“It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom; 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. 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” (Daniel 6:1-3).
The chapter we now consider contains a brief summary of the history of Daniel during the reign of Darius the Median. It closes with a statement that Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, and also in that of Cyrus the Persian. The chief event related in the chapter is that of Daniel’s being cast into a den of lions because of his loyalty to Jehovah in a refusal to conform to a decree of the king which forbade any one to ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king himself. The nature of the punishment imposed for disobeying this decree clearly attests that a change of government had taken place, which change is mentioned in the closing verses of the preceding chapter. The capture of Belshazzar’s father, Nabonnedus, and the death of Belshazzar, ended the rule of Babylon and began that of the Medes and Persians.
It was in accord with Babylonian customs for capital punishment to be usually administered by burning. This was the punishment which was imposed upon the three Hebrew worthies. The Persians were worshipers of fire, and regarded this form of punishment as an abomination. Their custom was to administer death by casting their criminals to savage beasts. This difference in the form of punishment points to a complete change in the laws and administration of government. This change is also seen in the fact that the empire was divided into principalities, each governed by a head or prince, and over them all were three presidents, one of whom was appointed to be head over the other two. This one was Daniel, who thus stood in his relation to the throne somewhat the same as that of a premier or prime minister today.
Darius the Mede Took the Kingdom
It will be recalled that the preceding chapter closes with a statement that “Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.” Historians, critics, and antiquarians fail to agree in identifying this king with any mentioned by secular historians. Skeptics discard the whole account as fictitious or unreliable, as they do those of the three preceding chapters. The following from Mr. Barnes respecting this matter is in perfect agreement with other reverent students of the Bible:
“For anything that appears to the contrary, Daniel may be as credible a historian as Xenophon or Herodotus. No one can demonstrate that the account here is not as worthy of belief as if it had appeared in a Greek or Latin classic author. When will the world get over the folly of supposing that what is found in a book claiming to be inspired should be regarded as suspicious until it is confirmed by the authority of some heathen writer; that what is found in any other book should be regarded as necessarily true, however much it may conflict with the testimony of the sacred writers? Viewed in any light, Daniel is as worthy of confidence as any Greek or Latin historian.”
With regard to Darius, the sacred writings give us the following facts: Darius the Mede is mentioned in Daniel 6:28, as the immediate predecessor of Cyrus on the throne of Babylon. Belshazzar is the last of the Chaldean or Babylonian kings. The account of the violent death of Belshazzar, contained in Chapter Five, has a direct historical connection with the statement in the closing verse of the same chapter, that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. Darius the Mede, then, must have been the first foreign king who directly reigned in the city of Babylon after the fall of the Babylonian dynasty.
“The chronological point, therefore, where the history of Belshazzar and of Darius the Mede coincide, develops itself; the account falls in the time of the downfall of Babylon through the Medo-Persian army, and this must be the occasion as the connecting fact between the fifth and sixth chapters. According to this, Darius the Mede can be no other person than the Medish king, Cyaxares II, the son and successor of Astyages, and the predecessor of Cyrus in the rule over Babylon.”
In this connection it is well to observe that these ancient kings were frequently known by more than one name.
It is not necessary, however, to settle this question in order to be benefited by what is taught us in this sacred account. All the facts and lessons contained in the narrative of Chapter Six remain exactly the same, whether we are able to tell who this Darius the Median was or not. As one has said, “The fact is, we need never be ashamed to say, ‘we do not know,’ when we really have so very slight means of knowing anything certain about a matter, as we have in this case.” Darius the Mede, at any rate, was the embodiment and representative of the Medo-Persian dominion over Babylon, after it was conquered by Cyrus.
The words of verses 1-3, certainly imply that Darius in some way had become aware of the sterling qualities of character, as also the remarkable wisdom and ability of Daniel both as a man and as a statesman. It is very natural, therefore, that the king would desire to avail himself of the services of such a man. Good kings as a rule desire to have good and faithful servants, and even bad men prefer those of better principles than their own. It is most reasonable to suppose that Darius would not be long in discovering that Daniel was equal to his reputation, and he would, therefore, soon place him in a position in which his valuable services would be of worth. Whatever may be the deficiencies of Darius, he certainly exhibited a shrewdness when he placed Daniel in a position of trust in connection with administering the affairs of state. He was first made “the chief of the three presidents over all the other princes and principalities into which the realm was divided”; and the narrative further implies that the king was well pleased with the services of Daniel and states that he “thought to set him over the whole realm.”
