Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6.docx

Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 Loren Lineberry, 2015

Introduction

There are several purposes shaping the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6. Pride of place goes to facilitating expository preaching and teaching of Daniel 6. The details offered in the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 are intended to aid the preacher/teacher in making up his/her own mind on the meaning of a passage.

Another purpose is to help the reader with some acquaintance with the original languages of Daniel, Hebrew and Aramaic in this case, derive maximum benefit from reading the original languages. To this end, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel6 offers lexical data from the major Hebrew and Aramaic lexicons, including Kohler-Baumgartner, Brown-Driver-Briggs, William Holladay, and David Clines. Moreover, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 cites relevant lexical data from the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, and the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.

Readers who know Hebrew and Aramaic should benefit from the Expository Reading Guide’s attention to the grammar and syntax of the text. To this end, the Guide will cite relevant information from the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax by Waltke and O’Connor, from Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar-Syntax by Gibson, from the standard Hebrew syntax of Wilhelm Gesenius, from A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar by Van der Merwe, from Hebrew Syntax by Ronald Williams, from the Introduction to Biblical Hebrew by T. O. Lambdin, from Driver’s Hebrew Tenses, from An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew by Allen Ross, and from A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew by Paul Joon. Four Aramaic guides to grammar and syntax are offered, one by Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic, and the more comprehensive German grammar of Bauer and Leander, the Grammatik Des Biblisch-Aramischen, as well as An Introduction to Aramaic by Frederick Greenspan, and the Basics of Biblical Aramaic by Miles Van Pelt.

For the reader without knowledge of the original languages, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 will nuance this lexical and syntactical information so that it will be easily understood. Particular attention is given in syntax to verbal aspect and stem formation as elements of meaning. Hopefully, the expository preacher, the Bible school teacher, and the leader of a home Bible study should benefit from this data in the formation of expository preaching/teaching outlines.

Another feature of the Guide is the use of linguistic insights from speech act theory. Briefly, speech act theory affirms that language, whether written or spoken, is used to accomplish things: inform, think, reflect, command, and express emotion among other things. Thus, attention to speech act theory in addition to genre can help the reader/expositor determine what the writer is up to. Hopefully, attention to these disciplines will aid the preacher/teacher craft a sermon/lesson in concert with the author’s intention.

Finally, the Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6 will offer relevant paragraph summaries/reflections on some, but not each and every, paragraph in Daniel 6. It is important to note that the author of the Guide reads the Book of Daniel as apocalyptic discourse. This genre is “revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality, which is both temporal, in that it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial, in that it involves another, supernatural world.”1 Of immediate relevance, the “transcendent reality” that the Book of Daniel discloses is the sovereignty of God over the national and international political power-players in this world. The Guide proposes that this is the dominant theme in the book of Daniel.

1 Rolf Knierim and Eugene M. Tucker, The Forms of Old Testament Literature, volume XX, Daniel by John J. Collins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 105 [hereafter abbreviated, Collins FOTL].

1


Table of Contents

I. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………… 1

II. Outline of Daniel 6 ………………………………………………………………. 3-7

III. General introduction to Daniel 6 ………………………………………………… 8-9

IV. Narrative of Darius’ organization of his government [Dan 6:1-3] ………………. 9-14

V. Narrative of the emergence of a conspiracy against Daniel [Dan 6:4-6] ………... 14-24

A. Daniel distinguishes himself [Dan 6:4] ………………………………… 14-17

B. Conspirators counter [Dan 6:5-6] ……………………………………… 18-24

VI. Narrative of conspirators approaching Darius [Dan 6:7-10] …………………….. 25-33

VII. Narrative of Daniel’s response to Darius’ decree [Dan 6:11] …………………… 34-40

VIII. Narrative of Daniel’s denunciation by the conspirators [Dan 6:12-19] …………. 40-54

A. Daniel is discovered [Dan 6:12] ………………………………………... 40-41

B. Conspirators snitch to Darius [Dan 6:13-14] ………………………….... 41-45

C. Darius’ response to the denunciation [Dan 6:15] ………………………. 46-48

D. Conspirators press their case against Daniel [Dan 6:16-18] ……………. 49-53

E. Darius in distress for Daniel [Dan 6:19] ……………………………….. 54

IX. Narrative of Daniel’s deliverance [Dan 6:20-25] ………………………………... 55-

A. Darius hastens to Daniel [Dan 6:20] …………………………………… 55

B. Warily, Darius calls for Daniel [Dan 6:21-23] …………………............. 56-64

1. Darius [Dan 6:21] …………………………………………….. 56-60

2. Daniel [Dan 6:22-23] …………………………………………. 60-64

C. Darius responds [Dan 6:24-25] ………………………………………… 65-69

1. Response to Daniel [Dan 6:24] ……………………………….. 65-68

2. Response to Daniel’s accusers [Dan 6:25] …………………… 68-69

X. Darius’ proclamation [Dan 6:26-28] …………………………………………….. 69-76

XI. Daniel’s success in Darius’/Cyrus’ government [Dan 6:29] …………………….. 76-77

2


Outline of Daniel 6Text and Translation

I. Narrative of Darius’ organization of his government [Dan 6:1-3]

6:1a So, Darius the Mede took over rule of the regime;6:1b a man of sixty two years.6:2a It pleased Darius to appoint over the realm provincial

governors [in the number of], one hundred and twenty;

6:2b so that they would be over the entire realm.6:3a Furthermore, over them [were] three high officials,6:3b Daniel [being] one of them;6:3c so that these provincial governors

might give an account to them,6:3d in order that the king would not suffer loss.

II. Narrative of the emergence of a conspiracy against Daniel [Dan 6:4-6]

A. Daniel distinguishes himself [Dan 6:4]

6:4a Now, Daniel specifically distinguished himself, above the high officials and provincial governors;

6:4b because, an extraordinary spirit [was] within him,6:4c so then, the king intended to appoint him over the

entire realm.

B. Conspirators counter [Dan 6:5-6]

6:5a So then, the high officials and provincial governors began seeking a ground of accusation against Daniel,

6:5b arising from the administration of the realm;6:5c but, they could find no ground of accusation

including corruption,6:5d inasmuch as, he was trustworthy,6:5e and neither negligence nor corruption could be found

in him.6:6a So then, these men said:6:6b “We shall not find any ground of accusation against

Daniel personally;6:6c unless we find it against him in the laws of his God.”

III. Narrative of conspirator’s petition to Darius [Dan 6:7-10]

3


6:7a So then, these high officials and provincial governors came storming into the king;

6:7b and thus said to him:6:7c “King Darius, may you live forever!6:8a All of the high officials of the realm,

the prefects and provincial governors, the counselors and provincial commissioners

have taken counsel with each other,6:8b with the result that the king should establish a royal

statute and enforce a legal prohibition;6:8c namely that, any who makes a petition to any god,6:8d or man for thirty days,6:8e except to you, O king,6:8f will be cast into a den of lions.6:9a Now, O king, may you establish the statute,6:9b and may you sign the document;6:9c so that it may not be changed according to the law

of the Medes and Persians, 6:9d which cannot be revoked!”6:10a Because of this;6:10b king Darius signed the document and statute.

IV. Narrative of Daniel’s response to Darius’ decree [Dan 6:11]

6:11a So, as soon as Daniel knew that the written decree was signed,

6:11b he entered his house,6:11c where windows were open on his roof chamber

facing Jerusalem;6:11d three times during the day, he prayed upon his knees,6:11e imploring and praising in the presence of God,6:11f just as he had been doing before this.

V. Narrative of Daniel’s denunciation by the conspirators [Dan 6:12-19]

A. Daniel is discovered in prayer to Yahweh [Dan 6:12]

6:12a So, the, these men came as a group,6:12b and they found Daniel;6:12c petitioning and imploring in the presence of God.

B. The conspirators snitch to Darius [Dan 6:13-14]

1. The conspirators remind Darius of the law of the land [Dan 6:13a-f]

4


6:13a Immediately, they approached, and spoke to the king concerning the royal statute:

6:13b “Did you not sign a statute,6:13c that any man who petitions any god or man,6:13d for thirty days,6:13e except from you, O king,6:13f must be cast into a den of lions?”

2. Darius assents [Dan 6:13g-i]

6:13g The king replied and said:6:13h “The statement is certainly true according to the law

of the Medes and Persians,6:13i which cannot be annulled.”

3. The conspirators spring the trap and denounce Daniel [Dan 6:14]

6:14a Immediately, they responded and said to the king:6:14b “Daniel, one of the sons of the exile from Judah,6:14c does not show proper deference to you, O king,6:14d or for the statute you signed;6:14e indeed, three times a day,6:14f he makes his petition.”

C. Darius’ response to the denunciation [Dan 6:15]

6:15a As soon as the king heard the statement,6:15b it revolted him immensely,6:15c accordingly, he set his mind on delivering Daniel;6:15d so, until sunset,6:15e he was striving to rescue him.

D. The conspirators press their case against Daniel [Dan 6:16-18]

1. The conspirators press the point of law [Dan 6:16]

6:16a Immediately, these men came as a group to the king;6:16b and they said to the king:6:16c “Know, O king,6:16d that [it is] a law of the Medes and Persians,6:16e that any statute or decree that the king establishes,6:16f is not to be frustrated.”

2. Darius relents, reluctantly [Dan 6:17]

6:17a Immediately, the king gave the command,6:17b and Daniel was brought forth,6:17c and he cast him into the lion’s den;6:17d [however] the king said to Daniel:

5


6:17e “Your God, whom you serve continually,6:17f may He deliver you!”

3. Daniel’s fate, humanly speaking, is sealed [Dan 6:18]

6:18a Then, a stone was brought,6:18b and placed over the opening of the den;6:18c and the king sealed it with his signet-ring,6:18d and the signet-ring of his nobles,6:18e so that nothing could be changed in regard to Daniel.

E. Darius in distress for Daniel [Dan 6:19]

6:19a Then, the king returned to his palace,6:19b and spent the night in hunger,6:19c indeed, no diversions were brought in to him;6:19d and even sleep fled from him.

VI. Narrative of Daniel’s deliverance [Dan 6:20-25]

A. Darius hastens to Daniel [Dan 6:20]

6:20a At once, the king arose at dawn, with the light of day;6:20b so in haste, he went to the lion’s den.

B. Warily, Darius calls for Daniel [Dan 6:21-23]

1. Darius cries out [Dan 6:21]

6:21a Then, as he approached the den,6:21b to Daniel, with an anguished voice he cried out;6:21c the king spoke up and said to Daniel:6:21d “Daniel, servant of the Living God,6:21e your God, whom you serve continually,6:21f has He been able to deliver you from the lions?”

2. Daniel answers [Dan 6:22-23]

6:22a Then, Daniel spoke with the king:6:22b “O, king, may you live forever!6:23a My God sent His angel,6:23b and shut the mouth of the lions,6:23c and so, they have not injured me;6:23d inasmuch as, before Him, I was found to be innocent,6:23e and so, before you, O king,6:23f I have committed no crime!”

C. Darius responds [Dan 6:24-25]

1. Darius responds to Daniel [Dan 6:24]

6:24a So, then, the king was exceedingly satisfied,6:24b and he ordered Daniel to be hauled up out of the den;6:24c so, Daniel was hauled up from the den,6:24d and there was no injury to be found on him,

6


6:24e because, he trusted in his God.

2. Darius responds to Daniel’s accusers [Dan 6:25]

6:25a Then, the king give gave orders,6:25b and they produced those men,6:25c who had maliciously accused Daniel,6:25d and they cast them into the lion’s den,6:25e with their sons and their wives;6:25f and, they had not reached the bottom of the den,6:25g before the lions overpowered them,6:25h and crushed all their bones.

VII. Darius’ proclamation [Dan 6:26-28]

A. The scope of the proclamation [Dan 6:26a]

6:26a Thereupon, Darius the king wrote to every people, nation, and tongues dwelling on the earth:

B. Darius’ proclamation [Dan 6:26b-28]

6:26b “May your peace abound!6:27a On my authority, I make a decree:6:27b namely that, throughout all my dominion,6:27c men are to tremble and fear,6:27d before the presence of the God of Daniel;6:27e for, He is the Living God,6:27f and enduring forever,6:27g His reign is one which will never be destroyed,6:27h His Lordship – forever.6:28a He is the One who rescues and delivers,6:28b He performs signs and wonders in the heavens and

on the earth; 6:28c indeed, He has rescued Daniel from the power of the

lions!”

VIII. Daniel’s success in Darius/Cyrus’ government [Dan 6:29]

6:29a Accordingly, this (same) Daniel proved to be successful in the government of Darius;

6:29b that is, in the government of Cyrus.

General Introduction to Daniel 6

Genre

John Collins notes that Daniel 6 is shows the features of “Legend.” Specifically, a legend aims to edify the reader;2 the legend intends to stimulate the reader to emulate the hero of the legend;3 indeed,

2 Collins, FOTL, 111. 3 Ibid.

7


legend has a specific, moral aim.4 Moreover, Collins writes, “the legend is placed in the real world and is often associated with historical characters.”5 Finally, legend contains an element of the miraculous: “it is the marvelous and not the storyline that constitutes the legend’s essential claim to attention.”6 The upshot is that the expositor of Daniel 6 can nuance sermons or lessons as lessons to be learned. To be sure, one of those lessons is emulating the behavior of Daniel who is faced with a conflict between his moral values and the law of the land. As Darius eventually observes, Daniel trusted his God and let the chips fall where they might. Yet another lesson is the inevitability of conflict between the godly and the ungodly; Daniel stands his ground and pays the price. This time, the faithful servant is delivered; but as we shall observe in Daniel 11-12, deliverance is not always forthcoming; rather the constant is conflict.

To be sure, conflict plays a major role in Daniel 6. Out of envy, conspirators seek to entrap Daniel in some illegal activity [Dan 6:5-6]. Unable to find any ground of accusation in the quality of his government work [Dan 6:5], the conspirators set out to stage-manage a conflict by entrapping Daniel in a religious faux pas [Dan 6:6]. Accordingly, the conspirators manipulate the king into signing off on a law respecting prayer in Persia [Dan 6:7-10]. Daniel, true to form, puts himself in conflict with the new law regarding prayer in Persia by ignoring it [Dan 6:11].

Naturally, the conspirators spring the trap on Daniel [Dan 6:12-19], thus placing Daniel in conflict with the law of the land [Dan 6:13, 16] and Darius himself [Dan 6:14c]. Hemmed in by his own law, Darius, somewhat reluctantly, seals Daniel’s fate by sealing him in a den of lions [Dan 6:17-18].

Ultimately, the conflict is resolved by the appearance of an angel of the Lord [Dan 6:23], which miraculously rescued Daniel from a crushing fate. Beyond that, the fate intended for Daniel is unleashed on the conspirators [Dan 6:25].

Structure

Dan 6:1-3 essentially sets the stage for the narrative that follows. That is, the writer briefly introduces us to Darius’ initial steps in setting up his administration. After that, by repeating a particle adverb [/then, thereupon, immediately (Dan 6:4-7, 12-17, 19-20, 22, 24, 26)], the writer leads us through the legendary conflict in Daniel 6.

In Dan 6:4, we are told that Daniel was one of the best and the brightest in government service.

In Dan 6:5-6, the conspirators, for reasons that are not completely clear, begin seeking some ground of accusation against Daniel; but neither charges of negligence nor corruption could be substantiated.

In Dan 6:7-10, the conspirators dupe Darius into signing a law that the connivers knew Daniel would find unacceptable. To be sure, in Dan 6:11, Daniel simply ignores the law of the land.

In Dan 6:12-19, the collaborators spring the trap: they spy on Daniel in prayer [Dan 6:12]; they run to the king and “remind” him of the law of the land concerning prayer [Dan 6:13a-f]; and then they denounce Daniel to Darius [Dan 6:14]. While Darius demurs, dragging his feet on hauling Daniel before him [Dan 6:15], the schemers, undeterred, return to the king and put him in remembrance of the law of the land regarding prayer [Dan 6:16]. Reluctantly, Darius relents [Dan 6:17] and Daniel’s fate is sealed, literally [Dan 6:18].

In Dan 6:20-23, the king speeds to the den, anxious to know what has happened to Daniel [Dan 6:20-21]. Then, in Dan 6:22-23, Daniel tells Darius what has miraculously transpired [Dan 6:23].

4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.

8


In Dan 6:24-25, Darius reacts, first toward Daniel [Dan 6:24] and then toward the plotters against Daniel [Dan 6:25].

Finally, in Dan 6:26-28, Darius concludes this legend cum conflict with what amounts to a doxology to the God who delivered Daniel.

Let us now turn to an analysis of the text of Daniel 6.

I. Narrative of Darius’ organization of his government [Dan 6:1-3]

6:1a So, Darius the Mede took over rule of the regime;6:1b a man of sixty two years.6:2a It pleased Darius to appoint over the realm provincial

governors [in the number of], one hundred and twenty;

6:2b so that they would be over the entire realm.6:3a Furthermore, over them [were] three high officials,6:3b Daniel [being] one of them;6:3c so that these provincial governors

might give an account to them,6:3d in order that the king would not suffer loss.

The genre of Daniel 6 as a whole is legend, which is “a narrative [emphasis mine] primarily concerned with the wonderful and aimed at edification.”7 Accordingly, the “legend” is comprised of a series of narrative segments. “Narrative” is a genre in its own right, amounting to “an account of events or actions in sequential form.”8 As noted above, Dan 6:1-3 sets the stage for the sequence of events that follow.

What this tells the reader is this: The author intends to inform his audience concerning the details of this extraordinary event. What this implies is that, as far as the writer is concerned, he is dealing in matters of truth.

Dan 6:1 – So, Darius the Mede took over rule of the regime; a man of sixty two years.

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar began in 605 BC; the reign of Darius the Mede began with the fall of Babylon in 539 BC. The interesting fact about these two dates is that Daniel had served in the royal court throughout the entire 66 year period. One would surmise that, when Darius took over the reins of government, Daniel might well have been in his early eighties.

A fair amount of ink has been spilt over the identity of “Darius the Mede.” The problem, if indeed a problem it is, seems to be that there is no reference to “Darius the Mede” outside Daniel 6.9 The Guide takes the position that “Darius the Mede” is a reference to Cyrus. Looking ahead, Dan 6:29 says:

7 Collins, FOTL, 111. 8 Ibid., 114. 9 For the nuts and bolts of the debate, see Tremper Longman and Raymond Dillard, An

Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 377-81; D.J. Wiseman, ed, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, Daniel by Joyce Baldwin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978); James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1989; reprint), 63-65.

9


6:29a Accordingly, our Daniel proved to be successful in government of Darius;


The reader will note that the Aramaic conjunction [] that opens Dan 6:29b is translated as an explanatory waw, “namely, that is.”10 The upshot is that Darius the Mede and Cyrus are one and the same person.

Took over rule [ (Pael, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the perfect aspect; this use of the perfect is probably the historical perfect,11 used to narrate a complete action sometime in the writer’s past. The Pael stem in Aramaic is causative, signifying in this case the bringing about of a state. 12

Took over rule [] is typically translated “to receive.”13 William L. Holladay translates the verb [] plus the direct object [] with “take over the rule.”14 The Septuagint tradition uses the Greek verb for the Aramaic []; the Greek verb means in this context “to take over, receive” according to Bauer.15

Summary. Dan 6:1 is an assertive speech act; the verse commits the writer to the truth of the matter reported in the line; in other words, the writer’s words fit the world he is describing.16 The fact of the matter is that Darius the Mede took over the reins of government and started to rule.

Dan 6:2 – It pleased Darius to appoint over the realm provincial governors [in the number of] one hundred and twenty; so that they would be over the entire realm.

It pleased [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is once more written in the perfect aspect, signifying the historical perfect appropriate to historical narrative.

10 For this use of the waw, see Hans Bauer and Pontus Leander, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramischen (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962), § 70 r.

11 Ibid., § 79 h; see also Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996; reprint), § 162.

12 Miles Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Aramaic (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 130; see also

Bruce Waltke and Michael O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 24.1h [hereafter abbreviated IBHS].

13 Ludwig Kohler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Stamm, translated and edited by M.E.J. Richardson, vol. II, - (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 1996 [hereafter, vol. I, -, will be abbreviated KB1, and vol. II, -, will be abbreviated KB2]; similarly, Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, Charles A. Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius, The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1979; reprint), 1099 [hereafter abbreviated BDB].

14 William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 418.

15 William Arndt and Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, revised by Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 619 [hereafter abbreviated BAGD].

16 John Searle, Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 12.

10


Pleased [] is an Aramaic verb that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:1 with “to please, seem good.”17 David Talley notes that the verb [] describes “one who makes a value judgment following contemplation.”18

To appoint [ (simple waw, Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is translated like an infinitive but in reality is a finite verb with a conjunction prefixed in Aramaic; literally, “and he appointed.” Kohler-Baumgartner notes that pleased [] is followed by the perfect with []19, more or less clarifying the response that the value judgment [] generated.

Appoint [] in the Haphel stem signals causation of some sort.20 In this case, the Haphel probably signals that Darius’ considered value judgment [] yielded [caused] the event of “appointing [].”

Provincial governor [] is often translated “satrap,”21 but this translation doesn’t resonate with many English readers. In Old Persian, the is the “protector of the empire.”22 The Septuagint tradition offers the Greek noun for , a Greek noun that describes “a governor of a province.”23 Pter-Contesse and Ellington note that the was “in charge of the main divisions of the empire.”24 The upshot is that the /provincial governor would have been a very powerful man, socially, legally, politically, occupying the top rungs of the ladder of Persian power.

Summary. Dan 6:2 is an expressive speech act; the verse conveys the psychological or mental state of Darius25; in other words, the verse highlights Darius’ value judgment after reflection. The verse presupposes the truth value in the statement; this is actually what Darius had in mind.

Dan 6:3 – Furthermore, over them [were] three high officials, Daniel being one of them; so that these provincial governors might give an account to them [the high officials], in order that the king would not suffer loss.

Dan 6:3a – over them [ ] [were] three high officials [ ] – is a verbless clause that functions to give background material germane to the narrative.26 The focus in the sentence is the new element, the three high officials [ ].

17 KB2, 2001; similarly, Holladay, 424.

18 David Talley, “,” in Willem VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001; C-D ROM) [H9180; hereafter abbreviated NIDOTTE].

19 KB2, 2001. 20 Van Pelt, 143. 21KB2, 1811; Holladay, 397; BDB, 1080.

22 KB2, 1811. 23 Henry Liddell, Robert Scott, and Henry Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1968), 1585 [hereafter abbreviated LSJ].

24 Rene Pter-Contesse and John Ellington, A Handbook on the Book of Daniel (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 73.

25 Searle, 15. 26 See Cynthia Miller, ed., The Verbless Clause in Biblical Hebrew, Ellen van Wolde, The

Verbless Clause and Its Textual Function (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 330.

11


High official [] is probably a Persian loan word drawn from the political/legal administration vocabulary of Persia, “chief minister.”27 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:3 with “high official (of the king).”28 The Septuagint translator uses a participle, , for ; the Greek term refers to any person “in a leading position;” one with “princely authority,” of “high officials” in including “military commanders.”29 The reader may infer that the “high official” was a man of considerable authority, a position with influence and power.

Dan 6:3c – that these provincial governors might give an account [ ] to them – is a purpose clause.30 The reader may infer that this purpose was one of the things Darius had in mind as he weighed his options [Dan 6:2]. Furthermore, since the verb – give [] – is a participle, the expositor may also infer that this reporting up through the chain of command was expected to be routine.31

Give an account [ ] uses a noun [] that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:3 with “give an account;” the noun may also refer to a “report.”32 BDB identifies as an “official report.”33 J. Schpphaus reviews the range of meanings of , noting that its nuances may extend from “discernment, understanding, judgment” to “command, decree, report.”34 S.R. Driver notes that points to being “permanently answerable, that the interests and revenues of the king were properly guarded.”35 Judah Slotki notes that “there is evidence from the classical sources that the king kept close control over the provinces, associating with each satrap an independent commandant and secretary.”36

Dan 6:3d is another purpose line37, teasing out the end game behind the accountability placed upon the provincial governors: in order that the king would not suffer loss.

Suffer loss [ ] uses a finite verb [] plus a participle [] to signal a concern for the future.38 The English translations differ somewhat; there are those that translate with “loss” or some such word, and others with “be bothered.” Strictly speaking, both are possible.

27 Franz Rosenthal, A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1983), § 189. 28 KB2, 1940; similarly Holladay, 415.

29 BAGD, 343. 30 For the particle used to signal a purpose clause, see Bauer-Leander § 70 c.

31 For this use of the participle, see Rosenthal § 177. 32 KB2, 1885; similarly, Holladay, 407.

33 BDB, 1094. 34 Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,

translated by David Green, vol. V, J. Schpphaus, “,” 345 [hereafter abbreviated TDOT].

35 S.R. Driver, The Book of Daniel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1901), 73.

36 Judah Slotki, Daniel-Ezra-Nehemiah, revised by Ephraim Oratz and Ravshalom Shahar (New York: The Soncino Press, 1993), 47.

37 For the use of the waw [] to signal purpose, see Bauer-Leander § 70 d. 38 Holladay, 403; KB2, 1859.

12


Loss [] does have ancient Near Eastern cognates that reference annoyance; principally, the Akkadian cognate [nazqum] means “to be irritated, to be concerned, to annoy, cause trouble or grief.”39 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:3 with “come to grief.”40 Holladay opts for “suffer loss.”41 BDB goes with “suffer injury.”42 Ronald Youngblood cites evidence from Mari Akkadian to the effect that nazqum can refer to “worry” or “upset” in an emotional sense.43 Ultimately, in Dan 6:3, Youngblood opts for “threats to the interests of the king.”44 The Septuagint translator goes with the Greek verb , which means “to trouble, annoy.”45 The two other uses of the verb [] in the Aramaic Old Testament, Ezra 4:13, 15, both point more in the direction of threats to the interests of the king [Ezra 4:13 (treasury interests), 15 (rebellion)].

The net effect is that, based upon usage elsewhere in the Aramaic corpus, the expositor may infer that implies suffer loss, threats to the interests of, where these “interests” are open-ended. Slotki’s reading, “financial loss,” while based on the Ezra 4:13 passage seems too specific for this context in Dan 6:1-3.46 To be sure, the context revolves around revolution, the take-over of Babylon by Persia by force of arms. It would seem plausible that at the beginning of a new administration during turbulent times the administrative focus would be on threats directed toward the king from whatever quarter. The expositor might read the clause: might not suffer threats to his government.

Dan 6:3 is an assertive speech act that makes truth claims about how Darius organized his administration [Dan 6:2]; the words of Dan 6:3 fit the world the writer is describing. Two basic truth claims are posited in Dan 6:3: first, a chain of command is formed with men of authority and power [high officials ()], Daniel being one of them; and second, provincial governors () were accountable () to those above them [] in order to protect the interests () of the king.

