Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 6:8
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.
8. decree ] interdict.
altereth not ] lit. passeth not away. On the unalterableness of the edicts of a Persian king, cf. Est 1:19 (‘let it be written among the laws of the Persians and Medes, that it pass not away ’), Dan 8:8 (a royal edict, properly signed and sealed, ‘may no man reverse’).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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 – Margin, Passeth. Which does not pass away; which is not abrogated. A similar fact in regard to a law of the Medes and Persians is mentioned in Esther viii., in which the king was unable to recall an order which had been given for the massacre of the Jews, and in which 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 (lib. iv.) refers to this custom where he says 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, in loc.), has condemned any one to death, no one dares speak to him to make intercession for him. Were he even drunk when the crime was committed, or were he insane, the command must nevertheless be executed, for 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 which prevailed in the East in regard to the monarch. His will was absolute, and it was a part of the system which prevailed then to exalt the monarch, and leave the impression on the mind of the people that he was more than a man – that he was infallible, and could not err. Nothing was better adapted to keep up 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; that there was a want of wisdom in ordaining it; that all the circumstances were not foreseen; and that the king was liable to be deceived and to err. With all the disadvantages attending such a custom, it was judged better to maintain it than to allow that the monarch could err, and hence, when a law was ordained it became fixed and unchanging.
Even the king himself could not alter it, and, whatever might be 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 to give stability to the government by its being known what the laws were, thus avoiding the evils which result when they are frequently changed. It is often preferable to have permanent laws, though not the best that could be framed, than those which 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. It serves to confirm the statement here made respecting 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, of Aga Mohammed Khan, the last but one 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 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, i. 268, quoted in the Pict. Bible, in loc.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. According to the law of the Medes and Persians] I do not think that this is to be understood so as to imply that whatever laws or ordinances the Medes or Persians once enacted, they never changed them. This would argue extreme folly in legislators in any country. Nothing more appears to be meant than that the decree should be enacted, written, and registered, according to the legal forms among the Medes and Persians; and this one to be made absolute for thirty days. The laws were such among this people, that, when once passed with the usual formalities, the king could not change them at his own will. This is the utmost that can be meant by the law of the Medes and Persians that could not be changed.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
8. decreeor, “interdict.”
that it be not changed(Est 1:19; Est 8:8).This immutability of the king’s commands was peculiar to the Medesand Persians: it was due to their regarding him infallible as therepresentative of Ormuzd; it was not so among the Babylonians.
Medes and PersiansTheorder of the names is an undesigned mark of genuineness. Cyrus thePersian reigned subordinate to Darius the Mede as to dignity, thoughexercising more real power. After Darius’ death, the order is “thePersians and Medes” (Est 1:14;Est 1:19, &c.).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Now, O king, establish the decree, and sign the writing,…. For they had not only agreed upon it among themselves what to propose, as to the substance of it; but they had drawn it up in writing, ready to be signed, which they urge to have done immediately:
that it be not changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not; when once signed by the king: mention being made of both the Medes and Persians, shows that these two nations were now united in one government; that Darius and Cyrus were partners in the empire; and it is easy to account for it why the Medes are mentioned first; because Darius was the Mede, and Cyrus the Persian; the one the uncle, the other the nephew; but afterwards, when a Persian only was on the throne, then the Persian is mentioned first, Es 1:19.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Here, as I have said, it is sufficiently apparent how inclined to fallacies are the minds of kings when they think they can benefit themselves and increase their own dignity. For the king did not dispute long with his nobles but subscribed the edict; for he thought it might prove useful to himself and his successors: if he found the Chaldeans obedient to himself and rather prepared to deny the existence of every god than to refuse whatever he commanded! As to the use of the word, some, translate אסרא, asra, by “writing,” deriving it from “ to cut in, ” as we know that all laws were formerly graven on tablets of brass; but I interpret it more simply of their seeking from the king a signature of 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 also Christ says, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away, or shall never become vain. (Mat 24:35; Mar 13:31.) As to 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 when 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 be without variation; besides, when there is a liberty of changing laws, license succeeds in 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 of so much license. But, at the same time, kings ought prudently to consider lest they promulgate any edict or law without grave and mature deliberation; and secondly, kings ought to be careful lest they be counteracted by cunning and artful plots, to which they are often liable. Hence, constancy is praiseworthy in kings and their edicts, if only they are preceded by prudence and equity. But we shall immediately see how foolishly kings affect the fame of consistency, and how their obstinacy utterly perverts justice. But we shall see this directly in its own place. It follows:
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) Sign the writing.Literally, record the decree, so that there might be no possibility of its being recalled. (Comp. Est. 8:8.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. For Medes and Persians see Dan 2:39-42; Dan 7:5.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Dan 6:8. According to the law, &c. There was a law in this monarchy, that no ordinance or edict, made with the necessary formalities, and with the consent of the king’s counsellors, could be revoked: the king himself had no power in this case. Diodorus Siculus says, that Darius, the last king of Persia, would have pardoned Charidemus after he was condemned to death, but could not reverse the law which had passed against him. We may observe the difference of style here, and in Est 1:19. Here the words are, the law of the Medes and Persians, out of regard to the king, who was a Mede; there it is styled, the law of the Persians and Medes, as the king at that time was a Persian. See Calmet and Lowth.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Dan 6:8 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.
