Sermon Tone Analysis

Welcome

Pray

Understand the Context

Today we will be looking at a passage that many have heard about even if they do not attend church regularly.

Daniel was captured in 605, today passage takes place around 538.

This would place the event near the end of the 70 years of exile and Daniel would be an elderly man, not the young man portrayed in the famous Rubens painting.

Today’s passage is also the only recorded “hardship” for Daniel in the book.

Daniel’s friends were tempted to commit an act which was wrong in Chapter 3. In today’s passage Daniel was called upon to discontinue an activity that was right.

[The Teacher’s Bible Commentary]

The prophet Daniel served under at least three kings.

He first served under King Nebuchadnezzar (1:3-6; 2:26-49; 4:8-9).

Second, he served King Belshazzar when he interpreted the handwriting on the wall for him (5:13-28).

He also had two significant visions during Belshazzar’s reign (7:1; 8:1).

Third, Daniel 6 records that Daniel served Darius, the first king of the Persian empire (6:1-2).

Darius appointed 120 officials called satraps to administer his recently acquired kingdom (5:31-6:1).

He also chose three administrators, including Daniel, to oversee the satraps (6:2).

Daniel distinguished himself in service so well that the king considered appointing him over the entire kingdom (6:3).

Darius’s favor toward Daniel did not please the other officials, but they could find no charge to bring against Daniel due to his trustworthiness (6:4).

They finally decided perhaps they could trap him in something regarding his relationship with God (6:5).

They suggested to the king that he establish a decree that for thirty days, anyone who petitioned or prayed to any god or person beside the king would face death in a den of lions (6:6-9).

The king signed the edict, which meant it could not be changed.

[LifeWay Adults (2021).

Explore the Bible: Adult Leader Guide - ESV - Winter 2022.

LifeWay Press.]

Explore the Text

The Christian Standard Bible is what our lesson material is based on and that version there are two pericopes or “set of verses that forms one coherent unit or thought.” in our lesson passage.

Here is a graphic of several versions with their pericope divisions.

As you can see how the translators distinguish these groups of “thought” vary.

In the ESV which I am using for the lessons all of Chapter 6 is one “thought”.

Usually, I like the way the Lexham or the NASB version create these sections.

If I were making the headings they would probably fall in the same places as the CSB version for today’s passage, but I would label them: Plots Against Daniel, Daniel Prays Anyway, God’s Protects Daniel, Darius Praises of God.

Whichever version you use, God can inspire, convict, and encourage you through it if you are willing to read it regularly and pray about what God is telling you through it.

When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, suggests he was not present when the other officials persuaded the king to enact the edict.

Even though this had great repercussions his reaction was not to rush to into the king’s presence and beg for leniency, he already knew that was not option, so he took his requests before The King who alone had the power to change and walk through the coming situation.

As a “high official” he may have had this upper room with windows especially built in this fashion so has to be able to continually pray toward the city as instructed by Solomon in the prayer of dedication in 1Kings 8 ( 1 Ki.

8:30, 38, 44, 48–50).

Once there he continued in his regular practice of communing with God of Jerusalem who was always with him in exile as well.

We see this phrase “before his God” several times throughout our passage today.

It starts with an “Aramaic preposition meaning before, in the presence of.

It refers to being in front of spatially or temporally, in time.

[The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament]

Daniel spoke to God as if He were standing right there.

The other men took their pleas “before the king,” that was their habit.

Daniel’s habit was to take his cares “before his God.”

This prayer time was not something that was just “started back up” since the signing of the document.

The wording appears to indicate this was something that had been occurring for a long time into the past as was undeterred from happening even in the present situation.

His disobedience is not motivated by spite—he simply refuses to compromise his religious convictions.

[Faithlife Study Bible]

One might ask: Why didn’t Daniel simply pray in private for thirty days?

Daniel wasn’t being asked to worship another god, after all; it would have been no sin to pray in private.

But Daniel believed it would be dishonoring to God to change his prayer routine.

It would show that he feared Darius more than he feared God.

His fellow Jews no doubt took encouragement from seeing Daniel pray at his open window, and they would have been disheartened if he had displayed a lack of courage.

