Verse-by-Verse Bible Commentary
Daniel 6:8

Clarke's Commentary

Verse Daniel 6:8. According to the law of the Medes and Persians — I do not think that this is to be understood so as to imply that whatever laws or ordinances the Medes or Persians once enacted, they never changed them. This would argue extreme folly in legislators in any country. Nothing more appears to be meant than that the decree should be enacted, written, and registered, according to the legal forms among the Medes and Persians; and this one to be made absolute for thirty days. The laws were such among this people, that, when once passed with the usual formalities, the king could not change them at his own will. This is the utmost that can be meant by the law of the Medes and Persians that could not be changed.

Bridgeway Bible Commentary

Daniel in the lion’s den (6:1-28)

There had been no opportunity for Daniel to enjoy his return to high office, because Babylon fell the night he was reinstated (see 5:29-30). But the new rulers would have known of his record under Nebuchadnezzar, so they made him one of the three presidents appointed to administer the nation (6:1-2).
Daniel had such obvious ability that the other two presidents soon became jealous of him. They wanted to get rid of him, but were unable to find any accusation of mismanagement to bring against him. They saw that their only chance lay in bringing in a new religious law that Daniel’s conscience would not allow him to obey (3-5).
In putting their suggestion to the king, the two men used words that made the king think Daniel agreed with them. Their suggestion was that for the next month all prayers to all gods had to pass through the king. It was a common Medo-Persian practice for the king to act as representative of the gods, so Darius agreed to the suggestion and made it law (6-9).
By the time Daniel heard about the new law, it had already been approved and sealed by the king, so he could do nothing to have it changed. He made no effort to obey it, and proceeded to pray to God as he had before (10). His enemies worked out a plan to catch him in the act of breaking their evil law, so that they could accuse him to the king (11-13). They had him condemned and thrown into a den of lions, even though this was against the king’s wishes (14-18).

God’s miraculous deliverance of Daniel showed that the kind of worship that he accepted was not the state-controlled worship, but Daniel’s kind of worship. Daniel had refused to sin against his conscience, had done nothing against the king, had not retaliated against his enemies, and above all had trusted in God (19-22; cf. Hebrews 11:33). After punishing the plotters (23-24), the king issued a decree commanding that all his subjects respect the God of Daniel (25-27). As for Daniel himself, he continued to prosper in the high positions he held in the Persian administration (28).

Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible

"Then the presidents and the satraps sought to Find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion nor fault, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Then these presidents and satraps assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live forever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the satraps, the counselors and the governors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a strong interdict, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the interdict."

THE PLOT TO DESTROY DANIEL

Although the language here might be construed as meaning that all of the persons mentioned, the presidents, satraps, counselors, etc., were consulted, such was manifestly not the case. Daniel had not been consulted. Furthermore, it is exceedingly likely that the accusers of Daniel were quite a limited number. All of the show of unanimity here was merely window dressing to induce the king to go along with the plot. Poor old weak and unskilled Darius was an easy prey for that kind of intrigue. All of this account is absolutely reasonable and fully in keeping with the inevitable situation that always typified the kind of despotism that was fashionable in antiquity.

Biblical enemies never overlook anything, no matter how trivial, as a possible grounds for complaint; and therefore it is not surprising that some would allege a disunity in Daniel on the grounds that "the fiery furnace" was the means of execution in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, while here it is "the lions' den!" Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was Chaldean, however; and the kingdom here is that of the Medes and Persians. "The Persians, being Zoroastrians, held fire to be sacred. Hence for them it would have been improper to cremate or execute by fire."Robert D. Culver, op. cit., p. 788.

"All the presidents of the kingdom" (Daniel 6:7)." This passage does not imply that all of the satraps, counselors, etc. were engaged in the conspiracy, but that they were all present on that occasion. Their presence as a company was due to their having been convened by the presidents (without Daniel); and the claim that all of that host had been consulted and that they had all agreed that the proposed edict should be signed was an unqualified lie. Daniel had not be consulted. Furthermore, "The Aramaic text does not indicate how many came into the presence of the king; and the Septuagint (LXX) indicates that only the other two governors (presidents) were involved."John Joseph Owens, op. cit., p. 414. If that was indeed the case, then it is likewise possible that only those two, along with their families, were cast into the lions' den. "It was the other two presidents and the satraps… who came before the king; but they claimed to speak in the name of all classes of government."Arthur Jeffery, op. cit., p. 440.

