Reflections: Daniel Chapter 3

The focus of the story moves away from Daniel to his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, a.k.a. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The King erected a massive golden idol in what had to have been the equivalent of Millennium Park in Chicago and issued an order that whenever his orchestra started to play, everyone within earshot had to drop to their knees and worship the image. If anyone refused to bow in this manner, they faced immediate execution by being “thrown into a blazing furnace.”

The events that follow are not placed in any kind of historical period like the first two chapters.

But if the events of Chapter 3 occurred soon after the events of chapter 2, we can begin to put together a logical reason for the golden statute.

Chapter 2’s events had taken place in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (which will eventually last 43 years). He summons a specific group of people to appear before this immense statue he has constructed: “satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials” according to v. 2. This amounts to a list of every person who exercised governmental authority within the Empire, with each succeeding personage being submitted to the one preceding them on the list. An inexperienced King, unsure of the strength of his authority or the loyalty of his officials, might want to force his lesser administrators to dramatically demonstrate their fealty to the King. According to Chapter 2, verse 49, Daniels 3 friends would be among this group – which would place the timing of these events as taking place after Chapter 2 (and by my guess, Chapter 3 takes place a few months to no more than a few years after Chapter 2, considering the advances in maturity we will see in the King’s behavior in Chapter 4).

This plan seems like an example of governmental overreach if there ever was one. Wouldn’t a simple ceremony in the throne room with each official showing his respect to the King, and perhaps publicly swearing allegiance, been more than enough? But as Nebuchadnezzar demonstrated by his tantrums against his astrologers in chapter 2, he was nothing if not overly dramatic. (As an interesting side note, the Greek historian Herodotus reported that the Babylonian capital city under Nebuchadnezzar sported several colossal golden statutes, each weighing many tons. The practices described in Daniel 3 may have been more common than we imagine).

But wait! Verse 7 says that once Nebuchadnezzar’s version of a Nashville string-band started performing, everybody “fell down and worshipped the image of gold.” The narrative describes a crowd made up of not just the “satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials,” but also “all the nations and peoples of every language.” Babylon was indeed a cosmopolitan place, the economic center of the world at that time. It is quite possible that a huge, international crowd (which would require communication in the Aramaic language) gathered in a park near beautiful downtown Babylon for the dedication of the King’s statue.

Picture it – a huge crowd in a super-bowl sized frenzy, with music, grandeur, and the King as the focal point of everybody’s attention. But then, v. 8 says that “some astrologers came forward and denounced the Jews,” with v. 12 saying, “there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego -- who pay no attention to you, Your Majesty. they neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up.”

This calls up an image of a time when my children were small, and we watched Veggie Tales cartoons together. There is a scene in one of the videos retelling stories from the book of Daniel where the King’s astrologers (portrayed as green onions) sing a song together about plotting to do away with Daniel and his friends, “Oh no, what we gonna do? The King likes Daniel more than me and you.” An interpretation that might have been remarkably close to the biblical truth, if not for the song. What if the construction of the 90-foot-high statue was the astrologer’s idea, sold to the King as a means of establishing his authority, but really a plot to avenge the embarrassment suffered at the hand of Daniel in the previous chapter?

Because this story is so well known, many of us have the details memorized. The King threatened Daniel’s three friends, boasting of his own power from which they will not find rescue. The three of them responded that instead, they trust in God to rescue them, but even if God would not, they will not obey. The King then orders them bound and thrown into the “blazing furnace.”

Miraculously, the condemned men are not at all harmed by the flames. Yet, the first thing the King notices is a fourth man walking with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the furnace – a person most scripture scholars identify as a “theophany,” that is, this is Jesus, appearing in a preincarnate visible form. The “three Hebrew Children” are rescued, and the King again recognizes the authority of the true God, and rewards Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego once again.

So far, the score is Daniel and his friends: 2, King’s advisors/astrologers: 0.

Daniel Chapter 4:

The King experiences another prophetic dream and needs Daniel’s interpretive skills once again. Once again, there is no reference here to the passing of time. How long has it been since the episode on the plain of Dura and the fiery furnace? Verse 4 says that Nebuchadnezzar was “at home in [his] palace, contented and prosperous.” Things seem peaceful, and the King’s immature and impetuous nature seems abated. I would have to think a significant period has passed for this kind of change to have taken hold. (We will see later that putting together Daniel’s interpretation of the dream, the timing of its fulfillment, and the historical records of ancient Babylon make it likely that this episode is occurring around 581-82 BC – 25 to 30 years after Chapter 2).