II. Narrative of the emergence of a conspiracy against Daniel [Dan 6:4-6]

A. Daniel distinguishes himself [Dan 6:4]

6:4a Now, Daniel specifically distinguished himself, above the high officials and provincial governors;

6:4b because, an extraordinary spirit [was] within him,6:4c so then, the king intended to appoint him over the

entire realm.

Dan 6:4a opens the conspiracy narrative with the target: Now [] uses the particle adverb to signal the beginning of the conspiracy narrative; Daniel’s expertise and character in Dan 6:4 set him up for his rivals.

39 KB2, 1929. 40 Ibid.

41 Holladay, 412. 42 BDB, 1102. 43 Ronald F. Youngblood, “,” in NIDOTTE [H5691].

44 Ibid.

45 BAGD, 267. 46 Slotki, 47.

13


Daniel specifically [ ], literally “this Daniel” is a perplexing construction. The demonstrative adjective, “this” [], does appear to single out Daniel specifically. John Collins translates the demonstrative “the aforementioned Daniel.”47

Distinguished himself [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg) (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is once more the participial form of followed by a participle. In the context, the force of this construction is to underscore perfect aspect.48 The action, from the standpoint of the writer, is past and exposes a state of affairs; the author intends to alert the reader to the fact that one of the most truthful attributes that could be attached to Daniel was: He distinguished himself.

Distinguish [] is written in the Hithpaal stem, which is reflexive: Daniel distinguished himself.49 If nothing else, Daniel’s prominence was earned by his own efforts; his notoriety was not artificial.

The Aramaic verb [] has some interesting ancient Near Eastern cognates that seem to shed light on . There is a Syriac cognate that means “to shine;” there is a Palestinian Aramaic cognate that means “to overpower, to be victorious.”50 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:4 with “to distinguish oneself.”51 G.W. Anderson notes that this root, , also occurs in the Hebrew Bible as well as the Aramaic Bible; has the following range of meanings: [1] “the basic meaning is ‘gleam;’” [2] “the second meaning is ‘to distinguish oneself’ (Dan 6:4);” [3] “the meaning ‘conquer’, ‘overcome’ appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls;” [4] “the meaning ‘be permanent’ is often considered primary;” and [5] “the final meaning is ‘supervise, lead.’”52

Driver affirms that the “root idea of the word is to shine, hence to be illustrious.”53 Keil translates in Dan 6:4 with “to show oneself prominent,” indicating that Daniel “excelled all the presidents and satraps.”54

The participle [] is followed by a preposition used as a comparative; Daniel distinguished himself above, beyond [].55 This helps us understand the shade of meaning in /distinguished himself. That is, the writer characterized Daniel’s personal character as that which differentiated him from his peers; Daniel’s personal qualities, the man himself, singled him out and set him apart from the rest.

Dan 6:4b delineates the basis for Daniel’s distinctiveness: because [ ]56. Furthermore, the entire sentence – because an extraordinary spirit [was] within him – is another verbless clause. Once more, this verbless clause offers us important background information about Daniel; the “starting point” for this

47 John J. Collins, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 256. 48 See Bauer-Leander § 81 p; IBHS 37.7.1c.

49 Van Pelt, 138.

50 KB2, 1933.

51 Ibid; similarly, BDB, 1103; Holladay, 414.

52 G.W. Anderson, “,” in TDOT, vol. IX, 530.

53 Driver, Daniel, 72.

54 C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, vol. IX, Ezekiel, Daniel, Three Volumes in One, Daniel by C.F. Keil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991; reprint), 207.

55 BDB, 1106. 56 For the causal use of this collocation, see Bauer-Leander § 70 h.

14


verbless clause is an extraordinary spirit, a “starting point” that is “focused upon.”57 The spotlight shines upon the key reason why [ ] Daniel differentiates himself from his peers: extraordinary spirit [ ].

Extraordinary spirit [ ] is a noun [] modified by an adjective [] followed by a prepositional phrase within him [].

The noun, spirit, [] has a range of meanings: [1] “wind,” [2] “spirit of a person, mind,” and [3] “the spirit of God.”58 Kohler-Baumgartner opt for the second in Dan 6:4.59 In favor of reading as the human spirit is the appearance of the same noun-adjective collocation in Dan 5:12 [ ], which is then itemized as “knowledge [] and insight [], interpretation of dreams [], explanation of riddles [], and solving difficult problems [].” Obviously, the only other analogous use of extraordinary spirit in Daniel denotes “the spirit of a person, mind.” Beyond this analogous reference, when Belshazzar acknowledges that Daniel’s spirit [] is owing to the influence of the gods [], Belshazzar underscores the uniquely human spirit within Daniel: illumination [], insight [], and wisdom [] in Dan 5:14]. Like its Hebrew counterpart [], in Dan 6:4 points to the “natural spirit of humanity, as sense, mind, intellectual frame of mind.”60 Thus, in Dan 6:4 reflects the innate human, mental, capability of Daniel; we are in the realm of Daniel’s competence, expertise, know-how, and aptitude.

Extraordinary [] is an adjective that evaluates Daniel’s competencies. This adjective [] assesses Daniel’s human abilities as “exceeding, extraordinary,”61 as “preeminent, surpassing.”62 Clearly, the first-class and dominant expertise of Daniel also implies a comparative nuance vis-à-vis his peers; Daniel excels his counterparts in the administration. Indeed, T. Kronholm reads in Dan 6:4 in the sense of “exceptional.”63 The upshot is that Dan 6:4 reflects the innate human, mental, capability of Daniel; we are in the realm of Daniel’s proficiency, skill, savvy, and talent, and these, in turn, are qualified as exceptional, incomparable, unique, outstanding, extraordinary.64

In Dan 6:4c, the author provides us with the long-range plan of Darius for Daniel: the king intended to appoint him over the entire realm. As Joyce Baldwin points out, such a man as Daniel “would be an obvious candidate for extra responsibility.”65

Intended to appoint [ (Haphel, infinitive construct, 3rd, ms, suffix) (Peal, participle, passive, ms)] uses the passive participle as a regular verb, suggesting a general present or durative

57 Van Wolde, 330.

58 KB2, 1980. 59 Ibid; Holladay follows suit, 412; also BDB, 1112.

60 KB2, 1199.

61 Ibid., 1895.

62 BDB, 1096. 63 T. Kronholm, “,” in TDOT, vol. VI, 490. 64 Dan 6:4b provides a significant part of the motive behind the conspiracy soon to be sprung on

Daniel. 65 Baldwin, 128.

15


character in the king’s intention.66 Kohler-Baumgartner note that is a passive participle used in an active sense.67 Evidently, this intention had been on the king’s mind for some unspecified time.

Intended [] once more lets the reader in on the king’s internal world; the narrator tells us what the king intended [], what Darius had in mind. The Aramaic verb [] is from a semantic field of terms for thinking.68 Kohler-Baumgartner read in Dan 6:4 in the sense of “thought of, intend.”69 BDB translates in Dan 6:4 with “to plan to do something.”70 The net effect is that the narrator discloses the king’s aim, his intent, his objective vis-à-vis Daniel.

To appoint [] is written in the Haphel stem, which is causative.71 Among other things, Dan 6:4c tells us that Daniel himself did not seek higher office; there is no lust for power evident in Daniel’s good favor with the king; rather, Daniel’s competence is the source of the king’s plans for Daniel.

Over the entire realm [] is a phrase that implies that Daniel was to be something like second in command to Darius. Collins writes that “there was a supreme office under the king in the Achaemenid Empire, that of the chiliarch.”72 If Daniel were to be appointed to such an extremely powerful position, the reasons behind the conspiracy seem clear: envy if not apprehension.

Summary. Dan 6:4a is an assertive speech act in which the narrator’s words fit the world as he knows it; the narrator is once more making truth claims concerning Daniel’s distinguished career. The narrator opens the conspiracy narrative with the self-evident basis for the scheme: Daniel’s personal character differentiates him from his peers; Daniel’s personal qualities, the man himself, set him apart from the rest.

Dan 6:4b is a verdictive speech act in which the narrator makes a value judgment about Daniel.73 The fact that Dan 6:4b is written as a verbless clause helps the expositor appreciate the focal point of the narrator’s evaluation of Daniel: his extraordinary human capabilities. There are two nuances here: first, Daniel clearly excels at what he does. Simply put, Daniel’s competencies are exceptional, extraordinary, preeminent, surpassing. As we have noted on the use of this evaluation in Dan 5, the line between Daniel’s native abilities and his God-given abilities is blurred; we may assume the prominence of the former without forgetting the latter. The second nuance is this: by implication, the narrator’s evaluation of Daniel implicitly compares Daniel to his peers. Daniel simply excels his counterparts in the administration, and the superior quality of Daniel’s personal capabilities forms the basis for his eventual entrapment.

Dan 6:4c is an expressive speech act, in which the reader is privy to the king’s state of mind.74 The facticity of the narrator’s insight into the king’s objectives is presupposed.75 Using language drawn

66 Bauer-Leander § 82 c, e. 67 KB2, 1954. 68 See NIDOTTE, “Thinking”. 69 KB2, 1954.

70 BDB, 1108; similarly, Holladay, 417.

71 See Van Pelt, 143. 72 Collins, Daniel, 265. 73 On the “verdictive” speech act, see Donald D. Evans, The Logic of Self-Involvement (London:

SCM Press, 1963), 36-38. 74 Searle, 15.

75 Ibid.

16


from the semantic field of thought, the narrator discloses what the king had in mind for Daniel: the narrator discloses the king’s aim, his intent, his objective vis-à-vis Daniel.

A further point: speech acts are not only ways that writers or speakers do things with words [so-called “illocutionary acts”], the speech act also has consequences for the reader or hearer. Searle writes, “Correlated with the notion of illocutionary acts is the notion of the consequences or the effects such [illocutionary] acts have on the actions, thoughts, or beliefs of the hearers.”76 Mary Louise Pratt takes this notion of the perlocutionary act a step further; she notes, by writing, a writer “may be achieving certain intended [emphasis mine] effect in his hearer in addition to those achieved by the illocutionary act.”77 These so-called perlocutionary acts are the calculated inferences or the consequences the reader or listener intuitively draws from what is written or spoken.78 In the case of Dan 6:4c, the reader infers that Daniel’s impending elevation in Dan 6:4 provokes Daniel’s peers to entrap him in Dan 6:5ff.

B. Conspirators counter [Dan 6:5-6]

6:5a So then, the high officials and provincial governors began seeking a ground of accusation against Daniel,

6:5b arising from the administration of the realm;6:5c but, they could find no ground of accusation

including corruption,6:5d inasmuch as, he was trustworthy,6:5e and neither negligence nor corruption could be found

in him.6:6a So then, these men said:6:6b “We shall not find any ground of accusation against

Daniel personally;6:6c unless we find it against him in the laws of his God.”

The genre of Daniel 6:5-6 is narrative; the reader may infer that the author intends this paragraph to be read as key events in the history of the conspiracy against Daniel. The focus is obviously on the scheming by Daniel’s colleagues in Darius’ administration.

76 John Searle, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 25.

77 Mary Louise Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 1977). 78 Readers of the English Bible are very familiar with perlocutionary acts, even if we do not

recognize them as such. That is, we read a passage in the Bible and then intuitively draw inferences from what we have just read; this is what Searle and Pratt refer to as the perlocutionary act. What speech act theory draws together for us is a rational basis for how we actually use language and what we do intuitively when we read or speak, the theory claiming that this is how language works. In the case of perlocutions in Bible reading, the reader must permit the context and the Holy Spirit to determine what an appropriate perlocution, inference, is or is not. The perlocutionary act teased out in Dan 6:4 is verified by the assertions in Dan 6:5-6.

17


Dan 6:5 – So then, the high officials and provincial governors began seeking a ground of accusation against Daniel, arising from the administration of the realm; but, they could find no ground of accusation including corruption, inasmuch as he was trustworthy, and neither negligence nor corruption could be found in him.

In Dan 6:5a, the writer recalls Daniel’s colleagues cum competitors from Dan 6:1-4 and introduces us to the first phase of the conspiracy.

Began seeking a ground of accusation [ ] characterizes the early stages of the scheme. Began seeking [ (Peal, participle, ms, pl) (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is a finite verb [] plus a participle [] construction, which we have seen before. Strictly speaking in this context, this construction implies that the action was continuous over an unspecified length of time.79 Moreover, the context specifies that what was begun in Dan 6:5a ultimately fails in Dan 6:5c; so the syntactic sense is: they began searching for some administrative scandal, continued searching over an unspecified length of time, and ultimately failed in their search for a professional scandal.

Ground of accusation [] tells us much about the conspiracy: it was a smear campaign! The Aramaic noun [] is translated by Kohler-Baumgartner as “reason for making a complaint, pretext.”80 In all likelihood, is derived from an Arabic cognate [`alla], which means [1] “to justify, explain” or [2] “to make an excuse, to offer a pretext.”81 The second range of meaning seems to fit best here: the conspirators were pulling out all the stops to find some reason for an accusation against Daniel. The Septuagint tradition concurs, using the Greek term , which has two ranges of meaning: [1] an “actual motive, reason, a valid excuse” or [2] a “falsely alleged motive, a pretext, an ostensible reason, an excuse (in reality, they have other interests).”82 The upshot is this: Daniel’s conniving rivals, from exclusively self-interested motives, began seeking any allegation whatsoever, valid or invalid, that would discredit him. The smear could be legitimate or otherwise; truth really would not have mattered much as long as some scandal could be found.

In Dan 6:5b, the author shows us where Daniel’s antagonists naturally looked: arising from the administration of the realm.

Arising from [] is a prepositional phrase that signals source; literally, the phrase reads: “from the side of.” Kohler-Baumgartner translate the phrase in Dan 6:5 as “concerning.”83

The administration of the realm [] translates a single Aramaic noun. In and of itself, means, in this context, “kingdom, realm,” according to Kohler-Baumgartner.84 Rosenthal translates “from the side of the kingdom” in Dan 6:5 with “from the political angle.”85 In the Hebrew Bible, the Hebrew cognate [] of the Aramaic noun [] seems to refer to “the office of ruling,” or the “activity of ruling,” at least in the Hebrew Bible.86 These latter observations by Nel seem to admirably fit the context in Dan 6:5b. Rosenthal’s translation is certainly to the point, being more idiomatic. Pter-Contesse and Ellington

79 Rosenthal, § 177.

80 KB2, 1947. 81 Ibid; Holladay, 416, follows suit. 82 BAGD, 722. 83 KB2, 1963. 84 Ibid., 1997. 85 Rosenthal § 84. 86 Philip J. Nel, “,” in NIDOTTE [H4887].

18


translate “the way Daniel administered the empire.” 87 To make a long story short, Daniel’s antagonists are looking for a chink in his public armor.

In Dan 6:5c, the author unveils a chink in the antagonist’s scheme: but, they could find no ground of accusation or corruption. The writer signals a contrast to the scheme [Dan 6:5a-b];88 Daniel’s jealous foes failed in their original plan.

Ground of accusation [] is the same terminology we have above in Dan 6:5a; the sense is the same.

Corruption [ (Peal, passive participle, fm, sg)] is a participle used as a noun.89 The Aramaic root [] essentially means “spoil, corrupted, bad;” with the sense in Dan 6:5 amounting to “wickedness, mischief” according to Kohler-Baumgartner.90 BDB affirms that when is used as a noun, it means “fault.”91 J. Conrad notes that “in Biblical Aramaic this word group is attested only by the substantival feminine form of the peal participle, which refers to ‘depravity’ in the ethical sense, i.e., to evil, wicked behavior or speech;” this is the sense assigned to Dan 6:5 by Conrad.92 The only other use of in Daniel is in Dan 2:9, where is used in conjunction with “lying [],” certainly an ethical matter. The substantive participle is probably a clarification of the “ground of accusation,” so that the pair may be read: ground of accusation including ethical malfeasance.

The writer is not claiming that Daniel was without sin; he is affirming that Daniel was an exceptionally scrupulous and conscientious servant in the Persian regime.

In Dan 6:5d, the author reveals the basis for Daniel’s spotless professional reputation: inasmuch as he was trustworthy. The line is a causative line as signaled by the opening causal construction [ ].93

Trustworthy [ (Haphel, passive participle, ms, sg)] is the author’s evaluation of Daniel’s character, an upright integrity that fashions his spotless profession reputation. Once more, the participle is used as a substantive, with a durative, ongoing, sense implied in the passive participle;94 Daniel’s trustworthiness was as characteristic of him as it was natural to him. Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:5 with “trustworthy.”95

Trustworthy [] comes from a semantic field of terms for “trust.”96 In the context of Dan 6:5, the expositor should note that corruption [passive participle] and trustworthy [passive participle] are opposites; specifically, they are “reversives,” since they move in opposite directions: “the basic opposition is between

87 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 158; similarly, Slotki, 48. 88 For the disjunctive use of the Aramaic conjunction, , see Bauer-Leander § 70 p.

89 Van Pelt, 115.

90 KB2, 1992. 91 BDB, 1115.

92 J. Conrad, “,” in TDOT, vol. XIV, 594. 93 Bauer-Leander § 70 g. 94 Ibid., § 82 c.

95 KB2, 1816; similarly, BDB, 1081; Holladay, 397. 96 NIDOTTE, “Trust.”

19


‘continuance of a state’ and ‘change to an alternate state.’”97 Daniel’s integrity takes the form of his refusal to move from trustworthiness to corruption.

Trustworthy [] is a Semitic word for which it is difficult, if not currently impossible, to discover an etymology. A. Jepsen writes that the earliest Aramaic use of may be translated “permanent;” while the Arab cognate means “to be faithful, reliable, to be secure.”98 The verb appears three times in Daniel, all of them written in the Haphel stem [Dan 2:45; 6:5, 24]. In Dan 2:45, is used to describe Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which is pronounced , dependable. Skipping Dan 6:5 for the moment, Dan 6:24 is Darius’ evaluation of Daniel’s faith in the lion’s den episode, which is characterized as , Daniel trusted in God; Daniel was faithful.

The sense of the Haphel of in Aramaic is closest to the sense of the Niphal of in Hebrew. The usage of the Niphal participle of as an adjective, dependable/trustworthy and the like in Hebrew, is taken up by the Haphel participle of used as an adjective in Aramaic.99

Accordingly, in the Hebrew Niphal, which sheds lexical light on the Aramaic Haphel, means “to prove to be firm, reliable, faithful; trustworthy.”100 Essentially in the Hebrew Bible, there is a spiritual component in /trustworthiness; for example, the /faithful priest is one who lives according to what is in Yahweh’s heart and soul [1 Samuel 2:35], or the psalmist whose walk is blameless before Yahweh [Psalm 101:6]. Then, Abraham is described as one who is /faithful before Yahweh [Nehemiah 9:8], a passage that recalls Abraham’s enduring personal relationship with Yahweh. Common to these usages is the sense that the /trustworthy one is “completely devoted” to Yahweh.101 Finally, devotion arising from a personal relationship seems to be what Darius witnesses to when he affirms that, having been delivered from the lion’s den, Daniel /trusted in his God [Dan 6:24]. The upshot is this: /trustworthy essentially points to Daniel’s reliability as a government functionary; Daniel is dependable, consistent, steadfast, above board, a man of integrity. At the same time, Daniel’s /trustworthiness cannot be divorced from his devotion to Yahweh; indeed, Daniel’s devotion to “the laws of his God” is evident to his antagonists [Dan 6:6c].

In Dan 6:5e, the contrast, begun in Dan 6:5c, is rounded out: neither negligence nor corruption could be found in him.

Negligence [ (noun, fm, sg)] is an Aramaic noun that has a Jewish Aramaic cognate [] that means “mistake, error;” in Dan 6:5, Kohler-Baumgartner translate with “negligence.”102 BDB adds for Dan 6:5 “remissness.”103 The net effect is that Daniel was neither careless nor inattentive nor slipshod in his government work.

Summary. Dan 6:5 displays two speech acts: assertive speech acts in Dan 6:5a, 5b, 5c, and 5e; and a verdictive speech act in Dan 6:5d.

In Dan 6:5a, the author employs an assertive speech act to convey the facts in the case concerning the conspirator’s initial efforts to smear Daniel; the author’s words fit the world the conspirators

97 D.A. Cruz, Lexical Semantics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995; reprint), 201.

98 A. Jepsen, “,” in TDOT, vol. I, 292.

99 E. Jenni and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, translated by Mark Biddle, 3 volumes (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997); H. Wildberger, “,” 139 [hereafter TLOT 1, 2, 3].

100 KB1, 63.

101 Jepsen, 296. 102 KB2, 1994; similarly, Holladay, 423.

103 BDB, 1115.

20


were trying to manufacture. The essence of the state of affairs the author represents for the reader is: Daniel’s deceitful foes, from exclusively self-interested motives, begin searching for any allegation whatsoever, valid or invalid, that would discredit him. The smear could be legitimate or otherwise; the truth claim in the speech act involves the fact that legitimacy was irrelevant as long as some scandal could be found.

In Dan 6:5b, the author utilizes another assertive speech act to unfold the truth about just what the conspirators were looking for to launch their smear campaign, the author’s words matching perfectly the efforts the conspirators were making. Essentially, the collaborators were intending to attack Daniel from the political realm, looking for some slip-up in his professional administrative duties.

In Dan 6:5c, the author makes use of an assertive speech act to stress the fact that the conspiracy failed; the author’s words tally exactly with the collapse of the plotter’s efforts to smear Daniel politically. Not only did the conspirators fail to dredge up an allegation that would discredit Daniel, more specifically they also failed to uncover even a whisper of ethical malfeasance within the sphere of Daniel’s oversight.

In Dan 6:5c, the author utilizes a verdictive speech act to proffer the basis for Daniel’s stellar reputation; the author evaluates Daniel’s character as trustworthy; and once more the evaluation corresponds to the character of the man flawlessly. The author’s verdict on Daniel unveils his ethical and spiritual depth. Daniel’s trustworthiness principally points to Daniel’s reliability as a government functionary; Daniel is dependable, consistent, steadfast, above board, a man of integrity. At the same time, Daniel’s reliability as a professional cannot be divorced from his devotion to Yahweh.

Then, in Dan 6:5e, the author reintroduces the assertive speech act to continue affirming the truth that the conspiracy failed; what the author writes harmonizes exactly with the schemer’s failure to discover any negligence in Daniel’s professional/political career. Daniel was neither slipshod nor remiss nor shoddy in his government work.

Reflection. Dan 6:5c-e extol Daniel’s professional virtues in the court of Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel’s work history was spotless: there was no ground for accusation; there was no corruption; and neither was there even a hint of negligence. Rather, up to this time, about 65 years or so, Daniel had conducted himself in the royal court in a thoroughly trustworthy manner.

The reader would do well to reflect on where and under what circumstances this exemplary record was made public. To be sure, the worldview of the royal court would have been poles apart from that of Daniel throughout the 65 years. Yet, Daniel endures and even excels in such a harsh and spiritually disoriented environment.

For example, the military campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar could be extremely harsh. Even Yahweh predicted that when Nebuchadnezzar fell upon Judah, he would do so without sparing them, showing them neither compassion nor pity [Jeremiah 21:7]. Nebuchadnezzar would swoop into Judah and utterly destroy them, making nation and inhabitants a horror to behold [Jeremiah 25:9]. Indeed, Nebuchadnezzar seems to have had Yahweh’s permission to completely crush those nations that refused Nebuchadnezzar’s political yoke [Jeremiah 27:8]. The net effect is that, as a military commander, Nebuchadnezzar could be unequivocally ruthless.

Beyond that, Nebuchadnezzar’s grip over the citizens within his realm could be equally punitive and unforgiving. The poster child for the tyrant’s iron rule is the story with which Daniel would have been quite familiar: his three Jewish comrades condemned to cremation [Dan 3:6]. Now, this was not the only occasion recorded in the Old Testament where Nebuchadnezzar sentenced people to the crematorium. He consigned two false prophets to the crematorium in Jeremiah 29:22. However, in the case of Daniel 3, any

21


citizen of Babylon who did not fall and worship Nebuchadnezzar’s statue had a date with the crematorium. The upshot is that, as a ruler within the confines of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar was vindictive, callous, and cold-blooded.

Finally, Daniel’s own experience of Nebuchadnezzar was on a different plane: Daniel interacted with Nebuchadnezzar on a more spiritual [idolatrous] level. In Daniel 2, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a great statue [an idol], Daniel informs the tyrant that in spite of all of his power it is Yahweh who has granted him this dominion for reasons of His own and for a predetermined time [Dan 2:21, 36-38]. Eventually, as a result of interacting with Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar publically testifies that Daniel’s God is the “God of gods and Lord of kings” [Dan 2:47]. In Daniel 4, the dream of great tree that is hewn down, Daniel forewarns Nebuchadnezzar that unless he acknowledges Yahweh as sovereign over human governance, Nebuchadnezzar will be reduced to an animalistic status [Dan 4:29]. Nebuchadnezzar ignores the warning and suffers the fate [Dan 4:30]. Eventually, Nebuchadnezzar does glorify the everlasting dominion of Yahweh [Dan 4:31-34]. The upshot is that, for the most part, Daniel challenges Nebuchadnezzar’s idolatry with Daniel’s monotheistic adherence to and witness of Yahweh.

To put things in a nutshell, Daniel had performed exemplary service for roughly 65 years in an administration that was militarily ruthless, internally merciless, and spiritually idolatrous. The question is: how could Daniel perform such outstanding work in such an abysmal working environment?

We know that Daniel was in the habit of reading Jeremiah [Dan 9:2]; and it is from Jeremiah that we may extract two principles by which Daniel could live such an admirable life in such unworthy circumstances.

The first principle is this: Nebuchadnezzar was in reality doing the bidding of Yahweh. In Jeremiah 27:6, Daniel would have read that it was Yahweh who had given Nebuchadnezzar all of his conquests; it was not Nebuchadnezzar who independently and with his own savvy and might had seized his victories. While Daniel might not have understood all of Yahweh’s will regarding Judah and Babylon, while there was considerable mystery concerning the dismal saga of the vanquished and the vanquisher, Daniel did grasp the fact that, when all was said and done, Yahweh was the supreme Lord of human history. From Daniel’s point of view, it may have been easier to accommodate the vagaries of the what in life, armed with the fact that he did know the why behind the circumstances in his life; Daniel grasped the larger picture; thus he could endure the mysteries concealed in the details. It would have been enough for Daniel to know that, appearances to the contrary, God was in charge of the political/governmental fortunes of Judah and Babylon.

