I. DANIEL THE INTERPRETER--Chapters 1-6
F. Daniel and the Lion's Den--6:1-28
1. Daniel plotted against--vv. 1-9
a. The cause of the
plot--vv. 1-3
(I)
Darius' appointments--vv. 1, 2
(A) The person Darius
(1) "The references to Darius the Mede in the
Book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing
the most serious historical
problem in the book."(Walvoord, 132)
(2) The events based on the Nabonidus
Chronical
(a) Babylon was conquered
by Ugbaru, a leader of Cyrus' army on October 11, 539 B. C.
(b) Cyrus arrived in Babylon
October 29, 539 B. C.
(c) A man named Gabaru
was appointed ruler of Babylon.
(d) Ugbaru died 8 days later.
(e) Thus, no room for Darius
(3) Explanations
(a) The usual liberal answer
is that Daniel was historically wrong, thus proving that this book wasn't
written in
the sixth century, for a sixth century writer would know the correct facts.
(b) Popular conservative
view
((I)) "One
of these explanations is that Darius the Mede is the same as Gubaru,
the governor
appointed over Babylon by Cyrus." (Walvoord, 133)
((II))
“Whitcomb distinguishes Gubaru from Ugbaru, both of whom are called
Gobruas in some
translations of the Nabonidus Chronical. Whitcomb
holds that Ugbaru, identified
previously as the governor of Gutium in the Nabonidus
Chronical, led the army of Cyrus
into Babylon and died less than a month later. Gubaru, however,
is identified by Whitcomb
as Darius the Mede, a king of Babylon under the Cyrus."
(Ibid.)
(c) Another view held by
Wiseman is simpler.--"It claims that Darius the Mede is another name of
Cyrus the
Persian. This is based upon a translation of Daniel 6:28 which
the Aramaic permits to
read 'Daniel
prospered in the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the
Persian.' The fact
that Monarchs
had more than one name is common in ancient literature, and Wiseman's view
offers another
conservative explanation of this problem in Daniel." (op.
cit., 134)
(4) Much of the discussion centers on a
scarcity of facts.--"Critics frequently appeal to silence as an
argument in their favor,
as if the absence of a fact from our fragmentary records is a
conclusive
point. Most Bible-believing
Christians feel that until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
the Scripture record itself
should be given more consideration than the fragmentary records outside
the Bible or, specifically,
than the lack of record. K. A. Kitchen has summarized the
inconclusive
nature of this negative
evidence, demonstrating that it does not support the sweeping conclusion
that Daniel is in error.
It must be emphasized that there is no established fact which contradicts
a
person by the name of
Darius the Mede reigning over Babylon if Darius is an alternate
name for a
known ruler."
(Ibid.)
(5) Archeology has repeated verified facts that
were critically denied; time may yet reveal more about
this matter.
(B) The.appointments themselves
(1) "With the successful conquest of Babylon
and the surrounding territory, it now is appropriate for
the new kingdom to organize,
both from the standpoint of law and order and from the benefit of
taxation which this would
allow. In such an organization, it would not be unsuitable to use
qualified
men who had served previously
in the Babylonian kingdom. The conquerors did what they could to
set up a friendly relationship
with the people in their power." (Ibid.)
(2) The appointment of 120 princes (or
satraps) is considered by some as an inaccuracy--"The fact is
that the appointment of
120 officials to rule such a vast territory and of three presidents
to rule
over them was not all
unreasonable. Whether or not there were precisely 120 subdivisions
of his
territory is not indicated,
but the need for this number of officials is obvious." (op.
cit., 135)
(3) The purpose--"The point of introducing
these facts in Daniel's narrative is to give the setting for
Daniel's place of honor.
Daniel himself was named one of the three presidents who would
coordinate the work of the
120 princes. Of them, it was required to give financial accounts
and
protect the king's interest."
(Ibid.)