The King has another disturbing dream. His first reaction is just like chapter 1 – he summoned “all the wise men of Babylon.” (v. 6). The same group who first answered his call back in chapter 2 have returned; the magicians, enchanters, astrologers, and diviners. This time, the King appears less edgy and freely shares his dream with these advisors. When they are unable to interpret the dream, he does not fly into a rage or sentence them all to death. Rather, he turns to Daniel (who apparently waited to see the King until after the astrologers got the first crack at the dream – the rivalry seems to still be in full flower).

It appears that Daniel and the King have developed an intimate working relationship. In verse 8, the King notes that Daniel’s Babylonian name is “after the name of my god,” which indicates a close connection. In verse 9, the King uses the title “chief of the magicians” for Daniel, recognizes that the power of “the holy gods” is in him, and that “no mystery is too difficult for” Daniel. The King appears to trust Daniel, and their conversation seems friendly. Then, very matter of fact, the King commands Daniel to interpret his dream.

While the King’s maturity level has improved, and he offers Daniel a modicum of respect, Daniel is still treated as a slave. The fondness the King seems to express here is akin to how middle-class Americans speak of beloved pets. Daniel himself seems to take it all in stride and never acts out of line. Indeed, his exasperated initial response to the details of the King’s dream indicates that Daniel seems to have come to respect, and even like the King. There is a genuine devotion. He is truly dismayed that the true meaning behind the dream will result in the King’s humiliation and suffering.

That Daniel was able to be honest about the negative connotations of the dream also reflects the solid relationship he had with the King. The last time he gave the King a dream interpretation, the result was positive. In Chapter 2, Daniel identified the King with the gold in the statute in his dream, along with the pure political might the King could wield. This time, the dream was a warning from God for the King to change his ways or suffer consequences. 

The astrologers once again said they could not interpret the King’s dream. But the meaning of the dream had to have been obvious to them all. They “could not interpret the dream” for the King (v. 7), not because they could not figure it out, but because they feared the King’s reaction. Daniel’s track record with the King allowed him to be honest without fear.

But while Nebuchadnezzar has matured and “mellowed out,” his nature seems much the same. He is still basically “full of himself.” We have already noted that Daniel does not see the King until AFTER the astrologers have been and gone. I initially suggested that Daniel might have waited on purpose to avoid the astrologers, with whom he was embroiled in a rivalry. But what if it was at the King’s command? Verse 8 says, “Finally, Daniel came into my presence, and I told him the dream.” If the King’s relationship with Daniel was positive, and the King trusted Daniel as an advisor, why didn’t the King summon Daniel first? The King preferred to consult his astrologers first and then ask Daniel only after his astrologer’s advice failed. The King only turned to God’s representative as a last resort, after everything else had failed. Then, the King refers to Daniel’s Babylonian name and identifies Daniel’s talents as coming from his personal god. What Nebuchadnezzar had seen in Daniel and his friends was enough to impress him, but not enough to change him.

The tree in the King’s dream was massive and strong, providing fruit and shelter for everyone. Then a holy messenger descends from heaven – literally a “watcher,” -- who declares the tree is to be cut down, its leaves stripped, its fruit scattered. In the midst of the watcher’s pronouncements regarding the tree, we come to learn that the tree represented a man who would be changed so that he had the mind of on animal.

Daniel interprets the dream. First, he expresses regret, wishing the King would not suffer this judgment. Obviously, the tree represents the King himself, and Daniel emphatically says as much. But the prophet adds more details than the King gave him, saying not only will the King have a beast's mind, but he will “eat grass like the Ox,” and “be drenched with the dew of heaven.” (v. 25). But because the dream revealed that the stump of the tree and its roots remained, Nebuchadnezzar’s kingdom would be restored to him “when [he] acknowledge[d] that heaven rules.” (v. 26). Daniel warns the King to “renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.”

