Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 6:6
Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live forever.
6. assembled together] came thronging (A.V. marg.; R.V. marg. came tumultuously). The word occurs several times in the Aramaic of the Targums, where it corresponds to Heb. words signifying to be in commotion or tumult, as Psa 46:6, ‘nations were in tumult,’ Rth 1:9, ‘and all the inhabitants of the city were in commotion on account of them’; and it occurs once in Heb., Psa 2:1, ‘Why do the nations throng tumultuously? [266] ’ The expression is thus a more vivid and graphic one than would be inferred from the rend. of A.V.: the courtiers, in their animosity against Daniel, are represented as flocking tumultuously to the king, for the purpose of gaining his co-operation in their plan.
[266] Cf. the cogn. subst. throng, Psa 55:14 (so R.V.), Psa 64:2 (R.V. ‘tumult,’ marg. ‘throng’).
live for ever ] see on Dan 2:4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then these presidents and princes assembled together – Margin, came tumultuously. The margin expresses the proper meaning of the original word – ragash – to run together with tumult. Why they came together in that manner is not stated. Bertholdt suggests that it means that they came in a procession, or in a body, to the king; but there is undoubtedly the idea of their doing it with haste, or with an appearance of great earnestness or excitement. Perhaps they imagined that they would be more likely to carry the measure if proposed as something that demanded immediate action, or something wherein it appeared that the very safety of the king was involved, than if it were proposed in a sedate and calm manner. If it were suggested in such a way as to seem to admit of deliberation, perhaps the suspicion of the king might be aroused, or he might have asked questions as to the ground of the necessity of such a law, which it might not have been easy to answer.
King Darius, live for ever – The usual way of saluting a monarch. See the note at Dan 2:4.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
6. assembled togetherliterally,”assembled hastily and tumultuously.” Had they come moredeliberately, the king might have refused their grant; but they gavehim no time for reflection, representing that their test-decreewas necessary for the safety of the king.
live for everARRIAN[Alexander, 4] records that Cyrus was the first before whomprostration was practised. It is an undesigned mark of genuinenessthat Daniel should mention no prostration before Nebuchadnezzar orDarius (see on Da 3:9).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king,…. Having consulted the matter, and agreed upon and formed a scheme among themselves, and drawn up a bill or decree in form, ready to be signed by the king, whom they hoped to persuade to it; and for that end they got together, and went in a body to him. The word b signifies to assemble in a tumultuous and noisy way; they thought, by their number and noise, their bustle and bluster, to carry their point. Ben Melech compares it with Ps 2:2:
and said thus unto him, O King Darius, live for ever; this they said as courtiers, professing subjection to him, and affection for him, wishing him health, long life, and happiness.
b “tumultuarie convenerunt”, Montanus; “cum tumultu accurrerent”, De Dieu; “convenerunt gregatim et cum strepitu”, Gejerus.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| A Plot against Daniel. | B. C. 537. |
6 Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. 7 All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, 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. 8 Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing, that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. 9 Wherefore king Darius signed the writing and the decree. 10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime.
