HOMILETICS
SECT. XVIII.—THE PLOT (Chap. Daniel 6:1-9)
Another of the deeply interesting Chapter s of Daniel. A former one exhibited faith “quenching the violence of fire;” this presents the same faith “stopping the mouths of lions.” The events recorded took place in the reign of a Persian monarch named Darius, generally understood to be the Darius mentioned in the conclusion of the previous chapter, and the same who is called by a Greek historian Cyaxares the Younger or Cyaxares II., the son of Astyages and uncle of Cyrus [142]. We have—
[142] “Darius.” Keil observes that Hitzig confesses that the identity of this Darius of Daniel with the Cyaxares of Xenophon is placed beyond a doubt. How long his reign in Babylon lasted is not stated in this book, or learned from any other direct source; but it is correctly supposed that he reigned two years, his reign giving place to that of Cyrus, by whom the writing on the wall was fully accomplished. The character of Darius fundamentally different from that of Nebuchadnezzar, the latter being distinguished by energy and activity, while Darius was a weak prince, wanting in energy, and allowing himself to be guided and governed by his officers of state. Some, as Mr. Bosanquet, still think that the Darius, under whom Daniel lived and wrote his later prophecies, was Darius Hystaspes, who is mentioned in the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah and in the Book of Ezra (Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1; Ezra 4:24; Ezra 5:6; Ezra 6:1). Dr. Pusey observes that the identification of Cyaxares II. with “Darius the Mede “is only a probable historical conjecture, with which Daniel is in no way concerned.
I. Daniel’s elevation (Daniel 6:1-3). The Medes and Persians were now in possession of Babylon. The first of the four great monarchies had passed away, and the second, indicated by the silver breast and arms of the great image, had succeeded it. Darius, the first ruler of the new empire, had, probably at the suggestion of Cyrus, divided the kingdom into a hundred and twenty provinces or satrapies [143], afterwards increased under Xerxes or Ahasuerus to a hundred and twenty-seven (Esther 1:1). Over each of these provinces was a prince or satrap, and over the whole of the princes were placed three presidents, of whom Daniel was the chief [144], Darius having probably only confirmed him in the office to which he had already been promoted by Belshazzar. Indeed, for the excellent spirit that the king found to be in him, he even thought to place him over the whole empire as his viceroy or khedive, giving him all the power over the several departments of the state “that would have enabled him to enforce obedience and punish dereliction.” [145]
[143] “An hundred and twenty princes.” Keil remarks that when Daniel mentions so large a number of satrapies, it is no argument against the credibility of the narrative, as if, according to Hitzig, the kingdom was too small for so many satrapies in the Persian sense, so that they must be understood rather as Grecian ones. The division of the kingdom, however, by Xerxes (Esther 1:1) into 127 provinces shows that it might have been previously divided by Darius the Mede into 120. The Median Darius might be led to appoint one satrap or prince, i.e., a prefect clothed with military power, over each district, since the kingdom was but newly conquered, that he might be able to suppress every attempt at insurrection among the nations coming under his dominion. Dr. Cox remarks that Xenophon informs us that Cyrus devised the plan of government with regard to conquered nations, which is here ascribed to Darius; and that Archbishop Ussher therefore supposes, with great probability, that it was first devised by Cyrus, and at his suggestion pursued by Darius. Dr. Rule observes that the presidents of the 120 princes, viceroys or satraps, received and administered the revenue, Daniel being First Lord of the Treasury.
[144] “Of whom Daniel was first.” M. Gaussen remarks: “What profound wisdom, vast capacity, and extensive knowledge must he have possessed! But also what decision, integrity, and equanimity, for the princes of the Medes and Persians to think of putting at the head of so powerful an empire a man, a stranger, a Jew, a captive, a servant of their enemies, and, moreover, an old man, now eighty-five years of age at least!”
[145] “Save thee, O king.” The Persian kings were regarded as incarnations of the deity. Gaussen observes that Nebuchadnezzar claimed divine honours. Alexander the Great pretended to be a god, and the son of a god. The Roman emperors required themselves and their images to be worshipped. And in our own day the Pope lays claim to religious homage, being at his consecration fumed with incense and placed on the altar of God, while the people kiss his feet, and all the cardinals cry, Venite adoremus, “Come let us adore him!”
Darius had seen and heard enough of Daniel to convince him that his own interest lay in employing him in the most responsible office in the realm. Wisdom, prudence, disinterestedness, conscientiousness, and fidelity, so combined in his character as to mark him out as the man on whom above all others the king could depend. The resemblance in this, as in some other respects, between Daniel in Persia and Joseph in Egypt, is obvious and striking. “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? He shall stand before kings, and shall not stand before mean men?” “Them that honour me I will honour.”
II. The conspiracy (Daniel 6:4-5). Promotion to honour often the precursor of trouble. The presidents and princes could not see Daniel, a foreigner, a captive, a Jew, a man of an entirely different religion from their own, without the worst feelings of our fallen humanity coming into play. “Wrath is cruel and anger is outrageous; but who can stand before envy?” (Proverbs 27:4). Daniel, too, was a man of uprightness and principle, which the presidents and princes were not. The former, were to receive and examine the revenue accounts of the latter, that the royal exchequer might not be defrauded. But the presidents might be corrupt as well as the princes. Will Daniel connive at their peculation? Daniel was faithful to his sovereign, because faithful to his God. Duty to God secures the faithful discharge of our duty to man. Daniel made his master’s interest his own; and hence kept a strict look-out on both presidents and princes. He aimed, according to his office, not only at doing his own duty to the king, but at keeping others at theirs also. Hence his troubles. In a corrupt world, “he that departeth from evil” too often “maketh himself a prey.” Daniel’s colleagues became his enemies. Like Joseph’s brethren in Egypt, they hated him, and must have him out of the way. The question was how? Accusation against his moral or official conduct they could find none. “Every attempt to find a flaw, to prove a weakness, or to justify a suspicion, either of disloyalty or maladministration, failed.” The only way to entrap him must be in connection with his religion, in which they knew him to be as strict and conscientious as he was in his official duties. A clever and diabolical scheme was concocted that promised complete success. This was by placing his obedience to God in antagonism with his obedience to the king.