"Which altereth not" This aspect of Medo-Persian law also appeared in the edict against the Jews, as contrived by Haman (Esther 1:19; Esther 8:8). It was, of course, a stupid and unreasonable conceit which thus interpreted their laws; and some commentators have tried to soften it. Adam Clarke, for example, thought that the irreversible aspect of their laws extended only for the first thirty days.Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. IV, Daniel (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), p. 590. This appears to be erroneous. "The laws remained unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honored as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change."C. F. Keil, op. cit., p. 210.

Critics, ever eager to discover some flaw, have alleged that such a decree was so foolish and unreasonable that it should be viewed as a fabrication by some author who made up this tale in Daniel to support "a religious truth!" This view is totally in error. Jeffery, however, is correct in stating that, "There is nothing inherently absurd in the idea of such a decree. An ancient Sumerian king might well have issued one… a Japanese emperor at the end of the 16th century issued a somewhat similar edict!Arthur Jeffery, op. cit., p. 441.

Another unreasonable worthless criticism is that of Owens who declared that, "The idea of keeping a lion in a pit would only be used by a writer unfamiliar with lions outside of the pages of literature."John Joseph Owens, op. cit., p. 415. The implication of such a canard is that, of course, the narrative here is an invention by someone, certainly not Daniel! The truth is that no scholar could make a complaint like that who was familiar with either the excavations of ancient Babylon or with the Word of God. The Sacred Scriptures make reference to the den of lions in the Book of Nahum; and the garden walls, as well as the avenues of approach to the palace in ancient Babylon were all beautifully decorated with magnificent bas-relief lions done in turquoise, gold, and yellow colors. The basis of the critical assault on this part of Daniel is their mistranslation of the lions' den, reading it as "cistern" or "pit." The translators of all acceptable versions of God's Word reject such renditions. We do not have any detailed description of just exactly how ancient lions' dens were constructed; and the total ignorance of the critical community on the same subject is grounds enough for rejecting their ridiculous criticisms. The citizens of ancient Babylon probably knew more about how to use lions for their national purposes than any other government of human history. The conceit that one can take the sketchy references to the lions' den in this chapter, blow them up out of context to postulate an entire engineer's drawing of how lions' dens were made, and then to use that fabrication as a criticism of what is written here… that is a measure of the critic's bias against the

Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible

Now, O king, 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 sovereign, it might be so confirmed that it could not be changed. With that sign it became so established, it seems, that even the sovereign himself could not change it.

According to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not - Margin, Passeth. Which does not pass away; which is not abrogated. A similar fact in regard to a law of the Medes and Persians is mentioned in Esther viii., in which the king was unable to recall an order which had been given for the massacre of the Jews, and in which he attempted only to counteract it as far as possible by putting the Jews on their guard, and allowing them to defend themselves. Diodorus Siculus (lib. iv.) refers to this custom where he says that Darius, the last king of Persia, would have pardoned Charidemus after he was condemned to death, but could not reverse what the law had passed against him. - Lowth. “When the king of Persia,” says Montesquieu (Spirit of Laws, as quoted by Rosenmuller, Morgenland, in loc.), “has condemned any one to death, no one dares speak to him to make intercession for him. Were he even drunk when the crime was committed, or were he insane, the command must nevertheless be executed, for the law cannot be countermanded, and the laws cannot contradict themselves. This sentiment prevails throughout Persia.” It may seem singular that such a custom prevailed, and that the king, who was the fountain of law, and whose will was law, could not change a statute at his pleasure.

