Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 6:12
Then they came near, and spoke before the king concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask [a petition] of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing [is] true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.
12. before the king ] cf. Dan 6:10; and see on Dan 2:9.
decree (twice)] interdict. So Dan 6:13.
altereth not ] lit. passeth not away ( Dan 6:8).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then they came near – That is, they came near to the king. They had detected Daniel, as they expected and desired to do, in a palpable violation of the law, and they lost no time in apprising the king of it, and in reminding him of the law which he had established. Informers are not apt to lose time.
The king answered and said, The thing is true … – It is undeniable, whatever may be the consequences. There is no reason to suppose that he as yet had any suspicion of their design in asking this question. It is not improbable that he apprehended there had been some violation of the law, but it does not appear that his suspicions rested on Daniel.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 12. Shall be cast into the den of lions] Either this was the royal menagerie, like that place in the Tower of London, where wild beasts are kept for the king’s pleasure, and the public amusement; or they were kept for the purpose of devouring certain criminals, which the laws might consign to that kind of death. This is most likely, from the case before us.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They had enough now, they came with open mouth, they pleaded the breach of the kings laws, they tell the king he had signed it, and it could not be disannulled; the kings authority and the honour of the nation lay at stake. The king owned such a law, and it was unalterable.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. They preface their attack byalleging the king’s edict, so as to get him again to confirm itunalterably, before they mention Daniel’s name. Not to break awicked promise, is not firmness, but guilty obstinacy (Mat 14:9;Mar 6:26).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then they came near,…. They went immediately from Daniel’s house to the king’s palace, and into the king’s presence; which they could do, either by virtue of their offices, or being admitted by the proper officer in waiting:
and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; at first they said nothing about Daniel, but about the decree, to get it recognized, and afresh ratified and confirmed; lest, under some pretence or another, the king should change it:
hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any god or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? they do not say peremptorily that he had signed such a decree, but put the question to him, that they might have it affirmed by himself:
the king answered and said, the thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not; it is true that such a decree is made and signed, and it is an unalterable one; such as is every established and signed decree of the Medes and Persians: it is as if he had said, it is very true what you put me in mind of, and I will never recede from it, or nullify and make it void.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Now the king’s nobles approach the king as conquerors, but they do so cunningly; for they do not openly say anything about Daniel, whom they knew to be a favorite with the king; but they repeat their previous assertion concerning the impossibility of changing the edict, since the law of the Medes and Persians is inviolable and cannot be rendered void. Again, therefore, as far as they possibly can, they sanction that edict, lest the king should afterwards be free, or dare to retract what he had once commanded. We must mark the cunning with which they indirectly circumvent the king, and entangle him, by preventing the change of a single word; They come, therefore, and discourse concerning the royal edict. They do not mention the name of Daniel, but dwell upon the royal decree, so as to bind the king more firmly. It follows — The king answered, The discourse is true We here see how kings desire praise for consistency, but they do not perceive the difference between consistency and obstinacy. For kings ought to reflect upon their own decrees, to avoid the disgrace of retracting what they have hastily promulgated. If anything has escaped them without consideration, both prudence and equity require them to correct their errors; but when they have trampled upon all regard for justice, they desire every inconsiderate command to be strictly obeyed! This is the height of folly, and we ought not to sanction a perseverance in such obstinacy, as we have already said. But the rest to-morrow.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
‘Then they came near, and spoke before the king concerning the king’s interdict. “Have you not signed an interdict that every man who petitions any god or man within thirty days, except to you, O king, will be thrown into a den of lions?.” ’
‘They came near.’ Entering the king’s presence involved the necessary protocol.
They then, seemingly in concern for the king’s good, sought confirmation about the decree. Was it not so that he had inscribed such a decree?
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
‘The king replied and said, “The thing is true according to the law of the Medes and Persians which does not pass away.” ’
The king confirmed his decree possibly secretly pleased that they showed such concern about it. It was decreed and binding and permanent for the thirty days.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 6:12 Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask [a petition] of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing [is] true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.
Ver. 12. Hast thou not signed a decree? ] But should “wickedness be established by a law?” Psa 94:20 See on Dan 6:7 . So in France there was published an edict whereby the people were forbidden on pain of death to have in their houses any French book wherein the least mention was made of Jesus Christ. a
a Dr Arrowsmith’s Tact. Sacr., p. 89.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Dan 6:12
Dan 6:12 ThenH116 they came near,H7127 and spakeH560 beforeH6925 the kingH4430 concerningH5922 the king’sH4430 decree;H633 Hast thou notH3809 signedH7560 a decree,H633 thatH1768 everyH3606 manH606 thatH1768 shall askH1156 a petition ofH4481 anyH3606 GodH426 or manH606 withinH5705 thirtyH8533 days,H3118 saveH3861 ofH4481 thee, O king,H4430 shall be castH7412 into the denH1358 of lions?H744 The kingH4430 answeredH6032 and said,H560 The thingH4406 is true,H3330 according to the lawH1882 of the MedesH4076 and Persians,H6540 whichH1768 alterethH5709 not.H3809
Dan 6:12
Then they came near, and spake before the king concerning the king’s decree; Hast thou not signed a decree, that every man that shall ask a petition of any God or man within thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions? The king answered and said, The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not.
They wasted no time in going to the king but before they revealed Daniel’s transgression of the new law, they secured from Darius an affirmation of the new law and the punishment for breaking it. They wanted to make sure Darius couldn’t back out it. They obviously were well aware of Darius’ feeling towards Daniel and they knew they were manipulating the king into having Daniel executed. They were being careful to lay the consequences of this on the shoulders of Darius instead of their own. They knew Darius was going to be unhappy about this and they wanted to make sure Darius knew they were standing on firm legal ground in this deceit. Their intentions were to hold Darius subject to his own law. This is the same thing the government officials did with Nebuchadnezzar over his golden statue in an effort to rid themselves of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. It didn’t work then and as we will shortly see, it did not work here either and these conspirators got to enjoy the fate they had contrived for Daniel.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
they: Dan 3:8-12, Act 16:19, Act 16:24, Act 24:2-9
the den: It is probable that these lions were kept for the purpose of devouring certain criminals, whom the laws might consign to that kind of death.
The thing: Dan 6:8, Est 1:19
Reciprocal: Est 3:12 – in the name Est 8:8 – may no man reverse Dan 2:13 – and they Dan 3:10 – hast made Dan 6:15 – Know
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 6:12. Their speech to the king was that of a group of hypocrites. They pretended to he shocked and surprised at what they had discovered. But it might be well to remind Darius in the form of a question of the decree he had made and signed. It might have a more active effect upon him to have the edict brought fresh to his mind, and to have him verify it verbally before them.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
After reminding Darius of his decree, the hostile officials informed the king that his prime minister elect had violated it and was therefore worthy of death. Notice that they described Daniel as "one of the exiles from Judah" (cf. Dan 2:25; Dan 5:13), rather than as a royal cabinet minister. They were evidently hoping that Daniel’s Jewish nationality and religion would contribute to Darius’ distaste for him. This was not the result, however. They also used almost the same words that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego’s accusers had used when they charged Daniel with disregarding the king (cf. Dan 3:12). To them, prayer to Yahweh constituted disrespect for the king, rather than respect for the Most High God. How quickly and persistently humankind reverts to humanism!