The account of Daniel being cast into the lions’ den is one of the most familiar stories of the Old Testament. The fact that such an event should be given the same amount of space in Scripture as the panoramic view of world history in chapter 7 leads to the conclusion that, from God’s viewpoint, this was an important event not only for Daniel but all students of Scripture.
Structurally, Daniel 6 parallels Daniel 3 within the large chiasm that defines the Aramaic section of the book. In both chapters God’s followers are challenged by a decree of the king, but resolve to remain faithful even when threatened with death. God miraculously intervenes to deliver His followers, and the king is forced to acknowledge God’s superiority as a result. The chapters serve as reminders to God’s people of the need to remain faithful as they wait for God to establish His promised kingdom (chapters 2 and 7).
From the standpoint of biblical scholarship, however, more attention has been directed to Darius the Mede, the king of Babylon at this time, than to the events of the chapter itself. The reason is that much of the critical unbelief in relation to the book of Daniel is based on what is claimed to be an obvious historical error—that history allows no room for a person by this name. The alleged error is another important argument used to prove a second-century date for Daniel, at which time the true facts of four hundred years before would be obscure.
H. H. Rowley, who has written one of the most important scholarly studies on this question, begins his work by stating, “The references to Darius the Mede in the book of Daniel have long been recognized as providing the most serious historical problem in the book.”1 The problem to which he refers is that the book of Daniel states that Darius the Mede, at the age of sixty-two, received the kingdom after the death of Belshazzar (Dan. 5:31) and was “the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans” (Dan. 9:1).
In chapter 6 we learn that Darius organized “the whole kingdom,” setting up 120 satraps and three presidents, of which Daniel was one. The Septuagint translates Daniel 6:28 to read that after Darius’s death, Cyrus the Persian king took control, implying a Median kingdom under Darius that was followed by a Persian kingdom under Cyrus. Sources outside the Bible, however, clearly indicate that this is not the case.
Basing his findings on the Nabonidus Chronicle, Wiseman says the actual events went something like this.2 Babylon was conquered by Ugbaru, the governor of Gutium, who led the army of Cyrus and entered the city of Babylon on the night of Belshazzar’s feast. Nabonidus, who was Belshazzar’s father, had fled Babylon the day before only to be captured and later die in exile. When Babylon fell to Ugbaru on October 12, 539 B.C., Cyrus himself had remained with other troops at Opis, and not until eighteen days later, October 30, 539 B.C., did he arrive in Babylon. He then appointed a man named Gubaru (probably an alternate form of Ugbaru) to rule in Babylon. Eight days after Cyrus arrived, Ugbaru died. If this history of the events following Babylon’s fall is correct, it is obvious that there is no room for Darius the Mede to reign over Babylon. Although there are several explanations, three predominate.
The first explanation is that the book of Daniel is historically in error, and the writer has confused Darius the Mede with some other important person. H. H. Rowley advocates this view. He successively dismisses identification of Darius the Mede with Astyages, the last of the Median kings;3 Cyaxares, the son of Astyages;4 Gobryas, another form of the name Gubaru, or Ugbaru, who led the forces conquering Babylon;5 and Cambyses, a son of Cyrus.6 Rowley offers rather thorough proof that none of these suggestions is valid and supports that there is no reliable evidence that a person named Darius the Mede ever lived, as only Daniel mentions him. Rowley suggests that this ruler was so designated by the author of Daniel because of confusion with Darius the son of Hystaspes, who is associated with a later fall of Babylon in 520 B.C. In a word, Rowley believes that Daniel’s book is not reliable historically in its reference to Darius the Mede. This would also support the theory that Daniel the prophet of the sixth century B.C. could not have written the book, as he would have had accurate information.
Two explanations have been offered by conservative scholars. Both recognize Darius the Mede as an actual historical character who fulfilled the role assigned him in Daniel 6.
The first explanation, which is quite popular, is that Darius the Mede is the same as Gubaru, the governor appointed over Babylon by Cyrus. This view is strongly supported by Robert Dick Wilson7 and a host of others such as Friedrich Delitzsch, C. H. H. Wright, Joseph D. Wilson, and W. F. Albright.8 John C. Whitcomb Jr. has attempted to revive this view and answer Rowley.9
Whitcomb is careful to distinguish Gubaru from Ugbaru, both of whom are called Gobryas in some translations of the Nabonidus Chronicle. Whitcomb holds that Ugbaru, identified previously as the governor of Gutium in the Nabonidus Chronicle, led the army of Cyrus into Babylon, but died less than a month later. Gubaru, however, is identified by Whitcomb as Darius the Mede. Gubaru was the ruler of Babylon under the authority of Cyrus. Although sources outside the Bible do not call Gubaru a Mede, identify him explicitly as “king” of Babylon, or give his age, Whitcomb notes there is no real contradiction between the secular records and how Daniel describes Darius the Mede.