The second principle is this: Daniel and his people had been told by Yahweh, while in exile, make the best of it. In Jeremiah 29:4-7, Daniel would have read this portion of a letter sent from Jeremiah to the eldership among the exiles. Among other things, Daniel would have understood that the exiles were to build homes, plant gardens [Jeremiah 29:5], marry and have children [Jeremiah 29:6], and seek the welfare of the city [Jeremiah 29:7]. Significantly, Daniel would have recognized that this exile was not to be open-ended; it had a beginning and it had an end, seventy years [Jeremiah 29:10]. From Daniel’s point of view, the charge to seek the welfare of the city may well have been completely inexplicable, severing Daniel and his fellow exiles from the forms of governance they were accustomed to. Once more, it is just conceivable that Daniel did not understand what Yahweh was up to, but Daniel did apprehend what it was Yahweh wanted him to do: seek the welfare of the city. This charge to seek the welfare of the nation-state, Babylon, would surely explain Daniel’s exemplary professional career in Babylon for 65 years: Daniel was seeking the welfare of the city for reasons he did not fully comprehend; ultimately, Daniel, following Yahweh’s advice, was making the best of a bad situation.

As we reflect on this history and these two principles, Daniel models an important behavior for us today: Daniel plays the hand that had been dealt to him and does his best for God. Like Daniel, we may not always understand fully what God is up to in our lives, our nation, our world; but, if we search the Scriptures, as Daniel did, we shall find our function, our part to play, in the midst of Yahweh’s mysterious and relentless management of His Universe. Often, faced with the vagaries of life, it is enough to know that, appearances to the contrary, God is Lord of daily life along with national and international geopolitical

22


events; we simply accept the mysterious, anchored in the certainty that God is master of the perplexities of human history.

This, in turn, permits Daniel to make the best of a bad situation. Daniel, as Dan 6:5 makes abundantly clear, excelled in his appointed tasks in the Babylonian court. Daniel did not ask to be in Babylon; he probably never dreamed that he would spend 65 years of his working life in Babylon; and he surely did not approve of the idolatrous lifestyle in foreign lands where he labored, as Daniel 6 is about to make perfectly clear. At the same time, Daniel did not lash out at God for his predicament; he did not become embittered or disillusioned or dissatisfied; rather, Daniel determined from the Word of God, what his role should be and he made the best of a bad situation.

Most of us go through life, especially our professional lives, wishing we were elsewhere, wishing we had made different choices, wishing we could be anywhere other than where we are. So be it; there are times, sadly many of them, when, like modern day Daniels, we yearn for Jerusalem but endure Babylon. Perhaps at such times we should follow Daniel’s lead: take it on faith that God has His hand in where we are, doing what we are doing, and make the best of it by doing our best for God.

Dan 6:6 – So then, these men said: “We shall not find any ground of accusation against Daniel personally; unless we find it against him in the laws of his God.”

Dan 6:6 is the narration of the conspirator’s “plan B.” Having failed to find any professional misstep in Daniel’s public duties in the royal court [Dan 6:5], they pivot to Daniel’s private life, his faith [Dan 6:6]. Russell captures the thrust of Dan 6:6 writing “The religious man of principle is easy prey to those who sniff and snoop and is most vulnerable at the very point where his convictions are most strong.”104

In Dan 6:6b, there really is not anything new; the “ground of accusation” has been treated in Dan 6:5a.

In Dan 6:6c, the conspirators tip their hand; they will peer into Daniel’s private life: unless we find it against him in the laws of his God.

Law [] is an Aramaic noun of Persian origin that has three ranges of meaning: [1] a “royal command,” [2] “state legislation” or “public law,” and [3] the “law of God” or more generally “law as religion.”105 Kohler-Baumgartner render in Dan 6:6 with “law as religion,” perhaps in the sense of “connected with his religion.”106 Holladay affirms that can refer to either [1] the “Law of God” in the sense of Torah, or [2] “religion.”107 Herbert Wolf affirms that in Dan 6:6 the4 sense of amounts to “religious customs or practices.”108

Law [] is consistently used in the Aramaic of Ezra in the sense of the Law of God.109 The noun is used in Daniel is the sense of a royal command/decree [Dan 2:9, 13, 15; Dan 6:9], a state law [Dan 6:13,

104 J.C.L. Gibson, ed., The Daily Study Bible Series, Daniel by D.S. Russell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1981), 100.

105 KB2, 1856. 106 Ibid. 107 Holladay, 403.

108 R.L. Harris, G.L. Archer, B.K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, 2 vols., “,” by Herbert Wolf (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980); hereafter abbreviated TWOT.

109 See Ezra 7:12, 14, 21, 25-26.

23


16], and law of God [Dan 7:25]. In Dan 6:6, the reader must take into account who is using ; that is, these pagan Persian politicians could be using in the sense of Daniel’s religious practices in general. The Septuagint tradition represented by Theodotion uses for , a Greek noun that points to that which is “conformable to law, lawful.”110 This more abstract translation by Theodotion indicates that he understood in the sense of the laws connected with Daniel’s religion. Significantly, the remaining uses of in Daniel [Dan 6:9, 13, 16] expose the conspirator’s end game: put Daniel’s commitment to the laws connected with his religion [Dan 6:6] in conflict with the laws of the Medes and the Persians.

Dan 6:6b is an assertive speech act, conveying the fact of the matter that the conspirators were completely stymied in their efforts to find a chink in Daniel’s professional armor. The author’s words harmonize exactly with their failure. Daniel’s foes could find no smear, valid or invalid, that would tarnish his impeccable professional and public reputation.

Dan 6:6c is also an assertive speech act, declaring the facticity of the new conspiracy: the plan was to ensnare Daniel into defying some state law in the exercise of his faith. “Having failed to trap him in respect of his civic responsibilities, which were impeccable in their execution, they tried to catch him out in respect of private religious observances.”111

III. Narrative of conspirator’s petition to Darius [Dan 6:7-10]

6:7a So then, these high officials and provincial governors came storming into the king;

6:7b and thus said to him:6:7c “King Darius, may you live forever!6:8a All of the high officials of the realm,

the prefects and provincial governors, the counselors and provincial commissioners

have taken counsel with each other,6:8b with the result that the king should establish a royal

statute and enforce a legal prohibition;6:8c namely that, any who makes a petition to any god,6:8d or man for thirty days,6:8e except to you, O king,6:8f will be cast into a den of lions.6:9a Now, O king, may you establish the statute,6:9b and may you sign the document;6:9c so that it may not be changed according to the law

of the Medes and Persians, 6:9d which cannot be revoked!”6:10a Because of this;6:10b king Darius signed the document and statute.

110 BAGD, 541.

111 Russell, Daniel, 100.

24


The genre of Dan 6:7-10 is essentially a petition, which amounts to a “request or plea from one person to another asking for some definite response.”112 The petition narrative is initiated with an introductory statement, underscoring the fact that these counselors came storming into the king, suggesting that these conspirators approached the king en masse so as to influence him via overwhelming numerical support for their petition [Dan 6:7a]. Then, after the statutory salute to the king [Dan 6:7c], the conspirators confront the king with the consensus behind their petition [Dan 6:8a], followed by the content of the petition itself [Dan 6:8b-f], and concluded with the call to sign the bill into law while highlighting the irrevocability of the statute [Dan 6:9]. The narrative concludes with Darius signing the bill into law.

Dan 6:7 – So then, these high officials and provincial governors came storming into the king; and thus said to him: “King Darius, may you live forever!”

Came storming into [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is used three times in Daniel 6 [Dan 6:7, 12, 16]. The Aramaic verb [] is used only in the Haphel in Daniel and means basically “to enter in a crowd” in Dan 6:7 according to Kohler-Baumgartner.113 In Imperial and Egyptian Aramaic, the verb is used in the sense of “to be angry;” in Jewish Aramaic, the term can mean “to be uneasy;” in Syriac, the cognate means “to be excited.”114 BDB more or less follows suit with the sense of the ancient Near Eastern cognates, translating in Dan 6:7 with “to show tumultuousness, to come thronging.”115 Rosenthal opts for “to assemble.”116 So far, based upon the ancient Near Eastern cognates, is used with connotations of commotion and clamor; the verb as used outside Aramaic Bible does indeed suggest coming to the king enflamed by a powerful desire to be rid of Daniel, and thus “flocking tumultuously to the king.”117 Indeed, if all 120 of these various leaders came to Darius en masse, a certain amount of commotion would be expected.

In Dan 6:7, the author uses an assertive speech act to, among other things, truthfully and artfully depict the hubbub associated with the conspirator’s approach to Darius with their petition; the fit between what is said and reality is word to world; that is, these conspirators were unified in their opposition to Daniel and the strength of their numbers flocking to Darius shows it. Uneasy and keyed up as they were, there was across-the-board support for the proposal these leaders were about to make; there was bi-partisan backing for the projected bill, accompanied by fairly intense urgency to get the bill signed into law.

The consensus for the petition [Dan 6:8a]

Dan 6:8a – “All of the high officials of the realm, the prefects and provincial governors, the counselors and the provincial commissioners have taken counsel with each other.”

All [ (noun, ms, sg, construct)] should be read at face value; Kohler-Baumgartner note that when is used before a plural noun that is definite [the high officials, etc.] the sense is simply “all.”118 We know, from Esther 1:19-20 and 3:9, that in Persia proposals for legislation could be initiated by those other than the king. Accordingly, there is no denial of protocol in Dan 6:8a when these provincial leaders approach Darius with their proposed legislation.

112 Collins, FOTL, 116. 113 KB2, 1979.

114 Ibid. 115 BDB, 1112.

116 Rosenthal, 96.

117 Driver, Daniel, 73; similarly, Collins, Daniel, 266.

118 KB2, 1898.

25


Have taken counsel together [ (Ithpaal, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is written in the Ithpaal stem, a stem that is reflexive/reciprocal:119 they took counsel among themselves. The Ithpaal stem may be read in such a way as to infer that this “counsel taking” was improvised, as opposed to signaling a regular sitting counsel.

Take counsel [] is used only here in Daniel. The Aramaic verb [] is used in Ezra as plural participles to designate seven royal counselors [Ezra 7:14-15]; these appear to be an officially constituted group of consultants. The use in Dan 6:8 need not imply nor demand an official group of advisors. This Aramaic verb [] in the Ithpaal means “to take counsel with each other, to agree after mutual consultation.”120 Holladay suggests that in Dan 6:8 means to “deliberate.”121 Another option, nicely suited to the context, is that these leaders “conspired together.”122 The Septuagint translator, Theodotion, uses the Greek verb in the middle voice, which has two ranges of meaning: [1] “consult, plot,” and [2] “meditate on, consider.”123 The first option, “consult or plot”, fits the context better and also buttresses the observation in TWOT: there is, in the use of the verb in Dan 6:8, a negative accent, a flavor of intrigue, maneuvering, and trickery; in a nutshell, there is more than deliberation here, there is chicanery of a high order. The upshot is that the reader may nuance “have taken counsel together” in the arresting sense suggested by Russell: “They had hatched a plot;”124 they had reached consensus.

The content of the petition [Dan 6:8b-f]

Dan 6:8b-f – “with the result that the king should establish a royal statute and enforce a legal prohibition; namely that, any who makes a petition to any god, or man for thirty days, except to you, O king, will be cast into a den of lions.”

With the result that … should establish [ (Pael, infinitive construct)] is tethered to the main verb in Dan 6:8a – they have taken counsel together (6:8a) with the result that … should establish (6:8b). In Biblical Aramaic, the infinitive construct may be used to signal the result or outcome of the action to which it is attached.125 Syntactically, these conspirators hatched a plot with the result of that counsel being that Darius should establish a statute.

Establish a royal statute [ ] is an infinitive [establish] with the direct object of the infinitive [a statute]. The infinitive is used somewhat metaphorically in the sense of “set up, establish,” according to Kohler-Baumgartner.126 The Pael stem is causative,127 the conspirators may recommend but only Darius can establish.

119 Van Pelt, 138.

120 Rosenthal, 86; similarly, KB2, 1892; BDB, 1095. 121 Holladay, 408. 122 TWOT, 2772.

123 BAGD, 778.

124 Russell, Daniel, 100. 125 On this use of the infinitive construct, see Van Pelt, 108.

126 KB2, 1968; similarly, Holladay, 418; BDB, 1110.

127 Van Pelt, 131.

26


Royal statute [ (noun, ms, sg, construct)] is actually a genitive construction, literally “the statute of the king.” In this case, the genitive is an attributive genitive where “royal” more or less characterizes the “statute.”128 Statute [] signals quite simply a “decree, statute.”129 The upshot is that the conspirators are urging Darius to “put in force a decree.”130 Finally, the fact that the collaborators are asking for a royal statute may indicate that “since Darius was a foreigner and new to the throne, his position required strengthening,”131 hence the specification: a royal decree.

Enforce a legal prohibition [ (noun, ms, sg) (Pael, infinitive construct)] is also an infinitive clause signaling a further result or outcome: not only establish this edict but also enforce it. Once more, the Pael is causative; the collaborators remind Darius that his is the responsibility for enforcing the decree.

Enforce [] is from a semantic field of terms for power or strength.132 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:8 with “make stringent, enforce.”133 Robin Wakely notes that in Biblical Aramaic, the root “reflects the underlying meaning of strength.”134 In this context, given the purpose behind the edict, there seems to be a sense of inflexibility, strictness in enforcement, a severe and rigid adherence to the letter of the law implied in the usage of in Dan 6:8. The expositor may read the verb in this sense: enforce rigidly and inflexibly.

Legal prohibition [] carries forward the austerity of the conspirator’s proposal. The severity of is unveiled by Kohler-Baumgartner’s note on the noun: “the basic meaning is bond>binding>fetter>prohibition.”135 In Jewish Aramaic, the root [] signifies a “bond, chain, binding,” and in Dan 6:8 points to a “prohibition, interdict.”136 BDB follows suit, translating in Dan 6:8 with “an interdict (as binding).”137 TWOT renders in the sense of a “decree of restriction.”138 Robin Wakely affirms that there is an element of “binding obligation” implied in .139 The net effect is that with there is both restriction as well as binding obligation; the expositor may read: enforce rigidly and inflexibly this binding legal obligation. Once more, the contextual situation that gives rise to this in the first place must be remembered: the conspirators are intent on binding Daniel in a restrictive legal trap; they intend to place him in a position with only one way out – resistance.

128 See Bauer-Leander § 89 f. 129 Holladay, 418; see also KB2, 1970. 130 Montgomery, 273.

131 Slotki, 48. 132 See “Power, strength” in NIDOTTE.

133 KB2, 2009; similarly, BDB, 1118; Holladay, 425. 134 Robin Wakely, “,” in NIDOTTE [H9548].

135 KB2, 1821.

136 Ibid. 137 BDB, 1082.

138 TWOT, [2595b].

139 Robin Wakely, “,” NIDOTTE [H674].

27


In Dan 6:8c, the conspirators lay bare the key content of the decree, beginning with the law itself [Dan 6:8c-e] and the sanction attached to the law [Dan 6:8f]. The content of the decree includes its scope, its specifics, and its sanction.

The scope of this recommended edict is universal: any [] in Dan 6:8c. There are no surprises here; while the schemers are, in reality after only one man, Daniel, the scope of their project is empire-wide.

The specifics of the law are threefold: its substance – “make a petition to any god or man [Dan 6:8c]” – its span – “for thirty days [Dan 6:8d]” – and its decisive stress – “except to you, O king [Dan 6:8e].”

In Dan 6:8c, the substance of the edict concerns offering prayer: make a petition to any god or man. The author does not tell us why, out of all of the spiritual issues pertaining to the “laws of Daniel’s God” [Dan 6:6], the conspirators chose prayer. A decent guess, and a guess is all that it is, is that after being in the government for 65 years, Daniel’s prayer habits were a matter of common knowledge. As far as the narrative goes, the author evidently does not think that the reasons behind this target are germane; it is enough to set up the moral tug of war between the “laws of Daniel’s God” and the “law of the Medes and the Persians.”

Make a petition [ ] features the same Aramaic root [/] for both the verb [] and the direct object []; the construction is called a cognate accusative, literally “to request a prayer.” Kohler-Baumgartner translate the cognate accusative in Dan 6:8c with “to utter a prayer.”140 Similarly, Holladay proposes for the construction in Dan 6:8c, “to offer a prayer.”141

The verb is used twelve times in the book of Daniel.142 As used in Daniel, has five ranges of usage: [1] one human being searches after another human being [Dan 2:13; 4:33]; [2] one human being searches for a favor from another human being [Dan 2:16, 49]; [3] one human searches for compassion from God or a deity [Dan 2:18, 23; Dan 6:12, 14]; [4] one human searches for some defect in another [Dan 6:5]; and [5] one human searches for an answer to a mystery from a heavenly being [Dan 7:16].

In Dan 6:8c, make a petition presumes both senses [2] and [3] above; make a petition involves Daniel, and anyone else in the empire for that matter, with performing two activities in the same petitionary process: from the king’s point of view, means searching for a favor from him, and from the petitioner’s point of view, means searching for compassion in some form from God or a deity depending on the petitioner. Indeed, this is precisely the trap for Daniel, and others like him, after this edict becomes the law of the land: “when it boils down to a question of divine sovereignty, it is only to God that Daniel is willing to ‘pray,’ or ‘make a request,’ as his enemies knew quite well.”143

In Dan 6:8d, the span over which the edict is to apply is stipulated: for thirty days. The expositor will have no difficulty understanding the meaning here: the edict on prayer was to be in force for only thirty days. But, why the time limit? Why thirty days? The answer may lie in Darius’ [Cyrus’] normal pattern in dealing with the religious affairs of his people: he typically left religion alone. Professor Thompson writes, “Cyrus, as a wise ruler, left the religious institutions of the people alone;” indeed, regarding the sacred images “Cyrus, recognizing the first fundamentals of the empire, restored them to their shrines in sympathy with the different religions of his new subjects.”144 The upshot is that, knowing the king’s preferential

140 KB2, 1836.

141 Holladay, 400. 142 Dan 2:13, 16, 18, 23, 49; 4:33; 6:5, 8, 12-14; 7:16.

143 Charles Isbell, “,” in TWOT [2635]. 144 Thompson, Cambridge Ancient History, vol III, 225.

28


pattern, as well as the potential for public outcry following upon this edict, the conspirators must have dangled the thirty day time span as an incentive: “the period of the edict was limited, and no possible harm could be envisaged.”145

In Dan 6:8e, the principle stress explicit in the edict is specified: except to you, O king. It would seem that “except to you” grants the king a kind of divine status. Montgomery summarizes the situation vis-à-vis Darius: “this one king was to be regarded for the time being as the only representative of the Deity.”146 If this is the case, the appeal to Darius’ hubris may well have been the hook used by the conspirators to manipulate Darius into this edict. While it is generally accepted by scholars that the typical Persian king would not have permitted such self-deification, there are occasions when leaders with unassailable power make appalling choices; perhaps this is one of them. When all is said and done, the author makes a truth claim: Darius submitted to the conspirator’s plan; thus, the process is now set in motion whereby “extreme loyalty to the king can be measured.”147

In Dan 6:8f, the inevitable sanction is declared: cast into a den of lions. The noun translated “den” is , which Kohler-Baumgartner translate “pit for lions” in Dan 6:8.148 The corresponding Hebrew noun [] is used for a “ditch, stowage-tank.”149 If we take Daniel 6 at face value, then the following picture of this pit emerges: [1] evidently the pit was a kind of subterranean cavern so that the king could walk up to the opening of the pit and speak to Daniel (Dan 6:17); [2] the pit could be sealed by rolling a stone across the opening (Dan 6:18); [3] the royal seal evidently could be visible to any who approached the sealed opening (Dan 6:18); and [4] apparently, the opening of the pit was at the top, since the conspirators were slain by the lions before they reached the bottom of the cavern (Dan 6:25). Hartman and Di Lella summarize the physical configuration of the pit: “The place where the lions were kept is therefore pictured here as a subterranean cave or room having a relatively small opening at the top, which could be closed by a large stone.”150

John Goldingay, among others, notes that Persian kings freely exercised “the power of life and death,” including “almost exquisitely horrible forms of execution.”151 Evidently, Persian kings could be exceptionally barbaric in matters of capital punishment. Even though using lions as a form of execution is unknown in the region, one must leave room for barbaric creativity.152

The call for an irrevocable petition [Dan 6:9]

145 Baldwin, 128.

146 Montgomery, 270; see also Tremper Longman III, The NIV Application Commentary: Daniel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 100.

147 Longman, Daniel, 166. 148 KB2, 1841; similarly, BDB, 1085; Holladay, 400.

149 David J.A. Clines, ed., The Concise Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2009), 58 [hereafter abbreviated CDCH].

150 Louis Hartman and Alexander Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 2005; paperback edition), 199.

151 Ralph Martin, ed., Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30, Daniel by John Goldingay (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 128; see also Montgomery, 270.

152 Anyone who doubts the notion of barbaric creativity should consult the imaginative ways in

which the German SS slaughtered Jewish men, women, and children in the Third Reich.

29


Dan 6:9 – “Now, O king, may you establish the statute, and may you sign the document; so that it may not be changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be revoked!”

Sign the document [ ] is one translation; some English versions render “put it in writing.” Kohler-Baumgartner render in Dan 6:9 with “write, put in writing.”153 BDB offers two ranges of meaning: “inscribe” and “sign.”154 Rosenthal offers “to draw, to draw up, to inscribe, to write.”155 Theodotion seems to prefer the “put it in writing option,” using the Greek verb , which means “expose, explain, set forth.” Liddell-Scott-Jones add “to fix, exhibit publically, post up, set out” for .156

The Aramaic verb is used seven times in Daniel.157 Six of these occurrences feature the verb written in the perfect aspect; only one, Dan 6:9, has the simple waw prefixed to an imperfect aspect [] used in a jussive [directive, imperatival] sense. The simple waw [ (“and then”)] tells us that the usage of in Dan 6:9 is tethered to the previous verbal collocation in Dan 6:8: they have taken counsel together [Dan 6:8a] with the result that … should establish [Dan 6:8b] and enforce [Dan 6:8b]; so now, establish [Dan 6:9 (directive, imperatival – may you)] … and sign [Dan 6:9 (directive, imperatival)].

We have argued above that establish a royal statute is tantamount to putting said statute in force; this, in turn in Dan 6:8, is followed by enforce what you have established. Now, taken together, the two intentions articulated in Dan 6:8b – establish and enforce – must in the nature of things imply that the statute be in written form [established] so it can then be enforced. The only step that is necessary to initiate the enforcement of the statute is the signature of the king in Dan 6:9. “He therefore signed the document which made him god-king for thirty days.”158

So that it may not be changed according to the law of the Medes and the Persians [ ] is written in the Masoretic text as one single unit of thought; that is, there are no pauses, punctuation marks, between any of the words in this clause. The minor break, pause, comes after “Persians.” While I admit that the punctuation marks were supplied by the Masoretes, and therefore, are not inspired, at the same time, they should be taken into account. The import of the punctuation should be clear: the Masoretes must have read this clause as the key assertion in Dan 6:9; that is, once the bill was signed into law [Dan 6:9b] it became irrevocable [Dan 6:9c]. Both Daniel and Darius were boxed in.

So that [] is a relative particle that is used in a final sense: so that.159 Since this clause, Dan 6:9c, is the net effect of Dan 6:9b, this adds weight to the reading of as signature. What is more, and this is more vital to note, the “so that []” clause communicates the critical moment in the scheme: everyone will be locked in.

May not be changed [ ] references the signed statute. The verb [] in the Haphel stem means “to alter.”160 Indeed, the root [] comes from a semantic field of terms for change.161 BDB offers

153 KB2, 1984. 154 BDB, 1113.

155 Rosenthal, 97.

156 LSJ, 522.

157 Dan 5:24, 25; 6:9, 10, 11, 13, 14. 158 Baldwin, 128. 159 Bauer-Leander § 70 c. 160 KB2, 2001. 161 See “Change” in NIDOTTE.

30


for the Haphel of “change, alter, frustrate.”162 Holladay follows suit with “alter (a decree)” or “violate (an order).”163 We noted above that the end-game was that everyone be locked in; notice that, from the king’s point of view, means that he cannot alter the statute, and from Daniel’s point of view, means that he cannot violate it. Both the king and the prophet have been framed!

According to the law of the Medes and the Persians [ ] is reminiscent of Esther 1:19, which echoes the immutability of Persian law. Moreover, Esther 8:8 tells us that no Persian law initiated by a Persian king can be revoked. Collins writes, “Two factors may have contributed to the belief that Persian laws were immutable: one is the obvious insistence that no subordinate officer could change what was decreed by the king and marked by his seal; the other is that the laws were to be preserved (in some cases by public inscription) so that they should not ‘pass away’ – that is, be lost of go out of effect.”164 Recall, however, that this particular law of the Medes and the Persians was limited to one month.

Which cannot be revoked [ ] is a relative clause ostensibly used to emphasize the permanence of Persian law. The Aramaic verb [] in the Peal stem has a variety of usages: [1] the smoke from the fire in the furnace does not even touch the three young Jews (Dan 3:27); [2] Nebuchadnezzar’s sovereignty is removed from him for a fixed period of time (Dan 4:31); [3] the laws of the Medes and the Persians cannot be dissolved or rescinded (Dan 6:9, 13); and [4] a kingdom is destined to appear upon the earth that will never cease to exist (Dan 7:14). Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:9 with “annulled.”165 Holladay opts for “vanish, be annulled.”166 Driver observes that encompasses the “unalterableness of the edicts of a Persian king.”167

The upshot is that Daniel is placed between a rock and a hard place: that is, he is trapped between the irreversible Persian law and the incontestable divine law. There are no gray areas for Daniel in this dispute: “The basic tension in Daniel 6 is the conflict between God’s law and the law of the Medes and the Persians.”168

Dan 6:10 – Because of this; king Darius signed the document and statute.

So, the stage is set; Daniel must choose which sovereign, the state or Yahweh, commands Daniel’s ultimate loyalty.

Summary. Dan 6:7-10 displays a wide variety of speech acts, making this paragraph the most complex thus far. Dan 6:7a is an assertive speech act with emphasis on the unanimity of the conspirators, evidenced by the strength in numbers. Dan 6:8a is another assertive speech act, this time making a truth claim about the deliberations of the conspirators, calculations that border on chicanery. Dan 6:8b is a directive speech act, the moment when the collaborators seek to guide Darius into creating some new legislation. Dan 6:8c-f is a commissive speech act, the instant when the conspirators attempt to maneuver Darius into committing himself to this course of action. Then, Dan 6:9 is a directive speech act whereby the turncoats invite Darius to finalize the legislation, making it the law of the Medes and the Persians.

162 BDB, 1116.

163 Holladay, 424. 164 Collins, Daniel, 268. 165 KB2, 1944.

166 Holladay, 415. 167 Driver, Daniel, 74. 168 Longman, 166.

31


In Dan 6:7a, the author employs an assertive speech act to truthfully and vividly portray the urgency and angst of the intriguers. The author fits their demeanor to their behavior perfectly: these conspirators were unified in their opposition to Daniel and the strength of their numbers flocking to Darius confirms it. Uneasy and keyed up as they were, there was bi-partisan backing for the projected bill, fanned by a fairly intense rush to get the bill signed into law. The speech act alerts the expositor to the stress, the angst, the resolve, the consensus, to convince Darius of the worthiness of their proposal. If 120 of Persia’s best and brightest back the proposed bill, what can be wrong with it?

