Daniel 6
DANIEL IN THE LIONS’ DEN
1 “It pleased Darius to
set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes,
which should be over the whole kingdom; 2 And over these three presidents;
of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give
accounts unto them, and
the king should have no damage. 3 Then this Daniel was preferred above the
presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king
thought to set him over the whole realm.”
The variations from the Massoretic
text in the Septuagint are, in regard to the verses before us, very
considerable. It
assumes the last verse of the preceding chapter, and begins, “And
he set up
a
hundred and twenty and seven satraps over all his kingdom. And over
them he set three men as (ἡγουμένους– haegoumenous – presidents), and
Daniel was one of the three men [and
had authority over all men in the kingdom.
And Daniel was clothed in
purple, and was great and honorable (ἔνδοξος –
endoxos – renowned; honored) before Darius the king,
because he was honorable
(ἔνδοξος) and understanding and
prudent, and there was an holy spirit in him,
and
he prospered in the affairs of the
kingdom which he did]. Then the king
(ἐβουλεύσατο – ebouleusato- - thought) to place Daniel over all his kingdom
[(and the two men who stood with him and the hundred and twenty-seven
satraps)
when the king thought to place Daniel over his whole kingdom].” The passages
within brackets, we think, are additions to amplify the
description, and to
connect it with the honor given Daniel by Belshazzar.
The bracketed parts
are
easily separable from the rest, and then what remains forms a
continuous narrative. Theodotion differs,
though slightly, from the
Massoretic text, Darius “set (κατεστήσεν - katestaesen - appoint; put
in charge)
Daniel over the closely with the Massoretic, only the
word for “princes”
is not, as in the Massoretic text, ahashdarpnayya’, but rabu
heel. This is the
common rendering in the Peshitta of
this word, and points to the Massoretic term
being an adaptation. the use of the
word “satrap” here has led to the
idea
that this is derived from the hundred and twenty-seven provinces
(Esther 1:1). This
identification is supported certainly by the Septuagint,
which gives a hundred and twenty-seven as the number of the
satraps set
up
by Darius. Josephus, it may be noted (‘
satrapies as three hundred and sixty — a reading that seems
scarcely to be
drawn by any conceivable mistake from the Massoretic text, nor any
tradition of the actual number of satrapies under the
Persian rule. The
probability is that there has been some early corruption of
the number. On
the supposition that Darius is Gobryas,
these satraps would really be
governors of cities and small districts in the populous
We have in the inscriptions of the Assyrian monarchs
who intervened in the
affairs of
kingships: each of these would require a special governor.
In harmony with
this, we are informed by Mr. Pinches that Gobryas appointed subordinate
governors in the
in the Annals of Nabunahid (col.
3. line 20), “And Gobryas his governor
appointed governors in
2. p. 256) points out that the
sign of the plural after the second occurrence
of the word “governor” proves that we cannot translate as
if “Cyrus” were
the nominative to the sentence, and “Gobryas,”
who was governor of
Gutium or Guti, was object. From the fact that the text of
Daniel was not
protected by being regularly read in the synagogues, as was
the Law, the
Prophets, the Megilloth, the Psalms, and some other books, it was more at
the mercy of scribes. The change of “Gobryas”
into “Darius” led easily to
other modifications. Probably medeena,
“province,” was the word in the
original text, but it was modified to malcoutha,
“kingdom,” and
“governors” of cities became
“satraps” over provinces. After having
appointed these subordinate governors, that a board of
three should be set
over them was a necessary arrangement. The name given to
them,
sarekeen, is asserted by some to be of Persian origin. On the other
hand,
the fact that the first syllable is sar,
the Assyrian for “king,” one is tempted
to think of a Semitic etymology. The Authorized is wrong in
making
Daniel “first” of these
presidents; all that is asserted is that Daniel was one
of these presidents. That
the king should have no damage applies most
probably to the revenue. The country, in the East, is
divided off into small
districts for the purpose of tax-collecting, and in the
division of the Persian
Empire into twenty satrapies, this
was greatly the object. The repetition of
the word “king” here might imply that Darius was not the
king whose loss
of revenue was to be guarded against; but we would not be
held as pressing
this. Although Daniel was not, on the creation of this
board, made chief of
it, he soon acquired an influence over Darius which gave
him, in effect,
such a position. We are to understand that these officials
were mainly
Babylonians. We learn now that the capture of
accomplished by a skilful diverting of the waters of the
the Persian troops were enabled to wade in by the bed of
the stream, nor to
the fact that in the revelry of a feast the river-gates
were left open, and the
sentinels were careless; but to the fact that the whole official class were at
enmity with the court, and so treachery opened the gates
to Gobryas, the
governor of Gutium, the name
given to
province, and when morning broke one day, the sixteenth of Tammuz, the
inhabitants of
the
former monarchy would be largely drawn upon to supply the
needs of the
new government; naturally the native Babylonians would
think that the
preference in all matters of office ought to be given to
them; that, above
all, the principal place should not be given to a Jew by
Cyrus, or by any
one under him, since Cyrus professed to be moved by
reverence for the
national gods of
thought to set
him over the whole realm. This really means over the
object was not to make Daniel satrap instead of himself,
but to make him
his “vizier.” His knowledge of the business of the
province would of
necessity be very thorough, dating, as it did, from the
days of
Nebuchadnezzar. He, as no other, would be acquainted with the various
religious beliefs of the different captive communities in
belonging to one of these communities, his interest would
be excited by all
in similar circumstances. His age, the dignity he had enjoyed in the
courts
of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabunahid,
along with his zeal and ability,
naturally explain the desire of Darius (Gobryas)
to make him his vizier.
4 “Then the presidents and
princes sought to find occasion
against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find
none
occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither
was there
any error or fault found in him. 5 Then said
these men, We shall not
find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it
against him
concerning the law of his God.” The rendering of the Septuagint is here
very paraphrastic, “Then the two (νεανίσκοι – neaniskoi - young men)
took counsel, and planned among themselves with each other,
saying, Since
they found no error nor neglect (ἄγνοιαν – agnoian – pure; chaste; holy)
against Daniel, about which they might accuse him to the
king, and they said,
Come, let us make a decree (ὁρισμόν – horismon – declare; decree) among
ourselves, that no man shall make any request, or offer any prayer, to any
god
for thirty days, but only from Darius the king, and if not
he shall die; in order
that they might lower (ἡττήσωσι – haettaesosi – to lower; be inferior) Daniel
before the king, and that he be thrown into the den of
lions; for they knew that
Daniel prayed and made
supplication to the Lord his God three times a
day.” There are elements here of interpolation and of the
coalescence of
different renderings. It is difficult to understand how “the
presidents” could
be
called νεανίσκοι (young men). There seems no Aramaic word with that
meaning, into which sarekeen
could be read; certainly it is as difficult to imagine
any one thinking of introducing that as a logical
equivalent. Young men would
not be put in such a responsible place, nor would they have
thought of
Daniel — a man of about eighty years — as a colleague with
youths. There
are evident traces of two readings having coalesced; thus
we have
ἀλλήλους λέγοντες – allaelous legontes - followed by εϊπαν – eipan -
since; otherwise - after the course of the narrative has been interrupted
by an inserted clause. As to the punishment to befall the transgressor
of this
decree, one statement is, “If not, he shall die” The next
version of the punishment
is brought into connection with the humiliation to be
inflicted on Daniel, that
“he may be cast into the den of lions.” At the same time,
the fact that we hear of
the
decree in connection with the consultation of these conspirators in the present
text, is in harmony with what we find in the fourth
chapter. In the original
document not improbably the statement would be given — as
in Genesis 41.
in regard to Pharaoh’s dreams — alike when the conspirators
devise the plan, and
when they carry it out. In regard to some of the
differences, an explanation
may be hazarded, but we will not delay. Notwithstanding
that the
Massoretic here is shorter than the Greek text, we fancy it is not
difficult
through it to find a shorter text still. The text of Theodotion is much briefer
than either of the other texts, “And the presidents (τακτικοὶ – taktikoi - arranged)
and the satraps sought to find occasion against Daniel, and
they found neither
occasion, nor fault, nor error against him, because he was
faithful. And the
presidents said, We shall not find occasion against Daniel
except in regard
to
precepts (νομίμους – nomimous – law; custom; usage) of his God.”
The Peshitta agrees in the main
with the Massoretic.
It makes Daniel faithful
“towards God.”
That these co-presidents and the under-governors should be
indignant that a Jew, who had actually been employed in the
court of Nabunahid,
should be put above those Babylonians who had admitted the
shields of Guti into
Esakkil, was natural. Of course, they could not seriously plead
this before the
Governor Gobryas. They could not
accuse Daniel directly of worshipping his
National Deity, for the Persian rule in
is to be noted that in the Septuagint the plot is concocted
by the two
“youths,” Daniel’s
co-presidents. They, most likely men of high rank,
would feel most keenly that they were superseded by a Jew,
and their
feelings would naturally spread to those beneath them.
6 “Then these presidents
and princes assembled together to the king,
and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. 7 All the
presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes,
the
counselors, and the captains, have consulted together to
establish a
royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever
shall ask a
petition of any God or man for thirty days, save of thee, O
king, he
shall be cast into the den of lions. 8 Now, O king, establish the decree,
and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to
the law of
the Medes and Persians, which altereth
not. 9 Wherefore King Darius
signed the writing and the decree.” The Septuagint, in
regard to those
verses, is much briefer, and reveals a better text. “Then
those men came
and said before the king, We have made a decree and a
statute, that any
man who offereth prayer or
presents petition to any god for the space of
thirty days, save only to Darius the king, shall be cast
into the den of lions;
and thus Darius decreed, and confirmed it.” The fact that
requests to other
men are not forbidden is to be observed. The long catalogue
of officials is
omitted; the whole conspiracy
is the work of Daniel’s co-presidents.
Theodotion and the Peshitta are in
practical agreement with the Massoretic
text. To understand the point of this decree, that seems to
us so absurd,
and comprehend how any one with sufficient mental vigor
left to be
placed by Cyrus as governor in
we must recognize the state of matters in
Nabunahid there had been many religious changes. The seclusion of
the
monarch had led to the neglect of many of the regular rites
of the gods of
Babil. The policy he pursued of bringing the gods of various
provinces to
importance of the national religion by forming rival cults.
One of the first
acts of Cyrus’s reign was to order the replacing of these
deities in their
ancient shrines. This would necessarily be most distasteful
to the
worshippers of these imported deities. There would be much
murmuring
among the huge heterogeneous population; and there would be
thus a well
grounded fear of a religious riot. A bold soldier as Gobryas (Darius) was,
he probably was but a timid ruler, and nothing would he
dread more than a
religious riot. Would it not be a plausible way of meeting
this difficulty to
order for one month all worship to cease? The British
Government in
regulates the religion of the inhabitants as summarily,
forbidding religious
observances that are liable to cause excitement in votaries
of rival creeds.