All history, political, religious, and social, has demonstrated over and over again that a man occupying so prominent a position, administering the affairs of government with strict exactness and with freedom from bias, thoroughly honest, not tolerating dishonesty in any, and with it all continually growing more and more in the esteem and favor of his superior, can hardly escape the envy and hatred of those who are belittled by comparison, and who, possibly because of his standing in the way, are unable to accomplish their own selfish ambitions. As has been said:
“It is a part of the disease that is upon depraved humanity to be dissatisfied and unamiable toward the excellencies and honors of others. It is loath to bear anything above itself. It is the nature of the Devil to be the accuser of the good and of those who are favored for their worth; and all his children have the same family trait. They are pained, mortified, chagrined, and full of spiteful resentment, at the superior excellence or prosperity of those above them. It is their delight to humiliate those who happen to be more favored than themselves. If compelled to give credit in one direction, they are exceedingly ingenious in finding some point at which to take it back. Admitting that Job is a just and upright man, they always have a ‘but’ as to the motives in the case, by which to make it appear a mere sordidness after all. …
“And this is particularly true in affairs of public office. It seems to inhere in politicians and aspirants to hate and persecute every man in an official place who honestly tries to do his duty and seeks to carry ethics into public administrations. Few men go into those arenas but with sinister and selfish aims, and if one in power will not share their plans for self aggrandizement, flatter their pride, shut his eyes to their dishonesties, and let his conscience go, he is sure to be assailed, to have charges trumped up against him, to have snares and traps set for him, and subtle plans laid to embarrass, disgrace, or displace him. The greatest personal enemies readily make common cause to get rid of a man who has the principle and nerve to stand firm against their self seeking, their oppressions, their robberies, and their wicked ambitions. Though they may have been loudest in trying to put him into place, they will curse and defame him if they are not made sharers in his successes or cannot use him for their ignoble ends.”
The jealousy against Daniel was doubtless increased by the fact that he was a foreigner, a Jew. This seems to be clear from the words of his enemies to the king when they brought their charges against him. They gave special emphasis to the nationality of Daniel: “That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king.” It would seem that the prejudices of the Babylonians against foreigners, especially Jews, had not ceased even after a residence among them of seventy years. Notwithstanding the many benefits that had come to the state through the wise administrations of Daniel, he was still looked upon by envious ones as a despised Jew, and was taunted and scoffed at as being only a slave, one of the captives of Nebuchadnezzar. This jealous feeling has continued to exist throughout their long career. A little later in their history, in the days of Ahasuerus, a Persian king, Mordecai was viewed with envy, simply because he was a Jew; and it is very apparent that in modern times the same spirit prevails. It is well known that political jealousies have been exercised because a great statesman has been of Jewish extraction.
Another matter containing a lesson is suggested in the fact that Darius commended Daniel and showed appreciation of his services by promoting him to an important position in the ministration of the affairs of the empire. The thought of some is that it is better to hold back words of appreciation for services rendered, for the reason that this commendation might cause one to become puffed up or self exalted, and thus fall away from Christian rectitude. To the Lord’s people, however, who are on trial for the development of a character like that of Christ, such commendation should not be injurious. The chief and paramount element of true Christian character is humility and self abasement, a distinctive feature of which is that of a deep sense of indebtedness to God for all gifts either natural or acquired; and if one’s natural tendencies as a result of the fall are in the direction of loving the praise of men, he will need — nay, will be compelled to be brought into places of trial and testing along these lines, and thus have opportunity to overcome.
There is, however, vast difference between showing or giving expression of appreciation of help received through another’s ministrations, and that of giving praise to the person for the qualities, gifts, or talents that are put into use in rendering such service. Those who have come in contact with this test and have overcome, and have come to understand and experience what is the true spirit of the Master, will have learned that they are indebted to God for all they are, and will give all the honor and glory to Him to whom it rightly belongs. Such ones, no matter how great may be the gifts, abilities, or talents possessed, learn to esteem others better than themselves.
We may be very sure that the king’s expressed appreciation of Daniel’s ability and good qualities had no evil effect on him. He had fully learned that all these came from God, and he ever recognized that whatever position of esteem or honor from the viewpoint of the world he might hold, was one of responsibility to God, and was given him in the Divine providence. He realized that only as he kept himself in close and constant touch with God would he be able to rightly represent the great Jehovah and meet the responsibility in a way pleasing and acceptable to Him. Daniel was not only wise, gifted, and noble in character (and on this account valuable to the king) but he was also appreciative of the fact and continually acknowledged that all these things came to him in the Divine providence.
It is very evident that it was the king’s expression of his appreciation of Daniel’s usefulness that increased the envy, jealousy, and malice of the other officers of the realm toward Daniel. The record tells us that this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought and doubtless expressed to both Daniel and all these men, that it was his purpose to set him over the whole empire. This action of the king had the effect of only increasing the envy, jealousy, and hatred of these men toward Daniel, and they were no longer able to restrain themselves from doing him injury.
It was at this point that they took concerted action and conspired to bring about his degradation. Their first thought seems to have been to cause him to lose favor with the king, and thus be removed from his office. To this end they set themselves diligently to work, to find if possible some evidence that he was unfaithful in administering the affairs of the kingdom — some act of dishonesty, some abuse of power — anything that would enable them to gain their own personal ends, and remove him out of their way. The sacred narrative informs us that “they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.” Much against their desires they were obliged to come to the conclusion as expressed in their words, “We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.”
