It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred twenty local governors, who should be throughout the whole kingdom; and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one; that these local governors might give account to them, and that the king should suffer no loss. Then this Daniel was distinguished above the presidents and the local governors, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.
Then the presidents and the local governors sought to find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion or fault, because he was faithful. There wasn’t any error or fault found in him. Then these men said, “We won’t find any occasion against this Daniel, unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God.”
Then these presidents and local governors assembled together to the king, and said this to him, “King Darius, live forever! All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the local governors, the counselors and the governors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a strong decree, that whoever asks a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of you, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which doesn’t alter.” Therefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 As to the translation, some translate the last clause…
As to the translation, some translate the last clause of the second verse, “That the king should not have any trouble;” but since נזק, nezek, signifies “to suffer loss,” I willingly adopt this sense; because the king did not escape trouble, through a desire for ease, as he might have done, being an old man, but he willingly managed his own affairs, and committed the care of them to three men, lest anything should be lost through passing through too many hands. For experience shews us how confusion is caused by a multitude. If there had been only there an hundred and twenty governors of provinces, many inconveniences must have happened, and much loss would have occurred; hence the king placed three prefects over these hundred and twenty.
Here again we may perceive how God cared for his Prophet, not so much for any private reason or through private respect, as by his aid the wretched captives and exiles should be benefited. God wished to stretch forth his hand to the Jews by means of Daniel. And we may deservedly call him God’s hand in sustaining the Jews. The Persians, being barbarians, were not naturally more merciful than others; hence God interposed his servant Daniel to succor them. We must notice, in the context of this history, how Daniel alone was chosen by Darius one of these three superior officers. He was the third in rank under king Belshazzar, although for a moment, yet it might occasion envy under the new king that so great an honor was conferred upon him. Very probably Darius was informed of the previous predictions of Daniel; how the hand appeared upon the wall, how he interpreted the writing, and became a heaven-sent messenger to denounce destruction on king Belshazzar. For unless this rumor held reached Darius, Daniel would never have obtained so much authority under him. His own army abounded in numbers, and we know how every conqueror is surrounded in war by many dependents, all of whom wish to share in the spoil. Darius, therefore, would never have noticed a stranger and a captive, and admitted him to such great honor and power, unless he had understood him to be a known Prophet of God, and also a herald in denouncing destruction against the Babylonish monarchy. Thus we gather how providential it was for him to be among the first satraps, and even third in the kingdom, as this brought him more quickly under the notice of Darius. For if Daniel had been cast down by king Belshazzar he would have remained at home in concealment; but when he appeared clothed in royal apparel, the king inquired who he was? He heard the means of his arriving at so high an honor; hence he acknowledged him as God’s Prophet, and appointed him one of the three prefects. Here also God’s providence is again set before us, not only in preserving his servant in safety, but in providing for the safety of the whole Church, lest the Jews should be still more oppressed by the change of masters. But a temptation is afterwards inflicted, by which the holy Prophet and the whole people were severely tried; for the Prophet says:
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 9 Read Esther 1:1.
Read Esther 1:1.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–9 Dan 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the…
Dan 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;
Ver. 1. It pleased Darius.] Chald., Pulchrum fuit coram Dario. Order, he knew, must be observed, or the kingdom could not continue; himself also was old, and needed assistants. It was honour and work enough for him illos iudicare quos constituit iudices aliorum to appoint others to judge also - as Petr. Blesensis saith that our Henry II did - to judge those whom he had made judges of others. The great Turk doth so to this day, whence few of his grandees, his viziers especially, or chief officers, die in their beds.
Read full note →
An hundred and twenty princes.] For his one hundred and twenty provinces, which afterward came to be one hundred and twenty-seven. {Est 1:1} Monarchs will ever be adding.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv2, 3, 4, 5, 9 Of whom Daniel was first: this was Belshazzar’s promise…
Of whom Daniel was first: this was Belshazzar’s promise to Daniel, he should be the third ruler in the kingdom, Dan 5:7,16,29; the first was general of the army, the second president of the palace, the third of the land and provinces.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 6 We are told concerning Daniel,
We are told concerning Daniel,
I. What a great man he was. When Darius, upon his accession to the crown of Babylon by conquest, new-modelled the government, he made Daniel prime-minister of state, set him at the helm, and made him first commissioner both of the treasury and of the great seal. Darius's dominion was very large; all he got by his conquests and acquests was that he had so many more countries to take care of; no more can be expected from himself than what one man can do, and therefore others must be employed under him. He set over the kingdom 120 princes (Dan 6:1), and appointed them their districts, in which they were to administer justice, preserve the public peace, and levy the king's revenue. Note, Inferior magistrates are ministers of God to us for good as well as the sovereign; and therefore we must submit ourselves both to the king as supreme and to the governors that are constituted and commissioned by him, Pe1 2:13, Pe1 2:14. Over these princes there was a triumvirate, or three presidents, who were to take and state the public accounts, to receive appeals from the princes, or complaints against them in case of mal-administration, that the king should have no damage (Dan 6:2), that he should not sustain loss in his revenue and that the power he delegated to the princes might not be abused to the oppression of the subject, for by that the king (whether he thinks so or no) receives real damage, both as it alienates the affections of his people from him and as it provokes the displeasure of his God against him. Of these three Daniel was chief, because he was found to go beyond them all in all manner of princely qualifications. He was preferred above the presidents and princes (Dan 6:3), and so wonderfully well pleased the king was with his management that he thought to set him over the whole realm, and let him place and displace at his pleasure. Now, 1. We must take notice of it to the praise of Darius that he would prefer a man thus purely for his personal merit, and his fitness for business; and those sovereigns that would be well served must go by that rule. Daniel had been a great man in the kingdom that was conquered, and for that reason, one would think, should have been looked upon as an enemy, and as such imprisoned or banished. He was a native of a foreign kingdom, and a ruined one, and upon that account might have been despised as a stranger and captive. But, Darius, it seems, was very quick-sighted in judging of men's capacities, and was soon aware that this Daniel had something extraordinary in him, and therefore, though no doubt he had creatures of his own, not a few, that expected preferment in this newly-conquered kingdom, and were gaping for it, and those that had been long his confidants would depend upon it that they should be now his presidents, yet so well did he consult the public welfare that, finding Daniel to excel them all in prudence and virtue, and probably having heard of his being divinely inspired, he made him his right hand. 2. We must take notice of it, to the glory of God, that, though Daniel was now very old (it was above seventy years since he was brought a captive to Babylon), yet he was as able as ever for business both in body and mind, and that he who had continued faithful to his religion through all the temptations of the foregoing reigns in a new government was as much respected as ever. He kept in by being an oak, not by being a willow, by a constancy in virtue, not by a pliableness to vice. Such honesty is the best policy, for it secures a reputation; and those who thus honour God he will honour.
Read full note →
II. What a good man he was: An excellent spirit was in him, Dan 6:3. And he was faithful to every trust, dealt fairly between the sovereign and the subject, and took care that neither should be wronged, so that there was no error, or fault, to be found in him, Dan 6:4. He was not only not chargeable with any treachery or dishonesty, but not even with any mistake or indiscretion. He never made any blunder, nor had any occasion to plead inadvertency or forgetfulness for his excuse. This is recorded for an example to all that are in places of public trust to approve themselves both careful and conscientious, that they may be free, not only from fault, but from error, not only from crime, but from mistake.
III. What ill-will was borne him, both for his greatness and for his goodness. The presidents and princes envied him because he was advanced above them, and probably hated him because he had a watchful eye upon them and took care they should not wrong the government to enrich themselves. See here, 1. The cause of envy, and that is every thing that is good. Solomon complains of it as a vexation that for every right work a man is envied of his neighbour (Ecc 4:4), that the better a man is the worse he is thought of by his rivals. Daniel is envied because he has a more excellent spirit than his neighbours. 2. The effect of envy, and that is every thing that is bad. Those that envied Daniel sought no less than his ruin. His disgrace would not serve them; it was his death that they desired. Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous, but who can stand before envy? Pro 27:4. Daniel's enemies set spies upon him, to observe him in the management of his place; they sought to find occasion against him, something on which to ground an accusation concerning the kingdom, some instance of neglect or partiality, some hasty word spoken, some person borne hard upon, or some necessary business overlooked. And if they could but have found the mote, the mole-hill, of a mistake, it would have been soon improved to the beam, to the mountain, of an unpardonable misdemeanour. But they could find no occasion against him; they owned that they could not. Daniel always acted honestly, and now the more warily, and stood the more upon his guard, because of his observers, Psa 27:11. Note, We have all need to walk circumspectly, because we have many eyes upon us, and some that watch for our halting. Those especially have need to carry their cup even that have it full. They concluded, at length, that they should not find any occasion against him except concerning the law of his God Dan 6:5. It seems then that Daniel kept up the profession of his religion, and held it fast without wavering or shrinking, and yet that was no bar to his preferment; there was no law that required him to be of the king's religion, or incapacitated him to bear office in the state unless he were. It was all one to the king what God he prayed to, so long as he did the business of his place faithfully and well. He was at the king's service usque ad aras - as far as the altars; but there he left him. In this matter therefore his enemies hoped to ensnare him. Quaerendum est crimen laesae religionis ubi majestatis deficit - When treason could not be charged upon him he was accused of impiety. Grotius. Note, It is an excellent thing, and much for the glory of God, when those who profess religion conduct themselves so inoffensively in their whole conversation that their most watchful spiteful enemies may find no occasion of blaming them, save only in the matters of their God, in which they walk according to their consciences. It is observable that, when Daniel's enemies could find no occasion against him concerning the kingdom, they had so much sense of justice left that they did not suborn witnesses against him to accuse him of crimes he was innocent of, and to swear treason upon him, wherein they shame many that were called Jews and are called Christians.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–9 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an…
It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes,.... This is the same Darius mentioned in the latter part of the preceding chapter; who, as soon as he took the kingdom of Babylon, divided it into a hundred and twenty provinces, as Jacchiades observes; as was the manner of the Medes and Persians. So Darius the son of Hystaspes divided the kingdom of Persia into twenty provinces, and set governors over each, according to Herodotus (r); to these hundred and twenty provinces seven more were afterwards added, through the victories of Cyrus and Cambyses, and Darius Itystaspes, Est 1:1. Josephus (s), through forgetfulness, makes these princes and provinces three hundred and sixty:
which should be over the whole kingdom; or, "in the whole kingdom" (t); in the several parts of it, and take care of all things relative to the civil government of it, both for the honour and advantage of the king, and the good of the subjects.
Read full note →
(r) Thalia, sive l. 3. c. 89. (s) Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 4. (t) "in toto regno", Pagninus, Montanus, Piscator, Cocceius; "toti regno", Junius & Tremellius.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4 Daniel's preferment, ver. 1-3. Envy against him, ver. 4-5.…
Daniel's preferment, ver. 1-3. Envy against him, ver. 4-5. The decree against prayer, ver. 6-9. Daniel's continuance in prayer notwithstanding, ver. 10. He is informed against and cast into the den of lions, ver. 11-17. His preservation and deliverance, ver. 18- 23. The death of his accusers, ver. 24. The decree of Darius, and prosperity of Daniel, ver. 25-28.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 Darius the Median, who succeeded Belshazzar in the kingdom…
CHAPTER VI
Darius the Median, who succeeded Belshazzar in the kingdom of
Read full note →
Babylon, having heard of Daniel's extraordinary wisdom and
understanding, constitutes him the chief of the three
presidents who were over the whole empire, and purposed also
to make him prime minister or viceroy, 1-3.
This great partiality of the king towards a stranger of Jewish
extraction, and who had been carried captive into Chaldea,
raised up a great many enemies to Daniel; and a scheme was even
contrived by the presidents and princes to ruin him, 4-15;
which succeeded so far that he was cast into a den of lions,
but was miraculously delivered, 16-23.
Darius, who was greatly displeased with himself for having been
entrapped by the governors of the provinces to the prejudice of
his faithful minister, is pleased and astonished at this
deliverance; punished Daniel's enemies with the same kind of
death which they had designed for the prophet; and made a
decree that, throughout his dominions, the God of Daniel should
be had in the greatest veneration, 24-38.
NOTES ON CHAP. VI
Verse 1. A hundred and twenty princes] A chief or satrap over every province which belonged to the Medo-Persian empire. Afterwards we find it enlarged to one hundred and twenty-seven provinces, by the victories of Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes. See Es 1:1. Josephus reckons three hundred and sixty satrapies or lordships; but this is most probably an exaggeration or mistake.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 7 Dan 6:1. It pleased Darius — That this Darius…
Dan 6:1. It pleased Darius — That this Darius was the Cyaxares of Xenophon, as has been observed in note on Dan 5:31, St. Jerome not only asserts, but proves by the testimony of Josephus, Trogus Pompeius, and other historians; so that it appears to have been the generally received opinion in his time, as it probably was also in the time of Josephus, which was not more than five or six hundred years after Cyrus. He was the son of Astyages, or Ahasuerus, or Assuerus, as he is called Dan 9:1, and Tob 14:15; namely, that king of Media who concurred with the Assyrian monarch in the destruction of Nineveh. To set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes — According to the number of the provinces, which were subject to the Medo-Persian empire. These were afterward enlarged to a hundred and twenty-seven, by the victories of Cambyses and Darius Hystaspes: see Est 1:1. Darius acts here as the absolute master of the Babylonish state. He distributes the employments; he divides the kingdom, and orders that an account of the whole should be rendered to three principal officers, to whom he gives the superintendence over the rest. Several writers have thought, that after Darius had conquered Babylon, he returned to Media, and took Daniel with him, and that it was there that the establishments here spoken of were made. But if this was not done at Babylon, it is much more likely to have been done at Shushan than in Media: see Dan 8:2. See Lowth and Calmet.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–8 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom -…
It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom - Evidently over the kingdom of Babylon, now united to that of Media and Persia. As this was now subject to him, and tributary to him, it would be natural to appoint persons over it in whom he could confide, for the administration of justice, for the collection of revenue, etc. Others however, suppose that this relates to the whole kingdom of Persia, but as the reference here is mainly to what was the kingdom of Babylon, it is rather to be presumed that this is what is particularly alluded to. Besides, it is hardly probable that he would have exalted Daniel, a Jew, and a resident in Babylon, to so important a post as that of the premiership over the whole empire, though from his position and standing in Babylon there is no improbability in supposing that he might have occupied, under the reign of Darius, a place similar to what he had occupied under Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. In dividing the kingdom into provinces, and placing officers over each department, Darius followed the same plan which Xenophon tells us that Cyrus did over the nations conquered by him, Cyrop. viii.: Εδόκει ἀυτῷ σατράπας ἤδη πέμπειν ἐπὶ τά κατεστραμμένα ἔθνη Edokei autō satrapas ēdē pempein epi ta katestrammena ethnē - “It seemed good to him to appoint satraps over the conquered nations.” Compare Est 1:1. Archbishop Usher (Annal.) thinks that the plan was first instituted by Cyrus, and was followed at his suggestion. It was a measure of obvious prudence in order to maintain so extended an empire in subjection.
An hundred and twenty princes - The word here rendered “princes” (אחשׁדרפניא 'ăchashedarepenayā') occurs only in Daniel in the Chaldee form, though in the Hebrew form it is found in the book of Esther Est 3:12; Est 8:9; Est 9:3, and in Ezra Ezr 8:36; in Esther and Ezra uniformly rendered lieutenants. In Daniel Dan 3:2-3, Dan 3:27; Dan 6:1-4, Dan 6:6-7 it is as uniformly rendered princes. It is a word of Persian origin, and is probably the Hebrew mode of pronouncing the Persian word satrap, or, as Gesenius supposes, the Persian word was pronounced ksatrap. For the etymology of the word, see Gesenius, Lexicon The word undoubtedly refers to the Persian satraps, or governors, or viceroys in the large provinces of the empire, possessing both civil and military powers. They were officers high in rank, and being the representatives of the sovereign, they rivaled his state and splendor. Single parts, or subdivisions of these provinces, were under inferior officers; the satraps governed whole provinces. The word is rendered satraps in the Greek, and the Latin Vulgate.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9 Kingdom. Josephus, &c. say Darius had returned into Media,…
Kingdom. Josephus, &c. say Darius had returned into Media, where he made these regulations. But if this did not take place at Babylon, it would be rather at Susa. (Chap. viii.) Josephus counts 300 or 360 governments, though when the monarchy was increased there were only 127. (Esther i.) (Calmet) --- He may therefore speak here of large towns, which had each a magistrate. Such regulations easily vary. (Haydock) --- Darius acts as master of the whole empire.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 6. The deliverance of Daniel from the lion’s den
6. The deliverance of Daniel from the lion’s den
Dan_6:1-281 [English Bible, Dan_5:31 to Dan_6:28]
Read full note →
31Darius the Median took [received] the kingdom, being about three score and two years old [as a son of sixty and two years].
1It pleased [seemed good before] Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes [satraps], which should be over the whole [in all the] kingdom; 2and over2 these [them], three presidents, of whom Daniel was first [one]; that the [these] princes might give accounts [the reasons] unto them, and the king should have no damage [not be damaged].
3Then this Daniel was preferred [made eminent] above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm [all the kingdom]. 4Then the presidents and princes sought [were seeking] to find occasion against [cause as to] Daniel concerning [from the side of] the kingdom; but [and] they could find none occasion nor fault [corrupt thing]; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error [wrong] or fault [corrupt thing] found in him.
5Then said these men, [That] We shall not find any occasion against [cause as to] this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning [in] the law or his God. 6Then those presidents and princes assembled [crowded] together to [upon] the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. 7All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains [pashas], have consulted together to establish a royal [or, for the king to establish a] statute [an established act of the king], and to make a firm decree [confirm an interdict], that whosoever [any one that] shall ask a petition of [an asking from] any god or man for [till] thirty days, save of [except from] thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of [the] lions. 8Now, O king, [mayest thou] establish the decree [interdict], and sign the writing, that it be not changed [change not], according to [like] the law of the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia], 9which altereth not [will not pass away]. Wherefore [Therefore the] king Darius signed the writing and the decree [interdict].
10Now when Daniel [And Daniel, as soon as he] knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and, his [its] windows being [were] open in his [its upper] chamber toward [in front of] Jerusalem, [and] he3 kneeled upon his knees three times a day [in the day], and prayed [was praying], and gave thanks [thanking] before his God, as he did aforetime [because he was doing so from before that time]. 11Then these men assembled [crowded in], and found Daniel praying [asking] and making supplication before his God.
12Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning [upon] the king’s decree [interdict]; Hast thou not signed a decree [an interdict], that every [any] man that shall ask a petition of [from] any god or man within [till] thirty days, save of [except from] thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of [the] lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true [word is firm] according to [like] the law of the Medes [Media] and Persians [Persia], which altereth not [will not pass away]. 13Then answered they, and said before the king, That4 Daniel, which is of [from] the captivity of the children of Judah, regardeth not [has not put attention upon] thee, O king, nor [and] the decree [interdict] that thou hast signed, but [and] maketh his petition [is asking his asking] three times a day [in the day]. 14Then the king, when he heard these words [this word (thing)], was sore displeased with [it greatly offended upon] him-self, and [he] set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he laboured [was exerting himself] till the going down of the sun to deliver [rescue] him.
15Then these men assembled [crowded] unto [upon] the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is [it is a law to Media and Persia], that no decree nor statute [interdict and established act] which the king establisheth [shall establish] may be changed [change]. 16Then the king commanded [said], and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of [the] lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God, whom thou3 servest continually [art serving in continuity], he3 will [may he] deliver thee. 17And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords, that the purpose [(will) matter] might not be changed [change] concerning [in respect to] Daniel.
