Commentary On Daniel :: Chapter 6 (5.31-6.28)

Chapter 6: The Lions And The Lamb 5.31-6.28: Text and translation Shorter translational notes are footnoted. Where a ‘+’ sign appears, further translational notes can be found below (“5.31-6.28: Further translational notes”). 5.31 ‫א כ‌ מָד´אָה ק קַּבֵל‬³‫שׁ מָד´י‬ª‫ו‬³‫ וžד´רŸי‬So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age N‫ּתִי‬¤‫ שׁ‬N‫י‬¢‫ מַלְכוּתָא ּכְבַר שׁנ‬of 62 years.+ !;N‫וžתַרŸּתֵי‬ 6.1 M‫שׁ ו®הֲקִי‬ª‫ו‬³‫ ּד´רŸי‬M´‫ד‬Å‫ שׁפַר ק‬It pleased Darius to set over1 the kingdom’s ‫א‬³‫מַלְכוּתָא לַאֲחַשּׁד¯רŸפְּנ®יּ‬Ê‫[ עַל‬affairs]2 120 satraps, who were to be [stationed] N‫י לֶהֱוֹ‬£‫ ּד‬N‫י‬£‫ מְאָה וžעֶשׂר‬throughout the kingdom,3 !;‫מַלְכוּתָא‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ּב‬ 6.2 ‫י‬£‫ ּתְלָתָא ּד‬N‫ סָרŸכִי‬N‫ וžעֵּלָא מִּנžהוֹ‬and [he set] above them three commanders (one of N‫לֶהֱוֹ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ ּד‬N‫מִּנžהוֹ‬Ê‫יּ¦אל חַד‬¢‫ ד´נ‬whom was Daniel) to whom these satraps were to N‫ לְהוֹ‬N‫הֲבִי‬³‫ י‬N‫א אִּלֵי‬³‫ אֲחַשּׁד¯רŸפְּנ®יּ‬give account, so the King might not be troubled. !;‫ק‬¢‫ז‬É ‫לֶהֱו¦א‬Ê‫טַעְמָא וּמַלְּכָא לָא‬ 1. lit., ‘It pleased Darius, and he set over the kingdom 120 satraps’ (so the Theod.), but most modern Bibletrans. have, ‘It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom 120 satraps’. We might consider, as an analogy, Neh. 2.6, where we read (lit.,), ‘And it pleased the king, and he dispatched me [Nehemiah], and I gave him a set time’, the sense of which is, “Since the King seemed pleased to dispatch me, I gave him a set time” (NET). 2. ‘kingdom’ has two distinct senses in ch. 6. It generally refers to the geographical realm of Babylon (5.31, 6.7, etc.), but can alt. refer to ‘the kingdom’s affairs’ (e.g., ‘[They sought to find] evidence against Daniel in connection with the [affairs of the] kingdom’). In 6.1, the word is employed in both senses: Darius appoints 120 satraps over the kingdom’s affairs, and they are to be stationed throughout the entire realm of Babylon. 3. lit., ‘to be in all the kingdom’ 1 2 5.31-6.28: TEXT AND TRANSLATION 6.3 ‫א מִתְנ®ּצַח‬³‫ה הֲו‬ɟ‫יּ¦אל ּד‬¢‫ ּד´נ‬N¢‫אֱד¯י‬ ‫א‬³‫א ו®אֲחַשּׁד¯רŸפְּנ®יּ‬³‫סָרŸכַיּ‬Ê‫עַל‬ ‫י רוּחַ י®ּתִיר´א ּבֵּה‬£‫בֵל ּד‬Å‫ק‬Ê‫ּכָל‬ ‫ית לַהֲקָמוּתֵּה‬¤‫וּמַלְּכָא עֲשׁ‬ !;‫מַלְכוּתָא‬Ê‫ּכָל‬Ê‫עַל‬ This [man] Daniel then began to outshine the commanders and satraps because of the extraordinary spirit [which was] in him, and the King lit on4 [the idea of] causing [Daniel] to stand over the whole kingdom. 6.4 ‫א הֲווֹ‬³‫א ו®אֲחַשּׁד¯רŸפְּנ®יּ‬³‫ סָרŸכַיּ‬N¢‫אֱד¯י‬ ‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫ עִּלָה לְהַשּׁכָחָה לְד´נ‬N¢‫בָעַי‬ ‫עִּלָה‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫מִּצַד מַלְכוּתָא ו‬ ‫ לְהַשּׁכָחָה‬N‫לִי‬dz‫י‬Ê‫וּשׁחִיתָה לָא‬ ‫ הוּא‬Nַ‫מְהֵימ‬Ê‫י‬£‫בֵל ּד‬Å‫ק‬Ê‫ּכָל‬ ‫לוּ וּשׁחִיתָה לָא‬µ‫שׁ‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫ו‬ !;‫הִשּׁתְכַחַת עֲלוֹהִי‬ The commanders and satraps therefore persistently sought5 to find a ground for complaint6 in Daniel’s [discharge of] the kingdom’s [affairs],7 but they could find no evidence of corruption,8 since he was faithful, and neither negligence9 nor corruption could be found10 in connection with him. 6.5 ‫י‬£‫ ּד‬N‫י‬£‫א אִּלֵ› אָמְר‬³‫בְר¯יּ‬¹‫ ּג‬N¢‫אֱד¯י‬ ‫ה‬ɟ‫יּ¦אל ּד‬¢‫לָא נžהַשּׁכַח לְד´נ‬ ‫ה עֲלוֹהִי‬Éְ‫ הַשּׁכַח‬Nֵ‫עִּלָא לָה‬Ê‫ּכָל‬ !;‫ּבְד´ת אֱלָהֵּה‬ Those mighty men+ therefore said,11 ‘We will not find any ground for complaint12 concerning Daniel unless we ‘find’ [it] against him13 in the law of his God’. 6.6 Nֵ‫א אִּל‬³‫א ו®אֲחַשּׁד¯רŸפְּנ®יּ‬³‫ סָרŸכַיּ‬N¢‫ אֱד¯י‬So those commanders and satraps descended on the N‫י‬£‫ אָמְר‬Nֵ‫מַלְּכָא וžכ‬Ê‫שׁוּ עַל‬¢‫ הַרŸּג‬King en masse+ and spoke14 to him as follows: ‘O !;‫י‬¢‫ חֱי‬N‫שׁ מַלְּכָא לְעָלְמִי‬ª‫ו‬³‫ לֵּה ּד´רŸי‬Darius, King! [May you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! 4. alt., ‘was favourably disposed to’, which might better reflect the verb’s pass. form. The vb. «QŠT» means ‘to think well of’ or ‘to plan’ (CAL 2015:vb.), or, more metaphorically, ‘to shine upon’. The adj. form of «QŠT» describes an object’s ‘lustre’ and ‘shininess’ (CAL c āšôt 2015:adj.), and its Heb. cognates bear out a similar connection (GHCL c ĕšit, c āšôt). Hence, Daniel ‘outshines’ his peers, and the King then ‘shines’ on him in return. The concept of light continues to be important throughout ch. 6 (as in ch. 5). The chapter begins with the dawning of light in Babylon in the aftermath of Belshazzar’s feast (5.30, 6.3-4). As the drama heightens, darkness then descends on Babylon, and Daniel is cast into the pit (6.14-18), but, at daybreak, light begins to dawn (6.19), Daniel is vindicated. 5. Their ‘persistence’ is suggested by the periphr. constr. employed. 6. c illâh has a wide semantic field, which includes the concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘a pretext’, and ‘an opportunity’. In 6.4, these senses seem to come together, hence, ‘a ground for complaint’. 7. lit., ‘[they] were seeking to find evidence [relating] to Daniel concerning the kingdom’s [affairs]’. As in Eur. languages, the vb. «BQY» followed by an inf. means ‘to seek to do X’ or ‘to intend to do X’ (CAL «BQY» 2015:vb.). 8. lit., ‘evidence and corruption’, treated as a hend. (spec., a dissimilar couplet) 9. alt., ‘error’, but ‘negligence’ seems preferable, as it is a less severe charge than ‘error’ (and hence easier for the satraps to prove), and fits well with ‘corruption’ 10. a sing. verbal form which governs multiple subjects, as in 5.12 and 5.14 11. poss., ‘thought to themselves’ (Exod. 2.14) 12. as in 6.4 13. For the lexicography of ‘to find’, see our trans. notes. Its pfct. form reflects a completed act (GKC 163), i.e., ‘We will not find any ground for complaint until we have found it in the law...’. 14. lit., ‘said’ 3 DANIEL CHAPTER 6 6.7 ‫עַטוּ ּכֹל סָרŸכֵי מַלְכוּתָא‬³‫אִתְי‬ ‫א‬³‫א הַּד´בְר¯יּ‬³‫א ו®אֲחַשּׁד¯רŸפְּנ®יּ‬³‫סִגžנ®יּ‬ ‫ מַלְּכָא‬M³‫מָה קְי‬³‫תָא לְקַיּ‬³‫וּפַחֲו‬ ‫בְעֵה‬¢‫י‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬Ê‫ל‬È ‫י‬£‫וּלְתַקָּפָה אֱסָר ּד‬ ‫שׁ‬Éֱ‫א‬ª‫אֱלָּה ו‬Ê‫ּכָל‬ÊNִ‫בָעוּ מ‬ ›³‫ מִּנ‬Nֵ‫ לָה‬N‫ ּתְלָתִי‬N‫יוֹמִי‬Ê‫עַד‬ !;‫תָא‬³‫ו‬³‫תְרŸמֵא לְגֹב אַרŸי‬¢‫מַלְּכָא י‬ All the kingdom’s commanders—[whether] prefect or satrap, counsellor or governor—have jointly decided to cause a steadfast, royal, and binding standing-order to stand,15 [which states] that, for thirty days, anyone who seeks what he [normally] seeks16 from any god or man except you, O King, will be cast into the lions’ pit. 6.8 ‫ אֱסָר´א‬M‫ מַלְּכָא ּתְקִי‬Nַ‫ּכְע‬ ‫ה‬³‫י‬É‫י לָא לְהַשׁ‬£‫ ּכְתָבָא ּד‬M»‫וžתִרŸשׁ‬ ‫לָא‬Ê‫י‬£‫מָד¯י וּפָר¯ס ּד‬Ê‫ּכְד´ת‬ !;‫תֶעְּד§א‬ You,17 O King, should now, therefore, cause the binding-edict to stand by signing a written inscription,+ so it cannot—as a law of Medo-Persia, which does not pass away—be changed’. 6.9 6.10 ‫שׁ‬ª‫ו‬³‫ה מַלְּכָא ּד´רŸי‬ɟ‫בֵל ּד‬Å‫ק‬Ê‫ ּכָל‬On [hearing] this, King Darius signed a written !;‫אֱסָר´א‬ª‫ ּכְתָבָא ו‬M°‫ רŸשׁ‬inscription of the binding-edict.18 M‫י‬¤‫רŸשׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫י יžד¯ע ּד‬£‫יּ¦אל ּכְד‬¢‫וžד´נ‬ Nָ‫ פְּתִיח‬N‫י‬¢‫ּכְתָבָא עַל לְבַיžתֵּה וžכַוּ‬ Mֶ‫ד יžרוּשׁל‬ª‫ג‬ª‫לֵּה ּבְעִּלִיתֵּה נ‬ ›§‫ ּתְלָתָה בְיוֹמָא הוּא ּבָר‬N‫י‬¢‫מְנ‬¢‫וžז‬ ‫ּבִרŸכוֹהִי וּמְצַּלֵא וּמוֹד§א‬Ê‫עַל‬ ‫א‬³‫הֲו‬Ê‫י‬£‫בֵל ּד‬Å‫ק‬Ê‫ אֱלָהֵּה ּכָל‬M´‫ד‬Å‫ק‬ !;‫ה‬ɟ‫קַדŸמַת ּד‬ÊNִ‫עָבֵד מ‬ As for Daniel: once he knew that the written inscription had been signed, he went to his house, where the windows in his roof-chamber had been left open for him in the direction of Jerusalem;19 and, three times each day, he would kneel on his knees and pray and give thanks before his God, just as he had done beforehand. 15. so Old Gr., Theod., Pesh., KJV, DBY, etc. For similar constructions of the form «YQT.» + inf., see 2 Chr. 25.16 and 2 Chr. 30.23. If we parse qĕyām malkā c as a cstr. + abs. chain, then we must view qĕyām as an irreg. cstr. form, like cĕsār in the phrase cĕsār malkā c in 6.12 (so Theod., KJV, etc.); alternatively, we can treat malkā c as a vocative (‘O King!’). A different option altogether is to trans. 6.7a as, ‘the...commanders...are agreed: the King should establish...a standing-order’ (ESV, NASB, etc.), but the first option strikes me as the best. The sub-text of ch. 6 is, therefore, as follows. The satraps want to establish a royal law punishable by death, which Daniel will find himself compelled to transgress. They must, therefore, establish the law in question irrevocably, since, otherwise, Darius will simply pardon Daniel’s transgression. But the satraps are unable to establish an irrevocable law on their own authority. (Only the King can pass irrevocable laws.) They therefore approach Darius and tell him they have decided to pass the law in question, which, it seems, is within their remit to do, but it will not be an irrevocable law. They then encourage the King to add his ‘stamp of irrevocability’ to the law. The word “you” is made emphatic by the juss. form (“You, O King, must now...”). 16. lit., ‘seeks [the object of] a beseechment’, a phrase based on a repetition of the vb. «BQY» (‘to seek’), as is made explicit in the Theod. (hos an aitēsē aitēma: ‘he who requests a request’) and the Old Gr. (hos an euxētai euchēn ē axiōsē axiōma: ‘to pray a prayer or to petition [with] a petition’). The noun bc w no doubt includes prayer, but is not limited to it. As Bevan writes, “[bc w can signify] any ‘petition’, as is [evidenced] by the common Syr. phrase bĕbhā c ū mennākh” (1892:110). The general sense of the proposed edict is therefore, ‘For the next thirty days, men must look solely to Darius for help and guidance’. 17. a juss. form. If, in 6.7, the commanders explain what they plan to do, then they now explain what they want the King to do for his part. 18. lit., ‘inscribed the writing and the binding-edict’ 19. either ‘he went to his house, the windows of which were open’ (lit., ‘and there were open windows to it, in its roof-chamber’) or ‘he went to his house, where the windows had been left open for him’ (i.e., where the ethical dative is made explicit, as per the YLT). I personally favour the latter option, and take the relevant ‘window-openers’ to be Daniel’s rivals. The trap has been set, and Daniel’s windows have ‘innocently’ been left open as if to ask the question, ‘What are you going to do now then, Daniel?’. 4 5.31-6.28: TEXT AND TRANSLATION 6.11 ‫שׁוּ‬¢‫א אִּלֵ› הַרŸּג‬³‫בְר¯יּ‬¹‫ ּג‬N¢‫ ס אֱד¯י‬Then, those mighty men descended en masse and N®‫יּ¦אל ּבָעֵא וּמִתְחַּנ‬¢‫ וžהַשּׁכַחוּ לְד´נ‬found Daniel, seeking [help] and grace20 from !;‫ אֱלָהֵּה‬M´‫ד‬Å‫ ק‬before his God. 6.12 N‫י‬£‫יבוּ וžאָמְר‬£‫ קְר‬N¢‫ּבֵאד¯י‬ ‫אֱסָר מַלְּכָא‬Ê‫מַלְּכָא עַל‬ÊM´‫ד‬Å‫ק‬ ‫שׁ‬Éֱ‫א‬Ê‫ל‬È ‫י‬£‫מְּתָ ּד‬°‫הֲלָא אֱסָר רŸשׁ‬ ‫שׁ‬Éֱ‫א‬ª‫אֱלָּה ו‬Ê‫ּכָל‬ÊNִ‫בְעֵה מ‬¢‫י‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ ›³‫ מִּנ‬Nֵ‫ לָה‬N‫ ּתְלָתִי‬N‫יוֹמִי‬Ê‫עַד‬ ‫ותָא‬³‫תְרŸמֵא לְגוֹב אַרŸי‬¢‫מַלְּכָא י‬ ‫עָנ¦ה מַלְּכָא וžאָמַר י®ּצִיבָא‬ ‫לָא‬Ê‫י‬£‫מָד¯י וּפָר¯ס ּד‬Ê‫מִּלְתָא ּכְד´ת‬ !;‫תֶעְּד§א‬ At that point, they came21 before the King and spoke [to him] about the binding royal edict, [saying], ‘Did you not sign an inscription of the binding-edict22 —[one which states] that, for thirty days, any man who seeks [help] from any god or man except you, O King, must be cast into the lions’ pit?’. ‘[I did]’, the King replied, ‘[and] as a Medo-Persian law, which cannot pass away, the [edict]23 is certain’. 6.13 ‫ מַלְּכָא‬M´‫ד‬Å‫ ק‬N‫י‬£‫ עֲנוֹ וžאָמְר‬N¢‫ּבֵאד¯י‬ ‫י‬£‫לוּתָא ּד‬³‫ּבְנ¦י ג‬ÊNִ‫י מ‬£‫יּ¦אל ּד‬¢‫י ד´נ‬£‫ּד‬ ‫› כ‌ עֲלָ› ק‬¢‫ עֲלַי‬Mµ‫שׂ‬Ê‫יžהוּד לָא‬ ‫י‬£‫אֱסָר´א ּד‬Ê‫ וžעַל‬Mֵ‫מַלְּכָא טְע‬ ‫ ּתְלָתָה ּבְיוֹמָא‬N‫י‬¢‫מְנ‬¢‫מְּתָ וžז‬°‫רŸשׁ‬ !;‫ּבָעֵא ּבָעוּתֵּה‬ They therefore declared before the King, ‘Daniel, who is one of the sons of the Revealed of Judah, has set no store24 on you, O King, nor on the binding-edict which you have inscribed, but instead, three times each day, continues to seek what he [normally] seeks’. 6.14 ‫י מִּלְתָא שׁמַע‬£‫ מַלְּכָא ּכְד‬N¢‫אֱד¯י‬ ‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫יא ּבְאֵשׁ עֲלוֹהִי וžעַל ּד´נ‬¢‫ּג‬°‫שׂ‬ ‫בוּתֵּה וžעַד מֶעָלֵי‬³‫ ּבָל לְשׁ¨יז‬Mµ‫שׂ‬ ‫א מִשּׁתַּד¯ר‬³‫א הֲו‬µ‫מְשׁ‬¤‫שׁ‬ !;‫לְהַּצָלוּתֵּה‬ When the King heard [about] the matter, he was extremely grieved,25 and he set [his] mind to deliver Daniel; indeed, he strove ceaselessly26 to rescue him until the sun went down. 6.15 ‫שׁוּ‬¢‫א אִּלֵ› הַרŸּג‬³‫בְר¯יּ‬¹‫ ּג‬N¢‫ּבֵאד¯י‬ ‫ לְמַלְּכָא ּד¯ע‬N‫י‬£‫מַלְּכָא וžאָמְר‬Ê‫עַל‬ ‫ד´ת לְמָד¯י וּפָר¯ס‬Ê‫י‬£‫מַלְּכָא ּד‬ ‫מַלְּכָא‬Ê‫י‬£‫ ּד‬M³‫אֱסָר וּקְי‬Ê‫ל‬ÈÊ‫י‬£‫ּד‬ !;‫ה‬³‫י‬É‫ לָא לְהַשׁ‬M‫יžהָקֵי‬ At that point, those mighty men descended on the King en masse and said to the King, ‘Know, O King, that [it is] a law of the Medes and the Persians that no binding-edict or standing-order which the King causes to stand can be changed’. 20. lit., ‘seeking and seeking grace 21. elsewhere ‘approached’ 22. poss., ‘They came and spoke...about the edict, [saying], “O King!...”’, but one would then expect cĕsār to have a det. state. I therefore take cĕsār to have an irreg. cstr. form, where the final vowel does not reduce (akin to c izqāt in 6.17), hence my trans. “royal edict”. 23. lit., ‘matter’ 24. lit., ‘account’ or ‘regard’, as also in 3.12 25. The prep. + pron. c ălôhî is, I think, ‘resumptive’, as also in 6.23 and frequently in Syr. (RSG 2013:XXX). We can also consider Heb. phrases such as wayyih.ar lô (lit., ‘it was hot to him’) in 2 Sam. 13.21, Neh. 3.33, Jon. 4.1. 26. to reflect the periphr. construction, as per 6.4 (‘persistently sought’) 5 DANIEL CHAPTER 6 6.16 ‫ מַלְּכָא אֲמַר וžהַיžתִיו‬N¢‫ּבֵאד¯י‬ ‫י‬£‫ּבָא ּד‬¹‫יּ¦אל וּרŸמוֹ לְג‬¢‫לְד´נ‬ ‫תָא עָנ¦ה מַלְּכָא וžאָמַר‬³‫ו‬³‫אַרŸי‬ ‌‫י אַנžּתָה כ‬£‫יּ¦אל אֱלָהָ› ּד‬¢‫לְד´נ‬ ‫יר´א הוּא‬£‫לֵּה ּבִתְד‬Ê‫אַנžּתְ ק פָּלַח‬ !;›³‫יžשׁ¨יזžבִּנ‬ So the King gave the command, and Daniel was brought in and cast into the lions’ pit, even as the King declared to Daniel, ‘Your God himself, whom you continually serve, must [now] deliver you’.27 6.17 ‫ חֲד´ה וžשׂ»מַת‬Nֶ‫ת אֶב‬¢‫וžהֵיתָי‬ ‫ּבָא וžחַתְמַּה מַלְּכָא‬¹‫ ּג‬Mֻ‫פּ‬Ê‫עַל‬ ‫י‬£‫ּבְעִזžקְתֵּה וּבְעִזžקָת ר¯בְרŸבָנוֹהִי ּד‬ !;‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫תִשׁנ¦א צְבוּ ּבְד´נ‬Ê‫לָא‬ And a single stone was brought and set over the mouth of the pit, and the King sealed it with his signet as well as with the signet of his great ones, so that Daniel’s situation could not be changed. 6.18 ‫לֵּה וּבָת‬Ç‫ אֲז®ל מַלְּכָא לְהֵי‬N¢‫ אֱד¯י‬The King then went to his palace, where he spent ‫הַנžעֵל קָד´מוֹהִי‬Ê‫ לָא‬N³‫ת וžד¯חֲו‬³‫ טְו‬the night fasting, and did not have the usual !;‫נžּתֵּה נ®ּד¯ת עֲלוֹהִי‬¤‫ וžשׁ‬entertainment+ brought in before him, and his sleep departed from him. 6.19 M‫ מַלְּכָא ּבִשׁפַּרŸפָּר´א יžקוּ‬N¢‫ ּבֵאד¯י‬Then, at dawn, rising28 [along] with the first light, ‫ּבָא‬¹‫גžהָא וּבְהִתְּבְהָלָה לְג‬Éְ‫ ּב‬the King went hurriedly to the lions’ pit. !;‫תָא אֲז®ל‬³‫ו‬³‫אַרŸי‬Ê‫י‬£‫ד‬ 6.20 ‫יּ¦אל ּבְקָל‬¢‫ּבָא לְד´נ‬¹‫מִקְרŸבֵּה לְג‬Ç‫וּ‬ ‫עֲצִיב זžעִק עָנ¦ה מַלְּכָא וžאָמַר‬ ‫יּ¦אל עֲבֵד אֱלָהָא‬¢‫יּ¦אל ּד´נ‬¢‫לְד´נ‬ ‫י אַנžּתָה כ‌ אַנžּתְ ק‬£‫א אֱלָהָ› ּד‬³‫חַיּ‬ ‫יר´א הַיžכִל‬£‫לֵּה ּבִתְד‬Ê‫פָּלַח‬ !;‫תָא‬³‫ו‬³‫אַרŸי‬ÊNִ‫בוּתָ› מ‬³‫לְשׁ¨יז‬ 6.21 As he drew near29 to the pit, the King called out to Daniel in a pained voice. ‘O Daniel, servant of the living God!’, the King declared to Daniel, ‘Has your God, whom you continually serve, been able to rescue you from the lions?’. ‫מַלְּכָא מַּלִל‬ÊMִ‫אל ע‬ª‫יּ‬¢‫ ּד´נ‬N¢‫ אֱד¯י‬Daniel then proclaimed+ to the King, ‘O King! [May !;‫י‬¢‫ חֱי‬N‫ מַלְּכָא לְעָלְמִי‬you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! 6.22 Mֻ‫אֱלָהִי שׁלַח מַלְאֲכֵּה וּסֲג®ר פּ‬ ‫בֵל‬Å‫ק‬Ê‫י ּכָל‬¢‫תָא וžלָא חַּבְלוּנ‬³‫ו‬³‫אַרŸי‬ ‫כוּ הִשּׁתְכַחַת לִי‬³‫י קָד´מוֹהִי ז‬£‫ּד‬ ‫› כ‌ קָד´מָ› ק מַלְּכָא‬¢‫ קָד´מַי‬Pַ‫וžא‬ !;‫חֲבוּלָה לָא עַבְד§ת‬ My God has sent his angel and shut the mouth of the lions, and they have not harmed me, for, before him, innocency was found in me, and even before you, O King, I have done no wrong.30 6.23 ‫יא טְאֵב‬¢‫ּג‬°‫ מַלְּכָא שׂ‬N¢‫ּבֵאד¯י‬ ‫יּ¦אל אֲמַר לְהַנžסָקָה‬¢‫עֲלוֹהִי וּלְד´נ‬ ‫ּבָא‬¹‫ּג‬ÊNִ‫יּ¦אל מ‬¢‫ּבָא וžהֻסַּק ּד´נ‬¹‫ּג‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ ‫י‬£‫הִשּׁתְכַח ּבֵּה ּד‬Ê‫חֲבָל לָא‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫ו‬ !;‫ ּבֵאלָהֵּה‬Nִ‫הֵימ‬ The King was, therefore, overjoyed and immediately31 gave the command for Daniel to be lifted out of the pit. So Daniel was lifted out of the pit, and no harm of any kind was found on him, for he had put his faith in his God. 27. The form !›³‫ יžשׁ¨יזžבִּנ‬seems more likely to be an impf. than a juss. given: i] its lengthened form (though the form is pausal, which confuses matters), and ii] the preceding pron. hû c (‘he himself’), which is (arguably) more consistent with an impf. than a juss. 28. lit., ‘standing up’, an impf. form 29. elsewhere ‘approached’ 30. alt., ‘harm’ 31. implied by bē cdayin 6 5.31-6.28: TEXT AND TRANSLATION 6.24 ‫א‬³‫בְר¯יּ‬¹‫ו®אֲמַר מַלְּכָא וžהַיžתִיו ּג‬ ‫י‬£‫אֲכַלוּ קַרŸצוֹהִי ּד‬Ê‫י‬£‫אִּלֵ› ּד‬ N‫תָא רŸמוֹ אִּנוּ‬³‫ו‬³‫יּ¦אל וּלְגֹב אַרŸי‬¢‫ד´נ‬ ‫מְטוֹ‬Ê‫ וžלָא‬N‫ וּנžשׁ¨יהוֹ‬N‫ּבְנ¦יהוֹ‬ ‫שׁלִטוּ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּבָא עַד ּד‬¹‫לְאַרŸעִית ּג‬ N‫ּג®רŸמֵיהוֹ‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫תָא ו‬³‫ו‬³‫ אַרŸי‬N‫בְהוֹ‬ !;‫קוּ‬£‫הַּד‬ ‫שׁ מַלְּכָא ּכְתַב‬ª‫ו‬³‫ ּד´רŸי‬N¢‫ ּבֵאד¯י‬At that point, Darius the King wrote to all the tribes, ‫א‬³‫נ®יּ‬µ™ִ‫א וžל‬³‫א אֻמַיּ‬³‫עַמְמַיּ‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ ל‬nations, and tongues, who reside in every part of the ‫ ק‬N‫י‬£‫ כ‌ ד´יžר‬N‫י‬£‫ד´אֲר‬Ê‫י‬£‫ ּד‬earth, [saying], May your peace abound! !;‫שּׂג¦א‬¢‫ י‬N‫אַרŸעָא שׁלָמְכוֹ‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ּב‬ 6.25 6.26 The King then gave the command, and those mighty men, who had ripped Daniel to shreds,32 were brought in and were cast into the lions’ pit—them, their children, and their wives—, and they had not [even] come to the bottom33 of the pit when the lions [gained] the rule over them and broke all their bones in pieces. ‫י‬£‫ ּד‬Mֵ‫ טְע‬M‫י‬¤‫ד´מַי שׂ‬Å‫ק‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ N‫ מַלְכוּתִי לֶהֱוֹ‬Nָ‫לְט‬µ‫שׁ‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ּב‬ N‫ ק וžד´חֲלִי‬N‫יžעִי‬³‫ כ‌ ז‬N‫אֲעִי‬³‫ז‬ ‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫ד´נ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ אֱלָהֵּה ּד‬M´‫ד‬Å‫ק‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ M³‫א וžקַיּ‬³‫הוּא אֱלָהָא חַיּ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ ‫לָא‬Ê‫י‬£‫ וּמַלְכוּתֵּה ּד‬N‫לְעָלְמִי‬ ;! ‫סוֹפָא‬Ê‫לְטָנ¦ּה עַד‬µ‫תִתְחַּבַל וžשׁ‬ From before me, a decree has been set [forth]. All [those under] the rule of my kingdom are to tremble in fear34 before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God and will [stand] steadfast for [as long as] the ages [continue], and his kingdom is one which will not be harmed,35 and his rule will [continue] until the end-point [of all things],36 6.27 N‫ב וּמַּצִל וžעָבֵד אָתִי‬¢‫ מְשׁ¨יז‬a deliverer and a rescuer, and a doer of signs and ‫י‬£‫א וּבְאַרŸעָא ּד‬³‫ ּבִשׁמַיּ‬N‫ וžתִמְהִי‬wonders in the heavens and in the earth—[the one] !;‫תָא‬³‫ו‬³‫י®ד אַרŸי‬ÊNִ‫יּ¦אל מ‬¢‫יב לְד´נ‬¢‫ שׁ¨יז‬who has delivered Daniel from the hand of the lions. 6.28 ‫ה הַצְלַח ּבְמַלְכוּת‬ɟ‫יּ¦אל ּד‬¢‫ וžד´נ‬So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and ‫א‬³‫שׁ וּבְמַלְכוּת ּכוֹר«שׁ פָּרŸסָי‬ª‫ו‬³‫ ּד´רŸי‬in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. !;P ‫כ‌ פָּרŸסָאָה ק‬ 32. so also 3.8 33. lit., ‘ground’ or ‘earth’ 34. lit., ‘tremble and fear’ 35. alt., ‘destroyed’ 36. ‘end-point’ is emphatic; it refers to a known end, namely the end of all things DANIEL CHAPTER 6 7 5.31-6.28: Further translational notes 5.31 at the age of 62 years ‘the age of 62 years’ is prefixed by a kaf. As such, 5.31 can be trans. in one of two ways: i] ‘Darius received the kingdom at about 62 years of age’, or ii] ‘Darius received the kingdom at the age of 62 [lit., as a son of 62 years]’. Bible-trans. are divided on the issue: some prefer ‘at’ (NIV, HCSB), while others prefer ‘at about’ (ESV, NASB).37 On balance, I have opted for the trans., “Darius received the kingdom at the age of 62 years”. If ‘about 62 years’ is< correct, then Daniel clearly wants to draw our attention to the number 62 for some reason; otherwise, why not say ‘about 60’? That would then lend further support to our proposed interpretation of Belshazzar’s riddle, where we associate the arrival of the 62-year-old Darius with the 62 shekels alluded to in the words mĕnē c mĕnē c tĕqēl ûparśîn. 6.2 so the King might not be troubled[NZQ (G)] The basic sense of «NZQ» revolves around detriment—sometimes financial,38 and sometimes more general.39 The Theod. and Vulg. both render «NZQ»(G) as ‘trouble/annoy’,40 which seems attractive on two counts. First, it coheres well with the Akk. cognates nazāqu (‘to be vexed/worried’) and niziqtu (‘worries’). Second, it has contextual merit. To oversee 120 satraps would be a tedious business. So, to appoint three satraps over them would indeed save Darius considerable time and effort. As an analogy, we might consider Potiphar’s decision to entrust his possessions to Joseph in order to save himself the trouble of overseeing them (Gen. 39.6). 6.4 those mighty men In ch. 3, the three Hebrews are referred to as “those” mighty men, since, in the context of the Plain of Dura, they are rogue agents: they stand against the unjust demands of their king (Nebuchadnezzar). The demon. pron. “those” has a similar implication here in ch. 6. Like the three Hebrews, the “mighty men” are rogue agents. Darius seems to be sympathetic to the Jewish people, but “mighty men” are not. They stand against the desires of the King. 37. Neither the LXX nor the Vulg. take 5.31’s kāp prefix to denote an approximation, but then the LXX and Vulg. often neglect to recognise kāp-signified temporal approximations. For instance, Gen. 38.24, Ruth 1.4, and 1 Sam. 25.38 all contain kāp-signified temporal approximations, but none are reflected in the Vulg., and only the last in the LXX. 38. Ezra 4.13, 4.20-22. Consider also the employment of «NZQ» in Late Jewish Aram. (JDTT ch. nĕzaq Af.), as well as of the noun nzq (CAL nzq 2015:n.m.). 39. Ezra 4.15, 7.4. 40. The Vulg. has molestare, while the LXX has enochleō (cf. LSJ’s def.). The Pesh. has «HRR»(C) , which could be read in either way (CAL «HRR» 2015:vb.). 8 5.31-6.28: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES 6.5 We will not find[ŠKH. (C)] any evidence[ lh (n)] ...unless we ‘find’[ŠKH. (C)] [it] against him in the law of his God The text of 6.5 may embody a minor play on words. Just as the noun c lh can refer either to genuine evidence or to a mere ‘pretext’ for a complaint,41 so the noun škh.h can refer either to a genuine ‘find’ or to a mere ‘invention’, i.e., a fabrication rather than a discovery. The vb. «ŠKH.»(C) may, therefore, be employed in two different ways in 6.5: i] with ref. to the discovery of evidence against Daniel, and ii] with ref. to the fabrication, or at least creation, of evidence (hence they find ‘against’ Daniel, not ‘concerning’ him). The repetition of the vb. ‘find’ is important. Daniel’s adversaries seek to find evidence with which to accuse him, but ultimately God finds “innocency” in Daniel—the man whose very name means ‘God is my judge’ (6.22). 6.6 So those commanders and satraps descended on the King en masse[RGŠ (C)] «RGŠ»(C) covers a wide range of activities, many of which seem connected. The CAL suggests a definition of ‘to urgently gather together’,42 but the vb. can also have more forceful and subversive connotations. In the Targumim, «RGŠ»(C) has the sense ‘to crowd in on’;43 the derived noun rgš envisages a ‘tumult’ of some kind, as do other derived nouns;44 the G-stem Heb. cog. has the sense ‘to rage’ (Psa. 2.1);45 and the derived (seg.) noun denotes a ‘throng’ of some kind—in particular, an unruly one (Psa. 55.14, 64.2). All of these nuances seem relevant to the context of ch. 6. The mighty men are only ever referred to as a collective in ch. 6 (“those mighty men”). They think and move as a unit; they pressurise Darius by force of numbers (6.7); and their intentions are highly subversive. The sinister nature of their actions is hinted at by the preposition c al (they are said to hargišû al-malkā c).46 Even the ambiguity of the vb. «RGŠ» may be significant. The mighty men do not want to appear to be forceful or hostile. On the contrary, they want to appear to have the King’s best interests at heart. Their dealings with the King are, therefore, deliberately subtle. They want ‘plausible deniability’, which the ambiguity of «RGŠ»(C) may be intended to reflect. As a result of all these issues, Bible-translations render «RGŠ»(C) in a variety of different ways, such as ‘to gang together’ (CEB), ‘to descend upon’ (CJB), ‘to come by agreement’ (ESV), ‘to go as a group’ (NIV), ‘to conspire together’ (MSG), ‘to throng’ (NKJV), ‘to conspire and come’ (NRSV), etc., all of which seem appropriate. c 41. CAL c lh 2015:n.f. 42. CAL «RGŠ» 2015:vb. 43. e.g., Targ. Pseudo-Jon. Exod. 2.3. 