Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 6 (5.31-6.28)

Chapter 6:The Lions And The Lamb

5.31-6.28: Text and translation

Shorter translational notes are footnoted. Where a ‘+’ sign appears, fur-ther translational notes can be found below (“5.31-6.28: Further trans-lational notes”).

5.31 קבל ק מד´אה כ| מד´י³א ו�ד´ר�י³וªשNש¤תי Nש נ¢י כבר מלכותא

!;Nו�תר�תי

So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the ageof 62 years.+

6.1 Mו®הקי ד´ר�י³וªש M´דÅק ש פרלאחש ד¯ר�פנ®י³א עלÊמלכותא

Nלהו ד£י Nו�עש ר£י מאהבÈלÊמלכותא;!

It pleased Darius to set over1 the kingdom’s[affairs]2 120 satraps, who were to be [stationed]throughout the kingdom,3

6.2 ד£י תלתא Nסר�כי Nמנ�הו ו�עלאNלהוÊד£י Nמנ�הוÊחד ד´נ¢י¦אל

Nלהו Nי³הבי Nאלי אחש ד¯ר�פנ®י³אÉז¢ק;! לאÊלהו¦א ומלכא טעמא

and [he set] above them three commanders (one ofwhom was Daniel) to whom these satraps were togive account, so the King might not be troubled.

1. lit., ‘It pleased Darius, and he set over the kingdom 120 satraps’ (so the Theod.), but most modern Bible-trans. have, ‘It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom 120 satraps’. We might consider, as an analogy,Neh. 2.6, where we read (lit.,), ‘And it pleased the king, and he dispatched me [Nehemiah], and I gavehim a set time’, the sense of which is, “Since the King seemed pleased to dispatch me, I gave him a settime” (NET).

2. ‘kingdom’ has two distinct senses in ch. 6. It generally refers to the geographical realm of Babylon (5.31,6.7, etc.), but can alt. refer to ‘the kingdom’s affairs’ (e.g., ‘[They sought to find] evidence against Danielin connection with the [affairs of the] kingdom’). In 6.1, the word is employed in both senses: Dariusappoints 120 satraps over the kingdom’s affairs, and they are to be stationed throughout the entire realmof Babylon.

3. lit., ‘to be in all the kingdom’

1

2 5.31-6.28: TEXT AND TRANSLATION

6.3 מתנ®צח הו³א ד�Éה ד´נ¢י¦אל N¢אד¯יו®אחש ד¯ר�פנ®י³א עלÊסר�כי³א

בה י®תיר´א רוח ד£י כלÊקÅבללהקמותה עש¤ית ומלכא

עלÊכלÊמלכותא;!

This [man] Daniel then began to outshine thecommanders and satraps because of theextraordinary spirit [which was] in him, and theKing lit on4 [the idea of] causing [Daniel] to standover the whole kingdom.

6.4 הוו ו®אחש ד¯ר�פנ®י³א סר�כי³א N¢אד¯ילד´נ¢י¦אל להש כחה עלה N¢בעי

ו�ÈלÊעלה מלכותא מצדלהש כחה NליÇ³יÊלא וש חיתה

הוא NמהימÊד£י כלÊקÅבללא וש חיתה ו�ÈלÊשµלו

עלוהי;! הש תכחת

The commanders and satraps therefore persistentlysought5 to find a ground for complaint6 in Daniel’s[discharge of] the kingdom’s [affairs],7 but theycould find no evidence of corruption,8 since he wasfaithful, and neither negligence9 nor corruptioncould be found10 in connection with him.

6.5 ד£י Nאמר£י אל� ג¹בר¯י³א N¢אד¯יד�Éה לד´נ¢י¦אל נ�הש כח לא

עלוהי הש כחÉה Nלה כלÊעלאאלהה;! בד´ת

Those mighty men+ therefore said,11 ‘We will notfind any ground for complaint12 concerning Danielunless we ‘find’ [it] against him13 in the law of hisGod’.

6.6 Nאל ו®אחש ד¯ר�פנ®י³א סר�כי³א N¢אד¯יNאמר£י Nו�כ עלÊמלכא הר�ג¢שו

חי¢י;! Nלעלמי מלכא ד´ר�י³וªש לה

So those commanders and satraps descended on theKing en masse+ and spoke14 to him as follows: ‘ODarius, King! [May you] live for [as long as] theages [continue]!

4. alt., ‘was favourably disposed to’, which might better reflect the verb’s pass. form. The vb. «QŠT» means‘to think well of’ or ‘to plan’ (CAL 2015:vb.), or, more metaphorically, ‘to shine upon’. The adj. form of«QŠT» describes an object’s ‘lustre’ and ‘shininess’ (CAL cašôt 2015:adj.), and its Heb. cognates bear outa similar connection (GHCL cešit, cašôt). Hence, Daniel ‘outshines’ his peers, and the King then ‘shines’on him in return. The concept of light continues to be important throughout ch. 6 (as in ch. 5). Thechapter begins with the dawning of light in Babylon in the aftermath of Belshazzar’s feast (5.30, 6.3-4).As the drama heightens, darkness then descends on Babylon, and Daniel is cast into the pit (6.14-18),but, at daybreak, light begins to dawn (6.19), Daniel is vindicated.

5. Their ‘persistence’ is suggested by the periphr. constr. employed.

6. cillâh has a wide semantic field, which includes the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘a pretext’, and ‘an opportu-nity’. In 6.4, these senses seem to come together, hence, ‘a ground for complaint’.

7. lit., ‘[they] were seeking to find evidence [relating] to Daniel concerning the kingdom’s [affairs]’. As inEur. languages, the vb. «BQY» followed by an inf. means ‘to seek to do X’ or ‘to intend to do X’ (CAL «BQY»2015:vb.).

8. lit., ‘evidence and corruption’, treated as a hend. (spec., a dissimilar couplet)

9. alt., ‘error’, but ‘negligence’ seems preferable, as it is a less severe charge than ‘error’ (and hence easierfor the satraps to prove), and fits well with ‘corruption’

10. a sing. verbal form which governs multiple subjects, as in 5.12 and 5.14

11. poss., ‘thought to themselves’ (Exod. 2.14)

12. as in 6.4

13. For the lexicography of ‘to find’, see our trans. notes. Its pfct. form reflects a completed act (GKC 163),i.e., ‘We will not find any ground for complaint until we have found it in the law...’.

14. lit., ‘said’

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 3

6.7 מלכותא סר�כי כל אתי³עטוהד´בר¯י³א ו®אחש ד¯ר�פנ®י³א סג�נ®י³אמלכא M³קי לקי³מה ופחו³תא

ÈלÊד£יÊי¢בעה ד£י אסר ולתקפהוªאÉש מÊNכלÊאלה בעו

מנ�³ Nלה Nתלתי NיומיÊעדאר�י³ו³תא;! לגב י¢תר�מא מלכא

All the kingdom’s commanders—[whether] prefector satrap, counsellor or governor—have jointlydecided to cause a steadfast, royal, and bindingstanding-order to stand,15 [which states] that, forthirty days, anyone who seeks what he [normally]seeks16 from any god or man except you, O King,will be cast into the lions’ pit.

6.8 אסר´א Mתקי מלכא Nכעלהש Éי³ה לא ד£י כתבא M»ו�תר�ש

ד£יÊלא ופר¯ס כד´תÊמד¯יתעד§א;!

You,17 O King, should now, therefore, cause thebinding-edict to stand by signing a writteninscription,+ so it cannot—as a law of Medo-Persia,which does not pass away—be changed’.

6.9 ד´ר�י³וªש מלכא ד�Éה כלÊקÅבלוªאסר´א;! כתבא M°ר�ש

On [hearing] this, King Darius signed a writteninscription of the binding-edict.18

6.10 Mר�ש¤יÊד£י י�ד¯ע כד£י ו�ד´נ¢י¦אלNפתיח Nו�כו¢י לבי�תה על כתבא

Mי�רוש ל נªגªד בעליתה להבר§� הוא ביומא תלתה Nו�ז¢מנ¢י

ומוד§א ומצלא עלÊבר�כוהיד£יÊהו³א כלÊקÅבל אלהה M´דÅק

ד�Éה;! מÊNקד�מת עבד

As for Daniel: once he knew that the writteninscription had been signed, he went to his house,where the windows in his roof-chamber had beenleft open for him in the direction of Jerusalem;19

and, three times each day, he would kneel on hisknees and pray and give thanks before his God, justas he had done beforehand.

15. so Old Gr., Theod., Pesh., KJV, DBY, etc. For similar constructions of the form «YQT. » + inf., see 2 Chr.25.16 and 2 Chr. 30.23. If we parse qeyam malka cas a cstr. + abs. chain, then we must view qeyamas an irreg. cstr. form, like cesar in the phrase cesar malka c in 6.12 (so Theod., KJV, etc.); alterna-tively, we can treat malka cas a vocative (‘O King!’). A different option altogether is to trans. 6.7a as,‘the...commanders...are agreed: the King should establish...a standing-order’ (ESV, NASB, etc.), but thefirst option strikes me as the best. The sub-text of ch. 6 is, therefore, as follows. The satraps want toestablish a royal law punishable by death, which Daniel will find himself compelled to transgress. Theymust, therefore, establish the law in question irrevocably, since, otherwise, Darius will simply pardonDaniel’s transgression. But the satraps are unable to establish an irrevocable law on their own author-ity. (Only the King can pass irrevocable laws.) They therefore approach Darius and tell him they havedecided to pass the law in question, which, it seems, is within their remit to do, but it will not be anirrevocable law. They then encourage the King to add his ‘stamp of irrevocability’ to the law. The word“you” is made emphatic by the juss. form (“You, O King, must now...”).

16. lit., ‘seeks [the object of] a beseechment’, a phrase based on a repetition of the vb. «BQY» (‘to seek’), asis made explicit in the Theod. (hos an aitese aitema: ‘he who requests a request’) and the Old Gr. (hos aneuxetai euchen e axiose axioma: ‘to pray a prayer or to petition [with] a petition’). The noun bcw no doubtincludes prayer, but is not limited to it. As Bevan writes, “[bcw can signify] any ‘petition’, as is [evidenced]by the common Syr. phrase bebha cu mennakh” (1892:110). The general sense of the proposed edict istherefore, ‘For the next thirty days, men must look solely to Darius for help and guidance’.

17. a juss. form. If, in 6.7, the commanders explain what they plan to do, then they now explain what theywant the King to do for his part.

18. lit., ‘inscribed the writing and the binding-edict’

19. either ‘he went to his house, the windows of which were open’ (lit., ‘and there were open windows toit, in its roof-chamber’) or ‘he went to his house, where the windows had been left open for him’ (i.e.,where the ethical dative is made explicit, as per the YLT). I personally favour the latter option, and takethe relevant ‘window-openers’ to be Daniel’s rivals. The trap has been set, and Daniel’s windows have‘innocently’ been left open as if to ask the question, ‘What are you going to do now then, Daniel?’.


6.11 הר�ג¢שו אל� ג¹בר¯י³א N¢אד¯י סN®ומתחנ בעא לד´נ¢י¦אל ו�הש כחו

אלהה;! M´דÅק

Then, those mighty men descended en masse andfound Daniel, seeking [help] and grace20 frombefore his God.

6.12 Nו�אמר£י קר£יבו N¢באד¯ימלכא עלÊאסר קÅד´ÊMמלכא

ÈלÊאÉש ד£י ר�ש°מת אסר הלאוªאÉש מÊNכלÊאלה ד£יÊי¢בעה

מנ�³ Nלה Nתלתי NיומיÊעדאר�י³ותא לגוב י¢תר�מא מלכא

י®ציבא ו�אמר מלכא ענ¦הד£יÊלא ופר¯ס כד´תÊמד¯י מלתא

תעד§א;!

At that point, they came21 before the King and spoke[to him] about the binding royal edict, [saying], ‘Didyou not sign an inscription of thebinding-edict22—[one which states] that, for thirtydays, any man who seeks [help] from any god orman except you, O King, must be cast into the lions’pit?’. ‘[I did]’, the King replied, ‘[and] as aMedo-Persian law, which cannot pass away, the[edict]23 is certain’.

6.13 מלכא M´דÅק Nו�אמר£י ענו N¢באד¯יד£י ג³לותא מÊNבנ¦י ד£י ד´נ¢י¦אל ד£יק על� כ| עלי¢� MµשÊלא י�הוד

ד£י ו�עלÊאסר´א Mטע מלכאביומא תלתה Nו�ז¢מנ¢י ר�ש°מת

בעותה;! בעא

They therefore declared before the King, ‘Daniel,who is one of the sons of the Revealed of Judah, hasset no store24 on you, O King, nor on thebinding-edict which you have inscribed, but instead,three times each day, continues to seek what he[normally] seeks’.

6.14 ש מע מלתא כד£י מלכא N¢אד¯יד´נ¢י¦אל ו�על עלוהי באש ש°ג¢יאמעלי ו�עד לש¨יז³בותה בל Mµש

מש תד¯ר הו³א ש¤משµאלהצלותה;!

When the King heard [about] the matter, he wasextremely grieved,25 and he set [his] mind to deliverDaniel; indeed, he strove ceaselessly26 to rescue himuntil the sun went down.

6.15 הר�ג¢שו אל� ג¹בר¯י³א N¢באד¯יד¯ע למלכא Nו�אמר£י עלÊמלכא

ופר¯ס למד¯י ד£יÊד´ת מלכאד£יÊמלכא M³וקי ד£יÈÊלÊאסר

להש Éי³ה;! לא Mי�הקי

At that point, those mighty men descended on theKing en masse and said to the King, ‘Know, O King,that [it is] a law of the Medes and the Persians thatno binding-edict or standing-order which the Kingcauses to stand can be changed’.

20. lit., ‘seeking and seeking grace

21. elsewhere ‘approached’

22. poss., ‘They came and spoke...about the edict, [saying], “O King!...”’, but one would then expect cesarto have a det. state. I therefore take cesar to have an irreg. cstr. form, where the final vowel does notreduce (akin to cizqat in 6.17), hence my trans. “royal edict”.

23. lit., ‘matter’

24. lit., ‘account’ or ‘regard’, as also in 3.12

25. The prep. + pron. calôhî is, I think, ‘resumptive’, as also in 6.23 and frequently in Syr. (RSG 2013:XXX).We can also consider Heb. phrases such as wayyih. ar lô (lit., ‘it was hot to him’) in 2 Sam. 13.21, Neh.3.33, Jon. 4.1.

26. to reflect the periphr. construction, as per 6.4 (‘persistently sought’)

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 5

6.16 ו�הי�תיו אמר מלכא N¢באד¯יד£י לג¹בא ור�מו לד´נ¢י¦אל

ו�אמר מלכא ענ¦ה אר�י³ו³תאכ| אנ�תה ד£י אלה� לד´נ¢י¦אל

הוא בתד£יר´א פלחÊלה ק אנ�תי�ש¨יז�בנ�³;!

So the King gave the command, and Daniel wasbrought in and cast into the lions’ pit, even as theKing declared to Daniel, ‘Your God himself, whomyou continually serve, must [now] deliver you’.27

6.17 ו�ש«מת חד´ה Nאב ו�היתי¢תמלכא ו�חתמה ג¹בא MuפÊעל

ד£י ר¯בר�בנוהי ובעז�קת בעז�קתהבד´נ¢י¦אל;! צבו לאÊתש נ¦א

And a single stone was brought and set over themouth of the pit, and the King sealed it with hissignet as well as with the signet of his great ones, sothat Daniel’s situation could not be changed.

6.18 ובת להיÇלה מלכא אז®ל N¢אד¯יקד´מוהי לאÊהנ�על N³ו�ד¯חו טו³ת

עלוהי;! נ®ד¯ת ו�ש¤נ�תה

The King then went to his palace, where he spentthe night fasting, and did not have the usualentertainment+ brought in before him, and his sleepdeparted from him.

6.19 Mי�קו בש פר�פר´א מלכא N¢באד¯ילג¹בא ובהתבהלה בÉג�הא

אז®ל;! ד£יÊאר�י³ו³תא

Then, at dawn, rising28 [along] with the first light,the King went hurriedly to the lions’ pit.

6.20 בקל לד´נ¢י¦אל לג¹בא וÇמקר�בהו�אמר מלכא ענ¦ה ז�עק עציבאלהא עבד ד´נ¢י¦אל לד´נ¢י¦אל

ק אנ�ת כ| אנ�תה ד£י אלה� חי³אהי�כל בתד£יר´א פלחÊלה

מÊNאר�י³ו³תא;! לש¨יז³בות�

As he drew near29 to the pit, the King called out toDaniel in a pained voice. ‘O Daniel, servant of theliving God!’, the King declared to Daniel, ‘Has yourGod, whom you continually serve, been able torescue you from the lions?’.

6.21 מלל עÊMמלכא ד´נ¢יªאל N¢אד¯יחי¢י;! Nלעלמי מלכא

Daniel then proclaimed+ to the King, ‘O King! [Mayyou] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!

6.22 Muפ וסג®ר מלאכה ש לח אלהיכלÊקÅבל חבלונ¢י ו�לא אר�י³ו³תאלי הש תכחת ז³כו קד´מוהי ד£י

מלכא ק קד´מ� כ| קד´מי¢� Pו�אעבד§ת;! לא חבולה

My God has sent his angel and shut the mouth of thelions, and they have not harmed me, for, before him,innocency was found in me, and even before you, OKing, I have done no wrong.30

6.23 טאב ש°ג¢יא מלכא N¢באד¯ילהנ�סקה אמר ולד´נ¢י¦אל עלוהימÊNג¹בא ד´נ¢י¦אל ו�הuסק מÊNג¹בא

ד£י בה לאÊהש תכח ו�ÈלÊחבלבאלהה;! Nהימ

The King was, therefore, overjoyed andimmediately31 gave the command for Daniel to belifted out of the pit. So Daniel was lifted out of thepit, and no harm of any kind was found on him, forhe had put his faith in his God.

27. The form י�ש¨יז�בנ�³! seems more likely to be an impf. than a juss. given: i] its lengthened form (thoughthe form is pausal, which confuses matters), and ii] the preceding pron. hû c(‘he himself’), which is(arguably) more consistent with an impf. than a juss.

28. lit., ‘standing up’, an impf. form

29. elsewhere ‘approached’

30. alt., ‘harm’

31. implied by be cdayin


6.24 ג¹בר¯י³א ו�הי�תיו מלכא ו®אמרד£י קר�צוהי ד£יÊאכלו אל�

Nאנו ר�מו אר�י³ו³תא ולגב ד´נ¢י¦אלו�לאÊמטו Nונ�ש¨יהו Nבנ¦יהו

ד£יÊש לטו עד ג¹בא לאר�עיתNג®ר�מיהוÊלÈו� אר�י³ו³תא Nבהו

הד£קו;!

The King then gave the command, and those mightymen, who had ripped Daniel to shreds,32 werebrought in and were cast into the lions’ pit—them,their children, and their wives—, and they had not[even] come to the bottom33 of the pit when thelions [gained] the rule over them and broke all theirbones in pieces.

6.25 כתב מלכא ד´ר�י³וªש N¢באד¯יו�לµ�נ®י³א אuמי³א לÈלÊעממי³א

ק Nד´י�ר£י כ| Nד´אר£יÊד£יי¢ש ג¦א;! Nש למכו בÈלÊאר�עא

At that point, Darius the King wrote to all the tribes,nations, and tongues, who reside in every part of theearth, [saying], May your peace abound!

6.26 ד£י Mטע Mש¤י מÊNקÅד´מיNלהו מלכותי NלטµשÊלÈבNו�ד´חלי ק Nז³י�עי כ| Nז³אעי

ד£יÊד´נ¢י¦אל אלהה M´דÅקÊNמM³ו�קי חי³א אלהא ד£יÊהואד£יÊלא ומלכותה Nלעלמי

עדÊסופא;! ו�שµלטנ¦ה תתחבל

From before me, a decree has been set [forth]. All[those under] the rule of my kingdom are to tremblein fear34 before the God of Daniel, for he is the livingGod and will [stand] steadfast for [as long as] theages [continue], and his kingdom is one which willnot be harmed,35 and his rule will [continue] untilthe end-point [of all things],36

6.27 Nאתי ו�עבד ומצל מש¨יז¢בד£י ובאר�עא בש מי³א Nו�תמהי

אר�י³ו³תא;! מÊNי®ד לד´נ¢י¦אל ש¨יז¢יב

a deliverer and a rescuer, and a doer of signs andwonders in the heavens and in the earth—[the one]who has delivered Daniel from the hand of the lions.

6.28 במלכות הצלח ד�Éה ו�ד´נ¢י¦אלפר�סי³א כור»ש ובמלכות ד´ר�י³וªש

!;P ק פר�סאה כ|

So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius andin the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

32. so also 3.8

33. lit., ‘ground’ or ‘earth’

34. lit., ‘tremble and fear’

35. alt., ‘destroyed’

36. ‘end-point’ is emphatic; it refers to a known end, namely the end of all things

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 7

5.31-6.28: Further translational notes

5.31 at the age of 62 years ‘the age of 62 years’ is prefixed by a kaf. As such,5.31 can be trans. in one of two ways: i] ‘Darius received the kingdom atabout 62 years of age’, or ii] ‘Darius received the kingdom at the age of 62[lit., as a son of 62 years]’. Bible-trans. are divided on the issue: someprefer ‘at’ (NIV, HCSB), while others prefer ‘at about’ (ESV, NASB).37 Onbalance, I have opted for the trans., “Darius received the kingdom at the ageof 62 years”. If ‘about 62 years’ is< correct, then Daniel clearly wants todraw our attention to the number 62 for some reason; otherwise, why notsay ‘about 60’? That would then lend further support to our proposedinterpretation of Belshazzar’s riddle, where we associate the arrival of the62-year-old Darius with the 62 shekels alluded to in the words mene cmene c

teqel ûparsîn.

6.2 so the King might not be troubled[NZQ (G)] The basic sense of «NZQ»

revolves around detriment—sometimes financial,38 and sometimes moregeneral.39 The Theod. and Vulg. both render «NZQ»(G) as ‘trouble/annoy’,40

which seems attractive on two counts. First, it coheres well with the Akk.cognates nazaqu (‘to be vexed/worried’) and niziqtu (‘worries’). Second, ithas contextual merit. To oversee 120 satraps would be a tedious business.So, to appoint three satraps over them would indeed save Dariusconsiderable time and effort. As an analogy, we might consider Potiphar’sdecision to entrust his possessions to Joseph in order to save himself thetrouble of overseeing them (Gen. 39.6).

6.4 those mighty men In ch. 3, the three Hebrews are referred to as “those”mighty men, since, in the context of the Plain of Dura, they are rogueagents: they stand against the unjust demands of their king(Nebuchadnezzar). The demon. pron. “those” has a similar implicationhere in ch. 6. Like the three Hebrews, the “mighty men” are rogue agents.Darius seems to be sympathetic to the Jewish people, but “mighty men” arenot. They stand against the desires of the King.

37. Neither the LXX nor the Vulg. take 5.31’s kap prefix to denote an approximation, but then the LXX andVulg. often neglect to recognise kap-signified temporal approximations. For instance, Gen. 38.24, Ruth1.4, and 1 Sam. 25.38 all contain kap-signified temporal approximations, but none are reflected in theVulg., and only the last in the LXX.

38. Ezra 4.13, 4.20-22. Consider also the employment of «NZQ» in Late Jewish Aram. (JDTT ch. nezaq Af.),as well as of the noun nzq (CAL nzq 2015:n.m.).

39. Ezra 4.15, 7.4.

40. The Vulg. has molestare, while the LXX has enochleo (cf. LSJ’s def.). The Pesh. has «HRR»(C), which couldbe read in either way (CAL «HRR» 2015:vb.).

8 5.31-6.28: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES

6.5 We will not find[ŠKH. (C)] any evidence[clh (n)]...unless we ‘find’[ŠKH. (C)] [it]against him in the law of his God The text of 6.5 may embody a minorplay on words. Just as the noun clh can refer either to genuine evidence orto a mere ‘pretext’ for a complaint,41 so the noun škh. h can refer either to agenuine ‘find’ or to a mere ‘invention’, i.e., a fabrication rather than adiscovery. The vb. «ŠKH. »(C) may, therefore, be employed in two differentways in 6.5: i] with ref. to the discovery of evidence against Daniel, and ii]with ref. to the fabrication, or at least creation, of evidence (hence they find‘against’ Daniel, not ‘concerning’ him). The repetition of the vb. ‘find’ isimportant. Daniel’s adversaries seek to find evidence with which to accusehim, but ultimately God finds “innocency” in Daniel—the man whose veryname means ‘God is my judge’ (6.22).

6.6 So those commanders and satraps descended on the King enmasse[RGŠ (C)] «RGŠ»(C) covers a wide range of activities, many of which seemconnected. The CAL suggests a definition of ‘to urgently gather together’,42

but the vb. can also have more forceful and subversive connotations. In theTargumim, «RGŠ»(C) has the sense ‘to crowd in on’;43 the derived noun rgšenvisages a ‘tumult’ of some kind, as do other derived nouns;44 the G-stemHeb. cog. has the sense ‘to rage’ (Psa. 2.1);45 and the derived (seg.) noundenotes a ‘throng’ of some kind—in particular, an unruly one (Psa. 55.14,64.2). All of these nuances seem relevant to the context of ch. 6. Themighty men are only ever referred to as a collective in ch. 6 (“those mightymen”). They think and move as a unit; they pressurise Darius by force ofnumbers (6.7); and their intentions are highly subversive. The sinisternature of their actions is hinted at by the preposition cal (they are said tohargišû al-malka c).46 Even the ambiguity of the vb. «RGŠ» may besignificant. The mighty men do not want to appear to be forceful or hostile.On the contrary, they want to appear to have the King’s best interests atheart. Their dealings with the King are, therefore, deliberately subtle. Theywant ‘plausible deniability’, which the ambiguity of «RGŠ»(C) may beintended to reflect. As a result of all these issues, Bible-translations render«RGŠ»(C) in a variety of different ways, such as ‘to gang together’ (CEB), ‘todescend upon’ (CJB), ‘to come by agreement’ (ESV), ‘to go as a group’ (NIV),‘to conspire together’ (MSG), ‘to throng’ (NKJV), ‘to conspire and come’(NRSV), etc., all of which seem appropriate.

41. CAL clh 2015:n.f.

42. CAL «RGŠ» 2015:vb.

43. e.g., Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Exod. 2.3.

44. CAL rgš 2015:n.m. Compare ctrgwšh (v.n.Gt), ctrgyšh (n.f.), and mrgwš (n.m.).

45. which the Pesh. renders as «RGŠ»

46. Compare the function of cal in 6.5, as well as in 3.29, 5.23, Ezra 4.8, 4.19, 7.23.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 9

6.7a to cause a steadfast, royal, and binding standing-order to stand, lit., ‘tocause a standing-order[QWM (n)] to stand[QWM (C)], and to make steadfast[TQP (D)]

a binding-edict’. The vb. ‘stand’ is central to the text of 6.7a. It is implicit inthe vb. «QWM», the noun qeyam (trad., ‘injunction’), and the vb. «TQP».47

Meanwhile, cesar derives from the vb. «PSR» (‘to bind’), and can refer eitherto a royal prohibition48 or a ‘vow’ which compels obedience (Num. 30).49

For the hend. treatment of 6.7, see our notes on 6.8.

6.8 cause the binding-edict to stand by signing a written inscription, lit.,‘establish the binding-edict and inscribe[RŠM] the writing[ketab]’. «RŠM» is to‘engrave, inscribe, or sign’. It has the sense of permanence as well as ofpersonal approval. Accordingly, a «RŠM»(n) can be thought of as the ancientequivalent of a ‘signature’.50 Hence, the phrase tiršum ketava crefers to thepublication of a written inscription. Daniel’s later reference to ‘theestablishment of an edict’ is, therefore, unlikely to refer to a distinct ordifferent activity. More likely, it is the documentation required in order toestablish the aforementioned inscription as an irrevocable law. Consequently,I have treated the two clauses as a hend. (spec., as a ‘thematic couplet’),hence my trans., “cause the binding-edict to stand by means of a writteninscription”, as also Hartman.51 Parallel hend. can be found in variousother passages of Scripture, such as: i] in the previous verse (6.7), wherethe establishment of an edict is again coupled with a closely related activity;ii] in 6.9, where Darius is said to sign ketaba c-we- cesara c(Goldingay1989:125); and iii] in Neh. 9.38, where the Israelites state, ‘we are cutting acovenant and writing’, the sense of which is generally understood to be, ‘Weare establishing a written agreement’ (NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc.).52

47. by virtue of the etymon «YQP» (CAL «TQP» 2016:vb.). See also our discussion of «QWM» in App. 0.

48. CAL csr 2015:n.m.

49. S. Paul notes, by way of analogy, the Ass. phrase riksa dunnunu, i.e., ‘to make legally binding’ (Paul2001:58).

50. CAL «RŠM» 2015:vb. Compare also the derivatives rwšm (‘incision, mark’: 2015:n.m.), ršm (‘signing,marking’: 2015:v.n.), and ršm (‘bond’: 2015:n.m.).

51. “issue [the] written prohibition over your signature” (Hartman 1978:195)

52. Bevan finds a similar hendiadys in Jer. 36.27, where Jehoiakim is said to burn אש¬ר Mהד�בר£יÊו�את אתÊהמג¢להברו�! כתב (lit., ‘the scroll and the words which Baruch wrote’), but the translation ‘the scroll, even thewords which Baruch wrote’ works just as well (1892:XXX).

10 5.31-6.28: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES

6.18 [he] did not have the usual entertainment[dah. awan] brought in before himThe exact sense of dah. awan is not obvious. The CAL describes the word as“completely mysterious”,53 the BBE simply leaves a blank space in place of it,and the YLT resorts (not unreasonably) to transliteration. Somecommentators suggest the trans. “dancing girls”54 or even “concubines”(DBY), since: a] dah. awan appears to be a fem. plural,55 b] dah. awan is theobject of the vb. «QLL»(C) (‘to bring’), and c] the only objects said to bebrought[QLL (C)] before a king in Daniel’s writings are people. But suchtranslations cannot be proffered with any great authority. The NLT has “[theKing’s] usual entertainment”, which seems as good a guess as any. SinceDaniel’s refusal of dah. awan is noteworthy, the customary procedure waspresumably for dah. awan to be brought in before him, so the trans. “[theKing’s] usual entertainment” must be along the right lines.

6.21 Daniel the proclaimed[MLL (D)] to[cim] the King In Daniel, «MLL»(D) seems torefer to a more forceful form of speech than normal (7.8, 7.11, 7.20, 7.25),as does its Heb. cog. (Gen. 21.8, Job 8.2, 33.3, Psa. 106.2, Prov. 6.13).56 Ihave therefore chosen to render «MLL»(D) as ‘proclaim’.57

53. CAL dah. awan 2015:n.f.

54. Montgomery 1927:277.

55. though it is hard to be sure given the existence of sing. forms such as rabreban (4.36), karsawan (7.9),etc.

56. We can also consider the sense of the Syr. «MLL»(D) in Pesh. Psa. 2.5, etc.

57. The constr. «MLL»(D) + cim need not be taken denote a two-way conversation, as is also true of the Heb.constr. עמי! Çד¯ברו in 10.19. According to Bevan, «MLL»(D) + cim is commonplace in Syr., and simplymeans ‘to speak to’ (1892:113). By way of response, we may note how «MLL» + cim does in fact, onoccasion, describe a two-way conversation (e.g., Targ. Onq. Gen. 16.13, Exod. 20.16), but since, in thecases, it is coupled with a t-stem conj. of «MLL», it is hard to know whether the prep. cim or the t-stemconveys the idea of a two-way conversation.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 11

5.31-6.28: Some introductory remarks

Like chs. 1-5, ch. 6 is set in the city of Babylon. But the Babylon of ch. 6is a very different place from the Babylon of ch. 5. Babylon is now undernew management. It is a part of the world of Medo-Persia. The text of5.31 therefore marks the beginning of a new episode in Daniel’s writings,but it nevertheless continues the theme and thread of 5.30. Belshazzarhas been overthrown (5.30), and Darius has taken his place (5.31). In6.1, Darius therefore begins to organise his newly acquired kingdom. Assuch, it seems natural to read 5.30-6.1 as a continual narrative: “Bels-hazzar...was slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom,...[and]set over the kingdom’s [affairs] 120 satraps”. Ch. 6’s events thereforeseem likely to have transpired early on in Darius’s reign—say, in the 1st

or 2nd year.

Ch. 6 is a fundamentally historical narrative, but its events are brieflydepicted in ch. 8’s vision. There, the Medo-Persian empire is depicted asa two-horned ram, one of whose horns gradually comes to overshadowthe other (8.3, 8.20). The first horn is Darius and his descendants, i.e.,the Median commanders who held prominent positions in Medo-Persiaover the years. The second is Cyrus and his descendants, i.e., the kings ofPersia, whose actions we read about in Ezra and Nehemiah. For furtherdetails, see App. 5C.

5.31-6.28: The main characters

The cast of characters involved in ch. 6 (in order of their appearance) areas follows. First we have Darius, the newly-crowned head of Babylon.Darius is a far older and wiser man than Belshazzar, and he is clearlymore reverent. Nevertheless, the way in which he handles his satrapsseems slightly naive. Next we have the King’s ‘satraps’, a group of 120rulers who form a layer between Darius and the people. Included withinthe 120 satraps is a rather shadowy corps of “mighty men”, whom wewill discuss shortly. Finally we have Daniel, with whom we already veryfamiliar. In ch. 6, Daniel’s ability to unravel dreams and visions is notrequired, nor is he pitted against Babylon’s ‘wise men’. But he neverthe-

12 5.31-6.28: AN OVERVIEW

less has a battle to fight, which will require not so much wisdom as faithand moral backbone.

5.31-6.28: An overview

At the outset of ch. 6, Darius begins to put his house in order. In standardMedo-Persian fashion, he divides his kingdom into a number of individ-ual ‘provinces’, and appoints a “satrap” over each of them (Ezra 2.1, Neh.1.3, Est. 1.1, etc.). Some of these satraps may have been Darius’s fellowMedes whom he knew and trusted. Others may have been Persians ornative Babylonians whom Darius chose to keep on.

Darius has no desire to singlehandedly supervise 120 satraps. He there-fore inserts a layer of “commanders” between him and his satraps. Inall, three commanders are appointed. Each of them is (apparently) tosupervise 40 satraps and to report directly to the King. Daniel is one ofthe appointed commanders. Over time, Daniel’s great wisdom and in-tegrity gain him great favour in the eyes of the King. Darius thereforedecides to promote Daniel to the position of second-in-command in theProvince of Babylon. Needless to say, Darius’s decision is not welcomedby Daniel’s peers (hereafter “the satraps”). A conspiracy is thereby born.Its aim is simple: to dispose of Daniel by any available means. Initially,the satraps seek to find fault with Daniel’s conduct. But, as they quicklydiscover, their task is a hopeless one. Daniel’s conduct is beyond re-proach. The satraps can therefore find nothing for which to fault him.As a result, they resort to more drastic measures.

Daniel’s loyalty to his God is well-known, and it is well-documented inBabylon’s records. Daniel is, one might say, ‘loyal to a fault’. The satrapstherefore devise a new plan of attack. If they can put Daniel in a posi-tion where he is forced to choose between his obedience to Darius andto God, then they will have him where they want him. They will beable to force him to disobey Darius and will be ready to catch him whenhe does so. Accordingly, the satraps approach Darius (in Daniel’s ab-sence) and advise him to enforce an important edict. The purpose ofthe edict, the satraps claim, is to unite Darius’s people around their new

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 13

king. For the next thirty days, all prayers and petitions must be made,not to men’s normal gods, but to the King alone. Moreover, the injunc-tion must be irrevocable and punishable by death. Darius will thereforebe able to unite his kingdom and root out any potential troublemakersfrom its midst. Darius foolishly follows the satraps’ advice and issues theproposed edict as an officially-inscribed Medo-Persian law, i.e., as a lawwhich cannot be altered or revoked until it expires.

Daniel is horrified once he finds out about the edict. His times of prayerare an integral part of his life. Each morning, noon, and night, he re-tires to his room and seeks God’s face in prayer. Daniel therefore has adecision to make. He must either abandon his daily prayers or disobeyDarius’s injunction. Daniel decides to continue in his prayers. To severcontact with his God for a thirty-day period would be unthinkable. Itis easy, therefore, for the satraps to catch Daniel in prayer, which theyduly do. They then haul Daniel before the King, at which point it is Dar-ius’s turn to be horrified. Darius is appalled by the thought of Daniel’sdeath. He immediately, therefore, goes to his room, where he spendsthe remainder of the day seeking to pardon Daniel. But Darius’s task is,by the satraps’ design, hopeless. The satraps’ entire plan is predicatedon the irrevocability of the King’s edict. Darius therefore has no choicebut to send for Daniel and sentence him to death, which he does. Thetwo men then begin the long walk to the lion’s pit. When they reachthe pit, Darius bids Daniel farewell. “May your God, whom you contin-ually serve, deliver you!”, Darius says to him. Whether or not Dariusgenuinely expects God to rescue Daniel is not clear. Perhaps Darius hasa measure of faith, or perhaps his words reflect a vain hope. Either way,Darius returns to his room a troubled and frustrated man. He has theappetite for neither sleep nor food nor entertainment. He is angry withhis satraps for playing a trick on him, and angry with himself for fallingfor it. He is also distraught about what he has been made to do. Hehas just condemned a just and innocent man to death, not to mention atrusted adviser and friend.

The night seems to take an eternity to pass, but pass it eventually does.At the break of dawn, Darius rushes to the lion’s pit to find out what

14 5.31-6.28: ITS LITERARY STRUCTURE

has happened to Daniel. On arriving at the den, he calls down into thegloom. “O Daniel, servant of the living God...?”, he cries. To Darius’samazement, a familiar voice comes floating up from the depths of the pit.“O King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! My God senthis angel and shut the lions’ mouths”! Darius is, of course, overjoyed tohear Daniel’s voice. He immediately order his men to lift Daniel from thepit and to throw Daniel’s accusers into the pit in his place. His men thencarry out his orders, and Daniel’s enemies are thereby torn to pieces.In response to the events he has witnessed, Darius issues a new edict,which gives praise to the God of Heaven, and commands his people tofear God’s name. For the third time in the Book of Daniel, then, a Kingof Babylon witnesses the greatness of the God of Heaven and tells hiskingdom about it.

5.31-6.28: Its literary structure

Like the previous chapters, ch. 6 is structured in a chiastic fashion. Wecan tabulate the chiasmus as follows.

Ref. Sec. Description

5.31 A: The satraps seek to prevent Daniel’s promotion

6.6 » B: The King passes an edict which prohibits true prayer

6.10 »» C: Daniel is sentenced to death

6.14 »»» D: The King (unsuccessfully) seeks to deliver Daniel

6.16 »»»» E: The King orders Daniel to be thrown to the lions

6.18 »»»» E’: God orders the lions to leave Daniel alone

6.22 »»» D’: Daniel’s true deliverer arrives, namely God’s angel

6.23 »» C’: The satraps are sentenced to death

6.25 » B’: The King passes an edict which encourages true prayer

6.28 A’: Daniel receives his promotion

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 15

5.31-6.28: Its main message

In ch. 6, we see the events depicted in ch. 2’s colossus unfolding in real-time. Babylon has fallen, and Medo-Persia has risen to the fore of world-history. My proposal as to ch. 6’s main message is as follows:

Kings come and go over the years. Some are good (like Darius),and others are bad (like the unconverted Nebuchadnezzar). But,as God’s people, we will face difficulties for as long as we live ina fallen world, since the world is plagued by an undercurrent ofSatanically-inspired ungodliness. We may face outright persecu-tion. Or we may be more subtly pressurised by ‘mighty men’ inhigh places and by the world’s ungodly edicts. Either way, asmembers of God’s kingdom, our duty is to keep God’s holy law.Happily, God is able to keep those who keep his commands.

The following considerations all point in the direction of the above pro-posal.

(A) Ch. 6’s narrative shares a number of similarities with ch. 3’s and has asimilar theme, namely the struggles of the godly in light of ungodly edicts.The central aspects of ch. 6’s narrative align very naturally with those ofch. 3, as shown below:

Aspect of ch. 3’s narrative Counterpart in ch. 6

Nebuchadnezzar Darius

The image which the Kingcauses to stand

The order which the King causesto stand

The three Hebrews Daniel

Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘walled plain’ Daniel’s walled room

Babylon’s mighty men Medo-Persia’s mighty men

The fiery furnace The lions’ den

The overall storylines of chs. 3 and 6 also share a number of similarities.In both narratives, God’s people are confronted by an edict which they

16 5.31-6.28: ITS MAIN MESSAGE

cannot in good conscience obey. In both narratives, an ungodly entityis caused to “stand” in defiance of God’s will. Ch. 3’s is a golden image,while ch. 6’s is an edict which forbids prayer. In both narratives, theentity in question lays claim to immortality. The golden image declares‘Babylon forever!’, while Darius’s edict claims to be a law which will‘never pass away’. In both narratives, a group of “mighty men” takecentre stage and proceed to rip God’s people “to shreds”. In bothnarratives, God’s people are unwilling to “set” their hearts on the King’sdecree and are therefore “cast” down. The three Hebrews are cast intoa fiery furnace, while Daniel is cast into a lions’ pit. In both narratives,God sends his “angel” in order to “deliver” his people from death and, asa result, no “harm” befalls them. And both narratives culminate in thepronouncement of an edict which forbids the blasphemy of God’s holyname. Like ch. 3, then, ch. 6 is built around a ‘power struggle’ betweenthe kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. Ch. 6 even resembles ch.3 in the finer points of its Aram., as shown below:

3.8 ו®אכלו Nכש ד´אי Nג¹בר£י קר£בוי�הוד´י¦א! ד£י Nקר�ציהו

6.24 ד£י קר�צוהי ד£יÊאכלו אל� ג¹בר¯י³אד´נ¢י¦אל!

3.12 Kעלי לאÊשµמו אל� ג¹בר¯י³א!Mטע מלכא

6.13 ...ד´נ¢י¦אל! מלכא Kעלי MµשÊלא!Mטע

3.17 י³כל Nפלחי ד£יÊאנ®חÉא אלהÉאלש¨יז³בותÉא!

6.20 פלחÊלה אנתה ד£י אלה�לש¨יז³בות� הי�כל בתד£יר´א

מÊNאר�י³ו³תא!

3.25 !Nבהו לאÊאיתי ו®חבל 6.23 בה! לאÊהש תכח ו�ÈלÊחבל

3.29 אuמה MעÊלÈ ד£י Mטע Mש¤י ומנ¢יNאלההו על ש¬לה ד£יÊי¦אמר Nµ�ו�ל

נ�גוא! ו®עבד מיש°� ד£יÊש°ד�ר¯�

6.26 ד£י Mטע Mש¤י מÊNקÅד´מיNזאעי Nלהו מלכותי NלטµשÊלÈב

ד£יÊד´נ¢י¦אל! אלהה M´דÅקÊNמ Nו�ד´חלי

(B) Ch. 6 describes a much more subtle and malicious form of attack onGod’s people than is described elsewhere in Daniel. For all their similarities,ch. 3 and ch. 6 are notably different in a number of important respects.First, while Nebuchadnezzar is surprised by the Hebrews’ disobedience,the satraps are not surprised by Daniel’s. Indeed, they have manufac-tured the entire situation (with the edict) to divide Daniel’s loyalties.Second, while ch. 3’s trial is orchestrated by a supreme ruler (Nebuchad-

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 17

nezzar), ch. 6’s trial is orchestrated by a corps of “mighty men”. These“mighty men” are the driving force behind the events of ch. 6. Theyare said to “gather together”, to “conspire” together, and to “approach”the King as one. They are a shadowy and sinister collective—nameless,numberless, and only ever referred to as a unit. They are the kind ofpeople whom we might refer to as ‘they’ in the modern day (e.g., “Becareful! ‘They’ might be watching!”). As such, the mighty men resem-ble the ‘iron kings’ of ch. 2’s vision (2.41-43’s comm.). Their entrancein ch. 6’s narrative is very abrupt. (We are first introduced to them as“those mighty men”, as if we should already be aware of them.) Theyremain submerged ‘behind the scenes’ of world history, as they corruptthe world’s kingdoms and wrest control from godly men (‘kings of clay’)such as Darius and Daniel. Third, the edicts described in chs. 3 and 6place different demands on God’s people. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego are given a specific order; they are required to drop to their kneesbefore ch. 3’s image. Daniel, on the other hand, is given a prohibition;he is forbidden to drop to his knees in prayer. Fourth, ch. 3’s ungodlyentity is much more tangible than ch. 6’s. Ch. 3 revolves around a con-crete image, while ch. 6 revolves around an abstract law. Fifth, while ch.3’s test involves public religion, ch. 6’s involves private devotion. Sixth,while ch. 3 is about a despotic king and the brazen abuse of power, ch.6 is about a weak king and the manipulation of power. Both situationshave their dangers.