18Then the king went to his palace, and passed [lodged] the night fasting: neither were instruments of music brought [and concubines he did not bring] before him, and his sleep went from [fled upon] him. 19Then the king arose very early in the morning [in the dawn would rise in the early light], and went in haste unto the den of [the] lions. 20And when he came [near] to the den, he cried with a lamentable [pained] voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou3 servest continually [art serving in continuity], able5 to deliver thee from the 21lions? Then said [talked] Daniel unto [with] the king, O king, live for eDaniel 6:22My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that [and] they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in [to] me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.
23Then was the king exceeding glad [it greatly rejoiced] for him [upon himself], and commanded [said] that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So [And] Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon [in] him, because he believed in his God.
24And the king commanded [said], and they brought those men which [who] had accused6 Daniel, and they cast them into the den of [the] lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever [ere] they came at the bottom of the den.7
25Then [the] king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages,8 that 26dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you.9 I make10 a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear11 before the God of Daniel; for he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that 27which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. He delivereth [delivering] and rescueth [rescuing], and he worketh [working] signs and wonders in heaven [the heavens] and in [the] earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.
28So [And] this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan_6:1 [Dan_5:31]. Transitional introductory observations. And Darius the Median took the kingdom, etc. The copula before דָּרְיָנֶשׁ serves, indeed, to connect the present section closely with the preceding one, and indicates that its subject is more intimately related to the foregoing, than is the case in chapters 3, 4, and 5, which begin without any copulative particle whatever. The וְ however, does not compel the assumption that chapters 5. and 6. were properly a unit in their plan and the time of their composition (Hitzig, Kranichfeld; for (1) chap. 2, although forming a decidedly independent whole, likewise begins with the copula, as do also numerous sections in the historical and prophetical portions of the Old Testament, whose subjects are independent of what precedes them. (2) Kranichfeld’s opinion (p. 210) that chap. 5. ought to conclude with a “theocratic panegyrical closing sentence” similar to Dan_6:27-28, if it were to rank as an independent and complete section in itself, is apparently confirmed, indeed, by the closing verses of chaps, 2, 3, and 4, but is decidedly opposed by chap. 1, which has no such doxology at the close. (3; Chapters 5 and 6 are distinguished from each other by several unmistakable differences in the mode of expression and representation, which indicate the composition of these sections at different times. Notice especially the character of the descriptions in chap. 6, which are more circumstantial and full of repetitions than those in chap 6. (cf. Dan_6:2-4 with Dan_6:23; Dan_6:7 with Dan_6:12; Dan_6:12 with Dan_6:16; Dan_6:16 with Daniel 6:7, 29, etc.). (4) The transactions recorded in the two sections are separated by an interval of at least twenty-two years (cf. supra, on Dan_5:30) since the events of chap. 5. transpired under the fourth reign before the close of the Chaldæan dynasty, while chap. 6. falls in the reign of Darius the Mede,—which covered about two years and a half—and probably not in its opening period (see Dan_6:15; Dan_6:17); and chap. 5. creates the impression that it was composed immediately after the events which it records transpired, and that, like all the narratives in the historical part of the book, it originated while they were still fresh in the recollection of the writer (cf. In-trod., § 4, note 2). The connection of the two sections by means of a copulative וְ, despite the difference in the time of their composition, is probably owing to the circumstance that at the close of chap v. only the beginning of the fulfilment of the oracle addressed to Belshazzar had been noticed, while the principal fact, which concludes the fulfilment, is reserved for the narrative in the present section; cf. on Dan_5:30.—For the view that “Darius the Mede” can only designate Cyaxares, the son of Astyages and father-in-law of Cyrus, see In-trod., § 8, note 4. Perhaps the Sept. also referred to this Cyaxares, when it translated this passage Καὶ Ἀρταξέρξης ὁ τῶν Μήδων παρέλαβεν τὴν βασιλειαν καὶ Δαρεῖος πλήρης τῶν ἡμερῶν καὶ ἔνδοξος ἐν γήρει; by Ἀρταξέρξης they may have intended Astyages, the father of Darius Medus, and by the predicate πλήρης κτλ., which they applied to Darius, they may have attempted to repeat the כְּבַר שְׁנִין of the second half of the verse (cf. Michaelis, Oriental. Bibl., iv. 20). Despite the marked ignorance of history which the Alexandrians occasionally reveal, they can hardly be presumed to have been guilty of the gross anachronism of confounding the Median Darius with Darius Nothus, the son of Artax-erxes 1. Longimanus (against Hävernick).—Ebrard (Die Offenbarung Johannis [in Olshausen’s Bibl. Kommentar], p. 55 et seq., and in a review of Fuller’s Prophet Daniel in the Güters-lohe Allg. literar. Anzeiger, October, 1868, p. 267), attempts, in harmony with his assumption that Belshazzar was identical with Laborasoarchad, to identify Darius the Mede with Nabonidus, whom the conspirators who slew Labora-soarchad elevated to the throne (similarly Syncellus, Scaliger, Petavius and Buddeus). In this way he certainly succeeds in removing every difference between the time of chap. 5 30 and 6:1; but he neglects to notice (1) that Laborasoarchad was a grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, instead of being his son, as chap Dan_5:11 et seq. requires; (2) that Nabonidus, according to the express statement of Berosus, was not of Median, but of Babylonian descent, although not of royal blood; (3) that according to Dan_6:9; Dan_6:13; Dan_6:16 (the “laws of the Medes and Persians”) the administration of the king in question is characterized, in the plainest manner, as modelled and organized after the Medo-Persian code, rather than the Babylonian; (4) that the system of espionage and denunciation (Dan_6:12; Dan_6:14; Dan_6:16), the barbarous custom of executing the families of criminals (Dan_6:25) together with the culprit, and also the aristocratic constitutional procedure connected with the promulgation of the prohibition and with the sealing of the stone (Dan_6:8; Dan_6:18), all likewise refer to specifically Medo-Persian arrangements, such as could not yet have been introduced under Nabonidus. These arguments will also hold good against A. Scheuchzer, of Zurich, who, without reference to Ebrard, and to some extent basing his views on different grounds, has recently likewise attempted to identify Nabonidus with Darius the Mede (Assyrische Forschungen, in Heiden-heim’s Vierteljahrsschrift für engl.-theolog. For-schung, vol. 4., No. 1, p. 17 et seq.).—[“The addition of מָדָיָא (Kethib) forms on the one hand a contrast to the expression, ‘the king of the Chaldæans’ (Dan_5:30), and on the other hand it points forward to פַּרְסרָא, Daniel 6:29 (Dan_6:28); it, however, furnishes no proof that Daniel distinguished the Median kingdom from the Persian; for the kingdom is not called a Median kingdom, but it is only said of Darius that he was of Median descent, and, Daniel 6:29 (Dan_6:28), that Cyrus the Persian succeeded him. In קִבֵּל, he received the kingdom, it is indicated that Darius did not conquer it, but received it from the conqueror” (Keil).]—Being about threescore and two years old. This precise and concrete designation of his age was hardly designed to note that he had overthrown the Chaldæn empire after attaining to old age and when he was no longer competent to the personal conduct of warlike operations (Kranichfeld); for such a purpose is not expressed with sufficient clearness, and moreover, the implied reference to the weakness and defenceless condition of the declining Babylonian empire would involve a historical inaccuracy Which cannot well be charged against the author. The real motive that led him to mention the age of Darius can only consist in the design to refer to the considerably later time of the taking of Babylon, in its relation to the events that had just been described (cf. supra, on Dan_5:30).12
Dan_6:2-3 [1, 2]. The new constitution of the empire under Darius, and the position assigned to Daniel. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes. The Sept. increases this number to 127, probably with a reference to Est_1:1. Josephus Ant. x. 13 multiplies it by three (ἑξήκοντα καὶ τριακόσιοι σατράπαι perhaps because he believed each of the three chief præfects to have been placed over 120 satraps, or because he believed himself obliged to make the number of satrapies equal to that of the days in the year. The number 120 is to be retained, in opposition to both these uncritical attempts to enlarge it, although no other authorities mention so large a number of satrapies or provinces in the Medo-Persian empire at the time of its first organization under Darius-Cyaxares and Cyrus, and although according to both Herodotus and Xenophon their number seems to have been considerably smaller at that period. The former of these authors mentions no definite organization of satrapies by Cyrus whatever, and remarks of Darius Hystaspis that he founded in all only twenty of such provinces for the whole empire (iii. 89); the latter notices satraps under Cyrus as well, but mentions only nine, eight of whom were appointed for Asia Minor and one for Arabia—from which it might be concluded that the aggregate number of such officials did not much exceed twenty, and perhaps, did not even reach that number (Cyrop. vii. 4, 2; viii. 6). The statements of these Greek historians do not, however, compel us to doubt the accuracy of Daniel’s report, or to reduce the number from 120 to 20; for various indications lead to the conclusion that the number and boundaries of the satrapies varied exceedingly in different periods of the Persian empire. The three lists of Persian provinces, for instance, which are found among the inscriptions of Darius (at Persepolis, at Behistun, and at Nakshi Rustam) enumerate on the whole thirty-three satrapies or provinces, without permitting us to regard the number as exhaustively complete. The opinion that such changes among the satrapies actually occurred is further supported by Ezr_8:36, where several satraps beyond the Euphrates are mentioned as holding office under Artaxerxes, while Herodotus, iii. 91, knew of but one; and also by Est_1:1, where the whole number of the Persian satrapies is fixed at 127, etc. Hence, it must probably be assumed that at different times the arrangement of provinces varied in the Persian empire, and that a subdivision of the realm into numerous smaller sections (whose number, 120, may have been symbolically significant, and relating to astronomical conditions) existed already under Darius-Medus and Cyrus, but in such a manner that in addition a reckoning by larger, and consequently less numerous provinces, was customary. The division into 120 smaller satrapies may have descended to the Medo-Persians from the Chaldæo-Babylonian world-kingdom, in which, according to Dan_3:2; Dan_3:27, the title of satrap had long been known, and on account of its almost sacred astronomical importance, they may have gladly admitted it into the constitution of their realm. The enumeration by larger and less numerous (20–30) satrapies may have been chiefly in use in the official language of the court and the arts in the kingdom of the Achæmenidæ, as being a national Medo-Persian institution, and for that reason may have been principally or exclusively observed by the Greeks. The Biblical enumeration, having a Babylonian origin, may therefore be properly designated as the esoteric or hieratic, and the ancient Aryan division, supported by the classics, as the exoteric or demotic. Nor is it a questionable feature that on this explanation the title kshatrapa (shôitrapaiti, achashdarpan) was applied interchangeably to the administrators of both larger and smaller divisions; since this harmonizes well with the fluctuations of later Hellenistic writers in rendering the word and especially with the indecision of the Sept. On this question, and in relation to the origin and significance of the title of satrap, cf. the exeg. Remarks on Dan_3:2
Dan_6:3 [21]. And over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first; rather, “was one.” [The following verse, however, shows that he was the principal one]. The סָרְכִין (in the Targ. equivalent to שׁוֹטְרִים “arrangers, overseers”) were certainly “chief -præfects, princes, ministers,” whether the סרךְ is regarded as related to שַׂר, i.e., as derived, by means of the Pers. particle of derivation ךְ, from the Zend sara (Gr. kápa, Pers. ser), “head,” or as related to the Sanscr. çarana, “protector,” or also to târaka, “steersman” (the former according to Gesenius, the latter, to Hitzig). The dignity of these Sarekin was doubtless identical with that of the Taltaïn or “triumvirs,” who are mentioned in the preceding chapter (Daniel 6:7, 16, 29) as the superior princes of the realm, or heads of the government under Belshazzar. Accordingly, like the 120 satraps, they were a class of dignitaries in the Medo-Persian kingdom, whose office was modelled after the Babylonian precedent, but was discontinued at a later period, or perhaps, was developed into the institution of the seven counsellors of the Persian kings (corresponding to the seven Amshaspands—cf. Est_1:14; Ezr_7:14; Herod. iii. 31). Daniel owed his elevation to this rank to the circumstance that he had already been raised to the dignity of a triumvir by Belshazzar, and had probably remained in that office until the overthrow of the Chaldæan kingdom; as also Nebuchadnezzar, according to Dan_2:48-49, had already conferred on him a position of distinguished political and priestly power and eminence.—That the princes (satraps) might give accounts- to them, and the king should have no damage, i.e., not suffer loss in his revenues (cf. נְזַק Ezr_4:13; Ezr_4:15, and נֵזֶק Est_7:4). The satraps are thus designated more particularly as officers of finance, which doubtless constituted one of their chief functions; cf. Herod. iii. 89 et seq.
Dan_6:4-5 [3, 4]. The ill-will of the other grand officials of the realm against Daniel. Then this Daniel was preferred above (showed himself superior to) the presidents, etc. מִתְנַצַּח, “distinguished himself,-outshone them.” The demonstrative דְּנָח, “this,” which is connected with the name of Daniel only here and in Dan_6:20, is conceived and spoken from the standpoint of his opponents, who look with envy on him (istum) whom God has hitherto so highly favored with His assistance. In this way the succeeding remark, “because an excellent spirit-was in him” (cf. chap. Dan_6:12), may likewise be explained without involving any suspicion of self-laudation on the part of the narrator.—And the king I thought to set him over the whole realm, I hence, to promote him to the office of grand-vizier or prime minister—the superior of the “triumvirs” or Sarekin. The Targums always employ the Ithpael for the intransitive עֲשִׁרת, “to be inclined, to purpose.” [“This intention of the king stirred up the envy of the other presidents” (Keil)].
Dan_6:5 [4]. Then the presidents.… sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom, i.e., they sought to assail his official character; and only after frequent proofs that their efforts in this direction were futile, did they direct their attention to his religious standpoint (Dan_6:6 et seq.).13 —But they could find none occasion nor fault. עִלָּח, as before, is an “occasion, opportunity, pretext,” upon which the accusation might be based [“as atria, Joh_18:38; Mat_27:37, an occasion for impeachment”(Keil)]. This more general term may be co-ordinated with שְׁחִיתָח, “wickedness,” because it is conceived concretely or objectively; and hence also with the following שָׁלוּ, “fault, inadvertence” (from שׁלח, the probable primitive form for שׁגח, cf. in the Gr. μόλις and μόγις). Fidelity is the leading political virtue of the servant or officer of a government (cf. 1Co_4:2), in like manner as justice and mercy should be the ornament of rulers (Dan_4:24).
Dan_6:6-10 [5–9]. The procuring of a governmental edict pertaining to religion, directed against Daniel.14 We shall not.… against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. דָּת אֱלָחֵהּ, the law of Daniel’s God, is the theocratic law, considered as the rule of his religious life, and especially of his devotional exercises. Cf. דִּת in Ezr_7:6; Ezr_7:12; Ezr_7:14; Ezr_7:21; Ezr_7:25-26; and supra, Dan_2:9.
Dan_6:7. Then these presidents (princes) and princes (satraps) assembled together to the king; rather (as marg), “ran in stormy haste.” “These princes and satraps” (cf. “these men,” Dan_6:6 [5]) were not, of course, all of them, without exception, but only those who envied and sought to calumniate Daniel, since only such are here concerned; cf. Dan_6:25 [24]. The idea that all the satraps participated is the more improbable, in view of the fact that the possible presénce of all in the metropolis is nowhere indicated (not even in Dan_6:8 [7]).—On ארגיש, “to rush anywhere in stormy haste, to rush anywhere frequently” [rather, tumultuously] (Luther, “came often”), cf. the German “jemanden die Thüre stürmen” (“to storm somebody’s door”); see infra, Dan_6:12 [11] and 16 [15].
Dan_6:8. All the presidents (princes) of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes (satraps), the counsellors, and the captains (prefects) have consulted together; rather, “have considered it advisable.” סָרְכִין seems here to be employed in a more extended sense than heretofore (Dan_6:3 [2], 5 [4], and 7 [6]), where it designates the chief-præfects who were placed over the satraps;15 for the four classes of officials which follow—the same as in Dan_3:27, but in a different order—are evidently intended to specialize the prefixed general idea of “princes” or “præfects” (thus Chr. B. Michaelis correctly, against Hitzig and others, who in this place also regard the Sarekin as the chief præfects who were Daniel’s colleagues). In like manner the term Chaldæans was found to be employed above, at one time to designate a special class of wise men, and at another to denote the whole order of magians (see on Dan_2:2).16 —In relation to אתְיָעַט, “to determine or agree among themselves,” compare the term, יָעֵט, “a counsellor,” consiliarius, as designating one of the principal officers of the Persian king, Ezr_7:14-15.—To establish a royal statute; rather, “that the king should establish a statute.” In view of the accentuation, מַלְכָּא is not to be construed with קְיָם as a genitive (“to establish a royal statute,” etc.), but must be regarded as the subject of the Inf. לִקַתיָּמָח so that the object קְיָם is placed between the infinitive and its noun, as in Isa_5:24; Isa_19:8; Isa_20:1 (thus correctly Rosenmüller, Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil], etc., against Theodotion, Vulgate, Luther, Bertholdt, and a majority of moderns).17 —And make a firm interdict (marg.). The קְיָם which the king was to establish, is at the same time an אֱסָר. “interdict;” in the parallelism of the address it is at first designated generally as a “statute,” and afterwards more especially as an “interdict.” On אָסֵר, “to bind,” in the sense of “to prohibit,” see Num_30:10, and also the N.-T. δέειν as the opposite of λύειν Mat_16:19; Mat_18:18.—That whosoever shall ask a petition.… for thirty days; i.e., during the thirty days next ensuing, from that time until the expiration of thirty days. Literally, “unto thirty days.” This number, the triplicate of the ten days in Dan_1:12-15, is a round number, corresponding to the duration of a month, and employed otherwise also as a general period, during which an interdict was imposed on persons; e.g., by the vows of Nazarites, Act_21:26; cf. Tract. Nasir, i. 3; Joseph., de B. Jud., ii. 15,1.—The command (or interdict) to pray18 during one month only to the king was in this instance specially aimed at Daniel, the pious worshipper of Jehovah, for the purpose of entrapping him; but it was suggested by a national religious custom of older date among the Medes, by which Divine honors were rendered to the king. Herodotus, i. 199, refers to this custom, when he remarks that Deioces had introduced the περὶ ἑαυτὸν σεμνύειν for himself and his successors, by removing his person from the observation of his subjects, in order to persuade them that he was ἑτεροῖος (cf. also Xenophon, Cyrop., i. 3, 18). The existence of this custom among the Medes is further substantiated by the fact that the Persians, who were intimately related to the Medes, observed it, as did several others of the Oriental nations of antiquity (e.g., the Egyptians and Ethiopians, according to Diodor., Sicul., Dan 1:90; Dan_3:3; Dan_3:5)—the former from the peculiar religious reason that they considered the king as the “offspring of the gods” (ἔκγονος θεῶν) and the image of Ormuzd, and even addressed him directly as θεός; cf. Æschylus, Pers.,157, 855; Plutarch, Themist, 27; Curtius, Dan_8:5; Dan_8:11; Isocrates, Panegyr., in Brissonius, de Persar. princ, p. 17, and generally, Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, etc., p. 127 et seq.; Delitzsch, Art. Daniel in Herzog’s Real-Encykl, p. 278 et seq. See the Ethico-fund. principles, etc., against the assumption of the modern pseudo-Daniel tendency-criticism, on which the edict of Darius in question is a cunningly invented prototype, and at the same time an exaggerated caricature of the course of Antiochus Epiphanes as described in 1Ma_1:41 et seq.; 2Ma_6:1 et seq.
