The story of Daniel and the lion’s den often focuses on Daniel’s faith in God. But an interesting and less explored aspect of the story is King Darius’s conception of law. At the heart of the story lies a puzzling question: Why didn’t Darius revoke his decree when he realized it would condemn Daniel?
Legal Theories: Command vs. Social Rules
In modern legal philosophy, two major theories offer insight into this puzzle. John Austin’s Command Theory of Law holds that law is simply whatever the sovereign decrees. By contrast, H.L.A. Hart’s theory suggests that law is more than simple commands; it serves as a system of rules embedded in social practices, guiding behavior predictably.
King Darius’s Legal Dilemma
Darius decreed that anyone praying to another god would be thrown into the lion’s den, a decree that “could not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and the Persians.” Yet when he realized Daniel’s fate, Darius tried all day to save Daniel. If Darius wanted to save Daniel, why didn’t he simply issue a new decree revoking the old one?
One explanation lies in the social constraints of law. If a king reversed his decrees too often, it could undermine respect for the law and the king’s authority. This principle of irrevocability may have served to preserve the authority of the king and the stability of the legal system. This suggests Darius may have viewed law through Hart’s lens, as more than just a sovereign’s command.
Contradictions in Darius’s Actions
After Daniel survives the lion’s den, Darius issues a second decree, commanding reverence for Daniel’s God. Isn’t this arguably a reversal of his earlier decree? Daniel presumably will no longer be thrown into the lion’s den when he prays. If Darius believes he could issue this second decree, why didn’t he do so earlier to save Daniel?
This possible contradiction suggests that Darius switched back and forth between these two views of law. At first, he acted as if constrained by Hart’s notion of law as a stable, socially embedded system. Later, he embraced Austin’s idea of “law as whatever the king commands.”
Conclusion
The story of Darius and Daniel reveals a common debate in legal philosophy about the nature of law. Arguably, King Darius switches back and forth between differing conceptions. The story of Darius and Daniel challenges us to reconsider our own notions of law. Is law simply the command of authority, or does it derive legitimacy from deeper principles such as justice and stability?