Text -- Daniel 6:1-20 (NET)

Daniel is Thrown into a Lions’ Den

6:1 It seemed like a good idea to Darius to appoint over the kingdom 120 satraps who would be in charge of the entire kingdom. 6:2 Over them would be three supervisors, one of whom was Daniel. These satraps were accountable to them, so that the king’s interests might not incur damage. 6:3 Now this Daniel was distinguishing himself above the other supervisors and the satraps, for he had an extraordinary spirit. In fact, the king intended to appoint him over the entire kingdom. 6:4 Consequently the supervisors and satraps were trying to find some pretext against Daniel in connection with administrative matters. But they were unable to find any such damaging evidence, because he was trustworthy and guilty of no negligence or corruption. 6:5 So these men concluded, “We won’t find any pretext against this man Daniel unless it is in connection with the law of his God.” 6:6 So these supervisors and satraps came by collusion to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! 6:7 To all the supervisors of the kingdom, the prefects, satraps, counselors, and governors it seemed like a good idea for a royal edict to be issued and an interdict to be enforced. For the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human other than you, O king, should be thrown into a den of lions. 6:8 Now let the king issue a written interdict so that it cannot be altered, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed. 6:9 So King Darius issued the written interdict. 6:10 When Daniel realized that a written decree had been issued, he entered his home, where the windows in his upper room opened toward Jerusalem. Three times daily he was kneeling and offering prayers and thanks to his God just as he had been accustomed to do previously. 6:11 Then those officials who had gone to the king came by collusion and found Daniel praying and asking for help before his God. 6:12 So they approached the king and said to him, “Did you not issue an edict to the effect that for the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human other than to you, O king, would be thrown into a den of lions?” The king replied, “That is correct, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be changed.” 6:13 Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the captives from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or to the edict that you issued. Three times daily he offers his prayer.” 6:14 When the king heard this, he was very upset and began thinking about how he might rescue Daniel. Until late afternoon he was struggling to find a way to rescue him. 6:15 Then those men came by collusion to the king and said to him, “Recall, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no edict or decree that the king issues can be changed.” 6:16 So the king gave the order, and Daniel was brought and thrown into a den of lions. The king consoled Daniel by saying, “Your God whom you continually serve will rescue you!” 6:17 Then a stone was brought and placed over the opening to the den. The king sealed it with his signet ring and with those of his nobles so that nothing could be changed with regard to Daniel. 6:18 Then the king departed to his palace. But he spent the night without eating, and no diversions were brought to him. He was unable to sleep.

God Rescues Daniel from the Lions

6:19 In the morning, at the earliest sign of daylight, the king got up and rushed to the lions’ den. 6:20 As he approached the den, he called out to Daniel in a worried voice, “Daniel, servant of the living God, was your God whom you continually serve able to rescue you from the lions?”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: Dan 6:2

Belshazzar's promise to Daniel was, that he should be the third ruler in the kingdom, Dan 5:7, Dan 5:16, Dan 5:29. The first was general of the army, the second president of the palace, the third of the land and provinces.

Wesley: Dan 6:4

And so to have made him guilty of treason, or other high misdemeanors, in the king's business.

Wesley: Dan 6:10

The temple was the place where the Lord placed his name, and promised to appear, and accept his people, all being a type of Christ, through whom only sinners are accepted.

Wesley: Dan 6:10

He did not abate his prayers for the king's command, nor did he break the law purposely, because he did no more than he was wont to do in serving his God.

Wesley: Dan 6:14

For having made that foolish decree.

Wesley: Dan 6:14

To find out some way of delivering him.

Wesley: Dan 6:20

What he doubted of, we are sure of, that the servants of the living God, have a master who is able to deliver them and bear them out in his service.

JFB: Dan 6:1

GROTEFEND has read it in the cuneiform inscriptions at Persepolis, as Darheush, that is, "Lord-King," a name applied to many of the Medo-Persian kings in common. Three of that name occur: Darius Hystaspes, 521 B.C., in whose reign the decree was carried into effect for rebuilding the temple (Ezr 4:5; Hag 1:1); Darius Codomanus, 336 B.C., whom Alexander overcame, called "the Persian" (Neh 12:22), an expression used after the rule of Macedon was set up; and Darius Cyaxares II, between Astyages and Cyrus [AESCHYLUS, The Persians, 762, 763].

JFB: Dan 6:1

Satraps; set over the conquered provinces (including Babylon) by Cyrus [XENOPHON, Cyropædia, 8.6.1]. No doubt Cyrus acted under Darius, as in the capture of Babylon; so that Daniel rightly attributes the appointment to Darius.

JFB: Dan 6:3

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."

JFB: Dan 6:3

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.

JFB: Dan 6:4

Pretext for accusation in his administration (Ecc 4:4).

JFB: Dan 6:5

It is the highest testimony to a godly man's walk, when his most watchful enemies can find no ground of censure save in that he walks according to the law of God even where it opposes the ways of the world.

JFB: Dan 6:6

Literally, "assembled hastily and tumultuously." Had they come more deliberately, the king might have refused their grant; but they gave him no time for reflection, representing that their test-decree was necessary for the safety of the king.

JFB: Dan 6:6

ARRIAN [Alexander, 4] records that Cyrus was the first before whom prostration was practised. It is an undesigned mark of genuineness that Daniel should mention no prostration before Nebuchadnezzar or Darius (see on Dan 3:9).

JFB: Dan 6:7

The Persian king was regarded as representative of the chief god, Ormuzd; the seven princes near him represented the seven Amshaspands before the throne of Ormuzd; hence Mordecai (Est 3:4) refused such homage to Haman, the king's prime minister, as inconsistent with what is due to God alone. A weak despot, like Darius, much under the control of his princes, might easily be persuaded that such a decree would test the obedience of the Chaldeans just conquered, and tame their proud spirits. So absolute is the king in the East, that he is regarded not merely as the ruler, but the owner, of the people.

JFB: Dan 6:7

Several functionaries are here specified, not mentioned in Dan 6:4, Dan 6:6. They evidently exaggerated the case of the weak king, as if their request was that of all the officers in the empire.

JFB: Dan 6:7

An underground cave or pit, covered with a stone. It is an undesigned proof of genuineness, that the "fiery furnace" is not made the means of punishment here, as in Dan 3:20; for the Persians were fire-worshippers, which the Babylonians were not.

JFB: Dan 6:8

Or, "interdict."

JFB: Dan 6:8

(Est 1:19; Est 8:8). This immutability of the king's commands was peculiar to the Medes and Persians: it was due to their regarding him infallible as the representative of Ormuzd; it was not so among the Babylonians.

JFB: Dan 6:8

The order of the names is an undesigned mark of genuineness. Cyrus the Persian reigned subordinate to Darius the Mede as to dignity, though exercising more real power. After Darius' death, the order is "the Persians and Medes" (Est 1:14, Est 1:19, &c.).

JFB: Dan 6:9

Such a despotic decree is quite explicable by remembering that the king, as the incarnation of Ormuzd, might demand such an act of religious obedience as a test of loyalty. Persecuting laws are always made on false pretenses. Instead of bitter complaints against men, Daniel prays to God. Though having vast business as a ruler of the empire, he finds time to pray thrice a day. Daniel's three companions (Dan 3:12), are not alluded to here, nor any other Jew who conscientiously may have disregarded the edict, as the conspirators aimed at Daniel alone (Dan 6:5).

JFB: Dan 6:10

And that, therefore, the power of advising the king against it was taken from him.

JFB: Dan 6:10

Withdrawing from the God-dishonoring court.

JFB: Dan 6:10

Not in vainglory, but that there might be no obstruction to his view of the direction in which Jerusalem, the earthly seat of Jehovah under the Old Testament, lay; and that the sight of heaven might draw his mind off from earthly thoughts. To Christ in the heavenly temple let us turn our eyes in prayer, from this land of our captivity (1Ki 8:44, 1Ki 8:48; 2Ch 6:29, 2Ch 6:34, 2Ch 6:38; Psa 5:7).

JFB: Dan 6:10

The upper room, where prayer was generally offered by the Jews (Act 1:13). Not on the housetop (Act 10:9), where he would be conspicuous.

JFB: Dan 6:10

Humble attitudes in prayer become humble suppliants.

JFB: Dan 6:10

(Psa 55:17). The third, sixth, and ninth hour; our nine, twelve, and three o'clock (Act 2:15; Act 10:9; Act 3:1; Act 10:30; compare Dan 9:21).

JFB: Dan 6:10

Not from contempt of the king's command.

JFB: Dan 6:11

As in Dan 6:6, "assembled" or "ran hastily," so as to come upon Daniel suddenly and detect him in the act.

JFB: Dan 6:12

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).

JFB: Dan 6:13

Contemptuously.

JFB: Dan 6:13

Recently a captive among thy servants, the Babylonians--one whom humble obedience most becomes. Thus they aggravate his guilt, omitting mention of his being prime minister, which might only remind Darius of Daniel's state services.

JFB: Dan 6:13

Because he regarded God (Act 4:19; Act 5:29).

JFB: Dan 6:14

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.

JFB: Dan 6:14

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.

JFB: Dan 6:16

The heathen believed in the interposition of the gods at times in favor of their worshippers. Darius recognized Daniel's God as a god, but not the only true God. He had heard of the deliverance of the three youths in Dan 3:26-27 and hence augurs Daniel's deliverance. I am not my own master, and cannot deliver thee, however much I wish it. "Thy God will." Kings are the slaves of their flatterers. Men admire piety to God in others, however disregarding Him themselves.

JFB: Dan 6:17

Typical of Christ's entombment under a seal (Mat 27:66). Divinely ordered, that the deliverance might be the more striking.

JFB: Dan 6:17

The concurrence of the lords was required for making laws. In this kingly power had fallen since it was in Nebuchadnezzar's hands. The Median king is a puppet in his lords' hands; they take the security of their own seal as well as his, that he should not release Daniel. The king's seal guaranteed Daniel from being killed by them, should he escape the lions.

JFB: Dan 6:18

GESENIUS translates, "concubines." Daniel's mentioning to us as an extraordinary thing of Darius, that he neither approached his table nor his harem, agrees with XENOPHON'S picture of him as devoted to wine and women, vain, and without self-control. He is sorry for the evil which he himself had caused, yet takes no steps to remedy it. There are many such halters between good and bad, who are ill at ease in their sins, yet go forward in them, and are drawn on by others.

JFB: Dan 6:19

His grief overcame his fear of the nobles.

JFB: Dan 6:20

Having life Himself, and able to preserve thy life; contrasted with the lifeless idols. Darius borrowed the phrase from Daniel; God extorting from an idolater a confession of the truth.

JFB: Dan 6:20

In times of persecution, as well as in times of peace.

JFB: Dan 6:20

The language of doubt, yet hope.

Clarke: Dan 6:1

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 Est 1:1. Josephus reckons three hundred and sixty satrapies or lordships; but this is most probably an exaggeration or mistake.

Clarke: Dan 6:2

Three presidents - Each having forty of these presidents accountable to him for their administration

Clarke: Dan 6:2

Daniel was first - As being established over that part where was the seat of government. He was confirmed in his offices by Darius.

Clarke: Dan 6:3

The king thought to set him over the whole realm - Intended to make him grand vizier or emir ul amrim. This partiality of the king made Daniel the object of the other presidents, and the grandees of the kingdom.

Clarke: Dan 6:4

Sought to find occasion against Daniel - But they found no blemish in his administration, for he was faithful to his king: this was a virtue. But he was also faithful to his God: this they hoped to construe into a crime, and make it the cause of his ruin.

Clarke: Dan 6:7

Whosoever shall ask a petition - What pretense could they urge for so silly an ordinance? Probably to flatter the ambition of the king, they pretend to make him a god for thirty days; so that the whole empire should make prayer and supplication to him, and pay him Divine honors! This was the bait; but their real object was to destroy Daniel.

Clarke: Dan 6:8

According to the law of the Medes and Persians - I do not think that this is to be understood so as to imply that whatever laws or ordinances the Medes or Persians once enacted, they never changed them. This would argue extreme folly in legislators in any country. Nothing more appears to be meant than that the decree should be enacted, written, and registered, according to the legal forms among the Medes and Persians; and this one to be made absolute for thirty days. The laws were such among this people, that, when once passed with the usual formalities, the king could not change them at his own will. This is the utmost that can be meant by the law of the Medes and Persians that could not be changed.

Clarke: Dan 6:10

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed - He saw what was designed, and he knew whom he served

Clarke: Dan 6:10

His windows being open - He would not shut them to conceal himself, but "kneeled down with his face turned toward Jerusalem, and prayed thrice each day, giving thanks to God as usual."When the Jews were in distant countries, in prayer they turned their faces towards Jerusalem; and when in Jerusalem, they turned their faces towards the temple. Solomon, in his prayer at the dedication of the temple, 1Ki 8:48, had entreated God to hear the prayers of those who might be in strange lands, or in captivity, when they should turn their faces towards their own land, which God gave unto their fathers; and towards the city which he had chosen, and the house which was dedicated to his name. It was in reference to this that Daniel turned his face towards Jerusalem when he prayed.

Clarke: Dan 6:12

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.

Clarke: Dan 6:14

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

Clarke: Dan 6:14

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.

Clarke: Dan 6:15

Then these men assembled - Having got favorable answers, as we may presume, from many individuals, he called a parliament; but they now collectively joined to urge the execution of the law, not its repeal.

Clarke: Dan 6:16

Then the king commanded - With a heavy heart he was obliged to warrant this murderous conspiracy. But when passing sentence his last words were affecting: "Thy God, whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee."He is thy God; thou servest him, not occasionally, but continually; therefore "he will deliver thee."Daniel had now the same kind of opportunity of showing his fidelity to God, as his three Hebrew companions before. The lions were not less terrible than the fiery furnace.

Clarke: Dan 6:17

A stone was brought - All this precaution served the purposes of the Divine Providence. There could be no trick nor collusion here; if Daniel be preserved, it must be by the power of the Supreme God. The same precaution was taken by the Jews, in the case of the burial of our blessed Lord; and this very thing has served as one of the strongest proofs of the certainty of his resurrection and their unmixed wickedness.

Clarke: Dan 6:18

Passed the night fasting - He neither ate nor drank, had no music to solace, nor sweet odors burnt or brought before him, and he passed the night without sleep. All this points out his great sincerity; and when it is considered that Darius could not be less than sixty-two or sixty-three years of age at this time, it shows more fully the depth of his concern.

Clarke: Dan 6:19

The king arose very early - By the break of day.

Clarke: Dan 6:20

He cried with a lamentable voice - His heart, full of grief, affected his speech

Clarke: Dan 6:20

Servant of the living God - The king was convinced that, unless his God saved him, his destruction was inevitable.

Calvin: Dan 6:1

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:

Calvin: Dan 6:3

The Prophet now relates, as I have said, the origin of a temptation which might naturally cast down the spirits of the elect people as well as his own. For although Daniel alone was cast into the lion’s-den, as we shall afterwards see, yet, unless he had been liberated, the condition of the people would have been more grievous and severe. For we know the wicked petulantly insult the wretched and the innocent, when they see them suffering any adversity. If Daniel had been torn by the lions, all men would have risen up in a body against the Jews. God, therefore, here exercised the faith and patience of his servant, and also proved all the Jews by the same test, since they saw themselves liable to the most extreme sufferings in the person of a single individual, unless God had speedily afforded the assistance which he rendered. Daniel, first of all, says, he excelled all others, since a more excellent or superior spirit was in him It does not always happen that those who are remarkable for prudence or other endowments obtain greater authority and rank. In the palaces of kings we often see men of brutal dispositions holding high rank, and we need not go back to history for this. In these days kings are often gross and infatuated, and more like horses and asses than men! Hence audacity and recklessness obtain the highest honors of the palace. When Daniel says he excelled, he brings to our notice God’s two-fold benefit: first, a greater portion of his Spirit was bestowed upon him; and secondly, Darius acknowledged this, and raised him to honor when he saw him endued with no ordinary industry and wisdom. We now understand the Prophet’s teaching, here, as first divinely adorned with prudence and other endowments; and then, Darius was a competent judge of this, in estimating his prudence and other virtues, and holding them in great repute. Since, therefore, a noble spirit was in him, hence he overcame all others, says he; therefore the king determined to set him above the whole kingdom, that is, to place him first among the three satraps. Although it was a singular privilege with which God once blessed his people and his Prophet, yet we ought to weep over the heartlessness of kings in these days, who proudly despise God’s gifts in all good men who surpass the multitude in usefulness; and at the same time enjoy the society of the ignorant like themselves, while they are slaves to avarice and rapine, and manifest the greatest cruelty and licentiousness. Since, then, we see how very unworthy kings usually are of their empire and their power, we must weep over the state of the world, because it reflects like a glass the wrath of heaven, and kings are thus destitute of counsel. At the last day, King Darius alone will be sufficient to condemn them, for he had discretion enough not to hesitate to set a captive and a foreigner over all his satraps; for this was a royal, nay, a heroic virtue in Darius to prefer this man to all his own friends. But now kings think of nothing else than preferring their own panders, buffoons, and flatterers; while they praise none but men of low character, whom God has branded with ignominy. Although they are unworthy of being reckoned among mankind, yet they esteem themselves the masters of their sovereigns, and treat the kings of these days as their slaves. This happens through their mere slothfulness, and their discarding every possible anxiety. Hence they are compelled to deliver up their command to others, and retain nothing but the title. This, as I said, is a sure proof of the wrath of heaven, since the world is at this day unworthy of the government which God exercises over it by his hand.

Calvin: Dan 6:4

With respect to the envy felt by the nobles, we see this vice rampant in all ages, since the aspirants to any greatness can never bear the presence of virtue. For, being guilty of evil themselves, they are necessarily bitter against the virtue of others. Nor ought it to seem surprising that the Persians who sustained the greatest labors, and passed through numerous changes of fortune, should be unable to bear with an obscure and unknown person, not only associated with them, but appointed as their superior. Their envy, then, seems to have had some pretext, either real or imaginary. But it will always be deserving of condemnation, when we find men selfishly pursuing their own advantage without any regard for the public good. Whoever aspires to power and self-advancement, without regarding the welfare of others, must necessarily be avaricious and rapacious, cruel and perfidious, as well as forgetful of his duties. Since, then, the nobles of the realm envied Daniel, they betrayed their malice, for they had no regard for the public good, but desired to seize upon all things for their own interests. In this example we observe the natural consequence of envy. And we should diligently notice this, since nothing is more tempting than gliding down from one vice to a worse. The envious man loses all sense of justice while attempting every scheme for injuring his adversary. These nobles report Daniel to have been preferred to themselves unworthily. If they had been content with this abuse, it would have been, as I said, a vice and a sign of a perverse nature. But they go far beyond this, for they seek for an occasion of crime in Daniel. We see, then, how envy excites them to the commission of crime. Thus all the envious are perpetually on the watch, while they become spies of the fortunes of those whom they envy, to oppress them by every possible means. This is one point; but when they find no crime, they trample upon justice, without modesty and without humanity, and with cruelty and perfidy lay themselves out to crush an adversary. Daniel relates this of his rivals. He says, They immediately sought occasion against him, and did not find it Then he adds how unjustly and perfidiously they sought occasion against him. There is no doubt they knew Daniel to be a pious man and approved by God; hence, when they plot against his holy Prophet, they purposely wage war with God himself, while they are blinded with the perverse passion of envy. Whence, then, does it spring? Surely from ambition. Thus we see how pestilential a plague ambition is, from which envy springs up, and afterwards perfidy and cruelty!

Calvin: Dan 6:5

Besides this, Daniel admonishes us by his own example to study to strive after integrity, and thus to deprive the malevolent and the wicked of all occasion against us, which they seek. We shall find no better defense against the envious and the slanderous than to conduct ourselves righteously and innocently. Whatever snares they may lay for us, they will never succeed, for our innocence will repel their malice like a shield. Meanwhile we see how Daniel escaped utter ruin, since they sought a pretext against him in something else, namely, his worship of God. Hence let us learn how we ought to esteem piety and an earnest desire for it of more value than life itself. Daniel was faithful and upright in his administration: he discharged his duty so as to close the mouth of his enemies and detractors. Thus, as I have said, integrity is the best of all protectors. Again, Daniel was in danger because he would not leave off the sincere worship of God and its outward profession. Hence we must bravely undergo all dangers whenever the worship of God is at stake. This temporary life ought not to be more precious to us than that most sacred of all things — the preservation of God’s honor unstained. We therefore see how we, by these means, are urged to the cultivation of integrity, since we cannot be more secure than when fortified by a good conscience, as Peter in his first epistle exhorts us to the same purpose, (1Pe 3:16.) Now, whatever we may fear, and whatever events await us, even if we become subject to a hundred deaths, we ought never to decline from the pure worship of God, since Daniel did not hesitate to submit to death and enter the lion’s den, because he openly professed the worship of Israel’s God. As these nobles entered into this barbarous and cruel counsel for oppressing Daniel under the pretense of religion, here, again, we gather the blindness and rashness of mankind when ambition and envy seize upon their minds. For it is a matter of no moment with them to come into collision with the Almighty, ²⁸⁴ for they do not approach Daniel as a fellow-creature, but they leap into an insane and sacrilegious contest when they wish to extinguish the worship of God and give way to their own indulgence. Thus, as I have said, we are admonished by this example how ambition is to be guarded against and avoided, and also the envy which arises from it. The nature of this charge — the worship of God — afterwards follows: —

Calvin: Dan 6:6

The nobles of the kingdom purposely endeavored to ruin the holy Prophet, either by casting him into the lion’s den to perish or else by causing him to desist from the outward profession of worshipping God. They knew him to be so really in earnest that he would not redeem his life by so great an act of impiety, and hence they thought him doomed to death. We perceive in them great cunning; but God met them on the other hand and aided his servant, as we shall see. Meanwhile their malice was the more detestable, since they desired to destroy Daniel by this very pretense. Although they did not worship Israel’s God, they knew the Prophet’s mind to be pious and straightforward, and then they experienced the power of that God who was unknown to them. They did not condemn Daniel, nor blame the religion which he practiced; for, as I have said, their hatred of this man urged them to such cruelty that they rushed against the Almighty. They could not disguise from themselves the duty of worshipping God: they worshipped and adored unknown deities, and did not dare to condemn the worship of Israel’s God. We see how the devil fascinated them when they dared to impute this as a crime to the holy Prophet; while we are ignorant of the manner in which their opinion was changed.

Some suppose this was done because Darius could not bear with composure the glory of his son-in-law. For since he was an old man, and his relative in the flower of his age, he thought himself despised. Others think Darius to have been touched by secret emulation, and that he allowed his nobles to approach him for the purpose of deceiving the miserable and doting old man, and thus to throw dust in his eyes. But this conjecture does not seem to me sufficiently valid. Nor need I give myself much trouble in this matter, because it might happen that at the beginning of a new reign they wished to congratulate the king, and they fixed upon something new and unaccustomed, as we see often done by flatterers of royalty. Hence the old man might be deceived in this matter, since the monarchy was newly established. The king had hitherto ruled over none but Medes; now Chaldeans, Assyrians, and many other nations were added to his sway. Such an addition might intoxicate him with vain-glory, and his nobles might think this a plausible reason for offering to him divine honors. This single reason seems to me sufficient; I do not inquire further, but embrace what is probable and obvious at first sight. I defer the remainder till to-morrow.

Calvin: Dan 6:7

WE said, yesterday, that the nobles who laid snares against Daniel were inspired with great fury when they dared to dictate to the king the edict recorded by Daniel. It was an intolerable sacrilege thus to deprive all the deities of their honor; yet he subscribed the edict, as we shall afterwards see, and thus put to the test the obedience of his people whom he had lately reduced under the yoke by the help of his son-in-law. There is no doubt of his wish to subdue the Chaldees, who up to that time had been masters; and we know how ferocity springs from the possession of authority. Since then the Chaldees had formerly reigned so far and wide, it was difficult to tame them and render them submissive, especially when they found themselves the slaves of those who had previously been their rivals. We know how many contests there were between them and the Medes; and although they were subdued in war, their spirits were not yet in subjection; hence Darius desired to prove their obedience, and this reason induced him to give his consent. He does not purposely provoke the anger of the gods; but through respect for the men, he forgets the deities, and substitutes himself in the place of the gods, as if it was in his power to attract the authority of heaven to himself! This, as I have said, was a grievous sacrilege. If any one could enter into the hearts of kings, he would find scarcely one in a hundred who does not despise everything divine. Although they confess themselves to enjoy their thrones by the grace of God, as we have previously remarked, yet they wish to be adored in his stead. We now see how easily flatterers persuade kings to do whatever appears likely to extol their magnificence. It follows:

Calvin: Dan 6:8

Here, as I have said, it is sufficiently apparent how inclined to fallacies are the minds of kings when they think they can benefit themselves and increase their own dignity. For the king did not dispute long with his nobles but subscribed the edict; for he thought it might prove useful to himself and his successors: if he found the Chaldeans obedient to himself and rather prepared to deny the existence of every god than to refuse whatever he commanded! As to the use of the word, some, translate אסרא , asra, by “writing,” deriving it from “ to cut in, ” as we know that all laws were formerly graven on tablets of brass; but I interpret it more simply of their seeking from the king a signature of the writing, that is, he was to sign the edict after it was written. Which cannot be changed, they say — meaning, the edict is unchangeable and inviolable, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away — that is, which does not vanish, as also Christ says, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, or shall never become vain. (Mat 24:35; Mar 13:31.) As to his joining the Medes with the Persians, this arises from what we said before, since Cyrus and Darius reigned in common as colleagues. Greater dignity was granted to Darius, while the power was in the hands of Cyrus; besides, without controversy, his sons were heirs of either kingdom and of the Monarchy of the East, unless when they began to make war on each other. When they say, the law of the Medes and Persians is immutable, this is worthy of praise in laws, and sanctions their authority; thus they are strong and obtain their full effect. When laws are variable, many are necessarily injured, and no private interest is stable unless the law be without variation; besides, when there is a liberty of changing laws, license succeeds in place of justice. For those who possess the supreme power, if corrupted by gifts, promulgate first one edict and then another. Thus justice cannot flourish where change in the laws allows of so much license. But, at the same time, kings ought prudently to consider lest they promulgate any edict or law without grave and mature deliberation; and secondly, kings ought to be careful lest they be counteracted by cunning and artful plots, to which they are often liable. Hence, constancy is praiseworthy in kings and their edicts, if only they are preceded by prudence and equity. But we shall immediately see how foolishly kings affect the fame of consistency, and how their obstinacy utterly perverts justice. But we shall see this directly in its own place. It follows:

Calvin: Dan 6:10

Daniel now relates how he was clothed in the boldness of the Spirit of God to offer his life as a sacrifice to God, because he knew he had no hope of pardon left, if his violation of the king’s edict had been discovered; he knew the king himself to be completely in shackles even if he wished to pardon him — as the event proved. If death had been before the Prophet’s eyes, he preferred meeting it fearlessly rather than ceasing from the duty of piety. We must remark that the internal worship of God is not treated here, but only the external profession of it. If Daniel had been forbidden to pray, this fortitude with which he was endued might seem necessary; but many think he ran great risks without sufficient reason, since he increased the chance of death when only outward profession was prohibited. But as Daniel here is not the herald of his own virtue, but the Spirit speaks through his mouth, we must suppose that this magnanimity in the holy Prophet was pleasing to God. And his liberation shewed how greatly his piety was approved, because he had rather lose his life than change any of his habits respecting the worship of God. We know the principal sacrifice which God requires, is to call upon his name. For we hereby testify him to be the author of all good things; next we shew forth a specimen of our faith; then we fly to him, and cast all our cares into his bosom, and offer him our prayers. Since, therefore, prayer constitutes the chief part of our adoration and worship of God, it was certainly a matter of no slight moment when the king forbade any one to pray to God; it was a gross and manifest denial of piety.

And here, again, we collect how blind was the king’s pride when he could sign so impious and foul an edict! Then how mad were the nobles who, to ruin Daniel as far as they possibly could, endeavored to abolish all piety, and draw down God from heaven! For what remains, when men think they can free themselves from the help of God, and pass him over with security? Unless he prop us up by his special aid, we know how entirely we should be reduced to nothing. Hence the king forbade any one to offer up any prayer during a whole month — that is, as I have said, he exacts from every one a denial of God! But Daniel could not obey the edict without committing an atrocious insult against God and declining from piety; because, as I have said, God exacts this as a principal sacrifice. Hence it is not surprising if Daniel cordially opposed the sacrilegious edict. Now, with respect to the profession of piety, it was necessary to testify before men his perseverance in the worship of God. For if he had altered his habits at all, it would have been a partial abjuration; he would not have said that he openly despised God to please Darius; but that very difference in his conduct would have been a proof of perfidious defection. We know that God requires not only faith in the heart and the inward affections, but also the witness and confession of our piety.

Daniel, therefore, was obliged to persevere in the holy practice to which he was accustomed, unless he wished to be the very foulest apostate! He was in the habit of praying with his windows open : hence he continued in his usual course, lest any one should object that he gratified his earthly king for a moment by omitting the worship of God. I wish this doctrine was now engraven on the hearts of all men as it ought to be; but this example of the Prophet is derided by many, not perhaps openly and glaringly, but still clearly enough, the Prophet seems to them too inconsiderate and simple, since he incurs great danger, rashly, and without any necessity. For they so separate faith from its outward confession as to suppose it can remain entire even if completely buried, and for the sake of avoiding the cross. they depart a hundred times from its pure and sincere profession. We must maintain, therefore, not only the duty of offering to God the sacrifice of prayer in our hearts, but that our open profession is also required, and thus the reality of our worship of God may clearly appear.

I do not say that our hasty thoughts are to be instantly spread abroad, rendering us subject to death by the enemies of God and his gospel; but I say these things ought to be united and never to be separated, namely, faith and its profession. For confession is of two kinds: first, the open and ingenuous testimony to our inward feelings; and secondly, the necessary maintenance of the worship of God, lest we shew any sign of a perverse and perfidious hypocrisy, and thus reject the pursuit of piety. With regard to the first kind, it is neither always nor everywhere necessary to profess our faith; but the second kind ought to be perpetually practiced, for it can never be necessary for us to pretend either disaffection or apostasy. For although Daniel did not send for the Chaldeans by the sound of a trumpet whenever he wished to pray, yet he framed his prayers and his vows in his couch as usual, and did not pretend to be forgetful of piety when he saw his faith put to the test, and the experiments made whether or not he would persevere in his constancy. Hence he distinctly says, he went home, after being made acquainted with the signing of the decree. Had he been admitted to the council, he would doubtless have spoken out, but the rest of the nobles cunningly excluded him, lest he should interfere with them, and they thought the remedy would be too late, and utterly in vain as soon as he perceived the certainty of his own death. Hence, had he been admitted to the king’s council, he would there have discharged his duty, and heartily interposed; but after the signing of the edict, and the loss of all opportunity for advising the king, he retired to his house.

We must here notice the impossibility of finding an excuse for the king’s advisers, who purposely escape when they see that unanimity of opinion cannot be obtained, and think God will be satisfied in this way, if they only maintain perfect silence. But no excuse can be admitted for such weakness of mind. And, doubtless, Daniel is unable to defend them by his example, since, as we have already said, he was excluded by the cunning and malice of the nobles from taking his place among them as usual, and thus admonishing the king in time. He now says, His windows were open towards Jerusalem The question arises, Whether it was necessary for Daniel thus to open his windows? For some one may object — he did this under a mistaken opinion; for if God fills heaven end earth, what signified his windows being open towards Jerusalem? There is no doubt that the Prophet used this device as a stimulus to his fervor in prayer. For when praying for the liberation of his people, he directed his eyes towards Jerusalem, and that sight became a stimulus to enflame his mind to greater devotion. Hence the opening of the Prophet’s windows has no reference to God, as if he should be listened to more readily by having the open heaven between his dwelling and Judea; but he rather considered himself and his natural infirmity. Now, if the holy Prophet, so careful in his prayers, needed this help, we must see whether or not our sloth in these days has need of more stimulants! Let us learn, therefore, when we feel ourselves to be too sluggish and cold in prayer, to collect all the aids which can arouse our feelings and correct the torpor of which we are conscious. This, then, was the Prophet’s intention in opening his windows towards Jerusalem Besides, he wished by this symbol to shew his domestics his perseverance, in the hope and expectation of the promised redemption. When, therefore, he prayed to God, he kept Jerusalem in sight, not that his eyes could penetrate to so distant a region, but he directed his gaze towards Jerusalem to shew himself a stranger among the Chaldeans, although he enjoyed great power among them, and was adorned with great authority, and excelled in superior dignity. Thus he wished all men to perceive how he longed for the promised inheritance, although for a time he was in exile. This was his second reason for opening his windows.

He says, He prayed three times a-day. This is worthy of observation, because, unless we fix certain hours in the day for prayer, it easily slips from our memory. Although, therefore, Daniel was constant in pouring forth prayers, yet he enjoined upon himself the customary rite of prostrating himself before God three times a-day. When we rise in the morning, unless we commence the day by praying to God, we shew a brutish stupidity, so also when we retire to rest, and when we take our food and at other times, as every one finds most advantageous to himself. For here God allows us liberty, but we ought all to feel our infirmities, and to apply the proper remedies. Therefore, for this reason, Daniel was in the habit of praying thrice. A proof of his fervor is also added, when he says, He prostrated himself on his knees; not that bending the knee is necessary in prayer, but while we need aids to devotion, as we have said, that posture is of importance. First of all, it reminds us of our inability to stand before God, unless with humility and reverence; then, our minds are better prepared for serious entreaty, and this symbol of worship is pleasing to God. Hence Daniel’s expression is by no means superfluous: He, fell upon his knees whenever he wished to pray to God. He now says, he uttered prayers and confessions before God, or he praised God, for we must diligently notice how many in their prayers mutter to God. For although they demand either one thing or another, yet they are carried along by an immoderate impulse, and, as I have said, they are violent in their requests unless God instantly grants their petitions.

This is the reason why Daniel joins praises or the giving of thanks with prayers; as, also, Paul exhorts us respecting both. Offer up, says he, your prayers to God, with thanksgiving, (Phi 4:6,) as if he had said, We cannot rightly offer vows and prayers to God unless when we bless his holy name, although he does not immediately grant our petitions. In Daniel’s case we must remark another circumstance: he had been an exile for a long time, and tossed about in many troubles and changes; still he celebrates God’s praises. Which of us is endued with such patience as to praise God, if afflicted with many trials through three or four years? Nay, scarcely a day passes without our passions growing warm and instigating us to rebel against God! Since Daniel, then, could persevere in praising God, when oppressed by so many sorrows, anxieties, and troubles — this was a remarkable proof of invincible patience. And, doubtless, he signifies a continuous act, by using the demonstrative pronoun דנה , deneh, which refers to his ordinary habit — as he had done before, and from former times By noticing the time, he marks, as I have said before, a perseverance, since he was not only accustomed to pray once or twice, but by a regular constancy he exercised himself in this duty of piety every day. It afterwards follows: —

Calvin: Dan 6:11

Here the nobles of Darius display their fraud when they observe Daniel, and unite in a conspiracy against him: for no other object but the death of Daniel could have induced them to dictate this edict. Hence they agree together, and find Daniel uttering prayers and supplications to his God If Daniel had prayed with the slightest secrecy, he would not have been a victim to their snares; but he did not refuse the prospect of death. He knew the object of the edict, and expected the arrival of the nobles. We see, then, how willingly he submitted to instant death, and for no other purpose than to retain the pure worship of God, together with its outward profession. Go to, now, ye who desire to shield your perfidy, pretending that you ought not to incur danger rashly, and when the wicked surround you on all sides! You become cautious lest you should rashly throw away your lives! For Daniel, in their opinion, was to be blamed for too great simplicity and folly, since he willingly and knowingly encountered certain danger. But we have already said, he could not escape from their snare without indirectly revolting from God, for he might have been immediately reproached — Why do you desist from your accustomed habit? Why do you close your windows? Why do you not dare to pray to your God? It appears, then, you regard the king of more importance than the reverence and fear of God. Because God’s honor would have been thus sullied, Daniel, as we have already seen, spontaneously offered himself to death as a sacrifice. We are taught, also, by this example, how snares are prepared for the sons of God, however circumspectly they act, and however soberly they conduct themselves. But they ought to conduct themselves so prudently as neither to be too cunning nor too anxious, that is, they should not regard their own security so as in the meantime to forget God’s requirements, and the preciousness of his name, and the necessity of a confession of faith in the proper place and time. It now follows:

Calvin: Dan 6:12

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.