In sum, then, ch. 6 is intended to address the more subtle challengesGod’s people must face. It is not about an ungodly king as such. (WhileNebuchadnezzar boasts, “Which god is there who will then deliver youfrom my hands?”, Darius confesses, “May your God to whom you con-tinually render service deliver you”.) It is about an entire world-systemwhich is opposed to the things of God. It is about hidden conspiracies,intangible laws, and restrictions of freedom—things of an apparently in-nocuous nature, yet which are potentially lethal.

(C) Ch. 6 portrays man’s governments as dangerous and unpredictableentities. Ch. 6 is built around key words and phrases which are in-tended to portray the all-pervasive power of Darius’s government and its

18 5.31-6.28: ITS MAIN MESSAGE

laws. We read of a “standing-order”, a “binding-edict”, and a law which“cannot pass away”. We also read of the acts of “signing”, “sealing”,and “writing”. Ch. 6 thereby portrays man’s governments as powerfulbeasts—beasts which must be kept on a short leash.

(D) Like many other chapters in Daniel’s writings, ch. 6 depicts a battle be-tween God and man. Many of ch. 6’s word-groups are connected with thenumber 21. The words used to describe the power of the Medo-Persianlaw occur a total of 21 times.58 The words used to refer to Darius and hisposition of authority occur a total of 42 times (21x2).59 The words usedto refer to Daniel’s opponents occur a total of 21 times.60 The wordsused to describe the power of Darius’s death-threat occur 21 times.61

And the name “Daniel” occurs 21 times. Considered as a whole, theseword-groups provide a very apt summary of ch. 6’s main ingredients:the power of Babylon’s new king (42x), the presence of Daniel (21x), themachinations of Daniel’s enemies (21x), the power of the Medo-Persianlaw (21x), and the threat of death (21x).62 Ch. 6 has therefore been verycarefully crafted. It depicts a battle between the men of Babylon and thepeople of God. More specifically, it depicts a battle between two laws:the Medo-Persian law and the Mosaic law. The Medo-Persian law is thevillain of the piece. It is portrayed as an untamed and untamable mon-ster. Once unleashed, it is beyond even the King’s ability to control. Firstit ensnares Daniel, then Darius, and finally (albeit indirectly) the satrapsthemselves. The Medo-Persian law also lays claim to immortality insofaras it claims to be entirely immutable and irrevocable. As such, the Medo-Persian law constitutes an Anti-God. Throughout Daniel’s writings, eter-nality is a unique distinctive of the things of God (2.44, 4.3, 4.34, 6.26,7.14, 7.27, etc.). The grandiose claims of the Medo-Persian law there-fore bring it into conflict with God himself. Nevertheless, Daniel bowsto God’s decrees as opposed to Medo-Persia’s. Daniel thereby vindicates

58. The “binding-edict” (7x), the “standing-order” (2x), the “laws...which cannot pass away” (3x), the “sign-ing” of documents (5x), the “writing” of inscriptions (3x), and the “sealing” of the stone (1x).

59. “King” (28x), “King Darius” (3x), “Darius” (3x), and “kingdom” (8x)

60. “satraps” (Xx), “commanders” (Xx), “mighty men” (Xx), “en masse [throng]” (Xx), “deputies” (Xx),“counsellors” (Xx), and “governors” (Xx)

61. “pit” (Xx), “lion” (Xx), “stone” (Xx), “seal” (Xx)

62. The group of verbs “find”, “seek”, “deliver”, “rescue” also occur 21 times.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 19

the God of Heaven, and God in turn vindicates Daniel. In the end, then,God’s law emerges triumphant from ch. 6’s battle. The word of Dariusfalls, while the word of God stands[QWM] (9.12).

My proposal as to ch. 6’s main message is an attempt to draw all theseconsiderations together:

Kings come and go over the years. Some are good (like Darius),and others are bad (like the unconverted Nebuchadnezzar). But,as God’s people, we will face difficulties for as long as we live ina fallen world, since the world is plagued by an undercurrent ofSatanically-inspired ungodliness. We may face outright persecu-tion. Or we may be more subtly pressurised by ‘mighty men’ inhigh places and by the world’s ungodly edicts. Either way, asmembers of God’s kingdom, our duty is to keep God’s holy law.Happily, God is able to keep those who keep his commands.

20 6.1-3: DANIEL EXCELS DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF DARIUS’S REIGN

5.31: The rise of Darius

5.31 So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of 62 years.

So Darius the Mede received the kingdom (5.31a). At the outset of ch.6, the Medo-Persians take over affairs in Babylon, just as Daniel foretold.(“Your kingdom”, Daniel announced to Belshazzar, “has been broken intwo and payed over to Medo-Persia”: 5.28.) Darius the Mede therebybecomes the Colossus’s new overlord.

at the age of about 62 years (5.31b). Darius’s age seems largely ir-relevant to ch. 6’s narrative. Daniel is a prophet not a historian. Thenumber 62 must therefore be relevant to ch. 6 in some way, which itdoes indeed seem to be. On the one hand, the number 62 marks out theevents of ch. 6 as the fulfilment of the letters mn cmn ctqlwprsyn.63 On theother hand, it connects the events of ch. 6 to the 62 weeks of Gabriel’sprophecy (9.24-27). According to Gabriel’s prophecy, Israel’s promisedMessiah will arrive—later to be ‘cut off’—at the end of a 62-week period.The mention of the number 62 marks out the events of ch. 6 as a fore-shadow of the Messiah’s ministry. The Messiah’s ministry is strikinglyforeshadowed in the conduct, tribulation, and vindication of Daniel (cf.“5.31-6.28: A foreshadow of the Gospel”).

6.1-3: Daniel excels during the early years of Darius’sreign

6.1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom’s [affairs] 120 satraps, who wereto be [stationed] throughout the kingdom,

6.2 and [he set] above them three commanders (one of whom was Daniel) towhom these satraps were to give account, so the King might not betroubled.

6.3 This [man] Daniel then began to outshine the commanders and satrapsbecause of the extraordinary spirit [which was] in him, and the King lit on[the idea of] causing [Daniel] to stand over the whole kingdom.

63. See “5.25b-30: More thoughts on God’s riddle”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 21

It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom’s [affairs] 120 satraps(6.1). Darius’s first step as Babylon’s overlord is to divide his terri-tory into 120 distinct provinces and to assign each of them a desig-nated “satrap” (6.1). The make-up of Darius’s satraps is not revealedto us. The satraps are likely to have included local officials from Bels-hazzar’s administration as well as others whom Darius brought with him.Daniel may have fallen into both categories. He was certainly a part ofBelshazzar’s administration when Babylon fell. (He was the city’s third-in-command.) But he may also have known Darius from his days asNebuchadnezzar’s right-hand man (2.48). Daniel would have needed tocommune with foreign dignitaries from time to time, and he seems tohave been present in Susa (Persia’s capital city) soon after the formationof Medo-Persia (8.1). Ch. 6 may not, therefore, describe the first timeDarius and Daniel met each other. If so, it would explain how rapidlytheir friendship developed.

and [he set] above them three commanders (6.2a). Darius cannotpersonally oversee the actions of 120 satraps. He therefore sets three“commanders” over them—commanders whom he believes to be honestand trustworthy men (6.2). Each commander is (presumably) to governforty satraps and to report directly to the King. Darius thereby puts inplace a four-tier system of accountability. The people are accountableto the satraps, the satraps to the commanders, and the commanders toDarius himself. The office of “commander” is therefore an office of sig-nificant power and authority.

so the King might not be troubled[NZQ] (6.2b). The implication of 6.2bdepends in large part on how we translate the vb. «NZQ».64 If we translateit as ‘trouble’ or ‘bother’, then 6.2b portrays Darius as a rather naive andperhaps also careless ruler. Darius does not want to encumber himselfwith the oversight of 120 satraps. He therefore devolves his responsibil-ities to three commanders. We might consider, as an analogy, the wayin which Potiphar devolves the management of his household to Josephin order to spare himself the trouble of it (Gen. 39.6). Darius thereforecomes across as a rather naive and careless ruler. If, however, we trans-

64. See our trans. notes.

22 6.1-3: DANIEL EXCELS DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF DARIUS’S REIGN

late «NZQ» as ‘suffer loss’, then Darius comes across as a much more savvyand careful individual. He does not fully trust his satraps, so he decidesto appoint some commanders to keep an eye on them. Contextually, thefirst of these possibilities strikes me as the more likely. Later in ch. 6,Darius is too quick to trust his satraps’ motives and to sign-off their pro-posed legislation (6.9). He therefore comes across as a king who is morenaive than savvy.

one of whom was Daniel (6.2). Darius’s appointment of Daniel as acommander must have raised a few eyebrows in Babylon, but it madeperfect sense. It was consistent with the Medo-Persian ethos for a start.One of the key reasons for the Medo-Persians’ success was the way inwhich they utilised their subjects’ talents.65 And Daniel was clearly aman of many talents. He had governed Babylon almost single-handedlyfor a number of years (i.e., throughout Nebuchadnezzar’s times of mad-ness). He knew the lay of the land as well as the Babylonians’ likes anddislikes. He was also of great value insofar as he was a neutral. As a Jew-ish exile, Daniel had no specific loyalty to Babylon, and he had no axeto grind against the Medo-Persians either. In other words, Daniel hadno hidden agenda. Better still, Daniel was not a man who was hungryfor greed or power. Only days before Babylon fell, he had declined theposition of the third-in-command. Who better, then, to oversee Darius’sinterests in Babylon?

This [man] Daniel then began to outshine [the others] (6.3a).Daniel’s excellence as a commander soon becomes evident to Darius.Just as Daniel outshone his peers as a young man in Nebuchadnezzar’sday, so as an old man he continues to do so. He has not lost his touch.Exactly how Daniel’s abilities are made manifest to Darius is not stated.Daniel may have collected more taxes from his satrapies than his peers.He would certainly have been wise to his satraps’ tricks, and he wouldnot have kept back any of the King’s money for himself. Daniel’s ex-cellence may, alternatively, have manifested itself in some other manner.

65. The claims of Cyrus’s Cylinder are no doubt exaggerated, but they may nevertheless reflect the spirit ofMedo-Persia.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 23

Either way, Daniel’s “extraordinary spirit” has a tangible effect on hiswork.

the extraordinary spirit which was in him (6.3a). Darius perceives anextraordinary spirit within Daniel. Here, the word “spirit” seems likelyto refer to the manner in which Daniel goes about his work. Darius isimpressed not merely by Daniel’s results but by the manner in which heachieves them. Darius’s words also seem likely to allude to a deepertruth, especially given the Queen-mother’s description of Daniel in 5.11(“[a man] in whom the Spirit of the Holy God [resides]”). Ultimately,Daniel’s excellence of spirit stems from his relationship to the Most High.It is God’s spirit which sets Daniel apart, and Darius, to his credit, recog-nises it. As such, the words of 6.3a have a ring of plausibility aboutthem. They strike me as exactly the way in which a man like Danielmight choose to describe himself. They are not boastful or overblown;they are a mere statement of fact. And yet, for those with eyes to see,Daniel’s words point us beyond him to the source of his strength andability.

the King lit on [the idea of] causing [Daniel] to stand over the wholekingdom (6.3b). Given Daniel’s brilliance, Darius decides to promotehim to a position of much greater authority, i.e., to make Daniel thesecond-in-command in Babylon. Daniel has achieved great things withhis allocated forty satraps. He may as well, therefore, be allocated all 120of them! We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which Pharaohappointed Joseph “over all the land” of Egypt (Gen. 41.41-42). Daniel’ssuccess as a commander is of great credit to him. He is not only a man ofgreat intellect but of diligence, loyalty, and honesty. He is a man whomDarius is able to trust.

6.4-5: The satraps’ envy

6.4 The commanders and satraps therefore persistently sought to find a basisfor complaint in Daniel’s [discharge of] the kingdom’s [affairs], but theycould find no evidence of corruption, since he was faithful, and neithernegligence nor corruption could be found in connection with him.

24 6.4-5: THE SATRAPS’ ENVY

6.5 Those mighty men therefore said, ‘We will not find any ground forcomplaint concerning Daniel unless we ‘find’ [it] against him in the law ofhis God’.

The commanders and satraps therefore persistently sought to find abasis for complaint (6.4a). The satraps are horrified by Darius’s planto promote Daniel. How the satraps come to hear of it is not disclosed.They may have contacts within the King’s house, or they may have caughtwind of Darius’s plans via some other channel. Either way, a widespreadconspiracy clearly seems to be afoot in Babylon. It is a case of Danielversus the satraps, and, amazingly, Daniel will end up on the winningside!66

Daniel’s unpopularity could have a number of possible causes. Danielis an outsider—a lone Hebrew among a group of men with a commonhistory and ancestry. Daniel is therefore referred to rather pointedly as“one of the exiles from Judah” (6.13). He does not belong in Darius’sgovernment. Jealousy is also likely to be a contributory factor to hisunpopularity. The satraps are no doubt envious of Daniel’s success andfavour with Darius. Daniel’s fellow-commanders have a special cause forconcern, since Daniel’s promotion will entail their redundancy. Daniel’shonesty may in fact have caused problems for his fellow-commanders’ al-ready. “If Daniel is able to collect revenues of such-and-such an amount”,Darius could have asked them, “then why can’t you do likewise?”. To mymind, the most likely explanation of 6.4’s events is as follows. Danielhas stumbled upon a kind of Old Boys’ network in Babylon—a systemof bribery and ‘back-handers’ which has proven highly lucrative for allthose involved. Daniel cannot turn a blind eye to such corruption andhas stamped it out within his designated satrapies. Daniel’s promotiontherefore has the potential to be catastrophic for the Babylonian satraps.With control over all 120 satrapies, Daniel will be able to bring theirnetwork of corruption to a complete end. Daniel must therefore be re-

66. The Persian monarchs are known to have employed a hugely efficient network of spies and informersin order to keep them apprised of affairs in their kingdom (RTSGM V.334). Perhaps, then, the satrapshad their own counter-intelligence. Either way, conflicts between a king’s courtiers were common inMesopotamia, where a man’s livelihood could easily be made or unmade on the basis of his relationshipwith the king (Newsom 2014:193). Such conflicts are partiularly well-documented in Neo-Assyrianletters between scholars-cum-advisers and the king (Parpola 1987).

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 25

moved. He cannot be allowed to become the second-in-command inBabylon.

sought to find a ground for complaint (6.4). 6.4 describes the satraps’initial attempt to block Daniel’s promotion. The satraps subject Daniel toclose scrutiny in order to find evidence of corruption in his secular work.‘Surely’, they say to themselves, ‘Daniel must have his flaws. He is onlyhuman after all!’. But, much to the satraps’ shock and disappointment,Daniel’s conduct is beyond reproach. Daniel is not in fact ‘only human’;he is indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit. Unlike the satraps, Daniel deals fairlyand honestly both with his satraps and with his people—hence Darius’sdecision to promote him.

unless we ‘find’ [it] against him in the law of his God (6.5). Despitesubjecting Daniel’s life to careful and prolonged scrutiny, the satraps areunable to find any flaws or inconsistencies in his conduct (6.4a). Theydo, however, notice one ‘oddity’ in his behaviour. Every morning, noon,and night, Daniel retreats to his room and prays to his God. He is a manof extraordinary devotion, whose religious life is without compromise.The satraps must therefore come up with a new plan of attack. If theycannot ‘find’ any evidence against him as things stand, then they mustmanufacture some.67 They must put Daniel in a position where he mustchoose between obedience to the law of Babylon and the Law of God(6.6-9). A man of his religious convictions will surely, then, disobey hisearthly king.

That the satraps saw Daniel’s religious zeal as his primary failing in lifewas in fact a commendation of the highest order, albeit an unintentionalone. Their scrutiny of Daniel’s behaviour was not (we may assume) acasual affair. The satraps would have followed Daniel around for days.They would have pried into every aspect of his life in search of evidenceof underhand dealings, neglected duties, and so on. Yet they could findabsolutely nothing for which to criticise Daniel. It is really quite a re-markable state of affairs. It is as much of a violation of nature as Daniel’ssurvival in the lions’ pit!

67. See 6.5’s trans. notes.

26 6.6-9: THE TRAP IS SET

Those mighty men (6.5). In 6.4, the men who seek to find fault inDaniel’s conduct are referred to as “the commanders and satraps”. Themen who then seek to take the matter further—i.e., to actively stir uptrouble for Daniel—are introduced as “those mighty men” and are qual-ified in 6.6 by the description “those commanders and satraps”. There-after, Daniel’s accusers are consistently referred to as “those mighty men”(6.11, 6.15, 6.24). I therefore take the term “those mighty men” to repre-sent a particularly malicious and die-hard subset of Darius’s men. Someof Darius’s men seem to have been willing to let Daniel’s promotion go,but not so the mighty men. They have too much to lose. They evidentlyconsist of both of Daniel’s fellow-commanders together with a large num-ber of satraps. For convenience’s sake, I refer to them as “the satraps”.

6.6-9: The trap is set

6.6 So those commanders and satraps descended on the King en masse andspoke to him as follows: ‘O Darius, King! [May you] live for [as long as]the ages [continue]!

6.7 All the kingdom’s commanders—[whether] prefect or satrap, counsellor orgovernor—have jointly decided, O King, to cause a steadfast, royal, andbinding standing-order to stand, [which states] that, for thirty days,anyone who seeks what he [normally] seeks from any god or man exceptyou, O King, will be cast into the lions’ pit.

6.8 You, O King, should now, therefore, cause the binding-edict to stand bysigning a written inscription, so it cannot—as a law of Medo-Persia, whichdoes not pass away—be changed’.

6.9 On [hearing] this, King Darius signed a written inscription of thebinding-edict.

The satraps have decided to turn Daniel’s religion against him. But how,they now wonder, are they to do so? There is no law against prayer,nor is there any law against the worship of the God of Israel. (Thanksto Nebuchadnezzar, Yahwism is an officially recognised religion: 3.29,4.37.) And Daniel’s beliefs are clearly not affecting his work—at leastnot for the worse. The satraps therefore need a new law to be created—alaw which will put Daniel in a no-win situation. In 6.6-9, they thereforeapproach the King and convince him to pass just such a law.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 27

So those commanders and satraps descended on the King en masse(6.6). As is their wont, the satraps descend on the King en masse. Theyintroduce themselves in the customary fashion (“O Darius, King, [mayyou] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!”). They then get straightdown to business. ‘[We] have jointly decided’, they tell him, ‘to estab-lish an edict’. The edict will forbid prayer for a thirty-day period. But,according to the satraps, Darius himself must back the edict in order forit to acquire the status of irrevocability.

The satraps’ advice to the King (6.7-8) consists of three key points: (i)The edict has been endorsed by all of the Kings’ advisors; they simplyneed the King to ‘rubber stamp’ it in order to make it official. (Thesatraps’ claim is, of course, untrue. Daniel has not seconded the edict,nor would he.) (ii) Non-compliance with the edict must be punishedwith death. (iii) The edict must be irrevocable. These points are clearlywell thought-out. The satraps do not want Darius to look into the edicttoo closely, since he may start to notice its problems. He may even con-sult Daniel about it. The satraps therefore stress the commanders’ unan-imous approval of the edict. They also emphasise the need for it to bepunishable by death and irrevocable. They want to make a final end ofDaniel, and they do not want Darius to be able to revoke his edict oncehe realises its awful consequences.

anyone who seeks what he [normally] seeks from any god or manexcept you, O King, will be cast into the lions’ pit (6.7b). As men-tioned in our trans. notes, the satraps’ proposed edict prohibits interces-sory prayer, but it also prohibits other activities. Even to seek guidancefrom a local priest will not be allowed. For the next thirty days, Dar-ius will function as Babylon’s intermediary between heaven and earthand as the people’s sole advisor in matters of religion. Whatever theBabylonians would normally seek from their local priests (in their localtemple), they must now seek from Darius or his appointed representa-tives. All of the land’s requests and offerings must go through him. Menwill therefore need to travel to Babylon in order to worship their godand to offer the necessary sacrifices. We might consider, as an analogy,the way in which Jerusalem functioned in the context of Israel’s worship.

28 6.6-9: THE TRAP IS SET

Darius will thereby come to learn a great deal about his subjects and thecustoms of their gods.

Of course, the satraps’ proposed edict would have been impossible to en-force in normal circumstances. But then Babylon was not in a normalstate in 539 BC. In the lead-up to Medo-Persia’s invasion, Nabonidusgathered all of Babylon’s ‘gods’ (i.e., images) into Babylon’s capitalcity—most likely to protect them from the Medo-Persians. Either way,the land’s temples were left without their chief deities, which plungedthe land in a state of religious limbo. Darius could plausibly, therefore,have established himself as a conduit-cum-substitute for Babylon’s maydeities. What area the edict was meant to cover is not stated. So longas it affected Daniel, the satraps would not have minded.

How the satraps broached the subject of the edict is not disclosed to us.That they waltzed into the King’s presence and proposed the edict of theblue seems unlikely. They are more likely to have framed their decreeas a solution to a potential problem in Babylon. As mentioned above,ch. 6 is set against the backdrop of tense and turbulent times in Baby-lon. As past allies of the Medes, the Babylonians would not have wel-comed Medo-Persia’s rule with open arms—hence the need for Cyrus’spropaganda campaign.68 Darius therefore had numerous social issuesto address. He also had religious issues to consider. In the lead-up tothe events of 539 BC, Nabonidus sought (unsuccessfully) to change theBabylonians’ form of worship and convert them to the worship of a newdeity.69 He thereby aroused the wrath of Marduk’s priests, who werean extremely powerful group of men. He also created a deep rift be-tween Babylon’s religious and civil leaders. As a result, Darius inheriteda deeply divided and embittered kingdom in 539 BC. He also inherited akingdom whose gods were stockpiled in Babylon’s capital city, which hadevidently resulted in chaos. Indeed, in the aftermath of Babylon’s fall,the Medo-Persians were forced to station armed guards outside the city’stemples in order to oversee and safeguard the performance of the temple

68. App. 5C.

69. See “5.1-30: Some background information”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 29

rituals.70 The satraps may well have turned the situation in Babylon totheir advantage. Their edict, they may have argued, would allow Dariusto find out all about his subjects’ concerns and to root out any potentialtroublemakers in the kingdom, i.e., zealots who were unwilling to sub-mit to the authority of their new king. It might even take the people’seyes off their religious differences and focus them on their new leader(Darius). It would therefore be a very shrewd move. Besides, it wouldonly stand for thirty days, so what harm could it do?

