Daniel in Babylon

12. Darius the Mede

"And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old." (Dan.5:31).

With the capture of Babylon by the Medes and Persians an entirely new life opened before Daniel. At eighty‑four years of age he could reasonably have expected to spend his few remaining years in leisurely retirement; the fact that for twenty years past he had been excluded from any official part in the administration of government affairs had without doubt led him to re‑organise his life so that he could give his entire time to the study and consideration of the future purposes of God. That much is clear, from the accounts we have of his visions and dreams, and the celestial visitants who came with the revelations and interpretations which have been of such interest and importance to students of every generation since. It is not at all an unusual thing for a man who has led a full and busy life in some business or occupation to hail his retirement as an opportunity for the closer investigation of Biblical truths to which he has not been able to give the attention he would have liked while the responsibility of earning a living or discharging a public office lay upon him. Daniel at the death of his king and benefactor, Nebuchadnezzar, must have felt something like that. For forty‑two years he had endured the obligations of high administrative office in Babylon because he knew it to be the will of God that he should thus serve; when upon the accession of successive kings who had no use for him he was deprived of office and allowed to retire into private life, he must have hailed the change as of Divine direction and gladly betaken himself to the more continuous and diligent study of the Divine purposes. During the twenty years or so thus spent the fruits of his devotion were manifest in the dreams and visions and their interpretations with which we are so familiar.

Now the scene was to change again. The last official act of Belshazzar the last king of Babylon was to appoint Daniel third ruler in the kingdom and therefore the highest State official next to himself. At one stroke Daniel found himself restored to the position he had occupied under King Nebuchadnezzar. Almost immediately fresh responsibility was thrust upon him. The royal decree promoting Daniel to his new position had hardly been proclaimed when Belshazzar himself was dead, slain by the Median invaders. When Cyrus, seventeen days after the capture of the city, came looking for someone who could formally hand over the civil administration of the capital and the empire, it could very likely have been to Daniel he came. Perhaps in that very hall where only a few days previously the supernatural writing had appeared on the wall, serried ranks of Median and Persian soldiers stood immovable whilst Cyrus, the invincible military conqueror, and Daniel, the gentle and yet firm man of God, transacted the formalities which even in those days, no less than in ours, marked the transfer of sovereignty from the vanquished to the victor.

What a tremendous stimulus to faith it must have been to Daniel, thus to witness with his own eyes the fulfilment of prophecy. Sixty‑odd years previously he had stood in that same hall, a lad of nineteen or so, and declared to King Nebuchadnezzar "Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee...the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." (Dan.2:38‑45) Now he beheld the fulfilment of that prediction. The second of the four world empires had stepped upon the stage to play its part in the drama, and the Kingdom of Heaven was that much nearer.

Happy indeed if we can see, in the vicissitudes of earthly powers, the fulfilment of prophecy, evidences of the onward progress of the divine plan and the approaching of the Kingdom. We are not usually called, as was Daniel, to be personally closely linked with the political affairs of the kingdoms of this world. Our observation of their course can be from a much more detached standpoint and for that we can give thanks to God. It is probable that Daniel would have preferred not to have been so closely connected with State affairs in the idolatrous governments of Babylon and Persia—but he was called to that position by God and he was too loyal a servant of God to avoid the consequences of that call. Perhaps some of the more orthodox and bigoted Jews, captive in Babylon, criticised his acceptance of high office under the State as disloyalty to the principles of Judaism and the Law Covenant. Perhaps we ourselves, in our rigid adherence to what we hold as the principles of Christian living may criticise another who undertakes responsibilities or obligations which we would not be prepared to accept, and perhaps, in so doing we forget the Apostolic admonition. "Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth." (Rom.14:4) One of the hardest lessons we have to learn is that our Master has many varied tasks to be carried out on earth by his devoted followers and He must of necessity use various individuals in different ways. We must each serve and labour in accordance with the call that is given to us without expecting all our fellow‑servants necessarily to serve after the same manner.

