Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 6

It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom — This evidently refers to the kingdom of Babylon, now united with that of Media and Persia. As this kingdom was now subject and tributary to him, it would be natural for Darius to appoint persons over it in whom he could confide, for the administration of justice, the collection of revenue, and similar duties.

Others, however, suppose that this relates to the whole kingdom of Persia. But since the reference here is mainly to what was the kingdom of Babylon, it is more likely that Babylon is what is particularly alluded to.

Furthermore, it is hardly probable that he would have exalted Daniel, a Jew and a resident in Babylon, to so important a post as the premiership over the entire empire. Nevertheless, given Daniel's position and standing in Babylon, it is not improbable to suppose that under the reign of Darius, he might have occupied a place similar to what he had held under Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar.

In dividing the kingdom into provinces and placing officers over each department, Darius followed the same plan that Xenophon tells us Cyrus implemented for the nations he conquered (Cyrop. viii.): Εδόκει αὐτῷ σατράπας ἤδη πέμπειν ἐπὶ τὰ κατεστραμμένα ἔθνη (Edokei autō satrapas ēdē pempein epi ta katestrammena ethnē) — “It seemed good to him to appoint satraps over the conquered nations.” . Archbishop Ussher (Annals) suggests that the plan was first instituted by Cyrus and was followed at his suggestion. This was a measure of obvious prudence to maintain such an extensive empire in subjection.

An hundred and twenty princes — The word translated “princes” here (אחשׁדרפניא ('ăchash^edar^ep^enayā')) occurs only in Daniel in the Chaldee form. In its Hebrew form, it is found in the book of Esther (Esther 3:12; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3) and in Ezra (Ezra 8:36), where in Esther and Ezra it is uniformly translated “lieutenants.”

In Daniel (Daniel 3:2–3, 3:27; Daniel 6:1–4, 6:6-7), it is just as uniformly translated “princes.” It is a word of Persian origin and is probably the Hebrew way of pronouncing the Persian word “satrap,” or, as Gesenius supposes, the Persian word was pronounced “ksatrap.” For the etymology of the word, see Gesenius, Lexicon.

The word undoubtedly refers to the Persian satraps—governors or viceroys in the large provinces of the empire who possessed both civil and military powers.

They were officers of high rank, and as representatives of the sovereign, they rivaled his state and splendor. Single parts or subdivisions of these provinces were under inferior officers; the satraps governed whole provinces. The word is translated “satraps” in the Greek and the Latin Vulgate.

And over these, three presidents— סרכין sâr e kı̂yn. This word is found only in the plural. The etymology is uncertain, but its meaning is not doubtful. The word president expresses it with sufficient accuracy, denoting a high officer who presided over others. It is not improbable that these presided over distinct departments, corresponding somewhat to what are now called “secretaries”—as Secretaries of State, of the Treasury, of Foreign Affairs, etc.—though this is not particularly specified.

Of whom Daniel was first— First in rank. This office he probably held from the rank which he was known to have occupied under the kings of Babylon, and on account of his reputation for ability and integrity.

That the princes might give accounts to them— Be immediately responsible to them: the accounts of their own administration, and of the state of the empire.

And the king should have no damage— Either in the loss of revenue, or in any maladministration of the affairs. . They pay not toll, tribute, and custom, and so thou shalt endamage the revenue of the kings. The king was regarded as the source of all power, and as in fact the supreme proprietor of the realm, and any malfeasance or malversation in office was regarded as an injury to him.

Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes - That is, he was at their head, or was placed in rank and office over them. Because an excellent spirit was in him. This may refer alike to his wisdom and his integrity - both of which would be necessary in such an office. It was an office of great difficulty and responsibility to manage the affairs of the empire in a proper manner, and required the talents of an accomplished statesman, and, at the same time, as it was an office where confidence was reposed by the sovereign, it demanded integrity. The word “excellent” (יתירא yattı̂yrâ') means, properly, what hangs over, or which is abundant, or more than enough, and then anything that is very great, excellent, pre-eminent. Latin Vulgate, Spiritus Dei amplior - “the spirit of God more abundantly.” Greek πνεῦμα περισσὸν pneuma perisson.

It is not said here to what trial of his abilities and integrity Daniel was subjected before he was thus exalted, but it is not necessary to suppose that any such trial occurred at once, or immediately on the accession of Darius. Probably, as he was found in office as appointed by Belshazzar, he was continued by Darius, and as a result of his tried integrity was in due time exalted to the premiership. And the king thought to set him over the whole realm.

