Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 6:24
And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast [them] into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and broke all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.
24. The king’s vengeance on the men who had maliciously accused Daniel.
accused ] see on Dan 3:8.
their children, and their wives ] according to the rough justice or, to our minds, injustice of antiquity: cf. Jos 7:24-25; 2Sa 21:5-9; Est 9:13-14; Hdt. iii. 119. Cf. Mozley’s Ruling Ideas in Early Ages, p. 87 ff., in explanation of the principle involved.
had the mastery of them ] or fell upon them a sense which the Aram. phrase, properly meaning to rule over, has in the Targums ( e.g. Jdg 15:12; 2Sa 1:15).
in pieces ] These words should be followed by a comma (as in R.V.), the words or ever &c., having reference to both the preceding clauses (the order in the Aram. is ‘and they reached not the bottom of the pit, ere the lions’ &c.).
or ever ] i.e. before; the expression being a pleonastic, reduplicated form of ere (A.S. r, Germ. eher), frequent in Old English. So Pro 8:23 (A.V., R.V.), Ps. 53:8 (P.B.V.), Psa 90:2 (P.B.V., A.V., R.V.), Son 6:12 (A.V., R.V.), Act 23:15 (A.V., R.V.); Isa 65:24, in Coverdale’s version, ‘ Or ever they call, I shal answere them’; and several times in Shakespeare. Mr Wright ( Bible Word-Book, s.v.) quotes from Latimer’s Sermons, ‘The great man was gone forth about such affairs as behoved him, or [= ere ] I came.’
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And the king commanded, and they brought those men, which had accused Daniel … – It would seem probable that the king had been aware of their wicked designs against Daniel, and had been satisfied that the whole was the result of a conspiracy, but he felt himself under a necessity of allowing the law to take its course on him whom he believed to be really innocent. That had been done. All that the law could be construed as requiring had been accomplished. It could not be pretended that the law required that any other punishment should be inflicted on Daniel, and the way was now clear to deal with the authors of the malicious plot as they deserved. No one can reasonably doubt the probability of what is here said in regard to the conspirators against Daniel. The king had arbitrary power. He was convinced of their guilt. His wrath had been with difficulty restrained when he understood the nature of the plot against Daniel. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that he should subject the guilty to the same punishment which they had sought to bring upon the innocent; nothing more natural than that a proud despot, who saw that, by the force of a law which he could not control, he had been made a tool in subjecting the highest officer of the realm, and the best man in it, to peril of death, should, without any delay, wreak his vengeance on those who had thus made use of him to gratify their own malignant passions.
Them, their children, and their wives – This was in accordance with Oriental notions of justice, and was often done. It is said expressly by Ammianus Marcellinus (23, 6, 81), to have been a custom among the Persians: The laws among them (the Persians) are formidable; among which those which are enacted against the ungrateful and deserters, and similar abominable crimes, surpass others in cruelty, by which, on account of the guilt of one, all the kindred perish – per quas ob noxam unius omnis propinquitas perit. So Curtius says of the Macedonians: It is enacted by law that the kindred of those who conspire against the king shall be put to death with them. Instances of this kind of punishment are found among the Hebrews (Jos 7:24; 2Sa 21:5, following), though it was forbidden by the law of Moses, in judicial transactions, Deu 24:16. Compare also Ezek. 18; Maurer, in loc. In regard to this transaction we may; observe
(a) that nothing is more probable than that this would occur, since, as appears from the above quotations, it was often done, and there was nothing in the character of Darius that would prevent it, though it seems to us to be so unjust
(b) it was the act of a pagan monarch, and it is not necessary, in order to defend the Scripture narrative, to vindicate the justice of the transaction. The record may be true, though the thing itself was evil and wrong.