But this custom grew out of the opinions which prevailed in the East in regard to the monarch. His will was absolute, and it was a part of the system which prevailed then to exalt the monarch, and leave the impression on the mind of the 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 than an established principle of this kind - that a law once ordained could not be repealed or changed. To do this would be a practical acknowledgment that there was a defect in the law; that there was a want of wisdom in ordaining it; that all the circumstances were not foreseen; and 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 be the consequences, it was to be executed. It is evident, however, that such a custom might have some advantages. It would serve to prevent hasty legislation, and to give stability to the government by its being known what the laws were, thus avoiding the evils which result when they are frequently changed. It is often preferable to have permanent laws, though not the best that could be framed, than those which would be better, if there were no stability. There is only one Being, however, whose laws can be safely unchanging - and that is God, for his laws are formed with a full knowledge of all the relations of things, and of their bearing on all future circumstances and times. It serves to confirm the statement here made respecting the ancient custom in Media and Persia, that the same idea of the 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 Mohammed Khan, the last but one of the Persian kings. After alluding to the present case, and that in Esther, he observes, “The character of the power of the king of Persia has undergone no change. The late king, Aga Mohammed Khan, when encamped near Shiraz, said that he would not move until the snow was off the mountains in the vicinity of his camp. The season proved severe, and the snow remained longer than was expected; the army began to suffer distress and sickness, but the king said while the snow remained upon the mountain, he would not move; and his word was as law, and could not be broken. A multitude of laborers were collected and sent to remove the snow; their efforts, and a few fine days, cleared the mountains, and Aga Mohammed Khan marched.” - History of Persia, i. 268, quoted in the Pict. Bible, in loc.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

Here, as I have said, it is sufficiently apparent how inclined to fallacies are the minds of kings when they think they can benefit themselves and increase their own dignity. For the king did not dispute long with his nobles but subscribed the edict; for he thought it might prove useful to himself and his successors: if he found the Chaldeans obedient to himself and rather prepared to deny the existence of every god than to refuse whatever he commanded! As to the use of the word, some, translate אסרא, asra, by “writing,” deriving it from “to cut in, ” as we know that all laws were formerly graven on tablets of brass; but I interpret it more simply of their seeking from the king a signature of the writing, that is, he was to sign the edict after it was written. Which cannot be changed, they say — meaning, the edict is unchangeable and inviolable, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away — that is, which does not vanish, as also Christ says, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, or shall never become vain. (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31.) As to his joining the Medes with the Persians, this arises from what we said before, since Cyrus and Darius reigned in common as colleagues. Greater dignity was granted to Darius, while the power was in the hands of Cyrus; besides, without controversy, his sons were heirs of either kingdom and of the Monarchy of the East, unless when they began to make war on each other. When they say, the law of the Medes and Persians is immutable, this is worthy of praise in laws, and sanctions their authority; thus they are strong and obtain their full effect. When laws are variable, many are necessarily injured, and no private interest is stable unless the law be without variation; besides, when there is a liberty of changing laws, license succeeds in place of justice. For those who possess the supreme power, if corrupted by gifts, promulgate first one edict and then another. Thus justice cannot flourish where change in the laws allows of so much license. But, at the same time, kings ought prudently to consider lest they promulgate any edict or law without grave and mature deliberation; and secondly, kings ought to be careful lest they be counteracted by cunning and artful plots, to which they are often liable. Hence, constancy is praiseworthy in kings and their edicts, if only they are preceded by prudence and equity. But we shall immediately see how foolishly kings affect the fame of consistency, and how their obstinacy utterly perverts justice. But we shall see this directly in its own place. It follows:

Smith's Bible Commentary

Chapter 6

Now it pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom ( Daniel 6:1 );

Now that the Persian, Medo-Persian Empire, has conquered over the Babylonian Empire, Darius who was co-reigning with Cyrus set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty princes.

And there were three presidents; of whom Daniel was the first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage ( Daniel 6:2 ).

So Daniel immediately moved into a position of extremely high authority within this Medo-Persian Empire, being made one of the three presidents and the head over them.

Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the entire realm. But then the other presidents, the princes sought to find an occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find no occasions nor faults; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We will not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God ( Daniel 6:3-5 ).