[SIDE BAR — Daniel suggests that the King needs to “be kind to the oppressed” to avoid God’s judgment. When we looked at the meaning of the King’s prior dream in Chapter 2, Daniel identified the King’s personal absolute authority with the purity of gold, and, seeing as the golden portion of the statute in the dream was the head, of primary importance. Daniel also provided details of the King’s authority — Daniel 2:37-38 says, “Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.” Daniel goes on to describe the sections of the statue below the head, representing kingdoms that will “rule over the whole earth” as being “inferior” to Nebuchadnezzar’s empire. Recall that when we looked at all this back in chapter 2, I suggested that “inferior’ here did not necessarily mean “less important” or “less worthy,” but simply “different” or perhaps being used in a technical sense (when a medical specialist speaks of the body’s organs, the heart and stomach are “inferior” to the brain simply because they lie lower in position in the body).

Instead, Daniel is emphasizing the density of the metals involved — in 2:40, he speaks of the fourth kingdom, in the statute’s feet, as being “strong as iron” (which was the Roman Empire), capable of crushing and breaking all other nations. Recall that the qualitative difference between Babylon’s governing structure and each succeeding empire was the increasing involvement of democratic principles in those later nations. It was not so much the military might of these succeeding empires that made them powerful, but perhaps the formative character of their people. While no governmental theory/philosophy is perfect, and only the Holy Spirit can truly transform the hearts of a society, if a nation adopts concepts that reflect God’s eternal principles and internalizes them so they become part of the ethical fabric of that society, the blessings of

heaven must certainly begin to follow.

Throughout the Old Testament, and particularly in the teachings of Jesus, we see the need to make helping “the oppressed” as the primacy of God’s heart — for example, in Isaiah 49, God declares that his people are to be a light for the Gentiles, so that “my salvation may reach the ends of the earth,” and the Lord commands his people to rejoice in the comfort and compassion he gives to the afflicted; in Isaiah 56, God declares that the offerings and sacrifices of the foreigners and society’s undesirables will be accepted, and they will be welcomed into the kingdom; in Jeremiah 7, God warns his people that to be in right standing with Him, they must deal with each other in justice, and not oppress foreigners, orphans, or widows, and not condemn the innocent; in Matthew 25, in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Jesus commends and offers eternal reward to those who feed the hungry, provide drink for the thirsty, clothe the naked, treat the sick, and visit the imprisoned, saying “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me,” while condemning those who did NOT.

Daniel certainly understood this, and encouraged the King to do what was right, because he had the authority to make it so, it was his responsibility to do it, and God would hold him accountable for not acting with justice and mercy. I think the message is clear. In whatever way we might define it today, social justice is of tantamount importance, and the essence of the heart of God, and this same standard applies to us today, both as individuals and as a nation — END OF SIDE BAR]

Verse 28 explains that the dream was fulfilled a year later, when “all this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar.” While admiring the greatness of the City he had built, a voice came from heaven, and declared the terms of the dream would now be true -- “immediately.” (v. 33). He was “driven away from people, and ate grass like an ox.” (v.33).

There is a clinical form of insanity in which men think of themselves as animals and imitate the behavior of an animal. Generally, it is called insania zoanthropica. More specifically in Nebuchadnezzar’s case, boanthropy, the delusion that one is an ox. This latter condition has actual documented cases in Great Britain.

Is there historical evidence for this episode besides Daniel 4? Yes, there certainly is. First, there is evidence that Nebuchadnezzar was responsible for the incredible building projects of ancient Babylon. Archeologists have recently discovered a vast amount of writing found in the area around ancient Babylon describing both the huge building projects of Nebuchadnezzar and his commitment to enlarge and beautify the city. Bricks found while excavating the site of the ancient capital bear the inscription “Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, supporter of Esagila and Ezida, exalted first-born son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon.” The King was a great builder and lover of architecture.

And what of the period the King was not in his right mind? The voice from heaven declared “Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign . . . (v. 32). The word “times” is generally accepted to mean “years.” But it can also refer to indefinite periods. But most biblical critics claim there is no historical evidence of a seven-year gap in Nebuchadnezzar's long, 43-year reign. But to keep such an event a secret would fit in with the customs of the Babylonian rulers of that time, who would egotistically trumpet their

achievements and hide their embarrassments. Archeological evidence shows that a close examination of the Babylonian records from Nebuchadnezzar’s reign reveals no mention of the King’s governmental activity from 582-575 BC. While he was still recognized as the King during that time, and his activity appears both before and after that, the silence during those 7 years is deafening.