What a testimony was this! We can scarcely conceive of a commendation accorded to any man, especially a public man, so praiseworthy as these evil plotters against Daniel were compelled to give — particularly when we consider the source from which it came.
“It puts the character of Daniel high above all question or reproach. And thus in the midst of a heathen people, at the head of a cabinet of dishonest, envious, and plotting officials, and surrounded with all the temptations which the indulgence of a confiding sovereign threw in his way, he went through the ordeal, as his three friends had gone through the fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace, without the singeing of a hair or so much as the smell of burning on his clothes.”
This would not mean that Daniel was absolutely perfect. He must have had as deep a conviction of his own unworthiness as any of the great Prophets and Psalmists of Israel. It is undoubtedly a fact that the closer one lives to God, the more will he be overwhelmed, as it were, with a consciousness of defects. What Job, and David, and Isaiah, and Noah felt, must have been constantly present in Daniel’s consciousness also. This does not in any sense conflict with the thought that he always preserved a conscience void of offense before his God.
“Happy indeed is the man who lives in such a way that no fault can be found with him, except that he does what his God commands! Such was Daniel’s case; his obedience and prayers obtained for him the help of God, which enabled his natural ‘talents’ to accomplish these wonders.”
The Conspiracy To Murder Daniel
Not being able to find anything against him in connection with his administration of public affairs, Daniel’s maligners were not held back from their evil purpose, but instead, their determination to work his destruction only increased. They assembled together in secret. They consulted with one another what should be done next; and finally they concocted a plot that they felt sure would accomplish their purpose. They were all thoroughly convinced that it would be useless to try to influence the king against his prime minister. Any effort in this direction they evidently realized could result only in failure and react to their own injury. On this account they determined not to mention Daniel’s name to the king, to leave him seemingly entirely out of their proceedings. They reasoned that their plot to destroy Daniel would be better accomplished by an appeal to the king’s love for self glory and honor; and when they had finished their wicked plot, with all haste they sought an interview with the unsuspicious monarch, and being granted one, they addressed him as follows:
“King Darius, live for ever. 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. 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” (Daniel 6:6,7).”
To some the question will most naturally come, How could such a body of men possibly expect the king to sign such a decree? To understand this it will be necessary that we become acquainted with heathen customs, particularly those of the Persians; and furthermore that we know something of the superstitious reverence that was accorded to kings in that country. In ancient times it was not an uncommon thing for heathen kings to be accorded Divine honors. The custom of the Romans in the early centuries of the Christian era of placing the kings among the gods, is well known to those acquainted with Roman history. The exaggerative language employed by the Latin poets respecting the exalted position of the emperors shows this; and especially do we see this custom prevailing as we become familiar with the records of the many Christians who suffered martyrdom because they would not offer sacrifice to the emperor. Pusey, in his work on Daniel, is authority for saying that the ancient Persians “looked upon their kings as the representatives of Ormuzd1 and as such paid him Divine honor.” Sometimes the king was called “the progeny of the gods,” or even “a god.” Another has said:
“And when once the apotheosis had been allowed, it would only be a very short step further to address prayer to the deified man. There seems to be a special reason why such should have been the case with regard to Darius. Being a Mede, it was necessary that on ascending a throne which owed allegiance to Persia, he would in every way give public proof of his willingness to conform to all Persian religious customs. Accordingly, when the deputation arrived, there was nothing to make him suspicious or to startle him in the measure which they proposed that he should enact. And perhaps the people of Babylon were as little disturbed by the decree as was the king himself, for it is highly probable that the deification of the king was not unknown among the Babylonians. The Assyrians certainly had a custom not far removed from the apotheosis of the reigning sovereign” (Deane, Daniel: His Life and Times).
Mr. Barnes, who has given a great deal of attention in his Notes on Daniel to these seemingly absurd customs, has given several reasons in explanation of what may have influenced the king to yield to his crafty counselors to issue such a decree. He says:
“The law proposed was in a high degree flattering to the king, and he may have been ready at once to sign a decree which for the time gave him a supremacy over gods and men. If Alexander the Great desired to be adored as a god, then it is not improbable that a proud and weak Persian monarch would be willing to receive a similar tribute. It may have occurred to him, or may have been suggested, that this was an effectual way to test the readiness of his subjects to obey and honor him. Some such test, it may have been urged, was not improper, and this would determine what was the spirit of obedience as well as any other. More probably, however, it may have been represented that there was some danger of insubordination, or some conspiracy among the people, and that it was necessary that the sovereign should issue some mandate, which would at once and effectually quell it. The haste and earnestness with which they urged their request would rather seem to imply that there was a representation that some sudden occasion had arisen which made the enactment of such a statute proper. Or the king may have been in the habit of signing the decrees proposed by his counselors with little hesitation, and lost in ease and sensuality, and perceiving only that this proposed law was flattering to himself, and not deliberating on what might be its possible result, he may have signed it at once.”
