Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 6:17
And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
17. sealed it with his own signet ] seals were in common use alike among the Assyrians, Babylonians (cf. Hdt. i. 195, ‘every one has a seal’), and Persians; and numbers, especially from Babylonia and Assyria, have been brought to European museums during the past half century. The signet cylinder of Darius Hystaspis represented the king as engaged in a lion hunt (Rawlinson, Anc. Mon. iii. 226, 227). Cf. (in Israel) 1Ki 21:8; and (in Persia) Est 3:12; Est 8:8; Est 8:10.
that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel (R.V.)] i.e. that nothing might be done, either by the king, or by anyone else, to rescue Daniel. The word, meaning properly will, purpose, is here used in the weakened sense of thing, which it has in the Aramaic of Palmyra (Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nordsemitischen Epigraphik (1898), p. 464, l. 6, ‘about these things ’), as well as constantly in Syriac, as Sir 32:19 (Pesh.) ‘Do not anything without counsel.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den – Probably a large flat stone sufficient to cover the mouth of the cave, and so heavy that Daniel could not remove it from within and escape. It was usual then, as it is now, to close up the entrance to sepulchres with a large stone. See Joh 11:38; Mat 27:60. It would be natural to endeavor to secure this vault or den in the same way – on the one hand so that Daniel could not escape from within, and on the other so that none of his friends could come and rescue him from without.
And the king sealed it with his own signet – With his own seal. That is, he affixed to the stone, probably by means of clay or wax, his seal in such a way that it could not be removed by anyone without breaking it, and consequently without the perpetration of a crime of the highest kind – for no greater offence could be committed against his authority than thus to break his seal, and there could be no greater security that the stone would not be removed. On the manner of sealing a stone in such circumstances, compare the note at Mat 27:66.
And with the signet of his lords – That it might have all the security which there could be. Perhaps this was at the suggestion of his lords, and the design, on their part, may have been so to guard the den that the king should not release Daniel.
That the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel – By the king. Probably they feared that if there was not this security, the king might release him; but they presumed that he would not violate the seal of the great officers of the realm. It would seem that some sort of concurrence between the king and his nobles was required in making and executing the laws.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 17. A stone was brought] All this precaution served the purposes of the Divine Providence. There could be no trick nor collusion here; if Daniel be preserved, it must be by the power of the Supreme God. The same precaution was taken by the Jews, in the case of the burial of our blessed Lord; and this very thing has served as one of the strongest proofs of the certainty of his resurrection and their unmixed wickedness.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They are resolved to make all fast and sure. So did the enemies of the three young men, by the hellish heat of the fiery furnace. So did the enemies of Christ, Mat 27:66. So did Herod serve Peter, Act 12:4, &c. Thus Paul and Silas were made sure, Act 16:23,24. Thus the heathen persecutors, that thought by variety, cruelty, and universality of persecutions and torments to drive the Christian religion out of the world. And thus antichrist by crusades, massacres, and burnings. In this sealing of the den they took away all power from the king of delivering Daniel, because they knew he favoured him; by which the power and providence of God for his preservation and deliverance was the more signalized, Act 4:26-28. Thus the Lord gratifies the enemies of his people oftentimes, as if they had a commission from him to do their worst; and they go a great way in it, as far as they have rope, Isa 10:6,7; Lu 22:53.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17. stone . . . sealedtypicalof Christ’s entombment under a seal (Mt27:66). Divinely ordered, that the deliverance might be the morestriking.
