The Bible Church
Study Page
Daniel Segment 6

All scripture is from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Before beginning this study, I suggest you pray and ask God to guide you through this study. I also suggest that you do you own study of this material in order to ensure its accuracy.
Copyright Notice
_________________________________________

Daniel 5:31 "And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old."

Nonbelievers, higher critics, and theological moderates gleefully point out that there is no Darius the Mede recorded in written history. For nonbelievers this is proof positive that the entire Bible is a sham and a forgery. It is what their belief system dictates so it is what they believe to be true. This is as far as nonbelievers need to go in their own minds. Accordingly, any deeper research on the part of believers proves that those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture are grasping at straws, or even making up evidence to prove the veracity of the Bible.

Higher critics hold that knowing the future is impossible and so the book of Daniel could not have been written before the events prophesied in the book transpired. This fact that Darius is not found in secular history is proof enough for them to believe that Daniel was written after the Greeks conquered the Persians. These critics have no belief in the inerrancy of scripture. In fact, they assert that the Bible cannot be true and therefore things like the resurrection of Christ and the virginity of Mary are not true. They say that since Darius the Mede cannot be found in secular literature or in archaeology, then the Bible must not be true. Therefore it must be false and all of the beliefs of Christians are just superstitious beliefs in myths. Some have even taught that God was an invention of man as an expression of his own deity. (Secular humanism has its roots in higher criticism).

Theological moderates use this assumed gaff to show that the scripture is not inerrant. They say they believe in the authority of scripture, but not necessarily its inerrancy. Yes, they believe that the Word of God is contained in the Bible but the actual scriptures are not necessarily the inerrant Word of God. Some also assert that those who believe in Biblical inerrancy are practicing idolatry, elevating the Bible above Christ.

The thing about it is Darius the Mede is mentioned in secular history! He is mentioned by Josephus. Herodotus and Xenophon both discuss him. Here are some quotes on the subject:

"The extreme obscurity of the Babylonian annals has given occasion to three different hypotheses as to the name under which Darius the Mede is known in history. The first of these, which identifies him with Darius Hystaspis, rests on no plausible evidence, and may be dismissed at once. The second, which was adopted by Josephus, and has been supported by many recent critics is more deserving of notice. According to this he was "the son and successor of Astyages," who is commonly regarded as the last king of Media. It is supposed that the reign of this Cyaxares has been neglected by historians from the fact that through his indolence and luxury he yielded the real exercise of power to his nephew Cyrus, who married his daughter, and so after his death received the crown by direct succession... Herodotus expressly states that "Astyages" was the last king of the Medes, that he was conquered by Cyrus, and that he died without leaving any male issue...A third identification remains, by which Darius is represented as the personal name of "Astyages," the last king of the Medes...The name "Astyages" was national and not personal, and Ahasuerus represents the name Cyaxares, borne by the father of "Astyages"...If, as seems most probable, Darius (Astyages) occupied the throne of Babylon as supreme sovereign with Nerigalsarassar as vassal-prince, after the murder of Evil-merodach (Belshazzar) BC 559, one year only remains for this Median supremacy before the victory of Cyrus BC 558, in exact accordance with the notices in Daniel and the apparent incompleteness of the political arrangements which Darius "purposed" to make (Dan 6:3)."

Dr. William Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, 1872

And Darius the Median took the kingdom,.... This was Cyaxares the son of Astyages, and uncle of Cyrus; he is called the Median, to distinguish him from another Darius the Persian, that came after, Ezr 4:5, the same took the kingdom of Babylon from Cyrus who conquered it; he took it with his consent, being the senior prince and his uncle. Darius reigned not long, but two years; and not alone, but Cyrus with him, though he is only mentioned. Xenophon {k} says, that Cyrus, after he took Babylon, set out for Persia, and took Media on his way; and, saluting Cyaxares or Darius, said that there was a choice house and court for him in Babylon, where he might go and live as in his own:

being about threescore and two years old; and so was born in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year in which Jechoniah was carried captive, 2Ki 24:12, thus God in his counsels and providence took care that a deliverer of his people should be raised up and provided against the appointed time. Darius was older than Cyrus, as appears by several passages in Xenophon; in one place {l} Cyaxares or Darius says,