The second view, held by the conservative scholar D. J. Wiseman, has simplicity in its favor. It claims that Darius the Mede is another name of Cyrus the Persian. This is based upon a translation of Daniel 6:28 that the Aramaic permits to read: “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”10 The fact that monarchs had more than one name was common in ancient literature, and Wiseman’s view offers another conservative explanation of this problem in Daniel. Archer offers a slight variation on this view in suggesting that “‘Darius’ may have been a title of honor, somewhat as ‘Caesar’ or ‘Augustus’ became in the Roman Empire. It is apparently related to ‘dara’ (‘king’ in Avestian Persian)….”11
All who discuss the question of Darius the Mede must necessarily base their arguments on a relative scarcity of factual material. Critics frequently appeal to silence as an argument in their favor, as if the absence of a fact from our fragmentary records is a conclusive point. Most Bible-believing Christians feel that, until there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the scriptural record should be given more consideration than the fragmentary records, or lack of records, outside the Bible. K. A. Kitchen has summarized the inconclusive nature of this negative evidence, demonstrating that it does not support the sweeping conclusion that Daniel is in error.12 It must be emphasized that there is no established fact that contradicts a person by the name of Darius the Mede reigning over Babylon if Darius is an alternate name for a known ruler.
6:1–3 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom 120 satraps, to be throughout the whole kingdom; and over them three presidents, of whom Daniel was one, to whom these satraps should give account, so that the king might suffer no loss. Then this Daniel became distinguished above all the other presidents and satraps, because an excellent spirit was in him. And the king planned to set him over the whole kingdom.
With the successful conquest of Babylon and the surrounding territory, it now is appropriate for the conquerors to organize their new kingdom, both for law and order and for the benefit of taxation that this would allow. In such an organization, it would not be unsuitable to use qualified men who had served previously in the Babylonian kingdom. The conquerors did what they could to set up a friendly relationship with the people in their power, and although Belshazzar was slain, his father, Nabonidus, lived for some years afterward. Even some of the gods of Babylon were honored by the conquerors.13
Cyrus claims to have been chosen by Marduk himself to conquer Babylon and rescue the gods of Sumer and Akkad whose temples had fallen into disrepair under Nabonidus.14 He also claims that “all the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire country of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors (included), bowed to him and kissed his feet, jubilant that he (had received) the kingship….”15
Some have suggested that the figure of 120 satraps is inaccurate. Montgomery says, “The 120 satraps (AV ‘princes’) is an exaggeration, or at least an inaccuracy. Her[odotus], iii, 89, records that Darius created 20 satrapies, and that king’s inscriptions give their numbers successively as 21, 23, 29.”16 Montgomery goes on, however, to admit that there were 127 provinces according to Esther 1:1, but still insists that Daniel is inaccurate. He also objects to the “three presidents” as being without parallel.17 The fact is that the appointment of 120 officials to rule such a vast territory and of three presidents to rule over them was not at all unreasonable.18
The point of introducing these facts in Daniel’s narrative is to give the setting for Daniel’s place of honor as the first among the three presidents. They were required to give financial accounts and protect the king’s interests. In such a function, an honest and capable administrator familiar with the territory and problems of taxation would be of immeasurable benefit to Darius. For this reason, Daniel was preferred above the others because of his “excellent spirit” (v. 3). This appointment set the stage for the supreme test of Daniel that followed.
6:4–5 Then the presidents and the satraps sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom, but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him. Then these men said, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God.”
Daniel’s sterling character soon became a barrier to the ambitions of the princes and presidents with whom he was associated. Daniel’s integrity made impossible any corruption, and his favor with Darius aroused the jealousy of his fellow officials. It could be expected that these men, most of them probably much younger than Daniel and anxious to get ahead, should try to find some means of disposing of Daniel. But his faithfulness was such that they could not put their finger on any error or fault in his service. Some other method had to be found if Daniel was to be eliminated. So these men concluded that the only way they could trip up Daniel was to provide a conflict between official regulations, and Daniel’s conscience and observance of God’s law. We do not know all of what went on behind Daniel’s back, but apparently there were numerous discussions and finally a plot was formed.
