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.
Parallel Translations
-
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 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.
-
(6-15) Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him.
Cross-references (6)
Passages linked to Daniel 6:14 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Mark 6:26 The king was exceedingly sorry, but for the sake of his oaths, and of his dinner guests, he didn’t wish to refuse her.
- 2 Samuel 3:28-29 Afterward, when David heard it, he said, “I and my kingdom are guiltless before Yahweh forever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner. Let it fall on the head of Joab, and on all his father’s house. Let there not fail from the house of Joab one who has a discharge, or who is a leper, or who leans on a staff, or who falls by the sword, or who lacks bread.”
- Daniel 3:13 Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and fury commanded that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego be brought. Then these men were brought before the king.
- Matthew 27:17-24 When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus, who is called Christ?” For he knew that because of envy they had delivered him up. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of him.” Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the multitudes to ask for Barabbas, and destroy Jesus. But the governor answered them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” They said, “Barabbas!” Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do to Jesus, who is called Christ?” They all said to him, “Let him be crucified!” But the governor said, “Why? What evil has he done?” But they cried out exceedingly, saying, “Let him be crucified!” So when Pilate saw that nothing was being gained, but rather that a disturbance was starting, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this righteous person. You see to it.”
- Luke 23:13-21 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, and said to them, “You brought this man to me as one that perverts the people, and behold, having examined him before you, I found no basis for a charge against this man concerning those things of which you accuse him. Neither has Herod, for I sent you to him, and see, nothing worthy of death has been done by him. I will therefore chastise him and release him.” Now he had to release one prisoner to them at the feast. But they all cried out together, saying, “Away with this man! Release to us Barabbas!”— one who was thrown into prison for a certain revolt in the city, and for murder. Then Pilate spoke to them again, wanting to release Jesus, but they shouted, saying, “Crucify! Crucify him!”
- John 19:7-12 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.” When therefore Pilate heard this saying, he was more afraid. He entered into the Praetorium again, and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. Pilate therefore said to him, “Aren’t you speaking to me? Don’t you know that I have power to release you and have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no power at all against me, unless it were given to you from above. Therefore he who delivered me to you has greater sin.” At this, Pilate was seeking to release him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you release this man, you aren’t Caesar’s friend! Everyone who makes himself a king speaks against Caesar!”
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (13 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain In the first place, Daniel recites that the king…
In the first place, Daniel recites that the king was disturbed, when he perceived the malice of his nobles which had formerly escaped him; for their intention and their object had never occurred to him; he perceives himself deceived and entrapped, and hence he is disturbed. Here again we are taught how cautiously kings ought to avoid depraved counsels, since they are besieged on every side by perfidious men, whose only object is to gain by their false representations, and to oppress their enemies, and those from whom they hope for booty or who may favor their evil courses. Because so many snares surround kings, they ought to be the more cautious in providing against cunning. They are too late in acknowledging themselves to have been overreached, when no remedy is left, partly through fear, and partly through wishing to consult their own credit; and they prefer offending God to suffering any outward disrespect from men. Since, therefore, kings consider their own honor so sacred, they persevere in their evil undertakings, even when their conscience accuses them; and even if justice itself were to appear visibly before them, yet this restraint would not be sufficient to withhold them, when ambition urges them in the opposite direction, and they are unwilling to lose the slightest portion of their reputation among men. The case of Darius supplies us with an example of this kind.