In Dan 6:8a, the author utilizes another assertive speech act in order to truthfully characterize the private deliberations of the conspirators. The fit is word to world, that is, the way in which the author depicts these secret negotiations faultlessly portrays the reality. When the author represents the connivers as having “taken counsel with each other,” the author underscores the truth that these schemers had hatched a plot. The expositor will note the intrigue, the scheming, the duplicity and deception that lie beneath these counselor’s “deliberations.

In Dan 6:8b, the author uses a directive speech act to depict what the conspirators attempt to urge Darius to do; the direction of fit is world to words, that is, the conspirators desire that Darius’ actions [his “world” as it were] comport with their wishes.169 Specifically, the conspirators desire that Darius establish the bill, that is to say, create it and put it into writing; and then enforce it without deviation, implementing the bill rigidly and inflexibly.

In Dan 6:8c-f, the author applies a commissive speech act in order to depict the course of action the conspirators intend that Darius commits himself to in the future:170 anyone who does not pray to you will have a date with a den of lions. Embedded within this speech act is a none-too-subtle lure for Darius: the king will be a de facto Deity for thirty days. Naturally, the expositor observes that this pseudo-deity status is anathema to Daniel, thus setting up the first measure of loyalty to king or God.

Finally, in Dan 6:9, the author returns to the directive speech act, where the conspirators attempt to move Darius to seal the deal. The expositor will concentrate on the conspirator’s attempt to get Darius to make this bill iron-clad: establish it, sign it, so that it cannot be changed and is irrevocable. The directive speech act is the schemer’s attempt to lock Daniel into an escape proof trap. This is the second measure of loyalty facing Daniel: the law of the land or Yahweh.

Reflection. There can be little doubt that, reading Dan 6:7-10 from a believer’s perspective, the clash between conflicting loyalties, the law of the land or God, is alive and well. To put the same thing another way, the tension between the Law of God and the law of the Medes and the Persians is as inevitable as it is ongoing; believers simply cannot avoid it. There are some entailments arising out of this unavoidable clash.

First, believers should not seek to escape this conflict. It simply will not do to compartmentalize one’s Christian life into water-tight partitions, such as Church or State. It simply will not do to concentrate exclusively on one’s private Christian life and let the state, the laws of the land, or even politics, go their merry way. Daniel’s response prefigures something Jesus insisted upon: His people are “the light of the world,” the “salt of the earth;” believers cannot abdicate their public responsibility to leaven their social environment with the truth of God’s word.

Second, believers must not compromise with this conflict. It simply will not do to wage spiritual battles with political weapons. It simply will not do to waste time countering God-defying laws of the land by voting for the proper political candidate or supporting a countervailing piece of legislation. We shall note Daniel’s response in the next section, Dan 6:11; for now, it is sufficient to note that Daniel did not even attempt to offset Darius’ ill-conceived law by seeking legal redress. Quite the opposite; the believer is obligated to wage spiritual battles with spiritual weapons. Effectively, this means bringing transcendent

169 On the directive speech act, see Searle, 13. 170 Ibid., 14.

32


moral values, derived from expository study of and prayerful theological reflection upon Scripture, to bear in public moral discourse. When all is said and done, the conflict between God-defying laws of the land and the holy Word of God is a conflict of competing moralities; the believer is obligated to challenge these “secular” moralities with reasoned, seasoned, and scripturally based counter-arguments; in a nutshell, we must insist on talking about the God of the Bible publically.

IV. Narrative of Daniel’s response to Darius’ decree [Dan 6:11]

6:11a So, as soon as Daniel knew that the written decree was signed,

6:11b he entered his house,6:11c where windows were open on his roof chamber

facing Jerusalem;6:11d three times during the day, he prayed upon his knees,6:11e imploring and praising in the presence of God,6:11f just as he had been doing before this.

The genre of Dan 6:11 is narrative, a historical account of the events that followed Darius’ signing his law of the Medes and the Persians. The author intends to communicate history for us, a “narrative of past events that are governed by facts, as far as the writer could ascertain and interpret them.”171

Dan 6:11a is a temporal clause introduced by : as soon as.172 The author intends to communicate the immediacy with which Daniel responds to the signing of the bill. Knowing just what was at stake, his personal, ethical dilemma, Daniel is attracted toward familiar ground: prayer. Baldwin makes a very pertinent observation, “If the possibility occurred to him that he could change his prayer routine, or pray without appearing to do so, it was dismissed as out of the question.”173

Dan 6:11c informs us that the windows on Daniel’s roof were open … facing Jerusalem. If there is a precedent for facing Jerusalem in prayer, it is Solomon’s pattern in 1 Kings 8.174 Slotki writes, “The custom, firmly established among Jews, of praying towards the holy city, originated in Solomon’s prayer.”175 That Jews followed this practice during the exile is made clear in 1 Esdras 4:58. The reader

171 Collins, FOTL, 110. 172 For used temporally, see Rosenthal § 86; Bauer-Leander § 70 t. 173 Baldwin, 128-29.

174 1 Kings 8:30, 35, 42, 44, 48, 54. 175 Slotki, 49.

33


should appreciate the faith, the hope, and the love implied in praying toward Jerusalem. Indeed, Jerusalem lay in ruins, but Daniel’s faith could not relinquish the hope that Jerusalem would eventually be restored; Jerusalem lay in ruins, but the devastated city was still the earthly symbol of every heavenly blessing that Daniel loved.

Dan 6:11d discloses two of the details of Daniel’s prayer life: [1] three times during the day [2] he prayed upon his knees.

Three times a day [ ] is possibly reminiscent of Psalm 55:18: evening, morning and noon. At the same time, the author of Psalm 119 mentions prayer seven times a day [Psalm 119:164]. Goldingay writes that the “times of morning and evening offerings were the regular hours for prayer.”176 What all of this suggests is that Daniel disciplined his prayer life, probably according to his own personal preference. The upshot is that prayer is a regular feature of Daniel’s daily life.

He prayed upon his knees [ ] is suggestive of Daniel’s submission and self-abnegation. Williams notes that “in the preponderance of places where prayer is mentioned in the Old Testament, the posture is that of standing.”177 Kneeling in prayer was the model followed by Solomon in the aforementioned passage in 1 Kings 8:54; it may be that Daniel derives the posture of his prayer from the Solomonic model. If so, then supplication is embodies in kneeling in the Solomonic prayer. In Ezra 9:5-6, kneeling before Yahweh in prayer epitomizes shame and self-mortification before Yahweh. And, in Isaiah 45:23, kneeling symbolizes loyalty and allegiance to Yahweh. The upshot is this: kneeling in prayer before God embodies a variety of attitudes: petition, humility, and fidelity to Yahweh.

In Dan 6:11e, the author discloses another trait of Daniel’s prayer life: imploring and praising. In the Aramaic text, both of these activities are written with participles: imploring [ (Pael, participle, ms, sg)] and praising [ (Aphel, participle, ms, sg)]. The reader may infer that these participles signal an ongoing and habitual emphasis in Daniel’s prayer routine.178

Imploring [] is from an Aramaic root that means “to pray,” possibly with hints, if the Akkadian cognate is taken into account, of “beseech, implore.”179 The Aramaic verb is used only twice in the Aramaic Old Testament, here and Ezra 6:10. The Ezra passage advises prayer [] for the life of the king and his sons, prayers that might well involve beseeching or imploring Yahweh on behalf of these worthies.

Imploring [] is used more extensively in the Dead Sea Scrolls; especially helpful is the use of in the Genesis Apocryphon. In this collection of stories concerning, among others, Abraham and Sarah, the Qumran author embellishes some of the details of the couple’s sojourn in Egypt in Genesis 12. That portion of the Egyptian adventure that the author embroiders is the Egyptian’s fascination with the beauty of Sarah.

We pick the story up in the Apocryphon where the Egyptian pharaoh takes Sarah for himself. Not knowing what else to do, Abraham prays and asks God to intervene. The key passage for our purpose is 1Q20:12.180 As the reader can see from the translation below, is used in concert with other words for

176 Goldingay, 128. 177 William Williams, “,” NIDOTTE [H1384]. 178 See Rosenthal § 177. 179 KB2, 1964. 180 1Q20:12 –

That very night, I implored, I sought, I pleaded for pity, and said in my deep grief, while my tears flowed: “Blessed are You, Most High God, Lord of everything.”

34


prayer that stress beseeching and imploring, including pleading for pity; thus, the Dead Sea author has Abraham virtually begging for mercy. Indeed, Abraham’s emotional state, “deep grief, tears flowing,” practically demands that the prayer language mirrors the supplicant’s heartfelt longing.

The net effect is that imploring [] in Daniel’s setting does not differ much from Abraham in the apocryphal account of his sojourn in Egypt: both are in an impossible situation and both must plead, beseech, entreat, earnestly implore Yahweh’s intervention; otherwise, there is no way out. If this is true, then the author relating Daniel’s predicament uses a word for prayer that reflects Daniel’s quandary at the time: Daniel must implore God to intervene in the impasse Daniel fully understands is his. Daniel is not going to challenge Darius and the law of the Medes and the Persians on his own strength.

Praising [] in written in the Aphel stem, which Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:11 with “praise.”181 The Hebrew cognate [] is from a semantic field of terms for “praise, singing, thanksgiving.”182 To the extent that this Hebrew/Aramaic verb has connotations of “praise, singing, and thanksgiving,” offers a positive supplement to the “imploring” language in the previous depiction of Daniel’s prayer life; the former term, imploring, suggests circumstances that are ominous, while the latter term, praising, suggests circumstances that are more praiseworthy.

Beyond this, in Hebrew does offer a slightly different nuance to “praise,” introducing the element of confession. Kohler-Baumgartner offer three ranges of meaning for the Hebrew cognate: [1] to praise God, [2] to confess one’s sin, and [3] to begin praise and thanksgiving.183 Leslie Allen affirms that “primarily refers to an acknowledgement.”184 Westermann also notes the two meanings of : praise and confess. He concludes that “the concept that binds the two meanings could be rendered ‘to acknowledge’ or ‘to confess;’ we could speak of a ‘confession of praise.’”185 G. Mayer, discussing , avers that “the fundamental meaning is ‘confess.’”186 He further notes that has two basic usages in the Old Testament: [1] confession of praise and [2] penitential confession.187

As far as the Hebrew cognate is concerned, connotes acknowledgment or confession. To the extent that acknowledgement/confession has a bearing on the usages in Daniel, we may conclude that signals a confession of praise.

In the Hebrew Bible, the confession of praise directed to Yahweh is occasioned when the confessor acknowledges either [1] who Yahweh is, as God or [2] what Yahweh has done to bless His children. The psalmist takes the lead in confessions of praise for who Yahweh is: His righteousness [Psalm 7:17], His holy name [Psalm 30:4], His truthful Word and His faithfulness [Psalm 33:2-4], and His goodness and His love that endures forever [Psalm 106:1].

The psalmist also confesses his praise of Yahweh when the poet remembers and acknowledges what Yahweh has done to bless the poet: Yahweh turns back the enemy [Psalm 9:1-3], Yahweh brings victory [Psalm 18:49], Yahweh is strength and shield [Psalm 28:7], savior [Psalm 42:5], Yahweh gathers His people from the nations [Psalm 106:47], and Yahweh performs wonderful deeds for men [Psalm 107:8].

181 KB2, 1888; similarly, BDB, 1095; Holladay, 407. 182 See “Praise, singing, thanksgiving” in NIDOTTE. 183 KB2, 389. 184 Leslie Allen, “,” in NIDOTTE [H3344].

185 Claus Westermann, “,” in TLOT 2, 503. 186 G. Mayer, “,” in TDOT, vol. V, 427. 187 Ibid., 431-39.

35


The reader can easily understand how Daniel could appropriate these two elements of the confession of praise – acknowledging who Yahweh is and what Yahweh has done to bless – in his moment of need; as Daniel implores Yahweh for His intervention, he also confesses who and what Yahweh is.

Praising [] appears twice in the Aramaic section of Daniel [Dan 2:23; 6:11]. In the former passage, Daniel uses himself and disambiguates it with , which is used in the sense of prayers of thanksgiving. In Dan 2:23, the acknowledgment in is appreciative praise for Yahweh having revealed the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar’s vision. In this case, Daniel’s confession of praise acknowledges what Yahweh has just done to intervene in Daniel’s crisis at that moment. In the case of Dan 6:11, the confession of praise for what Yahweh does is more anticipatory; based upon what Yahweh has done in Daniel’s life up to that point, the prophet anticipates that Yahweh will continue to prove faithful.

One final point may be made regarding the word pair: imploring and praising. The reader intuits that these two terms are opposites in some sense; they are at opposite ends of some scale. Indeed, they are opposites, or more exactly, these two actions are satisfactives. Cruz defines satisfactive opposites this way: “one term denotes an attempt to do something [emphasis mine] and the other denotes successful performance [emphasis mine].”188 In the case of Dan 6:11, imploring is the attempt; praising is the satisfaction. The reader can appreciate the hope, the faith, the confidence, the courage implicit in the way the writer uses these opposites. To be sure, if the nuance in the following line is correct, then imploring-praising was a more or less settled way of praying for Daniel.

Finally, in Dan 6:11f, the author informs us of Daniel’s set habit of prayer: just as he had been doing before this.

Just as [ ] is actually a causal indicator;189 the sense becomes: Daniel knelt in prayer [Dan 6:11d], imploring and praising [Dan 6:11e], because [ ] this is what he had been doing all along. The reader should appreciate the subtlety here: Dan 6:11f is not a sporadic prayer driven by the crisis of the moment, rather Dan 6:11f is ultimately Daniel’s regular habit of prayer that happens to coincide with a critical moment in Daniel’s life.

He had been doing [ ] is a participial clause, used as a narrative tense190: had been doing. The time frame implicit in the participle is more or less open-ended: Daniel had a disciplined and well-organized, methodical prayer life.

Before this [ ] amounts to an adverbial construction: “formerly.”191 This adverb confirms that Dan 6:11 testifies to Daniel’s routine pattern in his prayer life.

Summary.

Dan 6:11a is an assertive speech act whereby the author intends to represent the historical truth at this moment in the narrative; the words the author uses fit precisely the steps Daniel took in this moment of crisis: thrust into an ethical and legal impasse, Daniel is attracted toward time-honored ground: prayer. The reader should appreciate that, in taking this step, Daniel knows that he is sideways of the law of the land. Unruffled and undeterred, Daniel quietly resists the law of the land and “carried on as he was

188 Cruz, 202. 189 Bauer-Leander § 70 g. 190 Rosenthal § 177. 191 Bauer-Leander § 68 v.

36


accustomed to do with his private devotions.”192 The truth in this speech act is that Daniel is, in fact, breaking the law of the land; but, as Dan 6:11 impressively demonstrates, Daniel’s conscience is taken captive by the Law of God; everything else would have been marginal. Finally, there may well be more in this speech act than meets the eye. We have mentioned before that writers [and speakers for that matter] use language to do things with words; beyond that, writers also use what they write to produce certain effects in the reader, including outcomes in the reader’s beliefs.193 The reader may ponder the following: by making Daniel’s resistance a matter of the historical record, the author seeks to inspire the reader to do the same under similar circumstances.

Dan 6:11c is another assertive speech act; the author intends to faithfully and accurately depict the physical circumstances in which Daniel routinely prays, facing Jerusalem. Moreover, as above, there may be a deeper implication: by informing us that Daniel’s windows faced Jerusalem, the author may be attempting to inspire us. That is by Dan 6:11c, the author may intend to communicate a belief of Daniel’s that is worthy of emulating. Specifically, the reader must surely be inspired by the faith, the hope, and the love implied in praying toward Jerusalem. For, as we know, Jerusalem lay in ruins, but Daniel’s faith could not abandon the hope that Jerusalem would eventually be restored. Inspired by his love for a virtually non-existent city, Daniel hopes in Yahweh; for, without a doubt, Daniel believes Yahweh to be the Lord of human history, appearances to the contrary. The upshot is: Daniel 6:11c not only edifies, it also inspires.

Dan 6:11d-e deal with the same topic: Daniel’s prayer life; accordingly, we shall consider both versets together. There are three components mentioned in Daniel’s prayer life: [1] Daniel prayed three times a day; [2] Daniel knelt in prayer; and [3] Daniel both implored and praised God.

Dan 6:11d is an assertive speech act, the author informing us, as a matter of truth, that Daniel was in the habit of praying three times a day. The words in the author’s narrative fit exactly what Daniel actually did as a matter of routine. We have noted that Daniel may have taken his model for praying three times a day from Psalm 55; at the same time, there is Psalm 119 that mentions prayer seven times a day; and as a matter of the nuts and bolts of worship, prayer twice a day seems to have been the norm. Is there a larger message here? Possibly; we have noted that writers often intend to accomplish things in the reader beyond informing them of the facts; there may be an interest in producing a specific effect in the reader. In this case, the desired effect may be that of regular, disciplined prayer, regardless of the circumstances, critical or otherwise, in the life of the one who goes before God in prayer.

Dan 6:11d is also an assertive speech act that commits the author to this description of Daniel’s physical posture in prayer as actually being the case; we may take it that kneeling in prayer would have been the norm for Daniel. As we noted above, Daniel could have been taking his cue from Solomon in 1 Kings 8:54. At the same time, there is far more here than rote and ritual, for the posture of kneeling symbolizes the supplicant’s attitude before Yahweh in the moment of praying. That is, kneeling personifies a sense of unworthiness in the presence of the holy and righteous God; kneeling embodies submission to the regnant will of God, for it is God’s part to will, it is man’s part to yield; and kneeling incarnates loyalty and allegiance to Yahweh alone. One can easily grasp what kneeling communicates to God in this particular sweet hour of prayer: submission to His law in a land controlled by the law of the Medes and the Persians, and unwavering allegiance to God alone in a land presided over by uninspired leaders who kowtow before a dictator.

Now, the reader instinctively discerns a perlocutionary effect embedded in this assertive speech act: by informing us of the symbolism behind Daniel’s posture in prayer, the writer may be trying to convince us to adopt the same attitudes.

Take unworthiness for example. Like Daniel whose marvelous prayer in Daniel 9 opens with a moving statement of his and his people’s unworthiness, we must always remember that even when crises of

192 Russell, Daniel, 101-02. 193 See Pratt, 81.

37


conscience emerge in our personal world, even when we think that we alone are standing for the faith, we must remember that with all of that, tangible and terrible as it is, we are still unworthy. Like Daniel, we should resist the tendency to equate suffering with self-importance; we are unworthy in any circumstance.

Or take submission as another example. Like Daniel whose inflexible refusal to accede to the law of the land when that law unambiguously countermanded the law of God, we also must remember that neither compromise nor escapism nor rationalization nor pragmatism nor tolerance nor approval count for much; rather like Daniel we must resist the temptation to cave in to the secularizations in society, especially that form of secularization that places all of its hopes for a brighter tomorrow in the law of the Medes and the Persians. Like Daniel, we should resist the temptation to surrender our ideals to the noise of the crowd; we are commissioned with submission in any eventuality.

Or, take allegiance to God alone as the final example. Like Daniel whose understanding of the

Persian state did not put the state on a par with God, did not view the state as God’s earthly counterpart, did not idolize the state, making it a virtual deity, and certainly did not relegate to the Persian state prerogatives that belonged to God alone, we also must acknowledge that Daniel anticipates what Jesus would eventually make explicit: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render to God the things that are God’s” [Matthew 22:21]. We must determine to live out our single-minded loyalty to God, which means, among other things, resolving that the affairs of the state and the business of God are not of equal value;194 we must undertake to live as if it is God alone that is final, conclusive, ultimate, absolute, not the state, not politics, not humanly crafted legislation or deftly nuanced court decisions, not democracy, not the Constitution, not the “founders” of the nation, valuable these may be. Like Daniel, we should resist the temptation to “give Caesar more that his due” and resolve to “give him nothing that belongs to God!”195 Taking allegiance to God alone seriously means yielding to the divine claim and demand on the sum total of our being, which implies rejecting the idea that the state and politics are everything.

Dan 6:11e is yet another assertive speech act wherein the author undertakes to represent the state of Daniel’s prayer life a bit further. We may take it as axiomatic that linking pleading with praise was more or less a normal part of the nuts and bolts of Daniel’s prayer life.

Daniel must plead, beseech, entreat, earnestly implore Yahweh’s intervention; otherwise, there is no way out. Daniel must implore God to intervene in the impasse Daniel fully understands is now his. Notice that Daniel does not appeal to the highest legal authority in the land, Darius, to redress this impasse; Daniel does not seek an out somewhere in the legal precedents of Persia; Daniel does not give as good as he gets, playing “gotcha” politics with his adversaries; rather, Daniel pleads with Yahweh for His intervention.

What is more, Daniel must also praise Yahweh, in the sense of acknowledgment or confession. As a matter of prayerful devotion, Daniel is acknowledging who Yahweh is, as God and what Yahweh has done to bless Daniel up to this point in Daniel’s life. Yahweh is the secure anchor of his soul, especially in this time of crisis. Indeed, in the case of Daniel, imploring is his attempt to place his impasse before Yahweh; praising is his faith that a satisfactory answer will be forthcoming. The reader can appreciate the hope, the faith, the confidence, the courage implicit in the way the writer pairs imploring with praise. As noted above, Daniel’s confidence is not in the Persian legal system, Daniel’s assurance rests with Yahweh; Daniel’s confidence is not in the support of the best and the brightest in Persian, Daniel’s trust resides in Yahweh; and Daniel’s certainty does not reside in no-holds-barred political infighting, Daniel places his faith in Yahweh.

194 On this point, see Oscar Cullman, The State in the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), 35.

195 Ibid., 36.

38


Reflection.

In both Daniel 3 and Daniel 6, there is at least one common thread: resistance to a law of the land that clearly and unambiguously defies the revealed will of Yahweh. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego refused to worship an idol, since this was obviously contrary to the will of God; Daniel also refused to pray to or through anyone other than Yahweh. It is difficult not to conclude that, since God is sovereign Lord of the national and international political lives of men and nations, when a political or legal conflict arises, the difference must be decided in the favor of Yahweh; in short: resist.

Take the matter of prayer in our public schools in America. Evangelicals continue to whine over the lack of public prayer in our schools. In an effort to redress this perceived miscarriage, many evangelicals demand legal permission, from local school boards or the courts, to have communal prayer somewhere on school property. Here is the fly in the ointment: Daniel did not seek state permission to pray; he simply prayed “just as he had been doing before.” He resisted the law of the Medes and the Persians because the law of the land demanded for itself an authorization that belonged exclusively to Yahweh. What is there to prohibit a middle school student from uttering a silent and private prayer before an exam? What is there to prohibit a high school student from uttering a silent and private prayer before a meal in the lunchroom? What is there to prohibit a college student from uttering a silent and private prayer before a class lecture? The key is to resist the phony notion that believers must have state sanction to pray in public; they do not; rather, believers are authorized by God to pray where and when they deem fit.

Or, take the matter of the Bible in our public schools. Once more, evangelicals lament the removal of the Bible from the classroom. Especially prominent is discarding the Ten Commandments from public places. Once more, believers must resist the bogus idea that Scripture in public places demands state approval; it does not. For, the only place that Yahweh ever said that He wanted to write His law was on the hearts of mankind [Ezekiel 36:27; Hebrews 10:16]. Now, obviously, once the Spirit of God has written the law upon the heart of a believer, that believer can carry that Scripture into any public place whatsoever. What is there to prohibit a believer from silently and privately reciting in the heart some memorized passage of Scripture? Answer: nothing at all!

These two issues open up a final question: will privatizing prayer and the Bible mean that we simply let our nation free fall into deeper degeneracy? One can almost hear the rejoinder: “But, we have to do something! This country is going to hell in a hand basket! Do we just sit back, do nothing and let them go?” The answer is “No” on two levels: legislation and teaching.

First, evangelicals must resist the temptation to enlist the state in the missionary enterprise of the church. To be sure, it would be speedier if we could simply pass a law that prayer on public premises was legal; it would be more sweeping, touching the nation at one fell swoop, if we could simply pass a law that Scripture in public places was legal; but the scriptural truth of the matter is that neither prayer nor the Bible fall under the aegis of Caesar; these matters are to be rendered to God on God’s terms. One almost imagines that evangelicals have been unwilling to fulfill the missionary assignment of the church by “going into the entire world, making disciples … teaching them to obey everything I [Jesus] have commanded you [Matthew 28:20],” preferring instead to work for new laws.

Second, the missionary task of the church is neither political nor legal; we must resist the temptation to replace teaching with legislating as a means of bringing humans under the sway of the will of God. The people of God are called upon to witness in the public square by whatever means at our disposal, not legislate; the people of God are tasked with presenting Scripturally reasoned responses to the seemingly unending cascade of secular challenges to the will of God, not legislate; the people of God are charged with giving a reason for the hope that is within them, one person at a time or one issue at a time, not legislate.

V. Narrative of Daniel’s denunciation by the conspirators [Dan 6:12-19]

A. Daniel is discovered in prayer to Yahweh [Dan 6:12]

39


6:12a So, the, these men came as a group,6:12b and they found Daniel;6:12c petitioning and imploring in the presence of God.

Dan 6:12 ratchets up the drama in the narrative; this is the “gotcha” moment, and the author uses a narrative genre, to write the history of the moment in the narrative. The expositor may infer that the author intends to present this brief passage as historical fact.

For came as a group, see the notes on in Dan 6:7a.

Petitioning and imploring [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg) (Peal, participle, ms, sg)] uses different terminology from that in Dan 6:11e. The first participle, /petitioning, is taken directly from the legal statute as proposed in Dan 6:8c. The logic behind choosing in Dan 6:12c is reasonably clear: the conspirators were looking for a violation of the law [Dan 6:8c], and they found it [Dan 6:12c]. The second participle, /imploring, is used only here in Daniel 6. At the very least, the shift in terminology is occasioned by the author’s intention to make the law of the Medes and the Persians the lever in the hands of the conspirators.

Petitioning [], as we noted above [Dan 6:8], has five ranges of usage: [1] one human being searches after another human being; [2] one human being searches for a favor from another human being; [3] one human searches for compassion from God or a deity (i.e., petitioning); [4] one human searches for some defect in another; and [5] one human searches for an answer to a mystery from a heavenly being. In Dan 6:8, was used in both senses 2 and 3; in Dan 6:12c, the trap is sprung: sense 2 is excluded since Daniel is petitioning in sense 3 alone, which is prohibited by law. Daniel is caught red-handed resisting the law of the land.

