Then they came near, and spoke before the king concerning the king’s decree: “Haven’t you signed a decree that every man who makes a petition to any god or man within thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?” The king answered, “This thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which doesn’t alter.”
Then they answered and said before the king, “That Daniel, who is of the children of the captivity of Judah, doesn’t respect you, O king, nor the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.” Then the king, when he heard these words, was very displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored until the going down of the sun to rescue him.
Then these men assembled together to the king, and said to the king, “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians, that no decree nor statute which the king establishes may be changed.”
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv12–14 Now the king’s nobles approach the king as conquerors,…
Now the king’s nobles approach the king as conquerors, but they do so cunningly; for they do not openly say anything about Daniel, whom they knew to be a favorite with the king; but they repeat their previous assertion concerning the impossibility of changing the edict, since the law of the Medes and Persians is inviolable and cannot be rendered void. Again, therefore, as far as they possibly can, they sanction that edict, lest the king should afterwards be free, or dare to retract what he had once commanded. We must mark the cunning with which they indirectly circumvent the king, and entangle him, by preventing the change of a single word; They come, therefore, and discourse concerning the royal edict. They do not mention the name of Daniel, but dwell upon the royal decree, so as to bind the king more firmly. It follows — The king answered, The discourse is true We here see how kings desire praise for consistency, but they do not perceive the difference between consistency and obstinacy. For kings ought to reflect upon their own decrees, to avoid the disgrace of retracting what they have hastily promulgated. If anything has escaped them without consideration, both prudence and equity require them to correct their errors; but when they have trampled upon all regard for justice, they desire every inconsiderate command to be strictly obeyed! This is the height of folly, and we ought not to sanction a perseverance in such obstinacy, as we have already said. But the rest to-morrow.
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 v15 Thus the wicked maintain evil laws by constancy and…
Thus the wicked maintain evil laws by constancy and authority, which is ofttimes either lightness, or stubbornness, when as the innocents thereby perish, and therefore governors neither ought to fear, nor be ashamed to break such.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv12–15 Dan 6:12 Then they came near, and spake before…
Dan 6:12 Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; 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 and said, The thing [is] true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.
Ver. 12. Hast thou not signed a decree?] But should "wickedness be established by a law?" {Psa 94:20} See on Dan 6:7. So in France there was published an edict whereby the people were forbidden on pain of death to have in their houses any French book wherein the least mention was made of Jesus Christ. {a}
Read full note →
{a} Dr Arrowsmith’s Tact. Sacr., p. 89.
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 vv12–15 They had enough now, they came with open mouth,…
They had enough now, they came with open mouth, they pleaded the breach of the king’s laws, they tell the king he had signed it, and it could not be disannulled; the king’s authority and the honour of the nation lay at stake. The king owned such a law, and it was unalterable.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv12–15 Then answered they, and spake before the king,.... Having…
Then answered they, and spake before the king,.... Having obtained what they desired, a ratification of the decree, they open the whole affair to him they came about:
that Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king: they call him "that Daniel"; by way of contempt; and, to make him the more despicable, represent him not only as a foreigner, but a captive, and therefore ought to have been humble and obedient, as Jacchiades observes; and a Jewish captive too, of all people the most odious; and, though he had been raised from a low estate to great honour and dignity, yet such was his ingratitude, that he made no account of the king, nor of his orders, but despised him:
Read full note →
nor the decree that thou hast signed; the decree concerning making any petition to God or man for a month, which was signed with the king's own hand, and was firm and stable; and of which Daniel could not be ignorant, and therefore wilfully, and in a contemptuous manner, acted contrary to it:
but maketh his petition three times a day; to whom they say not whether to God or man; but in this general way accuse him which they thought best and safest; they feared, had they mentioned his God, something might have been said in his favour to excuse him; and to aggravate the matter, they observe the frequency of his doing it, three times; so that it was not a single fact he is charged with, but what he had repeated again and again.
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 v14 Displeased with himself - For having made that foolish…
Displeased with himself - For having made that foolish decree. To deliver him - To find out some way of delivering him.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv12, 14, 15 Verse 12. Shall be cast into the den of…
Verse 12. Shall be cast into the den of lions] Either this was the royal menagerie, like that place in the Tower of London, where wild beasts are kept for the king's pleasure, and the public amusement; or they were kept for the purpose of devouring certain criminals, which the laws might consign to that kind of death. This is most likely, from the case before us.
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 vv13–14 Dan 6:13. Then answered they, That Daniel — Thus…
Dan 6:13. Then answered they, That Daniel — Thus they expressed themselves by way of contempt; which is of the children of the captivity of Judah — This was added to aggravate his fault; that one who was a foreigner, and brought thither a captive, should offer a public affront to the laws of the king, whose favour and protection he enjoyed. One cannot easily find a more striking instance than this relation affords of the power of inveterate malice and bitter envy. He regardeth not thee, O king, say they, nor the decree that thou hast signed — Thus it often happens, that what is done faithfully, and out of conscience toward God, is misrepresented as done obstinately, and in contempt of the civil powers. In other words, the best saints are frequently reproached as the worst men. Daniel regarded God, and therefore prayed, and doubtless prayed for the king and government; and yet this is construed as not regarding the king. And the excellent spirit with which Daniel was endued, and that established reputation which he had gained, could not protect him from these poisonous darts. They do not say, He makes his petition to his God, lest Darius should interpret that to his praise, but only, He makes his petition; which was the thing forbidden by the law.
