Daniel 6.4 [6.5]-Daniel's Fellow Supervisors and Satraps Attempt to Find Some Pretext Against Him But Did Not Find Any Damaging Evidence Because of His Integrity
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday February 14, 2013
Daniel: Daniel 6:4 (6:5)-Daniel’s Fellow Supervisors and Satraps Attempt to Find Some Pretext Against Him But Did Not Find Any Damaging Evidence Because of His Integrity
Lesson # 175
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 Also, 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 (My translation)
Daniel 6:4 Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him. (NASB95)
“Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs” presents the result of the previous statement that Daniel was distinguishing himself above the supervisors as well as satraps because an extraordinary spirit was in him so that Darius intended to establish him over the entire kingdom.
“Began trying to find” is composed of the third person masculine plural peʿal (Hebrew: qal) active perfect form of the verb ḥǎwā(h) (חֲוָה) (khav-aw´), “began” and then we have the masculine plural peʿal (Hebrew: qal) active participle form of the verb beʿā(h) (בְּעָה) (beh-aw´), “trying” and then we have the preposition lĕ (לְ) (leh) “to” and its object is the hafʿel (Hebrew: hiphil stem) active infinitive construct form of the verb šeḵǎḥ (שְׁכַח) (shek-akh´), “find.”
The verb hǎwā(h) denotes that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps existed in the state of attempting to find some pretext against Daniel with regards to administrative matters.
The verb beʿā(h) denotes that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps attempted to find some pretext against him with regards to administrative matters as a result of Darius intending to establish Daniel in authority over the entire Babylonian kingdom.
The verb šeḵǎḥ refers to Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps attempting to find a pretext against Daniel as a result of Darius’ intention to establish Daniel in authority over the entire Babylonian kingdom.
The hafʿel (Hebrew: hiphil) stem of the verb is causative indicating that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps attempted to cause a pretext to be found against him.
“A ground of accusation” is the feminine singular noun ʿil·lā(h) (עִלָּה) (il-law´), which means “pretext” in the sense of grounds or basis for legal charges.
“Pretext” is defined in Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary as “that which is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object.”
If we paraphrase this definition, we could say that the noun ʿil·lā(h) refers to the dishonest and deceptive and falsely motivated manner in which Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps sought to find a basis for a legal charge against him with regards to administrative matters.
“But they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption” stands in contrast to the previous statement Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps were repeatedly attempting to find a pretext against Daniel with regards to governmental affairs.
“They could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption” is composed of the singular construct form of the noun kōl (כֹּל) (kole), “no” which is modifying the feminine singular noun ʿil·lā(h) (עִלָּה) (il-law´), “a ground of accusation” and then we have the conjunction wa (וְ) (waw), “or” which is followed by the feminine singular peʿil (Hebrew: qal passive) participle form of the verb šeḥǎṯ (שְׁחַת) (shekh-ath´), “corruption” and then we have the negative particle lā(ʾ) (לָא) (law), “no” which is negating the meaning of the masculine plural peʿal (Hebrew: qal) active participle form of the verb yeḵil (יְכִל) (yek-ale´), “they could” and then we have the preposition lĕ (לְ) (leh) “to” and its object is the hafʿel (Hebrew: hiphil stem) active infinitive construct form of the verb šeḵǎḥ (שְׁכַח) (shek-akh´), “find.”
The verb yeḵil means “to be able” and its meaning is emphatically negated by the negative particle lā(ʾ).
Thus, these two words express the “total inability” of Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps to find any basis for an accusation against him with regard to his duties as a supervisor of the satraps.
The verb šeḥǎṯ means “to be corrupt” in the sense of being morally corrupt, impairment of integrity, a departure from what is morally right emphasizing the character of Daniel.
The word denotes that repeatedly, Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps were totally unable to find any basis for a legal charge against him with regards to administrative matters or corruption.
The conjunction wa is used to join the noun ʿil·lā(h) to the participle form of the verb šeḥǎṯ in order to communicate one idea, which is called “hendiadys” meaning that these two words express one idea.
Namely that, Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps were totally unable to find any pretext in the form of corruption.
This figure emphasizes the moral integrity of Daniel.
“Inasmuch” is composed of the preposition k- (כְּ־) (kee) and this is followed by the preposition lĕ (לְ) (leh) and then we have the preposition qǒḇēl (קֳבֵל) (kob-ale´) and this is followed by the relative particle dî (דִּי) (dee).
These four words are introducing a statement that presents the reason why Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps repeatedly were totally unable to find any pretext in the form of corruption with regards to Daniel’s conduct as a supervisor over the satraps.
Therefore, these four words denote that “because” Daniel was trustworthy, his fellow supervisors and satraps were totally unable to find any pretext in the form of corruption with regards to his conduct as a governmental official.
“He was faithful” is composed of the masculine singular hofʿal (Hebrew: hophal) passive participle form of the verb ʾǎmǎn (אֲמַן) (am-an´), “faithful” and then we have the third person masculine singular pronominal suffix hû(ʾ) (הוּא) (who), “he was.”
The verb ʾǎmǎn means “trustworthy, dependable” and it is used to describe Daniel’s conduct with regards to his duties as a supervisor of the satraps.
The word denotes that Daniel was “trustworthy” or “dependable” with regards to his duties as a governmental official.