(c) Yet the same thing substantially occurs in the course of Providence, or the administration of justice now. Nothing is more common than that the wife and children of a guilty man should suffer on account of the sin of the husband and father. Who can recount the woes that come upon a family through the intemperance of a father? And in cases where a man is condemned for crime, the consequences are not confined to himself. In shame and mortification, and disgrace; in the anguish experienced when he dies on a gibbet; in the sad remembrance of that disgraceful death; in the loss of one who might have provided for their wants, and been their protector and counselor, the wife and children always suffer; and, though this took another form in ancient times, and when adopted as a principle of punishment is not in accordance with our sense of justice in administering laws, yet it is a principle which pervades the world – for the effects of crime cannot and do not terminate on the guilty individual himself.
And the lions had the mastery of them – As the Divine restraint furnished for the protection of Daniel was withdrawn, they acted out their proper nature.
And brake all their bones in pieces or ever … – literally, they did not come to the bottom of the den until the lions had the master of them, and brake all their bones. They seized upon them as they fell, and destroyed them.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 6:24
Those men which had accused Daniel.
Righteous Retribution
The Bible from first to last is a revelation of Gods active, personal, and intelligent presence in the affairs of men; and its elementary principles without which all approach to God is impossible, are, first, that there is a God, and secondly, that he rewards and punishes. (Heb 11:1-40; Heb 6:1-20). Daniel recognised the presence of this divine power when he said that God had sent His angel, and shut the lions mouths. The sole difference between miracle and providence is, that in the former ease the ordinary laws of nature are suspended and interfered with by a higher power; in the latter nature is made to do the will of God in conformity with its usual way of working. And these two ways of acting have had each a suitableness for the times when God used them. The reason of this deliverance Daniel finds in the just government of God. For Daniels enemies there was a fearful retribution. They had digged a pit, and fallen into the midst of it themselves. In Daniels wonderful preservation both the king and all who had not shared in the crime saw emphatic proof of the guilt of the conspirators. Their own execution was most just, but our feelings revolt at the inclusion in the sentence of their wives and children. But that seems to have been the Persian custom. It is explained by the solidarity of interest between the members of the same family or of the same nation. The sins of one member of a family often involve all in ruin. A whole nation has to pay the penalty of the fault of its statesmen; a whole army is destroyed by the incapacity of its general. But equally all share in the results of the virtues, the wisdom, the ability of their leaders, and it would be a poor world if it were not so. (Dean Payne Smith.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 24. They brought those men] It was perfectly just that they should suffer that death to which they had endeavoured to subject the innocent; but it was savage cruelty to destroy the women and children who had no part in the transgression.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
They cast them into the den of lions; thus they digged a pit for another, and fell into it themselves, which the heathens say was a very just law, the law of retaliation, which the Lord doth often observe, as in the case of Adonibezek, and Ahab, and many more.
Them, their children, and their wives: Darius was yet cruel in this execution, because he cast in with them to the lions their wives and children. This is not without precedent in Scripture, as in Korah and his company, Achan, and Haman, for the greater terror. For the kings justice in this fact, we need not trouble ourselves, it being the custom of the arbitrary tyrants of the East.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24. (Deu 19:19;Pro 19:5).
accusedliterally,”devoured the bones and flesh.” It was just that they whohad torn Daniel’s character, and sought the tearing of his person,should be themselves given to be torn in pieces (Pr11:8).
their childrenAmongthe Persians, all the kindred were involved in the guilt of oneculprit. The Mosaic law expressly forbade this (Deu 24:16;2Ki 14:6).