This guy is just too good. We're never going to be able to trip him up unless it be with the law of his God.

Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All of the presidents of the kingdom, and the governors, and the princes, and the counselors, and the captains, 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 from you, O king, he shall be cast in the den of lions ( Daniel 6:6-7 ).

This, of course, would be... a guy would have to be stupid to make this kind of a proclamation. No one can ask anybody for anything for thirty days except me. Now they were, of course, playing up to his pride, and flattery, you know, "You're so great and all. The people need to know how great you are. So to demonstrate this let's make this proclamation. That throughout the entire kingdom, no one can pray to any god or ask anybody for anything except you so that they'll know how great you are and all."

Now, O king, establish the decree, sign the writing ( Daniel 6:8 ),

They have made this proclamation, brought it in to him, now sign it, seal it.

that it cannot be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which alters not. Wherefore king Darius sign the writing and the decree ( Daniel 6:8-9 ).

Now notice that the decree once signed cannot be changed, even by Darius the king. It shows that his rule was not as strong as was Nebuchadnezzar's. Nebuchadnezzar could make any decree and change any decree. He could do anything; he had the complete control. Whom he would he, you know, saved alive; whom he would he killed. I mean, he just had absolute control. With this he was controlled by the decrees.

Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed ( Daniel 6:10 ),

I like this. Daniel knew that the king had signed the thing.

he went into his house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he was accustomed to do. And these men being assembled, found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God ( Daniel 6:10-11 ).

Now in the book of Second Chronicles, when Solomon had dedicated the temple that he had built unto the Lord, Solomon prayed a beautiful prayer at the dedication. And in a part of the prayer of Solomon, he said, "Oh Lord, if these people turn their back against Thee, and they begin to worship and serve other gods, and they be taken captive by their enemies, if they shall turn toward this place and pray unto Thee, then hear Thou from Thy holy place in heaven and answer their prayer and deliver them from their captivity." And we remember God responded to this prayer of Solomon by saying, "If My people which are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways then will I hear from heaven and heal their nation" ( 2 Chronicles 7:14 ), and so forth. So that Daniel was taken captive. But even as Solomon prayed, "Lord, if they turn toward this place and pray," and so he was turning toward the holy place in the temple.

Now that is why the Jews today go to the Western Wall and pray facing the Western Wall. Because on the other side of the Western Wall somewhere the Holy of Holies once stood in Solomon's temple. And so they are praying toward that place. Solomon said, "This place that I built unto Thee, you know, the heavens of heavens can't contain You, much less this house that I have built. But O God, we pray that this will be the place where the people can meet You. And if they turn toward this place and pray and call upon Thee." And so Daniel was turning towards Jerusalem. And three times a day during this seventy years that Daniel was in a captive in Babylon, it was his custom to just turn towards this place and pray unto God for the people, for the nation. What a beautiful man Daniel must be. What a privilege it would be to go up and shake his hand. Get acquainted with this fellow. He's one of the top on my list of fellows that I want to meet when I get to heaven. I really admired Daniel. Courage of this man, knowing the king had signed it, he went, as was his custom, left his windows open. He didn't bother, you know, hide anything, prayed unto God.

And then they came near, and they spake to the king concerning the king's decree; Have you not signed the decree, that every man that asked a petition of any God or man within thirty days, except from you, O 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 the Persians, which thus cannot be altered. Then answered they and said before the king, Daniel, which is of the children of captivity of Judah, does not regard you, O king, nor the decree that you have signed, but he makes his petition three times a day. Then the king, when he heard these words, was very displeased with himself, and he set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he labored until the going down of the sun. And then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and the Persians is, That no decree or statute which the king established may be changed. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. And now the king spake unto him and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom you serve continually, he will deliver you ( Daniel 6:12-16 ).

Imagine this Darius, the king of the Medes, comforting Daniel. "Now don't worry, Daniel. I've got to do this, you know. I was a fool. But the God that you serve, He will deliver you." He sounds like the three Hebrew children. "The God that we serve, He is able to deliver us from your burning fiery furnace. And He will deliver us from your hand, and if He doesn't we're still not going to bow."