First of all, it is said, He was sorrowful when he heard these words, and was anxious till the setting of the sun about the way of snatching Daniel from death He wished this to be done, if his own honor were sound and safe, and his nobles were satisfied. But on the one side, he fears disunion if his nobles should conspire to produce disturbance; and on the other side, he is moved by a foolish fear, because he does not wish to incur the charge of levity which awaited him, and hence he is vanquished and obeys the lusts of the wicked. Although, therefore, he labored till the setting of the sun to free Daniel, yet that perverse shame prevailed of which I have spoken, and then the fear of dissension. For when we do not lean upon God’s help, we are always compelled to vacillate, although anxious to be honestly affected. Thus Pilate wished to liberate Christ, but was terrified by the threats of the people, when they denounced against him the displeasure of Caesar. (John 19:12.) And no wonder, since faith is alone a certain and fixed prop on which we may lean while fearlessly discharging our duty, and thus overcome all fears. But when we want confidence, we are, as I have said, sure to be changeable. Hence Darius, through fear of a conspiracy of his nobles against himself, permitted Daniel to be an innocent sufferer from their cruelty. Then that false shame is added which I have mentioned, because he was unwilling to appear without consideration, by suddenly revoking his own edict, as it was a law with the Medes and Persians that whatever proceeded from kings was inviolable! Daniel now states this. He says, those men assembled together; when they saw the king hesitate and doubt, they became fierce and contentious with him. When it is said they meet together, this relates to their inspiring him with fear. They say, Know, O king! He knew it well enough, and they need not instruct him in any unknown matter, but they treat him in a threatening manner. “What? dost thou not see how utterly the royal name will be hereafter deprived of its authority if he violates thine edict with impunity? Will you thus permit yourself to become a laughingstock? Finally, they intimate, that he would not be king unless he revenged the insult offered him by Daniel in neglecting his commandment. Know, therefore, O king, that the Persians and Medes — he was himself king of the Medes, but it is just as if they said, What kind of rumor will be spread through all thy subject provinces; for thou knowest how far this prevails among the Medes and Persians — the king must not change his edict. If, therefore, thou shouldst set such an example, will not all thy subjects instantly rise against thee? and wilt thou not be contemptible to them?” We see, then, how the satraps rage against their king, and frighten him from any change of counsel. And they also join the edict with the statute, which the king had resolved upon, with the view of impressing upon him the necessity of not changing a single decree which he had often and repeatedly sanctioned. It follows:
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.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Dan 6:14 Then the king, when he heard [these]…
Dan 6:14 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.
Ver. 14. Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself.] As good reason he had; but Sero inquit Nero. Now he found himself circumvented by his wily flatterers; but why was he such an Epimetheus or after wise?
Read full note →
And set his heart on Daniel.] But all too late. Leo casibus irretitus dixit, Si praescivissem. The fool’s ‘Had-I-wist’ should be carefully prevented. To disavow the willing of Daniel’s death, and to lay the blame upon his counsellors, is a poor shift of a weak prince.
And laboured till the going down of the sun.] Alleging reasons for Daniel’s deliverance; as that he was a loyal subject, an excellent ruler; that the decree was fraudulently wrung from the king, upon pretence of finding out false hearted subjects; that it was maliciously wrested to the ruin of a fight patriot, &c. But no reason will rule unreasonable and absurd men (Aτοποι), as they are called, 2Th 3:2, men that have no topics, nor will hear of any, as the word there signifieth.
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 He was not wroth with Daniel, as Nebuchadnezzar upon…
He was not wroth with Daniel, as Nebuchadnezzar upon the accusation against the three young men, Dan 3:19, but he was angry with himself, that he should be so moved by his courtiers, against an innocent person of so much honour and honesty. This made him labour to save Daniel till sun-set. Sometimes blaming his own inadvertency and levity in so rash and sinful a decree. Sometimes considering the great reverence of so holy a man. Then the cruelty and craft in laying snares by laws made on purpose, against the best people in his court and kingdom. Then withal how hard it was to break or elude a law that was by custom unalterable, and how unsafe to reject his princes when they pleaded for the king and his laws.
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 Then these men assembled to the king,.... Who had…
Then these men assembled to the king,.... Who had left him for a while to consider of the case; or they departed to consult among themselves about the king's proposals to them; or went home to their own houses to dinner, and returned in a body; they came in a tumultuous way, as the word signifies; see Dan 6:6, they cluttered about him, and were very rude and noisy, and addressed him in an authoritative and threatening 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; they perceived that he was desirous of altering or nullifying the decree he had made, which to have done would have been to his reputation; and to this they oppose a fundamental law of the realm, that no decree ratified by the king could be altered; to attempt to do this would be a breach of their constitution, and of dangerous consequence; it would lessen the king's authority, and be a means of his subjects rising up in rebellion against him: for that there was such a law, the king knew as well as they; nor do they say this by way of information, but to urge him to the execution of the decree; and there is no doubt to be made that there was such a fundamental law, though a foolish one, and which afterwards continued, Est 1:19, but the instance which some writers give out of Diodorus Siculus (f), concerning Charidemus, a general of the Athenians, whom another Darius king of Persia condemned to die for the freedom of speech he used with him and afterwards repented of it, but in vain; for his royal power, as the historian observes, could not make that undone which was done; this is no proof of the immutability of the laws of the Persians, since the king's repentance was after the general's death, which then was too late.