or everthat is,”before ever.” The lions’ sparing Daniel could not havebeen because they were full, as they showed the keenness of theirhunger on the accusers.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel,…. Not all the hundred and twenty princes, and the two presidents; but the chief of them, who were most busy in getting the decree signed; watched Daniel’s house, and what he did there; brought the charge against him to the king, and were most solicitous and urgent to have the decree put in execution against him:
and they cast them into the den of lions; the servants of the king, who were sent to fetch them, and who brought these by the king’s orders, cast them into the same den of lions that Daniel had been in: thus often the pit wicked men dig for others, they fall into themselves; so Haman man was hanged on the gallows he prepared for Mordecai:
them, their children, and their wives; which might be according to the laws of this monarchy in capital offences, relating to affairs of state, as this was for an accusation of a prime minister of state, to take away his life; though such things were common with arbitrary princes, for the terror of others; so Haman and his sons were hanged up by Ahasuerus: this may seem cruel and inhuman, though it might be that the wives and children of these men advised them to do what they did, and were encouragers and approvers of it. Josephus m relates, that the enemies of Daniel, when they saw no hurt came to him, would not ascribe it to the providence of God, but to the lions being full of food; upon which the king ordered much meat to be given them, and then the men to be cast in to them, to see whether because of their fulness they would come unto them or not:
and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of the den; the lions seized them at once; and though they did all they could to defend themselves, fighting with them; yet the lions were too powerful for them, and overcame them, and not only tore off their flesh, but broke their bones in pieces, and that as they were falling, before they came to the bottom, or the lower part of the den; this was a plain proof that it was not through fulness, or want of appetite, that the lions did not fall upon Daniel and devour him: this affair happened in the first year of Darius, which, according to Bishop Usher n, and Dean Prideaux o, and Mr. Whiston p, was in the year of the world 3466 A.M., and 538 B.C.; Mr. Bedford q places it in 537 B.C.
m Antiqu. l. 10. c. 11. sect. 6. n Annales Vet. Test. A. M. 3466. o Connexion, &c. part 1. p. 125, 128. p Chronological Tables, cent. 10. q Scripture Chronology, p. 711.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
By this circumstance God’s virtue shone forth more clearly in preserving Daniel, because those who had accused him were immediately destroyed by the lions. For if any one should say that the lions were satisfied, or there was any other reason why Daniel was not destroyed, why, when he was withdrawn, did such great madness immediately impel those beasts to tear and devour, not one man only, but a great multitude? Not one of the nobles was preserved; next their wives and children were added. Lions scarcely ever proceed to such a pitch of savageness, and yet they all perished to a man; then how did Daniel escape? We surely see how God by this comparison wished to bear witness to his own virtue, lest any one should object that Daniel was left by the lions because they were already gorged, and desired no other prey, for they would have been content with either three or four men; but they devoured men, women, and children. Hence the mouths of the lions were clearly restrained by the divine power, since Daniel was safe during a whole night, but they perished immediately, as soon as they were cast into the cave; because we again see how these beasts were impelled by sudden madness, so that they did not wait till their prey arrived at the bottom, but devoured them as they fell. We shall leave the rest till to-morrow.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
HOMILETICS
SECT. XXI.THE JUDGMENT IN BABYLON (Chap. Dan. 6:24-28)
The deliverance of Daniel was a signal display of the power of Jehovah and His presence with His people. Even the king, who seemed to have some idea that God might possibly interpose on His servants behalf, was probably taken by surprise; like the believers in Marys house when Peter, released in answer to their prayer, stood before the door. No sooner was Daniel taken up out of the den than judgment began on his enemies. The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead. Sooner or later judgment taketh hold of the wicked. Conspicuous reward also awaited Gods faithful servant. The whole scene exhibits one of judgment, and affords a picture of another on a larger scale yet to come. We notice separately
I. The judgment on Daniels enemies (Dan. 6:24). That judgment was not long in following Daniels deliverance. According to the kings command, they are immediately taken and cast into the den from which Daniel had been taken. Digging a pit for their friend, they fall into it themselves. Virtually guilty of murder, they suffer the murderers doom. Though hand joined in hand, they were not allowed to escape. Their rank and their number no screen from justice. Showing no mercy themselves, they receive none. Haman must be hung on his own gallows. The extension of the punishment to the wives and children, who were innocent, according to the custom of the time and people [148]. Great crimes sometimes made, by special command of God, to involve a mans house and family as well as himself, even among the early Israelites (Num. 16:27-33; Jos. 7:24-25). Forbidden, however, by the law of Moses that children should suffer for the sins of fathers (Deu. 24:16; 2Ki. 14:6). Tradition relates, what is probable enough in itself, that these princes would not believe that any miracle had been wrought in Daniels favour, the lions having been abundantly fed before he was thrown in. To convince them of the contrary, the lions brake all their bones before even they reached the bottom of the den. Infidelity will believe in nothing supernatural till it finds itself in the hands of Him who says, Consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver (Psa. 50:22).