The irony of the characters in the story makes for an interesting contrast. Those seeking to find a cause of complaint against Daniel reveal their own conniving, manipulative character. “Daniel’s colleagues appear as simply (in both senses of the word) plotters. Most of the speech in the story is theirs, and they condemn themselves out of their own mouths; every word they speak, as well as every move they make, concerns intrigue, manipulation, treachery, duplicity, and scheming.”19 In contrast to their treacherous words and deeds, Daniel is presented as a man of integrity whose righteousness shone so brightly he barely needed to say a word throughout most of the chapter.
6:6–9 Then these presidents and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed that the king should establish an ordinance and enforce an injunction, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document, so that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked.” Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction.
The conspirators lost no time putting their plot into effect. They presented their scheme to Darius—and verse 6 seems to indicate that they all were there, which would have been an unusual occasion.20 Their spokesman also told the king that every official named had agreed to their petition. Some object to this account as being most improbable, if not impossible, but stranger things have happened. Montgomery notes, “Their ostensibly honorific plea that the king sign a decree that none should make request of god or man except of the king for thirty days appears to many commentators as absurd, and probably for this reason [the LXX] omits the item.”21 But even Montgomery adds, “But these stories are generally reasonable; the terms of the request may be meant as a satiric hyperbole, cf. Jon. 3:8, where the Ninevite king orders both man and beast to put on sackcloth. [Behrmann’s] position is an entirely sensible one that the implication of the story means a petition of religion (not with [Bevan] any kind of request), and that this one king was to be regarded for the time being as the only representative of Deity.”22
Their petition was for an ordinance that would prohibit anyone from presenting a petition to any god or man for thirty days except to the king. The penalty for disobedience would be death in the den of lions. Under the psychological impact of these officials assembling in such force and presenting such an unusual petition designed to honor Darius and recognize in him divine powers, he signed the ordinance into a law that could not be changed. The book of Esther (1:19; 8:8) and Diodorus Siculus also establish the fact that Medo-Persian law stipulated that a royal edict could not be revoked.23 The verb translated “sign” in verses 8, 9, and 10 can be understood to mean “to draw, to draw up, to inscribe, to write,” and hence “to draft,” which would be more comprehensive than merely signing.24
As Young and others have pointed out, there is nothing unusual in ascribing to Persian kings worship such as would be afforded the pagan gods. Young observes, “The action of Darius was both foolish and wicked. What led him to yield to the request of the ministers can only be conjectured, but probably he was greatly influenced by the claim of deity which many of the Persian kings made.”25 Stuart justifies this situation in these words, “Parsism did not indeed require men to regard the king as a god in his own proper nature, but to pay him supreme homage as the representative of Ormusd. Such being the state of the case, it is easy to see that the account of Darius’ behavior, when he was importuned by his courtiers and nobles, wears no special marks of improbability.”26 Most likely, Darius regarded this act as a pledge of loyalty to himself and a token of their desire to respect his authority to the utmost.
6:10–11 When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God.
As noted earlier, Daniel’s remarkable faithfulness in the face of this ordinance parallels the actions of his three companions in chapter 3 as they faced the fiery furnace. Although he knew the law was now in effect, Daniel nevertheless went to his house where his windows were opened in the direction of Jerusalem, which still lay in ruins, and knelt in keeping with his regular schedule of coming to God three times a day in prayer and thanksgiving. In his prayer life Daniel followed the inspired instructions of Jeremiah addressed to the people of Israel in the captivity (Jer. 29:1). Jeremiah had assured them, “Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you” (Jer. 29:12). According to Daniel 9:2, the book of Jeremiah was in Daniel’s hands. The custom of praying toward the temple in Jerusalem was adopted by Solomon (cf. 2 Chron. 6:34–39) and continued until the new instruction Christ gave to the Samaritan woman in John 4:20–24. Praying three times a day is also mentioned in Psalm 55:16–17. Here we learn the secret of Daniel’s consistency of life and testimony. In spite of the pressures of being a busy executive with many demands upon his time, Daniel prayed faithfully for the peace of Jerusalem as well as for his personal needs. This was not the act of a person courting martyrdom, but the continuation of a faithful ministry in prayer that had characterized his long life.