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 vv12–15 Then they came near - That is, they came…
Then they came near - That is, they came near to the king. They had detected Daniel, as they expected and desired to do, in a palpable violation of the law, and they lost no time in apprising the king of it, and in reminding him of the law which he had established. Informers are not apt to lose time.
The king answered and said, The thing is true ... - It is undeniable, whatever may be the consequences. There is no reason to suppose that he as yet had any suspicion of their design in asking this question. It is not improbable that he apprehended there had been some violation of the law, but it does not appear that his suspicions rested on Daniel.
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 v15 Perceiving. Chaldee: "assembled," (Protestant; Haydock) or "came quickly in…
Perceiving. Chaldee: "assembled," (Protestant; Haydock) or "came quickly in a body." (Calmet)
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).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv12–14 They preface their attack by alleging the king's edict,…
They preface their attack by alleging the king's edict, so as to get him again to confirm it unalterably, before they mention Daniel's name. Not to break a wicked promise, is not firmness, but guilty obstinacy (Mat 14:9; Mar 6:26).
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 v14 14. It has been suggested that a counter edict…
14. It has been suggested that a counter edict condemning the executioners of the former edict to a similar punishment with Daniel might have saved the king’s honor. (Compare Est_8:11.) Certainly the later Persian kings had no difficulty in persuading their jurists to interpret these immutable laws to suit themselves.
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 vv12–15 12. before the king] cf. Dan_6:10; and see on…
12. before the king] cf. Dan_6:10; and see on Dan_2:9.
decree (twice)] interdict. So Dan_6:13.
Read full note →
altereth not] lit. passeth not away (Dan_6:8).
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 v13 (13) Which is of the children.—By adding this to…
(13) Which is of the children.—By adding this to the charge of disobedience to the king’s commandment, they hoped to incense him still further against the prophet. Here was a foreigner, who had received the highest favours from the Court, setting himself up in antagonism to the laws of the kingdom.
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 vv12, 14, 15 Vers. 12-14. Then they came near, and spake before…
Vers. 12-14. Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king"s decree; 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 and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not, Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day. Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. The version of the Septuagint, as usual, differs from the Massoretic text," Then these men interceded (ejnetucon) with the king, and said, King Darius, didst thou not confirm a decree that no man should offer prayer or present petition to any god for thirty days, save only to thee, O king, otherwise he should be cast into the den of lions? And the king answered and said, The word is clear, and the decree remaineth. And they said to him, We adjure thee by the laws of the Medes and the Persians that thou change not the commandment, nor be an accepter of persons (mhdeshv proswpon), nor diminish aught of the thing spoken, but punish the man that abideth not by this decree. And he said, This will I do, according as ye have said, and the thing is confirmed (esthke) by me. And they said, Behold, we found Daniel, thy friend, praying, and making entreaty before his God three times a day. And the king, being grieved, spake to cast Daniel into the den of lions, according to the decree which he decreed against him. Then the king grieved exceedingly concerning Daniel, and laboured (ejbohqei) till the going down of the sun to deliver him out of the hands of the satraps." One of the verses here seems to have been an addition most probably to the Aramaic text, as the Semitic spirit and construction shine through. There is, further, an obvious instance of doublet; the clause within square brackets has all the appearance of being a marginal note summarizing the contents of the verse. The words, "out of the hands of the satraps," have been added as explanatory. Theodotion is in practical agreement with the Massoretictext. The Peshitta differs in some minor points, e.g. inserting the common Eastern mode of addressing royalty, "O king, live for ever." The clause, "concerning the decree," is omitted; the other differences are unimportant. The fact that his Jewish origin is put in the front of their accusation of him indicates what Daniel"s great offence was. The Septuagint places the fact that he was the king"s friend in that position. It seems little likely that even to a satrap would any courtier venture to bring forward a taunting reference to his friendships. The king is caught in a trap; but no courtier would venture to press his advantage, lest he himself be taken at unawares. Darius"s efforts to save Daniel are to be noted. His effort would most probably be directed to find some way out of the constitutional dilemma into which he had been entrapped. His subordinate position, occupying the place of King of Babylon merely for a season instead of Cyrus, would make it more difficult for him to override any constitutional maxim. In the Septuagint the presidents seem to compel the king by moral arguments a thing float seems possible, though also a feature that might very naturally be added to the story. In the Massoretic text there is an endeavor to poison the king against Daniel. Daniel has despised the king and his commandment. This is more natural than the conduct imputed to the presidents in the Septuagint. These efforts were not successful, as probably they scarcely expected they would be; the king is convinced of his own hastiness, and of their treachery also, but not of any failure on the part of Daniel, in due respect to him, as the representative of the great king.
The law of the Medes and Persians.