Thus Moses assigned, as a reason
for refusing to sacrifice in
wrath of the Egyptians (Exodus 8:26). The offering of a
prayer among
heathen peoples generally meant the offering of sacrifices,
also
accompanied possibly by processions. That the decree was
made by Darius
in the absence of his favorite minister might have two
reasons: either from
the fact that the word used (hargishoo)
implies that the presidents rushed
in tumultuously into the royal presence; that there was an
emergency which
must be met by instant action; or that, being a weak man,
he did not wish
his other counselors to think that he was so under the
influence of this Jew
that he could do nothing without first consulting him; so,
by way of
showing his independence, he signed the decree. As for the
practical
deification of himself required from the subject races,
that would not
appear to him a matter of importance. It might even seem to
him as the
surest way of doing away with the rancor of religious
rivalries to give
these conflicting creeds a common object. He, Gobryas, was the
representative of Cyrus, in whom deity was incarnate,
therefore let them
worship him in his representative capacity. That Daniel
should be affected
by this decree might easily never occur to Gobryas Jewish worship, now
that the temple at
synagogue worship of the present day. A worship that had
neither idols nor
sacrifices, neither temple nor altar, would seem to the
Babylonians, and for
that matter to the Medians and Persians also, as much the
same as atheism.
Christianity seemed so to the
Roman Government. Darius, then, would
readily think that Daniel could make no serious objection
to this order That
Daniel always spoke of a God in
heaven did not matter much, since, to all
appearance, he never worshipped Him. Some have maintained
that the
punishment was an impossible one. It is certain that Asshur-bani-pal
inflicted a similar punishment on Saulmugina,
a rebel King of Babylon, and
did it in honor of the gods. The main objection has
been urged from the
mistaken assumption that the text implies that the lions’
den was a bottle
shaped dungeon. There is nothing in the narrative that
necessitates this. In
regard to the decree, there is reference to the “laws of
the Medes and
Persians,” “the Medes” being
placed first. It has been attributed to court
flattery, as Darius was a Mede; probably, however, there
may be another
explanation. The small canton of Ansan,
over which Cyrus was king, lay
between
latter of these countries. Both countries had been overrun
by a nomadic
race, the Manda, under Astyages, who had overthrown Cyaxarcs
the King
of Media. Against Astyages Cyrus
rebelled, and gathered to him the
Medes, Elamites,
and other cognate races. Dr. Winckler thinks that, on
his
victory over Astyages, Cyrus
assumed the name Persian, Parsu, from his
race. The name Parsua appears
in connection with the Medes in an
inscription of Shalmaneser, where
it seems to indicate a small kingdom
occupying much the same geographical position as Ansan. By taking this
old name, not impossibly Cyrus avoided making the Medes
feel themselves
subject to the Elamites, or the Elamites to the Medes, or either to the little
imperial power, therefore its laws and constitution would
be placed before
the more recently prominent Persian. One thing that must be
observed is
that, while the writer of Daniel mentions Medes separate
from Persians, he
mentions them conjointly. Had the writer been under the
delusion
attributed to him by all critical interpreters, that the
Median Empire came
between the Babylonian and the Persian, he would not have
represented
the Median courtiers as saying anything about the Persians
or their laws;
the Medes, and the Medes alone, would be considered.
According to the
Greek account, from which it is alleged Daniel drew his
information,
was a small, undeveloped country before Cyrus raised it to
empire. What
right, then, would it have to have its laws mentioned in
the same breath
with those of imperial Media? If, however, Cyrus had been
raised to such
power, so as to be able to encounter successfully Astyages and his Scythian
hordes by the adhesion to his cause of the Medes, the laws
of the Medes
might well get a preference, as the Medes were, in all
probability, more
numerous than the Persians, though the laws of the Persians
would be
mentioned. The claim that these laws were immutable must be
regarded as
on a par with several other Eastern exaggerations. Signed the writing and
the decree. The reading of the
Septuagint seems superior, “And so King
Darius decreed (ἔστησε – estaese – signed the writing), and confirmed it.”
At the same time, the verb resham,
translated “sign,” really means “engrave,”
and therefore might naturally enough be used for affixing a
seal to a clay tablet;
only hetham is the word
usually used for “sealing” a document. Behrmann
thinks it does
not refer to the signature of the sovereign, but
to the engraving
the decree on the clay. If we imagine yeqeem
to have fallen out before “sara,
we have a reading not unlike the Septuagint. In the seventh verse there is a list
of officials
omitted from the Septuagint; it is almost identical in members with
that which we find in ch. 3., but in a
slightly different order, only the sareqeen
are added and the edargazereen omitted.
The Murderous Plot of Envy (vs. 1-9)
No human government, however wise or good, can
check the growth of immoral
principles. Human authority, at the most, can deal with overt crimes; it cannot
check or punish the iniquities in the human heart. (This is the great mistake
of the so-called “Separation of
Church and State”. When the state eliminates
godly influence, it is helpless since government cannot
prevent crime BUT
ONE’S RELIGION
CAN – CY – 2014) There is need for
higher authority —
for A HEART SEARCHING GOD!
— to control the tempers and passions
of the soul.
Envy is excited by the sight of superior goodness in
others, starting out with
the first family, when Cain slew Abel his brother. “And wherefore slew he
him? Because his own
works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.”
(I John 3:12).
As every climate and every condition of soil are favorable
to the
propagation of particular weeds, so
every state of society offers facility for
the growth of some sins. Prosperity has its dangers as well as adversity. If
the
refinements of civilization make grosser vices intolerable, the greater
encouragement is given for the secret sins of envy, deceit, and
uncharitableness. It is never safe for the conscience to fall asleep.
·
ENVY CAN EXIST IN THE
BEST-ORDERED COMMUNITY.
Whatever may have been the
faults of Darius, he had a remarkable faculty
for wise government. The difficult task of ruling a large
empire was
distributed among suitable orders of men. He was not only successful
in
war, but also skilful in council. Unlike many Oriental
monarchs, he was
neither an autocrat nor a tyrant. He did not suppose that all
wisdom
resided in himself, nor did he imagine that intelligent beings
could be ruled
by sheer will. Therefore he laid the basis for constitutional
government, and
appointed a prince in every province of the empire, whose business
it
would be to maintain the royal authority, and to secure to all
subjects rights
of freedom and property. But no human government, however wise or
good, can check the growth of immoral principles. Human authority, at the
most, can deal with overt crimes; it cannot check or punish the iniquities in
the human heart. There is need
for higher authority — for a heart-
searching God — to control the
tempers and passions of the soul.
·
ENVY IS EXCITED BY THE
SIGHT OF
IN OTHERS, It is a strange phenomenon that VIRTUE IN ONE should
be the occasion of vice in others. Yet
virtue is not responsible for this result.
Eminent goodness either
allures or repels men. Virtue may be the innocent
occasion of wickedness: it is not its originating cause. The warmer
the sun
shines on our gardens, the faster grow the weeds on the dunghill.
Yet the
sun is not to be blamed. The
peerless purity of Jesus Christ exasperated
men to commit THE FOULEST OFFENSE THAT THE WORLD HAS
EVER WITNESSED! As a rule, it
is not the virtue itself that is envied,
but the advantages and rewards which virtue secures. Men, for the most
part,
wish to gain the fruits of virtue rather than the
virtue itself; and if they cannot,
with facility, rise to the elevation of their rival, they seek
to bring him down to
their level or else destroy him altogether. Because Daniel was preferred by the
king on account of his probity and prudence, the evil nature in his
competitors
developed in the direction of bitter envy. (Envy shoots at
others but wounds
herself! -
English Proverb)
·
ENVY IS LABORIOUS IN THE SEARCH AFTER OTHERS’
SINS.
The base and contemptible nature of envy is seen in
its occupations.
It is not conducive to the health of men’s minds to be
perpetually engaged
in the study of disease.
There may be compensations and alleviations to be
obtained from other sources. But the pursuit itself is injurious. Much more
injurious to the soul is it to be on the search for diseases of the
soul, and to
find a satisfaction in the supposed faults of our fellow-men. In the case of
Daniel, this search served only
to bring more clearly into view Daniel’s
exceptional virtue. Not even the sharp lynx-eye of ambitious envy
could
find a blemish on his reputation. His unworthy detractors were at length
compelled to acknowledge his private and his public virtues; so they
confessed to each other, “We shall find no occasion of blame against
this
Daniel, except we
find it against him concerning the Law of his God.”
·
ENVY SEEKS TO GAIN ITS END BY THE MOST
DISCREDITABLE
METHODS. It
matters little to Envy whether she
speaks the language of truth or of falsehood; whether she employs
just or
unjust measures. These
jealous rivals of Daniel went to the king with a lie
in their mouths when they said that “all the presidents” and
princes had
united in asking this decree. How carefully busy is Envy in her
intrigue!
She counts no toil inordinate! She had paced up and down the land,
whispered in the ear of every state official, and secured their
adhesion to
this deadly plot.
Seeming success makes her bold. She will involve the king
himself in her murderous scheme. A
crafty use of flattery will win his
powerful patronage. The intrigue shall be masked under the pretence
of
excessive loyalty. For thirty days the king shall be the sole
dispenser of
bounty to the people. His ear shall be open to every complaint.
This will
gain him wide popularity; this will bring pious Daniel
within the meshes of
perversity. These professed
believers in other gods will neglect their
deities for a whole month in order to encompass the murder of the best and
noblest man in the empire.
·
ENVY IS NOTHING BETTER THAN INCIPIENT MURDER. No
tender or humane feeling can dwell in the same breast as Envy. She will
gradually banish every virtuous occupant, and introduce instead the basest
crew. Hide her final
intention as she may, she must at length confess that
murder is the final act in her program. These jealous colleagues
of
Daniel would probably have been
for the moment satisfied, if only they
could have deposed Daniel from his just eminence, or if they
could have
seriously injured his reputation with the king. But since these ends were
compassed with insuperable difficulty, they determine to aim higher still,
and because this end seemed within easier reach, they
make a thrust at his
life. It is a perilous
thing to harbor an evil principle in any corner of the
heart. Like a tiny leak in a
mill-dam, it will steadily increase: the trickling
stream will carve for itself a larger and a larger channel, until
every barrier
at last gives way, and DEVESTATION ON A LARGE SCALE IS THE
RESULT! “Keep thine heart
with all diligence, for out of it are the issues
of life.” (Proverbs 4:23) Envy, when developed to maturity, becomes
red-handed murder.
10 “Now when Daniel knew
that the writing was signed, he
went into his house; and his windows being open in his
chamber
toward
prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did
aforetime.” The
Septuagint rendering differs
only slightly from the Massoretic. “And when
Daniel knew the decree which was passed (ἔστησε
- same as in the last verse)
against him, he opened the windows of his upper chamber,
and fell on his face
three times a day, according as he did aforctimc,
and prayed.” The Septuagint
translator read עלה, “against him,” instead of על, “went.” It seems to us that the
Massoretic reading, “went to his house,” is an addition due to
misreading
עלה.
That the variations of the Septuagint arc not due to paraphrase is
proved by the tact that the next clause is literally
translated. It would seem
that the text before the Septuagint had been altered, so that we have “fell
upon
his face,” instead of “knelt upon his knees.” The former
phrase is an echo
from ch.2:46. It is to be observed that “prayed
and gave thanks” is
omitted from the Septuagint. As the omission can have no
purpose, and we
can understand the reason of the words being added, we
prefer the Septuagint
reading here. Theodotion and the Peshitta are at one with the Massoretic.