Dan_6:9 [8]. Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing; rather, “and record the writing,” for רשם always signifies to record, and not to sign; and moreover, the Persian edicts received their official stamp as laws from the royal seal, instead of the royal signature;19 cf. Est_3:10 et seq.; Dan_8:8.—That it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, i.e., according to that law of the united Medo-Persian realm, as is somewhat more fully described in Dan_6:16 [15], by which every official edict from the king, issued with certain formalities, should possess enduring force as law, hence, “should not be changed” (לָא לְחַשְׁנָרָח, cf. Winer, Gramm., § 46, 3); cf. Est_1:19; Est_8:8. Against the opinion of Von Lengerke, that the writer here was guilty of an anachronism, since the phrase “the law of the Medes and Persians” must have originated subsequently to the time of Cyrus, cf. supra. Hitzig also rejects this position of Von Lengerke, inasmuch as he denies, for telling reasons, the presumption on which it rests, that דָּת in that formula designates the whole body of laws of the kingdom.—[Dan_6:10 (9). the king carried out the proposal. וְאֱסָרָא is explicative: the writing, namely, the prohibition (spoken of); for this was the chief matter, therefore אֱסָרָא alone is here mentioned, and not also קְיָם (edict), Dan_6:8 (7).”—Keil]
Dan_6:11-12 [10, 11]. Daniel’s protest, by his conduct, against the royal decree.20 And, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem; rather, “but he [it21] had open windows,” etc. The upper chamber, or attic, receives consideration as being more removed and less liable to be disturbed, hence as being particularly adapted to purposes of devotion; cf. 2Sa_19:1; 1Ki_17:20; Act_1:13; Act_10:9.—“Opened windows,”כַּוִּין פְּתִיחָן, are the opposite of such as are covered with lattice-work (כַּוִּין זְתִימָן, Eze_40:16) by which the view is obstructed. These open windows were required to be “toward Jerusalem,” because according to ancient custom the face of the worshipper must be turned towards the temple in that city; for as in Jerusalem the supplicant turned toward the sanctuary (Psa_5:8; Psa_28:2 etc.), so he turned when abroad towards the “holy city” (Mat_4:5) as the site of the(temple. This was the case long prior to the captivity; see 1Ki_8:33; 1Ki_8:35; 1Ki_8:38; 1Ki_8:44; 1Ki_8:48; 2Ch_6:29; 2Ch_6:34; 2Ch_6:38. The corresponding custom among the Mahommedans (Kibla) with reference to Mecca, appears thus to be the imitation of a custom developed on the primitive soil of Bible lands; and for the earliest followers of Islam Jerusalem itself was Kibla. On the other hand, the ancient Jewish and the most ancient Christian custom prohibited, on the ground of Eze_8:16-17, the turning of the face in prayer towards the east, i.e., towards the sun (cf. Clement, Strom. vii. 724; Origen, Homil. Daniel 5 : in Num.; Tertull. Apol. c. 16), while the later church, standing on the ground of Mal. 3:20; Luk_1:78 et seq., zealously recommended that supplicants and houses for prayer should face towards the east, and introduced it into general use. Cf. Bingham, Origines, 5:275 ss.—He kneeled upon his knees three times a day. Kneeling is mentioned as the characteristic posture of supplicants in 1Ki_8:54; 2Ch_6:12; Ezr_9:5; Luk_22:41; Act_7:59; Act_9:40; Act_21:5; Eph_3:14; Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 48; Hermas, Pas-tar, Vis. Dan_1:1, etc. Cf. O. A. Hubnerus, de genuflexione (Halle, 1741); Zöckler, Krit. Geschichtc der Askese ( Frankf. and Erlangen, 1863), p. 350 et seq.—[“Daniel offered prayers not to make an outward show, for only secret spies could ob serve him when so engaged. כָּל־קְכֵל דִּי does not mean altogether so as (Rosenmüller, Von Leng., Maurer, Hitzig), but, as always, on this account that, because. Because he always did thus, so now he continues to do it”—(Keil).]22 The custom of praying three times in a day, which is attested for the first time in this passage, and which, according to the Talmudic tradition was first brought into general use among the Jews by the “men of the great synagogue,” appears to have taken shape during the Babylonian captivity as a usage observed by pious individuals among the Israelites. The fundamental general idea of this custom is already expressed in Psa_55:18; but the desire to find a regular substitute for the morning and evening sacrifices, which were now interrupted, doubtless contributed towards originating the custom, since the Jews were accustomed, from an early period, to regard prayer as in itself a sacrifice with which God is pleased (Hos_14:3; Psa_51:17; Psa_116:17, etc.), and especially since they associated it in their minds with the evening sacrifice (Psa_141:2; 1Ki_18:36 et seq.; Ezr_9:5; cf. Dan_9:21). The Parsee custom of rendering Divine honors to the three parts of the day themselves, has, of course, nothing in common with the habit of the Jews and primitive Christians (Act_3:1; Act_10:9; Act_10:30; cf. Pusey, Daniel, p. 554); nor has the custom of the Egyptian priests, who, according to Porphyry, de absnent. Dan_4:8, sang daily four hymns of praise to the sun; nor yet the three daily sacrifices and hymns of the Pythagoreans, as mentioned by Jamblichus, Vit. Pythag. c. 149 ss. Cf. generally, Zöckler, 1. c. p. 329 et seq.
Dan_6:12 [11]. Then these men assembled (rushed together), and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. Here, as in Dan_6:7 [6], הַרְגִּישׁוּ is not a single rushing together, but a frequent23 hasty gathering; the only difference is that in that passage the design was to obtain the decree from the king, while here it is to watch Daniel in order to denounce him. According to Dan_6:11, the open windows in Daniel’s upper chamber seem to have enabled them to execute their plan of espionage with success, either because they saw him while engaged in prayer (perhaps from a still more elevated room in the vicinity, cf. 2Sa_9:2), or because they heard him from the street. At any rate, a repeated [?] approach and observation in secret must be assumed, instead of a single surprise; hence the question, “At which of his daily prayers was he surprised?” is inappropriate.—Concerning the thoroughly organized system of espionage and denunciation in the Medo-Persian kingdom, of which this passage affords a characteristic proof, see Max Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, ii. 648.
Dan_6:13-15 [12–14]. The denunciation. Then they came near and spake before(“with”) the king, etc., cf. Dan_3:8, and for what follows, Dan_3:24.—The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians; rather, “the word is firm, according, etc. יַצִּיבִא מִלְתָּאִ does not affirm that the decree was published, but indicates the certain punishment of any who might transgress it.
Dan_6:14 [13]. Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah. Cf. chap. Dan_6:13, and observe that the accusers do not mention the high official station of Daniel and his intimate official relations with the king, but merely refer to his foreign birth, [“in order that they may thereby bring his conduct under the suspicion of being a political act of rebellion against the royal authority.” (Keil.)]
Dan_6:15 [14]. Then the king.… was sore displeased.בְּאֵשׁ is impersonal in בְּאֵשׁ עֲלוֹהִי, like יֵרַע in Gen_21:12, and like טְאֵב below, in Dan_6:24 [23]. Literally, therefore, it reads, “Then the king, when he heard the word—sorrow came on him” (and similarly Dan_6:24 [23], “Then … joy came on him”).24 —And set his heart on Daniel to deliver him. בָּל, “heart,” is not found in the later Chaldee, but occurs in the Syriac and Arabic. Compare, however, the phrase לִבָּא שָׂם ל׳, Targ. Pro_22:17.—And he labored till the going down of the sun, etc. On the form מֵעָלֵי (st. constr. plur. of מֵעָלֽא, or also of the Inf. מֵעַל, cf- Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage. Instead of אִשְׁתַּדַּר, “he labored” (cf. ἀγωνιζεσθαι, Luk_13:24), the Targums have אשְׁתַּדֵּל, which, however, has a different meaning from that of אִשְׁתַּדַּר.
Dan_6:16-18 [15–17]. The condemnation and execution. On Dan_6:16 cf. supra, on Dan_6:9 b.
Dan_6:17 [16]. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions; rather, “that they should bring Daniel and cast,” etc. The construction is the same as in chap. Daniel 6:29 [but in neither this nor that passage is this rendering justified by the force of the text, וִחַיְתִין.… וּרְמוֹ]. According to Oriental custom, the execution in this case, as in that under Belshazzar, chap. Daniel 6:29, and in that under Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_3:19 et seq., was to follow immediately on the sentence. [“This does not, however, imply that it was on the evening in which, at the ninth hour, he had prayed, as Hitzig affirms, in order that he may thereby make the whole matter improbable.” (Keil). The season of prayer at which Daniel was discovered would seem to have been at noon. This will allow ample time for the preparation of the edict the same morning, and the execution the same evening. The accusers were evidently in hot haste].—Thy God, whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee rather, “may thy God.… deliver thee.” Pilate may have solaced himself with a similar confession of his own weakness and cowardice, when he delivered the Saviour into the hands of his mortal enemies (Mat_27:24; Luk_23:25, etc.); or Herod, when he commanded to bring the head of the Baptist (Mat_14:9). Dan_6:19 [18] et seq. shows that the exclamation was by no means intended to be ironical or malicious, as those in Psa_22:9; Mat_27:43; but on the other hand, Josephus probably attributes too favorable a disposition to Darius, when he observes: ἐλπίσας δὲ ὁ Δαρεῖος, ὄτι ῥύσεται τὸ θεῖον αὐτὸς καὶ οὐδὲς μὴ πάθη δεινὸν ὑπὸ τῶν θηρίων, ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν εὐθύμως φέρειν τὰ συμβαίνοντα (similarly also Jerome et al.).
Dan_6:18 [17]. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den. הֵיתָיִת, a Hebraizing passive form of the Aphel; cf. on Dan_3:13. שֻׂמַת Hebraizing passive partic. Peal, instead of שִׂימַת (cf. Dan_6:27 [26]).—It is natural to suppose that the stone was of sufficient size to completely close the mouth of the den, and that it was at hand for that purpose, instead of assuming, with Hitzig, that it was necessary to bring it from a distance. The den itself, corresponding to the sense of גֻּבָּא (גּוּבָא), which is thoroughly identical with that of the Heb. בּוֹי, must not be conceived of as a cistern or funnel-shaped pit (Hitzig); but rather as having a capacity sufficient to hold several lions and permit them to move freely about (which involves no greater difficulty than that the גּוּבָא in the Targ Jer_41:7; Jer_41:9 should have contained the corpses of seventy slain persons; cf. also the Targ. Jer_37:16; Isa. 16:15). In brief, it may be supposed to have been an actual lions’ den, similar to those connected with the Roman amphitheatres, from which it probaby differed simply in having a horizontal opening in the flat or arched roof, through which the ad bestias damnati were thrown to the lions, in addition to the door at the side, by which the beasts were introduced into the den or removed from it. Its construction may therefore have been similar to that of the fiery furnace, upon the whole (see on Dan_3:6)—an opinion which seems to derive additional support from the manner in which Darius was enabled to converse with Daniel while in the den, even before the stone was removed from its opening (Dan_6:21 et seq.). The two lions’ dens at Fez, belonging to the emperor of Morocco, which Höst describes in his Nachrichten von Fez und Marokko (pp. 77, 290) as being large rectangular and uncovered pits in the earth (whose wide opening was surrounded by a wall one and a half ells in height), were consequently constructed somewhat differently from that of the Medo-Babylonians under consideration, but are still interesting for comparison with the latter.—And the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords. On the custom of sealing cf. Mat_27:26. The two-fold sealing, with the ring of the king and with that of his grand officers, may have been designed to secure Daniel, for whose deliverance the king still hoped (see Dan_6:17 [16], 21 [20], against any violent assault, and also against any attempt to liberate him—hence, to insure a strict control of the prisoner. Cf. Jerome: Obsignavit annulo suo lapidem, quo os laci claudebatur, ne quid contra Danielem moliantur inimici.… Obsignat autem et annulo optimatum suorum, ne quid suspicionis contra eos habere videretur.”— That the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel; rather, “that the matter,” etc.; that his situation might not be unlawfully altered. צְבוּ here is not “intention, purpose” (v. Leng. etc.)25 but “affair, matter;” cf. the corresponding Syriac word.
Dan_6:19-23 [18–22]. The king discovers the miraculous preservation of Daniel. Then the king went … and passed the night fasting. טְוָת is properly a substantive with adverbial signification—“with fasting”—i.e., supperless. Luther renders it forcibly, “and remained not eating.”—Neither were instruments of music brought before him; rather “concubines.” Instead of “food,” which is the interpretation assigned by Theodotion, the Peshito, the Vulgate, Luther, etc., the rendering of דַּחֲוָן by “concubines, women of the harem,” is sufficiently supported by closely related terms in the Arabic; and the verb חַנְעֵלֹ in connection with the prep. קֳדָם admits of no other interpretation. The bringing in of inanimate objects would have been expressed by חָיְתֵי cf. Dan_5:2 with Dan_2:24-25; Dan_4:3; Dan_5:13; Dan_5:15.—And his sleep went from him; forsook him; cf. on Dan_2:1.
Dan_6:20 [19]. Then the king arose very early in the morning; “with the dawn, when it became light.” שְׂפַרְפָּרָא “the dawn” (= שַׁחַר, Targ. Jon. on Isa_58:8). The hypothetical rendering of the imperf. יְקוּם, for which Kranichfeld contends, is unnecessary. [“The future or imperfect is used instead of the perfect to place this clause in relation to the following, meaning: the king, as soon as he arose at morning dawn, went hastily by the early light” (Keil).] The Septuagint is [substantially] correct: ὤρθρισε πρωΐ; also Theodotion, the Peshito, etc.—בְּנָגְהָא, “with the twilight, with the dawn or break of day” [“serves for a mere determination of the בִּשְׂפַּרְפְּרָא, at the morning dawn, namely, as soon as the first rays of the rising sun appeared” (Keil)]; cf. לָאוֹר, Job_24:14.—And went in haste. בְּהִתְבְּהָלָה, as in Dan_2:35, = μετὰ σπουδῆς; cf. Luk_1:39.
Dan_6:21 [20]. And.… cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel. מַר = עֲצִיב; cf. Isa_54:6 with Pro_31:6.—O Daniel, servant of the living God. Darius was able to designate the God of Daniel as the living God (cf. v. 27) thus early, before his observation had convinced him of the prophet’s safety, for the simple reason that during the intercourse consequent on their intimate relation, Daniel had instructed him concerning the nature and power of his God as the God of all gods, and also because the pangs of conscience endured by him during the night that had just elapsed, had produced a profound conviction of the truth of the prophet’s testimony to Jehovah.26
Dan_6:23 [22]. My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths. Cf. Dan_6:28 [27]; Act_12:7. The summary conciseness of the statement forbids any conclusion as to whether Daniel had seen the angel who wrought his miraculous deliverance, as an objective fact, or whether he merely argued from the effect to the underlying invisible cause (cf. Psa_34:8; Psa_91:11 et seq.; Mat_8:9, etc.). On the expression, “to shut the lions’ mouths,” cf. 2Ti_4:17; Heb_11:33.—And also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. “Before thee,” קֳדָמָיךְ, i.e., “in thine eyes, according to thy judgment”—a loosely connected supplemental proof of what he has just asserted, viz., that he is innocent. In modern speech the connection might have been, “even as I was likewise found innocent by thee” (which was apparent to him from the king’s anxious inquiries concerning his welfare).27
Dan_6:24-25 [23, 24]. The deliverance of Daniel and the punishment of his enemies. Then was the king exceeding glad (cf. on Dan_6:15) for him,28 and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den.29 הִנְסָקָה the inf. Aphel of the root סְלֵק compensates for the doubling by נ, similarly to הַנְעֵל in Dan_6:19 [18] (cf. Dan_2:25). Cf. הַסִּיק Dan_3:22.
Dan_6:25 [24]. And the king commanded, and they brought those men; rather, “that those men should be brought.” The same construction as in Dan_6:17 [16].30—“Those men” are the same who are mentioned in Dan_6:6 [5] and 7 [6], viz.: the grand officers who were present in “Babylon itself, and who had taken part in traducing Daniel. A number of them may have been in the king’s train, when he commanded that the seals should be broken and the stone removed (Dan_6:24 [23]), without venturing to protest, in the presence of the angry monarch, against the violation of the seal which belonged in part to them. The others were brought from their houses by the king’s command. There is consequently nothing in the passage that involves a difficulty or that contradicts Dan_6:18 [17] (against Hitzig).—Which had accused Daniel. Literally, “who had devoured Daniel’s flesh;” cf. on Dan_3:8.—And they cast … into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives. Upon this point even Hitzig is compelled to remark: “To execute the familes of criminals together with themselves was eminently the Persian custom (Herod., III. 119; Ammian Marcel., xxiii. 6, 81); Justin, in such an instance, makes especial reference to the wives and children (x. 2); cf. further, Justin, 21:4; Jos_7:24-25.” On the authority of the statements quoted from Herodotus and Justin (and also influenced by what Curtius, vi. 11, states with reference to the custom among the Macedonians), Hitzig contends that such fearfully bloody justice—whose barbarous severity our prophet seems to allude to when he mentions the children before the wives—was only inflicted on conspirators against the king. But Ammian. (1. c.) states no such limitation; and the malicious plot of these magnates against one of the chief officials of the kingdom, as well as intimate counsellor of the king, was almost equivalent to a conspiracy directed against the royal person.—And the lions had the mastery of them (or “fell upon them”) … or ever they came at the bottom of the den. Literally, “and not came they.…until that,” i.e., when the lions already seized them. On the incident, cf. Dan_3:22; concerning the form שְׁלִטוּ see Dan_2:29.
Dan_6:26-28 [25–27]. The royal proclamation consequent on the miraculous deliverance of Daniel. Then king Darius wrote (commanded to write) unto all people, nations, and languages, etc.; i.e., to all the subjects of his realm, which was a world-kingdom like that of Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 3:31.
Dan_6:27 [26]. I make a decree. Cf. Dan_3:29; Dan_4:3, where the shorter מִנִּי occurs instead of מִן־קְָדָמַי which is found in this place.—That… men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. Cf. chap. Dan_6:19.—The theocratic phraseology of the royal edict admits of the same explanation as do the similar proclamations of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_2:47; Dan_3:28 et seq.; Dan 3:31 et seq.; Dan_4:31 et seq. It results in part from the extended intercourse of the king with Daniel, the representative of the theocratic faith of revelation; and in part from the profound influence of the experience of theim-mediate past.—And his kingdom (is one) which shall not be destroyed; a forcible ellipsis, similar, for instance, to that in Dan_7:14; cf. also Dan_2:44; and on the thought, Dan 3:33; Dan_4:31.—And his dominion (shall be even) unto the end; i.e., “to the end of all earthly kingdoms, to the end of the world” (the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος), which coincides with the erection of the completed kingdom of Messiah or God; cf. Dan_7:14; Dan_7:26 et seq.
Dan_6:28 [27]. He delivereth and rescueth; rather, “He is a saviour and deliverer.” Cf. Dan_3:29 b., and for what follows cf. Dan 3:32; Dan_4:32.—From the power of the lions: literally, “out of the hand of the lions;” cf. Psa_22:21, “out of the hand of the dogs.”