Like his three friends on the way to the fiery furnace, Daniel valued his relationship with God more than life itself.

Therefore, he refused to compromise.

[The Applied Old Testament Commentary]

Daniel’s continued prayer pattern was apparently what the other counselors were anticipating and “knew” would happen otherwise their proposal at the beginning of the chapter would not have entrapped Daniel within “the law of his God”.

They thought he acted as they did toward their gods out of legalistic ritual.

They did not understand his personal relationship with God and the willful loving desire to serve his Lord.

The men come and ask, “did you not sign?”

This is a completely rhetorical question only meant to show false deference to the king.

It was however a more civil approach to confronting and accusing some else than what we read in other areas of Scripture where the accused are physically removed from the situation and either dragged out of the city or forced before those officials whom can delve out punishment (Acts 16:19; 23).

This more drastic and humiliating approach is what pastors and church goers face in China and other eastern countries today.

Their edict is ridiculous in its stated scope.

Did they really expect “every” person to bring “all” petitions or requests to come the king?

“Oh mighty king what are having for dinner tonight”, “O great king, can I stay up past my bed time tonight”, “O great leader, will you read us bed time story?”

Laws and mandates today are still allowed to be made with specific people groups or individuals targeted.

This situation also shows the failure of governmental rule through law because it shows that a righteous person can be falsely accused, no matter how blameless they are.

[Cornerstone Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel & Daniel.]

Notice also in the wording of their proposal how the king is referenced.

“any god” or “any man” except “you”.

They were declaring him to be both.

This of course was a false deference on their part as in their minds they knew they were entrapping this “ignorant” official within the devised scheme.

The king responds as expected.

When I read his answer, I always hear it in a rather annoyed tone, as he know the question was not really for information but for some other scheme that he was not aware of at that time.

Now the men reveal the true intent of their scheme, the trap is triggered.

This Jew, Daniel is the target or “problem” that the king must now deal with.

This is the same accusation brought against Daniel’s friends before the furnace incident (Dan 3:12).

In today’s passage the “pays no attention” phrase is the contrast to the “man-god” expression that they were espousing to him.

“We consider you our god and king, He does not recognize your authority.”

And just to rub it in a little, they say he does it “three times a day.”

Technically they were correct as Daniel recognized and attributed to Yahweh all power and authority, but he did not disrespect the king as a person of local authority.

We can see this in their other direct interaction with each other within the rest of the chapter.

Once the king realizes that he has been manipulated it causes a visibly emotional change.

An Aramaic verb meaning to be displeased or distressed is used.

It is a verb expressing a strong feeling of distress with oneself and external circumstances.

[The complete word study dictionary: Old Testament].

Darius was not only upset at the counselors, but also displease at himself for not seeing their scheme and preventing his apparent friend or at least his favorite “high official” in the kingdom from harm.

Look at the efforts and changes to his personal patterns that the king did in his distress.

These are not actions you take for just an “acquaintance.”

Possibly adding to the king’s disgust with himself is that although these men “say” he is god-king, they were able to trap him with the laws of the land to do that which he could not undo.

They claimed he was their authority but now they held greater power through the country’s laws.

Despite his efforts, Darius cannot find a way to get his friend and advisor out from under the law’s requirements.

The king does a very regal thing and following through on what he is distasteful to himself but is legally correct for the sake of the kingdom.

By speaking to Daniel on behalf of his God, the king realizes his authority in this matter has been removed from him and finds hope in Daniel’s original actions in appealing to a “higher authority” than his king.

Knowing that he cannot deliver his friend from the trap that both he and Daniel were ensnared within, he hopes that His God will get them both out of the situation.

There may have been a bit of self-preservation in the plea as well for if Daniel was somehow delivered then his “god-king” status may be bolstered within the realm.

Twice within the passage the king mentions how Daniel serves God continually.

This acknowledgement show there was at least some knowledge on the king’s part of Daniel’s lifestyle and integrity, this knowledge may have added to the king’s distress when the snare was sprung.

In a manner that shows distrust between the two groups, the stone is “sealed” shut.

The seal on the document was probably waxed-based, this one was more like mud or mortar.