(II)
Daniel preferred--v. 3
(A) "Honored by the king, probably because of his long
experience and thorough familiarity with intricate
affairs of administration, Daniel is now
made first or chief of three 'presidents' who in turn were set
over the six score princes 'which should be over
the whole kingdom.' Darius evidently had learned by
experience and observation that the true servants
of God make the most completely dependable
servants of the king; with the affairs
of the whole world realm thus entrusted to Daniel. Darius could
have a free mind, certain that the king should
have no damage." (Newell, 72)
(B) Daniel was honest and capable and knew the territory and
the issues of taxation; it only made sense to
Darius to appoint Daniel, as per verse 3, to
a preferred position. This, of course, set up the situation
which was to follow concerning Daniel.
b. The attempt of
the plot--vv. 4, 5
(I)
Their attempt--v. 4
(A) The result of Daniel's integrity.
(B) "The excellent services and integrity of Daniel soon
became a barrier to the ambitions of the princes
and presidents with whom he was associated.
Daniel's integrity made impossible any corruption, and
his favor with Darius aroused the jealousy of
his fellow officials. It was only natural under these
circumstances that these men, most of them
probably younger than Daniel and anxious to get ahead,
should try to find some means of disposing
of Daniel." (Walvoord, 135)
(C) They failed because Daniel was faithful--"Daniel's faithfulness
was such that they could not put their
finger on any error or fault in the execution
of his office. Some other method must be found if Daniel
was to be eliminated." (Ibid.)
(II)
Their realization--v. 5
(A) Obedience to God must take first place.--"We see also from
Daniel 6:5 that 'the law of his God' must
be the final limit upon a Christian's duty to
the state, to the king, or to man in general." (Newell, 73)
(B) This the princes knew.--"The men themselves came to the
conclusion that the only way they could trip
up Daniel was to provide a conflict between official
regulations and Daniel's conscience and
observance of the law of God.
Scriptures do not reveal all the machinations which went on behind
Daniel's back, but apparently there were numerous
conferences and finally a plot was formed."
(Walvoord, 135-36)
c. The action of
the plot--vv. 6-9
(I)
They appear before Darius.
(A) Verse 6
(B) "The conspirators, having conceived of a plan, lost
no time in putting it into effect. In a major
appearance before the king, they presented their
request. Verse 6 seems to indicate that they were all
there, which was a most unusual occasion."
(op. cit., 136)
(II)
The princes are agreed.
(A) Verse 7
(B) "Their spokesman, after properly addressing King Darius,
represented to him that all the presidents
and other officials whom they named in verse
7 had agreed on their petition. Some object to this
account as being most improbable if not
impossible, but stranger things have happened." (Ibid.)
(C) This was not true; Daniel was not present.
(1) WHY?
(2) Either he was away, or more likely he was
not told about the proposed petition.
(III)
The petition is made.
(A) Verses.8, 9
(B) "Their petition to the king was to the effect that a decree
should be issued that no one could present a
petition to any god or man for thirty days except
to the king. The penalty for disobedience would be
that they would be cast into the den of lions.
Under the psychological impact of these officials
assembling in such force and presenting such
an unusual petition designed to honor Darius and
recognize in him divine powers, Darius signed
the writing and the decree; and it became a law which
could not be changed." (Ibid.)
(C) "Young observes, '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. . . . The probability is that Darius regarded this act
as
a pledge of loyalty to himself and a token
of their desire to respect his authority to the utmost."
(Young, 134; quoted in Walvoord, 137)
2. Daniel prosecuted all out--vv. 10-17
a. His faithfulness--vv.
10,11
(I)
He knew the writing was signed.
(A) He was not present, so he must have received the news
second-hand.
(B) Nothing is said how he secured the information.
(1) It could have been an official
announcement.
(2) More probably a friend told him, possibly
one of the three companions.
(II)
He went into his house to pray.
(A) The initial phrase suggests that Daniel was outside somewhere
possibly just outside the palace itself.
(B) The windows were open toward Jerusalem.--"According to the
record, although he knew that the
writing was signed and that discovery and execution
were inevitable, he nevertheless went to his house
where his windows were opened in the direction
of Jerusalem,.which still lay in ruins." (Ibid.)
(C) He knelt in prayer.
(1) Did this three times a day
(2) Prayer included thanks to God.
(3) Notice that this was his regular practice--"While
Daniel's consistency of life and testimony has been
evident throughout the book
of Daniel, here we learn the inner secret. In spite of the
pressures of
being a busy executive with
many demands upon his time, Daniel had retired to his house three
times a day to offer his
prayers for the peace of Jerusalem as well as for his personal needs.