The opening of the windows toward Jerusalem was symbolic of Daniel’s hope that someday the children of Israel would be able to return to the holy city. Daniel’s effective prayers were the prelude for the return under Zerubbabel in chapter 9. Daniel knelt to indicate his dependence upon God. No doubt the thought crossed Daniel’s mind that he could pray in secret and avoid breaking the king’s ordinance. But to Daniel apparently this was subterfuge, and he did not swerve from his usual prayer custom.
It is significant that Daniel’s enemies anticipated that this would be his response. Quite confidently, they assembled to witness his prayers and to have a basis for charging Daniel before the king. By prearrangement, they gathered in a place where they could observe and hear him. What a testimony Daniel had that even his enemies knew he would be faithful to God although it would cost him his life. Baldwin notes that the repetition of the word “agreement” (see comments on v. 6) shows the “deliberate intent” of the conspirators.27
6:12–15 Then they came near and said before the king, concerning the injunction, “O king! Did you not sign an injunction, that anyone who makes petition to any god or man within thirty days except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?” The king answered and said, “The thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked.” Then they answered and said before the king, “Daniel, who is one of the exiles from Judah, pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.” Then the king, when he heard these words, was much distressed and set his mind to deliver Daniel. And he labored till the sun went down to rescue him. Then these men came by agreement to the king and said to the king, “Know, O king, that it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no injunction or ordinance that the king establishes can be changed.”
The conspirators crowded once again into the king’s courtroom to present their evidence against Daniel. This record is probably an abbreviated summary of the conversation. The accusers began by asking whether the decree had been signed. The king assured them that it had been officially executed and was now the unchangeable law of the land. With this assurance, they then proceeded to accuse Daniel, introducing him not as a president in an honored position, but as simply “one of the exiles from Judah.” They accused Daniel of disregarding the king and his decree, and doing so three times a day as he offered prayer to his God.
Their confidence in making this accusation was probably bolstered by the justification for the injunction in the first place. No doubt the Scriptures do not record all the conversation between King Darius and these officials. It is probable that they had justified the law as a means by which all the peoples in the kingdom would be forced to recognize Darius as their ruler and present their petitions to their deities in Darius’s name. There was little in this that would be offensive to a pagan who worshiped many gods, and it could have been a useful device to expose anyone who was rebellious against the king.
Yet now that the trap was sprung on Daniel, the king immediately saw through the conspirators’ scheme. Instead of being angry with Daniel as Nebuchadnezzar had been with Daniel’s companions in chapter 3, the king realized that he himself had made a mistake and attempted in vain to find a legal loophole by which Daniel could be delivered. But those assembled before the king reminded Darius of what he already knew: the law could not be changed according to their customs and beliefs. As the representative of the gods, the king would have to enforce his decree. There was no alternative but to issue the command that Daniel be cast into the lions’ den.
6:16–17 Then the king commanded, and Daniel was brought and cast into the den of lions. The king declared to Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” And a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den, and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel.
The king’s command was carried out and Daniel was thrown to the lions—but not before Darius made this remarkable statement to Daniel: “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” The idea is that the king was saying, “I have tried to save you but have failed. Now your God must save you.”28 Daniel’s personal piety and faithfulness to God had made an obvious impression on Darius, giving the king some hope that Daniel’s God might come to his rescue. Goldingay believes that little can be read into the king’s statement regarding whether or not he believed God would rescue Daniel. “Darius, in turn, uses a form of the verb that leaves open whether God must, will, may, or even can rescue Daniel.”29 However, Archer believes the king’s words “voiced a tremendous hope.”30 Verses 18–20 seem to support the idea that the king had his doubts about the ability of Daniel’s God to provide deliverance. The mouth of the den was sealed with the king’s signet as a token of the injunction’s fulfillment. No human could interfere, not even Darius himself.
Keil gives an interesting account of a lions’ den found in more modern times:
We have no account by the ancients of the construction of lions’ dens. Ge. Host, in his work on Fez and Morocco, p. 77, describes the lions’ dens as they have been found in Morocco. According to his account, they consist of a large square cavern under the earth, having a partition-wall in the middle of it, which is furnished with a door, which the keeper can open and close from above. By throwing in food, they can entice the lions from one chamber into the other, and then, having shut the door, they enter the vacant space for the purpose of cleaning it. The cavern is open above, its mouth being surrounded by a wall of a yard and a half high, over which one can look down into the den. This description agrees perfectly with that which is here given in the text regarding the lions’ den.31
A lion relief from the Procession Street in Babylon illustrating the culture’s fascination with lions.
