When the Medo-Persian alliance overthrew the Neo-Babylonian Empire, it acquired much geographic territory that it proceeded to incorporate into its kingdom. The Persian Empire became the largest that the world had yet seen, eventually encompassing modern Turkey, Egypt, and parts of India and North Africa as well as Babylonia.
1 It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, 2 with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss. 3 Now Daniel so distinguished himself among the administrators and the satraps by his exceptional qualities that the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
1. Who was Darius?
There is much speculation as to who he actually was. Some believe he was Gubaru, a governor appointed by Cyrus. Both Daniel and ancient literary sources indicate that a certain official (“Darius the Mede” in Daniel, “Gubaru” in Persian texts) took over immediately in Babylon until Cyrus appointed his own son Cambyses as vice regent around 538 b.c. This figure is most likely identified with Darius. Why he is called Darius is uncertain, though ancient rulers often took other names for themselves. NSB
Possibly Darius is not a name, but an honored title for Cyrus, who with his army entered Babylon Oct. 29, 539 b.c. It is used in inscriptions for at least 5 Persian rulers. History mentions no specific man named Darius the Mede. In 6:28 it is possible to translate, “Darius even … Cyrus.” A less likely possibility is that Darius is a second name for Gubaru, Cyrus’ appointed king to head up the Babylonian sector of his empire. MSBN
The identity of Darius the Mede and the exact nature of his relationship to Cyrus is not certain. It is clear that Cyrus was already king of Persia at the time when Babylon fell to the Persians (539 b.c.), and thus far no reference to “Darius the Mede” has been found in the contemporary documents that have survived. That absence, however, does not prove that the references to Darius in the book of Daniel are a historical anachronism. The book of Daniel recognizes that Cyrus reigned shortly after the fall of Babylon (1:1; 6:28), and knowledge of the history of this period, while substantial, may be incomplete. Until fairly recently there was no cuneiform evidence to prove the existence of Belshazzar either. Some commentators argue that Darius was a Babylonian throne name adopted by Cyrus himself. On this view, 6:28 should be understood as, “during the reign of Darius the Mede, that is, the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” Others suggest that Darius was actually Cyrus’s general, elsewhere named Gubaru or Ugbaru, and credited in the Nabonidus Chronicle with the capture of Babylon. ESVN
2. Why so many satraps.
Darius had “an hundred and twenty princes” who shared the responsibility and leadership
with him. Over this group Darius placed “three presidents” who served as liaison officers between the princes and the king. There was therefore a distribution of responsibility and rulership. We are told that these three presidents (Daniel was one of them) held their position so that “the king should have no damage.” This suggests that the presidents were to prevent the princes from stealing from or undermining the king in any way. Daniel was number one of the three presidents, and I take it that he was a man of about eighty years of age at this time. JVM
Darius may have been new at the task of ruling an empire, but he was far from naive. To establish himself and his rule over the territory formerly ruled by Babylon, he appoints 120 satraps, each responsible for a certain geographical region. The king’s major concern was corruption. He knew that political power afforded the opportunity not only for oppression but for corruption. Darius feared he would not be able to adequately supervise the satraps with such a large kingdom, and they would enrich themselves at his expense. For this reason, the king appointed three governors over the one-hundred and twenty satraps. He wanted to create a system of accountability which would prevent him from suffering loss. RD
4 At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. 5 Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.” 6 So these administrators and satraps went as a group to the king and said: “May King Darius live forever! 7 The royal administrators, prefects, satraps, advisers and governors have all agreed that the king should issue an edict and enforce the decree that anyone who prays to any god or human being during the next thirty days, except to you, Your Majesty, shall be thrown into the lions’ den.
3. Why couldn’t the administrators find some dirt on Daniel.
Daniel’s testimony is awesome, his character and ability unsurpassed. His work is such that not even his enemies can bring a charge against him. His flawless faithfulness to the king and his obedience to the laws of the land forces his enemies to pass a new law aimed directly at him and his destruction. The only fault to be found with Daniel is that he is too godly. What Christian would not want to be regarded as highly as Daniel? Rd
What a good man he was: An excellent spirit was in him, Dan_6:3. And he was faithful to
every trust, dealt fairly between the sovereign and the subject, and took care that neither should be wronged, so that there was no error, or fault, to be found in him, Dan_6:4. He was not only not chargeable with any treachery or dishonesty, but not even with any mistake or indiscretion. He never made any blunder, nor had any occasion to plead in advertency or forgetfulness for his excuse. This is recorded for an example to all that are in places of public trust to approve themselves both careful and conscientious, that they may be free, not only from fault, but from error, not only from crime, but from mistake. MHC
Daniel 1:8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way.
Daniel was the real deal. He committed his entire life for living a righteous God pleasing life. He was a sinner as are all humans but was determined to always keep keep his mind and eyes on God.