The action of Daniel is here
that of a man of true conscientiousness; he
does not obtrude his religion now that the practice of it
implies danger, as
did some Christian fanatics in the persecution of the three
first centuries;
nor, on the other hand, does he hide his acts of worship —
he simply
continued his previous habits. Had a Jewish fanatic of the
time of the
Maccabees written this, the action attributed to Daniel would have
been
much more uncompromising, as the story in the Midrash Rabba of Moses
in regard to the crown of Pharaoh. Or Daniel would be
represented as
doing, as the Jews are said in Third Maccabees
to have done to Ptolemy,
bowing himself down in humble abasement before the king, to
get him to
reverse his decree, or, if not, to devise some means of its
effect being
averted. Daniel does none of these things. His windows being open toward
on the roof of the house, the opening of the windows
enabled everything
done in the apartment to be seen. The practice of prayer
“toward
Solomon, in his prayer at the
dedication of the temple, refers to the
contingency of captivity (l Kings 8:48), and prays that if
the captives “pray
unto thee toward their land, the city which thou hast
chosen, and the house
which I have built for thy Name, then hear thou their
prayer” (see also
Psalm 5:7). The practice of
praying towards a particular point has
been maintained by the Mohammedans, who pray towards
Mohammed originally made
the Jews would not receive him as their Messiah, and so
from
was changed to
mentioned, that “the temple was in ruins” — the place was
holy ground.
“Three times a day” is referred
to Psalm 55:17, “Evening and
morning and at noonday will I pray.”
Strength of Soul (v. 10)
“Now when Daniel knew that
the writing was signed, he went into his house;
and his windows being open in his chamber toward
upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave
thanks before his God,
as he did aforetime.” (v. 10). Daniel stands here before us a magnificent
instance
of strength of soul (Psalm 138:3). We have also the
advantage of seeing him
contrasted with a blameworthy and contemptible
weakness of the king, as well as
with something worse — those who conspired against him with
their weakness
passing into wickedness.
·
STRENGTH. As exhibited
by the saint, statesman, and prophet. See it:
Ø Advancing to the throne in common life. The new organization included
a hundred
and twenty satrapies; over these three presidents in close
relation
to the king; of these Daniel was “one” (not the “first”). But
he stood out
in bold relief against the other ministers of the crown.
By
intelligence, experience, industry, and piety, he moved at once
to the
front (v. 3). Religion ia king in every realm, fidelity
in common
things
(v. 5).
Ø In the absence of egotism. Shallow skepticism charges Daniel with
egotism,
partly on the ground of v3. The tables
may here well be turned
on the
adversary. Considering the exalted power and position of Daniel,
the
absence of self-allusion and self-praise is wonderful, and that throughout
the book.
Besides, this seeming self-praise was necessary to account for
the
action of enemies. Moreover, moral greatness does not quite preclude
all
allusion to self (Numbers 12:3; 1 Corinthians 15:10; Nehemiah throughout).
Ø
In Daniel’s continuance
in the habit of saintly life. (v. 10) Note:
Ø
The simplicity of action. “He kneeled upon
his knees three times a
day, and
prayed.”
Ø
The absence of show. No opening of the windows in order that
all
might see. To have so
done would not have been to exhibit religious
courage,
but foolhardiness. Such conduct would have been bravado.
Religious
courage is a calm, wise, brave thing. Picture the palace-house of
one so
great; the parlor on the roof; the lattices closed (as in hot climates)
towards
the east and south, but open (at least in the early hours, perhaps
always)
on the west, and intentionally “toward
Ø The
fearlessness of consequences.
Ø The
reason of the act. “Because [Chaldee] he had done so aforetime.”
The persistence of the strong. “What he was as a dear little child, when his
mother
taught him, and prepared him with prayers and tears for the perils
of
exile — that he is now, though his hair be grey
and his body bent with
years.” One holy, consistent life.
Ø In the
permanence of his patriotism. “Toward
Ø
In the grandeur of his faith. After all these years and vicissitudes, the
home of his soul was still in the Hebrew tradition — in the
Hebrew
history, literature, prophecies, liturgies, etc,
·
WEAKNESS. As
illustrated in the character and conduct of the king.
The moral weakness of the man
appears:
Ø In
the evasion of responsibility. There is
evident an indisposition to
attend to
the affairs of government, which are left in the hands of officials.
No
surer mark of moral weakness than to leave what should be alike our
duty and honor to others — possibly to the
incompetent.
Ø Accessibility to flattery. Keil’s view of the proposal of v. 7 commends
itself to
us, that it referred only to “the religious sphere of prayer.” On this
assumption
the king would be regarded as the living manifestation of all the
gods, of
the conquered nations as well as of
proposal
was that all prayer to all divinities should for thirty days be stayed
save to this
divinity — the king. The inflated vanity which could accept so
submissive
homage!
Ø
Pliability to the will of others. (v. 9.) He had not
the courage to live
his own life, to think his own thoughts, and act them out.
Ø
Indifference to suffering. Weakness of soul
means usually the weakness
of every part — a feeble, emotional nature, at least on its
nobler side, as
well as weakness of intellect, conscience, will. Note “the
den of lions”
(vs. 7, 24). Deficiency of sympathy, leading on to frightful cruelty,
is oft
the result of feeble moral imagination. No child or man could
torture
insect or man who vividly realized the exquisite agony.
Ø
The violence of passion. (vs. 14, 18-20, 24.)
Take the violence of his
grief and indignation alike.
Ø
Moral helplessness. What an
humiliating picture have we in vs. 14, 15!
(The speech of the conspirators
is clearly prompted by what they had
observed on the part of the king — an attempt to evade the law,
vs. 19-20.)
·
THE STRENGTH OF DANIEL, HIS MAGNAMINITY, IS HERE SET.
Not only against the
weakness of the king, but also against the darker back-
ground of wickedness exhibited by those who conspired against the
prophet.
Moral weakness is not far off
deep depravity; e.g. the depravity of Ahab —
perhaps the weakest character in the Old
Testament. Observe:
Ø
The vision given
to these men. Of
a saintliness like that of Daniel —
elevated
in its devotional life, ripe with the maturity of years, clearly
manifesting
itself in common scenes, excellent beyond all praise by their
own
admission (v. 5). A beam, a ray from the
holiness of God.
Ø
The Divine aim in
the vision. Beneficent
and moral we may be sure. To
awaken
admiration; to bring home the sense of defect; to lead to penitence;
to arouse
to efforts after likeness.
Ø
The human frustration of that aim, What was intended for salvation
became the occasion
of moral ruin,
the cause being the deep depravity of
these
hearts. Note:
o
The audacity of their aim. Men usually come to perpetrate great
crimes step
by step. These aimed
at the ultimate of evil from the first
— the utter ruin and destruction of the prophet.
o
The recklessness of their counsel. If there be no law sufficient to
crush,
they will make one.
o
The pertinacity of their pursuit of
their miserable object.
Shown in
their
dealing with the king (v. 15).
o
The meanness of their conduct. Over that parlor on the roof of
Daniel’s
palace-home a watch must have been meanly set.
o
The mercilessness of their cruelty. (vs. 16-17.)
Ø
The judgment that befell. (v. 24.)
Habitual Prayer (v. 10)
This glimpse into the daily
habits of Daniel is enough to reveal to us the
secret of his fidelity and integrity among the fearful temptations of the
world in which he was called to serve. Here we see the oil
which saved the
fire from being quenched. Daniel
was a man of prayer.
DISTRACTIONS OF COURT LIFE. It was a heathen court, yet he
remained faithful to the true
God. It was a dissolute court, yet he lived in
devotion to the God of holiness.
It is more easy to withstand the outbreak
of violent persecution than to
remain pure and true amongst the daily and
insidious allurements of a world
of sinful pleasures.
CLAIMS OF A BUSY LIFE.
He had the responsibilities attendant on the
highest office in the kingdom,
and he fulfilled them so well that his most
jealous enemies could find no
fault with him. Yet he did not regard these
public duties as an excuse for
the neglect of prayer.
Ø
As our duty to God
is of primary obligation, no human duties can afford
an excuse for neglecting PRAYER!
Ø
Prayer is a help to the performance of duty. Time spent in prayer
is not
lost time, even as regards the
work of the world. Hours of prayer
can no
more be neglected
with profit, than the time for meals and sleep. Christ
spent much time in prayer in the
most active part of his life, and the more
He worked the more He prayed
(Matthew 14:23).
observance of regular hours of
prayer as a thing meritorious in itself is
simply superstitious. Moreover,
a spiritually minded man will live in an
atmosphere of prayer, and not
confine his devotions to set seasons.
“Pray without
ceasing.” (I Thessalonians 5:17).
Ø But on the other hand, there is great reason for observing
regular habits
of prayer. It is well that the
mind should be at times entirely withdrawn
from the world for spiritual
exercises. The deeper and more far-reaching
acts of prayer are only possible
when we have leisure to collect our
thoughts and
meditate upon Divine things.
Ø
It is desirable, too, that
these habits should be regular, because
otherwise they may be neglected
and crowded out by other concerns, and
because the laws of habit will
then help us to enter into them the more
readily.
Praying towards
Prayer brings out our deepest
affections. We should remember our country
in our prayers. It is well when high promotion does not lead a man to
forget the associations of
humbler days (Psalm 122:6; 137:6).
THE PUBLICITY OF HIS PRAYER. He prayed with his windows open.
Of course, prayer should never
be for show (Matthew 6:5-6). But if
there are times when we should
pray in the closet, and with the door shut,
there are also times when it may
be our duty to let devotional habits be
known. If the hiding of them
suggests the abandonment of them in face of
danger, it is our duty to let
them be open and visible. We should thus avoid
the appearance of evil. It is
always wrong to be ashamed of our religion
(Luke 9:26). it is our duty to
make a simple unpretentious confession
of religion in face of
persecution or of ridicule.
11 “Then these men
assembled, and found Daniel praying and
making supplication before his God.” The Septuagint
reading is very
different, “And they watched Daniel, and found him praying
three times a
day every day.” It is difficult to decide which is the
preferable reading, and
almost as difficult to deduce the one reading from the
other. Thcodotion
has a reading akin to that of the Septuagint, “Then those
men watched, and
found Daniel praying, and. making entreaty to his God.”
This is akin to the
Septuagint at the beginning, but
is close to the Massoretic at the end. The
Peshitta is in close agreement with Theodotion.
It seems more in
accordance with the plan of these presidents that they
should not, as the
Massoretic text asserts, rush tumultuously into the house of Daniel,
but
rather, as the three versions represent them doing, setting a watch, and
then, when information reached them of Daniel’s habits,
acting
accordingly.
Nothing in the narrative makes it probable that there was a
general assembling of the governors against Daniel; it was
the action of his
colleagues in the presidency.