Read full note →
(f) Bibliothec. Hist. l. 17. p. 510.
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 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 Verse 14. The king - was sore displeased with…
Verse 14. The king - was sore displeased with himself] And well he might, when through his excessive folly he passed a law that, for its ostensible object, would have been a disgrace almost to an idiot.
And set his heart on Daniel] He strove by every means to get the law annulled. He had no doubt spoken to several of his lords in private, and had gone from one to another till the going down of the sun.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Dan 6:14-15. Then the king, when he heard these…
Dan 6:14-15. Then the king, when he heard these things, was sore displeased with himself — Having too late discovered that the princes, in procuring him to sign this decree, had no other end or aim, but to take advantage of it to the prejudice of Daniel. The word באשׂ, here rendered displeased, which in Hebrew signifies to be rotten, is used in Chaldee for such great distress as preys upon the mind, and occasions rottenness in the bones. The meaning is, that the king was very much troubled, and exceedingly vexed with himself. And set his heart on Daniel to deliver him — The LXX. render it, και περι του Δανιηλ ηγωνισατο το εξελεσθαι αυτον, a very strong expression, implying that his anxiety to save him was so great as to throw him into an agony. And he laboured till the going down of the sun — Endeavouring to find out some exception for him from the law, and being in a great strait through the necessity he was under to have the law executed, and the regard he had for Daniel. Then these men assembled unto the king — These were bold men, and resolved to pursue their point and have their will, rather than the king should have his, in this case. The king wished to retrieve an evil act, and to retract, or at least to mitigate, a rigid and rash decree, which was acting an honourable and princely part; but they insist that the law must have its course, and its sentence be fully executed on him, who, they urged, had violated it, because it was a fundamental maxim in the constitution of the government of the Medes and Persians, that no decree or statute which the king established should be changed.
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 Then the king, when he heard these words, was…
Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself - That is, for having consented to such a decree without deliberation, or with so much haste - or for having consented to it at all. It is remarkable that it is not said that he was displeased with them for having proposed it; but it is clear that he saw that the guilt was his own for having given his assent to it, and that he had acted foolishly. There is no evidence as yet that he saw that the decree had been proposed for the purpose of securing the degradation and ruin of Daniel - though he ultimately perceived it Dan 6:24; or if he did perceive it, there was no way of preventing the consequences from coming on Daniel - and that was the point that now engrossed his attention. He was doubtless displeased with himself,
(1) because he saw that he had done wrong in confirming such a decree, which interfered with what had been tolerated - the free exercise of religion by his subjects;
Read full note →
(2) because he now saw that it was foolish, and unworthy of a king, thus to assent to a law for which there was no good reason, and the consequences of which he had not foreseen; and
(3) because he now saw that he had involved the first officer of the realm, and a man of unsullied character, in ruin, unless some way could be devised by which the consequences of the statute could be averted.
It is no uncommon thing for men to be displeased with themselves when they experience the unexpected consequences of their follies and their sins. An instance strongly resembling that here stated, in its main features, occurred at a later period in the history of Persia - an instance showing how the innocent may be involved in a general law, and how much perplexity and regret may be caused by the enactment of such a law. It occurred in Persia, in the persecution of Christians, 344 a.d. “An edict appeared, which commanded that all Christians should be thrown into chains and executed. Many belonging to every rank died as martyrs. Among these was an eunuch of the palace, named Azades, a man greatly prized by the king. So much was the latter affected by his death, that he commanded the punishment of death should be inflicted from thenceforth only on the leaders of the Christian sect; that is, only on persons of the clerical order.” - Neander’s Church History, Torrey’s Translation, vol. iii. p. 146.