Now, therefore, O King, [establish] the binding-edict (6.8). The com-manders’ tone of voice is more forceful than one might expect. It is notthe way a man like Nebuchadnezzar would allow his subjects to addresshim, and may be indicative of Medo-Persia’s twin lines of authority. Wedo not know a great deal about the laws of the Medo-Persians. Some ofthe Medo-Persians’ laws were clearly irrevocable. The Book of Esther al-ludes to the existence of such laws, as do the writings of Diodorus.71 Butit is hard to see how a kingdom could operate a legal system where everylaw ever passed was irrevocable. Medo-Persia’s legal system seems morelikely to have consisted of two separate bodies of laws: i] laws whichcould be revoked, and ii] laws which could not. If so, the Babylonians’aim (as described in 6.8) was to convince Darius to make their edict partof the latter corpus. Their trap had to be foolproof.

a standing-order...a binding-edict...[etc.]. Daniel refers to Darius’sedict in a number of different ways: as a “standing-order”, a “binding-edict”, an “officially-written inscription”, and a “law which cannot passaway”. Daniel thereby piles up words in order to bring out the edict’sfull force. As a “standing-order”, it ‘stands’ in defiance to and opposesGod’s will. As a “binding-edict”, it binds Babylon’s citizens and restrictstheir religious freedoms. It also has great ‘strength’ (6.8). As an “inscrip-tion”, it is set in stone and mimics the divinely-engraved “inscription” onBelshazzar’s wall (5.24-25). As a “law”, it stands in opposition to God’s“law” which is binding on Daniel (6.5). And, as an entity which “can-not pass away”, it makes an illegitimate claim to immortality. Darius’s

70. See App. 5C.

71. Est. 1.19, Bibl. Hist. 17.30.

30 6.6-9: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS

edict is therefore portrayed as an entity of great power and strength. Itis also portray as a law which is hostile to God. As such, it is ch. 6’sAnti-God. Its status as an Anti-God is further confirmed by its claims toimmortality. Throughout the Book of Daniel, God is the one who decideswhen a kingdom has run its course. God causes kings to “pass away”(2.21), God causes men’s glory to “pass away” from them (4.31, 5.20),and God causes his own kingdom to stand forever (2.44-45, 4.3, etc.). Alaw which “cannot pass away” is therefore a law which has oversteppedthe mark. It has ventured into the territory of the Most High. We cancompare Psa. 148’s description of God’s establishment of his Creation:“He has made a decree which will not pass away [welo cyacabôr]” (Psa.148.6 cf. Est. 1.19, 9.27).

On [hearing] this, King Darius signed a written inscription of thebinding-edict (6.9). Foolishly, Darius consents to the Babylonians’ pro-posal. In the context of a chapter which is often quite verbose, the brevityof 6.9’s text reflects the rashness of his decision. 6.8 refers to an irrevo-cable law—a law which, once signed, can never be undone. Yet in 6.9,in a mere seven (Aramaic) words, Darius simply agrees to it. He maysee his decision as unimportant since his edict will only stand for thirtydays. If so, he is terribly mistaken. Indeed, as we assess the events ofch. 6, we must be careful not to underestimate the potential danger ofDarius’s edict. Daniel is not the only godly Jew in Babylon. Many of hispeers are of the same mindset as him. Darius’s edict therefore has thepotential to result in the death of thousands of godly Jews throughoutBabylon. It could decimate the Jewish population and, in the process,extinguish their brightest religious lights. It is a disaster.

6.6-9: Some further thoughts

All the kingdom’s commanders...have jointly decided... (6.7). WhileDarius’s actions in 6.6-9 were rash, the Babylonians’ plan was well-conceived. The ethos of the Medo-Persians was to interfere with theirsubjects as little as possible. So, Darius would not have wanted to im-pose overtly religious duties on Babylon’s people. For a supremo likeNebuchadnezzar to force men to bow before his image was all very well,

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 31

but not for Darius. It was not the Medo-Persian way. The Babylonianstherefore needed to come up with an edict which was: a] not overtlyreligious, b] attractive to Darius, and c] injurious to Daniel. Their pro-posed edict perfectly fitted the bill. It would not have struck Darius asreligiously intolerant, since men were still free to pray to whichever godsthey liked. They simply needed to channel their prayers through Darius.It would also have struck Darius as an attractive edict for the reasonsdiscussed above. Most importantly of all, it would cause serious prob-lems for Daniel. As a newcomer to Babylon, Darius may not have knownmuch about Daniel’s commitment to YHWH, but the Babylonians wouldhave known about it, and would therefore have known what problemsthe edict would cause Daniel. From the Babylonians’ perspective, then,the proposed decree was ideal. It even had the added advantage of caus-ing problems for Darius. Babylon’s priesthood would not welcome theidea of an enforced thirty-day redundancy, and were a powerful groupof men. Of course, Darius was not the Babylonians’ main target. Butif they could distract his attention, then so much the better. Darius wasno more willing than Daniel to turn a blind eye to their corruption, ashe had proven by means of his decision to promote Daniel to second-in-command. The Babylonians’ edict therefore had the potential to removeboth of their problems in one fell swoop. It would turn Darius againstDaniel, and the priests against Darius. It was a masterstroke.

the lions’ pit (6.7). That Darius kept a number of lions in Babylonis entirely plausible. The Assyrian kings are well-known to have keptlions in captivity which they let out for the purposes of hunting.72 And,given the Zoroastrian mindset, the Medo-Persians seem likely to haveseen fire as sacred, so they would not have wanted to use an instrumentlike Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace to execute criminals.73

6.6-9: Its wider context

We have now reflected on the earthly causes of the events of ch. 6 in somedetail, which is well and good. But we also need to reflect on the heav-

72. Jastrow, The Civilization Of Babylonia And Assyria, 1915:[16, 24, etc.]; Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia,1964:46; etc.

73. e.g., Zend Avesta Yasna XVII

32 6.10: DANIEL’S RESPONSE

enly side of things. Consider the situation. It is the 1st year of Darius’sreign, and a war is taking place in heavenly places (10.1-11.1). Priorto the Medo-Persians’ conquest, Satan had a strong grip on Belshazzar.But Darius is a much more God-fearing individual than his predecessor.Satan is therefore in danger of losing his grip on Babylon, which hashistorically been one of his strongholds. The presence of Daniel onlymakes matters worse. Indeed, if Daniel frustrated his fellow-presidents,then he must have frustrated Satan as well, who hates to see men ofrighteousness prosper. Satan has therefore been stirring up the heartsof the Babylonians against Darius and Daniel. He has also sent one ofhis servants—a demonic entity known as the Prince of Persia—to corruptthe rulers of Medo-Persia (10.13, 10.20). At the same time, one of God’sangels has been dispatched to shore up Darius’s position (11.1), and thearchangel Michael has been involved as well (10.13). Even, therefore,as the events of ch. 6 are unfolding on the earth, a battle is in progressin heavenly places. As such, the conflict between Daniel and the Baby-lonians is reflective of—and in fact dependent on—a deeper spiritualconflict. It is an outworking and foreshadow of the rivalry between theworld’s iron and clay kingdoms. As Paul writes, “The flesh lusts againstthe Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these things are opposed, theone to the other” (Gal. 5.17†).

6.10: Daniel’s response

6.10 As for Daniel: once he knew that the written inscription had been signed,he went to his house, where the windows in his roof-chamber had beenleft open for him in the direction of Jerusalem; and, three times each day,he would kneel on his knees and pray and give thanks before his God, justas he had done beforehand.

As for Daniel (6.10a). With the words “as for Daniel”, ch. 6’s narrativeresumes its focus on Daniel. Daniel was absent (by design) from theBabylonians’ conference with the King. He was no doubt engaged in hisduties, as the satraps should have been. But Daniel now takes centre-stage once more. At the same time, ch. 6’s narrative reaches its crunch-point. The satraps’ edict has been signed and the trap has been set.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 33

What, then, will Daniel do? Will he stand up for God or will he crumbleunder the pressure?

he went to his house, where the windows in his roof-chamber hadbeen left open for him (6.10b). As one of the King’s highest officials,Daniel has been allocated one of Babylon’s “roof-chambers”. It is theancient Near East’s equivalent of a luxury penthouse. That Daniel’s testtakes place in a roof-chamber is significant. While the chamber is a pri-vate apartment, its elevation makes it a very public location. Indeed,the visibility of Daniel’s roof-chamber is no doubt what led the satraps toformulate their plan in the first place, since they saw him praying there(6.5, 6.7). As such, Daniel’s four walls are the counterpart to ch. 3’s‘walled plain’. They are where the conflict between the Medo-Persianand the Mosaic law will come to a head. That Daniel’s windows havebeen opened on his behalf further adds to the tension. They may havebeen opened by a servant who has been told to do in anticipation ofDaniel’s daily prayer-time. Or the satraps may have arranged for Daniel’swindows to be open in order to make his actions as publicly visible aspossible. Either way, there will be no doubt as to the focus of Daniel’sprayers. Daniel’s prayers are directed towards Jerusalem as opposedto Darius. The satraps are therefore taunting Daniel, and they will bewatching him closely to see what he does. Many of the Jews in Babylonmay be doing likewise in order to take their cue from him. As such, thestage is set, and all eyes are now on Daniel.

three times each day, he would kneel on his knees and pray andgive thanks before his God, just as he had done beforehand (6.10b).Given the tension of the situation, 6.10b is narrated in rather anti-climactic fashion. Daniel, we are told, simply goes to his house andprays to his God, just as he used to do. In other words, it is business asusual as far as Daniel is concerned. It is as if the edict has never beensigned. Daniel’s actions are not the actions of a martyr or a fanatic ora freedom-fighter, much less a rebel without a cause. Daniel is simply aman of God with a job to do, and he plans to get on with it.

34 6.10: DANIEL’S RESPONSE

his roof-chamber (6.10b). As mentioned previously, Daniel occupiesone of the uppermost rooms in Babylon’s palace since he is one of Baby-lon’s highest-ranking officials.74 As such, Daniel is in a very exposedposition. To make matters worse, Daniel’s windows have been left openin the direction of Jerusalem. The satraps want as many people as pos-sible to witness Daniel’s disobedience to Darius. But God has a purposein the events of ch. 6 as well. Indeed, God will turn the satraps’ plan tohis advantage. He will enable Daniel’s courage and faithfulness to be ob-served by all Babylon, and he will thereby demonstrate his faithfulness todeliver his people. In Daniel’s writings, when men ‘raise themselves up’,it is almost invariably a precursor to their downfall. Nebuchadnezzargoes to his palace-roof prior to his downfall, Antiochus reaches for ‘thestars’, and so on. Daniel, however, is an exception. He does not raisehimself up. Rather, Darius chooses to promote him. Moreover, whenDaniel enters Babylon’s lofty “roof-chamber”, his first action is to get tohis knees and pray. Despite his greatness, he has remembered his roots.Indeed, even with his life is on the line, his prayer involves thanksgiving(6.10).

in the direction of Jerusalem (6.10b). Daniel prays in the directionof Jerusalem. As we will see, his orientation is significant. It alludesto an agreement established between God and Solomon many centuriesbeforehand (see below). It also has a deep symbolic significance. Inthe context of Daniel’s writings, Jerusalem is not just another city; it isthe place where the God of Heaven has chosen to set his name and theepicentre of God’s plans to restore the earth (9.24-27). Daniel’s focuson Jerusalem therefore connects him both to his past as well as to hisfuture. For Daniel to be forbidden to look towards Jerusalem—the objectof every exile’s hopes and dreams—is therefore for him to be deprived ofboth his identity and his hope for the future. Towner puts the point well.“[According to Darius’s decree]” he writes, “one now must no longer turn[one’s] face toward the Holy City but...toward the fading and corruptsplendour of a...king of flesh and blood”.75

74. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which senior executives often occupy the uppermost floorsof office-blocks.

75. Towner 1986:83.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 35

three times each day (6.10b). Daniel’s standard routine is to pray“three times” daily. Psalm 55 alludes to a similar practice. “At evening,morning, and noon”, David tells us, “I utter my complaint...and [theLORD] hears my voice” (Psa. 55.17†). The Book of Acts conveys a sim-ilar impression; it identifies the third, sixth, and ninth hour as significanttimes, often in the context of prayer (Acts 2.1, 2.15, 3.1, 10.9). Daniel’sthree times of prayer are therefore likely to correspond to 9am, midday,and 3pm.

6.10: Some further thoughts on Daniel’s actions

he would kneel on his knees and pray and give thanks before hisGod (6.10b). At first blush, Daniel’s refusal to compromise his prayer-life might strike us as odd, or even stubborn. But Daniel really had noalternative. It would have been pointless for him to ask Darius to revokethe edict since the edict was by definition irrevocable. And to complywith the edict was clearly not an option. God alone has the ability tohear and answer men’s prayers (e.g., Psa. 42.8, 61.1, 65.2, 66.20, 69.13,80.4, etc.), so for Daniel to direct his prayers towards Darius would beunacceptable. To abstain from prayer for thirty days would be little bet-ter. Prayer was not a luxury for Daniel. It was a fundamental part ofwho he was. Since Daniel’s needs were daily needs, he had to pray ona daily basis (Matt. 6.8-13). Besides, Daniel’s failure to pray would notonly affect him; it would also affect his fellow-believers since he wouldbe rendered unable to uphold them in prayer. (We might consider, byway of analogy, Samuel’s exclamation to the Israelites, “Far be it fromme that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you!” (1Sam. 12.23).76 Consider also the thoughts set out in “6.10-13: Somethoughts on Daniel’s prayer” below.) Only one alternative therefore re-mained, namely for Daniel to close his windows and pray in secret. But,while that option may have seemed attractive at first, it was deeply in-appropriate for a number of reasons.

76. Furthermore, by the time Daniel found out about the satraps’ edict, it was already in force (6.10). Strictlyspeaking, then, even to seek God’s guidance as to what to do would be a breach of the edict.

36 6.10: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON DANIEL’S ACTIONS

First, it would send out mixed messages. Either the King’s edict was areasonable one or it was not. If it was, then it deserved to be obeyed.If it wasn’t, then it deserved to be disobeyed. Either way, then, it wouldnot make sense for Daniel to disobey the edict behind closed doors. TheKing’s edict affected every citizen of Babylon. As such, it needed to beobeyed publicly or disobeyed publicly. Second, to resort to secret prayerwould lower Daniel’s behaviour to the level of the satraps. The reasonwhy the satraps turned against Daniel in the first place was because ofDaniel’s refusal to turn a blind eye to their underhand conduct. How,then, could Daniel pray to his God in an underhand manner? It wouldbe hypocrisy of the worst kind. It would hand the satraps a clear moralvictory. Third, to resort to private prayer would be a poor testimony. TheBabylonians clearly expected their plan to succeed, so they must haveexpected Daniel to maintain his daily prayer-life. The Jewish peopleno doubt shared their expectations. To pray in private would thereforesend out an awful message. Its implication would be clear: while man’srelationship with God is valuable, it is not worth paying the ultimateprice for. Fourth, Daniel would not be able to keep his prayer-life asecret for the entire duration of the edict anyway. The satraps were notfools. If Daniel continued to pray in private, then they would catch himsooner or later. They only needed to ask him whether he still directedhis prayers towards Jerusalem. He would not lie to them.

On balance, then, Daniel had little option but to continue to pray. Likehis three friends, his key desire in life was to glorify God. He thereforehad to stick to his guns and leave the rest to God. If God wanted to spareDaniel from the lions’ pit, then he was perfectly able to do so. If not, thattoo was God’s divine prerogative. Either way, the satraps could be sure ofone thing: on no account would Daniel betray his Lord. Daniel’s mindsetwas therefore exactly the same as that of his three friends, Shadrach,Meshach, and Abed-Nego. Indeed, as he got to his knees in prayer, hemay even have made their immortal words (recorded in 3.17-18) hisown, saying, “Lord, if it is your will to deliver me, then you are able todo so, but, if not, then may all Babylon know, I will not pray to any otherGod except you!”. By life or by death, Daniel would testify to God’s glory.He would at the same time send out a powerful message to his people.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 37

Some things in life could not be compromised, and their duty to God wasone of them. Their God was worth living for and worth dying for (Psa.63.3).

6.11-13: The trap is sprung

6.11 Then, those mighty men descended en masse and found Daniel, seeking[help] and grace from before his God.

6.12 At that point, they came before the King and spoke [to him] about thebinding royal edict, [saying], ‘Did you not sign an inscription of thebinding-edict—[one which states] that, for thirty days, any man who seeks[help] from any god or man except you, O King, must be cast into thelions’ pit?’. ‘[I did]’, the King replied, ‘[and] as a Medo-Persian law, whichcannot pass away, the [edict] is certain’.

6.13 They therefore declared before the King, ‘Daniel, who is one of the sons ofthe Revealed of Judah, has set no store on you, O King, nor on thebinding-edict which you have inscribed, but instead, three times each day,continues to seek what he [normally] seeks’.

Then, those mighty men descended en masse (6.11). In the midst ofone of Daniel’s times of prayer, the satraps rush into Daniel’s chamberand catch him ‘in the act’. Daniel’s prayer-life is like clockwork. It couldhardly, therefore, have been easier for the satraps to catch him. Theysimply needed to pick their time: morning, noon, or evening. Daniel’sprayers are said to involve both ‘prayer’ and ‘thanksgiving’ (6.10). Butthe text of 6.11 hints at a change of emphasis. At the time of the satraps’arrival, Daniel is “seeking [help] and grace from before his God”. Hetherefore seems to be particularly conscious of his need of God’s assis-tance, as well he might be. 6.11’s turn of phrase (“seeking...from be-fore...God”) also brings to mind the events of 2.18. There, Daniel andhis friends are gathered in their house while the wise men topple aroundthem, and they “seek mercy from before the God of Heaven” as a result(2.18). Here in 6.11, Daniel’s friends are absent, but the situation is oth-erwise very similar. Daniel is within his house, while the threat of deathhangs over his head, and he ‘seeks grace from before his God’ as a result.Many people would see Daniel as a man who deserved to be deliveredfrom the satraps’ plot. But Daniel does not view himself in such terms.

38 6.11-13: THE TRAP IS SPRUNG

As far as Daniel is concerned, he is simply a man in need of God’s “grace”,just like the rest of the world’s population (6.11).

According to the text of 6.10 and 6.13, Daniel disobeys the King’s edict“three times a day”. The satraps cannot, therefore, have arrested Danielat the first available opportunity. They must have allowed Daniel tocontinue in prayer for at least a few days first. The reason for the satraps’hesitation is not clear to me. Perhaps they want to give Daniel ropewith which to hang himself, so they can go to the King and say, ‘Danieldisobeys your edict on a daily basis!’. Or perhaps the satraps have begunto harbour last-minute reservations about the whole affair. ‘Do we reallywant to go through with our plan?’, they might have asked themselves.‘Do we want the blood of an entirely innocent man on our hands, not tomention the wrath of the King?’. Perhaps, then, the satraps’ consciencesare not yet entirely dead. Either way, the end result is the same. Thesatraps are greedy and corrupt men, driven by envy, hatred, and thepower of the Accuser.77 To their mind, there is no alternative. Danielmust be disposed of.

O King! Did you not sign an inscription of the binding-edict? (6.12).The satraps now approach the King in order to inform him of Daniel’stransgression. ‘Didn’t you recently issue a certain edict, O King?’, theyinnocently ask, as if their enquiry is merely a conversation-starter. ‘I didindeed’, replies Darius. ‘I even granted it the status of an irrevocablelaw’. The satraps must have smiled inwardly when they heard Darius’sreply. They have the King exactly where they want him. The time hastherefore come from them to tell the King about Daniel’s transgression.‘Yet Daniel’, they then announce, barely able to contain their excitement,‘has paid no attention to you, O King, nor to your edict. Indeed, he con-tinues to seek help from his God three times every day!’. The satraps’slander of Daniel is highly reminiscent of the Chaldeans’ slander of thethree Hebrews’ in ch. 3. Just as the Chaldeans’ portrayed the Hebrews asrebels and dissidents, so the satraps portray Daniel in the worst possiblelight. They describe Daniel’s prayer-life, not as an expression of religious

77. In both Heb. and Aram., the vb. which underlies the name Satan means ‘to accuse’ or ‘to be hostiletowards’.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 39

affection, but as a personal snub to the King. Their claims also resemblethe Chaldeans’ insofar as they contain distinctly anti-Semitic undertones(3.12, 6.13). They even utilise some of the same Aramaic phrases.78

Daniel must therefore be sentenced to death. He has not transgressedthe King’s edict in a careless way. He has done so in a cold and premed-itated manner, and he has done so three times every day. As such, he isguilty beyond question.

In Daniel’s Aram. narratives, items of speech are (almost) invariably in-troduced by a pair of verbs, namely, answered[QNY] and said[PMR].79 Wecontinually encounter phrases such as “the King answered and said...”,and “the wise men answered and said...”, and so on. The sense of the vb.answer[QNY] is fairly loose. It simply serves to connect an item of speechto what precedes it—sometimes causally, sometimes otherwise. But, inthe case of three particular types of speech, the verb “answered” is ab-sent: i] when Daniel asks Arioch to quickly bring him before the King,and when Arioch then does so (2.24-25), ii] when kings issue commands(e.g., 2.12, etc.), and iii] here in ch. 6, when the “mighty men” formu-late their plot against Daniel and pressgang Darius into passing theirproposed edict (6.5, 6.6, 6.12, 6.15). The absence of the verb “answer”before these items of speech portrays them as the beginning of chains ofevents set in motion by the relevant speakers. They are not ‘responses’as such. They are unprovoked statements made on their speakers’ ownauthority. The absence of the word “answered” in 6.6, 6.12, and 6.15is therefore highly significant. In the events of ch. 6, the satraps do notact in response to the King’s commands, nor do they protect his best in-terests. They have their own particular agenda to pursue, and they arehellbent on its realisation. They are men on the offensive.

6.10-13: Some thoughts on Daniel’s prayer

When Daniel prays in ch. 6, his windows are open in the direction ofJerusalem. Daniel’s actions therefore seem to allude to a prayer which

78. See “5.31-6.26: Its main message”.

79. See App. 0.

40 6.10-13: SOME THOUGHTS ON DANIEL’S PRAYER

Solomon made many years before hand (which the LORD answered withfire) when he dedicated Jerusalem’s temple, saying,

O LORD my God, ...[let] your eyes...be open day and night to-wards this house! ...And listen to the pleas of your servant andof your people Israel, when they pray towards this place! Ifthey sin against you (for there is no one who does not sin), andyou are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so thatthey are carried away captive to a land far or near,...[then]if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart inthe land of their captivity to which they were carried cap-tive, and pray towards their land which you gave to their fa-thers—[towards] the City that you have chosen and the housethat I have built for your name—, then hear from Heaven yourdwelling place their prayer and their pleas, and maintain theircause and forgive your people who have sinned against you.

