Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Daniel 3:1
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height [was] threescore cubits, [and] the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
1. Nebuchadnezzar ] Sept., Theod., Pesh. prefix ‘In the eighteenth year,’ which would be the year before Jerusalem was finally taken by the Chaldaeans (2Ki 25:8). Sept. also has an addition stating the occasion on which the image was erected: it was while he was ‘organizing ( ) cities and countries, and all the inhabitants of the earth, from India to Ethiopia.’ The addition is probably nothing but a Midrashic embellishment: we at least know nothing from any other source of Nebuchadnezzar’s empire as extending to the limits named, or of his conducting military expeditions except in the direction of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt (exclusive of Ethiopia).
made an image of gold, &c.] The expression does not mean necessarily that it was of solid gold; it might be used of an image that was merely (in the ancient fashion) overlaid with gold: the ‘altar of gold’ of Exo 39:38 was in reality only overlaid with gold (Exo 30:3). It is not expressly stated what the image represented; it is not however described as the image of a god, so in all probability it represented Nebuchadnezzar himself. It was a common practice of the Assyrian kings to erect images of themselves with laudatory inscriptions in conquered cities, or provinces, as symbols of their dominion, the usual expression in such cases being a-lam arr-ti-a ( ur-ba-a) ipu-u, “a (great) image of my royalty I made”; see KB [216] i. 69, l. 98 f.; 73, l. 5; 99, l. 25; 133, l. 31; 135, l. 71; 141, l. 93; 143, l. 124; 147, l. 156; 155, l. 26, &c. (all from the reigns of Asshur-nair-abal, b.c. 885 860, and Shalmaneer II., b.c. 860 825). Jastrow ( Relig. of Bab. and Ass., 1898, p. 669) remarks that, inasmuch as in the inscriptions the victories of the armies were commonly ascribed to the help of the gods, a homage to some deity would be involved in the recital, though no instance is at present known of divine honours being paid to such statues.
[216] B. Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889 1900.
threescore cubits, &c.] The image was thus some 90 feet high, and 9 broad. The disproportion of height and breadth in the human figure the proportion is commonly 5 6 to 1 has not been satisfactorily explained. The dimensions themselves, also, are greater than are probable: but the ‘India House Inscription,’ by its descriptions of the decorations of temples, testifies to the amount of gold that was at Nebuchadnezzar’s disposal; and Oriental monarchs have always prided themselves on the immense quantities of the precious metals in their possession.
set it up ] “ ‘to set up an image’ (the same words in the Aram.) is the usual phrase in the heathen inscriptions of Palmyra and the aurn” (Bevan); see e.g. de Vogu, Syrie Centrale (1868), Nos. 4, 5, 7, 10, 11.
plain ] properly a broad ‘cleft,’ or level (Isa 40:4 end) plain, between mountains (see on Amo 1:5).
Dura ] An inscription cited by Friedrich Delitzsch ( Paradies, p. 216) mentions in Babylonia three places called Dru. According to Oppert ( Expd. en Msopotamie, i. 238 f.; cf. the chart of the environs of Babylon in Smith, DB., s.v. Babel), there is a small river called the Dura, flowing into the Euphrates from the S., 6 or 7 miles below Babylon; and near this river, about 12 miles S.S.E. of illah, there are a number of mounds called the Toll (or Mounds of) Dra. One of these, called el-Mokhaa, consists of a huge rectangular brick structure, some 45 ft. square and 20 ft. high, which may, in Oppert’s opinion, have formed once the pedestal of a colossal image.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
1 7. Nebuchadnezzar’s proclamation regarding the image.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold – The time when he did this is not mentioned; nor is it stated in whose honor, or for what design, this colossal image was erected. In the Greek and Arabic translationns, this is said to have occurred in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is not, however, in the original text, nor is it known on what authority it is asserted. Dean Prideaux (Consex. I. 222) supposes that it was at first some marginal comment on the Greek version that at last crept into the text, and that there was probably some good authority for it. If this is the correct account of the time, the event here recorded occurred 587 b.c., or, according to the chronology of Prideaux, about nineteen years after the transaction recorded in the previous chapter. Hales makes the chronology somewhat different, though not essentially. According to him, Daniel was carried to Babylon 586 b.c., and the image was set up 569 b.c., making an interval from the time that he was carried to Babylon of seventeen years; and if the dream Dan. 2 was explained within three or four years after Daniel was taken to Babylon, the interval between that and this occurrence would be some thirteen or fourteen years.
Calmet makes the captivity of Daniel 602 years before Christ; the interpretation of the dream 598; and the setting up of the image 556 – thus making an interval of more than forty years. It is impossible to determine the time with certainty; but allowing the shortest-mentioned period as the interval between the interpretation of the dream Dan. 2 and the erection of this statue, the time would be sufficient to account for the fact that the impression made by that event on the mind of Nebuchadnezzar, in favor of the claims of the true God Dan 2:46-47, seems to have been entirely effaced. The two chapters, in order that the right impression may be received on this point, should be read with the recollection that such an interval had elapsed. At the time when the event here recorded is supposed by Prideaux to have occurred, Nebuchadnezzar had just returned from finishing the Jewish war.
From the spoils which he had taken in that expedition in Syria and Palestine, he had the means in abundance of rearing such a colossal statue; and at the close of these conquests, nothing would be more natural than that he should wish to rear in his capital some splendid work of art that would signalize his reign, record the memory of his conquests, and add to the magnificence of the city. The word which is here rendered image (Chaldee tselem – Greek eikona), in the usual form in the Hebrew, means a shade, shadow; then what shadows forth anything; then an image of anything, and then an idol, as representing the deity worshipped. It is not necessary to suppose that it was of solid gold, for the amount required for such a structure would have been immense, and probably beyond the means even of Nebuchadnezzar. The presumption is, that it was merely covered over with plates of gold, for this was the usual manner in which statues erected in honor of the gods were made. See Isa 40:19.
It is not known in honor of whom this statue was erected. Grotius supposed that it was reared to the memory of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, and observes that it was customary to erect statues in this manner in honor of parents. Prideaux, Hales, the editor of the Pict. Bible, and most others, suppose that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity worshipped in Babylon. See the notes at Isa 46:1. Some have supposed that it was in honor of Nebuchadnezzar himself, and that he purposed by it to be worshipped as a god. But this opinion has little probability in its favor. The opinion that it was in honor of Bel, the principal deity of the place, is every way the most probable, and this derives some confirmation from the well-known fact that a magnificent image of this kind was, at some period of his reign, erected by Nebuchadnezzar in honor of this god, in a style to correspond with the magnificence of the city.
The account of this given by Herodotus is the following: The temple of Jupiter Belus, whose huge gates of brass may still be seen, is a square building, each side of which is two furlongs. In the midst rises a tower, of the solid depth and height of one furlong; upon which, resting as upon a base, seven other lesser towers are built in regular succession. The ascent is on the outside; which, winding from the ground, is continued to the highest tower; and in the middle of the whole structure there is a convenient resting place. In the last tower is a large chapel, in which is placed a couch, magnificently adorned, and near it a table of solid gold; but there is no statue in the place. In this temple there is also a small chapel, lower in the building, which contains a figure of Jupiter, in a sitting posture, with a large table before him; these, with the base of the table, and the seat of the throne, are all of the purest gold, and are estimated by the Chaldeans to be worth eight hundred talents.
On the outside of this chapel there are two altars; one is gold, the other is of immense size, and appropriated to the sacrifice of full-grown animals; those only which have not yet left their dams may be offered on the golden altar. On the larger altar, at the anniversary festival in honor of their god, the Chaldeans regularly consume incense to the amount of a thousand talents. There was formerly in this temple a statue of solid gold twelve cubits high; this, however, I mention from the information of the Chaldeans, and not from my own knowledge. – Clio, 183. Diodorus Siculus, a much later writer, speaks to this effect: Of the tower of Jupiter Belus, the historians who have spoken have given different descriptions; and this temple being now entirely destroyed, we cannot speak accurately respecting it. It was excessively high; constructed throughout with great care; built of brick and bitumen. Semiramis placed on the top of it three statues of massy gold, of Jupiter, Juno, and Rhea. Jupiter was erect, in the attitude of a man walking; he was forty feet in height; and weighed a thousand Babylonian talents: Rhea, who sat in a chariot of gold, was of the same weight. Juno, who stood upright, weighed eight hundred talents. – B. ii.
The temple of Bel or Belus, in Babylon, stood until the time of Xerxes; but on his return from the Grecian expedition, he demolished the whole of it, and laid it in rubbish, having first plundered it of its immense riches. Among the spoils which he took from the temple, are mentioned several images and statues of massive gold, and among them the one mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, as being forty feet high. See Strabo, lib. 16, p. 738; Herodotus, lib. 1; Arrian de Expe. Alex. lib. 7, quoted by Prideaux I. 240. It is not very probable that the image which Xerxes removed was the same which Nebuchadnezzar reared in the plain of Dura – compare the Introduction to this chapter, Section I. VII. (a); but the fact that such a colossal statue was found in Babylon may be adduced as one incidental corroboration of the probability of the statement here. It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar was led, as the editor of Calmets Dictionary has remarked (Taylor, vol. iii. p. 194), to the construction of this image by what he had seen in Egypt. He had conquered and ravaged Egypt but a few years before this, and had doubtless been struck with the wonders of art which he had seen there.
Colossal statues in honor of the gods abounded, and nothing would be more natural than that Nebuchadnezzar should wish to make his capital rival everything which he had seen in Thebes. Nor is it improbable that, while he sought to make his image more magnificent and costly than even those in Egypt were, the views of sculpture would be about the same, and the figure of the statue might be borrowed from what had been seen in Egypt. See the statues of the two celebrated colossal figures of Amunoph III standing in the plains of Goorneh, Thebes, one of which is known as the Vocal Memnon. These colossi, exclusive of the pedestals (partially buried), are forty-seven feet high, and eighteen feet three inches wide across the shoulders, and according to Wilkinson are each of one single block, and contain about 11,500 cubic feet of stone. They are made of a stone not known within several days journey of the place where they are erected. Calmet refers to these statues, quoting from Norden.
Whose height was threescore cubits – Prideaux and others have been greatly perplexed at the proportions of the image here represented. Prideaux says on the subject (Connections, I. 240, 241), Nebuchadnezzars golden image is said indeed in Scripture to have been sixty cubits, that is, ninety feet high; but this must be understood of the image and pedestal both together, for that image being said to be but six cubits broad or thick, it is impossible that the image would have been sixty cubits high; for that makes its height to be ten times its breadth or thickness, which exceeds all the proportions of a man, no mans height being above six times his thickness, measuring the slenderest man living at the waist. But where the breadth of this image was measured is not said; perchance it was from shoulder to shoulder; and then the proportion of six cubits breadth will bring down the height exactly to the measure which Diodorus has mentioned; for the usual height of a man being four and a half of his breadth between the shoulders, if the image were six cubits broad between the shoulders, it must, according to this proportion, have been twenty-seven cubits high, which is forty and a half feet.
The statue itself, therefore, according to Prideaux, was forty feet high; the pedestal fifty feet. But this, says Taylor, the editor of Calmet, is a disproportion of parts which, if not absolutely impossible, is utterly contradictory to every principle of art, even of the rudest sort. To meet the difficulty, Taylor himself supposes that the height referred to in the description was rather proportional than actual height; that is, if it had stood upright it would have been sixty cubits, though the actual elevation in a sitting posture may have been but little more than thirty cubits, or fifty feet. The breadth, he supposes, was rather the depth or thickness measured from the breast to the back, than the breadth measured from shoulder to shoulder. His argument and illustration may be seen in Calmet, vol. iii. Frag. 156. It is not absolutely certain, however, that the image was in a sitting posture, and the natural constructsion of the passage is, that the statue was actually sixty cubits in height.
No one can doubt that an image of that height could be erected; and when we remember the one at Rhodes, which was 105 Grecian feet in height (see art. Colossus, in Anthons Class. Dict.), and the desire of Nebuchadnezzar to adorn his capital in the most magnificent manner, it is not to be regarded as improbable that an image of this height was erected. What was the height of the pedestal, if it stood on any, as it probably did, it is impossible now to tell. The length of the cubit was not the same in every place. The length originally was the distance between the elbow and the extremity of the middle finger, about eighteen inches. The Hebrew cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland and M. Pelletier, was twenty-one inches; but others fix it at eighteen. – Calmet. The Talmudists say that the Hebrew cubit was larger by one quarter than the Roman. Herodotus says that the cubit in Babylon was three fingers longer than the usual one. – Clio, 178. Still, there is not absolute certainty on that subject. The usual and probable measurement of the cubit would make the image in Babylon about ninety feet high.
And the breadth thereof six cubits – About nine feet. This would, of course, make the height ten times the breadth, which Prideaux says is entirely contrary to the usual proportions of a man. It is not known on what part of the image this measurement was made, or whether it was the thickness from the breast to the back, or the width from shoulder to shoulder. If the thickness of the image here is referred to by the word breadth, the proportion would be well preserved. The thickness of a well-proportioned man, says Scheuchzer (Knupfer Bibel, in loc.), measured from the breast to the back is one-tenth of his height. This was understood to be the proportion by Augustine, Civi. Dei, 1. xv. c. 26. The word which is here rendered breadth ( pethay) occurs nowhere else in the Chaldean of the Scriptures, except in Ezr 6:3 : Let the house be builded, the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits. Perhaps this refers rather to the depth of the temple from front to rear, as Taylor has remarked, than to the breadth from one side to another. If it does, it would correspond with the measurement of Solomons temple, and it is not probable that Cyrus would vary from that plan in his instructions to build a new temple. If that be the true construction, then the meaning here may be, as remarked above, that the image was of that thickness, and the breadth from shoulder to shoulder may not be referred to.
He set it up in the plain of Dura – It would seem from this that it was set up in an open plain, and not in a temple; perhaps not near a temple. It was not unusual to erect images in this manner, as the colossal figure at Rhodes shows. Where this plain was, it is of course impossible now to determine. The Greek translation of the word is Deeira – Deeira. Jerome says that the translation of Theodotion is Deira; of Symmachus, Doraum; and of the Septuagint. peribolon – which he says may be rendered vivarium vel conclusum locum. Interpreters commonly, says Gesenius, compare Dura, a city mentioned by Ammian. Marcel. 25. 6, situated on the Tigris; and another of like name in Polyb. 5, 48, on the Euphrates, near the mouth of the Chaboras. It is not necessary to suppose that this was in the city of Babylon; and, indeed, it is probable that it was not, as the province of Babylon doubtless embraced more than the city, and an extensive plain seems to have been selected, perhaps near the city, as a place where the monument would be more conspicuous, and where larger numbers could convene for the homage which was proposed to be shown to it.
In the province of Babylon – One of the provinces, or departments, embracing the capital, into which the empire was divided, Dan 2:48.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Dan 3:1
Nebuchadnezzar, the king, made an image of gold.
Gigantic Idols
We are not without historical confirmation of the narrative as to the existence of gigantic idols of gold among the Babylonians. Herodotus writes that in his day there was at Babylon an idol image of gold twelve cubics high; and, what is still more remarkable, another authority, obviously speaking of the same statue, mentions that every stranger was obliged to worship it before he was allowed to enter the city. Diodorus Siculus mentions an image found in the temple of Bolus forty feet high, which some think was the same as the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar. Other images almost parallel in magnitude are mentioned in history. The Colossus of Nero was one hundred and ten feet high. The Colossus of Rhodes was seventy cubits high, and was considered one of the seven wonders of the world. According to classic story, it took thirteen years to construct this colossus; and on its being thrown down by an earthquake, so great was its weight, it ploughed up the ground, and buried itself under the ground. These historical facts show that such images were not unusual, and that it was not impossible to construct such by ancient art. The Colossus of Nero and of Rhodes were not, however, of gold; nor do we suppose that the image of Nebuchadnezzar was of solid gold. It must have been either hollow, or made of wood and covered with gold. It does not appear that the ancients made any but small images of solid gold. The proportions of this image are out of order, unless we understand the height to include the thickness of the pedestal, which it seems to me we should do. (W. A. Scott, D.D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER III
Nebuchadnezzar, having erected an image, whose height (including
probably a very high pedestal) was sixty cubits, and the
breadth six, ordered a numerous assembly, which he had
convened, to fall down and worship it; threatening, at the
same time, that whosoever refused should be cast into a fiery
furnace, 1-7;
a punishment not uncommon in that country, (see Jer 29:22.)
Daniel’s three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,
who were present, being observed to refrain from this
idolatrous worship, were accused before the king; who, in
great wrath, commanded them to comply with his orders on pain
of death, 8-15.
But these holy men, with the greatest composure and serenity,
expressed their firm resolution not to worship his gods or his
images, whatever might be the consequence, 16-18.
Upon which the king, unaccustomed to have his will opposed, in
the height of his wrath, ordered the furnace to be made seven
times hotter than usual, and these men to be cast into it,
bound by the most mighty of his army, who were killed by the
flame in the execution of this service, 19-23.
On this occasion God literally performed his promise by Isaiah,
(Isa 43:2🙂
“When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt;
neither shall the flame kindle upon thee;” for an angel of
God, appearing in the furnace, protected these young men, and
counteracted the natural violence of the fire; which, only
consuming the cords with which they were bound, left them to
walk at liberty, and in perfect safety, in the midst of the
furnace. The king, astonished at this prodigy, called to them
to come out of the furnace, and blessed God for sending an
angel to deliver his servants; and commanded all his subjects,
upon pain of death, not to speak irreverently of the God of
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who were promoted to great
power and honour, 24-30.
A striking example of the interposition of Providence in favour
of true and inflexible piety.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Verse 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold] It is supposed that the history given here did not occur till the close, or near the end, of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. For it was after his insanity, as we see Da 4:33-36, and this happened near the close of his reign. The authorized version, which is followed in the margin, fixes the date of this event seventeen years earlier, and ten years before the king’s insanity. A few observations on this image may be necessary:-
1. It is not likely that this image was in human form – the dimensions show the improbability of this; for what proportion is there between sixty cubits (ninety feet) in length, and six cubits (nine feet) in breadth?
2. It is not likely that this image was all of gold; for this would have required more of this precious metal than the whole province of Babylon could produce; for as I suppose the sixty cubits apply to the perpendicular altitude, so I take it for granted that the six cubits intend the diameter. Now a column of gold of this height in diameter, upon the supposition that the pillar was circular, contains five thousand seven hundred and twenty-five and a half cubic feet; and as there are nineteen thousand avoirdupois ounces in a cubic foot, the weight of the whole pillar would be eight million two hundred and sixty-two thousand eight hundred and six pounds, ten ounces of gold.
3. It might have been a pillar on which an image of the god Bel was erected. The image itself might be of gold, or more probably gilt, that is, covered with thin plates of gold, and on this account it might be called the golden image; and most probably the height of the image may be confounded with the height of the pillar. Or perhaps it was no more than a pillar, on the sides of which their gods and sacred emblems were engraven, surmounted with Bel on the top.
The plain of Dura] The situation of this place is not exactly known; there was a town or city called Dura, or Doura, in Mesopotamia, near the Tigris.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This daring sin of Nebuchadnezzar was aggravated many ways, by the greatness of the kingdom and majesty God had given him, by the late discovery made to him when Daniel interpreted his dream, by his conviction and confession upon it of that great God and his sovereign power: this is the height of ingratitude, arguing his carriage before to be only a fit of astonishment, without the least change upon his heart.
The vast proportion of the statue, or idol, was to show his greatness by the height and bulk of it, and his pride and magnificence in the richness of it, seeing it was of gold, and to be a monument to posterity of his famous exploits. Some give this reason, that he might seem hereby to avert the fate of his empire, foretold by Daniel, and declare himself sole monarch of the world, or head of gold, because he made it of gold, whether massy, or plated, or gilded, matters not. Likewise that he might seem no ways to be inclined to the Jews, or their religion, whereof the Chaldeans might be jealous, seeing he had owned their God to be greatest, and had preferred Daniel and his friends to great honours. Nebuchadnezzar assured his wise men and nobles that he would still maintain the old established religion, without innovation or mixture: so Mald, Menochius, Geierus: that they had a spite against the Jews is clear, Dan 3:8,12.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. imageNebuchadnezzar’sconfession of God did not prevent him being a worshipper of idols,besides. Ancient idolaters thought that each nation had its own gods,and that, in addition to these, foreign gods might be worshipped. TheJewish religion was the only exclusive one that claimed allhomage for Jehovah as the only true God. Men will in times oftrouble confess God, if they are allowed to retain their favoriteheart-idols. The image was that of Bel, the Babylonian tutelary god;or rather, Nebuchadnezzar himself, the personification andrepresentative of the Babylonian empire, as suggested to him by thedream (Da 2:38), “Thouart this head of gold.” The interval between the dreamand the event here was about nineteen years. Nebuchadnezzar had justreturned from finishing the Jewish and Syrian wars, the spoils ofwhich would furnish the means of rearing such a colossal statue[PRIDEAUX]. The colossalsize makes it likely that the frame was wood, overlaid with gold. The”height,” sixty cubits, is so out of proportion with the”breadth,” exceeding it ten times, that it seems best tosuppose the thickness from breast to back to be intended,which is exactly the right proportion of a well-formed man[AUGUSTINE, The City ofGod, 15.26]. PRIDEAUXthinks the sixty cubits refer to the image and pedestal together,the image being twenty-seven cubits high, or forty feet, the pedestalthirty-three cubits, or fifty feet. HERODOTUS[1.183] confirms this by mentioning a similar image, fortyfeet high, in the temple of Belus at Babylon. It was not thesame image, for the one here was on the plain of Dura, not inthe city.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold,…. Not of solid gold; but either of a plate of gold, and hollow within; or of wood overlaid with gold; for otherwise it must have took up a prodigious quantity of gold to make an image of such dimensions as follow; this be ordered his statuaries or workmen to make for him; whether this image was for himself, or his father Nabopolassar, or for his chief god Bel, or as a new deity, is not easy to say; however, it was made for religious worship: the reasons that moved him to it cannot be ascertained; it might be out of pride and vanity, and to set forth the glory and stability of his monarchy, as if be was not only the head of gold, but as an image all of gold; and to contradict the interpretation of his dream, and avert the fate of his empire signified by it; or to purge himself from the jealousies his subjects had entertained of him, of relinquishing the religion of his country, and embracing the Jewish religion, by his praise of the God of Israel, and the promotion of Jews to places of trust and honour; or this might be done by the advice of his nobles, to establish an uniformity of religion in his kingdom, and to prevent the growth of Judaism; and it may be to lay a snare for Daniel and his companions; of which we have an instance of the like kind in chapter six. When this image was made is not certain; some think in a short time after his dream before related; if so, he soon forgot it, and the God that had revealed it. The Septuagint and Arabic versions place it in the eighteenth year of his reign; and some are of opinion that it was after his victories over the Jews, Tyre, Egypt, and others; and that being flushed therewith, in the pride of his heart, ordered this image to be made; and out of the spoils he brought with him from the various countries he had conquered. Mr. Whiston u places this fact in the year of the world 3417 A.M., and before Christ 587; and so Dr. Prideaux w, who makes it to be in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, agreeably to the above versions. Mr. Bedford x puts it in the year before Christ 585:
whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits; a common cubit being half a yard, it was thirty yards high, and three yards broad; but Herodotus y says the king’s cubit in Babylon was three fingers larger than the usual one; and, according to that, this image must be thirty five yards high, and three yards and a half broad; but since there is so great a disproportion between the height and breadth, some have thought that the height includes the pedestal on which it stood; and, allowing twelve cubits for that, the height of the image was forty six cubits. Diodorus Siculus z makes mention of a statue of gold in the temple of Belus, which Xerxes demolished, which was forty feet high, and contained a thousand Babylonish talents of gold, which, at the lowest computation, amounts to three millions and a half of our money; which image Doctor Prideaux a conjectures was this image of Nebuchadnezzar’s; but this seems not likely, since the one was between thirty and forty yards high, the other but thirteen or fourteen; the one in the plain of Dura, the other in the temple of Bel:
he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon; that so it might be seen of all, and there might be room enough for a vast number of worshippers together. The Septuagint version calls this place the plain of Deeira, which some take to be the Deera of Ptolemy b; but that is in the province of Susiana; rather this is Duraba c, which he places near the river Euphrates, in the province of Babylon. Aben Ezra says, this is the place where the children of Ephraim fell, and where the Chaldeans slew the Jews when they came into captivity. In the Talmud d it is said,
“from the river Eshal unto Rabbath is the valley of Dura;”
in Arabic , “dauro” signifies “round”; it was a round valley. The Jews have a notion that this was the valley in the land of Shinar where the tower of Babel was built; and observe, that
“although the design of that generation was not accomplished, yet after their times their punishment was made manifest, in that they said, “let us make us a name”, Ge 11:4 for Nebuchadnezzar having wasted and subverted many kingdoms, and destroyed the sanctuary, thought it possible to put in execution the wicked design of the age of the dispersion; hence it is said, Da 3:1, “King Nebuchadnezzar made an image, c. and set it up”, , “in the valley of generation”, in the province of Babylon, which is the valley spoken of in
Ge 11:2 what therefore they could not do, he attempted to do hence he gathered all the people to worship the image, which agrees with Ge 11:4, for he put a certain vessel of the vessels of the temple on the mouth of it (the image), on which was engraven the divine name, that he might render ineffectual the intention of the dispersed generation but the Scripture says, Jer 51:44, “and I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he hath swallowed up, and the nations shall not flow together any more unto him”; for Daniel came and caused that vessel that was swallowed to be taken out of the mouth of the image, whence it fell, and was broke to pieces, which is the same as that in Ge 11:4 e.”
u Chronological Tables, cent. 10. w Connexion, &c. par 1. B. 2. p. 87. x Scripture Chronology, p. 709. y Clio, sive l. 1. c. 178. z Bibliothec. Hist. I. 2. p. 98. Ed. Rhod. a Connexion, &c. par. 1. B. 2. p. 103. b Geograph. l. 6. c. 3. c lbid. l. 5. c. 20. d T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 92. 2. e Kabala Denudata, par. 1. p. 671.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The erection and consecration of the golden image, and the accusation brought against Daniel’s friends, that they had refused to obey the king’s command to do homage to this image.
(Note: According to Herod. i. 183, for the great golden image of Belus, which was twelve cubits high, and the great golden table standing before it, the golden steps and the golden chair, only 800 talents of gold were used; and according to Diod. Sic. ii. 9, the golden statue, forty feet high, placed in the temple of Belus consisted of 1000 talents of gold, which would have been not far from sufficient if these objects had been formed of solid gold. Diod. also expressly says regarding the statue, that it was made with the hammer, and therefore was not solid. Cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 98, and Kran. in loco.)
as well as the description in Isa 40:19 of the construction of idol-images, lead us to think of the image as merely overlaid with plates of gold.
The king commanded this image to be set up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. The ancients make mention of two places of the name of Dura, the one at the mouth of the Chaboras where it empties itself into the Euphrates, not far from Carchemish (Polyb. v. 48; Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 5, 8, xxiv. 1, 5), the other beyond the Tigris, not far from Apollonia (Polyb. v. 52; Amm. Marc. xxv. 6, 9). Of these the latter has most probability in its favour, since the former certainly did not belong to the province of Babylon, which according to Xenophon extended 36 miles south of Tiphsach (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assurs, S. 421). The latter, situated in the district of Sittakene, could certainly be reckoned as belonging to the province of Babylon, since according to Strabo, Sittakene, at least in the Old Parthian time, belonged to Babylon (Nieb. p. 420). But even this place lay quite too far from the capital of the kingdom to be the place intended. We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighbourhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert ( Expd. Scientif. en Msopotamie, i. p. 238ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura, at the end of which, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one which is named el Mokattat (= la colline aligne ), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built en briques crues (Arab. lbn ), which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes that this little mound is the remains of the golden statue erected by Nebuchadnezzar.
(Note: “On seeing this mound,” Oppert remarks ( l. c. p. 239), “one is immediately struck with the resemblance which it presents to the pedestal of a colossal statue, as, for example, that of Bavaria near Mnich, and everything leads to the belief that the statue mentioned in the book of Daniel (Dan 3:1) was set up in this place. The fact of the erection by Nebuchadnezzar of a colossal statue has nothing which can cause astonishment, however recent may have been the Aramean form of the account of Scripture.” Oppert, moreover, finds no difficulty in the size of the statue, but says regarding it: “There is nothing incredible in the existence of a statue sixty cubits high and six cubits broad; moreover the name of the plain of Dura, in the province ( ) of Babylon, agrees also with the actual conformation of the ruin.”)
There is a difference of opinion as to the signification of this image. According to the common view (cf. e.g., Hgstb. Beitr. i. p. 97), Nebuchadnezzar wished to erect a statue as an expression of his thanks to his god Bel for his great victories, and on that account also to consecrate it with religious ceremonies. On the other hand, Hofm. ( Weiss. u. Erf. i. p. 277) remarks, that the statue was not the image of a god, because a distinction is made between falling down to it and the service to his god which Nebuchadnezzar required (Dan 3:12, Dan 3:14, Dan 3:18) from his officers of state. This distinction, however, is not well supported; for in these verses praying to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar is placed on an equality with falling down before the image. But on the other hand, the statue is not designated as the image of a god, or the image of Belus; therefore we agree with Klief. in his opinion, that the statue was a symbol of the world-power established by Nebuchadnezzar, so that falling down before it was a manifestation of reverence not only to the world-power, but also to its gods; and that therefore the Israelites could not fall down before the image, because in doing so they would have rendered homage at the same time also to the god or gods of Nebuchadnezzar, in the image of the world-power. But the idea of representing the world-power founded by him as a was probably suggested to Nebuchadnezzar by the tselem seen (Daniel 2) by him in a dream, whose head of gold his world-kingdom was described to him as being. We may not, however, with Klief., seek any sanction for the idea that the significance off the image is in its size, 6, 10, and six multiplied by ten cubits, because the symbolical significance of the number 6 as the signature of human activity, to which the divine completion (7) is wanting, is not a Babylonian idea. Still less can we, with Zndel (p. 13), explain the absence of Daniel on this occasion as arising from the political import of the statue, because the supposition of Daniel’s not having been called to be present is a mere conjecture, and a very improbable conjecture; and the supposition that Daniel, as being chief of the Magi, would not be numbered among the secular officers of state, is decidedly erroneous.
Dan 3:2-7 Nebuchadnezzar commanded all the chief officers of the kingdom to be present at the solemn dedication of the image. , he sent, viz., or messengers, 1Sa 11:7; 2Ch 30:6, 2Ch 30:10; Est 3:15. Of the great officers of state, seven classes are named: – 1. , i.e., administrators of the Khshatra, in Old Pers. dominion, province, and pavan in Zend., guardians, watchers, in Greek , the chief representatives of the king in the provinces. 2. , Hebr. , from the Old Pers. (although not proved) akana , to command (see under Dan 2:48), commanders, probably the military chiefs of the provinces. 3. , Hebr. , , also an Old Pers. word, whose etymon and meaning have not yet been established (see under Hag 1:1), denotes the presidents of the civil government, the guardians of the country; cf. Hag 1:1, Hag 1:14; Neh 5:14, Neh 5:18. 4. , chief judges, from the Sem. , to distinguish, and , dignity (cf. ), properly, chief arbitrators, counsellors of the government. 5. , a word of Aryan origin, from , identical with , masters of the treasury, superintendents of the public treasury. 6. , the Old Pers. data – bara , guardians of the law, lawyers (cf. , law). 7. , Semitic, from Arab. fty IV to give a just sentence, thus judges in the narrower sense of the word. Finally, all , rulers, i.e., governors of provinces, prefects, who were subordinate to the chief governor, cf. Dan 2:48-49.
All these officers were summoned “to come ( from , with the rejection of the initial ) to the dedication of the image.” The objection of v. Leng. and Hitz., that this call would “put a stop to the government of the country,” only shows their ignorance of the departments of the state-government, and by no means makes the narrative doubtful. The affairs of the state did not lie so exclusively in the hands of the presidents of the different branches of the government, as that their temporary absence should cause a suspension of all the affairs of government. is used of the dedication of a house (Deu 20:5) as well as of the temple (1Ki 8:63; 2Ch 7:5; Ezr 6:16), and here undoubtedly denotes an act connected with religious usages, by means of which the image, when the great officers of the kingdom fell down before it, was solemnly consecrated as the symbol of the world-power and (in the heathen sense) of its divine glory. This act is described (Dan 3:3-7) in so far as the object contemplated rendered it necessary.
When all the great officers of state were assembled, a herald proclaimed that as soon as the sound of the music was heard, all who were present should, on pain of death by being cast into the fire, fall down before the image and offer homage to it; which they all did as soon as the signal was given. The form , Dan 3:3, corresponds to the sing. (Dan 2:31) as it is written in Syr., but is read . The Masoretes substitute for it in the Talm. The common form ; cf. Frst, Lehrgb. der aram. Idiom. p. 161, and Luzzatto, Elem. Gram. p. 33. The expression , Dan 3:3, and Ezr 4:16, is founded on , the semi-vowel of the preceding sound being absorbed, as in the Syr. l-kebel . On , herald, and on the form , see under Dan 2:5. , they say, for “it is said to you.” The expression of the passive by means of a plural form of the active used impersonally, either participially or by 3rd pers. perf. plur., is found in Hebr., but is quite common in Chald.; cf. Ewald, Lehr. d. hebr. Spr. 128, b, and Winer, Chald. Gram. 49, 3. The proclamation of the herald refers not only to the officers who were summoned to the festival, but to all who were present, since besides the officers there was certainly present a great crowd of people from all parts of the kingdom, as M. Geier has rightly remarked, so that the assembly consisted of persons of various races and languages. denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. , Gen 25:16, denotes the several tribes of Ishmael, and Num 25:15 the separate tribes of the Midianites, and is thus not so extensive in its import as , peoples. , corresponding to , Isa 66:18, designates ( vide Gen 10:5, Gen 10:20, Gen 10:31) communities of men of the same language, and is not a tautology, since the distinctions of nation and of language are in the course of history frequently found. The placing together of the three words denotes all nations, however they may have widely branched off into tribes with different languages, and expresses the sense that no one in the whole kingdom should be exempted from the command. It is a mode of expression (cf. Dan 3:7, Dan 3:29, 31[4:1], and Dan 6:26[25]) specially characterizing the pathetic style of the herald and the official language of the world-kingdom, which Daniel also (Dan 5:19; Dan 7:14) makes use of, and which from the latter passage is transferred to the Apocalypse, and by the union of these passages in Daniel with Isa 66:18 is increased to ( in Isa.), , (Rev 5:9; Rev 7:9; Rev 13:7; Rev 14:6; Rev 17:15).
In the same passage , Dan 3:7 (cf. also Dan 3:8), is interchanged with , at the time (Dan 3:5 and Dan 3:15); but it is to be distinguished from , at the same moment, Dan 3:6 and Dan 3:15; for or has in the Bib. Chald. only the meaning instant, moment, cf. Dan 4:16, Dan 4:30; Dan 5:5, and acquires the signification short time, hour, first in the Targ. and Rabbin. In the enumeration also of the six names of the musical instruments with the addition: and all kinds of music, the pompous language of the world-ruler and of the herald of his power is well expressed. Regarding the Greek names of three of these instruments see p. 507. The great delight of the Babylonians in music and stringed instruments appears from Isa 14:11 and Psa 137:3, and is confirmed by the testimony of Herod. i. 191, and Curtius, Dan 3:3. , horn, is the far-sounding tuba of the ancients, the or of the Hebr.; see under Jos 6:5. , from , to hiss, to whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the lxx and Theodot. , the shepherd’s or Pan’s pipes, which consisted of several reeds of different thicknesses and of different lengths bound together, and, according to a Greek tradition (Pollux, iv. 9, 15), was invented by two Medes. (according to the Kethiv; but the Keri and the Targ. and Rabbin. give the form ) is the Greek or , harp, for the Greek ending becomes in the Aramaic, as in many similar cases; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 1215. , corresponding to the Greek , but a Syrian invention, is, according to Athen. iv. p. 175, a four-stringed instrument, having a sharp, clear tone; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 935. (in Dan 3:7 written with a instead of and in Dan 3:10 and Dan 3:15 pointed with a Tsere under the ) is the Greek , of which the Greek ending becomes abbreviated in the Aram. into (cf. Ges. Thes. p. 1116). The word has no etymology in the Semitic. It was an instrument like a harp, which according to Augustin (on Psa 33:2 [32:2] and Psa 43:4 [42:4) was distinguished from the cithara in this particular, that while the strings of the cithara passed over the sounding-board, those of the psalterium (or organon) were placed under it. Such harps are found on Egyptian (see Rosellini) and also on Assyrian monuments (cf. Layard, Ninev. and Bab., Table xiii. 4). , in Dan 3:10 , is not derived from , contignare , but is the Aramaic form of , bag-pipes, which is called in Italy at the present day sampogna, and derives its Greek name from the accord of two pipes placed in the bag; cf. Ges. Thes. p. 941. signifies, not “song,” but musical playing, from reemaz , to play the strings, ; and because the music of the instrument was accompanied with song, it means also the song accompanying the music. The explanation of by singing stands here in opposition to the , since all sorts of songs could only be sung after one another, but the herald speaks of the simultaneous rise of the sound. The limiting of the word also to the playing on a stringed instrument does not fit the context, inasmuch as wind instruments are also named. Plainly in the words all the other instruments not particularly named are comprehended, so that is to be understood generally of playing on musical instruments. , in the same instant. The frequent pleonastic use in the later Aramaic of the union of the preposition with a suffix anticipating the following noun, whereby the preposition is frequently repeated before the noun, as e.g., , Dan 5:12, cf. Dan 5:30, has in the Bibl. Chald. generally a certain emphasis, for the pronominal suffix is manifestly used demonstratively, in the sense even this, even that.
Homage was commanded to be shown to the image under the pain of death to those who refused. Since “the dominion of Nebuchadnezzar was founded not by right, but by the might of conquest” (Klief.), and the homage which he commanded to be shown to the image was regarded not only as a proof of subjection under the power of the king, but comprehended in it also the recognition of his gods as the gods of the kingdom, instances of refusal were to be expected. In the demand of the king there was certainly a kind of religious oppression, but by no means, as Bleek, v. Leng., and other critics maintain, a religious persecution, as among heathen rulers Antiochus Epiphanes practised it. For so tolerant was heathenism, that it recognised the gods of the different nations; but all heathen kings required that the nations subdued by them should also recognise the gods of their kingdom, which they held to be more powerful than were the gods of the vanquished nations. A refusal to yield homage to the gods of the kingdom they regarded as an act of hostility against the kingdom and its monarch, while every one might at the same time honour his own national god. This acknowledgement, that the gods of the kingdom were the more powerful, every heathen could grant; and thus Nebuchadnezzar demanded nothing in a religious point of view which every one of his subjects could not yield. To him, therefore, the refusal of the Jews could not but appear as opposition to the greatness of his kingdom. But the Jews, or Israelites, could not do homage to the gods of Nebuchadnezzar without rejecting their faith that Jehovah alone was God, and that besides Him there were no gods. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar practised towards them, without, from his polytheistic standpoint, designing it, an intolerable religious coercion, which, whoever, is fundamentally different from the persecution of Judaism by Antiochus Epiphanes, who forbade the Jews on pain of death to serve their God, and endeavoured utterly to destroy the Jewish religion. – Regarding the structure of the fiery furnace, see under Dan 3:22.
Dan 3:8-12 The Chaldeans immediately denounced Daniel’s three friends as transgressors of the king’s command. , therefore, viz., because the friends of Daniel who were placed over the province of Babylon had not, by falling down before the golden image, done it homage. That they did not do so is not expressly said, but is expressed in what follows. are not Chaldeans as astrologers of magi ( ), but members of the Chaldean nation, in contrast to , the Jews. , they came near to the king. , literally, to eat the flesh of any one, is in Aramaic the common expression for to calumniate, to denounce. That which was odious in their report was, that they used this instance of disobedience to the king’s command on the part of the Jewish officers as an occasion of removing them from their offices, – that their denunciation of them arose from their envying the Jews their position of influence, as in Dan 6:5 (4)f. Therefore they give prominence to the fact that the king had raised these Jews to places of rule in the province of Babylon.
With this form of address in Dan 3:9, cf. Dan 2:4. signifies in Dan 3:12 rationem reddere , to attend to, to have regard for. In Dan 3:10, as frequently, the expression signifies, on the contrary, to give an opinion, a judgment, i.e., to publish a command. The Keth. (Dan 3:12), for which the Keri prefers the sing. form , in sound the same as the contracted plur., is to be maintained as correct; for the Keri here, as in Dan 3:18, supporting itself on , Dan 3:14, rests on the idea that by the honouring of his god only the doing of homage to the image is meant, while the not doing homage to the image only gives proof of this, that they altogether refused to honour the gods of Nebuchadnezzar. This is placed in the foreground by the accusers, so as to arouse the indignation of the king. “These Chaldeans,” Hitz. remarks quite justly, “knew the three Jews, who were so placed as to be well known, and at the same time envied, before this. They had long known that they did not worship idols; but on this occasion, when their religion made it necessary for the Jews to disobey the king’s command, they make use of their knowledge.”
Dan 3:13 That they succeeded in their object, Nebuchadnezzar shows in the command given in anger and fury to bring the rebels before him. , notwithstanding its likeness to the Hebr. Hiphil form , Isa 21:14, is not the Hebraizing Aphel, but, as , Dan 6:18, shows, is a Hebraizing passive from of the Aphel, since the active form is , Dan 5:3, and is a passive formation peculiar to the Bib. Chald, for which in the Targg. Ittaphal is used.
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
| Nebuchadnezzar’s Golden Image. | B. C. 587. |
1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. 2 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3 Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 4 Then a herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, 5 That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: 6 And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. 7 Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
We have no certainty concerning the date of this story, only that if this image, which Nebuchadnezzar dedicated, had any relation to that which he dreamed of, it is probable that it happened not long after that; some reckon it to be about the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, a year before Jehoiachin’s captivity, in which Ezekiel was carried away. Observe,
I. A golden image set up to be worshipped. Babylon was full of idols already, yet nothing will serve this imperious prince but they must have one more; for those who have forsaken the one only living God, and begin to set up many gods, will find the gods they set up so unsatisfying, and their desire after them so insatiable, that they will multiply them without measure, wander after them endlessly, and never know when they have sufficient. Idolaters are fond of novelty and variety. They choose new gods. Those that have many will wish to have more. Nebuchadnezzar the king, that he might exert the prerogative of his crown, to make what god he thought fit, set up this image, v. 1. Observe, 1. The valuableness of it; it was an image of gold, not all gold surely; rich as he was, it is probable that he could not afford that, but overlaid with gold. Note, The worshippers of false gods are not wont to mind charges in setting up images and worshipping them; they lavish gold out of the bag for that purpose (Isa. xlvi. 6), which shames our niggardliness in the worship of the true God. 2. The vastness of it; it was threescore cubits high and six cubits broad. It exceeded the ordinary stature of a man fifteen times (for that is reckoned but four cubits, or six feet), as if its being monstrous would make amends for its being lifeless. But why did Nebuchadnezzar set up this image? Some suggest that it was to clear himself from the imputation of having turned a Jew, because he had lately spoken with great honour of the God of Israel and had preferred some of his worshippers. Or perhaps he set it up as an image of himself, and designed to be himself worshipped in it. Proud princes affected to have divine honours paid them; Alexander did so, pretending himself to be the son of Jupiter Olympius. He was told that in the image he had seen in his dream he was represented by the head of gold, which was to be succeeded by kingdoms of baser metal; but here he sets up to be himself the whole image, for he makes it all of gold. See here, (1.) How the good impressions that were then made upon him were quite lost, and quickly. He then acknowledged that the God of Israel is of a truth a God of gods and a Lord of kings; and yet now, in defiance of the express law of that God, he sets up an image to be worshipped, not only continues in his former idolatries, but contrives new ones. Note, Strong convictions often come short of a sound conversion. Many a pang have owned the absurdity and dangerousness of sin, and yet have gone on in it. (2.) How that very dream and the interpretation of it, which then made such good impressions upon him, now had a quite contrary effect. Then it made him fall down as a humble worshipper of God; now it made him set up for a bold competitor with God. Then he thought it a great thing to be the golden head of the image, and owned himself obliged to God for it; but, his mind rising with his condition, now he thinks that too little, and, in contradiction to God himself and his oracle, he will be all in all.
II. A general convention of the states summoned to attend the solemnity of the dedication of this image, Dan 3:2; Dan 3:3. Messengers are despatched to all parts of the kingdom to gather together the princes, dukes, and lords, all the peers of the realm, with all officers civil and military, the captains and commanders of the forces, the judges, the treasurers or general receivers, the counsellors, and the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces; they must all come to the dedication of this image upon pain and peril of what shall fall thereon. He summons the great men, for the great honour of his idol; it is therefore mentioned to the glory of Christ that kings shall bring presents unto him. If he can bring them to pay homage to his golden image, he doubts not but the inferior people will follow of course. In obedience to the king’s summons all the magistrates and officers of that vast kingdom leave the services of their particular countries, and come to Babylon, to the dedication of this golden image; long journeys many of them took, and expensive ones, upon a very foolish errand; but, as the idols are senseless things, such are the worshippers.
III. A proclamation made, commanding all manner of persons present before the image, upon the signal given, to fall down prostrate, and worship the image, under the style and title of The golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up. A herald proclaims this aloud throughout this vast assembly of grandees, with their numerous train of servants and attendants, and a great crowd of people, no doubt, that were not sent for; let them all take notice, 1. That the king does strictly charge and command all manner of persons to fall down and worship the golden image; whatever other gods they worship at other times, now they must worship this. 2. That they must all do this just at the same time, in token of their communion with each other in this idolatrous service, and that, in order hereunto, notice shall be given by a concert of music, which would likewise serve to adorn the solemnity and to sweeten and soften the minds of those that were loth to yield and bring them to comply with the king’s command. This mirth and gaiety in the worship would be very agreeable to carnal sensual minds, that are strangers to that spiritual worship which is due to God who is a spirit.
IV. The general compliance of the assembly with this command, v. 7. They heard the sound of the musical instruments, both wind-instruments and hand-instruments, the cornet and flute, with the harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, the melody of which they thought was ravishing (and fit enough it was to excite such a devotion as they were then to pay), and immediately they all, as one man, as soldiers that are wont to be exercised by beat of drum, all the people, nations, and languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image. And no marvel when it was proclaimed, That whosoever would not worship this golden image should be immediately thrown into the midst of a burning fiery furnace, ready prepared for that purpose, v. 6. Here were the charms of music to allure them into a compliance and the terrors of the fiery furnace to frighten them into a compliance. Thus beset with temptation, they all yielded. Note, That way that sense directs the most will go; there is nothing so bad which the careless world will not be drawn to by a concert of music, or driven to by a fiery furnace. And by such methods as these false worship has been set up and maintained.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
DANIEL – CHAPTER 3
THE PRIDE AND FOLLY OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Verses 1-7:
Verse 1 sets forth the fickleness of human nature. Though having declared that Daniel’s living God was “King of kings” and “God of lords,” Nebuchadnezzar turned 19 years later to make an “image of gold,” a monstrous image of himself, with an height of 60 cubits (90 ft.) and a breadth of 6 cubits (9 ft.). It was likely wood overlaid with gold. Then he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon, just south of the city. It was to symbolize him as the golden head of the first one world Gentile Empire. His confession of God did not keep him from being, continuing as a worshipper of idol gods. This golden image required self-worship that follows, Dan 2:38, and appears to be a type of that one day to be demanded of the antichrist, the man of sin, Dan 9:26-27; 2Th 2:3-4. See also 1Ki 12:28; Psa 96:5; Isa 41:24; Isa 46:6; Hos 2:8; Hos 8:4.
Verse 2 adds that when the monstrous image of gold (representing Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 2:38) was set up in the plain of Dura, the king sent out a call for all the puppet-rulers of this Empire to come to the dedication of the god. Special calls went to: 1) the princes, 2) the governors, 3) the captains, 4) the Judges , 5) the treasurers, 6) the counselors, 7) the sheriffs, and 8) all the administrative rulers of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image, as the central god of his Empire. From all ruling levels of society the magi were called. It appears that this was an effort to unify all the religions of the earth, and his empire, to worship him, much as the antichrist beast, representing Gentile powers will do, as related Dan 6:7; Dan 7:8; Act 12:22; 2Th 2:3-11; Rev 13:11-15; Rev 19:20.
Verse 3 affirms that all the rulers of the province of Nebuchadnezzar’s Empire came at his call, and stood as a mighty conclave, before the monstrous golden image to admire it, do obeisance toward, or worship it. It simply added to the dead gods they already worshipped, Psa 115:4-9; Mat 7:13; Rom 1:21; Rom 1:28; Rom 3:11.
Verses 4, 5 state that an herald cried aloud (with a mighty voice), a decree that all nations, people, and tongues, when they heard the sound or music of the flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of orchestrated music, were to fall down upon their faces, in worship of the monstrous golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had made, as an object of self-deification, Dan 4:1; Dan 6:25. They were to fall down, not only for worship, but also that any who refused might be detected.
Verse 6 adds that the decree for dedication not only required that all present fall down to worship, at the sound of the stringed and percussion music, but also announced that any who refused would immediately, the same hour, be carried and cast alive into the fiery furnace, the very kind that had melted the gold for the image of the king that was before them. It was “worship me or die,” as 2Th 2:3-4; Rev 13:11-15. Such was a common method of punishment in Babylon, Jer 29:22; 2Sa 12:31.
Verse 7 asserts that when all who were commanded assembled, as rulers of the nations, practicing worship of many gods anyway, they fell down obediently before the image to worship, at the sound of the symphonic, orchestrated music. It appears that no Jews were present, except the three governors, Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego, v. 12; 2Co 8:5-6.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Very probably this statue was not erected by King Nebuchadnezzar within a short period, as the Prophet does not notice how many years had passed away; for it is not probable that it was erected within a short time after he had confessed the God of Israel to be the Supreme Deity. Yet as the Prophet is silent, we need not discuss the matter. Some of the rabbis think this statue to have been erected as an expiation; as if Nebuchadnezzar wished to avert the effect of his dream by this charm, as they say. But their guess is most frivolous. We may inquire, however, whether Nebuchadnezzar deified himself or really erected this statue to Bel the principal deity of the Chaldeans, or invented some new-fangled divinity? Many incline to the opinion that he wished to include himself in the number of the deities, but this is not certain — at least I do not think so. Nebuchadnezzar seems to me rather to have consecrated this statue to some of the deities; but, as superstition is always joined with ambition and pride, very likely Nebuchadnezzar was also induced by vain glory and luxury to erect this statue. As often as the superstitious incur expense in building temples and in fabricating idols, if any one asks them their object, they immediately reply — they do it in honor of God! At the same time they are all promoting their own fame and reputation. All the superstitious reckon God’s worship valueless, and rather wish to acquire for themselves favor and estimation among men. I readily admit this to have been Nebuchadnezzar’s intention, and indeed I am nearly certain of it. But at the same time some pretense to piety was joined with it; for he pretended that he wished to worship God. Hence, also, what I formerly mentioned appears more clear, namely, — King Nebuchadnezzar was not truly and heartily converted, but rather remained fixed in his own errors, when he was attributing glory to the God of Israel. As I have already said, that confession of his was limited, and he now betrays what he nourished in his heart; for when he erected the statue he did not return to his own natural disposition, but; rather his impiety, which was hidden for a time, was then detected. For that remarkable confession could not be received as a proof of change of mind. All therefore would have said he was a new man, if God had not wished it to be made plain that he was held bound and tied by the chains of Satan, and was still a slave to his own errors. God wished then to present this example to manifest Nebuchadnezzar to be always impious, although through compulsion he gave some glory to the God of Israel.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
DANIEL S BRETHREN. OR THE VICTORY OF FAITH
Dan 3:1-30
IN the first chapter of this Book we are introduced to four young men, the Children of Israel and of the kings seed. They are Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. These four children seem to stand upon a somewhat common level, for it is written God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom. However, even there, it is further remarked and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.
This hint of Daniels superiority takes on more positive expression in the second chapter, where, by direct revelation, he gave the king both the forgotten dream and the interpretation thereof; and, as a result, wins the kings approval and acknowledgment that Daniels God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets.
By the same authority Daniel is made a great man, given many great gifts, and made ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon.
It is at Daniels request that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-negonew names given to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariahwere appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon.
In this third chapter no reference is made to Daniel. On the contrary, the entire chapter is contributed to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. That does not mean that Daniel is dropped out of the scene; only that he is, for the moment, standing in the shadow of his office as Premier, while his three brothers face the kings fury for having refused his command.
It may be accepted as certain, however, that Daniel is discoverable in the conduct of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. He is a natural leader of the four, and the others necessarily partake of his spirit.
The young officer who accompanied Sir Charles Napier, that courageous Indian leader of imperishable renown in his campaign, in the Cutchee Hills, said of him:
When I see that old man incessantly on his horse, how can I, who am young and strong, be idle? I would go into a loaded cannons mouth, if he ordered me.
Even weak men are tremendously strengthened if given a strong leader; while strong men under strong leadership will dare almost anything.
The whole third chapter clearly indicates that Daniels spirit reigned in this entire fellowship, and that when you touched any one of the four, you were truly dealing with him. In the speech and conduct of these brothers, you discover his spirit.
But to the text and its lessons!
I think possibly we may get the greatest profit if we think together of, The IdolCompulsion, The Courageous Revolt, and The Conquest of Faith.
THE IDOLCOMPULSION
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers . of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages,
That at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up:
And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. (Dan 3:1-6).
The king created this image. Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold.
Mans disposition to idol worship is age-old. He began his existence upon the earth with a full knowledge of the one God, who no sooner completed His creation than He spake to man, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
That first communication was followed by constant communications that were at once direct and verbal.
The whole doctrine of the evolution of religion is false to fact. Man didnt begin his worship by wondering at the sun, moon, and stars. The fear of lightning and thunder, and the notion that they were voices of the gods and flashes of their anger, was not the first form of worship.
On the contrary, sinless man walked and talked with God in the garden of Eden as the first and second chapters of Genesis reveal, and sinful man was upon the way back to this high communion with his Creator in the blood offering that Abel brought and for which the Lord had respect!
But this original faith was not retained. Cain took the first step downward by bringing of the fruit of the ground and offering it unto the Lord an attempt to substitute works for Grace; and ere many centuries had passed, this disposition developed to the point where men attempted, by the Tower of Babel, to build their way to Heaven; and from that time till now a thousand points of departure have been employed by the disobedient and unbelieving, and all manner of idols and gods have been invented.
This decline in faith is not the fruit of ignorance, for man originally knew God. It is rather the product of perverted hearts. The Law given by Moses was intended as a check on this degrading tendency.
God said,
I am the Lord thy God * *
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,
Thou shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them (Exo 20:2-5 f, c ).
That Commandment was born of the sinful disposition to worship idols.
People sometimes sympathize with the heathen in their worship of suns and stars, sticks and stones, and even the lowest and most loathsome forms of animal life; and they say of them: The poor things do not know any better.
True; but the ignorance is a self-imposed one. Their forefathers knew better, but knowledge retreated before lust, and this degradation to idols followed.
The Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the Children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from Heaven.
Ye shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold (Exo 20:22-23).
And yet when Paul came to Ephesus, the charge that the Ephesians made against him was that he was persuading and turning away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands (Act 19:26).
It is now nearly two thousand years since Paul, and yet man goes on creating gods or idols.
Reginald Campbell, in his New Theology, said, The Bible teaches that God created man in His own image, but man returns the compliment, and now makes God in his image instead. How true!
Humanism is the latest product of philosophical evolution; and what is humanism but another false god,a sort of man in totality? When we come to study him, he is not altogether unlike the figure that Nebuchadnezzar created and set up in the plain of Dura. That figure, we are told was sixty cubits in height and only six cubits in breadth. Its breadth was one-tenth of its height. That also is suggestive!
The modern man, following current philosophy, imagines himself to be so exalted, so high, as to deserve worship; but when we come to consider his form, he is pitifully narrow and thin.
The city that God is building lies foursquare, and while mans egotism may be symbolized by this lofty and lean figure, Gods solid qualities of love, wisdom, and power are suggested by a better memorial.
The second Commandment not only sets itself against the papal practices of images, but equally against the present University philosophy of Materialism, Mechanism, and Humanism. Jehovah is still saying, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me or in My presence!
Mark again The kings compulsion of worship!
That at what time ye hear the sound of the cortiet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fait down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up:
And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
This also is modern enough! True worshipers of the True God seldom or never coerce the souls of men. Every time that professed Christianity has undertaken to make converts by force it has proven itself only a corrupt and corrupted form of the Faith that is in Christ. Christ called men to His fellowship; He invited them to become His followers. He never coerced them! True Christianity exemplifies the Master at this point. It does not believe in compulsory religion.
The Puritan Fathers came to this country in search of freedom of Faith, and when this government was founded, its basal philosophy was a free conscience in that whole matter, and up to this good hour, pure Christianity and apostate Christianity have alike revealed their characters in this very point, while false faiths and the true Faith have also been recognized by their course in this very matter. True faiths are never coercive; false faiths are commonly so.
The Christians of America believe in letting men exercise a free conscience.
The Modernists of AmericaApostate Christiansthrough the schools, are imposing their Darwin infidelity upon defenseless children, and by hook and crook are compelling tax-payers and parents to foot the bill of an education in which those tax-payers and parents do not believe, nor desire for their own.
The Atheists of America, last autumn, protested against a Thanksgiving day, and asked to have the name of God taken out of all Federal documents, and all offices, held in the interest of Christianity, to be abolished.
In Russia today where Atheism is triumphant, parents are not permitted to teach their children about God, but the State imposes upon those same children its Atheism, thereby coercing conscience.
Such is the difference between the religion of Divine revelation and the religion of the unregenerate!
The true conscience refuses to be coerced!
There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Those three sons of Judah have their successors,men that refuse to be made in the mold; consciences that refuse to accommodate themselves to the wiles and wills of their frail fellows.
Job, speaking in the integrity of his heart, said, I will maintain mine own ways before Him (Job 13:15). There are always men who have opinions that are not easily shaken, consciences that run too deep to be easily uprooted. They stand; and having done all, stand!
Such men you will discover again in the New Testament. Peter and John had a spirit akin to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. On the way to the Temple they found a paralytic and healed him; but when the Council called them and commanded them not to speak at all or teach in the Name of Jesus, Peter and John answered and said unto them, ((Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
The threats of prison; yea, even the sight of a seven times-heated furnace does not shake the resolution of Gods man. He knows the reason for his conduct and refuses to let others determine the course thereof. This brings us to the very subject suggested.
THE COURAGEOUS REVOLT
The report of courage commonly comes abroad.
Certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews (Dan 3:8).
Their accusation is adroitly phrased. In verses ten and eleven they remind the king of his decree, and also of his declaration that Whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
The inference is, the word of the king is supposed to be dependable! Vacillation is not to characterize his conduct, nor timidity his course. From him the people expect consistency as well as courage.
When that speech has had its effect they proceed further, There are certain Jews, (and one can feel the scorn in the phrase,foreigners, importations, a beggarly company, unnumbered, captive slaves, unfit and unfitted for control; men who should be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and not administrators of affairs), Whom thou has set over the affairs of the province of Babylon a plain intimation of mis-judgment on the kings part.
And then to make the charge specific, they name them, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego and continue, These men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
The stinging speech had its effect! The result was exactly what the Chaldeans hoped for; their words had found the king. They had forced him to see that he had made a false political move; that his official appointments were not popular; and now, to make it still worse, they were not even loyal.
Disloyalty to a man in authority is the most destructive element conceivable to government, and that is why political opponents are always trying to prove the same. One can hardly imagine what this means unless he himself is a part of administration; and one cannot imagine how much of this circulates in the circle close to rulers.
Recently I received The Inside Story of the Harding Tragedy prepared by Ex-U. S. Attorney Daughtery and Tom Dixon, the famous author. The reading of the book is a revelation of what disloyalty can do to the king, and equally a revelation of what jealousies characterize and curse the close-in political circle.
Daugherty justly suspected the disloyalty of Gaston B. Means, and quietly reported the same to President Harding, only to find that unsuspicious, and kindly man, non-convinced! Later revelations, however, are increasingly proving the infamy of Means character. He came into the public notice as a murderer of a woman; he has already spent three years behind the barsa time too short to justly measure his offense,and there is a fair prospect that he will end his life there.
On the other hand, this same volume, while it reveals a multitude of Chaldean accusers, often exhibits also the bad motive lying back of their accusations. Daugherty tells us plainly that not a president from Washington to the present incumbent, has escaped the scandalous whispers and stinging tongues of this eternal undercurrent.
Discussing the degeneracy of the United States Senate, a subject with which the public is becoming sadly familiar, and touching upon Falls confession that he had received from Doheny a loan of $100,000.00, Daugherty says:
This incensed the Nation to the injury of President Hardings memory, and the standing of his Cabinet. Hundreds of letters poured into the White House, to members of the Cabinet, members of the House and Senate. The Senate became a caldron of filthy gossip and slanderous accusations. The destruction of the character of public officials became a national sport. Red Senatorial gas-bags poured poison fumes into the air until an honest man could scarcely breathe within the walls of the Capitol.
Old Joseph Parker once said: Jealousy can be very astute, engage little tricks and ways that easily take upon them the guise and semblance of perfect innocence * * There are many ways of stabbing a man; and guilt is never so guilty as when it tries to be mealy-mouth and mock pious. The longer one lives the more profoundly is he impressed with the fact that the man around whom criticism surges is at least accomplishing something. Even the Chaldeans take no account of dead Jews; they have no interest in Jewish nonentities, and no word to speak against even Jewish cowards. But the courageous man, the man who does not bow the knee upon anothers command, the man who refuses to take on putty consistency and be shaped into position in somebodys machine; the man who thinks for himself and insists upon the fact that since he must give an account to God, that account shall have first consideration; He is the man that blocks the way of selfish politicians, and brings a flaming anger to those who build a machine and arrange for themselves a comfortable seat at the center of the same, and propose to have no impediments across their chosen path.
However, let it be known that the result is often exactly as here, the names of such Chaldeans are forgotten, but those of the independent thinkers live. The world knows the names of these three Jews; but the man does not live who can call the names of any one of their critics. Courage is a virtue so rare and so valuable that it marks its possessors for immortality.
Here courage takes the form of flat refusal. The king called these men before him and offered them a second opportunity. That fact alone indicates that the king, furious as he was, felt their importance and feared too hasty a judgment against them.
Mark their reply:
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
That is the speech of real men! That is the answer of the most unusual element of character, namely, courage! In that reply there is no indefiniteness, no uncertainty; it is at once clear and final. Honest men and brave men do not often employ circumlocution. The fact that they mean what they say renders it easy to say what they mean.
John Foster tells us that when the executioner went behind Jerome of Prague to set fire to the pile, Jerome said: Come here and kindle the fire before my eyes, for if I dreaded such a sight I should never have come to this place when I had a free opportunity to escape. The fire was kindled and he sang a hymn which was soon finished by the encircling flames.
Algerius, an Italian martyr, wrote from his prison a little before his death: Who would believe that in this dungeon I should find a paradise so pleasant; in a place of sorrow and death, tranquility and hope and life. Where others weep, I rejoice.
Wishart, when in the flame which removed him from the world, exclaimed, The flame doth torment my body, but no whit abates my spirit.
Who wonders that the names of such men are immortal!
Charles Spurgeon said: We have heard that the old warriors before they would use their swords commonly bent them across their knees. By that test they discovered whether they were made of the right stuff and would not fail them in battle. So God does with His servants; He tries them, tests them, and proves them; and when they have been tested and proven, then He can employ them.
That refusal was not effected by a threat. The answer was: Either God will deliver us out of it, or we will endure it.
Solomon, in discussing the folly of playing with sin, and at the same time counting ones self safe, declared, Caw one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
The answer for such an one, of course, is known; but if a man, in loyalty to God, has to walk the path of fire, he can do it and yet escape the burning from the brands. The truth is that fires kindled against Gods servants have no tendency to eat the flesh, but rather power to revive the spirit.
Gustavus Adolphus was horrified one day when he saw a certain Swedish lad fall from a window to the pavement many feet below. But the lad jumped up, and seeing his ruler standing by, smiled and limped away.
I prophesy that lad will be ready for emergencies, said Adolphus. He became the famous General Bauer.
Fires for Gods servants are refining elements. It is said that Michael Angelo was so eager an artist he would strike off more chips in an hour than a laborer could carry away in three; and yet every blow of his hammer brought that block of marble nearer to angel form.
Saints are made after the same manner. The cuts they receive may be deep, the discouragings they endure may be severe; but if the true saint is there, these things will but combine to bring him forth.
THE CONQUEST OF FAITH
It is interesting to move on in this study. This story has none of the marks of a myth. On the contrary, there is a veri-similitude in it all. It reads like what it ishistory. The only point in the story at which the honest reader might balk is the miracle of preservation.
That is between faith and infidelity! To the man who believes in God, with God all things are possible; to the man who denies God, that feature of the story is nothing more nor less than a myth.