So a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and the signet of his lords; the purpose it might not be changed concerning Daniel. And then the king went to his palace, and he passed the night in fasting: neither did they bring the instruments of music before him: and his sleep had gone from him. And then the king arose very early in the morning, and he went in haste to the den of lions. And he came to the den, and he cried with a lamentable voice ( Daniel 6:17-20 )

I like that; half hoping, wondering.

a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom you serve continually, able to deliver you from the lions? ( Daniel 6:20 )

Now the king had some faith or he'd had never gone out there. Crying unto Daniel, the question. He said to him the night before, "Don't worry, Daniel. Your God is able to deliver you." But he had a question in his mind. So he asked the question, "Is your God able?"

Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live forever. My God hath sent his angel, and he has shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, I have done no hurt. Then was the king exceedingly glad for him, and he commanded that they should take Daniel up out of the den. So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no manner of hurt was found upon him, because he believed in his God. And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, their wives; the lions had mastery over them, and broke all their bones in pieces before they ever hit the bottom of the den. Then king Darius wrote unto all the people, nations, and languages, that dwell in the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end ( Daniel 6:21-26 ).

What a proclamation for a pagan king.

He delivers and rescues, and he works signs and wonders in heaven and in the earth, and who has delivered Daniel from the power of the lions. So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian ( Daniel 6:27-28 ).

Darius was the king over the Medes, and Cyrus over the Persians. "

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

2. The conspiracy against Daniel 6:4-9

Dr. Constable's Expository Notes

Under Persian law, the king was bound by the authority of a royal edict (Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15; cf. Esther 1:19; Esther 8:8). This made his power less than it was under an absolute dictator such as Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Daniel 2:39).

"The action of Darius was both foolish and wicked. What led him to yield to the request of the ministers can only be conjectured, but probably he was greatly influenced by the claim of deity which many of the Persian kings made." [Note: Young, p. 134.]

Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible

Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing,.... For they had not only agreed upon it among themselves what to propose, as to the substance of it; but they had drawn it up in writing, ready to be signed, which they urge to have done immediately:

that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not; when once signed by the king: mention being made of both the Medes and Persians, shows that these two nations were now united in one government; that Darius and Cyrus were partners in the empire; and it is easy to account for it why the Medes are mentioned first; because Darius was the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian; the one the uncle, the other the nephew; but afterwards, when a Persian only was on the throne, then the Persian is mentioned first, Esther 1:19.

Henry's Complete Commentary on the Bible

      6 Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever.   7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, 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, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.   8 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 altereth not.   9 Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree.   10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.

      Daniel's adversaries could have no advantage against him from any law now in being; they therefore contrive a new law, by which they hope to ensnare him, and in a matter in which they knew they should be sure of him; and such was his fidelity to his God that they gained their point. Here is,