12 “Then they came near,
and spake before the king
concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a
decree, that
every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man
within thirty
days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of
lions? The king
answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law
of the
Medes and Persians, which altereth not. 13 Then answered they and
said
before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of
the captivity
of
signed, but maketh his petition
three times a day. 14 Then the king,
when he heard these words, was sore displeased with
himself, and set
his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he labored till the
going
down of the sun to deliver him.” The version of the
Septuagint, as usual,
differs from the Massoretic text,” Then
these men (ἐνέτυχον – enetuchon –
interceded) with the king, and said, King Darius, didst thou not
confirm a decree
that no man should offer
prayer or present petition to any god for thirty days,
save only to thee, O king, otherwise he should be cast into
the den of lions?
And the king answered and said,
The word is clear, and the decree
remaineth. And they said to him, We adjure thee by the laws of the
Medes
and
the Persians that thou change not the commandment, (μηδὲ θαυμάσῃς
προσῶπον –
maede thaumasaes prosopon - nor be an
accepter of persons), nor
diminish aught of the
thing spoken, but punish the man that abideth not by
this
decree. And he said,
This will I do, according as ye have said, and the thing is
(ἔστηκε – estaeke - confirmed) by me. And they said, Behold, we found Daniel,
Thy friend,
praying, and making entreaty before his God three times a day.
[And the king, being grieved, spake to cast Daniel into the den of lions,
according to the decree which he decreed against him.] Then
the king
grieved exceedingly concerning Daniel, and (ἐβοήθει – eboaethei – labored)
till the going down of the
sun to deliver him out of the hands of the satraps.”
One of the verses here
seems to have been an addition most probably to the
Aramaic text, as the Semitic spirit and construction shine
through. There is,
further, an obvious instance of doublet; the clause within square
brackets
has all the appearance of being a marginal note summarizing
the contents
of the verse. The words, “out of the hands of the satraps,”
have been added
as explanatory. Theodotion is in
practical agreement with the
Massoretic text. The Peshitta differs in
some minor points, e.g. inserting the
common Eastern mode of addressing royalty, “O king, live
for ever.” The
clause, “concerning the decree,” is omitted; the other
differences are
unimportant. The fact
that his Jewish origin is put in the front of their
accusation of him indicates what Daniel’s great offence was. (Daily
many in the world are condemning the Israelis in the action
they have
taken in
land, and for the same
reason! - CY – August 4,
2014) The
Septuagint places the fact that
he was the king’s friend in that position. It
seems little likely that even to a satrap would any
courtier venture to bring
forward a taunting reference to his friendships. The king
is caught in a trap;
but no courtier would venture to press his advantage, lest
he himself be
taken at unawares. Darius’s efforts to save Daniel are to
be noted. His
effort would most probably be directed to find some way out
of the
constitutional dilemma into which he had been entrapped. His
subordinate
position, occupying the place of King of Babylon merely for
a season
instead of Cyrus, would make it more difficult for him to
override any
constitutional maxim. In the Septuagint the presidents seem
to compel the
king by moral arguments — a thing float seems possible,
though also a
feature that might very naturally be added to the story. (I
also find that
over the last few years a very secular press in the
make moral references and judgments when it suits their
purpose! – CY –
2014). In the Massoretic
text there is an endeavor to poison the king
against Daniel. Daniel has despised the king and his
commandment. This
is more natural than the conduct imputed to the presidents
in the Septuagint.
These efforts were not successful, as probably they
scarcely expected they
would be; the king is
convinced of his own hastiness, and of their treachery
also, but not of
any failure on the part of Daniel, in due respect to him, as the
representative of the great king.
The
Law of the Medes and Persians (v. 12)
The unalterable character of “the
law of the Medes and Persians” is
evidently regarded with superstitious veneration, and considered to
be a
sound principle of government. But in the present instance it
leads to gross
injustice, and, instead of honoring, it humiliates the royal
authority from
which the decree emanates.
·
OBLIGATIONS RASHLY CONTRACTED OFTEN LEAD TO
DISASTROUS RESULTS. Darius had never contemplated the effect of
his decree, or he would not have signed it.
Ø It is wrong to decide on a course which
will affect the future on the
mere impulses
of the present. If decision must be made, it should be after
prayer for guidance from him who lives in the
future. This applies
more
particularly when, as in the case of Darius, our decision affects the
happiness
of others.
Ø It is foolish to contract any serious
obligations for the future which are
not
necessary or plainly useful. There was no good to be gained by the
king’s
decree; at best it was useless. Such decrees are best unsigned. It
is
well
to turn our vows into prayers, and,
instead of promising to do any
hard thing, to seek grace to do it if
it is God’s will.
·
SO LONG AS LAW-MAKERS ARE WEAK, LAWS WILL BE
DEFECTIVE. It
was foolish for such a man as Darius to rashly decree
unalterable laws. He was kindly disposed. But he was overcome:
Ø By
flattery. The king was to be the honored exception,
and prayer
might
still be offered to him.
Ø By fear. The satraps crowded about the king until
he was terrified into
signing
the decree.
Ø Legal exactness. The
unalterable character of his law was more to Darius
than
right and justice. While such law-makers exist, it is not wise to enact
changeless
laws.
·
ALL HUMAN LAWS MUST GIVE PLACE TO HIGHER DIVINE
LAWS. The law of the Medes and Persians presupposes that there is
no
power greater than the state. But
God’s
laws are prior to ours. The most
solemn decrees of state should only have force as bylaws coming
under
God’s greater laws of right, and
losing all obligation when they contradict
these. The king should have broken his law, which violated the
higher
Divine law of
justice.
·
WITH FALLIBLE MEN CONSISTENCY OF CONDUCT IS NOT
ALWAYS A DUTY.
Some men worship consistency as a fetish. What they
“have
written, they have written,” and they stand to it. This conduct often
arises:
Ø
From weakness and the
fear of men.
Ø
From pride and the
conceit of infallibility.
Ø
From obstinacy and
self-will. Whenever repentance is a duty,
consistency is a sin.
·
THE ONLY LAW WHICH IS NECESSARILY AND
RIGHTEOUSLY CHANGELESS IS THE LAW OF GOD. This is
founded on:
Ø
His infallible wisdom (Psalm 19:7-8);
Ø
His irresistible power (ibid. ch. 66:3); and
Ø
His changeless character (ibid. ch. 33:11).
The forgiveness of the gospel
does not frustrate God’s Law, but honors it
in THE ATONEMENT (1 Peter 3:18). The freedom of the new
covenant does
not abolish this Law, but substitutes the willing obedience of
the spirit for
the bondage of the letter (Romans 8:4).
Piety in Perilous
Circumstances (vs. 10-13)
Daniel was at this time advanced in years. His principles,
good at the first,
had grown in strength and mutual support. At his age he was
not to be
surprised by alarm nor driven into rashness. His character
had been
molded into heavenly shape under the rough handling of
oppression and
persecution, and now every fiber of his moral nature had
toughness and
tenacity. He was manly because he was eminently devout.
shows itself in many acts, some
of which, though useful, are accidental;
one, however, is essential, viz. prayer. If there be no outgoing of desire
from the soul Godwards, there is no real piety; if there be prayer, vocal
or
silent, there is piety. Pious
men, when placed in perilous circumstances on
account of their faith, may
suspend (sometimes must suspend) overt acts of
public worship; they may never relinquish prayer. A beggar asking
alms, a
child thanking its parent, a
subject honoring his monarch, — these are
earthly acts parallel to prayer.
When first the gospel found its way into the
hearts of the Malagasy, they did
not style themselves Christians — they
simply styled themselves the
praying people. Prayer is the
distinctive mark
and badge of
piety. What color is to the rainbow,
what saltness is to the
sea, what roundness is to the circle,
— such prayer is to piety. It is its
essential element. It is the breath of spiritual life.
to pray was the first principle
of his religion. To pray three times a day, to
pray with his window open, to
pray with his face toward
these things were
non-essentials. Nevertheless, there was a fitness and a
propriety in these minuter acts. If not positive commands from God, they
were indications of God’s
pleasure. Daniel had found them helpful to his
spirit’s health. Such habits of
piety had been sanctioned by the most
eminent saints who had gone
before him. David had ascribed his elevation
and his prosperity to the favor
of God, and David had been accustomed to
pray three times a day. The temple
in
visible symbol of the Divine
Presence on earth. Thither the longing heart of
every pious Jew turned. On what
ground should these pious habits be
abandoned? It would not
conciliate the unreasonable hostility of Daniel’s
detractors. The king’s decree
was not directed against these minor forms,
but against prayer itself. Amidst so many unfriendly influences, it is wise to
secure every
vantage-ground for piety.
of the king was promulgated,
Daniel wisely resolved not to alter his course
by a single point. He will steer
his bark straight for the port of heaven,
come what may. To a self-willed
man, the temptation would be strong to
resist the imperious
interference of the king, and to pray more frequently
and more prominently than
before. To a timid man the inducement would
be to close his chamber-window,
and clandestinely do that which the new
law disallowed. But Daniel
leaned neither to temerity nor to timidity. He
maintained an upright and
straightforward demeanor. Every habit of his
life had been formed under the
guidance of wisdom and discretion, and
terror shall not rob him of
advantages which experience has given. His
loyalty to God is an obligation
earlier, stronger, deeper, than loyalty to an
earthly king. As God had been a true and trusty Friend for seventy years
and more, it would be base ingratitude to neglect Him now.
JUDGMENT. In every circumstance
of life, God’s honor being first
secured, the pious man will find
a delight in serving his fellow-men. But to
attempt to appease malice by
abandoning honest principle, would be, in
very deed, to “cast pearls before swine,” Full well
Daniel knew that his
enemies were watching his every
step, yet would he not submit to the
slightest
compromise or concealment. These
princes and presidents
degraded themselves into spies
and informers. They watched, as with
wolves’ eyes, the open lattice
of this man of God. Their organs of bearing
were made sensitively alive by
keen suspicion. As the fowler watches for
his prey in the net which he has
spread, so these inhuman spies watched for
the successful issue of their
plot. In breathless haste they press into the
council-chamber of the king, and
divulge what they have heard and seen.
They employ every stratagem that
can arouse his anger and enflame his
wrath. They meanly point to
Daniel’s foreign origin. They knavely describe
his deed as treason against the
king. “This fellow,” urged they”, doth not
regard thee, O king. He
tramples on thy authority, and treats as a dead
letter thy royal edict.” Not a
stone was left unturned by which they might
injure the innocent man.
Nevertheless, Daniel
maintained a dignified and
peaceful
demeanor. To be right was with him a higher honor than
to be
respected. He was no stoic. He
had all the better feelings of a man. He
entertained the good opinion of
his fellows at its true value. He would be
delighted to enjoy that good
opinion if he could have, at the same time, the
approbation of his God. But the
latter was paramount, transcendent,
priceless. And if, as the result
of his loyalty to God, men maligned and
hated him, much as he lamented
the fact, he was content to face the
consequence. It is, after all,
comparatively a little thing to be approved or
reprobated by man’s judgment. “He that judgeth us is the
Lord.”
(I Corinthians 4:4)
15 “Then these men
assembled unto the king, and said unto
the king. Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and
Persians is,
That no decree or statute
which the king establisheth maybe changed.”
