Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 6

Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6
Loren Lineberry, 2015

Introduction
There are several purposes shaping the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6. Pride of place goes
to facilitating expository preaching and teaching of Daniel 6. The details offered in the Expository Reading
Guide to Daniel 6 are intended to aid the preacher/teacher in making up his/her own mind on the meaning
of a passage.
Another purpose is to help the reader with some acquaintance with the original languages of
Daniel, Hebrew and Aramaic in this case, derive maximum benefit from reading the original languages. To
this end, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel6 offers lexical data from the major Hebrew and Aramaic
lexicons, including Kohler-Baumgartner, Brown-Driver-Briggs, William Holladay, and David Clines.
Moreover, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 cites relevant lexical data from the New International
Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, and the
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Readers who know Hebrew and Aramaic should benefit from the Expository Reading Guides
attention to the grammar and syntax of the text. To this end, the Guide will cite relevant information from
the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke and OConnor, from Davidsons Introductory
Hebrew Grammar-Syntax by Gibson, from the standard Hebrew syntax of Wilhelm Gesenius, from A
Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar by Van der Merwe, from Hebrew Syntax by Ronald Williams, from
the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew by T. O. Lambdin, from Drivers Hebrew Tenses, from An Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew by Allen Ross, and from A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Paul Joon. Four Aramaic
guides to grammar and syntax are offered, one by Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, and
the more comprehensive German grammar of Bauer and Leander, the Grammatik Des BiblischAramischen, as well as An Introduction to Aramaic by Frederick Greenspan, and the Basics of Biblical
Aramaic by Miles Van Pelt.
For the reader without knowledge of the original languages, the Expository Reading Guide to
Daniel 6 will nuance this lexical and syntactical information so that it will be easily understood. Particular
attention is given in syntax to verbal aspect and stem formation as elements of meaning. Hopefully, the
expository preacher, the Bible school teacher, and the leader of a home Bible study should benefit from this
data in the formation of expository preaching/teaching outlines.
Another feature of the Guide is the use of linguistic insights from speech act theory. Briefly,
speech act theory affirms that language, whether written or spoken, is used to accomplish things: inform,
think, reflect, command, and express emotion among other things. Thus, attention to speech act theory in
addition to genre can help the reader/expositor determine what the writer is up to. Hopefully, attention to
these disciplines will aid the preacher/teacher craft a sermon/lesson in concert with the authors intention.
Finally, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 will offer relevant paragraph
summaries/reflections on some, but not each and every, paragraph in Daniel 6. It is important to note that
the author of the Guide reads the Book of Daniel as apocalyptic discourse. This genre is revelatory
literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a
human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality, which is both temporal, in that it envisages
eschatological salvation, and spatial, in that it involves another, supernatural world. 1 Of immediate
relevance, the transcendent reality that the Book of Daniel discloses is the sovereignty of God over the
national and international political power-players in this world. The Guide proposes that this is the
dominant theme in the book of Daniel.
1 Rolf Knierim and Eugene M. Tucker, The Forms of Old Testament Literature, volume XX, Daniel by
John J. Collins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 105 [hereafter abbreviated, Collins FOTL].
1

Table of Contents
I.Introduction 1
II.
Outline of Daniel 6 . 3-7
III.
General introduction to Daniel 6 8-9
IV.
Narrative of Darius organization of his government [Dan 6:1-3] . 9-14
V.
Narrative of the emergence of a conspiracy against Daniel [Dan 6:4-6] ... 14-24
A.
Daniel distinguishes himself [Dan 6:4] 14-17
B.
Conspirators counter [Dan 6:5-6] 18-24
VI.
Narrative of conspirators approaching Darius [Dan 6:7-10] .. 25-33
VII.
Narrative of Daniels response to Darius decree [Dan 6:11] 34-40
VIII.
Narrative of Daniels denunciation by the conspirators [Dan 6:12-19] . 40-54
IX.
A.
Daniel is discovered [Dan 6:12] ... 40-41
B.
Conspirators snitch to Darius [Dan 6:13-14] .... 41-45
C.
Darius response to the denunciation [Dan 6:15] . 46-48
D.
Conspirators press their case against Daniel [Dan 6:16-18] . 49-53
E.
Darius in distress for Daniel [Dan 6:19] ..
54
Narrative of Daniels deliverance [Dan 6:20-25] ...
55-
A.
Darius hastens to Daniel [Dan 6:20]
55
B.
Warily, Darius calls for Daniel [Dan 6:21-23] ............. 56-64

1.
Darius [Dan 6:21] ..
56-60
2.
Daniel [Dan 6:22-23] .
60-64
Darius responds [Dan 6:24-25]
65-69
1.
Response to Daniel [Dan 6:24] ..
65-68
2.
Response to Daniels accusers [Dan 6:25]
68-69
X.
Darius proclamation [Dan 6:26-28] ..
69-76
XI.
Daniels success in Darius/Cyrus government [Dan 6:29] ..
76-77
C.

Outline of Daniel 6
Text and Translation
I.
Narrative of Darius organization of his government [Dan 6:1-3]
6:1a

So, Darius the Mede took over rule
of the regime;
6:1b

a man of sixty two years.
6:2a

It pleased Darius to
appoint over the realm provincial
governors [in the number of],

one hundred and twenty;
6:2b

so that they would be over the
entire realm.
6:3a

Furthermore, over them
[were] three high officials,
6:3b

Daniel [being] one of them;
6:3c

so that these provincial
governors

might give an account to them,
6:3d

in order that the king would not
suffer loss.
II.
Narrative of the emergence of a conspiracy against Daniel [Dan 6:4-6]

A.
Daniel distinguishes himself [Dan 6:4]
6:4a

Now, Daniel specifically
distinguished himself,

above the high officials
and provincial governors;
6:4b

because, an extraordinary
spirit [was] within him,
6:4c
so then, the king intended
to appoint him over the
entire realm.
B.
Conspirators counter [Dan 6:5-6]
6:5a

So then, the high officials
and provincial governors

began seeking a ground of
accusation against Daniel,
6:5b

arising from the administration of the realm;
6:5c
but, they could find no
ground of accusation
including corruption,
6:5d

inasmuch as, he was trustworthy,
6:5e

and neither negligence nor
corruption could be found
in him.
6:6a

So then, these men said:
6:6b

We shall not
find any ground of accusation against
Daniel personally;
6:6c

unless we find it against
3
him in the laws of his God.
III.
Narrative of conspirators petition to Darius [Dan 6:7-10]
6:7a
So then, these high
officials and provincial
governors came storming into the king;

6:7b

and thus said to him:
6:7c

King Darius, may you
live forever!
6:8a

All of the high officials of the
realm,

the prefects and provincial
governors,

the counselors and provincial
commissioners
have taken counsel with each other,
6:8b

with the result that the
king should establish a royal
statute and enforce a legal prohibition;
6:8c

namely that, any who
makes a petition to any god,
6:8d

or man for thirty days,
6:8e

except to you, O king,
6:8f

will be cast into a den of lions.
6:9a

Now, O king, may you establish the
statute,
6:9b

and may you sign the document;
6:9c

so that it may not be
changed according to the law
of the Medes and Persians,
6:9d

which cannot be revoked!
6:10a
Because of this;
6:10b
king Darius signed the
document and statute.
IV.
Narrative of Daniels response to Darius decree [Dan 6:11]
6:11a
So, as soon as Daniel
knew that the written decree
was signed,
6:11b
he entered his house,
6:11c where windows were open
on his roof chamber
4
facing Jerusalem;
6:11d three times
during the day, he prayed upon his knees,
6:11e
imploring and praising in the presence of
God,
6:11f

just as he had
been doing before this.
V.
Narrative of Daniels denunciation by the conspirators [Dan 6:12-19]

A.
Daniel is discovered in prayer to Yahweh [Dan 6:12]
6:12a
6:12b
6:12c
presence of God.
B.
So, the, these men came as a group,

and they found Daniel;
petitioning and imploring in the
The conspirators snitch to Darius [Dan 6:13-14]

1.
The conspirators remind Darius of the law of the land [Dan 6:13a-f]

Immediately, they approached,
and spoke to the king concerning
the royal statute:
6:13b
Did you not sign a statute,
6:13c
that any man
who petitions any god or man,
6:13d
for thirty days,
6:13e
except from you, O king,
6:13f
must be cast into a den of lions?
6:13a
2.
Darius assents [Dan 6:13g-i]
6:13g
The king replied and said:
6:13h
The statement is certainly true
according to the law
6:13i

which cannot be annulled.
3.
The conspirators spring the trap and denounce Daniel [Dan 6:14]
6:14a
responded and said to the king:
6:14b
the sons of the exile from Judah,
Immediately, they
Daniel, one of

6:14c
you, O king,
6:14d
6:14e
6:14f
C.

does not show proper deference to
or for the statute you signed;
indeed, three times a day,
he makes his petition.
Darius response to the denunciation [Dan 6:15]
6:15a
statement,
6:15b
6:15c
delivering Daniel;
6:15d
6:15e
D.
As soon as the king heard the

it revolted him immensely,
accordingly, he set his mind on
so, until sunset,
he was striving to rescue him.
The conspirators press their case against Daniel [Dan 6:16-18]

1.
The conspirators press the point of law [Dan 6:16]
6:16a
Immediately, these men
came as a group to the king;
6:16b
and they said to the king:
6:16c
Know, O king,
6:16d
that [it is] a law of the Medes and
Persians,
6:16e
that any statute
or decree that the king establishes,
6:16f
is not to be frustrated.
2.
Darius relents, reluctantly [Dan 6:17]
6:17a
Immediately, the king gave the command,
6:17b
and Daniel was brought forth,
6:17c
and he cast him into the lions den;
6:17d
[however] the king said to Daniel:
6:17e
Your God, whom you
serve continually,
6:17f
may He deliver you!
3.
Daniels fate, humanly speaking, is sealed [Dan 6:18]
6:18a
6:18b
6:18c
signet-ring,
6:18d
6:18e
changed in regard to Daniel.
Then, a stone was brought,

and placed over the opening of the den;
and the king sealed it with his
and the signet-ring of his nobles,
so that nothing could be
E.
Darius in distress for Daniel [Dan 6:19]
6:19a
palace,
6:19b
6:19c
brought in to him;
6:19d
VI.
Then, the king returned to his

and spent the night in hunger,
indeed, no diversions were
and even sleep fled from him.
Narrative of Daniels deliverance [Dan 6:20-25]

A.
6:20a
dawn, with the light of day;
6:20b
lions den.
B.
At once, the king arose at

so in haste, he went to the
Warily, Darius calls for Daniel [Dan 6:21-23]

1.
Darius cries out [Dan 6:21]
6:21a
6:21b
he cried out;
6:21c
Daniel:
6:21d
6:21e
serve continually,
6:21f
from the lions?
2.
Then, as he approached the den,

to Daniel, with an anguished voice
the king spoke up and said to
Daniel, servant of the Living God,
your God, whom you
has He been able to deliver you
Daniel answers [Dan 6:22-23]
6:22a
Then, Daniel spoke with the king:
6:22b
O, king, may you live forever!
6:23a
My God sent His angel,
6:23b
and shut the mouth of the lions,
6:23c
and so, they have not injured me;
6:23d
inasmuch as, before Him,
I was found to be innocent,
6:23e
and so, before you, O king,
6:23f
I have committed no crime!
C.
Darius responds [Dan 6:24-25]

1.
Darius responds to Daniel [Dan 6:24]
6:24a
exceedingly satisfied,
6:24b
be hauled up out of the den;
So, then, the king was

and he ordered Daniel to

6:24c
den,
6:24d
on him,
6:24e
2.

so, Daniel was hauled up from the
and there was no injury to be found
because, he trusted in his God.
Darius responds to Daniels accusers [Dan 6:25]
6:25a
Then, the king give gave orders,
6:25b
and they produced those men,
6:25c
who had maliciously
accused Daniel,
6:25d
and they cast them into the lions
den,
6:25e
with their sons and their wives;
6:25f
and, they had not reached the
bottom of the den,
6:25g
before the lions
overpowered them,
6:25h
and crushed all their bones.
VII.
Darius proclamation [Dan 6:26-28]

A.
6:26a
tongues
The scope of the proclamation [Dan 6:26a]
Thereupon, Darius the king wrote

to every people, nation, and
dwelling on the earth:
B.
Darius proclamation [Dan 6:26b-28]
6:26b
May your peace abound!
6:27a
On my authority, I make a decree:
6:27b
namely that, throughout all my
dominion,
6:27c
men are to tremble and
fear,
6:27d
before the presence of the
God of Daniel;
6:27e
for, He is the Living God,
6:27f
and enduring forever,
6:27g
His reign is one which will never
be destroyed,
6:27h
His Lordship forever.
6:28a
He is the One who rescues and delivers,
6:28b
He performs signs and
wonders in the heavens and
on the earth;
6:28c
indeed, He has rescued
Daniel from the power of the
lions!
VIII.
Daniels success in Darius/Cyrus government [Dan 6:29]
6:29a
Accordingly, this (same)
Daniel proved to be
successful in the government of Darius;
6:29b
that is, in the government of Cyrus.
General Introduction to Daniel 6

Genre
John Collins notes that Daniel 6 is shows the features of Legend. Specifically, a legend aims to
edify the reader;2 the legend intends to stimulate the reader to emulate the hero of the legend;3 indeed,
legend has a specific, moral aim.4 Moreover, Collins writes, the legend is placed in the real world and is
often associated with historical characters.5 Finally, legend contains an element of the miraculous: it is
the marvelous and not the storyline that constitutes the legends essential claim to attention. 6 The upshot
is that the expositor of Daniel 6 can nuance sermons or lessons as lessons to be learned. To be sure, one of
those lessons is emulating the behavior of Daniel who is faced with a conflict between his moral values and
the law of the land. As Darius eventually observes, Daniel trusted his God and let the chips fall where they
might. Yet another lesson is the inevitability of conflict between the godly and the ungodly; Daniel stands
his ground and pays the price. This time, the faithful servant is delivered; but as we shall observe in Daniel
11-12, deliverance is not always forthcoming; rather the constant is conflict.
To be sure, conflict plays a major role in Daniel 6. Out of envy, conspirators seek to entrap Daniel in some
illegal activity [Dan 6:5-6]. Unable to find any ground of accusation in the quality of his government work
[Dan 6:5], the conspirators set out to stage-manage a conflict by entrapping Daniel in a religious faux pas
[Dan 6:6]. Accordingly, the conspirators manipulate the king into signing off on a law respecting prayer in
Persia [Dan 6:7-10]. Daniel, true to form, puts himself in conflict with the new law regarding prayer in
Persia by ignoring it [Dan 6:11].
Naturally, the conspirators spring the trap on Daniel [Dan 6:12-19], thus placing Daniel in conflict
with the law of the land [Dan 6:13, 16] and Darius himself [Dan 6:14c]. Hemmed in by his own law,
Darius, somewhat reluctantly, seals Daniels fate by sealing him in a den of lions [Dan 6:17-18].
Ultimately, the conflict is resolved by the appearance of an angel of the Lord [Dan 6:23], which
miraculously rescued Daniel from a crushing fate. Beyond that, the fate intended for Daniel is unleashed
on the conspirators [Dan 6:25].
Structure
Dan 6:1-3 essentially sets the stage for the narrative that follows. That is, the writer briefly
introduces us to Darius initial steps in setting up his administration. After that, by repeating a particle
adverb [/then, thereupon, immediately (Dan 6:4-7, 12-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26)], the writer leads us
through the legendary conflict in Daniel 6.
In Dan 6:4, we are told that Daniel was one of the best and the brightest in government service.
2 Collins, FOTL, 111.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
9
In Dan 6:5-6, the conspirators, for reasons that are not completely clear, begin seeking some
ground of accusation against Daniel; but neither charges of negligence nor corruption could be
substantiated.
In Dan 6:7-10, the conspirators dupe Darius into signing a law that the connivers knew Daniel
would find unacceptable. To be sure, in Dan 6:11, Daniel simply ignores the law of the land.
In Dan 6:12-19, the collaborators spring the trap: they spy on Daniel in prayer [Dan 6:12]; they
run to the king and remind him of the law of the land concerning prayer [Dan 6:13a-f]; and then they
denounce Daniel to Darius [Dan 6:14]. While Darius demurs, dragging his feet on hauling Daniel before
him [Dan 6:15], the schemers, undeterred, return to the king and put him in remembrance of the law of the
land regarding prayer [Dan 6:16]. Reluctantly, Darius relents [Dan 6:17] and Daniels fate is sealed,
literally [Dan 6:18].
In Dan 6:20-23, the king speeds to the den, anxious to know what has happened to Daniel [Dan
6:20-21]. Then, in Dan 6:22-23, Daniel tells Darius what has miraculously transpired [Dan 6:23].
In Dan 6:24-25, Darius reacts, first toward Daniel [Dan 6:24] and then toward the plotters against
Daniel [Dan 6:25].
Finally, in Dan 6:26-28, Darius concludes this legend cum conflict with what amounts to a
doxology to the God who delivered Daniel.
Let us now turn to an analysis of the text of Daniel 6.
I.
Narrative of Darius organization of his government [Dan 6:1-3]
6:1a

So, Darius the Mede took over rule
of the regime;
6:1b

a man of sixty two years.
6:2a

It pleased Darius to
appoint over the realm provincial
governors [in the number of],

one hundred and twenty;
6:2b

so that they would be over the
entire realm.
6:3a

Furthermore, over them
[were] three high officials,
6:3b

Daniel [being] one of them;
6:3c

so that these provincial
governors

might give an account to them,
6:3d

in order that the king would not
suffer loss.
The genre of Daniel 6 as a whole is legend, which is a narrative [emphasis mine] primarily
concerned with the wonderful and aimed at edification.7 Accordingly, the legend is comprised of a
series of narrative segments. Narrative is a genre in its own right, amounting to an account of events or
actions in sequential form.8 As noted above, Dan 6:1-3 sets the stage for the sequence of events that
follow.

8 Ibid., 114.
10
What this tells the reader is this: The author intends to inform his audience concerning the details of this
extraordinary event. What this implies is that, as far as the writer is concerned, he is dealing in matters of
truth.
Dan 6:1 So, Darius the Mede took over rule of the regime; a man of sixty two years.
The reign of Nebuchadnezzar began in 605 BC; the reign of Darius the Mede began with the fall
of Babylon in 539 BC. The interesting fact about these two dates is that Daniel had served in the royal
court throughout the entire 66 year period. One would surmise that, when Darius took over the reins of
government, Daniel might well have been in his early eighties.
A fair amount of ink has been spilt over the identity of Darius the Mede. The problem, if indeed
a problem it is, seems to be that there is no reference to Darius the Mede outside Daniel 6. 9 The Guide
takes the position that Darius the Mede is a reference to Cyrus. Looking ahead, Dan 6:29 says:
6:29a
Accordingly, our Daniel
proved to be successful in
government of Darius;
6:29b
The reader will note that the Aramaic conjunction [] that opens Dan 6:29b is translated as an
explanatory waw, namely, that is.10 The upshot is that Darius the Mede and Cyrus are one and the same
person.
Took over rule [ (Pael, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the perfect aspect; this use of the perfect is
probably the historical perfect,11 used to narrate a complete action sometime in the writers past. The Pael
stem in Aramaic is causative, signifying in this case the bringing about of a state. 12
9 For the nuts and bolts of the debate, see Tremper Longman and Raymond Dillard, An
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 377-81; D.J. Wiseman, ed, Tyndale
Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978); James
A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark,
1989; reprint), 63-65.
10 For this use of the waw, see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des BiblischAramischen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962), 70 r.
11 Ibid., 79 h; see also Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1996; reprint), 162.
12 Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Aramaic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 130; see also
Bruce Waltke and Michael OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1990), 24.1h [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].
11
Took over rule [] is typically translated to receive.13 William L. Holladay translates the verb
[] plus the direct object [] with take over the rule.14 The Septuagint tradition uses
the Greek verb for the Aramaic []; the Greek verb means in this context
to take over, receive according to Bauer.15
Summary. Dan 6:1 is an assertive speech act; the verse commits the writer to the truth of the matter
reported in the line; in other words, the writers words fit the world he is describing.16 The fact of the
matter is that Darius the Mede took over the reins of government and started to rule.
Dan 6:2 It pleased Darius to appoint over the realm provincial governors [in the number of] one hundred
and twenty; so that they would be over the entire realm.
It pleased [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is once more written in the perfect aspect, signifying the
historical perfect appropriate to historical narrative.
Pleased [] is an Aramaic verb that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:1 with to
please, seem good.17 David Talley notes that the verb [] describes one who makes a value
judgment following contemplation.18
To appoint [ (simple waw, Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is translated like an infinitive but in
reality is a finite verb with a conjunction prefixed in Aramaic; literally, and he appointed. KohlerBaumgartner notes that pleased [] is followed by the perfect with []19, more or less
clarifying the response that the value judgment [] generated.
Appoint [] in the Haphel stem signals causation of some sort.20 In this case, the Haphel probably
signals that Darius considered value judgment [] yielded [caused] the event of appointing
[].
13 Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Stamm, translated and edited by M.E.J. Richardson,
vol. II, - (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1996 [hereafter, vol. I, -, will be abbreviated KB1, and vol. II, , will be abbreviated KB2]; similarly, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, and Wilhelm
Gesenius, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix
Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979; reprint), 1099 [hereafter
abbreviated BDB].
14 William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 418.
15 William Arndt and Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature, revised by Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1979), 619 [hereafter abbreviated BAGD].
16 John Searle, Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 12.
17 KB2, 2001; similarly, Holladay, 424.
18 David Talley, , in Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001; C-D ROM) [H9180; hereafter
abbreviated NIDOTTE].
19 KB2, 2001.
20 Van Pelt, 143.
12
Provincial governor [] is often translated satrap,21 but this translation doesnt resonate
with many English readers. In Old Persian, the is the protector of the empire.22 The
Septuagint tradition offers the Greek noun for , a Greek noun that
describes a governor of a province.23 Pter-Contesse and Ellington note that the was
in charge of the main divisions of the empire.24 The upshot is that the /provincial
governor would have been a very powerful man, socially, legally, politically, occupying the top rungs of the
ladder of Persian power.
Summary. Dan 6:2 is an expressive speech act; the verse conveys the psychological or mental state of
Darius25; in other words, the verse highlights Darius value judgment after reflection. The verse
presupposes the truth value in the statement; this is actually what Darius had in mind.
Dan 6:3 Furthermore, over them [were] three high officials, Daniel being one of them; so that these
provincial governors might give an account to them [the high officials], in order that the king would not
suffer loss.
Dan 6:3a over them [ ] [were] three high officials [ ] is a
verbless clause that functions to give background material germane to the narrative.26 The focus in the
sentence is the new element, the three high officials [ ].
High official [] is probably a Persian loan word drawn from the political/legal administration
vocabulary of Persia, chief minister.27 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:3 with high
official (of the king).28 The Septuagint translator uses a participle, , for ; the
Greek term refers to any person in a leading position; one with princely authority, of high officials in
including military commanders.29 The reader may infer that the high official was a man of
considerable authority, a position with influence and power.
Dan 6:3c that these provincial governors might give an account [ ] to them is a
purpose clause.30 The reader may infer that this purpose was one of the things Darius had in mind as he
weighed his options [Dan 6:2]. Furthermore, since the verb give [] is a participle, the
expositor may also infer that this reporting up through the chain of command was expected to be routine.31
21KB2, 1811; Holladay, 397; BDB, 1080.
22 KB2, 1811.
23 Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1968), 1585 [hereafter abbreviated LSJ].
24 Rene Pter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel (New York: United Bible
Societies, 1993), 73.
25 Searle, 15.
26 See Cynthia Miller, ed., The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew, Ellen van Wolde, The
Verbless Clause and Its Textual Function (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 330.
27 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983),
189.
28 KB2, 1940; similarly Holladay, 415.
29 BAGD, 343.
30 For the particle used to signal a purpose clause, see Bauer-Leander 70 c.
31 For this use of the participle, see Rosenthal 177.
13
Give an account [ ] uses a noun [] that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in

Dan 6:3 with give an account; the noun may also refer to a report.32 BDB identifies as an
official report.33 J. Schpphaus reviews the range of meanings of , noting that its nuances may
extend from discernment, understanding, judgment to command, decree, report.34 S.R. Driver notes
that points to being permanently answerable, that the interests and revenues of the king were
properly guarded.35 Judah Slotki notes that there is evidence from the classical sources that the king kept
close control over the provinces, associating with each satrap an independent commandant and secretary. 36
Dan 6:3d is another purpose line37, teasing out the end game behind the accountability placed upon the
provincial governors: in order that the king would not suffer loss.
Suffer loss [ ] uses a finite verb [] plus a participle [] to signal a
concern for the future.38 The English translations differ somewhat; there are those that translate
with loss or some such word, and others with be bothered. Strictly speaking, both are possible.
Loss [] does have ancient Near Eastern cognates that reference annoyance; principally, the Akkadian
cognate [nazqum] means to be irritated, to be concerned, to annoy, cause trouble or grief.39 KohlerBaumgartner translate in Dan 6:3 with come to grief.40 Holladay opts for suffer loss.41 BDB
goes with suffer injury.42 Ronald Youngblood cites evidence from Mari Akkadian to the effect that
nazqum can refer to worry or upset in an emotional sense.43 Ultimately, in Dan 6:3, Youngblood
opts for threats to the interests of the king.44 The Septuagint translator goes with the Greek verb
, which means to trouble, annoy.45 The two other uses of the verb [] in the
Aramaic Old Testament, Ezra 4:13, 15, both point more in the direction of threats to the interests of the

33 BDB, 1094.
34 Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
translated by David Green, vol. V, J. Schpphaus, , 345 [hereafter abbreviated TDOT].
35 S.R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 73.
36 Judah Slotki, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah, revised by Ephraim Oratz and Ravshalom Shahar (New
York: The Soncino Press, 1993), 47.
37 For the use of the waw [] to signal purpose, see Bauer-Leander 70 d.
38 Holladay, 403; KB2, 1859.
39 KB2, 1929.
40 Ibid.
41 Holladay, 412.
42 BDB, 1102.
43 Ronald F. Youngblood, , in NIDOTTE [H5691].
44 Ibid.
45 BAGD, 267.
14
king [Ezra 4:13 (treasury interests), 15 (rebellion)].