But as the record stands, the conquest of faith is complete.
The fires only suffice to burn away the fetters!
These men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Therefore because the kings commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flames of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.
And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (Dan 3:21-25).
Fire is a destructive element. It not only ends life, it consumes the forms thereof. Water can end life, but it does not consume.
When Pharaoh followed the Children of Israel in their exodus, God rolled back the sea and brought Israel over in safety. But when Pharaoh and his army attempted to employ the same path through the deep, they perished in it.
He who holds the sea in the hollow of His hand is also Master of the flame.
When we were in the Book of Isaiah we heard from God the promise to Israel, and it took this form: When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: and at the Red Sea God kept His Word. Then the Prophet said, When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. That promise was kept to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.
But, let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter.
The sight of the Son of God resulted in the kings conversion.
Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the Most High God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire.
And the princes, governors, and captains, and the kings counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent His angel, and delivered His servants that trusted in Him, and have changed the kings word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.
Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.
Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in the province of Babylon (Dan 3:26-30).
The devil often defeats himself. He did so here. He attempted to burn up these men because they were uncompromisingly loyal to God. He succeeded only in bringing them to an undreamed victory.
How often has it been so?
That was his object when he sicked on his hounds and sent Paul to prison, but the Epistles that emanated from the Apostles hand, even while behind the bars, have been a veritable battery of Gospel guns trained on the adversary ever since.
He imagined when he sent those same millions to nail Christ to the Cross that his conquest was complete, but the risen Christ, incapable of a second death, and now proven to be none other than God Himself, was a far more implacable foe.
How often it is true that by smiting some servant of Gods he supposed himself to be gaining a victory against the Son of God, as in the instance of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego. But, how often it is also true that the Divine intervention in those servants behalf so impress even the godless as to affect new converts from Satans ranks to the cause of the Christ.
Some years ago one of the greatest preachers that America ever knew, my own prized and intimate friend, was holding a most successful meeting in the church of which he was pastor. He dreamed that Satan, displeased with the progress of it, sought to shoot him, but the Saviour appeared and said, You can shoot him in the feet only.
Almost immediately he was awakened out of the dream with extreme pain in that member of his body. He got up and examined the foot and found it was a small pimple on the instep. Erysipelas set in and his suffering was intense, confining him to his bed.
He called for the deacons of his church to come, and he told to them the strange dream and pled with them to carry the meeting on. They promised, and the report, reaching the church, intensified the interest; the revival increased, and scores were converted.
The sickness of Dr. C. increased. He became delirious, but talked constantly of his unconverted sons. The Christian boy who was at home made note of his fathers sayings, and mailed them to two of his unsaved brothers. They read them, were brought under conviction, repented of their sins, and sought the Saviour. In a few days they both appeared, bringing with them even a companion who had been reached by the same notes and turned to God, and the three united with the fathers church.
Satan succeeded in putting this great preacher into the flames of affliction, but when he came out of them and found that they had resulted in the conversion of his two sons and their most intimate friend, he praised God, and had no doubt that the dream was true to fact, that his affliction was from the adversary; nor did he doubt that Christ was faithful to His promise and not only was with him in the flame, but utilized the same in the conversion of his godless sons.
There are people who say that Gods promises are to be spiritually interpreted. Gods own course and conduct is an answer to that claim. There are times when He keeps them literally, when He fulfils them to the letter.
Gods work is a perfect work. He performs no half miracles. There isnt a single record in the New Testament Scriptures of His ever having touched the sick man to improve him a bit, or ever having cast a few demons out of the possessed to leave him still under the power of several others. What He does is complete; like His life its a finished thing.
I heard a woman in the South a few days since say she had been healed of the same disease several times in answer to prayer. Then it must have been someone else than Jehovah who wrought the work!
When He touched the blind man, his sight came back to him. When He spake healing to the leper, his flesh became clean and whole. When He dispossessed the Gadarene, all the demons departed, and he was henceforth in his right mind. When He struck the shackles from Peters feet, He also unmanacled his hands, and he went forth a free man. His work is like Him: it is a perfect work!
But the effect here was more than freedom. It was refinement. The faces of those men in the fire must have shone with an unusual radiance. In fact, the king, looking upon them, practically saw the souls shining through the flesh, revealing the true characters of the commissioned men. It takes the heat and rays of the furnace of affliction to bring out the moral beauty of Gods man.
Dr. Buckingham said Wendel Phillips was the most beautiful person I ever saw. I refer not so much to his graceful form or his handsome face as to his brightness of mind, his perfection, purity, and whiteness of soul.
But let it not be forgotten that Wendel Phillips lived in the furnace of opposition. His abolition sentiments fanned that furnace into white flame, and standing as he did in the midst of it, it did not suffice to destroy, but rather glorified him.
You know the process of china painting. The artist puts his dull paints on the duller pottery and places the pieces in the oven. Flames are kindled about them, and if they were sensitive and could speak, they might cry out with suffering; but when the process is finished, and the dull part appears again, it is a china piece fit to grace the kings table.
This text, however, holds a further and more important subject:
The king beheld the form of the fourth walking with them.
Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (Dan 3:25).
There are people who imagine that Jesus was never seen in this world until He appeared by the way of Marys womb. On the contrary, the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is none other than the Lord Himself. Nebuchadnezzar saw Christ some hundreds of years before His virgin birth. He walked with the three Hebrew Children in the fiery furnace. That was a pre-historic fulfilment of the promise connected with the Great Commission: Lo, I am with you alway.
That promise was made to those who should be in the line of duty, and that promise is constantly fulfilled to all such as are found there. They walk not alone!
It is our plan today to ask you at the close of this service to lend financial assistance to the students who will go out this summer to teach and to evangelize.
I called one of the Seniors in, a few days since, and asked him to rehearse to me the story which I had heard some months since, and this is something of what he said:
Yes; when I became conscious of Gods call to the ministry, I found bitter opposition in my own family; but, turning my back on all, I set off for the Northwestern Bible and Missionary Training School, bringing my wife and babies.
I was without means to carry me through and without a job, and knew almost nothing of city affairs. But I bought a paper over at the corner of Eleventh one day and the first thing my eyes rested upon was A janitor wanted. I went straight to the place and found thirty-three other applicants there. The man who was empowered to engage selected me out of the entire company, and I accepted it as Gods answer to prayer.
Things moved along fairly until rheumatism smote me and made my work both difficult and painful. When the end of the term came, I thought to go back to my home for the summer, and loading my family, a niece, and my father-in-law into my automobile, I made it only as far as Excelsior and the car broke down. I had but $12 saved up and the garage demanded $10 for repairs. I assembled the family on the shore of the lake and we slept on the sand that night.
When I arose in the morning, my rheumatism was worse with the cold wind that had blown over me through the hours of the night. But I pulled myself together the best I could, caught a ride back to the city and borrowed $6 from a fellow-student.
Riding to Excelsior, I took my repaired car and started, getting only as far as Chaska when it broke down utterly. What to do, I did not know! I stopped at a garage and asked the fellow if I could trade it in. He said Certainly not! It was worth nothing! However, the real owner of the garage came. I told him who I was and what had happened. He pointed down to a whole collection of second hand cars that he had on the lot, and said, Go down and pick out the best one you can find and I will give it to you. I went down and started their motors and listened to them and selected the best one, which proved to be good, and went my way rejoicing.
Christ did not fail me. He who said, Go and I will be with thee attended me. And though I am caring for this family, I have been able to continue my studies and complete my course, and, by the Grace of God, am graduating now with the rest.
There is no Book in the Bible, the reading of which stirs my soul above the Book of the Acts. In the series of forty volumes which I am publishing on the Bible, I gave three to the Book of the Acts. It is a marvelous record. Christ is keeping the promise made in Mat 28:20Lo, I am with you alway.
He is with Peter when he stands forth to speak at Pentecost. He is with Peter and John when they meet the lame man at the gate of the Temple. He is with those same Apostles when they are thrust into prison, and He brings them forth. He is with Stephen when he stands before the Council. He is with the saints when Saul persecutes them, and He is with Saul in his conversion and consecration. He is with Paul and Barnabas in their evangelistic journeys. He is with the brethren in the Council at Jerusalem. He is with Timothy when he joins the Apostle, and He is with Paul when he is on trial before the Sanhedrin, on trial before Felix, on trial before Agrippa, and with him when he goes to the Roman prison.
But, I speak advisably when I say that I could assemble this morning on this platform twelve young men and an equal number of young women students, now in the Northwestern Bible School, whose experience of His grace, and especially of His strengthening presence, would make another book of Acts as readable and stirring as the Book bound into the Bible. I am not claiming at all that their reports, or my record of it, would be inspired as was the Book of Acts; but I am maintaining that the record would be equally inspiring. Christ has not quit His own. He is with them still!
Go to our students that are in Africa, and they will tell you that He has been with them there. Visit our graduates who are in India, and they will give you instance after instance of His presence and His help. Drop into the missions conducted by our graduates in the continent of South America, and they will say:
He is not localized. He has been with us here again and again. We have felt His presence. We have received His help. We have heard His voice. We have experienced His fulfilment of His promises. He is our daily Captain and Leader and our constant Companion and Friend. Oh, its great to walk with the King!
I walk with the King, hallelujah,I walk with the King, praise His Name!No longer I roam, my soul faces Home,I walk and I talk with the King.
Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley
HOMILETICS
SECT. XII.THE GOLDEN IMAGE (Chap. Dan. 3:1-7)
Sudden conversions not always lasting ones. Mere impulses often evanescent. Mens goodness sometimes as the early cloud or as the morning dew that passeth away. The stony-ground hearers with joy anon receive the word, but dure only for a while. Some more liable than others to be suddenly movedimpulsive characters. Nebuchadnezzar apparently such. Liable to be suddenly and strongly moved, both to good and evil. On hearing Daniels description and interpretation of his dream, he felt convinced that Daniels God was the true one. Under the influence of this conviction, he had raised Daniel, and at his request his three friends, to the highest offices in the state. He appeared a converted man, and in a certain sense perhaps was one. But there are different kinds of conversion. There are those which reach the centre of the soul, and those which only touch the circumference. Much may be changed before the heart is so. The suburbs of a city may be taken when the city itself is not. Even the city may be taken while the citadel remains in the hands of the besieged. Saul, the future king of Israel, had another heart given him, but not a new heart. We may have new notions without a new nature. Providences, appeals, human appliances may produce the one; only divine almighty power can impart the other. The sow, only washed externally, wallows again in the mire. As yet, at least, Nebuchadnezzars conversion only of this character. Time had effaced his impressions; and Daniels frequent and necessary absence from court might leave him open to unfavourable influences. Thus in an evil hour, whether from a feeling of pride in desiring to erect a symbol of his own greatness [83], or a wish to introduce a new deity for his own future glory, or a sudden fit of superstitious devotion to his god Bel-Merodach [84], or the idea of employing religion for a political purpose in the consolidation of his extensive but heterogeneous empire [85], or, finally, which is perhaps the most likely, from the wily suggestion of envious courtiers, as in the case of Darius and the lions den, Nebuchadnezzar, notwithstanding his former confession of the true God, resolves to erect in the plains of Dura [86] a colossal image of gold, and to command all his subjects, at a given signal, to fall down and worship it. We may notice
[83] The image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up (Dan. 3:2). Dr. Rule observes that about three centuries and a half before the event narrated in the passage before us, an Assyrian king, named Asshur-akh-bal, as he relates in his own annals, erected a similar image in one of the cities which he had conquered. The king says: I made an image of my majesty; the laws and emblems of my true religion I wrote upon it, and in the city of Isuri I set it up. Dr. Rule thinks that the object exposed by Nebuchadnezzar for public reverence was no doubt intended to be an image of his majesty.
[84] Whoso falleth not down, and worshippeth (Dan. 3:6). Dr. Smith remarks that Nebuchadnezzars first care, after obtaining quiet possession of his kingdom after the first Syrian expedition, was to rebuild the temple of Bel (Bel-Merodach) out of the spoils of the Syrian war. Dr. Taylor thinks Bel-Merodach the idol intended by the image. He who pays homage to Merodach, one of Nebuchadnezzars titles. We commonly observe, as peculiar to Nebuchadnezzar, a disposition to rest his fame on his great works rather than in his military achievements; and a strong religious spirit, manifesting itself especially in a direction which is almost exclusive to one particular god, though his own tutelary deity and that of his father was Nebo (Mercury), yet his worship, his ascriptions of praise, his thanksgivings, have in almost every case for their object the god Merodach. Under his protection he placed his son Evil-Merodach. Merodach is his lord, his great lord, the joy of his heart, the great lord who has appointed him to the empire of the world, and has confided to his care the far-spread people of the earth. He was to him the supreme chief of the gods.Rawlinson, quoted by Dr. Taylor. Dr. Taylor remarks that, according to Prideaux, the festival took place after Nebuchadnezzars return from the destruction of Jerusalem, with the blinded King Zedekiah among his captives; and that it is by no means improbable that he meant on that special occasion to exalt his god above the Jehovah of the Hebrews.
[85] The erection of the statue is believed by Dr. Taylor and others to have had also a political design, the kings religious fervour, as in the case of multitudes since his day, being subordinated to imperial policy, and unity of worship sought only that it might contribute to the political unity of the empire.
[86] The plain of Dura. According to Dr. Smith and others, not Dur on the left bank of the Tigris, and a hundred and twenty miles from Babylon, but more probably in the vicinity of the mound of Dowair or Duair, to the south-east of Babylon, where Oppert discovered the pedestal of a colossal statue,a singular attestation of the authenticity of the narrative. The older commentators, as Junius, Polanus, and Willet, thought of the Deera in Susiana, mentioned by Ptolemy. Hengstenberg observes that the name is found nowhere else, neither in the Scriptures nor in profane writers, and that the author omits to afford any more precise geographical definition, assuming the place to be known to his readers; a corroborative evidence of the genuineness of the book.
I. The Image and its Erection. The image, doubtless erected on a pedestal, one of gigantic size [87], and constructed of, or overlaid with, the most precious metal [88]. What the king of Babylon did must be vast and colossal. Such was the city itself which he had built, or rather rebuilt, with its mountain of hanging gardens. Nebuchadnezzars empire colossal, and everything must be in keeping with it. A mans ambitious aims often grow with his success. Nebuchadnezzars ideas now like those of his predecessors on the same plain of Shinar: Let us build us a tower whose top shall reach into heaven. Possibly the conception from the image seen in his dream. That dream, that should have humbled his pride and taught him the vanity of all earthly greatness and glory, perhaps made now the occasion of rebellion against the God who graciously sent it. Mans fallen nature perverts mercies into mischiefs. Sin often makes what was designed for our benefit to become our bane. Gods gifts frequently made objects of idolatry to the dishonour of the Giver. The brazen serpent, which was given as the means of healing to one generation, made the object of idolatrous worship by another. Before the image is worshipped, however, it must be solemnly dedicated to the deity to honour whom it was erected and whom it was intended to represent. This was done in the presence of all the grandees of the realm [89].
[87] Whose height was threescore cubits. The immense image, says M. Gaussen, about a hundred feet high, though not higher than the bronze statue of Carlo Borromeo in the vicinity of the Lago Maggiore, which is sixty-four feet in height, and rests on a pedestal thirty-six feet high. The Colossus at Rhodes, dedicated to the sun, was seventy cubits high.
[88] An image of gold. Dr. Taylor remarks that the same terms being else where employed to denote that which was simply overlaid with gold, we may conclude that the image was formed of wood covered with a thin layer of gold; even thus, however, sufficiently costly. Matthew Henrys remark on the passage has too much truth in it: The worshippers of false gods are not wont to stick at charges in setting up gods and worshipping them. They lavish gold out of the bag for that purpose (Isa. 46:6), which shames our niggardliness in the worship of the true God.
[89] The King sent to gather together the princes, the governors, &c. Of the officers of the court and state, we have (1.) The princes . akhash darpenaiya), according to Keil and Hengstenberg, from kshetra, a kingdom or province, and ban, an overseer or guardian; princes. Gesenius, however, regards the word as the Hebrew form of the Zend or Pehlevic kshatrap (a satrap), and understands presidents of the greater provinces; officers among the ancient Persians invested with civil and military power; deputies and lieutenants of the king, whose splendour they imitated. Wintle, like the Sept. and Vulgate, renders the word satraps. (2.) The governors (, signaiya, a word of Persian origin), according to Hengstenberg, chief magistrates of Babylon; the rulers of provinces; Sept. generals or commanders. Wintle renders the word senators. Dr. Rule regards them as governors over districts, officers of the civil order. Rendered governors in chap. Dan. 2:48, and applied to those who presided over colleges of the Magi. (3.) The captains ( pakhavatha), superintendents of single parts of a province in the Assyrian empire, or of a smaller province than a satrapy. The word probably of Persian origin. According to Benfey, from the Sanscrit paksha, a companion or friend, and so a prefect of a province, as the associate of the king; a pasha.Hengstenberg. Dr. Rule thinks them to have been of the military order, dukes or generals. (4.) The judges ( adargoz-raiya), from (adar), dignity, and (gozrin), judges; the chief judges.Gesenius. So Wintle. Dr. Rule makes them viceroys over the provinces. (5.) The treasurers (, gedobhraiya), like (gizbar) in Ezr. 1:8 and elsewhere, the sibilant being changed into ; from the original Semitic (ganaz), contracted into (gaz), the Aramaic form, and the Persian termination var, serving for the formation of possessives. The officers who had charge of the royal exchequer, like the eunuch of Ethiopia in Acts 8.Gesenius. According to Dr. Rule, they belonged to the fiscal order of officers and were collectors of the revenue. (6.) The councillors ( dethobraiya), promulgators of the law, from (dath), law, and the Persian termination var; lawyers, judges.Hengstenberg. So Rule, officers of the legal class; doctors or lawyers. (7.) The sheriffs (, tiphtaye), perhaps from the Arabic fata, to give a legal opinion or judgment; whence mufti; counsellors, perhaps lawyers or pleaders.Hengstenberg. The Vulgate has prefects. Dr. Rule thinks them officers in the executive department, being responsible for the execution of justice. The exact knowlege displayed by the writer of the entire political constitution of the Chaldees, a corroborative evidence of the genuineness of the book. Bertholdt admits that the statements in this chapter respecting the Chaldean political constitution are so copious that it must necessarily have been written in Upper Asia. Gesenius also admits the authenticity of the statements; remarking that since the constitution of the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian empires had certainly great similarity; since, too, the descriptions of the Persian court occurring in the Book of Esther always differ essentially from those of the Book of Daniel; and finally, since the incidental but cotemporary notices of Jeremiah agree in many points; these statements, which besides have the analogy of the whole East in their favour, are not to be rashly rejected. Impossible to explain this knowledge in a Maccabean Jew. With the occupation of the Greeks everything took another form, and most certainly the administration of the court and of the highest offices of the state.Hengstenberg.
II. The command to worship it. The image erected not for the people to admire but to worship. The people not left to worship it at their option, but commanded by royal authority to do so, and that with the penalty of death on refusing. As the kings god, it must be worshipped by the people also, and that as a matter of obedience and loyalty to himself. Natural for fallen man to stretch his power and authority to the utmost limits. Rulers, not content with obedience in things civil and secular, must also prescribe in sacred ones; not satisfied with the things that are Csars, they must have also the things that are Gods. Perhaps they think to render themselves and their kingdom more acceptable to God by compelling others to worship Him in the way they themselves think best; forgetting that religion is a matter between each man and God, and that conscience is a domain which even kings may not enter. Persuasion and example in matters of religion, a princes privilege; authority the prerogative of God. To command here, without a command from God, both a mischief and a mistake. Hence persecuting edicts, Inquisitions, and Star-chambers. To all such Nebuchadnezzar [90] now led the way. The command was, within one short hour after the sound of the music [91] to worship the image or die the death. The penalty, doubtless, annexed with special reference to the Jewish exiles: the idolatrous Chaldeans needed no such enforcement. The death a very terrible onecast into a fiery furnace [92]. The penalty the flames. That furnace the prototype of the auto da fs, and the fires of Smithfield in later days. Superstition and cruelty twin sisters. The Babylon of the Old Testament followed by the Babylon of the New. Both of them the mother of harlots and the persecutor of the saints. The saints burned by the former under the title of rebels; by the latter, under that of heretics. The Papal Bull, De Comburendo, concerning the burning of heretics, a subsequent edition of the present edict of Nebuchadnezzar.
[90] The same hour. Dr. Rule remarks, that if, as Sir H. Rawlinson calculates, there were sixty divisions of the day and night in Babylon, and not twenty-four, as afterwards in Greece, the vengeance would be swift indeedonly twenty-four minutes. Who can say that the shadow of the pillar (image) itself would not serve to measure the brief space between the sentence and the execution?
[91] All kinds of music, (zemara), music in general, though among the modern Egyptians the name of a pipe. The Greek names of some of the instruments mentioned are alleged as an objection to the genuineness of the book. One of the objectors to certain parts of it, however, J. D. Michaelis, remarks in reference to his own arguments on this head, that the more closely they were examined, the more completely most of them disappeared. Hengstenberg remarks, The dispute is at most about the names of three musical instruments; and who can deny that these might, by even the slightest intercourse of the Greeks with the Babylonians, have found their way to the latter? Dr. Pusey, who ably follows up Hengstenberg on this subject, observes: It were rather a marvel if the golden music-loving city had not gathered to itself foreign musical instruments; or if, in a religious inauguration at Babylon, all the variety of music which it could command had not been united to grace the festival and bear along the minds and imaginations of the people. Dr. Pusey properly insists on the well-known fact that the name follows the thing; but Pareau, quoted by Hengstenberg, observes that the similarity in the names of musical instruments is of such a kind that the Greek appellatives are rather to be considered as having an Eastern origin. The instruments mentioned are(1.) The cornet, (karna), the Hebrew (keren), a horn. (2.) Flute, (mashrokitha), the Chaldaic for a flute or pipe. The Septuagint and Theodotion: ; Gr. Ven.: . (3.) Harp, (kathros or kithros), which Gesenius says was received into the Semitic language from abroad, being the Greek or , a harp, as both the Septuagint, Theodotion, and the Vulgate translate it. Hengstenberg admits that it certainly appears to be the same word as the Greek , but asks, since most of the names of Greek musical instruments were of foreign origin, why should just this one be originally Greek? (4.) Sackbut, (sabbecha), according to Hesychius, an instrument like a harp, but with only four strings. Athenus says that the sambuca, called the Phnician lyre, was an invention of the Syrians. Its foreign or non-Greek origin is maintained by Gesenius, and generally admitted. (5.) Psaltery, (pesanteriu), according to Gesenius and others, the Greek , received into the Chaldaic language; which, however, is questioned by Hengstenberg. (6.) Dulcimer, (sumponia), retained untranslated by the Septuagint, Theodotion, the Vulgate, and the Greek Venetian; according to Gesenius, a bagpipe with two pipes inserted into a bag, which he says, on the authority of Polybius in Athenus, was, at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, used by Greeks living in Syria under that name. Symphonia, though with the old Romans used to indicate music, or the concert of various instruments, was used also by the later Latins to denote a musical instrument, but rather a drum than a pipe. Saadias, on the passage, explains it as a pastoral instrument of the nature of a bagpipe, as a similar instrument used in Italy is still called sampogna. Hengstenberg questions the Greek derivation of the word, and the name of such an instrument in the older Greek language.
[92] Be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. The punishment of death by burning in ovens was entirely Babylonian, while that practised by the Medes and Persians was the casting into a lions den. The description here given of the former mode of punishment admitted to be a proof that the writer had seen such an oven, and had been present at an execution of the kind; while the accuracy of his knowledge is also shown by the fact that in the sixth chapter he attributes to the Medo-Persians, not this mode of punishing, but that peculiar to themselvesan incidental corroboration of the genuineness and authenticity of the history.Hengstenberg.
III. The obedience to the command. The edict not only issued, but obeyed. No sooner were the first strains of the music heard, than, according to the proclamation of the herald [93], the blinded multitude fall prostrate before the image. The music probably intended also for greater honour to the god and greater attraction to the service. Perhaps to stimulate and intensify the devotion of the people. The power of music recognised in the church as well as on the battlefield. The fairest gifts often perverted to the foulest purposes. Superstition and idolatry greatly indebted to the strains of music. The people bow down to the royal idol with abundant goodwill. In the East especially, people follow a superior like a flock of sheep. One also must follow another. Each must be like his neighbour. If not the true God, it matters little what men worship. Gods many and lords many. Babylon the land of graven images. Its people mad upon their idols. Rome acknowledged the gods of all nations. Christianity was opposed and persecuted, because it was opposed to all other religions, as the only true one. The carnal mind enmity against God, not against gods, or a god of our own imagining. Idolatry the depth of human degradation. The prostrate thousands on the plains of Dura a sight that might make angels weep. There is nothing, says Matthew Henry, so bad which the careless world will not be drawn to by a concert of music, or driven to by a fiery furnace.
[93] An herald, (croz), a crier, from (craz), a Chaldaic word meaning to cry, as a herald; used in the Targums and Talmud, and also in the Samaritan. The same word is found extensively in the Indo-Germanic tongues, the Sanscrit, Zend, and Persian; being the Greek , to proclaim as a herald, and , to cry; the middle Latin criso; the German krieschen; and the English cry. Gesenius thinks the word is of Persian origin, though Hengstenberg believes it to be originally Semitic, and its relation to the Greek only accidental, or from onomatopoeia. He remarks that it is almost unanimously agreed by modern linguists that the names of Babylonian gods, kings, and other persons, which occur in the Bible and in profane writers, find their explanation in the Persian, the Chaldaic, and Assyrian languages; belonging, according to Gesenius and others, to the Medo-Persiau stock; and according to others, as Rosenmller, to the Assyrian language, a dialect of the Medo-Persian, and so naturalised in Babylon, though the Assyrian predominated. Words of Persian origin also found in Jeremiah, and apparently even in Isaiah and Nahum. No argument therefore against the genuineness of the book.
We may observe as lessons from the passage
1. The danger of losing good impressions and turning asiae from a good profession. Too many copies of Nebuchadnezzar to be found in the Christian Church. Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world. Constant need of Davids prayer: Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe.
2. Impressions, however good and deep, not to be mistaken for conversions. Present feelings neither to be slighted nor trusted to. A true conversion will in time produce its own evidence. Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. By their fruits ye shall know them.
3. Mere human authority neither to be exercised nor yielded to in matters of religion. Render to Csar the things that are Csars, and to God the things that are Gods. We ought to obey God rather than men (Act. 5:29). So Act. 4:19. The case of a parent in regard to his children who are under the years of discretion, an apparent exception to the above rule. But even here the authority is to be exercised only in commanding what God has already enjoined. I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment (Gen. 18:19).
4. Care to be taken not to follow the multitude to do evil. That a practice is popular, no proof that it is right. Neither the rectitude of a course, nor the truth of an opinion, to be decided by the law of the greater number. The customs of the people are vain. Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be that go in thereat.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER THREE
I. DIVINE DELIVERANCEDan. 3:1-30
a. PAGAN DEITY
TEXT: Dan. 3:1-7
1
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
2
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
3
Then the satraps, the deputies, and the governors, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
4
Then the herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O peoples, nations, and languages,
5
that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psalter, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up;
6
and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
7
Therefore at that time, when all the peoples heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
QUERIES
a.
Why did Nebuchadnezzar make an image of gold?
b.
Why did he command that it be worshipped?
c.
Why all the different musical instruments at once?
PARAPHRASE
King Nebuchadnezzar ordered that a great image, ninety feet high and nine feet wide, overlaid with gold, be fashioned and erected on the Plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon, Then he sent messages to all the princes, governors, captains, judges, treasurers, counsellors, and other minor judiciary and all the rulers of the different provinces that they should come to the dedication of this great statue. When all these different officials had arrived and were standing before the statue, a herald shouted out, Oh people of all nations and languages, this is the kings command: when you hear the sound of these instruments all together, the horn, flute, harp, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe and all kinds of music, you are to fall on your face and worship king Nebuchadnezzars statue. Anyone who refuses to obey will immediately be thrown into a flaming furnace. So when these instruments were all played at once, everyonewhatever his nation, language or religionfell to the ground and worshipped king Nebuchadnezzars statue.
COMMENT
Dan. 3:1 . . . THE KING MADE AN IMAGE OF GOLD . . . Nebuchadnezzars motive for such a grand undertaking is not stated. It is quite possible that, overcome with pride because of his conquests and influenced by Daniels identification of him as the head of gold of the great dream-image, the king erected this image to do honor to his gods for victory as well as to do honor to himself.
The image was 60 v 6 cubits (dimensions expressed in terms of Babylonian sexagesimal system), which would measure today 90 x 9 feet. Imposing but not impossible. It may have been in the form of an obelisk, nine feet in breadth at the base. Grotesque, to be true, but this is characteristic of much of Babylonian sculpture. Diodorus records a statue of a god which was forty feet in height and weighed 1000 Babylonian talents. The Colossus of Rhodes was 70 feet tall. Some of the Buddhist images of Buddha are equally as imposing and grotesque.
The plain of Dura according to one archaeologist was about 12 miles southeast of the city of Babylon where there is excavated a rectangular brick structure forty-five feet square and twenty five high which may have formed the pedestal of a colossal image. The Babylonian empire was divided into provinces over which satraps ruled. This great image was located somewhere in the province of Babylon, probably very near the capital city of Babylon.
Dan. 3:2-3 THEN NEBUCHADNEZZAR THE KING SENT TO GATHER TOGETHER THE SATRAPS . . . For the formal, dedication of this great golden image Nebuchadnezzar sent RSVP invitations to all of the officials of the kingdom. If all the under-rulers of the realm were there, there would also be a great throng of thousands of people. Such a dedication would have a great psychological effect upon officials and people of the power of the empire and the king. It would bind the empire together in patriotic and religious bonds. In those days practically all nations believed that success in military conquests was attributable to the power of the victors gods over the gods of the vanquished. If a nation had prevailed over another nation, the thing that happened behind the scenes was that the victorious nations gods had prevailed over the defeated. The king was merely expecting men to do what men naturally expected to dopay homage to Babylons god for many victories. There was no primary intention, on Nebuchadnezzars part, to practice any religious persecution, or to interfere with anyones worship of his own gods, or to compel men to accept a new god as their own. In those days all men were expected to practice syncretism in religion. That is, it was taken for granted that they would do homage to the god or gods of any particular nation or culture in which they found themselves. At the same time, they might worship their own particular deity without fear of interference if they did homage to the local deity also. In fact, the worship of as many gods as one might know about was the vogue of the day.
In the list of Babylonian officials we have three, perhaps four, of the official terms of office in the Persian language. So many Persian titles some fifty years before the Persians ruled the world proves rather disconcerting at first glance. Consider, however, the fact that Daniel lived well into the Persian empire and was a man of great stature in that government. Now Daniel would surely have taken pains as nearly as possible to bring his book up to date and to have kept it so in case certain portions had been written earlier during the days of Babylon. Daniel would not want to leave his book for a new generation of Jewish exiles in the Persian era cumbered with a lot of antiquated terms which would need interpretation for the generation which knew only Persian terms. The use of Persian words by Daniel certainly lends no credence to the liberal theory that an unknown author of the Maccabean era wrote the book and used the pseudonym, Daniel.
Satrap literally means kingdom-guardian and according to Gesenius means, . . . the governors or viceroys of the large provinces among the ancient Persians . . . being in the provinces the representatives of the sovereign, whose state and splendor they also rivalled. Daniel is using a Persian term in Nebuchadnezzars day to describe some official who would be immediately next to the king in ranka prince or an immediate lieutenant of the king. Daniel probably was a satrap. The other official titles probably descend in rank down from the satrap to the sheriff.
Dan. 3:4-7 . . . AT WHAT TIME YE HEAR . . . WHOSO FALLETH NOT DOWN AND WORSHIPPETH SHALL . . . BE CAST INTO THE MIDST OF A BURNING FIERY FURNACE . . . The individual musical instruments are enumerated: comet (horn of a beast made into a musical horn); flute (to whistle, suggests an instrument with a shrill sound); harp (or zither, a stringed instrument); sackbut (a triangular board with short strings which gave off high-pitched notes); lyre (a stringed instrument with twenty strings); psaltery (another stringed instrument of triangular shape); dulcimer (translated by some bagpipe whether like the Scotch or not is unknown); and all kinds of music (may have been percussion instruments of all kinds), from the Greek sumphonia (symphony).
Critics claim that here we find Greek words in the text of Daniel in the names of at least three of these musical instruments and therefore, the book of Daniel must have been written at least as late as Alexanders Greece (approx. 330 B.C.). Leupold offers the most complete argument against this claim. To assume that Greek words would begin to appear in Hebrew or Aramaic only after Alexanders Greek empire had been established is to ignore historical evidence which points to contacts with the Greeks before Nebuchadnezzars time. (a) Relations between Assyria (which empire preceded even the Babylonian) and Greece were established already before the beginning of the Assyrian Empire had its peak; (b) Ionian Greeks established merchantile connections very early as the Assyrian population began crowding the Semitic peoples toward Asia Minor; (c) From very early times Sinope (on the Black Sea) was an outpost of trade between Assyria and Greece; (d) in the Assyrian army of Esarhaddon (682 B.C.) as well as later in the Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar, Greek mercenary troops were found; (e) in the very early musical and philosophical culture of Greece we find influences of Semitic, Assyrian and Babylonian culture; (f) finally, if Daniel had been written in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, it would be very difficult to explain why so few words of Greek origin occur in the Aramaic of Daniel.
Young writes, . . . as we know from recent archaeological discoveries, there was not a century of the Iron Age during which objects of Greek origin, mostly ceramic in character, were not being brought into Syria and Palestine. Greek traders and mercenaries were familiar in Egypt and throughout Western Asia from the early seventh century on, if not earlier. As early as the sixth century B.C. the coasts of Syria and Palestine were dotted with Greek ports and trading emporia, several of which have been discovered during the past five years.
One can imagine the unharmonious din that would be caused at the shrieking, blowing and thrumming of such a diverse collection of instruments. But the sound was not intended to furnish a soothing symphony for cultured critics. It was to serve as a very impressive signal that the time had come to worship the kings image.
The furnace was probably a furnace used commercially as a lime-kiln, or brick-kiln. Eastern potentates of that day were accustomed to practice methods of cruel punishment for the slightest disobedience to their commands. Refusal to do homage to the image, since it was erected by the king and for his glory, would be regarded as equivalent to treason to the state. No heathen of any race or language would have scruples against doing homage to another god or image since it simply involved the acknowledgement that the gods of Babylon were at that time more powerful than their own gods. But for devout Jews to worship this statue would have been a violation of the first principle of their religion that there is a Living God and He is One God and The Only True God.
A traveler of some three centuries ago (167177) by the name of Chardin went to the territory of Persia and noted that two furnaces of fire were kept burning for a month for consuming those who overcharged for food.
The religious implications of this event are rather incidental compared with the political significance. Yet the Jews who were firm in their faith had no alternative but to desist.
The question always arises, where was Daniel? The following text indicates that only the three Hebrew companions of Daniel were arrested and thrown into the furnace of flaming fire. As a matter of fact, we do not know why there is no mention of Daniel in this chapter, and it is pure conjecture to state otherwise. We would conjecture, however, that Daniel might have been on some official mission away from the immediate vicinity of the Plain of Dura and his mission was of such importance that his presence at the great image was excused by the king.
The love of the Babylonians for music is recorded in Isa. 14:11; Psa. 137:3; Herodotus 1.191.
QUIZ
1.
What was the size of the image made by Nebuchadnezzar?
2.
Where is the Plain of Dura?
3.
What is a satrap?
4.
What is a dulcimer?
5.
What kind of furnace was probably to be used for traitors?
6.
Why would doing homage to a new god not bother any heathen of that day?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(1) An image.If this image was made after the manner described (Isa. 44:9-20), the body was formed of wood, and the whole, when properly shaped, was covered with thin plates of gold. As the height of the whole is disproportionate to the width, it is probable that the height of the pedestal on which the image stood is included under the sixty cubits.
Plain of Dura.The older commentators identified this place with various sites, some north, some east of Babylon. Recent discoveries place it nearer to Babylon, in a place still called by a similar name.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
1. Kuenen ( Onderzoek, ii, N. 487), following Reuss ( La Bible, 1 879) and others, emphasizes the disproportion between the height and the breadth of this image, and also points out the “great improbability” that a “column of gold” of this size should have been erected. But if the height of 60 cubits (about 100 feet) is supposed to include a pedestal, the proper proportion for the figure is retained, while there is no reason to suppose that the writer here was speaking of a statue of solid gold of this size (which Meinhold has calculated would have contained gold worth $2,000,000,000), but rather of a statue covered with gold, which was very common at this time in Babylonia. The story of its immense size has recently been rendered less incredible by the discovery at San (Zoan), in Egypt, of an erect colossus of Ramses II sculptured out of hard red granite, standing 100 feet high from head to foot, or 115 feet high including the pedestal, and weighing 1,200 tons. Professor Fuller has even supposed that Nebuchadnezzar may have been led to erect his statue because of his admiration for this great Ramses colossus, which he might have seen during his invasion of Egypt. He thinks it may have been a statue of himself to celebrate his successful campaign there (in his “eighteenth year,” LXX.). The Pharaohs carved their effigies in stone, but he would cast his in gold. In favor of this it is also urged that the Aramaic word for statue used here is “a likeness.” Professor Jastrow, taking this to be a statue of Nebuchadnezzar, says that this “may be regarded as an authentic picture of a custom that survived to the closing days of the Babylonian monarchy, except that we have no proof that divine honors were paid to these statues,” and gives a corresponding act on the part of one of the earliest kings, Gudea ( Religion of Babylonia, 1899, p. 669).
But rather than regard this story as a Maccabean invention, or the command to worship his own image as the eccentric act of a king soon to become entirely insane, it may with more probability be supposed that this was a statue of some great Babylonian divinity rather than of the king. This very term “image” has been found used in the Sendjirli inscriptions of a date shortly preceding that of Nebuchadnezzar for the “statues” of the gods, as also in the Palmyrene inscriptions of the second century B.C. Dr.
Budge is sure this statue was the image of the god Bel, whose chief shrine at Babylon was called E-sagili, “lofty-headed.” The inscriptions speak of the setting up of such statues of the gods, as, for example, by Asurnazirpal, who says, “I erected an image of Ninib of choice mountain stone and of pure gold.” While the gods were usually represented seated rather than standing, some erect statues have been found, like that of Ramses previously mentioned, and Pausanias states that Bathycles of Magnesia was just at this era (550 B.C.) erecting near Sparta a throne for a bronze standing statue of Apollo 30 cubits in height. If this were indeed an image of Bel-Marduk, then those who refused to bow down before it defied the great god of Babylon, to whom Nebuchadnezzar in his inscriptions is constantly ascribing lordship over the four quarters of the world. Origen, Irenaeus, and other early commentators often describe this as the figure of Antichrist, “the image of the beast” (Revelation xiii; xiv), whose satanic number was 666, “the devil no doubt inducing Nebuchadnezzar to erect it.”
It is worthy of notice that the dimensions given (60, 6) are distinctly Babylonian, since they used not the decimal but the sexigesimal system of notation.
In the inscriptions there is often found mention of a duru (“wall,” “fortress,” or “hill”). Lenormant and Oppert located a “plain of Duru” some dozen miles east of the city of Babylon, where there is a mound even yet bearing this name.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and its breadth six cubits. He set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.’
This image of gold which Nebuchadnezzar set up, if it was gold through and through, would take up much of the temple treasury, for its cost would have been enormous, for the image was huge (the Colossus of Rhodes was not quite as high). But when a king like Nebuchadnezzar, with the treasures of the nations in his treasury, decides to make an impression, we must expect some such display. However, it is quite possible that it was in fact gold plated as was customary with such statues (compare Isa 40:19; Jer 10:4). The image is said to be over twenty eight metres (ninety feet) high and nearly three metres (nine feet) across. Grotesqueness was a feature of Babylonian sculpture. But the image itself may not have been that height for the height probably included a large base or mound. Such kings loved to boast and the measurements were probably official ones. The sexagesimal measurement (based on sixties rather than tens) is an indication of authenticity.
The statue would soon disappear once Babylon was captured. Herodotus mentions a pure gold statue of a man twelve cubits high connected with a temple in the time of Cyrus.
‘The plain of Dura.’ This was possibly Tell Dur, twenty seven kilometres south west of Baghdad although there are several Babylonian places named Duru. The name is thus in keeping with the Babylonian milieu and is a further sign of historicity.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Divine Calling: God Calls the Gentile Nations to Worship Him Only (The Golden Image and Fiery Furnace) (586 B.C.) Dan 3:1-30 records the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s deliverance from the fiery furnace because they refused to bow down to the great image of King Nebuchadnezzar. In the fiery furnace the king sees a fourth person in appearance as the Son of Man. This story emphasizes the calling of the Gentiles to serve God through the testimony of these three brave Jews and the miracle that accompanied their proclamation that they will only worship the true and living God. As a result of their testimony and its accompanying miracle, King Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges Jehovah as the Most High God (Dan 3:26). The story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s deliverance from the fiery furnace records the first time that King Nebuchadnezzar has faced a power greater than himself. He now rules the known world, wielding enormous power for an individual. He now faces a call to acknowledge the God of Israel as the Almighty God, a call which he accepts by giving those who worship the God of Israel immunity in his kingdom.
These three men were tested in their faith in God. They were given a choice of either bowing down to the powers of darkness and sin and idolatry of this world or face death. In choosing death they were miraculously delivered. This story serves as a testimony of those men of faith who “quenched the violence of fire” referred to in Heb 11:34. The reference to the fact that the cords that bound them were burned off symbolizes how true freedom is found in Christ Jesus and not in this world’s system.
Heb 11:33-34, “Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.”
Historical Setting – This chapter is not dated as are many of the other stories and visions found in the book of Daniel. We know that the historical section of chapters 1-6 are placed in chronological order from the dates of many of these chapters. We can conclude that the story of the king’s golden image should follow the story of his dream of such an image found in the second chapter. We can conclude that the story of the king’s humbling experience in the fourth chapter would come after the story of his prideful attempt to have men worship him, as recorded in chapter 3. Thus, we can logically place this story of Dan 3:1-30 between 603-602 B.C. and 582 to 575 B.C. We can also note that the LXX places this story in the eighteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, which was the year he took Jerusalem (586 B.C.).
Note that the prophet Daniel is not mentioned in this story of the Golden Image and Fiery Furnace. Perhaps Daniel had been assigned to another city, or was simply not present during this event.
Dan 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
Dan 3:1 Comments – The fact that the king is building such a great image of gold after having a dream of a similar image suggests that his dream gave the inspiration to build this structure.
Dan 3:5 Dan 3:5
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
Dan 3:17
Dan 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
Dan 3:25
Dan 3:28, “Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel , and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.”
Dan 6:22, “My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, that they have not hurt me: forasmuch as before him innocency was found in me; and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt.”
In contrast, when Daniel has a vision of Christ Jesus coming in the clouds in chapter 7, he refers to him as “the Son of Man” (Dan 7:13).
Dan 7:13, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.”
Dan 3:26 Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.
Dan 3:26
Dan 3:29 Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.
Dan 3:28-29
Dan 3:30 Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province of Babylon.
Daniel’s Ministry to Gentile Kings Daniel 1-6 contains the historical section of the book, while Daniel 7-12 is called the prophetic section. Chapters 2-6 emphasize Daniel’s ministry to the kings of Babylon and Media. In these passages he interprets two dreams and the writing on the wall for these Gentile kings. Note that the stories recorded in the first six chapters of the book of Daniel have been arranged in chronological order. In addition, chapters 3 and 6 tell of the persecutions that Daniel and his three Hebrew friends faced from the Gentiles, while chapters 2, 4 and 6 tell of Daniel’s ministry to these Gentile kings. But the underlying theme of each of these stories is the glorification of the God of Israel.
The Three Men Loyal to Jehovah
v. 1. Nebuchadnezzar, the king, v. 2. Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, v. 3. Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar, the king, had set up, v. 4. Then an herald cried aloud, v. 5. that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, v. 6. and whoso falleth not down and worshipeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. v. 7. Therefore at that time, v. 8. Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans, v. 9. They spake and said to the King Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live forever! v. 10. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, v. 11. and whoso falleth not down and worshipeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.
v. 12. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, v. 13. Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury, v. 14. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do not ye serve my gods, v. 15. Now, if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made, well, v. 16. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, v. 17. If it be so, our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, v. 18. But if not, EXPOSITION
Dan 3:1-30
THE GOLDEN IMAGE, AND THE FIERY FURNACE.
Dan 3:1
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was three score cubits, and the breadth thereof air cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. The Septuagint Version is full of redundance and interpolation, “In the eighteenth year King Nebuchadnezzar, who ruled cities and countries, and all those dwelling (in them)over the earth from India even to Ethiopia, made a golden image; the height of it was sixty cubits, and the breadth of it six cubits, and set it up in a plain within the boundary of the province of Babylon.” The reason for translating Dura “boundary, is natural enough, for the word. means something approximate to this. Theodotion begins in the same way, giving the date “the eighteenth year;” the place is , As for the rest, it is in agreement with the text of the Massoretes. The Peshitta follows a text that must have been identical with the Massoretic, as also does the Vulgate. The date inserted into the Greek Version is improbable. At that time, if we take the chronology of 2Ki 25:8, Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in the siege of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was taken in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, after a two years’ siege. In Jer 52:29 we are told, however, that Nebuchadnezzar took eight hundred and thirty-two captives in his eighteenth year, and the difference between Babylonian and Jewish chronology suggests that the eighteenth year of Jer 52:1-34. may be the nineteenth of 2Ki 25:1-30 Against this is the fact that the month of the year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is given (2Ki 25:8), and this implies the adoption of the Babylonian chronology. It is certainly not to be expected that Nebuchadnezzar would traverse the long distance that separated him from his capital merely to erect a statue or obelisk. At the same time, we are told (Jer 52:29), as we have mentioned above, that in the eighteenth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar took eight hundred and thirty-two persons captive. This may be that he sent these prisoners by a convoy, for it is clear that a larger number of captives were taken when Jerusalem was captured than eight Hundred and thirty-two. They may have been taken during the progress of the siege, in sallies, etc. The number of prisoners taken in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar does not suggest the great numbers that are implied in Ezekiel to be dwelling on the Chebar, otherwise we might be inclined to regard these differences from the received chronology as due to a different mode of reckoning. Even though the date given in Jer 52:29 were the date of the capture of Jerusalem, it is not at all likely that the capture of an obscure city in the hill country of Judaea was an event on account of which a special thanksgiving would be given. The description of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar in the Septuagint is borrowed from Est 1:1. In regard to this image, the statement that it is “golden” does not mean that it was solid gold, any more than the golden altar (Num 4:11) was entirely of gold (Exo 30:1-3; Exo 37:25, Exo 37:26); that it was an “image” (tzelem) does not necessarily imply that it was a statue in the form of a human being. In Eze 16:17 there are references to tzalmee zakar, which seem naturally to be phallus images. Hegel’s opinion (‘AEsthetik’) was that the obelisk was really a modified phallus image. If that is so, then the proportions of this tzele are not extravagant for an obelisk. Moreover, these numbers, “sixty” and “six,” are evidently round numbers, their mnemonic character maintaining their place. The real numbers might be anything near the number given; instead of “sixty,” the real number might be not much over “fifty” cubits, and the “six” cubits the number given as the breadth, might be, without intentional deception, seven or eight cubits. The proportion, at all events, in the extreme case of fifty and eight cubits, would not be extraordinary, even for a statue. It might be a gilded statue on a lofty column. One other note may be added: 6 and 60, multiplied together, give 360, the number of the days in the Babylonian year. The division of the circle into 360 degrees is probably due to this Babylonian division of the year. In the plain of Dura. There are several places in Babylonia which may be identified with this. While it may be outside the wall of the city, this Dura may also have been within it; the Septuagint rendering favours thistly , It is remarked by Professor Fuller that districts within the city of Babylon have at times “Dun” as part of the name. Thus, “in Esarhaddon’s inscriptions, Duru-suanna-ki is that part of Babylon which is elsewhere called Imgur-Bel, or wall of Babylon.” This would confirm the viewQuatremere’sthat Duru was within the city wall. Archdeacon Rose (‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ ad loc.) refers to Oppert as having found near a spot named Duair the pedestal of a colossal statue, but gives no reference. On the fiat plains of Mesopotamia, this obelisk of a hundred feet high would be seen for nearly thirteen miles in every direction, and the gleam from its gilded top would be visible even further. What was the occasion of this image being set up? We have no means of even conjecturing. Certainly it was not merely to seduce the Jews again into idolatry. From the way Marduk (Merodach) is glorified in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, the probability is that it was erected in his honour. Bishop Wordsworth (‘Com. Daniel’) thinks the statue was of Nebuchadnezzar himself, and quotes Lenormant (‘Manuel d’Histoire Ancienne,’ 1:237, trans, 1:486). Lenormaut, in the passage referred to, quotes an ins,,ription in which Nebuchadnezzar calls himself “the begotten of Marduk” From this Lenormant comes to the conclusion that, like Caligula in later times, Nebuchadnezzar demanded worship to be given to himself as a god. But when we turn back in this same book, we find a number of statements of a similar kind which invalidate the emphasis which Lenormant would give to this. He calls Bilit Larpanit, “the mother who bore me;” Sin, “who inspires me with judgment;” Shamash, “who inspires my body with the sentiment of justice:” and so on. In saying he was begotten of Marduk, it is not as claiming the personal possession of the characteristics of divinity that Nebuchadnezzar made this statement, but as regarding himself to be the special instrument and favourite of the godsa posture of mind quite compatible with the deepest and most real humility. Hippolytus and Jerome maintain the same view as Lenormant on a priori evidence. There is no contradiction between Nebuchadnezzar’s ascription of praise to Jehovah as a God of gods and a Revealer of secrets, in Dan 2:47, and his erection of this image to Merodaeh That Jehovah was a God of gods did not prevent Merodach being that also, and even greater.
Dan 3:2, Dan 3:3
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. The Septuagint is greatly interpolated, “And Nebuchadnezzar, king of kings and ruler () of the whole inhabited earth ( ), sent to gather together all nations, peoples, and tongues, governors and generals, rulers and overseers, executors and those in authority, according to their provinces, and all in the whole inhabited earth, to come to the dedication of the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up” The word denoting the “inhabited world” is one used first of the Greek world (Funeral Oration of Demosthenes, , then of the Roman world as distinct from the barbarian (Polybius, 1.4. 6, ); in this latter sense it is used in Luk 2:1. The phrase, “nations. peoples, and tongues,” is one that occurs with great frequency in Revelation, and also the above phrase, . This is an indication of the use made by the Apostle John of this version of Daniel as distinct from the Massoretic text It may also be observed that the phrase, “all in the whole inhabited earth,” is placed as equal to “all the rulers of the provinces,” which makes it at least possible that a misreading of the original text has occasioned the exaggeration in this particular clause. In the third verse the order is different, and to some extent the names of the officials are different also; is left out, and appears in its stead, though not in the same place. Further, there are persons mentioned “great in authority.” This variation may be due to an uncertainty in the mind of the translator as to the exact equivalent in Greek for the Aramaic terms. It is to be noted that “the inhabitants of the whole earth” disappear from this repetition. The last editor of the Greek text may have had two renderings before him, and drew from the one the second verse, and from the other the third. Theodotion’s rendering, while in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, yet differs from it to some extent, appearing to make the latter half of verse 2 explanatory of the former, which contains the more technical designations. In verse 3 there is a change in the order of the terms, as to some extent a change in the terms. In the Peshitta there are evident traces that the translator had not understood the technical meaning of the terms here used. The list given is “great men of mightlords, rulers, Agardaei, Garabdaei, Tarabdaei, Tabathaei, and all the rulers of the province.” These mysterious names, that seem those of tribes, have no existence elsewhere. It is singular that these words, if they are in their original shapewhich they seem certainly, to beand to appearance of Persian origin, were unintelligible to one writing on the Persian frontier at most three centuries after the critical date of Daniel. The Parthian Empire retained much of the Persian character. How was it that words of Persian meaning had disappeared there, and still remained in use, or at least still continued to be intelligible, in Palastine? The probability is that the names have undergone so great change in course of transcription that their original form can no longer be recognized. The Vulgate does not call for remark. The names of these different grades of officials are (as we now have them) some indubitably Persian, as ahashdarpan; others unmistakably Assyrian, sagan pehah; and there are some that have no recognized etymology, as tiphtaye: but there are none that are even plausibly derived from Greek. Yet this class of words is precisely the class where the influence of the language of the military governing nation would be manifest. The fact that while the Massoretic text has eight classes of rulers who are summoned, the Septuagint has only six, throws a suspicion on the whole list. The LXX; however, adds, “all those in the whole earth ( ),” which may be the result of misreading of kol shiltoni medeenatha, or it may be a rendering of it, referring back to the classes already enumerated ( being understood, omitting the ray). In Theodotion and Jerome there are seven classes. Only in the Peshitta are there the same number of classes as in the Massoretic. The Peshitta has as this first class rabai heela’, used in the New Testament, e.g. Luk 22:4, of “chief captains.” It is possible that rabuti, or some derivative from it, was in the original text here, and this was changed into the better known satrap. Sagan does not call for remark; as said above (Dan 2:48), it is derived from shakun (Assyrian); the Hebrew equivalent appears in Jer 51:23 and Eze 23:6, and elsewhere. Pehah is also Assyrian in origin, also elsewhere used in Scripture. Adargazrayya seems a compound from adar and gazar, “to divide.” Furst would make this word mean” astrologers of the god Adar.” Professor Bevan would derive it from endarzgar, a Persian word meaning “counsellor””a word which was still in use under the Sassanians.” That the word had any connection with this is disproved by the fact that in the Peshitta it is rendered Agardaei. If the word in question had survived from the Achaemenids to the Sassanids, its meaning would necessarily be known to the Peshitta translator, whose date held between the periods of these two Persian dynasties. A Persian word of the date of the Achsemenids to have survived to the age of the Sassanids, must have been known in the intervening Parthian period. A similar difficulty occurs in regard to the next word, gedabrayyathe Syrian translator has simply transferred it. The simplest interpretation is that it is a variation on gizbarayya (Ezr 7:21), and means “treasurers,” which is still in use in the Syriac of the Peshitta, e.g. 2Ki 10:22. The question is complicated by the fact that the word which occupies the same place in the similar list in 2Ki 10:27 is haddabra When we turn to the Peshitta for that verse, there is another word, raurbona. The Septuagint, by rendering , shows that their reading was habereen. All this proves how utterly futile it is to build anything on the presence of late words in Daniel. The presence of early words from the nature of the case, is more significant. Old and unintelligible words would never be inserted in place of new and intelligible, though the reverse process might readily take place: (dethaberayya) is rendered usually “judges,” and is generally derived from the Pehlevi; but if (dath) means a “firman,” a “command,” or “decree,” in Aramaic, then the addition bar in Persian is rendered less certain. Here, again, the Peshitta translator was unaware of the meaning of the word, and renders by the mysterious word tarabdaei. The last class mentioned is the Tiphtae. This term seems to be omitted in the three Western versions at least there are only six names of ranks of rulers given in these versions, and this is a seventh. Of course, it may be that some name earlier in the list is explanatory and added later than the time when these versions were made. The Peshitta has the word Tabathaei, which has all the appearance of a national name. The word Tiphtae assumes in the K’thib a Syriac form, which, as we before remarked, is an indication of the original dialect of the book. Notwithstanding what Professor Bevan has asserted, something may be said for the conjecture that it is connected with afta, “to advise.” But in the extreme doubt in which we are in regard to what the text precisely is, it is something like waste of time to do more than chronicle opinions. This feeling of uncertainty is increased by the fact that, as above mentioned, the two lists in the two verses before us do not agree in the three Western versions. The list in verse 27 purports to be the same as that given here, and differs from it greatly. All that we may assume is that there were assembled different classes of the officials of the Babylonian Empire. The reading should not be medeenatha, “of the provinces;” but medeenta “of the province;” the officials that were assembled were those merely of the province of Babylon. We would maintain this, although the versions are against it, because there would be no difference in the original unpointed text.
Dan 3:4, Dan 3:5
Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up. The Septuagint rendering is, “And the herald proclaimed to the multitudes, To you it is announced, peoples and countries, nations and tongues, when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, the pipe, the harp, the sackbut, and psaltery, of chorus, and of all kinds of music, that ye fall down and worship the golden image which King Nebuchadnezzar set up.” It is clear that the Septuagint translator rendered as “host,” and translated as if it were . The balanced cadence of the next clause seems more natural, if due to the Aramaic source than to the Greek translator. The musical instruments are also arranged in the same cadenced fashion, broken to some extent by . Theodotion is, as usual, in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, but omits . The Peshitta in the fourth verse agrees not only word for word, but we might almost say syllable for syllable, with the Massoretic text. In the fifth verse it omits pesanterin; instead of sabka, it has kinora, which is usually regarded as the Hebrew equivalent of ; instead of , it has tziphonia, which suggests a different etymology. It is true Strack (‘Neu Hebraische Sprache’) points out that has a tendency to become before syllables with the sound or at the end of words, but this is neither of these; the syllable with is the first, not the last, and there is no d or t sound in the word. Jerome is in strict verbal agreement with the Massoretic text. We shall have to devote a short excursus to the names of the musical instruments which occur here. In eagerness to find proofs of the late origin of the Book of Danielof its origin in the times of the Hellenic domination, karoza was derived from , that etymology is universally abandoned now. O people, nations, and languages. It ought rather to be peoples. Bishop Wordsworth remarks on the resemblance which this phrase bears to tsar used of the mystical Babylon in Revelation (Rev 13:7; Rev 17:15), and adds that she also “commands them to fall down and worship the image which she has set up.” In regard to the following verse, the sculptures of Nineveh prove the prominence given to music in all important occasions, as the celebration of a triumph or the dedication of a temple. The names of the musical instruments are not so generally preserved. It was most likely when the rays of the morning sun smote the golden tip of the obelisk, that there came the burst of music which was to serve as a signal for all the multitudes to fall down and worship. The image was looked upon as the sign of the god it represented; it received the worship meant for him.
Dan 3:6
And whoso falleth not down and worshippeth shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. The only difference between the Septuagint and the Massoretic text is that instead of rendering, “shall be cast,” it is put in the plural active, “they shall cast him.” There may have been a difference of reading instead of . It is, perhaps, more probable that it is simply that the translator preferred this construction to the one which would have resulted from a more literal translation. Theodotion,the Peshitta, and Vulgate agree with the Massoretic. In that very hour. It has been suggested by Professor Fuller that the way the shadow fell would enable them to fix the hour. This, however, is giving an exact astronomical meaning to what had only a rhetorical significance. The word shaa is very vague; it means “time” in general, it means “any short interval of time,” from some days to a moment. Shall be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. The word is of uncertain derivation; it is found in both dialects of Aramaic. It occurs in the Targum of pseudo-Jonathan, in the story of the death of Haran and the preservation of Abraham, which seems distinctly imitated from the events related here. In Smith’s ‘Life of Asshurbanipal,’ we find this punishment more than once resorted to, e.g. pp. 163, 164. Professor Bevan maintains, in answer to Lenormant’s appeal to this as a proof of the author’s accurate knowledge of Babylonian methods of punishment, that this is derived from Jer 29:22, Zedekiah and Ahab, “whom the King of Babylon roasted in the fire.” Only the action implied by the verb (qalah) is not complete burning, as that implied in the punishment before us, but rather the more cruel torture of slowly burning The word is used of “parched corn” (Le Jer 2:14; Jdg 5:11); it is used also of the heat of fever (Psa 38:8). There is no verbal indication that the author of Daniel was at all influenced by this passage.
Dan 3:7
Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. The Septuagint renders, “And at that time, when all the nations (Gentiles) heard the sound of the trumpet, the pipe and harp, sackbut and psaltery, and every sound of music, then all the nations (Gentiles), tribes, and tongues, fell down and worshipped the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.” The last words, evidently belong to the beginning of the next verse. It is possible is due to another reading, but may also have been the result of a desire for variation. Theodotion does not differ from the Massoretic text The two Greek versions agree with the Massoretic in omitting . The rendering of the Peshitta is, “In the hour when the nations heard the voice of the horn, and flute, and lyre, (qithra), and harp (kinnor), and pipe (tziphonia), and all kinds of music, all these peoples, nations, and tongues, fell down and worshipped the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up” It is to be noted that kinnor, its Shemitic equivalent, here again follows qithra, and that pesanterin is again omitted. Jerome, in opposition to the Massoretic and the Greek versions, inserts symphonia. In regard to the Massoretic text here, as in the fifth verse, we have qathros instead of the qithros of the K’thib; in this, the K’thib agrees, as generally, with the Eastern instead of the Western form the word assumes. Professor Bevan compares the use of here with that in the Palmyrene inscriptions (Vogue 15). Zemara is said by Keil to refer only to song; but Furst, Gesenius, and Wirier apply the word to instrumental music. It may, as a matter of fact, be either; if it be a chorus of voices, it is then equivalent to . This verse simply chronicles the obedience that was at once and unquestioningly rendered to the command of Nebuchadnezzar. The obedience of these Gentiles served to bring out into clearer relief the steadfastness of these Jews, or, what appears to the king and his courtiers, their obstinacy. Not impossibly, their resistance to the king was emphasized by their remaining standing amid the crowd of those prostrate officials.
Dan 3:8
Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. The Septuagint is in this verse closer to the Massoretic than is Theodotion. The latter has nothing to represent the (kol-qobayl d’nah) of the original, which appears in our versions as “wherefore.” The Septuagint renders . The Peshitta also has omitted “wherefore;” in the next clause it is slavishly accurate, giving the peculiar turn of the phrase in the original, ‘achalu qartzchun, “to devour pieces of them.” It occurs in the Syriac of Luk 16:1; it is in the Targum of Psa 15:3. The Vulgate presents no points worthy of notice. It is evident that “Chaldean” is here used in its ethnic sense of the nation, not in its professional sense as of the alleged class. We must remember that “Chaldean” is not equivalent to “Babylonian.” As we have seen, the Chaldeans were intruders in Babylon, and to them Nebuchadnezzar belonged. It was but natural that native-born Chaldeans, who reckoned themselves to be of the same kin as the king, objected to have their rights postponed to a set of Jews. The fact that the three friends are not named, or in any way designated, but the whole Jewish race is referred to, shows that the purpose of these Chaldeans involved the whole Jewish people, and that they singled out Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego simply as test cases. Their elevation to positions Of such trust might well have caused jealousy of them.
Dan 3:9-12
They spake and said to the King Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live for ever. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image: and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee; they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. The differences here between the Septuagint and the Massoretic are slight. Only, it may be observed, that in the repetition of the decree to the king, does not occur. Instead of saying, “they serve not thy gods,” it renders, “thine idol they do not serve.” Further, the word (abeedath), translated “business,” is omitted, probably implying the omission in the original text of . Theodotion’s Version is considerably briefer in regard to the ninth verse, as it omits “answered and said,” and “Nebuchadnezzar;” otherwise it is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text, only it too omits . In the Peshitta we find a variation in the ninth verse; its rendering begins, “And they said to Nebuchadnezzar the king.” As before mentioned, in the list of instruments pesanterin is omitted, and kinnor appears; otherwise the agreement is close with the Massoretic text. The Vulgate agrees with the Peshitta in its rendering of the ninth verse, but, unlike the Greek Version, inserts symphonia, and unlike the Peshitta, inserts psalterium. As to the Aramaic text, the most noticeable thing is the fact that in the K’thib, instead of (sumphonia) there appears (siphonia). The twelfth verse has this peculiarity in it, that it is the only case where , the sign of the accusative, so frequent in the Targums, occurs in Biblical Aramaic. In the inscription on the Hadad Statue at Sindschirli, line 28, we have (v-th-h) as the sign of the acensative; as in the case before us, it serves for the oblique case of a pronoun. The adulatory address with which these Chaldeans begin is quite in accordance with Eastern usage. The point of the accusation against these three officials was that, being officials, they did not confirm by obedience the solemn decree of the monarch. Further, if this statue or obelisk were erected to Marduk (Merodach), whom Nebuchadnezzar specially worshipped, and whom he regarded as his special protector, the element of treason against the state might be implied in this refusal to give due obeisance to the tutelary god of the Babylonian Empire and its sovereign. The politics and warfare of that period proceeded on the assumption that the gods directly interfered in the affairs of the nations. Any slight done to the national god wouldas it was believedbe avenged on the nation who had suffered it to pass unpunished. They summoned deities to leave cities they were besieging, and tried to persuade the inhabitants that even their god was on the side of the besieger. Thus Sennacherib (2Ki 19:22) asserts that Jehovah must be offended with Hezekiah. and Pharaoh-Necho claimed to Josiah that he went at God’s command to fight against Assyria (2Ch 35:21). According to heathen notions generally, Chaldean and Babylonian included, some very slight inadvertence might vitiate a sacrifice, and change it from being a propitiation to the gods to an offence to them. If an inadvertence might thus be maleficent, much more direct disrespect such as that shown by these Jewish officials. But the accusers lay stress on another side of the matter. Nebuchadnezzar had set them over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but he had set up the golden image. There was thus an element of personal disrespect hinted at, made all the more heinous that the element of ingratitude was also present. But how is it that Daniel is not introduced into this narrative? Why was it that he was not attacked rather than his friends? It may be argued that this is another tradition, and that the union of Daniel with the three friends is due to that dovetailing of which so many traces are foundor alleged to be foundin the Pentateuch. But the editor who did the dovetailing in the present instance, did more than dovetailthey are introduced at various points in the narrative of the preceding chapter. Why did he not complete his work, and explain why Daniel was absent? If it is a work of imagination, it is necessary to account for the absence of Daniel; even if it is the result of editorial labour, still the absence of Daniel has to be accounted for or explained away. This would press heavily on one writing in the days of the Maccabees. On one chronicling events as they occurred, this might easily be passed over, because at the time every one in Babylon would be perfectly aware why Daniel was not there. The absence of all reference to Daniel in this chapter is an indirect proof of the antiquity and genuineness of the book of which it forms part. The reasons for Daniel’s absence may easily be imagined. He might have been sent on official duty to a distant province of the empire, or, though this is not so likely, his presence at this festival might not be required A prosaic but possible solution of Daniel’s absence might be illness. If he were known to be incapacitated by sickness from taking part in any public function, the Chaldeans would not damage their case by referring to him.
