Several of Daniel’s co-workers were jealous of his rise to power. Daniel was being placed basically second-in-command. Being an outsider made this inconceivable to them and no one likes to be bypassed when promotions are being made. While they could find no skeletons in his closet with regard to his work life, they did come up with a plan to trap Daniel. Knowing that Daniel would continue to pray faithfully to his God, they tricked king Darius into signing a decree that “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” (Dan. 6:7).
Over the last three weeks we’ve seen that this did not deter Daniel at all from praying at his window three times a day as was his habit. He knew that the injunction had been made and still prayed to the only true God.
10 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. 11 Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God. 12 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.” 13 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.”
Ligon Duncan reminds us that temptation that Daniel faces is part of a larger Satanic strategy. The satraps, yes, were tempting Daniel because they wanted to get him out of the way. But the satraps were just dupes for Satan. Satan himself was simultaneously working in the designs of these petty officials. Satan was simultaneously attempting to vex Daniel’s soul and to use his own integrity as leverage against God’s kingdom in the time of Darius. Satan had been attempting to wear out and wear down Daniel since the first day of the captivity and this is just yet another expression of Satan’s assaults on Daniel. As Sinclair Ferguson has said, “Temptation to compromise is never an isolated incident in our spiritual life, but it is part of the larger strategy of Satan against us.”
It is quite possible that Daniel’s willingness to not compromise, but to stand firm in His principles, which brought him into a very dangerous situation, one that the true God rescued him from, was just the testimony that Darius needed to push him, humanly speaking, in the direction of allowing the Jews to return to Jerusalem.
We may never realize how important it is for us to maintain our integrity, even in the smallest of activities, so that God can receive the glory and His work can be done. God would use this heathen ruler Darius to release His people from exile.
Daniel 6:10-13 is framed by an inclusio: Daniel violated the injunction by praying three times a day (v. 10), and the conspirers informed Darius that Daniel had violated the injunction by praying three times a day (v. 13).
It’s remarkable how people can work together quickly and efficiently to do evil but find it so much more difficult to get together to do any good! “Their feet are swift to shed blood,” says Paul (Rom. 3:15), quoting Isaiah 59:7.
The conspirators knew where Daniel lived, and they conspired to go to his home and catch him in the act of praying to God. It would be difficult to universally enforce the new royal injunction regarding prayer, but the jealous leaders were not interested in the prayer habits of the masses. They cared only about Daniel. He was their target. He was the one they wanted to bring down.
If they observed him from outside his own residence, which seems most likely, he may not have even known that they were there though he could have easily suspected it. The implication is that they went immediately to the king with this information.
Since Daniel’s habit was to pray three times a day with his windows open, the conspirers needed only to observe whether Daniel maintained his practice. Evidence of his thrice-daily prayer pattern would have been visible to onlookers below and, given his character, it was unlikely he would deny the charge if it were brought up.
Events were working just as they had planned. The trap was ready to be sprung. The high officials and satraps who had previously manipulated Darius now came to him and underhandedly inquired whether they correctly understood the injunction. “Just so we know for sure, what was the injunction again?”
It may have been hard for them to keep their composure and their overeagerness likely gave away their glee in asking this question. Notice how they presented the situation to the king as if they had nothing to do with it.
“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?” (Dan. 6:11)
The king confirmed their understanding, insisting the injunction could not be revoked. He affirmed that “the thing stands fast, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be revoked” (Dan. 6:12b). Now, with the king’s repeated affirmation that the law was in place and could not be altered, they were ready to reveal the victim.
[In the book of Daniel, the Medes are mentioned before the Persians (c.f. Dan. 5:28; 6:8, 12, 15; 8:20) indicating that the events of this chapter transpired during the early stages of Medo-Persian alliance (539-537 B.C.), when the Medes still retained ascendancy over the Persians. Likely in the first year of Darius’ reign.
By the time the book of Esther was written (450-331 B.C.), the Persians had attained the more prominent role (as predicted by Dan. 8:3; 20) and are mentioned before the Medes (Est. , 1:3, 14, 18-19; 10:2).
There is historic evidence documenting the permanent nature of Persian law. Approximately one hundred years after the rule of Darius, the book of Esther provides further witness to the unchangeable nature Medo-Persian law (Est. 1:19; 8:8).]
Whereas in Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon the king reigned supreme, in Medo-Persia the king was subject to previously-established law and could not overturn it. Some commentators see Darius’ inability to change the law—the fact that he was bound by his own law—as one aspect of the inferiority of the Medo-Persian kingdom (represented by silver, Dan. 2:32, 39) in comparison with the Neo-Babylonian kingdom (represented by gold, Dan. 2:32, 37).
According to the book of Esther, the king’s decree had to be put into writing and sealed before it was considered immutable: “You yourselves write a decree concerning the Jews, as you please, in the king’s name, and seal it with the king’s signet ring; for whatever is written in the king’s name and sealed with the king’s signet ring no one can revoke” (Est. 8:8).
It seems the king had been easily convinced to sign the decree. It may have appealed to his pride (a common malady of kings in this book). It was early in his reign over Babylon and the king likely viewed the decree as a means of asserting his authority over the populace, a quick way to guarantee their allegiance.
The law was irrevocable. There was nothing King Darius could do to reverse it.
[“The rigidity of the Medo-Persian law was not always a bad thing. Later, in the days of Ezra, the adversaries of Judah wrote letters to Ahasuerus, the Persian king, slandering the Jews and endeavoring to have a decree signed to present the Jews from continuing with the work of reconstruction. They succeeded (Ezra 4:1-24). Later, the decree of Cyrus was found the original document that led to the repatriation of the Jews in the Promised Land. That changed the whole picture. The original decree had to stand. The law of the Medes and Persians guaranteed that. Then Cyrus threw the weight of his administration behind the original decree and added clauses that greatly helped the continuation of the work in Israel (Ezra 5:1-6, 15) (John Phillips, Exploring the Book of Daniel, p. 103).]
No loophole in the ironclad law of the Medes and Persians could be found to release Daniel.
Having reminded the king of the irrevocability of his law, they then identified Daniel as a violator of that law. The conspirators had the king right where they wanted him; it was time to expose Daniel as a lawbreaker: “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.”
They showed no respect to Daniel who held a higher office than they did, but disdainfully called him “one of the exiles from Judah” (Dan. 6:13, niv). These proud men didn’t realize that God was with His exiled people and within the next twenty-four hours would vindicate His servant (Warren Wiersbe, Be Resolute, p. 78).
They accused Daniel of knowingly ignoring not only the injunction but the king himself. In other words, this was not just a legal violation, but a personal offense. Of course, these charges were not true. Daniel intended no disrespect for the king, but he had a higher respect for God. They accused Daniel of rebellion. They thought they had “check mate.”
Notice that they described Daniel as “one of the exiles from Judah” (cf. 2:25; 5:13), rather than as a royal cabinet minister. They imply that Daniel’s rebellion was due to him being a Jew. “Now he’s showing his true nature by disloyalty to you, King Darius.” Maybe they were implying that Darius had been foolish to appoint Daniel to such an exalted position.
And it was a subtle reminder that he was formally a slave. He was “one of the exiles” from that country Nebuchadnezzar had defeated not once, not twice, but three times. They were evidently hoping that Daniel’s Jewish nationality, religion and background would contribute to Darius’ distaste for him. They also used almost the same words that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego’s accusers had used against them, when they charged Daniel with disregarding the king (cf. 3:12).
The other ministers may imply that as a foreigner he cannot really be trusted, or that as an exile his maintaining his alien religious practices is a political act, an act of rebellion; but the hint of anti-Semitism may be stronger here than it was in vv. 4–6
When God’s people adhere to God’s priorities, it can be misinterpreted as an intentional slight to secular positions of authority. It is not that we disregard others—Jesus commands us to serve others with humility and love our neighbors—but that we consider God (the Creator) to be on an entirely different plane than men (mere creatures). We must please God and when that commitment collides with our allegiance to men, it is that allegiance to men that must give way.
When our lives reflect God’s priorities we can expect persecution in response. God’s people in every age have been falsely accused, cruelly persecuted, and unjustly killed. “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution” (2 Tim. 3:12, NKJV). The Puritan preacher Henry Smith said, “God examines with trials, the devil with temptations and the world with persecutions.” Another Puritan, Richard Baxter, said that God’s people should be more concerned that they deserved the persecution than that they be delivered from it, because deserving it would be evidence of their faithfulness to the Lord.
We will never fit in—we are different, by God’s design. He wants us to be different, to be set apart for His glory. This was the very thing Haman despised and emphasized in his complaint concerning the Jews:
Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not to the king’s profit to tolerate them.” (Esther 3:8)
Notice how similar Haman’s accusations are: they violate our laws and have no respect for us.
And that is the dilemma we face when we go against the flow of our culture. We cannot live in ways that violate God’s law, no matter what our government says. But we can disobey in a respectful way, in a way that shows that we still value the very people who are against us.
Our refusal to endorse the world’s ungodly programs and skewed priorities will inevitably be viewed as a threat to secular society.
“If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19)
These men emphasized that Daniel “pays no attention to you, O king, or the injunction you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.” They bend the truth here. Of the three charges, only the last one was actually true. Even then, they had not seen him pray three times that day, but knowing his habit, they assumed, it based upon observing his one time of prayer that day.
So, the conspiracy was working, Daniel was trapped. Darius was also trapped. Maybe his response surprised the conspirators. “Then the king, when he heard these words, was much distressed…” (Dan. 6:14a). This is not the reaction they had hoped for.
The king is displeased: perhaps with Daniel, for ignoring his injunction; perhaps with the ministers, for engineering Daniel’s downfall; perhaps with himself, for being manipulated by them into becoming the victim of his own power and authority; perhaps with the situation in general into which he is now cornered (cf. Herod, Mark 6:26).
On the contrary, Darius “was much distressed and set his mind to deliver Daniel.” He did not want Daniel to die, and he spent the rest of the day seeking a way to rescue him. Like Nebuchadnezzar, Darius had a high regard for Daniel, probably an affection for him as well. Darius had known Daniel too long and well to believe any such charges of disloyalty, even if brought by his officers.
So this greatly distressed him. First, he didn’t want to lose Daniel, a man he greatly respected and trusted. Second, he likely was distressed that he had made such a rash decision and that he had been shortsighted to sign the decree. He realized he had been duped and railroaded into this decision.
While most versions present this as “distress within himself,” the KJV and NKJV translate “distressed with himself.” That may be true as well. If so, it is an admirable quality in King Darius. Instead of blaming others, he knew that he was at fault. Yes, he had been trapped, but he took responsibility for unwittingly making this law.
Darius realizes that he is trapped. He cannot suspend the law for Daniel, else he risks the collapse of social order and perhaps even the state itself.
Darius will learn some things from this, as any leader should when they make decisions that backfire. But we will look at that next week.
Grace Still Amazes 