And in the end, the King is restored when he recognizes the authority of God and finally humbles himself.

The message of this chapter is that all earthly power, including that of kings, is subordinate to the power of God. These events form a stark contrast with chapter 5 — here, Nebuchadnezzar learns that God alone controls the world, and his kingdom is restored to him, while his successors fail to learn from Nebuchadnezzar's example and find the kingdom taken from them at what seems like a single stroke and given to the Persians.

And while not as heatedly “competitive” as chapters 2 and 3, in that the astrologers technically “forfeited” the match by backing away from interpreting the Kings dream, Daniel and his friends have been victorious again (or, we can honestly say that God was victorious): The score is now -- Daniel and his friends: 3, King’s advisors/astrologers: 0.

Daniel Chapter 5:

Chapter 5 opens with a King who is not Nebuchadnezzar. Historical records show that the Babylonian King identified as “Belshazzar” here is NOT the son of Nebuchadnezzar. While Daniel identifies Nebuchadnezzar as Belshazzar’s father in v. 18, and as “his son” in v. 22, the word for “son” in the Aramaic original language can also mean “grandson” or “descendant” or even “successor.” Belshazzar was actually the son of Nabonidus, one of the successors to Nebuchadnezzar, who at the time of the events of Chapter 5 was away

fighting the invading Persians. Belshazzar never actually became king, but in this instance, was acting as a regent in his father’s absence.

A lot of time has passed. The King’s dream interpreted by Daniel in chapter 4 occurred around 582 BC. As noted above, the King suffers through a seven-year period where he was “out of touch,” and was only restored to power after he humbled himself before God. Nebuchadnezzar reigns another 14 years until he dies in October, 562. But because the last two verses of Chapter 5 inform us that Babylon falls “that very night,”, and “Darius the Mede” takes over as the new ruler, we can cross reference this with the historical evidence showing the Medeo-Persian Empire taking over Babylon in 539 B.C.

This means from the time Daniel interpreted the “dream of the tree” for Nebuchadnezzar to the writing on the wall in Chapter 5, some 43 years have passed. What has happened? There is no record of Daniel speaking publicly at all, let along having any authority or influence in the government for this entire time. Has he fallen out of favor? Plus, if you put things into perspective, Daniel was a young man – in his late teens to early twenties when he first arrived in Babylon around 609 B.C. This means the man called in to interpret the writing on the wall in Chapter 5 was 85 to 95 years old.

How did the circumstances in Daniel’s world get to the current situation in Chapter 5? How did Babylon’s mighty empire end so abruptly? The non-biblical historical records indicate that Nebuchadnezzar never quite regained control after his 7-year stint eating grass and mooing like a cow. Nebuchadnezzar had several sons, all of whom attempted to assassinate or overthrow their father at one time or another. One of these sons, Amel-Marduk (also referred to as “Evil-Marduk” in the bible) comes out ahead in the game (he seems to be the third born son) and is eventually named as “crown prince” and successor. But he was a schemer as well, and crossed his father one too many times, and was imprisoned. His father’s death resulted in his freedom.

(According to Jewish traditions, Amel-Marduk ended up sharing a prison cell with Jehoiachin, the King of Judah imprisoned by Nebuchadnezzar. According to 2 Kings 25:27-30, Jehoiachin was released from prison "in the 37th year of the exile", in the year that Amel-Marduk began his reign (562 BC) and the new Babylonian King gave the former King of Judah a prestigious position at court.)

But Amel-Marduk’s reign only lasted 2 years. A well respected general from Nebuchadnezzar’s army, Neriglissar, who had married one of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughters, used his political ties to the family to win over the army’s support, and assassinated Amel-Marduk, and took the throne. 