If any are disposed, even with the foregoing explanations, to think that a scheme involving the acceptance of such blasphemous honors by a heathen king would be unreasonable to believe, all that is needed by such is to call to mind that in so short a time ago as 1870, a great council of professed Christian dignitaries, in a church that claims to be the true and only Church of the living God on earth, were unanimous in solemnly declaring to the whole world that a feeble old man residing in the city of Rome possessed the attribute of Divine infallibility. And the Pope with all the solemnity associated with such an occasion received the honor. “And,” says an eminent writer, “if the Pope of Rome is pleased to accept and appropriate such absurd honors in the name of the sublimest truth given for human enlightenment, we need not be surprised that these proposals of Medo- Persia’s presidents, princes, counselors, and captains proved acceptable to the vain-glorious heathen monarch, who then occupied the Medo-Persian throne.”
We will not be surprised then to learn that the evil plot of these men succeeded. The easily flattered king was induced to establish the decree by affixing to it his signature; and it became, like other laws of the Medes and Persians, change- less. The words of his counselors were, “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.” The writing was signed; the proclamation was made; and it would seem that the king had not the slightest suspicion as to what was the real object of these men. The avowed purpose of the decree was to accord honor and allege rightful glory to the king; the real purpose, however, was for the “murder of the man who stood next to him, and who had in him more of the Divine than all the kings, presidents, and princes of Media and Persia put together. It had a heathen lie for its basis; it was a huge hypocrisy in its suggestion; and it was nothing but a scheme of cold blooded murder to destroy the greatest, best, and purest man in the kingdom” — indeed, one who was specially singled out by the Great Jehovah Himself, as a “man greatly beloved” (Daniel 10:11); one who is mentioned by the great God as having special power because of his piety, to prevail with Him in prayer” (Ezekiel 14:14,20).
Again we quote from Mr. Barnes, one of the most practical Christian writers, who has drawn several pointed and profitable lessons from this chapter:
“We have [in verses 1-4] an instance of what often occurs in the world — of envy on account of the excellency of others, and of the honors which they obtain by their talent and their worth. Nothing is more frequent than such envy, and nothing more common, as a consequence, than a determination to degrade those who are the subjects of it. Envy always seeks in some way to humble and mortify those who are distinguished. It is the pain, mortification, chagrin, and regret which we have at their superior excellence or prosperity, and this prompts us to endeavor to bring them down to our own level, or below it; to calumniate their characters; to hinder their prosperity; to embarrass them in their plans; to take up and circulate rumors to their disadvantage; to magnify their faults, or to fasten upon them the suspicion of crime. In the instance before us we see the effect in a most guilty conspiracy against a man of incorruptible character; a man full in the confidence of his sovereign; a man eminently the friend of virtue and of God.”
Commenting on verses 4-9, this same writer says:
“[We have] a striking illustration of the nature and the evils of a conspiracy to ruin others. The plan here was deliberately formed to ruin Daniel — the best man in the realm — a man against whom no charge of guilt could be alleged, who had done the conspirators no wrong; who had rendered himself in no way amenable to the laws. A conspiracy is a combination of men for evil purposes: an agreement between two or more persons to commit some crime in concert, usually treason, or an insurrection against a government or state. In this case it was a plot growing wholly out of envy or jealousy; a concerted agreement to ruin a good man, where no wrong had been done or could be pretended, and no crime had been committed. The essential things in this conspiracy, as in all other cases of conspiracy, were two: (a) that the purpose was evil; and (b) that it was to be accomplished by the combined influences of numbers. The means on which they relied, or the grounds of calculation on the success of their plot, were the following: (1) that they could calculate on the unwavering integrity of Daniel — on his firm and faithful adherence to the principles of his religion in all circumstances, and in all times of temptation and trial; and (2) that they could induce the king to pass a law, irrepealable from the nature of the case, which Daniel would be certain to violate and to the penalty of which, therefore, he would be certainly exposed. Now in this purpose there was every element of iniquity, and the grossest conceivable wrong. There were combined all the evils of envy and malice; of perverting and abusing their influence over the king; of secrecy in taking advantage of one who did not suspect any such design; and of involving the king himself in the necessity of exposing the best man in his realm, and the highest officer of state, to the certain danger of death. The result, however, showed, as is often the case, that the evil recoiled on themselves, and that the very calamity overwhelmed them and their families which they had designed for another.”