"since I am present, and am "elder" than Cyrus, it is fit that I should speak first;''

and in another place {m}, Cyrus, writing to him, says,

"I give thee counsel, though I am the younger''

and by comparing this account of the age of Darius with a passage in Cicero, which gives the age of Cyrus, we learn how much older than he Darius was; for, out of the books of Dionysius the Persian, he relates {n}, that Cyrus dreaming he saw the sun at his feet, which he three times endeavoured to catch and lay hold upon, but in vain, it sliding from him; this, the Magi said, portended that he should reign thirty years, and so he did; for he lived to be seventy years of age, and began to reign when he was forty; which, if reckoned from his reigning with his uncle, then he must be twenty two years younger; or if from the time of his being sole monarch, then the difference of age between them must be twenty four years; though it should be observed that those that make him to reign thirty years begin his reign from the time of his being appointed commander-in-chief of the Medes and Persians by Cyaxares {o}, which was twenty three years before he reigned alone, which was but seven years {p}; and this account makes but very little difference in their age; and indeed some {q} have taken them to be one and the same, their descent, age, and succession in the Babylonian empire, agreeing.

John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Josephus:

"...and when [Labosordacus] was dead, [the Babylonian Empire] came to Baltasar, who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus [or Nabonidus]." Antiquities 10.11.2.22-23

"...for it was Baltasar, under whom Babylon was taken, when he had reigned seventeen years. And this is the end of the posterity of king Nebuchadnezzar, as history informs us; but when Babylon was taken by Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two years old. He was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks [Cyaxares]." Antiquities 10.11.4

Herodotus:

There were two motives which led Croesus to attack Cappadocia: firstly, he coveted the land, which he wished to add to his own dominions; but the chief reason was that he wanted to revenge on Cyrus the wrongs of Astyages, and was made confident by the oracle of being able so to do: for Astyages, son of Cyaxares and king of the Medes, who had been dethroned by Cyrus, son of Cambyses, was Croesus' brother by marriage.

Xenophon:

[17] As they continued their march and came near to Media, Cyrus turned aside to visit Cyaxares. And when they had exchanged greetings, the first thing Cyrus told Cyaxares was that a palace had been selected for him in Babylon, and official headquarters, so that he might occupy a residence of his own whenever he came there; and then he also gave him many splendid presents. [18] Cyaxares accepted them and then introduced to him his daughter, who brought him a golden crown and bracelets and a necklace and the most beautiful Median robe that could be found. [8.5.19] As the princess placed the crown on Cyrus's head, Cyaxares said, "And the maiden herself, my own daughter, I offer you as well, Cyrus, to be your wife. Your father married my father's daughter, whose son you are. This is she whom you used often to pet when you came to visit us when you were a boy. And whenever anybody asked her whom she was going to marry, she would say `Cyrus.' And with her I offer you all Media as a dowry, for I have no legitimate male issue."

Cyropaedia of Xenophon 8.5.17-18

Darius is mentioned by name in Josephus. The other two historians listed discuss Cyaxares and Astyages, deeming one or the other to be Daruis. I vote for Cyaxares. Xenophon shows a very close and trusting relationship between Cyaxares and Cyrus. The clincher in my mind is that Cyrus provided a palace in Babylon for Cyaxares from which he ruled Babylon for a short time. Xenophon also tells us that Cyaxares was a man who liked to indulge himself in luxuries and that he allowed all of his troops and leaders to join Cyrus' army and allowed Cyrus to rule Media, and hence Babylon after Cyrus married his daughter.

For those of you who feel like the story of Darius the Mede shows the error and fallacy of the Bible, remember other supposed errors in the Bible. Higher critics claimed that Ur was a myth. Sir Leonard Woolley unearthed it earlier this century. Jericho was supposed to be a myth until it was proven by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon in the fifties. Belshazzar is supposedly a myth because Babylonian inscriptions say that Nabonidus was the last king of Babylon. Yet archaeologist, Dr. Johann N. Strassmaier, using Babylonian inscriptions he found, has proven that Belshazzar was Nabonidus's son and ruled with him as co-ruler of the kingdom. Many myths about the Bible have been shorn away by archaeology. It is only matter of time before an ancient inscription will be found mentioning Darius the Mede by name. The Bible is true and therefore all of those supposed errors are not errors at all; they are merely yet unproven (by secular means) circumstances that will be proven some day.

"There is in the first place the inscription of Nabonidus containing a prayer for his son: "And as for Bel­sarra­asur my eldest son, the offspring of my body, the awe of thy great divinity fix thou firmly in his heart that he may never fall into sin" (Records of the Past, V, 148). It is commonly admitted that Bel­sarra­usur is the same as Belshazzar, or Baltasar"

The Catholic Encyclopedia

For an in-depth look at this Darius-Belshazzar controversy, see the article on Baltasar at The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Daniel 6:1 "It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom;"

Xenophon tells how Darius gave up all of his loyal men including these 120 princes to Cyrus because he wanted to live in luxury and not have the responsibility of ruling in Babylon. He and Cyrus had an excellent trusting relationship because Cyaxares (Darius), who was Cyrus' uncle, knew him as a youth. His turning the kingdom over to Cyrus was a peaceful move. Media was the dowry for Darius' daughter, who became Cyrus' wife.