Neriglissar ruled for 4 years, and died suddenly, succeeded by his underage son, Labashi-Marduk. This child-king was only able to hold onto power for 3 months, as a group of conspirators, led by Belshazzar (the “king” hosting the wild party at the beginning of chapter 5), overthrew Labashi-Marduk. Belshazzar set up his father, Nabonidus, as king. Nabonidus, the last King of the Babylonian Empire, ruled for 15 years. He was a capable

administrator, but controversial, because he was ethnically Chaldean (the same ethnic heritage as Nebuchadnezzar’s astrologers). He pushed to replace the primary national religion of “Marduk,” the Sun God, with the Moon God, “Sin,” the primary idol of the Chaldeans. There is evidence that the aristocracy and elite families pushed back, leading to Nabonidus withdrawing into a form of self-imposed exile, leaving his son Belshazzar in charge (perhaps Belshazzar intended this all along). Towards the end of his reign, Nabonidus returned to public life, pushing even harder for religious reform. Of course, all of this came to an abrupt halt when the Persians suddenly took over. Why do I go through all these seemingly boring details about Babylonian history? I think it illuminates our understanding of Daniel’s situation.

First, we see the fulfillment of the dream Daniel interprets in Chapter 2. The soft and pliable nature of the gold in the statute proves to be an accurate reflection of the lasting power of the Babylonian kings. An autocratic dictatorship held by a single person is only as effective as that person. Despite his personality flaws, Nebuchadnezzar was a capable autocrat, who effectively delegated his power while keeping complete control. Babylon was the number one superpower of the ancient world under his reign. But old age and the ambition of his sons eventually caught up to him. His death left a power vacuum that the lesser men who succeeded him could not fill.

While Daniel himself did not pass judgement on the lasting power of Nebuchadnezzar’s government, the gold that represented it revealed that Babylon could not withstand pressure from without. The “gold” of Babylon was useless as the material used as mortar in a brick building – while pricey, it could not last. Second, realizing how unstable the Babylonian government was in the later years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and in the reigns of his successors is a key to understanding Daniel’s silence and absence from all of it. It’s not hard to imagine that after telling everyone that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream would be the King’s downfall, and then seeing it fulfilled down to the last detail a year later, that the “satraps and governors” who tried to hold the empire together had any fondness for Daniel. Daniel’s talents as an administrator, obviously far and above most if not all of his peers, also probably inspired a lot of jealousy. The “3-0 score” I’ve mentioned must have vexed the other leaders. The fact that the King was fond of him and treated him like a pet no doubt made them envious. It is easy to see Daniel falling from grace during the 7-year period the King is absent.

Why isn’t Daniel restored to favor after Nebuchadnezzar comes back? We can’t ever really know. Perhaps the King’s sons, in seeking to overtake the “old man” and climb over each other for influence, pushed Daniel aside and ruined Daniel’s reputation with the King. Perhaps Daniel, seeing the writing on the wall, withdrew from society to protect his own life. Seeing what Daniel’s relationship with God was like, we can imagine the Lord speaking to him and telling him to withdraw from public life to avoid all these problems.

But I wonder what Daniel was thinking. After all he had been through as a young man coming out of the destruction of Jerusalem, the difficult time adjusting to life in the training period, then being vaulted into the heady world of being one of the most powerful men in the Empire only to lose his status just as quickly after serving as the capital region’s governor and the King’s right hand man for 16 to 20 years. Wouldn’t he have experienced disappointment? We don’t know what happened to his three friends, but I would think they also likely experienced a fall from grace and power when the King suddenly disappeared. Daniel was probably on his own. He must have felt alone. He must have felt forgotten. The concept of being in exile -- from his homeland, his people, and the essence of his identity – would have weighed even heavier on him as he went

through life for all the years he is apparently ignored.

The actual narrative of Chapter 5 emphasizes the decadent behavior of Belshazzar and his court. The regent King throws a wild, orgiastic party with over a thousand people lost in drunken revelry. To cause even greater offense to the faithful remnant of Jewish people in exile, the gold goblets that were used in the Jerusalem temple are brought out to drink from while toasting the Gods represented by the idols all around them. But there is no mention of the most weirdly ironic aspect of this party – this is all going on while a powerful and destructive foreign enemy is literally on the doorstep.