Daniel’s adversaries could have no advantage against him from any law now in being; they therefore contrive a new law, by which they hope to ensnare him, and in a matter in which they knew they should be sure of him; and such was his fidelity to his God that they gained their point. Here is,
I. Darius’s impious law. I call it Darius’s, because he gave the royal assent to it, and otherwise it would not have been of force; but it was not properly his: he contrived it not, and was perfectly wheedled to consent to it. The presidents and princes framed the edict, brought in the bill, and by their management it was agreed to by the convention of the states, who perhaps were met at this time upon some public occasion. It is pretended that this bill which they would have to pass into a law was the result of mature deliberation, that all the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, princes, counsellors, and captains, had consulted together about it, and that they not only agreed to it, but advised it, for divers good causes and considerations, that they had done what they could to establish it for a firm decree; nay, they intimate to the king that it was carried nemine contradicente–unanimously: “All the presidents are of this mind;” and yet we are sure that Daniel, the chief of the three presidents, did not agree to it, and have reason to think that many more of the princes excepted against it as absurd and unreasonable. Note, It is no new thing for that to be represented, and with great assurance too, as the sense of the nation, which is far from being so; and that which few approve of is sometimes confidently said to be that which all agree to. But, O the infelicity of kings, who, being under a necessity of seeing and hearing with other people’s eyes and ears, are often wretchedly imposed upon! These designing men, under colour of doing honour to the king, but really intending the ruin of his favourite, press him to pass this into a law, and make it a royal statute, that whosoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king, shall be put to death after the most barbarous manner, shall be cast into the den of lions, v. 7. This is the bill they have been hatching, and they lay it before the king to be signed and passed into a law. Now, 1. There is nothing in it that has the least appearance of good, but that it magnifies the king, and makes him seem both very great and very kind to his subjects, which, they suggest, will be of good service to him now that he has newly come to his throne, and will confirm his interests. All men must be made to believe that the king is so rich, and withal so ready to all petitioners, that none in any want or distress need to apply either to God or man for relief, but to him only. And for thirty days together he will be ready to give audience to all that have any petition to present to him. It is indeed much for the honour of kings to be benefactors to their subjects and to have their ears open to their complaints and requests; but if they pretend to be their sole benefactors, and undertake to be to them instead of God, and challenge that respect from them which is due to God only, it is their disgrace, and not their honour. But, 2. There is a great deal in it that is apparently evil. It is bad enough to forbid asking a petition of any man. Must not a beggar ask an alms, or one neighbour beg a kindness of another? If the child want bread, must he not ask it of his parents, or be cast into the den of lions if he do? Nay, those that have business with the king, may they not petition those about him to introduce them? But it was much worse, and an impudent affront to all religion, to forbid asking a petition of any god. It is by prayer that we give glory to God, fetch in mercy from God; and so keep up our communion with God; and to interdict prayer for thirty days is for so long to rob God of all the tribute he has from man and to rob man of all the comfort he has in God. When the light of nature teaches us that the providence of God has the ordering and disposing of all our affairs does not the law of nature oblige us by prayer to acknowledge God and seek to him? Does not every man’s heart direct him, when he is in want or distress, to call upon God, and must this be made high treason? We could not live a day without God; and can men live thirty days without prayer? Will the king himself be tied up for so long from praying to God; or, if it be allowed him, will he undertake to do it for all his subjects? Did ever any nation thus slight their gods? But see what absurdities malice will drive men to. Rather than not bring Daniel into trouble for praying to his God, they will deny themselves and all their friends the satisfaction of praying to theirs. Had they proposed only to prohibit the Jews from praying to their God, Daniel would have been as effectually ensnared; but they knew the king would not pass such a law, and therefore made it thus general. And the king, puffed up with a fancy that this would set him up as a little god, was fond of the feather in his cap (for so it was, and not a flower in his crown) and signed the writing and the decree (v. 9), which, being once done, according to the constitution of the united kingdom of the Medes and Persians, was not upon any pretence whatsoever to be altered or dispensed with, or the breach of it pardoned.