(2 Chr. 6.19-39)

The situation in which Daniel and his fellow-exiles find themselves inch. 6 shares a number of similarities with the scenario described inSolomon’s prayer: i] the Jews have “sinned” against God, ii] the Jewshave aroused God’s “anger”, iii] the Jews have been “given [over]” totheir enemies, and iv] the Jews have been “carried away captive” (2 Chr.6.19-39). As Daniel looks towards the city of Jerusalem and confesseshis people’s sins, he must therefore have in mind the agreement betweenGod and Solomon, as is reflected by his posture (like Solomon, he prayson his kness: 1 Kgs. 8.54). The prayer recorded in 9.4b-19 may even bea concrete example of the daily prayers Daniel maintains in ch. 6. Eitherway, Daniel is unlikely to be alone in his intercessory activities. Prayerswould have been ascending to heaven from all over Babylon as otherJews petitioned God on their people’s behalf. The thought of Jerusalemwas indelibly etched on the Jews’ hearts and minds. Jerusalem was theplace of God’s presence; it was where they belonged—the place theyhad vowed never to forget, saying, “If I forget you, O Jerusalem,...let mytongue stick to the roof of my mouth” (Psa. 137). That Daniel refused toabandon his daily prayers is therefore quite understandable. His prayersconcerned far more than his own personal piety. He was praying on be-

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 41

half an entire nation, and others all over Babylon would no doubt belooking to him for an example to follow. Daniel was therefore the leaderof an entire team of intercessors.

6.14-15: The King seeks to deliver Daniel

6.14 When the King heard [about] the matter, he was extremely grieved, and heset [his] mind to deliver Daniel; indeed, he strove ceaselessly to rescue himuntil the sun went down.

6.15 At that point, those mighty men descended on the King en masse and saidto the King, ‘Know, O King, that [it is] a law of the Medes and the Persiansthat no binding-edict or standing-order which the King causes to stand canbe changed’.

the King...was extremely grieved (6.14). On hearing of Daniel’s ac-tions, Darius is horrified. He has become very fond of Daniel as the twoof them have worked together, just as Nebuchadnezzar did before him.And not without good reason. Daniel has been a loyal servant, as wellas a faithful friend. Indeed, judging by the behaviour of the satraps andthe leak of Darius’s plan to promote Daniel, Daniel may well have beenDarius’s only friend among Babylon’s ranks. Darius is therefore appalledat the thought of sentencing Daniel to death. He immediately dismissesthe satraps, summons his legal advisers (we may assume), and sets abouttrying to pardon Daniel. Daniel, it seems, must be thrown to the lions atsundown unless the King can find a way to pardon him (6.14-15). But,as the hours tick away, Darius comes no closer to a solution to his prob-lem. His edict is like a runaway train. It has a power and momentumbeyond even the King’s ability to control. Indeed, it has been drafted(by the satraps) with the express intention of making it so. Darius’s taskis therefore hopeless. While Nebuchadnezzar’s edict in ch. 2 is madestrong by sheer force of will (the King is unwilling to revoke it: 2.5-6),Darius’s acquires its power from Medo-Persia’s legal system. As a result,Darius himself is bound by it.

At that point, those mighty men descended on the King en masse(6.15a). As the night draws in, the Babylonians return to tell Dariuswhat he by now knows only too well: he cannot undo his edict; time

42 6.16-17: DANIEL IS THROWN TO THE LIONS

has run out; and Daniel must, therefore, be thrown to the lions. Thesatraps’ return in 6.15 has decidedly sinister and forceful undertones,as is reflected in their transition from an interrogative (“Did you notsign...an edict...?”) to an imperative (“Know, therefore,...[it is] a law...”).As is their wont, the satraps approach the King en masse—a namelessand shadowy entity, who crowd in on their prey like predators. As thedaylight fades (and Daniel’s hopes with it), the satraps then utter thosefateful words, “no binding-edict...which the King causes to stand can bechanged”—a fact Darius has only recently acknowledged (6.12). Thesatraps’ words have the ring of inevitability, doom, glee, and victory. Itis as if they have come to gloat over their prey. (The lions in Darius’spit are not the only predators at large in ch. 6’s narrative.) The maliceof the satraps’ actions is, of course, not of merely human origin. Theultimate ‘mover’ behind the attack on Daniel is not the satraps but Sa-tan—the eternal accuser of God’s people, the one who “prowls aroundlike a roaring lion, looking for [a] victim to devour” (10.13, NLT 1 Pet.5.8). In recent times, Satan has been able to establish a firm grip onBabylon. Belshazzar was like putty in his hand, but Darius was a differ-ent prospect, and Daniel was a notable thorn in Satan’s side. Satan now,therefore, wants to re-establish his dominance over Babylon, while God’sangels want to prevent him (11.1).

6.16-17: Daniel is thrown to the lions

6.16 So the King gave the command, and Daniel was brought in and cast intothe lions’ pit, even as the King declared to Daniel, ‘Your God himself, whomyou continually serve, must [now] deliver you’.

6.17 And a single stone was brought and set over the mouth of the pit, and theKing sealed it with his signet as well as with the signet of his great ones, sothat Daniel’s situation could not be changed.

So the King gave the command, and Daniel was brought in (6.16). Inthe end, Darius has no choice but to sentence Daniel to death. The textalludes to an air of resignedness on Darius’s behalf. (“So the King gavethe command...”.) Daniel is then marched away to his death. Dariusseems to accompany Daniel to the mouth of the pit, since he calls outafter him, “Your God himself, whom you continually serve, must [now]

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 43

deliver you!”. Exactly how lion pits were constructed in the ancient NearEast is not known to us. Some lion pits, however, have been uncoveredin north Africa.80 The pits in question are, in essence, large, rectangular,underground caverns. They are open at the top—which allows observersto peer down into them from behind a stone parapet—, and they aredivided in two by a partition-wall. Their partition-wall contains a doorwhich is opened and closed from above. Keepers are thereby able to gainaccess to one side of the pit at a time. They throw food into one side ofthe pit, wait for the lions gather around it, and then shut the partition-door behind them. Darius’s pit may have been of a similar construction.If so, the lions would have been lured onto one side of the pit, and thedoor would have been closed behind them. Daniel would then havebeen thrown into the other side. There, he would be safe until the doorin the partition-wall was re-opened. In the meantime, Darius would beable to commune with Daniel from above the pit. Once Darius left, thepartition-door would be re-opened, at which point the fun and gamescould begin.

Your God himself, whom you continually serve, must [now] deliveryou (6.16b). Darius’s words could be translated as above, or as anexpression of desire (‘May your God deliver you!’: ESV, NIV),81 or as astatement of faith (‘Your God will deliver you!’: KJV, NASB). My owntranslation seeks to accommodate all of these possibilities. As they aretranslated above, Darius’s words could express a far-fetched hope, akinto a wish, but they could also reflect a genuine faith. Either way, theymake one thing very clear: Daniel is beyond Darius’s abilities to help.If Daniel is to be delivered, then God must be his deliverer. Darius’swords are also a far cry from Nebuchadnezzar’s boast to the Hebrews(“which god is there who [can] deliver you from my hands?”.) WhereasNebuchadnezzar defied God to deliver the Hebrews, Darius genuinelylongs for Daniel’s deliverance. How much Darius knows about Daniel’spast is not clear. When he first acquired the kingdom of Babylon, hewould have wanted to find out exactly what kind of men were at hisdisposal. Darius must therefore have consulted Daniel’s ‘dossier’ (if such

80. KDBCOTOT Dan. 6.XXX.

81. though see our trans. notes

44 6.16-17: DANIEL IS THROWN TO THE LIONS

a thing existed) or consulted the palace-staff about him. If so, Dariuswould have found out all about the mysterious events which surroundedDaniel’s past. Indeed, Daniel had been associated with a number of re-markable goings-on in Babylon: the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’sdreams, the deliverance of his friends from the furnace, the hand of Godwriting on the palace wall, and perhaps more besides (5.11-12). Dariusmay, therefore, have begun to develop a genuine faith in Daniel’s God.“Perhaps”, he may have thought, “the tales of deliverance attributed toDaniel’s God are true. And perhaps God will see the injustice of Daniel’spresent predicament and deliver him”. If anyone deserved such treat-ment, it was Daniel. God could not have too many servants like him.

a single stone was...set over the mouth of the pit, and the King sealedit (6.17). A stone is now pushed over the mouth of the pit, at whichpoint Darius and his high-officials “seal” it in place with their signets.The stone could have been sealed in place in a number of ways. Forinstance, the joint between the stone and the pit’s mouth could havebeen covered with moist clay over which signets could be rolled. Or thestone could have been held in place with clay-set chains. Or some othermechanism could have been employed. What is clear is the significanceof the seal. Daniel has been cast to the lions on the King’s authority, andno-one is now able to interfere with the King’s decision. The applicationof the “seal” was probably standard practice in Babylon. But for Dariusto be forced to apply it would have been a grievous experience. Dariushas been tricked and manipulated by his satraps, and he is now about tobe made to give his ‘seal of approval’ to an act which he wants absolutelynothing to do with. He despises the situation in which he has foundhimself, but he can do very little about it as things stand. The law is thelaw after all. Not even he, the King, has the power to overturn it.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 45

6.18-22: The satraps’ plot is foiled

6.18 The King then went to his palace, where he spent the night fasting, and didnot have the usual entertainment brought in before him, and his sleepdeparted from him.

6.19 Then, at dawn, rising [along] with the first light, the King went hurriedlyto the lions’ pit.

6.20 As he drew near to the pit, the King called out to Daniel in a pained voice.‘O Daniel, servant of the living God!’, the King declared to Daniel, ‘Has yourGod, whom you continually serve, been able to rescue you from the lions?’.

6.21 Daniel then proclaimed to the King, ‘O King! [May you] live for [as longas] the ages [continue]!

6.22 My God has sent his angel and shut the mouth of the lions, and they havenot harmed me, for, before him, innocency was found in me, and evenbefore you, O King, I have done no wrong.

The King then went to his palace, where he spent the night fasting(6.18). With the business at the pit concluded, Darius returns to hispalace, an angry and troubled man. There, Darius has all the luxuriesof Babylon at his disposal, but he is nevertheless ill at ease. He has nodesire for food or entertainment, and he is unable to sleep. He has along night ahead of him. Darius’s agitation is perfectly understandable.As mentioned previously, Darius greatly respects and values Daniel. Inthe ancient Near East, kings could not afford to have too many friends,much less close ones. But, in Daniel, Darius has found a man whom hecan implicitly rely upon, just as Nebuchadnezzar had done. As a result,a close trust and friendship has developed between Darius and Daniel,which explains Darius’s decision to promote him. Suffice it to say, then,Darius is distraught at the thought of losing Daniel. But Darius is notmerely distraught; he is also angry. He is no fool. He knows he hasbeen played. He is therefore furious at his satraps for deceiving him,and furious with himself for falling for their tricks. He should neverhave signed the satraps’ edict without first consulting Daniel. But theedict had seemed harmless enough at the time, and he never thought hewould need to enforce it anyway. Above all these things, Darius is rackedwith guilt. He has sentenced an innocent man to death. He thereforehas blood on his hands. And not just any man’s blood but the blood of a

46 6.18-22: THE SATRAPS’ PLOT IS FOILED

loyal servant of YHWH. Only recently, Darius’s predecessor (Belshazzar)mistreated YHWH’s temple-vessels and was brought to justice that verynight. How much more harshly would YHWH deal with him, Belshazzar’ssuccessor, for sentencing a man like Daniel to death? It is a thoughtwhich terrifies Darius.

As I have studied the text of ch. 6, I have been reminded of Jesus’ trialbefore Pilate (expanded on later) and the way its many nuances unfold.Like Jesus, Daniel has been charged with insurrection by a group of cor-rupt men—men consumed with envy and hellbent on his destruction.And, like Pilate, Darius has found himself backed into a corner and em-broiled in a legal affair beyond his ability to control. The more he hasfound out about it, the less he has liked it. Ch. 6 is therefore a powerfulillustration of the transition from gold to silver depicted in the Colossus.In theory, Darius is in charge of the events of ch. 6, but, in practice, hishands are tied. The satraps are in full control of the situation. As such,Darius’s ‘sovereignty’ is a far cry from Nebuchadnezzar’s, who would nothave tolerated the satraps behaviour for a moment. He would have re-voked the thirty-day injunction and dismembered the satraps withoutany hesitation at all.

Then, at dawn,...the King went hurriedly to the lions’ pit (6.19). TheKing now hurries to the lions’ pit to see what has become of his friend,Daniel. What Darius did to pass the night is not revealed to us. When Ar-taxerxes was unable to sleep, he requested the Chronicles of Medo-Persiato be read to him. In the process, he learnt about Mordecai’s exploits(Est. 6.1). Perhaps, then, Darius did likewise and learnt about Daniel’sexploits. If so, his decision to hurry to the lions’ pit would make goodsense. If Daniel’s God could deliver Daniel’s friends from the furnace,then it would certainly be no problem for God to deliver Daniel fromthe lions’ pit. Darius may even have spent time in prayer to Daniel’sGod. Either way, at the break of dawn, Darius hurries to the pit—an actwhich his servants must have viewed with great surprise and concern.From the pit’s open mouth, Darius calls down into the depths of the pitin an anguished voice. “O Daniel”, he cries out, “Has your God...beenable to rescue you from the lions?”. Darius’s actions presuppose at least

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 47

some degree of faith. Humanly speaking, his behaviour borders on theirrational. People do not survive a night in the lion’s pit, which is whythey are thrown in there in the first place. Darius therefore seems toexpect—or at least think it possible for—a miracle to have occurred. Assuch, his reference to Daniel as a servant of “the living God” seems to besignificant. In Scripture, the epithet “the living God” is employed to dis-tinguish the true God (of Israel) from the lifeless gods of the nations, i.e.,the so-called gods of “gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone”.82

Darius sees Daniel’s God as a very different entity from the gods of thenations. He sees him as a God of genuine power and authority—a Godwho can do what others cannot do and whose servants behave differentlyfrom most.

O King! [May you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! (6.21).In response to his call, Darius hears a familiar voice floating up from thedepths of the pit—a voice Darius thought he would never hear again! “OKing, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!”, it calls out.The voice, of course, is Daniel’s. Daniel has survived the night in thepit. In the context of ch. 6’s narrative, 6.21 therefore describes a verydramatic moment. Darius must have been in a delicate state anyway.He has not slept, and he is racked with guilt. On hearing Daniel’s voice,Darius must therefore have been completely overwhelmed. His old friendis evidently alive and well, and Darius has been spared from a terriblecrime. Joy and relief therefore course through his veins. God has notonly spared Daniel from a terrible fate; he has spared the King too!

My God has sent his angel and shut the mouth of the lions (6.22).Daniel is customarily quick to give glory to God. According to Daniel,just as God dispatched an angel to protect his friends in the furnace, soGod dispatched an angel to protect him. In both cases, the world’s ‘nat-ural laws’ were temporarily suspended. The flames lacked their naturaldestructive power, and the lions lacked their natural aggression. As such,the Book of Daniel’s final narrative parallels its opening narrative. In ch.1, Daniel refuses to eat the food he is served, while, in ch. 6, the lionsrefuse to eat the food they are served.

82. 5.4, 5.23, Josh. 3.10, 1 Sam. 17.26, 1 Cor. 8.4-5, etc.

48 6.14-22: SOME FURTHERS THOUGHT

before [God], innocency was found in me, and even before you, OKing, I have done no wrong (6.22). The reason why God has chosento deliver Daniel is simple. Daniel’s conduct in ch. 6 has been entirelyblameless. Daniel has not wronged God in any way, and he has notwronged Darius either. True—he has transgressed Darius’s edict. But hehas not done so in a spirit of insubordination or malice. Indeed, Darius’sedict only came about in the first place because of Daniel’s loyalty to theKing (6.2-5). In terms of its tone, Daniel’s statement is not ‘impolite’,but it is certainly very direct, and justifiably so. Daniel has served theKing with integrity and loyalty, in light of which he has been ‘rewarded’shamefully. A man in his late seventies, with a long and distinguishedcareer behind him, thrown to the lions? It is an appalling way for anyoneto have been treated, as Daniel now takes the opportunity to make clear.Some kings may have bristled at Daniel’s bluntness, but Darius is a morebeneficent ruler than most. He is also overjoyed to hear Daniel’s voice.He would probably have let Daniel get away with anything!

innocency[zaqû] was found in me (6.22). zaqû has the sense ‘to bemorally pure’ or ‘clean’ or ‘transparent’.83 Its Heb. cognates84 are par-ticularly prevalent in the Book of Job,85 which seems appropriate to thecontext of ch. 6. Job was persecuted not for his misdeeds, but for hisrighteousness, and he was maligned quite unjustly, just as Daniel hasbeen in ch. 6.

6.14-22: Some furthers thought

The focus of 6.14-22’s is both interesting and instructive. Contrary towhat we might expect, it makes absolutely no comment about Daniel’sstate of mind or night in the lions’ pit. It instead devotes its attention toDarius’s frustrations, i.e., his failed attempt to pardon Daniel, his trou-bled night’s sleep, and so on. The reason, I suspect, for 6.14-22’s focusis as follows. As incredible as it may seem, Daniel had a much morecomfortable night’s sleep in the lions’ pit than Darius did in the luxury

83. CAL «ZQQ» 2015:vb., Heb. «ZQY».

84. zaqâh (vb.), zaqaq (vb.), zaq (n.), zeqûqît (n.)

85. Job 8.6, 9.30, 11.4, 15.15, 16.17, 25.5, 28.17, 33.9.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 49

of his palace. Of course, Daniel must have felt extremely pressurisedas he decided how to respond to Darius’s edict. But, once he made hisdecision, he would have felt at peace, both with himself and with God.Darius, however, was in a very different position. While Darius was atpeace with himself, Darius was furious with himself; while Daniel’s con-science was clear, Darius’s was racked with guilt; and while Daniel wasat peace with God, Darius was terrified at the thought of what Daniel’sGod might do to him. As a result, while Daniel slept soundly amidst thelions, Darius tossed and turned amidst the luxuries of his palace. A nightwhich would under normal circumstances have been Daniel’s last turnedout to be one of the best of his life. He spent an entire night in the pres-ence of one of God’s own angels (6.22). It must have been an incredibleexperience. It also provides us with a miniature of God’s restored Cre-ation. The world’s lions behaved exactly as they did prior to man’s falland as they will again in a day to come. We might consider, by way ofanalogy, Isaiah’s vision of the coming kingdom: “The wolf shall dwellwith the lamb,...and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together,and a little child shall lead them” (Isa. 11.6).

6.23-24: The satraps’ plot backfires

6.23 The King was, therefore, overjoyed and immediately gave the commandfor Daniel to be lifted out of the pit. So Daniel was lifted out of the pit, andno harm of any kind was found on him, for he had put his faith in his God.

6.24 The King then gave the command, and those mighty men, who had rippedDaniel to shreds, were brought in and were cast into the lions’ pit—them,their children, and their wives—, and they had not [even] come to thebottom of the pit when the lions [gained] the rule over them and broke alltheir bones in pieces.

The King was, therefore, overjoyed and immediately gave the com-mand (6.23a). As soon as Darius hears Daniel’s voice, he orders hismen to lift Daniel out of the pit. The order was necessary for practicalreasons. The pit would have been built in such a way as to make climb-ing out of it impossible. But, in the context of ch. 6, Daniel’s ascensionfrom the pit has great symbolic import. It symbolises Daniel’s reinstate-ment to Darius’s staff and his vindication over his enemies. The pictureis made even more poignant in 6.24, when the satraps are cast into the

50 6.23-24: THE SATRAPS’ PLOT BACKFIRES

pit in Daniel’s place. We might consider, by way of analogy, the words ofPsalm 40:

I waited patiently for the LORD,and he inclined to me and heard my cry.

He drew me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry bog,and set my feet upon a rock...

I have not hidden your deliverance within my heart.I have concealed neither your steadfast love

nor your faithfulness from the great congregation...Let those who seek to snatch away my life be put to shame

and disappointed altogether;Let those who delight in my hurt be turned back

and brought to dishonour.Let those who love your salvation say continually,

‘Great is the LORD!’.”(Psa. 40)

So Daniel was lifted out of the pit (6.23b). Once he has been liftedfrom the pit, Daniel is (presumably) instated as Babylon’s second-in-command, i.e., the position originally earmarked for him. In an instant,he moves from Babylon’s pit to Babylon’s palace—from dwelling amonganimals to dwelling among princes. It is a rags-to-riches experience ofJoseph-like proportions (Gen. 41.14, 41.41). In human terms, Darius isthe agent of Daniel’s vindication, but ultimately the driving force behindthe event is the hand of God. As believers, we have a God who delights“raise up the poor from the dust”, to “lift the needy from the ash heap”,and to “make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honour” (1 Sam.2.9).

and no harm of any kind was found on him, since he had put his faithin his God (6.23b). The text of 6.23b emphasises two important detailsabout Daniel’s deliverance. First, its completeness. Daniel emerges fromthe pit not just in one piece but entirely unscathed. Just as there was noevidence of the Hebrews’ ordeal in the furnace, so there is no evidence ofDaniel’s ordeal in the pit. Not even a scratch or an item of torn clothing

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 51

can be found on him. The second detail brought out in 6.23b is the rea-son for Daniel’s deliverance. Daniel has been delivered from the lion’spit for a simple reason, namely because of his “faith” in God. When dis-aster struck, Daniel did not abandon his daily prayers. He continued toseek God in prayer, and he trusted God to bring glory out of his obedi-ence. And, in return, God did not abandon Daniel. On the contrary, heglorified Daniel. Just as God used Nebuchadnezzar’s ungodly ceremonyto glorify his name before the men of Babylon many years ago, so Godused Darius’s ungodly injunction for precisely the same purpose.