Ver. 8. Now, O king, establish the decree. ] Confirm it, that it may receive the force of law.
According to the law of the Medes and Persians, that altereth not.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
which altereth not = which changeth not, or passeth not away.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 6:8
Dan 6:8 Now,H3705 O king,H4430 establishH6966 the decree,H633 and signH7560 the writing,H3792 thatH1768 it be notH3809 changed,H8133 according to the lawH1882 of the MedesH4076 and Persians,H6540 whichH1768 alterethH5709 not.H3809
Dan 6:8
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.
The authors of this plot were very clever in the way the conceived and presented it. They knew that Darius wanted to unify the kingdom and as quickly as possible transform the Babylonians into loyal Persians. What better way than to focus on the great king himself and make him not just the supreme leader but the only person or god worshipped for an entire month! To emphasize the importance of this law, the officers requested the death sentence for all perpetrators of this decree. Anyone who didn’t obey it would be thrown into a den of lions as a means of execution.
If interest here is that a lions den as opposed to execution by fire was the official decree. It should be noted that Persians were worshippers of fire and they did not customarily use fire as a means of executing criminals because they held it as sacred.
“the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not”
This immutability of the king’s commands was special to the Medes and Persians. We see this reference to the law which cannot be altered in Est 1:19; Est 8:8 as well. From the use of this in Esther we see a national law which extends beyond the reign of a particular king. The expression “the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not” was a significant characteristic of the Medo-Persian empire. We see here the first example in history of the high principles of law and order. A law which governs kings as well as subjects. We see here the beginnings in history of a national law which the rulers must obey as well as the citizenry and a law which remains in effect from ruler to ruler.
Darius codified the laws that would govern the empire in a document called the Ordinances of Good Regulations. Though no copy of the document has been uncovered as yet by archaeologists references to the document have been found in Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions, as well as in several royal documents. We see here a reference to the “Law of the Medes and Persians, which alters not.” The law was extreme, but it was consistent, and it applied to the king himself as well as to any commoner.
To enforce the law Darius established a number of judges and held them to a strict standard of impartiality. Punishments dealt to an unjust judge were uncommonly severe. This standard had been set earlier during the reign of Cambyses who reigned before Darius. Under Cambyses a judge once took a bribe to render an unjust ruling. Cambyses learned of the deed and had the judge flayed. His skin was then tanned and cut into strips, which were used to cover the seat of judgment. This served as a warning to the next judge, who happened to be the son of the previous occupant. Darius also sentenced an unjust judge to death, this time by crucifixion. Darius had the man taken of the cross before he died after considering another of the laws which insisted that one wrong deed might be pardoned if it was outweighed by a record of good.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
establish: Est 3:12, Est 8:10, Isa 10:1
according: Dan 6:12, Dan 6:15, Est 1:19, Est 8:3
altereth not: Chal, passeth not, Mat 24:35
Reciprocal: 2Ch 30:5 – established Est 8:8 – may no man reverse Jer 51:28 – the kings
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 6:8. Sign the writing, That it be not changed. The Persians had the foolish notion that when their king signed a decree it made it so sacred that it could not be repealed or changed even by the king himself. Had the king merely authorized the decree, there might have been some Haw discovered and it could have been set aside. That is why these abominable men induced him to put his signature io the document. The later conduct Of Darius proves that he would have repealed the decree had he not signed it, which act took the law out of his hands for ever.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Under Persian law, the king was bound by the authority of a royal edict (Dan 6:8; Dan 6:12; Dan 6:15; cf. Est 1:19; Est 8:8). This made his power less than it was under an absolute dictator such as Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Dan 2:39).
"The action of Darius was both foolish and wicked. What led him to yield to the request of the ministers can only be conjectured, but probably he was greatly influenced by the claim of deity which many of the Persian kings made." [Note: Young, p. 134.]