Daniel’s enemies, those who had been passed up for promotion when Darius promoted Daniel to the supreme position, were trying to find some reason to sabotage his position. However, as we noted last time “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). He was a man of integrity.
The root word of integrity is integer, a whole number. It is not divisible nor disjointed. Integrity is somehow about wholeness, integration, completeness. It means that our inner and outer life reflect the same values. They match. What we say we believe we really believe and our actions prove it. If you say something, but don’t mean it, that’s not integrity. If you promise to do something, but don’t follow through, that’s not integrity. They don’t match up.
We call this hypocrisy, which involves knowing the truth but not acting on it. That Greek word expresses the idea of someone wearing a mask, presenting an image that is not in accord with reality.
Our problem is that we compartmentalize. We wall off one part of our life from another part. We pretend that we are “OK” in public or we hide our private lives where we still coddle our sins.
A wife will ask how her husband could commit the act of betrayal without thinking about her or the family? This is how: men compartmentalize their lives to the point where the singular focus of one area is all encompassing and becomes a barrier to his comingling the other compartments. The boxes are distinct and separate; there is very little overlap. When we’re in one box, we aren’t in another.
Women’s brains are not made that way (which doesn’t mean you always act with integrity). Mark Gungor, in Laughing Your Way to a Better Marriage, demonstrates that women’s brains are an inter-connected mix of thoughts (like spaghetti) in which everything relates to everything else. I imagine women can still compartmentalize, but not nearly as easily as us men.
We find the Bible placing high emphasis on the importance of integrity. The book of Proverbs alone presents numerous passages about virtues like integrity and honesty. Here are some examples:
The security of integrity. Living and working with integrity provide safeguards against consequences of acting wrongly. “Whoever walks in integrity walks securely but he who makes his ways crooked will be found out” (Proverbs 10:9). That’s a scary thought, isn’t it? But being found out might be the most liberating thing that could happen to us.
“The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them” (Proverbs 11:3). One version has: “the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.”
“Righteousness guards him whose way is blameless, but sin overthrows the wicked” (Proverbs 13:6).
The person who compartmentalizes their lives so that they may look good but are pursuing unhealthy habits in private, trade that security for insecurity, the fear that at any moment someone may see the “real me.”
The strong foundation of integrity. As a solid foundation stabilizes a house, integrity serves as a strong foundation for a business – and also for individual lives. “Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment” (Proverbs 12:19). “By justice a king gives a country stability, but one who is greedy for bribes tears it down” (Proverbs 29:4, NIV).
The Christian accountant should not fudge the numbers. The Christian salesman should not exaggerate how good the product is. The employee who loves Jesus should not be a slave to his work, which should be a lower priority than his family and his faith.
Once I noticed a program on CBS Sport’s website for watching the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament that takes place every March. It’s called “March Madness.” One of the advertised features of this program was that it had a “Boss Button.” The boss button allowed the watcher to close the video screen on their work computer where they were watching the basketball game and quickly open a fake spreadsheet at the click of a button. It was designed to encourage people to watch while at work. But what is that? Doing this in secret without permission is stealing from the company.
Dwight David Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II and our 34th President, spoke of the necessity of integrity for leadership when he said:
“In order to be a leader, one must have followers, and to have followers one must have confidence. Hence the supreme quality for a leader is unquestioned integrity. Without it no real success is possible, no matter whether it is a section gang, on a football field, in an army, or in an office If one’s associates find him guilty of phoniness, if they find that the individual lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need therefore is integrity.”
“When Daniel was given a job to do, the king knew it would be done thoroughly with excellence, and nothing would be left undone. The king did not have to look over his shoulder all the time or worry about whether the job would be done” (Rodney Storz, Daniel: The Triumph of God’s Kingdom).
“Both Joseph and Daniel were envied and hated because of their impeachable integrity in both their personal and private lives. The world has cause to be grateful for such men” (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 99).
David Guzik notes: “Sometimes today a candidate or nominee for political office is set under this kind of scrutiny, but imagine looking as hard as you can at a public servant in office some 50 years and finding nothing wrong. No fraudulent expense accounts. No intern scandals. No questionable business deals. No gifts from lobbyists. No accusations from his staff.” No spot on his record! No skeletons in his closet! So now they have to make up something.
Today molecular biologists can trace our traits and lifestyle habits. Our lives leave visible traces that point to who we are and whom we represent. Although we struggle and aren’t perfect, when people around us “swab” our lives, may they find visible traces of integrity and devotion to Jesus as He guides us.
The other two vice presidents and all the satraps burned with anger and jealousy. They did not understand the truth of James 4:1-2, “What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder.” Or James 3:16, “For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice.”