Dan 3:13
Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Ahed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king. The Septuagint differs from the Massoretic in translating (hama’) as a verb, and therefore rendering, , “infuriated with rage.” Theodotion is in close agreement with the Massoretic, as also the Pe-shitta, with this difference, that the Syriac repeats the preposition, in which it is followed by Jerome. The word translated. “brought” presents some grammatical difficulty: the word is (haythayoo). The form seems active, but the meaning is passive. Professor Bevan suggests a difference of vocalization. The accusation of those who desired to devour these Jewish councillors was successful in its immediate aim. Nebuchadnezzar is filled with rage and fury against those who, having been the creatures of his favour, had yet dared to do despite to his authority. It might even be that their unheard-of want of courtesy to the monarch would also be regarded as discourtesy still more flagrant to the god to whose honour the statue or pillar had been erected, and this dedicative feast instituted. He commands the criminals to be brought to him. Fierce and furious as Nebuchadnezzar is, fanatic as he is for the religion of his fathers, he is yet just. These officials, however disrespectfully they have acted, have yet a right to be heard in their own defence. They are sent for by the monarch, and in due course they come. It is not impossible that Nebuchadnezzar, with all his rage and fury, was yet shrewd enough to see envy behind the accusation; it is because these men are Jews, and have been highly advanced, that the Chaldeans are ready to bring accusations of impiety against them.
Dan 3:14
Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? The Septuagint rendering here is, “Whom when he saw, Nebuchadnezzar the king said to them, Wherefore, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do ye not worship my gods, nod before the golden image which I have set up do ye not prostrate yourselves?” There seems to have been a difference of reading here. The first words must have been read as (behon aleehon), and the mysterious word (hatzeda) had occupied a position before, not after . The word in the aphel in Syriac means “to look steadily.” This interpretation of the word shows that the translator had before him a document in which Syriac meanings might be expected. Theodotion renders the last clause, “If truly ( ) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, my gods ye do not worship, and before the golden image which I have set up ye do not prostrate yourselves?”a construction that shows a slavish following of the Aramaic. The sense here is really the same as that of the Authorized Version. The Peshitta renders the opening word of this latter portion of the verse, “in truth”a rendering with which Jerome agrees. Professor Bevan suggests another reading, , followed by Behrmann. Unfortunately, the meaning of is very doubtful. The common rendering is “of set purpose.” So Furst, Gesenius, Winer, among lexicographers, and Bertholdt, Ewald, Aben Ezra, Wordsworth, among commentators; Keil, Kliefoth, Kra-nichfeld, hold it to mean “with evil intent.” It is suggested also that it may mean “in mockery.” The reading suggested by Professor Bevan and supported by Behrmann is not to be thought of; they appeal to Theodotion, but when this word occurs in the previous chapter (verse 5), Theodotion translates , which makes it evident that (azda) did not mean “truth” to him. More may be said for the Peshitta, only that, though azda does seem to mean “truth,” the translation is not the same in Dan 2:5 and the present verse. If there is to be a change of reading, that indicated by the Septuagint translation is preferable. The Septuagint translator has had before him, and there is no evidence that Theodotion had not. The change in the arrangement of the words is a simpler variation than any other, and it retains the word in its Syriac meaning; otherwise we should be inclined to follow the lexicographers, and translate “of set purpose.” If we take the view of this word indicated above, then we may imagine Nebuchadnezzar looking steadfastly on those youths who had dared to oppose him, hoping, it may be, to see them shrink from his gaze, as he had seen so many of the kings he had conquered do. If this is correct, it gives a point to what the youths begin their answer with in Dan 2:16. If we take the more common rendering, we see the generosity of the king. Full of rage and fury as he is, he will give them an opening to say that it was of inadvertence that they failed to obey his decree. This is fully borne out by the next verse. If Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury at the crime against the gods, he yet was careful that the envy of the Chaldeans should not hinder him from giving the Jews who had been accused to him a chance to defend themselves. This mental fairness it was which, despite his outbursts of capricious rage, drew the affection of those about him to Nebuchadnezzar.
Dan 3:15
Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be east the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? The differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic text are not great. The last clause is rendered,” but if not, know.” It inserts the epithet “golden” after “image.” The insertion of “know ye“ makes the sentence run more easily, but it is not to be accepted. Here, as before, “midst” is omitted. Theodotion is very close to the Massoretic, but agrees with the Septuagint in its omission of “midst” and its insertion of “golden.” The Peshitta is in yet closer agreement with the Massoretic text, save in regard to the musical instrumentspesanterin, as in the other cases, being omitted. It seems clear from this that the festival of the dedication of this new idol of the Babylonian king occupied several days. Nebuchadnezzar, willing to save those Jews, is ready to condone their first failure to obey his command if, probably at the sunrise of the following day, they were willing when they heard the sound of the musical instruments to fall down and worship this golden image which he had set up to the honour of his god. The latter clause does not seem in perfect harmony with the tone of the earlier part of the verse. There has been no reference in the conversation as reported to any other god to explain Nebuchadnezzar’s demand, “Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” Moreover, there is in the beginning a desire apparent to give these Jewish officials a way of escape, but in the last clause there is contempt as well as anger expressed. The fact is that while the simple structure of Shemitic lends itself to direct narration, the reader is not to suppose that, though speeches are reported in the oratio recta, they any more record or claim to record the ipsissima verba than if the speeches had been recorded in the oratio obliqua of more Western tongues. The presumption is that merely the main heads of the conversation are recorded. These very jolts and leaps are in themselves indirect evidences of the truth of the document with which we have to do. It would have been easy to insert a question and answer to bridge over the hiatus. Only one recording facts would be regardless of this. The attitude of mind expressed by these last words of Nebuchadnezzar are natural to a heathen, and especially to monarchs of the Assyrian type. Sennacherib’s words of defiance (2Ki 18:33) are quite in the same line, “Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the King of Assyria?” The capture of Jerusalem by his arms was regarded by Nebuchadnezzar as a demonstration that the God of Israel was inferior to the gods of Babylonia. To Nebuchadnezzar this belief would not in the slightest degree contradict his previous declaration (Dan 2:47), that this same God was “a God of gods, and a Lord of kings.” He might be great as a Revealer of secrets, but not in might to deliverin that he was clearly inferior to the gods of Babylon, as the events of recent campaigns had abundantly proved. It is this declaration, with the idea behind it of the ]imitation of Jehovah, that gives the event narrated in this chapter its importance.
Excursus on the Musical Instruments in this Chapter.
The names of the musical instruments which occur in the fifth, seventh, tenth, and fifteenth verses of this chapter are supposed to afford a demonstrative proof of the late date of Daniel. Thus Canon Driver, by no means an extreme critic, declares that, while “the Hebrew and Aramaic permit” a late date, these Greek words “demand” that the date of Daniel be placed as late as the period of the Syrian power. The words in question areqathros, pesanterin, sumphonya. The first of these, (qath’ros), appears to be transferred from the Greek (), from its resemblance to the older form, , which occurs in Homer: we may deduce that the word, if borrowed from the Greek, was borrowed at an early period. Canon Driver would not, in view of the intercourse between Greece and Babylon, press this word as proof of the recent date of Daniel. The intercourse between Babylon and Greece was sufficiently great to have rendered the conveyance of this name at least not impossible. It has been shown, moreover, by Professor Whitehouse, that the word is probably derived from the East; indeed, he fixes on Phoenicia as its source. It must be observed that he maintains that, while originally Phoenician, the form it assumes in Daniel proves it to have come to the author of Daniel from Greek
The word may have been modified from its more ancient to its more recent form, for the sake of readers. One of the suggestions of those who oppose the antiquity of the Book of Daniel is that (kinnor) is the word that would have been used by a genuine Aramaic writer of Daniel’s period, as kinnor and qitharos (or qathros) represent one and the same instrument; but, unfortunately for this, in the Peshitta we have both terms, the one after the other.
The other words, , , and (pesanterin), supposed to be equivalent to , are on a different footing.
In the first place, any one who has studied the apocalyptic writings, must see how peculiarly liable they are to interpolation. There is hardly one that is not largely and obviously interpolated. No one can deny that this has taken place with. Daniel. The apocryphal additions are too well known for any one to maintain the opposite opinion. When, moreover, one begins to compare the Massoretic text with the more ancient versions, the Septuagint, the Peshitta, and that of Theodotion, we at once see that the changes which the text has undergone have not been confined to large interpolations, but all through there are words and phrases where the versions differ from the Massoretic text and from each other. The text especially from which the Septuagint translation has been made, must have presented many and important verbal differences from that adopted by the Massoretes. Even Theodotion, though his version agrees more closely with the Massoretic text than does the Septuagint, differs from it in ways and in a degree than can at times be explained only on the supposition that the text before him was not identical with that adopted by the Massoretes. The supposition that Theodotion has been altered from the Septuagint has been hazarded, and in a few cases it may have some semblance of probability, but in other cases it is destitute of every shadow of likelihood. The Peshitta is another source of various readings. Its variations are independent of either of the other two versions. In some chapters these variations are more marked than in others, but in every case they are numerous enough to make any stress on individual words highly hazardous. While these variations are known and chronicled, there is no security that no variations occurred even before the types of the text separated from each other. In such a case as this, although it would be unscientific, on the ground of this uncertainty, to proceed to change the text to what seems to make better sense, it is equally unscientific to lay any evidential weight on single words. The history of the argument from the alleged presence of Greek terms in Daniel is also instructive. The number of Greek terms that Hitzig and some earlier critics saw was large. Gradually they had to abandon all but those coming in the list of musical instruments here. Of these only four could be claimed as really Greek. However, one of these had soon to go, ; it was maintained to be derived from the . It was found that this Greek word was really derived from an Eastern, probably an Assyrian, source. Next, it has been acknowledged by Canon Driver, as above stated, that much stress cannot be laid on (), seeing it is an instrument of such ancient date in Greece, that it might easily have drifted eastward, name and thing, to Babylon. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the word, in all probability, is not Greek, to begin with, but Eastern, probably Phoenician. In regard to the remaining wordssumphonya and pesanterinit is argued that they are of Greek origin, and that, while Babylonian intercourse with Greece is not denied, the origin of these words is maintained to be late, at all events, in the sense in which they appear in this passage. Thus, pesanterin is declared to be the Greek , and it is further said that is not a term applied to musical instruments till late, Aristotle and Theophrastus being the earliest authors that use the word. That this word pesanterin is derived from is supposed to be proved by an argument which shows that the Greek letter is resolved, in passing into Aramaic, into and ; second, that may be changed into , and that – becomes not infrequently Even though all these points be admitted, it does not follow that pesanterin is derived from psalterion; as fair a case might be made out for deriving “mystery” from “mist” While sometimes represents -, it much more frequently is simply the sign of the plural; and while may be at times the first half of resolved, it also does represent at times the Coptic article . While it is not impossible that santer may represent the remaining letters of the name of the Greek instrument, has a meaning in Coptic also; it may mean a chorus“those singing to an instrument.” This, then, would show that pesanterin might mean those singing in accompaniment to the previously named instruments. Confirmatory of this is the fact that in Lower Egypt, at the present day, there is a musical instrument called the santeer. When one remembers the great intercourse that existed between Assyria and Egypt when Esarhaddon and Asshur-bani-pal held possession of Egyptthe former of whom frequently held his court in Babylonthat Egyptian words should come into Babylon would not be extraordinary. We admit readily that possibility is not proof of actuality, yet it weakens the force of the other argument, which also is merely from possibility.
A prior question has to be settled before we deduce anything from the origin of this word pesanteria. Is it really part of the original text? There are in this third chapter of Daniel four distinct lists of what purport to be musical instruments. And these are arranged in such a way that the reader expects them to be identical. Each of these may thus be regarded as separate manuscripts. We have further three old versions, as already mentioned, as well as the Massoretic text: the Septuagint dated about b.c. 200; Theodotion and the Peshitta, dated about a.d. 150; the Massoretic text, being fixed somewhere about a.d. 600, and represented by manuscripts, the earliest of which is of the tenth centurythe Qri and K’thib represent two forms of reading. Of these authorities the latest is the Massoretic text.
To begin with the Massoretic text, the first thing that meets us is that, while in the fifth, tenth, and fifteenth verses, the word is , in the seventh verse it is . This is not so insignificant as at first sight seems, for and do not appear to have been pronounced in the same way originally, any more than the Greek and . But further, it is an acknowledged canon of criticism that when a passage has many variations of reading in different manuscripts, that itself raises a suspicion that it has come from the margin into the text. This variation of and in a word is an instance similar to that of varying words in the case of a passage; a varying letter is, in the case of a word, a note conveying suspicion.
When we turn to the versions, we find that while the Greekthe Septuagint and Theodotionhave it, the word is quite omitted from the Syriac Peshitta. If it had dropped into the text from the margin, it would be most likely to do so in the Greek versions first, and then find its way into the Massoretic text afterwards. Hence the positive value of the evidence of the Greek versions is comparatively small, although their negative value is considerable. On the other hand, the word is not present at all in the Peshitta, which originated beyond the sphere of Greek domination. That being the state of the matter, we venture to maintain that the word pesanterin does not belong to the genuine text of Daniel.
The case against is yet stronger. In regard to this word there is a divergence between the Q’ri and the K’thib. Hence we may regard this as a case in which we have twenty manuscripts. If we now examine the evidence supplied by these, we shall find that the evidence for the presence of in the original text is very weak. In the K’thib, which represents in general the better text, we have sumphonya only in two cases, in one case we have siphonya, in the fourth case nothing at all. In the Q’ri we have three cases of sumphonya. When we turn to the Greek texts, we find that symphonia occurs in the Septuagint in two cases, in Theodotion only in one case. When we turn to the Peshitta, we have no case of sumphonia, but we have in all cases tziphonia, a form akin to what we find in the tenth verse in the Massoretic text. If, then, we take these various cases together, and sum them up, we lind eight cases of symphonia, five cases of siphonia, and seven cases of nothing at all. As the word as we have it now is distinctly Greek, the evidence of the Greek versions, while strong negatively, is weak positively. We mean by this that a Greek word put on the margin might easily slip into the text of the Septuagint, and thence into the Palestinian recensionthe Massoretic. Moreover, the case against sumphonya is strengthened when we compare the instances in which it occurs with those in which it does not occur. If we looked at the matter apriori, the cases where a word would most likely be dropped is in a conversational repetition of such a list of instruments. But the best supported case of the occurrence of this word is in the offer made by Nebuchadnezzar, that if even yet they would yield, they would be forgiven. The word in question occurs here in the two texts represented by the Massoretic in the Septuagint and Theodotion. It does not appear in the Peshittaits place being represented by tziphonia, as we said above. On the other hand, the place where we might most readily find a marginal note like sumphonia is precisely the last occurrence of a frequently recurring list. But, again, the place where we should most certainly expect to find every word of such a list given with scrupulous exaetness, is what purports to be the record of a proclamation. But in Theodotion the word in question is not present in his record of the proclamation. In the seventh verse, where the proclamation is repeated to show the obedience it received, the word sumphonya is absent in the Massoretic text and the versions. Further, next to the record of a proclamation in likelihood for an accurate repetition of all the words of such a list, is, where a case is being founded on this proclamation. This, again, is a case in which sumphonya does not occur save in the Q’ri. When those who are about to accuse to Nebuchadnezzar the three Hebrews, repeat to him his proclamation, according to the Greek versions they leave out the word before us altogether, according to the K’thib and Peshitta they insert another word altogether. To us the argument seems conclusive that the word in question was not part of the original text of Daniel.
We cannot leave this question without adverting to some other aspects of it. The intercourse between the Hellenic peoples and Assyria seems to have been considerable We know from Strabo, 13.2. 3, under the title of Lesbos, that Antimenidas, the brother of the poet Alcaeus, was in the Babylonian army at the time when Nebuchadnezzar was king. Strabo quotes Alcaeus, “fought along with the Babylonians as their ally.” The Assyrians possessed Cyprusanother source of Hellenic influence. The later Sargonids, Esarhaddon and Asshur-bani-pal, those who had the closest relationship with Babylon, had also the supremacy in Egypt, and now we know from Flinders Petrie and others, in the accounts they have given us of their explorations at Dapine, that there was, before the time of the Babylonian power, a Greek colony of old standing. To meet this contention it is urged that the words in question are much later than the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Certainly we shall admit that the earliest instance of is in Aristotle, but the date of the word is not to be limited by its occurrence in Aristotle (Arist; ‘Problem.,’ 19.23. 2). It occurs in a definition of a trigon as a triangular psalterya mode of speech which implies that “psaltery” was already relatively a common designation. We could not define a “trichord” as a piano in which each note was produced by three wires of the same length stretched to the same degree of tensionunless pianos were comparatvely common. That it does not occur earlier is.probably due to the word beginning possibly as a localism, and then becoming common in literature. Thus many of the phrases denounced as recent Americanisms are proved by more careful investigation to be old provincialisms that have attained literary rank, or at all events semi-literary rank, in a new country. Hence, even though it were proved that psanterin is of Greek origin, and that it belongs to the original text of Daniel, which is more than doubtful, it would yet be no great strain to imagine the name and the instrument had passed over to Babylon before the traditional date of Daniel.
The case for sumphonya is even weaker. Even should it be granted to be in the text of Daniel, and further that it is a Greek word, it is not an instrument until at all events a much later date than any one pretends Daniel to have been written. Yet Canon Driver lays the main stress of his argument on the fact that in the passage before us it means an instrument, and in this view he is supported by Mr. Bevan. The whole stress of this statement really depends on a passage in Polybius (Polyb; 26:10), in which it is alleged the word in question means a musical instrument of some sort. The view that the word before us in the passage means a musical instrument can only be maintained on reading the word preceding as , not , and on the further assumption that means a musical instrument, of which there is no proof. It is true that means not only the horn of an animal, but also a musical horn; it is also true that is the diminutive from ; but it is not to be assumed that all the senses of the original word are retained by the diminutive. A “lance” is the name given both to a medical instrument and to a weapon used by cavalry: it does not follow from this that since “a lancet” is a medical instrument, it is also a military weapon. There is certainly no instance to support the assertion t,,at there ever was such a usage. As naturally it might be used of a drinking-horn. If the reading is adopted, the meaning assigned to loses even the limited plausibility it had. This view was presented years ago by Dr. Pusey, yet Canon Driver and Professor Bevan have repeated their exploded statements without the faintest attempt at answering the counter-arguments. Were any defender of Daniel to be guilty of anything similar, his ignorance would be sneered at, and his arguments hustled out of court.
But there is a further questionIs siphonia the same word as ? That the m () might disappear and the upsilon of the Greek might be represented by yod in Aramaic, is not impossible, but the fact that, on the one side, there is the Greek word , on the other there is the Eastern Aramaic word tziphonia, throws grave doubt on this. With regard to , Strack declares that it is interchanged with before t sounds, and at the end of words; from this we deduce that tziphonia cannot be derived etymologie-ally from sumphonya. On the other hand, siphonya may readily be the product of tziphonia, through the intervention of the Greek , and perhaps the Hebrew (suph), “a reed.” Changes otherwise impossible are rendered possible when they lead to a word with an intelligible sound. There is a verb , both Chaldee and Hebrew, which, however, does not seem to have any close connection with , “a reed,” or to have any musical meaning. It is used in Biblical Chaldee for the fulfilment of a prophecy (Dan 4:30), in Targumic Chaldee “to have an end,” “to cease” (Onkelos, Le 26:20). The same verb with the same meaning occurs in Syriac (Luk 9:54). This is an additional evidence that tziphonia is the original form of the word. In transferring the word to Chaldee, they gave it a form intelligible to those who used that tongue. If Syriac were the language in which Daniel was written, then the meaning of the word in that language is important. Castellion what authority we know notgives the meaning of tzephonya, a word all but identical with that before us, as tibia, tuba.
Altogether, not only is the genuineness of the word extremely doubtful, but even were it granted that there was a word there, it is not at all certain that it was a word connected with the Greek . As the assailants of the authenticity of Daniel have laid the great stress of their argument on these words, and, as we have seen, these words afford but dubious evidence, we may consider ourselves to have a right to demand from them to abandon their opposition, or show reason why they do not.
Dan 3:16-18
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. The Septuagint Version differs in several slight points from the Massoretic. “And Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the King Nebuchadnezzar, O king, we have no need to answer thee in regard to this command, for our God in the heavens is one Lord, whom we fear, who is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and will deliver us out of thy hands, and then it shall be manifest to thee that we neither serve thy gods, nor the golden image which thou hast set up do we worship.” In this version we see the sixteenth verse agrees with the Massoretic: in the next verses there are considerable differences. The Septuagint translator seems to have read some part of (dehal) instead of (paleheen). We cannot be certain that represents , here, from the fact that the mannerism of the translator expresses itself in a preference for rendering by . The Septuagint has instead of . Not improbably the original was dual, but the dual had practically disappeared from Hellenistic Greek. There seems a reference to the creed of the Jew (Deu 6:4) and to Psa 115:3; speaking of God as “God of heaven” occurs in the previous chapter, Psa 115:18, and in verse 28 Daniel speaks of his God as “in the heaven.” However suitable, the first portion is yet to be put aside as an addition. The second portion of this differing clause occurs in Theodotion, and of it we shall shortly speak. There are several other less important differences over which we need not delay. Theodotion has, like the Septuagint, , and like the Septuagint has the enclitic connection , instead of the somewhat abrupt connection of the Massoretic, although the phrase, “in the heavens,” has thus the support of the two. The Peshitta Version has to some extent resulted from the abrupt beginning to the seventeenth verse as it appears in the Massoretic. The Peshitta renders the opening clause, “our Lord is merciful.” As in the Septuagint, so in the Peshitta, the word (pith’gam) is taken as meaning “decree;” but miltha precedes it, which must be rendered, “matter of the decree.” Otherwise there is nothing worthy of notice in the Peshitta Version of these verses. Jerome begins the seventeenth verse with “ecce entre,” which is not so much a difference of reading from the Massoretic as a difference of rendering from the Authorized. It is clear that the Massoretic punctuation implies something awanting. in Biblical Aramaic means “if,” and “it is,” that is, “if it be.” One feels inclined to think that, suppressed, there was some statement equivalent to “if it be his good pleasure,” thus manifesting a readiness to submit to God’s will. According to the Massoretic, what follows asserts merely the ability of Jehovah, “our God whom we worship,” to deliver his servants from the burning fiery furnace, and even from the hand of the great king himself; but there is no assertion that he will deliver them. The Septuagint Version presents a different aspect, as also Theodotion and the Peshitta. The mental attitude of the Massoretic is very different from the mood of later times. The versions, save Jerome, declare that God wilt deliver them out of the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. If they had received this assurance from God, there was in a sense less of witness-bearing to God than if they had not. The text of the Massoretic is here to be preferred. It is implied also in the meaning of the following verse. Even if God did not deliver them, still their determination is fixedthey will not worship the gods of the king, nor will they worship the golden image he has set up. It sometimes seems as if, even in our own day, we should be the better for the advent of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. There is still a demand that the people of God worship the golden image in the shape of wealth. The ministers of God are, we are told, not to denounce the wrongs of the world, lest the rich be offended. Wealth is not the only form of the golden image which men may be called upon to worship; the breath of popular applause may call them to denounce employers of labour unjustly on penalty of being dismissed or held up to reprobation. It is not the side that is important, but the motive; the cause of the poor may be pleaded as unjustly as that of the rich.
Dan 3:19
Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated. The text of the LXX. is practically the same as the Massoretic, with only this exception, that “one” is omitted as unsuited to the Greek idiom. Theodotion differs more from the Massoretic”the furnace” was to be heated “sevenfold, till it was perfectly heated ( ).“ The Peshitta, retaining the “one,” translates, “one in seven times”a rendering which seems to have little sense, as the Syriac idiom is the same as that before us. The change of countenance, from that of gratification at seeing a favourite, to that of rage, is a perfectly natural phenomenon, but one possibly even more marked among these races then dominant over the East than among ourselves. It was certainly not unnatural that, heathen as he was, filled with the belief in the mysterious power for good or ill that might be exercised over the empire were any of the gods offended, Nebuchadnezzar should be enraged. The result is that the calmness with which he had previously spoken with the three deserts him, and the form of his face changes, his visage becomes distorted with rage. It may be noted, in passing, that the word here used, ish’tanni (), is the only case where the ethpael occurs in Daniel; in all other cases the form is hithpael, with the instead of the . Since this is so, one is inclined to credit the peculiarity to scribal change. There is a difference here between the Q’ri and K’thib, the latter reading ishtannu, which agrees by attraction with anapolu, “face,” which, as in Hebrew, is plural. In order to express his wrath, he orders that the furnace be heated sevenfold hotter than ever before. The word here translated “wont to be” is really part of the verb (hezuh), “to see.” Behrmann renders it, “Siebenmal so stark zu heizen als man ihn heizen gesehen hatte””commanded it to be heated seven times as hot as ever one had seen it heated.” We cannot suppose the Babylonians halt any means of measuring heat of that amount; it is simply a round number, Hitzig remarks on the recurrence of “seven,” as if it helped to raise a presumption against the authenticity of the book. The fact that the Babylonians recognized seven planets, and seven gods of the planets, one for each, might as readily be taken as a proof of its authenticity. The probability is that vaguely many times more fuel was placed in the furnace than had ever been done before.
Dan 3:20
And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. The first clause might more correctly be rendered, “He commanded warriors, warriors of might, in his army.” The Greek versions assume that the repetition of gubereen is equivalent to the superlative; hence the LXX. renders it ; and Theodotion, . The Peshitta omits the first gubereen. On the other hand, Theodotiun omits the clause, “that were in his army.” The action of Nebuchadnezzar in this reveals one of the contradictions so often manifested by polytheism. He might be ready to admit that no accumulation of human power could equal Divine power, yet it is obvious that these men of might were chosen for this purpose, in order that, despite Divine power, the royal sentence might be carried out. Such self-contradiction is not peculiar to Nebuchadnezzar nor to Babylon. Many men, professing to be Christians and acknowledging that God sees and knows all things, and that the wrath of God is an infinitely more serious mattter than the contempt or “ill will” of men, yet commit sin secretlyto hide it from God. Hitzig indicates that he thinks these not to have been the ordinary body-guard of the king, but really the best troops in the province where the festival was taking place. It is evident that the troops referred to are not those tabbaheen of whom Arioch was the commander, otherwise we might have expected them to be mentioned. We know that there were different classes of soldiers in the Assyrian army, with differing kinds of arms and armour. In all probability something similar prevailed in the Babylonian army. It is not impossible that one corps might be specialized as the men of greatest physical strength. These men are employed to bind these three Jews to cast them into the burning fiery furnace.
Dan 3:21
Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. The LXX. omits the complexity of garments, and translates, “Thus these men were bound, having their sandals, and their hats upon their heads, with their other garments, and were cast into the burning fiery furnace.” It would seem that karbelatheon was either not in the text before the translator or was omitted by him. The latter hypothesis seems a hazardous one to adopt without good ground. We have no reason to accuse the Septuagint translator of this practice. Theodotion also presents signs of omission. is not translated, but simply transliterated, . Under this word Schleusner says, “Vestis Medica sou Babylonica ad genus pertingens.” Aquila, it may be noted, also transliterates, . Theodotion’s rendering is, “Then those men were bound in their coats (?), and hats, and hosen, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.” The Peshitta does as Theodotion, anti transliterates with the change of a shin for a samech, in regard to the first word, and instead of leboosheen, “garments,” has qoobeeen, which is rendered by Castelli pileus, or galea, a “military cap,” or a “helmet.” He wrongly says that qoobo is used to translate karbelathelon; the word used for that is nihtho. We need not go into a discussion of the various garments named here. It is to be observed that, by the time of the Septuagint and the original of the version edited and revised by Theodotion, the moaning of the terms was losta thing hardly possible on the critical supposition that the date of Daniel is b.c. 168, if, as seems necessary to suppose from the Greek prologue to Ecclesiasticus, it was already translated into Greek by, at latest, b.c. 130. The point brought out by these garments being mentioned is in order to show the power of God manifested on them. They were all of an inflammable material, therefore emphasis was given to the miracle by this. But, further, it shows they were taken as they were, without opportunity of putting on any specially medicated robes, if such could be imagined.
Dan 3:22, Dan 3:23
Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. The rendering of the Greek versions seems to have suffered from the interpolation of the Song of the Three Holy Childrenthe verses before us have been altered to prepare for the introduction of the song. The LXX. translates as follows: “Since the king’s command was urgent, and the furnace heated sevenfold more than it had previously been, the men who had been appointed, when they had bound them and brought them forward to the furnace, cast them in. Then the flame which blazed in the furnace came forth and slew the men who had bound those about Azarias, but they themselves were preserved.” Theodotion renders, “Since the word of the king was urgent, and the furnace was excessively heated, and these three men fell down bound into the burning fiery furnace, and they fell into the midst of the furnace. and walked about, singing praises to God, blessing the Lord.” There is nothing here, it may be noted, about those that bound the three friends being slain; there is also to be noted the addition, “walking about and singing praises to God and blessing the Lord.” The Peshitta also suffers, though to a less degree. The rendering with it is, “Therefore the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace blazed exceedingly, and slew the men who accused Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the midst of the furnace of great fire.” Here a marvel is added, not those that threw the Hebrews into the fire were burnt, but their accusers. We must discuss separately the Song of the Three Holy Children. The furnace implied is one filled from above, but having a doorway at the side. The witnesses for the truth of monotheism and of the supreme Godhead of Jehovah were carried to the top of this furnace, and cast in amongst the fuel. We have nothing to do with how the miracle of their preservation was accomplished, we have only to do with the narrative as given. The fact that those who carried them and threw them in were killed gives proof positive of the fierceness of the heat. The fact stated in the twenty-third verse, that they fell into the midst of the furnace, excludes any supposition that they escaped by being sheltered from the fierceness of the heat. Separating the two portions of the apocryphal addition to this chapter, the song of Azarias from the united song of the three, we have a statement that “the angel of the Lord came down into the oven together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven, and made the midst as it had been a moist whistling wind; so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them.” This abundance of detail as to the -method by which the miracle was wrought is evidence of a later time. We shall, however, leave the discussion of the date of this addition till later.
Dan 3:24
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. The Greek versions suffer in this verse also from the interpolation of the song. The LXX. renders thus: “And it was when the king heard them singing praises, and stood and saw them living, then was Nebuchadnezzar the king astonished and rose up hastily and said to his friends, Did we not cast three men into the fire bound? and thev said to the king, Truly, O king.” Theodotion does not seriously differ from this, “And Nebuchadnezzar heard them singing praises, and marvelled, and rose up in haste, and said to his lords, Did we not cast three men into the midst of the fire bound? and they answered, Truly, O king.” The Peshitta rendering is, “Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up trembling, and answered and said to his princes, Were there not three men which we cast into the midst of the furnace of fierce fire and bound? and they answered the king, It is true, O king.” As will be seen, the Peshitta varies less from the Massoretic than do the Greek versions. The Vulgar does not merit remark. The action of the king is introduced abruptly in the Massoretic text. This abruptness was probably the occasion of the interpolations made at this point. It may be observed that the interpolationsnot-withstanding the efforts of redactors to soften the transitionall add to the difficulty. Theodotion has them immediately walking and praising God. The Septuagint translator, though he omits the walking, implies the praising. We are to understand the circumstances as of the nature of an auto-da-fe which Nebuchadnezzar was gracing with his presence, much as Philip II. attended the burning of the heretics in Madrid. The refusal of worship to the god to whom he had erected the golden image was an act not only of heresy, but also of treason of the blackest kind. The word haddabereen, translated “councillors,” is derived by some from the Persian hamdaver (Behrmann and V. Bohlen). Gesenius would derive it from , “to do,” hence “leaders;” he explains the first syllable of the Hebrew article. The first interpretation is impossible, as is well shown by Bevan (in loco). The supposition of Gesenius is difficult to maintain, as it involves a passage from one language to another. Moses Stuart regards the noun as derived from the aphel, appearing instead of . This is not without parallel examples, e.g. . Fuller’s parallel of apalu used along with pal for “son” in Assyrian, shows a habit of introducing initial syllables to help pronunciation. The Septuagint translator probably read habereen; hence the rendering . In the uncertainty as to the meaning of the word. the reading of the LXX. may be regarded as at least a possible way out of the difficulty. Some further discoveries, either in Babylon or elsewhere, may enable us to decide. The presence along with the king, at this execution, of the high officials of the empire, was fitted to give it all the solemnity of an “act of faith,” hut at the same time, their presence gave a signal meaning to the miracle.
Dan 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. The Greek versions do not present much worthy of note, only both insert malka, “king,” instead of the pronoun, and omit “answered.” From the fact that Dan 3:24 ends with malka, it may have been dropped out of the Massoretic text. The insertion of (ana), “answered,” may be due to the frequent recurrence of this phrase. The Peshitta omits “four,” otherwise agreeing with the Massoretic. The phrase,” the Son of God,” is clearly wrong; the correct translation is, “The appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.” Along with the three victims of his superstition was seen a fourth figure, like one of the figures portrayed on his palace walls as belonging to the demi-gods. This is the culmination of the king’s astonishment. It was astonishing to see those men loose that had been east into the furnace bound; still more so to see them walking, and none showing signs of having received any hurt; but most awe-inspiring of all is the vision of the fourth figure, like a son of the gods. We must not interpret this on Hebrew lines, as does Mr. Bevan, and comp. Gen 6:2. He knows the usage in the Tar-gums is to retain the Hebrew plural in when “God” is meant, as in the Peshitta Version of the passage he refers to. As in most heathen mythologies, there were not only gods, but demi-gods, of several different classes. The god Nebuchadnezzar specially worshipped, Silik-Moulou-ki (Marduk), was regarded as the son of Hea. There was a god of fire also, who was associated with these. The suggestion of Dr. Fuller, that here in bar we have not the word for “son,” but rather a truncated form of this god of fire, Iz-bar, is worthy of consideration. It is impossible to say whether Ibis vision of a divine being was vouchsafed to those standing about Nebuchadnezzar as well as to himself. While we ought to guard against ascribing to the Babylonian monarch the idea that this appearance was that of the Second Person of the Christian Trinity, we are ourselves at liberty to maintain this, or to hold that it was an angel who strengthened these servants of God in the furnace. The Septuagint renders bar-eloheen by . Theodotion has .
Dan 3:26
Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the Most High God, come forth and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came forth of the midst of the fire. The variations of the Septuagint Version here arc inconsiderable. Instead of “spake and said,” it renders, “called them by name,” and omits the second repetition of the names, and the pleonastic “come hither;” instead of “Most High God,” it has”God of gods Most High.” Theodotion is in closer agreement with the Massoretic text; the only differnce is that “spake” is omitted. The Peshitta and Vulgate are in exact accordance with the Massoretic. The distinction between and is “go out” and “come.” It is well rendered in our Authorized Version. only there was no need of “hither” being put in italics. As above mentioned, this shows the form of the furnace to be not unlike our ownopen at the top, but having a door at the side. It was to this side door that the king approached. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges Jehovah to be “Most High God” does not imply any recognition of his supreme Divinity, any more than a king of France acknowledged the supremacy of the head of the Holy Roman Empire. when in the credentials of his ambassador the emperor was called Dominus urbis et orbis. It was simply a matter of what we may call religious etiquette to address gods of the higher class as “god of gods.” and “god most high.” In Dan 2:47 Nebuchadnezzar had already declared the God of Daniel to be “God of gods” It is not impossible that to the Babylonians illaa might have the appearance of a proper name.
Dan 3:27
And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. The versions present no variation of importance. We can, however, at this point compare the list of officials with that which we find in the beginning of this chapter, in Dan 3:2 and Dan 3:3. We find that the word haddabereen occupies the same place in the list as gedabreen, translated “treasurer,” from which one might be inclined to think that had taken the place of , not an impossible change. The probability rather is that the word is to be regarded as collective, equivalent to “officials of the court,” to save the repetition of the remaining classes Whether or not these officials had seen the companion the three witnesses for the truth had with them in the furnace, they, at all events, were now able to bear testimony to the fact that the three friends had escaped, and “had quenched the violence of the fire” (Heb 11:34). This event was all the more important to the Babylonians as to them fire was a god high in the pantheon. The God of Israel was thus manifested as so much greater than Iz-bar, that he could deliver his servants even when in the very element in which Iz-bar had his power. The fact that even their “coats”whatever these garments werewere not burned, and not even a hair singed, while the cords that had been used to bind them were consumed, emphasizes their deliverance, and shows it to be the work of a higher power, who could discriminate and limit the deliverance. The cords were consumed, but the garments of his servants were preserved even from the smell of fire. The Babylonians had conquered the city of Jehovah, had burned his temple, and had done this through the power of Marduk, so they thought; but here Bel-Marduk had been openly defied by three worshippers of Jehovah. They had been hurled into the very element of Iz-bar, the servant and ally of Marduk, yet fire had been unable to harm them or vindicate the honour of Bel-Marduk. What emphasized this was that the fire that spared the servants of Jehovah slew the votaries of Bel-Marduk, who were eager to show their reverence for Marduk by carrying these Jehovah-worshippers to the furnace. Such a miracle, so wrought before all the high dignitaries of the Babylonian Empire, would go far to take the edge off any taunting reference to the weakness of Jehovah’s Godhead as demonstrated by the ruins of Jerusalem. Jehovah had shown himself as the supreme Revealer of secrets when he enabled Daniel to tell Nebuchadnezzar his dream. He now manifested himself as Master of the most powerful of elementsfire. The Jews could thus maintain their faith unchallenged.
Dan 3:28
Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God. The Septuagint and Peshitta, instead of “changed the king’s word,” have “despised the king’s word,” reading, , “to despise,” instead of , “to change.” Theodotion agrees with the Massoretic, as otherwise do the other two versions. We may regard this as the beginning of the royal decree revoking practically that previously promulgated, omitting only the statement of the titles of the monarch. The wording is somewhat peculiar, “Blessed be their Godof Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.” It may indicate that some words in the immediate context have been omitted; in other words, that the editor, in quoting the decree, has endeavoured, as far as possible, to condense without changing the words of the document. Bertholdt is mistaken in maintaining that this declaration is that the God of the three Hebrews is worthy of being blessed. All that Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges in this verse is that Jehovah really existsthat he is powerful, and the Hebrews did right to continue in the worship of their national God. We find that the bar-eloheen of verse 25 is now regarded by Nebuchadnezzar as an angel, or, as we ought rather to translate it, “messenger.” We have no need to import Hebrew ideas into the declaration of the Babylonian monarch. It was quite in accordance with his mythological notions that a great God like the God of the Hebrews might have a messenger, who was his instrument in the deliverance of his servants. The reading of the Massoretes, “changed,” is to be preferred to “despised.” To one like Nebuchadnezzar, stiff to obstinacy in his opinions, for anything to compel him to change not only his opinions, but more, to alter a decree, was a strange thing, and a thing that he would think worthy of chronicling. At the same time, he might feel it needed a justification. On the other hand, such a one as Nebuchadnezzar would not advertise the fact that any one had “despised” his “word.” It is to be observed that Nebuchadnezzar recognizes not only the deliverance as an evidence of the truth of Jehovah’s Divinity, but also the willingness with which his servants were ready to offer their bodies to be burnt. The evidence that compelled Nebuchadnezzar to acknowledge the might of Jehovah was the same in essence as that which converted the Roman Empire. Still, we must again repeat Nebuchadnezzar recognized in Jehovah only the God of the Jews, and in the fatthfulness of the three Hebrews only a species of religious patriotism, which he could at once understand and respect without having the slightest belief in monotheism, or even comprehension of such a ‘notion.
Dan 3:29
Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, and language, which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill: because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. The versions agree with the Massoretic text here, only that all put the crime, “speaking anything amiss,” more strongly than we find it in the Massoretic recension, is amended by the Massoretes to , “erroneous,” whereas the Septuagint renders, . Theodotion, (agreeing with ) . The Peshitta renders (see Peshitta word) “to blaspheme.” Hitzig has suggested that the K’thib here is to be preferred to the Q’ri, maintaining that means “word,” while really means “inadvertence.” Certainly, if we were sure that the meaning he gives to is correct, and the versions all support it, we would give the preference to it. It has, however, to be borne in mind that, in the notions of heathenism, intentional disrespect was not taken into consideration in regard to the gods. The intention of the worshipper was of very little moment in such a matter; he might even desire to be specially respectful to the deity he worshipped; but if, by inadvertence, he omitted something, or did something which was not according to rule, all the good will and respect in his mind was nothingthe wrath of the insulted deity was poured out in full measure, unless some other deity regarded the action in question as specially honouring to him. It was the external actionthe mere form of wordsthat was the important matter with the polytheist. Idolatry is by its very nature a mental and moral disease; it is as absurd to expect logically concatenated actions from an idol-worshipper in regard to his deities, as to expect the same from a madman in regard to his craze. We must guard against imagining that the decree was against blasphemy as a crime against Jehovah. Primarily it was against words that, by exciting the wrath of Jehovah, might bring down damage on the empire. Nebuchadnezzar was not jealous for the honour of Jehovah, but for the safety of the Babylonian supremacy. The punishment threatened, it may be observed, is the same as that decreed against the wise men because of their failure to tell the dream and its interpretation. In regard to this, in Dan 2:5 the Septuagint renders the phrase, “Ye shall be made an example of, and your goods shall be escheat to the king’s treasury.” This change, as we maintained, was due to a difference of reading, not to any objection to the harshness of the phrase. The object of the punishment here was to remove utterly from the earth the wrong-doer and every remembrance of him, so that the offended deity might have no excuse for visiting the kingdom of Babylon with judgments. The reason, “because there is no other god that can deliver after this sort,” is not to be stretched too far. All that is asserted is that no other god has been able to deliver his worshippers out of the very realm of the god of fire, and therefore it is to be argued that his power of offence is as great; hence all are to avoid enraging him; but there is no worship enjoined. The Lagid princes, when Jerusalem was in their hands, ordered sacrifices to be offered on their behalf daffy. Nebuchadnezzar does nothing of this sort; his decree is simply negative
Dan 3:30
Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in the province of Babylon. The Septuagint renders here, “Thus, then, the king gave authority to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and appointed them to be rulers over the whole province.” There seems to have been a slight difference of reading, probably hashlayt instead of hatzlah, and le’nol medeemah instead of la’mdeenath Babel. It seems difficult to decide which of these two readings is the preferable; perhaps, on the whole, the Massoretic is the simpler. The version of Theodotion is considerably interpolated, “Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon, and made them great, and reckoned them worthy to have authority over all the Jews in his kingdom.” The first portion agrees with the Massoretic text and with the LXX. in sense; but the last clause is a much later addition. The Peshitta agrees with the Massoretic. The exact meaning of halzlah is “to make glad,” “to give rewards to,” and therefore is in no conflict with the Massoretic recension of the concluding verse of the preceding chapter, “And Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon.” It is to be observed that in the deutero-Isaiah (Isa 43:2) there seems to be a reference to this event, “When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.” The deliverance from Egypt, and the passage of the Red Sea, and the entrance into Canaan, and the passage of the Jordan, are referred to in the first part of this verse, “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee, and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee.” It certainly is but natural to suppose that the deliverance of the three Hebrews from the furnace of Nebuchadnezzar is the historical reference of the latter.
Excursus on the Song of the Three Holy Children.
When the student of the apocryphal addition to the Book of Daniel passes from the consideration of Susanna and the Elders, and Bel and the Dragon, with their manifold absurdities and manifest tokens of’ a Greek origin, to that of the Song of the Three Holy Children, he feels he has come into a different atmosphere. He has not done more than casually perused the whole of the composition called “The Song of the Three Holy Children,” when he discovers it is in two distinct portions. The whole structure of the two songs indicates a Hebrew origin. The character of the two divisions is quite different. The first is intercessory, and it proceeds from one person; the second is liturgic, and purports to be the joint expression of the feelings of all three. In both there are manifold echoes of earlier psalms. In some cases the phrases are imitated, in other cases adopted with some slight modifications. At the same time, there are in neither portion any obvious tokens of Greek origin, such as may be found in the Story of Susanna, with its play on words which hold only in Greek, or in its Greek views of history as seen in the Story of Bel and the Dragon. When the examples of translation from Hebrew were so numerous as they were by the time that Ben Sira came down to Egypt, and when the translators had by common consent adopted a special style, it cannot be denied that not only could a cento of phrases from the Greek version of the Hebrew Psalter have been formed, but also the style might be imitated, even when the words and sentiments were original. Still, as the aim and ambition of the Jews in Egypt were rather to show the close resemblance there was between the works of the fathers of their race and the sages of Greece, the imitative activity of the Jewish literary falsarii was directed more to that than to suggest merely a Hebrew original of what they had composed. We have no indubitable instance of psalms being composed in Greek in imitation of the translation of the Psalms of the original Psalter. We have certainly the psalms which go to form the Psalter of Solomon; but these are generally admitted to have been composed in Hebrew, and translated from that into Greek. However, there would still be a dubiety. The only way is to examine this song, or rather these songs, to see whether they contain any traces of being translations from Hebrew originals.
As a basis of investigation, we have the two Greek and the Peshitta versions. In a subordinate position we have the Vulgate and the version of Paulus Tellensis. The first thing that one observes, on a casual comparison of the two Greek versions, is that they are much more nearly related, and resemble each other much more closely in regard to these songs, than they do in regard to the rest of the book. The resemblance of the Peshitta to beth is also close, but yet there are points of difference. A similar phenomenon is presented by the opening verse of the Song of Azariah. As rendered by the LXX. it is, “Blessed art thou, O Lord God of our fathers, and thy Name is worthy to be praised and glorified for evermore.” Theodotion, in the reading preferred by Tischendorf, has agreeing with . The Peshitta has changed the order, “to be exalted and praised is thy Name for everse” The “and” present in the two Greek versions is awanting. In the next verse the Septuagint renders, “Thou art righteous in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are true, and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are true.” Theodotion omits “to us” in the first clause, and has in the last “truth” instead of “true.” When we turn to the Peshitta, we find a reason for the resemblance of the second member of the second and fourth clauses. “Righteous art thou in all that thou hast done to us, and all thy works are in truth (beqooshtha), and thy ways right, and all thy judgments are faithful (meheemnin).“ In Hebrew, as in Syriac, this contrast could be maintained, but it was more difficult to the Hellenist, who had, perhaps, few words at his command. The following verse in the LXX. runs as follows: “Thou didst judgments of truth in regard to all that thou hast brought upon us, and upon thy holy city, the city of our fathers, because in truth and judgment didst thou all these things because of our sins.” The only difference between Theodotion and this is the omission of , “thy.” The Peshitta rendering does not evidence much difference from that of the Greek versions, “Because in judgment of truth was what thou didst to us, and in all that thou hast brought upon us and upon the holy city of our fathers, upon Jerusalem, because in righteousness (b’c’anootha) didst thou bring upon us all these things.” We shall only take the next verse, and shall conclude the verse-by-verse examination of the Song of Azariah. The rendering of the Seventy bears traces of being translated from a Shemitic dialect by one who had not a large vocabulary in Greek. “Because we sinned in all things and transgressed to turn aside from thee, and we sinned in all things, and the commandments of thy Law we obeyed not, neither observed, nor did we according as thou didst command us, in order that it should be well with us.” Theodotion is exactly the same. The Peshitta is different, “Because we are debtors of sin (hoobin dehitin), and wicked before thee, and have removed far from thee, and have done against thy words, and have sinned against thee in all things, and to thy precepts have not hearkened, and did not keep them, and have not done anything which thou commandedst, to be well to us.” The sense here is evidently the same, but there has been a difference, if not of text, at least of apprehension of one and the same text. The Syriac could not have been made from the Greek, nor the Greek from the Syriac; they must have had a common source. It would be impossible to say with absolute certainty that this source must have been Hebrew; but the probability is in that direction. Aramaic does not so naturally lend itself to poetry as does Hebrew. Whatever poetry we have by Jewish authors in pre-Christian times which is not in Greek, has been in Hebrew.
That being settled, at all events conditionally, the next point is to examine the songs, and see whether they give any evidence in their contents of the background. In the first place, in regard to the Song of Azariah, if we take for granted that it was written in Hebrew, it follows almost necessarily from this that it was composed in Palestine. The next question that requires to be considered is the object of the composition. Was it intended to be placed here? was it written up to this, situation? or was it written for some other purpose, and placed here simply because some one thought it suited? The first thing bearing on this question which we observe is the names which these three Hebrews bear. In the Aramaic part which belongs to the Massoretic Daniel, they are called by their Babylonian names; in this portion their old Hebrew names are revived from the first chapter. That of itself is an indication that this portion has not been written for the place into which it has been put. Further, if this first psalmic fragment had been written for this place, it would have been put in the mouth of Hananiah. The arrangement of the names in Hebrew may have been merely according to the Hebrew alphabet, but instinctively one gives the first-named a certain precedence. Hence in the Peshitta this is called, “]’he prayer of Hananiah and his companions.” For the choice of Azariah instead, there must have been a reason. The simplest reason would seem to be that already there was a sacred hymn extant written by a certain Azariah, and some later editor, seeing this, and knowing that there was an Azariah here, he gave him the credit of it, and as this event was the crisis of his history, declared it to have been composed in reference to this event. Azariah was rather a common name among the Jews; there are eighteen instances of it chronicled in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible.’ It is certainly not so common after the Captivity, yet there was a captain in the Maccabean army called by this name, as above mentioned.
When we direct our attention to the song itself, we find what confirms us in our conclusionsthat it was not written for this place, but was written as the natural expression of feelings produced by circumstances widely different from those narrated in the chapter before us. If we compare this with the prayer of Daniel, which we find in Dan 9:1-27; we see the difference emphasized between circumstances of captives in Babylon and those presupposed by the Song of Azariah. If we turn to the thirteenth and fourteenth verses of the song (verses 37, 38), “For we, O Lord, are become less than any nation, and be kept under this day in all the world because of our sins. Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to sacrifice before thee, and to find mercy,” It will be noticed that the diminishing of the numbers of the nation, or the restriction of its territory, and the humiliating position it was placed in, is the point of Azariah’s complaint. Daniel’s sorrow is that they are driven to other countries: , “in all the countries whither thou hast driven them.” In the first case, we have a nation humiliated in their own land; in the second, a nation sent into certain definite countries, and there re-preached with having no country or capital. Again, it is said in the hymn before us, “There is neither prince, nor prophet, nor leader.” It is to be noted that the word here is “prince,” not “king” (nasi’, not melek). In the original Hebrew there was probably a play on the words, lo-nasi’ velo-nabi’, “neither prince nor prophet.” As a matter of fact, in the period of Daniel, prophecy had not ceased, and all through the times of Jewish history it was known that there had been prophets during the time of the Exile. There was, at all events, Ezekiel by the river Chebar, and even if we take the date of the Septuagint for the inauguration of this golden image, anti say that it was the eighteenth year of Nebuchaduezzar, Jeremiah was still living and prophesying. As for “princes,” they were still in Jerusalem, if we reckon the eighteenth year strictly, but if we regard it as counted according to the Babylonian reckoning, and therefore that Jerusalem had already fallen, there were still “princes,” although captives. Moreover, Coniah was still living, the former king, as also was Zedekiah. if we turn to Daniel, he declares the reason of the fall of Jerusalem and of the captivity of the peoplebecause kings and princes and people had refused to hearken to the word of the Lord as spoken by the prophets. Daniel implies the existence of prophets, princes, and kings. if not absolutely necessarily in the actual present, yet in the immediate past, which, historically genuine or not, fits the setting. In the Song of Azariah there is no reference to a king; there is reference to “a prince” (nasi’, not sar, which is usually “one of many”). In confirmation of this, there is not only the play on the words, if it is nasi’, but also the fact that the word used in both Greek versions is , which is the most common representation of nasi’ in the Septuagint This was the title of the head of the Sanhedrin, and borne usually by the high priest, it may also be noted that, while “sacrifices” and “offerings” are mentioned as having ceased, there is no mention of “priests.” if this song was written at a time when the “prince” was the head of the priests, this omission would be explicable. Taking this as our guide, we should fix the date of the composition of the Song of Azariah at a time when the high priesthood was in abeyance, that is, during the Maccabean struggle, from the time when Epiphanes definitely desecrated the temple till its reconsecration by Judas Maccabaeus. When we look at the state of the temple as implied in this Song of Azariah as compared with the prayer of Daniel, Daniel speaks of the sanctuary being a desolation, and by connection it is implied Jerusalem was a desolation also; but in the song before us there is no place for sacrifice or offering. The Jews are excluded from the temple, there is no place allowed them there, but the place itself is not a desolation.
If, again, we turn to the eighth verse of the Song of Azariah, we find still further evidences of the external circumstances in which it was composed. “And thou didst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful forsakers of God, and to an unjust king, and the most wicked in all the world.” The two Greek versions are here in absolute agreement; the Syriac here, as elsewhere, presents signs of its independent origin, “And thou hast delivered us into the hands of lords of enmity, evil men who are far from thee, and the habitation of a wicked kingdom, the most miserable in all the earth.” The structure of the latter half of this indicates, as it seems to us, that something has been misunderstood in the original document. Some word meaning “unto the power of” has been interpreted as being “dwelling-place,” that necessitated the change of “king” to “kingdom” If we then assume the Greek versions to be correct, we find a state of things exactly fitting the period we have suggested above. The mode of speaking of their oppressor”an unjust king, the most wicked in all the earth”is quite unlike anything in the Old Testament. When Hezekiah prays to God to be delivered from the power of Sennacherib, although he had reproached the living God, he does not declare that he is wicked. Sennacherib is denounced as proud and cruel, but not as wicked. That would imply a certain amount of godlessness, of which none of the Assyrian monarchs could be accused, and least of all could Nebuchadnezzar. Such a statement is in complete antagonism to the character given to Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel. It was by no means an unnatural description of Ephiphanes. He seems to have had no belief in deities of any kind. His persecution of the Jews had in all likelihood a motive either of policy or of vengeance. Nebuchadnezzar had never attempted to persecute religion in the ordinary sense of the word. The officials of his court he might and did expect to follow him in worship.
Another thing to be observed is those that have turned away from Godreheeqeen in the Peshitta. There were certainly many “apostates” at the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, but they were not apostates to the deities of Babylon. The “other gods” the Israelites were prone to worship were those of the nations around them. This apostasy was not connected with any treasonable submission to the Babylonian princes. So far as we can deduce the politics of the period from the prophecies of Jeremiah, the idolatrous party were patriotic so far as their resistance to Babylon was concerned, though they were always prone to coquet with Egypt. In the case before us, the enemies into whose hands the saints came were “apostates.” If, however, we turn to the First Book of Maccabees 1:43, we find that “many also of the Israelites consented to his (Epiphanes’) religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the sabbath.” When we turn to 2 Maccabees, if we may trust it, we find that Jason, having purchased the high priesthood, encouraged Hellenic customs, and even sent money to Tyre for a sacrifice to Melkarth. These gave entrance to Epiphanes, and supported him in his cruelties. We can readily understand how a zealous Jew of the Maccabean time would regard these “apostates” as greater enemies than the heathen followers of Epiphanes.
So far as we know, right down from shortly after the return from the Exile on to the period of the domination of the Seleucids, the high priest was nasi’ and head of the people. After the Maccabean period until the Herodian period, the head of the people was the high priest. At the death of Herod the Great, the former relationship was resumed. Even during the reign of Herod there was a prince, in the shape of the king. The mention of a prince, without any mention of a king, excludes all after John Hyrcanus. The assertion that there was no longer a prince, shuts off all the period after Judas Maccabaeus had assumed the high priesthood. We are thus led by another line to fix the date of this Song of Azariah as being the heart of the Maccabean period.
The following verse bears its own testimony to the date we have seen reason to fix on above. The Greek versions are at one here, and give the verse, “And now we cannot open our mouths, we are become a shame and a reproach to thy servants, and to them that worship thee.” The Syriac has a slight difference in the first clause, “It is not for us to open our mouth before thee.” This, however, does not affect the main reference of the verse. The meaning of the verse is that the widespread apostasy of the people made them a reproach and a shame to those who served the Lord and feared him elsewhere. The only time coincident with great persecution and consequent apostasy, when there were large communities fearing the Lord who might be scandalized by the apostasy of the Palcstinian Jews, was the Maccabean period, when there was the huge Jewish community of Babylonia, and the equally huge community of Egypt and Cyrene, not to speak of lesser and only lesser communities in Asia Minor. We venture, then, from all these grounds, to assume that this composition is to be dated as belonging to the Maccabean struggle.
The liturgical song put in the mouths of all three has noticing to fix its date by. Close examination seems to show that it may have been written for the occasion. A Jew of later times might easily occupy his mind in imagining what would be a likely form a song of praise would take in the mouths of men so situated. Looked at in this light, it on the whole deserves some commendation. If these martyrs did sing, of which there is not a single word in the genuine text of Daniel, it would naturally be a psalm. If they did not take the hundred and thirty-sixth, with its liturgic refrain, then something modelled on it would certainly be their song. Diffuse as this song is, there is a sense of ecstasy in it which suits the mood of martyrs raised by Divine indwelling above pain or fear of death. This seems to have been the original addition, because the twenty-second verse of this portion suits the state of matters mentioned in verse 21 of the chapter. In fact, it seems an amplified and exaggerated version of the twenty-second verse. The Song of Azariah, therefore, is probably an insertion of later date than the interpolation of the joint song. Although its insertion is of later date, it not improbably had been composed for some time before its insertion.
Those connecting versesthe forty-sixth to the fiftieth, according to the Vulgatehave come to us in three different versions. The version of the LXX. is the longest, “The guards of the king who threw them into the fiery furnace, ceased not causing the furnace to burn ( ), and when they threw the three once for all into the furnace, and the furnace was very fiery on account of the sevenfold heat: and when they cast them in, those who cast them in were above them; but those from beneath them fed the furnace with naphtha, tow, pitch, and small wood. And the flames of the furnace went up forty-nine cubits, and it passed through and burnt up those of the Chaldeans whom it found about the furnace. And an angel of the Lord descended into the furnace along with Azariah and his companions, and smote the flame of fire out of the furnace, and caused in the midst of the furnace as it were a moist whistling wind; and the fire did not at all touch them, or grieve or trouble them.” The version of Theodotion is shorter by thisthat it does not give the relative situation of those who threw the three Hebrews into the furnace, and those who fed it with fuel. The Syriac Version is on the whole in
.
2. Jews, who worshipped a holy God, were invited to bow before the image of an unholy god. The character of the Babylonian divinities was immoral. To worship one of them was to do honour to immorality. Where there are morally degrading features of any religionsuch as the use of indulgences and the confessional in the Church of Romeassociation with that religion must endanger our moral character.
3. Men who had no faith in a false god were required to worship him. This would involve deceit. The guilt of an ignorant, believing idolater would he as nothing beside that of one who bowed before the idol knowing it was a false god. No lies are worse than lies in religion. The first religious duty is”be sincere.”
4. Jews, believing in the jealousy of their God, were required to honour a rival deity. A heathen could worship a strange god, because he could find room in his pantheon for any number of divinities. To the Jew, the Eternal is the only God. God demands the sole worship of our hearts. We cannot give him divided allegiance (Jos 24:15; 1Ki 18:21; Mat 6:24).
II. THE ATTEMPT TO ENFORCE RELIGIOUS UNIFORMITY BY VIOLENCE IS BOTH FOOLISH AND CRUEL.
1. It is foolish. Persecution can neither convince the intellect nor secure the allegiance of the affections. At most it can only secure external obedience and hypocritical devotion. Moreover, the attempt to determine the religious worship of men by authority, even if it could succeed, would only be justified on the assumption of infallibility on the part of the ruler. But political authorities have no monopoly of truth; therefore, as the persecutor is as likely to be in error as the persecuted, and as persecution never tends to secure real conviction, the resort to it is a proof of twofold folly.
2. It is also cruel. Nebuchadnezzar’s fury was excited by the opposition of the three Jews, and he issued a most ferocious order for their destruction. Their conduct was regarded as doubly offensivea rebellion against the king and an insult to his god. Thus religious motives are used to justify the grossest cruelty.
III. FIDELITY TO GOD IS REQUIRED OF US IRRESPECTIVE OF CONSEQUENCES. The three Jews did not need to avail themselves of Nebuchadnezzar’s offer of a time for reflection. It is dangerous to parley with temptation, No allowance for circumstances, no excuses of casuistry, should confuse our conviction of the duty of fidelity to God. This is simple and certain. Faith in Providence, however, will strengthen us in the performance of the duty. The three Jews believed that God could deliver them (Dan 3:17), and therefore they trusted themselves to his care. God may require the absolute sacrifice of all we have; yet, in yielding him unconditional devotion, we may be assured that he will not forget us, nor allow us to suffer more than is necessary for the accomplishment of his will of love.
IV. GOD SOMETIMES BRINGS DELIVERANCE AT THE LAST EXTREMITY.
1. When he does not save us from falling into trouble he can prevent the trouble from really hurting us. God did not intervene to binder the execution of the royal decree, but he delivered the three Jews from all harmful consequences ,if it. God does not save us from toil and sorrow and death, but his grace can take the sting and curse out of them. While leaving us in the world, he can protect us from the evil of it, and though, unlike the three Jews, we may suffer pain in the furnace of affliction, this may do us no harm, hut rather work our highest good.
2. By delivering us in trouble rather than saving us from trouble, God is most honored and. we are most blessed. The issue of this incident was the declaration of the glory of God (Dan 3:28, Dan 3:29), and the promotion of his faithful servants (Dan 3:30). It is better to be first tried and then saved than never to be in danger or trouble.
Dan 3:16
Brave carelessness.
The three Jews set an example of unhesitating decision and fearless promptness, which may afford a wholesome lesson to us who live in the midst of the quibbling cauistry and timid expediency of a less simple age.
I. TO A HEALTHY CONSCIENCE THE DUTY OF FIDELITY TO GOD IS CLEAR AND UNQUESTIONABLE. The three Jews had no question as to their duty, nor any wish to reconsider their decision. It was clear and final.
1. Doubt and mystery are more concerned with the problems of merely intellectual interest. As we come to the region of morality, we find clearer light and firmer ground. God has given us a revelation which is plain as regards our duty, though it may be obscure on speculative points (Psa 119:105).
2. The most important duties are the most clear. Sophistry may find some excuse for its perplexity among the intricacies of minor morality; but the nearer we approach the fundamental duties, the less room is there for uncertainty. The duty of fidelity to God is the greatest of all duties, and it is the duty about which there can be least question.
3. When doubt invades the vital centres of morality, this may generally be taken as a sign that the conscience is not in a healthy state. Such doubt is like colour-blindness or inability to discriminate between the most elementary musical sounds. It argues a defective organ, because it is contrary to the general testimony of healthy experience. Therefore, while intellectual doubt may be blameless, moral doubt on questions of fundamental duty is a sign of mural depravity.
II. WHEN DUTY IS CLEAR, ACTION SHOULD BE PROMPT. Knowing their duty, the three Jews had no wish to delay the execution of it.
1. There is nothing which tends to obscure the simple conviction of duty so much as hesitation in putting it into practice. Such hesitation affords an opportunity for a false casuistry; it allows time for questions to arise which should never be thought of; it reacts on the conscience, and through the feeling of uncertainty in action tempts the mind to uncertainty in thought.
2. Every moment of delay in executing the decision of conscience weakens the force of that decision. The impulse of conscience is never so strong as when it is first clearly recognized. A neglected duty seems to admit of indefinite postponement, and thus the vigour of conscience is demoralized and dissipated.
3. When once we know our duty, it is wrong to delay the execution of it, even if we are sure we shall ultimately perform it. Tardy obedience is a sign of indifference. Earnest fidelity implies prompt action.
III. THERE IS NO NEED TO FEAR THE CONSEQUENCES WHEN WE ARE ON THE PATH OF DUTY. The three Jews were uncertain of the issue of their momentous decision. But the danger and mystery of the future did not daunt them. They had good grounds of assurance.