Commenting on the words, “We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God,” we have this writer saying:
“We have a striking instance of what often occurs, and what should always occur, among the friends of religion, that no occasion can be found against them except in regard to the law of their God — on the score of their religion. Daniel was known to be upright. His character for integrity was above suspicion. It was certain that there was no hope of bringing any charge against him that would lie, for any want of uprightness or honesty; for any failure in the discharge of his duties of his office; for any malversation in administering the affairs of the government; for any embezzlement of the public funds, or for any act of injustice towards his fellowmen. It was certain that his character was irreproachable on all these points; and it was equally certain that he did and would maintain unwavering fidelity in the duties of religion. Whatever consequences might follow from it, it was clear that they could calculate on his maintaining with faithfulness the duties of piety. Whatever plot, therefore, could be formed against him on the basis either of his moral integrity, or his piety, it was certain would be successful. But there was no hope in regard to the former, for no law could have been carried prohibiting his doing what was right on the subject of morals. The only hope, therefore, was in respect to his religion; and the main idea in their plot — the thing which constituted the basis of their plan was, that it was certain that Daniel would maintain his fidelity to his God irrespective of any consequences whatever. This certainty ought to exist in regard to every good man; every man professing religion. His character ought to be so well understood; his piety ought to be so firm, unwavering, and consistent, that it could be calculated on just as certainly as we calculate on the stability of the laws of nature, that he will be found faithful to his religious duties and obligations. There are such men, and the character of every man should be such. Then indeed we should know what to depend on in the world; then religion would be respected as it should be.”
The Miraculous Deliverance
“Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day” (Daniel 6:13).
From the human standpoint it would appear that there was no possible way of escape for Daniel. He undoubtedly knew of the hatred of these men, and also of the wicked and wily snare or trap they had laid for him. It would be of no use for him to make complaint to the king against them — to do so would be …
“… to indict nearly all the officials of the realm and to dash himself to destruction against the combination of numbers. To remonstrate with the king against the decree would seem like taking sides against a popular sentiment of the nation, present him in the attitude of a revolutionist trying to set aside one of the proudest traditions and most sacred political doctrines of the Medes and Persians, and make him seem to be a disloyal opposer of the king’s acknowledged honor and dignity. To abandon his position and flee the country would show a cowardly spirit, and had but little promise of success. Indeed, he was so hedged up on all sides that nothing seemed left for him, as a true servant of Jehovah but to compose himself to his fate, go on with his accustomed devotions and meekly trust the result to God” (Joseph Seiss).
He chose, as we know he would, the latter course, and simply continued in the performance of his accustomed duties; and when he “knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.” He did not do this in an ostentatious manner, as if by so doing to parade his piety, to show that he was a worshiper of God; neither was he held back by a fear of punishment from engaging in his accustomed daily devotions. This was his customary time and place of prayer; and the manner he offered up his devotions to God was the same as aforetime. The chamber or upper room, it is most reasonable to suppose, was the most retired place in the house, and one in which he would be the least liable to be seen or heard. For this very reason he had aforetime selected this as a sacred spot to offer his devotions.
Nothing else now remained to hinder the wicked plot from reaching a successful termination but for some of these men to intrude upon Daniel in his daily devotion and worship of his God. This was a very easy task, for it is evident that they were well aware of these religious habits of the Medo-Persian Prime Minister. They knew where as well as when to find him engaged in his accustomed devotions and they assembled for the purpose and found him.
Accompanied with a sufficient number of witnesses to the fact that he had disobeyed the king’s decree, a deputation of these counselors again sought an entrance into the king’s presence; and one of their number, with assumed hypo- critical indignation at Daniel’s act, thus addressed the monarch: “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 unsuspecting king gave answer: “The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.” It seems very clear that up to this time the king had not suspected his counselors of having a sinister motive in connection with this decree. Indeed, it was just at this stage of the whole affair that the wicked plotters first mentioned the name of Daniel. It was, doubtless, a complete surprise to the king when he heard their accusation against his faithful servant in the words now addressed to him: “That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.”
It was certainly a cruel trap that these men had set for both the king and his faithful servant; and it is not difficult to imagine how great was the king’s amazement and sorrow as he realized what his hastiness in signing the decree had led to. But it was of no manner of use now for him to reproach himself. He had but two courses from which to choose. Should he himself break a law — an act which would be contrary to the customs of the Medes and Persians? or should he take away the life of a man whose character he had come to admire, and whose services he so greatly valued? It is positively certain that he was strongly in favor, if it were possible, of repealing or disannulling the decree or setting aside the penalty in Daniel’s case; for we read that “he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him” (verse 14), which would mean, doubtless, that he presented all the arguments possible in order to deliver his faithful and guile- less officer. It would seem that his efforts were put forth to the end of finding some way whereby the law might be repealed, or the penalty be commuted; but the counselors met every appeal of the king by citing the unchangeableness of the Medo-Persian laws, and were united in their clamorous appeal for the execution of the decree. The king was compelled finally to give his consent; and we may rest assured that it was with great sorrow of heart he ordered that Daniel be brought, and cast into the den of lions. One has thus commented on what would seem to be a weakness on the part of Darius in thus giving way to his counselors:
“Now we must not think that the conduct of Darius on this occasion exhibits to us a pattern of weakness; he did what often falls to the painful duty of many rulers when advised by their ministers, namely to see that the law of the State is carried out. He was far different from Herod who beheaded John the Baptist merely for the sake of keeping his own rash oath. There was a consistency about the conduct of Darius which deserves respect. A law, so long as it exists, must be carried out for the sake of preserving due order … among the subjects of the State; but whenever an open injustice is discovered in a particular law, it is not the duty of either rulers or citizens to violate the law, but rather procure the abrogation of it as speedily as possible. Such a course, however, was not open to Darius, as it was utterly opposed to the fundamental character of the Medes and Persians to alter the law. Accordingly nothing remained for the king but to see that this hastily made decree was rigidly enforced.