The word harm[H. BL] (and its derivatives) are significant in Daniel’s writ-ings. While men seek to raise themselves up—and, in the process, toharm God’s people—, God remains in complete control. By God’s grace,no “harm” afflicts the three Hebrews, and no “harm” affects Daniel oreven Darius (3.25, 6.22, 6.23). And God’s kingdom itself will never suf-fer “harm” (2.44, 6.26, 7.14). God is able to protect his possessions fromharm. He is also able to inflict “harm” on man’s kingdoms as and whenhe chooses to do so, hence the Watcher’s word of command: “Cut downthe tree and inflict harm on it!” (4.23).

those mighty men, who had ripped Daniel to shreds, were broughtin and were cast into the lions’ pit (6.24a). Darius clearly sees Daniel’sdeliverance as his cue to ‘repay’ the satraps for their deeds. He immedi-ately orders his men to cast Daniel’s accusers into the lions’ pit in Daniel’splace (6.24a). The satraps’ plan thereby backfires on them in the mostdramatic way imaginable, as they reap exactly what they have sown. Assuch, ch. 6 is an illustration of what we might call ‘poetic justice’. Theirony of the situation is underscored by Daniel’s description of the satrapsas “[the] men who...ripped Daniel to shreds”. Just as the satraps rippedDaniel to shreds (lit., ‘ate his pieces’), so the satraps will now be rippedto shred by Darius’s lions. The same principle is evident in many otherScriptures, such as, “Those who dig a deep pit to trap others fall into itthemselves” (Psa. 7.15†), “[Such] men lie in wait for their own blood;they set an ambush for their own lives. Such are the ways of every-one who is greedy for unjust gain” (Prov. 1.18-19), “Do not be deceived:God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal.


6.7), etc. Two Psalms in particular seem very apposite to ch. 6’s overallnarrative when put on the lips of Daniel:

I am surrounded by fierce lions, [O God],who greedily devour human prey,whose teeth pierce like spears and arrows,and whose tongues cut like swords.Be exalted, O God, above the highest heavens!My enemies have set a trap for me...They have dug a deep pit in my path,but they themselves have fallen into it.

(Psa. 57.4-6 NLT)

You, [O Most High], have maintained my just cause...You have made the wicked perish;You have blotted out their name forever and ever...You, O LORD, do not forsake those who seek you,......[You] lift me up from the gates of death...The nations have sunk in the pit they made;in the net they hid, their own foot has been caught.The LORD has made himself known; he has executed judgment.

(Psa. 9.3-16†)

Of course, Darius’s worldview was not (explicitly) derived from Biblicalprinciples. But the law-courts of Babylon were certainly familiar withthe principle of ‘like for like’ (lex talionis),86 and the Persians seem tohave deemed it appropriate for men to be judged by means of their owndevices. We might consider, for instance, Ahasuerus’s decision to hangHaman on the gallows he personally erected (Est. 7.9-10).87 Darius’sdecision is, therefore, quite understandable.

they had not [even] come to the bottom of the pit when the lions[gained] the rule over them (6.24b). 6.24b describes the satraps’ judg-ment is described in severe and complete terms. As soon as they are cast

86. Jastrow 1915:293-XXX.

87. so also Est. 9.1

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 53

into the lions’ pit, they are utterly consumed.88 One thing, then, is atleast clear: the lions are not off-colour. They may have been tame in thepresence of God’s angel, but they are ferocious in the presence of God’senemies. As such, Daniel’s preservation is an example of divine deliver-ance. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which the flames ofNebuchadnezzar’s furnace left the Hebrews unharmed but utterly con-sumed the King’s mighty men (3.22).

Given the extreme nature of 6.24b’s events, many commentators viewDarius’s actions as unjust and malicious.89 But the text itself does not ap-pear to view Darius’s actions as unjust. The satraps are hardly paragonsof virtue after all; they are rebels against Darius’s authority with mur-derous intent, who fully deserve to be executed. They have witnessedGod’s justice, as exemplified in the judgment of Belshazzar, and they havewitnessed God’s righteousness, as exemplified in the conduct of Daniel.And yet they have not sought to glorify God by means of patience andgood works (Rom. 2.7). They have instead sought to slay an innocentman in order to facilitate dishonest gain, and, in the process, they havegiven rise to a wicked and godless edict in Babylon, which could easilybecome a tool for anti-Semitism. As such, the satraps are entirely wor-thy candidates of God’s judgment. Furthermore, the extreme nature oftheir punishment may well owe (at least in part) to the extreme nature oftheir own plot against Daniel. Due to the satraps’ conspiracy, Darius hasbeen saddled with an edict which he has no desire to enforce. He musttherefore take preventative measures if he is to tame the edict’s powerfor the next thirty-days or so. (Otherwise, the satraps could simply in-terrupt Daniel in prayer the next day and haul Daniel before the Kingall over again.) What, then, is Darius to do? His decision, in the end,is to make an example of the satraps. He disposes of them by a brutalexecution and hence sends a powerful message to his people, namely,

88. Daniel’s critics have questioned whether 120 men could simultaneously be cast into a pit along with theirfamilies (e.g., Montgomery 1927:278). But such criticisms seem to reveal more about the mindset ofDaniel’s critics than Daniel’s text. It is not all 120 satraps who are cast into the pit, but ‘those mightymen who had ripped Daniel to shreds’, i.e., the officials involved in the plot to dispose of Daniel. Assuch, the Critics’ analysis of 6.24 is rather tendentious. It appears to be motivated by a desire to findfault with the text of Daniel rather than to read the text of Daniel in a charitable light and to learn fromits content.

89. Towner, for instance, refers to Darius’s actions as “[not] befitting...a just God” (1986:86).


‘Anyone who seeks to enforce my edict against Daniel will pay for it withtheir lives!’. We might consider, by way of analogy, the culmination ofthe Book of Esther. In the Book of Esther, Artaxerxes passes an edict(which gives Haman permission to slaughter the Jewish people), whichhe cannot undo when he discovers Esther’s (Jewish) identity, so his onlyoption is to pass a second law in order to give the Jews leave to defendthemselves against whoever attacks them. The author describes the re-sultant situation as follows, “On the very day when the enemies of theJews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: theJews gained mastery over those who hated them” (Est. 9.1), which hasclear parallels with the events of Dan. 6.

In sum, then, Darius’s judgment of the satraps is to be seen not as a mis-carriage of justice but as an outpouring of God’s anger against Daniel’senemies. The point is further brought out by the phrase “their boneswere ground to powder”. Just as the entire Gentile Colossus will one daybe ground to powder[DQQ (C)], so the Gentiles are ground to powder[DQQ (C)]

in anticipation. As Paul writes, “[God’s appointed king] does not bearthe sword in vain. He is the servant of God—an avenger who carriesout God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13.4†). In the context of ch.6, Darius functions as precisely such a divinely-appointed “servant”.90

Darius’s actions may also have been intended (by God) to have a pro-phylactic effect. As we have seen, Babylon seems to have been afflictedby a spirit of anti-Semitism in Daniel’s day (3.12, 6.13), which we do nothear about again until the days of Haman (over 100 years later). Pos-sibly, then, Darius’s judgment of the satraps served to keep the empire’sundercurrent of anti-Semitism at bay for many years.

the lions [gained] the rule over them and broke all their bones inpieces (6.24b). While 6.24b is not merely symbolic, it clearly has sym-bolic significance. In the context of the OT, a man’s children are depictedas a blessing from God and a continuation of his life on the earth. As aresult, God often chooses to deal with people in terms of family lines(Exod. 20.5, Num. 16.27-33, 1 Sam. 2.30-34, 1 Kgs. 11.36, Jer. 35.19,

90. Of course, one cannot call upon Romans 13.1-5 to ‘sanctify’ any decree we like, but, equally well, wehave no reason to defend the satraps in ch. 6. They are worthy objects of God’s judgment, and, as such,God is free to judge them via any means he chooses.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 55

etc.). Some family lines he promises to sustain as a blessing to their an-cestors. Consider, for instance, God’s promise to bless the seed of Abra-ham and to preserve the royal line of David and so on (Gen. 12.1-3, 1Kgs. 2.4). Other family lines God chooses to wipe out entirely to purgethe earth of their influence. Here we can consider God’s decision to de-stroy the household of Korah and hence to remove all memory of themfrom the earth (Num. 16.27-33). A man’s “bones” are significant formuch the same reason. They are what remains of a man after his fleshhas passed away. As such, they are closely connected with the conceptof resurrection. Consider, for instance, Ezekiel’s vision of Israel’s res-urrection, where Israel’s “dry bones” are given life and clothed in fleshand sinews (Ezek. 37.1-8), or the amount of care the patriarchs take overtheir remains and burial places (Gen. 23.4, 47.30, 50.25). In the contextof the OT, then, the preservation of a man’s bones symbolise his partic-ipation in God’s eternal plans. God promises to “keep [the] bones” ofthose he loves; he will not allow even one of their bones to be “broken”(Psa. 34.20). The destruction of a man’s bones, on the other hand, de-picts the removal of a man from God’s plans, hence Josiah’s decision toburn the bones of Israel’s idolaters on Judah’s hillside (2 Kgs. 23.16, 1Kgs. 13.2 cf. Num. 24.8).

In light of these considerations, the destruction of the satraps’ familiesand bones is highly significant. It depicts the removal of their memoryand influence both from the present world and from the world to come.The satraps do not simply lose their position in the palace; they loseeverything they have. Insofar as they have lifted up their hands againstDaniel, they have lifted up their hands against a “servant of the livingGod”, and they must pay the ultimate price for it. The question of courseremains, What about the satraps’ families? Why should they be punishedfor the satraps’ wrongdoings? The answer is not entirely clear. My owninstinct is to take the text of 6.24b to implicate the satraps’ families inDaniel’s mistreatment. Perhaps, for instance, the satraps’ families servedas informants for the satraps. (It may, for instance, have been them whoinformed the satraps of the King’s plans to promote Daniel.) Or perhapstheir sin was simply to encourage the satraps in their dastardly plans. Wemight consider, for instance, the way in which Zeresh spurred Haman on

56 6.14-24: THE OVERARCHING NARRATIVE

in his plans to overthrow Mordecai (Est. 5.10-14). Who knows? Wehave no real reason to take them to be blameless in ch. 6’s events.

the lions [gained] the rule over them (6.24b). That the lions are saidto gain the “rule” over the Babylonians is a significant detail. The chapterdescribes a battle for power. Ever since the publication of the edict, thebalance of power has been with the satraps, and both Darius and Danielhave suffered as a result. But, in 6.24, the balance of power is back withDarius, and Darius intends to make full use of it. He therefore orders thesatraps to be thrown to the lions, who immediately gain the “rule” overthem. The satraps’ loss of power is thereby made complete. The lionswhom man was made to rule over—and whom the Babylonians kept incaptivity for their own purposes—gain the rule over the satraps. Thesatraps are thereby relegated to a position below even the world’s brutebeasts.

6.14-24: The overarching narrative

The text of 6.14-24 parallels the text of ch. 7 in a number of importantways. Consider 6.14-24’s flow of events. Courtesy of the satraps’ machi-nations, Daniel is due to be thrown to the lions. Darius labours all daylong to pardon him. But, as he toils away in Babylon’s palace and thenight begins to draw in, a pack of ‘mighty men’ close in on Darius likehungry predators. The mighty men clearly hold the whip hand. Dariustherefore concedes defeat, and Daniel is thrown to the lions. But, soonafterwards, the God of Heaven intervenes in Babylon’s affairs. An angeldescends to Babylon’s pit in order to reverse the normal order of things.Babylon’s lions become tame as, for a brief moment, Creation’s rightfulorder is restored. The sun then rises on Babylon the next morning tofind Daniel alive and well. Daniel is immediately lifted from the pit andpromoted to a position of great honour; meanwhile, the satraps receivetheir comeuppance. Finally, a kingdom-wide proclamation is publishedin order to announce the supremacy and eternal majesty of God’s king-dom (6.25-26).

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 57

Now, consider, by way of comparison, the text of 7.1-28. The visionrecorded in 7.1-28 depicts a world in disarray. A series of beasts emergefrom the Sea and crawl up onto Israel’s shore, where they run roughshodover God’s people. God’s people suffer greatly as a result. They seemdestined for destruction (7.21). But the ‘Ancient of Days’ then intervenesin the world’s affairs. He descends from the heavens and draws thebeasts’ ‘night of dominion’ to a close. God then destroys the fourth beast(the arch enemy of God’s people), tames the remainder of the beasts,promotes his people to positions of greatness, and announces the inau-guration of heaven’s eternal reign (7.11-14, 7.26-27).

The narratives laid out in 6.14-24 and 7.1-28 share a number of strikingsimilarities. Both describe a world which is ‘out of order’ (those whoshould have authority do not have authority, and those who should nothave authority do). Both are set against the backdrop of a dark night.Both outline a sequence of events which gradually spirals out of control.Both are transformed by the intervention and descent of a heavenly en-tity. Both allude to the restoration of Creation (Daniel is able to existsafely in the midst of the lions, while Israel is able to exist safely in themidst of the nations). Both climax in the judgment of God’s enemies.And both culminate in an announcement of heaven’s supremacy and thepublic vindication of God’s people. Ch. 6’s narrative therefore seems toprefigure ch. 7’s vision in a number of important ways. At the same time,it presents us with a miniature snapshot of Israel’s golden age—a timewhen God’s people will be exalted among the midst of the nations andthe nations will be subject to their reign.

6.25-27: Darius’s second edict

6.25 At that point, Darius the King wrote to all the tribes, nations, and tongues,who reside in every part of the earth, [saying], May your peace abound!

6.26 From before me, a decree has been set [forth]. All [those under] the ruleof my kingdom are to tremble in fear before the God of Daniel, for he isthe living God and will [stand] steadfast for [as long as] the ages[continue], and his kingdom is one which will not be harmed, and his rulewill [continue] until the end-point [of all things],

58 6.25-27: DARIUS’S SECOND EDICT

6.27 a deliverer and a rescuer, and a doer of signs and wonders in the heavensand in the earth—[the one] who has delivered Daniel from the hand of thelions.

And Darius the King wrote to all the tribes (6.25). Darius now issuesa second edict, which is (thankfully) a massive improvement on his first.The edict takes the form of an official proclamation. It opens in thecustomary manner: “May your peace exceed [abundantly]...”. As such,it mirrors Nebuchadnezzar’s opening to his proclamation in ch. 4 (4.1).Insofar as Darius’s proclamation is addressed to all “peoples, nations, andtongues”, it alludes to the all-encompassing nature of its subject matter,namely the worldwide kingdom of God (6.26).

all [those under] the rule of my kingdom are to tremble in fear be-fore the God of Daniel (6.26a). In the events of ch. 6, Darius hasboth underestimated and disrespected the God of Israel. He effectivelyinstalled himself as YHWH’s high-priest (6.7). Darius therefore wantsto make amends for his failings. Accordingly, his edict gives glory toDaniel’s God and commands his people to treat Daniel’s God with thegreatest respect. Just as the Babylonians “trembled in fear” before Neb-uchadnezzar (5.19), so they must now “tremble in fear” before YHWH.YHWH is not a God to be trifled with, and Darius does not want his errorto be repeated by his people. Darius’s edict clearly portrays him as aman under God’s authority. According to the edict, the ultimate loyaltyof those under Darius’s “rule” must lie not with him but with YHWH.

the living God (6.26a). Darius refers to YHWH as “the living God”, just ashe did earlier (6.20). It is clearly a title with which Darius is quite taken.Darius has never encountered a man with as real and dedicated a faith asDaniel, nor has he encountered a God with the power of YHWH. Dariusis hugely impressed both with Daniel and with his God. That Dariuschooses to refer to Daniel’s God as the living God in the context of akingdom-wide decree is quite remarkable. The implication of his choiceof words is not entirely transparent, but it is clear for the attentive reader.Babylon’s gods are not ‘alive’ in the same sense as Daniel’s God is alive.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 59

Daniel’s God is not merely ‘one among many’; he is the world’s supremeruler.

While remarkable, Darius’s respect for Daniel’s God is not surprisinggiven what he has experienced over the last few days. Darius has cometo appreciate four important things: i] the extent of his officials’ cor-ruption and disloyalty, ii] the limits of his power, iii] the all-surpassingpower of Daniel’s God, and iv] the importance of faith and righteous-ness. As such, Darius has had the main ingredients of the Gospel actedout before his very eyes, and it has clearly made an impact on him.

[he is] steadfast for [as long as] the ages [continue] (6.26b). Dariusnow closes his edict with a note of praise. He specifically praises God forthe eternality of his reign. Why Darius sees God’s kingdom as ‘eternal’ isnot made clear. Perhaps Darius sees YHWH’s power (and Daniel’s loyalty)as sufficiently great to stand the test of time. Or perhaps Darius has readsome of Nebuchadnezzar’s past decrees. (Nebuchadnezzar was aware ofthe eternality of God’s reign because of ch. 2’s dream.) If so, it wouldcertainly explain the resemblance between his edicts and Nebuchadnez-zar’s (4.1-3, 4.34-37). Either way, Darius clearly sees God’s deliveranceof Daniel as a manifestation of God’s present reign over the kingdomsof mankind. He sees God’s kingdom as both a present reality and aneternally-ongoing prospect, and he takes it to encompass kingdoms likeBabylon as well as Israel. As such, Darius seems to have an impressiveunderstanding of the scope and nature of God’s reign.

That Darius recognises the frailty of his empire speaks well of him, asdoes his concern for Daniel. The kings of the Near East generally pub-licised themselves in grandiose, almost divine, terms.91 Part of their ra-tionale was to unify and enthuse their people—to provide them with afigurehead whom they could serve and rely upon, and an intermediarybetween them and God.92 But many kings apparently came to believetheir own propaganda after a while. They began to see themselves asgods. They therefore came to their kingships as the apex of world his-

91. One need only read some of Nebuchadnezzar’s or Cyrus’s inscriptions.

92. Kings are spoken of as the “image” of God in certain ancient texts (Parpola 1993:168).

60 6.25-27: DARIUS’S SECOND EDICT

tory and could not even conceive of the rise of a power greater than theirs.That Darius can perceive and even rejoice in the greatness of God’s king-dom is therefore unusual. It is a hallmark of genuine faith. Darius hascome to realise the moral and political weakness of man in general andhimself in particular and has come to put his trust in the God of Daniel.

for [as long as] the ages [continue] (6.26b). That God’s reign is eter-nal (and his kingdom indestructible) is very relevant to ch. 6’s narrative.Darius’s problem throughout the chapter has been the permanence of hisinjunction. In passing an irrevocable edict, he has unleashed a monster,and he has been unable to cause it to “pass away” (6.8, 6.12). Yet, bydispatching one of his angels, God has done what Darius could not do.He has caused the lions to ‘lose their teeth’ and has rendered Darius’s lawpowerless. He has shown Darius what true kingship is all about. 6.26bis also significant in another way: it contrasts the allegedly indestruc-tible (the Medo-Persian law) with the truly indestructible (the kingdomof God). From our present position in the 21st cent., we can see theemptiness of the Medo-Persians’ claim to immortality. That which theMedo-Persians thought would “never pass away” endured for little morethan a couple of centuries. But the kingdom of God continues to expandeven today and will one day subsume all Creation.

a deliverer and a rescuer (6.27a). Darius sees Daniel’s God as a “de-liverer” and a “rescuer”. Neither Daniel’s wisdom nor Darius’s authoritycould deliver Daniel from the power of Medo-Persia’s law and lions, butGod was able to do so, for, as Nebuchadnezzar rightly recognised, “[God]does whatever he desires with the armies of heaven and the residents ofearth” (4.34).

a doer of signs and wonders in the heavens and in the earth (6.27b).God has acted ‘wondrously’ in the deliverance of Daniel. But, as Dariuscan now see, the miracle he has performed is not a brazen display ofpower to be admired in and of itself, nor is it intended to bring Danielglory. Rather, it is a “sign”. It points beyond Daniel, and beyond Daniel’sabilities, to the all-surpassing greatness of Daniel’s God. That Dariusmentions signs and wonders being done “in heaven” as well as “on earth”

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 61

is an interesting detail. (The Mesopotamians liked to correlate heavenlyand earthly signs.93 As one of their diviner’s manual states, “Sky andearth both produce [signs]. Though appearing separately, they are notseparate (because) sky and earth are related”.94.) Perhaps, when Danielwas sentenced to death, a “sign” of some kind appeared in the heav-ens—a significant star-sign perhaps,95 or a sandstorm which churned upgreat clouds of dust and hence darkened the sky, or a fire which causedplumes of smoke to do so. Or perhaps Darius’s mention of both the“heavens” and the “earth” simply reflects his belief in God’s immediacy.God is not a distant entity whose activity is not limited to the heavenlyrealms; he is a near and present reality.

6.25-27: Some further thoughts on Darius’s second edict

The historical section (chs. 1-6) of Daniel’s writings contains five sepa-rate paeans of praise. The first comes from the lips of Daniel, the nextthree from the lips of Nebuchadnezzar, and the last from the lips of Dar-ius (6.25-27). We can tabulate them as follows:

93. TBDM 208-210.

94. TBDM 204.

95. See our summary of 5.25b-28.

62 6.25-27: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON DARIUS’S SECOND EDICT

Topi

cG

od’s

nam

eis

hon

oure

dG

od’s

sove

reig

nty

ispr

aise

dG

od’s

eter

nal

ity

ispr

aise

dG

od’s

pow

erto

deli

ver

ispr

aise

dG

od’s

sign

san

dw

onde

rsar

epr

aise

d

Dan

iel

(2.2

0-22

)

Itis

hew

hoca

uses

the

appo

inte

dse

ason

sto

com

ean

dgo

Ble

ssed

beth

ena

me

ofG

odfr

omth

eag

e[s]

[pas

t]to

the

age[

s][t

oco

me]

Neb

uch

.(3

.28-

29)

[Any

man

]...w

hosp

eaks

afa

lse

[wor

d]ag

ains

t...G

od...

will

becu

tin

to[l

ittl

e]pi

eces

He

has

sent

his

ange

land

has

deliv

ered

his

serv

ants

Neb

uch

.(4

.1-3

)H

iski

ngdo

mis

anag

e-st

eadf

ast

king

dom

,an

dhi

sru

le[e

xten

ds]

from

gene

rati

onto

gene

rati

on!

Itis

my

plea

sure

...[t

osh

ow]

how

grea

thi

ssi

gns

are

and

how

stro

nghi

sw

onde

rsar

e!

Neb

uch

.(4

.34-

35)

The

com

bine

dre

side

nts

ofth

eea

rth

are

asno

thin

g[c

ompa

red

tohi

m].

He

does

wha

teve

rhe

desi

res

[wit

hth

em]

[His

]ru

leis

anag

e-st

eadf

ast

rule

and

who

seki

ngdo

m[e

xten

ds]

from

gene

rati

onto

gene

rati

on

Dar

ius

(6.2

5-27

)

All

[tho

seun

der]

[my]

rule

are

totr

embl

ein

fear

befo

reth

eG

odof

Dan

iel

His

king

dom

ison

ew

hich

will

not

beha

rmed

[He]

will

[sta

nd]

stea

dfas

tfo

r[a

slo

ngas

]th

eag

es[c

onti

nue]

,..an

dhi

sru

lew

ill[c

onti

nue]

unti

lthe

end-

poin

t[o

fall

thin

gs],

Ade

liver

eran

da

resc

uer,.

..he

has

deliv

ered

Dan

iel

from

the

hand

ofth

elio

ns.

ado

erof

sign

san

dw

onde

rsin

the

heav

ens

and

inth

eea

rth

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 63

As we cast our eye over these paeans of praise, from top to bottom,we see a story unfolding—a story which begins with the private con-fession of Daniel in his house and concludes with the public confessionof King Darius. God has planted a godly Jewish remnant in Babylon,and God’s remnant has since been sowing God’s word among the Gen-tile nations. The word of God has taken root in a foreign land. Thesame sovereignty and eternality which Daniel saw in God has becomeknown to the Gentile nations, as has God’s power to deliver. And, oneday, even the world’s most mighty rulers will bow their knees beforetheir true king—a theme brought out more fully in the prophetic sectionof Daniel’s writings (7.12).96 The religious texts of nations like Egypt,Babylon, Media, and Persia are unknown to the vast majority of peoplein the present day. But billions of people now own a copy of the HebrewScriptures. History therefore continues to follow the pattern set out inchs. 2-6.

6.28: Daniel’s ongoing prosperity

6.28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrusthe Persian.

So this Daniel prospered (6.28). While the careers of Daniel’s accuserscame to an abrupt end, Daniel’s career continued. How long Darius andDaniel continued to reign in Babylon is not known.97 But, if Darius andDaniel were close friends prior to the events of ch. 6, then they wouldhave been even closer friends afterwards.

The text of 6.28 has been the subject of much debate since it can be readin a number of different ways. It could be read as ‘Daniel prospered inthe allied reign of Darius and Cyrus’ or ‘Daniel prospered in the reignof Darius and, after it, the reign of Cyrus’ or even ‘Daniel prospered inthe reign of Darius, i.e., the reign of Cyrus the Persian’. In and of itself,then, the text of 6.28 does not come down in favour of any particularview of the relationship between Darius and Cyrus. But it does at leasttell us one thing. Daniel clearly came into contact with Cyrus at some

96. Consider also Isa. 45.22-25 and Phil. 2.9-10.

97. For some suggestions, see App. 5C.

64 6.28: DANIEL’S ONGOING PROSPERITY

point. Daniel may even have been influential in Cyrus’s decision to allowthe Jewish people to return. Who knows? Cyrus certainly seems to havebeen interested in the welfare of the Jewish people (Ezra 1.1), and Danielwould have had a wealth of knowledge to impart to any prospective rulerof Babylon. Perhaps, then, Cyrus deliberately sought an audience withDaniel at some point. According to Josephus, Cyrus was aware of Isaiah’sprophecy of his rise to power (Isa. 44.24+).98 If so, Daniel would be theperson most likely to have shown it to him.

98. Ant. XI.2.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 65

5.31-6.28: A closing restrospective

Ch. 6 describes another remarkable episode in the life of Daniel. It at thesame time signals the end of the ‘historical section’ of Daniel’s memoirs.At the outset of ch. 6, Darius the Mede takes over the administrationof Babylon, and immediately begins to reorganise its governance. Heappoints 120 satraps over Babylon’s provinces, and, over these satraps,appoints three ‘grand supremos’, one of whom is Daniel. Babylon’s ad-ministration is evidently rife with corruption, which Daniel stamps outwithin his third of the realm. Daniel thereby wins great favour with Dar-ius, who decides to set him over the entire kingdom. But Daniel at thesame time—and for the same reason—incurs the wrath of the satraps.The satraps therefore seek to find a way to discredit Daniel. To that end,they subject Daniel’s life to close and prolonged scrutiny. But, to theiramazement, they are unable to find any flaws in Daniel’s conduct. Danielis a man of unimpeachable character—honest and trustworthy in all hisduties. The satraps therefore resort to a more desperate plan. They con-vince Darius to outlaw prayer for a period of thirty days, and then haulDaniel before the King for transgressing the King’s edict. The King is,of course, distraught, and seeks to pardon Daniel. But he is unable todo so. The edict he has been convinced to pass is irrevocable. Danielis therefore thrown to the lions, never to be seen again—or at least soDarius imagines. But God has other ideas. The next morning, Dariustherefore finds Daniel alive and well in the lions’ pit. He immediately or-ders Daniel to be pulled out and the satraps to be cast into the pit in hisplace. Darius then passes a new and very different edict, which compelshis citizens to treat Daniel’s God with respect and reverence.

In sum, then, ch. 6 is a story of reversals. At the outset of the chapter, weare introduced to a naive king, a corrupt administration, and an unjustedict, but, by the end of the chapter, we find the king converted, theadministration purged of its corruption, and the edict replaced by a moregodly one.

In the context of Daniel’s writings, ch. 6 stands on the cusp of the ‘headof gold’ and the ‘torso of silver’. As such, it describes a pivotal moment

66 5.31-6.28: A FORESHADOW OF THE GOSPEL

in the history of the Jewish people. Babylon’s day in the sun has come toan end, and Medo-Persia’s has begun (5.30-31). As a result, the Jewishpeople face a number of uncertainties. They have enjoyed a considerableamount of religious freedom under Babylon’s rule, thanks in large partto the faithfulness of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego (3.29-30). Buthow will they fare under Medo-Persian rule? Will Darius and Cyrus turnout to be magnanimous rulers or despotic tyrants? Will the Jews turn outto be a welcome guest in Medo-Persia or a persecuted minority? Froma human perspective, things could have gone either way. There was astrong undercurrent of anti-Semitism within Medo-Persia’s ranks (6.13,Est. 3.8-15), which could have been disastrous for the Jewish people.Indeed, left unchecked, Darius’s edict could have resulted in the deathof thousands of Jews throughout Babylon. Others besides Daniel wouldhave continued in prayer. And, once the satraps had disposed of Daniel,who knows what their next move would have been? Daniel’s obedienceto God was therefore important for a number of reasons: i] it resultedin a decree which protected God’s name from slander in Babylon (6.26);ii] it gave the Jewish people a good name in the eyes of their potentialemployers (i.e., the Kings of Persia); iii] it sounded a clear warning tothe people of Babylon, namely, ‘To persecute God’s people is a dangerousbusiness!’; and iv] it resulted in the removal of a number of anti-Semiticofficials (6.24). As a result, Daniel’s actions safeguarded the religiousliberties of the Jewish people for many years to come. And, amazingly,all these things came to pass because of one young man’s decision not topartake of the King’s food and drink many years earlier (1.8).

5.31-6.28: A foreshadow of the Gospel

The events of ch. 6 strikingly foreshadow the central events of theGospel. They do not, of course, foreshadow it perfectly. But the paral-lels between the experiences of Daniel and Jesus are too numerous to beattributed to mere happenstance.99 I have tabulated them below.

99. Foreshadows should not be dismissed because of their imperfections. Consider, for instance, Jonah.Jonah ended up in a whale’s belly because he was disobedient to God’s call. But Jesus nevertheless sawJonah’s time in the whale’s belly as a foreshadow of his time in the grave.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 67

The events of ch. 6 The life of the Messiah

Ch. 6 is set against the backdrop of aking (Darius), a kingdom, and animmutable law. The law condemnsDaniel—and, by extension, the rest ofDaniel’s people—to death. It cannotbe overturned, even at the King’sbehest.

The Gospel is set against thebackdrop of a king (God), a kingdom(Israel), and an inviolable law ofdivine justice. The law condemns allmen to death. “The soul who sinsmust die” (Ezek. 18.4†). God cannotcondone sin.

The events of ch. 6 begin at theculmination of a 62-year period(5.31)

The events of the Messiah’s life anddeath begin at the culmination of a62-week period (9.26)

Ch. 6 revolves around a conflictbetween a righteous servant of God(Daniel) and a group of corruptzealots. The zealots in question areservants of the King by name but notby nature. Daniel is the King’s mosttrustworthy and beloved servant. Hedischarges his duties without fail.Sadly, however, the King’s ‘servants’are embarrassed by, and envious of,Daniel’s godliness. They are alsofearful of the thought of Daniel rulingover them. As a result, the King’s‘false’ servants seek to dispose of theKing’s true servant.

The Gospel revolves around theconflict between Jesus—God’s trueservant—and a group of religiouszealots. Jesus is the King’s mosttrustworthy and beloved servant. Hefaithfully discharges his dutieswithout fail, yet he is hated by the theKing’s servants. They areembarrassed by his holiness, jealousof his popularity, and fearful of thethought of his reign. (We mightconsider, by way of analogy, thewords spoken by Jesus’ enemies inone of Jesus’ parables: “We do notwant this man to reign over us!”:Luke 19.14.) As a result, the King’sservants seek to destroy Jesus.

Unable to find any fault in Daniel, thesatraps turn the law of the landagainst him. Daniel is taken while inprayer, brought before Darius, andsentenced to death, at which pointdarkness (or similar) descends on theland.100

Unable to find any fault in Jesus, thePharisees and Scribes turn the law ofthe land against him. Jesus is takenwhile in prayer, brought before Pilate,and sentenced to death (Matt.26.36-55, 27.11).

100. See our comments on 6.27.

68 5.31-6.28: A FORESHADOW OF THE GOSPEL

The events of ch. 6 The life of the Messiah

Later that night, Daniel is thrown tothe lions, like a lamb to the slaughter,and his soon-to-be-grave is sealedwith a stone. But, since Daniel isentirely innocent, God does notabandon him to the pit, nor does Godallow him to be harmed in any way.

Later that night, Jesus is handed overto the executioners, like a lamb to theslaughter. His body is then placed ina grave, sealed by a stone (Psa.22.12-24, Matt. 27.66). But, sinceJesus is without sin, God does notabandon him to the pit, nor does Godallow his body to see corruption (Psa.16.10, Acts 2.27).101

In the morning, the stone is rolledaway. Daniel is raised from the pit,publicly vindicated, and (presumably)exalted to a position of honour atDarius’s right hand. He is made thesecond-in-command in the kingdom.The penalty demanded by the King’slaw is thereby paid and its power isbroken, and Daniel’s people are freedfrom its consequences.

Three mornings later, the stone isrolled away. Jesus is raised from thedead, publicly vindicated, and exaltedto a position of honour at God’s righthand. He is made thesecond-in-command in God’sCreation. At the same time, thepenalty demanded by the law is paid,its power is broken, and God’s peopleare released from its consequences.

Soon afterwards, Daniel’s enemies arethrown to the lions. Their rejectionof Daniel thereby results in theirdestruction. They are slain by meansof their own devices.

A number of years later, Jesus’enemies are slain by means of theirown devices. The Romans, to whomthey delivered Christ, march againstJerusalem and slaughter itsinhabitants (Matt. 22.7).102

As can be seen, then, the events of ch. 6 foreshadow the central eventsof the Gospel. But they also differ from them in an important way, since,unlike Darius, God is entirely sovereign over his kingdom. In the con-text of ch. 6, Daniel’s transgression causes Darius great anguish. AsDaniel’s friend, Darius longs to pardon Daniel, while, as Babylon’s king,he must enforce Medo-Persia’s laws. Man’s sin presents God with a simi-lar dilemma. As a father, God longs to pardon guilty sinners, while, as ajudge, he must punish man’s sin. But, unlike Darius, God has the powerto resolve the dilemma in which he has been placed. Indeed, in 4n/3n

101. In the OT, the image of a “pit” is often used to depict death. The dead are referred to as “those who godown to the pit”, while the vindicated righteous are referred to as those who are “brought...up out of thepit” (Psa. 28.1, Psa. 30.3, Psa. 40.2, Psa. 88.4, Psa. 143.7, Isa. 14.15-19, etc.).

102. I am grateful to a member of my church (John Elliot) for drawing some of these considerations to myattention.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 69

BC, at the end of Gabriel’s sixty-two weeks, God split the horns of thedilemma in the person of Jesus Christ. To be more precise, God sent hisSon into the world in order to be suffer on behalf of man’s sins. Thecross thereby allows God’s holiness and mercy to be reconciled. On theone hand, it satisfies God’s holiness. God does not overlook man’s sinbut, rather, judges it in the person of Christ. On the other hand, thecross enables God to extend mercy to mankind, since it allows God tojustly forgive man’s sin. God can therefore be both “just” as well as “thejustifier of those who have faith in Jesus”. Put another way, he can beboth “righteous” and “the one who declares as righteous those who havefaith in Jesus” (Rom. 3.25-26†). As a result, the man who stands at thecentre of world history—and around whose arrival our entire calendar iscalibrated—is not Cyrus or Alexander the Great but, rather, Jesus Christ,God’s “anointed one”, the man born to be “cut off” and to die without akingdom (9.26). Life’s central is not, therefore, “How can I best makeuse my time on earth?” or “What makes me most happy in life?” but,rather, “What have I done with the sacrifice of Christ?”. If you have notalready done so, then I would urge you, the reader, to pick up a copy ofthe NT and to read the Gospels of Christ. You may find the Jesus of theGospels to be a very different character from the Jesus you have beentold about, and you may find your life transformed as a result. What canit hurt to try?

5.31-6.28: Some applications

Ch. 6 teaches us a number of important lessons. As per our usualmethod, we begin with the most obvious and relevant to Daniel’s originalreadership and proceed from there.

(1) While the Medo-Persian law lays claim to irrevocability, only God’s lawis truly irrevocable. As a result, those who keep it need never be ashamed oftheir actions. Ch. 6 recounts a battle between two laws. Many of man’sand God’s laws are able to co-exist in the present age. But, here in ch.6, the law of Medo-Persia comes into direct conflict with the law of God.Babylon is therefore transformed into a battlefield on which the two lawswill go head-to-head. God’s law, of course, comes out on top, and God

70 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS

also thereby comes out on top. But, surprisingly, God’s victory dependson the obedience of Daniel—not because God requires his people’s helpin order to win his battles, but because God has chosen to use his peopleto do so. Daniel refuses to submit to the demands of Medo-Persia’s law,and God delivers him from its penalty. The power of Darius’s edict isthereby broken, and a new edict is later raised up in its place. The newand improved edict will safeguard the Jewish people’s freedoms for manyyears to come and, in that sense, will bow to the law of God.

Ch. 6 contained an important lesson for Daniel’s original readership.Even in the days of relative ‘friendly’ kings (such as the Medo-Persiankings), the Jewish people would still have to face many trials and tribu-lations, if only because of the world’s laws and decrees. Indeed, a similar‘legal battle’ unfolded in the days of Esther. The villain of the piece inthose days was a man named Haman—a hater of God and his people.Haman incited Artaxerxes against the Jews, saying, “[The] laws [of theJews] are different from those of all other people, and they do not ob-serve the laws of the King. It is not, therefore, in the King’s interest toallow them to remain” (Est. 3.8†). In response, Artaxerxes gave Hamanlegal authority over the Jews. He put the entirety of Medo-Persia’s re-sources at Haman’s disposal, who sought to annihilate the Jews (Est.3.10-12). But Esther intervened on behalf of her people. She incitedthe King against Haman (which resulted in his death) and caused a de-cree to be passed in favour of the Jews. Haman’s decree was therebyundone, and God’s law—in particular, his promise to preserve his peo-ple—carried the day (Lev. 26, Est. 9.1). In the days of Ezra and Ne-hemiah, another legal battle took place. At the request of the Arabs,a later Artaxerxes overturned Cyrus’s decree. The Jews were thereforeforced to stop work on the Temple. But the Jews later wrote to Dar-ius, who reinstated Cyrus’s original decree. The Jews’ work could thencontinue as before, and God’s promise to restore the Temple could befulfilled (Ezra 4-6, Isa. 44.). Three centuries later, in the days of the Se-leucids, a horrifically anti-Semitic decree was passed. Antiochus made itillegal for the Jews to observe Jewish customs. He compelled them, onpain of death, to offer sacrifices to pagan gods. Needless to say, no faith-ful Jews could in good conscience comply with Antiochus’s decree. The

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 71

decree therefore resulted in the death of thousands of godly men andwomen. But deliverance eventually came in the form of a man of greatfaith and piety named Judas Maccabeus (8.14, 11.32-35), who upheldGod’s law in the face of great adversity and eventually carried the day.

Over the years, the law has therefore had a huge influence on the Jewishpeople’s welfare, as it does today. And, in a day to come, another “law”will be raised up against God’s law and God’s people (7.25). But impor-tantly—and here we come to ch. 6’s central point—, God’s promises havestood firm throughout the ages. Those who hold fast to God’s law willnever be defeated, since God’s law will never be defeated. Despite theclaims of the Medo-Persians, God’s is the one law in Creation which willnever pass away. Of course, obedience to God’s law can be costly. WhileDaniel was delivered from the lions, many of the Maccabeans were not.But their sacrifice was not in vain. They fought to preserve the sanctityof their God and the purity of his law. As such, they laboured for aneternal cause, and one day they will be vindicated in the eyes of their en-emies, as Daniel was (6.23-24). Indeed, they will reap a rich reward onthe Day of the Resurrection (12.2-3). That was ch. 6’s central lesson forits original readers, and that, I believe, is its central lesson for us today.

As Christians, we are often prevailed upon (both via judicial means andother means) to compromise our obedience to the principles set out inGod’s word. We are encouraged either to relax our adherence to them orto adopt an intolerably low view of them—the kind of view Jesus wouldhave been horrified by. Indeed, God’s law is under considerable attack intoday’s media as well as in many universities and Biblical colleges, whereit is branded as outdated, small-minded, misogynistic, and other thingsbesides. But, as Christians, we should be men and women who delight inGod’s law (Psa. 1.1-3). We should be able to say along with the Psalmist(Daniel?), “The law of your mouth is better to me than thousands ofgold and silver pieces”, and we should mean it (Psa. 119.72). When wehonour God’s law, we do not honour an arbitrary system of rules. Wehonour a person. We honour the name of the God who bequeathed hislaw to us, and we act in accordance with the very first line of the Lord’sPrayer, namely, “Father, may your holy name be honoured” (Luke 11.2


GNT). And, importantly, ch. 6 arms us with a powerful motive for doingso, since it assures us of a vital truth: justice will one day be done in ourworld. As a result, we can stand against injustice—and even stare deathin the face—with courage and confidence. When we obey God’s lawand suffer for righteousness’s sake, our obedience is not in vain; on thecontrary, it is of eternal significance, since it is part and parcel of God’seternal plan to dethrone an unjust world-order. We can know and clingto these truths with absolute certainty, since God has revealed them to usin his word. Let us, therefore, by God’s grace, seek to be men and womenof courage and of moral fortitude. Let us be men and women who donot simply follow the crowd in matters of morality but lead the way. Aschildren of God, we have a knowledge of the truth, a hope for the future,and God’s Spirit within our hearts. Why, then, is our behaviour oftenso similarly to everyone else’s? Things should not be so. Let us seek tolive as Jesus lived, to stand out from the crowd, to make a difference tothe world in which we live for the sake of the God who has called us toholiness (1 Thes. 4.7).

(2) Injustice and suffering are only temporary features of God’s Creation.The majority of ch. 6’s narrative describes a situation where the wickedhold the whip-hand triumph over the righteous. But, at the end of thechapter’s narrative, justice is restored. Both parties receive their justdeserts. Daniel is vindicated, while his accusers are destroyed. As such,ch. 6 provides us with a foreshadow of the end of world history as awhole. It also looks forward to ch. 7’s vision, where God’s people aredowntrodden by the world’s beasts for four long ages until the Ancientof Days descends in order to vindicate his holy people.

God is a God of justice, and he has made his people a clear promise,namely to deliver them from evil and to destroy their enemies (2 Pet.2.9). But God has not chosen to make good on his promise by meansof rigidly-defined rules (e.g., ‘If X has committed less than n sins, thendeliver him, else allow him to die’). That is to say, God’s governance ofhis Creation is not reducible to an algorithm. God has chosen to fulfil hispromise in his own good time and in his own appointed way. Some of hispeople (like Daniel) he has rescued from the power of death; others (like

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 73

Jesus) he has released from the pangs of death; and still others he hastranslated by means of death (Acts 2.24, Heb. 11.32-35a, 35b-40). Godhas likewise judged his enemies in different ways. Some (like Herod)he has cut short in their tracks; others (like Belshazzar) he has givenspace to repent; and still others he has allowed to live out their full lives,ultimately to stand before his holy bar (Acts 12.23, Heb. 9.27). But,in the end, the outcome is the same. Everyone receives their promisedrewards. “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from [their] trials butto keep the unrighteous under punishment until the Day of Judgment”(2 Pet. 2.9†).

When we look around us and are disturbed by a world rife with injus-tice, we must remind ourselves of the limitations of our vision. We onlyperceive things very dimly in the present age. We live our lives withina ‘bubble’ in world history—a temporary period of time during whichgood and evil are allowed to co-exist and God’s enemies are given a cer-tain amount of leeway. But, soon, God will bring the present age toa close, and the God of all Creation will then judge all men fairly andrightly. Indeed, such was the conclusion of the Psalmist:

I envied the proud when I saw them prosper,despite their wickedness.

They seem to [have] live[d] such painless lives,their bodies are so healthy and strong...They don’t have troubles like other people...They boast against the very heavens,and their words strut throughout the earth.Look at these wicked people,enjoying a life of ease while their riches multiply![Have I kept] my heart pure for nothing?[Have I kept] myself innocent for no reason?...

Then I went into your sanctuary, O God,and I finally understood the destiny of the wicked.Truly, you [have set] them on a slippery pathand [you will] send them sliding over the cliff

to destruction.


In an instant they [will be] destroyed,completely swept away by terrors.When you arise, O Lord, you will laugh at their silly ideas,as a person laughs at dreams in the morning.