The net effect is that, based upon usage elsewhere in the Aramaic corpus, the expositor may infer
that implies suffer loss, threats to the interests of, where these interests are open-ended. Slotkis
reading, financial loss, while based on the Ezra 4:13 passage seems too specific for this context in Dan
6:1-3.46 To be sure, the context revolves around revolution, the take-over of Babylon by Persia by force of
arms. It would seem plausible that at the beginning of a new administration during turbulent times the
administrative focus would be on threats directed toward the king from whatever quarter. The expositor
might read the clause: might not suffer threats to his government.
Dan 6:3 is an assertive speech act that makes truth claims about how Darius organized his
administration [Dan 6:2]; the words of Dan 6:3 fit the world the writer is describing. Two basic truth
claims are posited in Dan 6:3: first, a chain of command is formed with men of authority and power [high
officials ()], Daniel being one of them; and second, provincial governors () were
accountable () to those above them [] in order to protect the interests () of the king.
II.Narrative of the emergence of a conspiracy against Daniel [Dan 6:4-6]
A.
Daniel distinguishes himself [Dan 6:4]
6:4a

Now, Daniel specifically
distinguished himself,

above the high officials
and provincial governors;
6:4b

because, an extraordinary
spirit [was] within him,
6:4c
so then, the king intended
to appoint him over the
entire realm.
Dan 6:4a opens the conspiracy narrative with the target: Now [] uses the particle adverb
to signal the beginning of the conspiracy narrative; Daniels expertise and character in Dan 6:4 set him up
for his rivals.
Daniel specifically [ ], literally this Daniel is a perplexing construction. The
demonstrative adjective, this [], does appear to single out Daniel specifically. John Collins
translates the demonstrative the aforementioned Daniel.47
Distinguished himself [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg) (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is once
more the participial form of followed by a participle. In the context, the force of this construction
is to underscore perfect aspect.48 The action, from the standpoint of the writer, is past and exposes a state
of affairs; the author intends to alert the reader to the fact that one of the most truthful attributes that could
be attached to Daniel was: He distinguished himself.
Distinguish [] is written in the Hithpaal stem, which is reflexive: Daniel distinguished himself.49 If
nothing else, Daniels prominence was earned by his own efforts; his notoriety was not artificial.
46 Slotki, 47.
47 John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 256.
48 See Bauer-Leander 81 p; IBHS 37.7.1c.
49 Van Pelt, 138.
15
The Aramaic verb [] has some interesting ancient Near Eastern cognates that seem to shed
light on . There is a Syriac cognate that means to shine; there is a Palestinian Aramaic cognate
that means to overpower, to be victorious.50 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:4 with to
distinguish oneself.51 G.W. Anderson notes that this root, , also occurs in the Hebrew Bible as well
as the Aramaic Bible; has the following range of meanings: [1] the basic meaning is gleam; [2]
the second meaning is to distinguish oneself (Dan 6:4); [3] the meaning conquer, overcome appears
in the Dead Sea Scrolls; [4] the meaning be permanent is often considered primary; and [5] the final
meaning is supervise, lead.52
Driver affirms that the root idea of the word is to shine, hence to be illustrious.53 Keil translates
in Dan 6:4 with to show oneself prominent, indicating that Daniel excelled all the presidents and
satraps.54
The participle [] is followed by a preposition used as a comparative; Daniel distinguished
himself above, beyond [].55 This helps us understand the shade of meaning in /distinguished
himself. That is, the writer characterized Daniels personal character as that which differentiated him from
his peers; Daniels personal qualities, the man himself, singled him out and set him apart from the rest.
Dan 6:4b delineates the basis for Daniels distinctiveness: because [ ]56. Furthermore,
the entire sentence because an extraordinary spirit [was] within him is another verbless clause. Once
more, this verbless clause offers us important background information about Daniel; the starting point for
this verbless clause is an extraordinary spirit, a starting point that is focused upon.57 The spotlight
shines upon the key reason why [ ] Daniel differentiates himself from his peers:
extraordinary spirit [ ].
Extraordinary spirit [ ] is a noun [] modified by an adjective []
followed by a prepositional phrase within him [].
The noun, spirit, [] has a range of meanings: [1] wind, [2] spirit of a person, mind, and
[3] the spirit of God.58 Kohler-Baumgartner opt for the second in Dan 6:4.59 In favor of reading
as the human spirit is the appearance of the same noun-adjective collocation in Dan 5:12
[ ], which is then itemized as knowledge [] and insight [],
interpretation of dreams [], explanation of riddles [], and solving difficult problems
[]. Obviously, the only other analogous use of extraordinary spirit in Daniel denotes the spirit of
a person, mind. Beyond this analogous reference, when Belshazzar acknowledges that Daniels spirit
50 KB2, 1933.
51 Ibid; similarly, BDB, 1103; Holladay, 414.
52 G.W. Anderson, , in TDOT, vol. IX, 530.
53 Driver, Daniel, 72.
54 C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. IX, Ezekiel,
Daniel, Three Volumes in One, Daniel by C.F. Keil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; reprint), 207.
55 BDB, 1106.
56 For the causal use of this collocation, see Bauer-Leander 70 h.
57 Van Wolde, 330.
58 KB2, 1980.
59 Ibid; Holladay follows suit, 412; also BDB, 1112.
16
[] is owing to the influence of the gods [], Belshazzar underscores the uniquely human spirit
within Daniel: illumination [], insight [], and wisdom [] in Dan 5:14].
Like its Hebrew counterpart [], in Dan 6:4 points to the natural spirit of humanity, as sense,
mind, intellectual frame of mind.60 Thus, in Dan 6:4 reflects the innate human, mental, capability
of Daniel; we are in the realm of Daniels competence, expertise, know-how, and aptitude.
Extraordinary [] is an adjective that evaluates Daniels competencies. This adjective []
assesses Daniels human abilities as exceeding, extraordinary, 61 as preeminent, surpassing.62 Clearly,
the first-class and dominant expertise of Daniel also implies a comparative nuance vis--vis his peers;
Daniel excels his counterparts in the administration. Indeed, T. Kronholm reads in Dan 6:4 in the
sense of exceptional.63 The upshot is that Dan 6:4 reflects the innate human, mental, capability of Daniel;
we are in the realm of Daniels proficiency, skill, savvy, and talent, and these, in turn, are qualified as
exceptional, incomparable, unique, outstanding, extraordinary.64
In Dan 6:4c, the author provides us with the long-range plan of Darius for Daniel: the king intended to
appoint him over the entire realm. As Joyce Baldwin points out, such a man as Daniel would be an
obvious candidate for extra responsibility.65
Intended to appoint [ (Haphel, infinitive construct, 3rd, ms, suffix) (Peal,
participle, passive, ms)] uses the passive participle as a regular verb, suggesting a general present or
durative character in the kings intention.66 Kohler-Baumgartner note that is a passive participle
used in an active sense.67 Evidently, this intention had been on the kings mind for some unspecified time.
Intended [] once more lets the reader in on the kings internal world; the narrator tells us what the
king intended [], what Darius had in mind. The Aramaic verb [] is from a semantic field of
terms for thinking.68 Kohler-Baumgartner read in Dan 6:4 in the sense of thought of, intend.69
BDB translates in Dan 6:4 with to plan to do something.70 The net effect is that the narrator
discloses the kings aim, his intent, his objective vis--vis Daniel.
60 KB2, 1199.
61 Ibid., 1895.
62 BDB, 1096.
63 T. Kronholm, , in TDOT, vol. VI, 490.
64 Dan 6:4b provides a significant part of the motive behind the conspiracy soon to be sprung on
Daniel.
65 Baldwin, 128.
66 Bauer-Leander 82 c, e.
67 KB2, 1954.
68 See NIDOTTE, Thinking.
69 KB2, 1954.
70 BDB, 1108; similarly, Holladay, 417.
17
To appoint [] is written in the Haphel stem, which is causative.71 Among other things, Dan 6:4c tells
us that Daniel himself did not seek higher office; there is no lust for power evident in Daniels good favor
with the king; rather, Daniels competence is the source of the kings plans for Daniel.
Over the entire realm [] is a phrase that implies that Daniel was to be
something like second in command to Darius. Collins writes that there was a supreme office under the
king in the Achaemenid Empire, that of the chiliarch.72 If Daniel were to be appointed to such an
extremely powerful position, the reasons behind the conspiracy seem clear: envy if not apprehension.
Summary. Dan 6:4a is an assertive speech act in which the narrators words fit the world as he knows it;
the narrator is once more making truth claims concerning Daniels distinguished career. The narrator opens
the conspiracy narrative with the self-evident basis for the scheme: Daniels personal character
differentiates him from his peers; Daniels personal qualities, the man himself, set him apart from the rest.
Dan 6:4b is a verdictive speech act in which the narrator makes a value judgment about Daniel.73
The fact that Dan 6:4b is written as a verbless clause helps the expositor appreciate the focal point of the
narrators evaluation of Daniel: his extraordinary human capabilities. There are two nuances here: first,
Daniel clearly excels at what he does. Simply put, Daniels competencies are exceptional, extraordinary,
preeminent, surpassing. As we have noted on the use of this evaluation in Dan 5, the line between Daniels
native abilities and his God-given abilities is blurred; we may assume the prominence of the former without
forgetting the latter. The second nuance is this: by implication, the narrators evaluation of Daniel
implicitly compares Daniel to his peers. Daniel simply excels his counterparts in the administration, and
the superior quality of Daniels personal capabilities forms the basis for his eventual entrapment.
Dan 6:4c is an expressive speech act, in which the reader is privy to the kings state of mind.74 The
facticity of the narrators insight into the kings objectives is presupposed.75 Using language drawn from
the semantic field of thought, the narrator discloses what the king had in mind for Daniel: the narrator
discloses the kings aim, his intent, his objective vis--vis Daniel.
A further point: speech acts are not only ways that writers or speakers do things with words [so-called
illocutionary acts], the speech act also has consequences for the reader or hearer. Searle writes,
Correlated with the notion of illocutionary acts is the notion of the consequences or the effects such
[illocutionary] acts have on the actions, thoughts, or beliefs of the hearers. 76 Mary Louise Pratt takes this
notion of the perlocutionary act a step further; she notes, by writing, a writer may be achieving certain
intended [emphasis mine] effect in his hearer in addition to those achieved by the illocutionary act. 77
These so-called perlocutionary acts are the calculated inferences or the consequences the reader or listener
71 See Van Pelt, 143.

72 Collins, Daniel, 265.
73 On the verdictive speech act, see Donald D. Evans, The Logic of Self-Involvement (London:
SCM Press, 1963), 36-38.
74 Searle, 15.
75 Ibid.
76 John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1969), 25.
77 Mary Louise Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1977).
18
intuitively draws from what is written or spoken.78 In the case of Dan 6:4c, the reader infers that Daniels
impending elevation in Dan 6:4 provokes Daniels peers to entrap him in Dan 6:5ff.
B.Conspirators counter [Dan 6:5-6]

6:5a

So then, the high officials
and provincial governors

began seeking a ground of
accusation against Daniel,
6:5b

arising from the administration of the realm;
6:5c
but, they could find no
ground of accusation
including corruption,
6:5d

inasmuch as, he was trustworthy,
6:5e

and neither negligence nor
corruption could be found
in him.
6:6a

So then, these men said:
6:6b

We shall not
find any ground of accusation against
Daniel personally;
6:6c

unless we find it against
him in the laws of his God.
The genre of Daniel 6:5-6 is narrative; the reader may infer that the author intends this paragraph
to be read as key events in the history of the conspiracy against Daniel. The focus is obviously on the
scheming by Daniels colleagues in Darius administration.
Dan 6:5 So then, the high officials and provincial governors began seeking a ground of accusation against
Daniel, arising from the administration of the realm; but, they could find no ground of accusation including
corruption, inasmuch as he was trustworthy, and neither negligence nor corruption could be found in him.
In Dan 6:5a, the writer recalls Daniels colleagues cum competitors from Dan 6:1-4 and introduces
us to the first phase of the conspiracy.
Began seeking a ground of accusation [ ] characterizes
the early stages of the scheme. Began seeking [ (Peal, participle, ms, pl) (Peal, perfect,
3rd, ms, pl)] is a finite verb [] plus a participle [] construction, which we have seen before.
Strictly speaking in this context, this construction implies that the action was continuous over an
unspecified length of time.79 Moreover, the context specifies that what was begun in Dan 6:5a ultimately
78 Readers of the English Bible are very familiar with perlocutionary acts, even if we do not recognize
them as such. That is, we read a passage in the Bible and then intuitively draw inferences from what we
have just read; this is what Searle and Pratt refer to as the perlocutionary act. What speech act theory draws
together for us is a rational basis for how we actually use language and what we do intuitively when we
read or speak, the theory claiming that this is how language works. In the case of perlocutions in Bible
reading, the reader must permit the context and the Holy Spirit to determine what an appropriate
perlocution, inference, is or is not. The perlocutionary act teased out in Dan 6:4 is verified by the assertions
in Dan 6:5-6.
79 Rosenthal, 177.
19
fails in Dan 6:5c; so the syntactic sense is: they began searching for some administrative scandal, continued
searching over an unspecified length of time, and ultimately failed in their search for a professional
scandal.
Ground of accusation [] tells us much about the conspiracy: it was a smear campaign! The Aramaic
noun [] is translated by Kohler-Baumgartner as reason for making a complaint, pretext.80 In all
likelihood, is derived from an Arabic cognate [`alla], which means [1] to justify, explain or [2]
to make an excuse, to offer a pretext.81 The second range of meaning seems to fit best here: the
conspirators were pulling out all the stops to find some reason for an accusation against Daniel. The
Septuagint tradition concurs, using the Greek term , which has two ranges of meaning:
[1] an actual motive, reason, a valid excuse or [2] a falsely alleged motive, a pretext, an ostensible
reason, an excuse (in reality, they have other interests).82 The upshot is this: Daniels conniving rivals,
from exclusively self-interested motives, began seeking any allegation whatsoever, valid or invalid, that
would discredit him. The smear could be legitimate or otherwise; truth really would not have mattered
much as long as some scandal could be found.
In Dan 6:5b, the author shows us where Daniels antagonists naturally looked: arising from the
administration of the realm.
Arising from [] is a prepositional phrase that signals source; literally, the phrase reads:
from the side of. Kohler-Baumgartner translate the phrase in Dan 6:5 as concerning.83
The administration of the realm [] translates a single Aramaic noun. In and of itself,
means, in this context, kingdom, realm, according to Kohler-Baumgartner.84 Rosenthal
translates from the side of the kingdom in Dan 6:5 with from the political angle.85 In the Hebrew
Bible, the Hebrew cognate [] of the Aramaic noun [] seems to refer to the office of
ruling, or the activity of ruling, at least in the Hebrew Bible. 86 These latter observations by Nel seem to
admirably fit the context in Dan 6:5b. Rosenthals translation is certainly to the point, being more
idiomatic. Pter-Contesse and Ellington translate the way Daniel administered the empire. 87 To make a
long story short, Daniels antagonists are looking for a chink in his public armor.
In Dan 6:5c, the author unveils a chink in the antagonists scheme: but, they could find no ground of
accusation or corruption. The writer signals a contrast to the scheme [Dan 6:5a-b];88 Daniels jealous foes
failed in their original plan.
Ground of accusation [] is the same terminology we have above in Dan 6:5a; the sense is the same.
80 KB2, 1947.
81 Ibid; Holladay, 416, follows suit.
82 BAGD, 722.
83 KB2, 1963.
84 Ibid., 1997.
85 Rosenthal 84.
86 Philip J. Nel, , in NIDOTTE [H4887].
87 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 158; similarly, Slotki, 48.
88 For the disjunctive use of the Aramaic conjunction, , see Bauer-Leander 70 p.
20
Corruption [ (Peal, passive participle, fm, sg)] is a participle used as a noun.89 The
Aramaic root [] essentially means spoil, corrupted, bad; with the sense in Dan 6:5 amounting to
wickedness, mischief according to Kohler-Baumgartner.90 BDB affirms that when is used as a
noun, it means fault.91 J. Conrad notes that in Biblical Aramaic this word group is attested only by the
substantival feminine form of the peal participle, which refers to depravity in the ethical sense, i.e., to
evil, wicked behavior or speech; this is the sense assigned to Dan 6:5 by Conrad. 92 The only other use of
in Daniel is in Dan 2:9, where is used in conjunction with lying [], certainly an
ethical matter. The substantive participle is probably a clarification of the ground of accusation, so that
the pair may be read: ground of accusation including ethical malfeasance.
The writer is not claiming that Daniel was without sin; he is affirming that Daniel was an exceptionally
scrupulous and conscientious servant in the Persian regime.
In Dan 6:5d, the author reveals the basis for Daniels spotless professional reputation: inasmuch
as he was trustworthy. The line is a causative line as signaled by the opening causal construction [
].93
Trustworthy [ (Haphel, passive participle, ms, sg)] is the authors evaluation of Daniels character,
an upright integrity that fashions his spotless profession reputation. Once more, the participle is used as a
substantive, with a durative, ongoing, sense implied in the passive participle; 94 Daniels trustworthiness was
as characteristic of him as it was natural to him. Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:5 with
trustworthy.95
Trustworthy [] comes from a semantic field of terms for trust.96 In the context of Dan 6:5, the
expositor should note that corruption [passive participle] and trustworthy [passive participle] are opposites;
specifically, they are reversives, since they move in opposite directions: the basic opposition is between
continuance of a state and change to an alternate state.97 Daniels integrity takes the form of his refusal
to move from trustworthiness to corruption.
Trustworthy [] is a Semitic word for which it is difficult, if not currently impossible, to discover an
etymology. A. Jepsen writes that the earliest Aramaic use of may be translated permanent; while
the Arab cognate means to be faithful, reliable, to be secure.98 The verb appears three times in Daniel, all
of them written in the Haphel stem [Dan 2:45; 6:5, 24]. In Dan 2:45, is used to describe Daniels
interpretation of Nebuchadnezzars dream, which is pronounced , dependable. Skipping Dan 6:5
89 Van Pelt, 115.
90 KB2, 1992.
91 BDB, 1115.
92 J. Conrad, , in TDOT, vol. XIV, 594.
93 Bauer-Leander 70 g.
94 Ibid., 82 c.
95 KB2, 1816; similarly, BDB, 1081; Holladay, 397.
96 NIDOTTE, Trust.
97 D.A. Cruz, Lexical Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; reprint), 201.
98 A. Jepsen, , in TDOT, vol. I, 292.
21
for the moment, Dan 6:24 is Darius evaluation of Daniels faith in the lions den episode, which is
characterized as , Daniel trusted in God; Daniel was faithful.
The sense of the Haphel of in Aramaic is closest to the sense of the Niphal of in Hebrew.
The usage of the Niphal participle of as an adjective, dependable/trustworthy and the like in
Hebrew, is taken up by the Haphel participle of used as an adjective in Aramaic.99
Accordingly, in the Hebrew Niphal, which sheds lexical light on the Aramaic Haphel, means to
prove to be firm, reliable, faithful; trustworthy.100 Essentially in the Hebrew Bible, there is a spiritual
component in /trustworthiness; for example, the /faithful priest is one who lives according to
what is in Yahwehs heart and soul [1 Samuel 2:35], or the psalmist whose walk is blameless before
Yahweh [Psalm 101:6]. Then, Abraham is described as one who is /faithful before Yahweh
[Nehemiah 9:8], a passage that recalls Abrahams enduring personal relationship with Yahweh. Common
to these usages is the sense that the /trustworthy one is completely devoted to Yahweh.101 Finally,
devotion arising from a personal relationship seems to be what Darius witnesses to when he affirms that,
having been delivered from the lions den, Daniel /trusted in his God [Dan 6:24]. The upshot is
this: /trustworthy essentially points to Daniels reliability as a government functionary; Daniel is
dependable, consistent, steadfast, above board, a man of integrity. At the same time, Daniels
/trustworthiness cannot be divorced from his devotion to Yahweh; indeed, Daniels devotion to the
laws of his God is evident to his antagonists [Dan 6:6c].
In Dan 6:5e, the contrast, begun in Dan 6:5c, is rounded out: neither negligence nor corruption could be
found in him.
Negligence [ (noun, fm, sg)] is an Aramaic noun that has a Jewish Aramaic cognate
[] that means mistake, error; in Dan 6:5, Kohler-Baumgartner translate with
negligence.102 BDB adds for Dan 6:5 remissness.103 The net effect is that Daniel was neither careless
nor inattentive nor slipshod in his government work.
Summary. Dan 6:5 displays two speech acts: assertive speech acts in Dan 6:5a, 5b, 5c, and 5e; and a
verdictive speech act in Dan 6:5d.
In Dan 6:5a, the author employs an assertive speech act to convey the facts in the case
concerning the conspirators initial efforts to smear Daniel; the authors words fit the world the conspirators
were trying to manufacture. The essence of the state of affairs the author represents for the reader is:
Daniels deceitful foes, from exclusively self-interested motives, begin searching for any allegation
whatsoever, valid or invalid, that would discredit him. The smear could be legitimate or otherwise; the
truth claim in the speech act involves the fact that legitimacy was irrelevant as long as some scandal could
be found.
In Dan 6:5b, the author utilizes another assertive speech act to unfold the truth about just what
the conspirators were looking for to launch their smear campaign, the authors words matching perfectly
the efforts the conspirators were making. Essentially, the collaborators were intending to attack Daniel
from the political realm, looking for some slip-up in his professional administrative duties.
99 E. Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by Mark
Biddle, 3 volumes (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997); H. Wildberger, , 139 [hereafter TLOT 1, 2, 3].
100 KB1, 63.
101 Jepsen, 296.
103 BDB, 1115.
22
In Dan 6:5c, the author makes use of an assertive speech act to stress the fact that the conspiracy
failed; the authors words tally exactly with the collapse of the plotters efforts to smear Daniel politically.
Not only did the conspirators fail to dredge up an allegation that would discredit Daniel, more specifically
they also failed to uncover even a whisper of ethical malfeasance within the sphere of Daniels oversight.
In Dan 6:5c, the author utilizes a verdictive speech act to proffer the basis for Daniels stellar
reputation; the author evaluates Daniels character as trustworthy; and once more the evaluation
corresponds to the character of the man flawlessly. The authors verdict on Daniel unveils his ethical and
spiritual depth. Daniels trustworthiness principally points to Daniels reliability as a government
functionary; Daniel is dependable, consistent, steadfast, above board, a man of integrity. At the same time,
Daniels reliability as a professional cannot be divorced from his devotion to Yahweh.
Then, in Dan 6:5e, the author reintroduces the assertive speech act to continue affirming the truth
that the conspiracy failed; what the author writes harmonizes exactly with the schemers failure to discover
any negligence in Daniels professional/political career. Daniel was neither slipshod nor remiss nor shoddy
in his government work.
Reflection. Dan 6:5c-e extol Daniels professional virtues in the court of Nebuchadnezzar.
Daniels work history was spotless: there was no ground for accusation; there was no corruption; and
neither was there even a hint of negligence. Rather, up to this time, about 65 years or so, Daniel had
conducted himself in the royal court in a thoroughly trustworthy manner.
The reader would do well to reflect on where and under what circumstances this exemplary record
was made public. To be sure, the worldview of the royal court would have been poles apart from that of
Daniel throughout the 65 years. Yet, Daniel endures and even excels in such a harsh and spiritually
disoriented environment.
For example, the military campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar could be extremely harsh. Even Yahweh
predicted that when Nebuchadnezzar fell upon Judah, he would do so without sparing them, showing them
neither compassion nor pity [Jeremiah 21:7]. Nebuchadnezzar would swoop into Judah and utterly destroy
them, making nation and inhabitants a horror to behold [Jeremiah 25:9]. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar seems to
have had Yahwehs permission to completely crush those nations that refused Nebuchadnezzars political
yoke [Jeremiah 27:8]. The net effect is that, as a military commander, Nebuchadnezzar could be
unequivocally ruthless.
Beyond that, Nebuchadnezzars grip over the citizens within his realm could be equally punitive
and unforgiving. The poster child for the tyrants iron rule is the story with which Daniel would have been
quite familiar: his three Jewish comrades condemned to cremation [Dan 3:6]. Now, this was not the only
occasion recorded in the Old Testament where Nebuchadnezzar sentenced people to the crematorium. He
consigned two false prophets to the crematorium in Jeremiah 29:22. However, in the case of Daniel 3, any
citizen of Babylon who did not fall and worship Nebuchadnezzars statue had a date with the crematorium.
The upshot is that, as a ruler within the confines of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar was vindictive, callous, and
cold-blooded.
Finally, Daniels own experience of Nebuchadnezzar was on a different plane: Daniel interacted
with Nebuchadnezzar on a more spiritual [idolatrous] level. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzars dream of a
great statue [an idol], Daniel informs the tyrant that in spite of all of his power it is Yahweh who has granted
him this dominion for reasons of His own and for a predetermined time [Dan 2:21, 36-38]. Eventually, as a
result of interacting with Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar publically testifies that Daniels God is the God of gods
and Lord of kings [Dan 2:47]. In Daniel 4, the dream of great tree that is hewn down, Daniel forewarns
Nebuchadnezzar that unless he acknowledges Yahweh as sovereign over human governance,
23
Nebuchadnezzar will be reduced to an animalistic status [Dan 4:29]. Nebuchadnezzar ignores the warning
and suffers the fate [Dan 4:30]. Eventually, Nebuchadnezzar does glorify the everlasting dominion of
Yahweh [Dan 4:31-34]. The upshot is that, for the most part, Daniel challenges Nebuchadnezzars idolatry
with Daniels monotheistic adherence to and witness of Yahweh.
To put things in a nutshell, Daniel had performed exemplary service for roughly 65 years in an
administration that was militarily ruthless, internally merciless, and spiritually idolatrous. The question is:
how could Daniel perform such outstanding work in such an abysmal working environment?
We know that Daniel was in the habit of reading Jeremiah [Dan 9:2]; and it is from Jeremiah that
we may extract two principles by which Daniel could live such an admirable life in such unworthy
circumstances.
The first principle is this: Nebuchadnezzar was in reality doing the bidding of Yahweh. In
Jeremiah 27:6, Daniel would have read that it was Yahweh who had given Nebuchadnezzar all of his
conquests; it was not Nebuchadnezzar who independently and with his own savvy and might had seized his
victories. While Daniel might not have understood all of Yahwehs will regarding Judah and Babylon,
while there was considerable mystery concerning the dismal saga of the vanquished and the vanquisher,
Daniel did grasp the fact that, when all was said and done, Yahweh was the supreme Lord of human history.
From Daniels point of view, it may have been easier to accommodate the vagaries of the what in life,
armed with the fact that he did know the why behind the circumstances in his life; Daniel grasped the larger
picture; thus he could endure the mysteries concealed in the details. It would have been enough for Daniel
to know that, appearances to the contrary, God was in charge of the political/governmental fortunes of
Judah and Babylon.
The second principle is this: Daniel and his people had been told by Yahweh, while in exile, make
the best of it. In Jeremiah 29:4-7, Daniel would have read this portion of a letter sent from Jeremiah to the
eldership among the exiles. Among other things, Daniel would have understood that the exiles were to
build homes, plant gardens [Jeremiah 29:5], marry and have children [Jeremiah 29:6], and seek the welfare
of the city [Jeremiah 29:7]. Significantly, Daniel would have recognized that this exile was not to be openended; it had a beginning and it had an end, seventy years [Jeremiah 29:10]. From Daniels point of view,
the charge to seek the welfare of the city may well have been completely inexplicable, severing Daniel and
his fellow exiles from the forms of governance they were accustomed to. Once more, it is just conceivable
that Daniel did not understand what Yahweh was up to, but Daniel did apprehend what it was Yahweh
wanted him to do: seek the welfare of the city. This charge to seek the welfare of the nation-state, Babylon,
would surely explain Daniels exemplary professional career in Babylon for 65 years: Daniel was seeking
the welfare of the city for reasons he did not fully comprehend; ultimately, Daniel, following Yahwehs
advice, was making the best of a bad situation.
As we reflect on this history and these two principles, Daniel models an important behavior for us
today: Daniel plays the hand that had been dealt to him and does his best for God. Like Daniel, we may not
always understand fully what God is up to in our lives, our nation, our world; but, if we search the
Scriptures, as Daniel did, we shall find our function, our part to play, in the midst of Yahwehs mysterious
and relentless management of His Universe. Often, faced with the vagaries of life, it is enough to know
that, appearances to the contrary, God is Lord of daily life along with national and international geopolitical
events; we simply accept the mysterious, anchored in the certainty that God is master of the perplexities of
human history.
This, in turn, permits Daniel to make the best of a bad situation. Daniel, as Dan 6:5 makes
abundantly clear, excelled in his appointed tasks in the Babylonian court. Daniel did not ask to be in
Babylon; he probably never dreamed that he would spend 65 years of his working life in Babylon; and he
surely did not approve of the idolatrous lifestyle in foreign lands where he labored, as Daniel 6 is about to
make perfectly clear. At the same time, Daniel did not lash out at God for his predicament; he did not
become embittered or disillusioned or dissatisfied; rather, Daniel determined from the Word of God, what
his role should be and he made the best of a bad situation.
24
Most of us go through life, especially our professional lives, wishing we were elsewhere, wishing
we had made different choices, wishing we could be anywhere other than where we are. So be it; there are
times, sadly many of them, when, like modern day Daniels, we yearn for Jerusalem but endure Babylon.
Perhaps at such times we should follow Daniels lead: take it on faith that God has His hand in where we
are, doing what we are doing, and make the best of it by doing our best for God.
Dan 6:6 So then, these men said: We shall not find any ground of accusation against Daniel personally;
unless we find it against him in the laws of his God.
Dan 6:6 is the narration of the conspirators plan B. Having failed to find any professional
misstep in Daniels public duties in the royal court [Dan 6:5], they pivot to Daniels private life, his faith
[Dan 6:6]. Russell captures the thrust of Dan 6:6 writing The religious man of principle is easy prey to
those who sniff and snoop and is most vulnerable at the very point where his convictions are most
strong.104
In Dan 6:6b, there really is not anything new; the ground of accusation has been treated in Dan 6:5a.
In Dan 6:6c, the conspirators tip their hand; they will peer into Daniels private life: unless we find
it against him in the laws of his God.
Law [] is an Aramaic noun of Persian origin that has three ranges of meaning: [1] a royal
command, [2] state legislation or public law, and [3] the law of God or more generally law as
religion.105 Kohler-Baumgartner render in Dan 6:6 with law as religion, perhaps in the sense of
connected with his religion.106 Holladay affirms that can refer to either [1] the Law of God in the
sense of Torah, or [2] religion.107 Herbert Wolf affirms that in Dan 6:6 the4 sense of amounts to
religious customs or practices.108
Law [] is consistently used in the Aramaic of Ezra in the sense of the Law of God.109 The noun is used
in Daniel is the sense of a royal command/decree [Dan 2:9, 13, 15; Dan 6:9], a state law [Dan 6:13, 16],
and law of God [Dan 7:25]. In Dan 6:6, the reader must take into account who is using ; that is, these
pagan Persian politicians could be using in the sense of Daniels religious practices in general. The
Septuagint tradition represented by Theodotion uses for , a Greek noun that points to
that which is conformable to law, lawful.110 This more abstract translation by Theodotion indicates that
he understood in the sense of the laws connected with Daniels religion. Significantly, the remaining
uses of in Daniel [Dan 6:9, 13, 16] expose the conspirators end game: put Daniels commitment to
the laws connected with his religion [Dan 6:6] in conflict with the laws of the Medes and the Persians.
Dan 6:6b is an assertive speech act, conveying the fact of the matter that the conspirators were completely
stymied in their efforts to find a chink in Daniels professional armor. The authors words harmonize
104 J.C.L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, Daniel by D.S. Russell (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1981), 100.
105 KB2, 1856.
106 Ibid.
107 Holladay, 403.
108 R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, B.K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
, by Herbert Wolf (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980); hereafter abbreviated TWOT.
109 See Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25-26.
110 BAGD, 541.
25
exactly with their failure. Daniels foes could find no smear, valid or invalid, that would tarnish his
impeccable professional and public reputation.
Dan 6:6c is also an assertive speech act, declaring the facticity of the new conspiracy: the plan
was to ensnare Daniel into defying some state law in the exercise of his faith. Having failed to trap him in
respect of his civic responsibilities, which were impeccable in their execution, they tried to catch him out in
respect of private religious observances.111
III.Narrative of conspirators petition to Darius [Dan 6:7-10]

6:7a
So then, these high
officials and provincial
governors came storming into the king;

6:7b

and thus said to him:
6:7c

King Darius, may you
live forever!
6:8a

All of the high officials of the
realm,

the prefects and provincial
governors,

the counselors and provincial
commissioners
have taken counsel with each other,
6:8b

with the result that the
king should establish a royal
statute and enforce a legal prohibition;
6:8c

namely that, any who
makes a petition to any god,
6:8d

or man for thirty days,
6:8e

except to you, O king,
6:8f

will be cast into a den of lions.
6:9a

Now, O king, may you establish the
statute,
6:9b

and may you sign the document;
6:9c

so that it may not be
changed according to the law
6:9d

which cannot be revoked!
6:10a
Because of this;
6:10b
king Darius signed the
document and statute.
111 Russell, Daniel, 100.

26
The genre of Dan 6:7-10 is essentially a petition, which amounts to a request or plea from one
person to another asking for some definite response.112 The petition narrative is initiated with an
introductory statement, underscoring the fact that these counselors came storming into the king, suggesting
that these conspirators approached the king en masse so as to influence him via overwhelming numerical
support for their petition [Dan 6:7a]. Then, after the statutory salute to the king [Dan 6:7c], the
conspirators confront the king with the consensus behind their petition [Dan 6:8a], followed by the content
of the petition itself [Dan 6:8b-f], and concluded with the call to sign the bill into law while highlighting
the irrevocability of the statute [Dan 6:9]. The narrative concludes with Darius signing the bill into law.
Dan 6:7 So then, these high officials and provincial governors came storming into the king; and thus said
to him: King Darius, may you live forever!
Came storming into [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is used three times in Daniel 6 [Dan 6:7,
12, 16]. The Aramaic verb [] is used only in the Haphel in Daniel and means basically to enter in a
crowd in Dan 6:7 according to Kohler-Baumgartner.113 In Imperial and Egyptian Aramaic, the verb is
used in the sense of to be angry; in Jewish Aramaic, the term can mean to be uneasy; in Syriac, the
cognate means to be excited.114 BDB more or less follows suit with the sense of the ancient Near Eastern
cognates, translating in Dan 6:7 with to show tumultuousness, to come thronging.115 Rosenthal
opts for to assemble.116 So far, based upon the ancient Near Eastern cognates, is used with
connotations of commotion and clamor; the verb as used outside Aramaic Bible does indeed suggest
coming to the king enflamed by a powerful desire to be rid of Daniel, and thus flocking tumultuously to
the king.117 Indeed, if all 120 of these various leaders came to Darius en masse, a certain amount of
commotion would be expected.
In Dan 6:7, the author uses an assertive speech act to, among other things, truthfully and artfully depict the
hubbub associated with the conspirators approach to Darius with their petition; the fit between what is said
and reality is word to world; that is, these conspirators were unified in their opposition to Daniel and the
strength of their numbers flocking to Darius shows it. Uneasy and keyed up as they were, there was acrossthe-board support for the proposal these leaders were about to make; there was bi-partisan backing for the
projected bill, accompanied by fairly intense urgency to get the bill signed into law.
The consensus for the petition [Dan 6:8a]
Dan 6:8a All of the high officials of the realm, the prefects and provincial governors, the counselors and
the provincial commissioners have taken counsel with each other.
All [ (noun, ms, sg, construct)] should be read at face value; Kohler-Baumgartner note that
when is used before a plural noun that is definite [the high officials, etc.] the sense is simply all.118
We know, from Esther 1:19-20 and 3:9, that in Persia proposals for legislation could be initiated by those
other than the king. Accordingly, there is no denial of protocol in Dan 6:8a when these provincial leaders
approach Darius with their proposed legislation.
113 KB2, 1979.
114 Ibid.
115 BDB, 1112.
116 Rosenthal, 96.
117 Driver, Daniel, 73; similarly, Collins, Daniel, 266.
118 KB2, 1898.
27
Have taken counsel together [ (Ithpaal, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is written in the Ithpaal stem, a
stem that is reflexive/reciprocal:119 they took counsel among themselves. The Ithpaal stem may be read in
such a way as to infer that this counsel taking was improvised, as opposed to signaling a regular sitting
counsel.
Take counsel [] is used only here in Daniel. The Aramaic verb [] is used in Ezra as plural
participles to designate seven royal counselors [Ezra 7:14-15]; these appear to be an officially constituted
group of consultants. The use in Dan 6:8 need not imply nor demand an official group of advisors. This
Aramaic verb [] in the Ithpaal means to take counsel with each other, to agree after mutual
consultation.120 Holladay suggests that in Dan 6:8 means to deliberate.121 Another option,
nicely suited to the context, is that these leaders conspired together.122 The Septuagint translator,
Theodotion, uses the Greek verb in the middle voice, which has two ranges of
meaning: [1] consult, plot, and [2] meditate on, consider.123 The first option, consult or plot, fits the
context better and also buttresses the observation in TWOT: there is, in the use of the verb in Dan 6:8, a
negative accent, a flavor of intrigue, maneuvering, and trickery; in a nutshell, there is more than
deliberation here, there is chicanery of a high order. The upshot is that the reader may nuance have taken
counsel together in the arresting sense suggested by Russell: They had hatched a plot; 124 they had
reached consensus.
The content of the petition [Dan 6:8b-f]
Dan 6:8b-f with the result that the king should establish a royal statute and enforce a legal prohibition ;
namely that, any who makes a petition to any god, or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, will be
cast into a den of lions.
With the result that should establish [ (Pael, infinitive construct)] is tethered to the main
verb in Dan 6:8a they have taken counsel together (6:8a) with the result that should establish (6:8b).
In Biblical Aramaic, the infinitive construct may be used to signal the result or outcome of the action to
which it is attached.125 Syntactically, these conspirators hatched a plot with the result of that counsel being
that Darius should establish a statute.
Establish a royal statute [ ] is an infinitive [establish] with the direct object
of the infinitive [a statute]. The infinitive is used somewhat metaphorically in the sense of set up,
establish, according to Kohler-Baumgartner.126 The Pael stem is causative,127 the conspirators may
recommend but only Darius can establish.
119 Van Pelt, 138.

120 Rosenthal, 86; similarly, KB2, 1892; BDB, 1095.
121 Holladay, 408.
122 TWOT, 2772.
123 BAGD, 778.
125 On this use of the infinitive construct, see Van Pelt, 108.
126 KB2, 1968; similarly, Holladay, 418; BDB, 1110.
127 Van Pelt, 131.
28
Royal statute [ (noun, ms, sg, construct)] is actually a genitive construction, literally the
statute of the king. In this case, the genitive is an attributive genitive where royal more or less
characterizes the statute.128 Statute [] signals quite simply a decree, statute.129 The upshot is
that the conspirators are urging Darius to put in force a decree.130 Finally, the fact that the collaborators
are asking for a royal statute may indicate that since Darius was a foreigner and new to the throne, his
position required strengthening,131 hence the specification: a royal decree.
Enforce a legal prohibition [ (noun, ms, sg) (Pael, infinitive construct)] is also an
infinitive clause signaling a further result or outcome: not only establish this edict but also enforce it. Once
more, the Pael is causative; the collaborators remind Darius that his is the responsibility for enforcing the
decree.
Enforce [] is from a semantic field of terms for power or strength.132 KohlerBaumgartner translate in Dan 6:8 with make stringent, enforce.133 Robin Wakely notes that in
Biblical Aramaic, the root reflects the underlying meaning of strength. 134 In this context, given the
purpose behind the edict, there seems to be a sense of inflexibility, strictness in enforcement, a severe and
rigid adherence to the letter of the law implied in the usage of in Dan 6:8. The expositor may read
the verb in this sense: enforce rigidly and inflexibly.
Legal prohibition [] carries forward the austerity of the conspirators proposal. The severity of
is unveiled by Kohler-Baumgartners note on the noun: the basic meaning is
bond>binding>fetter>prohibition.135 In Jewish Aramaic, the root [] signifies a bond, chain,
binding, and in Dan 6:8 points to a prohibition, interdict.136 BDB follows suit, translating
in Dan 6:8 with an interdict (as binding).137 TWOT renders in the sense of a decree of
restriction.138 Robin Wakely affirms that there is an element of binding obligation implied in .139
The net effect is that with there is both restriction as well as binding obligation; the expositor may
read: enforce rigidly and inflexibly this binding legal obligation. Once more, the contextual situation that
gives rise to this in the first place must be remembered: the conspirators are intent on binding
Daniel in a restrictive legal trap; they intend to place him in a position with only one way out resistance.
128 See Bauer-Leander 89 f.

129 Holladay, 418; see also KB2, 1970.
130 Montgomery, 273.
131 Slotki, 48.
132 See Power, strength in NIDOTTE.
134 Robin Wakely, , in NIDOTTE [H9548].
135 KB2, 1821.
136 Ibid.
137 BDB, 1082.
138 TWOT, [2595b].
139 Robin Wakely, , NIDOTTE [H674].
29
In Dan 6:8c, the conspirators lay bare the key content of the decree, beginning with the law itself [Dan
6:8c-e] and the sanction attached to the law [Dan 6:8f]. The content of the decree includes its scope, its
specifics, and its sanction.
The scope of this recommended edict is universal: any [] in Dan 6:8c. There are no surprises
here; while the schemers are, in reality after only one man, Daniel, the scope of their project is empirewide.
The specifics of the law are threefold: its substance make a petition to any god or man [Dan
6:8c] its span for thirty days [Dan 6:8d] and its decisive stress except to you, O king [Dan
6:8e].
In Dan 6:8c, the substance of the edict concerns offering prayer: make a petition to any god or
man. The author does not tell us why, out of all of the spiritual issues pertaining to the laws of Daniels
God [Dan 6:6], the conspirators chose prayer. A decent guess, and a guess is all that it is, is that after
being in the government for 65 years, Daniels prayer habits were a matter of common knowledge. As far
as the narrative goes, the author evidently does not think that the reasons behind this target are germane; it
is enough to set up the moral tug of war between the laws of Daniels God and the law of the Medes and
the Persians.
Make a petition [ ] features the same Aramaic root [/] for both the
verb [] and the direct object []; the construction is called a cognate accusative, literally to
request a prayer. Kohler-Baumgartner translate the cognate accusative in Dan 6:8c with to utter a
prayer.140 Similarly, Holladay proposes for the construction in Dan 6:8c, to offer a prayer.141
The verb is used twelve times in the book of Daniel.142 As used in Daniel, has five ranges of usage:
[1] one human being searches after another human being [Dan 2:13; 4:33]; [2] one human being searches
for a favor from another human being [Dan 2:16, 49]; [3] one human searches for compassion from God or
a deity [Dan 2:18, 23; Dan 6:12, 14]; [4] one human searches for some defect in another [Dan 6:5]; and [5]
one human searches for an answer to a mystery from a heavenly being [Dan 7:16].
In Dan 6:8c, make a petition presumes both senses [2] and [3] above; make a petition involves Daniel, and
anyone else in the empire for that matter, with performing two activities in the same petitionary process:
from the kings point of view, means searching for a favor from him, and from the petitioners point
of view, means searching for compassion in some form from God or a deity depending on the
petitioner. Indeed, this is precisely the trap for Daniel, and others like him, after this edict becomes the law
of the land: when it boils down to a question of divine sovereignty, it is only to God that Daniel is willing
to pray, or make a request, as his enemies knew quite well.143
In Dan 6:8d, the span over which the edict is to apply is stipulated: for thirty days. The expositor will have
no difficulty understanding the meaning here: the edict on prayer was to be in force for only thirty days.
But, why the time limit? Why thirty days? The answer may lie in Darius [Cyrus] normal pattern in dealing
with the religious affairs of his people: he typically left religion alone. Professor Thompson writes, Cyrus,
as a wise ruler, left the religious institutions of the people alone; indeed, regarding the sacred images
Cyrus, recognizing the first fundamentals of the empire, restored them to their shrines in sympathy with
the different religions of his new subjects.144 The upshot is that, knowing the kings preferential pattern, as
140 KB2, 1836.
141 Holladay, 400.
142 Dan 2:13, 16, 18, 23, 49; 4:33; 6:5, 8, 12-14; 7:16.
143 Charles Isbell, , in TWOT [2635].
144 Thompson, Cambridge Ancient History, vol III, 225.
30
well as the potential for public outcry following upon this edict, the conspirators must have dangled the
thirty day time span as an incentive: the period of the edict was limited, and no possible harm could be
envisaged.145
In Dan 6:8e, the principle stress explicit in the edict is specified: except to you, O king. It would seem that
except to you grants the king a kind of divine status. Montgomery summarizes the situation vis--vis
Darius: this one king was to be regarded for the time being as the only representative of the Deity.146 If
this is the case, the appeal to Darius hubris may well have been the hook used by the conspirators to
manipulate Darius into this edict. While it is generally accepted by scholars that the typical Persian king
would not have permitted such self-deification, there are occasions when leaders with unassailable power
make appalling choices; perhaps this is one of them. When all is said and done, the author makes a truth
claim: Darius submitted to the conspirators plan; thus, the process is now set in motion whereby extreme
loyalty to the king can be measured.147
In Dan 6:8f, the inevitable sanction is declared: cast into a den of lions. The noun translated den is ,
which Kohler-Baumgartner translate pit for lions in Dan 6:8.148 The corresponding Hebrew noun
[] is used for a ditch, stowage-tank.149 If we take Daniel 6 at face value, then the following picture
of this pit emerges: [1] evidently the pit was a kind of subterranean cavern so that the king could walk up to
the opening of the pit and speak to Daniel (Dan 6:17); [2] the pit could be sealed by rolling a stone across
the opening (Dan 6:18); [3] the royal seal evidently could be visible to any who approached the sealed
opening (Dan 6:18); and [4] apparently, the opening of the pit was at the top, since the conspirators were
slain by the lions before they reached the bottom of the cavern (Dan 6:25). Hartman and Di Lella
summarize the physical configuration of the pit: The place where the lions were kept is therefore pictured
here as a subterranean cave or room having a relatively small opening at the top, which could be closed by
a large stone.150
John Goldingay, among others, notes that Persian kings freely exercised the power of life and death,
including almost exquisitely horrible forms of execution.151 Evidently, Persian kings could be
exceptionally barbaric in matters of capital punishment. Even though using lions as a form of execution is
unknown in the region, one must leave room for barbaric creativity.152
The call for an irrevocable petition [Dan 6:9]
145 Baldwin, 128.

146 Montgomery, 270; see also Tremper Longman III, The NIV Application Commentary: Daniel
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 100.
147 Longman, Daniel, 166.
149 David J.A. Clines, ed., The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix Press, 2009), 58 [hereafter abbreviated CDCH].
150 Louis Hartman and Alexander Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2005; paperback edition), 199.
151 Ralph Martin, ed., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel by John Goldingay (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1989), 128; see also Montgomery, 270.
152 Anyone who doubts the notion of barbaric creativity should consult the imaginative ways in
which the German SS slaughtered Jewish men, women, and children in the Third Reich.
31
Dan 6:9 Now, O king, may you establish the statute, and may you sign the document; so that it may not
be changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked!
Sign the document [ ] is one translation; some English versions render put it in
writing. Kohler-Baumgartner render in Dan 6:9 with write, put in writing.153 BDB offers two
ranges of meaning: inscribe and sign.154 Rosenthal offers to draw, to draw up, to inscribe, to write.155
Theodotion seems to prefer the put it in writing option, using the Greek verb , which
means expose, explain, set forth. Liddell-Scott-Jones add to fix, exhibit publically, post up, set out for
.156
The Aramaic verb is used seven times in Daniel.157 Six of these occurrences feature the verb written in the
perfect aspect; only one, Dan 6:9, has the simple waw prefixed to an imperfect aspect [] used
in a jussive [directive, imperatival] sense. The simple waw [ (and then)] tells us that the usage of
in Dan 6:9 is tethered to the previous verbal collocation in Dan 6:8: they have taken counsel
together [Dan 6:8a] with the result that should establish [Dan 6:8b] and enforce [Dan 6:8b]; so now,
establish [Dan 6:9 (directive, imperatival may you)] and sign [Dan 6:9 (directive, imperatival)].
We have argued above that establish a royal statute is tantamount to putting said statute in force;
this, in turn in Dan 6:8, is followed by enforce what you have established. Now, taken together, the two
intentions articulated in Dan 6:8b establish and enforce must in the nature of things imply that the
statute be in written form [established] so it can then be enforced. The only step that is necessary to initiate
the enforcement of the statute is the signature of the king in Dan 6:9. He therefore signed the document
which made him god-king for thirty days.158
So that it may not be changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians [
] is written in the Masoretic text as one single unit of thought;
that is, there are no pauses, punctuation marks, between any of the words in this clause. The minor break,
pause, comes after Persians. While I admit that the punctuation marks were supplied by the Masoretes,
and therefore, are not inspired, at the same time, they should be taken into account. The import of the
punctuation should be clear: the Masoretes must have read this clause as the key assertion in Dan 6:9; that
is, once the bill was signed into law [Dan 6:9b] it became irrevocable [Dan 6:9c]. Both Daniel and Darius
were boxed in.
So that [] is a relative particle that is used in a final sense: so that.159 Since this clause, Dan
6:9c, is the net effect of Dan 6:9b, this adds weight to the reading of as signature. What is more,
and this is more vital to note, the so that [] clause communicates the critical moment in the scheme:
everyone will be locked in.
153 KB2, 1984.

154 BDB, 1113.
155 Rosenthal, 97.
156 LSJ, 522.
157 Dan 5:24, 25; 6:9, 10, 11, 13, 14.
158 Baldwin, 128.
159 Bauer-Leander 70 c.
32
May not be changed [ ] references the signed statute. The verb [] in the Haphel
stem means to alter.160 Indeed, the root [] comes from a semantic field of terms for change.161
BDB offers for the Haphel of change, alter, frustrate.162 Holladay follows suit with alter (a
decree) or violate (an order).163 We noted above that the end-game was that everyone be locked in;
notice that, from the kings point of view, means that he cannot alter the statute, and from Daniels
point of view, means that he cannot violate it. Both the king and the prophet have been framed!
According to the law of the Medes and the Persians [ ] is reminiscent of Esther
1:19, which echoes the immutability of Persian law. Moreover, Esther 8:8 tells us that no Persian law
initiated by a Persian king can be revoked. Collins writes, Two factors may have contributed to the belief
that Persian laws were immutable: one is the obvious insistence that no subordinate officer could change
what was decreed by the king and marked by his seal; the other is that the laws were to be preserved (in
some cases by public inscription) so that they should not pass away that is, be lost of go out of effect. 164
Recall, however, that this particular law of the Medes and the Persians was limited to one month.
Which cannot be revoked [ ] is a relative clause ostensibly used to emphasize the
permanence of Persian law. The Aramaic verb [] in the Peal stem has a variety of usages: [1] the
smoke from the fire in the furnace does not even touch the three young Jews (Dan 3:27); [2]
Nebuchadnezzars sovereignty is removed from him for a fixed period of time (Dan 4:31); [3] the laws of
the Medes and the Persians cannot be dissolved or rescinded (Dan 6:9, 13); and [4] a kingdom is destined to
appear upon the earth that will never cease to exist (Dan 7:14). Kohler-Baumgartner translate in
Dan 6:9 with annulled.165 Holladay opts for vanish, be annulled.166 Driver observes that
encompasses the unalterableness of the edicts of a Persian king. 167
The upshot is that Daniel is placed between a rock and a hard place: that is, he is trapped between the
irreversible Persian law and the incontestable divine law. There are no gray areas for Daniel in this dispute:
The basic tension in Daniel 6 is the conflict between Gods law and the law of the Medes and the
Persians.168
Dan 6:10 Because of this; king Darius signed the document and statute.
So, the stage is set; Daniel must choose which sovereign, the state or Yahweh, commands Daniels ultimate
loyalty.
Summary. Dan 6:7-10 displays a wide variety of speech acts, making this paragraph the most complex
thus far. Dan 6:7a is an assertive speech act with emphasis on the unanimity of the conspirators,
evidenced by the strength in numbers. Dan 6:8a is another assertive speech act, this time making a truth
160 KB2, 2001.
161 See Change in NIDOTTE.
162 BDB, 1116.
163 Holladay, 424.
165 KB2, 1944.
166 Holladay, 415.
168 Longman, 166.
33
claim about the deliberations of the conspirators, calculations that border on chicanery. Dan 6:8b is a
directive speech act, the moment when the collaborators seek to guide Darius into creating some new
legislation. Dan 6:8c-f is a commissive speech act, the instant when the conspirators attempt to maneuver
Darius into committing himself to this course of action. Then, Dan 6:9 is a directive speech act whereby
the turncoats invite Darius to finalize the legislation, making it the law of the Medes and the Persians.
In Dan 6:7a, the author employs an assertive speech act to truthfully and vividly portray the
urgency and angst of the intriguers. The author fits their demeanor to their behavior perfectly: these
conspirators were unified in their opposition to Daniel and the strength of their numbers flocking to Darius
confirms it. Uneasy and keyed up as they were, there was bi-partisan backing for the projected bill, fanned
by a fairly intense rush to get the bill signed into law. The speech act alerts the expositor to the stress, the
angst, the resolve, the consensus, to convince Darius of the worthiness of their proposal. If 120 of Persias
best and brightest back the proposed bill, what can be wrong with it?
In Dan 6:8a, the author utilizes another assertive speech act in order to truthfully characterize the
private deliberations of the conspirators. The fit is word to world, that is, the way in which the author
depicts these secret negotiations faultlessly portrays the reality. When the author represents the connivers
as having taken counsel with each other, the author underscores the truth that these schemers had hatched
a plot. The expositor will note the intrigue, the scheming, the duplicity and deception that lie beneath these
counselors deliberations.
In Dan 6:8b, the author uses a directive speech act to depict what the conspirators attempt to urge
Darius to do; the direction of fit is world to words, that is, the conspirators desire that Darius actions [his
world as it were] comport with their wishes.169 Specifically, the conspirators desire that Darius establish
the bill, that is to say, create it and put it into writing; and then enforce it without deviation, implementing
the bill rigidly and inflexibly.
In Dan 6:8c-f, the author applies a commissive speech act in order to depict the course of action the
conspirators intend that Darius commits himself to in the future:170 anyone who does not pray to you will
have a date with a den of lions. Embedded within this speech act is a none-too-subtle lure for Darius: the
king will be a de facto Deity for thirty days. Naturally, the expositor observes that this pseudo-deity status
is anathema to Daniel, thus setting up the first measure of loyalty to king or God.
Finally, in Dan 6:9, the author returns to the directive speech act, where the conspirators attempt to move
Darius to seal the deal. The expositor will concentrate on the conspirators attempt to get Darius to make
this bill iron-clad: establish it, sign it, so that it cannot be changed and is irrevocable. The directive speech
act is the schemers attempt to lock Daniel into an escape proof trap. This is the second measure of loyalty
facing Daniel: the law of the land or Yahweh.
Reflection. There can be little doubt that, reading Dan 6:7-10 from a believers perspective, the clash
between conflicting loyalties, the law of the land or God, is alive and well. To put the same thing another
way, the tension between the Law of God and the law of the Medes and the Persians is as inevitable as it is
ongoing; believers simply cannot avoid it. There are some entailments arising out of this unavoidable
clash.
First, believers should not seek to escape this conflict. It simply will not do to compartmentalize
ones Christian life into water-tight partitions, such as Church or State. It simply will not do to concentrate
exclusively on ones private Christian life and let the state, the laws of the land, or even politics, go their
merry way. Daniels response prefigures something Jesus insisted upon: His people are the light of the
world, the salt of the earth; believers cannot abdicate their public responsibility to leaven their social
environment with the truth of Gods word.
169 On the directive speech act, see Searle, 13.