Read full note →
The unalterable character of" the law of the Medes and Persians" is evidently regarded with superstitious veneration, and considered to be a scrod principle of government. But in the present instance it leads to gross injustice, and, instead of honouring, it humiliates the royal authority from which the decree emanates.
I OBLIGATIONS RASHLY CONTRACTED OFTEN LEAD TO DISASTROUS RESULTS. Darius had never contemplated the effect of his decree, or he would not have signed it.
1. It is wrong to decide on a course which will affect the future on themere impulses of the present. If decision must be made, it should be after prayer for guidance from him who lives in the future. This applies more particularly when, as in the case of Darius, our decision affects the happiness of others.
2. It is foolish to contract any serious obligations for the future which are not necessary or plainly useful. There was no good to be gained by the king"s decree; at best it was useless. Such decrees are best unsigned. It is well to turn our vows into prayers, and, instead of promising to do any hard thing, to seek grace to do it if it is God"s will.
II SO LONG AS LAW-MAKERS ARE WEAK, LAWS WILL BE DEFECTIVE. It was foolish for such a man as Darius to rashly decree unalterable laws. He was kindly disposed. But he was overcome:
1. By flattery. The king was to be the honoured exception, and prayer might still be offered to him.
2. By fear. The satraps crowded about the king until he was terrified into signing the decree.
3. Legal pedantry. The unalterable character of his law was more to Darius than right and justice. While such law-makers exist, it is not wise to enact changeless laws.
III ALL HUMAN LAWS MUST GIVE PLACE TO HIGHER DIVINE LAWS. The law of the Medes and Persians presupposes that there is no power greater than the state. But God"s laws are prior to ours. The most solemn decrees of state should only have force as bye-laws coming under God"s greater laws of right, and losing all obligation when they contradict these. The king should have broken his law, which violated the higher Divine law of justice.
IV WITH FALLIBLE MEN CONSISTENCY OF CONDUCT IS NOT ALWAYS A DUTY. Some men worship consistency as a fetish. What they "have written, they have written," and they stand to it. This conduct often arises:
1. From weakness and the fear of men.
2. From pride and the conceit of infallibility.
3. From obstinacy and self-will. Whenever repentance is a duty,consistency is a sin.
V THE ONLY LAW WHICH IS NECESSARILY AND RIGHTEOUSLY CHANGELESS IS THE LAW OF GOD. This is founded on:
(1) his infallible wisdom; (Psa_19:7, Psa_19:8)
(2) his irresistible power; (Psa_66:3) and
(3) his changeless character. (Psa_33:11)
The forgiveness of the gospel does not frustrate God"s Law, but honours it in the atonement. (1Pe_3:18) The freedom of the new covenant does not abolish this Law, but substitutes the willing obedience of the spirit for the bondage of the letter. (Rom_8:4)
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 v15 That no decree nor statute that the king establisheth…
Dan_6:15
That no decree nor statute that the king establisheth may be changed.
Read full note →
Inviolable Law
These men were constitutional persecutors. They were constitutional liars. Some men are nothing if not constitutional. They would die for constitution; they dream of constitutional order: these men who are so addicted to constitution precedent and usage could kill a man. That is the difficulty we always have to deal with. You cannot convert a scribe: with man this is impossible; with God all things are possible. Once let a man become the victim of the letter, and the case is hopeless. See how these men deport themselves: all for a law, nothing for a life; on the one side full of constitutional obedience, on the other without feeling in reference to a human soul, a brothers life; only shed mans blood, but keep the letter of the law. The great complaint we have to make against this in all ages and countries, that it has about it a taint of respectability. You cannot get at the scribe on account of the scroll which he holds us between you and him.He is not worth getting at. He has the law, the chapter, the verse, the letter; he has no genius of law, no spirit of liberty, no inspiration and enthusiasm of human nature. The thing that was given to him as a hint, a help, a temporary assistance, is pressed so as to become an excuse, if not a defence, in the matter of murder. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; the law was made for man, not man for the law. We must take care how we throw things out of proportion and perspective, how we overweight the one side or the other; let us see what it is that is really involved: if it is criminality, it must be put down; if it is a difference of judgment, if it is an exercise of conscience, then we must see what relation the law has to such spiritual or intellectual relationships and possessions and responsibilities. What is God always doing? Setting law aside. That seems strange. Certainly, God must be strange. Gods Government must be immeasurable in its inner thought, in its outward relation; it must be under his hand; it must lie well within the sweep of his omnipotence. (Joseph Parker, D.D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv12, 13, 15 Did you not make a decree ... lions?
Did you not make a decree ... lions?
They asked this question to make the king confirm that he had made the decree.
Read full note →
who makes a petition
"who makes a request"
den of lions
This may refer to a room or pit where lions were kept. See how you translated this in Daniel 6:7.
as directed by the law
"according to the law"
translationWords
king
decree
lions
Medes
Persia
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 v14 6:14 The king had not thought through all the…
6:14 The king had not thought through all the consequences of signing the law. • deeply troubled: Or very angry for being tricked. He did not want to execute his best servant.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.