1. God will deliver his faithful servants from the greatest danger if it is consistent with right and the highest ends of goodness to do so.
2. Though his faithful servants may suffer for a time, God will assuredly see that in the end they suffer no real harm (Psa 34:19; Mat 19:29; Rom 8:28).
3. At the worst it is better to do right and suffer than to do wrong and be at ease. Righteousness is better than happiness.
IV. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT IS BEST TO DO OUR DUTY WITHOUT ATTEMPTING To EXPLAIN OR DEFEND IT. The three Jews thought it useless or needless to enter upon any defence of their conduct. They confessed their duty without hesitation, but they felt no need to prepare an answer to their enemies’ accusation. There are times when a defence of our conduct is useless:
1. Because it would not be understood; because our motives of conduct may be unintelligible to those in whose power we are.
2. Because an adverse decision is clearly decided on, and will not be affected by any contrary reasons. These two considerations, no doubt, prompted our Lord to silence at his trial (Mat 27:14).
3. It sometimes injures our cause to defend it. An apology often suggests questions that were not previously thought of. It is often wisest simply to live down calumny by quiet persistence in what we believe to be right, Our first duty is to please God, not men.
Dan 3:25
The Divine presence.
I. GOD IS WITH HIS PEOPLE IN THEIR TRIALS.
1. He does not prevent them from falling into distress, but he helps them when in, which is better for the disciplinary ends of trouble.
2. God does not simply send help in trouble. He comes himself. Moses was not satisfied with the promise of the guidance of an angel (Exo 33:2). He sought and obtained the assurance that God’s presence would go with Israel (Exo 33:14). Jesus Christ promises his abiding presence (Mat 28:20). This is more than the natural universal presence of God. It is a nearness of sympathy, an active intercourse, a special manifestation of his Spirit (Joh 14:23).
3. God’s presence in trouble implies his endurance with us by sympathy. He is afflicted in our afflictions (Isa 63:9). Jesus bore our griefs (Isa 53:4; Mat 8:17). When we take Christ’s yoke we are yoked to him, and he bears with us (Mat 11:29).
II. GOD‘S PRESENCE IN TROUBLE IS AN ASSURANCE OF PRESENT SECURITY AND ULTIMATE DELIVERANCE. The secret of the safety of the three Jews in the furnace is seen in the fourth presence, like “a Son of God.”
1. God’s presence secures present safety. By his sympathy he helps us to bear trouble. By his spiritual strength in us he increases our strength. Apply this
(1) to the endurance of suffering and
(2) to the resistance to temptation (Isa 43:2).
2. God’s presence secures ultimate deliverance. God does not only help us to bear the trouble. He finds a way of escape so that, though we pass through it, we shall not remain in it.
III. GOD‘S PRESENCE IN TROUBLE IS AN AMPLE COMPENSATION FOR THE ENDURANCE OF IT. Storms clear the air and reveal the distant prospect. Trouble brings the eternal near and unveils the unseen. This nearness of God is the source of our holiest life and deepest gladness. It is worth entering a fiery furnace to meet Christ there. Heaven is the presence of God. The furnace of affliction becomes a paradise when he manifests his presence in it.
TWO PRACTICAL LESSONS. 2. Be fearless. If we are following Christ, we need fear no trouble. The assurance of the Divine presence should nerve us to meet the hardest trial (Psa 23:4). Christian courage is a duty which depends on faith in the presence and help of God (Joh 14:1, Joh 14:18). This faith is the secret of the great difference between the fortitude of the Stoic, which often ended in despair and suicide, and. the courage of the Christian) which issues in patient hopeful submission.
HOMILIES BY H.T. ROBJOHNS
Dan 3:1-13
The ceaseless creation of gods.
“Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image.” “He set it up in the plain of Dura” (Dan 3:1). Questions respecting the image will be discussed in the Expository section. For homiletical purposes we distinguish here between three separate entities, all real enough in their own realm.
1. The image, built up and appearing in due time amid the phenomena of this material world.
2. The idea for which it stands, existing really enough in the mind of the king and those who thought with him. The image most likely stood for “Bel,” the “world-power” that had (as the king imagined) given him all his greatness. The idea may have been, was, false, but it had nevertheless a real and influential subjective existence.
3. The author of first the idea, and then of the image, viz. the prince referred to in Joh 12:31; Joh 14:30; Joh 16:11; Eph 2:2, and elsewhere. All this we shall find very suggestive; for to this hour men have never ceased to set up images for the homage of their fellow-men.
I. THE IDOL EVER NEW. Following the suggestion of the lines already laid down, note:
1. The creator. The prince of darkness. It is now the theological fashion to deny, at least to doubt, his existence. But such scepticism seems to us narrow. Surely all good and evil are not confined to earth; and as certainly these may have their influence in the world of men. The Bible implies right through that they have had and continue to have.
2. The intellectual creation. Erroneous thought. A false idea. An evil public opinion. Think of the enormous power exerted over life and speech and deed of man; e.g. What woman in China dares not to bandage and cripple her daughter’s feet? At what terrible cost is caste broken in India? It required a William Loyd Garrison in the early anti-slavery days to protest against the wicked public opinion of the South, with which there was complicity in the North, and then literally at the peril of his life. The sway of anti-theistic, anti-Christian, anti-philanthropic opinion is nothing short of despotic; e.g. recent treatment of Virchow by the evolutionists of Germany.
3. The sensible form. Forms of speech, of action, habit of life, modes of work, forced by false public opinion on men, against which only a faithful few are sometimes found to rebel. These idols are set up to rule everywhere; e.g. in the realm of domestic administration, of social life, in the various Churches, in the life of the nation, and even to domineer over the international relations of men.
II. THE NIMBUS OF THE IDOL. In the old mythologies a cloud of light was often seen, or supposed to be seen, around the persons of the deities. So was it with this image which Nebuchadnezzar set up. One cannot read these opening verses without being struck with the halo of splendour thrown around the idol. Majesty of size, brilliance of material, commanding conspicuousness, marked the image itself. With endless iterationlike the refrain of a songwe are told it was “the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.” Royalty sanctioned it. The aristocracy was on its rode. Education and literature bowed before it (Eph 2:8). The people endorsed the worship. All that the world could do, by calling together mighty concourses of people, by pomp of ceremonial, by elaborate musical performance, was done, to give eclat to the idolatry. So is it with all the forms of nineteenth-century idolatry. Kings, princes, peoples, the literary and educated classes, as by one consent, in many ways, after many fashions, join to glorify the image that public opinion, alienated from God, uninspired by his Spirit, too often sets up. Peoples can make images as readily as kings.
III. THE IMMINENT PENALTY. Enumerate the burning fiery furnaces which modern devotees of the image kindle for them who will not bow down; e.g. losses in business, social exclusion, denial of political rights, persecutions petty and malignant in many forum.
IV. THE GENERAL PROSTRATION.
V. THE FAITHFUL FEW.
CONCLUSIONS.
1. Be no party to the setting up.
2. Be you one not to bend the knee.R.
Dan 3:14-18
Principle illuminated by fire.
“O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful,” etc. (Dan 3:16-18). Sketch the leading features of this intensely interesting martyr-history; and then
I. RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLE. And here, that we may not move in mist, let us open out, step by step, what needs to be said.
1. Principle. What is it .9 A principle is literally a first thing; a beginning; a cause. The spring on the mountain-side, whence the mighty river. The root of the tree. Newton’s ‘Principia.’ The principle of the universe, the First, is God.
2. Religious principle. The essential idea in the word. “religion” is that of binding. (See the etymology.) Religion distinguishes that which binds man to God: it names the link that binds earth to heaven. Principle in religion is that at the root of man’s being; that beginning of things in the soul which determines the outer lifeword, deed, demeanour, habit, conduct.
3. The two kinds. Strictly speaking, the beginnings of religion may be in two entirely different spheres. They may be objective or subjective. There are beginnings with God, and beginnings in man.
(1) The objective principles of religion constitute the external revelation of God. That revelation is the expression of his love. Strictly regarded, this is the spring and root of all beside. From this point of view, the first principle of religion is indeed none other than God himself.
(2) The subjective principles of religion. These are the effect of the objective. They are beginnings in man; from whence all that is distinctly moral and spiritual proceeds.
(a) Truth in the mind. Fashion to decry the importance of truth; but it cannot be legitimately denied, it is vital.
(b) Feeling answering to the truth.
(c) Direction from the conscience according to truth and responding to emotion.
(d) Volition obedient to the royal authority of conscience.
4. The present form. Religious principle with us will take on evangelical forms. Our position is different from that of the three. They in twilight; we in blaze of midday. Truth came from Godfor them through Moses and the prophets; for us, by Jesus Christ. They started from Sinai, we from Calvary. We begin with trust in a personal Christthat is our first subjective principlethen follow truth, emotion, the moral imperative, obedience.
5. Moment of principle. Impossible to exaggerate its importance. What a man is in principle, that the man is all through.
II. ADHESION TO IT. A sublime example. Illustration and illumination of religious principle.
1. The temptation to abandon principle. Note what they were required to do. To bend the knee to an image of the world-power, perhaps of Bel, possibly of the king himself. All Sinai protested against it. But see temptations. Read their force in the light of our own nature.
(1) To bend the knee was a tittle thing. The moral meaning of little things; e.g. to sign another’s name is forgery. To allow the Persians to pass Thermopylae!
(2) All the world would do it.
(3) Gratitude moved to compliance. (Dan 2:48, Dan 2:49.)
(4) Hope. More favour in the future.
(5) Fear. The furnace hot; the doom certain.
(6) Sight likely to be more dominant than faith. Faith sees as through mist.
2. The decision.
(1) Slowly built up. Perhaps the decision was instantly taken; but it was gradually built up in solidity and strength. The image not reared in a day. Gold to be collected. Plans. Estimates. Labourers got. The actual work. This would all take time. See mighty ruins of basements still at Dora. Some notice of the festival. Time to consult with friends, above all, with the heavenly Friend.
(2) The moral victory was earlier than the event. Long before first note of the music the decision had been reached, and the victory won. The pomp of the day had by meditation become familiar. All moral victory is secret and anticipative. So will it be with the Christian and death.
(3) The decision was irreversible, once taken.
3. The act. The moral majesty of the three among millions. Alone. Yet not alone. Daniel. Sympathizers. Angels. God. All there with them I
4. Their dependence. These saints militant entrenched themselves behind two lines.
(1) God. He was:
(a) Existent.
(b) Their own God: “Our God.”
(c) The object of their service. Eternal
(d) Able righteousness to deliver.
(e) Certainly, would. But if all this were not so, then:
(2) Ineffable grandeur of this moral position. Let God not deliver, not be able, be only an imagined object of service, not be their God, because indeed he does not exist. Then there is something behind and deeper than his throne. Right is right for ever and ever. Our vision of God may be obscured; our sense of right scarcely ever. This is clear:
(a) If there be a God, it cannot be right to bend down to a thing.
(b) If there be not, man is man, and still may not bow to a thing like this. Amid all life’s temptations, bear in mind there is a God; and even if (for the sake of argument) there be not, there is still a soul; and in the soul a concept of absolute, unconditioned, eternal righteousness.
5. The result of the decision.
(1) As to themselves.
(a) Freedom from anxiety. “We are not careful.”
(b) Silence. No noise. No apology. No elaborate defence.
(c) Salvation. In the fire, yet out of the fire; for the Saviour there.
(2) As to others. Who can estimate?
(a) On the Jews. Obedient to Sinai, but in more obscure positions than that of the three.
(b) On the heathen.
(c) On the universal Church, whenever and wherever the history of this heroism is told.R.
Dan 3:19-27
The Saviour in the fire.
“The form of the fourth” (Dan 3:3). A sketch of the further developments of the history will well introduce the following topics.
I. THE SAVIOUR OF THE KING‘S IMAGINATION. “Like unto a son of the gods.” The king was certainly not acquainted with the Hebrew doctrine of the Messiah, and even if he were, the appellation, “Son of God,” would not be familiar to him. The deliverer to him was perhaps an angel, but surely a visitant from the unseen.
II. THE REAL DELIVERER. “The Angel of Jehovah,” the Angel-God of the Old Testament, the Lord Jesus, in those temporary and special epiphanies which preceded the great Epiphany of the Incarnation. This “coming down to deliver” does not stand alone. Therefore the other emergences out of eternity into time of the Lord should throw light on this; e.g. two appearances to Hagar (Gen 16:1-16.; Gen 21:19-21). Two in the life of Abraham (Gen 17:1-27; Gen 19:1-38; Gen 22:1-24.). Several instances in the history of Jacob (Gen 28:10-22; Gen 31:11-13; Gen 32:24-32; Gen 48:15, Gen 48:16). At the burning bush (Exo 3:1-22. ; set. also Exo 23:20-25; Exo 13:20-22; Exo 14:19, Exo 14:20; Exo 40:33-35; 1Ki 8:10, 1Ki 8:11; 2Ch 7:1-3). The same august Personage was at Sinai (comp. Exo 24:1-18. and Exo 33:11-20 with Gal 3:19). Several manifestations, too, in the desert-life of Israel (Exo 16:10; Num 12:5; Num 14:1-21; Num 16:19,Num 16:42; Num 20:6; Exo 33:3). So in the life of Joshua (Jos 5:13; Jos 6:5). See further epiphanies in Jdg 2:1-5; Jdg 6:11-24; Jdg 13:1-25.; 1Ki 8:9-11, Isa 63:8, Isa 63:9. “The Angel of Jehovah” is none other than Jehovah himself manifested in the Person of the Lord Jesus. The doctrine of the Trinity the only adequate explanation. What Robert Hall said of the Divine Being is sirikingly true of the doctrine of the Trinity: “Inexplicable itself, it explains all besides; it casts a clearness upon every question, accounts for every phenomenon, solves every problem, illumines every depth, and renders the whole mystery of evidence as perfectly simple as it is otherwise perfectly unintelligible, whilst itself remains an impenetrable obscurity.” The following are reasons for believing that the Lord Jesus was present in this fire:
1. It was antecedently probable that he would be. Taking into account antecedent appearances, observe the time of the Captivity was a critical epoch in the history of the kingdom of God; the placeBabylonia grand theatre for the manifestation of the Divine. Evil clashed with conscience. The faithful there were helpless. It was for Christ to deliver.
2. It would fulfil a promise a thousand years old (Le Isa 26:14 -44).
3. The moral effect of the epiphany would be greaton Jews, heathens; all to the end of time.
III. THE SAME SAVIOUR NOW.
1. The Lord Jesus can be present with us in the fire of our trouble. This depends on whether we give him welcome or not. He waits to come in unto us in our sorrows. Different is the intensity el the fire with different saints, with the same at various times.
2. His presence is relief.
3. Will be ultimate deliverance and perfected salvation.R.
Dan 3:28-30
Salvations demonstrate the Saviour.
“There is no other God that can deliver after this sort” (Dan 3:29). Explain the king’s real state of mind. He did not own Jehovah as the only God, nor command him to be worshipped. He only declared him to be able to save his servants as none other could, and commanded that there should be no reviling of his Name. Curious commingling of tolerance and intolerance. So slowly do men learn the principles of religions and ecclesiastical freedom. (Matthew Henry is full and good on this section.) But the text may be used as the starting-point for a good missionary sermon. Illustrations will be abundant in proportion to our acquaintance with the best missionary literaturenot merely that which appears in so fragmentary a form in magazines but with full and exhaustive treatises, of which there are now many. The following outline is merely suggestive. and would have to be taken up selectively; for the whole would be far too much for one discourse.
I. EVILS FROM WHICH MAN CRIES FOR DELIVERANCE.
1. Internal.
(1) Darkness of intellect in moral questions.
(2) Dwarfed, misplaced, perverted emotion.
(3) Torpidity of conscience (e.g. the extraordinary Pharisaism of the Chinese apart from the gospel, contrasted with his fear and pain when led by the convincing Spirit to a sense of sin).
(4) Terror of the awakened conscience, which nothing but the gospel can assuage.
(5) Paralysis of the will; i.e. sheer inability (i.e. moral) to do the thing we would. “I approve the good, but the evil I pursue” (Rom 7:1-25.).
2. External.
(1) Individual. Perhaps most of the sorrows and discouragements of life wilt fall under this classification.
(a) Limitation. Nearly all forms of pain fall under this head; e.g. the feebleness of youth, weakness, sickness, deprivations, bereavements, discouragements, debility of age, etc.
(b) Strain. Battle of life. Work of life.
(c) Impending death.
(d) Imperfection of character; i.e. of the external manifestation of the good within.
(2) Social. There are evils that fall to us in our relations to our fellow-men. These arise from the extreme difficulty of carrying ourselves morally, rightly, in relation to our associates. Hence many sorrows. Hence, too, many sins; wrongs in the family; unjust subjection of women; slavery; cruelty; neglect of ministration to suffering; breaches of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments; war, etc. Hence, too, all political tyrannies and religious persecution. No liberty, equality, humanity, unity, or true independence.
II. DELIVERERS PROVED INCOMPETENT. All religions which have declined from the purity of the primaeval revelation, and in proportion to the extent of their departure. It may be necessary here to contrast the easy and flippant assumption that each religion is an evolution from the genius of each race, and con.genial with it, and conducive to its moral elevation. E.g. the contrast between the comparatively pure idea, which the New Guinea people have, of a Great Spirit and the horrors of their cannibal life. Surely these may not be left to such religion as they have evolved. In showing incompetence to deliver from evil, the religious of the world must be classified, and then the incompetence of each demonstrated in relation to evils enumerated above. The following classification is suggested:
1. Indifferentism; i.e. any negative system that ignores the religious nature of man.
2. Polytheism.
3. Pantheism.
4. Mere theism; e.g. the Brahmo-Samaj movement in India. Its failure to meet the sin and sorrows of men is abundantly proved (see its own literary organs in India).
5. Atheism in all its modern forms; e.g. agnosticism, positivism.
6. Impure forms of Christianity. Note that even in Russia so deep is the void left by the Greek Church, that there are fifteen millions of Dissenters, whom Imperialism tries to crush. It would not be difficult to show that the Roman perversion of Christianity has proved incompetent, and just in proportion to its decline from primitive truth.
III. THE SAVIOUR ALMIGHTY. The whole history of Christ’s kingdom, the facts of modern missions, our own experience, demonstrate the competence of Christ to fill the void of man’s necessity, and to lift the burden from his surcharged heart; e.g. to enlighten the mind; to direct, purify, and elevate the emotions; to rouse and then soothe the conscience; to justify the will. And so with the other forms of evil marshalled above. Exhibit all this in detail, and demonstrate that “there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.”R.
HOMILIES BY J.D. DAVIES
Dan 3:1
Man has a religious nature.
It is a valid argument for the existence of God, that every race of men demands some object of worship. Everywhere there is a felt dependencea conscious need of protection and support. As soon as men are released from the pressing and exhausting care for daily food, their minds “feel after God, if haply they may find him.” A sense of orphanage afflicts humanity till it finds God.
I. THE NATURAL MAN HAS AN INSTINCT FOR WORSHIP. It is true that while man remains in barbarous ignorance, he is prone to worship fancied evil agents, whose wrath he deprecates. But even this act is a confession that there is somewhere, outside him, a power superior to himself, who is able to work him real mischief. This confession is sufficient to establish the doctrine of Divine supremacy. And as men exercise their minds upon the variety of events that transpire about them, they discover that their fortunes and destinies are controlled by some Being mightier than themselves. Notwithstanding his power and his imperial rule, Nebuchadnezzar felt convinced that there was one Deity, or more, who had permitted to him this success in warthis magnificence of royal state. The natural instinct of .his soul yearned for something to worship. Does any man living feel satisfied with his stature of moral excellence? Is it not a common confession that we are not as good as we might be? Do we not stretch forth our aspiration towards some ideal yet beyond this? And if there be ideal perfection somewhere, which our souls strain their energies to reach, can that perfection be impersonal, self-existent? Does it not rather reside in an unseen perfect Being, in whose image degenerate man once was made? This unknown Being men instinctively long to know and to worship.
II. THE NATURAL MAN CRAVES AFTER A VISIBLE MANIFESTATION OF GOD, Although Moses had heard God’s voice, and had received from him the tables of stone engraven with his own hand, yet he ardently craves a vision of the Most High: “I beseech thee, show me thy glory.” Moved by a similar desire to have nearer intercourse with Goda desire to be rid of all doubt and perplexity, Philip asked, “Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” If left to himself, man invents aids to his devotion, which become positive hindrances. Hence among all nations there has appeared the demand for some visible object, which might serve as a representation of God; and, because of its injurious effect upon men, the prohibition was given to the Jews, “Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, nor the likeness of anything on earth.” If the mind of man be so greatly superior to matter; if it possesses attributes which find no analogy in material forms; if nothing in visible nature can represent thought, feeling, aspiration, will; so nothing in the physical universe can represent the Creator of all things. We are driven to the other pole of existence when we read,” God is a Spirit.“
III. THE NATURAL MAN ASCRIBES TO HIS DEITY GREATNESS AND EXCELLENCE, Nebuchadnezzar had learnt (perhaps from the Jewish Scriptures) that the human form was the nearest approach to the Divine; yet he felt that God possessed a superhuman greatness and a superhuman goodness. The former idea he endeavoured to express by giving to his statue colossal magnitude; the latter idea he sought to embody in the gold which was lavished on the structure. Whether it was literally made of gold, or only overlaid with gold, the same feeling was intended to be projected, viz. that the most precious of the metals was required to express the superlative excellence of Deity. “Who is like unto the Lord. our God, who dwelleth in the heavens?”
IV. THE NATURAL MAN WILL ALLOW TO DEITY THE MOST AMPLE SCOPE FOR ACTIVITY. Nebuchadnezzar erected no temple for this gigantic figure. He had erected temples in Babylon for other idol-deities; but now he gives larger play to his thoughts, and sets up this colossal image on the open plain. No building reared by human hands can contain the true God. The sapphire vault of heaven is the ceiling of his temple. The emerald greensward, enamelled with fragrant flowers, is the most fitting floor in his abode. The everlasting hills, with their snow-clad peaks, form the pillars in his house. “Heaven is his throne: the earth is a footstool for his feet.” The myriad stars are the lamps of his majestic sanctuary. All things that live and breathe unite to celebrate his praise. “His kingdom ruleth over all.”D.
Dan 3:2-7
Attempted coercion in religion a failure.
If, with his slender knowledge of God, Nebuchadnezzar supposed that the erection of this colossal statue would be pleasing to God, as a visible expression of the monarch’s allegiance, or would serve to remind men of their religious obligation, so far the deed. would be in itself praiseworthy. But when he proceeded further to compel a rigid conformity to his mode of offering worship, he trenched upon the rights of Deityhe invaded the sacred territory of conscience.
I. COERCION IN RELIGION PROCEEDS FROM LUST OF POWER, It may, in a few cases, arise from a mistaken idea of personal duty; but if the motive be searched to its source, it will be found to spring from this corrupt fountthe lust of power. Nebuchadnezzar, like an Oriental despot, had complete control over the persons, the property, and the lives of his subjects; but this lust for power grew by what it fed on. Like the horseleech, it was ever crying, “Give, give!” He craved to have control over the thoughts, beliefs, and religious acts of his people. He would carry his sceptre, if he might, into the inner realm of conscience, and sway the nations as he pleased. Hence he commanded the attendance and the religious homage of all who held any authority under him, to the end that these might, in their turn, exact a similar obedience from the people. The sovereignty of love is always a boon; the sovereignty of personal will is more or less a bane.
” man, proud man!
Drest in a little brief authority II. COERCION IN RELIGION IS A USURPATION OF DIVINE RIGHTS. “The powers that exist are ordained of God,” yet only for limited and well-defined ends. Monarchs and judges stand in God’s stead to preserve society from anarchy and injury; but over the interior lifeover thought and affection and worshipthey can have no dominion whatever. To bind and to loose men’s beliefs by authority is an impossibility. There is another sceptre before which heart and conscience are constrained to bow. There is another tribunal before which kings and subjects must alike appear. No verdict of acquittal which a human monarch can give will serve as a passport to the favour of the Most High! Every one of the human race must give account “of himself unto God.” “To our own Master we stand or fall.”
III. COERCION IN RELIGION DEGRADES THE TRUE DIGNITY OF RELIGION. True religion is nothing less than the purest love of the human heart pouring itself out, in service or in speech, unto the living God; and if love must ever be spontaneous and free, in order to be love at all, so must be the piety of the human soul. Spontaneity is a necessity in religion. If compulsion be employed, its essence evaporates, its spirit disappears. It degenerates into formality. In the hands of an ambitious monarch, religion becomes a piece of state machinery; it is draggled in the mire of kingcraft. The pomp of state ceremonialscenic splendour, displays of musiconly degrade Religion, under pretence of doing her homage. The atmosphere in which she most flourishes is not the heated atmosphere of royal palaces, but the atmosphere of tranquil liberty. You may cast
can only be propagated by the lash and the sword, it is not worth propagating at all. If the treat God cannot maintain his own authority and rule without the aid of human violence, surely it is best to believe that there is no God! Such is the argument of many whom coercion has hardened and embittered. And on a third class of society the effect of coercion is martyrdom. Men and women who prize truth more than present convenience, who honour God more than they honour men,these firmly decline the mandates of human authority in the sphere of religion. Come what may, they must be obedient to conviction and to conscience. They are bound by a prior obligation to follow the Spirit of truth whithersoever it leads. A voice speaks to them direct from heaven; and, let kings rave and storm as they please, they yield their first deference to the heavenly command. After all, a human king is but a fellow-worm, and it is an ignoble thing to steer our life-course according to the changing whims of pompous princes. And the result of honest resistance to religious tyranny has always been sufferingthe rack, the flame, the prison, the gibbet.D.
Dan 3:8-12
The working of base and bitter envy.
The men of Chaldea, who plumed themselves with great titles, but possessed little souls, were not content with rendering servile homage to the king’s golden image; they must needs turn informers against those who had the courage of religious conviction. While true religion ennobles a man every way, superstition dwarfs intellect and soulemasculates a man. A gnat may sting to madness a mettled war-horse, and some men who are impotent to do good are busy with venting malicious spite on nobler natures than their own.
I. ENVY IS THE NATURAL CHILD OF SELFISHNESSthe base progeny of a base parentage. Under pretence of solicitude for the king, they were chiefly anxious to berid themselves of formidable rivals. These accused persons were foreigners, captives, and had been raised to eminent offices by virtue of their personal merits. But the little-minded native aristocrats could not endure this competition for royal honours, and were willing enough to degrade and injure good men, if only they could promote their own worldly interest. That is a despicable vice which has selfishness for its root. The envious man is ashamed to own his real object.
II. ENVY STOOPS TO USE THE MEANEST ARTS. These Chaldeans invented a new name, a name of opprobrium, by which to designate these hated rivals. As the foes of Christ invented the name of “Christian” as a byword and a reproach, so these Chaldean informers used the word “Jew” as a stigma of disgrace. Further, they sought to flatter the king with all the arts of sycophancy. They flattered his greatness, his love of power, his bigotry, his religious zeal, his autocratic will. The best friends of a monarch are those who speak in his ear at proper times most unpalatable truths, and seek wisely to abate the growth of imperious tyranny. But these men, with ingenious skill, sought only to inflame the baser passions of the king. They reminded him that his royal authority was outraged; that his gods were dishonoured; that his honour, as a truthful monarch, was a; stake. No stone was left unturned by which to gain their nefarious end. Theirs was a busy zeal, worthy of a nobler object.
III. ENVY MAGNIFIES THE SUPPOSED FAULTS OF OTHERS. From what appears in the narrative, there was no occasion for these Chaldean magnates to make any accusation against the Hebrews. It was no part of their office to become public prosecutors. The idolatry of that age was extremely tolerant. Every nation and people were allowed to worship their own gods. If these Chaldean satraps had cherished a spark of generosity in their breasts, they would have argued thus: “These Hebrews have a religious faith of their own. Let them worship what and how they please.” But it is very probable that these officious governors had themselves instigated the king to make this cruel decree, and had narrowly watched its effect upon the conduct of the Hebrew youths. Now they think they have caught them in a deadly snare. Now they will exaggerate their offence before the king. Now they will accuse them, not only of withholding homage from the new idol, but with dishonour to all Chaldea’s godswith utter contempt of the king himself.
IV. ENVY IS BLIND IN FORECASTING RESULTS. These envious men proceeded upon the principle that they foresaw and foreordered the course of events. Clearly it seemed to them, the series of events was as certain as the links in a chain. The king would be incensed. These Hebrew youths would be destroyed. Themselves would be promoted to honour. But though the first step was successful, and their whole plan seemed about to bear its expected fruit, lo! miscarriage and disappointment I If they could succeed in circumventing and slaughtering these innocent men, they would have proceeded To accuse Daniel also. But the executors of the royal mandate were the only persons slain. The Hebrew youths enjoyed in the furnace the presence of a heavenly Companion and Guest. The God of the Hebrews received royal homage and public regard. The envious satraps were put to silence and to shame.
V. ENVY IS UNSCRUPULOUS AS TO OTHERS‘ SUFFERING. If only it can gain its paltry end, it cares not how much suffering of body and of mind it inflicts on others. They knew that the penalty decreed for non-compliance with the idolatrous practice was arbitrary and cruel; but what cared they? They might have foreseen that if these three Hebrew notables should suffer death, it would be the beginning of fiery persecution against the whole nation of Israel; but what cared they? Their pride and ambition were wounded by the elevation to office of these young Hebrews, and if they could only bring about their rivals’ downfall, they were unscrupulous what amount of suffering would befall the Hebrews. Envy has ever been a deadly foe to brotherly love.D.
Dan 3:13-15
A critical alternative.
The alternative which these young men were called to face was idolatry or death. The claimants for their loyalty were Nebuchadnezzar on the one hand, God on the other. The former appealed to all the selfish principles of their nature; the latter, to the moral sense alone. Herein lies the crucial trial of human life. Shall God’s voice be supreme? his authority be dominant over every part of my nature, over every act of my life? Or, on the other hand, shall some other master prevail? On our answer to this question hangs our heaven and hell.
I. AN ALTERNATIVE OF CONDUCT. Much might have been said by a wily advocate to induce compliance with the demand of the king. He had not demanded that his subjects should abjure their loyalty to another god; they might, therefore, make a compromise by rendering this outward act of idolatry, while they reserved the true love and homage of their hearts for God. Were they not the subjectsyea, the captivesof this earthly prince? and did he not rule by Divine right? Had he not been their benefactor in raising them to honour? and would it not seem base ingratitude to resist? Was it not desirable to maintain a general uniformity, and not seem to countenance rebellion and irreligion? Would it not preserve the public peace, advance their own interests, and protect the fortunes of their co-exiles, if they would comply? It was but a solitary act; God would readily condone it; it need not be repeated! Was it worth while to disturb the empire on so trivial a matter? Thus a thousand voices would whisper. But
II. IT WAS AN ALTERNATIVE OF PRINCIPLE. Unless these Hebrews should act a falsehood, this deed of idolatry would be the visible expression of their belief. Outward acts are the proper fruits of inward conviction. A God-fearing man cannot bring forth the fruits of idolatry; neither can an idolatrous man bear the fruits of godliness. Seeming compliance here would be sheer hypocrisy; and are these young Hebrews going to stamp themselves hypocrites? This was a judgment-day: these young men were on trial before God. Say what men will about mutual concessions, forbearance, peace,this was a conspicuous occasion for the test of principle. If these young men played the coward now, they would be cowards for everthe sport of every capricious wind of circumstance. If the ship’s cable will not hold in a storm, of what use is it? True principle of character is of the nature of steel: you cannot permanently bend it. Leave it to its own action, and it flies back to its proper line.
III. IT WAS AS ALTERNATIVE OF DESTINY. Compliance brought present life; resistance was to issue in violent death. Hence it is evident that this act of idolatry was no trivial or even ordinary act. The king himself raised it into a public test. Yet this pompous king quite overshot the mark. Did he talk about the result and issue of this supposed contumacy? He was as a man who reckons without his host. The issues of events lie in another hand than his. Royal threats are often like the chaff which the wind driveth away. While this Babylonian king spake, a mightier King than he revoked the human mandate and inverted the predicted destiny. Nebuchadnezzar said in substance to these godly youths, “Die!” God uttered with the same breath his fiat, “Live!” “The Lord bringeth the counsel of the heathen to nought.” Instead of disgrace, there came honour. Instead of death, immortality!D.
Dan 3:16-18
The Church’s triumvirate
Nothing was further from these youths’ thoughts than public notoriety, much less world-wide renown. They did but perform what seemed plain duty; and they asked no more than to be allowed to serve their God in quiet obscurity. When temptation spake through royal lips, they calmly said “No;” because loyalty to the King of kings had a previous and paramount claim.
I. LOYALTY TO GOD RESISTS THE ENCROACHMENTS OF HUMAN AUTHORITY. “In this matter,” they affirmed, it did not concern them to answer the king. They had no answer that would be palatable to imperious arrogance. In all other matters they were prepared to render honest obedience and dutiful service. But “in this matter,” touching the love and worship due to God, no other course was open than to obey God rather than man. Plainly had Jehovah said, “Thou shalt not make any graven image, nor bow down to it;” and they had responded, “All that the Lord hath commanded us will we do.” It was an abuse of human authority, an encroachment on the prerogatives of Deity, to set up forms of belief or objects of worship. This is tyranny, offensive both to God and to men. Only a spirit of mean subserviency will silently submit to such arrogance. Manly courage will follow the simple rule of Jesus Christ, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
II. LOYALTY TO GOD IS CONFIDENT OF DIVINE SUCCESS. In true service of God we learn to know him, and increased knowledge leads to stronger faith. Obedience is the main portal to the temple of Divine truth. The closer we come to God, the clearer vision of his power and greatness we obtain, and the stronger grows our assurance that we have an interest in his friendship. We do not know who God is if we are not confident that he is well able to protect us in every emergency. But the faith of these men was stronger yet. They believed that God was sustaining them in this decisive resolve, and would, in some way, appear so as to vindicate their honest fidelity. How they should be delivered, they did not know; but they were well assured that ten thousand modes of relief were open to God, and they could leave the plan of campaign with their Commander-in-chief.
III. LOYALTY TO GOD IS ENTIRELY AN UNSELFISH PRINCIPLE. Assured, though these Hebrews were, that deliverance would come; yet, even if it had been otherwise, they would not have altered their line of conduct. Whether heaven be the outcome of pious loyalty to truth, or whether it be not, renewed men can act no other than they do. Let philosophers argue as plausibly as they please, they cannot persuade the conscience that moral obligation is a phase of self-interest. A good man does not pursue virtue for the sake of what he can get, however remote the expectation be. Nevertheless, the kindness of God has decreed that virtue, faith, holiness, shall bear sooner or later the fruits of abundant joy. And so these champions of Divine truth boldly avowed to the king that, come what mightfire or freedom, grief or gladnessthey would have no complicity with idols. They would buy the truth at any price; they would sell it at none. They could die, but they dare not sin.D.
Dan 3:19-23
The brief reign of violence.
It is only consistent with the sketches of Nebuchadnezzar’s character furnished us, to believe that he was not naturally a cruel man; nor was he so rigid an idolater as to oppose the worship of Jehovah. He was self-willed, excitable, easily inflamed; and was too easily led away by the base designs of others. For the moment he yielded to the excitement of passion. His autocratic pride had been wounded, and he would tolerate no resistance.
I. WE SEE VIOLENCE SUMMONING INTO THE FIELD ALL ITS FORCES, The king is “full of fury.” His inward composure is disturbed. His very skin changes its hue. The blood rises and recedes with strange rapidity. Every muscle and nerve are stretched to highest tension. A very madness has seized the man. Reason is overborne as by a sudden tempest. Wisdom, sagacity, judgment, dignity, are drowned in a flood of uncontrollable feeling. Poor man! what an object of pity! He is verily possessed by a demon”set on fire of hell.”
II. WE SEE VIOLENCE OVERREACHING ITS OWN END. The king commanded that the furnace should be heated sevenfold, because of the independent boldness of the slandered Hebrews. This was a suggestion of wanton cruelty. But it would really benefit the innocent victims, inasmuch as it would shorten their sufferings. Yet reason had forsaken the king, and had fled into humbler bosoms. His unrestrained violence was weakness itself. Physical force is destined to fail.
III. WE SEE VIOLENCE INJURING ITS OWN FRIENDS. As the Midianites, when pursued by Gideon in the night, slew unwittingly their own comrades, so the weapons which Nebuchadnezzar’s violence was sharpening were injuring those who handled them. The command to execute the Hebrew heroes was assigned to Chaldea’s mightiest veterans. Very likely they had egged the king on in this shameless course, and were only too glad to do thoroughly the cruel deed. There is always weakness in haste. Justice is ever calm, for time is on her side. She waits her conquests with sweet composure. But now this cruel eagerness to destroy, lest forsooth the king should relentthis eagerness, is fatal to the proud captains. Endeavouring to slay others, their sword turns into their own breast. The material flame is alive with judicial discernmenthas learnt from its Creator whom to slay and whom to save. “Verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth!”
IV. WE SEE VIOLENCE APPARENTLY TRIUMPHANT. God has not yet appeared on behalf of his injured advocates. Lo! they are bound, and no angelic hands present! Lo! they are cast into the fiery oven; they fall down into the very midst of the glowing coals! Has not justice abandoned our earth? Now may Violence wag her head and shake her tongue! How she is loud-voiced and jubilant indeed! How eloquent are her taunts[ “Where is now their boasted God? What profit now in all their prayers? These paragons of pietywhere are they now? Did we not predict their discomfiture? Ah I so would we have it!”D.
Dan 3:24-27
The unexpected fruits of persecution.
As soon as the fierce tempest in Nebuchadnezzar’s mind had expended its little force, there succeeded the calm of exhaustion. The tyrant is transformed into a servant, and appears like a docile child. Something has produced a strange impression on himperhaps the sudden burning of his own officers, perhaps the unbending fortitude of the three Hebrews, perhaps the natural reaction from high-wrought excitement. Abandoning royal pomp, he visits himself the fiery furnace, that he may discern the wreck of human life wrought by foolish violence. An unexpected sight awaits him.
I. PERSECUTION IS HARMLESS TO THE SAINTS. Their experience is not always uniform. God seldom follows precisely the same course twice. The bodily life of the oppressed is not always preserved. Yet, in every case, it is true that no real harm is done to them. Often
“Persecution has dragged them into fame, On this occasion the material flame, though heated sevenfold, was not nearly so vindictive and deadly as the fiery rage of the king. He had summoned into his service one of the most destructive elements of nature, but it would not obey him. The flame did them no harm: it did them good. It consumed their bends; it did not singe their clothes. It gave them liberty. It brought them new experience. It put a new sceptre into their hands, and made them kings of nature. They were mightier men than ever. It admitted them into new society, and brought an angel into their circle. God himself gave them new evidence of his presence, his tender concern for them, and his all-sufficient power, Now it is evident that fire has no consuming property of its own. It is a property given and maintained by God. All the forces of nature are like the manuals of an organ touched by a Divine hand. By faith in God these men “quenched the violence of fire.”
II. PERSECUTION OF THE SAINTS GIVES OCCASION FOR THE MIRACULOUS INTERPOSITION OF GOD. All opposition raised against God only brings out the greater resources of his omnipotence. Satan’s oppression of our race gave scope for the redemptive miracle. Creation is miracle, for the like was not before. Providence, which is but a continuous act of creation, is a miracle. Granting that there is a God, there is nothing unreasonable in miracle. Whenever God is pleased to work, if ordinary methods fail, extraordinary methods are forthwith introduced. No occasion is more fitting for the introduction of miracle than persecution. God has identified himself with his people, and injury done to them is resented as injury done to him. Nor are we to think only of the miracle wrought on the material flame or on the living bodies of these men. That is a narrow view of miracle. There was miraculous agency also displayed in the mind, the temper, and the conduct of these oppressed Hebrews. It was not natural that they should submit to human injustice without a word. It was not natural, but supernatural, that they showed no vindictive spirit nor indulged in any language of personal triumph. Their modesty and self-forgetfulness were as miraculous as their faith. With the ending of the persecution came the ending of the angel’s visit.
III. PERSECUTION PATIENTLY ENDURED PRODUCES CONVICTION IN THE UNGODLY. The king himself was overcome by astonishment. He could not believe the evidence of his eyes. He could scarcely trust his memory. Hence he summoned his princes and counsellors to his assistance. He appeals to their recollections. He requires them to see, to investigate, and to understand these strange facts for themselves. In their presence the king himself (not a deputy) entreats these injured Hebrews to come out of the mystic flame. He prays to them whom just now he cruelly condemned. The king styles them, not fanatics, miscreants, traitorshe styles them “servants of the most high God.” Yes, of that God whom he had awhile despised. The proof of Divine succour and of supernatural protection is complete, undeniable, overwhelming. And, with candour of mind, Nebuchadnezzar yields himself to the evidence.D.
Dan 3:28-30
Total reversal of Fortune’s wheel.
During this momentous crisis, no change had passed over the convictions, resolves, or characters of these godly menexcept such advancement in strength and courage as was always in progress. But upon their outward condition a great change was impending. A quiet revolution was proceeding outside them.
I. A CHANGE IN THE PLACE ACCORDED TO GOD. This was the central aim of the young Hebrews’ resistance, that Jehovah might be recognized as supreme. This quiet endurance for God had completely annulled the effect of the gigantic idol, its imposing ritual, and its pompous music. Truth is advanced in more quiet ways. This royal endowment of idolatry had been public contumacy of Jehovah; but three modest youths, sustained by Divine grace, were more than a match for all the stately ceremonial appointed by the king. At the head of the nation, Nebuchadnezzar publicly recants his religious belief. Awhile his language was, “Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” Now his language is, “Blessed be the God of the Hebrews, who hath.; delivered his servants that trusted in him!”
II. A CHANGE IN THE MARTYRS‘ REPUTATION. Nebuchadnezzar had treated as weak and worthless the men who were accused of contumacy. He had regarded their convictions as contemptible scruples. Now his opinions have suddenly undergone a complete change. He appreciates their nobleness; he applauds their loyal constancy to God. He perceives a glorious beauty in their character, to which he was blind before. He confesses that their quiet firmness was more mighty, and more majestic, than his tyrannic rage. Their patient fortitude has captivated him. He places them upon the pedestal of royal regard, and does homage to their superior virtue. Well saith the proverb, “Them that honour me, I will honour.” The martyrs are canonized and worshipped as saints.
III. A CHANGE IS THE ROYAL EDICT. But just now the royal decree had been, “Let the worshippers of Jehovah be degradedbe cast out as dogs!” Now a new edict issues, “That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of the Jews shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill.” The tone and language of the king had undergone a complete change. This amounted almost to a miracle. To repeal the king’s decree was deemed an impossibility. The kings of the East prided themselves on the observance of their word, let the cost be what it might. But there is a conspicuous abatement of pride in Nebuchadnezzar, and this new law will be a protection for all the Jews against the blasphemies of their foreign masters.
IV. A CHANGE IN THE OUTWARD CONDITION OF THE SUFFERERS. Their attainder is removed. They are not only restored to their former place, but are promoted to higher office yet. Just as a swelling wave, rolling on the sea-beach, recedes for a moment, but only to gather fresh force, and then rises higher on the shore than any point it has yet reached; so this transient degradation was but the mystic step to higher honour From the fiery jaws of death they suddenly rose to the dignity of princely life. The pathway to immortal renown is through the vale of suffering. “It is through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom.” The cross was the Saviour’s road to his mediatorial throne; and if we suffer with him, “we shall also be glorified together.” The fire of suffering does not destroy the Christian; it refines and purifies. He comes forth from the furnace as gold well burnished, Real merit, sooner or later, finds its true level.D.
Dan 3:1. Nebuchadnezzarmade an image of gold But what did this image or statue represent? Grotius insists that it was the statue of Nabopalassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, whom this prince chose to rank with the gods. Others think that Nebuchadnezzar erected his own statue, and intended to be adored under this form. But throughout the whole chapter, Nebuchadnezzar, in speaking to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, no where complains of injury done to his person, or statue; but only that the companions of Daniel do not worship his gods, nor the statue erected by his orders. And in chap. Dan 4:8 he says, that the name of Belteshazzar is composed of the name of his god, and Bel was certainly the most celebrated deity of that country. It was to this god, therefore, that the statue in question was certainly consecrated. It was toward the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that this event happened; for in the decree, the beginning of which we read in the end of this chapter, and to which this miracle gave occasion, the prince recounts the dreams which had been explained to him by Daniel. See chap. Dan 4:4, &c. He there describes in what manner he was reduced to the state of beasts, driven from his palace, and afterwards re-established on his throne; all which happened in the last years of his reign. See Calmet.
3. The test of the faith of Daniels three friends in the fiery furnace.
Dan 3:1-30
1Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose [its] height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof [its breadth] six cubits: he set it up in 2the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Then [And] Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes [satraps], the governors, and the captains [pashas], the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs [lawyers], and all the rulers of the provinces,1 to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3Then the princes, the governors, and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood [were standing] 4before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Then [And] a herald cried aloud [with might], To you it is commanded [lit, they are saying], O [lit. The] 5people, nations [nations, peoples], and languages.2 That at what time [the time that] ye hear [shall hear] the sound of the cornet [horn], flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer [symphony], and all kinds of music, ye fall down and 6worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up: and whose [lit. who that] falleth not [lit. shall not fall] down and worshippeth, shall the same hour [lit, in it the moment] be cast into the midst of a [or, the] burning fiery furnace [lit. oven of fire the blazing]. 7Therefore at that [lit, in it the] time, when [lit, as that] all the people heard [nations were hearing] the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music,3 all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell [were falling] down and worshipped [worshipping] the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 8Wherefore at that time certain Chaldans [lit, men Casdim] came near and accused the 9Jews. They spake [were answering], and said [were saying] to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O [lit. The] king, live for eDaniel Dan 3:10 Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; 11and whoso falleth not down and worshippeth 12that he should be cast into the midst of a burning, fiery furnace. There are certain Jews, whom thou hast set over the affairs [work] of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: these men, O king, have not regarded thee [set account upon thee]; they serve not thy gods, nor worship 13the golden image which thou hast set up. Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury, commanded [said] to bring [cause to come] Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men [these men were brought] before 14the king. Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said unto them, Is it true [of purpose], O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego? do not ye [, that ye do not] serve my 15gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now, if ye be ready, that at what time [the time that] ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made, well: but [and] if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour [moment] into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that [he] God that shall deliver you out of my hands? 16Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are 17not careful [needing] to answer thee [return thee answer] in this matter. If it be so, our God [If it be that our God] whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace; and he will deliver us out of thy 18hand, O king.4 But [And] if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve [are not serving] thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. 19Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat [to heat] the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated [lit. above that any one was ever seen to heat it]. 20And he commanded the most mighty men [lit. men, heroes of might] that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, and [so as] to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. 21Then these men were bound in their coats [shirts, or trowsers, or mantles], their hosen [coats, or tunics], and their hats [cloaks, or turbans,] and their other garments, and were cast into the midst 22of the burning fiery furnace. Therefore, because [lit. from that] the kings commandment [word] was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that look up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego.5 23And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. 24Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?6 They answered and said unto the king, True,7 O king. 25He answered and said, Lo, I8 see four men loose [loosed], walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt [harm is not with them]; and the form [appearance] of the fourth is like the Son of God [a son of the gods]. 26Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth [door] of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, ye servants of the most high God, come [go] forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, came [went] forth of [from] the midst of the fire. 27And the princes, [the] governors, and [the] captains, and the kings counsellors, being gathered together, saw [or, were gathered and saw] these men, upon [over] whose bodies the fire had no power [did not rule], nor was a [the] hair of their head singed, neither were [had] their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had 28passed on them. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed9 the kings word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve or worship any god except their own God. 29Therefore I make a decree [And from me is a decree made], That every people, nation, and language, which [shall] speak anything amiss10 against the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, shall be cut [made] in pieces, and their houses11 shall be made a dunghill [or, sink]; because there is no other god that can deliver after [like] this sort. 30Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, in the province of Babylon.
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Dan 3:1-2. The erection of the image, and the command to attend its dedication. Nebuchadnezzar the king made (had made) an image of gold. Properly made (), similar to the repeated phrase in the following: he set it up, instead of he caused it to be set up (Dan 3:1 b, 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, etc.), or to Dan 3:24, we cast three men into the fire, instead of had them cast in.The Heb. text does not state when the image was made. According to the Septuagint and Theodotion, who are followed by the Syriac hexaplar version, it was prepared , hence at about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (cf. 2Ki 25:8; Jer 52:12), and after the accomplished subjection to Chalda of all the nations from India to Ethiopia (cf. the additions in the Sept. to Dan 3:2-3). The incident appears at all events to belong to this later period of Nebuchadnezzars reign, since Dan 3:4 b, 7 b, 29 a, mention many peoples, nations, and languages, as being subject to him, and it was possibly a feature connected with a feast in commemoration of his victories (cf. Herodot. IV. 88). The impression of Jehovahs power and greatness which he had formerly received in consequence of Daniels interpretation of his dream, appears therefore to have been long obliterated. He not only causes the colossal image subsequently described to be erected in honor of some Babylonian national god, but with arrogant presumption he challenges a conflict (see Dan 3:15).An image of gold. certainly designates in this place, as well as in Dan 2:31, a statue in the human form, and more particularly, the image of a god, as appears from Dan 3:12; Dan 3:18; Dan 3:28. It was not therefore a statue of Nebuchadnezzar himself. A marked disproportion seems to have existed in its dimensions, on the supposition that it represented an upright human form, since its height is given at sixty cubits, and its breadth or thickness at only six cubits, while the normal height and breadth of a person in an upright posture are as Dan 6:1, not as Dan 10:1. For this reason the has been held to have been in part a mere idol column, similar to the Egyptian obelisks, or, which is certainly more appropriate, analogous to the Amyclan Apollo, which formed, according to Pausanius (Lacon. III. 19, 2), a slender column provided with head, arms, and feet, in the human form. So Mnter, Relig. der Babylonier, p. 59; Hengstenberg, p. 95; and more recently Kranichfeld, who refers to the colossus of Rhodes, the height of which was seventy cubits, also to the Egyptian and mentioned by Herodotus (II. 175), and to the image of the sun mentioned by Pliny (H. N. 24:18), which reached a height of 110 feet, in addition to the Apollo of Amycl. [ is properly an image in human likeness, and excludes the idea of a mere pillar or obelisk, for which would have been the appropriate word. Yet as to the upper partthe head, countenance, arms, breastit may have been in the form of a man, and the lower part may have been formed like a pillar.Keil.] We might be content with this, or refer in addition to the remarkably tall and slender forms of individual persons on Egyptian wall-paintings and also on Assyrian and Babylonian sculptures (cf. the copies in Wilkinsons Manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians, and Layards works on Nineveh and Babylon [German by Th. Zenker]in the latter, e.g., the colossal sitting figure on plate XXII. A), if it were not still more suitable to regard the statement of the height of sixty cubits as a synecdoche, designating both the image and its pedestal, and to allow to the latter perhaps twenty-four, and to the former thirty-six cubits, which assumption clearly results in an entirely well-proportioned shape of the statue. If therefore, the proper was limited to a height of about thirty six feet, it would compare with the statue of Belus, which, according to Diodor. II. 9, was erected by Semiramis on the summit of the great temple of Bel at Babylon (probably the present Birs Nimroud), and attained a height of forty feet; but it can hardly be directly identified (with Bertholdt) with that statue of Bel, nor yet with the one mentioned by Herodotus (I. 183), which measured twelve cubits in height. Not only was it erected outside of the temple area of Babylon, and possibly even at a considerable distance from the city itself (see infra), but it is also extremely questionable whether an image of Bel must be assumed in this case, since the Babylonians were devoted to the zealous worship of numerous gods. Entirely too artificial is the opinion of Hofmann (Weiss, und Erfllung, I. 277), Zndel, and Kliefoth, that the image was designed by Nebuchadnezzar to represent the world-power he had founded, in harmony with the religious (cosmical) conceptions of heathenismas indicated (according to Kliefoth) particularly by the numbers six and sixty.The expression does not compel us to assume that the image was composed throughout of solid gold; for in Exo 37:25 et seq. an altar of wood, and merely covered with plates of gold, is designated simply as ; and Isa 40:19; Isa 41:7; Jer 10:3-5 indicate plainly that the images of Babylonian idols especially were usually composed of wood with an outside covering of gold. The construction of this image by no means, therefore, involved an immoderate expenditure, as J. D. Michaelis supposed; and the gold required to cover its surface may have been less, in weight and value, than the amount required (800 talents) for the construction of the statue of Bel already referred to as mentioned by Herodotus, whose height was twelve cubits, and for the tables and chairs which accompanied it; and also less than the amount expended on the statue of Bel mentioned by Diodorus, which reached a height of forty cubits, and cost, as is reported, 1,000 talents. The relative unimportance of this image, which is thus so easy to conceive, deprives the argumentum ex silentio of all its force, as against the credibility of the narrative, which Von Lengerke and Hitzig have assigned to it, on the ground of its not being mentioned by profane authors. Finally, it is thoroughly inconsequent and ridiculous to discover, with Bleek (in Schleierm., Lcke. etc.; Theol. Zeitschr., 1822,III, p. 259; cf. Einl. ins A. T., 265), an imaginary prototype of the of Antiochus Epiphanes, which was assigned by pseudo-Daniel to the ra of the captivity; for according to 1Ma 1:54; 1Ma 1:59, this . was not a statue at all, but an altar of small size, erected on the altar of burnt offerings at Jerusalem (cf. Hengstenberg, p. 86).Whose height was threescore oubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits. , properly breadth, but here signifying both breadth and thickness, cf. Eze 6:3. The cubits (.) were probably the royal cubits of the Babylonians (Herod. 1:178), and not smaller than the ordinary cubits (Gesen., Thesaur., p. 112s.). Instead of as a statement of the height, the Septuagint has , which reading some have endeavored to defend, e. g., Michaelis, Eichhorn, etc.; but is it probably not even an ancient attempt to provide an easier reading, and must be considered merely as the error of a copyist, if not as a typographical error of the Ed. princeps of Simon de Magistris; see Bugati, in Hvernick on this passage.He set it up (caused it to be set up) in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. , like the corresponding Hebrew term, does not designate a narrow valley enclosed by mountains, but a low and level tract, a plain; hence a majority of moderns read in the plain of Dura. The location of this plain is not entirely certain; but it was probably east of the Tigris and near Apollonia in the province of Sittacene, where a town by the name of Dura was situated, according to Polyb. V. 52, and Ammian, XXV. 6, 9. The (otherwise Dor) near Csarea Palst. on the Mediterranean, mentioned in Polyb. V. 66, and the town of that name situated, according to Polyb. V. 48; Ammian, XXIII. 5, 8, near Circesium at the entrance of the Chaboras into the Euphrates, which was too far northward to have been included in the province of Babylon,12 cannot possibly be intended here. [We must, without doubt, much rather seek for this plain in the neighborhood of Babylon, where, according to the statement of Jul. Oppert (Expdit. Scientifique en Msopotamie, I. 238 ff.), there are at present to be found in the S.S.E. of the ruins representing the former capital a row of mounds which bear the name of Dura; and at the end of them, along with two larger mounds, there is a smaller one named el-Mohattat (=la coline oblique), which forms a square six metres high, with a basis of fourteen metres, wholly built of unburned bricks, and which shows so surprising a resemblance to a colossal statue with its pedestal, that Oppert believes this little mound to be the remains of the golden image erected by Nebuchadnezzar.Keil.] The Sept., which probably regarded the plain here referred to as identical with the plain of Shinar, Gen 11:2, and which could find no town bearing the name of Dura within its limits, has conceived the name to be an appellative, and rendered it by (cf. , circumire, in orbem ire); in which, however, they were more nearly correct than is Hitzig, who assumes that his pseudo-Daniel adopted the name of the plain from the earlier designation (Dan 2:45) of the mountain, .
Dan 3:2. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together, etc. This service was probably performed by couriers (, who were doubtless employed in similar duties at the Babylonian court, as well as at the Persian (Esth. 10:15; Est 8:14), and even at the courts of Saul (1Sa 11:7) and of Hezekiah (2Ch 30:6; 2Ch 30:10).The princes, the governors,and the captains. Among the seven classes of officials enumerated, these three are shown to have been more immediately related to each other by the before . Their members were executive officers of superior rank, who combined both civil and military functions in their range of duties, and who may have been substantially on a par with the executive officials connected with the ministry of the interior in a modern state, while the four succeeding classes were probably connected with the departments of finance and justice. (1) The were naturally satraps (cf. kshatrapwan on the cuneiform inscriptions at Behitun, which, according to Haug [in Ewalds Bibl. Jahrb., 5:153] is equivalent to protector of the country, and according to Lassen [Zeitschr. fr Kunde des Morgenl., VI. 1, 18] is f synonymous with guardian of the warriors of the host; cf. also the Zend shithrapaiti and the Sanscr. kshathrapa)the superior executive officers of the several provinces, vice or sub-kings to the sovereign (cf. the , Isa 10:8; Gen 14:1-2, with the , Dan 2:37, Ezr 7:12), and therefore mentioned at the head of the body of officials. The fact that the title of these chief administrators of provinces is Persian does not demonstrate that their office was entirely confined to the time of the Achmenidian Persian empire, or that it was even created by Darius Hystaspis (Herod. III. 89 ss.); for Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII. 6, 1) dates its existence back to the time of Cyrus, and Berosus (in Josephus, c. Apion, 1,19; Ant. X. 11, 1) designates Necho already as a of Nabopolassar, which is hardly to be considered a gross anachronism, but rather as an indication of the relation of Necho as a vassal to Babylon. Consequently, the author cannot be charged with a historical error, either in this connection, or in Dan 6:2 et seq., where he refers to the satraps of Darius the Mede. The must be regarded rather, as one of the Persian elements of the writers Chaldee idiom, the number of which, according to the Introd. 1, note 3, must have been considerable, even at an early period (cf. on Dan 2:4); and the early intrusion of such into the language and range of conception among the Chaldans, is no more remarkable than is the mention of the , Jer 39:3, as a Chaldan officer. The Septuagint, however, renders the term by only here and in Dan 6:2; Dan 6:4, while in Dan 3:3; Dan 3:27 it has , in Ezr 8:36 , in Est 8:9 , and in Est 9:3 , These variations indicate that the conception of a definite office was no longer connected with the title, at the time when that version was made.(2) According to the observations on Dan 2:48, the were superintendents, administrators generally; in this case naturally not endowed with spiritual functions, but rather performing secular duties under the satraps, and finally employed chiefly in military rather than in civil offices (cf. the of Babylon, mentioned together with the , Jer 51:57). The Septuagint appears to have conceived of these Signin, in harmony with this view, as being prfects of the host, or commanders of the provinces; for they render the term in this instance by (as in Dan 3:3 and often, twelve times in all), while they translate it elsewhere by (Dan 3:27), (Dan 2:48), or .(3) (Heb. from ), In view of the probably Indo-Germanic derivation of this term (cf. Sanscr. paksha, side, Prakr. pakkha, modern Persian and Turkish pasha) it properly designates those who are stationed on the sides or flanks, adjutants, and then governors, or the representatives of a sovereign in a designated field of administration, provincial prfects. The governors whom Solomon placed over his provinces outside of Palestine, already bore this title (1Ki 10:15; 2Ch 9:14), also the governors of the Syrian king Benhadad (1Ki 20:24); the corresponding officers among the Syrians (Isa 36:9; 2Ki 18:24), Chaldans (Ezek. 26:6, 23; Jer 51:23) and Persians (Est 8:9; Est 9:3); and especially the Persian governors of Juda subsequent to the captivity (Hag 1:1; Hag 1:14; Hag 2:2; Hag 2:21; Neh 5:14; Neh 5:18, etc.) Among the nations last mentioned, who employed satraps as the chief prfects of provinces, the was merely a subordinate to those officers (and more purely civil than military in his official character, as appears from the position of Zerub-babel and Nehemiah, according to Haggai and Neh. 50:100); but in the kingdoms of Solomon and Benhadad the seem to have been equal in rank to the later satraps, and therefore were chief governors. In this place and Dan 3:3 the Septuagint translates ; in Dan 3:27, (i.e., chief of a nationality).(4)According to the Sept. the are overseers generally (), while most moderns regard them as chief judges or discerners. Ewald defines them as chief star-gazers, or augurs of the first-class (!), and Hitzig, as directors, upon whom devolves the decision of matters, or magistrates. The term, which occurs only in this place, appears to be a genuine Aramaic compound, from , glory, dignity, and . to decide (cf. Dan 2:27), and therefore probably designates a class of officers with whom rested the final decision, particularly in regard to the economical or financial administration of the provinces [possibly=the modern Oriental viziers]. The class which follows next in order obliges this restriction of the offices of the ,(5) . the treasurers. These officers do not probably differ from the , Ezr 7:21 (cf. Dan 1:8), which term signifies , managers of the public treasury (cf. Sept. , and is possibly related to the Pers. gaitha, modern Pets, genj, treasure (cf. gaza). Ewalds assertion that is synonymous with , Dan 3:24; Dan 3:27, and signifies a bearer of power, or exalted prince of the empire (analogous to the old-Pers. chudvr, from chad, God, authorization), is without adequate support.(6) The are clearly the learned in the law, or the guardians of the law. The first element of the word is evidently , the law (cf. Pers. data, from da,. to give), to which the Pers. ending vr is annexed. Cf. the Pehlvi word datouber (Armen. datavor), judges.(7) The unmistakable connection of (like No. 4, a hapax leg.) with the Arab. ftah (cf. the Turkish mufti, chief judge) marks this class of officers as dispensers of justice, lawyers, judges in the strict sense (not prfecti as the Vulgate has it, or , as it is rendered by Theodotion, in each case because of a failure to apprehend the true meaning.And all the rulers of the provinces; i.e., all the remaining officials who administrated the affairs of provinces. On , ruler, high official, cf. Ecc 8:4, and also the verb , Dan 2:48. The prfect of the bodyguard, mentioned in Dan 2:14, is not necessarily included among these remaining rulers, since only the officers of the provinces are more immediately referred to in this connection (against Kranichfeld). Von Lengerke is guilty of a gross impropriety, when he finds here another extravagance, since the empire could not in the meantime be left without an administration. It is not necessary to stretch so unreasonably in this case, as to make it indicate the presence of all the government officials without exception (cf. 1Sa 28:4, and generally Kranichfeld on the passage).To come to the dedication of the image, etc. , the feast of dedication, religious dedicatory services, with which were connected sacrifices, the burning of incense, sacrificial feasts, etc. Cf. Ezr 6:16, where the same expression is employed with reference to the dedication of the second temple.
Dan 3:3-7. The dedication. And they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had (caused to be) set up. The Keri has instead of , as it substitutes for in Dan 2:38, according to the usage of the Targums. , before, opposite, which is employed here and in Ezr 4:16, instead of the usual Chaldee form (Dan 5:1; Dan 5:4; Dan 5:10; Ezr 6:13), is a Syriasm in the pronunciation, similar to that in . Gen 37:25, which is used instead of
Dan 3:4. Then a herald cried aloud. and the corresponding verb to proclaim publicly (Dan 3:29), are not exactly Aramaic adaptations of the Greek terms , (Bertholdt and others), but are without doubt radically related to them, and also to the Sanscr. krus, old-Pers. khresio, one who calls or screams (mod. Pers. gris-ten; cf. the German kreischen); while on the other hand, they are also related to to call. , mightily, with a loud voice, as in Dan 4:11; Dan 5:7, and as in the Heb. , Psa 29:4; Isa 40:9.To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages. , properly they say (are saying), a very common idiom in the Chaldee, expressing an impersonal sense, or more directly, serving as a substitute for the impersonal passive construction (Winer, 49, 3). The collocation of (peoples, nations), (tribes, a more limited conception than the preceding; cf. also in the Heb., e.g. Psa 111:6 with Gen 25:16), and (tongues, peoples having a common language; cf. the Heb. Isa 66:18; Zec 8:23), recurs again in Daniel 3:7, 29, 31, and, indeed, often in the book of Daniel (Dan 5:19; Dan 6:26; Dan 7:14). This formula, which combines in a solemn triad all the nations in the empire, however distantly related they may be, or however great may be the diversity between themselves or their constituent elements, and which exhorts them to give attention, was probably stereotyped in the official edicts of the Chaldan realm, whose motley aggregate of languages and nations would give rise to such comprehensive phrases more readily than would the character of any other empire of antiquity. The proclamation, of course, is not addressed to all the individuals of the various nations, tribes, etc., but only to their representatives who were actually present. [The proclamation of the herald refers not only to all who were present, since besides the officers there certainly was present a great crowd of people from all parts of the kingdom, as M. Geier has rightly remarked, so that the assembly consisted of persons of various races and languages. denotes tribes of people, as the Hebr. ,, Gen 25:16, denotes the several tribes of Ishmael, and in Num 25:15, the separate tribes of Midianites; and is thus not so extensive in its import as , peoples. , corresponding to , Isa 66:18, designates (see Gen 10:5; Gen 10:20; Gen 10:31) communities of men of the same language, and is not a tautology, since the distinctions of nation and of language are in the course of history frequently found. The placing together of the three words denotes all nations, however they may have widely branched off into tribes with different languages, and expresses the sense that no one in the whole kingdom should be exempted from the command.Keil.]
