‘Then these presidents and satraps came thronging to the king and said to him, “King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the satraps, the counsellors and the governors, have gathered together to establish a royal decree, and to make a strong interdict that whoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of you, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians which do not pass away.” '
It is deliberately stressed that they all put pressure on the king together, and that they gave the impression that this was a show of unity and the desire of all. This alone could have made the king do such a foolish thing. (This alone makes it apparent that this Darius was not Cyrus, nor Darius II).
We must recognise that Darius was probably a general promoted to kingship, that he was relatively inexperienced in kingship, and that he would want to please those whom he had appointed. It was suggested to him that it was a popular request, and it was very flattering. And it suggested that he was becoming popular himself. He possibly did not take the consequences of it too seriously, for what would it mean? Simply that for thirty days public religious affairs and requests in Babylon should be conducted through him. (Who would know what men did in private?) He did not suspect a thing. After all that was almost what happened at the akitu festival. There the king represented the whole people and was their figurehead. And it was after all being suggested by his own appointees as a whole. He could probably see no reason why all should not agree with it.
‘Or man.' That is, using a priest or other religious figure. Thus it would prevent the priests being seen as too powerful.
The success of the scheme depended on persuading the king that it was not too unreasonable, and in obtaining the decree in writing so that it could not be changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, and in making it ambiguous enough so that it could catch Daniel within its wording. It is not the first time that a foolish monarch has been persuaded by flattery and deceit to do something unwise, but he had no suspicions that it was a trap for anyone, and if the people wished to make him a kind of mediator with the gods, why should they not? He probably saw it as a positive move rather than a negative one. There was a tendency among the Persians to deify their monarchs. It would give him higher status.
‘The law of the Medes and the Persians which do not pass away.” ' They are saying that once made such a law stood firm. It should not be changed. Compare Esther 1:19; Esther 8:8. It is said of Darius III that having made a decision for someone's execution, which he afterwards regretted, ‘he immediately repented and blamed himself as having greatly erred. But it was not possible to undo what was done by royal authority'.