Imploring [] is found among a semantic field of terms for grace or favor.196 The author writes in the Hithpaal stem, which is probably reflexive in this instance.197 D.N. Freedman and J.R. Lundbom note that in Dan 6:12c means that “Daniel dutifully seeks Yahweh’s favor despite the royal decree.”198 Now, from Daniel’s point of view, this is undeniably the case: Daniel implores Yahweh’s favor for himself; but, from the point of view of the conspirator’s point of view, the reflexive could carry the nuance: Daniel implores Yahweh’s favor for himself.199

This latter point may help explain the difference in terminology between Dan 6:11e and 6:12c. That is, in Daniel 6:11e, the author presents Daniel as imploring [] in the sense of pleading, beseeching, entreating, earnestly imploring Yahweh’s to extricate him from an impossible trap; otherwise, there is no way out. The emphasis in Dan 6:11e is more upon the impasse, which only Yahweh can resolve. However, if the reflexive Hithpaal is used as suggested, self-interest is what emerges; this may be the author’s way of describing the motives of the conspirators: having been caught petitioning [] in a completely illegal fashion, Daniel is now imploring [] out of concern for his own self-regard.

B. The conspirators snitch to Darius [Dan 6:13-14]

196 See “Grace, favor” in NIDOTTE. 197 Bauer-Leander § 76 u.

198 D.N. Freedman and J.R. Lundbom, “,” in TDOT, vol. V, 32. 199 For the nuances in usage of the Hithpael in Hebrew, see Williams, § 152-54.

40


1. The conspirators remind Darius of the law of the land [Dan 6:13a-f]

6:13a Immediately, they approached, and spoke to the king concerning the royal statute:

6:13b “Did you not sign a statute,6:13c that any man who petitions any god or man,6:13d for thirty days,6:13e except from you, O king,6:13f must be cast into a den of lions?”

Once more, the genre of this paragraph, Dan 6:13-14, is narrative, relating yet another event in the sequence of events that make up the history of this legendary tale. The expositor is entitled to infer that the author intends his account to be taken at face value.

Immediately [] is a straightforward translation of the particle adverb200, reflecting what must have been the instantaneousness with which they pursued their case before Darius. Having caught their quarry in their trap, they would have wasted no time in pressing their case before the king.

In Dan 6:13b, the author formulates the conspirator’s opening salvo to the king in the form of a rhetorical question201 – Did you not? In this case, the rhetorical question is in effect making a statement that Darius cannot contest.202 Not only is Daniel at the mercy of the law of the Medes and the Persians, so also is the chief Persian, Darius. This entrapment is the focal point of Dan 6:13.

Statute [], which was in fact a legal prohibition; see the notes on Dan 6:8.

Petition [] was discussed in Dan 6:8.

2. Darius assents [Dan 6:13g-i]

6:13g The king replied and said:6:13h “The statement is certainly true according to the law

of the Medes and Persians,6:13i which cannot be annulled.”

In Dan 6:13h, the author captures the unequivocal nature of Darius’ reply: the statement is certainly true. Actually, the author phrases this sentence [Dan 6:13h] in the form of a verbless clause, literally: certainly true [ (adjective, fm, sg)] – the statement [ (definite article, noun, fm, sg)]. This verbless clause may be read as presenting the “given” in this verbless clause, “the statement” in this case and the “new” element, the focus element, “certainly true” in this case.203 The word order in Dan 6:13h supports the contention that the focus of Dan 6:13h is “certainly true,” since this adjective is front-loaded.

Certainly true [] is an adjective that describes what is “well established,” according to Kohler-Baumgartner in Dan 6:13h.204 This adjective has some enlightening cognates; in Jewish Aramaic, the root refers to what is “certain, true, irrefutable;” in Imperial Aramaic and Egyptian Aramaic, the root

200 Bauer-Leander § 68 a. 201 Ibid., § 103 f. 202 On this function of the rhetorical question, see Christo H.J. van der Merwe, Jackie A. Naud,

and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000; reprint), 322 [hereafter abbreviated van der Merwe].

203 See Miller, 330. 204 KB2, 1893.

41


depicts what is “valid.”205 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion uses the Greek adjective, , which means “in accordance with truth” in Dan 6:13.206 The upshot is that Darius acknowledges that conspirator’s recollection of the force of the new bill is irrefutable.

Which cannot be annulled [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg) ] is a relative clause that describes the legalistic frame that surrounds Darius and Daniel. Once more, the language used by Darius reflects that of the original law [Dan 6:9 (see the notes there)], this bill cannot be dissolved or rescinded.

3. The conspirators spring the trap and denounce Daniel [Dan 6:14]

6:14a Immediately, they responded and said to the king:6:14b “Daniel, one of the sons of the exile from Judah,6:14c does not show proper deference to you, O king,6:14d or for the statute you signed;6:14e indeed, three times a day,6:14f he makes his petition.”

The conspirators waste no time in springing the trap on Daniel, and Darius for that matter. First, they characterize Daniel anthropologically [“one of the sons of the exile from Judah” (Dan 6:14b)]; then, they level the allegation [“does not show proper deference” (Dan 6:14c)]; and finally they offer the authentication [“three times a day, he makes his petition” (Dan 6:14e-f)].

In Dan 6:14b, the conspirators spin Daniel’s character in terms of his ethnicity: “a son of the exile, from Judah.” This may indicate some anti-Semitism; at the very least, the assertion is a snub. Indeed, when Daniel came before Belshazzar [Dan 5:13], Belshazzar used this terminology [“one of the exiles from Judah”] as a slur on Daniel.

Exile [] is an Aramaic noun that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:14 with “deportation, exile.”207 The verbal form of the root, , appears twice in the Aramaic section of the OT, once in Ezra 4:10 and the other in Dan 5:12, where the verb describes those who are “led off into exile.”208

The Hebrew cognates are similar to the Aramaic: [verb], [noun], and [noun]. The Hebrew verb in the Qal stem means: “be exiled, go into exile,” and the participles in the Qal depict “one who goes into exile, diaspora, (the state of) exile;” the Pual stem means “to be exiled;” the Hiphil stem means “to take into exile;” and the Hophal stem means “to be exiled.”209 The Hebrew feminine noun, , refers to either “exiles” or “a state of exile.”210 The other Hebrew noun, , is used as an abstract noun pointing to “exiles” or the “state of exile.”211

In the Hebrew Bible, the exilic vocabulary is used in a variety of contexts; at times, the reasons for the exile are to the fore [Isa 5:13; Ezek 12:3]; in other contexts, the calamities associated with the exile are the point [Jer 13:9; 20:4]; in several contexts, the promise of restoration from exile is assured [Jer 24:1-6; 27:20-22]; then Ezra underlines the fact of sin after the exile [Ezra 9:2-4; 10:6].

205 Ibid., 1892-93. 206 BAGD, 37. 207 KB2, 1845. 208 Ibid. 209 CDCH, 67. 210 Ibid.

211 Ibid.

42


For our purposes, justifying the use of “exile” as a pejorative as the conspirators seem to be doing [Dan 6:14b], we may consider the shame and ignominy associated with the exile, disgrace that the public in the ancient Near East would surely have assumed. The exile is associated with powerlessness [Isa 22:8], moral contempt [Isa 22:14], despair and gloom [Isa 24:11; 38:12; Hos 10:5; Micah 1:16], national guilt [Isa 26:21; 47:3; Ezek 16:37], rejection [Isa 49:21], and affliction [Lam 1:3].

In sum, “one of the sons of the exile” presumes at Daniel’s subjection as a foreigner in Persian culture; that Daniel has been a captive in Babylon and now in Persia presumes disgrace for having been deported from Judah in the first place; that Daniel was exiled supposes that he and his people had been abandoned by their God. To be sure, this shame and ignominy as an undercurrent may be assumed, even though, as we have seen thus far in Daniel, the deportees have lived a fairly decent life. At the same time, there are wheels within wheels, and Dan 3:8, 12; 5:30; 6:4-6; and now 6:14 all intimate that Daniel’s and his nation’s fall from God’s favor were not lost on his adversaries. As Young points out, the conspirators “describe Daniel as an exile, rather than as an appointed head over the presidents and satraps;”212 this is not by accident. Goldingay concludes that “the hint of anti-Semitism may be stronger here than it was in vv 4-6.”213 This ethnic bias may help support the allegation the conspirators will make.

In Dan 6:14c, the conspirators use the slur against the person of Daniel [Dan 6:14b] to pave the way for the allegation: “he does not show proper deference.” Daniel is charged with not paying much attention to either Darius of his law.

Deference [ (noun, ms, sg)] is a noun that has different ranges of meaning: [1] “understanding, discretion, tact, attention, heed;” [2] “command, influence;” [3] “advice, report.”214 Kohler-Baumgartner opt for [1], “pay attention to, heed.”215 BDB goes with “show proper deference to.”216 Robert O’Connell also renders in Dan 6:14 with “pay attention to.”217 J. Schpphaus concurs, translating in Dan 6:14 with to “pay heed to someone.” 218 Pter-Contesse and Ellington offer “pay no respect to, disregard, ignore.”219 Slotki notes that “the same accusation was made against Daniel’s three companions in Dan 3:12.”220 One wonders if this allegation is not possibly customary.

Strictly speaking, taken from Daniel’s point of view, the essence of the allegation rings true; Daniel is not deferring to Darius, and in effect Daniel is disregarding both the king and his law.

In Dan 6:14e-f, the conspirators support their allegation with their authorization for denouncing Daniel: “three times a day, he makes petition.”221 See the notes above on Dan 6:8.

Summary.

212 E.J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; reprint), 136. 213 Goldingay, 132.

214 KB2, 1885.

215 Ibid.

216 BDB, 1094. 217 Robert H. O’Connell, “,” in NIDOTTE [H3247].

218 J. Schpphaus, “,” in TDOT, vol. V, 346. 219 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 81. 220 Slotki, 50. 221 For the details on “making a petition,” see the notes on Dan 6:8.

43


Dan 6:14a is an assertive speech act in which the author intends to straightforwardly communicate the immediacy, the urgency with which Daniel’s adversaries moved to spring their trap. The sentence is frank and candid; the author intends that we understand the fact that these men wasted no time in reeling in Daniel.

In Dan 6:14b, the author shifts to what appears to be an evaluation of Daniel at best, a slur at

worst; to do so, the author employs an expressive speech act, as a means of signaling to the reader that Dan 6:14b is evaluative language. On the part of these conspirators, Dan 6:14b is an “autobiographical report”222: the sentence unpacks their way of looking at Daniel. This means that Dan 6:14b is expressive in the sense of disclosing the feelings of the conspirators about Daniel; especially germane is their reference to “the exile,” which serves as pejorative language. Finally, there is a behabitive-postural223 component in this speech act whereby the conspirators place Daniel “within a structure … ascribing status [my emphasis]” to Daniel with “no official authority to do so;” 224 Daniel is pigeonholed as an outsider, an “exile from Judah.” In a nutshell, this expressive speech act is a way of instilling prejudice in the mind of Darius by engaging in anti-Semitism.

In Dan 6:14c, the author reverts to the assertive speech act in order to stress with Darius the truth of this claim; they want to drive home the indictment in no uncertain terms that Daniel is not showing proper deference to either Darius or the law of the land. In Dan 6:14, this is the moment of denunciation; in this speech act, the conspirators intend that Darius realize that their words fit like a hand in a glove vis-à-vis Daniel’s disregard. Strictly speaking, the conspirators are correct: Daniel is neither submitting to the law of the land nor the man who signed it; the charge is not counterfeit, rather it is indisputable; Daniel is a blatant law-breaker.

Reflection.

Daniel’s immediate action, faced with a legally binding, duly signed and authorized, civil law, is to resist the law and carry on with his normal pattern. Daniel does not attack in any way, shape, or form; rather, he quietly and unobtrusively resists; Daniel does not compromise, he does not finagle some way out of his dilemma; on the contrary, Daniel unassumingly faces his moral challenge and resists; finally, Daniel certainly does not betray Yahweh; quite the reverse, Daniel heeds the voice of conscience, accepts the consequences, and inconspicuously resists.

In the early church, there were times when men of Christian conscience simply resisted the official constraints of the state, preferring to follow conscience. The famous example of Peter in Acts 5 is reminiscent of Daniel: charged by the authorities “not preach in the name” of Jesus [Acts 5:28], these very same authorities give eloquent witness to the Apostles’ blatant law-breaking saying, “you have filled Jerusalem with this teaching [Acts 5:28].” How does Peter respond? By laying bare his conscience; here is what warrants this blatant law-breaking: “We must obey God rather than man [Acts 5:29].” Russell finely summarizes the point, “There are occasions when ‘every person must be subject to the governing authorities’ (Rom. 13:1); there are others when ‘we ought to obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29). To distinguish between the two requires courage and faith.”225

222 Evans, 126.

223 Ibid., 127. 224 Ibid.

225 Russell, Daniel, 102.

44


The modern church serves in the shadow of the Apostles and the first century church, including the ever-present challenge of obeying the law of the land or betraying the cause of God. Like Daniel before Christ and Peter after Him, there are times when the believers must follow the dictates of conscience and resist a law that we know is contrary to the revealed will of God in Scripture. This last point is crucial: he or she who resists the law of the land must know precisely where that law defies the Law of God. Daniel knew that he was not permitted to have any other gods before Yahweh [Deut 5:7]; Peter and the Apostles knew that the Messiah had commanded them to go into all the world and preach [Matt 28:20]; so it is today, if we are to resist God-defying laws, then, from a conscience captured by Scripture, we must be able to cite chapter and verse in rebuttal. Otherwise, we are dealing in unsupportable anarchy, and this is not our calling.

C. Darius’ response to the denunciation [Dan 6:15]

6:15a As soon as the king heard the statement,6:15b it revolted him immensely,6:15c accordingly, he set his mind on delivering Daniel;6:15d so, until sunset,6:15e he was striving to rescue him.

The genre of this brief paragraph is narrative, which entitles the expositor to read the unit as history, divulging the facts concerning Darius’ response to the trap that both he and Daniel find themselves in. The paragraph discloses the personal impact on Darius, as well as his follow-up attempts to extricate Daniel from the setup.

In Dan 6:15b, the personal impact of this deception on Darius is exposed: “it revolted him immensely.” The word order in the Aramaic front loads the adverb, literally: “immensely, it revolted him.”

It revolted him [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is a clause that employs an Aramaic root [] that basically means “to stink;” in Dan 6:15b, Kohler-Baumgartner translate with “it displeases.”226 Rosenthal prefers “it grieved him.”227 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion uses in the passive voice, which means “become sad, sorrowful, distressed.”228 Liddell-Scott-Jones concur, offering “to be grieved, distressed.”229 All that said, Jenson makes a telling point vis-à-vis the figurative use of a root that refers to that which stinks physically: “The physical revulsion of a person to a stink is used metaphorically to indicate a strong disgust and revulsion [emphasis mine] for a person or a nation.”230 The net effect is that, preserving the figurative nuance in , adds nuance so that the sense is that Darius’ personal reaction to this entrapment was disgust and loathing, distaste and repulsion; there is less grief and distress in and more aversion, repugnance, even animosity; the entire affair had become odious to Darius. The odiousness may have extended to Darius’ distaste for his own part in this debacle; Driver translates Dan 6:15b, “was sore displeased with himself.”231 There may be a modicum of truth in this.

226 KB2, 1831; similarly, BDB, 1084; Holladay, 399.

227 Rosenthal, 80. 228 BAGD, 481.

229 LSJ, 1065.

230 P. Jenson, “,” in NIDOTTE [H944]. 231 Driver, Daniel, 75.

45


Immensely [] is an adverb that Kohler-Baumgartner translate “very much, exceptional.”232 BDB renders with “exceedingly.”233 The net effect is this: to the extent that Darius’ odium over this mess was exceptional, then Young’s summary may not be wide of the mark, “The folly of his action was now manifest, and Darius, like a trapped wild animal, striving to free itself, was struggling to deliver Daniel.”234

In Dan 6:15c, the author reveals the practical impact of this debacle from Darius’ perspective: “accordingly, he set his mind on delivering Daniel.” The word order in the Aramaic is once more different from what appears in the English translation: “Daniel, he set his mind on delivering.” The reasonable assumption here is that Daniel’s fate played on Darius’ mind; the author does not disclose Darius’ motives driving his focus on Daniel.

Accordingly is signaled by the simple waw [] prefixed to the opening word in Dan 6:15c; we might translate, “so that, he set his mind.”235 The syntactical point is that Darius’ disgust and revulsion [Dan 6:15b] has the net effect of determining to deliver Daniel [Dan 6:15c].

Set the mind [ (noun, ms, sg) (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is a collocation that appears only here in the Aramaic Old Testament. Overall, this collocation emphasizes “mental focusing on an issue.”236 Kohler-Baumgartner offer: “turn one’s mind to, give one’s attention to, be determined.”237 The corresponding collocation in the Hebrew Bible is: /set the heart. H.-J. Fabry places this Hebrew collocation in the realm of human voluntative function, an “activity of the will” that “engages in performative conceiving and planning.”238 The upshot of all of this is that Darius is absolutely determined to rectify the farce he has helped craft.

Delivering [] is written in the Shaphel stem, which is causative;239 Darius intends to effect a rescue.

Dan 6:15d details the time Darius spent in trying to extricate Daniel from this setup. Until sunset [ ] is a prepositional phrase, signaling a temporal nuance, “until.” This time frame is spent in attempting to rescue Daniel, and, at the same time, this temporal frame is also delaying Daniel’s sentencing.

In Dan 6:15e, the author shows us what Darius spent the rest of the day doing: “he was striving to rescue him.” Evidently, the rest of Darius’ day was a frantic one.

Striving [ (Hithpaal, participle, ms, sg)] is from an Aramaic root, , that appears only here in the Aramaic OT; there is no Hebrew cognate. Rosenthal translates the Hithpaal of with “to make

232 KB2, 1985. 233 BDB, 1113.

234 Young, 136. 235 For this use of the waw [] in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander § 70 d. 236 Sam Meier, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8492]. 237 KB2, 1834. 238 H.-J. Fabry, “,” in TDOT, vol. VII, 423. 239 Van Pelt, 151.

46


efforts.”240 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:15 with “strive.”241 BDB adds “struggle.”242 In the Septuagint tradition, Theodotion, translates with , which is used figuratively in the sense of “take pains, exert oneself, strain every nerve.”243 Montgomery comments that “‘striving’ is the picture of the animal caught in a trap.”244 The net effect is that, per Theodotion, Darius was straining every nerve to find a way to liberate Daniel; there is intensity, concentration, perhaps even desperation implied in the strenuousness of Darius’ efforts.

Summary.

In Dan 6:15b, the author uses an expressive speech act to disclose Darius’ attitude, his feelings, in the wake of the legal tangle in which he had placed himself and Daniel as well.245 The net effect of the expressive speech act is that it “involves a decision that certain words [“revolted” in this case] are most appropriate in the matter being considered.”246 What this alerts the reader/expositor to is that the author intends to underscore, highlight if you will, the nature of Darius’ response: the circumstances leading to the passing of this bill became disgusting and nauseating to him.

In Dan 6:15c, the author reverts to an assertive speech act whereby the author intends to factually represent the volitional effect this odious situation vis-à-vis Darius. The reader may assume historicity in Dan 6:15c. Specifically, the author intends that the reader/expositor takes careful note of the truth that Darius was wholly determined to find a way of extricating Daniel from his trap.

In Dan 6:15e, the author once more uses an assertive speech act to factually depict the strenuousness, almost the desperation, with which Darius endeavors to extricate Daniel; Darius was straining every nerve to find some way to disentangle Daniel from his snare. The reader might weigh and consider giving Darius some kudos here; after all, Darius did not simply shrug off this fiasco, rather he did bend every effort to redress it.

Reflection.

The reader of this paragraph notes that the author evidently does not intend that we, the readers, know anything about Darius’ motivations. The author tells us that Darius was revolted at this unmitigated disaster; but, the author does not tell us why. Also, the author tells us that Darius busted a gut for the rest of the day trying to find some way of escape for Daniel; again, the author does not tell us why.

The reader might reasonably guess that, owing to Dan 6:4, Daniel was being groomed to become Darius’ right hand man. Accordingly, this scheme to entrap Daniel, a scheme in which Darius was an unwitting player, threatened the execution of Darius’ eventual number two. If this estimation is even close, then Darius’ motives are largely self-interested. But, there is a caveat to imputing motives.247

240 Rosenthal, 97. 241 KB2, 1991.

242 BDB, 1114. 243 BAGD, 15.

244 Montgomery, 275. 245 For what I am calling “expressive” speech acts, see Evans under “onlooks,” 124-35.

246 Evans, 128. 247 In preaching and teaching the Word of God, it is wise to avoid preaching about motives that are

not part and parcel of the text under consideration. The biblical author’s intention in leaving the reader in the dark on motives is reasonable: what the author does write is the overriding matter for the sermon or lesson, not what the author omits. The preacher or teacher, by conjuring up motives that are not there, runs

47


For, when all is said and done about Darius’ motives, the fact is that, first, the author does not reveal them, and second, they really do not matter much. Regardless of his motives, Darius, by his own bungling, has tied his own hands; the deliverance of Daniel will require divine intervention, in the face of which Darius’ law and his motives are basically irrelevant. As we have noted in our study of Daniel, the power players in this world are beholden to the sovereign Lord of history, Yahweh; from the standpoint of the Master of the Universe, when He determines to redress politically inspired injustice, when innocent people suffer from malicious laws, legislator’s motives are marginal. The upshot is this: it is enough to know that this particular politician, Darius, placed himself in a thorny position by his own ill-considered law, period; as we shall see, the rest is up to Yahweh.

D. The conspirators press their case against Daniel [Dan 6:16-18]

1. The conspirators press the point of law [Dan 6:16]

6:16a Immediately, these men came as a group to the king;6:16b and they said to the king:6:16c “Know, O king,6:16d that [it is] a law of the Medes and Persians,6:16e that any statute or decree that the king establishes,6:16f is not to be frustrated.”

This paragraph is narrative, “an account of events or actions in sequential form.”248 There are three events in this sequence: [1] the conspirators press the point of law [Dan 6:16]; Darius is dragging his feet, from their point of view, and they intend to nudge Darius into action; [2] then, Darius relents, albeit reluctantly [Dan 6:17]; and finally, Daniel’s fate, humanly speaking is sealed [Dan 6:18]. The reader may infer that this sequence is historically accurate.

In Dan 6:16a, the author discloses the conspirator’s immediate reaction to Darius’ foot-dragging: “immediately, these men came as a group to the king.”

Immediately [] is an adverbial particle that signals immediacy or urgency. The author intends that the reader appreciates the strain, the pressure that the conspirators feel in the wake of the king’s dilly-dallying.

Came as a group [] translates a single verb, . The verb suggests more than simply entering in a crowd; as we have seen previously with this verb, has connotations of uneasiness, of excitement, of commotion and powerful desire.249 The interesting fact about the usage of this verb is that the author records these conspirators coming to Darius four times [Dan 6:7, 12, 13, 16], three of these times [Dan 6:7, 12, 16] the author uses . The point is that these conspirators seem to prefer to approach Darius en masse. Perhaps, the usage of in Dan 6:16a entails strength in numbers, the threat and sanction of the mob.

In Dan 6:16c, the conspirators make a pointed request of Darius: “Know, O king.” The author records that the conspirators address Darius in the imperative mode; this is a directive from them to him.

Know [ (Peal, imperative, ms, sg)] is written in the imperative mode, which makes the proposed act a directive. In Aramaic, the directive may carry the sense of a request or a wish;250 but surely Darius

the risk of missing the message that is there. 248 Collins, FOTL, 114. 249 See the notes on Dan 6:7. 250 See Bauer-Leander § 84 a-b.

48


knows as a matter of fact how the Persian legal system works. The point of the request may be to hide a hint of threat: “Know, O king (as we are sure you do!).” The conspirators are not asking Darius to remember what may have slipped is mind [for whatever reason], since Aramaic has a root for remember []. No, this is a request, nuanced in an appropriately respectful way, with an edge to it: a threat.

In Dan 6:16f, the conspirators sharpen the edge of their request; this law “is not to be frustrated.” This is the same verb used in Dan 6:9c. When we discussed at that time, we noted that BDB informs us that can convey the notion of “frustrate.”251 From the conspirator’s point of view, Darius’ foot-dragging has the net effect of frustrating the intent of this law of the Medes and the Persians, and the conspirators are not bashful about pointing out this fact; this is the implied threat alluded to above.

Dan 6:16c is a directive speech act, which is a way of using language in order to get someone, Darius in this case, to do something.252 When an inferior [the conspirators] addresses a superior [Darius the king of Persia], this social context demands that we read the directive as an attempt by his royal court to get Darius to act in accordance with the request. So far so good; but, as noted above this request is a cleverly nuanced threat: as the leading political authority in Persia, the conspirators know that Darius cannot afford to be perceived among the citizenry as dawdling and faltering on law enforcement, but, declares the thinly veiled threat, Darius’ shillyshallying is doing just that: frustrating the law of the land.

Dan 6:16f is an assertive speech act, whereby the author intends to communicate the facts of the case to this point. That point is this: the conspirators ever so gently nudge [threaten] Darius with the truth that, in Persia, the law of the land is not to be frustrated. Fair enough, but, as we noted earlier, one of the ways that humans use language in ordinary writing [or conversation for that matter] is to make an assertion and at the same time, intend to achieve certain effects in the reader [or listener]; this was referred to as the perlocutionary act in language use.253 The upshot is that in Dan 6:16f, in making the truth claim that the law of the Medes and the Persians is not to be frustrated, the conspirators are at the same time warning Darius to put a stop to it.

2. Darius relents, reluctantly [Dan 6:17]

6:17a Immediately, the king gave the command,6:17b and Daniel was brought forth,6:17c and he cast him into the lion’s den;6:17d [however] the king said to Daniel:6:17e “Your God, whom you serve continually,6:17f may He deliver you!”

The paragraph is a narrative genre, which means that the author intends to be read as writing a trustworthy, historical account of the events that occurred next. The events in Dan 6:17a-c follow one another in a more or less logical manner: [1] Darius utters a command (Dan 6:17a); [2] the command is fulfilled and Daniel is brought forth (Dan 6:17b); and then [3] Daniel is cast into the lion’s den (Dan 6:17c). So far, the narrative is fairly straightforward. But, a thunderbolt lurches in at the end of the narrative, a bit of a bombshell that catches the reader off guard: Darius offers a prayer for Daniel [Dan 6:17e-f]. The reader should note this surprising development well; there is something vital occurring here. For, the author offers the reader no evidence that Daniel prayed for himself; rather, what the author does tell us is that a pagan Persian dictator exercises some degree of faith in Daniel’s God, offering a prayer to Yahweh for Daniel.

Your God [] uses the second person singular pronominal suffix: Your God, which is further disambiguated with the second person: “whom you serve.” The function of the pronominal suffix in this

251 BDB, 1116; see the notes on Dan 6:9c, above. 252 Pratt, 80-81; Searle, Expression and Meaning, 13-14; Evans, 33. 253 Pratt, 81.