170 Ibid., 14.
34
Second, believers must not compromise with this conflict. It simply will not do to wage spiritual
battles with political weapons. It simply will not do to waste time countering God-defying laws of the land
by voting for the proper political candidate or supporting a countervailing piece of legislation. We shall
note Daniels response in the next section, Dan 6:11; for now, it is sufficient to note that Daniel did not
even attempt to offset Darius ill-conceived law by seeking legal redress. Quite the opposite; the believer is
obligated to wage spiritual battles with spiritual weapons. Effectively, this means bringing transcendent
moral values, derived from expository study of and prayerful theological reflection upon Scripture, to bear
in public moral discourse. When all is said and done, the conflict between God-defying laws of the land
and the holy Word of God is a conflict of competing moralities; the believer is obligated to challenge these
secular moralities with reasoned, seasoned, and scripturally based counter-arguments; in a nutshell, we
must insist on talking about the God of the Bible publically.
IV.
Narrative of Daniels response to Darius decree [Dan 6:11]
6:11a
So, as soon as Daniel
knew that the written decree
was signed,
6:11b
he entered his house,
6:11c where windows were open
on his roof chamber
facing Jerusalem;
6:11d three times
during the day, he prayed upon his knees,
6:11e
imploring and praising in the presence of
God,
6:11f

just as he had
been doing before this.
The genre of Dan 6:11 is narrative, a historical account of the events that followed Darius
signing his law of the Medes and the Persians. The author intends to communicate history for us, a
narrative of past events that are governed by facts, as far as the writer could ascertain and interpret
them.171
Dan 6:11a is a temporal clause introduced by : as soon as.172 The author intends to communicate
the immediacy with which Daniel responds to the signing of the bill. Knowing just what was at stake, his
personal, ethical dilemma, Daniel is attracted toward familiar ground: prayer. Baldwin makes a very

172 For used temporally, see Rosenthal 86; Bauer-Leander 70 t.
35
pertinent observation, If the possibility occurred to him that he could change his prayer routine, or pray
without appearing to do so, it was dismissed as out of the question.173
Dan 6:11c informs us that the windows on Daniels roof were open facing Jerusalem. If there is a
precedent for facing Jerusalem in prayer, it is Solomons pattern in 1 Kings 8.174 Slotki writes, The
custom, firmly established among Jews, of praying towards the holy city, originated in Solomons
prayer.175 That Jews followed this practice during the exile is made clear in 1 Esdras 4:58. The reader
should appreciate the faith, the hope, and the love implied in praying toward Jerusalem. Indeed, Jerusalem
lay in ruins, but Daniels faith could not relinquish the hope that Jerusalem would eventually be restored;
Jerusalem lay in ruins, but the devastated city was still the earthly symbol of every heavenly blessing that
Daniel loved.
Dan 6:11d discloses two of the details of Daniels prayer life: [1] three times during the day [2] he prayed
upon his knees.
Three times a day [ ] is possibly reminiscent of Psalm 55:18:
evening, morning and noon. At the same time, the author of Psalm 119 mentions prayer seven times a day
[Psalm 119:164]. Goldingay writes that the times of morning and evening offerings were the regular
hours for prayer.176 What all of this suggests is that Daniel disciplined his prayer life, probably according
to his own personal preference. The upshot is that prayer is a regular feature of Daniels daily life.
He prayed upon his knees [ ] is suggestive of Daniels submission and
self-abnegation. Williams notes that in the preponderance of places where prayer is mentioned in the Old
Testament, the posture is that of standing.177 Kneeling in prayer was the model followed by Solomon in
the aforementioned passage in 1 Kings 8:54; it may be that Daniel derives the posture of his prayer from
the Solomonic model. If so, then supplication is embodies in kneeling in the Solomonic prayer. In Ezra
9:5-6, kneeling before Yahweh in prayer epitomizes shame and self-mortification before Yahweh. And, in
Isaiah 45:23, kneeling symbolizes loyalty and allegiance to Yahweh. The upshot is this: kneeling in prayer
before God embodies a variety of attitudes: petition, humility, and fidelity to Yahweh.
In Dan 6:11e, the author discloses another trait of Daniels prayer life: imploring and praising. In the
Aramaic text, both of these activities are written with participles: imploring [ (Pael, participle,
ms, sg)] and praising [ (Aphel, participle, ms, sg)]. The reader may infer that these participles
signal an ongoing and habitual emphasis in Daniels prayer routine.178
Imploring [] is from an Aramaic root that means to pray, possibly with hints, if the Akkadian
cognate is taken into account, of beseech, implore.179 The Aramaic verb is used only twice in the
Aramaic Old Testament, here and Ezra 6:10. The Ezra passage advises prayer [] for the life of the
king and his sons, prayers that might well involve beseeching or imploring Yahweh on behalf of these
worthies.
173 Baldwin, 128-29.

174 1 Kings 8:30, 35, 42, 44, 48, 54.
175 Slotki, 49.
176 Goldingay, 128.
177 William Williams, , NIDOTTE [H1384].
178 See Rosenthal 177.
179 KB2, 1964.
36
Imploring [] is used more extensively in the Dead Sea Scrolls; especially helpful is the use of
in the Genesis Apocryphon. In this collection of stories concerning, among others, Abraham and
Sarah, the Qumran author embellishes some of the details of the couples sojourn in Egypt in Genesis 12.
That portion of the Egyptian adventure that the author embroiders is the Egyptians fascination with the
beauty of Sarah.
We pick the story up in the Apocryphon where the Egyptian pharaoh takes Sarah for himself. Not
knowing what else to do, Abraham prays and asks God to intervene. The key passage for our purpose is
1Q20:12.180 As the reader can see from the translation below, is used in concert with other words
for prayer that stress beseeching and imploring, including pleading for pity; thus, the Dead Sea author has
Abraham virtually begging for mercy. Indeed, Abrahams emotional state, deep grief, tears flowing,
practically demands that the prayer language mirrors the supplicants heartfelt longing.
The net effect is that imploring [] in Daniels setting does not differ much from Abraham in
the apocryphal account of his sojourn in Egypt: both are in an impossible situation and both must plead,
beseech, entreat, earnestly implore Yahwehs intervention; otherwise, there is no way out. If this is true,
then the author relating Daniels predicament uses a word for prayer that reflects Daniels quandary at the
time: Daniel must implore God to intervene in the impasse Daniel fully understands is his. Daniel is not
going to challenge Darius and the law of the Medes and the Persians on his own strength.
Praising [] in written in the Aphel stem, which Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan
6:11 with praise.181 The Hebrew cognate [] is from a semantic field of terms for praise, singing,
thanksgiving.182 To the extent that this Hebrew/Aramaic verb has connotations of praise, singing, and
thanksgiving, offers a positive supplement to the imploring language in the previous depiction
of Daniels prayer life; the former term, imploring, suggests circumstances that are ominous, while the
latter term, praising, suggests circumstances that are more praiseworthy.
Beyond this, in Hebrew does offer a slightly different nuance to praise, introducing the
element of confession. Kohler-Baumgartner offer three ranges of meaning for the Hebrew cognate: [1]
to praise God, [2] to confess ones sin, and [3] to begin praise and thanksgiving.183 Leslie Allen affirms that
primarily refers to an acknowledgement.184 Westermann also notes the two meanings of
: praise and confess. He concludes that the concept that binds the two meanings could be rendered
to acknowledge or to confess; we could speak of a confession of praise.185 G. Mayer, discussing
180 1Q20:12
That very night, I implored, I
sought, I pleaded for pity,

and said in my deep grief, while my
tears flowed:

Blessed are You, Most High God,
Lord of everything.
182 See Praise, singing, thanksgiving in NIDOTTE.
183 KB2, 389.
184 Leslie Allen, , in NIDOTTE [H3344].
185 Claus Westermann, , in TLOT 2, 503.
37
, avers that the fundamental meaning is confess.186 He further notes that has two basic
usages in the Old Testament: [1] confession of praise and [2] penitential confession.187
As far as the Hebrew cognate is concerned, connotes acknowledgment or confession. To
the extent that acknowledgement/confession has a bearing on the usages in Daniel, we may conclude that
signals a confession of praise.
In the Hebrew Bible, the confession of praise directed to Yahweh is occasioned when the
confessor acknowledges either [1] who Yahweh is, as God or [2] what Yahweh has done to bless His
children. The psalmist takes the lead in confessions of praise for who Yahweh is: His righteousness [Psalm
7:17], His holy name [Psalm 30:4], His truthful Word and His faithfulness [Psalm 33:2-4], and His
goodness and His love that endures forever [Psalm 106:1].
The psalmist also confesses his praise of Yahweh when the poet remembers and acknowledges
what Yahweh has done to bless the poet: Yahweh turns back the enemy [Psalm 9:1-3], Yahweh brings
victory [Psalm 18:49], Yahweh is strength and shield [Psalm 28:7], savior [Psalm 42:5], Yahweh gathers
His people from the nations [Psalm 106:47], and Yahweh performs wonderful deeds for men [Psalm 107:8].
The reader can easily understand how Daniel could appropriate these two elements of the
confession of praise acknowledging who Yahweh is and what Yahweh has done to bless in his moment
of need; as Daniel implores Yahweh for His intervention, he also confesses who and what Yahweh is.
Praising [] appears twice in the Aramaic section of Daniel [Dan 2:23; 6:11]. In the former passage,
Daniel uses himself and disambiguates it with , which is used in the sense of prayers of
thanksgiving. In Dan 2:23, the acknowledgment in is appreciative praise for Yahweh having
revealed the meaning of Nebuchadnezzars vision. In this case, Daniels confession of praise acknowledges
what Yahweh has just done to intervene in Daniels crisis at that moment. In the case of Dan 6:11, the
confession of praise for what Yahweh does is more anticipatory; based upon what Yahweh has done in
Daniels life up to that point, the prophet anticipates that Yahweh will continue to prove faithful.
One final point may be made regarding the word pair: imploring and praising. The reader intuits
that these two terms are opposites in some sense; they are at opposite ends of some scale. Indeed, they are
opposites, or more exactly, these two actions are satisfactives. Cruz defines satisfactive opposites this way:
one term denotes an attempt to do something [emphasis mine] and the other denotes successful
performance [emphasis mine].188 In the case of Dan 6:11, imploring is the attempt; praising is the
satisfaction. The reader can appreciate the hope, the faith, the confidence, the courage implicit in the way
the writer uses these opposites. To be sure, if the nuance in the following line is correct, then imploringpraising was a more or less settled way of praying for Daniel.
Finally, in Dan 6:11f, the author informs us of Daniels set habit of prayer: just as he had been doing before
this.
Just as [ ] is actually a causal indicator;189 the sense becomes: Daniel knelt in
prayer [Dan 6:11d], imploring and praising [Dan 6:11e], because [ ] this is what he had
been doing all along. The reader should appreciate the subtlety here: Dan 6:11f is not a sporadic prayer
driven by the crisis of the moment, rather Dan 6:11f is ultimately Daniels regular habit of prayer that
happens to coincide with a critical moment in Daniels life.
186 G. Mayer, , in TDOT, vol. V, 427.
187 Ibid., 431-39.
188 Cruz, 202.
38
He had been doing [ ] is a participial clause, used as a narrative tense190: had been doing.
The time frame implicit in the participle is more or less open-ended: Daniel had a disciplined and wellorganized, methodical prayer life.
Before this [ ] amounts to an adverbial construction: formerly.191 This adverb
confirms that Dan 6:11 testifies to Daniels routine pattern in his prayer life.
Summary.
Dan 6:11a is an assertive speech act whereby the author intends to represent the historical truth at this
moment in the narrative; the words the author uses fit precisely the steps Daniel took in this moment of
crisis: thrust into an ethical and legal impasse, Daniel is attracted toward time-honored ground: prayer. The
reader should appreciate that, in taking this step, Daniel knows that he is sideways of the law of the land.
Unruffled and undeterred, Daniel quietly resists the law of the land and carried on as he was accustomed
to do with his private devotions.192 The truth in this speech act is that Daniel is, in fact, breaking the law
of the land; but, as Dan 6:11 impressively demonstrates, Daniels conscience is taken captive by the Law of
God; everything else would have been marginal. Finally, there may well be more in this speech act than
meets the eye. We have mentioned before that writers [and speakers for that matter] use language to do
things with words; beyond that, writers also use what they write to produce certain effects in the reader,
including outcomes in the readers beliefs.193 The reader may ponder the following: by making Daniels
resistance a matter of the historical record, the author seeks to inspire the reader to do the same under
similar circumstances.
Dan 6:11c is another assertive speech act; the author intends to faithfully and accurately depict the
physical circumstances in which Daniel routinely prays, facing Jerusalem. Moreover, as above, there may
be a deeper implication: by informing us that Daniels windows faced Jerusalem, the author may be
attempting to inspire us. That is by Dan 6:11c, the author may intend to communicate a belief of Daniels
that is worthy of emulating. Specifically, the reader must surely be inspired by the faith, the hope, and the
love implied in praying toward Jerusalem. For, as we know, Jerusalem lay in ruins, but Daniels faith could
not abandon the hope that Jerusalem would eventually be restored. Inspired by his love for a virtually nonexistent city, Daniel hopes in Yahweh; for, without a doubt, Daniel believes Yahweh to be the Lord of
human history, appearances to the contrary. The upshot is: Daniel 6:11c not only edifies, it also inspires.
Dan 6:11d-e deal with the same topic: Daniels prayer life; accordingly, we shall consider both
versets together. There are three components mentioned in Daniels prayer life: [1] Daniel prayed three
times a day; [2] Daniel knelt in prayer; and [3] Daniel both implored and praised God.
Dan 6:11d is an assertive speech act, the author informing us, as a matter of truth, that Daniel was
in the habit of praying three times a day. The words in the authors narrative fit exactly what Daniel
actually did as a matter of routine. We have noted that Daniel may have taken his model for praying three
times a day from Psalm 55; at the same time, there is Psalm 119 that mentions prayer seven times a day;
and as a matter of the nuts and bolts of worship, prayer twice a day seems to have been the norm. Is there a
larger message here? Possibly; we have noted that writers often intend to accomplish things in the reader
beyond informing them of the facts; there may be an interest in producing a specific effect in the reader. In
this case, the desired effect may be that of regular, disciplined prayer, regardless of the circumstances,
critical or otherwise, in the life of the one who goes before God in prayer.
190 Rosenthal 177.

191 Bauer-Leander 68 v.
192 Russell, Daniel, 101-02.
193 See Pratt, 81.
39
Dan 6:11d is also an assertive speech act that commits the author to this description of Daniels
physical posture in prayer as actually being the case; we may take it that kneeling in prayer would have
been the norm for Daniel. As we noted above, Daniel could have been taking his cue from Solomon in 1
Kings 8:54. At the same time, there is far more here than rote and ritual, for the posture of kneeling
symbolizes the supplicants attitude before Yahweh in the moment of praying. That is, kneeling personifies
a sense of unworthiness in the presence of the holy and righteous God; kneeling embodies submission to
the regnant will of God, for it is Gods part to will, it is mans part to yield; and kneeling incarnates loyalty
and allegiance to Yahweh alone. One can easily grasp what kneeling communicates to God in this
particular sweet hour of prayer: submission to His law in a land controlled by the law of the Medes and the
Persians, and unwavering allegiance to God alone in a land presided over by uninspired leaders who
kowtow before a dictator.
Now, the reader instinctively discerns a perlocutionary effect embedded in this assertive speech
act: by informing us of the symbolism behind Daniels posture in prayer, the writer may be trying to
convince us to adopt the same attitudes.
Take unworthiness for example. Like Daniel whose marvelous prayer in Daniel 9 opens with a
moving statement of his and his peoples unworthiness, we must always remember that even when crises of
conscience emerge in our personal world, even when we think that we alone are standing for the faith, we
must remember that with all of that, tangible and terrible as it is, we are still unworthy. Like Daniel, we
should resist the tendency to equate suffering with self-importance; we are unworthy in any circumstance.
Or take submission as another example. Like Daniel whose inflexible refusal to accede to the law
of the land when that law unambiguously countermanded the law of God, we also must remember that
neither compromise nor escapism nor rationalization nor pragmatism nor tolerance nor approval count for
much; rather like Daniel we must resist the temptation to cave in to the secularizations in society, especially
that form of secularization that places all of its hopes for a brighter tomorrow in the law of the Medes and
the Persians. Like Daniel, we should resist the temptation to surrender our ideals to the noise of the crowd;
we are commissioned with submission in any eventuality.
Or, take allegiance to God alone as the final example. Like Daniel whose understanding of the
Persian state did not put the state on a par with God, did not view the state as Gods earthly counterpart, did
not idolize the state, making it a virtual deity, and certainly did not relegate to the Persian state prerogatives
that belonged to God alone, we also must acknowledge that Daniel anticipates what Jesus would eventually
make explicit: Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and render to God the things that are Gods
[Matthew 22:21]. We must determine to live out our single-minded loyalty to God, which means, among
other things, resolving that the affairs of the state and the business of God are not of equal value;194 we
must undertake to live as if it is God alone that is final, conclusive, ultimate, absolute, not the state, not
politics, not humanly crafted legislation or deftly nuanced court decisions, not democracy, not the
Constitution, not the founders of the nation, valuable these may be. Like Daniel, we should resist the
temptation to give Caesar more that his due and resolve to give him nothing that belongs to God!195
Taking allegiance to God alone seriously means yielding to the divine claim and demand on the sum total
of our being, which implies rejecting the idea that the state and politics are everything.
Dan 6:11e is yet another assertive speech act wherein the author undertakes to represent the state
of Daniels prayer life a bit further. We may take it as axiomatic that linking pleading with praise was more
or less a normal part of the nuts and bolts of Daniels prayer life.
194 On this point, see Oscar Cullman, The State in the New Testament (New York: Charles
Scribners Sons, 1956), 35.
195 Ibid., 36.
40
Daniel must plead, beseech, entreat, earnestly implore Yahwehs intervention; otherwise, there is
no way out. Daniel must implore God to intervene in the impasse Daniel fully understands is now his.
Notice that Daniel does not appeal to the highest legal authority in the land, Darius, to redress this impasse;
Daniel does not seek an out somewhere in the legal precedents of Persia; Daniel does not give as good as
he gets, playing gotcha politics with his adversaries; rather, Daniel pleads with Yahweh for His
intervention.
What is more, Daniel must also praise Yahweh, in the sense of acknowledgment or confession. As
a matter of prayerful devotion, Daniel is acknowledging who Yahweh is, as God and what Yahweh has done
to bless Daniel up to this point in Daniels life. Yahweh is the secure anchor of his soul, especially in this
time of crisis. Indeed, in the case of Daniel, imploring is his attempt to place his impasse before Yahweh;
praising is his faith that a satisfactory answer will be forthcoming. The reader can appreciate the hope, the
faith, the confidence, the courage implicit in the way the writer pairs imploring with praise. As noted
above, Daniels confidence is not in the Persian legal system, Daniels assurance rests with Yahweh;
Daniels confidence is not in the support of the best and the brightest in Persian, Daniels trust resides in
Yahweh; and Daniels certainty does not reside in no-holds-barred political infighting, Daniel places his
faith in Yahweh.
Reflection.
In both Daniel 3 and Daniel 6, there is at least one common thread: resistance to a law of the land that
clearly and unambiguously defies the revealed will of Yahweh. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego
refused to worship an idol, since this was obviously contrary to the will of God; Daniel also refused to pray
to or through anyone other than Yahweh. It is difficult not to conclude that, since God is sovereign Lord of
the national and international political lives of men and nations, when a political or legal conflict arises, the
difference must be decided in the favor of Yahweh; in short: resist.
Take the matter of prayer in our public schools in America. Evangelicals continue to whine over
the lack of public prayer in our schools. In an effort to redress this perceived miscarriage, many
evangelicals demand legal permission, from local school boards or the courts, to have communal prayer
somewhere on school property. Here is the fly in the ointment: Daniel did not seek state permission to
pray; he simply prayed just as he had been doing before. He resisted the law of the Medes and the
Persians because the law of the land demanded for itself an authorization that belonged exclusively to
Yahweh. What is there to prohibit a middle school student from uttering a silent and private prayer before
an exam? What is there to prohibit a high school student from uttering a silent and private prayer before a
meal in the lunchroom? What is there to prohibit a college student from uttering a silent and private prayer
before a class lecture? The key is to resist the phony notion that believers must have state sanction to pray
in public; they do not; rather, believers are authorized by God to pray where and when they deem fit.
Or, take the matter of the Bible in our public schools. Once more, evangelicals lament the
removal of the Bible from the classroom. Especially prominent is discarding the Ten Commandments from
public places. Once more, believers must resist the bogus idea that Scripture in public places demands
state approval; it does not. For, the only place that Yahweh ever said that He wanted to write His law was
on the hearts of mankind [Ezekiel 36:27; Hebrews 10:16]. Now, obviously, once the Spirit of God has
written the law upon the heart of a believer, that believer can carry that Scripture into any public place
whatsoever. What is there to prohibit a believer from silently and privately reciting in the heart some
memorized passage of Scripture? Answer: nothing at all!
These two issues open up a final question: will privatizing prayer and the Bible mean that we
simply let our nation free fall into deeper degeneracy? One can almost hear the rejoinder: But, we have to
do something! This country is going to hell in a hand basket! Do we just sit back, do nothing and let them
go? The answer is No on two levels: legislation and teaching.
First, evangelicals must resist the temptation to enlist the state in the missionary enterprise of the
church. To be sure, it would be speedier if we could simply pass a law that prayer on public premises was
legal; it would be more sweeping, touching the nation at one fell swoop, if we could simply pass a law that
41
Scripture in public places was legal; but the scriptural truth of the matter is that neither prayer nor the Bible
fall under the aegis of Caesar; these matters are to be rendered to God on Gods terms. One almost
imagines that evangelicals have been unwilling to fulfill the missionary assignment of the church by going
into the entire world, making disciples teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded you
[Matthew 28:20], preferring instead to work for new laws.
Second, the missionary task of the church is neither political nor legal; we must resist the
temptation to replace teaching with legislating as a means of bringing humans under the sway of the will of
God. The people of God are called upon to witness in the public square by whatever means at our disposal,
not legislate; the people of God are tasked with presenting Scripturally reasoned responses to the
seemingly unending cascade of secular challenges to the will of God, not legislate; the people of God are
charged with giving a reason for the hope that is within them, one person at a time or one issue at a time,
not legislate.
V.
Narrative of Daniels denunciation by the conspirators [Dan 6:12-19]

A.
Daniel is discovered in prayer to Yahweh [Dan 6:12]
6:12a
6:12b
6:12c
presence of God.
So, the, these men came as a group,

and they found Daniel;
petitioning and imploring in the
Dan 6:12 ratchets up the drama in the narrative; this is the gotcha moment, and the author uses a
narrative genre, to write the history of the moment in the narrative. The expositor may infer that the
author intends to present this brief passage as historical fact.
For came as a group, see the notes on in Dan 6:7a.
Petitioning and imploring [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg) (Peal, participle,

ms, sg)] uses different terminology from that in Dan 6:11e. The first participle, /petitioning, is taken
directly from the legal statute as proposed in Dan 6:8c. The logic behind choosing in Dan 6:12c is
reasonably clear: the conspirators were looking for a violation of the law [Dan 6:8c], and they found it [Dan
6:12c]. The second participle, /imploring, is used only here in Daniel 6. At the very least, the shift
in terminology is occasioned by the authors intention to make the law of the Medes and the Persians the
lever in the hands of the conspirators.
Petitioning [], as we noted above [Dan 6:8], has five ranges of usage: [1] one human being
searches after another human being; [2] one human being searches for a favor from another human being;
[3] one human searches for compassion from God or a deity (i.e., petitioning); [4] one human searches for
some defect in another; and [5] one human searches for an answer to a mystery from a heavenly being. In
Dan 6:8, was used in both senses 2 and 3; in Dan 6:12c, the trap is sprung: sense 2 is excluded
since Daniel is petitioning in sense 3 alone, which is prohibited by law. Daniel is caught red-handed
resisting the law of the land.
Imploring [] is found among a semantic field of terms for grace or favor.196 The author
writes in the Hithpaal stem, which is probably reflexive in this instance.197 D.N. Freedman and J.R.
196 See Grace, favor in NIDOTTE.
197 Bauer-Leander 76 u.
42
Lundbom note that in Dan 6:12c means that Daniel dutifully seeks Yahwehs favor despite the
royal decree.198 Now, from Daniels point of view, this is undeniably the case: Daniel implores Yahwehs
favor for himself; but, from the point of view of the conspirators point of view, the reflexive could carry
the nuance: Daniel implores Yahwehs favor for himself.199
This latter point may help explain the difference in terminology between Dan 6:11e and 6:12c.
That is, in Daniel 6:11e, the author presents Daniel as imploring [] in the sense of pleading,
beseeching, entreating, earnestly imploring Yahwehs to extricate him from an impossible trap; otherwise,
there is no way out. The emphasis in Dan 6:11e is more upon the impasse, which only Yahweh can resolve.
However, if the reflexive Hithpaal is used as suggested, self-interest is what emerges; this may be the
authors way of describing the motives of the conspirators: having been caught petitioning [] in a
completely illegal fashion, Daniel is now imploring [] out of concern for his own self-regard.
B.The conspirators snitch to Darius [Dan 6:13-14]
1.
The conspirators remind Darius of the law of the land [Dan 6:13a-f]

Immediately, they approached,
and spoke to the king concerning
the royal statute:
6:13b
Did you not sign a statute,
6:13c
that any man
who petitions any god or man,
6:13d
for thirty days,
6:13e
except from you, O king,
6:13f
must be cast into a den of lions?
6:13a
Once more, the genre of this paragraph, Dan 6:13-14, is narrative, relating yet another event in
the sequence of events that make up the history of this legendary tale. The expositor is entitled to infer that
the author intends his account to be taken at face value.
Immediately [] is a straightforward translation of the particle adverb200, reflecting what
must have been the instantaneousness with which they pursued their case before Darius. Having caught
their quarry in their trap, they would have wasted no time in pressing their case before the king.
In Dan 6:13b, the author formulates the conspirators opening salvo to the king in the form of a rhetorical
question201 Did you not? In this case, the rhetorical question is in effect making a statement that Darius
cannot contest.202 Not only is Daniel at the mercy of the law of the Medes and the Persians, so also is the
chief Persian, Darius. This entrapment is the focal point of Dan 6:13.
Statute [], which was in fact a legal prohibition; see the notes on Dan 6:8.
Petition [] was discussed in Dan 6:8.
198 D.N. Freedman and J.R. Lundbom, , in TDOT, vol. V, 32.