“This was supposed to be the end of the noble president — sad end of a man so great, so faithful, and so good! Those who hated him rejoiced over their murderous success, and now considered their fortunes made. But ‘the triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the hypocrite but for a moment.’ God had not forsaken His servant, and a Higher than Darius had decreed that he should not thus perish before his enemies. Jehovah holdeth in His hand the devices of men and the savageness of beasts. He can bring to naught the machination of princes and shut the mouths of lions.”
The wicked conspirators were so desirous and determined that their nefarious purpose should not be thwarted, that not only did they close up the entrance to the den with a great stone, but they, doubtless, persuaded the king to cause it to be sealed with his own signet as well as that of his lords, in order “that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.” It would seem that they feared if this extra security were not taken, the king might himself release him.
It is evident that the king had not given up all hope, for as Daniel was being cast into the den of lions, he said to him, “Thy God, whom thou servest continually, He will deliver thee.” These words show that the king continued to have entire confidence in Daniel even up to the last. There is nothing strange in the fact that the king expressed himself as believing that the God of Daniel would deliver him, for it was a common belief among the heathen that their gods would interpose in behalf of the righteous, and particularly in behalf of their worshipers.
“Darius, undoubtedly, in accordance with the prevailing belief, regarded the God whom Daniel worshiped as a god, though not as exclusively the true God. He had the same confidence in Him that he had in any god worshiped by foreigners — and probably regarded Him as the tutelary divinity of the land of Palestine, and the Hebrew people.”
We next read that after closing the den “the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting.” This evidently means that he went without his accustomed evening meal. Daniel was cast into the den soon after sunset, and it was the custom of those times to have the last meal after this time. There can be no question concerning the great sorrow and anxiety of the king. He may possibly have tried to console himself with the thought that he had done his duty. However, this would not mitigate his sorrow and regret at what seemed to be the fate of Daniel. There would continually arise in his mind the thought that he had done wrong — that he ought to have broken and thus disannulled his own law to save his faithful officer. The sacred narrative informs us that he passed a sleepless night. Nothing could be done to turn his thoughts away from his faithful servant.
Meanwhile, Daniel passed the night alone among the lions. Alone, but not alone. The Almighty One who had been with him all the many years he had sought to serve and honor Him, did not leave him now. His watchful eye is ever upon His faithful servants, and never does He leave them alone. We are not told how Daniel passed the night, but we may be sure that he who had learned to pray and to trust himself to the care of his God, did not fail to profit by that which he had learned.
At last the morning dawned, and the anxious, worn out, restless king arose “very early,” and went in haste to the den of lions. “When he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?” Up from among the lions came the welcome words: “O king, live forever.” It is utterly impossible to describe the feelings of the anxious king! What relief from the anxiety and remorse which he had been enduring! What unbounded joy came to him as he heard the voice of his faithful officer: “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 king’s question was answered. Daniel’s God had delivered him. And from the king’s own words that are recorded in a decree which he issued afterwards, and which he sent forth to all the world, there can be no question with regard to his belief that it was Daniel’s God who had interposed and sent an angel to protect and deliver His faithful servant.
Daniel most certainly knew that his deliverance was accomplished by special Divine interposition. It is very evident that he believed a miracle had been wrought. And there could have been no more fitting occasion for such a display of God’s wonder working power. The lesson that was very evidently designed to be impressed on the mind of the king, and through him on the minds of his subjects, was sufficient reason for such a miracle, and was worthy of Divine interposition. In a time when the world had so little knowledge or conception of the true and only God, when people generally were given over to the worship of imaginary gods, this miracle was God’s way of witnessing to them.
Daniel was the representative of the true God, and a member of that nation that had been given His laws. He had undoubtedly made known both by his words and life the great moral law of Jehovah God; and it seemed best to the Lord at this particular time, to preserve the life of His servant. His life work was not yet finished. Visions and revelations were to be given him concerning the future of the chosen people. He was to be further used to encourage and stir up his own nation to go up to the land of their fathers, rebuild their city and temple, and resume again the worship of Jehovah in the place appointed.
We read that “the king was exceedingly glad for him” — for Daniel. He evidently not only rejoiced because Daniel’s life was saved, but also that he could now be restored to his place of usefulness in the kingdom. “So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God.”
We next read that “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.”
“Verily, the wicked shall fall into their own pit, but the upright shall have good things in possession. Haman hangs on the very gallows which his vaulting pride prepared for faithful Mordecai.”