his own signet, and . . . ofhis lordsThe concurrence of the lords was required formaking laws. In this kingly power had fallen since it was inNebuchadnezzar’s hands. The Median king is a puppet in his lords’hands; they take the security of their own seal as well as his, thathe should not release Daniel. The king’s seal guaranteed Daniel frombeing killed by them, should he escape the lions.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den,…. Not a heap of stones, but a single one, a very large one, sufficient to stop up the mouth of the den, that nothing might enter in at it, or be cast into it: this stone was brought by proper persons, and a sufficient number of them, according the order of the king, or his princes, or both; for what Jarchi says, of there being no stones in Babylon, only bricks, and of the angels bringing this stone out of the land of Israel, is all fabulous: but for what end it should be brought and laid is not easy to say; if it was laid here by the order of the princes, it could not surely be to keep any of his friends from going in to deliver him, for who would venture himself there? nor to keep Daniel in it, since it might be concluded, that, as soon as ever he was cast in, he would be seized upon by the lions and devoured at once; unless it can be thought, that these men saw, that when he was thrown in, the lions did not meddle with him; which they might attribute to their having been lately fed, and therefore, that he might be reserved till they were hungry, they did this: if it was by the order of the king, which is very likely, the reason might be, he believed, or at least hoped, that God would deliver him from the lions; but lest his enemies, seeing this, should throw in stones or arrows, and kill him, the mouth of the den was stopped, so Jarchi and Saadiah: no doubt but this was so ordered by the providence of God, as well as the sealing of it, that the miracle of the deliverance might appear the more manifest:
and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of the lords; that none might dare to remove it; so the stone that was laid at the door of Christ’s sepulchre was sealed with a seal, Mt 27:66, the reason of sealing it follows,
that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel: the view the lords had in it was, that the king might not change the sentence passed on Daniel, or take any methods to deliver him; and the view the king had in it might be, that should he be saved from the lions, as he hoped he would, that no other sentence might pass upon him, or he be delivered to any other kind of death.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
There is no doubt that God’s counsel provided that the nobles should seal the stone with their own rings, and thus close the mouth of the cave, and render the miracle more illustrious. For when the king approached on the morrow, the rings were all entire, and the seals all unbroken. Thus the preservation of this servant of God was manifestly by the aid of heaven and not by the art of men. Hence we see how boldly the king’s nobles had compelled him to perform their pleasure. For he might seem deprived of all royal power when he delivered up to them a subject dear and faithful to himself, and ordered him to be thrown into the lions’ den. They are not content with this compliance of the king; they extort another point from him — the closing up of the mouth of the cave; and then they all seal the stone, lest any one should release Daniel. We see, then, when once liberty has been snatched away, all is over, especially when any one has become a slave by his own faults, and has attached himself to the counsels of the ungodly. For, at first, such slavery will not prevail as to induce a man to do everything which he is ordered, since he seems to be free; but when he has given himself up to such slavery as I have described, he is compelled to transgress not once or twice, but constantly and without ceasing. For example, if any one swerves from his duty through either the fear of man or flattery, or any other depraved affection, he will grant various things, not only when asked, but when urgently compelled. But when he has once submitted to the loss of freedom, he will be compelled, as I have already said, to consent to the most shameful deeds at the nod of any one. If any teacher or pastor of the Church should turn from the right path through the influence of ambition, the author of his declension will come to him again and say, What! do you dare to refuse me? Did I not obtain from you, yesterday or the day before, whatever I wished? Thus he will be compelled to transgress a second time in favor of the person to whom he has joined himself, and will also be forced to repeat the transgression continually. Thus princes also, who are not free agents through being under the tyranny of others, if they permit themselves to be overcome contrary to their conscience, lay aside all their authority, and are drawn aside in all directions by the will of their subjects. This example, then, is proposed to us in the case of King Darius, who after inflicting unjust punishment upon Daniel, adds this, He must be enclosed in the cave, and then, the stone must be sealed, — and for what object? — lest the doom should be changed; meaning, he did not dare to attempt anything in Daniel’s favor. We see, then, how the king submitted to the greatest disgrace, because his nobles had no confidence in him; they refused to trust him when he ordered Daniel to be thrown into the lions’ den, but they exacted a guarantee against his liberation, and would not suffer him to attempt anything. We thus see how disgracefully they withdrew their confidence from their king; next they use their authority against him, lest he should dare to remove the stone which had been sealed, unless he would incur the charge of falsehood by corrupting the public signatures, and of deception by falsifying the public documents. Hence this passage admonishes us against prostituting ourselves in slavery to the lust of men. Let every one serve his nearest neighbors as far as charity will allow and as custom demands. Meanwhile, no one ought to permit himself to be turned aside in different directions contrary to his conscience, because when he loses his free agency, he will be compelled to endure many affronts and to obey the foulest commands. This we see exemplified in the case of the panders to the avarice, or ambition, or cruelty of princes; for when once they are under the power of such men, they are most miserable victims; they cannot avoid the most extreme necessities, they become wretched slaves, and call down against themselves, a hundred times over, the anger of both God and man. It now follows, —