This
was not the act of a
person courting martyrdom but the continuation of a faithful ministry
in prayer
which had characterized his
long life. The scripture observes that he did this as he had done
before." (Walvoord, 138)
(4) "Of special interest are the details
relating to his prayer life. The opening of the windows to
Jerusalem was symbolic of
his hope that someday the children of Israel would be able to
return to
this city of God.
Later in chapter 9, Daniel's effective prayers were the prelude for
the return under
Zerubbabel. His posture
in prayer is also indicative of his dependence upon God as a
supplicant."
(Ibid.)
(5) He could have done it secretly.--"To Daniel
apparently this was subterfuge, and he did not swerve
whatever from his usual customs
in prayer." (Ibid.)
(D) His enemies knew what he would do.
(1) Daniel was so consistent that his enemies
knew he would go ahead and pray.
(2) This consistency was what enabled his enemies
to tailor their petition.
(3) "Quite confidently they assembled to witness
his prayers and have a basis for charging Daniel
before the king. By
prearrangement, they gathered in a place where they could observe and hear
him, according to verse 11.
What a testimony Daniel had that even his enemies knew he would be
faithful to God although
it would cost him his life." (Ibid.)
(4) When Daniel's enemies had secretly observed
him praying, they rushed into the house while he was
offering his supplications,
that they might apprehend him in the very act and be able to bring him to
punishment. That the
act of watching him is not particularly mentioned, since it is to be
gathered
from the context, does not
make the fact itself doubtful, if one only does not arbitrarily, with
Hitzig,
introduce all kinds of
pretences for throwing suspicion on the narrative; as e.
g. by inquiring
whether the 122 satraps had
placed themselves in ambush; why Daniel had not guarded against
them, had not shut himself
in; and the like." (Keil, 213-4; italics are his.)
(5) As is so typical of critics, Hitzig
tried to place suspicion on the record.
b. His Accusation--vv.
12-15
(I)
The conspirators accuse him.
(A) His enemies wasted no time in getting to Darius.
(B) "They immediately accused him to the king. Reminding
the king of the promulgation of the
prohibition, they showed him that Daniel, one
of the captive Jews, had not regarded the king's
command, but had continued during the thirty
days to pray to his God, and thus had violated the law."
(op. cit., 214)
(II)
They remind the king of the decree--"They began by asking the question
whether the decree had been
signed. The king assured them that it had been officially
executed, and 'according to the law of the Medes
and Persians, which altereth not' the decree was the law of
the land." (Walvoord, 139)
(III)
They spring the trap on Daniel accusing him of breaking the decree--"In
this accusation they laid against
Daniel, we observe that his accusers do not describe him as
one standing in office near to the king, but
only as one of a foreign nation, one of the Jewish
exiles in Babylon, in order that they may thereby bring
his conduct under the suspicion of being a political act
of rebellion against the royal authority." (Keil, 214)
(IV)
They again remind the king of the decree.
(A) "Now that the trap was sprung on Daniel, . . ., the king
immediately saw through the decree. Instead
of being angry with Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar
had been with Daniel's three companions in chapter 3,
the king realized that he himself had made a
mistake and attempted in every legal way to find a
loophole by which Daniel could be delivered.
His labors , however, were in vain. The officials once
again assembling before the king at the evening
of the day reminded the king that the law could not be
changed according to their customs and beliefs.
As the representative of the gods, the king, having
decreed, would have to execute the decree.
There was no way out but to issue the command that
Daniel should be cast into the lion's den."
(Walvoord, 139)
(B) Since Darius valued highly Daniel's integrity in the performance
of his office, being unhappy over the
decree which he foolishly ordered, tried his
best to deliver him even unto the going down of the sun.
c. His punishment--vv.
16, 17
(I)
Daniel cast into lion's den. Thus was the sentence executed as per
the decree.
(II)
"Prior to its execution, it is most remarkable that the king said to Daniel,
'Thy God whom thou. servest
continually, he will deliver thee.' This may be translated,
'Thy God whom thou servest continually, he must
deliver thee.' . . . . The idea is that the king is saying,
'I have tried to save you but have failed. Now your
God must save you.' Observable in this assurance of
Darius is the deep impression that Daniel's
personal piety and faithfulness to God had made upon the king
and that this impression had brought about
Darius' own conviction that Daniel's God would come to his rescue
in Daniel's extremity." (Walvoord,
140; italics are his.)
