Albert Barnes Commentary Daniel 6:8-9

"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." — Daniel 6:8-9 (ASV)

Now, O king, establish the decree—Ordain, enact, confirm it.

And sign the writing—An act necessary to make it the law of the realm.

That it be not changed—That, having the sign-manual of the sovereign, it might be so confirmed that it could not be changed. With that sign it became so established, it seems, that even the sovereign himself could not change it.

According to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not—the marginal note for "altereth not" is "Passeth"—which means it does not pass away; it is not abrogated.

A similar fact regarding a law of the Medes and Persians is mentioned in Esther 8, where the king was unable to recall an order given for the massacre of the Jews. He attempted only to counteract it as far as possible by putting the Jews on their guard and allowing them to defend themselves. Diodorus Siculus (Book 4) refers to this custom, stating that Darius, the last king of Persia, would have pardoned Charidemus after he was condemned to death but could not reverse what the law had passed against him (Lowth).

“When the king of Persia,” says Montesquieu (Spirit of Laws, as quoted by Rosenmuller, Morgenland, on this passage), “has condemned anyone to death, no one dares speak to him to make intercession for him.

Even if he were drunk when the crime was committed, or if he were insane, the command must nevertheless be executed, because the law cannot be countermanded, and the laws cannot contradict themselves. This sentiment prevails throughout Persia.” It may seem singular that such a custom prevailed, and that the king, who was the fountain of law and whose will was law, could not change a statute at his pleasure.

But this custom grew out of the opinions that prevailed in the East regarding the monarch. His will was absolute, and it was a part of the system that prevailed then to exalt the monarch and leave the impression on the minds of the people that he was more than a man—that he was infallible and could not err. Nothing was better adapted to maintain that impression than an established principle of this kind: that a law once ordained could not be repealed or changed.

To do this would be a practical acknowledgment that there was a defect in the law, a lack of wisdom in ordaining it, that all circumstances were not foreseen, and that the king was liable to be deceived and to err. Despite all the disadvantages attending such a custom, it was judged better to maintain it than to allow that the monarch could err; therefore, when a law was ordained, it became fixed and unchanging.

Even the king himself could not alter it; whatever the consequences, it was to be executed.

It is evident, however, that such a custom might have some advantages. It would serve to prevent hasty legislation and give stability to the government by making known what the laws were, thus avoiding the evils that result when they are frequently changed.

It is often preferable to have permanent laws, even if not the best that could be framed, than those that would be better if there were no stability.

There is only one Being, however, whose laws can be safely unchanging—and that is God, for His laws are formed with a full knowledge of all the relations of things and of their bearing on all future circumstances and times.

This serves to confirm the statement made here regarding the ancient custom in Media and Persia: that the same idea of the inviolability of the royal word has remained, in a mitigated form, to modern times.

A remarkable example of this is related by Sir John Malcolm concerning Aga Mohammed Khan, the second-to-last of the Persian kings. After alluding to the present case and that in Esther, he observes, “The character of the power of the king of Persia has undergone no change. The late king, Aga Mohammed Khan, when encamped near Shiraz, said that he would not move until the snow was off the mountains in the vicinity of his camp. The season proved severe, and the snow remained longer than was expected; the army began to suffer distress and sickness, but the king said that while the snow remained upon the mountain, he would not move; and his word was as law and could not be broken. A multitude of laborers were collected and sent to remove the snow; their efforts and a few fine days cleared the mountains, and Aga Mohammed Khan marched” (History of Persia, 1.268, quoted in the Pictorial Bible, on this passage).