We are in Daniel 6, the historical story of Daniel in the lions’ den. But he’s not there yet. As we learned in vv. 1-3, Darius was about to appoint Daniel as the supreme leader of the land, over everyone else but Darius himself.
Then we read…
4 Then the high officials 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. 5 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.”
6 Then these high officials and satraps came by agreement to the king and said to him, “O King Darius, live forever! 7 All the high officials 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. 8 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.” 9 Therefore King Darius signed the document and injunction.
Once it became clear just how much favor Daniel had garnered with King Darius, the other high officials and satraps “sought to find a ground for complaint against Daniel with regard to the kingdom” (v. 4). As soon as Daniel’s peers heard of the king’s plan to promote him, they determined to sabotage his success. They thought, “Surely, as long as Daniel had been around, there were some skeletons in his closet.”
The accusers’ (note the plural “presidents and satraps”) plan was similar to that of the Babylonian officials who had tried to topple Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego (ch. 3). They knew that Daniel was a God-fearing man who did not worship pagan idols. So, they laid a trap for him believing that he would remain faithful to his faith, to his God.
Collusion often arises when the ungodly are exposed by the people of God. They then band together. Daniel had no intention of competing with or discrediting these other officials, but such is the inevitable result of his superior performance. It is impossible to shine for the kingdom of light without exposing the kingdom of darkness. Much like Herod and Pilate at the crucifixion of Jesus, competing leaders temporarily bury their differences in order to attack a mutual enemy.
These officials sought to turn Darius against Daniel, figuring that this would open up the “slot” for one of them to fill. You see, they are all jockeying for position. Each one wants to move higher up the food chain. Make no mistake, they are not friends, not in normal circumstances. And yet here they are all united in their determination to get rid of Daniel. This is the work of the enemy, Satan. A believer with a strong testimony will attract opposition from many sides.
This passage illustrates 2 Timothy 3:12, Paul’s warning to Timothy: “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted…” Persecution should be expected. We should not be “surprised” by it (1 Pet. 4:12). It is no “stranger” to the man or woman who seeks to follow Christ faithfully.
Their jealousy parallels the animosity of “certain Chaldeans” toward “the Jews” in 3:8-12. Anti-Semitism appears to have been at least a part of their jealousy (cf. v. 13; 3:12).
They looked for some basis for making an accusation against Daniel, something that would put him in disfavor with the king. It isn’t by accident the Greek title for the Devil is διάβολος [diabolos]: from δια [dia] (“against”) + βολος [bolos] (“to throw”). He is the “accuser of the brethren” (Rev. 20:10) and those in his kingdom are eager to follow in his footsteps. As Joseph Seiss says, “It is the nature of the devil to be the accuser of the good and of those who are favored for their worth; and all his children have the same family trait” (Seiss, Voices from Babylon; or, the Records of Daniel the Prophet, p. 164).
The problem for the jealous leaders was that they could find no fault in Daniel to expose. His faithfulness was so constant and so evident that they had no grounds on which to accuse him before the king.
Our text says, “but they could find no ground for complaint or any fault, because he was faithful, and no error or fault was found in him” (Dan. 6:4). In other words, they couldn’t find any faults by either commission OR omission in Daniel’s behavior. The word for “error” (shalu) carries the thought of neglect; being used, for instance, in Ezra 4:22, “Take heed now that you fail not to do this.” Daniel was found without guilt both as to the way he did things and in not neglecting matters that should be done.
No corruption and no negligence—what a reputation for any employee! This “report card” is what any of us would love to possess. Daniel was not only capable of doing the job (v. 3), but a man of high integrity (v. 4) and a man under authority.
Corruption is doing things that will hurt your employer, usually financially. Negligence is failing to do what will help your employer, again usually financially. Corruption refers to dishonest or illegal behavior, such as taking bribes or engaging in fraudulent practices. Negligence, on the other hand, refers to a failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise, resulting in harm or loss. Whereas corruption is more deliberate; negligence is more carelessness. Behind both of them is selfishness and laziness.
I’ve seen what corruption can do in a country like Haiti. There, millions of dollars were pumped into their economy by the United States with nothing to show for it. Those monies were pocketed by corrupt officials. Even at the airport you have to pay bribes.
Negligence not only costs businesses because of lost productivity, but workplace injuries multiply. Medical expenses for injured employees, compensation claims and the cost of increased insurance premiums can quickly add up. Indirect costs such as lost productivity and the expenses associated with training new employees due to high turnover rates further exacerbate the financial strain on a company just due to negligence.
Daniel’s co-workers spied on everything and they had more than seventy years of data to pour over. They checked his paperwork, his finances, queried his contacts, checked out his house and possessions, all the while looking for dirt. Most investigations would be able to turn up plenty of dirt because as the saying goes, “everyone has a skeleton in their closet.”
But the private investigator couldn’t find anything. Nothing showed up on the wiretaps or phone records. A computer guru couldn’t find anything suspicious in his digital footprint; nothing on Babylonian Facebook, Twitter, or email. There was no porn on his hard drive, no Internet searches for bad stuff found in his search history. He was clean as a whistle.