49


case is to signal relationship: your God whom you serve.254 To begin with, this indicates that Darius is not directly embracing a full-fledged acceptance of Daniel’s God; rather, Darius is hoping against hope that there may be something in Daniel’s God worthy of trust and hope. What all of this suggests is that even this meager faith on Darius’ part is to be respected. To begin with, the reader should recognize the fact that Yahweh has a witness, however dim and indistinct, among the elite ranks of Persian, polytheistic, political power-players. Like Nebuchadnezzar before him, Darius does in a vague and blurry way acknowledge Yahweh. But the unique development in Daniel 6 is this: this ember of faith, Darius’ faith, however hazy and faint it is, is the catalyst toward which the “evidence of God’s power can be expected.”255 Darius’ faith, in some shadowy way known only to Yahweh, plays a role in the rescue of Daniel later in the story. Indeed, Darius’ faith is sufficient to constrain him to repeat the gist of this prayer [Dan 6:17e-f] when an anguished Darius cries out for any response from Daniel at the lion’s den [Dan 6:21d-f]; Darius’ hope, such as it is [as we shall speculate later (Dan 6:21), Darius may be having second thoughts about his polytheism], does not abandoned him.

Whom you serve continually [ ] is a relative clause, serving to give more complex information about Daniel’s God from Darius’ perspective. How Darius could have known this is not specified; after all, Darius has had a fairly brief association with Daniel. We may conjecture that the legend of Daniel, as witnessed to in the earlier sections of Daniel, would have been well known in the royal precincts. At the same time, the expositor may entertain the proposition that Daniel’s prayer life, the subservience that has landed Daniel in the lion’s den, may be in the back of Darius’ mind as an example of Daniel’s continuous service to his God.

Serve [] is an Aramaic root that Rosenthal notes has two ranges of meaning: [1] to serve, and [2] to worship.256 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:17 with “to serve;” among the ancient Near Eastern cognates of , Mandaean has a cognate that means “serve, venerate,” while Akkadian has a similar cognate meaning “venerate.”257 BDB prefers “to pay reverence to”258 in Dan 6:17. The Septuagint traditions translate with the Greek verb . In Classical Greek, the verb means [1] to be in the servitude of, [2] to be subject to or enslaved to, [3] to serve, [4] to obey, [5] to be devoted to.259 Bauer adds that is used in the sense of serve “in our literature only of the carrying out of religious duties, especially of a cultic nature, by human beings.”260 The Dead Sea Scrolls have one use of in 4Q550c, which tends toward the idea of venerate.261 The upshot is this: it is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between as worship/venerate/fear and as serve/obey/be subject to, but, given that the Septuagint tips the scales in the latter direction, serve/obey/be subject to, it might be best to follow this sense. In this regard, Pter-Contesse and Ellington summarize that accentuates “the devotion and faithfulness of Daniel.”262

254 On this function of the pronominal suffix, see IBHS 16.4d. 255 Baldwin, 130. 256 Rosenthal, 94. 257 KB2, 1957. 258 BDB, 1108.

259 LSJ, 1032.

260 BAGD, 467. 261 The relevant line in 4Q550c is that in column 3, verse 1:

[Peal ptc] [Peal, ptc] The Most High whom you fear and venerate, He is master over all the earth.

262 Pter-Contesse and Ellington, 168.

50


Continually [] is a prepositional phrase used adverbially in the sense of “constantly.”263 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:17 with “continually,” pointing to an ancient Near Eastern cognate that means “persistent, continual, regular” in Jewish Aramaic.264 The net effect is that characterizes the consistency in Daniel’s service to his God. Perhaps Darius himself has had enough time with Daniel to observe his steadiness, his constancy, his stability in serving Yahweh. If nothing else, this does verify the usefulness of an unswerving devotion to God among pagans; it just might evoke some small spark of faith.

In Dan 6:17f, the author reports the net effect of Darius’ fledgling faith: “may He deliver you.” Most of the English versions translate this line in a more promissory sense: “He will deliver you.” However, the Aramaic form [ (Shaphel, imperfect, 3rd, ms, sg, 2nd, ms, suffix, jussive sense)] may be read as an expression of the will of Darius,265 that is a profound yearning or longing on Darius’ part for the deliverance of Daniel. Moreover, the Shaphel stem in Aramaic is causative; literally: “may God cause/bring about/ produce your deliverance.”266

This same Aramaic verb [] is used in the same stem, Shaphel, in Dan 6:15, where Darius sets about to effect a rescue; that effort proving a failure, Darius now turns to God; but, this is how a neophyte faith actually works.

Summary.

In Dan 6:17a-d, the author utilizes assertive speech acts to commit himself to each statement in Dan 6:17a-d to being the truth; each of these was the case, recorded exactly as they happened. The expositor is entitled to read them as history.

In Dan 6:17e-f, the author reports a directive speech act by Darius intended for the benefit of Daniel and directed to Daniel’s God. As noted above, this attempt to get Yahweh to move on behalf of Daniel is startling.

The prayer is amazing in being addressed to Yahweh. Collins reports that archeologists uncovered a baked stamp at Susa, a stamp attributed to another king by the name of Darius. The stamp reads: “Of me is Ahuramazda, of Ahuramazda am I.”267 George Moore comments on the importance of this Persian deity, Ahuramazda [literally, “the Lord Wisdom”], for Collins’ later Darius and Cyrus [the Darius of Daniel 6] “The inscriptions of Darius display him as a zealous worshiper of Ahuramazda, the Wise Lord, the supreme god of the Zoroastrian faith, to whom he attributes his victories over enemies and rebels. That similar testimony is not borne by the inscriptions of Cyrus may be explained by their limited extent and different character.”268 One would have expected that, as a devotee of a Persian god that is directly responsible for victories in life, the Darius of Daniel 6 would have uttered a prayer to Ahuramazda, but he does not; rather, Darius addresses this brief prayer to the God whom Daniel serves continually.

Equally as staggering is that, at best, whatever “faith” nourishes this prayer is unseasoned and blurry; still, and this is the point of this brief paragraph, Darius is exercising faith; it may not be of the

263 Rosenthal, 99.

264 KB2, 2004; similarly, BDB, 1087; Holladay, 424. 265 For this sense of the jussive in Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander § 78 r.

266 For the causative sense of this stem, see Van Pelt, 151. 267 Collins, 270. 268 George Foote Moore, History of Religions, vol. I, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1913),

358.

51


caliber to move mountains, but it does appear to have a hand in subduing lions. As Goldingay rightly remarks, “It is Darius who comes into focus at this point in the story, not Daniel.”269 There seems to be a lesson here: the theme of the book of Daniel is that God is in control of the national and international military/political goings-on of the governmental elite; if so then Yahweh appears to be fully prepared to respond to faith, such as it is and of whatever capacity it is, where and when He finds it.

Finally, while Darius certainly is the focus at this point in the story, the expositor should weigh and consider just how Darius came to even this limited and fuzzy faith. One could easily imagine that the consistency of Daniel’s service to his God [Dan 6:17e] made an impression on Darius. To be sure, there may be a hint of examination, of experimentation, with Daniel’s God on Darius’ part. Fair enough; but, judging by the outcome [Dan 6:22-23], God responded for His own reasons. If nothing else, this brief paragraph testifies to the gracious condescension of God in the affairs of the political elite; it also attests to Yahweh’s sovereign Lordship over human history, regardless of the faith level of those who are pulling the levers of power at the time.

3. Daniel’s fate, humanly speaking, is sealed [Dan 6:18]

6:18a Then, a stone was brought,6:18b and placed over the opening of the den;6:18c and the king sealed it with his signet-ring,6:18d and the signet-ring of his nobles,6:18e so that nothing could be changed in regard to Daniel.

This brief paragraph is narrative genre, a continuation of the events in the history thus far that is governed by the facts.270 Obviously, the paragraph highlights the sealing of the den by Darius and his nobles.

In Dan 6:18a-b, a stone is “placed over the opening of the den [Dan 6:18b].” According to Dan 6:24b, Daniel would eventually be “hauled up out” of the den, implying that the opening of the den was at the top of the pit/cistern that formed den itself.

In Dan 6:18c, the king sealed [ ] uses an Aramaic root [] for “seal” that signals “a means of closing something from interference, authoritatively, when the royal seal was applied, as at the lions’ den, only to be opened at the royal command.”271 Otzen notes that affixing a seal “always depicts it as a legal act.”272

Signet ring [] is used of both the rings of the king and his nobles; this is the only appearance of the noun in the Aramaic section of Daniel. Both the king and his subordinates participate in the sealing process. Montgomery speculates that there were two reasons for this: first, that Daniel might not be spirited away by the king nor abducted by the nobles, i.e., Daniel’s adversaries.273

In Dan 6:18e, the author apprizes us of the rational for the double sealing: “so that nothing could be changed.” As noted above, there must have been mutual skepticism among the king and his entourage.

269 Goldingay, 132. 270 See Collins, FOTL, 110. 271 Alan Millard, “,” in NIDOTTE [H3159].

272 B. Otzen, “,” in TDOT, vol. V, 266. 273 Montgomery, 275-76.

52


Nothing [ (noun, fm, sg)] is a noun that means “matter, concern, thing;” when the noun is preceded by the negative [], the sense of the noun becomes “nothing.”274

Is changed [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is from an Aramaic root [] that means [1] “to be different” or [2] “to be changed.”275 Obviously, from Daniel’s point of view, for all intents and purposes, this line tells us that his fate was sealed; from the king’s and the noble’s point of view, neither of them could interfere with Daniel in any way; thus, the stage is now set for divine intervention.

E. Darius in distress for Daniel [Dan 6:19]

6:19a Then, the king returned to his palace,6:19b and spent the night in hunger,6:19c indeed, no diversions were brought in to him;6:19d and even sleep fled from him.

This narrative genre paragraph lets the reader in on Darius’ mental state owing to the fate of Daniel. As narrative, the reader is intended to read this paragraph as history. The reader may well be surprised at this description of Darius’ long night; such personal angst over the fate of a subordinate is not expected in an account of the daily life of a king of Persia. The net effect is that the author does not tell us why the king spent such a miserable night; that said, Darius [1] spent the night in hunger (Dan 6:19b), [2] no diversions were brought into him (Dan 6:19c), so that [3] sleep fled from him (Dan 6:19d). Numbers 1 and 3 are sufficiently clear so as to require no explanation; number 2 is a different matter.

Diversion [ (noun, fm, pl)] is basically uncertain in meaning. Kohler-Baumgartner offer the options from the ancient Near East, the versions, some commentators, but eventually affirm “the meaning of the word remains uncertain.”276 One of the Septuagint traditions omits Dan 6:19c; Theodotion opts for , which is essentially “food.”277 On this reading, Dan 6:19c is comment on the previous line [Dan 6:19b], which is at least defensible. Holladay offers the variety of reading for this noun: “concubines, food, musical instruments, perfumes.”278 Goldingay makes the interesting observation that in Persia at this time “300 concubines were available to watch over the king with music and song by lamplight.”279 When all is said and done, it may be best to follow Driver: “the king did not indulge his usual diversions.”280

274 KB2, 1962.

275 Ibid., 1999. 276 Ibid., 1849.

277 BAGD, 217.

278 Holladay, 402. 279 Goldingay, 121.

280 Driver, Daniel, 77.

53


VI. Narrative of Daniel’s deliverance [Dan 6:20-25]

A. Darius hastens to Daniel [Dan 6:20]

6:20a At once, the king arose at dawn, with the light of day;6:20b so in haste, he went to the lion’s den.

Dan 6:20-25 is a narrative genre that sets forth in sequence the next events in the story line. The reader is warranted in reading these lines that the author presents as history. This paragraph [Dan 6:20-25] is the high point in the narrative: the narrative opens with Darius rushing to the lion’s den [Dan 6:20]; it continues with an anxious Darius calling out for Daniel [Dan 6:21], followed by Daniel’s response [Dan 6:22-23]; and it concludes with Darius’ twofold reaction, first to Daniel [Dan 6:24] and then to Daniel’s accusers [Dan 6:25]. Within this structure, the high point is Daniel’s response to Darius [Dan 6:22-23].

In Dan 6:20a, the author communicates the urgency of Darius’ reaction: “at once … at dawn … with the light of day.”

Immediately [] is the familiar particle adverb, which means immediately or at once.281 In this context, indicates that something vital, even pressing, is awaiting Darius.

At dawn [] … with the light of day [] are two prepositional phrases that seem to be saying the same thing in slightly different ways. The first term [] depicts “daybreak, dawn;”282 the second term [] suggests “the moment when the sun was visible.”283 Put together, the sense is: “at the very first light,” once more underscoring the seriousness, from Darius’ point of view, of Daniel’s predicament.

In Dan 6:20b, the author continues underlining the king’s rush to get to the den: “in haste, he went to the lion’s den.”

In haste [] is a prepositional phrase; the noun [ (noun, fm, sg)] is a substantive form of an infinitive.284 Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:20b with “hastily.”285 At the same time, the Aramaic root of this noun [] may be translated either [1] “to frighten, terrify” or [2] “to hasten.”286 In

281 Bauer-Leander § 68 a. 282 KB2, 2002.

283 Montgomery, 279. 284 Bauer-Leander § 85 h.

285 KB2, 1862. 286 Ibid., 1832.

54


fact, BDB notes that in Dan 6:20 originally meant “in alarm.”287 The form [] is used three times in Daniel and in Dan 3:24, Nebuchadnezzar stands up /in alarm when he notes that the three men in the fiery furnace had become four. Driver combines the two ideas, translating “in haste” and commenting “so anxious was he to learn how Daniel had fared.”288

B. Warily, Darius calls for Daniel [Dan 6:21-23]

1. Darius cries out [Dan 6:21]

6:21a Then, as he approached the den,6:21b to Daniel, with an anguished voice he cried out;6:21c the king spoke up and said to Daniel:6:21d “Daniel, servant of the Living God,6:21e your God, whom you serve continually,6:21f has He been able to deliver you from the lions?”

Dan 6:21 is a narrative genre, tracing out further historical events in the Daniel legend. Darius’ angst is still on the author’s mind, since the author represents Darius as calling out for Daniel “as he approached the den [Dan 6:21a], and the author characterizes Darius’ state of mind as “anguished” [Dan 6:21b]. It may be significant that, in a context [Dan 6:20-21a-b] that has underscored Darius’ anxiety, the king now refers to Daniel’s God [Dan 6:17e] as “the Living God [Dan 6:21d].” There may be a theological basis for Darius’ angst.

In Dan 6:21a, the author signals Darius’ distress by reporting that Darius’ anguished voice began crying out “as he approached.” Bauer-Leander translate the infinitive construct and preposition [] with “bei seiner Annherung” [“during his approach”].289 In Biblical Hebrew, when this preposition [] is prefixed to an infinitive construct [] the construction signifies that “the action in the infinitive construct occurs just before the events described in the main clause.”290 This syntactical /semantic thrust of the Hebrew construction does fit the context in the Aramaic construction in Dan 6:21a: even before Darius reaches the den, he is already crying out for some response from Daniel.

In Dan 6:21b, the author depicts Darius’ state of mind by targeting his “anguished voice.” In which he “cries out.”

Anguished [] is an adjective that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:21 with “troubled, sad.”291 BDB translates in Dan 6:21 with “in a pained voice.”292 Holladay opts for “sorrowful, afflicted” in Dan 6:21.293 Bauer-Leander translate the adjective with “betrbt [“saddened, distressed”].294

287 BDB, 1084. 288 Driver, Daniel, 77. 289 Bauer-Leander § 85 h. 290 Van der Merwe § 20.5. (ii). 291 KB2, 1952.

292 BDB, 1107. 293 Holladay, 417. 294 Bauer-Leander § 51 h.

55


Rosenthal simply goes with “sad.”295 The Aramaic verb does appear once in the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1Q20, the Genesis Apocryphon, in the sense of “deep grief.”296 In 1Q20, has the sense of grief, to be troubled about, to be sad. The net effect is that Darius approached Daniel’s subterranean tomb with , with anguish, torment, agony; he has been tortured, for some unexplained reason, and it shows in his voice.

Cried out [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is from an Aramaic root [] that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:21 with “to shriek.”297 Holladay more or less follows suit, translating with “cry out, shout.”298 G. Hasel notes, concerning , that “the major emphasis of the basic meaning of the root falls on the loud and agonizing ‘crying’ of someone in acute distress.”299 The upshot is that signals acute distress on Darius’ part. Indeed, we noted above that Darius approached Daniel’s subterranean tomb with anguish, torment, agony; he has been tortured, for some unexplained reason, and it emerges in his voice, which shrieks in acute distress.

In Dan 6:21d, the author reports that Darius intensifies his theological language, referring to Daniel as “the servant of the Living God.” The language is striking on the lips of a polytheistic Persian dictator, indeed Driver refers to “the Living God” [ ] as “emphatic and significant.”300 Be this as it may, [“the Living God”] occurs only twice in the Aramaic section of Daniel, both spoken by Darius [Dan 6:21, 27]. Could Daniel be the origin of this language? Could Darius have picked up this reference to Daniel’s God from overhearing Daniel himself mention it?

Daniel would have been well acquainted with this phrase in either of its forms in the Hebrew Bible. That is, “the Living God” written as is found in Joshua 3:10; Psalm 42:3; 84:3; and Hosea 2:1. Moreover, “the Living God” written as is found in Deuteronomy 5:26; 1 Samuel 17:26, 36; and Jeremiah 10:10; 23:36. While the matter is absolutely conjectural, the reader might weigh and consider the proposition that Daniel is the man who stimulated Darius to use this language to describe a God about whom the king would have known next to nothing.

Living God [ ] uses an adjective, , to qualify God []. In Aramaic, the adjective, , means “living, alive” in Dan 6:21 according to Kohler-Baumgartner.301 But, there is far more in this adjective than “alive” as opposed to “dead.”

The reader should observe the import of the adjective as a description of God in actual usage. For example, in Joshua 3:10, Joshua affirms that the Living God [ ] is [1] “in your midst” (presence) and [2] can be trusted to “surely drive out” enemies (timely intervention/rescue). The idea of presence seems to be the point of the psalmist’s soul longing for the Living God [ ] in Psalm 42:3 and 84:3. Then, Hosea uses the phrase to signal a relationship between Yahweh and His people: “sons of the Living God [Hosea 2:1]. Presence and availability seem to be the association with [“the Living God], referencing those who have heard the voice of the in Deuteronomy 5:26. Intervention/rescue appears to be the point of David’s speech concerning Goliath, who dared to taunt the armies of the [“the Living God”] in 1 Samuel 17:26, 36. Jeremiah adds a nuance to in Jeremiah 10:10, where [“the

295 Rosenthal, 92.

296 That very night, I implored, I sought, I pleaded for pity, and said in my deep grief, while my tears flowed: “Blessed are You, Most High God, Lord of everything.” 297 KB2, 1867.

298 Holladay, 404. 299 G. Hasel, “,” in TDOT, vol. IV, 115.

300 Driver, Daniel, 77. 301 KB2, 1874; similarly, Holladay, 404.

56


Living God”] is tantamount to Yahweh’s everlasting kingship [this is possibly the point in Jeremiah 23:36, where [“the Living God”] is parallel to Yahweh of Hosts].

So, where does this leave us? [“the Living God”] is used in four senses: [1] qualifies God as present and available; [2] reveals God as the God who intervenes and rescues; [3] discloses the God who initiates human relationships; and [4] signifies God as everlasting King [“everlasting” is also the point Darius will make about Daniel’s God in Dan 6:27f]. To be sure, Daniel comprehends all of this.

It is impossible to know exactly what Darius comprehended about the Living God. One doubts that his polytheism would have encompassed the four points, above. More than likely, having overhead or perhaps spoken with Daniel on the subject, Darius is using words with a shallow understanding of them at best; this would be thoroughly consistent with his meager faith evidenced in Dan 6:17. In no way should the reader infer that Darius is abandoning his polytheism, and Darius’ precarious polytheism may be the real issue arising out of this debacle.

Throughout the latter portion of this chapter [Dan 6:15ff], we have noted repeatedly Darius’ agitation, his distress and anguish, over this emerging debacle concentrated in Daniel. We have also noted that the author does not tip his hand and reveal why Darius is so agitated about Daniel. One wonders (and speculation is all this is) if perhaps the cause of Darius’ angst is provoked by Daniel as well as his Living God. Could this monotheist actually be on the right track? Could it be that Ahuramazda, the wise lord, the supreme god of Darius and the Persians, the god of all victories, has a superior? Could it be that all of the legends and tales circulating about Daniel and his God in the royal court truly authenticate the supremacy of Daniel’s God? Could it be that this God could actually deliver? Could it be that Darius is governing with the aid of a second-string deity?

As long as we are speculating, let’s take the conjecture a step further: supposing that this debacle with Daniel has given Darius cause for second thoughts about his polytheism; then what are the political ramifications? That is, as a typical ancient Near Eastern, polytheistic ruler, Darius would have counted on having the most powerful deity on his team; but, what if Daniel truly is the “servant of the Living God”? Where does this leave Darius and Ahuramazda and their alliance in running Persia? One might conjecture that Darius is in distress over the theological/political conundrum that Daniel and his Living God have thrust upon the tyrant: what if Daniel is right and Daniel is in league with the Living God? Where does this leave Darius and the governance of his regime? Obviously: with a second-string god!

In Dan 6:21e-f, the author reports that Darius springs the big question: “your God, whom you serve continually (Dan 6:21e), has He been able to deliver you from the lions (Dan 6:21f)?”

In Dan 6:21e, Darius repeats exactly his previous statement in Dan 6:17e: “your God, whom you serve continually.”302 When discussing Dan 6:17e, we noted that how Darius could have known about Daniel’s continuous service is not specified. We conjectured that the legend of Daniel would have been well known in the royal precincts. At the same time, Daniel’s prayer life could have been in the back of Darius’ mind as an example of Daniel’s continuous service to his God. The point is this: “your God whom you serve” may well be the moment when Darius puts Daniel and his God to the test: it is as if Darius were thinking, “Daniel, are all of these legends and tales about you and your God really true?” For the polytheist who rushes to verify what Daniel and his God are reputed to be able to do, this is the moment of truth. Presently, Darius will no longer have to speculate about Daniel’s reputation as a distinctive man of God.

In Dan 6:21f, the author reports that Darius asks a question: “has He been able to deliver you?” The expositor should note that Dan 6:21f is a question, and as a question “the questioner is wholly uncertain as to the answer to be expected.”303 Thus, when Darius shouts “has He been able?” Darius is in some doubt; there is uncertainty and hesitation vis-à-vis God’s ability [] to rescue Daniel. To be sure,

302 For the details, see the notes on this line in Dan 6:17e.

303 E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by A.E. Cowley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970; reprint), § 150 d [hereafter abbreviated GKC].

57


when this verb [able ()] is used in Dan 3:17, the three young Jews are certain; they affirm that God is indeed able [] to rescue them; but, Darius is a whole different kettle of fish: he is unsure, doubtful, tentative, sheltering doubts about God’s capability. Once more, for Darius, this is the moment of truth for his polytheism: if God is able, then Darius may have some reconsidering to do; but, if God has not been able, then it is back to business as usual.

Has He been able [ (interrogative ; Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg] is an interrogative that questions, hesitates concerning, Yahweh’s ability [] to deliver Daniel from a life or death threat. The Aramaic root [] that is used solely in the Peal stem in biblical Aramaic, means either: [1] “to be able” or [2] “to prevail against, defeat.”304 To this second sense, Holladay prefers “to overpower.”305 Paul Gilchrist affirms that in biblical Aramaic focuses on “God’s sovereign power.”306 As used in the Aramaic text of Daniel, is used to communicate surmounting some humanly insuperable challenge [Dan 2:10, 27; 3:17; 4:18; 6:5, 21]; quite often in these contexts, it is Yahweh alone who overpowers these various humanly overwhelming obstacles [Dan 3:17, 29]. Moreover, is used in the sense of Yahweh’s ability to humble the proud and arrogant [Dan 4:37]. Finally, is used in the sense of prevailing over an adversary [Dan 7:21]. J.A. Soggin affirms concerning that “Theologically, the verb should be especially appropriate to the omnipotent God of Israel;”307 obviously, Darius has his doubts about God’s sovereign power.

Deliver [] was discussed in Dan 6:15c [see the notes there]. For now, it is interesting to note how the author has plotted the use of in Daniel 6. In the first use [Dan 6:15], Darius himself sets out to /deliver Daniel, ultimately to no avail; in the second use [Dan 6:17], Darius’ fledgling faith, probably shared with his own deity [Ahuramazda], utters a wary prayer that Daniel’s God will /deliver him; in the third usage [Dan 6:21], a hesitant Darius faces the moment of truth: has Yahweh been able to /deliver Daniel? And, in Dan 6:28, Darius uses twice to proclaim that Yahweh /delivers! The author has skillfully chronicled what is impossible for mere mortals, what polytheistic deities are powerless to accomplish, and what only Yahweh can achieve in the realm of /deliverance.

Summary.

Dan 6:21b is an assertive speech act wherein the author commits himself to Darius’ shrieking in anguish actually being the truth of the case. The vital message the author intends to convey is transmitted in the exact fit between Darius’ angst – “with an anguished voice he cried out” – and Darius’s real state of mind as shown in his voice. For some reason, Darius is tortured and tormented.

Dan 6:21d-f is a directive speech act, in view of the fact that “questions are a subclass of directives, since they are an attempt by a speaker to get the hearer to answer; i.e., to perform a speech act.”308 As we noted above, in biblical Aramaic, the question presumes the speaker’s doubt and uncertainty vis-à-vis the answer. Darius basically directs Daniel to relieve Darius of his torment.

The author embeds an assertive speech act within the question to describe Daniel: “servant of the Living God.” If we transformed this phrase into a statement, it would be: “Daniel serves the Living God.” This assertive speech act is informative; by means of it, the author represents Darius as describing and identifying Daniel. The interesting factor is that Darius characterizes Daniel as a servant of the Living God.

In the discussion of Dan 6:21d, we noted the emphatic and significant thrust of this most unusual description of God, a depiction that comes from a life-long polytheist. We have speculated that, when all is

304 KB2, 1891; similarly, BDB, 1095. 305 Holladay, 408. 306 Paul Gilchrist, “,” in TWOT, 866. 307 J.A. Soggin, “,” in TDOT, vol. VI, 74.