[148] Them, their children, and their wives. Keil observes: By the accusers, we are not (with Hitzig) to think of the 120 satraps, together with the two chief presidents, but only of a small number of the special enemies of Daniel, who had concerned themselves with the matter. The condemning to death of the wives and children along with the men was in accordance with Persian custom, as is testified by Herodotus, 3:119, Amm. Marcell. 23:6, 81, and also with the custom of the Macedonians in the case of treason (Curtius, Dan. 6:2), but was forbidden in the law of Moses (cf. Deu. 24:16).
II. The royal decree (Dan. 6:25-27). The deliverance of Daniel was followed by a decree similar to that of Nebuchadnezzar on the return of his reason. The decree was in honour of the true God, who had delivered Daniel from the power of the lions. He is declared to be the living God and steadfast for ever, the Ruler of a kingdom that shall not be destroyed, and the possessor of an everlasting dominion; a God that rescueth and delivereth, and who worketh signs and wonders in heaven and earth. Men were to tremble and fear before Him in every part of his realm, which at least implied that they were to treat His name, worship, and religion with reverence and respect. This exaltation of Jehovah one of the objects of this as well as the other miracles recorded in the book, tending, at the same time, to the welfare of the people in general, and to that of the Jews in particular, as well in providing full toleration for their religion during their dispersion, as in preparing the way for their restoration to their own land. The great object of all Gods dealings in providence that men may fear Him, that fear being at once their excellence and their happiness. Such the final issue of the judgments yet to be displayed. Who shall not fear Thee, O Lord, and glorify Thy name? for Thou only art holy; for all nations shall come and worship before Thee; for Thy judgments are made manifest (Rev. 15:4). The deliverance of Daniel as a faithful servant of Jehovah proclaimed in the decree, as a testimony at once to His power and faithfulness, and an encouragement to all to make Him their trust in like manner, as the God that delivers and rescues those who serve and trust in Him. Thus Daniel himself was honoured through all the widely-extended realm of Persia. Them that honour me I will honour. So at last in reference to those who fear the Lord and think upon His name in a God-forgetting age. They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not (Mal. 3:17-18).
III. Daniels prosperity and extended life (Dan. 6:28). Externally Daniel had seen the last of his trials. He lived to see the end of the short reign of Dariushow much is uncertainand a portion, at least, of the longer reign of Cyrus, his successor [149]. During the whole of that last period of his life he prospered. He continued probably in his high office as chief of the three great presidents of the empire. At the accession of Cyrus, his influence at court was such that Cyrus, doubtless as the result of it, issued the decree recorded in the end of 2 Chronicles and the beginning of Ezra, giving permission to the Jews to return to their own land and rebuild their Temple at Jerusalem. It is said that the aged minister pointed the king to the passage in Isaiah, where he is mentioned by name as the conqueror of Babylon and the chosen deliverer of Jehovahs covenant people (Isa. 44:28; Isa. 45:1). The prosperity of Daniel to be noted in connection with the fiery trial which had tried him and the death which had threatened him. This Daniel; the same whom his enemies had nearly swallowed up; the same who had been faithful unto death, and had been only delivered from the mouths of the lions by a divine interposition. They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. The happiness of believers to be able to say with Paul, Who delivered us from so great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we trust that He will yet deliver us (2Co. 1:10). Observe among the lessons of the passage