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

Again, Daniel, a captive from Judah, was placed in a position of authority over the presidents of the princes. The presidents resented it, just as the wise men of Nebuchadnezzar had been jealous of Meshach Shadrach and Abednego for the same reason.

Daniel 6:3 "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 whole realm."

Darius or Cyaxares only ruled over Babylon for a year or so. Daniel must have really stuck out as an excellent man in order for Darius to have chosen him to lead. Darius was thinking of a further promotion for Daniel to prime minister.

Daniel 6:4-5 "Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. {5} Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God."

Daniel was a man of great integrity as were his companions Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael. With integrity like they had, no fault could be found against their performance of their duties. So trumped up charges, or in this case, ex post facto (retroactive) laws which also in this case constituted a bill of attainder, were enacted to make illegal the activity Daniel participated as a daily matter of course. The execution of this law would be carried out by legislative fiat without trial. Of course, these things are illegal under out Constitution (Article 1 Section 9), but were commonplace in history and are still commonplace outside of U.S. jurisdiction. The Star-Chamber of the late Middle Ages of England is an example of such abuse. They sought to make God's law unlawful and thereby convict Daniel for being a man of integrity. They had to trick Darius to accomplish this. That was dangerous and not well thought out. Darius was not stupid, only vain.

Daniel 6:6-7 "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."

They came before Darius with due respect. They relied on Darius' ego to trick him into signing this law. As shown by Xenophon, Darius liked his pleasures and his ego and vanity were obviously pleasurable to him. Having all worship directed at him for thirty days pleased his ego. It is equally obvious that Darius gave no thought to anyone he might hurt with this law. He certainly gave no thought to Daniel.

Daniel 6:8-9 "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."

Herodotus tells us, " All Persians, including the king, were bound to follow the laws of the Persians" (History 3.83). In other cultures the king's word was law, but the king, whose words were law, was above his words and thus above the law. But Persian kings were required to obey the law. So, like it or not, Darius had to abide by the law he had enacted.

Daniel 6:10 "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 was not ignorant of this decree. Being the ruler of all of Darius' leaders, Daniel was aware of the decree and he was aware of what was truly happening. Yet, he continued his daily worship of God. He did not try to hide what he did, he did it openly, trusting God to sort it all out. Jerusalem was to the south. South windows provided heat during winter, so they could be large. Daniel was in a high position in government so he most likely had a nice house with large glass windows. He would bow to God facing the south window. He was easily seen. He did what Peter did in Acts 4:18-19: "And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. {19} But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye." Daniel elected to do what would "be right in the sight of God". He knew he was breaking man's law, but did what God required. We are to obey the laws of men, but not when they stop us from obeying the laws of God.

Daniel 6:11-13 "Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God. {12} Then they came near, and 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, 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 Persians, which altereth not. {13} Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day."

They assembled. That means they were expecting Daniel to do this and they made sure they were outside his house at the correct time in order to observe his worship. They were all eyewitnesses. Then they went right into court to tell Darius what they had observed. But first they reminded him of the decree he had signed into law. Then they tattled. They thought they had him. They did have the king for he could not keep his integrity and not prosecute Daniel.

Daniel 6:14 "Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him: and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him."

Darius immediately understood what had happened. He understood the jealousy of the satraps. He understood that they had tricked him into signing a law that would condemn Daniel. He knew that his own vanity had caused him to agree with them After all, he wanted the people to worship him as a god for thirty days. And now he knew he was trapped into carrying out the law. He was completely unhappy with himself. He could not take back what he had done. But he did try. At sundown he had run out of options.

Daniel 6:15 "Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and Persians is, That no decree nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed."

Can you imagine the joy of these men? Their plan had paid off. They watched as Darius unsuccessfully tried to figure a way out of this mess. In their merriment, they failed to take notice of one thing. Darius was not pleased with himself. But he also was not pleased with these men. Didn't these guys realize that after Daniel's sentence was carried out that Darius would take out his wrath on them? They were either very sure of themselves, or very stupid. I opt for the latter. They were too wrapped up in their own jealousy to think the thing through properly. It is not only they that were in peril; their wives and children were in peril as well. It was common practice in those days to punish the man who ran afoul of the law or the king, and to punish his family with him. When men broke the law they endangered their children. These guys just didn't think far enough through this plan.

Daniel 6:16 "Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of lions. Now the king spake and said unto Daniel, Thy God whom thou servest continually, he will deliver thee."