199 For the nuances in usage of the Hithpael in Hebrew, see Williams, 152-54.
200 Bauer-Leander 68 a.
201 Ibid., 103 f.
202 On this function of the rhetorical question, see Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud,
and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000;
reprint), 322 [hereafter abbreviated van der Merwe].
43

2.
Darius assents [Dan 6:13g-i]
6:13g
The king replied and said:
6:13h
The statement is certainly true
according to the law
6:13i

which cannot be annulled.
In Dan 6:13h, the author captures the unequivocal nature of Darius reply: the statement is
certainly true. Actually, the author phrases this sentence [Dan 6:13h] in the form of a verbless clause,
literally: certainly true [ (adjective, fm, sg)] the statement [ (definite article, noun,
fm, sg)]. This verbless clause may be read as presenting the given in this verbless clause, the statement
in this case and the new element, the focus element, certainly true in this case. 203 The word order in
Dan 6:13h supports the contention that the focus of Dan 6:13h is certainly true, since this adjective is
front-loaded.
Certainly true [] is an adjective that describes what is well established, according to KohlerBaumgartner in Dan 6:13h.204 This adjective has some enlightening cognates; in Jewish Aramaic, the root
refers to what is certain, true, irrefutable; in Imperial Aramaic and Egyptian Aramaic, the root depicts
what is valid.205 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion uses the Greek adjective, ,
which means in accordance with truth in Dan 6:13.206 The upshot is that Darius acknowledges that
conspirators recollection of the force of the new bill is irrefutable.
Which cannot be annulled [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg) ] is a relative clause that
describes the legalistic frame that surrounds Darius and Daniel. Once more, the language used by Darius
reflects that of the original law [Dan 6:9 (see the notes there)], this bill cannot be dissolved or rescinded.
3.
The conspirators spring the trap and denounce Daniel [Dan 6:14]
6:14a
Immediately, they
responded and said to the king:
6:14b
Daniel, one of
the sons of the exile from Judah,
6:14c
does not show proper deference to
you, O king,
6:14d
or for the statute you signed;
6:14e
indeed, three times a day,
6:14f
he makes his petition.
The conspirators waste no time in springing the trap on Daniel, and Darius for that matter. First,
they characterize Daniel anthropologically [one of the sons of the exile from Judah (Dan 6:14b)]; then,
they level the allegation [does not show proper deference (Dan 6:14c)]; and finally they offer the
authentication [three times a day, he makes his petition (Dan 6:14e-f)].
In Dan 6:14b, the conspirators spin Daniels character in terms of his ethnicity: a son of the exile,
from Judah. This may indicate some anti-Semitism; at the very least, the assertion is a snub. Indeed,
when Daniel came before Belshazzar [Dan 5:13], Belshazzar used this terminology [one of the exiles from
Judah] as a slur on Daniel.
203 See Miller, 330.
204 KB2, 1893.
205 Ibid., 1892-93.
206 BAGD, 37.
44
Exile [] is an Aramaic noun that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:14 with

deportation, exile.207 The verbal form of the root, , appears twice in the Aramaic section of the
OT, once in Ezra 4:10 and the other in Dan 5:12, where the verb describes those who are led off into
exile.208
The Hebrew cognates are similar to the Aramaic: [verb], [noun], and
[noun]. The Hebrew verb in the Qal stem means: be exiled, go into exile, and the participles in the Qal
depict one who goes into exile, diaspora, (the state of) exile; the Pual stem means to be exiled; the
Hiphil stem means to take into exile; and the Hophal stem means to be exiled. 209 The Hebrew feminine
noun, , refers to either exiles or a state of exile.210 The other Hebrew noun, , is
used as an abstract noun pointing to exiles or the state of exile.211
In the Hebrew Bible, the exilic vocabulary is used in a variety of contexts; at times, the reasons
for the exile are to the fore [Isa 5:13; Ezek 12:3]; in other contexts, the calamities associated with the exile
are the point [Jer 13:9; 20:4]; in several contexts, the promise of restoration from exile is assured [Jer 24:16; 27:20-22]; then Ezra underlines the fact of sin after the exile [Ezra 9:2-4; 10:6].
For our purposes, justifying the use of exile as a pejorative as the conspirators seem to be doing
[Dan 6:14b], we may consider the shame and ignominy associated with the exile, disgrace that the public in
the ancient Near East would surely have assumed. The exile is associated with powerlessness [Isa 22:8],
moral contempt [Isa 22:14], despair and gloom [Isa 24:11; 38:12; Hos 10:5; Micah 1:16], national guilt [Isa
26:21; 47:3; Ezek 16:37], rejection [Isa 49:21], and affliction [Lam 1:3].
In sum, one of the sons of the exile presumes at Daniels subjection as a foreigner in Persian
culture; that Daniel has been a captive in Babylon and now in Persia presumes disgrace for having been
deported from Judah in the first place; that Daniel was exiled supposes that he and his people had been
abandoned by their God. To be sure, this shame and ignominy as an undercurrent may be assumed, even
though, as we have seen thus far in Daniel, the deportees have lived a fairly decent life. At the same time,
there are wheels within wheels, and Dan 3:8, 12; 5:30; 6:4-6; and now 6:14 all intimate that Daniels and
his nations fall from Gods favor were not lost on his adversaries. As Young points out, the conspirators
describe Daniel as an exile, rather than as an appointed head over the presidents and satraps; 212 this is not
by accident. Goldingay concludes that the hint of anti-Semitism may be stronger here than it was in vv 46.213 This ethnic bias may help support the allegation the conspirators will make.
In Dan 6:14c, the conspirators use the slur against the person of Daniel [Dan 6:14b] to pave the way for the
allegation: he does not show proper deference. Daniel is charged with not paying much attention to
either Darius of his law.
Deference [ (noun, ms, sg)] is a noun that has different ranges of meaning: [1]
understanding, discretion, tact, attention, heed; [2] command, influence; [3] advice, report.214
207 KB2, 1845.
208 Ibid.
209 CDCH, 67.
210 Ibid.
211 Ibid.
212 E.J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; reprint), 136.
213 Goldingay, 132.
214 KB2, 1885.
45
Kohler-Baumgartner opt for [1], pay attention to, heed.215 BDB goes with show proper deference
to.216 Robert OConnell also renders in Dan 6:14 with pay attention to.217 J. Schpphaus
concurs, translating in Dan 6:14 with to pay heed to someone. 218 Pter-Contesse and Ellington
offer pay no respect to, disregard, ignore.219 Slotki notes that the same accusation was made against
Daniels three companions in Dan 3:12.220 One wonders if this allegation is not possibly customary.
Strictly speaking, taken from Daniels point of view, the essence of the allegation rings true; Daniel is not
deferring to Darius, and in effect Daniel is disregarding both the king and his law.
In Dan 6:14e-f, the conspirators support their allegation with their authorization for denouncing
Daniel: three times a day, he makes petition.221 See the notes above on Dan 6:8.
Summary.
Dan 6:14a is an assertive speech act in which the author intends to straightforwardly communicate the
immediacy, the urgency with which Daniels adversaries moved to spring their trap. The sentence is frank
and candid; the author intends that we understand the fact that these men wasted no time in reeling in
Daniel.
In Dan 6:14b, the author shifts to what appears to be an evaluation of Daniel at best, a slur at
worst; to do so, the author employs an expressive speech act, as a means of signaling to the reader that
Dan 6:14b is evaluative language. On the part of these conspirators, Dan 6:14b is an autobiographical
report222: the sentence unpacks their way of looking at Daniel. This means that Dan 6:14b is expressive in
the sense of disclosing the feelings of the conspirators about Daniel; especially germane is their reference to
the exile, which serves as pejorative language. Finally, there is a behabitive-postural223 component in this
speech act whereby the conspirators place Daniel within a structure ascribing status [my emphasis] to
Daniel with no official authority to do so; 224 Daniel is pigeonholed as an outsider, an exile from Judah.
In a nutshell, this expressive speech act is a way of instilling prejudice in the mind of Darius by engaging
in anti-Semitism.
In Dan 6:14c, the author reverts to the assertive speech act in order to stress with Darius the truth of this
claim; they want to drive home the indictment in no uncertain terms that Daniel is not showing proper
215 Ibid.
216 BDB, 1094.
217 Robert H. OConnell, , in NIDOTTE [H3247].
218 J. Schpphaus, , in TDOT, vol. V, 346.
219 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 81.
220 Slotki, 50.
221 For the details on making a petition, see the notes on Dan 6:8.
222 Evans, 126.
223 Ibid., 127.
224 Ibid.
46
deference to either Darius or the law of the land. In Dan 6:14, this is the moment of denunciation; in this
speech act, the conspirators intend that Darius realize that their words fit like a hand in a glove vis--vis
Daniels disregard. Strictly speaking, the conspirators are correct: Daniel is neither submitting to the law of
the land nor the man who signed it; the charge is not counterfeit, rather it is indisputable; Daniel is a blatant
law-breaker.
Reflection.
Daniels immediate action, faced with a legally binding, duly signed and authorized, civil law, is to
resist the law and carry on with his normal pattern. Daniel does not attack in any way, shape, or form;
rather, he quietly and unobtrusively resists; Daniel does not compromise, he does not finagle some way out
of his dilemma; on the contrary, Daniel unassumingly faces his moral challenge and resists; finally, Daniel
certainly does not betray Yahweh; quite the reverse, Daniel heeds the voice of conscience, accepts the
consequences, and inconspicuously resists.
In the early church, there were times when men of Christian conscience simply resisted the official
constraints of the state, preferring to follow conscience. The famous example of Peter in Acts 5 is
reminiscent of Daniel: charged by the authorities not preach in the name of Jesus [Acts 5:28], these very
same authorities give eloquent witness to the Apostles blatant law-breaking saying, you have filled
Jerusalem with this teaching [Acts 5:28]. How does Peter respond? By laying bare his conscience; here is
what warrants this blatant law-breaking: We must obey God rather than man [Acts 5:29]. Russell finely
summarizes the point, There are occasions when every person must be subject to the governing
authorities (Rom. 13:1); there are others when we ought to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). To
distinguish between the two requires courage and faith.225
The modern church serves in the shadow of the Apostles and the first century church, including the everpresent challenge of obeying the law of the land or betraying the cause of God. Like Daniel before Christ
and Peter after Him, there are times when the believers must follow the dictates of conscience and resist a
law that we know is contrary to the revealed will of God in Scripture. This last point is crucial: he or she
who resists the law of the land must know precisely where that law defies the Law of God. Daniel knew that
he was not permitted to have any other gods before Yahweh [Deut 5:7]; Peter and the Apostles knew that the
Messiah had commanded them to go into all the world and preach [Matt 28:20]; so it is today, if we are to
resist God-defying laws, then, from a conscience captured by Scripture, we must be able to cite chapter
and verse in rebuttal. Otherwise, we are dealing in unsupportable anarchy, and this is not our calling.
C.
Darius response to the denunciation [Dan 6:15]
6:15a
statement,
6:15b
6:15c
delivering Daniel;
6:15d
6:15e
As soon as the king heard the

it revolted him immensely,
accordingly, he set his mind on
so, until sunset,
he was striving to rescue him.
The genre of this brief paragraph is narrative, which entitles the expositor to read the unit as
history, divulging the facts concerning Darius response to the trap that both he and Daniel find themselves
in. The paragraph discloses the personal impact on Darius, as well as his follow-up attempts to extricate
Daniel from the setup.
In Dan 6:15b, the personal impact of this deception on Darius is exposed: it revolted him
immensely. The word order in the Aramaic front loads the adverb, literally: immensely, it revolted him.
It revolted him [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a clause that employs an Aramaic
root [] that basically means to stink; in Dan 6:15b, Kohler-Baumgartner translate with
47
it displeases.226 Rosenthal prefers it grieved him.227 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion uses
in the passive voice, which means become sad, sorrowful, distressed. 228 Liddell-Scott-Jones
concur, offering to be grieved, distressed.229 All that said, Jenson makes a telling point vis--vis the
figurative use of a root that refers to that which stinks physically: The physical revulsion of a person to a
stink is used metaphorically to indicate a strong disgust and revulsion [emphasis mine] for a person or a
nation.230 The net effect is that, preserving the figurative nuance in , adds nuance so that the sense
is that Darius personal reaction to this entrapment was disgust and loathing, distaste and repulsion; there is
less grief and distress in and more aversion, repugnance, even animosity; the entire affair had
become odious to Darius. The odiousness may have extended to Darius distaste for his own part in this
debacle; Driver translates Dan 6:15b, was sore displeased with himself.231 There may be a modicum of
truth in this.
Immensely [] is an adverb that Kohler-Baumgartner translate very much, exceptional.232
BDB renders with exceedingly.233 The net effect is this: to the extent that Darius odium over this
mess was exceptional, then Youngs summary may not be wide of the mark, The folly of his action was
now manifest, and Darius, like a trapped wild animal, striving to free itself, was struggling to deliver
Daniel.234
In Dan 6:15c, the author reveals the practical impact of this debacle from Darius perspective: accordingly,
he set his mind on delivering Daniel. The word order in the Aramaic is once more different from what
appears in the English translation: Daniel, he set his mind on delivering. The reasonable assumption here
is that Daniels fate played on Darius mind; the author does not disclose Darius motives driving his focus
on Daniel.
Accordingly is signaled by the simple waw [] prefixed to the opening word in Dan 6:15c; we
might translate, so that, he set his mind.235 The syntactical point is that Darius disgust and revulsion
[Dan 6:15b] has the net effect of determining to deliver Daniel [Dan 6:15c].
Set the mind [ (noun, ms, sg) (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is a collocation that appears only here in
the Aramaic Old Testament. Overall, this collocation emphasizes mental focusing on an issue.236
Kohler-Baumgartner offer: turn ones mind to, give ones attention to, be determined.237 The
227 Rosenthal, 80.
228 BAGD, 481.
229 LSJ, 1065.
230 P. Jenson, , in NIDOTTE [H944].
232 KB2, 1985.
233 BDB, 1113.
234 Young, 136.
235 For this use of the waw [] in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander 70 d.
236 Sam Meier, , in NIDOTTE [H8492].
237 KB2, 1834.
48
corresponding collocation in the Hebrew Bible is: /set the heart. H.-J. Fabry places this
Hebrew collocation in the realm of human voluntative function, an activity of the will that engages in
performative conceiving and planning.238 The upshot of all of this is that Darius is absolutely determined
to rectify the farce he has helped craft.
Delivering [] is written in the Shaphel stem, which is causative;239 Darius intends to effect a
rescue.
Dan 6:15d details the time Darius spent in trying to extricate Daniel from this setup. Until sunset
[ ] is a prepositional phrase, signaling a temporal nuance, until. This time
frame is spent in attempting to rescue Daniel, and, at the same time, this temporal frame is also delaying
Daniels sentencing.
In Dan 6:15e, the author shows us what Darius spent the rest of the day doing: he was striving to
rescue him. Evidently, the rest of Darius day was a frantic one.
Striving [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg)] is from an Aramaic root, , that appears
only here in the Aramaic OT; there is no Hebrew cognate. Rosenthal translates the Hithpaal of
with to make efforts.240 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:15 with strive.241 BDB adds
struggle.242 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion, translates with ,
which is used figuratively in the sense of take pains, exert oneself, strain every nerve.243 Montgomery
comments that striving is the picture of the animal caught in a trap.244 The net effect is that, per
Theodotion, Darius was straining every nerve to find a way to liberate Daniel; there is intensity,
concentration, perhaps even desperation implied in the strenuousness of Darius efforts.
Summary.
In Dan 6:15b, the author uses an expressive speech act to disclose Darius attitude, his feelings, in the
wake of the legal tangle in which he had placed himself and Daniel as well.245 The net effect of the
expressive speech act is that it involves a decision that certain words [revolted in this case] are most
appropriate in the matter being considered.246 What this alerts the reader/expositor to is that the author
intends to underscore, highlight if you will, the nature of Darius response: the circumstances leading to the
passing of this bill became disgusting and nauseating to him.
In Dan 6:15c, the author reverts to an assertive speech act whereby the author intends to factually
represent the volitional effect this odious situation vis--vis Darius. The reader may assume historicity in
238 H.-J. Fabry, , in TDOT, vol. VII, 423.

239 Van Pelt, 151.
240 Rosenthal, 97.
241 KB2, 1991.
242 BDB, 1114.
243 BAGD, 15.
245 For what I am calling expressive speech acts, see Evans under onlooks, 124-35.
246 Evans, 128.
49
Dan 6:15c. Specifically, the author intends that the reader/expositor takes careful note of the truth that
Darius was wholly determined to find a way of extricating Daniel from his trap.
In Dan 6:15e, the author once more uses an assertive speech act to factually depict the
strenuousness, almost the desperation, with which Darius endeavors to extricate Daniel; Darius was
straining every nerve to find some way to disentangle Daniel from his snare. The reader might weigh and
consider giving Darius some kudos here; after all, Darius did not simply shrug off this fiasco, rather he did
bend every effort to redress it.
Reflection.
The reader of this paragraph notes that the author evidently does not intend that we, the readers,
know anything about Darius motivations. The author tells us that Darius was revolted at this unmitigated
disaster; but, the author does not tell us why. Also, the author tells us that Darius busted a gut for the rest of
the day trying to find some way of escape for Daniel; again, the author does not tell us why.
The reader might reasonably guess that, owing to Dan 6:4, Daniel was being groomed to become
Darius right hand man. Accordingly, this scheme to entrap Daniel, a scheme in which Darius was an
unwitting player, threatened the execution of Darius eventual number two. If this estimation is even close,
then Darius motives are largely self-interested. But, there is a caveat to imputing motives.247
For, when all is said and done about Darius motives, the fact is that, first, the author does not reveal them,
and second, they really do not matter much. Regardless of his motives, Darius, by his own bungling, has
tied his own hands; the deliverance of Daniel will require divine intervention, in the face of which Darius
law and his motives are basically irrelevant. As we have noted in our study of Daniel, the power players in
this world are beholden to the sovereign Lord of history, Yahweh; from the standpoint of the Master of the
Universe, when He determines to redress politically inspired injustice, when innocent people suffer from
malicious laws, legislators motives are marginal. The upshot is this: it is enough to know that this
particular politician, Darius, placed himself in a thorny position by his own ill-considered law, period; as
we shall see, the rest is up to Yahweh.
D.
The conspirators press their case against Daniel [Dan 6:16-18]

1.
The conspirators press the point of law [Dan 6:16]
6:16a
Immediately, these men
came as a group to the king;
6:16b
and they said to the king:
6:16c
Know, O king,
6:16d
that [it is] a law of the Medes and
Persians,
6:16e
that any statute
or decree that the king establishes,
6:16f
is not to be frustrated.
This paragraph is narrative, an account of events or actions in sequential form.248 There are
three events in this sequence: [1] the conspirators press the point of law [Dan 6:16]; Darius is dragging his
247 In preaching and teaching the Word of God, it is wise to avoid preaching about motives that are not
part and parcel of the text under consideration. The biblical authors intention in leaving the reader in the
dark on motives is reasonable: what the author does write is the overriding matter for the sermon or lesson,
not what the author omits. The preacher or teacher, by conjuring up motives that are not there, runs the risk
of missing the message that is there.
50
feet, from their point of view, and they intend to nudge Darius into action; [2] then, Darius relents, albeit
reluctantly [Dan 6:17]; and finally, Daniels fate, humanly speaking is sealed [Dan 6:18]. The reader may
infer that this sequence is historically accurate.
In Dan 6:16a, the author discloses the conspirators immediate reaction to Darius foot-dragging:
immediately, these men came as a group to the king.
Immediately [] is an adverbial particle that signals immediacy or urgency. The author
intends that the reader appreciates the strain, the pressure that the conspirators feel in the wake of the kings
dilly-dallying.
Came as a group [] translates a single verb, . The verb suggests more than
simply entering in a crowd; as we have seen previously with this verb, has connotations of
uneasiness, of excitement, of commotion and powerful desire.249 The interesting fact about the usage of
this verb is that the author records these conspirators coming to Darius four times [Dan 6:7, 12, 13, 16],
three of these times [Dan 6:7, 12, 16] the author uses . The point is that these conspirators seem to
prefer to approach Darius en masse. Perhaps, the usage of in Dan 6:16a entails strength in
numbers, the threat and sanction of the mob.
In Dan 6:16c, the conspirators make a pointed request of Darius: Know, O king. The author records that
the conspirators address Darius in the imperative mode; this is a directive from them to him.
Know [ (Peal, imperative, ms, sg)] is written in the imperative mode, which makes the
proposed act a directive. In Aramaic, the directive may carry the sense of a request or a wish;250 but surely
Darius knows as a matter of fact how the Persian legal system works. The point of the request may be to
hide a hint of threat: Know, O king (as we are sure you do!). The conspirators are not asking Darius to
remember what may have slipped is mind [for whatever reason], since Aramaic has a root for remember
[]. No, this is a request, nuanced in an appropriately respectful way, with an edge to it: a threat.
In Dan 6:16f, the conspirators sharpen the edge of their request; this law is not to be frustrated. This is
the same verb used in Dan 6:9c. When we discussed at that time, we noted that BDB informs us
that can convey the notion of frustrate.251 From the conspirators point of view, Darius footdragging has the net effect of frustrating the intent of this law of the Medes and the Persians, and the
conspirators are not bashful about pointing out this fact; this is the implied threat alluded to above.
Dan 6:16c is a directive speech act, which is a way of using language in order to get someone, Darius in
this case, to do something.252 When an inferior [the conspirators] addresses a superior [Darius the king of
Persia], this social context demands that we read the directive as an attempt by his royal court to get Darius
to act in accordance with the request. So far so good; but, as noted above this request is a cleverly nuanced
threat: as the leading political authority in Persia, the conspirators know that Darius cannot afford to be
perceived among the citizenry as dawdling and faltering on law enforcement, but, declares the thinly veiled
threat, Darius shillyshallying is doing just that: frustrating the law of the land.
Dan 6:16f is an assertive speech act, whereby the author intends to communicate the facts of the case to
this point. That point is this: the conspirators ever so gently nudge [threaten] Darius with the truth that, in
Persia, the law of the land is not to be frustrated. Fair enough, but, as we noted earlier, one of the ways that
humans use language in ordinary writing [or conversation for that matter] is to make an assertion and at
the same time, intend to achieve certain effects in the reader [or listener]; this was referred to as the
249 See the notes on Dan 6:7.

250 See Bauer-Leander 84 a-b.
251 BDB, 1116; see the notes on Dan 6:9c, above.
252 Pratt, 80-81; Searle, Expression and Meaning, 13-14; Evans, 33.
51
perlocutionary act in language use.253 The upshot is that in Dan 6:16f, in making the truth claim that the
law of the Medes and the Persians is not to be frustrated, the conspirators are at the same time warning
Darius to put a stop to it.
2.Darius relents, reluctantly [Dan 6:17]
6:17a
Immediately, the king gave the command,
6:17b
and Daniel was brought forth,
6:17c
and he cast him into the lions den;
6:17d
[however] the king said to Daniel:
6:17e
Your God, whom you
serve continually,
6:17f
may He deliver you!
The paragraph is a narrative genre, which means that the author intends to be read as writing a
trustworthy, historical account of the events that occurred next. The events in Dan 6:17a-c follow one
another in a more or less logical manner: [1] Darius utters a command (Dan 6:17a); [2] the command is
fulfilled and Daniel is brought forth (Dan 6:17b); and then [3] Daniel is cast into the lions den (Dan 6:17c).
So far, the narrative is fairly straightforward. But, a thunderbolt lurches in at the end of the narrative, a bit
of a bombshell that catches the reader off guard: Darius offers a prayer for Daniel [Dan 6:17e-f]. The
reader should note this surprising development well; there is something vital occurring here. For, the
author offers the reader no evidence that Daniel prayed for himself; rather, what the author does tell us is
that a pagan Persian dictator exercises some degree of faith in Daniels God, offering a prayer to Yahweh
for Daniel.
Your God [] uses the second person singular pronominal suffix: Your God, which is
further disambiguated with the second person: whom you serve. The function of the pronominal suffix in
this case is to signal relationship: your God whom you serve.254 To begin with, this indicates that Darius is
not directly embracing a full-fledged acceptance of Daniels God; rather, Darius is hoping against hope that
there may be something in Daniels God worthy of trust and hope. What all of this suggests is that even
this meager faith on Darius part is to be respected. To begin with, the reader should recognize the fact that
Yahweh has a witness, however dim and indistinct, among the elite ranks of Persian, polytheistic, political
power-players. Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Darius does in a vague and blurry way acknowledge
Yahweh. But the unique development in Daniel 6 is this: this ember of faith, Darius faith, however hazy
and faint it is, is the catalyst toward which the evidence of Gods power can be expected.255 Darius
faith, in some shadowy way known only to Yahweh, plays a role in the rescue of Daniel later in the story.
Indeed, Darius faith is sufficient to constrain him to repeat the gist of this prayer [Dan 6:17e-f] when an
anguished Darius cries out for any response from Daniel at the lions den [Dan 6:21d-f]; Darius hope, such
as it is [as we shall speculate later (Dan 6:21), Darius may be having second thoughts about his
polytheism], does not abandoned him.
Whom you serve continually [ ] is a relative clause, serving to
give more complex information about Daniels God from Darius perspective. How Darius could have
known this is not specified; after all, Darius has had a fairly brief association with Daniel. We may
conjecture that the legend of Daniel, as witnessed to in the earlier sections of Daniel, would have been well
known in the royal precincts. At the same time, the expositor may entertain the proposition that Daniels
prayer life, the subservience that has landed Daniel in the lions den, may be in the back of Darius mind as
an example of Daniels continuous service to his God.
253 Pratt, 81.

254 On this function of the pronominal suffix, see IBHS 16.4d.
255 Baldwin, 130.
52
Serve [] is an Aramaic root that Rosenthal notes has two ranges of meaning: [1] to serve,
and [2] to worship.256 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:17 with to serve; among the
ancient Near Eastern cognates of , Mandaean has a cognate that means serve, venerate, while
Akkadian has a similar cognate meaning venerate.257 BDB prefers to pay reverence to258 in Dan 6:17.
The Septuagint traditions translate with the Greek verb . In Classical Greek, the
verb means [1] to be in the servitude of, [2] to be subject to or enslaved to, [3] to serve, [4] to obey, [5] to
be devoted to.259 Bauer adds that is used in the sense of serve in our literature only of
the carrying out of religious duties, especially of a cultic nature, by human beings.260 The Dead Sea
Scrolls have one use of in 4Q550c, which tends toward the idea of venerate.261 The upshot is this:
it is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between as worship/venerate/fear and as
serve/obey/be subject to, but, given that the Septuagint tips the scales in the latter direction, serve/obey/be
subject to, it might be best to follow this sense. In this regard, Pter-Contesse and Ellington summarize
that accentuates the devotion and faithfulness of Daniel.262
Continually [] is a prepositional phrase used adverbially in the sense of constantly.263
Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:17 with continually, pointing to an ancient Near
Eastern cognate that means persistent, continual, regular in Jewish Aramaic. 264 The net effect is that
characterizes the consistency in Daniels service to his God. Perhaps Darius himself has had
enough time with Daniel to observe his steadiness, his constancy, his stability in serving Yahweh. If
nothing else, this does verify the usefulness of an unswerving devotion to God among pagans; it just might
evoke some small spark of faith.
In Dan 6:17f, the author reports the net effect of Darius fledgling faith: may He deliver you. Most of the
English versions translate this line in a more promissory sense: He will deliver you. However, the
Aramaic form [ (Shaphel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg, 2nd, ms, suffix, jussive sense)] may be
read as an expression of the will of Darius,265 that is a profound yearning or longing on Darius part for the
deliverance of Daniel. Moreover, the Shaphel stem in Aramaic is causative; literally: may God
cause/bring about/ produce your deliverance.266
256 Rosenthal, 94.
257 KB2, 1957.
258 BDB, 1108.
259 LSJ, 1032.
260 BAGD, 467.
261 The relevant line in 4Q550c is that in column 3, verse 1:
[Peal ptc] [Peal, ptc] The Most High
whom you fear and venerate,

He is master over all the
earth.
262 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 168.
263 Rosenthal, 99.
265 For this sense of the jussive in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander 78 r.
266 For the causative sense of this stem, see Van Pelt, 151.
53
This same Aramaic verb [] is used in the same stem, Shaphel, in Dan 6:15, where Darius sets
about to effect a rescue; that effort proving a failure, Darius now turns to God; but, this is how a neophyte
faith actually works.
Summary.
In Dan 6:17a-d, the author utilizes assertive speech acts to commit himself to each statement in
Dan 6:17a-d to being the truth; each of these was the case, recorded exactly as they happened. The
expositor is entitled to read them as history.
In Dan 6:17e-f, the author reports a directive speech act by Darius intended for the benefit of
Daniel and directed to Daniels God. As noted above, this attempt to get Yahweh to move on behalf of
Daniel is startling.
The prayer is amazing in being addressed to Yahweh. Collins reports that archeologists uncovered
a baked stamp at Susa, a stamp attributed to another king by the name of Darius. The stamp reads: Of me
is Ahuramazda, of Ahuramazda am I.267 George Moore comments on the importance of this Persian deity,
Ahuramazda [literally, the Lord Wisdom], for Collins later Darius and Cyrus [the Darius of Daniel 6]
The inscriptions of Darius display him as a zealous worshiper of Ahuramazda, the Wise Lord, the supreme
god of the Zoroastrian faith, to whom he attributes his victories over enemies and rebels. That similar
testimony is not borne by the inscriptions of Cyrus may be explained by their limited extent and different
character.268 One would have expected that, as a devotee of a Persian god that is directly responsible for
victories in life, the Darius of Daniel 6 would have uttered a prayer to Ahuramazda, but he does not; rather,
Darius addresses this brief prayer to the God whom Daniel serves continually.
Equally as staggering is that, at best, whatever faith nourishes this prayer is unseasoned and
blurry; still, and this is the point of this brief paragraph, Darius is exercising faith; it may not be of the
caliber to move mountains, but it does appear to have a hand in subduing lions. As Goldingay rightly
remarks, It is Darius who comes into focus at this point in the story, not Daniel. 269 There seems to be a
lesson here: the theme of the book of Daniel is that God is in control of the national and international
military/political goings-on of the governmental elite; if so then Yahweh appears to be fully prepared to
respond to faith, such as it is and of whatever capacity it is, where and when He finds it.
Finally, while Darius certainly is the focus at this point in the story, the expositor should weigh
and consider just how Darius came to even this limited and fuzzy faith. One could easily imagine that the
consistency of Daniels service to his God [Dan 6:17e] made an impression on Darius. To be sure, there
may be a hint of examination, of experimentation, with Daniels God on Darius part. Fair enough; but,
judging by the outcome [Dan 6:22-23], God responded for His own reasons. If nothing else, this brief
paragraph testifies to the gracious condescension of God in the affairs of the political elite; it also attests to
Yahwehs sovereign Lordship over human history, regardless of the faith level of those who are pulling the
levers of power at the time.
3.Daniels fate, humanly speaking, is sealed [Dan 6:18]
6:18a
6:18b
6:18c
signet-ring,
6:18d
Then, a stone was brought,

and placed over the opening of the den;
and the king sealed it with his
and the signet-ring of his nobles,
267 Collins, 270.

268 George Foote Moore, History of Religions, vol. I, (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1913),
358.
269 Goldingay, 132.
54

6:18e
changed in regard to Daniel.

so that nothing could be
This brief paragraph is narrative genre, a continuation of the events in the history thus far that is
governed by the facts.270 Obviously, the paragraph highlights the sealing of the den by Darius and his
nobles.
In Dan 6:18a-b, a stone is placed over the opening of the den [Dan 6:18b]. According to Dan 6:24b,
Daniel would eventually be hauled up out of the den, implying that the opening of the den was at the top
of the pit/cistern that formed den itself.
In Dan 6:18c, the king sealed [ ] uses an Aramaic root [] for seal that
signals a means of closing something from interference, authoritatively, when the royal seal was applied,
as at the lions den, only to be opened at the royal command.271 Otzen notes that affixing a seal always
depicts it as a legal act.272
Signet ring [] is used of both the rings of the king and his nobles; this is the only appearance of
the noun in the Aramaic section of Daniel. Both the king and his subordinates participate in the sealing
process. Montgomery speculates that there were two reasons for this: first, that Daniel might not be
spirited away by the king nor abducted by the nobles, i.e., Daniels adversaries. 273
In Dan 6:18e, the author apprizes us of the rational for the double sealing: so that nothing could be
changed. As noted above, there must have been mutual skepticism among the king and his entourage.
Nothing [ (noun, fm, sg)] is a noun that means matter, concern, thing; when the noun is
preceded by the negative [], the sense of the noun becomes nothing.274
Is changed [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is from an Aramaic root [] that means [1] to be
different or [2] to be changed.275 Obviously, from Daniels point of view, for all intents and purposes,
this line tells us that his fate was sealed; from the kings and the nobles point of view, neither of them
could interfere with Daniel in any way; thus, the stage is now set for divine intervention.
E.Darius in distress for Daniel [Dan 6:19]
6:19a
palace,
6:19b
6:19c
brought in to him;
6:19d
Then, the king returned to his

and spent the night in hunger,
indeed, no diversions were
and even sleep fled from him.
This narrative genre paragraph lets the reader in on Darius mental state owing to the fate of
Daniel. As narrative, the reader is intended to read this paragraph as history. The reader may well be
surprised at this description of Darius long night; such personal angst over the fate of a subordinate is not
expected in an account of the daily life of a king of Persia. The net effect is that the author does not tell us
270 See Collins, FOTL, 110.
271 Alan Millard, , in NIDOTTE [H3159].
272 B. Otzen, , in TDOT, vol. V, 266.
273 Montgomery, 275-76.
274 KB2, 1962.
275 Ibid., 1999.
55
why the king spent such a miserable night; that said, Darius [1] spent the night in hunger (Dan 6:19b), [2]
no diversions were brought into him (Dan 6:19c), so that [3] sleep fled from him (Dan 6:19d). Numbers 1
and 3 are sufficiently clear so as to require no explanation; number 2 is a different matter.
Diversion [ (noun, fm, pl)] is basically uncertain in meaning. Kohler-Baumgartner
offer the options from the ancient Near East, the versions, some commentators, but eventually affirm the
meaning of the word remains uncertain.276 One of the Septuagint traditions omits Dan 6:19c; Theodotion
opts for , which is essentially food.277 On this reading, Dan 6:19c is comment on the
previous line [Dan 6:19b], which is at least defensible. Holladay offers the variety of reading for this noun:
concubines, food, musical instruments, perfumes.278 Goldingay makes the interesting observation that in
Persia at this time 300 concubines were available to watch over the king with music and song by
lamplight.279 When all is said and done, it may be best to follow Driver: the king did not indulge his
usual diversions.280
VI.Narrative of Daniels deliverance [Dan 6:20-25]

A.
6:20a
dawn, with the light of day;
6:20b
lions den.
At once, the king arose at

so in haste, he went to the
276 Ibid., 1849.

277 BAGD, 217.
278 Holladay, 402.
279 Goldingay, 121.
56
Dan 6:20-25 is a narrative genre that sets forth in sequence the next events in the story line. The
reader is warranted in reading these lines that the author presents as history. This paragraph [Dan 6:20-25]
is the high point in the narrative: the narrative opens with Darius rushing to the lions den [Dan 6:20]; it
continues with an anxious Darius calling out for Daniel [Dan 6:21], followed by Daniels response [Dan
6:22-23]; and it concludes with Darius twofold reaction, first to Daniel [Dan 6:24] and then to Daniels
accusers [Dan 6:25]. Within this structure, the high point is Daniels response to Darius [Dan 6:22-23].
In Dan 6:20a, the author communicates the urgency of Darius reaction: at once at dawn
with the light of day.
Immediately [] is the familiar particle adverb, which means immediately or at once.281
In this context, indicates that something vital, even pressing, is awaiting Darius.
At dawn [] with the light of day [] are two prepositional phrases that seem
to be saying the same thing in slightly different ways. The first term [] depicts daybreak,
dawn;282 the second term [] suggests the moment when the sun was visible.283 Put together, the
sense is: at the very first light, once more underscoring the seriousness, from Darius point of view, of
Daniels predicament.
In Dan 6:20b, the author continues underlining the kings rush to get to the den: in haste, he went to the
lions den.
In haste [] is a prepositional phrase; the noun [ (noun, fm, sg)] is a
substantive form of an infinitive.284 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:20b with
hastily.285 At the same time, the Aramaic root of this noun [] may be translated either [1] to
frighten, terrify or [2] to hasten.286 In fact, BDB notes that in Dan 6:20 originally
meant in alarm.287 The form [] is used three times in Daniel and in Dan 3:24,
Nebuchadnezzar stands up /in alarm when he notes that the three men in the fiery furnace
had become four. Driver combines the two ideas, translating in haste and commenting so anxious was
he to learn how Daniel had fared.288
B.Warily, Darius calls for Daniel [Dan 6:21-23]

1.
Darius cries out [Dan 6:21]
6:21a
6:21b
he cried out;
Then, as he approached the den,

to Daniel, with an anguished voice
282 KB2, 2002.
284 Bauer-Leander 85 h.
285 KB2, 1862.
286 Ibid., 1832.
287 BDB, 1084.
57

6:21c
Daniel:
6:21d
6:21e
serve continually,
6:21f
from the lions?

the king spoke up and said to
Daniel, servant of the Living God,
your God, whom you
has He been able to deliver you
Dan 6:21 is a narrative genre, tracing out further historical events in the Daniel legend. Darius
angst is still on the authors mind, since the author represents Darius as calling out for Daniel as he
approached the den [Dan 6:21a], and the author characterizes Darius state of mind as anguished [Dan
6:21b]. It may be significant that, in a context [Dan 6:20-21a-b] that has underscored Darius anxiety, the
king now refers to Daniels God [Dan 6:17e] as the Living God [Dan 6:21d]. There may be a theological
basis for Darius angst.
In Dan 6:21a, the author signals Darius distress by reporting that Darius anguished voice began
crying out as he approached. Bauer-Leander translate the infinitive construct and preposition
[] with bei seiner Annherung [during his approach].289 In Biblical Hebrew, when this
preposition [] is prefixed to an infinitive construct [] the construction signifies that the
action in the infinitive construct occurs just before the events described in the main clause.290 This
syntactical /semantic thrust of the Hebrew construction does fit the context in the Aramaic construction in
Dan 6:21a: even before Darius reaches the den, he is already crying out for some response from Daniel.
In Dan 6:21b, the author depicts Darius state of mind by targeting his anguished voice. In which he
cries out.
Anguished [] is an adjective that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:21 with
troubled, sad.291 BDB translates in Dan 6:21 with in a pained voice.292 Holladay opts for
sorrowful, afflicted in Dan 6:21.293 Bauer-Leander translate the adjective with betrbt [saddened,
distressed].294 Rosenthal simply goes with sad.295 The Aramaic verb does appear once in the Dead Sea
Scrolls in 1Q20, the Genesis Apocryphon, in the sense of deep grief.296 In 1Q20, has the sense of
grief, to be troubled about, to be sad. The net effect is that Darius approached Daniels subterranean tomb
with , with anguish, torment, agony; he has been tortured, for some unexplained reason, and it
shows in his voice.
290 Van der Merwe 20.5. (ii).
291 KB2, 1952.
292 BDB, 1107.
293 Holladay, 417.
295 Rosenthal, 92.
296 That very night, I implored, I
sought, I pleaded for pity,
and said in my deep
grief, while my tears flowed:
Blessed are You, Most High
God, Lord of everything.
58
Cried out [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is from an Aramaic root [] that Kohler-Baumgartner
translate in Dan 6:21 with to shriek.297 Holladay more or less follows suit, translating with cry
out, shout.298 G. Hasel notes, concerning , that the major emphasis of the basic meaning of the
root falls on the loud and agonizing crying of someone in acute distress. 299 The upshot is that
signals acute distress on Darius part. Indeed, we noted above that Darius approached Daniels
subterranean tomb with anguish, torment, agony; he has been tortured, for some unexplained reason, and it
emerges in his voice, which shrieks in acute distress.
In Dan 6:21d, the author reports that Darius intensifies his theological language, referring to Daniel as the
servant of the Living God. The language is striking on the lips of a polytheistic Persian dictator, indeed
Driver refers to the Living God [ ] as emphatic and significant.300 Be this as it may,
[the Living God] occurs only twice in the Aramaic section of Daniel, both spoken by
Darius [Dan 6:21, 27]. Could Daniel be the origin of this language? Could Darius have picked up this
reference to Daniels God from overhearing Daniel himself mention it?
Daniel would have been well acquainted with this phrase in either of its forms in the Hebrew Bible. That
is, the Living God written as is found in Joshua 3:10; Psalm 42:3; 84:3; and Hosea 2:1.
Moreover, the Living God written as is found in Deuteronomy 5:26; 1 Samuel
17:26, 36; and Jeremiah 10:10; 23:36. While the matter is absolutely conjectural, the reader might weigh
and consider the proposition that Daniel is the man who stimulated Darius to use this language to describe a
God about whom the king would have known next to nothing.
Living God [ ] uses an adjective, , to qualify God []. In Aramaic, the
adjective, , means living, alive in Dan 6:21 according to Kohler-Baumgartner.301 But, there is far
more in this adjective than alive as opposed to dead.
The reader should observe the import of the adjective as a description of God in actual usage. For
example, in Joshua 3:10, Joshua affirms that the Living God [ ] is [1] in your midst (presence)
and [2] can be trusted to surely drive out enemies (timely intervention/rescue). The idea of presence
seems to be the point of the psalmists soul longing for the Living God [ ] in Psalm 42:3 and 84:3.
Then, Hosea uses the phrase to signal a relationship between Yahweh and His people: sons of the Living
God [Hosea 2:1]. Presence and availability seem to be the association with [the
Living God], referencing those who have heard the voice of the in Deuteronomy
5:26. Intervention/rescue appears to be the point of Davids speech concerning Goliath, who dared to taunt
the armies of the [the Living God] in 1 Samuel 17:26, 36. Jeremiah adds a
nuance to in Jeremiah 10:10, where [the Living God] is
tantamount to Yahwehs everlasting kingship [this is possibly the point in Jeremiah 23:36, where
[the Living God] is parallel to Yahweh of Hosts].
So, where does this leave us? [the Living God] is used in four senses: [1]
qualifies God as present and available; [2] reveals God as the God who intervenes and rescues;
[3] discloses the God who initiates human relationships; and [4] signifies God as everlasting
King [everlasting is also the point Darius will make about Daniels God in Dan 6:27f]. To be sure,
Daniel comprehends all of this.
It is impossible to know exactly what Darius comprehended about the Living God. One doubts that his
polytheism would have encompassed the four points, above. More than likely, having overhead or perhaps
297 KB2, 1867.
298 Holladay, 404.
299 G. Hasel, , in TDOT, vol. IV, 115.
59
spoken with Daniel on the subject, Darius is using words with a shallow understanding of them at best; this
would be thoroughly consistent with his meager faith evidenced in Dan 6:17. In no way should the reader
infer that Darius is abandoning his polytheism, and Darius precarious polytheism may be the real issue
arising out of this debacle.
Throughout the latter portion of this chapter [Dan 6:15ff], we have noted repeatedly Darius
agitation, his distress and anguish, over this emerging debacle concentrated in Daniel. We have also noted
that the author does not tip his hand and reveal why Darius is so agitated about Daniel. One wonders (and
speculation is all this is) if perhaps the cause of Darius angst is provoked by Daniel as well as his Living
God. Could this monotheist actually be on the right track? Could it be that Ahuramazda, the wise lord, the
supreme god of Darius and the Persians, the god of all victories, has a superior? Could it be that all of the
legends and tales circulating about Daniel and his God in the royal court truly authenticate the supremacy
of Daniels God? Could it be that this God could actually deliver? Could it be that Darius is governing with
the aid of a second-string deity?
As long as we are speculating, lets take the conjecture a step further: supposing that this debacle
with Daniel has given Darius cause for second thoughts about his polytheism; then what are the political
ramifications? That is, as a typical ancient Near Eastern, polytheistic ruler, Darius would have counted on
having the most powerful deity on his team; but, what if Daniel truly is the servant of the Living God?
Where does this leave Darius and Ahuramazda and their alliance in running Persia? One might conjecture
that Darius is in distress over the theological/political conundrum that Daniel and his Living God have
thrust upon the tyrant: what if Daniel is right and Daniel is in league with the Living God? Where does this
leave Darius and the governance of his regime? Obviously: with a second-string god!
In Dan 6:21e-f, the author reports that Darius springs the big question: your God, whom you
serve continually (Dan 6:21e), has He been able to deliver you from the lions (Dan 6:21f)?
In Dan 6:21e, Darius repeats exactly his previous statement in Dan 6:17e: your God, whom you
serve continually.302 When discussing Dan 6:17e, we noted that how Darius could have known about
Daniels continuous service is not specified. We conjectured that the legend of Daniel would have been
well known in the royal precincts. At the same time, Daniels prayer life could have been in the back of
Darius mind as an example of Daniels continuous service to his God. The point is this: your God whom
you serve may well be the moment when Darius puts Daniel and his God to the test: it is as if Darius were
thinking, Daniel, are all of these legends and tales about you and your God really true? For the polytheist
who rushes to verify what Daniel and his God are reputed to be able to do, this is the moment of truth.
Presently, Darius will no longer have to speculate about Daniels reputation as a distinctive man of God.
In Dan 6:21f, the author reports that Darius asks a question: has He been able to deliver you? The
expositor should note that Dan 6:21f is a question, and as a question the questioner is wholly uncertain as
to the answer to be expected.303 Thus, when Darius shouts has He been able? Darius is in some doubt;
there is uncertainty and hesitation vis--vis Gods ability [] to rescue Daniel. To be sure, when this
verb [able ()] is used in Dan 3:17, the three young Jews are certain; they affirm that God is indeed
able [] to rescue them; but, Darius is a whole different kettle of fish: he is unsure, doubtful,
tentative, sheltering doubts about Gods capability. Once more, for Darius, this is the moment of truth for
his polytheism: if God is able, then Darius may have some reconsidering to do; but, if God has not been
able, then it is back to business as usual.
Has He been able [ (interrogative ; Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg] is an interrogative that questions,
hesitates concerning, Yahwehs ability [] to deliver Daniel from a life or death threat. The Aramaic
root [] that is used solely in the Peal stem in biblical Aramaic, means either: [1] to be able or [2]
302 For the details, see the notes on this line in Dan 6:17e.
303 E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, revised by A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1970; reprint), 150 d [hereafter abbreviated GKC].
60
to prevail against, defeat.304 To this second sense, Holladay prefers to overpower.305 Paul Gilchrist
affirms that in biblical Aramaic focuses on Gods sovereign power.306 As used in the Aramaic
text of Daniel, is used to communicate surmounting some humanly insuperable challenge [Dan
2:10, 27; 3:17; 4:18; 6:5, 21]; quite often in these contexts, it is Yahweh alone who overpowers these
various humanly overwhelming obstacles [Dan 3:17, 29]. Moreover, is used in the sense of
Yahwehs ability to humble the proud and arrogant [Dan 4:37]. Finally, is used in the sense of
prevailing over an adversary [Dan 7:21]. J.A. Soggin affirms concerning that Theologically, the
verb should be especially appropriate to the omnipotent God of Israel;307 obviously, Darius has his doubts
about Gods sovereign power.
Deliver [] was discussed in Dan 6:15c [see the notes there]. For now, it is interesting to note how
the author has plotted the use of in Daniel 6. In the first use [Dan 6:15], Darius himself sets out
to /deliver Daniel, ultimately to no avail; in the second use [Dan 6:17], Darius fledgling faith,
probably shared with his own deity [Ahuramazda], utters a wary prayer that Daniels God will
/deliver him; in the third usage [Dan 6:21], a hesitant Darius faces the moment of truth: has
Yahweh been able to /deliver Daniel? And, in Dan 6:28, Darius uses twice to proclaim
that Yahweh /delivers! The author has skillfully chronicled what is impossible for mere mortals,
what polytheistic deities are powerless to accomplish, and what only Yahweh can achieve in the realm of
/deliverance.
Summary.
Dan 6:21b is an assertive speech act wherein the author commits himself to Darius shrieking in
anguish actually being the truth of the case. The vital message the author intends to convey is transmitted
in the exact fit between Darius angst with an anguished voice he cried out and Dariuss real state of
mind as shown in his voice. For some reason, Darius is tortured and tormented.
Dan 6:21d-f is a directive speech act, in view of the fact that questions are a subclass of
directives, since they are an attempt by a speaker to get the hearer to answer; i.e., to perform a speech
act.308 As we noted above, in biblical Aramaic, the question presumes the speakers doubt and uncertainty
vis--vis the answer. Darius basically directs Daniel to relieve Darius of his torment.
The author embeds an assertive speech act within the question to describe Daniel: servant of the Living
God. If we transformed this phrase into a statement, it would be: Daniel serves the Living God. This
assertive speech act is informative; by means of it, the author represents Darius as describing and
identifying Daniel. The interesting factor is that Darius characterizes Daniel as a servant of the Living God.
In the discussion of Dan 6:21d, we noted the emphatic and significant thrust of this most unusual
description of God, a depiction that comes from a life-long polytheist. We have speculated that, when all is
said and done that Daniels relationship to his Living God has brought some uncertainty, some theological
uncertainty into Darius ways of looking at the powers and forces above and beyond him. Could this
Jewish monotheist be on the right track? And, if he is, then Darius is off the rails, which has
theological/political implications for how Darius and the deity oversee Persia. The upshot is this: the doubt
and uncertainty in the questioning [Dan 6:21d-f], and the dominating torture and torment so prevalent in
Dan 6:15, 17, 19 are the product of Daniel and the Living God shaking the foundations of Darius neat and
304 KB2, 1891; similarly, BDB, 1095.

