How Daniel was condemned to the lion’s den.
1. (1-3) Daniel in the government of Darius.
It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole kingdom; and over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss. Then this Daniel distinguished himself above the governors and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king gave thought to setting him over the whole realm.
a. It pleased Darius: Secular history of this period has no record of a ruler named Darius in the particular period and place recorded in Daniel 6. There are three possible explanations for the Darius of Daniel 6.
i. It may be that Darius was simply another name for Cyrus, who ruled the Medo-Persian Empire during this period.
ii. It may be that Darius was actually Cambyses, son of Cyrus, who served under his father as a ruler of Babylon and later inherited the throne of the entire empire.
iii. It may be that Darius was an ancient official known as Gubaru in ancient documents, whom Cyrus appointed as ruler over Babylon immediately after its capture. It is the opinion of this commentator that this Gubaru was the same person as Darius. In fact, “Darius” may be an honorific title meaning, “holder of the scepter.”
iv. Ancient documents show that the man Gubaru had the power to make appointments, to assemble an army, to levy taxes, and to possess palaces. Gubaru was in a very real sense the king over Babylon.
b. Daniel distinguished himself: Daniel was one of three leaders directly under Darius, and he shined above the other two leaders because he had an excellent spirit. Daniel had a good attitude in his work and life, and this made him the object of attack.
2. (4-9) A plot against Daniel is conceived and initiated.
So the governors and satraps sought to find some charge against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find no charge or fault, because he was faithful; nor was there any error or fault found in him. Then these men said, “We shall not find any charge against this Daniel unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God.” So these governors and satraps thronged before the king, and said thus to him: “King Darius, live forever! All the governors of the kingdom, the administrators and satraps, the counselors and advisors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute and to make a firm decree, that whoever petitions any god or man for thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the decree and sign the writing, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter.” Therefore King Darius signed the written decree.
a. They could find no charge or fault, because he was faithful: Daniel was such a faithful man that those who looked for a flaw in his actions or his character came up empty.
i. Sometimes today a candidate or nominee for political office is set under this kind of scrutiny, but imagine looking as hard as you can at a public servant in office some 50 years and finding nothing wrong. No fraudulent expense accounts. No intern scandals. No questionable business deals. No gifts from lobbyists. No accusations from his staff.
ii. Simply, there were no skeletons in Daniel’s closet. His enemies examined his life and found nothing to attack – so they had to make up something.
b. Nor was there any error or fault found in him: This wasn’t to imply that Daniel was actually sinless, but that he was a man of great integrity. We could also say that Daniel was especially blameless in the conduct of his professional life.
i. When he considered Daniel’s integrity, Spurgeon bemoaned our modern compromises: “As for Lord Fair-Speech, Lord Time-Server, Mr. Smooth-Man, Mr. Anything, Mr. Facing-both-Ways, Mr. Two-Tongues, and all the members of their club, Mr. By-Ends included, the entire company of them will be swept away when the Judge comes with the besom of destruction.” (Spurgeon)
ii. “Daniel here is not the herald of his own virtue, but the Spirit speaks through his mouth.” (Calvin)
c. We shall not find any charge against this Daniel unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God: These men knew Daniel well. They knew he could not be trapped into evil, but they also knew that he would be faithful to his God in all circumstances. Every Christian should consider if others could say the same about them.
i. The world may not know the details of doctrine or the intimacies of worship with God, but they can tell a bad temper, selfishness, conceitedness, or dishonesty when they see it. “The world is a very poor critic of my Christianity, but it is a very sufficient one of my conduct.” (Maclaren)
d. Whoever petitions any god or man for thirty days, except you, O king: If the enemies of Daniel knew him, they also knew Darius. They knew they could appeal to Darius’ pride and his desire for a unified kingdom.
i. “The suggested mode of compelling every subject in the former Babylonian domain to acknowledge the authority of Persia seemed a statesmanlike measure that would contribute to the unification of the Middle and Near East. The time limit of one month seemed reasonable.” (Archer)
ii. “What pretence could they urge for so silly an ordinance? Probably to flatter the ambition of the king, they pretend to make him a god for thirty days; so that the whole empire should make prayer and supplication to him and pay him Divine honours! This was the bait; but their real object was to destroy Daniel.” (Clarke)
iii. All the governors of the kingdom, the administrators and satraps, the counselors and advisors, have consulted together: Daniel’s enemies also knew that people could be persuaded to do things they wouldn’t normally do if they thought everyone else approved of that thing.
iv. Of course, they lied when they said all the governors… have consulted together. We know it was a lie because Daniel was one of the governors and he was not consulted.
e. So that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians: It was an established principle in the Medo-Persian Empire that when a king formally signed and instituted a decree, it was so binding that not even the king himself could change it.
i. The decrees of a Persian king were unchangeable because he was thought to speak for the gods, who could never be wrong and thus never needed to change their minds.
f. Therefore King Darius signed the written decree: “Suppose the law of the land were proclaimed, ‘No man shall pray during the remainder of this month, on pain of being cast into a den of lions,’ – how many of you would pray? I think there would be rather a scanty number at the prayer-meeting. Not but what the attendance at prayer-meetings is scanty enough now! But if there were the penalty of being cast into a den of lions, I am afraid the prayer-meeting would be postponed for a month, owing to pressing business, and manifold engagements of one kind and another.” (Spurgeon)