It is very evident that the king at last came to see the trap that was laid for Daniel; and indeed one that was laid for himself in the sense that it brought him into a position where it was impossible for him to save his faithful minister. It was but the work of a moment to rescue Daniel, and then to see justice measured out to the men who had been the instigators of this cruel plot. There is some ground for believing, according to Mr. Deane in his work, Daniel: His Life and Times, that “during the long discussion on the previous day, another compact had been made between Darius and the satraps besides that to which we have already referred, that in case Daniel should come out unhurt, the accusers should forfeit their lives. Whether Daniel interceded for them, we are not told; but without delay all the accusers (not the hundred and twenty satraps and the two presidents as some have imagined) and their wives and children were sent to experience the same fate that they had designed for Daniel.”
Josephus here introduces another, a singular feature to the narrative. He informs us that the accusers on hearing the sentence pronounced against themselves said to the king that the lions had been recently fed, and for this reason failed to devour Daniel. At these words the king ordered the lions to be well fed, and then cast the men into the den that he might see whether the lions when full would touch them or not. “And,” Josephus says, “it appeared plain to Darius after the princes had been cast to the wild beasts, that it was God who preserved Daniel, for the lions spared none of them, but tore them in pieces as if they had been very hungry and wanted food.”
Mr. Deane in commenting on these words of Josephus says:
“This account is interesting chiefly from the manner in which it illustrates the tendency of a later age to magnify the miracles that occurred in the time of a past generation. The two miracles that occurred were Daniel’s calmness which converted the king, and Daniel’s deliverance which resulted in the name of the true God being proclaimed during the Persian Empire. But it seems as if Josephus invented a further miracle merely for the sake of telling a humorous story. God does not work miracles lavishly. For those recorded in Scripture we can trace a reason; for the Apocryphal miracles none at all. It is not for us to invent new miracles, but to adore with all reverence and love that wonderful hand ‘which delivereth and rescueth, and worketh signs and wonders in heaven and earth, which hath delivered Daniel from the hand of the lions” (Daniel 6:27).
Trials Associated With Saintship
“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” (Daniel 6:27).
Very many are the warnings and helpful lessons that may be learned from this sacred narrative of events occurring so long ago. We cite a few:
(1) Godliness, uprightness, and virtue do not exempt one from earthly adversities and ills. Indeed, it is frequently the case that the deeper and more complete the devotion and fidelity to God, the greater the “The tree that bears the best fruit is always the most assailed, shaken, and stoned.” This was eminently true of the Prophets of old. They were frequently exposed to persecution, were falsely accused, reviled, and evilly entreated. The greatest, the purest, the noblest Man that ever walked the earth, was defamed and accused, condemned, and put to death. All such suffering for righteousness’ sake and for truth’s sake is not only helpful in building up a character fitted for eternity, but it assists the believer to an intimate knowledge of the true God in this evil world. Without such knowledge he would be disposed to forget Him altogether. We should not, therefore, think it strange when trials deep and long enduring come upon us. Daniel was permitted by wise Providence to be the target for conspiring foes, and to be so beset by them as to see no way of escape but that of a violent death.
(2) We see the great value of an early stand for God and truth. In the case of Daniel, in early youth he gave himself to God, and was very strict in obeying the voice of conscience as enlightened by the Divine Word. It is impossible to emphasize or magnify too greatly the value of an early rooting and grounding in the Word of God. One has said:
“This was the spring of Daniel’s greatness. This was his shield and buckler in the midst of his adverse surroundings. This steadied him for one of the sublimest careers that ever was run by mortal man. Nor can a young man or woman possibly do a better or a wiser thing for the successful running of the race of life, wherever or whatever it may be, than to give the heart to God, to live and die cleaving always and above all to His Word and laws. This gives fixedness, shape, and purpose to the being. This fashions character into solidity, worth, and beauty. This supplies a base and groundwork on which to repose and compose one’s self, whatever storms life may develop.
“In pursuance of his early principles, Daniel was very diligent in his devotions. He had his oratory for prayer, with its window ever looking to Jerusalem.
He had no temple to which to betake himself, but he made a temple of his own house, and his upper room was his holy of holies. Three times a day he went into it with the incense of praise and prayer to the Lord God of his fathers. Not all the cares of state … nor all the subtle plottings and malignant watchings of his foes, could induce him to demit this constant habit of his life. He kept himself in communion with heavenly greatness, and it served to make him great and to fill him with the spirit of the holy Powers. The manner, form, or precise number of times a day in which he performed his devotions was not the material thing, but he kept open communications with Heaven; and this was the secret of his strength and the nurturing force in all his great qualities. Nor can any man make of himself and of his life what he should without systematic earnestness in his prayers.”