Calvin: Dan 6:13

Now, when Daniel’s calumniators see that King Darius had no wish to defend his cause, they open up more freely what they had previously conceded; for, as we have said, if they had openly accused Daniel, their accusation could have been instantly and completely refuted; but after this sentiment had been expressed to the king, their statement is final, since by the laws of the Medes and Persians a king’s decree ought to be self-acting; hence, after this is accomplished, they then come to the person. Daniel, say they, one of the captives of Judah, has not obeyed thy will, O king, nor the decree which thou hast signed. By saying, “Daniel, one of the Jewish captives,” they doubtless intended to magnify his crime and to render him odious. For if any Chaldean had dared to despise the king’s edict, his rashness would not have been excused. But now when Daniel, who was lately a slave and a Chaldean captive, dares to despise the king’s command, who reigned over Chaldea by the right of conquest, this seemed less tolerable still. The effect is the same as if they had said, “He was lately a captive among thy slaves; thou art supreme lord, and his masters to whom he was subject are under thy yoke, because thou art their conqueror; he is but a captive and a stranger, a mere slave, and yet he rebels against thee!” We see then how they desired to poison the king’s mind against him by this allusion, He is one of the captives! The words are very harmless in themselves, but they endeavor to sting their monarch in every way, and to stir up his wrath against Daniel. He does not direct his mind to thee, O king; that is, he does not reflect upon who you are, and thus he despises thy majesty and the edict which thou hast signed This is another enlargement: Daniel, therefore, did not direct his mind either to thee or to thy edict; and wilt thou bear this? Next, they recite the deed itself — he prays three times a-day This would have been the simple narrative, Daniel has not obeyed thy command in praying to his own God; but, as I have said, they exaggerate his crime by accusing him of pride, contempt, and insolence. We see, therefore, by what artifices Daniel was oppressed by these malicious men. It now follows:

Calvin: Dan 6:14

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. (Joh 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:

Calvin: Dan 6:16

The king, as we have said, frightened by the denunciation of the nobles, condemns Daniel to death. And hence we gather the reward which kings deserve in reference to their pride, when they are compelled to submit with servility to their flatterers. How was Darius deceived by the cunning of his nobles! For he thought his authority would be strengthened, by putting the obedience of all men to this test of refusing all prayer to any god or man for a whole month. He thought he should become superior to both gods and men, if all his subjects really manifested obedience of this kind. We now see how obstinately the nobles rise against him, and denounce ultimate revolt, unless he obey them. We see that when kings take too much upon themselves, how they are exposed to infamy, and become the variest slaves of their own servants! This is common enough with earthly princes; those who possess their influence and favor applaud them in all things and even adore them; they offer every kind of flattery which can propitiate their favor; but, meanwhile, what freedom do their idols enjoy? They do not allow them any authority, nor any intercourse with the best and most faithful friends, while they are watched by their own guards. Lastly, if they are compared with the wretches who are confined in the closest dungeon, not one who is thrust down into the deepest pit, and watched by three or four guards, is not freer than kings themselves! But, as I have said, this is God’s most just vengeance; since, when they cannot contain themselves in the ordinary rank and station of men, but wish to penetrate the clouds and become on a level with God, they necessarily become a laughingstock. Hence they become slaves of all their attendants, and dare not utter anything with freedom, and are without friends, and are afraid to summon their subjects to their presence, and to intrust either one or another with their wishes. Thus slaves rule the kingdoms of the world, because kings assume superiority to mortals. King Darius is an instance of this when he sent for Daniel, and commanded him to be thrown into the den of lions; his nobles force this from him, and he unwillingly obeys them. But we should notice the reason. He had lately forgotten his own mortality, he had desired to deprive the Almighty of his sway, and as it were to drag him down from heaven! For if God remains in heaven, men must pray to him; but Darius forbade any one from even daring to utter a prayer; hence as far as he could he deprived the Almighty of his power. Now he is compelled to obey his own subjects, although they exercise an almost disgraceful tyranny over him.

Daniel now adds — the king said this to him, Thy God, whom thou servest, or worshipest, faithfully, he will deliver thee! This word may be read in the optative mood, as we have said. There is no doubt that Darius really wished this; but it may mean, Thy God whom thou worshipest will deliver thee — as if he had said, “Already I am not my own master, I am here tossed about by the blast of a tempest; my nobles compel me to this deed against my will; I, therefore, now resign thee and thy life to God, because it is not in my power to deliver thee;” as if this excuse lightened his own crime by transferring to God the power of preserving Daniel. This reason causes some to praise the piety of King Darius; but as I confess his clemency and humanity to be manifest in this speech, so it is clear that he had not a grain of piety when he thus wished to adorn himself in the spoils of deity! For although the superstitious do not seriously fear God, yet they are restrained by some dread of him; but he here wished to reduce the whole divinity to nothing. What sort of piety was this? The clemency of Darius may therefore be praised, but his sacrilegious pride can by no means be excused. Then why did he act so humanely towards Daniel? Because he had found him a faithful servant, and the regard which rendered him merciful arose from this peculiarity. He would not have manifested the same disposition towards others. If a hundred or a thousand Jews had been dragged before his tribunal, he would carelessly have condemned them all because they had disobeyed the edict! Hence he was obstinately impious and cruel. He spared Daniel for his own private advantage, and thus embraced him with his favor; but in praising his humanity, we do not perceive any sign of piety in him. But he says, the God whom thou worshipest, he will deliver thee, because, he had formerly known Daniel’s prophecy concerning the destruction of the Chaldean monarchy; hence he is convinced, how Israel’s God is conscious of all things, and rules everything by his will; yet, in the meantime, he neither worships him nor suffers others to do so; for as far as he could he had excluded God from his own rights. In thus attributing to God the power of delivering him, he does not act cordially; and hence his impiety is the more detestable, when he deprives God of his rights while he confesses him to be the true and only one endued with supreme power; and though he is but dust and ashes, yet he substitutes himself in his place! It now follows, —

Calvin: Dan 6:17

There is no doubt that God’s counsel provided that the nobles should seal the stone with their own rings, and thus close the mouth of the cave, and render the miracle more illustrious. For when the king approached on the morrow, the rings were all entire, and the seals all unbroken. Thus the preservation of this servant of God was manifestly by the aid of heaven and not by the art of men. Hence we see how boldly the king’s nobles had compelled him to perform their pleasure. For he might seem deprived of all royal power when he delivered up to them a subject dear and faithful to himself, and ordered him to be thrown into the lions’ den. They are not content with this compliance of the king; they extort another point from him — the closing up of the mouth of the cave; and then they all seal the stone, lest any one should release Daniel. We see, then, when once liberty has been snatched away, all is over, especially when any one has become a slave by his own faults, and has attached himself to the counsels of the ungodly. For, at first, such slavery will not prevail as to induce a man to do everything which he is ordered, since he seems to be free; but when he has given himself up to such slavery as I have described, he is compelled to transgress not once or twice, but constantly and without ceasing. For example, if any one swerves from his duty through either the fear of man or flattery, or any other depraved affection, he will grant various things, not only when asked, but when urgently compelled. But when he has once submitted to the loss of freedom, he will be compelled, as I have already said, to consent to the most shameful deeds at the nod of any one. If any teacher or pastor of the Church should turn from the right path through the influence of ambition, the author of his declension will come to him again and say, What! do you dare to refuse me? Did I not obtain from you, yesterday or the day before, whatever I wished? Thus he will be compelled to transgress a second time in favor of the person to whom he has joined himself, and will also be forced to repeat the transgression continually. Thus princes also, who are not free agents through being under the tyranny of others, if they permit themselves to be overcome contrary to their conscience, lay aside all their authority, and are drawn aside in all directions by the will of their subjects. This example, then, is proposed to us in the case of King Darius, who after inflicting unjust punishment upon Daniel, adds this, He must be enclosed in the cave, and then, the stone must be sealed, — and for what object? — lest the doom should be changed; meaning, he did not dare to attempt anything in Daniel’s favor. We see, then, how the king submitted to the greatest disgrace, because his nobles had no confidence in him; they refused to trust him when he ordered Daniel to be thrown into the lions’ den, but they exacted a guarantee against his liberation, and would not suffer him to attempt anything. We thus see how disgracefully they withdrew their confidence from their king; next they use their authority against him, lest he should dare to remove the stone which had been sealed, unless he would incur the charge of falsehood by corrupting the public signatures, and of deception by falsifying the public documents. Hence this passage admonishes us against prostituting ourselves in slavery to the lust of men. Let every one serve his nearest neighbors as far as charity will allow and as custom demands. Meanwhile, no one ought to permit himself to be turned aside in different directions contrary to his conscience, because when he loses his free agency, he will be compelled to endure many affronts and to obey the foulest commands. This we see exemplified in the case of the panders to the avarice, or ambition, or cruelty of princes; for when once they are under the power of such men, they are most miserable victims; they cannot avoid the most extreme necessities, they become wretched slaves, and call down against themselves, a hundred times over, the anger of both God and man. It now follows, —

Calvin: Dan 6:18

Here Daniel relates the tardy repentance of the king, because although he was in the greatest grief, yet he did not correct his fault. And this occurs to many who are not hardened by contempt of God and their own depravity; they are drawn aside by others, and are dissatisfied with their own vices, while they still indulge in them. Would that the examples of this evil were rare in the world! but they occur everywhere before our eyes. Darius therefore is here proposed to us as intermediate between the ungodly and the wicked — the righteous and the holy. The wicked do not hesitate to stir up the Almighty against them, and after they have dismissed all fears and all shame, they revel in their own licentiousness. Those who are ruled by the fear of God, although they sustain hard contests with the flesh, yet impose a check upon themselves, and bridle their perverse affections. Others are between the two, as I have said, not yet obstinate in their malice, and not quite satisfied with their corruption’s, and still they follow them as if bound to them by ropes. Such was Darius; for he ought constantly to have repelled the calumny of his nobles; but when he saw himself so entangled by them, he ought to have opposed them manfully, and to have reproved them for so abusing their influence over him; yet he did not act thus, but rather bent before their fury. Meanwhile he bewails in his palace, and abstains from all food and delicacies. He thus shews his displeasure at the evil conduct at which he connived. We see then how ineffectual it is for our own conscience to smite us when we sin, and to cause us sorrow for our faults; we must go beyond this, so that sorrow may lead us on to repentance, as also Paul teaches us. (2Co 7:10.) Darius, then, had reduced himself to difficulties; while he bewails his fault, he does not attempt to correct it. This was, indeed, the beginning of repentance, but nothing more; and when he feels any compunction, this stirs him up and allows him neither peace nor comfort. This lesson, then, we are to learn from Daniel’s narrative of King Darius passing the whole of that night in wailing. It follows afterwards, —

Calvin: Dan 6:19

Here the king begins to act with a little more consistency, when he approaches the pit. He was formerly struck down by fear as to yield to his nobles, and to forget his royal dignity by delivering himself up to them as a captive. But now he neither dreads their envy nor the perverseness of their discourse. He approaches the lions’ den early in the morning, says he, — that is, at dawn, before it was, light, coming during the twilight, and in haste. Thus we see him suffering under the most bitter grief, which overcomes all his former fears; for he might still have suffered from fear, through remembrance of that formidable denunciation, — Thou wilt no longer enjoy thy supreme command, unless thou dost vindicate thine edict from contempt! But, as I have said, grief overcomes all fear. And yet we are unable to praise either his piety or his humanity; because, though he approaches the cave and calls out, “Daniel!” with a lamentable voice, still he is not yet angry with his nobles till he sees the servant of God perfectly safe. Then his spirits revive, as we shall see; but as yet he persists in his weakness, and is in a middle place between the perverse despisers and the hearty worshippers of God, who follow with an upright intention what they know to be just.

Calvin: Dan 6:20

WANT of time compelled me to break off our last Lecture at the point where Daniel relates how the king approached the cave Now he reports his words, — O Daniel, servant of the living God! thy God whom thou worshipest constantly, has he been able to deliver thee? says he. Darius declares the God of Israel to be the living One. But if there is a living God, he excludes all those imaginary deities whom men fancy for themselves by their own ingenuity. For it is necessary that deity should be one, and this principle is acknowledged by even the profane. However men may be deluded by their dreams, yet they all confess the impossibility of having more gods than one. They distort, indeed, God’s character, but they cannot deny his unity. When Darius uttered this praise of the God of Israel, he confesses all other deities to be mere fictions; but he shews how, as I have said, the profane hold the first principle, but afterwards allow it to escape entirely from their thoughts. This passage does not prove, as some allege, the real conversion of King Darius, and his sincere adoption of true piety; for he always worshipped his own idols, but thought it sufficient if he raised the God of Israel to the highest rank. But, as we know, God cannot admit a companion, for he is jealous of his own glory. (Isa 42:8.) It was too cold, then, for Darius simply to acknowledge the God whom Daniel worshipped to be superior to all others; because where God reigns, all idols must of necessity be reduced to nothing; as also it is said in the Psalms, Let God reign, and let the gods of all nations fall before him. Darius then proceeded so far as to devote himself to the true and only God, but was compelled to pay the greatest respect to Israel’s God. Meanwhile he always remained sunk in his own superstitions to which he had been accustomed.

He afterwards adds, Thy God, whom thou worshipest continually, could he free thee from the lions? He here speaks doubtfully, as unbelievers do, who seem to have some ground for hope, but no firm or sure persuasion in their own minds. I suppose this invocation to be natural, since a certain secret instinct naturally impels men to fly to God; for although scarcely one in twenty leans upon God’s word, yet all men call upon God occasionally. They wish to discover whether God desires to assist them and to aid them in their necessities; meanwhile, as I have said, there is no firm persuasion in their hearts, which was the state of the mind of King Darius. Could God deliver thee? says he; as if God’s power could possibly be doubted! If he had said, Has God delivered thee? this would have been tolerable. For God was not bound by any law to be always snatching his people from death, since, we very well know, this rests entirely with his good pleasure. When, therefore, he permits his people to suffer under the lusts of the impious, his power is by no means diminished, since their liberation depends upon his mere will and pleasure. His power, therefore, ought by no means to be called in question. We observe, that Darius was never truly converted, and never distinctly acknowledged the true and only God, but was seized with a blind fear, which, whether he would or not, compelled him to attribute the supreme honor to Israel’s God. And this was not an ingenuous confession, but was rather extorted from him. It now follows: —

Defender: Dan 6:1

This Darius should not be confused with the later Persian emperor, Darius the Great. The Darius in Daniel was evidently one of the greatest generals in the armies of the emperor Cyrus and was known to secular history as Gobryas. As conqueror of Babylon, he was given great responsibility over much of Babylonia."

Defender: Dan 6:2

Daniel had been a prominent and respected leader in Babylon for most of Nebuchadnezzar's forty year reign. Belshazzar was slain by the Chaldeans about twenty-two years later, and Darius had no doubt been informed about Daniel's interpretation of the handwriting on the wall. He soon recognized Daniel's unique abilities and rewarded him with a very high position. Daniel was probably over eighty years of age by this time."

Defender: Dan 6:5

What a testimony and example for believers. No wonder his contemporary, Ezekiel, ranked him with Noah and Job as the most godly of men (Eze 14:14)."

TSK: Dan 6:1

Darius : Dan 5:31; 1Pe 2:14

an : Exo 18:21, Exo 18:22; Est 1:1

TSK: Dan 6:2

of : Dan 2:48, Dan 2:49, Dan 5:16, Dan 5:29; 1Sa 2:30; Pro 3:16

that : Mat 18:23; Luk 16:2

and the : Ezr 4:22; Est 7:4; Pro 26:6; Luk 19:13-27; 1Co 4:2

TSK: Dan 6:3

was preferred : Pro 22:29

an : Dan 5:12, Dan 5:14, Dan 9:23; Gen 41:38-41; Neh 7:2; Pro 3:3, Pro 3:4, Pro 17:27; Ecc 2:13

thought : Intended to make him grand vizier or emiru l umra . Daniel had now been employed full sixty-five years as prime minister under the kings of Babylon; and was justly entitled, from his acknowledged wisdom, to this preference.

TSK: Dan 6:4

Cir, am 3467, bc 537

sought : Dan 3:8; Gen 43:18; Jdg 14:4; Psa 37:12, Psa 37:13, Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33; Pro 29:27; Ecc 4:4; Jer 18:18, Jer 18:23, Jer 20:10; Mat 26:4, Mat 27:18; Luk 20:20, Luk 22:2

but : 1Sa 18:14, 1Sa 19:4, 1Sa 19:5, 1Sa 22:14; Luk 23:14, Luk 23:15; Joh 19:4; 2Co 11:12; Phi 2:15; 1Ti 5:14; Tit 2:8; 1Pe 2:12, 1Pe 3:16, 1Pe 4:14-16

TSK: Dan 6:5

1Sa 24:17; Est 3:8; Joh 19:6, Joh 19:7; Act 24:13-16, Act 24:20,Act 24:21

TSK: Dan 6:6

assembled together : or, came tumultuously, Dan 6:11; Psa 56:6, Psa 62:3, Psa 64:2-6; Mat 27:23-25; Luk 23:23-25; Act 22:22, Act 22:23

King : Dan 6:21, Dan 2:4, Dan 3:9, Dan 5:10; Neh 2:3; Act 24:2

TSK: Dan 6:7

All : Dan 6:2, Dan 6:3, Dan 3:2, Dan 3:27

have consulted : Psa 2:2, Psa 59:3, Psa 62:4, Psa 83:1-3, Psa 94:20; Mic 6:5; Mat 12:14, Mat 26:4; Mar 15:1; Joh 12:10; Act 4:5-7, Act 4:26-28

decree : or, interdict

he shall : Dan 3:6, Dan 3:11; Psa 10:9; Nah 2:12

TSK: Dan 6:8

establish : Est 3:12, Est 8:10; Isa 10:1

according : Dan 6:12, Dan 6:15; Est 1:19, Est 8:3

altereth not : Chal, passeth not, Mat 24:35

TSK: Dan 6:9

signed : Psa 62:9, Psa 62:10, Psa 118:9, Psa 146:3; Pro 6:2; Isa 2:22

TSK: Dan 6:10

when : Luk 14:26; Act 4:17-19

his windows : 1Ki 8:30,1Ki 8:38, 1Ki 8:44, 1Ki 8:48-50; 2Ch 6:38; Psa 5:7; Jon 2:4; Heb 4:16

he kneeled : 1Ki 8:54; 2Ch 6:13; Ezr 9:5; Psa 95:6; Luk 22:41; Act 7:60, Act 9:40, Act 20:36; Act 21:5; Eph 3:14

three : Dan 6:13; Psa 55:17, Psa 86:3 *marg. Act 2:1, Act 2:2, Act 2:15, Act 3:1, Act 10:9

gave : Psa 34:1; Phi 4:6; Col 3:17; 1Th 5:17, 1Th 5:18; Heb 13:15

as he : Neh 6:11; Psa 11:1, Psa 11:2; Mat 10:28-33; Luk 12:4-9; Act 4:18, Act 4:19, Act 4:29; Act 5:20,Act 5:29, Act 5:40-42, Act 20:24; Phi 1:14, Phi 1:20; Rev 2:10,Rev 2:13

TSK: Dan 6:11

assembled : Dan 6:6; Psa 10:9, Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33

TSK: Dan 6:12

they : Dan 3:8-12; Act 16:19, Act 16:24, Act 24:2-9

the den : It is probable that these lions were kept for the purpose of devouring certain criminals, whom the laws might consign to that kind of death.

The thing : Dan 6:8; Est 1:19

TSK: Dan 6:13

That Daniel : Dan 1:6, Dan 2:25, Dan 5:13

regardeth : Dan 3:12; Est 3:8; Act 5:29, Act 17:7

TSK: Dan 6:14

was sore : The king now clearly perceived for what purpose the decree had been solicited; and was exceedingly displeased with himself that he had suffered himself to be so deluded. Dan 3:13; Mat 27:17-24; Mar 6:26; Luk 23:13-21; Joh 19:7-12

and he : He strove during the whole day, by every means, to evade or annul the edict; but the foolish constitution of his government (exactly the reverse of the happy rule for the conduct of our gracious monarch) did not allow them to pardon any person who had broken one of their decrees, however arbitrary and unreasonable. 2Sa 3:28, 2Sa 3:29

TSK: Dan 6:15

Know : Dan 6:8, Dan 6:12; Est 8:8; Psa 94:20,Psa 94:21

TSK: Dan 6:16

the king : 2Sa 3:39; Pro 29:25; Jer 26:14, Jer 38:5; Mat 14:8-10, Mat 27:23-26; Mar 6:25-28, Mar 15:14, Mar 15:15; Joh 19:12-16; Act 24:27, Act 25:9, Act 25:11; Rom 13:3

Thy God : Dan 6:20, Dan 3:15, Dan 3:17, Dan 3:28; Job 5:19; Psa 37:39, Psa 37:40, Psa 91:14-16, Psa 118:8, Psa 118:9; Isa 43:2; Act 27:23, Act 27:24

TSK: Dan 6:17

a stone : Lam 3:53; Mat 27:60-66; Act 12:4, Act 16:23, Act 16:24

TSK: Dan 6:18

and passed : 2Sa 12:16, 2Sa 12:17, 2Sa 19:24; 1Ki 21:27; Job 21:12; Psa 137:2; Ecc 2:8; Isa 24:8, Isa 24:9; Amo 6:4-6; Jon 3:3-9; Rev 18:22

instruments : or, table

and : Dan 2:1; Est 6:1; Psa 77:4

TSK: Dan 6:19

Mat 28:1; Mar 16:2; 2Co 2:13; 1Th 3:5

TSK: Dan 6:20

is : Dan 6:16, Dan 6:27, Dan 3:15, Dan 3:17, Dan 3:28, Dan 3:29

servest : 1Ch 16:11; Psa 71:14-18, Psa 73:23, Psa 119:112, Psa 146:2; Pro 23:17, Pro 23:18; Hos 12:6; Luk 18:1; Act 6:4; Rom 2:7; Col 4:2; 1Th 5:17, 1Th 5:18; Jam 1:25

able : Dan 3:17; Gen 18:14; Num 11:23, Num 14:15, Num 14:16; Jer 32:17; Luk 1:37; 2Co 1:10; 2Ti 1:12, 2Ti 4:16-18; Heb 7:25; Jud 1:24

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Dan 6:1

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 'ăchash^e dar^e p^e nayā' ) 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.

Barnes: Dan 6:2

And over these, three presidents - סרכין sâr^e kı̂yn . This word is found only in the plural. The etymology is uncertain, but its meaning is not doubtful. The word president expresses it with sufficient accuracy, denoting a high officer that presided over others. It is not improbable that these presided over distinct departments, corresponding somewhat to what are now called "secretaries"- as Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of Foreign Affairs, etc., though this is not particularly specified.

Of whom Daniel was first - First in rank. This office he probably held from the rank which he was known to have occupied under the kings of Babylon, and on account of his reputation for ability and integrity.

That the princes might give accounts unto them - Be immediately responsible to them; the accounts of their own administration, and of the state of the empire.

And the king should have no damage - Either in the loss of revenue, or in any maladministration of the affairs. Compare Ezr 4:13. "They pay not toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings."The king was regarded as the source of all power, and as in fact the supreme proprietor of the realm, and any malfeasance or malversation in office was regarded as an injury to him.

Barnes: Dan 6:3

Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes - That is, he was at their head, or was placed in rank and office over them. "Because an excellent spirit was in him."This may refer alike to his wisdom and his integrity - both of which would be necessary in such an office. It was an office of great difficulty and responsibility to manage the affairs of the empire in a proper manner, and required the talents of an accomplished statesman, and, at the same time, as it was an office where confidence was reposed by the sovereign, it demanded integrity. The word "excellent"( יתירא yattı̂yrâ' ) means, properly, what hangs over, or which is abundant, or more than enough, and then anything that is very great, excellent, pre-eminent. Latin Vulgate, Spiritus Dei amplior - "the spirit of God more abundantly."Greek πνεῦμα περισσὸν pneuma perisson . It is not said here to what trial of his abilities and integrity Daniel was subjected before he was thus exalted, but it is not necessary to suppose that any such trial occurred at once, or immediately on the accession of Darius. Probably, as he was found in office as appointed by Belshazzar, he was continued by Darius, and as a result of his tried integrity was in due time exalted to the premiership. "And the king thought to set him over the whole realm."

The whole kingdom over which he presided, embracing Media, Persia, Babylonia, and all the dependent, conquered provinces. This shows that the princes referred to in Dan 6:1, were those which were appointed over Babylonia, since Daniel Dan 6:2 was already placed at the head of all these princes. Yet, in consequence of his talents and fidelity the king was meditating the important measure of placing him over the whole united kingdom as premier. That he should form such a purpose in regard to an officer so talented and faithful as Daniel was, is by no means improbable. The Greek of Theodotion renders this as if it were actually done - καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς κατέστησεν ἀυτον, κ.τ.λ. kai ho basileus katestēsen auton , etc . - "And the king placed him over all his kingdom."But the Chaldee ( אשׁית 'ăshı̂yth ) indicates rather a purpose or intention to do it; or rather, perhaps, that he was actually making arrangements to do this. Probably it was the fact that this design was perceived, and that the arrangements were actually commenced, that aroused the envy and the ill-will of his fellow-officers, and induced them to determine on his ruin.

Barnes: Dan 6:4

Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel - The word rendered "occasion"( עלה ‛illâh ) means a pretext or pretence. "The Arabs use the word of any business or affair which serves as a cause or pretext for neglecting another business."- Gesenius, Lexicon The meaning is, that they sought to find some plausible pretext or reason in respect to Daniel, by which the contemplated appointment might be prevented, and by which he might be effectually humbled. No one who is acquainted with the intrigues of cabinets and courts can have any doubts as to the probability of what is here stated. Nothing has been more common in the world than intrigues of this kind to humble a rival, and to bring down those who are meritorious to a state of degradation. The cause of the plot here laid seems to have been mere envy and jealousy - and perhaps the consideration that Daniel was a foreigner, and was one of a despised people held in captivity. "Concerning the kingdom."In respect to the administration of the kingdom. They sought to find evidence of malversation in office, or abuse of power, or attempts at personal aggrandizement, or inattention to the duties of the office. This is literally "from the side of the kingdom;"and the meaning is, that the accusation was sought in that quarter, or in that respect. No other charge would be likely to be effectual, except one which pertained to maladministration in office.

But they could find none occasion nor fault - This is an honorable testimony to the fidelity of Daniel, and to the uprightness of his character. If there had been any malversation in office, it would have been detected by these men.

Barnes: Dan 6:5

We shall not find any occasion ... - We shall not find any pretext or any cause by which he may be humbled and degraded. They were satisfied of his integrity, and they saw it was vain to hope to accomplish their purposes by any attack on his moral character, or any charge against him in respect to the manner in which he had discharged the duties of his office.

Except we find it against him concerning the law of his God - Unless it be in respect to his religion; unless we can so construe his known conscientiousness in regard to his religion as to make that a proof of his unwillingness to obey the king. It occurred to them that such was his well-understood faithfulness in his religious duties, and his conscientiousness, that they might expect that, whatever should occur, he would be found true to his God, and that this might be a basis of calculation in any measure they might propose for his downfall. His habits seem to have been well understood, and his character was so fixed that they could proceed on this as a settled matter in their plans against him. The only question was, how to construe his conduct in this respect as criminal, or how to make the king listen to any accusation against him on this account, for his religious views were well known when he was appointed to office; the worship of the God of Daniel was not prohibited by the laws of the realm, and it would not be easy to procure a law directly and avowedly prohibiting that.

It is not probable that the king would have consented to pass such a law directly proposed - a law which would have been so likely to produce disturbance, and when no plausible ground could have been alleged for it. There was another method, however, which suggested itself to these crafty counselors - which was, while they did not seem to aim absolutely and directly to have that worship prohibited, to approach the king with a proposal that would be flattering to his vanity, and that, perhaps, might be suggested as a test question, showing the degree of esteem in which he was held in the empire, and the willingness of his subjects to obey him. By proposing a law that, for a limited period, no one should be allowed to present a petition of any kind to anyone except to the king himself, the object would be accomplished. A vain monarch could be prevailed on to pass such a law, and this could be represented to him as a measure not improper in order to test his subjects as to their willingness to show him respect and obedience; and at the same time it would be certain to effect the purpose against Daniel - for they had no doubt that he would adhere steadfastly to the principles of his religion, and to his well-known habits of worship. This plan was, therefore, crafty in the extreme, and was the highest tribute that could be paid to Daniel. It would be well if the religious character and the fixed habits of all who profess religion were so well understood that it was absolutely certain that no accusation could lie against them on any other ground, but that their adherence to their religious principles could be calculated on as a basis of action, whatever might be the consequences.

Barnes: Dan 6:6

Then these presidents and princes assembled together - Margin, came tumultuously. The margin expresses the proper meaning of the original word - רגשׁ râgash - to run together with tumult. Why they came together in that manner is not stated. Bertholdt suggests that it means that they came in a procession, or in a body, to the king; but there is undoubtedly the idea of their doing it with haste, or with an appearance of great earnestness or excitement. Perhaps they imagined that they would be more likely to carry the measure if proposed as something that demanded immediate action, or something wherein it appeared that the very safety of the king was involved, than if it were proposed in a sedate and calm manner. If it were suggested in such a way as to seem to admit of deliberation, perhaps the suspicion of the king might be aroused, or he might have asked questions as to the ground of the necessity of such a law, which it might not have been easy to answer.

King Darius, live for ever - The usual way of saluting a monarch. See the note at Dan 2:4.

Barnes: Dan 6:7

All the presidents of the kingdom, the governor ... - Several functionaries are enumerated here who are not in the previous verses, as having entered into the conspiracy. It is possible, indeed, that all these different classes of officers had been consulted, and had concurred in asking the enactment of the proposed law; but it is much more probable that the leaders merely represented or affirmed what is here said in order to be more certain of the enactment of the law. If represented as proposed by all the officers of the realm, they appear to have conceived that there would be no hesitation on the part of Darius in granting the request. They could not but be conscious that it was an unusual request, and that it might appear unreasonable, and hence, they seem to have used every precaution to make the passing of the law certain.

Have consulted together to establish a royal statute - Or, that such a statute might be established. They knew that it could be established only by the king himself, but they were in the habit, doubtless, of recommending such laws as they supposed would be for the good of the realm.

And to make a firm decree - Margin, interdict. The word used ( אסר 'ĕsâr - from אסר 'âsar - to bind, make fast) means, properly, a binding; then anything which is binding or obligatory - as a prohibition, an interdict, a law.

That whosoever shall ask - Any one of any rank. The real purpose was to involve Daniel in disgrace, but in order to do this it was necessary to make the prohibition universal - as Herod, in order to be sure that he had cut off the infant king of the Jews, was under a necessity of destroying all the children in the place.

Of any god or man - This would include all the gods acknowledged in Babylon, and all foreign divinities.

For thirty days - The object of this limitation of time was perhaps twofold:

(1) they would be sure to accomplish their purpose in regard to Daniel, for they understood his principles and habits so well that they had no doubt that within that three he would be found engaged in the worship of his God; and

(2) it would not do to make the law perpetual, and to make it binding longer than thirty days might expose them to the danger of popular tumults. It was easy enough to see that such a law could not be long enforced, yet they seem to have supposed that the people would acquiesce in it for so brief a period as one month. Unreasonable though it might be regarded, yet for so short a space of time it might be expected that it would be patiently submitted to.

Save of thee, O king - Perhaps either directly, or through some minister of the realm.

He shall be cast into the den of lions - The word "den"( גוב gôb ) means, properly, a pit, or cistern; and the idea is that the den was underground, probably a cave constructed for that purpose. It was made with so narrow an entrance that it could be covered with a stone, and made perfectly secure, Dan 6:17. "The enclosures of wild beasts,"says Bertholdt, pp. 397, 398, "especially of lions,"which the kings of Asia and of North-western Africa formerly had, as they have at the present day, were generally constructed underground, but were ordinarily caves which had been excavated for the purpose, wailed up at the sides, enclosed within a wall through which a door led from the outer wall to the space lying between the walls, within which persons could pass round and contemplate the wild beasts.""The emperor of Morocco says Host (Beschreibung von Marokos und Fess, p. 290, as quoted in Rosenmuller’ s Morgenland, in loc .), "has a cave for lions,"- Lowengrube - into which men sometimes, and especially, Jews, are cast; but they commonly came up again uninjured, for the overseers of the lions are commonly Jews, and they have a sharp instrument in their hands, and with this they can pass among them, if they are careful to keep their faces toward the lions, for a lion will not allow one to turn his back to him.

The other Jews will not allow their brethren to remain longer in such a cave than one night, for the lions would be too hungry, but they redeem their brethren out of the cave by the payment of money - which, in fact, is the object of the emperor."In another place (p. 77), he describes one of these caves. "In one end of the enclosure is a place for ostriches and their young ones, and at the other end toward the mountain is a cave for lions, which stands in a large cavern in the earth that has a division wall, in the midst of which is a door, which the Jews who have the charge of the lions can open and close from above, and, by means of food, they entice the lions from one room into another, that they may have the opportunity of cleaning the cage. It is all under the open sky."Under what pretext the crafty counselors induced the king to ratify this statute is not stated. Some one or all of the following things may have induced the monarch to sign the decree:

(1) The law proposed was in a high degree flattering to the king, and he may have been ready at once to sign a decree which for the time gave him a supremacy over gods and men. If Alexander the Great desired to be adored as a god, then it is not improbable that a proud and weak Persian monarch would be willing to receive a similar tribute. Xerxes did things more foolish than what is here attributed to Darius. Instances of this are not wanting. Of Holofernes, in Judith 3:8, it is said that he "had decreed to destroy all the gods of the land, that all nations should worship Nabuchodonosor only, and that all tongues and tribes should call upon him as god."

(2) It may have occurred to him, or may have been suggested, that this was an effectual way to test the readiness of his subjects to obey and honor him. Some such test, it may have been urged, was not improper, and this would determine what was the spirit of obedience as well as any other.

(3) \caps1 m\caps0 ore probably, however, it may have been represented that there was some danger of insubordination, or some conspiracy among the people, and that it was necessary that the sovereign should issue some mandate which would at once and effectually quell it. It may have been urged that there was danger of a revolt, and that it would be an effectual way of preventing it to order that whoever should solicit any favor of anyone but the king should be punished, for this would bring all matters at once before him, and secure order. The haste and earnestness with which they urged their request would rather seem to imply that there was a representation that some sudden occasion had arisen which made the enactment of such a statute proper.

(4) Or the king may have been in the habit of signing the decrees proposed by his counselors with little hesitation, and, lost in ease and sensuality, and perceiving only that this proposed law was flattering to himself, and not deliberating on what might be its possible result, he may have signed it at once.

Barnes: Dan 6:8-9

Now, O king, establish the decree - Ordain, enact, confirm it.

And sign the writing - An act necessary to make it the law of the realm.

That it be not changed - That, having the sign-manual of the sovereign, it might be so confirmed that it could not be changed. With that sign it became so established, it seems, that even the sovereign himself could not change it.

