John Calvin 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)

Here, as I have said, it is clear enough how inclined the minds of kings are to fallacies when they think they can benefit themselves and increase their own dignity. For the king did not dispute long with his nobles but signed the edict; for he thought it might prove useful to himself and his successors: if he found the Chaldeans obedient to him and more prepared to deny the existence of every god than to refuse whatever he commanded!

Regarding the use of the word, some translate אסרא, asra, as “writing,” deriving it from “to cut in,” as we know that all laws were formerly engraved on tablets of brass; but I interpret it more simply as their seeking from the king a signature for the writing, that is, he was to sign the edict after it was written.

Which cannot be changed, they say — meaning, the edict is unchangeable and inviolable, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not pass away — that is, which does not vanish. As Christ also says, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, or shall never become vain (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31).

Regarding his joining the Medes with the Persians, this arises from what we said before, since Cyrus and Darius reigned in common as colleagues. Greater dignity was granted to Darius, while the power was in the hands of Cyrus; besides, without controversy, his sons were heirs of either kingdom and of the Monarchy of the East, unless they began to make war on each other.

When they say the law of the Medes and Persians is immutable, this is worthy of praise in laws and sanctions their authority; thus they are strong and obtain their full effect. When laws are variable, many are necessarily injured, and no private interest is stable unless the law is without variation; besides, when there is liberty to change laws, license takes the place of justice.

For those who possess the supreme power, if corrupted by gifts, promulgate first one edict and then another. Thus justice cannot flourish where change in the laws allows so much license. But, at the same time, kings ought prudently to consider that they should not promulgate any edict or law without serious and mature deliberation; and secondly, kings ought to be careful that they are not counteracted by cunning and artful plots, to which they are often liable.

Therefore, constancy is praiseworthy in kings and their edicts, if only it is preceded by prudence and equity. But we will soon see how foolishly kings affect the reputation of consistency, and how their obstinacy utterly perverts justice. But we will see this shortly in its proper place. It follows: