THE DANIEL DIET (DANIEL 1:8-17)

One fad diet you may be aware of is known under various names: the Daniel Fast, Bible Diet, or Daniel Diet. The name comes from an incident described in Daniel 1:8-17 in which the young Jewish captive and his three friends are chosen, among others, to be trained for three years for an eventual position of responsibility in the Babylonian empire. The only problem is that Daniel feels the rich food and wine they are to be served would be “defiling.” So he eventually convinces the palace master to restrict their diets and then compare their health with those students being fed the standard palace food. At the end of this time, it is noted that “they appeared better and fatter than all the young men who had been eating the royal rations.” Thus, they were permitted to continue with their restricted diet for the remainder of their three-year period.

Comparing this narrative with claims on the internet, we immediately see several departures from what we read in Daniel. For example, some treat his diet as a guide to lifelong eating and drinking while others feel it should be followed for a limited time period only, usually no longer than one month in duration. In fact, it is fairly likely that Daniel himself only adopted this diet for this initial training period in his life. We know this from Daniel 10:2-3 much later during the Persian reign: “At that time I, Daniel, had been mourning for three weeks. I had eaten no rich food; no meat or wine had entered my mouth.” Obviously in all the decades between his training as a youth and this time much later, Daniel had been eating rich food and meat as well as drinking wine.

That certainly casts doubts on the admonition of Ellen White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, to her followers that “a strict compliance with the requirements of God is beneficial to the health of body and mind.” And it certainly does not support a claim on the internet stating, “The Bible Diet is a health plan given to us from God that delivers all necessary nutrients we need to live the most abundant life possible.”

There are several Hebrew words appearing in these two passages which must first be explained a little. For example, one interesting detail omitted by all the proponents of the Daniel Diet or Daniel Fast is that during both these time periods it is said that Daniel did not “anoint” himself at all. John Oswalt explains that this means he refrained from putting oil on his body, usually done after washing. “Failure to use oil in this way was associated with distress of some sort.” In the case of Daniel, he says that it is “mental anguish.” Does that mean that we should only resort to this diet when we are in distress? Or is it the diet itself which causes the distress?

Then there is the diet book available through Amazon titled: “The Daniel Fast for Weight Loss: A Biblical Approach for Losing Weight and Keeping It Off.” However, this is seems to be in direct contradiction to the statement in Daniel 1:15 that those sticking to this diet were actually “sleeker” (i.e. “fatter”--NRSV) than their fellow students who followed a much higher calorie diet. “The adjective bari, fattened, is used across the range of OT literature to express the full-formed quality of the noun it qualifies.” (Way) Millard adds that “fatness indicates sufficiency and prosperity throughout the OT.” It should be noted that the word can be translated as fat (such as the overly obese King Eglon in Judges 3:17), healthy, better nourished, or strong.

Finally, there is the issue of the exact composition of this diet. It excludes meats and is limited to zer'onim, a Hebrew word appearing only here in the Old Testament. Hamilton explains that it means seeds or vegetables grown from seeds. However, some of the “Daniel diets” touted on the internet are really more strict than these requirements and limit the acceptable foods to green vegetables and/or exclude all bread products.

At this point, I decided to see what Bible scholars had to say regarding the “Daniel Diet” and why Daniel felt he had to resort to it. One of the main clues we are given in the Bible is the Hebrew verb root g'l found in Daniel 1:8 and generally translated as “defile.” Averbeck notes that in the Dead Sea scrolls it referred to a number of different ways that people and objects could be defiled. The Septuagint translates g'l usually by the Greek word lisgo. This root appears only once in the New Testament in Acts 15:20 regarding the abstinence from food sacrificed to idols. Chisholm says, “It is not entirely clear why Daniel viewed the king's food and wine as ritually defiling. Various reasons have been suggested.” And Tremper Longman states, “The question is not easy to answer with confidence.”

Goldingay summarizes no less than seven competing explanations, given below with comments by him and others regarding their relative likelihood:

1. The food and drink might have been offered to idols

Hartman and DiLella think that “perhaps they thought that part of the wine had been poured out in libation to pagan gods and thus became ritually unclean for Jews.” But Goldingay counters that even the “permissible” vegetables and flour which Daniel ate could have been offered to idols.

2. The palace would be unlikely to follow strict kosher laws

Tomasino and others adopt this explanation as the most likely. He states, “The display of their superior health vis-a-vis their peers demonstrated that adherence to the Jewish law had not only spiritual benefits, but earthly benefits as well.”

Additionally, Goldingay points to an OT event occurring “in a similar context at the beginning of the exile in Babylon [when] Ezekiel adopts as his diet a loaf of grains and vegetables, and water. He, too, is under pressure to eat food that is ritually unclean – in his case, through the way he was to cook it (Ezek 4:9-17).”

But, as several commentators note, the kosher laws do not provide a reason for rejecting wine as drink. Therefore it certainly can't be the entire story.

3. Eating of rich food would not be consistent with mourning

This explanation does fit Daniel 10:2-3, but not necessarily the chapter 1 setting.