This could not have been a shock to anybody. Belshazzar’s father is probably off fighting the invaders. The Persian Empire founded by Cyrus the Great (referred to in history as the “Achaemenid Empire” as well as the Medeo-Persian Empire) had been on the rise since the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s death. Cyrus’s forces overwhelmed the Median kingdom, which bordered Babylon to the west and north. In 550 BC, King Croesus of Lydia, a powerful nation located in modern day Turkey, took advantage of the misfortune of the Medes, quickly moving to take over the formerly Median territory north of Babylon in eastern Turkey. Cyrus took offense and attacked Lydia. Within 4 years, Lydia was also subjugated, and the Persian Empire stretched

from India to Greece.

Then the vassal states of Media and Lydia that bordered Babylon to the north and west tried to rebel, and Cyrus crushed each one in turn. By 540 BC or so, the only unconquered territory left between Persia and Egypt was Babylon. What was the mighty Babylonian Empire doing to prepare to face the military might of the

Persians?

Apparently, nothing. While watching Cyrus overrun all its neighbors over a ten-year period, Babylon and its leaders seemed focused on only themselves. There is no evidence of any sort of diplomatic communication between the two empires prior to Cyrus invading Babylon. King Nabonidus seemed distracted over debate with the powered elites in Babylon over which idol to worship. His son Belshazzar apparently was only interested in parties. (This is the problem with absolute rule. Dictators tend to appoint their relatives, friends, or

people they want to reward as the administrators of the government. Qualifications or experience are often not considered. Capable administrators like Daniel are in short supply, and those looking to gain power will discredit or kill them in an order to get them out of the way. Unless the absolute ruler is disciplined, mature, and willing to humble himself enough to take the advice of others, the empire is doomed). The royal family’s infighting, along with the incompetency and laziness of the officials they appointed created a perfect storm, and the Persians were able to move in with very little effort. Belshazzar and his court were engaged in drunken revelry as if nothing was going on.

Verse 30 says it happened “that very night,” and history proves this out. In October, 539 BC, the Persian army routed Babylon at the Battle of Opis, about 40 miles from the capital, taking King Nabonidus prisoner. The people of Opis embraced the conquerors as potential liberators and turned against Babylon. This swept through the empire, allowing Cyrus to march into the capital and conquer Babylon without any opposition.

But while all this was going on outside the city, Belshazzar and his cronies are partying as if there was no tomorrow. That is, until the mysterious, supernatural hand writes on the wall. It’s been 43 years since the last supernatural interpretation, but the King has the same reaction as Nebuchadnezzar, summoning the “enchanters, astrologers and diviners,” offering them great reward if they can interpret the writing on the wall (v. 7). When they cannot provide an answer, the King is terrified.

Verse 10 says the “queen” interrupts. This is likely not Belshazzar’s wife, but could have been a “queen mother,” either the wife or sister of Nabonidus or the wife, sister, or daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. She recalls Daniel’s past successes in interpreting dreams for Nebuchadnezzar and is confident he can provide the answer. Daniel is summoned (he may have been forgotten, but they seemed to know where to find him), and Belshazzar offers him riches and a place of authority. Daniel declined the gifts and interpreted the writings on the wall. In vv. 18-21, Daniel reminds everyone about Nebuchadnezzar’s history and authority and retells

the story of the Kings descent into madness for 7 years “until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and sets over them anyone he wishes.” (v. 21). Of course, Daniel was an eyewitness to these events. He upbraids Belshazzar for knowing this history, but still behaving arrogantly and disrespecting God, acting as if God didn’t exist. The words on the wall reveal Belshazzar had been judged and failed the test. The empire would be taken from him, and Cyrus’s empire was taking over.

It’s hard to figure out why, after that bit of bad news, Belshazzar rewards Daniel, having a little ceremony where Daniel is given a robe and appointed to the #3 position in the nation. Daniel’s authority has seemingly been restored, as we will see as matters carry over into the new imperial regime. But Belshazzar was killed that night by the invading Persians. Was Belshazzar so thick headed that he didn’t see this coming?

The score is now Daniel 4, astrologers 0, but the astrologers, as Chaldean nationals under the Babylonian King, are swept away. All the players in Daniel’s life from the time he was deported to Babylon are gone. Only Daniel is left standing.

Daniel Chapter 6:

Verse 1 of Chapter 6 connects back to v. 31 of Chapter 5 (the last verse of Chapter 5) to put the events of Chapter 6 into the historical perspective. The Medeo-Persian Empire has conquered Babylon, fulfilling the Daniel’s prophetic interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Chapter 2 (where Daniel explained the golden head of the statute represented the current political reality where Babylon was the preeminent world power, but a kingdom would come and take its place, represented by the neck and shoulders of the statue made of silver, which proved to be the empire of Cyrus the Great).