Daniel 6:29 [28]. The epilogue. So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius. “This Daniel,” as in Dan_6:4 [3].—הַצְלַח “found prosperity, prospered;” similar to cnap. Dan_3:30. Ewald’s reading, חָצלַד, which is designed to be equivalent to, “he was reinstated in his office”(?), is unnecessary.—On the subject cf. Dan_2:48.—And (also) in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. This complementary closing sentence, like that in Dan_1:21, appears to have been added a considerable time after the preceding facts were recorded, for the purpose of closing the historical part of the book as a whole. But the objection that it is clearly a “bald and labored gloss in its appearance” (Kranichf.), is not therefore justified. The reign of Cyrus is merely mentioned, as having been reached by Daniel, for the same reason that dictated Dan_1:21.
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apolo getical remarks, and homiletical suggestions
1. The similarity of the facts recorded in this section to those of the third chapter is certainly evident and undeniable; but these analogies do not warrent the disregarding of the important differences between the incidents of the two sections. These differences, on the one hand, affect the disposition and the modes of action of the persons engaged in the various transactions, in which respect the king Darius especially observes from the beginning a more cordial bearing toward the worshipper of Jehovah than does Nebuchadnezzar; and, on the other, they relate to the miracle which forms the end and climax of the entire event. The deliverance of Daniel from the lions’ den was a miracle differing materially in character from that of the deliverance of the three Hebrews from the fiery furnace; while the latter, as was intimated on Dan_3:22, would admit of a natural explanation. To some extent at least, this is absolutely impossible with the event recorded in this chapter, as may be seen more particularly from the fact, noticed in Dan_6:25 [24] b, that the same lions who spared Daniel during an entire night immediately seized on his accusers with a ravenous voracity in order to rend them. By this contrast between the subjection of the beasts to the prophet, and the outburst of their savage nature towards the guilty princes—a contrast which evidently constitutes the fundamental characteristic of the incident before us—this miracle takes its position among that series of marvellous events in Old and New Testament history in which the life and work of isolated distinguished messengers of revelation appear, by virtue of Divine grace, to have restored the paradisaical dominion of man over nature, so that the beasts of the desert yield him a ready obedience as their rightful lord. We class here, prior to the time of Daniel, the ravens of Elijah (1Ki_17:4) and the bears of Elisha (2Ki_2:24); and in N. T. times, the sojourning of the Saviour with the beasts of the desert, immediately subsequent to his temptation (Mar_1:13), Paul’s escape from injury by the viper on the island of Malta (Act_28:5; of. Mar_16:18), and perhaps several incidents of a similar character in the history of the earliest monkish saints and missionaries of the Church down to the times of Columban and Gallus, so far as any faith may be placed on the statements in the generally fancifully distorted biographies of these saints which relate to their friendly intercourse with wild beasts (cf. Montalembert, Les Moines d’ Occident depuis St. Benoit jusqu’d St. Bernard, vol. 2 and for a criticism of the often excessively credulous judgment of this author with reference to such miracles, see the review of his work in the Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, 1862, No. 2).—It is, however, precisely because the miraculous incident of this section belongs to the category of such facts, that it must rank as the greatest wonder recorded in the historical part of the book, as the climax in the series of mighty works by which God glorified Himself in His servants in the metropolis of the Chaldæan empire, and which, forming a gradation of miracles in certain aspects, and presenting a constantly-increasing manifestation of the supernatural element in them, from Dan_1:15 to the close of this chapter, excludes, with steadily-increasing emphasis, the possibility of tracing back the events to natural causes (cf. especially on Dan_5:5).
2. So far as the general situation is similar to that described in Daniel 3 : it accords well with the conditions of the captivity, “in which the aim was not, as afterwards under Antiochus Epiphanes, to extirpate the Jewish worship, but where we find merely certain very natural and intelligible displays of grudging selfishness and envy on the part of individual native officials, as against a captive foreigner who was preferred above them in official stations; while the general condition of the captives was very tolerable, as a natural result of the lax administration of government which was usual among Oriental conquerors” (Kranichfeld). The assertion of the modern “tendency-critics” (Hitzig, p. 89 et seq.; Bleek, p. 604, etc.), that the edict of Darius which prohibited the rendering of Divine honors during one month to any but the king (Dan_6:8 [7]) was invented for the purpose of exaggerating or caricaturing the proclamation of Antiochus Epiphanes, which prohibited the Jews from observing the Divine law and their worship of Jehovah (1Ma_1:41; 2Ma_6:1-9), in order to incite them to steadfast endurance and to patient trust in God,—this assertion is decidedly nugatory, since the raging fanaticism of the Syrian king, which aimed at the total destruction of the Jewish worship and nationality, had nothing in common with the far milder disposition of Darius, and since the latter was merely concerned to bring about a temporary suspension of the religious observances in vogue, rather than to definitely extirpate the current systems of religion. Nor would it have been possible for the pious Jews of the Maccabæan period to recognize an edict, which amounted directly to the deifying of the king, as a proto-type of the manifesto of the Syrian king, which differed materially from it, in respect both to its language and its character. For this reason Von Lengerke, more cautious than his compeers, rejects the assumption that the edict of Dan_6:8 [7] was a conventional fiction framed on the model of that mentioned in the Maccabæan books, as being too artificial and unsupported a hypothesis, and contents himself with observing that “the proclamation of Darius on the religious question corresponds in general to that persecuting spirit which produced the measures of Antiochus.” But it will be seen that even this is not correct, since the deportment of Darius towards Daniel, manifesting in every respect a mild, friendly, and benevolent spirit (Dan_6:14-15 et seq.; 21 et seq.), presents the sharpest contrast to the senseless rage and blood-thirsty spirit of persecution displayed by the intolerant Syrian tyrant; and, moreover, since no reason whatever can be discovered that could induce the alleged Maccabæan-tendency writer to invent so weak, and in all respects so inappropriate, a counterfeit of Antiochus at the last, after having furnished in Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar far more suitable and tangible types of that despot. Nor does it appear why he should desire to conceal the person of Antiochus behind that of a jealous and scheming official under the Median king (Dan_6:4-5 et seq.).—How much more simple and intelligible, in comparison with such hypercritical assumptions, does the narrative appear when its characteristic peculiarities are regarded as historical facts, such as were naturally to be expected in the scenes of a politico-religious drama that transpired on the soil of the newly-founded Medo-Persian world-kingdom! The 120 satrapies instead of the former division of the kingdom into differently constituted provinces (cf. Dan_6:2 with Dan_3:2); the exceedingly independent course of the royal counsellors and officers, without whose consent no edict could be promulgated nor the royal seal affixed (Dan_6:8 [7], 18 [17]); the temporary deifying of the king as the son and image of the supreme God (Dan_6:8 et seq.), so surprisingly in harmony with the fundamental principles of the Old-Persian state religion; the cruel procedure connected with the punishment of the offenders (Dan_6:25 [24]) which bears, in an equal degree, the stamp of specifically Persian legal usage; and finally, the repeated reference to the “law of the Medes and Persians,” as the original source and inviolable authority for the measures proposed and put in force—all these point, with all possible force and internal congruity, to a well-defined historical condition with which the writer was familiarly acquainted, an actual condition which was distinguished from the state existing in the Chaldæo-Babylonian kingdom in a manner that corresponds fully with numerous extra-biblical testimonies, and which indicates that the experience and personal observation of the author formed the only source of his descriptions. Cf. the observations made above on the several passages.
3. The homiletical treatment of this section will vary, according as the conduct and fate of Daniel, the man of God, receive attention, or as those of the other agents, viz.: of the good-natured but weak king and of the jealous accusers, are prominently considered. In the former case, the theme for the treatment of the subject as a whole might be: “We should obey God, rather than men”(cf. Dan_6:5 with Dan_6:11 et seq.); or, “Fidelity to God is a more precious virtue, and secures a more certain and precious reward, than fidelity to human authority;” or, “It is better to be the friend of God, even if the foe of the whole world.” In the latter case: “Who so digs a pit for others, shall fall into it himself;” or, “God knows how to use the plans by which men seek to destroy his faithful servants, for their deliverance and honor;” or “God has converted many a ruler, from being a persecutor of His church into its forwarder and zealous protector!”
In connection with the former class of meditations, cf. the following extracts from older practical expositors: Jerome, (on Dan_6:11-12): “Daniel, regis jussa contemnens et in Deo habens fiduciam, non orat in humili loco, sed in excelso, et fenestras aperit contra Jerusalem, ubi erat visio pacis. Orat autem secundum prœceptum Dei dictaque Salomonis, qui contra templum oran-dum esse admonuit.” Melancthon (on Dan_6:19 et seq.): “Periculum Danielis pingit robur et violentiam hostium Christi. Sicut Daniel imbecillis objicitur leonibus, sic tota Ecclesia habet hostes validissimos, diabolum, reges, potentes, superbos, prœstantes auctoritate et opibus in mundo. Liberatio Danielis est testimonium, quod Deus adsit Sanctis et servet eos suo judicio, alias corpore, alias spiritu.” Starke (on Daniel 6:29 [28]): “Whosoever does not permit himself to be driven by persecution and danger, either from the upright fear of God, nor, on the other hand, from his lawful obedience to earthly authorities, shall find at last that honor and glory follow upon fidelity” (1Sa_24:11; 1Sa_24:21).
With the second class of themes, cf.: Melancthon (on Dan_6:5 [4]): “Tales habet diabolus ministros, qui captatis occasionibus regum animos astute a tieritate avertunt, ubi summa officii et virtutis specie insidiœ struuntur. Ita hic … bonus senex … non videt quantum admittat sceleris, quod in edicto etiam Dei invocatio prohibetur. Monet igitur hoc exemplum, ut cauti sint principes in observandis talibus insidiis, ac præsertim in legibus et edictis condendis.” Id. (on Dan_6:15 et seq.): “Quamquam igitur peccavit Darius, tamen infirmitate lapsus est et contra furorem accusa-torum sustentat se quadam scintilla fidei, quœ ostendit non ipsum, sed principes esse supplicii auctores, etiamsi ipsi non satis fortiter eos represserat.… Tales infirmos sublevat Deus, ut hic apparet. Sequitur enim statim acerbissima pœni-tentia regis, ac deinde tantum fidei robur, tanta animi magnitudo, ut puniat etiam accusatores.” Geier (on Dan_6:21 [20]): “Hoc sensu Darium ex animi sui sententia adeoque ex vera fide compel-lasse Danielis Deum, verosimile non est; sic namque omnia Persarum Medorumque improbasset et abnegasset numina.… immo non vocat Deum suum, sed Danielis, neque ait se ipsum colere, sed: quem tu colis.” Joh. Gerhard (Weim. Bib., on Dan_6:24 et seq.): “God is able to promote and extend the true faith by means of the very persecutions and other methods by which its enemies seek to destroy it.”
Footnotes:
[1]As Chap. 6 in the original begins with Dan_5:31 of the A. V., there is a difference of one in numbering the verses of this section.—
[2]The form עֵלָא, followed by מִן, seems like a noun in the emphatic state, and may not inaptly be rendered, “as the chief above.”—
[3]The pronoun, being expressed, is emphatic.—
[4]דִּי here=ὅτι on expletive.—
[5]The order of words is emphatic: Thy God. … has He been able.—
[6]Literally, that ate his pieces of, i. e., backbit, as in Dan_3:8—
[7]The order and style of the original are very emphatic: and they did not reach to the earth of the den till that (before) the lions ruled over them, etc.—
[8]The terms in the original are the same as in Dan_3:4 the nations, the peoples, and the tongues.—
[9]Literally, May your peace be great.—
[10]From me is made.—
[11]They shall be trembling and fearing from.]
[12][Rather it may have been as a premonition of the short Interval during Darius’s rule before the full assumption of dominion by Cyrus in person at Babylon.]
[13][“Such a model of excellence, so far surpassing and so uncomfortably eclipsing themselves, was keenly cutting to these corrupt officers, and aroused their bitterest hostility.”—Cowles.]
[14][“With Satanic cunning the princes shaped this proposed law to take with the king by a bait for his low vanity, and to entrap Daniel through his known decision and firmness in the worship of his God. It was the best compliment they could pay to Daniel that they assumed so confidently that he would pray to God none the less for this monstrous law. It was the keenest reproach to their king that they should anticipate his ready assent to such a law under the impulses of his excessive vanity. Darius was a weak and vain king, else he would have asked. What can be the motive of these men in proposing such a law? Plainly the appended exception, ‘Save of thee, O king,’ was so grateful to his vanity that it blinded his dull eye to the monstrous nature and possible bearings of this law.”—Cowles.]
[15][“If we compare the list of the four official classes here mentioned with that of the great officers of state under Nebuchadnezzar, Dan_3:2, the naming of the סִגְנַיָּא before the אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא (satraps, while in Dan_3:2 they are named after them) shows that the סִגְנַיָּא are here great officers to whom the satraps were subordinate, and that only the three סָרְכִין could be meant to whom the satraps had to render an account. Moreover, the list of four names is divided by the copula ו into two classes. To the first class belong the סָגְנַיָּא and the satraps; to the second the חַדָּֽבְרִין, state councillors, and the פַּחֲוָתָא, civil prœfects of the provinces. Accordingly, we will scarcely err if by סִגְנַיָּא we understand the members of the highest council of state, by חַדָּֽבְרַיָּא the ministers or members of the (lower) state council, and by the satraps and pechas the military and civil rulers of the provinces. This grouping of the names confirms, consequently, the general interpretation of the כּל סָרְכֵי מַלְכוּתָא, for the four classes named constitute the entire chief præfecture of the kingdom. This interpretation is not made questionable by the fact that the סָרְכִין had in the kingdom of Darius a different position from that they held in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar; for in this respect each kingdom had its own particular arrangement, which underwent manifold changes according to the times.”—Keil.]
[16][“The whole connection of the narrative plainly shows that the authors of the accusation deceived the king. The council of state, or chief court, to which all the satraps had to render an account, consisted of three men, of whom Daniel was one. But Daniel certainly was not called to this consultation; therefore their pretence that all ‘presidents of the kingdom’ had consulted on the matter, was false. Besides, they deceived the king in this, that they concealed from him the intention of the decree, or misled him regarding it.”—Keil.]
[17][But this construction is extremely harsh, and, as Len -gerke remarks, opposed to the usage of אֱסָר מַלְכָּא in Dan_6:13. Even Rosenmüller renders (apparently by inadvertence, however) decreto regio. The passages adduced by the author from Isaiah (Isa_19:8 is not correct) are not altogether in point, as the preposition there is not לְ, but כְּ or בְּ. Had the writer intended such a construction he would naturally have used דִּי with the fut. The Masoretic interpunction, however, undeniably favors it.]
[18][The term “בָּעוּ is here not any kind of request or supplication, but prayer, as the phrase, Dan_6:14 (13), בָּעוּתֵהּ ,בָּעֵא. directing his prayer, shows. The word וָאֱנָשׁ does not prove the contrary, for the heathen prayed also to men (cf. Dan_2:46), and here the clause, except to the king, places together god and man, so that the king might not observe that the prohibition was specially directed against Daniel.”—Keil.
[19]This distinction is rather over-nice; for it was not the engrossing of the edict, surely, that the magnates desired, and this of course would not have been done by the royal hand, but his official approval and sanction, such as a signature—whether by writing or stamping the name—only could confer.]
[20][“The satraps did not wait long for Daniel’s expected disregard of the king’s prohibition. … He continued this custom (of prayer) even after the issuing of the edict; for a discontinuance of it on account of that law would have been a denying of the faith and a sinning against God. On this his enemies had reckoned. They secretly watched him, and immediately reported his disregard of the king’s command. In Dan_6:11 (10), the place where he was wont to pray is more particularly described in order that it might be shown how they could observe him.”—Keil
[21][“לֵהּ does not refer to Daniel (‘he had opened windows’), but to לְבַיְתֵהּ, his house had open windows. If לֵהּ referred to Daniel, then the הוּא following would be superfluous.”—Keil. The same remark of course will apply to בְּעִלִּיתֵהּ following.]
[22][“Blessed man! How quietly, how calmly, how peacefully did thy heart repose on the enduring love and faith fulness of the never-failing power of thy fathers’ God”—Cowles.]
[23][The idea of frequency insisted upon by the author as residing in הַרְגִּישׁ seems to have no good support. The sense is rather rushed forward, made their way in a body and eagerly.]
[24][“The king is chagrined and ashamed of himself that he allowed himself to be caught in this snare. Now for the first time he sees the enmity and mean spirit of his officers in obtaining from him that decree, and bites his lips in shame that he could have been so beguiled and entrapped. No doubt he heartily esteemed Daniel, and probably loved him, and felt therefore the bitterest grief and shame that be should be made unwillingly the author of his destruction.”—Cowles. He also felt intensely anxious for his fate, and doubtless cast about in his mind some method of extricating him, and at the same time of exposing and punishing his accusers.]
[25][“This thought (would have) required the Stat, emphat. צְבוּתָא, and also does not correspond with the application of a double seal.”—Keil.]
[26][“The predicate the living God is occasioned by the preservation of life which the king regarded as possible, and probably was made known to the king in previous conversations with Daniel; cf. Psa_42:3; Psa_84:3; 1Sa_17:36, etc.”—Keil.]
[27][“Daniel casts no severe reproach upon the king. Indeed the original rather expresses a genial and kindly feeling: Daniel ‘talked with the king.’ With beautiful modesty he ascribes his deliverance to God’s own hand alone through his angel, and very properly asserts his innocence of any wrong in this matter.—We may suppose Daniel to have had a sweet sense of the presence of God by his angel while spending the night in the den with these hungry lions.”—Cowles.]
[28][עֲלוֹהִ־ does not refer to Daniel, but to the king himself. It denotes the reflexive sense of טְאֵב which is here used impersonally: gladness came over him.]
[29][“By this, however, we are not to understand a being drawn up by ropes through the opening of the den from above. The bringing out was by the opened passage in the side of the den, for which purpose the stone with the seals was removed.”—Keil.]
[30][But the rendering proposed by the author is equally inadmissible here.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv3–9 Daniel was preferred--probably because of his having so wonderfully…
Daniel was preferred--probably because of his having so wonderfully foretold the fall of Babylon. Hence the very expression used by the queen mother on that occasion (Dan 5:12) is here used, "because an excellent spirit was in him."
king thought to set him over the whole realm--Agreeing with Darius character, weak and averse to business, which he preferred to delegate to favorites. God overruled this to the good both of Daniel, and, through him, of His people.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 7, 8 1. Princes — Rather, as R.V., “satraps.” As to…
THE FATE OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN UNDER ANOTHER WORLD-KINGDOM.
1. Princes — Rather, as R.V., “satraps.” As to the number of satraps the Greek has one hundred and twenty-seven and Josephus gives the number as three hundred and sixty. That Gubaru — who was probably Darius the Mede, see Daniel 6:31 and Introduction, III, 3, (5) — did appoint “governors” over the province of Babylon, the inscriptions prove, though they do not state the number of these governors, or whether the legislation ever took practical effect. This act of Gubaru may have been confused later with the well-known division of the empire into some twenty satrapies by Darius Hystaspes.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–9 1. an hundred and twenty satraps] see on Dan_3:2.…
1. an hundred and twenty satraps] see on Dan_3:2. No other notice of this organization has come down to us. The Persian empire was first organised into provinces under ‘satraps’ by Darius Hystaspis (522–485 b.c.); and then the satrapies were only 20 in number (Herod. iii. 89[264]). The statement, upon independent grounds, is not probable; and if it is true that there was no king ‘Darius the Mede,’ some error or confusion must manifestly underlie it. It may have been suggested by the 127 provinces, into which, according to Est_1:1; Est_8:9, the Persian empire was divided under Xerxes.