Darius, a pagan king, put his last hope in the LORD. This statement of Darius is better rendered, "May the God that you serve deliver you." It was a slim hope that Darius did not put much faith in. Yet it was all he had.

Daniel 6:17 "And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel."

Signet rings had a mark or image on them that, when pressed into wax or lead or some other such substance, would leave an impression. That impression was unique to the possessor of the ring. It was much like a signature is today. Here, as upon the stone on the tomb of Christ, a wax seal was placed on the spot where the stone touched the cave. Then the king impressed his signet into the wax making it illegal to break the seal. Then his lords place their own impressions in the wax. These impressions of the lords would keep the king from coming to Daniel's rescue. I doubt that Darius asked them to seal it; they did so of their own accord. The king could not stop them and keep face. If anyone removed the stone the wax seal would be broken. No one would break the seal at peril of death for it had the seals of the king and all the government officials upon it. Daniel was stuck.

Daniel 6:18-19 "Then the king went to his palace, and passed the night fasting: neither were instruments of music brought before him: and his sleep went from him. {19} Then the king arose very early in the morning, and went in haste unto the den of lions."

Darius had a sleepless night. He could not go to the lion's den during the night because he would lose respect in the eyes of the public. All he could do was pass the night at home worrying. He skipped dinner and television (that is, evening entertainment) and worried the night through. Those kinds of nights are very long and slow. At first light Darius went out to the den. Sentence had been carried out and now a new day dawned. Darius was no longer under the compulsion of his decree and now he hoped that God had spared Daniel. God had.

Daniel 6:20 "And when he came to the den, he cried with a lamentable voice unto Daniel: and the king spake and said to Daniel, O Daniel, servant of the living God, is thy God, whom thou servest continually, able to deliver thee from the lions?"

Fear and trepidation were in the voice of Darius as he hoped beyond hope that Daniel was delivered.

Daniel 6:21-22 "Then said Daniel unto the king, O king, live for ever. {22} My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt."

Perhaps Daniel actually saw the angel and perhaps even spoke with him. Perhaps not. Either way, Daniel was fully aware that an angel had protected him. Angels have protected all of us. Have you ever been involved in an incident where you should have been hurt or killed yet you were unscathed? You may chalk those incidents up as angelic intervention. I do not believe that coincident happens to Christians who are in God's will. Those events were not coincidence. God knew about them and helped you out of those scrapes. Never forget that.

Daniel told Darius that not only had God found him innocent, but he was innocent before the king as well. He had done nothing to harm the king in any way. He had only done what he always did; he had obeyed God, Who had protected him. He was innocent before God, as he had been before Darius.

Daniel 6:23-24 "Then was the king exceeding glad for him, and 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. {24} 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, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den."

The king was exceedingly happy that Daniel had survived. But how unjust and merciless was the king to the wives and children of the officials. They had done nothing. They had no standing under the law. They were just property of the lords. They could not have altered the preceding events had they wished. But they still suffered the consequences of the actions of the lords. Of course the reason for this savage cruelty was deterrence. What better deterrence than to have the threat of your family suffering the consequences of you actions? That probably kept most men in line. It would work for me. But, deterrent or not, it was a barbarous practice. Those wives and children were completely innocent. I am all for carrying out the penalty against lawbreakers. If carried out in a just and timely manner, penalties are a deterrent to crime. But using savage and inhuman acts as a deterrent is not acceptable. That is why we don't impale, draw and quarter, behead, eviscerate, blind, cut off extremities, or torture those guilty of crimes. It is savage and inhuman.

Daniel 6:25-27 "Then king Darius wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you. {26} 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 stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. {27} He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions."

The deliverance of Daniel glorified God. Had Daniel's death glorified God, he would have willingly died. Are you willing to allow any circumstance to happen to you so long as it glorifies God? Let us hope so. Paul said in Philippians 3:8: "Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ".

Daniel 6:28 "So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian."

As he did under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. God prospered Daniel during the entire captivity, up until he died. It was not the kings who prospered Daniel; it was God.

______________________________________________

Copyright © 2001, The Bible Church. All Rights Reserved. Contents may be distributed but not sold.
The content of this site is optimized for fast loading. Few graphics are included.
The Bible Church has the right to present its ideas and opinions in this format. We have not made any covenant with the Federal Government, such as a nonprofit agreement or tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3), and according to the First Amendment of the Constitution we have the right to free speech, including political speech, and freedom of religion.
The content of this study (with the exception of any scripture or quote) is the sole production of Pastor Mark Oaks and is subject to change as the pastor grows and learns.