Lord, as I have said, can nourish us no less than if He put before us a table well supplied with every delicacy.

Temperance does not exist in the food itself, but in the palate. We are equally intemperate if pleasure entices us to gratify our appetite on inferior food; likewise, we may remain perfectly temperate though eating the best diet. We must form the same opinion about the properties of various foods: they do not support us by their own inherent qualities, but by God’s blessing, as He sees fit.

We sometimes see the children of the rich very emaciated, although they may receive the greatest attention. We also see the children of country people most beautiful in form, ruddy in countenance, and healthy in condition; and yet they eat any kind of food, and sometimes what is harmful.

But although they are deprived of tasty sauces, God gives them His blessing. Their unripe fruit, pork, lard, and even herbs, which seem most unhealthy, become more nourishing than if these people abounded in every delicacy. This, therefore, must be noted in the words of Daniel.