So Daniel found a new king to serve. "Darius, the Median took the kingdom." Who was this Darius? It is so usual to think of Cyrus assuming control upon the fall of Babylon and immediately sending the Jews home to build their Temple that the fact of Darius coming between Belshazzar and Cyrus is often overlooked. Whoever he was he confirmed Daniel’s re‑appointment as Chief Minister of the empire, and that too requires some explanation. How comes it that a man in high office in the defeated Administration is preferred above all the Median and Persian notabilities who would in the ordinary way be considered proper choices for the control of the vanquished people?

What has been called "the enigma of Darius the Mede" has puzzled many a student of the Bible history in times past. This king is one of the few whose name has not been found in any contemporary inscription. A similar situation existed with regard to Belshazzar until toward the end of the nineteenth century, and it had been freely declared by some scholars that Daniel had invented the name of a king who never existed. Nowadays the acts and history of Belshazzar are almost as well‑known as those of Queen Victoria. Modern research and deduction has likewise succeeded in giving us a fair picture of Darius the Mede, at any rate sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the Book of Daniel.

To begin with, Cyrus was not the legal or acknowledged king of the Medo‑Persian empire at the death of Belshazzar. The ruling dynasty was Median and Cyrus was not a Mede. The Median empire had its rise a century before the fall of Nineveh, and it was the joint invasion of Assyria by Cyaxares, king of Media, allied with Nabopolassar of Babylon, father of Nebuchadnezzar, which brought about the destruction of Nineveh in 612 B.C. and the end of the Assyrian empire. This friendship between the two kings was cemented by the giving in marriage of Amytis the daughter of Cyaxares to Nebuchadnezzar the son of the Babylonian king.* Upon the death of Cyaxares, his son Astyages became king of Media. Cyrus, who was a lineal descendant of the kings of Elam, now subject to Media, was a leading general of the Persian forces in the armies of Media, for Persia also was at that time subject to Media. Astyages had given his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses I, the father of Cyrus, but he himself died without sons. Upon his death Cyrus possessed, through his mother, the best claim to royalty over Media, and so became the most powerful figure in the empire. Ten years before the fall of Babylon he virtually deposed Astyages and became the real ruler, thus bringing the Persian element much more into prominence. The Medes were still predominant however, and Cyrus was not yet the acknowledged king. In any case he was still busily occupied subduing other nations and building up the empire.

It used to be claimed that Darius the Mede was the son of Astyages and so the last legal king of Media, this upon the authority of the Greek historian Xenophon many years later who gave this supposed son the name of Cyaxares II. This statement was repeated by Josephus but it is now agreed that this claim, unsupported by any other historian of ancient times, is without foundation. A number of more recent considerations, too involved to elaborate here, renders it likely that Astyages, who had already occupied the throne of Media for many years, now formally added the empire of Babylon to his already far‑flung dominions. Cyrus, ambitious as he was, preferred to wait until he could legally claim the title. Hence when Babylon fell at the hands of Cyrus, it was Darius the Mede who "took" the kingdom. The word is significant. It has the meaning of receiving a thing at the hands of another. A similar expression occurs in chapter 9:1 where Darius is said to have been "made" king over the realm of the Chaldeans. Darius did not acquire the kingdom for himself, it was won for him by Cyrus.

Less than two years later Darius died without sons, and now Cyrus, by virtue of his descent from Astyages through his mother Mandane, had the premier right to kingship. From now on the Persian element came to the forefront, but it was not until the time of Darius Hystaspes, the first truly Persian king, seventeen years later, that Persia took precedence over Media. The Old Testament yields an interesting confirmation of this fact. The Book of Daniel, completed by Daniel in the days of Darius the Mede and Cyrus, refers always to the "Medes and Persians," Medes coming first. The Book of Esther, describing events in the days of Xerxes, son of Darius Hystaspes, has it "the kings of Persia and Media," Persia now coming first.