The corresponding verse in the
Septuagint is much shorter, “And he was
not able to deliver him from them.” This verse in the Massoretic text has
very much the appearance of a doublet mollified to fit a
new position. The
first clause has occurred already twice before in the sixth
verse and the
fifteenth. The last portion of the verse is a modification
of what is stated in
vs. 9 and 13. The first clause is omitted by Theodotion, but inserted by
the Peshitta. The probability is
that this verse, in its Massoretic form, has
been inserted to explain the opposition the king strove in
vain to overcome.
16 “Then the king commanded,
and they brought Daniel, and
cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto
Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, He will deliver thee.”
The Septuagint Version here is not so likely to represent
the original text,
as there are symptoms of displacement, “Then Darius the
king called out
and said to Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest
continually three times a
day, He will deliver thee out of the power of the lions;
till the morning be of
good cheer.” The opening clause of the next verse in the
Septuagint really
represents the first clause of the verse before us, “And
the king was
grieved, and spake to cast Daniel
into the den of lions.” Theodotion and
the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The circumstances cannot fail
to remind the reader of Herod with John the Baptist, and
the still greater
crime wrought by weakness — Pilate and our Lord. Darius had
failed to
overbear the opposition of the legalists who had determined
on Daniel’s
death; he is obliged, therefore, to give the order that the
sentence be
executed. In doing so he commends his friend to the God, or
the gods, if
we take the K’thib instead of the
Q’ri. Darius probably knew nothing of
Daniel’s religious beliefs, and
therefore would be prone to imagine that he
worshipped several gods, and to them he commends him. The
addition of
the Septuagint is picturesque, “Be of good cheer until the
morning.”
Moreover, it fits in to what
follows, and at the same time it is not of such a
nature as that it should suggest itself to the ordinary
interpolator.
17 “And a stone was
brought, and laid upon the mouth of the
den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with
the signet of
his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning
Daniel.”
The Septuagint text begins,
according to Tischendorf, with a passage
elsewhere considered, “And the king was grieved, and
commanded to cast
Daniel into the den of lions,
according to the decree which he had made
concerning him.” This is repeated from the fourteenth verse,
where it
appears alike in the Chisian
Manuscript and in the version of Paul of Tella,
“Then Daniel was cast into the
den of lions, and a stone was brought and
placed at the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with
his own signet
and with the signets of his lords, in order that Daniel
might not be raised by
them or delivered by the king out of the den.” The reason
assigned for the
double sealing of the stone, while a very probable one, is
from its very
probability to be suspected; it is most likely an
explanatory marginal
remark, that has slipped into the text. It will be observed
that the clause
with which the Septuagint Version of this verse begins is
the equivalent of
the opening clause of the preceding verse. Theodotion’s rendering does not
differ from the Massoretic
reading. From the similarity of the dialects, the
resemblance of the Peshitta to
the Massoretic is even closer. There are few
criticisms of Daniel more unfair than that founded on the
assumption that
the writer had a bottle-shaped dungeon in his mind, that
might be covered
over as a well by one large stone. Nothing in the words
used implies this.
While gob certainly means a
“pit” or a “cistern,” it was by no means
necessarily of small size or covered over with one stone,
so that within it
would be darkness. There were probably walls rising from
the sides of the
pit which formed the den; in that wall there would be
naturally an aperture
through which food could be passed to the lions. Through
this door was
Daniel cast, and when he had
been so cast in, a stone was rolled up to the
aperture and sealed.
Lions’ dens were in use not only among the Assyrians
and Babylonians, but also among the Greek monarchs. There
is another resemblance that is, at all events, full of
interest. In later history
there was another sealing of the stone that was rolled to
the mouth of a
grave — it may be noted that gob is used for a
“grave” also — and fear
here also was lest the innocently condemned might be taken
away.
(Matthew 27:66)
18 “Then the king went to
his palace, and passed the night
fasting: neither were instruments of music brought before
him: and
his sleep went from him.”
In the Massoretic
text one of the clauses,
“Neither were instruments of
music brought before him,” has caused great
difficulty. The word dahvan,
translated “instruments of music,” is rendered
by Furst, “dancing-girl; “Gesenius, “concubine; “Rosenmuller
renders,
“odors.” The Mediaeval Greek
Version translates, “instruments of
music.” Furst speaks with favor
of the Syriac rendering, “food-tables.”
Han’ayl, the aphel of ‘eilal, has to be
noted as a sign of antiquity. The
version of the Septuagint is very wide from the Massoretic in the latter part
of the verse, “Thus the king returned to his palace, and
went to bed fasting,
being grieved about Daniel.” It is evident that the
Septuagint translator
had before him deheel instead
of dohvan — nun in the script of
Egyptian
Aramaic is very like lamed in the later mode
writing, as also yodh and vav.
It is possible that the name
“Daniel” was read han’eel or, vies
versa, as
two of the letters are identical If we can accept the
Septuagint reading, the
difficulty of this mysterious dahoun
disappears. Another clause is added
here in the Septuagint from v. 22 (23) Massoretic,
though with
variations. “Then the God of Daniel, (πρόνοιαν ποιούμενος
αὐτοῦ
-
pronoian
poioumenos autou - taking thought for him)
closed the mouths of the
lions, that they did not hurt Daniel.” This statement is not inserted in Daniel’s
answer to the king in the Septuagint, as it is in the Massoretic
text. It would
almost seem that our present
text in both cases is a condensation of a more
extended document. This view
receives support from the rendering of
Theodotion, “And the king
departed to his house, and went to bed supperless,
and viands were not
brought to him, and his sleep went from him, and God
closed the mouths
of the lions, and they did not hurt Daniel.” It will be seen
that the last
clause here agrees with the concluding clause of the Septuagint. The
mysterious word dahvan is rendered
here (ἐδέσματα – edesmata - food) —
a version that is suspicious from the fact that it merely
repeats, under another
form, the statement that the king went to bed fasting. It
is supported by the
Peshitta and the Vulgate. This difference can scarcely be due to a
various
reading. Otherwise the Peshitta
and the Vulgate agree with the Massoretic
text. The king’s sorrow and humiliation could not be better pictured than it
is here: even the feast of the palace had no pleasure for
him, he was so
grieved about Daniel. But we must also bear in mind that
fasting had
among the Jews, and, indeed, in the East generally, a
relationship to prayer
(see Esther 4:16, where fasting takes the place of prayer;
see also ch.10:3).
It means also repentance (Jonah 3:6-8). Darius, then,
repented his hasty decree,
and
prayed for the deliverance of Daniel.
One Thoughtless Act Brings Much Sorrow.
(vs. 14-18)
King Darius was free from many bad
qualities which have stained the
reputation of other monarchs. He had more gentleness and kindness —
had
more regard for the interests of others — than most Oriental kings. Yet he
had
grave faults also. He was too fond of ease. He was too ready to allow
others to take the responsibility which of right belonged to him.
To share
the
responsibilities of government with competent statesmen is an
advantage to all; but his readiness to sign decrees without weighing
their
significance and design is a grave neglect. The weaknesses which in a
private
person escape an adverse judgment may in a king be ruinous
to the nation.
·
A THOUGHTLESS ACT REVEALS THE INTERNAL WEAKNESS
OF CHARACTER.
King Darius, having discovered the practical outcome
of the rash edict, was “sore displeased with himself.” This
feeling is
commendable. He does not blame the cunning, the envy, the malice of
others, so much as the easy
thoughtlessness of himself. Others may
be
more blameworthy accomplices than ourselves in an evil
transaction; but if
any blame attach to ourselves, it is wiser first to discover
and remove the
mote in our own eye, before we touch the beam in another’s eye.
An
hour’s serious reflection, at the right time,
would have prevented this
Oriental king much anguish and remorse. It was an alleviation of his inward
grief that he had not intended to do Daniel harm; yet, in
effect, his
thoughtlessness had produced as much suffering on others as if he had been
instigated by feelings of bitterest malice. He ought to have given
the edict
mature consideration before he gave to it the authority of his
great name.
He ought to have inquired into
its purpose, its meaning, its probable effects
on society. The very haste of the councilors ought to have
awakened his
vigilance. Too easily his supple will yielded to others’
inclination. Too
easily he swallowed the bait of human adulation. Truly saith our poet:
“Evil
is wrought by want of thought,
As
well as want of heart.” (Thomas Hood)
·
A THOUGHTLESS ACT GIVES SCOPE TO WICKED MEN TO
EXECUTE THEIR PLOTS.
Want of vigilance upon our part gives an
advantage to our enemies, which they seize upon with avidity. We
might
often nip iniquity in the bud, if we were only on the alert
against the secret
machinations of the tempter. We encourage wicked men in their base
intrigues, if only inadvertently we smooth the way for their
success. We are
counseled by a highest authority to be “wise as serpents.”
Intelligence has
been given to us for this selfsame purpose, and it is a sin to
allow any
faculty of mind to be lulled into needless sleep. Darius had both admiration
and personal regaled for Daniel; but this very esteem and
preference of the
king brought with it elements of danger to the prophet. Hence
the affection
of the king ought to have been thoughtful, inventive,
watchful. The mean-
souled officials
had prepared the axe, and unwittingly the king gave them
the handle by which the better to use it. For want of
wariness, we may lend
sheep’s clothing to human wolves.
·
A THOUGHTLESS ACT OFTEN LEADS TO SAD AND
IRREPARABLE RESULTS. It was a settled principle in the Persian
government that a law, having once received the sign-manual of the
king,
could in no way be altered or repealed. This principle in the
main was
beneficent and useful. In a period when communication between the
palace
and the remote provinces was difficult and tardy, it was a
great advantage
to the people to know that a law, once enacted, was fixed and
irreversible.
But the knowledge of this
first principle ought to have made Darius all the
more cautious and wary in affixing the seal of authority to any
new decree.
He was master of that
simple act; but, having performed it, he was no
longer master of its consequences. It would have imperiled his reputation,
his influence, perhaps his government itself, if he should
have ventured to
rescind it. Yet no sooner was the effect of his rash deed
discovered than
remorse seized his mind. Conscience lashed him for his folly. His appetite
departs. The desire for
enjoyment ceases. Yea, the very capacity for
enjoyment is suspended. Sleep
forsakes his bed. His pillow is sown with
sharpest thorns. No rest can the king
find for body or for mind, because an
innocent life, a noble life, is jeopardized through his rash deed.
His mind
roams over a variety of devices by which, if possible, he can
yet protect
Daniel
from the ferocity of human wolves. But
the king himself is
powerless — as powerless as the meanest peasant — in this matter. He
had, not long since, the power to deft, rid any and every
subject, but he has
thoughtlessly allowed the power to depart. It is in other hands now, and
cannot be recalled.
hands of evil workers, and is compelled by them to do a
disgraceful deed
— to
sign the death-warrant of his best friend. Nothing is left to him but
his tears. Oh the hitter fruits
of rashness!