[264] The Behistun Inscription; of Darius (col. i. par. 6) enumerates 23 provinces; the later (sepulchral) inscription of Naksh-i-Rustam (l. 7–9), 29: see RP.1 iii, v. 151 f. Darius, in the first of these inscriptions, mentions the ‘satrap’ of Bactria, and the ‘satrap’ of Arachotia (col. iii par. 3 and 9). See further details in Rawl., Anc. Mon.4 iii. 417 ff.
Read full note →
over] in, i.e. (R.V.) throughout.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–8 (1) Princes.—See Excursus A. The LXX. make the number…
VI.
(1) Princes.—See Excursus A. The LXX. make the number 127, so as to agree with Est_1:1.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 6 Vers. 1-28. DANIEL IN THE LIONS" DEN.
Vers. 1-28. DANIEL IN THE LIONS" DEN.
Vers. 1-3. It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom a hundred and twenty princes. which should be over the whole kingdom; and over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage. Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. The variations from the Massoretic text in the Septuagint are, in regard to the verses before us, very considerable. It assumes the last verse of the preceding chapter, and begins, "And he set up a hundred and twenty and seven satraps over all his kingdom. And over them he set three men as presidents (hJgoumenouv), and Daniel was one of the three men and had authority over all men in the kingdom. And Daniel was clothed in purple, and was great and honourable (endoxov) before Darius the king, because he was honourable (endoxov) and understanding and prudent, and there was an holy spirit in him, and he prospered in the affairs of the kingdom which he did. Then the king thought (ejbouleusato) to place Daniel over all his kingdom (and the two men who stood with him and the hundred and twenty-seven satraps) when the king thought to place Daniel over his whole kingdom." The passages within brackets, we think, are additions to amplify the description, and to connect it with the honor given Daniel by Belshazzar. The bracketed parts are easily separable from the rest, and then what remains forms a continuous narrative. Theodotion differs, though slightly, from the Massoretic text, Darius "set (katesthsen) Daniel over the kingdom did not merely take counsel to do it. The Peshitta agrees also very closely with the Massoretic, only the word for "princes" is not, as in the Massoretic text, ahashdarpnayya", but rabu heel. This is the common rendering in the Peshitta of this word, and points to the Massoretic term being an adaptation. the use of the word "satrap" here has led to the idea that this is derived from the hundred and twenty-seven provinces. (Est_1:1) This identification is supported certainly by the LXX, which gives a hundred and twenty-seven as the number of the satraps set up by Darius. Josephus, it may be noted ("Ant.," 10:11.4), mentions the satrapies as three hundred and sixty a reading that seems scarcely to be drawn by any conceivable mistake from the Massoretic text, nor any tradition of the actual number of satrapis under the Persian rule. The probability is that there has been some early corruption of the number. On the supposition that Darius is Gobryas, these satraps would really be governors of cities and small districts in the populous province of Babylon. We have in the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs who intervened in the affairs of Babylon and Chaldea, notices of a large number of small kingships: each of these would require a special governor. In harmony with this, we are informed by Mr. Pinches that Gobryas appointed subordinate governors in the territory of Babylon. The phrase which states this occurs in the Annals of Nabunahid (col. 3. line 20), "And Gobryas his governor appointed governors in Babylon." Delitzsch ("Beitrage zur Assyriologie," 2. p. 256) points out that the sign of the plural after the second occurrenceof the word "governor" proves that we cannot translate as if "Cyrus" were the nominative to the sentence, and "Gobryas," who was governor of Gutium or Guti, was object. From the fact that the text of Daniel was not protected by being regularly read in the synagogues, as was the Law, the Prophets, the Megilloth, the Psalms, and some other books, it was more at the mercy of scribes. The change of "Gobryas" into "Darius" led easily to other modifications. Probably medeena, "province," was the word in the original text, but it was modified to malcoutha, "kingdom," and "governors" of cities became "satraps" over provinces. After having appointed these subordinate governors, that a board of three should be set over them was a necessary arrangement. The name given to them, sarekeen, is asserted by some to be of Persian origin. On the other hand, the fact that the first syllable is sar, the Assyrian for "king," one is tempted to think of a Semitic etymology. The Authorized is wrong in making Daniel "first" of these presidents; all that is asserted is that Daniel was one of these presidents. That the king should have no damage applies most probably to the revenue. The country, in the East, is divided off into small districts for the purpose of tax-collecting, and in the division of the Persian Empire into twenty satrapies, this was greatly the object. The repetition of the word "king" here might imply that Darius was not the king whose loss of revenue was to be guarded against; but we weald not be held as pressing this. Although Daniel was not, on the creation of this board, made chief of it, he soon acquired an influence over Darius which gave him, in effect, such a position. We arc to understand that these officials were mainly Babylonians. We learn now that the capture of Babylonia by Cyrus was not accomplished by a skilful diverting of the waters of the Euphrates, so that the Persian troops were enabled to wade in by the bed of the stream, nor to the fact that in the revelry of a feast the river-gates were left open, and the sentinels were careless; but to the fact that the whole official class were at enmity with the court, and so treachery opened the gates to Gobryas, the governor of Gutium, the name given to Mesopotamia as a Persian province, and when morning broke one day, the sixteenth of Tammuz, the inhabitants of Babylon saw the shields of Gutium guarding the citadel and the temple Esakkil. This being the case. naturally the official class of the former monarchy would be largely drawn upon to supply the needs of the new government; naturally the native Babylonians would think that the preference in all matters of office ought to be given to them; that, above all, the principal place should not be given to a Jew by Cyrus, or by any one under him, since Cyrus professed to be moved by reverence for the national gods of Babylon in his war against Nabunahid. And the king thought to set him over the whole realm. This really means over the province of Babylon, malcoutha being written instead of medeena. His object was not to make Daniel satrap instead of himself, but to make him his "vizier." His knowledge of the business of the province would of necessity be very thorough, dating, as it did, from the days of Nebuchadnezzar. He, as no other, would be acquainted with the various religious beliefs of the different captive communities in Babylonia. Himself belonging to one of these communities, his interest would be excited by all in similar circumstances. His age, the dignity he had enjoyed in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabunahid, along with his zeal and ability, naturally explain the desire of Darius (Gobryas) to make him his vizier.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-28.
The lions" den.
The story of "the lions" den" may be regarded as an instance of persecution frustrated.
I HIGH STATION OFTEN OCCASIONS SEVERE TRIALS TO RELIGIOUS FIDELITY. If it had not been for his rank and office, Daniel would have been left unmolested. There is safety in obscurity.
1. The customs of high places are often inimical to religious fidelity. Daniel must have been tempted by fashion before he was attacked by persecution. His religious habits were singular and marked.
2. High office provokes envy. It was not anti-religious zeal which stirred the enemies of Daniel. They used a religious question simply as an instrument for their private jealousy. Blamelessness of conduct is no security against this kind of enmity.
3. Prominent positions are exposed to searching criticism. Daniel"s habits were keenly watched. Happily his integrity was unimpeachable, even in the eyes of his enemies. How many of us could stand such a test? His religious habits, however, were made public; and his fidelity to God, in opposition to the royal decree, was noted against him when the similar conduct of humbler men would have been disregarded.
II OUR DUTY TO GOD MUST TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER ALL HUMAN OBLIGATIONS. Daniel was a servant of Darius, and the law of the king was absolute; yet he had no hesitation in setting this at defiance in obedience to the higher service of God (Act_4:19 Act_5:29)
1. All through life there are similar cases in which lower obligations are cancelled by higher ones. The duties of subjects to sovereigns, citizens to laws, children to parents, servants to masters, etc., must all be considered to have this limitation.
2. An unrighteous law is no excuse for unrighteous conduct. This should be remembered by people in commercial or legal situations, in which the state of the law is sometimes used as a cloak for ambiguous practices.
III RELIGIOUS FIDELITY IS OFTEN ATTENDED WITH TEMPORAL DANGER. Though jealousy was the first cause of the attack on Daniel, his religious fidelity afforded the immediate occasion for it. In the long run right will triumph, but here and now wrong often triumphs.
1. It is desirable to count the cost," and not to expect all things to go smoothly, when we set out on the Christian warfare. (Luk_14:25-33)
2. Strength and courage and independence of character are indispensable to a faithful Christian life (Jos_23:9; Eph_6:10)
IV GOD CAN SAVE THOSE WHO TRUST IN HIM WHEN ALL HUMAN HELP IS USELESS. The weak king laboured till sunset to save Daniel, but in vain. When the worst was done by men, God interfered.
1. The most savage creatures are under the control of God. When they rage and destroy they are only obeying instincts planted in them by their Creator. When he turns these instincts aside they obey. Wild beasts do not disobey the will of God. Man alone rebels.
2. To the faithful,man tide worst dangers are more alarming than harmful. Daniel"s lions looked terrific, but their mouths were shut. Bunyan"s lions were chained. Spiritual evils often vanish when they are boldly faced. (Jam_4:7)
V THEY WHO MAKE UNJUST ATTACKS ON THE INNOCENT OFTEN BRING ABOUT THEIR OWN RUIN. The enemies of Daniel are themselves devoured by the lions. Compare this with the cases of Haman (Est_7:10) and Judas. (Act_1:18) Thus wicked men sometimes fall into the vengeance they have prepared for their victim. (Psa_46:6) It is dangerous to show enmity to the weakest man who stands on the side of right. All the power of God is behind him.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS Vers. 1-24.
Strength of soul.
when Daniel knew," etc. (ver. 10). Daniel stands here before us a magnificent instance of strength of soul. (Psa_138:3) We have also the advantage of seeing him contrasted with a blameworthy and contemptible weakness, as well as with something worse with weakness passing into wickedness.
I STRENGTH. As exhibited by the saint, statesman, and prophet. See it:
1. Advancing to the throne in common life. The new organization included a hundred and twenty satrapies; over these three presidents in close relation to the king; of these Daniel was one" (not the "first"). But he stood out in bold relief against the other ministers of the crown. By intelligence, experience, industry, and piety, he moved at once to the front (ver. 3). Religion king in every realm. Fidelity in common things (ver. 5).
2. In the absence of egotism. Shallow scepticism charges Daniel with egotism, partly on the ground of ver.
3. The tables may here well be turned on the adversary. Considering theexalted power and position of Daniel, that we have here too autobiography, the absence of self-allusion and self-praise is wonderful, and that throughout the book. Besides, this seeming self-praise was necessary to account for the action of enemies. Moreover, moral greatness does not quite preclude all allusion to self Num_12:3; 1Co_15:10; Nehemiah throughout 3. In Daniel"s continuance in the habit of saintly life. (Ver. 10.) Note:
(1) The simplicity of action. "He kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed.
(2) The absence of ostentation. No opening of the windows in order that all might see. To have so done would not have been to exhibit religious courage, but foolhardiness. Such conduct would have been bravado. Religious courage is a calm, wise, brave thing. Picture the palace-house of one so great; the parlour on the roof; the lattices closed (as in hot climates) towards the east and south, but open (at least in the early hours, perhaps always) on the west, and intentionally "toward Jerusalem.
(3) The fearlessness of consequences.
(4) The reason of the act. Because Chaldee he had done so aforetime." The persistence of the strong. "What he was as a dear little child, when his mother taught him, and prepared him with prayers and tears for the perils of Babylon albeit she did not know he was to live the hard life of an exile that he is now, though his hair be grey and his body bent with years." One holy, consistent life.
1. In the permanence of his patriotism. "Toward Jerusalem.
2. In the grandeur of his faith. After all these years and vicissitudes, the home of his soul was still in the Hebrew tradition in the Hebrew history, literature, prophecies, liturgies, etc,
II WEAKNESS. As illustrated in the character and conduct of the king. The moral weakness of the man appears:
1. In the evasion of responsibility. There is evident an indisposition to uttered to the affairs of government, which are left in the hands of officials. No surer mark of moral weakness than to leave what should be alike our duty and honour to others possibly to the incompetent.
2. Accessibility to flattery. Keil"s view of the proposal of ver. 7 commends itself to us, that it referred only to "the religious sphere of prayer. " On this assumption the king would be regarded as the living manifestation of all the gods, of the conquered nations as well as of Persia and Media; and the proposal was that all prayer to all divinities should for thirty days be stayed save to this divinity the king. The inflated vanity which could accept so obsequious homage!
3. Pliability to the will of others. (Ver. 9.) He had not the courage to live his own life, to think his own thoughts, and act them out.
4. Indifference to suffering. Weakness of soul means usually the weakness of every part a feeble, emotional nature, at least on its nobler side, as well as weakness of intellect, conscience, will. Note "the den of lions" (vers. 7, 24). Deficiency of sympathy, leading on to frightful cruelty, is oft the result of feeble moral imagination. No child or man could torture insect or man who vividly realized the exquisite agony.
5. The violence of passion. (Vers. 14, 18-20, 24.) Take the violence of his grief and indignation alike.
6. Moral helplessness. What a humiliating picture have we in vers. 14, 15 1 (The speech of the conspirators is clearly prompted by what they had observed on the part of the king an attempt to evade the law, vers. 19, 20.)
III The strength of Daniel, his magnanimity, is here set, not only against the weakness of the king, but also against the darker background of WICKEDNESS exhibited by those who conspired against the prophet. Moral weakness is not far off deep depravity; e.g. the depravity of Ahab perhaps the weakest character in the Old Testament. Observe:
1. The vision given to these men. Of a saintliness like that of Daniel elevated in its devotional life, ripe with the maturity of years, clearly manifesting itself in common scenes, excellent beyond all praise by their own admission (ver. 5). A beam, a ray from the holiness of God.
2. The Divine aim in the vision. Beneficent and moral we may be sure. To awaken admiration; to bring home the sense of defect; to lead to penitence; to arouse to efforts after likeness.
3. The human frustration of that aim, What was intended for salvation became the occasion of moral ruin, the cause being the deep depravity of these hearts. Note:
(1) The audacity of their aim. Men usually come to perpetrate great crimes step by step. These aimed at the ultimate of evil from the first the utter ruin and destruction of the prophet.
(2) The recklessness of their counsel. If there be no law sufficient to crush, they will make one.
(3) The pertinacity of their pursuit of their miserable object. Shown in their dealing with the king (ver. 15).
(4) The meanness of their conduct. Over that parlour on the roof of Daniel"s palace-home a watch must have been meanly set.
(5) The mercilessness of their cruelty. (Vers. 16, 17.)
4. The judgment that befell. (Ver. 24.) R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES Vers. 1-9.
The murderous plot of envy.
As every climate and every condition of soil are favourable to the propagation of particular weeds, so every state of society offers facility for the growth of some sins. Prosperity has its dangers as well as adversity. If the refinements of civilization make grosser vices intolerable, the greater encouragement is given for the secret sins of envy, deceit, and uncharitableness. It is never safe for the conscience to fall asleep.
I ENVY CAN EXIST IN THE BEST-ORDERED COMMUNITY. Whatever may have been the faults of Darius, he had a remarkable faculty for wise government. The difficult task of ruling a large empire was distributed among suitable orders of men. He was not only successful in war, but also skilful in council. Unlike many Oriental monarchs, he was neither an autocrat nor a tyrant. He did not suppose that all wisdom resided in himself, nor did he imagine that intelligent beings could be ruled by sheer will. Therefore he laid the basis for constitutional government, and appointed a prince in every province of the empire, whose business it would be to maintain the royal authority, and to secure to all subjects rights of freedom and property. But no human government, however wise or good, can check the growth of immoral principles. Human authority, at the most, can deal with overt crimes; it cannot check or punish the iniquities in the human heart. There is need for higher authority for a heart-searching God to control the tempers and passions of the soul.
II ENVY IS EXCITED BY THE SIGHT OF SUPERIOR GOODNESS IN OTHERS, It is a strange phenomenon that virtue in one should be the occasion of vice in others. Yet virtue is not responsible for this result. Eminent goodness either allures or repels men. Virtue may be the innocent occasion of wickedness: it is not its originating cause. The warmer the sun shines on our gardens, the faster grow the weeds on the dunghill. Yet the sun is not to be blamed. The peerless purity of Jesus Christ exasperated men to commit the foulest offence that our earth has ever witnessed. As a rule, it is not the virtue itself that is envied, but the advantages and rewards which virtue secures. Men, for the most part, wish to gain the fruits of virtue rather than the virtue itself; and if they cannot, with facility, rise to the elevation of their rival, they seek to bring him down to their level or else destroy him altogether. Because Daniel was preferred by the king on account of his probity and prudence, the evil nature in his competitors developed in the direction of bitter envy.
III ENVY IS LABORIOUS IN THE SEARCH AFTER OTHERS" SINS. The base and contemptible nature of envy is seen in its occupations. It is not conducive to the health of men"s minds to be perpetually engaged in the study of disease. There may be compensations and alleviations to be obtained from other sources. But the pursuit itself is injurious. Much more injurious to the soul is it to be on the search for diseases of the soul, and to find a satisfaction in the supposed faults of our fellow-men. In the case of Daniel, this search served only to bring more clearly into view Daniel"s exceptional virtue. Not even the sharp lynx-eye of ambitious envy could find a blemish on his reputation. His unworthy detractors were at length compelled to acknowledge his private and his public virtues; so they confessed to each other, "We shall find no occasion of blame against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the Law of his God.
IV ENVY SEEKS TO GAIN ITS END BY THE MOST DISCREDITABLE METHODS. It matters little to Envy whether she speaks the language of truth or of falsehood; whether she employs just or unjust measures. These jealous rivals of Daniel went to the king with a lie in their mouths when they said that "all the presidents" and princes had united in asking this decree. How sedulously busy is Envy in her intrigue! She counts no toil inordinate! She had paced up and down the land, whispered in the ear of every state official, and secured their adhesion to this deadly plot. Seeming success makes her bold. She will involve the king himself in her murderous scheme. A crafty use of flattery will win his powerful patronage. The intrigue shall be masked under the pretence of excessive loyalty. For thirty days the king shall be the sole dispenser of bounty to the people. His ear shall be open to every complaint. This will gain him wide popularity; this will bring pious Daniel within the meshes of contumacy. These professed believers in other gods will neglect their deities for a whole month in order to encompass the murder of the best and noblest man in the empire.
V ENVY IS NOTHING BETTER THAN INCIPIENT MURDER. No tender or humane feeling can dwell in the same breast as Envy. She will gradually banish every virtuous occupant, and introduce instead the basest crew. Hide her final intention as she may, she must at length confess that murder is the final act in her programme. These jealous colleagues of Daniel would probably have been for the moment satisfied, if only they could have deposed Daniel from his just eminence, or if they could have seriously injured his reputation with the king. But since these ends were compassed with insuperable difficulty, they determine to aim higher still, and because this end seemed within easier reach, they make a thrust at his life. It is a perilous thing to harbour an evil principle in any corner of the heart. Like a tiny leak in a mill-dam, it will steadily increase: the trickling stream will carve for itself a larger and a larger channel, until every barrier at last gives way, and devastation on a large scale is the result. "Keep thine heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life." Envy, when developed to maturity, becomes red-handed murder. D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 It pleased Darius to set over the Kingdom.
Dan_6:1-10
It pleased Darius to set over the Kingdom.