According to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not - Margin, Passeth. Which does not pass away; which is not abrogated. A similar fact in regard to a law of the Medes and Persians is mentioned in Esther viii., in which the king was unable to recall an order which had been given for the massacre of the Jews, and in which he attempted only to counteract it as far as possible by putting the Jews on their guard, and allowing them to defend themselves. Diodorus Siculus (lib. iv.) refers to this custom where he says that Darius, the last king of Persia, would have pardoned Charidemus after he was condemned to death, but could not reverse what the law had passed against him. - Lowth. "When the king of Persia,"says Montesquieu (Spirit of Laws, as quoted by Rosenmuller, Morgenland, in loc .), "has condemned any one to death, no one dares speak to him to make intercession for him. Were he even drunk when the crime was committed, or were he insane, the command must nevertheless be executed, for the law cannot be countermanded, and the laws cannot contradict themselves. This sentiment prevails throughout Persia."It may seem singular that such a custom prevailed, and that the king, who was the fountain of law, and whose will was law, could not change a statute at his pleasure.

But this custom grew out of the opinions which prevailed in the East in regard to the monarch. His will was absolute, and it was a part of the system which prevailed then to exalt the monarch, and leave the impression on the mind of the people that he was more than a man - that he was infallible, and could not err. Nothing was better adapted to keep up that impression than an established principle of this kind - that a law once ordained could not be repealed or changed. To do this would be a practical acknowledgment that there was a defect in the law; that there was a want of wisdom in ordaining it; that all the circumstances were not foreseen; and that the king was liable to be deceived and to err. With all the disadvantages attending such a custom, it was judged better to maintain it than to allow that the monarch could err, and hence, when a law was ordained it became fixed and unchanging.

Even the king himself could not alter it, and, whatever might be the consequences, it was to be executed. It is evident, however, that such a custom might have some advantages. It would serve to prevent hasty legislation, and to give stability to the government by its being known what the laws were, thus avoiding the evils which result when they are frequently changed. It is often preferable to have permanent laws, though not the best that could be framed, than those which would be better, if there were no stability. There is only one Being, however, whose laws can be safely unchanging - and that is God, for his laws are formed with a full knowledge of all the relations of things, and of their bearing on all future circumstances and times. It serves to confirm the statement here made respecting the ancient custom in Media and Persia, that the same idea of the inviolability of the royal word has remained, in a mitigated form, to modern times.

A remarkable example of this is related by Sir John Malcolm, of Aga Mohammed Khan, the last but one of the Persian kings. After alluding to the present case, and that in Esther, he observes, "The character of the power of the king of Persia has undergone no change. The late king, Aga Mohammed Khan, when encamped near Shiraz, said that he would not move until the snow was off the mountains in the vicinity of his camp. The season proved severe, and the snow remained longer than was expected; the army began to suffer distress and sickness, but the king said while the snow remained upon the mountain, he would not move; and his word was as law, and could not be broken. A multitude of laborers were collected and sent to remove the snow; their efforts, and a few fine days, cleared the mountains, and Aga Mohammed Khan marched."- History of Persia, i. 268, quoted in the Pict. Bible, in loc .

Barnes: Dan 6:10

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed - Probably there was some proclamation made in regard to that decree.

He went into his house - That is, he went in in his usual manner. He made no change in his habits on account of the decree.

And his windows being open in his chamber - Open in the usual manner. It does not mean that he took pains to open them for the purpose of ostentation, or to show that he disregarded the decree, but that he took no care to close them with any view to avoid the consequences. In the warm climate of Babylon, the windows probably were commonly open. Houses among the Jews in later times, if not in the time of the exile, were usually constructed with an upper chamber - ὑπερῷον huperōon - which was a room not in common use, but employed as a guest chamber, where they received company and held feasts, and where at other times they retired for prayer and meditation. See the note at Mat 9:2. Those "upper rooms"are often the most pleasant and airy part of the house. Dr. Robinson (Researches, vol. iii. p. 417), describing the house of the American consularagent in Sidon, says, "His house was a large one, built upon the eastern wall of the city; the rooms were spacious, and furnished with more appearance of wealth than any I saw in the country. An upper parlour with many windows, on the roof of the proper house, resembled a summer palace; and commanded a delightful view of the country toward the east, full of trees and gardens, and country-houses, quite to the foot of the mountains."

Toward Jerusalem - It is not improbable that the windows were open on each side of the chamber, but this is particularly mentioned, because he turned his face toward Jerusalem when he prayed. This was natural to an exile Hebrew in prayer, because the temple of God had stood at Jerusalem, and that was the place where he abode by a visible symbol. It is probable that the Jews in their own country always in their prayers turned the face toward Jerusalem, and it was anticipated when the temple was dedicated, that this would be the case in whatever lands they might be. Thus in the prayer of Solomon, at the dedication, he says, "If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built for thy name,"etc., 1Ki 8:44. And again 1Ki 8:46-49, "If they sin against thee, and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy, far or near; if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent - and pray unto thee toward their land which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name, then hear thou their prayer,"etc.

Compare 1Ki 8:33, 1Ki 8:35, 1Ki 8:38. So in Psa 5:7 : "As for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy: and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple."So Jonah it. 4: "Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple."So in the first book of Esdras (Apocrypha), 4:58: "Now when this young man was gone forth, he lifted up his face to heaven, toward Jerusalem, and praised the King of heaven."Compare Intro. Section II. V. C. Daniel, therefore, in turning his face toward Jerusalem when he prayed, was acting in accordance with what Solomon had anticipated as proper in just such a supposed case, and with the prevailing habit of his people when abroad. This was not, indeed, particularly prescribed as a duty, but it was recognized as proper; and it was not only in accordance with the instinctive feelings of love to his country and the temple, but a foundation was laid for this in the fact that Jerusalem was regarded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God on earth.

In the Koran it is enjoined as a duty on all Mussulmen, in whatever part of the earth they may be, to turn their faces toward the Caaba at Mecca when they pray: "The foolish men will say, What hath turned them from their Keblah toward which they formerly prayed? Say, unto God belongeth the East and the West; he directeth whom he pleaseth in the right way. Thus have we placed you, O Arabians, an intermediate nation, that ye may be witnesses against the rest of mankind, and that the apostle may be a witness against you. We appointed the Keblah, toward which thou didst formerly pray, only that we might know him who followeth the apostle from him that turneth back on his heels: though this change seem a great matter, unless unto those whom God hath directed. But God will not render your faith of none effect, for God is gracious and merciful unto man. We have seen thee turn about thy face toward heaven with uncertainty, but we will cause thee to turn thyself toward a Keblah that will please thee.

Turn, therefore, thy face toward the holy temple of Mecca; and wherever ye be, turn your faces toward that place."- Sale’ s Koran, chapter ii. Wherever Mussulmen are, therefore, they turn their faces toward the temple at Mecca when they pray. Daniel complied with what was probably the general custom of his countrymen, and what was natural in his case, for there was, in the nature of the case, a reason why he should turn his face toward the place where God had been accustomed to manifest himself. It served to keep up in his mind the remembrance of his beloved country, and in his case could be attended with no evil. As all visible symbols of the Devine Being are now, however, withdrawn from any particular place on the earth, there is no propriety in imitating his example, and when we pray it is wholly immaterial in what direction the face is turned.

He kneeled upon his knees three times a day - In accordance, doubtless, with his usual custom. The amount of the statement is, that he did not vary his habit on account of the command. He evidently neither assumed a posture of ostentation, nor did he abstain from what he was accustomed to do. To have departed from his usual habit in any way would have been a yielding of principle in the case. It is not mentioned at what time in the day Daniel thus kneeled and prayed, but we may presume that it was evening, and morning, and noon. Thus the Psalmist says: "Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud; and he shall hear my voice"Psa 55:17. No one can doubt the propriety of thus praying to God; and it would be well for all thus to call upon their God.

As he did aforetime - Without making any change. He neither increased nor diminished the number of times each day in which he called upon God; nor did he make any change in the manner of doing it. He did not seek ostentatiously to show that he was a worshipper of God, nor was he deterred by the fear of punishment from doing as he had been accustomed to do. If it should be said that Daniel’ s habit of worship was ostentatious; that his praying with his windows open was contrary to the true spirit of retiring devotion, and especially contrary to the spirit required of worshippers in the New Testament, where the Saviour commands us when we pray to "enter into the closet, and to shut the door"Mat 6:6, it may be replied,

(1) That there is no evidence that Daniel did this for the purpose of ostentation, and the supposition that he did it for that purpose is contrary to all that we know of his character;

(2) As we have seen, this was the customary place for prayer, and the manner of the prayer was what was usual;

(3) The chamber, or upper part of the house, was in fact the most retired part, and was a place where one would be least likely to be heard or seen; and

(4) There is no evidence that it would not have been quite private and unobserved if these men had not gone to his house and listened for the very purpose of detecting him at his devotions. No one could well guard against such a purpose.

Barnes: Dan 6:11

Then these men assembled ... - Evidently with a design of finding him at his devotions.

Barnes: Dan 6:12

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.

Barnes: Dan 6:13

Then answered they ... That Daniel which is of the children of the captivity of Judah - Who is one of the captive Jews. There was art in thus referring to Daniel, instead of mentioning him as sustaining an exalted office. It would serve to aggravate his guilt to remind the king that one who was in fact a foreigner, and a captive, had thus disregarded his solemn commandment. If he had been mentioned as the prime minister, there was at least a possibility that the king would be less disposed to deal with him according to the letter of the statute than if he were mentioned as a captive Jew.

Regardeth not thee ... - Shows open disregard and contempt for the royal authority by making a petition to his God three times a day.

Barnes: Dan 6:14

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;

(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;

© 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;

© 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.

Barnes: Dan 6:15

Then these men assembled unto the king - The Chaldee here is the same as in Dan 6:6, "they came tumultuously."They were earnest that the law should be executed, and they probably apprehended that if the king were allowed to dwell upon it, the firmness of his own mind would give way, and that he would release Daniel. Perhaps they dreaded the effect of the compunctious visitings which he might have during the silence of the night, and they, therefore, came tumultuously to hasten his decision.

Know, O king, that the law ... - That is a settled matter about which there can be no debate or difference of opinion. It would seem that this was a point so well settled that no question could be raised in regard to it, and, to their minds, it was equally clear that if this were so, it was necessary that the sentence should be executed without delay.

Barnes: Dan 6:16

Then the king commanded ... - See the note at Dan 6:7. Some recent discoveries among the ruins of Babylon have shown that the mode of punishment by throwing offenders against the laws to lions was actually practiced there, and these discoveries may be classed among the numerous instances in which modern investigations have tended to confirm the statements in the Bible. Three interesting figures illustrating this fact may be seen in the Pictorial Bible, vol. iii. p. 232. The first of those figures, from a block of stone, was found at Babylon near the great mass of ruin that is supposed to mark the site of the grand western palace. It represents a lion standing over the body of a prostrate man, extended on a pedestal which measures nine feet in length by three in breadth. The head has been lately knocked off; but when Mr. Rich saw it, the statue was in a perfect state, and he remarks that "the mouth had a circular aperture into which a man might introduce his fist."The second is from an engraved gem, dug from the ruins of Babylon by Captain Mignan. It exhibits a man standing on two sphinxes, and engaged with two fierce animals, possibly intended for lions. The third is from a block of white marble found near the tomb of Daniel at Susa, and thus described by Sir Robert Ker Porter in his Travels (vol. ii. p. 416): "It does not exceed ten inches in width and depth, measures twenty in length, and is hollow within, as if to receive some deposit. Three of its sides are cut in bass-relief, two of them with similar representations of a man apparently naked, except a sash round his waist, and a sort of cap on his head. His hands are bound behind him. The corner of the stone forms the neck of the figure, so that its head forms one of its ends. Two lions in sitting postures appear on either side at the top, each having a paw on the head of the man."See Pict. Bible, in loc .

Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God ... - What is here stated is in accordance with what is said in Dan 6:14, that the king sought earnestly to deliver Daniel from the punishment. He had entire confidence in him, and he expressed that to the last. As to the question of probability whether Darius, a pagan, would attempt to comfort Daniel with the hope that he would be delivered, and would express the belief that this would be done by that God whom he served, and in whose cause he was about to be exposed to peril, it may be remarked,

(1) That it was a common thing among the pagan to believe in the interposition of the gods in favor of the righteous, and particularly in favor of their worshippers. See Homer, passim. Hence, it was that they called on them; that they committed themselves to them in battle and in peril; that they sought their aid by sacrifices and by prayers. No one can doubt that such a belief prevailed, and that the mind of Darius, in accordance with the prevalent custom, might be under its influence.

(2) Darius, undoubtedly, in accordance with the prevailing belief, regarded the God whom Daniel worshipped as a god, though not as exclusively the true God. He had the same kind of confidence in him that he had in any god worshipped by foreigners - and probably regarded him as the tutelary divinity of the land of Palestine, and of the Hebrew people. As he might consistently express this belief in reference to any foreign divinity, there is no improbability that he would in reference to the God worshipped by Daniel.

(3) He had the utmost confidence both in the integrity and the piety of Daniel; and as he believed that the gods interposed in human affairs, and as he saw in Daniel an eminent instance of devotedness to his God, he did not doubt that in such a case it might be hoped that he would save him.

Barnes: Dan 6:17

And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den - Probably a large flat stone sufficient to cover the mouth of the cave, and so heavy that Daniel could not remove it from within and escape. It was usual then, as it is now, to close up the entrance to sepulchres with a large stone. See Joh 11:38; Mat 27:60. It would be natural to endeavor to secure this vault or den in the same way - on the one hand so that Daniel could not escape from within, and on the other so that none of his friends could come and rescue him from without.

And the king sealed it with his own signet - With his own seal. That is, he affixed to the stone, probably by means of clay or wax, his seal in such a way that it could not be removed by anyone without breaking it, and consequently without the perpetration of a crime of the highest kind - for no greater offence could be committed against his authority than thus to break his seal, and there could be no greater security that the stone would not be removed. On the manner of sealing a stone in such circumstances, compare the note at Mat 27:66.

And with the signet of his lords - That it might have all the security which there could be. Perhaps this was at the suggestion of his lords, and the design, on their part, may have been so to guard the den that the king should not release Daniel.

That the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel - By the king. Probably they feared that if there was not this security, the king might release him; but they presumed that he would not violate the seal of the great officers of the realm. It would seem that some sort of concurrence between the king and his nobles was required in making and executing the laws.

Barnes: Dan 6:18

Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting - Daniel was probably cast into the den soon after the going down of the sun, Dan 6:14. It was not unusual to have suppers then late at night, as it is now in many places. The great anxiety of the king, however, on account of what had occurred, prevented him from participating in the usual evening meal. As to the probability of what is here affirmed, no one can have any doubt who credits the previous statements. In the consciousness of wrong done to a worthy officer of the government; in the deep anxiety which he had to deliver him; in the excitement which must have existed against the cunning and wicked authors of the plot to deceive the king and to ruin Daniel; and in his solicitude and hope that after all Daniel might escape, there is a satisfactory reason for the facts stated that he had no desire for food; that instruments of music were not brought before him; and that he passed a sleepless night.

Neither were instruments of music brought before him - It was usual among the ancients to have music at their meals. This custom prevailed among the Greeks and Romans, and doubtless was common in the Oriental world. It should be observed, however, that there is considerable variety in the interpretation of the word here rendered instruments of music - דחון dachăvân . The margin is table. The Latin Vulgate, "He slept supperless, neither was food brought before him."The Greek renders it "food," ἐδέσματα edesmata . So the Syriac. Bertholdt and Gesenius render it concubines, and Saadias dancing girls. Any of these significations would be appropriate; but it is impossible to determine which is the most correct. The word does not occur elsewhere in the Scriptures.

Barnes: Dan 6:19

Then the king arose very early in the morning ... - No one can doubt the probability of what is here said, if the previous account be true. His deep anxiety; his wakefulnight; the remorse which he endured, and his hope that Daniel would be after all preserved, all would prompt to an early visit to the place of his confinement, and to his earnestness in ascertaining whether he were still alive.

Barnes: Dan 6:20

He cried with a lamentable voice - A voice full of anxious solicitude. Literally, "a voice of grief."Such a cry would be natural on such an occasion.

O Daniel, servant of the living God - The God who has life; who imparts life; and who can preserve life. This was the appellation, probably, which he had heard Daniel use in regard to God, and it is one which he would naturally employ on such an occasion as this; feeling that the question of life was entirely in his hands.

Whom thou servest continually - At all times, and in all circumstances: as a captive in a distant land; in places of honor and power; when surrounded by the great who worship other gods; and when threatened with death for your devotion to the service of God. This had been the character of Daniel, and it was natural to refer to it now.

Poole: Dan 6:2

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.

Poole: Dan 6:3

There were three things that made Darius greatly favour Daniel.

1. Because he prophesied the destruction of Belshazzar and his reign, for which cause the king of Babylon favoured Jeremiah the prophet, Jer 39:11 , &c.

2. Because he saw so noble a spirit in him, the spirit of the holy gods.

3. Because Darius himself was old and unfit for government, and therefore took Daniel with him into Media, Joseph. Antiq. 10. 12, whereby the Lord by advancing Daniel made careful provision for his church. This was an act of great wisdom in Darius, to prefer men for their parts and merit, and to make them that have most of God in them to be their chief favourites; a thing rarely minded by the princes of the world, who usually favour them most that do most gratify their lusts.

Poole: Dan 6:4

Sought to find occasion against Daniel made diligent inquiry, and set their wits to work about it: who can stand before envy? This disease always reigns in princes’ courts, every one would be uppermost and chief favourite, and quarrel with all them that stand in their light; their eye is evil because their prince’ s eye is good.

Concerning the kingdom and so to have made him guilty of treason, or other high misdemeanours, unfaithfulness, and falseness in the king’ s business; but all their wit and malice could find none, forasmuch as he was conscientiously faithful.

Poole: Dan 6:5

Pliny said of old, it is the custom of courtiers to study how to make innocent men faulty, and Scripture and experience tell us that the most religious are accounted most dangerous to the government, and that debauchery is loyalty; and that flatterers ought to be the best favourites. Ezr 4:12-14 Neh 6:5-7 Est 3:8 Dan 3:12 , and this text, are plain proofs of it, besides the experience of every age to this day. This was for the honour of Daniel’ s integrity, and for a brand of infamy upon his malicious enemies.

Poole: Dan 6:9

The sum of all was this; they had a plot against Daniel and his people, to throw him out of place and favour; to effect that, they fall upon him in the point of religion, which they would make to be treason. How so? They contrived an act of uniformity, by an unalterable law, to ask no petition of any god or man, but of the king, for one month, upon pain of death. They wheedled the king into it, and passed it into a law. The king sees the plot to be against Daniel, and would have saved him, but they held the king to it; they were zealous for executing laws of their own procuring; it was a net they had privily laid for this holy man, and had got him fast.

1. We see the horridness of this decree against God, for it was to ungod him for a time, that Darius might be deified.

2. It is marvellous that Darius should suffer himself to be persuaded to this idolatry, blasphemy, and sacrilege, but that we know it was common to the kings of the East to show themselves willing to be accounted gods. Some give three reasons why Darius was persuaded to it.

(1.) Because he was old, and had not much authority, and by this means he would gain it highly.

(2.) Because by this the superstitious Chaldeans, newly conquered, would be the better kept under.

(3.) Hereby he would seem not at all to be beholden to Cyrus for the share of his government.

3. The wickedness of this decree appeared also in this, that it brake all the bonds of nature’ s laws, between superiors and inferiors, for one month.

4. The craft of this cursed cabal is seen in this, that they mind Darius that it was his honour, interest, and duty to see this law executed, seeing it was the custom and constitution of the Medes and Persians, and he himself was a Mede. The Babylonians had no such law and custom, but the others had of old, Est 1:15,19 8:8

5. The courage, zeal, and sincerity of Daniel in not baulking the course of his devotion for fear of the king’ s edict; but as if he had not been concerned at all in it, being overawed by the fear of God, who was superior to all the gods and princes of the world, he made the command and institution of God alone the rule of his worship.

Poole: Dan 6:10

His windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem: this was, 1Ki 8:47-49 , according to Solomon’ s prayer, which doubtless all the devout Jews in their captivity did observe.

Toward Jerusalem not towards the east, which was the manner of the Gentiles; nor towards the king’ s palace, lest that, in compliance with the king’ s edict, he should seem to worship him; but towards the west and the temple in Jerusalem, where the holy of holies stood in the west end, and because the temple was the place where the Lord placed his name and worship, and promised to appear, and accept his people and their sacrifices, all being a type of Christ, through whom only the saints are accepted; which doubtless Daniel by faith had an eye to; believing also that God in his own time would deliver them out of this captivity, and bring them back again, and that he faithfully minded these things in the midst of his honours, and riches, and employments.

Kneeled upon his knees: this posture was always used in times of mourning and danger; not that we are tied to this gesture, but it is a comely posture before the great God; noting of guilt at the bar of God’ s tribunal, and begging for our lives, by humble confession and humiliation, and craving pardon, and blessing God for his mercies.

Three times a day: thus David, Psa 55:17 . These three times were, one at nine in the morning, which was their third hour of the day, Act 2:15 ; the sixth hour was at twelve o’ clock, then Peter prayed, Act 10:9 ; the ninth hour was our three in the afternoon, which was the time of the evening sacrifice, 1Ki 18:36 Act 3:1 ; it is called

the hour of prayer and at that our Saviour Christ offered up himself a sacrifice for us, Mat 27:46,50 . Now Daniel ordered his affairs so, that, though great, they should not hinder his solemn devotions to God.

As he did aforetime by which we see he was a holy man, also that he did not abate his prayers for the king’ s command, nor did he rashly break the law, by doing it purposely, because he did no more than he was wont to do in serving his God. Daniel did not imprudently, much less sinfully, in this action.

1. Because he would have declared by it that he preferred man before God.

2. It was against the law of nature, which commands God to be worshipped.

3. Against the dictates and peace of his own conscience.

4. Against the people of God, whom he would grieve and stumble by this forbearance.

5. Against his enemies, by hardening them in their evil way, and giving them occasion of triumphing and blaspheming.

Poole: Dan 6:11

This design being laid by them, they watched narrowly, and it took; they came and found all open. He feared not to be found praying, he prevented their breaking open doors, and rushing in, or making proof; he owned all, and freely offered himself.

Poole: Dan 6:12

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.

Poole: Dan 6:13

Here they call him

that Daniel as, Dan 6:5 ,

this Daniel both by way of contempt, when they had laid him low in their thoughts and words, intending the king should have the same thoughts of him too; hereby they should have the fairer blow at him.

Of the children of the captivity of Judah a prisoner at mercy, and yet rebelliously slights the king and his laws. What! because he chose to obey God rather than men, and an ungodly law, as this was in the height? Well, that is his great crime, that he prays to his God three times a day.

Regardeth not thee, O king which we account dishonourable to thy greatness, and unsufferable from such a mushroom as he is. What, do all the native subjects of the king keep his laws, and must this Daniel presume to break them and be indemnified? Wilt thou tolerate this, O king?

Poole: Dan 6:14

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.

Poole: Dan 6:15

These were bold men, they were resolved to follow their blows, and would have their will rather than the king should have his in this case; which on the king’ s part was honourable and royal, to retrieve an evil act, and to retract, or at least to mitigate, a rigid and, rash decree.

No decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed: thus Haman contrived and pleaded, yet there was a way found to prevent execution, Es 8 . Again, this law, which they plead was fundamental to make all laws and decrees immutable, was absurd and impolitic; for laws should be essentially changeable by the law-makers, because they often see greater cause to change a law when it grows obsolete and burdensome, though before thought necessary, than to make it at first; whereof we have sufficient instances in all nations in all ages. Will any legislative power in the world so bind their own hands, as to entail a yoke upon themselves and nation which they and posterity could not remedy? The intent of the lawgiver is the law, the equity of it is the obligation of it, which also is the true measure of its duration.

Poole: Dan 6:16

The king commanded: he had a good mind to do Daniel a kindness, but he could not stem the tide of his flatterers, who being crossed might machinate some mischief against him; having this plausible pretence for it, that they stood for the fundamental laws of the land, which the king endeavoured to null by his prerogative for the sake of one person, his pure vassal, being an alien, and of another religion, which was contrary to that which was by law established. Cast him into the den of lions : thus the best man in the kingdom becomes a sacrifice to the malice of the vilest men; the king consenting and commanding it against his conscience, but for reasons of state; being inexcusable for assuming the honour and worship of a god, exclusive to all other gods and worship; and, for all that he was convinced of the true God, would not worship him, nor suffer others to do it, under pain of death.

Thy God will deliver thee No thanks to him. Why, then, did he cast the servant of God to the lions to try experiments upon him? No, to excuse himself, and to comfort Daniel; but to little purpose either.

Poole: Dan 6:17

They are resolved to make all fast and sure. So did the enemies of the three young men, by the hellish heat of the fiery furnace. So did the enemies of Christ, Mat 27:66 . So did Herod serve Peter, Act 12:4 , &c. Thus Paul and Silas were made sure, Act 16:23,24 . Thus the heathen persecutors, that thought by variety, cruelty, and universality of persecutions and torments to drive the Christian religion out of the world. And thus antichrist by crusades, massacres, and burnings. In this sealing of the den they took away all power from the king of delivering Daniel, because they knew he favoured him; by which the power and providence of God for his preservation and deliverance was the more signalized, Act 4:26-28 . Thus the Lord gratifies the enemies of his people oftentimes, as if they had a commission from him to do their worst; and they go a great way in it, as far as they have rope, Isa 10:6,7 Lu 22:53 .

Poole: Dan 6:18

Passed the night fasting yea, and without instruments of music and sleep. The king was in perplexity, he was under great conviction that he had done very dishonourably and cruelly, by hearkening to the counsel of his wicked courtiers; he should have rescinded his rash decree, and rated them for their barbarity against Daniel, and have overruled them, and let him out; he is convinced of all this, and grieves for it, but to little purpose. Many are displeased with themselves for their vices, yet are drawn away with them; and, upon a point of honour, or other carnal ground, never come to true repentance, which consists in a change of heart and life. Herod was like troubled for John Baptist, but for all that, for his oath’ s sake to a wanton wretch, and for the company’ s sake, he sent and beheaded him, Mat 14:9 .

Poole: Dan 6:19

Watching, and grieving, and being between fear and hope, longing to be satisfied.

Poole: Dan 6:20

Servant of the living God: this was a commendation both of Daniel and his God, though he served both very coarsely.

Is thy God able to deliver thee? is he omnipotent? surely if ever he will put forth his power, it will be in thy case, for thou servest him continually, thou wilt not be frightened from his service by savage beasts, by ramping and roaring lions; now it will appear what thy God will do for his servant. Ah, poor king, God is a better Master to his servants than thou art, even to Daniel.

Haydock: Dan 6:1

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.

Haydock: Dan 6:3

Princes. Th.: "regulators." Chaldee: sacecin, (Haydock) may be put for (Calmet) scranim, (Haydock) the usual title (Calmet) of the highest officers, the surenas of Persia. (Amminan 30.)

Haydock: Dan 6:4

Kingdom, as prime minister, to whom the three princes should be accountable, as the inferior governors where to them. (Haydock) ---The king was now advanced in years, and wished to ease himself of part of the burden, (Calmet) as he could entirely confide in Daniel. (Haydock) ---

He reigned only one year. (Chap. xiii. 65.) (Worthington) ---

King. Chaldee: "kingdom," (Haydock) to accuse him of treason, (Grotius) or to get him removed. (Calmet) ---

This is an old and malignant trick, to call religion treason, and to get laws made for that purpose. (Worthington) ---

In him a great proof of integrity! (Menochius)

Haydock: Dan 6:6

Craftily. Chaldee: "came tumultuously to," &c. (Calmet) ---

They hoped thus to convince the king, as they were so unanimous. He would not perceive the drift of their petition, adn was flattered with the idea of being like a god. Daniel was not consulted, though on other occasions the king reposed such confidence in him, as the deputies so impudently asserted that the wish was universal! So easily are princes deceived! (Haydock)

Haydock: Dan 6:8

It, when it is confirmed both by the king and his nobility. (Esther viii. 8.)

Haydock: Dan 6:9

It. Nabuchodonosor of Babylon, and of Ninive, had both pretended to be gods; (Chap. iii. 15; Judith vi. 29.) (Calmet) and Curtius (8.) remarks, "that the Persians follow the dictates of prudence as well as of piety, in worshipping their kings among the gods, the majesty of empire being its best protection." (Haydock)

Haydock: Dan 6:10

Before. He did not open the windows that he might be seen, as that would have been rashness; nor did many perceive what he was doing, (ver. 11.) (Worthington) as it was in an upper room, but only those who rushed in. (Haydock) ---

It was the usual practice of the Jews, (Calmet) to pray turning towards the temple, as Solomon had directed, (3 Kings viii. 48; St. Jerome in Ezechiel viii. 16.) though it was now in ashes. (Haydock) ---

Daniel observed the third, sixth, and ninth hours, as the Church still does. (Acts ii. 15. and x. 9.) (St. Jerome)

Haydock: Dan 6:11

Carefully. Chaldee: "came in a tumultuous manner." as verses 6 & 15. (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 6:15

Perceiving. Chaldee: "assembled," (Protestant; Haydock) or "came quickly in a body." (Calmet)

Haydock: Dan 6:17

Own ring, that none of his enemies might injure Daniel. The nobles also affixed their seal, (Haydock) that the king might not liberate him. (Menochius) ---

All this shews that aristocracy was mixed with the monarchical form of government. Nothing of importance is done without the nobles.

Haydock: Dan 6:18

Meat. Chaldee: "music," (Calmet) or "incense." (De Dieu.) ---

He was tired of his godship, to which he had unguardedly opened his heart. (ver. 6) (Haydock)

Gill: Dan 6:1

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.

Gill: Dan 6:2

And over these three presidents,.... To whom the hundred and twenty princes were accountable for their conduct, and to whom the people might apply for redress of grievances, if oppressed; perhaps the whole empire was divided into three greater parts, and each part had forty provinces in it, and over it a president or deputy of the king; to whom the princes of each province gave in the account of what they received for the king, and what use they made of it:

(of whom Daniel was the first:) or "one" ^u, who was now an old man, having been about seventy years in Babylon, and had had a large experience of the affairs of civil government, being advanced in the times of Nebuchadnezzar to high posts; and very probably Darius had heard of the wisdom of Daniel before he came to the kingdom, as well as the king of Tyre, Eze 28:3 and might be informed of his prediction of Belshazzar's death, and the change of the empire: and of Belshazzar's promise to make him the third ruler in the kingdom; and he might also himself observe in him an uncommon sagacity and fitness for business of this sort. Josephus ^w says, that Darius took Daniel with him into Media, and made him one of the three presidents; and indeed no mention is made in this history of the nobles of Babylon, but only of the Medes and Persians:

that the princes might give account unto them, and the king should have no damage: or loss in his revenues, through the fraud and bad management of the princes of the provinces; since they might be discovered and checked by the presidents, who were to audit their accounts: or, "have no trouble" ^x; in looking over and passing the accounts of the princes.

Gill: Dan 6:3

Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes,.... Not only above the princes, but the presidents, being the first of them, as before: or, "he was victorious above them" ^y; he got more credit and applause than they did, being more exact, diligent, and laborious, faithful, and conscientious:

because an excellent spirit was in him; meaning not a spirit of grace, piety, and religion, which the Heathen king was no judge of, nor valued him for it, though it was in him; but a spirit of knowledge of civil affairs, and of prudence in managing them, and of integrity throughout the whole of his conduct:

and the king thought to set him over the whole realm; or, "wherefore the king thought" ^z, &c.; because there was such a spirit in him, which so qualified him for public business, he began to think of abolishing his triumvirate of presidents, and making Daniel his viceroy over the whole empire, which very probably they had got some knowledge of; and this, as well as being above them, drew the envy of them on him, and put them upon the following scheme.

Gill: Dan 6:4

Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom,.... Concerning the management of the affairs of the kingdom, he being prime minister of state; the presidents and princes joined together in this inquiry; the princes, because Daniel was so strict and exact in looking into their accounts, that no fraudulent measures were taken to cheat the king of his revenue; and the presidents, because he was preferred above them:

but they could find none occasion nor fault; or "corruption" ^a, that he had been guilty of any mis-administration, or any corrupt practices:

forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him; no mistake in his accounts; no blunder in his management of things; nothing done amiss, neither wilfully, nor through ignorance, negligence, or inadvertence; so faithful and upright, so prudent and discreet, so exact and careful, that the most watchful observers of him, and these envious, and his most implacable enemies, could find no fault in him, or anything, or the colour of it, to ground an accusation upon.

Gill: Dan 6:5

Then said these men,.... To one another:

we shall not find any occasion against this Daniel; whom they speak of with great disdain and contempt, calling him this Daniel, this fellow, though in the highest post in the kingdom:

except we find it against him concerning the law of his God; about his religion; not that they thought he would be prevailed upon to break the law of his God in any respect; but they knew he was tenacious of the Jewish religion, and of all the laws, rites, and ceremonies of it; if therefore they could get an act passed, and signed by the king, which would any ways affect his religion, or any branch of it, or prohibit the performance of it for any time, they hoped to get an advantage of him, knowing that he would not on any consideration forsake or neglect that; which being said by his enemies was greatly to his honour.

Gill: Dan 6:6

Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king,.... Having consulted the matter, and agreed upon and formed a scheme among themselves, and drawn up a bill or decree in form, ready to be signed by the king, whom they hoped to persuade to it; and for that end they got together, and went in a body to him. The word ^b signifies to assemble in a tumultuous and noisy way; they thought, by their number and noise, their bustle and bluster, to carry their point. Ben Melech compares it with Psa 2:2,

and said thus unto him, O King Darius, live for ever; this they said as courtiers, professing subjection to him, and affection for him, wishing him health, long life, and happiness.

Gill: Dan 6:7

All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains,.... There were but three presidents, and Daniel was one of them, so that these "all" were but "two"; they made the most of it they could; and very probably not all and everyone of the other officers mentioned were present; but they were willing to make their request appear as general as they could, in order that it might have the greater weight with the king:

have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree; that is, they had met together, and had drawn up a bill that might be passed into a law by having the royal assent, and be made sure and firm by the king's signing it; which is as follows:

that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions; by which law all invocation of their own gods was prohibited for a month, as well as of the living and true God; but this they stuck not at, provided they could gain their point against Daniel; and they were obliged to express it in this general way, to cover their designs; for had they mentioned a particular deity, as the God of the Jews, or the God of Daniel, their views would have been seen into by the king; and not only religious invocation is here forbidden, but all civil requests are prohibited: servants might not ask anything of their masters, nor children of their parents, nor wives of their husbands, nor one neighbour of another; for this seems not to be limited to asking any thing of a man worshipped as a god; though Saadiah says there were some in Darius's kingdom that believed in, worshipped, and prayed to a man; but all men are excluded, except Darius himself, of whom only anything was to be asked for thirty days; which was not only a deifying him, but exalting him above all gods and men; and suggesting as if it was in his power to answer all the exigencies of his subjects, and supply all their wants, many of which it was impossible for him to do. Josephus ^c mentions this law in a different manner; as if the design of it was to give the people an intermission from devotion for such a time, and that they were neither to pray to Darius, nor any of the gods, during it; whereas the exception is express, "save of thee, O king". The sanction or penalty of it is, casting into the den of lions; the king's den of lions, as Jarchi, where his lions were kept; as it is usual with princes: this very probably was a punishment common in the eastern nations, as casting the Christians to the lions was usual with the Romans.

Gill: Dan 6:8

Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing,.... For they had not only agreed upon it among themselves what to propose, as to the substance of it; but they had drawn it up in writing, ready to be signed, which they urge to have done immediately:

that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not; when once signed by the king: mention being made of both the Medes and Persians, shows that these two nations were now united in one government; that Darius and Cyrus were partners in the empire; and it is easy to account for it why the Medes are mentioned first; because Darius was the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian; the one the uncle, the other the nephew; but afterwards, when a Persian only was on the throne, then the Persian is mentioned first, Est 1:19.

