Why were Daniel's adversaries unable to find fault in him according to Daniel 6:5? Canonical Text and Immediate Context “Thus the administrators and satraps sought to find grounds for a charge against Daniel in matters of the kingdom, but they could find no charge or corruption, for he was trustworthy, and no negligence or corruption was found in him. Finally these men said, ‘We will never find any basis for a charge against this man Daniel unless it is something to do with the law of his God.’” These verses anchor the answer. The adversaries’ own admission—“we will never find any basis … unless it is something to do with the law of his God”—explains both the extent of Daniel’s blamelessness and the motive that drives the later lion-den plot. Aramaic Lexical Insight Daniel 6 is written in Imperial Aramaic. Key terms: • לָא־שְׁכַ֤חִין (lāʾ-šĕḵaḥîn) – “were not finding”: iterative, prolonged scrutiny. • שָׁלוּ (šālû) – “fault/negligence”: administrative failure. • שַׁחְתָּה (šaḥtāh) – “corruption”: moral or financial wrongdoing. • מְהֵימַן (mĕhēʾmān) – “trustworthy/faithful”: covenant fidelity as well as bureaucratic reliability. The inspired wording affirms that Daniel’s record was examined exhaustively (“they kept on seeking”) and no legal, ethical, or procedural gap existed. Historical-Political Setting Under Darius the Mede (c. 539 BC, immediately after Babylon’s fall), 120 satraps and three presidents (“governors”) administered the vast Medo-Persian realm. Persian administrative tablets (e.g., Persepolis Fortification Archive, ca. 509-457 BC) list stringent audit systems and penalties for graft. Daniel, a Hebrew exile elevated to one of the three highest posts, underwent the same audits. Surviving Achaemenid records attest that embezzlement was punishable by death, underscoring the point: if Daniel had erred, records would exist—and none did. Daniel’s Proven Integrity 1. Consistent Holiness (Daniel 1:8). From youth Daniel resolved not to defile himself, forging lifelong moral muscle memory. 2. Excellence in Work (Daniel 6:3). “An excellent spirit was in him,” an echo of Proverbs 22:29; faithful men stand before kings. 3. Transparent Habits (Daniel 6:10). He prayed openly three times daily; secrecy breeds suspicion, openness disarms it. 4. Divine Empowerment (Daniel 4:8, 5:14). Multiple monarchs testify that “the spirit of the holy gods” (lit., “God”) was in him. Why No Fault Was Found • No Legal Fault: exhaustive audits revealed zero procedural violations. • No Moral Fault: decades of temptation (idol food, dream disclosures, prophetic rebukes) left no moral stain. • No Financial Fault: Persian inscription BEH I.v notes rations given to officials; Daniel never took excess. • No Religious Compromise: loyalty to Yahweh superseded allegiance to empire, yet never undermined lawful service (cf. Jeremiah 29:7). His enemies therefore had to craft a conflict between empire law and God’s law. Foreshadowing of Christ Daniel’s blamelessness anticipates the sinlessness of Jesus (Luke 23:4; John 8:46). Both faced manufactured charges (Daniel 6:13; Mark 14:55-59), both were sealed (Daniel 6:17; Matthew 27:66), both emerged vindicated (Daniel 6:23; Matthew 28:6). Theological Implications 1. Covenant Faithfulness Works Public Good. Daniel’s piety advanced civil order (the king “planned to set him over the whole realm,” 6:3). 2. Persecution Often Begins Where Morality Excels. When godless systems cannot indict behavior, they target belief. 3. God’s Law Transcends Human Edicts. Acts 5:29 echoes Daniel’s stance centuries later. Practical Application • Cultivate private devotion; public vindication flows outward. • Let vocational excellence silence critics (1 Peter 2:12). • Expect spiritual conflict when living blamelessly; prepare to obey God rather than men. Summary Daniel’s adversaries failed because every avenue—legal, moral, financial, procedural—proved spotless under exhaustive investigation. Only by weaponizing his unwavering loyalty to “the law of his God” could they contrive a charge, validating both Daniel’s unassailable integrity and the superiority of divine allegiance. |
    |