[149] In the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian. (bemalcuth), in the reign, the word denoting both reign and kingdom. From the repetition of the word before Cyrus, observes Keil, it does not follow that Daniel separates the Persian kingdom from the Median; for here does not mean kingdom, but dominion, i.e., reign. The succession of the reign of Cyrus the Persian to that of Darius the Median does not show the diversity of the two kingdoms, but only that the rulers of the kingdoms were of different races. From this verse, taken in connection with the last of the preceding chapter, it appears that the Chaldean kingdom, after its overthrow by the Medes and Persians, did not immediately pass into the hands of Cyrus; but that between the last of the Chaldean kings and the reign of Cyrus, Darius, descended from a Median family, a son of Ahasuerus (Dan. 11:1), held the reins of government. This Darius and his reign are not distinctly noticed by profane historians; and hence modern critics have called in question his existence, and thence derived a supposed argument against the historical veracity of the whole narrative. The account given by Xenophon in his Cyropedia, differing somewhat from that of Herodotus, shows that this Darius the Mede is the same person whom he calls Cyaxares II. According to him, the Median king Astyages, son of Cyaxares I., gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses, king of Persia, who was under the Median supremacy, of which marriage Cyrus was born. When Cyrus arrived at mans estate, Astyages died and was succeeded by his son Cyaxares II., the brother of Mandane and uncle of Cyrus. When, after this, Crsus, king of Lydia, concluded a treaty with the king of the Assyrians (Babylonians), with a view to the overthrow of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus received the command of the Medo-Persian army; and when, after a victorious battle, Cyaxares was unwilling to proceed farther, Cyrus carried forward the war by his permission, and destroyed the host of Crsus and the Assyrians; at the report of which Cyaxares fell into a passion, and in a threatening letter to Cyrus, ordered the Medes to be recalled. These declaring their desire to remain with Cyrus, the latter entered on the war against Babylon independently of Cyaxares. Having driven the Babylonian king back upon his capital, he sent a message to Cyaxares, desiring him to come and decide regarding the vanquished and the continuance of the war. Cyaxares accordingly came to the camp, where Cyrus exhibited to him his power by reviewing his army before him, treated him kindly, and gave him a large share of the plunder. After this, the war against Babylon was carried on in such a way that Cyaxares, sitting on the Median throne, presided over the councils of war, while Cyrus, as general, had the conduct of it. After conquering Sardis and taking Crsus prisoner, Cyrus returned to Babylon, and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians took the city, upon which the king of Babylon was slain. After the conquest of Babylon the army regarded Cyrus as king, and he began to conduct his affairs as if he were so. He went, however, to Media to present himself before Cyaxares, brought presents to him, and showed him that there was a house and palace ready for him in Babylon, where he might reside when he went thither. Cyrus now went to Persia and arranged that his father, Cambyses, should retain the sovereignty of it so long as he lived, and that then it should fall to him. He then returned to Media and married the daughter of Cyaxares, receiving with her the whole of Media as her dowry, Cyaxares having no son. He next went to Babylon, and placed satraps over the subjugated peoples; and so arranged that he spent the winter in Babylon, the spring in Susa, and the summer in Ecbatana. This account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares, says Keil, so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, the identity of the two is beyond a doubt.
1. The certainty of divine judgments. Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth. Daniels enemies in fancied security after the king had affixed his seal to the stone over the mouth of the den. The night probably spent in pleasure and mutual congratulations. So on the slaughter of the Two Witnesses (Rev. 11:7-11). But the triumphing of the wicked is short. The wicked sometimes punished in this world, that men may know there is a God that judgeth; only sometimes, that they may know there is a judgment to come.
2. The godly ultimately delivered out of trouble. Daniel delivered a second time from imminent death when no human power could rescue him. In six troubles He shall deliver thee, and in seven no evil shall befall thee. Trouble and deliverance the common experience in the way to the kingdom. Thou knowest what persecutions I endured; but out of them all the Lord delivered me (2Ti. 3:10-11). Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried, and ye shall have tribulation) ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life (Rev. 2:10). The angel that redeemed Jacob from all evil, the Angel of the covenant, stands engaged to deliver the Israel of God from every evil work, and to preserve them to His heavenly kingdom (2Ti. 4:18).