44. CAL rgš 2015:n.m. Compare ctrgwšh (v.n.Gt), ctrgyšh (n.f.), and mrgwš (n.m.). 45. which the Pesh. renders as «RGŠ» 46. Compare the function of c al in 6.5, as well as in 3.29, 5.23, Ezra 4.8, 4.19, 7.23. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 6.7a to cause a steadfast, royal, and binding standing-order to stand, lit., ‘to cause a standing-order[QWM (n)] to stand[QWM (C)] , and to make steadfast[TQP (D)] a binding-edict’. The vb. ‘stand’ is central to the text of 6.7a. It is implicit in the vb. «QWM», the noun qĕyām (trad., ‘injunction’), and the vb. «TQP».47 Meanwhile, cĕsār derives from the vb. «PSR» (‘to bind’), and can refer either to a royal prohibition48 or a ‘vow’ which compels obedience (Num. 30).49 For the hend. treatment of 6.7, see our notes on 6.8. 6.8 cause the binding-edict to stand by signing a written inscription, lit., ‘establish the binding-edict and inscribe[RŠM] the writing[kĕtāb] ’. «RŠM» is to ‘engrave, inscribe, or sign’. It has the sense of permanence as well as of personal approval. Accordingly, a «RŠM»(n) can be thought of as the ancient equivalent of a ‘signature’.50 Hence, the phrase tiršum kĕtāvā c refers to the publication of a written inscription. Daniel’s later reference to ‘the establishment of an edict’ is, therefore, unlikely to refer to a distinct or different activity. More likely, it is the documentation required in order to establish the aforementioned inscription as an irrevocable law. Consequently, I have treated the two clauses as a hend. (spec., as a ‘thematic couplet’), hence my trans., “cause the binding-edict to stand by means of a written inscription”, as also Hartman.51 Parallel hend. can be found in various other passages of Scripture, such as: i] in the previous verse (6.7), where the establishment of an edict is again coupled with a closely related activity; ii] in 6.9, where Darius is said to sign kĕtābā c-we-cĕsārā c (Goldingay 1989:125); and iii] in Neh. 9.38, where the Israelites state, ‘we are cutting a covenant and writing’, the sense of which is generally understood to be, ‘We are establishing a written agreement’ (NASB, ESV, HCSB, etc.).52 9 47. by virtue of the etymon «YQP» (CAL «TQP» 2016:vb.). See also our discussion of «QWM» in App. 0. 48. CAL csr 2015:n.m. 49. S. Paul notes, by way of analogy, the Ass. phrase riksa dunnunu, i.e., ‘to make legally binding’ (Paul 2001:58). 50. CAL «RŠM» 2015:vb. Compare also the derivatives rwšm (‘incision, mark’: 2015:n.m.), ršm (‘signing, marking’: 2015:v.n.), and ršm (‘bond’: 2015:n.m.). 51. “issue [the] written prohibition over your signature” (Hartman 1978:195) 52. Bevan finds a similar hendiadys in Jer. 36.27, where Jehoiakim is said to burn ‫ אֲשׁ¬ר‬M‫י‬£‫הַּדŸבָר‬Ê‫ּלָה וžאֶת‬¢‫הַּמְג‬Ê‫אֶת‬ !›‫( ּכָתַב ּבָרוּ‬lit., ‘the scroll and the words which Baruch wrote’), but the translation ‘the scroll, even the words which Baruch wrote’ works just as well (1892:XXX). 10 5.31-6.28: FURTHER TRANSLATIONAL NOTES 6.18 [he] did not have the usual entertainment[dah.ăwān] brought in before him The exact sense of dah.ăwān is not obvious. The CAL describes the word as “completely mysterious”,53 the BBE simply leaves a blank space in place of it, and the YLT resorts (not unreasonably) to transliteration. Some commentators suggest the trans. “dancing girls”54 or even “concubines” (DBY), since: a] dah.ăwān appears to be a fem. plural,55 b] dah.ăwān is the object of the vb. «QLL»(C) (‘to bring’), and c] the only objects said to be brought[QLL (C)] before a king in Daniel’s writings are people. But such translations cannot be proffered with any great authority. The NLT has “[the King’s] usual entertainment”, which seems as good a guess as any. Since Daniel’s refusal of dah.ăwān is noteworthy, the customary procedure was presumably for dah.ăwān to be brought in before him, so the trans. “[the King’s] usual entertainment” must be along the right lines. 6.21 Daniel the proclaimed[MLL (D)] to[ im] the King In Daniel, «MLL»(D) seems to refer to a more forceful form of speech than normal (7.8, 7.11, 7.20, 7.25), as does its Heb. cog. (Gen. 21.8, Job 8.2, 33.3, Psa. 106.2, Prov. 6.13).56 I have therefore chosen to render «MLL»(D) as ‘proclaim’.57 c 53. CAL dah.ăwān 2015:n.f. 54. Montgomery 1927:277. 55. though it is hard to be sure given the existence of sing. forms such as rabrĕbān (4.36), kārsāwān (7.9), etc. 56. We can also consider the sense of the Syr. «MLL»(D) in Pesh. Psa. 2.5, etc. 57. The constr. «MLL»(D) + c im need not be taken denote a two-way conversation, as is also true of the Heb. constr. !‫ד¯ּבְרוֹ עִּמִי‬Ç in 10.19. According to Bevan, «MLL»(D) + c im is commonplace in Syr., and simply means ‘to speak to’ (1892:113). By way of response, we may note how «MLL» + c im does in fact, on occasion, describe a two-way conversation (e.g., Targ. Onq. Gen. 16.13, Exod. 20.16), but since, in the cases, it is coupled with a t-stem conj. of «MLL», it is hard to know whether the prep. c im or the t-stem conveys the idea of a two-way conversation. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 11 5.31-6.28: Some introductory remarks Like chs. 1-5, ch. 6 is set in the city of Babylon. But the Babylon of ch. 6 is a very different place from the Babylon of ch. 5. Babylon is now under new management. It is a part of the world of Medo-Persia. The text of 5.31 therefore marks the beginning of a new episode in Daniel’s writings, but it nevertheless continues the theme and thread of 5.30. Belshazzar has been overthrown (5.30), and Darius has taken his place (5.31). In 6.1, Darius therefore begins to organise his newly acquired kingdom. As such, it seems natural to read 5.30-6.1 as a continual narrative: “Belshazzar...was slain, and Darius the Mede received the kingdom,...[and] set over the kingdom’s [affairs] 120 satraps”. Ch. 6’s events therefore seem likely to have transpired early on in Darius’s reign—say, in the 1st or 2nd year. Ch. 6 is a fundamentally historical narrative, but its events are briefly depicted in ch. 8’s vision. There, the Medo-Persian empire is depicted as a two-horned ram, one of whose horns gradually comes to overshadow the other (8.3, 8.20). The first horn is Darius and his descendants, i.e., the Median commanders who held prominent positions in Medo-Persia over the years. The second is Cyrus and his descendants, i.e., the kings of Persia, whose actions we read about in Ezra and Nehemiah. For further details, see App. 5C. 5.31-6.28: The main characters The cast of characters involved in ch. 6 (in order of their appearance) are as follows. First we have Darius, the newly-crowned head of Babylon. Darius is a far older and wiser man than Belshazzar, and he is clearly more reverent. Nevertheless, the way in which he handles his satraps seems slightly naive. Next we have the King’s ‘satraps’, a group of 120 rulers who form a layer between Darius and the people. Included within the 120 satraps is a rather shadowy corps of “mighty men”, whom we will discuss shortly. Finally we have Daniel, with whom we already very familiar. In ch. 6, Daniel’s ability to unravel dreams and visions is not required, nor is he pitted against Babylon’s ‘wise men’. But he neverthe- 12 5.31-6.28: AN OVERVIEW less has a battle to fight, which will require not so much wisdom as faith and moral backbone. 5.31-6.28: An overview At the outset of ch. 6, Darius begins to put his house in order. In standard Medo-Persian fashion, he divides his kingdom into a number of individual ‘provinces’, and appoints a “satrap” over each of them (Ezra 2.1, Neh. 1.3, Est. 1.1, etc.). Some of these satraps may have been Darius’s fellow Medes whom he knew and trusted. Others may have been Persians or native Babylonians whom Darius chose to keep on. Darius has no desire to singlehandedly supervise 120 satraps. He therefore inserts a layer of “commanders” between him and his satraps. In all, three commanders are appointed. Each of them is (apparently) to supervise 40 satraps and to report directly to the King. Daniel is one of the appointed commanders. Over time, Daniel’s great wisdom and integrity gain him great favour in the eyes of the King. Darius therefore decides to promote Daniel to the position of second-in-command in the Province of Babylon. Needless to say, Darius’s decision is not welcomed by Daniel’s peers (hereafter “the satraps”). A conspiracy is thereby born. Its aim is simple: to dispose of Daniel by any available means. Initially, the satraps seek to find fault with Daniel’s conduct. But, as they quickly discover, their task is a hopeless one. Daniel’s conduct is beyond reproach. The satraps can therefore find nothing for which to fault him. As a result, they resort to more drastic measures. Daniel’s loyalty to his God is well-known, and it is well-documented in Babylon’s records. Daniel is, one might say, ‘loyal to a fault’. The satraps therefore devise a new plan of attack. If they can put Daniel in a position where he is forced to choose between his obedience to Darius and to God, then they will have him where they want him. They will be able to force him to disobey Darius and will be ready to catch him when he does so. Accordingly, the satraps approach Darius (in Daniel’s absence) and advise him to enforce an important edict. The purpose of the edict, the satraps claim, is to unite Darius’s people around their new DANIEL CHAPTER 6 13 king. For the next thirty days, all prayers and petitions must be made, not to men’s normal gods, but to the King alone. Moreover, the injunction must be irrevocable and punishable by death. Darius will therefore be able to unite his kingdom and root out any potential troublemakers from its midst. Darius foolishly follows the satraps’ advice and issues the proposed edict as an officially-inscribed Medo-Persian law, i.e., as a law which cannot be altered or revoked until it expires. Daniel is horrified once he finds out about the edict. His times of prayer are an integral part of his life. Each morning, noon, and night, he retires to his room and seeks God’s face in prayer. Daniel therefore has a decision to make. He must either abandon his daily prayers or disobey Darius’s injunction. Daniel decides to continue in his prayers. To sever contact with his God for a thirty-day period would be unthinkable. It is easy, therefore, for the satraps to catch Daniel in prayer, which they duly do. They then haul Daniel before the King, at which point it is Darius’s turn to be horrified. Darius is appalled by the thought of Daniel’s death. He immediately, therefore, goes to his room, where he spends the remainder of the day seeking to pardon Daniel. But Darius’s task is, by the satraps’ design, hopeless. The satraps’ entire plan is predicated on the irrevocability of the King’s edict. Darius therefore has no choice but to send for Daniel and sentence him to death, which he does. The two men then begin the long walk to the lion’s pit. When they reach the pit, Darius bids Daniel farewell. “May your God, whom you continually serve, deliver you!”, Darius says to him. Whether or not Darius genuinely expects God to rescue Daniel is not clear. Perhaps Darius has a measure of faith, or perhaps his words reflect a vain hope. Either way, Darius returns to his room a troubled and frustrated man. He has the appetite for neither sleep nor food nor entertainment. He is angry with his satraps for playing a trick on him, and angry with himself for falling for it. He is also distraught about what he has been made to do. He has just condemned a just and innocent man to death, not to mention a trusted adviser and friend. The night seems to take an eternity to pass, but pass it eventually does. At the break of dawn, Darius rushes to the lion’s pit to find out what 14 5.31-6.28: ITS LITERARY STRUCTURE has happened to Daniel. On arriving at the den, he calls down into the gloom. “O Daniel, servant of the living God...?”, he cries. To Darius’s amazement, a familiar voice comes floating up from the depths of the pit. “O King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths”! Darius is, of course, overjoyed to hear Daniel’s voice. He immediately order his men to lift Daniel from the pit and to throw Daniel’s accusers into the pit in his place. His men then carry out his orders, and Daniel’s enemies are thereby torn to pieces. In response to the events he has witnessed, Darius issues a new edict, which gives praise to the God of Heaven, and commands his people to fear God’s name. For the third time in the Book of Daniel, then, a King of Babylon witnesses the greatness of the God of Heaven and tells his kingdom about it. 5.31-6.28: Its literary structure Like the previous chapters, ch. 6 is structured in a chiastic fashion. We can tabulate the chiasmus as follows. Ref. Sec. Description 5.31 A: The satraps seek to prevent Daniel’s promotion 6.6 » B: The King passes an edict which prohibits true prayer 6.10 »» C: Daniel is sentenced to death 6.14 »»» D: The King (unsuccessfully) seeks to deliver Daniel 6.16 »»»» E: The King orders Daniel to be thrown to the lions 6.18 »»»» E’: God orders the lions to leave Daniel alone 6.22 »»» D’: Daniel’s true deliverer arrives, namely God’s angel 6.23 »» C’: The satraps are sentenced to death 6.25 » B’: The King passes an edict which encourages true prayer 6.28 A’: Daniel receives his promotion 15 DANIEL CHAPTER 6 5.31-6.28: Its main message In ch. 6, we see the events depicted in ch. 2’s colossus unfolding in realtime. Babylon has fallen, and Medo-Persia has risen to the fore of worldhistory. My proposal as to ch. 6’s main message is as follows: Kings come and go over the years. Some are good (like Darius), and others are bad (like the unconverted Nebuchadnezzar). But, as God’s people, we will face difficulties for as long as we live in a fallen world, since the world is plagued by an undercurrent of Satanically-inspired ungodliness. We may face outright persecution. Or we may be more subtly pressurised by ‘mighty men’ in high places and by the world’s ungodly edicts. Either way, as members of God’s kingdom, our duty is to keep God’s holy law. Happily, God is able to keep those who keep his commands. The following considerations all point in the direction of the above proposal. (A) Ch. 6’s narrative shares a number of similarities with ch. 3’s and has a similar theme, namely the struggles of the godly in light of ungodly edicts. The central aspects of ch. 6’s narrative align very naturally with those of ch. 3, as shown below: Aspect of ch. 3’s narrative Counterpart in ch. 6 Nebuchadnezzar Darius The image which the King causes to stand The order which the King causes to stand The three Hebrews Daniel Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘walled plain’ Daniel’s walled room Babylon’s mighty men Medo-Persia’s mighty men The fiery furnace The lions’ den The overall storylines of chs. 3 and 6 also share a number of similarities. In both narratives, God’s people are confronted by an edict which they 16 5.31-6.28: ITS MAIN MESSAGE cannot in good conscience obey. In both narratives, an ungodly entity is caused to “stand” in defiance of God’s will. Ch. 3’s is a golden image, while ch. 6’s is an edict which forbids prayer. In both narratives, the entity in question lays claim to immortality. The golden image declares ‘Babylon forever!’, while Darius’s edict claims to be a law which will ‘never pass away’. In both narratives, a group of “mighty men” take centre stage and proceed to rip God’s people “to shreds”. In both narratives, God’s people are unwilling to “set” their hearts on the King’s decree and are therefore “cast” down. The three Hebrews are cast into a fiery furnace, while Daniel is cast into a lions’ pit. In both narratives, God sends his “angel” in order to “deliver” his people from death and, as a result, no “harm” befalls them. And both narratives culminate in the pronouncement of an edict which forbids the blasphemy of God’s holy name. Like ch. 3, then, ch. 6 is built around a ‘power struggle’ between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man. Ch. 6 even resembles ch. 3 in the finer points of its Aram., as shown below: 3.8 ‫ ו®אֲכַלוּ‬N‫ ּכַשּׂד´אִי‬N‫י‬£‫בְר‬¹‫בוּ ּג‬£‫ קְר‬6.24 !‫י יžהוּד´י¦א‬£‫ ּד‬N‫קַרŸצֵיהוֹ‬ ‫י‬£‫אֲכַלוּ קַרŸצוֹהִי ּד‬Ê‫י‬£‫א אִּלֵ› ּד‬³‫בְר¯יּ‬¹‫ּג‬ !‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫ד´נ‬ 3.12 K‫מוּ עלי‬µ‫שׂ‬Ê‫א אִּלֵ› לָא‬³‫בְר¯יּ‬¹‫ ּג‬6.13 !Mֵ‫לּכָא טְע‬ ְ ַ‫מ‬ !‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫ד´נ‬... ‫ מַלְּכָא‬K‫ עלי‬Mµ‫שׂ‬Ê‫לָא‬ !Mֵ‫טְע‬ 3.17 ‫כִל‬³‫ י‬N‫א פָלְחִי‬Éְ‫אֲנ®ח‬Ê‫י‬£‫א ּד‬Éַ‫ אֱלָה‬6.20 !‫א‬Éַ‫בוּת‬³‫לְשׁ¨יז‬ ‫לֵּה‬Ê‫י אנתה פָּלַח‬£‫אֱלָהָ› ּד‬ ›ָ‫בוּת‬³‫יר´א הַיžכִל לְשׁ¨יז‬£‫ּבִתְד‬ !‫תָא‬³‫ו‬³‫אַרŸי‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ 3.25 !N‫אִיתַי ּבְהוֹ‬Ê‫ ו®חֲבָל לָא‬6.23 !‫הִשּׁתְכַח ּבֵּה‬Ê‫חֲבָל לָא‬Ê‫ל‬Ȟ‫ו‬ 3.29 ‫ אֻּמָה‬Mַ‫ע‬Ê‫ל‬È ‫י‬£‫ ּד‬Mֵ‫ טְע‬M‫י‬¤‫י שׂ‬¢‫ וּמִּנ‬6.26 N‫י¦אמַר שׂ¬לה עַל אֱלָהֲהוֹ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ ּד‬Nµ™ִ‫וžל‬ !‫› ו®עֲבֵד נžגוֹא‬°‫דŸר¯› מֵישׁ‬°‫שׁ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ּד‬ ‫י‬£‫ ּד‬Mֵ‫ טְע‬M‫י‬¤‫ד´מַי שׂ‬Å‫ק‬ÊNִ‫מ‬ N‫ זאעי‬N‫ מַלְכוּתִי לֶהֱוֹ‬Nָ‫לְט‬µ‫שׁ‬Ê‫ל‬Èְ‫ּב‬ !‫יּ¦אל‬¢‫ד´נ‬Ê‫י‬£‫ אֱלָהֵּה ּד‬M´‫ד‬Å‫ק‬ÊNִ‫ מ‬N‫וžד´חֲלִי‬ (B) Ch. 6 describes a much more subtle and malicious form of attack on God’s people than is described elsewhere in Daniel. For all their similarities, ch. 3 and ch. 6 are notably different in a number of important respects. First, while Nebuchadnezzar is surprised by the Hebrews’ disobedience, the satraps are not surprised by Daniel’s. Indeed, they have manufactured the entire situation (with the edict) to divide Daniel’s loyalties. Second, while ch. 3’s trial is orchestrated by a supreme ruler (Nebuchad- DANIEL CHAPTER 6 17 nezzar), ch. 6’s trial is orchestrated by a corps of “mighty men”. These “mighty men” are the driving force behind the events of ch. 6. They are said to “gather together”, to “conspire” together, and to “approach” the King as one. They are a shadowy and sinister collective—nameless, numberless, and only ever referred to as a unit. They are the kind of people whom we might refer to as ‘they’ in the modern day (e.g., “Be careful! ‘They’ might be watching!”). As such, the mighty men resemble the ‘iron kings’ of ch. 2’s vision (2.41-43’s comm.). Their entrance in ch. 6’s narrative is very abrupt. (We are first introduced to them as “those mighty men”, as if we should already be aware of them.) They remain submerged ‘behind the scenes’ of world history, as they corrupt the world’s kingdoms and wrest control from godly men (‘kings of clay’) such as Darius and Daniel. Third, the edicts described in chs. 3 and 6 place different demands on God’s people. Shadrach, Meshach, and AbedNego are given a specific order; they are required to drop to their knees before ch. 3’s image. Daniel, on the other hand, is given a prohibition; he is forbidden to drop to his knees in prayer. Fourth, ch. 3’s ungodly entity is much more tangible than ch. 6’s. Ch. 3 revolves around a concrete image, while ch. 6 revolves around an abstract law. Fifth, while ch. 3’s test involves public religion, ch. 6’s involves private devotion. Sixth, while ch. 3 is about a despotic king and the brazen abuse of power, ch. 6 is about a weak king and the manipulation of power. Both situations have their dangers. In sum, then, ch. 6 is intended to address the more subtle challenges God’s people must face. It is not about an ungodly king as such. (While Nebuchadnezzar boasts, “Which god is there who will then deliver you from my hands?”, Darius confesses, “May your God to whom you continually render service deliver you”.) It is about an entire world-system which is opposed to the things of God. It is about hidden conspiracies, intangible laws, and restrictions of freedom—things of an apparently innocuous nature, yet which are potentially lethal. (C) Ch. 6 portrays man’s governments as dangerous and unpredictable entities. Ch. 6 is built around key words and phrases which are intended to portray the all-pervasive power of Darius’s government and its 18 5.31-6.28: ITS MAIN MESSAGE laws. We read of a “standing-order”, a “binding-edict”, and a law which “cannot pass away”. We also read of the acts of “signing”, “sealing”, and “writing”. Ch. 6 thereby portrays man’s governments as powerful beasts—beasts which must be kept on a short leash. (D) Like many other chapters in Daniel’s writings, ch. 6 depicts a battle between God and man. Many of ch. 6’s word-groups are connected with the number 21. The words used to describe the power of the Medo-Persian law occur a total of 21 times.58 The words used to refer to Darius and his position of authority occur a total of 42 times (21x2).59 The words used to refer to Daniel’s opponents occur a total of 21 times.60 The words used to describe the power of Darius’s death-threat occur 21 times.61 And the name “Daniel” occurs 21 times. Considered as a whole, these word-groups provide a very apt summary of ch. 6’s main ingredients: the power of Babylon’s new king (42x), the presence of Daniel (21x), the machinations of Daniel’s enemies (21x), the power of the Medo-Persian law (21x), and the threat of death (21x).62 Ch. 6 has therefore been very carefully crafted. It depicts a battle between the men of Babylon and the people of God. More specifically, it depicts a battle between two laws: the Medo-Persian law and the Mosaic law. The Medo-Persian law is the villain of the piece. It is portrayed as an untamed and untamable monster. Once unleashed, it is beyond even the King’s ability to control. First it ensnares Daniel, then Darius, and finally (albeit indirectly) the satraps themselves. The Medo-Persian law also lays claim to immortality insofar as it claims to be entirely immutable and irrevocable. As such, the MedoPersian law constitutes an Anti-God. Throughout Daniel’s writings, eternality is a unique distinctive of the things of God (2.44, 4.3, 4.34, 6.26, 7.14, 7.27, etc.). The grandiose claims of the Medo-Persian law therefore bring it into conflict with God himself. Nevertheless, Daniel bows to God’s decrees as opposed to Medo-Persia’s. Daniel thereby vindicates 58. The “binding-edict” (7x), the “standing-order” (2x), the “laws...which cannot pass away” (3x), the “signing” of documents (5x), the “writing” of inscriptions (3x), and the “sealing” of the stone (1x). 59. “King” (28x), “King Darius” (3x), “Darius” (3x), and “kingdom” (8x) 60. “satraps” (Xx), “commanders” (Xx), “mighty men” (Xx), “en masse [throng]” (Xx), “deputies” (Xx), “counsellors” (Xx), and “governors” (Xx) 61. “pit” (Xx), “lion” (Xx), “stone” (Xx), “seal” (Xx) 62. The group of verbs “find”, “seek”, “deliver”, “rescue” also occur 21 times. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 19 the God of Heaven, and God in turn vindicates Daniel. In the end, then, God’s law emerges triumphant from ch. 6’s battle. The word of Darius falls, while the word of God stands[QWM] (9.12). My proposal as to ch. 6’s main message is an attempt to draw all these considerations together: Kings come and go over the years. Some are good (like Darius), and others are bad (like the unconverted Nebuchadnezzar). But, as God’s people, we will face difficulties for as long as we live in a fallen world, since the world is plagued by an undercurrent of Satanically-inspired ungodliness. We may face outright persecution. Or we may be more subtly pressurised by ‘mighty men’ in high places and by the world’s ungodly edicts. Either way, as members of God’s kingdom, our duty is to keep God’s holy law. Happily, God is able to keep those who keep his commands. 