Page 164 - Daniel

appears to many commentators as absurd, and probably for this reason
21
[the LXX] omits the item.” But even Montgomery adds, “But these
stories are generally reasonable; the terms of the request may be meant
as a satiric hyperbole, cf. Jon. 3:8, where the Ninevite king orders both
man and beast to put on sackcloth. [Behrmann’s] position is an entirely

sensible one that the implication of the story means a petition of religion
(not with [Bevan] any kind of request), and that this one king was to be
regarded for the time being as the only representative of Deity.” 22

Their petition was for an ordinance that would prohibit anyone from
presenting a petition to any god or man for thirty days except to the
king. The penalty for disobedience would be death in the den of lions.
Under the psychological impact of these officials assembling in such
force and presenting such an unusual petition designed to honor Darius
and recognize in him divine powers, he signed the ordinance into a law

that could not be changed. The book of Esther (1:19; 8:8) and Diodorus
Siculus also establish the fact that Medo-Persian law stipulated that a
23
royal edict could not be revoked. The verb translated “sign” in verses
8, 9, and 10 can be understood to mean “to draw, to draw up, to
inscribe, to write,” and hence “to draft,” which would be more
comprehensive than merely signing. 24

As Young and others have pointed out, there is nothing unusual in
ascribing to Persian kings worship such as would be afforded the pagan
gods. Young observes, “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
25
deity which many of the Persian kings made.” Stuart justifies this
situation in these words, “Parsism did not indeed require men to regard
the king as a god in his own proper nature, but to pay him supreme
homage as the representative of Ormusd. Such being the state of the case,

it is easy to see that the account of Darius’ behavior, when he was
importuned by his courtiers and nobles, wears no special marks of
26
improbability.” Most likely, Darius regarded this act as a pledge of
loyalty to himself and a token of their desire to respect his authority to
the utmost.

DANIEL’S FAITHFULNESS IN TESTING (6:10–11)