Biblical critics will point to the concept that Daniel identifies the King of Persia in these immediate verses as “Darius the Mede,” when it was Cyrus who was the king at this time. The use of the Aramaic language here helps explain this, as the word used for “king” here does not necessarily mean the ultimate authority but could apply to an official given authority over a portion of the kingdom, like a governor of a state as opposed to the President. Here, the person Daniel identifies could be a person identified in extra-biblical sources as “Gubaru,” the official Cyrus appointed to be the governor and overseer of the area of the empire that had been Babylon. Other scholars opine that “Darius the Mede” could have been a “throne name” for Cyrus (a “throne name” is a custom where a ruler will adopt a different name upon taking power, to identify with a particular political or philosophical concept or vision. This was very common in the ancient world, e.g. most of the Roman Emperors adopted “Caesar” as part of their names upon taking power. Even in modern history, British monarchs have often taken a different name upon ascending the throne to show a continuity of the family line — Queen Victoria’s successor’s first name was Albert, after his father, but his throne name was Edward, to show a connection to the dynastic line. Since the Middle Ages, there has not been a Pope who has not taken a different name then his birth name). The throne name concept also bears out when considering that Daniel identifies Darius as being 62 years old in 5:31, which was Cyrus’s age at this time, and the fact that Cyrus’s mother was of Median birth.

Also, Daniel, in a way, corrects himself at the end of Chapter 6. My NIV bible translates 6:28 as “So Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” But this verse could also be translated as “Darius, that is, the reign of Cyrus.” (9:1) Later, in chapters 9 and 10, Daniel frames his visions as taking place in the first year of “Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede by descent), who was made a ruler over the Babylonian kingdom.” By identifying Darius as being “made a ruler” over Babylon, it makes sense that the king Daniel identifies in Chapter 6 is NOT Cyrus, but another high-ranking official appointed by Cyrus to govern Babylon. Then in Chapter 10, verse 1, his vision takes place “in the third year of Cyrus, King of Persia,” which is clearer from a non-biblical historical perspective. Either way, we can rest assured that the historical reality

of Daniel’s experiences is authentically portrayed here.

Chapter 6 also opens with another fulfillment of the Chapter 2 prophetic dream interpretation. Verse 1-3 states, “It pleased Darius to appoint 120 satraps to rule throughout the kingdom, with three administrators over them, one of whom was Daniel. The satraps were made accountable to them so that the king might not suffer loss.” The NET translation renders “the king might not suffer loss” as “the king’s interests might not incur damage.” The readers of Daniel can begin to see gradual evolution of the nature of the governments of each successive empire represented by the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. The rulers of Persia establish a more organized government, where the absolute rule of the King is delegated. The nation is divided into three provinces, each overseen by a governor. Each province is divided into administrative districts overseen by a

“satrap.”

According to the archeological records, the “satrapy” system was fairly efficient. It appears that eventually Cyrus added a fourth governor to his government, and divided the empire into four states, centered around the prominent city that had ruled that area prior to being subjugated. The first “state” and main capital city was in modern-day Iran and was where Cyrus was based. But the capital cities of Media, Assyria, and Babylon became the centers of the other three regions. Then each region would be subdivided, with a “satrap” appointed as a local ruler over each subdivision.

Because of the immense size of Cyrus’s empire, he needed to depend on all these local rulers to maintain his authority. However, they also would have a tremendous sense of autonomy. This meant an individual satrap could, in a sense, do whatever he wished. But v.3 notes the satraps were accountable to the governors, so “the king’s interests might not incur damage.” Therefore, a satrap needed to make sure that the King’s laws were obeyed, and the King’s taxes were collected. There seemed to be a lot of creativity and leeway built into the system. As long as the governors (and therefore the king) were satisfied, it did not matter how these things were accomplished.