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) Sealed it.This sealing both by the king and his nobles appears to have been due to the fear that the nobles had (Dan. 6:16) of the kings attempting to rescue Daniel. The nobles also would be unable to put Daniel to death in the event of his escaping the fury of the lions.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. Literally this den of lions is called a pit, and many critics have depended upon this as one of the best proofs of the absolute unhistoricity of the whole story. So Graf ( Biblical Lexicon) asks how the lions could live in this “hole of a cistern,” and Reuss ( La Bible) ridicules the idea that there was room for the lions and satraps and all the other officials in this “pit” which could be closed with a single paving stone! It is astonishing that these suggestions should have been considered weighty by Farrar and Prince and so many recent writers. While this word “pit” did often mean a dark hole or cistern, yet like our word pit (for example, the pit of a theater) it had a larger meaning, “sometimes even standing for Sheol” (Meinhold). Certainly, as Kuenen acknowledges ( Onderzoek, ii, note 487), this modern notion of what the “den” must have been is quite inconsistent with the writer’s own idea, for he saw no need of a miracle to keep the lions from stifling in this dark vault which, according to these modern critics, was rendered air-tight when a stone was laid on its one small opening at the top! It seems far more reasonable that this “den” was somewhat like those now used in oriental countries. Host (quoted by Urquhart) describes one of these which he saw in Morocco, belonging to the emperor and sometimes used by him as a place of execution for criminals. It was a large square cavern below the level of the ground, open at the top but surrounded with a wall. A door in this wall constituted the mouth of the den from which steps led down to the vault below. A partition and trapdoors very similar to those used in modern and ancient lion cages enabled the keeper to clean the cages or separate the animals at will. That the Assyrian and Babylonian kings did make a specialty of captured lions, and did at times throw criminals to these beasts, is proved over and over again from the inscriptions. Several portable cages of lions, the doors of which are raised by attendants who stand on top protected by an iron screen, are pictured on the monuments. The custom of sealing the king’s treasure chambers and wine cellars with the royal signet was universal in ancient Babylonia. Even many of the clay letters and official documents of the days of Nebuchadnezzar and earlier were placed in clay envelopes and sealed. The seal was worn by every Babylonian except those of the lowest classes. It is stated that the door was sealed not only with the signet of the king but also with that of his nobles, “that nothing might be changed concerning Daniel” (R.V.), that is, in order that no one, not even the king himself, could illegally deliver him without being discovered. Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus (thirteenth century) said it was sealed with the king’s seal that the nobles might not kill him, and with the nobles’ seals that they could not say that the lions had been well fed and therefore no miracle was necessary for Daniel’s deliverance. This does not ill accord with the lesson emphasized all through this chapter (as in chapter iii), which is evidently the antagonism of the world-monarchies to righteousness, and Jehovah’s ability to preserve miraculously all of his true worshipers and bring the heathen to shame.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And a stone was brought and laid on the mouth of the den. And the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords, that nothing might be changed in respect of Daniel.’
These formalities would follow a normal, laid down, solemn procedure. The stone would be set against the entrance and sealed, although it would normally be free for opening if necessary by the keepers. Then the sealing around the stone, possibly of clay, was sealed with the king’s seal and that of his highest officials. It was thus made safe. No one could tamper with it without it being discovered. No one could alter what had been done. This was a strong warning that a condemned criminal was inside and that no one must open the cave without permission from the highest authorities. There is possibly a hint here that normally Daniel’s seal would have been one of them. But the great lord was now a common criminal because of his trust in God.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 6:17. Sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords That neither one nor the other of the parties might separately do any thing for or against Daniel. The Vulgate reads the last clause, That nothing might be done against Daniel; indicating the king’s desire, that the lions’ den might be closed with a sealed stone, lest the lords should put Daniel to death when they found him not slain by the lions.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Dan 6:17 And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
Ver. 17. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den. ] To make all sure, as they thought, and that there might be no privite dealings with the keepers for Daniel’s deliverance. But God had a holy hand in it, for the greater manifestation of the miracle.