20 6.1-3: DANIEL EXCELS DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF DARIUS’S REIGN 5.31: The rise of Darius 5.31 So Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of 62 years. So Darius the Mede received the kingdom (5.31a). At the outset of ch. 6, the Medo-Persians take over affairs in Babylon, just as Daniel foretold. (“Your kingdom”, Daniel announced to Belshazzar, “has been broken in two and payed over to Medo-Persia”: 5.28.) Darius the Mede thereby becomes the Colossus’s new overlord. at the age of about 62 years (5.31b). Darius’s age seems largely irrelevant to ch. 6’s narrative. Daniel is a prophet not a historian. The number 62 must therefore be relevant to ch. 6 in some way, which it does indeed seem to be. On the one hand, the number 62 marks out the events of ch. 6 as the fulfilment of the letters mncmnctqlwprsyn.63 On the other hand, it connects the events of ch. 6 to the 62 weeks of Gabriel’s prophecy (9.24-27). According to Gabriel’s prophecy, Israel’s promised Messiah will arrive—later to be ‘cut off’—at the end of a 62-week period. The mention of the number 62 marks out the events of ch. 6 as a foreshadow of the Messiah’s ministry. The Messiah’s ministry is strikingly foreshadowed in the conduct, tribulation, and vindication of Daniel (cf. “5.31-6.28: A foreshadow of the Gospel”). 6.1-3: Daniel excels during the early years of Darius’s reign 6.1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom’s [affairs] 120 satraps, who were to be [stationed] throughout the kingdom, 6.2 and [he set] above them three commanders (one of whom was Daniel) to whom these satraps were to give account, so the King might not be troubled. 6.3 This [man] Daniel then began to outshine the commanders and satraps because of the extraordinary spirit [which was] in him, and the King lit on [the idea of] causing [Daniel] to stand over the whole kingdom. 63. See “5.25b-30: More thoughts on God’s riddle”. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 21 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom’s [affairs] 120 satraps (6.1). Darius’s first step as Babylon’s overlord is to divide his territory into 120 distinct provinces and to assign each of them a designated “satrap” (6.1). The make-up of Darius’s satraps is not revealed to us. The satraps are likely to have included local officials from Belshazzar’s administration as well as others whom Darius brought with him. Daniel may have fallen into both categories. He was certainly a part of Belshazzar’s administration when Babylon fell. (He was the city’s thirdin-command.) But he may also have known Darius from his days as Nebuchadnezzar’s right-hand man (2.48). Daniel would have needed to commune with foreign dignitaries from time to time, and he seems to have been present in Susa (Persia’s capital city) soon after the formation of Medo-Persia (8.1). Ch. 6 may not, therefore, describe the first time Darius and Daniel met each other. If so, it would explain how rapidly their friendship developed. and [he set] above them three commanders (6.2a). Darius cannot personally oversee the actions of 120 satraps. He therefore sets three “commanders” over them—commanders whom he believes to be honest and trustworthy men (6.2). Each commander is (presumably) to govern forty satraps and to report directly to the King. Darius thereby puts in place a four-tier system of accountability. The people are accountable to the satraps, the satraps to the commanders, and the commanders to Darius himself. The office of “commander” is therefore an office of significant power and authority. so the King might not be troubled[NZQ] (6.2b). The implication of 6.2b depends in large part on how we translate the vb. «NZQ».64 If we translate it as ‘trouble’ or ‘bother’, then 6.2b portrays Darius as a rather naive and perhaps also careless ruler. Darius does not want to encumber himself with the oversight of 120 satraps. He therefore devolves his responsibilities to three commanders. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which Potiphar devolves the management of his household to Joseph in order to spare himself the trouble of it (Gen. 39.6). Darius therefore comes across as a rather naive and careless ruler. If, however, we trans64. See our trans. notes. 22 6.1-3: DANIEL EXCELS DURING THE EARLY YEARS OF DARIUS’S REIGN late «NZQ» as ‘suffer loss’, then Darius comes across as a much more savvy and careful individual. He does not fully trust his satraps, so he decides to appoint some commanders to keep an eye on them. Contextually, the first of these possibilities strikes me as the more likely. Later in ch. 6, Darius is too quick to trust his satraps’ motives and to sign-off their proposed legislation (6.9). He therefore comes across as a king who is more naive than savvy. one of whom was Daniel (6.2). Darius’s appointment of Daniel as a commander must have raised a few eyebrows in Babylon, but it made perfect sense. It was consistent with the Medo-Persian ethos for a start. One of the key reasons for the Medo-Persians’ success was the way in which they utilised their subjects’ talents.65 And Daniel was clearly a man of many talents. He had governed Babylon almost single-handedly for a number of years (i.e., throughout Nebuchadnezzar’s times of madness). He knew the lay of the land as well as the Babylonians’ likes and dislikes. He was also of great value insofar as he was a neutral. As a Jewish exile, Daniel had no specific loyalty to Babylon, and he had no axe to grind against the Medo-Persians either. In other words, Daniel had no hidden agenda. Better still, Daniel was not a man who was hungry for greed or power. Only days before Babylon fell, he had declined the position of the third-in-command. Who better, then, to oversee Darius’s interests in Babylon? This [man] Daniel then began to outshine [the others] (6.3a). Daniel’s excellence as a commander soon becomes evident to Darius. Just as Daniel outshone his peers as a young man in Nebuchadnezzar’s day, so as an old man he continues to do so. He has not lost his touch. Exactly how Daniel’s abilities are made manifest to Darius is not stated. Daniel may have collected more taxes from his satrapies than his peers. He would certainly have been wise to his satraps’ tricks, and he would not have kept back any of the King’s money for himself. Daniel’s excellence may, alternatively, have manifested itself in some other manner. 65. The claims of Cyrus’s Cylinder are no doubt exaggerated, but they may nevertheless reflect the spirit of Medo-Persia. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 23 Either way, Daniel’s “extraordinary spirit” has a tangible effect on his work. the extraordinary spirit which was in him (6.3a). Darius perceives an extraordinary spirit within Daniel. Here, the word “spirit” seems likely to refer to the manner in which Daniel goes about his work. Darius is impressed not merely by Daniel’s results but by the manner in which he achieves them. Darius’s words also seem likely to allude to a deeper truth, especially given the Queen-mother’s description of Daniel in 5.11 (“[a man] in whom the Spirit of the Holy God [resides]”). Ultimately, Daniel’s excellence of spirit stems from his relationship to the Most High. It is God’s spirit which sets Daniel apart, and Darius, to his credit, recognises it. As such, the words of 6.3a have a ring of plausibility about them. They strike me as exactly the way in which a man like Daniel might choose to describe himself. They are not boastful or overblown; they are a mere statement of fact. And yet, for those with eyes to see, Daniel’s words point us beyond him to the source of his strength and ability. the King lit on [the idea of] causing [Daniel] to stand over the whole kingdom (6.3b). Given Daniel’s brilliance, Darius decides to promote him to a position of much greater authority, i.e., to make Daniel the second-in-command in Babylon. Daniel has achieved great things with his allocated forty satraps. He may as well, therefore, be allocated all 120 of them! We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which Pharaoh appointed Joseph “over all the land” of Egypt (Gen. 41.41-42). Daniel’s success as a commander is of great credit to him. He is not only a man of great intellect but of diligence, loyalty, and honesty. He is a man whom Darius is able to trust. 6.4-5: The satraps’ envy 6.4 The commanders and satraps therefore persistently sought to find a basis for complaint in Daniel’s [discharge of] the kingdom’s [affairs], but they could find no evidence of corruption, since he was faithful, and neither negligence nor corruption could be found in connection with him. 24 6.4-5: THE SATRAPS’ ENVY 6.5 Those mighty men therefore said, ‘We will not find any ground for complaint concerning Daniel unless we ‘find’ [it] against him in the law of his God’. The commanders and satraps therefore persistently sought to find a basis for complaint (6.4a). The satraps are horrified by Darius’s plan to promote Daniel. How the satraps come to hear of it is not disclosed. They may have contacts within the King’s house, or they may have caught wind of Darius’s plans via some other channel. Either way, a widespread conspiracy clearly seems to be afoot in Babylon. It is a case of Daniel versus the satraps, and, amazingly, Daniel will end up on the winning side!66 Daniel’s unpopularity could have a number of possible causes. Daniel is an outsider—a lone Hebrew among a group of men with a common history and ancestry. Daniel is therefore referred to rather pointedly as “one of the exiles from Judah” (6.13). He does not belong in Darius’s government. Jealousy is also likely to be a contributory factor to his unpopularity. The satraps are no doubt envious of Daniel’s success and favour with Darius. Daniel’s fellow-commanders have a special cause for concern, since Daniel’s promotion will entail their redundancy. Daniel’s honesty may in fact have caused problems for his fellow-commanders’ already. “If Daniel is able to collect revenues of such-and-such an amount”, Darius could have asked them, “then why can’t you do likewise?”. To my mind, the most likely explanation of 6.4’s events is as follows. Daniel has stumbled upon a kind of Old Boys’ network in Babylon—a system of bribery and ‘back-handers’ which has proven highly lucrative for all those involved. Daniel cannot turn a blind eye to such corruption and has stamped it out within his designated satrapies. Daniel’s promotion therefore has the potential to be catastrophic for the Babylonian satraps. With control over all 120 satrapies, Daniel will be able to bring their network of corruption to a complete end. Daniel must therefore be re66. The Persian monarchs are known to have employed a hugely efficient network of spies and informers in order to keep them apprised of affairs in their kingdom (RTSGM V.334). Perhaps, then, the satraps had their own counter-intelligence. Either way, conflicts between a king’s courtiers were common in Mesopotamia, where a man’s livelihood could easily be made or unmade on the basis of his relationship with the king (Newsom 2014:193). Such conflicts are partiularly well-documented in Neo-Assyrian letters between scholars-cum-advisers and the king (Parpola 1987). DANIEL CHAPTER 6 25 moved. He cannot be allowed to become the second-in-command in Babylon. sought to find a ground for complaint (6.4). 6.4 describes the satraps’ initial attempt to block Daniel’s promotion. The satraps subject Daniel to close scrutiny in order to find evidence of corruption in his secular work. ‘Surely’, they say to themselves, ‘Daniel must have his flaws. He is only human after all!’. But, much to the satraps’ shock and disappointment, Daniel’s conduct is beyond reproach. Daniel is not in fact ‘only human’; he is indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit. Unlike the satraps, Daniel deals fairly and honestly both with his satraps and with his people—hence Darius’s decision to promote him. unless we ‘find’ [it] against him in the law of his God (6.5). Despite subjecting Daniel’s life to careful and prolonged scrutiny, the satraps are unable to find any flaws or inconsistencies in his conduct (6.4a). They do, however, notice one ‘oddity’ in his behaviour. Every morning, noon, and night, Daniel retreats to his room and prays to his God. He is a man of extraordinary devotion, whose religious life is without compromise. The satraps must therefore come up with a new plan of attack. If they cannot ‘find’ any evidence against him as things stand, then they must manufacture some.67 They must put Daniel in a position where he must choose between obedience to the law of Babylon and the Law of God (6.6-9). A man of his religious convictions will surely, then, disobey his earthly king. That the satraps saw Daniel’s religious zeal as his primary failing in life was in fact a commendation of the highest order, albeit an unintentional one. Their scrutiny of Daniel’s behaviour was not (we may assume) a casual affair. The satraps would have followed Daniel around for days. They would have pried into every aspect of his life in search of evidence of underhand dealings, neglected duties, and so on. Yet they could find absolutely nothing for which to criticise Daniel. It is really quite a remarkable state of affairs. It is as much of a violation of nature as Daniel’s survival in the lions’ pit! 67. See 6.5’s trans. notes. 26 6.6-9: THE TRAP IS SET Those mighty men (6.5). In 6.4, the men who seek to find fault in Daniel’s conduct are referred to as “the commanders and satraps”. The men who then seek to take the matter further—i.e., to actively stir up trouble for Daniel—are introduced as “those mighty men” and are qualified in 6.6 by the description “those commanders and satraps”. Thereafter, Daniel’s accusers are consistently referred to as “those mighty men” (6.11, 6.15, 6.24). I therefore take the term “those mighty men” to represent a particularly malicious and die-hard subset of Darius’s men. Some of Darius’s men seem to have been willing to let Daniel’s promotion go, but not so the mighty men. They have too much to lose. They evidently consist of both of Daniel’s fellow-commanders together with a large number of satraps. For convenience’s sake, I refer to them as “the satraps”. 6.6-9: The trap is set 6.6 So those commanders and satraps descended on the King en masse and spoke to him as follows: ‘O Darius, King! [May you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! 6.7 All the kingdom’s commanders—[whether] prefect or satrap, counsellor or governor—have jointly decided, O King, to cause a steadfast, royal, and binding standing-order to stand, [which states] that, for thirty days, anyone who seeks what he [normally] seeks from any god or man except you, O King, will be cast into the lions’ pit. 6.8 You, O King, should now, therefore, cause the binding-edict to stand by signing a written inscription, so it cannot—as a law of Medo-Persia, which does not pass away—be changed’. 6.9 On [hearing] this, King Darius signed a written inscription of the binding-edict. The satraps have decided to turn Daniel’s religion against him. But how, they now wonder, are they to do so? There is no law against prayer, nor is there any law against the worship of the God of Israel. (Thanks to Nebuchadnezzar, Yahwism is an officially recognised religion: 3.29, 4.37.) And Daniel’s beliefs are clearly not affecting his work—at least not for the worse. The satraps therefore need a new law to be created—a law which will put Daniel in a no-win situation. In 6.6-9, they therefore approach the King and convince him to pass just such a law. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 27 So those commanders and satraps descended on the King en masse (6.6). As is their wont, the satraps descend on the King en masse. They introduce themselves in the customary fashion (“O Darius, King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!”). They then get straight down to business. ‘[We] have jointly decided’, they tell him, ‘to establish an edict’. The edict will forbid prayer for a thirty-day period. But, according to the satraps, Darius himself must back the edict in order for it to acquire the status of irrevocability. The satraps’ advice to the King (6.7-8) consists of three key points: (i) The edict has been endorsed by all of the Kings’ advisors; they simply need the King to ‘rubber stamp’ it in order to make it official. (The satraps’ claim is, of course, untrue. Daniel has not seconded the edict, nor would he.) (ii) Non-compliance with the edict must be punished with death. (iii) The edict must be irrevocable. These points are clearly well thought-out. The satraps do not want Darius to look into the edict too closely, since he may start to notice its problems. He may even consult Daniel about it. The satraps therefore stress the commanders’ unanimous approval of the edict. They also emphasise the need for it to be punishable by death and irrevocable. They want to make a final end of Daniel, and they do not want Darius to be able to revoke his edict once he realises its awful consequences. anyone who seeks what he [normally] seeks from any god or man except you, O King, will be cast into the lions’ pit (6.7b). As mentioned in our trans. notes, the satraps’ proposed edict prohibits intercessory prayer, but it also prohibits other activities. Even to seek guidance from a local priest will not be allowed. For the next thirty days, Darius will function as Babylon’s intermediary between heaven and earth and as the people’s sole advisor in matters of religion. Whatever the Babylonians would normally seek from their local priests (in their local temple), they must now seek from Darius or his appointed representatives. All of the land’s requests and offerings must go through him. Men will therefore need to travel to Babylon in order to worship their god and to offer the necessary sacrifices. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which Jerusalem functioned in the context of Israel’s worship. 28 6.6-9: THE TRAP IS SET Darius will thereby come to learn a great deal about his subjects and the customs of their gods. Of course, the satraps’ proposed edict would have been impossible to enforce in normal circumstances. But then Babylon was not in a normal state in 539 BC. In the lead-up to Medo-Persia’s invasion, Nabonidus gathered all of Babylon’s ‘gods’ (i.e., images) into Babylon’s capital city—most likely to protect them from the Medo-Persians. Either way, the land’s temples were left without their chief deities, which plunged the land in a state of religious limbo. Darius could plausibly, therefore, have established himself as a conduit-cum-substitute for Babylon’s may deities. What area the edict was meant to cover is not stated. So long as it affected Daniel, the satraps would not have minded. How the satraps broached the subject of the edict is not disclosed to us. That they waltzed into the King’s presence and proposed the edict of the blue seems unlikely. They are more likely to have framed their decree as a solution to a potential problem in Babylon. As mentioned above, ch. 6 is set against the backdrop of tense and turbulent times in Babylon. As past allies of the Medes, the Babylonians would not have welcomed Medo-Persia’s rule with open arms—hence the need for Cyrus’s propaganda campaign.68 Darius therefore had numerous social issues to address. He also had religious issues to consider. In the lead-up to the events of 539 BC, Nabonidus sought (unsuccessfully) to change the Babylonians’ form of worship and convert them to the worship of a new deity.69 He thereby aroused the wrath of Marduk’s priests, who were an extremely powerful group of men. He also created a deep rift between Babylon’s religious and civil leaders. As a result, Darius inherited a deeply divided and embittered kingdom in 539 BC. He also inherited a kingdom whose gods were stockpiled in Babylon’s capital city, which had evidently resulted in chaos. Indeed, in the aftermath of Babylon’s fall, the Medo-Persians were forced to station armed guards outside the city’s temples in order to oversee and safeguard the performance of the temple 68. App. 5C. 69. See “5.1-30: Some background information”. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 29 rituals.70 The satraps may well have turned the situation in Babylon to their advantage. Their edict, they may have argued, would allow Darius to find out all about his subjects’ concerns and to root out any potential troublemakers in the kingdom, i.e., zealots who were unwilling to submit to the authority of their new king. It might even take the people’s eyes off their religious differences and focus them on their new leader (Darius). It would therefore be a very shrewd move. Besides, it would only stand for thirty days, so what harm could it do? Now, therefore, O King, [establish] the binding-edict (6.8). The commanders’ tone of voice is more forceful than one might expect. It is not the way a man like Nebuchadnezzar would allow his subjects to address him, and may be indicative of Medo-Persia’s twin lines of authority. We do not know a great deal about the laws of the Medo-Persians. Some of the Medo-Persians’ laws were clearly irrevocable. The Book of Esther alludes to the existence of such laws, as do the writings of Diodorus.71 But it is hard to see how a kingdom could operate a legal system where every law ever passed was irrevocable. Medo-Persia’s legal system seems more likely to have consisted of two separate bodies of laws: i] laws which could be revoked, and ii] laws which could not. If so, the Babylonians’ aim (as described in 6.8) was to convince Darius to make their edict part of the latter corpus. Their trap had to be foolproof. a standing-order...a binding-edict...[etc.]. Daniel refers to Darius’s edict in a number of different ways: as a “standing-order”, a “bindingedict”, an “officially-written inscription”, and a “law which cannot pass away”. Daniel thereby piles up words in order to bring out the edict’s full force. As a “standing-order”, it ‘stands’ in defiance to and opposes God’s will. As a “binding-edict”, it binds Babylon’s citizens and restricts their religious freedoms. It also has great ‘strength’ (6.8). As an “inscription”, it is set in stone and mimics the divinely-engraved “inscription” on Belshazzar’s wall (5.24-25). As a “law”, it stands in opposition to God’s “law” which is binding on Daniel (6.5). And, as an entity which “cannot pass away”, it makes an illegitimate claim to immortality. Darius’s 70. See App. 5C. 71. Est. 1.19, Bibl. Hist. 17.30. 30 6.6-9: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS edict is therefore portrayed as an entity of great power and strength. It is also portray as a law which is hostile to God. As such, it is ch. 6’s Anti-God. Its status as an Anti-God is further confirmed by its claims to immortality. Throughout the Book of Daniel, God is the one who decides when a kingdom has run its course. God causes kings to “pass away” (2.21), God causes men’s glory to “pass away” from them (4.31, 5.20), and God causes his own kingdom to stand forever (2.44-45, 4.3, etc.). A law which “cannot pass away” is therefore a law which has overstepped the mark. It has ventured into the territory of the Most High. We can compare Psa. 148’s description of God’s establishment of his Creation: “He has made a decree which will not pass away [wĕloc yac ăbôr]” (Psa. 148.6 cf. Est. 1.19, 9.27). On [hearing] this, King Darius signed a written inscription of the binding-edict (6.9). Foolishly, Darius consents to the Babylonians’ proposal. In the context of a chapter which is often quite verbose, the brevity of 6.9’s text reflects the rashness of his decision. 6.8 refers to an irrevocable law—a law which, once signed, can never be undone. Yet in 6.9, in a mere seven (Aramaic) words, Darius simply agrees to it. He may see his decision as unimportant since his edict will only stand for thirty days. If so, he is terribly mistaken. Indeed, as we assess the events of ch. 6, we must be careful not to underestimate the potential danger of Darius’s edict. Daniel is not the only godly Jew in Babylon. Many of his peers are of the same mindset as him. Darius’s edict therefore has the potential to result in the death of thousands of godly Jews throughout Babylon. It could decimate the Jewish population and, in the process, extinguish their brightest religious lights. It is a disaster. 