Read full note →
Daniel and his enemies
Darius appointed an entirely new administration, but it does not appear that he made any material change in the financial system of the Empire. Daniel we may call the First Lord of the Treasury. Daniel s high reputation was confirmed by experience of his wisdom, integrity, and self-renouncing devotion to the public good. The King intended to set him over the whole realm, to give him all the power over the several departments of the State, that would have enabled him to enforce obedience, and to punish dereliction This would have involved a grand official revolution, and the transpiring of such an intention of the King was enough to alarm the hundred and twenty chief publicans, and raise up the whole body of presidents and princes against their watchful chief. A plot was planned and executed. They came tumultuously to the King, on the strength of a conspiracy. This could hardly have taken place under the rule of a Sardanapalus or a Nabonadius. Daniels enemies saw no remedy for their discontent, except in procuring his immediate ruin. Darius was a very weak-minded and vain-glorious prince. The conspirators knew how to play upon his weakness. They proposed to him an easy method of rising above every rival, at least for one happy month, during which time not even Cyrus shall be permitted to receive a prayer. No man, no god even, shall be approached in the language of petition. Their object, however, the King does not perceive. As to the kind of death denounced on recusants, it is apparent, from the testimony of Quintus Curtius, that lions were kept in dens at Babylon, and produced on festive occasions, With regard to the immutability of the laws of the Medes and Persians, that can only mean that, when law was made, the King could not change it, but he might, nevertheless, find, or even make, another law to counteract its force. Did Darius believe, or did he only struggle to persuade himself, that the God of Daniel would deliver him, as he once delivered three of his fellow-captives from the fiery furnace? Or did he only ejaculate a wish that God would deliver him? For the Chaldee may mean either . . . One word in Daniels answer to the King, from the den, conveys an intimation that his enemies, not content with charging him with disobedience to the Kings monstrous decree, had also endeavured to fix on him a suspicion, if not a direct accusation, of dishonesty, in spite of their previous confession to one another, that they could find none occasion nor fault. Now there can be no suspicion. The loyalty of Daniel, even to so insignificant a king as Darius, shines no less clearly than his faithfulness to God, leaving to all generations a bright example of loyalty, a virtue commended by the supreme example of our blessed Saviour, and strictly inculcated by the spirit of inspiration, through His servants the apostles. (W. H. Rule, D.D.)
Of whom Daniel was first.
The promotion of Daniel
Men have to pay for all exaltation; a sense of responsibility comes with it where it is honest and worthy, and men do not ascend to the primary positions instantly, but gradually, and as they ascend they become accustomed to the air, so that when they do reach the throne it seems as if they had but a step to take from the common earth to the great altitude. Thus we are trained, graduated, perfected, not by suddenness, abruptness, not by any vulgarity of government, but by that fine shading and graduation which is all but imperceptible, and which only makes itself known in all the fulness of its reality and value when we are prepared to accept the throne, the crown, the sceptre, humbly, modestly. How could Daniel bear all this exaltation? Because it was nothing to him: He had been in prayer. The man who prays three times a day, really prays, whose window opens upon heaven, cannot receive any honour; he cannot be flattered. If Darius had asked him to take the throne it would have been but a trifle to Daniel. A man who has been closeted with God cannot be befooled by earthly baubles and temporal vanities. It is with these things as with miracles. So with this greatness of such men as Daniel; it is not greatness to them: it is but a new responsibility, another opportunity for doing good, a larger opening for higher usefulness. The man should always be greater than his office; the author should always be greater than his book; the picture should be nothing compared with the picture the artist wanted to paint. The musician does well to set aside his thousand-voiced organ because it is useless when he wants to express the ineffable. If we prayed aright, if we loved God truly, then all honour would be accepted with an easy condescension, and every gift and recognition and promotion would be used with modesty, and every honour given by men would not be despised, but would be used to the promotion of the highest ends of being. It is thus the Daniels of the world sit upon their thrones; verily, they sit upon them; they use them, they are mere temporary conveniences and symbols to them; the real king is intellectual, spiritual, moral, sympathetic, invisible, divine. It is useless for us to wish to be what Daniel was; we shall be what Daniel was, and where he was, when we have the same qualifications. The universe is not being built by an unskilled carpenter; it is being constructed--I mean that inward and spiritual universe of which all other universes are but the scaffolding--by a divine Builder; and He will not put the top stone in the foundation, or the foundation stone in the pinnacle; He will put us just where we ought to be. Daniel and Paul, Peter and John, the seraph all aflame, the cherub all contemplation, each will have his place. O foolish soul, do not build thyself into Gods wall; let the Builder handle thee, and be glad that thou hast any place in the spiritual masonry. (Joseph Parker, D.D.)
The Second Throne; or Character Honoured
Daniel shows us that the law of life is this--character shall be honoured with respect, confidence, high place, and success. If the law does not work out these results, in any particular case, it must be because of some special hindrance. Sooner or later every man finds his place, and gets what he is worth. Life is not a lottery. In speaking of Daniels honour, it will at once appear that it was political, And we need more Godly men in high places. Daniel did not reach his position by any sudden spring. He had lesser offices first, in which his faithfulness was proved. Daniel won his position because an excellent spirit was in him. Before dealing with the honours that wait on character, a word must be said on the relation between talent and character. These two things are often separated. Men of genius are not always men of character. Byron is an extreme instance of this. And men of character are not always men of talent. We have very often to say, Yes, he is a very good man, but not very clever. No man of genius can afford to despise character; and no man of character should rest until he has added to it ability and skill. Daniel took every advantage of Persian culture, and in him we find talent and character blended. With what honour then will God, and the world, crown good character?
I. THE WORLD HONOURS CHARACTER WITH ITS RESPECT. And that is far better thing than position, riches, and fame. Have character rooted in God, and if men mock you to the face, you may be sure that in your deep heart they think of you as Balaam did of Sarah. The respect in which the good man is held comes out when he is dead.
II. THE WORLD HONOURS CHARACTER WITH ITS MATERIAL BLESSINGS. This is not an invariable rule. Some cannot bear the risks of prosperity. Many of us do well to pray, Give me neither poverty nor riches. Yet it is generally true that character wins the places of trust, and character keeps the places it gains. Illustrated by Joseph and Obadiah. But how does God honour character? With His approval, and with the sense of that approval in a mans own soul. With His special acceptance in the world to come. By making it witness for him here on earth; as in this case of Daniel God makes the men of character to be in His world as salt, as cities on hills, and as the Light. Their highest honour lies in their influence, their witness, and their work. (Robert Tuck, B.A.)
The Power of Christian Principle
It is the silent but continuous and irrepressible power of Christian principle which really tells upon the world around us. It is not a mere syllogism that will convert a sceptic. It is not a powerfully constructed argument that will alone convert a Roman Catholic; it is not such specimens of Christianity as Church and Chapel often furnish, which make men feel that Christianity is the ambassadress of God, and the benefactress of mankind. It is when the world sees Christianity softening all, sweetening, subduing, sanctifying, inspiring, directing all--giving its tone, shape, colour, and freshness to all; it is when the world sees Christianity in self-sacrifice--in submitting our own temper and inclinations to those of others--in giving way and suffering, rather than appearing to dictate and presume--it is in the quiet by-paths of human life, that Christianity acts with the greatest force, and in which, if detected by the sceptic, he owns that there is there the finger of God, the evidence of a power greater and holier than human. So Darius saw Daniels Christianity; he understood not his sublime creed, but he appreciated his honesty, his integrity, his truthfulness, his faithfulness. The world itself, if it do not practice, yet appreciates faithfulness and integrity. The merchant on the exchange understands character, when he neither studies nor subscribes a creed. Hence the pulpit is not the only place for preaching. (John Cumming, D.D.)
The Supremacy of Character
This Daniel--what surprises and scorn, what bitter jealousy and mortification, rankles beneath this apparently simple allusion. That this Hebrew stranger and captive should have won any place at court; that when admitted he should be allowed to defy its customs; that he so gained the favour of his royal master as to be called into his most intimate counsel, and to be placed above those who had preceded him in office--these circumstances constituted a grievance of no common magnitude, and for which there was no forgiveness. What led to the rapid promotion of one who had neither rank or friends to recommend him? On this point a clear and satisfactory explanation is afforded. Because an excellent spirit was in this Daniel, the king thought to set him over the whole realm. What have we here but a signal testimony to the intrinsic sovereignty of character, a testimony which ever succeeding age reveals with greater calmness and recognises with deeper veneration. It has been affirmed that the religion of the day is reverence for character. The archbishop of Canterbury, in addressing a mass meeting of working men in connection with the Church Congress, and pleading for the establishment of more satisfactory relations between employers and employed, warned his hearers against seeking, from the enactments of Parliaments or the rules of trades unions, for the solution of problems which could only be effectually met by a conversion of character alike in masters and servants. What, then, do we understand by this word so constantly upon, the lips of great leaders in Church and State? Strange to say, we search for it in vain in our translation of the Bible, and only find it once in the original text. But many of you are aware that it comes to us from a Greek word which signifies a graving tool. The first mention of such a thing occurs curiously enough in connection with the act of Aaron in making the golden calf. Though he would fain have us believe that the molten gold took that peculiar shape of its own accord, it appears in evidence that he fashioned it with a graving tool--a cheret as it was called in the Hebrew tongue--in which we distinctly trace the original derivation of our word character. At first, then, this term stood for an instrument--a means to an end. But by a very natural transition it came to be applied to the result. From the tool attention is inevitably directed to the work of art, from the pencil to the painting, from the chisel to the finished sculpture. We preserve, however, the original use of the word when speaking of a man of parts. We say, He is a character, thereby signifying that he impresses others, that he cannot be overlooked, that he is indeed a graving tool with the added element of life. It is, in fact, this power of impressing others by the force of our own personality that distinguishes man from the brute creation. Charles Dickens once remarked that some very fine ladies and gentlemen might as well have been born caterpillars for any good they do, or any impression they make on the world. But, dear friends, God has not placed us here to be caterpillars lazily crawling over the smooth surface of things, and leaving no trace behind. He intends that we should be carving tools; that under His hand, and each in his own sphere, we should press heavily upon and cut deeply into this disordered world, seeking to shape it more after the mind and will of its Lord. This brings us at once to the practical question. We cannot stop at the tool.
That is often a very rude and primitive affair. But the design or inscription written or graven therewith, what vast and varied possibilities are there? Even animals can make marks after a fashion--as some of us possibly know by experience--very ugly and painful ones. But they can usually be predicted. Every youth secretly hopes to make his mark and to pass for something in the world. What sort of a mark will be yours. No one can predict that. We can only hope and pray. Much might be said as to the elements of character, for, as Bishop Butler reminds us, it is, of a complex nature, there being greater variety of parts in it than there are features in a face. Giving all diligence add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance, and to temperance patience, and to patience godliness, and to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you and abound, they make you that ye shall be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. These being the elements which make a manly and Christian life a word may be said as to their cultivation. Human nature is the raw material out of which character has to be manufactured, and very tough stuff it is. It has to pass through the mill a good many times before it is good for anything. Not forgetting the requirements mentioned by the apostle in the passage just quoted, we may add one or two others that go to the making of a man. One important factor is Labour. Dr. Arnold insisted that the difference between one man and another was not usually ability but energy; and Lord Lytton tells us that he made it a rule never to trust to genius for what could be won by toil. Another and most unwelcome agent in this process is trouble. Great sufferings, says a powerful writer, swell the soul to gigantic proportions. This had probably much to do with the strength of Daniel. Simplicity of aim, sincerity of aim, and modesty of manners are also essential to a healthy nature. And so is a perfectly trained will. The importance of arriving at and adhering to an intelligent decision cannot be too strongly emphasized. We are all acquainted with the description of the irresolute man who wastes the first half of the day in hesitating which of two courses to take, and the other in reproaching himself for not having taken the other. Only when all these qualities are present and active; only when those springs of action--our thoughts, desires, and affections--are cleansed by the Spirit of God and fed by communion with Him, do we attain our complete and destined development. We fall short of our own capabilities if we fall short of God. The result of this varied discipline and careful training is to exhibit what comes out so clearly in the life of Daniel. One of the most accomplished scoundrels of the last century declared that he would give ten thousand pounds for a character, because he could make above twenty thousand by it. Considered even from this sordid standpoint character represents capital, commands credit, and is a negotiable asset. The day has passed when is this land a man could rise to the highest place in the estimation of his fellows merely by the circumstance of noble birth. He must be and do something. Merchants and tradesmen often complain of the havoc and loss entailed by excessive competition. But there is a rising market for moral integrity and a brisk demand for it. To men of different callings I often put the question, Is there s good prospect now for a young fellow in your business? And the answer is almost invariably this, Yes, he may do nicely if he is square, sober, and industrious; there are so many of the other sort, you know. So it is vice not virtue that is the drug on the market. Cleverness minus character--the world reeks with it. Most of the worlds woes are in fact traceable to this pestilence, Satan himself being the chief example and promoter of it. In the hour when, after sufficient trial, it becomes known that you at least can be depended upon, you will become a person of importance. The world surely needs and is waiting for such as you. King Darius had that gift so essential to a ruler--the power to discern moral excellence. And finding it, he had a courage to utilise and reward it. He is worthy to be king who prizes virtue above rank. Hence this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. Only when men of sincere conviction, high principle, and indisputable integrity are at the helm of affairs is there any hope for the prosperity of any people. Not politics, not commerce, not creed, but character is the supreme test of prosperity and the harbinger of peace. When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice. Thus the welfare of nations comes at last to be simply a matter of the individual spirit and conduct. (A. E. Hutchinson.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 SECT. XVIII.—THE PLOT (Chap. Dan_6:1-9)
HOMILETICS
SECT. XVIII.—THE PLOT (Chap. Dan_6:1-9)
Read full note →
Another of the deeply interesting chapters of Daniel. A former one exhibited faith “quenching the violence of fire;” this presents the same faith “stopping the mouths of lions.” The events recorded took place in the reign of a Persian monarch named Darius, generally understood to be the Darius mentioned in the conclusion of the previous chapter, and the same who is called by a Greek historian Cyaxares the Younger or Cyaxares II., the son of Astyages and uncle of Cyrus [142]. We have—
[142] “Darius.” Keil observes that Hitzig confesses that the identity of this Darius of Daniel with the Cyaxares of Xenophon is placed beyond a doubt. How long his reign in Babylon lasted is not stated in this book, or learned from any other direct source; but it is correctly supposed that he reigned two years, his reign giving place to that of Cyrus, by whom the writing on the wall was fully accomplished. The character of Darius fundamentally different from that of Nebuchadnezzar, the latter being distinguished by energy and activity, while Darius was a weak prince, wanting in energy, and allowing himself to be guided and governed by his officers of state. Some, as Mr. Bosanquet, still think that the Darius, under whom Daniel lived and wrote his later prophecies, was Darius Hystaspes, who is mentioned in the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah and in the Book of Ezra (Hag_1:1; Zec_1:1; Ezr_4:24; Ezr_5:6; Ezr_6:1). Dr. Pusey observes that the identification of Cyaxares II. with “Darius the Mede “is only a probable historical conjecture, with which Daniel is in no way concerned.
I. Daniel’s elevation (Dan_6:1-3). The Medes and Persians were now in possession of Babylon. The first of the four great monarchies had passed away, and the second, indicated by the silver breast and arms of the great image, had succeeded it. Darius, the first ruler of the new empire, had, probably at the suggestion of Cyrus, divided the kingdom into a hundred and twenty provinces or satrapies [143], afterwards increased under Xerxes or Ahasuerus to a hundred and twenty-seven (Est_1:1). Over each of these provinces was a prince or satrap, and over the whole of the princes were placed three presidents, of whom Daniel was the chief [144], Darius having probably only confirmed him in the office to which he had already been promoted by Belshazzar. Indeed, for the excellent spirit that the king found to be in him, he even thought to place him over the whole empire as his viceroy or khedive, giving him all the power over the several departments of the state “that would have enabled him to enforce obedience and punish dereliction.” [145]
[143] “An hundred and twenty princes.” Keil remarks that when Daniel mentions so large a number of satrapies, it is no argument against the credibility of the narrative, as if, according to Hitzig, the kingdom was too small for so many satrapies in the Persian sense, so that they must be understood rather as Grecian ones. The division of the kingdom, however, by Xerxes (Est_1:1) into 127 provinces shows that it might have been previously divided by Darius the Mede into 120. The Median Darius might be led to appoint one satrap or prince, i.e., a prefect clothed with military power, over each district, since the kingdom was but newly conquered, that he might be able to suppress every attempt at insurrection among the nations coming under his dominion. Dr. Cox remarks that Xenophon informs us that Cyrus devised the plan of government with regard to conquered nations, which is here ascribed to Darius; and that Archbishop Ussher therefore supposes, with great probability, that it was first devised by Cyrus, and at his suggestion pursued by Darius. Dr. Rule observes that the presidents of the 120 princes, viceroys or satraps, received and administered the revenue, Daniel being First Lord of the Treasury.
[144] “Of whom Daniel was first.” M. Gaussen remarks: “What profound wisdom, vast capacity, and extensive knowledge must he have possessed! But also what decision, integrity, and equanimity, for the princes of the Medes and Persians to think of putting at the head of so powerful an empire a man, a stranger, a Jew, a captive, a servant of their enemies, and, moreover, an old man, now eighty-five years of age at least!”
[145] “Save thee, O king.” The Persian kings were regarded as incarnations of the deity. Gaussen observes that Nebuchadnezzar claimed divine honours. Alexander the Great pretended to be a god, and the son of a god. The Roman emperors required themselves and their images to be worshipped. And in our own day the Pope lays claim to religious homage, being at his consecration fumed with incense and placed on the altar of God, while the people kiss his feet, and all the cardinals cry, Venite adoremus, “Come let us adore him!”
Darius had seen and heard enough of Daniel to convince him that his own interest lay in employing him in the most responsible office in the realm. Wisdom, prudence, disinterestedness, conscientiousness, and fidelity, so combined in his character as to mark him out as the man on whom above all others the king could depend. The resemblance in this, as in some other respects, between Daniel in Persia and Joseph in Egypt, is obvious and striking. “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings, and shall not stand before mean men?” “Them that honour me I will honour.”
II. The conspiracy (Dan_6:4-5). Promotion to honour often the precursor of trouble. The presidents and princes could not see Daniel, a foreigner, a captive, a Jew, a man of an entirely different religion from their own, without the worst feelings of our fallen humanity coming into play. “Wrath is cruel and anger is outrageous; but who can stand before envy?” (Pro_27:4). Daniel, too, was a man of uprightness and principle, which the presidents and princes were not. The former, were to receive and examine the revenue accounts of the latter, that the royal exchequer might not be defrauded. But the presidents might be corrupt as well as the princes. Will Daniel connive at their peculation? Daniel was faithful to his sovereign, because faithful to his God. Duty to God secures the faithful discharge of our duty to man. Daniel made his master’s interest his own; and hence kept a strict look-out on both presidents and princes. He aimed, according to his office, not only at doing his own duty to the king, but at keeping others at theirs also. Hence his troubles. In a corrupt world, “he that departeth from evil” too often “maketh himself a prey.” Daniel’s colleagues became his enemies. Like Joseph’s brethren in Egypt, they hated him, and must have him out of the way. The question was how? Accusation against his moral or official conduct they could find none. “Every attempt to find a flaw, to prove a weakness, or to justify a suspicion, either of disloyalty or maladministration, failed.” The only way to entrap him must be in connection with his religion, in which they knew him to be as strict and conscientious as he was in his official duties. A clever and diabolical scheme was concocted that promised complete success. This was by placing his obedience to God in antagonism with his obedience to the king.