III. The decree (Daniel 6:6-9). The scheme was this. Daniel was known to be a man of prayer, and to repair to his chamber at stated times in the day for that purpose. Get the king to sign a decree forbidding any one to present a petition to either God or man for a whole month on pain of being cast in a den of lions. The king will be flattered by the proposal, and Daniel will be caught. They will watch him, whether he will observe the decree and save his life, or go to his knees as usual. In the latter and most likely case, the decree once signed by the king, the representative of the unchanging deity, being irrevocable, Daniel is a lost man, and they are rid of their rival. The decree being accordingly drawn up, was presented to the king for signature. The weak monarch, not perceiving the object of the princes, perhaps flattered with the appearance of their loyalty and devotion, and pleased at the idea of being thus for a time superior to both gods and men, readily complied with the proposal and signed the decree.
“Oh, purblind race of miserable men!
How many among us at this very hour
Do forge a lifelong trouble for ourselves
By taking true for false, or false for true!”
But for divine interference, this would now have been realised in Darius. The presidents and princes, having obtained their desire, returned home triumphant. Daniel’s doom was sealed. Observe from the passage—
1. Godliness no hindrance to greatness, and prayer no obstacle to promotion. Daniel in Babylon and Joseph in Egypt notable examples. In many respects natural. But for prevailing sin in the world, and the influence of him who is its prince and the enemy of all goodness, godliness would be the surest way to greatness, and prayer the certain path to preferment. Godliness and prayer secure the necessary requisites for positions of trust—wisdom, uprightness, and fidelity. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, and it shall be given him.” Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, was pre-eminently a man of prayer. General Havelock, though burdened with the care of the army during the terrible mutiny in India, managed to keep sacred for prayer a considerable time in the morning of every day. Sir Thomas Browne wrote in his journal as an admonition to himself, to be sure to let no day pass without calling upon God in a solemn manner seven times in the course of it.
2. The excellence of true religion. “The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour.” Seen even by a heathen monarch in the case of Daniel. Hence his elevation. His enemies unable to find a flaw in him. His steadfastness in religion the only ground for accusation against him. A godly man firm and fearless in the discharge of his duty. His religion not put on or off to suit the season. Daniel known to prefer fidelity to life, and death to deviation from duty. The part of a truly godly man to act not from expediency but from principle. His inquiry, not what will be most advantageous, but what is right. His concern not to appear, but to be just and good. His aim to please God in the first place, and man in the second. True godliness, symmetrical and all-embracing; extends to principles and practice, to the temper and the tongue, to private and to public conduct, to our duty to God and our duty to man in every relation of life.
3. The depth of human depravity. Seen in the conduct of Daniel’s enemies. Hates the good because they are good, and because their goodness rebukes our evil, and stands in the way of our sinful courses. Contrives their overthrow, and even plots their death. Commits murder in the heart, and then, when it can be done safely, in the act. Practises hypocrisy in order to conceal our wickedness and make others accomplices of our crimes. Steels the heart against pity, and finds pleasure in the torture of the innocent. The character and conduct of Daniel’s enemies shows what man is by nature since the first sin robbed him of his Maker’s image. Left to himself, man exhibits the image of his tempter. It was the testimony of Him who was at once Truth and Love, “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” The witness true of unrenewed men, whether Persian princes or pharisaic Jews. History as well as daily observation and experience prove that the Bible picture of man’s depravity is not overdrawn,—“Foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another;” “full of envy, murder, deceit, malignity” (Titus 3:3; Romans 1:29). Verily man needed a Saviour, and, thanks to divine mercy, a Saviour has been found. “Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
4. The certain exposure of the godly to persecution. Moral excellence no shelter from the shafts of malice, but rather their natural butt. Socrates and Aristides examples among the heathen. A natural and necessary antagonism between light and darkness, good and evil. “The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth, because I testify of it that the deeds thereof are evil.” “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” The natural consequence, so long as the world is what it is, “lying in wickedness,” or under the power of the wicked one. Its hatred, opposition, and persecution, in one form and at one time or another, the necessary accompaniment of fidelity to God and conformity to Christ. “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you.” “Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you.” “All they that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” To possess Daniel’s character, we must be prepared, sooner or later, more or less, to share Daniel’s experience. The experience of Daniel only that of Daniel’s Lord. “The disciple not greater than his Master.”
5. The responsibility of men in power. Darius made the tool of wicked designing men, and virtually the author of a cruel murder. Forgetting the claims of justice, truth, and mercy, and blinded by a foolish ambition, he heedlessly consigned to a dreadful death the best and most faithful subject in his realm. Rulers in a condition either to further or defeat the designs of the wicked. Princes too often allow themselves to be the tool of priests in carrying out their persecuting projects, and so made participators in the death of God’s saints. To this source much of the persecutions of Papal Europe to be ascribed. Men responsible for the evil they might prevent, as well as for the good they might accomplish.