3. Events in providence made to promote the glory of God and the advancement of His kingdom. The Lord hath made all things for Himself. The course of the world is but the course of divine providence, and divine providence is only Gods government of the world He has made, and His conducting it to the end for which He made it. In that providence He makes the wrath of man to praise Him, while the remainder of wrath He restrains. The decree of Darius a foreshadowing of the time when the kingdoms of the world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign for ever and ever (Rev. 11:15). All things made to tend to this ultimate consummation. This the Redeemers reward, as it is the result of His redeeming work. He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied. Adequate power provided for the object. Thy people shall be willing in the day of Thy power. What was done at Pentecost at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, only an earnest and pledge of what shall be done at its close. I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.
4. The power and preciousness of divine grace. That grace seen in Daniel to be able to preserve the godly in a course of high-toned morality and religion during the course of a long life, in the midst of diversified temptations and in the most unfavourable circumstances. Daniel an example of Psa. 92:12-15. As perseverance is the one final touchstone of man, so these scattered notices combine in a grand outline of one, an alien, a captive, of that misused class (the eunuchs) who are proverbially the intriguers, favourites, pests of Oriental courts, who revenge on man their ill treatment at the hand of man; yet himself in uniform integrity, outliving envy, jealousy, dynasties; surviving in untarnished, uncorrupting greatness; the seventy years of the captivity; honoured during the forty-three years of Nebuchadnezzars reign; doing the kings business under the insolent and sensual boy Belshazzar; owned by the conquering Medo-Persians; the stay, doubtless, and human protector of his people during those long years of exile. Such undeviating integrity beyond the ordinary life of man, a worshipper of the one God in the most dissolute and degraded of the merchant cities of old, first minister in the first of the world-monarchies, was in itself a great fulfilment of the purpose of God in converting the chastisement of His people into the riches of the Gentiles.Pusey.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
24. This awful punishment upon those who had with their tongues “eaten the pieces” of Daniel (see note Dan 3:8) is not inconsistent with some of the actions of some despots; yet the fact that it can be mentioned by the author without a note of disapproval may show his own feelings toward the persecutors of his religion. The Old Testament is not the New Testament, and our Lord’s teaching of love for enemies is not so universally practiced yet in the Christian Church that we can afford to cast any stones at an ancient Hebrew who triumphs because of the downfall of those who have persecuted him and his people. The destruction of the innocent families of these guilty men is in accordance with the Babylonian and Persian custom. (See also Dan 3:29.) The old Greek text states that only two men and their families were thus executed.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the king commanded and they brought those men who had accused Daniel, and they threw them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives. And the lions had the mastery of them, and broke all their bones in pieces before they ever reached the bottom of the den.’
The accusers would be the spokesmen, the ones who had thrust themselves on the king’s attention and had been most adamant that Daniel should die. They were brought, possibly one by one, with their families as soon as they could be found. The first thing that they knew about it was the hammering on the door in early morning, and then the arrest, along with their wives and children, and then they were dragged out screaming and thrown into the den of lions through the hole above the den. And the result was awful and revealed that these were no cosseted lions. For as soon as the bodies reached the lions they were on them, tearing away at them even before they reached the floor of the den, and they were torn to pieces and their bones laid bare. We must allow for a little exaggeration which was to demonstrate the voraciousness of the lions.
It was a normal part of Persian justice, as with most ‘justice’ in those days, that wives and children be included in the punishment. The thought was probably that the evil root be removed. But it was terrible nonetheless.
Another lesson that was no doubt intended to be brought out was that what they had sown they had reaped. What was done to them was what they had wished on Daniel. The king had spent a sleepless night, and he had no doubt planned his vengeance already, but we see here the oriental despot, freed from the restraint of a decree, and carrying out his sentence in his own way. He was re-exerting his authority in the only way he knew how.
This was probably not written exultantly. It was more the deliberate and important contrast between deliverance and judgment that mattered. To those who are His, and faithful to Him, deliverance. To those who set themselves against Him, judgment.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Dan 6:24. They cast themtheir children, &c. By the law of retaliation, which inflicted upon calumniators the same punishment that they would have brought upon others. They punished the children with their parents, as supposing that they would be infected by their ill example. We have various instances of this sort of chastisement; a sort of justice common among the Persians. Ammianus Marcellinus says, “They were abominable laws, by which a whole family suffered for the crime of one.” Abominandae leges, per quas ob noxam unius omnis propinquitas petit.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Dan 6:24 And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast [them] into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.