Their anger intensified when they realized that they could not find even one skeleton in his closet or find one fault in his work ethics to accuse him of in order to have him removed from office. So they began their fiendish plot to find some other way to get rid of him.
Their jealousy led them to agree, “We shall not find any ground for complaint against this Daniel unless we find it in connection with the law of his God” (Dan. 6:5) “Verse 5 is the most magnificent tribute a man can win. If a hostile, jealous, watching world can discover nothing against a man save his devotion to his God, that man is truly Christlike,” says E. M. Blaiklock (E. M. Blaiklock, Today’s Handbook of Bible Characters, p. 275). As Warren Wiersbe says, “It is certainly a commendable thing when people possess character so impeccable that they can’t be accused of doing wrong except in matters relating to their faith” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: OT Volume, p. 1365). May this be true of you and me!
Daniel’s opponents tried to find supporting evidence of his wrong-doing. They struck out in Daniel’s public and private life, so now they turn to his religious life. They had assumed he was like them, participating in some form of graft. To their surprise, his record was as clean as his reputation. Daniel’s manner of life was a sharp rebuke to them, so they sought another way to topple him.
In 1 Peter 2:12 we are told: “Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” Daniel lived in such a way. These evil men realized they could find no flaw in Daniel, so they had to resort to accusing him on the ground of his religion (6:5).
As William Heslop observes, “Never was a loftier tribute pain to mortal man than the enemies of Daniel paid to him that day. What a tremendous tribute to the trustworthiness of this public servant! The religion of Daniel operated with such power as to exclude everything in his conduct which might furnish a handle with which he might be accused and justly hurt” (Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p. 150).
F. B. Meyer states: “The supreme test of goodness is not in the greater but in the smaller incidents of our character and practice; not what we are when standing in the searchlight of public scrutiny, but when we reach the firelight flicker of our homes; not what we are when some clarion-call rings through the air, summoning us to fight for life and liberty, but our attitude when we are called to sentry-duty in the gray morning, when the watch-fire is burning low. It is impossible to be our best at the supreme moment if character is corroded and eaten into by daily inconsistency, unfaithfulness, and besetting sin” (Our Daily Walk. Christianity Today, v. 36, n. 10).
Well, they knew Daniel to be not only an exemplary “employee,” but also a committed “religious man.” His faith had not been hidden either, but evident to all. He wasn’t a “secret Christian.”
“Their idea was really quite brilliant. If you can’t attack a man for his faults, find a way to take him out using his strengths. Even more than his loyalty to the king, Daniel was loyal to his God. If there was a way to use what was, in their minds, an out-of-sync hierarchy, it would be sure to bring the old Jew down” (Amir Tsarfati, Discovering Daniel, p. 117). “Like the plot against the Jews recorded in the book of Esther, the plot against Daniel the intercessor was an attack on the whole Jewish race” (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: OT Volume, p. 1365).
So they came up with their scheme. To paraphrase a brilliant author, “Then they got an idea. An awful idea. The governors and straps had a wonderful, awful idea” (Dr. Seuss, The Grinch Who Stole Christmas).
Sam Storms notes: “Often, if there is no risk of loss or painful consequences, one will never know if one has integrity. One will never know if what motivates you is moral conviction or moral convenience until you are forced to suffer loss for standing your ground or keeping your word” (Integrity, November 6, 2006, www.enjoyinggodministries.com). Daniel’s stubborn commitment to God’s glory would come at a cost.
Society-at-large benefits from the righteous behavior of God’s people in its midst (Mat. 5:13; Luke 14:34; Rom. 13:1-7; Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 4:11; 1 Tim. 5:8). Still, non-believers seek ways to oppose righteousness because righteous behavior exposes their lawlessness (light exposes darkness, John 1:5, 2 Cor. 6:14). Being under the sway of the wicked one (1 John 5:19), they contrive to manipulate the laws of the land to entrap the faithful by declaring righteous behavior as unlawful and unlawful behavior as commendable (Prov. 28:4; Psa. 12:8; Isa. 5:20; Mic. 3:2; Mal. 2:17; Rom. 1:32; 1 Pet. 3:15-16). We see that in our culture today, don’t we?
“A common situation develops at this point: jealousy leads men to attack a colleague who is more competent than themselves. In this case the ordinary feelings are sharpened by another factor that is noticed frequently in this book of Daniel. Because a man is of the kingdom of God, therefore the kingdom of this world drives its members to display a bitterness in their assault that surpasses anything that might have been in evidence had the issues been between men outside of God’s kingdom. Speaking more plainly, the devil stirs the fires of natural hatred to a fiercer heat as soon as God’s children are involved. . . . in no case can a man of God live a consistent life in the world without making apparent the fact that his life is separate from what the world does and countenances. And whenever the world becomes aware of this difference she resents it and finds her animosities stirred” (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel).