Let me ask you this: If a group of people were determined to get rid of you, what would they find on you? What if you couldn’t successfully hide everything, would you be disqualified?
They found absolutely nothing on Daniel! Daniel had been faithful from the beginning up to the present day. His commitment to God (Daniel 1:8) made him the ideal employee who always faithfully served whatever king was in power.
How many elected leaders get into office and get so focused on the trappings of the position that they forget about doing what they actually signed up to do.? Again, we Christians ought to be the ones to stop that trend no matter the position we hold.
Imagine if there was no corruption in us. We always did what was right and couldn’t be persuaded to do what was wrong no matter how sweet the offer was. How many folks have a price at which they are willing to forego their professed values in favor of whatever is offered in exchange for it? These are mercenaries. As soon as we reveal ourselves to be mercenaries, our values are gone and we are worshiping money, not God. Mercenaries sow cultural cynicism. Followers of Jesus can have no part in that.
Leon Wood notes: “This is remarkable. Because of his position, Daniel must have been responsible in many areas, with many different people working under him. Yet he and apparently his staff, were found to be free from fault. He must have engaged people of integrity and then inspired them by his own exemplary life and ability that nothing wrong, either in efficiency or morality, could be found” (A Commentary on Daniel, p. 158).
Today when good men refuse to run for office it is because of ubiquitous investigative reports looking for dirt. It seems absolutely incredible that Daniel’s accusers could find nothing on Daniel. They found him faithful—he was trustworthy; honest—there was no corruption; and diligent—no negligence could be found. What a contrast to Daniel’s accusers!
Clarence Macartney has imagined the conversation that might have taken place between Daniel’s would-be accusers:
One of them says, “Let us ‘frame’ Daniel. Let us forge letters and bring them to the king, stating that Daniel has been in treasonable correspondence with foreign princes and that he plans to rebel against Darius and overthrow his dynasty.” But one of the others answers: “No, there is no use in trying that. Daniel has served too long and too loyally under three kings…for anyone to believe such a charge against him as that. Then another makes this suggestion: “Daniel has charge of the finances of the realm. Let us charge him with…dishonesty.” But another answers, “That, too, will be in vain. No charge against the honesty of Daniel, who has handled the funds of three kingdoms will be entertained for a moment….Then the third conspirator comes forward with his suggestion: There is only one plan that will work.” “What is that?” asks the others. “We must devise some plan,” says he, “by which Daniel’s loyalty to the king will be brought into collision with his loyalty to God….We will persuade Darius to sign a decree to the effect that for thirty days no prayer shall be made to any man or to any God save Darius. That will do the business; for if there is anything that is certain, it is that Daniel will never obey such a decree.”
As H. A. Ironside says,
Themselves corrupt, they tried to find occasion against him, taking it for granted that he was actuated by the same selfish motives as they were. But though they endeavored in every way to obtain proof of some dereliction of duty on his part, concerning which they might accuse him to the king, they at last were forced to confess, “We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God” (Lectures on Daniel the Prophet, 2nd ed., p. 99).
But we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves.
Now, a person might assume that a faultless individual would be praised or even emulated by others. But such a view would be naive—out-of-touch with the Biblical reality of sin.
“Plato was of [the] opinion that if perfect truth and virtue were to come from heaven and manifest their real glory among men, all would at once bow down and worship them. But he did not understand the depths of human depravity. Perfect truth and virtue did come from heaven in the person of Jesus Christ, and stood before the eyes of men for years and years in untainted beauty and glory; but the children of this world, rulers and mobs, cried, ‘Away with Him!’ and crucified Him” (Joseph Seiss, Voices from Babylon; or, the Records of Daniel the Prophet, p. 169).
The Apostle John says this about the incarnation of Jesus:
19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. (John 3:19-20)
In Daniel they found neither corruption nor negligence, neither a failure of commission or omission, and they hated him for it. The same with Jesus. “Caiphas and his crowed looked in vain for some infraction of any one of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic Law, scouring the private and public life of the Lord Jesus in their hopeless quest. There was nothing” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 99). That backfired too.
We are aware that corruption is very common among government officials. Lord Acton well said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Here is a list of the corruption found among members of the 100th U.S. Congress (researched by Rodney Storz).
- 29 arrested for spousal abuse;
- 7 convicted of fraud;
- 19 arrested for writing bad checks;
- 117 bankrupted two or more businesses;
- 14 arrested on drug charges;
- 8 arrested on shoplifting charges;
- 21 with lawsuits against them;
- 84 charged with driving while intoxicated.
Daniel was neither corrupt (intentionally doing things that served himself), nor negligent (failing to do the things that would help the king and his kingdom). How few of us would deserve an A+ in both “no corruption” and “no negligence.” But Daniel did!
The fact that this is recorded in Scripture shows that this was not only man’s estimation of Daniel, but God’s estimation as well. Even before the very watchful eyes of God which see everything, Daniel was a man of integrity. For a man, there are very few compliments that hold higher merit than being called a man of integrity.
Grace Still Amazes 