II. Daniel’s pious disobedience to this law, v. 10. He did not retire into the country, nor abscond for some time, though he knew the law was levelled against him; but, because he knew it was so, therefore he stood his ground, knowing that he had now a fair opportunity of honouring God before men, and showing that he preferred his favour, and his duty to him, before life itself. When Daniel knew that the writing was signed he might have gone to the king, and expostulated with him about it; nay, he might have remonstrated against it, as grounded upon a misinformation that all the presidents had consented to it, whereas he that was chief of them had never been consulted about it; but he went to his house, and applied himself to his duty, cheerfully trusting God with the event. Now observe,
1. Daniel’s constant practice, which we were not informed of before this occasion, but which we have reason to think was the general practice of the pious Jews. (1.) He prayed in his house, sometimes alone and sometimes with his family about him, and made a solemn business of it. Cornelius was a man that prayed in his house, Acts x. 30. Note, Every house not only may be, but ought to be, a house of prayer; where we have a tent God must have an alter, and on it we must offer spiritual sacrifices. (2.) In every prayer he gave thanks. When we pray to God for the mercies we want we must praise him for those we have received. Thanksgiving must be a part of every prayer. (3.) In his prayer and thanksgiving he had an eye to God as his God, his in covenant, and set himself as in his presence. He did this before his God, and with a regard to him. (4.) When he prayed and gave thanks he kneeled upon his knees, which is the most proper gesture in prayer, and most expressive of humility, and reverence, and submission to God. Kneeling is a begging posture, and we come to God as beggars, beggars for our lives, whom it concerns to be importunate. (5.) He opened the windows of his chamber, that the sight of the visible heavens might affect his heart with an awe of that God who dwells above the heavens; but that was not all: he opened them towards Jerusalem, the holy city, though now in ruins, to signify the affection he had for its very stones and dust (Ps. cii. 14) and the remembrance he had of its concerns daily in his prayers. Thus, though he himself lived great in Babylon, yet he testified his concurrence with the meanest of his brethren the captives, in remembering Jerusalem and preferring it before his chief joy,Psa 137:5; Psa 137:6. Jerusalem was the place which God had chosen to put his name there; and, when the temple was dedicated, Solomon’s prayer to God was that if his people should in the land of their enemies pray unto him with their eye towards the land which he gave them, and the city he had chosen, and the house which was built to his name, then he would hear and maintain their cause (1Ki 8:48; 1Ki 8:49), to which prayer Daniel had reference in this circumstance of his devotions. (6.) He did this three times a day, three times every day according to the example of David (Ps. lv. 17), Morning, evening, and at noon, I will pray. It is good to have our hours of prayer, not to bind, but to remind conscience; and, if we think our bodies require refreshment by food thrice a day, can we think seldomer will serve our souls? This is surely as little as may be to answer the command of praying always. (7.) He did this so openly and avowedly that all who knew him knew it to be his practice; and he thus showed it, not because he was proud of it (in the place where he was there was no room for that temptation, for it was not reputation, but reproach, that attended it), but because he was not ashamed of it. Though Daniel was a great man, he did not think it below him to be thrice a day upon his knees before his Maker and to be his own chaplain; though he was an old man, he did not think himself past it; nor, though it had been his practice from his youth up, was he weary of this well doing. Though he was a man of business, vast business, for the service of the public, he did not think that would excuse him from the daily exercises of devotion. How inexcusable then are those who have but little to do in the world, and yet will not do thus much for God and their souls! Daniel was a man famous for prayer, and for success in it (Ezek. xiv. 14), and he came to be so by thus making a conscience of prayer and making a business of it daily; and in thus doing God blessed him wonderfully.
2. Daniel’s constant adherence to this practice, even when it was made by the law a capital crime. When he knew that the writing was signed he continued to do as he did aforetime, and altered not one circumstance of the performance. Many a man, yea, and many a good man, would have thought it prudence to omit it for these thirty days, when he could not do it without hazard of his life; he might have prayed so much oftener when those days had expired and the danger was over, or he might have performed the duty at another time, and in another place, so secretly that it should not be possible for his enemies to discover it; and so he might both satisfy his conscience and keep up his communion with God, and yet avoid the law, and continue in his usefulness. But, if he had done so, it would have been thought, both by his friends and by his enemies, that he had thrown up the duty for this time, through cowardice and base fear, which would have tended very much to the dishonour of God and the discouragement of his friends. Others who moved in a lower sphere might well enough act with caution; but Daniel, who had so many eyes upon him, must act with courage; and the rather because he knew that the law, when it was made, was particularly levelled against him. Note, We must not omit duty for fear of suffering, so, nor so much as seems to come short of it. In trying times great stress is laid upon our confessing Christ before men (Matt. x. 32), and we must take heed lest, under pretence of discretion, we be found guilty of cowardice in the cause of God. If we do not think that this example of Daniel obliges us to do likewise, yet I am sure it forbids us to censure those that do, for God owned him in it. By his constancy to his duty it now appears that he had never been used to admit any excuse for the omission of it; for, if ever any excuse would serve to put it by, this would have served now, (1.) That it was forbidden by the king his master, and in honour of the king too; but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, We are to obey God rather than men. (2.) That it would be the loss of his life, but it is an undoubted maxim, in answer to that, Those who throw away their souls (as those certainly do that live without prayer) to save their lives make but a bad bargain for themselves; and though herein they make themselves, like the king of Tyre, wiser than Daniel, at their end they will be fools.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
The nobles of the kingdom purposely endeavored to ruin the holy Prophet, either by casting him into the lion’s den to perish or else by causing him to desist from the outward profession of worshipping God. They knew him to be so really in earnest that he would not redeem his life by so great an act of impiety, and hence they thought him doomed to death. We perceive in them great cunning; but God met them on the other hand and aided his servant, as we shall see. Meanwhile their malice was the more detestable, since they desired to destroy Daniel by this very pretense. Although they did not worship Israel’s God, they knew the Prophet’s mind to be pious and straightforward, and then they experienced the power of that God who was unknown to them. They did not condemn Daniel, nor blame the religion which he practiced; for, as I have said, their hatred of this man urged them to such cruelty that they rushed against the Almighty. They could not disguise from themselves the duty of worshipping God: they worshipped and adored unknown deities, and did not dare to condemn the worship of Israel’s God. We see how the devil fascinated them when they dared to impute this as a crime to the holy Prophet; while we are ignorant of the manner in which their opinion was changed.