Then I realised...my heart was bitter,and I was all torn up inside.I was so foolish and ignorant—I must have seemed like a senseless animal to you.Yet I still belong to you; you hold my right hand...Whom have I in heaven but you?I desire you more than anything on earth.My health may fail, and my spirit may grow weak,But God remains the strength of my heart;he is mine forever.Those who desert him will perish,for you destroy those who abandon you.But as for me, how good it is to be near God!I have made the Sovereign LORD my shelter,And I will tell everyone about the wonderful things

you do.(Psa. 73 NLT)

The Psalmist’s message is clear. We are surrounded by a world of chaosand injustice. But, when we enter into God’s sanctuary and see historyas God sees it, our world starts to make sense. Satan is in a hurry inthe present age, since he only has a limited amount of time available tohim (Rev. 12.12). But God is in no such hurry. He has foreordainedthe judgment of all men, and he will bring their judgment to pass in hisown good time. True—the wicked may be seem to be running riot at thetime. But they are not the masters of their own destiny. Their limitedinfluence in space and time has been allocated to them by God, theirplans will ultimately fail, and their path will end in destruction (Psa.73.18-20). Their apparent freedom is merely the rope they have beengiven to hang themselves, just as the satraps’ freedom to ensnare Danielbecame the means by which they were slain.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 75

Unfortunately, we do not perceive these facts with clarity, since we do notsee history as God sees it. Much of the past is hidden from us; much ofthe future is equally obscure; and the sheer size and interconnectednessof the present universe is far beyond our ability to comprehend. Wetherefore need to view history with the eye of faith and through the lensof Scripture. And we need to trust our heavenly Father’s sovereignty.God knows how to govern our universe, and he does only what is right.(He does not need our help, but, like all fathers, he does ask us to havefaith in him.) Hence, when we go through difficult times, we can comfortourselves with a wonderful truth: whatever trials we undergo, they areonly temporary, and God will one day deal with every single one of them.As Christians, we know how things turn out in the end. God wins. Hisname will one day be revered as holy by all, whether willingly or not.God’s kingdom will come, and God’s will will be done, on earth even asit is in heaven. Against that backdrop, let us seek grace to deal withthe present day (tomorrow has enough worries of its own), and let usencourage ourselves with the words of Paul:

Though our outer self [may be] wasting away, our inner self isbeing renewed day by day, for our light momentary affliction ispreparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all compar-ison.

(2 Cor. 4.17†)

In the present age, our lives may not look very ‘glorious’ (at least, not asthe world defines ‘glory’), but their end-result will be glory unspeakable(7.26-27). In times of trial, then, let us cleave to our Lord, even as wecry within our hearts, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22.20).

(3) Envy can lead men to commit the most heinous crimes. The satraps’reaction to Daniel’s promotion was not an admirable one. Rather thancongratulating Daniel on his success, the satraps sought to scupper hispromotion. They thereby acted in a malicious manner. But at least theydid not act murderously. How, then, did things get so out of hand? Howdid a plan to scupper Daniel’s promotion turn into a plan to end Daniel’slife? The answer involves a combination of four dangerous ingredients:


envy, a dash of greed, the agency of Satan, and time for the satraps tostew. All of these ingredients played an important part in the events ofch. 6. How long the events of ch. 6 took to unfold is not revealed tous in the text. But the satraps were clearly serious about their plans toremove Daniel and to continue their Old Boys’ network. They would not,therefore, have abandoned their attempt to discredit Daniel prematurely.They must have spent weeks following Daniel around and prying intoevery aspect of his life. But, to their frustration as well as disbelief,they could find absolutely no evidence of dishonesty. The satraps’ wisestcourse of action at that point would have been to abandon their plansaltogether and to embrace Daniel as their superior. (He deserved it afterall.) But, by then, things had gone too far. What began as a vagueenvy had turned into an all-consuming hatred. (We might consider, asan analogy, how Haman’s hatred of Mordecai meant he could not bearto see Mordecai prosper.103) The satraps therefore formulated a moredrastic ‘Plan B’—a plan to make a permanent end of Daniel.

The satraps’ actions teach us a simple but imporant lesson. Envy is avery dangerous sin. It is a ‘root sin’, i.e., a sin which, left to develop, canlead to all sorts of other evils. It can also warp our moral perception.It can lead us to see good as evil and evil as good. Consider, by wayof analogy, the behaviour of Israel’s elders in Jesus’ day. Jesus came toearth in order to bless his earthly people (Matt. 1.21, Luke 1.54-55, 1.68-79), but the elders’ envy led them to crucify him (Matt. 27.17-18, Mark15.10). When the elders saw Jesus’ righteousness, they should haveforsaken their corrupt ways and followed him, just as his disciples did.Instead, they saw Jesus as a threat, and, as a result, they hated him. Thesatraps’ treatment of Daniel was little different. Daniel’s righteousnessand integrity could have—and should have—been a blessing to them.Under Daniel’s headship, the satraps could have learnt about the ways ofthe God of Heaven. But the satraps saw Daniel as a threat and thereforesought to dispose of him. They were a perfect illustration of the wordsof the apostle James: “When lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, andsin, once fully grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1.15, Rom. 7.7). When,

103. “[My riches and glory] are worth nothing to me”, he said, “[as] long as I see Mordecai the Jew [aliveand well] sitting at the entrance to the King’s [court]” (Est. 5.11-13).

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 77

as Christians, we become aware of seeds of envy in our hearts, we needto stamp them out immediately. We can be envious of many differentthings in other people—their health, for instance, or their riches or theiropportunities in life, or even their spiritual success. ‘Why them and notme?’, we ask ourselves. Needless to say, such jealousy has no place inthe life of a believer. Not only is it grossly out of step with the mindof Christ, it robs us of great blessing, just as the satraps’ behaviour did.Why? Because it makes us unable to delight in the success of otherbelievers. Spurgeon puts the point well:

A selfish man in trouble is exceedingly hard to comfort be-cause the springs of his comfort lie entirely within himself, andwhen he is sad all his springs are dry. But a large-heartedman—full of Christian philanthropy—has other springs fromwhich to supply himself with comfort beside those which liewithin [him]. He can go to his God first of all, and there findabundant help, and he can discover arguments for consolationin things relating to the world at large.... [O], Christian man!Learn to comfort [yourself] in God’s gracious dealing towardsthe Church! That which is so dear to [your] Master, should itnot be dear above all else to [you]?104

Spurgeon’s words contain great wisdom. If we are able to rejoice inthe success of others, then we will be far more large-hearted and joyfulbelievers. When, therefore, we find ourselves envious of the success ofothers, let us go on the offensive. Let us go to God in prayer and givethanks to him for the way he is blessing our fellow-believers. Indeed, letus ask God to bless them all the more and thereby frustrate the intentionsof our enemy (2 Cor. 2.11).

(4) Christians often suffer, not because of their disobedience to God (asJob’s friends assumed), but precisely because of their obedience. The Gospelis a message which changes our hearts. It turns self-centred sinners intomen and women of God. It is a wonderful thing. But the Gospel doesnot promise us popularity. Daniel was hated by his peers in Babylon.

104. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, 16th July.


And why? Because he lived a godly life, and because he refused to com-promise his principles. He did not set out on a great crusade to exposecorruption in Babylon. He simply did his job as best he could—and in asgodly way as possible—, and, as a result, his honesty brought other men’ssins to light. As mentioned above, a similar thing can be said of Jesus.Jesus did not come into the world to judge it but to bless it. Neverthe-less, the very nature of his life was to expose men’s failings, just as thevery nature of light is to expose the secrets of the dark (John 3.16-21).

As believers, we should not be surprised if our principles make us un-popular. Indeed, we should expect them to do so from time to time. Weshould not, of course, seek to offend people, nor should we develop a de-fensive mentality. Nevertheless, our raison d’être is to be different fromnon-Christians, to be “salt and light” in a fallen world, to uphold God’svalues in the midst of an ungodly generation. We should not, therefore,be surprised if we ruffle people’s feathers every now and then. As Jesussaid to his disciples,

If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own,but because you are not of the world (because I chose you outof the world)...the world hates you.

(John 15.19)

And as Paul warned Timothy,

All who desire to live godly [lives] in Christ Jesus will sufferpersecution.

(2 Tim. 3.12 NKJV)

Ch. 6 therefore challenges us to examine our level of ‘saltiness’. Ifour principles never make us unpopular, then we may well need to re-examine them. When the Bible says, “All who desire to live godly [lives]in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution”, it is not exaggerating. It is mak-ing us a promise. If we never “suffer persecution”, we may, therefore,need to ask ourselves why.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 79

(5) Our actions as believers often speak louder than words. The world’sunbelievers are in terrible danger. Like the Babylonians in Belshazzar’sday, they are spiritually blind, and they are part of a kingdom destinedfor destruction. As believers, it is vital for us to warn people of the dan-ger they are in, but it is not always easy to do. Most people do not wantto talk about such things or simply refuse to believe they have any needof God’s forgiveness. The events of ch. 6 teach us an important lesson.Where words fail, plain old-fashioned holiness can speak volumes to peo-ple. The satraps’ hatred of Daniel stemmed from a number of causes, butDaniel’s righteousness must have been first among them. Daniel’s righ-teousness made them feel unrighteousness and convicted them of theirguilt. And, if we live like Daniel, then our lives are likely to have a simi-lar effect on people. (Human nature has not changed.) It is all very wellto talk to people about such things as “sin”, “righteousness”, and “thejudgment to come”, but our claims need to be backed up by our actions.People often pay far more attention to our behaviour than we think.

(6) A healthy prayer-life requires discipline. Daniel was one of the fourmost important men in Darius’s Babylon. He would have had a hugelydemanding schedule. But Daniel always found time to pray—or, to beprecise, he always made time to pray. To go without prayer for thirty dayswould was unthinkable as far as Daniel was concerned. Food, popularity,and even his very life he could do without. But not prayer. We thereforeneed to ask ourselves the question, What made Daniel so mindful of hisneed for prayer? A number of reasons can be proffered.

First, Daniel was mindful of his need to pray because of the hostility ofhis environment. Daniel was no stranger to adversity. His life couldeasily have come to an end on a number of occasions before the eventsof ch. 6 took place. When he refused the King’s food and drink, whenhe volunteered to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams, when he stoodbefore Belshazzar and exposed his folly to him: any of these incidentscould have resulted in Daniel’s death. And the undercurrent of anti-Semitism in Babylon (which very nearly cost his friends their lives) onlymade matters worse (3.12, 6.13). As a result, Daniel was acutely aware


of his need for God’s protection. Babylon was a dangerous place for aman as exalted as Daniel.

Second, Daniel was conscious of his need to pray because of the regu-larity of his prayer-life prior to the events of ch. 7. Prayer is addictive.The more we pray, the more we want to pray, and the more we becomeaware of our need to pray. We might describe the act of prayer a ‘virtu-ous circle’. Daniel’s awareness of his need for prayer in ch. 6 thereforestemmed from the state of his prayer-life prior to ch. 6. Those with a lessregular prayer-life may have seen a thirty-day abstinence from prayer astolerable, but Daniel did not.

Daniel’s attitude to prayer teaches us two important principles:(A) Since we are continually in need of our heavenly Father’s protection,we continually need to pray. True—most of our lives are not as fraughtwith danger as Daniel’s, but we are nonetheless in need of God’s grace.At any given moment, any number of evils could befall us. God’s angelsprotect us and keep us from harm on a daily basis (Psa. 34.7, 91.10-12). Most of us can recall ‘close shaves’ we have had in the past—timeswhen, but for God’s protection, things could have gone terribly wrongfor us. Such considerations reveal our continual need of God’s graceand hence of our continual need to pray, both for ourselves as well asfor our fellow believers. (B) Set times of prayer can help us to estab-lish a regular and healthy prayer-life. By allocating himself set times forprayer, Daniel made sure he had at least three ‘square meals’ of prayereach day—morning, noon, and night. He did not wait until he felt ‘led’ topray, nor did he neglect to pray if he did not feel so ‘led’. Daniel’s prayer-life was like clockwork—which is why the Babylonians found it so easyto catch him at it (6.11). Modern life exert all sorts of pressures on ourtime. But, if we set our minds on it, we can all set aside three regulartimes for prayer each day—times when, whatever else is taking place inour lives, we stop, if only for a moment, and direct our thoughts heaven-wards. (If the Prime Minister of Babylon could find time for prayer, thenwe can surely do so.) Often, it takes as little as an interesting programon television to make us set aside our regular prayer-time. But Danielsteadfastly refused to compromise his prayer-life, even on pain of death.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 81

He was a man of unflinching discipline and devotion. May we thereforeseek to follow his example. The world needs far more men and womenlike Daniel.

(7) Ordinary routines are more important to the development of our Chris-tian characters than extraordinary events. When people consider thelife of Daniel, they tend to focus on the more sensational aspects of hislife—the dreams he received, the heights to which he rose in Babylon’sgovernment, the forthrightness with which he confronted the world’skings, and so forth. But the more ‘mundane’ aspects of Daniel’s life teachus an extraordinarily important lesson: in order to survive life’s storms,we need to use life’s calmer moments wisely. To put the point anotherway, only the discipline we develop in life’s daily routines will keep usafloat during life’s storms. When the events of ch. 6 came to a headand Darius’s edict became enshrined in Medo-Persia’s laws, Daniel didprecisely the right thing. He got to his knees and prayed. And why?Because he did so every day. Prayer was a part of his daily routine. Themundane therefore matters. If we are presently enjoying a period of‘calm’ in our lives, then may God give us the grace and wisdom to useour time wisely. We will never get it back.

(8) The life of the believer must exhibit consistency. Most of us have anumber of different ‘spheres’ to our lives. We may have a life (perhaps)at work, a life at school, a life at home, a life at church, and so on. Forthe most part, these spheres do not overlap much. We do not (to ourshame) normally see our school-friends at church, our church leadersin our homes, our work-colleagues in our homes, and so on. It is easy,therefore, to develop inconsistencies in our lives—to have times when we‘switch on’ as a Christian and times when we ‘switch off’. But Daniel’slife was not marked by such inconsistencies. Daniel saw his entire lifeas an ongoing act of worship to God. And, as a result, God used Daniel’sentire life for his glory. Daniel’s working life, prayer-life, and propheticlife all testified to God’s glory, and they all had an impact on his peers.

(9) For better or for worse, life’s ‘little things’ often lead to much ‘greaterthings’. Daniel’s obedience is tested on two occasions in the events of ch.


6. The first test (call it ‘Test A’) was private and protracted. The Babylo-nians spent many weeks in search of corruption in Daniel’s life, but to noavail. Daniel’s conduct was without fault. Test B therefore began. TestB was a more public and a more intense affair. Darius’s edict was public,and Daniel’s prayer-life was (at least to some extent) public. Moreover,the stakes were higher. Daniel’s promotion was not the only potentialcasualty. Daniel’s very life was in the balance. Humanly speaking, then,we might see Test A as a fairly ‘minor test’. After all, very few peopleknew when it began, and very few people were privy to its results. ButTest A is in fact the linchpin of the chapter for two important reasons:

(i) Daniel’s success in Test A brought great glory to God. To make apublic and heroic stand for God is all well and good, but to live a quiet lifeof holiness requires a far more sustained period of devotion. It requirestraits such a discipline, self-control, perseverance, humility, and manymore besides. As a result, the pursuit of holiness does not draw a greatdeal of applause from ‘the world’, since it is not a very ‘showy’ act. Itdoes not grab’s men’s attention or gain men’s admiration. But, accordingto Scripture, the pursuit of holiness is the nerve and heart-beat of truereligion. As Samuel asked Saul,

Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrificesas in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is betterthan sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams.

(1 Sam. 15.22)

And as Micah and Hosea said to the Israelites,

With what shall I come before the LORD,and bow myself before God on high?Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,with calves a year old?Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,with ten thousands of rivers of oil?Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?He has told you, O man, what is good...

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 83

What, [then], does the LORD require of youbut to do justice,and to love kindness,and to walk humbly with your God?

(Mic. 6.6-8)

For I, [the LORD], desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

(Hos. 6.6)

(ii) Unless Daniel had passed Test A, he would never have had the op-portunity to witness to the Babylonians in a more public way. His sinwould have been exposed, his testimony would have been ruined, his lifewould (most likely) have been terminated by Darius’s lions, and Daniel’swritings would lack chs. 9-12 at the very least.

In sum, then, Daniel’s private test was every bit as important as his publictest, which is an important detail for us to appreciate. As believers, wetoo are tested on a regular basis. We may not be required to appear be-fore Babylon’s lions. But, according to the NT, we have a different ‘lion’to contend with, namely Satan. Satan is the sworn enemy of every truebeliever. He loves to see us succumb to our temptations, and he hatesto see us bring glory to God (Job 1.9-11, Rev. 12.9-10). Satan therefore“prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet.5.8). Satan can ‘devour’ us in a number of ways. One of his most effec-tive tactics, I believe, is to lure us into secret sins—sins which we commit‘behind closed doors’, which are beyond the reach of church discipline,and which Satan can therefore turn to his advantage. (Satan sought touncover precisely such sins in Daniel’s life in ch. 6.) As believers, it istherefore important for us to be accountable to other believers and todo whatever needs to be done in order to sanctify ourselves. If we giveSatan an inch, then he will take a mile. But, if we resist him throughprayer and confession of sin, then he will flee from us (Jas. 4.7-8).

(10) Humans are creatures of habit; we therefore need to be careful toengrain positive as opposed to negative patterns of behaviour in our life.Considered as a whole, chs. 1-6 reveal a wonderful truth about Daniel’s


life: the obedience which he exhibited as a young man in 597 BC (1.1-20) still remained with him sixty years later. For a man who wanted toindulge in sin, Babylon would have been the perfect location—a den ofwealth, corruption, hedonism, mysticism, and more besides (Isa. 47.1-11, Jer. 50.11, Rev. 17-18). Daniel would therefore have faced manytrials and temptations in Babylon, especially given his level of authority.But Daniel did not drop his guard for a moment, even in his old age. Onthe contrary, he steadfastly refused to compromise. Hence, the traineewho declined Nebuchadnezzar’s request in 597 BC as a youth became thesenior statesman who declined Darius’s request in 538 BC, his passion forGod undiminished. That the same individuals who chose to refuse theKing’s diet (i.e., Daniel and his friends) are later chosen out by God forgreat things (in chs. 2-6) is surely no coincidence. The majority of theexiles saw their diet as relatively unimportant, but Daniel and his friendsdid not. God then knew he could trust the four Hebrews with greaterresponsibilities, since those who are obedient in life’s ‘little things’ arealso obedient in life’s ‘larger things’. As Jesus said, “One who is faithfulin a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a verylittle is also dishonest in much” (Luke 16.10). The strength of correlationbetween life’s little and large responsibilities should not surprise us. Thedecisions we make in life are not isolated events. They have an ongoingeffect on our character. Every time we compromise our standards, itpaves the way for further compromises. And, each time we take a standfor God, it strengthens our resolve as well as our confidence in God.Hence, when the pressure was on, Daniel and his friends stood firm.

The field of neurophysiology (i.e., the study of our physical ‘brains’) hascome on in leaps and bounds in recent years. Among other things, neuro-physiologists have identified a close correlation between particular phys-ical characteristics of our brains and particular patterns of behaviour.London’s taxi-drivers, for instance, have markedly different brains frommost other human beings. In particular, the navigation-related partsof their brains are notably bigger than normal.105 These findings arecommonly misinterpreted, since the relevant brain-features are assumed(without satisfactory justification) to precede and hence to cause the de-

105. XXX

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 85

cisions we make as opposed to vice-versa. But the causal connectioncould just as easily be understood to run in the opposite direction. If so,it would teach us a very important lesson, namely: how we choose tobehave has a tangible effect on how our brains develop and on the kindof people we turn out to be. Put another way, the decisions we makeare not isolated choices; they are part of a process which shapes our per-sonality on an ongoing basis—hence the adage ‘old habits die hard’. Asbelievers, then, it is vitally important for us to cultivate godly patterns ofbehaviour in our lives. We will otherwise imbibe the world’s patterns ofbehaviour, the end result of which is spiritual death. Let us not, there-fore, be “conformed to the [present] world” but, rather, “transformed bythe renewal of [our] minds” (Rom. 12.2†). J. B. Phillips provides a niceparaphrase of Paul’s exhortation:

Give [God] your bodies, as a living sacrifice. ...Don’t let theworld around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let Godre-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove inpractice that the plan of God for you is good.

(Rom. 12.2 JBP)

As Christians, our highest calling is to holiness. The rest is mere ‘windowdressing’. Let us therefore take our calling seriously. Ultimately, God isfar more concerned about the kind of people we turn out to be than thethings we achieve in life (2 Pet. 1.1-8).

(11) It is important for us to make the most of the contacts God has en-trusted to us. Daniel and his friends were major players in the gover-nance of the Near East. They were able to have an important influenceon men like Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and others besides. As a result,they were able to have a significant influence on the lives of the Jewishpeople. Indeed, the testimony of Daniel’s friends established Judaismas a recognised religion in Babylon (3.29), and the testimony of Danielresulted in the salvation of both Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, as well asthe reversal of a potentially catastrophic edict (6.26). Daniel’s serviceto the Kings of Babylon may even have been a significant factor in thereturn the Jewish people to Judah. Of course, most Christians do not


move in as exalted circles as Daniel did, but some Christians do. Some,for instance, work alongside senior figures in society; others work along-side important politicians; others are friends of well-known celebrities;and so on. As believers, it is important for us to seek to influence suchpeople for the Lord. They have the potential to make a major impact onthe world in which we live.

(12) God’s sovereignty knows no bounds. The moment Darius signedhis decree, he was hamstrung. He gave rise to an edict decree whichwas beyond his power to control. He was then stuck with its conse-quences. Some theologians conceive of God’s sovereignty in very similarterms. God, they say, has set the world in motion but is now unable—orat least unwilling—to interfere with it. Energy-conservation, entropy,gravity: these things are inviolable laws, and God must moderate hispurposes accordingly. But the text of ch. 6—to say nothing of the restof Scripture—gives a very different impression. True—God has estab-lished certain laws by which his Creation is governed. When things aredropped, they fall to the ground, and, when water reaches boiling-point,it evaporates. As such, the world is governed by natural laws. But Godis entirely sovereign over such laws.106 He allows his servants to knowthe unknowable, to pass through fire unharmed, to dwell in a lion’s pitwithout being eaten. God is not, therefore, bound by the laws of nature.And nor, as he demonstrates in the NT, is he bound by the law of sin anddeath (Rom. 8.2, 1 Cor. 15.56-57). God is therefore a true sovereign. Heis a Nebuchadnezzar rather than a Darius—a genuine King of Gold. Godis even sovereign over the hearts of man. Nebuchadnezzar and Dar-ius were very different individuals, but Daniel describes their responseto God in almost identical terms. Both men realised their frailty, bothwere converted as a result, and both then testified to God’s “signs andwonders” and “age-steadfast kingdom” (4.1-3, 6.26-27).107 The paral-lels between Nebuchadnezzar’s and Darius’s lives convey a clear mes-sage. God’s power is not limited to the kingdom of Babylon. God is justas sovereign over Medo-Persia as over Babylon, and he is still sovereign

106. Indeed, even man is sovereign over them to a certain extent. The force of gravity, for instance, causesobjects to fall to the ground, but only if they are unsupported. If man puts in a certain amount of effort,he can prevent an object’s fall.

107. See “5.31-6.28: Its main message”.

DANIEL CHAPTER 6 87

over the kingdoms of the world today. No matter which earthly kingcomes to power, the King of Heaven remains in full control of world his-tory. That is a message which Daniel’s people could take great comfortin, and which we too can take great comfort in today.

Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 6 (5.31-6.28)

Documents

Transcript of Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 6 (5.31-6.28)