Bible Commentaries

CHAP. 6. DANIEL IN THE LIONS’ DEN

Darius the Mede appoints over his kingdom 120 satraps with three presidents over them, one of the latter being Daniel (Daniel 6:1-2). On account of the regard shewn to him by the king, the satraps and presidents, being moved with envy, seek an opportunity to ruin him (Daniel 6:3-4). They accordingly persuade Darius to issue a decree, forbidding any one to ask a petition of God or man, except the king, for thirty days (Daniel 6:5-9). Daniel, however, continues as before to pray three times a day at his open window towards Jerusalem. The king, upon information being brought to him, reluctantly yielding obedience to the law, orders Daniel to be cast into a den of lions (Daniel 6:10-17). Next morning, to his astonishment and joy, he finds him uninjured; and publishes a decree enjoining men, in all parts of his dominion, to stand in awe of the God of Daniel, who had given such wonderful evidence of His power (Daniel 6:18-28).

Daniel has hitherto been uniformly prosperous: success and honours have attended him under each monarch with whom he has had to do (Daniel 1:19-20; Daniel 2:26 ff., Daniel 2:48-49; Daniel 4:19-27; Daniel 5:17 ff., Daniel 5:29), even including Darius (Daniel 6:2-3). But, in his old age, his trial also comes. His loyalty to his God, his determination not to disown the public profession of his faith, is put severely to the test. It is not, as with his three companions in ch. 3, a question of a positive sin which he will not commit, but of a positive duty which he will not omit. He finds himself placed in a position in which, if he worships the God of his fathers in his accustomed manner, he will become guilty of a capital offence. The situation is, in all essential features, the same as that of the faithful Jews under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1Ma 1:41-64). The story of Daniel’s deliverance, notwithstanding certain improbabilities which (quite apart from the details which are avowedly miraculous) it seems, to some minds, to present, is a vivid exemplification of the value, in God’s sight, of courageous loyalty to Himself. Of course, in the ordinary operation of Providence, God’s servants are not delivered from bodily peril by a direct miraculous intervention of the character here described: but the narrative, like that in ch. 3, must be judged by the principle laid down in the Introduction (p. lxxii): the lesson, not the story in which it is embodied, is the point which the narrator desires to impress, and on which the reader’s attention ought to be fixed.

1. an hundred and twenty satraps] see on Daniel 3:2. No other notice of this organization has come down to us. The Persian empire was first organised into provinces under ‘satraps’ by Darius Hystaspis (522–485 b.c.); and then the satrapies were only 20 in number (Herod. iii. 89[264]). The statement, upon independent grounds, is not probable; and if it is true that there was no king ‘Darius the Mede,’ some error or confusion must manifestly underlie it. It may have been suggested by the 127 provinces, into which, according to Esther 1:1; Esther 8:9, the Persian empire was divided under Xerxes.

[264] The Behistun Inscription; of Darius (col. i. par. 6) enumerates 23 provinces; the later (sepulchral) inscription of Naksh-i-Rustam (l. 7–9), 29: see RP.1 iii, v. 151 f. Darius, in the first of these inscriptions, mentions the ‘satrap’ of Bactria, and the ‘satrap’ of Arachotia (col. iii par. 3 and 9). See further details in Rawl., Anc. Mon.4 iii. 417 ff.

over] in, i.e. (R.V.) throughout.

2. three presidents] Aram. sârak, prob. a form derived from the Pers. sâr, ‘head,’ ‘chief,’ ‘prince.’ In the O.T. it is found only in this chap. (Daniel 6:2-4; Daniel 6:6-7): in the Targums it stands often for the Heb. shôṭçr, ‘officer,’ as Exodus 5:6; Exodus 5:10; Deuteronomy 1:15; Deuteronomy 20:5; Joshua 1:10; Proverbs 6:7 (‘overseer’).

was first] was one: so R.V. rightly.

that these satraps might give account unto them] strictly, might be giving account, i.e. might be permanently answerable to them, that the interests and revenues of the king were properly guarded. No such officials are mentioned elsewhere,—except in so far as they may be regarded as the successors of the three Babylonian ministers, presupposed in Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29. Darius Hystaspis, as a check upon his satraps, appointed in each satrapy an independent military commandant, and a royal ‘scribe,’ or secretary, whose business it was to report to the king the doings of the satrap (Hdt. iii. 128; Rawl., Anc. Mon.4 iii. 424).