Some suppose this was done because Darius could not bear with composure the glory of his son-in-law. For since he was an old man, and his relative in the flower of his age, he thought himself despised. Others think Darius to have been touched by secret emulation, and that he allowed his nobles to approach him for the purpose of deceiving the miserable and doting old man, and thus to throw dust in his eyes. But this conjecture does not seem to me sufficiently valid. Nor need I give myself much trouble in this matter, because it might happen that at the beginning of a new reign they wished to congratulate the king, and they fixed upon something new and unaccustomed, as we see often done by flatterers of royalty. Hence the old man might be deceived in this matter, since the monarchy was newly established. The king had hitherto ruled over none but Medes; now Chaldeans, Assyrians, and many other nations were added to his sway. Such an addition might intoxicate him with vain-glory, and his nobles might think this a plausible reason for offering to him divine honors. This single reason seems to me sufficient; I do not inquire further, but embrace what is probable and obvious at first sight. I defer the remainder till to-morrow.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) Assembled.See margin. Such conduct was very unusual in Eastern Courts, where, as a rule, the strictest decorum and order was preserved. This breach of etiquette must have prepared the king to expect some terrible crisis in the State.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
‘Then these presidents and satraps came thronging to the king and said to him, “King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the deputies and the satraps, the counsellors and the governors, have gathered together to establish a royal decree, and to make a strong interdict that whoever shall ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, except of you, 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 the Persians which do not pass away.” ’
It is deliberately stressed that they all put pressure on the king together, and that they gave the impression that this was a show of unity and the desire of all. This alone could have made the king do such a foolish thing. (This alone makes it apparent that this Darius was not Cyrus, nor Darius II).
We must recognise that Darius was probably a general promoted to kingship, that he was relatively inexperienced in kingship, and that he would want to please those whom he had appointed. It was suggested to him that it was a popular request, and it was very flattering. And it suggested that he was becoming popular himself. He possibly did not take the consequences of it too seriously, for what would it mean? Simply that for thirty days public religious affairs and requests in Babylon should be conducted through him. (Who would know what men did in private?) He did not suspect a thing. After all that was almost what happened at the akitu festival. There the king represented the whole people and was their figurehead. And it was after all being suggested by his own appointees as a whole. He could probably see no reason why all should not agree with it.
‘Or man.’ That is, using a priest or other religious figure. Thus it would prevent the priests being seen as too powerful.
The success of the scheme depended on persuading the king that it was not too unreasonable, and in obtaining the decree in writing so that it could not be changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, and in making it ambiguous enough so that it could catch Daniel within its wording. It is not the first time that a foolish monarch has been persuaded by flattery and deceit to do something unwise, but he had no suspicions that it was a trap for anyone, and if the people wished to make him a kind of mediator with the gods, why should they not? He probably saw it as a positive move rather than a negative one. There was a tendency among the Persians to deify their monarchs. It would give him higher status.