19 “Then the king arose
very early in the morning, and
went in haste unto the den of lions. 20 And when he came to the den, he
cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and
said to Darnel O Daniel servant of the living God, is thy
God, whom
thou servest continually, able to
deliver thee from the lions?” “Very
early” is really
“the glimmer of day;” (shapharpara’). The
word used
occurs in the Targums. It may,
however, be doubted whether the word
here is not the Syriac shapbra. The writing here presents so many
peculiarities that suspicion is forced upon the reader. The
first פ is small,
and the second is large. There is the further difficulty
that nogah is nearly
equivalent to shaphra. One
might suspect a doublet, as Behrmann
maintains, here, did not the versions indicate something
like this as the
meaning of this clause. A lamentable voice (atzeeb)
seems to mean “sad”
or “grieved.” The version of the Septuagint shows traces of
addition, “And
King Darius rose early in the
morning, and took with him the satraps, and
went and stood at the mouth of the den of lions. Then the
king called to
Daniel with a loud voice, with weeping, saying, O Daniel,
if thou art alive,
and thy God whom thou servest
continually, hath he saved thee from the
lions? and have they not harmed thee?” It is possible the
addition of “the
satraps” may have been due to shapharpara
being read ahashdarpnayya.
Certainly if the purpose of the
double scaling was what it is assigned to be
in the first verse, then the satraps would accompany him;
only the
suggestion is such a natural one that it might readily slip
into the text.
V.20 (21) in the Septuagint has traces of expansion. The
omission of yekeel and
the change of sheezab to
the finite preterite is possible enough, and may
indicate that in the original text the word rendered “able”
was not found.
Theodotion renders v. 19 (20) in accordance with the Massoretic reading,
but, in v. 20 (21) instead of “lamentable voice,” has
“strong voice,” a reading
that seems somewhat confirmed by the Septuagint. Further,
he
translates the interrogative ha as if it were the
Hebrew kee, “if.” The
Peshitta, though agreeing in the nineteenth verse with the Massoretic, has
some minor differences in the following verse — “high
voice” instead of
“lamentable voice,” and “faithfully”
instead of “continually.” The Vulgate
singularly inserts in v. 20 putasne?
“dost thou think?” That Darius should
thus hasten in the semi-darkness of the first glimmer of
dawn to the lions’
den to see whether Daniel were yet alive, was but natural.
As the sealing of
the lions’ den suggested the sealing of the holy sepulcher,
so the hastening
of Darius to the den in the earliest dawn suggests the
action of the women
who got up “when it was yet dark.” (John 20:1)
When Darius calls Daniel the
“servant of the living God,” there is no necessary confession of faith in Him
on the part of the king. It is for him simply an act of
politeness to a Deity
who, if this were neglected, might resent. It is to be
noted that this attribute
“living” is omitted in the Septuagint.
21 “Then said Daniel unto
the king, O king, live for ever.
22 My God hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’
mouths, that
they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before Him innocency was found
in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.” The Syriac
construction, malleel ‘im, is to be
observed. The rendering of the Septuagint
differs from the Massoretic text
in a way that can scarcely be due to
differences merely of reading, “Then Daniel called with a
loud voice and
said O king, I am yet living, and God hath saved me from
the lions
according to the righteousness found in me before Him, and
before thee, O
king, was neither ignorance nor sin to be found in me; but
thou didst
hearken to men who deceive kings, and hast cast me into the
den of lions
for my destruction.” It is not impossible that the opening
clauses of the
Massoretic and the Septuagint respectively, “O king, I am yet
living.” and “O
king, live for ever,” have been derived from the same
source. The last
clause is to all appearance an expansion. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree
with the Massoretic text. Daniel
answers the king, and declares his safety.
The angelology of Daniel is an
interesting subject, but here the question is
complicated by the fact that there is no reference to
angelic interference in
the Septuagint. Still all through Scripture God does most
of His works
through the intervention of angels. To Darius, if he had
any such beliefs as
afterwards are found associated with Zoroastrianism, the
ascription of
deliverance to an angel would be natural enough. It is
doubtful whether
Cyrus and his followers were not idolaters. The rebuke
implied in the state-
ment that not only before God was Daniel innocent, but in the
sight of the
king, is sufficiently clear without passing beyond the
lines of courtly
decorum. The expansion in the Septuagint is unnecessary,
and mars the stately
picture; though, on the other hand, the simple answer to
the king’s
question is more likely than the courtly “O king live for ever.”
Angel Ministration (v. 22)
“My God hath sent
His angel.” “Are
they not all ministering spirits?”
(Hebrews
1:14). The text in Daniel suggests the whole doctrine of
angel-ministration. That
imperiled life guarded by
a sentinel from heaven is no SOLITARY SPECTACLE!
It has many
parallels. There had been the ministration of angels before, as there has
been a thousand times since. We cannot help looking upon the scene with
memories
charged with all that has been revealed of the relation of
that higher world to the
world of men. It was a remarkable instance of a universal
fact in the experience of
the
from the beginning to the end of time. The subject, then, is
— The
ministration
of angels.
statement with skepticism. But
the evidence is:
Ø
The analogy of the case. The interdependence of material worlds
points to a similar interdependence
of moral worlds. The commerce
of earth to a commerce
between the varied worlds of God.
(Someday Christ will bring
them both together! - Ephesians
1:10 – CY – 2014)
Ø
The craving of the human mind. There is a craving
for the
knowledge of creatures
higher than ourselves. The craving
is universal. It points to
an objective satisfaction.
Ø
The testimony of Scripture. Previous argument,
only presumptive;
this conclusive. Fullness
of Scripture on the subject.
Ø
They are spiritual. “Are they not all
spirits (πνεύματα– pneumata –
spirits)?”
Ø
But “clothed
upon” with some organization. Of a material kind, for it
may become an object of
sense; men may see the angel-form. Note:
o
Angels appear in the human form. But:
o
Glorified. (ch.10:6.)
o
Men after the
resurrection are to become like the angels.
(Luke 20:36.)
We may infer that the
organism of angels is well adapted to second the life
abiding in it. Incorruptible, for
the angel never dies; fit servant of high
intelligence; offers no
obstruction to their mighty power; no impediment to
their swiftness; beautiful with
immortal youth. The angels, like ourselves,
are capable of everlasting
intellectual and moral progress.
question, “Are they not all liturgic?”
But what is the (λειτουργικὰ -
leitourgika - )leitourgika – ministering;
beneficent; publicly so - meaning? We must
go to
words, then, on:
Ø
The Greek liturgy. It
was a public service — a ministration of the
citizens to the commonwealth.
Certain citizens were bound to
ontribute money, labour, time, towards
making
home, triumphant abroad. Such a
contribution was a “liturgy;” it
stood for the public service of
the Athenian people.
Ø
The Hebrew liturgy. The word was
transferred from things Greek to
designate the public
ministration of the priests in the temple. As the
liturgy of the Athenians was for
the glory of the Athenian common-
wealth, so the liturgy of Hebrew
priests was for the glory of the
Hebrew commonwealth — a
ministration to its awful King.
Ø
The heavenly liturgy. Here thought ascends
to a higher state, to a
grander temple, in which angels
contribute to the public service.
Their wealth, energy, time, are
given for the glory of the Eternal,
and for the majesty of His
kingdom. “Are they not all liturgic?
Do they not minister to God in
the exalted service of the heavenly
temple? Are they not employed in
the administration of the
celestial government? Do
not ‘ thousand thousands minister to Him,
and ten thousand times ten stand before Him?” (ch. 7:10)
“The chariots of God are twenty thousand!” (Psalm 68:17)
Where he appoints, they go.
Describe their coming and going as recorded
in Scripture. But all this
mysterious appearing and disappearing was not at
all of their own self-moved
will; they were “sent forth.” They came on
embassage, and the love that sent them was the Lord of angels and
ours.
aid the otherwise helpless. Look
at this:
Ø
Negatively. Their main object is not any of the following, though
angels have been
commissioned for them all.
o
To glorify some
great event; e.g. the incarnation.
o
To answer prayer. (ch.9:21.)
o
To terrify enemies.
(Matthew 26:53.)
o
To destroy the
doomed; e.g. the Assyrian army. (II Kings 19:35)
o
To advance their
own knowledge. (I Peter 1:12; Ephesians
3:10.)
Ø
Positively. To bring help. The lesson for us —
not to live in the light
that shines from superiors, not
to enjoy the company of equals, but to
minister to those below. (Why
not include in this lesson from the
angels, our duty of ministration
to races of life below man?)
Ø Their general
attitude.
o
With reference to redemption
generally. The attitude is one of
anxious interest, which was
typified in the aspect of the cherubim
over the ark, “towards the mercy-seat shall the faces,” etc.;
(Exodus 25:20) and declared
in the New Testament (I Peter 1:12).
o
With reference
to the redeemed particularly. Interested are they in
the beginnings and
developments of regenerated life (Luke 15:7, 10;
I Corinthians 4:9).
Ø
Their critical services. Angels are
prominent through all the great
epochs of Divine
revelation — in the patriarchal, legal, and
prophetical
dispensations:
o
kept watch and ward
about the Person of Christ.
o
the annunciation to
Zechariah,
o
the annunciation to
Mary;
o
the anthem at the
birth;
o
one in
o
twelve legions in
waiting;
o
two at the sepulcher.
They
were active at the founding of the Church; are now agents in
providence and will add to
the glory of the last assize.
Ø
Their combined action. Militant action, we
may call it. Much in the
Bible to imply that the angels
are ever exerting, on behalf of the saved,
a moral influence, equal in
extent, though opposite in kind and greater
in degree, to that exerted by
evil spirits. They are not idle
spectators of
the long-drawn-out
moral conflict of this earth.
Ø
Their individual ministration. (See John 1:51;
Matthew 18:10;
Psalm 34:7;
91:12; II Kings 6:17; here v.22; Acts 27:23.)
(The
“Angel-god” passages not referred to, because His
appearances were
those of the Lord Jesus. The
Pre-manifestations
of the Incarnation of
Christ – CY – 2014)
Ø
The majesty of their King. Christ the Lord. Such a retinue.
Ø
The greatness of the object of angel solicitude. Salvation for
mankind!
Ø
The brightness of the Christian prospect. “Equal unto the
angels.”
23 “Then was the king
exceeding glad for him, and commanded
that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel
was
taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found
upon
him, because he believed in his God.” The verse that
occupies the same
place in the Septuagint is not a translation of the present
verse at all, but
looks as if it had been a sentence in the original longer
documents which
followed the above Massoretic verse,
“Then all the powers gathered
together, and saw Daniel, that the lions had not hurt him.”
It is barely
possible that the first clause here represents Aramaic text
that might be
misread into the Massoretic text.
Although it is supported by the later
versions, the Massoretic text has
a suspicions appearance. The last clause
is a moral reflection, unlike anything else in the Book of
Daniel, and is
omitted, as we saw, from the Septuagint. The assertion of
the king’s
gladness, too, differs in color from the other statements
in the book; thus
compare the language concerning Nebuchadnezzar
when the three Hebrew
youths were delivered from the fiery furnace. At the same
time, it is to be
observed that the use of the hophal
form in the verb hoosaq is an evidence
of the antiquity of this portion of the verse. The
hypothesis that this
narrative has been condensed from a longer one, has much to
support it.
The lesson inculcated, that faith in God would result in
deliverance, is very
true, even though it was not in the text. The irregular
form of the adjective
t’ayb points out a
possibility that there has been some modification of the
text. Sometimes words not understood have resulted in known
words
being written in an irregular way.