(III)
The lion's den is sealed.
(A) A flat stone is placed over the opening to the den and sealed
by both the king's ring and the other
state officers; this was to prevent any finagling
with the decree. Of course, the accusers would not
have any occasion to do so, but they may have
thought that Darius would.
(B) "The decree, however, is executed. Daniel is cast
into the den of lions and a stone is brought upon
the mouth of the den sealed with the king's
signet as a token of execution and fulfillment of the
decree. No human hand could interfere,
not even that of Darius himself." (Ibid.)
3. Daniel preserved afterward--vv. 18-23
a. The king
laments--vv.18-20
(I)
Contrasted to Nebuchadnezzar.
(A) He showed Daniel's three companions no compassion.
(B) "Darius manifest unusual concern. Although he was
accustomed to brutality and execution of
criminals and ordinarily did not give the matter
a second thought, in this case there was something about
Daniel that involved the king emotionally."
(Walvoord, 141)
(II)
Clouded by sadness
(A) Passed the night in fasting
(B) This included both food and entertainment.
(C) "In keeping with his grief for Daniel, the Scriptures
record that the king fasted, did not have the usual
entertainment of music, and was unable
to sleep. The expression instruments of music is in
doubt
because the meaning of the word is uncertain.
. . . . In the present state of knowledge, the Revised
Standard Version rendering 'no diversions,' although
indefinite, is the best that can be done. In any
case it was most unusual for the king to spend
a night in this fashion. Probably never before in his
entire life had the king had such an experience."
(Ibid.; italics are his.)
(D) To this writer it seems that this is an unnecessary criticism
of the rendering of the KJV. This
rendering conveys the idea that Darius did not
even have his usual evening entertainment.
(III)
Came to the den
(A) He arose very early, probably just at dawn.
(B) He hurried there, maybe even ran.
(IV)
Cried to Daniel
(A) "On the following morning (ver. 20 [19]) the king rose early,
at the dawn of day, and went to the den
of lions, and with lamentable voice called
to him, feebly hoping that Daniel might be delivered by his
God whom he continually served." (Keil, 217;
note: the [ ] are his, not this writer's.)
(B) Not only is his action unusual, his address to Daniel is
unusual--"The form of address is also most
remarkable. He describes Daniel as the
'servant of the living God' and raises the question once again,
'is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able
to deliver thee from the lions?' That the king thought
that there was a possibility of it is
substantiated by the fact that he came to the den of lions early in
the
morning and called Daniel. That he had
little actual faith, however, is shown in the 'lamentable voice' in
which he called Daniel." (Walvoord, 141-2)
b. Daniel loosed--vv
.21-23
(I)
Daniel immediately responds.
(A) His voice is calm.
(B) His greeting is courteous.
(II)
Daniel gives God the credit.
(A) God sent the angel to close the lions' mouths.
(B) "As to Daniel's night among the lions, we rejoice with him
at the completeness of his deliverance. It
was a settled conclusion with him in advance
that God would deliver him to the uttermost; Daniel would
have been the most astonished man in Mesopotamia
had the lions been able to touch him." (Newell,
76)
(III)
Daniel asserts his innocence.
(A) "Daniel attributes this not only to the power of God
but to the fact that Daniel was innocent of any
crime either to God or to the king." (Walvoord,
142)
(B) "By his transgression of the edict he had not done
evil against the king's person. This Daniel could the
more certainly say, the more he perceived how
the king was troubled and concerned about his
preservation, because in Daniel's transgression
he himself had seen no conspiracy against his person,
but only fidelity toward his own God." (Keil,
217)
(IV)
The king was glad--"The Scriptures record that the king was overjoyed at
the deliverance of his favorite
counselor and immediately gave order that Daniel should be taken
up out of the den of lions." (Walvoord,
142)
(V)
Daniel released from the den.
(A) He may have been lifted up by ropes. It is unnecessary
to speculate that the lions were enticed to one
side; they did not bother Daniel all night, so
that they would not have tried to harm him while being
removed from the den.
