Daniel 6:4

"Then the presidents and the satraps sought to Find occasion against Daniel as touching the kingdom; but they could find no occasion nor fault, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, unless we find it against him concerning the law of his God. Then these presidents and satraps assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live forever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the satraps, the counselors and the governors, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a strong interdict, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of thee, O king, he shall be cast into the den of lions. Now, O king, establish the interdict, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the interdict."

THE PLOT TO DESTROY DANIEL

Although the language here might be construed as meaning that all of the persons mentioned, the presidents, satraps, counselors, etc., were consulted, such was manifestly not the case. Daniel had not been consulted. Furthermore, it is exceedingly likely that the accusers of Daniel were quite a limited number. All of the show of unanimity here was merely window dressing to induce the king to go along with the plot. Poor old weak and unskilled Darius was an easy prey for that kind of intrigue. All of this account is absolutely reasonable and fully in keeping with the inevitable situation that always typified the kind of despotism that was fashionable in antiquity.

Biblical enemies never overlook anything, no matter how trivial, as a possible grounds for complaint; and therefore it is not surprising that some would allege a disunity in Daniel on the grounds that "the fiery furnace" was the means of execution in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, while here it is "the lions' den!" Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom was Chaldean, however; and the kingdom here is that of the Medes and Persians. "The Persians, being Zoroastrians, held fire to be sacred. Hence for them it would have been improper to cremate or execute by fire."[17]

"All the presidents of the kingdom ..." (Daniel 6:7)." This passage does not imply that all of the satraps, counselors, etc. were engaged in the conspiracy, but that they were all present on that occasion. Their presence as a company was due to their having been convened by the presidents (without Daniel); and the claim that all of that host had been consulted and that they had all agreed that the proposed edict should be signed was an unqualified lie. Daniel had not be consulted. Furthermore, "The Aramaic text does not indicate how many came into the presence of the king; and the Septuagint (LXX) indicates that only the other two governors (presidents) were involved."[18] If that was indeed the case, then it is likewise possible that only those two, along with their families, were cast into the lions' den. "It was the other two presidents and the satraps ... who came before the king; but they claimed to speak in the name of all classes of government."[19]

"Which altereth not ..." This aspect of Medo-Persian law also appeared in the edict against the Jews, as contrived by Haman (Esther 1:19; 8:8). It was, of course, a stupid and unreasonable conceit which thus interpreted their laws; and some commentators have tried to soften it. Adam Clarke, for example, thought that the irreversible aspect of their laws extended only for the first thirty days.[20] This appears to be erroneous. "The laws remained unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honored as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change."[21]

Critics, ever eager to discover some flaw, have alleged that such a decree was so foolish and unreasonable that it should be viewed as a fabrication by some author who made up this tale in Daniel to support "a religious truth!" This view is totally in error. Jeffery, however, is correct in stating that, "There is nothing inherently absurd in the idea of such a decree. An ancient Sumerian king might well have issued one ... a Japanese emperor at the end of the 16th century issued a somewhat similar edict![22]

Another unreasonable worthless criticism is that of Owens who declared that, "The idea of keeping a lion in a pit would only be used by a writer unfamiliar with lions outside of the pages of literature."[23] The implication of such a canard is that, of course, the narrative here is an invention by someone, certainly not Daniel! The truth is that no scholar could make a complaint like that who was familiar with either the excavations of ancient Babylon or with the Word of God. The Sacred Scriptures make reference to the den of lions in the Book of Nahum; and the garden walls, as well as the avenues of approach to the palace in ancient Babylon were all beautifully decorated with magnificent bas-relief lions done in turquoise, gold, and yellow colors. The basis of the critical assault on this part of Daniel is their mistranslation of the lions' den, reading it as "cistern" or "pit." The translators of all acceptable versions of God's Word reject such renditions. We do not have any detailed description of just exactly how ancient lions' dens were constructed; and the total ignorance of the critical community on the same subject is grounds enough for rejecting their ridiculous criticisms. The citizens of ancient Babylon probably knew more about how to use lions for their national purposes than any other government of human history. The conceit that one can take the sketchy references to the lions' den in this chapter, blow them up out of context to postulate an entire engineer's drawing of how lions' dens were made, and then to use that fabrication as a criticism of what is written here ... that is a measure of the critic's bias against the