daniel – Grace Still Amazes

Daniel’s Four Beasts, part 3 (Daniel 7:6-8)

We are in Daniel 7, Daniel’s vision of the four beasts. So far we’ve seen that the first beast, the lion with eagle’s wings, was the empire of Babylon, and the bear on its side was Medo-Persia. Today we get to the third and fourth beasts, found in Daniel 7:6-8.

6 After this I looked, and behold, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.

In verse 6, Daniel’s gaze shifted to a third beast, which looked “like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it.”

This winged four-headed leopard represented the empire that followed Medo-Persia: the Greeks. This corresponds to the belly and thighs of bronze in Nebuchadnezzar’s image (Dan. 2:32, 39). Leadership in the ancient Near East passed from Assyria to Babylon in 612 B.C., from Babylon to Persia in 539 B.C., and from Persia to Greece in 331 B.C.

Now, Daniel had grown up under the Babylonian empire and likely could have guessed that the Medes and Persians would be the next world rulers, but Greece? There is no way that Daniel, outside of revealed prophecy from God, could have known that Greece would become a world empire.

Alexander

Alexander the Great Alexander the Great, detail from Alexander and Porus, painting by Charles Le Brun, 17th century; in the Louvre, Paris, France.

Their outstanding characteristics are their speed, strength, and cunning (cf. Jer. 5:6; Hos. 13:7; Hab. 1:8). The four wings on this leopard’s back made it even faster. The figure of a leopard was used by Jeremiah (Jer. 5:6) and Hosea (Hos. 13:7) as a symbol of swift judgment that was coming on Judah and on Israel. The leopard was apparently used in these pictures of coming judgment because the leopard would pounce suddenly on its victim.

Alexander depended not upon the size of his army, but on speed and strategy. The lightning character of his conquests is without precedent in the ancient world, and this is fully in keeping with the image of speed embodied in the leopard itself and the four wings on its back. Alexander’s army included thirty-two thousand soldiers and five thousand calvary. While he was the progenitor of the blitzkrieg type of attack, Daniel 7:6 reminds us that he was “given authority to rule.” No matter how brilliant a strategist Alexander was, it is ultimately God who gave the victory.

In Daniel 8, the same empire is said to move so rapidly that it did not touch the ground, “a male goat came from the west . . . without touching the ground” (Dan. 8:5).

In fact, Alexander’s armies conquered other, often larger, armies, with superior tactics and lightning fast movements. Alexander overthrew the rule of Persia and conquered all the kingdoms of the known world in twelve years (336-324 B.C.).

Alexander’s kingdom included the entire eastern Mediterranean world in the west and extended as far as India in the east.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-the-Great

In 324 B.C. the youthful conqueror of the world returned and visited the tomb of Cyrus the Great at Pasargadae. Alexander died a year later at the age of thirty-three trying to rebuild Babylon, which God said, through the prophet Jeremiah, would never be rebuilt.

“Before your eyes I will repay Babylon and all who live in Babylonia for all the wrong they have done in Zion,” declares the LORD.

“I am against you, O destroying mountain,

you who destroy the whole earth,” declares the LORD.

“I will stretch out my hand against you,

roll you off the cliffs,

and make you a burned-out mountain.

No rock will be taken from you for a cornerstone,

nor any stone for a foundation,

for you will be desolate forever,”

declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:24-26)

“Alexander was twenty years old when he began his wars. When he was twenty-six he conquered Darius, and became master of the whole Persian empire; but when he was thirty-two years of age, in his full strength, he was broken. He died of a drunken surfeit [excess], or, as some suspect, by poison, and left no child living.”

Actually, Alexander did have two sons, Hercules and Alexander, but Olympias, Alexander’s mother, poisoned them, as well as Alexander’s brother, Arideus, who had been made king in Macedonia.

In the interpretation of the vision (vv. 15-28), the angel does not interpret the meaning of the four heads, so ultimately interpreters cannot be certain. In any case, God’s sovereignty is clear once more, as “dominion was given to it.” Again, the verb is passive. Although Alexander was a great general, his victories came because God had “given” them.

Alexander began his conquest of Persia in 334 BC and in one decade had established a vast empire. The four heads of the leopard may suggest this vast dominance, to the four corners of the world.

Another possibility is that the four heads point forward to what happened after Alexander died. Without an available heir to the throne, his four generals divided up the empire.

Each of these successors ruled one of the geographical segments of Alexander’s empire: Greece, Western Asia, Egypt, and Persia. The exact identification of the rulers is debatable because it took about 20 years for the kingdom to be successfully divided. But there is no question that Greece split into four major parts after Alexander died (cf. 8:8, 22).

The generals were known as the Diadoclii or the “successors.” In Egypt, Ptolemy I ruled. In the eastern provinces, the general was Seleucus I. In Macedonia and Greece, Antipater and Cassander took power. And in Thrace and Asia Minor, Lysimachus became the general.

https://www.thecollector.com/who-are-the-diadochi-of-alexander-the-great

Ultimately just two of these kingdoms remained strong, and they battled each other for almost two centuries. Some of the details of their battles were told in advance in the prophecies found in Daniel 11. In fact, the prophecy is so clear and so accurate that some people think a scribe using the name of Daniel must have written it in the second century before Christ, after these events happened.

Lion, bear, and leopard imagery also appears in Hosea’s prophetic ministry to the northern kingdom of Israel. God used those animal comparisons to describe his judgment on Israel: “I am to them like a lion; like a leopard I will lurk beside the way. I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rip them open” (Hosea 13:7-8). Pagan empires operate under the sovereign rule of God, who raises up and brings down, and his purposes include judgment—even if pagan empires are his unwitting instruments. God’s sovereignty is not contingent on their consent.

As frightening as these beasts were, the most hideous creature was yet to come.

The fourth beast (Dan. 7:7-8) receives almost as much attention as the first three beasts combined, and Daniel and the angel focus on this beast in the interpretation section as well (vv. 19-27). If preceding empires in chapters 2 and 7 were Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece, then the fourth beast (7:7-8) corresponded to the fourth metal (2:33, 40-43) and thus represents Rome, although that has been disputed.

Walvoord called the identification of the fourth beast in chapter 7 “the crucial issue in the interpretation of the entire book of Daniel” (Walvoord, John F. Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 159).

In contrast to Greece, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire was slow. It began in 241 B.C. with the occupation of Sicily. Gradually it expanded throughout the whole Mediterranean world: western Europe, including Britain, Gaul (modern France and Germany), and Spain; and western Asia, as far east as the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Its western branch formally ended in A.D. 410, when the Visigoths sacked Rome. But the eastern part of the empire lasted several hundred years later.

The other composite animals (a winged lion, a bear with ribs in its teeth, a winged four-headed leopard) were menacing in Daniel’s descriptions, but he highlighted the ferocious nature of the fourth beast even more: “Behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet.” This was a most terrifying picture of the cruel, crushing nature of the Roman empire. Daniel was truly horrified by what he saw. There had been nothing like it in all of history.

As Leupold states, referring to the iron teeth, “That must surely signify a singularly voracious, cruel, and even vindictive world power. Rome could never get enough of conquest. Rivals like Carthage just had to be broken: Carthago delenda est. Rome had no interest in raising the conquered nations to any high level of development. All her designs were imperial; let the nations be crushed and stamped underfoot” (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Daniel, pp. 297-298).

It was the Roman empire that crucified our Lord, that crucified Peter and beheaded Paul. It was Rome that banished John to the Isle of Patmos and butchered countless men, women and children who were followers of the Way. Obviously human culture and political systems are not evolving into something better and better, but getting worse and worse.

This depiction recalls the fourth part of the man of metals in chapter 2, representing a kingdom as “strong as iron, because iron breaks to pieces and shatters all things. And like iron that crushes, it shall break and crush all these” (2:40). The similarity of 7:7 to 2:40 further confirms a correspondence between the two visions. As one commentator wrote, “Rome showed itself to be the first truly universal empire of antiquity. Rome was characterized by its conquering and crushing power and by its ability to consolidate the territories which it seized” (Edward Joseph Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953), 288).

Daniel described the fourth beast as “different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.” This description surpasses those of the previous beasts, who were not pictured as having horns.

Daniel did not compare the fourth beast that he saw to any known animal. It was unique. It was dreadful, terrifying, and extremely strong. Its large iron teeth chewed up what it attacked, and its feet crushed and trampled everything left by the former beasts.

On the other hand, the makeup of this beast does incorporate language used for the previous three. It had feet (7:7), like the first (v. 4); it had something plucked (v. 8), like the first (v. 4); it had teeth (v. 7), like the second (v. 5); it devoured (v. 7), like the second (v. 5); and it exercised relentless dominion (v. 7), like the third (v. 6).

As Daniel considered the “ten horns” of the beast, “There came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots” (v. 8). This activity is not paralleled by any previous beast (cf. vv. 4-6).

Iain Duguid acknowledges how dreadful this all must have been, suggesting “spending a night in a den of lions would be a comfortable prospect compared to the prospect of confronting these outlandish and dangerous beasts!” (Iain Duguid, “Daniel,” in The Reformed Expository Commentary, p. 110).

Who are the “ten horns”? Are they to be taken literally or figuratively? If we follow the normal hermeneutic and acknowledge that every other number in the book is taken literally, then the “ten horns” must refer to ten rulers.

Gleason Archer Jr., says, “There is an unmistakable correspondence between these horns and the ten toes of the dream image (ch. 2), and the mention of iron in the teeth suggests the legs and toes of iron in that image.”

Tom Constable says, “Most premillenarians believe that the 10 horns describe 10 rulers who will arise in the future and reign simultaneously. This seems unlikely to many, since the Roman Empire is no longer in existence, at least in the form in which it existed in ancient times. However, there seem to be indications in Daniel and elsewhere in the Bible, which I will point out later, that God will reshape or revive the Roman Empire in the future. It may not be called “the Roman Empire,” but it will have connections to the old Roman Empire. Darby referred to it as “Europe.”

Then who are the “three horns”? In verse 8 Daniel noticed an eleventh horn arising among the 10, which displaced three of the 10 horns. Unless we adopt a figurative approach and say it doesn’t really matter, the three horns must be a subset of the 10 horns, the ten rulers in the last days.

Auberlen says, “Here for the first time in the development of revelation, the idea of Antichrist is clearly unfolded, because here for the first time the entire course of the development of the godless and God-opposing world is clearly surveyed down to its end” (Carl Augustus Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John: Viewed in Their Mutual Relation, With an Exposition of the Principal Passages, p. 39). Culver reminds us that the kingdom of the Messiah is “specifically predicted to appear after the appearance and destruction of Antichrist, and only after the appearance and destruction of Antichrist” (Robert Culver, Daniel and the Latter Days, p. 131).

This little horn had “eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” The first beast was given the mind of a man (7:4), while this fourth beast has the eyes and speech of one. If the beast was truly as fearsome as Daniel described, then the “great things” the little horn was “speaking” were surely alarming. We will consider interpretations of this “little” horn during the exposition of verses 15-28.

Why did Daniel stop here? History did not. This world has existed more than 1500 years after the demise of the Roman Empire (A.D. 476)

Consider this: Rome was the last empire to rule the whole known world. Listen to the words of Daniel 2:39-43:

After you, another kingdom will rise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron —for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay. (emphasis added)

Rome was a strong world empire, strong as iron, that smashed everything, but it had internal weaknesses, feet of clay, due to the mixtures of people that eventually spelled Rome’s doom. Rome was later invaded by the barbarians and fell in A.D. 476. Never again were there nations like Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome that ruled the whole civilized world. Even modern armies have only subdued small portions of the whole civilized world.

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/15518/map-of-the-provinces-of-the-roman-empire-under-aug

The second and more important reason that Rome was the last kingdom mentioned is because of the main point of the vision of Daniel 2. Something very unusual, very important, and completely divine was going to occur when the fourth kingdom came on the scene.

In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands — a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces. (Daniel 2:44, 45)

During the rule of Rome (not some other empire), the kingdom of God would come to earth in the person of the Messiah, Jesus Christ.

This vision in Daniel 7 is an explanation of “end times Rome,” that rising again of the Roman Empire in some form. The description in verse 8 is a reference to the Antichrist, the “little horn” that speaks “boastfully.” James Montgomery Boice says, “This seems to be the first biblical reference to the individual later described in the Bible as the Antichrist. He appears in 2 Thessalonians 2 as “the man of lawlessness…doomed for destruction” (v. 3) and is seen again in Revelation” (Daniel: An Expositional Commentary, p. 75).

Wiersbe reminds us that our Antichrist comes from Greek and the prefix anti- can either point out “against Christ” or “instead of Christ.” Both ideas represent the stance and modus operandi of the Antichrist. He comes in all ways in rebellion against God, but in the eyes of man he comes as an alternate Christ, a supposed Messiah, a false Savior.

Daniel’s Four Beasts, part 2 (Daniel 7:3-5)

We’re looking at Daniel’s vision of the four beasts in Daniel 7 today. Verses 1-8 read…

I In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream and visions of his head as he lay in his bed. Then he wrote down the dream and told the sum of the matter. 2 Daniel declared, “I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea. 3 And four great beasts came up out of the sea, different from one another. 4 The first was like a lion and had eagles’ wings. Then as I looked its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it. 5 And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear. It was raised up on one side. It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’ 6 After this I looked, and behold, another, like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads, and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. 8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.

