Daniel 5:31 · Bible study
Daniel 5:31 Commentary: Darius the Mede Takes the Kingdom
Hebrew · 11 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Explore the identity of Darius the Mede and how his reign relates to Cyrus's conquest of Babylon in Daniel 5:31.
Research Summary
- Meaning: God transferred Babylon’s kingdom to the Medes and Persians through Darius (likely Cyaxares II), fulfilling the prophecy of Dan 5:28.
- Key words: ‘Darius the Mede’ (a title distinguishing him from later Persian kings); ‘received’ (suggests granted authority, not conquest); ‘about sixty-two’ (a precise age tying to exile chronology).
- Main debate: Whether Darius the Mede is identifiable with Cyaxares II, Gubaru, or a fictional conflation; the historical absence of such a name in Babylonian records.
- Theological theme: God’s sovereignty over world empires; the certainty of prophetic judgment; His hidden preparation of deliverance for His people.
- Best use: A transitional verse that launches Daniel 6 and demonstrates how God uses secular rulers to accomplish His redemptive plan.
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
and Darius the Mede received the kingdom at the age of sixty-two.
WEB World English Bible 2000
Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.
KJV King James Version 1769
And Darius the Median took the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about threescore and two years old.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
and Darius the Mede hath received the kingdom, when a son of sixty and two years.
Darby Darby Bible 1890
And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, [being] about sixty-two years old.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
And Darius, the Mede, succeeded to the kingdom, being threescore and two years old.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Y Darío de Media tomó el reino, siendo de sesenta y dos años.
E Dario, o medo, tomou o reino, sendo da idade de sessenta e dois anos.
Et Darius, le Mède, s’empara du royaume, étant âgé de soixante-deux ans.
[6:1] Und Darius aus Medien nahm das Reich ein, da er zweiundsechzig Jahre alt war.
Darius, de Meder nu, ontving het koninkrijk, omtrent twee en zestig jaren oud zijnde.
e Dario il Medo, ricevette il regno, all’età di sessantadue anni.
A Daryjusz, Medczyk, ujął królestwo, mając lat około sześćdziesiąt i dwa.
и Дарий Мидянин принял царство, будучи шестидесяти двух лет.
米底亞人 大利烏 年 六十 二 歲，取了 迦勒底國。
And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, being then about sixty-two years old.
Verse in Context
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators agree that Daniel 5:31 records the transfer of Babylon’s kingdom to the Medes and Persians, as prophesied in the writing on the wall (Dan 5:28). The identity of “Darius the Mede” is the central question, but a broad consensus links him to Cyaxares II, son of Astyages and maternal uncle of Cyrus. Barnes and Gill, following Xenophon, note that Cyrus acted as military commander in the conquest while Darius, the senior king of Media, received the throne as a courtesy. Calvin adds that Cyrus readily conceded the title to his aging father-in-law. The age note (“about sixty-two years old”) is accepted as a precise chronological marker, though its source is unknown. All traditions see the verse as the hinge between Belshazzar’s fall and the new Medo-Persian administration described in Daniel 6.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Medium
Main views:
- Cyaxares II identification: Xenophon's Cyropaedia; supported by Calvin, Barnes, Gill; the age note (62 years) roughly matches what is known of Cyaxares.
- Gubaru/Gobryas identification: Babylonian tablets name Gubaru as the governor appointed by Cyrus; some propose he was also given the title 'king'.
- Historical confusion theory: No extra-biblical king named 'Darius the Mede' exists; the author may have conflated later Darius I (Hystaspis) with the Medo-Persian takeover.