6.6-9: Some further thoughts All the kingdom’s commanders...have jointly decided... (6.7). While Darius’s actions in 6.6-9 were rash, the Babylonians’ plan was wellconceived. The ethos of the Medo-Persians was to interfere with their subjects as little as possible. So, Darius would not have wanted to impose overtly religious duties on Babylon’s people. For a supremo like Nebuchadnezzar to force men to bow before his image was all very well, DANIEL CHAPTER 6 31 but not for Darius. It was not the Medo-Persian way. The Babylonians therefore needed to come up with an edict which was: a] not overtly religious, b] attractive to Darius, and c] injurious to Daniel. Their proposed edict perfectly fitted the bill. It would not have struck Darius as religiously intolerant, since men were still free to pray to whichever gods they liked. They simply needed to channel their prayers through Darius. It would also have struck Darius as an attractive edict for the reasons discussed above. Most importantly of all, it would cause serious problems for Daniel. As a newcomer to Babylon, Darius may not have known much about Daniel’s commitment to YHWH, but the Babylonians would have known about it, and would therefore have known what problems the edict would cause Daniel. From the Babylonians’ perspective, then, the proposed decree was ideal. It even had the added advantage of causing problems for Darius. Babylon’s priesthood would not welcome the idea of an enforced thirty-day redundancy, and were a powerful group of men. Of course, Darius was not the Babylonians’ main target. But if they could distract his attention, then so much the better. Darius was no more willing than Daniel to turn a blind eye to their corruption, as he had proven by means of his decision to promote Daniel to second-incommand. The Babylonians’ edict therefore had the potential to remove both of their problems in one fell swoop. It would turn Darius against Daniel, and the priests against Darius. It was a masterstroke. the lions’ pit (6.7). That Darius kept a number of lions in Babylon is entirely plausible. The Assyrian kings are well-known to have kept lions in captivity which they let out for the purposes of hunting.72 And, given the Zoroastrian mindset, the Medo-Persians seem likely to have seen fire as sacred, so they would not have wanted to use an instrument like Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace to execute criminals.73 6.6-9: Its wider context We have now reflected on the earthly causes of the events of ch. 6 in some detail, which is well and good. But we also need to reflect on the heav72. Jastrow, The Civilization Of Babylonia And Assyria, 1915:[16, 24, etc.]; Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 1964:46; etc. 73. e.g., Zend Avesta Yasna XVII 32 6.10: DANIEL’S RESPONSE enly side of things. Consider the situation. It is the 1st year of Darius’s reign, and a war is taking place in heavenly places (10.1-11.1). Prior to the Medo-Persians’ conquest, Satan had a strong grip on Belshazzar. But Darius is a much more God-fearing individual than his predecessor. Satan is therefore in danger of losing his grip on Babylon, which has historically been one of his strongholds. The presence of Daniel only makes matters worse. Indeed, if Daniel frustrated his fellow-presidents, then he must have frustrated Satan as well, who hates to see men of righteousness prosper. Satan has therefore been stirring up the hearts of the Babylonians against Darius and Daniel. He has also sent one of his servants—a demonic entity known as the Prince of Persia—to corrupt the rulers of Medo-Persia (10.13, 10.20). At the same time, one of God’s angels has been dispatched to shore up Darius’s position (11.1), and the archangel Michael has been involved as well (10.13). Even, therefore, as the events of ch. 6 are unfolding on the earth, a battle is in progress in heavenly places. As such, the conflict between Daniel and the Babylonians is reflective of—and in fact dependent on—a deeper spiritual conflict. It is an outworking and foreshadow of the rivalry between the world’s iron and clay kingdoms. As Paul writes, “The flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these things are opposed, the one to the other” (Gal. 5.17† ). 6.10: Daniel’s response 6.10 As for Daniel: once he knew that the written inscription had been signed, he went to his house, where the windows in his roof-chamber had been left open for him in the direction of Jerusalem; and, three times each day, he would kneel on his knees and pray and give thanks before his God, just as he had done beforehand. As for Daniel (6.10a). With the words “as for Daniel”, ch. 6’s narrative resumes its focus on Daniel. Daniel was absent (by design) from the Babylonians’ conference with the King. He was no doubt engaged in his duties, as the satraps should have been. But Daniel now takes centrestage once more. At the same time, ch. 6’s narrative reaches its crunchpoint. The satraps’ edict has been signed and the trap has been set. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 33 What, then, will Daniel do? Will he stand up for God or will he crumble under the pressure? he went to his house, where the windows in his roof-chamber had been left open for him (6.10b). As one of the King’s highest officials, Daniel has been allocated one of Babylon’s “roof-chambers”. It is the ancient Near East’s equivalent of a luxury penthouse. That Daniel’s test takes place in a roof-chamber is significant. While the chamber is a private apartment, its elevation makes it a very public location. Indeed, the visibility of Daniel’s roof-chamber is no doubt what led the satraps to formulate their plan in the first place, since they saw him praying there (6.5, 6.7). As such, Daniel’s four walls are the counterpart to ch. 3’s ‘walled plain’. They are where the conflict between the Medo-Persian and the Mosaic law will come to a head. That Daniel’s windows have been opened on his behalf further adds to the tension. They may have been opened by a servant who has been told to do in anticipation of Daniel’s daily prayer-time. Or the satraps may have arranged for Daniel’s windows to be open in order to make his actions as publicly visible as possible. Either way, there will be no doubt as to the focus of Daniel’s prayers. Daniel’s prayers are directed towards Jerusalem as opposed to Darius. The satraps are therefore taunting Daniel, and they will be watching him closely to see what he does. Many of the Jews in Babylon may be doing likewise in order to take their cue from him. As such, the stage is set, and all eyes are now on Daniel. three times each day, he would kneel on his knees and pray and give thanks before his God, just as he had done beforehand (6.10b). Given the tension of the situation, 6.10b is narrated in rather anticlimactic fashion. Daniel, we are told, simply goes to his house and prays to his God, just as he used to do. In other words, it is business as usual as far as Daniel is concerned. It is as if the edict has never been signed. Daniel’s actions are not the actions of a martyr or a fanatic or a freedom-fighter, much less a rebel without a cause. Daniel is simply a man of God with a job to do, and he plans to get on with it. 34 6.10: DANIEL’S RESPONSE his roof-chamber (6.10b). As mentioned previously, Daniel occupies one of the uppermost rooms in Babylon’s palace since he is one of Babylon’s highest-ranking officials.74 As such, Daniel is in a very exposed position. To make matters worse, Daniel’s windows have been left open in the direction of Jerusalem. The satraps want as many people as possible to witness Daniel’s disobedience to Darius. But God has a purpose in the events of ch. 6 as well. Indeed, God will turn the satraps’ plan to his advantage. He will enable Daniel’s courage and faithfulness to be observed by all Babylon, and he will thereby demonstrate his faithfulness to deliver his people. In Daniel’s writings, when men ‘raise themselves up’, it is almost invariably a precursor to their downfall. Nebuchadnezzar goes to his palace-roof prior to his downfall, Antiochus reaches for ‘the stars’, and so on. Daniel, however, is an exception. He does not raise himself up. Rather, Darius chooses to promote him. Moreover, when Daniel enters Babylon’s lofty “roof-chamber”, his first action is to get to his knees and pray. Despite his greatness, he has remembered his roots. Indeed, even with his life is on the line, his prayer involves thanksgiving (6.10). in the direction of Jerusalem (6.10b). Daniel prays in the direction of Jerusalem. As we will see, his orientation is significant. It alludes to an agreement established between God and Solomon many centuries beforehand (see below). It also has a deep symbolic significance. In the context of Daniel’s writings, Jerusalem is not just another city; it is the place where the God of Heaven has chosen to set his name and the epicentre of God’s plans to restore the earth (9.24-27). Daniel’s focus on Jerusalem therefore connects him both to his past as well as to his future. For Daniel to be forbidden to look towards Jerusalem—the object of every exile’s hopes and dreams—is therefore for him to be deprived of both his identity and his hope for the future. Towner puts the point well. “[According to Darius’s decree]” he writes, “one now must no longer turn [one’s] face toward the Holy City but...toward the fading and corrupt splendour of a...king of flesh and blood”.75 74. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which senior executives often occupy the uppermost floors of office-blocks. 75. Towner 1986:83. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 35 three times each day (6.10b). Daniel’s standard routine is to pray “three times” daily. Psalm 55 alludes to a similar practice. “At evening, morning, and noon”, David tells us, “I utter my complaint...and [the LORD] hears my voice” (Psa. 55.17† ). The Book of Acts conveys a similar impression; it identifies the third, sixth, and ninth hour as significant times, often in the context of prayer (Acts 2.1, 2.15, 3.1, 10.9). Daniel’s three times of prayer are therefore likely to correspond to 9am, midday, and 3pm. 6.10: Some further thoughts on Daniel’s actions he would kneel on his knees and pray and give thanks before his God (6.10b). At first blush, Daniel’s refusal to compromise his prayerlife might strike us as odd, or even stubborn. But Daniel really had no alternative. It would have been pointless for him to ask Darius to revoke the edict since the edict was by definition irrevocable. And to comply with the edict was clearly not an option. God alone has the ability to hear and answer men’s prayers (e.g., Psa. 42.8, 61.1, 65.2, 66.20, 69.13, 80.4, etc.), so for Daniel to direct his prayers towards Darius would be unacceptable. To abstain from prayer for thirty days would be little better. Prayer was not a luxury for Daniel. It was a fundamental part of who he was. Since Daniel’s needs were daily needs, he had to pray on a daily basis (Matt. 6.8-13). Besides, Daniel’s failure to pray would not only affect him; it would also affect his fellow-believers since he would be rendered unable to uphold them in prayer. (We might consider, by way of analogy, Samuel’s exclamation to the Israelites, “Far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you!” (1 Sam. 12.23).76 Consider also the thoughts set out in “6.10-13: Some thoughts on Daniel’s prayer” below.) Only one alternative therefore remained, namely for Daniel to close his windows and pray in secret. But, while that option may have seemed attractive at first, it was deeply inappropriate for a number of reasons. 76. Furthermore, by the time Daniel found out about the satraps’ edict, it was already in force (6.10). Strictly speaking, then, even to seek God’s guidance as to what to do would be a breach of the edict. 36 6.10: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON DANIEL’S ACTIONS First, it would send out mixed messages. Either the King’s edict was a reasonable one or it was not. If it was, then it deserved to be obeyed. If it wasn’t, then it deserved to be disobeyed. Either way, then, it would not make sense for Daniel to disobey the edict behind closed doors. The King’s edict affected every citizen of Babylon. As such, it needed to be obeyed publicly or disobeyed publicly. Second, to resort to secret prayer would lower Daniel’s behaviour to the level of the satraps. The reason why the satraps turned against Daniel in the first place was because of Daniel’s refusal to turn a blind eye to their underhand conduct. How, then, could Daniel pray to his God in an underhand manner? It would be hypocrisy of the worst kind. It would hand the satraps a clear moral victory. Third, to resort to private prayer would be a poor testimony. The Babylonians clearly expected their plan to succeed, so they must have expected Daniel to maintain his daily prayer-life. The Jewish people no doubt shared their expectations. To pray in private would therefore send out an awful message. Its implication would be clear: while man’s relationship with God is valuable, it is not worth paying the ultimate price for. Fourth, Daniel would not be able to keep his prayer-life a secret for the entire duration of the edict anyway. The satraps were not fools. If Daniel continued to pray in private, then they would catch him sooner or later. They only needed to ask him whether he still directed his prayers towards Jerusalem. He would not lie to them. On balance, then, Daniel had little option but to continue to pray. Like his three friends, his key desire in life was to glorify God. He therefore had to stick to his guns and leave the rest to God. If God wanted to spare Daniel from the lions’ pit, then he was perfectly able to do so. If not, that too was God’s divine prerogative. Either way, the satraps could be sure of one thing: on no account would Daniel betray his Lord. Daniel’s mindset was therefore exactly the same as that of his three friends, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego. Indeed, as he got to his knees in prayer, he may even have made their immortal words (recorded in 3.17-18) his own, saying, “Lord, if it is your will to deliver me, then you are able to do so, but, if not, then may all Babylon know, I will not pray to any other God except you!”. By life or by death, Daniel would testify to God’s glory. He would at the same time send out a powerful message to his people. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 37 Some things in life could not be compromised, and their duty to God was one of them. Their God was worth living for and worth dying for (Psa. 63.3). 6.11-13: The trap is sprung 6.11 Then, those mighty men descended en masse and found Daniel, seeking [help] and grace from before his God. 6.12 At that point, they came before the King and spoke [to him] about the binding royal edict, [saying], ‘Did you not sign an inscription of the binding-edict—[one which states] that, for thirty days, any man who seeks [help] from any god or man except you, O King, must be cast into the lions’ pit?’. ‘[I did]’, the King replied, ‘[and] as a Medo-Persian law, which cannot pass away, the [edict] is certain’. 6.13 They therefore declared before the King, ‘Daniel, who is one of the sons of the Revealed of Judah, has set no store on you, O King, nor on the binding-edict which you have inscribed, but instead, three times each day, continues to seek what he [normally] seeks’. Then, those mighty men descended en masse (6.11). In the midst of one of Daniel’s times of prayer, the satraps rush into Daniel’s chamber and catch him ‘in the act’. Daniel’s prayer-life is like clockwork. It could hardly, therefore, have been easier for the satraps to catch him. They simply needed to pick their time: morning, noon, or evening. Daniel’s prayers are said to involve both ‘prayer’ and ‘thanksgiving’ (6.10). But the text of 6.11 hints at a change of emphasis. At the time of the satraps’ arrival, Daniel is “seeking [help] and grace from before his God”. He therefore seems to be particularly conscious of his need of God’s assistance, as well he might be. 6.11’s turn of phrase (“seeking...from before...God”) also brings to mind the events of 2.18. There, Daniel and his friends are gathered in their house while the wise men topple around them, and they “seek mercy from before the God of Heaven” as a result (2.18). Here in 6.11, Daniel’s friends are absent, but the situation is otherwise very similar. Daniel is within his house, while the threat of death hangs over his head, and he ‘seeks grace from before his God’ as a result. Many people would see Daniel as a man who deserved to be delivered from the satraps’ plot. But Daniel does not view himself in such terms. 38 6.11-13: THE TRAP IS SPRUNG As far as Daniel is concerned, he is simply a man in need of God’s “grace”, just like the rest of the world’s population (6.11). According to the text of 6.10 and 6.13, Daniel disobeys the King’s edict “three times a day”. The satraps cannot, therefore, have arrested Daniel at the first available opportunity. They must have allowed Daniel to continue in prayer for at least a few days first. The reason for the satraps’ hesitation is not clear to me. Perhaps they want to give Daniel rope with which to hang himself, so they can go to the King and say, ‘Daniel disobeys your edict on a daily basis!’. Or perhaps the satraps have begun to harbour last-minute reservations about the whole affair. ‘Do we really want to go through with our plan?’, they might have asked themselves. ‘Do we want the blood of an entirely innocent man on our hands, not to mention the wrath of the King?’. Perhaps, then, the satraps’ consciences are not yet entirely dead. Either way, the end result is the same. The satraps are greedy and corrupt men, driven by envy, hatred, and the power of the Accuser.77 To their mind, there is no alternative. Daniel must be disposed of. O King! Did you not sign an inscription of the binding-edict? (6.12). The satraps now approach the King in order to inform him of Daniel’s transgression. ‘Didn’t you recently issue a certain edict, O King?’, they innocently ask, as if their enquiry is merely a conversation-starter. ‘I did indeed’, replies Darius. ‘I even granted it the status of an irrevocable law’. The satraps must have smiled inwardly when they heard Darius’s reply. They have the King exactly where they want him. The time has therefore come from them to tell the King about Daniel’s transgression. ‘Yet Daniel’, they then announce, barely able to contain their excitement, ‘has paid no attention to you, O King, nor to your edict. Indeed, he continues to seek help from his God three times every day!’. The satraps’ slander of Daniel is highly reminiscent of the Chaldeans’ slander of the three Hebrews’ in ch. 3. Just as the Chaldeans’ portrayed the Hebrews as rebels and dissidents, so the satraps portray Daniel in the worst possible light. They describe Daniel’s prayer-life, not as an expression of religious 77. In both Heb. and Aram., the vb. which underlies the name Satan means ‘to accuse’ or ‘to be hostile towards’. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 39 affection, but as a personal snub to the King. Their claims also resemble the Chaldeans’ insofar as they contain distinctly anti-Semitic undertones (3.12, 6.13). They even utilise some of the same Aramaic phrases.78 Daniel must therefore be sentenced to death. He has not transgressed the King’s edict in a careless way. He has done so in a cold and premeditated manner, and he has done so three times every day. As such, he is guilty beyond question. In Daniel’s Aram. narratives, items of speech are (almost) invariably introduced by a pair of verbs, namely, answered[QNY] and said[PMR] .79 We continually encounter phrases such as “the King answered and said...”, and “the wise men answered and said...”, and so on. The sense of the vb. answer[QNY] is fairly loose. It simply serves to connect an item of speech to what precedes it—sometimes causally, sometimes otherwise. But, in the case of three particular types of speech, the verb “answered” is absent: i] when Daniel asks Arioch to quickly bring him before the King, and when Arioch then does so (2.24-25), ii] when kings issue commands (e.g., 2.12, etc.), and iii] here in ch. 6, when the “mighty men” formulate their plot against Daniel and pressgang Darius into passing their proposed edict (6.5, 6.6, 6.12, 6.15). The absence of the verb “answer” before these items of speech portrays them as the beginning of chains of events set in motion by the relevant speakers. They are not ‘responses’ as such. They are unprovoked statements made on their speakers’ own authority. The absence of the word “answered” in 6.6, 6.12, and 6.15 is therefore highly significant. In the events of ch. 6, the satraps do not act in response to the King’s commands, nor do they protect his best interests. They have their own particular agenda to pursue, and they are hellbent on its realisation. They are men on the offensive. 6.10-13: Some thoughts on Daniel’s prayer When Daniel prays in ch. 6, his windows are open in the direction of Jerusalem. Daniel’s actions therefore seem to allude to a prayer which 78. See “5.31-6.26: Its main message”. 79. See App. 0. 40 6.10-13: SOME THOUGHTS ON DANIEL’S PRAYER Solomon made many years before hand (which the LORD answered with fire) when he dedicated Jerusalem’s temple, saying, O LORD my God, ...[let] your eyes...be open day and night towards this house! ...And listen to the pleas of your servant and of your people Israel, when they pray towards this place! If they sin against you (for there is no one who does not sin), and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to a land far or near,...[then] if they repent with all their mind and with all their heart in the land of their captivity to which they were carried captive, and pray towards their land which you gave to their fathers—[towards] the City that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name—, then hear from Heaven your dwelling place their prayer and their pleas, and maintain their cause and forgive your people who have sinned against you. (2 Chr. 6.19-39) The situation in which Daniel and his fellow-exiles find themselves in ch. 6 shares a number of similarities with the scenario described in Solomon’s prayer: i] the Jews have “sinned” against God, ii] the Jews have aroused God’s “anger”, iii] the Jews have been “given [over]” to their enemies, and iv] the Jews have been “carried away captive” (2 Chr. 6.19-39). As Daniel looks towards the city of Jerusalem and confesses his people’s sins, he must therefore have in mind the agreement between God and Solomon, as is reflected by his posture (like Solomon, he prays on his kness: 1 Kgs. 8.54). The prayer recorded in 9.4b-19 may even be a concrete example of the daily prayers Daniel maintains in ch. 6. Either way, Daniel is unlikely to be alone in his intercessory activities. Prayers would have been ascending to heaven from all over Babylon as other Jews petitioned God on their people’s behalf. The thought of Jerusalem was indelibly etched on the Jews’ hearts and minds. Jerusalem was the place of God’s presence; it was where they belonged—the place they had vowed never to forget, saying, “If I forget you, O Jerusalem,...let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth” (Psa. 137). That Daniel refused to abandon his daily prayers is therefore quite understandable. His prayers concerned far more than his own personal piety. He was praying on be- DANIEL CHAPTER 6 41 half an entire nation, and others all over Babylon would no doubt be looking to him for an example to follow. Daniel was therefore the leader of an entire team of intercessors. 6.14-15: The King seeks to deliver Daniel 6.14 When the King heard [about] the matter, he was extremely grieved, and he set [his] mind to deliver Daniel; indeed, he strove ceaselessly to rescue him until the sun went down. 6.15 At that point, those mighty men descended on the King en masse and said to the King, ‘Know, O King, that [it is] a law of the Medes and the Persians that no binding-edict or standing-order which the King causes to stand can be changed’. the King...was extremely grieved (6.14). On hearing of Daniel’s actions, Darius is horrified. He has become very fond of Daniel as the two of them have worked together, just as Nebuchadnezzar did before him. And not without good reason. Daniel has been a loyal servant, as well as a faithful friend. Indeed, judging by the behaviour of the satraps and the leak of Darius’s plan to promote Daniel, Daniel may well have been Darius’s only friend among Babylon’s ranks. Darius is therefore appalled at the thought of sentencing Daniel to death. He immediately dismisses the satraps, summons his legal advisers (we may assume), and sets about trying to pardon Daniel. Daniel, it seems, must be thrown to the lions at sundown unless the King can find a way to pardon him (6.14-15). But, as the hours tick away, Darius comes no closer to a solution to his problem. His edict is like a runaway train. It has a power and momentum beyond even the King’s ability to control. Indeed, it has been drafted (by the satraps) with the express intention of making it so. Darius’s task is therefore hopeless. While Nebuchadnezzar’s edict in ch. 2 is made strong by sheer force of will (the King is unwilling to revoke it: 2.5-6), Darius’s acquires its power from Medo-Persia’s legal system. As a result, Darius himself is bound by it. At that point, those mighty men descended on the King en masse (6.15a). As the night draws in, the Babylonians return to tell Darius what he by now knows only too well: he cannot undo his edict; time 42 6.16-17: DANIEL IS THROWN TO THE LIONS has run out; and Daniel must, therefore, be thrown to the lions. The satraps’ return in 6.15 has decidedly sinister and forceful undertones, as is reflected in their transition from an interrogative (“Did you not sign...an edict...?”) to an imperative (“Know, therefore,...