Text -- Daniel 6:8 (NET)

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.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

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.).

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.

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:

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

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

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 .

Haydock: Dan 6:8

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

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.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Dan 6:8

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

² tn Or “removed.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.