Gill: Dan 6:9

Wherefore King Darius signed the writing and the decree. Moved to it by the number and importunity of his principal men; and chiefly through affectation of deity, which this law gave him; and that he might have an opportunity of ingratiating himself into his new subjects by his munificence and liberality, not being aware of the snare laid for his favourite, Daniel.

Gill: Dan 6:10

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed,.... This he knew, either by the relation of others, or by the public proclamation of it through the city; however, he did not know of it till it was signed, or otherwise he might have prevented it by applying to the king, in whom he had great interest; but, now the thing was done, he did not solicit the abrogation of it, knowing it was in vain; nor did he go to the king with complaints against his enemies, showing the design they had in it; but let things take their own course, he being determined to be found in his duty, be it as it would:

he went into his house: he left the court at the proper time of prayer, and went to his own house to perform it; he did not, in defiance of this law, go to prayer in the court, or in the streets, but retired home, as he was used to do:

and his windows being opened; not to be seen of men, but that he might have a clear view of the heavens, where his God dwelt, to whom he prayed, and be the more affected with the consideration of his greatness and glory:

in his chamber toward Jerusalem; it was not in the lower part of the house, nor on the top of the house, in either of which he might be more easily seen; but in his chamber, where he was wont to retire, the windows of which were opened "towards Jerusalem"; not towards the king's palace, as if he prayed to him, and so eluded the decree; nor towards the east, as the Heathens did; but towards Jerusalem, which lay to the south of Babylon; and that, either because of his remembrance of that city, his affection to it, and concern for its re-edification; or having some respect to the words of Solomon, 1Ki 8:33, &c.; and so, according to the Jewish writers, it was the custom of their people. Ben Gersom, on the above place, says, that though they did not pray within the temple, yet they prayed, turning themselves towards it, as much as possibly they could; and even when it was destroyed, as now, yet they in praying turned to the place where it had stood, as Saadiah, Aben Ezra, and Jarchi observe: and chiefly Daniel did this, because the temple was a type of Christ, through whom the persons and prayers of the saints are acceptable unto God:

he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed; kneeling is a prayer gesture, a token of reverence and humility; this was done three times a day, morning, noon, and evening; see Psa 55:17, in the morning, before he went out about the king's business; at noon, when he returned home to dinner; and at evening, when all his work was done, and he was about to retire to bed; the hours of prayer with the Jews seem to have been the third, sixth, and ninth; that is, at nine in the morning, twelve at noon, and three in the afternoon; see Act 2:1,

and gave thanks before his God; for the benefits he daily received from him; or he "confessed before him" ^d; the sins he had been guilty of, and owned the favours he partook of:

as he aforetime did; as it had been his custom from his youth upward, and therefore would not omit it now, on account of this edict.

Gill: Dan 6:11

Then these men assembled,.... Gathered together, and went in a body to Daniel's house; knowing his times of prayer, and where, and in what manner, he used to pray, to see if they could find him at it as aforetime; that so they might have to accuse him with it. Saadiah says, they found a girl, and asked her what Daniel was doing? she told him that Daniel was on his knees, praying to his God in his chamber; immediately they went, and found as she had said:

and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God; they went into his house, and up into his chamber, the doors not being locked, pretending perhaps business with him, and saw him at his devotions; so that they were able, upon their own knowledge, to bring in an accusation against him for breach of the king's law, and prove it.

Gill: Dan 6:12

Then they came near,.... They went immediately from Daniel's house to the king's palace, and into the king's presence; which they could do, either by virtue of their offices, or being admitted by the proper officer in waiting:

and spake before the king concerning the king's decree; at first they said nothing about Daniel, but about the decree, to get it recognized, and afresh ratified and confirmed; lest, under some pretence or another, the king should change it:

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? they do not say peremptorily that he had signed such a decree, but put the question to him, that they might have it affirmed by himself:

the king answered and said, the thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not; it is true that such a decree is made and signed, and it is an unalterable one; such as is every established and signed decree of the Medes and Persians: it is as if he had said, it is very true what you put me in mind of, and I will never recede from it, or nullify and make it void.

Gill: Dan 6:13

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:

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.

Gill: Dan 6:14

Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself,.... Or "at it" ^e; or "with him"; with Daniel, not so much for what he had done, but that he had not done it with more caution, or more privately, that it might not have been known: or rather, as we render it, "with himself", that he should so rashly sign the decree, without considering the consequences of it; for he now found that he was circumvented by his princes, and that their design was not his honour and glory, but the destruction of Daniel: or the sense in general is, that what he heard was very disagreeable, afflictive, and distressing to him:

and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; he resolved, if possible, to do it; he applied his mind to it; he turned his thoughts wholly that way, and contrived all ways and means to effect it: R. Mattathiah, in Saadiah, interprets the phrase of his offering money as a ransom for his life:

and he laboured till the going down of the sun to save him; from the will of the princes, and from the jaws of the lions: very probably it was early in the morning these princes found Daniel at prayer, who went immediately to the king with their accusation; so that he was all day labouring with all his might and main to find out ways and means to save his darling favourite; he studied to put such a sense upon his decree, that it might not reach Daniel's case; he strove to make the princes easy, and to persuade them to drop the affair, and not insist on the execution of the decree.

Gill: Dan 6:15

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.

Gill: Dan 6:16

Then the king commanded,.... Being overawed by his princes and fearing they would conspire against him, and stir up the people to rebel; and consulting his own credit lest he should be thought fickle and inconstant; he ordered the decree to be put in execution against Daniel, and delivered his favourite into their hands:

and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions; not the princes but proper officers employed by them: according to the additions to this book of Daniel, there were seven lions in this den, in the Apocrypha:

"And in the den there were seven lions, and they had given them every day two carcases, and two sheep: which then were not given to them, to the intent they might devour Daniel.'' (Bel 1:32)

but, according to Joseph ben Gorion ^g, there were ten, who used to devour ten sheep, and as many human bodies every day; but this day they had no food, and ate nothing, that they might be more greedy, and devour Daniel the sooner:

now the king spake and said unto Daniel; being brought into his presence, in his palace, before he was cast into the den; or at the mouth of the den whither the king accompanied him:

thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee; he calls the Lord Daniel's God, not his own, as he was not, he served other gods; yet he suggests that Daniel was right in serving him continually, in praying to him daily, the very thing for which he was cast to the lions; and expresses his confidence that his God he served would deliver him from being devoured by them; which he might conclude, from, the innocency, integrity, and faithfulness of Daniel, and from his being such a peculiar favourite of God as to be indulged with the knowledge of future things; and perhaps he might have heard of the deliverance of his three companions from the fiery furnace: though the words may be rendered, as they are by some, as a wish or prayer, "may thy God &c. deliver thee" ^h; I cannot, I pray he would; it is my hearty desire that so it might be.

Gill: Dan 6:17

And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den,.... Not a heap of stones, but a single one, a very large one, sufficient to stop up the mouth of the den, that nothing might enter in at it, or be cast into it: this stone was brought by proper persons, and a sufficient number of them, according the order of the king, or his princes, or both; for what Jarchi says, of there being no stones in Babylon, only bricks, and of the angels bringing this stone out of the land of Israel, is all fabulous: but for what end it should be brought and laid is not easy to say; if it was laid here by the order of the princes, it could not surely be to keep any of his friends from going in to deliver him, for who would venture himself there? nor to keep Daniel in it, since it might be concluded, that, as soon as ever he was cast in, he would be seized upon by the lions and devoured at once; unless it can be thought, that these men saw, that when he was thrown in, the lions did not meddle with him; which they might attribute to their having been lately fed, and therefore, that he might be reserved till they were hungry, they did this: if it was by the order of the king, which is very likely, the reason might be, he believed, or at least hoped, that God would deliver him from the lions; but lest his enemies, seeing this, should throw in stones or arrows, and kill him, the mouth of the den was stopped, so Jarchi and Saadiah: no doubt but this was so ordered by the providence of God, as well as the sealing of it, that the miracle of the deliverance might appear the more manifest:

and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of the lords; that none might dare to remove it; so the stone that was laid at the door of Christ's sepulchre was sealed with a seal, Mat 27:66, the reason of sealing it follows,

that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel: the view the lords had in it was, that the king might not change the sentence passed on Daniel, or take any methods to deliver him; and the view the king had in it might be, that should he be saved from the lions, as he hoped he would, that no other sentence might pass upon him, or he be delivered to any other kind of death.

Gill: Dan 6:18

Then the king went to his palace,.... After he had accompanied Daniel to the den, and he was cast into it, the stone was laid to the mouth of it, and that sealed; this was after sunset, for he had laboured till then to serve him, Dan 6:14, perhaps it was late at night:

and passed the night fasting; vexed for what he had done, in signing the decree; fretting because he could not save Daniel, and his heart full of grief for him, and so had no stomach to eat; went to bed without his supper, lay all night fasting, and would not eat a bit nor drink a drop of anything:

neither were instruments of music brought before him; as used to be after supper, and played upon; his heart was too full, and his mind and thoughts so intent on Daniel's case, that he could not listen to music, or bear the sound of it. Jarchi interprets it a "table", to sit down at, and eat, being furnished and well served, as was usual; but this is implied in the preceding clause. Aben Ezra, Saadiah, and Jacchiades, explain by songs and musical instruments, harps and psalter and Saadiah adds, girls to sing and dance. De Dieu, from the use of the word in the Arabic language, thinks that incense is meant, which was used at feasts, and in the palaces of princes.

And his sleep went from him; while he was up he could take no pleasure in eating and drinking, and hearing music; and when he was in bed, he could not sleep for thinking what he had done, and what was the case of Daniel.

Gill: Dan 6:19

Then the king arose very early in the morning,.... Or, "in the morning with light" ⁱ as soon as ever light appeared, or the day broke: the word for morning is doubled, and one of the letters in it is larger than usual; and all which denote not only his very great earliness in rising, but his earnestness and solicitude for Daniel, to know whether he was alive or not:

and went in haste unto the den of lions; he did not send a servant, but went in person, and with as much expedition as possible, though a king, and an old man; this shows the great love and strong affection he had for Daniel, and his concern for his good and welfare.

Gill: Dan 6:20

And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel,.... Expressing grief and sorrow his heart was full of; it was rather like howling than speaking; thus he cried before he saw Daniel, or heard him speak:

when he was near to the den ^k, as it may be rendered; and he was between hope and fear about Daniel's safety; when within sight of the den, and hearing of Daniel, should he be alive to speak: but when he came nearer and saw him, then

the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God; art thou alive? this is a plain case, that the God whom thou servest is the living God, since he has saved thee; and that thou art a true and faithful servant of his, seeing he has wrought such deliverance for thee:

is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions? has he made it to appear that he is able to deliver from them? has he really done the thing? he could scarcely believe for joy, being filled with amazement; for these words are not to be considered as expressive of any doubt or hesitation he had of the power of God to save him; for he had declared he had before, yea; his confidence that he would deliver him; but of his wonder and admiration at it, the thing being so extraordinary and amazing.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Dan 6:1

¹ tn Aram “It was pleasing before Darius.”

² tn This is a technical term for an official placed in charge of a region of the empire (cf. KJV, NLT “prince[s]”; NCV, TEV “governors”). These satraps were answerable to a supervisor, who in turn answered to Darius.

NET Notes: Dan 6:2

¹ tn Aram “giving an account.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:4

¹ tn Aram “looking to find.”

² tn Aram “from the side of the kingdom.”

³ tn Aram “pretext and corruption.”

⁴ tn Aram “no negligence or corruption was found in him.” The Greek version of Theodotion lacks the phrase “and no negligence or corruption was found in him.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:5

¹ tn Aram “were saying.”

² tn Aram “unless we find [it] against him.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:6

¹ tn The Aramaic verb רְגַשׁ (rÿgash) occurs three times in this chapter (vv. 7, 12, 16). Its meaning is widely disputed by commentators, and the versions vary considerably in how they render the word. The suggestion that it means “to come thronging” (BDB 1112 s.v.; cf. NAB) seems inappropriate, since it is unlikely that subordinates would enter a royal court in such a reckless fashion. The ancient versions struggled with the word and are not in agreement in their understanding of its meaning. In this chapter the word apparently means to act in agreement with other parties in the pursuit of a duplicitous goal, namely the entrapment of Daniel. Cf. NIV, NCV “went as a group”; NRSV “conspired and came to the king.”

² tn Aram “thus they were saying.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:7

¹ tn Aram “prays a prayer.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:8

¹ tn Aram “establish a written interdict and inscribe a written decree.”

² tn Or “removed.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:10

¹ tn Aram “knew.”

² sn In later rabbinic thought this verse was sometimes cited as a proof text for the notion that one should pray only in a house with windows. See b. Berakhot 34b.

³ map For the location of Jerusalem see Map5 B1; Map6 F3; Map7 E2; Map8 F2; Map10 B3; JP1 F4; JP2 F4; JP3 F4; JP4 F4.

⁴ sn This is apparently the only specific mention in the OT of prayer being regularly offered three times a day. The practice was probably not unique to Daniel, however.

⁵ tc Read with several medieval Hebrew MSS and printed editions הֲוָה (havah) rather than the MT הוּא (hu’).

⁶ tn Aram “kneeling on his knees” (so NASB).

sn No specific posture for offering prayers is prescribed in the OT. Kneeling, as here, and standing were both practiced.

NET Notes: Dan 6:11

¹ tn Aram “those men”; the referent (the administrative officials who had earlier approached the king about the edict) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Dan 6:12

¹ tc The MT also has “about the edict of the king,” but this phrase is absent in the LXX and the Syriac. The present translation deletes the expression.

tn Aram “before the king.”

² tn Aram “the word is true.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:13

¹ tn Aram “from the sons of the captivity [of].”

² tn Aram “prays his prayer.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:14

¹ tn Aram “the word.”

² tn Aram “placed his mind on.”

³ tn Aram “the entrances of the sun.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:15

¹ tc Theodotion lacks the words “came by collusion to the king and.”

² tn Aram “the king.”

³ tn Aram “know”; NAB “Keep in mind”; NASB “Recognize”; NIV, NCV “Remember.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:16

¹ tn Aram “said.” So also in vv. 24, 25.

² sn The den was perhaps a pit below ground level which could be safely observed from above.

³ tn Aram “answered and said [to Daniel].”

NET Notes: Dan 6:17

¹ tn Aram “mouth.”

² sn The purpose of the den being sealed was to prevent unauthorized tampering with the opening of the den. Any disturbance of the seal would immediately alert the officials to improper activity of this sort.

³ tn Aram “the signet rings.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:18

¹ tn The meaning of Aramaic דַּחֲוָה (dakhavah) is a crux interpretum. Suggestions include “music,” “dancing girls,” “concubines,” “table,” “food” – all of which are uncertain. The translation employed here, suggested by earlier scholars, is deliberately vague. A number of recent English versions follow a similar approach with “entertainment” (e.g., NASB, NIV, NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT). On this word see further, HALOT 1849-50 s.v.; E. Vogt, Lexicon linguae aramaicae, 37.

² tn Aram “his sleep fled from him.”

NET Notes: Dan 6:20

¹ tn Aram “The king answered and said to Daniel.” This phrase has not been included in the translation for stylistic reasons; it is redundant in English.

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:1

It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom ^{( a )} an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;

^{( a )} Read (Est 1:1).

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:3

Then this Daniel ^{( b )} 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.

^{( b )} This heathen king preferred Daniel a stranger to all his nobles and those he was familiar with, because the graces of God were more excellent in him than in others.

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:4

Then the presidents and princes ^{( c )} sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he [was] faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.

^{( c )} Thus the wicked cannot abide the graces of God in others, but seek by every occasion to deface them: therefore against such assaults there is no better remedy than to walk upright in the fear of God, and to have a good conscience.

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:9

Wherefore king Darius ^{( d )} signed the writing and the decree.

^{( d )} In this is condemned the wickedness of the king, who would be set up as a god, and did not care what wicked laws he approved for the maintenance of it.

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:10

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his ^{( e )} windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

^{( e )} Because he would not by his silence show that he consented to this wicked decree, he set open his windows toward Jerusalem when he prayed: both to stir up himself with the remembrance of God's promises to his people, when they should pray toward that temple, and also that others might see that he would neither consent in heart nor deed for these few days to anything that was contrary to God's glory.

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:15

Then these men assembled unto the king, 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 ^{( f )} changed.

^{( f )} Thus the wicked maintain evil laws by constancy and authority, which is often either weakness, or stubbornness, and the innocent as a result perish by them: and these governors neither ought to fear, nor be ashamed to break such laws.

Geneva Bible: Dan 6:20

And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: [and] the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, ^{( g )} able to deliver thee from the lions?

^{( g )} This declares that Darius was not touched with the true knowledge of God, because he doubted of his power.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Dan 6:1-28

1 Daniel is made chief of the presidents.

4 They, conspiring against him, obtain an idolatrous decree.

10 Daniel, accused of the breach thereof, is cast into the lion's den.

18 Daniel is saved;

24 his adversaries devoured;

25 and God magnified by a decree.

Maclaren: Dan 6:4

A Tribute From Enemies

Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.'--Daniel 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. The Unfavourable Soil In Which A Character May Be Rooted And Grow.

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 Caesar's household, and depend upon it, they were more saintly saints just because they were in Caesar'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 thoroughgoing, 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 beIn 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.'

Maclaren: Dan 6:15-27

Faith Stopping The Mouths Of Lions

Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, He will deliver thee. 17. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king scaled it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel l8. Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of musick brought before him: and his sleep went from him. 19. Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of Hens. 20, And when he came to the den. he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions! 21. Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. 22. My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before Him lnnocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt. 23. Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God. 24. And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den. 25. Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. 26. I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for He is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and His dominion shall be even unto the end. 27. He delivereth and rescueth, and He worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions. 28. So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.'--Daniel 6:16-28.

DANIEL was verging on ninety when this great test of his faithfulness was presented to him. He had been honoured and trusted through all the changes in the kingdom, and, when the Mode-Persian conquest came, the new monarch naturally found in him, as a foreigner, a more reliable minister than in native officials. Envy doth merit as its shade pursue,' and the crafty trick by which his subordinates tried to procure his fall, was their answer to Darius's scheme of making him prime minister. Our passage begins in the middle of the story, but the earlier part will come into consideration in the course of our remarks.

I. We Note, First, The Steadfast, Silent Confessor And The Weak King.

Darius is a great deal more conspicuous in the narrative than Daniel. The victim of injustice is silent. He does not seem to have been called on to deny or defend the indictment. His deed was patent, and the breach of the law flagrant. He, too, was like a sheep before the shearers,' dumb. His silence meant, among other things, a quiet, patient, fixed resolve to bear all, and not to deny his God. Weak men bluster. Heroic endurance has generally little to say. Without resistance, or a word, the old man, an hour ago the foremost in the realm, is hauled off and flung into the pit or den. It is useless and needless to ask its form. The entrance was sealed with two seals, one the king's, one the conspirators', that neither party might steal a march on the other. Fellows in iniquity do not trust each other. So, down in the dark there, with the glittering eyeballs of the brutes round him, and their growls in his ears, the old man sits all night long, with peace in his heart, and looking up trustfully, through the hole in the roof, to his Protector's stars, shining their silent message of cheer.

The passage dwells on the pitiable weakness and consequent unrest of the king. He had not yielded Daniel to his fate without a struggle, which the previous narrative describes in strong language. Sore displeased,' he set his heart' on delivering him, and laboured' to do so. The curious obstacle, limiting even his power, is a rare specimen of conservatism in its purest form. So wise were our ancestors, that nothing of theirs shall ever be touched. Infallible legislators can make immutable laws; the rest of us must be content to learn by blundering, and to grow by changing. The man who says, I never alter my opinions,' condemns himself as either too foolish or too proud to learn.

But probably, if the question had been about a law that was inconvenient to Darius himself, or to these advocates of the constitution as it has always been, some way of getting round it would have been found out. If the king had been bold enough to assert himself, he could have walked through the cobweb. But this is one of the miseries of yielding to evil counsels, that one step taken calls for another. In for a penny, in for a pound.' Therefore let us all take heed of small compliances, and be sure that we can never say about any doubtful course, Thus far will I go, and no farther.' Darius was his servants' servant when once he had put his name to the arrogant decree. He did not know the incidence of his act, and we do not know that of ours; therefore let us take heed of the quality of actions and motives, since we are wholly incapable of estimating the sweep of their consequences.

Darius's conduct to Daniel was like Herod's to John the Baptist and Pilate's to Jesus. In all the cases the judges were convinced of the victim's innocence, and would have saved him; but fear of others biassed justice, and from selfish motives, they let fierce hatred have its way. Such judges are murderers. From all come the old lessons, never too threadbare to be dinned into the ears, especially of the young, that to be weak is, in a world so full of temptation, the same as to be wicked, and that he who has a sidelong eye to his supposed interest, will never see the path of duty plainly.

What a feeble excuse to his own conscience was Darius's parting word to Daniel! Thy God, whom thou servest continually, He will deliver thee!' And was flinging him to the lions the right way to treat a man who served God continually? Or, what right had Darius to expect that any god would interfere to stop the consequences of his act, which he thus himself condemned? We are often tempted to think, as he did, that a divine intervention will come in between our evil deeds and their natural results. We should be wiser if we did not do the things that, by our own confession, need God to avert their issues.

But that weak parting word witnessed to the impression made by the life-long consistency of Daniel. he must be a good man who gets such a testimony from those who are harming him. The busy minister of state had done his political work so as to extort that tribute from one who had no sympathy with his religion. Do we do ours in that fashion? How many of our statesmen serve God continually' and obviously in their public life?

What a contrast between the night passed in the lions' den and the palace! Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage,' and soft beds and luxurious delights of sense bring no ease to troubled consciences. Daniel is more at rest, though his soul is among lions,' than Darius in his palace. Peter sleeps soundly, though the coming morning is to be his last. Better to be the victim than the doer of injustice!

The verdict of nightly thoughts on daily acts is usually true, and if our deeds do not bear thinking of on our beds,' the sooner we cancel them by penitence and reversed conduct, the better. But weak men are often prone to swift and shallow regrets, which do not influence their future any more than a stone thrown into the sea makes a permanent gap. Why should Darius have waited for morning, if his penitence had moved him to a firm resolution to undo the evil done? He had better have sprung from his bed, and gone with his guards to open the den in the dark. Feeble lamentations are out of place when it is still time to act.

The hurried rush to the den in the morning twilight, and the lamentable voice,' so unlike royal impassiveness, indicate the agitation of an impulsive nature, accustomed to let the feeling of the moment sway it unchecked. Absolute power tends to make that type of man. The question thrown into the den seems to imply that its interior was not seen. If so, the half-belief in Daniel's survival is remarkable. It indicates, as before, the impression of steadfast devoutness made by the old man's life, and also a belief that his God was possibly a true and potent divinity.

Such a belief was quite natural, but it does not mean that Darius was prepared to accept Daniel's God as his god. His religion was probably elastic and hospitable enough to admit that other nations might have other gods. But his thoughts about this living God' are a strange medley. He is not sure whether He is stronger than the royal lions, and he does not seem to feel that if a god delivers, his own act in surrendering a favoured servant of such a god looks very black. A half-belief blinds men to the opposition between their ways and God's, and to the certain issue of their going in one direction and God in another. If Daniel be delivered, what will become of Darius? But, like most men, he is illogical, and that question does not seem to have occurred to him. Surely this man may sit for a portrait of a weak, passionate nature, in the feebleness of his resistance to evil, the half hopes that wrong would be kept from turning out so badly as it promised, the childish meanings over wickedness that might still have been mended, and the incapacity to take in the grave, personal consequences of his crime.

II. We Next Note The Great Deliverance.

The king does not see Daniel, and waits in sickening doubt whether any sound but the brutes' snarl at the disturber of their feast will be heard. There must have been a sigh of relief when the calm accents were audible from the unseen depth. And what dignity, respect, faith, and innocence are in them! Even in such circumstances the usual form of reverential salutation to the king is remembered. That night's work might have made a sullen rebel of Daniel, and small blame to him if he had had no very amiable feelings to Darius; but he had learned faithfulness in a good school, and no trace of returning evil for evil was in his words or tones.

The formal greeting was much more than a form, when it came up from among the lions. It heaped coals of fire on the king's head, let us hope, and taught him, if he needed the lesson, that Daniel's disobedience had not been disloyalty. The more religion compels us to disregard the authority and practices of others, the more scrupulously attentive should we be to demonstrate that we cherish all due regard to them, and wish them well. How simply, and as if he saw nothing in it to wonder at, he tells the fact of his deliverance! My God has sent His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths.' He had not been able to say, as the king did before the den was opened, Thy God will deliver thee'; but he had gone down into it, knowing that He was able, and leaving himself in God's care. So it was no surprise to him that he was safe. Thankfulness, but not astonishment, filled his heart. So faith takes God's gifts, however great and beyond natural possibility they may be; for the greatest of them are less than the Love which faith knows to move all things, and whatsoever faith receives is just like Him.

Daniel did not say, as Darius did, that he served God continually, but he did declare his own innocency in God's sight and unimpeachable fidelity to the king. His reference is probably mainly to his official conduct; but the characteristic tone of the Old Testament saint is audible, which ventured on professions of uprightness, accordant with an earlier stage of revelation and religious consciousness, but scarcely congruous with the deeper and more inward sense of sin produced by the full revelation in Christ. But if the tone of the latter part of Daniel 6:22 is somewhat strange to us, the historian's summary in Daniel 6:23 gives the eternal truth of the matter: No manner of hurt was found upon him, because he had trusted in his God.' That is the basis of the reference in Hebrews 11:33: Through faith, stopped the mouths of lions.'

Simple trust in God brings His angel to our help, and the deliverance, which is ultimately to be ascribed to His hand muzzling the gaping beasts of prey, may also be ascribed to the faith which sets His hand in motion. The true cause is God, but the indispensable condition without which God will not act, and with which He cannot but act, is our trust. Therefore all the great things which it is said to do are due, not to anything in it, but wholly to that of which it lays hold. A foot or two of lead pipe is worth little, but if it is the channel through which water flows into a city, it is priceless.

Faith may or may not bring external deliverances, such as it brought to Daniel; but the good cheer which this story brings us does not depend on these. When Paul lay in Rome, shortly before his martyrdom, the experience of Daniel was in his mind, as he thankfully wrote to Timothy, I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.' He adds a hope which contrasts strangely, at first sight, with the clear expectation of a speedy and violent death, expressed a moment or two before (I am already being offered, and the time of my departure is come ) when he says, The Lord will deliver me from every evil work'; but he had learned that it was possible to pass through the evil and yet to be delivered from it, and that a man might be thrown to the lions and devoured by them, and yet be truly shielded from all harm from them. So he adds, And will save me unto His heavenly kingdom,' thereby teaching us that the true deliverance is that which carries us into, or something nearer towards, the eternal home. Thus understood, the miracle of Daniel's deliverance is continually repeated to all who partake of Daniel's faith,' Thou hast made the Most High thy habitation, thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder.'

The savage vengeance on the conspirators and the proclamation of Darius must be left untouched. The one is a ghastly example of retributive judgment, in which, as sometimes is the case even now, men fall into the pit they have digged for others, and it shows the barbarous cruelty of that gorgeous civilisation. The other is an example of how far a man may go in perceiving and acknowledging the truth without its influencing his heart. The decree enforces recognition of Daniel's God, in language which even prophets do not surpass; but it is all lip-reverence, as evanescent as superficial. It takes more than a fright caused by a miracle to make a man a true servant of the living God.

The final verse of the passage implies Daniel's restoration to rank, and gives a beautiful, simple picture of the old man's closing days, which had begun so long before, in such a different world as Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and closed in Cyrus's, enriched with all that should accompany old age--honour, obedience, troops of friends. When a man's ways please the Lord, He maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him.'

MHCC: Dan 6:1-5

We notice to the glory of God, that though Daniel was now very old, yet he was able for business, and had continued faithful to his religion. It is for the glory of God, when those who profess religion, conduct themselves so that their most watchful enemies may find no occasion for blaming them, save only in the matters of their God, in which they walk according to their consciences.

MHCC: Dan 6:6-10

To forbid prayer for thirty days, is, for so long, to rob God of all the tribute he has from man, and to rob man of all the comfort he has in God. Does not every man's heart direct him, when in want or distress, to call upon God? We could not live a day without God; and can men live thirty days without prayer? Yet it is to be feared that those who, without any decree forbidding them, present no hearty, serious petitions to God for more than thirty days together, are far more numerous than those who serve him continually, with humble, thankful hearts. Persecuting laws are always made on false pretences; but it does not become Christians to make bitter complaints, or to indulge in revilings. It is good to have hours for prayer. Daniel prayed openly and avowedly; and though a man of vast business, he did not think that would excuse him from daily exercises of devotion. How inexcusable are those who have but little to do in the world, yet will not do thus much for their souls! In trying times we must take heed, lest, under pretence of discretion, we are guilty of cowardice in the cause of God. All who throw away their souls, as those certainly do that live without prayer, even if it be to save their lives, at the end will be found to be fools. Nor did Daniel only pray, and not give thanks, cutting off some part of the service to make the time of danger shorter; but he performed the whole. In a word, the duty of prayer is founded upon the sufficiency of God as an almighty Creator and Redeemer, and upon our wants as sinful creatures. To Christ we must turn our eyes. Thither let the Christian look, thither let him pray, in this land of his captivity.

MHCC: Dan 6:11-17

It is no new thing for what is done faithfully, in conscience toward God, to be misrepresented as done obstinately, and in contempt of the civil powers. Through want of due thought, we often do that which afterwards, like Darius, we see cause a thousand times to wish undone again. Daniel, that venerable man, is brought as the vilest of malefactors, and is thrown into the den of lions, to be devoured, only for worshipping his God. No doubt the placing the stone was ordered by the providence of God, that the miracle of Daniel's deliverance might appear more plain; and the king sealed it with his own signet, probably lest Daniel's enemies should kill him. Let us commit our lives and souls unto God, in well-doing. We cannot place full confidence even in men whom we faithfully serve; but believers may, in all cases, be sure of the Divine favour and consolation.

MHCC: Dan 6:18-24

The best way to have a good night, is to keep a good conscience. We are sure of what the king doubted, that the servants of the living God have a Master well able to protect them. See the power of God over the fiercest creatures, and believe his power to restrain the roaring lion that goeth about continually seeking to devour. Daniel was kept perfectly safe, because he believed in his God. Those who boldly and cheerfully trust in God to protect them in the way of duty, shall always find him a present help. Thus the righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead. The short triumph of the wicked will end in their ruin.

Matthew Henry: Dan 6:1-5

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, 1Pe 2:13, 1Pe 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.

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: Dan 6:6-10

Daniel's adversaries could have no advantage against him from any law now in being; they therefore contrive a new law, by which they hope to ensnare him, and in a matter in which they knew they should be sure of him; and such was his fidelity to his God that they gained their point. Here is,

I. Darius's impious law. I call it Darius's, because he gave the royal assent to it, and otherwise it would not have been of force; but it was not properly his: he contrived it not, and was perfectly wheedled to consent to it. The presidents and princes framed the edict, brought in the bill, and by their management it was agreed to by the convention of the states, who perhaps were met at this time upon some public occasion. It is pretended that this bill which they would have to pass into a law was the result of mature deliberation, that all the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, princes, counsellors, and captains, had consulted together about it, and that they not only agreed to it, but advised it, for divers good causes and considerations, that they had done what they could to establish it for a firm decree; nay, they intimate to the king that it was carried nemine contradicente - unanimously: " All the presidents are of this mind;"and yet we are sure that Daniel, the chief of the three presidents, did not agree to it, and have reason to think that many more of the princes excepted against it as absurd and unreasonable. Note, It is no new thing for that to be represented, and with great assurance too, as the sense of the nation, which is far from being so; and that which few approve of is sometimes confidently said to be that which all agree to. But, O the infelicity of kings, who, being under a necessity of seeing and hearing with other people's eyes and ears, are often wretchedly imposed upon! These designing men, under colour of doing honour to the king, but really intending the ruin of his favourite, press him to pass this into a law, and make it a royal statute, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king, shall be put to death after the most barbarous manner, shall be cast into the den of lions, Dan 6:7. This is the bill they have been hatching, and they lay it before the king to be signed and passed into a law. Now, 1. There is nothing in it that has the least appearance of good, but that it magnifies the king, and makes him seem both very great and very kind to his subjects, which, they suggest, will be of good service to him now that he has newly come to his throne, and will confirm his interests. All men must be made to believe that the king is so rich, and withal so ready to all petitioners, that none in any want or distress need to apply either to God or man for relief, but to him only. And for thirty days together he will be ready to give audience to all that have any petition to present to him. It is indeed much for the honour of kings to be benefactors to their subjects and to have their ears open to their complaints and requests; but if they pretend to be their sole benefactors, and undertake to be to them instead of God, and challenge that respect from them which is due to God only, it is their disgrace, and not their honour. But, 2. There is a great deal in it that is apparently evil. It is bad enough to forbid asking a petition of any man. Must not a beggar ask an alms, or one neighbour beg a kindness of another? If the child want bread, must he not ask it of his parents, or be cast into the den of lions if he do? Nay, those that have business with the king, may they not petition those about him to introduce them? But it was much worse, and an impudent affront to all religion, to forbid asking a petition of any god. It is by prayer that we give glory to God, fetch in mercy from God; and so keep up our communion with God; and to interdict prayer for thirty days is for so long to rob God of all the tribute he has from man and to rob man of all the comfort he has in God. When the light of nature teaches us that the providence of God has the ordering and disposing of all our affairs does not the law of nature oblige us by prayer to acknowledge God and seek to him? Does not every man's heart direct him, when he is in want or distress, to call upon God, and must this be made high treason? We could not live a day without God; and can men live thirty days without prayer? Will the king himself be tied up for so long from praying to God; or, if it be allowed him, will he undertake to do it for all his subjects? Did ever any nation thus slight their gods? But see what absurdities malice will drive men to. Rather than not bring Daniel into trouble for praying to his God, they will deny themselves and all their friends the satisfaction of praying to theirs. Had they proposed only to prohibit the Jews from praying to their God, Daniel would have been as effectually ensnared; but they knew the king would not pass such a law, and therefore made it thus general. And the king, puffed up with a fancy that this would set him up as a little god, was fond of the feather in his cap (for so it was, and not a flower in his crown ) and signed the writing and the decree (Dan 6:9), which, being once done, according to the constitution of the united kingdom of the Medes and Persians, was not upon any pretence whatsoever to be altered or dispensed with, or the breach of it pardoned.