Four beasts “came up out of the great sea.” These were nations closest to the Mediterranean sea, and as we said last time, the sea represented chaos, out of which the Gentile nations arise.

“Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth” (Dan. 7:17).

Unlike Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a man composed of valuable metals (Daniel 2:31), Daniel sees a sequence of voracious beasts. What looks attractive and impressive from the perspective of man, when seen by God’s piercing gaze (Rev. 1:14; 2:38; 19:12), turns out to be much different. Its true nature is revealed (Rev. 2:18). They are truly beastly.

James Montgomery Boice asks: “What is more characteristic of the kingdoms of this world’s history: the properly functioning state of Romans 13 or the corrupt, devouring state of Revelation 13?” (Daniel: An Expositional Commentary, p. 76).

The characteristics of the beasts seen by Daniel combine in the beast seen by John hundreds of years later.

Then I stood on the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rising up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and on his horns ten crowns, and on his heads a blasphemous name. Now the beast which I saw was like a leopard, his feet were like [the feet of] a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority. (Rev. 13:1-2, emphasis added).

Daniel then writes about these beasts in the subsequent verses (vv. 4-8). Each beast was numbered and described, and then some activity is described.

The Four Beasts of Daniel 7

The Number	The Description	The Activity
First beast (7:4)	“like a lion and had eagles’ wings”	“Its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it.”
Second beast (7:5)	“like a bear. . . . raised up on one side . . . [with] three ribs in its . . . teeth”	“It was told, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’”
Third beast (7:6)	“like a leopard, with four wings of a bird on its back. And the beast had four heads”	“Dominion was given to it.”
Fourth beast (7:7)	“terrifying and dreadful and exceedingly strong. It had great iron teeth; . . . and it had ten horns”	“It devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet.”

The first beast was “like a lion and had eagles’ wings.”

Notice that these are not normal animals that you would find in the wild or in a zoo, but composite creatures that illustrate various characteristics of these kingdoms.

“The monarchy vision of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 2) covers the same order of fulfillment as Daniel’s beast vision, but with this difference: Nebuchadnezzar saw the imposing outward power and splendor of ‘the times of the Gentiles’ (Lk. 21;24; cp. Rev. 16:19 …), whereas Daniel saw the true character of Gentile world government as rapacious and warlike, established and maintained by force. It is remarkable that the heraldic insignia of the Gentile nations are all beasts or birds of prey” (The New Scofield Reference Bible, p. 907).

Because of the parallelism with chapter 2, this animal matches the “head of gold” on the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which represented Babylon and more specifically, Nebuchadnezzar.

It is important to understand that the period of time depicted in both Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s vision is anchored at each end in relation to Jewish rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem. Both begin with the overthrow of Davidic rule (by Nebuchadnezzar) and both end with the restoration of Davidic rule (by Jesus). While other kingdoms of significance to Israel (e.g., Egypt, Assyria) had arisen prior to Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon, they are not in view in chapters 2 or 7 because they did not interrupt Jewish rule in the line of David on the throne in Jerusalem.

In chapter 2, the symbols were taken from inanimate objects; here in chapter 7, they are taken from the animate. In chapter 2, King Nebuchadnezzar saw the splendor of world empires portrayed in the dazzling statue of a man, while the Kingdom of God was symbolized by a stone. By contrast, in chapter 7, Daniel’s vision reveals the animalistic character of world empires and the fact that it is only in the Kingdom of God that man’s full dignity is realized—in the Son of Man” (Charles Lee Feinberg. Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord, pp. 83-84).


DANIEL 2		DANIEL 7
Head of gold	BABYLON (626-539 B.C.)	Lion	(v.4)
Chest of silver	MEDES/PERSIANS (539-330 B.C.)	Bear	(v.5)
Thighs of bronze	GREECE (330-63 B.C.)	Leopard	(v.6)
Legs of iron	ROME (63 B.C.-430 A.D.)
	(The kingdom of God comes initially.)
	ANTICHRIST	Terrifying Beast	(vv. 7-28)
	(The kingdom of God comes in fullness.)

In other OT passages, Nebuchadnezzar was compared to a lion (Jere. 4:7-13; 50:17) and the Babylonian armies to eagles (Lam. 4:19; Ezek. 17:3; Hab. 1:8), so in Daniel 7:4 the use of “lion” and “eagle” is consistent with terminology used to describe Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon. These images denote predators who can easily (lion-like quality) and quickly (eagle-like quality) overcome their prey. Indeed, this is what King Nebuchadnezzar did, quickly and easily conquering other kingdoms and cities.

In much of ancient literature, Babylon’s symbol is a lion with eagle’s wings. The Ishtar Gate gave access to the city’s processional street whose walls were lined with enameled lions.

The Lion of Babylon from a portion of the Processional Way leading to the Ishtar Gate

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=5f3e024f075fa025&sxsrf=AE3TifMLM-w95yuW4AiMQVf-HqjcEbiG-A:1753817406385&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeoJTKjrFjVxydQWqI2NcOhZVmrJB8DQUK5IzxA2fZbQF4YL5sNSRJGgx0e9Z9AxExzjE4_ynshmXB4KOs3cwRUeqSxtyEph1-LMoYoz7AgsxiAlRbfQlh62fpf4TvoMmLeIHIDQBlO9bBf83uliUCcabaD8ejPu9aoigNJtiQ30WOIRP0w&q=winged+lions+in+babylon&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibsIj85uKOAxV3kokEHSwwPPQQtKgLegQIDxAB&biw=1118&bih=680&dpr=1.25#vhid=NjZKCWBAucmktM&vssid=mosaic

Another commonality with Nebuchadnezzar’s image and Daniel’s vision is that they both begin with the higher ranking kingdom, the head of gold and the winged lion. The lion is the king of beasts and the eagle is king of the birds. Gold is the most precious metal.

Andy Woods makes the point that God’s supernatural assistance is described as being carried on eagle’s wings in various places (Exod. 19:4; Deut. 32:10-13; Isa. 40:30-31; Rev. 12:13-14), thus having eagle’s wings could represent God’s support of this kingdom during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, whom God, through Jeremiah, refers to as “My servant” (Jer. 25:9; 27:6; 43:10).

Each of these beasts arise up out of the stormy sea, riding in power on the crest of a tidal wave of war. Nebuchadnezzar’s reign had been a string of continual conquests of other nations and peoples.

But as Daniel beheld the eagle-winged lion, three actions took place: “Its wings were plucked off, and it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given to it.” The passive verbs suggest divine action taken upon Nebuchadnezzar, and the three events evoke chapter 4, where King Nebuchadnezzar was given the mind of a beast for a time (4:16, 33); but when the allotted punishment was fulfilled, God restored his normal mind (v. 34).

According to Daniel 4:33, during Nebuchadnezzar’s punishment his hair grew as long as eagles’ feathers, and his nails grew out like birds’ claws. In punishment, Nebuchadnezzar’s “wings were plucked off,” but when Nebuchadnezzar repented, he “was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man, and the mind of a man was given [back] to [him].”

In speaking of its “eagle wings,” he meant that king Nebuchadnezzar was exalted, and that his glory was lifted up against God. Then he says “its wings were plucked off,” i.e., that his glory was destroyed; for he was driven out of his kingdom. . . . the words, “A man’s heart was given it, and it was made stand upon the feet of a man,” mean that he came to himself again, and recognised that he was but a man, and gave the glory to God. (Hippolytus, On Daniel, p. 178).

But then he was “lifted up from the ground,” pointing to the event in which Nebuchadnezzar lifted his eyes to heaven (Dan. 4:31) and then sovereignty (“made to stand”) and authority (“mind of a man was given back to him.”)

Fruchtenbaum suggests the attributes of a man denotes a shift in the empire’s characteristics concerning conquest.

As much as possible that a man could become a beast, Nebuchadnezzar became one; as close as a beast could become a man, so did Babylon eventually lose its beast-like nature. Babylon eventually lost its beast-like nature as it moved from lust of conquest to the building of culture. (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, The Footsteps of Messiah, p. 27).

Interestingly, only the descriptions of the first and last beasts make reference to man. Here it is a man’s heart—speaking of humaneness. There it is a man’s eyes—denoting intelligence, possibly even craftiness (Dan. 7:8, 20). The ruler of the first Gentile kingdom, having been humbled as a beast, is restored as a man. The ruler of the final Gentile kingdom, the antichrist, having eyes like a man (extreme intelligence), but behaves as a beast (Rev. 13:7). His intelligence will lend itself to scheming and craftiness that enables him to do what he wants to do and follow what Satan has planned for him (Dan. 7:11, 25; Rev. 13:5-6).

Both rulers are contrasted with the “One like the Son of Man” (Dan. 7:13), as if to raise the question: which type of man will ultimately rule over God’s creation? A sinful man from the earth? Or the one-and-only sinless man from heaven (John 3:13, 31; 6:33, 38, 41-42)?

“Although Daniel in this vision does not dwell on the fall of Babylon, described in detail in chapter 5, the decline of Babylon and the rise of The Medo-Persian Empire is implied. Other prophets spoke at length on the fall of Babylon. From the reference to the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, there is no biblical mention of Babylon until the major prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel discuss Babylon’s future. Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon as similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Is 13:1-22), with particular mention of the Medes in Isaiah 13:17-19. A future destruction of Babylon at the second coming of Christ seems to be indicated in Isaiah 13:20-22 (cf. Rev 17). Another extended prophecy about Babylon is found in Isaiah 47.

Jeremiah who witnessed the capture of Jerusalem by the Babylonians refers to Babylon throughout his prophecy, of which the most important sections are Jeremiah 25:11-14; 29:10; 50:1-51:62. The last three long chapters of Jeremiah are devoted entirely to Babylon. Ezekiel, himself a captive, is occupied with Babylon (Eze 17:12-24), and predicts like Jeremiah Babylon’s conquest of Egypt (Eze 29:18-20; 30:10-25; 32:1-32). Daniel, writing later, ties together these prophecies about Babylon” (John Walvoord, https://walvoord.com/article/248)

The second beast was “like a bear. . . . raised up on one side . . . [with] three ribs in its . . . teeth” (Dan. 7:5). The Old Testament writers spoke of the bear as the most formidable beast of prey in Canaan after the lion (cf. 1 Sam. 17:34; Amos 5:19; cf. 2 Kings 2:24; Hos. 13:8). Remember that David killed both a lion and a bear. This was no cuddly teddy bear, but a ferocious predator.

A bear is ponderous and slow, but achieves its objectives through sheer strength and brute force, seeking to crush its victims in its embrace. As Driver expresses it, “In the O. T. it is spoken of as being, next to the lion, the most formidable beast of prey known in Palestine (1 Sam. 17:34; Am. 5:19; cf. 2 Ki. 2:24; Hos. 13:8); at the same time, it is inferior to the lion in strength and appearance, and is heavy and ungainly in its movements” (S. R. Driver, The Book of Daniel, p. 82).

When Xerxes marched against Greece, he took two and a half million troops with him; the movement of this mass of men looked more like a migration than an army. Even Persian’s last and most pacific king brought more than half a millions men to the Battle of Issus and two years after their defeat was able to find another million men for his final battle.

From the chaotic waters rose a second beast, “like a bear. It was raised up on one side. It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth; and it was told, ‘Arise, devour much flesh.’”

Being “raised up on one side” is likely a reference to the ascendancy of the Persian Empire over the Medes. This is represented in Daniel 8 by two horns, one (Persian) higher than the other (Dan. 8:3, 20). The ram with its unequal horns is identified as “The kings of Media and Persia” (Dan 8:20).

The overall stress for this beast is on conquest; and Medo-Persia did take over far more land than any prior kingdom, reaching finally all the way from the Indus River on the east to Egypt and the Aegean on the west.

Some versions begin this verse with “Suddenly,” as if to emphasize the swiftness with which Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians.

If the first metal (gold) and animal (a winged lion) both refer to Babylon in chapters 2 and 7, then the second animal most reasonably corresponds to the second metal—Medo-Persia, which conquered Babylon in 539 B. C., under the reign of Cyrus.

Bear are more ponderous lions in their movements, also a characteristic of Medo-Persia with its large armies. [The Persian empire] wielded vast masses of human strength on their enemies; their armies varied from 300,000 on slighter expeditions to a million. Darius’ army, with which he marched through the desolate regions of Scythia, was counted at 700,000, exclusive of his fleet of 600 ships, which would add a naval force of 120,000 men. Xerxes’ expedition against Greece resembled more the emigration of vast hordes, than an army; they were calculated at above two million and a half of fighting men. Artaxerxes Longimanus, his successor, gathered two armies, each it is said, exceeding 300,000 men, to subdue the single province of Egypt. (Pusey, Daniel the Prophet, p. 73).

https://www.britannica.com/place/Media-ancient-region-Iran

The bear raised up on one side illustrates that the Persian Empire soon became dominant over the Medes. The three ribs the bear has in its mouth pictures the three major kingdoms conquered by the Medo-Persian empire. They were Lydia (546 B.C.), Babylon (539 B. C.), and Egypt (525 B. C.). Of course, Daniel would not, himself, have been able to perceive these things. Peter tells us that Old Testament prophets.

Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you. (1 Peter 1:10-12).

We have a much clearer picture and understanding because we can look back and correlate this with actual historical events.