3. was preferred] distinguished himself, or (R.V.) was distinguished. The root idea of the word is to shine, hence to be illustrious. It is common in Syriac in the sense of praeclare se gessit, representing for instance the Greek διαλάμπειν, εὐδοκιμεῖν, εὐδοξεῖν (Payne Smit[265] col. 2438). ‘Was preferred’ means here was advanced or promoted, in accordance with the old sense of ‘prefer,’ preserved now only in ‘preferment’; see Esther 2:9; John 1:15; John 1:27; and the Bible Word-Book.

[265] yne Smith R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.

princes] satraps. Song of Solomon vv4, 6, 7.

an excellent spirit] a surpassing spirit, as Daniel 5:12.

4. sought to find occasion, &c.] They were evidently jealous that a man of alien race and creed should be exalted above themselves.

concerning] as touching (R.V.): lit. from the side of. The meaning of course is, any charge of disloyalty, or any remissness or neglect in the discharge of his public office.

error] or negligence: Daniel 3:29.

5. law] dâth, the same Persian word, which is found in Daniel 2:9; Daniel 2:13; Daniel 2:15, and also in Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15, and constantly in Esther. Here, as in Ezra 7:12; Ezra 7:14; Ezra 7:21; Ezra 7:25-26, it denotes the Jewish law (Heb. tôrâh).

6. assembled together] came thronging (A.V. marg.; R.V. marg. came tumultuously). The word occurs several times in the Aramaic of the Targums, where it corresponds to Heb. words signifying to be in commotion or tumult, as Psalm 46:6, ‘nations were in tumult,’ Ruth 1:9, ‘and all the inhabitants of the city were in commotion on account of them’; and it occurs once in Heb., Psalm 2:1, ‘Why do the nations throng tumultuously?[266]’ The expression is thus a more vivid and graphic one than would be inferred from the rend. of A.V.: the courtiers, in their animosity against Daniel, are represented as flocking tumultuously to the king, for the purpose of gaining his co-operation in their plan.

[266] Cf. the cogn. subst. throng, Psalm 55:14 (so R.V.), Psalm 64:2 (R.V. ‘tumult,’ marg. ‘throng’).

live for ever] see on Daniel 2:4.

7. All the presidents] of course, with the exception of Daniel, who was one of them (Daniel 6:2). But the misrepresentation may be meant to be intentional, as though to lead the king to suppose that the proposal had Daniel’s approval.

the governors, and the princes, the counsellers and the captains] the praefects (Daniel 2:48), and the satraps, the ministers (Daniel 3:24), and the governors (Daniel 3:2). Cf. the enumeration of officials in Daniel 3:2-3; Daniel 3:27.

to establish a royal statute] Of course, indirectly,—by prevailing upon the king to take action. A.V. marg. ‘that the king should establish a statute, and make’ &c., expresses the meaning more distinctly; but it is a less natural rendering of the Aramaic.

and to make a firm decree] and to make a stringent interdict. ‘Interdict’ (so A.V. marg., and R.V.) is lit. a binding, or restraining; and almost the same word is used in Numbers 30:2-4, &c. of a restraining vow (A.V., R.V., ‘bond’). The passive partic. of the cognate verb is common in the Mishna in the sense of ‘prohibited.’

a petition] The meaning probably is, not any petition absolutely, but any petition of the nature of a prayer, or request addressed formally to a superior. The interdict has been deemed an incredible one; but some allowance must be made for what an oriental despot might prescribe in a freak of humour. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the king should accede so readily to the proposal made to him, without either consulting the minister whose judgement he specially trusted (Daniel 6:3), or reflecting upon the difficulties in which it might involve him.

the den of lions] the reference is “to the custom which existed already among the Assyrians, and from them was passed on to the Persians, of keeping lions for the chase” (Bevan): cf. Ezekiel 19:9. The word rendered ‘den’ means properly a pit or dungeon: see the Targ. of Genesis 37:22; Jeremiah 38:6-7; and cf. Daniel 6:23 (‘taken up’), and Daniel 6:24, end.