II. Daniel's pious disobedience to this law, Dan 6:10. He did not retire into the country, nor abscond for some time, though he knew the law was levelled against him; but, because he knew it was so, therefore he stood his ground, knowing that he had now a fair opportunity of honouring God before men, and showing that he preferred his favour, and his duty to him, before life itself. When Daniel knew that the writing was signed he might have gone to the king, and expostulated with him about it; nay, he might have remonstrated against it, as grounded upon a misinformation that all the presidents had consented to it, whereas he that was chief of them had never been consulted about it; but he went to his house, and applied himself to his duty, cheerfully trusting God with the event. Now observe,

1. Daniel's constant practice, which we were not informed of before this occasion, but which we have reason to think was the general practice of the pious Jews. (1.) He prayed in his house, sometimes alone and sometimes with his family about him, and made a solemn business of it. Cornelius was a man that prayed in his house, Act 10:30. Note, Every house not only may be, but ought to be, a house of prayer; where we have a tent God must have an alter, and on it we must offer spiritual sacrifices. (2.) In every prayer he gave thanks. When we pray to God for the mercies we want we must praise him for those we have received. Thanksgiving must be a part of every prayer. (3.) In his prayer and thanksgiving he had an eye to God as his God, his in covenant, and set himself as in his presence. He did this before his God, and with a regard to him. (4.) When he prayed and gave thanks he kneeled upon his knees, which is the most proper gesture in prayer, and most expressive of humility, and reverence, and submission to God. Kneeling is a begging posture, and we come to God as beggars, beggars for our lives, whom it concerns to be importunate. (5.) He opened the windows of his chamber, that the sight of the visible heavens might affect his heart with an awe of that God who dwells above the heavens; but that was not all: he opened them towards Jerusalem, the holy city, though now in ruins, to signify the affection he had for its very stones and dust (Psa 102:14) and the remembrance he had of its concerns daily in his prayers. Thus, though he himself lived great in Babylon, yet he testified his concurrence with the meanest of his brethren the captives, in remembering Jerusalem and preferring it before his chief joy, Psa 137:5, Psa 137:6. Jerusalem was the place which God had chosen to put his name there; and, when the temple was dedicated, Solomon's prayer to God was that if his people should in the land of their enemies pray unto him with their eye towards the land which he gave them, and the city he had chosen, and the house which was built to his name, then he would hear and maintain their cause (1Ki 8:48, 1Ki 8:49), to which prayer Daniel had reference in this circumstance of his devotions. (6.) He did this three times a day, three times every day according to the example of David (Psa 55:17), Morning, evening, and at noon, I will pray. It is good to have our hours of prayer, not to bind, but to remind conscience; and, if we think our bodies require refreshment by food thrice a day, can we think seldomer will serve our souls? This is surely as little as may be to answer the command of praying always. (7.) He did this so openly and avowedly that all who knew him knew it to be his practice; and he thus showed it, not because he was proud of it (in the place where he was there was no room for that temptation, for it was not reputation, but reproach, that attended it), but because he was not ashamed of it. Though Daniel was a great man, he did not think it below him to be thrice a day upon his knees before his Maker and to be his own chaplain; though he was an old man, he did not think himself past it; nor, though it had been his practice from his youth up, was he weary of this well doing. Though he was a man of business, vast business, for the service of the public, he did not think that would excuse him from the daily exercises of devotion. How inexcusable then are those who have but little to do in the world, and yet will not do thus much for God and their souls! Daniel was a man famous for prayer, and for success in it (Eze 14:14), and he came to be so by thus making a conscience of prayer and making a business of it daily; and in thus doing God blessed him wonderfully.

2. Daniel's constant adherence to this practice, even when it was made by the law a capital crime. When he knew that the writing was signed he continued to do as he did aforetime, and altered not one circumstance of the performance. Many a man, yea, and many a good man, would have thought it prudence to omit it for these thirty days, when he could not do it without hazard of his life; he might have prayed so much oftener when those days had expired and the danger was over, or he might have performed the duty at another time, and in another place, so secretly that it should not be possible for his enemies to discover it; and so he might both satisfy his conscience and keep up his communion with God, and yet avoid the law, and continue in his usefulness. But, if he had done so, it would have been thought, both by his friends and by his enemies, that he had thrown up the duty for this time, through cowardice and base fear, which would have tended very much to the dishonour of God and the discouragement of his friends. Others who moved in a lower sphere might well enough act with caution; but Daniel, who had so many eyes upon him, must act with courage; and the rather because he knew that the law, when it was made, was particularly levelled against him. Note, We must not omit duty for fear of suffering, so, nor so much as seems to come short of it. In trying times great stress is laid upon our confessing Christ before men (Mat 10:32), and we must take heed lest, under pretence of discretion, we be found guilty of cowardice in the cause of God. If we do not think that this example of Daniel obliges us to do likewise, yet I am sure it forbids us to censure those that do, for God owned him in it. By his constancy to his duty it now appears that he had never been used to admit any excuse for the omission of it; for, if ever any excuse would serve to put it by, this would have served now, (1.) That it was forbidden by the king his master, and in honour of the king too; but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, We are to obey God rather than men. (2.) That it would be the loss of his life, but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, Those who throw away their souls (as those certainly do that live without prayer) to save their lives make but a bad bargain for themselves; and though herein they make themselves, like the king of Tyre, wiser than Daniel, at their end they will be fools.

Matthew Henry: Dan 6:11-17

Here is 1. Proof made of Daniel's praying to his God, notwithstanding the late edict to the contrary (Dan 6:11): These men assembled; the came tumultuously together, so the word is, the same that was used Dan 6:6, borrowed from Psa 2:1, Why do the heathen rage? They came together to visit Daniel, perhaps under pretence of business, at that time which they knew to be his usual hour of devotion; and, if they had not found him so engaged, they would have upbraided him with his faint-heartedness and distrust of his God, but (which they rather wished to do) they found him on his knees praying and making supplication before his God. For his love they are his adversaries; but, like his father David, he gives himself unto prayer, Psa 109:4. 2. Complaint made of it to the king. When they had found occasion against Daniel concerning the law of his God they lost no time, but applied to the king (Dan 6:12), and having appealed to his whether there was not such a law made, and gained from him a recognition of it, and that it was so ratified that it might not be altered, they proceeded to accuse Daniel, Dan 6:13. They so describe him, in the information they give, as to exasperate the king and incense him the more against him: "He is of the children of the captivity of Judah; he is of Judah, that despicable people, and now a captive in a despicable state, that can call nothing his own but what he has by the king's favour, and yet he regards not thee, O king! nor the decree that thou hast signed. "Note, It is no new thing for that which is done faithfully, in the conscience towards God, to be misrepresented as done obstinately and in contempt of the civil powers, that is, for the best saints to be reproached as the worst men. Daniel regarded God, and therefore prayed, and we have reason to think prayed for the king and his government, yet this is construed as not regarding the king. That excellent spirit which Daniel was endued with, 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 take notice of that to his praise, but only, He makes his petition, which is the thing the law forbids. 3. The great concern the king was in hereupon. He now perceived that, whatever they pretended, it was not to honour him, but in spite to Daniel, that they had proposed that law, and now he is sorely displeased with himself for gratifying them in it, Dan 6:14. Note, When men indulge a proud vain-glorious humour, and please themselves with that which feeds it, they know not what vexations they are preparing for themselves; their flatterers may prove their tormentors, and are but spreading a net for their feet. Now, the king sets his heart to deliver Daniel; both by argument and by authority he labours till the going down of the sun to deliver him, that is, to persuade his accusers not to insist upon his prosecution. Note, We often do that, through inconsideration, which afterwards we see cause a thousand times to wish undone again, which is a good reason why we should ponder the path of our feet, for then all our ways will be established. 4. The violence with which the prosecutors demanded judgment, Dan 6:15. We are not told what Daniel said; the king himself is his advocate, he needs not plead his own cause, but silently commits himself and it to him that judges righteously. But the prosecutors insist upon it that the law must have its course; it is a fundamental maxim in the constitution of the government of the Medes and Persians, which had now become the universal monarchy, that no decree or statute which the king establishes may be changed. The same we find Est 1:19; Est 8:8. The Chaldeans magnified the will of their king, by giving him a power to make and unmake laws at his pleasure, to slay and keep alive whom he would. The Persians magnified the wisdom of their king, by supposing that whatever law he solemnly ratified it was so well made that there could be no occasion to alter it, or dispense with it, as if any human foresight could, in framing a law, guard against all inconveniences. But, if this maxim be duly applied to Daniel's case (as I am apt to think it is not, but perverted), while it honours the king's legislative power it hampers his executive power, and incapacitates him to show that mercy which upholds the throne, and to pass acts of indemnity, which are the glories of a reign. Those who allow not the sovereign's power to dispense with a disabling statute, yet never question his power to pardon an offence against a penal statute. But Darius is denied this power. See what need we have to pray for princes that God would give them wisdom, for they are often embarrassed with great difficulties, even the wisest and best are. 5. The executing of the law upon Daniel. The king himself, with the utmost reluctance, and against his conscience, signs the warrant for his execution; and Daniel, that venerable grave man, who carried such a mixture of majesty and sweetness in his countenance, who had so often looked great upon the bench, and at the council-board, and greater upon his knees, who had power with God and man, and had prevailed, is brought, purely for worshipping his God, as if he had been one of the vilest of malefactors, and thrown into the den of lions, to be devoured by them, Dan 6:16. One cannot think of it without the utmost compassion to the gracious sufferer and the utmost indignation at the malicious prosecutors. To make sure work, the stone laid upon the mouth of the den is sealed, and the king (an over-easy man) is persuaded to seal it with his own signet (Dan 6:17), that unhappy signet with which he had confirmed the law that Daniel falls by. But his lords cannot trust him, unless they add their signets too. Thus, when Christ was buried, his adversaries sealed the stone that was rolled to the door of his sepulchre. 6. The encouragement which Darius gave to Daniel to trust in God: Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee, Dan 6:16. Here (1.) He justifies Daniel from guilt, owning all his crime to be serving his God continually, and continuing to do so even when it was made a crime. (2.) He leaves it to God to free him from punishment, since he could not prevail to do it: He will deliver thee. He is sure that his God can deliver him, for he believes him to be an almighty God, and he has reason to think he will do it, having heard of his delivering Daniel's companions in a like case from the fiery furnace, and concluding him to be always faithful to those who approve themselves faithful to him. Note, Those who serve God continually he will continually preserve, and will bear them out in his service.

Matthew Henry: Dan 6:18-24

Here is, I. The melancholy night which the king had, upon Daniel's account, Dan 6:18. He had said, indeed, that God would deliver him out of the danger, but at the same time he could not forgive himself for throwing him into the danger; and justly might God deprive him of a friend whom he had himself used so barbarously. He went to his palace, vexed at himself for what he had done, and calling himself unwise and unjust for not adhering to the law of God and nature with a non obstante - a negative to the law of the Medes and Persians. He ate no supper, but passed the night fasting; his heart was already full of grief and fear. He forbade the music; nothing is more unpleasing that songs sung to a heavy heart. He went to bed, but got no sleep, was full of tossings to and fro till the dawning of the day. Note, the best way to have a good night is to keep a good conscience, then we may lie down in peace.

II. The solicitous enquiry he made concerning Daniel the next morning, Dan 6:19, Dan 6:20. He was up early, very early; for how could he lie in bed when he could not sleep for dreaming of Daniel, nor lie awake quietly for thinking of him? And he was no sooner up than he went in haste to the den of lions, for he could not satisfy himself to send a servant (that would not sufficiently testify his affection for Daniel), nor had he patience to stay so long as till a servant would return. When he comes to the den, not without some hopes that God had graciously undone what he had wickedly done, he cries, with a lamentable voice, as one full of concern and trouble, O Daniel! art thou alive? He longs to know, yet trembles to ask the question, fearing to be answered with the roaring of the lions after more prey: O Daniel! servant of the living God, has thy God whom thou servest made it to appear that he is able to deliver thee from the lions? If he rightly understood himself when he called him the living God, he could not doubt of his ability to keep Daniel alive, for he that has life in himself quickens whom he will; but has he thought fit in this case to exert his power? What he doubted of we are sure of, that the servants of the living God have a Master who is well able to protect them and bear them out in his service.

III. The joyful news he meets with - that Daniel is alive, is safe, and well, and unhurt in the lions' den, Dan 6:21, Dan 6:22. Daniel knew the king's voice, though it was now a lamentable voice, and spoke to him with all the deference and respect that were due to him: O king! live for ever. He does not reproach him for his unkindness to him, and his easiness in yielding to the malice of his persecutors; but, to show that he has heartily forgiven him, he meets him with his good wishes. Note, We should not upbraid those with the diskindnesses they have done us who, we know, did them with reluctance, and are very ready to upbraid themselves with them. The account Daniel gives the king is very pleasant; it is triumphant. 1. God has preserved his life by a miracle. Darius had called him Daniel's god ( thy God whom thou servest ), to which Daniel does as it were echo back, Yea, he is my God, whom I own, and who owns me, for he has sent his angel. The same bright and glorious being that was seen in the form of the Son of God with the three children in the fiery furnace had visited Daniel, and, it is likely, in a visible appearance had enlightened the dark den, and kept Daniel company all night, and had shut the lions' mouths, that they had not in the least hurt him. The angel's presence made even the lions' den his strong-hold, his palace, his paradise; he had never had a better night in his life. See the power of God over the fiercest creatures, and believe his power to restrain the roaring lion that goes about continually seeking to devour from hurting those that are his. See the care God takes of his faithful worshippers, especially when he calls them out to suffer for him. If he keeps their souls from sin, comforts their souls with his peace, and receives their souls to himself, he does in effect stop the lions' mouths, that they cannot hurt them. See how ready the angels are to minister for the good of God's people, for they own themselves their fellow servants. 2. God has therein pleaded his cause. He was represented to the king as disaffected to him and his government. We do not find that he said any thing in his own vindication, but left it to God to clear up his integrity as the light; and he did it effectually, by working a miracle for his preservation. Daniel, in what he had done, had not offended either God or the king: Before him whom I prayed to innocency was found in me. He pretends not to a meritorious excellence, but the testimony of his conscience concerning his sincerity is his comfort - As also that before thee, O king! I have done no hurt, nor designed thee any affront.

IV. The discharge of Daniel from his confinement. His prosecutors cannot but own that the law is satisfied, though they are not, or, if it be altered, it is by a power superior to that of the Medes and Persians; and therefore no cause can be shown why Daniel should not be fetched out of the den (Dan 6:23): The king was exceedingly glad to find him alive, and gave orders immediately that they should take him out of the den, as Jeremiah out of the dungeon; and, when they searched, no manner of hurt was found upon him; he was nowhere crushed nor scarred, but was kept perfectly well, because he believed in his God. Note, Those who boldly and cheerfully trust in God to protect them in the way of their duty shall never be made ashamed of their confidence in him, but shall always find him a present help.

V. The committing of his prosecutors to the same prison, or place of execution rather, Dan 6:24. Darius is animated by this miracle wrought for Daniel, and now begins to take courage and act like himself. Those that would not suffer him to show mercy to Daniel shall, now that God has done it for him, be made to feel his resentments; and he will do justice for God who had shown mercy for him. Daniel's accusers, now that his innocency is cleared, and Heaven itself has become his compurgator, have the same punishment inflicted upon them which they designed against him, according to the law of retaliation made against false accusers, Deu 19:18, Deu 19:19. Such they were to be reckoned now that Daniel was proved innocent; for, though the fact was true, yet it was not a fault. They were cast into the den of lions, which perhaps was a punishment newly invented by themselves; however, it was what they maliciously designed for Daniel. Nec lex est justior ulla quàm necis artifices arte perire suâ - No law can be more just than that which adjudges the devisers of barbarity to perish by it, Psa 7:15, Psa 7:16; Psa 9:15, Psa 9:16. And now Solomon's observation is verified (Pro 11:8), The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead. In this execution we may observe, 1. The king's severity, in ordering their wives and children to be thrown to the lions with them. How righteous are God's statutes above those of the nations! for God commanded that the children should not die for the fathers' crimes, Deu 24:16. Yet they were put to death in extraordinary cases, as those of Achan, and Saul, and Haman. 2. The lion's fierceness. They had the mastery of them immediately, and tore them to pieces before they came to the bottom of the den. This verified and magnified the miracle of their sparing Daniel; for hereby it appeared that it was not because they had not appetite, but because they had not leave. Mastiffs that are kept muzzled are the more fierce when the muzzle is taken off; so were these lions. And the Lord is known by those judgments which he executes.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 6:1-10

(5:31-6:9)

Transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede; appointment of the regency; envy of the satraps against Daniel, and their attempt to destroy him .

The narrative of this chapter is connected by the copula ו with the occurrence recorded in the preceding; yet Dan 6:1 does not, as in the old versions and with many interpreters, belong to the fifth chapter, but to the sixth, and forms not merely the bond of connection between the events narrated in the fifth and sixth chapters, but furnishes at the same time the historical basis for the following narrative, vv. 2-29 (vv. 1-28). The statement of the verse, that Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old, connects itself essentially with Dan 5:30, so far as it joins to the fulfilment, there reported, of the first part of the sacred writing interpreted by Daniel to Belshazzar, the fulfilment also the second part of that writing, but not so closely that the designation of time, in that same night (Dan 5:30), is applicable also to the fact mentioned in Daniel 6:1 (Dan 5:31), and as warranting the supposition that the transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede took place on the night in which Belshazzar was slain. Against such a chronological connection of these two verses, Dan 5:30 and 6:1 (Dan 5:31), we adduce in the second half of v. 1 (Dan 5:31) the statement of the age of Darius, in addition to the reasons already adduced. This is not to make it remarkable that, instead of the young mad debauchee (Belshazzar), with whom, according to prophecy, the Chaldean bondage of Israel was brought to an end, a man of mature judgment seized the reigns of government (Delitzsch); for this supposition fails not only with the hypothesis, already confuted, on which it rests, but is quite foreign to the text, for Darius in what follows does not show himself to be a ruler of matured experience. The remark of Kliefoth has much more in its favour, that by the statement of the age it is designed to be made prominent that the government of Darius the Mede did not last long, soon giving place to that of Cyrus the Persian, v. 29 (Dan 6:28), whereby the divine writing, that the Chaldean kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians, was fully accomplished. Regarding Darjawesch , Darius, see the preliminary remarks. The addition of מדיא ( Kethiv ) forms on the one hand a contrast to the expression "the king of the Chaldeans"(Dan 5:30), and on the other it points forward to פּרסיא , v. 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, v. 29 (Dan 6:28), that Cyrus the Persian succeeded him in the kingdom. In קבּל , he received the kingdom, it is indicated that Darius did not conquer it, but received it from the conqueror. The כ in כבר intimates that the statement of the age rests only on a probable estimate.

Daniel 6:2 (Dan 6:1)

For the government of the affairs of the kingdom he had received, and especially for regulating the gathering in of the tribute of the different provinces, Darius placed 120 satraps over the whole kingdom, and over these satraps three chiefs, to whom the satraps should give an account. Regarding אחשׁדּרפּניּא ( satraps ), see at Dan 3:2. סרכין , plur. of סרך ; סרכא has in the Semitic no right etymology, and is derived from the Aryan, from the Zend. sara, çara, head , with the syllable ach . In the Targg., in use for the Hebr. שׁטר , it denotes a president , of whom the three named in Dan 6:2 (1), by their position over the satraps, held the rank of chief governors or ministers, for which the Targg. use סרכן , while סרכין in Dan 6:8 denotes all the military and civil prefects of the kingdom .

The modern critics have derived from this arrangement for the government of the kingdom made by Darius an argument against the credibility of the narrative, which Hitzig has thus formulated: - According to Xenophon, Cyrus first appointed satraps over the conquered regions, and in all to the number of six ( Cyrop. viii. 6, §1, 7); according to the historian Herodotus, on the contrary (iii. 89ff.), Darius Hystaspes first divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies for the sake of the administration of the taxes. With this statement agrees the number of the peoples mentioned on the Inscription at Bisutun; and if elsewhere (Insc. J. and Nakschi Rustam) at least twenty-four and also twenty-nine are mentioned, we know that several regions or nations might be placed under one satrap (Herod. l.c. ). The kingdom was too small for 120 satraps in the Persian sense. On the other hand, one may not appeal to the 127 provinces ( מדינות ) of king Ahasuerus = Xerxes (Est 1:1; Est 9:30); for the ruler of the מדינה is not the same as (Est 8:9) the satrap. In Est 3:12 it is the פּחה , as e.g., of the province of Judah (Hag 1:1; Mal 1:8; Neh 5:14). It is true there were also greater provinces, such e.g., as of Media and Babylonia (Ezr 6:2; Dan 2:49), and perhaps also pecha ( פּחה ) might be loosely used to designate a satrap (Ezr 5:3; Ezr 6:6); yet the 127 provinces were not such, nor is a satrap interchangeably called a pecha . When Daniel thus mentions so large a number of satraps, it is the Grecian satrapy that is apparently before his mind. Under Seleucus Nicator there were seventy-two of these.

The foundation of this argument, viz., that Darius Hystaspes, "according to the historian Herodotus,"first divided the kingdom into satrapies, and, of course, also that the statement by Xenophon of the sending of six satraps into the countries subdued by Cyrus is worthy of no credit, is altogether unhistorical, resting only on the misinterpretation and distortion of the testimonies adduced. Neither Herodotus nor Xenophon represents the appointment of satraps by Cyrus and Darius as an entirely new and hitherto untried method of governing the kingdom; still less does Xenophon say that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the subjugated countries. It is true he mentions by name (Dan 8:6-7) only six satraps, but he mentions also the provinces into which they were sent, viz., one to Arabia, and the other five to Asia Minor, with the exception, however, of Cilicia, Cyprus, and Paphlagonia, to which he did not send any Πέρσας σατράπας , because they had voluntarily joined him in fighting against Babylon. Hence it is clear as noonday that Xenophon speaks only of those satraps whom Cyrus sent to Asia Minor and to Arabia, and says nothing of the satrapies of the other parts of the kingdom, such as Judea, Syria, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, etc., so that no one can affirm that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the conquered countries. As little does Herodotus, l.c. , say that Darius Hystaspes was the first to introduce the government of the kingdom by satraps: he only says that Darius Hystaspes divided the whole kingdom into twenty ἀρχαί which were called σατραπηΐ́αι , appointed ἄρχοντες , and regulated the tribute; for he numbers these satrapies simply with regard to the tribute with which each was chargeable, while under Cyrus and Cambyses no tribute was imposed, but presents only were contributed. Consequently, Herod. speaks only of a regulation for the administration of the different provinces of the kingdom for the special purpose of the certain payment of the tribute which Darius Hystaspes had appointed. Thus the historian M. Duncker also understands this statement; for he says ( Gesch. des Alterth . ii. p. 891) regarding it: - "About the year 515 Darius established fixed government-districts in place of the vice-regencies which Cyrus and Cambyses had appointed and changed according to existing exigencies. He divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies."Then at p. 893 he further shows how this division also of the kingdom by Darius was not fixed unchangeably, but was altered according to circumstances. Hitzig's assertion, that the kingdom was too small for 120 satrapies in the Persian sense, is altogether groundless. From Est 8:9 and Est 8:3 :19 it follows not remotely, that not satraps but the פחות represent the מדינות . In Dan 8:9 satraps, פחות , and המדינות שׂרי are named, and in Dan 3:12 they are called the king's satraps and מדינה על אשׁר פחות . On Est 3:12 Bertheau remarks: "The pechas , who are named along with the satraps, are probably the officers of the circles within the separate satrapies;"and in Dan 8:9 satraps and pechas are named as המדינות שׂרי , i.e., presidents, superintendents of the 127 provinces of the kingdom from India to Ethiopia, from which nothing can be concluded regarding the relation of the satraps to the pechas . Berth. makes the same remark on Ezr 8:36 : - "The relation of the king's satraps to the pachavoth abar nahara (governors on this side the river) we cannot certainly determine; the former were probably chiefly military rulers, and the latter government officials."For the assertion that pecha is perhaps loosely used for satrap, but that interchangeably a satrap cannot be called a pecha , rests, unproved, on the authority of Hitzig.

From the book of Esther it cannot certainly be proved that so many satraps were placed over the 127 provinces into which Xerxes divided the kingdom, but only that these provinces were ruled by satraps and pechas . But the division of the whole kingdom into 127 provinces nevertheless shows that the kingdom might have been previously divided under Darius the Mede into 120 provinces, whose prefects might be called in this verse אחשׁדּרפּנין , i.e., kschatrapavan , protectors of the kingdom or of the provinces , since this title is derived from the Sanscrit and Old Persian, and is not for the first time used under Darius Hystaspes of Cyrus. The Median Darius might be led to appoint one satrap, i.e., a prefect clothed with military power, over each district of his kingdom, since the kingdom was but newly conquered, that he might be able at once to suppress every attempt at insurrection among the nations coming under his dominion. The separation of the civil government, particularly in the matter of the raising of tribute, from the military government, or the appointment of satraps οἱ τὸν δασμὸν λαμβάνοντες κ.τ.λ. , along with the φρούραρχοι and the χιλίαρχοι , for the protection of the boundaries of the kingdom, was first adopted, according to Xenophon l.c. , by Cyrus, who next appointed satraps for the provinces of Asia Minor and of Arabia, which were newly brought under his sceptre; while in the older provinces which had formed the Babylonian kingdom, satrapies which were under civil and military rulers already existed from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; cf. Dan 2:32. This arrangement, then, did not originate with Darius Hystaspes in the dividing of the whole kingdom into twenty satrapies mentioned by Herodotus. Thus the statements of Herodotus and Xenophon harmonize perfectly with those of the Scriptures, and every reason for regarding with suspicion the testimony of Daniel wholly fails.

Daniel 6:2-3 (Dan 6:1-2)

According to v. 2, Darius not only appointed 120 satraps for all the provinces and districts of his kingdom, but he also placed the whole body of the satraps under a government consisting of three presidents, who should reckon with the individual satraps. עלּא , in the Targg. עילא , the height , with the adverb מן , higher than, above . טעמא יהב , to give reckoning, to account. נזק , part. of נזק , to suffer loss , particularly with reference to the revenue. This triumvirate, or higher authority of three, was also no new institution by Darius, but according to Dan 5:7, already existed in the Chaldean kingdom under Belshazzar, and was only continued by Darius; and the satraps or the district rulers of the several provinces of the kingdom were subordinated to them. Daniel was one of the triumvirate. Since it is not mentioned that Darius first appointed him to this office, we may certainly conclude that he only confirmed him in the office to which Belshazzar had promoted him.

Daniel 6:4 (Dan 6:3)

In this situation Daniel excelled all the presidents and satraps. אתנצּח , to show one's self prominent . Regarding his excellent spirit, cf. Dan 5:12. On that account the king thought to set him over the whole kingdom, i.e., to make him chief ruler of the kingdom, to make him למּלך משׁנה (Est 10:3). עשׁית for עשׁת , intrans. form of the Peal, to think, to consider about anything . This intention of the king stirred up the envy of the other presidents and of the satraps, so that they sought to find an occasion against Daniel, that he might be cast down. עלּה , an occasion ; here, as αἰτία , Joh 18:38; Mat 27:37, an occasion for impeachment , מלוּתא מצּד , on the part of the kingdom , i.e., not merely in a political sense, but with regard to his holding a public office in the kingdom, with reference to his service. But since they could find no occasion against Daniel in this respect, for he was מהימן , faithful, to be relied on , and no fault could be charged against him, they sought occasion against him on the side of his particular religion, in the matter of the law of his God, i.e., in his worship of God.

Daniel 6:7 (Dan 6:6)

For this end they induced the king to sanction and ratify with all the forms of law a decree, which they contrived as the result of the common consultation of all the high officers, that for thirty days no man in the kingdom should offer a prayer to any god or man except to the king, on pain of being cast into the den of lions, and to issue this command as a law of the Medes and Persians, i.e., as an irrevocable law. הרגּשׁ , from רגשׁ to make a noise, to rage , in Aphel c. על , to assail one in a tumultuous manner , i.e., to assault him. "These presidents and satraps (princes),"v. 7 (Dan 6:6), in v. 6 (Dan 6:5) designated "these men,"and not the whole body of the presidents and satraps, are, according to v. 5 (Dan 6:4), the special enemies of Daniel, who wished to overthrow him. It was only a definite number of them who may have had occasion to be dissatisfied with Daniel's service. The words of the text do not by any means justify the supposition that the whole council of state assembled, and in corpore presented themselves before the king (Hävernick); for neither in v. 5 (Dan 6:4) nor in v. 7 (Dan 6:6) is mention made of all ( כּל ) the presidents and satraps. From the fact also that these accusers of Daniel, v. 25 (Dan 6:24), represent to the king that the decree they had framed was the result of a consultation of all the prefects of the kingdom, it does not follow that all the satraps and chief officers of the whole kingdom had come to Babylon in order, as Dereser thinks, to lay before the three overseers the annual account of their management of the affairs of their respective provinces, on which occasion they took counsel together against Daniel; from which circumstance Hitzig and others derive an argument against the historical veracity of the narrative. The whole connection of the narrative plainly shows that the authors of the accusation deceived the king. The council of state, or the 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. אתיעט means not merely that they consulted together, but it includes the result of the consultation: they were of one mind (Hitz.).

Daniel 6:8 (Dan 6:7)

מלוּתא סרכי כּל does not denote the three presidents named in v. 3 (2), but all the prefects of the kingdom, of whom there were four classes, as is acknowledged by Chr. B. Michaelis, though Hitz. opposes this view. Such an interpretation is required by the genitive מלוּתא , and by the absence of כל , or at least of the copula ו , before the official names that follow; while the objection, that by this interpretation just the chief presidents who are principally concerned are omitted (Hitz.), is without foundation, for they are comprehended under the word סגניּא . 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 סגניּא before the אחשׁדּרפּניּא , satraps ) (which in Dan 3:2 they are named after them) shows that the סגניּא are here great officers to whom the satraps were subordinate, and that only the three סרכין 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 סגניּא and the satraps; to the second the הדּברין , state councillors , and the פּחותא , civil prefects of the provinces . Accordingly, we will scarcely err of by סגניּא we understand the members of the highest council of state , by הדּבריּא 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 מלוּתא סרכי כּל , for the four classes named constitute the entire chief prefecture of the kingdom. This interpretation is not made questionable by the fact that the סרכין 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.

The infinitive clause וגו קים לקיּמא presents the conclusion arrived at by the consultation. מלכּא is not the genitive to קים , but according to the accents and the context is the subject of the infinitive clause: that the king should appoint a statute , not that a royal statute should be appointed . According to the analogy of the pronoun and of the dimin . noun, the accusative is placed before the subject-genitive, as e.g. Isa 20:1; Isa 5:24, so as not to separate from one another the קים קיּמא ( to establish a statute ) and the אסר תּקּפה ( to make a firm decree ). Dan 6:9 requires this construction. It is the king who issues the decree, and not his chief officers of state, as would have been the case if מלכּא were construed as the genitive to קים ot evit . קים , manifesto, ordinance, command . The command is more accurately defined by the parallel clause אסר תּקּפה , to make fast , i.e., to decree a prohibition . The officers wished that the king should issue a decree which should contain a binding prohibition, i.e., it should forbid, on pain of death, any one for the space of thirty days, i.e., for a month, to offer any prayer to a god or man except to the king. בּעוּ is here not any kind of request or supplication, but prayer, as the phrase v. 14 (Dan 6:13), בּעוּתהּ בּעא , directing his prayer , shows. The word ואנשׁ 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.

Daniel 6:9 (Dan 6:8)

In order that they may more certainly gain their object, they request the king to put the prohibition into writing, so that it might not be changed, i.e., might not be set aside or recalled, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, in conformity with which an edict once emitted by the king in all due form, i.e., given in writing and sealed with the king's seal, was unchangeable; cf. Dan 6:15 and Est 8:8; Est 1:19. תעדּא לא דּי , which cannot pass away, i.e., cannot be set aside, is irrevocable . The relative דּי refers to דּת , by which we are not to understand, with v. Lengerke, the entire national law of the Medes and Persians, as if this were so unalterable that no law could be disannulled or changed according to circumstances, but דּת is every separate edict of the king emitted in the form of law. This remains unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honoured as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change.

Daniel 6:10 (Dan 6:9)

The king carried out the proposal. ואסרא is explicative: the writing , namely, the prohibition (spoken of); for this was the chief matter, therefore אסרא alone is here mentioned, and not also קים ( edict ), Dan 6:8.

The right interpretation of the subject-matter and of the foundation of the law which was sanctioned by the king, sets aside the objection that the prohibition was a senseless "bedlamite"law (v. Leng.), which instead of regulating could only break up all society. The law would be senseless only if the prohibition had related to every petition in common life in the intercourse of civil society. But it only referred to the religious sphere of prayer, as an evidence of worshipping God; and if the king was venerated as an incarnation of the deity, then it was altogether reasonable in its character. And if we consider that the intention of the law, which they concealed from the king, was only to effect Daniel's overthrow, the law cannot be regarded as designed to press Parsism or the Zend religion on all the nations of the kingdom, or to put an end to religious freedom, or to make Parsism the world-religion. Rather, as Kliefoth has clearly and justly shown, "the object of the law was only to bring about the general recognition of the principle that the king was the living manifestation of all the gods, not only of the Median and Persian, but also of the Babylonian and Lydian, and all the gods of the conquered nations. It is therefore also not correct that the king should be represented as the incarnation of Ormuzd. The matter is to be explained not from Parsism alone, but from heathenism in general. According to the general fundamental principle of heathenism, the ruler is the son, the representative, the living manifestation of the people's gods, and the world-ruler thus the manifestation of all the gods of the nations that were subject to him. Therefore all heathen world-rulers demanded from the heathen nations subdued by them, that religious homage should be rendered to them in the manner peculiar to each nation. Now that is what was here sought. All the nations subjected to the Medo-Persian kingdom were required not to abandon their own special worship rendered to their gods, but in fact to acknowledge that the Medo-Persian world-ruler Darius was also the son and representative of their national gods. For this purpose they must for the space of thirty days present their petitions to their national gods only in him as their manifestation. And the heathen nations could all do this without violating their consciences; for since in their own manner they served the Median king as the son of their gods, they served their gods in him. The Jews, however, were not in the condition of being able to regard the king as a manifestation of Jehovah, and thus for them there was involved in the law truly a religious persecution, although the heathen king and his satraps did not thereby intend religious persecution, but regarded such disobedience as only culpable obstinacy and political rebellion."

(Note: Brissonius, De regio Persarum princ . p. 17ff., has collected the testimonies of the ancients to the fact that the Persian kings laid claim to divine honour. Persas reges suos inter Deos colere, majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam . Curtius, viii. 5. 11. With this cf. Plutarch, Themist. c. 27. And that this custom, which even Alexander the Great (Curt. vi. 6. 2) followed, was derived from the Medes, appears from the statement of Herodotus, i. 99, that Dejoces περὶ ἑαυτὸν σεμνύειν , withdrew his royal person from the view of men. The ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians paid divine honours to their kings, according to Diod. Sic. i. 90, iii. 3, 5; and it is well known that the Roman emperors required that their images should be worshipped with religious veneration.)

The religious persecution to which this law subjected the Jews was rendered oppressive by this: that the Jews were brought by it into this situation, that for a whole month they must either omit prayer to God, and thus sin against their God, or disregard the king's prohibition. The satraps had thus rightly formed their plan. Since without doubt they were aware of Daniel's piety, they could by this means hope with certainty to gain their object in his overthrow. There is no ground for rejecting the narrative in the fact that Darius, without any suspicion, gave their contrivance the sanction of law. We do not need, on the contrary, to refer to the indolence of so many kings, who permit themselves to be wholly guided by their ministers, although the description we have of Cyaxares II by Xenophon accords very well with this supposition; for from the fact that Darius appears to have sanctioned the law without further consideration about it, it does not follow that he did not make inquiry concerning the purpose of the plan formed by the satraps. The details of the intercourse of the satraps with the king concerning the occasion and object of the law Daniel has not recorded, for they had no significance in relation to the main object of the narrative. If the satraps represented to the king the intention of compelling, by this law, all the nationalities that were subject to his kingdom to recognise his royal power and to prove their loyalty, then the propriety of this design would so clearly recommend itself to him, that without reflection he gave it the sanction of law.

Keil-Delitzsch: Dan 6:11-25

(6:10-24)

Daniel's offence against the law; his accusation, condemnation, and miraculous deliverance from the den of lions; and the punishment of his accusers.

