27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed now to come to an end. It did actually then come to an end by being merged in that of the Medes and Persians.
27. Tekcl. This word— S|?.ip —is also, according to Gesenius, a passive parti ciple (from Sf2^, to poise, to weigh,) and means weighed. It would be used with reference to anything placed in a balance to ascertain its weight; and hence, like the word measure, would denote that the extent, dimensions, true worth, or rharactcr of anything was ascertained. As by the use of scales the weight of anything is known, so the word is ap plied to any estimate of character or of actions, and a balance becomes the emblem of justice. Thus God, in his judgments of men, is represented as weighing their actions. 1 Sam. ii. 3.
»in the balances, and art found b wanting.
" The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed." Comp. Job vi. 2,
" Oh that my grief were thoroughly weighed, And my calamity laid in the balance together."
" Let me be weighed in an even balance, That God may know mine integrity."
The balance thus used to denote judg ment in this life, became also the emblem of judgment in the future state, when the conduct of men will be accurately esti mated, and justice dealt out to them according to the strict rules of equity. To illustrate this, I will insert a copy of an Egyptian ' Death Judgment,' with the remarks of the Editor of the Pictorial j Bible in regard to it. " Tho Egyptians en.
ertained the belief that the actions of the; ushered into Amenti. The four genii *ead were solemnly weighed in balances stand before him on a lotus-blossom [ours Before Osiris, and that the condition of i has the lotus without the genii,] the female Jhe departed was determined according i Cerberus sits behind them, and Harpoc-
to the preponderance of good or evil. Such judgment scenes are very frequently represented in the paintings and papyri of ancient Egypt, and one of them we have copied as a suitable illustration of
rates on the crook of Osiris. Thoth, the god of letters, arrives in the presence of Osiris bearing in his hand a tablet, on which the actions of the deceased are noted down, while Horus and Arceris are the present subject. One of these scenes, employed in weighing the good deeds as represented on the walls of a small | °tf the JudSed against the ostrich feather, temple at Dnyr-el-Medeeneh, has been the symbol of truth and justice. A cyno- BO well explained by Mr. Wilkinson, that c*phalus, the emblem of truth, is eeated we shall avail ourselves of his descrip- on the toP of tfae balance. At length tion; for although that to which it refers I arrives the deceased, who appears between is somewhat different from the one which I two figures of the goddess, and beara in we have engraved, his account affords an '
adequate elucidation of all that ours con- ^» jtfSSSS'S Sf^St^M tains. Osiris, seated on his, throne, have put upon it_a type of the good actiOM iwaits the arrival of thc\se souls that are of the deceased."
his hand the symbol of truth,* indicating his meritorious actions, and his fitness for admission to the presence of Osiris.'
"If the Babylonians entertained a simi lar notion, the declaration of the prophet, ' Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting!' must have appeared exceedingly awful to them. But again, there are allusions in this declaration to some such custom of literally weighing the royal person, as is described in the following passage in the account of Sir Thomas Roe's embassy to the Great Mo gul:— « The first of September, (which was the late Mogul's birth-day,) he, re taining an ancient yearly custom, was, in the presence of his chief grandees, weighed in a balance: the ceremony was performed within his house, or tent, in a fair spacious room, whereinto none were admitted but by special leave. The scales in which he was thus weighed were plated with gold; and so was the beam, on which they hung by great chains, made likewise of that most precious metal. The king, sitting in one of them, was weighed first against silver coin, which immediately afterwards was distributed among the poor; then was he weighed against gold; after that against jewels (as they say,) but I observed (being there present with my ambassador) that he was weighed against three several things, laid in silken bags in the contrary scale.
When I saw him in the balance, I thought on Belshazzar, who was found too light. By his weight (of which his physicians
yearly keep an exact account,) they pre sume to guess of the present state of his body, of which they speak flatteringly, however they think it to be."
The cut on page 253 from the Sarcopha gus of Alexander, will further show how commonly this opinion prevailed, and how natural is the representation here. If the Babylonians entertained such notions in regard to the dead as are
* " Sometimes, instead of the ostrich-feather, fhe deceased bears a vase (which is placed in the other scale.) and it has thon a similar im port."
here represented, the declaration made by the prophet must have been exceed ingly solemn. But whether this were so or not, the language of Daniel in inter preting the word, must have been over whelming to the monarch. It could be understood by him as denoting nothing less than that a solemn sentence had been passed upon his character and con- I duct by the great Judge of all, and that
28 PERES; Thy kingdom is di- vided, and given »to the b Medea and c Persians.
he was found to have failed in the re quirements which had been made of him, and was now condemned. He had no righteousness when his actions camo to be estimated as in a balance, and no thing awaited him but an awful con demnation. Who is there now who would not tremble at seeing the word Tel-el — weighed — written on the wall of his cham ber at midnight? ^[ Thou art weighed in the balances. That is, this, in tbe cir cumstances, is the proper interpretation of this word. It would apply to any thing whose value was ascertained by weighing it; but as the reference here was to the king of Babylon, and as the whole representation was designed for him, Daniel distinctly applies it to him: ' thou art weighed.' On the use and ap plication of this language, see 1 Sam. ii. 3, "The Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed." Comp. also Job xxxi. 6; Prov. xvi. 2, 11. ^\ And art found icanting. This is added, like the previous phrase, as an explanation. Even if the word could have been read by the Chaldeans, yet its meaning could not have been understood without a divine communication, for though it were
| supposed to be applicable to the monarch, it would still be a question what the re sult of the weighing or trial would be. That could have been known to Daniel only by a communication from on high.
28. Peres. In ver. 25 this is Upharsin. These are but different forms of the same word — the word in ver. 25 being in the plural, and here in the singular. The verb (D^p) means to divide, and in this form, as in the previous cases, it is, according to Gesenius, a participle, meanj ing divided. As it stands here, it would! be applicable to anything that was divided or sundered — whether a kingdom, a pal- • ace, a house, a territory, <fcc. What was i divided, could be known only by divine revelation. If tbe icord had been un derstood by Belshazzar, undoubtedly it would have suggested the idea that there was to be some sort of division or sunder ing, but what that was to be would not be indicated by the mere use of the word. Perhaps to an affrighted imagination there might have been conveyed the idea that there would be a revolt in some of! the provinces of the empire, and that a I part would be rent away, but it would I not have occurred that it would be so rent
29 Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scar let, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation
concerning him, that * he should be the third ruler in the kingdom.
30 T[ In that night t was Belshaz zar the king of the Chaldeans slain.
that the whole would pass under the do- \ one person as another, and in the palaces minion of a foreign power. Josephus of kings such garments were always on (Ant. B. x. ch. xi. $ 3) says, that the | hand. See Hnrmar's Observations in tho word "Phares in the Greek tongue means a fragment — K\aana — God will, therefore, break thy kingdom in pieces, and divide the third ruler, &c. See Notes on ver. 7. it among the Medes and Persians." ^[ Thy \ 30. In that ni;/ht was Belshazzar the kingdom is divided. That is, the proper \ki-ng of the Chaldeans slain. On the takinterpretation of this communication is, j ing of Babylon, and the consequences, that the kingdom is about to be rent i see Notes on Isa. xiii. 17 — 22, and ch. asunder, or broken into fragments. It is! xlv. 1, 2. The account which Xenophon to be separated or torn from the dynasty that has ruled over it, and to be given to
(Cyrop. vii. c.) gives of the taking of Babylon, and of the death of the king — another. ^ And given to the Medes and I though without mentioning his name, Persians. On this united kingdon, see j agrees so well with the statement here, Notes on Isa. xiii. 17. It was given to! that it may be regarded as a strong conthe Medes and Persians when it was i firmation of its correctness. After detaken by Cyrus, and when the kingdom of j scribing the preparation made to take the Babylon became extinct, and thencefor- city by draining off the waters of the ward became a part of the Medo-Persian ' Euphrates so as to leave the channel dry empire. See Notes on Isa, xiii. 17, 19. j beneath the walls for the army of Cyrus, 29. Then commanded Behhazzar. In and after recording the charge which compliance with his promise, ver. 16. i Cyrus gave to his generals Gadates and Though the interpretation had been so I Gobryas, he adds, "And indeed those fearful in its import, and though Daniel: who were with Gobryas said that it would had been so plain and faithful with him, i not be wonderful if the gates of the palyet he did not hesitate to fulfil his pro- ace should be found open, as the whole inise. It is a remarkable instance of the <% that »»<7** seemed to be given np to result of fidelity, that a proud monarch revelry"— MS r.v KW//M yap ioKei h ffdAij vava should have received such a reproof, and! civai rnftt rfj WKTI. He then says that as such a prediction in this manner, and j they passed on, after entering the city, it is an encouragement to us to do our I " of those whom they encountered, part duty, and to state the truth plainly to being smitten died, part fled again back, •wicked men. Their own consciences tes- j and part raised a clamor. But those who tify to them that it is the truth, and they j were with Gobryas also raised a clamor will see the truth so clearly that they j as if they also joined in the revelry, and cannot deny it. f And they clothed \ 'going as fast as they could, they came
Daniel with scarlet, &c. All this, it would seem, was transacted in a singl night, and it has been made an objection, soon to the palace of the king. But those who were with Gobryas and Gadates being arrayed, found the gates of tho as above remarked, to the authenticity j palace closed, but those who were apof the book, that such events are said to pointed to go against the guard of the have occurred in so short a space of time,! palace fell upon them when drinking and that Daniel should have been so soon before a great light, and were quickly clothed with the robes of office. On this, engaged with them in hostile combat. objection, see Intro, to the chapter, Then a cry arose, and they who were $ 1. II. In respect to the latter part of! within having asked the cause of the the objection, it may be here further re- • tumult, the king commanded them to see marked, that it was not necessary to fit \ what the affair was, and some of them him with a suit of clothes made expressly ] rushing out opened the gates. As they for the occasion, for the loose, flowing robes j who were with Gadates saw the gates of the Orientals were as well adapted to j open, they rushed in, and pursuing those
Darius a the Median took the kingdom, score and two
"*> being c about years old.
who attempted to return, and smit ing them, they came to the king, and they found him standing with a drawn sabre— -dKivamiv. And those who were lieush> or with Gadates and Gobryas overpowered him — cxeipovvTo — and those who were with that it is the same as $p6i»ipftf— jftta&nt
Grotefend, who has found it in the cuniform inscriptions at Persepolis, as Dar- ( Heeren's Ideen, i. 2, him were slain — one opposing, and one part being an abbreviation of Tjord,' and the latter portion
' reads the name as Daretouscn- Vyschtas- best way he could. And Cyrus sent cer tain of his horsemen away, and com manded that they should put to death those whom they found out of their dwel lings, but that those who were in their house?, and could speak the Syriac Ian- 1 ponca on the Persepolitan inscriptions; that is, Darius, son of Vishtaspo. Lassen, however, gives Darhatcus Vistaspaha, the latter word being equivalent to the Gustasp of the modern Persian, and that whosoever should be found without should be put to death.
" These things they did. But Gadates and Gobryas came up; and first they rendered thanks to the gods because they had taken king — o Paai\ia. Then and feet of Cyrus, weeping with joy, and rejoicing. When it was day, and they who had the watch over the towers learned that the city was taken, and that the king was dead — idv (3aai\ia re^vijKdra — they also surrendered the towers." These extracts from Xenophon abundantly con firm what is here said in Daniel respect ing the death of the king, and will more than neutralize what is said by Berosus. See Intro, to the chapter, g 2.
$2,) the son and successor of Astyages, the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, who held the empire of Media between Asty ages and Cyrus, B. C. 569—536. ^[Being. Marg. ' Ho as son of.' The marginal read ing is in accordance with the Chaldee — -g3. It is not unusual in the language of the Orientals to denote the age of any ono by saying that he is the son of so many years. <j About. Marg., 'or, now.' The word both in the text and the margin is designed to express the supposed sense of his 'being the son of sixty years.' The language of the original would, how ever, be accurately expressed by saying that he was then sixty years old. Though Cyrus was the active agent in taking Baby- actually taken by Cyrus, though acting m i ^ t it was done •- the name and £ the name and by the authority of Darius, the authoritv of Cyaxares or Darius, and or Cyaxares, who was his uncle. For a ag he wag the actual sovereign, the name full explanation of the conquests of Cyrus, of hig general— Cyrus— is not mentioned and of the reason why the city is said to h though he was in fact the most have been taken by Darius, see Notes on j importnnt agent in taking the city, and Isa. xli. 2. In regard to the question j became ultimateiy mucn more celebrated than Darius was.
who Darius the Median was, see the Introduction to ch. vi. $ 2. The name Darius — &:VT"?"J» or Darjavesh, is the name under which the three Medo-Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testa ment. There is some difference of opin ion as to its meaning. Herodotus (vi. 98) says, that it is equivalent to ipfi>5, one who restrains, but Hesychius says
This portion of history — the closing scene in the reign of a mighty monarch, and the closing scene in the independent existence of one of the most powerful kingdoms that has ever existed on the earth, is full of instructive lessons, and, in view of the chapter as thus explained, we may make the following
(1.) WE have "here an impressive illustration of the sin of sacrilege, vs. 2, 3. In all ages, and nmong all people, this has hecn regarded as a sin of peculiar enormity, and it is quite evident that God in this solemn scene meant to confirm the general judgment of mankind on the sub ject. Among all people, where any kind of religion has prevailed, there are places and objects •which are regarded as set apart to sacred use, and which arc not to be employed for common and profane purposes. Though in themselves — in the gold and silver, the wood and stone of which they are made — there is no essential holiness, yet they derive a sacredness from being set apart to divine purposes, and it has always been held to be a high crime to treat them with indignity or contempt; to rob altars, or to desecrate holy places. This general impression of mankind it was clearly the design of God to confirm in the case before us, when the sacred vessels of the temple — vessels consecrated in the most solemn manner to the worship of Jeho vah — were profanely employed for the purposes of carousal. God had borne it patiently when those vessels had been removed from the temple at Jerusalem, and when they had been laid up among the spoils of victory in the temples at Babylon, but when they were profaned for purposes of revelry— when they were brought forth to grace a heathen festival, and to be em ployed in the midst of scenes of riot and dissipation, it was time for him to interpose, and to ehow to these profane revellers that there is a God in heaven.
(2.) We may see the peril of such festivals as that celebrated by Belshaz/ar and his lords, Ver. 1, seq. It is by no means probable that, when the feast was contemplated and arranged, anything was designed like that which occurred in the progress of the affair. It was not a matter of set purpose to introduce the females of the harem to this scene of carousal, and still less to make use of the sacred vessels dedicated to the worship of Jehovah, to grace the mid night revelry. It is not improbable that they would have been at first shocked at such an outrage on what was regarded as propriety, or what would have been deemed sacred by all people. It was only when the king had ' tasted the wine ' that these things were proposed; and none who attend on such a banquet as this; none who come together for pu'rposes of drinking nnd feasting, can foretel what they may be led to do under the influence of wine and strong drink. No man is certain of not doing foolish and wicked things who gives himself up to such indulgences; no man knows what he may do that may be the cause of bitter regret and painful mortification in the recollection.
(3.) God has the means of access to the consciences of men, ver. 5. In this case, it was by writ ing on the wall with his own fingers certain mysterious words which none could interpret, but which no one doubted were of fearful import. No one present, it would appear, had any doubt that somehow what was written was connected with some awful judgment, and the fearfulness of what they dreaded arose manifestly from the consciousness of their own guilt. It is not often that God comes forth in tins way to alarm the guilty; but he has a thousand methods of doing it, and no one can be sure that in an instant he will not summon all the sins of his past life to remembrance. He could write our guilt in letters of light before us — in the chamber where we sleep; in the hall where we engage in revelry; on the face of the sky at night; or he can make it as plain to our own minds as if it were thus written out. To Belshazzar in his palace, surrounded by his lords, he showed this; to us in society or solitude be can do • the same thing. No sinner can have any security that he may not in a moment be overwhelmed i with the conviction of his own depravity, and with dreadful apprehension of the wrath to come.
(4.) We have in this chapter (ver. 6) a striking illustration of the effects of a sudden alarm to the guilty. The countenance of the monarch was changed; his thoughts troubled him; the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote together. Such effects are not un common when a sinner is made to feel that he is in the presence of God, and when his thoughts are led along to the future -world. The human frame is so made that these changes occur as indicative of the troubles which the mind experiences, and the fact that it is thus agi tated shows the power which God has over us. No guilty man can be secure that he will not thus be alarmed when he comes to contemplate the possibility that he may soon bo called before his Maker, and the fact that he may thus be alarmed should be one of the consid erations bearing on his mind to lead him to a course of virtue and religion. Such terror is proof of conscious guilt, for the innocent have nothing to dread, and if a man is sure that he is prepared to appear before God, he is not alarmed at the prospect. They who live in fin; they who indulge in revelry: they who arc profane and sacrilegious; they who abuse the mercies of God and live to deride sacred things, can never be certain that in a moment, by the revela tion of their guilt to their own souls, and by a sudden message from the eternal world, they may not be overwhelmed with the deepest consternation. Their countenances may become deadly pale, their joints may be loosed, and their limbs tremble. It is only the righteous who can look calmly at the judgment.
(5.) We may see from this chapter one of the effects of the terror of a guilty conscience. It is not Baid, indeed, that the mysterious fingers on the wull recorded ihc guilt of the monarch. But they recorded something; they were making some record that manifestly pertained to him. How na tural was it to suppose that it was a record of his guilt! And who is there that could bear a record made in that manner of his own thoughts and purposes; of his desires nud feelings; of what he is conscious is passing within the chambers of his own soul? There is no one who would not turn pale if he saw a mysterious hand writing all his thoughts and purposes — all the deeds of his past life — on the wall of his chamber at night, and bringing at once all his concealed though to, and all his forgotten deeds before his mind. And if this is so, how will tho sinner War the disclosures that will be mad* at the day of judgment?
THIS chapter, like the previous ones, has not escaped serious objections as to its authen ticity and crebibility. The objections which have been made to it have been derived from what is regarded as incredible in its statements. It is important, as in the previous chapters, to inquire whether the objections are insuperable, or whether this is so free from reasonable objection as to be worthy to be received as a portion of divine truth. The objections, as urged by Bertholdt (Daniel aus dem Hebraish-Aramaischen neu iibersetzt, &c., pp. 72 — 75, and pp. 357 — 364,) and by Bleek, are capable of being reduced to the four following:
I. That it is wholly improbable that a monarch, in the circumstances of Darius, would give an order so tinreasonable and foolish as that no one of his subjects should present any petition for a month to any one, God or man, but to himself. It is alleged that no good end could have been proposed by it; that it would have perilled the pence of the empire; that among a people who worshipped many gods — who had gods in all their dwellings — it would have been vain to hope that the command could have been cai'ried peaceably into execution; and that, whoever proposed this, it could not have been executed without shaking the stability of the
throne. Bertholdt asks (p. 357, seq.), ' Can one believe that, among a people so devoted to reli gion as the Babylonians were, it should have been forbidden them to address their gods for one single day? Is it credible that the counsellors of the king were so irreligious that without fear of the avenging deities they would endeavour to enforce such an order as that here referred to — that no petition should be addressed to God or man for a month, except to the king? And was Cyaxares so destitute of religion as not to refuse to sanction such a mandate? And does this agree with the fact that in the issue itself he showed so much respect to a foreign God — the God of the Jews? Under what pretence could the ministers of the king give him this counsel? Could it be under any purpose of deifying his own person? But it remains to be proved that cither then, or soon after that time, it was customary in Asia to attribute divine honours to a monarch, whether deceased or living.'
To this objection, Ilengstenberg (Die Authentic des Daniel, p. 125, seq.) replies, by an en deavour to show that it was a common opinion in Persia that the king was regarded 'as a rep resentative, and an incarnation of Ormuzd;' and that nothing is more probable than that such a monarch coming to the throne of Babylon, would be willing to appear in that character, claim ing divine honours, and early testing the intelligence of his new subjects to receive him in that character in which he was recognized in his own land. In confirmation of this, he quotes two passages from Ileeren (Ideen 3te Ausg. I. i. p. 440, 51), in proof that these ideas thus pre
vailed. ' The person of the king,' Ileeren says, ' is in Asiatic kingdoms the middle point around which all revolves. He is regarded, according to the Oriental notions, not so much the ruler as the actual owner of the people and land. All their arrangements are formed on this funda mental idea, and they are carried to an extent which to Europeans appears incredible and ridi culous.' 'The idea of citizenship, according to the European nations, is altogether a strange idea to them; all, without exception, from the highest to the lowest, are the servants of the king, and the right to rule over them, and to deal with them as he pleases, is a right which is
never called in question.' Ilengstenberg then remarks, that it is capable of the clearest proof that the, kings of the Medcs and Persians were regarded and honoured as the representatives and incarnations of Ormuzd. In proof of this, he quotes the following passage from Ileeren (p. 474), showing that this idea early prevailed among the followers of Zoroaster. ' Zoroaster,' says he, ' saw the kingdom of light and of darkness both developed upon the earth; Iran, the Mcdish- Bactrish kingdom, under the sceptre of Gustasp, is to him the image of the kingdom of Ormuzd* the king himself is an image of him; Turun, the Northern Komadland, when Afrasiab reigned; is the image of the kingdom of darkness, under the dominion of Ahriman.' This idea, says Ilengstenberg, the magi made use of when they wished to bring the king to their own interests, or to promote any favourite object of their own. The king was regarded as the representative, the visible manifestation of Ormuzd, ruling with power as uncircumscribed as his; the seven princes standing near him were representatives of the seven Amhaspands, who stood before the throne of Ormuzd. The evidence that the Persian kings were regarded as an embodiment of the deity, or that they represented him on earth, Ilengstenberg remarks (p. 126), is clear in the classic writings, in the Scriptures, and in the Persian monuments. Jn proof of this, he appeals to the following authorities among the classic writers, Plutarch (Themistocl. cap. 27); Xcr>ophon (Agcsil.); Isocrates (Panegyri de Pers. princ. p. 17); Arrian, 6. 29; Curtins, 8. 5. Curtius says, Persas reges suos inter dens colere. For the same purpose, Ilengsten berg (pp. 128, 129.) appeals to the following passage of Scripture, Esther iii. 4, and the conduct of Mordecai in general, who refused, as he supposes, the respect which Hainan demanded as the first minister of the king, on religious grounds, and because more was required and expected of him than mere civil respect— or that a degree of homage was required entirely inconsistent with that due to the true God. In proof of the same thing, Henstcnberg appeals to Persian monu ments, pp. 129 — 132. The proof is too long to be inserted here. These monuments show that 22* the Persian kings were regarded and adored as impersonations of Onnuzd. To this may b« added many of their inscriptions. In the work by de Sacy, Mcmoircs s. divers. Antiq. de It Perse, PI. i. p. 27, 31, the Persian kings are mentioned as £*yo»ot Setovy IK yivovs SsoDi', and Ssoi — both as offsprings of the gods, as of the race of the gods, and as gods.
If this is correct, and the Persian kings were regarded as divine; as an impersonation or in carnation of the God that was worshipped, then there is no improbability in the supposition that it might be proposed to the king that for a given space of time he should allow no petition to be presented to any one else, God or man. It would be easy to persuade a monarch having such pretensions to issue such a decree, and especially when he had subjected a foreign people like the Babylonians, to be willing thus to assert his authority over them, and show them what respect and homage he demanded. In judging, also, of the probability of what is here said, we are to remember the arbitrary character of Oriental monarchs, and of the Persian kings no less than others. Assuredly there were as strange things in the character and conduct of Xerxes, one of the successors of this same Darius, as any that are recorded in this chapter of the book of Daniel; and if these acts of folly, which he perpetrated, had been written in a book claim ing to be divinely inspired, they would have been liable to much greater objection than any thing which is stated here. The mere fact that a thing is in itself foolish and unreasonable, and apparently absurd, is no conclusive evidence that a man clothed with absolute authority would not be guilty of it.
To all that has been said on this point, there should be added a remark made by Bertholdt himself (p. 357) respecting Darius, which will show that what is here said of him is really not at all inconsistent with his character, and not improbable. He says, speaking of Darius or Cyaxares, that ' from his character, as given by Xcnophon, a man of weak mind, (Cyrop. i. 4, 22. iv. 1, 13,) a man passionate and peevish, (iii. 3, 29, iv. 5, 8, v. 5, i. 8,) a man given to wine and women, (iv. 5, 52, v. 5, 44,) we are not to expect much wisdom.' There is nothing stated here by Daniel which is inconsistent with the character of such a man.
II. A second objection made to the probability of this statement, is drawn from the character of the edict which Darius is said to have proclaimed, commanding that honour should be ren dered to Jehovah, vs. 25 — 27. It is alleged that if such an edict had been published, it is in credible that no mention is made of it in history; that the thing was so remarkable that it must have been noticed by the writers who have referred to Darius or Cyaxares.
To this it may be replied, (1.) that, for anything that appears to the contrary, Daniel may be as credible a historian as Xenophon or Herodotus. No one can demonstrate that the account here is not as worthy of belief as if it had appeared in a Greek or Latin classic author. When will the world get over the folly of supposing that what is found in a book claiming to be in spired should be regarded as suspicious until it is confirmed by the authority of some heathen writer; that what is found in any other book should be regarded as necessarily true, however much it, may conflict with the testimony of the sacred writers? Viewed in any light, Daniel is as worthy of confidence as any Greek or Latin historian; vrh.it he says is as credible as if it had been found in the works of Sancboniathon or Berosus. (2) There are, in fact, few things pre served in any history in regard to Darius the Mede. Comp. g2. The information given of him by Xenophon consists merely of a few detached and fragmentary notices, and it is not at all remarkable that the facts here mentioned, and the proclamation which he made, should be un noticed by him. A proclamation respecting a foreign god, when it was customary to recognize so many gods, and indeed to regard all such gods as entitled to respect and honour, would not be likely to arrest the attention of a Greek historian even if he knew of it, and, for the same reason, it would be scarcely probable that he would know of it at all. Nothing would be more likely to pass away from the recollection of a people than such an edict, or less likely to be known to a foreigner. So far as the evidence goes, it would seem that the proclamation made no dis turbance in the realm; the injunction was generally acquiesced in by all except Daniel; and it was soon forgotten. If it was understood, as it was not improbable, that this was designed as a sort of test to see whether the people would receive the commands of Darius as binding on them; that they would honour him, as the Persian monarch was honoured in his own pro per kingdom, it would seem to have been entirely successful, and there was no occasion to refer to it again.
III. A third objection urged by Bertholdt (p. 361), is derived from the account respecting the lions in this chapter. It is alleged by him that the account is so full of improbabilities, that it cannot be received as true; that though the fact that they did not fall on Daniel can be ex plained from the circumstance that they were not hungry, &c.; yet that it is incredible that they should have fallen on the enemies of Daniel us soon as they were thrown into the den; that the king should expect to find Daniel alive after being thrown among them; that he should have called in this manner to Daniel, <fcc.
To all this it is sufficient to reply, that no one can suppose that the facts stated here can be explained by any natural causes. The whole representation is evidently designed to leave the impression that there was a special divine interposition — a miracle — in the case, and the only explanation which is admissible here is that which would be proper in the case of any other miracle. The only questions which could be asked, or which would be proper, are these two; whether a miracle is possible; and whether this was a suitable occasion for the miracu lous exertion of divine power. As to the first of these questions, it is not necessary to argue that here — for the objection might lie with equal force against any other miracle referred to in the Bible, As to the second, it may be observed, that it is not easy to conceive of a case whea a miracle would bu more proper. If a miracle was ever proper to protect the innocent; or to vindicate the claims of the true God against all false gods; or to make a deep and lasting impres sion on the minds of meii that Jehovah is the true God, it is not easy to conceive of a more appropriate occasion than this. No situation could be conceived to be more appropriate than when an impression was designed to be made on the mind of the sovereign of the moat mighty empire on the earth; or than when, through a proclamation issued from the throne, the na tions subject to his sceptre should be summoned to acknowledge him as the true God.
IV. A fourth objection urged by Bleek, Theologische Zeitschrift, pp. 262—264, is, substan tially, the following: that it is remarkable that there is in this account no allusion to the three companions of Daniel; to those who had been trained with him at the Chaldean court, and had been admitted also to honour, and who had so abundantly shown that they were worshippers of the true God. The whole story, says Bleek, appears to have been designed to produce a moral effect on the mind of the Jews, by the unknown author, to persuade them in some period of persecution to adhere to the God of their fathers in the midst of all persecution and opposition.
To this objection it may be replied, (1) That it is wholly probable that there were many other pious Jews in Babylon at this time beside Daniel — Jews who would, like him, adhere to the worship of the true God, regardless of the command of the king. We are not to suppose, by any means, that Daniel was the only conscientious Jew in Babylon. The narrative evidently does not require that we should come to such a conclusion, but that there was something pecu liar in regard to Daniel. (2) As to the three companions and friends of Daniel, it is possible, as Hengstenberg remarks (Authentic, &c. p. 135), that they may either have been dead, or may have been renioved from office, and were leading private lives. (3) This edict was evidently aimed at Daniel. The whole narrative supposes this. For some cause, according to the narra tive — and there is no improbability that such an opposition might exist against a foreigner advanced to honour at court — there was some ground of jealousy against him, and a purpose formed to remove or disgrace him. There does not appear to have been any jealousy of others, or any purpose to disturb others in the free enjoyment of their religion. The aim was to hum ble Daniel; to secure his removal from office, and to degrade him; and for this purpose a plan was laid with consummate skill. He was known to be upright; and they who laid the plot felt assured that no charge of guilt, no accusation of crime, or unfaithfulness in his office, could be alleged against him. ~IIe was known to be a man who would not shrink from the avowal of his opinions, or from the performance of those duties which he owed to his God. He was known to be a man so much devoted to the worship of Jehovah, the God of his people, that no law what ever would prevent him from rendering to him the homage which was his due, and it was be lieved, therefore, that if a law were made, on any pretence, that no one in the realm should ask anything of either God or man, except the king, for a definite space of time, there would be a moral certainty that Daniel would be found to be a violator of that law, and his degradation and death would be certain. What was here proposed was a scheme worthy of crafty and jealous and wicked men; and the only difficulty, evidently, which would occur to their mind would be to persuade the king to enter into the measure so far as to promulgate such a law. As already obserred, plausible pretences might be found for that, and when that was done, they would naturally conclude that their whole scheme was successful. (4) There is no impro bability, therefore, in supposing that, as the whole thing was aimed at Daniel, there might have been many pious Jews who still worshipped God in secret in Babylon, and that no one would give information against them. As the edict was not aimed at them, it is not surprising that we hear of no prosecution against them, and no complaint made of them for disregarding the law. If Daniel was found to violate the statute; if he was ensnared and entrapped by the cun ning device; if he was humbled and punished, all the purposes contemplated by its authors would be accomplished, and we need not suppose that they would give themselves any trouble about others.
Considerable importance is to be attached to the question who was ' Darius the Medo,' as it has been made a ground of objection to the Scripture narrative, that no person by that name is mentioned in the Greek writers.
There are three Medo-Persian kings of the name of Darius mentioned in the Old Testament. One occurs in the Book of Ezra (iv. 5, xxv. 1, vi. 1, 12, 15), in Haggai (i. 1, ii. 10), and in Zech. (i. 17), as the king who, in the second year of his reign, effected the execution of those decrees of Cyrus which granted the Jews the liberty of rebuilding the temple, the fulfilment of which had been obstructed by the malicious representations which their enemies had made to his immediate successors. It is commonly agreed that this king was Darius Hystaspis, who succeeded the usurper Smerdis, B. C. 521, and reigned thirty-six years.
A second is mentioned as 'Darius the Persian,' in Neh. xii. 22. All that is said of him is, that the succession of prieste was registered up to his reign. This was cither Darius Nothus, B. C. 423, or Darius Codomaifus, B. C. 336. See Kitto's Cyclo. Art. Darius.
The remaining one is that mentioned in Daniel only as Darius the Median. In ch. ix. 1, He is mentioned as Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes. Much difference Of opinion has prevailed as to the person here intended; but a strict attention to what Is actually expressed in, or fairly deduced from, the terms used in Daniel, tends to narrow the field of conjecture very considerably, if it does not decide the question. It appears from the in ch. T. 30, 31, and vi, 28, that Darius the Mede obtained the dominion over Babylon on the death of Belshazzar, who was the last Chaldean king, and that he was the immediate predecessor of Koresh (Cyrus) in the sovereignty. The historical juncture here defined belongs, therefore, to the period when the Medo-Persian army led by Cyrus took Babylon (B. C. 538), and Darius the Mede must denote the first king of a foreign dynasty who assumed the dominion over the Babylonian empire before Cyrus. These indications all concur in the person of Cyaxares the Second, the son and successor of Astyages [Ahasucrus], and the immediate predecessor of Cyrus. Kitto's Cyclo. Art. Darius.
In reference to the question, who was Darius the Mede, Bertholdt has examined the different opinions which have been entertained in a manner that is satisfactory, and I cannot do better than to present his views on the subject. They are found in his Vierter Excurs iiber den Darius Medus, in his Commentary on Daniel, pp. 843 — 858. I will give the substance of the Excursus, in a free translation.
' Who was Darius the Mede, the son of Ahasuerus, of whom mention is made in the sixtli chapter of the Book of Daniel, and again in ch. ix. 1 and xi. 1? It is agreed on all hands that h« was the immediate successor of Belshazzar, the king of the Chaldeans (ch. v. 30). Comp. ch. vi. 1. But, notwithstanding this, there is uncertainty as to his person, since history makes no men tion of a Median Darius. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that various opinions have been entertained by commentators on the Scriptures, and by historical inquirers. Conring (Advers. Chronol. c. 13), whom many have followed, particularly Harenberg (Aufklarung des Buches Daniel, s. 454, seq.), has endeavoured to show that Darius the Mede was the fourth Chaldean monarch, Neriglissar, and that Belshazzar, his predecessor, was Evil-Merodach..T. Scaliger (De emendat. temporum, p. 579, seq.) recognized in Darius the Mede the last Chaldean king in Babylon, Nabonned, and in Belshazzar, the one before the last, Laborosoarchod, which hypothesis also Calvisius, Petavius, and Buddeus adopted. On the other hand, Syncellus (Chronogr. p. 232), Cidrenus (Chron. p. 142), the Alexandrine Chronicle, Marshani (Can. Chron. p. 604, seq.), the two most recent editors of yEschylus, Schutz (in zweiten Excurs zu jftschylus's TTEpaai,) and Bothe (j3Esch. dramata, p. 671), held that Darius the Mede was the Median king Astyages, the maternal grandfather of Cyrus. DCS Vignolles (Chronologic, T. 2, p. 495), and Schroer (Kegnum Babyl. Sect. C, §12, seq.), held him to be a prince of Media, a younger brother of Astyages, whom Cyrus made king over Babylon. Another opinion, however, deserves more respect than this, which was advanced by Marianus Scotus, a Benedictine monk of the eleventh century, though this hypothesis is not tenable, which opinion has found, in modern times, a warm advocate in Beer (Kings of Israel and Judah, p. 22, seq.). According to tins opi nion, it was held that Darius the Mede is the same person as the third Persian king after Cyrus, Darius Hystaspis, and that Belshazzar was indeed the last Chaldean king, Nabonned. but that in the first capture of Babylon under Cyrus, according to the account of Berosus (in Jos. c. A p. i. 20), and Megasthencs (in Euseb. Prasp. Evang. ix. 44,) he was not put to death, but was appointed by Cyrus as a vassal-king; and then in the second taking of Babylon under Darius llystaspis, (Herod, iii. 150, seq.), from, whom he had sought to make himself independent, he was slain'. This opinion has this advantage, that it has in its favour the fact that it has the undoubted name of Darius, but it is not conformable to history to suppose that Darius llystaspis was a eon of Ahasuerus, the Mede; for his father, llystaspis, was a native born prince of Persia, (Xeno. Cyrop. iv. 2, 46,) of the family of the Achaenienidcs, Herod, i. 209. 210. Darius Hystappis was indeed remotely related by means of the mother of Cyrus, Mandane, with the royal family; but this relation could not entitle him to be called a Mede, for since she was the mother of Cyrus, it is altogether inexplicable that since both were thus connected with each other that Cyrus should be called the Persian (N^CHD), and Darius the Mede (Ni^Jp), Dan vi. 29. The sup position, moreover, that Nabonned, after the taking of Babylon, was appointed as a tributary king by Cyrus, is wholly gratuitous; since Nabonned, according to the express testimony of Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 5, 26, seq.), was slain at the taking of Babylon.
' There is yet one other opinion respecting Darius the Mede, to which I will first prefix the following remarks: (1) Darius the Mede is mentioned in ch, vi. 29, as the immediate pre decessor of Cyrus in Babylon; (2) Belshazzar as the last Babylonish Chaldee king; (3) the account of the violent death of Belshazzar, with which the fifth chapter closes, stands in direct historical connection with the statement in the beginning of the sixth chapter that Darius the Mede had the kingdom; (4) Darius the Mede must, therefore, be the first foreign prince after the downfall of the Chaldean dynasty, which directly reigned over Babylon; (5) the chronolo gical point, therefore, where the history of Belshazzar and of Darius the Mede coincide, developes itself: the account falls in the time of the downfall of Babylon through the Medo-Persian army, and this must be the occasion as the connecting fact between the fifth and sixth chapters. According to this, Darius the Mede can be no other person than the Medish king Cyaxares II., the son and successor of Astyages, and the predecessor of Cyrus in the rule over Babylon; and Belshazzar is the last Chaldee monarch, Nabonned, or Labynct. With this agrees the account of Josephus (Ant. x. 11, 4); and later this opinion found an advocate in Jerome.
' The existence of such a person as Cyaxares II. has been indeed denied, because, according to Herodotus (i. 109), and Justin (i. 4, 7), Astyages had no son. But, it should be remarked, that the latter of these writers only copies from the former, and what Herodotus states respect ing Astyages has so much the appearance of fable that no reliance is to be placed on it. It has been objected also that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, (B. i. g 2) says that the Medish kingdom Continued only through four reigns, so that if we reckon the names of the reigning kings, J)e«
joces, Phraortes, Cyaxares (the contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar), and Astyages, ihere -will be no place for a second Cyaxares. But is it not probable that Dionysius meant, by these words, only that the Media kingdom came to an end under the fourth dynasty?' Finally, it has been objected that, according to Herodotus (i. 128, seq.}, and Ctesias (HtpatK. 2 and 5), no Me dian prince sat upon the throne in Ecbatana after Astyages, but that with Astyages the kingdom of the Medes came to an end, and with Cyrus, his immediate successor, the Persian king dom took its beginning. Therewith agree nearly all the historians of the following times, Diodorus (ii. 34), Justin (i. 6, 16, 17, vii. 1), Strabo (ix. p. 795, xv. p. 1662), Polyan (vii. 7), and many others. But these writers only copy from Herodotus and Ctesias, and the whole rests only on their authority. But their credibility in this point must be regarded as doubtful, for it is not difficult to understand the reasons why they have omitted to make mention of Cy axares II. They commenced the history of the reign of Cyrus with the beginning of his worldrenowned celebrity, and hence it was natural to connect the beginning of his reign, and the beginning of the Persian reign, with the reign of his grandfather Astyages, for so long as his uncle Cyaxares II. reigned, he alone acted, and he in fact was the regent. But if the silence of Herodotus and Ctesias is not to be regarded as proof that no such person as Cyaxares II. lived nnd reigned, there are in favour of that the following positive arguments:
' (1.) The authority of Xenophon, who not only says that a Cyaxares ascended the throne after Astyages, but that he was a son of Astyages (Cyr. i. 5, 2), and besides relates so much of this Cyaxares (i. 4, 7, iii. 3, 20, viii. 5, 19), that his Cyropaedia may be regarded as in a measure a history of him. Yea, Xenophon goes so far (viii. 7, 1), that he reckons the years of the reign of Cyrus from the death of Cyaxares II. Can any one conceive a reason why Xenophon had a motive to weave together such a tissue of falsehood as this unless Cyaxares II. actually lived? If one should object, indeed, that he is so far to be reckoned among fictitious writers that he gives a moral character to the subjects on which he writes, and that he has passed over the dif ference between Cyrus and his grandfather Astyages, yet there is no reason why he should have brought upon the stage so important a person, wholly from fiction, as Cyaxares. What a degree of boldness it must have required, if he, who lived not much more than a century after the events recorded, had mentioned to his contemporaries so much respecting a prince of whom no one whatever had even heard. But the existence of Cyaxares II. may be proved
The first who is here mentioned as the Mode (Mrjtfoj) is manifestly no other than Astyages, whom, before Cyrus, his son succeeded in the government, and who is the same whom we, after Xenophon, call Cyaxares. This testimony is the more important as ^Sschylus lived before Xenophon, in the time of Darius Hystaspis, and is free from all suspicions from this circum stance. that according to the public relations which JSschylus sustained, no accounts of the for mer Persian history could be expected from any doubtful authorities to have been adduced by him. But the existence of Cyaxares II. does not depend solely on the authority of Xenophou, in his Cyropaedia. For
' (3.) Josephus (Ant. x. 11, 4), who speaks of this person under the name of Darius, adds r)v Aoruayou vto^^ irepov fit rcapa TOIJ EAArjini' sxaXeiTO opojia — 'he was the son of Astyages. but had another name among the Greeks.' This name, which he had among the Greeks, can be found only in their own Xenophon.
' (4.) To all this should be added, that many other data of history, especially those taken from the Hebrew writings, so set out the continuance of the reign of the Medes over Upper Asia, that it is necessary to suppose the existence of such a person as the Mcdish king, Cyaxares. after the reign of Astyages. Had Cyrus, after the death of Astyages, immediately assumed the govern ment over Upper Asia, how happened it that until the downfall of the Babylonian-Chaldee kingdom, mention is made almost always of the Medes, or at least of the Persians, of whom there is special mention? "Whence is it that the passage of Abydenus, quoted from Megasthenes, p. 295, speaks of a Mede, who, in connection with a Persian, overthrew the Babylonish kingdom? Is not the Mede so represented as to show that he was a prominent and lead ing person? Js it not necessary to attribute to this fragment a higher authority, and to suppose that a Medish monarch, in connection with a Persian, brought the kingdom of Babylon to an end? Whence did Jeremiah, chs. 1. and li., expressly threaten that the Jews would be punished by a Median king? Whence does the author of Isa. xiii. and xiv. mention that the destruction of the Chaldean monarchy would be effected by the Medes? The acces sion of Cyrus to the throne was no mere change of person in the authority, but it was a change of the reigning nation. So long as a Mede sat on the throne, the Persians, though they acted an important part in the affairs of the nation, yet occupied only the second place. The court was Medish, and the Medes were prominent in all the affairs of the government, as every page of the Cyropajdia furnishes evidence. Upon the accession of Cyrus, the whole thing was changed. The Persians were now the predominant nation, and from that time onward, as has been remarked, the Persians are always mentioned as having the priority, though before they had but a secondary place. Ag the reign of Astyages, though ho reigned thirty -fivo years (Herod.
i. 130), could not have embraced the -whole period mentioned to the accession of Cyrus, go the royal race of the Modes, and the kingdom of the Medes, could not have been extinguished with him, and it, is necessary to suppose the existence of Cyaxares II. as his successor, and the pre decessor of Cyrus.'
These considerations, suggested hy Bertholdt, are sufficient to demonstrate that such a person as Cyaxares II. lived between the reign of Astyages and Cyrus, and that, after the destruction of Babylon, he was the immediate successor of Belshazzar, or Nabonned, and was the prede cessor of Cyrus. He was the first of the foreign princes who reigned over Babylon. It has been made a question why, in the Book of Daniel, he is mentioned under the name of Darius, and not by his other name Cyaxares. It may be difficult to answer this question, but it will be sufficient to remark (a) that it was common for Oriental kings to have many names, and, as we have seen, in regard to the kings of Babylon, one writer might designate them by one name, and another by another. This is indeed the occasion of much confusion in ancient history, but this is inevitable, (b) As we have seen, Josephus (Ant. x. 11, 4) expressly says that this Darius had another name among the Greeks, and, as Bertholdt remarks, it is natural to seek that name in the writings of their own Xenophon. (c) Darius was a common name in Persia, and it may have been one of the names by which the princes of Persia and Media were commonly known. Three of that name are mentioned in the Scriptures, and three who were distinguished are mentioned in profane history — Darius Hystaspis, Darius Ochus, or Darius Nothus, as he was known among the Greeks, and Darius Codomanus, who was overthrown by Alexander the Great.
An important statement is made by Xenophon respecting Cyaxares II., the son of Astyages, which may account for the fact that his name was omitted by Herodotus and Ctesias. He de scribes him as a prince given up to sensuality, and this fact explains the reason why he came to surrender all authority so entirely into the hands of his enterprising son-in-law and nephew Cyrus, and why his reign was naturally sunk in that of his distinguished successor. Cyrop. i. 5, viii. 7.
This chapter contains the history of Daniel under the government, or during the reign of Darius the Mede, or Cyaxares II., from a period, it would seem, soon after the accession of Dai-ius to the throne in Babylon, or the conquest of Babylon, till his death. It is not indeed said how soon after that event Daniel was exalted to the premiership in Babylon, but the nar rative would lead us to suppose that it was soon after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, acting under the authority of Cyaxares. As Daniel, on account of the disclosure made to Belshazzar of the meaning of the handwriting on the wall, had been exalted to high honour at the close of the life of that monarch (ch. v.), it is probable that he would be called to a similar station under the reign of Darius, as it cannot be supposed that Darius would appoint Medes and Per sians entirely to fill the high offices of the realm. The chapter contains a record of the follow ing events: (1) The arrangement of the government after the conquest of Babylon, consisting of one hundred and twenty officers over the kingdom, so divided as to be placed under the care of three superior officers, or ' presidents,' of whom Daniel held the first place, vs. 1 — 3. (2) The dissatisfaction or envy of the officers so appointed, against Daniel, for causes now unknown, and their conspiracy to remove him from office, or to bring him into disgrace with the king, ver. 4. (3) The plan which they formed to secure this, derived from the known piety and integrity of Daniel, and their conviction that, at any hazard, he would remain firm to his religious princi ples, and would conscientiously maintain the worship of God. Convinced that they could find no fault in his administration; that he could not be convicted of malversation or infidelity in office; that there was nothing in his privateer public character that was contrary to justice and integrity, they resolved to take advantage of his well-known piety, and to make that the occasion of his downfall and ruin, ver. 5. (4) The plan that was artfully proposed was, to induce the king to sign a decree that if any one for thirty days should ask any petition for anything of God or man, he should be thrown into a den of lions — that is, should be, as they supposed, certainly put to death. This proposed decree they apprehended they could induce the king to sign, perhaps because it was flattering to the monarch, or perhaps because it would test the disposition of his new subjects to obey him, or perhaps because they knew he was a weak and effeminate prince, and that he was accustomed to sign papers presented to him by his coun sellors without much reflection or hesitation, vs. 6 — 9. (5) Daniel, when he was apprised of the contents of the decree, though he saw its bearing, and perhaps its design, yet continued his devotions as usual — praying, as he was known to do, three times a day, with his face toward Jerusalem, with his windows open. The case was one where he felt, undoubtedly, that it was a matter of principle that he should worship God in his usual manner, and not allow him self to be driven from the acknowledgment of his God by the fear of death, ver. 10. (6) They who had laid the plan, made report of this to the king, and demanded the execution of the decree. The case was a pl*Jn one, for though it had not been intended or expected by the king that Daniel would have been found a violator of the law, yet as the decree was positive, and there had been no concealment on the part of Daniel, the counsellors urged that it was necessary that the decree should be executed, vs. 11 — 13. (7) The king, displeased with him self, and evidently enraged against these crafty counsellors, desirous of sparing Daniel, and yet feeling the necessity of maintaining a law positively enacted, sought some way by which Daniel might be saved, and the honour and majesty of the law preserved. No method, however, oc curring to him of securing both objects, he was constrained to submit to the execution of the decree, and ordered Daniel to be cast into the den of lions, vs. 14—17. (8) The king returned to his palace, and passed the night fasting, and overwhelmed with sadness, ver. 18. (9) In the morning he caine with deep anxiety to the place where Daniel had been thrown, and called to see if he were alive, vs. 19, 20. (10) The reply of Daniel, that he had been preserved by the intervention of an angel, who had closed the mouths of the lions, and had kept him alive, vs. 21, 22. (11) The release of Daniel from the den, and the command to cast those in who had thus accused Daniel, and who had sought his ruin, vs. 23, 24. (12) An appropriate proclama tion from the kins' to all men to honour that God who had thus preserved his servant, vs. 25—27. (13) A statement of the prosperity of Daniel, extending to the reign of Cyrus, ver. 28.
1 It pleased Darius to set » over f 2 And over these, three preaithe kingdom an hundred and twenty dents, of whom Daniel was first; b princes, which should be over the that the princes might give accounts whole kingdom.
1. It pleased Damns to set over the kingdom. Evidently over the kingdom of Babylon, now united to that of Media and Persia. As this was now subject to him, and tributary to him, it would be natural to appoint persons over it in whom he could confide, for the adminis tration of justice, for the collection of revenue, <fcc. Others, however, suppose that this relates to the whole kingdom of Persia, but as the reference here is mainly to what was the kingdom of Babylon, it is rather to be presumed that this is what
(iii. 12, viii. 9, ix. 3), and in Ezra (viii. 36); in Esther and Ezra uniformly ren dered lieutenant*. In Daniel (iii. 2, 3, 27, vi. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,) it is as uniformly rendered princes. It is a word of Per sian origin, and is probably the Hebrew mode of pronouncing the Persian word satrap, or, as Gesenius supposes, the Per sian word was pronounced — ksatrap. For the etymology of the word, see Gesenius, Lex. The word undoubtedly refers to the Persian satraps, or governors, or vice roys in the large provinces of the em- is particularly alluded to. Besides, it is ir possessing both civil and military hardly probable that he would have exalted! rs> They were officers high in rank,
Daniel, a Jew, and a resident in Baby- j and bei tho representatives of the Ion, to so important a post as that of sovereign they rivalled his state and tho premiership over the whole empire, though from his position and standing in
Babylon there is no improbability in officers. the satraps governed whole prosupposing that he might have occupied, j yinces> Th0 word ig rendered Ratraps under the reign of Darius, a place similar in the Greekj and the Latin Vulgate, to that which ho had occupied under Nebu- 2> And over thc8C ihrce presidenl8.
IW ^is word is found only in the officers over each department, Darius! Plural- The etymology is uncertain, but followed tho same plan which Xenophon I lts meaning is not doubtful. The word tells us that Cyrus did over the nations President expresses it with sufficient ac curacy, denoting a high omcer that pre sided over others. It is not improbable nifa Zdvr): 'It seemed good to him to that these presided over distinct depart ments, corres appoint satraps over the conquered na- j arc now called, Secretaries'— as Secretations.' Comp. Esth. i. 1. Archbishop ries of gtat of the Treasurv Of Foreign Usher ( Annal. vol. i. p 82) thinks that j Affai & th h thig ig nofc pai.ticuiarlv the plan was first instituted by_ Cyrus,; c}ficcL f Of whom Daniel was first. and was followed at his suggestion. It, rirgfc in rank_ This office ho probably was a measure of obvious prudence in j held from the rank which ho wfl£ known order to maintain so extended an empire tohaveoccupied undcr the kings of Babyin subjection, f £n hundred and twenty { and on account of his reputation for prices. The word here rendered^nnccs-; ability and integritVi ^ That the prillcea «;i9")3v'd«» occurs only in Daniel in the j m{ght give accounts unto them. Bo iin- Chaldee form, though in the Hebrew j mediately responsible to them; the acform it is found in tho book of Esther! counts of their own administration, and unto them, and * the king should have no damage.
3 Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent b spirit was in
of the state of the empire. ^ And the Ionia, since Daniel (ver. 2,) was already king should have no damage. Either in placed at the head of all these princes, the loss of revenue, or in any mal-admin- Yet, in consequence of his talents and him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm.
4 T[ Then c the presidents and princes d sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the king-
istration of the affairs. Comp. Ezra iv. 13. "They pay not toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings." The king was regarded as the source of all power, and as in fact the supreme proprietor of the realm, and any malfeasance or malversa tion in office was regarded as an injury to him.
3. Then this Daniel was preferred above the pretidentt and princes. That is, he was at their head, or was placed in rank and office over them, f Because an excellent spirit was in Mm. This may refer alike to his wisdom and his inte grity — both of which would bo necessary in such an office. It was an office of great difficulty and responsibility to man age the affairs of the empire in a proper manner, and required the talents of an accomplished statesman, and, at the same time, as it was an office where confidence was reposed by the sovereign it de manded integrity. The word 'excellent' — Nynj — means properly that which hangs over, or which is abundant, or more than enough, and then anything that is very great, excellent, pre-eminent. Lat. Vulg. Spiritus Dei Amplior — 'the spirit of God more abundantly.' Gr. nvtvpa. nepioaov. It is not said here to what trial of his abilities and integrity Daniel was sub jected before he was thus exalted, but it is not necessary to suppose that any such trial occurred at once, or immediately on the accession of Darius. Probably, as he was found in office as appointed by Belshazzar, he was continued by Darius, and as a result of his tried integrity was in due time exalted to the premiership. ^And the king thought to set him over the whole realm. The whole kingdom over which he presided, embracing Media, Persia, Babylonia, and all the dependent, conquered provinces. This shows that the princes referred to in ver. 1, were those which were appointed over Baby- fidelity the king was meditating the im portant measure of placing him over the whole united kingdom as premier. That ho should form such a purpose in re gard to an officer so talented and faithful as Daniel was, is by no means improba ble. The Greek of Theodotion renders this as if it were actually done — KOI b rdv K. r. A. — 'And the king placed him over all his king dom.' But the Chalde cates rather a purpose or intention to do it; or rather, perhaps, that he was actu ally making arrangements to do this. Probably it was the fact that this design was perceived, and that the arrangements were actually commenced, that aroused the envy and the ill-will of his fellowofficers, and induced them to determine on his ruin.
4. Then the presidents and princca sought to find occasion against Daniel. The word rendered occasion — rhy — means a pretext or pretence. "The Arabs use the word of any business or affair which serves as a cause or pretext for neglecting another business." Gesenius, Lex. The meaning is, that they sought to find some plausible pretext or reason in respect to Daniel by which the contemplated appointment might be pre vented, and by which he might be effec tually humbled. No one who is ac quainted with the intrigues of cabinets and courts can have any doubts as to the probability of what is here stated. No thing has been more common in the world than intrigues of this kind to hum ble a rival, and to bring down those Avho are meritorious to a state of degradation. The cause of the plot here laid seems to have been mere envy and jealousy — and perhaps by the consideration that Daniel was a foreigner, and was one of a de spised people held in captivity. ^[ Con cerning the kingdom. In respect to the administration of the kingdom. They
<iom; but they could find none oc- not find any occasion aguii si this casion nor fault; forasmuch as he Daniel, except we find it against was faithful, neither was there any: him concerning the law of his* God. error or fault found in him.; 6 Then these presidents and princes
5 Then said these men, We shall '. • assembled together to the king, and
sought to find evidence of malversation prohibited by the laws of the realm, and in office, or abuse of power, or attempts it would not be easy to procure a law at personal aggrandizement, or inatten- directly and avowedly prohibiting that, tion to the duties of the office. This is ' It is not probable that the king would literally ' from the side of the kingdom;' j have consented to pass such a law diand the meaning is, that the accusation ] rectly proposed — a law which would was sought in that quarter, or in that re- '' have been so likely to produce disturbspect. No other charge would be likely ance, and when no plausible ground to be effectual, except one which pertained could have been alleged for it. There to maladministration in office. f But I was another method, however, which they could find none occasion nor fault. \ suggested itself to these crafty counsel- This is an honourable testimony to the j lors— which was, while they did not seem fidelity of Daniel, and the uprightness ' to aim absolutely and directly to have of his character. If there had been any! that worship prohibited, to approach tho malversation in office, it would have been j king with a proposal that would be fiatdetected by these men. j tering to his vanity, and that, perhaps,
5. We shall not find any occasion, &c. We shall not find any pretext, or any cause by which he may be humbled and degraded. They were satisfied of his might bo suggested as a test question, showing the degree of esteem with which he was held in tho empire, and the wil lingness of his subjects to obey him.
integrity, and they saw it was vain to I Bv. proposing a law that, for a limited hope to accomplish their purposes by any j period, no one should be allowed to present attack on his moral character, or any a petition of any kind to any one except charge against him in respect to the man- to the kinS himself, the object would bo ner in which he had discharged tho du- accomplished. A vain monarch could be ties of his office. f Except we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Unless it be in respect to his reli gion; unless we can so construe his prevailed on to pass such a law, and this could be represented to him as a measure not improper, in order to test his subjects as to their willingness to show him re- known conscientiousness in regard to his sPecfc and obedience; and at the samo religion as to make that a proof of his | time ifc wo.uld be certain to effect the purunwillingness to obey the king. It j Poso against Daniel— for tney had no doubt that he would adhere stedfastly occurred to them that such was his well-understood faithfulness in his reli gious duties, and his conscientiousness, that they might expect that, whatever should occur, he would bo found true to to the principles of his religion, and to his well-known habits of worship. This plan was, therefore, crafty in the ex treme, and was the highest tribute that his God, and that this might be a basis could. bo Paid.to Daniel. It would be of calculation in any measure they might ^e11 if the religious character, and the propose for his downfall. His habits fixed habits of all who profess religion seem to have been well understood, w<f ° so wel1 understood that it was aband his character was so fixed, that; s.olutely certain that no accusation could they could proceed on this as a set- "e against them on any other ground, tied matter in their plans against him. |. * tnat their adherence to their reli- The only question was, how to con- Sious principles could be calculated on strue his conduct in this respect as! as a basis of action, whatever might bo criminal, or how to make the king listen! the consequences.
to any accusation against him on this *>. Then these presidentt and princes ataccount, for his religious views were well *emWed together. Marg., came tumultuknown when he was appointed to office; OM*fy« The margin expresses the proper the worship of the God of Daniel was not meaning of the original word — Bg^ — to
7 All the presidents of the king- j a royal statute, and to make a firm
run together with tumult. Why they came j Marg., interdict. The word used — ">DN together in that manner is not stated, j from -^x, to bind, make fast, means'pro- Bertholdt suggests that it means that | perly a lindin then a thin g which is they camo in a procession, or in a body, j binding or obligatory— as a prohibition, an to the king; but there is undoubtedly the! interdict, a law. ^ That whosoever shall ask. idea of their doing it with haste, or with j Any one of any rank. The real purpose an appearance of great earnestness or ex- j was to involve Daniel in disgrace, but in citcment. Perhaps they imagined that j order to do this it was necessary to make they would be more likely to carry the \ the prohibition universal— as Herod, in measure if proposed as something that j Prder to be sure thafc fae had cut off the demanded immediate action, or something I "»ant king of the Jews, was under a newherein it appeared that the very safety of j cessity of destroying all the children in the king was involved, than if it were pro- the Place, f Of any god or man. This posed in a sedate and calm manner. If it | would include all the gods acknowledged were suggested in such a way as to seem to m Babylon, and all foreign divinities.
admit of deliberation, perhaps the suspicion of the king might be aroused, or he might have asked questions as to the ground of the necessity of such alaw, which it might not have been easy to answer, f King Darius, live forever. The usual way of saluting a monarch. See Notes ch. ii. 4.
7. All the president! of the kingdom, the governors, &c. Several functionaries are enumerated here which are not in the previous verses, as having entered into the conspiracy. It is possible, indeed, that all these different classes of officers had been consulted, and had concurred in asking the enactment of the proposed law, but it is much more probable that the leaders merely represented or affirmed what is here said in order to be more certain of the enactment of the law. If represented as proposed by all the offi cers of the realm, they appear to have conceived that there would be no hesita tion on the part of Darius in granting the request. They could not but be con scious that it was an unusual request, and that it might appear unreasonable, and hence they seem to have used every pre caution to make the passage of the law certain. ^[ Have consulted together to es tablish a, royal statute. Or, that such a statute might be established. They knew that it could be established only by the king himself, but they were in the habit, doubtless, of recommending euch laws as they supposed would be for the good of the realm. ^ And to make a firm decree.
thirty days. The object of this limitation of time was perhaps two-fold; (1) They would be sure to accomplish their purpose in regard to Daniel, for they understood his principles and habits so well that they had no doubt that within that time he would be found engaged in the worship of his God, and (2) it would not do to make the law perpetual, and to make it binding longer than thirty days might expose them to the danger of popular tumults. It was easy enough to see that such a law could not be long enforced, yet they seem to have supposed that the people would acquiesce in it for so brief a period as one month. Unrea sonable though it might be regarded, yet for so short a space of time it might bo expected that it would be patiently sub mitted to. \ Save of thee, 0 king. Perhaps either directly, or through some minister of the realm. ^[ He shall be cast into the den of lions. The word den — j'J — means properly a pit, or cistern, and the idea is that the den was under ground, probably a cave constructed for that purpose. It was made with so narrow an entrance that it could be covered with a stone and made perfectly secure, ver. 17. ' The en closure of wild beasts/ says Bertholdt, pp. 397,398, 'especially of lions, which tho lungs of Asia and of Northwestei-n Africa formerly had, as they have at the present day, were generally constructed under ground, but were ordinarily caves which had been excavated for the purpose, walled
petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, 0 king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
up at the sides, enclosed within a wall through which a door led from the outer wall to the space lying between the walls, within which persons could pass round and contemplate the wild beasts.' ' The emperor of Morocco/ says Host (Besebreibung Von Morokos und Fetz, p. 290, as quoted in Rosenmiiller's Morgenland, in loc.}, ' has a cave for lions — Lowengrube — into which men sometimes, and especially Jews, are cast; but they commonly came up again uninjured, for the overseers of the lions are commonly Jews, and they have a sharp instrument in their hands, and with this they can pass among them, if they are careful to keep their faces to wards the lions, for a lion willnotallow one to turn his back to him. The other Jews will not allow their brethren to remain longer in such a cave than one night, for the lions would be too hungry, but they redeem their brethren out of the cave by the payment of money — which, in fact, is the object of the emperor.' In another place (p. 77,) he describes one of these caves. ' In one end of the enclosure is a place for ostriches and their young ones, and at the other end towards the moun tain is a cave for lions, which stands in a large cavern in the earth that has a di vision wall, in the midst of which is a door, which the Jews who have the charge of the lions can open and close from above, and, by means of food, they entice the lions from one room into another, that they may have the opportunity of cleaning the cage. It is all under the open sky.' Un der what pretext the crafty counsellors induced the king to ratify this statute is not stated. Some one or all of the fol lowing things may have induced the monarch to sign the decree: (1) The law proposed was in a high degree flattering to the king, and he may have been ready at once to sign a decree which for the time gave him a supremacy over gods and men. If Alexander the Great desired to be adored as a god, then it is not impro bable that a proud and weak Persian monarch would be willing to receive a similar tribute. Xerxes did things more foolish than what is here attributed to Darius. Instances of this are not wantaag. Of Holofernes, in Judith iii. 8, it is
8 Now, 0 king, establish the de cree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law
said that he " had decreed to destroy all j the gods of the land, that all nations shouid worship Nabuchodonosor only, and that all tongues and tribes should call upon him as god." (2) It may have oc- ' curred to him, or may have been sug-! gested, that this was an effectual way to i test the readiness of his subjects to obey and honour him. Some such test, it may have been urged, was not improper, and this would determine what wag the spirit of obedience as well as any other. (3) More probably, however, it may have been represented that there was some danger of insubordination, or some con spiracy among the people, and that it was necessary that the sovereign should issue some mandate which would at once and effectually quell it. It may have been urged that there was danger of a revolt, and that it would be an effectual way of preventing it to order that whoever should solicit any favour of any one but the king should be punished, for this would bring all matters at once before him, and secure order. The haste and earnestness with which they urged their request, would rather seem to imply that there was a representation that some sudden occasion had arisen which made the enactment of such a statute proper. Or (4) the king may have been in the habit of signing the decrees proposed by his counsellors writh little hesitation, and, lost in ease and sensuality, and perceiving only that this proposed law was flattering to himself, and not deliberating on what might be its possible result, he may have signed it at once.
8, 9. Now, 0 Icing, establish the decree. Ordain, enact, confirm it. ^[ And sign the writing. An act necessary to make it the law of the realm. ^[ That it be not changed. That, having the sign manual of the sove reign, it might be so confirmed that it could not bo changed. With that sign it became so established, it seems, that even the sovereign himself could not change it. *[ According to the law of tht, Medea and Persians, which altereth not. Marg., pasaeth. Which does not past away; which is not abrogated. A simi lar fact in regard to a law of the Medea and Persians is mentioned in Esther yiii.,
9 Wherefore king Darius signed j went into his house; and his Avin-
the writing and the decree. ' dows being open in his chamber in which the king was unable to recall an; the consequences, it was to be executed, order which had been given for the mas- j It is evident, however, that such a cussacre of the Jews, and in which he at- j torn might have some advantages. It tempted only to counteract it as far as I would serve to prevent hasty legislation, possible by putting the Jews on their and to give stability to the government guard, and allowing them to defend them- by its being known what the laws were, selves. Diodorus Siculus (Lib. iv.,) refers thus avoiding the evils which result when to this custom, where he says that Darius, i they are frequently changed. It is often the last king of Persia, would have par-: preferable to have permanent laws, doned Charidemus after he was con- i though not the best that could be framed, dcmned to death, but could not reverse j than those which would be better if there what the law had passed against him. j were no stability. There is only ono Lowth. ' When the king of Persia, says Being, however, whose laws can be safely Montesquieu (Spirit of Laws, as quoted j unchanging — and that is God, for his laws by Ilosenmuller, Morgenland, in loc.) has j are formed with a full knowledge of all condemned any one to death, no one dares j the relations of things, and of their bearspeak to him to make intercession for! ing on all future circumstances and times, him. Were he even drunk when the j It serves to confirm the statement here crime was committed, or were he insane,! made respecting the ancient custom in the command must nevertheless be exe cuted, for the law cannot be counter manded, and the laws cannot contradict themselves. This sentiment prevails throughout Persia.' It may seem singu lar that such a custom prevailed, and that the king, who was the fountain of law,
Media and Persia, that the same idea of tho inviolability of the royal word has remained, in a mitigated form, to modern times. A remarkable example of this is related by Sir John Malcolm, of Aga Mahonimed Khan, the last but one of tho Persian kings. After alluding to tho and whose will Avas law, could not change present case, and that in Esther, he oba statute at his pleasure. But this cus tom grew out of the opinions which pre vailed in the East in regard to the mon serves. " The character of the power of the king of Persia has undergone no change. Tho late king, Aga Mahommed
Khan, when encamped near Shiraz, said that he would not move till the snow was off the mountains in the vicinity of his camp. The season proved severe, and the snow remained longer than was ex pected; the army began to suffer distress arch. His will was absolute, and it was a part of the system which prevailed then to exalt the monarch, and leave the im pression on the mind of tho people that he was more than a man — that he was infallible and could not err. Nothing was better adapted to keep up that impression and sickness, but the king said while tho than an established principle of this kind [ snow remained upon the mountain, ho — that a law once ordained could not be | would not move; and his word was as repealed or changed. To do this would I law, and could not be broken. A multibe a practical acknowledgment that there j tude of labourers were collected and sent was a defect in the law; that there was a to remove the snow; their efforts, and a want of wisdom in ordaining it; that all! few fine days, cleared the mountains, and the circumstances were not foreseen; and Aga Mohammed Khan marched." His- that the king was liable to be deceived and to err. With all the disadvantages attending such a custom, it was judged better to maintain it than to allow that the monarch could err, and hence when a law was ordained it became fixed and unchanging. Even the king himself could not alter it, and whatever might bo
10. Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed. Probably there was some proclamation made in regard to the decree, ^f He went into Ms house. That is, he went in in his usual manner. He made no change in his habits on account toward * Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times »>a day, and of the decree. ^[ And his windows being open in his chamber. Open in the usual manner. It does not mean that he took again (vs. 46 — 49), ''If they sin against thee, and thou bo angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they pains to open them for the purpose -of os- carry them away captives unto the land tentation, or to show that he disregarded j of the enemy, far or near; if they shall the decree, but that he took no care to bethink themselves in the land whither;lose them with any view to avoid the con- j they were carried captives, and repent — sequences. In the warm climate of Baby lon, the windows probably were commonly Houses among the Jews in later were usually constructed with an upper chamber — virtpwov — which was a room not in common use, but employed as a guest chamber, where they received company and held feasts, and where at other times they retired for prayer and meditation. See Notes on Matt. ix. 2. Those 'upper rooms' are often the most pleasant and airy part of the house. Dr. Robinson (Researches, vol. iii. p. 417,) describing the and pray unto thee toward their land which thou gavest unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the if not in the time of the exile, j house which I have built for thy name, then honr thou their prayer," &c. Comp. vs. 33, 35, 38. So in Ps. v. 7: "As for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy, and in thy fenr will I worship toward thy holy temple." So Jonah ii. 4: " Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple." So in the first book of Esdras (Apocrypha), iv. 58: " Now when this young man was gone forth, he house of the American consular-agent in I lifted up his face to heaven, toward Jcru- Sillon, says, "His house was a large one, I salem, and praised the king of heaven." built upon the eastern wall of the city; j Comp. Intro, g 2. v. Daniel, therefore, the rooms were spacious, and furnished! in turning his face toward Jerusalem with more appearance of wealth, than when ho prayed, was acting in accordany I saw in the country. An upper ance with what Solomon had anticipated parlour with many windows, on the roof of the proper house, resembled a summer palace; and commanded a delightful as proper in just such a supposed case, and with the prevailing habit of his peo ple when abroad. This was not, indeed, view of the country towards the East, particularly prescribed as a duty, but it full of trees, and gardens, and country was recognized as proper; and it was houses, quite to the foot of the moun- j not only in accordance with the instinctains." Toward Jerusalem. It is not tive feelings of love to his country and improbable that the windows were open on each side of the chamber, but this is particularly mentioned because he turned his face toward Jerusalem when he prayed. This was natural to an exile Hebrew in prayer, because the temple of God had stood at Jerusalem, and that was the place where he abode by a visible symbol. It is probable that the Jews in their own country always in their prayers turned the face toward Jerusalem, and it was anti cipated when the temple was dedicated, that this would be the case in whatever lands they might bo. Thus in the prayer of Solomon, at the dedication, ho says, "If thy people go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house which I have built in thy name," <fcc. 1 Kings viii. 44. And 23* the temple, but a foundation was laid for this in the fact that Jerusalem was re garded as the peculiar dwelling-place of God on earth. In the Koran it is en joined as a duty on all Mussulmen, in whatever part of the earth they may be, to turn their faces towards the Caaba at Mecca when they pray: "The foolish men will say, What hath turned them from their keblah formerly prayed? longeth tho East toward which they Say, Unto God beand the West; ho directeth whom ho plcasoth in the right way. Thus have we placed you, 0 Ara bians, an intermediate nation, that yo may be witnesses against tho rest of mankind, that tho apostle may be a wit keblah towards which thou didst formerly pray, only that we might know him who followeth the apostle, from him that
11 Then these men assembled, and found Daniel pra}~ing and mak ing supplication before his God.
12 Then they came b near, and
turneth back on his heels: though this change seem a great matter, unless unto those whom God hath directed. But God ' will not render your faith of none effect; j for God is gracious and merciful unto man. We have seen thee turn about thy face towards heaven with uncertainty, but we will cause thee to turn thyself towards a keblah that will please thee. Turn, therefore, thy face towards the holy temple of Mecca; and wherever ye be, turn your faces towards that place." Sale's Koran, ch. ii. Wherever Mussulmcn are, therefore, they turn their faces towards the temple of Mecca when they pray. Daniel complied with what was probably the general custom of his countrymen, and what was natural in his case, for there was, in the nature of the case, a reason why he should turn his face towards the place where God had been accustomed to manifest himself. It served to keep up in his mind the re membrance of his beloved country, and in his case could be attended with no evil. As all visible symbols of the divine Being are now, however, withdrawn from any particular place on the earth, there is no propriety in imitating his example, and when we pray it is wholly immaterial in what direction the face is turned. ^[ He kneeled upon his knees three times a day. In accordance doubtless with his usual custom. The amount of the state ment is, that he did not vary his habit on account of the command. He, evi dently, neither assumed a posture of ostentation, nor did he abstain from what he was accustomed to do. To have de parted from his usual habit in any way would have been a yielding of principle in the case. It is not mentioned at what time in the day Daniel thus kneeled and prayed, but we may presume that it was evening, and morning, and noon. Thus the Psalmist says: "Evening, and morn ing, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud; and he shall hear my voice." Ps. Iv. 17. No one can doubt the pro priety of thus praying to God; and it Would be well for all thus to call upon
spake before the king concerning the king's decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee,
their God. f As Tie did aforetime. With out making any change. He neither in creased nor diminished the number of times each day in which he called upon God; nor did he make any change in the manner of doing it. He did not seek ostentatiously to show that he was a wor shipper of God, nor was he deterred by the fear of punishment from doing as he had been accustomed to do. If it should be said that Daniel's habit of worship was ostentatious; that his praying with his windows open was contrary to tho true spirit of retiring devotion, and espe cially contrary to tho spirit required of worshippers in the New Testament where the Saviour commands us when we pray to 'enter into the closet, and to shut the door,' (Matt. vi. 6,) it may be replied, (1) that there is no evidence that Daniel did this for the purpose of ostentation, and the supposition that he did it for that purpose is contrary to all that we know of his character; (2) as we have seen, this was the customary place for prayer, and tho manner of the prayer was that which was usual; (3) the chamber, or upper part of the house was in fact the most retired part, and was a place where one would be least likely to be heard or seen; and (4) there is no evidence that it would not have been quite private and unobserved if these men had not gone to his house and listened for the very pur pose of detecting him at his devotions. No one could well guard against such a purpose.
11. Then these men assembled, <fcc. Evidently with a design of finding him at his devotions.
12. Then they came near. That is, they came near the king. They had detected Daniel, as they expected and desired to do, in a palpable violation of the law, and they lost no time in apprising the king of it, and in reminding him of the law which he had established. Informers are not apt to lose time, f The king ansicered and said, The thing is true, &c. It is undeniable, whatever may bo the
0 king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Per sians, which altereth a not.
13 Then answered they, and said oefore the king, That Daniel, which
suppose that he as yet had any suspicion of their design in asking this question. It is not improbable that ho apprehended there had been some violation of the law, but it does not appear that his suspicions rested on Daniel.
13. Then answered they — That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah. Who is one of the captive Jews. There was art in thus referring to Daniel, instead of mentioning him as sustaining an exalted office. It would serve to aggravate his guilt to remind the king that one who was in fact a foreigner, and a captive, had thus dis regarded his solemn commandment. If he had been mentioned as the prime minister, there was at least a possibility that the king would be less disposed to deal with him according to the letter of the statute than if he were mentioned as a captive Jew. ^[ Reyardeth not thec, <fec. Shows open disregard and contempt for the royal authority by making a petition to hia God three times a day.
14. Then the king, ichen he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself. That is, for having consented to such a decree without deliberation, or with so much haste — or for having consented to it at all. It is remarkable that it is not said that he was displeased with them for having proposed it; but it is clear that he saw that the guilt was his own for having given his assent to it, and that he had acted foolishly. There is no evi dence as yet that he saw that the de cree had been proposed for the purpose of securing the degradation and ruin of Daniel — though he ultimately perceived it (ver. 24); or if he did perceive it, there was no way of preventing the con sequences from coming on Daniel — and that was the point that now engrossed his attention. He was doubtless displeased with himself, (1) because he saw that he had done wrong in framing such a decree, which interfered with what had been tole rated — the free exercise of religion by his
b is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth c not thee, 6 I king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day.
14 Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased
subjects; (2) because he now saw that it was foolish, and unworthy of a king, thus to assent to a law for which there was no good reason, and the consequences of which he had not foreseen, and (3) be cause he now saw that he had involved the first officer of the realm, and a man of unsullied character in ruin, unless some way could be devised by which the con sequences of the statute could be averted. It is no uncommon thing for men to be displeased with themselves when they ex perience the unexpected consequences of their follies and their sins. An instance strongly resembling that here stated, in its main features, occurred at a later pe riod in the history of Persia — an instance showing how the innocent may be in volved in a general law, and how much perplexity and regret may be caused by the enactment of such a law. It occurred ill Persia, in the persecution of Christians, A. D. 344. "An edict appeared, which commanded, that all Christians should be thrown into chains and executed. Many belonging to every rank died as martyrs. Among these was a eunuch of the palace, named Azades, a man greatly prized by the king. So much was the latter affected by his death, that he commanded that the punishment of death should be in flicted from thenceforth only on the lead ers of the Christian sect; that is, only on persons of the clerical order." Neander's Church History, Torrey's Translation, vol. ii. p. 110. ^[ And set his heart on Daniel to deliver him. In what way he sought to deliver him is not said. It would seem probable from the representation in the following verse, that it was by an inquiry whether the statute might not properly be changed or cancelled, or whether the penalty might not be commuted — for it s said that his counsellors urged as a reason for the strict infliction of the pun ishment the absolute unchangeableness of the statute. Perhaps he inquired whether a precedent might not be found for the abrogation of a law enacted by a
'with himself, and set Aw heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he la- king by the same authority that enacted it; or whether it did not come within the king's prerogative to change it; or whether the punishment might not be commuted without injury; or whether the evidence of the guilt was perfectly clear; or whether he might not be par doned without anything being done to maintain the honour of the law. This is one of the most remarkable instances on record of the case of a monarch seeking to deliver a subject from punishment when the monarch had absolute power, and is a striking illustration of the difficulties which often arise in the administration of justice, where the law is absolute, and where justice seems to demand the inflic tion of the penalty, and yet where there are strong reasons why the penalty should not be inflicted; that is, why an offender should be pardoned. And yet, there is no improbability in this statement about the perplexity of the king, for (1) there were strong reasons, easily conceivable, why the penalty should not be inflicted in the case, because («) the law had been evidently devised by the crafty enemies of Daniel to secure just such a result; (6) Daniel had been guilty of no crime — no moral wrong, but had done only that which should commend him more to fa vour and confidence; (c) his character was every way upright and pure: (d) the very worship which he had been detected in had been up to that period allowed, and there was no reason why it should now be punished, and (e) the infliction of the penalty, though strictly according to the letter of the law, would be manifestly a violation of justice and equity; or, in other words, it was every way desirable that it should not be inflicted. Yet (2) there was great difficulty in pardon ing him who had offended, for (a) the law was absolute in the case; (b) the evi dence was clear that Daniel had done what the law forbade; (c) the law of the realm prohibited any change; (d) the char acter and government of the king were involved in the case. If he interposed and saved Daniel, and thus suffered the law to be violated with impunity, the re sult would be that there would be a want of stability in his administration, and any other subject could hope that he might violate the law with the same impunity. Justice, and the honour of the govern ment, therefore, seemed to demand that the law should be enforced, and the pen alty inflicted. (3) It may be added, that cases of this kind are frequently occur ring in the administration of law — cases where there is a conflict between justice and mercy, and where one must be sacri ficed to the other. There are numerous instances in which there can be no doubt that the law has been violated, and yet in which strong reasons exist why the of fender should be pardoned. Yet there are great difficulties in the whole subject of pardon, and there are more embar rassments in regard to this than anything else pertaining to the administration of the laws. If an offence is never pardoned, then the government is stern and inex orable, and its administration violates some of the finest and most tender feelings of our nature — for there are cases when all the benevolent feelings of our nature demand that there should be the remission of a penalty — cases, modified by youth, or age, or sex, or temptation, or previous character, or former service rendered to one's country. And yet, pardon in any instance always does just so much to weaken the strong arm of the law. It is a proclamation that in some cases crime may be committed with impunity. If often exercised, law loses its force, and men are little deterred from crime by fear of it. If it were always exercised, and a proclamation were sent forth that any one who committed an offence might be par doned, the authority of government would be at an end. Those, therefore, who are entrusted with the administration of the laws are often substantially in the same perplexity in which Darius was in respect to Daniel — all whose feelings incline them to mercy, and who yet see no way in which it can be exercised con sistently with the administration of jus tice and the prevention of crime. 5[ And he laboured. He sought to devise some way in which it might be done. ^[ Till the going down of the sun. Houbigant understands this, " Till the sun arose;" but the common rendering is probably the correct one. Why that hour is mentioned, is not known. It would seem from the follow-