TRV
Study This Verse
Commentary on Daniel 6 verses 6–10
Daniel's adversaries could have no advantage against him from any law now in being; they therefore contrive a new law, by which they hope to ensnare him, and in a matter in which they knew they should be sure of him; and such was his fidelity to his God that they gained their point. Here is,
I. Darius's impious law. I call it Darius's, because he gave the royal assent to it, and otherwise it would not have been of force; but it was not properly his: he contrived it not, and was perfectly wheedled to consent to it. The presidents and princes framed the edict, brought in the bill, and by their management it was agreed to by the convention of the states, who perhaps were met at this time upon some public occasion. It is pretended that this bill which they would have to pass into a law was the result of mature deliberation, that all the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, princes, counsellors, and captains, had consulted together about it, and that they not only agreed to it, but advised it, for divers good causes and considerations, that they had done what they could to establish it for a firm decree; nay, they intimate to the king that it was carried nemine contradicente - unanimously: "All the presidents are of this mind;" and yet we are sure that Daniel, the chief of the three presidents, did not agree to it, and have reason to think that many more of the princes excepted against it as absurd and unreasonable. Note, It is no new thing for that to be represented, and with great assurance too, as the sense of the nation, which is far from being so; and that which few approve of is sometimes confidently said to be that which all agree to. But, O the infelicity of kings, who, being under a necessity of seeing and hearing with other people's eyes and ears, are often wretchedly imposed upon! These designing men, under colour of doing honour to the king, but really intending the ruin of his favourite, press him to pass this into a law, and make it a royal statute, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king, shall be put to death after the most barbarous manner, shall be cast into the den of lions, Dan 6:7. This is the bill they have been hatching, and they lay it before the king to be signed and passed into a law. Now, 1. There is nothing in it that has the least appearance of good, but that it magnifies the king, and makes him seem both very great and very kind to his subjects, which, they suggest, will be of good service to him now that he has newly come to his throne, and will confirm his interests. All men must be made to believe that the king is so rich, and withal so ready to all petitioners, that none in any want or distress need to apply either to God or man for relief, but to him only. And for thirty days together he will be ready to give audience to all that have any petition to present to him. It is indeed much for the honour of kings to be benefactors to their subjects and to have their ears open to their complaints and requests; but if they pretend to be their sole benefactors, and undertake to be to them instead of God, and challenge that respect from them which is due to God only, it is their disgrace, and not their honour. But, 2. There is a great deal in it that is apparently evil. It is bad enough to forbid asking a petition of any man. Must not a beggar ask an alms, or one neighbour beg a kindness of another? If the child want bread, must he not ask it of his parents, or be cast into the den of lions if he do? Nay, those that have business with the king, may they not petition those about him to introduce them? But it was much worse, and an impudent affront to all religion, to forbid asking a petition of any god. It is by prayer that we give glory to God, fetch in mercy from God; and so keep up our communion with God; and to interdict prayer for thirty days is for so long to rob God of all the tribute he has from man and to rob man of all the comfort he has in God. When the light of nature teaches us that the providence of God has the ordering and disposing of all our affairs does not the law of nature oblige us by prayer to acknowledge God and seek to him? Does not every man's heart direct him, when he is in want or distress, to call upon God, and must this be made high treason? We could not live a day without God; and can men live thirty days without prayer? Will the king himself be tied up for so long from praying to God; or, if it be allowed him, will he undertake to do it for all his subjects? Did ever any nation thus slight their gods? But see what absurdities malice will drive men to. Rather than not bring Daniel into trouble for praying to his God, they will deny themselves and all their friends the satisfaction of praying to theirs. Had they proposed only to prohibit the Jews from praying to their God, Daniel would have been as effectually ensnared; but they knew the king would not pass such a law, and therefore made it thus general. And the king, puffed up with a fancy that this would set him up as a little god, was fond of the feather in his cap (for so it was, and not a flower in his crown) and signed the writing and the decree (Dan 6:9), which, being once done, according to the constitution of the united kingdom of the Medes and Persians, was not upon any pretence whatsoever to be altered or dispensed with, or the breach of it pardoned.