III. The decree (Dan_6:6-9). The scheme was this. Daniel was known to be a man of prayer, and to repair to his chamber at stated times in the day for that purpose. Get the king to sign a decree forbidding any one to present a petition to either God or man for a whole month on pain of being cast in a den of lions. The king will be flattered by the proposal, and Daniel will be caught. They will watch him, whether he will observe the decree and save his life, or go to his knees as usual. In the latter and most likely case, the decree once signed by the king, the representative of the unchanging deity, being irrevocable, Daniel is a lost man, and they are rid of their rival. The decree being accordingly drawn up, was presented to the king for signature. The weak monarch, not perceiving the object of the princes, perhaps flattered with the appearance of their loyalty and devotion, and pleased at the idea of being thus for a time superior to both gods and men, readily complied with the proposal and signed the decree.
“Oh, purblind race of miserable men!
How many among us at this very hour
Do forge a lifelong trouble for ourselves
By taking true for false, or false for true!”
But for divine interference, this would now have been realised in Darius. The presidents and princes, having obtained their desire, returned home triumphant. Daniel’s doom was sealed. Observe from the passage—
1. Godliness no hindrance to greatness, and prayer no obstacle to promotion. Daniel in Babylon and Joseph in Egypt notable examples. In many respects natural. But for prevailing sin in the world, and the influence of him who is its prince and the enemy of all goodness, godliness would be the surest way to greatness, and prayer the certain path to preferment. Godliness and prayer secure the necessary requisites for positions of trust—wisdom, uprightness, and fidelity. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, and it shall be given him.” Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, was pre-eminently a man of prayer. General Havelock, though burdened with the care of the army during the terrible mutiny in India, managed to keep sacred for prayer a considerable time in the morning of every day. Sir Thomas Browne wrote in his journal as an admonition to himself, to be sure to let no day pass without calling upon God in a solemn manner seven times in the course of it.
2. The excellence of true religion. “The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour.” Seen even by a heathen monarch in the case of Daniel. Hence his elevation. His enemies unable to find a flaw in him. His steadfastness in religion the only ground for accusation against him. A godly man firm and fearless in the discharge of his duty. His religion not put on or off to suit the season. Daniel known to prefer fidelity to life, and death to deviation from duty. The part of a truly godly man to act not from expediency but from principle. His inquiry, not what will be most advantageous, but what is right. His concern not to appear, but to be just and good. His aim to please God in the first place, and man in the second. True godliness, symmetrical and all-embracing; extends to principles and practice, to the temper and the tongue, to private and to public conduct, to our duty to God and our duty to man in every relation of life.
3. The depth of human depravity. Seen in the conduct of Daniel’s enemies. Hates the good because they are good, and because their goodness rebukes our evil, and stands in the way of our sinful courses. Contrives their overthrow, and even plots their death. Commits murder in the heart, and then, when it can be done safely, in the act. Practises hypocrisy in order to conceal our wickedness and make others accomplices of our crimes. Steels the heart against pity, and finds pleasure in the torture of the innocent. The character and conduct of Daniel’s enemies shows what man is by nature since the first sin robbed him of his Maker’s image. Left to himself, man exhibits the image of his tempter. It was the testimony of Him who was at once Truth and Love, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” The witness true of unrenewed men, whether Persian princes or pharisaic Jews. History as well as daily observation and experience prove that the Bible picture of man’s depravity is not overdrawn,—“Foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another;” “full of envy, murder, deceit, malignity” (Tit_3:3; Rom_1:29). Verily man needed a Saviour, and, thanks to divine mercy, a Saviour has been found. “Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1Co_6:11).
4. The certain exposure of the godly to persecution. Moral excellence no shelter from the shafts of malice, but rather their natural butt. Socrates and Aristides examples among the heathen. A natural and necessary antagonism between light and darkness, good and evil. “The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth, because I testify of it that the deeds thereof are evil.” “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” The natural consequence, so long as the world is what it is, “lying in wickedness,” or under the power of the wicked one. Its hatred, opposition, and persecution, in one form and at one time or another, the necessary accompaniment of fidelity to God and conformity to Christ. “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you.” “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you.” “All they that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” To possess Daniel’s character, we must be prepared, sooner or later, more or less, to share Daniel’s experience. The experience of Daniel only that of Daniel’s Lord. “The disciple not greater than his Master.”
5. The responsibility of men in power. Darius made the tool of wicked designing men, and virtually the author of a cruel murder. Forgetting the claims of justice, truth, and mercy, and blinded by a foolish ambition, he heedlessly consigned to a dreadful death the best and most faithful subject in his realm. Rulers in a condition either to further or defeat the designs of the wicked. Princes too often allow themselves to be the tool of priests in carrying out their persecuting projects, and so made participators in the death of God’s saints. To this source much of the persecutions of Papal Europe to be ascribed. Men responsible for the evil they might prevent, as well as for the good they might accomplish.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 I. This excellent spirit to which Daniel owed his…
Dan 6:3
I. This excellent spirit to which Daniel owed his preferment was a spirit of self-control. He kept his body under. He held the mastery of his animal nature. He laid the iron hand upon his appetites and passions. He crucified the flesh. "He purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat, nor with the wine that he drank."
Read full note →
II. This excellent spirit was a spirit of genuine piety. Much as we admire the temperance, the lofty courage, the sublime moral heroism of Daniel, we must go deeper than this to find the secret of his strength. He was, above all, a man of God. He endured, as seeing Him who is invisible. He had constant intercourse with heaven. To him God was a reality, a living and reliable Friend, to whom he could take every difficulty, and on whom he could trust in every danger. Yet all this tenacity to religious principle was united with a courtesy and urbanity that secured the admiration of all, and bespoke the true gentleman. He knew how to be firm and yet polite; conscientious, yet forbearing.
III. The excellent spirit to which Daniel owed his preferment was a spirit of unshaken faith in God. All through his troubles—and they were many and great—he never lost confidence in God, never failed to betake himself to Him in prayer. Beautiful as Daniel’s character was, he felt himself a sinner before God. No penitent ever was more humble in his confessions than he. No saint ever expressed himself more clearly as altogether dependent on Divine and covenant mercy. Of all the prophets of the Old Testament none more distinctly predicted the coming of Jesus; none indicated more plainly the object of His coming as a substitute to atone for the guilty. All Daniel’s hope for salvation was founded on the Messiah’s work, who should "finish transgression and make an end of sins, and make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness."
J. Thain Davidson, Forewarned—Forearmed, p. 233.
References: Dan 6:3.—S. Macnaughton, Real Religion and Real Life, p. 292. Dan 6:4-10.—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 351. Dan 6:5.—Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii., p. 149.
Dan 6:10
I. Daniel knew that the writing was signed which threatened him with death if he did his duty. It is well that we should all know it. There is no wisdom in telling even the youngest amongst us that his path will be a smooth one. It is a law that altereth not, which declares the contrary; a law more sure than any ordinance of Medes and Persians, for it rests on the unchanging qualities of human nature. As long as men are what they are, so long will they find it hard to be righteous, both from the fault of others and from their own.
II. "Daniel prayed and give thanks to his God as he did aforetime." It was not any unusual show of devotion; he did neither more nor less than he was used to do; three times in every day did he open his house towards Jerusalem and call upon God. The two things together are the secret of a holy life. Spiritual prayer, lest what we say be no better than the vain repetitions of the heathen; and frequent prayer, lest the spirit, being exercised too seldom, should leave us during the greater part of our lives the servants of sin.
III. It is the great art of the enemy of our souls to hinder us from thinking of God; to keep the question of obeying Him or not as much as possible out of our minds. Let us steadily bear in mind that the writing is signed against us; that if we will serve Christ we must be partakers of His suffering; we must take up our cross and follow Him. Yet, though we know this, not the less for this knowledge let us resolve to serve Him steadily; and that we may serve Him let us kneel down on our knees before Him, not once a day, much less once a week only, but often, but perpetually. And in the intervals of our work or our amusement let us link together, as it were, our more special and solemn devotions by a golden chain of heavenward thoughts and humble prayers; not trusting to our general good intentions but refreshing our continued decays and failings with as continued a recourse to the ever-open fountain of the grace of God.
T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. iii., p. 175.
I. It was no new thing for Daniel to pray; he did not do it out of bravado, he did not do it from ostentation; it was his habit thus to pray; he prayed "as he did aforetime." Those words give us the secret of his life. It was a consistent life. It was a life built throughout on the fear of God. It was a life every stone of which was a prayer. His worst enemies could find no fault in him, they acknowledged, except as touching the law of his God. They might taunt him for his religion; they might mock his faith; they could not deny the nobleness of his character, his uncorrupt integrity, his sterling worth, the wisdom as well as the uprightness which marked his conduct. The purity of his life they could not assail; it was a consistent life, a life based and built upon the fear of God.
II. But if the secret of Daniel’s success and courage was his consistency, what was the secret of his consistency? It was this: that he was a man of prayer. He kneeled three times a day in his chamber, and prayed and gave thanks to his God, as he did aforetime. (1) These words remind us beautifully and touchingly how, through all that long life, and though he had left Jerusalem only as a boy, the heart of the captive still turned towards the home of his fathers and the city of his God. (2) Notice how, anticipating by centuries the injunction of the Apostle—in everything by prayer and thanksgiving to make known our requests unto God—he who had just heard what he knew to be his own sentence of death, not only prayed, but gave thanks before his God as he did aforetime. There was no fear in that heart, there was no doubt of God’s mercy, there was no questioning of God’s providence, because he knew that the den of lions awaited him. He gave thanks now as he had done aforetime. (3) The man of prayer may not always be the successful man, judged by the world’s rules, but he is the strong man, the calm man, the brave man, the man against whom his worst enemies can find nothing to accuse him, except it be as touching the law of his God.
J. J. S. Perowne, Sermons, p. 17.
We are not told what went to make the "excellent spirit" (which was, in other words, Daniel’s religion) which made him so illustrious in his day and generation. But though it is not declared, we have no difficulty in saying what were some of the features of that excellent spirit. (1) Part of the "excellent spirit" was a deep humility. The strength of every man is his humility. (2) In that "excellent spirit" there was very great sympathy for the feelings of those around him. (3) In that "excellent spirit" there was a very great amount of common-sense, because religion is common-sense, and the man who has been dealing most with the realities of the unseen world, will be the man growing most in those intelligences which connect themselves with the common things of life. The excellent spirit in Daniel was acknowledged, and all his enemies could bring against him was "he prayed too much." Consider the subject of private prayer.
I. All distinct acts of prayer are chiefly valuable as promoting the general habit of prayerfulness in the mind. There is a danger when we speak of the importance of prayer so many times a day of persons running away with the thought that that is enough. But to very little profit will be prayer three times a day in the closet, if it does not minister to an habitual uplifting of the heart in dependence and praise all the day long.
II. Though it is very desirable in our private communion with God, not to be mechanical, or tied down to certain laws too much,—yet some method is very valuable, even in private prayer. Every prayer ought to have these outlines;—invocation, confession of sin, praise, requests for future blessings temporal and spiritual, intercession.
III. Remember that all your greatness depends on your nearness to God. Always look to that first, for as with Daniel, so with you, the success of all the outer life will depend on that which is going on behind the scenes. A man depends on that which is going on alone between him and his God.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 2nd series, p. 90.
References: Dan 6:10.—Bishop Walsham How, Plain Words, 2nd series, p. 262; Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiv., No. 815; vol. xx., No. 1154; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 213; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 422; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 279. Dan 6:11-14.—R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 221. Dan 6:15-22.—Ibid., vol. xiv., p. 272. Dan 6:16.—Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 248. Dan 6:20.—J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 2nd series, p. 44; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 282.
Dan 6:21-23
I. This story illustrates the fact that God often seems to crown the machinations of the wicked against the good with success.
II. The story illustrates the insidiousness of sin in drawing men into extremes of guilt which they never planned for.
III. The story illustrates the supremacy of duty over intrigue in the defence of the right.
IV. The story of Daniel illustrates the need which human governments often experience, of something like an atonement for the violation of law.
V. The story suggests that God’s deliverance of the good is often by methods in which the marvellous borders upon the miraculous.
VI. The story illustrates, finally, the fact that the rescue of the good often involves the destruction of the wicked, by a very subtle law which may be called the law of retributive reaction. The enemies of the prophet-statesman fell when he was restored.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 277.
Dan 6:22
I. Notice the workings of a strange conspiracy. An influential deputation asks the king to make a law to this effect: that no man shall, within thirty days, make a request to God or men, save of the king; that if he should do so he be cast into the den of lions.
II. Notice the object of the conspiracy—Daniel. They hated this man on account of his faith. Amidst the rabble of deities, gods, and goddesses, with all their splendour and all their circumstantial authority, in Babylon, he was true to his worship of the one living God; true to Jehovah and true to the covenant. Daniel was hated for his strange, holy, eccentric faith; he was hated for the life that sprang out of faith. They hated him also because he was a man of rare gifts; they sickened with envy at the sight of those rare gifts. He belonged by presidency to the Magi—not to the sacerdotal, but to the scientific, order. They hated him for his supremacy in office.
III. Notice the effect of this conspiracy. (1) The effect was first, to bring out Daniel’s confession. (2) God sent His angel to stop the lions’ mouths, and we may imagine their bland, caressing movements, as John Foster has it, round Daniel just as they used to be round Adam in Paradise. We are not placed in similar circumstances, but every one of us is tried sometimes to the fullest extent of our powers. You have lions of some kind to face; open your windows towards Calvary; open your windows towards the Great Sacrifice.
C. Stanford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxi., p. 328; see also Expository Sermons and Outlines on the Old Testament, p. 297.
Dan 6:23
I. It is good—and they who have proved it in their own persons will be the foremost to confirm the words—to have had at times to bear witness alone and with none to sympathise, for the truth as God has taught them. It is only so that they can learn what is the strength of their faith; what it can bear; what it is worth. The faith that can bear to be alone with God in this world; that faith will pass unshaken through the gates of death, and meet God with no ignoble fear in the world to come. It is easy to believe, or think we believe, in a crowd. We feel, then, that the responsibility is divided; there is a sense of safety in the mere fact that many are trusting to the same hope as ourselves. But we may mistake trust in our clique for trust in our belief; and trust in our belief for trust in God. And it is good for such props to be at times rudely knocked away, if only that we may see whether we can stand alone; alone, as far as men are concerned; but not alone, "because the Father is with us."
II. It is not strange, therefore, that the Bible should be full of the histories of men who are distinguished by the quality of boldness. Abraham leaving his country and people to form a nation in a distant land; David going forth alone to meet the giant; Elijah before his enemy Ahab; the three children in the furnace of Nebuchadnezzar; Daniel in the wild beasts’ den; to say nothing of the faithful rank and file of the earth; the "seven thousand" whose stories are not written in the chronicles of human penmen, but whose names are in the Book of Life; the seven thousand, the glorious minority, who in all times remain as God’s witnesses, and will not bow the knee to Baal. It is not strange that characters like these should form the staple of the Scripture biography; for they are the men by whom the great fight has been fought and the victory won. The history of the cause of God in the world is, and must be, the history of brave men—of those who are not ashamed of Him, or afraid of their fellow-men.
III. Times change; standards of orthodoxy vary; forms of persecution have their day and cease to be; but two things remain the same, the will and nature of God, and the heart of mankind. Now, for ever in this world, the fight against the devil is to be waged by the brave. If our first needful prayer is "Lord, increase our faith," the next is "Lord, increase in us boldness," that we may not fear what men can do to us, nor what men can say of us.
IV. Though a brave man must needs be alone in the world, it does not follow that he who chooses to walk alone is therefore brave. There is a solitude in which we may be, not alone with God, but alone with self—alone with pride and uncharity and a rebellious heart.
A. Ainger, Sermons in the Temple Church, p. 1.
References: Dan 6:23—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xiii., p. 271. Dan 6:28.—J. Foster, Lectures, 2nd series, p. 174. 6—J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 119; W. M. Taylor, Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 348; Ibid., vol. iv., p. 55.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v5
Daniel
A TRIBUTE FROM ENEMIES
Read full note →
Dan 6:5.
Daniel was somewhere about ninety years old when he was cast to the lions. He had been for many years the real governor of the whole empire; and, of course, in such a position had incurred much hatred and jealousy. He was a foreigner and a worshipper of another God, and therefore was all the more unpopular, as a Brahmin would be in England if he were a Cabinet Minister. He was capable and honest, and therefore all the incompetent and all the knavish officials would recognise in him their natural enemy. So, hostile intrigues, which grow quickly in courts, especially in Eastern courts, sprung up round him, and his subordinates laid their heads together in order to ruin him. They say, in the words of my text, ‘We cannot find any holes to pick. There is only one way to put him into antagonism to the law, and that is by making a law which shall be in antagonism to God’s law.’ And so they scheme to have the mad regulation enacted, which, in the sequel of the story, we find was enforced.
These intriguers say, ‘We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.’
Now, then, if we look at that confession, wrung from the lips of malicious observers, we may, I think, get two or three lessons.
I. First, note the very unfavourable soil in which a character of singular beauty and devout consecration may be rooted and grow.
What sort of a place was that court where Daniel was? Half shambles and half pigsty. Luxury, sensuality, lust, self-seeking, idolatry, ruthless cruelty, and the like were the environment of this man. And in the middle of these there grew up that fair flower of a character, pure and stainless, by the acknowledgment of enemies, and in which not even accusers could find a speck or a spot. There are no circumstances in which a man must have his garments spotted by the world. However deep the filth through which he has to wade, if God sent him there, and if he keeps hold of God’s hand, his purity will be more stainless by reason of the impurity round him. There were saints in Cæsar’s household, and depend upon it, they were more saintly saints just because they were in Cæsar’s household. You will always find that people who have any goodness in them, and who live in conditions unusually opposed to goodness, have a clearer faith, and a firmer grasp of their Master, and a higher ideal of Christian life, just because of the foulness in which they have to live. It may sound a paradox, but it is a deep truth that unfavourable circumstances are the most favourable for the development of Christian character. For that development comes, not by what we draw from the things around, but by what we draw from the soil in which we are rooted, even God Himself, in whom the roots find both anchorage and nutriment. And the more we are thrown back upon Him, and the less we find food for our best selves in the things about us, the more likely is our religion to be robust and thorough-going, and conscious ever of His presence. Resistance strengthens muscles, and the more there is need for that in our Christian lives, the manlier and the stronger and the better shall we probably be. Let no man or woman say, ‘If only circumstances were more favourable, oh, what a saint I could be; but how can I be one, with all these unfavourable conditions? How can a man keep the purity of his Christian life and the fervour of his Christian communion amidst the tricks and chicanery and small things of Manchester business? How can a woman find time to hold fellowship with God, when all day long she is distracted in her nursery with all these children hanging on her to look after? How can we, in our actual circumstances, reach the ideal of Christian character?’
Ah, brother, if the ideal’s being realised depends on circumstances, it is a poor affair. It depends on you, and he that has vitality enough within him to keep hold of Jesus Christ, has thereby power enough within him to turn enemies into friends, and unfavourable circumstances into helps instead of hindrances. Your ship can sail wonderfully near to the wind if you trim the sails rightly, and keep a good, strong grip on the helm, and the blasts that blow all but in your face, may be made to carry you triumphantly into the haven of your desire. Remember Daniel, in that godless court reeking with lust and cruelty, and learn that purity and holiness and communion with God do not depend on environment, but upon the inmost will of the man.
