Bible Commentaries

Daniel 6:1-28. Darius‘ decree: Daniel‘s disobedience, and consequent exposure to the lions: His deliverance by God, and Darius‘ decree.

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

hundred and twenty — satraps; set over the conquered provinces (including Babylon) by Cyrus [Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8.6.1]. No doubt Cyrus acted under Darius, as in the capture of Babylon; so that Daniel rightly attributes the appointment to Darius.

Daniel was preferred — probably because of his having so wonderfully foretold the fall of Babylon. Hence the very expression used by the queen mother on that occasion (Daniel 5:12) is here used, “because an excellent spirit was in him.”

king thought to set him over the whole realm — Agreeing with Darius‘ character, weak and averse to business, which he preferred to delegate to favorites. God overruled this to the good both of Daniel, and, through him, of His people.

concerning the kingdom — pretext for accusation in his administration (Ecclesiastes 4:4).

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

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

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

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

All … governors … counsellors, etc. — Several functionaries are here specified, not mentioned in Daniel 6:4, Daniel 6:6. They evidently exaggerated the case of the weak king, as if their request was that of all the officers in the empire.

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

decree — or, “interdict.”

that it be not changed — (Esther 1:19; Esther 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.

Medes and Persians — 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” (Esther 1:14, Esther 1:19, etc.).

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

writing … signed — and that, therefore, the power of advising the king against it was taken from him.

went into his house — withdrawing from the God-dishonoring court.

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

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

upon his knees — Humble attitudes in prayer become humble suppliants.

three times a day — (Psalm 55:17). The third, sixth, and ninth hour; our nine, twelve, and three o‘clock (Acts 2:15; Acts 10:9; Acts 3:1; Acts 10:30; compare Daniel 9:21).

as … aforetime — not from contempt of the king‘s command.

assembled — as in Daniel 6:6, “assembled” or “ran hastily,” so as to come upon Daniel suddenly and detect him in the act.

They preface their attack by alleging the king‘s edict, so as to get him again to confirm it unalterably, before they mention Daniel‘s name. Not to break a wicked promise, is not firmness, but guilty obstinacy (Matthew 14:9; Mark 6:26).

That Daniel — contemptuously.

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

regardeth not thee — because he regarded God (Acts 4:19; Acts 5:29).

displeased with himself — for having suffered himself to be entrapped into such a hasty decree (Proverbs 29:20). On the one hand he was pressed by the immutability of the law, fear that the princes might conspire against him, and desire to consult for his own reputation, not to seem fickle; on the other, by regard for Daniel, and a desire to save him from the effects of his own rash decree.

till … going down of … sun — The king took this time to deliberate, thinking that after sunset Daniel would be spared till morning, and that meanwhile some way of escape would turn up. But (Daniel 6:15) the conspirators “assembled tumultuously” (literally) to prevent this delay in the execution, lest the king should meantime change his decree.

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

sealed — typical of Christ‘s entombment under a seal (Matthew 27:66). Divinely ordered, that the deliverance might be the more striking.

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

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

His grief overcame his fear of the nobles.

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

thou servest continually — in times of persecution, as well as in times of peace.

is thy God … able — the language of doubt, yet hope.

Daniel might have indulged in anger at the king, but does not; his sole thought is, God‘s glory has been set forth in his deliverance.

his angel — the instrument, not the author, of his deliverance (Psalm 91:11; Psalm 34:7).

shut … lions‘ mouths — (Hebrews 11:33). So spiritually, God will shut the roaring lion‘s mouth (1 Peter 5:8) for His servants.

forasmuch as before him innocency — not absolutely (in Daniel 9:7, Daniel 9:18 he disclaims such a plea), but relatively to this case. God has attested the justice of my cause in standing up for His worship, by delivering me. Therefore, the “forasmuch” does not justify Rome‘s doctrine of works meriting salvation.

before thee — Obedience to God is in strictest compatibility with loyalty to the king (Matthew 22:21; 1 Peter 2:17). Daniel‘s disobedience to the king was seeming, not real, because it was not from contempt of the king, but from regard to the King of kings (compare Acts 24:16).

because he believed — “Faith” is stated in Hebrews 11:33 to have been his actuating principle: a prelude to the Gospel. His belief was not with a view to a miraculous deliverance. He shut his eyes to the event, committing the keeping of his soul to God, in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator (1 Peter 4:19), sure of deliverance in a better life, if not in this.

(Deuteronomy 19:19; Proverbs 19:5).

accused — literally, “devoured the bones and flesh.” It was just that they who had torn Daniel‘s character, and sought the tearing of his person, should be themselves given to be torn in pieces (Proverbs 11:8).

their children — Among the Persians, all the kindred were involved in the guilt of one culprit. The Mosaic law expressly forbade this (Deuteronomy 24:16; 2 Kings 14:6).

or ever — that is, “before ever.” The lions‘ sparing Daniel could not have been because they were full, as they showed the keenness of their hunger on the accusers.

Stronger than the decree (Daniel 3:29). That was negative; this, positive; not merely men must say “nothing amiss of,” but must “fear before God.”

It was in the third year of Cyrus that Daniel‘s visions (Daniel 10:1-12:13) were given. Daniel “prospered” because of his prophecies (Ezra 1:1, Ezra 1:2).