The word means that he could be trusted and that one could place their confidence in him that he would be honest in his duties expressing the fact that he was a responsible person.
It means that he told the truth and did not lie.
“And no negligence or corruption was to be found in him” is advancing upon and intensifying upon the previous statement that Daniel was a trustworthy governmental official.
The advancement and intensification is that Daniel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit goes from telling the reader that he was trustworthy to explaining specifically what he meant by this.
“No negligence or corruption” is composed of the singular construct form of the noun kōl (כֹּל) (kole), “no” which is modifying the feminine singular noun šā∙lû (שָׁלוּ) (shaw-loo´), “negligence” which is followed by the conjunction wa (וְ) (waw), “or” which is followed by the feminine singular peʿil (Hebrew: qal passive) participle form of the verb šeḥǎṯ (שְׁחַת) (shekh-ath´), “corruption.”
The noun šā∙lû means “negligence” and denotes that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps could find no “negligence” in Daniel carrying out his duties as a supervisor of the satraps.
This noun is modified by the singular construct form of the noun kōl, which means “any” in the sense of any one of a totality.
Here it refers to any negligence on the part of Daniel in carrying out his duties as a governmental official.
As was the case earlier in the verse, the verb šeḥǎṯ means “to be corrupt” and denotes that repeatedly, Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps were totally unable to find any basis for a legal charge against him with regards to administrative matters or corruption.
The conjunction wa is used to join the noun šā∙lû to the participle form of the verb šeḥǎṯ in order to communicate one idea, which is called “hendiadys.”
Therefore, these two words express one idea, namely that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps were totally unable to find any negligence in the form of corruption.
This figure again is emphasizing the moral integrity of Daniel.
The third person masculine singular pronominal suffix hû(ʾ) means “him” referring of course to Daniel and it is the object of the preposition ʿǎl, which is a marker of opposition indicating that Daniel’s fellow supervisors and satraps could find no negligence in the form of corruption “against” him.
Daniel 6:4 (6:5) As a result, the supervisors as well as the satraps were attempting to cause a pretext to be found against Daniel with regards to governmental affairs. However, they were totally unable to cause any pretext in the form of corruption to be found because he was trustworthy. Indeed, no negligence in the form of corruption was found against him. (My translation)
This verse reveals that Daniel is the object of a great governmental conspiracy to assassinate his character and then to kill him eventually.
The word “conspiracy” refers to an “evil, unlawful, treacherous or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons.”
Therefore, if we paraphrase this definition we can say that Daniel’s fellow satraps and supervisors agreed together in secret to find a basis for a charge against him.
Conspiracy is evil (Ps. 64:4-5; Prov. 17:11).
Daniel 6:4 (6:5) reveals that Daniel is the object of jealousy and envy and is being persecuted because Darius intended to establish him in authority over the entire Babylonian kingdom because he was exceptional in his abilities and talents.
Daniel’s fellow satraps and supervisors were acting upon their jealousy of Daniel and were envious of him and their actions served to persecute Daniel.
“Envy” is to feel resentful, spiteful, and unhappy because someone else possesses or has achieved, what one wishes oneself to possess, or to have achieved and desires to deprive another of what he has, whereas “jealousy” desires to have the same or the same sort of thing for itself.
Envy arises from jealousy and so therefore, to be envious means to act on one’s jealousy.
Christians are prohibited from committing the sins of jealousy and envy (Romans 13:13; 1 Peter 2:1-2).
Jealousy is a mental attitude sin directed toward another, which is resentful, intolerant and suspicious of another’s success, possessions or relationships and is vigilant in maintaining or guarding something.
Jealousy originated in eternity past with Satan.
Therefore, jealousy is demonic (James 3:14-16) since it is Satanic viewpoint.
Jealousy and envy were the sins of the Pharisees who delivered our Lord over to the Romans to be crucified (Matt. 27:18; Mark 15:10).
Though not explicitly mentioned, the testimony of Scripture is that Satan was behind this persecution of Daniel and the Jewish people.
The Savior of the world would be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and specifically would be from the tribe of Judah.
Thus, by attempting to kill the Jews in Babylon, Satan would be preventing the incarnation of the Son of God.
These actions on the part of Daniel’s fellow satraps and supervisors was a manifestation of “anti-Semitism,” which is opposition to, prejudice against, or intolerance of the Jewish people.
Daniel chapter six records the persecution of Daniel.
Persecution is the suffering or pressure, mental, moral, or physical, which authorities, individuals, or crowds inflict on others, especially for opinions or beliefs, with a view to their subjection by recantation, silencing, or, as a last resort, execution.
In Daniel chapter six, we see that as a result of being persecuted, Daniel was suffering undeservedly in order to bring glory to God.
So in Daniel chapter six, we see Daniel suffering undeservedly and unjustly.
However, God will intervene in this situation and deliver him from death just as he did for Daniel’s three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as recorded in Daniel chapter three.
Undoubtedly, not only was Daniel the object of jealousy and envy on the part of his fellow satraps and supervisors but also the object of xenophobia because he was a Jewish exile.
Xenophobia is an “unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers.”
The Medes and the Persians were racially prejudiced towards Daniel who was a Jewish exile since they considered themselves culturally and ethnically superior to the Jews because they were now a world-wide empire who like the Babylonians subjugated the Jews to themselves.