24 “And the king
commanded, and they brought those men
which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den
of lions,
them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had
the mastery of
them. and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came
at the
bottom of the den.” Here the Septuagint text is superior to the Massoretic,
as briefer, “Then those two men who had borne witness
against Daniel,
they, their wives, and their children, were cast to the
lions, and the lions
slew them, and brake their bones.” In this account of the
punishment meted
out to the accusers of Daniel, the victims are only two,
with their wives
and children. The phrase “or ever they came at the bottom
of the den,” is an
intensification of the narrative. In the Massoretic text it is “all their bones;”
in the Septuagint it is simply “their bones.” Theodotion and the Peshitta agree
with the Massoretic text. The
slaughter of the wives and children of offenders,
with the guilty persons themselves, was the common
practice. There are two
other accounts of this event — one preserved in the
apocryphal story of
Bel and the Dragon, and the other in the pages of Josephus.
According to
the story of Bel and the Dragon,
the king, who thus condemns Daniel, is no
less a person than Cyrus the great conqueror. The reason of
the
condemnation is not a decree forbidding all worship, but
because Daniel
had laid bare the deceit of the priests of Bel, and killed the sacred dragon,
the people of
would burn his house if he did not deliver Daniel into
their hands to be cast
into the lions’ den. The seven lions were starved in order
that they might be
sure to devour Daniel. For six days he was there in the
den. In order that
Daniel might not starve, whatever
befell the lions, Habacuc was brought
from
destruction of Daniel’s accusers is stated in a mere
compendious fashion.
The fact that this version is referred to by Irenaeus (‘Adv. Haeres.,’ 4.),
Tertullian (‘De Jejuniis,’ 7.), and Clement
of
329, Morel), shows that early in
the second century this narrative was
incorporated with the canonical Daniel. This makes it
almost necessarily
before Christ in the date of its origin. If so, it is
difficult to imagine the
canonical version to be only a century and a half older.
Josephus shows no
signs that he knew of this apocryphal addition, but adds a
feature for
himself, “The enemies of Daniel, when they saw that nothing
evil had
befallen him, unwilling to attribute his deliverance to
Deity and His
providence, declared that the lions had been filled with
food, and therefore
neither attacked Daniel nor approached him, and maintained
this to the
king. But he, hating their malice, ordered that much flesh
be thrown to the
lions, and when they had gorged themselves, that the
enemies of Daniel be
cast into the den, in order that he might learn whether the
lions would
spare them on account of their being satisfied. It was then
manifest to
Darius, when the satraps had
been thrown in, that Daniel had been
preserved by miracle, for the lions spared none of them,
but tore them all
to pieces as if they had been famishing.”
25 “Then King Darius wrote
unto all people, nations, and languages,
that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto
you. 26
I make
a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble
and fear before the God of Daniel: for He is the living
God, and
steadfast for ever, and His kingdom that which shall not be
destroyed,
and His dominion shall be even unto the end. 27 He delivereth and
rescueth, and He worketh signs and
wonders in heaven and in earth,
who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.” This decree has
a resemblance to the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar.
In the Septuagint there is
less boastfulness, though the divergence is too great to be
the result
merely of difference of reading, “Then Darius wrote
to all nations and
tongues and countries dwelling in all his land, saying, Let
all men who are
in my kingdom stand and worship, and serve the God of
Daniel, for He
alone abideth, and liveth to generations of generations for ever. I Darius
will worship and serve Him all my days, for none of the
idols that are made
with hands are able to deliver as the God of Daniel did
Daniel.” It is to be
observed that it is only to the inhabitants of his own land
that Darius
writes, and further, it is “all men in his kingdom” he
commands, not “every
dominion in his kingdom.” There is no notice taken of the
kingdom of
God; it is God Himself who liveth
and abideth for ever. The last verse,
again, in the Septuagint, in which Darius professes his
faith in Jehovah, is
evidently spurious. Theodotion
and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic
text. Removing the exaggerations from it, the decree of
Darius does not
mean any more than we found in the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar; it is
simply a warning against showing any disrespect to a Deity
with such
formidable powers as Jehovah. It may be regarded as
connected with the
dualistic view of the universe maintained by
Zoroastrianism, that
deliverance from lions is spoken of with such awe. The lion
was one of the
beasts specially representative of the evil principle, as
we see in
There was thus
evidence given that the God of the Jews was supreme over
the powers of evil; (He is El Shaddai – see Genesis 17 – El Shaddai – Names
of God by Nathan Stone –
this website – CY – 2014) - therefore, without
forbidding any subject of
divinity. Darius yet commanded him, in so doing, to watch
his conduct,
so that nothing disrespectful to the powerful God of the
Hebrews should be
done by him.
28 “So this Daniel prospered
in the reign of Darius, and in the
reign of Cyrus the Persian.” The Septuagint
follows a different reading,
“And King Darius was gathered to
his generation. And Daniel was
established in the reign of Darius, and Cyrus the Persian
inherited the
kingdom” — a reading due to the influence of Xenophon’s ‘Cyropaedia.’
Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic text. The statement
that Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the
reign of Cyrus, does
not necessarily imply that they were successive. The reign
of Gobryas, a
satrap, and perhaps in some way “King of Babylon,” would
coincide with
the reign of Cyrus as “king of nations.” Moreover, if
Darius (Gobryas) was
King of Babylon for two years,
then Cyrus would succeed him in this
position. Certainly in some of the earlier contract tables
of his reign, Cyrus
in not called “King of Babil.”
The Lions’ Den (vs. 1-28)
The story of “the
lions’ den” may be regarded as an
instance of persecution
frustrated.
RELIGIOUS FIDELITY.
If it had not been for his rank and office,
Daniel would have been left
unmolested. There is safety in obscurity.
Ø
The customs of
high places are often harmful to religious fidelity.
Daniel must have been
tempted by fashion before he was attacked
by persecution. His religious habits were singular and
marked.
Ø
High office provokes envy. It was not
anti-religious zeal which stirred
the enemies of Daniel. They used
a religious question simply as an
instrument for their private
jealousy. Blamelessness of conduct is no
security against this kind of
enmity.
Ø
Prominent positions
are exposed to searching criticism. Daniel’s
habits were keenly watched.
Happily his integrity was unimpeachable,
even in the eyes of his
enemies. How many of us could stand such a
test? His religious habits,
however, were made public; and his fidelity
to God, in opposition to
the royal decree, was noted against him when
the similar conduct of humbler
men would have been disregarded.
HUMAN OBLIGATIONS.
Daniel was a servant of Darius, and the law of
the king was absolute; yet he
had no hesitation in setting this at defiance in
obedience to the higher service
of God (Acts 4:19; 5:29)
Ø All through life there are similar cases in which lower
obligations are
cancelled by higher ones. The duties of subjects to sovereigns, citizens
to laws, children to parents,
servants to masters, etc., must all be
considered to have this
limitation.
Ø
An unrighteous law is no excuse for unrighteous conduct. This should
be remembered by people in
commercial or legal situations, in which the
state of the law is sometimes
used as a cloak for ambiguous practices.
TEMPORAL DANGER. Though
jealousy was the first cause of the attack
on Daniel, his religious
fidelity afforded the immediate occasion for it. In
the long run right
will triumph, but here and
now wrong often
triumphs.
Ø
It is desirable to “count the cost,” and not to
expect all things to go
smoothly, when we set out
on the Christian warfare (Luke 14:25-33).
Ø
Strength and courage and independence of character are
indispensable to
a faithful Christian life (Joshua 23:9;
Ephesians 6:10).
HUMAN HELP IS USELESS.
The weak king labored till sunset to save
Daniel, but in vain. When the
worst was done by men, God interfered.
Ø
The most savage creatures are under the control of God. When they
rage and destroy they are only
obeying instincts planted in them by their
Creator. When He turns these
instincts aside they obey. Wild beasts do
not disobey the will of God. Man alone rebels.
Ø To the
faithful man the worst dangers are more alarming than
harmful. Daniel’s lions looked terrific, but their mouths were shut.
Bunyan’s lions were chained. Spiritual evils often vanish when they
are
boldly faced (James 4:7).
OFTEN BRING ABOUT THEIR
OWN RUIN. The enemies of Daniel are
themselves devoured by the
lions. Compare this with the cases of Haman
(Esther 7:10) and Judas (Acts
1:18). Thus wicked men sometimes
fall into the vengeance they
have prepared for their victim (Psalm 57:6).
It is dangerous to show enmity
to the weakest man who stands on
the side of right. All the power of God is behind him.
The Tables Turned (vs. 19-28)
If human law and human authority
are impotent to save an innocent man
from death, the unseen but supreme Monarch will appear upon
the scene,
and will vindicate the cause of injured innocence. The
calculations of
human sagacity often prove false. One factor is omitted,
which entirely
vitiates the result. Just as the ruffian is about to seize
his prize, a judicial
hand is laid upon him, and completely defeats his project.
The victor is
vanquished; the biter bitten.
Darius perceived that it would
be perilous to abrogate, in unseemly haste,
an edict so lately made. It
would weaken the force of all imperial laws. It
would loosen the bands of
loyalty. It would arouse the sleepless hostility of
his captains and princes. He had
heard strange reports of the power of
Daniel’s God to save in times of
danger. He believes that the same God
will rescue now. The penalty
which Daniel had incurred was that he should
be cast into the den of
lions. The edict did not say that he should be, left
there to die. The king’s decree
would have been fulfilled if Daniel had
spent an hour or less amid the
caged beasts. All through that dismal night
the king had taken counsel of
himself. Desiring, on this occasion at least, to
do for Daniel all that justice
and good will could devise, we cannot doubt
that his mind came under the
influence of the Divine Spirit. The selfsame
God who, through that long
night, was giving Daniel courage to control
and subdue the lions’ rage was
also conveying wisdom to King Darius. At
earliest dawn the king goes in
person to the den, and finds faith in God
honoured, human malice frustrated. The king’s edict had been
observed to
the letter. But there was an
authority, appertaining to the king, beyond
what was embodied in law. He
held in his hand the lives of all his subjects.
It is clear as noonday that
these envious statesmen had basely deceived the
king. Under cover of bringing
him honor, they thought only of glutting
their own malice, and robbing
the state of its best servant. It was nothing
less than a murderous
conspiracy. They were as guilty of murder as if
Daniel had died. Justice plainly
demanded that summary retribution should
follow; and at once these crafty
lords were consigned to the death they had
prepared for Daniel. Every man shall receive the due reward of his deeds.
men thought to use God only as a
tool in order to gain their nefarious end.
If God was defrauded of His
daily tribute of praise, what cared they? If
humble souls were deprived of guidance
and pardon and heaven, what
heeded they, so long as they
could lay murderous hands on Daniel? But
will men rob God with impunity?
Be well assured that God can defend His
own! The opposition of vain men
shall only advance His cause. The attempt
to gag the mouth
of prayer shall make even kings vocal in
God’s praise.
When pompous statesmen league
themselves against Him, “He that sitteth
in
the heavens shall
laugh.” (Psalm 2:4)
The proposal was that all prayer should
cease for the space of thirty days.
The effect was that Jehovah was proclaimed
as the True and Mighty all
through the
been that God has been more
honored and trusted all the world over. “His
Name shall endure
for ever” (Psalm 72:17); “To Him all flesh shall come.”