And set his heart on Daniel to deliver him - In what way he sought to deliver him is not said. It would seem probable from the representation in the following verse, that it was by an inquiry whether the statute might not properly be changed or cancelled, or whether the penalty might not be commuted - for it is said that his counselors urged as a reason for the strict infliction of the punishment the absolute unchangeableness of the statute. Perhaps he inquired whether a precedent might not be found for the abrogation of a law enacted by a king by the same authority that enacted it; or whether it did not come within the king’s prerogative to change it; or whether the punishment might not be commuted without injury; or whether the evidence of the guilt was perfectly clear; or whether he might not be pardoned without anything being done to maintain the honor of the law. This is one of the most remarkable instances on record of the case of a monarch seeking to deliver a subject from punishment when the monarch had absolute power, and is a striking illustration of the difficulties which often arise in the administration of justice, where the law is absolute, and where justice seems to demand the infliction of the penalty, and yet where there are strong reasons why the penalty should not be inflicted; that is, why an offender should be pardoned. And yet there is no improbability in this statement about the perplexity of the king, for
(1) there were strong reasons, easily conceivable, why the penalty should not be inflicted in this case, because
(a) the law had been evidently devised by the crafty enemies of Daniel to secure just such a result;
(b) Daniel had been guilty of no crime - no moral wrong, but had done only what should commend him more to favor and confidence;
(c) his character was every way upright and pure;
(d) the very worship which he had been detected in had been up to that period allowed, and there was no reason why it should now be punished, and
(e) the infliction of the penalty, though strictly according to the letter of the law, would be manifestly a violation of justice and equity; or, in other words, it was every way. desirable that it should not be inflicted.
(2) Yet there was great difficulty in pardoning him who had offended, for
(a) the law was absolute in the case;
(b) the evidence was clear that Daniel had done what the law forbade;
(c) the law of the realm prohibited any change;
(d) the character and government of the king were involved in the matter. If he interposed and saved Daniel, and thus suffered the law to be violated with impunity, the result would be that there would be a want of stability in his administration, and any other subject could hope that he might violate the law with the same impunity. justice, and the honor of the government, therefore, seemed to demand that the law should be enforced, and the penalty inflicted.
(3) It may be added, that cases of this kind are frequently occurring in the administration of law - cases where there is a conflict between justice and mercy, and where one must be sacrificed to the other. There are numerous instances in which there can be no doubt that the law has been violated, and yet in which strong reasons exist why the offender should be pardoned. Yet there are great difficulties in the whole subject of pardon, and there are more embarrassments in regard to this than anything else pertaining to the administration of the laws. If an offence is never pardoned, then the government is stern and inexorable, and its administration violates some of the finest and most tender feelings of our nature for there are cases when all the benevolent feelings of our nature demand that there should be the remission of a penalty - cases, modified by youth, or age, or sex, or temptation, or previous character, or former service rendered to one’s country. And yet pardon in any instance always does just so much to weaken the strong arm of the law. It is a proclamation that in some cases crime may be committed with impunity. If often exercised, law loses its force, and men are little deterred from crime by fear of it. If it were always exercised, and a proclamation were sent forth that anyone who committed an offence might be pardoned, the authority of government would be at an end. Those, therefore, who are entrusted with the administration of the laws, are often substantially in the same perplexity in which Darius was in respect to Daniel - all whose feelings incline them to mercy, and who yet see no way in which it can be exercised consistently with the administration of justice and the prevention of crime.
And he labored - He sought to devise some way in which it might be done.
Till the going down of the sun - Houbigant understands this, “Until the sun arose;” but the common rendering is probably the correct one. Why that hour is mentioned is not known. It would seem from the following verse that the king was pressed by his counselors to carry the decree into execution, and it is probable that the king saw that the case was a perfectly clear one, and that nothing could be hoped for from delay. The law was clear, and it was equally clear that it had been violated. There was no way, then, but to suffer it to take its course.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain displeased with himself--for having suffered himself to be entrapped…
displeased with himself--for having suffered himself to be entrapped into such a hasty decree (Pro 29:20). On the one hand he was pressed by the immutability of the law, fear that the princes might conspire against him, and desire to consult for his own reputation, not to seem fickle; on the other, by regard for Daniel, and a desire to save him from the effects of his own rash decree.
till . . . going down of . . . sun--The king took this time to deliberate, thinking that after sunset Daniel would be spared till morning, and that meanwhile some way of escape would turn up. But (Dan 6:15) the conspirators "assembled tumultuously" (literally) to prevent this delay in the execution, lest the king should meantime change his decree.
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 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 14. was sore displeased with himself] was sore displeased…
14. was sore displeased with himself] was sore displeased (R.V.): ‘with himself’ is incorrect. The expression is the Aram. equivalent of the Heb. phrase found in Jon_4:1; Neh_2:10; Neh_13:8.
laboured] rather, continued striving; Theod. ἡγωνίσατο, Pesh. מתכתש הוא. The idea expressed by the word is that of struggling.