The Great Lesson of Simple Trust
(3) The great and crowning feature in Daniel was that he dared to take his stand with God — dared at all times to obey Him rather than the decrees of men. He would not change or abate one jot or tittle of his religious devotions, even when he knew that only by so doing could he save his life; otherwise a miraculous deliverance from death by his God would be his only hope. His enemies who watched and studied his life the closest, incited to do so with all the energy that hatred and malice could give, confessed that it was impossible to find in him, in his official duties to his king, any flaw. Indeed, it was because of their belief in his steadfast devotion to his God that they discovered the one and only way to bring about his death. They knew with absolute certainty that Daniel would go on with his prayers as aforetime, even though he knew that it meant certain death. He went as aforetime to his upper chamber; and he did not take precautions to close the ever open window as he knelt down in reverence before his God.
We may believe with reason that on that day he told his God all about the decree, and with a conscience clear that he had done only his duty before Him, he committed the whole matter into the hands of Him who rules and controls the universe. We doubt not that so great and simple was his faith and trust, that when he arose from his knees, he went about his duties as calmly and with the same self possession as if the decree had never been made.
Here in this man do we have illustrated the pattern for a truly successful life, as well as the proper way to meet death. There was no spirit of bravado or defiance in this godly man. There was no posing ostentatiously for the applause of the lookers-on. We see in this incident not the slightest indication on his part to pose as a martyr.
“But here was the dignity of a meek and honest faith, living only for God, and made up to die, if it must be, just as the life was shaped, unruffled with regrets or fears, and peaceful in the keeping of a faithful God.”
An interesting and very important question is suggested by this deliverance of Daniel by Divine interposition, namely: To what extent and in what forms may the Lord’s people in these days look for and expect Divine interposition when in trouble, trial, or danger. Many are the Scriptures we believe which plainly declare that the true children of God may confidently look for Divine help, even Divine interposition in times of need (Psalms 37:23-40, 55:22, 91:7-9, Matthew 6:25-34, 10:25-31, 1 Peter 5:7). In regard to the nature and extent of Divine interposition in behalf of the Lord’s true children, we have the promise that the Lord is overruling in all the affairs of those who truly commit themselves to Him. He never leaves His children alone. No matter what may be the situation in which they may find themselves — whether in prosperity or adversity; in safety or in danger; in prison or out of prison; bound to the stake with the fires kindled about them, or delivered from such experience; cast among the savage beasts and delivered, or tortured and devoured by the same — He is with His children, He will never leave them nor forsake them.
The three Hebrew worthies were not sure how their deliverance was to come. They said, “If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Daniel said nothing that would indicate that he expected anything else but death. We do know that he had committed himself to the Divine care. It seems evident that in those Old Testament days the Lord’s people committed the keeping of their souls unto God, leaving it to His wisdom as to whether a miracle should be wrought in their deliverance, or whether it would be His will that they suffer death. The same is true in the days of martyrdom. Old, middle aged, and young men, as well as young and tender women, went to their death, having left their cases in the hands of God to do as it seemed best to Him. His presence was with them, whether burning at the stake or being gored by wild beasts. They realized His presence, and in many instances so great was their joy in being permitted to suffer for His name, that they seemed to lose all consciousness of pain from the burning flame or from the terrible wounds inflicted by the wild beasts.
Whenever miracles have been wrought in the deliverance of God’s people there has always been a Divine purpose to be accomplished. That purpose when discovered is found to be for the furtherance of His Cause in the world, and not for the special benefit of the delivered one. God could just as easily have saved the three Hebrew worthies from death without a miracle as He could have with one. Daniel could just as easily have been saved from being cast into the lions’ den, as he could have been delivered by the performance of a miracle after he was cast in among the lions. Miracles have characterized the beginning of the different dispensations in connection with the unfolding of God’s Plan, and they were designed to give evidence to others that He was giving messages of importance concerning His purposes in redemption.
We conclude then that God’s children are not generally to expect Divine interposition by miracles, though we would think it a mistake to say that in certain exceptional cases down through this Age there have not been miracles performed.
“There are cases where God seems to interpose in behalf of the righteous directly, in answer to prayer, in times of sickness, poverty, and danger — raising them up from the borders of the grave; providing for their wants in a manner which appears to be as providential as when the ravens fed Elijah, in rescuing them from danger. There are numerous such cases which cannot be well accounted for on any other supposition than that God does directly interpose in their behalf, and show them these mercies because they are His friends.”
Another advantage of living a devoted Christian life is that God interposes in behalf of His trusting children, in giving them assistance, support, and consolation, enabling them to bear the inevitable ills of the present life. He sustains His children in the hour of trial and adversity; He upholds them in bereavement and sorrow; and He supports them in the hour of death. There is a degree of peace and comfort of which the world cannot know that is possessed by trusting Christians because of their understanding the Divine Plan, and because of their realization that they are now in the school of trial — a school presided over by the infinite One, who will not suffer His pupils to suffer or to be tempted beyond what is necessary or beyond their strength to endure.
“The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7).
(1) (Note from previous page.) The Supreme Deity of the ancient Persians.