As the Persian Empire’s rule solidified, these satraps came to realize that they could only accomplish these goals if the local population was at least marginally content. Therefore, the tendency was to allow the locals to keep their local customs, observe their own religious practices, and have a voice in the decisions made at the local level. Cyrus himself set the tone, as he often spared the lives of the leaders of the nations he subjugated and keeping them in the public eye, while showing some degree of mercy regarding a nation’s cultural practices. Peaceful, happy people tend to be easier to manage, and therefore more likely to obey the laws coming in from the federal system and to pay their taxes.

I would argue that Cyrus’s system is an infantile precursor to later democratic models. In fact, the word translated in v. 2 as “administrator” literally means “chief overseer” in Aramaic and is translated as “president” in many of the Persian and Chaldean traditions. This is the only place in the entire Bible where a word could be translated as “president.”

As we see here in Chapter 6, Persia was still prone to authoritarianism. But even the checks and balances put in place here allowed for more stability. If the governor was loyal to the king, no individual satrap, or even group of satraps, could operate on their own authority in a manner that would upset the balance of power. A satrap who abused his authority was more likely to be called out for it by the governor, who would then report it to the king. As the system became more and more stabilized, the empire was internally at peace, and the economy could grow. The average “peasant” living in the Medeo-Persian Empire might not have had it great, but it seems that, in general, life under this system would be better than under the Babylonian one. Particularly for people like Daniel. Babylon had sought to erase every bit of Jewish identity in the people deported from Jerusalem. As opposed to Cyrus’s sense of tolerance, which led to the return of the Jewish

exiles as told in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.

The events of Chapter 6 seem to run parallel to the events of Chapter 3. Back in Chapter 3, we had the king holding Daniel’s three friends in violation of a law requiring the worship of the king’s idol without question, under penalty of death. The violation of the law by Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (and perhaps the origin of the law), was brought to the king’s attention by a group of royal officials who arguably were jealous of the success of the Hebrew immigrants.

Chapter 6 explains that Daniel’s service as one of the governors was so exemplary, that the King was considering placing Daniel over the whole kingdom. (v. 3). The rest of the “administrators and satraps” tried to find a way to file charges against Daniel for corruption or negligence, but nothing would “stick.” But these other men, corrupt themselves, knew if they could find a way to expose Daniel’s devotion to God in a way that would offend the king, they could be rid of him.

This group of administrators came up with what could only be characterized by Veggie Tales as “an evil scheme.” They convinced the king to adopt a law to condemn to death anyone caught praying to anyone or anything other than the king. The form of execution was being fed to lions. There is very little in the extra-biblical historical record to indicate that the Persian kings identified themselves as Gods. But if Darius here is also Cyrus the Great, he has just pulled off a seemingly impossible military concept – going to war with and completely subjugating the three most powerful nation states in the region in just a decade. The administrators limit the effect of the law for 30 days. Perhaps the king, flattered by the attention, was arrogant enough to accept being reverenced as a deity for a short time. It couldn’t hurt, right?

And the administrators slipped by the concept that the king should put the decree in writing, in accordance with the “law of the Medes and Persians,” which would make the law irrevocable. This also was the case with the law issued by a later Persian king in Esther, Chapter 1. There is very little historical material on this concept either, except for the notion that a Persian ruler would only put a law into writing, making it permanent, for something he really meant to do – it was designed as a check against making frivolous commands permanent. The administrators had assured him that all his officials agreed with him on this.(v.7) The King was convinced. What could go wrong? Well, the king’s top official had not agreed, and had not been consulted. When Daniel was caught doing what he did three times a day – praying to God – the jealous administrators and satraps brought him before the king and demanded the irrevocable decree be enforced. While the king had no desire to execute his most talented and loyal official, he had no choice. Like his 3 friends in the fiery furnace, Daniel is unharmed by the lions. The earns Daniel a reprieve. But the laws of the Medes and the Persians have an additional dimension to the laws of Babylon – those who unjustly accuse someone of a crime must suffer the punishment themselves, along with their wives and children. (Just another example of the evolving governmental principles I’ve been talking about). Darius/Cyrus issues a new proclamation, declaring that Daniel’s God is to be honored. Chapter 6 closes, with Daniel experience “prosperity” during the reign of Darius/Cyrus, all at the tender age of 90 years.

And the final score is Daniel and his friends 5; astrologers/administrators 0.

Next week, we’ll finish the book of Daniel, chapters 7 through 12, and (hopefully) tie it all together in a more organized fashion.