The satraps did not wait long for Daniel's expected disregard of the king's prohibition. It was Daniel's custom, on bended knees, three times a day to offer prayer to his God in the upper chamber of his house, the window thereof being open towards Jerusalem. He continued this custom 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 6:10 the place where he was wont to pray is more particularly described, in order that it might be shown how they could observe him. In the upper chamber of his house ( עלּית , Hebr. עליּה , 1Ki 17:19; 2Sa 19:1), which was wont to be resorted to when one wished to be undisturbed, e.g., wished to engage in prayer (cf. Act 1:13; Act 10:9), the windows were open, i.e., not closed with lattice-work (cf. Eze 40:16), opposite to, i.e., in the direction of, Jerusalem. להּ does not refer to Daniel: he had opened windows, but to לביתהּ : his house had open windows . If להּ referred to Daniel, then the הוּא following would be superfluous. The custom of turning in prayer toward Jerusalem originated after the building of the temple at Jerusalem as the dwelling-place of Jehovah; cf. 1Ki 8:33, 1Ki 8:35; Psa 5:8; Psa 28:2. The offering of prayer three times a day, - namely, at the third, sixth, and ninth hour, i.e., at the time of the morning and the evening sacrifices and at mid-day, - was not first introduced by the men of the Great Synagogue, to whom the uncritical rabbinical tradition refers all ancient customs respecting the worship of God, nor is the opinion of v. Leng., Hitz., and others, that it is not of later origin than the time of the Median Darius, correct; but its origin is to be traced back to the times of David, for we find the first notice of it in Psa 55:18. If Daniel thus continued to offer prayer daily ( מודא = מהודא , Dan 2:23) at the open window, directing his face toward Jerusalem, after the promulgation of the law, just as he had been in the habit of doing before it, then there was neither ostentation nor pharisaic hypocrisy, nor scorn and a tempting of God, as Kirmiss imagines; but his conduct was the natural result of his fear of God and of his religion, under the influence of which he offered prayers not to make an outward show, for only secret spies could observe him when so engaged. דּי כּל־קבל does not mean altogether so as (Rosenmüller, v. Leng., Maur., Hitzig), but, as always, on this account because, because . Because he always did thus, so now he continues to do it.

Daniel 6:12 (Dan 6:11)

When Daniel's enemies had secretly observed him prayer, they rushed into the house while he was offering his supplications, that they might apprehend him in the very act and be able to bring him to punishment. That the act of watching him is not particularly mentioned, since it is to be gathered from the context, does not make the fact itself doubtful, if one only does not arbitrarily, with Hitzig, introduce all kinds of pretences for throwing suspicion on the narrative; as e.g., by inquiring whether the 122 satraps had placed themselves in ambush; why Daniel had not guarded against them, had not shut himself in; and the lie. הרגּישׁ , as Dan 6:7, to rush forward, to press in eagerly , here "shows the greatness of the zeal with which they performed their business"(Kran.).

Daniel 6:13-14 (Dan 6:12-13)

They immediately accused him to the king. Reminding the king of the promulgation of the prohibition, they showed him that Daniel, one of the captive Jews, had not regarded the king's command, but had continued during the thirty days to pray to his own God, and thus had violated the law. In this accusation they laid against Daniel, we observe that his accusers do not describe him as one standing in office near to the king, but only as one of a foreign nation, one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, in order that they may thereby bring his conduct under the suspicion of being a political act of rebellion against the royal authority.

Daniel 6:15 (Dan 6:14)

But the king, who knew and highly valued (cf. v. 2 [1]) Daniel's fidelity to the duties of his office, was so sore displeased by the accusation, that he laboured till the going down of the sun to effect his deliverance. The verb באשׁ has an intransitive meaning: to be evil, to be displeased , and is not joined into one sentence with the subject מלכּא , which stands here absolute; and the subject to עלוהי באשׁ is undefined: it , namely, the matter displeased him ; cf. Gen 21:11. בּל שׂם corresponds to the Hebr. לב שׁית , Pro 22:17, to lay to heart . The word בּל , cor, mens , is unknown in the later Chaldee, but is preserved in the Syr. bālā̀ and the Arab. bâlun .

Daniel 6:16-17 (Dan 6:15-16)

When the king could not till the going down of the sun resolve on passing sentence against Daniel, about this time his accusers gathered themselves together into his presence for the purpose of inducing him to carry out the threatened punishment, reminding him that, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, every prohibition and every command which the king decreed ( יהקים ), i.e., issued in a legal form , could not be changed, i.e., could not be recalled. There being no way of escape out of the difficulty for the king, he had to give the command that the punishment should be inflicted, and Daniel was cast into the den of lions, v. 17 (Dan 6:16). On the Aphel היתיו , and the pass. from (Dan 6:17) היתית , see at Dan 3:13. The execution of the sentence was carried out, according to Oriental custom, on the evening of the day in which the accusation was made; 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. In giving up Daniel to punishment, the king gave expression to the wish, "May thy God whom thou servest continually, deliver thee!"not "He will deliver thee;"for Darius could not have this confidence, but he may have had the feeble hope of the possibility of the deliverance which from his heart he wished, inasmuch as he may have heard of the miracles of the Almighty God whom Daniel served in the days of Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar.

Daniel 6:18 (Dan 6:17)

After Daniel had been thrown into the lions' den, its mouth was covered with a flat stone, and the stone was sealed with the king's seal and that of the great officers of state, that nothing might change or be changed ( בּּדּניּאל צבוּ ) concerning Daniel ( צבוּ , affair, matter ), not that the device against Daniel might not be frustrated (Häv., v. Leng., Maur., Klief.). This thought required the stat. emphat . צנוּתא , and also does not correspond with the application of a double seal. The old translator Theodot. is correct in his rendering: ὅπως μὴ ἀλλοιωθῇ πρᾶγμα ἐν τῷ Δανιήλ , and the lxx paraphrasing: ὅπως μὴ απ ̓αὐτῶν (μεγιστάνων ) αρθῇ ὁ Δανιήλ, ἤ ὁ βασιλεύς αὐτὸν ἀνασπάσῃ ἐκ τοῦ λακκοῦ . Similarly also Ephr. Syr. and others.

The den of lions is designated by גּבּא , which the Targg. use for the Hebr. בור , a cistern . From this v. Leng., Maur., and Hitzig infer that the writer had in view a funnel-shaped cistern dug out in the ground, with a moderately small opening or mouth from above, which could be covered with a stone, so that for this one night the lions had to be shut in, while generally no stone lay on the opening. The pit also into which Joseph, the type of Daniel, was let down was a cistern (Gen 37:24), and the mouth of the cistern was usually covered with a stone (Gen 29:3; Lam 3:53). It can hence scarcely be conceived how the lions, over which no angel watched, could have remained in such a subterranean cavern covered with a stone. "The den must certainly have been very capacious if, as it appears, 122 men with their wives and children could have been thrown into it immediately after one another (v. 25 [Dan 6:24]); but this statement itself only shows again the deficiency of every view of the matter,"- and thus the whole history is a fiction fabricated after the type of the history of Joseph! But these critics who speak thus have themselves fabricated the idea of the throwing into the den of 122 men with women and children - for the text states no number - in order that they might make the whole narrative appear absurd.

We have no account by the ancients of the construction of lions' dens. Ge. Höst, in his work on Fez and Morocco , p. 77, describes the lions' dens as they have been found in Morocco. According to his account, they consist of a large square cavern under the earth, having a partition-wall in the middle of it, which is furnished with a door, which the keeper can open and close from above. By throwing in food they can entice the lions from the one chamber into the other, and then, having shut the door, they enter the vacant space for the purpose of cleaning it. The cavern is open above, its mouth being surrounded by a wall of a yard and a half high, over which one can look down into the den. This description agrees perfectly with that which is here given in the text regarding the lions' den. Finally, גּבּא does not denote common cisterns. In Jer 41:7, Jer 41:9, גּוּבא (Hebr. בור ) is a subterranean chamber into which seventy dead bodies were cast; in Isa 14:15, the place of Sheol is called גּוב . No reason, therefore, exists for supposing that it is a funnel-formed cistern. The mouth ( פּוּם ) of the den is not its free opening above by which one may look down into it, but an opening made in its side, through which not only the lions were brought into it, but by which also the keepers entered for the purpose of cleansing the den and of attending to the beasts, and could reach the door in the partition-wall (cf. Höst, p. 270). This opening was covered with a great flat stone, which was sealed, the free air entering to the lions from above. This also explains how, according to Dan 6:20 ff., the king was able to converse with Daniel before the removal of the stone (namely, by the opening above).

Daniel 6:19-21 (Dan 6:18-20)

Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were any of his concubines brought before him; and this sleep went from him. The king spent a sleepless night in sorrow on account of Daniel. טות , used adverbially, in fasting , i.e., without partaking of food in the evening. דּחוה , concubina ; cf. The Arab. dahâ and dahâ =, subigere faeminam , and Gesen. Thes. p. 333. On the following morning (v. 20 [Dan 6:19]) the king rose early, at the dawn of day, and went to the den of lions, and with lamentable voice called to him feebly hoping that Daniel might be delivered by his God whom he continually served. Daniel answered the king, thereby showing that he had been preserved; whereupon the king was exceeding glad. The future or imperf. יקוּם (Dan 6:19) is not to be interpreted with Kranichfeld hypothetically, he thought to rise early , seeing he did actually rise early, but is used instead of the perf. to place the clause in relation to the following, meaning: the king, as soon as he arose at morning dawn, went hastily by the early light . בּנגהא , at the shining of the light , serves for a nearer determination of the בּשׁפרפּרא , at the morning dawn , namely, as soon as the first rays of the rising sun appeared. 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.

Daniel 6:22-24 (Dan 6:21-23)

In his answer Daniel declares his innocence, which God had recognised, and on that account had sent His angel (cf. Psa 34:8; Psa 91:11.) to shut the mouths of the lions; cf. Heb 10:33. ואף , and also (concluding from the innocence actually testified to by God) before the king, i.e., according to the king's judgment, he had done nothing wrong or hurtful. By his transgression of the edict he had not done evil against the king's person. This Daniel could the more certainly say, the more he perceived how the king was troubled and concerned about his preservation, because in Daniel's transgression he himself had seen no conspiracy against his person, but only fidelity toward his own God. The king hereupon immediately gave command that he should be brought out of the den of lions. The Aph. הנסקה and the Hoph. הסּק , to not come from נסק , but from סלק ; the נ is merely compensative. סלק , to mount up , Aph. to bring out ; by which, 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. To make the miracle of his preservation manifest, and to show the reason of it, v. 24 (Dan 6:23) states that Daniel was found without any injury, because he had trusted in his God.

Daniel 6:25 (Dan 6:24)

But now the destruction which the accusers of Daniel thought to bring upon him fell upon themselves. The king commanded that they should be cast into the den of lions, where immediately, before they had reached the bottom, they were seized and torn to pieces by the lions. On קרצוהי אכל see at Dan 3:8. By the accusers we are not (with Hitzig) to think of the 120 satraps together with the two chief presidents, but only of a small number of the special enemies of Daniel who had concerned themselves with the matter. The condemning to death of the wives and children along with the men was in accordance with Persian custom, as is testified by Herodotus, iii. 119, Amm. Marcell. xxiii. 6. 81, and also with the custom of the Macedonians in the case of treason (Curtius, vi. ii.), but was forbidden in the law of Moses; cf. Deu 24:16.

Constable: Dan 2:1--7:28

II. The Times of the Gentiles: God's program for the world chs. 2--7

Daniel wrote 2:4b-7:28 in the Aramaic language. This literary change gives the reader a clue that this part is a distinct section of the book. The content of this section also identifies it as special. It concerns the future history of the Gentiles during "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24). Aramaic was the common language of the world in which Daniel lived when he wrote. It is natural that he would have recorded what concerns the world as a whole in the language of the Gentiles.

The writer constructed this section of the book in chiastic form.

A A prophecy of an image concerning four Gentile nations and their end ch. 2

B The supernatural persecution and deliverance of Daniel's three friends ch. 3

C God's revelation to the Gentile king Nebuchadnezzar ch. 4

C' God's revelation to the Gentile king Belshazzar ch. 5

B' The supernatural persecution and deliverance of Daniel ch. 6

A' A prophecy of animals concerning four Gentile nations and their end ch. 7

"Chapters 2 and 7 explain the succession of four gentile empires that would exert control over Jerusalem and the Jews until God's kingdom is established. Chapters 3 and 6 warned the Jews of the persecution they would face during this period and exhorted them to remain faithful to God. Chapters 4 and 5 encouraged the Jewish remnant by reminding them that a time would come when even the gentile rulers would acknowledge that the God of Israel rules over the nations."⁴⁶

Constable: Dan 6:3-8

2. The conspiracy against Daniel 6:4-9

6:4 The text does not say why the other officials wanted to get rid of Daniel. Perhaps his integrity made it difficult for them to get away with graft and political corruption. Maybe since he was quite old they wanted to eliminate him so someone from a younger generation could take his place. Anti-Semitism appears to have been part of their reason (cf. v. 13; 3:12). The text stresses the outstanding personal integrity and professional competence of Daniel.

6:5 The accusers' plan was similar to that of the Babylonian officials who had tried to topple Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (ch. 3). They knew that Daniel was a Godfearing man who did not worship pagan idols. So they set a trap for him believing that he would remain faithful to his faith. When Daniel had to choose between obeying his God or his government, his God came first (cf. v. 10; Acts 5:29).

6:6-7 The adversaries' exaggerated their claim that all the rulers of the kingdom had concurred with their proposal. Obviously Daniel had not agreed to it. Nevertheless it was believable enough that Darius did not object or consult Daniel. Furthermore the plan catered to the king's vanity. The proposed statute evidently covered petitions of a religious nature rather than requests of any type since a general ban, even a permanent ban, would have been absurd. Perhaps the antagonistic rulers also aimed at impressing the Babylonians with the importance of remaining loyal to their new Persian king. In any case they promoted humanism, the philosophy that puts man in the place of God.

". . . this one king was to be regarded for the time being as the only representative of Deity."²¹²

"Parsism [the official religion of Persia] did not indeed require men to regard the king as a god in his own proper nature, but to pay him supreme homage as the representative of Ormusd."²¹³

"The probability is that Darius regarded this act as a pledge of loyalty to himself and a token of their desire to respect his authority to the utmost."²¹⁴

The Babylonians burned criminals alive (ch. 4), but the Persians, who worshipped fire, threw them to the lions.²¹⁵

6:8-9 Under Persian law, the king was bound by the authority of a royal edict (vv. 8, 12, 15; cf. Esth. 1:19; 8:8). This made his power less than it was under an absolute dictator such as Nebuchadnezzar (cf. 2:39).

"The action of Darius was both foolish and wicked. What led him to yield to the request of the ministers can only be conjectured, but probably he was greatly influenced by the claim of deity which many of the Persian kings made."²¹⁶

Constable: Dan 6:9-14

3. Daniel's faithfulness and Darius' predicament 6:10-15

6:10 The new decree did not deter Daniel from continuing to pray for the welfare of the city where God had sent them into exile and for the Jews' return from exile. That this was the subject of his praying, among other things including thanksgiving (v. 10), seems clear since Daniel possessed a copy of Jeremiah's prophecy (9:2; cf. Jer. 29:1, 7, 10). Jeremiah had written that God had promised to hear such prayers, if they were wholehearted, to restore the fortunes of the Jews, and to regather them to the Promised Land (Jer. 29:12-14).²¹⁷ Daniel refused to pray to the king, but He willingly prayed to the king's sovereign.

"It is not a question of a positive sin which he will not commit, but of a positive duty which he will not omit."²¹⁸

Solomon had taught the Jews to pray to the Lord facing Jerusalem since that is where He promised to be in a special sense for them (2 Chron. 6:21, 34-39; cf. Ps. 5:7).²¹⁹ Daniel's kneeling posture, reminiscent of Solomon's at the temple dedication, indicated his dependence on God as a suppliant. Normally the Jews stood when they prayed (cf. 1 Chron. 23:30; Neh. 9; Matt. 6:5; Mark 11:25; Luke 18:11, 13), but they kneeled (and prostrated themselves) when they felt a more urgent need (cf. 1 Kings 8:54; Ezra 9:5; Luke 22:41; Acts 7:60; 9:40; 20:36; 21:5). Praying three times a day was evidently the practice of godly Jews dating back to David if not before then (cf. Ps. 55:16-17). The fact that his window was open evidently symbolized for Daniel that his prayers were unhindered. Windows in ancient Near Eastern cities were normally small, high, and had a latice covering, so Daniel was probably not praying with his window open to be seen by others.²²⁰

"While Daniel's consistency of life and testimony has been evident throughout the book of Daniel, here we learn the inner secret. In spite of the pressures of being a busy executive with many demands upon his time, Daniel had retired to his house three times a day to offer his prayers for the peace of Jerusalem as well as for his personal needs. This was not the act of a person courting martyrdom but the continuation of a faithful ministry in prayer which had characterized his long life."²²¹

"It was this prayer-fellowship with Yahweh that had safeguarded Daniel from the corrupting influences of Babylonian culture."²²²

"It is a common observation that those who have no regular habits of prayer very seldom do much praying. It is well for God's people purposefully and deliberately to set aside and faithfully adhere to a definite prayer schedule. Prayer is thus recognized as a [sic] important part of the Christian life and given the place which it deserves."²²³

"In times of testing believers need to remain faithful to God. Sometimes this will require:

• Wisdom to seek a creative compromise that enables the believer to meet society's expectations without violating his or her beliefs (1:8-14).

• Courage to be willing to stand up for one's beliefs when no compromise is possible (3:15-18).

• Personal discipline to develop a lifestyle of faithfulness so the right response to a test will come naturally' (6:10)."²²⁴

6:11 Daniel's colleagues knew about his prayer habits (cf. Phil. 4:6). They contrived to observe him praying in his own house somehow to make sure they could give eyewitness testimony that they had seen him violate the king's order. Did they suppose that Daniel would deny that he had been praying? They expected that the edict would not deter him from his regular devotional habit even though it might cost him his life. What a testimony Daniel had among his fellow workers!

6:12-13 After reminding Darius of his decree, the hostile officials informed the king that his prime minister elect had violated it and was therefore worthy of death. Notice that they described Daniel as "one of the exiles from Judah" (cf. 2:25; 5:13) rather than as a royal cabinet minister. They were evidently hoping that Daniel's Jewish nationality and religion would contribute to Darius' distaste for him. This was not the result, however. They also used almost the same words that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego's accusers had used when they charged Daniel with disregarding the king (cf. 3:12). To them prayer to Yahweh constituted disrespect for the king rather than respect for the Most High God.

6:14-15 Daniel had so won the king's favor that Darius immediately and energetically began trying to rescue his friend. Nebuchadnezzar had become angry with Daniel's three friends when they refused to idolize him (3:19), but Darius became angry with himself for signing the decree (cf. 2:1; 3:13; 5:6, 9). This shows how much he respected and valued Daniel.

Constable: Dan 6:15-17

4. Daniel in the lions' den 6:16-18

6:16 Darius' parting words to Daniel are significant. We could render them, "Your God whom you serve continually, he will deliver you."²²⁵ The idea is that Darius had tried to save Daniel and had failed. Now Yahweh must save him. We do not know, of course, if Darius knew about Yahweh's deliverance of Daniel's three friends. Again we see that God did not preserve His servant from difficulty but brought him though it safely, His normal way of dealing with His own.

"Observable in this assurance of Darius is the deep impression that Daniel's personal piety and faithfulness to God had made upon the king and that this impression had brought about Darius' own conviction that Daniel's God would come to his rescue in Daniel's extremity."²²⁶

6:17 The lions' den appears to have been a large pit in the ground with an opening above that a large stone sealed, probably to keep people from stumbling into it. Such pits were commonly used as cisterns to store water or as prisons.²²⁷ Daniel had to be lifted up out of it (v. 23), and others when thrown into it fell down toward its bottom (v. 24). It may also have had a side entrance or drain since if it did not, rain could have filled the den and drowned the lions.²²⁸ The king and his nobles sealed the stone that covered the opening to make sure no one would release Daniel (cf. the sealing of Jesus' tomb).

6:18 In contrast to Nebuchadnezzar, who showed no compassion for Daniel's three friends, Darius spent a fitful night without food, entertainment, or sleep. Normally prayer accompanied fasting among the Israelites. Darius may have prayed too, but the point of this description is that he felt extremely anxious over the welfare of his friend.

Constable: Dan 6:18-23

5. Daniel's deliverance and his enemies' destruction 6:19-24

6:19-20 Evidently spending a night in the lions' den was the minimum that the law required because early the next morning Darius set out to free Daniel if he might have survived. Uncertain about the prophet's fate the king called to Daniel, whom he could not see, hoping that he might still be alive. Daniel had apparently told Darius previously that he worshipped the living God. Now Darius wanted to know if this God had been able to save His servant from the lions (cf. v. 16; 3:17).

6:21-23 Daniel's voice was untroubled. He even sermonized a bit from his unlikely chapel amid his subdued animal companions. After greeting the king courteously, he explained that his God had sent His angel who had shut the lions' mouths (cf. Heb. 11:33). This may have been the same angel, or the Angel of the Lord, who had visited Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the fiery furnace (3:28). Daniel believed that God had had mercy on him because he had not sinned against God or Darius in what he had done. True, he had violated the king's edict, but he had not done anything that really harmed the king. God had rewarded Daniel's trust (v. 23), which trust Daniel demonstrated by obeying God's will. Darius had Daniel extracted from the den and undoubtedly marvelled that he had no injuries whatsoever (cf. 3:27).

6:24 Then the king applied the lex talionis (law of retaliation) and cast his friend's accusers into the very den in which they had placed Daniel (cf. Gen. 12:3; Esth. 7:9-10; Gal. 6:7). Before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered and crushed them.

"What Darius did seems arbitrary and unjust. But ancient pagan despots had no regard for the provision in the Mosaic law (Deut 24:16): Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.' (Even in Israel this humanitarian rule had been flouted, as when Abimelech ben Gideon had nearly all his father's sons massacred, or when Queen Athaliah nearly exterminated the Davidic royal line and Jehu had all Ahab's sons decapitated.)"²²⁹

The effects of people's sins touch others beside themselves.

Guzik: Dan 6:1-28

Daniel 6 - In the Lion's Den

This has long been a beloved Bible story - and no wonder. There are so many dramatic features in this story - the jealousy of political subordinates; the vanity of a king; the integrity of a man; the power and preservation of God; and some wild animals and violence!

A. How Daniel was condemned to the lion's den.

1. (1-3) Daniel in the government of Darius.

It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole kingdom; and over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss. Then this Daniel distinguished himself above the governors and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king gave thought to setting him over the whole realm.

a. It pleased Darius: Secular history of this period has no record of a ruler named Darius. There are three possible explanations for the Darius of Daniel 6.

i. It may be that Darius is simply another name for Cyrus, who ruled of the Medo-Persian Empire during this period.

ii. It may be that Darius was actually Cambyses, son of Cyrus, who served under his father as a ruler of Babylon and later inherited the throne of the entire empire.

iii. It may be that Darius is an ancient official known as Gubaru in ancient documents, whom Cyrus appointed as ruler over Babylon immediately after its capture. It is the opinion of this commentator that this Gubaru is the same person as Darius. In fact, "Darius" may be an honorific title meaning, "holder of the scepter."

iv. Ancient documents show that the man Gubaru had the power to make appointments, to assemble an army, to levy taxes, and to possess palaces. Gubaru (Darius) was, in a very real sense, the king over Babylon.

b. Daniel distinguished himself: Daniel was one of three leaders directly under Darius, and he shined above the other two leaders because he had an excellent spirit. Daniel had a good attitude in his work and life and this made him the object of attack.

2. (4-9) A plot against Daniel is conceived and initiated.

So the governors and satraps sought to find some charge against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find no charge or fault, because he was faithful; nor was there any error or fault found in him. Then these men said, "We shall not find any charge against this Daniel unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God." So these governors and satraps thronged before the king, and said thus to him: "King Darius, live forever! All the governors of the kingdom, the administrators and satraps, the counselors and advisors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute and to make a firm decree, that whoever petitions any god or man for thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter." Therefore King Darius signed the written decree.

a. They could find no charge or fault, because he was faithful: Daniel was such a faithful man that those who sought to find a flaw in his actions or character came up empty.

i. Sometimes today a candidate or nominee for office will be set under this kind of scrutiny - imagine looking as hard as you could at a public servant who had been in office some 50 years and finding nothing wrong. No fraudulent expense accounts. No intern scandals. No questionable business deals. No gifts from lobbyists. No accusations from his staff.

ii. Simply, there were no skeletons in Daniel's closet. His enemies examined his life and found nothing to attack - they had to make up something.

b. Nor was there any error or fault found in him: This isn't to imply that Daniel was actually sinless, but that he was a man of great integrity. We can also say that Daniel was especially blameless in the conduct of his professional life.

i. When he considered Daniel's integrity, Spurgeon bemoaned our modern compromises: "As for Lord Fair-Speech, Lord Time-Server, Mr. Smooth-Man, Mr. Anything, Mr. Facing-both-Ways, Mr. Two-Tongues, and all the members of their club, Mr. By-Ends included, the entire company of them will be swept away when the Judge comes with the besom of destruction." (Spurgeon)

ii. "Daniel here is not the herald of his own virtue, but the Spirit speaks through his mouth." (Calvin)

c. We shall not find any charge against this Daniel unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God: These men knew Daniel well. They knew he could not be trapped into evil, but they also knew that he would be faithful to his God in all circumstances. Do others know the same about us?

i. The world may not know the intricacies of doctrine or the intimacies of worship with God but they can tell a bad temper, selfishness, conceitedness or dishonesty when they see it. "The world is a very poor critic of my Christianity, but it is a very sufficient one of my conduct." (Maclaren)

d. Whoever petitions any god or man for thirty days, except you, O king: If the enemies of Daniel knew him, they also knew Darius. They knew they could appeal to his pride and his desire for a unified kingdom.

i. "The suggested mode of compelling every subject in the former Babylonian domain to acknowledge the authority of Persia seemed a statesmanlike measure that would contribute to the unification of the Middle and Near East. The time limit of one month seemed reasonable." (Archer)

ii. "What pretence could they urge for so silly an ordinance? Probably to flatter the ambition of the king, they pretend to make him a god for thirty days; so that the whole empire should make prayer and supplication to him and pay him Divine honours! This was the bait; but their real object was to destroy Daniel." (Clarke)

iii. All the governors of the kingdom, the administrators and satraps, the counselors and advisors, have consulted together: Daniel's enemies also knew that people can be persuaded to do things they wouldn't normally do if they think everyone else approves of that thing.

iv. Of course, they lied when they said all the governors, because Daniel was one of the governors and he was not consulted.

e. So that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians: It was an established principle in the Medo-Persian Empire that when a king formally signed and instituted a decree, it was so binding that not even the king himself could change it.

i. The decrees of a Persian king were unchangeable because he was thought to speak for the gods, who could never be wrong and never needed to change their minds.

f. Therefore King Darius signed the written decree: "Suppose the law of the land were proclaimed, 'No man shall pray during the remainder of this month, on pain of being cast into a den of lions,' - how many of you would pray? I think there would be rather a scanty number at the prayer-meeting. Not but what the attendance at prayer-meetings is scanty enough now! but if there were the penalty of being cast into a den of lions, I am afraid the prayer-meeting would be postponed for a month, owing to pressing business, and manifold engagements of one kind and another." (Spurgeon)

3. (10-15) Daniel's faithfulness to God causes him to be condemned to the lion's den.

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went home. And in his upper room, with his windows open toward Jerusalem, he knelt down on his knees three times that day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days. Then these men assembled and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. And they went before the king, and spoke concerning the king's decree: "Have you not signed a decree that every man who petitions any god or man within thirty days, except you, 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 does not alter." So they answered and said before the king, "That Daniel, who is one of the captives from Judah, does not show due regard for you, O king, or for the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day." And the king, when he heard these words, was greatly displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him. Then these men approached the king, and said to the king, "Know, O king, that it is the law of the Medes and Persians that no decree or statute which the king establishes may be changed."

a. When Daniel knew that the writing was signed: Daniel was confronted with a test of loyalties. He wanted to render unto Caesar things that rightfully belonged to Caesar but he would not give to the government that which belonged to God alone.

i. Others might have considered it risky for Daniel pray as was his custom. Daniel knew that the safest thing he could do was radically obey God.

ii. It isn't hard to see why people are men-pleasers; it seems as if people have the power to hire or fire us; to break our hearts; to slander us; to make our live generally miserable. The power to obey God and stand for Him comes from a settled understanding that God is really in control.

iii. "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." (Maclaren)

b. Prayed and gave thanks before his God, as was his custom since early days: Daniel didn't let the decree change his actions one way or another. He didn't do more prayer or less; he simply continued his excellent prayer life.

i. It would have been compromise or pride to change in either direction. "This was not the act of a person courting martyrdom but the continuation of a faithful ministry in prayer which had characterized his long life." (Walvoord)

ii. What was Daniel's custom in prayer?

· He prayed in his upper room - this was private prayer, made with no intention to impress others

· He prayed with his windows open toward Jerusalem, remembering the place of sacrifice even when there was no sacrifice

· He prayed according to Scripture, because in 1 Kings 8 Solomon asked God to give special notice to the prayers of His people when they prayed towards Jerusalem and the temple: And may You hear the supplication of Your servant and of Your people Israel, when they pray toward this place. (1 Kings 8:3)

· He knelt down on his knees, praying just as Jesus did, (Luke 22:41), as Stephen (Acts 7:60), as Peter (Acts 9:40), as Paul and other leaders in the church (Acts 20:36), and as Luke (Acts 21:5). "Kneeling is a begging posture and we must all come to God as beggars." (Heslop)

· He prayed three times that day, knowing that though a little prayer is good, much prayer is far better. We also remember that Daniel was one of three governors over an empire - yet still had time to pray. "That does not tell you how often he prayed, but how often he was in the posture of prayer. Doubtless he prayed 300 times a day if necessary-his heart was always having commerce with the skies; but thrice a day he prayed formally." (Spurgeon)

· He prayed and gave thanks, because great prayer is filled with thanksgiving. " Prayer and praise should always go up to heaven arm in arm, like twin angels walking up Jacob's ladder, or like kindred aspirations soaring up to the Most High." (Spurgeon)

c. Found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God: They found Daniel just as they knew they would - deep in prayer. For Daniel prayer was both communing with God and pleading for His will to be accomplished (supplication).

d. Does not show due regard for you, O king: This was not true. Daniel intended no disrespect for the king, only a higher respect for God.

e. And the king, when he heard these words, was greatly displeased with himself: There is a lot to like about King Darius, and one of the admirable things about him is that he is displeased with himself. Instead of blaming others, he knew that he was at fault. We can be sure that he wasn't happy with Daniel's enemies, but he knew that ultimately he was responsible.

i. Like Darius, our foolish decisions often haunt us. Often all we can do is pray and ask God to mercifully and miraculously intervene when we make foolish decisions.

f. He labored till the going down of the sun: This means that he worked as long as he could. According to eastern custom the execution was carried out on the evening of the day that the accusation was made and found valid.

B. Daniel is preserved in the lion's den.

1. (16-18) Daniel's time in the lion's den.

So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. But the king spoke, saying to Daniel, "Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you." Then a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the signets of his lords, that the purpose concerning Daniel might not be changed. Now the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; and no musicians were brought before him. Also his sleep went from him.

a. Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you: Darius had faith, and it was faith born out of Daniel's faith in the Lord. The idea is, "I tried my best to save you Daniel, but I failed, Now it is up to your God."

b. You serve continually: This made Daniel's testimony. Many of us occasionally display godly character and wisdom before the world, but we then counter-act our good by then being bad. Daniel's testimony was made by continual service.

c. The king sealed it: This may have been to protect Daniel as much as to make sure a man didn't rescue Daniel. Darius knew that Daniel had powerful enemies who might kill him if the lions didn't.

d. His sleep went from him: Undoubtedly, Daniel had a better night's rest than Darius. We can be sure that Daniel prayed in the lions' den, because it was simply his habit to pray. He did not need to start praying on this remarkable occasion because the habit of prayer was well ingrained in his life.

i. "When our lives are centred in God, we can ever afford to leave circumstances to the compulsion of the One in Whom we trust. The occasional is always affected by the habitual." (Morgan)

ii. Perhaps Daniel prayed Psalm 22:21-22: Save Me from the lion's mouth . . . I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will praise You.

iii. "In any case he must have had a glorious night. What with the lions, and with angels all night to keep him company, he was spending the night-watches in grander style than Darius." (Spurgeon)

2. (19-23) Daniel is found alive after the night in the lion's den.

Then the king arose very early in the morning and went in haste to the den of lions. And when he came to the den, he cried out with a lamenting voice to Daniel. The king spoke, saying to Daniel, "Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?" Then Daniel said to the king, "O king, live forever! My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths, so that they have not hurt me, because I was found innocent before Him; and also, O king, I have done no wrong before you." Then the king was exceedingly glad for him, and commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no injury whatever was found on him, because he believed in his God.

a. Very early in the morning: Since he could not sleep, this was easy for Darius. We imagine him waiting for the first glimmer of dawn so he can see how Daniel fared.

b. Then Daniel said to the king: When Darius heard Daniel's voice he knew that he had survived through the night. The lions wouldn't or couldn't touch this servant of God, and Daniel is recognized in Hebrews 11:33 as one who by faith stopped the mouths of lions (Hebrews 11:33).

c. God sent His angel to shut the lions' mouth: We don't know if Daniel saw an angel or not, but he certainly knew that God sent His angel to rescue him. Hebrews 1:14 says angels are ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation.

i. "How the angel stopped the lions' mouths, whether by the brightness of his presence, or threatening them with his finger (Numbers 22:27, 33), or by making a rumble amongst them like that of an empty cart upon the stones, or by presenting unto them a light fire (which things lions are said to be terrified with), or by causing in them a satiety, or by working upon their fantasy, we need not inquire." (Trapp)

d. I have done no wrong before you: But didn't Daniel break the king's law? Yes, but he did not go against the king nor against the king's best interests. Daniel is an example of obedient disobedience.

e. Because he believed in his God: Daniel was preserved through faith. Though his cause was righteous and he was unjustly accused those things in themselves did not protect him before the lions. Daniel needed a living, abiding faith in God, even in the most difficult circumstances.

i. "Though they were savage and hunger-starved, yet Daniel was kept from the paws and jaws of these many fierce and fell lions by the power of God through faith." (Trapp)

ii. There is an instructive order here. The power of God sent an angel to protect Daniel, in response to a prayer of faith coming from a consistent, abiding walk.

3. (24) The fate of those who plotted against Daniel.

And the king gave the command, and they brought those men who had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions; them, their children, and their wives; and the lions overpowered them, and broke all their bones in pieces before they ever came to the bottom of the den.

a. The king gave the command: No one had to ask Darius to do this. He was ready and willing to bring justice to those who plotted against Daniel, and also to their children, and their wives.

i. This is obviously severe, but it was also according to ancient customs among the Persians. An ancient writer named Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of the Persians, "The laws among them are formidable . . . by which, on account of the guilt of one, all the kindred perish."

ii. Darius probably would have cast these accusers to the lions even if Daniel had perished in the lion's den.

b. The lions overpowered them . . . before they ever came to the bottom of the den: This proved that it genuinely was angelic protection that saved Daniel. Daniel's accusers perished in the same trap they set for Daniel.

i. This illustrates the cross-in-reverse: the guilty punished in the place of the innocent.

ii. We also have an illustration of a principle of spiritual warfare: God will cause our enemy to be impaled on the same snare set for us (Psalm 7:14-16).

4. (25-28) Darius decrees that all must honor the God of Daniel.

Then King Darius wrote: To all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied to you. I make a decree that in every dominion of my kingdom men must tremble and fear before the God of Daniel. For He is the living God, and steadfast forever; His kingdom is the one which shall not be destroyed, and His dominion shall endure to the end. He delivers and rescues, and He works signs and wonders In heaven and on earth, who has delivered Daniel from the power of the lions. So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

a. Then King Darius wrote: The Book of Daniel follows a familiar pattern. God's people stand firm in their convictions, God honors and protects them, and the testimony of God's work makes the ungodly see and tell of the greatness of God.