Rodney Storz points out:

We need to remember two important things about predictive prophecy as we study Daniel 7 — 12. First, prophecy does give us important details about the future that God says we need to know in advance, so when they occur we are ready. God wanted Israel to understand something about the Medo-Persian Empire, so the people would know for certain who was in control of human history. Persia would become stronger than the Medes and would conquer three major kingdoms.

The second thing we need to understand is that we should never speculate as to how prophecies yet future to us might be fulfilled. Can you imagine Daniel trying to speculate what the bear raised up on its side with three ribs in his mouth meant? He could never have guessed; and if he tried to speculate, he might throw people off track because they would get the speculations in their mind and miss the real fulfillment.

For example, John tells us in Revelation 13:18 that the number of the Antichrist, or the Beast, will be 666. Some have said that means the Antichrist will have three names, and each name will have six letters in each name. (I remember hearing that Ronald Wilson Reagan might fit the bill.) But the prophecy doesn’t say that 666 means three names with six letters each; so we might miss the real person if we are looking for the wrong thing. We should just know what to look for, and it will be clear when it happens.

In the interpretation of Daniel’s vision (7:15-28), nothing is made of the bear and rib imagery of verse 5, but the ferocious nature of the beast is clear by the description of its prey’s ribs sticking out of its mouth. The bear has already devoured, and then it is told to devour more. This apparently refers to the additional conquests of the Medes and Persians in the years which followed the fall of Babylon.

Just as the passive verbs in verse 4 suggested divine action, so also is the command in verse 5 from God. The Medo-Persian Empire was God’s instrument for judgment on Babylon and deliverance of his exiled people. The bear would discover how Babylon tasted!

Daniel would receive more information about the second beast/kingdom in Daniel 8.

Daniel’s Four Beasts, part 1 (Daniel 7:1-2)

Some people really love Bible prophecy and want to know whether what happened today is a sign of the rapture or the return of Christ. In fact, it’s common knowledge among pastors that if you want to attract people to church, just preach on the end times or on sex, or as J. D. Greear joked, entitle a sermon “Will there be sex in the end times?”

Most of you who grew up in church know that at least 25% of the Bible is prophetic. Not all of that deals with our future. Some of it has already been fulfilled, some of it will be fulfilled for those who go through the tribulation, but there are passages that apply to those of us who are alive today.

Today we are starting Daniel chapter 7.

For a variety of reasons, “modern commentators are generally agreed that chapter 7 is the single most important chapter of the Book of Daniel.” [W. S. Towner, Daniel, INT (Atlanta: John Knox, 1984), 91] Porteous calls it “the heart of the Book of Daniel,” [N. W. Porteous, Daniel, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965), 95] and Heaton declares, “It would be no exaggeration to say that this chapter is one of the most important passages of the OT.” [E. W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel, TBC (London: SCM Press, 1956), 169.] . . . First, Dan. 7 marks the literary turning point of the book from historical accounts to visions. . . . Second, the chapter is important because of its enormous impact on subsequent Jewish literature. . . . Third, it is of extreme significance prophetically. Walvoord rightly maintains: “As interpreted by conservative expositors, the vision of Daniel provides the most comprehensive and detailed prophecy of future events to be found anywhere in the Old Testament.” [J. F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971), 145.]

Many people enjoy the adventures of Daniel and his friends in the first six chapters of Daniel, but tend to avoid the mysterious visions of chapters 7-12. Others, however, love the prophetic portions of Daniel and could skip over the stories and their practical applications. Admittedly, visions of the future can be quite daunting. Even Daniel “was troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me” (Dan. 7:15).

But let’s push through our fears the way Daniel did. Daniel 7:16 says, “I approached one of those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. So he told me and gave me the interpretation of these things” (emphasis added). He was asking an angel, but we do not know any angels. At least I do not. So who can we ask? We need to ask the Lord himself as we meditate on his Word. Psalm 119:18 is our prayer: “Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderous things out of your law.” In 2 Timothy 2:7 Paul says, “Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.” So pray for insight and think about it, mediate on it. This won’t answer every question, but it will go a long way to helping you understand Scripture.

This chapter would reinforce for the Israelites, either in Babylon or back in Jerusalem, that God was in control of even the mightiest empires of the world. God had not abandoned His chosen nation.

At the time of this vision, Daniel and his people remained captive under the thumb of Babylon. Meanwhile, Jerusalem, the city of promise where God had placed his name, had lain in ruins for more than three decades (587-533 B.C.). The prophetic information given to Daniel in this chapter established the certainty that God would restore Israel: not only to end the Babylonian Captivity as Jeremiah had predicted (Jer. 29:10 cf. Daniel 9:2), but also at the very end of the age when the Messiah would rule from the throne of David.

The remaining chapters of Daniel detail Israel’s future and can be summarized in pairs: two coming dictators (chaps. 7-8), two critical delays (chaps. 9-10) and two complete disclosures (chaps. 11-12).

In this chapter Daniel receives a vision of four beasts rising out of the sea, the fourth beast being more fearsome than the others, and its little horn evoking concern (7:1-8). These beasts will terrorize God’s people.

https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/Book_of_Daniel/commentary/htm/chapters/07.html

Shifting from the sea to heaven, Daniel’s vision continues with the Ancient of Days judging the fourth beast (vv. 9-12). Then “one like a son of man” receives everlasting dominion over all (vv. 13-14). An angel explains that the four beasts are kings and that the saints will receive an everlasting kingdom (vv. 15-18). Daniel learns more about the fourth beast and its little horn (vv. 19-27).

Chapter 7 is a transition to the exclusively visionary section of the book (chs. 7-12). Daniel was the sole recipient of these visions, with no report of a king receiving them first.

This last half of the book consists of four visions: chapters 7, 8, 9, and then chapters 10-12. Each vision occurred in a different year (cf. 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1) and location (cf. 7:1; 8:27; 9:3; 10:4), but they did not occur chronologically following the events at the end of chapter 6. Rather, the four visions in chapters 7-12 occurred concurrently with the events of chapters 1-6 and are given in chronological order below. However, if Darius and Cyrus are not the same person, then chapters 10-12 do occur after chapters 1-6.

Years and Locations of the Visions of Daniel 7–12

The Vision	The Year of the Vision	Where Daniel Was	Dates
Daniel 7	“the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon” (7:1)	In his house (7:1)	553 B. C.
Daniel 8	“the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar” (8:1)	In his house (8:27)	550 B. C.
Daniel 9	“the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus” (9:1)	In his house (9:3, 21)	539-538 B. C.
Daniel 10-12	“the third year of Cyrus king of Persia” (10:1)	By a river (10:4)	536-535 B. C.

This chart is from the ESV Expository Commentary and assumes Darius and Cyrus were the same person. The column with dates was added from Tom Constable’s website.

Daniel would have been in his 80s by this time. “God does not reveal all His truths at once, even to the wise, but reserves much for age and experience” (Joyce Baldwin, Daniel, An Introduction and Commentary, p. 138).

1. Daniel Sees a Vision of Four Beasts from the Sea and Two Figures in Heaven (7:1-14)

a. Daniel Sees Four Beasts like Animals Who Exercise Dominion (7:1-8)

Daniel had a vision in “the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon,” around 553 BC. Thus, the vision of chapter 7 occurs between chapter 4, which deals with the humbling of Nebuchadnezzar, and chapter 5, which deals with the humbling of Belshazzar. Thus, Daniel has known for some time that the Medo-Persian empire would replace the Babylonian Empire on the world stage.

Notice that Daniel calls Belshazzar “king of Babylon.” Nabonidus, his father, was king over the empire, but Belshazzar was ruling in Babylon. This, again, is why Daniel was promised to be “third ruler” in the kingdom (Dan. 5:16).

It was fitting that this vision of the downfall of world empires should come to the prophet during the reign of the last king of Babylon. God gave it to him 50 years after the similar revelation of the great image in chapter 2 given to Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Gen. 41:25, 32).

Daniel is about 65, which is encouraging to me that God still uses older people. God is never finished with us even in our old age. I like Psalm 92:14, “They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green” (Psalm 92:14 NIV). Don’t stop serving the Lord, even if you don’t have the energy you formerly had. Don’t believe that He can’t use you because you are “past your expiration date.”

What many consider as the two most significant prophetic books of the Bible, the Old Testament book of Daniel and the New Testament book of Revelation, were written by older believers who remained faithful in their walk with God in their advanced years. The last three chapters of the book of Daniel were given when Daniel was 86 years old and John received the revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev. 1:1) when he was in his 90s.

The vision consists of activity in the sea (vv. 1-8) and in heaven (vv. 9-14). A situation with the fourth beast (vv. 7-8) provokes God’s response (vv. 9-14). In verses 1-8, Daniel gives the year of the vision and then describes four beasts that rose up from the sea. The fourth beast receives the most attention (vv. 7-8).

The four beasts are four empires. According to Daniel 7:17 and 23, these beasts correspond to kingdoms and the kings who rule them.

These empires exist one after another. The fourth beast “was different from all the beasts that were before it” (Dan. 7:7). The fourth beast will devour the “whole earth” (Dan. 7:23), which leaves no place for other beasts at the same time. The phrase “after this” in Daniel 7:6-7, explaining the sequence of beasts, confirms that the beasts will reign consecutively.

Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon; the night of his blasphemous banquet was both the night of his death and the night the Medo-Persians seized control of Babylon (5:30-31). In the Aramaic chiasm of the book (chs. 2-7), a comparison of chapters 2 and 7 reveals that the vision in the former occurred under Nebuchadnezzar (2:1), the first king of Judah’s exile, while the vision in the latter occurred under Belshazzar (7:1), the last Babylonian king of Judah’s exile (cf. 5:31). Thus, during the first and last Babylonian kings of Judah’s exile, God gave visions of four earthly kingdoms. Other visions in the book pertain to only some of these kingdoms.

Here, unlike the other dreams in the book (chapters 2 and 4), Daniel received this vision directly from God. Daniel saw the vision at night “as he lay in his bed.” He then “wrote down the dream,” which formed the record of the dream found in vv. 2-28.

Why did Daniel write it down? Because it was not just for him, but for generations of Israelites yet to be born. The dream given to Daniel contains information God meant to be preserved for our day and beyond: even to the time of the fulfillment of events revealed within the dream—at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. As such, the record Daniel wrote is permanent.

Daniel’s purpose in writing is akin to that of Isaiah, “Now go, write it before them on a tablet, And note it on a scroll, That it may be for time to come, Forever and ever: . . .” (Isa. 30:8). The source of Daniel’s dream and visions was not his own thoughts or imaginings, but the very Spirit of God (Dan. 4:8; 5:12; 6:2). God’s Word is sure and stands forever (Isa. 40:8; Matt. 5:17).

This vision will build upon the dream of Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 2.

https://www.harvesthousepublishers.com/blog/do-you-know-how-to-interpret-the-four-kingdoms-of-daniel?srsltid=AfmBOooVh6-7er9oMnvRR7ilLzm_o47YvnfFH3kNtoEF0dbQT5eHhD70

Philip Jensen compares all the prophecies in Daniel and shows their correlation:

One reason God may have revealed the same sequence of kingdoms in several separate chapters is that two or three is the number of witness (Gen. 42:25, 32; cf. Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16).

Andy Woods has this chart showing the comparisons between the two chapters.

Two Dreams Compared
Chapter	2	7
Recipient	Nebuchadnezzar	Daniel
Nationality	Gentile	Jew
Year	603-602 B.C.	553 B.C.
Ruler of Babylon	First: Nebuchadnezzar	Last: Belshazzar
Kingdoms As	Beautiful metals (Dan. 2:32-33)	Voracious beasts (Dan. 7:3-7)
Perspective	Man	God
Fourth Phase Partitioned	Ten toes (Dan. 2:42)	Ten horns (Dan. 7:7, 20, 24)
Final Gentile Ruler	(not revealed)	Little horn (Dan. 7:8, 11, 21, 24)
God’s Eternal Kingdom	Stone cut without hands (Dan. 2:34)	Son of Man (Dan. 7:13)

Daniel saw “four winds of heaven” (v. 2) stirring up the great sea. These were winds from the north, south, east, and west, every direction, almost like a whirlwind. “To the Hebrews the sea was both dangerous and mysterious, a restless element but not beyond the Lord’s power to tame” (Joyce Baldwin). The “sea” was viewed by the ancient Hebrews as a realm of chaos, disorder and rebellion (cf. Genesis 1:2; Job 38:8-10; Psa. 104:6-7), and now that realm was pulsing with activity. The winds roused four different beasts from the waters.

The sea is sometimes used as a picture of Gentile nations (Psalm 74:13, Psalm 89:9, Isaiah 57:20).

“Unlike many ancient peoples, such as the Phoenicians, the Israelites were not mariners. They preferred terra firma. In the Israelite imagination, voiced in her poetry, the sea is emblematic of restless evil, chaos and death….Almost every OT reference to ships and sailing entails Gentiles in some way….How fitting, therefore, that when Jesus called his first Jewish disciples to be ‘fishers of men,’ he did so in ‘Galilee of the Gentiles,’ where they were casting their nets into the sea (Matt. 4:15-19). On a ship, the Messiah demonstrated his power over ‘the wind and the sea’ (Matt 8:26)” (Chad Bird, Unveiling Mercy, p. 226)

John Phillips notes: “The ‘four winds of the heaven’ symbolize four great angel princes (Rev. 7:1-3; 9:14-15), those ‘principalities’ of Satan, who rule over the four nations that were to seize world power. They are the ‘powers of the air,’ the force of the Evil One against which we strive today in prayer (Eph. 6:12). They are subject to Satan (Eph. 2:2) and through them he holds the nations of the earth in chain” (Exploring Daniel, pp. 112-113).

David Jeremiah says, “When Daniel in his vision looks at this great sea of humanity, it is being blown from the four corners of the earth, depicting political strife and uprisings, wars and bloodshed among the nations. He sees the nations in unrest, which is the everlasting human condition” (The Handwriting on the Wall, p. 133).

The sea was also considered to be the natural home of monsters such as Leviathan, the multiheaded monster of ancient mythology (see Psa. 74:13-14), all enemies of God.

Daniel saw “the great sea,” quite probably the Mediterranean Sea (cf. Num. 34:6-7; Josh. 1:4; 9:1; Ezek. 47:10; et al.), stirred up by the four winds (or spirits) of heaven (v. 2; cf. Jer. 23:19; 49:36; Zech. 6:1-6; Rev. 7:1-3; et al.). The sea in Scripture, and in ancient Near Eastern thinking, represented the unorganized mass of humanity: the populace of the earth (v. 17; cf. Isa. 8:6-8; 17:12-13; 57:20; 60:5; Jer. 6:23; 46:7-8; 47:2; Matt. 13:47; Luke 21:25; Rev. 13:1; 17:1, 15; 21:1; et al.). The Mediterranean world seems to be particularly in view, since the sea was the Mediterranean Sea.

“God often used the wind as a means to attain His ends (Gen 8:1: Ex 10:13-19; 14:21; 15:10; Num 11:31; I Ki 18:45; 19:11). … Of more than 120 references in the Bible to wind (more than 90 in the O.T. and about 30 in the N.T.), well over half are related to events and ideas which reflect the sovereignty and power of God. In Daniel, wind is uniformly used to represent the sovereign power of God, which is the viewpoint of the book” (John F. Walvoord, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, p. 152, cf. Gen. 1:2). Commentators agree that the four winds are under the ultimate control of God—they recognize the overarching sovereignty of God.

The “sea” is likely referring to the Mediterranean Sea. However, global aspects of the vision seen by Daniel [four winds (Dan. 7:2), eventual world-wide dominion of the final beast (Dan. 7:23)] in combination with those seen by John [all the world worships the final beast (Rev. 13:3), the waters upon which the Harlot sits (Rev. 17:1) are “peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues” (Rev. 17:15)] argue for understanding the Great Sea as representing the global population.

But why does it say in v. 17 that “These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth” if v. 3 says they arise “out of the sea”? Obviously, since we are talking about kings, they symbolically arise out of chaos and disorder, but naturally arose upon dry land. The images of “sea” and “earth” are therefore not contradictory, but complimentary.

“Those great beasts, which are four, are four kings which arise out of the earth” (Dan. 7:17).

Darius’ Proclamation and Daniel’s Promotion (Daniel 6:25-28)

God has miraculously delivered Daniel from the lion’s den, something that Darius, despite his power and authority as king of the Medo-Persian empire, could not do. Thus, Darius declares:

25 Then King Darius wrote to all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth: “Peace be multiplied to you. 26 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.
27 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.”

28 So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

For Darius to have issued such a document means that he was greatly impressed with the power of Daniel’s God, even as Nebuchadnezzar had been (cf. 2:47; 3:28-29; 4:1-3, 34-37).

The Book of Daniel follows a familiar pattern. God’s people stand firm in their convictions, God honors and protects them, and the testimony of God’s work makes the ungodly see and tell of the greatness of God (1:20; 2:46-47; 3:28-30; 4:34-37; 5:29). The point is plain: when we stand firm in godly convictions and honor God even when it costs something, others will see that testimony and be impressed. Sometimes it will “see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:12) and other times it will “silence the ignorance of foolish people” (1 Pet. 2:14).

Darius wrote a message to “all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth.” Such universal language appeared earlier (3:4, 7, 29; 4:1) and indicated a comprehensive application of “Peace be multiplied to you” (6:25), a typical wish for peace for all. What came next would distinguish the king’s decree from the other message he had written.

Darius decreed, “In all my royal dominion people are to tremble and fear before the God of Daniel.” God had glorified Himself in His miraculous deliverance of Daniel. Even Darius could see that.

The king was so impressed by God’s intervention and his protection of Daniel that he wanted everyone to respond in a way he deemed appropriate: before a God who rescued his servant from lions, trembling and fear was warranted.

Matthew Henry acknowledges: “But, though this decree goes far, it does not go far enough; had he [Darius] come up to his present convictions, he would have commanded all men not only to fear before this God, but to love him and trust in him, to forsake the service of their idols, and to worship him only.”

At this point, Darius praises “the God of Daniel.” It isn’t enough to say, “the God of Daniel.” Saving faith says, “the God of Darius.” Similarly for us, it is not enough to know that Jesus is a Savior; He must be “my Savior” or “your Savior.” You must know that you are a sinner in need of forgiveness of sins and believe that Jesus died on the cross to do so for you.

Isaiah 45 and Cyrus having his heart stirred by God to release the captives, very possibly shows that his faith, too, grew and became his own.

Darius goes on to explain this new decree: “He is the living God, enduring forever; his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end.” He had already called the Lord “the living God” (v. 20), but now he wanted everyone to know more about this deity. Since God endured forever, it made sense that his kingdom and dominion would last forever as well. It was significant that Darius—an emperor, no less—acknowledged that God’s kingdom would endure, implying that his own Medo-Persian kingdom would not. Nor would any of man’s kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar had eventually made similar statements about God’s kingdom (4:3, 34).

Elaborating on the reasons people should tremble and fear Daniel’s God, Darius wrote, “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” (6:27). These exclamations point particularly to Daniel’s deliverance. This is the nature of the God of Daniel.

The last phrase clarifies that Darius was not thinking of some abstract notion of deliverance. Instead, he had specifically in mind Daniel’s deliverance from the den of hungry lions.

Warren Wiersbe says, “The theology expressed in the decree of Darius is as true as anything written by Moses, David, or Paul. Jehovah is the living and eternal God whose kingdom will never be destroyed (v. 26; see Deut. 5:26; Josh. 3:10; Psa 42:2; Jere. 10:10; Psa. 145:13; Rev. 11:15). He is the God who saves people and rescues them from danger and death, and who performs signs and wonders (Dan. 6:27; see 3:28-29; 4:3; Deut. 6:22; Neh. 9:10; Psa. 74:9; 105:26-36; 135:9; Jere. 32:20-21)” (The Wiersbe Bible Commentary: OT Volume, p. 1368).

Gleason Archer Jr. summarizes:

“Three emphases stand out in this passage: (1) Daniel’s God is alive and shows that he lives by the way he acts in history, responding, like a real person, to the requirement of justice and the needs of his people; (2) God’s rule is eternal and will never pass away (as do empires built by human power), even though the Hebrew monarchy did not survive its apostasy; (3) God miraculously delivers his true worshipers, performing wonders both in heaven and on earth. He has furnished objective proof of his eternal power and godhead, in contrast to all the other deities, whose existence is at best conjectural and traditional” (Gleason Archer, Jr. “Daniel” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 83).

Nebuchadnezzar had extolled God’s power in rescuing Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego from the fiery furnace (3:28-29), and he also spoke of “signs” and “wonders” (4:3). In chapter 6, God once again displayed his mighty power, prevailing over the conspiracy of the high officials and satraps, the concession of the reluctant king, and the appetite of savage beasts. All should fear and tremble before this mighty God.

No conspiracy of man, concession of a king or hunger of a beast can stand in the way of God’s sovereign providential care and power for His servants.

Daniel served “the living God” who has an everlasting kingdom (6:26). As proven with Daniel’s deliverance, this God rescues and performs wonders and saved Daniel from the power of the lions (6:27).

Again, “Daniel’s God is alive and shows that he lives by the way he acts in history, responding, like a real person, to the requirements of justice and the needs of his people” (Gleason Archer Jr., “Daniel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, p. 83).

“He calls him ‘the living God,’ not only because he has life in himself, but out of himself, and is also the origin and fountain of life. This epithet ought to be taken actively, for God not only lives but has life in himself; and he is also the source of life, since there is no life independent of him” (John Calvin, Commentary on the Prophet Daniel).

Paul says of this God, possibly quoting a secular poet:

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’” (Acts 17:28)

And the Psalmist says in Psalm 36

8 They feast on the abundance of your house,
and you give them drink from the river of your delights.
9 For with you is the fountain of life;
in your light do we see light.

It is as though God was giving two witnesses to His people Israel: Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. Both monarchs testified to the living and eternal God’s unshakable sovereignty, grace, and power in heaven and on earth (cf. 4:3, 34-35). These testimonies certainly would have encouraged the Israelites to trust Him in spite of the circumstances of the exile.

Warren Wiersbe writes, “The Jews had been humiliated by the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple because their defeat made it look as though the false gods of the Babylonians were stronger than the true God of Israel… Jehovah hadn’t been honored by his own people, but now He was receiving praise from pagan rulers whose decrees would be published throughout the Gentile world. These decrees were a witness to the Gentiles that there was but one true God, the God of the Jews; but the decrees were also a reminder to the Jews that Jehovah was the true and living God.”

“Once again, during this time of Israel’s helplessness with her survival in doubt, Yahweh of hosts acted redemptively to strengthen his people’s faith in him. On the eve of their return to the Land of Promise under the leadership of Zerubbabel, God reassured them that he was still the same as in the days of Moses and was able to take them back to Canaan, where they could establish a new commonwealth in covenant fellowship with him” (Gleason Archer, “Daniel,” p. 83).

Darius declared of Daniel’s God, “his kingdom shall never be destroyed, and his dominion shall be to the end.”

The enduring nature of God’s kingdom is one of the main themes in the book of Daniel (Dan. 2:44; 4:3; 7:14, 18, 24) in contrast with the impermanent kingdoms of man. The “kingdoms of this world” rise, rule for a period, and then fall, in a recurring cycle throughout history (Dan. 7:27; Rev. 11:15).

And so we continue to pray, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” [emphasis added] (Matt. 6:10).

Darius also proclaims

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.

Up to this point in the book of Daniel, God has rescued:

Daniel and his companions from the possible disfavor of the steward of the chief of the eunuchs (Dan. 1:9-16)
Daniel, his companions, and the wise men from destruction at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 2:19-23)
Daniel’s companions from the fiery furnace (Dan. 3:23-27)
Nebuchadnezzar from madness (Dan. 4:36-37)
Daniel through a change of regimes from Babylon to Persia (Dan. 5:31)
Daniel from the lions’ den (Dan. 6:20-22)

Paul appears to allude to this chapter in his letter to young Timothy: “But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the message might be preached fully through me, and that all the Gentiles might hear. And I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion” [emphasis added] (2Tim. 4:17).

What is the point of these narratives?

Why does Daniel record all of these narratives in between the great prophecies of Daniel 2 and 7? Why does he write about world rulers who are trying to stamp out faithful people of God? Why does he write about God’s miraculous intervention, protection, and sovereignty in the lives of these Jewish men?

If you’re familiar with the prophecies of Daniel, you quickly see the answers to these questions. Daniel goes on to predict another world ruler who will raise himself up at the end of human history. Like these ancient kings, this world ruler will persecute people for following God for a short period of time. Like these ancient kings, this world ruler will accept worship and even deify himself. Like these ancient kings, he will change the laws of the State in order to contradict God and persecute his people.

Daniel wrote these narratives 2,500 years ago, but they still speak to us today. Daniel and his friends are saying, “We stood before tyrants and refused to compromise. But the worst tyranny is still to come… Will you compromise?”

These narratives aren’t cute little Sunday school lessons. They speak to the faithfulness of God’s people in the past for those of us who will be in the great Tribulation of the future.

What about this man Darius?

I hold to the identity that Darius and Cyrus are the same person.

Some factors in favor of understanding Darius and Cyrus to be the same person include the fact that Cyrus had combined the Median and Persian dynasties under his sole control by seizing power from his Median grandfather. Through his mother, he was a royal descendant of the Median kingdom; through his father, he was an heir in the line of the Persian throne. Cyrus may have wanted to emphasize both aspects of his kingship.

It was quite common for ancient kings to have more than one name: personal names and throne names, or names reflecting additions to the kingdom. The Greek historian Herodotus notes that Cyrus was not this king’s original name, but that he had been given a different name by his Median mother. In chapter 6, Darius exercises sweeping, empire-wide authority—an unlikely role for a temporary regent in Babylon (Daniel 6:25). Finally, the events in Daniel 6 and 9 seem to span more time than the very brief administration of Cyrus’s agent Gubaru in Babylon. The name Darius was also used as the royal name of three of Cyrus’s successors.

While this is not conclusive, there is no glaring evidences against this position.

Does he (Darius, also known as Cyrus) become a believer in the one true God? We do know that he will later allow the Jews to return to their homeland. Ezra 1:1-4 says that “the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus…” so he made a proclamation that they may return.

Also, Isaiah 45:1-7 prophesied 150 years before Cyrus was even born that he would be Israel’s deliverer. This would be like Abraham Lincoln predicting that Barack Obama would be our first black president!

1 Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus,
    whose right hand I have grasped,
to subdue nations before him
    and to loose the belts of kings,
to open doors before him
    that gates may not be closed:
2 “I will go before you
    and level the exalted places,
I will break in pieces the doors of bronze
    and cut through the bars of iron,
3 I will give you the treasures of darkness
    and the hoards in secret places,
that you may know that it is I, the Lord,
    the God of Israel, who call you by your name.
4 For the sake of my servant Jacob,
    and Israel my chosen,
I call you by your name,
    I name you, though you do not know me.
5 I am the Lord, and there is no other,
    besides me there is no God;
    I equip you, though you do not know me,
6 that people may know, from the rising of the sun
    and from the west, that there is none besides me;
    I am the Lord, and there is no other.
7 I form light and create darkness;
    I make well-being and create calamity;
    I am the Lord, who does all these things.

I find myself in agreement with the late J. Dwight Pentecost: “It wouldn’t surprise me to find these men [Nebuchadnezzar, Darius] in heaven. It wouldn’t surprise me, but I can’t say.”

The world needs men who cannot be bought; whose word is their bond; who put character above wealth; who possess opinions and a will; who are larger than their vocations; who do not hesitate to take chances; who will not lose their individuality in a crowd; who will be honest in small things as in great things; who will make no compromise with wrong; whose ambitions are not confined to their own selfish desires; who will not say they do it “because everyone else does it;” who are true to their friends through good report and evil report, in adversity as well as in prosperity; who do not believe that shrewdness, cunning and hardheadedness are the best qualities for winning success; who are not ashamed or afraid to stand for the truth when it is unpopular, who can say “no” with emphasis, although all the rest of the world says “yes.”

Quoted in: Ted W. Engstrom, The Making of a Christian Leader, Zondervan, 1976, p. 120.

So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian (Dan. 6:28)

Retribution on Daniel’s Antagonists (Daniel 6:24)

Daniel being cast into the lion’s den was unfair and unjust. Why would God allow that to happen? Ultimately, it would result in Daniel’s rescue, but even more importantly, it would be for God’s glory.

At the king’s command, the men who had falsely accused Daniel were brought in and thrown into the lions’ den, along with their wives and children. And before they reached the floor of the den, the lions overpowered them and crushed all their bones (Dan. 6:24)

No one had to ask Darius to do this, he was ready and willing to bring justice to those who plotted against Daniel. The implication is that the king lost no time in bringing retribution to Daniel’s accusers. These men had not only wronged Daniel, but the king himself. They had insulted him by resorting to trickery to accomplish their purpose. It is unlikely that all 122 officers were thrown to the lions, but only those who reported back to the king Daniel’s “rebellion.” They were the instigators of this plot to get rid of Daniel.

These accusers had carefully laid their snare not realizing that the trap they set for Daniel would become their own undoing (cf. Psa. 37:14-15; Psa. 7:15; 9:15; 35:7-8; Esther 7:9-10). In Proverbs 11:3, Solomon points out: “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the crookedness of the treacherous destroys them.”

It is likely that Darius would have punished these men even if Daniel would have died in the lions’ den. Their foolishness is revealed in the fact that they had not realized this possibility from the first. “What were we thinking?” may now have been running through their minds.

They wouldn’t have known this proverb, but Daniel certainly did, “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling” (Prov. 26:27). Likewise, in the Psalms, David (Psalm 7) says…

14 Behold, the wicked man conceives evil and is pregnant with mischief and gives birth to lies. 15 He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. 16 His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends.

Not all judgment (vengeance) happens in this life. But eventually, even if not until eternity, every wrong will be righted and every good deed rewarded.

These men are identified as those “who had falsely accused Daniel.” Accused is from an Aramiac word meaning, “‘had eaten the pieces of.’ The Aramaic expression is ironic, in that the accusers who had figuratively ‘eaten the pieces of Daniel’ will themselves be literally devoured by the lions.”

When accusing Daniel before the king, his accusers had singled out his nationality as a Jew (Dan. 6:13). Now, like Haman in Esther’s time, they find themselves on the receiving end of God’s solemn promise to the Jews, beginning with Abraham (Gen. 12:3) and extending through Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 27:29; Isa. 49:26), not only to “bless those who bless you,” but to “curse those who curse you.” As with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace, Daniel’s preservation is evidence of God’s ongoing promise to preserve Israel.

The king applied the lex talionis (law of retaliation) and cast his friend’s accusers into the very den in which they had placed Daniel (cf. Gen. 12:3; Esth. 7:9-10; Gal. 6:7).

Darius ordered Daniel’s accusers to be thrown into the den of lions—“they, their children, and their wives.” Their demise was an example of the justice we sometimes see in the OT (cf. Esther 7:7-10, also Josh. 7:24; 1 Sam. 15:2-3), where the families of God’s enemies die with them. Something that we have to remember more seriously is that other people will be hurt by our sins. We do not sin in isolation. It does affect others in our orbit. “It is one thing to bear my own judgment. But worst of all is realizing that the consequences of my sin spilled over onto innocent people I love” (William Peel, Living in the Lions Den Without Being Eaten, p. 155).

This reminds me of several Old Testament passages which predict the same kind of punishment coming upon those who intend to harm God’s people. For example, Proverbs 26:27 says, “Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling.” The hostile enemy (described in Prov. 26:23-24) is preparing a hidden trap for someone, but he is the one who will be harmed.

Likewise, Psalm 7:15-16 says, 15 “He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole that he has made. 16 His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends.” These verses are axiomatic, describing the normal course of life for the one who plans and then conducts evil. In the providence of God, like a boomerang, it returns back to the evil perpetrator.

Daniel did not take revenge on these men. I want you to recognize that. God never wants us to get revenge on those who “do us wrong,” but return evil with good (Romans 12:17-21). It was God, exercising justice for Daniel. Daniel, like Jesus after him, “22He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” Our responsibility is to trust God and do good to those who attack us. God is the one who will exercise justice and make all things right—if not for us now in this life, He will in eternity, where it really counts!

The message of the expression of falling in the pit you have dug or a stone rolling back upon your own head is a warning against plotting harm, emphasizing a principle of divine justice or the law of “sowing and reaping”—that actions, whether good or evil, will eventually return to the person who initiated them. Of course, the most well-known example illustrating this principle is the biblical story of Haman, who was hanged on the very gallows he had prepared for Mordecai.

And, of course, this is exactly what happened to Daniel’s antagonists, they were eaten by the very lions they had planned would take care of their “Daniel problem.” Let’s learn from this: Whatever evil we plan against another child of God will never pay off in the end, it will fall back upon us. These men were cast into the lion’s den.

This was obviously severe, but it was also according to ancient customs among the Persians. An ancient writer named Ammianus Marcellinus wrote of the Persians, “The laws among them are formidable… by which, on account of the guilt of one, all the kindred perish.”

“What Darius did seems arbitrary and unjust. But ancient pagan despots had no regard for the provision in the Mosaic law (Deut. 24:16): ‘Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.’ (Even in Israel this humanitarian rule had been flouted, as when Abimelech ben Gideon had nearly all his father’s sons massacred, or when Queen Athaliah nearly exterminated the Davidic royal line and Jehu had all Ahab’s sons decapitated.)” (Gleason Archer, Jr. “Daniel,” p. 82).

We question the justice of the command that the wives and children were also implicated. The Mosaic law clearly forbade such cruelty. We read: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deut. 24:16). The only known instance in which such a thing was done among the Israelites was at the execution of Achan (Josh. 7:24), where his family was stoned along with him.

Though Darius was not instructed by God to destroy the families along with the men, the situation may have been similar to the Canaanites whom God instructed Israel to purge from the Promised Land.

Apparently, Darius’ act of vengeance was not unusual among the Persians. The king may have been afraid that the offspring of those condemned to death would later plot to take revenge upon the king. Wiping out the whole family would certainly take care of that threat.

“What kind of parents do we have here displayed in Persia? Manipulators, liars, murderers, unchecked and unhinged; do you know what those kids would have become? Manipulators, liars, murderers because as the saying goes, “the apple does not fall far from the tree.” You think the wives are innocent? Show me the woman behind the man and I’ll show you the man. Wives have far more influence over their husbands, for good or bad, than they could possibly fathom. And this is why God saw, I believe, this whole picture, these people were gone. I mean, there was no opportunity for a change of life, they were just as guilty as their husbands, they were just as guilty as their parents and so the whole crowd there is thrown into the lions’ den, because the apple does not fall far from the tree” (Leon Woods, Commentary on the Book of Daniel).

Barnes’ Notes comments on this: “The same thing substantially occurs in the course of Providence, or the administration of justice now. Nothing is more common than that the wife and children of a guilty man should suffer on account of the sin of the husband and father. Who can recount the woes that come upon a family through the intemperance of a father? And in cases where a man is condemned for crime, the consequences are not confined to himself. In shame and mortification, and disgrace; in the anguish experienced when he dies on a gibbet; in the sad remembrance of that disgraceful death; in the loss of one who might have provided for their wants, and been their protector and counselor, the wife and children always suffer; and, though this took another form in ancient times, and when adopted as a principle of punishment is not in accordance with our sense of justice in administering laws, yet it is a principle which pervades the world-for the effects of crime cannot and do not terminate on the guilty individual himself.”

We don’t know exactly “why?” this happened, but we know this is what a sovereignly good, just and wise God wanted.

Although this might seem unfair, throughout biblical history God has identified men as representative of their families, tribes or even all of humanity. God usually operates on the principle of federal headship or corporate solidarity. Adam sinned, and as a result we sinned in him and are made liable to death, even infants who did not willfully break a commandment like Adam did. Listen to what Paul writes in Romans 5:12-14:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned — for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

Lest we cry “foul” that we are all condemned in Adam, though in our eyes we have not sinned like him, do we really want to forfeit that we are declared righteous in Christ, even though we definitely do not deserve that?

Verses 15-19 of Romans 5 goes on to say, most gloriously:

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

This also fulfills a New Testament Scripture which encourages us to be ready and bold in our witnessing: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (1 Pet. 3:15-16).

Speaking of having a good conscience, it reminds me of a story about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the author of the Sherlock Holmes mysteries.

This story has been attributed to Mr. Conan Doyle: A friend of his had often been told that there is a skeleton in the cupboard of every household, no matter how respectable that household may be; and he determined to put this opinion to a practical test. Selecting for the subject of his experiment a venerable Archdeacon of the Church, against whom the most censorious critic had never breathed a word, he went to the nearest post-office, and dispatched a telegram to the revered gentleman: ‘All is discovered! Fly at once!’ The Archdeacon disappeared, and has never been heard of since. (Tit-Bits, a magazine edited by the same man as The Strand, George Newnes, there was an article published on September 18, 1897 (No. 831 – Vol. XXXII)

Darius had no “distress” regarding sentencing these men to death. While Darius was happy with Daniel’s deliverance, he was not happy with Daniel’s accusers. He probably would have cast these accusers to the lions even if Daniel had perished in the lion’s den.

The conspirators had hoped that Daniel would die in the lions’ den, yet that fate was theirs instead. As soon as the accusers were thrown into the den, “The lions overpowered them and broke all their bones in pieces” before their bodies could even fall to the ground! His enemies succumb to the very punishment they had arranged for Daniel (cf. Esther 7:10; Proverbs 1:17-18).

This carnage just confirms that Daniel’s protection was not due to any natural cause, such as any lion’s inability or lack of appetite or being sickly. His survival could be explained only by divine deliverance. God had “stopped the mouths” of these lions (Heb. 11:23) because Daniel was a God-worshiper.

Every Sunday school child knows how God delivered Daniel from the den of hungry lions, and how the evil men who plotted Daniel’s fall had breakfast with the lions that morning (6:24). Someone jokingly remarked that the lions could not eat Daniel because he was all backbone!

On the other hand, David Jeremiah says, “Instead of a tough old Jew, they got a lot of tender, spineless [filleted] Persians for breakfast” (The Handwriting on the Wall, p. 126). Prepared to order!

The commentator, D. A. Carson, remarks here that “By faith (23) he had experienced the powers of the age to come (Heb. 6:5) in which lions are tamed (Isa. 11:7)” (D.A. Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21^st Century edition Rev. Ed.).

David Guzik makes two insightful comments:

First, this illustrates the work of the cross in reverse: the guilty were punished in the place of the innocent.
Second, this also illustrates a principle of spiritual warfare. God will cause our enemy to be impaled on the same snare set for us (Psalm 7:14-16).

Arno C. Gaebelein made this gospel connection: Well may we think here of another law and another love. God, a holy and righteous God and a God of love, found a way to save man. God’s holy law condemns man, who is a sinner and the curse of the law rests upon him. God’s love is set upon the world, and He “so loved the world that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” The curse of the law came upon Him who knew no sin and who was made sin for us, and therein is love manifested. Daniel is cast into the lions’ den as our blessed Lord was given to the lion (Psalm 22:21), and a stone is laid upon the mouth of the den and it is sealed with the king’s signet. He is so to speak in a grave, as good as dead in the eyes of the world, for who has ever heard of hungry lions not devouring a man. And all this brings before us that other place, the tomb in the garden, where He was laid and the stone before it, which bore the seal of the Roman world power. But as Daniel could not be hurt by the lions, so He who went into the jaws of death could not be holden by death. The tomb is empty and He is victor over death and the grave. All this is blessedly foreshadowed in this experience of God’s prophet.

Daniel’s Deliverance and Darius’ Delight (Daniel 6:21-23)

God had delivered Daniel from the hungry lions. Because of his righteousness and faithfulness and because of God’s grace, God had answered Daniel’s prayer for “help” in his time of need.

If there had been sin in Daniel’s life, God may not have answered. I say “may not,” because He is sovereign and God could still overcome our sinfulness. But the reality is, sin does shut God’s ears to our prayers.

King David wrote, “If I had cherished sin in my heart, the Lord would not have listened” (Psalm 66:18). And Peter wrote, “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (1 Peter 3:7).

If we cherish sin in our heart, meaning that we delight in it and coddle it and refuse for a time to repent of it, our prayer life will be negatively impacted. Even not respecting our wives can hinder our prayers. So we first need to confess our sins and repent of our sins.

Even Daniel will later pray, “We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy” (Daniel 9:18).

Well, fortunately the king did not have to wait long for an answer, although he may not have answered right away. This may have been because Daniel was still sound asleep!

Daniel’s voice was much more peaceful and confident than Darius’ plaintive cry.

Suddenly, out of the darkness, Daniel’s untroubled voice greeted the king and answered his question: “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.” No harm.

Unlike Darius, who called this God “your God” (v. 20), Daniel was unashamed to call him “my God.” Daniel doesn’t say “my parent’s God” or “my friends’ God.” He says it was “my God.” This is the covenantal relationship that God had promised to Israel and to us under the new covenant, “I will be your God and you will be my people.”

After the exile from Eden and the dispersion of the nations from Babel, God approaches Abraham to make His covenant, “to be God to you and to your offspring after you” (Gen 17:7). Though Adam and Noah had some form of covenant relationship with God, the promise “to be God to you” is first used after the Babel event. If God is intentionally comparing Himself to the gods of the nations, this only makes sense!

In the Exodus, the Covenant Formula is connected to God’s revelation of His personal name YHWH, the LORD: “I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians” (Ex 6:7).

Jeremiah recognizes this. His prophecy reiterates the Covenant Formula three times. The first two times, Israel’s idolatry is highlighted, and Jeremiah is told not to intercede for them (Jer 7, 11). The third time, however, the Covenant Formula is connected to the promise of a Messianic Mediator: “Their prince shall be one of themselves; their ruler shall come out from their midst; I will make him draw near, and he shall approach me, for who would dare of himself to approach me? declares the LORD. And you shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Jer 30:21, 22).

By the indwelling Spirit of God, believers have become the beneficiaries of all these promises (2 Cor 6:16, 18), and when Christ returns, they will be fully realized: “And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God… The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son’” (Rev 21:3, 7).

Daniel was always quick to give God the glory (Dan. 6:22; see 2:27-28; 4:25; 5:21-23).

Daniel began with the typical “O King, live forever,” which in other cases may seem nothing more than a mere formality, but here seems to be the heartfelt affection of Daniel towards this king who obviously cared for what happened to him. Daniel knew that the king did not intend this to happen to him. And it shows that Daniel never intended to be disloyal to the king but intended to serve him.

Hearing Daniel’s voice was enough to indicate that he was alive, but Daniel wished to witness to him how it had happened. God had sent his angel to deliver him.

James Graham imagines what might have happened that night in the lions’ den:

“As the guards closed the aperture and went their way, Daniel slid gradually to the floor of the den. The big lions that had come bounding from their cabins at the inflow of light all stop suddenly short as a steed reined up by a powerful hand on the bridle. The initial roars died away as they formed a solid phalanx and looked toward this man who stood in their caverns. Others of the great beasts yawned and laid down on the floor, but not one made a move to advance toward their visitor. ‘Thanks be unto Jehovah,’ breathed the prophet. ‘He has stopped the mouths of these fierce beasts that they will do me no harm,’ and he sat down on the floor of the den and leaned his back against the wall to make himself comfortable for the night.

Soon two cub lions moved in his direction, not stealthily or crouching as though to attack, but in obvious friendliness, and one lay on each side of Daniel as though to give him warmth and protection in the chilly dungeon. Presently their mother, an old lioness, crept over and lay in front of the prophet. He gently stroked their backs as they each turned their heads and licked his hand….Enclosed by the lioness and her cubs, the head of the patriarch was gradually pillowed on the back of one of the cubs as the four slept soundly in perfect peace and tranquility” (The Prophet Statesman, quoted on Donald Campbell, Daniel: Decoder of Dreams, pp. 74-75).

The angel not only closed the mouths of the lions but kept Daniel company throughout the night! We don’t always know when angels are present with us (Heb. 13:2), but we do know that they are present to minister to us (Heb. 1:14).

It is possible that this heavenly emissary had been just as visible to Daniel as the fourth person in the fiery furnace had been to Nebuchadnezzar. The same ministering spirit sent to accompany and aid them was with Daniel.

David encourages us by telling us, “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear him, and delivers them. The young lions suffer want and hunger; but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing.” (Psalm 34:7, 10). Maybe Daniel remembered this verse. Daniel had experienced God’s miraculous and providential protection before.

The New Testament tells us that we, too, face a lion, Satan. We are told, “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world” (1 Peter 5:8-9).

Daniel proclaims:

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” (Dan. 6:22).

“A believer who knows how to kneel in prayer has no problem standing in the strength of the Lord” (Warren Wiersbe, Weirsbe Bible Commentary: OT Volume, p. 1366).

Daniel is not averse to declaring his innocence of the charges against him, but of prior importance to him is his innocence before God. And even before asserting that, he gives God full credit for his survival.

When we go against the “laws of the land,” when we practice civil disobedience, we’d better be sure that we are remaining “blameless before [God],” that we are doing what is right and just in His eyes. What Daniel cared most about was the approval of God above all else. He feared God more than man and violated a temporary mandate in order to follow God in his daily pattern of prayer.

But, in reality, Daniel had not rebelled against the king. He knew that the king had been tricked into this decree forbidding prayer to anyone but the king. Daniel was still loyal to this king.

Amazing, isn’t it? God is sovereign over all things. Hungry lions around Daniel didn’t eat him because “My God sent his angel and shut the lions’ mouths.” Angels are “ministering spirits” (Heb. 1:14) who serve at God’s command and although His power is greater, it was their power that shut the mouths of the lions because it pleased God to do that.

“How the angel stopped the lions’ mouths, whether by the brightness of his presence, or threatening them with his finger (Numbers 22:27, 33), or by making a rumble amongst them like that of an empty cart upon the stones, or by presenting unto them a light fire (which things lions are said to be terrified with), or by causing in them a satiety, or by working upon their fantasy, we need not inquire,” says John Trapp.

As in the deliverance of Daniel’s three Jewish friends (3:25, 28), God had used an angel to rescue Daniel. The lions spared Daniel not because they lacked an appetite but because an angel shut their mouths (cf. Heb. 11:33).

As with Daniel’s three friends, it is possible that this was “the angel of the Lord” who was with Daniel and protected him.

A teacher once asked a Sunday school class if they thought Daniel was afraid, and one little girl answered, “I don’t think he was scared, ‘cause one of the lions was the Lion of the tribe of Judah who was in there with him.” That child knew her Bible. (David Jeremiah, Handwriting on the Wall, p. 126).

His claim of being “blameless” does not mean that he was sinless, only that he was not guilty of this charge of disloyalty to the king. Although Daniel defended his innocence, he didn’t need to. Darius knew the score. Daniel did break the king’s law, but he did not go against the king or against the king’s best interests. Daniel is an example of obedient disobedience. Daniel’s lack of harm corresponded to his lack of blame: before God and before the king, Daniel had committed no act worthy of death in the lions’ den.

“Daniel’s faithfulness got him into trouble (v. 10); his faith got him out of it (see Heb. 11:33)” (The Nelson Bible, p. 1431).

“This miracle takes its position among that series of marvellous events in Old and New Testament history in which the life and work of isolated distinguished messengers of revelation appear, by virtue of Divine grace, to have restored the paradisaical dominion of man over nature, so that the beasts of the desert yield him a ready obedience as their rightful lord. We class here, prior to the time of Daniel, the ravens of Elijah (1 Kings 17:4) and the bears of Elisha (2 Kings 2:24); and in N. T. times, the sojourning of the Saviour with the beasts of the desert, immediately subsequent to his temptation (Mark 1:13), Paul’s escape from injury by the viper on the island of Malta (Acts 28:5; cf. Mark 16:18)” (Zockler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, p. 146).

Just because the angel had stopped the mouths of the lions doesn’t mean that Daniel would have been completely safe, for they still had dangerous claws. But Daniel was not harmed in any way.

Ancient monuments discovered in the ruins of Babylon reveal several depictions of prisoners being eaten by lions. An inscription and a stone carving of lions killing prisoners were also discovered near Daniel’s tomb at Susa, Iraq (Albert Barnes, Notes on the Book of Daniel, p. 273. The monuments were discovered by Capt. Robert Mignan of the East India Company a century and a half ago.)

Now we see Darius’ delight.

“Then the king was exceedingly glad, and commanded that Daniel be taken up out of the den” (Dan. 6:23a)

The king’s distress (vv. 14, 18) gave way to exceeding gladness. When we see God’s amazing, providential power displayed in our lives, it should produce joy, exceeding great joy!

Actually, anytime God shows His grace towards us, and we should notice it, then give thanks to Him for it, our hearts will be filled with joy.

Are you missing joy in your life? Then be observant. See how God has been gracious to you. Don’t forget to give thanks and you will begin to experience joy. (The Greek words charis, eucharisteo and cara are the words for “grace,” “giving thanks,” and “joy.” See how God connects them and shows how it is a progression?)

“The quality of gratitude has become an academic sensation, with psychologists learning that it has the power to literally change the presets of our personalities. There’s a heavenly algorithm to it. It’s a way of calculating grace. Counting your blessings lets you multiply joy, subtract sorrow, and gain the dividends of a balanced mind. It changes the factors of life, alters the equations, and rounds up the heart” (Robert J. Morgan, Mediterranean Sea Rules, p. 90).

The king was exceedingly glad because he still had his trusted president available for service, he was relieved of guilt feelings towards him, and he would not have to live with a memory that the trickery of Daniel’s accusers had worked. Maybe he was also very glad that Daniel’s God had proven to be so powerful and sovereign.

Commanding that Daniel be “taken up out of the den” probably shows that Darius was too impatient to unseal the stone placed over the ground-level entrance to the lion’s 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” (Dan. 6:23b).

God rescued Daniel from the lions. “For the eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to give strong support to those whose heart is blameless toward him” (2 Chron. 16:9). Daniel’s heart was blameless because he was trusting in God’s power and protection and was living for God’s glory.

So Darius had Daniel extracted from the den, and undoubtedly marveled that he had sustained no injuries whatsoever. The repetition of this idea of “no harm” (cf. v. 22) likely means that the king checked Daniel over thoroughly and examined him carefully and found it incredible that one could spend a whole night with the lions and escape unharmed. Certainly all who witnessed the miracle (including some of his accusers) had to be enormously impressed at the discovery that Daniel had suffered no injury whatsoever.

The same had been true of his three friends and their experience in the fiery furnace (cf. 3:27). Compare the accounts of Peter’s and Paul’s releases from prison in Acts 12 and 16. Some see Daniel’s deliverance as typical of the faithful remnant’s deliverance during the future days of Antichrist’s sway.

Prayer unleashes the power of God to do his will, but we must believe he will do amazing things. “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us . . .” (Ephesians 3:20).

Jesus said to his disciples:

Have faith in God. I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, “Go, throw yourself into the sea,” and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Mark 11:22-24)

We don’t get God to do our will by believing or claiming. He is not a vending machine serving our needs. God is sovereign and committed to working out His will, not ours. But faith is needed in our prayers. Faith is a basic trust that God does hear and answer prayer.

Daniel had prayed without doubting (James 1:6-8) and God answered.

The king had seen God’s power manifested in Daniel’s rescue and he was delighted.

Our text is clear to tell us the reason for Daniel’s deliverance, “because he had trusted in his God.” This statement was generally true of Daniel throughout his whole life, but never more so evident and effective than in this case. And Darius witnessed it.

Michael Andrus says, “In 1 Peter, a New Testament epistle that majors on suffering, we read that “For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly” (1 Peter 2:19). It is commendable because that is what Jesus did and we should follow in His steps. Though Jesus was absolutely sinless (which none of us can claim), it says that “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Pet. 2:23). That’s the key—knowing whom to trust when you’re treated unfairly. Put your trust in Jesus.

The Judean exile had survived the night, as Darius had hoped, so the king ordered Daniel to “be taken up out of the den,” much to the chagrin of the high officials and satraps who had conspired to put him there. Their plans had failed.

When Daniel emerged, “no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God.” This degree of protection parallels the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who emerged from the fiery furnace without singed hair, damaged cloaks, or even the smell of smoke on them (3:27).

It was because both Daniel and his friends trusted God. “Though his cause was righteous and he was unjustly accused, those things alone did not protect him before the lions. Daniel needed a living, abiding faith in God, even in the most difficult circumstances” (David Guzik). It is not our faith, per se, but the object of our faith that makes the difference. Daniel “had trusted in his God.”

It may seem that Darius violated his own royal injunction by removing Daniel, but in fact the king had followed the letter of the new law precisely. The injunction stipulated that violators would be cast into the den of lions (6:7, 12), but it did not instruct the king on what to do if the violator survived! Darius followed the law, and acted in response to a circumstance the law did not address. This whole ordeal demonstrated his commitment “to the law of the Medes and Persians” while at the same time displaying his authority as king.

Daniel’s rising from the den is a picture of resurrection from the dead, just as Isaac’s deliverance from near-sacrifice is described as a figurative resurrection by the author of Hebrews (Heb. 11:19). The same concept is found in Jesus’ interpretation of the story of Jonah (Matt. 12:40; cf. Jonah 2:1-10). It assures us that, whatever the danger and the outcome of our trials, ultimately we, too, will rise from the dead.

Darius’ Anticipation (Daniel 6:19-20)

Welcome back to our study of Daniel. We are in that familiar story about Daniel in the lion’s den. We saw last week that Daniel has indeed been cast into the lion’s den.

16 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!” 17 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. 18 Then the king went to his palace and spent the night fasting; no diversions were brought to him, and sleep fled from him.

We ended by noting the differences between Daniel and Darius on this night, that while Darius could not sleep, Daniel likely slept like a baby, protected from harm by God’s sovereign protection.

In contrast to Nebuchadnezzar, who showed no compassion for Daniel’s three friends and wanted them to die, Darius spent a fitful night without food, entertainment, or sleep. His sleep “fled” from him. “Apparently the king rolled and tossed in his bed, his mind going over the plight of Daniel, the fruitlessness of his efforts to deliver him, the craft of the accusers, his own stupidity in being tricked, and the measures he might take in retaliation against the schemers” (Leon Woods, A Commentary on Daniel, p. 170).

There was a lot on Darius’ mind. No wonder he couldn’t sleep.

Have you ever laid awake wishing you had said or done things differently, or stewing over what someone had done to you? I’ve had night when thoughts swirled in my head—things that others have said or done to me, things that I should have said or done (or wished I hadn’t said or done). We all have worries or regrets that keep us awake at nights. Paul tells us to turn those over to God (Phil. 4:6-7) and Peter tells us to “cast your cares” upon Him (1 Pet. 5:7).

Being in distress Darius returned to his palace and “spent the night fasting” and avoiding any diversions. There was no eating and no entertainment. No music or dancing girls to take his mind off his troubles. His mind was preoccupied with Daniel and what was to become of him. He was obviously worried about Daniel.

While it is unlikely that he spent time praying to Daniel’s God, he might have prayed to his own gods. Our text doesn’t say, only that he “fasted” and couldn’t sleep. What else do you do?

Some do find it possible that Darius, through previous interactions with Daniel, was beginning to believe in Daniel’s God. Perhaps this fledgling believer was praying, as best he knew how, to the Most High God. William Peel imagines him praying his first prayer, maybe something like this:

“Most High God of Daniel and the Hebrew exiles, I don’t even know if You exist. Daniel says you rescue and save, and he trusts You implicitly. He says Your dominion reaches throughout the earth even into this palace, and I guess into the lions’ den. If You are who Daniel believes You to be, rescue my friend from the power of the lions.”

We do know that later (Isa. 45:1-6) Cyrus (and these two names may be referring to the same person) is one of God’s elect servants, so it is possible that even now he is praying to God himself.

Without any resources to save Daniel, the king was put in a hard place—forcing him to turn to the only remaining resource: Daniel’s God. The king found himself in a “divine squeeze” with only one place to turn.

“Why does God bother people? Why does God agitate people? Because He loves people, He wants people, men and women, to enter into a right relationship with Him. And if a person is not in a right relationship with Him, He sics what we would call the hounds of heaven on that person and just keeps annoying them over and over and over again until they reach a point where they trust in what Jesus has done for them and they become saved at that point. Aren’t you glad that God loves us enough to bother us?” (Woods, Daniel)

Have you ever woken up in the middle of the night and couldn’t go back to sleep? Is it possible that God is trying to get your attention to pray about something or to re-think some situation?

Even though Darius had made a rash decision that put him in this predicament, it seems that God had sovereignly planned this so that Darius would now find himself at wits end, with nary a thing that he could do to change things, and in his desperation he would have to turn to God.

His mind was occupied with Daniel’s predicament, and nothing could distract him from these thoughts, not even sleep. Undoubtedly, Daniel had a better night’s rest than Darius. We can be sure that Daniel prayed in the lions’ den, because it was simply his habit to pray.

Notice the stark contrast between this powerful king and a convicted criminal. While Darius could not sleep, Daniel slept like a baby. As James Montgomery Boice says, with the lions’ mouths shut and Daniel’s accusers outside, Daniel was in “the safest place in all of Babylon” (Daniel: An Expositional Commentary, p. 71).

“Now verse 18 is the most beautiful illustration of two men, two different situations, one with the Word, one without the Word. Over here you have Darius; here you have Daniel. Darius is in a palace, Darius in his environment has wealth, power, Darius has all the means for human enjoyment. Darius has everything that most people could want. Daniel is in a dirty den, a den of lions, full of manure, full of dead bodies that have been thrown down there, the flies are eating the skin off the people that had been thrown down there before, I just want you to get the picture of it, and it’s not just the sweet little den that you see in your Sunday School material. Sunday School artists never did read the Word too carefully and when they come to these scenes they don’t present them in all their gore. Now the Holy Spirit, when He writes Scripture He lets it all hang out so you’ll get the point. (Clough, Lessons on Daniel, 22:278). Yet here is Darius, stressed and distressed; and there is Daniel in perfect peace. Daniel refused to surrender to fear, for He had heard of the way his friends had been delivered from the fiery furnace. Daniel may have meditated on Psalm 4:8 while surrounded by the lions. “In peace I will both lie down and sleep, for You alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”

It just reminds us that peace and joy are not dependent upon our circumstances, they are the fruit of the Spirit’s work within us and can be present no matter what we are going through. This is why Paul and Silas could sing hymns in the night while sitting in stocks and in prison.

This is why Paul explained to the Philippians, who had sent some financial support his way:

I have learned, in whatever situation I am, to be content. 12 I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Phil. 4:11b-13).

Daniel didn’t need to start praying when he was cast into the lion’s den, for that was his continual habit. Even before he entered the lions’ den he had been consistently praying. G. Campbell Morgan, known as the “Prince of Expositors,” points out: “When our lives are centred in God, we can ever afford to leave circumstances to the compulsion of the One in Whom we trust. The occasional is always affected by the habitual.” If we practice to trust God in believing prayer, then when the more difficult trials come, we will continue to trust Him.

Perhaps Daniel prayed Psalm 22:21-22 “Save Me from the lion’s mouth… I will declare Your name to My brethren; in the midst of the assembly I will praise You.” These are words of David and Christ on the cross, but every believer may apply them when we face terrible trials.

Well dawn arrived like molasses in January, but at first light the king jumped out of bed and ran to the “tomb.” He was eager to discover what had happened to this man who trusted in his God.

I remember as a teenager listening to Pat Terry’s song Daniel, and at this point it went like this:

Early in the morning when the sun came up
The king was feeling down
He went to the lions’ den, he looked in the window
And what do you think he found?
Oh, Daniel was leading all the lions in a hymn
They were clapping their big brown paws
He said an angel of the Lord done arrived last night
And he clamped them lions’ jaws.

Yes, Darius got up at daybreak and went in haste to the lion’s den. We can imagine him just waiting in anticipation for the first glimmer of dawn so he could see how Daniel fared. Was Daniel still there, whole and not torn to the bone, or was Daniel hidden in the bellies of the lions?

If he had had no faith at all that Daniel’s God could deliver, he probably wouldn’t have bothered. But he was there…and quickly. He didn’t send a messenger, he himself ran to the lion’s den. Again, this man was no spring chicken himself, being 62 years of age (Dan. 5:31).

[Evidently one night in the lions’ den was the minimum sentence that the law required…likely because nothing would be left but a few bones picked clean. So the king had fulfilled the principle of Medo-Persian law because he had not revoked the penalty of casting a violator into the den of lions.]

Darius would have been unable to see into the lion’s den because it would have been completely dark down in that hole, so he called out to Daniel, “O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” (6:20)

Would there be an answer as his question echoed in the well of the lion’s den?

As he neared the lion’s den he cried out in anguish, with a loud, troubled voice from the top opening:

“O Daniel, servant of the living God, has your God, whom you serve continually, been able to deliver you from the lions?” (Dan. 6:20)

There must have been some belief there, or he wouldn’t have bothered to call out. Who else had ever survived a night in the lion’s den? Once again, he made reference to Daniel’s “continual service” to his God. This is what had gotten Daniel into trouble, but it is also what Darius found so commendable in Daniel.

Darius knew that Daniel worshiped “the living God,” and he wanted to know if his God had indeed delivered him from the lions. That God is a “living God” is significant. It is obviously here a contrast to the deadness of the idols that everyone else worshipped. If Daniel’s God was alive then He could act in his behalf! The living God could keep His servant alive. The king regarded Daniel’s fate as a test of whether his God was really alive or just an unproved supposition, like all the deities the non-Jews worshipped. If the Hebrew God really existed, He would preserve His faithful servant from death…and if anyone deserved well from his God, it was Daniel.

Unlike the idols (and the god of Deism), our God is intimately involved in the everyday matters of life. He numbers the hairs on our head (Matt. 10:30; Luke 12:7; Luke 21:18), knows when seemingly insignificant creatures perish (Matt. 10:29; Luke 12:6), and hears those who call out to Him.

By preserving Daniel all night amidst the lions, God had demonstrated His active intervention, preventing the mauling and death of Daniel by these lions. Daniel’s miraculous preservation in the midst of voracious beasts provided undeniable evidence that the God of Israel is indeed the living God!

The issue of God’s ability to deliver was previously voiced in the narrative of the three faithful friends of Daniel, who declared to Nebuchadnezzar, “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace” (3:17). Chapters 3 and 6, each evoking God’s ability to deliver his servant(s) from death, are paired in the Aramaic chiasm of the book, and furthermore, the two chapters are arranged chiastically, with each central section (3:16-18; 6:18-20) reporting dialogue concerning God’s ability to deliver.

There, in Daniel 3:16-18, we read:

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

These three Hebrew men were convinced that God “is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king,” but at the same time they acknowledged and even accepted the fact that this may not be God’s will. They didn’t know that God would deliver them, but were confident that He could deliver them.

Here in Daniel 6 we see some of the same language:

19 Then, at break of day, the king arose and went in haste to the den of lions. 20 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?”

“Has your God, Daniel, been able to deliver you from the lions?” As before, God was not only able, but willing. Not only could He deliver his servants, but He did!

Daniel’s preservation among the beasts foreshadows the preservation of believers and the Jewish nation during the Great Tribulation, when the beasts revealed to the Apostle John in the book of Revelation hold sway over the world (Rev. 13:1, 11). It will be a terrible time in which to live, but God is still able, even then, to protect His people.

God is still able to protect His children today.

When John Paton was a missionary in New Hebrides in the mid 1800s, hostile natives surrounded his mission headquarters one night, intent on burning the Paton Family out and killing them. John and his wife prayed all during the terror-filled night that God would deliver them. When daylight came, they were amazed to see the attackers [inexplicably] had left.

A year later, the chief of the tribe converted to Jesus Christ. Rev. Paton, remembering what had happened, asked the chief what had kept him and his men from burning down the house and killing them. The chief replied in surprise, “Who were all those men you had with you there?” The missionary answered, “There were no men there; just my wife and I.”

The chief argued that they had seen many men standing guard — hundreds of big men in shining garments with drawn swords in their hands. They seemed to circle the mission station, and they were afraid to attack. Only then did John Paton realize that God had sent His angels to protect them. The chief agreed there was no other explanation.

Paul Dye was a missionary abducted by Columbian guerillas in 1985. He had flown in to Puinave village because Tim Cain was sick and needed medical help. Little did they know that they were flying into a trap. The guerillas commandeered the airplane and forced Paul to fly them to another location. Unaware of where he was, with the plane parked some distance away, Paul awaited an opportunity to escape. Fortunately, he had remembered to get a second key and hide it in his shoe.

One night, he snuck out of camp, making little noise and God kept every guard asleep. He made it to the plane, but had to remove debris and take off in the dark. In the air he could fly by instruments but did not know where he was. Running out of gas, he knew he had to put the plane down…and ended up landing in a pasture just before a fence, in about the only place he could land between forest and gullies. Yes, God can still deliver us today.

Again, Darius seems to have a budding faith in the one True God, Daniel’s God. First, he expressed the strong wish that Daniel’s God would deliver him and then ran to the “tomb” to see, showing that he really believed that God could deliver Daniel. Second, when Daniel’s response from below indicated that he was alive, Darius is not said to have been amazed, as though not really believing this might happen, but only “very glad” at the good news. Thirdly, he then issues the remarkable decree recorded (vv. 25-27), much like the earlier decree of Nebuchadnezzar, calling on people of his domain to give respect to this God. So, these may be indications that Darius had faith in Daniel’s God, at least to deliver Daniel.

Darius’ Regrets (Daniel 6:14-18)

We are in the book of Daniel, chapter 6, that famous story of Daniel in the lion’s den. But we haven’t gotten quite that far yet.

Daniel has been trapped, as was desired by his jealous co-workers, but a hasty decision made by King Darius “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). Of course, Daniel couldn’t do that. He wasn’t about to pray to any man, for he knew the true God and would pray only to Him.

Doing that, however, got him in trouble with the law.

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.”

Their conspiracy worked. Daniel was destined to be Cat Chow!

But Darius was troubled.

14 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. 15 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.”

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.

One of the lessons we can learn from this scenario is the danger of making rash decisions. The king had been flattered by this request from his officials, and likely somewhat pressured into making it since “everybody” thought this was a super idea, but he didn’t take the time to think through the consequences. If he seriously thought of himself as “god” earlier, he certainly felt helpless now.

Proverbs 18:13 says, “If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”

Proverbs 20:25 says, “It is a snare to say rashly, ‘It is holy,’ and to reflect only after making vows.”

Ecclesiastes 5:4-5 warns us: “When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay.”

Herod would find himself in a similar position hundreds of years later—regretting his vow to Herodias’ daughter compelling him to reluctantly sever the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:26).

Whatever the reason, it seems the king failed to thoughtfully evaluate the situation. “He should have asked himself, ‘Why all this sudden show of loyalty to me? Why isn’t Daniel among those who propose this law? What would the long-term results of this be? Do the officers who propose it have any ulterior motives?’ But flattery was stronger than reflection in this case, and the outrage was committed” (Daniel Feinberg, A Commentary on Daniel: The Kingdom of the Lord).

Nebuchadnezzar had become angry with Daniel’s three friends when they refused to idolize him (3:19), but Darius became angry with himself for signing the decree (cf. 2:1; 3:13; 5:6, 9). This shows how much he respected and valued Daniel.

We can be sure that he wasn’t happy with Daniel’s enemies, but he knew that ultimately he was responsible. Like Darius, our foolish decisions often haunt us. Often all we can do is pray and ask God to mercifully and miraculously intervene when we make foolish decisions.

“How often it is that we are blinded to the nature of our actions until we encounter their irrevocable consequences!” (Edward Dennett, Daniel the Prophet: and the Times of the Gentiles, p. 85).

Years ago, while living in Washington, D. C., I read a leadership book by Peter Senge entitled The Fifth Discipline. In it he talked about the “law of unintended consequences.” The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people — and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. Of course, some of those outcomes can be positive, but often they are negative.

Or we’ve all seen a cartoon or a Facebook or YouTube reel which illustrates the foibles of those trying to trim or cut down a tree.

Darius tried to get himself, and Daniel, out of this predicament. He strove from noon to sunset trying to think of a way to rescue Daniel. We don’t know if he met with his lawyers to see if there was a loophole he could exploit, or whether he had the authority to set it aside, or maybe there had been past cases where a case like this had been rescinded. What about a presidential pardon? What if we over-feed the lions or put Daniel in a suit of armor?

Could it be that God would save him? In all probability Darius had also heard of the deliverance of Daniel’s three comrades from Nebuchadnezzar’s fiery furnace. Would God to the same for Daniel?

He labored “till the sun went down” trying to find a way to rescue Daniel. But he could not. Humanly speaking, there was no possible way for Daniel to survive this ordeal. The law was the law was the law.

According to ancient eastern custom, the execution was carried out on the evening of the day that the accusation was made and found valid, when “the sun went down.”

Typically, during all this, Daniel remained quiet. While everyone else was screaming and accusing, Daniel let his integrity speak for him, After all, his name was Daniel, “God is my judge.” He humbled himself under the mighty hand of God and waited, just like Jesus did, “When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly” (1 Pet. 2:23).

Ultimately, Darius had to condemn Daniel to the lion’s den.

Seeing his distress, the high officials and satraps don’t want Darius to reneg on his decision. For a third time they come in concert. Daniel’s accusers remind the king that he could not change the statute once it had been signed into law.

“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’” (Dan. 6:15).

Using words similar to verse 8, they reminded him that Medo-Persian ordinances could not be revoked, and Darius himself had already used the language of irrevocability (v. 12); despite his desire to spare Daniel, doing so would be going against “the law of the Medes and Persians.” To do so would undermine the very foundation of his kingdom.

Darius couldn’t do that. The king relinquished his efforts at stalling to find a way of deliverance for Daniel. Unable to set aside or overrule his immutable decree, the king was forced to enact the prescribed sentence. In this, we see an admirable aspect of the king’s character: he recognizes his legal obligation, though it runs counter to his great personal desire. As friend and admirer of Daniel he would release him, but as king of Medo-Persia he must enforce the law. He must do what was “right” in the eyes of the law and thus in his own eyes.

“Though absolutely blameless, Daniel was thrown into the den of lions. He suffered because of the jealousy of others” (Edward J. Dennett, Daniel the Prophet: and the Times of the Gentiles, p. 85).

With all possibilities for delivering Daniel exhausted, Darius finally gave the order for Daniel to be cast to the lions. So “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!” (Dan. 6:16)

“They had him! Or so they thought! They forgot that he was praying to and asking for help from the God who delivers” (William Peel, Living in the Lion’s Den Without Being Eaten, p. 151).

At this time in history, lions were hunted by royalty of Babylonia and Persia (Donald Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, p. 112). Lions were captured alive and placed within royal zoos (Shea, Daniel and the Lion of Babylon, p. 70).

The lions’ den appears to have been a large pit in the ground with an opening above that a large stone sealed, probably in order to keep people from stumbling into it. Such pits were commonly used as cisterns to store water or as prisons. We notice that Daniel had to be lifted up out of it (v. 23), and others when thrown into it fell down toward its bottom (v. 24).

“Its construction may therefore have been similar to that of the fiery furnace, upon the whole (see on chap. 3:6)—an opinion which seems to derive additional support from the manner in which Darius was enabled to converse with Daniel while in the den, even before the stone was removed from its opening (v. 21 et seq.).” (Zöckler, The Book of the Prophet Daniel, p. 144).

A number of scholars consider that these “lions dens” not only had a whole at the top, but one on the side as well, for the purpose of bringing lions in and taking refuse out.

“This den was a cesspool is what it was; you had decaying human flesh in this place; it was the execution chamber and that is where Daniel spent his evening.” (Clough, Lessons on Daniel, 22.287).

Darius’ idea seems to have been that he had wanted to save Daniel, but had failed. Now Yahweh must save him. “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” This was, at least, a vague hope of Darius. We do not know, of course, if Darius knew about Yahweh’s deliverance of Daniel’s three friends. But Daniel certainly did.

There are significant parallels and contrasts between the words that take Daniel’s three friends to the furnace (3:15–18) and those that take Daniel to the lion pit. There the king asked, “Who ever is the god who could deliver you from my power?” Here the king declares, “Your God, whom you honor so consistently, he must deliver you” (compare his acknowledgment of “the living God” in v 21 [20]).

Darius had a kind of faith, but it was faith born out of Daniel’s trust in the Lord. The idea was, “I tried my best to save you Daniel, but I failed. Now it is up to your God.” And he seemed to believe that Daniel’s God could rescue him!

Darius knew Daniel’s testimony, that he “served” [his God] continually.” Oh, what a testimony, to be known by the world as someone who consistently and constantly serves the God of heaven even in the face of sacrificing one’s life.

Many of us occasionally represent God well with godly character and wisdom before the world, but then invariably counter-act the good by then making bad choices. Daniel’s testimony was made by continual service.

Bound by the iron-clad wording of the royal injunction, Darius ordered that Daniel be cast into the lions’ den. But notice that he appealed to Daniel’s God to deliver him.

He told Daniel, “May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!” This statement recognized Daniel’s devotion to God and expressed Darius’s hope that the punishment would fail through his God’s deliverance. It may also signal a budding faith in Darius’ heart.

However, Stephen Miller explains: “The KJV and NASB construe this statement as a prediction that God “will rescue” Daniel, whereas the NIV and NRSV consider the declaration to be a wish on Darius’s part that God “may . . . rescue” him. The verb (an imperfect form of šêzib) may be translated in either manner. Since Darius was an unbeliever, the king would not have had sufficient faith in Yahweh to affirm that Daniel would certainly be delivered, and v. 20 indicates that the king was not positive Daniel would be saved. The words express the king’s hope” (Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, p. 185)

“[Daniel] had been faithful in praying, leaving the matter in God’s hands. Now it seemed that God was not to spare him. Many years before, it had seemed the same to Daniel’s three friends as they had faced the fiery furnace. Knowing the kind of person Daniel was, however, one can believe that he faced the challenge no less courageously than they” (Leon Wood, A Commentary on Daniel, p. 167).

“For Daniel and his three Hebrew friends, faith was a commitment to omnipotence, not outcome. As the three friends said before being thrown in the fiery furnace, God is able to save, whether He chooses to or not. In either case, our trust is in Him and whatever outcome He deems best. That’s a faith that surely pleases God” (David Jeremiah, Agents of Babylon, p. 190).

“Now the beautiful thing about this is Darius is forced into the position of having to trust the Lord. See how effective and efficient God works; the whole situation looks like it’s messed up; everything is falling apart, and what happens? In the end Darius has to trust the Lord; a tremendously efficient teaching system” (Clough, Lessons on Daniel, 21:280).

Leon Wood contends, regarding the wish that Darius voiced, “shows that Daniel had been busy in witnessing to him, as he had been years earlier to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar….Darius clearly had been impressed with Daniel’s faithfulness in life behavior to his God; no doubt a telling factor in molding the king’s own thinking. One’s life conduct is so important if his oral testimony is to be effective” (A Commentary on Daniel, p. 168).

Darius had kept his end of the matter by ordering Daniel, an exile from Judah now in his eighties, to be thrown to the lions. If Daniel’s God happened to intervene and deliver the faithful servant, it was out of the king’s hands.

To secure the lions’ den, “A stone was brought and laid on the mouth” of it, and then Darius sealed it “with his signet and the signet of the lords.” No one would chance trying to rescue Daniel, and Daniel himself certainly would be unable to escape: breaking the king’s seal without authorization would warrant death. And Darius knew that Daniel had powerful enemies who would seek to kill him if the lions didn’t. In this case, not only the king’s signet, but also those of the lords, were used, indicating that approval of both parties would be needed to remove the stone.

Like Pilate, hundreds of years later (Matt. 27:55-56), a stone was laid over the entrance (Dan. 6:17) and the king officially authorized the securing of the chamber so that interlopers could not affect the seemingly certain outcome: neither Daniel nor Jesus would ever be seen again. That was the intention. Daniel’s night in the den and his raising from peril do serve as an analogy, or type for the death and resurrection of Jesus.

In the sovereignty of God, the stone was sealed to vouch the miraculous nature of Daniel’s preservation. With Daniel’s fate sealed, the conspirators went home to celebrate. But with Daniel’s God on the throne, while the king of Babylon tossed and turned (Dan. 6:18), the King of kings protected Daniel from harm. Even with all the danger surrounding him, Daniel likely got a good night’s sleep.

When an Evil Plan Comes Together (Daniel 6:11-13)

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.

Darius Signs an Injunction, part 2 (Daniel 6:4-9)

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.

Integrity is not about being perfect but about being consistent and authentic in all areas of life. It means not compartmentalizing your life into different segments where you act differently in different situations or before different audiences. Instead, it is about being the same person in every situation, fostering trust and authenticity.

The opposite of integrity would be “two-faced” or a hypocrite, an actor wearing a mask or playing a part. What you see is not necessarily what you get. A person may be saying one thing and doing another, or they say one thing to one person but equivocate with another.

~~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 34^th 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).

So, if Daniel’s faithfulness was unwavering, maybe they could use that very faithfulness against him. Knowing that he was a man of principle and consistency, they sought to trap him in that very consistency.

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).

Obviously, they knew about his religious commitment and practice, which means that Daniel had not been a secret worshiper of God. He had never hidden his faith in order to avoid trouble and remain in office up until now. Also, they were convinced that his degree of commitment to his religious practice was great enough to keep him from changing that habit even when faced by the penalty of death. It is clear that there were not primarily interested in his changing his ways and compromising his habits, but rather in trapping him in those very habits so that he could be executed. The whole plot rested on Daniel’s stubborn commitment to his God.

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.

The word for “law” in verse 5 indicates that Daniel’s practice of praying three times a day reflected his understanding of the law of God. No matter what, Daniel was determined to obey God’s laws.

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.

They addressed him with the common expression “O King Darius, live forever!” Through flattery, these leaders hoped to manipulate the king unwittingly to facilitate Daniel’s demise.

They made it seem that all the important people (which was an exaggeration, no, an outright lie, for Daniel was not included) that the king valued had agreed that a royal ordinance should be made concerning prayer: “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). The next thirty days would be “King Darius Month.”

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.

The nature of their request accomplished two goals. First, it flattered the king, as prayer would be made to him for thirty days, and such flattery increased the likelihood of his consent. For thirty days he would be the people’s acknowledged god! Who wouldn’t want the praise and adoration of the masses? Many of us idolize fame and acclaim and praise and adoration for ourselves. Darius was human and no different from you and me.

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.

Gleason Archer Jr. says, “The suggested mode of compelling every subject in the former Babylonian domain to acknowledge the authority of Persia seemed a statesmanlike measure that would contribute to the unification of the Middle and Near East. The time limit of one month seemed reasonable.”

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.

But it was this prayer-fellowship with Yahweh that had safeguarded Daniel from the corrupting influences of Babylonian culture all these years. He wasn’t going to stop now. To rationalize any compromise just to preserve his role in government would have been easy, but Daniel would not.