This kind of construction would account for the fact that Darius was able to converse freely with Daniel while Daniel was still barricaded inside the den.
6:18–20 Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him. Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. As he came near to the den where Daniel was, he cried out in a tone of anguish. The king declared to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?”
Quite in contrast to Nebuchadnezzar, who showed no compassion for Daniel’s three companions when they were cast into the fiery furnace, Darius manifested unusual concern. Although he was accustomed to brutality and the execution of criminals and ordinarily did not give the matter a second thought, in this case there was something about Daniel that had involved the king emotionally. While the king had stated his desire that Daniel’s God would rescue him, it is clear that Darius did not have any real faith in Daniel’s deliverance, but only perhaps a superstition arising out of stories that had come to him of Daniel’s companions earlier in Babylonian history. In keeping with his grief for Daniel, the Scriptures record that the king fasted, did not have the usual diversions or entertainment, and was unable to sleep. It was most unusual for the king to spend a night in this fashion. He had probably not had such an experience before in his life.
In the dim light of early morning, Darius hurried to the lions’ den. Probably being unable to see because of the early morning light and the shadows of the den, the king called out to Daniel in a remarkable way. He addressed Daniel as the “servant of the living God” and raised the question, “has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” The king’s trip to the lions’ den gives evidence that he thought there was a possibility Daniel would be alive. That he had little actual faith, however, is shown in the “tone of anguish” in which he called Daniel. The Aramaic verb means “lamentable” or “sad.” He feared that there would be nothing but silence and the growl of the lions in response to his call.
6:21–23 Then Daniel said to the king, “O king, live forever! My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not harmed me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no harm.” Then the king was exceedingly glad, and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God.
For the first time in the chapter, Daniel spoke as he called out in response to the king. And what an amazing response it was! In contrast to the king’s anguish, Daniel calmly answered with the usual courteous greeting, “O king, live forever!” Most people in Daniel’s predicament would have immediately cried out for deliverance from the lions. But Daniel informed the king of the miracle God had done on his behalf. Daniel attributed this not only to the power of God, but to the fact that he was innocent of any crime either against God or the king.
As He had with Daniel’s three friends, God sent a supernatural being to protect and deliver His faithful servant. “How Darius conceived of such an agent is not clear, but the Scriptures teach that angels are spirit beings, created by God for the purpose of serving Him.”32 God didn’t take away the lions’ hunger; He sent His heavenly messenger to keep their mouths closed and their paws away from Daniel.
King Darius was overjoyed at the deliverance of his favorite counselor and immediately ordered Daniel removed from the den. The aged man of God emerged before the unbelieving eyes of the king and his servants without a scratch because of his faith in God (Heb. 11:32–33). Just as the flames had not been able even to bring the smell of smoke upon Daniel’s companions in chapter 3, so the lions were not permitted to touch the prophet of God.
6:24 And the king commanded, and those men who had maliciously accused Daniel were brought and cast into the den of lions—they, their children, and their wives. And before they reached the bottom of the den, the lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces.
The sad end of Daniel’s accusers and their families is recorded as an act of divine justice upon the enemies of God’s servant. Such barbarity was common in the ancient world, and not without parallel even in God’s divine judgment upon the wicked as illustrated in His judgment upon Dathan, Abiram, and Korah when they and their families were swallowed up in an earthquake (Num. 16). The punishment meted out conformed to the injunction about the treatment of false witnesses in the law (Deut. 19:16–21). This principle of lex talionis is also illustrated in the case of Haman (Esth. 7:9–10). God had threatened to act in the same way against nations that sought to harm His people. “For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations. As you have done [to my people], it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head” (Obad. 15).
Some critics have pointed with ridicule to the impossibility of casting 120 officials plus their wives and children into one lions’ den. Montgomery, for instance, regards this “tragic denouement” as “indeed absurd,” as well as the entire story.33 The Septuagint, apparently in an effort to counter this criticism, makes the victims only the two men who were presidents with Daniel, and, therefore, his principal accusers.34 The Scriptures do not say that all the princes and presidents were killed, but only those who had accused Daniel—that is, the ringleaders. This served notice on the rest, if they had any further inclination to plot against Daniel. The experience of Daniel’s false accusers is another illustration of God’s faithfulness to the basic Abrahamic Covenant where God promised to bless those who blessed Abraham’s seed and to curse those who cursed them (Gen. 12:3).
