The Expositor's Bible: The Book of DanielFarrar, F. W. (Frederic William)
Religion
The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Daniel
Farrar, F. W. (Frederic William)
Bible. Daniel -- Commentaries
However, after this tumultuous intrusion into the king's presence,
"all the presidents, governors, chief chamberlains," present to him
the monstrous but unanimous request that he would, by an irrevocable
interdict, forbid that any man should, for thirty days, ask any
petition of any god or man, on peril of being cast into the den of
lions.[473]
Professor Fuller, in the _Speaker's Commentary_, considers that "this
chapter gives a valuable as well as an interesting insight into Median
customs," because the king is represented as living a secluded life,
and keeps lions, and is practically deified! The importance of the
remark is far from obvious. The chapter presents no particular picture
of a secluded life. On the contrary, the king moves about freely, and
his courtiers seem to have free access to him whenever they choose.
As for the semi-deification of kings, it was universal throughout the
East, and even Antiochus II. had openly taken the surname of _Theos_,
the "god." Again, every Jew throughout the world must have been very
well aware, since the days of the Exile, that Assyrian and other
monarchs kept dens of lions, and occasionally flung their enemies to
them.[474] But so far as the decree of Darius is concerned, it may well
be said that throughout all history no single parallel to it can be
quoted. Kings have very often been deified in absolutism; but not even
a mad Antiochus, a mad Caligula, a mad Elagabalus, or a mad Commodus
ever dreamt of passing an interdict that no one was to prefer any
petition either to God or man for thirty days, except to himself! A
decree so preposterous, which might be violated by millions many times
a day without the king being cognisant of it, would be a proof of
positive imbecility in any king who should dream of making it. Strange,
too--though a matter of indifference to the writer, because it did
not affect his moral lesson--that Darius should not have noticed the
absence of his chief official, and the one man in whom he placed the
fullest and deepest confidence.
The king, without giving another thought to the matter, at once signs
the irrevocable decree.
It naturally does not make the least difference to the practices
or the purpose of Daniel. His duty towards God transcends his duty
to man. He has been accustomed, thrice a day, to kneel and pray to
God, with the window of his upper chamber open, looking towards the
_Kibleh_ of Jerusalem;[475] and the king's decree makes no change in
his manner of daily worship.
Then the princes "rushed" thither again, and found Daniel praying and
asking petitions before his God.
Instantly they go before the king, and denounce Daniel for his triple
daily defiance of the sacrosanct decree, showing that "he regardeth
not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed."
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account