· Daniel and his four friends stood firm and Nebuchadnezzar saw the fruit of it (Daniel 1:20)

· Daniel boldly and wisely interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream and king honored Daniel and his God (Daniel 2:46-47)

· Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego stood firm and Nebuchadnezzar gave glory to God (Daniel 3:28-30)

· Daniel boldly told Nebuchadnezzar the truth and the king humbled himself and gave glory to God (Daniel 4:34-37)

· Daniel stood firm and boldly told Belshazzar the truth and the king honored Daniel (Daniel 5:29)

i. The point is plain: when we stand firm in godly convictions and honor God even when it costs us, others will see the testimony and be impressed. Could we not pray, "Lord, let me bear a cost for You for Your glory"?

b. The God of Daniel: In a small way, this helps us diagnose Darius' spiritual condition. It isn't enough to say, "the God of Daniel." Saving faith says, "the God of Darius."

c. Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian: Some take this to mean that Darius was Cyrus the Persian.

d. Daniel prospered: This is the last link in a long chain set through this chapter, where we see Daniel

· Plotted against

· Praying

· Praising

· Persistently serving

· Persecuted

· Protected

· Preserved

· Preferred

· Prospered

© 2002 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Dan 6:10

Daniel would not compromise his faith in God, not even in the face of death.

Introduction / Outline

JFB: Daniel (Book Introduction)

DANIEL, that is, "God is my judge"; probably of the blood royal (compare Dan 1:3, with 1Ch 3:1, where a son of David is named so). Jerusalem may have been his birthplace (though Dan 9:24, "thy holy city," does not necessarily imply this). He was carried to Babylon among the Hebrew captives brought thither by Nebuchadnezzar at the first deportation in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As he and his three companions are called (Dan 1:4) "children," he cannot have been more than about twelve years old when put in training, according to Eastern etiquette, to be a courtier (Dan 1:3, Dan 1:6). He then received a new name, by which it was usual to mark a change in one's condition (2Ki 23:34; 2Ki 24:17; Ezr 5:14; Est 2:7), Belteshazzar, that is, "a prince favored by Bel" (Dan 1:7). His piety and wisdom were proverbial among his countrymen at an early period; probably owing to that noble proof he gave of faithfulness, combined with wisdom, in abstaining from the food sent to him from the king's table, as being polluted by the idolatries usual at heathen banquets (Dan 1:8-16). Hence Ezekiel's reference to him (Eze 14:14, Eze 14:20; Eze 28:3) is precisely of that kind we should expect; a coincidence which must be undesigned. Ezekiel refers to him not as a writer, but as exhibiting a character righteous and wise in discerning secrets, in those circumstances now found in his book, which are earlier than the time when Ezekiel wrote. As Joseph rose in Egypt by interpreting Pharaoh's dreams, so Daniel, by interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's, was promoted to be governor of Babylonia, and president of the Magian priest-caste. Under Evil-merodach, Nebuchadnezzar's successor, as a change of officers often attends the accession of a new king, Daniel seems to have had a lower post, which led him occasionally to be away from Babylon (Dan 8:2, Dan 8:27). Again he came into note when he read the mystic writing of Belshazzar's doom on the wall on the night of that monarch's impious feast. BEROSUS calls the last Babylonian king Nabonidus and says he was not killed, but had an honorable abode in Carmania assigned to him, after having surrendered voluntarily in Borsippa. RAWLINSON has cleared up the discrepancy from the Nineveh inscription. Belshazzar was joint king with his father, Evil-merodach or Nabonidus (called Minus in the inscriptions), to whom he was subordinate. He shut himself up in Babylon, while the other king took refuge elsewhere, namely, in Borsippa. BEROSUS gives the Chaldean account, which suppresses all about Belshazzar, as being to the national dishonor. Had Daniel been a late book, he would no doubt have taken up the later account of BEROSUS. If he gave a history differing from that current in Babylonia, the Jews of that region would not have received it as true. Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II, succeeded and reigned two years. The mention of this monarch's reign, almost unknown to profane history (being eclipsed by the splendor of Cyrus) is an incidental proof that Daniel wrote as a contemporary historian of events which he knew, and did not borrow from others. In the third year of Cyrus he saw the visions (the tenth through twelfth chapters) relating to his people down to the latest days and the coming resurrection. He must have been about eighty-four years old at this time. Tradition represents Daniel as having died and been buried at Shushan. Though his advanced age did not allow him to be among those who returned to Palestine, yet he never ceased to have his people's interests nearest to his heart (Dan. 9:3-19; Dan 10:12).

AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. Dan 7:1, Dan 7:28; Dan 8:2; Dan 9:2; Dan 10:1-2; Dan 12:4-5, testify that it was composed by Daniel himself. He does not mention himself in the first six chapters, which are historical; for in these it is not the author, but the events which are the prominent point. In the last six, which are prophetical, the author makes himself known, for here it was needed, prophecy being a revelation of words to particular men. It holds a third rank in the Hebrew canon: not among the prophets, but in the Hagiographa (Chetubim), between Esther and Ezra, books like it relating to the captivity; because he did not strictly belong to those who held exclusively the profession of "prophets" in the theocracy, but was rather a "seer," having the gift, but not the office of prophet. Were the book an interpolated one, it doubtless would have been placed among the prophets. Its present position is a proof of its genuineness, as it was deliberately put in a position different from that where most would expect to find it. Placed between Esther, and Ezra and Nehemiah, it separated the historical books of the time after the captivity. Thus, Daniel was, as BENGEL calls him, the politician, chronologer, and historian among the prophets. The Psalms also, though many are prophetical, are ranked with the Hagiographa, not with the prophets; and the Revelation of John is separated from his Epistles, as Daniel is from the Old Testament prophets. Instead of writing in the midst of the covenant people, and making them the foreground of his picture, he writes in a heathen court, the world kingdoms occupying the foreground, and the kingdom of God, though ultimately made the most significant, the background. His peculiar position in the heathen court is reflected in his peculiar position in the canon. As the "prophets" in the Old Testament, so the epistles of the apostles in the New Testament were written by divinely commissioned persons for their contemporaries. But Daniel and John were not in immediate contact with the congregation, but isolated and alone with God, the one in a heathen court, the other on a lonely isle (Rev 1:9). PORPHYRY, the assailant of Christianity in the third century, asserted that the Book of Daniel was a forgery of the time of the Maccabees (170-164 B.C.), a time when confessedly there were no prophets, written after the events as to Antiochus Epiphanes, which it professes to foretell; so accurate are the details. A conclusive proof of Daniel's inspiration, if his prophecies can be shown to have been before the events. Now we know, from JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 10.11.7], that the Jews in Christ's days recognized Daniel as in the canon. Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah, centuries before Antiochus, refer to it. Jesus refers to it in His characteristic designation, "Son of man," Mat 24:30 (Dan 7:13); also expressly by name, and as a "prophet," in Mat 24:15 (compare Mat 24:21, with Dan 12:1, &c.); and in the moment that decided His life (Mat 26:64) or death, when the high priest adjured him by the living God. Also, in Luk 1:19-26, "Gabriel" is mentioned, whose name occurs nowhere else in Scripture, save in Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21. Besides the references to it in Revelation, Paul confirms the prophetical part of it, as to the blasphemous king (Dan 7:8, Dan 7:25; Dan 11:36), in 1Co 6:2; 2Th 2:3-4; the narrative part, as to the miraculous deliverances from "the lions" and "the fire," in Heb 11:33-34. Thus the book is expressly attested by the New Testament on the three points made the stumbling-block of neologists--the predictions, the narratives of miracles, and the manifestations of angels. An objection has been stated to the unity of the book, namely, that Jesus quotes no part of the first half of Daniel. But Mat 21:44 would be an enigma if it were not a reference to the "stone that smote the image" (Dan 2:34-35, Dan 2:44-45). Thus the New Testament sanctions the second, third, sixth, seventh, and eleventh chapters. The design of the miracles in the heathen courts where Daniel was, as of those of Moses in Egypt, was to lead the world power, which seemed to be victorious over the theocracy, to see the essential inner superiority of the seemingly fallen kingdom of God to itself, and to show prostrate Israel that the power of God was the same as of old in Egypt. The first book of Maccabees (compare 1 Maccabees 1:24; 9:27, 40, with Dan 12:1; Dan 11:26, of the Septuagint) refers to Daniel as an accredited book, and even refers to the Septuagint Alexandrian version of it. The fact of Daniel having a place in the Septuagint shows it was received by the Jews at large prior to the Maccabean times. The Septuagint version so arbitrarily deviated from the Hebrew Daniel, that Theodotius' version was substituted for it in the early Christian Church. JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees. With Jaddua (high priest from 341-322 B.C.) the Old Testament history ends (Neh 12:11). (The register of the priests and Levites was not written by Nehemiah, who died about 400 B.C., but was inserted with divine sanction by the collectors of the canon subsequently.) An objection to Daniel's authenticity has been rested on a few Greek words found in it. But these are mostly names of Greek musical instruments, which were imported by Greece from the East, rather than vice versa. Some of the words are derived from the common Indo-Germanic stock of both Greek and Chaldee: hence their appearance in both tongues. And one or two may have come through the Greeks of Asia Minor to the Chaldee. The fact that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh, the language is Chaldee, but the rest Hebrew, is not an argument against, but for, its authenticity. So in Ezra the two languages are found. The work, if that of one author, must have been composed by someone in the circumstances of Daniel, that is, by one familiar with both languages. No native-born Hebrew who had not lived in Chaldea would know Chaldee so well as to use it with the same idiomatic ease as his native tongue; the very impurities in Daniel's use of both are just such as were natural to one in his circumstances, but unnatural to one in a later age, or to one not half Hebrew, half Chaldean in residence as Daniel was. Those parts of Daniel which concern the whole world are mostly Chaldee, then the language of the world empire. So Greek was made the language of the New Testament, which was designed for the whole world. Those affecting the Jews, mostly Hebrew; and this not so impure as that of Ezekiel. His Chaldee is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. Two predictions alone are enough to prove to us that Daniel was a true prophet. (1) That his prophecies reach beyond Antiochus; namely, he foretells the rise of the four great monarchies, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (the last not being in Daniel's time known beyond the precincts of Italy, or rather of Latium), and that no other earthly kingdom would subvert the fourth, but that it would divide into parts. All this has come to pass. No fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, though often attempted, as by Charlemagne, Charles V, and Napoleon. (2) The time of Messiah's advent, as dated from a certain decree, His being cut off, and the destruction of the city. "He who denies Daniel's prophecies," says SIR ISAAC NEWTON, "undermines Christianity, which is founded on Daniel's prophecies concerning Christ."

CHARACTERISTICS OF DANIEL. The vision mode of revelation is the exception in other prophets, the rule in Daniel. In Zechariah (Zec. 1:1-6:15), who lived after Daniel, the same mode appears, but the other form from the seventh chapter to the end. The Revelation of St. John alone is perfectly parallel to Daniel, which may be called the Old Testament Apocalypse. In the contents too there is the difference above noticed, that he views the kingdom of God from the standpoint of the world kingdoms, the development of which is his great subject. This mode of viewing it was appropriate to his own position in a heathen court, and to the relation of subjection in which the covenant-people then stood to the world powers. No longer are single powers of the world incidentally introduced, but the universal monarchies are the chief theme, in which the worldly principle, opposed to the kingdom of God, manifests itself fully. The near and distant are not seen in the same perspective, as by the other prophets, who viewed the whole future from the eschatological point; but in Daniel the historical details are given of that development of the world powers which must precede the advent of the kingdom [AUBERLEN].

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY. The exile is the historical basis of Daniel's prophecies, as Daniel implies in the first chapter, which commences with the beginning, and ends with the termination, of the captivity (Dan 1:1, Dan 1:21; compare Dan 9:1-2). A new stage in the theocracy begins with the captivity. Nebuchadnezzar made three incursions into Judah. The first under Jehoiakim (606 B.C.), in which Daniel was carried away, subjected the theocracy to the Babylonian world power. The second (598 B.C.) was that in which Jehoiachin and Ezekiel were carried away. In the third (588 B.C.), Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and carried away Zedekiah. Originally, Abraham was raised out of the "sea" (Dan 7:2) of the nations, as an island holy to God, and his seed chosen as God's mediator of His revelations of love to mankind. Under David and Solomon, the theocracy, as opposed to the heathen power, attained its climax in the Old Testament, not only being independent, but lord of the surrounding nations; so that the period of these two kings was henceforth made the type of the Messianic. But when God's people, instead of resting on Him, seek alliance with the world power, that very power is made the instrument of their chastisement. So Ephraim (722 B.C.) fell by Assyria; and Judah also, drawn into the sphere of the world's movements from the time of Ahaz, who sought Assyrian help (740 B.C., Isa. 7:1-25) at last fell by Babylon, and thenceforth has been more or less dependent on the world monarchies, and so, till Messiah, was favored with no revelations from the time of Malachi (four hundred years). Thus, from the beginning of the exile, the theocracy, in the strict sense, ceased on earth; the rule of the world powers superseding it. But God's covenant with Israel remains firm (Rom 11:29); therefore, a period of blessing under Messiah's kingdom is now foretold as about to follow their long chastisement. The exile thus is the turning point in the history of the theocracy, which ROOS thus divides: (1) From Adam to the exodus out of Egypt. (2) From the exodus to the beginning of the Babylonian captivity. (3) From the captivity to the millennium. (4) From the millennium to the end of the world. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was in unison with the altered relations of the theocracy and the world power, which new relation was to be the theme of his prophecy. Earlier prophets, from the standpoint of Israel, treated of Israel in its relation to the world powers; Daniel, from Babylon, the center of the then world power, treats of the world powers in their relation to Israel. His seventy years' residence in Babylon, and his high official position there, gave him an insight into the world's politics, fitting him to be the recipient of political revelations; while his spiritual experiences, gained through Nebuchadnezzar's humiliation, Belshazzar's downfall, and the rapid decay of the Babylonian empire itself, as well as the miraculous deliverances of himself and his friends (the third through sixth chapters), all fitted him for regarding things from the spiritual standpoint, from which the world's power appears transient, but the glory of God's kingdom eternal. As his political position was the body, the school of magicians in which he had studied for three years (Dan 1:4-5) was the soul; and his mind strong in faith and nourished by the earlier prophecies (Dan 9:2), the spirit of his prophecy, which only waited for the spirit of revelation from above to kindle it. So God fits His organs for their work. AUBERLEN compares Daniel to Joseph: the one at the beginning, the other at the end of the Jewish history of revelation; both representatives of God and His people at heathen courts; both interpreters of the dim presentiments of truth, expressed in God-sent dreams, and therefore raised to honor by the powers of the world: so representing Israel's calling to be a royal priesthood among the nations; and types of Christ, the true Israel, and of Israel's destination to be a light to lighten the whole Gentile world, as Rom 11:12, Rom 11:15 foretells. As Achilles at the beginning, and Alexander at the end, of Grecian history are the mirrors of the whole life of the Hellenic people, so Joseph and Daniel of Israel.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK. Historical and biographical introduction in the first chapter. Daniel, a captive exile, is representative of his nation in its servitude and exile: while his heavenly insight into dreams, far exceeding that of the magi, represents the divine superiority of the covenant-people over their heathen lords. The high dignities, even in the world, which he thereby attained, typify the giving of the earth-kingdom at last "to the people of the saints of the Most High" (Dan 7:27). Thus Daniel's personal history is the typical foundation of his prophecy. The prophets had to experience in themselves, and in their age, something of what they foretold about future times; just as David felt much of Christ's sufferings in his own person (compare Hos 1:2-11; Hos 2:3). So Jon. 1:1-17, &c. [ROOS]. Hence biographical notices of Daniel and his friends are inserted among his prophecies. The second through twelfth chapters contain the substance of the book, and consist of two parts. The first (the second through seventh chapters) represents the development of the world powers, viewed from a historical point. The second (the eighth through twelfth chapters), their development in relation to Israel, especially in the future preceding Christ's first advent, foretold in the ninth chapter. But prophecy looks beyond the immediate future to the complete fulfilment in the last days, since the individual parts in the organic history of salvation cannot be understood except in connection with the whole. Also Israel looked forward to the Messianic time, not only for spiritual salvation, but also for the visible restoration of the kingdom which even now we too expect. The prophecy which they needed ought therefore to comprise both, and so much of the history of the world as would elapse before the final consummation. The period of Daniel's prophecies, therefore, is that from the downfall of the theocracy at the captivity till its final restoration, yet future--the period of the dominion of the world powers, not set aside by Christ's first coming (Joh 18:36; for, to have taken the earth-kingdom then, would have been to take it from Satan's hands, Mat 4:8-10), but to be superseded by His universal and everlasting kingdom at His second coming (Rev 11:15). Thus the general survey of the development and final destiny of the world powers (the second through seventh chapters) fittingly precedes the disclosures as to the immediate future (the eighth through twelfth chapters). Daniel marks the division by writing the first part in Chaldee, and the second, and the introduction, in Hebrew; the former, referring to the powers of the world, in the language of the then dominant world power under which he lived; the latter, relating to the people of God, in their own language. An interpolator in a later age would have used Hebrew, the language of the ancient prophets throughout, or if anywhere Aramaic, so as to be understood by his contemporaries, he would have used it in the second rather than in the first part as having a more immediate reference to his own times [AUBERLEN].

JFB: Daniel (Outline)

• THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY BEGINS; DANIEL'S EDUCATION AT BABYLON, &C. (Dan. 1:1-21)
• NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM: DANIEL'S INTERPRETATION OF IT, AND ADVANCEMENT. (Dan. 2:1-49)
• NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S IDOLATROUS IMAGE; SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABED-NEGO ARE DELIVERED FROM THE FURNACE. (Dan. 3:1-30)
• EDICT OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR CONTAINING HIS SECOND DREAM, RELATING TO HIMSELF. (Dan. 4:1-37)
• BELSHAZZAR'S IMPIOUS FEAST; THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL INTERPRETED BY DANIEL OF THE DOOM OF BABYLON AND ITS KING. (Dan. 5:1-31)
• DARIUS' DECREE: DANIEL'S DISOBEDIENCE, AND CONSEQUENT EXPOSURE TO THE LION'S: HIS DELIVERANCE BY GOD, AND DARIUS' DECREE. (Dan. 6:1-28)
• VISION OF THE FOUR BEASTS. (Dan. 7:1-28)
• VISION OF THE RAM AND HE-GOAT: THE TWENTY-THREE HUNDRED DAYS OF THE SANCTUARY BEING TRODDEN DOWN. (Dan. 8:1-27)
• DANIEL'S CONFESSION AND PRAYER FOR JERUSALEM: GABRIEL COMFORTS HIM BY THE PROPHECY OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS. (Dan. 9:1-27)
• DANIEL COMFORTED BY AN ANGELIC VISION. (Dan. 10:1-21)
• CONCLUSION OF THE VISION (TENTH THROUGH TWELFTH CHAPTERS) AND EPILOGUE TO THE BOOK. (Dan 12:1-13)

TSK: Daniel 6 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Dan 6:1, Daniel is made chief of the presidents; Dan 6:4, They, conspiring against him, obtain an idolatrous decree; Dan 6:10, Daniel, accused of the breach thereof, is cast into the lion’s den; Dan 6:18, Daniel is saved; Dan 6:24, his adversaries devoured; Dan 6:25, and God magnified by a decree.

Poole: Daniel (Book Introduction)

BOOK OF DANIEL

THE ARGUMENT

IN Daniel and his prophecy, observe these things for the better understanding of this book, and the mind of God in it:

1. As to the author; First, He was a prophet, as appears in the little stone cut out of the mountain without hands, meaning Christ the Messiah and his kingdom, what he should do, chapter 2; likewise chapter 7 to the end of the book: the first six chapters are historical, the last six prophetical. Secondly, As to his lineage, he was one of the royal seed. Thirdly, He was a captive. Fourthly, He was rarely qualified for piety, wisdom, beauty. Fifthly, As to his education, he was trained for three years in learning. Sixthly, His advancement for his parts and wisdom. Seventhly, He was faithful and blameless in the place of honour to which he was preferred. Eighthly, His care and kindness for his companions; he procured their promotion also. Ninthly, His singular holiness and power with God in prayer, Eze 14:14 . Tenthly, His faithfulness and constancy in the worship of God, maugre the envy and persecution of his enemies. Eleventhly, The strange providence of God in his preservation and deliverance. Twelfthly, His signal integrity and flourishing state under several kings’ reigns, even in critical times and great changes, unto his old age, and beyond the seventy years of captivity.

2. AS to the book itself, both the historical and prophetical part of it, especially the latter, we find, First. Great variety in them. Secondly, Famous predictions; of the Messiah, of dreadful wars, of fearful desolations to countries, and the Jewish nation in particular, for putting Christ to death; great persecutions of the church, by the Grecians and Romans especially, in which Antiochus and antichrist are pointed at. These things are all of such weighty consideration, that our blessed Saviour calls for especial understanding in the reading even of one part of it, Mat 24:15 . His chronology and calculations may be called the key of time, relating to the church’ s sufferings and deliverances. Daniel was the greatest favourite we read of, namely, of the King of heaven, Dan 9:23 10:11 , and of the greatest kings then on earth. He was the noblest pattern of a public heart for the church of God, for whose affliction he was deeply afflicted in the midst of his court honours and employments.

Poole: Daniel 6 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 6

Daniel is made chief of the presidents and princes of the realm, Dan 6:1-3 . They conspire against him, and obtain an insnaring decree, Dan 6:4-9 . Daniel, excused of the breach thereof, against the king’ s will is east into the lions’ den, Dan 6:10-17 . The king findeth him miraculously saved, Dan 6:18-23 . His adversaries are cast in and devoured, Dan 6:24 . Darius by a decree magnifieth God, Dan 6:25-28 .

MHCC: Daniel (Book Introduction)

Daniel was of noble birth, if not one of the royal family of Judah. He was carried captive to Babylon in the fourth year of Jehoiachin, B. C. 606, when a youth. He was there taught the learning of the Chaldeans, and held high offices, both under the Babylonian and Persian empires. He was persecuted for his religion, but was miraculously delivered; and lived to a great age, as he must have been about ninety-four years old at the time of the last of his visions. The book of Daniel is partly historical, relating various circumstances which befell himself and the Jews, at Babylon; but is chiefly prophetical, detailing visions and prophecies which foretell numerous important events relative to the four great empires of the world, the coming and death of the Messiah, the restoration of the Jews, and the conversion of the Gentiles. Though there are considerable difficulties in explaining the prophetical meaning of some passages in this book, we always find encouragement to faith and hope, examples worthy of imitation, and something to direct our thoughts to Christ Jesus upon the cross and on his glorious throne.

MHCC: Daniel 6 (Chapter Introduction)

(Dan 6:1-5) The malice of Daniel's enemies.

(Dan 6:6-10) His constancy in prayer.

(Dan 6:11-17) He is cast into the lion's den.

(Dan 6:18-24) His miraculous preservation.

(Dan 6:25-28) The decree of Darius.

Matthew Henry: Daniel (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Book of the Prophet Daniel

The book of Ezekiel left the affairs of Jerusalem under a doleful aspect, all in ruins, but with a joyful prospect of all in glory again. This of Daniel fitly follows. Ezekiel told us what was seen, and what was foreseen, by him in the former years of the captivity: Daniel tells us what was seen, and foreseen, in the latter years of the captivity. When God employs different hands, yet it is about the same work. And it was a comfort to the poor captives that they had first one prophet among them and then another, to show them how long, and a sign that God had not quite cast them off. Let us enquire, I. Concerning this prophet His Hebrew name was Daniel, which signifies the judgment of God; his Chaldean name was Belteshazzar. He was of the tribe of Judah, and, as it should seem, of the royal family. He was betimes eminent for wisdom and piety. Ezekiel, his contemporary, but much his senior, speaks of him as an oracle when thus he upbraids the king of Tyre with his conceitedness of himself: Thou art wiser then Daniel, Eze 38:3. He is likewise there celebrated for success in prayer, when Noah, Daniel, and Job are reckoned as three men that had the greatest interest in heaven of any, Eze 14:14. He began betimes to be famous, and continued long so. Some of the Jewish rabbin are loth to acknowledge him to be a prophet of the higher form, and therefore rank his book among the Hagiographa , not among the prophecies, and would not have their disciples pay much regard to it. One reason they pretend is because he did not live such a mean mortified life as Jeremiah and some other of the prophets did, but lived like a prince, and was a prime-minister of state; whereas we find him persecuted as other prophets were (ch. 6), and mortifying himself as other prophets did, when he ate no pleasant bread (Dan 10:3), and fainting sick when he was under the power of the Spirit of prophecy, Dan 8:27. Another reason they pretend is because he wrote his book in a heathen country, and there had his visions, and not in the land of Israel; but, for the same reason, Ezekiel also must be expunged out of the roll of prophets. But the true reason is that he speaks so plainly of the time of the Messiah's coming that the Jews cannot avoid the conviction of it and therefore do not care to hear of it. But Josephus calls him one of the greatest of the prophets, nay, the angel Gabriel calls him a man greatly beloved. He lived long an active life in the courts and councils of some of the greatest monarchs the world ever had, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius; for we mistake of we confine the privilege of an intercourse with heaven to speculative men, or those that spend their time in contemplation; no, who was more intimately acquainted with the mind of God than Daniel, a courtier, a statesman, and a man of business? The Spirit, as the wind, blows where it lists. And, if those that have much to do in the world plead that as an excuse for the infrequency and slightness of their converse with God, Daniel will condemn them. Some have thought that he returned to Jerusalem, and was one of the masters of the Greek synagogue; but nothing of that appears in scripture; it is therefore generally concluded that he died in Persia at Susan, where he lived to be very old. II. Concerning this book. The first six chapters of it are historical, and are plain and easy; the last six are prophetical, and in them are many things dark, and hard to be understood, which yet would be more intelligible if we had a more complete history of the nations, and especially the Jewish nation, from Daniel's time to the coming of the Messiah. Our Saviour intimates the difficulty of apprehending the sense of Daniel's prophecies when, speaking of them, he says, Let him that readeth understand, Mat 24:15. The first chapter, and the first three verses of the second chapter, are in Hebrew; thence to the eighth chapter is in the Chaldee dialect; and thence to the end is in Hebrew. Mr. Broughton observes that, as the Chaldeans were kind to Daniel, and gave cups of cold water to him when he requested it, rather than the king's wine, God would not have them lose their reward, but made that language which they taught him to have honour in his writings through all the world, unto this day. Daniel, according to his computation, continues the holy story from the first surprising of Jerusalem by the Chaldean Babel, when he himself was carried away captive, until the last destruction of it by Rome, the mystical Babel, for so far forward his predictions look, Dan 9:27. The fables of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, in both which Daniel is made a party, are apocryphal stories, which we think we have no reason to give any credit to, they being never found in the Hebrew or Chaldee, but only in the Greek, nor ever admitted by the Jewish church. There are some both of the histories and of the prophecies of this book that bear date in the latter end of the Chaldean monarchy, and others of both that are dated in the beginning of the Persian monarchy. But both Nebuchadnezzar's dream, which Daniel interpreted, and his own visions, point at the Grecian and Roman monarchies, and very particularly at the Jews' troubles under Antiochus, which it would be of great use to them to prepare for; as his fixing the very time for the coming of the Messiah was of use to all those that waited for the consolation of Israel, and is to us, for the confirming of our belief, That this is he who should come, and we are to look for no other.

Matthew Henry: Daniel 6 (Chapter Introduction)

Daniel does not give a continued history of the reigns in which he lived, nor of the state-affairs of the kingdoms of Chaldea and Persia, though he was himself a great man in those affairs; for what are those to us? But he selects such particular passages of story as serve for the confirming of our faith in God and the encouraging of our obedience to him, for the things written aforetime were written for our learning. It is a very observable improvable story that we have in this chapter, how Daniel by faith " stopped the mouths of lions," and so " obtained a good report," Heb 11:33. The three children were cast into the fiery furnace for not committing a known sin, Daniel was cast into the lions' den for not omitting a known duty, and God's miraculously delivering both them and him is left upon record for the encouragement of his servants in all ages to be resolute and constant both in their abhorrence of that which is evil and in their adherence to that which is good, whatever it cost them. In this chapter we have, I. Daniel's preferment in the court of Darius (Dan 6:1-3). II. The envy and malice of his enemies against him (Dan 6:4, Dan 6:5). III. The decree they obtained against prayer for thirty days (Dan 6:6-9). IV. Daniel's continuance and constancy in prayer, notwithstanding that decree (Dan 6:10). V. Information given against him for it, and the casting of him into the den of lions (Dan 6:11-17). VI. His miraculous preservation in the lions' den, and deliverance out of it (Dan 6:18-23). VII. The casting of his accusers into the den, and their destruction there (Dan 6:24). VIII. The decree which Darius made upon this occasion, in honour of the God of Daniel, and the prosperity of Daniel afterwards (Dan 6:25-28). And this God is our God for ever and ever.

Constable: Daniel (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Background

In 605 B.C. Prince Nebuchadnezzar led the Babylonian army of his father Nabopolassar against the allied forces of Assyria and Egypt. He defeated them at Carchemish near the top of the Fertile Crescent. This victory gave Babylon supremacy in the ancient Near East. With Babylon's victory, Egypt's vassals, including Judah, passed under Babylonian control. Shortly thereafter that same year Nabopolassar died, and Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him as king. Nebuchadnezzar then moved south and invaded Judah, also in 605 B.C. He took some royal and noble captives to Babylon (Dan. 1:1-3) including Daniel, whose name means "God is my judge" or "God is judging" or "God will judge," plus some of the vessels from Solomon's temple (2 Chron. 36:7). This was the first of Judah's three deportations in which the Babylonians took groups of Judahites to Babylon. The king of Judah at that time was Jehoiakim (2 Kings 24:1-4).

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p27dan-1@

Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah and Coniah) succeeded him in 598 B.C. Jehoichin reigned only three months and 10 days (2 Chron. 36:9). Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah again. At the turn of the year, in 597 B.C., he took Jehoichin to Babylon along with most of Judah's remaining leaders and the rest of the national treasures including young Ezekiel (2 Kings 24:10-17; 2 Chron. 36:10).

A third and final deportation took place approximately 11 years later, in 586 B.C. Jehoikim's younger brother Zedekiah, whose name Nebuchadnezzar had changed to Mattaniah, was then Judah's puppet king. He rebelled against Babylon's sovereignty by secretly making a treaty with Pharaoh Hophra under pressure from Jewish nationalists (Jer. 37-38). After a two-year siege, Jerusalem fell. Nebuchadnezzar returned to Jerusalem, burned the temple, broke down the city walls, and took all but the poorest of the Jews captive to Babylon. He also took Zedekiah prisoner to Babylon after he executed his sons and put out the king's eyes at Riblah in Aramea (modern Syria; 2 Kings 24:18-25:24).

Scope

Daniel, the main character from whom this book gets its name, was probably only a teenager when he arrived in Babylon in 605 B.C. The Hebrew words used to describe him, the internal evidence of chapter 1, and the length of his ministry seem to make this clear. He continued in office as a public servant at least until 538 B.C. (1:21) and as a prophet at least until 536 B.C. (10:1). Thus the record of his ministry spans 70 years, the entire duration of the Babylonian Captivity. He probably lived to be at least 85 years old and perhaps older.

Writer

There is little doubt among conservative scholars that Daniel himself wrote this book under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Probably he did so late in his life, which could have been about 530 B.C. or a few years later. Several Persian-derived governmental terms appear in the book. The presence of these words suggests that the book received its final polishing after Persian had become the official language of government. This would have been late in Daniel's life. What makes Daniel's authorship quite clear is both internal and external evidence.

Internally the book claims in several places that Daniel was its writer (8:1; 9:2, 20; 10:2). References to Daniel in the third person do not indicate that someone else wrote about him. It was customary for ancient authors of historical memoirs to write of themselves this way (cf. Exod. 20:2, 7).¹

Externally the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of this book as the writing of Daniel (Matt. 24:15; Mark 13:14). The Jews believed that Daniel was its writer from its earliest appearance. The early church father Jerome argued for Daniel's authorship against a contemporary critic of his, Porphyry, who contended that someone composed it about 165 B.C. and claimed that he was Daniel.

The Jews placed Daniel in the Writings section of their Bible.² They did this because Daniel was not a prophet in the sense in which the other Hebrew prophets were. He functioned as a prophet and wrote inspired Scripture, but he was a government official, an administrator in a Gentile land, rather than an official prophet.

"For though Christ spoke of Daniel's function as prophetic (Matt. 24:15), his position was that of governmental official and inspired writer, rather than ministering prophet (cf. Acts 2:29-30)."³

In contrast to Ezekiel, his contemporary in Babylon, Daniel lived and worked among Gentiles primarily, whereas Ezekiel live and ministered among the Israelites.⁴

The Greek and Latin translators of Daniel placed this book among the other major prophets in the Septuagint and Vulgate versions because of its prophetic content. That tradition influenced the scholars who produced our English versions.

Date

The dating of this book is one of the most controversial subjects in the field of Old Testament Introduction. The controversy is not due to the obscurity of evidence but to the presuppositions of critics.

It is quite easy to determine when Daniel lived and ministered because of the many historical references in this book. His fellow prophet Ezekiel also referred to him (cf. Ezek. 14:14, 20; 28:3). However because the book contains prophecies that Antiochus Epiphanies fulfilled in the second century B.C. many rationalistic critics who deny that the Bible contains predictive prophecy have said that Daniel could not have written it. They contend that it must have been written after Antiochus, namely, about 165 B.C. However there are many evidences within the book itself that point to its origin in the sixth century B.C.⁵ This modern criticism follows Porphyry's view. However no significant writer espoused a late date for the book after Jerome refuted Porphyry until the eighteenth century A.D. J. D. Michaelis revived Porphyry's theory in 1771, and it took root in the rationalistic intellectual soil of the Enlightenment. Since then many scholars who disbelieve in predictive prophecy have insisted that this book must have been the product of the Maccabean revolt (168-165 B.C.). Liberal critics still consider the late dating of Daniel to be one of the most assured results of modern scholarship. Nevertheless there is ample evidence in the book itself that Daniel wrote it and that it dates from the sixth century B.C.⁶

"One who claims that the book of Daniel is a product of the Maccabean age thereby denies that it is a work of true predictive prophecy as it purports to be. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel comes from the age of the Maccabees, I do not see how it is possible to escape the conclusion that the book is also a forgery, for it claims to be a revelation from God to the Daniel who lived in Babylon during the exile."⁷

Languages

Daniel is one of the few books in the Old Testament that was originally written in two different languages. One was Aramaic (also known as Chaldee or Syriac), the common language of the ancient Near East, and the other was Hebrew.⁸ The Aramaic portions deal with matters pertaining to all the citizens of the Babylonian and Persian empires whereas the Hebrew sections describe predominantly Jewish concerns and God's plans for Israel. Probably Daniel wrote the Aramaic sections for the benefit of his Gentile neighbors, and he wrote the whole book for the Jews who could read both languages.

Purpose

To the interested observer of Israel's fortunes in Daniel's time, it seemed that Yahweh had either become impotent or had abandoned His chosen people. The gods of Assyria and Babylon had apparently triumphed over Him. His temple lay in ruins, His capital had been ravaged and stood empty and vulnerable, and His people were living as unhappy captives in a foreign land.

At such a time as this, God revealed His supernatural power. He did so to demonstrate that He is the one true God and that He is still sovereign over the affairs of humanity and history. He manifested his power to the supreme rulers of Babylon and Persia that they might know that He governs over all from heaven. This was a time in Israel's history similar to the time just before the Exodus. Israel was in captivity, and Israel's God was in disgrace. Daniel contains proof of God's sovereignty, which the plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea demonstrated to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Daniel, as Exodus, relates several "contests" between false gods and Yahweh in which Israel's God proves to be the only true and living God. Like Daniel, Esther also shows God working for His people during a period of their divine discipline.