What is clear: All traditions agree that Babylon’s kingdom passed to the Medes and Persians, fulfilling the prophecy of the writing on the wall and setting the stage for the events of Daniel 6.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| Identity of Darius the Mede | He is a Median ruler who received the kingdom after Babylon's fall, distinct from Cyrus. | Some identify him with Cyaxares II (Xenophon), while others see a confusion with Gubaru (Gobryas) or later Darius I Hystaspis. No contemporary extra-biblical source confirms a Median king by that name ruling immediately after Belshazzar. |
| Relationship to Cyrus | Cyrus was the military conqueror of Babylon; Darius held senior title as king of the Medes. | Some see Darius as a figurehead with real political authority (Barnes, Gill); others argue the title 'king' implies independent rule (Cambridge Bible), while a minority think Darius is another name for Cyrus. |
| Historicity of the account | Babylon fell to the Medo-Persian alliance, fulfilling Jeremiah’s prophecies. | Most conservatives accept the biblical account as historically accurate even if extra-biblical records are silent on Darius; critical scholars suggest the author conflated later traditions about Darius I or used a legendary source. |
| Meaning of 'received the kingdom' | The phrase indicates transfer of sovereignty to Darius as the new ruler. | Whether this was a ceremonial act (Cyrus granting his uncle the crown) or a factual succession remains debated; the Aramaic base could support either 'took' (by force) or 'received' (by consent). |
Historical & Cultural Context
In 539 BC, the Babylonian Empire fell to a coalition of Medes and Persians. Cyrus the Persian led the army that took the city by surprise, diverting the Euphrates and entering through the river gates, a strategy described by Herodotus and Xenophon. Yet the kingdom was not immediately his alone; the Medes were the senior partners in the alliance. Media had been a major power for centuries, and its king, Cyaxares II, held the senior title even as Cyrus wielded real military command.
Xenophon’s Cyropaedia portrays Cyaxares (named Darius in the Bible) as weak and pleasure-loving, content to let his nephew Cyrus govern. This fits Daniel’s account: Darius “received” the kingdom (the verb implies being granted authority rather than seizing it through conquest) and soon delegated administration to satraps and governors (Dan 6:1, 2). The age note, “about sixty-two years old,” places his birth near 601/600 BC, in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, the year Jehoiachin was taken captive (2 Kings 24:12, 15). Matthew Henry observes that at the moment of Israel’s deepest wound, a deliverer was born.
No extra-biblical source names a king “Darius the Mede” ruling immediately after Babylon’s fall. Babylonian cuneiform tablets record that Cyrus appointed Gubaru (Gobryas) as governor, yet no independent Median king appears. Some scholars suggest a confusion with Darius I (Hystaspis), who reigned later. The Cambridge Bible notes that “contemporary monuments allow no room” for such a ruler, but that the biblical writer’s perspective may simply preserve the view of the Medo-Persian alliance as a shared rule where the Median partner held nominal primacy. Daniel’s text itself distinguishes Cyrus from Darius (Dan 6:28), so it does not conflate the two.
Textual Notes
The consulted sources note no significant textual variants for this verse. The Aramaic text (the book of Daniel is partly in Aramaic from ch. 2 to ch. 7) is stable across manuscripts. The age note is consistent in all major traditions, though some English versions translate the Aramaic idiom “son of sixty-two years” with slight variation.
Reception History
This verse has been a point of debate since the early church. Jerome identified Darius the Mede with Cyaxares II, following Xenophon. The Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 10.11.4) described Darius as a relative of Cyrus who was made king over Babylon. Reformation-era commentators, Calvin, Luther, and the Geneva Bible, accepted the Cyaxares identification. In the 19th century, as Assyriology advanced, the lack of Babylonian evidence for a Median king named Darius led some to question the historical reliability of Daniel. Conservative scholars like E. B. Pusey and later Joyce Baldwin defended the traditional view by noting that the Bible preserves the perspective of the Medo-Persian alliance’s political arrangement. Today, the verse continues to be read as a reminder that God’s prophetic word stands, even when secular records are incomplete.
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- God’s Word never returns empty. The writing on the wall was fulfilled “that very night” (Dan 5:30). Belshazzar’s party ended in judgment, and the kingdom passed to a new power, exactly as Daniel had interpreted.
- God works through human politics. Cyrus’s military skill and Darius’s senior claim served God’s purpose. The transfer was not random; it was a precise answer to Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jer 50, 51) and a step toward Israel’s restoration.
- God’s timing is perfect. Darius was sixty-two, born when Judah’s exile began. The one who would later decree the return of the exiles (2 Chron 36:22, 23) came into the world in the same year the kingdom fell. God prepares deliverance long before we need it.
Five-point outline
- Judgment is sudden (v. 30).
- The kingdom of this world changes hands (v. 31a).
- A new ruler emerges from God’s hidden plan (v. 31b).
- God cares about the details, even a king’s age (v. 31c).
- God’s people are not forgotten in the transition (Dan 6 points forward).
Illustration hooks
- A change in leadership, when a company you worked for merges with a larger firm. The old CEO is gone, and you wait to see who will lead. The uncertainty feels like judgment, but it may be the beginning of restoration.
- A child born in a time of crisis, like a baby born during a war zone who later becomes a peacemaker. God’s deliverance sometimes starts long before we can see it.