II. Daniel's pious disobedience to this law, Dan 6:10. He did not retire into the country, nor abscond for some time, though he knew the law was levelled against him; but, because he knew it was so, therefore he stood his ground, knowing that he had now a fair opportunity of honouring God before men, and showing that he preferred his favour, and his duty to him, before life itself. When Daniel knew that the writing was signed he might have gone to the king, and expostulated with him about it; nay, he might have remonstrated against it, as grounded upon a misinformation that all the presidents had consented to it, whereas he that was chief of them had never been consulted about it; but he went to his house, and applied himself to his duty, cheerfully trusting God with the event. Now observe,
1.Daniel's constant practice, which we were not informed of before this occasion, but which we have reason to think was the general practice of the pious Jews. (1.) He prayed in his house, sometimes alone and sometimes with his family about him, and made a solemn business of it. Cornelius was a man that prayed in his house, Act 10:30. Note, Every house not only may be, but ought to be, a house of prayer; where we have a tent God must have an alter, and on it we must offer spiritual sacrifices. (2.) In every prayer he gave thanks. When we pray to God for the mercies we want we must praise him for those we have received. Thanksgiving must be a part of every prayer. (3.) In his prayer and thanksgiving he had an eye to God as his God, his in covenant, and set himself as in his presence. He did this before his God, and with a regard to him. (4.) When he prayed and gave thanks he kneeled upon his knees, which is the most proper gesture in prayer, and most expressive of humility, and reverence, and submission to God. Kneeling is a begging posture, and we come to God as beggars, beggars for our lives, whom it concerns to be importunate. (5.) He opened the windows of his chamber, that the sight of the visible heavens might affect his heart with an awe of that God who dwells above the heavens; but that was not all: he opened them towards Jerusalem, the holy city, though now in ruins, to signify the affection he had for its very stones and dust (Psa 102:14) and the remembrance he had of its concerns daily in his prayers. Thus, though he himself lived great in Babylon, yet he testified his concurrence with the meanest of his brethren the captives, in remembering Jerusalem and preferring it before his chief joy, Psa 137:5, Psa 137:6. Jerusalem was the place which God had chosen to put his name there; and, when the temple was dedicated, Solomon's prayer to God was that if his people should in the land of their enemies pray unto him with their eye towards the land which he gave them, and the city he had chosen, and the house which was built to his name, then he would hear and maintain their cause (Kg1 8:48, Kg1 8:49), to which prayer Daniel had reference in this circumstance of his devotions. (6.) He did this three times a day, three times every day according to the example of David (Psa 55:17), Morning, evening, and at noon, I will pray. It is good to have our hours of prayer, not to bind, but to remind conscience; and, if we think our bodies require refreshment by food thrice a day, can we think seldomer will serve our souls? This is surely as little as may be to answer the command of praying always. (7.) He did this so openly and avowedly that all who knew him knew it to be his practice; and he thus showed it, not because he was proud of it (in the place where he was there was no room for that temptation, for it was not reputation, but reproach, that attended it), but because he was not ashamed of it. Though Daniel was a great man, he did not think it below him to be thrice a day upon his knees before his Maker and to be his own chaplain; though he was an old man, he did not think himself past it; nor, though it had been his practice from his youth up, was he weary of this well doing. Though he was a man of business, vast business, for the service of the public, he did not think that would excuse him from the daily exercises of devotion. How inexcusable then are those who have but little to do in the world, and yet will not do thus much for God and their souls! Daniel was a man famous for prayer, and for success in it (Eze 14:14), and he came to be so by thus making a conscience of prayer and making a business of it daily; and in thus doing God blessed him wonderfully.