Daniel 9:1 refers to Darius as the "son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes." Ahasuerus in the native languages concerned is the same as the Greek Cyaxares, and in the Apocryphal Book of Tobit is called by that name. Other ancient historians are definite in stating that a Median king succeeded Belshazzar and was in turn replaced by Cyrus the Persian. It can fairly be stated therefore that the "engima of Darius the Mede," although not yet completely solved, is, thanks to current research, not so much of an enigma as previously.

"It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom; and over these three presidents; of whom Daniel was first (one): that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage. Then this Daniel was preferred (distinguished himself) above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought (was minded) to set him over the whole realm." (Dan.6:1‑3).

Three points in which the A.V. translation is inadequate have to be noticed. Daniel was not "first" of three presidents, but one of them. He was not "preferred" above the others but distinguished himself above them; and Darius had in mind his further promotion to be the Chief Minister of the entire Medo‑Persian empire. The question naturally arises; why such honours to a representative of a defeated nation?

The answer, in the first place, lies in the fact that Daniel, and his sterling worth, were not entirely unknown to the Median king. The close friendship between the Median and Babylonian kings in the days of Nebuchadnezzar must have involved Daniel in some close contact with the Medes. It was the ambition of Cyrus and his Persians which attacked Babylon, not animosity on the part of the Median kings. Very probably Darius the Mede had a closer feeling for his royal Babylonian relatives than he had for Cyrus, whom he must have regarded as a usurper, even though Cyrus was his grandson. Amytis, Nebuchadnezzar’s queen, was sister to Darius, and Queen Nitocris, mother of Belshazzar, was his niece. In earlier and happier days there must have been plenty of going and coming between the royal houses of Babylon and Media. Darius might very well have been personally acquainted with Daniel in those days. What more natural thing, then, when he assumed sovereignty over the conquered people, to appease them and ensure peaceable submission by appointing as their immediate ruler the man who had been their chief Minister for forty years in times past, whom he knew personally and in whom he could place confidence.

It would seem that Darius made the subjection of Babylon the occasion for a complete reorganisation of the empire. He created a hundred and twenty provinces (which by the time of Esther, fifty years later, had become one hundred and twenty seven—see Esther 1:1) and appointed a local governor over each. Above these came the three princes of whom Daniel was one, responsible directly to the King. It would seem logical to conclude that these three princes were set over Media, Persia, and Babylon respectively, Daniel being the appointed Minister for Babylon. The outstanding qualities of Daniel again marked him out for preferment and the king formed the design of promoting him to have authority over all three divisions of the empire, and at that the other officials took alarm and began to consult together to effect the disgrace of the hated Jew.

The indomitable spirit of this remarkable man nowhere shines out more brightly than at this point. At an age when most men would be considered past performing useful work for the community, he still made such an impression upon his fellows that he could be seriously considered for an administrative position that would tax the abilities of men half his age. Like Moses, Daniel’s "eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated." (Deut.34:7) Of him it could be truly said that he was immortal until his work was finished, and although, in the story, we are now within three years of the time when he leaves the stage, we see him, at the height of worldly power and influence, still the confidant of kings, still the object of unremitting hatred by powerful enemies, still, we may be sure, working quietly but energetically for the welfare of his own people, Israel, as yet held captive in Babylon. Here is an outstanding example of the mighty power of the Holy Spirit of God, entering into a man, inspiring him, sustaining him, rebutting all assaults of his enemies, prospering the way before him that through him some vital part of the purposes of God might be carried out.

We do well to take the lesson to heart. There is no limit to what God can do with a man who is wholly and unreservedly consecrated to him. Such a man must be prepared to suffer with equal fortitude success and failure, prosperity and adversity, the favours of men and their recriminations, serene always in the sure knowledge that all he does is for the furtherance of the Divine plans for all creation and that in the power of the Holy Spirit within him he must go forward and he cannot fail. That was Daniel’s secret.

(To be continued)
AOH