Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 6:22

"My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions` mouths, and they have not hurt me; forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." — Daniel 6:22 (ASV)

My God hath sent his angel – It was common among the Hebrews to attribute any remarkable preservation from danger to the intervention of an angel sent from God, and no one can demonstrate that it did not occur as they supposed. There is no more absurdity in supposing that God employs an angelic being to defend His people, or to impart blessings to them, than there is in supposing that He employs one human being to render important aid, and to convey important blessings, to another. As a matter of fact, few of the favors which God bestows upon men are conveyed to them directly from Himself, but they are mostly imparted by the instrumentality of others. So it is in the blessings of liberty, in deliverance from bondage, in the provision made for our wants, in the favor bestowed on us in infancy and childhood.

As this principle prevails everywhere on the earth, it is not absurd to suppose that it may prevail elsewhere, and that on important occasions, and in instances above the rank of human intervention, God may employ the instrumentality of higher beings to defend His people in trouble, and rescue them from danger. Compare Psalm 34:7; Psalms 91:11; Daniel 9:21; Matthew 18:10; Luke 16:22; Hebrews 1:14. Daniel does not say whether the angel was visible or not, but it is rather to be presumed that he was, as in this way it would be more certainly known to him that he owed his deliverance to the intervention of an angel, and as this would be to him a manifest token of the favor and protection of God.

And hath shut the lions’ mouths – It is clear that Daniel supposed that this was accomplished by a miracle; and this is the only satisfactory solution of what had occurred. There is, moreover, no more objection to the supposition that this was a miracle than there is to any miracle whatever, for

1. there is no more fitting occasion for the Divine intervention than when a good man is in danger; and
2. the object to be accomplished on the mind of the king, and through him on the minds of the people at large, was worthy of such an interposition.

The design was evidently to impress the mind of the monarch with the belief of the existence of the true God, and to furnish in the court of Babylon proof that should be convincing that He is the only God.

Forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me –

1. Absolute innocence in reference to the question of guilt on the point in which he had been condemned – he having done only what God approved; and
2. general integrity and uprightness of character. We need not suppose that Daniel claimed to be absolutely perfect (compare Daniel 9), but we may suppose that he means to say that God saw that he was what he professed to be, and that his life was such as He approved.

And also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt – That is, he had in no way violated his duty to the king; he had done nothing that tended to overthrow his government, or to spread disaffection among his subjects.