Dan 3:5. At what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, etc. As in the case of religious dedicatory festivals among the Israelites (Psa 30:1; Neh 12:27; 1Ma 4:54), so at the dedication of this heathen statue, there was no lack of music and song (cf. Exo 32:18 et seq.). This is an especially natural feature, since the Babylonians, as well as the ancient Assyrians, appear, as a people, to have been unusually addicted to music, in view of the testimony afforded by numerous historical records of a positive character; cf. Isa 14:11; Psa 137:2; Herodotus, I. 191 (the of the Babylonians during the capture of their city by Cyrus); Curtius, V. 3 (Alexander welcomed on his entrance into Babylon, by artifices cum fidibus sui generislaudes regum canere soliti). Additional evidence is found in the representations of musicians with various instruments, on the monumental edifices of Nineveh and Babylon.The names of the six instruments here enumerated are in the singular, not as indicating that only one of each kind was at hand, but as a generic designation of the entire class to which it belonged. Hence, there is no impropriety in rendering them in the plural the cornets, flutes, etc. [, horn, is the tuba of the ancients, the or of the Hebr.; see Jos 6:5. , from , to hiss or whistle, is the reed-flute, translated by the Sept. and Theodotion the shepherds or Pans pipe, which consisted of several reeds of different thickness and length bound together, and according to a Greek tradition (Pollux, IV. 9, 15), was invented by two Medes.Keil. It is uncertain whether the horn intended was straight, like the Assyrian, or curved, like the Roman cornu and lituus. The pipe was probably the double instrument, played at the end, which was familiar to the Susianians and Assyrians. The harp would seem to have resembled the later harp of the Assyrians; but it had fewer strings, if we may judge from a representation upon a cylinder. Like the Assyrian, it was carried under the arm, and was played with both hands, one on either side of the strings (Rawlinson, Five Monarchies, III. 20).] The harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer. For the opinion that of the names of the four instruments here mentioned, which several expositors hold to be derived without exception from the Greek, probably but two are really taken from that language, see the Introd. 7. See ibid, note 2. concerning the possibility of an importation of musical instruments and their names from Greece, even prior to the time of Daniel. It is yet to be noticed in this connection: (1) that instead of the Kethib , which is to be pronounced either as , or , the Keri has the shortened form which appears to have been in general use in later times. The Syriac affords repeated examples of the conversion of the Greek ending into (Gesen. Thes., p. 1215), so that in this direction the derivation of the term from the Gr. seems certainly to be secured. However, see the Introd., as above.(2) The , which Strabo notices (Dan 10:3; Dan 10:7) as being of foreign origin, and whose invention is attributed by Clemens Alex. (Strom. I. 76) to the Troglodytes, might possibly be explained in analogy with the Sanscrit cambuka, bivalve, muscle. The form , however, appears rather to point to the Shemitic root , to weave.(3) The orthography of is not fixed; in Dan 3:7 the name is written with instead of , and in Dan 3:10; Dan 3:15 it is pointed withunder . The numerous changes of the Greek ending into which are found in the later Chaldee, and of which = is the most familiar (Gesen. Thesaur., p. 1116), indicate the identity of this instrument with the , [It was an instrument like a harp, which, according to Augustine (on Psalms 32. [33.] 2 and Psalms 42. [43.] 4) was distinguished from the cithara in this particular, that while the strings of the cithara passed over the sounding-board, those of the psalterion(or organon) were placed under it. Such harps are found on Egyptian (see Roselini) and also on Assyrian monuments (cf. Layard, Ninev. and Bab., plate XIII. 4).Keil. In Egypt they have an instrument, evidently of the same name, santir (Lane, Mod. Eg., p. 77), which is a species of dulcimer, is stringed, and is beaten with two small sticks.Stuart.](4) V. 10 has the softer instead of ; a form which points back no less certainly than does(the more usual term, to the Greek , since the sound is intermediate between and Its rendering by bagpipe (Germ. Sackpfeife, Dudelsack) has a sufficient support in Polyb. XXXI. 4, in Saadias on this passage, and in the Italian sampogna. In addition, the name (Jerome, consonantia) is exceedingly suitable for an instrument consisting of two pipes which are passed through a leathern bag, from which their ends protrude equally above and belowthe lower of which pipes, when played with the fingers like a flute, emits in screaming tones the sounds breathed into the upper and increased in force by passing through the bag (cf. Winer, Reaw. II, p. 123). We must therefore reject its interpretation by , Pandean pipes in the Heb. translation of the passage; further, its rendering as a drum by Isidore (Origg. III. 21); the derivation of the word by Hvernick from , a reed; that by Paulus from , a ship, the covering of a ship (cf. a resonant frame), etc. [Stuart adduces the instrument called summarah, described and figured by Lane (Mod. Eg., II. 81, 82), still commonly used in Egypt by the boatmen, and giving two symphonious sounds, being double.]And all kinds of music. A comprehensive supplemental phrase, similar to that which follows the names of the officers in Dan 3:2. [By the addition this pompous language of the world-ruler and of the herald of his power is well expressed.Keil.] does not designate either instrumental music or song (Hitz.) as distinct from each other, but music in general; cf. the Sept. and Theodotion: . The expression therefore does not refer to various melodies, nor to different parts of vocal music; but it does not, on the other hand, exclude such music from the ceremony; cf. the Targ. Gen 4:21; Eze 33:22.Ye (shall) fall down and worship the golden image, etc. Kranichfeld observes correctly (on Dan 3:6): The homage which the king required to be rendered to his god (cf. on Dan 3:14) on the occasion of this great national festival in honor of their victories (cf. on Dan 3:1), was regarded as a test of the loyalty of the officers to the king himself, and especially in the case of those who belonged to subjugated nations. The victory of a heathen king over other tribes and nations was considered a triumph of his gods over their gods (1Ki 20:23; 1Ki 20:28; 2Ch 28:23; Isa 36:18-20, etc.); and hostile kingdoms included the gods of their opponents among their foes, and in contrast with the usual tolerance and indifference of heathenism in regard to the worship of the gods, they refused them reverence, so long as neither party believed that its cause was lost. Thus, for instance, the different foes of the Assyrian empire are characterized on an inscription of Tiglath-pilesar as those who refuse to reverence the god of Asshur, as the lord of Tiglath-pilesar. Opposition to the gods of a kingdom was therefore equivalent to hostility against the realm. The same inscription represents Tiglath-pilesar, for this reason, as directly imposing on the conquered nations the worship of Asshurs god; they must prostrate themselves before this offended god, and -thus render their tribute (Pusey, Daniel, p. 444 ss.). This will illustrate the baselessness of Von Lengerkes assertion that religious compulsion was unknown among the ancient Asiatic nations, and that they never enforced a recognition of the gods from unwilling persons. What has been remarked, serves to show that, on the contrary, an expression of homage toward the national divinity was always required, and even insisted on, whenever the political supremacy of a realm was in question; and this would be observed especially in the case of officers, upon whose loyalty the security of the realm of such divinity might depend. If Nebuchadnezzar was concerned, on the celebration of the nations triumph before us, to secure a recognition of his right, as the supreme ruler, to the allegiance of his subjects, and especially to the homage of the officials to whom was entrusted the administration of his empire, it follows that the compulsory requirement to do homage to the national god of his kingdom, was, in this instance, a necessary measure, aiming simply at the preservation of the realm.
Dan 3:6, And whoso falleth not down . shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. , quicunque, synonymous with , Dan 2:28 (cf. Dan 3:11; Dan 4:14) , in the same hour, literally in it, the hour; the suffix, which anticipates the connected noun, is annexed to the preposition; cf. Dan 3:7-8; Dan 3:15; Dan 4:30; Dan 4:33, and also the instances in which, additionally, the preposition is itself repeated before the noun, e.g. Dan 5:30; cf. Dan 5:12. [The frequent pleonastic use, in the later Aramaic, of the union of a preposition with a suffix anticipating the following noun, has in the Bibl. Chald. generally a certain emphasis, for the pronominal suffix is manifestly used demonstratively, in the sense, even this.Keil.] , after the Arabic, is literally, the quickly expiring, the quickly passing, hence a moment, in which sense the term is often found in the Targums (=Hebr. ). In Daniel it always has the meaning of hour, as appears especially from Dan 4:16 [19]. [The passage here referred to, however, does not support this later or Rabbinical import to the word, which is therefore here, as elsewhere in Daniel, to be rendered moment.] The word does not seem to be related to the verb to see; the root from which it is derived signifies in the Arabic celeriter ire, currere. ,according to the Arabic, literally, a furrow, excavation (whence probably: a lime pit), designates an excavated smelting furnace in the form of a pit, a fire pit, which sense is also expressed in the corresponding Ethiop. , and by the originally synonymous, but not essentially related Heb. . The smelting furnace here referred to, however, being designed for the infliction of the death penalty on criminals by means of fire, was arranged according to Dan 3:22; Dan 3:26, so that at least one, if not more of its sides, rose as perpendicular (or inclined) surfaces above the earth, analogous to the construction of our lime-kilns and furnaces, and probably also to the brickkiln () at Tahpanhes in Egypt, which is referred to in Jer 43:9 et seq. The principal opening, by which fuel and other materials designed for burning (or smelting) were introduced into the furnace, was above (see Dan 3:22); a second, for the removal of slag, cinders, etc., or the molten metal, was arranged below, in one of the sides, and permitted persons standing before the furnace to observe the material in its interior (the Dan 3:26; cf. Dan 3:24-25). The passage Jer 29:22 (The Lord make thee like Zedekiah and like Ahab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the fire) attests that the Babylonians were accustomed to burn condemned criminals, and perhaps prisoners of war in such furnaces, even prior to the time of Daniel. The Moabites employed the same method of inflicting capital punishment, according to Amo 2:1, as did also the Israelites, according to the Keri of 2Sa 12:31. [That burning was not an unusual punishment in the East is sufficiently known. As to the Persians, see Brissonius. De Reg. Pers., II. cap. 216. Chardin (who was in Persia A. D. 16717) relates that in a time of scarcity, two furnaces were kept burning a whole month, in order to consume such as exacted more than the lawful price of food (Voyages, VI. p. 118).Stuart.] The genitive clause , of the burning fire, exemplifies the terribly cruel and frightful character of the threatened punishment.
Dan 3:7. Therefore at that time when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, etc. [, (cf. also Dan 3:8) is interchanged with , at the time (Dan 3:5; Dan 3:15); but it is to be distinguished from , at the same moment, Dan 3:6; Dan 3:15, for , or , has in the Bib. Chald. only the meaning instant, moment (cf. Dan 4:16; Dan 4:30; Dan 5:5), and acquires the signification short time, hour, first in the Targ. and Rabbins.Keil.] Only five, instead of six, sorts of musical instruments are here mentioned; but the omission of the hardly be designed, as appears from Dan 3:10; Dan 3:15. It is probably to be attributed to the haste of the writer, which also caused the orthography of with instead of in this passage, and only here.
Dan 3:8-12. The companions of Daniel charged with transgressing the royal command. Wherefore at that time certain Chaldans came near, etc. Wherefore, i.e., in view of the worship rendered by all the people, excepting only the Jews, to the idol image. Daniel does not mention that it was refused by the Jews, leaving it to be inferred, as a matter of course.And accused (or slandered) the Jews (cf. Dan 6:25); literally, and ate the pieces (of flash) of the Jewsa phrase found also in the Arabic and the Syriac, which expresses both the murder caused by the slanderous tongue, and the gloating over the fragmentary remains of the victim. Cf. the German Jemanden kurz und klein machen, an ihrn kein gutes Haar lassen. It appears from the indefinite Chaldan men that the malicious informers were not specifically Chaldan priests or wise men (this would have been indicated by merely, cf. Dan 2:2), but people generally, who were of Chaldan descent. [That which was odious in their report was, that they used the instance of disobedience to the kings command on the part of the Jewish officers as an occasion of removing them from their offices, that their denunciation of them arose from their envying the Jews their position of influence, as in Dan 6:5 (4), ff.Keil]
Dan 3:9. O king, live for ever. Cf. Dan 2:4.
Dan 3:12. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon. A clear reference to the close of the preceding section (Dan 2:49). The mention of their exalted official rank was designed to emphasize the dangerous feature connected with the disobedience of such men to the royal command, and also to direct attention to the blackness of their ingratitude toward their royal benefactor.These men, O king, have not regarded thee; i.e., thy commands, these, is peculiar to the Biblical Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra, and is not found in the Targums, which have or instead (Winer, 9. p. 29).They serve not thy god, nor worship the golden image, etc. The former of these charges is related to the latter as the general to the particular; the general lack of reverence for the gods of Babylon on the part of the three men, which had been formerly observed, was now demonstrated by a flagrant example. Because of this evident relation to each other between the two clausesa relation that is again brought out in the parallel Dan 3:18 (and possibly in Dan 3:14; see on the passage)the Kethib thy gods. must be preferred to the Keri thy god; which has been the case accordingly, in Theodotion and the Vulgate. Compare, although it is superfluous, Dan 3:28 b, where shows clearly that a number of gods were in question. [The Chaldans knew the three Jews, who were so placed as to be well known, and at the same time envied, before this. They had long known that they did not worship idols; but on this occasion, when their religion made it necessary for the Jews to disobey the kings command, they made use of their knowledge.Hitzig. It is barely possible that the proposal of erecting such an idolatrous image and requiring the whole realm, and especially the public officials to adore it, originated, as in chap. 6. with some such malicious and envious enemies of Judaism.]Why was not Daniel included in this charge of the Chaldans? To this question that so readily presents itself, no answer can be given that will be sufficiently assured to exclude all others; but we are not on that account compelled (with 5. Lengerke) to find here a new improbability, and a testimony against the credibility of the book. Daniel might be omitted from the number of the accused, (1) because he was too firmly established in the favor of the king, to justify the attempt of a slanderer to destroy him (Calvin, Hvernick, etc.); (2) because he was absent on business, or sick (Luderwald, Jahn); (3) because his position, as chief of the magian caste, would remove him from the gaze of the multitude, and would also relieve him from the obligation of prostrating himself before the idol, which more immediately affected the secular officials (see on Dan 3:2, Kranichfeld). All of these explanations are admissible; and very possibly any two of the reasons adduced might combine to cause his absence, e. g. Nos. 1 and 2, or 2 and 3. The opinion of Hengstenberg however (with whom Hitzig agrees), that according to Dan 2:49, Daniel filled no office of superior power and influence in the state, but that he at once transferred to his three friends the dignity of a viceroy which was offered to him and contented himself with the spiritual rank of chief of the Magi, cannot be entertained. See to the contrary Dan 2:48-49, where it was shown that, together with this spiritual dignity, Daniel must have possessed considerable influence in the political field, although not bearing the title of a recognized officer of the state. [But the circumstance that Daniel, if he were present, did not exert himself in behalf of his three friends, may be explained from the quick execution of Babylonian justice; provided some higher reason did not determine him confidently to commit the decision of the matter to the Lord his God.Keil.]
Dan 3:13-15. The accused summoned to renounce Jehovah. Then Nebuchadnezzar in rage and fury commanded to bring, etc. The use of the synonymous terms expresses the violence of the kings rage. The Inf. Aphel to let them be brought, is found also in Dan 5:2; Dan 5:13.Then they brought these men before the king; rather, Then these men were brought before the king. is not to be taken transitively, they brought these men (Chr. B. Michaelis, etc.); nor is it to be explained as a Hebraizing Hophal form (Buxt., Hvernick, 5. Lengerke). It is rather a passive form of the Aphel after the manner of the Hebrew [Hophal], of which the 3d pers. masc. sing, is the fem. (Dan 6:18), while the regular participle with a passive signification would be and the active partic. Aphel (cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this passage).
Dan 3:14. Of purpose (marg.), O Shadrach do ye not serve my god? The plural my gods, is perhaps admissible here, in analogy with Dan 3:12; Dan 3:18 (Hitzig); but in this instance the singular is especially suitable, as referring directly to the image of the idol immediately before them; and there is no Keri, in this case, recommending the plural literally, Was it design?a combination of the interrogative with , a noun that occurs in no other place, but which may be explained by fraudulent design, evil purpose [contumacy] on the analogy of the Hebrew (Num 35:20-21). The question, Does an evil purpose lead you to refuse to serve my god? evidently has a substantial basis in the situation as described; for these men had by no means presented themselves at once in the festive assembly, as is shown by the command to bring them. Despite their official station, they had rather endeavored to avoid any participation in the ceremonies. Nothing could therefore be more natural than the question of the king, as to whether their absence was grounded on an actual disobedience or evil design, or not. The usual interpretation of is therefore to be retained, and the departures from it must be rejected; e.g., the rendering of Hvernick (Is it because ye mock, or despise my gods, that ye do not worship them?), and by Frst and Kranichfeld (who conceive as an adverbial Aphel noun, from , and thus avoid the interrogative sense of the clause entirely: In mockery ye not serve my god !). [The interpretation of the Engl. Bible. Is it true, is not only unsustained by the etymological signification of the word, but at variance with the circumstances of the case; for their absence was a matter of fact, and their declining to worship was only a question of inadvertence or setted determination. The king, seemingly with more than usual moderation, first inquires into the truth of the accusation. (Rather he first opens the way for the most favorable construction of the omission.) He probably suspected the accusers of envious motives, and was desirous of sparing these Hebrews on whom he had bestowed special favors.Stuart.]
Dan 3:15. Now if ye be ready that at what time . ye worship; i.e. at the time to worship. This conditional clause of a positive character may be readily completed from the negative conditional clause which immediately follows, whose apodosis involves the contrary of the thought here required; hence, e.g., nothing shall be done to you; ye shall escape the death by fire. The same construction [aposiopesis] occurs in Exo 32:32; Luk 13:9. It is also frequent in the classics, e.g., Homer, Il. 1:135; Plato, Protag. 15; and likewise in the Arabic., at the beginning of the sentence, corresponds to the Heb. ; the Vulgate renders it correctly by Nunc ergo.And who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hand? Not exactly a direct blasphemy of the God of the Jew (Hitzig), but still a challenge addressed to Him in a presumptuous spirit and with a haughty sense of superior power; cf. Isa 37:10; and supra, on Dan 3:1.
Dan 3:16-18. The steadfast confession of the three Jews. Shadrach . answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, etc. Thus the Masoretic punctuation, which, however, is departed from by all the ancient translations. The Septuagint introduces a , O king, before the vocative Nebuchadnezzar, and Theodotion and the Vulgate connect the name of the king with the preceding dative case, and therefore place the Athnach under . But there is no ground for either of these variations: for while on the one hand, the boldness of the reply is indicated at the be ginning by the word , the direct address by name, on the other hand, conveys an emphasis and solemnity that fully comport with the situation. The vocative in Dan 3:17 shows that the form of this address, which contains merely the name of the king, and omits the royal title, was not designed as an expression of contempt. Cf. Dan 3:14, where Nebuchadnezzar likewise addresses the three Hebrews simply by name.We are not careful to answer thee in this matter, i.e., it is not necessary. The primary emphasis falls on , as appears from the words at the beginning of the next verse. Hence the sense is, It is not we that are compelled to answer thee (i.e., to manage our case before thee), but if our God can deliver us, etc. On cf. Dan 4:16; Dan 5:25. The root is foreign to the language of the Targums. but is found in the Syriac, where it signifies to be useful, suitable, while in the Bibl. Chaldee it expresses the idea of being necessary (e.g., Ezr 6:9; cf. need, Ezr 7:20), or of standing in need of (as in this place)., upon this, is connected with the following , by the Sept., Theodotion, Vulgate, Hvernick, etc.: to answer thee upon this word (or matter); but in that case must be in the Stat, emphaticus, despite the preceding demonstrative; cf. Dan 4:15; Dan 2:32; Ezr 6:11. is a word unquestionably borrowed from the Persian (cf. the Introd. 1, note 3), but found also in the later Hebrew of the book of Ecclesiastes (see on Ecc 8:11). It is compounded from the Zend preposition paiti (= prati, ) and the verb gam, to go, and accordingly, signifies what is going forward, a message (cf. mod. Pers. paiam, a messenger, and the Armen. patgam, a message), from which results the further meaning of a command, edict, word. The latter is the sense in this place. The idea of answer results from its connection with the verb , to give back.
Dan 3:17. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us; rather, If our God whom we serve, can save us. is not the Heb. or , and cannot be rendered by ecce enim, with the Vulgate, nor by a causal , with the Sept. It corresponds rather, as always in Daniel, to the Heb. , if, and is here, as in Dan 3:15, in contrast with a (see Dan 3:17). In this case, however, the conditional clause is followed by its apodosis. which begins, as the athnach correctly indicates, with the words . , to be able, does not, of course, refer to the ability of God, as limited by any bounds whatever, but as ethically conditioned (cf. Gen 19:29). The pious Jews were not probably concerned to maintain the perfection of the Divine power in opposition to the king, but at the most, their own worthiness to find mercy at the hands of the Almighty (cf. Dan 2:18; Dan 6:22; Dan 9:15-19),and perhaps not even this,for the whole may have been spoken from the point of view occupied by the heathen hearers of the three Hebrews, who certainly doubted Jehovahs ability to save His servants. In order to refer these opponents, and above all the king himself, with all possible emphasis to the test of experience, upon which everything depended, the Jews employ the words, If our Godcan save (thus corresponding to Dan 3:17), although it would have been more in harmony with their Israelitish consciousness to say, If He will save (cf. Hitzig on this passage). [There lies in the answer, If our God will save us, then . and if not, know, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, neither audacity, nor a superstitious expectation of some miracle, (Dan 3:17), nor fanaticism (Dan 3:18), as Berth., 5. Leng., and Hitz. maintain, but only the confidence of faith and a humble submission to the will of God.Keil. In the most extreme event they prefer death to idolatry.]
Dan 3:19-23. The execution. Then . and the form (the expression) of his visage was changed against Shadrach, etc. The A. V. is literal. The Kethib is conformed to the Genit. . while the Keri agrees with the Nom. sing. . The former construction, as being more rare and difficult, is to be considered genuine.Seven times more than it was wont to be heated; thus Bertholdt, Gesenius, and others, in agreement with the A. V. But , passive part. of , to see, is constantly used in the Targums in the sense of suitable, appropriate (literally, what has been selected as appropriate, quod conveniens visum est), and the construction with , c. Infinit., shows that the same signification is required here. Therefore, seven times beyond its appropriate heating; i.e., seven times more than was necessary ( , Sept). [The sense thus yielded, however, is more inept than the other, and the impersonal construction of the former verb (), together with the active form of the latter (), rather favors the same rendering. In either case the ultimate thought is the unusually intense fire.]The command to heat the furnace exactly seven times beyond its proper measure, has a parallel in judicial procedures and limitations, where seven as a number indicates a full atonement or satisfaction, cf. Lev 26:18-24; Deut. 38:7 et seq.; Pro 6:31; Mat 18:21 et seq.; and perhaps passages like Isa 11:15; Isa 30:26; Psa 12:7, etc. This judicial bearing of the number seven, which was familiar to all the ancient Oriental nations and current among them, is the only respect in which the number is here employed, and it affords the only explanation of the phrase as used by the Babylonian king. Kranichfelds remark is less appropriate, when he observes that the number seven serves in this instance to express the idea of intensity, because here, where a notorious injury had been inflicted on the national divinity, no other than a pre-eminently sacred number would be adequate; but this may be admitted rather than the general opinion that in this case seven was merely the indefinite expression of around number (Hvernick, etc.)
Dan 3:20. And he commanded the most mighty men in his army. must not be limited to the life or body guards, against which view the comprehensive and indefinite signification of the term is, in itself, a sufficient testimony; but in addition, the selection of executioners from the army is seen to be well grounded and capable of an easy explanation, in view of the fact that the task was not without danger, and would require the services of especially trustworthy men; and the presence of the troops at a religious ceremony is not strange, since a great festive procession was one of its features.To bind Shadrach . and to (rather in order to) cast them into the burning fiery furnace. The second inf. is subordinated to the first, , as more directly pointing out the special design.
Dan 3:21. Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, etc; rather, their undergarments, coats, etc. The haste, as here implied, with which the sentence was executed, is in strong contrast with the direction given immediately before, to heat the furnace more intensely than usual; for the newly added fuel would require time before it could burn with sufficient force, in a furnace of considerable size. But the rage of an inflamed Oriental despot allows itself no time in which to quietly consider all the circumstances connected with any given case.Three articles of clothing are specified as belonging to the costume of the three Hebrews, which may have constituted the distinguishing features of their official dress; and upon these follows the generalizing , and their (other) garments (cf. Dan 3:2; Dan 3:5) [as coverings for the feet and the head (Keil)]. There would be no need to mention such a variety of garments in the case of men of inferior rank.(1) The were probably long and closely-fitting under-garments, that covered the whole body (shirts, tunics); for the word is most readily explained by comparison with the Chald. quadril. verb , texit, operuit. It occurs in the Syriac and the Talmuds, with the signification of pallium (hence mantlesLuther, Gesenius, and many others); and in the Arabic, where it becomes serbal, it designates a long under-garment for females, indusium mulieris. Others, among moderns, especially Hvernick, 5. Lengerke, and Hitzig, identify with the Pers. shalwr, Chald. , and therefore translate it by hosen, justifying this opinion by an appeal to Symmachus, the Vulgate, and also to Hesychius, Suidas, etc. (who explain the later Greek by , , ). But the Pers. shalwr appears to differ fundamentally from our word, and to be related to shul, the hip (Sanscr. khura, Latin crus), while it bears no relation to the Zend sravro, covering for the head (from sra, head, and vri, to cover) in either sound or signification. The Greek (Mid. Age saraballa), in the sense of hosen, seems, on the other hand, to owe this interpretation to the Arabic sarawl a covering for the thighs, and also to the Pers. shalvr; but this sense was not attributed to it by the earliest Greek translators. Theodotion, indeed, renders by , but reserves the interpretation by hosen for the third garment, , which he translates ; while the Sept. (and Aquila) evidently failed to comprehend the meaning of , since it renders it in this place by , but adopts in Dan 3:27. Upon the whole, the first named garment in this passage is probably identical with the , which Herodotus (i. 195) describes as the innermost garment worn by the Babylonians.(2) The , or, as the Keri prefers, , were not hammers, of course, although the root , to spread, extend (cf. , to spread out), is probably the same from which , a hammer, is derived; cf. the Gr. , to strike. According to the Hebrew translator of the Chaldee sections of Daniel, in this place corresponds to the Heb. , and therefore designates a wider and more flowing under-garment than the , which answers to the second, woolen tunic ( ), which the Babylonians wore, cf. Herod. 1. c. The derivation from the Arabic fuds, a spider, fine web, according to which the word would rather designate the innermost, closest, and finest garmant (Hitzig), seems too precarious, because of the harsh t-sound. The identification of the word with the Gr. , a hat, covering for the head (Bertholdt), is entirely too far-fetched, since was used by the Greeks exclusively to designate the head-covering of the , and since the Chaldee language was certainly able to command other than Greek terms with which to designate the Oriental turban (e.g., in Eze 23:15 we find ). The same reference of back to seems to underlie the , by which the Sept., Theodotion, and Theodoret render the word in this passage.(3) The appears to have been the third Babylonian garment mentioned by Herodotus, the , which was worn over the two ; for this word is based on the quadril. verb , to gird, wind about, which is also found in the later Hebrew, cf. 1Ch 15:27, . [According to Rawlinson (Five Monarchies, iii. 2 sq.), the ordinary Babylonian dress of the lower orders of men, was but one garment, a tunic, generally ornamented with a diagonal fringe, and reaching from the shoulder to a little above the knee. It was confined round the waist by a belt. The head and feet were bare. The richer persons are represented on the cylinders as having a fillet or head-band, not a turban, round the head. They wear generally the same sort of a tunic as the others, but over it they have a long robe, shaped like a modern dressing-gown, except that it has no sleeves, and does not cover the right shoulder. In a few cases only, we see underneath this open gown a long under-dress or robe, such as that described by Herodotus. In lieu of the long robe reaching to the feet, which seems to have been the ordinary costume of the higher classes, we observe sometimes a shorter but still a similar garmenta sort of coat without sleeves, fringed down both sides, and reaching a little below the knee. With rare exceptions the Babylonians are represented with bare feet on the monuments. The girdle was an essential feature of Babylonian costumes, common to high and low. The dress of the priests was a long robe or gown, flounced and striped, over which they seem to have worn an open jacket of a similar character. A long scarf or ribbon depended from behind down their backs. They carried on their heads an elaborate crown or mitre (ib.).]The garments which are specially mentioned, are accordingly referred to in the order of their succession from within outward, under-garments, coats, mantlesa climax which serves to indicate that because of the excessive haste under which this transaction took place, the victims were not relieved of their under, nor even of their outer garments. [Or, as Keil suggests, in the easily inflammable nature of these materials, namely, of the fine long linen gown (cf. Herod.), we have perhaps to seek the reason on account of which the accused were bound in their clothes.]
Dan 3:22-23. Because the kings command was urgent, or furious. Because ( ) refers to what has preceded, and the clause (=Heb. , therefore) points out this reference more fully; because is therefore equivalent to namely because, and the before expresses the consequence: and because in consequence the furnace was in the mean time exceedingly heated up. With regard to strict, raging (not hurried) see on Dan 2:15.The flame of the fire slew those men that took up, etc. It is not stated how and at what portion of the furnace the death of these executioners took place, nor could it be demonstrated with any degree of probability; but it is not difficult to assume that, owing to the excessive violence of the fire, a strong draught of air, while sweeping through the compressed flames, might blow them in the direction of the executioners on their issuing from the upper opening of the furnace, while leaving the three victims unharmed at the bottom of the furnace, and continuing to burn above their heads without attacking them. The deliverance of the condemned Hebrews is still miraculous, even on this assumption, and the contrast between the extraordinary strictness of the means employed, and the security of the followers of Jehovah in the face of the rage of men, which is so strongly emphasized by our book (and also by the Song of the three children, Daniel 3:4650), is still a notable fact. Cf. the Dog-ethical remarks, No. 3. [If the three were brought up to the furnace, it must have had a mouth above, through which the victims could be cast into it. When heated to an ordinary degree, this could be done without danger to the men who performed this service; but in the present case the heat of the fire was so great that the servants themselves perished by it. This circumstance also is mentioned to show the greatness of the miracle by which the three were preserved unhurt in the midst of the furnace. The same thing is intended by the repetition of the word , bound, Dan 3:23, which, moreover, is purposely placed at the close of the passage to prepare for the contrast , at liberty, free from the bonds, Dan 3:25.Keil.]The Sept., and also Theodotion and the Vulg., influenced probably by an already existing Hebrew or Greek tradition (see Introd. 11), introduce after Dan 3:23 the apocryphal fragment, The prayer of Azariah and Song of the three children ( ), which is broken by a shorter narrative section (Daniel 3:4650, or also Dan 3:22-26), devoted to a detailed description of the subject of Dan 3:22-23, and containing especially the statement, that the turning aside of the flames from the three men was due to an angel of the Lord.
Dan 3:24-26. The liberation of the three men from the furnace. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, viz.: from the chair on which he had been seated opposite the side-door of the furnace, and from whence he had witnessed the execution. He did not seat himself in that position after the victims were cast into the furnace, for the purpose of gloating over their tortures (Hitzig); but, as a king, he was doubtless seated before (although all others might be standing), and his position probably enabled him to see the inside of the furnace, in whose immediate vicinity his chair was placed. It is not necessary to assume that his seat was so near the opening of the furnace, that he could view the interior perfectly, and thus observe the three men together with their heavenly protector; for his words in Dan 3:25 may be readily explained on the hypothesis of a merely spiritual or visional sight.Spake, and said to his counsellors. The are councillors of state or ministers, consiliarii, socii in judicio (Sept. ; Theodot. ; Vulg. and Syr. optimates). The word is scarcely the Chaldee , leaders, with the prefixed Hebrew article which in this instance, like the Arabic article in Alcoran, Almanac, has become inseparably united to the word (Gesenius); but the , must probably be regarded as an organic element of the first half of this compound word (as it must be considered), whether that part be traced back to the Sanscr. sahas, power (Hitzig), or it be compared with the Pers. hamd, judgment, counsel (5. Bohlen, Kranichfeld). The second half is, without doubt, the Pers. vr, possessor, owner, as in and , Dan 3:2. In regard to Ewalds attempt to identify the terms and directly, see supra, on Dan 3:2. Compare generally the repeated mention of these prominent royal officials, in Dan 3:27; Dan 4:33; Dan 6:8.
Dan 3:25. Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire. is a regular part. Aphel, as in Dan 4:34; Cf. the Chaldaizing in the Heb. of Zec 3:7. In opposition to Hitzig, who regards the form as a metamorphosed part. Pael, basing his opinion on Dan 4:26, see Kranichfeld on this passage.And the form of the fourth is like the son of God; rather like a son of the gods. It is by no means necessary to believe that this vision of the king which revealed to him this son of the gods , of plural in Dan 3:12; Dan 3:18) in company with the three Jews, was an objective seeing. It must be observed, that here as well as in Dan 3:28, where the son of the gods is designated as the angel of the God of the Jews, Daniel does not himself attest his appearance, nor does he refer to additional witnesses, but in each case mentions the king only as the authority for the occurrence of the event. Kranichfelds hypothesis that the king employed the term angel () in the second reference to the son of the gods, in consequence of the instruction (which is to be read between the lines after Dan 3:27) imparted to him meanwhile by the rescued Jews, is unnecessary, and without support in the context. From his heathen Babylonian point of view the king could readily characterize an appearance from the celestial world which he fancied he had seen, either as a son or a messenger of the gods (or of one of the godsfor only thus would he conceive of the national God of the Jews, despite Dan 3:26). That theogonic ideas were unknown to the ancient Babylonians, and that the expression a son of the gods must therefore be regarded as a conception of Hellenistic origin, which was foreign to the Orient until after the march of Alexander, as Bertholdt asserts, is wholly untrue; and it is with entire justice that Hengstenberg (p. 159 et seq.) while opposing it, refers to the marriage between Bel and Mylitta and to their offspring. On the conception of a messenger of the gods, compare also the god Nebo, the writer of the gods, who corresponds fully to the Greek Hermes. The Sept., however, renders even the of this verse by , and thus avoids all reference to heathen conceptions.
Dan 3:26. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace. On , see on Dan 3:6Ye servants of the most high God. The king thus designates the national God of the Jews from his heathen stand-point, because he has just received an overpowering impression of His greatness, and therefore regards Him as mightier than all his Babylonian divinities. Cf. , Dan 2:47; also the Gr. , as applied to Zeus by Pindar, Nem. Dan 1:90. corresponds exactly to the Hebrew , Gen 14:18. Instead of the Keri has in this place, Dan 4:14, and nine times elsewhere in the booksubstituting the later form, which is usual in the Targums, for the more ancient; Cf. the similar Keris in Dan 2:5; Dan 2:40.
Dan 3:27-30. The effect of this incident. And the princes . being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, etc.; literally, that the fire had possessed no power over their bodies,an antiptosis, like Gen 1:3. The Chaldee of the Targums constantly substitutes , a fuller form, and analogous to the Syriac, for the , , body, of Daniel.Neither were their coats (under-garments) changed. The mention of this particular article of clothing only, as being uninjured, might lead to the conclusion that the remaining, or outer garments, had actually been harmed by the fire; but that the writer intended no such toning down of the marvelous nature of the event, is shown by the words, nor the smell of fire had passed upon them. The pointing of the expression on them () refers indeed, to the persons themselves, but it furnishes an indirect testimony to the preservation of their clothing that is unmistakable; and the testimony of the passage as a whole, relating to their bodies, hair, and under-clothing, and also to the absence of any odor of the burning, constitutes a gradation analogous to that of Dan 3:21. Only one of the four garments there referred to is here mentioned, and the first is selected, in order to recall that enumeration.
Dan 3:28. Blessed be the God of Shadrach, etc. The doxology corresponds in form with those recorded in Dan 4:31 et seq. and Dan 6:26 et seq., but is addressed to Jehovah himself, in a precatory or explanatory form, Cf. Gen 9:26; Luk 1:68.That trusted in Him, and have changed the kings word; rather, and transgressed the kings command. The before is illative: and in consequence, or, and by reason of their trust, they transgressed the kings command; Cf. supra on Dan 3:22. is, literally, to change the word of the king, to alter it (criminally). The same idiom occurs in Ezr 6:11; cf. , Isa 24:5.And yielded their bodies; Cf. Act 15:26 :
Dan 3:29. Therefore, I make a decree; literally, And by me is issued a decree. as in Dan 3:9, and also in Ezr 6:11, which latter passage is upon the whole very similar to this (e.g., because of its use of the phrase ), but is not for this reason to be regarded as the model, from which the alleged pseudo-Daniel copied in this place (as Hitzig contends). The writer of this book displays too thorough an acquaintance with the Chaldee, to warrant the assumption of its composition by the process of a laborious and clumsy compilation of extracts taken from Ezra and other ancient documents; and in addition, nothing is more probable than that royal edicts should employ stereotyped phrases to enforce obedience to law, threaten punishments, etc.whether the respective kings were Chaldns or Persians (cf. also Kranichfeld on this passage).Which speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, etc. The Kethib , a Hebraized form for is not to be changed, with Hitzig, into (= = anything whatever), nor to be replaced by the Keri , which is used in the Kethib of Dan 6:5; Ezr 4:22; Ezr 6:9. , a fault, single error, offence, is rather a concrete term, which is related to the abstract , error, precisely as the Heb. , a disgraceful thing, is to (Jer 23:40), disgrace. or the Chaldee (Dan 5:12) to , etc.Shall be cut in pieces. This threat, which was evidently a stereotyped formula in royal edicts, and in view of the customs of Oriental despots might also be employed with reference to minor offences, has already been explained in Dan 2:5.Because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. Thus also, among recent expositors, Kranichfefd, who takes = , ita; cf. Sept., Theodotion, Vulg., in a feminine sense. The masculine form, however, which accords better with the syntax and the context, is sufficiently supported by Daniel 2:43; 6:29. Therefore, that can deliver as He can.Then the king made Shadrach, , to prosper (marg.) in the province of Babylon. is not intransitive, as in Daniel 6:29, but has a transitive signification, to bless, and is accompanied by of the person prospered, as in the Heb. of Neh 1:11; Neh 2:20; Cf. Gen 39:23; 2Ch 26:5. The reference to the province of Babylon indicates the nature of this blessing or prospering, viz.: as a repeated endowment with a position of exalted dignity and power; Cf. Dan 2:49. The expression made to prosper is therefore equivalent to gave prosperity and great power.
ethico-fundamental principles related to the history of salvation, apologetical remarks, and homiletical suggestions
1. General preliminary observation.A correct estimate of the foregoing section imperatively requires the recognition of the peculiarities of the style of writing employed. That style will serve in a greater degree than any other of the first six chapters, to exemplify the repeated observations in the Introduction respecting the theocratic chronicling style of our prophet (cf. Introd. 4, note 2; 9, note 1). The whole of the event described is considered emphatically in the light of the strictest theocratic pragmatism. It is Jehovah who preserves His devoted confessors in the midst of the flames. The heathen executors of the barbarous decree, and not they, are destroyed. The tyrant, at first blasphemous and presumptuously defiant, is compelled to humble himself, and reverently to acknowledge the superior power of the only true God, in the end. At the same time, the narrative possesses a peculiar breadth and minuteness of detail, combined with a condensed brevity and force that recall the lapidary style of records relating to the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. Observe the frequent repetition of identical formulas, and of changes and series of names (including both appellatives and proper names). The phrase, The image which king Nebuchadnezzar had caused to be set up, is found no less than ten times in the first fifteen verses; three times we meet the expression not serve the gods (or the god) of the king, nor worship the golden image erected by him, and the characteristic triad peoples, tribes, and tongues recurs as often, as does also the triad of officials, satraps, governors, and prfects. The sounding list of official titles, satraps, governors, prfects, chief-judges, treasurers, judges, lawyers, is repeated at least once; the names of the six instruments, the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer three times (on Dan 3:6, where the dulcimer is omitted, see the exegetical remarks); while the proper names Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego recur no less than thirteen times. The explanation of this extraordinary wealth in repetitions, is evidently not to be sought in the careless style of the writer, but in his well-defined intention to impart a solemn and weighty character to the narrative. This hypothesis, however, which is supported by the frequent use of a similar style by both earlier and later writers of the Old-Testament Scriptures,e.g., by the Elohist in the Pentateuch, among the former, and by the writer of the books of Chronicles among the latteris not of itself sufficient to explain the numerous repetitions. It will be necessary to assume, in addition, a designed imitation of the solemn phrases and stereotyped formulas employed in the official documents and records of the Babylonian empire, on the part of our prophetic author. The propriety of this method was already apparent in the preceding chapter, in view of the repeated expression, The decree has been published by me (Dan 3:5; Dan 3:8); and also with regard to the triad scribes, conjurers, and Chaldans (Dan 3:2; Dan 3:10), and in the phrases repeated in this chapter, although not found in the former: O king, live for ever, and ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses be made dunghills (cf. Dan 2:4 with Dan 3:9, and Dan 2:5 with Dan 3:29). The fact that such stereotyped formulas and repeated phrases in an unchanged form are considerably more numerous in this chapter, than in either the chapters that precede or the three narrative sections that follow, indicates that the writer preferred the documentary and chronicling style in this connection, because the subject-matter afforded greater inducements than any other for this choice, and possibly also because he had a special inclination to narrate the event in question in the manner of a theocratic chronicler.The peculiar coloring of the style of narration in this section unquestionably affords an evidence of especial significance, for the hypothesis postulated in the Introd. 4, note 2 (in agreement with Kranichfeld), which assumes that the writer recorded the events contained in chap. 25 at different times (although not without regard to their relation to each other), and in the form of a diary.
2. Apologetical.The foregoing remarks contain features that testify to the authenticity and historical accuracy of the narrative; but a far more forcible evidence is found in the strong contrast between the situation and circumstances of the persecuted Hebrews who steadfastly clung to their faith, as here related, and the similar fortunes of pious Jews in the Asmonan age. According to Bertholdt, Bleek, 5. Lengerke, Hitzig, etc, the motive that inspired the alleged historical fictions of the pseudo-Daniel, was derived from the tribulations of the latter period; but at that time Israel endured the barbarous persecutions inflicted on account of its faith in Jehovah while established on its own native soil; whereas here, the suffering is imposed while in a foreign land and in captivity, and merely upon three individual representatives, who are penally prosecuted on the ground of the slanderous accusations of envious persons or of politico-religious opponents, who charge them with hostility to the national gods of Babylon. In the former case the heathen despot attempted to carry into effect a general system of persecution which aimed at the extirpation of the worship of Jehovah (1Ma 1:41 et seq.); while here an occasional denunciation incites a single act of heathen intolerance, which is immediately followed by the recognition and adoration of the God of Israel as a pre-eminently powerful divinity, as in a former instance (cf. Dan 2:46 with Dan 3:28 et seq.). In that case the furious religious intolerance of the persecuting tyrant is opposed by the fanatical defiance of the desperate Jewish confessors,13 while the confession of the three persecuted Hebrews in this case, Dan 3:17-18, reveals no trace of fanatical excitement; it presents, on the contrary, so moderate a reflection on the interference of God for the purpose of delivering His servants, that it concedes the possibility of a refusal, on the part of God, to deliver in the present exigency,for which reason the Sept. felt constrained, in the spirit of its time, to guard against the possible mistake that a doubt of the Divine ability to save is here implied (see on the passage). Finally, while the barbarous custom of inflicting the death-penalty by means of fire, and in large smelting-furnaces, prevailed at the period of the Chaldan supremacy, as is certified by Jer 29:22 (cf. Jer 43:9 et seq.; Cf. above, on Dan 3:6), the books of the Maccabees, which describe so many modes of capital punishment as inflicted on the Jews of his time by Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1Ma 1:50; 1Ma 1:57; 1Ma 1:60 et seq.; 1Ma 2:38; 2 Maccabees 7.), make no mention whatever of this. The burning of isolated fugitives in caverns, where they had concealed themselves in order to observe the Sabbath (2Ma 6:11), was an unpremeditated device, and therefore entirely different from the predetermined punishment by means of the fiery furnace.Even Hitzig recognizes the weight of the numerous differences in the situation, as here indicatedto which must be added the extreme contrast between the golden image on the plain of Dura, and the of Antiochus (1Ma 1:54; see above, on Dan 3:1)but assumes that the compiler purposely avoided an exact adaptation of his types to the circumstances and facts of his time, in order to prevent any suspicion that his work was invented for a purpose (p. 43, Ought a type to correspond so exactly as to arouse suspicion?) He thus attributes to our author an art in concealing his aim, a gift of refined simulation, a practised cunning and adroitness, that might excel even the efforts of modern pseudological tendency writers. But while these, and similar charges of such a critical tendency in the book, are unworthy, and establish nothing, the manifold expositions of details of the narrative which have been deemed necessary by the modern criticism, are no less so. No improbability can be discovered in the statement of the dimensions of the golden image, giving its height at sixty cubits and its thickness at six (Dan 3:1), or in the remark that all the high officials of the realm were summoned to the dedication of the image [(Dan 3:2-3), which is unquestionably to be taken in a relative sense; nor yet in the mention of certain Grecian instruments (Dan 3:5; Dan 3:7; Dan 3:10; Dan 3:15), or in the occurrence of the title of satrap among those pertaining to political dignitaries (Dan 3:2-3; Dan 3:27). We have already furnished the necessary explanation of these features, and also have accounted for the circumstance that Daniel was absent from the ceremony (see on Dan 3:12), that the garments of the three martyrs are referred to by names that belong, as is asserted, to a post-Babylonian (Persian or Greek) age, and finally, that the decree directed against the blasphemers of the God of these Jews (Dan 3:29) is couched in terms that are considered extravagantly severe.
3. The miracle.The strongest objections, of course, are raised by opponents against the deliverance of the three condemned Hebrews out of the fiery furnace, while at the same time the executioners are destroyed by the flames. Hitzig holds that the claim of this narrative to a historical character is unworthy of consideration. Its correctness would not only involve that the nature of an element was changed, but also that the flames had at the same time demonstrated (Dan 3:22) and denied (Dan 3:27) their power to consume; and a reference to the angel (Dan 3:28; Dan 3:25) does not improve the matter.Our exegetical remarks have already pointed out that the case is not really so desperate. Traces of a certain co-operation of natural laws in the wonderful event are by no means wanting from the text, despite its evident aim to emphasize the extraordinary and supernatural features of the incident, rather than to modify them. The excessive heating of the furnace which the king had commanded, the reckless haste in executing his commands, which his rage demanded, and even the circumstances that the flames issuing from the upper opening should seize upon and destroy the persons employed in the executionall these taken together make it possible, up to a certain point, to conceive how the condemned persons might remain uninjured, and afterward, on their leaving the furnace, be without even the odor of fire upon them. Nebuchadnezzar believed himself able to testify that the efficient or cooperating cause of this deliverance was the visible appearance of an angel which was observed at the same time by several witnesses, probably because, in his fearful excitement and conscientious terror, he really saw in vision a fourth person of celestial form in company with the three victims. The writer, however, does not personally assert such an objective entrance of an angel on the arena, because he neither aims to positively establish the fact, nor yet to explain the philosophy of the event taken as a whole. Without seeking out secondary causes of the deliverance of the Hebrews, he contents himself with simply certifying to the extraordinary event itself, which was probably reported to him, as absent at the time, by his delivered friends in person; and his added remarks, of a religious and practical nature, refer merely to the unmistakable interference of his God, whom he represents, after the manner of the older theocratic writers, as working directly and without the mediation of angels. A narrator of the Maccaban period who possessed a mania for miracles, would exaggerate the marvelous element of the event far more conspicuously, would describe the terrible rage of the flames in colors much more glowing, and would introduce, not one, but a multitude of angels as instrumental deliverers. An approximate idea of the description of the event in question which such a writer would have furnished may be gained from a comparison of Daniel 3:4650 of the apocryphal Prayer of Azariah and song of the three children; although the embellishment and description of the event attempted in that connection are still within the bounds of reason, and would doubtless be surpassed by a religious-tendency writer of the Maccaban period. On the other hand, a writer at the beginning of the exile, although influenced by an extravagant mania for miracles and inclined to angelolatry, was not necessarily without a real belief in miracles, but rather, might possess a firm and living confidence in the power of God to work miracles for the deliverance and exaltation of His faithful ones. This is apparent in numerous expressions of the exilian Isaiah , 14 and of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, who assert miraculous displays of Jehovahs power and grace, in the proper sense, and also express conceptions of the Divine government of the world, and particularly of his direction of the theocratical people in the past, present, and future, which are, to say the least, decidedly supranaturalistic; Cf. Introd., 1, note 1; 9, note 1. The shallowness and triteness of the reasoning is thus apparent, on which Hitzig, p. 44, formulates his conclusion: A belief in miracles, such as the writer confesses, could not arise and flourish in the night of the exile, in the days of discouragement and despondency, nor yet in the centuries of servitude (Ezr 9:9) subsequent to Cyrus. The deliverance from the fiery furnace expresses a supranaturalism entirely different from that manifested in the additions of the reviser in Lev 25:21; Lev 20:20; Exo 34:2; Exo 34:4 (?), and seems to be indicative of the enthusiasm, the increased power of faith, and the boundless imagination of the Maccaban epoch.
4. The ethical and religions importance of the miracle is found substantially in the consequent Divine confirmation and rewarding of the steadfast faith, by which the three Hebrews had glorified the name of God before the heathen monarch and his court. As they had confessed Him, so He now acknowledges them; as they had glorified His name by the confession of their faith, so He now magnifies Himself in them by a glorious display of His power, and of His infinite superiority over all the gods of the heathen. It is a miracle of deliverance, analogous to those witnessed by Noah at the flood, by Lot at the burning of Sodom, and by Israel at the passage of the Red Sea and of the Jordan; but it is none the less, on that account, a type of the deliverance which the recording prophet should himself experience when, at a much later period, his unwavering devotion to Jehovah had brought him to the lions den, as well as of the rescue of a Peter from the dungeon of Herod, of a Paul from the jail at Philippi, and of other miraculous events of the Apostolic age. The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews therefore classes this event among the Old-Testament trials of faith that were followed by marvelous results, when, near the close of his glorious Catalogus testium fidei Veteris Testamenti (Dan 11:33), and immediately after the allusion to Daniel in the lions den, he refers to his three companions with the words, they quenched the violence of fire ( ). In the same sense, and in a similar connection, the first book of the Maccabees had already adduced the wonderful occurrence, observing with reference to Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, that they ,a primitive attestation of the fact, with which, as has been indicated in a former connection, the assumption of its invention in the Asmonan period, can hardly be made to consist (Introd., 6). The dogmatic importance of this miraculous event is, however, decidedly overestimated, when it is assumed, with several church fathers, e.g., Tertullian, Irenus, Hilary. Augustine, etc, and also with Carpzov, Joh. Gerhard (in the Bibl. Vimar.), Joach. Lange, etc., that the appearance in company with the three men was an actual objective fact, and further, that it was not merely an angel, but the personal Logos that was made flesh in Jesus Christ. Jerome is far more correct when he rejects, as being improbable, the idea that the Son of God should have appeared to the godless king Nebuchadnezzar, and therefore assumes that the appearance of the delivering angel was only a typical prefiguration of the Redeemer: Cterum in typo prfigurat iste angelus sive filius Dei Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, qui ad fornacem descendit inferni, in quo caus peccatorum et justorum anim tenebantur, ut absque exustione et noxa sui eos, qui tenebantur inclusi, vinculis mortis liberaret. His remark (on Dan 3:1) on the relation of this event to the Messianic mission of Israel in the midst of the pre-Christian world of nations, is also worthy of note: Datur autem per occasionem captivorum barbaris nationibus salutis occasio; ut qui primum per Danielis revelationem potentiam cognoverant unius Dei, in trium puerorum quoque fortitudine discant mortem contemnere et idola nan colere.
5. Homiletical suggestions. Melancthon has correctly specified the points of practical importance in his observations: 1, on Dan 3:1, Exemplum human ccitatis et audaci instituentis noves cultus sine verbo Dei, quos hic ostendit se Deus reprobare; 2, on Dan 3:12 Quod oporteat mandatum Dei anteferre omnibus rebus humanis, potestati, legibus humanis, paci, tranquillitati vit nostr; 3, on Dan 3:16-18 : Qualis debeat esse fides de corporali liberatione, videlicet cum conditione, si Deo placet; 4, on Dan 3:22 et seq.: Glorificatio piorum contra blasphemiam, et pna impiorum, prsertim satellitum, qui alieni furoris ministri sunt; 5, on Dan 3:25 et seq.: Conversio regis, sequens concionem et glorificationem piorum. He also finely develops several of these points. Thus, he remarks on Dan 3:1 et seq.: Consider that not only the one Nebuchadnezzar is here intended, but all idolaters in general. As Nebuchadnezzar, with fearful temerity, but still under the impression that he was acting religiously, establishes a new cultus, so have many acted at other periods. A majority of states protect idolatry; and even within the church godless popes found dynasties, and seek to confirm them by the successive introduction of new forms of worship.. Consider, therefore, how great is the guilt of the popes and princes, who defend ceremonies and traditions that contradict the Word of God, such as the Mass, monasticism, etc. Cf. M. Geier: The great lords often put forth greater efforts to introduce false religions than to protect the true. It is a false opinion that all the subjects of a state must adhere to one and the same religion. Thence result so many bloody plans to effect by force what cannot be required with a good conscience. Melancthon observes, on Dan 3:17-18 : All the Divine promises require us to believe both that God can and that He will aid; but with reference to His will the following distinction must be observed; God will bestow on us the forgiveness of sins, justification, and eternal life, for He has positively declared His readiness to do this (Joh 3:36; 1Jn 5:11). Faith in this must therefore shine everywhere upon our pathway before us, and govern our expectations of various external blessings and supports. But the latter must ever be subject to the condition, If it please God, He will now deliver me,a condition that in no wise conflicts with the essence of faith, but that exhorts us to obedience, to prayer, to patient waiting for aid, and to humble submission to the only wise decree of God. Cf. Starke: In need and danger men are cheerfully to submit to the will of God, and are not to prescribe to Him in relation to His aid and deliverance. Their motto must always be, Thy will be done (Mat 26:39; Cf. Jam 4:15). On Dan 3:23 et seq., Cf. Melancthon: Though the deliverance be long delayed, in order that we may be tried, we dare not cease to call upon the Lord, because supplication is never in vain. For God always aids, either by immediately imparting comfort and diminishing the evil, or by granting a fortunate escape from the tribulation (1Co 10:13). Cf. Osiander: God has assigned a limit to all tribulations and persecutions. If it appears to be too distant, consider that the affliction is light and but for a moment, yea, that it secures an eternal glory (2Co 4:17). On Dan 3:28 et seq., Melancthon: Learn from this that it is the office of princes to suppress godless teaching and customs, and to provide for truly pious instruction and worship. For the government is the guardian and protector of the whole moral law; it cannot change and renew mens hearts, but it must forbid and prevent idolatry, blasphemy, immoral religious services, etc, as well as murder, theft, and the like. For, although a civil government is not enrolled in the service of the Holy Spirit, it is nevertheless the servant of the external moral law, and the responsibility rests upon it, as a distinguished member of the church (membrum prcipuum Ecclesi), to aid and protect the other members in maintaining the true faith. [The moral effect of this transaction must have been all the greater because it was the final outcome of a public conflict between the kings god and Jehovah of Hosts. Nor let us fail to note that here, as usual, an unseen hand made the wrath of man work out the praise of God.Cowles].
______________ Daniel 3:314:34 [English Bible, Daniel 4.]
1Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations [tribes], and languages, that dwell in all the earth;15 Peace be multiplied unto you.16 2I thought it good17 to shew the signs and wonders that the high God hath wrought toward [with] 3me. How great are his signs!18 and how mighty are his wonders! his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,19 and his dominion is from generation to generation [with age and age].
4I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest [tranquil] in my house, and flourishing [green] in my palace. 5I saw a dream which made [, and it would make] me afraid,20 and the thoughts upon my bed [came], and the visions of my head troubled 6[would trouble] me. Therefore [And] made I a decree21 to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before me, that they might make known unto me [make me know] the interpretation of the dream. 7Then came in the magicians, the astrologers, the Chaldans, and the soothsayers;22 and I told the dream before them; but [and] they did not make known unto me the interpretation thereof. 8But [And] at the last Daniel came in before me, (whose name was Belteshazzar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods), 9and before him I told the dream, saying, O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I23 know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth [is burdensome to] thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
10Thus [And these] were the visions of my head in [on] my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. 11The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached [would reach] unto 12heaven [the heavens], and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were [Its foliage was] fair, and the fruit24 thereof much, and in it was meat [food] for all [the whole]: the beasts [living creature] of the field had [might have] shadow under it, and the fowls of the heaven dwelt [might dwell] in the boughs thereof, and all flesh was [might be] fed of it. 13I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from heaven [the heavens]. 14He cried aloud [with might], and said thus, Hew [cut] down the tree, and cut [lop] off his [its] branches, shake off his leaves [its foliage], and scatter his [its] fruit: let the beasts get away [living creature 15flee] from under it, and the fowls from his [its] branches. Nevertheless, leave the stump of his [its] roots in the earth, even [and] with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field; and let it [him] be wet with the dew of heaven [the heavens], and let his portion be with the beasts [living creature] in the grass 16[herbage] of the earth. Let his heart be changed25 from mans [mankind], and let a beasts heart26 be given unto him: and let seven times pass over him. 17This matter [The rescript] is by the decree [decision] of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men [mankind], and giveth [will give] it to whomsoever he will [may please], and setteth [will set] up over it the basest [low] of men.
18This dream I king Nebuchadnezzar have seen. Now [And] thou, O Belteshazzar, declare the interpretation thereof; forasmuch as all the wise men of my kingdom are not able to make known unto me [make me know] the interpretation: but [and] thou art able [capable]; for the spirit of the holy gods is in thee.
19Then Daniel (whose name was Belteshazzar) was astonished for [as] one hour, and his thoughts troubled [would trouble] him. The king spake and said, Belteshazzar, let not the dream, or [and] the interpretation thereof, trouble thee. Belteshazzar answered and said, My lord, the dream be to them that hate thee, and the interpretation thereof to thine enemies. 20The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached [would reach] unto the 21heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth; whose leaves were [and its foliage was] fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was meat for all [the whole]; under which [it] the beasts [living creature] of the field dwelt [might dwell], and upon whose [its] branches the fowls of the heaven had their habitation [might abide]: 22it is thou, O king, that art [hast] grown and become strong: for [and] thy greatness is [has] grown, and reacheth unto heaven [the heavens], and thy dominion to the end of the earth. 23And whereas the king saw a watcher and a holy one coming down from heaven [the heavens], and saying. Hew [cut] the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even [and] with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven [the heavens], and let his portion be with 24the beasts [living creature] of the field, till seven times pass over him; this is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree [decision] of the Most High, which is [has] come upon my lord the king: 25That they shall drive thee from men,27 and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts [living creature] of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grss [the herbage] as oxen, and they shall wet thee with [from] the dew of heaven [the heavens], and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men 26[mankind], and giveth [will give] it to whomsoever he will [may please]. And whereas they commanded [said] to leave the stump of the tree roots [roots of the tree]; thy kingdom shall be sure [standing] unto thee, after that thou shalt have known that the heavens do rule. 27Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing mercy to [pitying] the poor; if it may be a lengthening of [to] thy tranquillity.
28All this [The whole] came upon the king Nebuchadnezzar. At the end of 29twelve months he walked in [was walking on] the palace of the kingdom of Babylon. 30The king spake and said, Is not this [the] great Babylon that I28 have built for the house of the kingdom,29 by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty? 31While the word was in the kings mouth, there fell a voice from heaven [the heavens], saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken,30 The kingdom is [has] departed from thee. 32And they shall drive thee from men,31 and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts [living creature] of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass [the herbage] as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until [that] thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men [mankind], and giveth [will give] it to whomsoever he will [may please]. [In] 33The same hour was the thing [word] fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men [mankind,], and did [would] eat grass [the herbage] as oxen, and his body was [would be] wet with [from] the dew of heaven [the heavens], till [that] his hairs [hair] were [had] grown like eagles feathers, and his nails like birds claws.
34And at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven [the heavens], and mine understanding [knowledge] returned [would return] unto [upon] me; and I blessed the Most High; and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom 35is from generation to generation [with age and age]: and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven [the heavens], and among the inhabitants of the earth; and [there is] none [who] can stay [lay hold of] his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? 36At the same time my reason [knowledge] returned [would return] unto [upon] me; and, for [as to] the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto [would return upon] me; and my counsellors and my lords sought [would seek] unto me; and I was established in [upon] my 37kingdom; and excellent majesty was added unto me. Now32 I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven [the heavens], all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.
CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL NOTES
[The numerical division of the verses in chap. 4 differs in the English Bible from that in the original text, as the latter annexes the first three verses of this narrative to chap. 3, and consequently begins its chap. 4 with Dan 3:4 of the English Bible.]
EXEGETICAL REMARKS
Daniel 3:3133 [Engl. Dan 4:1-3]. The introduction to the edict. Nebuchadnezzar the king unto all the people, nations, and languages, etc. On the triad people, tribes, and tongues, see on Dan 3:4. As it there occurs in the public proclamation of a herald, so here in a royal edict in writing, and at the very beginning. This probably induced the persons who in a former age arranged the division [of the Hebrew text] into chapters, to include the introduction of this edict in the preceding section; but such an arrangement is obviously inadmissible and incorrect, in view of the evident relation of Daniel 3:3133 to the statements commencing with Dan 4:1, and in view also of the considerable interval of time that appears to have elapsed between the events of the third and those of the fourth chapter (cf. on Dan 3:1, and see Dan 4:26 et seq.). A certain relation, however, exists between the subject of the present section and that of the preceding, inasmuch as both record experiences of the exalted greatness and power of God, such as had come to the king in the course of events that partook of the supernatural to a greater or smaller extent.Like this edict of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, so an open letter (manifesto) of the Persian king Artaxerxes, in Ezr 7:12, begins with a solemn wish for the welfare of the people, immediately after the names of the king and of the person addressed.Is Nebuchadnezzar in person to be regarded as the immediate composer of the proclamation? Such a conclusion is opposed (1) by the frequent indications of an intimate acquaintance with theocratic modes of thought and expression which are found in the document, and especially in the beginning and the end (cf. e.g., the doxology in Daniel 3:33; 4:31; with Psa 72:4 et seq.; Psa 145:13, and also with Dan 7:14; Dan 7:27; Cf. further, the description of the infinite greatness of God in Dan 4:32, with Isa 24:21; Isa 40:17; Isa 41:12; Isa 41:24; Isa 41:29; Isa 43:13; Isa 45:9; Job 9:12; Job 21:22, etc.); (2) by the broad and circumstantial character of the narrative, resulting from the many repetitions (cf. e.g., the repetition of identical or entirely similar turns in the sentences of Dan 4:6; Dan 4:15 and of Dan 5:5; in Dan 4:17-23 and in Dan 3:17-23; in Dan 4:30 and in Dan 3:12; Dan 3:22; in Dan 4:31 and in Dan 3:33, etc.), which it has in common with the remaining narrative sections, thus indicating by its style that Daniel was its author; (3) by Dan 4:25-30, where the king is referred to in the third person, while elsewhere the first person is constantly employed; (4) by the designation of the palace as being located at Babylon, Dan 4:26, which is positively inconsistent with the assumption that Nebuchadnezzar composed the proclamation in person, but indicates, as clearly as could possibly be required, that the writer was not a Babylonian, or, at least, that he wrote chiefly for other than Babylonians, and that he even adopted their modes of thought. No substantial difficulty can be raised against the hypothesis that Daniel was the writer, and that he composed the proclamation by direction of the king soon after the conclusion of the events to which it refers. The peculiarly heathen forms of thought and expression which occur beside the Jewish-theocratic (especially in Dan 4:5-6; Dan 4:10; Dan 4:14-15; Dan 4:20), find a sufficient explanation in the consideration that the writer employed, although a decided theocrat, would be obliged to adhere as closely as possible to the kings habits of thought and the range of his conception in the framing of an official document to be published in the royal nameotherwise it would fail to receive his approval. This view, which has recently been represented by Kranichfeld especially, is at any rate more simple and natural than the assumption, which becomes necessary on the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar in person composed the writing, that its theocratic coloring resulted from the instruction derived by the king from his intercourse with Daniel (Calvin, Hvernick, Hengstenberg, etc.). Upon our hypothesis, moreover, it becomes easy to comprehend why the writer should occasionally pass from the first to the third person (Dan 3:25-30). If Nebuchadnezzar be conceived as the author, the explanation of this feature can only be found in the supposition that the report of the king is interrupted to admit of an abbreviated statement by Daniel (Calvin), or in the assumption that Nebuchadnezzar considered it improper to report his insanity in person (Hengstenberg, Maurer, etc.), or finally, in the admission that Dan 3:25 is still due to Nebuchadnezzar, while Dan 3:26-30 are regarded as a parenthesis inserted by Daniel (Hvernick; see to the contrary infra, on Dan 3:25).33 Peace be multiplied to you; literally, increase richly, be richly imparted to you; Cf. Ezr 4:22. corresponds exactly to in the analogous formulas of greeting, 1Pe 1:2; 2Pe 1:2; Judges 2; Clem. Romans 1; 1Co 1:1.