Ver. 24. And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel. ] Chald., Which had accused accusations against Daniel. Now they shall lick of the same whip, and find, to their small comfort, the truth of that divine proverb, “Whoso diggeth a pit, shall fall therein,” a &c. Pro 26:27 See Ecc 10:8 Psa 7:16 . See Trapp on “ Ecc 10:8 “ See Trapp on “ Psa 7:16 “
They cast them into the den of lions.
And the lions had the mastery, &c.
a . – Hesiod.
accused. Compare Dan 6:12. Est 7:10. Psa 7:15-17.
Dan 6:24
Dan 6:24 And the kingH4430 commanded,H560 and they broughtH858 thoseH479 menH1400 whichH1768 had accusedH399 H7170 Daniel,H1768 H1841 and they castH7412 them into the denH1358 of lions,H744 them,H581 their children,H1123 and their wives;H5389 and the lionsH744 had the masteryH7981 of them, and brake all their bones in piecesH1855 H3606 H1635 or ever they cameH5705 H1768 H3809 H4291 at the bottomH773 of the den.H1358
Dan 6:24
And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they cast them into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.
These are the men who came to Darius with a bogus scheme of flattery aimed at the destruction of a single man. These are the men who when Darius realized what was going on appealed to an authority higher than Darius in order to get what they wanted. These are the men who connived and planned the execution of king Darius’ most trusted president and friend. These are the men who paid for that attempted deception with their lives, the lives of the their wives and of their children. They suffered the fate they had contrived for Daniel. The words of the Psalmist here are most appropriate, “The wicked plotteth against the just, and gnasheth upon him with his teeth. The Lord shall laugh at him: for he seeth that his day is coming. The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow, to cast down the poor and needy, and to slay such as be of upright conversation. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, and their bows shall be broken.”, (Psa 37:12-15).
How awful it must have been to see one’s wife and children thrust into the maw of the lion’s den. How hard it must have been to look in the eyes of one’s children who are about to be killed knowing it was because of their actions this was happening. How horrific it must have been for these men to watch their children and loved ones torn apart and devoured because of something they did. The text indicates that their deaths were rapid. I hope for the sakes of the innocent that it was and that their suffering was brief.
Darius was a king living and ruling during the fledgling stages of higher law, but he was still living in an age where the rulers could inflict horrific punishments upon their subjects. And indeed the punishment for treason under Persian law was the death of one’s entire family aimed at the eradication of one’s entire lineage from the face of the earth. No doubt this incident was well publicized in the kingdom. This was in all probability the last attempt at such treachery perpetrated against Daniel by any of the remaining government officials during the remainder of his life.
and they brought: Deu 19:18-20, Est 7:10, Est 9:25, Pro 11:8
them: This savage act accorded with the customs of those times; contrary to the Divine law which enacted that “the fathers should not be put to death for the children, nor the children for the fathers.”