      I. Darius's impious law. I call it Darius's, because he gave the royal assent to it, and otherwise it would not have been of force; but it was not properly his: he contrived it not, and was perfectly wheedled to consent to it. The presidents and princes framed the edict, brought in the bill, and by their management it was agreed to by the convention of the states, who perhaps were met at this time upon some public occasion. It is pretended that this bill which they would have to pass into a law was the result of mature deliberation, that all the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, princes, counsellors, and captains, had consulted together about it, and that they not only agreed to it, but advised it, for divers good causes and considerations, that they had done what they could to establish it for a firm decree; nay, they intimate to the king that it was carried nemine contradicente--unanimously: "All the presidents are of this mind;" and yet we are sure that Daniel, the chief of the three presidents, did not agree to it, and have reason to think that many more of the princes excepted against it as absurd and unreasonable. Note, It is no new thing for that to be represented, and with great assurance too, as the sense of the nation, which is far from being so; and that which few approve of is sometimes confidently said to be that which all agree to. But, O the infelicity of kings, who, being under a necessity of seeing and hearing with other people's eyes and ears, are often wretchedly imposed upon! These designing men, under colour of doing honour to the king, but really intending the ruin of his favourite, press him to pass this into a law, and make it a royal statute, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king, shall be put to death after the most barbarous manner, shall be cast into the den of lions,Daniel 6:7; Daniel 6:7. This is the bill they have been hatching, and they lay it before the king to be signed and passed into a law. Now, 1. There is nothing in it that has the least appearance of good, but that it magnifies the king, and makes him seem both very great and very kind to his subjects, which, they suggest, will be of good service to him now that he has newly come to his throne, and will confirm his interests. All men must be made to believe that the king is so rich, and withal so ready to all petitioners, that none in any want or distress need to apply either to God or man for relief, but to him only. And for thirty days together he will be ready to give audience to all that have any petition to present to him. It is indeed much for the honour of kings to be benefactors to their subjects and to have their ears open to their complaints and requests; but if they pretend to be their sole benefactors, and undertake to be to them instead of God, and challenge that respect from them which is due to God only, it is their disgrace, and not their honour. But, 2. There is a great deal in it that is apparently evil. It is bad enough to forbid asking a petition of any man. Must not a beggar ask an alms, or one neighbour beg a kindness of another? If the child want bread, must he not ask it of his parents, or be cast into the den of lions if he do? Nay, those that have business with the king, may they not petition those about him to introduce them? But it was much worse, and an impudent affront to all religion, to forbid asking a petition of any god. It is by prayer that we give glory to God, fetch in mercy from God; and so keep up our communion with God; and to interdict prayer for thirty days is for so long to rob God of all the tribute he has from man and to rob man of all the comfort he has in God. When the light of nature teaches us that the providence of God has the ordering and disposing of all our affairs does not the law of nature oblige us by prayer to acknowledge God and seek to him? Does not every man's heart direct him, when he is in want or distress, to call upon God, and must this be made high treason? We could not live a day without God; and can men live thirty days without prayer? Will the king himself be tied up for so long from praying to God; or, if it be allowed him, will he undertake to do it for all his subjects? Did ever any nation thus slight their gods? But see what absurdities malice will drive men to. Rather than not bring Daniel into trouble for praying to his God, they will deny themselves and all their friends the satisfaction of praying to theirs. Had they proposed only to prohibit the Jews from praying to their God, Daniel would have been as effectually ensnared; but they knew the king would not pass such a law, and therefore made it thus general. And the king, puffed up with a fancy that this would set him up as a little god, was fond of the feather in his cap (for so it was, and not a flower in his crown) and signed the writing and the decree (Daniel 6:9; Daniel 6:9), which, being once done, according to the constitution of the united kingdom of the Medes and Persians, was not upon any pretence whatsoever to be altered or dispensed with, or the breach of it pardoned.

      II. Daniel's pious disobedience to this law, Daniel 6:10; Daniel 6:10. He did not retire into the country, nor abscond for some time, though he knew the law was levelled against him; but, because he knew it was so, therefore he stood his ground, knowing that he had now a fair opportunity of honouring God before men, and showing that he preferred his favour, and his duty to him, before life itself. When Daniel knew that the writing was signed he might have gone to the king, and expostulated with him about it; nay, he might have remonstrated against it, as grounded upon a misinformation that all the presidents had consented to it, whereas he that was chief of them had never been consulted about it; but he went to his house, and applied himself to his duty, cheerfully trusting God with the event. Now observe,