(Ibid. ch. 65:2)
DEPRESS. These worldly
wise statesmen felt that Daniel was a superior
man to themselves. They could
not expect promotion so long as they had
to compete with him. Hence they
resolved that what they could not gain by
fair means they would gain by
foul means. But they reckoned without their
host. It came to pass that they
were degraded, and that Daniel was
advanced. True merit will,
sooner or later, find its fitting level! Now that
these grasping placemen are
removed from the empire, there is all the more
room for Daniel — the more need
for an able and trusty councilor. Step by
step he rises in favor and in
influence. His increasing power brings
advantage to the captive tribes
of
lends brightness to their fallen
fortunes. They, too, begin to lift up the
head. This event becomes another
step in the way of
And Daniel rises to the enjoyment
of a reputation which is world-wide and
immortal. “He shines as the
brightness of the firmament, and as the stars
for ever and ever.” (ch. 12:3)
Excursus on Darius the
Mede
There is no character in Scripture who has given rise to
more hypotheses
than Darius the Mede. Every person whose name has come into
prominence in early Persian history may be said to have been pressed
into
service. The apocryphal addition to Daniel — Bel
and the Dragon —
identifies Darius the Mede with Cyrus. Josephus implies that Darius
is
Cyaxares II., as he declares him to be a relative (συγγενής - suggenaes -
kinsman; relative) of
Cyrus and son of Astyages. Eusebius (‘Chronicon’ ad Olym.,
54) identifies him with Astyages. Later critical commentators, e.g. Bevan, have
assumed that Darius Hystaspis is
intended. Still more recently, by Mr. Pinches,
it
has been suggested that Gobryas (Gobaru),
who took possession of
on
behalf of Cyrus is Darius the Mede. As a
preliminary to discussing the question,
we
must look at what is said about Darius the Mede in Daniel. He received the
kingdom when he was sixty-two years of age. He was the son of Ahasuerus, of the
seed of the Medes. From the fact that only the “first” year of his reign is
mentioned,
we
may deduce that he reigned little more than a year. He appears in the
Massoretic text especially as a supreme monarch, who appoints
governors
under him. We must, however, bear in mind the fact that the
evidence from
the
Book of Daniel is complicated by the proofs of expansion which we
find in it. Even when the Septuagint Version coincides with the Massoretic
recension, we are not even then quite sure that the work of
modification
had
not begun before the two families of revision were established.
Bearing this in mind, let us gather up the information we
have concerning
Darius here. He is asserted to be an old man when he “received
the
kingdom.” The verb used
here is used of legitimate succession; thus in
Paulus Tellensis Cyrus is said “to
receive,” קבל, the kingdom on the death
of
Darius. From the connection this is out of the question. It must mean
that from some higher power he “received” his appointment. His age we
may
assume to be correctly stated, notwithstanding the Septuagint
rendering; this seems to have been drawn from the Massoretic reading by
taking כבר is a Syriac sense. This view is confirmed by the fact that the
resulting construction is not a natural one. Further, the exactitude
of
statement gives a presumption of truth, as there is no reason in the
narrative why this age should be taken and not another. We are not
necessitated to maintain that the governors were satraps in the large
sense
of
the word. The fact that “satraps” were Persian governors would lead
that word to be inserted. As to the name, we cannot lay much stress on
this, as variation in the matter of names is not uncommon in Hebrew
literature, a less common name being replaced by one better known.
This is
rendered the more likely as in the Septuagint the name Darius is
replaced
by
Artaxerxes in one instance.
If we take the Septuagint text, there is nothing that
necessitates anything
more than that the province of which he might be the governor was
affected by his appointing these so-called “satraps.” As to the
title “king,”
we
must remember that that title was used very loosely. Cyrus claims to
have several ancestors who were “great kings” (Cylinder). Darius
Hystaspis declares eight of his ancestors to have been “kings.” Ansan, of
which Cyrus and his ancestors were kings, was a canton under the
power
of
Let us now investigate the various hypotheses that have
been brought
forward, and we shall take them in order of their probable age.
The first hypothesis is that Darius is Cyrus. This we find,
as we have said,
in
the second apocryphal addition to Daniel — Bel and
the Dragon — as
we
find it in Theodotion. So far as the letters are
concerned, it is not an
impossible thing to fancy that Ko’resh
was read into Daravasb, the resh
and
the shin being present in both words in the same position, and in the
Aramaic characters of B.C. 100 daleth
and caph were like. There is hardly
any
reason to lead one to read more readily the one name than the other.
Although Darius could not fail to be a well-known name
among the Jews,
since three of that name successively reigned over the
still in the East, Dara (Darius) is a
name synonymous with “magnificence:”
yet
to a Jew what monarch of
servant of the Lord,”
his “shepherd,” his “anointed,” who
allowed
return and sacrifices once more to be offered? The fact that he
is also
called Artaxerxes in the Septuagint,
and the further fact that in the Septuagint
Version of Bel and the Dragon the
name is omitted, are significant. The
name must be laid aside as being of no evidential value. If now we look at
the
men — when we compare Darius, as presented to us by the narrative
here, with Cyrus, the skilful, self-contained conqueror, who had broken the
power of Asytages, had built up a
monarchy from the small cantons of the
region east of the
see
a vast, irreconcilable difference. Cyrus must have been at the maturity
of
his power when he gained possession of
was
sixty-two years of age. Yet once more, he “received” his kingdom.
Cyrus did not claim as inheriting from Nabunahid.
We must, then,
definitely decide against Cyrus being Darius.
The theory that has received the largest amount of support
among those
who
maintain the ancient date of Daniel is that Darius the Mede is
Cyaxares II. This is a personage introduced by Xenophon
into his historical
novel, the ‘Cyropaedia.’ If his
existence could have been proved, the
character suited the position admirably. The weaknesses and
fussiness with
which Xenophon endows him does not
contradict anything we see of
Darius here. Only Xenophon nowhere says that
Cyrus made his uncle king
in
events now, than we were forty years ago. We know now that Astyages
was
not the son of
Manda or Umman-Manda,
who overthrew the Median Empire. In
Cyrus’s
revolts against Astyages we have no word
of any relationship subsisting
between him and his opponent, still less that he was his grandson.
There is,
further, no reference to any son of Astyages
being regarded as monarch
under whom Cyrus fought. Yet this must be acknowledged that,
though
Xenophon is at sea as to the capture of
took a principal share in it. He associates with him a certain Gadates,
which seems to be a word made from “Guti,”
the province from which
Gobryas came. Herodotus, though he knows of a Gobryas
who joined with
Darius in conspiring against Smerdis,
knows nothing of a Gobryas who
took a principal part in the capture of
dismiss Cyaxares II. as
non-existent.
On the faith of a passage in Herodotus (i.
125) it has been supposed that
Cyrus preserved Astyages, and may
have set him as vice-king over
theory has been devised by Marcus yon Niebuhr,
in his ‘Geschichte Assur.
u. Babils.’ He maintained that Belshazzar
was Evil-Merodach, and that he
held the blasphemous feast narrated in Daniel, and that he was overthrown
by
a conspiracy assisted by the help of Astyages the
Mede, and that
Nergalsharezar (Neriglissar)reigned
in
know now that Astyages was not a
Mede, but the King of the Mantis. We
know further that there is no trace in the contract tables of the conquest
of
the
city, so that there should be a foreign overlord. This, however, might
not
be notified in fixing the dates on the contracts. But if Astyages
was for
a
year actual king in
this is part of Baron yon Niebuhr’s hypothesis.
Further, Astyages does not
retain his over-lordship in
proclamation of Nabunahid. We must,
therefore, abandon this supposition
also.
The followers of the critical method, which assumes that
there must be
something outrageously wrong, take for granted that the Darius here
is the
well-known Darius Hystaspis. The only point
in him that suits Darius the
Mede is that he is called Darius. It is true that Darius Hystaspis, after it had
rebelled against him, took
Mede doing anything of the sort, although
it may be implied. Darius in
Daniel is a Mede, Darius Hystaspis
was a Persian; the Biblical Darius is the
son
of Ahashverosh (Ahasuerus),
the other Darius is ‘the son of Hystaspes;
the
Biblical Darius is an old man when he ascends the throne, Darius
Hystaspis is young. Further, if we assume the writer of the fifth
and sixth
chapters of Daniel wrote also the eleventh, then he knew of Darius
Hystaspis and of his son Xerxes, as well as of
Cyrus and his son Cambyses.
If these critics maintain the author of Daniel to be under
the erroneous idea
that Darius preceded Cyrus, how do they explain his knowledge that
Darius reigned after Cyrus? We need not appeal merely to
the eleventh
chapter of Daniel. We are told to remark the fact that the names
Daniel,
Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael all occur in Ezra and Nehemiah, as names
of
those who had returned from captivity, and we are expected to believe
that from this source these came. If this writer studied Ezra so carefully
as
to
pick out names to suit his purpose, how did he fail to see that Darius
came not only after Cyrus, but after his two immediate successors,
Cambyses and Smerdis? The critics are very ready to show us the sources
of
Daniel’s knowledge; they forget to harmonize these alleged sources of
knowledge with the stupendous ignorance they attribute to him
whenever
this is required by the necessities of their argument. Whoever Darius the
Mede is, he cannot be Darius Hystaspis.
Another hypothesis has been started by Mr. Pinches of the
— that Darius the Mede is Gobryas. We have seen that there is an
uncertainty about the name. We know that in early Aramaic script the
two
names are not so very unlike, but that the less-known Gobaru might be
read into the better known Darius. The main points known about both
personages are in singularly exact historical parallel Darius
received the
kingdom; Gobaru (Og-baru,
Gobryas) was admitted into Esakkil
by the
Babylonian confederates of Cyrus, and was made by Cyrus
governor of
above mentioned, that he appointed governors. Darius appointed
governors. Darius was a Mede. and Gobryas was governor of the province
of
Guti or Gutlum, which was
adjacent to Media, and therefore was not,
improbably, a Mede. In thinking of this period, we are to dismiss
from our
minds all thought of the “Medes” being conquered by Cyrus and
the
Persians. Both Medes and Persians were oppressed by the Manda —
probably a Scythian horde — and Cyrus
commenced the rebellion against
the
common oppressors, and united as one nation the Medes and the
Persians. As to the character of Gobryas as compared with that of Darius.
we
have no data to go upon either to affirm or deny a resemblance. His age
is
not at all improbable. Altogether the balance of probability in the mean
time points to Darius the Mede being Gobryas the
governor of Gutinm.
That he is addressed always as “king” does not contradict
this, for Media
and
description, and these monarchs retained their titles even under
Cyrus’s
rule; hence, in his Behistun inscription, Darius
claims his father to have
been a king, and this while Cambyses reigned as
king over the empire.
After his son Darius had mounted the throne, Hystaspes was satrap in
called king. Hence, if, as was likely, Gobryas
was king of some small town
or
canton when he became governor of Gutium, he would be
always “King
Gobryas,” or, as it has been written, “Darius.” On the whole, then, as we
have said, the balance of probability at present indicates Gobryas as Darius
the
Mede
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES Library, LLC. All rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition
is helpful, please share with others.