their children: Deu 24:16, Jos 7:24, Jos 7:25, 2Ki 14:6, Est 9:10
the lions: Dan 3:22, Psa 54:5, Isa 38:13
Reciprocal: Num 24:8 – break Deu 19:19 – Then shall 2Ki 1:10 – consumed Est 7:9 – Hang him thereon Pro 12:13 – wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips Pro 19:5 – false Pro 19:12 – king’s Pro 30:10 – Accuse not Jer 34:17 – behold Jer 50:17 – this Dan 3:19 – one seven 1Pe 5:8 – devour
Dan 6:24. In the ordinary sense of accuse it means to charge one with something wrong. It is a stronger word In the present case and means “to eat or consume. The thought is that the men desired to have Daniel destroyed by being eaten by the lions. Instead of sueb a fate happening to the prophet it came upon the accusers. The,ir children and their wives were thrown into the den with them. The reason for casting these people into the den is clarified by a statement of Josephus, Antiquities, Book 10, Chapter 11, Section 6, as follows: “Now when his enemies saw that Daniel had suffered nothing which was terrible, they would not own that he was preserved by God and by his providence; but they said, that the lions had been filled full with food, and on that account it was, as they supposed, that the lions would not touch Daniel, nor come to him, and this they alleged to the king; but the king, out of an abhorrence of their wickedness, gave order that they should throw in a great deal of flesh to the lions; and when they had filled themselves, he gave further order that Daniels enemies should be cast into the den that he might learn whether the lions, now they were full, would touch them or not; and it appeared plain to Darius, after the princes had been cast to the wild beasts, that it was God who preserved Daniel, for the Hons spared none of them, but tore them all to pieces, as if they had been very hungry, and wanted food. I suppose, therefore, it was not their hunger, which had been a litile before satisfied with abundance of flesh, but the wickedness of these men that provoked them to destroy the princes. For if it so pleased God, that wickedness might by even those irrational creatures, be esteemed a plain foundation for their punishment. No doubt these wicked enemies of Daniel thought they had a sufficient explanation of his preservation in claiming that the beasts had been previously fed to their full. Whether Darius seriously considered their suggestion we have no way of knowing. But it was a fair test for these accusers to have the lions fed under the king’s orders before offering them these human bodies. If being filled before caused them to ignore the body of Daniel (as these men had claimed), then the same condition should work that way again. Or ever means “before ever they reached the bottom of the cave or den. The beasts were so vicious towards these people, even though they had (heir stomachs filled with fresh meat, that they lunged up and seized them before they had a chance to alight.
Dan 6:24. And the king commanded, and they brought those men, &c. Darius, being animated by this miracle wrought for Daniel, now begins to take courage and act like himself: those that would not suffer him to show mercy to Daniel, now God has done it for him, shall be made to feel his resentments, and he will do justice for God, who hath showed mercy for him. Daniels accusers, now his innocence is cleared, and Heaven itself is become his compurgator, have the same punishment inflicted on them which they designed against him, according to the law of retaliation made against false accusers, Deu 19:11; Deu 19:19. Such they were now reckoned, Daniel being proved innocent; for though the fact of his praying was true, yet it was not a fault. They were cast into the den of lions, which perhaps was a punishment newly invented by themselves; it was, however, that which they maliciously designed for Daniel. And now Solomons observation was verified, The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead. Them, their children, and their wives According to the cruel laws and customs which prevailed in those countries, of involving whole families in the punishment due to particular persons; in opposition to which that equitable law was ordained by Moses, that the fathers should not be put to death for their children, nor the children for the fathers, Deu 24:16. And the lions had the mastery of them This verified and magnified the miracle of their sparing Daniel; for hereby it appeared, that it was not because they were not fierce, or had not appetite, but because they were not permitted to touch him. The Lord is known by those judgments which he executeth.
6:24 And the king commanded, and they brought those men which had accused Daniel, and they {l} cast [them] into the den of lions, them, their children, and their wives; and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces or ever they came at the bottom of the den.
(l) This is a terrible example against all the wicked who do against their conscience make cruel laws to destroy the children of God, and also admonishes princes how to punish such when their wickedness is come to light: though not in every point, or with similar circumstances, but yet to execute true justice upon them.
Then the king applied the lex talionis (law of retaliation) and cast his friend’s accusers into the very den in which they had placed Daniel (cf. Gen 12:3; Est 7:9-10; Gal 6:7). Before they reached the bottom of the den the lions overpowered and crushed them.
"What Darius did seems arbitrary and unjust. But ancient pagan despots had no regard for the provision in the Mosaic law (Deu 24:16): ’Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.’ (Even in Israel this humanitarian rule had been flouted, as when Abimelech ben Gideon had nearly all his father’s sons massacred, or when Queen Athaliah nearly exterminated the Davidic royal line and Jehu had all Ahab’s sons decapitated.)" [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 82.]
The effects of people’s sins touch others beside themselves. The execution of the evildoers’ family members seems unfair and cruel, but it reflects the principle of corporate solidarity that was common in the biblical world. [Note: See Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible.]
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)