‘The law of the Medes and the Persians which do not pass away.” ’ They are saying that once made such a law stood firm. It should not be changed. Compare Est 1:19; Est 8:8. It is said of Darius III that having made a decision for someone’s execution, which he afterwards regretted, ‘he immediately repented and blamed himself as having greatly erred. But it was not possible to undo what was done by royal authority’.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 6:6. Then these presidents and princes assembled together Came in a concourse. The true import of the verb hargishu, seems to be, “they tumultuously met;” see the margin of our English translation. The princes came in a concourse, and together assailed the king with their proposal: they forced in.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
I think it would be wrong to swell the Commentary by unnecessary observations here. The plan was evil; and the intention evil; though as we shall find by the sequel, the Lord overruled it for good. Think, Reader! what must his wisdom be that makes good to spring out of evil; and so arrangeth orders and events, as to make men the unconscious ministers of bringing about the very reverse of what they intended. Such was the history of Joseph’s brethren, when from the pit, and the prison, all the illustrious events which followed in the Patriarch’s life, were produced. Gen 45:5-8 . Such was the case of Mordecai. Est 7:9-10 . And yet more blessed than all such in the cross of Christ. For the Jews thought by crucifying the Lord of life and glory, that they should put out his name forever; whereas that very cross is the believer’s triumph. Gal 6:14 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 6:6 Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever.
Ver. 6. Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king. ] Or, Thronged tumultuously, as resolved to have that they came for. James and John, from the word here used, are called, Filii fremitus sive fragoris, Sons of thunder. Mar 3:17 It seemeth these men came to the king with a bustle and a rattle, to frighten him into a consent to their motion.
King Darius, live for ever.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 6:6-9
6Then these commissioners and satraps came by agreement to the king and spoke to him as follows: King Darius, live forever! 7All the commissioners of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the high officials and the governors have consulted together that the king should establish a statute and enforce an injunction that anyone who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king, for thirty days, shall be cast into the lions’ den. 8Now, O king, establish the injunction and sign the document so that it may not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which may not be revoked. 9Therefore King Darius signed the document, that is, the injunction.
Dan 6:6 came by agreement to the king The VERB (Haphel PERFECT) is rare both in Aramaic and Hebrew. It can mean (1) in harmony; (2) thronged (NKJV, JPSOA, BDB 1112); or (3) in the Psalms (cf. Psa 2:1) the Hebrew counterpart (BDB 921, Qal PERFECT) is used for a treacherous conspiracy, which seems to be the implication here.
live forever This is a standard hyperbole addressing the king (cf. Dan 2:4; Dan 3:9; Dan 5:10; Dan 6:6; Dan 6:21). In Dan 4:34; Dan 6:26; and Dan 12:7 the phrase is used in a theological sense of YHWH, the I Am (cf. Exo 3:14 from the Hebrew VERB to be). He is the ever-living, only-living One (cf. Dan 6:20)!
Dan 6:7 These government officials appealed to the egotism and pride of the king. Quite often leaders are susceptible to this trickery.
that anyone who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king This was highly unusual for a Persian monarch to assume the status of deity because the Persian religion (Zoroastrians) believed in two deities, an eternal dualism existed between good and evil, between the Ahura Mazda and the Angra Mainyu. So how this king could possibly usurp divine attributes is historically uncertain. The plotters may have used the first ascension year of Cyrus as an opportunity to impose a loyalty-type oath (hyperbole).
the lions’ den See note at Dan 6:17.
Dan 6:8 the law of the Medes and Persians This same binding legal status of the decrees of the Medo-Persian kings as being unchangeable is found in Dan 6:12; Dan 6:15; Dan 6:17; Est 1:19; Est 8:8; and Diodorus Siculus 17:30.
The Medes are mentioned first here as in Dan 8:20. Persia was the dominant partner and very soon after Cyrus’ defeat of Babylon he began to be called King of Persia. The order of these terms shows the historicity of Daniel. The order is reversed in Est 1:19.
The prophets also combined Media and Persia as one entity as the parallelism of Isa 21:2 (Elam and Media) clearly shows. Some scholars refer to Isa 13:17 and Jer 51:11; Jer 51:28 as an attempt to show that the prophets falsely saw Media as a separate empire (cf. NAB p. 1096), an error which they assert that Daniel followed.