308 Searle, Expression and Meaning, 14.

58


said and done that Daniel’s relationship to his Living God has brought some uncertainty, some theological uncertainty into Darius’ ways of looking at the powers and forces above and beyond him. Could this Jewish monotheist be on the right track? And, if he is, then Darius is off the rails, which has theological/political implications for how Darius and the deity oversee Persia. The upshot is this: the doubt and uncertainty in the questioning [Dan 6:21d-f], and the dominating torture and torment so prevalent in Dan 6:15, 17, 19 are the product of Daniel and the Living God shaking the foundations of Darius’ neat and compact political theology. Daniel and the Living God have thrust upon Darius a spiritual moment of truth.309

2. Daniel answers [Dan 6:22-23]

6:22a Then, Daniel spoke with the king:6:22b “O, king, may you live forever!6:23a My God sent His angel,6:23b and shut the mouth of the lions,6:23c and so, they have not injured me;6:23d inasmuch as, before Him, I was found to be innocent,6:23e and so, before you, O king,6:23f I have committed no crime!”

This paragraph is the high point of Dan 6:20-25. The narrative genre unpacks the crucial instant when Darius discovers that Daniel’s Living God has indeed delivered the goods; as narrative the author, governed by the facts, reports what Daniel said in response to Darius question in Dan 6:21. After a formulaic greeting that honors Darius [Dan 6:22a], the narrative reports Daniel’s assertion of the origin of his escape [Dan 6:23a]: “My God sent His angel;” this is followed by a report of the action God took on Daniel’s behalf [Dan 6:23b]: “He shut the mouth of the lions.” This is followed up with an assertion of the net effect [Dan 6:23e]: “and so, they have not injured me;” then, there is a causal statement [Dan 6:23d]: (1) “before Him, I was found to be innocent” with an ensuing result statement [Dan 6:23e-f]: “and so, before you, O king, I have committed no crime.”

Dan 6:23 – “My God sent His angel, and shut the mouth of the lions, and so they have not injured me; inasmuch as, before Him, I was found to be innocent, and so, before you, O king, I have committed no crime!”

In Dan 6:23a, the author reports Daniel’s testimony regarding the origin of his deliverance: “My God sent His angel.”

My God [] is the only time in Daniel 6 that Daniel uses this phrase; to be sure, Daniel applies the phrase liberally outside the Aramaic portion of the book [Dan 9:4, 18-20]. This singular use in Dan 6:23a of /My God is almost certainly Daniel’s eloquent rejoinder to Darius’ use of /your God in Dan

309 As noted above, this is all quite speculative; the case is circumstantial for the simple reason that the author never tells us why Darius is in such straits. The expositor may well infer some other reasons for the emotional responses of Darius to this crisis, responses that seem to be all out of keeping for what a reader might expect from a Persian dictator, responses that call for some sort of explanation.

There have been those who have postulated that Darius had considerable fellow-feeling for Daniel, and this should be taken into account. At the same time, if the reader/expositor asks herself or himself: what actually motivates a dictator? The answer should come up in the language of power. We know that Darius had major plans for Daniel, including making Daniel the number two man in Persia [Dan 6:4]. Now however, Daniel and the Living God have thrown a monkey wrench into all of that; Darius’ neat little plans for Daniel have hit a speed-bump. The upshot is this: Daniel and the Living God have confronted Darius with a potentially catastrophic dilemma: is the Living God more powerful than Darius even imagined? For a politician who thought that he had his deity, Ahuramazda, securely in tow, this entire Daniel episode is raising some uncomfortable questions; it is a real moment of truth.

59


6:17e. Darius’ “pious wish that the king extends to Daniel – a kind of agnostic, embarrassed expression, such as one often hears by the side of a sick-bed – comes to an unexpected fulfillment.”310 With stark and lean simplicity, the author reports that Daniel confronts Darius with the supremacy of Yahweh [/My God], and by implication with the inferiority, the inadequacy, the insufficiency of Darius’ deity, Ahuramazda. The moment of truth has come: Daniel’s living voice annuls everything for the polytheistic-political alliance of Darius with his deity; with one word - /My God – Daniel undermines the polytheistic system of Darius with the regnant sovereignty of Yahweh.

His angel [ (noun, ms, sg, construct, 3rd, ms, suffix)] further invalidates Darius’ deity: His angel overturns the death sentence. This is the same noun [] that Nebuchadnezzar used to attribute the deliverance of the three Jews to Yahweh [Dan 3:28]. These are the only two appearances of the noun in the Aramaic section of Daniel.

The Aramaic noun [] refers to an envoy, possibly a messenger from God or simply an angel.311 D.N. Freedman and B.E. Willoughby note concerning the noun [] in Dan 6:23a that the term “refers to an angel who rescues the innocent from unjust punishment.”312 Collins allows that this term [] may refer to an “agent” of God.313 It is best not to over read , proposing a reference to Jesus as some still do.314 Indeed, this /angel is sent by Daniel’s God, and Daniel’s envoy-sending God should remain the focus of the assertion in Dan 6:23a.

In Dan 6:23b, the author reports the manner of Daniel’s deliverance: Daniel’s God “shut the mouth of the lions.”

Shut [] is an Aramaic verb that has a Syriac cognate that means “to shut up, close up;” in Dan 6:23, means “to shut.”315 The specific means of this action on Yahweh’s part is not mentioned; the reader is entitled to infer that, like the envoy with the three Jews in the furnace in Daniel 3, we are in the realm of miracle here. This is the answer to those who would claim that the lions had been fed prior to Daniel joining them, and thus were not hungry.316 This attempt to reduce the miraculous nature of the event seems to be undermined by the speed with which the lions dispatched Daniel’s accusers [Dan 6:25].

In Dan 6:23c, the author reports the result of the rescue: “they have not injured me.” The Aramaic verb used here [] that has two ranges of meaning: [1] “to hurt, inflict injury” or ultimately [2] “to destroy.”317 This is the same word and sense that Nebuchadnezzar used when he peered into the furnace and saw four men walking about, none of whom were harmed [] in Dan 3:25.

310 Walter Lthi, The Church to Come (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1939), 88. 311 KB2, 1915.

312 D.N. Freedman and B.E. Willoughby, “,” in TDOT, vol. VIII, 310. 313 Collins, Daniel, 191. 314 The notion that this “angel” in the den with Daniel was Jesus goes back to the early Church

Fathers. For example, Ambrose in his Dogmatic Treatises simply makes this connection, merely affirming that the “angel” was Jesus, without further ado. No sifting of the evidence is evident. Accordingly, the expositor should have excellent reasons for claiming that Yahweh’s envoy is the Second Person of the Trinity.

315 KB2, 1937.

316 See Collins, Daniel, 271.

317 KB2, 1868.

60


In Dan 6:23d, e-f, the author brings us to the key claims in this highpoint of Dan 6:20-25. To

begin with, the author lets us in on the reason behind Yahweh’s miraculous action: “inasmuch as, before Him, I was found innocent;” then, the author reveals the consequence for Darius and his law of the Medes and the Persians: “and so, before you, O king, I have committed no crime!” The expositor must appreciate the friction created in Dan 6:23d, e-f: the ill-advised law that Darius signed into effect placed the law of the Medes and the Persians at odds with the law of God, Daniel resisted the former and obeyed the latter, signifying the preeminence of God’s law in the life of Daniel. Longman rightly notes, “Daniel must choose between the two laws, and he does not hesitate for a moment. He chooses to obey God’s law.”318

Inasmuch as [ ] opens Dan 6:23d by signaling causation;319 the reason behind Yahweh’s miraculous deliverance of Daniel in Dan 6:23a-c is now stated.

Before Him [] uses the preposition, /before, in a figurative sense. That is, can take on a spatial sense: “in the sight of,” according to Kohler-Baumgartner.320 This figurative sense could be communicated with: [1] “in front of” or [2] “before” or [3] “in the presence of.” BDB indicates that carries with it the idea of being before a superior.321 The upshot is that, as far as Daniel’s accountability goes, Yahweh is Daniel’s superior.

The reader will also note that in the next line, “before you [() Darius],” the author uses the same preposition albeit somewhat antithetically; the author juxtaposes these prepositional phrases – “before Him/before you” – allowing Daniel to send Darius a subtle reminder: Daniel’s ultimate responsibility is to Yahweh, not Darius. This stance predates Jesus’ remark to the effect that His followers should “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” by over 500 years!

I was found to be innocent [ ] is a translation that is smoothed out for the English reader. The literal arrangement of the words is a bit more forceful: “innocence was found to be mine.” The author has forcefully front-loaded the key word: innocence [].

Innocence [ (noun, fm, sg)] is probably an Akkadian loan word [zaktu], which means “exemption, liberation;” Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:23d with “innocence.”322 Regarding the Akkadian cognate, A. Negoit and H. Ringgren add another nuance, which is interesting for our passage: “to be free of claims.”323 Montgomery reads in the sense of “legal innocence.”324 Theodotion in the Septuagint tradition uses for , a Greek term that means “straightness,”325 which Friberg notes has a figurative sense: “as a quality of life, ‘honesty, integrity.’”326 The net effect is this: Daniel’s

318 Longman, 166.

319 Bauer-Leander translate with “weil (“because),” § 70 h. 320 KB2, 1967. 321 BDB, 1110. 322 KB2, 1865. 323 A. Negoit and H. Ringgren, “,” in TDOT, vol. IV, 62. 324 Montgomery, 279.

325 BAGD, 321.

326 Barbara Friberg, Timothy Friberg, Neva Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 12059.

61


accountability is to Yahweh and Yahweh, by virtue of rescuing Daniel, has declared Daniel legally innocent; the law of the Medes and the Persians has no claim upon him.

Was found [ (Hithpeel, perfect, 3rd, fm, sg)] is how the author declares Daniel’s innocence; he writes “innocence [feminine noun] was found [3rd, feminine singular verb] to be mine [prepositional phrase]”. The Hithpeel stem is passive in orientation,327 which in this case suggests an agent involved in the “finding,” i.e., Yahweh: “innocence was found [by Yahweh] to be my possession.”

Found [] as used in Biblical Aramaic takes on two senses: [1] “‘to find’ in the sense of ‘to find by seeking, inquiring, investigating” and [2] “‘to find’ in the sense of ‘to achieve, acquire.’”328 Obviously, the first sense is apropos for Dan 6:23d, wherein Daniel is innocent after divine investigation.

Mine [] is actually a preposition with a 1st person suffix. Kohler-Baumgartner point out that this construction /mine is a dative of possession with the sense “belonging to” Daniel.329 The reader will note the emphasis communicated in the possessive notion; innocence is Daniel’s possession.

In Dan 6:23e-f, the author unveils the consequence of Yahweh’s finding vis-à-vis Darius: “and so, before you, O king [Dan 6:23e], I have committed no crime! [Dan 6:23f].” The suppressed premise between Dan 6:23d and Dan 6:23e-f is this: the finding of the greater court, Yahweh’s [Dan 6:23d], supplants the finding of the lesser court, Darius’ [Dan 6:23e-f].

And so [] is signaled by the simple waw prefixed to the conjunction, . Bauer-Leander observe that this conjunction is copulative and may be translated with “und auch [“and also, and as well”].330 Dan 6:23e teases out the net effect of Yahweh’s finding in Daniel’s favor: “concluding from the innocence actually testified to by God.”331

Before you [] is to be read in conjunction with before Him [] in Dan 6:23d. The finding that really mattered was that “before Him [Yahweh]”; once that finding was made, from the Supreme Court as it were, Darius’ claims vanished. Indeed, Darius’ ill-advised law prohibited petitioning any god, including Yahweh, and redirecting petitions toward Darius [Dan 6:8], was a law that Darius was not in a position to promulgate. Yahweh’s authority vis-à-vis petition and prayer is uninfringeable; Daniel acted in accord with God’s authority; Darius did not, and so, as far as Darius was concerned, Daniel committed no crime.

Crime [ (noun, fm, sg)] is actually front-loaded in Daniel 6:23f: “crime I have not committed.” The noun [] is used only here in the Aramaic portion of Daniel. Kohler-Baumgartner offer either “hurtful act” or “crime” for in Dan 6:23f.332 Bauer-Leander translate with “Verbrechen [“crime”]”.333 The distinction between as “hurtful action” and “crime” is a matter of interpretive perspective. That is, there are those who read the legal conflict between Daniel and Darius in personal terms, as “disloyalty to the king.”334 However, the of which Daniel stands accused carries with it the death penalty; therefore, it seems best, on contextual grounds, to read as a crime against the

327 Van Pelt, 125.

328 W. Schottroff, “,” in TLOT III, 1322.

329 KB2, 1905. 330 Bauer-Leander § 70 a.

331 Keil, Daniel, 217. 332 KB2, 1868; similarly, BDB, 1092. 333 Bauer-Leander § 51 m. 334 Young, 138.

62


legal system of the king and the Medes and the Persians. To be sure, Daniel’s adversaries do underline Daniel’s lack of deference to Darius [Dan 6:14c], but this is a secondary charge, leveled in support of their claim that Daniel had acted in defiance of the law of the land.

Summary.

In Dan 6:23a-b, the author opens Daniel’s speech with an assertive speech act, with which the author intends to communicate, drawing on Daniel’s eye witness account, the fact that Yahweh sent his envoy and shut the mouths of the lions. The author intends that we, the reader, infer that what Dan 6:23a-b affirms is the case. The author has chosen his words very carefully so as to draw attention to God’s initiative in these two actions; the chief actor in these lines is neither the envoy nor, purportedly, Jesus; Yahweh is the center piece in these two lines.

One of the central truth claims in this assertive speech act is the tension between “my God,” spoken by Daniel and “your God,” spoken by Darius [Dan 6:17e]. The former is a definitive rejoinder by Daniel to the half-hearted piece of polytheistic wishful thinking by Darius. This “my God/your God” tension raises the basic conflict in the passage: with Daniel’s rescue by “my God,” Darius’ deity is proven to be as powerless as he is absent. The moment of truth has come: Daniel’s voice annuls everything for the polytheistic-political alliance of Darius with his deity; with one word – /My God – Daniel emasculates the polytheistic system of Darius by means of witnessing to the regnant sovereignty of Yahweh. Make no mistake about it: Dan 6:23a, “my God”, settles the conflict between a man who fully trusted in the God of this universe and a man who, as a polytheist, could be very pliable in terms of ruling deities.

In Dan 6:23d, e-f, the author employs another assertive speech act in order to signal the truth that follows in the wake of this settled conflict [Dan 6:23a-b]. In reporting what Daniel said on this occasion, the author commits Daniel to the truth of what he is saying, and, as a matter of fact, he is saying one thing from two different points of view. The one thing Daniel is saying is this: “my God” reigns supreme over this universe, including the Persian Empire with all of its laws, accordingly my actions “before Him” [Dan 6:23d] are what really matter! From one viewpoint, innocence is His prerogative [Dan 6:23d]; from a second viewpoint, that of Darius and his legal system, “before you,” no crime has been committed [Dan 6:23e-f].

We have noted previously what speech theoreticians refer to as the perlocutionary effect of a speech act, such as the assertive speech act. That is, the author “by saying what he says may be achieving certain intended effects in the hearer in addition to those”335 achieved in the assertive speech act. The net effect is this: by asserting Daniel’s unwavering trust in and obedience to his God, including the principled resistance to the law of the Medes and the Persians, the author may be attempting to convince the reader to follow suit. As we noted above, when all is said and done, Darius lacked the authority to determine to whom one would pray; this is God’s jurisdiction, not man’s domain. Accordingly, Daniel’s loyalties were dependably consumed with Yahweh and Daniel acted accordingly. The same may be said of Peter and the apostles in Acts 5. In that case, their loyalty to Jesus forbade them from heeding the ill-advised stricture of the Sanhedrin to cease preaching and teaching in the name of the Messiah. Their response paralleled Daniel’s: “We must obey God rather than men [Acts 5:29].” Given these two passages, Dan 6:23 and Acts 5:29, the reader might weigh and consider whether both intend to reproduce a similar effect in modern believers.

335 Pratt, 81.

63


C. Darius responds [Dan 6:24-25]

1. Darius responds to Daniel [Dan 6:24]

6:24a So, then, the king was exceedingly satisfied,6:24b and he ordered Daniel to be hauled up out of the den;6:24c so, Daniel was hauled up from the den,6:24d and there was no injury to be found on him,6:24e because, he trusted in his God.

Dan 6:24 is a brief narrative genre, reporting for the reader the historical facts associated with the physical delivery of Daniel. Two facts stand out in this narrative: first the practical response of the king [“exceedingly satisfied” (Dan 6:24a)] and second, the fidelity of Daniel to Yahweh [“he trusted in his God” (Dan 6:24e)].

In Dan 6:24a, the author reports the immediate reaction of Darius to Daniel’s rescue: “the king was exceedingly satisfied.”

Was satisfied [ (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms)] uses an Aramaic root with a following preposition, , that literally means: “it is good for him,” which is another way of saying “he is glad.”336 This verb as well as this construction [verb () + preposition ()] appear only here in the Aramaic section of Daniel. Rosenthal offers “to be good” and “it pleased him.”337 Clearly, most of the authorities as well as most translations gravitate toward an emotive/gladness reading of .

However, the personal-emotive sense attached to the Aramaic , “glad/pleased,” is problematic. To begin with, there is the matter of the utilitarianism that generally applies to the root throughout Semitic usages. I. Hver-Johag affirms that “the basic meaning of and its derivatives refers in general to the qualities that make an object desirable. Here, the emphasis is on an originally pure utilitarianism, both qualitative and quantitative.”338 Hver-Johag further notes that in secular usage the “most common meaning of in the OT is utilitarian;” that is, “the emphasis is on the functional aspect [emphasis mine]” with a “very concrete and tangible meaning in the background.”339 Robert Gordon in NIDOTTE concurs noting that “in general usage ‘good’ indicates a state or function appropriate to genre, purpose, or situation.”340 H.J. Stoebe affirms that the senses of are broad, but arranges the most important spheres of usage thus: “(a) suitability for a purpose, (b) an indication of quality, (c) characterization of people, (d) evaluations of decisions, and (e) [“good”] in contrast to [“evil”].341

When we compare the meager Aramaic derivatives of this root, the utilitarian nuance is self-evident. For example, the Aramaic adjective [] is used in Ezra 5:17 in a letter to Darius the king. In this letter, the correspondents propose in Ezra 5:17: “if it pleases [] the king, let a search be conducted.” Obviously, there is a utilitarian nuance here, something like: “if it suits the king.” In the only verbal derivative [] in the Aramaic OT, another letter has a writer proposing to a correspondent: “whatever seems good [] to you … to do with the rest of the silver.” Once more, the utilitarian nuance is clear, something like: “whatever works for you … to do with the rest of the silver.”

336 KB2, 1882; similarly, BDB, 1094; Holladay, 406. 337 Rosenthal, 86.

338 I. Hver-Johag, “,” in TDOT, vol. V, 298.

339 Ibid., 304.

340 Robert Gordon, “,” in NIDOTTE [H3201].

341 H.J. Stoebe, “,” in TLOT II, 487.

64


To be sure, in biblical Hebrew, the verb [] can be read in the sense of “to be joyful, to be glad;” but, this translation always is written with (“heart”) (“be good”).342 The same is essentially true for the Hebrew adjective [] when it is translated “glad, happy, merry.” That is, the Hebrew adjective [/good/glad] is also used with the noun [/heart] to signal “glad, merry, and happy (of heart).”343

The upshot is this: the Aramaic verb and adjective are used, outside of Dan 6:24a, with a utilitarian nuance: a circumstance suits or satisfies or works for someone; in other words in these secular usages, functionality and suitability for some purpose, specified or unspecified in the context, are the order of the day. Accordingly, Dan 6:24a may be read in the sense of: “the king was exceedingly satisfied (with this outcome).”

One rationale for translating with “very pleased/glad” is suggested by BDB; that is, in Dan 6:24a is read in contrast to /grieved in Dan 6:15b.344 Concerning our treatment of in Dan 6:15b, we noted that such translations as “sad, distressed” managed to sidestep something powerfully figurative in the root: in both literal and figurative uses, conveys that which stinks, in other words, something that is odious. Accordingly, Dan 6:15b should depict Darius’ reaction to the trap he and Daniel have fallen into in terms of strong disgust or revulsion. The net effect is that, while Dan 6:24a does contrast with Dan 6:15b, the contrast is more between a debacle that brought on strong disgust [Dan 6:15b] becoming a miraculous outcome that is exceptionally satisfying [] to Darius [Dan 6:24a]; that which was odious has worked out well for the king.345

In Dan 6:24e, the author provides the reason for Daniel’s miraculous escape: “because he trusted in his God.”

Because [] is a particle that signals causation in Dan 6:24e according to Bauer-Leander.346

He trusted [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms)] is written in the perfect aspect, which is probably an historical perfect,347 simply recording the fact of Daniel’s trust as a whole.

Trust [] basically means “to be firm, trustworthy.”348 There is a Syriac cognate that means “to occupy oneself constantly with.”349 The Aramaic verb, when followed by the preposition [] as it is here, means “to trust in.”350 The Aramaic verb appears three times in the Aramaic of Daniel [Dan 2:45; 6:5, 24].

In the Hebrew Bible, when this verb [] is used in the Hiphil stem [the Hiphil in Hebrew corresponds to the Haphel in Aramaic, which we have in Dan 6:24e] and is also followed by the preposition [], the sense is: “accepting what someone says as true” with the added nuance of “acting in response to

342 Judges 16:25; 1 Samuel 25:36; 2 Samuel 13:28; Esther 1:10.

343 1 Kings 8:66; 2 Chronicles 7:10; Esther 5:9; Proverbs 15:15.

344 See BDB, 1094.

345 We are left to speculate on just what worked out so well for the king. On one hand, Darius’ plan to elevate Daniel to the number two spot in the realm [Dan 6:4] is back in play, as Dan 6:29 may indicate; on the other hand, Darius is now at liberty to retaliate on those who framed the king in the first place, retaliation which Darius immediately lets loose [Dan 6:25].

346 Bauer-Leander § 70 g. 347 Ibid., 79 h.

348 KB1, 63. 349 Ibid. 350 Ibid.

65


what is heard with trust and obedience.”351 H. Wildberger, with reservations, settles on “to be firm, dependable, certain” as a basic meaning for in the Hebrew Bible.352 When used with the preposition, , the Hiphil of takes on the sense of “to stand fast, hold still.”353 Finally, when the phrase “believe/trust [] in [] God []” is used in the Hebrew Bible, it often has the twin senses mentioned by Moberly: [1] trust in what is said, and then [2] act on it [Deuteronomy 1:32-33; 9:23; 2 Kings 17:14; Jonah 3:5].

The net effect is this: the author does not tell us exactly how Daniel trusted Yahweh in this instance. Did Daniel trust that God would deliver him? We do not know. Did Daniel simply trust that he had done the right thing by not praying to Darius? We do not know. Did Daniel trust that Yahweh would not permit this injustice to continue unchallenged? We do not know. All we do know is this: Daniel simply trusted, stood fast and held still, in his God, leaving the entire sordid, repugnant, sleazy circumstance in His hands.

Summary.

In Dan 6:24a, the author employs an assertive speech act to inform the reader of Darius’ initial reaction to this miracle; the author accurately depicts the personal impact of the miracle on Darius. In a nutshell, the author let us in on Darius’ state of mind: the entire matter worked out well for the king. As a pragmatist, the outcome suited his purposes; from a utilitarian point of view, the tangible results worked out well for Darius.

Then, in Dan 6:24e, the author makes use of another assertive speech act to represent the state of Daniel’s trust in his God; the author commits himself to the truth of the proposition that Daniel trusted in his God. Indeed, the author uses a perfect aspect verb to leave Daniel’s trust open-ended; Daniel simply held fast, come what may. Furthermore, as we have noted before, authors may use language intending to achieve certain effects in hearers [perlocutionary effect]; by telling us that Daniel trusted God in an impossible circumstance, the author is, at the same time, encouraging the reader to adopt a similar level of faith.

Reflection.

Dan 6:25 is an historical event in the life of Daniel, a moment in which his trust in God miraculously delivered him from a sentence of death. The reader should note, however, that this singular historical event must not be over interpreted. Specifically, Dan 6:25 does not necessarily imply that God miraculously delivers from dire straits every time. Indeed, this can be shown from the book of Daniel itself.

In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego resist the powers that be and are cast into a fiery furnace [Dan 3:20] from which they are miraculously delivered [Dan 3:25-26]; yet, much later in Daniel, the faithful who are devoted to their God will resist evil and be condemned to die by fire [Dan 11:33]. No deliverance here!

Similarly, here in Daniel 6, Daniel resists an idolatrous attempt by a power-politician and his entourage to make a virtual god out of a tyrant [Dan 6:8]; Daniel resists this evil and is sentenced to death for his trouble [Dan 6:17]; subsequently, owing to his faith, Daniel is miraculously delivered [Dan 6:23-24]. Yet, later in the book of Daniel, amidst intense apostasy among the covenant people, the “knowledgeable” among them will attempt to turn the tide and fall in martyrdom for their trouble [Dan 11:35]; no miraculous deliverance here!

There are two observations in all of this. First, Daniel 3 and 6 affirm that resolute believers cannot avoid resisting the evil around them and, as a result, paying the price. As Joyce Baldwin finely says,

351 R.W.L. Moberly, “,” in NIDOTTE [H586]. 352 H. Wildberger, “,” in TLOT I, 136. 353 Ibid., 142.

66


“There is no suggestion here or elsewhere in Scripture that the believer will be cushioned against trouble and suffering except by the presence of the Lord with him it in.”354 In Daniel 3 and 6, the faithful are miraculously delivered; in Daniel 11, they are not. There are no guarantees!

But, second, Daniel 12 puts an exclamation mark on this business of resisting, suffering, martyrdom and deliverance. Making a blanket statement concerning every faithful, trusting, believer who would follow him, Daniel 12 warns us of a time of persecution for the people of God that will be unheard of up to that time [Dan 12:1]. Fair enough; in the year of our Lord, 2015, unprecedented persecution is yet to come. But, in the single most magnificent and unambiguous statement of resurrection in the Old Testament, Daniel 12:2 declares in no uncertain terms what final deliverance looks like: “Many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, some to eternal life.” This is a guarantee!

2. Darius responds to Daniel’s accusers [Dan 6:25]

6:25a Then, the king give gave orders,6:25b and they produced those men,6:25c who had maliciously accused Daniel,6:25d and they cast them into the lion’s den,6:25e with their sons and their wives;6:25f and, they had not reached the bottom of the den,6:25g before the lions overpowered them,6:25h and crushed all their bones.

Dan 6:25 is a narrative genre in which the author relates the historical facts concerning the fate of those who set up Daniel and Darius. In sequential order, from the command [Dan 6:25a] to the collapse of Daniel’s adversaries and their families [Dan 6:25d-h], the author gives us a narrative account of these past events.