The whole kingdom over which he presided, embracing Media, Persia, Babylonia, and all the dependent, conquered provinces. This shows that the princes referred to in (Daniel 6:1), were those which were appointed over Babylonia, since Daniel (Daniel 6:2) was already placed at the head of all these princes. Yet, in consequence of his talents and fidelity the king was meditating the important measure of placing him over the whole united kingdom as premier. That he should form such a purpose in regard to an officer so talented and faithful as Daniel was, is by no means improbable. The Greek of Theodotion renders this as if it were actually done - καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς κατέστησεν ἀυτον, κ.τ.λ. kai ho basileus katestēsen auton, etc. - “And the king placed him over all his kingdom.” But the Chaldee (אשׁית 'ăshı̂yth) indicates rather a purpose or intention to do it; or rather, perhaps, that he was actually making arrangements to do this.

Probably it was the fact that this design was perceived, and that the arrangements were actually commenced, that aroused the envy and the ill-will of his fellow-officers, and induced them to determine on his ruin.

Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel - The word rendered “occasion” (עלה 'illâh) means a pretext or pretense. “The Arabs use the word of any business or affair which serves as a cause or pretext for neglecting another business.” - Gesenius, Lexicon.

The meaning is that they sought to find some plausible pretext or reason concerning Daniel, by which the contemplated appointment might be prevented, and by which he might be effectually humbled. No one who is acquainted with the intrigues of cabinets and courts can have any doubt as to the probability of what is stated here. Nothing has been more common in the world than intrigues of this kind to humble a rival and to bring down those who are meritorious to a state of degradation.

The cause of the plot devised here seems to have been mere envy and jealousy—and perhaps the consideration that Daniel was a foreigner and one of a despised people held in captivity.

Concerning the kingdom. This phrase refers to the administration of the kingdom. They sought to find evidence of malversation in office, abuse of power, attempts at personal aggrandizement, or inattention to the duties of the office.

This is literally “from the side of the kingdom,” meaning that the accusation was sought in that area or in that respect. No other charge would likely be effectual, except one that pertained to maladministration in office.

But they could find none occasion nor fault - This is an honorable testimony to Daniel’s fidelity and the uprightness of his character. If there had been any malversation in office, it would have been detected by these men.

We will not find any occasion ... - We will not find any pretext or any cause by which he may be humbled and degraded. They were satisfied with his integrity, and they saw it was futile to hope to accomplish their purposes by any attack on his moral character, or any charge against him concerning the way he had discharged the duties of his office.

Except we find it against him concerning the law of his God - Unless it is concerning his religion; unless we can interpret his known conscientiousness regarding his religion in such a way as to make that proof of his unwillingness to obey the king. It occurred to them that his well-understood faithfulness in his religious duties and his conscientiousness were such that they might expect that, whatever might occur, he would be found true to his God, and that this could be a basis for calculation in any measure they might propose for his downfall. His habits seem to have been well understood, and his character was so fixed that they could rely on this as a settled matter in their plans against him.

The only question was how to interpret his conduct in this respect as criminal, or how to make the king listen to any accusation against him for this reason. His religious views were well known when he was appointed to office, the worship of the God of Daniel was not prohibited by the laws of the realm, and it would not be easy to obtain a law directly and openly prohibiting it.

It is unlikely that the king would have consented to pass such a law if proposed directly—a law that would have been so likely to cause disturbance, and for which no plausible reason could have been given. However, another method occurred to these crafty counselors. Their plan was not to aim absolutely and directly to have that worship prohibited; instead, they would approach the king with a proposal that would be flattering to his vanity. This proposal, perhaps, might also be suggested as a test question, showing the degree of esteem in which he was held in the empire and the willingness of his subjects to obey him. By proposing a law that, for a limited period, no one would be allowed to present a petition of any kind to anyone except to the king himself, the object would be accomplished.

A vain monarch could be persuaded to pass such a law, and this could be represented to him as a suitable measure to test his subjects' willingness to show him respect and obedience. At the same time, it would be certain to achieve the purpose against Daniel, for they had no doubt that he would adhere steadfastly to the principles of his religion and to his well-known habits of worship. This plan was, therefore, extremely crafty and was the highest tribute that could be paid to Daniel. It would be good if the religious character and fixed habits of all who profess religion were so well understood that it was absolutely certain no accusation could lie against them on any other ground, but that their adherence to their religious principles could be relied upon as a basis for action, whatever the consequences might be.