Read full note →
to deliver him (second time)] to rescue him (R.V.: so Dan_6:27 A.V.); a different word from the one rendered ‘deliver’ just before.
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.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain One thoughtless act brings much sorrow.
Vers. 14-18.
One thoughtless act brings much sorrow.
Read full note →
King Darius was free from many bad qualities which have stained the reputation of other monarchs. He had more gentleness and kindness had more regard for the interests of others than most Oriental kings. Yet he had grave faults also. He was too fond of ease. He was too ready to allow others to take the responsibility which of right belonged to him. To share the responsibilities of government with competent statesmen is an advantage to all; but his readiness to sign decrees without weighing their significance and design is a grave dereliction. The foibles which in a private person escape an adverse judgment may in a king be ruinous to the nation.
I A THOUGHTLESS ACT REVEALS THE INTERNAL WEAKNESS OF CHARACTER. King Darius, having discovered the practical outcome of the rash edict, was "sore displeased with himself." This feeling is commendable. He does not blame the cunning, the envy, the malice of others, so much as the easy thoughtlessness of himself. Others may be more blameworthy accomplices than ourselves in an evil transaction; but if any blame attach to ourselves, it is wiser first to discover and remove the mote in our own eye, before we touch the beam in another"s eye. An hour"s serious reflection, at the right time, would have prevented this Oriental king much anguish and remorse. It was an alleviation of his inward grief that he had not intended to do Daniel harm; yet, in effect, his thoughtlessness had produced as much suffering on others as if he had been instigated by feelings of bitterest malice. He ought to have given the edict mature consideration before he gave to it the authority of his great name. He ought to have inquired into its purpose, its meaning, its probable effects on society. The very haste of the councillors ought to have awakened his vigilance. Too easily his supple will yielded to others" inclination. Too easily he swallowed the bait of human adulation. Truly saith our poet
Evil is wrought by want of thought, As well as want of heart.
II A THOUGHTLESS ACT GIVES SCOPE TO WICKED MEN TO EXECUTE THEIR PLOTS. Want of vigilance upon our part gives an advantage to our enemies, which they seize upon with avidity. We might often nip iniquity in the bud, if we were only on the alert against the secret machinations of the tempter. We encourage wicked men in their base intrigues, if only inadvertently we smooth the way for their success. We are counselled by a high authority to be "wise as serpents." Intelligence has been given to us for this selfsame purpose, and it is a sin to allow any faculty of mind to be lulled into needless sleep. Darius had both admiration and personal regaled for Daniel; but this very esteem and preference of the king brought with it elements of danger to the prophet. Hence the affection of the king ought to have been thoughtful, inventive, watchful. The mean-souled officials had prepared the axe, and unwittingly the king gave them the handle by which the better to use it. For want of wariness, we may lend sheep"s clothing to human wolves.
III A THOUGHTLESS ACT OFTEN LEADS TO SAD AND IRREPARABLE RESULTS. It was a settled principle in the Persian government that a law, having once received the sign-manual of the king, could in no way be altered or repealed. This principle in the main was beneficent and useful. In a period when communication between the palace and the remote provinces was difficult and tardy, it was a great advantage to the people to know that a law, once enacted, was fixed and irreversible. But the knowledge of this first principle ought to have made Darius all the more cautious and wary in affixing the seal of authority to any new decree. He was master of that simple act; but, having performed it, he was no longer master of its consequences. It would have imperilled his reputation, his influence, perhaps his government itself, if he should have ventured to rescind it. Yet no sooner was the effect of his rash deed discovered than remorse seized his mind. Conscience lashed him for his folly. His appetite departs. The desire for enjoyment ceases. Yea, the very capacity for enjoyment is suspended. Sleep forsakes his bed. His pillow is sown with sharpest thorns. No rest can the king find for body or for mind, because an innocent life, a noble life, is jeopardized through his rash deed. His mind roams over a variety of devices by which, if possible, he can yet protect Daniel from the ferocity of human wolves. But the king himself is powerless as powerless as the meanest peasant in this matter. He had, not long since, the power to deft, rid any and every subject, but he has thoughtlessly allowed the power to depart. It is in other hands now, and cannot be recalled. Opportunity has fled. The king is a prisoner in the hands of evil workers, and is compelled by them to do a disgraceful deed to sign the death-warrant of his best friend. Nothing is left to him buthis tears. Oh the hitter fruits of rashness! D.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 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.