In Dan 6:25c, the author hints at the basis for Darius’ immediate and appalling retaliation: “who had maliciously accused Daniel.” Dan 6:25c is introduced with a relative particle [] that may be used to introduce an explanatory clause [back referencing “men” in Dan 6:25b], or it may be used causally to provide the basis for the main action in the previous line [“they produced these men because”]. Bauer-Leander notes that the distinction between explanation and causation with this particle is slight.355

Maliciously accused [ (noun, ms, pl, construct, 3rd, ms, suffix) (Peal, perfect, 3rd, ms, pl)] is an idiomatic phrase, literally “they ate his pieces.” Kohler-Baumgartner translate the idiom in Dan 6:25c, “to take legal proceedings against, accuse.”356 BDB more or less follow suit, translating “to accuse maliciously.”357 Holladay reads the idiom in the sense of “slander, backbite.”358 M. Ottosson writes that this idiom signals a desire to “destroy, consume” another person, thus communicating “destructive” activities.359 Accordingly, the idiom expresses not only an accusation or denunciation but a malicious accusation against Daniel.360 There may be more than a little irony here: those who intended to consume Daniel are themselves consumed by the fate that awaited Daniel.

354 Baldwin, 101.

355 Bauer-Leander § 70 g.

356 KB2, 1974.

357 BDB, 1111. 358 Holladay, 420. 359 M. Ottosson, “,” in TDOT, vol. I, 237.

360 Ibid., 238.

67


In Dan 6:25e, the author tells us that not only were the perpetrators cast into the den, but also their families with them: “with their sons and their wives.”

The reader should appreciate that this excessive, by our standards, level of punishment was not at all uncharacteristic of the ancient Near East at this time.361 Young cites a critic of such laws at the time who said, “Some laws are abominable, through which, because of the crime of one person, all his relatives are put to death.”362 There is an interesting account in Esther 9 that records how Jews turned the tables on those who sought their demise: in the “fortress of Shushan alone, they killed five hundred men, as well as ten of the sons of Haman [Esther 9:12]”. Evidently, these ten sons of Haman were impaled on stakes [Esther 9:13]!

Sadly, such excessive standards of punishment are not the sole province of the ancient Near East. During World War II, Nazi Germany had a legal travesty known as “kith and kin detention.” What this amounted to was legal sanction for arresting, detaining, and even executing family members of those accused of some crime against the Reich. In the aftermath of the July 1944 bomb plot to kill Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler said of one of the leaders of the plot, Claus von Stauffenberg, that “The Stauffenberg family will be exterminated down to its last member.”363 Happily, as it turned out, such was not the case. In any event, whether Darius or Adolph Hitler, the reader is encouraged to reflect on the lengths to which some tyrants will go to protect their political interests; to be sure, in the book of Daniel, for the most part, political leaders move from bad to worse.

VII. Darius’ proclamation [Dan 6:26-28]

A. The scope of the proclamation [Dan 6:26a]

6:26a Thereupon, Darius the king wrote to every people, nation, and tongues dwelling on the earth:

The genre of Dan 6:26-28 is a proclamation, which is a “public announcement, made or authorized by a person in authority.”364 The reader should appreciate the authoritative nature of this declaration, as well as its scope [Dan 6:26a]. This proclamation was intended by Darius to be empire wide.

B. Darius’ proclamation [Dan 6:26b-28]

6:26b “May your peace abound!6:27a On my authority, I make a decree:6:27b namely that, throughout all my dominion,6:27c men are to tremble and fear,6:27d before the presence of the God of Daniel;6:27e for, He is the Living God,

361 See Collins, Daniel, 271; Keil, Daniel, 218.

362 Young, 138. 363 Peter Hoffmann, Stauffenberg: A Family History, 1905-1944 (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s

University Press, 2003), 279. 364 Collins, FOTL, 117.

68


6:27f and enduring forever,6:27g His reign is one which will never be destroyed,6:27h His Lordship – forever.6:28a He is the One who rescues and delivers,6:28b He performs signs and wonders in the heavens and

on the earth; 6:28c indeed, He has rescued Daniel from the power of the

lions!”

Dan 6:26b-28 is the gist of the proclamation; it opens with a formulaic greeting [Dan 6:26b], continues with a statement of the proclamation’s authority [Dan 6:27a], carries on with the specific decree [Dan 6:27b-d], and concludes with the basis for this proclamation [Dan 6:27e-28c]. The reader will note that, as Darius delivers this proclamation, he gives major attention to the motive for the proclamation [Dan 6:27e-28c]. There are three motives behind the issuance of this proclamation: [1] who God is – the Living God (Dan 6:27e-f), [2] what God is – the Lord of history (Dan 6:27g-h), and [3] what God does – Deliver (Dan 6:28a-c).

Dan 6:27 – “On my authority, I make a decree: namely that, throughout all my dominion, men are to tremble and fear, before the presence of the God of Daniel; for, He is the Living God, and enduring forever, His reign will be one which will never be destroyed, His Lordship – forever.”

The authority behind the proclamation [Dan 6:27a]

On my authority [] is a prepositional phrase that literally reads, “From my presence.”365 Holladay simply translates the prepositional phrase with “before.”366 There are, however, usages of this prepositional phrase [] in the Aramaic section of Daniel that underline the sense of “on the authority of” [Ezra 7:14; Dan 2:6, 15; 5:24 (on the authority of Yahweh)]. In this context, “making a decree” would in the nature of the case demand doing so “on the authority of” Darius.

Decree [ (noun, ms, sg)] is an Aramaic noun that Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:27 with “command.”367 In Egyptian Aramaic, the cognate means a “decision, command.”368 Robert O’Connell offers “instruction, decree, command” for in Dan 6:27.369

While it may be sheer coincidence, this prepositional phrase in Dan 6:27a, , used in reference to the royal authority of Darius, is also used in Dan 6:27d to reference the presence [] of Yahweh. The order of these usages is suggestive: on Darius’ authority [] his citizenry is decreed to enter the presence [] of Yahweh. This level of presumption seems to parallel the impertinence that induced him to sign his ill-advised bill in the first place [Dan 6:8-10]. Are citizens of Darius’ realm or any jurisdiction for that matter, really obliged to have royal sanction to enter the presence of Yahweh?

The gist of the decree [Dan 6:27b-d]

In Dan 6:27b, Darius stipulates the scope of his decree: “throughout all my dominion.” The phrase is a prepositional phrase with a genitive construction functioning as the object of the preposition; literally: “in all of the dominion of my realm [ ].” The genitive relationship may be of the

365 KB2, 1967; similarly, BDB, 1110.

366 Holladay, 418.

367 KB2, 1885.

368 Ibid.

369 Robert H. O’Connell, “,” in NIDOTTE [H3247].

69


verbal notion [dominion] to the object of the verbal notion [my realm] variety.370 In any event, the operative term is dominion [].

Dominion [] appears in Daniel 6 only here; but it appears twice, once in reference to Darius [Dan 6:27b] and once in reference to Yahweh [Dan 6:27h].

Dominion [] is used in Jewish Aramaic in the sense of “dominion, power, ruler;” Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:27b with “dominion.”371 BDB translates in Dan 6:27b with “realm.”372 Holladay offers “dominion, lordship” for Dan 6:27b.373 Philip Nel affirms that this root [] in Aramaic denotes those who “have power”.374 M. Sb notes that the “meaning of the word family is always associated with ‘power’; usually it denotes the possession and especially the exercise of power, ‘rule.’”375 So it is in Dan 6:27b; /dominion testifies to the “personal sense of the exercise of authority.”376

When the verbal form of this root [] appears in the Aramaic of Daniel, its usage often signifies that human political power/governance are bestowed upon mortals by Yahweh [Dan 2:38 (Nebuchadnezzar); 4:19 (Nebuchadnezzar); 7:6, 12]. Darius shows no sign whatsoever of even knowing this, let alone acknowledging it.

In Dan 6:27c-d, Darius unpacks the essence of the directive: “men are to tremble and fear [Dan 6:27c] before the presence of the God of Daniel [Dan 6:27d].” The construction has a finite verb [ (Peal, imperfect, 3rd, ms, pl; literally: “they will be”)] followed by two active participles [ (Peal, participle, ms, pl; literally: “trembling”); and (Peal, participle, ms, pl; literally “fearing”)]. The juxtaposition of a finite verb + participles signals “continuous and habitual action.”377 What is more, this finite verb [ (Peal, imperfect of )] may be used in a jussive sense:378 “may they” or “men are (directed) to.” In any event, the expositor should read a directive from Darius to all who live throughout his dominion for the foreseeable future: “tremble and fear.”

Tremble [] is used twice in Daniel, once in Dan 5:19 in reference to “trembling” before king Nebuchadnezzar, and here in Dan 6:27 in reference to “trembling” before Yahweh. As a matter of fact, the next verb [] is also used in Dan 5:19 in reference to “fearing” before king Nebuchadnezzar, as well as here in Dan 6:27. As Young points out, “Darius requires no more than Nebuchadnezzar apparently demanded for himself.”379

Tremble [] “conveys the basic idea of fear or terror that is manifest bodily by shaking or quaking.”380 In this sense then, communicates exceptional terror, physically obvious. There is one

370 Van der Merwe § 25.4.2. (iii). 371 KB2, 1995.

372 BDB, 1115.

373 Holladay, 423. 374 Philip Nel, “,” in NIDOTTE [H8948]. 375 M. Sb, “,” in TDOT, vol. XV, 83. 376 Ibid., 86. 377 Rosenthal, § 177.

378 Bauer-Leander § 78 s. 379 Young, 139. 380 M. Van Pelt and W. Kaiser, Jr., “,” in NIDOTTE [H2316].

70


similar construction [finite verb () + two active participles] in the Dead Sea Scrolls that supports in the sense of physical trembling. In 4Q204, Enoch enters a house, and prior to receiving a vision, he was “shivering [] and shaking [],” so much so that he fell on his face. The second participle [] may be translated “to quake, tremble.”381 Finally, is used in the Hebrew Bible in Esther 5:9, where /trembling conveys more the sense of honor or deference to a superior, a king in this case. At the same time, the usage of in the Aramaic of Dan 5:19 does signal this same honor and deference; but, elsewhere in the sentence, references to life and death taint in Dan 5:19 with more than a hint of terror.

So, where does all of this leave us? To begin with, there is a difference in tone between as honor or deference and as terror and dread. So, which is it? Perhaps we should note very carefully who is speaking: Darius, a pagan, polytheistic, political power-player. The fact that he borrows language applicable to a human tyrant, Nebuchadnezzar [Dan 5:19], may indicate that Darius is applying human terror and dread to Yahweh, using the best language he has at hand and applying concepts Darius readily understood. If this is testimony to the superiority of God, then it is muffled testimony at best; still, it is testimony.

Fear [] is a root that appears only in Aramaic in this form; it suggests “fear, dread, startling.”382 Holladay offers “fear, frightening, frightful.”383 The Hebrew cognate is written differently, . This root has an Arabic cognate [zachala] that means “to hold oneself back, to be in dread;” Kohler-Baumgartner translate with “to be anxious.”384

The Dead Sea Scrolls use /fear in context with “fearing God.” 4Q198 refers to one who “continued [] to fear [] God [] and to praise [] His greatness [].” Then, in 4Q550c, a king makes the following observation: “the Most High [] whom you fear [] and you serve [], He is the one who rules [] all the earth.” Obviously, the tone in the scrolls, “praising” and “serving” as adjuncts of “fear,” is miles away from terror and dread.

Three observations here: first, as used in these two scrolls, /fear lacks the terror and dread associations we noted above; /fear is more oriented toward honor and deference [“praise” () and “serve” ()]. Second, in 4Q550c, the scroll author affirms that the Most High rules [], and he uses the same root [] that the author of Daniel uses in describing Yahweh’s Lordship [ (Dan 6:27h)]. This suggests that serving [] and rule/Lordship [] are compatible as amplifications of /fear. But, third, these scroll authors were familiar with the language of “fearing God,” and they reflect this acquaintance in how they clarify it. However, as we have noted previously, Darius mimics language that was applied to another tyrant, Nebuchadnezzar [Dan 5:19]. The differences in nuance between Darius and the scroll authors are so pronounced that one really should not read Dan 6:27c as if Darius were familiar with the Hebrew concept of “fearing God.” The net effect is this: as noted above, Darius is struggling to define honor and reverence for God with little or no acquaintance with the concept; so, he once more uses the language at hand, the language of terror and dread before a tyrant. Young puts into perspective this matter of “tremble and fear” from the lips of Darius in Dan 6:27c:385

In the statements made concerning God and His kingdom, Darius is probably influenced by the events of the immediate past and by the instruction which he received from Daniel. His words, while true

381 KB2, 1258. 382 Ibid., 1850.

383 Holladay, 402.

384 KB2, 268. 385 Young, 139.

71


enough in themselves, could only have had a hollow meaning for himself.

In Dan 6:27d, the author finalizes Darius’ account of the essence of the directive: “before the presence of the God of Daniel.” We have already noted in the discussion of Dan 6:27a that the order of the first of these usages in 6:27a is suggestive: on Darius’ say-so [] his citizenry is authorized to enter the presence [] of Yahweh.

Before the presence of [] is used spatially in Dan 6:27d, communicating “to be in the presence of God” according to Kohler-Baumgartner.386 There are suggestions of approaching God and relating to God in the sense specified in the context, terror and dread in this case. Indeed, Daniel and his three comrades seek compassion /”from the presence of” God in their ignorance in Dan 2:18. In this case, there is a correlation between presence [] and the availability of compassion. In Dan 6:11e, Daniel, as a matter of spiritual discipline, prays and praises ,”approaching the presence of God.” Indeed, in Dan 6:12c, Daniel’s adversaries discover Daniel petitioning and imploring , “in the presence of God.” The net effect is this: both Darius and Daniel have a sense that one can , come before or come into the presence of God; but, the spiritual conditions for entering into God’s presence are wholly divergent. For Daniel, to come into the presence of God [] presumes compassion, petitioning, and praising; for Darius, to come before God [] presupposes terror and dread. These differences once again demonstrate the hollowness, the virtue emptiness by comparison, of Darius’ words.

The God of Daniel [ ] has a strange ring to it; Darius seems to be acknowledging in some vague sense “the God of Daniel” without confessing Daniel’s God as the one true God. In other words, this acknowledgment of “the God of Daniel” is truly spoken by a man who is not surrendering his polytheistic orientation. At the same time, and this point should be noted carefully, Darius is, in some superficial and one-dimensional sense, testifying to the “God of Daniel.” While this may not be the most ringing endorsement, the most intricate and in-depth theology, it is witness from a wholly unimagined quarter: a pagan, polytheistic, political power-player. As we have said before, the theme of Daniel is that Yahweh is in charge of the national and international political goings-on of mankind; and this truncated profession testifies to that very fact.

The motive behind the issuance of the decree [Dan 6:27e-28c]

The author depicts Darius’ motive statement in three movements: [1] because of who God is (Dan 6:27e-f); [2] because of what God is (Dan 6:27g-h); and [3] because of what God does (Dan 6:28a-c). The fact that Dan 6:27e-28c is a motive statement is verified by the opening particle [/”for”] in Dan 6:27e.387

The first motive behind issuing this decree is who God is: first, “He is the Living God” and

second, He is “enduring forever.”

Living God [ ] is the same words Darius used in Dan 6:21d. These are the only two appearances of the phrase in the Aramaic section of Daniel. In Dan 6:21d, we argued that Darius would have been introduced to the phrase, “Living God,” by Daniel, a man who was well acquainted with the idea. We further observed that four ideas could be linked to [ , ideas with which Darius would have been completely unaware: [1] God’s presence and availability, [2] God’s intervention and rescue ability, [3] God’s relatedness to His people, and [4] God’s everlasting kingship. To give Darius his due, he certainly understood God’s capacity to rescue, having observed it first-hand.

Like the king’s usage of “tremble and fear,” language he borrowed from Nebuchadnezzar, once more Darius’ remarks concerning “the Living God” are more than likely pirated from Daniel. When all is

386 KB2, 1967.

387 For the causal use of in Biblical Aramaic, see Bauer-Leander § 70 g.

72


said and done, having overhead or perhaps spoken with Daniel on the subject, Darius is using words with a shallow understanding of them at best.

Enduring forever [ (preposition, noun, ms, pl) (adjective, ms, sg)] are two words that seem to be synonymous; both point to what is everlasting or enduring. The adjective, , points to what is “enduring,”388 or “secure.”389 The noun, , depicts duration and perpetuity; Kohler-Baumgartner translate in Dan 6:27f with “remote time, eternity.”390

This noun, /enduring, is used frequently in Daniel in reference to Yahweh: Daniel informs Nebuchadnezzar that a kingdom is destined to come that will “endure forever” [Dan 2:44]; Nebuchadnezzar himself admits that Yahweh’s dominion is /”everlasting” [Dan 4:3]; then, after his frenzied punishment by Yahweh, Nebuchadnezzar once more admits that Yahweh’s dominion is /”everlasting” [Dan 4:34].

The pattern continues as these back references to Nebuchadnezzar again demonstrate: influenced by events in the kingdom’s past, Darius is once more appropriating language and ideas associated with the legend of Daniel in the Babylonian-Persian kingdom. To describe God as “enduring forever,” while certainly the truth in and of itself, still seems to leave Darius using language to communicate ideas that could only have had muted meaning for him.

The second motive behind issuing this decree is what God is: not only “His reign is one which will never be destroyed,” but also “His Lordship – forever.” Whether Darius understands the full impact of what he has just said or not, the fact of the matter is that what God is comes down to the Lord of history. But, just how could Darius have come to this conclusion based on his experience with Daniel and the lions?

In Dan 6:27g, the author represents Darius as linking his decree to Yahweh as the present and permanent Lord of history: “His reign is one which will never be destroyed.”

His reign [] describes Yahweh’s “kingship, sovereignty”391 over human history. As used in Daniel, of Yahweh tends to emphasize the activity involved in ruling. In Dan 2:44, the divine kingdom that Yahweh will one day inaugurate will utterly crush and put an end to it rivals; in Dan 4:3, Nebuchadnezzar extols of of Yahweh for its signs and wonders; and in Dan 4:25, Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar that Yahweh’s means, among other things, that He bestows it on whomever He pleases. What these passages tell us is that Yahweh’s /reign is not only legitimate but also active in human political history.

Will never be destroyed [ ] is repeated verbatim in Dan 2:44, where Daniel apprizes Nebuchadnezzar of the fact that Yahweh will establish a reign [ (see the previous paragraph)] that will never be destroyed [ ]. Does it strain credulity to assume that this prophecy, associated with Daniel, might have lingered menacingly in the thought world of Babylonian-Persian leaders? Could Darius be anxiously mindful of this prophecy, which proved to be true for Nebuchadnezzar, from Daniel? Or, might Daniel have recounted this prophecy to Nebuchadnezzar for the benefit of Darius?

Destroy [] is an Aramaic verb that has two ranges of meaning: [1] “to hurt, inflict injury” and [2] “to destroy, cause to perish.”392 Once more, Darius may be repeating part of the Nebuchadnezzar/Daniel legend; for Nebuchadnezzar himself was told by Daniel that a kingdom was on the

388 KB2, 1970.

389 Holladay, 418. 390 KB2, 1949.

391 Ibid., 1916. 392 KB2, 1868; similarly, BDB, 1091; Holladay, 404.

73


horizon, a realm [] that would be unassailable, invincible, beyond destruction []. Furthermore, commenting on the /realm of Yahweh, Nebuchadnezzar affirmed its indestructability in slightly different language [Dan 4:3, 34]. Thus, having borrowed religious language throughout the creation of this decree thus far [Dan 6:27e-g], it seems that Darius is, once more, unwittingly speaking well-known truth the drift of which almost surely escapes him. While Darius was unintentionally providing articulate and persuasive testimony to the Lordship of Yahweh over human history, the reader is entitled to seriously doubt that Darius understood in point of fact what he was actually saying.

Finally, will never be destroyed [ ] is repeated verbatim a total of three times in Daniel 6-7: first, by Daniel who predicts the arrival of a divine reign that will never be destroyed [ (Dan 2:44)]; second, by Darius who affirms that Yahweh’s reign will never be destroyed [ (Dan 6:27)]; and third, in Daniel’s vision in chapter 7, where we learn that the Ancient of Days grants One like a Son of Man a reign that will never be destroyed [ (Dan 7:14)]. From Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar to Darius, the same truth prevails: Yahweh is in charge of the national and international goings-on of mankind, appearances to the contrary; and Yahweh, the Lord of history, is directing history toward a realm [] that will never be destroyed [ ]. Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius, and their many successors, are bit players in a drama that dwarfs them; human history has a divinely appointed destiny.

In Dan 6:27h, the author continues to tie Darius’ doxology with God’s Lordship of history: “His Lordship – forever.”

Lordship [] is the same word used previously by Darius in reference to his dominion []. See the notes above on Dan 6:27b. Once more, Darius seems to be drawing on a familiar story, for Nebuchadnezzar made the same claim about Yahweh’s /Lordship/dominion [Dan 4:3, 34].

Forever [ (noun, ms, sg) ] is a prepositional phrase. The noun, , is used in Dan 6:27h with temporal significance in the sense of “lasting forever.”393

What God does: deliver [Dan 6:28a-c]

Darius can personally attest to this manifestation of Yahweh’s sovereignty over human history: [1] “He is the One who rescues and delivers” (Dan 6:28a); [2] “He performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth” (Dan 6:28b); and [3] “He has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions” (Dan 6:28c).

Rescues and delivers [ (Aphel, participle, ms, sg) (Shaphel, participle, ms, sg)] are both written as participles. Taken at face value, these participles indicate that rescuing and delivering are typical, ongoing, activities of Yahweh.394 Indeed, Darius might well be quite familiar with these activities of Yahweh from the Nebuchadnezzar/Daniel legend. Nebuchadnezzar uses both verbs, and , in Dan 3:28-29, to describe what Yahweh did for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego in the fiery furnace. To be sure, we must give Darius his due: he witnessed Yahweh’s miraculous rescuing and delivering, and gave the credit where the credit was due. Yet, once more, while Darius’ claim is true as it stands, one may wonder just how much intensity and profundity there is to this tribute.

In Dan 6:28b, the author depicts Darius as extoling the miraculous powers of Yahweh: “He performs signs and wonders in the heavens and on the earth.” The two nouns, signs [] and wonders [], are used in tandem three times in the book of Daniel, twice by Nebuchadnezzar in his doxologies to Yahweh [Dan 4:2-3], and once by Darius in Dan 6:28b; yet another instance of Darius imitating Nebuchadnezzar.

393 Ibid., 1938; similarly, Holladay, 414; BDB, 1104. 394 Rosenthal, § 177.

74


Signs [] and wonders [] is reminiscent of signs [] and wonders [] in the Hebrew Bible, especially Deuteronomy.395 The switch from /”wonder” in Deuteronomy to /”wonder” in Daniel may be accounted for on the basis of the Hebrew noun, , being extant only in Hebrew; there are no other known appearances of this noun in ancient Near Eastern literature.396 Accordingly, the author of Daniel used the best synonym he had at hand. The larger point is this: the juxtaposition of “signs and wonders” would have been natural, in this rescue setting, to a man like Daniel; “the expression betrays Jewish authorship by its biblical overtones.”397 In other words, “signs and wonders” discloses Daniel’s influence on Darius, not ideas that spring from the thought-world of Darius.

Finally, in Dan 6:28c, the author portrays Darius as commending Yahweh for deliverance: “He has rescued Daniel from the power of the lions.” For the notes on “rescue,” see Dan 6:15, above.

Reflection.

The reader will note that much of Darius’ doxology is borrowed, either from Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel, or both. There is a point to be made about Daniel’s influence.

We have reckoned that, by the time Darius comes along, Daniel had been in royal service about 65 years. There are indications that foreigners would have fared fairly well under the Babylonians, and presumably, under the Persians. So, Daniel could have exited government service, but he chose to remain. Why?

Perhaps this doxology of Darius gives us a hint: Daniel as able to witness to Darius; Daniel is behind Darius’ awareness at least of the “Living God” [Dan 6:27e], behind Darius’ mindfulness of God’s kingdom “enduring forever” [Dan 6:27f], behind Darius’ consciousness that Yahweh’s reign “will never be destroyed” [Dan 6:27g], and behind Darius’ cognizance of Yahweh’s “signs and wonders” [Dan 6:28b]. What is more, in Daniel 2 and 4, we have direct evidence of Daniel’s witness to Nebuchadnezzar and to Belshazzar in Daniel 5.

We have argued that the fundamental theme of the book of Daniel is that Yahweh is in charge of the national and international political shenanigans of humans, appearances to the contrary. Knowing this, Daniel does not retreat into smug silence; Daniel does not refuse to sully his hands in governmental service; Daniel does not view government as an inflexible and unbending enemy; and Daniel is certainly not intimidated by human political power [neither does he lust for power for its own sake!]; rather, Daniel attempts to witness to what he knows to be true – God is indeed in charge of human governance – at the highest levels of government at that time.

The reader should weigh and consider tearing a page from Daniel’s playbook: it is futile to attempt to “turn a nation around” by changing its laws; rather, like Daniel, the only way to stem the tide of ever rising moral decadence is by changing minds, including those at the highest levels. In the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius/Cyrus are really no more than bit players in a divine drama, the final act of which is the establishment of a permanent divine dominion, whereupon all humanity will serve One like a Son of Man [Dan 7:14]. Daniel understood that and witnessed accordingly.

VIII. Daniel’s success in Darius/Cyrus’ government [Dan 6:29]

6:29a Accordingly, this (same) Daniel proved to be successful in the government of Darius;


395 Deuteronomy 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 26:8; 28:46; 29:2; 34:4.

396 See Paul Kruger, “,” in NIDOTTE [H4603], and S. Wagner, “,” in TDOT, vol. VIII, 174.

397 Collins, Daniel, 221.

75


Daniel 6 wraps up with a final narrative genre, offering an historical snapshot of Daniel’s success in the government of Cyrus.

In Dan 6:29a, the author underlines the success of Daniel in the royal court, noting that Daniel “proved to be successful” in the government of Darius.

Proved to be successful [ (Haphel, perfect, 3rd, ms, sg)] is written in the Haphel stem, which in this case is simply to be read as an intransitive.398 The perfect aspect verb is used as a narrative tense, simply recording the fact of success as a whole: “Daniel was successful.” Kohler-Baumgartner affirms that in Dan 6:29a should be translated “fared well.”399

In Dan 6:29b, the author stipulates just where Daniel fared so well: “in the government of Darius, that is, in the government of Cyrus.” We may read the simple waw [/”that is”] as explanatory.400 This explanation relieves the conundrum concerning Darius. That is, historians know that there was a Darius, Darius I Hystaspes, on the throne in Persia well after the death of Belshazzar.401 The author waits until Dan 6:29b to solve the puzzle: “Darius” and “Cyrus” are one in the same person.

398 Bauer-Leander § 76 l. 399 KB2, 1964.

400 Bauer-Leander § 70 r. 401 For the historical calamity this has created for the historical integrity of the book of Daniel, see

Joyce Baldwin, Daniel, 23-28.

76

Documents

Expository Reading Guide to Daniel 6.docx