305 Holladay, 408.
306 Paul Gilchrist, , in TWOT, 866.
307 J.A. Soggin, , in TDOT, vol. VI, 74.
308 Searle, Expression and Meaning, 14.
61
compact political theology. Daniel and the Living God have thrust upon Darius a spiritual moment of
truth.309
2.Daniel answers [Dan 6:22-23]
6:22a
Then, Daniel spoke with the king:
6:22b
O, king, may you live forever!
6:23a
My God sent His angel,
6:23b
and shut the mouth of the lions,
6:23c
and so, they have not injured me;
6:23d
inasmuch as, before Him,
I was found to be innocent,
6:23e
and so, before you, O king,
6:23f
I have committed no crime!
This paragraph is the high point of Dan 6:20-25. The narrative genre unpacks the crucial instant
when Darius discovers that Daniels Living God has indeed delivered the goods; as narrative the author,
governed by the facts, reports what Daniel said in response to Darius question in Dan 6:21. After a
formulaic greeting that honors Darius [Dan 6:22a], the narrative reports Daniels assertion of the origin of
his escape [Dan 6:23a]: My God sent His angel; this is followed by a report of the action God took on
Daniels behalf [Dan 6:23b]: He shut the mouth of the lions. This is followed up with an assertion of the
net effect [Dan 6:23e]: and so, they have not injured me; then, there is a causal statement [Dan 6:23d]:
(1) before Him, I was found to be innocent with an ensuing result statement [Dan 6:23e-f]: and so,
before you, O king, I have committed no crime.
Dan 6:23 My God sent His angel, and shut the mouth of the lions, and so they have not injured me ;
inasmuch as, before Him, I was found to be innocent, and so, before you, O king, I have committed no
crime!
In Dan 6:23a, the author reports Daniels testimony regarding the origin of his deliverance: My
God sent His angel.
My God [] is the only time in Daniel 6 that Daniel uses this phrase; to be sure, Daniel
applies the phrase liberally outside the Aramaic portion of the book [Dan 9:4, 18-20]. This singular use in
Dan 6:23a of /My God is almost certainly Daniels eloquent rejoinder to Darius use of
/your God in Dan 6:17e. Darius pious wish that the king extends to Daniel a kind of agnostic,
embarrassed expression, such as one often hears by the side of a sick-bed comes to an unexpected
fulfillment.310 With stark and lean simplicity, the author reports that Daniel confronts Darius with the
supremacy of Yahweh [/My God], and by implication with the inferiority, the inadequacy, the
309 As noted above, this is all quite speculative; the case is circumstantial for the simple reason
that the author never tells us why Darius is in such straits. The expositor may well infer some other reasons
for the emotional responses of Darius to this crisis, responses that seem to be all out of keeping for what a
reader might expect from a Persian dictator, responses that call for some sort of explanation.
There have been those who have postulated that Darius had considerable fellow-feeling for
Daniel, and this should be taken into account. At the same time, if the reader/expositor asks herself or
himself: what actually motivates a dictator? The answer should come up in the language of power. We
know that Darius had major plans for Daniel, including making Daniel the number two man in Persia [Dan
6:4]. Now however, Daniel and the Living God have thrown a monkey wrench into all of that; Darius neat
little plans for Daniel have hit a speed-bump. The upshot is this: Daniel and the Living God have
confronted Darius with a potentially catastrophic dilemma: is the Living God more powerful than Darius
even imagined? For a politician who thought that he had his deity, Ahuramazda, securely in tow, this entire
Daniel episode is raising some uncomfortable questions; it is a real moment of truth.
310 Walter Lthi, The Church to Come (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1939), 88.
62
insufficiency of Darius deity, Ahuramazda. The moment of truth has come: Daniels living voice annuls
everything for the polytheistic-political alliance of Darius with his deity; with one word - /My
God Daniel undermines the polytheistic system of Darius with the regnant sovereignty of Yahweh.
His angel [ (noun, ms, sg, construct, 3rd, ms, suffix)] further invalidates Darius deity: His angel
overturns the death sentence. This is the same noun [] that Nebuchadnezzar used to attribute the
deliverance of the three Jews to Yahweh [Dan 3:28]. These are the only two appearances of the noun in the
Aramaic section of Daniel.
The Aramaic noun [] refers to an envoy, possibly a messenger from God or simply an
angel.311 D.N. Freedman and B.E. Willoughby note concerning the noun [] in Dan 6:23a that the
term refers to an angel who rescues the innocent from unjust punishment.312 Collins allows that this term
[] may refer to an agent of God.313 It is best not to over read , proposing a reference
to Jesus as some still do.314 Indeed, this /angel is sent by Daniels God, and Daniels envoysending God should remain the focus of the assertion in Dan 6:23a.
In Dan 6:23b, the author reports the manner of Daniels deliverance: Daniels God shut the mouth of the
lions.
Shut [] is an Aramaic verb that has a Syriac cognate that means to shut up, close up; in
Dan 6:23, means to shut.315 The specific means of this action on Yahwehs part is not mentioned;
the reader is entitled to infer that, like the envoy with the three Jews in the furnace in Daniel 3, we are in
the realm of miracle here. This is the answer to those who would claim that the lions had been fed prior to
Daniel joining them, and thus were not hungry.316 This attempt to reduce the miraculous nature of the event
seems to be undermined by the speed with which the lions dispatched Daniels accusers [Dan 6:25].
In Dan 6:23c, the author reports the result of the rescue: they have not injured me. The Aramaic verb
used here [] that has two ranges of meaning: [1] to hurt, inflict injury or ultimately [2] to
destroy.317 This is the same word and sense that Nebuchadnezzar used when he peered into the furnace
and saw four men walking about, none of whom were harmed [] in Dan 3:25.
In Dan 6:23d, e-f, the author brings us to the key claims in this highpoint of Dan 6:20-25. To begin with,
the author lets us in on the reason behind Yahwehs miraculous action: inasmuch as, before Him, I was
found innocent; then, the author reveals the consequence for Darius and his law of the Medes and the
311 KB2, 1915.
312 D.N. Freedman and B.E. Willoughby, , in TDOT, vol. VIII, 310.
314 The notion that this angel in the den with Daniel was Jesus goes back to the early Church
Fathers. For example, Ambrose in his Dogmatic Treatises simply makes this connection, merely affirming
that the angel was Jesus, without further ado. No sifting of the evidence is evident. Accordingly, the
expositor should have excellent reasons for claiming that Yahwehs envoy is the Second Person of the
Trinity.
315 KB2, 1937.
316 See Collins, Daniel, 271.
317 KB2, 1868.
63
Persians: and so, before you, O king, I have committed no crime! The expositor must appreciate the
friction created in Dan 6:23d, e-f: the ill-advised law that Darius signed into effect placed the law of the
Medes and the Persians at odds with the law of God, Daniel resisted the former and obeyed the latter,
signifying the preeminence of Gods law in the life of Daniel. Longman rightly notes, Daniel must choose
between the two laws, and he does not hesitate for a moment. He chooses to obey Gods law.318
Inasmuch as [ ] opens Dan 6:23d by signaling causation;319 the reason behind Yahwehs
miraculous deliverance of Daniel in Dan 6:23a-c is now stated.
Before Him [] uses the preposition, /before, in a figurative sense. That is, can
take on a spatial sense: in the sight of, according to Kohler-Baumgartner.320 This figurative sense
could be communicated with: [1] in front of or [2] before or [3] in the presence of. BDB indicates
that carries with it the idea of being before a superior.321 The upshot is that, as far as Daniels
accountability goes, Yahweh is Daniels superior.
The reader will also note that in the next line, before you [() Darius], the author uses
the same preposition albeit somewhat antithetically; the author juxtaposes these prepositional phrases
before Him/before you allowing Daniel to send Darius a subtle reminder: Daniels ultimate
responsibility is to Yahweh, not Darius. This stance predates Jesus remark to the effect that His followers
should render to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods by over 500
years!
I was found to be innocent [ ] is a translation that is smoothed out for
the English reader. The literal arrangement of the words is a bit more forceful: innocence was found to be
mine. The author has forcefully front-loaded the key word: innocence [].
Innocence [ (noun, fm, sg)] is probably an Akkadian loan word [zaktu], which means
exemption, liberation; Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:23d with innocence.322
Regarding the Akkadian cognate, A. Negoit and H. Ringgren add another nuance, which is interesting for
our passage: to be free of claims.323 Montgomery reads in the sense of legal innocence.324
Theodotion in the Septuagint tradition uses for , a Greek term that means
straightness,325 which Friberg notes has a figurative sense: as a quality of life, honesty, integrity.326
The net effect is this: Daniels accountability is to Yahweh and Yahweh, by virtue of rescuing Daniel, has
declared Daniel legally innocent; the law of the Medes and the Persians has no claim upon him.
Was found [ (Hithpeel, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is how the author declares Daniels
innocence; he writes innocence [feminine noun] was found [3rd, feminine singular verb] to be mine
318 Longman, 166.

319 Bauer-Leander translate with weil (because), 70 h.
320 KB2, 1967.
321 BDB, 1110.
322 KB2, 1865.
323 A. Negoit and H. Ringgren, , in TDOT, vol. IV, 62.
325 BAGD, 321.
326 Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 12059.
64
[prepositional phrase]. The Hithpeel stem is passive in orientation,327 which in this case suggests an agent
involved in the finding, i.e., Yahweh: innocence was found [by Yahweh] to be my possession.
Found [] as used in Biblical Aramaic takes on two senses: [1] to find in the sense of to
find by seeking, inquiring, investigating and [2] to find in the sense of to achieve, acquire. 328
Obviously, the first sense is apropos for Dan 6:23d, wherein Daniel is innocent after divine investigation.
Mine [] is actually a preposition with a 1st person suffix. Kohler-Baumgartner point out
that this construction /mine is a dative of possession with the sense belonging to Daniel.329 The
reader will note the emphasis communicated in the possessive notion; innocence is Daniels possession.
In Dan 6:23e-f, the author unveils the consequence of Yahwehs finding vis--vis Darius: and so,
before you, O king [Dan 6:23e], I have committed no crime! [Dan 6:23f]. The suppressed premise
between Dan 6:23d and Dan 6:23e-f is this: the finding of the greater court, Yahwehs [Dan 6:23d],
supplants the finding of the lesser court, Darius [Dan 6:23e-f].
And so [] is signaled by the simple waw prefixed to the conjunction, . Bauer-Leander
observe that this conjunction is copulative and may be translated with und auch [and also, and as
well].330 Dan 6:23e teases out the net effect of Yahwehs finding in Daniels favor: concluding from the
innocence actually testified to by God.331
Before you [] is to be read in conjunction with before Him [] in Dan
6:23d. The finding that really mattered was that before Him [Yahweh]; once that finding was made, from
the Supreme Court as it were, Darius claims vanished. Indeed, Darius ill-advised law prohibited
petitioning any god, including Yahweh, and redirecting petitions toward Darius [Dan 6:8], was a law that
Darius was not in a position to promulgate. Yahwehs authority vis--vis petition and prayer is
uninfringeable; Daniel acted in accord with Gods authority; Darius did not, and so, as far as Darius was
concerned, Daniel committed no crime.
Crime [ (noun, fm, sg)] is actually front-loaded in Daniel 6:23f: crime I have not
committed. The noun [] is used only here in the Aramaic portion of Daniel. KohlerBaumgartner offer either hurtful act or crime for in Dan 6:23f.332 Bauer-Leander translate
with Verbrechen [crime].333 The distinction between as hurtful action and
crime is a matter of interpretive perspective. That is, there are those who read the legal conflict between
Daniel and Darius in personal terms, as disloyalty to the king.334 However, the of which
Daniel stands accused carries with it the death penalty; therefore, it seems best, on contextual grounds, to
read as a crime against the legal system of the king and the Medes and the Persians. To be
sure, Daniels adversaries do underline Daniels lack of deference to Darius [Dan 6:14c], but this is a
secondary charge, leveled in support of their claim that Daniel had acted in defiance of the law of the land.
327 Van Pelt, 125.

328 W. Schottroff, , in TLOT III, 1322.
329 KB2, 1905.
331 Keil, Daniel, 217.
332 KB2, 1868; similarly, BDB, 1092.
333 Bauer-Leander 51 m.
334 Young, 138.
65
Summary.
In Dan 6:23a-b, the author opens Daniels speech with an assertive speech act, with which the author
intends to communicate, drawing on Daniels eye witness account, the fact that Yahweh sent his envoy and
shut the mouths of the lions. The author intends that we, the reader, infer that what Dan 6:23a-b affirms is
the case. The author has chosen his words very carefully so as to draw attention to Gods initiative in these
two actions; the chief actor in these lines is neither the envoy nor, purportedly, Jesus; Yahweh is the center
piece in these two lines.
One of the central truth claims in this assertive speech act is the tension between my God,
spoken by Daniel and your God, spoken by Darius [Dan 6:17e]. The former is a definitive rejoinder by
Daniel to the half-hearted piece of polytheistic wishful thinking by Darius. This my God/your God
tension raises the basic conflict in the passage: with Daniels rescue by my God, Darius deity is proven
to be as powerless as he is absent. The moment of truth has come: Daniels voice annuls everything for the
polytheistic-political alliance of Darius with his deity; with one word /My God Daniel
emasculates the polytheistic system of Darius by means of witnessing to the regnant sovereignty of
Yahweh. Make no mistake about it: Dan 6:23a, my God, settles the conflict between a man who fully
trusted in the God of this universe and a man who, as a polytheist, could be very pliable in terms of ruling
deities.
In Dan 6:23d, e-f, the author employs another assertive speech act in order to signal the truth that
follows in the wake of this settled conflict [Dan 6:23a-b]. In reporting what Daniel said on this occasion,
the author commits Daniel to the truth of what he is saying, and, as a matter of fact, he is saying one thing
from two different points of view. The one thing Daniel is saying is this: my God reigns supreme over
this universe, including the Persian Empire with all of its laws, accordingly my actions before Him [Dan
6:23d] are what really matter! From one viewpoint, innocence is His prerogative [Dan 6:23d]; from a
second viewpoint, that of Darius and his legal system, before you, no crime has been committed [Dan
6:23e-f].
We have noted previously what speech theoreticians refer to as the perlocutionary effect of a
speech act, such as the assertive speech act. That is, the author by saying what he says may be achieving
certain intended effects in the hearer in addition to those335 achieved in the assertive speech act. The net
effect is this: by asserting Daniels unwavering trust in and obedience to his God, including the principled
resistance to the law of the Medes and the Persians, the author may be attempting to convince the reader to
follow suit. As we noted above, when all is said and done, Darius lacked the authority to determine to
whom one would pray; this is Gods jurisdiction, not mans domain. Accordingly, Daniels loyalties were
dependably consumed with Yahweh and Daniel acted accordingly. The same may be said of Peter and the
apostles in Acts 5. In that case, their loyalty to Jesus forbade them from heeding the ill-advised stricture of
the Sanhedrin to cease preaching and teaching in the name of the Messiah. Their response paralleled
Daniels: We must obey God rather than men [Acts 5:29]. Given these two passages, Dan 6:23 and Acts
5:29, the reader might weigh and consider whether both intend to reproduce a similar effect in modern
believers.
C.Darius responds [Dan 6:24-25]

1.
Darius responds to Daniel [Dan 6:24]
335 Pratt, 81.

66
6:24a
exceedingly satisfied,
6:24b
be hauled up out of the den;
6:24c
den,
6:24d
on him,
6:24e
So, then, the king was

and he ordered Daniel to
so, Daniel was hauled up from the
and there was no injury to be found
because, he trusted in his God.
Dan 6:24 is a brief narrative genre, reporting for the reader the historical facts associated with the
physical delivery of Daniel. Two facts stand out in this narrative: first the practical response of the king
[exceedingly satisfied (Dan 6:24a)] and second, the fidelity of Daniel to Yahweh [he trusted in his God
(Dan 6:24e)].
In Dan 6:24a, the author reports the immediate reaction of Darius to Daniels rescue: the king
was exceedingly satisfied.
Was satisfied [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] uses an Aramaic root with a following preposition,
, that literally means: it is good for him, which is another way of saying he is glad.336 This verb as
well as this construction [verb () + preposition ()] appear only here in the Aramaic section of
Daniel. Rosenthal offers to be good and it pleased him.337 Clearly, most of the authorities as well as
most translations gravitate toward an emotive/gladness reading of .
However, the personal-emotive sense attached to the Aramaic , glad/pleased, is problematic. To
begin with, there is the matter of the utilitarianism that generally applies to the root throughout Semitic
usages. I. Hver-Johag affirms that the basic meaning of and its derivatives refers in general to
the qualities that make an object desirable. Here, the emphasis is on an originally pure utilitarianism, both
qualitative and quantitative.338 Hver-Johag further notes that in secular usage the most common
meaning of in the OT is utilitarian; that is, the emphasis is on the functional aspect [emphasis
mine] with a very concrete and tangible meaning in the background.339 Robert Gordon in NIDOTTE
concurs noting that in general usage good indicates a state or function appropriate to genre, purpose, or
situation.340 H.J. Stoebe affirms that the senses of are broad, but arranges the most important
spheres of usage thus: (a) suitability for a purpose, (b) an indication of quality, (c) characterization of
people, (d) evaluations of decisions, and (e) [good] in contrast to [evil].341
When we compare the meager Aramaic derivatives of this root, the utilitarian nuance is self-evident. For
example, the Aramaic adjective [] is used in Ezra 5:17 in a letter to Darius the king. In this letter, the
correspondents propose in Ezra 5:17: if it pleases [] the king, let a search be conducted. Obviously,
there is a utilitarian nuance here, something like: if it suits the king. In the only verbal derivative
[] in the Aramaic OT, another letter has a writer proposing to a correspondent: whatever seems
good [] to you to do with the rest of the silver. Once more, the utilitarian nuance is clear,
something like: whatever works for you to do with the rest of the silver.
337 Rosenthal, 86.
338 I. Hver-Johag, , in TDOT, vol. V, 298.
339 Ibid., 304.
340 Robert Gordon, , in NIDOTTE [H3201].
341 H.J. Stoebe, , in TLOT II, 487.
67
To be sure, in biblical Hebrew, the verb [] can be read in the sense of to be joyful, to be
glad; but, this translation always is written with (heart) (be good).342 The same is
essentially true for the Hebrew adjective [] when it is translated glad, happy, merry. That is, the
Hebrew adjective [/good/glad] is also used with the noun [/heart] to signal glad, merry, and
happy (of heart).343
The upshot is this: the Aramaic verb and adjective are used, outside of Dan 6:24a, with a utilitarian nuance:
a circumstance suits or satisfies or works for someone; in other words in these secular usages, functionality
and suitability for some purpose, specified or unspecified in the context, are the order of the day.
Accordingly, Dan 6:24a may be read in the sense of: the king was exceedingly satisfied (with this
outcome).
One rationale for translating with very pleased/glad is suggested by BDB; that is,
in Dan 6:24a is read in contrast to /grieved in Dan 6:15b.344 Concerning our treatment of
in Dan 6:15b, we noted that such translations as sad, distressed managed to sidestep something
powerfully figurative in the root: in both literal and figurative uses, conveys that which stinks, in
other words, something that is odious. Accordingly, Dan 6:15b should depict Darius reaction to the trap he
and Daniel have fallen into in terms of strong disgust or revulsion. The net effect is that, while Dan 6:24a
does contrast with Dan 6:15b, the contrast is more between a debacle that brought on strong disgust [Dan
6:15b] becoming a miraculous outcome that is exceptionally satisfying [] to Darius [Dan 6:24a]; that
which was odious has worked out well for the king.345
In Dan 6:24e, the author provides the reason for Daniels miraculous escape: because he trusted in his
God.
Because [] is a particle that signals causation in Dan 6:24e according to Bauer-Leander.346
He trusted [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the perfect aspect, which is probably an
historical perfect,347 simply recording the fact of Daniels trust as a whole.
Trust [] basically means to be firm, trustworthy.348 There is a Syriac cognate that means to
occupy oneself constantly with.349 The Aramaic verb, when followed by the preposition [] as it is here,
means to trust in.350 The Aramaic verb appears three times in the Aramaic of Daniel [Dan 2:45; 6:5, 24].
342 Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 25:36; 2 Samuel 13:28; Esther 1:10.

343 1 Kings 8:66; 2 Chronicles 7:10; Esther 5:9; Proverbs 15:15.
344 See BDB, 1094.
345 We are left to speculate on just what worked out so well for the king. On one hand, Darius
plan to elevate Daniel to the number two spot in the realm [Dan 6:4] is back in play, as Dan 6:29 may
indicate; on the other hand, Darius is now at liberty to retaliate on those who framed the king in the first
place, retaliation which Darius immediately lets loose [Dan 6:25].
347 Ibid., 79 h.
348 KB1, 63.
349 Ibid.
350 Ibid.
68
In the Hebrew Bible, when this verb [] is used in the Hiphil stem [the Hiphil in Hebrew
corresponds to the Haphel in Aramaic, which we have in Dan 6:24e] and is also followed by the preposition
[], the sense is: accepting what someone says as true with the added nuance of acting in response to
what is heard with trust and obedience.351 H. Wildberger, with reservations, settles on to be firm,
dependable, certain as a basic meaning for in the Hebrew Bible.352 When used with the
preposition, , the Hiphil of takes on the sense of to stand fast, hold still.353 Finally, when the
phrase believe/trust [] in [] God [] is used in the Hebrew Bible, it often has the
twin senses mentioned by Moberly: [1] trust in what is said, and then [2] act on it [Deuteronomy 1:32-33;
9:23; 2 Kings 17:14; Jonah 3:5].
The net effect is this: the author does not tell us exactly how Daniel trusted Yahweh in this
instance. Did Daniel trust that God would deliver him? We do not know. Did Daniel simply trust that he
had done the right thing by not praying to Darius? We do not know. Did Daniel trust that Yahweh would
not permit this injustice to continue unchallenged? We do not know. All we do know is this: Daniel simply
trusted, stood fast and held still, in his God, leaving the entire sordid, repugnant, sleazy circumstance in His
hands.
Summary.
In Dan 6:24a, the author employs an assertive speech act to inform the reader of Darius initial reaction to
this miracle; the author accurately depicts the personal impact of the miracle on Darius. In a nutshell, the
author let us in on Darius state of mind: the entire matter worked out well for the king. As a pragmatist, the
outcome suited his purposes; from a utilitarian point of view, the tangible results worked out well for
Darius.
Then, in Dan 6:24e, the author makes use of another assertive speech act to represent the state of
Daniels trust in his God; the author commits himself to the truth of the proposition that Daniel trusted in
his God. Indeed, the author uses a perfect aspect verb to leave Daniels trust open-ended; Daniel simply
held fast, come what may. Furthermore, as we have noted before, authors may use language intending to
achieve certain effects in hearers [perlocutionary effect]; by telling us that Daniel trusted God in an
impossible circumstance, the author is, at the same time, encouraging the reader to adopt a similar level of
faith.
Reflection.
Dan 6:25 is an historical event in the life of Daniel, a moment in which his trust in God
miraculously delivered him from a sentence of death. The reader should note, however, that this singular
historical event must not be over interpreted. Specifically, Dan 6:25 does not necessarily imply that God
miraculously delivers from dire straits every time. Indeed, this can be shown from the book of Daniel itself.
In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego resist the powers that be and are cast into a fiery
furnace [Dan 3:20] from which they are miraculously delivered [Dan 3:25-26]; yet, much later in Daniel,
the faithful who are devoted to their God will resist evil and be condemned to die by fire [Dan 11:33]. No
deliverance here!
Similarly, here in Daniel 6, Daniel resists an idolatrous attempt by a power-politician and his
entourage to make a virtual god out of a tyrant [Dan 6:8]; Daniel resists this evil and is sentenced to death
for his trouble [Dan 6:17]; subsequently, owing to his faith, Daniel is miraculously delivered [Dan 6:2324]. Yet, later in the book of Daniel, amidst intense apostasy among the covenant people, the
351 R.W.L. Moberly, , in NIDOTTE [H586].

352 H. Wildberger, , in TLOT I, 136.
353 Ibid., 142.
69
knowledgeable among them will attempt to turn the tide and fall in martyrdom for their trouble [Dan
11:35]; no miraculous deliverance here!
There are two observations in all of this. First, Daniel 3 and 6 affirm that resolute believers cannot
avoid resisting the evil around them and, as a result, paying the price. As Joyce Baldwin finely says,
There is no suggestion here or elsewhere in Scripture that the believer will be cushioned against trouble
and suffering except by the presence of the Lord with him it in.354 In Daniel 3 and 6, the faithful are
miraculously delivered; in Daniel 11, they are not. There are no guarantees!
But, second, Daniel 12 puts an exclamation mark on this business of resisting, suffering, martyrdom and
deliverance. Making a blanket statement concerning every faithful, trusting, believer who would follow
him, Daniel 12 warns us of a time of persecution for the people of God that will be unheard of up to that
time [Dan 12:1]. Fair enough; in the year of our Lord, 2015, unprecedented persecution is yet to come.
But, in the single most magnificent and unambiguous statement of resurrection in the Old Testament,
Daniel 12:2 declares in no uncertain terms what final deliverance looks like: Many who sleep in the dust
of the earth will awake, some to eternal life. This is a guarantee!
2.
Darius responds to Daniels accusers [Dan 6:25]
6:25a
Then, the king give gave orders,
6:25b
and they produced those men,
6:25c
who had maliciously
accused Daniel,
6:25d
and they cast them into the lions
den,
6:25e
with their sons and their wives;
6:25f
and, they had not reached the
bottom of the den,
6:25g
before the lions
overpowered them,
6:25h
and crushed all their bones.
Dan 6:25 is a narrative genre in which the author relates the historical facts concerning the fate
of those who set up Daniel and Darius. In sequential order, from the command [Dan 6:25a] to the collapse
of Daniels adversaries and their families [Dan 6:25d-h], the author gives us a narrative account of these
past events.
In Dan 6:25c, the author hints at the basis for Darius immediate and appalling retaliation: who
had maliciously accused Daniel. Dan 6:25c is introduced with a relative particle [] that may be used
to introduce an explanatory clause [back referencing men in Dan 6:25b], or it may be used causally to
provide the basis for the main action in the previous line [they produced these men because]. BauerLeander notes that the distinction between explanation and causation with this particle is slight. 355
Maliciously accused [ (noun, ms, pl, construct, 3rd, ms, suffix) (Peal, perfect, 3rd,
ms, pl)] is an idiomatic phrase, literally they ate his pieces. Kohler-Baumgartner translate the idiom in
Dan 6:25c, to take legal proceedings against, accuse.356 BDB more or less follow suit, translating to
354 Baldwin, 101.