"The predominant message is that God's people will experience suffering and be threatened with extinction, but that will not be the end of the story because their God is the living and all-powerful God who will get glory by vindicating His name and who will save them."⁹

"Daniel's purpose in writing blended the two themes of prophecy and piety. He wrote first to show God's future program for the nation of Israel (in light of her fall) during and after the times of the Gentiles.' Second, he wrote to show what the believers' present response should be as they await the coming kingdom of God. Daniel encouraged his readers to remain faithful to God in a hostile society while they waited for God's promised kingdom."¹⁰

Theology

Theologically the book stresses the sovereignty of God.

"The absolute sovereignty and transcendence of God above all angels and men literally permeates the book."¹¹

"The theme running through the whole book is that the fortunes of kings and the affairs of men are subject to God's decrees, and that he is able to accomplish his will despite the most determined opposition of the mightiest potentates on earth."¹²

"The collapse and fall of both Israel and Judah notwithstanding, the book of Daniel makes crystal clear that the Lord God remains absolutely sovereign over human affairs. This is apparent in the present, despite political and religious conditions that might suggest otherwise, and in the future, when there would be no doubt in anyone's mind."¹³

The miracles recorded in chapters 1-6 show God's sovereignty at work for His people. The prophecies in chapters 7-12 show His sovereignty over the Gentile nations and Israel by unveiling what He will do with them far into the future. Especially the period that Jesus Christ referred to as "the times of the Gentiles" (Luke 21:24) is the focus of this revelation.

"The times of the Gentiles is that extended period of time in which the land given in covenant by God to Abraham and his descendants is occupied by Gentile powers and the Davidic throne is empty of any rightful heir in the Davidic line. The times of the Gentiles, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Jerusalem in 605 B.C., will continue till the Messiah returns. Then Christ will subdue nations, deliver the land of Israel from its Gentile occupants, and bring the nation Israel into her covenanted blessings in the millennial kingdom."¹⁴

These prophecies also reveal the fulfillment of God's great redemptive plan that began at the Fall and will culminate in the return and reign of the Son of Man on the earth.

A third theological emphasis is the power of prayer. God's working in response to His people's prayers is evident everywhere in this book, particularly in the first six chapters and in chapters 9 and 10.

Another theological theme is the indomitable grace of God. Even though the Jews had failed Him miserably, God revealed that He had not cast off His people Israel. He was disciplining them presently, but He has a future for them as a nation (cf. Rom. 11:29). Furthermore He will fulfill His promises to the patriarchs regarding Gentile blessing too.

Genre

Daniel is a book of prophecy.

"Among the great prophetic books of Scripture, none provides a more comprehensive and chronological prophetic view of the broad movement of history than the book of Daniel. Of the three prophetic programs revealed in Scripture, outlining the course of the nations, Israel, and the church, Daniel alone reveals the details of God's plan for both the nations and Israel. Although other prophets like Jeremiah had much to say to the nations and Israel, Daniel brings together and interrelates these great themes of prophecy as does no other portion of Scripture. For this reason, the book of Daniel is essential to the structure of prophecy and is the key to the entire Old Testament prophetic revelation. A study of this book is, therefore, not only important from the standpoint of determining the revelation of one of the great books of the Old Testament but is an indispensable preliminary investigation to any complete eschatological system."¹⁵

"In NT prophecy Daniel is referred to more than any other OT book. Moreover, it contains more fulfilled prophecies than any other book in the Bible."¹⁶

"In many respects, the book of Daniel is the most comprehensive prophetic revelation of the Old Testament, giving the only total view of world history from Babylon to the second advent of Christ and interrelating Gentile history and prophecy with that which concerns Israel. Daniel provides the key to the overall interpretation of prophecy, is a major element in premillennialism, and is essential to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. Its revelation of the sovereignty and power of God has brought assurance to Jew and Gentile alike that God will fulfill His sovereign purposes in time and eternity."¹⁷

Daniel is one of three Old Testament books that is apocalyptic. The apocalyptic sections are chapters 2, 7, 8, and 10-12. The other two books are Ezekiel (37:1-14; 40:1-48:35) and Zechariah (1:7-6:8). In the New Testament, Revelation is the only apocalyptic book.¹⁸ Apocalyptic literature is a particular genre (literary type).

"Apocalyptic literature is symbolic visionary prophetic literature, composed during oppressive conditions, consisting of visions whose events are recorded exactly as they were seen by the author and explained through a divine interpreter, and whose theological content is primarily eschatological."¹⁹

"The book of Daniel is unquestionably the key to all biblical prophecy. It is the great apocalyptic book of the Old Testament, whereas Revelation is that of the New Testament. Passages such as Matthew 24-25, Mark 13, Luke 21, and the book of Revelation are unintelligible without a knowledge of the book of Daniel."²⁰

"No one who has reverently studied the book of Daniel in the context of the completed Scriptures can deny the crucial contribution of this book to God's complete prophetic revelation. Our Lord spoke often of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. 5:3; Dan. 2:44) and of Himself as the son of man' (Matt. 26:64; Dan. 7:13-14). Looking toward His second coming to the earth, He referred to a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now' (Matt. 24:21; cf. Dan. 12:1), and to the abomination of desolation' that will stand in the Temple (Matt. 24:15; Dan. 9:27; 12:11). The apostle Paul also referred to this work of the man of lawlessness' (2 Thess. 2:3-4; cf. Dan. 7:25; 11:36-39) but rejoiced that someday the saints will judge the world' (1 Cor. 6:1; Dan. 7:18, 22, 27)."²¹

Message²²

The Book of Daniel contains many unique and significant emphases. I would like to point out some of these first before we organize them into an explanation of what God has given us this book to reveal.

Theologically Daniel stresses the sovereignty of God. Specifically it shows that God is wise enough and powerful enough to control and to create history.

Philosophically Daniel reveals the course and the culmination of good and evil throughout human history.

Hermeneutically we see that God teaches His people what will happen in the future by helping them to appreciate what has happened in the past. In other words, we learn to understand the future by studying the past. The future builds on the past and is an extension of the past.

Pedagogically we observe that God teaches us by going from the simple to the complex, from the known to the unknown. This applies as we look back on history, and it applies as we look forward in prophecy. For example, God gave Daniel simple visions first and then more complex ones later that built on the earlier ones. The first vision in Daniel is the most simple to interpret, and the last one is the most difficult to interpret.

Temporally the book proceeds from what happened in the past to what will happen in the future. Some students of the book divide it into two parts: history (chs. 1-6), and prophecy (chs. 7-12). This illustrates how the content of this book moves generally from past events to future events.

Anthropologically Daniel deals with two groups of people that occupy planet earth in time: Israel and the Gentiles. Some students of the book, including myself, prefer to divide it into three parts. We believe that the languages that Daniel wrote in reflect his emphases on revelation stressing particularly Gentiles or Jews in the various sections of the book.

Chronologically the revelation in Daniel advances from the present, to the near future, to the far future from Daniel's perspective. Even liberal students of the book admit this. From Daniel's perspective in history, some of what God revealed to him involved what was past, and some was future. From our perspective, we can see that what God revealed was not just past and future for him but past, near future, and far future.

Now with this background, let us turn to the major revelations in the Book of Daniel. The contrasts are observational; they help us see what is here clearly. The major revelations are interpretational; they help us understand what is here clearly. I am now going to suggest what is significant about what we observe. There are essentially two major revelations.

The first major revelation is that Yahweh is sovereign in history. By history I mean what is past. In Daniel, God has proved that He is the ultimate ruler of the world by the way things turned out in the past. Half the book deals with history; the other half, generally speaking, deals with prophecy.

God has revealed much evidence in this book that He is sovereign over history, that He has made it turn out the way He has wanted it to turn out. We find this evidence particularly in the record of the three rulers in chapters 1-6.

We have the most evidence in the record of Nebuchadnezzar.

In the first chapter we read, "The Lord (Adonai) gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his [Nebuchadnezzar's] hand" (1:2). All the events of chapter 1, beginning with Daniel's insignificance in Judah and his quick rise to great significance in Babylon, demonstrate God's sovereignty in the past.

In chapter 2, we have the vision of Nebuchadnezzar's image that gets crushed by a stone that flies at it from heaven. This revelation teaches that all the kingdoms of the earth are subject to the kingdom of heaven. Daniel's own testimony to God's sovereignty in 2:20-22 expresses the main point of this dream, which the most powerful king in the ancient world received from God.

In chapter 3, we see how God takes care of people who acknowledge His sovereignty, namely Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.

In chapter 4 we see how He takes care of people who do not, namely Nebuchadnezzar. Learning who is the ultimate authority and responding appropriately to Him is extremely important for all human beings.

Belshazzar was the second king through whom God revealed His sovereignty (ch. 5). Belshazzar could not read the handwriting on the wall, but Daniel could. The God of heaven had evaluated the king on earth, had found him deficient, and had decided to replace him. What a demonstration of Yahweh's sovereignty we have in this chapter!

The third king was Darius (ch. 6). When Darius visited the lion's den early in the morning, he voiced a question that all people have asked. The Jews of Daniel's day, whom their Gentile enemies had wrenched from the land that Yahweh had promised them and given them, were asking this question. Darius said, "Has your God, whom you constantly serve, been able to deliver you from the lion's mouth?" (6:20). Remember that the lion was a symbol of Babylon (7:4). Daniel's reply testified to Yahweh's sovereignty: "My God . . . shut the lions' mouths, and they have not harmed me" (6:22). This is the historical evidence of Yahweh's sovereignty that provided a base of confidence for the prophet, and for the reader, to believe that He is sovereign over the future too.

How were Daniel and his three friends able to perceive the fact that God is sovereign when most people did not? There are three keys to their spiritual perception that this book identifies for our education.

First, they separated themselves unto God and His will. Daniel did this in chapter 1. We read that his three friends did it in chapter 3.

Second, in response to their choice to separate to His will God gave them the ability to understand His will (1:20; 3:30).

Third, the outcome of their decision and God's provision was the glorification of God publicly (3:28-29; 4:34-35; 6:25-27).

Notice also how God communicated the fact of His sovereignty to Daniel and through him to others. Notice His methods.

First, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's wisdom manifest through His own servants in their ability to interpret dreams and visions that no one else could interpret (1:20; 2:10; 5:11-12). The Jews who returned to the land to reestablish life there needed this wisdom, and God's provision of it to Daniel and his friends would have encouraged them.

Second, Daniel's contemporaries saw God's power manifest through His own servants in His care of them (1:15, 21; 2:48-49; 3:24-26, 30; 5:29; 6:28). The many instances in which God protected His own who had committed themselves to following Him faithfully would have encouraged Daniel's contemporaries particularly. They encourage us too.

A second major revelation of the Book of Daniel is God's sovereignty in the future. He has shown us that He is sovereign over the past in history, and now He asks us to believe that He is sovereign over the future in prophecy. The foci of prophecy in this book are three.

The first general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Gentiles. We might speak of this as humanity in general. He told us how He would direct the affairs of Gentile world powers in the future.

He did this by comparing nations to the parts of an image of a person and to various beasts. What He showed Daniel about Gentile world powers under the image of the man (ch. 2) revealed their external manifestations primarily: their relative power and glory. What He showed Daniel about them under the figures of beasts (chs. 7 and 8) revealed their internal character primarily: their haughtiness, brutality, aggressiveness, vileness, etc. Notice that these were all beasts and birds of prey symbolizing their hostility toward one another.

The second general subject of prophecy in Daniel is the Israelites. This is a particular element within humanity, namely Israel. God also told us how He would direct the affairs of His chosen people in the future.

Essentially He did this in two stages both of which were future from Daniel's perspective in history but only one of which is future from our perspective. The first stage, or near future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a great persecution under a Greek ruler, namely Antiochus Epiphanes (9:23-26; 11:2-35). This persecution happened in the second century B.C. The second stage, or far future, involved Israel's affairs culminating in a greater persecution under a Roman ruler, namely the Antichrist (9:27; 11:36-45). This would happen in the far future.

Daniel struggled to understand this revelation because the two antagonists were both future from his perspective. God did not specify that they would be separate individuals. We can understand this revelation more easily than Daniel could because one antagonist has appeared and the other has not yet appeared. Similarly the Old Testament prophets struggled to understand God's revelation about the two advents of Christ (Isa. 61:1-2). From our perspective we now understand that He had always predicted two advents of Messiah and that we live between them.

The third general subject of prophecy in Daniel is God Himself. As I have mentioned, it is God's sovereign control over time and space that He stressed in the Book of Daniel. However, two sub-revelations help us appreciate Yahweh's sovereignty, namely His wisdom and His power.

Absolute sovereignty demands perfect wisdom and limitless power. We can see God's perfect wisdom in His insight into the course of history and in His ability to impart that wisdom (insight) to His prophet. We can see God's limitless power in His setting up and taking down Gentile kingdoms and in His delegating great worldly power to His prophet.

We come now to the "so what" of the book. We have observed several important characteristics of this book and have pointed out the significant major revelation. We have done observation and interpretation of the book as a whole, so now we will do application. What effect did God intend that this book should have on the readers, the original Jewish readers of Daniel's day and us in our day? Let me suggest three applications.

First, we must apply the revelation that God is sovereign by acknowledging it and by submitting to Him. We need to know that God is sovereign, to have an unshakable conviction that God is in control, to believe that He is the ultimate ruler over all the affairs of humankind. The Book of Daniel can strengthen this belief in us. However, we must not just reckon this fact as true. We must also yield ourselves to Him as Daniel and His three friends did. If He is sovereign, then we must submit to His will. His slightest wish must be for us a command. We must live according to His revealed will.

Second, as we submit to His sovereignty we can understand what is going on in history. In this book God has revealed that He is guiding the course of evil to its end, which is destruction. He has also revealed that He is guiding the course of good to its end, which is victory.

Some people are saying that the days in which we live are the most wonderful that the world has ever seen. The world is getting better and better, and utopia is just around the corner. With just a few more modifications, we can realize a world order that will surpass anything in the past.

Other people say the world is getting worse and worse. Crime and violence are running rampant. We are just the push of a button away from extinction as a race. Which is true?

Daniel reveals that both are true. If both are true, we seem to be headed for a crisis, a final conflict between the forces of good and evil. Daniel reveals that that crisis is coming. It also tells us what the outcome of that conflict will be. God will intervene in history to terminate evil and to establish good. The stone from heaven will crush the image that represents Gentile world dominion.

Third, how should we then live? We should live as Daniel and his three friends did. We should separate ourselves unto God and His will. We should receive inspiration to persevere from the insight that He has given to us in this revelation. Moreover we should worship the sovereign God of the universe who, in His infinite wisdom and power, will eventually raise His own to everlasting life and reward them with participation in His coming kingdom (12:2-3, 13).

Constable: Daniel (Outline)

Outline

I. The character of Daniel ch. 1

A. Historical background 1:1-2

B. Nebuchadnezzar's training program for promising youths 1:3-7

C. Daniel's resolve to please Yahweh 1:8-13

D. The success of the test 1:14-16

E. God's blessing of Daniel and his friends 1:17-21

II. The Times of the Gentiles: God's program for the world chs. 2-7

A. Nebuchadnezzar's first dream: the big picture ch. 2

1. The king's dream 2:1-3

2. The failure of the king's wise men 2:4-13

3. Daniel's request for time 2:14-16

4. Daniel's reception of a revelation and his thanksgiving 2:17-23

5. Daniel's appearance before Nebuchadnezzar 2:24-30

6. What Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream 2:31-35

7. The interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream 2:36-45

8. The consequences of Daniel's interpretation 2:46-49

B. Nebuchadnezzar's golden image ch. 3

1. The worship of Nebuchadnezzar's statue 3:1-7

2. The charge against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:8-12

3. The response of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego 3:13-18

4. The execution of the king's command 3:19-23

5. God's deliverance of His servants 3:24-27

6. The consequences of God's deliverance 3:28-30

C. Nebuchadnezzar's pride and humbling ch. 4

1. Nebuchadnezzar's introductory doxology 4:1-3

2. The king's frustration over his second dream 4:4-8

3. Nebuchadnezzar's account of his dream 4:9-18

4. Daniel's interpretation 4:19-27

5. The fulfillment of threatened discipline 4:28-33

6. Nebuchadnezzar's restoration 4:34-37

D. Belshazzar's feast ch. 5

1. Belshazzar's dishonoring of Yahweh 5:1-4

2. God's revelation to Belshazzar 5:5-9

3. The queen's counsel 5:10-12

4. Belshazzar's request of Daniel 5:13-16

5. Daniel's rebuke of Belshazzar 5:17-24

6. Daniel's interpretation of the writing 5:25-28

7. Daniel's rise and Belshazzar's fall 5:29-31

E. Darius' pride and Daniel's preservation ch. 6

1. Daniel's promotion in the Persian government 6:1-3

2. The conspiracy against Daniel 6:4-9

3. Daniel's faithfulness and Darius' predicament 6:10-15

4. Daniel in the lions' den 6:16-18

5. Daniel's deliverance and his enemies' destruction 6:19-24

6. Darius' decree and praise of Yahweh 6:25-28

F. Daniel's vision of future world history ch. 7

1. The four beasts 7:1-8

2. The Ancient of Days and the destruction of the fourth beast 7:9-12

3. The Son of Man's kingdom 7:13-14

4. The interpretation of the four beasts 7:15-18

5. Daniel's request for interpretation of the fourth beast 7:19-22

6. The interpretation of the fourth beast 7:23-25

7. The end of the fourth beast and the beginning of the everlasting kingdom 7:26-28

III. Israel in relation to the Gentiles: God's program for Israel chs. 8-12

A. Daniel's vision of the ram and the goat ch. 8

1. The setting of the vision 8:1

2. The ram 8:2-4

3. The goat 8:5-8

4. The little horn on the goat 8:9-14

5. The interpretation of this vision 8:15-26

6. The result of this vision 8:27

B. Daniel's vision of the 70 sevens ch. 9

1. Jeremiah's prophecy of Jerusalem's restoration and Daniel's response 9:1-3

2. Daniel's prayer of confession 9:4-14

3. Daniel's petition for restoration 9:15-19

4. God's response to Daniel's prayer 9:20-23

5. The revelation of Israel's future in 70 sevens 9:24-27

C. Daniel's most detailed vision of the future chs. 10-12

1. Daniel's preparation to receive the vision 10:1-11:1

2. The near future 11:2-35

3. The distant future 11:36-12:4

4. The end of Israel's trials 12:5-13

This outline reflects the linguistic divisions of the book, chapters 1 and 8-12 having been written in Hebrew, and chapters 2-7 in Aramaic.

Many students of the book simply divide it into two parts.

I. The history of Daniel chs. 1-6

II. The prophecies of Daniel chs. 7-12

Constable: Daniel

Daniel

Bibliography

Albright, William F. From Stone Age to Christianity. 2nd ed. New York: Doubleday Press, Anchor Books, 1957.

Aalders, G. C. Daniel. Koorte Verklaring servies. The Netherlands: Kampen, 1965.

Albrektson, Bertil. History and the Gods. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1967.

Alexander, J. B. "New Light on the Fiery Furnace." Journal of Biblical Literature 69:4 (December 1950):375-76.

Alexander, Ralph H. "Hermeneutics of Old Testament Apocalyptic Literature." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. 14th ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1954.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. "Daniel." In Daniel-Minor Prophets. Vol. 7 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

_____. "Old Testament History and Recent Archeology From the Exile to Malachi." Bibliotheca Sacra 127:508 (October-December 1970):291-98.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody Press, 1964. Revised ed. 1974.

Armerding, Carl. "Russia and the King of the North." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):50-55.

Baldwin, Joyce G. Daniel, An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries series. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Barker, Kenneth L. "Evidence from Daniel." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 135-46. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Bevan, Anthony Ashley. A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Cambridge: University Press, 1892.

Boutflower, Charles. In and Around the Book of Daniel. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing Co., 1977.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas Myers. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1852.

Campbell, Donald K. Daniel: Decoder of Dreams. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1977.

Charles, Robert Henry. The Book of Daniel. The New Century Bible series. New York: H. Frowde, Oxford University, n.d.

Cook, J. M. The Persian Empire. London: Dent, 1983.

Culver, Robert D. Daniel and the Latter Days. Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.

Cumont, F. "La Plus Ancienne geographie astrologique." Klio 9 (1909):263-73.

Darby, John Nelson. Studies in the Book of Daniel. London: G. Morrish, n.d.

Dennett, Edward. Daniel the Prophet: And The Times of the Gentiles Reprint ed. Denver: Wilson Foundation, 1967.

Driver, Samuel Rolles. The Book of Daniel. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1900.

Dyer, Charles H. "The Musical Instruments in Daniel 3." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):426-36.

Dyer, Charles H., and Eugene H. Merrill. The Old Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1981.

Ferguson, Paul. "Nebuchadnezzar, Gilgamesh, and the Babylonian Job.'" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):321-31.

Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964.

Ford, Desmond. Daniel. Nashville: Southern Publishing House, 1978.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Prophet Daniel. New York: Our Hope Publishers, 1911.

Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentaries series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gurney, R. "the Four Kingdoms of Daniel 2 and 7." Themelios 2 (1977):39-45.

Harrison, R. K. Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Herodotus. History of the Persian Wars. 2 vols. Translated by Henry Carey. New York: Harper Publishers, 1889.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. Working with God: Scriptural Studies in Intercession. New York: Carlton Press, 1987.

Hoehner, Harold W. "Daniel's Seventy Weeks and New Testament Chronology." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:525 (January-March 1975):47-65.

Humphreys, W. L. "A Life-style for Diaspora." Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973):211-23.

Ironside, Harry A. Lectures on Daniel the Prophet. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1946.

Jamieson, Robert; A. R. Fausset; and David Brown. Commentary Practical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Revised ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Jeffery, Arthur. "The Book of Daniel, Introduction and Exegesis." In The Interpreter's Bible. 6 vols. Edited by George A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1951.

Jerome. Commentary on Daniel. Translated by Gleason L. Archer Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. Against Apion. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Keil, Carl Friedrich. Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Translated by M. G. Easton. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. N.p.; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Book of Daniel. 2nd ed. London: G. Morrish, 1881.

King, Geoffrey R. Daniel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1966.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. "The Aramaic in Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 31-79. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Kraeling, Emil G. Rand McNally Bible Atlas. New York, Chicago, and San Francisco: Rand McNally & Co., 1956.

Lange, John Peter, ed. A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 25 vols. New York: Charles Scribner, 1865-80. Reprint ed. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d. Vol. 7: Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Minor Prophets, by W. J. Schröder, et al.

Larkin, Clarence. The Book of Daniel. Philadelphia: The author, 1929.

Lehmann, Paul. The Transfiguration of Politics. London: SCM Press, 1975.

Leupold, Herbert Carl. Exposition of Daniel. Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1949; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.

Mauro, Philip. The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation. Boston: Scripture Truth Depot, 1923.

McClain, Alva J. Daniel's Prophecies of the Seventy Weeks. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1940.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Daniel as a Contribution to Kingdom Theology." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 211-25. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

_____. "A Theology of Ezekiel and Daniel." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 365-95. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Mitchell, T. C., and R. Joyce. "The Musical Instruments in Nebuchadnezzar's Orchestra." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 19-27. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

New Bible Dictionary. 1962 ed. S.v. "Belshazzar," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. S.v. "Ophir," by D. J. Wiseman.

_____. S.v. "Uphaz," by D. J. Wiseman.

New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Olmstead, A. T. The History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Oppenheim, A. L. "The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46 (1956):179-373.

Patterson, Richard D. "Holding on to Daniel's Court Tales." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:4 (December 1993):445-54.

Pember, George Hawkins. The Great Prophecies of the Centuries Concerning Israel and the Gentiles. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "Daniel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 1323-75. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. Prophecy for Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

Peretti, Frank E. Piercing the Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989.

_____. Prophet. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1992.

_____. This Present Darkness. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1986.

Porteous, Norman W. Daniel: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1965.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Revised ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Pusey, Edward B. Daniel the Prophet. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1885.

Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden, Germany: O. Harrassowitz, 1961.

Rowley, Harold Henry. Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales, 1959.

_____. "The Historicity of the Fifth Chapter of Daniel." Journal of Theological Studies 32 (October 1930):12-31.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Seiss, Joseph A. Voices from Babylon: Or the Records of Daniel the Prophet. Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1879.

Shea, William H. "Darius the Mede: An Update." Andrews University Seminary Studies 20 (Autumn 1982):229-47.

_____. "The Search for Darius the Mede (Concluded), or, The Time of the Answer to Daniel's Prayer and the Date of the Death of Darius the Mede." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):97-105.

_____. "Supplementary Evidence in Support of 457 B.C. as the Starting Date for the 2300 Day-Years of Daniel 8:14." Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 12:1 (Spring 2001):89-96.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Charles R. "The Book of Life." Grace Theological Journal 6:2 (Fall 1985):219-30.

Stuart, Moses. A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850.

Talbot, Louis T. The Prophecies of Daniel. 3rd ed. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951.

Thomas, D. W., ed. Documents from Old Testament Times. London/New York: Thomas Nelson, 1958.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. "The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):254-62.

Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux. Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel. 7th ed. London: Sovereign Grace, 1965.

Unger's Bible Dictionary. 1957. S.v. "Shushan," by Merrill F. Unger.

Van Sickle, C. E. A Political and Cultural History of the Ancient World. 2 vols. N.c.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1947 & 1948.

Waltke, Bruce K. "The Date of the Book of Daniel." Bibliotheca Sacra 133:532 (October-December 1976):319-29.

Walton, John H. "The Four Kingdoms of Daniel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):25-36.

Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1971.

_____. The Nations in Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

_____. "Revival of Rome." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):317-28.

West, Nathaniel. Daniel's Great Prophecy. New York: Hope of Israel, 1898.

Whitcomb, John Clement. Daniel. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

_____. Darius the Mede. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1959.

Wilson, Robert Dick. Studies in the Book of Daniel. New York: Putnam, 1917.

_____. "The Title king of Persia' in the Scriptures." Princeton Theological Review 15 (1917):90-145.

Wiseman, Donald J. The Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.

_____. "Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel." In Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, pp. 9-18. Edited by D. J. Wiseman, et al. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

Wood, Leon. A Commentary on Daniel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. Greece and Babylon. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967.

Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1949.

Yuzon, Lourdino A. "The Kingdom of God in Daniel." South East Asia Journal of Theology 19 (1978):23-27.

Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. S.v. "Book of Daniel," by J. Barton Payne.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Daniel (Book Introduction)

THE PROPHECY OF DANIEL.

INTRODUCTION.

DANIEL, whose name signifies "the judgment of God," was of the royal blood of the kings of Juda, and one of those that were first of all carried away into captivity. He was so renowned for his wisdom and knowledge, that it became a proverb among the Babylonians, "as wise as Daniel;" (Ezechiel xxviii. 3.) and his holiness was so great from his very childhood, that at the time when he was as yet but a young man, he is joined by the Spirit of God with Noe[Noah] and Job, as three persons most eminent for virtue and sanctity. (Ezechiel xiv.) He is not commonly numbered by the Hebrews among the prophets, because he lived at court, and in high station in the world: but if we consider his many clear predictions of things to come, we shall find that no one better deserves the name and title of a prophet; which also has been given him by the Son of God himself. (Matthew xxiv.; Mark xiii.; Luke xxi.) (Challoner) --- The ancient Jews ranked him among the greatest prophets. (Josephus, Antiquities x. 12., and 1 Machabees ii. 59.) Those who came after Christ began to make frivolous exceptions, because he so clearly pointed out the coming of our Saviour, (Theodoret) that Porphyrius has no other method of evading this authority except by saying, that the book was written under Epiphanes after the event of many of the predictions. (St. Jerome) --- But this assertion is contrary to all antiquity. Some parts have indeed been questioned, which are found only in Greek. They must, however, have sometime existed in Hebrew or Chaldee else how should we have the version of Theodotion, which the Church has substituted instead of the Septuagint as that copy was become very incorrect, and is now lost? (Calmet) --- Some hopes of its recovery are nevertheless entertained; and its publication, at Rome, has been announced. (Kennicott.) --- In a title, it seems to make the Daniel visited by Habacuc, a priest; but it is abandoned. (Calmet) --- This version of course proves that the original was formerly known; and the loss of it, at present, is no more decisive against the authenticity of these pieces, that that of St. Matthew's Hebrew original, and of the Chaldee of Judith, &c. will evince that their works are spurious. (Haydock) ---Extracts of (Calmet) Aquila and Symmachus seen by St. Jerome, (Worthington) are also given in the Hexapla. Origen has answered the objections of Africanus, respecting the history of Susanna; and his arguments are equally cogent, when applied to the other contested works. The Jews and Christians were formerly both divided in their sentiments about these pieces. (Calmet) See St. Jerome in Jeremias xxix. 12. and xxxii. 44. --- But now as the Church ( the pillar of truth ) has spoken, all farther controversy ought to cease; (Haydock) and we should follow the precept, Remove not the landmarks which thy fathers have placed. (Deuteronomy xix. 14.) See N. Alex. [Alexander Noel] t. ii. St. Jerome, who sometimes calls these pieces "fables," explains himself, by observing, that he had delivered "not his own sentiments," but those of the Jews: quid illi contra nos dicere soleant. (Calmet) --- If he really denied their authority, his opinion ought not to outweigh that of so many other (Haydock) Fathers and Councils who receive them. They admit all the parts, as the Council of Trent expressly requires us to do. See St. Cyprian, &c., also the observations prefixed to Tobias, (Worthington) and p. 597. (Haydock) --- Paine remarks that Daniel and Ezechiel only pretended to have visions, and carried on an enigmatical correspondence relative to the recovery of their country. But this deserves no refutation. By allowing that their works are genuine, he cuts up the very root of his performance. (Watson) --- Daniel, according to Sir Isaac Newton, resembles the Apocalypse (as both bring us to the end of the Roman empire) and is "the most distinct in order of time, and easiest to be understood; and therefore, in those things that relate to the last times, he must be made a key to the rest." (Bp. Newton.) --- Yet there are many difficulties which require a knowledge of history; (St. Jerome; Worthington) and we must reflect on the words of Christ, He that readeth, let him understand. (Matthew xxiv. 15.) Daniel (Haydock) is supposed to have died at court, (Calmet) aged 110, having written many things of Christ. (Worthington) --- His name is not prefixed to his book, yet as Prideaux observes, he sufficiently shews himself in the sequel to be the author. (Haydock)

Gill: Daniel (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL

This book is called, in the Vulgate Latin version, "the Prophecy of Daniel"; and in the Syriac and Arabic versions "the Prophecy of Daniel the Prophet". This Daniel was of the children of Judah, that were carried captive into Babylon with Jehoiakim; and was of princely blood, if not of the royal seed, as appears from, Dan 1:3. Josephus ^a is express for it, that he was of the kindred and family of Zedekiah: and Saadiah Gaon ^b says he was of the seed of Hezekiah, and so fulfilled the prophecy in 2Ki 20:18. As to what the author of the "Lives of the Prophets", ascribed to Epiphanius, says ^c, that he was born in upper Bethabara, not far from Jerusalem, it is not to be depended on; or that his father's name was Sabaam, according to a tradition mentioned by the true Epiphanius ^d. The Jews ^e would have it that this book was not written by Daniel himself, but by the men of the great synagogue; though it is evident, from the book itself, that Daniel is the writer of it, as from Dan 7:1. That he wrote books, which were received, read, and believed by the Jews as of God, is affirmed by Josephus ^f; and the Jews in general acknowledge that this book was written by the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not by prophecy; they, without any foundation, distinguishing between the Holy Spirit and prophecy. And so Maimonides says ^g, it is the general consent of their nation, that this book is among the holy writings, but not among the Prophets; nor will they allow Daniel to be a prophet: the reasons they give are frivolous; what seems to have induced them to degrade him is the manifest prophecy of the time of the Messiah's coming in this book, which sometimes they are obliged to own is fixed in it. They tell us a story of Jonathan ben Uzziel, that having finished his paraphrase of the Prophets, thought to have wrote one on the Hagiographa, or holy writings, among which they place the book of Daniel; but was forbid by "Bath Kol", or a voice from heaven, giving this as a reason, because that in it is contained the end of the Messiah ^h, the precise time of his coming; and the gloss on the passage adds, by way of explanation,

"in the book of Daniel;''

though elsewhere they would have it, that after it was made known to Daniel, it was taken away from him. For so, they say ⁱ, there are two men to whom the end was revealed, and afterwards it was hidden from them; and these are they, Jacob and Daniel: from Daniel, according to Dan 12:4, "but thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book &c.", from Jacob, Gen 49:1, "that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days". Yet the prophecy of Daniel was so clear, with respect to the time of the Messiah's coming, that one of their Rabbins, who lived about fifty years before the coming of Christ, asserted that the time of the Messiah, as signified by Daniel, could not be deferred longer than those fifty years ^k; and a most glaring prophecy it is, and sufficient to denominate Daniel a prophet, as well as many more contained in this book. And, after all, Maimonides himself owns, that he, and the other writers of the Hagiographa, or holy writings, may be called prophets in general. And Aben Ezra observes of Daniel, in his preface, that he delivered out prophecies of things now past, and of things to come; yea, he expressly calls him a prophet on Dan 1:17. And Jacchiades, another of their commentators on this book, says that he attained to the highest degree of prophecy. To which may be added the testimony of Josephus ^l, who says he was one of the greatest prophets, and to be preferred to others; since he not only predicted things future, but fixed the time when they should come to pass. And, above all, and what should satisfy us Christians, he is expressly called a prophet by our Lord, Mat 24:15. There are no other authentic writings of Daniel, which bear his name; the stories of Susannah, and of Bel and the Dragon, which make the "thirteenth" and "fourteenth" chapters in the Greek of Theodotion, and in the Vulgate Latin version, are apocryphal and spurious. The Oriental writers make Daniel the author of a volume, entitled, "Principles relating to the Explanation of Dreams". And there is another book in the king of France's library, with this title, "Odmath-al-mantoul ân Daniel al-nabi"; which contains predictions of the Prophet Daniel, received by tradition from him. This is a book which abounds with falsities, forged by the Mahometans, and founded on the real prophecies of Daniel ^m. This book, written by him, is partly historical, relating facts in which he was concerned; and partly prophetic, of things that should happen from his time to the end of the world, and especially of the Messiah and his kingdom; and it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. This great man, as he was both in nature and grace, in religion and politics, lived throughout the captivity, but does not seem ever to have returned into Judea; but continued in the courts of the kings of the Medes and Persians, to take care of the affairs of his people the Jews. Where he died, and was buried, is not certain. Some say in Babylon; and others, which is more likely, at Susa on the Tigris, where he was in the third year of Cyrus, Dan 10:1. So says Abulfeda ⁿ; with which agrees the account of Benjamin of Tudela ^o.

Gill: Daniel 6 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO DANIEL 6

This chapter gives an account of Daniel's being cast into the den of lions, and the causes of it, and the steps leading to it; and also of his wonderful deliverance out of it, and what followed upon that. It first relates how Daniel was made by Darius first president of the princes of the kingdom, which drew their envy upon him, Dan 6:1, and that these princes finding they could get no occasion against him, but in religion, proposed to the king to make a law forbidding prayer to any god for thirty days, which they got established, Dan 6:5, and Daniel breaking this law, is accused by them to the king; and the penalty, casting into the den of lions, is insisted on to be executed, Dan 6:10, which the king laboured to prevent, but in vain; and Daniel is cast to the lions, to the great grief of the king, Dan 6:14, who visited the den the next morning, and to his great joy found Daniel alive, Dan 6:19, upon which, by the law of retaliation, his accusers, their wives, and children, were cast into it, Dan 6:24, and an edict was published by the king, commanding all in his dominions to fear and reverence the God of Daniel, Dan 6:25.