Daniel in the Den of Lions (Daniel 6)

This sermon was preached on 8/1/2012

A new regime is now in place in Babylon. The new rulers may have decided to retain officials from the previous government, which would explain why Daniel was still involved. It was not long before Darius discovered the worth of Daniel and further promotion was planned for him. By this time Daniel was about eighty years of age, and his fellow officials thought it was about time he retired. Yet since retirement did not seem to be on Daniel’s agenda, they had to resort to other means of getting rid of him.

The testimony of the officials

It is one thing for a gifted individual to be assessed by the general public and it is another thing for him to be assessed by his fellow-experts. These men knew all about the running of government departments and what was expected of those working in them. Therefore their conclusion about Daniel is very noteworthy – they could not find even a fault with all his work. This tells us that he was diligent and careful, and I think that is what is meant by ‘faithful’ in verse 4. He worked as hard as he could and he ensured that everything was done well. Why did he do this? The text does not say, but the answer is not hard to deduce. He served in this manner because he knew that he was under the all-seeing eye of God. The Lord not only knew what Daniel did, but was also aware why he did it.

Further the officials knew the key to Daniel’s behaviour – his devotion to God (v. 5), especially his prayer life. They knew that there was the possibility of setting a trap for him if they could make it illegal for him to pray to his God. We’ll come back to their trickery when we consider what the chapter says about the character of Darius. In the meantime we can reflect on the fact that his opponents knew that Daniel was a man devoted to pleasing God. They knew that he was not a man-pleaser, which they probably were. Instead they recognised that Daniel would not compromise any aspect of the demands of the law of God. Daniel was known as a god-fearing man.

There is one more detail that we should note about the officials, and that is that they were entrapped in the net that they had prepared for Daniel. It is a dangerous thing to conspire against those whom God is determined to honour. However unlikely, he is able to turn the tables and bring disaster on those who planned disaster for others, especially his people.

Conversion of Darius?

No-one is sure who Darius was because he is not mentioned in secular history. There have been three suggestions at least: one is that he was governor of Babylon for a short time and therefore his period of rule did not merit subsequent mention; a second is that the word ‘and’ should not be included in the translation of verse 28 (instead of reading as ‘So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian’, it should read as ‘So this Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius, which was the reign of Cyrus the Persian’) – this suggestion considers Darius and Cyrus to be the same person; the third suggestion is that his other name was Guburu, a general whom Cyrus did appoint to rule in Babylon after it was conquered. An older suggestion, based on Greek historians, is that Darius was the uncle of Cyrus, but that does not seem to be viable.

Darius is introduced to the readers as a wise man who knew how to organise his government so that it would prosper. Further he is an observant person because he discerned the gifts that Daniel possessed would benefit the whole kingdom. Connected to this is the fact that he was a flexible ruler, willing to adjust his own system in order to accommodate the gifts that Daniel possessed – Darius was planning to create a new role for Daniel because the current arrangements did not accommodate him.

Those features, which at one level are commendable, also allowed for the possibility of change with regard to the government practices. There must have been potential developments in the transition of rulers from Babylon to Persia that made the proposal of his government officials attractive to Darius. It is highly unlikely that he assumed he could prevent people praying to their gods. Therefore it may have been the case that he was looking for a scheme that would bring harmony between the various people groups conquered by him. One potential cause of disputes was the various religions found within the empire, so it seemed a good suggestion to ban them all for a month and use him as an access to the gods instead.

Was God at work in the life of Darius in this incident? We could say that providentially he was shown that the policy of having unchangeable laws was not very productive. I have no idea if his government persisted with this temporary law, but Darius was shown that it was not a safe one for his government to have. So that is one good benefit from the incident.

A second detail is that Darius was cornered, not only by the officials, but also by God. Where does he turn in his desperation? A clue is found in verse 16: ‘May your God, whom you serve continually, deliver you!’ What more suitable advice could Darius have given? He was trapped by his own laws, but he seems to know that Daniel’s God was not limited by them and could provide a way out. Whatever else we make of his comment, it is clear that he had, at least, a small amount of faith in the Lord.

Then, what are we to make of his sleepless night (v. 19)? We are all aware of occasions when sleep flees from us because we have made a foolish decision or said an inappropriate word. Yet the passage seems to indicate that he wanted to be alone. He chose not to utilise the entertainments that could have diverted his thoughts. At the very least, he was concerned about Daniel. There was tension in the air, although I suspect that Darius wanted to be by himself in order to engage in prayer.

The sleepless night was followed Darius’ hurried visit to the den as soon as it was daybreak. What would be the point of him going there unless he had a notion, at least, that the God of Daniel could deliver his servant? In normal circumstances, the lions would have killed the prisoner. And if he did not have a spiritual interest, he could have sent an official to find out what had happened. It looks as he had very strong personal reasons for going to the tomb. Faith can express itself in unusual ways, even in a visit to a den of lions.

And as we listen to Darius speaking, we note that he gives God a special name – he is the living God. He knew that the other gods did not exist, but he was convinced that Daniel’s God did. How did he discover this insight into God’s existence? Somehow he had become convinced of the existence of God. No doubt Daniel had spoken to him often about the Lord. Was it Daniel’s calm composure at negative providences that alerted Darius to something more than normal? Who knows? All we can say is that the ruler of Babylon confessed that there was a living God, which at the same time is also a confession that there are dead gods.

Finally, what about his decree instructing his subjects to worship the true God? After all, Darius composed it because he wanted to. There was no earthly power that could have compelled him to write it. So in a sense, it is Darius’ testimony. What does he say about God?

Darius details how people should worship God – they are to tremble and fear. Darius was used to individuals trembling before him. But he did not want any to tremble in that way without trembling before God in a deeper way. Trembling and respect are appropriate responses to authentic majesty. Why should we tremble before God and fear him? Darius gives four reasons.

First, the Lord is the living God. Darius had seen the ineffectiveness of many false gods. They had made no difference in the lives of their worshippers and had no power to intervene. Wherever they were adored by followers, eventually those followers were demoralised by defeat. It was different with Daniel’s God – he could intervene in impossible situations and could comfort his people, even when he allowed them to go into activity. Because he is alive, he is always there.

Second, the Lord is eternal. This follows on from his livingness. He cannot have had a beginning and he will not have end. He does not diminish in his power and in his commitment to his people.

Third, the Lord is powerful. He reigns over a kingdom that will never be destroyed and no-one will take his power from him. Darius realised that the Lord was the almighty God. As a king, Darius knew about kingdoms coming to an end – only a year before he had been instrumental in bringing the mighty empire of Babylon to an end. He knew that his own kingdom would be outlasted by the kingdom of God, and since he will rule forever he should be feared and worshipped.

Fourth, the Lord delivers his people and in doing so he reveals that he controls the universe. Darius knew that Daniel was in trouble and does not take any credit for his rescue. Instead he gives all the glory to God. What more can be expressed by a man of faith?

We should note the sense of irony here. The officials had suggested to Darius that he represent the gods of the empire for a month. After going through a range of experiences, each of them a step in the ladder he was ascending to God, Darius represented the true God as his messenger and told the whole empire about him. Darius confessed that he, the king, was a subject of the true God. So while the devil may have used the officials to bring Daniel down, the Lord used them to bring Darius up.

The character of Daniel

The first detail to note about Daniel is that he possessed an ‘excellent spirit’ (v. 3). This could be a reference to the common workings of the Holy Spirit who had given him the necessary gifts for his roles. In addition, I would suggest it is a description of his sanctification because it reveals ongoing inner change. His position had not made him proud.

A second detail to observe is that divine testing can come at any age. Daniel had been tested as a young teenager by God and here the Lord tests him again, in his old age. The focus of the testings was the same – who was in charge of Daniel’s life? Would he live according to the demands of God or the demands of earthly rulers?

Daniel could have argued that he should accept the prohibition on vocal praying. After all, he could still pray silently. It would only be for a month, and then he could resume his own personal preferences. Why be so intransigent? Daniel realised that there were limits to the power of the state, and it had intruded into areas of his life over which it had no authority. So he was not prepared to bow to its demands.

With regard to his prayer life, he was consistent. He prayed three times a day for over seventy years, which is almost 80,000 times. On each of these occasions, he had gone to the particular room that faced Jerusalem, kneeled down and prayed. His consistency was based on his disciplined life. It is a man of disciplined prayer that copes with crises because he speaks to God about them.

His prayer life was also consistent in its content and manner. The first thing that he did when he prayed was give thanks to God, even although he was aware that the document that threatened him had been signed. He did not judge God’s commitment to him by the actions of others. When the officials came along, they found him engaged in earnest intercession, pleading his petitions. His prayers were not dry chats with God. Instead he implored divine blessing on others.

There are several challenges from this brief description of Daniel’s prayer life. First, he was naturally very gifted, able to run an empire, yet he always made time for prayer. Second, he prayed in a location where his eyes looked towards what he loved – to Jerusalem, the city of God (Jesus too, when he prayed, looked in a certain direction, to heaven). The challenge is, where are our affections when we pray? Third, his open window was a reminder to him and others that he prayed often. Is there anything in our homes that indicates a strong faith in God? Fourth, would it make much difference to us if prayer was banned for a month and we could not meet on Thursday evenings?

Finally, there is his experience in the den of lions. What does it tell us about his outlook? First, he knew his God – note how he says ‘my’ God. Second, he believed in personal divine protection by heavenly servants, the angels. The passage does not say if Daniel saw the angel, but his words indicate that he believed the Lord delivered him in accordance with his word (Psalm 34:7). Better to see deliverances as heavenly activities rather than mere coincidences.

The obvious lesson from this story is the impossibility of defeating God’s man if God intends to use him.

The second lesson is that seeming disasters are often paths to expansion in the kingdom of God. Daniel’s troubles led to a monarch believing and a set of hostile forces disappearing.

A third lesson is that a believer can have fellowship with God anywhere and sense his help. It is interesting that Daniel does not say that God closed the mouths of the lion – instead he attributed it to the ministry of angels. Daniel recognised that his Lord had an arranged structure of government that was far more effective than the arranged structure of Darius.

The fourth lesson is that we are to look for converts in any providence. We can never deduce that a situation is impossible for divine grace to work in it. If there ever was an unlikely convert, it was Darius. But he was led to have faith in Daniel’s God.