Questions your congregation is asking
- Why wasn’t Cyrus named as the conqueror? Who was Darius the Mede?
- Does the Bible contradict history here?
- What does this have to do with us today?
Leading a Discussion
Daniel 5 ends with the death of Belshazzar and the transfer of Babylon to Darius the Mede. This brief verse sets the stage for the well-known story of Daniel in the lions’ den (ch. 6). It also raises questions about how God works through world events. As you discuss this passage, focus on the faithfulness of God’s prophetic word and the hidden ways He prepares deliverance for His people.
Discussion questions
- Observation: What details does the verse give about Darius? What do you learn about his nationality and his age?
- Observation: How does this verse connect to the prophecy in Daniel 5:25, 28? What does it show about the reliability of God’s word?
- Interpretation: Read Daniel 6:28 and Daniel 9:1. Why do you think Daniel distinguishes Darius the Mede from Cyrus the Persian?
- Interpretation: The commentaries mention that Cyrus was the real conqueror but Darius is named as king. What does this tell you about how God uses human political arrangements to fulfill His purposes?
- Application: When you see a change in leadership, in your country, workplace, or church, how can you trust that God remains in control?
- Application: The age of Darius (62) is noted; it ties his birth to the beginning of the exile. How might this reminder of God’s long-term planning give you hope for situations that feel hopeless?
- Further study: Read Jeremiah 51:11 and Isaiah 45:1, 4. How do these passages, written long before Babylon’s fall, prepare you to trust God’s promises?
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Daniel 6:1 | It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred twenty local governors, who should be throughout the whole kingdom; |
| Daniel 9:1 | In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the offspring of the Medes, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— |
Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
10 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes clarifies that although Cyrus was the actual conqueror of Babylon, he acted under the authority of his uncle Darius the Median, the sovereign. The text therefore credits Darius with taking the kingdom, matching the historical record where Cyrus served as his general and not yet the supreme ruler.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin explains that Darius, whom Xenophon calls Cyaxares, was Cyrus's father-in-law. Cyrus was the true conqueror of Babylon but willingly granted the royal title to his aged relative, which is why Daniel presents Darius as receiving the kingdom.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges Anglican 1880
The commentator notes that the Bible's portrayal of Darius the Mede as an independent king ruling in Babylon before Cyrus contradicts known history. Contemporary inscriptions show Cyrus ruling immediately after Babylon's fall, leaving no historical gap for such a figure. The anomaly likely arose from confusing Gubaru, Cyrus's governor, with the later Persian king Darius Hystaspis.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva note highlights Darius's age of sixty-two when he assumed the kingdom after Belshazzar. This detail underscores the historical precision of the account, noting that the Mede was not a young conqueror but an older ruler taking power at a specific moment.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill identifies Darius the Median as Cyaxares, the elder uncle of Cyrus, who took the kingdom of Babylon with Cyrus's consent. He notes that God's providence used this arrangement to raise a deliverer for his people at the appointed time, with Darius being about sixty-two years old when this occurred.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB identifies Darius the Median as Cyaxares II, the weak and sensual king who held nominal authority while his energetic nephew Cyrus actually led the assault. The commentator notes this explains why Daniel mentions only Darius here, even though Daniel was not ignorant of Cyrus's role.
Keil & Delitzsch OT Commentary Protestant 1876
Keil-Delitzsch notes that Belshazzar’s death that very night began fulfilling Daniel’s interpretation, proving the prophecy was from God. This initial, swift judgment guaranteed that the remaining parts of the prediction would also come true in time, even if not all happened at once.
Lange's Commentary Reformed 1857
Lange insists Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar's actual son Evil-merodach, killed in a conspiracy that very night. The mysterious writing foretold two separate judgments: immediate death for the blasphemous king, and the later division of the Babylonian empire between Medes and Persians, which the prophecy viewed together in one perspective.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Matthew Henry emphasizes that Belshazzar's sudden death came as a snare while he was drunk with wine, showing how God's judgments fall on those stupefied by pleasure. He also notes the deep providence behind Darius's age: born when Jeconiah was taken captive, he was now sixty-two, raised up to avenge Jerusalem and fulfill the prophetic sentence against Babylon.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley identifies Darius the Mede as the one who, together with Cyrus, besieged and captured Babylon. This brief note clarifies that Darius was not a separate ruler but a co-commander in the city's conquest.