The lions’ den

His opponents end up supplying the character reference. They investigate Daniel's conduct in the kingdom and can find neither corruption nor negligence. The chapter does not merely say that he hides his misconduct successfully. It gives the reason for their failure: he was faithful. Their search is defeated by the quality of the service they are examining.

Concerning the kingdom sets the scope. These are charges sought against an official in his public work, not a declaration that Daniel has never sinned. Error and fault close off both careless administration and corrupt behavior. The officials cannot turn his appointment into evidence that he is unfit for it.

Their conclusion is unusually revealing. They expect his loyalty to God to be as dependable as the conduct they have just investigated. The law of his God must become the point of attack, because his service to the kingdom supplies none. The scheme therefore depends on a collision between obligations, not on discovering a hidden theft. A man whose wrongdoing cannot be found can still be endangered by making his established practice punishable. Their case needs a new law.

The king spends the remaining daylight trying to undo what his own signature has made possible. His displeasure and his desire to deliver Daniel are stated plainly. This is not a case in which the ruler secretly welcomes the accusation and pretends reluctance. The Book of Daniel gives no warrant for replacing his recorded effort with an invented motive.

The officials answer that effort by repeating the rule about an unalterable decree. They do not need to prove that Daniel is a dishonest servant; that inquiry has already failed. They need the king to carry out the statute he established. The authority placed at the center of every petition by the thirty-day decree is now unable to grant the release it wants.

The final words make the limit audible. Darius speaks of Daniel's God delivering him while ordering Daniel into the den. The command and the appeal stand side by side. Continually also matters: the king acknowledges the sustained service that the accusation has turned into an offense. He can issue the order that exposes Daniel to the lions. He cannot produce the rescue he desires.

The voice from the den still knows the courtesy of the court. O king, live for ever is Daniel's first recorded reply, the same greeting the officials used before presenting their scheme in verse 6. A polite form of address proves neither innocence nor guilt. What follows it makes the difference.

Daniel attributes his preservation to God sending his angel and shutting the lions' mouths. He does not claim to have overpowered the animals. His statement about innocence also addresses both tribunals: innocence before God, and no harm done to the king. Continuing to pray violated the newly signed prohibition, but Daniel denies that it constituted injury to the ruler. The accusation and the actual character of his conduct are not treated as the same thing.

The examination of his body confirms the report from below: no manner of hurt. The Book of Daniel expressly connects that preservation with his trust in God. The verbal pattern reaches back to the first investigation. No fault could be found in his service; now no wound can be found upon him. The search for something against Daniel has ended with evidence of his deliverance.