Also note that Darius the Mede is subject to the laws of the Medes and Persians, which would not be true if Media was a separate, independent empire.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
assembled = came crowding together.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 6:6-7
Dan 6:6 ThenH116 theseH459 presidentsH5632 and princesH324 assembled togetherH7284 toH5922 the king,H4430 and saidH560 thusH3652 unto him, KingH4430 Darius,H1868 liveH2418 for ever.H5957
Dan 6:7 AllH3606 the presidentsH5632 of the kingdom,H4437 the governors,H5460 and the princes,H324 the counsellors,H1907 and the captains,H6347 have consulted togetherH3272 to establishH6966 a royalH4430 statute,H7010 and to make a firmH8631 decree,H633 thatH1768 whosoeverH3606 H1768 shall askH1156 a petitionH1159 ofH4481 anyH3606 GodH426 or manH606 forH5705 thirtyH8533 days,H3118 saveH3861 ofH4481 thee, O king,H4430 he shall be castH7412 into the denH1358 of lions.H744
Dan 6:6-7
Then these presidents and princes assembled together to the king, and said thus unto him, King Darius, live for ever. All the presidents of the kingdom, the governors, and the princes, the counsellors, and the captains, have consulted together to establish a royal statute, and to make a firm decree, 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.
What a diabolical plan. The first thing we need to point out is that this organized opposition to Daniel was substantial. They lied to Darius to be sure for Daniel was in a position of authority over them and obviously his voice was not present here. There were three presidents set over the realm of which Daniel was the leader. It is almost certain here that the other two presidents were leading this conspiracy against Daniel personally.
They used flattering words to Darius and pretended to honor him in an official capacity for a period of thirty days and they wanted it made into a law. They knew Daniel’s personal worship habits. There was no real intent to honor Darius here. Their sole reason for this entire sham was to dispose of Daniel. The timeless wisdom of Solomon rings clear upon our consideration of these flattering deceivers:
Pro 29:5-6
“A man that flattereth his neighbour spreadeth a net for his feet. In the transgression of an evil man there is a snare…”
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
assembled together: or, came tumultuously, Dan 6:11, Psa 56:6, Psa 62:3, Psa 64:2-6, Mat 27:23-25, Luk 23:23-25, Act 22:22, Act 22:23
King: Dan 6:21, Dan 2:4, Dan 3:9, Dan 5:10, Neh 2:3, Act 24:2
Reciprocal: 2Sa 16:16 – God save the king 1Ki 1:31 – Let my Est 1:3 – the nobles
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 6:6. With their envious motive in their wicked hearts they came before the king. They introduced themselves with the familiar salutation, King Darius, live far ever. Such a salutation was sometimes uttered out of genuine respect for a dignitary without any selfish motive prompting it. In the present case, however, we know it was for the purpose of getting the king into a favorable attitude toward them and hence it was said tn flattery.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The adversaries’ exaggerated their claim that all the rulers of the kingdom had concurred with their proposal. Obviously Daniel had not agreed to it. Nevertheless it was believable enough that Darius did not object or consult Daniel. Furthermore, the plan catered to the king’s vanity. The proposed statute evidently covered petitions of a religious nature-rather than requests of any type-since a general ban, even a permanent ban, would have been absurd. Perhaps the antagonistic rulers also aimed at impressing the Babylonians with the importance of remaining loyal to their new Persian king. In any case, they promoted humanism, the philosophy that puts man in the place of God.
". . . this one king was to be regarded for the time being as the only representative of Deity." [Note: Montgomery, p. 270.]
"Parsism [the official religion of Persia] did not indeed require men to regard the king as a god in his own proper nature, but to pay him supreme homage as the representative of Ormusd." [Note: Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, p. 171.]
"The probability is that Darius regarded this act as a pledge of loyalty to himself and a token of their desire to respect his authority to the utmost." [Note: Walvoord, p. 137.]
The Babylonians burned criminals alive (ch. 4), but the Persians, who worshipped fire, threw them to the lions. [Note: Olmstead, p. 473.]