Daniel 3:32 [Dan 4:2], I thought it good to show (to you) the signs and wonders, etc; i.e., it pleases me. , in the Heb. trans., ; Cf. the well-known similar combination , Isa 8:18 (Greek ). The somewhat indefinite and general term , a sign, token, receives the special signification of miraculous sign (portentum) from its combination with , a wonder, wonderful thing. The same combination occurs in Dan 3:33 [Dan 4:3], and also in Dan 6:28. , pulcrum est coram me, i.e., visum est mihi, placuit mihi (Vulg.); Cf. Dan 4:24; Dan 6:2.
Daniel 3:33 [Dan 4:31. How great are His signs, etc. , quantopere, a strengthening of the simple , quam. The exclamation does not by any means deny that signs and wonders were also performed by the Babylonian gods, but asserts the incomparable greatness of the miracles of Jehovaha thought which Daniel might express as well as Nebuchadnezzar.His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, etc. The same doxology occurs also at the close of Dan 4:31, with but little change. Cf. Psa 145:13.
Footnotes:
[1][These are apparently technical terms for various classes of officers, who are carefully distinguished and graded, and may be represented as follows:
Satraps,
Provinces.
I.
Prfects,
Governmental,
Districts.
Pashas.
Metropolis.
Viziers,
Executive.
II.
Treasurers. Courtly,
Financial.
Judges,
Legal,
On the bench.
III.
Lawyers,
At the bar IV.
Superintendents. Functional
General.]
[2][There is in these three terms likewise clearly a gradation downwards: nations, tribes, dialects.]
[3][In these names of musical instruments, some borrowed from foreign languages, and all more or less uncertain of import, there are nevertheless traces of classification:
I.
Cornet,
Wind
Simple.
Flute.
Keyed.
Guitar,
II.
Lyre,
String,
Gradually more complex.
Harp.
III. Bagpipe.WindCompound.
IV All sorts.General.]
[4][ , lit., ate their pieces of, i.e., slandered; conf. English backbite.]
[The Masoretic interpunction requires us to punctuate thus: to deliver its; from the burning fiery furnace and from thy hand, O king, he will deliver.]
[5][The position of the term for the executioners is very emphatic in the original: literally, . those men, who lifted. the flame of the fire killed them.]
[6][The order of the words in the original is emphatic: Was it not three men we cast into [to] the midst of the firebound? This last was an additional circumstance of wonder.
[7] , may be the fem. or the definite state; in either case it is emphatic, i. q., the truth.
[8]The pronoun, being expressed, is emphatic, i. q., I myself. The others appear to have been so situated as not to observe this fact, or did not notice it.
[9] being in Pael so far as the form is concerned, is simply transitive; but the context gives it the sense of contravene, common in the cognate Syriac.
[10] Keri something astray, an error or wrong word, i.e., detraction.
[11] his house, i.e., the house of any individual so doing.]
[12]Cf. generally, Rawlinson, Journal of the R. Geogr. Society, x., p. 93.
[13]The martyrs in 2Ma 7:9 address the Syrian king as: Thou accursed man. and in 2Ma 7:34 of the same chapter they denounce him thus: Thou godless man, and of all others most wicked, be not lifted up without a cause, nor puffed up with uncertain hopes, lifting up thy hand against the servants of God; for thou has not yet escaped the judgment of Almighty God, who seeth all things. How different is the language of the three Hebrews, Dan 3:16; Dan 3:18! cf. upon the whole, Zndel, Krit. Unterss., p. 72 et seq.
[14][The author by this epithet probably refers to the pseudo-Isaiah assumed to have written the latter chapters of that bookan unnecessary and unwarranted distinction.]
[15][The customary phrase: sends this greeting, is to be mentally supplied.
[16]Literally. May your peace (i.e., prosperity) be increased.
[17]Literally, It has seemed good before me. The order in the original is also emphatic: The signs and wonders. . I (have) thought it good to show.
[18]The same emphatic order is observed in this and the following clause: His signs how, (literally, as what) great (literally, very great, a reduplicated form)! etc.
[19]Literally, a kingdom of eternity.
[20] is the fut. Pael, with epenthelic, as usual in these forms. The tense seems to express the continued effect on the speakers mind.
[21]Literally, From me was made a decree.
[22]The terms employed for these various classes of conjurers are the same as those in Dan 2:2, except the last, but they are named in a somewhat different order.
[23]The pronoun, being expressed, is somewhat emphatic.
[24] from by resolution of the dagesh.
[25]Literally, Let them change his heart from the man.
[26]Literally, a heart of the living creature.
[27]Literally, And thee they are driving from mankind (the man).
[28]The pronoun, being expressed, is somewhat emphatic.
[29]Both nouns being anarthrous, the meaning is a royal residence.
[30]Literally, they are saying.
[31]Literally, and from mankind (the man) thee they are driving.
[32]The particle is emphatic = At this time, in contrast with his former impiety.]
[33][The authors arguments for the original composition of this passage by Daniel are plausible, but not quite conclusive. It would seem that all the Chaldee portions of this book are substantially extracts from the archives of the Chaldan realm, and this portion has more than ordinary marks of having been such a document. The record of the facts would doubtless be made as a part of the annals of the empire, such as we know were wont to be preserved by the monarchs of the great East (Est 6:1). written doubtless by the official scribe or historiographer in the vernacular or court language. This account we may readily conceive Nebuchadnezzar on his recovery from insanity would be anxious to revise, and he would naturally select Daniel as his secretary in publishing an authorized statement of the matter. This view accounts for the mixture of theocratic and heathen sentiments contained in this extraordinary confession of royal humiliation. Well might Daniel recur to this scene in his bold rebuke of Belshazzars impiety, Dan 5:18 et seq. The explanation of the Jewish coloring of parts of this chapter by the hypothesis of a later interpolation of the Maccaban age, is amply refuted by Stuart and Keil (see likewise our authors apologetical remarks [No. 3] appended to this chapter). These writers both adduce, as corroboration of the account of Nebuchadnezzars madness, the statement of Abydenus in the fragments preserved by Eusebius (Prp. Evang., ix. 42, and Chron. Armen., ed. Aucher, I. p. 59), that the Chaldan monarch was seized with a preternatural frenzy ( . ) while walking on the top of his royal tower at Babylon.]
CONTENTS
The dedication of a golden image for worship, is appointed by Nebuchadnezzar; the people commanded to bow before it: the Jews are accused of neglecting it, and are cast into the furnace, but miraculously delivered.
Dan 3:1
It is not said when this event took place. One should think it could hardly have been soon after, the King fell prostrate before Daniel, and thought him more than man, as the preceding Chapter relates. But, when we consider the desperately wicked state of the unrenewed heart, full of enmity against God; I am inclined to think it was. But, be that as it may, we see the awful impiety of this wretched man! As he proudly thought the Chaldean empire was the golden part of the image he saw in his dream; he now determined to bid defiance to Daniel’s God, and see which should come to pass. Reader! is it not enough in such views of human nature to make every heart tremble? Lord! what is man void of grace!
Dan 3:1
Bentley’s first year at Trinity is marked by at least one event altogether fortunate his marriage. At Bishop Stillingfleet’s he had met Miss Joanna Bernard, daughter of Sir John Bernard, of Brampton, Huntingdonshire. ‘Being now raised to a station of dignity and consequence, he succeeded in obtaining the object of his affections,’ says Dr. Monk who refuses to believe a story that the engagement was nearly broken off owing to a doubt expressed by Bentley with regard to the authority of the book of Daniel. Whiston has told us what this alleged doubt was. Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image is described as sixty cubits high and six cubits broad. Now, said Bentley, this is out of all proportion; it ought to have been ten cubits broad at least, ‘which made the good lady weep’. The lovers’ difference was possibly arranged on the basis suggested by Whiston that the sixty cubits included the pedestal.
Sir R. C. Jebb’s Bentley, pp. 97, 98.
Dan 3:7
When he was away from his beloved Hanover, everything remained there exactly as in the prince’s presence. There were eight hundred horses in the stables, there was all the apparatus of chamberlains, court-marshals, and equerries; and court assemblies were held every Saturday, where all the nobility of Hanover assembled at what I can’t but think a fine and touching ceremony. A large arm-chair was placed in the assembly-room, and on it the king’s portrait The nobility advanced, and made a bow to the arm-chair, and to the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and spoke under their voices before the august picture, just as they would have done had the king Churfrst been present himself.
Thackeray’s The Four Georges: ‘George the Second’.
Dan 3:8-18
Here were they who formerly resolved not to defile themselves with the king’s meat, and now they as bravely resolved not to defile themselves with his gods. Note a steadfast, self-denying adherence to God and duty in lesser instances will qualify and prepare us for the like in greater.
Matthew Henry.
References. III. 9. J. Baines, Twenty Sermons, p. 29. III. 13-25. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Daniel, p. 55.
Dan 3:14
Whom shall I honour, whom shall I refuse to honour? If a man have any precious thing in him at all, certainly the most precious of all gifts he can offer is his approbation, his reverence to another man. This is his very soul, this fealty which he swears to another: his personality itself, with whatever it has of eternal and Divine, he bends here in reverence before another. Not lightly will a man give this if he is still a man…. Will a man’s soul worship that, think you? Never; if you fashioned him of solid gold, big as Benlomond, no heart of a man would ever look on him except with sorrow and despair. To the flunky heartalone is he, was he, or can he at any time be, a thing to look upon with upturned eyes of ‘transcendent admiration,’ worship, or worthship so-called.
Carlyle, Latter-day Pamphlets: ‘Hudson’s Statue’.
References. III. 14. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxii. No. 1930. III. 16-18. F. J. A. Hort, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 203. C. Kingsley, The Good News of God, p. 31. Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons (3rd Series), p. 27. H. M. Butler, Harrow School Sermons, p. 147. J. Baldwin Brown, The Sunday Afternoon, p. 167. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxvii. No. 2217. F. Bourdillon, Plain Sermons for Family Beading (2nd Series), p. 42.
Dan 3:18
The Reformer’s chief business always is to destroy falsehood, to drag down the temple of imposture, where idols hold the place of the Almighty.
The growth of Christianity at the beginning was precisely this. The early martyrs… died, it cannot be too clearly remembered, for a negation. The last confession before the praetor, the words on which their fate depended, were not, ‘We do believe,’ but ‘We do not believe’. ‘We will not, to save our miserable lives, take a lie between our lips, and say we think what we do not think.’
Froude.
References. III. 18. H. J. Hastings, Sermons Trinity to Advent, p. 299. Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. iii. p. 17. Cecil, Works, vol. iii. p. 196. Roberts, Plain Sermons, vol. ii. p. 241. Kingsley, ‘Song of Three Children,’ Good News of God, Sermon IV. John Foster, Lectures (2nd Series), p. 190. W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, chap. iv. Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v. p. 517. Geikie’s Hours With the Bible, vol. vi. p. 278. Kennedy, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii. p. 260. Stanley Leathes, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv. p. 289. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii. p. 101. Stanley, Jewish Church, vol. iii. p. 31. Spurgeon, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xi. No. 662, and see Expositor (2nd Series), vol. viii. p. 223; (3rd Series), vol. i. p. 217. J. Keble, Sermons for the Sundays After Trinity, p. 251.
Dan 3:24
See Keble’s lines on ‘The Nineteenth Sunday After Trinity’.
Dan 3:24-25
That Babylon has fallen; but there is another Babylon which still goes on, and always will go on, till Christ comes again to judgment. There is the overwhelming and overawing spectacle of this world, with its pomps and glories. Its look is lofty, and it speaks great things, and its vast array is ever before us. We cannot getaway from it. Go where we will it follows us. It is a vision before our minds if not a sight before our eyes; it is the scene of Babylonian power and greatness still going on, though in another form, and accommodated to every age in succession…. Men reject everywhere the office of witnessing to Divine truth; they throw it off as ah obstacle, a shackle, and a burden, something that stands in their way, and prevents them from being friends with the world, and from getting on in the world. They know the truth, but will not witness to it. They know that the world is transitory, and they act as if it were eternal…. Yet we may venture to say, and with certainty, that never, on any occasion, by any one of the humblest servants of God, was this office of witness to the truth executed without a reward. Never in this mixed world did a Christian soul offer to God the sacrifice of a practical confession of Him, by standing apart from the ways of the world not accepting its voice, not yielding to its spells, or being overawed by its show: never did any one face any measure of adversity or gloom, or isolation or deprivation, as the consequence and penalty of bearing witness to the truth and expressing that truth in action, but he had, like the three witnesses, in that adversity a companion.
Mozley.
The Furnace of Affliction
Dan 3:24-25
The lessons from this wonderful story are on the surface.
I. Those who are Faithful to God must reckon on being: Cast into the Furnace of Persecution.
‘All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.’ For a time, and along considerable tracts of their experience and intercourse with the world, it may go well with them, as it did with those good and brave Hebrew youths. But when images must be worshipped, or even spoken respectfully of, the case is altered. Slavish compliance with all the customs of the society in which you move, discreet silence, at least, over undoubted wrongdoing, worshipping of certain fashionable idols, all this is demanded by the world, and cannot be given by the faithful follower of Christ. Such collisions kindle the fiery furnace as naturally as the striking of the flint by the steel kindles sparks. It may be gross and declared persecution, it may be coarse mockery or refined sneering, it may be quiet and persistent ignoring of your claims in one way or another the furnace will be lighted, and you will be cast into it.
II. God will Preserve Those who are Cast into that Furnace for His Sake. One ‘like the Son of God’ will remain by their side. Nothing knits true friends together like calamity; and Jesus is the Friend that sticketh closer than a brother. The faithful follower of Christ feels his Saviour nearest when men are most estranged, and know Him kindest when the furnace is hottest.
III. Those who Remain Faithful to Christ ‘have no Hurt’. How many are soured, made selfish and querulous and jealous and melancholy, by their troubles! But he who has the fellowship of Christ in them, standing true to his Master in spite of them, comes through them all unhurt His nature is refined, not corroded by them. He comes forth from the furnace as gold seven times tried, a vessel meet for the use of the Master.
IV. Those who Remain Faithful to Christ have Liberty given to Them. Only one thing was burned in that fierce furnace, and that was the fetters by which they had been bound. They were loose, walking in ‘the midst of the fire’. If we are humble and Christlike, feeling that we have Christ’s presence with us in the midst of our troubles, we shall take to them kindly and feel free in the midst of them. When sel is utterly sacrificed, and compromises, which are the miserable bonds between the world and Christ, are burned in the fiery furnace, then you are Christ’s freemen, and stand in the liberty wherewith He has made you free.
References. III. 25. J. C. M. Bellew, Sermons, vol. i. p. 23. Bishop Bickersteth, ibid. p. 253.
Dan 3:27
‘When a child,’ says Thomas Fuller, ‘I loved to look on the pictures in the Book of Martyrs. I thought that there the martyrs at the stake seemed like the three children in the fiery furnace, ever since I had known them there, not one hair more of their head was burnt, nor any smell of the fire singeing of their clothes. This made me think martyrdom was nothing. But, oh! though the lion be painted fiercer than he is, the fire is far fiercer than it is painted. Thus it is easy for one to endure an affliction, as he limns it out in his own fancy, and represents it to himself but in a bare speculation. But when it is brought indeed, and laid home to us, there must be a man, yea, there must be God to assist the man, to undergo it.’
Why the Image?
Dan 3:1-5
Why did Nebuchadnezzar make this image of gold, whose height, including the pedestal on which it stood, was threescore cubits? Was he trying to realise the dream which Daniel related to him and interpreted? Was the image a picture of himself, an expression of self-consciousness and self-glory? Was it in memory of some all but forgotten victory? These questions have been considered, and left, as they well may be, undecided. The king’s “image of gold” was a wooden effigy inside. That effigy was only plated with gold, “All that glitters is not gold.” It reads well in history that a man who was a king had so much gold at command that he could make a lofty image of it. Many persons would be content to tell lies in a similar way. There are not wanting persons who would be quite willing that observers should count as solid gold the little thin plates that cover a wooden idol. There is a want of reality; there is much reading of the surface, and very little penetration into the inner quality and value of things “The fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.” There was no harm in making the statue; men must have some kind of recreation; our pride must have some way of embodying and revealing itself to observers whose days are weary because of idleness. We may, however, put harm into very innocent recreations. Things are what we make them: “unto the pure all things are pure.” The bad man never sees any good; the jealous man is never at rest; the selfish man has no outlook upon fruitfields and odorous gardens and orchards large as forests. It is so with our recreations, our amusements: a sour-natured man looking upon any recreation sees in it all possible depravity; recreation is to such a nature a species of profanity. It may well be so; the mischief arises at the point at which the sour-natured man wishes to measure other people by his standard. If he could say to himself, “I am poverty-stricken in my soul, I am a born bigot, I am a Pharisee that never can get into heaven, and therefore I must not judge other people,” he would speak a plain and wise language; but when he sets himself up as king and judge, and says, “This is right, and that is unlawful,” then he becomes a trespasser, a speaker of mischievous things, a marplot in houses that but for his presence would be quiet and cheerful and gladsome as homes. Beware of appearances. We may appear to be good when in reality we are but covered with thin and almost worthless tinsel; we may be studying vanity when we are only professing to be adjusting appearances. There is a study of appearances that is decent and proper, wise, economical, and instructive; but how easy it is to go out of the appearance into the vanity, the conceit, the ostentation, and the display. The harm is not in the things themselves, but some of us have learned of the very devil himself, Beelzebub, prince of devils, to spoil everything, and to turn God’s sweet, restful, sunny Sabbath into the cloudy week.
Nebuchadnezzar set his image up, and then he sent to “the princes, the governors and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces,” to come to his dedication. When Nebuchadnezzar sent for them, they came. “The princes, the governors and captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, were gathered together unto the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.” How then could it be wrong or unwise? It is impossible that so many great men could all be mistaken. If the princes went wrong the governors would make it right; and if the counsellors got bewildered the judges would explain the law with sepulchral and ponderous wisdom; and if the sheriffs were mistaken the captains would bring them into order again. So we should say. Here we have royalty, rulership, military pomp and splendour, all gathered about this wooden-gold image. They are still there. That assembly never dissolved. These people were born to accost one another, and were never happy in each other’s absence. Yet the assembly provokes some sharp questioning. Did they want to be there? We visit many places we do not want to. Some of these men surely were poets, gardeners, horticulturists: surely some of them saw more in a lily than in Nebuchadnezzar’s mighty image, or in Nebuchadnezzar’s personal garniture; surely there was some poet there that longed for the green lane, for the verdant mead, for the rill that trickled in the field, for the birds that sang amid the snowy blossoms; but they must be there. Fashion kills all its devotees. “Society” is a monster. It is a sin to be simple in the judgment of society self-created, self-dressed, self-gratified.
Do great ceremonies make men happy? Are all the coloured garments so many visions of beauty? Is there some strain religious in the blare of brazen trumpets and the throb of military drums? Most of the people that we see gathered together around great sights would gladly be at home, listening to the voice of child, or friend, or bird. Do external images fill the soul? Is it enough to have a painted God? What wonder if we begin by worshipping things that are seen? That course would seem to be natural, and would seem to be able to justify itself by sound reasoning of a preliminary kind. Who could not in ignorance of other deity worship the sun? Sometimes he seems to be almost God! How multitudinous are his phases, how manifold the apocalypse within which he shows his uncounted riches: now so pale, as if he were weary, an eye half closed in sleep long needed, long delayed; and then in full pomp, every beam, so to say, alive, and the whole heaven amazed and delighted at this vision of glory, as if hidden within that fount of flame and heat there lay ten thousand times ten thousand summers and ten thousand times ten thousand purple autumns, with all their largesses of fruit and flower and benison, for the sustenance and the nutrition of men; then lost among the clouds, where, indeed, he seems to be disporting himself in painting a thousand academies by one look of his eyes: see how he fills the clouds and seems to shape them or fall into their shape, making them burn and sparkle and glitter, and invests them with unimagined and untransferable colours, a marvellous, glorious sight! Who could not uncover his head in presence of such glory, and say, Surely this is the gate at least that opens upon the palaces of God? To worship nature would seem in certain stages of development to be right. God made it; God made the green grass and the blushing flower, the great hills, stairways to heights which man never scaled; God made the valleys and the mountains; and what are these fountains saying to the hearing ear? Only the true listener can tell; the vulgar man hears nothing in that splash of water, but the refined soul hears in it melody and song, music religious, and hint of other music that might please the ear of God. As we grow in wisdom, in capacity, in understanding, in sympathy, we close our eyes upon the universe, and say it is no more to us an image that should be sought unto for purposes of worship; but we see within, by a divinely directed introspection, the true altar, the true sanctuary, the true centre of acceptable worship. Thus we grow from the natural to the spiritual, and when we have attained the measure of our growth we say, “God is a Spirit.” If we still preserve the image, it is as we should preserve a symbol that was helpful to us before we saw the thing signified. If our religion is in colour, form, aesthetic attitude and motion, it will surely come to nought; but if our piety live in eternity, if it feed itself upon the almightiness and the grace of God, as shown in the Cross of Christ, then it will abide for ever. What took place after the great assembly gathered?
“Then an herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up” ( Dan 3:4-5 ).
Poor herald! He was a memoriter preacher; he could but deliver a little lesson which others had caused him to learn. Think what happened here! The people were commanded to worship. That is an impossibility. The highest life lies beyond human command, though the word “human” be qualified and enriched by the word “royal.” This king is making a fool of himself: he has supposed that because he can do much he can do more. He fails where all imperfect education fails; he cannot be content to live within his limits: he must try the risky delights of trespass. Suppose we command some one to love, can it be done? Let consciousness reply. Command the child to love some one appointed to teach and direct it; the child does not understand the imperative direction; the child will either love or not love, without any decree being issued from the royal court. Suppose it should be said to us by the monarch of the day, “Worship!” What would our reply be? The reply would be, It is philosophically impossible to obey such a command. Worship does not lie within human directions, rules, stipulations, and military threatenings or social penalties. Worship is a condition of the soul, it is an instinct of the life, it belongs to the interior nature, and can only be spoken to by one voice with authority, and that is the voice of God. Think of some king or mighty man commanding the nation to sympathise: the obedience could only be of the most literal and mechanical kind; it would be without richness, without nobleness, and, therefore, without acceptableness. He does no sacrifice who merely cuts the lamb’s throat; he is not a worshipper who bows the knee only; the attitude is picturesque, and indicative of obedience, but whilst the knee is bent the heart is in high, scornful rebellion, and within there is an inarticulate laughter that means defiance and contempt.
We cannot do without this word “command” in our religious education. It is a divine word. It would be instructive to trace the history of that term, and to study its meaning in the various relations which it assumes. The Bible is full of commandments: in Genesis the Lord commands, in the Apocalypse there is a commanding voice; and Jesus, gracious, meek, patient, tender Jesus, commands he says, “A new commandment give I unto you.” How then can Jesus give commands? Because of what he is. God can give commands because he is God; and not only so, but being God, he knows human nature, and can address it in its own terms, and according to the line of its own instincts and necessities. When he thunders down his commands there is nothing that offends the mental or moral constitution on which the commanding voice falls with ineffable authority. The command awakens something that is already slumbering in the nature. We must have our duties in the first instance in the form of commands, but only God can tell what commands are not arbitrary, but are natural, and operate in the line of instinct and divine intention. What is a commandment to one man is an easy task to another. Some hard and all but impenetrable natures require to be commanded, stirred, roused; and others hear the word of the Lord and spring to it in obedience that seems to understand it all ere it be fully spoken. Many have sweetened the bitterness of their lot by an ample and proper use of the promises who have forgotten that every promise has behind it or near it a corresponding command. The imperative mood has never been allowed to fall into disuse in the Bible: it is, “Son, give me thine heart”; it is, “Love one another”; it is, “Hear my words and do them,” We draw the line, then, as between human authority and divine sovereignty, as between an arbitrary decree and a command that is in harmony with the wisdom and love of God, and in harmony with the peculiarity of human constitution and capacity.
Spiritual Faithfulness
Dan 3:5
Nothing is safe that is wrong. Nebuchadnezzar would take any angel and yoke him to his chariot if he wanted to go in a certain direction; here he takes the angel of music sweet, heavenly music. Are we staggered by these perversions? Are we overwhelmed by these unconscious tyrannies? See what this man does. If he had set up the image which we have gazed upon, that would have been bad enough, if meant to be an idol and to elicit the service of adoration; but Nebuchadnezzar proceeds further, and makes music an ally of his evil work. That would not be worth commenting upon if it did not hold within it suggestions that touch all human experience, and flow through all the channels and currents of time and action. Get wrong in your idea of worship, and everything falls down before it. A man cannot be partly an idolater. In proportion as his idolatry at any one point is real, the very reality of it makes him an idolater through and through. Do not suppose that something done on Sunday will subtly affect the whole week, how contrary soever your behaviour may be to that something which was supposed to sanctify succeeding days. Where character goes it goes altogether. Music has been seized upon by war; cruel, bloody, devastating war has had its trumpet and its drum; the carnival has hired music to keep up the dance.
Our business should be to sanctify music. We have not yet given hospitality enough to that radiant visitor, meant to make us glad with exceeding ecstasy. The walls of the church should vibrate with music. The music should be such that everybody has some part in it. Music that only a few can sing might have charms, and unquestionably has fascinations of a very dominating kind; but there is a larger music, that takes up all hearts, that makes the dumb sing, and gives a man a sense of intolerable incompleteness if he does not at some point come into it and swell its noble volume. Never let us forget that we can sing sympathetically as well as vocally. It is not necessary that all men should always sing with the voice; when the music is divinest the truly musical soul will be most silent It acknowledges the kinship of the service; it says within itself, That is complete; that is acceptable to God; my heart swells when I hear it; I thank Heaven for voices so rich and pure and healthful. Yet there are times of overflooding, when religious ecstasy becomes supreme, and every old man and little child must have some share in the grand shout. Why should the devil have all the instruments of music, and write his name upon them as if he had made them? He never made one of them; he is a thief from the beginning. The devil has nothing that is fascinating that he has not stolen from the Church. There is no genius in evil; there is hardly any talent in it There is a genius in goodness; blessed are the pure in heart, for that genius shall see God. There shall come another day into the history, on which day it shall be said: At what time ye hear the sound of music, rise and pray: it is the Master calling in his sweetest voice; he has left behind the mechanism of mere words, and is appealing to us through the mystery, the magic, the miracle, of tender strains of noble music. The Church has a right to all the music in the world.
It appears from this narrative that “there are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Jealousy can be very astute. Envy has little tricks and ways that easily take upon them the guise and semblance of perfect innocence. “There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon.” This is a stroke at the king himself; this is a suggestion that Jews, colonists or captives, ought not to have been put into high office. All state functions and state pay should be in the hands of the people of the country. Still these Chaldeans accept the situation, and remind the king that he himself is responsible for the elevation of the men who have disobeyed him. There are many ways of stabbing a man; and guilt is never so guilty as when it tries to be mealy-mouthed and mock-pious. These Chaldeans suppressed themselves, controlled their feelings, and spoke with a consciousness of injury borne with ineffable dignity; but in reality they cast the king himself into a burning fiery furnace. There are many furnaces, and many ways into them, and many ways of drawing men into their awful heat. These ways are known in the family: the sweetly bitter little speeches that are made to one another by members of Christian households; the prayers that have stings in them; the benedictions that are all teeth: yet what meekness, what self-suppression, what beautiful self-control! Yet all the while the devil is trying to get his way, and to suggest what he dare not express in words; realising the words of the poet, “willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike.” “Certain Jews,” colonists, strangers, only a handful of them; then why mind them? why pay this tribute of recognition to a minority? Are men to be reckoned arithmetically? Do we count hands or heads? Do we number men, or weigh them? Why this trouble, when the Jews are so few that they can be named without taking breath? There is something deep behind all this; there is trouble here. Men are influential not according to their numbers, but according to their convictions. These men troubled the whole host of Babylon.
How is it that we bow down unconsciously before the strength of religious conviction and enthusiasm? Our very attempts to destroy it are tributes paid to its majesty; when we seek to sneer at an enemy we often pay him the highest compliment in our power. Why take notice of him? He is here and gone. Why trouble about a bubble, a moment seen, and gone for ever? There is an energy that cannot be sneered out of society; there is a prayer that by its very excitement of controversy proves its reality. Who would care to sit down and argue with, who would care to run after and persecute, men who are talking to mere stones, who are babbling in the air, and who have no touch or eternity? Get the conviction that three men have laid hold of the Infinite, the divine, and society can never be at rest again until those three men have been settled with. They will tear down any pillars however broad, solid, lofty, their ploughshare will tear up any foundations how skilfully laid soever that are not in harmony with the law of righteousness and the demand and claim of God. Why all this discussion about Jesus Christ, if he were only son of Mary, son of Joseph the carpenter, or an excellent man, or a fanatic that lived upon his own mistakes? Why those long, elaborate, expensive books about him? Why do not men let him alone, assured that where there is no deepness of earth the plant will soon wither away? Our enemies themselves, being judges, are continually paying tributes to Jesus Christ by the very attacks which they make upon him. And when men question the reality of prayer, what if that be but an indirect recognition of its reality and prevalence? There may be beneath the surface what we cannot wholly understand in all these moral collisions, in all these spiritual and intellectual hostilities. The minority always rules, independently of its arithmetical littleness, in proportion as it has seized a principle that is rational, profound, beneficent. The politician never succeeds except in making a noise; the statesman calmly proceeds, because he keeps pace with the march of calm philosophy, large-eyed, contemplative, assured wisdom, to whose custody is assigned the development of the ages. Christ gives us peace; Christ does not give us mere genius, mere controversial power, quick repartee, slashing and destructive retort; he gives us peace.
This difficulty about “certain Jews” must be faced. The case is brought before the king, and the king gives his directions: “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?” Now ye shall have another chance. “Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made, well” you shall have an opportunity of being idolaters “but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that god that shall deliver you out of my hands?” I who made the image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits. An image so grotesquely disproportionate might by its very height have condemned the foolish king. He was struck with its height; he never saw its breadth. It is so with men who make false religions and vain philosophies and assaults upon citadels set up by hands divine; their great attacks have but one dimension. When God builds he builds foursquare. “The city lieth foursquare. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal.” Nebuchadnezzar gave them their chance, and they replied: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Never was a king talked to before in that tone.
This was, so to say, the beginning of the democracy in that time and place. There are hours in which men are themselves in the fullest expression of the divine purpose in their constitution. We cannot always live at that great height, but to have occasional moments of conscious heroism is to be assured of our immortality. Judge yourselves by your best occasions. Were we to criticise ourselves by certain special hours of weakness, folly, vanity, conceit, self-trust, despair, and the like, we could never pray any more; the last little flickering light would be blown out, and we should spend eternity in darkness. God has, however, so ordered that we are enabled to take measure of our best selves, and take heart from our best moods; and it hath pleased God so to deal with us as not to answer our prayer when it is least, but to feel it and reply when it is most expanded and most reverently audacious. See what may be on the earth; three men who have no social standing worth naming, except as the gift of this very king, say to Nebuchadnezzar that their religion is greater than their sense of self-protection! Men will risk anything for their religious conviction. These men were the heroes of their time. Their tone is very grand; it is so calm; there is no sign of fume or fury, or bluster or denunciation; the men speak as if they had just risen from prayer; these noble souls look at the king with eyes that have just been closed that they might the better see God. When men have been closeted with God no king can frighten them. Let a man see the Almighty, and he fears no face of clay. Acquaint yourselves with the living God, live and move and have your being in him, and then no face can terrify you by its sudden frowning. We are to men what we are to God: living in God, we shall love men; fearing God, we shall hold all men as but his creatures and servants and dependants. Let our worship be right, and all the details of life will settle and adjust themselves accordingly.
This answer is grand because it is so distinct. There is not one ambiguous word in the whole of the speech. Nebuchadnezzar had no doubt about it: “Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed.” I am glad of that, because he understood the speech; it went straight into his mind and heart. Congregations would be maddened if they rightly understood many a sermon. The greatest compliment that could be paid to certain ministries would be to leave them. It is an awful thing to see all the pews full, for then whom can we have offended, slashed, ripped up, broken down, confounded with judgments? There are tributes that are terrible dangers.
How easily these men could have evaded the king’s fury! Let us study that a moment. They might have bowed down as a matter of form. Men of the nineteenth century would have been capable of doing so. There are persons who can attend church as a matter of form. It is possible to enter God’s sanctuary simply as a matter of custom, saying in the heart: It means nothing; it is the usage, it is the fashion, it is the way of the time, and it is not regarded as conveying anything of the nature of pledge, oath, testimony, or profession; it is generally understood amongst men that to go to church means nothing. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego could have evaded the king’s fury in that way; or they could have availed themselves of what is known as mental reservation; they could have bowed the knee, but not the heart; they could have assumed the Babylonian attitude, and yet have said in their souls, What does this matter? We have our state function, we are appointed over the province of Babylon, and thus and thus we keep our faith. It is shocking to read some biographies, because they reveal the fact that men have been guilty of mental reservation that is, saying one thing and meaning another; or saying one thing and mentally resolving upon another; or saying one part of the declaration very loudly, and the other part quite in an undertone, which nobody can hear, but which the speaker can aver to have been the case should he be called to criticism or penalty. We must get rid of all this if the Church is to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, and is to be lifted high upon a hill.
Do not profess to believe more than you really believe. A little real faith is worth ten thousand folios of written doubt. Do not try to add another item to your creed. When a man has to really agitate his brain in order to know what he does believe, you may be perfectly sure he believes nothing. He may like to have a long creed in order that he may pose as a kind of theological philosopher the very worst type of man since the days of Judas Iscariot, unless he be watched at every point, and watch himself when all other watchers are asleep. Have faith, but know what it is; and having formed your conviction, it will sustain you in the midst of challenge and criticism, hostility and menace. You could hold on to the one little line. Do not try to embrace the horizon, but lay hold upon one substantial, vital, living, redeeming truth. Say, God is love; and having written that down, look at it, stand by it, live in it, return to it; it is the dawn of heaven: it is the assurance of further light and pledge of unceasing growth. Others could begin at different points; the thing insisted upon is that every man should begin somewhere, and have at least one line that he can swear by, so that when all other things become cloudy he can say, This is the refuge to which I flee: God is love; Christ died for me; God is willing to keep me in all my ways; The Bible is the living word of the living God; In the house of the living God there is a fountain that never ceases; In the Cross there is pardon for the vilest sinner. Let one of these lines be taken out and be your line, and you shall have more added until you know the meaning of the word, “the increase of faith and growth in grace.’
The three men were thrown into the hot furnace, and Nebuchadnezzar came near and looked in, and he saw a fourth man walking with the three. “Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” like a beautiful image, like something I have never seen before, for beauty, radiance, lustre, One that seems to be able to control the fire and turn the furnace into a very garden and paradise. That is historically true of Christianity, for Christianity has been thrown into all the furnaces that men could light and heat for eighteen hundred years, and is walking about in them with the ineffable dignity of imperishable truth. This is morally true of every Christian. No Christian soul was ever in a furnace that did not realise the nearness and the protection of God. So this is experimentally true of every saint: It was good for me that I was afflicted: fear not them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. When man rages most God descends more nearly and closely into the soul, to comfort it by all the solaces and encouragements of his infinite love. Call this dream, picture, allegory, poem, still there remains a truth we cannot part with, namely, that there is divine companionship in sorrow, and that some of us never learned aught of theology until we learned it in a burning furnace. The man who has studied in that school will come out of it wise, mellow, tender, sympathetic; he will not be narrow, exclusive, domineering, and much inclined to the excommunication of others, but he will know that in life there is a great ministry wrought out by suffering, and he will know that the wrath of man is made to praise God, and the remainder of it is restrained or cut off. Until we have suffered for our religion we do not know what our religion is worth. What we need today is persecution. If we could have the fires of martyrdom relighted we should know exactly who are believers and who are mere speculators. We miss the fire; we die for want of the block; the taking down of the scaffold has ruined the altar.
Nebuchadnezzar paid a beautiful tribute to the Lord when he said, “the smell of fire had not passed on them.” God’s triumphs are complete. God never leaves a miracle half done. God will not permit your redemption to perish in nothingness; he does not begin without being able to finish; I am persuaded that he who hath begun a good work in you shall continue it until the day of consummation. This is our confidence, this our joy, this our music. We are not almost delivered, we are not greatly comforted, we are not very largely protected, but all men say concerning those who have been tried, The fire had no power upon them, nor was a hair of their head singed, nor were their coats changed, nor had the smell of fire passed upon them. A beautiful image is that of Buddha when he comes to the great stallion that no other rider could mount, lays his hand upon the beast’s noble head, and whispers to it, as if they had met in some other state or had interchanged their relations. When God comes he turns fire into water, or water into fire; he makes things destructive into things conservative; he finds flowers for his children in the winter, in the wilderness he makes gardens, in the rocks he finds honey; and when men say there is no more hope he fills the sky with morning, and the leaden air quivers and vibrates with music This is the God we adore. He is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think. If we are in the fiery furnace, and have Christ with us, the fire will not burn; if we are in a great sea of trouble, tossed to and fro by wave and billow and great wind, and have Christ in the vessel, we smile at the storm.
III
THE HISTORY OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR
Dan 2:1-4:37
The history contained and involved Dan 1 , because it is fundamental to the rest of the book, and because it is most contested, hag been elaborately examined in the preceding chapter. With the foundation thus firmly established, we may proceed more rapidly in the consideration of the rest of the historical sections of the book.
Dan 2 commences with an important date, the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. We have seen from the preceding chapter that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, made its king tributary, and led Daniel into captivity, in the third year of Jehoiakim; that on this expedition he was only co-regent with his father, but was called home suddenly by the news of his father’s death, so that in the fourth year of Jehoiakim he became sole king (Jer 25:1 ), and the same year as king he defeated the invading Egyptians at the second battle of Charchemish near the fords of the Euphrates (Jer 46:2 ). The victory was so decisive that he finished that year the campaign which gave him all the Syrian and Palestinian country to the river of Egypt. We say he finished the Charchemish campaign that year, for this chapter (Dan 2:1 ) finds him back in Babylon some time later, doubtless in his second year. It is in this year he had the dream of the great image destroyed by the little stone cut out of the mountain, or the succession of five great world empires which will be considered carefully when we come to the exposition of the prophetic sections. Because of his interpretation of this dream Daniel and his friends receive great honors. Our record says, “Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshiped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours to him. The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth your God is the God of gods, and the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou hast been able to reveal this secret. Then the king made Daniel great, and gave him many great gifts, and made him to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to be chief governor over all the wise men of Babylon. And Daniel requested of the king, and he appointed Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel was in the gate of the king” (Dan 2:46-49 ).
He is now not only the chief of all the wise men, a very influential body, but is prime minister of all the empire. As it is a world empire, the governmental affairs of the known world are in his hands. His purity of life and his incorruptible integrity in the administration of public affairs soon gives him such a reputation for righteousness throughout the world as later to call forth a tribute from his fellow captive and contemporary, Ezekiel, which associates him with the two men most remarkable for righteousness at that date in the world’s history (Eze 14:14 ; Eze 14:20 ).
Tyre, on the Phenician coast, had also become tributary to Babylonia. But the king of Tyre, meditating the rebellion which would soon bring Nebuchadnezzar to destroy his city, imagined he knew more about politics and public administration of affairs than anybody else. This calls forth another tribute to Daniel by Ezekiel when he ironically says to the king of Tyre, “Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that is hidden from thee!” The reference here is very obvious to Daniel’s God-given wisdom and his selection by the Almighty to be a revealer of secrets set forth in Dan 2 . And the pertinence of the allusion becomes more apparent when we consider that it is Daniel’s wise administration of the world’s affairs, including those of Tyre, against which the king of Tyre proposes to rebel. There is nothing in the world’s literature more exquisite as a classical gem than this prophecy of Ezekiel against Tyre. (See Ezekiel 26-28.)
When we consider the relation of Tyre to Daniel and Babylon at this very juncture, nothing but the most incorrigible perversity and wilful blindness could induce a radical critic to refer these allusions of Ezekiel to a Daniel unknown to history or tradition, and to deny their reference to the well-known Daniel of this book, the only man on earth at that time, before or since, whose relations to the matters in hand could justify the allusions.
Attention is here called to the frequent instances in history when alien Jews, on account of their capacity, have been promoted to the management of national affairs: Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, Mordecai in Persia, Disraeli in England, Judah P. Benjamin in the Southern Confederacy. The history in Dan 3 relates, not directly to him, but to his three friends. And as the record is so plain we need not do more than make clear a few points in the story. That Nebuchadnezzar, in his exaltation to the sovereignty of the world, should be inflated with abnormal pride and count himself worthy of divine honors is no strange thing, particularly when we call to mind the existence of that evil spirit, the prince of this world, at all times ready to tempt men to idolatry, or to any form of worship that will deny the only true God. In our Lord’s great prophecy which refers to the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel, the prophet, we find the Greek word “Bdelugma” translated “abomination,” to mean an idol, an image for worship, and therefore an “abomination.” Probably that idol, or image, was the effigy of Caesar on the Roman standard which the soldiers worshiped by imperial command. There is a thrilling account by Josephus, in Jewish Antiquities, of the revolt of the Jews because Pilate had the legion from Caesarea to bring these idol standards and to “introduce” them by might into the holy city. Inasmuch as the desolation of Jerusalem was to be accomplished by Roman armies, and as these armies carried standards on which were idol effigies of Caesar, we can see why Daniel would call the Roman standard an abomination of desolation. If, much later in the world’s history, all the Caesars assumed divine honors and demanded worship of their images, we should not find it incredible that Nebuchadnezzar should erect this image in the plain of Dura.
We may trust a radical critic, however, to find some ground of objection against the history. Three of their objections I now cite and answer, as follows:
1. The available gold of the world would not suffice for the material of that colossal image, ninety feet high and nine feet wide. Those who are familiar with the financial arguments of Bryan’s first campaign for the presidency will recall “Coin’s” dramatic description of the smallness of the room whose cubic capacity would hold all the gold of the world. But these critics ignore the fact that these images were not solid but hollow like the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor, and that probably the component sections were not solid gold but only plated or gilt. Gold is one of the most malleable of all metals. A single grain of gold can be hammered out until it will cover fifty square inches. It would not have strained Nebuchadnezzar’s credit to gild or plate that image.
2. But the critics blow the trumpet of doubt when they find among the names of the musical instruments enumerated in Dan 3:4 ; Dan 3:10 , one or two Greek words, which they say could not have been known in Babylon at this date and therefore the author must belong to the times after Antiochus Epiphanes. It is hardly worth while to notice this philological objection since objections on the ground of philology have been either virtually abandoned by many of the later critics or little stress given to them. It is true the book of Daniel deals only with the Greek Empire prophetically, commencing with Alexander the Great, yet unborn, but Greek language and literature preceded Alexander very many years and were widely diffused before Daniel’s time. The Greek name of an instrument of music would naturally follow the instrument. From the time that Nebuchadnezzar gained the Mediterranean coast, and long before there was communication with Greece (not yet an empire of course) through Pheonician ships and overland routes of commerce (read particularly Eze 27 ). But Dr. Pusey, one of the ripest scholars of Europe, denies that there is even one Greek word in the book of Daniel.
3. Of course they regard the miraculous preservation of the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace as altogether incredible. How their gorge rises in them when a miracle appears! A close student of Bible miracles cannot fail to note that they appear in groups of great epochs in the history of the kingdom of God the times of Moses, of Elijah and Elisha, of Isaiah and Daniel, of our Lord and his apostles. And always the times call for mighty demonstrations of divine power. I call attention to the old heathen literary maxim: “Never introduce a god into your story unless there be a necessity for a god, and when introduced let his words and deeds be worthy of a god.” Of course the author of the maxim is looking only to an artistic standard of literary taste, and yet his words contain a principle that justifies all biblical miracles. There is always an occasion for them. They are never needless or out of harmony with the conditions. And particularly in this instance as in the memorable case of Elijah and the prophets of Baal, there was a distinct issue between Jehovah and idolatry which called for the divine interposition, as we see in Dan 3:15 . These three Hebrews had openly refused to obey the king’s mandate to worship the image. They were formally brought before him in the presence of his people. The king once more peremptorily demanded obedience and challenged any god to deliver from his wrath if they again disobeyed.
Aesop, in one of his fables, justly rebukes a wagoner for calling on the demigod, Hercules, when all that was needed was to put his own shoulder to the wheel. No human power could have helped these martyrs in that furnace, and only the supernatural intervention could have brought Nebuchadnezzar to his right mind. The New Testament certifies the miracle: “By faith they quenched the violence of fire” (Heb 11:34 ). One incident of this preservation has impressed the world, and teaches a lesson of transcendent importance to God’s people: “Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors) Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
The great lesson is the actual presence of God with his people in all their trials and afflictions. This time the Presence was made visible. But whether visible to the natural eye or only to the spiritual eye, the fact of that Presence has been, throughout the ages of unspeakable comfort to all persecuted for righteousness’ sake or in sore straits from any cause. It has inspired lofty songs and given wings to praise. David, in that matchless hymn concerning the good shepherd, sings: Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
It is the glorious assurance of the great commission: “Lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.” In the absence of our Lord in heaven this doctrine of the Divine Presence prevents the sense and loneliness of orphanage. Says our Lord, on the eve of his departure) “I will not leave you orphans. I come unto you. . . . If any man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (Joh 14:18 ; Joh 14:23 ). Nebuchadnezzar, an outsider, and challenging God’s intervention, needed natural sight to convince him. We need it not. The manifestation of the Presence is more vivid, more realizable) because made evident to the soul’s senses. Let us keep on singing that grand old Baptist hymn: Fear not; I am with thee; O be not dismayed, I am thy God, and will still give thee aid: I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand, Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand. When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie, My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply: The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design Thy dross to consume, thy gold to refine.
To the end of time the reply of these three men to Nebuchadnezzar’s imperious demand will develop moral heroes: “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego answered and said unto the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” The world would become corrupt as before the flood and evoke condign and sweeping wrath from heaven were it not that in every generation some heroes of faith, like these men, arise to save it by their sublime devotion to the paramount law of God. The whole book of Daniel breeds heroes.
More than once already have I called attention to the variant readings of the Septuagint, or Greek version. We must understand first, that a translation is not inspired. Then we should understand that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, for whose great library this version was made, was seeking literature, not religion. Sometimes this version is a paraphrase, not a translation. Sometimes it incorporates traditions and even whole books, belonging indeed to later Jewish literature, but not found in the Hebrew nor reckoned by the Jews as canonical. Hence we need not be surprised to find incorporated in this third chapter of Daniel a section longer than the rest of the chapter. It sandwiches between Dan 3:23 and Dan 3:24 sixty-seven other verses, consisting of three parts:
1. After stating that these men had fallen down bound when thrown into the furnace, it says that they arose and walked in the flame. Then Azarias (i.e., Abed-nego) offered a prayer much like Daniel’s prayer in Dan 8 . Indeed, it is evidently modeled on that prayer, but it contains one untrue statement, which was true, however, in the time of the apochryphal book from which it seems to be quoted.
2. It contains a brief statement to this effect: That Nebuchadnezzar’s servants kept on adding fuel to feed the flames of the furnace, but that God’s angel entered the furnace with the martyrs and blew all the flames out of the furnace and made all its interior as cool as if a gentle breeze circulated or a dew were falling.
3. The consciousness of deliverance leads all three of them to burst out in a long song of praise, which is little more than quotations from some of the psalms. It bears the marks of a later age, and unlike the reticence of the Holy Scriptures, it seeks to explain the process of the miracle. The inspired oracles record miracles in the simplest and briefest language, never stopping to attempt an explanation, or to offer an apology. The miracle stands naked before the eye and is left unclothed.
Dan 4 is a contribution by Nebuchadnezzar himself. It consists of a proclamation which recites the events of eight years. The time order of the events is as follows:
1. Nebuchadnezzar, though a great king and a pious one according to his religion, was going far astray through pride in consequence of his greatness and the exercise of his sovereignty over the world.
2. God sends him a dream to rebuke him for his sins and to warn him of punishment if there be no reformation.
3. This dream is interpreted by Daniel to signify the loss of his reason for seven years and his expulsion from the throne during that time, and his becoming as a beast of the field. Daniel closes his interpretation with this exhortation: “Wherefore, O king, let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; if it may be a lengthening of thy tranquility.”
4. At the end of twelve months, the king’s heart being lifted up with pride as he contemplates the greatness of his city and the glory of his dominion, the dream is fulfilled.
5. On the recovery of his reason he blesses and praises Jehovah, the God of the Jews, and acknowledges his supremacy over all governments and kings.
The dream in itself was a marvel:
Thus were the visions of mine head upon my bed: I saw, and, behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth. The leaves thereof were fair, and the fruit thereof much, and in it was food for all, the beasts of the field had shadow under it, and the birds of the heavens dwelt in the branches thereof, and all flesh was fed from it. I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold, a watcher and a holy one came down from heaven. He cried alone and said, thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off its branches, shake off its leaves, and scatter its fruit: let the beasts get away from under it, and the fowls from its branches. Nevertheless leave the stump of its roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven; and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth; let his heart be changed from man’s, and let a beast’s heart be given unto him; and let seven times pass over him. The sentence is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones; to the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the lowest of men. Dan 4:10-17 .
The great lesson which the dream was designed to teach is thus expressed: “To the intent that the living may know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men and giveth it to whomsoever he will; and setteth up over it the lowest of men.” This chapter, as all of the rest of the book, is designed to affirm and demonstrate the supremacy of the government of God over the governments of men. On one occasion Dr. Lyman Beecher preached a sermon on “The Government of God.” The impression made by it was so profound that a friend inquired, “Dr. Beecher, how long were you preparing that sermon?” He replied, “Forty years, and the time was too short for me to understand the comprehension of the divine rule.” The dream was also intended to show that all kings and governments are under inspection of heavenly watchers, and when the measure of their iniquity is full the divine judgment will certainly fall. Any man who cannot, from the study of nature and from the affairs of time) find out that there is a God who rules over heaven and earth, classifies himself with the brutes that perish. As this dream says, “Take away from him the heart of a man and let the heart of a beast be given to him.”
In the days of my early ministry in Waco, Mr. Huxley’s definition of an agnostic was becoming widely accepted and the Darwinian theory of evolution as set forth by Charles Darwin and advocated by Herbert Spencer, Huxley, and Tyndall, was receiving great favor in literary circles in Waco. After reviewing in a series of lectures the “First Principles” of Herbert Spencer, I preached a sermon on the text from this chapter, “Take away from him the heart of a man and give him the heart of a beast,” and used these expressions: “An atheist is a fool; an agnostic is a beast,” following out the thought of this chapter that one too ignorant to know God and his government classified himself with the beasts. The evolutionists who had confidently affirmed a brute ancestry, objected to classification with their parents.
The disease which came upon Nebuchadnezzar was a disease well known to medical authorities in which the subject, through mental derangement on one point, imagines himself to be some beast or fowl and acts as if it were true; that is, the patient, if he imagines himself to be a rooster, flaps his arms as if they were wings and crows; if he imagines himself to be a dog he barks and growls and snarls like a dog; if he imagines himself to be an ox he goes on all-fours instead of standing erect and eats grass and herbs like an ox. The technical name of the disease in Nebuchadnezzar’s case is “boanthropy.” A Greek medical writer of the fourth century A.D. seems to be the first to notice this disease. Doubtless during the seven years of Nebuchadnezzar’s incompetency through mental disorder regents ruled over Babylon for him.
Is it credible that a king of Babylon would issue such a proclamation? In this book and in other books of the Bible, near the times, for example Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, we find kings prodigal in proclamations. It is also in line with the latest discoveries of archeological researches, that kings made proclamations or recorded inscriptions to memorialize the great events of their own lives or of the history of their people. So there is nothing incredible in the proclamation.
A certain sentence of this chapter in the Greek version has been made to play a prominent part in the baptismal controversy. See in the Greek version the rendering of “and his body was wet with the dew of heaven” (Dan 4:33 ).
QUESTIONS
1. What is the subject matter of Dan 2 ?
2. What promotion did Daniel and his three friends receive for the interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the image and little stone?
3. Daniel’s righteousness in his own life and in the administration of the world’s affairs called forth what tribute from his contemporary, Ezekiel?
4. How would his political position as prime minister bring him in contact with Tyre?
5. How does his wisdom in administering world affairs call for another tribute from Ezekiel and what its pertinence?
6. What other Jews have been called to high positions in foreign lands?
7. Show the naturalness of Nebuchadnezzar’s erecting an image of himself for worship.
8. In what form did the Roman Caesars have themselves worshiped?
9. Give the account in Josephus of the revolt of the Jews because these effigies of the Caesars were introduced into the holy city.
10. Why does Daniel, later, call these effigies “the abomination of desolation”?
11. Give the size, height, and breadth of Nebuchadnezzar’s image.
12. What the objection of the critics to the golden material of the image, and your reply?
13. What was their objection to the names of the musical instruments that introduced worship of the image, and your reply?
14. What was their objection to the miracle of preservation in the fiery furnace, and your reply?
15. What incident of the miracle (Dan 3:24-25 ) suggests a great doctrine and how is it elsewhere taught?
16. What has been the moral effect of the reply of the three Hebrews (Dan 3:16-18 ) to Nebuchadnezzar?
17. Give full account of the Septuagint interpolation in this chapter just where it is placed, how much, and what.
18. How do you account for these extensive additions in that version?
19. Who is the author of Dan 4 and of what does it consist?
20. What was the time order of the events?
22. What is the lesson, or design of the dream, and what great sermon cited on “The Government of God”?
23. What use was made of Dan 4:16 by the author and what the occasion of it?
24. What was the disease which came upon Nebuchadnezzar? Describe the actions of on who has it.
25. Is it credible that a king of Babylon would issue such a proclamation?
26. What sentence of this chapter in the Greek version has been made to play a prominent part in the baptismal controversy and what was the reply of immersionists?
Dan 3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height [was] threescore cubits, [and] the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
Ver. 1. Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold. ] Having taken Tyre, which was that great service spoken of in Eze 29:18 , subdued Egypt, which was his pay for his pains at Tyre, and overthrown Nineveh, as Nahum had foretold, he was so puffed up with his great success that he set up this monstrous statue of himself, to be adored by all on pain of death. That it was his own image which he here erected for such a purpose, as did also afterwards Gaius Caligula, the Roman emperor, it is gathered, (1.) Because he did not worship it himself; (2.) Because Dan 3:12 it is distinguished from his gods; (3.) Because this was long since foretold of him, Isa 14:14 that, Lucifer-like, he should take upon him as a god; which because he did, he was worthily turned agrazing among beasts. Dan 4:33 Meanwhile, take notice here of the inconstant and mutable disposition of this proud prince as to matter of religion. Velox oblivio est veritatis, saith Jerome; The truth is soon forgotten. Nebuchadnezzar, who so lately had worshipped a servant of God as a god, and not being suffered to do so, declared for the one only true God, and advanced his servants to places of greatest preferment, is now setting up idolatry in despite of God, and cruelly casting into the fire those whom he had so exalted, because they dissented. Daniel, it is likely, withstood this ungodly enterprise so far as be might, and left the rest to God.
Whose height was threescore cubits.
He set it up in the plain of Dura. a Plin., lib. xxxiv, cap. 7.
b Theop. Pezel., Mell. Hist.
c Geog., lib. vi.
Daniel Chapter 3
The chapters which fill up the interval between Dan 2 and 7 are devoted to the statement of historical facts, and therefore might not seem, at first sight, to have a prophetical character. But we must bear in mind that Scripture in general has an infinitely larger scope than the bare statement of circumstances, be it ever so instructive and important morally. Indeed, this is true of all the Bible. Take such a book, for instance, as Genesis. Though it is clearly historical, and one of the simplest narratives in the Bible, yet it would be wrong to strip it of an outlook into the most distant future. We have the Spirit of God in the New Testament referring over and over again to its most significant facts. Thus, in the incident of Melchizedek; we see the bearing that is given it by the Holy Ghost in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the allusion to it in other parts of Scripture. A priest and king, two characters that were often united in those days, meets Abraham on his return from the slaughter of the kings, brings forth suited refreshment for the victors, pronounces blessing in the name of Him whose priest he was, and receives tithes as well from Abraham. Yet we must remember that the word of God reasons on this, as indicative of a vast change which has already come in, and leaves open a good deal more, looking onward to the day of Christ, as I conceive. In the Hebrews, where the subject of Christ’s priesthood, as now in heaven, is discussed, some important features of the type are barely alluded to, not applied. The primary drift there is to show, from the Jewish Scriptures, a higher character of priesthood than that of Aaron – a priesthood that was not derived from any predecessor, nor handed down to a successor. I only refer to this to show that Scripture gives a typical (and what is that, in other words, but a prophetical?) value to what might appear to be an authentic account of an historical event. Such a character I claim for these facts in the Book of Daniel. For it is plain that, if in the most unvarnished books of inspired history, such as Genesis or Exodus, where prophecy is not the ostensible object or peculiarly marked feature, you have incident on incident, clearly used in the New Testament, as foreshadowing good things to come, we may still more strongly infer that, in a prophecy such as this of Daniel, we are to read not only the visions as directly prophetic, but also the facts connected with them as instinct with a kindred spirit. It were easy to produce analogous examples from elsewhere. Let us look for a moment at the prophecy of Isaiah. There, after a long series of prophetic strains, you have a break. Certain well-known historical facts are related – the invasion and destruction of the Assyrian; and as to Hezekiah, his sickness and his recovery, the wonder done in the land, and the visit of the embassy from the king of Babylon. Then you have the prophecy recommencing, and following on its course. It could be readily proved that the facts related of Sennacherib and Hezekiah have a definite and most instructive bearing upon the prophecies in the midst of which they are imbedded. So that merely to regard them as facts introduced historically into such a connection, and, with no further or deeper reason, dividing one half of the book from the other, would be to deprive them of at least half their value. Am I too bold, therefore, in assuming it as a general truth, applicable to the word of God as a whole, that Scripture is not to be lowered down to the mere recital of the facts it records; but that those facts were chosen expressly in the wisdom of God, and were given in an orderly manner, for the purpose of representing the awful ways of man and Satan, and the glorious scenes before the mind of God Himself, that are to be re-enacted in the latter day? And if this be the case with the strictly historical portion of God’s word, it is only reasonable that it should be emphatically true of a prophetic book such as this.
The evidence, however, of this will much more appear as we follow the facts as they are given here. We shall then see what is the connection, and what the special bearing, of the chapters themselves, better than by more laboured presumptions than one might gather from other parts of the word of God. For that is and must be the grandest testimony of all to the real meaning of Scripture. Revealed truth is like the light. It is not that which requires illumination from without in order to let us know what it means, but it displays itself. You do not need a taper or a torch from man to find out the light of day. The sun, as it wants none, entirely eclipses all such artificial helps; it shines for itself and rules the day. So it is that, wherever you find a man capable of seeing, the truth commends itself. He has, what the evangelist Luke calls, “an honest heart,” and what other scriptures speak of as “a single eye.” Wherever the truth is really brought to bear upon a man who is open to receive it as the precious light of God in Christ, they answer mutually to each other. The heart is prepared for it – desires it; and when the truth is heard, bows, receives, and enjoys it. When the heart, on the contrary, is occupied with itself, or with the world, there is no truth that can possibly bend it. The will of man is at work; and that is the constant, unvarying enemy of God. Therefore it is said (Joh 3 ) that no man can see or enter the kingdom of God without being born again – born of water and of the Spirit. That is, there must be a direct, positive work of the Holy Ghost, dealing with the soul, judging it and giving a new nature, which has as decided an affinity for the things of God as the old life has for the things of the world. The Spirit acts upon the new creature, and gives intelligence; and the truth is, we may say, its natural sustenance.
I do not doubt, therefore, that we shall find, in this third chapter of Daniel, as in the three which follow, that each has its distinctive features; and that these were not merely seen in what was passing in the days of Daniel, but that they were registered by the prophet to indicate the course now past, and the future destiny of the great Gentile powers. We are to view them in the light of the prophecies that surround them – to take them, not as facts put down, as any man might do it, at haphazard. In short, God has given them here, linked in the most intimate way with the prophecy where they are found.
In Dan 2 we saw God’s sovereign dealing with a man, raised up from among the Gentiles, to be the minister of His authority. This takes a new form, in consequence of the people of Israel and their kings having definitely proved themselves unworthy of God’s purpose and calling. Thereon God introduces the imperial system of government in the world. It was not merely allowing a single nation to grow in power, and be the terror of its neighbours; or creating a blessed example of the ways of God. One ruler is allowed to be the master of the world – one great sovereign, not only himself mighty, but a ruler of kings, who were but subordinate or satellites. This began with Nebuchadnezzar, and it characterizes the Gentile empires. An objection might be raised, that we do not find any such power existing now. That is true. There exists no such imperial rule in the world, nor has there been since the fall of Rome; though there have been certain pretenders to it. But it has failed. The Book of the Revelation shows us this suspension. There was such a ruler once, while imperial Rome subsisted – one who had kings for his servants. But now there is an interval, when all that is over. Still it is to be revived. And this, I believe, is one great fact that awaits the world at the present time. It will take men by surprise; and when accomplished, it will be the means of concentrating the power of Satan, and of bringing about his plans on the earth.
All this has a very serious interest for us. We stand near the crisis in the world’s history; and even those who look for signs own that we are drawing near the close of the age, and of the times of the Gentiles. The reorganization of the empire is not far off. And it is solemn to remember that, when revived, it will not be a mere repetition of what has been done before; but the power of Satan will be put forth in a way never yet witnessed. God shall send strong delusion that men should believe a lie, because they “believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Very many of my Christian brethren may cry out that I speak uncharitably. The word of God, however, is wiser than men. It is not a thought of mine, nor of any other man. None would have gathered such a prospect from their own minds. But God has most clearly revealed it. People may plead the wonderful works of God of late in one distant country and another; and the answer of blessing that is, as it were, echoing back from some quarters near us. But these things in no way contradict what has been stated. We may always see these two things going on together, when men approach the verge of some mighty change. On the one hand, the general power of evil increases, and the pride of man swells to an unprecedented height. On the other hand, the Spirit of God works energetically, winning souls to Christ, and separating those that are to be saved from the destruction which is the necessary end of sin and pride. Hence, I believe, when any crisis of evil is at hand, what we ought to expect is this increase of blessing from God, during the time of suspense which immediately precedes judgment.
But, turning to the immediate subject of the chapter, imperial power is in the hands of the Gentiles; and the first thing told of that power, is, that it was used to set up idolatry – abused, rather, to give a splendour to idolatry unexampled in the old world. And a most humbling consideration it is: the evident connection between the golden idol that Nebuchadnezzar set up in the plain of Dura, and that image which he had seen in the visions of the night. It is true that the image he had made was not an exact copy. Still, is it not grave to find that the first thing that Nebuchadnezzar does, as far as Scripture gives it to us, is to command a golden image to be set up, that all the peoples, the nations, and the languages, might fall down and worship it? One thing, at least, is plain: that whether the golden head of the great image had suggested the thought or not, at any rate it did not hinder him. On the contrary, here we find that the authority which God had put into his hands, is turned to this frightful use. The reason, I believe, was this: Nebuchadnezzar was a man as wise according to the flesh as he was wilful. He stood most evidently in a place that no man had ever occupied before. Not only the sovereign of a vast kingdom, but the absolute master of many kingdoms, speaking different tongues, and having all sorts of contrary habits and policies. What then was to be done with them? How were all these various nations to be kept and governed under a single head? There is an influence that is mightier than any other thing, which, if common, binds men closely together; but which, if jarring, on the contrary, more than anything else, arrays people against people, house against house, children against parents, and parents against children, nay, husbands and wives against each other. There is no social dislocation to be compared with that which is produced by a difference of religion. Consequently, to avert so great a peril, union in religion was the measure that the devil insinuated into the mind of the politic Chaldean as the surest bond of his empire. He must have one common religious influence in order to weld together the hearts of his subjects. In all probability, to his mind it was a political necessity. Unite them in worship, unite all hearts in bowing down before one and the same object, and there would be something that would give the hope and opportunity of consolidating all these scattered fragments into a whole. Accordingly, he projects the idea of the gorgeous image of gold for the plain of Dura, near the capital of the empire: and there it is that he summons all the leading men, the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces, all in power and authority, to come together to the dedication. He surrounds it, too, with everything that could attract nature and act upon the senses. All kinds of music must contribute to the scene. When the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, etc., was heard, this was the signal for the representatives of that vast realm to “fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.” Man can but make an idol; he cannot even find out the true God. If it is a question of having the world’s homage, the only thing that will carry away men on a vast scale must be something of this creation, something adapted to the nature of man as he is. You cannot unite hearts that are true with such as are false. But if the true God is shut out, Satan is there to find something which, if introduced by the authority of man, may command all but universal acquiescence. So it was here. The authority, therefore, of the empire was put forth, and all were commanded to worship the golden image on pain of death. “Whoso falleth not down and worshippeth, shall the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.”
“Therefore, at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.” (Verse 7)
But there were some apart from that idolatrous throng; very few, alas! though, no doubt, there were others hidden. We may be bold enough to say there was one not mentioned here – Daniel himself. However that be, his three companions were not there; and this made them obnoxious to others; especially as their position, exalted as it was in the province of Babylon, exposed them to more public notice. Of course they were singled out for the king’s displeasure. “Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near and accused the Jews.” Then they remind the king of the decree that he had made, and add, “There are certain Jews, whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. These men, O king, have not regarded thee; they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Then Nebuchadnezzar, in his rage and fury, commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego,” etc.
Now this appears to me a fact of very great importance. The use which the Gentile makes of his power is to set up a religion connected with the polities of the kingdom, a religion for present earthly purposes. Where this is the case, religion cannot be left between God and the conscience. It is no longer a question of having a real conviction as to God and His truth, nor is there liberty to judge the imposture. The worship devised by the Gentile king is bound down upon the subject under penalty of death.
There may be certain things which hinder, for a season, the natural results of the world’s will in having its religion condemned. And this has been the case for some time. For the last fifty years and more, every one knows there has been a certain system of opinion, commonly called “liberalism.” This has got hold of men’s minds. In no way does it respect God and His word as such. Its great stock-in-trade is the rights of man. Its cardinal virtue is, that all should be left free to think, act, and worship as they please. As long as the idea of man’s rights is allowed to have play, the mercy of God turns it into an occasion for Christians, having a conscience towards Himself, to pass quietly through, and worship God according to His will. And as it was always unquestionable that God claimed the right over His own people; as His revealed will alone can rightly govern them; so, as the Father, He now seeks His children, that they may worship Him in spirit and in truth. The renewed heart and conscience delight in His will and find the chief blessedness here in exalting Him. To the believer, that will is more peremptory than the absolutism of the heathen king. Liberalism really dislikes this exclusive claim over the conscience. Still, it has led to a sort of calm in the world; and the full exercise of its authority, as to religion, is in abeyance for the time. For, apart from temporary circumstances, none can deny that, wherever there is a religion introduced by the monarch, for the guidance of his realm, necessarily it does not admit of difference, contradiction, or compromise. This would defeat the purpose for which it is imposed. But it is to fight against God. The monarch himself may have a conscience, and he is, of course, bound to worship God according to His will. But the using the authority of the realm to coerce others is the denial, practically, of God’s direct control over the individual conscience.
The lesson, then, that we have here, is that, at the very outset, this was what the Gentile made of the power God gave: to set up his own religion, and bind it upon the whole of his subjects. That is, all his authority from God was turned to deny the true God, and to compel universal obedience to his own idol, with a frightful death held up as the immediate forfeit in case of disobedience. This was the great characteristic of the first of the Gentile empires.
But the evil of man and the craft of Satan only serve to bring the faithful into view. The king commands them to be cast into the burning fiery furnace. He first, no doubt, remonstrates, and gives them the opportunity of yielding. “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now, if ye be ready, that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, etc., . . . ye fall down and worship the image that I have made, well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace: and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” It is solemn to see how evanescent was the impression made upon the king’s mind. The last act recorded before this image was set up, was his falling down on his face before Daniel, paying him all but divine honours. He had even said, “Of a truth it is that your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldst reveal this secret.” But it was another thing, when he finds his power disputed, and his image despised, spite of the burning fiery furnace.
It was all very well to acknowledge God for a moment when He was revealing a secret to him. That was plainly decided in Dan 2 . And Daniel there represents those who have the mind of God and who are found in the place of fearing God. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him.”
But God had delegated power to the head of the Gentiles, Nebuchadnezzar. And now that these men had dared to brave the consequences rather than worship the image, he is filled with fury, which vents itself in scorn of God Himself. “Who is that God,” he says, “that shall deliver you out of my hands?” The consequence was that it became now a question between him whom God had set up and God Himself.
But a most beautiful and blessed feature comes out here. It is not God’s way, at the present, to meet power by power. It is not His way to deal with the Gentiles in destruction, even where they may be abusing power against the God who has set them in authority. And I call your attention to this, believing it to be an important thing practically. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego do not in any way take the ground of resisting Nebuchadnezzar in his wickedness. We know afterwards that his conduct was so evil that God stripped him of all glory, and even intelligence as a man, for a long time. But still these godly men do not pretend that he is a false king because he sets up and enforces idolatry. For the Christian, the question is not about the king, but how he ought to behave himself. It is not his business to meddle with others. He is called to walk, relying on God, in obedience and patience. In the great mass of everyday obligations we can obey God in obeying the laws of the land in which we live. This might be the case in any country. If one were even in a popish kingdom I believe that, in the main, one might obey God without transgressing the laws of the land. It might be necessary, sometimes, to hide oneself. If they were coming, for instance, with their processions, and required a mark of respect to the host, one ought to avoid the appearance of insulting their feelings, while, on the other hand, one could not acquiesce in their false worship.
But it is extremely important to remember that government is set up and acknowledged of God, and it has, therefore, claims upon the obedience of the Christian man wherever he may be. One of the New Testament epistles takes up this question, the very one that, more than any other, brings out the foundations, characteristics, and effects of Christianity, as far as regards the individual. I allude to the Epistle to the Romans, the most comprehensive of all the Pauline epistles. There we have, first of all, man’s condition fully developed; then the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The first three chapters are devoted to the subject of man’s ruin; the next five to the redemption that God has wrought as the answer to the ruin of man. Then, in the three chapters which follow, you have the course of the dispensations of God – that is, His dealings, on a large scale, with Israel and the Gentiles. After that, we have the practical, or, at least, the preceptive part of the epistle: first, in Rom 12 , the relations of Christians, one to another; and then, after a gradual transition, to enemies at the close; and, next, their relation to the powers that be. (Rom 13 ) The very expression – “the powers that be” – seems intended to embrace every form of government under which Christians might be placed. They were to be subject, not merely under a king, but where there was another character of sovereign; not only where the government was ancient, but let it be ever so newly established. The business of the Christian is to show respect to all who are in authority, to pay honour to whom honour is due, owing no man anything save love. What makes this so particularly strong, is, that the emperor then reigning was one of the worst and most cruel men that ever filled the throne of the Caesars. And yet there is no reserve or qualification, nay, the very reverse of an insinuation that, if the emperor ordered what was good, the Christians were to obey, but, that if not, they were free from their allegiance. The Christian is always to obey – not always Nero or Nebuchadnezzar, but always to obey God. The consequence is, that this at once delivers from the very smallest real ground for charging a godly person with being a rebel. I am aware that nothing will of necessity bar a Christian from an evil reputation. It is natural for the world to speak evil of one that belongs to Christ – to Him whom they crucified. But from all real ground for such an accusation this principle delivers the soul. Obedience to God remains untouched; but I am to obey “the powers that be” in whatever is consistent with obeying God, no matter how trying.
The light of these faithful Jews was far short of what the Christian ought to have now: they had only that revelation of God which was the portion of Israel. But faith always understands God: whether there is little light or much, it seeks and finds the guidance of God. And these men were in the exercise of a very simple faith. The emperor had put forth a decree that was inconsistent with the foundation of all truth – the one true God. Israel was called expressly to maintain that Jehovah was such, and not idols. Here was a king who had commanded them to fall down and worship an image. They dare not sin; they must obey God rather than man. It is nowhere said, that we must ever disobey man. God must be obeyed – whatever the channel, God always. If I do a thing, ever so right in itself, on the mere ground that I have a right to disobey man under certain circumstances, I am doing the lesser of two evils. ‘The principle for a Christian man is never to do evil at all. He may fail, as I do not deny; but I do not understand a man quietly settling down that he must accept any evil whatever. It is a heathenish idea. An idolater that had not revealed light of God could know no better. Yet you will find Christian persons using the present confession of the condition of the Church as an excuse for persevering in known evil, and saying, Of two evils we must choose the lesser! But I maintain that, whatever the difficulty may be, there is always the path of God for the godly to walk in. Why then do I find practical difficulty? Because I wish to spare myself. If I compound for even a little evil, the broad way of ease and honour lies open, but I sacrifice God and come under the power of Satan. It was just the advice that Peter gave our Lord when He spoke of being put to death. “Far be it from thee – pity thyself, – Lord.” So with the Christian. By doing a little evil, by compromising the conscience, by avoiding the trial that obeying God always entails, no doubt a person may thus often avoid a good deal of the world’s enmity, and gain its praise, because he does well to himself. But if the eye is single in this, God always must have His rights, always be owned in the soul as having the first place. If God is compromised by anything required of me, then I must obey God rather than man. Where this is held fast, the path is perfectly plain. There may be danger, possibly even death staring us in the face, as it was on this occasion. The king was incensed that these men should dare to say, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.” Not careful to answer him! And what were they careful for? It was a question that concerned God. Their care was to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” They were in the very spirit of that word of Christ before it was given. They had walked dutifully in the place the king had assigned them: there was no charge against them. But now there arose a question that deeply affected their faith, and they felt it. It was God’s glory that had been interfered with, and they trusted in Him.
Accordingly they say, “If it be so, our God, whom we serve, is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace.” How beautiful this is! In the presence of the king, who never thought of serving any but himself, and who saw none but himself to serve, they say, “Our God, whom we serve.” They had served the king faithfully before, because they had ever served God: and they must serve God still, even if it had the appearance of not serving the king. But they have confidence in God. “He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.” This was not the mere abstract truth: it was faith. “He will deliver us.” But mark something better still. “But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Even if God will not put forth His power to deliver us, we serve Himself; we will not serve the gods of this world. Oh! beloved reader, in what a place of dignity faith in the living God puts the man who walks in it. These men were at that moment the object of all the attention of the Babylonish empire. What was the image then? It was forgotten. Nebuchadnezzar himself was powerless in presence of his captives of Israel. There they were, calm and undaunted, when the king himself showed his weakness. For what can be more evident weakness than to yield to a fury that changes the form of his visage, and that utters menaces which utterly failed of their purpose? The furnace was ordered to be heated seven times more than it was wont to be heated. The mighty men, the king’s agents to cast them in, were themselves devoured by the flames.
And now, when the deed is done, a new marvel passes before the eyes of the king. It was no vision now, but the manifest power of God. When the sword of the king was drawn out against God, how miserably futile it was! In the midst of this burning fiery furnace was a sight which arrested him. Astonished, the king “rose up in his haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt.” What was to be said of the power of Nebuchadnezzar now? What did it avail to be the mightiest monarch of the world, surrounded, too, with all that constituted the sinews of his force and the grandeur of his empire? There were these men, who had been bound and cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace, apparently the most pitiable case in his realm. But now he is obliged to behold their bonds burnt, and themselves only set free by what he meant for their destruction. But not this merely. There was another to be seen, and that other he can but say is like the Son of God. “Lo, I see four men loose . . . and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
Just as God might use a Balaam or a Caiaphas to speak the truth when they little thought of it and had no communion with Himself in it, so, in this expression of the king’s, “the Son of God,” there seems to be amazing propriety. We cannot suppose that he entered into its meaning with intelligence. Still there was striking propriety in this respect. There are other titles he might have used. He might have said, “Son of man,” or “the God of Israel,” or many more. But “Son of God” seems exactly suited to describe the scene: and therefore, I think, the overruling power of the Spirit of God was manifest in leading the king to use this expression. In the New Testament, where all truth comes out with distinctness we find our Lord Himself referring to these two titles, both of which occur in Daniel – Son of man and Son of God. Son of man is the title of Christ in His judicial glory. He is Son of man “because all judgment is committed to Him.” As Son of God He gives life: He quickens in the midst of death. As Son of God, He frees those that were bound: and “if the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” That verse seems to me a doctrinal commentary upon this very scene. There was the Son, and He was making the prisoners free. Man had bound them, had attempted to execute his threat of vengeance against any who should acknowledge the true God. These three men had jeoparded everything upon the truth of God Himself against all rivals and images; and God had come in for them with delivering power. The proud king not only owns his word changed, but associates their names with the most high God, who was not ashamed to be called their God.
The Gentile dominion is not over yet. And I believe that the close of it will bring in the same thing with as great force as ever. The Book of the Revelation shows us that the last great Gentile king will employ all the authority of his government to enforce what might be called the “religion” of that day. And then God will put forth His power miraculously to preserve His witnesses for their appointed work. There may be some that will suffer unto death, there may be differences in the ways in which God will act. But the Revelation shows us that there will be persons preserved in the midst of the power that enforces idolatry in the last days.
When this takes place, we shall not be upon the scene. Hence the mention of the Jews is emphatic at the time of the last great tribulation. For while men in general will be forced at the end to acknowledge the true God, before that there will be a fiery persecution put forth. There will be such a thing as “glorifying God in the fires”; an expression decidedly used about the remnant of Israel in the last days. The wonderful hand of God will be at work, but it will be with the Jews, not with Christians. As far as we are concerned, tribulation is our constant and proper portion in the world. The New Testament shows this from beginning to end. Nothing is plainer than that the Holy Ghost never acknowledges the Christian in any way except as separate from the world, the object of its animosity and persecution, cast out, despised, unknown by the world. That is our place as recognized by the word of God. It is for Christians to account for the fact, that they have lost it; for clearly, what I have been describing, somehow or another, does not apply at the present time. Is it that the world is getting better, or that they themselves have become worse? Conscience ought to answer, and God will use it, if upright, as the means of bringing one back to the place that ought never to have been left. All through the time of the Gentile supremacy, the Christian’s place is obedience. For the most part what the power insists upon is that which the Christian can render with a ready mind; but when there comes a collision between the world’s authority and God’s, we must obey God rather than men, let the consequences be what they may. This is the only thing that God owns in His people.
The chapters that follow have each of them an increasingly marked connection with the course of the Gentile empire. But this is sufficient to bring out the fact, that idolatry – worldly religion – a religion that is intended for every one, and bound down upon all, under pain of death – is the first great feature recorded of the Gentile empire, and will be found, more or less, to run through the whole of it. As this was the first exercise of authority, so it will be at the end of the age. The Book of the Revelation shows us the last stage of the last Gentile empire; and there we find that what it began with, it will end with: that the same compulsion used here, to make all its subjects bow down and worship in a way of its own setting up, will reappear at the close.
But we find another analogy. God at that time had His witnesses. And as the Jews were the persons that then withstood Gentile idolatry, they will come again upon the stage of God’s dealings, and will be especially the witnesses that God will put honour upon. This godly remnant of Israel is represented by the disciples in the days of our Lord’s earthly ministry. They will be a godly seed, cleaving to Him and loving His name; and this, because they will have got hold, with more or less light, of the Messiah. These persons will be found waiting for Jesus to come and take His kingdom, after the Church, properly so called, has passed out of the scene of God’s dealings on the earth.
Thus, then, as Gentile authority began with this idolatry forced upon all, and the only witnesses for God were among the Jews; so, at the close, idolatry will reappear, and God will have a faithful remnant again among that poor people – a testimony for Himself in the midst of apostasy.
But I hope, in looking at future chapters, to enter a little more into details. May we remember, that what we have been now seeing is not merely for that day, nor does it concern the witnesses of that time only! If God will have a faithful people among the Jews then, may we who are Christians not be found disobedient unto the heavenly vision! We have a brighter prospect than any which Daniel saw. He was not privileged to see Jesus, because of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour. He could testify, on the one hand, of the rejection of Messiah, and, on the other, of His universal and everlasting dominion. Between the one past and the other future, we know other and higher glories in Him now, and Himself, in whom these blessings are treasured up. We know that “He is the true God and eternal life,” and ourselves blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Him. We are called out from this world to follow Him and be the sharers of His heavenly glory. It is but “a little while, and He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry.” And if this is so, how ought we to be apart from this present evil world! How ought we to keep clear of its attempt to put on the appearance of reverence for the name of Jesus! Alas! how often people get perplexed, and ask, Where and what is the world? The truth is, that all this is a lamentable proof that they are so mixed up with the world that they do not know it. The Lord grant that we may have no difficulty in knowing where the world is, and where we are. The Jew was obliged to enter it with the sword in his hand, executing judgment. But that is not the place of the Christian. We began with the sword against Christ, and Himself bowing to it. We began and should go on with the cross, looking for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. All our blessedness is founded on the cross, and all our hopes centre in His glory, and His coming again for us.
The Lord grant that we may live thus, in the increasing knowledge of the Blessed One, with whom we have to do, and to whom we belong. Whatever, then, may be the danger and trial, we shall have the Son of God with us in it.
May we know more and more what it is to walk with Christ in liberty and joy! So shall we have Christ with us in every time of need.
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Dan 3:1-7
1Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, the height of which was sixty cubits and its width six cubits; he set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent word to assemble the satraps, the prefects and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates and all the rulers of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3Then the satraps, the prefects and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates and all the rulers of the provinces were assembled for the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. 4Then the herald loudly proclaimed: To you the command is given, O peoples, nations and men of every language, 5that at the moment you hear the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe and all kinds of music, you are to fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up. 6But whoever does not fall down and worship shall immediately be cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire. 7Therefore at that time, when all the peoples heard the sound of the horn, flute, lyre, trigon, psaltery, bagpipe and all kinds of music, all the peoples, nations and men of every language fell down and worshiped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.
Dan 3:1 an image of gold The image (BDB 1109 – statue, form) may have been similar to the vision of a human person made of four metals from chapter 2. It is either (1) an elongated human form or (2) a tall obelisk of uncertain shape. The Aramaic term can mean obelisk. The normal physical proportions of the human body is five to one, but the image’s height and width would be ten to one. A large platform has been found six miles from the ruins of the ancient city of Babylon, which measures forty-five feet by forty-five feet by eighteen feet. This could have been the base of this image.
of gold This seems to mean overlaid with gold and we have biblical examples of this, such as (1) Aaron’s golden calf (Exodus 32); (2) Isa 40:19; Isa 41:7; Isa 44:10; (3) Jer 10:4; Jer 10:14; and also (4) Herodotus 1.183.
sixty cubits and its width was six cubits This would make the image about ninety feet tall by nine feet wide if we base our measurements on a cubit (BDB 1081) as being eighteen inches, which denotes the distance from the longest finger to the elbow of a normal sized human being of that period. The Colossus of Rhodes was seventy cubits high (i.e., 105 feet), so this was not out of the realm of ancient technology. See Special Topic: Cubit .
the plain of Dura The term (BDB 1087) seems to come from the duru which means an enclosing wall or fortress (Akkadian). We have found several documents from Babylon which mention the Plain of Dura. However, its exact location is uncertain. With the finding of the large base several miles from Babylon, this is a possibility.
Dan 3:2 the king sent word to assemble We have, from Sargon II’s records, examples of this same type of royal assembly.
Dan 3:3 The repetitive nature of this chapter, both in the listing of the government officials and the musical instruments, is characteristic of (1) Hebraic writing; and (2) obelistic writing.
satraps This Aramaic governmental term (BDB 1080) reflects a Median word which means protector of the land. In the later Persian Empire it referred to the twenty governors (Herodotus) of the provinces (cf. Ezr 8:36; Est 3:12; Est 8:9; Est 9:3), but its exact meaning in the earlier neo-Babylonian Empire is uncertain, possibly prince (cf. TEV).
prefects The meaning of this Aramaic governmental term (BDB 1104) is uncertain, possibly an Akkadian term for those who report directly to the satraps. Daniel was appointed to this position over all the wise men of Babylon in Dan 2:48.
governors The meaning of this Aramaic governmental term (BDB 1108) is also uncertain. The related Hebrew term denotes governors (cf. 1Ki 10:15; 1Ki 20:24; 2Ki 18:24; often in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; Isa 36:9; Jer 51:23; Jer 51:28; Jer 51:57; and several times in the post-exilic prophets).
counselors This is another Aramaic governmental term (BDB 1078) of uncertain meaning. The typical translation is counselor, but some scholars think it refers to (1) a military position (BDB 1078) or (2) treasurers (cf. Ezr 7:21).
magistrates This Aramaic governmental term (BDB 1118) is also uncertain. William Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, says it refers to a police official (p. 425) from a Persian loan word.
the rulers of the provinces This refers to lesser governmental officials (BDB 1097). This event was a gathering of all governmental workers of all levels (cf. Dan 3:4; Dan 3:7).
Dan 3:5; Dan 3:7; Dan 3:10 at the moment you hear the sound of This list of musical instruments refers to the Babylonian national orchestra. This may have been the Babylonian national anthem (cf. Dan 3:10). We have a record from Babylonian documents of a similar party where 150 musicians played. It is obvious that the neo-Babylonians enjoyed music and included it in all of their festive occasions.
Dan 3:5
NASB, NKJV,
NRSV, NJB,
JPS, NIV, NEBhorn
In Dan 7:7-8; Dan 7:11; Dan 7:20-21; Dan 7:24 this Aramaic word (BDB 1111) refers to an animal horn. Here it refers to a musical instrument, possibly made from an animal horn.
NASB, NKJV,
NIVflute
NRSV, NJB,
JPS, NEBpipe
The Aramaic term (BDB 1117) refers to some type of wind instrument.
NASB, NRSV,
NJBlyre
NKJVharp
JPS, NIV,
NEBzither
This is a Greek loan word (kitharis), which denotes a stringed instrument (harp).
NASB, NRSVtrigon
NJBzither
JPS, NIV,
NEBtriangle
This reflects another Greek loan word (sambuk), which denotes a stringed instrument with four strings.
NASB, JPSpsaltery
NRSV, NJB,
NIVharp
NEBdulcimer
This (BDB 1108) denotes a triangular shaped stringed instrument with a sounding board (William Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, p. 418).
NASB, NJBbagpipe
NRSVdrum
NEBmusic
There is confusion in the English translation as to how many musical instruments are listed. The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint have only five in Dan 3:7, but this sixth one is listed in Dan 3:5; Dan 3:10. It may refer to a double pipe similar to a Pan flute.
It is also possible that this last term means in unison (cf. NKJV, TEV).
fall down and worship Both VERBS are Peal IMPERFECT (BDB 1103 and 1104). This shows the religious and political significance of this object (cf. Dan 3:12). This is the reason that the three Hebrew children refused to participate. It is uncertain if the Neo-Babylonian rulers claimed deity (the image as a representative of Nebuchadnezzar, cf. Dan 2:38), as did the Pharaohs of Egypt and some later Caesars of Rome.
Dan 3:6; Dan 3:15 immediately Literally this is same hour (BDB 1116). This is the first use of the term hour in the OT. There is some discussion if the term and concept began with the Babylonians or the Greeks. We must remember that this does not refer to our precise sixty minutes because they were using more crude timing instruments.
cast into the midst of a furnace of blazing fire Because of the description found in Daniel 3 and also because of archaeology discoveries, it seems that this was a large, domed kiln with an opening at the top and an earthen ramp leading up to it. It also had a door on the bottom for putting in charcoal and taking out ashes. This was a common form of capital punishment during this period (cf. Code of Hammurabi 110,157 and Jer 29:22).
image. This could not have been an image of a human being. The height and breadth are out of all proportion for this; the former being one to ten instead of one to six. A figure drawn on this scale, will at once be seen to be impossible. Having determined that it is a human figure, tradition then assumes it to have been a proportional figure “on a pedestal”, or simply “a bust on a pillar”. But there is nothing in the text to suggest this. It would exactly suit an Asherah (App-42). The Hebrew tzelem denotes something shaped by cutting or carving. Eze 16:17, and Dan 23:14, practically make this certain. See the verb in Eze 7:20; and compare what is said in Num 33:52.
height . . . breadth. See above note.
threescore . . . six. The numbers of man (App-10). Note the six instruments (compare Dan 5:7, Dan 5:10, Dan 5:15). See note on 1Sa 17:4.
Chapter 3
Now in chapter 3 we find Nebuchadnezzar defying the revelation of God. Remember in his dream he saw the image with the head of gold, “thou art the head of gold,” but it had a chest of silver for the Babylonian Empire was to be replaced by an inferior empire, the Medo-Persian Empire.
But Nebuchadnezzar [in defiance of God and the revelation of God] made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits [or sixty cubits], and the breath thereof was six cubits ( Dan 3:1 ):
You’re getting into the sixty-sixes here.
and he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to gather together the princes, the governors, the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs, and all of the rulers of the provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. Then the princes, the governors, the captains, and all, gathered together. And a herald cried aloud, To you it is commanded, O people, nations, and languages, That whatever time you hear the sound of the cornet, the flute, the harp, the sackbut, the psaltery, the dulcimer, and all kinds of music, that you fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up: And whoso will not fall down and worship the same hour will be cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace ( Dan 3:1-6 ).
So Nebuchadnezzar’s not to be messed with. You have your choice; either bow down to it, or be cast into the burning fiery furnace.
Therefore at that time, when all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, in the nations, and languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up ( Dan 3:7 ).
Now, Nebuchadnezzar becomes in scripture what we call a type of the antichrist, who we read in Revelation, chapter 13, makes an image. And he gives power unto this beast or this image to speak. And he demands that the whole world worship this image that is been given power to speak.
We’ve been reading a lot about the advancement of our science and especially of the capacities of computers. There is even talk of creating computers that will be smarter than men and will perhaps one day rule over man because of their wisdom. Within computers there is already developed the capacity of chips, voice chips, so that they have little calculators that you can buy and as you punch the numbers it will give you the number, but then it will speak the answer as well as display it. Already in dialing wrong numbers, you get the operator that says, “What number did you dial?” And you tell them the number and then you hear, “The number 6 4 6 2 5 7 5 has been changed to… ” and it gives you the new number and it’s the computer that is a voice computer. Power to speak.
Now up until just, you know, the last few years it seemed to be a totally impossible thing to make some kind of an image and give that image the capacity to think and to speak. It could very well be, I don’t say that it is, but it could very well be that the image that has been created by this man of sin that is going to arise, will be a highly sophisticated computer which will be used to govern the world.
Nebuchadnezzar made an image, sixty cubits high, six cubits broad, and demanded that everyone worshipped that image. And anyone who refuses to worship the image would be put to death. The man of sin, the beast, that arises out of the sea. In Rev 13:1-18 , makes an image and demands that everyone worship the image, and if anyone refuses the image he has power to put to death.
We see an interesting parallel. There were three young men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego who refused to bow to the image, but God miraculously preserved through the fire. In the book of Revelation we read of 144,000 that God is going to seal and take safely through the Great Tribulation, the fiery judgment of God that is coming upon the earth.
Now, the big question, here when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego were reported to Nebuchadnezzar that they did not bow and worship the image, the question: what about Daniel? Do you think that Daniel bowed to the image? I think not. Daniel had purpose in his heart. He would not defile himself with the king’s meat. His commitment to God was so complete. I am certain that Daniel did not bow. Then why wasn’t Daniel reported with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego? Obviously, Daniel must not have been there. He was probably away on business of the affairs of state. For had he been there, he surely would not have bowed. That, of course, becomes extremely interesting in that Daniel is a type of the church. And when the Great Tribulation, the fiery judgment comes, when the antichrist is demanding that people bow down and worship the image that he has created, the church won’t be there. It’s gone; it won’t go through the fiery furnace. It’s been delivered, caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and forever with the Lord. And thus will not be here when the antichrist makes the scene and creates the image and demands that the image be worshipped. The church, Daniel is out of the picture. But it is the faithful remnant of the Jews who turned to Christ after the rapture of the church that God will seal as the three Hebrew children and take them through the fire. So a very beautiful typology in this story in Daniel.
Now, in verse Dan 3:8 , chapter 3,
At the certain time the Chaldeans came near, and they accused the Jews. They spake and said unto the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live forever. Thou, king, had made a decree, that every man when he hears the sound of the cornets, and the music and so forth, shall fall down and worship the golden image: And whoso does not fall down and worship, that he would be cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace. Now there are certain Jews whom thou has set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up. Then [old hothead] Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and in his fury he commanded Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego and they brought these men to the king ( Dan 3:8-13 ).
This guy is always in a rage.
And Nebuchadnezzar spake unto them and said, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if you’re ready that at the time you hear the sound of the music, you will fall down and worship the image which I have made; then all will be well: but if you do not worship, you will be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we’re not even careful to answer you in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up ( Dan 3:14-18 ).
“Now God is able, the God that we serve can deliver us out of your burning fiery furnace. He will deliver us out of your hand. And even if He doesn’t, we’re still not going to serve your gods; we’re still not going to bow down to your image. Now we’re not even careful how we answer you in this. This is a set matter with us. We’re just not going to do it.” These guys had such commitment. Such commitment to God that, “God is able if He wants to deliver us, if He doesn’t want we’re still not going to bow. Our lives are in God’s hands. He can do with us whatever He wants, but we’re going to be faithful to God and true to God and God will be faithful to us. And whatever God does with us is fine. We’re not worried, we’re not concerned, Nebuchadnezzar, about your decrees or your threats and all. You don’t scare us Nebuchadnezzar. You don’t move us because our trust is in God, the God that we serve is able to deliver us. And if He doesn’t, we’re still not going to bow.”
Then [old] Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed ( Dan 3:19 )
I mean, his whole attitude towards these three fellows was changed completed. And he spoke and commanded that they should heat the furnace seven times hotter than it was ever heated before.
And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace. And these men were bound in their coats, their hose, their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the burning fiery furnace ( Dan 3:20-21 ).
In Israel today you see these various orthodox Jews. And there are some of them that have these little black hats, and their black coats and black hosiery. They wear sort of knickers with black hosiery, and they have long curls. They’re the Hasidics, and they have these long curls down the sides of their heads here. And when he describes binding them with their hats, and their coats, and their hosiery and all, I get a picture of some of these Hasidic Jews that you see over in Israel. Probably didn’t look like that, but that’s the mental picture that I get. As he binds them with their hats, and their hose, and their coats and cast them into the midst of the burning-fiery furnace.
Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace was exceeding hot, the flame of the fire killed those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. And these three men fell down in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and he rose up in haste, and he spoke, and he said to his counselors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? And they said unto the king, True. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, and they’re walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God ( Dan 3:22-25 ).
What a marvelous exciting experience. “The hand of God, the God that we serve is able to deliver us out of your burning fiery furnace.” And so here they are, walking around in the midst of the fire.
Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and he spoke, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, come on out. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth from the midst of the fire. And the princes, and the governors, and the captains, and the king’s counselors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was a hair of their heads singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire have passed on them. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and has changed the king’s word, and yielded the bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God ( Dan 3:26-28 ).
You see Nebuchadnezzar making another proclamation here.
Therefore I make a decree, That every people, nation, language, would speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces, and their houses shall be made a dunghill; because there is no other God that can deliver after this sort. Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province of Babylon ( Dan 3:29-30 ).
So old Nebuchadnezzar, quite an interesting character, in his wrath and in his decrees. “
Dan 3:1
Dan 3:1 NebuchadnezzarH5020 the kingH4430 madeH5648 an imageH6755 ofH1768 gold,H1722 whose heightH7314 was threescoreH8361 cubits,H521 and the breadthH6613 thereof sixH8353 cubits:H521 he set it upH6966 in the plainH1236 of Dura,H1757 in the provinceH4083 of Babylon.H895
Nebuchadnezzar’s Fiery Furnace (Daniel Chapter 3)
Nebuchadnezzar was a religious man for a king. He shared the belief of his people in the existence of many gods. While the dream Daniel interpreted for him convinced him in the existence of the reality of the God of the Hebrews, it did not convince him that his false god did not exist. He still believed and worshipped his pagan god, called Marduk.
Marduk, also known as “Merodach” or simply “Bel”, was the national god of Babylon with a temple, called the Esagila, located within the capitol city. He was believed to be a god of magic and incantation which explains why Nebuchadnezzar looked to the Chaldeans and the magicians when he wanted a dream of his interpreted. The priest class of the Chaldeans should have been easily able to provide Nebuchadnezzar what he wanted in his earlier dream but were utterly incapable of it. As we will see in Daniel 4, Nebuchadnezzar again looked first to the priests and wise men of Marduk to interpret a dream before turning to Daniel. It took at least two failures of the priests of Marduk that we know of before Nebuchadnezzar finally realized the inability of his false god and turned to one true and living God of the Hebrews.
In this chapter, Nebuchadnezzar is about to get another irrefutable example of the power of the God of Daniel and his companions. Following the interpretation of his first dream, Daniel asked that his companions be placed in positions of authority to which this was granted. Obviously there was some jealousy involved here because it was this very group of people who conspired to have them put to death. As we learned in the previous chapter, these people literally owed Daniel and his companions their lives and we will see how this was repaid. From this event, Nebuchadnezzar gets a dose of overwhelming proof of the power and existence of the one true and living God and this obviously leads him his conversion later on in his life.
Dan 3:1
Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
We don’t know for certain how long a time span was there was between Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s secret dream and this event. But it is likely that Nebuchadnezzar got the idea for this statue from the head of gold mentioned in Daniel’s interpretation. Obviously Nebuchadnezzar fancied the idea of him being represented as gold in a vision from God. Given Nebuchadnezzar’s affinity for his pagan god Marduk, the god of magic and incantation, he probably assumed that the vision actually came from him and not from the God of Daniel and his companions. Obviously Daniel’s God got the credit in Nebuchadnezzar’s mind for revealing it, but at this point in his life he probably thought the dream actually came from Marduk. It is too much of a coincidence for Nebuchadnezzar to be given a dream wherein he was represented as the head of a golden statue and then later to actually build one and have it erected to discount the two events as being unrelated. He likely thought his pagan diety desired him to be seen in that way by his subjects and he was honoring the will of Morduk by building the statue of himself and setting it in the plain of Dura. Scholars place the building and erecting of the statue at no more than three years after his vision.
This statue was about 90 feet tall and 9 feet wide at the base. The text says the statue was made of gold. It was most likely either stone or wooden in construction and overlaid with gold.
The next story is of the pride of Nebuchadnezzar in setting up in the plain of Dura a great golden image. This may have been connected with the interpretation of the dream Daniel had given. The head of gold in the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream symbolized Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar’s image was all of gold, and perhaps revealed his conception of the power of Babylon, and therefore was of the nature either of unbelief in the accuracy of the prediction or of rebellion against it. To this image he commanded all peoples to bow down in worship. This would also explain the attitude of the dauntless three who declined to bend their knee to the image. In the first place, it was an act of idolatry, and, moreover, such obeisance on their part might have been construed into a recognition of the continuity of the power of Babylon, of which the divine revelation to Daniel had predicted the downfall.
With splendid heroism they cast themselves on God, and were supernaturally delivered from the fierce fire of the furnace, the king seeing One so glorious in mien with them in the fire, that even he described Him as being “like a son of the gods.” This deliverance more deeply impressed Nebuchadnezzar, and he decreed that no word should be spoken against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and promoted them in the province of Babylon.
Loyalty Severely Tested
Dan 3:1-18
The king, at the close of the foregoing chapter, acknowledged the supremacy of Daniels God, yet here he erects an image to Bel and to himself, demanding divine honor. Probably there was state policy in this. In so heterogeneous an empire of peoples, nations, and languages, there could be no unity but in universal prostration before one and the same object. Nineteen years had elapsed since the recovery of the lost dream. In that period successful wars had been waged and vast treasures accumulated which made this vast expenditure possible. Imagine the assembled myriads, the glittering array of princes, satraps, viceroys, statesmen, and priests, the grouped bands, and in the background the furnace. The three youths could not have stood alone amid the prostrate throng, had they not been supported by a living faith in the God of their fathers, Heb 11:33-34. They would not argue, but they could die, if God willed. Their attitude must be taken and maintained altogether apart from any expectation of deliverance. Our God whom we serve is able-and He will.
Chapter Three The Deliverance Of The Faithful
In Daniel 3 we see how little Nebuchadnezzar had learned from the revelation God had made to him. We have already noticed that when Daniel explained the meaning of the dream, Nebuchadnezzar fell down before the prophet and worshiped him. He had many nice things to say to him, and he gave him great rewards; but he was not brought to repentance or humbled in self-judgment before the God who had shown His omniscient power. The king could appreciate the wisdom of Daniel, but he had no heart for the God who had inspired His servant.
Nebuchadnezzar is not alone in that attitude. There are many who have a certain admiration for the ministry and the Word of God, yet remain strangers to the God of these ministers. This was Nebuchadnezzars condition exactly at this time. For we see that he was not humbled by the revelation made. Instead it led him to exalt himself as one especially favored of Heaven; it magnified his thoughts of the human mind and his own greatness.
This reminds me of a man in the New Testament who was favored with a remarkable revelation. I refer to the apostle Paul, who was caught up to the third Heaven. And Paul, though a child of God and a most devoted servant of Christ in every way, had the same kind of a heart that Nebuchadnezzar had. So in order that he might not be lifted up because of the abundance of the revelations, he was given a thorn in the flesh to remind him of his human weakness (2Co 12:1-7). Thus we are reminded that even divine truth, if not held in fellowship with God, may actually be used to puff one up. Mere knowledge, apart from divine love, puffs up. This is not the case with spiritual discernment, because the very first requisite for spirituality is humility. Spiritual discernment comes from God, and that will not exalt any one. But even scriptural knowledge, if divorced from godliness, will have a deadly effect upon the mind and heart. That was the way it was with Nebuchadnezzar. But in Daniel 4 we read how he too received a thorn in the flesh and its blessed result.
What is emphasized here is that Nebuchadnezzar was lifted up with pride. He determined to make a great image (probably a replica of the one he had seen in his dream) and call on all men to bow to it. The image was to acclaim the power and glory of man, for it pictured Gentile dominion in independence of God. It was stamped with the same number that distinguished the beast in Revelation 13-the number of a man, 666. We also read in Daniel 3 that the image was sixty cubits high and six cubits broad. Seven is the number that speaks of spiritual completeness. Six seems to tell us of mans greatest efforts to attain to perfection.
The image was made accordingly and set up in the plain of Dura. A command then went forth that at the sounding of a great orchestra, all the peoples, nations, and languages, gathered together from all the various provinces of the empire, should fall down and worship it. If any refused, they were to be cast into a furnace of fire.
The instruments were to play and the people were to be stirred up by the music. Then they were all to prostrate themselves before the great image that set forth the glory of man.
But there were three in that great company who paid no heed to the kings commandment. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refused to bow and malicious spies soon carried the news to the haughty monarch. They said, There are certain JewsO king, [who] have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up (12). In a rage the king sent for the three devoted men. He offered to give them another opportunity to carry out his bidding, otherwise they must suffer the fate reserved for any who would not worship the image. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were not like the time-servers of these degenerate days. They knew God had said, Thou shalt not make thee any graven imageThou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them (Deu 5:8-9, italics added). So these three Hebrews boldly faced the great king and said:
O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up (Dan 3:16-18).
Thus they witnessed a good confession; in their God-given strength they boldly stood before the king and all the people as the witnesses of Jehovahs power and glory.
In fury Nebuchadnezzar ordered that the furnace be heated seven times hotter and that his instructions be carried out to the letter. So great was the furnaces heat that it consumed the men who threw them into the flames. Then we read that Nebuchadnezzar rose, came to the furnace, and cried out in amazement: Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God (or son of the gods) (24-25). We know well who that fourth one was; so the rendering that we have in the King James version is correct as to the person, whether it is actually what Nebuchadnezzar meant or not. The blessed Son of God was there with His dear servants in their hour of trial. He had said long before, When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee (Isa 43:2). And every word of God will be fulfilled, for he is faithful that promised (Heb 10:23).
We are not told that anyone but Nebuchadnezzar saw the form of this fourth One. He cried out at once, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. They came out, not having the smell of fire on them; the flame had simply burned away their bonds and left them free men. The result was that Nebuchadnezzar was filled with admiration for the power of the great God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. He made a royal decree, declaring that anyone who would speak anything amiss against their God would be put to death. Yet, as when his dream was interpreted, he did not bow in repentance at the feet of the Lord and acknowledge Him as his God. He simply spoke of Him as their God and while he admired His greatness and power, he did not worship and serve the Lord Jehovah.
How many people there are in the world just like that! They would not say anything against God our Father nor His Son the Lord Jesus Christ; they have a certain reverence in their hearts for God; they think of Him as their mothers God perhaps, or the God of their fathers. They cannot cry, My Lord and my God, as Thomas did after he saw the print of the nails (Joh 20:28, italics added). So again we are reminded that it is one thing to give assent to the truth of Scripture as to the glory of the triune God; but it is quite another to bow our hearts in His presence, admit to being lost and guilty sinners and trust Gods blessed Son as our own deliverer. Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged Gods power, but he did not admit to Gods claims on him. He had to pass through a humiliating experience before he would come to that.
But what has all this to do with prophecy? Why did God cause this particular bit of history to be recorded in the book of the prophet Daniel? This would have been something very suitable in a historical or devotional book, but why do we have it here in a prophetic book? For a very good reason indeed. This event, though actual history, is a typical scene picturing the trial and deliverance of a faithful remnant of Daniels people that is to take place in the time of the end. There will come a day when (like the great image set up by Nebuchadnezzar) what the Lord Jesus calls the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, is going to be set up in Jerusalem by the antichrist of the future. See Mat 24:15.
After the church has been caught away to Heaven at the close of this dispensation, the Jews will be deceived into accepting the claims of a blasphemous impostor claiming to be the Messiah. It is he who is going to place the abomination that causes desolation. He will demand that all men worship the image that he sets up; thus the scene of the plain of Dura will be reenacted. In that day, as in the past, a remnant among the Jews will refuse to believe his claims or to obey his voice. This will be the signal for the breaking out of the great tribulation, the time of Jacobs trouble (Jer 30:7). But many of the faithful shall be saved out of it, just as these three Hebrew young men were preserved by God in the midst of, and eventually delivered from, the furnace of fire.
Scripture has not clearly revealed what the abomination of desolation is. It seems to be identified with the image of the beast set up by the false prophet who will cause all men to worship it-all who have not the seal of God (Revelation 13). This image of the beast may not be a literal idol; it may be that it refers to some great popular movement. But it seems to be intimately connected with that of which our Lord warned His disciples. At any rate it speaks of a time when men will be called on to acknowledge the power and the authority of that which is Satanic instead of divine, and practically all the world will be brought to own the antichrist as the Messiah.
It is a mistake to suppose that the antichrist is the papacy. We will see in the latter part of Daniel 11 that he will be a distinct personality; he will be a Jew by birth who will bear rule in the land of Palestine and be accepted by the Jews as their Messiah. He will deny the Father and the Son and be energized and controlled by the devil. In that day apostate Christendom will join with apostate Judaism in declaring allegiance to this monster of iniquity. Even in that day when iniquity will come in like a flood, God will fulfill His promise and lift up a standard against it. He will have His faithful little flock who will dare to stand-like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego-for the truth that He will have revealed to them. Because of this stand they will become the victims of Satans rage and mans hatred, yet they will be delivered out of it all to the glory of the God whom they will serve. No weapon that is formed against them will prosper, for the Most High will be their shield and buckler.
Already we see preparations being made for these momentous events. While they are not to take place as long as the church remains on earth, yet even now the land of Palestine is being prepared by God to become once more the home of His earthly people, and the people are being prepared for their land. Think of the changes that have been taking place in the East in the last fifty years! A half century ago a Jew was not allowed to dwell inside the walls of the city of Jerusalem, and there were less than fifty thousand Jews in all Palestine. Now there are more than that number living in Jerusalem itself, and it is estimated that there are nearly three times that number dwelling in the land. The latter rains that God had withdrawn in judgment for many centuries are returning to the land once more. While they have not come every year, yet there has been sufficient rain to encourage agriculturists to such an extent that thousands of acres have been planted as olive groves, vineyards, and fruit farms, and most of these are owned and worked by Jews. Of course all these things are very different from the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the regathering of the Jews by omnipotent power. But these events show us that things are shaping themselves for the carrying out of the predictions as to the great tribulation, and the events that are to follow in rapid succession.
In the hour of antichrists dreadful reign it will mean much to be faithful to God and not assent to the abomination of desolation; but grace will be given to the feeble remnant, and they will glorify God in the fires. If such is to be the triumph of saints in a future day, what devotion and faithfulness should characterize us who are so much more highly favored in this present dispensation of the grace of God! Yet how many there are who fail to stand the test when it comes to maintaining that which God has committed to them! How little most of us know of that spirit of devotion to Christ which led Athanasius of old to reply to the emperors taunt, All the world is against you, by the never-to-be-forgotten words, Then I am against all the world.
It was this spirit that enabled Paul to triumph when he stood before Nero, even though he had to say, At my first answer no man stood with me. Left alone, he nevertheless bore a faithful witness and was delivered out of the mouth of the lion (2Ti 4:16-17).
What a rebuke these devoted servants of God are to many of us today! How little we know of standing for Christ and His truth, even if we have to stand alone. But how contemptible will our weakness and cowardice appear in that coming day of glory! Rest assured, there will not be a saint then who will regret having suffered for Christ or borne reproach for His names sake. But there will be thousands who would give worlds, were they theirs to give, if they had been more faithful and devoted while in their place of testing. The time is short. Our day of testimony for an absent Lord will soon be over. Oh, let us not forget that we have
Only one life-twill soon be past;
Only whats done for Christ will last.
Dan 3:16-18
I. We can scarcely sufficiently admire the answer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. There is an independence of speech in it which, when we consider the circumstances in which the speakers were placed, is only to be accounted for by supposing that their minds were thoroughly imbued with the thought that they were standing in a higher presence than that of Nebuchadnezzar. The chief nobleness of their answer was the “if not.” This readiness to meet the consequences, this counting of the cost, elevates these Jewish youths and gives them a place amongst Christian martyrs. However useful they may be to us as examples of what faith will do in the way of quenching flames, they are still more useful as showing us what a sense of duty will do, even where a fiery furnace stares us in the face.
II. Godliness, having the promise of both worlds, the fear of God, and the keeping of His commandments, will generally bring happiness and prosperity and success; but “if not,” still to fear God and keep His commandments is the whole duty of man. Take the case of the Apostles as a very striking example. Christ promised them that those who left all for His sake should receive, even in this present world, houses and lands and wives and children and the rest. He added, “with persecutions.” Now the Apostles did leave all for Him, and what houses or lands did they receive? Men who were made, in the language of the Apostle, “the offscouring of all things.” You may say Christ’s promise failed; He promised and did not perform. Be it so. But if such an accusation be brought against Christ, it must be by His own servants, who knew His service, and not by others. Search the records then of apostolic experience, and confess it to be a marvellous truth that, throughout all the writings which have been left to us, there is not even the most distant hint of disappointment on the part of those who took upon themselves Christ’s yoke; so that we must suppose, that however figurative the promise of houses and lands might have been, it was not a delusive promise. They received a spiritual wealth as His disciples which was worth more than all they had lost; their life was “hid with Christ in God;” they appeared to have lost all, whereas in fact all things were theirs. When their minds were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they prepared to do their work and leave consequences and rewards in other hands.
Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 17.
I. Let us study the martyr-spirit as here revealed. (1) These men had attained to the condition in which conviction had passed beyond the reach of perturbation or question. The everlasting hills were not so firmly rooted as the belief in the God of heaven, and the essential blessedness of serving Him was rooted in these young hearts. They had so grasped the truth of the glorious power and steadfastness of the God of heaven, that it lifted them to a kindred firmness. (2) They were themselves of that temper, and had come to that strength and unity of character, that they could declare, “There are things which we cannot say; there are things which we cannot do, whatever be the cost; it is blankly impossible; here stand we; we can do no other; God help us.” (3) There must abide in all martyr-spirits an unwavering faith in the omnipotent hand of God. “Our God whom we serve is able to deliver us. His power to rule is clear to us as sunlight. He may choose to help us now, and signally deliver. He may choose to let us suffer, but nothing can shake our belief in His power to save.”
II. We shall better understand the temper of these men when we compare it with a record which describes very faithfully the quality of much that goes by the name of the religious life (Gen 28:16-22). “Bless me, prosper my journey, bring me home again, and I will serve Thee,” were the terms of Jacob’s covenant at Bethel. How grandly beside these terms of bargain rings out the clear defiance of the text!
III. Let us look at the school in which men are trained to such Godlike vigour, courage, as this (Dan 1:1-16). They began young and in little things to learn the lesson which it was God’s will that they should practise in great things. Their life was fairly woven of one piece throughout. They were as resolute against little compliances as against great ones; ready ever to meet the tempter in the outworks, they were able to hold the citadel securely in the hour of the great assault.
J. Baldwin Brown, The Sunday Afternoon, p. 167.
The great service rendered by these young Hebrew exiles to the world of subsequent ages is their teaching, by word and act, the nature and the working of a religion of principle.
I. They illustrate the truth that a religion of principle is founded on intelligent convictions of truth, so fixed in the heart as to be beyond the reach of argument.
II. The religion of principle consists preeminently in obedience to the sense of duty without regard to consequences.
III. The religion of principle carries with it a profound sense of a personal God.
IV. The religion of principle is the only type of religious character which commands the confidence of the world.
A. Phelps, The Old Testament a Living Book, p. 261.
Reference: Dan 3:16-23.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 105.
Dan 3:17-18
Let us take three points in the history of these three young men.
I. Their resolution. They were entirely in the dark as to whether God would really come down, as it were, and interfere to save them from suffering or not, yet this made no difference in their resolution. They said, “God will deliver us; but if not-supposing He does not deliver us-we will not serve thy gods for all that.” On the one side right, on the other enjoyment. Right shadowed with pain; enjoyment coloured with sin. Their answer was free and decisive, and we glory in it this day. And we ought not to leave out of sight something which makes this answer more remarkable still. Many a martyr has, in the words of a great martyr of old, stood firm, because the eye of faith enabled him to see clearly what was behind a flashing sword. He said, “Who would not labour to reach that brightness, to become the friend of God, and enter in a moment the joy of Christ?” We must remember that these Jews could not speak such a language, for these latter truths had not yet been revealed. If there was a deep conviction of the life to come, it was still a dim one-at any rate they said nothing of the kind to Nebuchadnezzar. They neither revealed any such hope, nor sustained themselves by it. All they said was that they had cast in their lot with their own God, and the cause of God; and should that cause be bound up with the utmost sacrifice of self, they would die in pain if need were. “We will not serve thy gods.” If life is falsehood, let me not live. If the truth is death, then let me die somewhere in God’s world; some day in God’s time the great contradiction will be washed out.
II. Their endurance. To them all seemed as if the second alternative were coming, and that He would not deliver. As the flames leap out, as they are hurried forward by the mightiest men in the army, as the fierce heat is too much even for the executioners, they are, as it were, hurled forward with such a force, that there is no halting, and they fall bound, as into some burning crater.
III. Their deliverance. In a moment no more three men, bound, weltering in flames; four men, loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and the form of the fourth as of the Son of God. How nobly and beautifully was it imagined that the praises they then sang to Him were such as tradition tells us-that men wrapped and bathed in the most powerful natural force, and finding it powerless upon them, called on all the creatures of God by them to “Bless the Lord, praise Him, and magnify Him for ever.”
Archbishop Benson, Boy Life: Sundays in Wellington College, p. 3.
Dan 3:18
We ask ourselves what it was which gave these three men the power to withstand the will of this great monarch, this representative of the world and it greatness, to resist passively, but immovably, the overwhelming force of numbers, and stand firm, though they were alone in the midst of an assembled world. And the answer is obvious. It was simply that they felt the importance of the truth for which they witnessed.
I. Here then is the lesson the scene teaches us. It is the lesson that we have laid upon us the duty of witnessing to the truth; and that in order to be able to witness to the truth, we must have an inward perception of the value of the truth which is to be witnessed to. And as Christians have the office imposed upon them of witnessing to the truth, so they are placed in a world which tries that office severely, and opposes great temptations to, and brings an overwhelming influence to bear against, the performance of that duty. The scene which is described in the Book of Daniel is indeed a symbolical one. It presents to us in figure the vast assemblage of the powers and influences of this world as they array themselves in opposition to, and for the suppression of, the truth.
II. The office of witness of Divine truth, rejected as it is by the generality, as if it were something more than could be expected, of men, is a privilege as well as a duty, and brings, if it is faithfully executed, great rewards to those who execute it. The faith which witnesses to the truth has a sense of victory in it. It comes out best in the contest. It was so on the occasion we have been considering, and, as I have said, this scene is symbolical. The Gospel recompense for obedience is the manifestation of the Divine presence within us, the awaking of the soul to the knowledge of God, and to such a sense of the supreme value of His approbation, and comfort in Him as a witness and judge of our heart, as makes amends for any loss we may sustain.
J. B. Mozley, Sermons Parochial and Occasional, p. 82.
Reference: Dan 3:18.-J. Keble, Sermons for Sundays after Trinity, Part II., p. 251.
Dan 3:24-25
There are two aspects of life: one, the common, the ordinary, the prosaic aspect; and the other, the Divine, the glorified, the Christian aspect; and that which alone can give you this second aspect of life is the presence of the Son of God.
I. It is a very remarkable thing that in this Book of the Prophet Daniel, the fourth and last of the four great prophets, we have such an extraordinary foretaste of the coming Gospel of Jesus Christ. We have here the expression-and it is the only place in the Old Testament-“The Son of God.” It is impossible that the king can mean one of these persons who are called by a figure of speech “sons of God.” He must mean the Son of God, the one who is made in God’s image and God’s likeness, who is of God and from God, and who stands in the exact relation to God that a child stands to his father. The form of the fourth is like the Son of God; and wheresoever that form comes, wheresoever that presence of the Son of God is felt, there the three become four; there the bound become loosened, and there those who are exposed to temptation or peril may walk in safety, because they have One with them who is none other than the God of gods and Lord of lords.
II. Such then is the glorification which is offered to every Christian for the trials of life. Life no doubt, for every one under the most advantageous circumstances, has its dull aspect. What we want is not to have those circumstances altered, but something which will make us proof against their dulness and monotony; something which will give us strength to cope with them; something which out of our weakness will make us strong; something which will shed the sunlight of eternal day over the darkness and gloominess of the morning spread upon the mountains, and will kindle for us by it a glorious day in which and through which we may walk from hour to hour with the presence of Him whose form is like that of the Son of God.
S. Leathes, Christian World Pulpit, vol. iv., p. 289.
References: Dan 3:24, Dan 3:25.-J. E. Vaux, Sermon Notes, 2nd series, p. 42. Dan 3:24-30.-R. Payne-Smith, Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 350.
Dan 3:25
This narrative may be assumed to set forth in lively type or emblem the security of God’s saints in the hour of their greatest peril, together with the reason of that security. Fire represents persecution, trial, torment, affliction, of whatever sort, under its fiercest aspect; for fire consumes, devours, destroys, causes to disappear. A furnace, heated one-seven times more than usual, is the very image of destruction in its wildest shape. To have fallen down bound into such a furnace, and straightway to be observed walking about there loose, is in like manner the liveliest picture possible of perfect security amid tremendous danger; while the presence of a companion, and He “one like the Son of God,” explains the rest of the marvel, while it adds crowning interest to the mystery; for it accounts for that safety which before was simply inexplicable.
I. In every trial then, every affliction, which may at any time befall us, the victory is promised to faith; the same faith which on the plain of Dura “quenched the violence of fire.” Faith in the presence of the unseen God will be for ever the secret of the strength of each afflicted one; and the language of every faithful heart will be to the end, “I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me.”
II. The fire of temptation is illustrated by the security of the three children in the furnace. The man is safe, because the Lord is with him, as He was with Joseph. And behold he walks loose, is freer than before, even because he hath been tried and hath overcome.
III. But chiefly are we taught by this beautiful incident to behold the safety of God’s elect children in that tremendous day when the “Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire.” That fire shall consume unquenchably the impenitent, obdurate sinner; but the saints of God will walk loose in the midst of that fire and have no hurt. The fetters of sin will be burned in that day, though the garments of mortality will go unscathed. Tied and bound with a chain till then, the redeemed of God will discover by a blessed experience that the marvellous property of the probationary fire is to loose from that cruel bondage.
J. W. Burgon, Ninety-one Short Sermons, No. 82.
References: Dan 3:25.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xi., No. 662; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 345. Dan 3:27.-G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xviii, p. 101.
Daniel 3
I. We have here a specimen of religious intolerance.
II. We see here how religious intolerance is to be met. These three young men simply refused to do what Nebuchadnezzar commanded, or, in modern phrase, they met his injunctions with “passive resistance.”
III. We have here an illustration of the support which Jesus gives to His followers when they are called to suffer for His sake.
IV. We see here that in the matter of religious intolerance, as well as in some other things, the opposite of wrong is not always right. Nebuchadnezzar had no more right to cut men in pieces for speaking evil of Jehovah than he had to put Shadrach and his companions into the flames for not worshipping his image.
W. M. Taylor, Daniel the Beloved, p. 58.
References: 3-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 338; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 517; J. G. Murphy, The Book of Daniel, p. 99; J. Foster, Lectures, 2nd series, p. 191. Dan 4:2, Dan 4:3.-Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxx., p. 21. Dan 4:13, Dan 4:14.-Homiletic Magazine, vol. viii., p. 7. Dan 4:19-27.-Ibid., vol. x., p. 27.
CHAPTER 3 The Image of Gold
1. The image of gold (Dan 3:1-7)
2. The faithful three (Dan 3:8-18)
3. The miraculous deliverance (Dan 3:19-25)
4. The worshipping king (Dan 3:26-30)
Dan 3:1-7. He had an immense statue of gold made, the image of a man, no doubt, and he set it up in the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. It was idolatry and the deification of man. Idolatry and the deification of man are then the first moral characteristics mentioned which are to prevail during the times of the Gentiles. The times of the Gentiles produce a religion which is opposed to the God of heaven. The image was sixty cubits high and six broad. Seven is the divine number and six is the number of man. Sixty cubits and six reminds us of that familiar passage in the book of Revelation, where we have the number of a man given, that mysterious number six hundred three-score and six, that is 666. The image then represents man, but the climax of man was not yet reached. However, the beginning foreshadows the end of the times of the Gentiles. That end is described in chapter 13 of Revelation.
The civil power tried to force this universal religion upon the people. The great governors, judges, captains and rulers had to appear for the dedication of the image. But then the whole thing had a religious aspect. Listen, after looking at this great awe-inspiring image of gold– the sweetest music–the cornet, the flute, the harp, the sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer and all kinds of music sounds forth. No doubt the Chaldean priests approached chanting some sweet Babylonian song. Why all this? To stir up the religious emotions and aid in this way the worship of an idol. It is intensely interesting that the ancient Babylonian worship, with its ceremonials and chanting is reproduced in Rome, which is called in Revelation, Babylon. (The book by Alexander Hyslop, The Two Babylons, gives reliable and important information on this fact.)
Dan 3:8-18. The companions of Daniel refused to worship the image and were cast into the fiery furnace. Notice their wonderful trust in God.
Dan 3:19-25. The very men who cast them down were consumed by the flames. But when the king looked towards the furnace he beheld to his great astonishment not three men bound and burning up, but four men loose and actually walking in the fire. They have no hurt and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. And when they brought up from the fiery furnace, no smell of fire was about them, not even a hair was singed, only the bands which had bound them were burned off. The fire had set them free but it could not touch them. But did the king speak true when he beheld the fourth like the Son of God? Little did he know what he said or what it meant, but assuredly he saw in that fire the Son of God, Jehovah, for He had promised His people, When thou walkest through the fire thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle on thee. The faithful Lord kept His promise to His trusting servants.
And has not all this been repeated throughout the times of the Gentiles especially during the Roman Empire? Pagan Rome persecuted the true worshippers of God and in great persecutions multitudes suffered martyrdom. But think of what is worse, Papal Rome, that Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots. There we find the images and the sweet music, the prostrations and political power enforcing unity of worship. The fiery furnaces were there, the stake, the most awful tortures for those who were faithful to God and to their Lord. Think of the story of the Waldensians and Huguenots. And while for these noble martyrs, for whom there is a martyrs crown in the coming day of Christ, there came no deliverance and their bodies were consumed by the fire, yet the Son of God was with them and with praising hearts and a song upon their lips, He carried them through the fire.
And during the great tribulation will a faithful remnant of Jews suffer under the man of sin, as these three Hebrews suffered; but they will likewise be delivered.
Dan 3:26-30. Once more Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged God and made a decree that severe punishment should be the lot of all who say anything amiss against the God of Daniels companions.
an image of gold
The attempt of this great king of Babylon to unify the religions of his empire by self- deification will be repeated by the beast, the last head of the Gentile world-dominion Rev 13:11-15 See note on “Beast, the” (See Scofield “Dan 7:8”) See Scofield “Rev 19:20”. It has repeatedly characterized Gentile authority in the earth, e.g.; Dan 6:7; Act 12:22 and the later Roman emperors.
am 3424, bc 580
made: Dan 2:31, Dan 2:32, Dan 5:23, Exo 20:23, Exo 32:2-4, Exo 32:31, Deu 7:25, Jdg 8:26, Jdg 8:27, 1Ki 12:28, 2Ki 19:17, 2Ki 19:18, Psa 115:4-8, Psa 135:15, Isa 2:20, Isa 30:22, Isa 40:19-31, Isa 46:6, Jer 10:9, Jer 16:20, Hos 8:4, Hab 2:19, Act 17:29, Act 19:26, Rev 9:20
in the province: Dan 3:30, Dan 2:48, Est 1:1
Reciprocal: Isa 41:6 – helped Isa 41:7 – the carpenter Isa 44:10 – General Isa 44:11 – let them all Isa 46:7 – they carry him Jer 50:38 – the land Jer 51:7 – the nations Dan 3:14 – my gods Dan 5:4 – of gold Zec 10:9 – sow
HOW LONG AN interval there was between the events narrated in chapters 2 and 3, we are not told, but we cannot resist the impression that there was a connection in the mind of Nebuchadnezzar between the image of his dream and the gigantic image, that he caused to be made. The image of his dream only began with a golden head, which represented himself. It was followed by a great image, which should be all of gold.
Since the ancient cubit was the length of the human fore-arm – anything from 18 to 22 inches – this image must have been at least 90 feet high, with a breadth of 9 feet. The immense store of gold, which enabled the king to do this, may not have equalled the supply that came to Solomon, yet it shows that the ‘times of the Gentiles’ began with a great display of power and wealth and glory. And how will the period of Gentile dominion end? The answer to this we find in Rev 13:1-18. Another mighty king will arise, and another great image will be made. If we compare the two scenes, we note many resemblances, and yet a significant contrast; in the fact that, as we read in the last chapter, it was ‘the God of Heaven’ who gave to Nebuchadnezzar ‘power and strength and glory;’ whereas the coming great king, who is named ‘the beast,’ will obtain ‘his power, and his seat, and great authority’ (Rev 13:2), from ‘the dragon;’ that is, from the devil himself.
The resemblances are equally striking, and bear witness to the fact that the sinful tendencies of poor fallen man in all ages are just the same. By the God of Heaven Nebuchadnezzar was granted much power and glory, so at once he used it to glorify himself in this gigantic golden image. Many different peoples were under his sway, each with their many gods, whom they worshipped. Now let them, while retaining their local deities, have a kind of ‘super-religion,’ which would have the effect of binding them together under his sway. Hence the cry of the herald, beginning, ‘O people, nations, and languages.’
Moreover these ancient monarchs knew how to influence the masses. Music exerts a very subtle influence on the human mind, whether it be of the cultivated and classical type or the lowest productions of the heathen world. Indeed, the lowest type seems to produce the most intoxicating effects, as do the ‘devil-dances’ of savages. Under the influence of this kind of music people, and especially the young, behave as if they were intoxicated.
So, to move the mighty concourse of people to worship the golden image, and thus pay homage to the mighty king, ‘all kinds of music’ were played. The penalty for non-compliance was the dreadful one of being cast alive into a burning fiery furnace.
Very similar things are predicted in Rev 13:1-18 for the end of the age, but with even more striking accompaniments. Instead of all kinds of music, the false prophet will have power to give life and speech to the image of the beast, and those who refuse to worship will be killed. The statement that there will be power to give ‘life’ to the image is indeed a startling one, but we must remember that at that time there will be ‘the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish’ (2Th 2:9, 2Th 2:10).
As we read on in our chapter, we learn how God changed Nebuchadnezzar’s word and thwarted his determination. As we read on in Revelation, we learn in Rev 19:1-21 how far more drastic and eternal judgment, though longer delayed, will fall upon the beast, who is personified by the image that is to come, and on the false prophet, who will promote it.
Of all the lusts and desires that are resident in the nature of poor fallen man, the most deep-seated is the desire to glorify, even to the point of deifying, himself. At the outset he fell to the seductive assertion of Satan, ‘Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil’ (Gen 3:5). The adversary did not of course state that they would know good, without being able to achieve it, and evil, without being able to avoid it. Ever since, self-exaltation has been the ruling idea in our world. Thus it was with Nebuchadnezzar. For the moment he was the apex of the pyramid, and beneath him, acting in his support, were ‘the princes, the governors, and the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counsellors, the sheriffs, and all the rulers of the provinces;’ and this eight-fold description of important personages is given twice in our chapter, as if to impress us with the solidity of the pyramid of which he was the apex. From this apparently unchallengeable position the great king issued his decree, which was in effect a God-defying one. And God took up the challenge through three devoted servants that He had in reserve.