      1. Daniel's constant practice, which we were not informed of before this occasion, but which we have reason to think was the general practice of the pious Jews. (1.) He prayed in his house, sometimes alone and sometimes with his family about him, and made a solemn business of it. Cornelius was a man that prayed in his house,Acts 10:30. Note, Every house not only may be, but ought to be, a house of prayer; where we have a tent God must have an alter, and on it we must offer spiritual sacrifices. (2.) In every prayer he gave thanks. When we pray to God for the mercies we want we must praise him for those we have received. Thanksgiving must be a part of every prayer. (3.) In his prayer and thanksgiving he had an eye to God as his God, his in covenant, and set himself as in his presence. He did this before his God, and with a regard to him. (4.) When he prayed and gave thanks he kneeled upon his knees, which is the most proper gesture in prayer, and most expressive of humility, and reverence, and submission to God. Kneeling is a begging posture, and we come to God as beggars, beggars for our lives, whom it concerns to be importunate. (5.) He opened the windows of his chamber, that the sight of the visible heavens might affect his heart with an awe of that God who dwells above the heavens; but that was not all: he opened them towards Jerusalem, the holy city, though now in ruins, to signify the affection he had for its very stones and dust (Psalms 102:14) and the remembrance he had of its concerns daily in his prayers. Thus, though he himself lived great in Babylon, yet he testified his concurrence with the meanest of his brethren the captives, in remembering Jerusalem and preferring it before his chief joy,Psalms 137:5; Psalms 137:6. Jerusalem was the place which God had chosen to put his name there; and, when the temple was dedicated, Solomon's prayer to God was that if his people should in the land of their enemies pray unto him with their eye towards the land which he gave them, and the city he had chosen, and the house which was built to his name, then he would hear and maintain their cause (1 Kings 8:48; 1 Kings 8:49), to which prayer Daniel had reference in this circumstance of his devotions. (6.) He did this three times a day, three times every day according to the example of David (Psalms 55:17), Morning, evening, and at noon, I will pray. It is good to have our hours of prayer, not to bind, but to remind conscience; and, if we think our bodies require refreshment by food thrice a day, can we think seldomer will serve our souls? This is surely as little as may be to answer the command of praying always. (7.) He did this so openly and avowedly that all who knew him knew it to be his practice; and he thus showed it, not because he was proud of it (in the place where he was there was no room for that temptation, for it was not reputation, but reproach, that attended it), but because he was not ashamed of it. Though Daniel was a great man, he did not think it below him to be thrice a day upon his knees before his Maker and to be his own chaplain; though he was an old man, he did not think himself past it; nor, though it had been his practice from his youth up, was he weary of this well doing. Though he was a man of business, vast business, for the service of the public, he did not think that would excuse him from the daily exercises of devotion. How inexcusable then are those who have but little to do in the world, and yet will not do thus much for God and their souls! Daniel was a man famous for prayer, and for success in it (Ezekiel 14:14), and he came to be so by thus making a conscience of prayer and making a business of it daily; and in thus doing God blessed him wonderfully.

      2. Daniel's constant adherence to this practice, even when it was made by the law a capital crime. When he knew that the writing was signed he continued to do as he did aforetime, and altered not one circumstance of the performance. Many a man, yea, and many a good man, would have thought it prudence to omit it for these thirty days, when he could not do it without hazard of his life; he might have prayed so much oftener when those days had expired and the danger was over, or he might have performed the duty at another time, and in another place, so secretly that it should not be possible for his enemies to discover it; and so he might both satisfy his conscience and keep up his communion with God, and yet avoid the law, and continue in his usefulness. But, if he had done so, it would have been thought, both by his friends and by his enemies, that he had thrown up the duty for this time, through cowardice and base fear, which would have tended very much to the dishonour of God and the discouragement of his friends. Others who moved in a lower sphere might well enough act with caution; but Daniel, who had so many eyes upon him, must act with courage; and the rather because he knew that the law, when it was made, was particularly levelled against him. Note, We must not omit duty for fear of suffering, so, nor so much as seems to come short of it. In trying times great stress is laid upon our confessing Christ before men (Matthew 10:32), and we must take heed lest, under pretence of discretion, we be found guilty of cowardice in the cause of God. If we do not think that this example of Daniel obliges us to do likewise, yet I am sure it forbids us to censure those that do, for God owned him in it. By his constancy to his duty it now appears that he had never been used to admit any excuse for the omission of it; for, if ever any excuse would serve to put it by, this would have served now, (1.) That it was forbidden by the king his master, and in honour of the king too; but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, We are to obey God rather than men. (2.) That it would be the loss of his life, but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, Those who throw away their souls (as those certainly do that live without prayer) to save their lives make but a bad bargain for themselves; and though herein they make themselves, like the king of Tyre, wiser than Daniel, at their end they will be fools.