4. Daniel wished to identify with the peasant class rather than adopt royal food

This is somewhat similar to reasons #3 and 5.

5. Abstention was preparation for receiving divine revelations

One internet site says, “The goal of the fast is not to be healthier or to lose weight, but draw closer to God. It's meant as a cleansing to enhance spiritual health through simplifying your diet.” That latter intent may be true in Daniel's case in Daniel 10:2-3. However, that purpose is not even mentioned in chapter 1, and the only effect their guard notices is their improved physical and mental well-being.

6. Accepting the king's food would indicate Daniel's dependence on him

The major reasons for rejecting this possibility are that (1) accepting any food at all from the king indicates his dependence on the king for provision and (2) agreeing to be one of the king's courtiers (which Daniel does) similarly indicates a covenant relationship to exist between the two parties. Both Goldingay and Longman bring up this objection.

7. “Pagan food and drink may simply epitomize the pagan uncleanness associated with exile (cf. Isa 52:11)”

Longman points out that “in their threats and warnings, the preexilic prophets implied that it was impossible, by definition...to keep kosher in the land of captivity.”

A.-J. Levine appeals to at least three of the above reasons as possibilities. According to her, the reference to “defiling” in Daniel 1:8 refers to a departure in the kosher diet described in Leviticus 11. She notes that “in the [later] postexilic period, diet was a major indication of Jewish identity [explanation #2]...Leviticus does not forbid wine; perhaps Daniel's refusal of food and wine symbolizes a refusal to feast when Israel is in exile. [explanation # 3] However, Hos 9:3-4 (also Ezek 4:13) suggests Gentile food is impure [explanation #7].” She also notes Amos 7:17 in this last context.

Conversely, Way is torn between explanations #3 and 5.

Unfortunately every one of the explanations above falls on its face due to one simple consideration: they all fail to give a reason why Daniel departed from this strict diet for most of the decades during which he was in exile. As Longman says, “We should add that if Daniel's motivations in chapter 1 were to keep kosher, avoid idolatrous defilements or political entanglement, then we should question why his eating habits changed later in life.”

Before even reading all of these commentaries, I had settled on what I felt was the best way to understand Daniel 1:8-17, and I was pleased to see that Longman also identified it as his favored explanation.

8. It was a miraculous test of God's power even in a pagan land

As Longman states, “Their robust appearance, usually attained by a rich fare of meats and wine, is miraculously achieved through a diet of vegetables. Only God could have done it.” After all, is it really likely that after only ten days on a different diet there would have been any discernible difference between the four Jews and the other students unless miraculous elements were at play?

But even within this last explanation, there are actually two possible sub-sets depending on whom is to be impressed by the miracle, on-lookers or those actually involved. My own feeling is that it could be both at the same time.

8a. It was a sign to others

We are told in the text that this was certainly true in that the palace master was impressed with their physical and mental condition when compared to the other students.

8b. It was a sign to Daniel and his friends

This is Longman's personal feeling. He says, “Its purpose was to keep the four pious Judeans from believing that their physical appearance (and by consequence, perhaps, their intellectual gifts) were the gift of the Babylonian culture.”

As a research scientist, I know from sad experience that the result of an experiment may be meaningless unless one carries out a control run under comparable conditions without the variable one is testing. But in most of the biblical “experiments” which are described, the conditions actually go beyond this requirement and are purposely stacked against the test to the point where only supernatural involvement provides an explanation for a successful result. Let me explain.

In I Kings 18 the famous contest between Elijah and the followers of Baal takes place on Mt. Carmel. It is an experiment posed by the prophet in which each party sets up an animal offering on an altar and prays to his own god to devour the offering with fire. Thus, the only variable is the deity being addressed. But Elijah stacks the deck against his probability of success by dousing the altar with water, making it even harder to consume his offering than that of the control group. Of course, only Elijah's offering is burnt up, along with the water and the altar itself. I would class this as a type 8a miracle in that the main audience consisted of the vacillating Israelites who didn't know which god to follow.

Next are two back-to-back miracles recorded in Judges 6-7 involving Gideon and his troops. As you recall, Gideon is dubious about following God's instruction to attack the Midianites, and so he sets up a test for God in which he places a wool fleece on the ground and asks Him to cause the night dew to wet the fleece without dampening the ground around it. But the results of that test aren't conclusive enough for Gideon, and so he then requests that during the following night, the dew wet the ground but not the fleece. Only after that point does he agree to follow God's instructions. I would certainly class this as a type 8b miracle in that the sole audience for God's actions was Gideon himself.

In Judges 7, the actual battle with the Midianites is described. But before it begins, God tells Gideon, “The troops with you are to numerous for me to deliver the Midianites into their hand. Israel would only take the credit away from me, saying 'My own hand has delivered me.'” Thus, God pares down the army of 32,000 to only 300 before defeating the enemy. I see here another clear example of explanation #8b in which both Gideon and his troops were the intended audience for God's actions.