Remarkably enough Daniel is not mentioned in this chapter: a fact that should be of encouragement to us. Why not mentioned, and where he was, is not revealed; but it is encouraging to know that in the absence of a servant of striking courage and power, God can take up and use with great effect servants of lesser gifts. Daniel’s three companions did not possess his gifts of understanding as to dreams and prophecies, but they did share his devotion to the one true God, which entailed a thorough-going separation from the abomination of idolatry. Hence when the multitudes, from the highest to the least fell down to worship the image, they stood erect. They exemplified the principle stated by the apostles in Act 5:29 – ‘We ought to obey God rather than man.’
Their enemies at once reported this to incite the rage and fury of Nebuchadnezzar. The king did at least enquire if the reported lack of action was true, and then issued his ultimatum, coupled with the insolent question, ‘Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?’ The reply of the three Jews was a memorable one.
If memory serves us aright, this is the first case on record where a servant of God has been threatened with the direst form of death penalty, if he did not deny his God and forsake his faith, though a prophet like Elijah was threatened by Jezebel. There have been many such cases since. In Dan 6:1-28 we have the case of Daniel. In the history of the early church we read of many who were thrown to the wild beasts because they would not deny their Lord and Master. Many a ‘heretic’ went to the fires in our land, as well as in Spain under the Inquisition; and we believe not a few have done so in our day under the iron hand of Communism. But, as we have often noticed, the first case is a very memorable one, and the stand taken rings through the centuries.
In the first place they asserted that their God was able to deliver them. They exalted His power. In the second place they did not hide the fact that for reasons of His own He might not deliver them. And then, in the third place, they stated with the utmost decision that were He not pleased to deliver, they would not forsake their God by worshipping the king’s golden image, in the honour of gods that were false. ‘We will not serve thy gods,’ was their decisive word; and in result they were greatly honoured by their God.
We shall, however, do well to remember that the seductions of the world are more damaging to our testimony than its opposition and its threat of disaster or death. At the end of his life the Apostle Paul had to write, ‘Demas hath forsaken me,’ and he did not follow this by saying, ‘being fearful of the world’s threatenings,’ but rather, ‘having loved this present world’ (2Ti 4:10). Paul had just before written of, ‘all them also that love His appearing;’ knowing that the appearing of the Lord Jesus will usher in a world very different from the present one, and that is wholly according to God. Demas fell before the seductions of the present ‘world,’ or ‘age,’ and that surely is the danger for us – the Christians of English-speaking lands, who are largely exempt from the persecutions experienced elsewhere. May God give us that decision of character that marked the three Hebrews, so that faced by seductions we may say, ‘Be it known… that we will not….’
Pursuing the narrative, we note the complete change in Nebuchadnezzar, as compared with the picture presented at the end of Dan 2:1-49. Then he was on his face in the presence of Daniel, and to fall on one’s face is to efface oneself in a figurative way. Now he is on his feet and so full of fury that his very face was transformed with savage resolution. Not only are the three men, who have defied his will, to be thrust into the fire, but the furnace is to be seven times hotter than what was the ordinary thing. As a consequence the mightiest men of his army were to fling them in. Thus the judgment fell. The deed was done.
And then the hand of God began to appear. The judgment fell, but it was upon the most mighty of Nebuchadnezzar’s famous army, and not upon the three defenceless Jews. The first thing the proud, impious king saw was his mightiest men slain by the furnace he had so excessively heated up. A humiliating sight for him! The next thing he saw was four men walking, free and unhurt in the midst of the fire, the very outskirts of which had slain his finest soldiers. The fire, that was death to them was not only preservation but liberty to God’s servants. They were flung in ‘bound,’ but now they ‘walk,’ for the only things consumed were their bonds, and they had a heavenly Visitor with them.
In the presence of this astounding miracle the furious king was subdued. The dream of Dan 2:1-49, which Daniel had expounded, had moved him, but though he learned that he was the golden head of the dream image, he had not taken to heart the fact that the supreme earthly position that he had reached was granted to him by ‘the God of heaven.’ If he had, he would never have boastfully asked, Who was the God that could deliver out of his hands? The God of heaven, who had given him his dominion, had accepted his challenge, reversed his word, quenched the violence of his seven-fold heated fire, and made visible His presence with those who were to have been his victims.
The king recognized that there was something Divine and God-like about ‘the form of the fourth.’ The way in which he expressed his conviction was doubtless controlled by God. Before this, Balaam had said things that he never would have uttered apart from Divine compulsion. After this, Caiaphas uttered things that had a different meaning to that which he intended, as recorded in Joh 11:51. So it was here, Nebuchadnezzar recognized that God had intervened and manifested His presence with the men he had sought to slay, and he used just the right expression, though not understanding the true force of it. While it is the Father who forms the purpose, it is the Son who manifests and acts. This we learn when the New Testament is reached.
The miracle was so complete that their garments were not affected, not an hair of their heads singed, not even the smell of fire was attached to them. The king had fully to recognize the hand of God, and acknowledged His mighty power. Still he did not advance beyond knowing Him as ‘the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego,’ just as, at the end of Dan 2:1-49 he acknowledged Him as the God of Daniel. He did not acknowledge Him as his God, though he pronounced severe penalties against any who spoke against Him. This great man, with whom the times of the Gentiles began, had yet a deeper lesson to learn.
Nebuchadnezzar’s Image of Gold
Dan 3:1-30
INTRODUCTORY WORDS
1. Daniel in Babylon.
(1) How Daniel came to be in Babylon. When Jerusalem was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel and the three Hebrew children were among those carried to Babylon. He found himself, with his three friends, chosen to be set aside for training, that they might be numbered among the Babylonian wise men.
(2) How Daniel stood true as a youth. Daniel and his three friends did not yield to the orders of the king as to their diet. They stood firm for their convictions which they had received from God. The result was that they prospered in every way.
(3) How Daniel’s life was threatened. During the period of Daniel’s training, the king of Babylon dreamed a dream which he could not remember. The wise men were called to tell the king both his dream and its interpretation. This none of them could do. Nebuchadnezzar was very angry, and ordered the wise men, including Daniel, to be slain.
(4) How Daniel prayed and praised. Immediately Daniel asked the king to grant a respite until the morning. Then Daniel and the three Hebrew children besought the God of Heaven in prayer, and God, in His mercy, revealed to Daniel the king’s dream, and the meaning thereof.
(5) How Daniel stood before the king. When Daniel, by the Lord, was given the king’s dream, he praised the Lord of Heaven for His mercies, and announced that he was ready to go in to the king. It was a test of faith, but God’s youth, Daniel, did not waver for a moment.
2. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great image revealed by Daniel.
(1) God showed Nebuchadnezzar the things which should come to pass in the latter days. Do doubt the king was greatly moved as, step by step, the dream and its interpretation were unfolded before him.
The head of gold was the kingdom then present. Daniel said, “Thou, O King, art * * this head of gold.”
The chest of silver was a second world empire the Medo-Persian that was to arise after the Babylonian.
The belly of brass was the third, the Macedonian Empire, under Alexander the Great.
The fourth empire was the Roman. It was of iron because of its strength and the hardness in its dealings.
The ten toes were ten kings which were to arise after the Roman empire, and in its territory. These ten kingdoms were to arise in the latter days.
(2) God showed Nebuchadnezzar that the Lord Jesus Christ would come in power, even as the stone, cut out without hands, appeared on the mountain side and came down striking the image on its feet, and demolishing it. That Stone, which stands for Christ Himself, will then become a great Kingdom, filling the whole earth.
It is needless to explain to our readers that Christ is coming again as King of kings, and Lord of lords. The promise is very definite: “Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David * *, to order it, and to establish it.” The promise given by the angel Gabriel is similar to the one just quoted from Isaiah: “The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the House of Jacob.”
I. NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S IMAGE OF GOLD (Dan 3:1)
1. The image: its size and beauty. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream was God’s acknowledgement of his greatness. In the image that God showed him in his dream he was the head of gold. This, however, did not suit the haughty king. He built himself an image all of gold, and set it up in the plain of Dura. It was very high, and glittered in the shining of the sun.
2. The image: its deeper purport. It stood for Nebuchadnezzar’s pride of heart. However, there was a deeper meaning. Nebuchadnezzar was, in fact, setting himself up against the God of Heaven. He was seeking to dethrone God and enthrone himself. This spirit is characteristic of Satan. He said in his heart, “I will ascend above the heights”; “I will exalt ray throne above the stars of God.”
This same spirit was breathed into the hearts of the first pair in the Garden of Eden. Satan said to Eve, “Ye shall be as gods.” This same spirit will culminate in the latter days in the antichrist who will exalt himself above God and above all that is called God, so that he as God will sit in the temple of God showing himself that he is God (2Th 2:1-17).
3. The image: its flaunting against God. Thus did the king flaunt himself against the One who said, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.” “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.”
Poor Nebuchadnezzar knew God, through Daniel’s testimony, and yet he would not have God to rule over Him. He went so far as to say, “Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” That is, he felt himself greater than the God in whose hands were his breath and all his ways.
II. THE DEDICATION OF THE IMAGE (Dan 3:2-3)
1. The representatives of a world-empire gathered together. When the great image was completed Nebuchadnezzar sent out his call to gather all the princes, the governors, the captains, the judges, the treasurers, the counselors, the sheriffs and all of the rulers of the whole empire.
Among those who came were the three Hebrew children, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. These young men must have been strangely moved by so great a group; and they, themselves, stood among them as leaders of Babylon, the chief city of the empire. Think you they knew what the king had in his mind?
2. An effort to establish a world-worship. When the king, Nebuchadnezzar, built his image of gold, the thing farthest from his mind was to spend money to decrease his own popularity and power. Perhaps something like this ran through his brain: “If, in the dream sent me by the God of Heaven and earth, He placed me as the head of gold, and if He acknowledged that my kingdom was the greatest of four world empires (according to the interpretation of Daniel) then I will go Him one better, and make myself a kingdom all gold.”
3. A desire to be exalted, on the part of Nebuchadnezzar. One thing we know: there was a desire for self-exaltation. Dan 5:20 recounts to Belshazzar, these words concerning Nebuchadnezzar: “But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne.”
God abominates pride. Self-exaltation is black with God’s frown. The proud will He destroy. “Thinkest thou great things of thyself? Think them not.” “Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased.” “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
III. A RELIGION MAN MADE AND MAN ENFORCED (Dan 3:4-6)
1. A religion under a dictator. “It is commanded, O people, nations, and languages.” The king of Babylon was an absolute dictator. At his word all men were forced to bow. All this bespeaks the time, about to come, when the man of sin, the antichrist, shall arise on the horizon. He will once more rule the world in tyranny and absolute lordship. In his day no man may buy or sell, except under his word, and except he bear his mark and the number of his name.
2. A religion, spectacular and gorgeous. “At what time ye hear the sound of * * all kinds of musick, ye (shall) fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.”
Ah, here was the purpose of the king! It was not only an effort to signalize his name, and immortalize his fame: he demanded worship. All men were commanded to fall down and to worship his image; and his image stood only for himself.
What, then, was the king’s ambition? He would be king, but he would also be God; he would rule both in things temporal and in things spiritual.
3. A religion enforced under threats of retribution. This was not all. Nebuchadnezzar decreed that all must worship his image under the severest penalty of nonconformity. Here again was Satan enacting before their very eyes, the same spirit that shall dominate the last great world dictator, the antichrist.
The antichrist will make war with the saints and will overcome all them that refuse to worship him. And, “as many as would not worship the image of the beast shall be killed.”
IV. THREE STALWART AND GOD-FEARING SONS (Dan 3:7-12)
1. The masses prostrated themselves before the image. When the music sounded we read that they all fell down and worshiped the image, with the exception of the three whom we shall mention later.
How near did Nebuchadnezzar come to the fulfillment of his great desire!
The 13th chapter of Revelation should be studied in the light of the 3d chapter of Daniel. In Revelation we read: That all that dwell upon the earth shall worship the Beast, with the exception of only those whose names are written in the Book of Life. The false prophet also shall arise and do wonders, saying to them that dwell on the earth that they should make an image to the beast. And he causeth all to worship the beast and his image, and the number of his name.
2. Accusers of the saints. When the three Hebrew children refused to bow down and worship the image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up, then certain Chaldeans came near and accused the Jews, and said: “There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon * *; these men * * have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.”
3. The three Hebrews who worshiped not. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bend the knee, or to fall down or to worship the golden image. They acted under the Command of God, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image * *: thou shalt not bow down thyself to worship them.”
These three men stood true to God, facing a burning fiery furnace as the penalty of their fidelity. How about us?
If we catch the spirit of the 20th century, it will not be long until the blood of the martyrs flows again. Indeed, it is now flowing in certain parts.
V. THE GREAT TEST (Dan 3:13-18)
1. Standing before the king. The three Hebrew children were immediately called by the king. Nebuchadnezzar was filled with rage and fury because what he had planned to be the greatest day of his life was about to be spoiled by what he, no doubt, thought to be three stubborn-willed Jews.
He was forced to punish them or else lose his place of authority and dictatorship. His crier had announced the penalty of disobedience, and, in order to sustain his honor, that penalty must be fulfilled. Therefore Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them: “Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image?”
2. Inquiring as to faith. The king having spoken as above, said: “If ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of * * all kinds of musick, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?”
3. The meaningful reply. “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us.”
All this but bespeaks the coming days under the anti-Christ when the Jews will die before they will worship the image which is yet to be set up. At this time let us study Rev 20:4. There we read of the resurrection of those who refused to worship the beast and his image, and who received not his mark upon their foreheads nor in their hands. They will live and reign with Christ a thousand years.
VI. THE ANGRY MONARCH (Dan 3:19-23)
1. God’s children under the ban. When the three Hebrew children, on the second test, refused to acknowledge the king’s supremacy and to worship his golden image, Nebuchadnezzar was full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against them. He at once commanded that they should heat the furnace seven times hotter than necessary, and he ordered his most valiant men to cast them alive into the burning furnace.
2. God’s children persecuted to the limit. Let us go, in our minds, to the time of the antichrist. In those days the antichrist will not only persecute the saints on earth, but he will even blaspheme the saints who are in Heaven. He will be filled with wrath, as was king Nebuchadnezzar. The blood of the martyrs will run freely. The slain of the Lord will be many.
In those days God will cause His children, the remnant of Israel, to flee into the wilderness where He will protect them for the while from the wrath of the beast,
3. God causeth the wrath of man to praise Him. As Nebuchadnezzar watched the fiery furnace he beheld four men walking in the midst of the flame. God had conquered the king. He had made his word of no avail. He was protecting His own, and shielding them. Thus it was that God did indeed cause the wrath of the king to praise Him.
They had been cast in bound, but their ties were burnt down to their garments.
There was something exhilarating the spirit of these three men. Instead of bemoaning their fate, they were rejoicing in their God.
VII. FAITH’S GREAT TRIUMPH (Dan 3:24-30)
1. The astonished king. King Nebuchadnezzar who had boasted that there was no God that could deliver these three men out of his hands, was greatly astonished as he saw them walking about in the midst of the fire. Then he rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counselors, “Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.” Then Nebuchadnezzar replied, “Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, * * and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.”
2. A would-be world religion’s collapse. Thus it was that the Almighty God delivered His sons. Nebuchadnezzar was abased in the presence of the great company of his own leaders.
Immediately a new edict was sent forth by the king. He who had come to establish a world empire and a world religion with himself as lord, cried out: “Ye servants of the Most High God, come forth, and come hither.” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came forth of the midst of the fire.
It was a wonderful sight as the princes, the governors, and the captains, and the king’s counselors gathered around and saw these men upon whose bodies the fire had no power. They beheld that their coats were not changed, the hair of their head was not singed, neither was there the smell of fire on them.
That day Nebuchadnezzar spake and said: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent His angel, and delivered His servants that trusted in Him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.” He who had decreed that every person in his nation should worship his image, was forced to make a second decree, “That every people, nation, and language, which speak any thing amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, shall be cut in pieces.” Then did the king promote Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.
AN ILLUSTRATION
Jesus Christ is the all-conquering Stone which demolishes every power lifted up against Him. While He is away let us be faithful to Him.
Embarking with other heroes of the day Ulysses had sailed away to the siege of Troy, upon the fall of which he began that eventful voyage which brought him at length, after an absence of twenty years, to Ithaca his native land. His wife, Penelope, was a beautiful woman and during the absence of Ulysses more than a hundred nobles had been suing for her hand. But hers was a beauty not of form alone but of character and soul as well. She knew it was highly improbable that her lord would ever return. For more than ten years her many important suitors had pressed their attentions and there seemed no refuge but in choosing one of them. She accordingly told them that when she had finished with a certain web she was weaving she would make her choice. She worked on the web every day but during the night would undo what she had wrought during the daytime, and thus she found delay. Ulysses entered the palace disguised as a beggar and found the suitors all assembled and in trial of strength he proved himself the worthiest of the lot. Penelope, still unaware of the presence of Ulysses, had provided for the contest his own bow which she knew no other man could bend, and so in one act Ulysses revealed himself to his faithful spouse and took revenge upon the insolent suitors who had annoyed her.
Penelope was not sure Ulysses would ever return, but still she wasted, even against hope, and kept herself pure for the sake of the one to whom she had given her love and sworn fidelity. Our Lord will surely return again. Can we be less faithful to our Heavenly Lord than Penelope? Shall we not keep ourselves pure and separate from the world that we may welcome Him at His Appearing?-Victory Magazine.
Dan 3:1. We knowr the events of this chapter came after those in the preceding one for verse 12 mentions the promotion of the three companions of Daniel, which is recorded in the close of that chapter. King Nebuchadnezzar was an idolater and continued to be one as long as he lived, as far as our information goes. However, he was made to know and acknowledge the superiority of the God of heaven more than once, although he never became a worshiper of Him in the complete sense. It seems that God wished to use him as an instrument by which to demonstrate to the world that there is one only true God, and that men are blessed in proportion as they serve Him. That was done in the preceding 2 chapters, it will be done in the present one, and will be done again in later chapters. Image is from TSELEM which Strong defines, “An idolatrous figure. This statement in the lexicon is all the Information we have as to the form or appearance of this image outside of what the text says of its size and some of its dimensions. We may get some useful suggestions, though, from historians and ancient writers, both heathen and believers in God. Such writers as Herodotus, Augustine and Dean Prideaux suggest that the 60 cubits includes the base and pedestal of the image; also that the breadth means the distance from front to back of the Image, and not that from side to side, and that would describe a more likely proportion. The image was set up at a place called plain of Dura, a place not far from Babylon.
FROM NEBUCHADNEZZAR TO CYRUS
The effect of the interpretation of his dream on Nebuchadnezzar is the inflation of his pride. To be sure, he was grateful to Daniel (Dan 2:46-49), to whom he offered worship, although the latter rejected it no doubt, as did Paul later (Act 14:11-18). His apprehension of Daniels God, however, is yet only as one amongst the national or tribal gods, although greater than they. This is clear from what follows in Dan 3:1-7, which is an attempt to unify the religions of his empire by self-deification. The tower of Babel (Genesis 11) was an attempt of the same kind in the same place, and it will be again tried there by the Beast, the last head of Gentile world dominion (Dan 7:8; Rev 13:11-15; Revelation 19-20).
Speaking of the Beast brings to mind the tribulation Israel shall suffer at his hands; and the three faithful Jews of Dan 3:8-18 are a type of the faithful remnant in that day which will not bow the knee to him (Isa 1:9; Rom 11:5; Rev 7:14).
The Son of God (Dan 3:25) is translated in the RV, A son of the gods, and possibly refers to an angel which the king beheld (Psa 34:7) though some apply it to the Second Person of the Trinity (Isa 43:2). The result of Nebuchadnezzars experience in this instance is a further confession of the true God, but still He is only the God of the Hebrews, ruler of angels and the rewarder of them who honor Him. At the conclusion of the next chapter his vision is cleared considerably.
THE KINGS CONFESSION (Daniel 4)
This next chapter is his confession in the nature of a general proclamation (Dan 4:1). The tree he saw in vision (Dan 4:10) symbolized himself grown great in the earth, as God, through Daniel, had foretold. Its hewing down (Dan 4:14) was the punishment coming on him for his pride. The stump left in the earth (Dan 4:15) was his return to power again after the lesson of his humiliation was learned. He became a lunatic, and lived like a beast for seven years (Dan 4:16). The reason for it all is in Dan 4:17. Daniel is kind and sympathetic towards him though obliged to speak the awful truth (Dan 4:19). He is faithful also (Dan 4:27), and who can tell what the outcome may have been had the king heeded his warning? In twelve months, however, the stroke fell (Dan 4:29-33). At the end of the experience the king has a different testimony to bear of God (Dan 4:34-35).
PASSING OF BABYLON (Daniel 5)
Many years have elapsed since the events of the last chapter. Nebuchadnezzar is dead and his son-in-law Nabonidus is reigning, with his son (and Nebuchadnezzars grandson) Belshazzar as co-regent (Dan 5:1). His name means Bel protect the king, while Belteshazzar, the name assigned to Daniel, means Bel protect his life. In Dan 5:2 Nebuchadnezzar is called his father, but there is no discrepancy here, because the Semitic tongues have no equivalent for grandfather or grandson. A corroboration of the position here assigned Belshazzar is found in Dan 5:7, where the interpreter of the mysterious handwriting is promised the third place in the kingdom – Nabonidus being first and Belshazzar himself second.
The queen (Dan 5:10) is probably the aged widow of Nebuchadnezzar and grandmother of the present king, who has not forgotten Daniel, though her offspring and his court seem to have done so in their degeneracy. Like herself, the prophet is now old, perhaps eighty, but as the result shows, God has more service in store for him, and the honor that accompanies it. Note his words and character of his indictment against the king (Dan 5:17-28). And yet the king acts like a king in Dan 5:29. In that night the power was wrested from the Babylonians by the Medes and Persians, and the breast and arms of the image had become realized in history.
Darius the Mede (Dan 5:31) is unknown to history by that name outside of this book, and is not to be confounded with the later Darius of Ezra (Dan 5:5). When it says he took the kingdom, some think it means that it was taken in his name merely, but really by his general, who was also his relative, Cyrus, who afterward became king, and who is named at the close of chapters 1 and 6.
There is obscurity surrounding this subject on which our space will not permit elaboration.
DANIEL IN THE LIONS DEN (Daniel 6)
Darius had heard of Daniel and his prophecies, and desired to honor him (Dan 6:1-3), but human jealousy is at work (Dan 6:4-5). How does the first word of Dan 6:7 prove that these rulers told a falsehood to the king? Is not this sin into which he fell practically the same sin committed by Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 3? Was ever faith more beautifully displayed than by Gods aged servant in Dan 6:10? Referring to our last lesson, how does Dan 6:14 illustrate the inferiority in character of this kingdom over the preceding?
As another says, Well may we think here of another law and another love. Gods holy law condemned man, and justly so, yet He found a way to save him (2Co 5:21). An absolute monarchy is what man wants, if only it be a holy monarchy. It was a terrific judgment that fell on Daniels accusers, but remember the age in which it occurred, and also that it was not commanded by God, although permitted as a judicial retribution.
Notice in closing, the last verse of the chapter. Do we recall that Isaiah had prophesied of Cyrus between one and two hundred years before his birth (Dan. 6:44-45)? He is the one under whom the Medo-Persian kingdom was consolidated, and who later gave liberty to the Jews to return to Jerusalem at the close of their seventy years captivity, as we saw in Ezra (Ezr 1:1-4). Doubtless Daniels influence had much to do with this.
QUESTIONS
1. How was Nebuchadnezzar affected by his dream?
2. Illustrate his development in the knowledge of the true God.
3. What was the motive or aim of his action in chapter 3?
4. To what event in the end period does this point?
5. Of what is the faithfulness of the three Jews a type?
6. Give the story of chapter 4 in your own words.
7. What was Belshazzars relation to Nebuchadnezzar?
8. Who was the real conqueror of Babylon?
9. Quote from memory 2Co 5:21.
10. Tell what you know of the story of Cyrus.
Dan 3:1. Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold How soon this image was erected, after the dream in his second year, is uncertain. The Greek and Arabic interpreters suppose it to have been in the eighteenth year of his reign, and Dr. Prideaux agrees with them. But whether it was then, or, as some think, later, the design of it probably was, to frustrate the exposition, and defeat the end of the dream: on which account, perhaps, the image was made wholly of gold, and not of different metals, to make an ostentatious display of the abundance of his wealth, and to obviate the jealousies of his people, excited by his favours to Daniel and his friends. Some or all of these motives might influence this haughty and inconstant monarch to desert the true God, whom he had so lately acknowledged, and to yield again to the force of those inveterate habits, from which he had been so miraculously recovered: see Wintle. The height thereof was threescore cubits The proportion of the height of this image seems very unequal to the breadth, unless the pedestal, on which it was placed, be included therein. Houbigant, and some others, on account of this disparity, think it was rather a column or pyramid than an image of the human form: but Diodorus, lib. 2. 9, giving an account of the plunder Xerxes had taken out of the temple of Belus, mentions an image of massy gold that was forty feet high, which Prideaux conjectures to have been this statue made by Nebuchadnezzar. The statue of Jupiter also, made by Lysippus, at Tarentum, is said to have been forty cubits high. It is probable that the plain of Dura, here mentioned, was some extensive plain near Babylon, and that the image set up in it was erected in honour of Bel, the chief idol of the Babylonians.
Dan 3:1. An image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits. As the breadth of this image was only six cubits, which is four short of the human proportion, it is conjectured that the pedestal was twenty four cubits high: then the image itself was only thirty six. This nearly agrees with Diodorus Siculus, who says that Xerxes found an image of gold in the temple of Belus forty feet in length.But why did Nebuchadnezzar make this idol? Some think, to represent Bel-baal or Belus, which is the name of the same idol differently written. Others think that he intended a new divinity, and to introduce himself as an object of national worship after death. This is the most likely sense, as he was more intent on having homage paid to this idol than on all his former conquests. So Isaiah personates him as saying, I will be like the Most High! Nebuchadnezzar also said, Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?
Dan 3:2. The princes. Literally, those who stand before the king; the satraps, the viceroys, the consuls, or the captain-generals of the army. But here the readings vary so much, that it is doubtful whether we can distinctly gather more from these names than a general view of the great officers of state, and of the provinces.
Dan 3:5. The sound of the salpingos, the suringos, and kitharas, sambuces, and psaltery. These are the names of the instruments, as in Theodotians version of Daniel, from which the English is translated almost word for word. The sambuca was of a triangular figure: the psaltery was a portable species of the harp. See on Psalms 150.
Dan 3:6. A burning fiery furnace. The burning of criminals alive was an ancient punishment in the east. The Philistines menaced the wife of Samson and her fathers house with this kind of death. Some of the Ammonites were made to pass through the brickkilns, probably in retaliation for burning some Hebrews; and Nebuchadnezzar had already roasted a Zedekiah and an Ahab in the fire. Jer 29:22. Of the family, and the case of those men, criticism is silent.
Dan 3:25. I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire. The form of this furnace probably resembled those at our copperworks. The fire is at one end, and it passes over the copper under an oblong arch to the chimney. Our iron furnaces scarcely allow of room to walk; they are usually more than twenty feet deep, and two feet wide at the bottom, which widen to fourteen towards the middle; and then they narrow to about eight feet at the top where the flame is discharged.
The form of the fourth is like the Son of God. So is the original; so is Theodotian; and in the notes to my copy of this version I find Chrysostom has quoted the text in the same manner. This personage was doubtlessly the Messiah or Angel of the covenant, who made and who controuls the elements. Why then should the enemies of his Godhead and glory attempt to make him simply an angel? Heretics, as well as wicked men, may wrest the holy scriptures to their own destruction.
REFLECTIONS.
We here tread on tragic ground. We see a conflict before the universe; the weak against the mighty, the few against the many. Nebuchadnezzar, long accustomed to see the world bow at his feet, began no longer to rank himself on a level with mortal men. Ceasing to be grateful to Him who had made him monarch of the earth, he wishes in a tacit way to make a god of himself. Let us be thankful for a cottage in humble life; for where is the head that can bear the highest pinnacle of honour, and not be giddy?
Let us be thankful also for the civil and religious liberties of our united kingdom. Our lives, our fortunes, and our privileges are placed under the protection of equitable laws, and a paternal king. But here is a monarch who had the lives of nations at his command; they had neither law, nor religion, nor existence, but at his pleasure. However just and happy this power might be in the hands of a patriarch, it is not adapted to enlightened nations. Truly the wrath of a king was as the roaring of a lion among the flock.
When the pride and arrogance of mortals become excessive, providence seems to take peculiar delight in their mortification. The misguided monarch intended this day to be the day of his highest glory and elevation. He had lavished his immense hoards of bloody gold to make a huge idol; he had spared no cost to give a grand fte to the empire, accompanied with all the enchanting powers of music. He awaited the most gratifying sight of a prostrate court and populace, adoring the vain work of his own heart. But ah, when about to taste this long-expected pleasure, behold all the serenity of his soul was convulsed, and all his smiles of majestic grace immersed in rage and fury by a paltry complaint that three jews would not worship his image. Oh how precarious is earthly bliss, when dependent on the humours of men and the incidents of life. The monarch conceived that these three men, faithful to their God, insulted his power, insulted his divinity; yea, insulted him on this high day before his court and empire. From the immensity of pride, impelled by strong passion, he stooped to meanness; he expostulated with worms; nay he almost begged them to adore his image. But denied this favour, anger overpowered his reason, for he did the men a kindness in heating the furnace seven times hotter than usual.
We next turn our wondering eyes to these three men, and admire the heroic character of their faith. Forced by office to attend in the royal train, they probably expected on this day the nuptial joys of a martyrs crown. They therefore scorned to feign sickness, or plead infirmity with guile. This was a great day for the Lord, a great day for the empire, a day of confusion to the ministers of superstition.
The faith of the three Hebrew children embraced a God unseen, despised terror, vanquished the world, and scorned life spotted by a single crime. They relied on the promise, When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. Isa 43:2. Hence they answered the king with a firmness becoming the witnesses and confessors of the Most High.
The Lord we see will never forsake his faithful servants in the day of trouble. He prepared these holy men for the fiery trial by interior grace; he armed them with fortitude before the angry king; and his presence accompanied them in the fiery furnace. So he will do to all his saints in the various toils and conflicts of life. May we be greatly comforted by the promises and by examples of this nature, to go on our way rejoicing.
Severe afflictions work for the good of those who are exercised thereby. This monarch was furious, and many perished in his wrath; but he was also generous, and often just. Though heaven had confounded his pride by interposing to save Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; yet he promoted them to considerable rank in the empire; and God inclined his heart so to do for the protection of his poor afflicted people. Had not providence inter posed in some special manner, how could they have retained the pure worship of their fathers God, in a land so full of superstition. On the whole, the greatness of this occasion, comprising the vanity of the king, the errors of the world, and the protection of the church, were objects of extraordinary regard; and the glorious events of the day powerfully tended to instruct and reform a misguided empire.
Daniel 3. The Golden Image and the Fiery Furnace.Nebuchadnezzar made a colossal image of gold and commanded the people to worship it. The three friends of Daniel refused to comply with the order. The king thereupon had them thrown into a burning fiery furnace heated seven times hotter than usual. But the fire had no power to consume them, and there appeared walking by the side of the three men in the midst of the furnace a fourth whose aspect was like a son of the gods. The message of this chapter to the men of the Maccabean age is obvious. The devotion and fidelity of the three heroes who faced the fiery furnace rather than prove traitors to their God is held up as an example to those whom Antiochus Epiphanes was tempting to betray their Lord, and their marvellous rescue is held up as a Divine deliverance, and an illustration of the fulfilment of the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah: When thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned: neither shall the fire kindle upon thee (Isa 43:2).
Dan 3:1. image of gold: this phrase does not necessarily mean that the statue was made of solid gold. Probably it was composed of another material coated or overlaid with gold.threescore cubits: 90 feet.six cubits: 9 feet, a cubit being l feet.the plain of Dura: it is impossible to identify this plain. The best suggestion is that it was connected with a small river, named the Dura, which entered the Euphrates some six miles S. of Babylon. Near this river many mounds have been discovered, one of which, a rectangular brick structure, may possibly have been the foundation on which the statue was placed. But this, of course, is pure conjecture (see Driver, CB).
Dan 3:2. The particular functions of the different officials cannot be easily distinguished. Some of the words, e.g. satrap, belong to the later Persian period, and are therefore plainly an anachronism.
Dan 3:5. sackbut: trigon, a triangular four-stringed instrument of the nature of a harp. The term sackbut is misleading, for a sackbut is a wind instrument resembling a trombone, while there is little doubt that the word used here denotes a stringed instrument.psaltery: also a stringed instrument resembling an inverted triangle in shape.dulcimer: the character of this instrument is probably better described by the mg. bagpipe.
Dan 3:8. Chaldeans: whether the term is used here in its technical sense of wise men or magicians, or in its ethnic sense cannot be determined (see on Dan 1:4).
Dan 3:14. Is it of purpose: both Driver and Charles prefer the AV, Is it true?
Dan 3:17. If it be so: there is general agreement that this translation is wrong; but opinions differ as to what should be substituted for it. Driver, following mg.2, reads, If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us, He will deliver us. But Charles objects that this rendering suggests that doubts had entered into the minds of the three young men. He proposes therefore to follow the Versions, For there is a God, whom we serve, who is able to deliver us.
Dan 3:21. hosen . . . tunics . . . mantles: translate, mantles . . . trousers . . . hats.
Dan 3:23 f. Between these two verses the LXX inserts the Apocryphal Song of the Three Children.
Dan 3:25. a son of the gods: the AV translation, the son of God, is wrong. The phrase simply means a heavenly being or angel.
Dan 3:27. hosen: mantles, as in Dan 3:21.
Dan 3:28. changed: frustrated.
Dan 3:30. promoted: prospered.
IDOLATRY
Daniel 3
In the second chapter we have seen that the power of government in an imperial form has been committed by God to the responsibility of the Gentiles. Further, we have had a prophetic outline of the four great Empires that will exercise this power during the times of the Gentiles.
In the chapters that follow, 3 to 6, we have the record of a series of historical incidents which are doubtless intended to set forth the character and conduct of these successive Gentile Empires. We shall learn that, the responsibility for government having been placed in their hands, they fail to exercise this government in dependence upon God, and thus utterly fail in their responsibility, and this from the outset.
These incidents clearly show that the outstanding features of this failure in government will be idolatry, or setting aside the rights of God 3; the exaltation of man 4, impiety 5; and finally, apostacy 6. We are thus warned that the times in which we live will end in the utmost limit of wickedness, man exalting himself against God and seeking to supplant God on the earth.
(a) The image of gold.
(V. 1). Nebuchadnezzar, the king to whom God had committed the government of the world, sets up in the plain of Dura an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits and the breadth six cubits. Possibly the image of his dream had suggested to the king this idolatrous image. If so, it only shows that if what God gives is not held with God, it will be debased to our own ends.
Here we discover the root of man’s failure in responsibility to govern the world. The mighty power committed to man is at once prostituted for an exhibition of the most gigantic outburst of idolatry. Man uses the power conferred to set aside the rights of God – the One who has given the power. This, then, is the first characteristic of the times of the Gentiles, and the root of all subsequent failure.
Nebuchadnezzar, instead of exercising his power in dependence upon God, sets aside the rights of God, and seeks to consolidate his empire by a device of his own. As dominion had been given to him over the whole habitable world, of necessity his empire would be composed of many nations, speaking diverse tongues, and having different aims and interests. It follows that the king was faced with the problem of maintaining unity in this heterogeneous empire.
History and experience show that nothing so sharply divides and breaks up nations and families as a difference in religion. On the other hand, nothing will so powerfully cement nations together as unity of religion, be it false or true. Religious unity will go far to establish a political unity. Nebuchadnezzar, apparently recognising these facts, attempts to secure a political unity by setting up a religious unity. To this end he uses his great power to force upon all nations a state religion under penalty of death for those who will not conform.
A state religion must be, above all else, one that suits the natural man. To attain this end it must be of extreme simplicity, appealing to the senses, making no great demand upon the intellect, and leaving the conscience untouched. It must take up little time and require no particular sacrifice of money or goods. All these conditions were admirably met by the state religion devised by Nebuchadnezzar.
(b) The rights of God outraged (Vv. 2-7)
(Vv. 2, 3). Having set up his image, the king gathers together the political leaders of his kingdom, the princes of the royal house, the military leaders, the judges of his courts, the financiers, the counsellors; all must be present at the dedication of the image.
(Vv. 4-7). Then the command is proclaimed by a herald, that at a given moment, with the accompaniment of music, appealing to the senses, everyone is to fall down and worship the image. Failure to comply with the command will be visited with an immediate and terrible death. The one refusing to obey will “the same hour be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace.”
From man’s point of view, this was a very simple religion. All it demanded was a simple act of prostration before an image, and then the matter was at an end. Such a religion was admirably suited to man’s fallen nature – a magnificent image to appeal to the sight, beautiful music to charm the ear, one single act of prostration that was over in a moment, that made no demand upon the purse, and raised no question of sins to make the conscience uncomfortable. The drastic penalties attached to non-compliance would hardly trouble the natural man, who would be quite ready to obey an edict which made such small demands. Hence, at the appointed time, “all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image.”
Viewed in the light of the true God, the command of the king was an outburst of gross and furious idolatry. Never before had man set up such an imposing idol; never before had all the nations of the earth been commanded to bow down to one idol under pain of a terrible death. It was the utter denial and setting aside of the rights of God. Alas, such is man; put into the place of universal power over the world by God, he immediately uses this power to deny God.
(c) The conscience of man ignored (8-12).
The image and its dedication not only set aside the rights of God, but also trampled underfoot the consciences of men. In thus acting, the king had gone outside the circle of his own lawful authority and intruded into God’s domain. This brings to the front certain God-fearing men who, at all costs, will obey God rather than men. There are found certain Jews who, while ready to obey the king within his own sphere, absolutely refuse to obey if he usurps the rights of God.
The enemies of these godly men, delighted to find an occasion of discrediting them before the king, approach Nebuchadnezzar with flattering phrases, and remind the king of the decree he has made, and the penalty he has imposed for disobedience. They then inform the king that three leading men have disregarded the king and his gods, and have refused to worship the image. They remind the king that he, himself, had appointed these men to the high position they held, and this was the way they requited the king. They press the fact that they are not of the ordinary rank and file, but men set over the affairs of the main provinces – facts which would magnify their offence in the eyes of the king.
(d) Persecution for non-compliance (Vv. 13-23).
(Vv. 13-15). The jealousy and hatred of the Chaldeans do their evil work. The king, finding his royal will thwarted by men whom he had set in positions of great authority, forthwith commands that these men be brought into his presence. Assuming the report to be true, he gives them a further opportunity to obey, in which case all will be well. If they refuse, they will immediately be consigned to the burning fiery Furnace, “and,” he concludes, “who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?”
Now the king has gone a step further in wickedness. In setting up the image, he had already set aside the rights of God to whom worship alone is due; but now he openly defies God. This is claiming omnipotence. When man does this, his defeat is not far off for the contest is now no longer between these Jewish captives and the earthly king of kings but between Nebuchadnezzar and the God of gods. The king evidently had unbounded confidence in himself, and judged of God according to his thoughts of his own gods, whom he treated with scant respect, or surely his language would have been more moderate.
(V. 16). The three Jews, realising that the battle is the Lord’s, are perfectly calm in the presence of the infuriated king. Faith in God enables them to say to the king, “We are not careful to answer thee in this matter.” To them the issues are clear and admit of no compromise. The natural man might say, “It is only a small thing the king requires; you only have to bow down once to this image, and the whole thing is over in a moment, and then you are free; you need not bow down in heart. It is quite a formal affair, and simply a question of obedience to the king.” But faith does not reason thus; faith obeys God, and sees clearly that it is a question of God or the king. That settles the matter; and so without any conference between themselves, they give their answer. In ordinary matters of state, touching the business of the king, they would doubtless be very careful. But this is the business of God, and, therefore, mere human care is as useless as it is unnecessary (Luk 12:11).
(Vv. 17, 18). The opening words of their answer – “Our God whom we serve” – give the secret of their confidence. They knew God, and can say “our God.” A true knowledge of God is the secret of power before men. Moreover, however great the position they hold before men, it is God they serve. The king had defied God in saying “Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” With great calmness these faithful men take up this challenge, and with the confidence of faith they say, “Our God . . . is able to deliver us from the burning, fiery furnace,” and further, “He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.”
If, however, God allows them to suffer a martyr’s death they are prepared to accept the fiery ordeal as God’s way of deliverance from the king, rather than disobey God. For them it is simply a question of obeying God or man. This is still the real question between the Christian and the rulers of the world. Obedience to the powers that be is the plain direction of the word of God for His people (Rom 13:1; Tit 3:1; 1Pe 2:13-17). It is not for us to raise questions as to how the authority is constituted, or as to the character of the one wielding the authority; our part is to obey. But when the will of man clashes with the word of God, and seeks to impose that will upon our consciences, we must obey God rather than man. (Act 4:19).
(Vv. 19-23). The confidence of these men in God is exceedingly beautiful, but it does not lead, as we might expect, to their escape from the threatened penalty. Their faith is put to the proof without any apparent intervention by God. The king is allowed to carry out his wicked will. When it is a question of conscience, they resolutely withstand the king; now that it is a question of their bodies, they make no resistance. They act in the spirit of the Lord’s words to His disciples, when He said, “Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do” Luk 12:4).
To have his will opposed by three captive Jews fills the king with fury. He forthwith commands his servants to heat the furnace seven times more than it was wont to be heated. The strongest men of his army are deputed to bind the three captives and cast them into the furnace. In result, the fury of the king only adds to his defeat. The king has to learn that his furnace can consume his own mighty men, but cannot hurt the servants of God, if God acts on their behalf, even though the furnace be seven times heated.
(e) Deliverance for the faithful (Vv. 24-30).
(Vv. 24, 25). The only effect of the furnace for the three captives is to put them into the company of the Son of God and to free them from their bonds. This, in different degrees and by other means, is ever the result of persecution for those who have faith in God. The man of the ninth of John endured in his day the persecution of the Jewish leaders, only to find himself set free from Jewish bondage in the company of the Son of God.
The effect upon the king is immediate. He rises up in haste, declaring that he sees four men “walking in the midst of the Fire . . . and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” This was the true secret of the three captives walking unscathed in the midst of the fire – they were in the company of the Son of God. What can the saints not do in His company? In His company they can walk on the water (Matt. 14), and in His company they can walk in the midst of the fire, thus fulfilling the promise made to the prophet, “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee . . . when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee” (Isa 43:2).
(Vv. 26, 27). The humbled king now admits that these three captives are the servants of the Most High God, and calls them to come forth. The princes, governors, captains and counsellors are compelled to bear witness to the discomfiture of the great king who had defied the living God, and the frustration of his plan to establish a religious unity.
(Vv. 28-30). In the presence of this great miracle the King has to recognise the intervention of God on behalf of those “that trusted in Him.” Moreover, he owns that their action had “changed the king’s word.” He bears witness that their confidence in God was such that they had “yielded their bodies” rather than serve or worship any God except their own God.
The king thereupon makes a decree that no people, nation or language shall speak anything amiss against the God of Shadrach, Meschach and Abed-nego under penalty of being cut to pieces and having their houses made a dunghill, for he admits that “there is no other God that can deliver after this sort.” Apparently, all nations can serve their own gods, but they must not speak anything amiss of the God of these faithful men. Not only is the king’s purpose to establish a religious unity entirely frustrated, but the jealous schemes of the enemies of these captives are brought to nought, for in result these captives each receive promotion in the province of Babylon.
Such is the historical commencement of the times of the Gentiles. In it we have a foreshadowing of scenes that will be enacted at the close of this period. History will repeat itself, and this effort to establish an idolatrous religious unity will be made in a still more terrible form at the end. Man is a religious being, and if he throws off allegiance to the true God, he will make a false god. If he has a false god, he will have no objection to a representation of his god, for the natural man must have something to see and touch – something for sight and sense. Thus it will come to pass that an image will be made of the head of the last Gentile power, and it will be decreed that all who will not worship the image will be killed. The times of the Gentiles opened with idolatry and will close with the worst form of idolatry – the worship of a man as God (Rev 13:11-18).
3:1 Nebuchadnezzar the king made {a} an image of gold, whose height [was] threescore cubits, [and] the breadth thereof six cubits: he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
(a) Under pretence of religion, and holiness in making an image to his idol Bel, he sought his own ambition and vain glory: and this declares that he was not touched with the true fear of God before, but that he confessed him on a sudden motion, as the wicked when they are overcome with the greatness of his works. The Greek interpreters write that this was done eighteen years after the dream, and as may appear, the King feared lest the Jews by their religion should have altered the state of his commonwealth: therefore he meant to bring all to one type of religion, and so rather sought his own peace than God’s glory.
1. The worship of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue 3:1-7
The whole image that the king built was gold. The head of the image that Nebuchadnezzar had seen in his dream was also gold.
"Daniel had told him that he was the head of gold (Dan 2:38) but that he would be followed by ’another kingdom inferior to you’ (Dan 2:39) made of silver (Dan 2:32). Rejecting now the idea that any kingdom could follow his own, he may have determined to show the permanence of his golden kingdom by having the entire image covered with gold." [Note: Ibid.]
This image stood about 99 feet high and nine feet wide. This is the height of a ten-story building and the width of a 9-feet by 12-feet room. The famous Colossus of Rhodes stood 70 cubits (105 feet) high astride the entrance to that ancient port. It is interesting that the dimensions of this statue, 60 cubits and 6 cubits, contain the number 6, which also appears in the mark of the Beast, 666, a latter day equivalent. [Note: See Ironside, p. 47.]
We do not know what the image represented. If it was a figure of a human, it probably stood on a substantial base since it was quite narrow for such a tall statue. However, it may have represented an animal, or a combination of human and animal. Archaeologists have discovered Babylonian images of all these types. [Note: See Leupold, p. 137; Young, pp. 83-85; or Keil, pp. 118-19.] These images are also sometimes quite narrow in proportion to their height. Customarily these were wooden statues overlaid with gold (cf. Isa 40:19; Isa 41:7; Jer 10:3-9). [Note: Montgomery, p. 195.] Herodotus described a statue of Bel made of 800 talents (22 tons) of gold, but Nebuchadnezzar’s image would have been much heavier and more costly. [Note: Herodotus, History of the Persian Wars, 1:183.]
In view of Nebuchadnezzar’s extraordinary ego (cf. ch. 4), the image may have been a likeness of him. [Note: Feinberg, p. 44.] However, there is no evidence that the Mesopotamians ever worshiped statues of their rulers as divine during the ruler’s lifetime. [Note: Archer, "Daniel," p. 50.] Some writers have suggested that the image may have resembled an obelisk similar to those found in Egypt. [Note: E.g., Pentecost, p. 1337; Young, p. 84; and Baldwin, p. 99.] It is likely that the image represented Nebuchadnezzar’s patron god, Nebo. [Note: Dyer, p. 706.]
The most probable site of the Dura Plain seems to be six miles southeast of Babylon. [Note: Montgomery, p. 197.] The Aramaic word dura ("fortification") is common and refers to a place enclosed by a wall or perhaps mountains. [Note: Leupold, p. 137; Keil, p. 119; Pentecost, p. 1337.]
THE IDOL OF GOLD, AND THE FAITHFUL THREE
REGARDED as an instance of the use of historic fiction to inculcate the noblest truths, the third chapter of Daniel is not only superb in its imaginative grandeur, but still more in the manner in which it sets forth the piety of ultimate faithfulness, and of that
“Death-defying utterance of truth”
which is the essence of the most heroic and inspiring forms of martyrdom. So far from slighting it, because it does not come before us with adequate evidence to prove that it was even intended to be taken as literal history, I have always regarded it as one of the most precious among the narrative chapters of Scripture. It is of priceless value as illustrating the deliverance of undaunted faithfulness-as setting forth the truth that they who love God and trust in Him must love Him and trust in Him even till the end, in spite not only of the most overwhelming peril, but even when they are brought face to face with apparently hopeless defeat. Death itself, by torture or sword or flame, threatened by the priests and tyrants and multitudes of the earth set in open array against them, is impotent to shake the purpose of Gods saints. When the servant of God can do nothing else against the banded forces of sin, the world, and the devil, he at least can die, and can say like the Maccabees, “Let us die in our simplicity!”. He may be saved from death; but even if not, he must prefer death to apostasy, and will save his own soul. That the Jews were ever reduced to such a choice during the Babylonian exile there is no evidence; indeed, all evidence points the other way, and seems to show that they were allowed with perfect tolerance to hold and practise their own religion. But in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes the question which to choose-martyrdom or apostasy-became a very burning one. Antiochus set up at Jerusalem “the abomination of desolation,” and it is easy to understand what courage and conviction a tempted Jew might derive from the study of this splendid defiance. That the story is of a kind well fitted to haunt the imagination is shown by the fact that Firdausi tells a similar story from Persian tradition of “a martyr hero who came unhurt out of a fiery furnace.”
This immortal chapter breathes exactly the same spirit as the forty-fourth Psalm.
“Our heart is not turned back, Neither our steps gone out of Thy way: No, not when Thou hast smitten us into the place of dragons, And covered us with the shadow of death. If we have forgotten the Name of our God, And holden up our hands to any strange god, Shall not God search it out? For He knoweth the very secrets of the heart.”
“Nebuchadnezzar the king,” we are told in one of the stately overtures in which this writer rejoices, “made an image of gold, whose height was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof six cubits, and he set it up in the plains of Dura, in the province of Babylon.”
No date is given, but the writer may well have supposed or have traditionally heard that some such event took place about the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzars reign, when he had brought to conclusion a series of great victories and conquests. Nor are we told whom the image represented. We may imagine that it was an idol of Bel-merodach, the patron deity of Babylon, to whom we know that he did erect an image; or of Nebo, from whom the king derived his name. When it is said to be “of gold,” the writer, in the grandiose character of his imaginative faculty, may have meant his words to be taken literally, or he may merely have meant that it was gilded, or overlaid with gold. There were colossal images in Egypt and in Nineveh, but we never read in history of any other gilded image ninety feet high and nine feet broad. The name of the plain or valley in which it was erected-Dura-has been found in several Babylonian localities.
Then the king proclaimed a solemn dedicatory festival, to which he invited every sort of functionary, of which the writer, with his usual and rotundity of expression, accumulates the eight names. They were:-
1. The Princes, “satraps,” or wardens of the realm.
2. The Governors. {Dan 2:48}
3. The Captains.
4. The Judges.
5. The Treasurers or Controllers.
6. The Counsellors.
7. The Sheriffs.
8. All the Rulers of the Provinces.
Any attempts to attach specific values to these titles are failures. They seem to be a catalogue of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian titles, and may perhaps (as Ewald conjectured) be meant to represent the various grades of three classes of functionaries-civil, military, and legal.
Then all these officials, who with leisurely stateliness are named again, came to the festival, and stood before the image. It is not improbable that the writer may have been a witness of some such splendid ceremony to which the Jewish magnates were invited in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Then a herald (kerooza) cried aloud a proclamation “to all peoples, nations, and languages.” Such a throng might easily have contained Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews, Arabs, and Assyrians, as well as Babylonians. At the outburst of a blast of “boisterous janizary-music” they are all to fall down and worship the golden image.
Of the six different kinds of musical instruments, which, in his usual style, the writer names and reiterates, and which it is neither possible nor very important to distinguish, three-the harp, psaltery, and bagpipe-are Greek; two, the horn and sackbut, have names derived from roots found in both Aryan and Semitic languages; and one, “the pipe,” is Semitic. As to the list of officials, the writer had added “and all the rulers of the provinces”; so here he adds “and all kinds of music.”
Any one who refused to obey the order was to be flung, the same hour, into the burning furnace of fire. Professor Sayce, in his “Hibbert Lectures,” connects the whole scene with an attempt, first by Nebuchadrezzar, then by Nabunaid, to make Merodach-who, to conciliate the prejudices of the worshippers of the older deity Bel, was called Bel-merodach-the chief deity of Babylon. He sees in the kings proclamation an underlying suspicion that some would be found to oppose his attempted centralisation of worship.
The music burst forth, and the vast throng all prostrated themselves, except Daniels three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
We naturally pause to ask where then was Daniel? If the narrative be taken for literal history, it is easy to answer with the apologist that he was ill; or was absent; or was a person of too much importance to be required to prostrate himself; or that “the Chaldeans” were afraid to accuse him. “Certainly,” says Professor Fuller, “had this chapter been the composition of a pseudo-Daniel, or the record of a fictitious event, Daniel would have been introduced and his immunity explained.” Apologetic literature abounds in such fanciful and valueless arguments. It would be just as true, and just as false, to say that “certainly,” if the narrative were historic, his absence would have been explained; and all the more because he was expressly elected to be “in the gate of the king.” But if we regard the chapter as a noble Haggada, there is not the least difficulty in accounting for Daniels absence. The separate stories were meant to cohere to a certain extent; and though the writers of this kind of ancient imaginative literature, even in Greece, rarely trouble themselves with any questions which lie outside the immediate purpose, yet the introduction of Daniel into the story would have been to violate every vestige of verisimilitude. To represent Nebuchadrezzar worshipping Daniel as a god, and offering oblations to him on one page, and on the next to represent the king as throwing him into a furnace for refusing to worship an idol, would have involved an obvious incongruity. Daniel is represented in the other chapters as playing his part and bearing his testimony to the God of Israel; this chapter is separately devoted to the heroism and the testimony of his three friends. Observing the defiance of the kings edict, certain Chaldeans, actuated by jealousy, came near to the king and “accused” the Jews. {Dan 6:13-14} The word for “accused” is curious and interesting. It is literally “ate the pieces of the Jews ,” evidently involving a metaphor of fierce devouring malice. Reminding the king of his decree, they inform him that three of the Jews to whom he has given such high promotion “thought well not to regard thee; thy god will they not serve, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” Nebuchadrezzar, like other despots who suffer from the vertigo of autocracy, was liable to sudden outbursts of almost spasmodic fury. We read of such storms of rage in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, of Nero, of Valentinian I, and even of Theodosius. The double insult to himself and to his god on the part of men to whom he had shown such conspicuous favour transported him out of himself. For Bel-merodach, whom he had made the patron god of Babylon, was, as he says in one of his own inscriptions, “the lord, the joy of my heart in Babylon, which is the seat of my sovereignty and empire.” It seemed to him too intolerable that this god, who had crowned him with glory and victory, and that he himself, arrayed in the plenitude of his imperial power, should be defied and set at naught by three miserable and ungrateful captives.
He puts it to them whether it was their set purpose that they would not serve his gods or worship his image. Then he offers them a locus poenitentiae. The music should sound forth again. If they would then worship-but if not, they should be flung into the furnace, -“and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?”
The question is a direct challenge and defiance of the God of Israel, like Pharaohs “And who is Jehovah, that I shall obey His voice?” or like Sennacheribs “Who are they among all the gods that have delivered their land out of my hand?” {Exo 5:2 Isa 36:20 2Ch 32:13-17} It is answered in each instance by a decisive interposition. The answer of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego is truly magnificent in its unflinching courage. It is: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer thee a word concerning this. If our God whom we serve be able to deliver us, He will deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and out of thy hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” By the phrase “if our God be able” no doubt as to Gods power is expressed. The word “able” merely means “able in accordance with His own plans.” The three children knew well that God can deliver, and that He has repeatedly delivered His saints. Such deliverances abound on the sacred page, and are mentioned in the “Dream of Gerontius”:-
“Rescue him, O Lord, in this his evil hour, As of old so many by Thy mighty Power: Enoch and Elias from the common doom; Noe from the waters in a saving home; Abraham from the abounding guilt of Heathenesse, Job from all his multiform and fell distress; Isaac, when his fathers knife was raised to slay; Lot from burning Sodom on its judgment-day; Moses from the land of bondage and despair; Daniel from the hungry lions in their lair; David from Golia, and the wrath of Saul; And the two Apostles from their prison-thrall.”
But the willing martyrs were also well aware that in many cases it has not been Gods purpose to deliver His saints out of the peril of death; and that it has been far better for them that they should be carried heavenwards on the fiery chariot of martyrdom. They were therefore perfectly prepared to find that it was the will of God that they too should perish, as thousands of Gods faithful ones had perished before them, from the tyrannous and cruel hands of man; and they were cheerfully willing to confront that awful extremity. Thus regarded, the three words “And if not” are among the sublimest words uttered in all Scripture. They represent the truth that the man who trusts in God will continue to say even to the end, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.” They are the triumph of faith over all adverse circumstances. It has been the glorious achievement of man to have attained, by the inspiration of the breath of the Almighty, so clear an insight into the truth that the voice of duty must be obeyed to the very end, as to lead him to defy every combination of opposing forces. The gay lyrist of heathendom expressed it in his famous ode, –
“Justum et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prays jubentium, Non vultus instantis tyranni, Mente quatit solida.”
It is mans testimony to his indomitable belief that the things of sense are not to be valued in comparison to that high happiness which arises from obedience to the law of conscience, and that no extremities of agony are commensurate with apostasy. This it is which, more than anything else, has, in spite of appearances, shown that the spirit of man is of heavenly birth, and has enabled him to unfold
“The wings within him wrapped, and proudly rise
Redeemed from earth, a creature of the skies.”
For wherever there is left in man any true manhood, he has never shrunk from accepting death rather than the disgrace of compliance with what he despises and abhors. This it is which sends our soldiers on the forlorn hope, and makes them march with a smile upon the batteries which vomit their cross-fires upon them; “and so die by thousands the unnamed demigods.” By virtue of this it has been that all the martyrs have, “with the irresistible might of their weakness,” shaken the solid world.
On hearing the defiance of the faithful Jews-absolutely firm in its decisiveness, yet perfectly respectful in its tone-the tyrant was so much beside himself, that, as he glared on Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, his very countenance was disfigured. The furnace was probably one used for the ordinary cremation of the dead. He ordered that it should be heated seven times hotter than it was wont to be heated, and certain men of mighty strength who were in his army were bidden to bind the three youths and fling them into the raging flames. So, bound in their hosen, their tunics, their long mantles, and their other garments, they were cast into the seven-times-heated furnace. The kings commandment was so urgent, and the “tongue of flame” was darting so fiercely from the horrible kiln, that the executioners perished in planting the ladders to throw them in, but they themselves fell into the midst of the furnace.
The death of the executioners seems to have attracted no special notice, but immediately afterwards Nebuchadrezzar started in amazement and terror from his throne, and asked his chamberlains, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?”
“True, O king,” they answered.
“Behold,” he said, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt, and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”
Then the king approached the door of the furnace of fire, and called, “Ye servants of the Most High God, come forth.” Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego came out of the midst of the fire; and all the satraps, prefects, presidents, and court chamberlains gathered round to stare on men who were so completely untouched by the fierceness of the flames that not a hair of their heads had been singed, nor their hosen shrivelled, nor was there even the smell of burning upon them. According to the version of Theodotion, the king worshipped the Lord before them, and he then published a decree in which, after blessing God for sending His angel to deliver His servants who trusted in Him, he somewhat incoherently ordained that “every people, nation, or language which spoke any blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, should be cut in pieces, and his house made a dunghill : since there is no other god that can deliver after this sort.”
Then the king-as he had done before-promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the province of Babylon.
Henceforth they disappear alike from history, tradition, and legend; but the whole magnificent Haggada is the most powerful possible commentary on the words of Isa 43:2 : “When thou walkest through the fire thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.”
How powerfully the story struck the imagination of the Jews is shown by the not very apposite Song of the Three Children, with the other apocryphal additions. Here we are told that the furnace was heated
“with rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood; so that the flame streamed forth above the furnace forty and nine cubits. And it passed through and burned those Chaldeans it found about the furnace. But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azarias and his fellows, and smote the flame of the fire out of the oven; and made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them.”
In the Talmud the majestic limitations of the Biblical story are sometimes enriched with touches of imagination, but more often coarsened by tasteless exhibitions of triviality and rancour. Thus in the “Vayyikra Rabba” Nebuchadrezzar tries to persuade the youths by fantastic misquotations of Isa 10:10, Eze 23:14. Deu 4:28, Jer 27:8; “and they refute him and end with clumsy plays on his name,” telling him that he should bark (nabach) like a dog, swell like a water-jar (cod), and chirp like a cricket (tsirtsir), which he immediately did- i.e. , he was smitten with lycanthropy.
In “Sanhedrin” f. 93, 1, the story is told of the adulterous false prophets Ahab and Zedekiah, and it is added that Nebuchadrezzar offered them the ordeal of fire from which the Three Children had escaped. They asked that Joshua the high priest might be with them, thinking that his sanctity would be their protection. When the king asked why Abraham, though alone, had been saved from the fire of Nimrod, and the Three Children from the burning furnace, and yet the high priest should have been singed, {Zec 3:2} Joshua answered that the presence of two wicked men gave the fire power over him, and quoted the proverb, “Two dry Sticks kindle one green one.”
In “Pesachin,” f. 118, 1, there is a fine imaginative passage on the subject, attributed to Rabbi Samuel of Shiloh:-
“In the hour when Nebuchadrezzar the wicked threw Hananiah, Mishrael, and Azariah into the midst of the furnace of fire, Gorgemi, the prince of the hail, stood before the Holy One (blessed be He!) and said, Lord of the world, let me go down and cool the furnace. No, answered Gabriel; all men know that hail quenches fire; but I, the prince of fire, will go down and make the furnace cool within and hot without, and thus work a miracle within a miracle. The Holy One (blessed be He!) said unto him, Go down. In the self-same hour Gabriel opened his mouth and said, And the truth of the Lord endureth for ever.”
Mr. Ball, who quotes these passages from Wunsches “Bibliotheca Rabbinica” in his Introduction to the Song of the Three Children, very truly adds that many Scriptural commentators wholly lack the orientation derived from the study of Talmudic and Midrashic literature which is an indispensable preliminary to a right understanding of the treasures of Eastern thought. They do not grasp the inveterate tendency of Jewish teachers to convey doctrine by concrete stories and illustrations, and not in the form of abstract thought. “The doctrine is everything; the mode of presentation has no independent value.” To make the story the first consideration, and the doctrine it was intended to convey an after-thought, as we, with our dry Western literalness, are predisposed to do, is to reverse the Jewish order of thinking, and to inflict unconscious injustice on the authors of many edifying narratives of antiquity.
The part played by Daniel in the apocryphal Story of Susanna is probably suggested by the meaning of his name: “Judgment of God.” Both that story and Bel and the Dragon are in their way effective fictions, though incomparably inferior to the canonical part of the Book of Daniel.
And the startling decree of Nebuchadrezzar finds its analogy in the decree published by Antiochus the Great to all his subjects in honour of the Temple at Jerusalem, in which he threatened the infliction of heavy fines on any foreigner who trespassed within the limits of the Holy Court.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
But, further, no words are, in one respect, less evidential than musical terms. They are changed and modified with a freedom applied to few other things. Thus we have “cornet-a-piston” figuring also as “cornopean,” two words like each other in sound, of the same meaning, but of widely different derivation. They pass from country to country with greater freedom than most other terms. To infer, then, that the writer of Daniel wrote under Greek domination, because certain Greek musical terms occur in the present Massoretic text, is rash in the extreme, and would, it seems to us, be universally regarded so, were there not an object to be gained by assuming that evidence drawn from them was liable to no doubt. New Testament critics have taught us to suspect what are called tendenz documents, i.e. documents that have an overweening bias towards one side of a controversy: there is such a thing as a tendenz judgment. The judgment of the critics in regard to the evidential value of these musical terms is a tendenz judgment, which we should say is even more to be suspected than the contents of a tendenz document.
If we take the introductory sentence, we see considerable variation, greater than occurs elsewhere. The Septuagint begins thus: “Then Azarias stood and prayed thus, and having opened his mouth, confessed to the Lord with his companions in the midst of the fire, made by the Chaldeans to burn exceedingly, and said.” Theodotion is simplerwe give the ordinary rendering, “Then Azarias stood up and prayed on this manner, and opening his mouth in the midst of the fire, said.” The Peshitta is, “And Azariah arose and opened his mouth to bless in the midst of the fire, and he opened his mouth and prayed, and said thus.” All these versions have the appearance of being a union of two versions of the same tiring. In the Syriac this is most obvious In the Greek versions the evidence of reduplication is afforded by occurring in the middle of the sentence, instead of naturally at the end, to introduce the speech referred to In the Syriac, which avoids this, it is evidenced even more by the repetition of the verb pethah, “to open.” But this reduplication of versions implies an original of which there were already two readings.
1. Be faithful. The three Jews were faithful to God. Therefore God manifested himself to them. God is not present in every furnace of trial. He comes when we are true and trustful. If we are living without God in prosperity, we cannot expect him to visit us in adversity (Jer 11:14).
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,
As make the angels weep.”
And chased them up to heaven.”
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
4. The royal report concerning Nebuchadnezzars dream relating to his unfitness to govern, and its fulfillment
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary