All the presidents of the kingdom, the prefects, and the satraps, the counsellors, and the governors have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked.
Daniel's rivals could find no fault in his work, so they went after his faith. Their plan: get the king to sign a law that could never be taken back. Why did they need his name on it? And what does a law that "cannot be revoked" say about the empire that boasted of it?
The plan started with the officials, not with the king.
They wanted a charge against Daniel. They knew well that the only one they could find would be "concerning the law of his God." So they put their heads together. The custom of the Medes and Persians was that the nobles form the law and the king establishes and signs it. Taking advantage of this, they devised a decree: for thirty days no one should ask a petition of any god or man except the king. What was this but a man taking the place of God?
One writer weighs the decree itself, the motive behind it, and its appeal to the king.
Three things mark this decree. First, the decree is in itself the very height of wickedness. It is the awful attempt to dethrone God and set up man in His place... Second, the motive of the decree is evil in the extreme. These men knew Daniel's upright character and his faithfulness to the law of his God, and they traded on it. On purpose they devised a decree which they knew he would not obey. Third, the decree they frame looks very flattering to the king. It is so presented that the true motive stays hidden, and the king foolishly falls into the trap and signs it.
Everything now hung on the king's signature.
The only thing needed to make the decree valid was the king's signature. After that it could not be changed, "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked" (v. 8). The king was probably flattered by the homage and submission of his nobles in his new dominions. He fell at once into the snare they had woven around his feet. He never paused to consider the awful place he was accepting — a place belonging to God alone — and he "signed the writing and the decree" (v. 9).
A law that can never be changed sounds like strength. It proved to be the opposite.
Daniel 6 shows that this empire was lower than Nebuchadnezzar's. He did whatever he wanted. No laws restricted him; he was a law to himself. Darius, once he signed a decree, was bound by it, "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked" (Dan. 6:8, 15). He was bound even when he must have realised the law was being used to force him to act against his own desires. The head of the empire was powerless when confronted with the law.
The same king issues a second decree later in the chapter. Watch what became of both.
Notice the 'decree' of verse 8, and by way of contrast, the 'decree' of verse 26. Both came from an empire that allowed no change or cancellation of its decrees, yet they stand in contrast. The first was cancelled as to its penalty; the second was soon cancelled as to its performance... No empire can make laws in the things of God. So people soon broke this 'law of the Medes and Persians' openly and everywhere!
The same claim returns in a New Testament warning about a man still to come.
In short, it is proposed that no one should be confessed as God, and no request made to anyone but Darius himself. So it will be with the wicked one, "who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God," 2 Thess. 2:4.
Daniel knew the decree was signed and beyond appeal. It changed nothing in his habits.
He knew that everything was signed, sealed and settled, as far as man could do it. He knew that the unchangeable law of the Medes and Persians demanded that no man's knee should bow to God for thirty days. Knowing all of it, he goes to his room. There is no showing off, but he does not hide it.
- Flattery — Daniel's work gave his enemies no charge. So they dressed an attack on his faith as an honour to the king.
- Signature — the decree meant nothing until the king signed it. He signed without weighing the place he was taking.
- Trap — the law that "cannot be revoked" bound the king too. The head of the empire stood powerless before his own decree.
- Shadow — banning prayer to any god but the king puts a man in God's place, the very claim the wicked one will make.
- Faith — the unchangeable law could not change Daniel. He went to his room and prayed as before, hiding nothing and showing off nothing.
Therefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.
Daniel's rivals in the king's government could attack him in only one place: his loyalty to his God. Verse 9 is the moment their trap shuts, as a signature turns flattery into law.
The plot needed nothing from Darius except his name.
They told his majesty that they had held full consultation. They had agreed "to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, that whoever makes petition to any god or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions" (v. 7). The decree needed only one thing to be valid: the king's signature. After that no one could change it, "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked" (v. 8). His nobles in his new territories gave him homage and submission, and this probably flattered the king. He fell straight into the snare they had woven around his feet. He did not pause to consider the dreadful position he was accepting — a position belonging to God alone — and he "signed the document and injunction" (v. 9).
Darius signed more than a piece of court policy. Set beside Nebuchadnezzar's idol it goes further, and the men who framed it knew who would break it.
First, the decree is in itself the very height of wickedness. It is the terrible attempt to dethrone God and set up man in His place. It seeks to install the king in a place of absolute supremacy over heaven and earth, above God and man. For thirty days no one could ask a petition of "any god or man." Nebuchadnezzar's sin was great, but this is far greater. Nebuchadnezzar had set up an idol in the place of God; but now Darius sets himself up in the place of God. Secondly, the motive of the decree is evil in the extreme. Trading on the uprightness of Daniel's character, and his known faithfulness to the law of his God, these men purposely devise a decree which they know Daniel will not obey.
The unchangeable law looked like majesty. In fact it borrowed a quality that is not man's to claim, and it handed the nobles a lever over their own ruler.
In this case, deceived by his vanity, the king finds himself bound by laws apparently set up to protect his subjects from his whims, under the pretence of giving his will and his wisdom the character of being unchangeable — a character that belongs to God alone.
That limit also marks a real difference between this empire and the one before it.
Daniel 6 shows that this empire was inferior to Nebuchadnezzar's, for he did whatever he wanted to do. No laws restricted his actions; he was a law to himself. Darius, when he signed a decree, was bound by it, "according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked" (Dan. 6:8, 15). He stayed bound even when he must have realised that the law was being used to force him to act against his own wishes. The head of the empire was powerless when faced with the law.
Darius had real authority, but it had a limit. The decree crossed that limit, and that is why Daniel could not obey it.
However he had been trapped, Darius had stepped outside the circle of his authority. In signing this decree he had intruded into God's circle, where man has neither right nor place. So if Daniel was to keep a good conscience towards God, he had no choice but to refuse to submit to the decree.
Darius issues a second decree at the end of the chapter. Put beside it, the boast of unchangeable law collapses twice over.
Both decrees came out of an empire that allowed no alteration or cancellation of its decrees, yet they stand in contrast. The first was cancelled as to its penalty; the second was soon cancelled as to its performance. The later history of that empire shows that men did not tremble and fear before the living God, as they were commanded to do. No empire can legislate in the things of God.
Commentators read this signed decree as a small-scale version of a future claim.
Darius himself was a well-meaning man. But he allowed flatterers to trap him into a very serious position in relation to God. He signed a decree: anyone who asked a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of himself, should be thrown into the den of lions. This was stepping into God's own place. The last head of Gentile power will do this openly. MAN will be worshipped, and God will be formally and officially renounced.
- Flattery signs. The nobles did not argue Darius into the decree. They praised him into it, and he signed without weighing what the honour meant.
- Signing overreaches. A signature that forbids prayer to anyone but the king claims a place belonging to God alone. Nebuchadnezzar set up an idol; Darius set up himself.
- Signing binds. The law he could not revoke made him powerless. The pen that looked like supreme power left the head of the empire unable to act.
- Signing cannot reach God. No empire can legislate in the things of God. Daniel's conscience lay outside the king's authority.
- Signing foreshadows. Flatterers trapped a well-meaning man into taking God's place. At the end, the last head of Gentile power will take that place openly.