356 KB2, 1974.
70
accuse maliciously.357 Holladay reads the idiom in the sense of slander, backbite.358 M. Ottosson writes
that this idiom signals a desire to destroy, consume another person, thus communicating destructive
activities.359 Accordingly, the idiom expresses not only an accusation or denunciation but a malicious
accusation against Daniel.360 There may be more than a little irony here: those who intended to consume
Daniel are themselves consumed by the fate that awaited Daniel.
In Dan 6:25e, the author tells us that not only were the perpetrators cast into the den, but also their families
with them: with their sons and their wives.
The reader should appreciate that this excessive, by our standards, level of punishment was not at
all uncharacteristic of the ancient Near East at this time.361 Young cites a critic of such laws at the time who
said, Some laws are abominable, through which, because of the crime of one person, all his relatives are
put to death.362 There is an interesting account in Esther 9 that records how Jews turned the tables on
those who sought their demise: in the fortress of Shushan alone, they killed five hundred men, as well as
ten of the sons of Haman [Esther 9:12]. Evidently, these ten sons of Haman were impaled on stakes
[Esther 9:13]!
Sadly, such excessive standards of punishment are not the sole province of the ancient Near East. During
World War II, Nazi Germany had a legal travesty known as kith and kin detention. What this amounted
to was legal sanction for arresting, detaining, and even executing family members of those accused of some
crime against the Reich. In the aftermath of the July 1944 bomb plot to kill Adolph Hitler, Heinrich
Himmler said of one of the leaders of the plot, Claus von Stauffenberg, that The Stauffenberg family will
be exterminated down to its last member.363 Happily, as it turned out, such was not the case. In any event,
whether Darius or Adolph Hitler, the reader is encouraged to reflect on the lengths to which some tyrants
will go to protect their political interests; to be sure, in the book of Daniel, for the most part, political
leaders move from bad to worse.
VII.Darius proclamation [Dan 6:26-28]
A.
6:26a
tongues
The scope of the proclamation [Dan 6:26a]
Thereupon, Darius the king wrote

to every people, nation, and
dwelling on the earth:
The genre of Dan 6:26-28 is a proclamation, which is a public announcement, made or

authorized by a person in authority.364 The reader should appreciate the authoritative nature of this
declaration, as well as its scope [Dan 6:26a]. This proclamation was intended by Darius to be empire wide.
357 BDB, 1111.

358 Holladay, 420.
359 M. Ottosson, , in TDOT, vol. I, 237.
360 Ibid., 238.
361 See Collins, Daniel, 271; Keil, Daniel, 218.
362 Young, 138.
363 Peter Hoffmann, Stauffenberg: A Family History, 1905-1944 (Montreal: McGill-Queens
University Press, 2003), 279.
71
B.Darius proclamation [Dan 6:26b-28]

6:26b
May your peace abound!
6:27a
On my authority, I make a decree:
6:27b
namely that, throughout all my
dominion,
6:27c
men are to tremble and
fear,
6:27d
before the presence of the
God of Daniel;
6:27e
for, He is the Living God,
6:27f
and enduring forever,
6:27g
His reign is one which will never
be destroyed,
6:27h
His Lordship forever.
6:28a
He is the One who rescues and delivers,
6:28b
He performs signs and
wonders in the heavens and
on the earth;
6:28c
indeed, He has rescued
Daniel from the power of the
lions!
Dan 6:26b-28 is the gist of the proclamation; it opens with a formulaic greeting [Dan 6:26b],
continues with a statement of the proclamations authority [Dan 6:27a], carries on with the specific decree
[Dan 6:27b-d], and concludes with the basis for this proclamation [Dan 6:27e-28c]. The reader will note
that, as Darius delivers this proclamation, he gives major attention to the motive for the proclamation [Dan
6:27e-28c]. There are three motives behind the issuance of this proclamation: [1] who God is the Living
God (Dan 6:27e-f), [2] what God is the Lord of history (Dan 6:27g-h), and [3] what God does Deliver
(Dan 6:28a-c).
Dan 6:27 On my authority, I make a decree: namely that, throughout all my dominion, men are to
tremble and fear, before the presence of the God of Daniel; for, He is the Living God, and enduring forever,
His reign will be one which will never be destroyed, His Lordship forever.
The authority behind the proclamation [Dan 6:27a]
On my authority [] is a prepositional phrase that literally reads, From my
presence.365 Holladay simply translates the prepositional phrase with before.366 There are, however,
usages of this prepositional phrase [] in the Aramaic section of Daniel that underline the
sense of on the authority of [Ezra 7:14; Dan 2:6, 15; 5:24 (on the authority of Yahweh)]. In this context,
making a decree would in the nature of the case demand doing so on the authority of Darius.
365 KB2, 1967; similarly, BDB, 1110.

366 Holladay, 418.
72
Decree [ (noun, ms, sg)] is an Aramaic noun that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:27 with
command.367 In Egyptian Aramaic, the cognate means a decision, command.368 Robert OConnell
offers instruction, decree, command for in Dan 6:27.369
While it may be sheer coincidence, this prepositional phrase in Dan 6:27a, , used in
reference to the royal authority of Darius, is also used in Dan 6:27d to reference the presence
[] of Yahweh. The order of these usages is suggestive: on Darius authority []
his citizenry is decreed to enter the presence [] of Yahweh. This level of presumption seems
to parallel the impertinence that induced him to sign his ill-advised bill in the first place [Dan 6:8-10]. Are
citizens of Darius realm or any jurisdiction for that matter, really obliged to have royal sanction to enter the
presence of Yahweh?
The gist of the decree [Dan 6:27b-d]
In Dan 6:27b, Darius stipulates the scope of his decree: throughout all my dominion. The
phrase is a prepositional phrase with a genitive construction functioning as the object of the preposition;
literally: in all of the dominion of my realm [ ]. The genitive
relationship may be of the verbal notion [dominion] to the object of the verbal notion [my realm] variety.370
In any event, the operative term is dominion [].
Dominion [] appears in Daniel 6 only here; but it appears twice, once in reference to Darius [Dan
6:27b] and once in reference to Yahweh [Dan 6:27h].
Dominion [] is used in Jewish Aramaic in the sense of dominion, power, ruler;
Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:27b with dominion.371 BDB translates in
Dan 6:27b with realm.372 Holladay offers dominion, lordship for Dan 6:27b.373 Philip Nel affirms that
this root [] in Aramaic denotes those who have power.374 M. Sb notes that the meaning of
the word family is always associated with power; usually it denotes the possession and especially the
exercise of power, rule.375 So it is in Dan 6:27b; /dominion testifies to the personal sense of
the exercise of authority.376
When the verbal form of this root [] appears in the Aramaic of Daniel, its usage often signifies that
human political power/governance are bestowed upon mortals by Yahweh [Dan 2:38 (Nebuchadnezzar);
4:19 (Nebuchadnezzar); 7:6, 12]. Darius shows no sign whatsoever of even knowing this, let alone
acknowledging it.
367 KB2, 1885.
368 Ibid.
369 Robert H. OConnell, , in NIDOTTE [H3247].
370 Van der Merwe 25.4.2. (iii).
371 KB2, 1995.
372 BDB, 1115.
373 Holladay, 423.
374 Philip Nel, , in NIDOTTE [H8948].
375 M. Sb, , in TDOT, vol. XV, 83.
376 Ibid., 86.
73
In Dan 6:27c-d, Darius unpacks the essence of the directive: men are to tremble and fear [Dan
6:27c] before the presence of the God of Daniel [Dan 6:27d]. The construction has a finite verb
[ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl; literally: they will be)] followed by two active participles
[ (Peal, participle, ms, pl; literally: trembling); and (Peal, participle, ms, pl;
literally fearing)]. The juxtaposition of a finite verb + participles signals continuous and habitual
action.377 What is more, this finite verb [ (Peal, imperfect of )] may be used in a jussive
sense:378 may they or men are (directed) to. In any event, the expositor should read a directive from
Darius to all who live throughout his dominion for the foreseeable future: tremble and fear.
Tremble [] is used twice in Daniel, once in Dan 5:19 in reference to trembling before king
Nebuchadnezzar, and here in Dan 6:27 in reference to trembling before Yahweh. As a matter of fact, the
next verb [] is also used in Dan 5:19 in reference to fearing before king Nebuchadnezzar, as well
as here in Dan 6:27. As Young points out, Darius requires no more than Nebuchadnezzar apparently
demanded for himself.379
Tremble [] conveys the basic idea of fear or terror that is manifest bodily by shaking or quaking. 380
In this sense then, communicates exceptional terror, physically obvious. There is one similar
construction [finite verb () + two active participles] in the Dead Sea Scrolls that supports in
the sense of physical trembling. In 4Q204, Enoch enters a house, and prior to receiving a vision, he was
shivering [] and shaking [], so much so that he fell on his face. The second participle
[] may be translated to quake, tremble.381 Finally, is used in the Hebrew Bible in Esther
5:9, where /trembling conveys more the sense of honor or deference to a superior, a king in this
case. At the same time, the usage of in the Aramaic of Dan 5:19 does signal this same honor and
deference; but, elsewhere in the sentence, references to life and death taint in Dan 5:19 with more
than a hint of terror.
So, where does all of this leave us? To begin with, there is a difference in tone between as honor or
deference and as terror and dread. So, which is it? Perhaps we should note very carefully who is
speaking: Darius, a pagan, polytheistic, political power-player. The fact that he borrows language
applicable to a human tyrant, Nebuchadnezzar [Dan 5:19], may indicate that Darius is applying human
terror and dread to Yahweh, using the best language he has at hand and applying concepts Darius readily
understood. If this is testimony to the superiority of God, then it is muffled testimony at best; still, it is
testimony.
Fear [] is a root that appears only in Aramaic in this form; it suggests fear, dread,
startling.382 Holladay offers fear, frightening, frightful.383 The Hebrew cognate is written differently,
. This root has an Arabic cognate [zachala] that means to hold oneself back, to be in dread;
Kohler-Baumgartner translate with to be anxious.384
The Dead Sea Scrolls use /fear in context with fearing God. 4Q198 refers to one who
continued [] to fear [] God [] and to praise [] His
377 Rosenthal, 177.
378 Bauer-Leander 78 s.
379 Young, 139.
380 M. Van Pelt and W. Kaiser, Jr., , in NIDOTTE [H2316].
381 KB2, 1258.
382 Ibid., 1850.
383 Holladay, 402.
384 KB2, 268.
74
greatness []. Then, in 4Q550c, a king makes the following observation: the Most High
[] whom you fear [] and you serve [], He is the one who rules
[] all the earth. Obviously, the tone in the scrolls, praising and serving as adjuncts of fear,
is miles away from terror and dread.
Three observations here: first, as used in these two scrolls, /fear lacks the terror and dread
associations we noted above; /fear is more oriented toward honor and deference [praise ()
and serve ()]. Second, in 4Q550c, the scroll author affirms that the Most High rules [],
and he uses the same root [] that the author of Daniel uses in describing Yahwehs Lordship
[ (Dan 6:27h)]. This suggests that serving [] and rule/Lordship [] are
compatible as amplifications of /fear. But, third, these scroll authors were familiar with the
language of fearing God, and they reflect this acquaintance in how they clarify it. However, as we have
noted previously, Darius mimics language that was applied to another tyrant, Nebuchadnezzar [Dan 5:19].
The differences in nuance between Darius and the scroll authors are so pronounced that one really should
not read Dan 6:27c as if Darius were familiar with the Hebrew concept of fearing God. The net effect is
this: as noted above, Darius is struggling to define honor and reverence for God with little or no
acquaintance with the concept; so, he once more uses the language at hand, the language of terror and dread
before a tyrant. Young puts into perspective this matter of tremble and fear from the lips of Darius in
Dan 6:27c:385
In the statements made concerning God and His kingdom, Darius is
probably influenced by the events of the immediate past and by the
instruction which he received from Daniel. His words, while true
enough in themselves, could only have had a hollow meaning for
himself.
In Dan 6:27d, the author finalizes Darius account of the essence of the directive: before the presence of
the God of Daniel. We have already noted in the discussion of Dan 6:27a that the order of the first of
these usages in 6:27a is suggestive: on Darius say-so [] his citizenry is authorized to enter
the presence [] of Yahweh.
Before the presence of [] is used spatially in Dan 6:27d, communicating to be in
the presence of God according to Kohler-Baumgartner.386 There are suggestions of approaching God
and relating to God in the sense specified in the context, terror and dread in this case. Indeed, Daniel and
his three comrades seek compassion /from the presence of God in their ignorance in Dan
2:18. In this case, there is a correlation between presence [] and the availability of
compassion. In Dan 6:11e, Daniel, as a matter of spiritual discipline, prays and praises
,approaching the presence of God. Indeed, in Dan 6:12c, Daniels adversaries discover
Daniel petitioning and imploring , in the presence of God. The net effect is this: both Darius and
Daniel have a sense that one can , come before or come into the presence of God; but, the
spiritual conditions for entering into Gods presence are wholly divergent. For Daniel, to come into the
presence of God [] presumes compassion, petitioning, and praising; for Darius, to come
before God [] presupposes terror and dread. These differences once again demonstrate the
hollowness, the virtue emptiness by comparison, of Darius words.
The God of Daniel [ ] has a strange ring to it; Darius seems to be
acknowledging in some vague sense the God of Daniel without confessing Daniels God as the one true
God. In other words, this acknowledgment of the God of Daniel is truly spoken by a man who is not
surrendering his polytheistic orientation. At the same time, and this point should be noted carefully, Darius
is, in some superficial and one-dimensional sense, testifying to the God of Daniel. While this may not be
the most ringing endorsement, the most intricate and in-depth theology, it is witness from a wholly
385 Young, 139.
386 KB2, 1967.
75
unimagined quarter: a pagan, polytheistic, political power-player. As we have said before, the theme of
Daniel is that Yahweh is in charge of the national and international political goings-on of mankind; and this
truncated profession testifies to that very fact.
The motive behind the issuance of the decree [Dan 6:27e-28c]
The author depicts Darius motive statement in three movements: [1] because of who God is (Dan
6:27e-f); [2] because of what God is (Dan 6:27g-h); and [3] because of what God does (Dan 6:28a-c). The
fact that Dan 6:27e-28c is a motive statement is verified by the opening particle [/for] in Dan
6:27e.387
The first motive behind issuing this decree is who God is: first, He is the Living God and second, He is
enduring forever.
Living God [ ] is the same words Darius used in Dan 6:21d. These are the only
two appearances of the phrase in the Aramaic section of Daniel. In Dan 6:21d, we argued that Darius
would have been introduced to the phrase, Living God, by Daniel, a man who was well acquainted with
the idea. We further observed that four ideas could be linked to [ , ideas with which
Darius would have been completely unaware: [1] Gods presence and availability, [2] Gods intervention
and rescue ability, [3] Gods relatedness to His people, and [4] Gods everlasting kingship. To give Darius
his due, he certainly understood Gods capacity to rescue, having observed it first-hand.
Like the kings usage of tremble and fear, language he borrowed from Nebuchadnezzar, once
more Darius remarks concerning the Living God are more than likely pirated from Daniel. When all is
said and done, having overhead or perhaps spoken with Daniel on the subject, Darius is using words with a
shallow understanding of them at best.
Enduring forever [ (preposition, noun, ms, pl) (adjective, ms, sg)] are two
words that seem to be synonymous; both point to what is everlasting or enduring. The adjective, ,
points to what is enduring,388 or secure.389 The noun, , depicts duration and perpetuity;
Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:27f with remote time, eternity.390
This noun, /enduring, is used frequently in Daniel in reference to Yahweh: Daniel informs
Nebuchadnezzar that a kingdom is destined to come that will endure forever [Dan 2:44];
Nebuchadnezzar himself admits that Yahwehs dominion is /everlasting [Dan 4:3]; then, after his
frenzied punishment by Yahweh, Nebuchadnezzar once more admits that Yahwehs dominion is
/everlasting [Dan 4:34].
The pattern continues as these back references to Nebuchadnezzar again demonstrate: influenced
by events in the kingdoms past, Darius is once more appropriating language and ideas associated with the
legend of Daniel in the Babylonian-Persian kingdom. To describe God as enduring forever, while
certainly the truth in and of itself, still seems to leave Darius using language to communicate ideas that
could only have had muted meaning for him.
The second motive behind issuing this decree is what God is: not only His reign is one which will
never be destroyed, but also His Lordship forever. Whether Darius understands the full impact of
387 For the causal use of in Biblical Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander 70 g.
388 KB2, 1970.
389 Holladay, 418.
390 KB2, 1949.
76
what he has just said or not, the fact of the matter is that what God is comes down to the Lord of history.
But, just how could Darius have come to this conclusion based on his experience with Daniel and the lions?
In Dan 6:27g, the author represents Darius as linking his decree to Yahweh as the present and
permanent Lord of history: His reign is one which will never be destroyed.
His reign [] describes Yahwehs kingship, sovereignty391 over human history. As used
in Daniel, of Yahweh tends to emphasize the activity involved in ruling. In Dan 2:44, the divine
kingdom that Yahweh will one day inaugurate will utterly crush and put an end to it rivals; in Dan 4:3,
Nebuchadnezzar extols of of Yahweh for its signs and wonders; and in Dan 4:25, Daniel tells
Nebuchadnezzar that Yahwehs means, among other things, that He bestows it on whomever He
pleases. What these passages tell us is that Yahwehs /reign is not only legitimate but also active
in human political history.
Will never be destroyed [ ] is repeated verbatim in Dan 2:44, where Daniel apprizes
Nebuchadnezzar of the fact that Yahweh will establish a reign [ (see the previous paragraph)] that
will never be destroyed [ ]. Does it strain credulity to assume that this prophecy,
associated with Daniel, might have lingered menacingly in the thought world of Babylonian-Persian
leaders? Could Darius be anxiously mindful of this prophecy, which proved to be true for Nebuchadnezzar,
from Daniel? Or, might Daniel have recounted this prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar for the benefit of Darius?
Destroy [] is an Aramaic verb that has two ranges of meaning: [1] to hurt, inflict injury
and [2] to destroy, cause to perish.392 Once more, Darius may be repeating part of the
Nebuchadnezzar/Daniel legend; for Nebuchadnezzar himself was told by Daniel that a kingdom was on the
horizon, a realm [] that would be unassailable, invincible, beyond destruction [].
Furthermore, commenting on the /realm of Yahweh, Nebuchadnezzar affirmed its
indestructability in slightly different language [Dan 4:3, 34]. Thus, having borrowed religious language
throughout the creation of this decree thus far [Dan 6:27e-g], it seems that Darius is, once more,
unwittingly speaking well-known truth the drift of which almost surely escapes him. While Darius was
unintentionally providing articulate and persuasive testimony to the Lordship of Yahweh over human
history, the reader is entitled to seriously doubt that Darius understood in point of fact what he was actually
saying.
Finally, will never be destroyed [ ] is repeated verbatim a total of three times in Daniel 67: first, by Daniel who predicts the arrival of a divine reign that will never be destroyed [
(Dan 2:44)]; second, by Darius who affirms that Yahwehs reign will never be destroyed [
(Dan 6:27)]; and third, in Daniels vision in chapter 7, where we learn that the Ancient of Days grants One
like a Son of Man a reign that will never be destroyed [ (Dan 7:14)]. From
Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar to Darius, the same truth prevails: Yahweh is in charge of the national and
international goings-on of mankind, appearances to the contrary; and Yahweh, the Lord of history, is
directing history toward a realm [] that will never be destroyed [ ].
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius, and their many successors, are bit players in a drama that dwarfs
them; human history has a divinely appointed destiny.
In Dan 6:27h, the author continues to tie Darius doxology with Gods Lordship of history: His
Lordship forever.
Lordship [] is the same word used previously by Darius in reference to his dominion
[]. See the notes above on Dan 6:27b. Once more, Darius seems to be drawing on a familiar
story, for Nebuchadnezzar made the same claim about Yahwehs /Lordship/dominion [Dan 4:3,
34].
391 Ibid., 1916.
77
Forever [ (noun, ms, sg) ] is a prepositional phrase. The noun, , is used in

Dan 6:27h with temporal significance in the sense of lasting forever. 393
What God does: deliver [Dan 6:28a-c]
Darius can personally attest to this manifestation of Yahwehs sovereignty over human history: [1] He is
the One who rescues and delivers (Dan 6:28a); [2] He performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on
the earth (Dan 6:28b); and [3] He has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions (Dan 6:28c).
Rescues and delivers [ (Aphel, participle, ms, sg) (Shaphel, participle, ms,
sg)] are both written as participles. Taken at face value, these participles indicate that rescuing and
delivering are typical, ongoing, activities of Yahweh.394 Indeed, Darius might well be quite familiar with
these activities of Yahweh from the Nebuchadnezzar/Daniel legend. Nebuchadnezzar uses both verbs,
and , in Dan 3:28-29, to describe what Yahweh did for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. To be sure, we must give Darius his due: he witnessed Yahwehs miraculous
rescuing and delivering, and gave the credit where the credit was due. Yet, once more, while Darius claim
is true as it stands, one may wonder just how much intensity and profundity there is to this tribute.
In Dan 6:28b, the author depicts Darius as extoling the miraculous powers of Yahweh: He performs signs
and wonders in the heavens and on the earth. The two nouns, signs [] and wonders [], are
used in tandem three times in the book of Daniel, twice by Nebuchadnezzar in his doxologies to Yahweh
[Dan 4:2-3], and once by Darius in Dan 6:28b; yet another instance of Darius imitating Nebuchadnezzar.
Signs [] and wonders [] is reminiscent of signs [] and wonders [] in
the Hebrew Bible, especially Deuteronomy.395 The switch from /wonder in Deuteronomy to
/wonder in Daniel may be accounted for on the basis of the Hebrew noun, , being extant
only in Hebrew; there are no other known appearances of this noun in ancient Near Eastern literature.396
Accordingly, the author of Daniel used the best synonym he had at hand. The larger point is this: the
juxtaposition of signs and wonders would have been natural, in this rescue setting, to a man like Daniel;
the expression betrays Jewish authorship by its biblical overtones. 397 In other words, signs and
wonders discloses Daniels influence on Darius, not ideas that spring from the thought-world of Darius.
Finally, in Dan 6:28c, the author portrays Darius as commending Yahweh for deliverance: He has rescued
Daniel from the power of the lions. For the notes on rescue, see Dan 6:15, above.
Reflection.
The reader will note that much of Darius doxology is borrowed, either from Nebuchadnezzar or
Daniel, or both. There is a point to be made about Daniels influence.
We have reckoned that, by the time Darius comes along, Daniel had been in royal service about 65
years. There are indications that foreigners would have fared fairly well under the Babylonians, and
393 Ibid., 1938; similarly, Holladay, 414; BDB, 1104.

394 Rosenthal, 177.
395 Deuteronomy 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 28:46; 29:2; 34:4.
396 See Paul Kruger, , in NIDOTTE [H4603], and S. Wagner, , in TDOT,
vol. VIII, 174.
78
presumably, under the Persians. So, Daniel could have exited government service, but he chose to remain.
Why?
Perhaps this doxology of Darius gives us a hint: Daniel as able to witness to Darius; Daniel is
behind Darius awareness at least of the Living God [Dan 6:27e], behind Darius mindfulness of Gods
kingdom enduring forever [Dan 6:27f], behind Darius consciousness that Yahwehs reign will never be
destroyed [Dan 6:27g], and behind Darius cognizance of Yahwehs signs and wonders [Dan 6:28b].
What is more, in Daniel 2 and 4, we have direct evidence of Daniels witness to Nebuchadnezzar and to
Belshazzar in Daniel 5.
We have argued that the fundamental theme of the book of Daniel is that Yahweh is in charge of
the national and international political shenanigans of humans, appearances to the contrary. Knowing this,
Daniel does not retreat into smug silence; Daniel does not refuse to sully his hands in governmental service;
Daniel does not view government as an inflexible and unbending enemy; and Daniel is certainly not
intimidated by human political power [neither does he lust for power for its own sake!]; rather, Daniel
attempts to witness to what he knows to be true God is indeed in charge of human governance at the
highest levels of government at that time.
The reader should weigh and consider tearing a page from Daniels playbook: it is futile to attempt
to turn a nation around by changing its laws; rather, like Daniel, the only way to stem the tide of ever
rising moral decadence is by changing minds, including those at the highest levels. In the book of Daniel,
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius/Cyrus are really no more than bit players in a divine drama, the
final act of which is the establishment of a permanent divine dominion, whereupon all humanity will serve
One like a Son of Man [Dan 7:14]. Daniel understood that and witnessed accordingly.
VIII.
Daniels success in Darius/Cyrus government [Dan 6:29]
6:29a
Accordingly, this (same)
Daniel proved to be
successful in the government of Darius;
6:29b
Daniel 6 wraps up with a final narrative genre, offering an historical snapshot of Daniels success
in the government of Cyrus.
In Dan 6:29a, the author underlines the success of Daniel in the royal court, noting that Daniel
proved to be successful in the government of Darius.
Proved to be successful [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is written in the Haphel stem,
which in this case is simply to be read as an intransitive.398 The perfect aspect verb is used as a narrative
tense, simply recording the fact of success as a whole: Daniel was successful. Kohler-Baumgartner
affirms that in Dan 6:29a should be translated fared well.399
In Dan 6:29b, the author stipulates just where Daniel fared so well: in the government of Darius, that is, in
the government of Cyrus. We may read the simple waw [/that is] as explanatory.400 This explanation
relieves the conundrum concerning Darius. That is, historians know that there was a Darius, Darius I
398 Bauer-Leander 76 l.
399 KB2, 1964.
400 Bauer-Leander 70 r.
79
Hystaspes, on the throne in Persia well after the death of Belshazzar.401 The author waits until Dan 6:29b to
solve the puzzle: Darius and Cyrus are one in the same person.
401 For the historical calamity this has created for the historical integrity of the book of Daniel, see Joyce
Baldwin, Daniel, 23-28.
80

Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expository Reading Guide To Daniel 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6

Loren Lineberry, 2015