2.Daniel's constant adherence to this practice, even when it was made by the law a capital crime. When he knew that the writing was signed he continued to do as he did aforetime, and altered not one circumstance of the performance. Many a man, yea, and many a good man, would have thought it prudence to omit it for these thirty days, when he could not do it without hazard of his life; he might have prayed so much oftener when those days had expired and the danger was over, or he might have performed the duty at another time, and in another place, so secretly that it should not be possible for his enemies to discover it; and so he might both satisfy his conscience and keep up his communion with God, and yet avoid the law, and continue in his usefulness. But, if he had done so, it would have been thought, both by his friends and by his enemies, that he had thrown up the duty for this time, through cowardice and base fear, which would have tended very much to the dishonour of God and the discouragement of his friends. Others who moved in a lower sphere might well enough act with caution; but Daniel, who had so many eyes upon him, must act with courage; and the rather because he knew that the law, when it was made, was particularly levelled against him. Note, We must not omit duty for fear of suffering, so, nor so much as seems to come short of it. In trying times great stress is laid upon our confessing Christ before men (Mat 10:32), and we must take heed lest, under pretence of discretion, we be found guilty of cowardice in the cause of God. If we do not think that this example of Daniel obliges us to do likewise, yet I am sure it forbids us to censure those that do, for God owned him in it. By his constancy to his duty it now appears that he had never been used to admit any excuse for the omission of it; for, if ever any excuse would serve to put it by, this would have served now, (1.) That it was forbidden by the king his master, and in honour of the king too; but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, We are to obey God rather than men. (2.) That it would be the loss of his life, but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, Those who throw away their souls (as those certainly do that live without prayer) to save their lives make but a bad bargain for themselves; and though herein they make themselves, like the king of Tyre, wiser than Daniel, at their end they will be fools.
Darius, as he loved quietness and inactivity and found work and business unpleasing, left the care of the empire to his prefects, and for this reason the Scripture adds, he set over the kingdom satraps, that is, 120 governors. And over them he placed three presidents, including Daniel. Then they asked him to set an interdict according to the law of the Medes and Persians. Indeed, among the Persians and the Medes, a law stated that when the king had set a certain rule, it was not permitted to rescind it. So the satraps asked the king for this kind of firm and immutable decree; and they were certain that the king would have not rescinded such a decree in order to save Daniel. It is likely that Daniel was not present in the hall of justice on that day, when the king argued from morning till evening with his satraps in order to save Daniel. If he had been present, he would have immediately confessed that he had prayed [to God], and after the confession of the crime the trial would have not been extended until evening.
Verse 8. "Now therefore, O king, confirm the measure and write the decree so that it may not be altered, according to the custom established by the Medes and Persians." It is perfectly evident, as we have remarked above, that there was only one kingdom of the Medes and Persians both, under the rule of Darius and Cyrus.
Continue studying Daniel 6:8 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
SefariaThe Hebrew text with Rashi and centuries of Jewish commentary.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
Daniel 6:8 captures the urgent and cunning plea of the conspirators to King Darius, compelling him to formalize an unchangeable decree. This pivotal verse highlights the strategic manipulation of the Medo-Persian legal system, renowned for its unalterable nature, to ensnare Daniel. The adversaries understood that Daniel's unwavering devotion to God was his only perceived vulnerability, and by securing this irreversible law, they set the stage for his inevitable confrontation with a human edict designed to contradict his divine allegiance. The verse thus underscores the profound implications of a law that, once signed by the king, could not be revoked, even by the monarch himself.