So the officials and satraps came up with the plan. They conspired together, they “came in concert,” and brought a plan to the king which caught him unaware. In the vein of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” in a show of solidarity, these men brought their hidden scheme to the king. The idea expressed by “came in concert” implies conspiracy. The word is used in Psalm 64:2 and Psalm 55:14 for “secret counsel,” something dark and sinister.
If the enemies of Daniel knew him, they also knew Darius. They knew that they could appeal to Darius’ personal vanity and his desire for a unified kingdom. This would be like a pledge of allegiance by all the subjects in his kingdom—no matter what their ethnic or religious loyalties might be.
Adam Clarke concludes, “What pretense could they urge for so silly an ordinance? Probably to flatter the ambition of the king, they pretend to make him a god for thirty days; so that the whole empire should make prayer and supplication to him and pay him Divine honours! This was the bait; but their real object was to destroy Daniel.”
“The probability is that Darius regarded this act as a pledge of loyalty to himself and a token of their desire to respect his authority to the utmost” (John Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 137)
“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” (Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary, p. 134).
Not only might this flatter Darius, but it would also solidify in the minds of the populace that they were no longer under Babylonian rule and Babylonian kings, but a Medo-Persian king.
Second, by focusing on the matter of prayer, these leaders were certain that they could use Daniel’s faithfulness against him. They were confident that if Darius issued an order contrary to Daniel’s devotion, Daniel would remain faithful to “the law of his God” (v. 5) and would therefore continue to pray. I find it quite possible that they had seen Daniel praying before.
Third, by limiting the time to “thirty days,” they felt confident that they could both entrap Daniel and allow themselves the freedom to pray to their gods again once the time was up.
Fourth, they add some peer pressure to the mix. Verse 7 says, “All the high officials of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the counselors and the governors are agreed” on what the king should do. Again, this was an outright lie. Daniel obviously wasn’t there and likely there were other satraps absent. But even kings and presidents bow to peer pressure. That’s what lobbyists aim to do!
But whoever really prays to a man? In reality, many more do than we might imagine. The story is told of a little boy who was saying his bedtime prayers. He asked Jesus to bless his mommy, daddy, and little sister. He asked Jesus to help him in school the next day. Then he closed his prayer with a loud voice, asking Jesus to get him a new bicycle. When his mother asked why he said the last part of his prayer so loudly, he answered, “I wanted to be sure Daddy heard me.”
Do you sometimes send messages to other people when you are praying, preach in your prayers? This is tempting for church leaders to do, to get their people in line, or husbands to corral their wives when they believe they are being rebellious. But that is never the purpose of prayer. Be courageous enough to address “those rebels” outside of your praying!
The conspirators knew that an incentive for obedience might be necessary, so they suggested that violators “be cast into the den of lions.” With the fear of death hanging over them, all the people should comply.
What was a “den of lions”? The Ancient Near Eastern cultures venerated, hunted and captured lions. They usually kept them in an excavated cave which one door on ground level to introduce new lions to the den and to carry out refuse. Another “door” or hole was on the top, usually with a grate to keep anyone from accidentally falling in.
Then, to seal the deal, the high officials and satraps insisted that Darius “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” (Dan. 6:8). You see, under Babylonian rule it was rex les: the king is law. He made the laws and could break them or change them at a whim. But in Persia: it was lex rex: the law is king. So once the king made the law, he also was subject to it and could not change it.
The decrees of a Persian king were unchangeable because he was thought to speak for the gods, who could never be wrong and thus never needed to change their minds.
This reference to the “Medes and the Persians” (v. 8) is further textual testimony to the unity of Medo-Persia at this time in history.
What appealed to these leaders was the irrevocable nature of Medo-Persian injunctions; otherwise the king might change his mind, when he discovered that Daniel was a violator. They knew that Daniel was a favorite (because once again God had shown him “favor”).
Now the conspirators knew that they had Darius in the palm of their hand. “So King Darius put the decree in writing” (6:9).
The conspirators successfully manipulated Darius (v. 9); all they needed now was time for Daniel to violate this royal injunction, get himself in trouble with the law, and be thrown to the lions.
Charles Spurgeon pointedly comments: “Suppose the law of the land were proclaimed, ‘No man shall pray during the remainder of this month, on pain of being cast into a den of lions,’ – how many of you would pray? I think there would be rather a scanty number at the prayer-meeting. Not but what the attendance at prayer-meetings is scanty enough now! But if there were the penalty of being cast into a den of lions, I am afraid the prayer-meeting would be postponed for a month, owing to pressing business, and manifold engagements of one kind and another.”
I believe he’s correct, sadly.
Grace Still Amazes 