(B) It was observed by all that no hurt had come to Daniel because
of his trust in the living God.
(C) Cf. Hebrews 11:33
4. Daniel prospered again--vv. 24-28
a. Seen in destruction
of enemies--v.24
(I)
The king ordered their demise.
(A) Who
(1) The accusers
(2) Their wives
(3} Their children
(B) "But now the destruction which the accusers of Daniel
thought to bring upon him fell upon themselves.
The king commanded that they should be cast into
the den of lions, where immediately, before they
had reached the bottom, they were seized and
torn to pieces by the lions." (Keil, 217-8)
(II)
Actually a divine judgment-- "The sad end of Daniel's accusers is recorded
as an act of divine justice
upon the enemies of the prophet of God." (Walvoord,
142)
(III)
Critics laugh at this episode--"Some critics have pointed with ridicule to
the impossibility of casting one
hundred and twenty officials plus their wives and children into
one lions' den. Montgomery, for instance,
regards this 'tragic denouement' as 'indeed absurd,' as well
as the entire story. The Septuagint, apparently
in an effort to counter this criticism, make the victims only
the two men who were presidents with Daniel,
and, therefore, his principal accusers. The Scriptures
themselves do not say that all the princes and
presidents were cast into the den of lions, but only those
who accused Daniel, that is, the ringleaders. This
served notice on the rest, if they had any further inclination
to plot against Daniel, that they too might
experience the wrath of the king as well as the judgment
of God." (Montgomery, 278 [the inner
quotation]; quoted in Walvoord, 143)
b. Seen in the decree
of Darius--vv. 25-28
(I)
Like Nebuchadnezzar, Darius issued a decree.
(A) Sent throughout the entire realm.
(B) Addressed to all people, nations, and languages--cf. Daniel
4:1
(II)
Daniel. was probably the actual penman.
(III)
"The decree was short and to the point calling on men everywhere in the kingdom
of Darius to 'tremble
and fear before the God of Daniel.' Daniel's God
is described as the living God, One who is steadfast,
whose kingdom shall not be destroyed and whose dominion continues
to the end. The Revised Standard
Version rendering 'enduring forever' is probably more explicit
than 'steadfast for ever.' [Again another
unnecessary criticism of the KJV] The point is that
in a rapidly changing situation--that is, the Medo-
Persians overcoming the Babylonians--God does not change. Again,
this is remarkably similar to Daniel
4:3. In substantiation of this ascription of
sovereignty and power, God is described as One who is able
to deliver and rescue, who is able to work signs and wonders
both in heaven and in earth, and who has
confirmed this by delivering Daniel from the power of the
lions." (Walvoord, 144)
(IV)
Daniel continues to prosper on into Cyrus' reign--"Ver. 29 (28) closes the
narrative in the same way as
that regarding the deliverance of Daniel's friends (ch.
iii. 30); only it is further stated, that Daniel continued
in office till the reign of the Persian Cyrus. By
the pronoun . . . , this Daniel, the identity of the person is
accentuated: the same Daniel, whom his enemies
wished to destroy, prospered. . . . . The succession of
the reign of Cyrus the Persian to that of Darius
the Median does not show the diversity of the two
kingdoms, but only that the rulers of the kingdom were
of different races." (Keil, 219; italics are his.)
(V)
Lessons
(A) God's present care--"Although the pointed claim of this
chapter that God is able to accomplish
miracles in delivering His servants from death
is couched in such terms as to arouse the unbelief of
those already predisposed to question the Scriptures,
this chapter is a profound illustration of how
God cares for His people." (Walvoord, 144)
(B) God's future deliverance--"Although historical and to be
accepted in its literal portrayal of an event, it
is also parabolic like chapter 3 and is a
foreshadowing of the ultimate deliverance of the people of
Israel from their persecutors in the time of
the great tribulation at the end of the times of the
Gentiles.
When the power of God is finally demonstrated
at the second coming of Christ, the persecutors of
Israel and the enemies of God will be judged
and destroyed much like the enemies of Daniel. Like
Daniel, however, the people of God in
persecution must remain true regardless of the cost."
(Ibid.)