My Thoughts on Why the Direct Family of Daniel's Accusers Were Thrown into the Lion's Den

Studying the Bible always requires a diligent study of the facts. Studying both history and archaeology will help you realize some of the bizarre customs. I always wondered why did the direct family of Daniel's accusers end up getting thrown into the lion's den too? It can be assumed that they were probably accomplices (which would have also been why Achan's direct family was stoned too in Joshua 7). I decided to get some commentaries to get some answers on Daniel 6:24.

The "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible" writes the following:

24. ( Deuteronomy 19:19 , Proverbs 19:5 ).

accused--literally, "devoured the bones and flesh." It was just that they who had torn Daniel's character, and sought the tearing of his person, should be themselves given to be torn in pieces ( Proverbs 11:8 ).

their children--Among the Persians, all the kindred were involved in the guilt of one culprit. The Mosaic law expressly forbade this ( Deuteronomy 24:16 , 2 Kings 14:6 ).

or ever--that is, "before ever." The lions sparing Daniel could not have been because they were full, as they showed the keenness of their hunger on the accusers.

Just the mere idea that the Persians held such a cruel law to punish the direct family of a criminal is just stupid. Probably, King Xerxes was more than happy to hang Haman's ten sons though Esther would've objected if the sons of Haman were innocent. Unfortunately, the whole family of Haman was involved in the would-be genocide of the Jews. History also writes that Darius the Great was the father of Xerxes the Great. It seems such cruelty was very normal because Persia was a heathen empire where the prevalent religion was Zoroastrianism or Parseeism. Just remember that King Amaziah did get rid of his father Joash's killers but spared the family. The Bible's principle of justice is by which even some secular laws are governed by only punishing the guilty party.

Meanwhile, John Gill also writes on Daniel 6:24:

nd the king commanded, and they brought those men which had

accused Daniel

Not all the hundred and twenty princes, and the two presidents; but the chief of them, who were most busy in getting the decree signed; watched Daniel's house, and what he did there; brought the charge against him to the king, and were most solicitous and urgent to have the decree put in execution against him: and they cast them into the den of lions;

the servants of the king, who were sent to fetch them, and who brought these by the king's orders, cast them into the same den of lions that Daniel had been in: thus often the pit wicked men dig for others, they fall into themselves; so Haman man was hanged on the gallows he prepared for Mordecai: them, their children, and their wives;

which might be according to the laws of this monarchy in capital offences, relating to affairs of state, as this was for an accusation of a prime minister of state, to take away his life; though such things were common with arbitrary princes, for the terror of others; so Haman and his sons were hanged up by Ahasuerus: this may seem cruel and inhuman, though it might be that the wives and children of these men advised them to do what they did, and were encouragers and approvers of it. Josephus relates, that the enemies of Daniel, when they saw no hurt came to him, would not ascribe it to the providence of God, but to the lions being full of food; upon which the king ordered much meat to be given them, and then the men to be cast in to them, to see whether because of their fulness they would come unto them or not: and the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in

pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of the den;

the lions seized them at once; and though they did all they could to defend themselves, fighting with them; yet the lions were too powerful for them, and overcame them, and not only tore off their flesh, but broke their bones in pieces, and that as they were falling, before they came to the bottom, or the lower part of the den; this was a plain proof that it was not through fulness, or want of appetite, that the lions did not fall upon Daniel and devour him: this affair happened in the first year of Darius, which, according to Bishop Usher F14, and Dean Prideaux F15, and Mr. Whiston F16, was in the year of the world 3466 A.M., and 538 B.C.; Mr. Bedford F17 places it in 537 B.C.

I would think that this was probably more than just the execution of the barbaric law of the Persians. Though it seems that Darius (who I believe didn't get converted to the true faith) probably found out that the families were accomplices. Daniel probably tried to object to such a barbaric law. However, Darius, as Gill suggests, probably found out that the family of the two scheming men were accomplices in such a cruel scheme. If ever the wives and children were accomplices then they ended up getting justly punished.