[it is] a law...”). As is their wont, the satraps approach the King en masse—a nameless and shadowy entity, who crowd in on their prey like predators. As the daylight fades (and Daniel’s hopes with it), the satraps then utter those fateful words, “no binding-edict...which the King causes to stand can be changed”—a fact Darius has only recently acknowledged (6.12). The satraps’ words have the ring of inevitability, doom, glee, and victory. It is as if they have come to gloat over their prey. (The lions in Darius’s pit are not the only predators at large in ch. 6’s narrative.) The malice of the satraps’ actions is, of course, not of merely human origin. The ultimate ‘mover’ behind the attack on Daniel is not the satraps but Satan—the eternal accuser of God’s people, the one who “prowls around like a roaring lion, looking for [a] victim to devour” (10.13, NLT 1 Pet. 5.8). In recent times, Satan has been able to establish a firm grip on Babylon. Belshazzar was like putty in his hand, but Darius was a different prospect, and Daniel was a notable thorn in Satan’s side. Satan now, therefore, wants to re-establish his dominance over Babylon, while God’s angels want to prevent him (11.1). 6.16-17: Daniel is thrown to the lions 6.16 So the King gave the command, and Daniel was brought in and cast into the lions’ pit, even as the King declared to Daniel, ‘Your God himself, whom you continually serve, must [now] deliver you’. 6.17 And a single stone was brought and set over the mouth of the pit, and the King sealed it with his signet as well as with the signet of his great ones, so that Daniel’s situation could not be changed. So the King gave the command, and Daniel was brought in (6.16). In the end, Darius has no choice but to sentence Daniel to death. The text alludes to an air of resignedness on Darius’s behalf. (“So the King gave the command...”.) Daniel is then marched away to his death. Darius seems to accompany Daniel to the mouth of the pit, since he calls out after him, “Your God himself, whom you continually serve, must [now] DANIEL CHAPTER 6 43 deliver you!”. Exactly how lion pits were constructed in the ancient Near East is not known to us. Some lion pits, however, have been uncovered in north Africa.80 The pits in question are, in essence, large, rectangular, underground caverns. They are open at the top—which allows observers to peer down into them from behind a stone parapet—, and they are divided in two by a partition-wall. Their partition-wall contains a door which is opened and closed from above. Keepers are thereby able to gain access to one side of the pit at a time. They throw food into one side of the pit, wait for the lions gather around it, and then shut the partitiondoor behind them. Darius’s pit may have been of a similar construction. If so, the lions would have been lured onto one side of the pit, and the door would have been closed behind them. Daniel would then have been thrown into the other side. There, he would be safe until the door in the partition-wall was re-opened. In the meantime, Darius would be able to commune with Daniel from above the pit. Once Darius left, the partition-door would be re-opened, at which point the fun and games could begin. Your God himself, whom you continually serve, must [now] deliver you (6.16b). Darius’s words could be translated as above, or as an expression of desire (‘May your God deliver you!’: ESV, NIV),81 or as a statement of faith (‘Your God will deliver you!’: KJV, NASB). My own translation seeks to accommodate all of these possibilities. As they are translated above, Darius’s words could express a far-fetched hope, akin to a wish, but they could also reflect a genuine faith. Either way, they make one thing very clear: Daniel is beyond Darius’s abilities to help. If Daniel is to be delivered, then God must be his deliverer. Darius’s words are also a far cry from Nebuchadnezzar’s boast to the Hebrews (“which god is there who [can] deliver you from my hands?”.) Whereas Nebuchadnezzar defied God to deliver the Hebrews, Darius genuinely longs for Daniel’s deliverance. How much Darius knows about Daniel’s past is not clear. When he first acquired the kingdom of Babylon, he would have wanted to find out exactly what kind of men were at his disposal. Darius must therefore have consulted Daniel’s ‘dossier’ (if such 80. KDBCOTOT Dan. 6.XXX. 81. though see our trans. notes 44 6.16-17: DANIEL IS THROWN TO THE LIONS a thing existed) or consulted the palace-staff about him. If so, Darius would have found out all about the mysterious events which surrounded Daniel’s past. Indeed, Daniel had been associated with a number of remarkable goings-on in Babylon: the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams, the deliverance of his friends from the furnace, the hand of God writing on the palace wall, and perhaps more besides (5.11-12). Darius may, therefore, have begun to develop a genuine faith in Daniel’s God. “Perhaps”, he may have thought, “the tales of deliverance attributed to Daniel’s God are true. And perhaps God will see the injustice of Daniel’s present predicament and deliver him”. If anyone deserved such treatment, it was Daniel. God could not have too many servants like him. a single stone was...set over the mouth of the pit, and the King sealed it (6.17). A stone is now pushed over the mouth of the pit, at which point Darius and his high-officials “seal” it in place with their signets. The stone could have been sealed in place in a number of ways. For instance, the joint between the stone and the pit’s mouth could have been covered with moist clay over which signets could be rolled. Or the stone could have been held in place with clay-set chains. Or some other mechanism could have been employed. What is clear is the significance of the seal. Daniel has been cast to the lions on the King’s authority, and no-one is now able to interfere with the King’s decision. The application of the “seal” was probably standard practice in Babylon. But for Darius to be forced to apply it would have been a grievous experience. Darius has been tricked and manipulated by his satraps, and he is now about to be made to give his ‘seal of approval’ to an act which he wants absolutely nothing to do with. He despises the situation in which he has found himself, but he can do very little about it as things stand. The law is the law after all. Not even he, the King, has the power to overturn it. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 45 6.18-22: The satraps’ plot is foiled 6.18 The King then went to his palace, where he spent the night fasting, and did not have the usual entertainment brought in before him, and his sleep departed from him. 6.19 Then, at dawn, rising [along] with the first light, the King went hurriedly to the lions’ pit. 6.20 As he drew near to the pit, the King called out to Daniel in a pained voice. ‘O Daniel, servant of the living God!’, the King declared to Daniel, ‘Has your God, whom you continually serve, been able to rescue you from the lions?’. 6.21 Daniel then proclaimed to the King, ‘O King! [May you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! 6.22 My God has sent his angel and shut the mouth of the lions, and they have not harmed me, for, before him, innocency was found in me, and even before you, O King, I have done no wrong. The King then went to his palace, where he spent the night fasting (6.18). With the business at the pit concluded, Darius returns to his palace, an angry and troubled man. There, Darius has all the luxuries of Babylon at his disposal, but he is nevertheless ill at ease. He has no desire for food or entertainment, and he is unable to sleep. He has a long night ahead of him. Darius’s agitation is perfectly understandable. As mentioned previously, Darius greatly respects and values Daniel. In the ancient Near East, kings could not afford to have too many friends, much less close ones. But, in Daniel, Darius has found a man whom he can implicitly rely upon, just as Nebuchadnezzar had done. As a result, a close trust and friendship has developed between Darius and Daniel, which explains Darius’s decision to promote him. Suffice it to say, then, Darius is distraught at the thought of losing Daniel. But Darius is not merely distraught; he is also angry. He is no fool. He knows he has been played. He is therefore furious at his satraps for deceiving him, and furious with himself for falling for their tricks. He should never have signed the satraps’ edict without first consulting Daniel. But the edict had seemed harmless enough at the time, and he never thought he would need to enforce it anyway. Above all these things, Darius is racked with guilt. He has sentenced an innocent man to death. He therefore has blood on his hands. And not just any man’s blood but the blood of a 46 6.18-22: THE SATRAPS’ PLOT IS FOILED loyal servant of YHWH. Only recently, Darius’s predecessor (Belshazzar) mistreated YHWH’s temple-vessels and was brought to justice that very night. How much more harshly would YHWH deal with him, Belshazzar’s successor, for sentencing a man like Daniel to death? It is a thought which terrifies Darius. As I have studied the text of ch. 6, I have been reminded of Jesus’ trial before Pilate (expanded on later) and the way its many nuances unfold. Like Jesus, Daniel has been charged with insurrection by a group of corrupt men—men consumed with envy and hellbent on his destruction. And, like Pilate, Darius has found himself backed into a corner and embroiled in a legal affair beyond his ability to control. The more he has found out about it, the less he has liked it. Ch. 6 is therefore a powerful illustration of the transition from gold to silver depicted in the Colossus. In theory, Darius is in charge of the events of ch. 6, but, in practice, his hands are tied. The satraps are in full control of the situation. As such, Darius’s ‘sovereignty’ is a far cry from Nebuchadnezzar’s, who would not have tolerated the satraps behaviour for a moment. He would have revoked the thirty-day injunction and dismembered the satraps without any hesitation at all. Then, at dawn,...the King went hurriedly to the lions’ pit (6.19). The King now hurries to the lions’ pit to see what has become of his friend, Daniel. What Darius did to pass the night is not revealed to us. When Artaxerxes was unable to sleep, he requested the Chronicles of Medo-Persia to be read to him. In the process, he learnt about Mordecai’s exploits (Est. 6.1). Perhaps, then, Darius did likewise and learnt about Daniel’s exploits. If so, his decision to hurry to the lions’ pit would make good sense. If Daniel’s God could deliver Daniel’s friends from the furnace, then it would certainly be no problem for God to deliver Daniel from the lions’ pit. Darius may even have spent time in prayer to Daniel’s God. Either way, at the break of dawn, Darius hurries to the pit—an act which his servants must have viewed with great surprise and concern. From the pit’s open mouth, Darius calls down into the depths of the pit in an anguished voice. “O Daniel”, he cries out, “Has your God...been able to rescue you from the lions?”. Darius’s actions presuppose at least DANIEL CHAPTER 6 47 some degree of faith. Humanly speaking, his behaviour borders on the irrational. People do not survive a night in the lion’s pit, which is why they are thrown in there in the first place. Darius therefore seems to expect—or at least think it possible for—a miracle to have occurred. As such, his reference to Daniel as a servant of “the living God” seems to be significant. In Scripture, the epithet “the living God” is employed to distinguish the true God (of Israel) from the lifeless gods of the nations, i.e., the so-called gods of “gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone”.82 Darius sees Daniel’s God as a very different entity from the gods of the nations. He sees him as a God of genuine power and authority—a God who can do what others cannot do and whose servants behave differently from most. O King! [May you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]! (6.21). In response to his call, Darius hears a familiar voice floating up from the depths of the pit—a voice Darius thought he would never hear again! “O King, [may you] live for [as long as] the ages [continue]!”, it calls out. The voice, of course, is Daniel’s. Daniel has survived the night in the pit. In the context of ch. 6’s narrative, 6.21 therefore describes a very dramatic moment. Darius must have been in a delicate state anyway. He has not slept, and he is racked with guilt. On hearing Daniel’s voice, Darius must therefore have been completely overwhelmed. His old friend is evidently alive and well, and Darius has been spared from a terrible crime. Joy and relief therefore course through his veins. God has not only spared Daniel from a terrible fate; he has spared the King too! My God has sent his angel and shut the mouth of the lions (6.22). Daniel is customarily quick to give glory to God. According to Daniel, just as God dispatched an angel to protect his friends in the furnace, so God dispatched an angel to protect him. In both cases, the world’s ‘natural laws’ were temporarily suspended. The flames lacked their natural destructive power, and the lions lacked their natural aggression. As such, the Book of Daniel’s final narrative parallels its opening narrative. In ch. 1, Daniel refuses to eat the food he is served, while, in ch. 6, the lions refuse to eat the food they are served. 82. 5.4, 5.23, Josh. 3.10, 1 Sam. 17.26, 1 Cor. 8.4-5, etc. 48 6.14-22: SOME FURTHERS THOUGHT before [God], innocency was found in me, and even before you, O King, I have done no wrong (6.22). The reason why God has chosen to deliver Daniel is simple. Daniel’s conduct in ch. 6 has been entirely blameless. Daniel has not wronged God in any way, and he has not wronged Darius either. True—he has transgressed Darius’s edict. But he has not done so in a spirit of insubordination or malice. Indeed, Darius’s edict only came about in the first place because of Daniel’s loyalty to the King (6.2-5). In terms of its tone, Daniel’s statement is not ‘impolite’, but it is certainly very direct, and justifiably so. Daniel has served the King with integrity and loyalty, in light of which he has been ‘rewarded’ shamefully. A man in his late seventies, with a long and distinguished career behind him, thrown to the lions? It is an appalling way for anyone to have been treated, as Daniel now takes the opportunity to make clear. Some kings may have bristled at Daniel’s bluntness, but Darius is a more beneficent ruler than most. He is also overjoyed to hear Daniel’s voice. He would probably have let Daniel get away with anything! innocency[zāqû] was found in me (6.22). zāqû has the sense ‘to be morally pure’ or ‘clean’ or ‘transparent’.83 Its Heb. cognates84 are particularly prevalent in the Book of Job,85 which seems appropriate to the context of ch. 6. Job was persecuted not for his misdeeds, but for his righteousness, and he was maligned quite unjustly, just as Daniel has been in ch. 6. 6.14-22: Some furthers thought The focus of 6.14-22’s is both interesting and instructive. Contrary to what we might expect, it makes absolutely no comment about Daniel’s state of mind or night in the lions’ pit. It instead devotes its attention to Darius’s frustrations, i.e., his failed attempt to pardon Daniel, his troubled night’s sleep, and so on. The reason, I suspect, for 6.14-22’s focus is as follows. As incredible as it may seem, Daniel had a much more comfortable night’s sleep in the lions’ pit than Darius did in the luxury 83. CAL «ZQQ» 2015:vb., Heb. «ZQY». 84. zāqâh (vb.), zāqaq (vb.), zāq (n.), zĕqûqît (n.) 85. Job 8.6, 9.30, 11.4, 15.15, 16.17, 25.5, 28.17, 33.9. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 49 of his palace. Of course, Daniel must have felt extremely pressurised as he decided how to respond to Darius’s edict. But, once he made his decision, he would have felt at peace, both with himself and with God. Darius, however, was in a very different position. While Darius was at peace with himself, Darius was furious with himself; while Daniel’s conscience was clear, Darius’s was racked with guilt; and while Daniel was at peace with God, Darius was terrified at the thought of what Daniel’s God might do to him. As a result, while Daniel slept soundly amidst the lions, Darius tossed and turned amidst the luxuries of his palace. A night which would under normal circumstances have been Daniel’s last turned out to be one of the best of his life. He spent an entire night in the presence of one of God’s own angels (6.22). It must have been an incredible experience. It also provides us with a miniature of God’s restored Creation. The world’s lions behaved exactly as they did prior to man’s fall and as they will again in a day to come. We might consider, by way of analogy, Isaiah’s vision of the coming kingdom: “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,...and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together, and a little child shall lead them” (Isa. 11.6). 6.23-24: The satraps’ plot backfires 6.23 The King was, therefore, overjoyed and immediately gave the command for Daniel to be lifted out of the pit. So Daniel was lifted out of the pit, and no harm of any kind was found on him, for he had put his faith in his God. 6.24 The King then gave the command, and those mighty men, who had ripped Daniel to shreds, were brought in and were cast into the lions’ pit—them, their children, and their wives—, and they had not [even] come to the bottom of the pit when the lions [gained] the rule over them and broke all their bones in pieces. The King was, therefore, overjoyed and immediately gave the command (6.23a). As soon as Darius hears Daniel’s voice, he orders his men to lift Daniel out of the pit. The order was necessary for practical reasons. The pit would have been built in such a way as to make climbing out of it impossible. But, in the context of ch. 6, Daniel’s ascension from the pit has great symbolic import. It symbolises Daniel’s reinstatement to Darius’s staff and his vindication over his enemies. The picture is made even more poignant in 6.24, when the satraps are cast into the 50 6.23-24: THE SATRAPS’ PLOT BACKFIRES pit in Daniel’s place. We might consider, by way of analogy, the words of Psalm 40: I waited patiently for the LORD, and he inclined to me and heard my cry. He drew me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry bog, and set my feet upon a rock... I have not hidden your deliverance within my heart. I have concealed neither your steadfast love nor your faithfulness from the great congregation... Let those who seek to snatch away my life be put to shame and disappointed altogether; Let those who delight in my hurt be turned back and brought to dishonour. Let those who love your salvation say continually, ‘Great is the LORD!’.” (Psa. 40) So Daniel was lifted out of the pit (6.23b). Once he has been lifted from the pit, Daniel is (presumably) instated as Babylon’s second-incommand, i.e., the position originally earmarked for him. In an instant, he moves from Babylon’s pit to Babylon’s palace—from dwelling among animals to dwelling among princes. It is a rags-to-riches experience of Joseph-like proportions (Gen. 41.14, 41.41). In human terms, Darius is the agent of Daniel’s vindication, but ultimately the driving force behind the event is the hand of God. As believers, we have a God who delights “raise up the poor from the dust”, to “lift the needy from the ash heap”, and to “make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honour” (1 Sam. 2.9). and no harm of any kind was found on him, since he had put his faith in his God (6.23b). The text of 6.23b emphasises two important details about Daniel’s deliverance. First, its completeness. Daniel emerges from the pit not just in one piece but entirely unscathed. Just as there was no evidence of the Hebrews’ ordeal in the furnace, so there is no evidence of Daniel’s ordeal in the pit. Not even a scratch or an item of torn clothing DANIEL CHAPTER 6 51 can be found on him. The second detail brought out in 6.23b is the reason for Daniel’s deliverance. Daniel has been delivered from the lion’s pit for a simple reason, namely because of his “faith” in God. When disaster struck, Daniel did not abandon his daily prayers. He continued to seek God in prayer, and he trusted God to bring glory out of his obedience. And, in return, God did not abandon Daniel. On the contrary, he glorified Daniel. Just as God used Nebuchadnezzar’s ungodly ceremony to glorify his name before the men of Babylon many years ago, so God used Darius’s ungodly injunction for precisely the same purpose. The word harm[H.BL] (and its derivatives) are significant in Daniel’s writings. While men seek to raise themselves up—and, in the process, to harm God’s people—, God remains in complete control. By God’s grace, no “harm” afflicts the three Hebrews, and no “harm” affects Daniel or even Darius (3.25, 6.22, 6.23). And God’s kingdom itself will never suffer “harm” (2.44, 6.26, 7.14). God is able to protect his possessions from harm. He is also able to inflict “harm” on man’s kingdoms as and when he chooses to do so, hence the Watcher’s word of command: “Cut down the tree and inflict harm on it!” (4.23). those mighty men, who had ripped Daniel to shreds, were brought in and were cast into the lions’ pit (6.24a). Darius clearly sees Daniel’s deliverance as his cue to ‘repay’ the satraps for their deeds. He immediately orders his men to cast Daniel’s accusers into the lions’ pit in Daniel’s place (6.24a). The satraps’ plan thereby backfires on them in the most dramatic way imaginable, as they reap exactly what they have sown. As such, ch. 6 is an illustration of what we might call ‘poetic justice’. The irony of the situation is underscored by Daniel’s description of the satraps as “[the] men who...ripped Daniel to shreds”. Just as the satraps ripped Daniel to shreds (lit., ‘ate his pieces’), so the satraps will now be ripped to shred by Darius’s lions. The same principle is evident in many other Scriptures, such as, “Those who dig a deep pit to trap others fall into it themselves” (Psa. 7.15† ), “[Such] men lie in wait for their own blood; they set an ambush for their own lives. Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain” (Prov. 1.18-19), “Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal. 52 6.23-24: THE SATRAPS’ PLOT BACKFIRES 6.7), etc. Two Psalms in particular seem very apposite to ch. 6’s overall narrative when put on the lips of Daniel: I am surrounded by fierce lions, [O God], who greedily devour human prey, whose teeth pierce like spears and arrows, and whose tongues cut like swords. Be exalted, O God, above the highest heavens! My enemies have set a trap for me... They have dug a deep pit in my path, but they themselves have fallen into it. (Psa. 57.4-6 NLT) You, [O Most High], have maintained my just cause... You have made the wicked perish; You have blotted out their name forever and ever... You, O LORD, do not forsake those who seek you,... ...[You] lift me up from the gates of death... The nations have sunk in the pit they made; in the net they hid, their own foot has been caught. The LORD has made himself known; he has executed judgment. (Psa. 9.3-16† ) Of course, Darius’s worldview was not (explicitly) derived from Biblical principles. But the law-courts of Babylon were certainly familiar with the principle of ‘like for like’ (lex talionis),86 and the Persians seem to have deemed it appropriate for men to be judged by means of their own devices. We might consider, for instance, Ahasuerus’s decision to hang Haman on the gallows he personally erected (Est. 7.9-10).87 Darius’s decision is, therefore, quite understandable. they had not [even] come to the bottom of the pit when the lions [gained] the rule over them (6.24b). 