6:25–28 Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: “Peace be multiplied to you. I make a decree, that in all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end. He delivers and rescues; he works signs and wonders in heaven and on earth, he who has saved Daniel from the power of the lions.” So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
Much as Nebuchadnezzar had done in both chapters 3 and 4, Darius issued a decree to be sent throughout his entire domain calling on people everywhere to fear the God of Daniel. The wording of the decree is quite similar to Daniel 4:1. It may be in both instances that Daniel was the actual author acting under the king’s orders, or it may be that the unknown author was following the usual form of letter writing. In any case, the king took for granted that the world was at his feet, and he used extravagant language addressing the entire world in his decree. The expression “Peace be multiplied to you” is identical to Daniel 4:1, and reminds one of the letters of Paul in the New Testament.
The decree described Daniel’s God as the living God, One who “endure[s] forever.” The point is that in a rapidly changing situation—that is, the Medo-Persians overcoming the Babylonians—God does not change. Again, this is remarkably similar to Daniel 4:3. The king’s decree also ascribed sovereignty and power to God as the One who is able to deliver His servants and work “signs and wonders in heaven and on earth,” and proved it by delivering Daniel. Verses 26–27 are in the form of a hymn in the original. Once again, throughout the world of Daniel’s day, the tidings were carried of the great God who is living, powerful, everlasting, and greater than the gods of the pagans.
The chapter closes with a brief historical note that Daniel continued to prosper in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. Here again critics have attempted to claim an inaccuracy. The probable explanation is, as has been previously pointed out, that either Darius was a governor under Cyrus and later delivered the kingdom to him, possibly at his death, or that Darius and Cyrus were the same person with the word and understood as meaning “even.”
Daniel 6 is a profound illustration of how God cares for His people. Although it is historical and to be accepted in its literal portrayal of an event, it is also parabolic like chapter 3 and is a foreshadowing of Israel’s ultimate deliverance from their persecutors in the great tribulation at the end of the times of the Gentiles. When God’s power is finally demonstrated at the second coming of Christ, the persecutors of Israel and the enemies of God will be judged and destroyed much like the enemies of Daniel. Like Daniel, however, the people of God must remain true regardless of the cost or the persecution.
1 H. H. Rowley, Darius the Mede and the Four World Empires in the Book of Daniel (Cardiff: University of Wales, 1959), 8.
2 D. J. Wiseman, “Some Historical Problems in the Book of Daniel,” in Notes on Some Problems in the Book of Daniel, D. J. Wiseman et al., eds. (London: Tyndale, 1965), 9–18.
3 Rowley, Darius the Mede, 30–36.
4 Ibid., 37–43.
5 Ibid., 19–29.
6 Ibid., 12–18.
7 R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (New York: Putnam, 1917), 128ff.
8 Rowley, Darius the Mede, 19.
9 J. C. Whitcomb Jr., Darius the Mede (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 73.
10 Wiseman, “Historical Problems,” 9–16.
11 Gleason L. Archer Jr., “Daniel,” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 76.
12 K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament (Chicago: interVarsity, 1966), 30ff.
13 For example, Cyrus wrote that after his conquest of Babylon he was “daily endeavoring to worship” Marduk, the chief god of Babylon and that he followed Marduk’s command to restore “all the gods of Sumer and Akkad” to their former temples (James B. Pritchard, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd. ed. [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969], 316).
14 Ibid., 315.
15 Ibid., 316.
16 James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927), 269.
17 Ibid.
18 See also the explanation by Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 155–56.
19 John Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Dallas: Word, 1989), 125.
20 Wood notes the word used in verses 6 and 11 has the idea of coming “‘in concert’ with the possible thought of implied conspiracy” (Wood, Daniel, 159).
21 Montgomery, Daniel, 269–70.
22 Ibid., 270.
23 Diodorus Siculus recounted an incident in which a Persian king condemned a man to death for his rude speech. The king “promptly regretted his act and reproached himself for having made a serious mistake, but all his royal power was not able to undo what was done” (Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica 17.30.6).
24 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1961), 96.
25 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 134.
26 Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Boston: Crocker & Brewster, 1850), 171.
27 Joyce C. Baldwin, Daniel, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978), 129.
28 Carl Friedrich Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, M. G. Easton, trans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), 216.
29 Goldingay, Daniel, 132.
30 Archer, “Daniel,” 81.
31 Keil, Daniel, 216.
32 Wood, Daniel, 171.
33 Montgomery, Daniel, 278.
34 Ibid.