And the king sealed it.
That the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
mouth = door.
lords = nobles. See note on “lords” (Dan 5:1), and “princes” (Dan 5:2).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Dan 6:17
Dan 6:17 And aH2298 stoneH69 was brought,H858 and laidH7761 uponH5922 the mouthH6433 of the den;H1358 and the kingH4430 sealedH2857 it with his own signet,H5824 and with the signetH5824 of his lords;H7261 thatH1768 the purposeH6640 might notH3809 be changedH8133 concerning Daniel.H1841
Dan 6:17
And a stone was brought and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.
Daniel was placed into the lions den and the opening was sealed with a stone laid upon the opening. Darius sealed it with his own signet which was the current equivalent of our modern day signatures. The presidents who contrived this plan were present as well and they added their signets to the stone. The law which Darius had signed had a purpose to it, and that was to unite the people under one leader. It was only for a period of 30 days but it was law and it was intended to accomplish the loyalty of those beneath him. Daniel was placed into the lions den so that this purpose would not be changed. The national was upheld and as bad as Darius felt about it, he felt he had no choice in the matter.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
a stone: Lam 3:53, Mat 27:60-66, Act 12:4, Act 16:23, Act 16:24
Reciprocal: Est 1:19 – it be not altered Dan 3:23 – fell Mat 27:66 – sealing Rev 20:3 – and set
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Dan 6:17. A stone was brought and laid upon the mouth, not at the mouth or door. That language is appropriate because the den was a pit dug oat in the ground. The stone was sealed with the kings own signet, which was a ring equipped with an engraving for making a stamp such as a notary uses today. That sealing had nothing to do with the coniinement of Daniel, but protected the place against outside interference.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Dan 6:17. And a stone was brought, and laid upon the mouth of the den Because, perhaps, it was seen that the lions did not seize on him immediately; and therefore, that they might have full opportunity to satisfy their rage and hunger, Daniels enemies were determined he should be confined all night among them. And the king sealed it with his own signet, and with the signet of his lords That neither the one nor the other of the parties might separately do any thing for or against Daniel. We may observe here, with Mr. Wintle, that the design of the king and of the nobles was probably different; the latter feared the king, lest he should release Daniel; the former was apprehensive that some other injury might be done to him, beyond the power of the wild beasts. Hence the Vulgate renders the conclusion of the verse, Ne quid fieret contra Danielem, That nothing might be done against Daniel; indicating the kings desire, that the lions den might be closed with a sealed stone, lest the lords should put Daniel to death when they found him not slain by the lions. The kings sealing the stone, must naturally remind us of the like circumstances which happened at the interment of our Saviour, of whom Daniel, in this case at least, has by many been considered as a type: see Mat 27:60; Mat 27:66.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The lions’ den appears to have been a large pit in the ground with an opening above that a large stone sealed, probably to keep people from stumbling into it. Such pits were commonly used as cisterns to store water or as prisons. [Note: Goldingay, p. 128.] Daniel had to be lifted up out of it (Dan 6:23), and others when thrown into it fell down toward its bottom (Dan 6:24). It may also have had a side entrance or drain since if it did not, rain could have filled the den and drowned the lions. Keil summarized a description of a fairly modern lions’ den in Morocco written by Höst. [Note: Keil, p. 216. He cited Ge. Höst, Fez and Morocco, p. 77.] However, statements in the text cast the type of lions’ den pictured in this description into question. The king and his nobles sealed the stone that covered the opening to make sure no one would release Daniel (cf. the sealing of Jesus’ tomb).