8 Now, Your Majesty, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” 9 So King Darius put the decree in writing.
4. Why was it so important to get the decree in writing and why would Darius sign such a law?
The plot of these princes and presidents and petty politicians was very subtle. King Darius was a good man. That is obvious from secular history, and I think it is certainly the implication of the Book of Daniel. But Darius had a vulnerable spot (many of us have it), and that was his vanity—he yielded to flattery. JV
Under Persian law, the king was bound by the authority of a royal edict. This made his power less than it was under an absolute dictator such as Nebuchadnezzar. “The action of Darius was both foolish and wicked. What led him to yield to the request of the ministers can only be conjectured, but probably he was greatly influenced by the claim of deity which many of the Persian kings made.” CN
If the enemies of Daniel knew him, they also knew Darius. They knew they could appeal to his pride and his desire for a unified kingdom.
“The suggested mode of compelling every subject in the former Babylonian domain to acknowledge the authority of Persia seemed a statesmanlike measure that would contribute to the unification of the Middle and Near East. The time limit of one month seemed reasonable.” (Archer)
“What pretence could they urge for so silly an ordinance? Probably to flatter the ambition of the king, they pretend to make him a god for thirty days; so that the whole empire should make prayer and supplication to him and pay him Divine honours! This was the bait; but their real object was to destroy Daniel.” (Clarke)
All the governors of the kingdom, the administrators and satraps, the counselors and advisors, have consulted together: Daniel’s enemies also knew that people can be persuaded to do things they wouldn’t normally do if they think everyone else approves of that thing. Of course, they lied when they said all the governors, because Daniel was one of the governors and he was not consulted.
So that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians: It was an established principle in the Medo-Persian Empire that when a king formally signed and instituted a decree, it was so binding that not even the king himself could change it. The decrees of a Persian king were unchangeable because he was thought to speak for the gods, who could never be wrong and never needed to change their minds. GC
5. What if such a law was signed in our present time?
Therefore King Darius signed the written decree: “Suppose the law of the land were proclaimed, ‘No man shall pray during the remainder of this month, on pain of being cast into a den of lions,’ – how many of you would pray? I think there would be rather a scanty number at the prayer-meeting. Not but what the attendance at prayer-meetings is scanty enough now! but if there were the penalty of being cast into a den of lions, I am afraid the prayer-meeting would be postponed for a month, owing to pressing business, and manifold engagements of one kind and another.”(Spurgeon)
10 Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. 11 Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. 12 So they went to the king and spoke to him about his royal decree: “Did you not publish a decree that during the next thirty days anyone who prays to any god or human being except to you, Your Majesty, would be thrown into the lions’ den?” The king answered, “The decree stands—in accordance with the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.” 13 Then they said to the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, Your Majesty, or to the decree you put in writing. He still prays three times a day.”
6. Daniel faced toward Jerusalem to pray? Can we pray everywhere and in every direction?
Daniel’s uncompromising pattern of prayer toward God’s temple conformed to Solomon’s prayer that the Lord’s people would do so (1Ki 8:44, 45). Three times a day was also the pattern established by David (Ps 55:16, 17).
Kings 8:44-45 “When your people go to war against their enemies, wherever you send them, and when they pray to the LORD toward the city you have chosen and the temple I have built for your Name, 4 then hear from heaven their prayer and their plea, and uphold their cause.
Psalm 55:16-17 As for me, I call to God, and the LORD saves me. 17 Evening, morning and noon I cry out in distress, and he hears my voice.
These were patterns for Old Covenant Jews not Christians.
7. Are there times when a Christian should disobey government?
Yes, if the government commands a Christian to do what is clearly contrary to God’s Yes, if the government commands a Christian to do what is clearly contrary to God’s Word. When one disobeys, he must nevertheless submit to the punishment which government prescribes for this disobedience. Since government has the delegated authority of God, government’s authority is subordinate to God’s orders if they differ. Daniel (Daniel 6) disobeyed the law of the Medes and the Persians igned by Darius which forbade prayer for 30 days. He, however, submitted to the penalty for his actions. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Daniel 3) are a similar example. Peter and the apostles (Acts 5, note especially v. 29, 40-42) refused to obey the order that they “speak not in the name of Jesus.” Our Lord’s statement in Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s,” demonstrates the fact that the Christian finds himself in two spheres of authority. Whenever these two spheres of authority come into conflict we must say with Peter and the apostles, “we ought to obey God rather than men.”
14 When the king heard this, he was greatly distressed; he was determined to rescue Daniel and made every effort until sundown to save him. 15 Then the men went as a group to King Darius and said to him, “Remember, Your Majesty, that according to the law of the Medes and Persians no decree or edict that the king issues can be changed.” 16 So the king gave the order, and they brought Daniel and threw him into the lions’ den. The king said to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, rescue you!” 17 A stone was brought and placed over the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet ring and with the rings of his nobles, so that Daniel’s situation might not be changed. 18 Then the king returned to his palace and spent the night without eating and without any entertainment being brought to him. And he could not sleep.