CONTEXT
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
The verse employs several significant literary devices that enrich its meaning and impact. Irony is profoundly present, as a legal system designed for stability, reliability, and the king's ultimate authority is cunningly manipulated to undermine justice and trap an innocent man. The very immutability of the law, intended to reflect strength and order, becomes a weakness that ensnares the king himself in a dilemma. There is also clear Foreshadowing, as this decree sets the stage for the dramatic conflict and Daniel's ultimate test of faith in the subsequent verses, building narrative tension and anticipating the climactic confrontation in the lions' den. Furthermore, the repeated emphasis on "the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not" functions as a powerful Symbol of human legal systems' rigidity, fallibility, and potential for corruption, standing in stark contrast to the perfect, just, and eternally true nature of divine law.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Daniel 6:8 profoundly illustrates the tension between human law and divine command, a recurring theme throughout the book of Daniel. The unchangeable nature of the Medo-Persian law, while intended to reflect stability and the king's authority, becomes a tool for injustice and a direct challenge to Daniel's unwavering devotion to God. This human legal system, despite its claim to immutability, is ultimately fallible, susceptible to malicious manipulation, and inherently limited. It stands in stark contrast to the true immutability and perfect justice of God's character and His divine decrees, which are always righteous, cannot be thwarted by human schemes, and are eternally binding. This verse therefore sets up a dramatic theological conflict, highlighting God's absolute sovereignty over human rulers and their most rigid laws, ultimately demonstrating that divine will prevails over human machinations.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Daniel 6:8 serves as a powerful reminder of the potential for human systems, even those designed for order and stability, to be perverted for unjust ends. It challenges us to critically evaluate the laws and decrees of our own societies, recognizing that while they may appear immutable or authoritative, they are ultimately subject to human fallibility, sin, and the corrupting influence of power and envy. The king's deep distress and regret later in the chapter (Daniel 6:14) underscore the danger of hasty decisions, the seductive power of flattery, and the unforeseen consequences of rigid laws. For believers, this verse calls for profound discernment and unwavering courage: discernment to recognize when human laws or cultural pressures conflict with divine principles, and courage to stand firm in faith, even when faced with seemingly unalterable consequences or severe persecution. Our ultimate allegiance must always be to the unchanging God, whose character and commands are truly immutable, perfectly just, and provide a steadfast anchor in a world of shifting human decrees and moral relativism.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why was the "law of the Medes and Persians" considered unchangeable?
Answer: The unchangeable nature of the Medo-Persian law was a distinctive and defining feature of their legal system, designed to project an image of absolute stability, reliability, and the king's unwavering commitment to his word. Once a decree was formally written and signed by the king, it was considered irreversible, even by the monarch himself. This principle is also highlighted in Esther 1:19, where it's stated that a royal decree could not be repealed. This rigidity, while perhaps intended for good governance and to prevent arbitrary rule, also created a significant vulnerability that cunning individuals could exploit, as tragically seen in the conspiracy against Daniel.
How did Daniel's adversaries use this unchangeable law to their advantage?
Answer: Daniel's adversaries, unable to find any legitimate fault in his conduct or work, realized his only vulnerability was his unwavering devotion to God. They shrewdly devised a decree that would prohibit prayer to any god or man other than King Darius for thirty days, knowing full well Daniel's consistent practice of praying to his God three times a day (Daniel 6:10). By specifically insisting that the king "establish the decree, and sign the writing," they ensured that once the law was enacted, its unchangeable nature would prevent Darius from revoking it, thereby guaranteeing Daniel's condemnation when he inevitably broke the decree by continuing his worship. Their plan leveraged the law's strength as its greatest weakness against Daniel.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
While Daniel 6:8 highlights the rigid, unchangeable nature of a human law that could be manipulated for unjust ends, leading to the condemnation of an innocent man, it ultimately points to the infinitely more profound and immutable decrees of God, perfectly fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Medo-Persian law, though fixed, was ultimately flawed and could be used to trap the righteous. In stark contrast, God's divine law, though unchangeable and requiring perfect obedience, finds its fulfillment not in human condemnation but in divine redemption through Christ. Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17), perfectly embodying its righteous demands and living a life of sinless obedience. Moreover, the ultimate "decree" that "altereth not" is God's eternal plan of salvation, established in Christ before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4 and 1 Peter 1:18-20). Through Christ's sacrificial death and glorious resurrection, the righteous requirements of God's holy law are met for all who believe, demonstrating God's unchanging love, perfect justice, and unwavering faithfulness (Romans 3:21-26). Thus, the temporary, flawed immutability of human law in Daniel's time foreshadows the eternal, perfect, and redemptive immutability of God's covenant and His saving work accomplished in the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, who is "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).