6.24b describes the satraps’ judgment is described in severe and complete terms. As soon as they are cast 86. Jastrow 1915:293-XXX. 87. so also Est. 9.1 DANIEL CHAPTER 6 53 into the lions’ pit, they are utterly consumed.88 One thing, then, is at least clear: the lions are not off-colour. They may have been tame in the presence of God’s angel, but they are ferocious in the presence of God’s enemies. As such, Daniel’s preservation is an example of divine deliverance. We might consider, as an analogy, the way in which the flames of Nebuchadnezzar’s furnace left the Hebrews unharmed but utterly consumed the King’s mighty men (3.22). Given the extreme nature of 6.24b’s events, many commentators view Darius’s actions as unjust and malicious.89 But the text itself does not appear to view Darius’s actions as unjust. The satraps are hardly paragons of virtue after all; they are rebels against Darius’s authority with murderous intent, who fully deserve to be executed. They have witnessed God’s justice, as exemplified in the judgment of Belshazzar, and they have witnessed God’s righteousness, as exemplified in the conduct of Daniel. And yet they have not sought to glorify God by means of patience and good works (Rom. 2.7). They have instead sought to slay an innocent man in order to facilitate dishonest gain, and, in the process, they have given rise to a wicked and godless edict in Babylon, which could easily become a tool for anti-Semitism. As such, the satraps are entirely worthy candidates of God’s judgment. Furthermore, the extreme nature of their punishment may well owe (at least in part) to the extreme nature of their own plot against Daniel. Due to the satraps’ conspiracy, Darius has been saddled with an edict which he has no desire to enforce. He must therefore take preventative measures if he is to tame the edict’s power for the next thirty-days or so. (Otherwise, the satraps could simply interrupt Daniel in prayer the next day and haul Daniel before the King all over again.) What, then, is Darius to do? His decision, in the end, is to make an example of the satraps. He disposes of them by a brutal execution and hence sends a powerful message to his people, namely, 88. Daniel’s critics have questioned whether 120 men could simultaneously be cast into a pit along with their families (e.g., Montgomery 1927:278). But such criticisms seem to reveal more about the mindset of Daniel’s critics than Daniel’s text. It is not all 120 satraps who are cast into the pit, but ‘those mighty men who had ripped Daniel to shreds’, i.e., the officials involved in the plot to dispose of Daniel. As such, the Critics’ analysis of 6.24 is rather tendentious. It appears to be motivated by a desire to find fault with the text of Daniel rather than to read the text of Daniel in a charitable light and to learn from its content. 89. Towner, for instance, refers to Darius’s actions as “[not] befitting...a just God” (1986:86). 54 6.23-24: THE SATRAPS’ PLOT BACKFIRES ‘Anyone who seeks to enforce my edict against Daniel will pay for it with their lives!’. We might consider, by way of analogy, the culmination of the Book of Esther. In the Book of Esther, Artaxerxes passes an edict (which gives Haman permission to slaughter the Jewish people), which he cannot undo when he discovers Esther’s (Jewish) identity, so his only option is to pass a second law in order to give the Jews leave to defend themselves against whoever attacks them. The author describes the resultant situation as follows, “On the very day when the enemies of the Jews hoped to gain the mastery over them, the reverse occurred: the Jews gained mastery over those who hated them” (Est. 9.1), which has clear parallels with the events of Dan. 6. In sum, then, Darius’s judgment of the satraps is to be seen not as a miscarriage of justice but as an outpouring of God’s anger against Daniel’s enemies. The point is further brought out by the phrase “their bones were ground to powder”. Just as the entire Gentile Colossus will one day be ground to powder[DQQ (C)] , so the Gentiles are ground to powder[DQQ (C)] in anticipation. As Paul writes, “[God’s appointed king] does not bear the sword in vain. He is the servant of God—an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13.4† ). In the context of ch. 6, Darius functions as precisely such a divinely-appointed “servant”.90 Darius’s actions may also have been intended (by God) to have a prophylactic effect. As we have seen, Babylon seems to have been afflicted by a spirit of anti-Semitism in Daniel’s day (3.12, 6.13), which we do not hear about again until the days of Haman (over 100 years later). Possibly, then, Darius’s judgment of the satraps served to keep the empire’s undercurrent of anti-Semitism at bay for many years. the lions [gained] the rule over them and broke all their bones in pieces (6.24b). While 6.24b is not merely symbolic, it clearly has symbolic significance. In the context of the OT, a man’s children are depicted as a blessing from God and a continuation of his life on the earth. As a result, God often chooses to deal with people in terms of family lines (Exod. 20.5, Num. 16.27-33, 1 Sam. 2.30-34, 1 Kgs. 11.36, Jer. 35.19, 90. Of course, one cannot call upon Romans 13.1-5 to ‘sanctify’ any decree we like, but, equally well, we have no reason to defend the satraps in ch. 6. They are worthy objects of God’s judgment, and, as such, God is free to judge them via any means he chooses. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 55 etc.). Some family lines he promises to sustain as a blessing to their ancestors. Consider, for instance, God’s promise to bless the seed of Abraham and to preserve the royal line of David and so on (Gen. 12.1-3, 1 Kgs. 2.4). Other family lines God chooses to wipe out entirely to purge the earth of their influence. Here we can consider God’s decision to destroy the household of Korah and hence to remove all memory of them from the earth (Num. 16.27-33). A man’s “bones” are significant for much the same reason. They are what remains of a man after his flesh has passed away. As such, they are closely connected with the concept of resurrection. Consider, for instance, Ezekiel’s vision of Israel’s resurrection, where Israel’s “dry bones” are given life and clothed in flesh and sinews (Ezek. 37.1-8), or the amount of care the patriarchs take over their remains and burial places (Gen. 23.4, 47.30, 50.25). In the context of the OT, then, the preservation of a man’s bones symbolise his participation in God’s eternal plans. God promises to “keep [the] bones” of those he loves; he will not allow even one of their bones to be “broken” (Psa. 34.20). The destruction of a man’s bones, on the other hand, depicts the removal of a man from God’s plans, hence Josiah’s decision to burn the bones of Israel’s idolaters on Judah’s hillside (2 Kgs. 23.16, 1 Kgs. 13.2 cf. Num. 24.8). In light of these considerations, the destruction of the satraps’ families and bones is highly significant. It depicts the removal of their memory and influence both from the present world and from the world to come. The satraps do not simply lose their position in the palace; they lose everything they have. Insofar as they have lifted up their hands against Daniel, they have lifted up their hands against a “servant of the living God”, and they must pay the ultimate price for it. The question of course remains, What about the satraps’ families? Why should they be punished for the satraps’ wrongdoings? The answer is not entirely clear. My own instinct is to take the text of 6.24b to implicate the satraps’ families in Daniel’s mistreatment. Perhaps, for instance, the satraps’ families served as informants for the satraps. (It may, for instance, have been them who informed the satraps of the King’s plans to promote Daniel.) Or perhaps their sin was simply to encourage the satraps in their dastardly plans. We might consider, for instance, the way in which Zeresh spurred Haman on 56 6.14-24: THE OVERARCHING NARRATIVE in his plans to overthrow Mordecai (Est. 5.10-14). Who knows? We have no real reason to take them to be blameless in ch. 6’s events. the lions [gained] the rule over them (6.24b). That the lions are said to gain the “rule” over the Babylonians is a significant detail. The chapter describes a battle for power. Ever since the publication of the edict, the balance of power has been with the satraps, and both Darius and Daniel have suffered as a result. But, in 6.24, the balance of power is back with Darius, and Darius intends to make full use of it. He therefore orders the satraps to be thrown to the lions, who immediately gain the “rule” over them. The satraps’ loss of power is thereby made complete. The lions whom man was made to rule over—and whom the Babylonians kept in captivity for their own purposes—gain the rule over the satraps. The satraps are thereby relegated to a position below even the world’s brute beasts. 6.14-24: The overarching narrative The text of 6.14-24 parallels the text of ch. 7 in a number of important ways. Consider 6.14-24’s flow of events. Courtesy of the satraps’ machinations, Daniel is due to be thrown to the lions. Darius labours all day long to pardon him. But, as he toils away in Babylon’s palace and the night begins to draw in, a pack of ‘mighty men’ close in on Darius like hungry predators. The mighty men clearly hold the whip hand. Darius therefore concedes defeat, and Daniel is thrown to the lions. But, soon afterwards, the God of Heaven intervenes in Babylon’s affairs. An angel descends to Babylon’s pit in order to reverse the normal order of things. Babylon’s lions become tame as, for a brief moment, Creation’s rightful order is restored. The sun then rises on Babylon the next morning to find Daniel alive and well. Daniel is immediately lifted from the pit and promoted to a position of great honour; meanwhile, the satraps receive their comeuppance. Finally, a kingdom-wide proclamation is published in order to announce the supremacy and eternal majesty of God’s kingdom (6.25-26). DANIEL CHAPTER 6 57 Now, consider, by way of comparison, the text of 7.1-28. The vision recorded in 7.1-28 depicts a world in disarray. A series of beasts emerge from the Sea and crawl up onto Israel’s shore, where they run roughshod over God’s people. God’s people suffer greatly as a result. They seem destined for destruction (7.21). But the ‘Ancient of Days’ then intervenes in the world’s affairs. He descends from the heavens and draws the beasts’ ‘night of dominion’ to a close. God then destroys the fourth beast (the arch enemy of God’s people), tames the remainder of the beasts, promotes his people to positions of greatness, and announces the inauguration of heaven’s eternal reign (7.11-14, 7.26-27). The narratives laid out in 6.14-24 and 7.1-28 share a number of striking similarities. Both describe a world which is ‘out of order’ (those who should have authority do not have authority, and those who should not have authority do). Both are set against the backdrop of a dark night. Both outline a sequence of events which gradually spirals out of control. Both are transformed by the intervention and descent of a heavenly entity. Both allude to the restoration of Creation (Daniel is able to exist safely in the midst of the lions, while Israel is able to exist safely in the midst of the nations). Both climax in the judgment of God’s enemies. And both culminate in an announcement of heaven’s supremacy and the public vindication of God’s people. Ch. 6’s narrative therefore seems to prefigure ch. 7’s vision in a number of important ways. At the same time, it presents us with a miniature snapshot of Israel’s golden age—a time when God’s people will be exalted among the midst of the nations and the nations will be subject to their reign. 6.25-27: Darius’s second edict 6.25 At that point, Darius the King wrote to all the tribes, nations, and tongues, who reside in every part of the earth, [saying], May your peace abound! 6.26 From before me, a decree has been set [forth]. All [those under] the rule of my kingdom are to tremble in fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God and will [stand] steadfast for [as long as] the ages [continue], and his kingdom is one which will not be harmed, and his rule will [continue] until the end-point [of all things], 58 6.25-27: DARIUS’S SECOND EDICT 6.27 a deliverer and a rescuer, and a doer of signs and wonders in the heavens and in the earth—[the one] who has delivered Daniel from the hand of the lions. And Darius the King wrote to all the tribes (6.25). Darius now issues a second edict, which is (thankfully) a massive improvement on his first. The edict takes the form of an official proclamation. It opens in the customary manner: “May your peace exceed [abundantly]...”. As such, it mirrors Nebuchadnezzar’s opening to his proclamation in ch. 4 (4.1). Insofar as Darius’s proclamation is addressed to all “peoples, nations, and tongues”, it alludes to the all-encompassing nature of its subject matter, namely the worldwide kingdom of God (6.26). all [those under] the rule of my kingdom are to tremble in fear before the God of Daniel (6.26a). In the events of ch. 6, Darius has both underestimated and disrespected the God of Israel. He effectively installed himself as YHWH’s high-priest (6.7). Darius therefore wants to make amends for his failings. Accordingly, his edict gives glory to Daniel’s God and commands his people to treat Daniel’s God with the greatest respect. Just as the Babylonians “trembled in fear” before Nebuchadnezzar (5.19), so they must now “tremble in fear” before YHWH. YHWH is not a God to be trifled with, and Darius does not want his error to be repeated by his people. Darius’s edict clearly portrays him as a man under God’s authority. According to the edict, the ultimate loyalty of those under Darius’s “rule” must lie not with him but with YHWH. the living God (6.26a). Darius refers to YHWH as “the living God”, just as he did earlier (6.20). It is clearly a title with which Darius is quite taken. Darius has never encountered a man with as real and dedicated a faith as Daniel, nor has he encountered a God with the power of YHWH. Darius is hugely impressed both with Daniel and with his God. That Darius chooses to refer to Daniel’s God as the living God in the context of a kingdom-wide decree is quite remarkable. The implication of his choice of words is not entirely transparent, but it is clear for the attentive reader. Babylon’s gods are not ‘alive’ in the same sense as Daniel’s God is alive. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 59 Daniel’s God is not merely ‘one among many’; he is the world’s supreme ruler. While remarkable, Darius’s respect for Daniel’s God is not surprising given what he has experienced over the last few days. Darius has come to appreciate four important things: i] the extent of his officials’ corruption and disloyalty, ii] the limits of his power, iii] the all-surpassing power of Daniel’s God, and iv] the importance of faith and righteousness. As such, Darius has had the main ingredients of the Gospel acted out before his very eyes, and it has clearly made an impact on him. [he is] steadfast for [as long as] the ages [continue] (6.26b). Darius now closes his edict with a note of praise. He specifically praises God for the eternality of his reign. Why Darius sees God’s kingdom as ‘eternal’ is not made clear. Perhaps Darius sees YHWH’s power (and Daniel’s loyalty) as sufficiently great to stand the test of time. Or perhaps Darius has read some of Nebuchadnezzar’s past decrees. (Nebuchadnezzar was aware of the eternality of God’s reign because of ch. 2’s dream.) If so, it would certainly explain the resemblance between his edicts and Nebuchadnezzar’s (4.1-3, 4.34-37). Either way, Darius clearly sees God’s deliverance of Daniel as a manifestation of God’s present reign over the kingdoms of mankind. He sees God’s kingdom as both a present reality and an eternally-ongoing prospect, and he takes it to encompass kingdoms like Babylon as well as Israel. As such, Darius seems to have an impressive understanding of the scope and nature of God’s reign. That Darius recognises the frailty of his empire speaks well of him, as does his concern for Daniel. The kings of the Near East generally publicised themselves in grandiose, almost divine, terms.91 Part of their rationale was to unify and enthuse their people—to provide them with a figurehead whom they could serve and rely upon, and an intermediary between them and God.92 But many kings apparently came to believe their own propaganda after a while. They began to see themselves as gods. They therefore came to their kingships as the apex of world his91. One need only read some of Nebuchadnezzar’s or Cyrus’s inscriptions. 92. Kings are spoken of as the “image” of God in certain ancient texts (Parpola 1993:168). 60 6.25-27: DARIUS’S SECOND EDICT tory and could not even conceive of the rise of a power greater than theirs. That Darius can perceive and even rejoice in the greatness of God’s kingdom is therefore unusual. It is a hallmark of genuine faith. Darius has come to realise the moral and political weakness of man in general and himself in particular and has come to put his trust in the God of Daniel. for [as long as] the ages [continue] (6.26b). That God’s reign is eternal (and his kingdom indestructible) is very relevant to ch. 6’s narrative. Darius’s problem throughout the chapter has been the permanence of his injunction. In passing an irrevocable edict, he has unleashed a monster, and he has been unable to cause it to “pass away” (6.8, 6.12). Yet, by dispatching one of his angels, God has done what Darius could not do. He has caused the lions to ‘lose their teeth’ and has rendered Darius’s law powerless. He has shown Darius what true kingship is all about. 6.26b is also significant in another way: it contrasts the allegedly indestructible (the Medo-Persian law) with the truly indestructible (the kingdom of God). From our present position in the 21st cent., we can see the emptiness of the Medo-Persians’ claim to immortality. That which the Medo-Persians thought would “never pass away” endured for little more than a couple of centuries. But the kingdom of God continues to expand even today and will one day subsume all Creation. a deliverer and a rescuer (6.27a). Darius sees Daniel’s God as a “deliverer” and a “rescuer”. Neither Daniel’s wisdom nor Darius’s authority could deliver Daniel from the power of Medo-Persia’s law and lions, but God was able to do so, for, as Nebuchadnezzar rightly recognised, “[God] does whatever he desires with the armies of heaven and the residents of earth” (4.34). a doer of signs and wonders in the heavens and in the earth (6.27b). God has acted ‘wondrously’ in the deliverance of Daniel. But, as Darius can now see, the miracle he has performed is not a brazen display of power to be admired in and of itself, nor is it intended to bring Daniel glory. Rather, it is a “sign”. It points beyond Daniel, and beyond Daniel’s abilities, to the all-surpassing greatness of Daniel’s God. That Darius mentions signs and wonders being done “in heaven” as well as “on earth” DANIEL CHAPTER 6 61 is an interesting detail. (The Mesopotamians liked to correlate heavenly and earthly signs.93 As one of their diviner’s manual states, “Sky and earth both produce [signs]. Though appearing separately, they are not separate (because) sky and earth are related”.94 .) Perhaps, when Daniel was sentenced to death, a “sign” of some kind appeared in the heavens—a significant star-sign perhaps,95 or a sandstorm which churned up great clouds of dust and hence darkened the sky, or a fire which caused plumes of smoke to do so. Or perhaps Darius’s mention of both the “heavens” and the “earth” simply reflects his belief in God’s immediacy. God is not a distant entity whose activity is not limited to the heavenly realms; he is a near and present reality. 6.25-27: Some further thoughts on Darius’s second edict The historical section (chs. 1-6) of Daniel’s writings contains five separate paeans of praise. The first comes from the lips of Daniel, the next three from the lips of Nebuchadnezzar, and the last from the lips of Darius (6.25-27). We can tabulate them as follows: 93. TBDM 208-210. 94. TBDM 204. 95. See our summary of 5.25b-28. God’s name is honoured Daniel (2.2022) God’s sovereignty is praised God’s eternality is praised It is he who causes the appointed seasons to come and go Blessed be the name of God from the age[s] [past] to the age[s] [to come] He has sent his angel and has delivered his servants Nebuch. (4.1-3) Darius (6.2527) It is my pleasure...[to show] how great his signs are and how strong his wonders are! His kingdom is an age-steadfast kingdom, and his rule [extends] from generation to generation! Nebuch. (4.3435) All [those under] [my] rule are to tremble in fear before the God of Daniel God’s signs and wonders are praised The combined residents of the earth are as nothing [compared to him]. He does whatever he desires [with them] [His] rule is an age-steadfast rule and whose kingdom [extends] from generation to generation His kingdom is one which will not be harmed [He] will [stand] steadfast for [as long as] the ages [continue],..and his rule will [continue] until the end-point [of all things], A deliverer and a rescuer,...he has delivered Daniel from the hand of the lions. a doer of signs and wonders in the heavens and in the earth 6.25-27: SOME FURTHER THOUGHTS ON DARIUS’S SECOND EDICT Nebuch. [Any man]...who (3.28- speaks a false [word] 29) against...God...will be cut into [little] pieces God’s power to deliver is praised 62 Topic DANIEL CHAPTER 6 63 As we cast our eye over these paeans of praise, from top to bottom, we see a story unfolding—a story which begins with the private confession of Daniel in his house and concludes with the public confession of King Darius. God has planted a godly Jewish remnant in Babylon, and God’s remnant has since been sowing God’s word among the Gentile nations. The word of God has taken root in a foreign land. The same sovereignty and eternality which Daniel saw in God has become known to the Gentile nations, as has God’s power to deliver. And, one day, even the world’s most mighty rulers will bow their knees before their true king—a theme brought out more fully in the prophetic section of Daniel’s writings (7.12).96 The religious texts of nations like Egypt, Babylon, Media, and Persia are unknown to the vast majority of people in the present day. But billions of people now own a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. History therefore continues to follow the pattern set out in chs. 2-6. 6.28: Daniel’s ongoing prosperity 6.28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. So this Daniel prospered (6.28). While the careers of Daniel’s accusers came to an abrupt end, Daniel’s career continued. How long Darius and Daniel continued to reign in Babylon is not known.97 But, if Darius and Daniel were close friends prior to the events of ch. 6, then they would have been even closer friends afterwards. The text of 6.28 has been the subject of much debate since it can be read in a number of different ways. It could be read as ‘Daniel prospered in the allied reign of Darius and Cyrus’ or ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and, after it, the reign of Cyrus’ or even ‘Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, i.e., the reign of Cyrus the Persian’. In and of itself, then, the text of 6.28 does not come down in favour of any particular view of the relationship between Darius and Cyrus. But it does at least tell us one thing. Daniel clearly came into contact with Cyrus at some 96. Consider also Isa. 45.22-25 and Phil. 2.9-10. 97. For some suggestions, see App. 5C. 64 6.28: DANIEL’S ONGOING PROSPERITY point. Daniel may even have been influential in Cyrus’s decision to allow the Jewish people to return. Who knows? Cyrus certainly seems to have been interested in the welfare of the Jewish people (Ezra 1.1), and Daniel would have had a wealth of knowledge to impart to any prospective ruler of Babylon. Perhaps, then, Cyrus deliberately sought an audience with Daniel at some point. According to Josephus, Cyrus was aware of Isaiah’s prophecy of his rise to power (Isa. 44.24+).98 If so, Daniel would be the person most likely to have shown it to him. 98. Ant. XI.2. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 65 5.31-6.28: A closing restrospective Ch. 6 describes another remarkable episode in the life of Daniel. It at the same time signals the end of the ‘historical section’ of Daniel’s memoirs. At the outset of ch. 6, Darius the Mede takes over the administration of Babylon, and immediately begins to reorganise its governance. He appoints 120 satraps over Babylon’s provinces, and, over these satraps, appoints three ‘grand supremos’, one of whom is Daniel. Babylon’s administration is evidently rife with corruption, which Daniel stamps out within his third of the realm. Daniel thereby wins great favour with Darius, who decides to set him over the entire kingdom. But Daniel at the same time—and for the same reason—incurs the wrath of the satraps. The satraps therefore seek to find a way to discredit Daniel. To that end, they subject Daniel’s life to close and prolonged scrutiny. But, to their amazement, they are unable to find any flaws in Daniel’s conduct. Daniel is a man of unimpeachable character—honest and trustworthy in all his duties. The satraps therefore resort to a more desperate plan. They convince Darius to outlaw prayer for a period of thirty days, and then haul Daniel before the King for transgressing the King’s edict. The King is, of course, distraught, and seeks to pardon Daniel. But he is unable to do so. The edict he has been convinced to pass is irrevocable. Daniel is therefore thrown to the lions, never to be seen again—or at least so Darius imagines. But God has other ideas. The next morning, Darius therefore finds Daniel alive and well in the lions’ pit. He immediately orders Daniel to be pulled out and the satraps to be cast into the pit in his place. Darius then passes a new and very different edict, which compels his citizens to treat Daniel’s God with respect and reverence. In sum, then, ch. 6 is a story of reversals. At the outset of the chapter, we are introduced to a naive king, a corrupt administration, and an unjust edict, but, by the end of the chapter, we find the king converted, the administration purged of its corruption, and the edict replaced by a more godly one. In the context of Daniel’s writings, ch. 6 stands on the cusp of the ‘head of gold’ and the ‘torso of silver’. As such, it describes a pivotal moment 66 5.31-6.28: A FORESHADOW OF THE GOSPEL in the history of the Jewish people. Babylon’s day in the sun has come to an end, and Medo-Persia’s has begun (5.30-31). As a result, the Jewish people face a number of uncertainties. They have enjoyed a considerable amount of religious freedom under Babylon’s rule, thanks in large part to the faithfulness of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego (3.29-30). But how will they fare under Medo-Persian rule? Will Darius and Cyrus turn out to be magnanimous rulers or despotic tyrants? Will the Jews turn out to be a welcome guest in Medo-Persia or a persecuted minority? From a human perspective, things could have gone either way. There was a strong undercurrent of anti-Semitism within Medo-Persia’s ranks (6.13, Est. 3.8-15), which could have been disastrous for the Jewish people. Indeed, left unchecked, Darius’s edict could have resulted in the death of thousands of Jews throughout Babylon. Others besides Daniel would have continued in prayer. And, once the satraps had disposed of Daniel, who knows what their next move would have been? Daniel’s obedience to God was therefore important for a number of reasons: i] it resulted in a decree which protected God’s name from slander in Babylon (6.26); ii] it gave the Jewish people a good name in the eyes of their potential employers (i.e., the Kings of Persia); iii] it sounded a clear warning to the people of Babylon, namely, ‘To persecute God’s people is a dangerous business!’; and iv] it resulted in the removal of a number of anti-Semitic officials (6.24). As a result, Daniel’s actions safeguarded the religious liberties of the Jewish people for many years to come. And, amazingly, all these things came to pass because of one young man’s decision not to partake of the King’s food and drink many years earlier (1.8). 5.31-6.28: A foreshadow of the Gospel The events of ch. 6 strikingly foreshadow the central events of the Gospel. They do not, of course, foreshadow it perfectly. But the parallels between the experiences of Daniel and Jesus are too numerous to be attributed to mere happenstance.99 I have tabulated them below. 99. Foreshadows should not be dismissed because of their imperfections. Consider, for instance, Jonah. Jonah ended up in a whale’s belly because he was disobedient to God’s call. But Jesus nevertheless saw Jonah’s time in the whale’s belly as a foreshadow of his time in the grave. 67 DANIEL CHAPTER 6 The events of ch. 6 The life of the Messiah Ch. 6 is set against the backdrop of a king (Darius), a kingdom, and an immutable law. The law condemns Daniel—and, by extension, the rest of Daniel’s people—to death. It cannot be overturned, even at the King’s behest. The Gospel is set against the backdrop of a king (God), a kingdom (Israel), and an inviolable law of divine justice. The law condemns all men to death. “The soul who sins must die” (Ezek. 18.4† ). God cannot condone sin. The events of ch. 6 begin at the culmination of a 62-year period (5.31) The events of the Messiah’s life and death begin at the culmination of a 62-week period (9.26) Ch. 6 revolves around a conflict between a righteous servant of God (Daniel) and a group of corrupt zealots. The zealots in question are servants of the King by name but not by nature. Daniel is the King’s most trustworthy and beloved servant. He discharges his duties without fail. Sadly, however, the King’s ‘servants’ are embarrassed by, and envious of, Daniel’s godliness. They are also fearful of the thought of Daniel ruling over them. As a result, the King’s ‘false’ servants seek to dispose of the King’s true servant. The Gospel revolves around the conflict between Jesus—God’s true servant—and a group of religious zealots. Jesus is the King’s most trustworthy and beloved servant. He faithfully discharges his duties without fail, yet he is hated by the the King’s servants. They are embarrassed by his holiness, jealous of his popularity, and fearful of the thought of his reign. (We might consider, by way of analogy, the words spoken by Jesus’ enemies in one of Jesus’ parables: “We do not want this man to reign over us!”: Luke 19.14.) As a result, the King’s servants seek to destroy Jesus. Unable to find any fault in Daniel, the satraps turn the law of the land against him. Daniel is taken while in prayer, brought before Darius, and sentenced to death, at which point darkness (or similar) descends on the land.100 Unable to find any fault in Jesus, the Pharisees and Scribes turn the law of the land against him. Jesus is taken while in prayer, brought before Pilate, and sentenced to death (Matt. 26.36-55, 27.11). 100. See our comments on 6.27. 68 5.31-6.28: A FORESHADOW OF THE GOSPEL The events of ch. 6 The life of the Messiah Later that night, Daniel is thrown to the lions, like a lamb to the slaughter, and his soon-to-be-grave is sealed with a stone. But, since Daniel is entirely innocent, God does not abandon him to the pit, nor does God allow him to be harmed in any way. Later that night, Jesus is handed over to the executioners, like a lamb to the slaughter. His body is then placed in a grave, sealed by a stone (Psa. 22.12-24, Matt. 27.66). But, since Jesus is without sin, God does not abandon him to the pit, nor does God allow his body to see corruption (Psa. 16.10, Acts 2.27).101 In the morning, the stone is rolled away. Daniel is raised from the pit, publicly vindicated, and (presumably) exalted to a position of honour at Darius’s right hand. He is made the second-in-command in the kingdom. The penalty demanded by the King’s law is thereby paid and its power is broken, and Daniel’s people are freed from its consequences. Three mornings later, the stone is rolled away. Jesus is raised from the dead, publicly vindicated, and exalted to a position of honour at God’s right hand. He is made the second-in-command in God’s Creation. At the same time, the penalty demanded by the law is paid, its power is broken, and God’s people are released from its consequences. Soon afterwards, Daniel’s enemies are thrown to the lions. Their rejection of Daniel thereby results in their destruction. They are slain by means of their own devices. A number of years later, Jesus’ enemies are slain by means of their own devices. The Romans, to whom they delivered Christ, march against Jerusalem and slaughter its inhabitants (Matt. 22.7).102 As can be seen, then, the events of ch. 6 foreshadow the central events of the Gospel. But they also differ from them in an important way, since, unlike Darius, God is entirely sovereign over his kingdom. In the context of ch. 6, Daniel’s transgression causes Darius great anguish. As Daniel’s friend, Darius longs to pardon Daniel, while, as Babylon’s king, he must enforce Medo-Persia’s laws. Man’s sin presents God with a similar dilemma. As a father, God longs to pardon guilty sinners, while, as a judge, he must punish man’s sin. But, unlike Darius, God has the power to resolve the dilemma in which he has been placed. Indeed, in 4n /3n 101. In the OT, the image of a “pit” is often used to depict death. The dead are referred to as “those who go down to the pit”, while the vindicated righteous are referred to as those who are “brought...up out of the pit” (Psa. 28.1, Psa. 30.3, Psa. 40.2, Psa. 88.4, Psa. 143.7, Isa. 14.15-19, etc.). 102. I am grateful to a member of my church (John Elliot) for drawing some of these considerations to my attention. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 69 BC, at the end of Gabriel’s sixty-two weeks, God split the horns of the dilemma in the person of Jesus Christ. To be more precise, God sent his Son into the world in order to be suffer on behalf of man’s sins. The cross thereby allows God’s holiness and mercy to be reconciled. On the one hand, it satisfies God’s holiness. God does not overlook man’s sin but, rather, judges it in the person of Christ. On the other hand, the cross enables God to extend mercy to mankind, since it allows God to justly forgive man’s sin. God can therefore be both “just” as well as “the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus”. Put another way, he can be both “righteous” and “the one who declares as righteous those who have faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3.25-26† ). As a result, the man who stands at the centre of world history—and around whose arrival our entire calendar is calibrated—is not Cyrus or Alexander the Great but, rather, Jesus Christ, God’s “anointed one”, the man born to be “cut off” and to die without a kingdom (9.26). Life’s central is not, therefore, “How can I best make use my time on earth?” or “What makes me most happy in life?” but, rather, “What have I done with the sacrifice of Christ?”. If you have not already done so, then I would urge you, the reader, to pick up a copy of the NT and to read the Gospels of Christ. You may find the Jesus of the Gospels to be a very different character from the Jesus you have been told about, and you may find your life transformed as a result. What can it hurt to try? 5.31-6.28: Some applications Ch. 6 teaches us a number of important lessons. As per our usual method, we begin with the most obvious and relevant to Daniel’s original readership and proceed from there. (1) While the Medo-Persian law lays claim to irrevocability, only God’s law is truly irrevocable. As a result, those who keep it need never be ashamed of their actions. Ch. 6 recounts a battle between two laws. Many of man’s and God’s laws are able to co-exist in the present age. But, here in ch. 6, the law of Medo-Persia comes into direct conflict with the law of God. Babylon is therefore transformed into a battlefield on which the two laws will go head-to-head. God’s law, of course, comes out on top, and God 70 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS also thereby comes out on top. But, surprisingly, God’s victory depends on the obedience of Daniel—not because God requires his people’s help in order to win his battles, but because God has chosen to use his people to do so. Daniel refuses to submit to the demands of Medo-Persia’s law, and God delivers him from its penalty. The power of Darius’s edict is thereby broken, and a new edict is later raised up in its place. The new and improved edict will safeguard the Jewish people’s freedoms for many years to come and, in that sense, will bow to the law of God. Ch. 6 contained an important lesson for Daniel’s original readership. Even in the days of relative ‘friendly’ kings (such as the Medo-Persian kings), the Jewish people would still have to face many trials and tribulations, if only because of the world’s laws and decrees. Indeed, a similar ‘legal battle’ unfolded in the days of Esther. The villain of the piece in those days was a man named Haman—a hater of God and his people. Haman incited Artaxerxes against the Jews, saying, “[The] laws [of the Jews] are different from those of all other people, and they do not observe the laws of the King. It is not, therefore, in the King’s interest to allow them to remain” (Est. 3.8† ). In response, Artaxerxes gave Haman legal authority over the Jews. He put the entirety of Medo-Persia’s resources at Haman’s disposal, who sought to annihilate the Jews (Est. 3.10-12). But Esther intervened on behalf of her people. She incited the King against Haman (which resulted in his death) and caused a decree to be passed in favour of the Jews. Haman’s decree was thereby undone, and God’s law—in particular, his promise to preserve his people—carried the day (Lev. 26, Est. 9.1). In the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, another legal battle took place. At the request of the Arabs, a later Artaxerxes overturned Cyrus’s decree. The Jews were therefore forced to stop work on the Temple. But the Jews later wrote to Darius, who reinstated Cyrus’s original decree. The Jews’ work could then continue as before, and God’s promise to restore the Temple could be fulfilled (Ezra 4-6, Isa. 44.). Three centuries later, in the days of the Seleucids, a horrifically anti-Semitic decree was passed. Antiochus made it illegal for the Jews to observe Jewish customs. He compelled them, on pain of death, to offer sacrifices to pagan gods. Needless to say, no faithful Jews could in good conscience comply with Antiochus’s decree. The DANIEL CHAPTER 6 71 decree therefore resulted in the death of thousands of godly men and women. But deliverance eventually came in the form of a man of great faith and piety named Judas Maccabeus (8.14, 11.32-35), who upheld God’s law in the face of great adversity and eventually carried the day. Over the years, the law has therefore had a huge influence on the Jewish people’s welfare, as it does today. And, in a day to come, another “law” will be raised up against God’s law and God’s people (7.25). But importantly—and here we come to ch. 6’s central point—, God’s promises have stood firm throughout the ages. Those who hold fast to God’s law will never be defeated, since God’s law will never be defeated. Despite the claims of the Medo-Persians, God’s is the one law in Creation which will never pass away. Of course, obedience to God’s law can be costly. While Daniel was delivered from the lions, many of the Maccabeans were not. But their sacrifice was not in vain. They fought to preserve the sanctity of their God and the purity of his law. As such, they laboured for an eternal cause, and one day they will be vindicated in the eyes of their enemies, as Daniel was (6.23-24). Indeed, they will reap a rich reward on the Day of the Resurrection (12.2-3). That was ch. 6’s central lesson for its original readers, and that, I believe, is its central lesson for us today. As Christians, we are often prevailed upon (both via judicial means and other means) to compromise our obedience to the principles set out in God’s word. We are encouraged either to relax our adherence to them or to adopt an intolerably low view of them—the kind of view Jesus would have been horrified by. Indeed, God’s law is under considerable attack in today’s media as well as in many universities and Biblical colleges, where it is branded as outdated, small-minded, misogynistic, and other things besides. But, as Christians, we should be men and women who delight in God’s law (Psa. 1.1-3). We should be able to say along with the Psalmist (Daniel?), “The law of your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces”, and we should mean it (Psa. 119.72). When we honour God’s law, we do not honour an arbitrary system of rules. We honour a person. We honour the name of the God who bequeathed his law to us, and we act in accordance with the very first line of the Lord’s Prayer, namely, “Father, may your holy name be honoured” (Luke 11.2 72 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS GNT). And, importantly, ch. 6 arms us with a powerful motive for doing so, since it assures us of a vital truth: justice will one day be done in our world. As a result, we can stand against injustice—and even stare death in the face—with courage and confidence. When we obey God’s law and suffer for righteousness’s sake, our obedience is not in vain; on the contrary, it is of eternal significance, since it is part and parcel of God’s eternal plan to dethrone an unjust world-order. We can know and cling to these truths with absolute certainty, since God has revealed them to us in his word. Let us, therefore, by God’s grace, seek to be men and women of courage and of moral fortitude. Let us be men and women who do not simply follow the crowd in matters of morality but lead the way. As children of God, we have a knowledge of the truth, a hope for the future, and God’s Spirit within our hearts. Why, then, is our behaviour often so similarly to everyone else’s? Things should not be so. Let us seek to live as Jesus lived, to stand out from the crowd, to make a difference to the world in which we live for the sake of the God who has called us to holiness (1 Thes. 4.7). (2) Injustice and suffering are only temporary features of God’s Creation. The majority of ch. 6’s narrative describes a situation where the wicked hold the whip-hand triumph over the righteous. But, at the end of the chapter’s narrative, justice is restored. Both parties receive their just deserts. Daniel is vindicated, while his accusers are destroyed. As such, ch. 6 provides us with a foreshadow of the end of world history as a whole. It also looks forward to ch. 7’s vision, where God’s people are downtrodden by the world’s beasts for four long ages until the Ancient of Days descends in order to vindicate his holy people. God is a God of justice, and he has made his people a clear promise, namely to deliver them from evil and to destroy their enemies (2 Pet. 2.9). But God has not chosen to make good on his promise by means of rigidly-defined rules (e.g., ‘If X has committed less than n sins, then deliver him, else allow him to die’). That is to say, God’s governance of his Creation is not reducible to an algorithm. God has chosen to fulfil his promise in his own good time and in his own appointed way. Some of his people (like Daniel) he has rescued from the power of death; others (like DANIEL CHAPTER 6 73 Jesus) he has released from the pangs of death; and still others he has translated by means of death (Acts 2.24, Heb. 11.32-35a, 35b-40). God has likewise judged his enemies in different ways. Some (like Herod) he has cut short in their tracks; others (like Belshazzar) he has given space to repent; and still others he has allowed to live out their full lives, ultimately to stand before his holy bar (Acts 12.23, Heb. 9.27). But, in the end, the outcome is the same. Everyone receives their promised rewards. “The Lord knows how to rescue the godly from [their] trials but to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the Day of Judgment” (2 Pet. 2.9† ). When we look around us and are disturbed by a world rife with injustice, we must remind ourselves of the limitations of our vision. We only perceive things very dimly in the present age. We live our lives within a ‘bubble’ in world history—a temporary period of time during which good and evil are allowed to co-exist and God’s enemies are given a certain amount of leeway. But, soon, God will bring the present age to a close, and the God of all Creation will then judge all men fairly and rightly. Indeed, such was the conclusion of the Psalmist: I envied the proud when I saw them prosper, despite their wickedness. They seem to [have] live[d] such painless lives, their bodies are so healthy and strong... They don’t have troubles like other people... They boast against the very heavens, and their words strut throughout the earth. Look at these wicked people, enjoying a life of ease while their riches multiply! [Have I kept] my heart pure for nothing? [Have I kept] myself innocent for no reason?... Then I went into your sanctuary, O God, and I finally understood the destiny of the wicked. Truly, you [have set] them on a slippery path and [you will] send them sliding over the cliff to destruction. 74 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS In an instant they [will be] destroyed, completely swept away by terrors. When you arise, O Lord, you will laugh at their silly ideas, as a person laughs at dreams in the morning. Then I realised...my heart was bitter, and I was all torn up inside. I was so foolish and ignorant— I must have seemed like a senseless animal to you. Yet I still belong to you; you hold my right hand... Whom have I in heaven but you? I desire you more than anything on earth. My health may fail, and my spirit may grow weak, But God remains the strength of my heart; he is mine forever. Those who desert him will perish, for you destroy those who abandon you. But as for me, how good it is to be near God! I have made the Sovereign LORD my shelter, And I will tell everyone about the wonderful things you do. (Psa. 73 NLT) The Psalmist’s message is clear. We are surrounded by a world of chaos and injustice. But, when we enter into God’s sanctuary and see history as God sees it, our world starts to make sense. Satan is in a hurry in the present age, since he only has a limited amount of time available to him (Rev. 12.12). But God is in no such hurry. He has foreordained the judgment of all men, and he will bring their judgment to pass in his own good time. True—the wicked may be seem to be running riot at the time. But they are not the masters of their own destiny. Their limited influence in space and time has been allocated to them by God, their plans will ultimately fail, and their path will end in destruction (Psa. 73.18-20). Their apparent freedom is merely the rope they have been given to hang themselves, just as the satraps’ freedom to ensnare Daniel became the means by which they were slain. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 75 Unfortunately, we do not perceive these facts with clarity, since we do not see history as God sees it. Much of the past is hidden from us; much of the future is equally obscure; and the sheer size and interconnectedness of the present universe is far beyond our ability to comprehend. We therefore need to view history with the eye of faith and through the lens of Scripture. And we need to trust our heavenly Father’s sovereignty. God knows how to govern our universe, and he does only what is right. (He does not need our help, but, like all fathers, he does ask us to have faith in him.) Hence, when we go through difficult times, we can comfort ourselves with a wonderful truth: whatever trials we undergo, they are only temporary, and God will one day deal with every single one of them. As Christians, we know how things turn out in the end. God wins. His name will one day be revered as holy by all, whether willingly or not. God’s kingdom will come, and God’s will will be done, on earth even as it is in heaven. Against that backdrop, let us seek grace to deal with the present day (tomorrow has enough worries of its own), and let us encourage ourselves with the words of Paul: Though our outer self [may be] wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day, for our light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. (2 Cor. 4.17† ) In the present age, our lives may not look very ‘glorious’ (at least, not as the world defines ‘glory’), but their end-result will be glory unspeakable (7.26-27). In times of trial, then, let us cleave to our Lord, even as we cry within our hearts, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22.20). (3) Envy can lead men to commit the most heinous crimes. The satraps’ reaction to Daniel’s promotion was not an admirable one. Rather than congratulating Daniel on his success, the satraps sought to scupper his promotion. They thereby acted in a malicious manner. But at least they did not act murderously. How, then, did things get so out of hand? How did a plan to scupper Daniel’s promotion turn into a plan to end Daniel’s life? The answer involves a combination of four dangerous ingredients: 76 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS envy, a dash of greed, the agency of Satan, and time for the satraps to stew. All of these ingredients played an important part in the events of ch. 6. How long the events of ch. 6 took to unfold is not revealed to us in the text. But the satraps were clearly serious about their plans to remove Daniel and to continue their Old Boys’ network. They would not, therefore, have abandoned their attempt to discredit Daniel prematurely. They must have spent weeks following Daniel around and prying into every aspect of his life. But, to their frustration as well as disbelief, they could find absolutely no evidence of dishonesty. The satraps’ wisest course of action at that point would have been to abandon their plans altogether and to embrace Daniel as their superior. (He deserved it after all.) But, by then, things had gone too far. What began as a vague envy had turned into an all-consuming hatred. (We might consider, as an analogy, how Haman’s hatred of Mordecai meant he could not bear to see Mordecai prosper.103 ) The satraps therefore formulated a more drastic ‘Plan B’—a plan to make a permanent end of Daniel. The satraps’ actions teach us a simple but imporant lesson. Envy is a very dangerous sin. It is a ‘root sin’, i.e., a sin which, left to develop, can lead to all sorts of other evils. It can also warp our moral perception. It can lead us to see good as evil and evil as good. Consider, by way of analogy, the behaviour of Israel’s elders in Jesus’ day. Jesus came to earth in order to bless his earthly people (Matt. 1.21, Luke 1.54-55, 1.6879), but the elders’ envy led them to crucify him (Matt. 27.17-18, Mark 15.10). When the elders saw Jesus’ righteousness, they should have forsaken their corrupt ways and followed him, just as his disciples did. Instead, they saw Jesus as a threat, and, as a result, they hated him. The satraps’ treatment of Daniel was little different. Daniel’s righteousness and integrity could have—and should have—been a blessing to them. Under Daniel’s headship, the satraps could have learnt about the ways of the God of Heaven. But the satraps saw Daniel as a threat and therefore sought to dispose of him. They were a perfect illustration of the words of the apostle James: “When lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and sin, once fully grown, brings forth death” (Jas. 1.15, Rom. 7.7). When, 103. “[My riches and glory] are worth nothing to me”, he said, “[as] long as I see Mordecai the Jew [alive and well] sitting at the entrance to the King’s [court]” (Est. 5.11-13). DANIEL CHAPTER 6 77 as Christians, we become aware of seeds of envy in our hearts, we need to stamp them out immediately. We can be envious of many different things in other people—their health, for instance, or their riches or their opportunities in life, or even their spiritual success. ‘Why them and not me?’, we ask ourselves. Needless to say, such jealousy has no place in the life of a believer. Not only is it grossly out of step with the mind of Christ, it robs us of great blessing, just as the satraps’ behaviour did. Why? Because it makes us unable to delight in the success of other believers. Spurgeon puts the point well: A selfish man in trouble is exceedingly hard to comfort because the springs of his comfort lie entirely within himself, and when he is sad all his springs are dry. But a large-hearted man—full of Christian philanthropy—has other springs from which to supply himself with comfort beside those which lie within [him]. He can go to his God first of all, and there find abundant help, and he can discover arguments for consolation in things relating to the world at large.... [O], Christian man! Learn to comfort [yourself] in God’s gracious dealing towards the Church! That which is so dear to [your] Master, should it not be dear above all else to [you]?104 Spurgeon’s words contain great wisdom. If we are able to rejoice in the success of others, then we will be far more large-hearted and joyful believers. When, therefore, we find ourselves envious of the success of others, let us go on the offensive. Let us go to God in prayer and give thanks to him for the way he is blessing our fellow-believers. Indeed, let us ask God to bless them all the more and thereby frustrate the intentions of our enemy (2 Cor. 2.11). (4) Christians often suffer, not because of their disobedience to God (as Job’s friends assumed), but precisely because of their obedience. The Gospel is a message which changes our hearts. It turns self-centred sinners into men and women of God. It is a wonderful thing. But the Gospel does not promise us popularity. Daniel was hated by his peers in Babylon. 104. Spurgeon, Morning and Evening, 16th July. 78 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS And why? Because he lived a godly life, and because he refused to compromise his principles. He did not set out on a great crusade to expose corruption in Babylon. He simply did his job as best he could—and in as godly way as possible—, and, as a result, his honesty brought other men’s sins to light. As mentioned above, a similar thing can be said of Jesus. Jesus did not come into the world to judge it but to bless it. Nevertheless, the very nature of his life was to expose men’s failings, just as the very nature of light is to expose the secrets of the dark (John 3.16-21). As believers, we should not be surprised if our principles make us unpopular. Indeed, we should expect them to do so from time to time. We should not, of course, seek to offend people, nor should we develop a defensive mentality. Nevertheless, our raison d’être is to be different from non-Christians, to be “salt and light” in a fallen world, to uphold God’s values in the midst of an ungodly generation. We should not, therefore, be surprised if we ruffle people’s feathers every now and then. As Jesus said to his disciples, If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own, but because you are not of the world (because I chose you out of the world)...the world hates you. (John 15.19) And as Paul warned Timothy, All who desire to live godly [lives] in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. (2 Tim. 3.12 NKJV) Ch. 6 therefore challenges us to examine our level of ‘saltiness’. If our principles never make us unpopular, then we may well need to reexamine them. When the Bible says, “All who desire to live godly [lives] in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution”, it is not exaggerating. It is making us a promise. If we never “suffer persecution”, we may, therefore, need to ask ourselves why. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 79 (5) Our actions as believers often speak louder than words. The world’s unbelievers are in terrible danger. Like the Babylonians in Belshazzar’s day, they are spiritually blind, and they are part of a kingdom destined for destruction. As believers, it is vital for us to warn people of the danger they are in, but it is not always easy to do. Most people do not want to talk about such things or simply refuse to believe they have any need of God’s forgiveness. The events of ch. 6 teach us an important lesson. Where words fail, plain old-fashioned holiness can speak volumes to people. The satraps’ hatred of Daniel stemmed from a number of causes, but Daniel’s righteousness must have been first among them. Daniel’s righteousness made them feel unrighteousness and convicted them of their guilt. And, if we live like Daniel, then our lives are likely to have a similar effect on people. (Human nature has not changed.) It is all very well to talk to people about such things as “sin”, “righteousness”, and “the judgment to come”, but our claims need to be backed up by our actions. People often pay far more attention to our behaviour than we think. (6) A healthy prayer-life requires discipline. Daniel was one of the four most important men in Darius’s Babylon. He would have had a hugely demanding schedule. But Daniel always found time to pray—or, to be precise, he always made time to pray. To go without prayer for thirty days would was unthinkable as far as Daniel was concerned. Food, popularity, and even his very life he could do without. But not prayer. We therefore need to ask ourselves the question, What made Daniel so mindful of his need for prayer? A number of reasons can be proffered. First, Daniel was mindful of his need to pray because of the hostility of his environment. Daniel was no stranger to adversity. His life could easily have come to an end on a number of occasions before the events of ch. 6 took place. When he refused the King’s food and drink, when he volunteered to interpret Nebuchadnezzar’s dreams, when he stood before Belshazzar and exposed his folly to him: any of these incidents could have resulted in Daniel’s death. And the undercurrent of antiSemitism in Babylon (which very nearly cost his friends their lives) only made matters worse (3.12, 6.13). As a result, Daniel was acutely aware 80 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS of his need for God’s protection. Babylon was a dangerous place for a man as exalted as Daniel. Second, Daniel was conscious of his need to pray because of the regularity of his prayer-life prior to the events of ch. 7. Prayer is addictive. The more we pray, the more we want to pray, and the more we become aware of our need to pray. We might describe the act of prayer a ‘virtuous circle’. Daniel’s awareness of his need for prayer in ch. 6 therefore stemmed from the state of his prayer-life prior to ch. 6. Those with a less regular prayer-life may have seen a thirty-day abstinence from prayer as tolerable, but Daniel did not. Daniel’s attitude to prayer teaches us two important principles: (A) Since we are continually in need of our heavenly Father’s protection, we continually need to pray. True—most of our lives are not as fraught with danger as Daniel’s, but we are nonetheless in need of God’s grace. At any given moment, any number of evils could befall us. God’s angels protect us and keep us from harm on a daily basis (Psa. 34.7, 91.1012). Most of us can recall ‘close shaves’ we have had in the past—times when, but for God’s protection, things could have gone terribly wrong for us. Such considerations reveal our continual need of God’s grace and hence of our continual need to pray, both for ourselves as well as for our fellow believers. (B) Set times of prayer can help us to establish a regular and healthy prayer-life. By allocating himself set times for prayer, Daniel made sure he had at least three ‘square meals’ of prayer each day—morning, noon, and night. He did not wait until he felt ‘led’ to pray, nor did he neglect to pray if he did not feel so ‘led’. Daniel’s prayerlife was like clockwork—which is why the Babylonians found it so easy to catch him at it (6.11). Modern life exert all sorts of pressures on our time. But, if we set our minds on it, we can all set aside three regular times for prayer each day—times when, whatever else is taking place in our lives, we stop, if only for a moment, and direct our thoughts heavenwards. (If the Prime Minister of Babylon could find time for prayer, then we can surely do so.) Often, it takes as little as an interesting program on television to make us set aside our regular prayer-time. But Daniel steadfastly refused to compromise his prayer-life, even on pain of death. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 81 He was a man of unflinching discipline and devotion. May we therefore seek to follow his example. The world needs far more men and women like Daniel. (7) Ordinary routines are more important to the development of our Christian characters than extraordinary events. When people consider the life of Daniel, they tend to focus on the more sensational aspects of his life—the dreams he received, the heights to which he rose in Babylon’s government, the forthrightness with which he confronted the world’s kings, and so forth. But the more ‘mundane’ aspects of Daniel’s life teach us an extraordinarily important lesson: in order to survive life’s storms, we need to use life’s calmer moments wisely. To put the point another way, only the discipline we develop in life’s daily routines will keep us afloat during life’s storms. When the events of ch. 6 came to a head and Darius’s edict became enshrined in Medo-Persia’s laws, Daniel did precisely the right thing. He got to his knees and prayed. And why? Because he did so every day. Prayer was a part of his daily routine. The mundane therefore matters. If we are presently enjoying a period of ‘calm’ in our lives, then may God give us the grace and wisdom to use our time wisely. We will never get it back. (8) The life of the believer must exhibit consistency. Most of us have a number of different ‘spheres’ to our lives. We may have a life (perhaps) at work, a life at school, a life at home, a life at church, and so on. For the most part, these spheres do not overlap much. We do not (to our shame) normally see our school-friends at church, our church leaders in our homes, our work-colleagues in our homes, and so on. It is easy, therefore, to develop inconsistencies in our lives—to have times when we ‘switch on’ as a Christian and times when we ‘switch off’. But Daniel’s life was not marked by such inconsistencies. Daniel saw his entire life as an ongoing act of worship to God. And, as a result, God used Daniel’s entire life for his glory. Daniel’s working life, prayer-life, and prophetic life all testified to God’s glory, and they all had an impact on his peers. (9) For better or for worse, life’s ‘little things’ often lead to much ‘greater things’. Daniel’s obedience is tested on two occasions in the events of ch. 82 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS 6. The first test (call it ‘Test A’) was private and protracted. The Babylonians spent many weeks in search of corruption in Daniel’s life, but to no avail. Daniel’s conduct was without fault. Test B therefore began. Test B was a more public and a more intense affair. Darius’s edict was public, and Daniel’s prayer-life was (at least to some extent) public. Moreover, the stakes were higher. Daniel’s promotion was not the only potential casualty. Daniel’s very life was in the balance. Humanly speaking, then, we might see Test A as a fairly ‘minor test’. After all, very few people knew when it began, and very few people were privy to its results. But Test A is in fact the linchpin of the chapter for two important reasons: (i) Daniel’s success in Test A brought great glory to God. To make a public and heroic stand for God is all well and good, but to live a quiet life of holiness requires a far more sustained period of devotion. It requires traits such a discipline, self-control, perseverance, humility, and many more besides. As a result, the pursuit of holiness does not draw a great deal of applause from ‘the world’, since it is not a very ‘showy’ act. It does not grab’s men’s attention or gain men’s admiration. But, according to Scripture, the pursuit of holiness is the nerve and heart-beat of true religion. As Samuel asked Saul, Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams. (1 Sam. 15.22) And as Micah and Hosea said to the Israelites, With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good... 83 DANIEL CHAPTER 6 What, [then], does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Mic. 6.6-8) For I, [the LORD], desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. (Hos. 6.6) (ii) Unless Daniel had passed Test A, he would never have had the opportunity to witness to the Babylonians in a more public way. His sin would have been exposed, his testimony would have been ruined, his life would (most likely) have been terminated by Darius’s lions, and Daniel’s writings would lack chs. 9-12 at the very least. In sum, then, Daniel’s private test was every bit as important as his public test, which is an important detail for us to appreciate. As believers, we too are tested on a regular basis. We may not be required to appear before Babylon’s lions. But, according to the NT, we have a different ‘lion’ to contend with, namely Satan. Satan is the sworn enemy of every true believer. He loves to see us succumb to our temptations, and he hates to see us bring glory to God (Job 1.9-11, Rev. 12.9-10). Satan therefore “prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5.8). Satan can ‘devour’ us in a number of ways. One of his most effective tactics, I believe, is to lure us into secret sins—sins which we commit ‘behind closed doors’, which are beyond the reach of church discipline, and which Satan can therefore turn to his advantage. (Satan sought to uncover precisely such sins in Daniel’s life in ch. 6.) As believers, it is therefore important for us to be accountable to other believers and to do whatever needs to be done in order to sanctify ourselves. If we give Satan an inch, then he will take a mile. But, if we resist him through prayer and confession of sin, then he will flee from us (Jas. 4.7-8). (10) Humans are creatures of habit; we therefore need to be careful to engrain positive as opposed to negative patterns of behaviour in our life. Considered as a whole, chs. 1-6 reveal a wonderful truth about Daniel’s 84 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS life: the obedience which he exhibited as a young man in 597 BC (1.120) still remained with him sixty years later. For a man who wanted to indulge in sin, Babylon would have been the perfect location—a den of wealth, corruption, hedonism, mysticism, and more besides (Isa. 47.111, Jer. 50.11, Rev. 17-18). Daniel would therefore have faced many trials and temptations in Babylon, especially given his level of authority. But Daniel did not drop his guard for a moment, even in his old age. On the contrary, he steadfastly refused to compromise. Hence, the trainee who declined Nebuchadnezzar’s request in 597 BC as a youth became the senior statesman who declined Darius’s request in 538 BC, his passion for God undiminished. That the same individuals who chose to refuse the King’s diet (i.e., Daniel and his friends) are later chosen out by God for great things (in chs. 2-6) is surely no coincidence. The majority of the exiles saw their diet as relatively unimportant, but Daniel and his friends did not. God then knew he could trust the four Hebrews with greater responsibilities, since those who are obedient in life’s ‘little things’ are also obedient in life’s ‘larger things’. As Jesus said, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Luke 16.10). The strength of correlation between life’s little and large responsibilities should not surprise us. The decisions we make in life are not isolated events. They have an ongoing effect on our character. Every time we compromise our standards, it paves the way for further compromises. And, each time we take a stand for God, it strengthens our resolve as well as our confidence in God. Hence, when the pressure was on, Daniel and his friends stood firm. The field of neurophysiology (i.e., the study of our physical ‘brains’) has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years. Among other things, neurophysiologists have identified a close correlation between particular physical characteristics of our brains and particular patterns of behaviour. London’s taxi-drivers, for instance, have markedly different brains from most other human beings. In particular, the navigation-related parts of their brains are notably bigger than normal.105 These findings are commonly misinterpreted, since the relevant brain-features are assumed (without satisfactory justification) to precede and hence to cause the de105. XXX DANIEL CHAPTER 6 85 cisions we make as opposed to vice-versa. But the causal connection could just as easily be understood to run in the opposite direction. If so, it would teach us a very important lesson, namely: how we choose to behave has a tangible effect on how our brains develop and on the kind of people we turn out to be. Put another way, the decisions we make are not isolated choices; they are part of a process which shapes our personality on an ongoing basis—hence the adage ‘old habits die hard’. As believers, then, it is vitally important for us to cultivate godly patterns of behaviour in our lives. We will otherwise imbibe the world’s patterns of behaviour, the end result of which is spiritual death. Let us not, therefore, be “conformed to the [present] world” but, rather, “transformed by the renewal of [our] minds” (Rom. 12.2† ). J. B. Phillips provides a nice paraphrase of Paul’s exhortation: Give [God] your bodies, as a living sacrifice. ...Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good. (Rom. 12.2 JBP) As Christians, our highest calling is to holiness. The rest is mere ‘window dressing’. Let us therefore take our calling seriously. Ultimately, God is far more concerned about the kind of people we turn out to be than the things we achieve in life (2 Pet. 1.1-8). (11) It is important for us to make the most of the contacts God has entrusted to us. Daniel and his friends were major players in the governance of the Near East. They were able to have an important influence on men like Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and others besides. As a result, they were able to have a significant influence on the lives of the Jewish people. Indeed, the testimony of Daniel’s friends established Judaism as a recognised religion in Babylon (3.29), and the testimony of Daniel resulted in the salvation of both Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, as well as the reversal of a potentially catastrophic edict (6.26). Daniel’s service to the Kings of Babylon may even have been a significant factor in the return the Jewish people to Judah. Of course, most Christians do not 86 5.31-6.28: SOME APPLICATIONS move in as exalted circles as Daniel did, but some Christians do. Some, for instance, work alongside senior figures in society; others work alongside important politicians; others are friends of well-known celebrities; and so on. As believers, it is important for us to seek to influence such people for the Lord. They have the potential to make a major impact on the world in which we live. (12) God’s sovereignty knows no bounds. The moment Darius signed his decree, he was hamstrung. He gave rise to an edict decree which was beyond his power to control. He was then stuck with its consequences. Some theologians conceive of God’s sovereignty in very similar terms. God, they say, has set the world in motion but is now unable—or at least unwilling—to interfere with it. Energy-conservation, entropy, gravity: these things are inviolable laws, and God must moderate his purposes accordingly. But the text of ch. 6—to say nothing of the rest of Scripture—gives a very different impression. True—God has established certain laws by which his Creation is governed. When things are dropped, they fall to the ground, and, when water reaches boiling-point, it evaporates. As such, the world is governed by natural laws. But God is entirely sovereign over such laws.106 He allows his servants to know the unknowable, to pass through fire unharmed, to dwell in a lion’s pit without being eaten. God is not, therefore, bound by the laws of nature. And nor, as he demonstrates in the NT, is he bound by the law of sin and death (Rom. 8.2, 1 Cor. 15.56-57). God is therefore a true sovereign. He is a Nebuchadnezzar rather than a Darius—a genuine King of Gold. God is even sovereign over the hearts of man. Nebuchadnezzar and Darius were very different individuals, but Daniel describes their response to God in almost identical terms. Both men realised their frailty, both were converted as a result, and both then testified to God’s “signs and wonders” and “age-steadfast kingdom” (4.1-3, 6.26-27).107 The parallels between Nebuchadnezzar’s and Darius’s lives convey a clear message. God’s power is not limited to the kingdom of Babylon. God is just as sovereign over Medo-Persia as over Babylon, and he is still sovereign 106. Indeed, even man is sovereign over them to a certain extent. The force of gravity, for instance, causes objects to fall to the ground, but only if they are unsupported. If man puts in a certain amount of effort, he can prevent an object’s fall. 107. See “5.31-6.28: Its main message”. DANIEL CHAPTER 6 87 over the kingdoms of the world today. No matter which earthly king comes to power, the King of Heaven remains in full control of world history. That is a message which Daniel’s people could take great comfort in, and which we too can take great comfort in today.