8. Why was Darius upset?
Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself – That is, for having consented to such a decree without deliberation, or with so much haste – or for having consented to it at all. It is remarkable that it is not said that he was displeased with them for having proposed it; but it is clear that he saw that the guilt was his own for having given his assent to it, and that he had acted foolishly. There is no evidence as yet that he saw that the decree had been proposed for the purpose of securing the degradation and ruin of Daniel – though he ultimately perceived it Dan_6:24; or if he did perceive it, there was no way of preventing the consequences from coming on Daniel – and that was the point that now engrossed his attention. He was doubtless displeased with himself,
(1) because he saw that he had done wrong in confirming such a decree, which interfered with what had been tolerated – the free exercise of religion by his subjects;
(2) because he now saw that it was foolish, and unworthy of a king, thus to assent to a law for which there was no good reason, and the consequences of which he had not foreseen; and
(3) because he now saw that he had involved the first officer of the realm, and a man of unsullied character, in ruin, unless some way could be devised by which the consequences of the statute could be averted.
It is no uncommon thing for men to be displeased with themselves when they experience the unexpected
consequences of their follies and their sins. An instance strongly resembling that here stated, in its main Translation, vol. iii. p. 146. BN
19 At the first light of dawn, the king got up and hurried to the lions’ den. 20 When he came near the den, he called to Daniel in an anguished voice, “Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to rescue you from the lions?” 21 Daniel answered, “May the king live forever! 22 My God sent his angel, and he shut the mouths of the lions. They have not hurt me, because I was found innocent in his sight. Nor have I ever done any wrong before you, Your Majesty.”
9. Who was this angel sent to deliver Daniel?
In this miracle, the angel was possibly the same person as the fourth person in the fiery furnace. innocent before Him. That is the supreme commendation of Daniel as blameless before God and unworthy of such a death. MSBN
Daniel evidently had been given the same assurance as had his three friends in the fiery furnace that God could and would deliver him. “His angel” was evidently the same One Nebuchadnezzar had seen in the fiery furnace—the preincarnate Christ Himself. JVM
23 The king was overjoyed and gave orders to lift Daniel out of the den. And when Daniel was lifted from the den, no wound was found on him, because he had trusted in his God. 24 At the king’s command, the men who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children. And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones.
10. Isn’t this a bit harsh?
After Daniel’s release, those who had schemed against him were thrown to the same lions. This was in accord with the common principle in the ancient Near East that anyone who made a false charge against someone else should be punished by receiving the same fate they had sought for their victim (cf. Deut. 19:16–21). In line with the ruthless practice of the Persians, the sentence was also carried out on the families of the guilty men: their children, and their wives. The experience of the conspirators in the den was the exact opposite of Daniel’s: they were seized and killed by the lions before they even hit the bottom of the den. ESVN
Deuteronomy 19:16-21 16 If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORDbefore the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. 21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Then the king applied the lex talionis (law of retaliation) and cast his friend’s accusers into the very den in which they had placed Daniel. Before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered and crushed them. “What Darius did seems arbitrary and unjust. But ancient pagan despots had no regard for the provision in the Mosaic law. The effects of people’s sins touch others beside themselves. The execution of the evildoers’ family members seems unfair and cruel, but it reflects the principle of corporate solidarity that was common in the biblical world.CN
25 Then King Darius wrote to all the nations and peoples of every language in all the earth: “May you prosper greatly! 26 “I issue a decree that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. “For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end. 27 He rescues and he saves; he performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth. He has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions.” 28 So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
11. So did the Medo/Persian Empire become followers of Yahweh?
Darius commands men to fear the God of Daniel and testifies that He is the living God (in
contrast to idols) and that He is sovereign. Darius was brought to God through the miracle of the den of lions. Daniel’s position was secure, and he maintained it to the end of his life which came during the reign of Cyrus. It was Cyrus who made the decree permitting the Jews to return to Palestine (see 2 Chron. 36:22–23; Ezra 1:11). This concludes the strictly historical section of the Book of Daniel. From this point on the book will be mainly concerned with the visions and prophecies which were given to Daniel over the long period of his life spent in a foreign land. JVM
Daniel and the events of his life had an influence on the destiny of the Persia and Israel and this was all part of God’s plan to redeem His people from captivity.
ESVN………….ESV Study Bible Notes
· MSBN…….MacArthur NASB Study Notes
· NIVSN…..NIV Study Notes.
· JVM ……………..J Vernon McGee,
· ACC ……………. Adam Clarke’s Commentary
· BN ……………..Barnes Notes
· WBC……………. Wycliffe Bible Commentary
· CN …… …………..Constables Notes
· IC………………….Ironside Commentary
· NET……………….Net Bible Study Notes.
· JFB…………..Jamieson Fausset Brown Commentary
· VWS……………..Vincent Word Studies
· CMM………….Commentary on Matthew and Mark
· BDB………….. Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
· Darby………..John Darby’s Synopsis of the OT and NT
· Johnson………Johnson’s Notes on the New Testament.
· NTCMM…………..The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark.
· EHS………………….Expositions of the Holy Scriptures
· CPP…………………The Complete Pulpit Commentary
· SBC…………………Sermon Bible Commentary
· K&D……………….Keil and Deilitzsch Commentary on the OT
· EBC…………………Expositors Bible Commentary
· CBSC……………….Cambridge Bible for Schools and College
· GC……………………Guzik Commentary
· RD……………………. Robert Deffinbaugh
PC………………………..Pett’s Commentary
“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues. It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please feel free to make civil comment. Divergent views encouraged,