Daniel 6.5 [6.6]-Daniel's Fellow Supervisors and Satraps Decide to Find a Pretext Against Him with Regards to the Law of His God
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Tuesday February 19, 2013
Daniel: Daniel 6:5 (6:6)-Daniel’s Fellow Supervisors and Satraps Decide to Find a Pretext Against Him with Regards to the Law of His God
Lesson # 176
Please turn in your Bibles to Daniel 5:31.
Daniel 5:31 (6:1) Now, Darius the Mede received the kingdom at sixty-two years of age. 2 It was considered a good idea by Darius to establish one hundred twenty satraps over the kingdom in order that they would be in authority over the entire kingdom 3 and in addition, out from, over them, three supervisors, of whom, Daniel was one of them in order that these satraps would exist in the state of having to give an account to them so that the king would never be able to suffer loss. 4 Then this Daniel was distinguishing himself above the supervisors as well as satraps because an extraordinary spirit was in him. Consequently, the king intended to establish him over the entire kingdom. 5 as a result, the supervisors as well as the satraps were repeatedly attempting to find a pretext against Daniel with regards to governmental affairs. However, repeatedly, they were totally unable to find any pretext in the form of corruption because he was trustworthy. Indeed, no negligence in the form of corruption was found against him. (My translation)
Daniel 6:5 Then these men said, “We will not find any ground of accusation against this Daniel unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God.” (NASB95)
This verse presents the result of the previous statement recorded in Daniel 6:4 (6:5).
Therefore, “as a result of” Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps finding absolutely no pretext against Daniel with regards to his job as a supervisor over the satraps, these men concluded that they must cause a pretext to be found against Daniel with regards to the law of his God.
“These men said” denotes that Daniel’s fellow satraps and supervisors came to a decision with regards to Daniel after coming to an agreement.
“We will not find” is composed of the negative particle lā(ʾ) (לָא) (law), “not” which is negating the meaning of the first person plural hafʿel (Hebrew: hiphil stem) imperfect form of the verb šeḵǎḥ (שְׁכַח) (shek-akh´), “we will find.”
The verb šeḵǎḥ means “to find” in the sense of accusing someone or finding a legal basis for a charge against someone.
The word is emphatically negated by the negative particle lā(ʾ), which is a marker of emphatic negation.
These two words indicate that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps concluded that they “will never be able to cause” a pretext “to be found” against Daniel unless it is in connection with the law of his God.
The hafʿel (Hebrew: hiphil) stem of the verb denotes the inability of Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps to cause a pretext to be found against Daniel.
The imperfect conjugation is a potential imperfect expressing the inability of Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps to cause a pretext to be found against him unless it is in connection with the law of his God.
“Any ground of accusation” is composed of the singular construct form of the noun kōl (כֹּל) (kole), “any” which is modifying the feminine singular noun ʿil·lā(h) (עִלָּה) (il-law´), “a ground of accusation.”
The noun ʿil·lā(h) means “pretext” in the sense of grounds or basis for legal charges and refers to the superficial, obvious cause as opposed to the deeper, more real cause.
It is used in a negative sense meaning a mere “pretext” or “excuse” designed to cover up the real cause.
“Unless we find it against him with regard to the law of his God” is contrasting the inability of Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps to cause a pretext to be found against him in relation to his job as a supervisor over the satraps and their ability to cause a pretext to be found against him with regards to the law of his God.
“With regard to the law of his God” is composed of the preposition b- (בְּ־) (beh) “with regard to” and its object is the feminine singular construct form of the noun dāṯ (דָּת) (dawth), “the law of” which is modified by the masculine singular construct noun ʾělāh (אֱלָהּ) (el-aw´), “God” which is modified by the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix hû(ʾ) (הוּא) (who), “his.”
The noun dāṯ is a Persian load word, identical to the form preserved in Hebrew and means “law” referring to the Mosaic Law, which Daniel conscientiously observed as demonstrated in Daniel chapter one.
This chapter records that Daniel refused to eat the food and wine Nebuchadnezzar prescribed for all the young Jewish exile men who were selected to be trained in Babylonian literature and language because they were determined to obey the dietary regulations of the Law.
This word is the object of the preposition b-, which is a marker of an area of activity that has a relation to something else, showing specificity.
Here it marks Daniel’s relationship to the Mosaic Law.
Thus, his fellow satraps and supervisors concluded that they will never cause a pretext against Daniel to be found unless they cause it to be found “in connection to” the law of his God.
The noun ʾělāh means “God” referring to the God of Israel without reference to a member of the Trinity.
Daniel 6:5 (6:6) Therefore, these men concluded, “We will never be able to cause a pretext to be found against this Daniel unless we cause it be found in connection with the law originating from his God.” (My translation)
Daniel 6:7 (6:8) records that the prefects and Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps consulted together that Darius the Mede should establish and enforce a statute prohibiting anyone in the Medo-Persian Empire to petition any god or man besides the king for thirty days.
Failure to observe this decree would result in being cast into the lion’s den.
The decrees of the Medo-Persians could not be revoked according to their law.
Daniel 6:10 (6:11) records that Daniel prayed three times every day.
His fellow satraps and supervisors obviously knew this as indicated by the fact that they coerced Darius into establishing a decree which prohibited people from praying to their god for thirty days and Daniel 6:10 (6:11) records Daniel praying three times a day to his God.
This tells the reader why the conspirators are recorded as saying in Daniel 6:5 (6:6) that they will never be able to cause a pretext to be found against Daniel unless they cause it to be found in connection with the law of his God.
Thus, we see that the conspirators are using Daniel’s spirituality and faithfulness to his God against him as a political weakness.
Their actions make clear that they knew that Daniel would rather die than disobey his God.
Their conspiracy makes clear that they knew Daniel would obey God rather than the king or the laws of Medo-Persia if they came into conflict with the laws of his God.
They also turned the arrogance of Darius into their own political advantage over Daniel.
The fact that Darius agrees to such a decree expresses his great arrogance.
The conspirators use this to their advantage as well as Daniel’s obedience to his God to form the perfect plot to kill Daniel.
So there are two reasons why the conspirators knew that their idea would succeed and thus decide to manipulate the king.
First, they were assured Darius would agree to their suggestion because they knew that he was so arrogant to agree to such a thing.
Secondly, they were convinced that Daniel would obey the laws of his God rather than the laws of Medo-Persia if the latter came into conflict with the former.
The laws of the Medes and Persians were absolute but so also were the laws of Daniel’s God.
Daniel would disobey the laws of the Medes and Persians if they came into conflict with the laws of his God.
This is justified civil disobedience in that Daniel would have biblical justification in disobeying Darius’ decree since it would result in causing him to disobey God.
The fact that the conspirators knew of Daniel’s habit of praying three times a day to his God indicates that Daniel never hid his relationship with God and that this relationship was public knowledge.
Alexander MacLaren writes “The world is a very poor critic of my Christianity, but it is a very sufficient one of my conduct. They don't know the intricacies of doctrine, or the intimacies of worship with God; but they can tell a bad temper, selfishness, conceitedness or dishonesty when they see it.”
The conspirators’ plot pays a great compliment to Daniel because when they found his integrity impeccable with regards to his duties and responsibilities as a supervisor over the satraps, they sought to use his faithfulness and devotion to God against him.