II. Notice the keen critics that all good men have to face.
In this man’s case, of course, their eyesight was mended by the microscope of envy and malice. That is no doubt the case with some of us too. But whether that be so or no, however unobtrusive and quiet a Christian person’s life may be, there will be some people standing close by who, if not actually watching for his fall, are at least by no means indisposed to make the worst of a slip, and to rejoice over an inconsistency.
We do not need to complain of that. It is perfectly reasonable and perfectly right. There will always be a tendency to judge men, who by any means profess that they are living by the highest law, with a judgment that has very little charity in it. And it is perfectly right that it should be so. Christian people need to be trained to be indifferent to men’s opinions, but they also need to be reminded that they are bound, as the Apostle says, to ‘provide things honest in the sight of all men.’ It is a reasonable and right requirement that they should ‘have a good report of them that are without.’ Be content to be tried by a high standard, and do not wonder, and do not forget that there are keen eyes watching your conduct, in your home, in your relations to your friends, in your business, in your public life, which would weep no tears, but might gleam with malicious satisfaction, if they saw inconsistencies in you. Remember it, and shape your lives so that they may be disappointed.
If a minister falls into any kind of inconsistency or sin, if a professing Christian makes a bad failure in Manchester, what a talk there is, and what a pointing of fingers! We sometimes think it is hard; it is all right. It is just what should be meted out to us. Let us remember that unslumbering tribunal which sits in judgment upon all our professions, and is very ready to condemn, and very slow to acquit.
III. Notice, again, the unblemished record.
These men could find no fault, ‘forasmuch as Daniel was faithful.’ Neither was there any error’-of judgment, that is,-’or fault’-dereliction of duty, that is,-’found in him.’ They were very poor judges of his religion, and they did not try to judge that; but they were very good judges of his conduct as prime minister, and they did judge that. The world is a very poor critic of my Christianity, but it is a very sufficient one of my conduct. It may not know much about the inward emotions of the Christian life, and the experiences in which the Christian heart expatiates and loves to dwell, but it knows what short lengths, and light weights, and bad tempers, and dishonesty, and selfishness are. And it is by our conduct, in the things that they and we do together, that worldly men judge what we are in the solitary depths where we dwell in communion with God. It is useless for Christians to be talking, as so many of them are fond of doing, about their spiritual experiences and their religious joy, and all the other sweet and sacred things which belong to the silent life of the spirit in God, unless, side by side with these, there is the doing of the common deeds which the world is actually able to appraise in such a fashion as to extort, even from them, the confession, ‘We find no occasion against this man.’
You remember the pregnant, quaint old saying, ‘If a Christian man is a shoeblack, he ought to be the best shoeblack in the parish.’ If we call ourselves Christians, we are bound, by the very name, to live in such a fashion as that men shall have no doubt of the reality of our profession and of the depth of our fellowship with Christ. It is by our common conduct that they judge us. And the ‘Christian Endeavourer’ needs to remember, whether he or she be old or young, that the best sign of the reality of the endeavour is the doing of common things with absolute rightness, because they are done wholly for Christ’s sake.
It is a sharp test, and I wonder how many of us would like to go out into the world, and say to all the irreligious people who know us, ‘Now come and tell me what the faults are that you have seen in me.’ There would be a considerable response to the invitation, and perhaps some of us would learn to know ourselves rather better than we have been able to do. ‘We shall not find any occasion in this Daniel’-I wonder if they would find it in that Daniel-’except we find it concerning the law of his God.’ There is a record for a man!
IV. Lastly, note obedient disobedience.
The plot goes on the calculation that, whatever happens, this man may be trusted to do what his God tells him, no matter who tells him not to do it. And so on that calculation the law, surely as mad a one as any Eastern despot ever hatched, is passed that, for a given space of time, nobody within the dominions of this king, Darius, is to make any petition or request of any man or god, save of the king only. It was one of the long series of laws that have been passed in order to be broken, and being broken, might be an instrument to destroy the men that broke it. It was passed with no intention of getting obedience, but only with the intention of slaying one faithful man, and the plot worked according to calculation.
What did it matter to Daniel what was forbidden or commanded? He needed to pray to God, and nothing shall hinder him from doing that. And so, obediently disobedient, he brushes the preposterous law of the poor, shadowy Darius on one side, in order that he may keep the law of his God.
Now I do not need to remind you how obedience to God has in the past often had to be maintained by disobedience to law. I need not speak of martyrs, nor of the great principle laid down so clearly by the apostle Peter, ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’ Nor need I remind you that if a man, for conscience sake, refuses to render active obedience to an unrighteous law, and unresistingly accepts the appointed penalty, he is not properly regarded as a law-breaker.
If earthly authorities command what is clearly contrary to God’s law, a Christian is absolved from obedience, and cannot be loyal unless he is a rebel. That is how our forefathers read constitutional obligations. That is how the noble men on the other side of the Atlantic, fifty years ago, read their constitutional obligations in reference to that devilish institution of slavery. And in the last resort-God forbid that we should need to act on the principle-Christian men are set free from allegiance when the authority over them commands what is contrary to the will and the law of God.
But all that does not touch us. But I will tell you what does touch us. Obedience to God needs always to be sustained-in some cases more markedly, in some cases less so-but always in some measure, by disobedience to the maxims and habits of most men round about us. If they say ‘Do this,’ and Jesus Christ says ‘Don’t,’ then they may talk as much as they like, but we are bound to turn a deaf ear to their exhortations and threats.
‘He is a slave that dare not be In the right with two or three,’
as that peaceful Quaker poet of America sings.
And for us, in our little lives, the motto, ‘This did not I, because of the fear of the Lord,’ is absolutely essential to all noble Christian conduct. Unless you are prepared to be in the minority, and now and then to be called ‘narrow,’ ‘fanatic,’ and to be laughed at by men because you will not do what they do, but abstain and resist, then there is little chance of your ever making much of your Christian profession.
These people calculated upon Daniel, and they had a right to calculate upon him. Could the world calculate upon us, that we would rather go to the lions’ den than conform to what God and our consciences told us to be a sin? If not, we have not yet learned what it means to be a disciple. The commandment comes to us absolutely, as it came to the servants in the first miracle, ‘Whatsoever He saith unto you’-that, and that only-’whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.’
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 The Den of Lions
The Den of Lions
Darius the Mede divides his kingdom into 120 satrapies, the whole being superintended by three higher officials, of whom Daniel was one (Dan_6:1-2). Daniel is in special favour, and Darius meditates giving him a still higher office (Dan_6:3). This rouses the jealousy of his colleagues, who plot his ruin (Dan_6:4-5). They persuade Darius to make a decree that no one shall ask anything for 30 days from God or man, save from the king, on pain of being cast into the den of lions (Dan_6:6-9). Daniel, as his enemies expect, disregards this rule, and being accused he is found guilty, and is cast, much against the king's will, into the den of lions (Dan_6:10-17). After a sleeplessnight Darius comes to enquire for Daniel, and finds him alive and unhurt (Dan_6:18-22). Daniel is taken out of the den, and his accusers, with all their families, are thrown to the lions and instantly slain (Dan_6:23-24). Darius then makes a decree to all the world in honour of Daniel's God (Dan_6:25-27). A biographical note is. added in Dan_6:28).
Read full note →
Teaching. Apart from the question about Darius the Mede (see on Dan_5:31) this chapter presents other difficulties if taken as literal history. The decree of Darius seems one which even a heathen king would not be likely to make. If, however, the writer's purpose was to construct a situation for Daniel similar to the circumstances of the pious Jews under Antiochus Epiphanes, and to read them an encouraging lesson by this imaginative use of the past, the chapter well fulfils this object: see especially 1Ma_1:50.
1. Princes] RV 'satraps': so in Dan_6:2-3, Dan_6:4, Dan_6:6, Dan_6:7. The division of the Persian empire into 20 satrapies was actually made by Darius Hystaspes. Gobryas, however (see on 531), is said in the inscriptions to have appointed governors in Babylon, and this may have led to the confusion between him and Darius. Cp. the 127 provinces of Est_1:1; Est_8:9.
2. Was first] RV 'was one.' This was the arrangement contemplated by Belshazzar (Dan_5:7, Dan_5:16, Dan_5:29).
7. Governors.. captains] RV 'deputies.. governors.' Decree] RV 'interdict': so in Dan_6:8-9, Dan_6:12-13, Dan_6:15. God] RV 'god': so in Dan_6:12.
8. Medes and Persians] see on Dan_5:31.
Which altereth not] cp. Est_1:19; Est_8:8.
10. Toward Jerusalem] cp. 1Ki_8:35; Psa_5:7; Psa_28:2, The Talmud says that the Jews in foreign lands turn in prayer towards the land of Israel, those in the land of Israel towards Jerusalem, and those in Jerusalem towards the Temple, The Mohammedans turn in the same way towards Mecca.
11. Praying] RV 'making petition.'
12. Ask a petition of] RV 'make petition unto.' This exact rendering brings Daniel's conduct into sharp opposition against the interdict in Dan_6:7.
14. Displeased with himself] RV 'displeased.'
17. That the purpose might not be changed] RV 'that nothing might be changed.'
18. Instruments of musick] RM 'dancing girls,'
23. Believed] RV 'had trusted.'
25. People] RV 'peoples,'
26. Every dominion] RV 'all the dominion.'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v1 Darius the Median
Darius the Median
The biblical order of the monarchs of Daniel’s time, and of the period of the captivity and restoration of Judah, is as follows:
Read full note →
(1) Nebuchadnezzar (B.C. 604-561) with whom the captivity of Judah and the "times of the Gentiles" (See Scofield "Luk 21:24"), See Scofield "Rev 16:19", began, and who established the first of the four world monarchies.; Dan 2:37; Dan 2:38; Dan 7:4.
(2) Belshazzar (prob B.C. 556), the Bel-shar-uzzar of the inscriptions, grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, and son of the victorious general Nabonidus. Belshazzar seems to have reigned as viceroy.
(3) Darius the Mede Dan 5:31; Dan 6:1-27; Dan 9:1. Concerning this Darius secular history awaits further discoveries, as formerly in the case of Belshazzar. He has been conjectured to be identical with Gobryas, a Persian general. This Darius was "the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans" Dan 9:1 "Ahasuerus," more a title than a name, the equivalent of the modern "Majesty," is used in Scripture of at least four personages, and is Persian rather than Median. That Darius the Mede was the "son" (or grandson) of an Ahasuerus proves no more than that he was, probably, through the seed of his mother, of the seed royal not only of Media, but also of Persia. There is but one Darius in Daniel. (See Dan 9:1.)
(4) Cyrus, with whose rise to power came fully into existence the Medo-Persian, second of the world-empires Dan 2:39; Dan 7:5
In Daniel’s vision of this empire in "the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar" Dan 8:1-4 the Median power of Darius is seen as the lesser of the two horns of the ram; the Persian power of Cyrus, under whom the Medo-Persian power was consolidated, as the "higher" horn which "came up last." Under Cyrus, who was prophetically named more than a century before his birth. Isa 44:28 to Isa 45:4, the return to Palestine of the Jewish remnant began. Ezr 1:1-4. See Dan 11:2, marg. ref. (See Scofield "Dan 11:2").
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 CHAPTER 6 Under Darius the Mede and Daniel in…
CHAPTER 6 Under Darius the Mede and Daniel in the Lion’s Den
1. The decree of Darius (Dan 6:1-9)
Read full note →
2. Daniel’s faith and steadfastness (Dan 6:10-15)
3. Daniel cast into the lion’s den and the deliverance (Dan 6:16-24)
4. The Decree of Darius (Dan 6:25-28)
Dan 6:1-9. From the opening of this chapter we learn that Daniel also held a very high position in the beginning of the second monarchy, which had conquered Babylonia. He was preferred above all the other presidents and princes. This created jealousy. They devised a very cunning plan and made the king sign a decree, which they were sure Daniel would break. Inasmuch as the law of the Persians and Medes was irrevocable they were sure that the hated old man would be cast into the lion’s den.
Dan 6:10-15. It is a beautiful scene. When Daniel knew the decree had been signed, he went calmly back into his house and with his windows open towards Jerusalem he prayed and gave thanks to the Lord. He looked away from earthly circumstances and looked to the Omnipotent One. The accusation followed. The king now discovers that he is in a desperate condition. His law demands that Daniel be cast to the lions, but his heart filled with love for Daniel would have liked to save him, but he found no way of delivering him.
Well may we think here of another law and another love. God, a holy and righteous God and a God of love, found a way to save man. God’s holy law condemns man, who is a sinner and the curse of the law rests upon him. God’s love is set upon the world, and He “so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The curse of the law came upon Him who knew no sin and who was made sin for us, and therein is love manifested. Daniel is cast into the lions’ den as our blessed Lord was given to the lion Psa 22:21, and a stone is laid upon the mouth of the den and it is sealed with the king’s signet. He is so to speak in a grave, as good as dead in the eyes of the world, for who has ever heard of hungry lions not devouring a man. And all this brings before us that other place, the tomb in the garden, where He was laid and the stone before it, which bore the seal of the Roman world power. But as Daniel could not be hurt by the lions, so He who went into the jaws of death could not be holden by death. The tomb is empty and He is victor over death and the grave. All this is blessedly foreshadowed in this experience of God’s prophet.
The Lord in whom Daniel trusted and whom he served delivered him from the lions. His accusers and their families were given to the ferocious beasts, which devoured them at once.
Dan 6:25-28. King Darius also acknowledged the God of Daniel.
The final characteristic of the times of the Gentiles is man worship. The heads of these empires including the Roman Caesars claimed divine honors. Papal Rome also puts up man as the viceregent of the Lord. And all about us we find the deification of man. Finally there comes the head of all this apostasy, the son of perdition, the man of sin, who demands worship for himself 2Th 2:1-17.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v1 Daniel a Victim of Jealousy
Daniel a Victim of Jealousy
v. 1. It pleased Darius, when he had fully taken over the government of the kingdom, to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, called satraps in secular history, which should be over the whole kingdom, as governors of the smaller sections, or provinces, into which the empire was divided,
Read full note →
v. 2. and over these three presidents, chief prefects, or ministers, of whom Daniel was first, not higher in rank, but first in dignity, that the princes might give accounts unto them, the satraps thus being responsible to their superiors chiefly in financial matters, and the king should have no damage, his interests being taken care of by virtue of this statesmanlike arrangement.
v. 3. Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, that is, he showed himself superior to them, because an excellent spirit was in him, 5:12; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. This intention the king very likely made known, with the result that it stirred up the jealousy of the other presidents.
v. 4. Then the presidents and princes, actuated by an envy which caused them to disregard the best interests of the kingdom, sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom, that is, they tried to find some delinquency in the work of his official position; but they could find none occasion nor fault, no reason for impeachment, no ground for an accusation, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him, he was beyond reproach in his entire administration. "Fidelity is the leading political virtue of the servant or officer of a government, in like manner as justice and mercy should be the ornament of rulers. " (Lange. )
v. 5. Then said these men, in conferring with one another concerning ways and means of removing the hated rival, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel except we find it against him concerning the Law of his God, regarding the practice of his religion. This is the course which is often followed by the enemies of the believers: if they cannot discredit the Christians in any matter pertaining to their duties, they try to show that the observance of their religious worship is dangerous to the state.
v. 6. Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, running to him in stormy haste, with fierce impetuousness, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live forever!
v. 7. All the presidents of the kingdom, a statement which stretched the truth rather dangerously, the governors, and the princes, or satraps, the counselors and the captains, the lower prefects, have consulted together to establish a royal statute and to make a firm decree, rather, "that the king ought to establish a statute and issue an interdict," that whosoever shall ask a petition of any God or man for thirty days, within the next thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. The request was cleverly worded to flatter the king, particularly since it seemed to be the desire of all the officials of the realm.
v. 8. Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, recording the proclamation by stamping it with his official seal, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not, it could not be repealed in the Medo-Persian Empire.
v. 9. Wherefore King Darius, carried away by the suddenness and the fervor of the request, which hardly gave him time for reflection, signed the writing and the decree, placing his royal seal upon the interdict and thus establishing it for his entire realm.
v. 10. Now, when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, when he found out that the edict was established by the affixing of the king’s seal, he went into his house, and, his windows being open in his chamber, in the upper story of his house, toward Jerusalem, where he could be undisturbed in his devotions, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, according to ancient Jewish custom, Psa 55:17, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime, the royal decree changing his custom of daily worship not one whit. He did not indulge in stormy protests, but quietly ignored a law which virtually, if not actually, demanded from him a denial of the true God. Such passive resistance is often the most effective protest against laws interfering with the service of the true God.
v. 11. Then these men assembled, they came together frequently for hasty and tumultuous meetings, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God, the open windows of Daniel’s l enabling them to spy upon him without trouble.
v. 12. Then they came near, they arranged for an audience immediately, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree, reminding him of it, insisting on calling it to his remembrance, Hast thou not signed a decree that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered, without hesitancy and guile, for he was not aware of their hidden intention, and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not, thereby indicating the certain punishment of anyone who might transgress the royal edict.
v. 13. Then answered they and said before the king, full of joyful satisfaction over the fact that the king’s answer suited their design so well, That Daniel, to whom they refer with sneering contempt, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom one might always reasonably suspect of an act of rebellion against the king’s authority, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, the intimation being that Daniel maliciously spurned the edict and thereby openly challenged the king’s authority, but maketh his petition three times a day.
v. 14. Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, literally, "sorrow came on him," he was deeply grieved and troubled by this turn of events, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him, for he prized Daniel’s ability and faithfulness very highly; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him, he pondered over the matter and held the conspirators off in the hope that some way of escape might be found before morning.
v. 15. Then these men assembled unto the king, they pressed upon him in a most importunate and tumultuous manner, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed. The success of their entire infamous plan, in fact, was based upon this tradition.
v. 16. Then the king, unable to find an excuse or to hold out against the conspirators, commanded, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions, the execution following the sentence at once, as custom required. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, since he was powerless to help him in this extremity, Thy God, whom thou servest continually, He will deliver thee. This did not amount to a confession of the true God, but was merely a pious wish that the God of the Jews might prove equal to this emergency.
v. 17. And a stone was brought, probably one used for similar executions, and laid upon the mouth of the den, over the opening through which the condemned were cast down; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, of the highest officers in his realm, that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel, that is, that no one might interfere, either by attempting to liberate him or by working his evil will upon him. It is significant that Daniel made no effort to have his execution delayed or suspended, but calmly placed the outcome in God’s hands. True faith in God rests upon His will, no matter what may come, knowing God’s ways are always good and right, and all things work together for good to them that love God.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 4, 6, 8 Connecting Statement:
Connecting Statement:
The events in this chapter take place after the Persians conquered the Babylonians and Darius the Mede began to rule in Babylon.
Read full note →
It pleased Darius
"King Darius decided"
120 provincial governors
"one hundred and twenty provincial governors" (See: Numbers)
Over them
The word "them" refers to the 120 provincial governors.
so that the king should suffer no loss
"so that nothing should be stolen from the king" or "so that no one would steal anything from the king"
was distinguished above
"excelled above" or "was more capable than"
he had an extraordinary spirit
Here "spirit" refers to Daniel. It means he had was unusually capable. AT: "he was and exceptional person" (See: Synecdoche)
extraordinary spirit
spirit that made him do better than the others
to put him over
"to give him authority over" or "to put him in charge of"
translationWords
Darius
appoint
kingdom
province
govern
rule
administration
Daniel
king
spirit
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 6:1-28 God rescued and delivered his faithful servant Daniel…
6:1-28 God rescued and delivered his faithful servant Daniel (5:23; 6:20), whereas Belshazzar’s dead gods could not save him.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.