The exceptional moral character of the prophet
Daniel is witnessed by the fact that his near contemporary Ezekiel
presents him, along with Noah and Job, as one of three outstanding
pillars of righteousness amongst God’s people (see Ezek. 14: 14,
20). Noah “was a just man, perfect amongst his generations” (Gen. 6:
9), of Job it was said that “there is none like him on the earth”
(Job 1: 8), and heaven’s assessment of Daniel was that “thou art one
greatly beloved” (Dan. 9: 23; see Dan. 10: 19).
When we come to the
actual record of Daniel’s life, we find that his opposers “could not
find any pretext or fault; inasmuch as he was faithful, neither was
there any error or fault found in him” (Dan. 6: 4). Indeed, they
were forced to conclude that “We shall not find any pretext against
this Daniel, unless we find [it] against him touching the law of his
God” (v5). The pretext that they sought against him was “with
respect to the kingdom” (v4)—that is, they wanted a means of proving
his unfitness for the position he filled as chief president. Not
finding any moral defect, they realised that they would somehow have
to engineer a conflict between the kingdom and Daniel’s faith, and
between the law of the Medes and the Persians and the Law of
Jehovah.
At this point, we
need to stop and ask, what was the Law of Jehovah that so interested
Daniel’s enemies? It is found in the prayer that Solomon prayed at
the dedication of the temple: “If they have sinned
against thee (for there is no man that sinneth not), and thou
be angry with them, and give them up to the enemy, and they have
carried them away captives unto a land far off or near; and if they
shall take it to heart in the land whither they were carried
captive, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of
their captivity, saying, We have sinned, we have done iniquity and
have dealt perversely; and if they return unto thee with all their
heart and with all their soul in the land of their captivity,
whither they have carried them captives, and pray toward their land
which thou gavest unto their fathers, and the city that thou hast
chosen, and the house that I have built unto thy name; then hear
thou from the heavens, from the settled place of thy dwelling, their
prayer and their supplications, and maintain their right, and
forgive thy people their sin against thee” (2 Chron. 6: 36-39). Now
“in the first year of Darius” (Dan. 9: 1), Daniel set his face unto
God, with “prayer and supplications, with fasting, and sackcloth,
and ashes” (v3), and made his confession for the sins of his people.
In accord with this, “he went into his house; and his windows being
open in his upper chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled on his knees
three times a day, and prayed and gave thanks before his God” (Dan.
6: 10). The Law of Jehovah was perfectly clear to Daniel, and that
was why he was on his knees three times a day with his window open
towards Jerusalem.
Daniel’s
opposers had brought about a situation where it was illegal to “ask
a petition of any god or man for thirty days” (Dan. 6: 7) except of
Darius. A conflict was thus brought about between the Law of God and
the law of man. The former we have seen to be clearly stated, and
the latter is also plainly stated and not open to doubt. It was a
“royal statute”, a “firm decree” (v7), a signed writing “which may
not be revoked” (v8) and could not be changed (see v15).
Furthermore, an awful penalty was attached to failing to obey, such
that the transgressor of this law of the Medes and the Persians
would not only be put to death but was to be torn apart under the
power of the king of beasts (a thought suggestive in itself). What
then was Daniel to do when he knew that the writing was signed? He
prayed in the ordained manner “as he did aforetime” (v10). This was
not bravado or pig-headedness, but simple recognition of the fact
that the Law of Jehovah took precedence over the law of the king. If
he had to break the law of the Medes and the Persians to remain
faithful, then so it must be. Daniel makes no defence of his
actions, and calmly surrenders to the justice of this world. If this
be thought incredible to those who profess the name of the Lord in
our day, then let them consider the alternative. If Daniel had
acceded to the law of Darius, he may well have maintained his
blameless moral character, because the issue at stake was not one of
morality. However, in giving the laws of this world precedence over
the Law of God, he would have forfeited any claim to be truly a
servant of God. In modern language, he could no longer honestly
refer to Jesus as Lord.
